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 jiant2520 on Nov 19, 2015 14:33:22 GMT -5
I love Hill, but not so sure he can sustain his performance from the past few months. He would be good as a long man/ spot starter. I think Wright fills that role for us this year however.
I wish Hill the best.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 19, 2015 12:54:38 GMT -5
Just for information purposes.
In 2014 the Padres sent Houston Street to the Angels for four prospects.
Street was coming off a few pretty good years.
The Angel's sent Lindsay, who at the time was their #1 prospect and rated behind only Trout and Garrett Richards as the best players under 25. He was a MLB top 100 prospect. They sent Alvarez who was a high A player with a bunch of upside as a reliever. He was ranked #7 in their system. They then sent a just turned 20 yr old SS, who was known for his outstanding defense. The SS was ranked #8 in their system. They also included an advanced, albeit lower ranked, RHP.
The Angels system was admittedly not as good as the Sox is today, but here is an example.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 18, 2015 16:02:13 GMT -5
Unless it takes Bradley to get Harvey or Sale... we should keep him, in my opinion.
By the way.... were probably not getting either of these two, lol.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 18, 2015 15:57:01 GMT -5
I went with a 4.
Definitely a good trade, not great, but good. I wish we could have kept Allen out of it, but obviously he was required to make it happen, so I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 17, 2015 15:57:36 GMT -5
Boy it's a good thing there were no young, cost-controlled stud starting pitchers available through trade this offseason, and thank god we didn't ship out two of our best trade chips for a 60 inning reliever. Good thing. The Kimbrel trade doesn't prevent the Sox from trading for a starter. Plus, as mentioned, Fernandez will cost way more. Even if we traded Margot with better prospects for Fernandez, then instead of Margot we would have needed to include someone else, say Devers, to get Kimbrel... and we needed Kimbrel, which I've been saying for three days. I'm sure glad DD seems to know what he's doing....
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 17, 2015 12:06:50 GMT -5
I hope Papi plays the next two years and belts 35 homers in each!!!
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 17, 2015 12:04:55 GMT -5
The AGon deal was not a bad deal. The Crawford signing was a bad... we needed to include AGon to rid of us Crawford and to a lesser extent Beckett.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 21:51:16 GMT -5
I don't think Grienke's anxiety will have any impact on his next deal... nor should it. I think he and Price are fairly equal, however in saying that if I had a choice I'd take Price as to keep our #12 pick... only makes sense. With that said, I would not hesitate to sign Grienke and give up that pick if Price signs elsewhere or just doesn't choose Boston.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 16:17:21 GMT -5
My point is that the bullpen probably could've been better constructed, in terms of not trading four valuable assets for Kimbrel. There's so much time before the season starts, though, (to add to it further) and the bullpen definitely is significantly aided by Kimbrel closing. But it being bolstered probably could've happened in a more prescient way. How? You throw crazy money at 33 year old Darren O'Day who's out there throwing smoke and mirrors? Joakim Soria who is 1 year removed from a 4.91 ERA? Ryan Madson who's essentially held together by duck tape? Chapman on a 1 year deal for JBJ and Guerra? Who are you getting that's better for wildly less? Who's trading away cost controlled relievers for peanuts? Margot is good. Guerra's glove will carry him to the majors. Honest evaluation, his bat is a mirage. 4-1 k to bb ratio, dead pull hitter, at a park/league that wildly inflates power numbers. Christian Vazquez hit 18 bombs there in 2011. Kimbrel checks all the boxes. Strikes people out. Insane velocity and breaking pitch. Has done it for years and stayed healthy. In the past when he had a leg injury, he still worked out by getting on his knees and throwing. He's 27. You can spend less but you'll get less. Cherington was king of the half measures, and he put us in a situation where we NEED to spend more for elite talent because we've failed so long with value plays. This team needs elite talent, and Dombrowski struck first and paid a premium. But it was so he could check a box and hopefully save himself some pain later. Yes.... thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 16:11:18 GMT -5
Cueto Buchholz Zimmermann Porcello Rodriguez Miley Kelly Owens 2 would seem a bit excessive I really hope we stay away from Zimmermann. He definitely doesn't miss enough bats to survive in this division. Both of them scare me. Can't we just give Price whatever he wants (exaggerating... but not really), save our pick, and NOT end up with two bloated contracts for pitchers with 4+ ERAs? I have no doubts about Price's ability to pitch well for a long time. I'd even prefer Greinke and surrendering our pick to signing both Cueto and Zimmermann. I 100% agree. I would definitely over pay Price to signing Zimmermann. Cuato on a team friendly deal would be ok, but, yes they scare me too. I'd give up the pick for Grienke in a heart beat!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 13:28:04 GMT -5
That's the only source of disagreement. I've never seen any closer ever traded for that much and if that's the cost we should have passed on it. There were so many alternatives. And you're not going to get people to shut up about it. People need to process it and it takes more than 3 days. I don't really understand why people are saying they were "required," or that it was necessary to get Kimbrel in particular. We shouldn't have had to trade for a closer; we could've taken a flier on Madson/O'Day/Sipp/etc., then reconfigure our bullpen from there. Hell, even Pat Light could contend for the closing spot, and it wouldn't have cost us four valuable prospects who could've gone on to help us in another trade. Joe Kelly could be turned into a closer. Anything could happen in terms of a closer. Koji in 2013 wasn't even meant to be the closer. We aren't mad that we traded players who we think we know will pan out; we're mad that they were traded for a relief pitcher. I'm so glad we didn't do what you just said. If we went into the year with Madson or Sipp as our addition, I'd be very worried. Taz has shown signs of over use and regression. Uehara is 41 years old and in his last year plus coming off injury. Kelly is not a proven reliver let alone closer. Pat Light as closer? Are we trying to win a championship or what? I hold elite closers in high regard and I'm thankful we picked one up. And yes, it may not have been necessary to obtain Kimbrel, but it is, in my humble opinion, necessary to have a good BP to close out games. We we're obviously required to give up what we did in order to pry Kimbrel from SD. SD required us to do so....
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 11:49:49 GMT -5
The deal is done. We have an all star closer and SD has four prospects. I'm sure we all agree we are better now, no? We don't need to keep bringing that up. We all agree these prospects may or may not pan out... no one said they all will or will not work out, no? No need to bring that up. We all agree we paid a steeper price than we would have liked, no? No need to debate that anymore. We all agree that prospects are valuable, no? No need to argue that point. Bottom line is we paid the going rate for a heck of a player. None of us knows what else those prospects would have got us. I doubt we would have got an ace without giving up much more. We may all disagree on what the prospects will turn into down the line, but as for their current value most of us agree... they were valuable and were required to get an elite closer. That's the only source of disagreement. I've never seen any closer ever traded for that much and if that's the cost we should have passed on it. There were so many alternatives. And you're not going to get people to shut up about it. People need to process it and it takes more than 3 days. Yeah... I didn't think I'd get people to "shut up". To your point of disagreement. I think other teams wanted Kimbrel. I think DD weighed his options, Chapman and the other trades were probably thought of, but Kimbrel's skill set and contract were the most appealing to him. I think O'Day is good, but he is not Kimbrel. I think DD wanted to get his closer out of the way to focus on the rotation. For those reasons, I think the price was was driven up a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 11:40:39 GMT -5
I guess that's really one of the fundamental difference between me and a lot of a pro-trade folks: I don't see an elite (or above-average or even adequate) bullpen as a prerequisite to contention or winning a title. If you're of the opinion that they needed an elite reliever to contend, then yeah, you're willing to give up a lot for that guy, especially since there's no reliever like that available in free agency and it's unclear whether the other trade candidates of that caliber (Chapman, Melancon, etc.) will be moved at all or would cost less. I don't really believe that any one area is a prerequisite to win, other than having a good team generally. If the prices for relief pitching are too high, I'm happy to reallocate my resources elsewhere. Literally by definition, there is always some part of the market where you can find value, even if it often means eschewing so-called "elite" players. The same applies to the starting pitching market, by the way; if the prices for the top of the market are too high, I'm happy to look at undervalued mid-tier guys (think Samardzija or Kazmir) and spend my cash elsewhere (e.g., on a really good fourth outfielder). I think you're completely right, and the issue for baseball executives then becomes, where you can find value that has not yet been recognized by the market? I mean, if everyone is looking at the same "value" as measured by thousands of sharp prospect analysts, including you!, well then machines can make trades with trading algorithms. Geez, it's a commodity market! What Dombrowski I think has attempted, is to identify an area of value in Kimbrel that analysts have not yet captured (though great progress is being made, as I've posted links to before in this thread) and to spend relatively well-known value (though blocked on his team) to obtain it. (PS. An implication in the wages market is that Kimbrel is severely underpaid.) (PPS. What is the undervaluation? It may be the almost unique ability to get strikeouts under very high stress) I like what you said here.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 11:38:15 GMT -5
I guess that's really one of the fundamental difference between me and a lot of a pro-trade folks: I don't see an elite (or above-average or even adequate) bullpen as a prerequisite to contention or winning a title. If you're of the opinion that they needed an elite reliever to contend, then yeah, you're willing to give up a lot for that guy, especially since there's no reliever like that available in free agency and it's unclear whether the other trade candidates of that caliber (Chapman, Melancon, etc.) will be moved at all or would cost less. I don't really believe that any one area is a prerequisite to win, other than having a good team generally. If the prices for relief pitching are too high, I'm happy to reallocate my resources elsewhere. Literally by definition, there is always some part of the market where you can find value, even if it often means eschewing so-called "elite" players. The same applies to the starting pitching market, by the way; if the prices for the top of the market are too high, I'm happy to look at undervalued mid-tier guys (think Samardzija or Kazmir) and spend my cash elsewhere (e.g., on a really good fourth outfielder). Very good points, I'm of the belief of having a good BP, I agree with you that people definitely have different approaches and opinionsof how to improve a team and what is needed to win.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 11:34:35 GMT -5
The deal is done. We have an all star closer and SD has four prospects. I'm sure we all agree we are better now, no? We don't need to keep bringing that up. We all agree these prospects may or may not pan out... no one said they all will or will not work out, no? No need to bring that up. We all agree we paid a steeper price than we would have liked, no? No need to debate that anymore. We all agree that prospects are valuable, no? No need to argue that point.
Bottom line is we paid the going rate for a heck of a player. None of us knows what else those prospects would have got us. I doubt we would have got an ace without giving up much more.
We may all disagree on what the prospects will turn into down the line, but as for their current value most of us agree... they were valuable and were required to get an elite closer.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 10:21:08 GMT -5
So you move an OF that's making 550k for a reliever making 12 million. Then you extend said reliever, probably buying out his current year and resigning him at 15-16 mill per. So you've added 14+ million in salary. And now you want to go out and sign a Chris Young Rajai Davis type for 2/10-2/15. You've put the Sox over the luxury tax by about 10-11 million, and you still need to sign a starter and another OF-er. In this situation, the Red Sox now own the 3 highest AAV relievers in the game in Koji Kimbrel and Chapman. At this point, Chapman won't happen....If DD can improve the bullpen even more, he does it. Even the NYY are trying to improve their bullpen even with Miller/Betances/Wilson....IMO we match up with them with (a slightly lesser extent) Kimbrel/Koji/Tazawa. Adding a Giles would not be out of the question though I think DD ran through too many bullets in getting Kimbrel. He will probably sign O'day or Soria to lengthen the BP. I'd like to see another BP piece like O'Day or Soria, but I think those two would want to close or set up. I think Sipp is more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 9:49:46 GMT -5
Maybe not, but the way a few people on here talk about what we gave up for Kimbrel, it sure seems like they feel as if those prospects will pan out, which is 100% anyone's opinion. My opinion is that most prospects don't pan out and I'm fine with the Kimbrel trade. I don't see any of those four as can't miss untouchable prospects. Once again, I was just pointing out a few of the Sox prospects that didn't pan out over the past few years while trying to demonstrate that the four we traded, like the past misses I mentioned, might not end up as much. I never once said anyone on here said that a #4 prospect for one team is equal to a #4 prospect on another team nor did I say that anyone stated that all prospects will pan out. For some reason, the people who don't like this trade, I'm sure, also don't seem to like me pointing out that past high ranked prospects have failed and these four may as well. I simply tried to show that with actual names that have failed. Yeah, because everyone knows that already. Believe it or not, opposition to this trade does not equate to a belief that every prospect in this deal has a 100% chance of working out. Ok.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 9:47:16 GMT -5
There are four viable options for next year. C) Trade him for a better 1B, by a combination of eating salary and adding prospects. You would think about a swap for two absolute studs with insane contacts, Miguel Cabrera and Joey Votto (I mean "think about" literally; I'm too busy to even consider whether that could be a good idea or is doomed to be a terrible one). There are many other viable candidates. I've thought about a Votto trade. The Reds are rebuilding and he isn't going to be on their next competitive team. A Hanley for Votto trade takes about 130ish million off their books and maybe more if Rameriez rebounds and they can trade him. There's only a few teams who could take on Votto and while paying him $25 million as a 39 year old isn't great I think he will hit and get on base the majority of the contract. According to fangraphs he has been worth over $40 million a year the last few years minus the one he missed time. This would be great by me.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 9:24:16 GMT -5
When I 1st read this, I threw up in my mouth. After some thought though, thinking this through, I have to trust in the RS and evaluating their own players/prospects. They have more & better eyes on these guys including their make up, ect. I'm sure SD could have had similar deals for a Margot/Guerra from multiple teams. My bet is DD HAD to throw in the other 2 to make the deal happen. I don't think Margot/Guerra gets you a #2, maybe a #3, but we don't need that. We did need a shutdown closer, & if that what it takes, so be it. The scary thought is what it will take to get a top shelf SP. I agree. I'm sure DD tried to do it without Allen, but I'm sure SD insisted on waiting for a better offer... DD says, what will it take to get done today? They say Allen... boom, done deal. I'm fine with this and refuse to believe we could have got an ace for this package. I'm also sure DD asked around about an ace and found the price too steep. In my opinion at least.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 16, 2015 9:13:29 GMT -5
I'm probably so far wrong here, but I'll try.....
Three team deal... Boston gets Harvey. Mets get Carlos Gonzalez, Holt, Devers, Owens and Chavis. Colorado gets Kopech, Johnson and Ball.
Ramirez and money to Bal for Matusz.
Buchholz to LA, ARI, SL or SF for a prospect or two.
Sign Cuato, Gordon, Sipp and S. Pearce.
Cuato Harvey Porcello Rodriguez Miley
Kimbrel Uehara Sipp Tazawa Kelly Matusz Wright/Ross
Betts Pedroia Ortiz Gordon Bogaerts Swihart Sandoval Shaw Bradley
Castillo Hanigan Marrero Pearce
Wright beats out Ross at least at first as he has no options remaining.
Cuato as he does not have a pick attached.
Pearce as a RH bat to compliment Shaw.
Sipp as our LHP.
With the money we save from trading Ramirez and Buchholz allows us to sign Gordon and Sipp.
The Mets probably won't do it, I know.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 15, 2015 23:35:43 GMT -5
Has anyone said that prospects don't always pan out yet? I've read the whole thread and I don't think I've seen it mentioned five thousand times so I just want to make sure we are clear on that point. Maybe not, but the way a few people on here talk about what we gave up for Kimbrel, it sure seems like they feel as if those prospects will pan out, which is 100% anyone's opinion. My opinion is that most prospects don't pan out and I'm fine with the Kimbrel trade. I don't see any of those four as can't miss untouchable prospects. Once again, I was just pointing out a few of the Sox prospects that didn't pan out over the past few years while trying to demonstrate that the four we traded, like the past misses I mentioned, might not end up as much. I never once said anyone on here said that a #4 prospect for one team is equal to a #4 prospect on another team nor did I say that anyone stated that all prospects will pan out. For some reason, the people who don't like this trade, I'm sure, also don't seem to like me pointing out that past high ranked prospects have failed and these four may as well. I simply tried to show that with actual names that have failed.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 15, 2015 22:22:56 GMT -5
Agreed. It's all about the return. Everyone on this site has a wildly unrealistic take on the value of prospects. The amount of realistic trades that are posted on this forum are next to nil. These trades aren't made in a vaccuum. They're made in competition, and sometimes guys PAY large prices to sign a necessary piece early, so they can focus on other things. It's not easy to add ELITE relief and ELITE starting pitching in an offseason. DD's back is against the wall, and if he's being truthful and this is his one big trade, then everyone on this site should be wildly happy. Could he have gotten Kimbrel without giving up Allen? Yeah, maybe during the winter meetings a month from now. There's also a chance someone like the yankees, who offered Mateo, would jump back in and drive up the price or complicate things. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 15, 2015 22:10:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I ranked those players to show that prospects are not a guarantee. So you can see how high some of these guys were ranked that didn't pan out. My point was that we should not, and don't seem to be anymore, holding our prospects too long. We need to sell high more often as most top ten prospects don't even pan out. The rankings of players at any point in time is meaningless to compare them to each other. If a team has Babe Ruth, Mike Trout, Ted Williams and Pedro Martinez as their top 4 prospects at one point, that doesn't mean Pedro = Margot because they're both ranked 4th at one point. Yes, you are right. I agree that two teams can list their top ten players and the #1 player from one team may only rank as the #10 player on the other team. I get that the #4 ranked players on each team in the league are not equal as far as projection and what not. I truely think you, and I'm sorry, but you just don't understand. Maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining. My point is... players are ranked highly all the time and they don't always pan out. I get that players who are ranked in the top 100 of MLB have a higher success rate compared to prospects ranked below 100... players in the top 10 have a higher success rate than players ranked between 30-40, etc. I get it. I used those examples as recent prospects who were in the Red Sox system and didn't pan out... some were ranked fairly high on MLB, most were just ranked high for the Sox, but my point still stands. My opinion is that prospects are very valuable. We need as many top draft picks as we can get. We need to draft well. In that same breath we need to identify which of our prospects we can sell high on. More so than trading away a prospect who ends up being good, I hate when we hold prospects too long, especially prospects who may be blocked. At least in the trade we get something. Like this trade, we got Kimbrel no matter what. If we don't make the trade and those prospects flop then we trade them for say... a Robbie Ross type too late, I'd be pissed. I think Margot will be an average CF in MLB. The rest, I'm not so sure are even starters. Kimbrel is a top five player at his position. Again, I was trying to show examples of a few Sox players who were ranked high and DIDN'T work out. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 15, 2015 13:12:12 GMT -5
I think posters understand that WAR could be undervaluing Kimbrel, maybe he's worth 3.5 - 4.5 wins per season given the extra value (being generous), Margot, Allen, Guerra and Asuaje is still too much to give for that player on a contract that he has (a good, not great, value), especially given he's coming off his worst season which put him certainly below that spectrum, the inherent volatility of relievers, and that Kimbrel was JUST traded for a significantly worse package and then went and had his worst season. It was an overpay, I've already acknowledged that. But I still like the trade. Dombrowski targeted a player at the position of biggest need and went and acquired him. He also rightly evaluated our prospects and figured out which ones to trade and which ones to keep. Both big ups in my book. I'm not sure how many times it has been said in this thread, but Kimbrel's "worst" season, if you look past the simple stats appears to be nothing more than some flukey bad luck. His K rate was about the same, his walk rate was about the same, his GB% was about the same, his velocity was about the same, his movement was about the same but his BABIP went up, his HR rate shot up both leading to a "down" year. Lastly, the whole "he was traded for significantly worse prospects just last year is so transparent and a lame play at trying to make the argument against the trade stronger when it has already been debunked like 900 times. If we took on Melvin Upton's contract (probably the worst in the league, well maybe second or third worst behind Sandoval and Ramirez), we would have been able to give up our 10th and 15th best prospects too. The first Kimbrel trade, wasn't a trade for prospects. It was a trade to offload Upton's contract. Just like back in 2013, we didn't trade Adrian Gonzalez for prospects. We traded him to offload Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 15, 2015 12:57:46 GMT -5
As with most, I think Price is the choice, but I also feel he will go elsewhere. I hope I'm wrong. Grienke would be great, I think he will go elsewhere too. Of the rest Cuato is the best option. Maybe if the other pitchers didn't have a pick attached to them we could debate a bit, but because of the pick, I have to go with Cuato over Zimmerman, Shark, etc.
|
|
|