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 Thornburg for Shaw, Dubon, Pennington
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,624
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 6, 2016 10:52:52 GMT -5
If the FO believe last year wasn't a fluke, then this trade is fine with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by xycosis on Dec 6, 2016 10:53:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Dec 6, 2016 10:55:10 GMT -5
Look at Thornburg's track record. Poor control (3.7 BB/9), extreme flyball pitcher (36 GB%), and moderate strikeout #'s (9K/9). And another exclusively 1 inning reliever. In short, he's a poor-man's Kimbrel (which is no compliment). Sure, he had an impressive spike in K's last year (12/9); maybe that's sustainable, maybe it's not. This is not an elite relief pitcher. It's not hard to see where this goes wrong. Dombrowski has traded no less than 7 players for 2 poor-control, 1 inning relievers. It's sickening. Not that I disagree, but if you look at his most recent track record it's pretty darn good. He was 27 last year, and a lot of pitchers come into their own in their mid to later 20's. E.G. Max Scherzer, Rick Porcello. Or if you want a reliever to compare Andrew Miller. I agree it feels like a Kimbrel light deal, but's light on the cost too so I'm good with it. Actually I really like this deal. |
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 6, 2016 10:55:34 GMT -5
Poor control (3.7 BB/9), and moderate strikeout #'s (9K/9). There were 326 pitchers who threw 50 innings in 2016. Thornberg had the 17th-best K-BB%. This is Steamer's projection for Thornburg next year: 9.74 K/9, 3.54BB/9 Unless you have a better projection system (like, one that just doesn't look at a single year - and I'll help you out - you don't), you'd better come up with better arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by akiva on Dec 6, 2016 10:56:49 GMT -5
I see a lot of stuff about how Shaw and Dubon are "bench players." That reflects a far too haphazard view of the importance of good bench players. Even if Shaw maxes out at, say, a 1.0 to 1.5 win player, having that player on your bench is super, super valuable. Those guys don't grow on trees, especially guys with some defensive flexibility (Shaw has played 1B/3B/LF), and comparable players get paid $6-8M a year (think the Chris Youngs and Sean Rodriguezes of the world). Having five years (I think?) of cheap team control of a guy like that is not something you should be giving away. Agreed, but we aren't giving away depth. We are filling a major hole in the bullpen with an elite reliever. It would be an overspend but the market this year and last for relievers has been insane and, honestly, this is a good deal for Boston. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 6, 2016 10:58:07 GMT -5
I see a lot of stuff about how Shaw and Dubon are "bench players." That reflects a far too haphazard view of the importance of good bench players. Even if Shaw maxes out at, say, a 1.0 to 1.5 win player, having that player on your bench is super, super valuable. Those guys don't grow on trees, especially guys with some defensive flexibility (Shaw has played 1B/3B/LF), and comparable players get paid $6-8M a year (think the Chris Youngs and Sean Rodriguezes of the world). Having five years (I think?) of cheap team control of a guy like that is not something you should be giving away. Yeah, I agree. Strangely, I feel like people are undervaluing the pieces moving in both directions. Thornberg is legitimately good and valuable. Shaw is a useful backup, and I feel like Dubon could've been that as soon as this summer. The bullpen looks really strong today, but the major league bench looks weak and the depth in the upper minors is the worst I can remember. There were 326 pitchers who threw 50 innings in 2016. Thornberg had the 17th-best K-BB%. This is Steamer's projection for Thornburg next year: 9.74 K/9, 3.54BB/9 Unless you have a better projection system (like, one that just doesn't look at a single year - and I'll help you out - you don't), you'd better come up with better arguments. Is your argument that a 9.74 K rate to 3.54 BB rate isn't good? |
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 639
|
Post by alnipper on Dec 6, 2016 10:59:47 GMT -5
I've seen Thornburg pitch countless times. His stuff will play well in any league as a setup man or closer.
He has shown no health issues of late. As mentioned earlier his fastball velocity has increased along with a slight uptick in movement.
We now have a bullpen that should be quite dominant this coming season.
The only to only player we gave away, which I have a concern about his Pennington. I think Pennington's ceiling is what Thornburg is right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 6, 2016 10:59:54 GMT -5
There were 326 pitchers who threw 50 innings in 2016. Thornberg had the 17th-best K-BB%. This is Steamer's projection for Thornburg next year: 9.74 K/9, 3.54BB/9 Unless you have a better projection system (like, one that just doesn't look at a single year - and I'll help you out - you don't), you'd better come up with better arguments. There is no projection system that correctly makes projections after a breakout season (or collapse). |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 6, 2016 11:00:29 GMT -5
Calling Tyler Thornburg (career 0.8 fWAR, 1.2 bWAR per 65 IP) an "elite reliever" and a "shutdown guy" while dismissing Travis Shaw (career 2.3 fWAR, 2.6 bWAR per 600 PA) as a "bench player" and "depth" seems like shallow analysis to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 6, 2016 11:02:06 GMT -5
This is an awful deal. How do you get fleeced by Milwaukee? Thornburg has one good year and you give up the a top 10 prospect an intriguing young pitcher AND your starting 3B that could be a 20-25 home run guy in his prime. Bring back Ben! Stop gutting this farm. Unbelievable this organization had a great farm system now it's probably around the 17-20 mark. Awful job keeping the pipeline going.
Hell, maybe if Dumb Dave didn't give away a future front line starter for damaged goods in July he could have included Espinoza in this deal as well...
We need to protest outside Fenway until ownership understands how we feel as the consumers of this product. The product sucks right now and it's only going to get worse as DD sends this organization down the road of the Tigers and Phillies.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxpatsceltics on Dec 6, 2016 11:02:27 GMT -5
The Sox just traded for 3 years of a Miller-esque reliever for a deal headlined by 1a and 1b Travis Shaw and Dubon. Thornburg was a minor league starter, he can definitely pitch multiple innings. 12+k/9, increased velocity, what's not to like?
There's no way this isn't a win for the Sox. Dubon is blocked literally everywhere and this is a huge sell high for the Sox. I don't think he'll ever be a starter. Shaw had no place on the Sox and would have been pushed even further down the depth chart next year when Moncada returned.
Milwuakee is now on their 3rd failed Sox 3rd baseman.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Dec 6, 2016 11:02:42 GMT -5
Good with this deal, only real loss imo was Dubon. Pennington seems the "always get an arm" mentality at play whenever a team has the coveted guy. So it was Shaw and Dubon, with Pennington as the throw in piece.
As I wrote on the 2017 thread, they filled their primary stated need at near zero financial impact. They can still get under $195M for 2017, then shop next year with a clean plate.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 6, 2016 11:02:52 GMT -5
My initial reaction is that the Red Sox gave up a bit too much. But consider what Thornburg would cost a year from now if he had repeated his 2016 but as a full time 'closer' - this package would not have been close.
So you're getting a guy on an upward trajectory (in terms of value) and it make sense that you have to pay extra. I'm also guessing that Milwaukee wasn't looking to trade Thornburg, which makes the extra piece(s) necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 6, 2016 11:03:43 GMT -5
I see a lot of stuff about how Shaw and Dubon are "bench players." That reflects a far too haphazard view of the importance of good bench players. Even if Shaw maxes out at, say, a 1.0 to 1.5 win player, having that player on your bench is super, super valuable. Those guys don't grow on trees, especially guys with some defensive flexibility (Shaw has played 1B/3B/LF), and comparable players get paid $6-8M a year (think the Chris Youngs and Sean Rodriguezes of the world). Having five years (I think?) of cheap team control of a guy like that is not something you should be giving away. Agreed, but we aren't giving away depth. We are filling a major hole in the bullpen with an elite reliever. It would be an overspend but the market this year and last for relievers has been insane and, honestly, this is a good deal for Boston. [ Shaw and Doubon were going to be huge depth pieces this year. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 6, 2016 11:04:57 GMT -5
The Sox just traded for 3 years of a Miller-esque reliever for a deal headlined by 1a and 1b Travis Shaw and Dubon. Thornburg was a minor league starter, he can definitely pitch multiple innings. 12+k/9, increased velocity, what's not to like? There's no way this isn't a win for the Sox. Dubon is blocked literally everywhere and this is a huge sell high for the Sox. I don't think he'll ever be a starter. Shaw had no place on the Sox and would have been pushed even further down the depth chart next year when Moncada returned. Milwuakee is now on the 3rd failed Sox 3rd baseman. He had one good year. Where do you get Miller-esque from? Massive massive overpay. |
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on Dec 6, 2016 11:05:45 GMT -5
A three-for-one deal? No. Just like Kimbrel, we overpaid. I can see Shaw and MAYBE Pennington or Dubon, but if we give up Dubon, we should've received a minor leaguer in return from the Brewers. Not necessarily a top prospect, but *somebody* at the least to make it a bit more equitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 6, 2016 11:06:54 GMT -5
Koji Uehara had a 28.3% K-BB last year;
I heard he is available
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 6, 2016 11:07:29 GMT -5
This trade gives me a great deal of confidence that another trade is coming.
Shaw and Dubon were the closest players the Red Sox had to replacing Ortiz and Hill (although Dubon wasnt ready yet). There's no fallback plan left, so now it's time to wait for the other shoe to drop....
|
|
|
|
Post by akiva on Dec 6, 2016 11:08:05 GMT -5
Agreed, but we aren't giving away depth. We are filling a major hole in the bullpen with an elite reliever. It would be an overspend but the market this year and last for relievers has been insane and, honestly, this is a good deal for Boston. [ Shaw and Doubon were going to be huge depth pieces this year. Sorry, I meant we aren't just giving depth away. I agree Shaw and Dubon were important, though not irreplaceable, depth. I also agree that were the market for elite relievers not so outlandish, this would be an overspend. My point is that, as things stand, the Sox probably wouldn't have gotten anyone with half the quality of Thornburg for less, not this year. |
|
|
|
Post by Costigan on Dec 6, 2016 11:08:51 GMT -5
A three-for-one deal? No. Just like Kimbrel, we overpaid. I can see Shaw and MAYBE Penning or Dubon, but if we give up Dubon, we should've received a minor leaguer in return from the Brewers. Not necessarily a top prospect, but *somebody* at the least to make it a bit more equitable. It's an overpay, but it's not crazy. Pennington is miles away and an injury risk himself. Shaw hurts depth for sure, but we could be in the market for a 1 or 2 year corner infielder like Plouffe or Valbuena. Dubon had an awesome coming out year, but with Holt/Marco already for depth it made sense to sell high. Thornburg is a phenomenal pitcher albeit with injury risk like Smith. I like the move overall, even if it is an "overpay" |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 6, 2016 11:09:13 GMT -5
This is Steamer's projection for Thornburg next year: 9.74 K/9, 3.54BB/9 Unless you have a better projection system (like, one that just doesn't look at a single year - and I'll help you out - you don't), you'd better come up with better arguments. There is no projection system that correctly makes projections after a breakout season (or collapse). I fixed that for you. It is an empirical fact that players coming off a so-called "breakout year" are, in the aggregate, likely to regress at least somewhat to career norms. Doesn't always happen (see, e.g., Andrew Miller), but it happens most often than not. |
|
sarcasmo
Rookie
Formerly known as mtomeo
Posts: 91
|
Post by sarcasmo on Dec 6, 2016 11:10:25 GMT -5
I guess I look at it from a slightly different angle. DD desperately wanted more 8th inning pitching depth. He could have traded some of our top-shelf talent, but he traded 3 guys I'm OK with losing due to depth at their respective positions.
Is Thornburg the best option out there? Probably not. Did we over pay? Possibly, but Shaw and Dubon "may" have peaked and we "may" have sold high on them. Time will tell.
For me, 1) This trade fills a need, 2) keeps our top prospects in Boston, and 3) only marginally thins us out with regards to bench strength (again, Dubon and Shaw could prove that wrong in coming years).
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 6, 2016 11:13:11 GMT -5
There is no projection system that correctly makes projections after a breakout season (or collapse). I fixed that for you. It is an empirical fact that players coming off a so-called "breakout year" are, in the aggregate, likely to regress at least somewhat to career norms. Doesn't always happen (see, e.g., Andrew Miller), but it happens most often than not. Right, it does not happen after a legit breakout or collapse. I.e. JD Martinez or Allen Craig. I'm going to guess that the Red Sox believe Thornburg had a real breakout and will exceed his projections, because the trade makes no sense if they didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by soxpatsceltics on Dec 6, 2016 11:13:41 GMT -5
The Sox just traded for 3 years of a Miller-esque reliever for a deal headlined by 1a and 1b Travis Shaw and Dubon. Thornburg was a minor league starter, he can definitely pitch multiple innings. 12+k/9, increased velocity, what's not to like? There's no way this isn't a win for the Sox. Dubon is blocked literally everywhere and this is a huge sell high for the Sox. I don't think he'll ever be a starter. Shaw had no place on the Sox and would have been pushed even further down the depth chart next year when Moncada returned. Milwuakee is now on the 3rd failed Sox 3rd baseman. He had one good year. Where do you get Miller-esque from? Massive massive overpay. He has 2 good years. Great 2013 season, worth almost 1.5 wins. He's been even better based on bWAR, which I believe is more accurate for pitchers, 1.9 WAR in 2013, 2.5 last year. Then was injured in 2014 and had UCL repair and basically lost 2 years. Finally got healthy in 2016 and had a dominant year only focussing on relieving. So every healthy year, he's been great. Miller-esque I'm referring to his ability to pitch multiple innings, K more than a batter an inning and maintain a sub 3 ERA. Dave Cameron wrote about the massive adjustments he made in July. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/my-favorite-under-the-radar-trade-deadline-target/ |
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 6, 2016 11:15:50 GMT -5
So Milwaukee is also getting either a PTBNL or cash? I wonder if DD has the mentality of, "This is the guy I want, give me a price and I will pay it."
I'm cool with this trade, but how many trades has DD completed where we gave up multiple players while only receiving one player back?
|
|
|
