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.
2015 Non-Sox thread
|
Post by ramireja on Nov 18, 2015 14:36:49 GMT -5
Is Betancourt basically Wendel Rijo? If so, I'd much prefer that deal to the Kimbrel one. I wouldn't want a recycled K-Rod as my closer option. He's seen his best days. Would you settle for K-Rod as your setup option and Uehara as closer? I'd prefer this deal too.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 18, 2015 15:07:26 GMT -5
Makes sense considering that Brantley is out for the year and Gardner has been mentioned as being available. I thought Brantley was only going to miss the first 2 months at most???
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Nov 18, 2015 15:21:01 GMT -5
The Tigers got a steal in K-Rod. His 2015 numbers were strikingly similar to Kimbrel's. To go with his 38 saves, K-Rod held batters to a .189 clip last year. Plus, the guy is going to be paid only $7.5 million in 2016 with a club option for $6 million in 2017 (with $2 million of that deferred). Now our deal for Kimbrel looks all the more like a ridiculous overpay.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 18, 2015 15:24:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure why we weren't in on K-Rod even after we got Kimbrel, and yes I would have much rather gotten K-Rod instead of Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by lithuaniansoxfan on Nov 18, 2015 16:42:21 GMT -5
The Tigers got a steal in K-Rod. His 2015 numbers were strikingly similar to Kimbrel's. To go with his 38 saves, K-Rod held batters to a .189 clip last year. Plus, the guy is going to be paid only $7.5 million in 2016 with a club option for $6 million in 2017 (with $2 million of that deferred). Now our deal for Kimbrel looks all the more like a ridiculous overpay. Agreed. This is the context for the trading market that shows we still made a massive overpay, and it's not that we were just at the front of a new paradigm. I don't like to say 'ridiculous', because it feels antagonistic to me, but it is relatively accurate. This assessment can be accurate at the same time as it is accurate that we are a better team at this exact moment than we were before Kimbrel was added to the roster. I hope he's great, and leads us to the promised land again. Paying too much for something and having it be great is wonderful, but a) it damn well better be, and b) if it isn't, you don't always have the resources to buy something else mid-range, because you've already blown your wad. This is true for cars, houses and baseball players.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 18, 2015 16:49:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't want a recycled K-Rod as my closer option. He's seen his best days. Would you settle for K-Rod as your setup option and Uehara as closer? I'd prefer this deal too. I'm not too crazy about K-Rod. The guy gives up a lot of HR/9 and is in his mid 30s. Even if he's the setup man, as highly as I regard Uehara, he's somebody the Sox need to baby because of his age. K-Rod and Uehara could work but there's potential for implosion, there with those two older arms. The Sox want the certainty that 27 year old Kimbrel gives them. I know I think differently on this, but I don't think the closers are quite as interchangeable as they are made out to be from an aesthetics viewpoint. This is hard to explain and I know the answer is WHO GIVES A CRAP - THE BOTTOM LINE IS ALL THAT MATTERS!! But I HATE watching games where even if the closer has a 3 run lead I have to squirm because he falls behind on the count, or gets on trouble, and has to weave his way in and out of trouble. This is why I loved 2013 Koji so much. He would throw strike 1 followed by strike 2 followed usually by strike 3. He had clean innings with so very little trouble. I never worried much watching him protect even a 1 run lead. That's how good he was, and that's how good I think Kimbrel can be (judging by his BR/9 numbers and his K numbers I believe he will be). And if Koji can be managed properly, perhaps he can pitch be that relief ace who comes in to quash a threat in the 7th or setup in the 8th. So in essence, the Sox get 2 relief aces. I don't like watching heart attack closers who even if they get the job done, they drive you nuts watching them pitch. And in 35 years of watching the Sox, I've seen my share of heart attack closers and appreciate a good one that doesn't beat himself, can be relied on to pitch a clean inning quite often, and can get a key strikeout if he does get in trouble. I can't stand watching closers go 3-2 on every batter. That drives me absolutely crazy. Makes me want to leave the room or change the channel or go to the bathroom. In 2013, when Koji pitched, I knew if I went to the bathroom for two minutes when he came into pitch, I'd miss David Ortiz carrying him like a sack of X-Mas presents. Besides it was fun watching big strong hitters flail helplessly at 89 MPH fastball and disappearing split finger fastballs. Again, it doesn't alter the result if a closer comes in with a 3 run lead, gives up 2 runs and leaves the tying and winning runs on base - I acknowledge that, but I can't stand the 9th inning to become an adventure. It's bad enough during the regular season and can be demoralizing, but it's even worse during the post-season when you can't afford to lose a game you should have won.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 18, 2015 17:03:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure why we weren't in on K-Rod even after we got Kimbrel, and yes I would have much rather gotten K-Rod instead of Kimbrel. Anyone else? Are we shooting for a $60 million bullpen?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 18, 2015 17:22:27 GMT -5
www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/11/18/9757928/indians-rumors-dodgers-blue-jays-yankeesSo anyone who didn't get the "opportunity cost" argument about the Kimbrel trade, here it is. With Carassco or Salazar being on the table, JBJ could be a piece in this deal, but some of the other potential sweeteners were just dealt (as was one of his supposed heirs). If Dombrowski wants in on this - and if Morosi is right about the pitcher's names involved, he'd better be in on it - it will now hurt the org much more.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 18, 2015 18:03:26 GMT -5
The Tigers got a steal in K-Rod. His 2015 numbers were strikingly similar to Kimbrel's. To go with his 38 saves, K-Rod held batters to a .189 clip last year. Plus, the guy is going to be paid only $7.5 million in 2016 with a club option for $6 million in 2017 (with $2 million of that deferred). Now our deal for Kimbrel looks all the more like a ridiculous overpay. Yeah, one of the things that bothers me the most is when a trade pays a big premium for "elite" over "really good." K-Rod was really good last year, and he went for pennies on the dollar when compared to Kimbrel. I had almost resigned myself to that trade and now I'm annoyed all over again.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 18, 2015 18:33:42 GMT -5
Is Betancourt basically Wendel Rijo? If so, I'd much prefer that deal to the Kimbrel one. I agree, seems like a small price to pay for a solid end of the pen option. I think the idea that Betancourt = Rijo should be put away. Rijo's defense, according to sox prospects: "Field: Inconsistent in the field, but average potential. Hands aren’t great and choppy footwork. Prone to lazy mechanics and will tend to field balls off to the side that he has time to field in front. Coaches consistently get on him for poor fundamentals in the field." Betancourt "Defense: Betancourt is an above-average defender who makes routine plays with ease. He has great reactions off the bat, a quick first step and impressive instincts that allow him to make the occasional spectacular play. Betancourt has soft hands and smooth transfers from glove to hand. The defense isn't flashy or loud by any means, but it's polished. Betancourt always seems to be in the right place at the right time. He's undoubtedly an asset, defensively. Grade: Present 55 / Future 60" www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2015/05/18/scouting-report-javier-betancourt/27532769/"...this is a player who needs to provide value with the glove. Fortunately, he does just that. He has plus range and he uses his footwork to make the most of his average throwing arm. He’ll never hit anywhere but the bottom of the order, but Betancourt has a chance to start at the keystone one day, and the defense is good enough to make him better than replacement." www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27899
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 18, 2015 18:35:26 GMT -5
Closer to Marrero, then, which doesn't really change the point.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Nov 18, 2015 18:58:05 GMT -5
Yeah, the comp was more about value than exact skills. Rijo appears to have the better bat while Betancourt has the superior glove.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 18, 2015 19:08:57 GMT -5
www.mlbdailydish.com/2015 /11/18/9757928/indians-rumors-dodgers-blue-jays-yankees So anyone who didn't get the "opportunity cost" argument about the Kimbrel trade, here it is. With Carassco or Salazar being on the table, JBJ could be a piece in this deal, but some of the other potential sweeteners were just dealt (as was one of his supposed heirs). If Dombrowski wants in on this - and if Morosi is right about the pitcher's names involved, he'd better be in on it - it will now hurt the org much more. Sorry. I don't think that this is a good reference for opportunity cost. DD has clearly stated that he planned to address starting pitching through the FA market. If we are going to extrapolate all opportunity costs, vis-a-vis that trade, to other positions (particuarly chronological events post trade) that is a broad use of the theory, and kind of unknowable. Put another way...the opportunity cost of not making that trade was having a bullpen that resembled 2015. I think it should be used in context of bullpen construction only.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Nov 18, 2015 19:43:37 GMT -5
www.mlbdailydish.com/2015 /11/18/9757928/indians-rumors-dodgers-blue-jays-yankees So anyone who didn't get the "opportunity cost" argument about the Kimbrel trade, here it is. With Carassco or Salazar being on the table, JBJ could be a piece in this deal, but some of the other potential sweeteners were just dealt (as was one of his supposed heirs). If Dombrowski wants in on this - and if Morosi is right about the pitcher's names involved, he'd better be in on it - it will now hurt the org much more. Sorry. I don't think that this is a good reference for opportunity cost. DD has clearly stated that he planned to address starting pitching through the FA market. If we are going to extrapolate all opportunity costs, vis-a-vis that trade, to other positions (particuarly chronological events post trade) that is a broad use of the theory, and kind of unknowable. Put another way...the opportunity cost of not making that trade was having a bullpen that resembled 2015. I think it should be used in context of bullpen construction only. I suggest you look up the definition of opportunity cost, because it doesn't mean what you think it does.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 18, 2015 19:57:37 GMT -5
I suggest you look up the definition of opportunity cost, because it doesn't mean what you think it does. I have looked it up and studied it. It most assuredley is applicable in my interpretation. If you don't get my meaning, that's on you.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 18, 2015 22:14:16 GMT -5
... Sorry. I don't think that this is a good reference for opportunity cost. Judge for yourself whether his take is correct. From Wikipedia:
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 18, 2015 22:44:09 GMT -5
... Sorry. I don't think that this is a good reference for opportunity cost. Judge for yourself whether his take is correct. From Wikipedia: Exactly. There is a reason it is a theory. I can make the argument that not signing Kimbrall would have carried a risk of not improving the bullpen and therefore would be the opportunity cost of that decision. People are trying to assign a numerical value to the assets we gave up...that is fine....but that is different than the theory of opportunity cost. I can assure you there are no business ledger accounts that have opportunity costs delineated on them.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 18, 2015 23:11:14 GMT -5
You'll admit that his particular take, the lost opportunity to bid on a starting pitcher using those "limited resources"- which some on the board believe is the best alternative forgone - is correct, right? It fits very comfortably in that definition and so it isn't, to my mind, a bad reference at all but a very good one.
We can also discuss how much opportunity was really lost by possibly waiting out other alternatives for relief pitching, what the difference in value would be given the trade chips that were sent off... but that discussion would rehash much of what's on this thread already so I digress.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 18, 2015 23:19:38 GMT -5
Sorry, but that's just not true. The rate of return of every investment fund is benchmarked against the S&P500. Just about every interest rate in the world is benchmarked against LIBOR or the fed. Opportunity cost is one of the dozen or so most fundamental ideas in economics, and it is not something you can dismiss because the Wikipedia definition of it includes the word "theory."
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 18, 2015 23:41:46 GMT -5
Sorry, but that's just not true. The rate of return of every investment fund is benchmarked against the S&P500. Just about every interest rate in the world is benchmarked against LIBOR or the fed. Opportunity cost is one of the dozen or so most fundamental ideas in economics, and it is not something you can dismiss because the Wikipedia definition of it includes the word "theory." Then I would like you to provide the formula for figuring it out.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Nov 18, 2015 23:55:34 GMT -5
Inconceivable!!!
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Nov 19, 2015 9:36:20 GMT -5
In this case, aren't we discussing the perceived value of the best foregone alternative?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 19, 2015 9:51:43 GMT -5
Yeah, the comp was more about value than exact skills. Rijo appears to have the better bat while Betancourt has the superior glove. Yeah, this. They're very different players, but the value is about similar. And as jmei said, go with Marrero then if you want to go with a better "skill" comp. Same difference. On MLB.com's list (citing since it's updated, not that those lists are very good - see Cecchini and Coyle still in the Red Sox top 15 there...), Betancourt is ranked 20th in the Brewers system. They've got a pretty decent system at this point, but still, I'd rather have traded any one player in the system outside of the current top 7 for Rodriguez than trade the four guys they traded for Kimbrel, as much as I'd rather have Kimbrel than Rodriguez in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 19, 2015 9:53:28 GMT -5
www.mlbdailydish.com/2015 /11/18/9757928/indians-rumors-dodgers-blue-jays-yankees So anyone who didn't get the "opportunity cost" argument about the Kimbrel trade, here it is. With Carassco or Salazar being on the table, JBJ could be a piece in this deal, but some of the other potential sweeteners were just dealt (as was one of his supposed heirs). If Dombrowski wants in on this - and if Morosi is right about the pitcher's names involved, he'd better be in on it - it will now hurt the org much more. Sorry. I don't think that this is a good reference for opportunity cost. DD has clearly stated that he planned to address starting pitching through the FA market. If we are going to extrapolate all opportunity costs, vis-a-vis that trade, to other positions (particuarly chronological events post trade) that is a broad use of the theory, and kind of unknowable. Put another way...the opportunity cost of not making that trade was having a bullpen that resembled 2015. I think it should be used in context of bullpen construction only. DEFINITION OF 'OPPORTUNITY COST' 1. The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action. So, as I was using this, the alternative would be to buy a closer and use the prospect assets in the Kimbrel deal toward a starter. I believe that works within the framework of the definition as the assets were present and not solely restricted to pursuit of a reliever. ADDED: It was a while ago, but I did steal a minor in economics, so in the abstract I do understand that that is a phrase from economics and goes back to the old "If you have five dollars and you go to a market..." case study that they do in 101. Also, I was almost never drunk in my econ classes. Almost.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 19, 2015 18:30:31 GMT -5
who the hell gave Trevor Rosenthal a 6th place vote for MVP?!?!?!?
|
|
|