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.
|
Brock Holt
Jul 19, 2015 16:16:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by amfox1 on Jul 19, 2015 16:16:21 GMT -5
Maybe I have my homer glasses on, but I was really hoping we could get a bit more for holt. I gave you my thought, what is yours?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 19, 2015 16:59:32 GMT -5
I would start feeling out the Padres. Holt Bradley an Owens Barnes type for Kimbrell while trying to pry away Ross? Ross who should command a hefty raise in the winter. Complicated trades are less likely to get done, and if Holt is traded at the deadline it will likely be to a contender. SD may conduct a fire sale but BOS is less likely to include Holt in such a trade than trade him. KC, in a deal for Brandon Finnegan and a C prospect, sounds about right. Finnegan can immediately slot into the bullpen and has some rotation upside. Holt will be a min player through 2016 and arb eligible in 2017-19, so there is no rush in trading him, except that his value may never be higher. Finnegan will be a min player through 2017 (one year more than Holt) and is five years younger than Holt. I think that Holt is worth more than Finnegan + a C prospect. If he's a 3 WAR player going forward, then he'll be worth 13.5 WAR until he's a FA. If the C prospect is expected to be worth 2 WAR, Finnegan has to be worth at least 11.5 WAR in his control years for the deal to be worthwhile, ignoring Holt's versatility and the greater value of present wins. That's around 1.9 WAR per year, too much for a reliever. Of course, if the FO thinks Finnegan is a starter then that deal may be ok, but he is being used as a reliever in KC and many people project him to be in the bullpen long-term.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 19, 2015 17:00:50 GMT -5
The problem with trying to think up precedents for a Holt trade is that players in his position (four and a half years of team control left, one pre-arb and three arb) are rarely traded for prospects. But some that come to mind: Dee Gordon, a subsidized Dan Haren and Miguel Rojas for Andrew Heaney, Enrique Hernandez, Austin Barnes and Chris Hatcher (2014) - Gordon was a super-two entering his first arb year. Like Holt, was coming off an All-Star season and was regarded as a sell-high candidate.
- Heaney was ranking BA's preseason 2014 #30 prospect and was coming off a good, but not great season. Hernandez, Hatcher and Barnes are all interesting names (though a subsidized Haren helped balance them out on the other side).
Didi Gregorius (three-way deal, Shane Greene to the Tigers and Robbie Ray/Domingo Leyba to the Diamondbacks) - Gregorious had five years of team control left but had less (though only slightly less) of a track record than Holt.
- The other pieces in the deal don't look great now, but at the time, Greene was coming off a pretty good rookie season and Ray still had some of that Doug Fister trade intrigue.
Jose Iglesias (2013)
- This is comparable if you look at it from the Tigers' POV. They essentially acquired Iglesias for Avisail Garcia and Brayan Villarreal.
- Garcia was ranked as the preseason BA No. 74 prospect and was coming off a pretty great year. Was not ranked the following offseason, but would likely have been top 50 and maybe top 30.
So I'd guess a BA ranked 30-50 player or a promising young player with comparable years of team control seems reasonable to hope for.
ADD: I'll note that Finnegan was ranked BA's 55th best prospect last offseason, so he doesn't seem totally out of line with the above. Of course, I think that ranking assumed he would be a starter long-term, and his value drops a decent chunk if he's a reliever only (not to mention that his performance has been pretty uneven this season).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 19, 2015 17:14:12 GMT -5
I think that Holt is worth more than Finnegan + a C prospect. If he's a 3 WAR player going forward, then he'll be worth 13.5 WAR until he's a FA. If the C prospect is expected to be worth 2 WAR, Finnegan has to be worth at least 11.5 WAR in his control years for the deal to be worthwhile, ignoring Holt's versatility and the greater value of present wins. That's around 1.9 WAR per year, too much for a reliever. Of course, if the FO thinks Finnegan is a starter then that deal may be ok, but he is being used as a reliever in KC and many people project him to be in the bullpen long-term. I'm not sure it's reasonable to project Holt as a three-win player going forward. If you drop that to 2.5 wins and project Finnegan as a starter, the math comes out a lot closer even if you do include a discount rate (i.e., weigh present wins more).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 19, 2015 17:44:31 GMT -5
Of those three mentioned above, only Dee Gordon was as "proven as Holt" and that was with a .346 BABIP for one good season. With that abysmal walk rate, no power and lack of an elite K rate, some bad luck turns him into a terrible hitter.
I'd say Holt is worth way more than any of those three just given that he's been good in 2 seasons instead of just one or a half season. His BABIP is probably unsustainable like Gordon's, but he's done it for two years now making him a likely high BABIP type of hitter. And the walk rate lessens the reliance on BABIP to be a decent hitter. And then the position versatility is not being factored in either.
I don't know why we want to get rid of him to be honest. It's a huge luxury to have an extra bullpen arm when needed, or have a guy that can fill in for 4-5 day injuries without needing a DL stint.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 19, 2015 18:22:50 GMT -5
Gregorious and Iglesias play shortstop and are arguably better defenders there than Holt is at 2B, which offsets at least a significant chunk of Holt's offensive superiority. To date, Holt is a 99 wRC+ hitter in the majors, which is not all that much better than Gregorius' 84 wRC+ or Iglesias' 88 wRC+ at the time they were each traded.
ADD: Is it really, though? How much on-field value does an 8th man in the bullpen or an extra bench player add over the course of a season? Maybe a couple runs, but I'm skeptical that's it's more than half a win, and quite possibly much less than that.
|
|
|
Brock Holt
Jul 19, 2015 18:46:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jdb on Jul 19, 2015 18:46:12 GMT -5
Finnigan seems like a good start but man I'd rather have a different return than a LHP. We could always deal from a strength though and maybe KC gets a competitive balance pick when they come out which should be soon.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 19, 2015 18:50:07 GMT -5
I think that Holt is worth more than Finnegan + a C prospect. If he's a 3 WAR player going forward, then he'll be worth 13.5 WAR until he's a FA. If the C prospect is expected to be worth 2 WAR, Finnegan has to be worth at least 11.5 WAR in his control years for the deal to be worthwhile, ignoring Holt's versatility and the greater value of present wins. That's around 1.9 WAR per year, too much for a reliever. Of course, if the FO thinks Finnegan is a starter then that deal may be ok, but he is being used as a reliever in KC and many people project him to be in the bullpen long-term. I'm not sure it's reasonable to project Holt as a three-win player going forward. If you drop that to 2.5 wins and project Finnegan as a starter, the math comes out a lot closer even if you do include a discount rate (i.e., weigh present wins more). The math I did was wrong, I assumed that Finnegan still had 6 years of control. If you assume that Holt is a 2.5 win player going forward then Finnegan needs 1.9 WAR per year to be worth it. I agree with you that if he could perform well as a starter he would be worth it. Wouldn't need to be much better than Miley has been this year so far. But if KC with their small budget and their bad rotation are not developing him as a starter, I don't see him being a starter long-term somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jul 19, 2015 23:15:41 GMT -5
Seems to me there could be a fit with the Mets. They could easily use Holt in a 4 man OF mix, as a 3B option for an injured Wright or Daniel Murphy and as a current/future replacement for Flores/Murphy at 2B. Probably a long shot but if NY is willing to talk Syndergard, Matz, Wheeler (obvious injury questions) or Dominic Smith then you have a starting point. Throw in a couple pieces going both ways to balance. Mets more likely to try to sell Niese but I have my heights set a little higher as a number one priority. Maybe you can get a third team in who can provide more MLB ready hitting in addition to Holt for NYM and Boston can move Uehara or Tazawa and/or a prospect to the other team.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 20, 2015 6:56:49 GMT -5
Hmm, too bad Holt is 1-10 lifetime (with 3 bb) as a PH. Not a really significant stat, but instead the absence of successful experience pinch-hitting, which could make a LHH bat more attractive to some, esp. in the NL.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,918
|
Post by nomar on Jul 20, 2015 7:54:49 GMT -5
I would love to sell high on Holt. I doubt we will though.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 20, 2015 15:31:36 GMT -5
“@mlbdailydish: And now that Jody Mercer is reportedly out of action for at least 6 weeks, the Pirates could focus their attention on an infielder.”
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 20, 2015 21:45:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 21, 2015 15:13:35 GMT -5
One thing about Finnegan that really makes me wary is that he is being developed as a bullpen arm. The Royals have a pretty bad rotation (25th in WAR, 22th in FIP, 29th in xFIP), are a small-market team that can't afford high-priced arms and have a very good bullpen (2nd in WAR, 2nd in FIP, 8th in xFIP). Perhaps even more importantly is that they have 8 RP with more than 14 IP and a FIP smaller than 3.50, which means they have depth in the bullpen.
Therefore, if the decision of developing him as a relief pitcher is based on the need of the major league club, it seems highly questionable to me. If it is not based on need, the Royals don't believe he has a shot at starting, being a disappointing return in the event of a Holt trade.
Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to a Holt trade, I just think that in the case the major piece of the deal coming to the Red Sox is an arm it should be at someone who is more likely to be a starter than not, which doesn't seem to be the case with Finnegan.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 21, 2015 15:22:40 GMT -5
Is there any possibility that pairing Holt with Koji and a good prospect (Owens, maybe Margot, Chavis) would entice the Mets to part with one of their young arms? Obviously Degrom and Harvey are probably off the table, but what about Syndergaard or Wheeler (at a discount for the injury)? Seems like if they want to improve without giving up money, their only avenue will be to deal from strength, and their pitching is definitely a strength. We could even throw in Brentz/Marrero as sweeteners, they both could probably contribute in the bigs this year given that the Mets need shortstop help and pop in the outfield
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 21, 2015 15:29:19 GMT -5
Is there any possibility that pairing Holt with Koji and a good prospect (Owens, maybe Margot, Chavis) would entice the Mets to part with one of their young arms? Obviously Degrom and Harvey are probably off the table, but what about Syndergaard or Wheeler (at a discount for the injury)? Seems like if they want to improve without giving up money, their only avenue will be to deal from strength, and their pitching is definitely a strength. We could even throw in Brentz/Marrero as sweeteners, they both could probably contribute in the bigs this year given that the Mets need shortstop help and pop in the outfield Not happening. Mets may trade their prospects but there is no chance they are trading any of their young major league pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 21, 2015 15:30:42 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to a Holt trade, I just think that in the case the major piece of the deal coming to the Red Sox is an arm it should be at someone who is more likely to be a starter than not, which doesn't seem to be the case with Finnegan. Who are some starting pitchers that other organizations will trade straight-up for Holt? Your thoughts would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 21, 2015 15:50:29 GMT -5
If the reason you don't like Finnegan is that the Royals development with him hasn't made sense, that's absolutely a reason to trade for him. That's exactly the type of player you buy. I've said for years that you don't buy the last Andrew Miller, you find the next one. Miller was an extremely talented pitcher who the Tigers and Marlins simply didn't bother developing. The comparison between him and Finnegan is pretty superficial, sure, but like I said in another thread: if this trade had been suggested three months ago, the entire league would've laughed at the absurdity of it. Finnegan's problem this season has been his control, which he doesn't have a problem with historically. It seems likely to me that the way he has (or more accurately has not) been developed is a contributing factor there.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,231
|
Post by cdj on Jul 21, 2015 15:51:09 GMT -5
I don't think the Mets would completely scoff at Holt for Wheeler. 0% chance at any of the others though.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 21, 2015 16:43:46 GMT -5
I don't think the Mets would completely scoff at Holt for Wheeler. 0% chance at any of the others though. I do, even though Wheeler is not due back for another year. There is a much better chance of plucking a couple of their decent prospects than getting a cost-controlled major leaguer from them.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 21, 2015 18:16:22 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to a Holt trade, I just think that in the case the major piece of the deal coming to the Red Sox is an arm it should be at someone who is more likely to be a starter than not, which doesn't seem to be the case with Finnegan. Who are some starting pitchers that other organizations will trade straight-up for Holt? Your thoughts would be appreciated. Zack Wheeler, Vincent Velazquez. Wheeler would make a lot of sense as the Mets need a middle-infielder. Wheeler has way more upside, but by trading him they get rid of the uncertainty of the TJ surgery and get a player in an area of need for a playoff run that is also controlled for more 4 years.
|
|
|
Brock Holt
Jul 22, 2015 14:25:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jdb on Jul 22, 2015 14:25:59 GMT -5
KCs Jason Vargus has a UCL tear. Maybe Miley would be a fit with Holt.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Jul 22, 2015 14:52:41 GMT -5
I like what Holt has given the franchise, and he is very valuable as a player who can sub quite literally anywhere on the field but when get plays every day, he gets over-exposed. Over his last month he's hit .239/.299/.254/.552; this is a pattern that held true last year when we played him too much.
He's a nice super-sub, but there is less than zero chance the Mets would give us any one of Matz, Syndergaard or Wheeler for him. Getting a guy like Finnegan would be a nice return, as would Fulmer and others people have mentioned. Beyond that, I do think that targeting a team like Pittsburgh and seeing if we could get Taillon (due to injury concerns) might make sense.
Another name that I'd like to consider from the Mets would be 1b Dominic Smith. He came into the year as the 92nd ranked prospect in the game, and really hasn't done anything to hurt that this season. A .760OPS hitter at age 20 in the pitcher friendly FSL would look very nice in our system.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 23, 2015 14:34:44 GMT -5
KCs Jason Vargus has a UCL tear. Maybe Miley would be a fit with Holt. I wouldn't trade either Miley or Holt by themselves for Vargas. 33 next year, coming of a UCL tear, and weak peripherals? Yikes. Maybe Jose Quintana from the White Sox? They've been cumulatively replacement level at 2B this year, although Quintana is 26 and pretty solid, so I doubt that they would swap him straight up for Holt
|
|
|
Brock Holt
Jul 23, 2015 14:58:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jmei on Jul 23, 2015 14:58:05 GMT -5
I don't think he meant trade FOR Vargas. I think he meant because of Vargas' injury, they might also want Miley.
|
|
|