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.
The Red Sox trade deadline deals were awful/awesome/meh
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 27, 2014 15:46:57 GMT -5
This is a baseless claim.
I don't see any evidence that a falling below replacement level causes a player to flop in the following year. I don't see how Craig is "more likely to flop" than Victorino who barely played last year, Castillo who has no major league experience, or Jackie Bradley JR. who has never hit in the majors.
I am failing to see why no weight should be placed upon a player's long-term performance especially if there is a logical explanation for the off year.
Nor do I see how Sizemore and Craig have equal or even similar reliability.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 27, 2014 18:31:08 GMT -5
This is a baseless claim. I don't see any evidence that a falling below replacement level causes a player to flop in the following year. I don't see how Craig is "more likely to flop" than Victorino who barely played last year, Castillo who has no major league experience, or Jackie Bradley JR. who has never hit in the majors. I am failing to see why no weight should be placed upon a player's long-term performance especially if there is a logical explanation for the off year. Nor do I see how Sizemore and Craig have equal or even similar reliability. We'll see won't we? I think Craig's bat speed is gone regardless of health. If that's true, he's not rebounding. Hope I'm wrong. I've said enough about it.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 28, 2014 7:39:56 GMT -5
This is a baseless claim. I don't see any evidence that a falling below replacement level causes a player to flop in the following year. I don't see how Craig is "more likely to flop" than Victorino who barely played last year, Castillo who has no major league experience, or Jackie Bradley JR. who has never hit in the majors. I am failing to see why no weight should be placed upon a player's long-term performance especially if there is a logical explanation for the off year. Nor do I see how Sizemore and Craig have equal or even similar reliability. We'll see won't we? I think Craig's bat speed is gone regardless of health. If that's true, he's not rebounding. Hope I'm wrong. I've said enough about it. Mod Edit: this post was deleted because it was unnecessarily inflammatory. Moonstone: Please learn to be civil and respect the fact that people will have opinions different than yours. It is certainly reasonable to be skeptical that Craig will bounce back.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Oct 28, 2014 8:54:56 GMT -5
Man, the trade I really hate is the one of Miller for this Rodriguez character. He couldn't even hack it at Double A Bowie.
Sarcasm aside, with a little bit of time to look back I think this is a really interesting topic. One thing I will say though is you absolutely cannot look at the Lester trade and the Samardzija trade, and equate them for what was received. The A's got Lester for one playoff run (2014) and have no ability to offer him a QO and get the draft pick. On the other hand,they got Samardzija for two playoff runs, and would still be able to offer him the QO after next season and get a sandwich pick. While I think in a vacuum Lester is the better pitcher, it Samardzija and the control are the better asset - hence they got a much better return. I don't think Beane (or any GM) would have offered a prospect the caliber of Russell for half a season of any pitcher moved at the deadline.
I like the idea of acquiring Craig as a buy-low candidate on it's own. If he'd been a Free Agent and we were able to sign him for a 3yr / $20M deal (as best I can tell, this is what the AAV equates to) I'd have jumped at that. That said, I don't like the idea of giving up the asset of two John Lackey post-season runs and any potential QO or leverage from his minimum year for Allen Craig and Joe Kelly. This is mostly because I'm not high on Joe Kelly. While I don't think he's a "bad" pitcher by any stretch of the means, he had a roughly 4.00FIP before coming to Boston and a 4.00ERA (assume the translation) pitcher just isn't that valuable any more - even in the AL East. I would have far rather bet have received the upside of a player like Shelby Miller or Carlos Martinez in that type of deal. Yes, Kelly is more of a sure thing than any of the pitching prospects we have right on the cusp (he's a decent MLB pitcher) but I just don't see him improving from the 4/5 starter he currently is. Hope to be wrong there.
Overall, I'd give the entire series of deals a B / B- grade (with the assumption that any reasonable Cespedes extension now seems to be off the table). Though I do agree we should all re-evaluate our grades based on what we see for moves this off-season as well. Or, put another way, if Cespedes becomes Mat Latos this grade would increase in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 28, 2014 13:58:24 GMT -5
We'll see won't we? I think Craig's bat speed is gone regardless of health. If that's true, he's not rebounding. Hope I'm wrong. I've said enough about it. Mod Edit: this post was deleted because it was unnecessarily inflammatory. Moonstone: Please learn to be civil and respect the fact that people will have opinions different than yours. It is certainly reasonable to be skeptical that Craig will bounce back. I have no problem with others having different opinions than mine. I just ask that their opinions some sort of basis, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If the poster is skeptical that Craig will bounce back he should offer some sort of basis for prediction and shouldn't be allowed to just state that "his bat speed is gone", without offering any reasonable basis for that assumption. If posters are allowed to post baseless opinions without being challenged than really it's not a discussion board.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 28, 2014 14:01:50 GMT -5
Just a guess but I think that if the Red Sox could have had Miller or Martinez in the Lackey deal they would have done that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 14:13:09 GMT -5
Mod Edit: this post was deleted because it was unnecessarily inflammatory. Moonstone: Please learn to be civil and respect the fact that people will have opinions different than yours. It is certainly reasonable to be skeptical that Craig will bounce back. I have no problem with others having different opinions than mine. I just ask that their opinions some sort of basis, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If the poster is skeptical that Craig will bounce back he should offer some sort of basis for prediction and shouldn't be allowed to just state that "his bat speed is gone", without offering any reasonable basis for that assumption. If posters are allowed to post baseless opinions without being challenged than really it's not a discussion board. Am I allowed to think for myself? There is not much basis in predicting the future. My basis for believing that Craig won't be good is based on his 2014 season. You think he'll rebound, I'm skeptical. There is no right and wrong yet. And let me also point out that I'm only skeptical, which is why I'm not big on penciling him onto the roster. I'm not saying it's impossible. If it's a no-brainer that he bounces back, we should trade him now since most teams also know this and would be willing to pay up for him. Or maybe they see the same risk I do.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 28, 2014 14:46:37 GMT -5
I have no problem with others having different opinions than mine. I just ask that their opinions some sort of basis, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If the poster is skeptical that Craig will bounce back he should offer some sort of basis for prediction and shouldn't be allowed to just state that "his bat speed is gone", without offering any reasonable basis for that assumption. If posters are allowed to post baseless opinions without being challenged than really it's not a discussion board. Am I allowed to think for myself? There is not much basis in predicting the future. My basis for believing that Craig won't be good is based on his 2014 season. You think he'll rebound, I'm skeptical. There is no right and wrong yet. And let me also point out that I'm only skeptical, which is why I'm not big on penciling him onto the roster. I'm not saying it's impossible. If it's a no-brainer that he bounces back, we should trade him now since most teams also know this and would be willing to pay up for him. Or maybe they see the same risk I do. You are absolutely allowed to think for yourself. But thinking for yourself requires a reasonable basis for your arguments not just making claims and sticking them out there. I put out a reasonable basis for my conclusion and I think it's fair to ask you to do the same. The logic in your first paragraph dictates that because Craig lost his bat speed in 2014 he won't regain it, no matter the reason. By the same logic, we can also assume that you believe that all players who lose their bat speed almost always do so permanently. This is a faulty assumption and I would challenge you to defend it. In your final paragraph you make several faulty assumptions. You assume that the market for players is completely efficient, which it likely isn't. Secondly, you assume that even if it was, the Red Sox should enter that market. If everyone believed that Craig would likely rebound, then why would you trade him as opposed to making him your LF? 2.5 to 3 wins is nothing to sneeze at. Like I said, you are welcome to make an argument that has a different conclusion than mine. In this case, you haven't provided much of a basis for your conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 15:41:35 GMT -5
Am I allowed to think for myself? There is not much basis in predicting the future. My basis for believing that Craig won't be good is based on his 2014 season. You think he'll rebound, I'm skeptical. There is no right and wrong yet. And let me also point out that I'm only skeptical, which is why I'm not big on penciling him onto the roster. I'm not saying it's impossible. If it's a no-brainer that he bounces back, we should trade him now since most teams also know this and would be willing to pay up for him. Or maybe they see the same risk I do. You are absolutely allowed to think for yourself. But thinking for yourself requires a reasonable basis for your arguments not just making claims and sticking them out there. I put out a reasonable basis for my conclusion and I think it's fair to ask you to do the same. The logic in your first paragraph dictates that because Craig lost his bat speed in 2014 he won't regain it, no matter the reason. By the same logic, we can also assume that you believe that all players who lose their bat speed almost always do so permanently. This is a faulty assumption and I would challenge you to defend it. In your final paragraph you make several faulty assumptions. You assume that the market for players is completely efficient, which it likely isn't. Secondly, you assume that even if it was, the Red Sox should enter that market. If everyone believed that Craig would likely rebound, then why would you trade him as opposed to making him your LF? 2.5 to 3 wins is nothing to sneeze at. Like I said, you are welcome to make an argument that has a different conclusion than mine. In this case, you haven't provided much of a basis for your conclusion. And you assume that all players who lose bat speed regain it? We really can't argue about predicting the future. That's why I think something with the stated possibility that I turn out wrong. It's a matter of chance or risk, not just yes/no. And like I've said many times, I hope I'm wrong if he sticks around. I just don't think it's a good move to count on it. How the hell does me being skeptical about Craig regaining bat speed dictate that I believe all players who lose bat speed almost always do so permanently?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 28, 2014 15:44:42 GMT -5
Both of you please let it go. You've made your points.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 28, 2014 15:45:54 GMT -5
You are absolutely allowed to think for yourself. But thinking for yourself requires a reasonable basis for your arguments not just making claims and sticking them out there. I put out a reasonable basis for my conclusion and I think it's fair to ask you to do the same. The logic in your first paragraph dictates that because Craig lost his bat speed in 2014 he won't regain it, no matter the reason. By the same logic, we can also assume that you believe that all players who lose their bat speed almost always do so permanently. This is a faulty assumption and I would challenge you to defend it. In your final paragraph you make several faulty assumptions. You assume that the market for players is completely efficient, which it likely isn't. Secondly, you assume that even if it was, the Red Sox should enter that market. If everyone believed that Craig would likely rebound, then why would you trade him as opposed to making him your LF? 2.5 to 3 wins is nothing to sneeze at. Like I said, you are welcome to make an argument that has a different conclusion than mine. In this case, you haven't provided much of a basis for your conclusion. And you assume that all players who lose bat speed regain it? We really can't argue about predicting the future. That's why I think something with the stated possibility that I turn out wrong. It's a matter of chance or risk, not just yes/no. And like I've said many times, I hope I'm wrong if he sticks around. I just don't think it's a good move to count on it. How the hell does me being skeptical about Craig regaining bat speed dictate that I believe all players who lose bat speed almost always do so permanently? At that age without a wriat injury, I'd assume the rates for returning are extremely high. Find 10 examples of 30 year old players without career ending injuries or wrist injuries who fall off a cliff and never return. There are easily 10 examples of the opposite
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 15:47:48 GMT -5
Both of you please let it go. You've made your points. Gladly. I already said that a few points ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 15:58:41 GMT -5
And you assume that all players who lose bat speed regain it? We really can't argue about predicting the future. That's why I think something with the stated possibility that I turn out wrong. It's a matter of chance or risk, not just yes/no. And like I've said many times, I hope I'm wrong if he sticks around. I just don't think it's a good move to count on it. How the hell does me being skeptical about Craig regaining bat speed dictate that I believe all players who lose bat speed almost always do so permanently? At that age without a wriat injury, I'd assume the rates for returning are extremely high. Find 10 examples of 30 year old players without career ending injuries or wrist injuries who fall off a cliff and never return. There are easily 10 examples of the opposite Josh Hamilton, Andruw Jones, Lenny Dykstra, Jim Rice come to mind. Rice was a little older, but he fell off a cliff at age 33. That's just off the top of my head. Let's keep in mind that Allen Craig has 6.1 WAR in his entire career. It would be hard to find similar players to Craig if he doesn't bounce back because no one remembers them. Edit - a few more. George Bell, Ruben Sierra, Kevin Youkalis, Vernon Wells, Chone Figgins, Carlos Baerga, Dan Uggla, Carl Everett, Richie Sexson, Nomar
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 28, 2014 16:47:31 GMT -5
Jim Rice lost his vision! It's hard to apply that to other players who haven't. Josh Hamilton hit .285/.354/.577 at 31. Lenny Dykstra had one of the two best seasons of his career at 30, was effective during the two following seasons despite missing time due to injuries and the strike. He's an awful example. George Bell had big seasons at 26 and 27, was bad at 28, then pretty good but not great at 29 and 30, then fell off a cliff, so I guess there are some similarities there. Vernon Wells wasn't very good from 28-30, then very good at 31, then awful. He had a very weird career and I don't think you can apply it to any other player. Ruben Sierra had constant injury problems in his late 20's - from age 29 to 34 he played 354 total games. He was also in poor baseball shape. Chone Figgins had the best season of his career at 31. Kevin Youkilis had wrist problems and other durability issues, and continued to be fairly productive between injuries until he was 32. Dan Uggla fell off some at 31 but spent two years as a useful contributor before falling off at 33.
Andruw Jones is a good example, but his entire career makes a lot more sense if he was four years older. Baerga was a good choice too - he's one of those few players who fell off inexplicably, and he fell off at 26. Vada Pinson was another whose career fell off earlier than I'd have expected.
This is what I mean when I say that it's hard to get a lot of predictive value in these n=1 situations. Basically all of the players you listed aren't good comps for Craig for a variety of reasons. The fact that Jim Rice is a bad comp for Allen Craig doesn't mean that Craig isn't finished, to use a double-negative. But the reasons to believe that he'll come back to form are legitimate. You're allowed to disagree, but you don't need to respond to every person who disagrees that you disagree.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 16:54:37 GMT -5
Well the subject changed to something more interesting, players who fell off a cliff, so I took the challenge. I know my examples aren't all great and I know it doesn't prove anything, except that it does happen sometimes.
Also, vision is not a perfect science yet, IMO. I think there's a difference between reading an eye chart and picking up the spin of a moving baseball. I don't think it's always as simple as just wearing contacts or getting Lasik to fix vision degradation. It's possible that changes in vision is what makes players appear to lose bat speed because they have a little less time to swing.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 28, 2014 18:42:08 GMT -5
Many have used the vision excuse. BJ Upton could be the latest in that line James. I'd have to put on my thinking cap to remember more, but pretty sure could come up with another handful of pretty good ballplayers who slipped and used vision, either legit, or as an excuse for natural regression of their careers.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 29, 2014 6:54:34 GMT -5
At that age without a wriat injury, I'd assume the rates for returning are extremely high. Find 10 examples of 30 year old players without career ending injuries or wrist injuries who fall off a cliff and never return. There are easily 10 examples of the opposite Josh Hamilton, Andruw Jones, Lenny Dykstra, Jim Rice come to mind. Rice was a little older, but he fell off a cliff at age 33. That's just off the top of my head. Let's keep in mind that Allen Craig has 6.1 WAR in his entire career. It would be hard to find similar players to Craig if he doesn't bounce back because no one remembers them. Edit - a few more. George Bell, Ruben Sierra, Kevin Youkalis, Vernon Wells, Chone Figgins, Carlos Baerga, Dan Uggla, Carl Everett, Richie Sexson, Nomar George Bell is the only example that really works
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 29, 2014 11:40:05 GMT -5
James, or someone old enough to remember, since you brought up Rice I have a question about his falloff- and not the final one in which his vision loss was well documented. He was great, but after his prime years age 24-26 ending in 1979, save for his '83 season he had an early falloff. Granted he had solid years, but was not the same hitter that Hank Aaron once said is the most likely to eclipse him. Did he have some sort of injury with lingering effect?.. what happened.? I've always wondered
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2014 12:07:56 GMT -5
Rice had a pretty great 1986 also, but back then people were more worried about only having 20 HR. He still put up 5.5 WAR as a below average LF.
I don't remember his injuries, I was too young. I remember him being stubborn about wearing glasses.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Oct 30, 2014 21:32:23 GMT -5
Also, vision is not a perfect science yet, IMO. I think there's a difference between reading an eye chart and picking up the spin of a moving baseball. I don't think it's always as simple as just wearing contacts or getting Lasik to fix vision degradation. It's possible that changes in vision is what makes players appear to lose bat speed because they have a little less time to swing. I'll take on this, considering it is my field. As I was too young at the time and I can't find precise reports, anyone knows what kind of vision problems he had?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 31, 2014 9:09:04 GMT -5
I actually think the Red Sox plan to make Craig the full-time 1B after next season which is why they had him included in this deal which is why I believe the Red Sox aren't overly concerned with the bat-speed or his health.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2014 9:20:02 GMT -5
I actually think the Red Sox plan to make Craig the full-time 1B after next season which is why they had him included in this deal which is why I believe the Red Sox aren't overly concerned with the bat-speed or his health. He doesn't need bat speed or health as a 1B?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 31, 2014 9:34:01 GMT -5
I actually think the Red Sox plan to make Craig the full-time 1B after next season which is why they had him included in this deal which is why I believe the Red Sox aren't overly concerned with the bat-speed or his health. He doesn't need bat speed or health as a 1B? What I'm saying is that I feel that the FO is operating under the assumption that his slowed bat-speed was due to a recoverable injury and with a proper off-season workout and ST that he should be able to readjust.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2014 12:21:05 GMT -5
He doesn't need bat speed or health as a 1B? What I'm saying is that I feel that the FO is operating under the assumption that his slowed bat-speed was due to a recoverable injury and with a proper off-season workout and ST that he should be able to readjust. I really doubt they're planning on anything for him other than a wait and see how he rebounds.
|
|
|
Post by polarbear91 on Oct 31, 2014 13:10:24 GMT -5
James, or someone old enough to remember, since you brought up Rice I have a question about his falloff- and not the final one in which his vision loss was well documented. He was great, but after his prime years age 24-26 ending in 1979, save for his '83 season he had an early falloff. Granted he had solid years, but was not the same hitter that Hank Aaron once said is the most likely to eclipse him. Did he have some sort of injury with lingering effect?.. what happened.? I've always wondered I remember having an elbow injury around this time as well.
|
|
|