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.
Red Sox acquire Aaron Hill from Brewers for Wilkerson, Rijo
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 7, 2016 20:46:23 GMT -5
I would also like to acquire all of the Oakland Athletics without giving up a Top 100 prospect. Then flip the A's to the Braves for Teheran. Everybody wins!
|
|
|
Post by dridiot on Jul 7, 2016 20:48:42 GMT -5
I would also like to acquire all of the Oakland Athletics without giving up a Top 100 prospect. Let's be fair, we have to at least give them some value. I think Sandoval and Craig would do it.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 7, 2016 20:54:01 GMT -5
This feels like the first of a couple of trades. Let's hope trade #2 is for a starter. Larry would a Starter and Reliever be ok .? Absolutely!
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 7, 2016 20:56:04 GMT -5
Travis Shaw and Owens maybe a low level prospect or two For Rich Hill, Josh Reddick, and Sean Doolittle. I'd do this tomorrow. Hasn't billy said that he wants to hang onto Doolittle?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 7, 2016 20:58:20 GMT -5
I would also like to acquire all of the Oakland Athletics without giving up a Top 100 prospect. Then flip the A's to the Braves for Teheran. Everybody wins! I mean Travis Shaw might not of been a top 100 prospect but he's a productive controllable bug leaguer. Owens was a top 100 prospect. Maybe just Sean Doolittle and Rich Hill then?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 7, 2016 21:19:59 GMT -5
Wait, the countermove is that Ryan LaMarre was DFA'd while Sean Coyle is still on the 40-man? What in the hell? LaMarre has two options left and can play center - he'd be a very sensible pickup for a team that needs depth and has a spot on the 40 man. That's dumb.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 7, 2016 21:24:05 GMT -5
Wait, the countermove is that Ryan LaMarre was DFA'd while Sean Coyle is still on the 40-man? What in the hell? LaMarre has two options left and can play center - he'd be a very sensible pickup for a team that needs depth and has a spot on the 40 man. That's dumb. When Coyle gets sent back to greenville then he will be removed
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 7, 2016 21:53:09 GMT -5
I moved a bunch of Teheran posts to the appropriate thread in the trade proposal subforum.
|
|
|
Post by massbrew on Jul 7, 2016 23:12:47 GMT -5
Hi, Jim from Brewerfan.net.
Any links to discussion of Rijo's makeup issues? Thanks!
Gee, I haven't stopped by since the Brewers gave Michael Olmstead a 40-man roster spot as a minor league free agent, November 2012...hope all is well here.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 7, 2016 23:34:28 GMT -5
Travis Shaw and Owens maybe a low level prospect or two For Rich Hill, Josh Reddick, and Sean Doolittle. I'd do this tomorrow. So would I, and so wouldn't the A's. What powerful psychoactive drugs are you folks on? You're trading for 2.7 Hill wins (based on 2015-16 and assuming no regression), 1.3 Reddick wins, and 0.4 Doolittle wins this year plus maybe 2.0 more (at an increasing cost). It's 6 to 7 wins. You're trading away as much as 20 WAR just with Shaw -- including 2.0 this year ... so why you'd want to put Reddick in LF and Holt at 3B when it downgrades the team is itself a mystery. Yes, you have to lose deadline deals in a straight WAR analysis, but you're not supposed to lose them 15 or 20 to 6. And that's excluding Owens.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 1:51:49 GMT -5
So would I, and so wouldn't the A's. What powerful psychoactive drugs are you folks on? You're trading for 2.7 Hill wins (based on 2015-16 and assuming no regression), 1.3 Reddick wins, and 0.4 Doolittle wins this year plus maybe 2.0 more (at an increasing cost). It's 6 to 7 wins. You're trading away as much as 20 WAR just with Shaw -- including 2.0 this year ... so why you'd want to put Reddick in LF and Holt at 3B when it downgrades the team is itself a mystery. Yes, you have to lose deadline deals in a straight WAR analysis, but you're not supposed to lose them 15 or 20 to 6. And that's excluding Owens. eric, please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Shaw is in his second pre-arb year. His projection is 2 WAR. But if he does need to platoon, that may drop. At 2 WAR per year, for 4.5 years, he'll provide 9 WAR. But with 2 WAR projected, he'll be paid in arbitration for .75 WAR, leaving about about 6.75 WAR in excess value? does that seem right? I'm asking because I hear that teams (esp. the Braves) are asking for Shaw, and I'm trying to see how much excess value to impute for Shaw.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 8, 2016 2:24:38 GMT -5
The thing I love about this trade is that none of us knows what's coming. No one predicted this and it is a very intelligent deal. Let's hope he has a couple more like it in the pipeline.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 8, 2016 8:33:19 GMT -5
People constantly over estimate the cost of acquiring a rental player.
The simple fact is if the A's don't move those guys they lose them for nothing. Period. That doesn't even take into account they will be saving money by moving them.
That is why a move for Rich Hill makes so much more sense then gutting the farm for someone like Cole or Fernández.
Yes they have to compete with other teams but a lot of teams don't have the money or farm system the Red Sox do.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 8, 2016 8:57:24 GMT -5
People constantly over estimate the cost of acquiring a rental player. The simple fact is if the A's don't move those guys they lose them for nothing. Period. That doesn't even take into account they will be saving money by moving them. That is why a move for Rich Hill makes so much more sense then gutting the farm for someone like Cole or Fernández. In an environment where there won't be a lot of SP supply on the market, Rich Hill is still going to cost prospects. Your intimation that OAK will trade him for nothing is ill-considered. SF traded a solid B prospect and a C prospect for Mike Leake at the deadline. My guess is that Rich Hill (higher ceiling/higher risk) will require a similar haul in a competitive trade environment.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2016 9:14:46 GMT -5
Aaron Hill looks too good against righties to platoon. 2016 vs L as R OPS: .725 wRC+: 97 2016 vs R as R OPS: .803 wRC+: 112 Travis Shaw was one of the players the Braves offered to take for Teheran. By implication (I don't know this), the Sox may have put Travis Shaw on the list of players that were available. Hmm... coincidence? We'll see. You really cannot wait for the Red Sox to make a stupid trade, can you?
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jul 8, 2016 9:16:39 GMT -5
The one I don't understand is why the Sox didn't go after John Lackey. I get that they had perceived depth with five guys competing for the four and fifth spots in the rotation but Lackey has shown he can pitch in the pressure cooker which is Boston.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 8, 2016 9:36:51 GMT -5
People constantly over estimate the cost of acquiring a rental player. The simple fact is if the A's don't move those guys they lose them for nothing. Period. That doesn't even take into account they will be saving money by moving them. That is why a move for Rich Hill makes so much more sense then gutting the farm for someone like Cole or Fernández. In an environment where there won't be a lot of SP supply on the market, Rich Hill is still going to cost prospects. Your intimation that OAK will trade him for nothing is ill-considered. SF traded a solid B prospect and a C prospect for Mike Leake at the deadline. My guess is that Rich Hill (higher ceiling/higher risk) will require a similar haul in a competitive trade environment. I've never hinted they would trade him for nothing - I suggested people are overestimating the cost for acquiring him, and overestimate what the rental guys in general cost. In my eyes a move for a rental player makes much more sense at this time.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 8, 2016 10:02:40 GMT -5
This year is a bit different for deadline SP trades. There are more top teams that need a SP to get them over the hump & less SP available. Billy can simply sit back & say give me your best package & see what he can get. If Baltimore or Toronto picks him up (Hill), that will put us a peg behind them IMO. So, yes it will cost us a bit more to get him. Billy will move him, either way.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jul 8, 2016 10:16:33 GMT -5
Really nice acquisition for minimal cost. Exactly the type of trade we should be exited about.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,699
|
Post by nomar on Jul 8, 2016 10:26:01 GMT -5
Hi, Jim from Brewerfan.net. Any links to discussion of Rijo's makeup issues? Thanks! Gee, I haven't stopped by since the Brewers gave Michael Olmstead a 40-man roster spot as a minor league free agent, November 2012...hope all is well here. I wouldn't really worry about his makeup. But he plays below average defense at 2B with no other clear defensive home, and his bat has been trending downwards for 2 years. I was quickly losing any faith in him, honestly. But he has good bat speed, maybe a organizational change will be good for him. Fresh set of eyes on his mechanics and approach. Wilkerson should be able to be a backend starter in the NL. Given how long you'll have him under team control, this could be a steal for you guys. I think it's a fair trade both ways.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 8, 2016 10:27:38 GMT -5
What powerful psychoactive drugs are you folks on? You're trading for 2.7 Hill wins (based on 2015-16 and assuming no regression), 1.3 Reddick wins, and 0.4 Doolittle wins this year plus maybe 2.0 more (at an increasing cost). It's 6 to 7 wins. You're trading away as much as 20 WAR just with Shaw -- including 2.0 this year ... so why you'd want to put Reddick in LF and Holt at 3B when it downgrades the team is itself a mystery. Yes, you have to lose deadline deals in a straight WAR analysis, but you're not supposed to lose them 15 or 20 to 6. And that's excluding Owens. eric, please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Shaw is in his second pre-arb year. His projection is 2 WAR. But if he does need to platoon, that may drop. At 2 WAR per year, for 4.5 years, he'll provide 9 WAR. But with 2 WAR projected, he'll be paid in arbitration for .75 WAR, leaving about about 6.75 WAR in excess value? does that seem right? I'm asking because I hear that teams (esp. the Braves) are asking for Shaw, and I'm trying to see how much excess value to impute for Shaw. Shaw is already at bwar of 2.3 this year. That should project out to 3-4 bwar for this year. Eric seems to use that level per year to project Shaw's future bwar.
|
|
|
Post by tookme55 on Jul 8, 2016 10:39:50 GMT -5
A's can simply offer Hill a qualifying offer, no? And based on current crop of FA SP, Hill no doubt will turn it down, looking for 2-3 year deal instead. For that reason, wouldn't the Athletics want a player equal to the compensation pick?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 8, 2016 10:55:30 GMT -5
In an environment where there won't be a lot of SP supply on the market, Rich Hill is still going to cost prospects. Your intimation that OAK will trade him for nothing is ill-considered. SF traded a solid B prospect and a C prospect for Mike Leake at the deadline. My guess is that Rich Hill (higher ceiling/higher risk) will require a similar haul in a competitive trade environment. I've never hinted they would trade him for nothing - I suggested people are overestimating the cost for acquiring him, and overestimate what the rental guys in general cost. In my eyes a move for a rental player makes much more sense at this time. Fine. A rental SP in this environment will likely cost a solid B prospect and a C prospect. 2-3 months of Rich Hill may very well be worth it, if healthy.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 8, 2016 10:57:06 GMT -5
A's can simply offer Hill a qualifying offer, no? And based on current crop of FA SP, Hill no doubt will turn it down, looking for 2-3 year deal instead. For that reason, wouldn't the Athletics want a player equal to the compensation pick? Not necessarily in this case, because Hill will be 37 years old before next season starts and may (read: almost assuredly will) accept a $16+mm QO.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 8, 2016 11:17:05 GMT -5
In an environment where there won't be a lot of SP supply on the market, Rich Hill is still going to cost prospects. Your intimation that OAK will trade him for nothing is ill-considered. SF traded a solid B prospect and a C prospect for Mike Leake at the deadline. My guess is that Rich Hill (higher ceiling/higher risk) will require a similar haul in a competitive trade environment. I've never hinted they would trade him for nothing - I suggested people are overestimating the cost for acquiring him, and overestimate what the rental guys in general cost. In my eyes a move for a rental player makes much more sense at this time. The price of a trade asset is set by demand (what other GMs would be willing to trade for him), not by what he's worth to his current team. Plenty of other teams will be interested in Hill and willing to give up real assets for him since he's the best starting pitcher who is likely to be moved this summer, and the Red Sox will need to outbid those other teams.
|
|
|