SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by Guidas on May 11, 2016 10:00:03 GMT -5
Baseball Prospectus ran potential top trades past a "a front-office member who will be my yes or no to my offers for Trout." Five teams were considered to have farm systems loaded enough to get this done. One team won the trade in terms of checking off the boxes this particular front office person would want. And yet didn't because this is "Mike flippin’ Trout!" www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=29153Also, this trade would set almost everyone here's hair on fire. I'm going on record to say I would likely do this - I know, blasphemy - but I drool over keeping the current starting team intact (minus Papi next year) and having Trout on the offense with an OF of Mookie (LF)-Trout-JBJ for the next four years
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 11, 2016 12:06:11 GMT -5
I've been thinking about a Mike Trout trade since the Angels had their pitching injuries. In my own head, which is very biased, I still can't make it happen. My thought was to come up with some way to trade for Trout without trading anyone from the 25 man roster or my binkie Benintendi, and it's impossible. A very rough estimate has Trout at $200M+ surplus value over his contract. So if we assume Moncada proved so far he is worth the $61M we paid him, and take high estimates on surplus value for Benintendi, Espinoza, and Devers @ $40M, we are still short of Trouts estimated value. Maybe those 4 + Swihart?
Any trade for Trout would probably involve a team taking on 100% of Pujolz contract, while also including a monster youth package.
The thing that bugging me is I truly believe the Angels should trade Mike Trout. I just don't know how you do it while getting back the value that you deserve.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 11, 2016 15:28:32 GMT -5
No trade of Trout would be worth it for either team. The Angels would have to get a prohibitive return. The acquiring team would get a "friendly" contract, true, but (with the Sox as the example), they'd have to pay big $ to fill the spots of the incredibly cheap players that they'd trade away.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 11, 2016 15:39:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Mike Trout
May 11, 2016 17:17:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 11, 2016 17:17:39 GMT -5
Well, two of the players are JBJ and Swihart. JBJ is looking more and more like a 3.5-5 WAR player. Swihart is a big question mark, but has value as a catching prospect. Benintendi and Moncada probably have median projections of 2-4 WAR, being average or slightly above-average players. Espinoza's higher risk, but I think a fair median projection is 2 WAR...he *should* be at the very least a 3/4 starter or top-flight reliever. So any four of those players looks to be worth about 1-2 WAR over Trout's typical 8-10. They'll also cost about $20M less per year. There's more risk of one or more not panning out (although there's the benefit of a single catastrophic injury not being financially crippling). Further, trading for Trout means that the Sox will need to sign FAs to fill those other spots. Not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 12, 2016 11:28:20 GMT -5
Well, two of the players are JBJ and Swihart. JBJ is looking more and more like a 3.5-5 WAR player. Swihart is a big question mark, but has value as a catching prospect. Benintendi and Moncada probably have median projections of 2-4 WAR, being average or slightly above-average players. Espinoza's higher risk, but I think a fair median projection is 2 WAR...he *should* be at the very least a 3/4 starter or top-flight reliever. So any four of those players looks to be worth about 1-2 WAR over Trout's typical 8-10. They'll also cost about $20M less per year. There's more risk of one or more not panning out (although there's the benefit of a single catastrophic injury not being financially crippling). Further, trading for Trout means that the Sox will need to sign FAs to fill those other spots. Not worth it. Agree. That's why I like Baseball Prospectus' proposal - all prospects, and as we know, the likelihood of all those prospects panning out is decidedly low. Also there is no one in that package that is MLB ready and at least two are likely more than two years away (if they pan out), and each one has a present, controlled replacement.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
May 12, 2016 13:00:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 12, 2016 13:00:35 GMT -5
Well, two of the players are JBJ and Swihart. JBJ is looking more and more like a 3.5-5 WAR player. Swihart is a big question mark, but has value as a catching prospect. Benintendi and Moncada probably have median projections of 2-4 WAR, being average or slightly above-average players. Espinoza's higher risk, but I think a fair median projection is 2 WAR...he *should* be at the very least a 3/4 starter or top-flight reliever. So any four of those players looks to be worth about 1-2 WAR over Trout's typical 8-10. They'll also cost about $20M less per year. There's more risk of one or more not panning out (although there's the benefit of a single catastrophic injury not being financially crippling). Further, trading for Trout means that the Sox will need to sign FAs to fill those other spots. Not worth it. Agree. That's why I like Baseball Prospectus' proposal - all prospects, and as we know, the likelihood of all those prospects panning out is decidedly low. Also there is no one in that package that is MLB ready and at least two are likely more than two years away (if they pan out), and each one has a present, controlled replacement. Well, top positional prospects are "successful" (average-or-better regulars) about 50% of the time, and outstanding about 20% of the time. That's also average during control years, which typically has at least a couple "drag" years that bring down players' average value. www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects. Further, players who graduate to MLB at a young age (21-22) typically don't reach their prime until after their control years, or just towards the end (ages 26-28). So the Sox's top four is likely to produce at least one cost-controlled All-Star and one "average" player, with two "busts," who are basically useable MLBers, but second-division regulars or utility players. If you trust the Red Sox as a development team (I do, given their recent successes with Vazquez, Shaw, JBJ, Betts, Bogaerts...), maybe those odds/performances tick up a bit. And there's pretty convincing evidence that current success rates/predictions are substantially better than they were in the 1990s/early 2000s. So trading those four prospects means giving up a low-cost "4-WAR+" player, a "2.5 WAR" player, and two fungible assets of probably 1 WAR each (on the very low end, with a 5/3/2/1 breakdown probably more likely in today's age). So, 8.5 WAR for 8.5 WAR, roughly. However, Trout will be making about $30M more for 4-5 years. And in the absence of those prospects, the Red Sox will need to sign players (eg, Chris Young) at the going rate of $8M per WAR, which is probably about what Young will come to at the least ($5M/yr). So replacing the production of those four players (LF, 1b/3b/OF, 1b/3b/DH, SP) is most probably going to cost in the range of $30-$60 M per year. That's either by paying current players (eg Buchholz), moving them and finding replacements (Holt), signing FAs (say, a DH or 1b for Ortiz/Hanley). It also reduces organizational depth, salary flexibility, the ability to extend young players (the triple Bs, Vazquez, ERod, etc.), and the ability to sign a specific-need, costly, high-quality FA (Bautista, if you're into that sort of thing). As much as I'd like to see Trout on the Sox, that BP trade would completely gut their system, and in 3-4 years, they'd be where they were in 2011, or where the Angels and Yankees are now. The offense is plenty good as it is. I'm a firm believer in balanced teams with an active minor league pipeline. The Uber-team led by high-cost stars rarely works, and if it does, it's almost invariably for a short period, followed by a nasty correction.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 12, 2016 13:55:31 GMT -5
If you're going to start adding up the WARs, you need to apply a discount rate to take into account the time difference in expected production. It will be at least three or four years before those four prospects would add up to 8.5 wins, while Trout gives you that production immediately. You may also want to take into account risk premiums (Trout has a much lower spread of outcomes than that prospect package) and any added value to concentrating your production in one roster spot (whether one eight win player is more valuable than four/two/one/one).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 12, 2016 16:23:00 GMT -5
Agree. That's why I like Baseball Prospectus' proposal - all prospects, and as we know, the likelihood of all those prospects panning out is decidedly low. Also there is no one in that package that is MLB ready and at least two are likely more than two years away (if they pan out), and each one has a present, controlled replacement. Well, top positional prospects are "successful" (average-or-better regulars) about 50% of the time, and outstanding about 20% of the time. That's also average during control years, which typically has at least a couple "drag" years that bring down players' average value. www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects. Further, players who graduate to MLB at a young age (21-22) typically don't reach their prime until after their control years, or just towards the end (ages 26-28). So the Sox's top four is likely to produce at least one cost-controlled All-Star and one "average" player, with two "busts," who are basically useable MLBers, but second-division regulars or utility players. If you trust the Red Sox as a development team (I do, given their recent successes with Vazquez, Shaw, JBJ, Betts, Bogaerts...), maybe those odds/performances tick up a bit. And there's pretty convincing evidence that current success rates/predictions are substantially better than they were in the 1990s/early 2000s. So trading those four prospects means giving up a low-cost "4-WAR+" player, a "2.5 WAR" player, and two fungible assets of probably 1 WAR each (on the very low end, with a 5/3/2/1 breakdown probably more likely in today's age). So, 8.5 WAR for 8.5 WAR, roughly. However, Trout will be making about $30M more for 4-5 years. And in the absence of those prospects, the Red Sox will need to sign players (eg, Chris Young) at the going rate of $8M per WAR, which is probably about what Young will come to at the least ($5M/yr). So replacing the production of those four players (LF, 1b/3b/OF, 1b/3b/DH, SP) is most probably going to cost in the range of $30-$60 M per year. That's either by paying current players (eg Buchholz), moving them and finding replacements (Holt), signing FAs (say, a DH or 1b for Ortiz/Hanley). It also reduces organizational depth, salary flexibility, the ability to extend young players (the triple Bs, Vazquez, ERod, etc.), and the ability to sign a specific-need, costly, high-quality FA (Bautista, if you're into that sort of thing). As much as I'd like to see Trout on the Sox, that BP trade would completely gut their system, and in 3-4 years, they'd be where they were in 2011, or where the Angels and Yankees are now. The offense is plenty good as it is. I'm a firm believer in balanced teams with an active minor league pipeline. The Uber-team led by high-cost stars rarely works, and if it does, it's almost invariably for a short period, followed by a nasty correction. I disagree because the Sox have been integrating younger players for a few years, where the Yankees have not. Also, even with three or four of the prospects listed gone, I don't think the system is gutted, especially given the overall success rate of prospects. You still have Swihart, Travis, Kopeck, Dubon, Basabe, Ockimey, Cosart, Guaimaro and Muzziotti and whomever the Sox pick up at #12 this year, plus international signings. Sure it won't be a top 5 or maybe even top 10 system right away, but a big part of having a strong system is using prospects as currency while they have value. Of course no one wants to trade away one or more future All Stars but odds say most of these guys will never be that. Meanwhile Trout IS a player who currently possess 8-9 fWAR and is still getting better. It's one of those rare deals where, if I could roll the dice and it would cost me those guys, I'd do it. The only hesitation I would have as a GM is Moncada, and not because of his value but because of the $60M that has already been invested in him. That's meaningless to the Angels but it is an expense that affected the Sox balance sheet, especially with the recent sunk cost of the Panda and Castillo. Not sure if you could get LAA to give back a little of Trout's salary, but I'd ask if you could add Castillo and all his salary to the deal.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 12, 2016 16:59:23 GMT -5
Let's be clear here: trading the top four prospects would absolutely gut the system. If we're strictly talking about prospect-eligible guys (in other words, Swihart and Owens don't count), minus the top four, this is probably a bottom-10 and maybe a bottom-5 farm system without a clear top-100 prospect.
With that said, Mike Trout is one of those guys you gut your farm system for.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
May 12, 2016 18:58:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 12, 2016 18:58:10 GMT -5
Unless Chavis or Ockimey keeps it up (or Alex Basabe blows up) for a full season, minus the top 4, it's definitely a bottom-5 system. That might potentially be reversible with a good draft and some development luck, but I wouldn't count on it. And the Guaimaro/Mizzotti signings may be nullified, for all we know.
Trout's actually been getting worse by WAR, through reduced speed/defense, because his WRC+ has been essentially flat, as his ISO has gone up and his BA down. If he gets hurt for any extended period, or experiences a significant decline, it's a franchise-crippler.
Counting the $63M for Moncada, and the $120M left for Trout, and the roughly $100M-$150M(minimum) in added cost over four years to pay FAs (because there's not going to be anyone to trade) to fill the spots that those prospects won't be filling, and that's roughly $300M ($75M/year, plus reduced roster flexibility, inability to make deadline deals, etc.) for four years of Trout. They'd be stuck with a $220M payroll plus luxury tax, and no means to improve from within if someone gets hurt. No thanks. Great player, but not at that price.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 12, 2016 19:33:00 GMT -5
It'd be four-and-a-half years of Trout, and, over his first four seasons, he's been worth ~$70m a year (per fWAR and Fangraphs' $/WAR).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 12, 2016 21:08:34 GMT -5
It'd be four-and-a-half years of Trout, and, over his first four seasons, he's been worth ~$70m a year (per fWAR and Fangraphs' $/WAR). Endorse.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 13, 2016 17:11:54 GMT -5
I'm all for making a trade but that screams Bartolo Colon trade. Sure on average maybe only 1 out of 4 turns into all star, but sometimes 3 of them do like Sizemore, Lee and Phillips did.
It's fun to talk about, but it's a waste of time! We all know Angles would require players like Betts, Bradley, Swihart and ERod, plus a bunch of prospects.
Would you do Betts, Swihart, ERod, Moncada and Espinoza? That's more in line with what it would take to get the Angles not to hang up on you. Heck they might want more. They have no reason to move him. He's still young and under contract for years.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on May 13, 2016 17:56:15 GMT -5
I actually thought about Swihart, Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, plus 2 or 3 others from below the top 4, and/or Owens, Johnson, Kelly. But Neo I don't trade.
However, this would be the ideal time to invoke Theo's dictum "avoid the temptation to build an uber-team." I can live with Benintendi as the 3rd OFer, as much as you'd love to upgrade him to Trout.
I want the surplus of talent that makes it likely that you'll have a great player at just about every position down the road. Right now, you have Benintendi, Moncada, Devers, Travis, Chavis, and Ockimey all looking like candidates to fill the three furthest spots on the defensive spectrum in 2019. The more alluring candidates you have, the better your chances. You can trade the excess talent when and only when it's clear that it actually is excess.
When the weak link in your lineup is Brock Holt and the weak link in your rotation is Clay Buchholz, you can afford to stand pat and hoard the potential future talent.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
May 13, 2016 20:54:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 13, 2016 20:54:25 GMT -5
I actually thought about Swihart, Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, plus 2 or 3 others from below the top 4, and/or Owens, Johnson, Kelly. But Neo I don't trade. However, this would be the ideal time to invoke Theo's dictum "avoid the temptation to build an uber-team." I can live with Benintendi as the 3rd OFer, as much as you'd love to upgrade him to Trout. I want the surplus of talent that makes it likely that you'll have a great player at just about every position down the road. Right now, you have Benintendi, Moncada, Devers, Travis, Chavis, and Ockimey all looking like candidates to fill the three furthest spots on the defensive spectrum in 2019. The more alluring candidates you have, the better your chances. You can trade the excess talent when and only when it's clear that it actually is excess. When the weak link in your lineup is Brock Holt and the weak link in your rotation is Clay Buchholz, you can afford to stand pat and hoard the potential future talent. The last three paragraphs are exactly how I feel about it. The huge $ and loss of salary flexibility (not to mention system depth and all of the benefits tat brings) isn't worth the one super-duperstar to me. I think Theo had the right idea, at least as regards long-term success.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on May 13, 2016 22:46:57 GMT -5
Bill James has stated a number of times, " if you give me an entire team of league average players, we'd win multiple championships"
The Sox have a chance at better than league average from an entire roster, and for multiple years. That seems the safer, and ultimately more rewarding route.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 14, 2016 10:06:37 GMT -5
Trading for Mike Trout would lead to your team looking exactly like the Angels right now and necessitate a trade of Mike Trout.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
May 14, 2016 17:26:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 14, 2016 17:26:35 GMT -5
If you're going to start adding up the WARs, you need to apply a discount rate to take into account the time difference in expected production. It will be at least three or four years before those four prospects would add up to 8.5 wins, while Trout gives you that production immediately. You may also want to take into account risk premiums (Trout has a much lower spread of outcomes than that prospect package) and any added value to concentrating your production in one roster spot (whether one eight win player is more valuable than four/two/one/one). All valid points; there are obviously other considerations such as contractual obligations in order to fill roster spots until those players are regulars (eg, most FAs will want multi-year deals, and/or suitable FAs to fill future holes may or may not be available, requiring trades and/or extensions of current players) and (beneficial) cost certainty (Trout has five years of control at fixed cost, which is a concrete cost in addressing payroll). There's also the rolling nature of prospect production (eg, Benintendi/Moncada will probably be producing at 1-2 years, but not peak for 3-4, at which point they are the best bet to reach/exceed "average" pre-FA WAR. All that considered, among other things, I don't think one player is worth it, unless they can deal substantially from excess (i.e., trade Buchholz for a prospect package that can be flipped, include Swihart, include a couple of 6-10 prospects, etc.) Otherwise, the future cost and loss of flexibility just abrogates all of the current benefit, IMO. It's likely to be an extreme version of the Adrian Gonzalez trade, with a similar outcome in 3-4 years.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
May 14, 2016 17:36:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 14, 2016 17:36:46 GMT -5
It'd be four-and-a-half years of Trout, and, over his first four seasons, he's been worth ~$70m a year (per fWAR and Fangraphs' $/WAR). Which would be great, only the Sox would effectively have to pay that $70M/year. That's not efficient, because it's paying FA WAR rate. A team comprised entirely of FA WAR rate players, to be a league-best team, would need to spend $350-$400M/year. It's just my cost-effective. For a $200M, 50-WAR team, you need to average $4M/WAR. That's still an inflated payroll, btw, but reasonable for the Sox. That means Trout is a $32-$40M player, meaning he's just average by that measurement...and you've got a ton of salary/performance risk tied up in one player, which can be catastrophic. That's why I find that idea of "excess value" inherently flawed; FA cost is not reflective of cost across all players, and that's why young players have "excess" value beyond simply the $ savings vs FAs: because they provide roster flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 14, 2016 17:44:05 GMT -5
Trading for Mike Trout would lead to your team looking exactly like the Angels right now and necessitate a trade of Mike Trout. Well said. Fact of the matter is that there offense doesn't need a ton of help and the help it does need exists in the minors and could have impact potential. The Sox need better starting pitching and they have to find it without hurting their young core or best prospects. One man teams don't normally win and if you have to wreck your club to get the guy it's just not worth it. There's just too many ways to lose in baseball to weaken your club in a number of areas just to make it a supreme plus in one area.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 14, 2016 21:04:42 GMT -5
It'd be four-and-a-half years of Trout, and, over his first four seasons, he's been worth ~$70m a year (per fWAR and Fangraphs' $/WAR). Which would be great, only the Sox would effectively have to pay that $70M/year. That's not efficient, because it's paying FA WAR rate. A team comprised entirely of FA WAR rate players, to be a league-best team, would need to spend $350-$400M/year. It's just my cost-effective. For a $200M, 50-WAR team, you need to average $4M/WAR. That's still an inflated payroll, btw, but reasonable for the Sox. That means Trout is a $32-$40M player, meaning he's just average by that measurement...and you've got a ton of salary/performance risk tied up in one player, which can be catastrophic. That's why I find that idea of "excess value" inherently flawed; FA cost is not reflective of cost across all players, and that's why young players have "excess" value beyond simply the $ savings vs FAs: because they provide roster flexibility. It would be equivalent to signing Mike Trout as a free agent for market value, which is at least worth strongly thinking about. If they can do that without giving up any major-league talent, that's essentially guaranteeing them a playoff spot if Trout stays healthy-- which is very tempting.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
May 14, 2016 22:08:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 14, 2016 22:08:15 GMT -5
Which would be great, only the Sox would effectively have to pay that $70M/year. That's not efficient, because it's paying FA WAR rate. A team comprised entirely of FA WAR rate players, to be a league-best team, would need to spend $350-$400M/year. It's just my cost-effective. For a $200M, 50-WAR team, you need to average $4M/WAR. That's still an inflated payroll, btw, but reasonable for the Sox. That means Trout is a $32-$40M player, meaning he's just average by that measurement...and you've got a ton of salary/performance risk tied up in one player, which can be catastrophic. That's why I find that idea of "excess value" inherently flawed; FA cost is not reflective of cost across all players, and that's why young players have "excess" value beyond simply the $ savings vs FAs: because they provide roster flexibility. It would be equivalent to signing Mike Trout as a free agent for market value, which is at least worth strongly thinking about. If they can do that without giving up any major-league talent, that's essentially guaranteeing them a playoff spot if Trout stays healthy-- which is very tempting. Fair enough. I think we just fundamentally disagree on the most effective use of resources. Because you're absolutely right in that that move would likely make the Sox a probable perennial playoff team for the life of Trout's contract. My concern is the state of the team after that five-year window. I think homegrown players are the key to sustained success. And as the team stands, I'm not sure Trout makes enough difference in the short-term (i.e., I think they're probably contenders given their minor league talent and payroll flexibility over that timeframe anyway) to risk long-term damage. At the same time, I'd be remiss not to admit I like the homegrown route for pure enjoyment's sake as well. There's something rewarding about following young players up through the system (or watching savvy trades like ERod or Holt play out) that I prefer to $-driven acquisition of big-money megastars. But it's absolutely a matter of preference; there are clear benefits either way...I suppose it depends on one's patience and enjoyment of gambling, to an extent.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 14, 2016 22:58:00 GMT -5
Which would be great, only the Sox would effectively have to pay that $70M/year. That's not efficient, because it's paying FA WAR rate. A team comprised entirely of FA WAR rate players, to be a league-best team, would need to spend $350-$400M/year. It's just my cost-effective. For a $200M, 50-WAR team, you need to average $4M/WAR. That's still an inflated payroll, btw, but reasonable for the Sox. That means Trout is a $32-$40M player, meaning he's just average by that measurement...and you've got a ton of salary/performance risk tied up in one player, which can be catastrophic. That's why I find that idea of "excess value" inherently flawed; FA cost is not reflective of cost across all players, and that's why young players have "excess" value beyond simply the $ savings vs FAs: because they provide roster flexibility. It would be equivalent to signing Mike Trout as a free agent for market value, which is at least worth strongly thinking about. If they can do that without giving up any major-league talent, that's essentially guaranteeing them a playoff spot if Trout stays healthy-- which is very tempting. No it's not. You don't give any player 70 million a year, even Trout.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on May 17, 2016 6:18:20 GMT -5
Trout is Gluttony , just cause Providence journal wrote an article saying we match up doesn't mean we would do this , especially not with all cost control players and prospects we would need to give up , we are already over the LT and likely go into 2017 over again. Trout is simply a luxury item , we don't need him. because we have so much production from SS and 2B it lets us have flexibility elsewhere . We are on pace to be the most productive offense in MLB history, why pile on? Fun to think about though for sure.
|
|
|