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 dcsoxfan on May 19, 2016 8:56:00 GMT -5
I don't much care to rehash the arguments over whether this was a good or bad trade; I frankly don't have the knowledge to project what kind of player Margot, Guerra or Allen will become. Even if it was a bad trade as I believe, I think the Red Sox have the resources to overcome one bad deal.
What concerns me is the trade was made despite the objections of the entire player development staff. Elite prospects are not an infinite resource. There are no more than ten to twenty impact players signed as amateurs (draft and IFA) in any year and there are 29 other teams looking for them and MLB has rules handicapping the better teams. It's very hard for a good team to find even one impact player in a draft/IFA class.
I'm not sure that John Henry fully appreciates this or recognizes how trading prospects contributed to three last place finishes. I expect there's at least one more serious overpay coming.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 19, 2016 9:00:11 GMT -5
Please don't put words in my mouth. I thought Margot was a top 30ish prospect in baseball during the offseason and still think he's in that range. It's hard to argue that they sold high on him when his value hasn't declined much since then and, more importantly, they didn't get anything near equivalent value back for him. Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. (I meant #56 prospect ranked by BA, not you.) Glad you brought up "equivalent value back for him." brisox notes that there were other prospect deals in play for Kimbrel, and that the Red Sox had to add sweeteners to get the deal done. So going by what other teams were offering at that time, then the Red Sox did get "equivalent value" back, in that sense. Well done Red Sox!
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 19, 2016 10:04:18 GMT -5
I don't much care to rehash the arguments over whether this was a good or bad trade; I frankly don't have the knowledge to project what kind of player Margot, Guerra or Allen will become. Even if it was a bad trade as I believe, I think the Red Sox have the resources to overcome one bad deal. What concerns me is the trade was made despite the objections of the entire player development staff. Elite prospects are not an infinite resource. There are no more than ten to twenty impact players signed as amateurs (draft and IFA) in any year and there are 29 other teams looking for them and MLB has rules handicapping the better teams. It's very hard for a good team to find even one impact player in a draft/IFA class. I'm not sure that John Henry fully appreciates this or recognizes how trading prospects contributed to three last place finishes. I expect there's at least one more serious overpay coming. As always, I think you raise a lot of great points. The thing is, the Red Sox didn't want to leave Margot unprotected for the Rule 5 draft, and also did not have needed to clear a spot for him on the 40 man. It was widely written and every team in the league knew the Red Sox were going to be "forced" (in that sense) to trade him (and this may have hurt his trade value). Unless they cleared a spot on the 40 man, it was only a question of how soon to trade him, and for whom. ADD: for clarity, Margot was a lock to be added, if they didn't trade him, but would have needed to replace one of these: www.soxprospects.com/40man.htm
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2016 10:11:40 GMT -5
I don't much care to rehash the arguments over whether this was a good or bad trade; I frankly don't have the knowledge to project what kind of player Margot, Guerra or Allen will become. Even if it was a bad trade as I believe, I think the Red Sox have the resources to overcome one bad deal. What concerns me is the trade was made despite the objections of the entire player development staff. Elite prospects are not an infinite resource. There are no more than ten to twenty impact players signed as amateurs (draft and IFA) in any year and there are 29 other teams looking for them and MLB has rules handicapping the better teams. It's very hard for a good team to find even one impact player in a draft/IFA class. I'm not sure that John Henry fully appreciates this or recognizes how trading prospects contributed to three last place finishes. I expect there's at least one more serious overpay coming. As always, I think you raise a lot of great points. The thing is, the Red Sox didn't want to leave Margot unprotected for the Rule 5 draft, and also did not have a spot for him on the 40 man. It was widely written and every team in the league knew the Red Sox were going to be "forced" (in that sense) to trade him (and this may have hurt his trade value). Unless they cleared a spot on the 40 man, it was only a question of how soon to trade him, and for whom. This can't be serious. Is this Bill Lee?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 19, 2016 10:11:50 GMT -5
As always, I think you raise a lot of great points. The thing is, the Red Sox didn't want to leave Margot unprotected for the Rule 5 draft, and also did not have a spot for him on the 40 man. It was widely written and every team in the league knew the Red Sox were going to be "forced" (in that sense) to trade him (and this may have hurt his trade value). What am I witnessing here? Satire, comedy or tragedy?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 19, 2016 10:21:12 GMT -5
As always, I think you raise a lot of great points. The thing is, the Red Sox didn't want to leave Margot unprotected for the Rule 5 draft, and also did not have a spot for him on the 40 man. It was widely written and every team in the league knew the Red Sox were going to be "forced" (in that sense) to trade him (and this may have hurt his trade value). Unless they cleared a spot on the 40 man, it was only a question of how soon to trade him, and for whom. This can't be serious. Is this Bill Lee? I said "forced" in that sense! Of course, he was a lock to be added, if they didn't trade him!!! Source is here: "Margot is a good player – an excellent bet to be a starting center fielder – who is held in high regard throughout the industry, but with Mookie Betts, Jackie Bradley Jr., Andrew Benintendi, and possibly (in the future) Yoan Moncada ahead of him as future center field options, there was a wide expectation that Margot would be used as a trade chip, particularly given that he’ll have to be added to the 40-man roster this offseason." www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/13/closer-look-prospects-red-sox-traded-away/622IxpiHRfp21cQ3jE5g9N/story.html
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 19, 2016 10:29:09 GMT -5
I said "forced" in that sense! Of course, he was a lock to be added, if they didn't trade him!!! Yes, so they just add him, what's the problem? How does it affect his value? It doesn't. Why do you mention it? It's obviously just part of your guerilla warfare method of discussion, throwing so many bad arguments out there that you hope your opponents can't possibly deal with all of them and by the time people (who? you yourself, probably) have forgotten how thoroughly they were refuted you bring the oldest argument back from the grave, always moving the goalposts so that you never have to admit defeat. The amazing thing is that you're still finding people to play this game with you, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on May 19, 2016 10:29:28 GMT -5
It was widely written and every team in the league knew the Red Sox were going to be "forced" (in that sense) to trade him (and this may have hurt his trade value). Source, or it never happened.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on May 19, 2016 11:35:39 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts....
1.) I get the concept that trading future value for present value--for present wins--is going to be a losing proposition (in terms of WAR), which is a real and significant cost, but it is not the whole story. All that (theoretical) future WAR traded for Kimbrel is not guaranteed, and there is no way to precisely project when that WAR will show up, and in what pattern. Which means that you could hold onto all your prospects and "win" the WAR calculations game over an extended period of time, but still not win any championships. Hoarding prospects does not guarantee that the 2019 team with ROY Logan Allen as #3 starter, and Margot as a 2 time All-star, is going to have enough talent to win a championship. Nor does trading for Kimbrel guarantee a championship this year, but he was a great addition to this year's team that has legitimate aspirations to win a championship.
Every year, every year, teams face the question of whether to trade future wins for current shots at championships, and if those teams always did the "rational" thing and refuse to make those trades, then they would continue to not win championships, for lack of one or two players who make a critical difference. But they will put themselves in a position to be very competitive also-rans year in and year out. If you want to win a championship, by definition being the best team in a single season, yeah, you pretty much have to make wasteful, inefficient trades to get there.
2.) Stop talking about Margot, et.al.'s trade value as if we don't know what it was, we do know, it is Craig Kimbrel. Seriously. Do you really think DD traded for Kimbrell is a drunken stupor? Do you think his evil clone did it while DD was napping? WTF? Dombrowski is not an idiot, and the only reasonable conclusion is that DD scoured the trade market and found that the trade price for a Kimbrel level reliever (who was not facing indictment) was the price he paid, Subsequent trades for Miller and Giles bear this this out. Stop saying he overpaid, the market set the rate and DD paid it.
3.) If a random poster proposed trading for a PCL player based on gaudy, SSS stats, they would get skewered on this board. I know, the argument for Margot's value is based heavily on scouting, but please, don't pretend that SSS PCL stats are worth a s***. Some of you are employing a really egregious double standard about Margot's PCL stats simply to win an argument. Newsflash: It is not helping you.
4.) As for Margot's conceptual impact on this year's club (if he was not traded), does anyone really think he would give more than Brock Holt? Or even Castillo? Margot is still a work in progress, and nobody pre-trade was projecting him to be a significant part of a championship club this year. No, the cost of trading Margot is not being paid this year, it will be paid in future years.
5.) The issues with Koji, Smith, and Tarawa confirm the upside of overstocking the bullpen with quality relievers. The bullpen, and offense, has been a huge safety net for this team, and a big part of it's success. It is a little disingenuous to complain that NEXT year there will be good relievers on the free-agent market when the goal is to win this year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 19, 2016 12:39:12 GMT -5
Please don't put words in my mouth. I thought Margot was a top 30ish prospect in baseball during the offseason and still think he's in that range. It's hard to argue that they sold high on him when his value hasn't declined much since then and, more importantly, they didn't get anything near equivalent value back for him. Didn't get anything near equivalent value back for him? So we didn't get an all star top notch closer? So how much value has Margot given the Padres this year? Trades are not a simple Kimbrel gave us 10 wars at this much money and Margot produced this many Wars for this amount. I really think that's a horrible way to look at trades. The problem is his value was a lot less then what a lot of you guys thought it was. If you offered the Padres the two top 100 prospects they got or Moncada I bet they take Moncada. Yet based on a bunch of prospect ranking that would seem foolish as most had Moncada and Margot very close in value and if I remember right one even had Margot rated higher. I've just never seen so much love for a player that compares to Brock Holt without the ability to play a bunch of other positions. Think Brock is a better hitter with Margot a slightly better defender in OF and he should add value with stolen bases. It's not like we traded a young Mike Cameron that Margot looked like years back.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 19, 2016 12:47:01 GMT -5
Fair enough. Your chart shows he's AMONG the best in the game in pretty much every category. I'm sure if your chart was extended backwards a year or two, he'd rate higher, which tells me he's been among the best if not better than that for a longer time, which is a good thing because it speaks to his reliability. I also think that he underwent a one month adjustment period in 2015, not that different from what happened this year, when he switched teams. Otherwise he'd be higher up on the lists. I mean this guy does have a career ERA well under 2 over a 5 years stretch? Correct? How about the others on this list? The other thing that strikes me from this list is that he was actually available to acquire. Other than O'Day, who has zero experience closing and is several years older, and Giles, who had very little experience closing and very little track record and actually wound up costing the Astros more than the Sox paid, nobody else on this list, especially with closing experience, was available to be acquired. Well, aside from Kimbrel, three of the other guys on this list were free agents or moved teams this offseason (O'Day, Giles, Chapman), they already had Uehara, and Melancon and Miller were also reported to have been available (though Miller would be an unlikely get for obvious reasons). Jansen, Melancon and Chapman will also be free agents this coming offseason. Let's look at that, then. It's obvious that DD didn't trust Uehara to stay as effective and/or healthy as he has been in the past. He is 41 years old. He has been declining since his ridiculous 2013 season. It's been a reasonably gentle decline but we're seeing more signs of his decline. I've seen a lot of splitters he's left up and he has actually (like a human) walked some batters and flirted with some 3 ball counts. Of course, Kimbrel doesn't have that kind of control, but he doesn't need it as pinpoint. He's got a 98 MPH fastball. Koji doesn't. His location must be extremely precise and it's not as it has been. I'm glad Koji is not the Red Sox closer right now. I just hope he doesn't decline with overuse now that Smith's status is in jeopardy. Of course the Sox had Miller and Melancon. I wasn't happy to see Melancon go. I always felt he got a raw deal from Bobby Valentine. He got off to that horrendous start in 2012 and Bobby V buried him. He's pitched great for Pittsburgh but I'm not 100% certain he'd succeed as well with the Sox. We'll never know. You mentioned Andrew Miller. Let's just say I was really hoping he'd be signed. Back then the Sox weren't willing to spend $ on both Miller and Uehara. I wanted them to, but they chose Uehara over Miller given Uehara's successful track record. Can't say I blame them. Given that the Sox were welling to shell out big $ to acquire Kimbrel, I wished that the Sox had spent the money on Miller, but they didn't. They would have been able to try him out at some point last season as a closer to see if he could handle the job, which I think he would have. And the Sox wouldn't have had a question mark going into this season. The other guys you mention, Chapman and Jansen weren't possibilities. I think the Sox lost interest in Chapman as soon as they found out about him. I can't fault them for that at all. I'm not sorry, as good as he is, that he's not a team I follow. And Jansen isn't going to be acquired this season, the Dodgers are in contention. The Sox are trying to win this year with a very good closer from the start of the season.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on May 19, 2016 12:48:33 GMT -5
You guys are upset about trading Margot. I'm outraged we got rid of Carlos Asuaje whom is rocking an 877 OPS in El Paso, as opposed to Margot's 777!!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2016 12:58:05 GMT -5
So is thread going to go on until all 5 players involved in the trade have retired from baseball?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 19, 2016 13:10:06 GMT -5
So is thread going to go on until all 5 players involved in the trade have retired from baseball? No, it's going to drag out until all 5 of them get elected to the HOF
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2016 13:15:40 GMT -5
I said "forced" in that sense! Of course, he was a lock to be added, if they didn't trade him!!! Yes, so they just add him, what's the problem? How does it affect his value? It doesn't. Why do you mention it? It's obviously just part of your guerilla warfare method of discussion, throwing so many bad arguments out there that you hope your opponents can't possibly deal with all of them and by the time people (who? you yourself, probably) have forgotten how thoroughly they were refuted you bring the oldest argument back from the grave, always moving the goalposts so that you never have to admit defeat. The amazing thing is that you're still finding people to play this game with you, LOL. I hope Margot's ISO goes up higher than last year after he hits a double tonight so we can say his power has improved and thus his trade value has gone up instead of down.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2016 13:24:10 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts.... 1.) I get the concept that trading future value for present value--for present wins--is going to be a losing proposition (in terms of WAR), which is a real and significant cost, but it is not the whole story. All that (theoretical) future WAR traded for Kimbrel is not guaranteed, and there is no way to precisely project when that WAR will show up, and in what pattern. Which means that you could hold onto all your prospects and "win" the WAR calculations game over an extended period of time, but still not win any championships. Hoarding prospects does not guarantee that the 2019 team with ROY Logan Allen as #3 starter, and Margot as a 2 time All-star, is going to have enough talent to win a championship. Nor does trading for Kimbrel guarantee a championship this year, but he was a great addition to this year's team that has legitimate aspirations to win a championship. Every year, every year, teams face the question of whether to trade future wins for current shots at championships, and if those teams always did the "rational" thing and refuse to make those trades, then they would continue to not win championships, for lack of one or two players who make a critical difference. But they will put themselves in a position to be very competitive also-rans year in and year out. If you want to win a championship, by definition being the best team in a single season, yeah, you pretty much have to make wasteful, inefficient trades to get there. 2.) Stop talking about Margot, et.al.'s trade value as if we don't know what it was, we do know, it is Craig Kimbrel. Seriously. Do you really think DD traded for Kimbrell is a drunken stupor? Do you think his evil clone did it while DD was napping? WTF? Dombrowski is not an idiot, and the only reasonable conclusion is that DD scoured the trade market and found that the trade price for a Kimbrel level reliever (who was not facing indictment) was the price he paid, Subsequent trades for Miller and Giles bear this this out. Stop saying he overpaid, the market set the rate and DD paid it. 3.) If a random poster proposed trading for a PCL player based on gaudy, SSS stats, they would get skewered on this board. I know, the argument for Margot's value is based heavily on scouting, but please, don't pretend that SSS PCL stats are worth a s***. Some of you are employing a really egregious double standard about Margot's PCL stats simply to win an argument. Newsflash: It is not helping you. 4.) As for Margot's conceptual impact on this year's club (if he was not traded), does anyone really think he would give more than Brock Holt? Or even Castillo? Margot is still a work in progress, and nobody pre-trade was projecting him to be a significant part of a championship club this year. No, the cost of trading Margot is not being paid this year, it will be paid in future years. 5.) The issues with Koji, Smith, and Tarawa confirm the upside of overstocking the bullpen with quality relievers. The bullpen, and offense, has been a huge safety net for this team, and a big part of it's success. It is a little disingenuous to complain that NEXT year there will be good relievers on the free-agent market when the goal is to win this year. Most of this has been discussed to death already, but I feel compelled to respond to the egregious subtweeting in the above: - It is asinine to take the position that an asset is definitively worth what it was acquired for. That position makes it impossible to evaluate any transaction. There are ways to judge whether a deal was good or bad, whether that's comparing it to other deals or using a model to determine how the market historically values a certain asset.
- I only brought up Margot's performance this year in response to deepjohn's repeated assertions that such performance has hurt his value. Anyone who has read these forums knows I am not swayed by small samples of minor league performance, and I have already mentioned that my evaluation of him has not changed since the offseason.
- To clarify, the argument I have been making throughout is that they should have signed O'Day rather than traded Kimbrel. That continues to be my position. The only reason I brought up the relievers that will be available as free agents next season is in response to the claim that Kimbrel is a special talent who is rarely available.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 19, 2016 14:46:08 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts.... 1.) I get the concept that trading future value for present value--for present wins--is going to be a losing proposition (in terms of WAR), which is a real and significant cost, but it is not the whole story. All that (theoretical) future WAR traded for Kimbrel is not guaranteed, and there is no way to precisely project when that WAR will show up, and in what pattern. Which means that you could hold onto all your prospects and "win" the WAR calculations game over an extended period of time, but still not win any championships. Hoarding prospects does not guarantee that the 2019 team with ROY Logan Allen as #3 starter, and Margot as a 2 time All-star, is going to have enough talent to win a championship. Nor does trading for Kimbrel guarantee a championship this year, but he was a great addition to this year's team that has legitimate aspirations to win a championship. Every year, every year, teams face the question of whether to trade future wins for current shots at championships, and if those teams always did the "rational" thing and refuse to make those trades, then they would continue to not win championships, for lack of one or two players who make a critical difference. But they will put themselves in a position to be very competitive also-rans year in and year out. If you want to win a championship, by definition being the best team in a single season, yeah, you pretty much have to make wasteful, inefficient trades to get there. 2.) Stop talking about Margot, et.al.'s trade value as if we don't know what it was, we do know, it is Craig Kimbrel. Seriously. Do you really think DD traded for Kimbrell is a drunken stupor? Do you think his evil clone did it while DD was napping? WTF? Dombrowski is not an idiot, and the only reasonable conclusion is that DD scoured the trade market and found that the trade price for a Kimbrel level reliever (who was not facing indictment) was the price he paid, Subsequent trades for Miller and Giles bear this this out. Stop saying he overpaid, the market set the rate and DD paid it. 3.) If a random poster proposed trading for a PCL player based on gaudy, SSS stats, they would get skewered on this board. I know, the argument for Margot's value is based heavily on scouting, but please, don't pretend that SSS PCL stats are worth a s***. Some of you are employing a really egregious double standard about Margot's PCL stats simply to win an argument. Newsflash: It is not helping you. 4.) As for Margot's conceptual impact on this year's club (if he was not traded), does anyone really think he would give more than Brock Holt? Or even Castillo? Margot is still a work in progress, and nobody pre-trade was projecting him to be a significant part of a championship club this year. No, the cost of trading Margot is not being paid this year, it will be paid in future years. 5.) The issues with Koji, Smith, and Tarawa confirm the upside of overstocking the bullpen with quality relievers. The bullpen, and offense, has been a huge safety net for this team, and a big part of it's success. It is a little disingenuous to complain that NEXT year there will be good relievers on the free-agent market when the goal is to win this year. Most of this has been discussed to death already, but I feel compelled to respond to the egregious subtweeting in the above: - It is asinine to take the position that an asset is definitively worth what it was acquired for. That position makes it impossible to evaluate any transaction. There are ways to judge whether a deal was good or bad, whether that's comparing it to other deals or using a model to determine how the market historically values a certain asset.
- I only brought up Margot's performance this year in response to deepjohn's repeated assertions that such performance has hurt his value. Anyone who has read these forums knows I am not swayed by small samples of minor league performance, and I have already mentioned that my evaluation of him has not changed since the offseason.
- To clarify, the argument I have been making throughout is that they should have signed O'Day rather than traded Kimbrel. That continues to be my position. The only reason I brought up the relievers that will be available as free agents next season is in response to the claim that Kimbrel is a special talent who is rarely available.
Subtweeting a few simple points, without naming names: 1) It is fair to say that an asset is definitively worth what it was acquired for, at any given time, after sufficient price discovery (by exploring all trading partners). ("asinine" here is not only wrong, but unkind.) 2) It is Margot's performance in a substantial sample against the PCL bias that has hurt his value. (A too small sample inflated by the bias is not a counterargument.) 3) If they signed O'Day and lost out on the $24 million in surplus value they had to bargain with (before a #19 prospect became a #56 prospect), you would need to add the lost $24 million to what they paid O'Day.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2016 14:50:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 19, 2016 17:06:38 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts.... 1.) I get the concept that trading future value for present value--for present wins--is going to be a losing proposition (in terms of WAR), which is a real and significant cost, but it is not the whole story. All that (theoretical) future WAR traded for Kimbrel is not guaranteed, and there is no way to precisely project when that WAR will show up, and in what pattern. Which means that you could hold onto all your prospects and "win" the WAR calculations game over an extended period of time, but still not win any championships. Hoarding prospects does not guarantee that the 2019 team with ROY Logan Allen as #3 starter, and Margot as a 2 time All-star, is going to have enough talent to win a championship. Nor does trading for Kimbrel guarantee a championship this year, but he was a great addition to this year's team that has legitimate aspirations to win a championship. Every year, every year, teams face the question of whether to trade future wins for current shots at championships, and if those teams always did the "rational" thing and refuse to make those trades, then they would continue to not win championships, for lack of one or two players who make a critical difference. But they will put themselves in a position to be very competitive also-rans year in and year out. If you want to win a championship, by definition being the best team in a single season, yeah, you pretty much have to make wasteful, inefficient trades to get there. 2.) Stop talking about Margot, et.al.'s trade value as if we don't know what it was, we do know, it is Craig Kimbrel. Seriously. Do you really think DD traded for Kimbrell is a drunken stupor? Do you think his evil clone did it while DD was napping? WTF? Dombrowski is not an idiot, and the only reasonable conclusion is that DD scoured the trade market and found that the trade price for a Kimbrel level reliever (who was not facing indictment) was the price he paid, Subsequent trades for Miller and Giles bear this this out. Stop saying he overpaid, the market set the rate and DD paid it. 3.) If a random poster proposed trading for a PCL player based on gaudy, SSS stats, they would get skewered on this board. I know, the argument for Margot's value is based heavily on scouting, but please, don't pretend that SSS PCL stats are worth a s***. Some of you are employing a really egregious double standard about Margot's PCL stats simply to win an argument. Newsflash: It is not helping you. 4.) As for Margot's conceptual impact on this year's club (if he was not traded), does anyone really think he would give more than Brock Holt? Or even Castillo? Margot is still a work in progress, and nobody pre-trade was projecting him to be a significant part of a championship club this year. No, the cost of trading Margot is not being paid this year, it will be paid in future years. 5.) The issues with Koji, Smith, and Tarawa confirm the upside of overstocking the bullpen with quality relievers. The bullpen, and offense, has been a huge safety net for this team, and a big part of it's success. It is a little disingenuous to complain that NEXT year there will be good relievers on the free-agent market when the goal is to win this year. 1) Win-now does not make a trade a good idea. Jeff Bagwell and John Smoltz have something to say about that. Acquiring players does not guarantee championships, even if they're the best of the best (Houston-RJ, or Toronto '15-Price). Plenty of teams win championships without making major trades. Every point you made here can be reversed. That's the risky nature of trades. 2) Holland experienced a catastrophic economic crash based on your principle here. People thought tulips were worth what they paid for them. They weren't. There's a chasm of difference between intrinsic and market value. Time-point market value absolutely does not equate to intrinsic value. 3) They're not basing it on scouting, they're basing it on, you know, his entire minor-league history. It's not a SSS because Margot is basically doing in AAA exactly what he's done before, essentially strengthening the argument that he can adapt and succeed despite his youth. That he's done it before suggests that his end-of-year stats will look a lot like, if not better than, this "SSS." 4) Yes, Margot could probably provide what Holt is, with the added benefit of freeing up Holt to be a super-utility. 5) I'm glad that they have Kimbrel, because I agree with this (except the bullpen hasn't been that solid, really...at least not the force many of us thought). But that's not to say that O'Day or someone else couldn't have done a similar job. I've come to grips with the Kimbrel acquisition. I still maintain that it was not the best use of resources. But that happens sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 19, 2016 17:50:03 GMT -5
2)It is Margot's performance in a substantial sample against the PCL bias that has hurt his value. (A too small sample inflated by the bias is not a counterargument.) You're welcome to say this a thousand times, and I'll come back at you a thousand times. This is complete nonsense. His performance, as a 21 year old, is just what the Padres got him for and it's only going to improve. He's already making himself comfortable in AAA. I'd venture to say he's worth more, not less, than what San Diego gave up to get him.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on May 19, 2016 19:02:18 GMT -5
2)It is Margot's performance in a substantial sample against the PCL bias that has hurt his value. (A too small sample inflated by the bias is not a counterargument.) You're welcome to say this a thousand times, and I'll come back at you a thousand times. This is complete nonsense. His performance, as a 21 year old, is just what the Padres got him for and it's only going to improve. He's already making himself comfortable in AAA. I'd venture to say he's worth more, not less, than what San Diego gave up to get him. I notice that in Salem, Margot had a good slash against righties, .259/.329/.437 Since he hurt his shoulder in early 2015, he hasn't been the same against righties. In Portland: .236/.288/.313 In the PCL: .272/.347/.417 The average slash in the PCL (.276/.342/.433) is high compared to the International League (.262/.327/.398), where Margot might project to .260/.334/.380 against righties. For an age comparison, there are six players in the PCL in the 21-22 age range, and only one hits worse than Margot's overall .289/.354/.423, while three (who are six months older than Margot), hit better: Renato Nunez, .279/.333/.529; Dilson Herrera, .303/.333/.576; Albert Almora, .333/.355/.483.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 19, 2016 19:04:42 GMT -5
You're welcome to say this a thousand times, and I'll come back at you a thousand times. Have fun, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on May 19, 2016 19:11:40 GMT -5
- smh -
Reading this thread should be a potential punishment for district court judges to wield in misdemeanor criminal cases. Maybe a requirement in a suspended sentence.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on May 19, 2016 19:20:59 GMT -5
You're welcome to say this a thousand times, and I'll come back at you a thousand times. This is complete nonsense. His performance, as a 21 year old, is just what the Padres got him for and it's only going to improve. He's already making himself comfortable in AAA. I'd venture to say he's worth more, not less, than what San Diego gave up to get him. I notice that in Salem, Margot had a good slash against righties, .259/.329/.437Since he hurt his shoulder in early 2015, he hasn't been the same against righties. In Portland: .236/.288/.313 In the PCL: .272/.347/.417The average slash in the PCL (.276/.342/.433) is high compared to the International League (.262/.327/.398), where Margot might project to .260/.334/.380 against righties. For an age comparison, there are six players in the PCL in the 21-22 age range, and only one hits worse than Margot's overall .289/.354/.423, while three (who are six months older than Margot), hit better: Renato Nunez, .279/.333/.529; Dilson Herrera, .303/.333/.576; Albert Almora, .333/.355/.483. I see your point, he actually has a better slash line while playing two levels higher. What a bum.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 19, 2016 21:50:56 GMT -5
I notice that in Salem, Margot had a good slash against righties, .259/.329/.437Since he hurt his shoulder in early 2015, he hasn't been the same against righties. In Portland: .236/.288/.313 In the PCL: .272/.347/.417The average slash in the PCL (.276/.342/.433) is high compared to the International League (.262/.327/.398), where Margot might project to .260/.334/.380 against righties. For an age comparison, there are six players in the PCL in the 21-22 age range, and only one hits worse than Margot's overall .289/.354/.423, while three (who are six months older than Margot), hit better: Renato Nunez, .279/.333/.529; Dilson Herrera, .303/.333/.576; Albert Almora, .333/.355/.483. I see your point, he actually has a better slash line while playing two levels higher. What a bum. Never mind that if a prospect is in the PCL at 21 (or 22...who wants to bet Margot would improve that line next year?), he's probably, you know, an OK prospect? Seriously, Margot's skillset is not limited to offense. Get rid of the age 22 players, because he's not 22. And use WRC+, because, well, he steals bases. And even so...there are six players in that age group, meaning he's a median performer, the three who are better are older, and there's no accounting for his baserunning contributions. That's a lot of data for a wholly unconvincing argument. And that's in lieu of any consideration of his defensive contributions.
|
|
|