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 jimed14 on May 17, 2016 12:22:44 GMT -5
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. It was actually stated that O'Day was signed, pending the outcome of acquiring Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on May 17, 2016 12:24:08 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. Nobody's rooting against Kimbrel. I hope the Sox win the WS and Kimbrel closes it out. But like dcsoxfan stated above, we hope this trade is not a trend in DDo's way of running the Red Sox. The people arguing in favor of this trade seem to have no problem with the way DDo is doing business. Hence the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on May 17, 2016 12:25:59 GMT -5
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 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? This is ridiculous even if Margot has only 45 power he can still be valuable and virtually no one is going to turn him down in a trade so they could get Basabe instead. There are certainly teams out there that would trade for a prospect with slightly below average power -especially when he is 21 in AAA with fantastic defense - you must realize that.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 12:28:50 GMT -5
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. Not so sure. Craig Kimbrel + (Holt/Young -> Benny Baseball) > one year of LF stopgap Is Holt/Young really hurting us in LF? I love it when those guys are in the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 17, 2016 12:40:55 GMT -5
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. Not so sure. Craig Kimbrel + (Holt/Young -> Benny Baseball) > one year of LF stopgap Is Holt/Young really hurting us in LF? I love it when those guys are in the lineup. What Jim is saying is that O'Day + LF acquisition + Holt/Young on bench > Kimbrell + Holt/Young. Benintendi was netted out of the equation. AND It sets the team up better for future success as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 17, 2016 12:41:50 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. I am sorry. I do not mean to disparage any prospect, all of whom I have the utmost admiration for. I can't imagine how hard it is, and how much talent it takes to play baseball at that level. I am merely playing out the game theory that was at work at the time of the trade, where the hypothetical question (that telson, jmei, jimed and others have put) is, Could the Red Sox have done better? (based on what teams now know.) Would the Padres do that same trade now? Would the Red Sox? Was that the highest, best use of what was the then-perceived value of those prospect chips? Please do not mistake me for someone who is saying "I told you so". That's not me. I'm really, really stupid compared to everyone else here. Seriously. I'm just playing the hypothetical game.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on May 17, 2016 12:45:20 GMT -5
Margot would never play for the Red Sox. I know you guys will say could have used him in another deal but the outfield is covered for years to come
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on May 17, 2016 12:51:41 GMT -5
By the way, I admit I occasionally lurk Yanks' blogs for the schadenfreude. And the Kimbrel and Giles trades have Yanks fans salivating on trading Chapman for Gallo.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on May 17, 2016 13:01:21 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. I am sorry. I do not mean to disparage any prospect, all of whom I have the utmost admiration for. I can't imagine how hard it is, and how much talent it takes to play baseball at that level. I am merely playing out the game theory that was at work at the time of the trade, where the hypothetical question (that telson, jmei, jimed and others have put) is, Could the Red Sox have done better? (based on what teams now know.) Would the Padres do that same trade now? Would the Red Sox? Was that the highest, best use of what was the then-perceived value of those prospect chips? Please do not mistake me for someone who is saying "I told you so". That's not me. I'm really, really stupid compared to everyone else here. Seriously. I'm just playing the hypothetical game. I'm not someone to make you apologize for anything, and you don't have to apologize at all for stating your thoughts. I'm not usually one to bring too many arguments to the table - I'm mainly a reader and not much else. I know you don't mean to personally demean Margot's ability, but he definitely would be a Top 10 prospect for us still. There's absolutely no way that wouldn't be the case.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 17, 2016 13:03:34 GMT -5
I think what keeps getting missed in this "We would have signed O'Day and all would have went well" or "we would have been the ones to deal for Chapman" stuff is that we don't know how O'Day would have handled the closing role.
I'm not trying to tell you that a successful setup guy like O'Day couldn't have thrived as the Sox closer. There's a good chance he would have, but the certainty was less than it is for Craig Kimbrel. It's also possible that O'Day could have blanched at the pressure of being the closer in a very reactionary city like Boston.
It's amazing how Kimbrel is painted as a run-of-the-mill closer as in any schnook can handle the pressure of closing in Boston in a season where the Red Sox have to make the play-offs (I'm pretty sure that's a directive from the top).
I'm amazed that very few people here realize that at best comparison Kimbrel isn't far off from a Mariano Rivera or at a more realistic comparison he's Billy Wagner in his prime. So he's a guy who's been among the best with a long track record (for a closer anyways) and is still young and has 3 seasons wit the team.
That's a valuable commodity.
I mean, really, your Dave Dombrowski, and you look around, Papi is toward the end of his career, the pressure is on to win, and from watching the team in August in Sept, you know you have a young emerging core that can contend and win the division the next season, but the team lacks a reliable ace, and has a 41 year old closer that you have to be very careful with heading up a bullpen with little depth and a lot of question marks.
So is your first choice going to be to gamble with a reliever who may or may not take to the closing role? I think given the choice of getting one of the best in the business for blocked prospects (and knowing that the cost of a starting pitcher is much higher than those blocked prospects) or hoping that older O'Day works out for 4 years, he opted for his first choice.
I'm going to guess that DD wanted no part of Chapman in Boston after finding out about his troubles.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 17, 2016 13:05:34 GMT -5
And while I agree with DeepJohn that the Sox did alright in the trade, I don't agree with his take on Margot, who will be quite a useful and solid player for San Diego. He's hardly a mediocrity. But it says a lot about the Sox OF that he's not better than Betts/JBJ/Benintendi and Moncada who would likely wind up in the OF if there was an injury.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 17, 2016 13:09:40 GMT -5
Not so sure. Craig Kimbrel + (Holt/Young -> Benny Baseball) > one year of LF stopgap Is Holt/Young really hurting us in LF? I love it when those guys are in the lineup. What Jim is saying is that O'Day + LF acquisition + Holt/Young on bench > Kimbrell + Holt/Young. Benintendi was netted out of the equation. AND It sets the team up better for future success as well. Correct me if I'm wrong. They could trade those prospects for anything if necessary. And Margot would also be very good depth to have in the minors. I'd go with him over Castillo if there were a JBJ or Mookie DL stint.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 17, 2016 13:10:35 GMT -5
Margot would never play for the Red Sox. I know you guys will say could have used him in another deal but the outfield is covered for years to come Right. No one ever gets injured ever.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 17, 2016 13:13:07 GMT -5
I think what keeps getting missed in this "We would have signed O'Day and all would have went well" or "we would have been the ones to deal for Chapman" stuff is that we don't know how O'Day would have handled the closing role. I'm not trying to tell you that a successful setup guy like O'Day couldn't have thrived as the Sox closer. There's a good chance he would have, but the certainty was less than it is for Craig Kimbrel. It's also possible that O'Day could have blanched at the pressure of being the closer in a very reactionary city like Boston. It's amazing how Kimbrel is painted as a run-of-the-mill closer as in any schnook can handle the pressure of closing in Boston in a season where the Red Sox have to make the play-offs (I'm pretty sure that's a directive from the top). I'm amazed that very few people here realize that at best comparison Kimbrel isn't far off from a Mariano Rivera or at a more realistic comparison he's Billy Wagner in his prime. So he's a guy who's been among the best with a long track record (for a closer anyways) and is still young and has 3 seasons wit the team. That's a valuable commodity. I mean, really, your Dave Dombrowski, and you look around, Papi is toward the end of his career, the pressure is on to win, and from watching the team in August in Sept, you know you have a young emerging core that can contend and win the division the next season, but the team lacks a reliable ace, and has a 41 year old closer that you have to be very careful with heading up a bullpen with little depth and a lot of question marks. So is your first choice going to be to gamble with a reliever who may or may not take to the closing role? I think given the choice of getting one of the best in the business for blocked prospects (and knowing that the cost of a starting pitcher is much higher than those blocked prospects) or hoping that older O'Day works out for 4 years, he opted for his first choice. I'm going to guess that DD wanted no part of Chapman in Boston after finding out about his troubles. First, any of Uehara, Smith or O'Day could have closed. It doesn't matter. They could share it for all I care. Second, there is no way that Kimbrel can be compared to Rivera. As soon as his velocity drops 2-3 mph, he's done.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 17, 2016 13:34:39 GMT -5
I think what keeps getting missed in this "We would have signed O'Day and all would have went well" or "we would have been the ones to deal for Chapman" stuff is that we don't know how O'Day would have handled the closing role. I'm not trying to tell you that a successful setup guy like O'Day couldn't have thrived as the Sox closer. There's a good chance he would have, but the certainty was less than it is for Craig Kimbrel. It's also possible that O'Day could have blanched at the pressure of being the closer in a very reactionary city like Boston. It's amazing how Kimbrel is painted as a run-of-the-mill closer as in any schnook can handle the pressure of closing in Boston in a season where the Red Sox have to make the play-offs (I'm pretty sure that's a directive from the top). I'm amazed that very few people here realize that at best comparison Kimbrel isn't far off from a Mariano Rivera or at a more realistic comparison he's Billy Wagner in his prime. So he's a guy who's been among the best with a long track record (for a closer anyways) and is still young and has 3 seasons wit the team. That's a valuable commodity. I mean, really, your Dave Dombrowski, and you look around, Papi is toward the end of his career, the pressure is on to win, and from watching the team in August in Sept, you know you have a young emerging core that can contend and win the division the next season, but the team lacks a reliable ace, and has a 41 year old closer that you have to be very careful with heading up a bullpen with little depth and a lot of question marks. So is your first choice going to be to gamble with a reliever who may or may not take to the closing role? I think given the choice of getting one of the best in the business for blocked prospects (and knowing that the cost of a starting pitcher is much higher than those blocked prospects) or hoping that older O'Day works out for 4 years, he opted for his first choice. I'm going to guess that DD wanted no part of Chapman in Boston after finding out about his troubles. First, any of Uehara, Smith or O'Day could have closed. It doesn't matter. They could share it for all I care. Second, there is no way that Kimbrel can be compared to Rivera. As soon as his velocity drops 2-3 mph, he's done. His numbers compare very favorably to where Rivera was over his first five seasons as a closer. I agree that won't be pitching when he's 43 and he might not make it until he's 33 if he loses too much velocity, but from 27-29 he should still be a top notch closer, and very comparable to what Billy Wagner was. Don't undersell Kimbrel as a closer. And I'm not convinced that any of Uehara, O'Day, or Smith would be the answer for the Sox this season. I don't know if O'Day would have pitched well for the Sox. I suspect he would have, but I don't have the level of certainty on him that I do Kimbrel. For whatever reason Farrell seems to not want to use Smith and Smith has already had an injury, which is one more than Kimbrel's had all these seasons. Reliability does matter. And as much as I love Koji, he's 41 and as good as he's been his margin is very razor thin. No, I'll take Kimbrel heading the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on May 17, 2016 13:44:02 GMT -5
It kind of angers me that the Yankees were able to sign Chapman for peanuts. Every other team (most teams) wanted no part of this guy for what he did. Then the MFY simply say "we'll take that".
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 17, 2016 14:53:04 GMT -5
Not so sure. Craig Kimbrel + (Holt/Young -> Benny Baseball) > one year of LF stopgap Is Holt/Young really hurting us in LF? I love it when those guys are in the lineup. What Jim is saying is that O'Day + LF acquisition + Holt/Young on bench > Kimbrell + Holt/Young. Benintendi was netted out of the equation. AND It sets the team up better for future success as well. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm actually OK with the Kimbrel trade, although I was pretty pissed at the time. I'm only OK with it because of how ridiculous the cost for Shelby Miller was, leading me to believe that DD did his due diligence on starter (2/3 or better) acquisition and found the cost prohibitive. Instead, he built a tremendous bullpen and signed Price, reducing the requirement for an immediate #2. But, I still balk at spending the extra $3M per year *plus* those three prospects, and Asuaje, for the likely small performance gap from O'Day to Kimbrel. I think those players could have been used more effectively as assets in a different deal. However, as I said, I'm OK with DD having a vision and acting decisively to execute it, even if it cost some extra talent. I think he and the FO correctly judged the value of those players, who were redundant, and he filled a need with a closer whose career is off to a historically good start. It's one thing to thing the trade was bad (I don't), another to see it as sub-optimal use of resources (I do). Of course, that's with the caveat that I do think there's real benefit to acting quickly and decisively to set the roster, put the plan in action, and get everyone on the same page. I think the Smith trade was part of that plan, as was signing Price quickly.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 17, 2016 19:32:20 GMT -5
For whatever reason Farrell seems to not want to use Smith and Smith has already had an injury, which is one more than Kimbrel's had all these seasons. Reliability does matter. And as much as I love Koji, he's 41 and as good as he's been his margin is very razor thin. No, I'll take Kimbrel heading the bullpen. My apologies to John Farrell. There's a good reason he's been staying away from Smith since he's come back. It has everything to do with him not feeling right still. I'm glad the Sox didn't rely on him to be a closer or co-closer. Now I know why he wasn't being used so much.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 18, 2016 8:38:24 GMT -5
I think what keeps getting missed in this "We would have signed O'Day and all would have went well" or "we would have been the ones to deal for Chapman" stuff is that we don't know how O'Day would have handled the closing role. I'm not trying to tell you that a successful setup guy like O'Day couldn't have thrived as the Sox closer. There's a good chance he would have, but the certainty was less than it is for Craig Kimbrel. It's also possible that O'Day could have blanched at the pressure of being the closer in a very reactionary city like Boston. It's amazing how Kimbrel is painted as a run-of-the-mill closer as in any schnook can handle the pressure of closing in Boston in a season where the Red Sox have to make the play-offs (I'm pretty sure that's a directive from the top). I'm amazed that very few people here realize that at best comparison Kimbrel isn't far off from a Mariano Rivera or at a more realistic comparison he's Billy Wagner in his prime. So he's a guy who's been among the best with a long track record (for a closer anyways) and is still young and has 3 seasons wit the team. That's a valuable commodity. I mean, really, your Dave Dombrowski, and you look around, Papi is toward the end of his career, the pressure is on to win, and from watching the team in August in Sept, you know you have a young emerging core that can contend and win the division the next season, but the team lacks a reliable ace, and has a 41 year old closer that you have to be very careful with heading up a bullpen with little depth and a lot of question marks. So is your first choice going to be to gamble with a reliever who may or may not take to the closing role? I think given the choice of getting one of the best in the business for blocked prospects (and knowing that the cost of a starting pitcher is much higher than those blocked prospects) or hoping that older O'Day works out for 4 years, he opted for his first choice. I'm going to guess that DD wanted no part of Chapman in Boston after finding out about his troubles. First, any of Uehara, Smith or O'Day could have closed. It doesn't matter. They could share it for all I care. Second, there is no way that Kimbrel can be compared to Rivera. As soon as his velocity drops 2-3 mph, he's done. He could go his whole career and not see a 2-3 mph decline. The guy is a well built flamethrower and we've seen guys like Wagner maintain velocity over a long career as a power reliever.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 89
|
Post by brisox on May 18, 2016 11:01:42 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. What is this trade that they give us the flexibility to do that we can no longer do? Right now we are firing on all fronts and have plenty of people we can leverage if we need to make a trade without trading the top 4. Only player I regret losing in all that was Logan Allen cause we need the pitching. Trade chips only have value if someone wants those chips .We were looking to make a number of trades this winter for a #2 and every team wanted all MLB or MLB ready talent (JBJ, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez,Holt etc) which we were not going to do , the only team that wanted a bunch of prospects was SD so that's the deal we did , they had other prospect deals lined up, they just liked ours better and the sweeteners got added. DD did this deal in spite of an almost universal veto by the Player Development team . He wanted Kimbral, he wanted a splash, he gets what he wants. Now that the Splash period is over he is very focused on internal development been at Salem a ton already this year and gave International a bigger staff and more ability to look into darker corners for talent, but he wants to win this year so be prepared that no prospect not named Moncado or Benintendi is safe. .
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 89
|
Post by brisox on May 18, 2016 11:10:55 GMT -5
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. We are batting .298 as a team right now you say we "need" a LF . I do not think that means what you think it means
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 89
|
Post by brisox on May 18, 2016 11:16:24 GMT -5
I think what keeps getting missed in this "We would have signed O'Day and all would have went well" or "we would have been the ones to deal for Chapman" stuff is that we don't know how O'Day would have handled the closing role. I'm not trying to tell you that a successful setup guy like O'Day couldn't have thrived as the Sox closer. There's a good chance he would have, but the certainty was less than it is for Craig Kimbrel. It's also possible that O'Day could have blanched at the pressure of being the closer in a very reactionary city like Boston. It's amazing how Kimbrel is painted as a run-of-the-mill closer as in any schnook can handle the pressure of closing in Boston in a season where the Red Sox have to make the play-offs (I'm pretty sure that's a directive from the top). I'm amazed that very few people here realize that at best comparison Kimbrel isn't far off from a Mariano Rivera or at a more realistic comparison he's Billy Wagner in his prime. So he's a guy who's been among the best with a long track record (for a closer anyways) and is still young and has 3 seasons wit the team. That's a valuable commodity. I mean, really, your Dave Dombrowski, and you look around, Papi is toward the end of his career, the pressure is on to win, and from watching the team in August in Sept, you know you have a young emerging core that can contend and win the division the next season, but the team lacks a reliable ace, and has a 41 year old closer that you have to be very careful with heading up a bullpen with little depth and a lot of question marks. So is your first choice going to be to gamble with a reliever who may or may not take to the closing role? I think given the choice of getting one of the best in the business for blocked prospects (and knowing that the cost of a starting pitcher is much higher than those blocked prospects) or hoping that older O'Day works out for 4 years, he opted for his first choice. I'm going to guess that DD wanted no part of Chapman in Boston after finding out about his troubles. That is how you do the math. great post.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 18, 2016 11:25:30 GMT -5
Margot at .333/.419/.492 with 8 steals and an 9:8 strikeout to walk ratio in his last 16 games (75 plate appearances) after going 3 for 4 with a double, walk, and stolen base last night.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 89
|
Post by brisox on May 18, 2016 11:41:44 GMT -5
What Jim is saying is that O'Day + LF acquisition + Holt/Young on bench > Kimbrell + Holt/Young. Benintendi was netted out of the equation. AND It sets the team up better for future success as well. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm actually OK with the Kimbrel trade, although I was pretty pissed at the time. I'm only OK with it because of how ridiculous the cost for Shelby Miller was, leading me to believe that DD did his due diligence on starter (2/3 or better) acquisition and found the cost prohibitive. Instead, he built a tremendous bullpen and signed Price, reducing the requirement for an immediate #2. But, I still balk at spending the extra $3M per year *plus* those three prospects, and Asuaje, for the likely small performance gap from O'Day to Kimbrel. I think those players could have been used more effectively as assets in a different deal. However, as I said, I'm OK with DD having a vision and acting decisively to execute it, even if it cost some extra talent. I think he and the FO correctly judged the value of those players, who were redundant, and he filled a need with a closer whose career is off to a historically good start. It's one thing to thing the trade was bad (I don't), another to see it as sub-optimal use of resources (I do). Of course, that's with the caveat that I do think there's real benefit to acting quickly and decisively to set the roster, put the plan in action, and get everyone on the same page. I think the Smith trade was part of that plan, as was signing Price quickly. Red Sox announce they have signed O'day a 33yr old solid late inning reliever they hope to convert to closer or Red Sox announce they acquired the best closer in the game who is only 27 and controlled for 3 more years and all they had to give up was some prospects you never heard of. Which one do you think Joe Ticket buyer would rather hear in a year after we lost our sell out streak and Season ticket sales are way down. Kimbrall solved 2 problems for us at a time where Price wasn't a done deal.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by ianrs on May 18, 2016 11:44:35 GMT -5
Margot at .333/.419/.492 with 8 steals and an 9:8 strikeout to walk ratio in his last 16 games (75 plate appearances) after going 3 for 4 with a double, walk, and stolen base last night. Good thing we couldn't use another OF right now! Oh wait...
|
|
|