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 thursty on Dec 13, 2016 19:47:39 GMT -5
Coco Crisp says aye
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 13, 2016 20:07:43 GMT -5
He went 3-5 in 14 games (13 starts), with an ERA of 4.59 and FIP to match with 0.5 fWAR. You can concoct whatever narrative you like (and you have to, to justify calling him "instrumental."), but he pitched like a #5 starter. He was roughly as instrumental as Rutledge was when he had a nice hot streak early in the season. He had the 4th highest war total among starters in 13 starts. He replaced guys that were pitching at a historically bad levels. You have to factor that in. Getting Pomeranz allowed Buchholz to go to pen and fix his issues. You can hate the trade, no reason to bash the player or what he did for the team. Again, I'm not bashing him. I'm citing statistics that argue against his being "instrumental" in the Sox's playoff run. As I've said, I don't "like" the trade, but with his two additional years of control, I understand it and don't think it was a "bad" trade in market terms. I just find it laughable that some people make it out to be Doyle Alexander in '89 or Randy Johnson to Houston. Pomeranz didn't do anything extraordinary, or even average. He provided below-average (sub-#3 starter) performance for a third of a season.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,962
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 13, 2016 20:24:08 GMT -5
[...] I just find it laughable that some people make it out to be Doyle Alexander in '89 or Randy Johnson to Houston. [...] Yikes, has someone said that? I don't remember that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 13, 2016 20:24:47 GMT -5
He had the 4th highest war total among starters in 13 starts. He replaced guys that were pitching at a historically bad levels. You have to factor that in. Getting Pomeranz allowed Buchholz to go to pen and fix his issues. You can hate the trade, no reason to bash the player or what he did for the team. Again, I'm not bashing him. I'm citing statistics that argue against his being "instrumental" in the Sox's playoff run. As I've said, I don't "like" the trade, but with his two additional years of control, I understand it and don't think it was a "bad" trade in market terms. I just find it laughable that some people make it out to be Doyle Alexander in '89 or Randy Johnson to Houston. Pomeranz didn't do anything extraordinary, or even average. He provided below-average (sub-#3 starter) performance for a third of a season. Why do you think he was below average? His ERA+ is 100 exactly average, his SO rate was well above average. He made some great starts, but had some bad ones that dragged down his overall numbers. I don't think anyone is saying he was awesome, but the way our 4\5 had pitched, getting even league average production was a massive upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 13, 2016 20:53:18 GMT -5
Yeah, that was an amazing 360 foot fly ball he hit about 2 inches over the wall.
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 13, 2016 21:18:55 GMT -5
You say DD buys momentum stock yet someone else could say he buys the big cap safe stocks and evne if overvalued he feels big cap over the long haul will outperform the market.
As far as Kimbrel. Before his stint with the Padres, Fangraphs had him right up there with all the other elite pitchers. Up until this year Chapman had also very high walk numbers, didn't he?
As far as Pomz and rescinding, the Red Sox were in trouble in August, weren't they? Wright hurt, Clay pitching poorly, and the bullpen collapsing while in August the Red Sox weren't as efficient scoring runs? And from what I understand by the time they found out the extent of Pomz injury other targets such as Rich Hill were gone, wasn't he?
As far as pitching, didn't we have Schilling and Foulke do well in their 1st year? If you look at things the way you are at this moment, what would ever make you decide to get Schilling? Or Foulke? So you would pass on these guys? Also-- many of these Aces also want to win. So if your expectation is that the aces will fail in their 1st year and you know you have to back up the truck to get them, when would you ever be in favor of getting one? Because you realize they are also going to want to win, right?
And I can understand what you're saying to an extent- sox do have some troubles with 1st year pitchers. However if you look at that data, what about the data of Porcello and Price performance in the playoffs? What do you think our chances of them being a 1/2 starter combo vs maybe being a 2/3 playoff starter combo because now they have Sale? Do you feel that the stats of past aces means that Sale is more likely to fail rather than looking at the stats of Price and Porcello and you being very confident that they will be a terrific 1/2 combination in the playoffs? In other words, Why do you prefer the "Sale will struggle stat" rather that the playoffs 1/2 stats of Price Porcello? I'm not arguing but if one were to feel that Price and Porcello struggles in the playoffs - unless you can trade them, wouldn't it mean then you better find another top notch starter that can maybe control a series? I'm not arguing. Anyhow have a good night.
You raise some interesting points and questions. 1. I guess we could say DD buys blue chip stocks for starters and pays sky-high multiples for them, and that he buys momentum stocks for relievers and buys high. In both cases, he appears to ignore mean reversion. 2. I wouldn't group Schilling and Foulke together in your question since I don't really have a major quibble with the Kimbrel trade -- DD's high K/9 acquisition targets were limited, the position player prospects traded were blocked by young, superior MLB'ers, DD appeared to sell high on 2 of the 4 prospects in the deal, and recent history has shown that the market price for impact relievers has only escalated. I think the "Boston indoctrination effect" makes pitchers OD'ing on adrenaline overthrow in front of passionate, sellout crowds, the kind of crowds that aren't often found in San Diego or Atlanta. So, I wouldn't have passed on Foulke, who, by the way, was signed as a free agent, as opposed to acquired with prospects. 3. I'm not saying don't trade for marquee starters. I'm saying be selective about those marquee starters, and don't massively overpay. The differences between Schilling and Sale are numerous. Schilling was a big-framed, uber-competitive, team-first guy with a demonstrable track record of postseason success. His 5-year FIP was trending downward. And, obviously, the cost to acquire him was nowhere near the #1 prospect plus the #30 prospect in baseball. Sale is a lanky guy with no postseason experience. His 3-year FIP appears to be trending upward. And the cost to acquire him was enormous. The 15 WAR that he is likely to give you over the next 3 seasons in a best case scenario appear to be equal to the WAR lost from Moncada alone, let alone Kopech et. al. A better comparison for the Sale trade would have been the Pedro trade. In Pedro's case, his 3-year FIP was trending downward, he was a year and a half younger than Sale when acquired (with 200-300 fewer IP on his arm), and the cost to acquire him entailed 2 pitching prospects (who are inherently more risky than batting prospects), one of which was relatively undistinguished, and neither of which were the #1 prospect in baseball. 4. It's not entirely clear to me that Chris Sale in 2016 would have saved us from postseason calamity. Maybe he pitches game 1, and puts us up 1-0. It's also possible that he pitches game 2, and is outclassed by Kluber in Cleveland. In a best case scenario where Sale wills us to a game 4, where we miraculously win because a non-Sale pitcher rises to the occasion, what are the odds that our snake-bitten offense wins game 5 on the road against Kluber. Probably not fantastic. 5. If you look at our offense entering 2017, it's clear that there are bright spots (killer B's, Hanley), but also plenty of places for negative reversion (Leon, Pedroia, DH, 3B) and fragility. If you were dead set on trading Moncada and Kopech, could you have pried away a cost-controlled, middle-of-the-order bat from a non-contender (e.g., Goldschmidt) instead of Sale? Could you have pried one away without trading Moncada (e.g., Votto)? Alternatively, could you have exercised patience by letting Moncada and Devers develop further, rather than allow yourself to be fooled into thinking Moncada was a bust simply due to a small sample size where he struggled with curve balls? This was a guy, after all, who crushed AA at age 21 with a .900+ OPS. 6. How competitive do you think the 2018 Red Sox would be if the Sale trade doesn't get made? Is it possible that the 2018 Red Sox are stocked with Moncada at 1B and Devers at 3B in addition to the killer B's? Is it possible that Price and Kimbrel exhibit positive reversion in these years after adjusting to the Boston playing environment? Is it possible that EdRo steps up to become a #2? Is it possible that Kelly/Smith/Thornburg/Kimbrel evolve into a lights-out bullpen after some trial and tribulation in 2017? Can you live with a 88-92 win team in 2017 for the chance to see that team in 2018? From the tone of my questions, I think you can see that I'm willing to defer gratification for longer duration rewards. That, in my opinion, is DD's biggest failing, even though I still consider him to be an upgrade over Ben.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 13, 2016 22:39:54 GMT -5
[...] I just find it laughable that some people make it out to be Doyle Alexander in '89 or Randy Johnson to Houston. [...] Yikes, has someone said that? I don't remember that. Eh, probably I'm being hyperbolic, but soxjim has referred to him as "instrumental." I take that as being make-or-break, or at least approaching it. FWIW, I think Pomeranz helped, but only inasmuch as any warm body out there would've "helped." His half-season was essentially 2015 Porcello or Miley. To get back to the original soxjim argument, I disagree that obtaining Pomeranz, specifically, was a crucial DD move that somehow provided significant value in determining the team's 2016 fate. Price (who he also referred to in the same sentence) is an entirely different story, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 13, 2016 22:52:11 GMT -5
You say DD buys momentum stock yet someone else could say he buys the big cap safe stocks and evne if overvalued he feels big cap over the long haul will outperform the market.
As far as Kimbrel. Before his stint with the Padres, Fangraphs had him right up there with all the other elite pitchers. Up until this year Chapman had also very high walk numbers, didn't he?
As far as Pomz and rescinding, the Red Sox were in trouble in August, weren't they? Wright hurt, Clay pitching poorly, and the bullpen collapsing while in August the Red Sox weren't as efficient scoring runs? And from what I understand by the time they found out the extent of Pomz injury other targets such as Rich Hill were gone, wasn't he?
As far as pitching, didn't we have Schilling and Foulke do well in their 1st year? If you look at things the way you are at this moment, what would ever make you decide to get Schilling? Or Foulke? So you would pass on these guys? Also-- many of these Aces also want to win. So if your expectation is that the aces will fail in their 1st year and you know you have to back up the truck to get them, when would you ever be in favor of getting one? Because you realize they are also going to want to win, right?
And I can understand what you're saying to an extent- sox do have some troubles with 1st year pitchers. However if you look at that data, what about the data of Porcello and Price performance in the playoffs? What do you think our chances of them being a 1/2 starter combo vs maybe being a 2/3 playoff starter combo because now they have Sale? Do you feel that the stats of past aces means that Sale is more likely to fail rather than looking at the stats of Price and Porcello and you being very confident that they will be a terrific 1/2 combination in the playoffs? In other words, Why do you prefer the "Sale will struggle stat" rather that the playoffs 1/2 stats of Price Porcello? I'm not arguing but if one were to feel that Price and Porcello struggles in the playoffs - unless you can trade them, wouldn't it mean then you better find another top notch starter that can maybe control a series? I'm not arguing. Anyhow have a good night.
You raise some interesting points and questions. 1. I guess we could say DD buys blue chip stocks for starters and pays sky-high multiples for them, and that he buys momentum stocks for relievers and buys high. In both cases, he appears to ignore mean reversion. 2. I wouldn't group Schilling and Foulke together in your question since I don't really have a major quibble with the Kimbrel trade -- DD's high K/9 acquisition targets were limited, the position player prospects traded were blocked by young, superior MLB'ers, DD appeared to sell high on 2 of the 4 prospects in the deal, and recent history has shown that the market price for impact relievers has only escalated. I think the "Boston indoctrination effect" makes pitchers OD'ing on adrenaline overthrow in front of passionate, sellout crowds, the kind of crowds that aren't often found in San Diego or Atlanta. So, I wouldn't have passed on Foulke, who, by the way, was signed as a free agent, as opposed to acquired with prospects. 3. I'm not saying don't trade for marquee starters. I'm saying be selective about those marquee starters, and don't massively overpay. The differences between Schilling and Sale are numerous. Schilling was a big-framed, uber-competitive, team-first guy with a demonstrable track record of postseason success. His 5-year FIP was trending downward. And, obviously, the cost to acquire him was nowhere near the #1 prospect plus the #30 prospect in baseball. Sale is a lanky guy with no postseason experience. His 3-year FIP appears to be trending upward. And the cost to acquire him was enormous. The 15 WAR that he is likely to give you over the next 3 seasons in a best case scenario appear to be equal to the WAR lost from Moncada alone, let alone Kopech et. al. A better comparison for the Sale trade would have been the Pedro trade. In Pedro's case, his 3-year FIP was trending downward, he was a year and a half younger than Sale when acquired (with 200-300 fewer IP on his arm), and the cost to acquire him entailed 2 pitching prospects (who are inherently more risky than batting prospects), one of which was relatively undistinguished, and neither of which were the #1 prospect in baseball. 4. It's not entirely clear to me that Chris Sale in 2016 would have saved us from postseason calamity. Maybe he pitches game 1, and puts us up 1-0. It's also possible that he pitches game 2, and is outclassed by Kluber in Cleveland. In a best case scenario where Sale wills us to a game 4, where we miraculously win because a non-Sale pitcher rises to the occasion, what are the odds that our snake-bitten offense wins game 5 on the road against Kluber. Probably not fantastic. 5. If you look at our offense entering 2017, it's clear that there are bright spots (killer B's, Hanley), but also plenty of places for negative reversion (Leon, Pedroia, DH, 3B) and fragility. If you were dead set on trading Moncada and Kopech, could you have pried away a cost-controlled, middle-of-the-order bat from a non-contender (e.g., Goldschmidt) instead of Sale? Could you have pried one away without trading Moncada (e.g., Votto)? Alternatively, could you have exercised patience by letting Moncada and Devers develop further, rather than allow yourself to be fooled into thinking Moncada was a bust simply due to a small sample size where he struggled with curve balls? This was a guy, after all, who crushed AA at age 21 with a .900+ OPS. 6. How competitive do you think the 2018 Red Sox would be if the Sale trade doesn't get made? Is it possible that the 2018 Red Sox are stocked with Moncada at 1B and Devers at 3B in addition to the killer B's? Is it possible that Price and Kimbrel exhibit positive reversion in these years after adjusting to the Boston playing environment? Is it possible that EdRo steps up to become a #2? Is it possible that Kelly/Smith/Thornburg/Kimbrel evolve into a lights-out bullpen after some trial and tribulation in 2017? Can you live with a 88-92 win team in 2017 for the chance to see that team in 2018? From the tone of my questions, I think you can see that I'm willing to defer gratification for longer duration rewards. That, in my opinion, is DD's biggest failing, even though I still consider him to be an upgrade over Ben. Extremely well-put. Obviously, I agree with essentially everything you've said. To add to your "acquiring a hitter" point: Justin Turner is a 3-WAR projection. If the Sox had signed him at 4/70, given his bat in Fenway and Pablo's projected performance, Turner would've added tremendous CIF depth (this team's glaring weakness), and probably 2-3 WAR. That's essentially exactly what Sale can be expected to add over whoever he replaces. Shaw could've been traded without creating a depth issue. Trade Buchholz and Abad (which they'll likely do anyway) and the team's got plenty of cap space. And, they still have Moncada, Devers, Basabe, and Diaz. With the **same projected outcome**. They also have much better MiLB depth in case a mid-season move is necessary. They'd be a little thin on starter depth, but have tons of pieces to acquire one.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 13, 2016 23:04:54 GMT -5
The mods will stop us because we'd be going in circles. I'll end my points here. For all your points these "upswing players' were a last place team the year before. All you seem to be doing is being in denial that Ben led this team to 3 last place finishes in 4 years and you astonishingly you give credit to Ben because now that he couldn't have led to the team to a worse finish and mismanaged the team so badly, now you want to claim it was all roses for DD because the last place team had to eventually go on an upswing. Thanks for telling everyone that a team under Ben's rule with a $190m payroll is bound to be on an upswing leading intot nenext year.
Further there is this point about PITCHING. You say ERod had a great debut?? Huh??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wasn't there some stat this year that spoke of Clay and Erod to start the year and their first few months was amongst the worst ever for 4/5 starters in baseball history? You can have all the hits you want, but without pitching you know you can't win, right? And other than Porcello, which Ben guy pitcher had a shining season? DD had to get players because Ben was extremely deficient in this area right? Could you please tell everyone when was the last time the Red Sox had a home grown starter? May never happen with DD either but at least he's committed to us fans not having to watch crummy last place baseball because he wants to hoard minor league players. Yo enjoyed those miserable Sunday afternoons when he had to watch a last place team play so badly? And I think our starters are a tiny bit better now that Ben is gone, don't you think?
Also you realize the Red Sox needed a closer, right? Are closers important? Maybe not so much to Ben. Otherwise, we'd have Miller, right? Why did we need Kimbrel when we could have had Miller? Ohhhhh - that's right. Ben chose to not want to go after the younger guy who came into his own. HE chose to take the 40 year old instead. Guess what happens after you have a 40 year old for a couple of years? He is likely to get more ineffective, right? Well what do you think that means? It means the Red Sox have to go out and spend a lot more or trade to find a closer. hose fault is that Ben was too dumb to not realize that Koji had a short window and Miller was in his "upswing?"
And you continually ignore what "management" means. What Dave did early in the season and probably last year --as I said -- "Best player plays." What did Farrell say? Again-- to paraphrase he said 'It's refreshing that I can choose the best players instead of worrying about salary." These type of things are management skills DD has which makes this HIS TEAM and contributes ot those WAR numbers you cite. Further, those WAR numbers you cite don't mean a hill-of-beans if you didn't have the pitching to go with it.
I'm done with this. Nice arguments.
1. Yes, the 2015 Sox sucked. But the general feeling towards the end was that 2016 would be much better based on all the evidence I gave in my previous post. 2. I said ERod had a great debut as evidence of point #1. Please don't take it out of context.3. You use a lot of words and a lot of question marks to emphasize things that I have no idea what they have to do with what I said. To reiterate: The original point of contention was not that DDo should get no credit, but that people would eventually give DDo most of the credit for 2016. 4. My WAR calculations did include pitching. I was done with our discussion but I just wanted to add your comment I took it out of context. Not that I took it out of context - I just don't believe the context you mentioned was that relevant vs our discussion who gets most of the accolades for this team DD or BC. You're talking to me about"debuts" -- my reply was like Jim Mora and the "Playoffs."
Think what you like my fellow Red Sox friend. The Red Sox got into the playoffs because they had help with guys such as Pomeranz. Without Pomeranz performance in August the Sox don't get into the playoffs. You cite me ERod "in his debut." Yet his "debut" was miniscule vs trying to be a playoff team after being a last place team.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 13, 2016 23:09:18 GMT -5
Again, I'm not bashing him. I'm citing statistics that argue against his being "instrumental" in the Sox's playoff run. As I've said, I don't "like" the trade, but with his two additional years of control, I understand it and don't think it was a "bad" trade in market terms. I just find it laughable that some people make it out to be Doyle Alexander in '89 or Randy Johnson to Houston. Pomeranz didn't do anything extraordinary, or even average. He provided below-average (sub-#3 starter) performance for a third of a season. Why do you think he was below average? His ERA+ is 100 exactly average, his SO rate was well above average. He made some great starts, but had some bad ones that dragged down his overall numbers. I don't think anyone is saying he was awesome, but the way our 4\5 had pitched, getting even league average production was a massive upgrade. Well, fangraphs has him at ERA- of 104 and an FIP- of 114 (which is particularly bad given his high strikeout rate). He also averaged exactly 5 innings per start, and missed a few starts. To me, that's below-average. You're right re: what they had been getting, so I'll give you that. But I still contend (exactly as I did then) that what they had was due for significant positive regression (exactly what happened), and that there were numerous other preferable options that would've provided similar results (reaching the playoffs), including standing pat. Really, it comes down to patience. I had a lot of confidence that 2016's team was probably going to make the playoffs (although I didn't have much hope for them beyond that). Dombrowski's obviously very impatient, which can be a virtue in driving decisiveness, but it leads to mistakes. And I think all three major trades he's made have been mistakes. In every case, I think there have been clear, superior alternatives. But really, that's because I'm willing to defer say, last year's playoff tank for a much better run in '17-'20.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 13, 2016 23:13:45 GMT -5
[...] I just find it laughable that some people make it out to be Doyle Alexander in '89 or Randy Johnson to Houston. [...] Yikes, has someone said that? I don't remember that. This is why I block him. I responded to umass even though it wasn't his initial point. When telson disagrees with someone, there is a good chance he just goes off. As you note - this was never said. He made it up because he didn't like what he was reading - right or wrong. My point is arguable-- sure. Because I said Pomz helped the red Sox get into the playoffs that's the same as RJ's dominant/scary tremndous performance?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 14, 2016 0:41:31 GMT -5
I should qualify re: Kimbrel as a mistake. It's entirely possible that Dombrowski actually was prescient and predicted the reliever market explosion. In fact, I'm inclined to think so. He traded from redundancy, so if it was, in fact, an "overpay," (I think it was, but not horrendously so), I can just as easily see the Sox recouping that value, or even more, if Kimbrel rebounds and at the same time, Kelly/Barnes/Thornburg all prove viable replacements. The odds aren't great, but it's also not out of the realm of possibility. With Sale on board, the same could be said for Pomeranz (although I'm not sure DD would trade him if he were pitching well and deemed crucial for a playoff run). Sale, I think, will turn out badly. I'm not very hopeful that he's the incredible difference-maker so many people are convinced he is.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 14, 2016 1:47:04 GMT -5
You say DD buys momentum stock yet someone else could say he buys the big cap safe stocks and evne if overvalued he feels big cap over the long haul will outperform the market.
As far as Kimbrel. Before his stint with the Padres, Fangraphs had him right up there with all the other elite pitchers. Up until this year Chapman had also very high walk numbers, didn't he?
As far as Pomz and rescinding, the Red Sox were in trouble in August, weren't they? Wright hurt, Clay pitching poorly, and the bullpen collapsing while in August the Red Sox weren't as efficient scoring runs? And from what I understand by the time they found out the extent of Pomz injury other targets such as Rich Hill were gone, wasn't he?
As far as pitching, didn't we have Schilling and Foulke do well in their 1st year? If you look at things the way you are at this moment, what would ever make you decide to get Schilling? Or Foulke? So you would pass on these guys? Also-- many of these Aces also want to win. So if your expectation is that the aces will fail in their 1st year and you know you have to back up the truck to get them, when would you ever be in favor of getting one? Because you realize they are also going to want to win, right?
And I can understand what you're saying to an extent- sox do have some troubles with 1st year pitchers. However if you look at that data, what about the data of Porcello and Price performance in the playoffs? What do you think our chances of them being a 1/2 starter combo vs maybe being a 2/3 playoff starter combo because now they have Sale? Do you feel that the stats of past aces means that Sale is more likely to fail rather than looking at the stats of Price and Porcello and you being very confident that they will be a terrific 1/2 combination in the playoffs? In other words, Why do you prefer the "Sale will struggle stat" rather that the playoffs 1/2 stats of Price Porcello? I'm not arguing but if one were to feel that Price and Porcello struggles in the playoffs - unless you can trade them, wouldn't it mean then you better find another top notch starter that can maybe control a series? I'm not arguing. Anyhow have a good night.
You raise some interesting points and questions. 1. I guess we could say DD buys blue chip stocks for starters and pays sky-high multiples for them, and that he buys momentum stocks for relievers and buys high. In both cases, he appears to ignore mean reversion. 2. I wouldn't group Schilling and Foulke together in your question since I don't really have a major quibble with the Kimbrel trade -- DD's high K/9 acquisition targets were limited, the position player prospects traded were blocked by young, superior MLB'ers, DD appeared to sell high on 2 of the 4 prospects in the deal, and recent history has shown that the market price for impact relievers has only escalated. I think the "Boston indoctrination effect" makes pitchers OD'ing on adrenaline overthrow in front of passionate, sellout crowds, the kind of crowds that aren't often found in San Diego or Atlanta. So, I wouldn't have passed on Foulke, who, by the way, was signed as a free agent, as opposed to acquired with prospects. 3. I'm not saying don't trade for marquee starters. I'm saying be selective about those marquee starters, and don't massively overpay. The differences between Schilling and Sale are numerous. Schilling was a big-framed, uber-competitive, team-first guy with a demonstrable track record of postseason success. His 5-year FIP was trending downward. And, obviously, the cost to acquire him was nowhere near the #1 prospect plus the #30 prospect in baseball. Sale is a lanky guy with no postseason experience. His 3-year FIP appears to be trending upward. And the cost to acquire him was enormous. The 15 WAR that he is likely to give you over the next 3 seasons in a best case scenario appear to be equal to the WAR lost from Moncada alone, let alone Kopech et. al. A better comparison for the Sale trade would have been the Pedro trade. In Pedro's case, his 3-year FIP was trending downward, he was a year and a half younger than Sale when acquired (with 200-300 fewer IP on his arm), and the cost to acquire him entailed 2 pitching prospects (who are inherently more risky than batting prospects), one of which was relatively undistinguished, and neither of which were the #1 prospect in baseball. 4. It's not entirely clear to me that Chris Sale in 2016 would have saved us from postseason calamity. Maybe he pitches game 1, and puts us up 1-0. It's also possible that he pitches game 2, and is outclassed by Kluber in Cleveland. In a best case scenario where Sale wills us to a game 4, where we miraculously win because a non-Sale pitcher rises to the occasion, what are the odds that our snake-bitten offense wins game 5 on the road against Kluber. Probably not fantastic. 5. If you look at our offense entering 2017, it's clear that there are bright spots (killer B's, Hanley), but also plenty of places for negative reversion (Leon, Pedroia, DH, 3B) and fragility. If you were dead set on trading Moncada and Kopech, could you have pried away a cost-controlled, middle-of-the-order bat from a non-contender (e.g., Goldschmidt) instead of Sale? Could you have pried one away without trading Moncada (e.g., Votto)? Alternatively, could you have exercised patience by letting Moncada and Devers develop further, rather than allow yourself to be fooled into thinking Moncada was a bust simply due to a small sample size where he struggled with curve balls? This was a guy, after all, who crushed AA at age 21 with a .900+ OPS. 6. How competitive do you think the 2018 Red Sox would be if the Sale trade doesn't get made? Is it possible that the 2018 Red Sox are stocked with Moncada at 1B and Devers at 3B in addition to the killer B's? Is it possible that Price and Kimbrel exhibit positive reversion in these years after adjusting to the Boston playing environment? Is it possible that EdRo steps up to become a #2? Is it possible that Kelly/Smith/Thornburg/Kimbrel evolve into a lights-out bullpen after some trial and tribulation in 2017? Can you live with a 88-92 win team in 2017 for the chance to see that team in 2018? From the tone of my questions, I think you can see that I'm willing to defer gratification for longer duration rewards. That, in my opinion, is DD's biggest failing, even though I still consider him to be an upgrade over Ben. 1--- He does chase momentum with Pomz, Smith and Thornburg. But big cap is where he is making his bones. We gave up 8 prospects for 2 guys and paid $30m per year for another. Possibly two ACE starters (at leats their history is ACE) and up until his last two years Kimbrel was regarded as amongst the best closers in the game. This is big cap to me.
2-- When I mentioned Schilling and Foulke - it had to do with your below indoctrination effect: When you say below in bold: Once again, I fear mean reversion with Sale, not only given his frame and delivery, but also the Boston indoctrination effect,
My mention of Schilling was that he needed no indoctrination. Foulke struggled initially I think but after that - he was solid in year 1. I was just offering examples of fine pitchers that didn't need "the Boston indoctrination." And just as you cited, you give examples (i.e. data) that supports this effect. I get that. I was just asking/implying in a way why couldn't Sale be immune to the effect? I suspect part of your answer will be about post season which is part of my further questions.
So my question to you was three part- and I apologize I don't ask the questions well. Question `1 and 2 sort of relate to each other which could probably be answered with one answer.
1 part--- In terms of an ACE, if you are the GM and are trying to win now, and you know you have to either pay huge money or give up a lot in a trade to get that ACE, what ACE would you realistically ever get if you only go after the ACE that has been "a Schilling winner type" in the playoffs? There already are a small number and the teams that win a a lot that aren't going to give up their ACE without a monetary fight or big over-sell. You would have such a small window of ACEs to choose- because it seems if you value as you put it "with a demonstrable track record of postseason success," you're either going to be forced to pay/trade huge for that post season success or that post season success would have to take a bit of a backburner.
2 part--- The data of the Boston indoctrination effect vs Price and Porcello playoff history. You believe in the Boston indoctrination effect so as a GM what would ever turn you on to get a guy with little post season success in which you believe the Boston indoctrination is real? Thus it seems you would always rule out an overpay in these circumstances because year 1 he is going to struggle. So he'd have to have an extremely long or friendly contract. But with these things more must be paid to get him. SO as a GM you would never get an ACE like this is how I see it because you in part value the data from Boston indoctrination effect is real so you are throwing away a year and for a guy you have mentioned that you seek that has some form of "a demonstrable track record of postseason success." Am I right in how I'm viewing how you would look at this?
3 part--- The data of the Boston indoctrination effect vs Price and Porcello playoff history. You used examples data to show the Boston indoctrination effect. But now you are the GM of this team. Price and Porcello have a poor playoff history. If pitching is so important in the playoffs, and you use data a lot to make decisions, what chance do you think the Red sox realistically have with Price and Porcello as 1/2 starters or are you choosing to ignore their data yet why then wouldn't you ignore the Boston indoctrination effect? You think one bit of data is more relevant than the other is my guess. The point I make here is that if Price and Porcello have to go games 1 and 2, and if I am into using data big time, then I would realistically have to believe we have virtually no chance of overall post season success because the data shows they've ben bad. If I disregard the data of Price and Porcello believing the data is a myth, then what makes that less relevant than the data you're using for the Boston indoctrination effect?
I just want to mention I posted on here before my interest in Moncada had waned. Once that happened, I don't see the future big WAR numbers from him. I would have been more shy to say it had he stayed along with not hearing Speier. Once I heard Speier I sort of think Moncada won't be that 8 guy or that 7 guy. Mind you Speier called Beni and Moncada 1 and 1a. So I don't want to misrepresent him. But he said something interesting when he and fellow expert colleagues were discussing the two he said for the group that liked Moncada more they said Moncada over Beni by just a little. For the ones that liked Beni more, Speier said those colleagues mentioned that it's Beni and its not close. Beni is not considered to be a superstar. Add that up with what I saw with my own eyes plus how I see that stats show that he struggles quite a bit more as a righty bat and he doesn't appear to be much of a fielder- that leads to the other point Speier mentioned which had me concerned lately about Moncada. It's his floor. He has a rating of a 4 floor on here. And Speier said there is a "sizeable floor gap between Beni and Moncada." These are all warning signs to me. But I am no expert / scout etc. While you see warning signs from Sale which I don't as much, but my fear is much more of Moncada and what he is. SO the WAR projected numbers some throw out of him - I take with a grain of salt.
On the analogy of the Big cap vs momentum I disagree with you on along with Moncada and Sale. I'm glad we got a guy I feel has a chance to give us lots of hopes for the playoffs though he hasn't pitched in them. But just his starts now- maybe that turns the Sox into having home field and we're playing game 1 in Fenway instead of Cleveland and he is that dominant pitcher that helps "settle" either or both Porcello and Price into a 2/3. Winning game 1 and at Fenway can change "the fortunes of war." And overall his presence could "save the bullpen more." We have three potential starters that really can't be relied upon to go a full season wihtotu potential wearing down (Pomz, Clay and ERod). Plus we can't be certain of Wright. If they show strength during the year as you suggest - then great we should be able to trade one and get a nice return and then those that are into WAR can add those numbers to Sale vs the other players.
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 14, 2016 10:40:53 GMT -5
1 part--- what ACE would you realistically ever get if you only go after the ACE that has been "a Schilling winner type" in the playoffs? You would have such a small window of ACEs to choose- because it seems if you value as you put it "with a demonstrable track record of postseason success," you're either going to be forced to pay/trade huge for that post season success or that post season success would have to take a bit of a backburner.
2 part--- The data of the Boston indoctrination effect vs Price and Porcello playoff history. You believe in the Boston indoctrination effect so as a GM what would ever turn you on to get a guy with little post season success in which you believe the Boston indoctrination is real? Thus it seems you would always rule out an overpay in these circumstances because year 1 he is going to struggle. So he'd have to have an extremely long or friendly contract. But with these things more must be paid to get him. SO as a GM you would never get an ACE like this is how I see it because you in part value the data from Boston indoctrination effect is real so you are throwing away a year and for a guy you have mentioned that you seek that has some form of "a demonstrable track record of postseason success." Am I right in how I'm viewing how you would look at this?
3 part--- Price and Porcello have a poor playoff history. If pitching is so important in the playoffs, and you use data a lot to make decisions, what chance do you think the Red sox realistically have with Price and Porcello as 1/2 starters or are you choosing to ignore their data yet why then wouldn't you ignore the Boston indoctrination effect? You think one bit of data is more relevant than the other is my guess. The point I make here is that if Price and Porcello have to go games 1 and 2, and if I am into using data big time, then I would realistically have to believe we have virtually no chance of overall post season success because the data shows they've ben bad. If I disregard the data of Price and Porcello believing the data is a myth, then what makes that less relevant than the data you're using for the Boston indoctrination effect? I think you might be taking a small part of my answer on Schilling and ignoring other equally or more important elements. I didn't just mention that I would have acquired Schilling because of his postseason success in AZ. And I actually followed up the Schilling example with the Pedro example (and he was a guy who also didn't have a track record of postseason success). Let's start with Schilling: 1. His cost was reasonable, and the Sox really needed another front-line starter to compete with the Yankees. 2. His FIP had been trending down over the past 3-5 years. 3. In spite of his advanced age, he was a big-framed guy who was likely to be durable. 4. In spite of being a massive blowhard, he was a highly-competitive, team-first guy, and he had a demonstrated track record of postseason success. 5. His cost was reasonable. Let's move on to Pedro. 1. His cost was reasonable, and the Sox desperately needed a front-line starter. 2. His FIP had been trending down over the past 3 years. 3. In spite of his diminutive frame, he was 26 when acquired, with less than 900 IP on his arm. 4. Proper due diligence would have likely revealed that his intangibles (intelligence, competitive fire, etc.) were off the charts. This, despite his not having any postseason success prior to the trade. 5. His cost was reasonable. Let's move on to Sale. 1. His cost was unreasonable (I would assert that, barring some ridiculous godsend of a trade, you should be loathe to trade the #1 batting prospect in baseball, and, quite frankly, any top 10-15 batting prospect -- this means no trading Moncada, Benintendi or Devers). And the Sox didn't desperately need a front-line starter seeing as they already had Porcello, Price and a promising youngster in EdRo. 2. His FIP had been trending up over the past 3 years. 3. He is a skinny guy, and his mechanics/arm action may invite future injury. 4. Teammates seem to like him, but the whole jersey-cutting incident raises some maturity questions as well as some questions about a team-first attitude. 5. His cost was unreasonable (see #1) So, if you're the analytically-minded GM looking to acquire front-line aces, here's my blueprint for you: 1. Make sure the cost is reasonable. Price costs you $31 mil/year for 7 years and no prospects. Sale costs you $12.7 mil/year for 3 years plus $30 mil/year for 6 years in future prospect value (even if you discount this back a couple of years to get a present value, it would be a big cumulative number when you take into account the advancing cost of WAR). 2. Make sure that the need for the starter is acute, and greater than the other needs of your roster. 3. Look for a declining FIP, ideally, or a stable FIP. 4. Try to get a big-framed guy with great mechanics. If that's not possible, then make sure you get a young guy without a lot of wear and tear. 5. Do your due diligence on his makeup and team-first orientation. 6. Make sure the cost is reasonable. Moving on to the point about the "Boston indoctrination effect," I think you need to factor in an adjustment year into your anticipated value calculation. For example, I don't think Sale will give you 15 WAR over the next 3 years. I think he'll deliver closer to 12-13 WAR because of the adjustment period. This may lead you to conclude that dealing for a proven ace is prohibitively expensive. And it almost certainly will be when you're wedded to the idea of paying full price on blue chip stock pitchers. This may also lead you to the idea that you should cultivate your own players, especially those who have already gone through the indoctrination effect. Fortunately, acquiring top-shelf starting pitchers isn't the only way to win a postseason series. Having a well-balanced, anti-fragile offensive lineup helps a lot (think 2004). Having a shut-down bullpen helps a lot (think 2015). Having a great in-game tactician as a manager and an outstanding pitching coach helps a lot. Having superb advanced scouts helps a lot. Lastly, it's also important to remember that you may also generate positive reversion after the indoctrination year from a guy like Price or Kimbrel. Mean reversion works both ways. Could Price be a playoff choker for the rest of his career? Possibly, but I'd be willing to bet the over on that, personally.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 14, 2016 12:19:36 GMT -5
The people who think DD hates prospects and/or young players and is a reckless thoughtless gunslinger seem to have prospect love blinders on. The moves he's made in Boston thus far have shown a guy who's concerned about winning championships now and later. He's been calculated about which young guys were traded and which players were targeted.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 14, 2016 12:40:11 GMT -5
The people who think DD hates prospects and/or young players and is a reckless thoughtless gunslinger seem to have prospect love blinders on. The moves he's made in Boston thus far have shown a guy who's concerned about winning championships now and later. He's been calculated about which young guys were traded and which players were targeted. Why wouldn't we love prospects with all of the great young players on our team that were prospects not long ago? Imagine if DD got here sooner and traded all of those too? It'll be a fun 3 years but a full rebuild comes after that.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 14, 2016 12:55:39 GMT -5
Who said you shouldn't? "Prospect love" in my sentence was an adjective phrase used to describe the type of blinders. I love prospects as much as the next guy.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 14, 2016 14:04:04 GMT -5
1 part--- what ACE would you realistically ever get if you only go after the ACE that has been "a Schilling winner type" in the playoffs? You would have such a small window of ACEs to choose- because it seems if you value as you put it "with a demonstrable track record of postseason success," you're either going to be forced to pay/trade huge for that post season success or that post season success would have to take a bit of a backburner.
2 part--- The data of the Boston indoctrination effect vs Price and Porcello playoff history. You believe in the Boston indoctrination effect so as a GM what would ever turn you on to get a guy with little post season success in which you believe the Boston indoctrination is real? Thus it seems you would always rule out an overpay in these circumstances because year 1 he is going to struggle. So he'd have to have an extremely long or friendly contract. But with these things more must be paid to get him. SO as a GM you would never get an ACE like this is how I see it because you in part value the data from Boston indoctrination effect is real so you are throwing away a year and for a guy you have mentioned that you seek that has some form of "a demonstrable track record of postseason success." Am I right in how I'm viewing how you would look at this?
3 part--- Price and Porcello have a poor playoff history. If pitching is so important in the playoffs, and you use data a lot to make decisions, what chance do you think the Red sox realistically have with Price and Porcello as 1/2 starters or are you choosing to ignore their data yet why then wouldn't you ignore the Boston indoctrination effect? You think one bit of data is more relevant than the other is my guess. The point I make here is that if Price and Porcello have to go games 1 and 2, and if I am into using data big time, then I would realistically have to believe we have virtually no chance of overall post season success because the data shows they've ben bad. If I disregard the data of Price and Porcello believing the data is a myth, then what makes that less relevant than the data you're using for the Boston indoctrination effect? I think you might be taking a small part of my answer on Schilling and ignoring other equally or more important elements. I didn't just mention that I would have acquired Schilling because of his postseason success in AZ. And I actually followed up the Schilling example with the Pedro example (and he was a guy who also didn't have a track record of postseason success). Let's start with Schilling: 1. His cost was reasonable, and the Sox really needed another front-line starter to compete with the Yankees. 2. His FIP had been trending down over the past 3-5 years. 3. In spite of his advanced age, he was a big-framed guy who was likely to be durable. 4. In spite of being a massive blowhard, he was a highly-competitive, team-first guy, and he had a demonstrated track record of postseason success. 5. His cost was reasonable. Let's move on to Pedro. 1. His cost was reasonable, and the Sox desperately needed a front-line starter. 2. His FIP had been trending down over the past 3 years. 3. In spite of his diminutive frame, he was 26 when acquired, with less than 900 IP on his arm. 4. Proper due diligence would have likely revealed that his intangibles (intelligence, competitive fire, etc.) were off the charts. This, despite his not having any postseason success prior to the trade. 5. His cost was reasonable. Let's move on to Sale. 1. His cost was unreasonable (I would assert that, barring some ridiculous godsend of a trade, you should be loathe to trade the #1 batting prospect in baseball, and, quite frankly, any top 10-15 batting prospect -- this means no trading Moncada, Benintendi or Devers). And the Sox didn't desperately need a front-line starter seeing as they already had Porcello, Price and a promising youngster in EdRo. 2. His FIP had been trending up over the past 3 years. 3. He is a skinny guy, and his mechanics/arm action may invite future injury. 4. Teammates seem to like him, but the whole jersey-cutting incident raises some maturity questions as well as some questions about a team-first attitude. 5. His cost was unreasonable (see #1) So, if you're the analytically-minded GM looking to acquire front-line aces, here's my blueprint for you: 1. Make sure the cost is reasonable. Price costs you $31 mil/year for 7 years and no prospects. Sale costs you $12.7 mil/year for 3 years plus $30 mil/year for 6 years in future prospect value (even if you discount this back a couple of years to get a present value, it would be a big cumulative number when you take into account the advancing cost of WAR). 2. Make sure that the need for the starter is acute, and greater than the other needs of your roster. 3. Look for a declining FIP, ideally, or a stable FIP. 4. Try to get a big-framed guy with great mechanics. If that's not possible, then make sure you get a young guy without a lot of wear and tear. 5. Do your due diligence on his makeup and team-first orientation. 6. Make sure the cost is reasonable. Moving on to the point about the "Boston indoctrination effect," I think you need to factor in an adjustment year into your anticipated value calculation. For example, I don't think Sale will give you 15 WAR over the next 3 years. I think he'll deliver closer to 12-13 WAR because of the adjustment period. This may lead you to conclude that dealing for a proven ace is prohibitively expensive. And it almost certainly will be when you're wedded to the idea of paying full price on blue chip stock pitchers. This may also lead you to the idea that you should cultivate your own players, especially those who have already gone through the indoctrination effect. Fortunately, acquiring top-shelf starting pitchers isn't the only way to win a postseason series. Having a well-balanced, anti-fragile offensive lineup helps a lot (think 2004). Having a shut-down bullpen helps a lot (think 2015). Having a great in-game tactician as a manager and an outstanding pitching coach helps a lot. Having superb advanced scouts helps a lot. Lastly, it's also important to remember that you may also generate positive reversion after the indoctrination year from a guy like Price or Kimbrel. Mean reversion works both ways. Could Price be a playoff choker for the rest of his career? Possibly, but I'd be willing to bet the over on that, personally. You understand that you can look at Curt Schilling age 25-27 seasons FIP and say the same thing your saying about Sale right? It went down 3 straight years by a large margin, yet it meant nothing about his future performance. Also your the only person I've ever heard call Schilling a team-first guy. I think Sale and Schilling are very similar very out spoken guys, that speak there minds. I get not liking the trade, but I can't understand trying to prove Sale isn't a stud pitching because of an FIP trend. Your also trying to compare apples to oranges with Schilling, Martinez and Sale. Schilling was 37 years old, coming off a season where he made 24 starts and his FIP went up. He was also on a market rate contract . Pedro was a too be free agent, only one year of team control. Pedro had all the same worries as Sale. Everyone thought his small frame couldn't handle him throwing so hard. Yet he didn't breakdown till his age 34 season. I wanted to add that all the losing got to Sale. The White Sox are a mess and have had a lot of drama, like kicking a popular players son out of club house right before season started. After saying it wasn't a problem w hen he signed. It reminds me of Ramirez while playing for Marlins. He wasn't good at the end, but a trade to Dodgers and bam the old Ramirez is back. I expect a huge year for Sale.
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 14, 2016 15:06:51 GMT -5
You understand that you can look at Curt Schilling age 25-27 seasons FIP and say the same thing your saying about Sale right? It went down 3 straight years by a large margin, yet it meant nothing about his future performance. Also your the only person I've ever heard call Schilling a team-first guy. I think Sale and Schilling are very similar very out spoken guys, that speak there minds. I get not liking the trade, but I can't understand trying to prove Sale isn't a stud pitching because of an FIP trend. Your also trying to compare apples to oranges with Schilling, Martinez and Sale. Schilling was 37 years old, coming off a season where he made 24 starts and his FIP went up. He was also on a market rate contract . Pedro was a too be free agent, only one year of team control. Pedro had all the same worries as Sale. Everyone thought his small frame couldn't handle him throwing so hard. Yet he didn't breakdown till his age 34 season. I wanted to add that all the losing got to Sale. The White Sox are a mess and have had a lot of drama, like kicking a popular players son out of club house right before season started. After saying it wasn't a problem w hen he signed. It reminds me of Ramirez while playing for Marlins. He wasn't good at the end, but a trade to Dodgers and bam the old Ramirez is back. I expect a huge year for Sale. Yes, although in Schilling's age 27 season, he only pitched 82 IP. He followed that up by pitching 118 IP in his age 28 season, so hopefully you didn't give up the #1 prospect in baseball and another top 30 prospect to acquire him. My complaint with the trade is not to say that Sale isn't a great pitcher, it's that the cost to acquire him was too high, especially in relation to the perceived risk, when the Sox had other, more pressing roster needs to fill. Given that the jump in Sale's FIP is common knowledge now, it should have been priced into the deal. I also think you have to enter into any trade wondering why the other side is selling. In Gammons' latest piece, he suggests that "Jerry Reinsdorf and some White Sox people were concerned about Sale’s high elbow, low arm-slot, violent delivery and what it might do to his shoulder." Perhaps you're right that Sale won't break down for another 7 years. Regardless, the price you pay to acquire him today should reflect a health risk discount. By all means, go ahead and buy low on Sale. But that requires, actually buying low. Not paying through the nose.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 14, 2016 16:33:01 GMT -5
You understand that you can look at Curt Schilling age 25-27 seasons FIP and say the same thing your saying about Sale right? It went down 3 straight years by a large margin, yet it meant nothing about his future performance. Also your the only person I've ever heard call Schilling a team-first guy. I think Sale and Schilling are very similar very out spoken guys, that speak there minds. I get not liking the trade, but I can't understand trying to prove Sale isn't a stud pitching because of an FIP trend. Your also trying to compare apples to oranges with Schilling, Martinez and Sale. Schilling was 37 years old, coming off a season where he made 24 starts and his FIP went up. He was also on a market rate contract . Pedro was a too be free agent, only one year of team control. Pedro had all the same worries as Sale. Everyone thought his small frame couldn't handle him throwing so hard. Yet he didn't breakdown till his age 34 season. I wanted to add that all the losing got to Sale. The White Sox are a mess and have had a lot of drama, like kicking a popular players son out of club house right before season started. After saying it wasn't a problem w hen he signed. It reminds me of Ramirez while playing for Marlins. He wasn't good at the end, but a trade to Dodgers and bam the old Ramirez is back. I expect a huge year for Sale. Yes, although in Schilling's age 27 season, he only pitched 82 IP. He followed that up by pitching 118 IP in his age 28 season, so hopefully you didn't give up the #1 prospect in baseball and another top 30 prospect to acquire him. My complaint with the trade is not to say that Sale isn't a great pitcher, it's that the cost to acquire him was too high, especially in relation to the perceived risk, when the Sox had other, more pressing roster needs to fill. Given that the jump in Sale's FIP is common knowledge now, it should have been priced into the deal. I also think you have to enter into any trade wondering why the other side is selling. In Gammons' latest piece, he suggests that "Jerry Reinsdorf and some White Sox people were concerned about Sale’s high elbow, low arm-slot, violent delivery and what it might do to his shoulder." Perhaps you're right that Sale won't break down for another 7 years. Regardless, the price you pay to acquire him today should reflect a health risk discount. By all means, go ahead and buy low on Sale. But that requires, actually buying low. Not paying through the nose. See the thing is your making this about Sale though, not the trade. By saying things like you see him as a 12-13 war pitcher for the next 3 years. Your looking at Sale like he's done, in decline and forgetting about those 6 plus war seasons 3 and 4 years ago. You think it would have been bad to trade for Schilling after his age 27th season because of what he did at age 28 a 2.2 war season. Here is his war total going forward 4.9, 6.3, 6.2, 4.8, 2.6, 2.5, 8.8, 8.7, 6.0, 7.9, .4, 5.5 and 4.0. Elite players have down years, even stretches of years of ok production. That doesn't mean they can't bounce back to previous levels or get even better. I have to say I hate the argument that the White Sox trading Sale means they think he's a ticking time bomb, damaged goods or in major decline. They are rebuilding so they traded the player that could jump start the rebuild. Same way the Phillies traded Hamels. The White Sox also traded Eaton and rumors have it they are willing to trade just about anyone on roster. What health risk? It just people's opinions. It's not like he's having arm troubles and injury problems. It's the same as Pedro, just a guess. Any pitcher can breakdown and the fact is you can't tell who's it's going to be. Sure some guys might be a little more risky than others, but that doesn't mean anything. Everyones body is different, Sale could go his entire career without major arm or elbow trouble. You just don't know. You only get a health risk discount on things that are a certainty. For example Giants got a big discount on Cueto because of his past injuries. What more pressing needs did they have?
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 14, 2016 18:58:02 GMT -5
Yes, although in Schilling's age 27 season, he only pitched 82 IP. He followed that up by pitching 118 IP in his age 28 season, so hopefully you didn't give up the #1 prospect in baseball and another top 30 prospect to acquire him. My complaint with the trade is not to say that Sale isn't a great pitcher, it's that the cost to acquire him was too high, especially in relation to the perceived risk, when the Sox had other, more pressing roster needs to fill. Given that the jump in Sale's FIP is common knowledge now, it should have been priced into the deal. I also think you have to enter into any trade wondering why the other side is selling. In Gammons' latest piece, he suggests that "Jerry Reinsdorf and some White Sox people were concerned about Sale’s high elbow, low arm-slot, violent delivery and what it might do to his shoulder." Perhaps you're right that Sale won't break down for another 7 years. Regardless, the price you pay to acquire him today should reflect a health risk discount. By all means, go ahead and buy low on Sale. But that requires, actually buying low. Not paying through the nose. See the thing is your making this about Sale though, not the trade. By saying things like you see him as a 12-13 war pitcher for the next 3 years. No, I'm not. Just because you're taking it that way by reading selectively doesn't mean that the argument isn't more nuanced. And, by the way, a 12-13 WAR pitcher over the next 3 years (average of 4 - 4.3 WAR per season) would still make Sale a very solid pitcher, one that performs substantially better than Price this past season (what did Price's career look like over the prior 5 years -- a lot like Sale's). I'll say it again -- my criticism about the deal is less about him than the price paid, especially considering that there is risk of regression in year 1 of pitching in Boston and longer-term with his build and delivery. I have to say I hate the argument that the White Sox trading Sale means they think he's a ticking time bomb, damaged goods or in major decline. They are rebuilding so they traded the player that could jump start the rebuild. Same way the Phillies traded Hamels. The White Sox also traded Eaton and rumors have it they are willing to trade just about anyone on roster. Who cares if you hate the argument? Do you have any substantive evidence suggesting that the long-term health concerns are overblown? Did Hamels have the same concerns about his arm slot and throwing motion when he was traded?What health risk? It just people's opinions. It's not like he's having arm troubles and injury problems. It's the same as Pedro, just a guess. Any pitcher can breakdown and the fact is you can't tell who's it's going to be. Sure some guys might be a little more risky than others, but that doesn't mean anything. Everyones body is different, Sale could go his entire career without major arm or elbow trouble. You just don't know. You only get a health risk discount on things that are a certainty. For example Giants got a big discount on Cueto because of his past injuries. What more pressing needs did they have? Re-read the prior posts. The pressing needs were pretty clearly spelled out.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 14, 2016 19:51:50 GMT -5
When did this become the Sale trade thread?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 15, 2016 0:15:32 GMT -5
1 part--- what ACE would you realistically ever get if you only go after the ACE that has been "a Schilling winner type" in the playoffs? You would have such a small window of ACEs to choose- because it seems if you value as you put it "with a demonstrable track record of postseason success," you're either going to be forced to pay/trade huge for that post season success or that post season success would have to take a bit of a backburner.
2 part--- The data of the Boston indoctrination effect vs Price and Porcello playoff history. You believe in the Boston indoctrination effect so as a GM what would ever turn you on to get a guy with little post season success in which you believe the Boston indoctrination is real? Thus it seems you would always rule out an overpay in these circumstances because year 1 he is going to struggle. So he'd have to have an extremely long or friendly contract. But with these things more must be paid to get him. SO as a GM you would never get an ACE like this is how I see it because you in part value the data from Boston indoctrination effect is real so you are throwing away a year and for a guy you have mentioned that you seek that has some form of "a demonstrable track record of postseason success." Am I right in how I'm viewing how you would look at this?
3 part--- Price and Porcello have a poor playoff history. If pitching is so important in the playoffs, and you use data a lot to make decisions, what chance do you think the Red sox realistically have with Price and Porcello as 1/2 starters or are you choosing to ignore their data yet why then wouldn't you ignore the Boston indoctrination effect? You think one bit of data is more relevant than the other is my guess. The point I make here is that if Price and Porcello have to go games 1 and 2, and if I am into using data big time, then I would realistically have to believe we have virtually no chance of overall post season success because the data shows they've ben bad. If I disregard the data of Price and Porcello believing the data is a myth, then what makes that less relevant than the data you're using for the Boston indoctrination effect? I think you might be taking a small part of my answer on Schilling and ignoring other equally or more important elements. I didn't just mention that I would have acquired Schilling because of his postseason success in AZ. And I actually followed up the Schilling example with the Pedro example (and he was a guy who also didn't have a track record of postseason success). Let's start with Schilling: 1. His cost was reasonable, and the Sox really needed another front-line starter to compete with the Yankees. 2. His FIP had been trending down over the past 3-5 years. 3. In spite of his advanced age, he was a big-framed guy who was likely to be durable. 4. In spite of being a massive blowhard, he was a highly-competitive, team-first guy, and he had a demonstrated track record of postseason success. 5. His cost was reasonable. Let's move on to Pedro. 1. His cost was reasonable, and the Sox desperately needed a front-line starter. 2. His FIP had been trending down over the past 3 years. 3. In spite of his diminutive frame, he was 26 when acquired, with less than 900 IP on his arm. 4. Proper due diligence would have likely revealed that his intangibles (intelligence, competitive fire, etc.) were off the charts. This, despite his not having any postseason success prior to the trade. 5. His cost was reasonable. Let's move on to Sale. 1. His cost was unreasonable (I would assert that, barring some ridiculous godsend of a trade, you should be loathe to trade the #1 batting prospect in baseball, and, quite frankly, any top 10-15 batting prospect -- this means no trading Moncada, Benintendi or Devers). And the Sox didn't desperately need a front-line starter seeing as they already had Porcello, Price and a promising youngster in EdRo. 2. His FIP had been trending up over the past 3 years. 3. He is a skinny guy, and his mechanics/arm action may invite future injury. 4. Teammates seem to like him, but the whole jersey-cutting incident raises some maturity questions as well as some questions about a team-first attitude. 5. His cost was unreasonable (see #1) So, if you're the analytically-minded GM looking to acquire front-line aces, here's my blueprint for you: 1. Make sure the cost is reasonable. Price costs you $31 mil/year for 7 years and no prospects. Sale costs you $12.7 mil/year for 3 years plus $30 mil/year for 6 years in future prospect value (even if you discount this back a couple of years to get a present value, it would be a big cumulative number when you take into account the advancing cost of WAR). 2. Make sure that the need for the starter is acute, and greater than the other needs of your roster. 3. Look for a declining FIP, ideally, or a stable FIP. 4. Try to get a big-framed guy with great mechanics. If that's not possible, then make sure you get a young guy without a lot of wear and tear. 5. Do your due diligence on his makeup and team-first orientation. 6. Make sure the cost is reasonable. Moving on to the point about the "Boston indoctrination effect," I think you need to factor in an adjustment year into your anticipated value calculation. For example, I don't think Sale will give you 15 WAR over the next 3 years. I think he'll deliver closer to 12-13 WAR because of the adjustment period. This may lead you to conclude that dealing for a proven ace is prohibitively expensive. And it almost certainly will be when you're wedded to the idea of paying full price on blue chip stock pitchers. This may also lead you to the idea that you should cultivate your own players, especially those who have already gone through the indoctrination effect. Fortunately, acquiring top-shelf starting pitchers isn't the only way to win a postseason series. Having a well-balanced, anti-fragile offensive lineup helps a lot (think 2004). Having a shut-down bullpen helps a lot (think 2015). Having a great in-game tactician as a manager and an outstanding pitching coach helps a lot. Having superb advanced scouts helps a lot. Lastly, it's also important to remember that you may also generate positive reversion after the indoctrination year from a guy like Price or Kimbrel. Mean reversion works both ways. Could Price be a playoff choker for the rest of his career? Possibly, but I'd be willing to bet the over on that, personally. Thank you ponch. I just wanted to know the degree you valued the Boston indoctrination effect, and a demonstrable track record of postseason success. I knew there were other factors whether it be implied or not implied. And you've described well what you look for. And I wanted to know if you valued the stats that show both Porcello and Price have been poor playoff pitchers.
A lot comes down to your instincts/beliefs/ anyone's instincts/beliefs I suppose? Any rate you said you'd bet over on Price and his future playoff performances. And you have mentioned (not by accident) the boston indoctrination effect as it relates to Sale. SO it seems to me in these instances for these pitchers you feel the boston indoctrination effect is more real -- among many other things -- which you explain in fine detail. You maybe right. And as for Price just because the Boston indoctrination effect is/could be over after year 1, it doesn't take away from the fact that his stats show he has been a poor postseason pitcher.
But I don't hold Moncada in the same esteem you do. I'm more aligned to those Speier comments in which those guys said "it's Beni and its not close.". I do think Sale will be about a 15 war guy over the next 3 years. I think his bottom was in 2015. Therefore for me the cost was more than reasonable for Sale. His teams have been huge disappointments - I'm not sure they play for much. It seems the last 4 years Sale's FIP is also tied into IP. So as you are willing to believe in Price - I believe Sale is around 15 WAR for 3 years. I think Price can help but now I think we need the lockdown number 1 post season ACE. Sale isn't assured of that but evidently neither Price nor Porcello isn't assured and that's for certain.
And as for starters - I look at how the Red Sox won their titles - it definitely came from at least one dominant starter with their 3 world series championships. The 2004 team had Schilling. No Schilling no championship. Pedro was at a point that he was struggling mightily vs the Yanks. We needed someone different. Maybe this is what either or both Porcello and Price need. A quirky but highly successful pitcher against our east foes.
And I don't agree that there is a problem at all strengthening an already strong staff and then possibly trading into that strength to pick up more valuable pieces. Thus all in all after reading everything I do disagree with you because I think the cost is reasonable. I see no reason to believe that we won't be a championship contender over the next 5 years unless future Red Sox roster player's DD signs and doesn't sign turn out to be disasters but that would be looking at his future moves in a complete negative light.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 15, 2016 0:28:42 GMT -5
See the thing is your making this about Sale though, not the trade. By saying things like you see him as a 12-13 war pitcher for the next 3 years. No, I'm not. Just because you're taking it that way by reading selectively doesn't mean that the argument isn't more nuanced. And, by the way, a 12-13 WAR pitcher over the next 3 years (average of 4 - 4.3 WAR per season) would still make Sale a very solid pitcher, one that performs substantially better than Price this past season (what did Price's career look like over the prior 5 years -- a lot like Sale's). I'll say it again -- my criticism about the deal is less about him than the price paid, especially considering that there is risk of regression in year 1 of pitching in Boston and longer-term with his build and delivery. I have to say I hate the argument that the White Sox trading Sale means they think he's a ticking time bomb, damaged goods or in major decline. They are rebuilding so they traded the player that could jump start the rebuild. Same way the Phillies traded Hamels. The White Sox also traded Eaton and rumors have it they are willing to trade just about anyone on roster. Who cares if you hate the argument? Do you have any substantive evidence suggesting that the long-term health concerns are overblown? Did Hamels have the same concerns about his arm slot and throwing motion when he was traded?What health risk? It just people's opinions. It's not like he's having arm troubles and injury problems. It's the same as Pedro, just a guess. Any pitcher can breakdown and the fact is you can't tell who's it's going to be. Sure some guys might be a little more risky than others, but that doesn't mean anything. Everyones body is different, Sale could go his entire career without major arm or elbow trouble. You just don't know. You only get a health risk discount on things that are a certainty. For example Giants got a big discount on Cueto because of his past injuries. What more pressing needs did they have? Re-read the prior posts. The pressing needs were pretty clearly spelled out. Do you have any proof that Sale has long-term injury concerns? It doesn't exist. Your basing your long term injury concerns off of some comments that his delivery scares people. That's it. Show me a report that says he has an injury or a condition that bares watching. Without that, there is no long-term injury concerns. If those people were correct Sale would have been injured years ago. The facts are that the Red Sox got to look at Sale's arm and elbow if there were issues they don't make this trade. Napoli is a player that had long term injury concerns due to a hip condition. I skimmed through your past posts and don't see anywhere were you talk about pressing needs. You have a post saying you worry about Leon, Pedroia, DH and 3B. You then go onto say why not get a middle of order bat if you want to trade top prospects. Sure I have some worries about 3B depth, but that's about it. I wouldn't call anything a pressing need, not at this time. I have zero worries about our catching depth, which might be best in league. 1B and DH we have Sam Travis in the minors for more depth. If you worry about Pedroia then you just worrying about everything. You seem to want the best offense in league. Which I can understand, seems to be the Red Sox way for years. DD wants a more balanced team. There is an old saying that pitching and D wins Championships, maybe you heard about it. Last year 37.4 war on offense and 15.2 war for pitching. Last 3 years we won Championships, we brought in Schilling, Becket and got Lackey back from injury. I loved watching Red Sox last year, they could really mash the ball. That sure didn't help us in playoffs were good pitchers could still shut down our hitters.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 15, 2016 4:38:16 GMT -5
Sam Travis is coming off of a major injury, and hasn't hit for power in the minors. He's not legitimate depth for anything more than a short DL stint. He might be more, but he certainly doesn't project to be this year.
Ponch's point is a good one: there were dramatically less costly ways to provide a similar level of improvement. He mentions a bat; ex: Justin Turner would've made signing Moreland unnecessary and projected for more than 2 WAR better than Panda. He would also have dramatically improved the CIF depth issue. Trade Buchholz, and the team is *well* under cap. And you lose only the 26th pick in the draft, which is worth less than Basabe.
It's fine to be "low" on a prospect, but the reality is that Moncada's mean cost-controlled projection is roughly 15 WAR. Kopech's is probably around 10. By trading Moncada, the Sox are effectively paying Sale's salary PLUS $63M, for three years.
The acquisition of Sale makes the Red Sox a better team in 2017, *maybe* 2018 (although that's arrival time for Kopech/Moncada, so that's highly debatable), and probably slightly worse in 2019. The Sox could've taken a different route and improved the team just as much without giving up what they did. The idea that a team needs a huge starter to win in the playoffs is a fallacy; it's observation bias because people remember outstanding performances. Nobody knows if Sale will even be good in the playoffs...if I recall, he's not that great down the stretch. Maybe he will be. It's still a gross overpay, because Dombrowski loves top-notch starters (and superstars in general). It's a personal bias that runs contrary to *TEAM* building. He has exactly as many WS wins as Cherington: one. That team was constructed on a Huizenga spending spree. And his last "great" team, in Detroit, had remarkably similar strengths/flaws as this Sox team does today. Hopefully, the bullpen is a little deeper. I still have tremendous concerns about this team's lack of quality depth. And that lack of depth is directly related to Sale.
|
|
|