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 Guidas on Apr 20, 2016 15:25:26 GMT -5
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.) I really wouldn't bank on this. I want Benintendi to be Michael Comforto or better as much as everyone else here, but if the Sox are shopping for Sonny Gray or Chris Sale this summer at the deadline and the opposing GM wants Benintendi in the package I strongly believe that Dave Dombrowski doesn't blink in dealing him. He's a A-ball outfielder with a lot of projectability, but he's still an A-ball outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 20, 2016 15:49:31 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". Kinda like how they could have afforded to trade Shaw prior to this year and replace him with Sandoval?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 16:16:45 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". Kinda like how they could have afforded to trade Shaw prior to this year and replace him with Sandoval? Or could have afforded to trade Cecchini or Middlebrooks at their peak value, and before they started to decline. Or could have signed Chase Headley or Mark Reynolds, instead of Sandoval. A lot of coulda-woulda's arise, once anecdotal examples and perfect hindsight are in play.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 16:19:45 GMT -5
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.) I really wouldn't bank on this. I want Benintendi to be Michael Comforto or better as much as everyone else here, but if the Sox are shopping for Sonny Gray or Chris Sale this summer at the deadline and the opposing GM wants Benintendi in the package I strongly believe that Dave Dombrowski doesn't blink in dealing him. He's a A-ball outfielder with a lot of projectability, but he's still an A-ball outfielder. I think they wait until they see Benintendi stumble at least little, like Margot did, before they trade him. He's just too good, potentially, right now. Although I agree that Chris Sale would be very tempting. ADD: Same goes for Basabe (OF). Also, when it comes to elite pitchers, the big free agent signings have (overall) worked out well. Thus it's better to trade dollars you have plenty of, as we did for Price, than prospects with potentially very high ceilings.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 20, 2016 18:17:46 GMT -5
Kinda like how they could have afforded to trade Shaw prior to this year and replace him with Sandoval? Or could have afforded to trade Cecchini or Middlebrooks at their peak value, and before they started to decline. Or could have signed Chase Headley or Mark Reynolds, instead of Sandoval. A lot of coulda-woulda's arise, once anecdotal examples and perfect hindsight are in play. It's a lot easier to use hindsight isn't it? Unless you have a stash of AAA prospects who might exceed expectations without counting on them to do it...
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 20, 2016 18:19:14 GMT -5
Or could have afforded to trade Cecchini or Middlebrooks at their peak value, and before they started to decline. Or could have signed Chase Headley or Mark Reynolds, instead of Sandoval. A lot of coulda-woulda's arise, once anecdotal examples and perfect hindsight are in play. It's a lot easier to use hindsight isn't it? Unless you have a stash of AAA prospects who might exceed expectations without counting on them to do it... Yes but you're forgetting deepjohn's premise that Dombrowski has a crystal ball and always makes the right decisions.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 20, 2016 20:28:34 GMT -5
Or could have afforded to trade Cecchini or Middlebrooks at their peak value, and before they started to decline. Or could have signed Chase Headley or Mark Reynolds, instead of Sandoval. A lot of coulda-woulda's arise, once anecdotal examples and perfect hindsight are in play. It's a lot easier to use hindsight isn't it? Unless you have a stash of AAA prospects who might exceed expectations without counting on them to do it... I think it's a lot easier to use statistical analysis of extremely large data sets. I've only seen bits and pieces and glimpses of what I infer goes on behind the scenes in the Red Sox analytical department but I believe that what they do now is worlds better than what they did even a few years ago. There's no reason to think we can't avoid many or even most of the mistakes made in the past with better analysis, rendering the anecdotal lessons of the past more cautionary than instructive. Maximize your talent by analyzing what players can or can't do, today, and make your decisions on who to trade and who to keep and promote based on what you know, today. That's what I think the Red Sox are, now, doing. Yes, I think it is pretty much like having a crystal ball.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 20, 2016 23:07:49 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". Kinda like how they could have afforded to trade Shaw prior to this year and replace him with Sandoval? What? We trade Shaw our 1B at end of last year and replace him with the guy that actually played 3B last year?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 21, 2016 4:26:30 GMT -5
Kinda like how they could have afforded to trade Shaw prior to this year and replace him with Sandoval? What? We trade Shaw our 1B at end of last year and replace him with the guy that actually played 3B last year? This year, Shaw is playing 3B, as most people have already noticed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 21, 2016 6:08:59 GMT -5
Kinda like how they could have afforded to trade Shaw prior to this year and replace him with Sandoval? What? We trade Shaw our 1B at end of last year and replace him with the guy that actually played 3B last year? If we traded Shaw before this year and penciled Sandoval in at 3B without a decent backup plan, we'd be totally screwed right now. And a lot of people would have been fine throwing him into any trade for just about anyone. It's an example of why you might not want to do that. Ditto on Sam Travis, Deven Marrero, Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, etc. They are much better depth players than most teams have.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 21, 2016 8:58:59 GMT -5
The Blue Jays could have pitched Noah Syndergaard this series if they didn't trade him for Dickey.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 21, 2016 12:27:40 GMT -5
What? We trade Shaw our 1B at end of last year and replace him with the guy that actually played 3B last year? This year, Shaw is playing 3B, as most people have already noticed. Smh
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 21, 2016 12:32:30 GMT -5
What? We trade Shaw our 1B at end of last year and replace him with the guy that actually played 3B last year? If we traded Shaw before this year and penciled Sandoval in at 3B without a decent backup plan, we'd be totally screwed right now. And a lot of people would have been fine throwing him into any trade for just about anyone. It's an example of why you might not want to do that. Ditto on Sam Travis, Deven Marrero, Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, etc. They are much better depth players than most teams have. OK, that's just not what you said before.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 21, 2016 13:08:42 GMT -5
But your counterpoint jmei is a list of well above average players. We didn't miss those players cause they turned out to be average, we missed them because they were well above average. If Margot and/or Guerra reach those players season war totals this will have been a bad trade. With any trade there is risk, unless you just take the stance that we aren't going to make trades and that just doesn't work in Baseball. Trades are a great way to get players you need that your minor league system can't provide, without the huge risk of free agency. For example if Bailey stays healthy pitching at an all star level the Reddick trade would look a lot different. We made some bad trades, now you just don't stop making trades because of that. That's like Dave not signing Price because of the Hanley and Sandoval deals the year before.
One question, you call free agency a minefield and I agree, but your #1 argument against the Kimbrel trade was signing O'Day as a free agent. How does that work?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 21, 2016 13:35:45 GMT -5
You're the one arguing that prospects that project to be average players are less valuable to big-market teams. My point is that you can't say with any reasonable certainty that Margot and Guerra are "just" going to be average players, and so that logic doesn't hold. Beyond that, cheap average players have been a huge part of recent successful Red Sox teams. They don't win in 2013 without guys like Daniel Nava and Jose Iglesias.
You know what's worse than free agency? Giving up a big trade package for a reliever signed to a market-rate-ish contract.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 21, 2016 15:09:55 GMT -5
There's no certainty with any trade, that's a given everytime you make a trade. Last offseason we could have traded Shaw for Reddick and everyone on this board would have called it an all time great trade. Now it would look a lot different.
Dave wanted to upgrade rotation and bullpen. He went with free agency for rotation and trades for the bullpen. He clearly thought Kimbrel was such a better option over next 3 years that he traded 2 top 100 prospects rather then just sign O'Day. Sure I would rather he traded that package for #2 starter and reports show he tried to get one. The problem was the cost was a lot more, a lot more.
He went out and got the best closer he could given the issues with Chapman. To make that happen he gave up a lot, more than I would have liked him to, but that was market this offseason. I happy to have a GM not afraid to pull the trigger if he thinks a certain player can help us win another title.
Look at the David Price trade. From a value point, that's going to be a very bad trade for the Jay's. On the other hand, if I was a Jay's fan I would be glad my GM went for it.
|
|
|