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.
Lackey/Littrell/cash to STL for Kelly/Craig
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 31, 2014 12:44:57 GMT -5
this site loves prospects too much. When I saw the returns I knew this site would hate them because they were so geared up for getting new shiny toy prospects that they don't like what is actually a better return You know who else loves the trade? Cardinals fans who are pretty certain that Craig is done and that Kelly isn't ever going to be more than he is now, which is kinda lucky in a pitcher's park. I know a shat load of STL who are pissed. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by gk2186 on Jul 31, 2014 12:45:41 GMT -5
My question is why are we sending money to St. Louis when we are taking on the 30plus mil still owed to Craig?
|
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jul 31, 2014 12:45:53 GMT -5
this site loves prospects too much. When I saw the returns I knew this site would hate them because they were so geared up for getting new shiny toy prospects that they don't like what is actually a better return You know who else loves the trade? Cardinals fans who are pretty certain that Craig is done and that Kelly isn't ever going to be more than he is now, which is kinda lucky in a pitcher's park. yes, Cardinals fans like it, and this site hates it, and everyone else thinks the Red Sox won. |
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jul 31, 2014 12:46:06 GMT -5
BOTH Kelly and Craig were injured and much less than 100% this season. BOTH have competed at high levels and in big games. We have control over both till 2018.
Yes it is possible we need to move someone, but our offense HAS gotten better over the last few hours. No way this is a terrible return. Lackey wanted out, Lackey is 35+, and we finally have some real pop. I'm as big, if not bigger, prospect guy than anyone on this site....but the formation of this team is not finished. We will pick up a pitcher who will be a solid veteran before next season. We all seemed to want prospects back for Lester and Lackey. But how with the upcoming terrible free agent class were we going to pull that off? Many of you would have been upset, if we entered 2015 with no MAJOR LEAGUE upgrade to our offense. Ben looks like he has somehow pulled that off.....and he is not finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 31, 2014 12:46:17 GMT -5
Even if you accept the above (which I don't), the 2015 option at least makes it really easy to sign Lackey to a reasonable extension. Say, tear up the 2015 option and do 2/$20m. What is there to not accept - basic principles of economics? At this stage in his career, Lester's time is worth more than $500K. In fact, his agent will likely indicate that Lester's time (not to mention his risk of injury) for 2015 alone is worth more than approximately $10 million. Ok, I'm not stuck on the 2/20 extension, but something similar would be obvious. Passing on 2/20 and sitting out the season is very risky, to assume he'd get 20m on the open market for 2016 is risky and probably the best case scenario for him. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that option has no value, but it very clearly does. They aren't going to tear it up and give him a market deal, and if Lackey won't at least agree to a reasonable extension he'd be a fool to sit out (unless he genuinely wanted to retire/re-sign in St. Louis). |
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 31, 2014 12:46:33 GMT -5
edit - wrong thread.
Trade result: add a good hitter and a good pitcher through 2018, worry about the details later. Not all about 2015.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 31, 2014 12:46:41 GMT -5
i thought we stood to get someone else added in both the Lester and Lackey trades. Surprised Pitt didn't beat that offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 31, 2014 12:46:49 GMT -5
My question is why are we sending money to St. Louis when we are taking on the 30plus mil still owed to Craig? To balance the salaries this year. |
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36 
|
Post by wb93 on Jul 31, 2014 12:46:57 GMT -5
Ownership must have made it clear they didn't want to lose too much revenue this year by trading everyone away, so they are insisting on major league players rather than prospects. More likely: ownership said that having a lousy major league roster isn't fun so lets make it better. While we are happy for Portland and Pawtucket that they are 20 games over .500, missing the playoffs 2 out of 3 years sucks. And all those shiny prospects that Baseball America raved about for years didn't help us win when we made them regulars. So let's have more proven players and sprinkle in our youth. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2014 12:47:57 GMT -5
Can someone direct me to a credible person in baseball who thinks this is a bad haul for the Sox? I'll hang up and listen. Just wait, they are writing their stories right now. This is not a clear cut victory for the Sox. I can see why some love this trade and others hate it. One side sees what Craig has done over the last three years and says it injury related, he'll bounce back next year. They also see how Kelly was pitching at times last year. The other side sees a 30 year old Craig that is already starting to break down and looks at Kellys overall numbers, like his whip and doesn't like him. I'm ok with it, think its a good not great trade. Love that we bought low. I sure do hope Craig bounce back and Kelly keeps improving. Just surprised we gave back a recent 5th round pick and picked up another corner OF. We now have three corner OF for two spots. |
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 31, 2014 12:49:02 GMT -5
Don't forget we are not a finished product and what we get could be valued by another team.
Still Miller out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 31, 2014 12:50:19 GMT -5
Pirates are disappointing. Keep hoarding all your outfielders.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jul 31, 2014 12:58:12 GMT -5
Can someone direct me to a credible person in baseball who thinks this is a bad haul for the Sox? I'll hang up and listen. Just wait, they are writing their stories right now. This is not a clear cut victory for the Sox. I can see why some love this trade and others hate it. One side sees what Craig has done over the last three years and says it injury related, he'll bounce back next year. They also see how Kelly was pitching at times last year. The other side sees a 30 year old Craig that is already starting to break down and looks at Kellys overall numbers, like his whip and doesn't like him. I'm ok with it, think its a good not great trade. Love that we bought low. I sure do hope Craig bounce back and Kelly keeps improving. Just surprised we gave back a recent 5th round pick and picked up another corner OF. We now have three corner OF for two spots. They might get be "writing their stories" right now, but I'm listening to and reading no fewer than 20 baseball people (not Harold Reynolds types) that love it for the Sox. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 31, 2014 12:58:16 GMT -5
Here's the thing: even if we accept that they're contending for 2015, what's more valuable next year: Kelly and Craig or Lackey at the minimum? There's a really strong argument to be made that it's Lackey. But you also have to factor in the probability that Lackey will refuse to play for the minimum next year. In that case, Lackey for the minimum would be worth zero. Is there still a strong argument to be made that (Craig + Kelly) < (Lackey*(% Prob he retires))? Even if you put the probability that he retires at zero the the equation is (Craig + Kelly) < (Lackey + (whatever player or players you can sign for 3/26). Could they sign a player who will be as valuable as Craig for 3/26? If so what player? Can they sign a player who would make up the Lackey - Kelly gap? I don't agree that they should be going for it in 2015 but they are basically paying Cespedes, Kelly and Craig $5M less than they would have paid Lester and Lackey next year. EDIT for OPs new comments: This scenario basically washes the salaries between Craig and Lackey. So is Lackey - Craig > Kelly? tough to argue. I think the next move is to move Victorino and his 2013 salary (maybe use Nava as a sweetener?) and then talk to Philadelphia about Cliff Lee. Alternatively you could trade Napoli (to Seattle for Taijuan Walker?), keep Nava and platoon Victorino and Nava in 2015. Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/2087/lackey-littrell-cash-kelly-craig?page=5&scrollTo=99837#ixzz394Pob8dB |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 13:00:44 GMT -5
Even if you accept the above (which I don't), the 2015 option at least makes it really easy to sign Lackey to a reasonable extension. Say, tear up the 2015 option and do 2/$20m. Assuming that Allen Craig returns to a 120 OPS+ hitter (a big assumption, of course), you don't like trading for him vs. keeping a 37ish year old Lackey at $10mm a year? (I think 2/20 is slightly low - 2/25-30 is more likely, but either way, really). Even if Craig bounces back offensively, his below-average defense and baserunning knock him down a peg, and it's something of a lateral move at best (they'd both be three win-ish players next year). But there's at least a good bit of uncertainty that Craig won't bounce back, and that's coming from someone who has long maintained that he will. Kelly is what he is-- a controllable swingman type, not a super valuable asset. Of course, both guys provide more long-term value (read: 2016 and beyond) than Lackey, but I'd have hoped that the Red Sox could have gotten more of a premium for the last two months+ of Lackey this year. |
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 31, 2014 13:01:40 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 2m
Source: Lackey has told #STLCards he plans to honor his club option. No extension at this time.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,020
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2014 13:02:47 GMT -5
Insanely busy day for me, so a quick take:
Man, are these gambles. No wonder opinions are divided. They are definitely scouting- and not stat-driven, that's for sure.
Cespedes might be a great fit for the park and blossom as a hitter and might re-sign ... or maybe not.
Craig might bounce back, Kelly may actually have a BABIP skill (I'll have to look at that one) ... or maybe not.
And, yeah, Craig and Cespedes are redundant, and that's puzzling. They still could use a LH bat in an OF corner.
(But then again, aren't deals for prospects gambles, too?)
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 13:08:50 GMT -5
Here's the thing: even if we accept that they're contending for 2015, what's more valuable next year: Kelly and Craig or Lackey at the minimum? There's a really strong argument to be made that it's Lackey. But you also have to factor in the probability that Lackey will refuse to play for the minimum next year. In that case, Lackey for the minimum would be worth zero. Is there still a strong argument to be made that (Craig + Kelly) < (Lackey*(% Prob he retires))? Even if you put the probability that he retires at zero the the equation is (Craig + Kelly) < (Lackey + (whatever player or players you can sign for 3/26). Could they sign a player who will be as valuable as Craig for 3/26? If so what player? Can they sign a player who would make up the Lackey - Kelly gap? I don't agree that they should be going for it in 2015 but they are basically paying Cespedes, Kelly and Craig $5M less than they would have paid Lester and Lackey next year. Using a mix of Steamer/ZiPS projections, Craig is projected to be a 1.8 win player and Kelly is projected to be a 0.2 win player, while Lackey is projected to be a 3 win player. So if you think Lackey would have had more than a two-thirds chance of either playing for the minimum or signing an affordable extension, this move would seem to actually make the 2015 team worse. |
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 31, 2014 13:09:53 GMT -5
Even if Craig bounces back offensively, his below-average defense and baserunning knock him down a peg I've seen this posted elsewhere: his UZR for the OF is basically zero. Why is he considered a bad defensive player? |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 13:13:22 GMT -5
Even if Craig bounces back offensively, his below-average defense and baserunning knock him down a peg I've seen this posted elsewhere: his UZR for the OF is basically zero. Why is he considered a bad defensive player? Hm, I thought it was much worse than that. He certainly looks like a bad outfield defender, as he has very limited footspeed and has been one of the worst baserunners in the league in the last couple years. But maybe that's just my prejudice showing. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2014 13:16:32 GMT -5
I've seen this posted elsewhere: his UZR for the OF is basically zero. Why is he considered a bad defensive player? Hm, I thought it was much worse than that. He certainly looks like a bad outfield defender, as he has very limited footspeed and has been one of the worst baserunners in the league in the last couple years. But maybe that's just my prejudice showing. He's probably about equivalent to Carp in the outfield. I really don't know where he's going to play. |
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 31, 2014 13:16:50 GMT -5
Using a mix of Steamer/ZiPS projections, Craig is projected to be a 1.8 win player and Kelly is projected to be a 0.2 win player, Assuming Craig is hurt, and will return to being basically healthy (as you have to think the Red Sox believe, as they have been in talks to acquire him for some time now), an automated projection for him has zero validity. As for Kelly, let's not tempt eric to rant about fWAR for pitchers yet again. He has 1.5 career fWAR vs 3.1 career bWAR, and he, too, has been hurt this season. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2014 13:17:53 GMT -5
I don't think you can assume Craig is hurt. The Cardinals have been trying to figure out if he's hurt for quite awhile. It's like the Buchholz crap where he forgets how to pitch so everyone assumes he needs shoulder surgery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jul 31, 2014 13:18:40 GMT -5
What is there to not accept - basic principles of economics? At this stage in his career, Lester's time is worth more than $500K. In fact, his agent will likely indicate that Lester's time (not to mention his risk of injury) for 2015 alone is worth more than approximately $10 million. Ok, I'm not stuck on the 2/20 extension, but something similar would be obvious. Passing on 2/20 and sitting out the season is very risky, to assume he'd get 20m on the open market for 2016 is risky and probably the best case scenario for him. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that option has no value, but it very clearly does. They aren't going to tear it up and give him a market deal, and if Lackey won't at least agree to a reasonable extension he'd be a fool to sit out (unless he genuinely wanted to retire/re-sign in St. Louis). Lackey just said he intends to honor the contract and not sit out but no extension at this time. On MLB TV from Rosenthal. |
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jul 31, 2014 13:18:49 GMT -5
Pirates are disappointing. Keep hoarding all your outfielders. The PIRATES organization is a joke! I'm from PA and how can an organization keep putting it off to go all in. Lester, especially, would have made them a solid contender to get to the World Series, but no.....they are afraid someone they may trade may get good. LONG suffering fans in the Steel City. They, and their players, deserve a shot at the ring! |
|
|
