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.
4/15-4/18 Red Sox vs. Blue Jays Series Thread
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 9:54:17 GMT -5
eric, I've been looking at Z-contact% and zone% after seeing Bannister's comments about it, and Tango's tool for converting K%-BB% to kwERA. Fun fact: by K%-BB%, Clay had his worst start of the season yesterday. Agreed, one worry here is that Clay's K%-BB% for the year so far is very low when he has historically been quite high. Let's hope that small sample doesn't normalize. ADD: Although he has at least once been a slow starter, and in 2014 had a K%-BB% of 0 for his first three games. Forgot to mention earlier that Eduardo Rodriquez has one the highest K%-BB% rates of any starting pitcher, even "dominant" as ericmvan might say, since coming to the Red Sox. Wonder if the Red Sox fixed something that led to his dominance?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 10:00:55 GMT -5
Why? The Red Sox have an estimated book value of two billion dollars even after having missed the playoffs, so a Red Sox playoff appearance might be worth (I'm guessing) $40 million in revenue and additional book value. How much more would be added to win in the playoffs and go the World Series? Or win the World Series? It makes any future wins paid for Kimbrel seem quite small in comparison. So sit tight and enjoy the show. It looks to be one heck of a great year. Alternatively, if you don't make stupid short-term panic moves, you could build a perennial contender and increase the value of the franchise even more. (and really, I'm pretty sure the value for the Red Sox franchise is going to be an enormous, steadily increasing number regardless of almost anything that happens. They'd have to be dreadful for a generation to meaningfully depress it. Rising sea levels are probably a greater threat to the future value of the franchise.) How is trading for Kimbrel a short term panic move? It was a long term strategic move, to improve an area that everyone agreed needed improvement. You think we gave up to much we all get that, you bring it up every chance you get!
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 10:14:58 GMT -5
Alternatively, if you don't make stupid short-term panic moves, you could build a perennial contender and increase the value of the franchise even more. (and really, I'm pretty sure the value for the Red Sox franchise is going to be an enormous, steadily increasing number regardless of almost anything that happens. They'd have to be dreadful for a generation to meaningfully depress it. Rising sea levels are probably a greater threat to the future value of the franchise.) How is trading for Kimbrel a short term panic move? It was a long term strategic move, to improve an area that everyone agreed needed improvement. You think we gave up to much we all get that, you bring it up every chance you get! Not to pile on (and I'm a trade proponent, so take what I say with a grain of salt), but based on what we know so far, the Red Sox gave up four low ceiling/high bust rate guys of the kind that big market teams can afford to replace with money. A short term panic move might have been to trade Youklis-clone Travis (he just keeps getting so much better) or power-arm Kopech or even five-tools Basabe (OF), who potentially have very high ceilings (and perhaps lower bust rates).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 10:23:44 GMT -5
Elite defenders at up-the-middle positions are, almost by definition, unlikely to be low-ceiling or high-bust-rate players, because defense is generally the easiest tool to project (thus giving them relatively high floors and the potential for high ceilings if they ever hit). That's especially true for consensus top-75 prospects (who were all ranked well above Travis, Kopech or Basabe).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 10:26:10 GMT -5
I concur. In a way it's kind of amazing. If it were 2005 and Mariano Rivera was available and the Sox could deal two or three prospects that didn't necessarily project to be much more than ordinary regulars, if that, for him, I would think people would jump on that. Until 2014 his numbers were every bit as good as Rivera, and in 2015 he was still pretty excellent after a rough start, not unlike he's having now. I don't think Kimbrel will wind up having Rivera's career although he might wind up having Billy Wagner's career, which is quite impressive in its own right. If the Sox make the playoffs and Kimbrel resembles the reliever he has been his whole career then I like the increased odds in winning significant games. And Fenway, hate to break the news to you, but in 2004 even Keith Foulke messed up some games here and there and so did Papelbon in 07, and I do remember a meltdown Koji had against the Angels after the all-star break in 2013. And those guys excelled in the playoffs as their body of work indicated they would. I still, unless Kimbrel starts a stark decline in performance, think Kimbrel will fit that mold. Yeah, remind me how many top-100 prospects they gave up for Foulke, Papelbon and Koji? But hey, IF Kimbrel continue to be the best closer in the game and IF the prospects traded don't pan out AND another need to trade prospects doesn't arise AND the Red Sox are good enough that their closer situation actually matters, this will all work out for the best. That's not too long a list of conditionals, is it? Did the thought ever cross your mind that we sold high on those two prospects? We only need Kimbrel to be one of the better closer, not the best. Last I checked we have more then enough prospects to make any future trades we want. For months the #1 argument to this trade was we could have used that package to get a starter, but we now know that's not the case. It would have taken a lot more and man what would you be saying if Dave had added one or two of the top 5 guys to get a starter? He traded in my opinion the most overrated prospect in system in Margot, a guy I see as no more than an average starter long-term. Great D, weak bat. Guerra could become a well above average SS if his bat continues to develop, but he has a long way to go. Same with Allen, there's a bunch of upside, but he is a long ways off. If Margot and Guerra become average starters and Allen busts or becomes an average bullpen arm this is going to look like a good trade down the road. The only way this is a horrible trade is if one or more of those 3 bust out.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 10:33:17 GMT -5
If Margot and Guerra become average starters, this will look like a terrible trade almost regardless of how well Kimbrel performs. I'm not sure you appreciate how valuable six+ cheap years of an average starter is, even if that value doesn't come until three or four years down the road.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 10:34:24 GMT -5
Elite defenders at up-the-middle positions are, almost by definition, unlikely to be low-ceiling or high-bust-rate players, because defense is generally the easiest tool to project (thus giving them relatively high floors and the potential for high ceilings if they ever hit). That's especially true for consensus top-75 prospects (who were all ranked well above Travis, Kopech or Basabe). I would take Travis and Kopech over Margot all day long.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 19, 2016 10:34:37 GMT -5
But if Kimbrel is a key component of a post-season team this year, then it was a great trade regardless of how those prospects work out. I also thought that Margot was over-rated and that Guerra's brief burst of power - combined with his obvious defensive skill - made him appear to be a better prospect that he actually was.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 10:37:00 GMT -5
Elite defenders at up-the-middle positions are, almost by definition, unlikely to be low-ceiling or high-bust-rate players, because defense is generally the easiest tool to project (thus giving them relatively high floors and the potential for high ceilings if they ever hit). That's especially true for consensus top-75 prospects (who were all ranked well above Travis, Kopech or Basabe). I would take Travis and Kopech over Margot all day long. Literally every publication which produced prospect rankings this past offseason disagrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 10:38:23 GMT -5
If Margot and Guerra become average starters, this will look like a terrible trade almost regardless of how well Kimbrel performs. I'm not sure you appreciate how valuable six+ cheap years of an average starter is, even if that value doesn't come until three or four years down the road. True, it's valuable to a small market team, but not so much to BOS, NY, LA, CHI, SF, who can afford to replace average starters with money, and to spend with less regard to budgets. Really high ceiling guys, money can't buy unless you pony up for Price. (I know we've had this convo before, so I'll shut up now, or the (other) mods will scold me for rehashing.)
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 10:40:31 GMT -5
I would take Travis and Kopech over Margot all day long. Literally every publication which produced prospect rankings this past offseason disagrees with you. Right but the politics that goes into those probably isn't going to let the Travis skill-set be ranked as highly as (we here know) he deserves to be. He's too much Youklis, who wasn't ranked all that great either.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 10:44:00 GMT -5
But if Kimbrel is a key component of a post-season team this year, then it was a great trade regardless of how those prospects work out. I also thought that Margot was over-rated and that Guerra's brief burst of power - combined with his obvious defensive skill - made him appear to be a better prospect that he actually was. That isn't really how it works-- making it to the playoffs or winning a title doesn't "sanitize" all the decisions that led up to it. Julio Lugo was still a bad signing and all that. Remember, we're talking about the difference between Kimbrel and the next-best reliever they could have signed for $12m a year (say, Darren O'Day or Ryan Madson or Joakim Soria). If this team wins a World Series and Kimbrel pitches well in the regular season and throws a dozen spotless innings in the postseason a la Uehara in 2013, you could make an argument that the marginal difference was worth the long-term cost. But that's really about the only scenario where Kimbrel's near-term performance is worth giving up two average starting position players.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 10:44:08 GMT -5
If Margot and Guerra become average starters, this will look like a terrible trade almost regardless of how well Kimbrel performs. I'm not sure you appreciate how valuable six+ cheap years of an average starter is, even if that value doesn't come until three or four years down the road. I couldn't disagree more. Sure from a war point of view the trade will look bad, but that's about it. We have a guy in Castillo that is average or better getting no playing time right now. I understand the value of cheap average players, they just mean a lot more to small market teams then a big market team like the Sox. We need cheap above average players, those are the guys you don't wanna trade.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 19, 2016 10:44:18 GMT -5
If Margot and Guerra become average starters, this will look like a terrible trade almost regardless of how well Kimbrel performs. I'm not sure you appreciate how valuable six+ cheap years of an average starter is, even if that value doesn't come until three or four years down the road. True, it's valuable to a small market team, but not so much to BOS, NY, LA, CHI, SF, who can afford to replace average starters with money, and to spend with less regard to budgets. Really high ceiling guys, money can't buy unless you pony up for Price. (I know we've had this convo before, so I'll shut up now, or the (other) mods will scold me for rehashing.) The point is that if the Red Sox have average starters in those positions for cheap they can afford to pay more for elite starters in other positions, extensions for Betts, Bogaerts, possibly guys like Moncada, Benintendi, Espinoza down the road when Margot and Guerra would've been in the majors, or sign people like Price.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 19, 2016 10:46:02 GMT -5
If Margot and Guerra become average starters, this will look like a terrible trade almost regardless of how well Kimbrel performs. I'm not sure you appreciate how valuable six+ cheap years of an average starter is, even if that value doesn't come until three or four years down the road. I couldn't disagree more. Sure from a war point of view the trade will look bad, but that's about it. We have a guy in Castillo that is average or better getting no playing time right now. I understand the value of cheap average players, they just mean a lot more to small market teams then a big market team like the Sox. We need cheap above average players, those are the guys you don't wanna trade. If the Sox were convinced Castillo was average or better he would be starting in Boston. Brock Holt if he plays a full season in left field is likely to be pretty much exactly average (he's slightly better than that overall and a lot of his value comes from versatility).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 10:49:02 GMT -5
I would take Travis and Kopech over Margot all day long. Literally every publication which produced prospect rankings this past offseason disagrees with you. They sure do and I'm OK with that. It's my opinion. Margot's bat has a long way to go.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 10:53:14 GMT -5
If Margot and Guerra become average starters, this will look like a terrible trade almost regardless of how well Kimbrel performs. I'm not sure you appreciate how valuable six+ cheap years of an average starter is, even if that value doesn't come until three or four years down the road. True, it's valuable to a small market team, but not so much to BOS, NY, LA, CHI, SF, who can afford to replace average starters with money, and to spend with less regard to budgets. Really high ceiling guys, money can't buy unless you pony up for Price. (I know we've had this convo before, so I'll shut up now, or the (other) mods will scold me for rehashing.) This is empirically inaccurate and theoretically suspect. Even large-market teams have budgets, and free agency is an inefficient way to add talent. Large-market teams are routinely unable or unwilling to spend more to paper over holes in their roster (e.g., recent Yankees teams), and attempting to do so often leads to bad results (e.g., Pablo Sandoval). Moreover, high-ceiling relievers are the easiest commodity to pick up in free agency. Every year, really good relievers are available (O'Day this past year, Kenley Jansen, Aroldis Chapman and Mark Melancon next year).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 10:54:42 GMT -5
True, it's valuable to a small market team, but not so much to BOS, NY, LA, CHI, SF, who can afford to replace average starters with money, and to spend with less regard to budgets. Really high ceiling guys, money can't buy unless you pony up for Price. (I know we've had this convo before, so I'll shut up now, or the (other) mods will scold me for rehashing.) The point is that if the Red Sox have average starters in those positions for cheap they can afford to pay more for elite starters in other positions, extensions for Betts, Bogaerts, possibly guys like Moncada, Benintendi, Espinoza down the road when Margot and Guerra would've been in the majors, or sign people like Price. You miss the point, the Sox want above average starters. They will find better players rather then just start average guys. You won't start Margot when you can play Benintendi, etc.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 10:56:44 GMT -5
True, it's valuable to a small market team, but not so much to BOS, NY, LA, CHI, SF, who can afford to replace average starters with money, and to spend with less regard to budgets. Really high ceiling guys, money can't buy unless you pony up for Price. (I know we've had this convo before, so I'll shut up now, or the (other) mods will scold me for rehashing.) The point is that if the Red Sox have average starters in those positions for cheap they can afford to pay more for elite starters in other positions, extensions for Betts, Bogaerts, possibly guys like Moncada, Benintendi, Espinoza down the road when Margot and Guerra would've been in the majors, or sign people like Price. I see your point. I agree there must be a limit somewhere, but in today's economy at least, the Red Sox can spend a great deal more than they are currently, and still be at break even, given the revenue and book value they generate.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 10:57:28 GMT -5
I couldn't disagree more. Sure from a war point of view the trade will look bad, but that's about it. We have a guy in Castillo that is average or better getting no playing time right now. I understand the value of cheap average players, they just mean a lot more to small market teams then a big market team like the Sox. We need cheap above average players, those are the guys you don't wanna trade. If the Sox were convinced Castillo was average or better he would be starting in Boston. Brock Holt if he plays a full season in left field is likely to be pretty much exactly average (he's slightly better than that overall and a lot of his value comes from versatility). Holt with his D if he hits like he has for last two years will be slightly above average. Castillo is average, he was last year, they just want more than average.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 11:01:40 GMT -5
True, it's valuable to a small market team, but not so much to BOS, NY, LA, CHI, SF, who can afford to replace average starters with money, and to spend with less regard to budgets. Really high ceiling guys, money can't buy unless you pony up for Price. (I know we've had this convo before, so I'll shut up now, or the (other) mods will scold me for rehashing.) This is empirically inaccurate and theoretically suspect. Even large-market teams have budgets, and free agency is an inefficient way to add talent. Large-market teams are routinely unable or unwilling to spend more to paper over holes in their roster (e.g., recent Yankees teams), and attempting to do so often leads to bad results (e.g., Pablo Sandoval). Moreover, high-ceiling relievers are the easiest commodity to pick up in free agency. Every year, really good relievers are available (O'Day this past year, Kenley Jansen, Aroldis Chapman and Mark Melancon next year). Didn't the Sox offer O'Day more money and he still went back to Baltimore? They tried to get him but he didn't want to sign here.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 19, 2016 11:01:46 GMT -5
Wow, someone better close this thread quick, I'm having a really bad case of deja vu....
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 11:02:22 GMT -5
True, it's valuable to a small market team, but not so much to BOS, NY, LA, CHI, SF, who can afford to replace average starters with money, and to spend with less regard to budgets. Really high ceiling guys, money can't buy unless you pony up for Price. (I know we've had this convo before, so I'll shut up now, or the (other) mods will scold me for rehashing.) This is empirically inaccurate and theoretically suspect. Even large-market teams have budgets, and free agency is an inefficient way to add talent. Large-market teams are routinely unable or unwilling to spend more to spend money to paper over holes in their roster (e.g., recent Yankees teams), and attempting to do so often leads to bad results (e.g., Pablo Sandoval). Moreover, high-ceiling relievers are the easiest commodity to pick up in free agency. Every year, really good relievers are available (O'Day this past year, Kenley Jansen, Aroldis Chapman and Mark Melancon next year). O'Day wasn't elite enough (as measured by Z-Contact%/K%-BB%), but yes, expect the Red Sox to bid hard for the others next year. You want as many truly elite, low Z-Contact% pitchers (for as many batters faced) as you can get. Whether they're starters or relievers is less important. (forcibly not rehashing the other points, but if the Red Sox have a budget Dombrowski hasn't run up against it yet )
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 11:14:03 GMT -5
The point is that if the Red Sox have average starters in those positions for cheap they can afford to pay more for elite starters in other positions, extensions for Betts, Bogaerts, possibly guys like Moncada, Benintendi, Espinoza down the road when Margot and Guerra would've been in the majors, or sign people like Price. You miss the point, the Sox want above average starters. They will find better players rather then just start average guys. You won't start Margot when you can play Benintendi, etc. Even moving beyond the suspect example (if the Red Sox thought Castillo was average, he'd be in the majors, and if any other team did, they'd trade for him), the worst-case scenario is that the Red Sox trade their blocked players for upgrades elsewhere down the line (think Iglesias for Peavy, though that one didn't work out so well) or use them as depth (think Holt or Shaw).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 11:16:09 GMT -5
This is empirically inaccurate and theoretically suspect. Even large-market teams have budgets, and free agency is an inefficient way to add talent. Large-market teams are routinely unable or unwilling to spend more to paper over holes in their roster (e.g., recent Yankees teams), and attempting to do so often leads to bad results (e.g., Pablo Sandoval). Moreover, high-ceiling relievers are the easiest commodity to pick up in free agency. Every year, really good relievers are available (O'Day this past year, Kenley Jansen, Aroldis Chapman and Mark Melancon next year). Didn't the Sox offer O'Day more money and he still went back to Baltimore? They tried to get him but he didn't want to sign here. No, they offered him the most money (and it sounded like O'Day was prepared to accept), but the offer was conditional on another move not going through and they pulled their offer when the Kimbrel trade went down (see this Gammons article). It makes for just about the cleanest counterfactual you could find.
|
|
|