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.
Anthony Ranaudo traded to TEX for Robbie Ross Jr
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 17:53:05 GMT -5
McGee, a reliever and a good one at that, throws one pitch. One. He said starter. But there are a fair amount of SPs that ony throw 2 pitches. Masterson I believe is considered to pretty much be a two pitch guy. I know, but Mcgee is just so bizarre I thought I'd mention him.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2015 18:05:28 GMT -5
We can quibble about 90 wins, but do you really think this team isn't good enough to care about the quality of it's bullpen or backup catcher? If they care about their bullpen this much BC should convert Masterson and Kelly, then grab some real starters. I keed, I keed (we both know Masterson can't retire lefties). Ok so that doesn't answer my question.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 18:17:01 GMT -5
I think the team's starters should be the priority. Fix that then trade for relievers, backup catchers, and waterboys.
Edit: Would someone create a poll, asking if Bucky, Porcello, Miley, Kelly and Masterson are good enough, that BC has done a good job assembling this staff? It would be nice if names were associated with the respective posters choice, too.
I think this staff is deplorable. Feel free to tag me.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2015 18:25:02 GMT -5
McGee, a reliever and a good one at that, throws one pitch. One. He said starter. But there are a fair amount of SPs that ony throw 2 pitches. Masterson I believe is considered to pretty much be a two pitch guy. Do any of those starters work off a fastball that lacks plus movement, command, or velo? For that matter, do any of them struggle to get whiffs with their secondary pitch? And for all the talk about him being gassed at the major league level, he really wasn't impressive in AAA last year either. Yes, the ERA was strong, but that's about the only thing. His K/BB was just over 2. A K/BB of 2 is pretty much the cutoff point for being a useful pitcher in the major leagues, and if that's what you're doing in AAA in your age 24 season, you probably don't have much of a career in front of you.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 28, 2015 18:27:22 GMT -5
If I can piggyback on what James and Moonstone have said, I don't think anyone is saying that those 40 innings suddenly proved something new. Speaking for myself at least, they're noteworthy because Ranaudo had exactly the kind of problems that those who had scouted him said he'd have.
I don't think anyone is saying he is terrible. He's useful. But he's useful in a way that is really redundant in this organization.
By the way, we all realize that Ross is only about 2.5 months older than Ranaudo, right? I see people talking about Ranaudo like he still has all this development he could do but then Ross seems like some aged journeyman.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2015 18:30:06 GMT -5
I think the team's starters should be the priority. Fix that then trade for relievers, backup catchers, and waterboys.Edit: Would someone create a poll, asking if Bucky, Porcello, Miley, Kelly and Masterson are good enough, that BC has done a good job assembling this staff? It would be nice if names were associated with the respective posters choice, too. I think this staff is deplorable. Feel free to tag me. Wait, it has to happen in order? Like, just shut down the offseason until Rubin Amaro figures out what's up? You could be waiting a long time. Seriously, I don't see what the the state of the team's rotation has to do with this trade, unless, again, you think there's no chance this team is going to contend this year. Which, even if you hate the rotation right now, is a crazy thing to think.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2015 18:33:36 GMT -5
If I can piggyback on what James and Moonstone have said, I don't think anyone is saying that those 40 innings suddenly proved something new. Speaking for myself at least, they're noteworthy because Ranaudo had exactly the kind of problems that those who had scouted him said he'd have. I don't think anyone is saying he is terrible. He's useful. But he's useful in a way that is really redundant in this organization. By the way, we all realize that Ross is only about 2.5 months older than Ranaudo, right? I see people talking about Ranaudo like he still has all this development he could do but then Ross seems like some aged journeyman. It's kind of amazing that anyone is down on a trade where the Red Sox got a player who's essentially the same age AND has more present value than the one they traded away.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 18:35:32 GMT -5
Some others have assumed this offseason is done, so I didn't consider that you (and your question) may be expecting more. Yes, relievers and backup catchers are positions of need, and if BC is plugging them now because of opportunity, knowing his starting staff still needs work, good for him, and I agree.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 18:47:37 GMT -5
If I can piggyback on what James and Moonstone have said, I don't think anyone is saying that those 40 innings suddenly proved something new. Speaking for myself at least, they're noteworthy because Ranaudo had exactly the kind of problems that those who had scouted him said he'd have. I don't think anyone is saying he is terrible. He's useful. But he's useful in a way that is really redundant in this organization. By the way, we all realize that Ross is only about 2.5 months older than Ranaudo, right? I see people talking about Ranaudo like he still has all this development he could do but then Ross seems like some aged journeyman. It's kind of amazing that anyone is down on a trade where the Red Sox got a player who's essentially the same age AND has more present value than the one they traded away. Ignoring the 2 year head start Ross has to free agency, it's more than that. I mean, it's like everyone here has already forgotten BC's prior trades and acquisitions for relievers. Or maybe it's not that you've forgotten about them but that an excellent one fell into his lap, covering his ***. Simply said, I don't like BC trading assets for relievers. If that asset looks like pure poo? sure, but Ranaudo was not that, regardless of his 40 IP statement last year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 28, 2015 19:03:27 GMT -5
It's kind of amazing that anyone is down on a trade where the Red Sox got a player who's essentially the same age AND has more present value than the one they traded away. Ignoring the 2 year head start Ross has to free agency, it's more than that. I mean, it's like everyone here has already forgotten BC's prior trades and acquisitions for relievers. Or maybe it's not that you've forgotten about them but that an excellent one fell into his lap, covering his ass. Simply said, I don't like BC trading assets for relievers. If that asset looks like pure poo? sure, but Ranaudo was not that, regardless of his 40 IP statement last year.This is a pretty textbook strawman. You keep saying that we shouldn't judge Ranaudo based on that, but nobody is. In fact, there have been four posts in the last two hours saying explicitly that his major league performance wasn't a consideration in why they thought it was a good trade. If Ross is better than Ranaudo, then the trade is, at the very least, defensible. You keep throwing out vagaries like "assets" in general but you're now ignoring two pages of arguments why Ross is a better player and a better fit. And it's ok to disagree, but you need to disagree in the concrete. "I think Ranaudo is better than Ross, so I don't like the trade" is cool. "The Red Sox traded a starter for a reliever, they shouldn't judge him on 40 innings" has been pretty severely beaten into the ground.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2015 19:06:27 GMT -5
I could really not care less about the team control on either of these guys; relievers have notoriously short shelf lives and Ranaudo may never make it to arbitration much less free agency.
As far as BC's other trades for relievers, I find it telling that you keep having to talk about things other than this trade in order to criticize this trade.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 28, 2015 19:12:37 GMT -5
I could really not care less about the team control on either of these guys; relievers have notoriously short shelf lives This. In the case of relievers the motto should be to "use 'em and abuse 'em". Really; in the case of all pitchers this should be the case. You get 6 years at most with the majority.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jan 28, 2015 19:12:38 GMT -5
Thanks. I think that short list just goes to show you better have amazing stuff if you are going to only have two pitches. I'm hardly an expert but in my few viewings of Anthony Ranaudo, he doesn't have amazing stuff.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 19:13:05 GMT -5
Ignoring the 2 year head start Ross has to free agency, it's more than that. I mean, it's like everyone here has already forgotten BC's prior trades and acquisitions for relievers. Or maybe it's not that you've forgotten about them but that an excellent one fell into his lap, covering his ass. Simply said, I don't like BC trading assets for relievers. If that asset looks like pure poo? sure, but Ranaudo was not that, regardless of his 40 IP statement last year.This is a pretty textbook strawman. You keep saying that we shouldn't judge Ranaudo based on that, but nobody is. In fact, there have been four posts in the last two hours saying explicitly that his major league performance wasn't a consideration in why they thought it was a good trade. If Ross is better than Ranaudo, then the trade is, at the very least, defensible. You keep throwing out vagaries like "assets" in general but you're now ignoring two pages of arguments why Ross is a better player and a better fit. And it's ok to disagree, but you need to disagree in the concrete. "I think Ranaudo is better than Ross, so I don't like the trade" is cool. "The Red Sox traded a starter for a reliever, they shouldn't judge him on 40 innings" has been pretty severely beaten into the ground. Data suggests that if you toss Ranaudo into Ross' realm, the bullpen, he could be better. I also don't like trading young starters for relievers, and especially Ben doing so.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 28, 2015 19:19:56 GMT -5
This is a pretty textbook strawman. You keep saying that we shouldn't judge Ranaudo based on that, but nobody is. In fact, there have been four posts in the last two hours saying explicitly that his major league performance wasn't a consideration in why they thought it was a good trade. If Ross is better than Ranaudo, then the trade is, at the very least, defensible. You keep throwing out vagaries like "assets" in general but you're now ignoring two pages of arguments why Ross is a better player and a better fit. And it's ok to disagree, but you need to disagree in the concrete. "I think Ranaudo is better than Ross, so I don't like the trade" is cool. "The Red Sox traded a starter for a reliever, they shouldn't judge him on 40 innings" has been pretty severely beaten into the ground. Data suggests that if you toss Ranaudo into Ross' realm, the bullpen, he could be better. I also don't like trading young starters for relievers, and especially Ben doing so. Ross has had more starts than Ranaudo and has been better than him, although still lousy.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2015 19:22:37 GMT -5
I've also heard nothing encouraging from scouts regarding Ranaudo's prospects in the bullpen.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 19:41:29 GMT -5
Data suggests that if you toss Ranaudo into Ross' realm, the bullpen, he could be better. I also don't like trading young starters for relievers, and especially Ben doing so. Ross has had more starts than Ranaudo and has been better than him, although still lousy. James says my referencing Ranaudo's 40 IP is a strawman, yet yours is another referencing it. How can it be a strawman if pretty much everyone here is, at the very least implying, 40 IP, sucked, pitcher sucks.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 28, 2015 19:41:57 GMT -5
He wasn't great, but he wasn't horrible either, he was just about league average, which when looking at his innings isn't a surprise. Unless Ross is a top notch reliever, we are going to lose this trade. You don't trade starters, even league average ones for relievers. You will lose those trades every time. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am. There is basically no way to argue that Ranaudo was league-average last year. His 4.81 ERA was well-below the league-average SP ERA (3.82), and adjusted for league and park, Ranaudo was 21% worse than the league-average pitcher (read: a 121 ERA-). That difference is even more stark when you look at his peripherals. Amongst pitchers who threw 30 or more innings last year, Ranaudo had the worst league- and park-adjusted FIP, the worst league- and park-adjusted xFIP, and the worst SIERA. There's a pretty strong argument to be made that he was the worst pitcher in the major leagues last year. ADD: I want to make clear that my comments are solely directed at the claim that Ranaudo was a league-average starter last year. He just wasn't. I fully understand the argument that he was at a career-high in innings last year and fatigue had significant effects on his performance, and I am somewhat sympthatic to that argument, and I've previously discussed how I think he might become a fine back-end starter. He might even have the potential to become an average starter, which would make him super valuable (league-average starters don't grow on trees). But in 2014? He was most decided not a league-average starter. Espn has all AL pitchers at 3.82 and starter era at 3.92. Your right, should have said replacement level, was going by his -.01 fWAR. Haven't looked at ERA data in a very long time and I'm shocked at the effect players not using PEDs has had on ERA. In 2004 average starter ERA was 4.63.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 19:45:35 GMT -5
If you subscribe to what Billy Beane thinks, then the trade went down because Ross' present value > Ranaudo's future value. The question then is "what is Ross' present value?" The answer is more a commentary on the weakness of the Red Sox LH relief corps than it is anything at all to do with Anthony Ranaudo. Tommy Layne (relatively unproven), Craig Breslow (fading fast), Drake Britton (uncertain commodity) - Ross may well be better than all three of them. If that's the case, then his value to us is actually quite high. www.wsj.com/articles/billy-beane-finds-new-moneyball-inefficiency-1412037904"I think you're undervaluing the value of the present, particularly in sports," Beane said. "Part of it is because of [our] situation—we've always tried to recognize that the present probably needs to be rated at a higher level here in Oakland than maybe the future."
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 20:02:32 GMT -5
If you subscribe to what Billy Beane thinks, then the trade went down because Ross' present value > Ranaudo's future value. The question then is "what is Ross' present value?" The answer is more a commentary on the weakness of the Red Sox LH relief corps than it is anything at all to do with Anthony Ranaudo. Tommy Layne (relatively unproven), Craig Breslow (fading fast), Drake Britton (uncertain commodity) - Ross may well be better than all three of them. If that's the case, then his value to us is actually quite high. www.wsj.com/articles/billy-beane-finds-new-moneyball-inefficiency-1412037904"I think you're undervaluing the value of the present, particularly in sports," Beane said. "Part of it is because of [our] situation—we've always tried to recognize that the present probably needs to be rated at a higher level here in Oakland than maybe the future." If he is, is the question. If he is, great, but right now he doesn't scream major upgrade at all. Actually, I'm inclined to believe Layne is our LH specialist this year. And given Ben's track record on relievers, I'd actually put a few bucks on that.
|
|
|
Post by runabus on Jan 28, 2015 20:26:13 GMT -5
Long time lurker, first time poster. As a Sox fan living in north Texas I wanted to add a little history on Ross strictly off my recollection from watching the Rangers the last 3 years. In 2012 he was the surprise of spring training. Basically the last guy invited to camp he out-pitched pretty much everyone else on the staff. As the season started he pitched even better, carrying (I think) a sub-1.0 ERA through most of the first half. Now Ron Washington was a great manager in some ways and downright awful in others. Probably his worst trait was the way he would overuse relievers when they were hot. At one point I believe Ross made 13 or 14 appearances during a 14 game road trip. Ross wore down significantly and was less effective in the second half. 2013 was basically a repeat of 2012 – lights out in the first half, overused, much worse in the second. Last year he wanted to start and the Rangers gave him the chance. Coming out of camp he was sent to the minors to continue developing as a starter, but was then rushed to the majors before he was ready when most of the rotation landed on the DL. Things did not go well from there. He is a highly competitive guy and there is a good chance that the Red Sox can get him back on track to be an effective late inning reliever. It’s also possible that the Rangers have completely ruined him, but I hope not.
BTW one other thing you will notice about Ross is his unusual facial expressions on the mound - I’ve never seen anything quite like it. Maybe it distracts an occasional batter, who knows?
As far as the trade it seems pretty even and probably makes sense for both sides. I think both players will have a better opportunity to succeed with their new teams, so it could be a win-win.
One other note from Texas – check out the package that Texas gave up for Yovani Gallardo. Luis Sardinas is 3 years younger than Marrero and already in the majors (granted Sardinas lacks power, but has an excellent glove, plus speed and makes pretty good contact.) The two pitchers the Rangers gave up both have considerable upside. If a similar package – or even a moderately better one – would have landed Cueto or Zimmermann I think it would have been done. My point is that those who think that the Red Sox could get a pitcher of that caliber for some combination of surplus, mid-grade prospects are probably mistaken – at least for now.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 20:44:42 GMT -5
Gallardo is league average, Sardinas is a defensive specialist, and I'm not aware of the young pitching upgrade. I'll presume they're not much, given Gallardo. But Marrero looks much better, Gallardo would be slotted somewhere between Masterson and Kelly, and comparing this entire fiasco to our trading a redundant catcher for one of the top starters in the league is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 28, 2015 20:50:11 GMT -5
Gallardo is league average, Sardinas is a defensive specialist, and I'm not aware of the young pitching upgrade. I'll presume they're not much, given Gallardo. But Marrero looks much better, Gallardo would be slotted somewhere between Masterson and Kelly, and comparing this entire fiasco to our trading a redundant catcher for one of the top starters in the league is ridiculous. Actually post after post after post saying basically the same thing that most people here don't seem to subscribe to is even more ridiculous. Nice post runabus, thanks for the input.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 28, 2015 20:56:46 GMT -5
Oh, than. See you in July.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 28, 2015 21:09:15 GMT -5
I stand corrected, he had a great season his rookie year, and a good one his sophomore. However, what I was I was trying to point out that it seems his calling card is the groundball, that's all people can talk about. Hes not a lefty specialist. He's not a setup guy, he's a guy with average stuff getting outs with groundballs. And you caught something I missed on the BaBIP/GB thing. which is the reason Badenhop gives up his fair share of hits. My concern is there's no sense of stability in any of his statlines that im looking at. The walk rate from last year scares me, as when teams see a pitcher enough times they start to lay off his pitchers pitches and take the walks, also the 7 HBP in 70 IP?. All that could be being in the rotation, but he spent years in the rotation in the minors, about 250 IP to be exact and performed quite while albeit in A ball. My point was I see no consistency between his two good years (IE his GO/AO) and you mentioned velocity, but does that small of an uptick really mean something? I just don't see an upgrade over a guy like Badenhop or an Albers if you want to hit the time machine It's hard to put much stock in a season where he went back and forth between starting and relieving. Especially as a 24/25 year old. I was only pointing out that there are other places to get plain relievers, rather than a potential #3. I don't see much in Ross, it's an opinion
|
|
|