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.
Red Sox acquire Craig Kimbrel for Margot, Guerra +
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 17, 2016 9:44:44 GMT -5
Well I think there are two issues:
1) It didn't HAVE to be Kimbrel. 2) They almost certainly gave up too much for him.
I'm pretty sure literally nobody would deny the trade made the 2016 team better. Maybe this turns into the Hanley-Beckett deal where it was probably an overpay but, y'know what?, that banner's not going anywhere.
Interesting thing with Allen is that he's being capped at 4 innings, it appears. Really tough to take much from his game log.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 9:51:35 GMT -5
This is a great post Champs. I really can't believe this is still being discussed Margot is having a solid year as a CF with a little speed and better than average range at AAA, but where would he fit on this team? LF would he really be any better than what we have ? Guerra is struggling at A ball and as much as I liked his make up , again, where does he fit? in the hierarchy of things unless a building falls on Xander he would just end up aging out waiting for a break Asuaje is a great hitter and a loss and he is killing it at AAA , but he is very small and he is a ? to maintain at ML , we have our small scrappy overachiever already , and are lousy with outfielders we have no where to play not to mention the number available as FA and trade bait this year Logan Allen is a great prospect and is doing well at A ball but we needed a win now and if this team rolls into the post season I want Kimbrel on the mound in a key game As a whole we gave up a lot and got a lot SD restocked their farm and he have a top tier bullpen . The big thing this trade accomplished is that DD got a chance to really learn how much we prize our prospects in the organization and he has learned a lot about our farm since then. He is in Salem as much as he is in Fenway now. Oh and if people think this is bad, wait till they see what we have to give up to get Trout They fit as depth and trade chips for something more useful than an expensive closer who can break down at any point. Every single trade the Red Sox may want to make this year, teams are going to demand one of the big 4 because everyone below those 4 aren't worth enough to headline any deal. That's what we lost in the Kimbrel trade. The flexibility to make any trades that aren't either completely minor or a blockbuster. I really hope that last bit isn't inside information. Sorry, Jimed and telson, I love your posts, but I'm with brisox and really can't believe this is still being discussed. Margot and Guerra were (given the benefit of hindsight) at peak value last October. Their value having plummeted, they would not be demanded now in any trade for a critical piece, unless their performances turn around. Based on how they've performed this year, neither of Margot or Guerra should even be in the Red Sox top 10, and the big difference is that now, the whole league knows it. Flip side of that trade is, Had the Astros scooped in and traded Vince Velasquez +++ for Kimbrel (instead of trading this later for Giles), then the Red Sox would have been stuck trading for the far lesser Giles (with Chapman effectively disqualified). Plus, given how weak Giles has been, Kimbrel was the only critical piece the Red Sox needed in a trade. In his last comment, What brisox is saying is, in a trade for Mike Trout, Margot and Guerra would not be any part of it. And yes, wait and see what you trade for Mike Trout (anybody except Espinoza) if you can get 6+ WAR all in one position!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 17, 2016 9:54:14 GMT -5
Based on how they've performed this year, neither of Margot or Guerra should even be in the Red Sox top 10 Yep, bad faith.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on May 17, 2016 9:56:13 GMT -5
This trade is only comparable to the Beckett-Hanley deal in the sense that the Sox acquired an immediate gain (assuming they win the WS) for future value.
Overall though, that trade was way more acceptable than this one.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 9:58:36 GMT -5
Well I think there are two issues: 1) It didn't HAVE to be Kimbrel. 2) They almost certainly gave up too much for him. I'm pretty sure literally nobody would deny the trade made the 2016 team better. Maybe this turns into the Hanley-Beckett deal where it was probably an overpay but, y'know what?, that banner's not going anywhere. Interesting thing with Allen is that he's being capped at 4 innings, it appears. Really tough to take much from his game log. Good issues, Chris, but 1) Who else could it have been, if not Chapman or Giles, when swing-and-miss dominant reliever was their only critical piece; and 2) they may have given up too much, or may not, if Margot continues with the 40/45 power he's shown through 140 PAs, and gives the Padres 1 WAR a year for six years, and the others bust. 6 WAR for 6 WAR, is not nearly as unlikely as was believed only last October.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 10:00:43 GMT -5
Based on how they've performed this year, neither of Margot or Guerra should even be in the Red Sox top 10 Yep, bad faith. I based it on this: Margot is showing a 40/45 bat through 140 PAs this year, which fangraph projects him to 1 WAR a year. I think that provides a good faith basis for him to be #11 for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on May 17, 2016 10:05:16 GMT -5
Margot and Guerra were (given the benefit of hindsight) at peak value last October. Their value having plummeted, they would not be demanded now in any trade for a critical piece, unless their performances turn around. Margot's value is the same or higher right now. And if Guerra lost value then Allen gained value.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on May 17, 2016 10:13:24 GMT -5
If you glance at the MLB saves leaders, you will notice that lots of teams managed to acquire solid closers without paying $11 million per year or trading multiple good prospects. Yet, somehow the Red Sox managed to do both.
Do people really believe the Red Sox can afford to pay double the going rate for players and achieve a long-term competitive team while playing in the AL East?
This was a dumb trade the Red Sox can probably afford; let's just hope there aren't any more coming.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,121
Member is Online
|
Post by jimoh on May 17, 2016 10:26:39 GMT -5
If you glance at the MLB saves leaders, you will notice that lots of teams managed to acquire solid closers without paying $11 million per year or trading multiple good prospects. Yet, somehow the Red Sox managed to do both. ... This seems like a weak argument. You can't look at "saves leaders" and note that several of them were acquired cheaply and say the Red Sox should have gotten one of them. Cheap acquisitions, or even mildly pricey ones, sometimes become good closers and very often don't. It's like reading that a stock has gone up and saying you should have bought it. Well, yeah, but you had no reliable way of knowing that the stock would go up.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 17, 2016 10:35:43 GMT -5
I don't mind the back and forth if it's civil, I think that's what the board is for. But get the facts straight.
While Guerra has stuggled a bit in the early going, Margot has picked it up and Asuaje is killing it so far. While El Paso is in the PCL and a lot of the venues are launching pads, the former just turned 21, and he's in AAA. The latter will not keep it up, but he has a solid track record and is a very hard worker. The great unknown is Allen. As Chris notes, it's hard to get much from the 4 inning stints. What we can say is that he's just a kid, and the stuff seems to play.
It's unlikely they'll all make their mark in the majors, but there is real talent and, given their collective age and advancement, a lot of time for them to develop further. Travis Shaw's storyline shouldn't be lost on any of us.
|
|
|
Post by quintanariffic on May 17, 2016 10:36:54 GMT -5
If you glance at the MLB saves leaders, you will notice that lots of teams managed to acquire solid closers without paying $11 million per year or trading multiple good prospects. Yet, somehow the Red Sox managed to do both. ... This seems like a weak argument. You can't look at "saves leaders" and note that several of them were acquired cheaply and say the Red Sox should have gotten one of them. Cheap acquisitions, or even mildly pricey ones, sometimes become good closers and very often don't. It's like reading that a stock has gone up and saying you should have bought it. Well, yeah, but you had no reliable way of knowing that the stock would go up. Well sure. But they should have known that Pets.com (aka Kimbrel) wasn't worth $500/share.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 17, 2016 11:11:02 GMT -5
I based it on this: Margot is showing a 40/45 bat through 140 PAs this year, which fangraph projects him to 1 WAR a year. I think that provides a good faith basis for him to be #11 for the Red Sox. You might be literally the only person on earth who thinks that neither Margot nor Guerra crack the Red Sox top 10 prospect list. Additional evidence of bad faith: only evaluating Margot based on his bat (and only doing that by eyeballing his statistical production in the last month-and-a-half) while ignoring his well above-average defense and baserunning and the almost universally positive scouting reports (e.g., as recently as two months ago, Fangraphs' Dan Farnsworth graded Margot's 50th percentile projected overall value as a 65+ (which equates to All-Star-level production)).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 17, 2016 11:36:07 GMT -5
Even if Margot's median projection was as a 1.0 WAR player (it isn't, but let's play with it), it would still be enough to get him into the Red Sox top 10. Basabe, Chavis, and Hernandez don't project that high, and Margot maintains a higher upside than any of those players.
Also, I know El Paso is a good place to hit, but a .275/.340/.406 with a low K rate and reasonable walk rate as a 21-year-old carries better than a 40 projection on a hit tool. As jmei said, put that on Margot who plays a plus center field and is a good baserunner? For comparison's sake, last year Austin Jackson hit .267/.311/.385 while playing an above-average CF. Fangraphs had that as worth 2.3 WAR in 527 plate appearances, B-Red as 1.6, and that seems like an extremely realistic 50th percentile projection for Margot. The 75th percentile is probably more like .290/.340/.440, which would make him somewhere close to Odubel Herrera's 2015 season (3.9 rWAR/3.8 bWAR).
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 11:42:39 GMT -5
I based it on this: Margot is showing a 40/45 bat through 140 PAs this year, which fangraph projects him to 1 WAR a year. I think that provides a good faith basis for him to be #11 for the Red Sox. You might be literally the only person on earth who thinks that neither Margot nor Guerra crack the Red Sox top 10 prospect list. Additional evidence of bad faith: only evaluating Margot based on his bat (and only doing that by eyeballing his statistical production in the last month-and-a-half) while ignoring his well above-average defense and baserunning and the almost universally positive scouting reports (e.g., as recently as two months ago, Fangraphs' Dan Farnsworth graded Margot's 50th percentile projected overall value as a 65+ (which equates to All-Star-level production)). Remember the point is, what would another team demand from the Red Sox now, and clearly, teams would not demand today's version of Margot, if they could demand Basabe (OF), Travis, or even (I think) Chavis. Those position players have a higher ceiling than Margot's 40/45 bat -- that he is showing now through a significant sample --- which projects to a bench player/1 WAR per year. True, like Hernandez/Marrero, Margot does have a solid floor with his defense and base-running, but not a demonstrable high ceiling. But nobody would be demanding Hernandez/Marrero, either. Teams demand prospects with demonstrable high ceilings. Guerra is very young but still, the very high K rate through a significant sample --- at least until he proves otherwise --- indicates too high of a bust to be demanded in a trade, now. ADD: I think the stats in significant small samples have been shown to be reliable enough that they can provide contrarian value when (past) scouting reports value a prospect differently.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on May 17, 2016 11:48:38 GMT -5
This trade is only comparable to the Beckett-Hanley deal in the sense that the Sox acquired an immediate gain (assuming they win the WS) for future value. Overall though, that trade was way more acceptable than this one. I agree. But I think this trade represents an excellent case study on the risks and benefits of trading prospects for veterans and when you should and shouldn't do it. From the perspective of Red Sox fans this was a very successful trade even though the Prospects traded substantially outperformed the veterans acquired. Beckett and Lowell both had career best years in 2007; they accrued 11.5 bWAR; Beckett was outstanding in the postseason and the Red Sox won the World Series. While it is possible they might have won it anyway-- Hanley was himself worth 7 WAR and the $24 million spent on Beckett, Lowell and Lugo might well have bought back the difference -- I find it unlikely. On the other hand, absent this trade the Red Sox would have been significantly better in 2008, 2009 and 2010. It is conceivable the Red Sox would have won a different championship or even multiple championships absent this trade; we don't know. The most reasonable assessment is that the Red Sox won fewer games overall because of the trade, but also won a championship they might not have won because of it. Again, we can only speculate. At the time of the trade (I didn't post here then) my feeling was that it was reasonable even if I probably wouldn't have done it. At the end of 2005, the Red Sox had a number of talented but aging veterans -- Manny, Papi, Tek, Schilling. And while they did have prospects --Hanley, Sanchez, Lester, Youkilis, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Papelbon -- there's no way anyone could have predicted the incredible success rate of that group. It made sense to trade wins from 2008, 2009 and 2010 to win in 2006 and/or 2007. The current Red Sox are, on the other hand, a very young team. If they can lock up Betts and Bogaerts, they could very well be looking at a run of sustained excellence like no Red Sox team has achieved since Babe Ruth. I don't think it is wise to be trading future wins for present wins with this team.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 11:54:56 GMT -5
Even if Margot's median projection was as a 1.0 WAR player (it isn't, but let's play with it), it would still be enough to get him into the Red Sox top 10. Basabe, Chavis, and Hernandez don't project that high, and Margot maintains a higher upside than any of those players. Also, I know El Paso is a good place to hit, but a .275/.340/.406 with a low K rate and reasonable walk rate as a 21-year-old carries better than a 40 projection on a hit tool. As jmei said, put that on Margot who plays a plus center field and is a good baserunner? For comparison's sake, last year Austin Jackson hit .267/.311/.385 while playing an above-average CF. Fangraphs had that as worth 2.3 WAR in 527 plate appearances, B-Red as 1.6, and that seems like an extremely realistic 50th percentile projection for Margot. The 75th percentile is probably more like .290/.340/.440, which would make him somewhere close to Odubel Herrera's 2015 season (3.9 rWAR/3.8 bWAR). True, but to the trading partner, the 1 WAR projection needs to be reduced by the likelihood of injury/bust. Margot has already had a shoulder injury, and hasn't clearly recovered the same bat he seemed to have before the injury. Basabe is showing a higher power bat ceiling, as is Chavis. Like a power arm, the power bat is a scarce resource, and therefore, what is most often demanded in a trade.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 17, 2016 11:59:49 GMT -5
Remember the point is, what would another team demand from the Red Sox now, and clearly, teams would not demand today's version of Margot, if they could demand Basabe (OF), Travis, or even (I think) Chavis. Those position players have a higher ceiling than Margot's 40/45 bat -- that he is showing now through a significant sample --- which projects to a bench player/1 WAR per year. True, like Hernandez/Marrero, Margot does have a solid floor with his defense and base-running, but not a demonstrable high ceiling. But nobody would be demanding Hernandez/Marrero, either. Teams demand prospects with demonstrable high ceilings. Guerra is very young but still, the very high K rate through a significant sample --- at least until he proves otherwise --- indicates too high of a bust to be demanded in a trade, now. I disagree with basically everything in this post.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on May 17, 2016 12:04:58 GMT -5
I love Kimbrel but I didn't like the deal when it happened because of the overpay, and I don't like it now, but I have accepted it. I can see both sides, because it was an overpay we could afford in a tough market.
My biggest problem with the trade controversy is that it seems like some people refuse to accept that it has happened and appear to be rooting against Kimbrel because they want to be right about it. This is just ridiculous. I don't even know why this discussion is still going on. The trade was done, and I think everyone has said their peace. Honestly I don't see what is left to say here until we get a few years down the road and can look back at how things shook out. The rest of this is just a lot of noise.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 17, 2016 12:06:13 GMT -5
True, but to the trading partner, the 1 WAR projection needs to be reduced by the likelihood of injury/bust. To some extent, sure, but that's why a median projection is useful. And with Margot specifically, while the shoulder injury may have affected his power, his defense and baserunning have remained excellent. And the upside projection remains high because the power could develop making him a star. Margot is an interesting prospect in this sense. While his median projection isn't huge, he has both a high upside AND a high downside. If all goes well he's a star, and if all goes poorly he's a fourth outfielder. Oh? Love to see some evidence of this.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 17, 2016 12:06:36 GMT -5
Yup, deepjohn's reality distortion bubble is still perfectly intact.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on May 17, 2016 12:07:58 GMT -5
Do you have the clips that show that every time Koji has pitched this year it would have been Tazawa instead? And every time Tazawa has pitched this year it would have been Barnes instead? and every time Barnes has pitched it would have been....You get the idea... Do you realize that if we hadn't given up a king's ransom for Kimbrel we would have just signed O'Day? I know that is the assumption. I also know it's not a 100% fact that it would have happened, no matter how many times it gets repeated.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on May 17, 2016 12:09:54 GMT -5
How does a 21 year old plus defensive center fielder in AAA who's hitting moderately well not have a high ceiling? C'mon. And how would he not be in our Top 10? It's one thing to think Margot isn't as valuable as he's made out to be, but it's another to go so extreme that you disparage him as a prospect. Margot would be Pawtucket's starting center fielder at age 21 with speed and defensive prowess, and he's no slouch at the plate either. How would he not be useful to us; would a Margot/Bradley/Betts outfield with Holt in the super-utility role not make sense? Benintendi may be looked at as our future left fielder, but Margot is already finding success in Triple A and would be insanely valuable to have right now. I love having Kimbrel, but it does no good at all to demean the prospects we traded in an "I told you so" fashion while erroneously claiming their stock as prospects has plummeted. That's just insanity.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 17, 2016 12:17:21 GMT -5
They fit as depth and trade chips for something more useful than an expensive closer who can break down at any point. Every single trade the Red Sox may want to make this year, teams are going to demand one of the big 4 because everyone below those 4 aren't worth enough to headline any deal. That's what we lost in the Kimbrel trade. The flexibility to make any trades that aren't either completely minor or a blockbuster. I really hope that last bit isn't inside information. Sorry, Jimed and telson, I love your posts, but I'm with brisox and really can't believe this is still being discussed. Margot and Guerra were (given the benefit of hindsight) at peak value last October. Their value having plummeted, they would not be demanded now in any trade for a critical piece, unless their performances turn around. Based on how they've performed this year, neither of Margot or Guerra should even be in the Red Sox top 10, and the big difference is that now, the whole league knows it. Flip side of that trade is, Had the Astros scooped in and traded Vince Velasquez +++ for Kimbrel (instead of trading this later for Giles), then the Red Sox would have been stuck trading for the far lesser Giles (with Chapman effectively disqualified). Plus, given how weak Giles has been, Kimbrel was the only critical piece the Red Sox needed in a trade. In his last comment, What brisox is saying is, in a trade for Mike Trout, Margot and Guerra would not be any part of it. And yes, wait and see what you trade for Mike Trout (anybody except Espinoza) if you can get 6+ WAR all in one position! The backup plan was O'Day and no prospects traded for the 5 millionth time. The downgrade from Kimbrel to O'Day is not big enough to warrant the cost and the bullpen still would be damn good. And the crap about the prospects peaking is ridiculous. They weren't trading them for Trout, but they sure as hell could trade them for a good LF right now, which we need much more.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 17, 2016 12:18:30 GMT -5
I based it on this: Margot is showing a 40/45 bat through 140 PAs this year, which fangraph projects him to 1 WAR a year. I think that provides a good faith basis for him to be #11 for the Red Sox. You left out your adjustment for a 21 year old being in AAA.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 12:20:02 GMT -5
True, but to the trading partner, the 1 WAR projection needs to be reduced by the likelihood of injury/bust. To some extent, sure, but that's why a median projection is useful. And with Margot specifically, while the shoulder injury may have affected his power, his defense and baserunning have remained excellent. And the upside projection remains high because the power could develop making him a star. Margot is an interesting prospect in this sense. While his median projection isn't huge, he has both a high upside AND a high downside. If all goes well he's a star, and if all goes poorly he's a fourth outfielder. Oh? Love to see some evidence of this. That the power bat (especially right handed) has become a more scarce resource? I thought that was a given, no? grantland.com/the-triangle/explaining-mlb-right-handed-power-decline/www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-right-handed-power-problem/Or that a transaction partner will demand a scarce resource if he can? I guess, that's a hunch?
|
|
|