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.
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 7, 2015 17:05:36 GMT -5
Everyone shouldn't rip me Coming to a forum where you are new and making 100 posts in 3 days, some of them pretty obnoxious, is basically asking to get ripped. Back when I was young one would lurk for a month before timidly making one single post in order to integrate oneself with a community. That's nothing to brag about.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 7, 2015 17:17:01 GMT -5
Coming to a forum where you are new and making 100 posts in 3 days, some of them pretty obnoxious, is basically asking to get ripped. Back when I was young one would lurk for a month before timidly making one single post in order to integrate oneself with a community. That's nothing to brag about. That's not bragging. That's just what you do when you go to a new forum if you've ever been on the internet. This is generally the most civil and enjoyable message board I've been on in about 20 years of talking to strangers to get the sports talk fix which I cannot get in real life since I've moved away from the area. That takes a lot of work from the moderators and the posters to keep it that way and it's greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 7, 2015 17:24:30 GMT -5
That's nothing to brag about. That's not bragging. That's just what you do when you go to a new forum if you've ever been on the internet. This is generally the most civil and enjoyable message board I've been on in about 20 years of talking to strangers to get the sports talk fix which I cannot get in real life since I've moved away from the area. That takes a lot of work from the moderators and the posters to keep it that way and it's greatly appreciated. For sure, I'm just saying, it's weird that you'd act "timid" over a message board. I don't really get what there is to be afraid of.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 7, 2015 17:29:15 GMT -5
That's not bragging. That's just what you do when you go to a new forum if you've ever been on the internet. This is generally the most civil and enjoyable message board I've been on in about 20 years of talking to strangers to get the sports talk fix which I cannot get in real life since I've moved away from the area. That takes a lot of work from the moderators and the posters to keep it that way and it's greatly appreciated. For sure, I'm just saying, it's weird that you'd act "timid" over a message board. I don't really get what there is to be afraid of. Far from timid. I'm protective. I like the high level of intelligence and civility. That's why I come here and have left other places. I'm too old for a bunch of a-hole 16 year olds trying to act cool.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 7, 2015 18:04:13 GMT -5
Elias, Owens, Johnson and Wright isn't considered depth? Think he means in terms in MLB Rotation workload. Miley was going to be a big part of taking pressure off the bullpen arms. I don't see those four as being insufficient rotation depth. You'd just like another guy in that rotation aside from Price to guarentee a good amount of innings. That is overlooked by some here, but I still like the trade. Uehara will remain a question until the seasons end so this gives us depth at the set-up position and the bullpen could be pretty dam good if he stays healthy and Tazawa will not have to face nearly as many high pressure situations and that's a good thing. Now, if healthy, we have options coming out of the bullpen and can use one of our set-up pitchers to replace the starter when he stuggles and puts men on base in the 5th or 6th inning for what could be the critical out in the game.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 7, 2015 19:14:56 GMT -5
Price is our rock and can be inked in a 200 plus IP. Porcello can be counted on for 180 IP E-Rod pitched a total of 170 innings last year but won't turn 23 until just after the seasons start so they likely will keep him around the same total and not much more. I know I've read about not letting pre-24 year old pitcher to break 200 IP. I feel comfortable about those 3 giving us close to 600 IP. Buchholz is the great unknown, and the fifth starter whoever that may be is not likely to give you 140 IP. I'd love for the Sox to move Clay plus for another SP back.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 7, 2015 21:18:38 GMT -5
So much for the starting pitching depth. I almost think they need to get in on Maeda. I wouldn't want to commit big money to increase depth. Would like to see Matt Latos brought in to compete for the 5th spot. He's young but has been very banged up the last two years. Wonder if a one year 5 million deal with 5 million more in incentives gets its done.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 8, 2015 2:50:44 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of Latos' act. I'm not sure why the Sox would need to bloat the competition that is already sure to play out in the spring either. They have Kelly, Owens, Johnson, Wright and now Elias to shuffle through looking for a backend starter, and I'd take the first three over Latos right now.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 8, 2015 4:39:59 GMT -5
Everyone shouldn't rip me Coming to a forum where you are new and making 100 posts in 3 days, some of them pretty obnoxious, is basically asking to get ripped. Back when I was young one would lurk for a month before timidly making one single post in order to integrate oneself with a community. Ok first of all I wouldn't ever call anyone or anything obnoxious on a message board. If you feel entitled enough to feel as though you are superior enough over me because of your status on this message board, by all means have yourself a ball dude!!! I normally don't post a 100 posts in 3 days, I normally don't post at all, I like to read and absurve myself more than not. Just because this account is new doesn't mean I haven't posted here before, I just always forget the username or password to my old account. I've been following this board and this website since Jon Lester was drafted really. The whole Theo Epstein era really opened all Sox fans eyes to really how important it is to build a team through a farm system. Sorry for posting so much. This is one of the most exciting times in the baseball off-season and in baseball really. Besides the trade deadline and the playoffs (when the Sox are in it), this is most crucial part of the Sox future and now. Everyone shows their excitement through speculation differently. I was sharing my thoughts emphatically in arguably the Sox best off-season since 2004 when the Sox brought Foulke and Schilling to Boston. I made a mistake about the Mariners 5th to 8th outfield option who's stock has fallen so far that even most mariners fans have probably forgotten about Alex Jackson. It was a honest mistake. I knew who the guy was after seeing his name a couple times and rerembering. I laughed about it and thought to myself "that was dumb to point out a mistake, when I was in the wrong." I pointed it out and moved on. Ohh and for the record, going out of your way in a separate message, demeaning someone's thoughts on a message board and calling someone's thoughts "obnoxious" is far more "obnoxious" than anything I have said in a "100 posts in 3 days." To all the people who also "liked" his post that pointed out how he could call a person obnoxious is pretty terrible too. Doesn't make anyone looked good. Either way I'll move on and pretend this conversation really never happened because honestly dude, I just don't care. I'm surprised I wrote this long of a message to point that out actually.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 8, 2015 5:10:25 GMT -5
Ohh and for the record, going out of your way in a separate message, demeaning someone's thoughts on a message board and calling someone's thoughts "obnoxious" is far more "obnoxious" than anything I have said in a "100 posts in 3 days." Yes, obviously you are the judge of that. I see it now.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 8, 2015 5:22:59 GMT -5
Ohh and for the record, going out of your way in a separate message, demeaning someone's thoughts on a message board and calling someone's thoughts "obnoxious" is far more "obnoxious" than anything I have said in a "100 posts in 3 days." Yes, obviously you are the judge of that. I see it now. No that's my opinion of your original post, that had really to do nothing to do with anything based on this thread and something you went really way out of your way in doing. I'm not judging anything, just pointing out what your clearly doing. I don't really care or take offense to it. Your opinion does nothing for me if your not talking baseball. That's just fact. Moving on....
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2015 7:43:50 GMT -5
Let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 8, 2015 7:45:45 GMT -5
Let's end this now guys.
And now back to your regularly scheduled thread . . . .
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 8, 2015 9:56:33 GMT -5
Elias, Owens, Johnson and Wright isn't considered depth? Not depth that easily replaces Miley, no. And we still have Buchholz to cover for. First of all, with the bullpen we've built, you're really interested in GS, not IP. If you think that Kelly is not as good as Miley, you're more concerned with him being worse over N number of replacement starts than with him averaging 5.6 IP rather than 6.0 IP. If that's all of Miley's 32 starts, that's 13.2 extra innings of bullpen work, which are very likely to be better in terms of RA that Miley. Before the trade we had this, based on career full seasons except where noted. 32 (27-34) Price 21 (14-29) Buchholz (average is of last 3 years, worst you can come up with averaging last N years) 30 (28-31) Porcello 27 (22-32) Rodriguez. Conservative guess; he'd been 22-25 before last year's 29. 32 (29-33) Miley 20 (3-42) Kelly, Wright, Owens, Johnson So now we need 52 starts (32 to 75) from Kelly, Wright, Owens, Elias, and Johnson. Kelly was sent to the pen for part of 2013, but missed no more than 1 start while in the rotation, so we'll count that year as equal to his career max. For Wright, we'll just look at time he missed hurt and count every 5 days hurt as a missed start. He missed 3, 0, 9, 9 (with a freak injury, but let's be conservative) 25 (17-28) Kelly 27 (23-32) Wright That's your minimum and average expectations right there. How is that not easy? They both project to be on the roster all year when healthy. Worst case scenario, using every single pitcher's worst season, is that you also need 35 starts from Owens, Johnson, and Elias. How is that not easy? Even if they each miss half the year, it's easy. The concern is not depth; you still have 9 guys who project to be at least solid or good 5th starters. The concern would be quality, if you think there's some kind of significant dropoff from Miley to Kelly and Wright. But you don't make that trade if you think that's the case. You don't weaken the rotation quality, the 200 innings that Miley was going to pitch, to strengthen the 60 innings that Smith is now going to pitch. That's insane. You make this trade because you think that Kelly and Wright are likely to be better than Miley. As I have been arguing all winter, and as I would expect any good set of professional analysts to argue. You make this trade to give them both a substantial number of starts, rather than having them split 20 starts between them, which means that at least one of them doesn't get a meaningful trial. Yes, you Wright doubters: one of the biggest take-homes of this deal is that they're really high on some combination of Kelly, Wright, and Owens. You really think that they're already comfortably projecting Owens to be an upgrade to Miley? Where is the sign that he's ready, now, to be above league-average? I love him, and have been arguing that eventually he can even be an ace, but I've also said that his development is likely to be slow and that we're probably talking about years 4 through 6 of his pre-FA years before he's in the top half of your rotation. Given that Wright has already been above average, which do you think is the likelier reason they made this trade: that they think Steven Wright is likely to continue pitching as he has, or they think Henry Owens is likely to make a big leap forward? Do I actually have to point out how obvious the answer is? And if you discover that one of these guys is actually really good, that's an extra bonus. With an improving Owens and Johnson coming up behind them, you're pretty confident that you're not significantly downgrading the rotation quality. But the graph of likely outcomes is not symmetrical. The tail on the downside is ordinary. But the tail on the upside is longer; the mean projection is thus even better than the median. I've looked at Kelly's last great 8 starts, where he had the radical new pitch mix, and tried to take all the air out, and concluded he's a solid-average #3 (whereas Miley was a borderline #3 / #4). But what if I took out too much air? He had a 2.35 ERA. If any of the difference between that and my projection is real, that's gravy. Finally, let's talk about a bad scenario, halfway to worst case ... now you need 17 starts from Owens, Johnson, and Elias, which would have been Miley starts. That might well be a downgrade (depends on how well the kids come along, obviously). But if the other 15 starts that Miley would have made have been upgraded, it's roughly a wash. You need to go a big chunk of the way towards the worst case scenario before the rotation maybe becomes worse. And keep in mind that (in the average health scenario) Kelly and Wright don't have to be as good as I think they are (and as good as the Sox seem to think they are) to make this trade a team upgrade. They each have some slack; they just have to be merely as good as Miley. In which case the bullpen upgrade is still free. You have slack in both replacement quality and health.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2015 10:34:09 GMT -5
Not depth that easily replaces Miley, no. And we still have Buchholz to cover for. First of all, with the bullpen we've built, you're really interested in GS, not IP. If you think that Kelly is not as good as Miley, you're more concerned with him being worse over N number of replacement starts than with him averaging 5.6 IP rather than 6.0 IP. If that's all of Miley's 32 starts, that's 13.2 extra innings of bullpen work, which are very likely to be better in terms of RA that Miley. Before the trade we had this, based on career full seasons except where noted. 32 (27-34) Price 21 (14-29) Buchholz (average is of last 3 years, worst you can come up with averaging last N years) 30 (28-31) Porcello 27 (22-32) Rodriguez. Conservative guess; he'd been 22-25 before last year's 29. 32 (29-33) Miley 20 (3-42) Kelly, Wright, Owens, Johnson So now we need 52 starts (32 to 75) from Kelly, Wright, Owens, Elias, and Johnson. Kelly was sent to the pen for part of 2013, but missed no more than 1 start while in the rotation, so we'll count that year as equal to his career max. For Wright, we'll just look at time he missed hurt and count every 5 days hurt as a missed start. He missed 3, 0, 9, 9 (with a freak injury, but let's be conservative) 25 (17-28) Kelly 27 (23-32) Wright That's your minimum and average expectations right there. How is that not easy? They both project to be on the roster all year when healthy. Worst case scenario, using every single pitcher's worst season, is that you also need 35 starts from Owens, Johnson, and Elias. How is that not easy? Even if they each miss half the year, it's easy. The concern is not depth; you still have 9 guys who project to be at least solid or good 5th starters. The concern would be quality, if you think there's some kind of significant dropoff from Miley to Kelly and Wright. But you don't make that trade if you think that's the case. You don't weaken the rotation quality, the 200 innings that Miley was going to pitch, to strengthen the 60 innings that Smith is now going to pitch. That's insane. You make this trade because you think that Kelly and Wright are likely to be better than Miley. As I have been arguing all winter, and as I would expect any good set of professional analysts to argue. You make this trade to give them both a substantial number of starts, rather than having them split 20 starts between them, which means that at least one of them doesn't get a meaningful trial. Yes, you Wright doubters: one of the biggest take-homes of this deal is that they're really high on some combination of Kelly, Wright, and Owens. You really think that they're already comfortably projecting Owens to be an upgrade to Miley? Where is the sign that he's ready, now, to be above league-average? I love him, and have been arguing that eventually he can even be an ace, but I've also said that his development is likely to be slow and that we're probably talking about years 4 through 6 of his pre-FA years before he's in the top half of your rotation. Given that Wright has already been above average, which do you think is the likelier reason they made this trade: that they think Steven Wright is likely to continue pitching as he has, or they think Henry Owens is likely to make a big leap forward? Do I actually have to point out how obvious the answer is? And if you discover that one of these guys is actually really good, that's an extra bonus. With an improving Owens and Johnson coming up behind them, you're pretty confident that you're not significantly downgrading the rotation quality. But the graph of likely outcomes is not symmetrical. The tail on the downside is ordinary. But the tail on the upside is longer; the mean projection is thus even better than the median. I've looked at Kelly's last great 8 starts, where he had the radical new pitch mix, and tried to take all the air out, and concluded he's a solid-average #3 (whereas Miley was a borderline #3 / #4). But what if I took out too much air? He had a 2.35 ERA. If any of the difference between that and my projection is real, that's gravy. Finally, let's talk about a bad scenario, halfway to worst case ... now you need 17 starts from Owens, Johnson, and Elias, which would have been Miley starts. That might well be a downgrade (depends on how well the kids come along, obviously). But if the other 15 starts that Miley would have made have been upgraded, it's roughly a wash. You need to go a big chunk of the way towards the worst case scenario before the rotation maybe becomes worse. And keep in mind that (in the average health scenario) Kelly and Wright don't have to be as good as I think they are (and as good as the Sox seem to think they are) to make this trade a team upgrade. They each have some slack; they just have to be merely as good as Miley. In which case the bullpen upgrade is still free. You have slack in both replacement quality and health. I generally agree with you, but I've seen too many bad outcomes in recent years. Don't call me a Wright doubter because I'm always defending him. What I doubt is that the Red Sox actually use him (correctly) or count on him except in emergencies. Farrell isn't a huge fan and he certainly doesn't comprehend the knuckleball effect on other pitchers. Worst case scenario is someone like Price or Porcello tearing their UCL in ST. The issue with getting starts from Owens, Johnson, Kelly, Elias, etc is that you can say "use best of the bunch", but in reality, you use one at a time and you're not going to know what you're getting until they pitch. There isn't much certainty there. They all have wide range of outcomes even from start to start. You could guess wrong over and over and wind up with replacement level or below, which is much worse than Miley. I also don't like bouncing guys like Owens and Johnson up and down either because I think they'd benefit from a stable routine more than anything. And with the Buchholz issue, we're going to need this group more often. There is also a chance that ERod takes a step back. I'm not sold on Kelly figuring something out from his 2nd half last year. Even in his great 7 start stretch last year when he went 7-0 with a 1.85 ERA, his xFIP over that time was still 4.05 and his LOB% was 88.4%. His walk and k-rates didn't improve (3.1/6.6) either. He may have a BABIP skill, but he really doesn't have a LOB% skill. If anything, he's worse with men on base. IMO, he pitched identically to how he always pitched or maybe slightly better. I would have been more comfortable trading Kelly than Miley. With Buchholz, Kelly and a bunch of really young and/or inconsistent guys, we could have definitely used the certainty of Miley IMO. I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but it's just something I wouldn't have done.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2015 10:41:54 GMT -5
But you don't make that trade if you think that's the case. You don't weaken the rotation quality, the 200 innings that Miley was going to pitch, to strengthen the 60 innings that Smith is now going to pitch. That's insane. You make this trade because you think that Kelly and Wright are likely to be better than Miley. As I have been arguing all winter, and as I would expect any good set of professional analysts to argue. You make this trade to give them both a substantial number of starts, rather than having them split 20 starts between them, which means that at least one of them doesn't get a meaningful trial. I would tone down the hyperbole some. It is certainly not insane to weaken part of the team if you think it either (a) strengthens another part of the team by more or (b) either keeps the 2016 team the same or slightly weakens it on net but improves the 2017 and beyond teams. Teams do these things all the time.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 8, 2015 11:17:22 GMT -5
But you don't make that trade if you think that's the case. You don't weaken the rotation quality, the 200 innings that Miley was going to pitch, to strengthen the 60 innings that Smith is now going to pitch. That's insane. You make this trade because you think that Kelly and Wright are likely to be better than Miley. As I have been arguing all winter, and as I would expect any good set of professional analysts to argue. You make this trade to give them both a substantial number of starts, rather than having them split 20 starts between them, which means that at least one of them doesn't get a meaningful trial. I would tone down the hyperbole some. It is certainly not insane to weaken part of the team if you think it either (a) strengthens another part of the team by more or (b) either keeps the 2016 team the same or slightly weakens it on net but improves the 2017 and beyond teams. Teams do these things all the time. Well, I implied that (a) is not possible if we're talking about a significant rotation downgrade. The difference between Smith and a FA you could have signed is not going to be large enough to offset that. But as I concluded, sure, they make this trade if they think that Kelly or Wright will be as good as Miley, or not significantly worse (more than a bit worse or slightly worse). But the only reason to complain about the trade is that if you think the rotation, once all the injuries have been factored in, is significantly worse. There's some logic in (b) in that Owens might be better than Miley starting in 2017, and Smith gives you bullpen depth you'll need once Uehara retires and if they don't re-sign Tazawa. But that's much easier to read as extra rationale for a trade they already like rather than the principle rationale. So, sure, I stated that more forcefully than necessary. How's this: you don't make this trade unless you're comfortable with Kelly and Wright in the rotation, because you think it's unlikely that they'll be a significant downgrade to Miley. But you know what? That's almost the same thing. If your assessment is that they're merely as good, the normal error bars gives you a risk of a significant downgrade. If you believe they're each a bit better, that gives you more confidence. Since the evidence says they are at least a bit better, I think that remains the best reading of the trade: they had Miley as their 7th best SP. (Read Cafardo in today's Globe for a take on how bad the trade seems if you don't realize that.)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2015 11:20:07 GMT -5
Miley might be the 7th best SP (which is pushing it), but he also has a much narrower outcome bar, which also has value on a staff with a lot of youth and Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2015 11:42:13 GMT -5
I would tone down the hyperbole some. It is certainly not insane to weaken part of the team if you think it either (a) strengthens another part of the team by more or (b) either keeps the 2016 team the same or slightly weakens it on net but improves the 2017 and beyond teams. Teams do these things all the time. Well, I implied that (a) is not possible if we're talking about a significant rotation downgrade. The difference between Smith and a FA you could have signed is not going to be large enough to offset that. But as I concluded, sure, they make this trade if they think that Kelly or Wright will be as good as Miley, or not significantly worse (more than a bit worse or slightly worse). But the only reason to complain about the trade is that if you think the rotation, once all the injuries have been factored in, is significantly worse. There's some logic in (b) in that Owens might be better than Miley starting in 2017, and Smith gives you bullpen depth you'll need once Uehara retires and if they don't re-sign Tazawa. But that's much easier to read as extra rationale for a trade they already like rather than the principle rationale. So, sure, I stated that more forcefully than necessary. How's this: you don't make this trade unless you're comfortable with Kelly and Wright in the rotation, because you think it's unlikely that they'll be a significant downgrade to Miley. But you know what? That's almost the same thing. If your assessment is that they're merely as good, the normal error bars gives you a risk of a significant downgrade. If you believe they're each a bit better, that gives you more confidence. Since the evidence says they are at least a bit better, I think that remains the best reading of the trade: they had Miley as their 7th best SP. (Read Cafardo in today's Globe for a take on how bad the trade seems if you don't realize that.) It really isn't the same thing, though. If you buy into my rationales described above and think that Carson Smith is a ~one win upgrade over their next best bullpen arm (Barnes or Hembree), you could think that Miley is something like a win and a half better than Kelly/Wright and still think that this trade was worth doing. That's not even to mention Elias, who should have at least some value insofar as he both adds rotation depth in the near-term and has significant upside as both a starter and a reliever in the long-term. That's pretty much where I'm at right now. I also think that's a more accurate reading of the trade than the idea that they thought Wright and Kelly were better than Miley. I brought this up in another thread, but if you think Kelly and Wright and true-talent 2.5 win players, the Price signing doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, you already have four above-average starters on the roster, plus Buchholz. Why spend your capital going from 2.5 to 5 wins in the rotation when you can use that money on Heyward and go from 1.5 to 5 wins in the outfield?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 8, 2015 12:16:24 GMT -5
"First of all, with the bullpen we've built, you're really interested in GS, not IP"
That is so wrong, and any "analyst" worth his salt knows it
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2015 14:12:48 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of Latos' act. I'm not sure why the Sox would need to bloat the competition that is already sure to play out in the spring either. They have Kelly, Owens, Johnson, Wright and now Elias to shuffle through looking for a backend starter, and I'd take the first three over Latos right now. Latos is going into his age 28 season and has a track record of a very solid #2 when healthy. Had 4 straight years of making over 30 starts, then injuries caused him to miss second half of 2014 and he just wasn't the same pitcher last year. If he is healthy and can become the pitcher he was for the Reds for 2 1/2 years he is well worth the gamble in my opinion. Sure we have a bunch of guys for depth, but do you think any of them have the upside of Latos next year? He had a bwar of 4.1 and 3.8 in 2012 and 2013.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2015 14:23:27 GMT -5
Well, I implied that (a) is not possible if we're talking about a significant rotation downgrade. The difference between Smith and a FA you could have signed is not going to be large enough to offset that. But as I concluded, sure, they make this trade if they think that Kelly or Wright will be as good as Miley, or not significantly worse (more than a bit worse or slightly worse). But the only reason to complain about the trade is that if you think the rotation, once all the injuries have been factored in, is significantly worse. There's some logic in (b) in that Owens might be better than Miley starting in 2017, and Smith gives you bullpen depth you'll need once Uehara retires and if they don't re-sign Tazawa. But that's much easier to read as extra rationale for a trade they already like rather than the principle rationale. So, sure, I stated that more forcefully than necessary. How's this: you don't make this trade unless you're comfortable with Kelly and Wright in the rotation, because you think it's unlikely that they'll be a significant downgrade to Miley. But you know what? That's almost the same thing. If your assessment is that they're merely as good, the normal error bars gives you a risk of a significant downgrade. If you believe they're each a bit better, that gives you more confidence. Since the evidence says they are at least a bit better, I think that remains the best reading of the trade: they had Miley as their 7th best SP. (Read Cafardo in today's Globe for a take on how bad the trade seems if you don't realize that.) It really isn't the same thing, though. If you buy into my rationales described above and think that Carson Smith is a ~one win upgrade over their next best bullpen arm (Barnes or Hembree), you could think that Miley is something like a win and a half better than Kelly/Wright and still think that this trade was worth doing. That's not even to mention Elias, who should have at least some value insofar as he both adds rotation depth in the near-term and has significant upside as both a starter and a reliever in the long-term. That's pretty much where I'm at right now. I also think that's a more accurate reading of the trade than the idea that they thought Wright and Kelly were better than Miley. I brought this up in another thread, but if you think Kelly and Wright and true-talent 2.5 win players, the Price signing doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, you already have four above-average starters on the roster, plus Buchholz. Why spend your capital going from 2.5 to 5 wins in the rotation when you can use that money on Heyward and go from 1.5 to 5 wins in the outfield? Please explain where the idea that Elias has significant upside comes from? I keep hearing person after person talk about it but it makes no sense. Owens and Johnson minor league numbers are better, heck Owens pitched better then Elias last year in the majors. Yet a lot of people are down on them and keep pumping Elias up. To me Elias looks like a lefty specialist/spot starter. Sure that a useful piece, but some posters have gone as far as saying Elias has move value then Miley alone and that's crazy talk.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 8, 2015 14:47:45 GMT -5
It really isn't the same thing, though. If you buy into my rationales described above and think that Carson Smith is a ~one win upgrade over their next best bullpen arm (Barnes or Hembree), you could think that Miley is something like a win and a half better than Kelly/Wright and still think that this trade was worth doing. That's not even to mention Elias, who should have at least some value insofar as he both adds rotation depth in the near-term and has significant upside as both a starter and a reliever in the long-term. That's pretty much where I'm at right now. I also think that's a more accurate reading of the trade than the idea that they thought Wright and Kelly were better than Miley. I brought this up in another thread, but if you think Kelly and Wright and true-talent 2.5 win players, the Price signing doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, you already have four above-average starters on the roster, plus Buchholz. Why spend your capital going from 2.5 to 5 wins in the rotation when you can use that money on Heyward and go from 1.5 to 5 wins in the outfield? Please explain where the idea that Elias has significant upside comes from? I keep hearing person after person talk about it but it makes no sense. Owens and Johnson minor league numbers are better, heck Owens pitched better then Elias last year in the majors. Yet a lot of people are down on them and keep pumping Elias up. To me Elias looks like a lefty specialist/spot starter. Sure that a useful piece, but some posters have gone as far as saying Elias has move value then Miley alone and that's crazy talk. But but but.... Elias throws so much harder than Owens and Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2015 15:11:22 GMT -5
It really isn't the same thing, though. If you buy into my rationales described above and think that Carson Smith is a ~one win upgrade over their next best bullpen arm (Barnes or Hembree), you could think that Miley is something like a win and a half better than Kelly/Wright and still think that this trade was worth doing. That's not even to mention Elias, who should have at least some value insofar as he both adds rotation depth in the near-term and has significant upside as both a starter and a reliever in the long-term. That's pretty much where I'm at right now. I also think that's a more accurate reading of the trade than the idea that they thought Wright and Kelly were better than Miley. I brought this up in another thread, but if you think Kelly and Wright and true-talent 2.5 win players, the Price signing doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, you already have four above-average starters on the roster, plus Buchholz. Why spend your capital going from 2.5 to 5 wins in the rotation when you can use that money on Heyward and go from 1.5 to 5 wins in the outfield? Please explain where the idea that Elias has significant upside comes from? I keep hearing person after person talk about it but it makes no sense. Owens and Johnson minor league numbers are better, heck Owens pitched better then Elias last year in the majors. Yet a lot of people are down on them and keep pumping Elias up. To me Elias looks like a lefty specialist/spot starter. Sure that a useful piece, but some posters have gone as far as saying Elias has move value then Miley alone and that's crazy talk. This might just be semantic-- by significant, I mean 8th inning reliever or third starter upside. My belief in that upside is largely due to his solid stuff (92 mph fastball from a lefty, curveball and changeup with above-average horizontal and vertical movement) and the fact that despite his age, he's still pretty raw for a pitcher due to an extended layoff during the defection process. He was also pretty good in 2013 in the minors and held his own in 279 major league innings (a 109 xFIP- is not great, but is on par with, say, Mike Pelfrey). I think of Elias as circa-2010 Felix Doubront-- probably just a back-end starter or middle reliever, but has a little upside left.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 8, 2015 15:32:25 GMT -5
Please explain where the idea that Elias has significant upside comes from? I keep hearing person after person talk about it but it makes no sense. Owens and Johnson minor league numbers are better, heck Owens pitched better then Elias last year in the majors. Yet a lot of people are down on them and keep pumping Elias up. To me Elias looks like a lefty specialist/spot starter. Sure that a useful piece, but some posters have gone as far as saying Elias has move value then Miley alone and that's crazy talk. This might just be semantic-- by significant, I mean 8th inning reliever or third starter upside. My belief in that upside is largely due to his solid stuff (92 mph fastball from a lefty, curveball and changeup with above-average horizontal and vertical movement) and the fact that despite his age, he's still pretty raw for a pitcher due to an extended layoff during the defection process. He was also pretty good in 2013 in the minors and held his own in 279 major league innings (a 109 xFIP- is not great, but is on par with, say, Mike Pelfrey). I think of Elias as circa-2010 Felix Doubront-- probably just a back-end starter or middle reliever, but has a little upside left. I bring this up in large part because I made this mistake yesterday, but Elias defected in 2010. I think we're at the point where we can't blame rust or rawness on his defection. It is weird, though, that they jumped him straight from AA in 2013 to the MLB rotation in 2014, albeit at age 25.
|
|
|