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.
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 4, 2013 20:26:20 GMT -5
Can someone please explain why the Dodgers included Webster in the Punto trade? This seems like it should be a different thread altogether. But to sum it up: The Dodgers made the Punto trade because it was a smart move which improved their team. The only reason why members of this forum may believe differently is because: a. We are Red Sox fans b. This is a prospect forum and we often overvalue prospects c. We have place the Red Sox (and most MLB teams) valuation of salary on this trade when the Dodger value of performance per dollar is significantly different d. The short term (as well as social) gain for the Dodgers was significant When it comes down to it: Short term (remember they were going for the playoffs at the time): Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Becket and Nick Punto were far better than the player the Red Sox received. Long term: with maybe a 50% chance (at the time) that Webster became a front-line starter and a likely-hood that RDLR was destined for the bullpen; the talent of Becket (former ace turned averagish MLB starter), Gonzalez (elite 1B who's power was a bit down on the year) and Carl Crawford (elite OF who was a bad fit and was coming off of injuries - but had no evidence of being injury prone) far out weighted what the Dodgers were giving up. This was a good move for the Dodgers as there was no other way the could gain this much talent this quickly. The end result: good trade for both sides. 15 years from now Webster and RDLR may be staring at the hall of fame OR they may have fizzled out with little accomplishment, but this doesn't change the fact that this was a smart move for both teams at the time. The Red Sox were just lucky that there was a team like the Dodgers around when they needed to remodel their ball club.
|
|
|
Post by 11mikem on May 4, 2013 21:27:26 GMT -5
You forgot the most important thing: The Sox cared much less about getting players or prospects than getting rid of a half billion dollars in salary obligations that would hamstring them for the foreseeable future. Getting LA to pick up those salaries in effect gave the Sox a "do over" on the poor contract obligations they had taken on. Any players received in return were just gravy. The fact that Rubby and Webster have high upsides is simply a remarkable bonus.
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on May 4, 2013 21:47:39 GMT -5
I am going to have to go ahead and say "no" to the idea that the trade was win for both sides.
To say Gonzalez's power was a bit down is an understatement. His power was gone and while he was still hitting, it was far from what he was being paid.
Crawford was hurt yes. However he was an athletic player with speed skills that disminish over time. The Red Sox paid big over the length of his deal to get those skills upfront in the beginning of the deal. Being hurt the first two years if his deal make his contract horrible. Now the dodgers are stuck with the bad years of the deal.
Beckett is a diminished ace, who is now an average pitcher.
Bad deal for the Dodgers
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on May 4, 2013 21:53:20 GMT -5
You forgot the most important thing: The Sox cared much less about getting players or prospects than getting rid of a half billion dollars in salary obligations that would hamstring them for the foreseeable future. Getting LA to pick up those salaries in effect gave the Sox a "do over" on the poor contract obligations they had taken on. Any players received in return were just gravy. The fact that Rubby and Webster have high upsides is simply a remarkable bonus. You don't know that though. That's speculation. Crawford looked bad, but a .785 OPS when he was healthy enough to play last year. The contract was scary and I wasn't sad to see him go,but he was a year removed from being a 7 win player. Adrian hadn't put up the gaudy power numbers we expected, but again, was a year removed from being a 7 win player with a Gold Glove. They weren't dumping scrubs. Except for Beckett, who is cooked. But at the time he was. . . wait for it. . . a year removed from being a 6 win player. Fact is the Red Sox cashed in those chips at their lowest value, but those chips had value. This wasn't Gilbert Arenas they were trading.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on May 5, 2013 0:17:02 GMT -5
I sort of agree with you three, except one key point. I'm not sure either of those guys were going to be any better in Boston.
I always thought CC would have his normal .290/.360 seasons (I assume he'll settle down to that eventually), but it probably wasn't going to happen with the pressure/atmosphere in Boston. I'd like to say that stuff is overblown, but it sure seems like a lot of guys put it on themselves to show they deserve that money in Boston, and avoid the fan overreaction that flows with the smallest slump. Crawford made it pretty clear no one took it harder than he did when he failed, and it's the opposite kind of guy like Manny who really succeeds in Boston. Crawford may have had lots of value to any other team, but the Red Sox were hamstrung because it may not have happened there.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on May 5, 2013 1:58:17 GMT -5
Can someone please explain why the Dodgers included Webster in the Punto trade? This seems like it should be a different thread altogether. But to sum it up: The Dodgers made the Punto trade because it was a smart move which improved their team. The only reason why members of this forum may believe differently is because: a. We are Red Sox fans b. This is a prospect forum and we often overvalue prospects c. We have place the Red Sox (and most MLB teams) valuation of salary on this trade when the Dodger value of performance per dollar is significantly different d. The short term (as well as social) gain for the Dodgers was significant . I am not disagreeing with the thought that the trade improved the Dodgers, but at the end of the day they took on over 250 million dollars in contractual obligations for three guys who will likely not be worth 70% of the money owed to them. And to top it off they gave up a guy who looks like (and at the time looked like) a mid rotation starter plus Rubby De La Rosa, who though has a huge range of possible outcomes is more than an intriguing arm. I understand why they gave up some value in return, but this trade can not look like anything else than a gross over-valuation of the players they recieved. I want to sate plainly that I think both Crawford and Gonzalez are excellent players, but they are being paid at FA market value, and both are the wrong side of thirty. Both are under contract through their age 36 seasons and both will be paid handsomely for their declines.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 5, 2013 4:14:01 GMT -5
I am not disagreeing with the thought that the trade improved the Dodgers, but at the end of the day they took on over 250 million dollars in contractual obligations for three guys who will likely not be worth 70% of the money owed to them. And to top it off they gave up a guy who looks like (and at the time looked like) a mid rotation starter plus Rubby De La Rosa, who though has a huge range of possible outcomes is more than an intriguing arm. I understand why they gave up some value in return, but this trade can not look like anything else than a gross over-valuation of the players they recieved. I want to sate plainly that I think both Crawford and Gonzalez are excellent players, but they are being paid at FA market value, and both are the wrong side of thirty. Both are under contract through their age 36 seasons and both will be paid handsomely for their declines. I think we all agree on most of these points - but try looking at the Dodgers other options. This is a potential scenario if they don't make the trade: - the new ownership group doesn't push for the postseason (granted they didn't make it - but at the time the trades seemed to put then in a strong position) - this past offseason they spend their cash on big contracts for Adam Laroche, Josh Hamilton and....Ryan Dempster/Dan Haren/Edwin Jackson. So they don't get their playoff push and they end up with a bunch of guys who's talent and contracts seem to be slightly worse (although this is a matter of opinion). You may be right that the ex-sox players end up being worth only 70% of their contracts on a $5.5 mil/war basis (or whatever number you are using) but these are fictional numbers just like a fictional replacement level player. The Dodgers knew what was going to be available in the 2012/2013 free agent class and they didn't like what they saw. From their perspective, 70% was better than sitting on the cash, losing more games and alienating their fan base - probably a good call after their monstrous investment. I love the trade from the Red Sox perspective, but the biggest mistake made by the Dodgers new ownership was the Ethier extension (they could have gotten a REAL CF in Bourn and had cash leftover for another infielder). That's a 70% contract to resign a player who doesn't really fit their team. Let's just hope that 10 years from now Webster and RDLR are so good that this trade really does look as lopsided as some suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 5, 2013 12:45:00 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. Crawford appears to have regained his form, though he has been in and out of the lineup with a hamstring injury. I think that will be the issue going forward, his health and ability to stay on the field, but I'm glad he's doing well. I've always liked the guy. Gonzalez is hitting, though his days as a 40, or even a 30 home run guy may be gone, as others have said. Both bring value to the LA lineup and as wc says, there was a lot in it for the Dodgers with Gonzalez adding real dollar value with his drawing power. He's a native of SoCal and highly respected as a person and as a ballplayer.
Beckett who was someone the Dodgers really wanted, has, on the other hand, started off very slowly. He's also got the shortest length of contract and I don't believe he'll get near what he's making now in his next one, though I could be wrong. So there's less risk, though there will be much less value this year and next I think. His stuff is pedestrian at this point.
But to bring it back to Webster, I think it was a heist to pry him loose, let alone De La Rosa. There were other pieces - Loney, De Jesus, Sands all of whom had their uses, either being flipped as part of deals, holding down the fort in the case of Loney, or in the case of Holt building a career as a utility player. But this, this is a major league ready pitcher who's on the verge or putting every last bit of it together. Can we all agree that starting pitching, let alone someone with the potential to be a top-flight starting pitcher, that that's the hardest commodity to come by in MLB? If he gets anywhere near #2 or #3 status, let along moving to the top of the rotation, that's gold.
Look at who's sitting atop what is acknowledged to be one of the strongest collections of minor league pitching talent the Sox have had in years. The latest link under his name? " Matt Huegel - Webster displays nasty changeup in strong start ". Opponents at AAA don't have this guy figured out. I'm eager to see if ML teams have much better luck.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on May 5, 2013 19:53:42 GMT -5
The Punto deal, from the Dodgers' perspective, was about the new Fox television rights contract...big names coming to LA, showing that ownership was "all in" last season and going forward, etc.
The fact that this was a huge blessing for the Red Sox was not particularly important to the Didgers. The Dodgers likely assumed that they could buy future free agent pitching with the Monopoly money from the Fox contract and could live without having Webster and Rubby relatively cheaply for the next 5-6 seasons.
It was a good deal for the Dodgers (who had a different formula for calculating the benefits and cost than the Red Sox) and a really, really good deal for the Red Sox.
The amazement expressed by some that the Dodgers would create so much benefit for the Red Sox is understandable, but does it make any difference? Both teams thought at the time and still think that it was a winner for them. Isn't that the best kind of trade?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on May 6, 2013 8:28:03 GMT -5
I am not disagreeing with the thought that the trade improved the Dodgers, but at the end of the day they took on over 250 million dollars in contractual obligations for three guys who will likely not be worth 70% of the money owed to them. And to top it off they gave up a guy who looks like (and at the time looked like) a mid rotation starter plus Rubby De La Rosa, who though has a huge range of possible outcomes is more than an intriguing arm. I understand why they gave up some value in return, but this trade can not look like anything else than a gross over-valuation of the players they recieved. I want to sate plainly that I think both Crawford and Gonzalez are excellent players, but they are being paid at FA market value, and both are the wrong side of thirty. Both are under contract through their age 36 seasons and both will be paid handsomely for their declines. And their new TV deal with Fox gives them ~280M each year. So, they took on less than one year's TV income over 5+ years timeframe. The Dodgers are not the Red Sox or the Yankees: they are a financial juggernaut that we not seen the likes of yet. 250M is NOTHING to them.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 6, 2013 8:33:36 GMT -5
]And their new TV deal with Fox gives them ~280M each year. So, they took on less than one year's TV income over 5+ years timeframe. The Dodgers are not the Red Sox or the Yankees: they are a financial juggernaut that we not seen the likes of yet. 250M is NOTHING to them. Exactly. The money savings mattered to the Red Sox, but not the Dodgers. For the Dodgers, all that matters is whether on-field performance validates the trade. It's not hard to imagine Gonzalez and Crawford being more valuable over the next half dozen years than Webster and De La Rosa, as much as I like both of them. The fact that it was a good trade for the Red Sox doesn't make it a bad one for LA.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on May 6, 2013 9:56:58 GMT -5
]And their new TV deal with Fox gives them ~280M each year. So, they took on less than one year's TV income over 5+ years timeframe. The Dodgers are not the Red Sox or the Yankees: they are a financial juggernaut that we not seen the likes of yet. 250M is NOTHING to them. Exactly. The money savings mattered to the Red Sox, but not the Dodgers. For the Dodgers, all that matters is whether on-field performance validates the trade. It's not hard to imagine Gonzalez and Crawford being more valuable over the next half dozen years than Webster and De La Rosa, as much as I like both of them. The fact that it was a good trade for the Red Sox doesn't make it a bad one for LA. Except that unlike the Yankees and Red Sox, the Dodger's TV income is fixed and not tied to on the field performance (unless I missed something in that TV deal). Accordingly, it made sense to spend money before the deal was completed and makes less sense to spend after the deal was signed.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 6, 2013 10:14:57 GMT -5
Right. $240-280mm (if that is the accurate figure) is a lot of money today, but we don't know the structure of the deal other than it is a purported 25 years (and $6-7bn). I'd guess that it is $125mm or so in year 1 with a 5% increase every year, or there abouts, but I've no idea. That gets to about $6bn over 25 years.
POOMA #s: Assuming $3.35 (see WSJ) per NESN subscriber per month, the Sox get about $165mm in NESN revenue without selling ads.
I think the Dodger's $ is a bit oversold, personally.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 6, 2013 10:37:13 GMT -5
Right. $240-280mm (if that is the accurate figure) is a lot of money today, but we don't know the structure of the deal other than it is a purported 25 years (and $6-7bn). I'd guess that it is $125mm or so in year 1 with a 5% increase every year, or there abouts, but I've no idea. That gets to about $6bn over 25 years. POOMA #s: Assuming $3.35 (see WSJ) per NESN subscriber per month, the Sox get about $165mm in NESN revenue without selling ads. I think the Dodger's $ is a bit oversold, personally. $165 million per year? And they do get ad money also right?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 6, 2013 11:01:15 GMT -5
I mean, let's not pretend that winning championships doesn't earn a team money either. With the CBT, the strategies to use are to either get under it every now and again and creep up over it every now and then, or just completely ignore it and spend like mad. Dodgers are apparently going with the latter. Not working at the moment, but it doesn't help that they've got 4 major league starting pitchers on the DL plus Fife who'd be their AAA taxi squad guy. Oh, and Hanley now.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 6, 2013 11:17:40 GMT -5
This is a different business model, no doubt about it, the Yankee's on steroids - excuse the expression, or don't! It's also a model for future contracts. It will be interesting to see how the tension between all that money, and the CBA spending restrictions plays out. That interests me as it pertains to minor league talent and a team's willingness to trade off young guys like Webster for immediate gain. Hard to know how to discount the future, given the cap with its penalties, or how likely teams are to retain established players given that they will have more cash on hand. I have a feeling that there may not be as much pitching talent on the market going forward. But that's just a guess.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 6, 2013 11:50:28 GMT -5
. POOMA #s: Assuming $3.35 (see WSJ) per NESN subscriber per month, the Sox get about $165mm in NESN revenue without selling ads. I think the Dodger's $ is a bit oversold, personally. $165 million per year? And they do get ad money also right? thats my best guess. They get $3.35 per NESN subscriber, per month, and there are 4.1mm subscribers. The Sox are taking in risk as they can make more if the subscription base expands, or if the per sub price goes up. Obviously the same on the downside. The Dogers are essentially betting they can't do better than the Sox, with their downside covered.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on May 6, 2013 11:57:45 GMT -5
"or in the case of Holt building a career as a utility player"
I think you are confusing your trades...
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 6, 2013 12:15:00 GMT -5
"or in the case of Holt building a career as a utility player" I think you are confusing your trades... It's convoluted, as many trades are, but Holt came over for parts of the Dodgers trade, and with Hanrahan. This is taken from baseball reference: Looking at the previous post, I could have been clearer. Sands and De Jesus were flipped and my post makes it sound like Holt was part of that.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 6, 2013 13:21:24 GMT -5
thats my best guess. They get $3.35 per NESN subscriber, per month, and there are 4.1mm subscribers. The Sox are taking in risk as they can make more if the subscription base expands, or if the per sub price goes up. Obviously the same on the downside. The Dogers are essentially betting they can't do better than the Sox, with their downside covered. That's how much the Sox make from NESN's income, or how much NESN (which Fenway Sports Group largely owns) brings in? I didn't see the article those numbers came from ... I've wondered how FSG accounts for NESN numbers before and never seen it anywhere. NESN says it's owned by "the Boston Red Sox" and "the Boston Bruins," but they're actually owned by FSG and Delaware North, afaik.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on May 6, 2013 13:57:30 GMT -5
"Looking at the previous post, I could have been clearer. Sands and De Jesus were flipped and my post makes it sound like Holt was part of that."
I was wondering if that's what you meant. But obviously the biggest part of that trade was giving up the 2013 Eastern League Pitcher of the Year, ha.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on May 6, 2013 15:59:04 GMT -5
I can't wait until Webster's next start, when hopefully this thread won't be a discussion of NESN's finances.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 6, 2013 18:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 7, 2013 16:55:03 GMT -5
And his next start is tomorrow night for the Sox, in place of Doubront.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on May 7, 2013 17:28:16 GMT -5
And his next start is tomorrow night for the Sox, in place of Doubront. I understand what Farrell and Cherington are saying.......this is just for one start and Doubront will be back in the rotation for his regular turn next week. BUT, it is also a message to Felix that you better get your shit together or we have a real good replacement in Allen Webster. This really could be a prelude to Webster actually be in the rotation within the next month. They will give Doubront several more turns, but he has to become consistent (in a good way).
|
|
|