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 soxjim on Mar 13, 2017 1:18:10 GMT -5
You also seem to be glossing over...that you lose Sale. Who you've touted as **the** key to a championship. You're not getting back two 3-WAR players with four years of control for a 6-WAR pitcher on a three-month rental. Just what do you think they'll get in return? And how can you reconcile claiming that Sale is critical for a WS run this year, but wholly expendable in two years? Rick Porcello is likely to get something in the $25-30M AAV range in three years. That's the current state of MLB contracts, provided his performance remains roughly where it was last year. Of course, if he's a fluke, that's a problem for the Sox well before then. And in that case their pitching isn't as good as you think. Regardless, let's just say that they can't afford to sign a pitcher of Porcello's 2016 caliber, and Sale. To sign either Sale or Porcello means a $55-$65M top-2. Pomeranz will be looking at around $10M in arb. By 2019 Rodriguez will, too, or he'll need to be extended. Same for Wright. Best-case is that Smith, Barnes, Kelly, et al make a resurgent Kimbrel expendable in a Chapman-style return, and Pomeranz does the same and brings back someone approaching Espinoza. Groome *might* arrive by 2020, at 21 years old. But it's tough to expect anything more than for him to be a 4/5 at first. I'm not glossing over it. And even if I was -- does it matter if I said Sale will help us win a title or someone we trade him for will help us win? But more importantly, I am not glossing over it. You and maybe others have mentioned that sale and Procello are $30m pitchers when they leave. So we'll have Sale in my scenario for two years. Two years with two $30m caliber pitchers is impressive, isn't it? You (not you personally) can't say in one breathe that guys like Sale and Porcello are $30m pitchers. Then in the next say our starting pitching is overrated or don't expect super things over the next two years nor expect that we wouldn't get some decent players in return.
When you trade for example a Sale- if he still remains that $30m player you suggest he will be after 2019, in 2019 you don't expect in a hungry market for pitching that you can't get two pretty good players for him? Pitching is HUGE for winning in the playoffs and championships. Pitching IS a premium. Again-- starting pitching is the highest commodity. YOU have said Sale is a $30m pitcher by stating the Red Sox won't be able to sign him. SO I find it hard to believe a quality pitcher that is so amazing that you can't get multiple players in return to fill needs.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 13, 2017 2:25:58 GMT -5
You also seem to be glossing over...that you lose Sale. Who you've touted as **the** key to a championship. You're not getting back two 3-WAR players with four years of control for a 6-WAR pitcher on a three-month rental. Just what do you think they'll get in return? And how can you reconcile claiming that Sale is critical for a WS run this year, but wholly expendable in two years? Rick Porcello is likely to get something in the $25-30M AAV range in three years. That's the current state of MLB contracts, provided his performance remains roughly where it was last year. Of course, if he's a fluke, that's a problem for the Sox well before then. And in that case their pitching isn't as good as you think. Regardless, let's just say that they can't afford to sign a pitcher of Porcello's 2016 caliber, and Sale. To sign either Sale or Porcello means a $55-$65M top-2. Pomeranz will be looking at around $10M in arb. By 2019 Rodriguez will, too, or he'll need to be extended. Same for Wright. Best-case is that Smith, Barnes, Kelly, et al make a resurgent Kimbrel expendable in a Chapman-style return, and Pomeranz does the same and brings back someone approaching Espinoza. Groome *might* arrive by 2020, at 21 years old. But it's tough to expect anything more than for him to be a 4/5 at first. I'm not glossing over it. And even if I was -- does it matter if I said Sale will help us win a title or someone we trade him for will help us win? But more importantly, I am not glossing over it. You and maybe others have mentioned that sale and Procello are $30m pitchers when they leave. So we'll have Sale in my scenario for two years. Two years with two $30m caliber pitchers is impressive, isn't it? You (not you personally) can't say in one breathe that guys like Sale and Porcello are $30m pitchers. Then in the next say our starting pitching is overrated or don't expect super things over the next two years nor expect that we wouldn't get some decent players in return.
When you trade for example a Sale- if he still remains that $30m player you suggest he will be after 2019, in 2019 you don't expect in a hungry market for pitching that you can't get two pretty good players for him? Pitching is HUGE for winning in the playoffs and championships. Pitching IS a premium. Again-- starting pitching is the highest commodity. YOU have said Sale is a $30m pitcher by stating the Red Sox won't be able to sign him. SO I find it hard to believe a quality pitcher that is so amazing that you can't get multiple players in return to fill needs.
You are, I think, very confused as to my point. At absolutely NO point did I say that their pitching is overrated. That's *your* fabricated attribution to me. I've said, repeatedly, that Sale was an unnecessary acquisition because their starting pitching was already very good to excellent. I consider him an added benefit, but at too great a cost. What I am saying is that acquiring Sale (and Kimbrel, and Pomeranz) at tremendous cost to the minor league system means that the team will face astronomically rapid salary inflation over the next three years. That, because Sale, Porcello, and Pomeranz will be FAs before 2020, and Rodriguez, JBJ, Betts, and Bogaerts will all be entering arbitration and nearing FA (thus requiring extension). The closer those players get to FA, the worse the return. If you want to keep the big three of the rotation intact *through* 2019, that means you will lose two to FA, OR have to extend them at near market value ($25-$35M AAV). THAT gives you a three-year window. OR, you have to start making trades. You can 1) trade for prospects (dramatic loss of production at MLB level), 2) trade for upside, young MLBers (a rough example might be the Segura-Walker deal, in which case you can expect a moderate loss of immediate production in exchange for more years of control, or 3) do an established star-for-quality vet trade where you get a year or two extra (Lester-Cespedes). MAYBE they pull off a steal and get a vet who plays above his level (Ramirez-Jason Bay) AND even a good prospect. But the odds are astronomical against getting two young, cost-controlled players who represent significant upgrades (or only a slight downgrade if they get a starter) at their respective positions. It took two outstanding prospects who were not MLB-ready To headline the deal to get Sale for three years on a very favorable contract. They're absolutely NOT getting back two established MLBers who are above-average to star-level and have 3-5 years of control for a three month rental. In essence, you're arguing that their return for Sale will eclipse their cost, despite the acquiring team getting 1/6th of the control time. Can they get good players back if they trade Sale, JBJ, and maybe someone else? Absolutely. But they're not getting back players who provide immediately similar production unless they pay in salary and loss of control years. That's how excess value calculation works, and it's not a secret that only the Sox are privy to. Never mind trying to identify positions to upgrade, where really only CIF (until Devers arrives, and then it's 1b only) and SP (to replace whichever big 3 starter gets traded) are their potential positions of need. Maybe closer, if you want to waste trade capital on volatile RP when Kimbrel is gone. Who are you getting back that improves the OF? Or SS/2b? Maybe a C is possible, but the position is pretty thin in the minors across baseball. Think you'll upgrade 3b? Are you going to block Devers? How are you going to move Sandoval? If you move Sale you're losing a 5-6 WAR pitcher, and replacing him with (if you're lucky) a 3-WAR guy with 3-4 years of control, and maybe a couple of prospects. I think the idea that they get back two young, cheap, quality players **who immediately contribute Sale's value** is farcical. It's just not realistic. And if you take back salary, we're back to the roster/salary crunch.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 13, 2017 3:04:41 GMT -5
A recent example: David Price. In 2014 the Rays traded him (with 1.5 years of control) to the Tigers and got Drew Smyly (2.2 fWAR that year with 4 years of control; essentially now a 4/5 starter), Willy Adames (a solid but unspectacular prospect at the time), and Nick Franklin (replacement level player) back.
In 2015, the Tigers traded him to Toronto with only a half-season of control, and got back Daniel Norris, Matt Boyd, and Jairo Labourt. Norris was the headliner, and a top-25 prospect. He pitched well for a Toronto before the deal, and in Detroit after (mid-3 combined ERA in roughly a half-season). Labourt was a low-A lottery ticket. Boyd pitched that year in the majors for Toronto (ERA over 12 in two starts) and Detroit (shelled to the tune of a mid-6 ERA in ten starts). But in no way did the players they got back provide equivalent production in 2015. Norris had a very good year last year, cut in half by injury. And he's probably the ideal type return in that situation (young, talented, lots of control time). **But there was clearly a drop-off between Price, and the return for him** in both 2015 and '16.
A dream scenario might be the absolute rooking Atlanta had in acquiring Enciarte/Swanson+ for Shelby Miller (a borderline 2 at the time, but with **3** years of control, not three months). But Dave Stewart isn't a GM anymore.
Of course, this all presumes that Dombrowski will be **willing** to trade key players off of a (hopefully) contending team. That goes against his history. So we're back to the FA/salary crunch.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 13, 2017 6:50:07 GMT -5
Your 3 year window thing is like forecasting the weather out 6 weeks. WAY TOO MANY variables. I doubt the ownership is going to let DD stand pat and not be competitive. Who knows maybe DD gets Manny M Maybe he trades for trout. Maybe moncada is a star? Maybe he's a bust bust? If this is a poker game I like the cards we have to play. Did we lose some young UNPROVED prospects YES. So we are trying to win a big pot in front of us instead of hoping and waiting for a big pot 3 or 4 hands from now. That's like saying "I might die tomorrow so I'm not going to pay my bills." Trade for Trout? Sign Machado? Sure, and I could someday witness oxygen transmuting into gold. It's POSSIBLE, but incredibly unlikely. We're talking probabilities here, and the probable outcome of the Sale trade is a significant fall back to earth in 2019 (if they move him) or 2020. The salary structure dictates it. I'm sure DD thinks he can recover, or he wouldn't have made the moves he has. Based on his history, I tend to doubt it. And to use your analogy, I CAN predict that the weather in 6 weeks will be a hell of a lot warmer than today. I CAN predict that we won't have an 18" snowfall storm barreling down on Boston.. I don't need to tell you the exact temperature or precipitation level, I can provide plenty of differentiation from today's weather with very high likelihood. In the same way, I can also predict that there will be substantial turnover on this team in 2-3 years. Ok you are obviously much smarter than I am. I would say that DD's style says that if he thinks he can improve the club and sell tickets that he is open to most anything. The point using the weather is this. In july if Dave thinks he can win by trading XB and jbj he will. It fits into the snow storm on mother's day in boston. ANYTHING can happen. The 3 yr window is a reasonable prediction. Is it doom and gloom? Dave may not be here in 3 years. The owners want a highly competitive team not 84 wins. Predicting high turnover on the team in 2 or 3 years is not unrealistic. Predicting where the sox will be in 3 years is impossible. The variables are too great. Dave, ownership, drafting, the out come of recent trades, and the potential for future trades. I do not like Dave's style and like more the old theo style. Like I said I like the cards we have now, but who knows what happens when a new deck comes into the game.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 13, 2017 6:57:48 GMT -5
Of course, they could punt 2019, trade both at the deadline, and try to re-sign one in the offseason. That might be a smart move, although many on here would spontaneously vaporize in a cloud of blood, bone, and unfettered, despondent rage. It seem the big storm has got you upset today.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 13, 2017 8:08:43 GMT -5
I'm not glossing over it. And even if I was -- does it matter if I said Sale will help us win a title or someone we trade him for will help us win? But more importantly, I am not glossing over it. You and maybe others have mentioned that sale and Procello are $30m pitchers when they leave. So we'll have Sale in my scenario for two years. Two years with two $30m caliber pitchers is impressive, isn't it? You (not you personally) can't say in one breathe that guys like Sale and Porcello are $30m pitchers. Then in the next say our starting pitching is overrated or don't expect super things over the next two years nor expect that we wouldn't get some decent players in return.
When you trade for example a Sale- if he still remains that $30m player you suggest he will be after 2019, in 2019 you don't expect in a hungry market for pitching that you can't get two pretty good players for him? Pitching is HUGE for winning in the playoffs and championships. Pitching IS a premium. Again-- starting pitching is the highest commodity. YOU have said Sale is a $30m pitcher by stating the Red Sox won't be able to sign him. SO I find it hard to believe a quality pitcher that is so amazing that you can't get multiple players in return to fill needs.
You are, I think, very confused as to my point. At absolutely NO point did I say that their pitching is overrated. That's *your* fabricated attribution to me. I've said, repeatedly, that Sale was an unnecessary acquisition because their starting pitching was already very good to excellent. I consider him an added benefit, but at too great a cost. What I am saying is that acquiring Sale (and Kimbrel, and Pomeranz) at tremendous cost to the minor league system means that the team will face astronomically rapid salary inflation over the next three years. That, because Sale, Porcello, and Pomeranz will be FAs before 2020, and Rodriguez, JBJ, Betts, and Bogaerts will all be entering arbitration and nearing FA (thus requiring extension). The closer those players get to FA, the worse the return. If you want to keep the big three of the rotation intact *through* 2019, that means you will lose two to FA, OR have to extend them at near market value ($25-$35M AAV). THAT gives you a three-year window. OR, you have to start making trades. You can 1) trade for prospects (dramatic loss of production at MLB level), 2) trade for upside, young MLBers (a rough example might be the Segura-Walker deal, in which case you can expect a moderate loss of immediate production in exchange for more years of control, or 3) do an established star-for-quality vet trade where you get a year or two extra (Lester-Cespedes). MAYBE they pull off a steal and get a vet who plays above his level (Ramirez-Jason Bay) AND even a good prospect. But the odds are astronomical against getting two young, cost-controlled players who represent significant upgrades (or only a slight downgrade if they get a starter) at their respective positions. It took two outstanding prospects who were not MLB-ready To headline the deal to get Sale for three years on a very favorable contract. They're absolutely NOT getting back two established MLBers who are above-average to star-level and have 3-5 years of control for a three month rental. In essence, you're arguing that their return for Sale will eclipse their cost, despite the acquiring team getting 1/6th of the control time. Can they get good players back if they trade Sale, JBJ, and maybe someone else? Absolutely. But they're not getting back players who provide immediately similar production unless they pay in salary and loss of control years. That's how excess value calculation works, and it's not a secret that only the Sox are privy to. Never mind trying to identify positions to upgrade, where really only CIF (until Devers arrives, and then it's 1b only) and SP (to replace whichever big 3 starter gets traded) are their potential positions of need. Maybe closer, if you want to waste trade capital on volatile RP when Kimbrel is gone. Who are you getting back that improves the OF? Or SS/2b? Maybe a C is possible, but the position is pretty thin in the minors across baseball. Think you'll upgrade 3b? Are you going to block Devers? How are you going to move Sandoval? If you move Sale you're losing a 5-6 WAR pitcher, and replacing him with (if you're lucky) a 3-WAR guy with 3-4 years of control, and maybe a couple of prospects. I think the idea that they get back two young, cheap, quality players **who immediately contribute Sale's value** is farcical. It's just not realistic. And if you take back salary, we're back to the roster/salary crunch. You said: And in that case their pitching isn't as good as you think.
So if I think the pitching is better than you think it IS my belief that you underrate our pitching. I think the mistake sometimes you and posters sometimes make is that you become so engaged in “trying to win the argument” you forget the point of the argument. IMO we’ll be very good for beyond 2019. IMO we’ll get a good enough return on trades to still have a good team.
As for you speaking of “returns.” Yes- we’ll get a less return – but we’re also going to sign players and trade for others and still remain competitive/ a threat to make the playoffs and win it all. A less return than what we traded still doesn’t mean the players we get will stink. You can’t go and change the content of my posts to fit your argument. So it’s not that I’m confused. Bottom-line is that we will get players in return and not every player at every position needs to be a star. Every player that you believe (mostly you may be exactly right) will get either big raises or sustain big bucks would mean that the teams in 2017 and 2018 would be incredibly awesome. So we get a lesser return in some cases from a super pitcher that pitched to the quality of making $30m. But we aren’t losing every player, are we? With all the players we lose and trade – some significant money is coming off the books, isn’t it?
Bottom-line is—if we trade Sale for example after 2018, we don’t need to get back “equal Sale quality” in return. But you would be trading a highly valued player and a high commodity position. The sox would be getting something good back. IMO it is irrelevant what they already traded for him. As long as they get something good back in return. How many all-stars do the Red Sox need? Point is don’t be surprised even next year some players get traded. You don’t need to get an all-star in return for the trade to helpful if you are getting multiple players in return.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 13, 2017 8:17:55 GMT -5
That article makes it clear Price's agent wanted opt out and Red Sox got him to sign a slightly smaller deal in total dollars for agreeing to include opt out. That article doesn't allude that it was Red Sox that wanted to include opt out. I'm not sure where you get that but whatever turns your crank, it's a non issue. Can you explain the logic in a team wanting a player to have an opt out in a contract?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 13, 2017 8:38:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you get that but whatever turns your crank, it's a non issue. Can you explain the logic in a team wanting a player to have an opt out in a contract? It makes sense if the contract is lower because of the opt-out. That is the only logic.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 13, 2017 8:39:06 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you get that but whatever turns your crank, it's a non issue. Can you explain the logic in a team wanting a player to have an opt out in a contract? If you assume that it brought the cost of the contract down, then yes. If you're comparing a $100M deal with no opt-out with a $100M deal with an opt-out, obviously the team wants the former. But if you're comparing a $100M deal with no opt-out with a $90M deal with an opt-out, then it depends how much value each side of the deal values the opt-out at. If you're the club and you'd rather give the opt-out than the money (whether for actual money reasons or for CBT reasons), then you obviously prefer to give the opt-out. If you're the player, you may or may not prefer the opt-out to the money as well.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 13, 2017 8:39:40 GMT -5
Can you explain the logic in a team wanting a player to have an opt out in a contract? It makes sense if the contract is lower because of the opt-out. That is the only logic. Does that even come close to out weighing the negatives?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 13, 2017 9:50:35 GMT -5
It makes sense if the contract is lower because of the opt-out. That is the only logic. Does that even come close to out weighing the negatives? Well we don't know how much the difference is, so there's pretty much no way of knowing. I imagine that the team knows how much it's worth to them and only agree if that's how much it was reduced.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 13, 2017 14:43:56 GMT -5
It doesn't mean it is true either. If your theory is built around like 15 AL starts after he was on DL with a dead arm, that just makes no sense. You did know he was on DL with an arm issue right? The whole NL and AL thing is real, but it depends on the pitcher and his pitching style. Cueto does not have a style that I worry about. He's an elite pitcher and he can pitch in AL just fine. You're right it doesn't make it true. Just comes down which data you choose to look at. I realize he got bombed in the AL. I'm with the poster Pedro. Wouldn't trust him in the AL East with all the hitting parks. You can have him in the AL. I'm glad he is not on the Red Sox. So you think 13 starts is the data we should look at? The rest means nothing because he's in NL? How about Inter-League games? He's made 30 starts against AL teams in his career, he's 14-6, 2.64 ERA, 1.112 WHIP, 190.2 innings, while giving up only 155 hits. Those AL teams are going to crush him, so glad he's in NL.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 13, 2017 15:16:09 GMT -5
That's like saying "I might die tomorrow so I'm not going to pay my bills." Trade for Trout? Sign Machado? Sure, and I could someday witness oxygen transmuting into gold. It's POSSIBLE, but incredibly unlikely. We're talking probabilities here, and the probable outcome of the Sale trade is a significant fall back to earth in 2019 (if they move him) or 2020. The salary structure dictates it. I'm sure DD thinks he can recover, or he wouldn't have made the moves he has. Based on his history, I tend to doubt it. And to use your analogy, I CAN predict that the weather in 6 weeks will be a hell of a lot warmer than today. I CAN predict that we won't have an 18" snowfall storm barreling down on Boston.. I don't need to tell you the exact temperature or precipitation level, I can provide plenty of differentiation from today's weather with very high likelihood. In the same way, I can also predict that there will be substantial turnover on this team in 2-3 years. Ok you are obviously much smarter than I am. I would say that DD's style says that if he thinks he can improve the club and sell tickets that he is open to most anything. The point using the weather is this. In july if Dave thinks he can win by trading XB and jbj he will. It fits into the snow storm on mother's day in boston. ANYTHING can happen. The 3 yr window is a reasonable prediction. Is it doom and gloom? Dave may not be here in 3 years. The owners want a highly competitive team not 84 wins. Predicting high turnover on the team in 2 or 3 years is not unrealistic. Predicting where the sox will be in 3 years is impossible. The variables are too great. Dave, ownership, drafting, the out come of recent trades, and the potential for future trades. I do not like Dave's style and like more the old theo style. Like I said I like the cards we have now, but who knows what happens when a new deck comes into the game. Fair enough. Your point is well-taken. I'm simply pointing out the direction the path leads, although you're right, nobody knows the final destination.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 13, 2017 15:18:45 GMT -5
Of course, they could punt 2019, trade both at the deadline, and try to re-sign one in the offseason. That might be a smart move, although many on here would spontaneously vaporize in a cloud of blood, bone, and unfettered, despondent rage. It seem the big storm has got you upset today. Hahaha! On the contrary, it's going to save ski season after that crippling warm spell. Edit: I just reread and noticed my previous post. I did sound pretty salty. Thanks for the lol!
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 13, 2017 17:37:32 GMT -5
You're right it doesn't make it true. Just comes down which data you choose to look at. I realize he got bombed in the AL. I'm with the poster Pedro. Wouldn't trust him in the AL East with all the hitting parks. You can have him in the AL. I'm glad he is not on the Red Sox. So you think 13 starts is the data we should look at? The rest means nothing because he's in NL? How about Inter-League games? He's made 30 starts against AL teams in his career, he's 14-6, 2.64 ERA, 1.112 WHIP, 190.2 innings, while giving up only 155 hits. Those AL teams are going to crush him, so glad he's in NL. Yes 13 starts sort of in-succession tells you something. You just can't ignore it. That's practically half a season. You want to reference his starts in the AL going as far back as 2008 or 2009 and believe those are valid - fine. We can agree to disagree. I think the 13 starts are more valid along with I see when he went against the AL East early on in his career he was really good. In 2015 he got wiped out by Bal and Boston.
So yeah the AL East teams are going to do enough to the 31 year old 9 year vet that imo way too much risk to pay him elite dollars. Let someone else take the risk. IMO those 13 games were a red flag to the league and were not ignored.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 14, 2017 1:24:47 GMT -5
You said: And in that case their pitching isn't as good as you think.
So if I think the pitching is better than you think it IS my belief that you underrate our pitching. I think the mistake sometimes you and posters sometimes make is that you become so engaged in “trying to win the argument” you forget the point of the argument. IMO we’ll be very good for beyond 2019. IMO we’ll get a good enough return on trades to still have a good team.
As for you speaking of “returns.” Yes- we’ll get a less return – but we’re also going to sign players and trade for others and still remain competitive/ a threat to make the playoffs and win it all. A less return than what we traded still doesn’t mean the players we get will stink. You can’t go and change the content of my posts to fit your argument. So it’s not that I’m confused. Bottom-line is that we will get players in return and not every player at every position needs to be a star. Every player that you believe (mostly you may be exactly right) will get either big raises or sustain big bucks would mean that the teams in 2017 and 2018 would be incredibly awesome. So we get a lesser return in some cases from a super pitcher that pitched to the quality of making $30m. But we aren’t losing every player, are we? With all the players we lose and trade – some significant money is coming off the books, isn’t it?
Bottom-line is—if we trade Sale for example after 2018, we don’t need to get back “equal Sale quality” in return. But you would be trading a highly valued player and a high commodity position. The sox would be getting something good back. IMO it is irrelevant what they already traded for him. As long as they get something good back in return. How many all-stars do the Red Sox need? Point is don’t be surprised even next year some players get traded. You don’t need to get an all-star in return for the trade to helpful if you are getting multiple players in return.
Good grief. Are you kidding? First, you quote me above without any recognition that the quote was prefaced with the very clear and obvious **qualifier** "IF PORCELLO REGRESSES..." You're creating straw men and arguing against yourself again. And now I see that you're using a small sample size argument to rationalize your beliefs on Cueto. And, in fact, denying the validity of well-dispersed data (Interleague play) in lieu of a small cluster. Which is pretty much the antithesis of understanding statistical sampling.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 14, 2017 19:10:07 GMT -5
You said: And in that case their pitching isn't as good as you think.
So if I think the pitching is better than you think it IS my belief that you underrate our pitching. I think the mistake sometimes you and posters sometimes make is that you become so engaged in “trying to win the argument” you forget the point of the argument. IMO we’ll be very good for beyond 2019. IMO we’ll get a good enough return on trades to still have a good team.
As for you speaking of “returns.” Yes- we’ll get a less return – but we’re also going to sign players and trade for others and still remain competitive/ a threat to make the playoffs and win it all. A less return than what we traded still doesn’t mean the players we get will stink. You can’t go and change the content of my posts to fit your argument. So it’s not that I’m confused. Bottom-line is that we will get players in return and not every player at every position needs to be a star. Every player that you believe (mostly you may be exactly right) will get either big raises or sustain big bucks would mean that the teams in 2017 and 2018 would be incredibly awesome. So we get a lesser return in some cases from a super pitcher that pitched to the quality of making $30m. But we aren’t losing every player, are we? With all the players we lose and trade – some significant money is coming off the books, isn’t it?
Bottom-line is—if we trade Sale for example after 2018, we don’t need to get back “equal Sale quality” in return. But you would be trading a highly valued player and a high commodity position. The sox would be getting something good back. IMO it is irrelevant what they already traded for him. As long as they get something good back in return. How many all-stars do the Red Sox need? Point is don’t be surprised even next year some players get traded. You don’t need to get an all-star in return for the trade to helpful if you are getting multiple players in return.
Good grief. Are you kidding? First, you quote me above without any recognition that the quote was prefaced with the very clear and obvious **qualifier** "IF PORCELLO REGRESSES..." You're creating straw men and arguing against yourself again. And now I see that you're using a small sample size argument to rationalize your beliefs on Cueto. And, in fact, denying the validity of well-dispersed data (Interleague play) in lieu of a small cluster. Which is pretty much the antithesis of understanding statistical sampling. As I said before about some posters such as yourself. You have a half-empty pov. Which is fine.
Your qualifier defines your tone. Your qualifier can be turned around and used by anyone as a qualifier -- for example I can reply to you =-- WHAT IF most of the higher-tier youngsters DD traded regress? Porcello is a young pitcher signed for $20m by the Sox with the expectation and then you pretend that it's an unbias, innocent question you put forth?
And your point about Cueto -- believe what you may -- but imo you take things way too personal on this site when someone disagrees with you. It's not like my opinion is not shared by many. Cueto dropped a level after the 2015 season. Before the season he was spoken in the tier with Price and Greinke. Afterwards she signed for much less. Why? Because 2015 counts.
My conversation with you is done. I appreciate your comments- don't agree with them / don;t agree with your tone so much so you ask "what if Porcello . . ." You can say that for nearly anyone. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 14, 2017 22:10:09 GMT -5
No one said 2015 doesn't count, but it was 13 starts and they all weren't horrible. Go look at most pitchers they have stretches were they struggle. Your idea that it proves he can't pitch in AL is really just funny. It proves nothing more than he had a bad end to the year. In 2016 he was again one of the top pitchers in majors. Small sample sizes that are outliers usually mean nothing in the long run. I'm sure you thought Porcello couldn't pitch in AL East after 2015 either. You are cherry-picking stats. Interleague stats show you he can pitch against AL teams just fine over many years. Everyone knows the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results become. 30 starts over years is a lot better than 13 starts over a few months at showing you the players true talent. You just can't argue that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 15, 2017 0:05:11 GMT -5
Good grief. Are you kidding? First, you quote me above without any recognition that the quote was prefaced with the very clear and obvious **qualifier** "IF PORCELLO REGRESSES..." You're creating straw men and arguing against yourself again. And now I see that you're using a small sample size argument to rationalize your beliefs on Cueto. And, in fact, denying the validity of well-dispersed data (Interleague play) in lieu of a small cluster. Which is pretty much the antithesis of understanding statistical sampling. As I said before about some posters such as yourself. You have a half-empty pov. Which is fine.
Your qualifier defines your tone. Your qualifier can be turned around and used by anyone as a qualifier -- for example I can reply to you =-- WHAT IF most of the higher-tier youngsters DD traded regress? Porcello is a young pitcher signed for $20m by the Sox with the expectation and then you pretend that it's an unbias, innocent question you put forth?
And your point about Cueto -- believe what you may -- but imo you take things way too personal on this site when someone disagrees with you. It's not like my opinion is not shared by many. Cueto dropped a level after the 2015 season. Before the season he was spoken in the tier with Price and Greinke. Afterwards she signed for much less. Why? Because 2015 counts.
My conversation with you is done. I appreciate your comments- don't agree with them / don;t agree with your tone so much so you ask "what if Porcello . . ." You can say that for nearly anyone. Thanks.
On the contrary, I don't take it personally at all. My issue has nothing to do with you. It has to do with the logical fallacies and misuse/misunderstanding of statistics that you base your arguments on. You challenged my assertion that Porcello would command a deal north of Lester's ($25-$30M AAV). I countered with the market precedent, and gave the caveat that the only way he wouldn't would be in that range was if he regressed, in which case their pitching wouldn't be as good as you (or I) believe. You then spun off on a tangent not remotely germane to the issue, which is that the Sox can't afford all three of their big pitchers, and that if (when) they have to move/lose one, it will hurt the team's short-term ability to contend, significantly. You used a straw man fallacy of reason to create a tangential argument that you attribute to me to divert from the discussion at hand. As for Cueto, I *also* have some questions based on his FB/GB tendencies and the smaller size of AL East parks to continue to put up similar numbers were he to pitch in Boston. But I also recognize that citing a small sample of starts as "proof" is an erroneous statistical argument. That's akin to citing 2006-2008 as evidence for the volatility and downward trend of the stock market in the last 30 (or 100) years. There are a litany of issues with that, including con founders like: new team, new league, possible underlying minor health issue, inadequate time to adjust approach, temporary difficulty with command of certain pitches, etc. You then go on to put far more weight into an inherently flawed statistical sample over a far more appropriate one, which is his career performance in interleague play, where many of those confounding variables are minimized. What you seem not to realize is that your use of statistics in that case isn't an issue of opinion...it's an outright refutation of the *facts* of statistical sampling. Simply put, if Porcello and Sale continue to do what they did in 2016, do you really think that they won't command $25-35M AAV in FA? And if the team has to trade one come 2018-2019, will it not be a significant loss? Even looking at the Lester-Cespedes-to Porcello deal, there was a year of poor performance by Porcello and the need to extend him for $20M annually. How in any way does that refute my argument? This isn't half-empty vs half-full. This is simple acknowledgment of the realities of their current situation. If I disagree with the GM's approach, I'm not being negative, I'm disagreeing. There are positives to the recent trades (an improved team in the short term) that I don't deny. But I'm allowed to have a fundamentally different team-building philosophy than you, and I find it kind of silly that you feel compelled to label me "negative" because of it. And in the end, I don't take it personally at all. My issue has nothing to do with you, as a human being. Frankly, you seem like a nice enough guy, and I actually enjoy having people like you who are passionate about the team to banter with. My issue is with your *arguments*, and how you formulate and support them. And just because I find flaw with your rationales doesn't mean anything about what I think of you. If you are convinced that it does, or that my frustration with trying to explain those flaws to you comes across as "taking it personally," is it possible that maybe you are taking it personally? Is it possible that labeling me "negative" is a reflection of that?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 15, 2017 0:14:23 GMT -5
No one said 2015 doesn't count, but it was 13 starts and they all weren't horrible. Go look at most pitchers they have stretches were they struggle. Your idea that it proves he can't pitch in AL is really just funny. It proves nothing more than he had a bad end to the year. In 2016 he was again one of the top pitchers in majors. Small sample sizes that are outliers usually mean nothing in the long run. I'm sure you thought Porcello couldn't pitch in AL East after 2015 either. You are cherry-picking stats. Interleague stats show you he can pitch against AL teams just fine over many years. Everyone knows the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results become. 30 starts over years is a lot better than 13 starts over a few months at showing you the players true talent. You just can't argue that. Exactly. The dispersion of starts over time reduces confounding issues. It's an inarguable fact of proper statistical sampling, not opinion or belief.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 16, 2017 8:16:11 GMT -5
No one said 2015 doesn't count, but it was 13 starts and they all weren't horrible. Go look at most pitchers they have stretches were they struggle. Your idea that it proves he can't pitch in AL is really just funny. It proves nothing more than he had a bad end to the year. In 2016 he was again one of the top pitchers in majors. Small sample sizes that are outliers usually mean nothing in the long run. I'm sure you thought Porcello couldn't pitch in AL East after 2015 either. You are cherry-picking stats. Interleague stats show you he can pitch against AL teams just fine over many years. Everyone knows the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results become. 30 starts over years is a lot better than 13 starts over a few months at showing you the players true talent. You just can't argue that. And what I said was he was that he was too much risk. If you agree his 13 starts do count-- then you're choosing to ignore the risk. Your BELIEF is that "he just had a bad end of the year." It is YOUR OPINION. It is MY OPINION I wouldn't trust him because as you say and I say--- those 13 starts do count and as you and I say the AL IS different then therefore there is too much risk to go with this guy.
What I find laughable is the use of spot interleague games as a comparable vs a succession of games. Somehow a spot few games in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 is supposed to count similarly to a stretch of successive games in 2015 in which a decision needs to be made to sign him in 2016? That's laughable.
And you can have the last word - I'm done with Cueto subject but you've got to be kidding comparing the Porcello one year in Boston in which he already pitched in the AL and his trend in the AL showed improvement in the prior two years and he was younger -- yet you think that is the same comparison as Cueto? I say NUTS. IMO by using an example like that you just want to be argumentative. Just as your "You probably . . ." comment. It's a deliberate argumentative comment. I'm not going to play.
***Getting back to the overall thread-- I'll reiterate - some try to push a narrative we're doomed after 2019. IMO we can make trades during this year, and each year in the future and get decent to good players to be competitive beyond 2019. I don't agree with the negative narrative from some. Along with pushing that what we gave up in prospects won't eb the return we get when we trade a starter is irrelevant. The SOx are trying to win now. Not "win trades" for 2022 etc.
I thought the Sox made too quick of moves but overall once we got Sale I think it solidifies we're a threat - though moving Clay and getting nothing for him or not getting another starter is a potential blunder. Getting that starter imo is more important than Moreland or Thorny etc. Maybe they gambled on Owens and others because ERod and Pomz- they can't pitch a full season, can they?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 16, 2017 8:29:45 GMT -5
What I find laughable is the use of spot interleague games as a comparable vs a succession of games. Somehow a spot few games in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 is supposed to count similarly to a stretch of successive games in 2015 in which a decision needs to be made to sign him in 2016? That's laughable. It's the entire basis of statistical sampling! Successive games are going to be more susceptible to intervening variables. That's the whole point.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 16, 2017 8:57:15 GMT -5
I thought the Sox made too quick of moves but overall once we got Sale I think it solidifies we're a threat - though moving Clay and getting nothing for him or not getting another starter is a potential blunder. Getting that starter imo is more important than Moreland or Thorny etc. Maybe they gambled on Owens and others because ERod and Pomz- they can't pitch a full season, can they? There's no way that they were keeping Buchholz after they got Sale. He didn't even have a roster spot as a $13.5 million 7th starter. Kendrick has quietly put up 18 innings allowing 12 hits, 3 runs, 3 walks and 16 strike outs and looks a great option for 7th starter that they can keep in the minors until he's needed.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 16, 2017 9:11:28 GMT -5
There are Kyle Kendrick articles daily! It would be impossible for there to be more talk about Kyle Kendrick. He's Kyle Kendrick!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 16, 2017 9:18:34 GMT -5
I feel like every year we say "don't really pay too much attention to Spring Training stats" and every year everyone pays too much attention to Spring Training stats. Kyle Kendrick is probably a replacement-level guy who hasn't pitched in the majors in a year and was pretty bad in his last two major league seasons. He can give you bulk replacement-level innings. That has value in an organization in which the next best sixth starter candidates either can't throw the ball across the plate (Owens, Johnson) or are injured (Elias, Velazquez). But let's not pretend that he's anything more than he is. He's certainly not close to Clay Buchholz.
|
|
|