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 jimed14 on May 18, 2016 17:05:40 GMT -5
I'd much rather have Margot in the lineup than Rutledge.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2016 17:07:53 GMT -5
One possibility that nobody has noted is that the emergence of either Margot or Guerra would have provided the Red Sox a possible opportunity to trade a Bradley or Bogaerts (whom they may not be able to resign) for multiple young pitchers, whereas the current combined trade value of Margot and Guerra (and Logan Allen) wouldn't have been enough to acquire even a single #2 starter. Prospects are severely under-valued. The Red Sox should really consider trying to position themselves to take advantage of this market efficiency more often than they do. It might be one way of addressing their inability to develop young pitchers. Bogaerts is basically untouchable, and Bradley Jr. had too many questions about long term production to have had headliner trade value. This sort of scenario is going to take 2-3 years to play out, when the current top-4 are producing in MLB.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2016 17:12:58 GMT -5
One possibility that nobody has noted is that the emergence of either Margot or Guerra would have provided the Red Sox a possible opportunity to trade a Bradley or Bogaerts (whom they may not be able to resign) for multiple young pitchers, whereas the current combined trade value of Margot and Guerra (and Logan Allen) wouldn't have been enough to acquire even a single #2 starter. Prospects are severely under-valued. The Red Sox should really consider trying to position themselves to take advantage of this market efficiency more often than they do. It might be one way of addressing their inability to develop young pitchers. Bogaerts is basically untouchable, and Bradley Jr. had too many questions about long term production to have had headliner trade value. This sort of scenario is going to take 2-3 years to play out, when the current top-4 are producing in MLB. It wouldn't have to happen any time soon. I think at this point, JBJ could be traded for a pretty huge package. His career wRC+ is already at an acceptable level for his defense at 88 and climbing steadily. In 112 games last year and this, he has 3.8 fWAR, and his defense is sure to rebound this year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2016 17:13:33 GMT -5
Except doing what Joe Ticket Buyer thinks is rarely the way to build a successful team. See: Red Sox, 2011 (and subsequent fallout, ntm that the 2013 winner was the polar opposite of what JT Buyer wanted at the time). Like I said, I respect that DD has vision (which is much rarer than many might think), and that he was willing to "spend" ($ **and** talent) to fulfill it. But that doesn't make acquiring Kimbrel (whose place as "best in game" is highly debatable) the best use of resources. The Sox aren't going to struggle to sell tickets if the team plays well. But to be fair to brisox, he's talking about "success" as a business plan for increasing season ticket sales and TV revenues. This business plan may be (for all I know) correlated to star quality, not only to wins and losses. In one cherry-picked example, Do people watch TV to see a dominant reliever blow people away with 98-100 MPH fastballs? Fist pump and celebrate when the inning is over? It seems good drama. I don't find any good faith statistical basis to say that this is definitely false. No question. My point is that you want people to start watching in the first place, because they won't if that closer is sitting on the bench, down 6-3. It's the difference between short-term (offseason sales) and long-term (perennial winner, attracting fans) approaches.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2016 17:14:52 GMT -5
Bogaerts is basically untouchable, and Bradley Jr. had too many questions about long term production to have had headliner trade value. This sort of scenario is going to take 2-3 years to play out, when the current top-4 are producing in MLB. It wouldn't have to happen any time soon. I think at this point, JBJ could be traded for a pretty huge package. His career wRC+ is already at an acceptable level for his defense at 88 and climbing steadily. In 112 games last year and this, he has 3.8 fWAR, and his defense is sure to rebound this year. All of which would make Margot that much more valuable to the Sox as a replacement right now.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 18:05:29 GMT -5
Why the hell are you implying that only right handed power hitter prospects have any value? Margot is worth just as much as he ever has been. Probably more, because he's 21 and performing just as well in AAA as he was in A+ and AA last year. Yeah, the game has changed. Guys like Gomez, and especially Cain, Kiermaier, etc have greatly increased perception of defensive-minded, speedy OF with reasonable to good hitting abilities and average (give or take) power. Those players are highly desirable now in a way they weren't remotely in the steroid/offensive era. The rise of defensive analytics has certainly helped, too. If I think about it, the emphasis on defense may be among the things that have made RHH power more scarce in lineups, and therefore more valuable: "Several defensive positions, including third base and the premium up-the-middle spots of catcher, shortstop, and second base, are only played by right-handed throwers. Despite the trend addressed in section no. 3, most right-handed throwers remain right-handed hitters. Thus, if a team chooses to play a defensive-minded player over an offensive-minded one, that decision is far more likely to hurt right-handed hitting stats because of the positional bias. Players manning catcher, second, third, and short accounted for 29.9 percent of the 20-homer seasons in 2013, the lowest proportion since 2002." More reasons are here: grantland.com/the-triangle/explaining-mlb-right-handed-power-decline/
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on May 18, 2016 19:19:18 GMT -5
Power is a tool, a mean to reach an end. Quality, or value, is the end.
Just because one of the tools to get there is scarce shouldn't make it more valuable to the eyes of the informed GM. I thought we had crossed that psychological Rubicon with Michael Lewis a few years ago.
No matter how many taters Gallo and Trumbo hit, I'll always rather have an Alex Gordon or Brantley on my team.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 18, 2016 19:46:13 GMT -5
Power is a tool, a mean to reach an end. Quality, or value, is the end. Just because one of the tools to get there is scarce shouldn't make it more valuable to the eyes of the informed GM. I thought we had crossed that psychological Rubicon with Michael Lewis a few years ago. No matter how many taters Gallo and Trumbo hit, I'll always rather have an Alex Gordon or Brantley on my team. Exactly this. The power isn't a good here. If there are ten available 3.5 WAR players, and nine are defense/speed guys and one is a power hitter, the power hitter isn't more valuable just because he is building the value in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 20:29:33 GMT -5
Power is a tool, a mean to reach an end. Quality, or value, is the end. Just because one of the tools to get there is scarce shouldn't make it more valuable to the eyes of the informed GM. I thought we had crossed that psychological Rubicon with Michael Lewis a few years ago. No matter how many taters Gallo and Trumbo hit, I'll always rather have an Alex Gordon or Brantley on my team. Exactly this. The power isn't a good here. If there are ten available 3.5 WAR players, and nine are defense/speed guys and one is a power hitter, the power hitter isn't more valuable just because he is building the value in a different way. James, you are one of my favorite writers here, and so I want to clarify that, relative to Margot's own value (not someone else's), Margot is clearly less valuable than he would be if he had the 50/55+ power tool he had been projected, initially, to have. To see it another way, Margot was at one point a top 25 prospect with a power tool. Using dollars, when Margot was top 25 he had an estimated surplus value (according to some authors) of $38 million, and only an 8.8% chance of a 0 WAR bust. Once his power tool seemed less likely to develop, he dropped to a ranking of 56, and had a surplus value of $14 million, and a 44% chance of zero WAR bust. In other words, as a trading chip, once he lost the higher likelihood of a power tool, in only a few months time, he was worth $24 million less in surplus value to a trading partner, and was much higher risk. This method of calculating surplus value does not account for the higher value a trading partner would rationally put on a scarce resource, which is the ability to get RHH power into the lineup. For example, Guerra bats left but throws right, and could be extremely valuable (like Bogaerts) if he had power at the otherwise right-handed shortstop position. Guerra has likely recently suffered a drop, too, with his current high K rate and inability (so far) to sustain the power he showed briefly last year. If they wanted to maximize the value of the Margot and Guerra trading chips, the Red Sox had to use 'em or lose 'em.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on May 18, 2016 20:59:53 GMT -5
This method of calculating surplus value does not account for the higher value a trading partner would rationally put on a scarce resource, which is the ability to get RHH power into the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 18, 2016 21:29:29 GMT -5
Come the **** on, dude. We're talking about a guy with a career .141 ISO and who subsequently has a .134 ISO in 163 PAs as a 21-year-old in AAA. No team was under the illusion that Margot was a stud power hitter during the offseason and no team has materially changed their opinion of him because his ISO is seven points lower this year than it has been over his career. You're running out of spaghetti to throw against the wall.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on May 18, 2016 21:39:44 GMT -5
He's moved beyond throwing spaghetti and is apparently throwing other stuff against the wall.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 21:59:58 GMT -5
Come the **** on, dude. We're talking about a guy with a career .141 ISO and who subsequently has a .134 ISO in 163 PAs as a 21-year-old in AAA. No team was under the illusion that Margot was a stud power hitter during the offseason and no team has materially changed their opinion of him because his ISO is seven points lower this year than it has been over his career. You're running out of spaghetti to throw against the wall. You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the buzz was this: Surprising power for someone his size. Ball makes unique sound off his bat. Doubles power has started developing into over-the-fence power. Squares the ball up consistently and can drive with backspin. Average power potential (15ish home runs a year). Could hit 30 doubles a year. www.soxprospects.com/players/margot-manuel.htmThe author had a point at the time. There was sample in which he slashed .340/.364/.560. Aside: I know the small sample size analysis is annoying to you, but it does have its own claim to statistical validity. See Carleton, et al. Whether teams are using it or not, I obviously can't say.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on May 18, 2016 22:07:25 GMT -5
Come the **** on, dude. We're talking about a guy with a career .141 ISO and who subsequently has a .134 ISO in 163 PAs as a 21-year-old in AAA. No team was under the illusion that Margot was a stud power hitter during the offseason and no team has materially changed their opinion of him because his ISO is seven points lower this year than it has been over his career. You're running out of spaghetti to throw against the wall. You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the buzz was this: Surprising power for someone his size. Ball makes unique sound off his bat. Doubles power has started developing into over-the-fence power. Squares the ball up consistently and can drive with backspin. Average power potential (15ish home runs a year). Could hit 30 doubles a year. www.soxprospects.com/players/margot-manuel.htmThe author had a point at the time. There was sample in which he slashed .340/.364/.560. Aside: I know the small sample size analysis is annoying to you, but it does have its own claim to statistical validity. See Carleton, et al. Whether teams are using it or not, I obviously can't say. If your problem with Margot is his supposed drop in power potential, when he's 21 and in AAA, how do you account for players, you know, honing their skills and gaining power over time? Like our very own Xander Bogaerts, perhaps? How can you say someone's power potential is at its highest when he's 21 and in AAA and is hitting well regardless? Add: And before you say how Xander was predicted to hit for power, yes, that's true, but just because Margot is projected to have a certain power tool, doesn't mean that a season in which his ISO is slightly-below his career norm means he'll never hit for any power at all. Being 21 and in AAA is impressive enough and speaks to his ability by itself, and no projections for him should be lowered at all based on his play this season. As others have said, his value should be even higher now, or at least the same as in the offseason. He's done well this season and he will be a good player - not someone whose trade value had to be "used or losed."
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 18, 2016 23:11:50 GMT -5
OMG when you guys starting the we love Margot fanclub? Never seen anything like this before.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 19, 2016 0:44:24 GMT -5
Kimbrel (whose place as "best in game" is highly debatable) 2013-2015 Relievers with 100+ IP ERA Davis 0.96 Giles 1.56 Betances 1.71 Britton 1.73 Kimbrel 1.77 O'Day 1.79 Melancon 1.85 Uehara 1.86 FIP Davis 1.79 Chapman 1.82 Giles 1.82 Jansen 2.00 Holland 2.02 Betances 2.07 Miller 2.08 Kimbrel 2.13 SIERA Jansen 1.54 Britton 1.63 Chapman 1.64 Miller 1.66 Uehara 1.82 Betances 1.85 Kimbrel 1.94 RE24 Davis 58.70 Betances 52.08 Watson 47.85 O'Day 45.23 Uehara 45.05 Melancon 43.63 Benoit 43.21 Chapman 42.12 Britton 40.61 Miller 39.80 Kimbrel 39.78 WPA Melancon 10.19 Watson 9.69 Betances 8.76 Davis 8.68 Kimbrel 8.54 Should be a pretty short debate. Fair enough. Your chart shows he's AMONG the best in the game in pretty much every category. I'm sure if your chart was extended backwards a year or two, he'd rate higher, which tells me he's been among the best if not better than that for a longer time, which is a good thing because it speaks to his reliability. I also think that he underwent a one month adjustment period in 2015, not that different from what happened this year, when he switched teams. Otherwise he'd be higher up on the lists. I mean this guy does have a career ERA well under 2 over a 5 years stretch? Correct? How about the others on this list? The other thing that strikes me from this list is that he was actually available to acquire. Other than O'Day, who has zero experience closing and is several years older, and Giles, who had very little experience closing and very little track record and actually wound up costing the Astros more than the Sox paid, nobody else on this list, especially with closing experience, was available to be acquired.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 19, 2016 0:52:34 GMT -5
NM
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 19, 2016 0:57:58 GMT -5
...Not to miss the really simple point which is: The "Margot trading chip" was perceived, at the time of the trade, to have a far greater scarce resource value of RHH ISO power, which it was redeemed for. Once it lost the perception of ISO power, while maintaining all other value, its value would (and in hindsight did) fall greatly. The Red Sox needed to "use it or lose it." This is abstract nonsense, pure BS. You're making it up as you go along. "It" didn't lose anything. There is no perception of Margot - he not it - and lost ISO power. He's 21 years old and will continue to develop for years. Everyone knows that and you do also. I've watched him hit and he can and will rifle balls into the gaps. Who knows where that ends up? Margot and the rest of the haul were rightly seen as a steal. Not just by this board either. That's OK. The FO decided the tradeoff was worth it, and they were hired to make those decisions. But it was done as much with the gut as with logic. The trade certainly wasn't done to cash in on some marginal quasi-economic value based on isolated power.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 19, 2016 1:27:57 GMT -5
...Not to miss the really simple point which is: The "Margot trading chip" was perceived, at the time of the trade, to have a far greater scarce resource value of RHH ISO power, which it was redeemed for. Once it lost the perception of ISO power, while maintaining all other value, its value would (and in hindsight did) fall greatly. The Red Sox needed to "use it or lose it." This is abstract nonsense, pure BS. You're making it up as you go along. "It" didn't lose anything. There is no perception of Margot - he not it - and lost ISO power. He's 21 years old and will continue to develop for years. Everyone knows that and you do also. I've watched him hit and he can and will rifle balls into the gaps. Who knows where that ends up? Margot and the rest of the haul were rightly seen as a steal. Not just by this board either. That's OK. The FO decided the tradeoff was worth it, and they were hired to make those decisions. But it was done as much with the gut as with logic. The trade certainly wasn't done to cash in on some marginal quasi-economic value based on isolated power. Well, I've tried to explain my ideas in different ways, using the analogy or metaphor of a trading chip to be helpful. Sorry if it didn't help! Another try: The idea is that once the FO decided to trade him, as they did, the remaining choice was who to trade him for, and when. What's relevant is, did the Red Sox have information that might be asymmetric, which they could leverage. If they did (for example, having measured a drop in his exit velocities after his shoulder injury), then they needed to trade quickly before they lost that advantage. Margot with projected 50/55+ RHH power tool (2015) > Margot with projected 45 RHH power tool (now). (Something tells me this is not helping, but I try!)
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 19, 2016 5:11:23 GMT -5
I wonder why I haven't put deepjohn on ignore yet. I think it's for the same reason that people drive slower when there's a car crash they can see out of the window while driving by.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2016 6:43:39 GMT -5
I wonder why I haven't put deepjohn on ignore yet. I think it's for the same reason that people drive slower when there's a car crash they can see out of the window while driving by. The best feature on any message board is ignore or hide thread. But proboards doesn't have that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2016 6:45:22 GMT -5
Come the **** on, dude. We're talking about a guy with a career .141 ISO and who subsequently has a .134 ISO in 163 PAs as a 21-year-old in AAA. No team was under the illusion that Margot was a stud power hitter during the offseason and no team has materially changed their opinion of him because his ISO is seven points lower this year than it has been over his career. You're running out of spaghetti to throw against the wall. You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the buzz was this: Surprising power for someone his size. Ball makes unique sound off his bat. Doubles power has started developing into over-the-fence power. Squares the ball up consistently and can drive with backspin. Average power potential (15ish home runs a year). Could hit 30 doubles a year. www.soxprospects.com/players/margot-manuel.htmThe author had a point at the time. There was sample in which he slashed .340/.364/.560. Aside: I know the small sample size analysis is annoying to you, but it does have its own claim to statistical validity. See Carleton, et al. Whether teams are using it or not, I obviously can't say. Margot has a .134 ISO this year, which is (a) not much lower than his career mark (.141) and (b) not much lower than the league-average ISO (.150 in MLB in 2015). As mentioned, he's also sufficiently young and age-advanced that scouts are comfortable projecting his power tool to improve somewhat as he reaches his prime. Over his last 10 games, Margot is hitting .359/.444/.538 (look, I can play with small samples, too!). You keep saying that Margot had projected 50/55+ power over the offseason but just projected 45 power now, but repeating it incessantly doesn't make it true, and you have presented no evidence to support it. Margot was not regarded as a power hitter during the offseason (I've already posted an offseason scouting report from Fangraphs that projected him to have 45 game power, the SoxProspects scouting report projected him to have 50 power, BP and MLB.com have him as a 45, etc). The fact that a prospect has a month-and-a-half with a certain ISO in the minor leagues does not mean his power projection changes to fit that ISO, especially when that ISO is essentially what scouts have projected of him in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2016 6:54:26 GMT -5
2013-2015 Relievers with 100+ IP ERA Davis 0.96 Giles 1.56 Betances 1.71 Britton 1.73 Kimbrel 1.77 O'Day 1.79 Melancon 1.85 Uehara 1.86 FIP Davis 1.79 Chapman 1.82 Giles 1.82 Jansen 2.00 Holland 2.02 Betances 2.07 Miller 2.08 Kimbrel 2.13 SIERA Jansen 1.54 Britton 1.63 Chapman 1.64 Miller 1.66 Uehara 1.82 Betances 1.85 Kimbrel 1.94 RE24 Davis 58.70 Betances 52.08 Watson 47.85 O'Day 45.23 Uehara 45.05 Melancon 43.63 Benoit 43.21 Chapman 42.12 Britton 40.61 Miller 39.80 Kimbrel 39.78 WPA Melancon 10.19 Watson 9.69 Betances 8.76 Davis 8.68 Kimbrel 8.54 Should be a pretty short debate. Fair enough. Your chart shows he's AMONG the best in the game in pretty much every category. I'm sure if your chart was extended backwards a year or two, he'd rate higher, which tells me he's been among the best if not better than that for a longer time, which is a good thing because it speaks to his reliability. I also think that he underwent a one month adjustment period in 2015, not that different from what happened this year, when he switched teams. Otherwise he'd be higher up on the lists. I mean this guy does have a career ERA well under 2 over a 5 years stretch? Correct? How about the others on this list? The other thing that strikes me from this list is that he was actually available to acquire. Other than O'Day, who has zero experience closing and is several years older, and Giles, who had very little experience closing and very little track record and actually wound up costing the Astros more than the Sox paid, nobody else on this list, especially with closing experience, was available to be acquired. Well, aside from Kimbrel, three of the other guys on this list were free agents or moved teams this offseason (O'Day, Giles, Chapman), they already had Uehara, and Melancon and Miller were also reported to have been available (though Miller would be an unlikely get for obvious reasons). Jansen, Melancon and Chapman will also be free agents this coming offseason.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 19, 2016 7:59:57 GMT -5
You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the buzz was this: Surprising power for someone his size. Ball makes unique sound off his bat. Doubles power has started developing into over-the-fence power. Squares the ball up consistently and can drive with backspin. Average power potential (15ish home runs a year). Could hit 30 doubles a year. www.soxprospects.com/players/margot-manuel.htmThe author had a point at the time. There was sample in which he slashed .340/.364/.560. Aside: I know the small sample size analysis is annoying to you, but it does have its own claim to statistical validity. See Carleton, et al. Whether teams are using it or not, I obviously can't say. Margot has a .134 ISO this year, which is (a) not much lower than his career mark (.141) and (b) not much lower than the league-average ISO (.150 in MLB in 2015). As mentioned, he's also sufficiently young and age-advanced that scouts are comfortable projecting his power tool to improve somewhat as he reaches his prime. Over his last 10 games, Margot is hitting .359/.444/.538 (look, I can play with small samples, too!). You keep saying that Margot had projected 50/55+ power over the offseason but just projected 45 power now, but repeating it incessantly doesn't make it true, and you have presented no evidence to support it. Margot was not regarded as a power hitter during the offseason (I've already posted an offseason scouting report from Fangraphs that projected him to have 45 game power, the SoxProspects scouting report projected him to have 50 power, BP and MLB.com have him as a 45, etc). The fact that a prospect has a month-and-a-half with a certain ISO in the minor leagues does not mean his power projection changes to fit that ISO, especially when that ISO is essentially what scouts have projected of him in the first place. OK, I think we agree that, as of now, Margot is a #56 ranked prospect (50+ FV) with a 45-50 power tool (which could be estimated at $14 million in surplus value and 44% chance of bust). But at the time of the trade there was a lot of talk everywhere that the Red Sox had traded away Margot who was a #19 ranked prospect ( 60 FV)with a 50/55+ power tool (which could be estimated at $38 million in surplus value and 8.8% chance of bust). To be fair, we shouldn't hold it against the Red Sox both ways. Either the Red Sox traded a #56 prospect at the time of the trade, and let's adjust what the Red Sox gave up accordingly. Or the Red Sox were smart to trade a #19 prospect, before everyone realized it was a #56.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2016 8:23:05 GMT -5
Please don't put words in my mouth. I thought Margot was a top 30ish prospect in baseball during the offseason and still think he's in that range. It's hard to argue that they sold high on him when his value hasn't declined much since then and, more importantly, they didn't get anything near equivalent value back for him.
|
|
|