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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by thursty on Dec 7, 2015 11:18:52 GMT -5
Of course they're trying to dump Hanley, but of course that's extremely unlikely. Even if they did, can't see them going back to Napoli - he can only play 1B (or DH) and Shaw would be first in line. Makes no sense
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 7, 2015 10:54:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 7, 2015 3:15:00 GMT -5
AL starter RA in 2015 -> 4.43 Good catch. I used the RA for all pitchers. Multiplied by the Park Adjustment Factor for Fenway, the correct figure is 4.83 (I'll make the change to the original post). As if you didn't know you had to do that. As if I hadn't said that I did that. It's kind of hilarious how the desire to prove me wrong or catch me in a mistake turns you and jimoh into idiots. (Well, I find it very entertaining.) Calm yourself. I honestly didn't recognize PAF at first. The numbers didn't look right (as well they weren't) Among educated people, that deserves a "thank you" - not an insult
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 6, 2015 22:41:16 GMT -5
Would have been fun to think about a few weeks ago. We'd have to leave our system barren to land a guy like that at this point. i could see dombrowski giving up moncada, devers, and espinoza - colossal mistake
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 6, 2015 21:40:14 GMT -5
There are two ways to read this. One is that a lot of analytical and scouting work was done and they reached a consensus backed up by all the angles. The other is that Dombrowski made it clear to everyone he wanted the result to be that they should sign Price and then everyone came up with what the boss wanted. Hard to believe that all the people in the analytics dept would continue to want to work for DDo if their work has zero value. I'd like to think they have more integrity and pride in their work than that. I believe it's the former, not the latter. give it some time. who needs analysis when you can look into a player's eyes
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 6, 2015 20:54:34 GMT -5
AL starter RA in 2015 -> 4.43
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 6, 2015 20:28:21 GMT -5
Hmm, facts. Guys with at least 5 GS for the Sox last year: Name GS RA
Clay Buchholz 18 3.81 Edua. Rodriguez 21 4.07 Wade Miley 32 4.55 Steven Wright 9 4.64 Lg Ave w/PAF 4.68 Henry Owens 11 5.00 Joe Kelly 25 5.09 Rick Porcello 28 5.39 Just. Masterson 9 6.34
Would anyone reading a certain half of the ongoing discussion believe this? what is PAF?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 6, 2015 20:24:12 GMT -5
gammons maintains that archer is available - what would you give up for him?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 5, 2015 17:33:42 GMT -5
I mean in fairness I'd probably rather have Wright than Longhi. By the way, while I was never much of a Cecchini fan, I'm not about to call out anyone who did like him. Anyone with any real track record in ranking prospects has a long list of guys they missed on. That's just the nature of the beast. persze
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 4, 2015 20:33:11 GMT -5
damn - player opt-outs are bad for a team
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 4, 2015 16:59:12 GMT -5
I bet one could find some Cecchini posts here that look mighty embarrassing in retrospect Like this one? Your predictions: Top prospect in the system, mid-June, 2014 forum.soxprospects.com/post/53516Oops. Once again, you're confused. Oops indeed
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 4, 2015 16:28:48 GMT -5
I bet one could find some Cecchini posts here that look mighty embarrassing in retrospect
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 18:26:32 GMT -5
That is so incoherent as to be bizarre. The calculation is straightforward: there's the cost of Price's remaining contract: A. In the trade case is ~ $127m B. In the FA case, by definition, is at least $1 more than that and certainly much more plus the "player acquisition cost" A. In trade case, is whatever the *Red Sox* can bargain B. In the FA case, is ~ a 1st round pick You're actually arguing that there is a team that would prefer to pay Price more rather than less (because it's via FA rather than by trade?). By definition, if Price were to perform such that he would choose to exercise opt-out (if available), then the Red Sox could trade him and as long as they could extract something in value > a sandwich pick, they come out ahead. Players (via their agents) value an opt-out - they request it. There is a substantial difference - without an opt-out, the Red Sox have the leverage - they choose the timing and are free to play teams off of each other to maximize their player return No, it's quite coherent and hangs together nicely, unless you leave out the risk mitigation part, which I see you did. I don't have much use for classical economics in as heavily constrained a market as this one. Efficiency, that abstract concept that bears hardly any resemblance to the real world, is out the window. The idea that there's always a willing buyer ready to do your market bidding is often useless. As I mentioned in my post, there's a much better way using agent based calculations. This is 2015, not 1915. Computer models that incorporate agents - actors including players, teams, and real "agents" - and the rules including agent behaviors, aging curves, CBA constraints, roster payroll needs, available player pools and more, can give you a much better feel for what will really happen. Look, I'm not saying that the Sox haven't taken on risk, they have. But the scenario you lay out above is dry as dust and static. As one simple example that actually has a non-zero chance of happening: if Price rides that aging curve, does relatively well for a few years, and is still good but not quite as good in the third, he might very well decide to leave. The Sox gain $30 million in salary relief. What if that allows them the leeway, having say extended Betts and with arbitration catching up to their payroll, to slide under the CBA and save $10 million a year? Where does that go in your calculation? Time to get real about the costs and benefits, to step back from the simplistic market-based paradigm and look at the whole system. That's just one item that needs to be accounted for. There are plenty of others. No, I don't think the team actually did that modeling. But I do think they recognize the dynamic nature of this market, and the constraints that restrict it. There are pluses, not just minuses, that's all I'm saying. They're all part of the calculation, as complex as it might be. you do realize that if you trade a player making $30m that that results in $30m of payroll relief, right? It's just not that complicated
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 18:21:49 GMT -5
I wonder if a stronger and more pro-active FO, combined with general concern about JF' maintaining remission ( this is tough even in less stressful and less demanding conditions), and enhanced trust in Lovullo/coaches both by JF and the FO, might mean fewer opportunities for onfield mismanagement. Within this new administrative paradigm, yelling at the TV may no longer be a given. If you're yelling at your TV watching the Red Sox, you'd probably have a coronary watching the Giants. Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy could care less about what the pocket protector crowd thinks. Then again, all they've done is win three out of the last six World Series. Exactly; Bochy has always believed that there is a predesignated closer that only pitches the 9th in a save situation
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 18:17:06 GMT -5
I find it amusing that people need to reference fangraphs chats or articles to become convinced of the exact same arguments that I and others have repeated ad nauseum.
I guess for some, argument by "authority" is always preferable
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 14:38:21 GMT -5
Not directly addressing the Margot top-10, but the player I most regretted losing in the Kimbrel trade was Guerra (relying on this site's scouting reports re: his defense)
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 14:03:02 GMT -5
Read all but the last few pages of posts. The detail on the opt out was educational, but geeze, other than Sox champs and a few others optimism I went from jumping up and down joy to more of a downer mood from the vibe of this thread. Not many of you have been around for the life of George S., when we just had to watch MFY sign Gossage , Jackson etc. and usually know before the season we were going to just chase the horizon for the most part, for a couple decades. For those of you on this site back when the Sox drafted Brandon Workman there was more unconditional joy to that event than this one! Heisenberg was right here, though I'll keep coming back for what is best about this site, this was not one fo the finer threads, moodwise visa vis the actual huge positive event. Good post Rip on why a team building approach is what to an extent works here, versus strict value. I'm roughly slightly favorable to the opt out, good points by Jmei, however, the key is it's quite possible a bad downturn can occur in year 6.or 7, rather than just after the opt out point. On a different notes, juxtaposed with Tomase's recent article about Yawkey's racism, and some of Price's prior comments, and having favorite previous players like Tommy Harper and Reggie Smith have their share of issues in Boston, isn't it wonderful that just about every starting player, and a number of the pitchers will now be black? uh, there are 2 projected starters who are African-American
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 9:28:51 GMT -5
Allan craig, for one, didn't exercise the equivalent of an opt-out
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 8:19:33 GMT -5
Here's a radical idea on how to wisely invest $. How about signing Betts to a 7-year extension (60?65?) *today*? I recall chatting with Alex Speier last offseason and stating that was Ben's #1 priority then - and how smart would that move have looked now?
That would be a positive indication that Dombrowski is capable of growing.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 7:20:15 GMT -5
I don't understand this. The Cardinals had him for 7/187? Wasn't it pretty much unanimous that Price was going to get 200m plus? Now I've told you before - no inappropriate sarcasm. Dombrowski is a great man and I'll not tolerate anyone saying otherwise
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 2, 2015 1:02:48 GMT -5
"It is a real stretch to imagine that sort of deal, though I'm sure it happens. Finding the right team to take on 4+ years of a 33 year old starter at 30+ million a year is pushing it. That's very different than his re-entering the FA market."
That is so incoherent as to be bizarre. The calculation is straightforward: there's the cost of Price's remaining contract: A. In the trade case is ~ $127m B. In the FA case, by definition, is at least $1 more than that and certainly much more plus the "player acquisition cost" A. In trade case, is whatever the *Red Sox* can bargain B. In the FA case, is ~ a 1st round pick
You're actually arguing that there is a team that would prefer to pay Price more rather than less (because it's via FA rather than by trade?).
By definition, if Price were to perform such that he would choose to exercise opt-out (if available), then the Red Sox could trade him and as long as they could extract something in value > a sandwich pick, they come out ahead. Players (via their agents) value an opt-out - they request it.
There is a substantial difference - without an opt-out, the Red Sox have the leverage - they choose the timing and are free to play teams off of each other to maximize their player return
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 1, 2015 22:47:19 GMT -5
For all of those who are falling over themselves - please someone make a case for this signing *in the case where Price does not opt out* and make a *baseball* argument, not a Dombrowski is a great and good man argument. Anyone? It's a fair price for a very good pitcher from a $/WAR perspective: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/red-sox-sign-david-price/Yes, that qualifies. I'm not sure whether the declining WAR calculation is specific to pitchers? I think it's a very crude calculation fangraphs applies to all players
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 1, 2015 22:33:45 GMT -5
For all of those who are falling over themselves - please someone make a case for this signing *in the case where Price does not opt out* and make a *baseball* argument, not a Dombrowski is a great and good man argument.
Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 1, 2015 20:57:14 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Ben Cherington could have managed to offer Price the same contract; spending lots of money isn't a skill Negotiation certainly is a skill, though. At the very least, there are clearly different advantages and disadvantages to different negotiating styles. Dombrowski's style gives you overpays but closes the deal now. I don't think that if Cherington were the GM, he gets this deal signed on this date. I heartily agree that negotiation is a skill; but it's talking nonsense to say: 1. Party A is a skilled negotiator 2. Party A overpays. Nope
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 1, 2015 20:53:12 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Ben Cherington could have managed to offer Price the same contract; spending lots of money isn't a skill You're kind of arguing against your own point - Since Ben also had access to the Red Sox vault and still managed to come away from four off-seasons with squadoosh in terms of starting pitching. I don't think so, i.e. he didn't have access to even $150 for Lester just last year
|
|
|