SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox acquire A. Reed for Callahan, Nogosek and Bautista
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 31, 2017 13:49:29 GMT -5
Callahan leaves a spot at Pawtucket - Buttrey or Poyner up? Spot at Portland filled by...Boyd or Glorius? Three open spots at Salem - Bautista, Nogosek, whoever goes up to Portland...Mata ready to move up? Sexton? Gonzalez? McAvoy and Osnowitz are rehab at Lowell - they could move up - need one more to move up to Salem These domino effects are interesting.... Kent up maybe and move Villanhueva to the pen? Goetze maybe to Salem? Not sure if Boyd or Sexton are ready yet. Overall something like Poyner to Pawtucket, Kent to Portland, Mata, Goetze, and Gonzalez to Salem, Smith, Floriento, and LoBrutto to Grennville, and Perry, Schellenger, and Scherff to Lowell. Boston should designate Fister if he blows this start and Rutledge otherwise. Easy, young grasshopper. Almost none of this is going to happen. They don't promote massive groups of players like this except for around the all-star break. |
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jul 31, 2017 13:52:53 GMT -5
This trade doesn't need to be debated or argued about. It's crystal clear that it was a great trade. If you want to speak for him answer me this? Chavis could be in Boston next year helping the Red Sox in a big way fill there need for power. The players we traded wouldn't have. I can speak for myself on this and you are WRONG. Callahan COULD of helped next year. In fact, he could be pitching for the Mets by SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR. Get it? Gentlemen! each of you have an opinion that's what makes this site fun. At this stage of the trade the results are inconclusive . Can not say it is a win or not. Maybe reed turns out to be another thombury and carson. MAYBE, he turns out to be a kimbrel of this year. Pedro likes Callahan more than some. No different than last year when deepjohn thought kopech should be in the pen in September on the big club. You both have great ideas and OPINIONS on certain topics. Relax and enjoy the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jul 31, 2017 14:10:44 GMT -5
Deal is official. 40 man move is Rutledge to the 60 day DL, which keeps him in the organization.
|
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jul 31, 2017 14:14:36 GMT -5
Ah! AH! Callahan was moderately liked and could possibly have been what Addison Reed is and has been for 3 years Ah! AH!
Darn trader Dave and his trades!
|
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jul 31, 2017 14:17:15 GMT -5
How good is this guy? 95mph fastball with a decent secondary but not a plus? Hes been a legit 8th inning, or closer for 3 years guy. 93-96 with power slider, occasional other secondaries. Proven, throws strikes, isnt 35 yo |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2017 14:19:14 GMT -5
Ah! AH! Callahan was moderately liked and could possibly have been what Addison Reed is and has been for 3 years Ah! AH! Darn trader Dave and his trades! It's not that as much as the volume of prospects. You're pretty much guaranteed to give up a Travis Shaw when you trade 30 guys. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2017 14:20:14 GMT -5
I generally agree with the idea that this feels like a slight overpay for a pure reliever rental, albeit one that you can live with. Gut feel: In trade negotiations when Dombroswki lays out his initial trade proposal, and GM X lays out their asking price......it feels like Dave often is the one to budge and meet the asking price (rather than GM X settling for the initial offer). There's starting to become increasing evidence that Dave is willing to include that one, seemingly little, extra piece to get the deal done. In this case I would have rather traded Buttrey, Shepherd, or Martin instead of Callahan....but then again, I'm sure Dave would have too and the deal likely hinged upon Callahan's inclusion as the primary piece. This minor but probably inconsequential overpay (which seems to be a widespread consensus) may have been because the Indians were going after him simultaneously. That story was up on ESPN very briefly. My guess is that it started with Callahan and Bautista and a more marginal third piece. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 31, 2017 14:39:00 GMT -5
Ah! AH! Callahan was moderately liked and could possibly have been what Addison Reed is and has been for 3 years Ah! AH! Darn trader Dave and his trades! I see your point until the sarcasm part, but keep in mind that this is for 2-plus months of that guy. It's a rental. If he were under control for longer then yeah, it's a lot better looking. My guess is that it started with Callahan and Bautista and a more marginal third piece. That does feel about right, doesn't it? Two R5 guys. Thin that herd a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by soxpatsceltics on Jul 31, 2017 14:48:02 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could be down on this deal. We traded 3 minor league pitchers, none of them starters, and 2 of them rule 40 guys. Shaun Anderson is a future reliever as well so that's 5 total relievers traded this deadline.
But they're relievers. Dime a dozen. Callahan has a minute chance of being as good as Reed. A much more likely outcome is Pat Light's outcome.
To get a super utility guy and a 1st rate 8th inning guy for 5 players that have the ceiling of a 7th inning arm is unbelievable good.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2017 15:09:17 GMT -5
It's a systemic issue with Dombrowski-- we're always giving up, and never getting back, the lottery tickets in trades. Those lottery tickets aren't worth enough to tip individual trades into being bad trades. But on an aggregate basis, sure looks like other GMs know that they can ask Dombrowski to throw in another lottery ticket into a trade and they know Dombrowski will do it. These lottery tickets aren't random, either-- they're likely guys other organizations see as having some particular appeal.
Of course, we're the only nerds focused enough on the farm system to know or care about this trend, and because we invest emotional energy into the lottery-ticket-type prospects, we're particularly susceptible to overvaluing them. But no shock that Dombrowski's trades are moderately more unpopular on these forums than on any other.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 31, 2017 15:31:29 GMT -5
You can say the Red Sox overpaid a bit for Addison Reed but I'm alright with the deal. That's kind of my reaction to most of Dombrowski's deals. Individually it's fine. In totality it has a way of adding up.
Individually I like the deal because the Red Sox do need Addison Reed. Now they have a guy who they can definitively say this IS their 8th inning guy and he can close a tight game if Kimbrel needs a day off. He's not going to beat himself with walks.
I think the Mets did well with this deal, too. For two months of Reed they got Callahan who could be an 8th inning type guy, although I tend to doubt it. He's the best of the Pawtucket logjam now that Workman is back up, but he was expendable, especially if Smith and/or Thornburg come back healthy and effective next year at some point.
I like Nogosek the best. I think he has a shot at being an 8th inning guy but that's probably his ceiling. I like him a good deal, wish they didn't have to lose him, but understand that his value is most easily replaceable.
The other kid Bautista is purely a lottery ticket.
So while it's a slight overpay I'm reminded from yesterday of a time when the Red Sox thought a middle reliever's value could be a .334 AA hitter with an excellent BB/K ratio at a hitter's nightmare of a park. So it's not Jeff Bagwell again, so Dombrowski did alright here.
I think the Mets got more value ultimately but the Red Sox got what they needed when they needed it.
It's crazy that the Red Sox haven't had any luck with their winter 8th inning additions between Thornburg and Smith but have been able to find a Brad Ziegler last season and an Addison Reed this year without having to spend too much in talent.
Guess the moral of the story is it's better to rent them than to deal for the guys with multiple seasons of control?
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 15:38:40 GMT -5
Ah! AH! Callahan was moderately liked and could possibly have been what Addison Reed is and has been for 3 years Ah! AH! Darn trader Dave and his trades! It's not that as much as the volume of prospects. You're pretty much guaranteed to give up a Travis Shaw when you trade 30 guys. 2016 Shaw maybe, 2017 Shaw no way. Travis Shaw is like the only guy in the last 10 years that I can think of. That went from basically an organization guy to starter to all star level player. You aren't even close to guaranteed to be giving up a player like that in this years trades. I get what I think you're trying to say, but that's just a horrible example. We might just have traded a guy that 2-3 years down the road might be useful. Chances we just traded the next Travis Shaw is very slim. Have no clue why you want to lump all trades together either. You really think any of the 3 players we gave up for Reed can come close to being Travis Shaw? |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 15:41:00 GMT -5
It's a systemic issue with Dombrowski-- we're always giving up, and never getting back, the lottery tickets in trades. Those lottery tickets aren't worth enough to tip individual trades into being bad trades. But on an aggregate basis, sure looks like other GMs know that they can ask Dombrowski to throw in another lottery ticket into a trade and they know Dombrowski will do it. These lottery tickets aren't random, either-- they're likely guys other organizations see as having some particular appeal. Of course, we're the only nerds focused enough on the farm system to know or care about this trend, and because we invest emotional energy into the lottery-ticket-type prospects, we're particularly susceptible to overvaluing them. But no shock that Dombrowski's trades are moderately more unpopular on these forums than on any other. That is one point that makes sense. I don't think he has done that once since he got here. We haven't got an extra player back in any trades. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 15:45:03 GMT -5
Kent up maybe and move Villanhueva to the pen? Goetze maybe to Salem? Not sure if Boyd or Sexton are ready yet. Overall something like Poyner to Pawtucket, Kent to Portland, Mata, Goetze, and Gonzalez to Salem, Smith, Floriento, and LoBrutto to Grennville, and Perry, Schellenger, and Scherff to Lowell. Boston should designate Fister if he blows this start and Rutledge otherwise. Easy, young grasshopper. Almost none of this is going to happen. They don't promote massive groups of players like this except for around the all-star break. Ok, but it would be nice to see some of those people finally move up. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2017 15:49:33 GMT -5
It's not that as much as the volume of prospects. You're pretty much guaranteed to give up a Travis Shaw when you trade 30 guys. 2016 Shaw maybe, 2017 Shaw no way. Travis Shaw is like the only guy in the last 10 years that I can think of. That went from basically an organization guy to starter to all star level player. You aren't even close to guaranteed to be giving up a player like that in this years trades. I get what I think you're trying to say, but that's just a horrible example. We might just have traded a guy that 2-3 years down the road might be useful. Chances we just traded the next Travis Shaw is very slim. Have no clue why you want to lump all trades together either. You really think any of the 3 players we gave up for Reed can come close to being Travis Shaw? You have to lump all trades together if you're evaluating DD as a whole, which is what people are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by soxpatsceltics on Jul 31, 2017 15:54:28 GMT -5
It's a systemic issue with Dombrowski-- we're always giving up, and never getting back, the lottery tickets in trades. Those lottery tickets aren't worth enough to tip individual trades into being bad trades. But on an aggregate basis, sure looks like other GMs know that they can ask Dombrowski to throw in another lottery ticket into a trade and they know Dombrowski will do it. These lottery tickets aren't random, either-- they're likely guys other organizations see as having some particular appeal. I don't get this quote at all. How would the Red Sox be getting back lottery ticket prospects? They've never been a seller during Dombrowski's tenure as GM. Here's a list of all of the "lottery ticket" prospects the Sox have traded under Dombrowski. Jose Almonte: 4.23 FIP in A+ ball, poor command screams future reliever Aaron Wilkerson: Still 28 in AA ball, purely an organizational arm Josh Pennington: Missed more than half of the year to injury, 22 in A ball Victor Diaz: Don't know where to start, just awful all around. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa872865&position=PJonathan Aro: Suspended 50 games, still a AAA reliever that would have been blocked in Boston. Gregory Santos: ? He's only a 17 year old reliever. Gerson Bautista: ? We'll see if he can improve command. I look at this list and I don't see one player that I would say "wow I really wish we would have kept that guy". |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 31, 2017 15:57:00 GMT -5
Easy, young grasshopper. Almost none of this is going to happen. They don't promote massive groups of players like this except for around the all-star break. Ok, but it would be nice to see some of those people finally move up. Mata finally moved up? He's an 18-yr old in the SAL with a half season under his belt. Perry, Schellenger and Scherff? None have pitched yet in the GCL. Schellenger is there as a rehab placement only and the other 2 are HS pitchers who havent thrown and inning yet (and Perry may not due to injury). There is far too often a call for promotions after a month f good stats. Maybe that's Mookie's fault? Or Benni's fault? But it's pretty rare. Give the guys time to play through a slump. Give the other teams time to adjust and see how they adjust. |
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 31, 2017 15:59:58 GMT -5
It's a systemic issue with Dombrowski-- we're always giving up, and never getting back, the lottery tickets in trades. Those lottery tickets aren't worth enough to tip individual trades into being bad trades. But on an aggregate basis, sure looks like other GMs know that they can ask Dombrowski to throw in another lottery ticket into a trade and they know Dombrowski will do it. These lottery tickets aren't random, either-- they're likely guys other organizations see as having some particular appeal. Of course, we're the only nerds focused enough on the farm system to know or care about this trend, and because we invest emotional energy into the lottery-ticket-type prospects, we're particularly susceptible to overvaluing them. But no shock that Dombrowski's trades are moderately more unpopular on these forums than on any other. There is no doubt that this is a fair point and one that is frustrating, put in this context. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 31, 2017 16:03:25 GMT -5
I look at this list and I don't see one player that I would say "wow I really wish we would have kept that guy". Same. Honestly I think other than the obvious top guys who were traded for top talent as the centerpiece in their deals, the only one I would have really liked to keep is probably Logan Allen. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2017 16:04:15 GMT -5
It's a systemic issue with Dombrowski-- we're always giving up, and never getting back, the lottery tickets in trades. Those lottery tickets aren't worth enough to tip individual trades into being bad trades. But on an aggregate basis, sure looks like other GMs know that they can ask Dombrowski to throw in another lottery ticket into a trade and they know Dombrowski will do it. These lottery tickets aren't random, either-- they're likely guys other organizations see as having some particular appeal. I don't get this quote at all. How would the Red Sox be getting back lottery ticket prospects? They've never been a seller during Dombrowski's tenure as GM. Here's a list of all of the "lottery ticket" prospects the Sox have traded under Dombrowski. Jose Almonte: 4.23 FIP in A+ ball, poor command screams future reliever Aaron Wilkerson: Still 28 in AA ball, purely an organizational arm Josh Pennington: Missed more than half of the year to injury, 22 in A ball Victor Diaz: Don't know where to start, just awful all around. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa872865&position=PJonathan Aro: Suspended 50 games, still a AAA reliever that would have been blocked in Boston. Gregory Santos: ? He's only a 17 year old reliever. Gerson Bautista: ? We'll see if he can improve command. I look at this list and I don't see one player that I would say "wow I really wish we would have kept that guy". Fair enough; substitute "secondary pieces" for "lottery ticket" and the statement rings truer. Cherington picked up a lot of secondary pieces in his trades for veteran players-- think Brock Holt, for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 16:10:30 GMT -5
A lot of this talk really has no bearing on the Reed trade though. It's a fair point in trades like Kimbrel and Thornburg though. I bet you could have got back another player in those deals if you really wanted to.
With the Reed deal I just don't see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jul 31, 2017 16:29:08 GMT -5
Ah! AH! Callahan was moderately liked and could possibly have been what Addison Reed is and has been for 3 years Ah! AH! Darn trader Dave and his trades! It's not that as much as the volume of prospects. You're pretty much guaranteed to give up a Travis Shaw when you trade 30 guys. I I get a little bit of your reasoning. However I must point out the Travis Shaw had two plus years in the majors and acquitted himself quite well defensively and offensively and we weren't trading him out of a spot that we definitely need (lower level relief arms that we seem to have dozens of) If we can trade what amounts to be one possible Major League arm for a proven Major League closer even if it is a two month rental I'm all for it. This may sound like sarcasm but theyre called trades, not acquisitions for a reason. Gotta give to get. Lesser but more names, For a big name I cannot, as much as it pains me, bust out my favorite torch and dare compare Callahan to a MLB ready, proven multi-positional lefty stick who happened to be traded to a much better park for lefty power hitters, during his peak and replacing him with what amounts to be the bench guy on my adult league team (Pablo) |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2017 16:34:32 GMT -5
It's not that as much as the volume of prospects. You're pretty much guaranteed to give up a Travis Shaw when you trade 30 guys. I I get a little bit of your reasoning. However I must point out the Travis Shaw had two plus years in the majors and acquitted himself quite well defensively and offensively and we weren't trading him out of a spot that we definitely need (lower level relief arms that we seem to have dozens of) If we can trade what amounts to be one possible Major League arm for a proven Major League closer even if it is a two month rental I'm all for it. This may sound like sarcasm but theyre called trades, not acquisitions for a reason. Gotta give to get. Lesser but more names, For a big name I cannot, as much as it pains me, bust out my favorite torch and dare compare Callahan to a MLB ready, proven multi-positional lefty stick who happened to be traded to a much better park for lefty power hitters, during his peak and replacing him with what amounts to be the bench guy on my adult league team (Pablo) I mention Shaw as a trade chip who turned out to be much more valuable than he was when he was traded. That is likely to happen with several other prospects that were traded because of the sheer number of them. The point would remain the same if they just added Shaw to another trade 3 years ago without a second thought because he wasn't valuable. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 31, 2017 17:11:41 GMT -5
A lot of this talk really has no bearing on the Reed trade though. It's a fair point in trades like Kimbrel and Thornburg though. I bet you could have got back another player in those deals if you really wanted to. With the Reed deal I just don't see it. The point is this: in minor leaguers-for-major leaguers trades, Dombrowski has dealt approximately 23 minor leaguers for 9 major leaguers (counting only minor league for major league deals, so no Smith trade, no Buchholz for Tobias, no Longhi for Flores money, no DFA guys for cash). Looking back now, almost all of those were even trades or wins, save for Thornburg (and the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade is kind of its own animal right now). So in a vacuum, yeah, most have been fine. The problem is that at some point the volume catches up with you. It means you need to trade Espinoza for Pomeranz when, say, Logan Allen plus Ax. Basabe maybe gets that deal done. And when they're all 3 or 4 for 1 deals, you're not taking a guy back as a B-piece who might become Brock Holt, to beat my favorite example into the ground yet again. The only Dombrowski trade in which two players have come back is the Smith trade. That's kind of crazy. At some point, the volume can catch up with you. This offseason, if the Red Sox need to trade for anything of value, Chavis is basically their only chip that makes sense to trade, unless they're dealing for a guy that'll make someone else redundant (e.g., a first baseman, so you include Travis). In theory, they shouldn't need much, but that's in theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jul 31, 2017 17:19:33 GMT -5
MLB Pipeline has Tobias, Maddox, and Requena moving into the top 30 to take over for the guys we moved. They're high on Requena.
|
|
|
