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.
Sale to BOS for Moncada, Kopech, Basabe, Diaz
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 10, 2016 14:27:59 GMT -5
There is no hyperbole here. James, this is an absolutely horrible trade, and you know it, made only to get under the salary cap. A responsible journalist, like yourself, should write about this with integrity. Don't. Feed. The. Mainstream Media. Wow! How is this trade helping them get under the salary cap, none of these prospects effected team payroll. Conspiracy theories really have no place on a baseball board. Just read up above, for mainstream sources. Dombrowski is under orders to get under the cap. Sale has a 6.5 AAV, next they'll sell low or dump Buchholz's 13. Net of 6.5 is about what they need to get under.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Dec 10, 2016 14:34:58 GMT -5
As constituted they are under the cap right now do not need to get rid of Bucholtz to get there. It is a ridiculous argument you are making. They did not have to pick up his option or they could have non tendered Abad for more wiggle room.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 10, 2016 14:45:00 GMT -5
As constituted they are under the cap right now do not need to get rid of Bucholtz to get there. It is a ridiculous argument you are making. They did not have to pick up his option or they could have non tendered Abad for more wiggle room. You are buying into a narrative that is not real. They have lots of money and contracts unsettled and maybe about 35M to do it with. Not at all clear they can get there without dumping Buchholz and/or Abad. It's a complicated business, perhaps more so than the average fan realizes.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Dec 10, 2016 14:59:44 GMT -5
As constituted they are under the cap right now do not need to get rid of Bucholtz to get there. It is a ridiculous argument you are making. They did not have to pick up his option or they could have non tendered Abad for more wiggle room. You are buying into a narrative that is not real. They have lots of money and contracts unsettled and maybe about 35M to do it with. Not at all clear they can get there without dumping Buchholz and/or Abad. It's a complicated business, perhaps more so than the average fan realizes. What are you talking about? The only thing unsettled is extensions for there young players. You should learn to enjoy the game, baseball is not about conspiracy theories , it's about the hope for your favorite team and players. I love to follow our prospects and will miss the growth in Moncada and Kopech, but love our young base and am very excited about the potential of the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 10, 2016 15:18:36 GMT -5
It's official this thread has reached ridiculous status.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 10, 2016 15:20:52 GMT -5
You are buying into a narrative that is not real. They have lots of money and contracts unsettled and maybe about 35M to do it with. Not at all clear they can get there without dumping Buchholz and/or Abad. It's a complicated business, perhaps more so than the average fan realizes. What are you talking about? The only thing unsettled is extensions for there young players. You should learn to enjoy the game, baseball is not about conspiracy theories , it's about the hope for your favorite team and players. I love to follow our prospects and will miss the growth in Moncada and Kopech, but love our young base and am very excited about the potential of the rotation. Did they settle the arb numbers yet? Joe Kelly doesn’t get a huge bump after an unsuccessful stint in the rotation and a shift to the bullpen, but Drew Pomeranz should see a noticeable jump from his $1.35 million, possibly up to about $4 or $5 million. Robbie Ross will get bumped up a bit to around $2 million. And joining the ranks of the arbitration eligible for the first time will be Brock Holt, Sandy Leon, and the big ones: Jackie Bradley Jr. and Xander Bogaerts, two Boras clients who could threaten to pull similar salaries to Drew Pomeranz even in just their first rodeos.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Dec 10, 2016 15:27:29 GMT -5
They have a good idea what everyone's arbitration number will be and because of this they probably realize they will be under the luxury tax. There goal in trading Bucholtz is for wiggle room for in season moves. The Sale trade had nothing to do with getting under the tax it was about getting a cost controlled ace for three years.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 10, 2016 16:35:14 GMT -5
Look, Xander Bogaerts has accumulated 9.4 fWAR in 3+ seasons. He has 3 seasons left under team control. He would need to average 6.9 WAR per season in order to reach career 30 WAR. The odds of him achieving that? Zero. The odds that Kopech and Moncada put up a combined 30 WAR each in their team controlled years? Let's put it this way, you'd have better odds playing the lotto That's not fair to Bogey. He's the most advanced hitter in the game, right up there with Trout and Harper. He has half seasons of 3-3.5 WAR, but then his problem has been that he gets tired late in the season, and -- as he says in his own words -- he starts to feel the pressure. I expect with experience, and the 26th man giving him more rest, he'll start to put up full 6-7 WAR seasons. Plus, that first season of -.3 WAR was an outlier and not predictive. And I'm rounding up, so if Bogey gets to 26ish WAR, I win. Might I suggest that you change your moniker to "deep end"? (as in off the)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 10, 2016 16:45:36 GMT -5
Don't. Feed. The. Mainstream Media. oh, dear.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 10, 2016 17:00:48 GMT -5
Deep, it was just the other day that you were arguing for the team to take on $220 million in guaranteed contract for a guy who'll be 34 as this season gets underway. You had no problem with that despite the restrictions it would impose on team spending, including extensions for the young talent. Now that the Sox have traded for one of the better pitchers in the game, a player in his prime and controlled at a reasonable salary for the next 3 years, you see that as nothing but a cynical move, one that betrays fans and hurts the organization. That disconnect is very jarring.
I understand why you're upset, but try to stay focused on the value of the players involved. That's where the legitimate discussion happens. The other stuff belongs somewhere else. I'm sure you'd have lots of takers on Twitter.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 10, 2016 18:06:56 GMT -5
I expect with experience, and the 26th man giving him more rest, he'll start to put up fulll 6-7 WAR seasons. Plus, that first season of -.3 WAR was an outlier and not predictive. And I'm rounding up, so if Bogey gets to 26ish WAR, I win. Can we resurrect that old macro for when someone would misspell Buchholz it would turn into "I am an idiot" and have it work for "I'm rounding up"?
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Dec 10, 2016 18:08:12 GMT -5
This is one of the few times anyone has ever said this in public. The owners of many or perhaps all these teams, but especially the owners of the Red Sox, are nothing but greedy and cynical. These owners are only manipulating the Red Sox fans into buying advanced tickets with a splashy announcement of a big name player. It's a simple fact that many Papi fans are much less inclined to buy tickets with their scarce dollars, which these fans need for many things, and even for other forms of entertainment. The Red Sox are an incredibly lucrative publicity machine, whose end goal is to increase revenue and book value, which is in the billions and growing. Henry actually owns the Boston Globe. It is just an obvious conflict of interest for Henry to manipulate the media and the fans. As much as I love going to the games, and oh do I love it, in good conscience, I really cannot support these greedy, cynical robber barons. I feel I do need to say something. Man, you sound like you hate DD and the rest of the Red Sox brass. Wondering why you are following them. Since you are obviously not an "average fan," you realize that this message board is another form of marketing for the Red Sox, which increases their book value, correct? Chris Sale increases the odds of the Red Sox winning the WS this year and each year he is on the roster. That is a fact that can't be disputed. We can discuss by how much and whether it was worth the cost. But to respond to another one of your posts, if the Red Sox do win three World Series in a row, you are welcome to keep watching AE, and Moncada, and Kopech and seeing how many WAR they accumulate. The rest of us I think will be watching the victory parades.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 10, 2016 18:31:44 GMT -5
Deep, it was just the other day that you were arguing for the team to take on $220 million in guaranteed contract for a guy who'll be 34 as this season gets underway. You had no problem with that despite the restrictions it would impose on team spending, including extensions for the young talent. Now that the Sox have traded for one of the better pitchers in the game, a player in his prime and controlled at a reasonable salary for the next 3 years, you see that as nothing but a cynical move, one that betrays fans and hurts the organization. That disconnect is very jarring. I understand why you're upset, but try to stay focused on the value of the players involved. That's where the legitimate discussion happens. The other stuff belongs somewhere else. I'm sure you'd have lots of takers on Twitter. No, there's no disconnect. I have always argued (go back and check if you need to) that the owners are colluding to hold down salaries. The luxury tax cap is a monopolistic practice, though technically legal. The Red Sox are extraordinarily lucrative, with a book value that has appreciated by about a billion dollars in the last seven years. They are also highly cash flow positive. Given how lucrative the team is, the owners should always spend money, rather than trade away talent. Luxury tax cap be damned. It's very sad to see fans pouring their hearts and souls and money into a team whose owners are stripping the team of talent. Separately, the value of Sale to the Red Sox is questionable at best, as already demonstrated here by eric and telson (and me). There are also very serious red flags about Sale's arm, based on the year he had in 2016 (see above).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 10, 2016 18:53:01 GMT -5
Deep, it was just the other day that you were arguing for the team to take on $220 million in guaranteed contract for a guy who'll be 34 as this season gets underway. You had no problem with that despite the restrictions it would impose on team spending, including extensions for the young talent. Now that the Sox have traded for one of the better pitchers in the game, a player in his prime and controlled at a reasonable salary for the next 3 years, you see that as nothing but a cynical move, one that betrays fans and hurts the organization. That disconnect is very jarring. I understand why you're upset, but try to stay focused on the value of the players involved. That's where the legitimate discussion happens. The other stuff belongs somewhere else. I'm sure you'd have lots of takers on Twitter. No, there's no disconnect. I have always argued (go back and check if you need to) that the owners are colluding to hold down salaries. The luxury tax cap is a monopolistic practice, though technically legal. The Red Sox are extraordinarily lucrative, with a book value that has appreciated by about a billion dollars in the last seven years. They are also highly cash flow positive. Given how lucrative the team is, the owners should always spend money, rather than trade away talent. Luxury tax cap be damned. It's very sad to see fans pouring their hearts and souls and money into a team whose owners are stripping the team of talent. Separately, the value of Sale to the Red Sox is questionable at best, as already demonstrated here by eric and telson (and me). There are also very serious red flags about Sale's arm, based on the year he had in 2016 (see above). You have to also consider the draft pick penalties for being over the luxury tax threshold now. If they're active next year in free agency and over the cap, they'd have to sacrifice their 2nd and 5th round picks plus $1M in international signing money instead of their 2nd round pick and $500K in international signing money. Also, if they lost any free agents who declined a QO, they'd receive a pick after the 4th round instead of after the 1st round if they were over the luxury tax threshold.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 10, 2016 18:58:17 GMT -5
Deep, it was just the other day that you were arguing for the team to take on $220 million in guaranteed contract for a guy who'll be 34 as this season gets underway. You had no problem with that despite the restrictions it would impose on team spending, including extensions for the young talent. Now that the Sox have traded for one of the better pitchers in the game, a player in his prime and controlled at a reasonable salary for the next 3 years, you see that as nothing but a cynical move, one that betrays fans and hurts the organization. That disconnect is very jarring. I understand why you're upset, but try to stay focused on the value of the players involved. That's where the legitimate discussion happens. The other stuff belongs somewhere else. I'm sure you'd have lots of takers on Twitter. No, there's no disconnect. I have always argued (go back and check if you need to) that the owners are colluding to hold down salaries. The luxury tax cap is a monopolistic practice, though technically legal. The Red Sox are extraordinarily lucrative, with a book value that has appreciated by about a billion dollars in the last seven years. They are also highly cash flow positive. Given how lucrative the team is, the owners should always spend money, rather than trade away talent. Luxury tax cap be damned. It's very sad to see fans pouring their hearts and souls and money into a team whose owners are stripping the team of talent. Separately, the value of Sale to the Red Sox is questionable at best, as already demonstrated here by eric and telson (and me). There are also very serious red flags about Sale's arm, based on the year he had in 2016 (see above). Jesus, can you please just sign off here and go fill up the WhiteSox Prospects boards with your Kopech lovefest hyperbole. They'll eat it up. Kopech's gone. Can you be gone, too? Please? You cannot keep hijacking threads now that he's gone, complaining that he's gone. If this keeps up you'll eventually be gone, even if it's not voluntarily. You've been warned about this before.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 10, 2016 19:25:32 GMT -5
No, there's no disconnect. I have always argued (go back and check if you need to) that the owners are colluding to hold down salaries. The luxury tax cap is a monopolistic practice, though technically legal. The Red Sox are extraordinarily lucrative, with a book value that has appreciated by about a billion dollars in the last seven years. They are also highly cash flow positive. Given how lucrative the team is, the owners should always spend money, rather than trade away talent. Luxury tax cap be damned. It's very sad to see fans pouring their hearts and souls and money into a team whose owners are stripping the team of talent. Separately, the value of Sale to the Red Sox is questionable at best, as already demonstrated here by eric and telson (and me). There are also very serious red flags about Sale's arm, based on the year he had in 2016 (see above). Jesus, can you please just sign off here and go fill up the WhiteSox Prospects boards with your Kopech lovefest hyperbole. They'll eat it up. Kopech's gone. Can you be gone, too? Please? You cannot keep hijacking threads now that he's gone, complaining that he's gone. If this keeps up you'll eventually be gone, even if it's not voluntarily. You've been warned about this before. hey bud, can you PM me when you have a problem? I'm sure we can work it out. It's not necessary to pick on one of posters because you disagree with me. That's not the job of the mod. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 10, 2016 19:29:48 GMT -5
No, there's no disconnect. I have always argued (go back and check if you need to) that the owners are colluding to hold down salaries. The luxury tax cap is a monopolistic practice, though technically legal. The Red Sox are extraordinarily lucrative, with a book value that has appreciated by about a billion dollars in the last seven years. They are also highly cash flow positive. Given how lucrative the team is, the owners should always spend money, rather than trade away talent. Luxury tax cap be damned. It's very sad to see fans pouring their hearts and souls and money into a team whose owners are stripping the team of talent. Separately, the value of Sale to the Red Sox is questionable at best, as already demonstrated here by eric and telson (and me). There are also very serious red flags about Sale's arm, based on the year he had in 2016 (see above). You have to also consider the draft pick penalties for being over the luxury tax threshold now. If they're active next year in free agency and over the cap, they'd have to sacrifice their 2nd and 5th round picks plus $1M in international signing money instead of their 2nd round pick and $500K in international signing money. Also, if they lost any free agents who declined a QO, they'd receive a pick after the 4th round instead of after the 1st round if they were over the luxury tax threshold. Yes, I do wonder who was repping the players for the new CBA. It seems they were captured somehow, and were not repping in good faith. But still, it seems like all these penalties should have monetary equivalents (although I haven't thought it through).
|
|
|
Post by zimmerdown on Dec 10, 2016 19:49:46 GMT -5
hey bud, can you PM me when you have a problem? I'm sure we can work it out. It's not necessary to pick on one of posters because you disagree with me. That's not the job of the mod. Thanks. He's not picking on you because he disagrees with you. You have literally made this thread un-readable. Once again. Enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Dec 10, 2016 19:52:32 GMT -5
Why do some people discuss this as if all WAR is equal?
You win trophies for timing + the right mix (both in terms of baseball skills and in terms of drive, dedication, clubhouse presence etc) of players if I am to oversimplify (and then on top of that you have to get lucky with health), not for averaging the highest WAR per $ spent over a 10 year time frame. And more often than not it is the superstar players who come up big in postseason, though granted part of the beauty of baseball is any single player in the league can have an all-time moment. Those superstars might be roughly equivalent to a pair of above-average regulars over the course of a full season, but when you get to the playoffs, or crunch time in the regular season, sometimes one quarter is worth more than 3 or 4 dimes, if you understand what I mean.
When will the Sox ever again have such an impressive core of young, cost-controlled players? If everything broke right for the traded prospects, which is unlikely despite the fact that some commenters on here view it as certainty, Kopech + Espinoza + Moncada in 2021 will still probably not be a better foundation than X + Mookie + Benny + JBJ in 2017-19. When will there ever be a better time to go for it? The most important WAR measure in this context is not over the next 10 years, or over Moncada's and Kopech's careers, or even during the cost-controlled 6 years of Moncada's and Kopech's careers. It is the next 3 years while this core is under contract and (we hope) before the remaining veterans on the books past 2019 begin their decline phase.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 10, 2016 20:12:37 GMT -5
You have to also consider the draft pick penalties for being over the luxury tax threshold now. If they're active next year in free agency and over the cap, they'd have to sacrifice their 2nd and 5th round picks plus $1M in international signing money instead of their 2nd round pick and $500K in international signing money. Also, if they lost any free agents who declined a QO, they'd receive a pick after the 4th round instead of after the 1st round if they were over the luxury tax threshold. Yes, I do wonder who was repping the players for the new CBA. It seems they were captured somehow, and were not repping in good faith. But still, it seems like all these penalties should have monetary equivalents (although I haven't thought it through). Ok bro. I'm sorry that you hate this trade, and I understand why you dislike it. But for everyone's sake, would you please stop? You're not adding to the discussion/debate over this trade. There is no need to criticize every post from someone who supports this trade. Thank you for the input, deepjohn, but honestly, you're being redundant and annoying now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 10, 2016 20:20:45 GMT -5
Enough. Banned.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 10, 2016 20:54:44 GMT -5
For those that might not have seen Chris' tweet, an excellent behind the scenes look at how the Sale and Thornburg trades went down by Speier, of course: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/12/10/how-chris-sale-deal-came-about/y54iJcIAj4vtbDvRb8LLLP/story.htmlADD: My takeaways... Internal evaluations had the deal close which to me makes it likely that there's somewhat of a high skew present value type modification for wins. Sale's contract was a key factor. Before executing the Thornburg deal, DD called the WS to make sure none of the players going to Milwaukee would impact the Sale deal. While the trade was being formulated, DD had a staff group session in which the shorter term vs longer term philosophies were discussed. Group think. The announcement drew a loud applause from the group. Obviously the management group was pro trade. This process is not at all like the dictatorial ogre that some would have you believe is DD.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 10, 2016 22:58:48 GMT -5
It's not bias when looking at the objective cost-risk-benefit analysis. It just isn't. And the reasons why have been elucidated ad nauseum. Maybe deepjohn's post is hyperbolic, but that doesn't mean, stripping away the exaggeration, that it isn't true. Yeah, and if I say 3 + 5 = 11 and you "strip away the exaggeration" you can pretend I said 3 + 5 = 8. Uh, no.
|
|
|
Post by gordo014 on Dec 10, 2016 23:23:16 GMT -5
Hey all, Long time lurker here. Finally decided to make an account and chime in. Obviously we won't be able to tell who really won the trade for quite a while, but my first reaction is that I really like it. Whether it's worth it as far as WAR goes is debatable, but adding Sale maximizes our chances of winning it all within the next 3 years when our window is greatest -- barring any extensions with Bogaerts/Mookie/Tendies. On top of that, Sale, Porcello and Price should provide enormous value in a playoff series that can't really be quantified by current stats. Just having 3 pitchers with that kind of talent in the playoffs is huge. (And I still believe Price will turn it around this season). Anyways, I'm sure some of you have seen it already, but I found this article about Dever's role in the trade to be an interesting read. fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/12/10/source-rafael-devers-was-player-red-sox-wouldnt-give-up-in-chris-sale-deal/
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 11, 2016 0:20:50 GMT -5
Welcome to the board... thanks for "surfacing"!
I think it was a calculated decision on their part. They weighed everything and decided they had someone who could fill the 3rd base hole and do it well both offensively, but also defensively. We can argue about how much they gave up, whether it was worth it, what the possible trade-off is in future value, all of that. The FO, for whatever reason, thought this was worth it. Evidently Devers had a lot to do with it.
|
|
|