SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox acquire Craig Kimbrel for Margot, Guerra +
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 23, 2015 18:29:50 GMT -5
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I think Margot is an excellent prospect with a high floor and considerable upside. He's got better power than people credit him with (Hanley hit 8 HR in AA if I recall, and Margot has plenty of time to fill out). [...] I agree that too many people are being pessimistic about Margot. But people have compared his power potential to Carlos Garcia and now Hanley. Those guys are several inches taller than the 5' 11" Margot, and Margot's frame will only handle a little more "filling out." He is indeed an excellent prospect, but is unlikely to have a lot of power. He may hit a few more HR than the 12 he hit in A-ball, or he may hit fewer. Yeah, I by no means think he's got Hanley's power. It's more a note that hitters often don't see their "true" power emerge until their approach has matured. I think it's a mistake to discount Margot solely based on his size (Garciaparra had plenty of power at 6', and McCutcheon hits bombs at 5'10"), but I agree that he's likely to fall into the 15-20 HR range. BUT...power is not something he "needs" to be an excellent player. A more selective approach alone could turn him into prime Jacoby Ellsbury with an arm, or prime Carl Crawford from the right side. One more: Mo Vaughn hit 8 HR in beehive in his only AA year. But yeah, Margot is definitely not putting up any .330/35/120 lines.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 24, 2015 14:50:47 GMT -5
Glad to hear Alex Speier bring up some points about the Red Sox feeling like Kimbrel might have been "the one game in town" in the latest podcast.
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on Dec 25, 2015 10:02:27 GMT -5
I keep seeing Benintendi listed as part of the core four but I still like Margot better. He's a better defensive CF, he's faster. They both have 50/55 hit potential IMO and I question how much power Benintendi will display vs advanced pitching. He jacked a lot of fastballs on the inner third this yr.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 25, 2015 10:33:03 GMT -5
I keep seeing Benintendi listed as part of the core four but I still like Margot better. He's a better defensive CF, he's faster. They both have 50/55 hit potential IMO and I question how much power Benintendi will display vs advanced pitching. He jacked a lot of fastballs on the inner third this yr. re: Margot, I totally fail to see why people think his bat is that strong. He looks like a future platoon bat that won't walk much.
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on Dec 25, 2015 10:51:03 GMT -5
I keep seeing Benintendi listed as part of the core four but I still like Margot better. He's a better defensive CF, he's faster. They both have 50/55 hit potential IMO and I question how much power Benintendi will display vs advanced pitching. He jacked a lot of fastballs on the inner third this yr. re: Margot, I totally fail to see why people think his bat is that strong. He looks like a future platoon bat that won't walk much. I've seen Margot a couple of times I love the bat speed and the barrel control everything he swings at he hits. Advanced pitching used his approach against him and he put a lot pf pitchers pitches in play. He'll adjust. He's the style of hitter I have the most faith in making the jump to the bigs. Most guys I see struggle to make consistent contact or are to passive
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 25, 2015 12:12:11 GMT -5
At this point, I'll just ask that if posters have made the same point in the thread already to not just continue to repeat it unless they have something new to contribute. The thoughts of many posters are quite clear by now and really don't need repeating.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 25, 2015 22:24:21 GMT -5
At this point, I'll just ask that if posters have made the same point in the thread already to not just continue to repeat it unless they have something new to contribute. The thoughts of many posters are quite clear by now and really don't need repeating. Question re: podcast -- Did any of your outlooks change after speaking with Alex? Some of his stuff he said elicited responses from you basically consisting of "makes sense" when it seems like opinions you've posted on here sorta differ to a degree. Or is it just because the podcast is really more meant to feature Alex's perspective as opposed to a back and forth discussion?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 26, 2015 18:54:17 GMT -5
Just a quick two cents worth ...
It seems to me that in the last year, Margot's ceiling took a bit of a hit, but his floor was elevated. IOW, he hit well enough in AA to reduce the odds that he busts as the plate, but not so well enough that he was able to maintain the sense that he projected as a top-of-the-order hitter. Because he's had decent success at AA at a very young age, folks are more sure than ever that he'll be a solid MLB starter, but the odds of his becoming a star have, in most minds, been reduced.
This made him an even more obvious person for us to move, and every team in MLB knew that, and that probably reduced his trade value somewhat, relative to his prospect value. You have to add that to the ongoing inflation of reliever value, and the other factors that have been considered.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 27, 2015 12:33:01 GMT -5
Margot's prospects rankings really don't reflect that. Which is why it was a good time to sell high in my opinion. Outside of his D and base running the rest of his game is all about upside. Best thing he had going for him was his age while at AA.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Dec 27, 2015 12:36:50 GMT -5
At this point, I'll just ask that if posters have made the same point in the thread already to not just continue to repeat it unless they have something new to contribute. The thoughts of many posters are quite clear by now and really don't need repeating.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,320
|
Post by radiohix on Mar 9, 2016 11:17:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 9, 2016 13:05:48 GMT -5
The clip of the triple puts his contact skills on display. The pitcher goes low and away and Margot takes that to the opposite field, with gap power. There's the speed of course, which he puts to good use navigating the bases. We'd heard about that. Easy to see why the Padres might be excited. He'll eventually bring exactly what they need for that big ballpark they play in, instead of trying to shoehorn Wil Myers into a spot where he has no business being. Then there's the old "intangibles", which in this case are very real. The awareness and the feel for the game are something a good player brings with every pitch. That makes the skillset "tangible" very quickly. It's just spring training, but he seems to be making an impression.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Mar 9, 2016 13:13:04 GMT -5
True enough, and his approach is perfect for Petco, but Kimbrel + Beni + Basabe give us plenty to cheer about for 2015 and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Mar 9, 2016 13:20:14 GMT -5
It's a nice BSOHL type article.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 18, 2016 17:30:30 GMT -5
from stitches:
One evaluator who’s been watching the Padres this spring offered the following take on the prospect group (Margot, shortstop Javier Guerra, lefthander Logan Allen, and utilityman Carlos Asuaje ) that San Diego acquired from the Red Sox in exchange for Craig Kimbrel: “I can’t believe (San Diego) got all four of them for a closer 1 inning reliever.”
See, I'm an evaluator as well
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2016 23:00:28 GMT -5
from stitches: One evaluator who’s been watching the Padres this spring offered the following take on the prospect group (Margot, shortstop Javier Guerra, lefthander Logan Allen, and utilityman Carlos Asuaje ) that San Diego acquired from the Red Sox in exchange for Craig Kimbrel: “I can’t believe (San Diego) got all four of them for a closer 1 inning reliever.” See, I'm an evaluator as well Meh, I'll rue the trade when Margot and Guerra have some MLB success (though really Guerra, because Margot probably had no spot in the OF). Margot may be a safer bet, but I like Benintendi's upside, and I think JBJ is for real. Allen is a half-decade away, and Asuaje is no Brockstar. Overpay, yes, but I'm more sanguine about it now than back in December. They filled a need, and they still have an abundance of talent, plus a #12 pick. Maybe Giles would've been a better get, but the Astros paid out for him, too.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 19, 2016 9:28:29 GMT -5
from stitches: One evaluator who’s been watching the Padres this spring offered the following take on the prospect group (Margot, shortstop Javier Guerra, lefthander Logan Allen, and utilityman Carlos Asuaje ) that San Diego acquired from the Red Sox in exchange for Craig Kimbrel: “I can’t believe (San Diego) got all four of them for a closer 1 inning reliever.” See, I'm an evaluator as well You have to give to get. Would you of rather signed O'Day and lose half of the big four prospects (if not more) for a Sonny Gray? The Sox needed pitching and they had no answers in house. Would you rather have a suspended Chapman and offered him 75 million for 5 years after he becomes a free agent. No one likes the price it took to get Kimbrel. I bet a lot more people would of hated the price to get even a Carrasco. It's the price you pay when you can't develop your own pitching. The Sox have had a hard time doing that. Pitching is the most important commodity in baseball and is the most priciest one through trade to deal with. Really I don't know what people were expecting. Are we all just hoping the Montreal Expos come back and hand the Sox Pedro Martinez all over again?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 19, 2016 9:36:55 GMT -5
[Placeholder to write post justifying position I've previously taken with no new data.]
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2016 10:13:40 GMT -5
Well, there is a little new data. Gammons wrote an article in February (as of when I made this post, his website is down, but the article is referenced here) where he reported that Boston was the high bidder on O'Day and implied that O'Day would have accepted that offer, but it was pulled by Dombrowski once the Kimbrel trade came together. O'Day ended up signing for 4/$31m; let's conservatively call Boston's offer 4/$36m. So now we have a very simple one-for-one comparison, and the argument that O'Day would have never signed in Boston goes away. Would you rather have: - Craig Kimbrel on a two year, $25m guaranteed contract with a $12m option for a third year, for the cost of Margot, Guerra, Allen and Asuage; or
- Darren O'Day on a four year, $36m contract.
It essentially comes down to whether you think the performance gap between Kimbrel and O'Day going forward is worth the prospect package that Boston gave up. I obviously would have preferred O'Day, for reasons previously discussed.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Mar 19, 2016 23:21:12 GMT -5
from stitches: One evaluator who’s been watching the Padres this spring offered the following take on the prospect group (Margot, shortstop Javier Guerra, lefthander Logan Allen, and utilityman Carlos Asuaje ) that San Diego acquired from the Red Sox in exchange for Craig Kimbrel: “I can’t believe (San Diego) got all four of them for a closer 1 inning reliever.” See, I'm an evaluator as well Meh, I'll rue the trade when Margot and Guerra have some MLB success (though really Guerra, because Margot probably had no spot in the OF). Margot may be a safer bet, but I like Benintendi's upside, and I think JBJ is for real. Allen is a half-decade away, and Asuaje is no Brockstar. Overpay, yes, but I'm more sanguine about it now than back in December. They filled a need, and they still have an abundance of talent, plus a #12 pick. Maybe Giles would've been a better get, but the Astros paid out for him, too. I really don't like the meme that a player may be blocked in a couple of years so we should trade him and not worry too much about the return. For one thing, the return on JBJ a couple years from now should be much higher than the current return on Margot. Second, as I have argued previously (and backed up with numbers) the return on prospects is much lower than the return on veterans. Trading prospects for veterans is like betting in a casino: you might win once or even twice, but the odds are against you and If you do it enough you will lose and you will lose big. The problem with viewing prospects as trade chips is that you are operating on the wrong end of a market inefficiency. The only way you can make that work is if (a) you can develop players much faster than your competition and/or (b) use excess resources to overcome the inefficiency. Granted the Red Sox have managed to do both these things over the last decade and a half (and go a remarkable 45 - 27 in the postseason which enables them to gloss over the fact that they have only made the playoffs in half of their last 14 seasons and only won the division twice), but I'm not convinced that is a sustainable strategy over the long term. It's entirely possible that neither Margot nor Guerra will amount to much and the Red Sox will have done well. On the other hand if both turn into useful players and either JBJ fails to hit or Bogaerts can't be resigned, trade has the potential to be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 20, 2016 9:05:43 GMT -5
Meh, I'll rue the trade when Margot and Guerra have some MLB success (though really Guerra, because Margot probably had no spot in the OF). Margot may be a safer bet, but I like Benintendi's upside, and I think JBJ is for real. Allen is a half-decade away, and Asuaje is no Brockstar. Overpay, yes, but I'm more sanguine about it now than back in December. They filled a need, and they still have an abundance of talent, plus a #12 pick. Maybe Giles would've been a better get, but the Astros paid out for him, too. I really don't like the meme that a player may be blocked in a couple of years so we should trade him and not worry too much about the return. For one thing, the return on JBJ a couple years from now should be much higher than the current return on Margot. Second, as I have argued previously (and backed up with numbers) the return on prospects is much lower than the return on veterans. Trading prospects for veterans is like betting in a casino: you might win once or even twice, but the odds are against you and If you do it enough you will lose and you will lose big. The problem with viewing prospects as trade chips is that you are operating on the wrong end of a market inefficiency. The only way you can make that work is if (a) you can develop players much faster than your competition and/or (b) use excess resources to overcome the inefficiency. Granted the Red Sox have managed to do both these things over the last decade and a half (and go a remarkable 45 - 27 in the postseason which enables them to gloss over the fact that they have only made the playoffs in half of their last 14 seasons and only won the division twice), but I'm not convinced that is a sustainable strategy over the long term. It's entirely possible that neither Margot nor Guerra will amount to much and the Red Sox will have done well. On the other hand if both turn into useful players and either JBJ fails to hit or Bogaerts can't be resigned, trade has the potential to be a disaster. Edit - Ah, the heck with it. What is there to say that hasn't been said a ton of times?!
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Mar 20, 2016 12:05:23 GMT -5
I really don't like the meme that a player may be blocked in a couple of years so we should trade him and not worry too much about the return. For one thing, the return on JBJ a couple years from now should be much higher than the current return on Margot. Second, as I have argued previously (and backed up with numbers) the return on prospects is much lower than the return on veterans. Trading prospects for veterans is like betting in a casino: you might win once or even twice, but the odds are against you and If you do it enough you will lose and you will lose big. The problem with viewing prospects as trade chips is that you are operating on the wrong end of a market inefficiency. The only way you can make that work is if (a) you can develop players much faster than your competition and/or (b) use excess resources to overcome the inefficiency. Granted the Red Sox have managed to do both these things over the last decade and a half (and go a remarkable 45 - 27 in the postseason which enables them to gloss over the fact that they have only made the playoffs in half of their last 14 seasons and only won the division twice), but I'm not convinced that is a sustainable strategy over the long term. It's entirely possible that neither Margot nor Guerra will amount to much and the Red Sox will have done well. On the other hand if both turn into useful players and either JBJ fails to hit or Bogaerts can't be resigned, trade has the potential to be a disaster. Edit - Ah, the heck with it. What is there to say that hasn't been said a ton of times?! I had thought the suggestion that instead of viewing blocked prospects as trade chips, we should instead view the veterans ahead of them as the real trade chips (thus leveraging a market inefficiency to continuously restock the farm system and achieve sustainable performance) hasn't really been debated in this forum. If it has I haven't seen it presented as a potential business model.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 20, 2016 12:27:24 GMT -5
Edit - Ah, the heck with it. What is there to say that hasn't been said a ton of times?! I had thought the suggestion that instead of viewing blocked prospects as trade chips, we should instead view the veterans ahead of them as the real trade chips (thus leveraging a market inefficiency to continuously restock the farm system and achieve sustainable performance) hasn't really been debated in this forum. If it has I haven't seen it presented as a potential business model. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're assuming that teams trading vets are winning trades more often than they do. Look at all the trades involving Cliff Lee for a good example of where that's not the case. I understand that that was a few years ago, but the point remains. The Kimbrel trade looks like a steal for the Padres now, but you can't judge how it ended up working out in the long run yet. There would be a huge risk in trading all-star level vets no matter how many prospects you get back. At this point in time, the Red Sox need high WAR players more than they need multitudes of good prospects. If Mookie was a consistent 6 WAR player by 2019, trading him for any package at all would be very risky. They may never replace that production.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Mar 20, 2016 21:18:07 GMT -5
I had thought the suggestion that instead of viewing blocked prospects as trade chips, we should instead view the veterans ahead of them as the real trade chips (thus leveraging a market inefficiency to continuously restock the farm system and achieve sustainable performance) hasn't really been debated in this forum. If it has I haven't seen it presented as a potential business model. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're assuming that teams trading vets are winning trades more often than they do. Look at all the trades involving Cliff Lee for a good example of where that's not the case. I understand that that was a few years ago, but the point remains. The Kimbrel trade looks like a steal for the Padres now, but you can't judge how it ended up working out in the long run yet. There would be a huge risk in trading all-star level vets no matter how many prospects you get back. At this point in time, the Red Sox need high WAR players more than they need multitudes of good prospects. If Mookie was a consistent 6 WAR player by 2019, trading him for any package at all would be very risky. They may never replace that production. Some months ago, I did a review of virtually every MLB trade involving prospects for veterans since John Henry bought the Red Sox (I can repost the data if you would like). Teams acquiring prospects for veterans come out ahead WAY more often; it's not even close. Cliff Lee is Exhibit A. He has been involved in four such trades (once as a prospect). One trade was a wash; one trade was a modest win for the team acquiring the veteran and the other two were huge wins for the team acquiring prospects (assuming you agree 6 years of Carlos Carrasco is worth more than a season and two months of Cliff Lee). As an organization, the Red Sox do a lot of things right, but they don't appear to me to be a particularly forward looking team. I would have rather them have kept Margot and Guerra in anticipation of possible future trades of Bradley Jr. And Bogaerts. All strategies come with risk. Given the low rate of return on prospects it's usually better to take your chances on the prospects. PS -- I hope this is a sufficiently different twist on this thread to be worth a discussion. I don't see it as rehashing old material.
|
|
|
Post by vinscully on Mar 20, 2016 21:41:43 GMT -5
I get it but jeez, when's the date people are going to get over this one??? It's done, move along.
|
|
|