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.
The Big-Time Trade Target List
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 15, 2016 12:34:15 GMT -5
You can't even really put a Price on Sale. There's so much control left that the asking price is just almost indeterminable. They can wait 2-3 years and if he's the same guy they can still get a similar package. Sure - but, the control on Mookie is longer......(2-5 years vs 2-4 years) If the White Sox became sellers, Mookie is probably the best they can get for Sale. But I agree, they're unlikely to trade Sale unless they think he's an injury risk. Here is Dave Cameron's trade value list - with Mookie at 6 and Sale at 11. As Mookie had a stronger 2nd half than Sale, I'm betting they're about dead even. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2015-trade-value-the-full-list/Sorry man, you're reading the list wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 16, 2016 12:04:30 GMT -5
While wcsoxfan got the rankings of Mookie and Sale backwards, it didn't affect the substance of his argument (if you read his post closely, you know that while he wrote Betts 6 and Sale 11, in his mind, he was clearly thinking Betts 11 and Sale 6). I agree with his underlying point that Betts' trade value is not that far off from Sale's. For instance, in Jonah Keri's trade value piece (published a couple weeks ago), he had Betts at 14 and Sale at 12, which is about where I think they should be. Sale has much more of a track record and is probably better (using 50/50 ZiPS/Steamer projections, Betts is projected to be worth 4.5 fWAR and Sale is projected to be worth 6.5 fWAR next year), but Betts has an extra year of team control, is cheaper (at least in the short term; he might eventually be more expensive in the last year or two or arbitration), is younger and has less injury risk. I could well see a rebuilding team preferring Betts over Sale, and it's hard to see them getting a centerpiece much better than that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 16, 2016 12:14:10 GMT -5
To respond to a couple other arguments from the last page of the thread:
-The Shelby Miller deal is not really a useful comparison. By all accounts, the Diamondbacks significantly overpaid, and one aberrant deal does not set the market. I could just as well point to the Josh Donaldson trade and say, look, we should be able to get Sale for Devers, Holt and spare pieces, but that's not really a fair comparison, either.
-The longer the White Sox wait to trade Sale, the less of a package they're going to get. David Price is a player of comparable quality, and neither of his recent trades really returned a monster package, largely because teams no longer trade multiple blue-chip prospects for a year or two of team control.
-I agree that neither team would be motivated to do such a deal and so it's a moot discussion. But if that changed, I do think Betts would be close to fair value for Sale.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 16, 2016 16:56:35 GMT -5
To respond to a couple other arguments from the last page of the thread: -The Shelby Miller deal is not really a useful comparison. By all accounts, the Diamondbacks significantly overpaid, and one aberrant deal does not set the market. I could just as well point to the Josh Donaldson trade and say, look, we should be able to get Sale for Devers, Holt and spare pieces, but that's not really a fair comparison, either. -The longer the White Sox wait to trade Sale, the less of a package they're going to get. David Price is a player of comparable quality, and neither of his recent trades really returned a monster package, largely because teams no longer trade multiple blue-chip prospects for a year or two of team control. -I agree that neither team would be motivated to do such a deal and so it's a moot discussion. But if that changed, I do think Betts would be close to fair value for Sale. You people are living in fantasy world. I agree Betts is a wildly valuable player. But there's a reason it takes a ton of talent to get established elite big leaguers. Betts for Sale, at this point in time, is not realistic. No GM is looking at a fangraphs article and saying "oh okay, this adds up." We see it time and time again, that when you have an elite guy, under control long term for great dollars, it takes a wild overpay, nearly every time. And overpay is the wrong word, because it's something we set, instead of looking at the market and using ACTUAL deals to rationalize prices. White Sox have zero reason at this point in time to sell. They have zero incentive to make a deal that we consider "FAIR VALUE". Hence, Betts for Sale, is a pipedream.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 16, 2016 17:00:51 GMT -5
And the Miller trade is a great comp, because it shows you what the market was this winter for trading pitching. Them having to "overpay" was the actual price. That was the market. If you want to go out and buy a Shelby Mustang, yeah the sticker is 65k but you're most likely going to be paying a dealer markup of 15 grand on top of that.
I agree Donaldson trade isn't a good comp for anything, because A.) it's Beane, he's routinely goes against the grain in who and what he values, and B.) Donaldson was coming off a .798ops season, and didn't have quite the same "elite" track record that Sale has.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 16, 2016 17:50:25 GMT -5
FYI, on the Cameron trade value list, you got that backwards-- Sale was at 6 and Betts was at 11. Thanks - i re-read it twice but still missed this on my post.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 16, 2016 18:02:44 GMT -5
No GM is looking at a fangraphs article and saying "oh okay, this adds up." Jmei actually linked an SI article by the well respected Jonah Keri, I linked the fangraphs article by the also well respected Dave Cameron. These are the two best value lists that I know of, do you have one that retorts these two aside from what's in your head? We see it time and time again, that when you have an elite guy, under control long term for great dollars, it takes a wild overpay, nearly every time. And overpay is the wrong word, because it's something we set, instead of looking at the market and using ACTUAL deals to rationalize prices. If taken out of context, the above could easily be used to describe Mookie Betts and why the White Sox couldn't get him for Chris Sale. You need to identify the value in both sides of a trade scenario - not just the one that tells the story you wish to extrapolate. This trade is unlikely because neither side would currently be motivated to make it. That's usually the sign of an even-ish trade. I think where you're missing the value of Betts is in your earlier post mentioning Inciarte. But they aren't close to being substitutes. Enciarte: 25y 4m old / 4 years of control Steamer & ZIPs WAR projection for 2016 1.5 / 2.6 receives the majority of his value from baserunning and defense Betts: 23y 5m old / 5 years of control Steamer & ZIPs WAR projection for 2016 4.9 / 5.4 Complete player with baserunning, defense and POWER (the most valued feature among position players) The Dbacks got robbed, but these two guys are nowhere close in value. You need to re-evaluate Mookie Betts and his value.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 16, 2016 19:33:27 GMT -5
To respond to a couple other arguments from the last page of the thread: -The Shelby Miller deal is not really a useful comparison. By all accounts, the Diamondbacks significantly overpaid, and one aberrant deal does not set the market. I could just as well point to the Josh Donaldson trade and say, look, we should be able to get Sale for Devers, Holt and spare pieces, but that's not really a fair comparison, either. -The longer the White Sox wait to trade Sale, the less of a package they're going to get. David Price is a player of comparable quality, and neither of his recent trades really returned a monster package, largely because teams no longer trade multiple blue-chip prospects for a year or two of team control. -I agree that neither team would be motivated to do such a deal and so it's a moot discussion. But if that changed, I do think Betts would be close to fair value for Sale. You people are living in fantasy world. I agree Betts is a wildly valuable player. But there's a reason it takes a ton of talent to get established elite big leaguers. Betts for Sale, at this point in time, is not realistic. No GM is looking at a fangraphs article and saying "oh okay, this adds up." We see it time and time again, that when you have an elite guy, under control long term for great dollars, it takes a wild overpay, nearly every time. And overpay is the wrong word, because it's something we set, instead of looking at the market and using ACTUAL deals to rationalize prices. White Sox have zero reason at this point in time to sell. They have zero incentive to make a deal that we consider "FAIR VALUE". Hence, Betts for Sale, is a pipedream. This is a silly argument. It's equivalent to the Mookie-Hamels speculation, except Mookie is more established now (and Sale is a better pitcher). But the fundamentals are the same: straight up, it's a "fair" trade. But neither team would do it. End of story. Put both players on other teams, and those teams probably wouldn't do it either. Giving up any more than Mookie for Boston would be foolish, and for Chi they'd have to ask for more. So no deal. It's not a fantasy world, it's common sense. Market deals have been wildly variable, and cherry picking them to support your point isn't a viable means of argumentation.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 17, 2016 13:46:41 GMT -5
To respond to a couple other arguments from the last page of the thread: -The Shelby Miller deal is not really a useful comparison. By all accounts, the Diamondbacks significantly overpaid, and one aberrant deal does not set the market. I could just as well point to the Josh Donaldson trade and say, look, we should be able to get Sale for Devers, Holt and spare pieces, but that's not really a fair comparison, either. -The longer the White Sox wait to trade Sale, the less of a package they're going to get. David Price is a player of comparable quality, and neither of his recent trades really returned a monster package, largely because teams no longer trade multiple blue-chip prospects for a year or two of team control. -I agree that neither team would be motivated to do such a deal and so it's a moot discussion. But if that changed, I do think Betts would be close to fair value for Sale. You people are living in fantasy world. I agree Betts is a wildly valuable player. But there's a reason it takes a ton of talent to get established elite big leaguers. Betts for Sale, at this point in time, is not realistic. No GM is looking at a fangraphs article and saying "oh okay, this adds up." We see it time and time again, that when you have an elite guy, under control long term for great dollars, it takes a wild overpay, nearly every time. And overpay is the wrong word, because it's something we set, instead of looking at the market and using ACTUAL deals to rationalize prices. White Sox have zero reason at this point in time to sell. They have zero incentive to make a deal that we consider "FAIR VALUE". Hence, Betts for Sale, is a pipedream. Pokey you keep saying that White Sox have no reason to move him so they only would if you blow them away. Everyone else says if the White Sox were to shop him this is what it would take. If Sox aren't going to trade him no need in trying to figure out a trade that would get them to move him. Hence only way good way to look at it is if they were going to trade him what would it take. We are all very smart baseball guys, we know what Sales value is. You just don't seem to have a clue what Betts value is, even when given proof that his value is very close to Sale from a couple of very good sources.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 17, 2016 13:57:05 GMT -5
You people are living in fantasy world. I agree Betts is a wildly valuable player. But there's a reason it takes a ton of talent to get established elite big leaguers. Betts for Sale, at this point in time, is not realistic. No GM is looking at a fangraphs article and saying "oh okay, this adds up." We see it time and time again, that when you have an elite guy, under control long term for great dollars, it takes a wild overpay, nearly every time. And overpay is the wrong word, because it's something we set, instead of looking at the market and using ACTUAL deals to rationalize prices. White Sox have zero reason at this point in time to sell. They have zero incentive to make a deal that we consider "FAIR VALUE". Hence, Betts for Sale, is a pipedream. Pokey you keep saying that White Sox have no reason to move him so they only would if you blow them away. Everyone else says if the White Sox were to shop him this is what it would take. If Sox aren't going to trade him no need in trying to figure out a trade that would get them to move him. Hence only way good way to look at it is if they were going to trade him what would it take. We are all very smart baseball guys, we know what Sales value is. You just don't seem to have a clue what Betts value is, even when given proof that his value is very close to Sale from a couple of very good sources. I should just stay off this subforum because I don't even see the point in talking about this. We could play hypotheticals all day. I don't know why the White Sox would trade Sale and I don't know why any team would kill their franchise's depth by trading for him. Wake me up when it happens. This isn't the NBA.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 17, 2016 14:02:42 GMT -5
And the Miller trade is a great comp, because it shows you what the market was this winter for trading pitching. Them having to "overpay" was the actual price. That was the market. If you want to go out and buy a Shelby Mustang, yeah the sticker is 65k but you're most likely going to be paying a dealer markup of 15 grand on top of that. I agree Donaldson trade isn't a good comp for anything, because A.) it's Beane, he's routinely goes against the grain in who and what he values, and B.) Donaldson was coming off a .798ops season, and didn't have quite the same "elite" track record that Sale has. Pokey look at it this way, when valuing a house on the open market, you look at 3 recent comps to come up with a price. So one house selling for a lot more then people thought it was worth would not set the market. All Banks require the use of three comps to set a house value. Same thing when trading players. Sure the Miller trade made the market go up, but it did not set the market and become the gold standard. To gauge the market it's better to look at the Miller trade, the Hamels trade, Donaldson trade and Kimbrel trade. That gives you a much clearer picture of what it takes to get an elite player that is under team control for multiple years. The Funny thing is that out of those 4 trades only the Miller trade is for a player I wouldn't call elite, so I think it carries less weight then the other trades.
So I would say that the Miller trade is an outlier that really doesn't effect the market that much, it was a major overpay by a team that really wants to compete. In the long run it will be just like the Donaldson trade, an outlier that in the long run had almost no effect on the market.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 17, 2016 14:07:00 GMT -5
And the Miller trade is a great comp, because it shows you what the market was this winter for trading pitching. Them having to "overpay" was the actual price. That was the market. If you want to go out and buy a Shelby Mustang, yeah the sticker is 65k but you're most likely going to be paying a dealer markup of 15 grand on top of that. I agree Donaldson trade isn't a good comp for anything, because A.) it's Beane, he's routinely goes against the grain in who and what he values, and B.) Donaldson was coming off a .798ops season, and didn't have quite the same "elite" track record that Sale has. Pokey look at it this way, when valuing a house on the open market, you look at 3 recent comps to come up with a price. So one house selling for a lot more then people thought it was worth would not set the market. All Banks require the use of three comps to set a house value. Same thing when trading players. Sure the Miller trade made the market go up, but it did not set the market and become the gold standard. To gauge the market it's better to look at the Miller trade, the Hamels trade, Donaldson trade and Kimbrel trade. That gives you a much clearer picture of what it takes to get an elite player that is under team control for multiple years. The Funny thing is that out of those 4 trades only the Miller trade is for a player I wouldn't call elite, so I think it carries less weight then the other trades.
So I would say that the Miller trade is an outlier that really doesn't effect the market that much, it was a major overpay by a team that really wants to compete. In the long run it will be just like the Donaldson trade, an outlier that in the long run had almost no effect on the market.
But that supposed trade value doesn't set a price tag on a player that a team does not have to or want to trade. A lot of players don't get traded when they're shopped. Teams don't need to be approved for a mortgage valued in prospects. Kinda like if the White Sox came to me as GM of the Red Sox and wanted to trade for Espinoza. I'd demand Sale. The trade wouldn't happen because I don't want to trade him. But that's the price.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 17, 2016 14:15:35 GMT -5
Compare the return for Donaldson compared to the return of S.Miller. That will tell you everything you need to know about the trade market.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 17, 2016 14:54:46 GMT -5
Pokey look at it this way, when valuing a house on the open market, you look at 3 recent comps to come up with a price. So one house selling for a lot more then people thought it was worth would not set the market. All Banks require the use of three comps to set a house value. Same thing when trading players. Sure the Miller trade made the market go up, but it did not set the market and become the gold standard. To gauge the market it's better to look at the Miller trade, the Hamels trade, Donaldson trade and Kimbrel trade. That gives you a much clearer picture of what it takes to get an elite player that is under team control for multiple years. The Funny thing is that out of those 4 trades only the Miller trade is for a player I wouldn't call elite, so I think it carries less weight then the other trades.
So I would say that the Miller trade is an outlier that really doesn't effect the market that much, it was a major overpay by a team that really wants to compete. In the long run it will be just like the Donaldson trade, an outlier that in the long run had almost no effect on the market.
But that supposed trade value doesn't set a price tag on a player that a team does not have to or want to trade. A lot of players don't get traded when they're shopped. Teams don't need to be approved for a mortgage valued in prospects. Kinda like if the White Sox came to me as GM of the Red Sox and wanted to trade for Espinoza. I'd demand Sale. The trade wouldn't happen because I don't want to trade him. But that's the price. Not sure what your point is. Trying to set a market price based off of trades that have happened, that's what sets a market price. Your example of Espinoza would have nothing to do with market price because it would never happen. That's like a homeowner wanting double what there home is worth. Sure you can ask that, but if you never sell your home, it has zero effect on the market.
If you read both of my post I say it's pointless to try and put a price on a player that a team doesn't want to trade. Best way to look at it is if a team did want to trade a player what is his worth.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 17, 2016 15:02:38 GMT -5
But that supposed trade value doesn't set a price tag on a player that a team does not have to or want to trade. A lot of players don't get traded when they're shopped. Teams don't need to be approved for a mortgage valued in prospects. Kinda like if the White Sox came to me as GM of the Red Sox and wanted to trade for Espinoza. I'd demand Sale. The trade wouldn't happen because I don't want to trade him. But that's the price. Not sure what your point is. Trying to set a market price based off of trades that have happened, that's what sets a market price. Your example of Espinoza would have nothing to do with market price because it would never happen. That's like a homeowner wanting double what there home is worth. Sure you can ask that, but if you never sell your home, it has zero effect on the market.
If you read both of my post I say it's pointless to try and put a price on a player that a team doesn't want to trade. Best way to look at it is if a team did want to trade a player what is his worth.
My example has everything to do with the fact that whatever you decided the so-called market price is has nothing to do with what a team would require to make a trade they don't have to make or want to make. And that's what I think applies to both the White Sox with Sale and the Red Sox with Betts. What is the difference between "if a team did want to trade a player..." and "if Mookie hits 50 HR this year, we could trade him for Sale and Abreu?" They are both hypotheticals that are extremely unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 17, 2016 15:20:04 GMT -5
Not sure what your point is. Trying to set a market price based off of trades that have happened, that's what sets a market price. Your example of Espinoza would have nothing to do with market price because it would never happen. That's like a homeowner wanting double what there home is worth. Sure you can ask that, but if you never sell your home, it has zero effect on the market.
If you read both of my post I say it's pointless to try and put a price on a player that a team doesn't want to trade. Best way to look at it is if a team did want to trade a player what is his worth.
My example has everything to do with the fact that whatever you decided the so-called market price is has nothing to do with what a team would require to make a trade they don't have to make or want to make. And that's what I think applies to both the White Sox with Sale and the Red Sox with Betts. What is the difference between "if a team did want to trade a player..." and "if Mookie hits 50 HR this year, we could trade him for Sale and Abreu?" They are both hypotheticals that are extremely unlikely. I agree 100%. Don't think either Betts or Sale gets traded. That's why I don't want to try and come up with a price for a player that is not available it's useless. You just can't do it, but Pokey keeps throwing around what Sales value is based on White Sox not wanting to trade him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 18, 2016 0:40:48 GMT -5
I should just stay off this subforum because I don't even see the point in talking about this. And in fact the thread has been entirely derailed from its original purpose. The point of the thread was to identify which super-desirable players seem as if they might have a greater than 0% chance of being trade targets next winter. It has nothing to do with any possible trades that could happen now, or even about specific trades next winter, because so much could change. I started the thread because of the solid chance that we'll have a really desirable package of excess talent at that time, and may well be looking to make a trade for an elite player. I identified some such players now (to the best of our present ability) because the first prerequisite to their being available (except for Schwarber) is that their teams have an awful season that makes their F.O. start to think that the only way to rebuild is to trade their best player. So now we can watch to see if the Angels, Diamondbacks, Marlins, or White Sox collapse and burn this year, along with watching Vazquez / Swihart, Benintendi / Castillo, and Owens / Kelly to see if we actually end up in a position where the second guy is a big trade chip. All discussion about specific potential trades involving guys already identified is absurdly premature (although it's fair to look at general fit, e.g., whether they need a catcher or not). The only actual contribution would be to suggest another guy who might conceivably be available next winter and who would fill a need. The one thing I didn't look for is good teams that are unbalanced and might have so much depth at a given position next winter that they might trade someone great to fill multiple other holes. For instance, I haven't looked at the Mets, and maybe there's an argument that they will have so much SP depth that next winter they might be amenable to trading Harvey. (Of course, they have D'Arnaud, so there would have to be a 3rd team involved; we'd deal Swihart for an elite young SS and bundle him with Castillo, if he breaks out, as a Cespedes replacement.)
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 18, 2016 12:30:22 GMT -5
Radio is going nuts with Sale trade chatter now that he's going to war with Kenny Williams.
Realistically, if Williams traded Sale I think there'd be a damn walk out in that clubhouse.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 18, 2016 15:02:08 GMT -5
I don't think white sox are even considering trading sale, but I'm still going to take the bait.
Erod Swihart Sam Travis
It doesn't kill them in their win now pursuit, may even help. Plus long term value. They'd still say no, but I think it's fair.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2016 16:49:52 GMT -5
I don't think white sox are even considering trading sale, but I'm still going to take the bait. Erod Swihart Sam Travis It doesn't kill them in their win now pursuit, may even help. Plus long term value. They'd still say no, but I think it's fair. Man, straight off I said no...but on second thought...hmmm. I think Rodriguez is ticketed for Lester territory or even better, but it's not a sure thing. And if Vazquez is back for real, as good as I see Swihart being, he's technically expendable. Travis looks awfully good, too. I'd say it's too much, but...well, it's going to take "too much." After this season, we'll have a much better idea. But it hurts, so it's probably "fair."
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 18, 2016 19:33:08 GMT -5
I don't think white sox are even considering trading sale, but I'm still going to take the bait. Erod Swihart Sam Travis It doesn't kill them in their win now pursuit, may even help. Plus long term value. They'd still say no, but I think it's fair. Man, straight off I said no...but on second thought...hmmm. I think Rodriguez is ticketed for Lester territory or even better, but it's not a sure thing. And if Vazquez is back for real, as good as I see Swihart being, he's technically expendable. Travis looks awfully good, too. I'd say it's too much, but...well, it's going to take "too much." After this season, we'll have a much better idea. But it hurts, so it's probably "fair." White Sox are not trading Sale, I do believe that. It would be bad publicity that would further divide their club house and go against all their offseason moves. If you look at the projections, Sales steamers is 6.5 fWAR and E-Rod + Swihart is at 2.6. So even if you build in extra IP/PA and beef up their expectations while hedging Sales, you're still asking the White Sox to drop 2 wins, which doesn't make sense after the trades they made the last two years. They'd get extra years of team control and a prospect, but it's not enough for them to give up on 2016. Reexamining, I think I'd have to add Tazawa to make my original proposal to make it fair, and even then IF they were considering trading Sale, I don't think it's enough. Plus that trade would make us thin at a couple positions. Edit: BTW "you" really means "I"
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 20, 2016 15:36:39 GMT -5
I don't think white sox are even considering trading sale, but I'm still going to take the bait. Erod Swihart Sam Travis It doesn't kill them in their win now pursuit, may even help. Plus long term value. They'd still say no, but I think it's fair. We almost all agree White Sox aren't trading Sale right now. In the future due to recent events and the fact I don't think they compete this year they might consider it. It's never good when your best player is dropping F bombs on the president of the team and almost leading the team to boycott a game. It could be a sign that Sales has some anger towards the team or certain people within the team not counting current events. Now if a trade did happen that a great starting place and a great offer. Maybe you switch out Travis with a Kopech or Johnson and add a fourth young lower prospect with good upside. In my opinion that's a monster package of young players and prospects. I for one would not make this trade at this current time, even with EROD currently injured. I just think a few years from now Swihart by himself could have a higher war then Sales. He showed last year that he has an above average bat for a catcher with a lot of room to improve. In your second post you talk about steamers projections for 2017 6.5 fwar for Sales and 2.6 combined for EROD and Swihart. In 2016 Sales had a rwar of 3.3 and EROD and Swihart had a 2.9 rwar. Now Sale did have a huge drop from the year before. Just saying I think steamers is a little high on Sales and way to low on EROD and Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 20, 2016 16:07:16 GMT -5
I don't think white sox are even considering trading sale, but I'm still going to take the bait. Erod Swihart Sam Travis It doesn't kill them in their win now pursuit, may even help. Plus long term value. They'd still say no, but I think it's fair. We almost all agree White Sox aren't trading Sale right now. In the future due to recent events and the fact I don't think they compete this year they might consider it. It's never good when your best player is dropping F bombs on the president of the team and almost leading the team to boycott a game. It could be a sign that Sales has some anger towards the team or certain people within the team not counting current events. Now if a trade did happen that a great starting place and a great offer. Maybe you switch out Travis with a Kopech or Johnson and add a fourth young lower prospect with good upside. In my opinion that's a monster package of young players and prospects. I for one would not make this trade at this current time, even with EROD currently injured. I just think a few years from now Swihart by himself could have a higher war then Sales. He showed last year that he has an above average bat for a catcher with a lot of room to improve. In your second post you talk about steamers projections for 2017 6.5 fwar for Sales and 2.6 combined for EROD and Swihart. In 2016 Sales had a rwar of 3.3 and EROD and Swihart had a 2.9 rwar. Now Sale did have a huge drop from the year before. Just saying I think steamers is a little high on Sales and way to low on EROD and Swihart. I have to assume that rWAR isn't FIP-based and therefore IMO, isn't that useful for pitchers. Sale was way better than a 3.3 WAR player last year. He had high BABIP and low LOB% which will regress to the norm without even pitching any better. The guy had a 27.2 K-BB% last year which was second to only Kershaw. He didn't get worse than the year before.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 20, 2016 16:38:03 GMT -5
We almost all agree White Sox aren't trading Sale right now. In the future due to recent events and the fact I don't think they compete this year they might consider it. It's never good when your best player is dropping F bombs on the president of the team and almost leading the team to boycott a game. It could be a sign that Sales has some anger towards the team or certain people within the team not counting current events. Now if a trade did happen that a great starting place and a great offer. Maybe you switch out Travis with a Kopech or Johnson and add a fourth young lower prospect with good upside. In my opinion that's a monster package of young players and prospects. I for one would not make this trade at this current time, even with EROD currently injured. I just think a few years from now Swihart by himself could have a higher war then Sales. He showed last year that he has an above average bat for a catcher with a lot of room to improve. In your second post you talk about steamers projections for 2017 6.5 fwar for Sales and 2.6 combined for EROD and Swihart. In 2016 Sales had a rwar of 3.3 and EROD and Swihart had a 2.9 rwar. Now Sale did have a huge drop from the year before. Just saying I think steamers is a little high on Sales and way to low on EROD and Swihart. I have to assume that rWAR isn't FIP-based and therefore IMO, isn't that useful for pitchers. Sale was way better than a 3.3 WAR player last year. He had high BABIP and low LOB% which will regress to the norm without even pitching any better. The guy had a 27.2 K-BB% last year which was second to only Kershaw. He didn't get worse than the year before. His raw numbers look good, I agree. Where we see a huge difference is ERA+ last 4 years 140, 137, 173 and last year 114. That seems to be the reason for a huge drop in rwar.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Mar 20, 2016 21:45:21 GMT -5
rWAR (also called bWAR) swaps out FIP for runs allowed. You shouldn't use his 2015 outlier rWAR to make any inferences of him declining -- he had two random stinkers vs. the Twins, lasting 3.0 innings in each and giving up 9 (8 ER) and 6 runs in them. Then there were the back-to-back starts against the Red Sox and Rays where he gave up 7 runs in each (but with a 16/4 K/BB). I remember in that Red Sox game, he got BABIP'd around mostly on singles -- looks like he only yielded one XBH (an Ortiz 2B). He was otherwise typically dominant, and led the league in FIP, K/9, and K/BB.
I'm pretty comfortable with his Steamer projection. Sure the ERA may turn out to be worse, but it could also easily turn out to be even better. We know the peripheral numbers are going to be there, and that's what matters for predicting how he'll do.
|
|
|