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.
4/15-4/18 Red Sox vs. Blue Jays Series Thread
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 19, 2016 19:30:00 GMT -5
The thing about prospects is that they sometimes outperform expectations, and it's bad logic to think that that prospects have zero value to you just because you think they have low ceilings and/or because there are better prospects/players in the organization. Travis Shaw was "blocked" every day of his Red Sox career until he was an MLB starter...
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 19:56:40 GMT -5
So with Boston's resources I don't think the above average across the board theory is wrong. I didn't say a team of superstars. This is just like when we debated Wade Miley and what type of pitcher he was. For you he was a #3 based on stats and your right. But for me on a team like Boston that wants to win a title, he's a #5. Just cause a bunch of teams tank, don't spend money and run out crappy teams that drag down the overall numbers, doesn't mean Boston should settle for a league average #5. No never said we should trade guys like Shaw and Holt. Why would you, before reaching majors and doing well they had almost no value. That's why trading Margot and Guerra made so much sense. They were both very highly valued, yet far from sure thing prospects. You can make a good argument that we sold high on both guys. Not saying that's right, just that you can debate it. I don't want to trade prospects Willy nilly, I'm just not afraid to trade them if the big league club has a need. You need to be smart about it. If you look at players I would trade for they are elite level guys. As to Holt and Shaw I currently see both as above average players, so not sure what your point is there. If they drop off I bet Dave makes a trade for an upgrade, or brings back Castillo. The 2012-2015 bottom out??? We did win a title, most teams would love to Bottom out like that. There was a lot more problems with those teams then we traded away some prospects. Now the list of guys you mention Rizzo, Masterson, Reddick, Lowrie, Iglesias, etc, we missed them because they all went on to have many above average or better seasons. I look at that list and see a bunch of above average players, not average or worse players. It doesn't matter what teams should strive for, it matters what they actually run out there, and it is categorically untrue that contenders uniformly have above-average players. For instance, the 2015 Royals got below-average production (defined as below two fWAR on a consolidated basis) at five of their nine position-player spots (C, 2B, SS, RF, DH), and just about every playoff team has at least a couple below-average positions. At the time that the Red Sox traded Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie and Iglesias, they were all generally regarded as low-ceiling players who projected to be averagish starters at best (look at their SoxProspects profiles on the ex-players page, for example). The rationale provided for all of those trades was "well, they're expendable because they're not going to be stars and they're blocked anyways." That's the same rationale you're using. The thing about prospects is that they sometimes outperform expectations, and it's bad logic to think that that prospects have zero value to you just because you think they have low ceilings and/or because there are better prospects/players in the organization. Royals had top 10 players based on bwar at catcher and DH. They also acquired Zobrist at deadline to upgrade 2B. Show me a contender that kept an average player in lineup for 6 years. Do you really not trade Margot because one year Betts might get injured and Margot would give you 2 war and our other options would give us 1.8 war? Rizzo was not a low-ceiling type prospect! Masterson, Reddick, Lowrie and Iglesias were all major league ready players, with upside. Go back and read my post on my boy Reddick. Was saying he could hit 30 HR before they traded him for Bailey. With those players it's not so much that they traded them, it's that they got little value in return. You also have to trade your good 1B to unload a bunch of bad deals.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 21:04:03 GMT -5
Almost all good teams have that sort of uneven roster construction with some stars and some scrubs. You don't trade a player in AA for less than he's worth because he might be blocked two years from now. Remember, I'm not opposed to trading Margot in a vacuum. I'm opposed to the idea that he's worth less to the Red Sox because he plays CF and so it doesn't matter that they didn't get good value for him.
Rizzo was ranked 75 by BA a few months after he was traded to the Padres. He had power, but was also a first baseman with strikeout issues. He was regarded as expendable in the Gonzalez trade because he was "blocked" in Boston, which is the same logic that you're relying on with Margot. Those other guys were similarly regarded as "expendable" at the time they were traded, and none were really even as well regarded as Margot and Guerra were in terms of prospect rankings. My point is that prospects aren't really ever "expandable."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 19, 2016 21:10:26 GMT -5
The value of prospects in the upper minors with upside and options cannot be understated. It's a lot nicer to have a Travis Shaw in AAA than having to go with some AAAA retread that you can't keep on your 40 man roster.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 22:24:11 GMT -5
Almost all good teams have that sort of uneven roster construction with some stars and some scrubs. You don't trade a player in AA for less than he's worth because he might be blocked two years from now. Remember, I'm not opposed to trading Margot in a vacuum. I'm opposed to the idea that he's worth less to the Red Sox because he plays CF and so it doesn't matter that they didn't get good value for him. Rizzo was ranked 75 by BA a few months after he was traded to the Padres. He had power, but was also a first baseman with strikeout issues. He was regarded as expendable in the Gonzalez trade because he was "blocked" in Boston, which is the same logic that you're relying on with Margot. Those other guys were similarly regarded as "expendable" at the time they were traded, and none were really even as well regarded as Margot and Guerra were in terms of prospect rankings. My point is that prospects aren't really ever "expandable." When have a said trading prospects because they are blocked? I'm glad they traded Margot cause I think he's overrated and his value peaked, not because he was blocked. It's the same reason if I had to trade one of Moncada or Devers I would pick Devers. We have a great 2B long-term and a huge question mark at 3B. But Devers worries me and I again wonder if his value has peaked. Don't get me wrong I love Devers, but I just don't see the #7 overall prospect like Law has him ranked. At the same time if you never trade any prospects your going to waste a ton of trade value on players that will sit in AAA or our bench and lose almost all of their value. We have way to much young talent and prospects currently to keep them all just for team depth. This is something I feel Dave is very good at. I agree you don't just trade Swihart because we have Vazquez. At same time you don't not trade him because he's our catching depth long-term.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 22:53:50 GMT -5
You and others have said multiple times that they can afford to trade Margot because they have Betts and Bradley and Benintendi and that even if Margot is an average player, they should have above-average players so he's not as valuable to the Red Sox. You literally just reiterated that argument.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 0:25:58 GMT -5
You and others have said multiple times that they can afford to trade Margot because they have Betts and Bradley and Benintendi and that even if Margot is an average player, they should have above-average players so he's not as valuable to the Red Sox. You literally just reiterated that argument. I think I said the four players traded for Kimbrel were low ceiling guys of the kind that the Red Sox can afford to replace with money. I didn't use the word "expendable". Speier said, in the link I posted above, that it was widely expected Margot would be traded because he needed a lengthier apprenticeship in the minor leagues but had to be added to the 40 man roster in 2016, and that there were three better outfield prospects ahead of Margot (and Speier would later add a fourth, Basabe). But is he really using the word "expendable"? Meanwhile, Margot's at 41 PAs in AAA and he's got 1 2b and 1 3B.... that's just not good enough, and the stat normalizes around 48 PAs. Would the Padres still do the deal with Margot as the supposed best player? Without calling Margot "expendable," can we agree that we sold high on Margot, rather than use a roster spot on him, and that there was no greater opportunity cost that it was prudent to wait for, when the cost of waiting was that Margot's value might plummet or Kimbrel's cost might skyrocket, the way Giles' cost did, when it became known that Chapman was damaged goods, at least to the Red Sox?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Apr 20, 2016 0:30:35 GMT -5
They can afford to trade Margot because he's a platoon player who can't hit 70% of the pitchers in the majors lol
it's also asinine to think that system depth has nothing to do with trades or how they value a player lol. You can think it's wrong all you want, but sometimes trading from an area of depth makes sense, even if you're giving up a little more value. People on this board would never be able to pull off trades if they were a gm lol
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 20, 2016 1:04:54 GMT -5
Jmei you are just making things up at this point and taking one thing I say and saying I am saying something totally different. I never said we should trade Margot cause he's "blocked". Go back and read what I said.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on Apr 20, 2016 3:07:06 GMT -5
You and others have said multiple times that they can afford to trade Margot because they have Betts and Bradley and Benintendi and that even if Margot is an average player, they should have above-average players so he's not as valuable to the Red Sox. You literally just reiterated that argument. Meanwhile, Margot's at 41 PAs in AAA and he's got 1 2b and 1 3B.... that's just not good enough, and the stat normalizes around 48 PAs. Would the Padres still do the deal with Margot as the supposed best player? Yeah...If you think a .194 babip is sustainable for Margot. I do not. I would venture there's a good shot in 2 years Margot has a better WAR than Bradley Jr (barring injury for either player). But, I've always been a believer in Margot. I think if we sold "high" on anybody, it could be Guerra, his contact issues could be real. But I don't think acquiring an elite closer for top 100 prospects is generally a good practice, and that pervades throughout my opinion on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 20, 2016 6:25:19 GMT -5
Jmei you are just making things up at this point and taking one thing I say and saying I am saying something totally different. I never said we should trade Margot cause he's "blocked". Go back and read what I said. You said "Do you really not trade Margot because one year Betts might get injured and Margot would give you 2 war and our other options would give us 1.8 war?" ( link) and "They will find better players rather then just start average guys. You won't start Margot when you can play Benintendi, etc." ( link). I don't know how to interpret that other than "we can afford to trade him because he's blocked."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 20, 2016 6:33:29 GMT -5
You and others have said multiple times that they can afford to trade Margot because they have Betts and Bradley and Benintendi and that even if Margot is an average player, they should have above-average players so he's not as valuable to the Red Sox. You literally just reiterated that argument. I think I said the four players traded for Kimbrel were low ceiling guys of the kind that the Red Sox can afford to replace with money. I didn't use the word "expendable". Speier said, in the link I posted above, that it was widely expected Margot would be traded because he needed a lengthier apprenticeship in the minor leagues but had to be added to the 40 man roster in 2016, and that there were three better outfield prospects ahead of Margot (and Speier would later add a fourth, Basabe). But is he really using the word "expendable"? Meanwhile, Margot's at 41 PAs in AAA and he's got 1 2b and 1 3B.... that's just not good enough, and the stat normalizes around 48 PAs. Would the Padres still do the deal with Margot as the supposed best player? Without calling Margot "expendable," can we agree that we sold high on Margot, rather than use a roster spot on him, and that there was no greater opportunity cost that it was prudent to wait for, when the cost of waiting was that Margot's value might plummet or Kimbrel's cost might skyrocket, the way Giles' cost did, when it became known that Chapman was damaged goods, at least to the Red Sox? Literally the definition of expendable is "can afford to be replaced." Again, bad faith.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 20, 2016 8:37:49 GMT -5
I think I said the four players traded for Kimbrel were low ceiling guys Low ceiling guys don't make it on to top 100 prospect lists, period. Why do you insist on repeating the same trash over and over again? Your premise that the Red Sox don't have a budget is just obviously preposterous. Any child can look back and see how their payroll has been hovering right around the luxury tax limit to see that it's not true. And an average player at full market rate will cost you more than 6% of that limit so with money alone you can't even buy a 25-man roster full of average players.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 10:33:10 GMT -5
I think I said the four players traded for Kimbrel were low ceiling guys of the kind that the Red Sox can afford to replace with money. I didn't use the word "expendable". Speier said, in the link I posted above, that it was widely expected Margot would be traded because he needed a lengthier apprenticeship in the minor leagues but had to be added to the 40 man roster in 2016, and that there were three better outfield prospects ahead of Margot (and Speier would later add a fourth, Basabe). But is he really using the word "expendable"? Meanwhile, Margot's at 41 PAs in AAA and he's got 1 2b and 1 3B.... that's just not good enough, and the stat normalizes around 48 PAs. Would the Padres still do the deal with Margot as the supposed best player? Without calling Margot "expendable," can we agree that we sold high on Margot, rather than use a roster spot on him, and that there was no greater opportunity cost that it was prudent to wait for, when the cost of waiting was that Margot's value might plummet or Kimbrel's cost might skyrocket, the way Giles' cost did, when it became known that Chapman was damaged goods, at least to the Red Sox? Literally the definition of expendable is "can afford to be replaced." Again, bad faith. It seemed you were using the word in the pejorative sense, as if he had no value and could be abandoned. Margot does, or at least did at the time, have value.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 10:36:32 GMT -5
I think I said the four players traded for Kimbrel were low ceiling guys Low ceiling guys don't make it on to top 100 prospect lists, period. Why do you insist on repeating the same trash over and over again? Your premise that the Red Sox don't have a budget is just obviously preposterous. Any child can look back and see how their payroll has been hovering right around the luxury tax limit to see that it's not true. And an average player at full market rate will cost you more than 6% of that limit so with money alone you can't even buy a 25-man roster full of average players. Do you know what a straw man argument is? I suspect you do, and use it with relish.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 20, 2016 10:46:54 GMT -5
Literally the definition of expendable is "can afford to be replaced." Again, bad faith. It seemed you were using the word in the pejorative sense, as if he had no value and could be abandoned. Margot does, or at least did at the time, have value. "So I think you do the trade even if O'Day were just as good as Kimbrel. The trade costs nothing." -deepjohn ( link)
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 20, 2016 10:56:17 GMT -5
Low ceiling guys don't make it on to top 100 prospect lists, period. Why do you insist on repeating the same trash over and over again? Your premise that the Red Sox don't have a budget is just obviously preposterous. Any child can look back and see how their payroll has been hovering right around the luxury tax limit to see that it's not true. And an average player at full market rate will cost you more than 6% of that limit so with money alone you can't even buy a 25-man roster full of average players. Do you know what a straw man argument is? I suspect you do, and use it with relish. Yes, I'm well aware. Please explain what you consider a strawman argument, keeping in mind that you wrote (among other things): (forcibly not rehashing the other points, but if the Red Sox have a budget Dombrowski hasn't run up against it yet )
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 11:54:39 GMT -5
It seemed you were using the word in the pejorative sense, as if he had no value and could be abandoned. Margot does, or at least did at the time, have value. "So I think you do the trade even if O'Day were just as good as Kimbrel. The trade costs nothing." -deepjohn ( link) Yes, his perceived high value was fully extracted in the trade. The trade did not have any unrealized opportunity cost. I could be, and probably am completely wrong, but my own personal view is that Margot will never play well enough to play any substantial role for the Red Sox. Can't hit for extra bases, can't hit RHP. Maybe a ninth inning defensive substitution? Or a pinch runner?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 12:07:46 GMT -5
Do you know what a straw man argument is? I suspect you do, and use it with relish. Yes, I'm well aware. Please explain what you consider a strawman argument, keeping in mind that you wrote (among other things): (forcibly not rehashing the other points, but if the Red Sox have a budget Dombrowski hasn't run up against it yet ) Ah, I suspected you did. Study methods of logic, too? Quine much? The straw man here is the argument that the Red Sox must have a budget sufficient to replace all players who are "of a kind they can afford to replace." That, of course, is absurd. (ADD: and circular.) But the straw man reduced it to that. The argument was intended to be that they could afford to replace the four players they traded, were any of them actually to realize their low ceilings. See ericmvan's post on why Margot's ceiling took a bit of a hit, Just a quick two cents worth ... It seems to me that in the last year, Margot's ceiling took a bit of a hit, but his floor was elevated. IOW, he hit well enough in AA to reduce the odds that he busts as the plate, but not so well enough that he was able to maintain the sense that he projected as a top-of-the-order hitter. Because he's had decent success at AA at a very young age, folks are more sure than ever that he'll be a solid MLB starter, but the odds of his becoming a star have, in most minds, been reduced. This made him an even more obvious person for us to move, and every team in MLB knew that, and that probably reduced his trade value somewhat, relative to his prospect value. You have to add that to the ongoing inflation of reliever value, and the other factors that have been considered. Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/3118/acquire-craig-kimbrel-margot-guerra?page=63#ixzz46O64M8Hkwebcache.googleusercontent.com/post/183793/thread and Speier's link above.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 20, 2016 12:34:06 GMT -5
Haven't we all reached a consensus that the players traded for Kimbrel had significant value at the time and could have been used to trade for someone else? Because if you don't acknowledge that, you cannot use the "the prospects aren't that great now after 40 PAs this spring and we didn't need them anyway" logic. That has been the argument for about 10,000 posts now.
And this "Margot's ceiling is reduced now because he's not hitting RHP as a 21 year old in AAA" is absurd. He is elite defensively at a premium position, has a very low k-rate and enough speed to justify a high BABIP.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 20, 2016 12:36:10 GMT -5
Yes, you've posted all this nonsense before. Again, "low ceiling" prospects are not put on top 100 lists. But I see that your reality distortion bubble is intact.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 12:41:59 GMT -5
Haven't we all reached a consensus that the players traded for Kimbrel had significant value at the time and could have been used to trade for someone else? Because if you don't acknowledge that, you cannot use the "the prospects aren't that great now after 40 PAs this spring and we didn't need them anyway" logic. That has been the argument for about 10,000 posts now. Yes, I think there is consensus on that first point, that there was significant perceived value at the time. The disagreement seems to be whether there might have been greater value that could have been extracted than in the Kimbrel trade (i.e. opportunity cost). I think, albeit in hindsight (Giles trade, Chapman dirt, 40 PAs), not.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 20, 2016 14:10:51 GMT -5
Jmei you are just making things up at this point and taking one thing I say and saying I am saying something totally different. I never said we should trade Margot cause he's "blocked". Go back and read what I said. You said "Do you really not trade Margot because one year Betts might get injured and Margot would give you 2 war and our other options would give us 1.8 war?" ( link) and "They will find better players rather then just start average guys. You won't start Margot when you can play Benintendi, etc." ( link). I don't know how to interpret that other than "we can afford to trade him because he's blocked." I told you clearly why I'm glad they traded him. Value was likely at peak and I don't think he's that good. Saying I have no problem trading players that are average or worse, in no way implies I'm trading them because they are blocked. Saying I want above average guys playing again means I don't think he's good enough to be a starter for us, not that he's blocked. I just read my posts again it's very clear the only way to interpret them; we can trade him because I don't think he's good enough to start for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 14:31:39 GMT -5
You said "Do you really not trade Margot because one year Betts might get injured and Margot would give you 2 war and our other options would give us 1.8 war?" ( link) and "They will find better players rather then just start average guys. You won't start Margot when you can play Benintendi, etc." ( link). I don't know how to interpret that other than "we can afford to trade him because he's blocked." I told you clearly why I'm glad they traded him. Value was likely at peak and I don't think he's that good. Saying I have no problem trading players that are average or worse, in no way implies I'm trading them because they are blocked. Saying I want above average guys playing again means I don't think he's good enough to be a starter for us, not that he's blocked. I just read my posts again it's very clear the only way to interpret them; we can trade him because I don't think he's good enough to start for the Red Sox. I think I get what you're saying. Just because Benintendi and Basabe are technically "blocked" as centerfielders by Betts and Bradley, doesn't mean you want to trade them. They're potentially too good to trade, whether they are "blocked" or not. Also, with Benintendi and Basabe, you don't really know their ceiling yet. With Margot, he had already stumbled a little bit at AA where he hit .232/.285/.300/.585 in 190 at-bats against righthanders. Not enough extra base hits for that sample size. And he was "close to physically maxed out" according to Speier. (Although he did mash .381/.443/.746/1.189 in 63 at-bats against lefties. So he could be a great platoon partner.)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 20, 2016 15:20:50 GMT -5
You said "Do you really not trade Margot because one year Betts might get injured and Margot would give you 2 war and our other options would give us 1.8 war?" ( link) and "They will find better players rather then just start average guys. You won't start Margot when you can play Benintendi, etc." ( link). I don't know how to interpret that other than "we can afford to trade him because he's blocked." I told you clearly why I'm glad they traded him. Value was likely at peak and I don't think he's that good. Saying I have no problem trading players that are average or worse, in no way implies I'm trading them because they are blocked. Saying I want above average guys playing again means I don't think he's good enough to be a starter for us, not that he's blocked. I just read my posts again it's very clear the only way to interpret them; we can trade him because I don't think he's good enough to start for the Red Sox. Fair enough. That's a distinction without a difference, though. That long list of players that the Red Sox traded and it turned out to bite them in the *** that I've been posting is still a strong counterpoint. Sometimes (often) players outperform their expectations, and even if they don't, cheap average players are super valuable, even to big market teams. The idea that a team can afford to trade its non-elite prospects imputes far more accuracy in our ability to project prospects than actually exists. It also reflects an arrogance about the ability of big-market teams to sign quality free agents that just isn't true in this era, where steeper aging curves have made free agency a minefield and resulted in just about zero correlation between payroll and team success. You need a steady supply of young players to win these days, and that includes average young players.
|
|
|