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.
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Mar 20, 2017 23:38:18 GMT -5
I haven't gotten into this longstanding debate because I had not made up my mind about several of the trades. Now I can say that the only trade with which i am not comfortable is the Pomeranz trade. I think they should have forced a reversal of that trade because once it was known that he had potential physical problems the odds that Espinoza would be a better bet got enormously larger. I know they were trying to win it all last year, but realistically that was not reasonable. I still like the Kimbrel trade. None of the players the Sox gave up in that trade were critical to the Sox future. I also like the Sale trade. I am not a believer that Moncado will be the superstar that many others think he will be and I suspect the Sox management came to the same conclusion.
I like this year's team more than any one in quite a few years. I think we are going to have a lot of fun this year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 21, 2017 1:31:42 GMT -5
If everybody produces at roughly what they did last year, those are the salaries those players are going to get. That absolutely doesn't mean they're going to be any better than last year as a team. Sale likely improves them a bit, but Ortiz is gone. The estimated AAVs are a reflection of their players' current performance, with the *possibility* of Rodriguez being a viable Porcello alternative. The issue is that the team can't keep all of those players past 2019, and gets nothing back if they don't trade players. C'mon...this is a ludicrously specious post on multiple levels. It borders on trolling. Btw, the Sox got high draft picks for those players back then...they get squat now. The Red Sox traded Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Mauricio Dubon, Travis Shaw, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Josh Pennington, Victor Diaz, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, and Jonathan Aro to build a stacked big-league roster that would stand an excellent chance to win in the short term. Now, having got to the point where they are at the precipice of being a World Championship team with that major league roster they have assembled through both a bevy of young home-grown talent mixed with high-quality, prominent major league players, they're going to be all... "you know, if we don't trade Xander now then we really could be up the creek without a paddle in 2022!" That's the theory here, right? You've concluded they might trade Bogaerts, Bradley, Rodriguez, or some other high end talent at the risk of their current excellence after trading all of the dudes I listed in the first paragraph. They don't get "nothing" if they fail to trade current performance for future performance. They get current performance! Which is what they've set their entire organizational strategy to build for! If you're going to trade Xander Bogaerts because he might leave due to free agency and you're worried about compete in 2021, then you aren't trading Moncada and Kopech and Espinoza for expensive and/or soon-to-be-expensive major leaguers. That's so contradictory that it is absolutely head spinning. You guys are getting all hung up on my example, as in it has to be Bradley and it has to be for a pitcher. "I'm not sure I've ever seen a contending team with money trade its prominent players for future value. I'd like a specific example of that happening." "Here is a specific example." "Hmm, okay. Well, here are the reasons that example is not apt." "You are getting hung up on my example." .... The whole point is that there aren't examples of this. It's all theoretical. When you try to put actual real-life examples of this behavior by an organization together then it totally falls apart. Don't you get the new CBA has totally changed the value of just letting good players walk? It's 100% theoretical, but with massive changes to the CBA you can expect that things will change. What happend in the past really has no bearing on what will happen in the future. Not when the new CBA changed the rules. The type of trades I'm talking about have been made like the Heyward trade or the Wade Davis trade. Just because those teams weren't just like Red Sox doesn't change the fact that those trades did happen. Both the Braves and Royals weren't going to sign those players long-term, so they traded them for players that could help them for years, not just a single season. As I've said before I don't think DD does this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Theo do it. A lot of our current team was selected with comp picks. Those days are over. Maybe DD will surprise me. His moves so far have been about building the best team while staying under luxury tax. That's why he wanted Sale and Pomeranz, money played a big factor. Same reason he gave away Buchholz. He cared more about clearing money, than getting best possible return. Over the next 3 years he will have to decide who he is going to sign long-term and who he can't. Then he is going to have to decide if having a slightly better chance at winning in one given year is worth letting a player leave for just about nothing. DD has never had to make a choice like that before, so we really can't say what he will do. In the past if that player left he got a good prospect, that he could either develop or use in a trade. Those days are over. I have to say the only thing more far fetched than my idea, is thinking that with massive changes to CBA, nothing is going to change.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 21, 2017 2:56:44 GMT -5
"A lot of our current team was selected with comp picks"
If by "a lot" you mean exactly one (Bradley)
Fake news
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 21, 2017 4:16:32 GMT -5
"A lot of our current team was selected with comp picks" If by "a lot" you mean exactly one (Bradley) Fake news Bad choice of words. A lot of our talent to come through system was those comp picks. Kopech, Johnson, Light, Swihart, Owens, and Bradley. Thats 5 top 100 prospects and 4 top 50 prospects. That's a ton talent. Go back further and you get Ellsbury, Buchholz, Bard and Lowrie. Those comp picks added a ton of talent to system and helped the team on the field or by allowing them to make trades.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 21, 2017 6:08:50 GMT -5
There are several other areas that will be affected I think. Will the big market teams continue to spend? Like the sox, you have so much money to spend. If they slow down, what effect does that have on salaries? What affect will it have on an agent like Boras. He will not have the big market team big contract to dangle in front of teams that someone else will pay if you don't sign my guy. Do the length of contracts continue? What can machado, harper and Donaldson expect for salaries? Interesting thought. Do contracts like pedy and longoria signed become more the norm? Will teams still trade big ticket guys and pay a portion of their salary? I do not see this as doom and gloom, just way different than what we have been used to.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 21, 2017 7:04:14 GMT -5
I am looking at things in two buckets. 3 yrs and less, 3yrs and beyond. Just a snapshot in time. things could change in an hour.
catcher. leon, cv, and blake. less in good shape more in good shape.
1st base, less in good shape. hanley moreland and travis. more ok moreland and travis.
2nd base, pedy and Hernandez. less in good shape. more ok. herandez. With the wear and tear on pedy and how hard he plays will he last 3 more and beyond?
short, xb, devin, holt less, in ok shape. Only reason here is what happens if xb gets hurt for long period of time. more fair, do you sign xb and where does the next ss prospect come from?
3rd, Pablo, ? less, fair to not good. more looks good. devers and dalbec.
outfield less in good shape. more, fair to good. No prospects now and you probably can not sign both betts and Bradley.
starters, less is in excellent shape. more is in good shape. can't sign all 3, which do they keep. Erod and groome come thru.
relief, less is in excellent shape. more is in excellent shape. Kelly, thomburg and barnes a pile of relief prospects.
Bottom line long term. As long as one of the young pitchers come thru starters and bullpen look good to great.
Need to look for 1 outfielder, a ss, 2nd, and maybe a 1st b. Hernadez probably fills one of the 2 middle infield spots. and travis probably is at 1st.
All doable.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 21, 2017 7:46:05 GMT -5
Don't you get the new CBA has totally changed the value of just letting good players walk? Yes - that was, in fact, the point of the changes. Teams gained a huge competitive advantage in the past by hoarding potential free agents and then playing musical chairs with them. Instead of re-signing your own player, it made more sense to let him leave and sign a player from another team all else being equal. That was the strategy that led to the Red Sox having so many good picks in 2005. So the contra to that is it is now less sensible to trade for pending free agents then it used to be. One of the advantages Orlando Cabrera gave was that the Red Sox could get two draft picks for two months of him. Or, an even more egregious example - think of the Eric Gagne trade. Despite trading for two months of a washed-up player, the Red Sox got a compensation pick. That totally changed the calculus of the deal for both teams. So, while having your players reach free agency is worse than it used to be, trading prospects or young talent for pending free agents is worse by several degrees - it's hard to see the Red Sox taking the chance on Gagne by giving up a legitimate major leaguer like Murphy without a comp pick coming back to them. That is, ostensibly, why players like Sale, Thornburg, and Kimbrel were attractive to Dombrowski - they're not rental players, but players who he sees as being part of a championship-quality core for several years. You can disagree with that on a talent-identification basis, sure. But the strategy was clear. So, if they're going to trade a player close to free agency a couple years down the road, they're not likely to see a return like they would have in 2003, and they're also undercutting their own current roster. On a team build to win the present, it is very, very difficult to trade present value for future while maintaining the same level of quality of the present roster. Going from a 93 win team to an 88 win team in 2019 to give your team a better chance of competing every year from 2021 to 2026 seems like a great move theoretically, it's also hard to square with the goals that anyone has. If a team has a bright present and a bleak future, the best path isn't to try to level out that to be average over all those years. Quite the opposite, it's to go for it in the short term and then rebuild through talent identification. A six year winning period of 98, 96, 95, 72, 77, 71 is better than just winning 84 games all of those years. And yes, the new CBA makes rebuilding *through money* harder - the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, and Cubs can't get those high school tough signs in the fifth round and international free agents that a team like the Twins or Rays would never have access to. If the Red Sox are going to be good after their current crop of talent is through, they're going to need to do it through talent identification.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 21, 2017 7:59:15 GMT -5
Evan DrellichVerified account evandrellich 2m2 minutes ago Evan Drellich Retweeted CSN New England Dave Dombrowski: "We’ve focused a great deal on medical...continually look at that all the time. So I don’t think there’s anything abnormal"
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 21, 2017 15:36:21 GMT -5
The Red Sox traded Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Mauricio Dubon, Travis Shaw, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Josh Pennington, Victor Diaz, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, and Jonathan Aro to build a stacked big-league roster that would stand an excellent chance to win in the short term. Now, having got to the point where they are at the precipice of being a World Championship team with that major league roster they have assembled through both a bevy of young home-grown talent mixed with high-quality, prominent major league players, they're going to be all... "you know, if we don't trade Xander now then we really could be up the creek without a paddle in 2022!" That's the theory here, right? You've concluded they might trade Bogaerts, Bradley, Rodriguez, or some other high end talent at the risk of their current excellence after trading all of the dudes I listed in the first paragraph. They don't get "nothing" if they fail to trade current performance for future performance. They get current performance! Which is what they've set their entire organizational strategy to build for! If you're going to trade Xander Bogaerts because he might leave due to free agency and you're worried about compete in 2021, then you aren't trading Moncada and Kopech and Espinoza for expensive and/or soon-to-be-expensive major leaguers. That's so contradictory that it is absolutely head spinning. "I'm not sure I've ever seen a contending team with money trade its prominent players for future value. I'd like a specific example of that happening." "Here is a specific example." "Hmm, okay. Well, here are the reasons that example is not apt." "You are getting hung up on my example." .... The whole point is that there aren't examples of this. It's all theoretical. When you try to put actual real-life examples of this behavior by an organization together then it totally falls apart. Don't you get the new CBA has totally changed the value of just letting good players walk? It's 100% theoretical, but with massive changes to the CBA you can expect that things will change. What happend in the past really has no bearing on what will happen in the future. Not when the new CBA changed the rules. The type of trades I'm talking about have been made like the Heyward trade or the Wade Davis trade. Just because those teams weren't just like Red Sox doesn't change the fact that those trades did happen. Both the Braves and Royals weren't going to sign those players long-term, so they traded them for players that could help them for years, not just a single season. As I've said before I don't think DD does this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Theo do it. A lot of our current team was selected with comp picks. Those days are over. Maybe DD will surprise me. His moves so far have been about building the best team while staying under luxury tax. That's why he wanted Sale and Pomeranz, money played a big factor. Same reason he gave away Buchholz. He cared more about clearing money, than getting best possible return. Over the next 3 years he will have to decide who he is going to sign long-term and who he can't. Then he is going to have to decide if having a slightly better chance at winning in one given year is worth letting a player leave for just about nothing. DD has never had to make a choice like that before, so we really can't say what he will do. In the past if that player left he got a good prospect, that he could either develop or use in a trade. Those days are over. I have to say the only thing more far fetched than my idea, is thinking that with massive changes to CBA, nothing is going to change. That was well-said.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 21, 2017 15:41:30 GMT -5
Don't you get the new CBA has totally changed the value of just letting good players walk? Yes - that was, in fact, the point of the changes. Teams gained a huge competitive advantage in the past by hoarding potential free agents and then playing musical chairs with them. Instead of re-signing your own player, it made more sense to let him leave and sign a player from another team all else being equal. That was the strategy that led to the Red Sox having so many good picks in 2005. So the contra to that is it is now less sensible to trade for pending free agents then it used to be. One of the advantages Orlando Cabrera gave was that the Red Sox could get two draft picks for two months of him. Or, an even more egregious example - think of the Eric Gagne trade. Despite trading for two months of a washed-up player, the Red Sox got a compensation pick. That totally changed the calculus of the deal for both teams. So, while having your players reach free agency is worse than it used to be, trading prospects or young talent for pending free agents is worse by several degrees - it's hard to see the Red Sox taking the chance on Gagne by giving up a legitimate major leaguer like Murphy without a comp pick coming back to them. That is, ostensibly, why players like Sale, Thornburg, and Kimbrel were attractive to Dombrowski - they're not rental players, but players who he sees as being part of a championship-quality core for several years. You can disagree with that on a talent-identification basis, sure. But the strategy was clear. So, if they're going to trade a player close to free agency a couple years down the road, they're not likely to see a return like they would have in 2003, and they're also undercutting their own current roster. On a team build to win the present, it is very, very difficult to trade present value for future while maintaining the same level of quality of the present roster. Going from a 93 win team to an 88 win team in 2019 to give your team a better chance of competing every year from 2021 to 2026 seems like a great move theoretically, it's also hard to square with the goals that anyone has. If a team has a bright present and a bleak future, the best path isn't to try to level out that to be average over all those years. Quite the opposite, it's to go for it in the short term and then rebuild through talent identification. A six year winning period of 98, 96, 95, 72, 77, 71 is better than just winning 84 games all of those years. And yes, the new CBA makes rebuilding *through money* harder - the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, and Cubs can't get those high school tough signs in the fifth round and international free agents that a team like the Twins or Rays would never have access to. If the Red Sox are going to be good after their current crop of talent is through, they're going to need to do it through talent identification. It's definitely not better than going 88, 90, 93, 95, 98, 98, which is reasonable to predict given their impending salary fluidity, lots of elite young talent, and the ability to compete in that case for high-end FAs. You're using a false equivalency fallacy of reason as the crux of your argument. You also ignore the fact that that six-year timeframe, pending nuclear or pandemic disaster, is not the length of the existence of the franchise. After this six years, your example team is likely to take a few years to climb out of that valley.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 21, 2017 16:34:19 GMT -5
Don't you get the new CBA has totally changed the value of just letting good players walk? Yes - that was, in fact, the point of the changes. Teams gained a huge competitive advantage in the past by hoarding potential free agents and then playing musical chairs with them. Instead of re-signing your own player, it made more sense to let him leave and sign a player from another team all else being equal. That was the strategy that led to the Red Sox having so many good picks in 2005. So the contra to that is it is now less sensible to trade for pending free agents then it used to be. One of the advantages Orlando Cabrera gave was that the Red Sox could get two draft picks for two months of him. Or, an even more egregious example - think of the Eric Gagne trade. Despite trading for two months of a washed-up player, the Red Sox got a compensation pick. That totally changed the calculus of the deal for both teams. So, while having your players reach free agency is worse than it used to be, trading prospects or young talent for pending free agents is worse by several degrees - it's hard to see the Red Sox taking the chance on Gagne by giving up a legitimate major leaguer like Murphy without a comp pick coming back to them. That is, ostensibly, why players like Sale, Thornburg, and Kimbrel were attractive to Dombrowski - they're not rental players, but players who he sees as being part of a championship-quality core for several years. You can disagree with that on a talent-identification basis, sure. But the strategy was clear. So, if they're going to trade a player close to free agency a couple years down the road, they're not likely to see a return like they would have in 2003, and they're also undercutting their own current roster. On a team build to win the present, it is very, very difficult to trade present value for future while maintaining the same level of quality of the present roster. Going from a 93 win team to an 88 win team in 2019 to give your team a better chance of competing every year from 2021 to 2026 seems like a great move theoretically, it's also hard to square with the goals that anyone has. If a team has a bright present and a bleak future, the best path isn't to try to level out that to be average over all those years. Quite the opposite, it's to go for it in the short term and then rebuild through talent identification. A six year winning period of 98, 96, 95, 72, 77, 71 is better than just winning 84 games all of those years. And yes, the new CBA makes rebuilding *through money* harder - the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, and Cubs can't get those high school tough signs in the fifth round and international free agents that a team like the Twins or Rays would never have access to. If the Red Sox are going to be good after their current crop of talent is through, they're going to need to do it through talent identification. You and Jmei just like to make up examples to fit your narrative. Your 93 vs 88 and his 3 to 1. Look at the Heyward for Miller trade, it was one year of 6.5 WAR for Heyward and 3 years of Miller where he gave you 3.6 WAR in the first year. So one year of 93 wins, followed by two years of 86.5 wins or 3 years of 90.1 wins. I take the 3 years of 90.1 wins every single time. Your 6 year Outlook is laughable and only meant to fit your narrative. No one is going to project that type of outlook for the Red Sox. You really think the Red Sox win 72 games 4 years from now? Talk about making up worst case scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 21, 2017 18:33:03 GMT -5
So I actually did some modelling (making basic assumptions about arbitration raises, average bullpen, WAR, etc)
And for the 2020 season, just assuming the roster consists of those who will be under team control based on their current contracts/arbitration:
The team would project* for 74 wins, with 8 "replacement-level spots" (3B, SS, 1B, DH, SP #3-6) and be ~$80m under the CBT. So if you would want to plan for an 88-win season, you'd have to manage to acquire 80/14 wins = ~ $6m per win; given the decimated farm system, a reasonable person would have to presume that the vast majority of that must come from FA
* I used optimistic assumptions (younger players improve from 2016, Benintendi is good, no injuries, and Pedroia regresses only .5 WAR in 3 years); since it's futile to project bullpens 4 years from now, I just assumed an average bullpen @ average payroll NB: and most optimistically, I presumed that Price opts out.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 21, 2017 19:06:33 GMT -5
You guys are totally amazing. Projecting win totals out 6 years. Projecting what will happen this season and maybe next is out there, but 6 is totally absurd. TOO many variables. The whole point here over the last several posts is that the way they ran the team the last several years changes big time. We do not know what the bench marks will be. Some where, there comes a time where the money dries up and the world stops for a while.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 21, 2017 22:31:51 GMT -5
You and Jmei just like to make up examples to fit your narrative. Your 93 vs 88 and his 3 to 1. So, you mean that we like to present hypotheticals to illustrate our points? Then yes, guilty. You keep citing this trade! The last post when I told you it wasn't applicable, you responded that this deal wasn't meant to be a specific example, yet you just cited the same one! It IS, of course, a good example of trading current value for future value. But it isn't an example of a contending team doing it. The Braves won fewer than 80 games, fired their GM and traded their three top players in the offseason they acquired Miller. If something like that happens to the Red Sox? Then yes, they should absolutely consider rebuilding by trading for future talent. But, to use it as a hypoethetical: would a contending GM really be happy sliding back from a 93 win median projection to 90? It doesn't seem large, but this past season 90 wins wouldn't have been good enough to win any of the six divisions - a goal that is incentivized because of the one-and-out nature of the wild card game. But there were two 91-93 win teams to get division crowns. The American League East hasn't been won with only 90 wins since 2000. Across baseball, since the 2010 season there have been only six division winners with 90 or fewer wins, and eight more in the 91-to-93 range. You're going from a 33.3% chance of winning a division in year one to a 14.3% chance for three straight years. Three years at 14.3% give you a 37% probability of winning a division in at least one of those years. Great, right? I mean, isn't trading a 33% chance of winning the division for a 37% chance an upgrade. Except for the fact that it assumes that the replacement player for the departing free agent is actually a replacement- level player. Even if they can find modest 1.5 WAR production to replace the 6.5 WAR of the Heyward equivalent departing as a free agent, then years two and three are up at 88 wins. That gives them a little less than a 5% chance of winning a division in years two and three - but it bring the chances of winning at least one division across the three year span up to 39.5%.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 21, 2017 23:52:08 GMT -5
One approximation of a comp-pick trade under the new CBA would be a deadline trade for a no-comp player like Lester or Chapman. So I don't think the returns will be *severely* affected. That's probably roughly the realm we're looking in.
As for a contender trading an integral piece, that was one of my early points: subtracting a player like Sale, Porcello, or Bradley Jr would have an immediate negative impact on that year's team and their postseason aspirations. History says that's not Dombrowski's MO. But the alternative is a couple of nearly-valueless draft picks. So either way, the salary crunch will likely have negative consequences after 2019 at the latest. If anything, it will at least be interesting to see how they maneuver things. Who knows? Maybe they sign Otani and trade Sale or Porcello straight off. There are certainly viable approaches (sign quality FA, trade star player for prospects, thus abrogating the need to extend the star, and get players in return). But they've dramatically reduced their options, that's my concern. A major drop off in overall team quality in 2-3 years isn't guaranteed, it's just harder to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 22, 2017 6:21:52 GMT -5
Sale looks good so that's encouraging. Will be nice to have one of the elite starters in all of baseball again who's stuff is pure dominance.
One of the guys we traded seems preoccupied with trying to throw 107 MPH in a game and the other one has a Panda like K/BB ratio so that helps ease my mind a bit. Doesn't mean much long term but when looking for things it helps that one guy's priorities seem off and the other still is showing a potential fatal flaw. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 22, 2017 7:57:06 GMT -5
One approximation of a comp-pick trade under the new CBA would be a deadline trade for a no-comp player like Lester or Chapman. So I don't think the returns will be *severely* affected. That's probably roughly the realm we're looking in. As for a contender trading an integral piece, that was one of my early points: subtracting a player like Sale, Porcello, or Bradley Jr would have an immediate negative impact on that year's team and their postseason aspirations. History says that's not Dombrowski's MO. But the alternative is a couple of nearly-valueless draft picks. So either way, the salary crunch will likely have negative consequences after 2019 at the latest. If anything, it will at least be interesting to see how they maneuver things. Who knows? Maybe they sign Otani and trade Sale or Porcello straight off. There are certainly viable approaches (sign quality FA, trade star player for prospects, thus abrogating the need to extend the star, and get players in return). But they've dramatically reduced their options, that's my concern. A major drop off in overall team quality in 2-3 years isn't guaranteed, it's just harder to avoid. Good point. But how many of those guys can you keep that got traded away? Certainly some good prospects. You got an ace pitcher under control for 3 seasons. You got what was considered at the time a top of the line ace closer. This remains to be seen as a great deal. You got an 8th inning possible closer. An all star major league ready pitcher for a young low A ball pitcher. You gave up lots of minor league players who would not have been impact players in the bigs. You gave up too much depth maybe/probably. AND you gave up Moncada, kopech, margot, and Anderson E. Four what appears to be high quality players who could make a BIG impact on the big stage. Two have played in the majors a little and 2 have not been above A ball. Margot is a very good defense light hitting outfielder. With what is on the club now, where does he play and who do you sit? You want him or beni? Moncada is an A+ talent from the potential side. Making contact seems to be a problem at the moment. Does he learn to adjust and recognize pitches. He struggled with AA pitching with strikeouts. Where do you play him? Infield defense looks very inconsistent. AE is very young , slight, and small. Not usually the body type to be a fire baller. Has not dominated low A YET. I am more inclined to think he is a TJ surgery waiting to happen. Kopech I was sad to see go. I think of the 4 he has the greatest potential in the big leagues. But, you have to give up something to get something. These are just opinions. I will be glad to say I was wrong at any time they become the next bagwell. BUT, what did the sox need to be competitive now? Pitching. Did they make the right moves time will tell whether dave is a god or a bum. They appear to be stockpiled with lots of young pitchers who for now project to be relief. Potential for trades. Two more drafts maybe 3. With the new CBA who knows how the lay of the land plays out. You are a prospect guy and this is a prospect site, so your concerns are well taken. With the very high salaries and the cap limiting the big market clubs I think the peaks and valleys of having playoff teams becomes more of an unavoidable reality.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 22, 2017 9:07:10 GMT -5
One approximation of a comp-pick trade under the new CBA would be a deadline trade for a no-comp player like Lester or Chapman. So I don't think the returns will be *severely* affected. That's probably roughly the realm we're looking in. The Chapman trade was bonkers. If that's the return for a player near free agency then every team should do it. But the Yankees got nearly as much for two months of him as the White Sox did for three years of Chris Sale. Trading closers (especially in the offseason) does indeed seem like a way a good team can restock. It takes some organizational commitment to the philosophy - you have to employ a manager, for instance, who is okay losing his safety net - but it's a really good idea. But it also depends on what you can get, right? Maybe a more illustrative example would be the Wade Davis deal. The Royals are in a position to maybe contend, and they traded some injury risk with Davis for some performance risk but added team control (and definite upside) with Soler. If the Red Sox win 95 games in 2017, would you rather have a year of Kimbrel as the team competes in 2018 or a Soler equivalent for several years? To me it isn't a slam dunk.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2017 12:18:49 GMT -5
Hypotheticals that aren't like the Heyward or Davis trades that I mentioned. No teams does a 3 for 1 or a 93 win team losing 5 wins. 88 wins doesn't get you even in wild card last year.
I use the Heyward trade because we have numbers to see how it turned out and it's very recent. It's a great example to use. That doesn't mean the Red Sox need to trade an OF for a starter. That's what I meant about the specifics. For me this trade is all about 1 year for 3 years and a getting that 3 for 1.5 to 2 return ratio on WAR.
The Davis trade is similar 1 year for 4 years. I would predict 2-3 WAR for Davis and 1-2 WAR for Soler. Soler is really hard to peg, but he has a ton of talent. It could be less, it could be a good amount more. I would say the Royals plan on contending next year, it's debatable how good they will be. Thing is they made that trade you said contending teams don't make. Chances are Wade produces a higher WAR next year, thus hurting there playoff chances. They were willing to do that for Solers upside and 4 years of team control on the cheap.
As to your percentages, sure it's great to have a better chance at winning division, but it's not a slam dunk. You could still be a wild card team. I would rather have 3 seasons of playing in a wild card game and a small chance at winning division, over one season with a better chance at division and two seasons where you most likely miss the playoffs. Any team can win the title, you just need a chance to get in. Three 90 win seasons gives you three chances to get hot at right time and win it all.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 22, 2017 12:45:13 GMT -5
Before 2016, 2008 was the last season where 90 wins would make an AL wild card but 88 would not (obviously with the caveat that the standings may have shifted a game or two before the second wild card was implemented if they were played instead by the current playoff rules).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2017 13:03:14 GMT -5
I used the Heyward trade and Bradley because I see Bradley being on par with Hayward WAR numbers for that 2019 season. Around the 6-6.5 WAR. So if you let him walk from a 93 win team your not at 88 wins, your in the 86-87 wins area.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 22, 2017 13:25:27 GMT -5
That was discussed in my post above. Realistically, his replacement wouldn't be a 0.0 WAR player. Got to 88 wins by assuming 1.5 (above replacement level, below average).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 22, 2017 17:04:52 GMT -5
One approximation of a comp-pick trade under the new CBA would be a deadline trade for a no-comp player like Lester or Chapman. So I don't think the returns will be *severely* affected. That's probably roughly the realm we're looking in. As for a contender trading an integral piece, that was one of my early points: subtracting a player like Sale, Porcello, or Bradley Jr would have an immediate negative impact on that year's team and their postseason aspirations. History says that's not Dombrowski's MO. But the alternative is a couple of nearly-valueless draft picks. So either way, the salary crunch will likely have negative consequences after 2019 at the latest. If anything, it will at least be interesting to see how they maneuver things. Who knows? Maybe they sign Otani and trade Sale or Porcello straight off. There are certainly viable approaches (sign quality FA, trade star player for prospects, thus abrogating the need to extend the star, and get players in return). But they've dramatically reduced their options, that's my concern. A major drop off in overall team quality in 2-3 years isn't guaranteed, it's just harder to avoid. Good point. But how many of those guys can you keep that got traded away? Certainly some good prospects. You got an ace pitcher under control for 3 seasons. You got what was considered at the time a top of the line ace closer. This remains to be seen as a great deal. You got an 8th inning possible closer. An all star major league ready pitcher for a young low A ball pitcher. You gave up lots of minor league players who would not have been impact players in the bigs. You gave up too much depth maybe/probably. AND you gave up Moncada, kopech, margot, and Anderson E. Four what appears to be high quality players who could make a BIG impact on the big stage. Two have played in the majors a little and 2 have not been above A ball. Margot is a very good defense light hitting outfielder. With what is on the club now, where does he play and who do you sit? You want him or beni? Moncada is an A+ talent from the potential side. Making contact seems to be a problem at the moment. Does he learn to adjust and recognize pitches. He struggled with AA pitching with strikeouts. Where do you play him? Infield defense looks very inconsistent. AE is very young , slight, and small. Not usually the body type to be a fire baller. Has not dominated low A YET. I am more inclined to think he is a TJ surgery waiting to happen. Kopech I was sad to see go. I think of the 4 he has the greatest potential in the big leagues. But, you have to give up something to get something. These are just opinions. I will be glad to say I was wrong at any time they become the next bagwell. BUT, what did the sox need to be competitive now? Pitching. Did they make the right moves time will tell whether dave is a god or a bum. They appear to be stockpiled with lots of young pitchers who for now project to be relief. Potential for trades. Two more drafts maybe 3. With the new CBA who knows how the lay of the land plays out. You are a prospect guy and this is a prospect site, so your concerns are well taken. With the very high salaries and the cap limiting the big market clubs I think the peaks and valleys of having playoff teams becomes more of an unavoidable reality. I'm not a prospect guy, though. I'm a salary flexibility guy. I want to see the team good *every* year. I think the way to do that is, for example, keep Margot and plug him in as the LF last year. When Benintendi forces his way up, then you make a move, or send Margot down for seasoning. Trade from depth, and trade guys with MLB experience. Have young players in reserve. Supplement with high end FAs.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 22, 2017 17:10:22 GMT -5
One approximation of a comp-pick trade under the new CBA would be a deadline trade for a no-comp player like Lester or Chapman. So I don't think the returns will be *severely* affected. That's probably roughly the realm we're looking in. The Chapman trade was bonkers. If that's the return for a player near free agency then every team should do it. But the Yankees got nearly as much for two months of him as the White Sox did for three years of Chris Sale. Trading closers (especially in the offseason) does indeed seem like a way a good team can restock. It takes some organizational commitment to the philosophy - you have to employ a manager, for instance, who is okay losing his safety net - but it's a really good idea. But it also depends on what you can get, right? Maybe a more illustrative example would be the Wade Davis deal. The Royals are in a position to maybe contend, and they traded some injury risk with Davis for some performance risk but added team control (and definite upside) with Soler. If the Red Sox win 95 games in 2017, would you rather have a year of Kimbrel as the team competes in 2018 or a Soler equivalent for several years? To me it isn't a slam dunk. I pretty much agree with you on all of these points. I think developing and extending Kelly as a closer or the rise of Barnes/Thornburg/return of Smith is crucial. Take advantage of the ridiculous overvaluation. But yes, one could argue the price premium for certainty is worth it; however relievers are by nature volatile, so some of that certainty is an illusion. I think if they can get offers similar to what they gave up (fewer control years but more market inflation), you do it every time.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 22, 2017 17:40:31 GMT -5
I wouldn't draw too many lessons from Davis for Soler; Soler's stock has fallen considerably - he's an absolute dumpster fire in the OF, with a 3:1 K%:BB%; beware of one-tool players with a promising cup-of-coffee (Middlebrooks) and Wade Davis has seen his K% drop by 50% in 2 years - he's hurt
|
|
|