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.
|
Post by thursty on Apr 14, 2017 11:07:26 GMT -5
Margot for Kimbrel
Does anyone make that trade?
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 14, 2017 11:15:28 GMT -5
Margot for Kimbrel Does anyone make that trade? Looking back, no probably not but it isn't as if Kimbrel is a bum and Margot wouldn't have a spot on this current Red Sox team when everybody is healthy.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 14, 2017 11:39:25 GMT -5
Margot for Kimbrel Does anyone make that trade? If Kimbrel resembled the dominating pitcher he was with Atlanta and the Red Sox have the Killer B outfield they have, then yes, I do make that trade. Unfortunately Craig Kimbrel has become a guy re-enacting the Heathcliffe Slocumb experience, so no I don't trade Manny Margot for the guy who used to be Craig Kimbrel, but I do deal him for the Braves version of Kimbrel, the guy who was almost just as good in 2013 as Koji was. There were signs that Kimbrel wasn't quite the pitcher he had been. Got off to a rough start with the Padres but pitched quite well thereafter, so I chalked it up to just getting used to a place after an unexpected trade. But I had no idea that his control would evaporate this badly turning every game he appears in into an adventure. So I don't think it was THAT unreasonable to expect him, tied up for 3 seasons at a still young age, to bounce back to something similar to what he was in Atlanta - to me that was a flip of a coin, but he hasn't and has regressed. Tough to hit, still, but can't throw strikes consistently enough. If your point is that a closer can be had anywhere, sure it can happen, but a closer can have a ton of impact, especially a dominating one, which Koji was in 2013, which Foulke was in the 2004 post-season, and which Papelbon was in 2007. If Kimbrel had been that guy then it makes sense when you consider that's what the Red Sox really needed and that Margot, as good as he could be, was never going to good enough to dislodge either of JBJ, Mookie, or Benintendi from their starting spots in the outfield.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Apr 14, 2017 11:48:37 GMT -5
Margot for Kimbrel Does anyone make that trade? Looking back, no probably not but it isn't as if Kimbrel is a bum and Margot wouldn't have a spot on this current Red Sox team when everybody is healthy. Doesnt Matter! Maybe they would have included Margot in Sale trade instead of Mondada or Kopech! So you still have one of them. Its the Same thing as the Pomeranz trade , Its not the fact that they traded these fine young prospects its what they got back!
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 14, 2017 12:02:30 GMT -5
Or maybe the Red Sox would have had a big hole in the bullpen at the trade deadline last year and traded Margot/ a big package for a closer then like the Cubs and Indians did. Pomeranz isn't a bad pitcher either so really I don't have any problem with trading Espinoza for him. For all we know Espinoza will never be a major league caliber pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Apr 14, 2017 12:41:52 GMT -5
I love the approach to uncertainty that Dombrowski's defenders make; since uncertainty for move A isn't zero, then move A is justified. For them, playing the lottery is rational.
One might think that it would give you pause, that I (on the decline and limited value of Kimbrel) and others (on the value of the prospects shed), explained in detail the folly of the trade *at the time*; go back and read the thread on the trade - you might just learn something
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 14, 2017 13:00:45 GMT -5
I love the approach to uncertainty that Dombrowski's defenders make; since uncertainty for move A isn't zero, then move A is justified. For them, playing the lottery is rational. One might think that it would give you pause, that I (on the decline and limited value of Kimbrel) and others (on the value of the prospects shed), explained in detail the folly of the trade *at the time*; go back and read the thread on the trade - you might just learn something That sounds like so much fun, to go back over a trade that has been discussed in 10,000 posts over the last 18 months. Thanks for bringing it up again. Will be a great conversation.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 14, 2017 14:57:34 GMT -5
I always kinda preferred sweet to savory growing up, but savory definitely has the edge now.
Pink Floyd really is incredible. You don't have to really even like them to appreciate their contribution to music.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Apr 14, 2017 16:44:25 GMT -5
Yes Pomeranz is - he's in the pros. And last year he had a stretch in which we needed him most - I'm not sure we make the playoffs without him. If you recall the Red Sox bullpen was collapsing and he had several very good starts in a row.. Pomeranz helped us get into the playoffs. That performance made him "a sure thing" because last year "he was" during the stretch when we needed him badly.
I am not going to forget how terrific the Sox were near the end before the Kimbrel collapse. And Pomz was a part of that success.
Also as you previously brought up
"but make no mistake they've put a lot of eggs in this basket, including trading the likes of Espinosa, Kopech and Margot."
This makes it sound like Kopech and Espinosa are sure things. They aren't.
I just read things on here about how the Red Sox were going to be this dynasty. I say noooo -- our minor league pitching stunk other that low tier minor league ball. No prime starters were coming up soon. How long before Kopech and Espinosa would be number 1/2 starters - IF they even make it? We know we heard "he's Pedro . . . "
And then after the trade you hear how this pro team that they aren't;' that good. -- "They are tenuous at best" type of a comment while we are picked 2nd overall in the AL by Fangraphs? -- You can shake your head all you want about Travis and Groome.
I shake my head the other way and am a bit stunned of what I feel is over-exuberance of prospects while downplaying how good this team can be for the next several years. So I'm right back at ya with all the talk of dynasty and how you seem to put guys like Kopech and Espinoza on a pedestal.
Tell me that you don't think DD has the smarts to make some tough trades going forward - I'll yield somewhat.
Couple quick things: The point I apparently failed to make is that, yes, I agree with those that we are working on a significant 3-year window right now. Not to say 2020 is a looming disaster (it shouldn't be when a team has money), but if the Sox don't reach a World Series within that window, given the assets of prospects and cash that were invested in building the current team, it will likely be viewed as an organizational failure on some significant level. That said, I like Dombrowski a lot better than Cherington - a real lot - but much less than Epstein. In fact, I think two of the three biggest unforced errors by this ownership group in the last 7 years were: 1) Letting Theo go instead of buying-out/pushing-out Luchino - which happened a couple years later when the choice of embracing him and his petty advocacy was shown to be folly. 2) Letting Francona go, which was a product of the power-play that ultimately led to #1. Also, just because Pomeranz is a pro doesn't mean he's a sure thing or even what he was for part of last year. In fact he was seized upon during an outlier year, was damaged goods when acquired and the performance of a "All Star" pitcher who had until recently been more often a fifth or sixth starter type and a bullpen arm, did not merit the investment cost, IMHO. I am not saying - nor was I saying - that the Sox should've held onto Espinosa, or Margot, for that matter in the Kimbrel deal, because they were sure-fire stars. What I was saying is that it was in both cases a bad use of assets, especially when it was offered back when Pomeranz was found to be damaged. I contended then, and continue to believe, that Pomeranz was in an pure outlier year and his track record showed him to be an oft-injured starter who was likely ticked for the pen and who had benefited from some very large ballparks (Oak, SD). That kind of "innings eater, 5th starter" should've been found elsewhere at less cost. You keep - or take back Espinosa - and all his "incredibly advanced 18 year-old, future #1 starter" hype and that's one more big chip you have to potentially move in the off-season. Or let me put it this way: it's highly likely you still have one of him or Kopech today and Chris Sale, if you don't make or reverse the Pomeranz deal. Which brings me to my last point, which I must've also not clearly stated or implied - and I apologize again if this was the case: We're all enthusiastic about prospects here, and we all have favorites. But that doesn't mean that guys like Travis or Kopech or any of the others will be stars, or, in the case of Travis, even an MLB regular. Those who were making the argument that "we'll be fine in 2020 because we'll have Travis and Devers and Groome and whomever meeting or approaching their ceilings" are engaging in some extremely wishful thinking when viewed with the historic success rate of highly projected prospects who are at the lower levels. I was attempting to caution that attitude and to say that, with only 1-3 projected above average MLB players at their current positions right now (Devers, Groome and maybe Swihart if he stays at catcher), there is a lot less room for error with home-grown success after this window, barring some shrewd acquisitions. So, yeah, it's much more of a window in my view right now without significant augmentation of the roster during that 3-year window by making really, really great draft and international signings in the next 3 years and some smart trades and free agent acquisitions. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. Our outlooks are different. You are half-empty I am half –full. Nothing wrong with either. I’ve already made my points on Pomeranz so no need to rehash that. But when you and others suggest for example about counting on Groome, Travis and Devers, I see that as no different than some of you fretting so much about the loss of Spinoza and Kopech. In one breath I can’t count on our current minor leagues but yet you can point out the big loss for the ones we traded?
As for the guys I’m counting. Absolutely imo they should be counted though I’m not counting them as all-stars. For Groome- he was regarded as the best pitching prospect and his stuff is the real deal from what I’ve read. No reason imo not to predict he won’t make it be decent when you’ve got the number 1 pitching prospect. As for Travis—again no reason to not believe he won’t be at least a platoon player. Why do you think soxprospects has an ETA of 2017?
As for Devers—he is regarded as one the youngest players in AA ball I think and he is ranked around 15-20, and I can’t have any expectation that he might be at least decent in 2 years while you can make mention of the loss of Kopech and Espinoza? I just don’t agree with your view here of fretting over the loss of youth as is it has value yet refusing to accept that there is a probable gain (value) in the current Sox top-tier minor league youth.
It just highlights imo of our difference of being half-full vs half-empty. For example when you speak of “organizational failure” in any manner of the Red Sox if they don’t reach the WS - I shake my head for two points. One is - you did value/have a high expectation of our minor league that now have been traded yet now you don’t want anyone to count the ones that are still here to project they can be at least decent. Secondly, when you speak of organizational failure, I don’t see close to that right now. Because unfortunately I am a Knicks / Nets fan. I am not a Patriots fan – so I have seen failure over-and-over and if the Sox are knocking at the door without having real bad years in the near future, I don’t believe at all there is any reason to use the word failure. The Knicks and Nets are failures. IMO its way harsh for you to say. It's something imo that a half-empty poster would say in the next 3 years which we are projected to be real good. You want to highlight we could "fail."
Which leads me our differences of 2020. You use the words “wishful thinking” to expect 2020 to be good. Sure. Every year I have wishful thinking though for every team. Don’t we all? SO if I try figure the context you mean – I also have to read some of your other posts on other threads and maybe some you haven’t commented on. Such as when the poster philo on the Orioles – Sox Thread was optimistic if the pitching held up and had raised a question what else do they need (implying the Sox outlook looked fine if the pitching held up.), you replied all the questions they have of their hitters. I see you had no problem pointing out the potential weaknesses and you have no problem pointing out the potential losses of fine prospects we lost. Conversely, I hadn’t seen you challenge the posters that have said the Red Sox would have had a dynasty if DD had left things alone.
By what you respond to and how you respond, this tells me you are more of the skeptical/half-empty type. Thus when you question the outlook of player’s etc- I am more skeptical of your half-empty outlook. It’s not what I see. ** Of note- I heard Clay has arm issues? I was wrong. I thought Sox should have kept him. Another very good move by DD. Also, if you recall others said we didn’t’ need Sale. Early on no Price, Erod and Wright struggling. It’s nice to know we have a tremendous ACE going deep and pitching fine, isn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Apr 14, 2017 17:01:27 GMT -5
Or maybe the Red Sox would have had a big hole in the bullpen at the trade deadline last year and traded Margot/ a big package for a closer then like the Cubs and Indians did. Pomeranz isn't a bad pitcher either so really I don't have any problem with trading Espinoza for him. For all we know Espinoza will never be a major league caliber pitcher. What you are staring to see is more and more the attempt for the narrative to change for the posters that hate DD or just love prospects. Yes - the Sox gave up too much to get Kimbrel. But what you'll see more and more get forgotten or glossed over is the fact that Koji wasn't that good early on. Their bullpen was not good. How many games did we lose late? Kimbrel -- or any closer - was a need. How many more games did the Red Sox need to blow before trading Margot?
Last year the Red Sox were a threat to win it all. We had ot get Ziegler for a reason, didn't we? Why? Because the bullpen was extremely shaky.
We needed Kimbrel. And at the end of the season before Kimbrel collapsed, and when fangraphs put us ahead of the cubs for odds to win the World Series, tell me most people weren't super-excited of our Koji/Kimbrel duo?
Now you'll see more and more the narrative change.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 14, 2017 18:48:39 GMT -5
No, the narrative isn't changing. And you still haven't gotten done patting yourself on the back for being "optimistic" versus all of those "pessimists." Except maybe it's just realism versus fantasy. Having Sale or not doesn't change the calculus. You can't seem to grasp that: it's not about one season (or one part of a season) for people who dislike that, or other, trades. It's an issue with gestalt approach. You're doing the same thing with the "sure thing" argument. Nobody ever said that Espinoza, Moncada, Kopech st al were sure things. But the more elite prospects a team has, the higher likelihood they develop an elite player. And the Sox have a LOT of recent success with that. OTOH, in yourcalculus, you ARE projecting prospects as sure things. You're not even privy to your own fallacy of reason...you're projecting the error in judgement in your own mind to others'.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Apr 15, 2017 10:53:35 GMT -5
oops. made a mistake. Delete what I said. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 16, 2017 9:21:47 GMT -5
I love the approach to uncertainty that Dombrowski's defenders make; since uncertainty for move A isn't zero, then move A is justified. For them, playing the lottery is rational. One might think that it would give you pause, that I (on the decline and limited value of Kimbrel) and others (on the value of the prospects shed), explained in detail the folly of the trade *at the time*; go back and read the thread on the trade - you might just learn something As opposed to the certainty of the prospects traded.... sure I defended the Kimbrel trade at the time and still do now. He does not look in decline early on this year and I disagree on the limit of his value.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Apr 17, 2017 21:00:59 GMT -5
I love the approach to uncertainty that Dombrowski's defenders make; since uncertainty for move A isn't zero, then move A is justified. For them, playing the lottery is rational. One might think that it would give you pause, that I (on the decline and limited value of Kimbrel) and others (on the value of the prospects shed), explained in detail the folly of the trade *at the time*; go back and read the thread on the trade - you might just learn something As opposed to the certainty of the prospects traded.... sure I defended the Kimbrel trade at the time and still do now. He does not look in decline early on this year and I disagree on the limit of his value. 36 for 38 in Save opportunities for Boston. 13 for 13 in 1 run save opportunities for Boston Zero blown saves since last june.. Meanwhile in SD Margot .300 obpct...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 17, 2017 22:26:49 GMT -5
Meanwhile in SD Margot .300 obpct... Rounding a .317 OBP down to .300 seems silly: especially when it's the closest thing you have to a straw to grasp at. Margot is the 6th youngest player in the National League, has a .500 SLG, and is fourth in baseball among center fielders in defensive runs saved. If your argument is that Kimbrel is good, make that argument. You don't need to pretend that Margot is bad to justify it to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Apr 17, 2017 22:38:37 GMT -5
regurgitating save statistics as the measure of a reliever is its own counter argument
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 7:10:51 GMT -5
Defensive runs saved is a pretty questionable statistic in and of itself
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 18, 2017 7:23:03 GMT -5
Defensive runs saved is a pretty questionable statistic in and of itself The better point is that defensive stats in small samples are usually questionable. It's just a stand-in for the fact that Margot is a plus defensive center fielder, though.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 18, 2017 7:23:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 7:27:56 GMT -5
Defensive runs saved is a pretty questionable statistic in and of itself The better point is that defensive stats in small samples are usually questionable. It's just a stand-in for the fact that Margot is a plus defensive center fielder, though. This is true but defensive runs saved even in big samples I think is highly questionable as a statistic.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 18, 2017 7:57:24 GMT -5
Why do you say that? DRS sure seems to match what you see on the field. I've yet to think a guys really good at D and seen he has a negative DRS and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 18, 2017 8:17:20 GMT -5
The point is that it's hard to look at the last two weeks of Manuel Margot's career and be like "yeah, good thing they traded that dude while the getting was good!" He's been really very good. You can defend Kimbrel and you can make the defense that the value was worth it for a variety of reasons, but trying to pretend that it's a good trade because Margot turned out to be a bum is not a good take right now.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 8:17:28 GMT -5
Because the results don't really make sense with regards to what it supposedly measures. Also, the description of it clearly says not to be used in small sample sizes and that it really needs a 1-3 year sample to be useful. Well that's a large difference and if we are being honest, outfielders should really be on the long end of that due to their much smaller sample size than an infielder and certainly a lot smaller than a first baseman.
Mookie Betts was credited with 32 runs saved last year in 362 chances that's basically saying one out of every 10 balls hit his way he saves a run versus an average right fielder.
On the other hand Anthony Rizzo (a great fielding first baseman) had 1400 fielding chances and was only 11 defensive runs saved.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 8:19:56 GMT -5
The point is that it's hard to look at the last two weeks of Manuel Margot's career and be like "yeah, good thing they traded that dude while the getting was good!" He's been really very good. You can defend Kimbrel and you can make the defense that the value was worth it for a variety of reasons, but trying to pretend that it's a good trade because Margot turned out to be a bum is not a good take right now. I agree it's a terrible take. Personally, I don't much care what Margot turns out to be. With the outfield they have they were going to trade him regardless. The only real argument is if people think he should have been traded for more, but even then we need to be careful and try to go back to what his value would have been at the time he was traded and that gets harder and harder every day.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 18, 2017 9:12:56 GMT -5
I think the thing there is that some positions are easier to save runs than other positions. The best 1B is never going to equal the best OF. A great OF can rob a guy of a multiple runs on one play by reaching over a wall and talking away a HR for example.
|
|
|