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 Aug 13, 2016 14:36:04 GMT -5
Mark Melancon was also a possibility and he is having a better year than Kimbrel. I won't respond to anyone saying he couldn't handle Boston, because he got about 3 games under Valentine before that was decided.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Aug 13, 2016 15:13:40 GMT -5
This thread pops up every so often and I agree with many that the Red Sox paid too much for Kimbrel. But with that said, we all know John Henry wants to get back into the playoffs badly. If you're trying to win now, and you had the resources to get arguably one of the top2-4 closers in baseball, and what you're giving up you already have decent to good player's, then why be very critical of the move? Unless you knew Kimbrel was overrated?
I see above someone mentioned Melancon. But were the Red Sox looking for value at the time or trying to win or was it known that Melancon is/will be a superior closer? Should value always be the top priority?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 13, 2016 15:27:33 GMT -5
You realize he's explicitly not saying that, right? ...no? In any case, I don't think O'Day is at all relevant here. Yes, I explicitly literally did not say there were only two alternatives. The word "best" (as in "best alternative to the Kimbrel trade") is not at all similar to the word "only." I was actually impressed by the suggestion that instead of trading for Kimbrel, they should have signed O'Day. So I find thinking about what that would have been like interesting. I also continue to think it would be great to have this thread shut down.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 13, 2016 16:09:38 GMT -5
Apologies for my confusion but the best alternative to Kraig Kimbrel was to invest this team's resources in anything besides a high-priced reliever.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2016 16:55:55 GMT -5
...no? In any case, I don't think O'Day is at all relevant here. Yes, I explicitly literally did not say there were only two alternatives. The word "best" (as in "best alternative to the Kimbrel trade") is not at all similar to the word "only." I was actually impressed by the suggestion that instead of trading for Kimbrel, they should have signed O'Day. So I find thinking about what that would have been like interesting. I also continue to think it would be great to have this thread shut down. Maybe it should be combined with the Pomeranz trade thread.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 17, 2016 13:06:29 GMT -5
Apologies for my confusion but the best alternative to Kraig Kimbrel was to invest this team's resources in anything besides a high-priced reliever. Do you want our bullpen to drag this team down? Sure I have been disappointed by Kimbrel so far, but by bwar he's been our best reliever. So our so so pen would be even worse than it already is.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Aug 17, 2016 16:44:53 GMT -5
Apologies for my confusion but the best alternative to Kraig Kimbrel was to invest this team's resources in anything besides a high-priced reliever. Do you want our bullpen to drag this team down? Sure I have been disappointed by Kimbrel so far, but by bwar he's been our best reliever. So our so so pen would be even worse than it already is. I think fth is (consistently) saying that there's a bubble in high-priced relievers right now, and that we should not have wasted resources on the high bubble price. The price will come down when the bubble bursts. But we don't know if teams that plan to go to the post-season really do need dominant relievers, who with the extra days of rest, will see nearly as many batters as starters. If that's right, then we got in early, before the price got even higher, as it did in July. There may also have been a bubble in the value of Margot, Guerra and Allen, at the time, but we of course don't know how that will turn out except in the long run. So it's a pretty bullet-proof argument, for now, since you can't say how it will turn out except in the long run. And in the long run, we are all ....
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 17, 2016 17:08:09 GMT -5
But we don't know if teams that plan to go to the post-season really do need dominant relievers, Of course you need dominant relievers. If you're going to have busts like Craig Breslow, Felix Doubront, Franklin Morales and Brandon Workman in your bullpen you might as well not even show up to play.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 17, 2016 18:00:33 GMT -5
But we don't know if teams that plan to go to the post-season really do need dominant relievers, Of course you need dominant relievers. If you're going to have busts like Craig Breslow, Felix Doubront, Franklin Morales and Brandon Workman in your bullpen you might as well not even show up to play. It's more about whether you need to pay full price for currently dominant relievers or if you're better off looking for them elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 17, 2016 18:09:42 GMT -5
It's more about whether you need to pay full price for currently dominant relievers or if you're better off looking for them elsewhere. People like obsessing over Wade Davis as a mean of saying that every failed starter will become an awesome reliever, but is there a foolproof way of developing bullpen arms? Like you hear all the time that you should buy low on relievers and find the next great one, but is there a sure way of doing so? Where to even look?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 17, 2016 18:16:59 GMT -5
It's obviously not a foolproof way to develop elite relievers. But signing or trading for the best reliever on the market to a huge contract is not a foolproof way of getting an elite reliever, either, and the risk/reward ratio for the former is a lot better than the ratio for the latter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 17, 2016 18:18:15 GMT -5
It's more about whether you need to pay full price for currently dominant relievers or if you're better off looking for them elsewhere. People like obsessing over Wade Davis as a mean of saying that every failed starter will become an awesome reliever, but is there a foolproof way of developing bullpen arms? Like you hear all the time that you should buy low on relievers and find the next great one, but is there a sure way of doing so? Where to even look? Matt Barnes is turning out ok and looks like he might be getting better. Andrew Miller was pretty good. We got Carson Smith for not much, who should eventually be good for us. We got Robbie Ross for pretty much nothing, and he's one of our best even though most people don't realize it because of how Farrell uses him. We also got Ziegler for cheap. The thing is, not-yet elite relief pitchers are way cheaper to acquire and should theoretically be easier to develop. So you can play a numbers game and let the cream rise to the top. I'd also suggest to stop giving away prospects like Montas and Light because they're "just relief pitchers".
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 17, 2016 18:38:17 GMT -5
The thing is, not-yet elite relief pitchers are way cheaper to acquire and should theoretically be easier to develop. So you can play a numbers game and let the cream rise to the top. I'd also suggest to stop giving away prospects like Montas and Light because they're "just relief pitchers". Oh, to be clear, I don't think that relievers aren't overpriced right now or that trading a premium package for one is in any way defensible. It's just that if elite relievers are unreliable, what about the ones that aren't elite? What I mean is, imagine your team really wants a top notch closer because they think they are contenders, what would be a better way of achieving that: to give a shot to 5 different unproven guys or to get a guy like Kimbrel? Logic would dictate it's the former since you give yourself more shots and obviously give up less to sign or trade for, but I'm not sure you'd get a hit on any of these guys. Trading big value or overpaying for relievers is obviously a bad deal, but I also think that looking for the next diamond in the rough is also not the way to go. I think trading for mid tier guys like Ziegler and Smith like you mentioned is a better way of viewing it. Or even guys like Nate Jones or Alex Colome, and you obviously need to give up some value in a trade to get them which by itself isn't bad until you start getting stupid and sending top prospects.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Aug 17, 2016 19:13:18 GMT -5
The thing is, not-yet elite relief pitchers are way cheaper to acquire and should theoretically be easier to develop. So you can play a numbers game and let the cream rise to the top. I'd also suggest to stop giving away prospects like Montas and Light because they're "just relief pitchers". Oh, to be clear, I don't think that relievers aren't overpriced right now or that trading a premium package for one is in any way defensible. It's just that if elite relievers are unreliable, what about the ones that aren't elite? What I mean is, imagine your team really wants a top notch closer because they think they are contenders, what would be a better way of achieving that: to give a shot to 5 different unproven guys or to get a guy like Kimbrel? Logic would dictate it's the former since you give yourself more shots and obviously give up less to sign or trade for, but I'm not sure you'd get a hit on any of these guys. Trading big value or overpaying for relievers is obviously a bad deal, but I also think that looking for the next diamond in the rough is also not the way to go. I think trading for mid tier guys like Ziegler and Smith like you mentioned is a better way of viewing it. Or even guys like Nate Jones or Alex Colome, and you obviously need to give up some value in a trade to get them which by itself isn't bad until you start getting stupid and sending top prospects. Well, the real risk is not the cost of prospects or the salaries you pay for elite relievers. It's the cost of trying to develop relievers and failing. Meanwhile the cost of failing increases as you run out of time. For example, I think Theo tried everything he could to develop an elite reliever, and probably gave at least five guys a chance. But then he ran out of time, and he was forced to pay a much higher price than if he had just bought in November, as DDo did. It may be that guys who are elite relievers are just freaks of nature, and it's like winning the lottery when you get one, if you ever do. You might need to give 20 guys a chance, or 200 guys, before you get lucky. We may well have one stashed away in Salem, btw. Tomorrow is his day.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 17, 2016 19:23:30 GMT -5
Oh, to be clear, I don't think that relievers aren't overpriced right now or that trading a premium package for one is in any way defensible. It's just that if elite relievers are unreliable, what about the ones that aren't elite? What I mean is, imagine your team really wants a top notch closer because they think they are contenders, what would be a better way of achieving that: to give a shot to 5 different unproven guys or to get a guy like Kimbrel? Logic would dictate it's the former since you give yourself more shots and obviously give up less to sign or trade for, but I'm not sure you'd get a hit on any of these guys. Trading big value or overpaying for relievers is obviously a bad deal, but I also think that looking for the next diamond in the rough is also not the way to go. I think trading for mid tier guys like Ziegler and Smith like you mentioned is a better way of viewing it. Or even guys like Nate Jones or Alex Colome, and you obviously need to give up some value in a trade to get them which by itself isn't bad until you start getting stupid and sending top prospects. Well, the real risk is not the cost of prospects or the salaries you pay for elite relievers. It's the cost of trying to develop relievers and failing. Meanwhile the cost of failing increases as you run out of time. For example, I think Theo tried everything he could to develop an elite reliever, and probably gave at least five guys a chance. But then he ran out of time, and he was forced to pay a much higher price than if he had just bought in November, as DDo did. It may be that guys who are elite relievers are just freaks of nature, and it's like winning the lottery when you get one, if you ever do. You might need to give 20 guys a chance, or 200 guys, before you get lucky. We may well have one stashed away in Salem, btw. Tomorrow is his day. Yeah, I agree. Kopech is our closer around 2019.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2016 20:47:05 GMT -5
It's more about whether you need to pay full price for currently dominant relievers or if you're better off looking for them elsewhere. People like obsessing over Wade Davis as a mean of saying that every failed starter will become an awesome reliever, but is there a foolproof way of developing bullpen arms? Like you hear all the time that you should buy low on relievers and find the next great one, but is there a sure way of doing so? Where to even look? Andrew Miller was signed and developed as a reliever after being a failed starter. Not all starters will convert well, but the point is that identifying those with the stuff to convert, and helping them do so, is far more cost-effective than paying top dollar for a good closer.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 17, 2016 20:51:20 GMT -5
Seriously, how many fewer saves would Robbie Ross have this year if they pitched him as an exclusive closer? I'd bet the same, but wouldn't be surprised if it would be more.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2016 20:53:14 GMT -5
Oh, to be clear, I don't think that relievers aren't overpriced right now or that trading a premium package for one is in any way defensible. It's just that if elite relievers are unreliable, what about the ones that aren't elite? What I mean is, imagine your team really wants a top notch closer because they think they are contenders, what would be a better way of achieving that: to give a shot to 5 different unproven guys or to get a guy like Kimbrel? Logic would dictate it's the former since you give yourself more shots and obviously give up less to sign or trade for, but I'm not sure you'd get a hit on any of these guys. Trading big value or overpaying for relievers is obviously a bad deal, but I also think that looking for the next diamond in the rough is also not the way to go. I think trading for mid tier guys like Ziegler and Smith like you mentioned is a better way of viewing it. Or even guys like Nate Jones or Alex Colome, and you obviously need to give up some value in a trade to get them which by itself isn't bad until you start getting stupid and sending top prospects. Well, the real risk is not the cost of prospects or the salaries you pay for elite relievers. It's the cost of trying to develop relievers and failing. Meanwhile the cost of failing increases as you run out of time. For example, I think Theo tried everything he could to develop an elite reliever, and probably gave at least five guys a chance. But then he ran out of time, and he was forced to pay a much higher price than if he had just bought in November, as DDo did. It may be that guys who are elite relievers are just freaks of nature, and it's like winning the lottery when you get one, if you ever do. You might need to give 20 guys a chance, or 200 guys, before you get lucky. We may well have one stashed away in Salem, btw. Tomorrow is his day. I don't think they're really all that hard to find and develop. If a team has a reasonably solid rotation prospect/young vet (Britton, Davis, Miller, to name a few) who's struggling, and they have the starter depth to take a shot, it makes sense to try the guy in relief and see if his stuff plays up. Barnes is a great example. He's not outstanding, but neither was Andrew Miller early in his conversion. It's why, with a set five in the rotation and significant depth, I think the Sox should try Justin Haley in the bullpen. He projects as a #5 right now, but if his stuff plays up, he could very easily become an excellent 8th-inning option.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 17, 2016 21:19:26 GMT -5
People like obsessing over Wade Davis as a mean of saying that every failed starter will become an awesome reliever, but is there a foolproof way of developing bullpen arms? Like you hear all the time that you should buy low on relievers and find the next great one, but is there a sure way of doing so? Where to even look? Andrew Miller was signed and developed as a reliever after being a failed starter. Not all starters will convert well, but the point is that identifying those with the stuff to convert, and helping them do so, is far more cost-effective than paying top dollar for a good closer. and it's also way harder to do, as compared to buying a known quantity. I have commented on this before, but just thinking you can convert people to be a top quality reliever is.....quite frankly.....silly. At least as it relates to short term problem solving.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2016 21:34:33 GMT -5
Andrew Miller was signed and developed as a reliever after being a failed starter. Not all starters will convert well, but the point is that identifying those with the stuff to convert, and helping them do so, is far more cost-effective than paying top dollar for a good closer. and it's also way harder to do, as compared to buying a known quantity. I have commented on this before, but just thinking you can convert people to be a top quality reliever is.....quite frankly.....silly. At least as it relates to short term problem solving. I don't think anyone's arguing that it's a short-term solution. By nature, it isn't. But neither is spending big money. Andrew Bailey, Joel Hanrahan, Mark Melancon (with the caveat that he wasn't given much of a chance), Carson Smith, and Craig Kimbrel all argue against that. Relievers, even excellent ones, are inherently volatile (look at Trevor Rosenthal or Dave Robertson this year). My point is that a team needs a solid system in place of converting starters to relievers, and that such a system prevents costly trades for volatile assets (at grossly inflated prices). Effective evaluation of quality relievers, too, like Koji pre-2013 (he represented a market inefficiency due to age and velocity despite outstanding results) is paramount. The Sox could have signed or traded for a number of relievers who would have been far less expensive in both talent and salary than Kimbrel; they could also have identified buy-low starters and tried converting them to the same end while employing a stop-gap closer like Rodney who was available cheaply on the market. Thinking that trading for an expensive "known quantity," especially a reliever, will guarantee you outstanding performance is likewise silly.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 17, 2016 22:10:15 GMT -5
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's a short-term solution. By nature, it isn't. But neither is spending big money. Andrew Bailey, Joel Hanrahan, Mark Melancon (with the caveat that he wasn't given much of a chance), Carson Smith, and Craig Kimbrel all argue against that. Relievers, even excellent ones, are inherently volatile (look at Trevor Rosenthal or Dave Robertson this year). My point is that a team needs a solid system in place of converting starters to relievers, and that such a system prevents costly trades for volatile assets (at grossly inflated prices). Effective evaluation of quality relievers, too, like Koji pre-2013 (he represented a market inefficiency due to age and velocity despite outstanding results) is paramount. The Sox could have signed or traded for a number of relievers who would have been far less expensive in both talent and salary than Kimbrel; they could also have identified buy-low starters and tried converting them to the same end while employing a stop-gap closer like Rodney who was available cheaply on the market. Thinking that trading for an expensive "known quantity," especially a reliever, will guarantee you outstanding performance is likewise silly.I think this a very fair point. The genesis of the trade was the state of the bullpen going into the 2016 season. That context is important because it qualifies the decision making limitations. If the GM feels that the choice of "proven" over "development" is the best course of action, then he should choose that. That is why I have been solidly behind this trade from the beginning. It is unfortunate that he hasn't lived up to his past performance, but that may happen. Some of which your describing can't fit into that timetable, if the GM is looking for immediate upgrade. I'll add that there is a monetary loss when you spend time developing failed projects, so it's not just easy to say that you should keep trying that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2016 22:30:47 GMT -5
Put it this way: of all of the significant acquisitions the Sox have made in the past 3-4 years, consider: Koji Victorino Napoli Bailey Hanrahan Smith Kimbrel Ramirez Sandoval Price Porcello Pomeranz (let's give him a pass for now, though: SSS)
Who among them produced after their acquisition in accordance with their prior history? Koji (severely underrated by the market based on age and stuff, and a recent injury, despite outstanding, near-elite results) and Victorino outperformed (although Victorino crashed).
Porcello has, more or less, met expectations. Napoli was similar, maybe a tick under what was hoped for.
Price has underperformed, consistent with a marked loss in velocity.
All four relievers (considered good-to-elite closers) underperformed, and all got hurt. Three had TJ. None remotely approached their anticipated value.
Sandoval needs no discussion.
Ramirez has been passable, a mild underperfomer.
Relievers are easily the most volatile position/subgroup. That's reflected here, with the only success story a guy who was identified as a market inefficiency and signed as such. When expected performance so rarely jibes with results, and is so often disappointing, it makes no sense to presume that paying a market premium for a highly volatile commodity will have even a remote guarantee of success. In fact, it's entirely arguable that finding buy-low starters and undervalued relievers, at significantly less cost than the big-name closer, is at least as likely to produce positive results, since multiple assets can be obtained and provide insurance in the case of failure. And, in the case of young, cost-controlled but failing starters, there's the benefit of success down the road while arbitration awards remain low, not to mention the possibility that he figures something out as a starter. And as a buy-low option, he's unlikely to lose value. Marginal relievers provide similar benefit. Essentially, my point is that there is no high-likelihood-of-success short-term solution, and so maximum asset fungibility with lowest risk of value reduction, at lowest cost, should be the short-term approach. The long-term approach is to have a system designed to identify, acquire, and convert starters into relievers.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2016 22:51:06 GMT -5
Btw, I completely understand your point of "proven" over "development." And as an isolated 1:1 comparo, you're right. But the idea is to use a *systems* approach, whereby an underrated, low-cost (say, Fernando Rodney, or in the past a guy like Rafael Soriano, or K-Rod) closer with experience serves as a several-month or one-year stopgap, while converted starters (i.e., Barnes and Ross, and ideally a couple of others) are groomed in lower-leverage situations. It's a numbers game, and there's risk of failure...but probably not a whole lot more than with a "proven" guy, and maybe less.
Successful conversion results in highly overvalued asset(s), with lower long-term costs. A one-year pillow contract for a guy like Rodney, plus even 3-4 starter candidates is going to cost less than the combined talent/$ outlay for Kimbrel, and it's not close. Furthermore, because those assets were all acquired at low value, the net value down the road is almost guaranteed to at least stay flat, or even improve. There's also more payroll flexibility. With a high-cost big name, value/flexibility can almost only go down (barring some bizarre market explosion as with Andrew Miller). And because of the system of multiple in-development conversions, the downside performance risk is probably no worse than with the big name. Basically, I think the idea that an established closer provides a substantial benefit of security is illusory, because the illusion is predicated on a 1:1 comparison that is, itself, inaccurate. It's really more like 1:4.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 18, 2016 0:06:20 GMT -5
People like obsessing over Wade Davis as a mean of saying that every failed starter will become an awesome reliever, but is there a foolproof way of developing bullpen arms? Like you hear all the time that you should buy low on relievers and find the next great one, but is there a sure way of doing so? Where to even look? Matt Barnes is turning out ok and looks like he might be getting better. Andrew Miller was pretty good. We got Carson Smith for not much, who should eventually be good for us. We got Robbie Ross for pretty much nothing, and he's one of our best even though most people don't realize it because of how Farrell uses him. We also got Ziegler for cheap. The thing is, not-yet elite relief pitchers are way cheaper to acquire and should theoretically be easier to develop. So you can play a numbers game and let the cream rise to the top. I'd also suggest to stop giving away prospects like Montas and Light because they're "just relief pitchers". The problem is that Barnes, Ross and Ziegler are not close to elite relievers. Yes it's easy to find good relievers, but very hard to find elite ones. Sure acquiring not yet elite relief pitchers is the way to go, but it's also very hard. Hitting on an Andrew Miller is like 1 in 10. It's a great long term plan, but it's not something you do when you need to improve pen at that very moment. It wasn't a great trade, but getting Kimbrel improved pen and even in a down year he's still been our best reliever.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 18, 2016 0:21:08 GMT -5
Seriously, how many fewer saves would Robbie Ross have this year if they pitched him as an exclusive closer? I'd bet the same, but wouldn't be surprised if it would be more. I think that's really funny and for me seems like hating on Kimbrel. Kimbrels career save % is 91%, which is also his % this year. Ross has a 67% save % for his career. Granted it's a small sample size, but thinking he could equal or do better than 91% is a whole lot of positive thinking.
|
|
|