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.
For posterity: rate the Kimbrel trade
|
Post by jmei on Nov 18, 2015 18:33:24 GMT -5
Reminder: this is not a discussion thread, we already have one of those. I moved a few back-and-forth posts to that other thread.
|
|
|
Post by h11233 on Nov 18, 2015 19:03:13 GMT -5
I voted "2" because of the opportunity cost. I think those assets could have been used to get more value in return, all due respect to Kimbrel
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 18, 2015 19:05:37 GMT -5
Option 3, maybe a tick towards 4. It was easier and cost less to acquire the stud reliever than a starter. The #1 starter can be pulled in purely by $
I don't think they could trade for an ace and sign a top flight reliever. Maybe an overpay in terms of pure "value", but the best/most likely option if the goal is/was to attain a top end guy in both the pen and the rotation
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Nov 18, 2015 19:52:01 GMT -5
3. We gave up a lot, but we also just plugged one of our biggest holes going into 2016.
Of course I'd have preferred not to give up as much as we did, but we dealt from excess to make our team substantially better for the next three years.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 18, 2015 19:54:51 GMT -5
2.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 18, 2015 19:58:04 GMT -5
I'll start. I rated this a 2. I think they gave up too much for a relief pitcher, even though Kimbrel is elite and I'm happy they got him.On the positive side, this was a great way to do a lot to fix the bullpen in one move. I'll also note here that it's entirely possible they sold high on Margot and Guerra, who have holes in their offensive games they need to fix, and Allen, whose ceiling really isn't THAT high for a high school draftee. I'll add that I think the Sox knew full well what they were doing - this wasn't Dombrowski not knowing what he had. Overpaying in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing - I just think they did by too much. Finally, I think the players they gave up were the prospects they could most afford to trade this offseason - if you told me weeks ago that Margot and Guerra were getting dealt this offseason, it wouldn't have surprised me in the least. And the system is still flush with talent - this is still a top 5 system that's even better when you consider all U-25 talent. On the negative side, I'm convinced they gave up too much. I think that Andrelton Simmons, a player who can provide more value as an elite defensive player who's on the field every day, went for less days before. I think that Dombrowski overpaid by as much as he did in order to get the deal done now, and that perhaps by waiting Preller out could have gotten him to come down a bit. That risks someone else swooping in, sure, but I'm not convinced that this was the lowest offer Preller would take for Kimbrel, who's signed for a reasonable deal but is also still the highest paid RP in the game. I am afraid that later this offseason players will become available that the Sox will wish they still had one or more of these assets to use - they still have the bullets to make any deal they want, and the organization is still flush with prospects and young MLB'ers, but two top 100, or perhaps even top 75, prospects is a big hit for a relief pitcher. In sum, I think it's a philosophy thing. I think Cherington held too tightly to his trade assets, but I think Dombrowski may swing farther than I would the other way. Not a good trade, but not one that sets the franchise back either. Agree with this verbatim - can we reword option 2 to say this?
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Nov 18, 2015 20:14:02 GMT -5
I rated it "3" but am especially concerned about the "and Logan Allen" part of the trade. Two up the middle premium defenders who are potentially average to above hitters at their positions was a great deal to pay. I don't quite feel as bad as did the day that the Jeff Bagwell trade was announced(I screamed out loud), but I am very concerned that this will look one0sided in three years in favor of the Padres.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 18, 2015 20:43:15 GMT -5
1. An interesting exercise would be to look at whoever the top reliever in the game is in any given year (freaks of nature named Mariano excluded) and then see how they did three years later.
On the plus side, Dombrowski moved exactly the right guys, I think (though Logan Allen stung for me a bit); it's just, as others have noted, the huge opportunity cost.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Nov 18, 2015 20:51:06 GMT -5
#2 Obviously one of Javy Guerra or Margot didn't have to be involved. Also one of Allen/Asuaje possibly. I feel like Margot us comparable to Austin Jackson (and so do many writers) best case secenario. Jackson has at 2+, 3+ and 4+ seasons largely attributed to his defense in center, some triples .BA and steals. Nothing to be ashamed of, I think it's a great comp. Javy I can't see more than a decent backup infielder. All comps I can think of have either versatility or a decent hit tool. Allen could be good but it was his first half year in Lowell I believe. -so the Redsox gave up quite a bit of our deep farm system Asuaje least year I felt like he could carve out a carry similar to an average bench player, or orgizantional player (after this year) However, getting a top three closer can take something like this, especially if he's dominant and ends up being worth the contract. Having seen him twice this year, once in May against the Nats and once in Hotlanta in June. I can say his stuff was quit impressive. There were some late foul tip and popups in foul territory. His fastball was unihittable at 97-99 and it honestly seemed like us in the crowd could tell when the "knuckle curves could and no one could really touch him. I realize his ERA and FIP and such as well as h/9 slumped a bit, but he held his velocity and velocity off the bat stayed the same. LD% went down, I'm just trying to combine the eye test with Sabremetrics. I really, really liked the days when Papelbon was throwing 96, 97 with those 89 splitters. I really enjoyed guys like Okayama and Uehara but the age thing worried me every year. That horse closer, a durable power pitcher is worth something extra. I just think that sometimes you may have to overpay for what you want. And DD made a decision and I'm glad he's using the farm system. Did we expect him to right all of Cheringtons wrongs in one move?
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Nov 18, 2015 21:05:11 GMT -5
"2"
1. The average team wins 95% of the games in which it is leading after 8 innings; even the team with the best bullpen loses a couple. I can't imagine even the best closer is really worth more than a maximum of 3 wins over an average closer, which surely could have been obtained using truly expendable prospects.
2. I really don't like giving up high ceiling prospects (like Guerra and Margot) no matter what the risk. Between the draft, increased availability of information about amateur players and slotting, it is getting even harder for a team like the Red Sox to obtain impact players. However, if a team aspires to be a championship team, what it most needs are impact players. To be the best team in baseball, or even to win the AL East, you usually need better than 40 WAR from 14 players (nine regulars plus the starting rotation). It's hard to do without at least three or four true impact players (and to build a sustainable winner, i.e. one that can win a division in back to back years -- something the Sox haven't done in a century -- I think you need more like five).
3. I don't understand why this trade had to be made now (part 1). There's still three months until spring training; something better might have materialized if the Red Sox had shown more patience. The price for Kimbrel wasn't likely to increase.
4. I don't understand why this trade had to be made now (part 2). While I think this team is good enough to compete for a wild card, I don't really see it as being good enough to win the division this year, even if they go out and buy an ace. There is normally, a six to eight game difference between the AL East winner and the second wild card, but I think it will be higher this year. Both Toronto and Tampa under-performed their peripherals last year, and this team is really dependent on young players, who don't always mature in a linear fashion. I think this trade is a year or two premature (while I understand the argument that the playoffs are a crap shoot, and if you just get in you can win it all, I still have a hard time with sacrificing this much of the team's future, for a better shot at a single guaranteed game in October).
5. I have spent the last week or so, reviewing prospect for veteran trades. Almost 2/3 of the time the prospects outperform the veterans, and normally by a large margin. I posted the numbers on Sunday if anyone wants to go back and look. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, they say, and that seems to apply to prospect for veteran trades. I think in the end, the Red Sox have traded wins in 2019, 2020 and perhaps beyond for wins in 2016 and 2017. I think in the end, they will regret having done so.
|
|
|
Post by FreeJBJ on Nov 18, 2015 23:06:38 GMT -5
I voted 3.
Sure, the trade could come back to bite them if Guerra or Margot turn into a superstar. But the major league bullpen was an absolute dumpster fire last year and Kimbrel's acquisition is a major step toward dousing those flames. Also, he's only 27 and in his prime. I'm OK with paying a little bit of a premium for a player's prime years.
I don't think this is Heathcliff Slocumb for Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe.
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on Nov 19, 2015 0:22:21 GMT -5
I voted 2 but It's really a 2 1/2 because not only did the Sox get the 9th inning covered, everybody slides down and now the 7th and 8th look like strengths, so no question this move helps the Sox. But we overpaid. I felt like we picked the right prospects to move in Margot and Guerra (not because I think they'll bust but because of the depth at those positions) but they went in one transaction for one relief pitcher, just because your dealing from your strengths doesn't mean you get pennies on the dollar for them. I see (2) 65-70 gloves in the middle of the diamond and both can handle a bat as well, a wildcard with mid rotation upside and Asuaje who can play multiple positions and handle the bat well. This could look horrendous in 5 years, and it probably will.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by ianrs on Nov 19, 2015 0:24:54 GMT -5
I was a 1, then I convinced myself over the past two days it was a 2, then I was back to 1 after the Tigers got K-Rod for a Marrero/Rijo equivalent, but then I went back to a 2. More like "I think this is an overpay, but really like Craig Kimbrel on this team."
I think this move will hurt the Red Sox as early as 2018, when Margot has a better fWAR than Kimbrel. Not because Margot will be elite, but I can see .260/.300/.400 with 25 SB to 7 CS and elite CF defense. Happy to eat my words if that does not end up being true. But, I am excited to see Kimbrel pitch in a Red Sox uni.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 19, 2015 0:41:10 GMT -5
I wavered between 3 and 4 until I conservatively chose option 3.
I hate to say the Red Sox "won" the trade when they obviously overpaid a lot of talent to get Kimbrel. They won in a sense that they improved their team over the next three years, which matters, and they didn't lose any of their key core prospects.
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Nov 19, 2015 1:03:25 GMT -5
1.5 - an overpay for the most overrated "position."
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 19, 2015 1:58:25 GMT -5
I'm a firm 2. There is no denying the current team is better with Kimbrel on it but I have no question the organization as a whole is worse off. The flexibility to obtain a coveted young starter is severely hampered without dishing out multiple of the true blue chips? In fact I don't see how that package wasn't essentially enough to land Danny Salazar. Perhaps with JBJ swapped for Margot as a necessity.
Secondly I personally was very high on the young arm trio of Espinoza, Kopech and Allen as a potential future 1/2/3 or 1/2/4. Risk of course included but this was the best young starting pitcher prospect group I can recall. With Allen's control and already solid low 90's velocity I believe he had a above average probability to at least be a Brian Johnson type.
There may not have been a reliever with Kimbrel's upside available for less but I would have been very comfortable adding 2 quality alternatives from Sipp, O'Day, Rodriguez, Soria, the Korean closer, etc . . .
I'd much rather have done JBJ, Guerra( who could play second eventually as a future tandem with Lindor) and a none Logan Allen lottery ticket third piece like Williams Jerez, Pat Light or Yoan Aybar for Salazar. Then add Sipp and Soria to the pen. Follow it up by signing Jason Heyward to recover some of the lost defense from JBJ and in all likelihood a better bat. For me just the idea of that plausible alternative makes this deal a 2.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 19, 2015 6:43:46 GMT -5
2. They overpaid. Bad trade. Those assets could have been better spent, perhaps as the basis for a top of the rotation starter.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Nov 19, 2015 7:18:28 GMT -5
4. I think that with the Sox talents they are going to be a lot of big games over the next several years and while there are a few closers who may do as well as Kimbrel in the daily grind of the season, he's the stud you want when the prize is on the line, no regrets. As for the prospects, no doubt there is good theoretical value there but they are sweeteners, not drivers, for other trades that are vaporware as of today. A Mercedes isn't objectively that much more valuable than a Chevy, but you pay more to get that last bit of quality, especially when the supply is very limited.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Nov 19, 2015 7:33:50 GMT -5
1. If you are OK with paying $100 for a litre of milk, you are going to be broke soon, doesn't matter how rich you are.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Nov 19, 2015 7:54:32 GMT -5
4. I think we will love this guy and am OK that we gave up some high upside prospects for an elite player. We just shortened close games by an inning.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Nov 19, 2015 9:30:00 GMT -5
2. Gross overpay, but elite talent coming back.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
|
Post by mobaz on Nov 19, 2015 9:48:39 GMT -5
2. Paying full price for a closer in $ AND in prospects is a fast way towards irrelevance in a year or two. Never should have had to add Logan Allen, should have waited out the market on starter trades. I hate honing in on one guy and not letting the market dictate. Also still love buying low on high-upside or off-year bullpen (especially given starter depth that could "fill in the blanks", even if that partly sunk us this year.
That said, still got an elite player at a necessary position and for the next 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by xanderdu on Nov 19, 2015 13:19:48 GMT -5
5 Big believer in present value versus future value.
I'm hoping they use Koji as an early in the game fireman and grab one more lock down arm so we can have Koji early, then Tazawa, acquisition (or Kelly) then Kimbrel at the end.
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Nov 19, 2015 13:47:29 GMT -5
I voted 3, for all the same reasons the others did. I'm propably closer to the 3.5 range. Love having Kimbrel, think it couldve been a little cheaper. I think including both Margot and Guerra was the price it wouldve cost, keeping Allen seems like it shouldnt have been to hard and wouldve made this a 4. But I can live with losing those guys, as long as DD sticks to his word and thats the one big trade. And the big IF, if he keeps the #12 pick, I wont complain.
|
|
|
Post by rizdog on Nov 19, 2015 14:06:42 GMT -5
4. I would have said 3, but will go 4 since Chris H said don't worry about the wording. I don't think Sox "won" trade, but they filled major need with an elite player.
|
|
|