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 Castillo in 2016 Poll
|
Post by klostrophobic on Oct 15, 2015 2:04:57 GMT -5
I would very much like to trade him for absolutely anything you can get, even for nothing if the other team absorbs the contract fully. Failing that I think you need to give him a half season as the primary fielder in LF or RF to see if he actually can play baseball or if he's actually a rugby player in a Red Sox uniform as I suspect.
If nothing else they need to bring in a LHH OF to hedge their bets for a platoon. De Aza should come cheap.
I wouldn't be opposed to going all out for Jason Heyward assuming he doesn't command 7/200 ish.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Oct 15, 2015 6:48:48 GMT -5
Here's something no one seems to be mentioning. Does anyone think the red sox will hesitate to trade him so quickly because they are afraid other cuban players will see how they treated castillo and not want to come here?
|
|
|
Post by awall on Oct 15, 2015 7:03:03 GMT -5
Here's something no one seems to be mentioning. Does anyone think the red sox will hesitate to trade him so quickly because they are afraid other cuban players will see how they treated castillo and not want to come here? I can't imagine that's a factor. At least I hope it wouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 15, 2015 10:13:57 GMT -5
I would very much like to trade him for absolutely anything you can get, even for nothing if the other team absorbs the contract fully. Failing that I think you need to give him a half season as the primary fielder in LF or RF to see if he actually can play baseball or if he's actually a rugby player in a Red Sox uniform as I suspect. If nothing else they need to bring in a LHH OF to hedge their bets for a platoon. De Aza should come cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to going all out for Jason Heyward assuming he doesn't command 7/200 ish. Not to bag on you, but I've seen this suggestion (Heyward) a few times and I REALLY don't like it. 1) OF is an area of organizational depth. Our best position player prospects in my estimation are two outfielders (Benintendi, Margot) and an infielder who probably belongs in the corner outfield (Moncada). 2) The big league squad has multiple strong defensive outfielders already. One of whom (Betts) was just as good a hitter as Heyward this past year, and one of whom (Bradley) is an all-galaxy center fielder. Castillo is here and probably here to stay. Can he earn his contract in the academic sense, sure, but that won't help us trade him when other teams likely have a guy in AAA who plays great defense and can't hit a lick who doesn't cost $10M. So are we going to keep Castillo as a 4th outfielder? 3) Heyward's value is rooted largely in speculative measurements of defense and baserunning. I'm not Dusty Baker but I'd like my $25M corner outfielder to hit like one. We have no shortage of CF who could play a rangy corner OF, hit 15 HR and take walks. Overall, the Heyward thing irks me because it seems like an extension of a strategy that consistently hasn't worked for the Red Sox. Make massive decisions that have a high variance in outcome (i.e. pay for Heyward's upside), with a mean outcome (Heyward in the present) that is pricey but justified by abstract value accounting, and figure out the details (the fact that OF is actually a strength, and many other areas are not) later. Its the kind of thing that got the last general manager fired.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2015 12:21:36 GMT -5
I would very much like to trade him for absolutely anything you can get, even for nothing if the other team absorbs the contract fully. Failing that I think you need to give him a half season as the primary fielder in LF or RF to see if he actually can play baseball or if he's actually a rugby player in a Red Sox uniform as I suspect. If nothing else they need to bring in a LHH OF to hedge their bets for a platoon. De Aza should come cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to going all out for Jason Heyward assuming he doesn't command 7/200 ish. Not to bag on you, but I've seen this suggestion (Heyward) a few times and I REALLY don't like it. 1) OF is an area of organizational depth. Our best position player prospects in my estimation are two outfielders (Benintendi, Margot) and an infielder who probably belongs in the corner outfield (Moncada). 2) The big league squad has multiple strong defensive outfielders already. One of whom (Betts) was just as good a hitter as Heyward this past year, and one of whom (Bradley) is an all-galaxy center fielder. Castillo is here and probably here to stay. Can he earn his contract in the academic sense, sure, but that won't help us trade him when other teams likely have a guy in AAA who plays great defense and can't hit a lick who doesn't cost $10M. So are we going to keep Castillo as a 4th outfielder? 3) Heyward's value is rooted largely in speculative measurements of defense and baserunning. I'm not Dusty Baker but I'd like my $25M corner outfielder to hit like one. We have no shortage of CF who could play a rangy corner OF, hit 15 HR and take walks. Overall, the Heyward thing irks me because it seems like an extension of a strategy that consistently hasn't worked for the Red Sox. Make massive decisions that have a high variance in outcome (i.e. pay for Heyward's upside), with a mean outcome (Heyward in the present) that is pricey but justified by abstract value accounting, and figure out the details (the fact that OF is actually a strength, and many other areas are not) later. Its the kind of thing that got the last general manager fired. I agree all the way on this one. The Red Sox, in a few short years, barring trades, will have Castillo, Betts, Bradley, Margot, and Benintendi under contract, and yes, Moncada could wind up in the OF. The Sox are short a quality top of the rotation starter and need serious bullpen help. Allocating their financial resources to sign Heyward (or acquire CarGo) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. They don't have infinite resources. This is one of the reasons I realize that the Sox will either go with Hanley at 1b or have Shaw ready to reclaim 1b or hope that Travis gets to Boston quickly, because they won't have the money to sign Chris Davis, and it's likely at this point that even Byung-Ho Park will be out of their range. They need to allocate their money that they have left to spend on pitching, pitching, and more pitching. That doesn't mean that the Sox don't get a decent LH bat who can platoon with Castillo if need be or fill in if there's an injury, but this bat won't be a middle of the order type bat. It would be a short-term bargain basement type signing.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,926
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 15, 2015 12:37:26 GMT -5
Heyward has a floor of a 105 wRC+ and average base running/defense, which is probably a 3 WAR player. If you can get him at 20-22M AAV, I think he's actually a pretty good bet. He has a lot of upside offensively because of his untapped power potential, and at 25 I don't think he'll regress to being average on defense for at least 5 years, by which time I would be he's a slightly better hitter than he is today. He's the first perennial 5 WAR underachiever, I think.
I'm not sure I would bite considering that we'd lose a pretty high draft pick too, but I do like him and think he will be a good investment for the team that signs him. He would kill it in NY/BAL so hopefully he doesn't end up there.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2015 13:04:01 GMT -5
Heyward has a floor of a 105 wRC+ and average base running/defense, which is probably a 3 WAR player. If you can get him at 20-22M AAV, I think he's actually a pretty good bet. He has a lot of upside offensively because of his untapped power potential, and at 25 I don't think he'll regress to being average on defense for at least 5 years, by which time I would be he's a slightly better hitter than he is today. He's the first perennial 5 WAR underachiever, I think. I'm not sure I would bite considering that we'd lose a pretty high draft pick too, but I do like him and think he will be a good investment for the team that signs him. He would kill it in NY/BAL so hopefully he doesn't end up there. But that would be $20 - $22 million that you can't use for pitching help. And I would think that would be the priority. And like you, I wouldn't be too thrilled about losing that 12th pick either.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 15, 2015 14:10:49 GMT -5
Heyward has a floor of a 105 wRC+ and average base running/defense, which is probably a 3 WAR player. If you can get him at 20-22M AAV, I think he's actually a pretty good bet. He has a lot of upside offensively because of his untapped power potential, and at 25 I don't think he'll regress to being average on defense for at least 5 years, by which time I would be he's a slightly better hitter than he is today. He's the first perennial 5 WAR underachiever, I think. I'm not sure I would bite considering that we'd lose a pretty high draft pick too, but I do like him and think he will be a good investment for the team that signs him. He would kill it in NY/BAL so hopefully he doesn't end up there. This is what I mean about "earning the contract in an academic sense" though. Just because it breaks even based on a good back-of-the-envelope $/WAR sense, doesn't make it the right allocation of those dollars. Castillo, for his warts, is an out-of-zone machine and has a strong arm. So Heyward is not going to perceptibly improve our run prevention over what it already is. He's going to give us the offensive upgrade from Castillo to Heyward, and a nice 5-tool upside play if he rediscovers the power. That... for $25M, plus money that needs to be eaten to move Castillo? After all, most teams won't be interested in paying a 29 year old 4th OF/weak side of a platoon. I don't deny that Heyward is a fine player. Especially given his talent and age. I just don't see how this translates from the back of the envelope to making the Red Sox a much better team.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 15, 2015 14:48:40 GMT -5
Heyward has a floor of a 105 wRC+ and average base running/defense, which is probably a 3 WAR player. If you can get him at 20-22M AAV, I think he's actually a pretty good bet. He has a lot of upside offensively because of his untapped power potential, and at 25 I don't think he'll regress to being average on defense for at least 5 years, by which time I would be he's a slightly better hitter than he is today. He's the first perennial 5 WAR underachiever, I think. I'm not sure I would bite considering that we'd lose a pretty high draft pick too, but I do like him and think he will be a good investment for the team that signs him. He would kill it in NY/BAL so hopefully he doesn't end up there. The draft pick shouldn't be a deterrent for signing Heyward. The money, fit and talent level of Heyward are what you should evaluate him on. The draft pick could be a concern for lower tier FAs, not elite guys like Heyward.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Oct 16, 2015 10:14:16 GMT -5
I would very much like to trade him for absolutely anything you can get, even for nothing if the other team absorbs the contract fully. Failing that I think you need to give him a half season as the primary fielder in LF or RF to see if he actually can play baseball or if he's actually a rugby player in a Red Sox uniform as I suspect. If nothing else they need to bring in a LHH OF to hedge their bets for a platoon. De Aza should come cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to going all out for Jason Heyward assuming he doesn't command 7/200 ish. Not to bag on you, but I've seen this suggestion (Heyward) a few times and I REALLY don't like it. 1) OF is an area of organizational depth. Our best position player prospects in my estimation are two outfielders (Benintendi, Margot) and an infielder who probably belongs in the corner outfield (Moncada). 2) The big league squad has multiple strong defensive outfielders already. One of whom (Betts) was just as good a hitter as Heyward this past year, and one of whom (Bradley) is an all-galaxy center fielder. Castillo is here and probably here to stay. Can he earn his contract in the academic sense, sure, but that won't help us trade him when other teams likely have a guy in AAA who plays great defense and can't hit a lick who doesn't cost $10M. So are we going to keep Castillo as a 4th outfielder? 3) Heyward's value is rooted largely in speculative measurements of defense and baserunning. I'm not Dusty Baker but I'd like my $25M corner outfielder to hit like one. We have no shortage of CF who could play a rangy corner OF, hit 15 HR and take walks. Overall, the Heyward thing irks me because it seems like an extension of a strategy that consistently hasn't worked for the Red Sox. Make massive decisions that have a high variance in outcome (i.e. pay for Heyward's upside), with a mean outcome (Heyward in the present) that is pricey but justified by abstract value accounting, and figure out the details (the fact that OF is actually a strength, and many other areas are not) later. Its the kind of thing that got the last general manager fired. I agree and it was mostly just a throwaway line, and I'd only do it in a scenario where they are unable to offload Castillo and his contract in full to some team. But imagine if they hadn't bought in on Ramirez and Sandoval, the money they'd have to spend this offseason. Ah, what could have been. I disagree that you'd have to pay for his upside as he's already shown to be an elite player (6.2+ bWAR each of last two seasons) and I don't know how speculative things like defense and baserunning are at this point. If he just maintains his production and defense he's a 25-30 million dollar a year player.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 16, 2015 10:27:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 16, 2015 11:25:15 GMT -5
Dan Farnsworth's hiring as the new Fangraphs prospect guy reminded me of the following piece he wrote on Castillo right after he signed: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-rusney-castillo-from-video/Pretty prescient evaluation, especially the bit about his swing plane limiting his power, and I think his conclusion ("about a 2 WAR player with the potential for another win or two coming from his bat in a good year") is still about what I would project for Castillo going forward.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 16, 2015 12:48:53 GMT -5
Dan Farnsworth's hiring as the new Fangraphs prospect guy reminded me of the following piece he wrote on Castillo right after he signed: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-rusney-castillo-from-video/Pretty prescient evaluation, especially the bit about his swing plane limiting his power, and I think his conclusion ("about a 2 WAR player with the potential for another win or two coming from his bat in a good year") is still about what I would project for Castillo going forward. Farnsworth ought to have quit while he was ahead. Instead he's doubling down. Regarding the J-Hey Kid: I don't doubt that he can justify a $25M/year contract on the surface. My greater point was that its not the primary objective to do that. You've doled out $25M to add Heyward, you've kept Rusney as a 4th OF as the weak side of a platoon with JBJ. Now what? You're getting a fair deal but are you a much better ballclub?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,926
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 16, 2015 12:53:57 GMT -5
Dan Farnsworth's hiring as the new Fangraphs prospect guy reminded me of the following piece he wrote on Castillo right after he signed: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-rusney-castillo-from-video/Pretty prescient evaluation, especially the bit about his swing plane limiting his power, and I think his conclusion ("about a 2 WAR player with the potential for another win or two coming from his bat in a good year") is still about what I would project for Castillo going forward. Farnsworth ought to have quit while he was ahead. Instead he's doubling down. Regarding the J-Hey Kid: I don't doubt that he can justify a $25M/year contract on the surface. My greater point was that its not the primary objective to do that. You've doled out $25M to add Heyward, you've kept Rusney as a 4th OF as the weak side of a platoon with JBJ. Now what? You're getting a fair deal but are you a much better ballclub? Considering that Castillo is the worst starting player on the team (assuming Sandoval rebounds), I would say replacing him with a 5 win player would make an solid impact.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 16, 2015 16:07:08 GMT -5
I liked De Aza last year....what do you think he'll sign for?....I think we all agree we need a LHH bat that can play the corners....don't think we need another center fielder as all three of our guys can play center.....Who are some other LHH not named Heyward out there avail in trade/FA?
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 16, 2015 17:47:42 GMT -5
Sox have made it clear they are going over the cap again next year per DD.
Give me Heyward over Rusney. A top of the rotation pitcher over the 12 pick. Or one of the traded guys and keep 12. I'm fine either way. But I don't want to watch 5 aces again.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,926
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 16, 2015 19:03:23 GMT -5
If thy gave Heyward a big deal and traded for a pitcher rather that signing Price, they would still be in a solid spot financially.
|
|
|
Post by slam761 on Oct 16, 2015 22:52:31 GMT -5
I like Castillo a lot, but I'm really starting to think there's no point in keeping him. He's easily most valuable as a CF, but with Bradley, Betts, Margot and Benintendi, he's obviously not likely to ever play there for the Sox. Trading him to someone that needs a CF and trying to sign Alex Gordon would be my preference. I love Heyward, but I feel like Gordon would just be a much better value than giving Heyward $200 million or whatever.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 17, 2015 10:41:21 GMT -5
I would very much like to trade him for absolutely anything you can get, even for nothing if the other team absorbs the contract fully. Failing that I think you need to give him a half season as the primary fielder in LF or RF to see if he actually can play baseball or if he's actually a rugby player in a Red Sox uniform as I suspect. If nothing else they need to bring in a LHH OF to hedge their bets for a platoon. De Aza should come cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to going all out for Jason Heyward assuming he doesn't command 7/200 ish. Not to bag on you, but I've seen this suggestion (Heyward) a few times and I REALLY don't like it. 1) OF is an area of organizational depth. Our best position player prospects in my estimation are two outfielders (Benintendi, Margot) and an infielder who probably belongs in the corner outfield (Moncada). 2) The big league squad has multiple strong defensive outfielders already. One of whom (Betts) was just as good a hitter as Heyward this past year, and one of whom (Bradley) is an all-galaxy center fielder. Castillo is here and probably here to stay. Can he earn his contract in the academic sense, sure, but that won't help us trade him when other teams likely have a guy in AAA who plays great defense and can't hit a lick who doesn't cost $10M. So are we going to keep Castillo as a 4th outfielder? 3) Heyward's value is rooted largely in speculative measurements of defense and baserunning. I'm not Dusty Baker but I'd like my $25M corner outfielder to hit like one. We have no shortage of CF who could play a rangy corner OF, hit 15 HR and take walks. Overall, the Heyward thing irks me because it seems like an extension of a strategy that consistently hasn't worked for the Red Sox. Make massive decisions that have a high variance in outcome (i.e. pay for Heyward's upside), with a mean outcome (Heyward in the present) that is pricey but justified by abstract value accounting, and figure out the details (the fact that OF is actually a strength, and many other areas are not) later. Its the kind of thing that got the last general manager fired. I doubt that Heyward is going to command 7 years/$200 million, but what we know for sure is that he's going to get a massive overpay because that's what FA does. There's a reason why players and agents want to get there so badly. I'd feel highly queasy about a Price signing but at least that would be at a position of need. Signing Heyward means you're paying massive money for a guy with moderate - not great - corner OF production. His main attribute is that he would play a superb RF is Fenway, but we already have three guys who can do that and two more (Margot and Beni) in the pipeline. I agree with everything Mandelbro said, particularly the comment about abstract accounting. This thinking that there's a magic WAR/$ formula that can determine whether a contract is a good one is silly. By that reasoning, the RS should sign Price, Cueto and Heyward because they'll each produce enough WAR to make their contracts worthwhile under the magic formula. The fact is there are ways to get wins that don't involve massive, self-destructive payouts. That renders the WAR/$ formula meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 17, 2015 10:58:24 GMT -5
I agree with everything Mandelbro said, particularly the comment about abstract accounting. This thinking that there's a magic WAR/$ formula that can determine whether a contract is a good one is silly. By that reasoning, the RS should sign Price, Cueto and Heyward because they'll each produce enough WAR to make their contracts worthwhile under the magic formula. The fact is there are ways to get wins that don't involve massive, self-destructive payouts. That renders the WAR/$ formula meaningless. What ways are there to obtain 2016 wins that don't involve massive, self-destructive payouts? I mean, it's either the free agent market or the trade market, and both involve significant costs. The idea is to obtain as much of an upgrade as you can at the lowest cost, and $/WAR is a useful back-of-the-envelope way to gauge that. There are other variables you have to consider (most importantly, how good your incumbent players are at each position), but it makes for a good starting point.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2015 5:21:14 GMT -5
I like Castillo a lot, but I'm really starting to think there's no point in keeping him. He's easily most valuable as a CF, but with Bradley, Betts, Margot and Benintendi, he's obviously not likely to ever play there for the Sox. Trading him to someone that needs a CF and trying to sign Alex Gordon would be my preference. I love Heyward, but I feel like Gordon would just be a much better value than giving Heyward $200 million or whatever. The argument against obtaining any major FA corner OF is that in Margot and/or Benintendi you may well have someone essentially as good (over the course of his deal) to take his job in as soon as a year (or less, if you don't regard Conforto as a huge aberration; Benintendi's coming off a much more impressive post-draft year). There's less than zero need to find a long-term solution. There are a number of 1 and 2-year stopgaps who could or should be available that might represent a big upgrade, starting with Josh Reddick who's in his walk year. They could sign Franklin Gutierrez to a prove-your-for-real deal, or trade for Carlos Gonzalez or Andre Ethier, or even J.D. Martinez (which would take Castillo and some major prospects). The latter three options might make more sense in mid-2016. There's a discussion of this on page 69 of the Fix the Sox thread.
|
|
|