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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2014 1:18:39 GMT -5
The Betts thing is obviously a muddle, so let's set that aside for a moment to discuss something else entirely (which will, however, turn around and bite the Mookie muddle on its butt).
In my entire history of following the Red Sox, there has never been a more obvious off-season trade target than Jason Heyward.
Point 1: Guys approaching free agency at his age are almost unheard of. The first year of his free-agent extension will be for his age 26 season. That's insane. The extra value that's built into that fact will probably come at a discount, just because it's so rare -- which is to say teams seem to sign older players as if they don't expect them to decline with age, and in general pay for past performance rather than future performance. Here's a free agent-to-be whose future performance projects to be better than his past; again, unheard of. If it makes sense to scoop up one of those guys and sign him to an extension, and you can, you do it.
Point 2: He happens to play for one of the few teams that do not use advanced analysis. It's widely agreed that they can afford to extend either him or Justin Upton, but not both. They have similar OBP's but Upton has outslugged him .513 to .395. It's very likely that it's Upton they want to extend ... but Heyward is such a better defender that he is actually crushing Upton in WAR, 6.0 to 4.5 (averaging b-ref, FG, and BP).
Point 2b: So he's a rare young FA-to-be whose value is largely defensive and hence will come discounted.
Point 3: As a tremendous defensive RF, he has more value to us than to any other MLB team.
Point 4: Not only does defensive WAR come cheaper than offensive WAR, it's more valuable in the post-season, too. The offensive difference between an Upton and a Heyward gets compressed by the quality of the opposition pitching, but there is no change in the defensive difference.
Point 5: As a LHB, he fixes a huge looming lineup imbalance, where teams can throw righty relievers with big platoon splits against us with impunity while saving their LHRs for Ortiz and nobody else. He does, BTW, use the whole field and should fit well offensively in Fenway.
Since the Braves are perennial contenders, they would be looking to get at least one quality player back, not an all-prospect package. I think they'd go for Cespedes and the right one or two prospects (to offset the lack of draft pick for Cespedes) with glee.
(This of course moves Mookie to the default LF for next year, if he's not at 3B.)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 12, 2014 3:09:23 GMT -5
LOL, I'm not so sure about the most obvious part but I've been on getting Heyward for quite a while now. I couldn't agree more though that he's the perfect fit for Boston.
Mookie at this point is an even bigger unknown because of Pedroia's wrist surgery. I seriously doubt if the Sox would even consider moving him in a trade now.
Cespedes as the swap makes sense and likely one of our AAA/MLB starting pitching glut as well.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 12, 2014 4:50:59 GMT -5
I agree that Heyward would be a good acquisition for the Red Sox. Heyward is primed to get a huge contract after the 2015 season. Do you think the Red Sox would commit upwards of six years and $ 150 million to sign him? Otherwise he may be a one year rental in which case I wouldn't give up more Cespedes and Webster to acquire him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2014 5:02:42 GMT -5
LOL, I'm not so sure about the most obvious part but I've been on getting Heyward for quite a while now. I couldn't agree more though that he's the perfect fit for Boston. Note that I actually didn't say "most obvious" -- he could be part of a 10 way tie! And in fact, he's tied with at least Pedro. Maybe there was at some point an elite defensive RF who was also a RH hitter who hit lots of deep, high, fly balls, and hence was an even better fit for the park. That guy might be a more obvious trade target ... if we had a lineup full of LH hitters, and he was a secret 6.0 WAR player, and he was a year from free agency at age 25 ... well, maybe there wasn't ever such a guy.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 12, 2014 5:10:21 GMT -5
LOL, I'm not so sure about the most obvious part but I've been on getting Heyward for quite a while now. I couldn't agree more though that he's the perfect fit for Boston. Note that I actually didn't say "most obvious" -- he could be part of a 10 way tie! And in fact, he's tied with at least Pedro. Maybe there was at some point an elite defensive RF who was also a RH hitter who hit lots of deep, high, fly balls, and hence was an even better fit for the park. That guy might be a more obvious trade target ... if we had a lineup full of LH hitters, and he was a secret 6.0 WAR player, and he was a year from free agency at age 25 ... well, maybe there wasn't ever such a guy. I see you've studied American advertising. Your next step should be to make up an official sounding group like "The American Baseball Analysts Association" and start quoting them. My other wish list guy is Cargo but he's been injured too many times. Nothing chronic but still...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 8:49:42 GMT -5
Let's hope the .230 wOBA vs LHP is a huge aberration this year. It doesn't seem like it's just bad BABIP luck, he's not hitting LD and his ISO plummeted. I'm on board for targeting him though.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Sept 12, 2014 9:17:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 9:20:07 GMT -5
I can't take that seriously when he thinks that JBJ and Cecchini are our #2 and #3 prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 12, 2014 9:21:17 GMT -5
I agree that he's a near-ideal target, but I'm not sure why Atlanta would want to move him for Cespedes. If the logic is that they have to trade Heyward because they don't have the cash to sign him to a long-term extension, why would they trade him for another one-year rental who happens to be a worse overall player and who can't be offered the QO? It'd make more sense just to keep Heyward and let him leave in free agency.
You're right to suggest that this problem can be compensated for by making the rest of the package going to Atlanta more enticing, but that might also make the transaction not worth it for the Red Sox. Atlanta isn't going to want to move a quarter for two dimes and a nickel unless those dimes and nickels are really appealing. Looking at their roster and top prospect list, the areas they would likely target include (a) dumping B.J. Upton's contract and getting a better center fielder, (b) replacing Heyward in RF, (c) starting pitching (they tentatively have Teheran, Minor, Wood, Medlen, and Beachy, but some of those guys are coming off injuries and they need depth), and (d) upgrading on Chris Johnson at 3B.
I think Atlanta would ask for Betts or try to dump Upton's contract in any deal, but both are pretty much non-starters for me. Maybe I could see a deal coming together that looks like Heyward and B.J. Upton for Cespedes, Victorino (to offset some of Upton's salary), Bradley, and De La Rosa or Barnes. But do you do that if you're Boston? Upton is owed a whopping $46.35m over the next three years, and he's one of the worst hitters in the league. I'd probably be willing to do Heyward for Cespedes, Bradley, and Barnes, but I'm not sure Atlanta does that unless they're still really high on Bradley.
I'm also not sure Heyward would be amenable to a non-market-setting extension. He's one year from free agency and already has a good amount of money banked, and guys in that scenario are hard to extend. If you have to give him, say, 8/$200m (number totally drawn from thin air) to get him extended, is that wise? (I'd probably be willing to commit that much, mostly due to his young age and projected inflation over eight years, but you'd also have to have an awful lot of faith in defensive metrics. Fortunately, I do.)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 12, 2014 9:23:27 GMT -5
I think this guy was looking only at pre-season lists. Both Bradley and Cecchini have seen their values tank this year, and this is probably not going to get it done.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Sept 12, 2014 10:09:03 GMT -5
These trade exercises are silly but the points surrounding targeting Heyward are sound.
It also does seem that we match Atlanta well enough.
MLB ready sp depth, third base prospects, outfielders and the weakness overall of Atlantas farm all do work in favor of a deal.
Webster, Middlebrooks could be seen as buy low candidates, using Nava and or Victorino to take on Uptons deal while not ideal could be workable as well
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Sept 12, 2014 10:41:52 GMT -5
Except for him,is there any other one for us to balance our lineup?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 10:55:46 GMT -5
Except for him,is there any other one for us to balance our lineup? Nava
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 12, 2014 11:12:51 GMT -5
Sidenote: does anyone know of any analysis which quantifies the cost of having too many right-handed hitters in your lineup? I'm sure Tango et al. or Russell Carlton or someone has looked into it at one point. I know that in The Book, they talk about how platoon splits vs. RHP are almost always less than platoon splits vs. LHP. Moreover, none of the RHH in next year's projected lineup have Gomes-esque extreme true-talent splits.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 12:22:36 GMT -5
I think it would be more about bullpen pitchers who are more likely to have bigger splits than starters. I'm not sure if there are stats that break down R/L splits vs starters/relievers.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Sept 12, 2014 12:55:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 12, 2014 13:09:41 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of what Eric's saying but I don't see Cespedas as a fit at all. The Braves issues are they strike out way to much and have low OBP. If they trade Heyward I doubt its for a rental. (Unless Upton is involved.)
Looking at them I don't see a bad contract outside of BJ Upton. They look set in the I/F with Johnson signed till 2017, Simmons, Freeman and their top prospect plays 2B. They're high on the young Catcher Betancourt and rumors have them moving Gattis to the OF if he isn't traded.
I could see JBJ and a AAA pitcher who could start in April if one of their TJ guys aren't ready and I think both Beachy and Medlin could be FAs after next season. Would you give them what the Cards gave us? Offset some money moving Vic + for Heyward and a subsidized BJ Upton.
I think I'd rather sign Sandaval as a guy to balance the lineup and put either Castillo or Betts in RF.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2014 18:12:59 GMT -5
Jmei, your whole trade analysis is based on the idea that Heyward has been the 3rd (b-ref), 4th (BP), or 10th (FG) best position player in MLB this year. Just because that's true doesn't mean it's relevant. Because I really don't think the Braves believe that. I think they'd laugh at the idea that an OF who was slugging .395 was that valuable.
So your analysis omits one of my points -- that he's very likely undervalued by his present team.
You need to send your brain back 50 years in time and think that you've been offered (extrapolating to the end of the season) a .260 / 23 HR / 104 RBI hitter in exchange for a .276 / 12 HR / 63 RBI hitter who is a somewhat better fielder. That's a wash. Or even an upgrade. Seriously. (I mean, Lou Gorman would have thought so, and he was an excellent old-school GM.) There's a good chance that all you have to add to that deal is a prospect package that is clearly better than a supplemental draft pick, and that can help them win right away. You were offering Barnes and Bradley, and I was thinking Ranaudo (assuming he shows something nice in his last few starts rather than spiraling downward) and Middlebrooks might get it done. Seriously.
Now, if I'm wrong, then a trade is unlikely. The no-brainer thing to do will then be to give up the 2016 first-round pick and sign him as a free agent. So maybe we have to start asking where Mookie plays in 2016, if he's in RF next year.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 12, 2014 18:34:57 GMT -5
I love Heyward in theory. The defense certainly plays and I think there's still considerable offensive upside there. It's really just down to the logistics of what the Red Sox do with the 35 outfielders they already have, and of course the price that Atlanta is asking assuming they're even interested in trading him.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 12, 2014 19:03:33 GMT -5
Jmei, your whole trade analysis is based on the idea that Heyward has been the 3rd (b-ref), 4th (BP), or 10th (FG) best position player in MLB this year. Just because that's true doesn't mean it's relevant. Because I really don't think the Braves believe that. I think they'd laugh at the idea that an OF who was slugging .395 was that valuable. So your analysis omits one of my points -- that he's very likely undervalued by his present team. You need to send your brain back 50 years in time and think that you've been offered (extrapolating to the end of the season) a .260 / 23 HR / 104 RBI hitter in exchange for a .276 / 12 HR / 63 RBI hitter who is a somewhat better fielder. That's a wash. Or even an upgrade. Seriously. (I mean, Lou Gorman would have thought so, and he was an excellent old-school GM.) There's a good chance that all you have to add to that deal is a prospect package that is clearly better than a supplemental draft pick, and that can help them win right away. You were offering Barnes and Bradley, and I was thinking Ranaudo (assuming he shows something nice in his last few starts rather than spiraling downward) and Middlebrooks might get it done. Seriously. Now, if I'm wrong, then a trade is unlikely. The no-brainer thing to do will then be to give up the 2016 first-round pick and sign him as a free agent. So maybe we have to start asking where Mookie plays in 2016, if he's in RF next year. If you're right about how the Braves value him, then he will 100% be traded this offseason. If he's not traded, you're analysis will be shown to be incorrect. If he is traded, we'll be able to see what it's for. I suspect you are under rating what it will take to get him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 12, 2014 20:00:19 GMT -5
Jmei, your whole trade analysis is based on the idea that Heyward has been the 3rd (b-ref), 4th (BP), or 10th (FG) best position player in MLB this year. Just because that's true doesn't mean it's relevant. Because I really don't think the Braves believe that. I think they'd laugh at the idea that an OF who was slugging .395 was that valuable. So your analysis omits one of my points -- that he's very likely undervalued by his present team. You need to send your brain back 50 years in time and think that you've been offered (extrapolating to the end of the season) a .260 / 23 HR / 104 RBI hitter in exchange for a .276 / 12 HR / 63 RBI hitter who is a somewhat better fielder. That's a wash. Or even an upgrade. Seriously. (I mean, Lou Gorman would have thought so, and he was an excellent old-school GM.) There's a good chance that all you have to add to that deal is a prospect package that is clearly better than a supplemental draft pick, and that can help them win right away. You were offering Barnes and Bradley, and I was thinking Ranaudo (assuming he shows something nice in his last few starts rather than spiraling downward) and Middlebrooks might get it done. Seriously. Now, if I'm wrong, then a trade is unlikely. The no-brainer thing to do will then be to give up the 2016 first-round pick and sign him as a free agent. So maybe we have to start asking where Mookie plays in 2016, if he's in RF next year. I'm just hesitant to embrace any trade proposal which relies on "the other team is dumb" as its core principle. Besides, is there really much evidence that the Braves are enough of an anti-SABR front office to devalue elite defense that much while buying into RBIs? The game has changed a lot since the 1980s, and even the most backwards GM today is light-years ahead of Gorman and his ilk. As far as I can remember, the Braves aren't known for valuing the wrong things, and many of their recent trades (the acquisition of Justin Upton and Michael Bourn; the well-timed trade of Tommy Hanson) and signings (Ervin Santana and Derek Lowe; B.J. Upton blew up in their face, but that signing was reasonably well-regarded at the time) have been quite shrewd. Even if they don't use a UZR/DRS-esque defensive metric, it's plainly evident (at least per the Gold Glove he won in 2012 and the one he's likely to win this year) that Heyward is an elite defender. Meanwhile, any scout worth his salt can tell you Cespedes' routes leave a lot to be desired. Maybe Atlanta doesn't think Heyward is one of the ten best position players in baseball, but I think there's just about no chance they think Cespedes is close to his equal. I do agree that even if he isn't acquired, he'd be an obvious free agent target. They'll have Victorino's $14m and Napoli's $16m coming off the payroll, which gives them a good chunk of cash to play with (assuming Craig takes over at 1B). I'd be pretty excited about a Castillo/Betts/Heyward OF that would be elite defensively and solid offensively while potentially playing together for a half-decade.
|
|
|
Post by jbberlo on Sept 12, 2014 22:03:49 GMT -5
LOL, I'm not so sure about the most obvious part but I've been on getting Heyward for quite a while now. I couldn't agree more though that he's the perfect fit for Boston. Note that I actually didn't say "most obvious" -- he could be part of a 10 way tie! And in fact, he's tied with at least Pedro. Maybe there was at some point an elite defensive RF who was also a RH hitter who hit lots of deep, high, fly balls, and hence was an even better fit for the park. That guy might be a more obvious trade target ... if we had a lineup full of LH hitters, and he was a secret 6.0 WAR player, and he was a year from free agency at age 25 ... well, maybe there wasn't ever such a guy. well...there was A-Rod... and we know how that turned out.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 13, 2014 1:16:51 GMT -5
I'd love to have Heyward also but I don't think he extends easily and we are pretty likely to extend Cespedes IMO. Fenway is near perfect for Cespedes. I think he gets extended, ending the whole Heyward discussion.
To me, the big trade still might be Hamels or a FA sign of Lester and a 3rd baseman. I like Liriano a little and maybe a huge salary dump deal involving Lee is a possibility or even a Santana signing. I don't think we are targeting more OF.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 13, 2014 8:33:51 GMT -5
Jmei, your whole trade analysis is based on the idea that Heyward has been the 3rd (b-ref), 4th (BP), or 10th (FG) best position player in MLB this year. Just because that's true doesn't mean it's relevant. Because I really don't think the Braves believe that. I think they'd laugh at the idea that an OF who was slugging .395 was that valuable. So your analysis omits one of my points -- that he's very likely undervalued by his present team. You need to send your brain back 50 years in time and think that you've been offered (extrapolating to the end of the season) a .260 / 23 HR / 104 RBI hitter in exchange for a .276 / 12 HR / 63 RBI hitter who is a somewhat better fielder. That's a wash. Or even an upgrade. Seriously. (I mean, Lou Gorman would have thought so, and he was an excellent old-school GM.) There's a good chance that all you have to add to that deal is a prospect package that is clearly better than a supplemental draft pick, and that can help them win right away. You were offering Barnes and Bradley, and I was thinking Ranaudo (assuming he shows something nice in his last few starts rather than spiraling downward) and Middlebrooks might get it done. Seriously. Now, if I'm wrong, then a trade is unlikely. The no-brainer thing to do will then be to give up the 2016 first-round pick and sign him as a free agent. So maybe we have to start asking where Mookie plays in 2016, if he's in RF next year. If you're right about how the Braves value him, then he will 100% be traded this offseason. If he's not traded, you're analysis will be shown to be incorrect. If he is traded, we'll be able to see what it's for. I suspect you are under rating what it will take to get him. The one thing I wasn't thinking through is that other clubs might also be calling, and bidding up the price. Which is another reason to try to get it done in early November. It'll probably take more than Ranaudo and Middlebrooks as the prospect end of the deal, but that could be an initial offer. I do think there have been trades made where other teams have said, crap, we would have offered more! That's the sort of trade I'd try to make.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Sept 13, 2014 8:41:08 GMT -5
I agree with the points above completely.
Many times I think fo do come back and say 'had we known he was available'...
The other side of striking quick is any salary dump Atlanta may be making.
Many deals need to be evaluated with this in mind.
Atlanta may move quicker if there is a complimentary free agent signing or deal they are looking towards.
|
|
|