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.
Baseball America Rankings
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,666
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 17, 2016 16:51:28 GMT -5
The thought process was that Allan Craig was going to revert to being the run producer he had always been (and for a reasonable price) and Joe Kelly's stuff was so nasty he would make the big leap forward to a front line starter while they had him under control for a bunch of years and cheap dollars. Here's hoping the latter is true. At least there's still a chance there and that would salvage the deal if it ever came to fruition. I can honestly say at the time I wasn't a big believer in Craig's ability to bounce back, and for once I was right unfortunately. Honestly, I don't think Kelly will ever be a front line starter. I have trouble believing, that even if he improves his pitching, he'll be able to provide a lot of innings in the process. I think if the light comes on, then perhaps he's Clay Buchholz meaning he can provide quality, but not quantity. At least that does contain value, but that's a pretty big leap to make. Even though I do think Porcello will pitch more like a good #4 starter or OK #3 starter, I'll always wonder what prospect packages the Sox could have gotten for Lester and Lackey. If they did get better prospect packages perhaps they wouldn't be as thin beyond their top 5 or 6. Given the price of pitching now, the Lester deal turned out pretty well. We could probably trade Porcello for an insane prospect package at this point. That would assume that Porcello bounces back to 2014 form. I don't think the 2015 version gets a big prospect package. I do think Porcello will bounce back, though, and if he does, then yeah, he'd definitely command a prospect package, but it's not like he's a "bargain", though.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 17, 2016 17:59:45 GMT -5
Ian Kennedy just got $70 million and cost a draft pick. At that rate, Porcello is worth $458 quadrillion and the Dominican Republic. And Lester probably should've gotten a medium sized possibly-habitable planet.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 17, 2016 19:19:52 GMT -5
Given the price of pitching now, the Lester deal turned out pretty well. We could probably trade Porcello for an insane prospect package at this point. I think they could get back something for Porcello, but nothing I'd call "insane." For instance, for Porcello, they probably couldn't get back what they gave up in the Kimbrel trade.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 17, 2016 22:01:40 GMT -5
Nattering nabobs of negativism.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 18, 2016 11:58:33 GMT -5
I felt the same way at the time about those trades. The Cespedes deal was...meh, but not a huge bummer. And I thought getting Porcello was a good turnaround given that Lester had just a half-season left (although I sure wish they'd gotten, say, Addison Russell back at the deadline). But the Lackey trade...St Loius was stocked, and they could potentially have pried Reyes away, as he was a lot more raw, and Lackey's contract was a huge bargain. Then again, those trades gave them enough MLB "talent" in return that they could go best-prospect-available in the Miller-Rodriguez deal, which looks like a ludicrous steal (and did, though not to the same extent, back then). If things go their way this spring, by late June the Sox may have an extra starter or two to deal, and have the 12th pick in the draft. They're in good shape to keep their system strong for at least a couple more years, *especially* if a few pseudo-sleepers (Chavis, Acosta, Cosart, Ball, Rijo) regain their luster, or true sleepers break out. I'm still trying to find the value in the Lackey deal. I don't get what Cherrington was going for there. It was by far the worst trade of his stay in Boston. Trading for a declining 1B/OF in Craig coming off injuries and a down season while being on the hook for his 25 million total salary for three seasons. That and a 26 year old undurable unproven starter in the big leagues in Joe Kelly. They should've kept Lackey and dealt him in the off-season if he didn't want to stay at the league minimum that year. The Sox made that trade just to make a trade and it actually hurt their payroll because of it. There was almost zero value out of that deal, if not negative value. Ohh and the kicker, the Sox traded a left handed starter that was a second round pick in that deal too. Man I hate that trade. The Lackey deal was largely about Kelly, as I see it. It was the equivalent of the Cubs getting Arrieta or the Indians getting Carrasco (without, as yet, the happy outcome...although both required a little time before succeeding). The Sox got a starter with a FB that averages 95 mph (putting him in the top 10 or so in baseball) and who has a solid-to-plus slider and a passable curve and change. I have no issue with their thinking, which was to pick up a frontline arm on the verge of putting it together. It just hasn't worked out. I think Craig was more of a crapshoot, and he's been a disaster too. I'd've much preferred a prospect, but I think taking Craig was a requirement for a Cards salary dump, the only way they'd give up a promising arm like Kelly. FWIW, getting Alex Reyes at that time would've been interesting, but he was raw, and WAY, WAY further away from contributing. Kelly had similar stuff and some MLB success. There's still a few years before that trade can be fully evaluated, but it certainly doesn't look good right now. I hated the Craig acquisition, but I had hope (and still do) for Kelly. Some trades work out, some don't. I didn't much like Reddick-Bailey either, but I loved Miller-Rodriguez, and do more every day.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Feb 18, 2016 14:07:49 GMT -5
If you were following the live threads here during that trade deadline, the values were dropping for selling pitchers at the time and they would not have gotten a top prospect. Further, aside from Lackey's role in the chicken and beer incident, he showed blatant disrespect toward Farell when he'd remove him from games, and also threatened to sit out the year if kept- and who knows what other behind the scenes trouble he caused. Despite the way it turned out I was glad to see him gone and given Kelly's potential and youth it was not a bad gamble at all.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 21, 2016 7:41:49 GMT -5
I'm still trying to find the value in the Lackey deal. I don't get what Cherrington was going for there. It was by far the worst trade of his stay in Boston. Trading for a declining 1B/OF in Craig coming off injuries and a down season while being on the hook for his 25 million total salary for three seasons. That and a 26 year old undurable unproven starter in the big leagues in Joe Kelly. They should've kept Lackey and dealt him in the off-season if he didn't want to stay at the league minimum that year. The Sox made that trade just to make a trade and it actually hurt their payroll because of it. There was almost zero value out of that deal, if not negative value. Ohh and the kicker, the Sox traded a left handed starter that was a second round pick in that deal too. Man I hate that trade. The Lackey deal was largely about Kelly, as I see it. It was the equivalent of the Cubs getting Arrieta or the Indians getting Carrasco (without, as yet, the happy outcome...although both required a little time before succeeding). The Sox got a starter with a FB that averages 95 mph (putting him in the top 10 or so in baseball) and who has a solid-to-plus slider and a passable curve and change. I have no issue with their thinking, which was to pick up a frontline arm on the verge of putting it together. It just hasn't worked out. I think Craig was more of a crapshoot, and he's been a disaster too. I'd've much preferred a prospect, but I think taking Craig was a requirement for a Cards salary dump, the only way they'd give up a promising arm like Kelly. FWIW, getting Alex Reyes at that time would've been interesting, but he was raw, and WAY, WAY further away from contributing. Kelly had similar stuff and some MLB success. There's still a few years before that trade can be fully evaluated, but it certainly doesn't look good right now. I hated the Craig acquisition, but I had hope (and still do) for Kelly. Some trades work out, some don't. I didn't much like Reddick-Bailey either, but I loved Miller-Rodriguez, and do more every day. The Lackey trade was/is a loss. Kelly can only make up for it MAYBE in the backend of his years left with Boston. No big deal, can't win every trade. I don't have a lot of faith in Kelly starting, I think the best way to get something out of him is to put him in the bullpen and leave him there. Didn't think much of the Reddick/Bailey trade. Actually I hated the Jed Lowrie to Houston deal a lot more for Melancon (although Melancon did give the Sox Brock Holt, who is better than Lowrie is now). The Miller/Rodriguez deal was a no brainer.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 21, 2016 15:07:52 GMT -5
The Lackey deal was largely about Kelly, as I see it. It was the equivalent of the Cubs getting Arrieta or the Indians getting Carrasco (without, as yet, the happy outcome...although both required a little time before succeeding). The Sox got a starter with a FB that averages 95 mph (putting him in the top 10 or so in baseball) and who has a solid-to-plus slider and a passable curve and change. I have no issue with their thinking, which was to pick up a frontline arm on the verge of putting it together. It just hasn't worked out. I think Craig was more of a crapshoot, and he's been a disaster too. I'd've much preferred a prospect, but I think taking Craig was a requirement for a Cards salary dump, the only way they'd give up a promising arm like Kelly. FWIW, getting Alex Reyes at that time would've been interesting, but he was raw, and WAY, WAY further away from contributing. Kelly had similar stuff and some MLB success. There's still a few years before that trade can be fully evaluated, but it certainly doesn't look good right now. I hated the Craig acquisition, but I had hope (and still do) for Kelly. Some trades work out, some don't. I didn't much like Reddick-Bailey either, but I loved Miller-Rodriguez, and do more every day. The Lackey trade was/is a loss. Kelly can only make up for it MAYBE in the backend of his years left with Boston. No big deal, can't win every trade. I don't have a lot of faith in Kelly starting, I think the best way to get something out of him is to put him in the bullpen and leave him there. Didn't think much of the Reddick/Bailey trade. Actually I hated the Jed Lowrie to Houston deal a lot more for Melancon (although Melancon did give the Sox Brock Holt, who is better than Lowrie is now). The Miller/Rodriguez deal was a no brainer. Here's the catch, though: Miller-Rodriguez probably happened because of Lackey-Kelly. They'd already gotten a major league arm back, so Cherington was comfortable taking a prospect who they probably thought was a year and a half away. He'd struggled at Bowie with his knee, and hadn't pitched well at all. Then the Sox got him, he clicked in Portland, blew through AAA, and the rest is history. If they'd taken prospects for Lackey, chances are they'd have gone with Det or a similar package for Miller that was (perceived) closer to MLB contribution, if lower upside. So Lackey-Kelly was a pretty clear loss (because of Craig, in large part), but it probably helped out down the road. Uggh...all of those moves for closers were disastrous, with the saving grace being Holt's arrival.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 21, 2016 15:17:16 GMT -5
I very much doubt that the Miller/Rodriguez deal was conditioned on getting back major league talent in the Lester and Lackey deals. If it was, that's pretty dumb thinking on the part of Boston's front office.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 21, 2016 15:21:06 GMT -5
I think we got Rodriguez because there were reportedly about 12 teams who wanted him and the bidding went that high.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 21, 2016 15:58:35 GMT -5
They got Rodriguez because he was the best available talent the Sox could get that trading deadline. There was no additional factors that went into it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 21, 2016 17:40:50 GMT -5
I'm filled with something close to rage at the thought of Cherington being offered Eduardo Rodriguez for 20 innings of Andrew Miller and saying "okay, but only on the condition that we can..."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 21, 2016 19:17:13 GMT -5
To clarify, if I recall correctly, the Lackey-Kelly trade was agreed on first. I could be completely wrong, but I think that if the Sox had gotten prospects in that trade instead of , I think they may have shifted focus to an MLB-ready package for Miller. I'm not remotely saying there was any "conditional" trade or anything of the sort. Any assertion that I am is erroneous. I do think that they went into that deadline with the intent to get as much MLB-ready talent as possible, hence Cespedes, Craig, and Kelly. Cherington was trying to rebuild on the fly. I think Rodriguez became the "BPA" because Cherington was looking for strictly upside at that point, and not readiness for MLB. "Best Player" is a totally subjective term...best for what? For when? Most upside? Least risk? Closest to making an impact? Recall that Rodriguez was a #60 or so prospect who had struggled quite a bit in AA and was probably at risk of dropping out of the top 100 had he not had a terrific finish with the Sox. I think the Sox, Cherington in particular, felt comfortable taking a risk on Rodriguez because the previous trades brought back sufficient MLB talent that it wasn't a total tear-down and rebuild job.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 21, 2016 19:44:56 GMT -5
I very much doubt that the Miller/Rodriguez deal was conditioned on getting back major league talent in the Lester and Lackey deals. If it was, that's pretty dumb thinking on the part of Boston's front office. Where did I state that "the deal was conditioned?" I said that I think Cherington was comfortable making a trade for a high-risk (injured that year, poor AA performance) high-reward (see outcome) player because he didn't perceive a need to focus on a high-floor/moderate upside package. I'm not sure what's so difficult to get about this. Team enters trade deadline with plan (if they didn't do that, **that** would be pretty dumb). They can: stand pat, or trade. Obviously, they were trading. As sellers. They could go, loosely speaking, for experience vs youth, and upside vs low risk. At either end of that spectrum are "total rebuild" or "veteran shakeup." Their plan was very clearly a combination: get younger, get more talented (higher upside), but get enough MLB/ready talent to compete again in 2015. If that *werent* the plan, they would've taken the best prospect packages they could get for Lester and Lackey too...not the MLBers they did get. My guess is that they ***focused on getting the BProspectA when trading Miller because they had already completed the MLB rebuild part of their original plan.*** They had intelligently maneuvered themselves into a position of bargaining strength where they could create a prospect bidding war because they had obtained sufficient veteran talent back in previous deals. I highly doubt that they went into that deadline saying "well, let's just see what we can get for each guy and try to do our best." I think they had a plan to pick up a mix of both vets and prospects, and they took care of the vets first and then focused on the highest-upside prospect second.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 21, 2016 20:16:10 GMT -5
I think there is just about zero causal connection between the Lackey trade package and the Miller one. Do you really think there was an MLB-ready package that was on the table for Miller that the Red Sox front office would have taken if they hadn't been able to get MLB-ready talent in the Lackey and Lester deals? I sure hope not. Good MLB front offices are not so rigid as to prioritize type of return over quality of return like that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 21, 2016 20:53:44 GMT -5
I think there is just about zero causal connection between the Lackey trade package and the Miller one. Do you really think there was an MLB-ready package that was on the table for Miller that the Red Sox front office would have taken if they hadn't been able to get MLB-ready talent in the Lackey and Lester deals? I sure hope not. Good MLB front offices are not so rigid as to prioritize type of return over quality of return like that. Again, I'm not saying there was a causal relationship. I'm saying that I think that the Sox went in with an ideal outcome for the deadline, and made the best trades that they could to meet that *total* outcome. It's an oversimplification to think that each trade...particularly when they're all made within a 24-36 hour timespan...is made completely independently and without thought to team-building. The trade deadline isn't the draft, it's not *just* BPA, it's best offer that fits the team's specific needs. It's not rigid, it's fluid...but it's planned, not a crapshoot. Obviously, teams try to get the most value in a trade, but a team looking to get a starting pitcher doesn't say "Whoa, they're offering this super-talented AA 3b instead, let's take it!" They're weighing need, value, and risk. I'd be willing to bet that they took Cespedes with the specific intent (or at the very least, clear back-up plan if they didn't like him and want to extend him) of trading him for a SP in the offseason. They got Porcello because they saw him as the best offer...but they didn't go to Detroit and ask for three high-upside/high-risk A-ball players. And no, I don't think they had an MLB package on the table for Miller, I think at that point they were strictly focused on prospects, because they had already executed other parts of their plan. Now, I WILL say that it's entirely possible that they planned out what they thought they could get for each player, and where they *might* focus with each trade, but I doubt it's anything concrete, because plans change.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 21, 2016 21:23:09 GMT -5
For example, the Sox seemed to have targeted young pitching in return for Lackey: www.overthemonster.com/2014/7/31/5956083/red-sox-trade-rumors-andrew-miller-tigersThe Tigers were, I think, offering Robbie Ray and someone else for Miller. The Sox obviously had an idea of what types of experience/position they wanted back in the individual trades, but if they *had* gotten Smyly, maybe they'd have changed focus with Miller. Maybe they do a combined Lackey-Miller for Smyly-Ray-Castellanos-prospect. But I highly doubt that Rodriguez was offered **before** those other trades were completed. Regardless, it worked out reasonably well.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 22, 2016 14:14:22 GMT -5
Bleacher report put our farm system at #3 on their list behind the braves and Dodgers.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 22, 2016 14:43:21 GMT -5
Bleacher report put our farm system at #3 on their list behind the braves and Dodgers. Over the last two years, Arizona has really done a superb job of rebuilding the Braves farm system.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 22, 2016 14:55:43 GMT -5
For example, the Sox seemed to have targeted young pitching in return for Lackey: www.overthemonster.com/2014/7/31/5956083/red-sox-trade-rumors-andrew-miller-tigersThe Tigers were, I think, offering Robbie Ray and someone else for Miller. The Sox obviously had an idea of what types of experience/position they wanted back in the individual trades, but if they *had* gotten Smyly, maybe they'd have changed focus with Miller. Maybe they do a combined Lackey-Miller for Smyly-Ray-Castellanos-prospect. But I highly doubt that Rodriguez was offered **before** those other trades were completed. Regardless, it worked out reasonably well. I get your point, but I just don't think any offer was going to be better then the best prospect dealt at the deadline in EROD. I'm sure they looked at all kind of deals from MLB players to prospects and when Baltimore said we'll give you ERod the process was over, they took the best deal.
The Detroit deal makes little sense, you don't trade Price and more for 1 1/3 seasons of Lackey and 1/3 season of miller. I think even if they got prospects for Lackey, they still do the Miller for ERod deal. They took the best deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 22, 2016 15:21:00 GMT -5
For example, the Sox seemed to have targeted young pitching in return for Lackey: www.overthemonster.com/2014/7/31/5956083/red-sox-trade-rumors-andrew-miller-tigersThe Tigers were, I think, offering Robbie Ray and someone else for Miller. The Sox obviously had an idea of what types of experience/position they wanted back in the individual trades, but if they *had* gotten Smyly, maybe they'd have changed focus with Miller. Maybe they do a combined Lackey-Miller for Smyly-Ray-Castellanos-prospect. But I highly doubt that Rodriguez was offered **before** those other trades were completed. Regardless, it worked out reasonably well. I get your point, but I just don't think any offer was going to be better then the best prospect dealt at the deadline in EROD. I'm sure they looked at all kind of deals from MLB players to prospects and when Baltimore said we'll give you ERod the process was over, they took the best deal.
The Detroit deal makes little sense, you don't trade Price and more for 1 1/3 seasons of Lackey and 1/3 season of miller. I think even if they got prospects for Lackey, they still do the Miller for ERod deal. They took the best deal.
Yeah, obviously Detroit didn't think Lackey was worth Smyly, and ended up with Price. Whatever the case, it ended up that the Sox got a nice bidding war going on Miller, got a very good offer (that subsequently turned out to be a great one), and took it. Back to the thread topic, though, it's pretty heartening to look at where the Sox rank given that NONE of their top four has played ABOVE LOW A. Given how much weight in rankings is given to experience/readiness to contribute (and success against higher-level competition), that says a LOT about how the industry views the ceilings and floors of those players. Chances are that none of their top 5 graduate this year (with Beni having an outside shot), and they have the #12 pick in the draft. If one of the lower-level guys like Chavis or Basabe really turns it on this year, the Sox are in great shape. Even as constituted, their system is probably even money to be #1 next winter.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 29, 2016 22:14:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 29, 2016 23:48:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 1, 2016 11:17:20 GMT -5
Rijo is going to surprise a lot of people this year. I think I'm about to start up the Rijo bandwagon, if anyone wants to hop on now. He's criminally underrated, imo. EDIT: Realized that 13th-best 2B prospect in baseball is far from 'criminally' underrating a guy. I just think people sleep on him. Maybe Dubon has a better shot at being an MLB player because he has the better utility profile, but I think Rijo's ceiling is much higher.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 1, 2016 11:50:24 GMT -5
I'm not that excited about Rijo. I realize he's been very age advanced but I don't see the speed or defense needed to compensate for the bat.
|
|
|