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 notguilty on Jul 25, 2016 15:45:17 GMT -5
Gotta love Theo's decisiveness. Those prospects might bust anyway, you take the known quantity any day. And Theo's track record in trades is excellent, so I trust him. And most of all, he's decisive. A known quantity that isn't very valuable is not worth 4 prospects. I was being sarcastic.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 25, 2016 15:21:38 GMT -5
Put this in the other thread, probably belongs here-
All snark aside, I actually like that deal for the Cubs. Which is funny to me, because I haven’t liked the DD deals at all. This is why I'd appreciate this one if I were a Cubs fan:
-The Cubs haven’t won in 100+ years.
-They’ve just gone through a few years that were a real ordeal for their fans. Real painful. The FO kept preaching patience, even as they got close to 90+ losses.
-They’re almost there. They are dominating the National League. Dominating it. If this isn’t a year when you go for it, I don’t know when that is.
-They're a young team already, with a pretty open window.
-They’re not looking at the National League with this, I don’t think. They need a Bullpen that can carve through the monster Boston line-up, the monster Baltimore line-up, or that three-headed monster that is Donaldson-Bautista-Encarnacion (I think the AL WS contender is coming from the AL East). This gets you close to that.
-Oh, value-wise, the deal is terrible. But if there was ever a time to justify a deal like that, I think the Cubs’ situation is precisely it.
-That plus the fact that Epstein has hoarded prospects for a bit, and has actually demonstrated that he truly believes in building through the farm – if he feels he has to do a deal like that, you just gotta to give it to him.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 25, 2016 15:17:00 GMT -5
All snark aside, I actually like that deal for the Cubs. Which is funny to me, because I haven’t liked the DD deals at all. This is why I'd appreciate this one if I were a Cubs fan:
-The Cubs haven’t won in 100+ years.
-They’ve just gone through a few years that were a real ordeal for their fans. Real painful. The FO kept preaching patience, even as they got close to 90+ losses.
-They’re almost there. They are dominating the National League. Dominating it. If this isn’t a year when you go for it, I don’t know when that is.
-They're a young team already, with a pretty open window.
-They’re not looking at the National League with this, I don’t think. They need a Bullpen that can carve through the monster Boston line-up, the monster Baltimore line-up, or that three-headed monster that is Donaldson-Bautista-Encarnacion (I think the AL WS contender is coming from the AL East). This gets you close to that.
-Oh, value-wise, the deal is terrible. But if there was ever a time to justify a deal like that, I think the Cubs’ situation is precisely it.
-That plus the fact that Epstein has hoarded prospects for a bit, and has actually demonstrated that he truly believes in building through the farm – if he feels he has to do a deal like that, you just gotta to give it to him.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 25, 2016 14:50:51 GMT -5
It was a less worse trade. Not the best ever. haha , agreed. Think about it the Cubs just gave up more than the Red Sox did and that's for 3 months of Chapman. Mind blown Theo would do thisGotta love Theo's decisiveness. Those prospects might bust anyway, you take the known quantity any day. And Theo's track record in trades is excellent, so I trust him. And most of all, he's decisive.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 21, 2016 21:54:34 GMT -5
Actually, Cherington and Hoyer traded Hanley and Sanchez - Not Theo.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 21, 2016 15:50:29 GMT -5
That is pretty funny. "Small with a baby face"; that's got to be fire-able offense if a scout sent in a report like that (not saying this one did, but it is a great window into his psyche..).
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 19, 2016 14:11:11 GMT -5
Which goes back to what I was kind of alluding to. All prospects carry risk, but the rewards are substantial if they pan out. What you want to do is accumulate a good amount of them which, will increase your chances of winning. Each of the trades DDo did in a vacuum are acceptable trades, some even very good trades (except the Margot trade, for me). But it's the totality of it and the F.O. philosophy it implies that really bothers me.Well realistically he's probably done dealing for the moment, and I'd be surprised, given the nature of the acquisitions he's made, if there were major trades coming in the offseason I'd be surprised. I think he's decided to hold on to Moncada and Benintendi at least, and I'd imagine that, having dealt Espinoza, he's planning on holding on to the big arms that remain in the system. Obviously that's conjecture, but I have a hard time seeing who/what we'd deal our remaining high end prospects for- we now have 5 starters that should be at least average signed for next year, the only significant guy in our lineup we're losing is Ortiz, and I suspect if we go for a high profile replacement, it would be in the free agent market as opposed to via trade. I think it's easy to get caught up in thinking "Dombrowski dealt all these potential future stars for a closer and a pitcher that has had half a good season as a major league starter," but he's always done an excellent job on figuring out when to sell prospects, and often when to buy talent as well. I also have to say that no matter what you might think of these deals, compared to the approach of screwing up the Lester negotiations, eventually effectively replacing him with Porcello, getting almost nothing for Lackey, and throwing $200m at Hanley and Sandoval, Dombrowski is a breath of fresh air. He aggressively fills needs, and he may pay high prices at times, but I'll trust his judgment until it's proven wrong, because he's got a much better track record on player evaluation/trades than I do This is fair. I'm highlighting a point in Bosox's post, because I think it very much captures my deeper concern with what we're seeing with DD. It's fair for you, I think, to have full confidence in DD's ability to make trades and identify talent, there's no question that there's a track record there. But I also think it's fair for others to be just a little bit uncomfortable, based on the DD track record in Detroit in particular, the use of the farm system there, the payroll management and the contracts awarded, and the ultimate results he got there. And yeah, "the owner made him do it", but it seems to me the owner is "making him do it" in Boston too. So one need not think that Espinoza is going to win 8 CY and 5 MVPs to be concerned about what this kind of trade, combined with the Kimbel trade, means. On the bolded, I do think you are conjecturing - I don't see how you can have a strong certainty that DD will now hold on to all the remaining assets. Short term, yeah, I don't really expect somebody like Moncada or Kopech to be moved now. That's unlikely. But in the offseason? My own conjecture is that if this team doesn't make the playoffs, gets eliminated in the one playoff game, is out in the first round, or anything like that, oh boy. Then I'd certainly expect that given the weak FA market, some additional prospect assets will be out the door to satisfy the win-now mandate. To me, the Red Sox now that type of franchise. I'm not even blaming DD; he is really just the perfect GM for what the ownership and the fans want. Can't blame people for being sick and tired of finishing last. Just not sure about the approach the Sox are taking to fix that, but we'll have to see. Funny, Speier had a great note in his newsletter today about how Red Sox prospects really can't get too comfortable any more. The likelihood of not staying in this organization is the highest it's been in the past 11 years. Curious to see how that evolves. More than trade wizardry, the one thing I really hope DD is going to improve is this team's ability to identify and develop top-shelf pitching talent. I really don't understand what's going on over there, with guys coming here and performing terribly. If he can fix that, I think that'd be huge. The funniest (and not entirely inaccurate) comment I saw on the Espinoza trade is that the Sox can't develop pitching and were going to mess up the kid anyway, so you might as well get something for him now. Sad, but quite funny.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 18, 2016 16:05:28 GMT -5
It's funny these deadline signings happen every year, and people still get upset about it ending that way every year. Welcome to Boston San Diego, Jason. /ducks.... I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I know it's juvenile, couldn't help it, lol. I apologize a thousand times.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 18, 2016 12:35:59 GMT -5
I'm no Billy Beane fan (I find him overrated for the most part)..But I have to say that I would have asked for Espinoza too, had I been in his shoes. I mean yeah, that's obviously a ridiculous ask. But it's fair to say that DD has shown that he doesn't quite put the same value on prospects as many others (the total opposite of Cherington, who probably put too much value on them). If you're a GM, you know that DD will pay up if he likes your guy enough, especially since we're talking about a kid in low-A, TINSTAAP and all.
So BB doesn't have a lot to lose by asking for Espinoza - You have to ask for the moon - because there actually is a chance DD might give it to you. I know (well, it seems) most here now think this was a great trade ( I don't, but mostly because I have a weakness for building through the farm system, an increasingly ridiculed concept in these parts - oddly enough). But even though I don't like the deal, I can't blame DD - he's doing what he does best, what he did in Detroit, and what he was brought here to do.
I am curious how many now blessing this deal would have strongly pushed for it a month ago.
Anyway, on Billy - Worst case scenario for him, you trade Hill for a smaller package to somebody else, or you give him the QO - though on this QO, I actually think Billy Beane is lying, though I could be wrong. I don't see how the A's commit $17m to Rich Hill next year, a year older and with nagging injuries. Rich Hill would say yes to QO that faster than his next blisters.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 15, 2016 10:33:28 GMT -5
Have to admit that I had serious doubts about the Hill acquisition before this one went down. Beane does not like the Sox for one, and I would have bet he'd ask for the moon. Dombrowski's post trade statement confirmed that. If Oakland did want Espinoza for a rental that trade was never going to happen.I don't understand how one can say this with an ounce of certainty. My first thought at Billy Beane potentially wanting Espinoza for Hill was to tell him to f...off, like one does those people who bring up silly trades on the radio. Then you realize you're dealing with DD, who apparently doesn't put as much value on prospects as some other execs do. In fact, BB would be stupid not to ask for Espinoza, because everybody knows that if DD loves your guy, he'll pay up. Billy would just use the same arguments a lot of people have been making in this very thread - "Come on Dave, kid is in A-Ball, TINSTAAPP, you have to win now and kid can't be in the majors until 2018 or something, he's not even that good this year so may be he's a bust anyway, you gave up Logan Allen for less than what I'm asking, third piece of a package for a freaking reliever - Come on Dave, what's the big deal? Rich Hill helps you TODAY, man, TODAY! Come on man! Frank, can you talk to him?". (Frank Wren turns DD- "Uhhh..yeah Dave, I think Billy's got a point there..." If I'm an exec and I'm dealing with DD, I ask for the moon, and I insist on it. Because I know, I just know he might give it to me if he likes my guy enough. Matching value in this case is not very relevant.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 15, 2016 10:16:49 GMT -5
Yeah this trade is simply a result of the Red Sox inability to develop pitching in the last 5 years. True. But it doesn't exactly do much for that "inability to develop pitching" going forward either. Looks like the preferred path to acquiring pitching (since we're in perpetual "win-now" + we're unable to develop good pitching for some reason) mode, is going to be trades + FA. It's a risky, but defensible path, but I suppose that's why DD is here, and not a development-driven exec.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 14, 2016 22:53:29 GMT -5
Why get excited for this if he is gonna get traded for a reliever in December. Don't get excited, then. Prospects get traded, prospects get hurt, prospects bomb out, prospects leave as free agents and prospects quit to do other things with their life. Very few prospects make it to the show and even fewer stick. If you are going to invest yourself in prospects, you need to be prepared for good and bad stories. For every Justin Masterson, Dan Butler and Jeremy Hazelbaker who perseveres, there are multiple Jon Egans, Ryan Westmorelands, Cody Kukuks and Jon Denneys who squander their talent or have it cruelly taken away. We don't know what's going to happen to Jay Groome. His story is just beginning.Well, we can reasonably surmise that he's more likely to be traded under this regime than most. Yes, things happen to prospects all the time, but part of following them (the best of them at least) is a hope, an aspiration that they'll make it to your major league team. It's a bit different to know that they're primarily trade fodder. It changes the level of excitement and interest a little bit. And there's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 14, 2016 21:28:00 GMT -5
DD is just fixing his offseason mistakes. Many here said they were going to need more than Price, and had to go get another experienced FA or trade, so there’s no hindsight there. DD didn’t do that, I think, precisely because he figured that if the guys he gambled on didn’t pan out, he’d just go out and trade some of those freakin’ prospects everybody seems to love for some reason. At first I figured it was just a mistake, to not load up on more experienced pitching. I didn't understand why one could bank so much on Buchholz to be a #2 or #3. Now I realize it was just part of the DD plan all along – and it makes sense in the mind of somebody who sees the farm system merely as fodder for trades. Until they end up with the worst system in the majors and there’s nothing left to trade. To each their own, I guess that's one way of trying to do it. When he left Detroit though, they hadn’t won the WS, had terrible contracts and he left them with the worst farm system in the majors. Boy, is he on his way to doing that here. But what do I know, I'm just a prospect humper. I'll still watch the games, but for the first time in a long time, I must say I don’t believe in what the GM is doing. Like at all. How can anyone not love prospects when you look at the current roster and see how freaking horrible every free agent acquisition everywhere around the league is now? I was being sarcastic. I agree with you. Looks like DD looks at it differently.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 14, 2016 21:25:40 GMT -5
The trade is done. So, where are we: 1. Potentially, we have a complete starting rotation, a closer, a set-up man (Barnes) and our entire infield and outfield (Benny/Mookie/JBJ/Moncada/X/Pedey/Hanley or Shaw) under control for the next two years. 2. We have our 10th position player and two candidates for catcher, also under control. 3. Hopefully, next year, we'll have Carson Smith back healthy by the stretch run, plus what's left of Sandoval. Plus, we can expect at least three of Ross, Kelly, Light, Shepherd and Hembree in the bullpen. 4. We have trade bait in Buchholz, Owens, Johnson, Hernandez, Dubon and one of the catchers.5. We have Doc Ock, Devers, Kopech, Cosart, Basabe, Pennington and more in A-ball and Groome and Chatham on their way into the organization. One thing we've learned with DD is that everybody is trade bait. DD is a strange operator. A refreshing straight shooter who destroys value because he doesn't assess it as others do. It's not as much about the perceived market value of what DD is trading; it's more about how much he wants what he wants. If he wants something you've got, you can just ask for the moon, and he'll pay it.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 14, 2016 21:18:17 GMT -5
I guess I need to rethink my evaluation of AJ Preller. He traded two guys who have since combined for -0.4 WAR for Pomeranz this winter and turned them into Anderson Espinoza. That's quite an accomplishment. I was thinking about this. Is DD related to AJ Preller or something? He's quite single-handedly helping him rebuild his reputation as a GM after the disaster of last year.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 14, 2016 21:12:38 GMT -5
DD is just fixing his offseason mistakes. Many here said they were going to need more than Price, and had to go get another experienced FA or trade, so there’s no hindsight there.
DD didn’t do that, I think, precisely because he figured that if the guys he gambled on didn’t pan out, he’d just go out and trade some of those freakin’ prospects everybody seems to love for some reason. At first I figured it was just a mistake, to not load up on more experienced pitching. I didn't understand why one could bank so much on Buchholz to be a #2 or #3. Now I realize it was just part of the DD plan all along – and it makes sense in the mind of somebody who sees the farm system merely as fodder for trades. Until they end up with the worst system in the majors and there’s nothing left to trade.
To each their own, I guess that's one way of trying to do it. When he left Detroit though, they hadn’t won the WS, had terrible contracts and he left them with the worst farm system in the majors. Boy, is he on his way to doing that here. But what do I know, I'm just a prospect humper. I'll still watch the games, but for the first time in a long time, I must say I don’t believe in what the GM is doing. Like at all.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 30, 2016 10:24:29 GMT -5
He's going to tear this organization apart from the inside out. Dombrowski has a contempt for prospects that is rare in this day and age. I understand this post was probably intended to be a bit hyperbolic (I think..), but I have to say the bolded reveals a real fear I have. I'm no prospect hoarder, but given supply and demand, I don't really see a realistic deal out there that will be enough to make this team a strong contender to reach and go far in the playoffs. I fear he'll give away major long term assets for improvements that will be marginal. But I guess we'll have to see. I'd probably give DD a pass for this year, his first year in Boston (as long as he doesn't go out and trade the farm). But I think we really need to see more out of DD in the coming off-season. Anybody can give out $30m to a David Price, if that's your thing, and trade out prospects for "proven" talent. Maybe he's a bit above average on trades, whatever. My expectations for the VP of Baseball Operations really go further than that. This team has a real, structural, major issue with developing pitching and/or trading for it. I'm no expert, so I don't really know what the problem is. But the track record over the past 10 years or so has just been terrible, and it's really on things like that that I'll ultimately grade him. I don't understand why for the past 2-3 years, we've been treated with some of the most abysmal pitching performances in MLB. How can they be so wrong on so many of these guys? I'm not impressed by the early results of the DD decisions on pitching (Relying on Buchholz, Kelly (lots of people here said that wasn't going to work - though a lot more said that was enough...), you've got to give him a pass on Price, etc.). I just shudder to think at what things would look like if Wright had not stepped up. And as I said, it's Year 1, so whatever. But I really want to see and hear more on changes to the philosophy, the people, the structure of pitching scouting and development, because as that noted erudite Donald Trump is fond of saying, "something is going on".
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 21, 2016 15:37:21 GMT -5
This is an incredibly pedantic conversation, but you said, and I quote: "[the White Sox] were "contending" plenty last night. At least as much as the Red Sox are." That is a factually incorrect statement that others picked up on. And a silly one at that to be honest. If you torture words enough, you can certainly make them say whatever you want them to say. Let's just forget about it, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 21, 2016 14:30:37 GMT -5
Right, but that is not quite what he said now, is it? He didn't say the White Sox will not be contenders in a month. He said he doesn't see them as contenders now (well, he didn't specifically say "now", but the phrasing certainly implied it). I think it's a little silly to say that a team with that type of starting pitching is out of it ("not contenders") while they are 4.5 games behind, on June 20, in the second wild card era, and in a division that has the Minnesota Twins doling out games. If they're still there on July 20, that's obviously a different story. Of course, if the emphasis is on my saying "at least as much as the Red Sox are", then fair enough - but that's really fine semantics, isn't it? No, James's comment was completely valid. The implication was that the White Sox are the better team, or at the very least at least as likely to make the playoffs. That's not reflected in a rational perusal of the data. It's a reactionary statement to last night's debacle. Riiight.. I really must work on my reading comprehension then. My post was merely reacting to two statements: Pedrofan45 said "Quintana is on a contending team" To which Sox fan in NC, responded "I don't consider the White Sox as being contend(ers)". To which I said it's probably a bit early, on June 21, to say that a team that is 4.5 games out of the WC and 5.5 out of first place, with that type of front line pitching, is out of the playoff race (my definition of "contending"). I didn't read anywhere where anybody said that the White Sox are "better" team than the Red Sox, or "at the very least at least as likely to make the playoffs" as the Red Sox. But maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 21, 2016 10:38:05 GMT -5
Really? They looked like they were "contending" plenty last night. At least as much as the Red Sox are. And they have Sale and Quintana going, looking to "contend" some more. The Red Sox are one game out of first place and leading the wild card race. The White Sox are under .500, are 5.5 games out of both first place and are 4.5 out of the wild card. So no, the White Sox are not at least as much of a contender as the Red Sox are. I think the price for Quintana will (and probably should) be prohibitive, but it's not at all unreasonable to think that the White Sox will be sellers in a month. Right, but that is not quite what he said now, is it? He didn't say the White Sox will not be contenders in a month. He said he doesn't see them as contenders now (well, he didn't specifically say "now", but the phrasing certainly implied it). I think it's a little silly to say that a team with that type of starting pitching is out of it ("not contenders") while they are 4.5 games behind, on June 20, in the second wild card era, and in a division that has the Minnesota Twins doling out games. If they're still there on July 20, that's obviously a different story. Of course, if the emphasis is on my saying "at least as much as the Red Sox are", then fair enough - but that's really fine semantics, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 21, 2016 9:59:34 GMT -5
Problem is that Quintana is on a contending team. I don't consider the White Sox as being contending. Really? They looked like they were "contending" plenty last night. At least as much as the Red Sox are. And they have Sale and Quintana going, looking to "contend" some more.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 17, 2016 14:55:54 GMT -5
We are probably going to need to trade for an arm anyway with our pitching prospects years away and not much on the free agent pitching market this offseason. To me the bigger question is if they want a rental player/sign and trade guy or a younger arm that will cost big. To me the big question now is who's going. It's obvious they need pitching, and I just don't see DD hesitating to ship out a couple of top 10 to get one. I'm no prospect hoarder, but it's quite something to see a homegrown team come together, as this year has shown. Beats high-priced mercenaries every day of the week. Man, I'm not looking forward to the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Apr 13, 2016 15:36:50 GMT -5
John Tomase @jtomase 2m2 minutes ago Sandoval to DL with left shoulder strain. Rutledge up. Farrell isn't sure how Sandoval hurt himself.This is hilarious. P.S. Not a commentary on Pablo, hope he gets ok.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Apr 13, 2016 15:34:30 GMT -5
Except in the 6th inning, when it's time to bring in Young to pinch hit for Shaw. Because, you know, Shaw was "good" vs. lefties last year, but Young was "outstanding". Platoon splits are entirely different from individual batter versus individual pitcher splits. The former is very real in terms of predicting future performance, while the latter is almost always small-sample noise. In fact, I'm happy Farrell isn't putting undue weight on Shaw's 2015 observed platoon split in the majors (which consisted of all of 82 PAs vs. LHP) and pinch-hitting for him with Young. I hear you. I appreciate most of what you usually say, but I can't follow you on this one. Sometimes, you really take this SSS thing to the extreme. Using this logic, Shaw should be sitting for Sandoval too. If one cuts beneath the noise (SSS, 2015 platoon splits, past vs. future performance, etc.), all you're left with is a manager who is consistently sitting down a rookie because he likes and favours veterans (Sandoval just pushed it too far for showing up fat and being terrible enough for everybody to see, otherwise he'd be playing), and it's easier to mess around with the rookie than Pedroia, Ortiz or whomever. He mishandled Bogaerts (JD Drew..) and JBJ the same way. The SSS and platoon splits are just a red herring. Farrell is really just the wrong manager for a team that's trying to get younger.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Apr 13, 2016 15:15:51 GMT -5
I, for one, am happy that Farrell is not putting undue weight on hitter versus pitcher splits. 41 PAs is still just about meaningless in terms of predicting future results. Except in the 6th inning, when it's time to bring in Young to pinch hit for Shaw. Because, you know, Shaw was "good" vs. lefties last year, but Young was "outstanding".
|
|
|