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 pedrofanforever45 on Jun 2, 2016 5:43:26 GMT -5
Of course if I could get Trout for Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, Kopech, Swihart, and Owens....
I'd still do it. The only prospect I would protect is Espinoza. Espinoza is the untouchable in this system.
Eric already said this in his first post. So I agree with that and I'm unoriginal or I think like him.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 2, 2016 6:13:47 GMT -5
I got a interesting hypothetical.
What if the Angels were willing to deal Trout only if they made the Sox take Pujols too (plus prospects to the Angels)?
Would that be the deal breaker? Imo no if the Angels were willing to take Hanley and Pablo back (but only if they took both back).
Pujols becomes the new DH after Ortiz retires. Trout is part of the best New outfield in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jun 2, 2016 7:38:12 GMT -5
One more note. Trout has a full no-trade, which he'd undoubtedly waive for a trade to a contender. The Sox have the talent to make this happen, as do the the Cubs and Dodgers (the Mets don't, nor do they have the payroll space). If he knows that, it's hard to imagine him approving a trade to anyone else, e.g., the Nats. And none of those clubs need him, which will keep the price down. The offers will be rational ones rather than we-must-overwhlem-you-because-Trout! ones. I think that's wishful thinking. It's going to cost a ton to get Trout. I think that you are both putting words in Eric's mouth. I don't think he said it wasn't going to cost a ton to get Trout. I think Eric was saying that the few teams that can afford him don't actually need him, which will keep them from overreacting and paying what the Angels want. That would mean that either the price goes down (which doesn't mean that the price isn't still an overpay) or that the Angels won't trade Trout at all.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 2, 2016 8:11:57 GMT -5
I got a interesting hypothetical. What if the Angels were willing to deal Trout only if they made the Sox take Pujols too (plus prospects to the Angels)? Would that be the deal breaker? Imo no if the Angels were willing to take Hanley and Pablo back (but only if they took both back). Pujols becomes the new DH after Ortiz retires. Trout is part of the best New outfield in baseball. It would be for me. Much rather have Hanley and you really don't wanna mess too much with current lineup. Pujols might have worst contract in Baseball. Now if I was Angels I would make taking Pujols part of deal and I wouldn't pay more than 25 to 30% of his contract or take back a contract like Hanley. They need to get major salary relief.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jun 2, 2016 12:38:03 GMT -5
It's really a shame Mike Trout is on the Angels. As mentioned, very few teams could afford/need him. If I'm the Angels, I would take what I could get. It's not like Fernandez in Miami. Miami does not need to move JF. LAA really does NEED to move Trout. Their just slowly wilting away. No team would be willing to give up what he's worth, 4 or 5 top chips. IMO, the best they can get is a fair package of 4 or 5 "good" prospects. The 30 mil AAV is also not peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2016 17:52:39 GMT -5
Maybe they'll sell Trout to the Red Sox for $100,000.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 2, 2016 21:09:24 GMT -5
I get what you're saying but I honestly think the impact is larger on the pitching side of things. The Red Sox offense is great. No doubt. If you get replace Swihart with a stronger offensive LF, then you increase your runs scored. Makes sense, but I don't think all runs are equal in this case. That means I'd expect more blowout wins. Or an increase in marginal runs. I think when you have a strong offense you tend to win a lot more of the blowout type of games, but if your pitching is weak, I think it's harder to win the games where your offense doesn't bash the ball and when you're in the post-season you're dealing with guys like Arietta, Sale, Quintana, Bumgarner, Syndergaard, Kershaw, etc. If E-Rod is looking like his old self, a #2 type starter to go with Price, Porcello, and Wright, and those four starting pitchers are doing well, and if the price of starting pitching is too high, then yeah, improve the bullpen and upgrade LF - those should be cheaper solutions. But if E-Rod isn't himself, Kelly is still a box of chocolates as in you never know what you're gonna get, and Buchholz is still throwing that hittable 92 MPH fastball, or there is an injury to either Price, Porcello, or Wright, then the rotation looks pretty short for the post-season, doesn't it? Injuries can happen to any player, but with starting pitching, if the depth is thin, then it gets pretty precarious. You're assuming that great offenses are at some sort of a relative disadvantage or that pitching is particularly important in the postseason. There's not really any empirical reason to think that's true. Offense and run prevention operate on a roughly linear spectrum, even in the postseason. Jmei, after watching the last two games against the Orioles I'm pretty convinced that a quality starter and a solid setup reliever is needed more than a leftfield upgrade. I don't agree 100% that offense and run prevention operate exactly equally. If the league is allowing 4.5 runs per game but you lose 9-7, did you lose because you didn't score enough runs to win or because your pitching gave up too many runs to win? You can say it's both. I'd say it's the latter and clearly that's what has happened the past couple of games. The Sox, as it is now, are on pace to score around 950 runs. I don't think the upgrade to 975 is what would help them as giving up less runs would. I'm going to break out some old school sabermetrics here. A team that scores an average of 5 runs a game and gives up 4 runs a game is expected to win about 98.8 games. A team that scores an average of 6 runs a game and gives up 5 runs a game is expected to win about 95.6 games, so it's not exactly 100% equal. I just think if you can't stop your opponents from scoring it's hard having to score a ton of runs every night to win. If your pitching is mediocre good teams, which you face in post-season, should be able to hit your pitching, but if the pitching the Sox face in the post-season is higher caliber, it's going to be harder to replicate their 5.8 runs/night offense. That said, I would think the easiest thing to upgrade in order would be: relief pitching, #4/5 type starter, leftfielder, #2 starter. Of course, leftfielder jumps to the top of the list in expense if the Sox have to clean out their farm system for Mike Trout. And those 4-1 or 5-1 (Von Hayes was a 5-1 way back when) can be frightening, especially if that one guy you deal for winds up with a major injury. I hope the Sox can address their pitching first, but if it's too expensive, then yes, they'll have to settle for a LF upgrade instead, which amounts to improving a huge strength and leaving a weakness neglected.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 2, 2016 21:57:04 GMT -5
[citation needed]
Again, you're asserting some sort of significant non-linearity here. Without more, I just don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 2, 2016 22:10:28 GMT -5
[citation needed] Again, you're asserting some sort of significant non-linearity here. Without more, I just don't buy it. Well, it's Pythagorean win calculation, which has been determined empirically. I'm not sure how it holds up under the extremes. In reality, the non-linear response of scoring to improved individual performances might compensate. I will say that games like tonight's are just incredibly dull (and disappointing) to watch. I think they could get a quality LH LF most cheaply. I'm not sure what they can do about the bullpen. It's been awful for a couple weeks and generally very average, which is a monumental disappointment given how we'd all hoped it would look.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 2, 2016 22:35:59 GMT -5
[citation needed] Again, you're asserting some sort of significant non-linearity here. Without more, I just don't buy it. That's fair enough. You don't have to buy what I'm selling anymore than I have to buy what you're selling. Could we find common ground on being concerned about the Red Sox having generally mediocre pitching? Would you say that if the Sox don't make the post-season (for the record, I do think the Sox will finish 1st this season in the AL East as their pythag indicates although they'll probably underperform it by about 5 games when all is said and done) or they don't get too far in the post-season that most likely it will be the pitching that is the culprit and not their offense (even with a mediocre LF)? Lastly this is the Mike Trout theoretical trade thread, so I won't post on this subject here anymore.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jun 3, 2016 9:30:38 GMT -5
I'm not an expert, but it seems like upgrading LF is more of a sure thing. Relievers (even set up men) are really fickle. I really don't believe any team in the ML can afford the prospects (or willing) to obtain Trout. IMO Reddick is in the sweet spot being a rental & should come fairly cheap. The numbers guys would have to weigh the upgrade over Swihart.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,947
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 3, 2016 16:05:50 GMT -5
I think that's wishful thinking. It's going to cost a ton to get Trout. I think that you are both putting words in Eric's mouth. I don't think he said it wasn't going to cost a ton to get Trout. I think Eric was saying that the few teams that can afford him don't actually need him, which will keep them from overreacting and paying what the Angels want. That would mean that either the price goes down (which doesn't mean that the price isn't still an overpay) or that the Angels won't trade Trout at all. What I'm thinking of a scenario where everyone sees that the Angels have to trade Trout, or they'll end up paying him $119M to maybe help them finish next-to-last instead of last for four years, then get a draft pick for him. And still have no chance of contending in the foreseeable future. That will leave the Angels in a position where they might well decide that they need to make a trade that they can clearly win on total WAR, without factoring in the very real WAR scarcity factor. Because one 9-10 win guy is not more valuable than four 3-win guys ... if and only if those 3-win guys are are replacing actual rather than theoretical replacement level players. A really bad team does not get the extra WAR scarcity bonus that a superstar brings. A way of quantifying this: the better and deeper you are as an organization, the higher your practical replacement level is. If you have a farm system that is churning out average big league position players, Mike Trout has 8 wins of value (10 - 2) and you may well have some 3 win players who have only 0 wins of usable value, because they're blocked by someone even better. Let's sat Trout has 38 wins of value coming here, at the market rate for 15 wins. We offer a package starting with 5 years of Swihart, and 6 each of Benintendi and Devers. You can guess that the 17 seasons would be filled by 1.0 WAR players otherwise, but the Angels are also paying out a lot less than $119M -- maybe $36 before they hit FA. Call it 10 WAR of value saved. So, if you get X wins per season for 17 seasons, that has to equal the 38 you traded away, plus the 17 you hope to have at the three positions anyway (which may well be over-optimistic), less the 10 you can now buy on the market. That's 45 wins, which is 2.65 wins per each season of the 3 guys. If Swihart and Benintendi are looking like 3 - 4 WAR talents, you can start having a discussion. If you think you can count on Swihart and Benny averaging 3 wins per season, now you're gambling on getting 12 wins from Devers. If any of these guys bust out, well, gravy. And then you can start adding 2 win players to the conversation. If the Angels are in a "hey, this is Mike Trout!" frame of mind, it won't happen. But if they're being rational, it could absolutely happen. And I think that the Sox' tremendous track record with their position player prospects from the Theo and later era has to help. A quick review of BA Top 100 guys, with bWAR totals before FA eligibility noted; "pace" extrapolations are based on entire career so far and are obviously low for X and JBJ. Guys with * were not in the top 50. Boom: Bogaerts (19.1 pace, but looking like 40+) (*)Betts (39.5 pace) Bradley (16.1 pace, but looking like 25-35) *Pedroia (31.9) Ellsbury (21.1) *Reddick (c. 20) OK, Injury-Hampered:*Lowrie (8.1) *Iglesias Bust:
*Cecchini *Middlebrooks Anderson Hurt:Westmoreland *Kalish The top 50 guys plus Betts (who was ranked that high mid-season) look to average 3.5 or more wins per season of control. And that's including Westmoreland, whose injury was non-baseball-related, and of course omitting Pedey.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2016 17:52:06 GMT -5
I think that you are both putting words in Eric's mouth. I don't think he said it wasn't going to cost a ton to get Trout. I think Eric was saying that the few teams that can afford him don't actually need him, which will keep them from overreacting and paying what the Angels want. That would mean that either the price goes down (which doesn't mean that the price isn't still an overpay) or that the Angels won't trade Trout at all. What I'm thinking of a scenario where everyone sees that the Angels have to trade Trout, or they'll end up paying him $119M to maybe help them finish next-to-last instead of last for four years, then get a draft pick for him. And still have no chance of contending in the foreseeable future. That will leave the Angels in a position where they might well decide that they need to make a trade that they can clearly win on total WAR, without factoring in the very real WAR scarcity factor. Because one 9-10 win guy is not more valuable than four 3-win guys ... if and only if those 3-win guys are are replacing actual rather than theoretical replacement level players. A really bad team does not get the extra WAR scarcity bonus that a superstar brings. A way of quantifying this: the better and deeper you are as an organization, the higher your practical replacement level is. If you have a farm system that is churning out average big league position players, Mike Trout has 8 wins of value (10 - 2) and you may well have some 3 win players who have only 0 wins of usable value, because they're blocked by someone even better. Let's sat Trout has 38 wins of value coming here, at the market rate for 15 wins. We offer a package starting with 5 years of Swihart, and 6 each of Benintendi and Devers. You can guess that the 17 seasons would be filled by 1.0 WAR players otherwise, but the Angels are also paying out a lot less than $119M -- maybe $36 before they hit FA. Call it 10 WAR of value saved. So, if you get X wins per season for 17 seasons, that has to equal the 38 you traded away, plus the 17 you hope to have at the three positions anyway (which may well be over-optimistic), less the 10 you can now buy on the market. That's 45 wins, which is 2.65 wins per each season of the 3 guys. If Swihart and Benintendi are looking like 3 - 4 WAR talents, you can start having a discussion. If you think you can count on Swihart and Benny averaging 3 wins per season, now you're gambling on getting 12 wins from Devers. If any of these guys bust out, well, gravy. And then you can start adding 2 win players to the conversation. If the Angels are in a "hey, this is Mike Trout!" frame of mind, it won't happen. But if they're being rational, it could absolutely happen. And I think that the Sox' tremendous track record with their position player prospects from the Theo and later era has to help. A quick review of BA Top 100 guys, with bWAR totals before FA eligibility noted; "pace" extrapolations are based on entire career so far and are obviously low for X and JBJ. Guys with * were not in the top 50. Boom: Bogaerts (19.1 pace, but looking like 40+) (*)Betts (39.5 pace) Bradley (16.1 pace, but looking like 25-35) *Pedroia (31.9) Ellsbury (21.1) *Reddick (c. 20) OK, Injury-Hampered:*Lowrie (8.1) *Iglesias Bust:
*Cecchini *Middlebrooks Anderson Hurt:Westmoreland *Kalish The top 50 guys plus Betts (who was ranked that high mid-season) look to average 3.5 or more wins per season of control. And that's including Westmoreland, whose injury was non-baseball-related, and of course omitting Pedey. This is dead-on. It's also what I find very frustrating about some of the crazy trade proposals people put out there. Sure, a great 1a/2 would be nice, but even a healthy/right Sonny Gray is barely marginally better than ERod, and probably only 1-2 wins better than somebody the Sox could squeeze into the 5 spot. And that's the real value of prospects/young players. Even if they're not superstars, and are more or less "average," they provide value by saving $ at their given position. The ideal trade for a superstar is replacing a high-cost option at a position of poor production (say, acquiring a fantastic 3b last year instead of signing Sandoval). And the ideal trade return for a superstar (other than getting lucky with the prospects coming back) is getting multiple low-cost players who provide several-win upgrades at your worst positions (like you say, those four 3-win players would need to replace four 0-win players to actually be worth 12 wins, which is unlikely). Theoretically there's some value to having those low-cost players because they provide excess value (high WAR for much less than FA rate of $8M per), making FA signings possible and providing salary flexibility. But the key to all of it is who's being replaced.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 6, 2016 3:20:27 GMT -5
I do agree that this whole theoretical comes down to the angels focusing on the baseball side of things and tearing down and rebuilding. If they're smart, they'll do it and rebuild because everyone knows that the angels aren't winning anything anytime soon even with Trout. Their roster construction is the worst in baseball. Bad contracts in aging players, followed by ineffective or injured players, followed by the worst farm system in baseball.
The problem is that the angels are a big market team. Markets like these need to sell off reasons to have the fans invested. Mike Trout is the most marketable player and the most recognizable player in baseball.
Here in lies the problem.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jun 6, 2016 7:52:41 GMT -5
I do agree that this whole theoretical comes down to the angels focusing on the baseball side of things and tearing down and rebuilding. If they're smart, they'll do it and rebuild because everyone knows that the angels aren't winning anything anytime soon even with Trout. Their roster construction is the worst in baseball. Bad contracts in aging players, followed by ineffective or injured players, followed by the worst farm system in baseball. The problem is that the angels are a big market team. Markets like these need to sell off reasons to have the fans invested. Mike Trout is the most marketable player and the most recognizable player in baseball. Here in lies the problem. With them being a big market team, he is THE only reason fans will come out. But seriously, how many teams have the chips to get him. If we're throwing around the names in our system, how many teams have even close to similar prospects (and willing to give up) & can afford his salary? I would imagine there are only a few teams in this boat.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 6, 2016 8:08:05 GMT -5
Just about every team in the league can afford his salary. Even the Marlins and Rays are carrying $70m-ish payrolls these days. Some of the lower-payroll teams in the league might need to cut payroll in other areas to afford him, but that's doable.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jun 6, 2016 10:07:47 GMT -5
True, but wouldn't they (small-mid market teams) have to then sign FA's to make up for the lost prospects that would have given them cheap production for years? These days though, the line between large/mid/small market teams are starting to blur.
|
|
|