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 jmei on Apr 19, 2016 11:20:38 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 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 ) I am willing to bet that the Red Sox will not bid hard for Jansen, Chapman and Melancon next year. There is more to evaluating pitchers than two useful but not all-encompassing peripherals. This Red Sox team is far from a juggernaut that could not have been further improved through free agency (see, e.g., left field and the starting rotation). There's a reason they targeted Chris Young and not, say, Justin Upton or Yoenis Cespedes (and I hope you'll concede the the latter two are much, much better players than the former).
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 11:22:29 GMT -5
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. I saw this when doing my research and wondered why did they pull the offer? I infer that it's O'Day is not truly elite enough (at least for the money), because he does not miss enough bats with pitches in the strike zone, as shown by his lesser K%-BB%. They'd rather trade the low K%-B% ratio Miley for the high ratio Carson Smith. Just a theory, I don't have any inside sources at Bannister's digs.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 11:28:30 GMT -5
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 ) I am willing to bet that the Red Sox will not bid hard for Jansen, Chapman and Melancon next year. There is more to evaluating pitchers than two useful but not all-encompassing peripherals. This Red Sox team is far from a juggernaut that could not have been further improved through free agency (see, e.g., left field and the starting rotation). There's a reason they targeted Chris Young and not, say, Justin Upton or Yoenis Cespedes (and I hope you'll concede the the latter two are much, much better players than the former). My guess here is that Benintendi is coming up sooner (September) rather than later. He's little but he's a beast. Upton and Cespedes may also be seen as bad chemistry guys, which is more important to the Red Sox by far than money. Good chemistry is really hard to find but I think the Red Sox have found it. Starting pitching should be great if you project with kwERA (not sure about Buchholz as yet). But still they do (always) need as many truly elite low Z-contact% pitchers (for as many batters faced) as they can get, so I'll take that bet!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 19, 2016 11:33:58 GMT -5
I am willing to bet that the Red Sox will not bid hard for Jansen, Chapman and Melancon next year. There is more to evaluating pitchers than two useful but not all-encompassing peripherals. This Red Sox team is far from a juggernaut that could not have been further improved through free agency (see, e.g., left field and the starting rotation). There's a reason they targeted Chris Young and not, say, Justin Upton or Yoenis Cespedes (and I hope you'll concede the the latter two are much, much better players than the former). My guess here is that Benintendi is coming up sooner (September) rather than later. He's little but he's a beast. Upton and Cespedes may also be seen as bad chemistry guys, which is more important to the Red Sox by far than money. Good chemistry is really hard to find but I think the Red Sox have found it. Starting pitching should be great if you project with kwERA (not sure about Buchholz as yet). But still they do (always) need as many truly elite low Z-contact% pitchers (for as many batters faced) as they can get, so I'll take that bet! Just can't bank on this at all, especially since he has zero track record against upper level pitching. Lots of guys have been beasts in A ball and become stuffed animals at AAA. Not saying this is his path, but no GM worth a dime would bet on this.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 11:36:53 GMT -5
If the Red Sox had an unlimited budget, they could have signed Upton or Cespedes and cut or trade them when Benintendi is ready. If they were concerned about chemistry, Alex Gordon and Jason Heyward were also available, but it sounded like there was no attempt made to pursue those guys. Every team has budgetary constraints, and every dollar spent has an opportunity cost.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Apr 19, 2016 11:44:26 GMT -5
Well, except the Dodgers of course.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 11:44:54 GMT -5
My guess here is that Benintendi is coming up sooner (September) rather than later. He's little but he's a beast. Upton and Cespedes may also be seen as bad chemistry guys, which is more important to the Red Sox by far than money. Good chemistry is really hard to find but I think the Red Sox have found it. Starting pitching should be great if you project with kwERA (not sure about Buchholz as yet). But still they do (always) need as many truly elite low Z-contact% pitchers (for as many batters faced) as they can get, so I'll take that bet! Just can't bank on this at all, especially since he has zero track record against upper level pitching. Lots of guys have been beasts in A ball and become stuffed animals at AAA. Not saying this is his path, but no GM worth a dime would bet on this. Agree. Is it even plausible that he goes to Portland soon, and Pawtucket in or around July, and gets called up in September? Maybe asking too much?
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 11:48:58 GMT -5
If the Red Sox had an unlimited budget, they could have signed Upton or Cespedes and cut or trade them when Benintendi is ready. If they were concerned about chemistry, Alex Gordon and Jason Heyward were also available, but it sounded like there was no attempt made to pursue those guys. Every team has budgetary constraints, and every dollar spent has an opportunity cost. Sunk costs on free agent position players have a bad history (ADD: across all teams), and are often hard to trade. No one wants that on their resume, even if it's not about budgetary constraints at all. It's also possible that they don't see the Holt and Young platoon in left field to be as much of a weakness as you do? Holt is a heck of chemistry guy and he may just be a winner like Gomes, who you want in your lineup for intangibles.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Apr 19, 2016 12:00:43 GMT -5
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? This, this, and exactly this. Couldn't have put it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 12:07:45 GMT -5
If the Red Sox had an unlimited budget, they could have signed Upton or Cespedes and cut or trade them when Benintendi is ready. If they were concerned about chemistry, Alex Gordon and Jason Heyward were also available, but it sounded like there was no attempt made to pursue those guys. Every team has budgetary constraints, and every dollar spent has an opportunity cost. Sunk costs on free agent position players have a bad history (ADD: across all teams), and are often hard to trade. No one wants that on their resume, even if it's not about budgetary constraints at all. It's also possible that they don't see the Holt and Young platoon in left field to be as much of a weakness as you do? Holt is a heck of chemistry guy and he may just be a winner like Gomes, who you want in your lineup for intangibles. You're reverting to the strategy of assuming your position is right and then grasping at straws to try and justify it, and if you're not going to act in good faith, I don't see the point of continuing this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 12:14:33 GMT -5
Sunk costs on free agent position players have a bad history (ADD: across all teams), and are often hard to trade. No one wants that on their resume, even if it's not about budgetary constraints at all. It's also possible that they don't see the Holt and Young platoon in left field to be as much of a weakness as you do? Holt is a heck of chemistry guy and he may just be a winner like Gomes, who you want in your lineup for intangibles. You're reverting to the strategy of assuming your position is right and then grasping at straws to try and justify it, and if you're not going to act in good faith, I don't see the point of continuing this discussion. True, one can't measure intangibles against budgetary constraints. Apples and oranges. I think it's a fair point that regardless of budget, no team would make a large free agent signing for an aging position player knowing that they expect to unload or eat it soon, when they already have a good platoon in place. Not sure why, though. Call it a hunch.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 19, 2016 12:48:15 GMT -5
a winner like Gomes, who you want in your lineup for intangibles. Ohhhh now I get it... deepJOHN... John Farrell... should have recognized immediately that noone else could make such irrational arguments with full conviction. Congrats on beating cancer, now could you please retire?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 19, 2016 12:49:52 GMT -5
My guess here is that Benintendi is coming up sooner (September) rather than later. He's little but he's a beast. Upton and Cespedes may also be seen as bad chemistry guys, which is more important to the Red Sox by far than money. Good chemistry is really hard to find but I think the Red Sox have found it. Starting pitching should be great if you project with kwERA (not sure about Buchholz as yet). But still they do (always) need as many truly elite low Z-contact% pitchers (for as many batters faced) as they can get, so I'll take that bet! Just can't bank on this at all, especially since he has zero track record against upper level pitching. Lots of guys have been beasts in A ball and become stuffed animals at AAA. Not saying this is his path, but no GM worth a dime would bet on this. Still waiting on that .400 OBP from Garin Cecchini.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 19, 2016 12:54:47 GMT -5
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? This, this, and exactly this. Couldn't have put it better myself. Overly complicated. There's only one if involved here. If Kimbrel helps the Red Sox make the off-season this year, it was a great trade no matter what the future holds. Would you trade 2007 for Hanley's career ? I wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 13:02:36 GMT -5
a winner like Gomes, who you want in your lineup for intangibles. Ohhhh now I get it... deepJOHN... John Farrell... should have recognized immediately that noone else could make such irrational arguments with full conviction. Congrats on beating cancer, now could you please retire? Ceterum censeo deepjohn esse dismissiendam. (ADD: Like your sig says...)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 19, 2016 13:21:08 GMT -5
This, this, and exactly this. Couldn't have put it better myself. Overly complicated. There's only one if involved here. If Kimbrel helps the Red Sox make the off-season this year, it was a great trade no matter what the future holds. Would you trade 2007 for Hanley's career ? I wouldn't."Someone won the lottery once, so that proves it's a good investment". There's this notion that the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series the day they traded for Beckett/etc which is incredibly frustrating to me. That's not the way the world works. The Red Sox didn't win the World Series because they made the Beckett trade. They won it because of hundreds of decisions relating to dozens of players and because of a complex sequences of events that no one could possibly have foreseen prior to that. The Red Sox made a bad trade, got a good outcome (one year), and people have been using it to justify bad trades ever since.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 19, 2016 13:33:16 GMT -5
Again. If Kimbrel helps the Sox make the playoffs, it was worth the cost. Simple concept.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,717
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 19, 2016 13:37:17 GMT -5
If the Red Sox had an unlimited budget, they could have signed Upton or Cespedes and cut or trade them when Benintendi is ready. If they were concerned about chemistry, Alex Gordon and Jason Heyward were also available, but it sounded like there was no attempt made to pursue those guys. Every team has budgetary constraints, and every dollar spent has an opportunity cost. Other than Cespedes, who was in Boston and seemed (I could be wrong) not to like it here, those other guys require the Sox to forfeit the 12th pick of the draft. Maybe that's why they weren't signed to play LF. I think the Sox feel that Benintendi can move up the ladder really fast and be in Boston by early next season. I think the Sox honestly thought that Castillo was going to be the LF but Dombrowski must have been horrified by what he saw in spring training and the Sox are going with a platoon of Holt/Young, not unlike what they did with Nava/Gomes.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,717
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 19, 2016 13:48:17 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? To me, I'll regret the Sox making the Kimbrel deal if Guerra or Margot wind up being much better than what they already have. My only concern about that is if and when Bogaerts leaves after 2019, who is manning shortstop? If Guerra K/BB ratio doesn't improve a lot, and his power from last year winds up being flukey, then I don't have a lot of faith that he would have been better than what the Sox will put out at SS in 2020. As far as Margot goes, I don't know that he'll be better than JBJ. Actually I tend to doubt it. I think his OBP will be lower, his SA will be lower, and his defense, as good as it could be, won't be better than JBJ's, and with Basabe now developing and the fact that the whole Red Sox OF next year will be made up of centerfielders who I think are or will be better than Margot, I won't lose sleep over his loss. I'm honestly more concerned that Allen turns into a strong #3 starter that the Sox could have used, but it's also quite possible he's nothing more than a backend starter. I honestly think, when all is said and done, Kimbrel won't be what he was with Atlanta, which was one of the most dominating closers for a prolonged stretch, but he will be valuable for the Red Sox. I don't think the Sox will really miss out on Guerra or Margot as I think neither will be much more than an average regular (at best), and not better than what the Sox have. So that leaves the opportunity cost of a deal as the only gripe and after seeing what I've seen this winter I think the Sox would have to give up a lot more quality than those two to get a starter we'd like to have. So while the Sox will certainly lose the WAR value of the deal, I think it would take one of those other guys to be that much better than what the Sox have versus how much excellence they get from Kimbrel over the next three years. I like the odds of the latter more than the former quite honestly. I just think it's going to be one of those deals where the Kimbrel supporters are disappointed that he stopped being Mariano Rivera-like and the Kimbrel detractors worry about guys being dealt who really don't turn out too special.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Apr 19, 2016 14:13:04 GMT -5
This, this, and exactly this. Couldn't have put it better myself. Overly complicated. There's only one if involved here. If Kimbrel helps the Red Sox make the off-season this year, it was a great trade no matter what the future holds. Would you trade 2007 for Hanley's career ? I wouldn't. Larry Andersen was light's out in 1990; he helped the Red Sox make it to the playoffs. So that trade was worth it, too? Simple concept?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 14:53:04 GMT -5
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). Not if they want above average production. So other teams not wanting a 10 plus million a year player signed long-term proves your point? Pay 75% of Castillo salary and you would have 5-10 teams that would want him. I get that prospects are depth. I just would prefer we trade them for more elite players like Kimbrel then players like Peavy. I know thats not looking great at the moment, but I think Kimbrel will be fine. Holt and Shaw are perfect examples why trading some top prospects won't gut the system. They were never close to elite level guys and had very little trade value, yet they are playing a huge role on this team.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 19, 2016 14:57:53 GMT -5
Holt and Shaw are perfect examples why trading some top prospects won't gut the system. They were never close to elite level guys and had very little trade value, yet they are playing a huge role on this team. Uhm... you mean Holt is the perfect example of why you should never trade away even a middling prospect, right? Because that's what the Pirates did. They got much better value on that trade than DDo got on the Kimbrel trade, though.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 14:58:42 GMT -5
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. OK that's very telling. They could have had O'Day, but thought Kimbrel was so much better they were willing to deal a big package of prospects.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 15:01:25 GMT -5
Holt and Shaw are perfect examples why trading some top prospects won't gut the system. They were never close to elite level guys and had very little trade value, yet they are playing a huge role on this team. Uhm... you mean Holt is the perfect example of why you should never trade away even a middling prospect, right? Because that's what the Pirates did. They got much better value on that trade than DDo got on the Kimbrel trade, though. You think the Pirates regret that trade? That was a win win trade if there ever was one.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 19, 2016 15:04:58 GMT -5
Uhm... you mean Holt is the perfect example of why you should never trade away even a middling prospect, right? Because that's what the Pirates did. They got much better value on that trade than DDo got on the Kimbrel trade, though. You think the Pirates regret that trade? That was a win win trade if there ever was one. No, I just think Holt is not a great case in support of your argument in any way.
|
|
|