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 dirtywater43 on Mar 21, 2016 4:06:16 GMT -5
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. I don't see Xander going anywhere. I don't think the Sox see Xander going anywhere either. That's why they made the trade. It took the Sox nearly 15 years to find a great hitting short stop after Nomar left. They know they can't cheap out on Xander by the time 2019 comes. They'll pay him. Xander loves Boston too, he's been on the record in saying that.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 21, 2016 6:23:26 GMT -5
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. I think you're missing something very basic, the value of winning in the present. You mention dealing Bogaerts away to make room for Guerra. I would assume this takes place around 2019, before Boras has him whisked away to NY. Yeah, maybe you get a huge haul for him and you plug Guerra in at SS for him. However, you're failing to account for the idea that the downgrade from Bogaerts to Guerra might be pretty big, and that the Sox might actually want to win in 2019 and Bogaerts represents that best chance. Let's use Ellsbury as an example. The Sox maybe deal him after 2011 and get a huge haul or maybe deal him after 2012 after an injury plagued season and get something more than the draft pick they got for him when he left after 2013, but the value of his 2013 season was important. He gave the Red Sox an effective leadoff man/CF that they needed to win the World Series. Sure Betts was in the pipeline and maybe the timing doesn't match up, but the point is that there is value in having a player for the present season if you think you have a legit shot of winning that season. Punting that chance doesn't sit well with the fanbase, the people who follow the team, watch every game, or go to games. Maybe you make a good trade that might help down the road, or maybe you actually don't and all you do is sabotage your chance to win that year. Not all prospects are equal nor are all deals involving prospects equal. I'm glad the Sox gave up "prospects" to acquire Curt Schilling in 2004. Very few of the "prospects" Theo gave up came out to much in the deals he made. He was actually pretty good at making sure the Sox weren't giving up Jeff Bagwell to rent Larry Andersen. If you look at an analysis of a Lou Gorman deal from many years ago where the Sox gave up Curt Schilling and Brady Anderson for 2.5 years of Mike Boddicker, you can conclude the Sox got ripped off or gave away way too much, and I can understand that. The flip side is that without the deal for Boddicker the Sox don't make the playoffs in 1988 or 1990 (not that they had a chance once they got there), as he had a big impact on two division races. I actually agree with a lot of your philosophy but I don't think you can apply it with a broad brush to everything the team has to do. Circumstances change. The Red Sox are obviously going for it over the next few years and I feel that they are doing so without disrupting their core which includes Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi, and they also resisted dealing Swihart, Betts, and Bogaerts as well, and held onto Bradley. These are young players on the way up. I can live with dealing Margot and Guerra to get a young, in his prime closer for three seasons in which the Sox think they can get strong season and post-season performances from him. Watching the impact that Foulke made in 04, Paps made in 07, and Koji made in 13, and watching the way teams like the Royals stack their pens, the Sox gave up two players who aren't better than those core players they've hung onto - they're not, although you could argue that Margot will be better than JBJ. I'm not sure of that, though. It's about winning baseball games and the season, not about winning trades. I'm all for the future, but at some point you need to win games in the present.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 26, 2016 16:08:20 GMT -5
I would have rather them have kept Margot and Guerra in anticipation of possible future trades of Bradley Jr. And Bogaerts. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Mar 26, 2016 18:02:47 GMT -5
I would have rather them have kept Margot and Guerra in anticipation of possible future trades of Bradley Jr. And Bogaerts. Yikes. Bradley and Bogaerts for Sale and Abreu. Then Hanley for whatever you can get. Marerro to short. Release Sandoval. Sim a couple seasons. Works in OOTP '17.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Apr 15, 2016 21:19:31 GMT -5
That boy is FILTHY. Even if Margot and Guerra turn out this trade is worth it. Just makes are pen so good. A lot of extra wins.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 16, 2016 17:53:20 GMT -5
this pitch is so obscene it cant be shown on TV
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 30, 2016 12:24:45 GMT -5
Hey by the way, for everyone who brought up Margot's bad AAA numbers, he's up to .286/.333/.414, 6.3% BB rate, 10.1 % K, so he's a good prospect again now, right?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 30, 2016 13:46:46 GMT -5
Margot is playing as feared, with poor results against RHP. 263/.328/.386 and an ISO of .123. That's 62 PAs, and it adds to his poor results against RHP in Portland last year.
I think he had slipped to 52 at the last top 100 ranking, and so far he should still be falling.
At least with Margot, his ceiling had already been limited at the time of the trade. But Guerra's ceiling was still up in the air and so far is also a disappointment. So far in high A he has a .178 ISO with 33.8% Ks.
Looks like the contrarian view might have been valid and the trade may not have been an overpay.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Apr 30, 2016 14:09:28 GMT -5
Margot is playing as feared, with poor results against RHH. 263/.328/.386 and an ISO of .123. That's 62 PAs, and it adds to his poor results against RHH in Portland last year. I think he had slipped to 52 at the last top 100 ranking, and so far he should still be falling. At least with Margot, his ceiling had already been limited at the time of the trade. But Guerra's ceiling was still up in the air and so far is a also a disappoinment. So far in high A he has a .178 ISO with 33.8% Ks. Looks like the contrarian view might have been valid and the trade was not an overpay. Manuel Margot is 21 and playing in AAA. Most 21 year olds, even those who will eventually become good Major Leaguers, don't fare as well in AAA as Margot has at that age. At this stage it is WAY too early to conclude he won't be better than JBJ. It will likely be a decade before we can fully evaluate this deal, but the odds are still good that six years of at least one of traded players ends up being worth a lot more than three years of Craig Kimbrel. Believe it or not that's how most veteran for prospect deals work out. Teams don't give up veterans (that they still control) unless they can acquire enough prospects to stack the odds heavily in their favor. I took the time to look back over the the last 15 years of prospect for veteran trades, and this is a clear pattern. I'd be happy to re-post what I found (warning: it would be a very long post).
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 30, 2016 14:31:42 GMT -5
I'd be happy to re-post what I found (warning: it would be a very long post). Hey, the longer your post, the better the chances that deepjohn will find one sentence in it showing you completely agree with him and he was right all along.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Apr 30, 2016 14:39:31 GMT -5
Manuel Margot is 21 and playing in AAA. Most 21 year olds, even those who will eventually become good Major Leaguers, don't fare as well in AAA as Margot has at that age. At this stage it is WAY too early to conclude he won't be better than JBJ. Margot also plays in high altitude and his stats right now are very similar to the honestly mediocre line he put up last year. I don't think his stock has risen, the questions with him are still the same. Not saying he's a bad prospect, he obviously isn't, but he hasn't set the world on fire in the PCL yet.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 30, 2016 15:20:06 GMT -5
Margot is playing as feared, with poor results against RHP. 263/.328/.386 and an ISO of .123. That's 62 PAs, and it adds to his poor results against RHP in Portland last year. How in the heck is that "poor"? For a player's weak-side line, particularly for a plus defensive player at a premium position, that is quite good. Edit: In 2015, Major League right-handed batters hit .250/.305/.396 off oif righties.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Apr 30, 2016 15:46:30 GMT -5
Margot is playing as feared, with poor results against RHP. 263/.328/.386 and an ISO of .123. That's 62 PAs, and it adds to his poor results against RHP in Portland last year. How in the heck is that "poor"? For a player's weak-side line, particularly for a plus defensive player at a premium position, that is quite good. Edit: In 2015, Major League right-handed batters hit .250/.305/.396 off oif righties. Agreed. But just for further context, MLB RHH non-P's hit .255/.311/.407 off righties in 2015 -- .266/.324/.427 for CF's.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,195
|
Post by radiohix on Apr 30, 2016 15:55:33 GMT -5
How in the heck is that "poor"? For a player's weak-side line, particularly for a plus defensive player at a premium position, that is quite good. Edit: In 2015, Major League right-handed batters hit .250/.305/.396 off oif righties. Agreed. But just for further context, MLB RHH non-P's hit .255/.311/.407 off righties in 2015 -- . 266/.324/.427 for CF's. Trout shouldn't be part of that calculus
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 30, 2016 17:24:19 GMT -5
Margot is playing as feared, with poor results against RHH. 263/.328/.386 and an ISO of .123. That's 62 PAs, and it adds to his poor results against RHH in Portland last year. I think he had slipped to 52 at the last top 100 ranking, and so far he should still be falling. At least with Margot, his ceiling had already been limited at the time of the trade. But Guerra's ceiling was still up in the air and so far is a also a disappoinment. So far in high A he has a .178 ISO with 33.8% Ks. Looks like the contrarian view might have been valid and the trade was not an overpay. Manuel Margot is 21 and playing in AAA. Most 21 year olds, even those who will eventually become good Major Leaguers, don't fare as well in AAA as Margot has at that age. At this stage it is WAY too early to conclude he won't be better than JBJ. It will likely be a decade before we can fully evaluate this deal, but the odds are still good that six years of at least one of traded players ends up being worth a lot more than three years of Craig Kimbrel. Believe it or not that's how most veteran for prospect deals work out. Teams don't give up veterans (that they still control) unless they can acquire enough prospects to stack the odds heavily in their favor. I took the time to look back over the the last 15 years of prospect for veteran trades, and this is a clear pattern. I'd be happy to re-post what I found (warning: it would be a very long post). I like to look at how big a sample size we need for a stat before we can stop saying “small sample size.” (see Carleton, Carty, and others). sabr.org/latest/carleton-when-sabermetrics-gets-personalHere, you have Margot's .120ish ISO against RHP extending quite a bit more than the 160 ABs in AA and AAA it takes that stat to "stabilize". (That said, he could still be a lefty masher.) With Guerra you've got his 33.8K% "stabilizing" at the 70 ABs he's had this year. Have you looked through your study to find players with .120ish ISOs and 33.8 K%? do you get a different picture?
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,195
|
Post by radiohix on May 16, 2016 4:31:34 GMT -5
Logan Allen is posting a 2.56 FIP and striking out 23% of the batters faced as an 18 years old in full season A ball. Kimbrel is payed 11 millions and will get 13 millions next year.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 16, 2016 8:19:26 GMT -5
This was a terrible trade. Makes 2016 better for the big club though.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 16, 2016 8:32:17 GMT -5
Allen has only faced 101 batters so it's too early to use FIP (which is biased by his zero homers), but he has given up 25 hits and 8 walks in 23 innings. That's not bad, but it's not dominant for A level, either.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 16, 2016 9:40:36 GMT -5
Allen has only faced 101 batters so it's too early to use FIP (which is biased by his zero homers), but he has given up 25 hits and 8 walks in 23 innings. That's not bad, but it's not dominant for A level, either. Too early to use FIP but you can draw conclusions from his BABIP? Are you ever going to stop making things up as you go along?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 16, 2016 9:54:51 GMT -5
Allen has only faced 101 batters so it's too early to use FIP (which is biased by his zero homers), but he has given up 25 hits and 8 walks in 23 innings. That's not bad, but it's not dominant for A level, either. Too early to use FIP but you can draw conclusions from his BABIP? Are you ever going to stop making things up as you go along? Straw man, the actual point is that 101 batters faced is too early to draw conclusions either way, through FIP which looks good, or WHIP, which is not dominant for that level.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 16, 2016 15:41:35 GMT -5
Too early to use FIP but you can draw conclusions from his BABIP? Are you ever going to stop making things up as you go along? Straw man, the actual point is that 101 batters faced is too early to draw conclusions either way, through FIP which looks good, or WHIP, which is not dominant for that level. Yes, so the question is why do you bring a straw man argument rather than just saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions? (Or pointing to a more useful stat like xFIP.)
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 16, 2016 15:56:34 GMT -5
Straw man, the actual point is that 101 batters faced is too early to draw conclusions either way, through FIP which looks good, or WHIP, which is not dominant for that level. Yes, so the question is why do you bring a straw man argument rather than just saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions? (Or pointing to a more useful stat like xFIP.) I pointed to WHIP, which is the more useful stat, since xFIP isn't available (at least to me) in A level. Mostly, I was being courteous to the original poster, as I always try to be (even to you!)
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 16, 2016 15:59:11 GMT -5
I pointed to WHIP, which is the more useful stat, But it isn't, and in fact is even more susceptible to SSS issues than FIP.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 16, 2016 16:22:43 GMT -5
I pointed to WHIP, which is the more useful stat, But it isn't, and in fact is even more susceptible to SSS issues than FIP. Well, that's an interesting point. FIP is not useful at all for Allen, who has an unsustainable 0 homers, and homers are a huge part of FIP. WHIP can be useful even after 100 TBF because, if it were very low, it would mean the prospect is dominating at his level, blowing through the order 1-2-3, and possibly ready to be promoted. (ADD: especially if combined with a high K rate, as with Espinoza.) But when WHIP is below average 1.4, as it is for Allen, it's too early to call Allen a bust, for sure. But if you're the Padres, I'd bet you're not happy about it, and you care about his below average WHIP a lot more than his zero homers and low FIP.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 16, 2016 16:41:50 GMT -5
But it isn't, and in fact is even more susceptible to SSS issues than FIP. Well, that's an interesting point. FIP is not useful at all for Allen, who has an unsustainable 0 homers, and homers are a huge part of FIP. WHIP can be useful even after 100 TBF because, if it were very low, it would mean the prospect is dominating at his level, blowing through the order 1-2-3, and possibly ready to be promoted. (ADD: especially if combined with a high K rate, as with Espinoza.) But when WHIP is below average 1.4, as it is for Allen, it's too early to call Allen a bust, for sure. But if you're the Padres, I'd bet you're not happy about it, and you care about his below average WHIP a lot more than his zero homers and low FIP. I think they're probably happy that he's holding his own in full-season ball at a young age. I doubt they're concerned about his H/9 (WHIP), or his FIP. They might be pretty happy with his zero HR. Either way, it's ***way*** to early to make any call on Allen. Frankie Montas busted out after the Peavy trade, sitting 96-97 with a nasty slider at just a year or the older than Allen, but he's struggled to stay healthy. As much as I thought (and still think) this trade was an overpay (in that those players could've been moved for a more critical piece), Kimbrel has been awesome for the most part, and should be for the next two and three quarters years. Deciding who won/lost this trade is going to take 5-6 years at least.
|
|
|