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 James Dunne on May 18, 2016 11:45:32 GMT -5
Don't need one, remember? The team is playing well, so that means there are no needs and all trades are good trades and we were always at war with Eurasia.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 18, 2016 11:55:15 GMT -5
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. But I thought the Red Sox FO did this because they are so much better at evaluating prospect risk than we are and noticed that Margot would never become a legit major league player? That's what deepjohn told us!
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on May 18, 2016 12:40:03 GMT -5
Good thing we've got Kimbrel with Smith news and Koji's iffiness. Remember last year when Koji got hurt?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 13:01:59 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. I can't seem to find in-season splits for LHP/RHP PAs (for MiLB games), but the brute force method tells me that Margot has done well in this stretch primarily against LHP. Although we can rule in that he projects now to be a weak hitter (40/45) against RHP, we can't rule out that he mashes against lefties. But still, it was a great time to trade that chip when there was all that value in the possibility he would have RHH power both ways. Saying you wanted O'Day is a disagreement with management, not the trade itself. It means you would be OK in crucial games with having an older, less effective reliever, rather than one of the top 5 dominant ones. That's a small market strategy, if you think you might not make the playoffs, and can't generate revenue even if you do. Leaving that aside, the cool thing is they trade Margot when he had a lot of value as RHH power, for the only tested and dominant reliever available (with Chapman DQ'd and Giles even more expensive). Well done Red Sox! (with the benefit of hindsight).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2016 13:32:27 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. 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 All it takes is one injury anywhere on the field and we're at replacement level player taking over instead of Brock Holt. And we're at that point when any player needs a day off also. There are too many players playing every single game and that isn't going to hold up all season. Holt's value is as a super utility player and that is lost right now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2016 13:35:08 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. I can't seem to find in-season splits for LHP/RHP PAs (for MiLB games), but the brute force method tells me that Margot has done well in this stretch primarily against LHP. Although we can rule in that he projects now to be a weak hitter (40/45) against RHP, we can't rule out that he mashes against lefties. But still, it was a great time to trade that chip when there was all that value in the possibility he would have RHH power both ways. Saying you wanted O'Day is a disagreement with management, not the trade itself. It means you would be OK in crucial games with having an older, less effective reliever, rather than one of the top 5 dominant ones. That's a small market strategy, if you think you might not make the playoffs, and can't generate revenue even if you do. Leaving that aside, the cool thing is they trade Margot when he had a lot of value as RHH power, for the only tested and dominant reliever available (with Chapman DQ'd and Giles even more expensive). Well done Red Sox! (with the benefit of hindsight). You are the only one ruling anything about a 21 year old that is finished developing in AAA.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 18, 2016 13:36:48 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. I can't seem to find in-season splits for LHP/RHP PAs (for MiLB games), but the brute force method tells me that Margot has done well in this stretch primarily against LHP. Although we can rule in that he projects now to be a weak hitter (40/45) against RHP, we can't rule out that he mashes against lefties. But still, it was a great time to trade that chip when there was all that value in the possibility he would have RHH power both ways. Saying you wanted O'Day is a disagreement with management, not the trade itself. It means you would be OK in crucial games with having an older, less effective reliever, rather than one of the top 5 dominant ones. That's a small market strategy, if you think you might not make the playoffs, and can't generate revenue even if you do. Leaving that aside, the cool thing is they trade Margot when he had a lot of value as RHH power, for the only tested and dominant reliever available (with Chapman DQ'd and Giles even more expensive). Well done Red Sox! (with the benefit of hindsight). This year, his OPS against RHP 765 against LHP 808. You really got to drop this notion that he is a 40/45 hitter. No outlet puts this future grade on him, and even if you are scouting the stats line he's been an above average hitter every step of his minor league career, including the small 2016 sample size, and that is without adjusting for age. If you like the trade that's fine, I disagree, but stop making stuff up to downplay Margot to prove your point. He went 62 at bats to start 2015 without a strikeout while being young for the league.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 18, 2016 13:47:11 GMT -5
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. It is a demonstrably bad long-term business plan to make bad baseball trades in order to please Joe Ticket Buyer. If you win games, they will come, and if you lose games, they will stay away no matter how many (former) stars you have on your roster.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 18, 2016 14:02:47 GMT -5
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. It is a demonstrably bad long-term business plan to make bad baseball trades in order to please Joe Ticket Buyer. If you win games, they will come, and if you lose games, they will stay away no matter how many (former) stars you have on your roster. I don't like hearing that, but I don't consider Kimbrel a "former" star. I can't imagine that Sam Kennedy is the type to twist arms the way I think Lucchino tried to Theo and the baseball ops dept when he was there. I would hope the moves they make are to improve the team short-term and long-term (balanced) as opposed to pleasing Joe Ticket Buyer.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 14:04:44 GMT -5
I can't seem to find in-season splits for LHP/RHP PAs (for MiLB games), but the brute force method tells me that Margot has done well in this stretch primarily against LHP. Although we can rule in that he projects now to be a weak hitter (40/45) against RHP, we can't rule out that he mashes against lefties. But still, it was a great time to trade that chip when there was all that value in the possibility he would have RHH power both ways. Saying you wanted O'Day is a disagreement with management, not the trade itself. It means you would be OK in crucial games with having an older, less effective reliever, rather than one of the top 5 dominant ones. That's a small market strategy, if you think you might not make the playoffs, and can't generate revenue even if you do. Leaving that aside, the cool thing is they trade Margot when he had a lot of value as RHH power, for the only tested and dominant reliever available (with Chapman DQ'd and Giles even more expensive). Well done Red Sox! (with the benefit of hindsight). This year, his OPS against RHP 765 against LHP 808. You really got to drop this notion that he is a 40/45 hitter. No outlet puts this future grade on him, and even if you are scouting the stats line he's been an above average hitter every step of his minor league career, including the small 2016 sample size, and that is without adjusting for age. If you like the trade that's fine, I disagree, but stop making stuff up to downplay Margot to prove your point. He went 62 at bats to start 2015 without a strikeout while being young for the league. This is a much simpler point than what he might be someday in the eyes of scouts. The simple point is that at the time of the trade, his value was maxed out as a trade chip. Physically, he was "closed to maxed out" (Speier). His small sample splits seemed to show that he may have been trending to a 40/45 bat power (per Jimed, below) (.120 ISO) against RHP, a trend that has only been continued in AAA. He may recover that value someday, if he can turn it around, sure. But that's no help in using that trading chip now. Trading partners looking at the "Margot trading chip" would not now value him as a RHH power, and RHH power is in demand because it has become more scarce. Another way to keep it simple is, the Padres would be irrational to do this same deal now, as the sample stats stand now in AA/AAA. They would need more "sweeteners". Or they'd just pick from the other teams who were (according to brisox) also making offers.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 14:09:34 GMT -5
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. It is a demonstrably bad long-term business plan to make bad baseball trades in order to please Joe Ticket Buyer. If you win games, they will come, and if you lose games, they will stay away no matter how many (former) stars you have on your roster. "demonstrably bad long-term business plan"! How could there be a good faith statistical basis for that! Is that your emotion talking?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2016 14:18:43 GMT -5
This year, his OPS against RHP 765 against LHP 808. You really got to drop this notion that he is a 40/45 hitter. No outlet puts this future grade on him, and even if you are scouting the stats line he's been an above average hitter every step of his minor league career, including the small 2016 sample size, and that is without adjusting for age. If you like the trade that's fine, I disagree, but stop making stuff up to downplay Margot to prove your point. He went 62 at bats to start 2015 without a strikeout while being young for the league. This is a much simpler point than what he might be someday in the eyes of scouts. The simple point is that at the time of the trade, his value was maxed out as a trade chip. Physically, he was "closed to maxed out" (Speier). His small sample splits seemed to show that he may have been trending to a 40/45 bat (.120 ISO) against RHP, a trend that has only been continued in AAA. He may recover that value someday, if he can turn it around, sure. But that's no help in using that trading chip now. Trading partners looking at the "Margot trading chip" would not now value him as a RHH power, and RHH power is in demand because it has become more scarce. Another way to keep it simple is, the Padres would be irrational to do this same deal now, as the sample stats stand now in AA/AAA. They would need more "sweeteners". Or they'd just pick from the other teams who were (according to brisox) also making offers. The .120 ISO is an indicator of his power, not his hit tool. With the k-rate so low, you're completely wrong and I have no idea why you continually post 40/45 hit tool. You are the only one saying it. It's not the consensus and he isn't trending towards that. Look at the Royals. Their entire team is made up of great contact, little power, fast and great defenders. Exactly what Margot is and will likely be.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on May 18, 2016 14:20:08 GMT -5
Would I be correct in saying, the difference of opinion here is many viewed Margot as a chip to acquire a #1 or #2 starting pitcher?
Or did many view Margot as a starting positional player in Left field?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 14:24:14 GMT -5
This is a much simpler point than what he might be someday in the eyes of scouts. The simple point is that at the time of the trade, his value was maxed out as a trade chip. Physically, he was "closed to maxed out" (Speier). His small sample splits seemed to show that he may have been trending to a 40/45 bat (.120 ISO) against RHP, a trend that has only been continued in AAA. He may recover that value someday, if he can turn it around, sure. But that's no help in using that trading chip now. Trading partners looking at the "Margot trading chip" would not now value him as a RHH power, and RHH power is in demand because it has become more scarce. Another way to keep it simple is, the Padres would be irrational to do this same deal now, as the sample stats stand now in AA/AAA. They would need more "sweeteners". Or they'd just pick from the other teams who were (according to brisox) also making offers. The .120 ISO is an indicator of his power, not his hit tool. With the k-rate so low, you're completely wrong and I have no idea why you continually post 40/45 hit tool. You are the only one saying it. It's not the consensus and he isn't trending towards that. Look at the Royals. Their entire team is made up of great contact, little power, fast and great defenders. Exactly what Margot is and will likely be. I am emphasizing his ISO power, not his BA or OBP, because the ISO power is increasingly scarce, because ISO "stabilizes" in smallish samples, and because at the time of the trade, he had been very recently ranked or scouted with 50/55+ power tool. The "Margot trading chip" still has value for "great contact, little power, fast and great defenders". But not for ISO power against RHP at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 18, 2016 14:47:37 GMT -5
The .120 ISO is an indicator of his power, not his hit tool. With the k-rate so low, you're completely wrong and I have no idea why you continually post 40/45 hit tool. You are the only one saying it. It's not the consensus and he isn't trending towards that. Look at the Royals. Their entire team is made up of great contact, little power, fast and great defenders. Exactly what Margot is and will likely be. I am emphasizing his ISO power, not his BA or OBP, because the ISO power is increasingly scarce, because ISO "stabilizes" in smallish samples, and because at the time of the trade, he had been very recently ranked or scouted with 50/55+ power tool. The "Margot trading chip" still has value for "great contact, little power, fast and great defenders". But not for ISO power against RHP at the moment.That description fits JP Crawford, Swanson, and Arcia, who are all top 10 prospects (MLB.com)
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2016 15:07:04 GMT -5
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 $3M per year *plus* those three prospects, and Asuaje, for the likely small performance gap from O'Day to Kimbrel. I think those players could have been used more effectively as assets in a different deal. However, as I said, I'm OK with DD having a vision and acting decisively to execute it, even if it cost some extra talent. I think he and the FO correctly judged the value of those players, who were redundant, and he filled a need with a closer whose career is off to a historically good start. It's one thing to thing the trade was bad (I don't), another to see it as sub-optimal use of resources (I do). Of course, that's with the caveat that I do think there's real benefit to acting quickly and decisively to set the roster, put the plan in action, and get everyone on the same page. I think the Smith trade was part of that plan, as was signing Price quickly. Red Sox announce they have signed O'day a 33yr old solid late inning reliever they hope to convert to closer or Red Sox announce they acquired the best closer in the game who is only 27 and controlled for 3 more years and all they had to give up was some prospects you never heard of. Which one do you think Joe Ticket buyer would rather hear in a year after we lost our sell out streak and Season ticket sales are way down. Kimbrall solved 2 problems for us at a time where Price wasn't a done deal. Except doing what Joe Ticket Buyer thinks is rarely the way to build a successful team. See: Red Sox, 2011 (and subsequent fallout, ntm that the 2013 winner was the polar opposite of what JT Buyer wanted at the time). Like I said, I respect that DD has vision (which is much rarer than many might think), and that he was willing to "spend" ($ **and** talent) to fulfill it. But that doesn't make acquiring Kimbrel (whose place as "best in game" is highly debatable) the best use of resources. The Sox aren't going to struggle to sell tickets if the team plays well.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2016 15:10:36 GMT -5
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. Possible and likely are very different things. That said, who knows? Maybe his command improves or he changes the way he pitches. It's tough to say. But he's pretty damn good right now.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 18, 2016 15:20:42 GMT -5
Kimbrel (whose place as "best in game" is highly debatable) 2013-2015 Relievers with 100+ IP ERA Davis 0.96 Giles 1.56 Betances 1.71 Britton 1.73 Kimbrel 1.77 O'Day 1.79 Melancon 1.85 Uehara 1.86 FIP Davis 1.79 Chapman 1.82 Giles 1.82 Jansen 2.00 Holland 2.02 Betances 2.07 Miller 2.08 Kimbrel 2.13 SIERA Jansen 1.54 Britton 1.63 Chapman 1.64 Miller 1.66 Uehara 1.82 Betances 1.85 Kimbrel 1.94 RE24 Davis 58.70 Betances 52.08 Watson 47.85 O'Day 45.23 Uehara 45.05 Melancon 43.63 Benoit 43.21 Chapman 42.12 Britton 40.61 Miller 39.80 Kimbrel 39.78 WPA Melancon 10.19 Watson 9.69 Betances 8.76 Davis 8.68 Kimbrel 8.54 Should be a pretty short debate.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 16:00:28 GMT -5
I am emphasizing his ISO power, not his BA or OBP, because the ISO power is increasingly scarce, because ISO "stabilizes" in smallish samples, and because at the time of the trade, he had been very recently ranked or scouted with 50/55+ power tool. The "Margot trading chip" still has value for "great contact, little power, fast and great defenders". But not for ISO power against RHP at the moment.That description fits JP Crawford, Swanson, and Arcia, who are all top 10 prospects (MLB.com) Not to miss the really simple point which is: The "Margot trading chip" was perceived, at the time of the trade, to have a far greater scarce resource value of RHH ISO power, which it was redeemed for. Once it lost the perception of ISO power, while maintaining all other value, its value would (and in hindsight did) fall greatly. The Red Sox needed to "use it or lose it."
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 18, 2016 16:17:46 GMT -5
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. Except doing what Joe Ticket Buyer thinks is rarely the way to build a successful team. See: Red Sox, 2011 (and subsequent fallout, ntm that the 2013 winner was the polar opposite of what JT Buyer wanted at the time). Like I said, I respect that DD has vision (which is much rarer than many might think), and that he was willing to "spend" ($ **and** talent) to fulfill it. But that doesn't make acquiring Kimbrel (whose place as "best in game" is highly debatable) the best use of resources. The Sox aren't going to struggle to sell tickets if the team plays well. But to be fair to brisox, he's talking about "success" as a business plan for increasing season ticket sales and TV revenues. This business plan may be (for all I know) correlated to star quality, not only to wins and losses. In one cherry-picked example, Do people watch TV to see a dominant reliever blow people away with 98-100 MPH fastballs? Fist pump and celebrate when the inning is over? It seems good drama. I don't find any good faith statistical basis to say that this is definitely false.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 18, 2016 16:18:42 GMT -5
The "Margot trading chip" was perceived, by deepjohn and deepjohn only at the time of the trade, to have a far greater scarce resource value of RHH ISO power, which it was redeemed for. It's all about you, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on May 18, 2016 16:20:38 GMT -5
One possibility that nobody has noted is that the emergence of either Margot or Guerra would have provided the Red Sox a possible opportunity to trade a Bradley or Bogaerts (whom they may not be able to resign) for multiple young pitchers, whereas the current combined trade value of Margot and Guerra (and Logan Allen) wouldn't have been enough to acquire even a single #2 starter.
Prospects are severely under-valued. The Red Sox should really consider trying to position themselves to take advantage of this market efficiency more often than they do. It might be one way of addressing their inability to develop young pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2016 16:28:36 GMT -5
That description fits JP Crawford, Swanson, and Arcia, who are all top 10 prospects (MLB.com) Not to miss the really simple point which is: The "Margot trading chip" was perceived, at the time of the trade, to have a far greater scarce resource value of RHH ISO power, which it was redeemed for. Once it lost the perception of ISO power, while maintaining all other value, its value would (and in hindsight did) fall greatly. The Red Sox needed to "use it or lose it." Why the hell are you implying that only right handed power hitter prospects have any value? Margot is worth just as much as he ever has been. Probably more, because he's 21 and performing just as well in AAA as he was in A+ and AA last year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2016 17:01:09 GMT -5
Would I be correct in saying, the difference of opinion here is many viewed Margot as a chip to acquire a #1 or #2 starting pitcher? Or did many view Margot as a starting positional player in Left field? Arguably both, although you can't always have your cake and eat it too. But theoretically, O'Day could've been signed and Margot et al kept for depth (Margot could probably play in LF right now and Holt go to the super-utility role) to be used for a specific need at the deadline, be it TOR pitcher or other. Of course, the risk there is Margot or the others struggle and lose value.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2016 17:05:07 GMT -5
Not to miss the really simple point which is: The "Margot trading chip" was perceived, at the time of the trade, to have a far greater scarce resource value of RHH ISO power, which it was redeemed for. Once it lost the perception of ISO power, while maintaining all other value, its value would (and in hindsight did) fall greatly. The Red Sox needed to "use it or lose it." Why the hell are you implying that only right handed power hitter prospects have any value? Margot is worth just as much as he ever has been. Probably more, because he's 21 and performing just as well in AAA as he was in A+ and AA last year. Yeah, the game has changed. Guys like Gomez, and especially Cain, Kiermaier, etc have greatly increased perception of defensive-minded, speedy OF with reasonable to good hitting abilities and average (give or take) power. Those players are highly desirable now in a way they weren't remotely in the steroid/offensive era. The rise of defensive analytics has certainly helped, too.
|
|
|