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.
2020 Vision: Position Players
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 2, 2019 23:06:06 GMT -5
This could be true if you could guarentee me a year out of Chris Sale next year, you know, the Sox best pitcher.
At this point, it's a hope. I'm not going all in and keeping Betts around in a year where you *hope* to have your best pitcher around. Without Sale, you're as much of a contender as you are this year (as in not much of a contender). You trade Mookie Betts for more controllable great young talent next year and bite the bullet for 2020. Still, you're banking on him giving him solid production if you keep Betts. Not to mention the rotation questions beyond him. Eovaldi always being a question. Price should be okay, but nothing given there. Porcello gone and that's no major loss, based on what's been given this year. Eduardo having maybe his first full major league season ever this year. The whole rotation is a major question frankly and your only viable depth right now in 2020 is a 20 year old pitcher in AA named Mata. I'm not risking only one year of Betts with a rotation that's currently in the state it's in right now. Add- We are already talking about 2020 because of this pitching staff right now as a whole. The Sox already have the number one offense in baseball and they're already out of it basically, baring a miracle. Sale, who had averaged 5.6 WAR per year, gave us 2.2 WAR this year, and the Sox have still been a 100 talent-win team after the slow start.
Rick Porcello has alternated good and bad years for six years now. In 2014-2015 he averaged 2.2 WAR per year. In 2016-2017 he average 2.2 WAR per year. In 2018 and 2019 he's fallen off dramatically and projects to only average 2.1 WAR.
So the "no great loss" was exactly the contribution from Sale whose absence you think is both likely, and which would warrant punting the season.
You talk as if every MLB pitcher isn't a question mark. It's absolutely true that for all their extraordinary talent, not one of Sale, Price, Eovaldi, or E-Rod have been consistently healthy and/or have pitched up to their potential. Note that we got 100 wins worth of talent with essentially nothing from Eovaldi, and with Porcello having one of his down years; they've combined for 0.8 WAR. This roster is insanely talented now. Your attitude is, well, we can't be certain that everyone will be as good as we reasonably expect, so let's blow it up!
My attitude is that the question of the health of the rotation is the issue, and the most important issue that no one can't derive from. Not performance. I'm not playing Russian roulette on this rotation and risking everything for one year. Chris Sale's medium projection shouldn't be 0 wins next year, but it *could* be with the questions of the elbow. Eovaldi is always hurt. Price is coming off a injury right now and is currently topping out at 90 mph again. Porcello is gone. You don't have a 5th starter. Mata is your only pitching depth at the moment. Hello, hello!! Thanks for blocking me, I'll agree to disagree from here because you don't see it from my side.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 2, 2019 23:33:40 GMT -5
I'm not even advocating for blowing it up either.
I'm advocating for trading 2 expensive players with no team control left because of the question marks in 2020.
I would love to give Castellanos a 4 year deal and give him a first base glove/make him your backup 5th outfielder. That would lessen the blow on a Mookie Betts trade. Resign JDM too, and make him your full-time DH.
Two cost controlled outfielders sounds like a good idea beyond 2020 in a trade for Mookie. Mata should be ready by then. My idea is a true reset. You're still a competitive team if you do this, even in 2020, if all breaks right (which I wouldn't bank on with the control of more players in my scenario).
There's 10 different ways to skin a cat (or so I'm told). Get creative. Reduce the long term risk. Don't put yourself in a one year window. Yuck.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 3, 2019 0:18:39 GMT -5
So, it appears as if that trading JBJ will free up some needed space under the tax limit, which they otherwise will be very close to. (These roster rundowns assume Devers, Xander, Benny, Mookie, CV, and a backup C. That's 6 known guys with known roles.)
If they keep JBJ (7), you're looking at JDM (8) as mostly DH again, Marco Hernandez at 2B (9), Chavis as his platoon partner who also plays some 1B and backs up 3B (10), Lin as the backup MI (11), and Travis as the platoon 1B (12). What you really want from the 13th player is a starting LHB for first base. And maybe Mitch Moreland takes a super-cheap deal and you stay under the cap. But you might have to fill that roster spot with a AAAA bat or with Dalbec (who would essentially duplicate Chavis, without the 2B ability), or even give Ockimey a shot. Or trade Dalbec and get a comparable 1B prospect ... if one exists. But if you trade JBJ, you should have room to re-sign Brock Holt. Let me first explain why this is a terrific idea, and then why it's doable. This starts with some posts from another thread ...
For 2B: Chavis/Holt? Chavis/Scooter? Chavis/Marco? Chavis/Lin? That is the big question, IMO. For the bench: Holt, Marco, RHB, C? Holt, Scooter, RHB, C? Hilt, Lin, RHB, C? FWIW, I would build the bench around Holt. He is the better hitter, more versatile fielder, a solid base runner (and, incidently, has by far the most value to both clubhouse chemistry and community involvement.) Meanwhile, though I really like Marco’s speed, pop and perseverance, he likely has the most value of the group in a trade. Such a good conundrum. It’s really gonna bum me out, but I don’t think Holt is back. And that’s a shame, because he’s a terrific utility guy, a pretty solid hitter (excellent this year) and a great clubhouse presence. I hope they re-up, but my guess is he’s too costly. They'll still be trying to win a WS with one of the four best rosters in the game. So, they want to maximize bang for buck as they try to get under the salary cap.
Since he switched to the Axe bat last August, Holt has a 137 wRC+ and ranks 28th in MLB in fWAR / PA out of 294 guys with 300+ PA (Holt has 331). He's been the Sox 4th best player, after Bogaerts (6th), Betts (7th), and Devers (23rd). He's been better than all three of the Cubs' best players (Baez 38, Rizzo 40, Bryant 42).
Yeah, yada yada, regression to the mean. I have run these numbers periodically and they're barely regressing. And they include his little experiment trying to hit with one functional eyeball!
There is some concern about Holt playing too much. But he's been worth 3.4 fWAR per 450 PA. That is $27M of value. You'll get him for somewhat less than that.
There are several factors that cause a player to be available to a team at less than his true value. One of them, positional abundance, is not in play here. There's not exactly a glut of players who are solid defenders at 2B and either OF corner, and can fill in adequately everywhere else but P and C. But two other factors are very much in play. The first might be called the Rich Hill factor, which applies to players who have a dramatic upturn in performance late in their career. There is, I think, an automatic tendency for opposing GMs to suspect it's a fluke. Even with all the analytics that would argue otherwise, I think that there's an intuitive fear that giving a guy a contract well above what he was previously getting will prove to be a bad idea.
But there's an even stronger reason why no one will give Holt a contract anywhere near what he's worth. You simply cannot pay a free agent a sum that will be unanimously criticized by the local press and fan base as a crazy overpay. All the player is going to hear from day one is how he's expected to be worth a sum of money that no one believes he's worth. It puts extravagant, undue pressure on him, and it puts the GM under a corresponding microscope. The most you can offer a guy like Holt is the least you think he'll be worth. You pay him by his floor, not his median projection, and that floor in this case is basically what he used to be.
So anyone who signs him is very likely to get great bang-for-buck. Why not us?
But wait, there's more.
If you were writing a novel and you needed, as a plot point, a player who took a huge "hometown discount" to stay with his current team, you'd invent Brock Holt. And you'd be criticized for a lack of realism!
OK, so he has close ties to the community with charity work. OK, he's a key figure in a very tight clubhouse, a guy who apparently likes his teammates hugely and is equally liked in return. OK, so the team, two years previously, was in the conversation for greatest team of all time and they should be in the thick of the WS race again this year. All that I can buy, Mr. Beginner Author.
But this bit about how he's from Texas, but he was the only player who spent last winter in Boston because he likes to shovel snow? Seriously? Shoot me. You had a solid scenario. With this extra, silly detail you lose all credibility.
Of course it's all true. And you should be able to get him for, what, 20% less than his best outside offer?
Furthermore, once you agree on a deal, you can spread it out an extra year to reduce the AAV.
I have no idea what kind of deal he'd get, but I'm quite sure the AAV will be less than JBJ's arb reward (he made $8.55M last year), and it's an upgrade on the field -- JBJ has settled in at about a 2.5 WAR player, and Holt has the extra positional versatility.
Tomorrow I'll look at the roster with Holt instead of JBJ. The idea is that you can either fill that 13th roster spot or upgrade Lin's with the tax limit space you've cleared. And maybe both.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 3, 2019 7:24:09 GMT -5
Fun fact-
Marco Hernandez has 0.7 bWAR in 89 plate appearances.
Brock Holt has 1.4 bWAR in 220 plate appearances.
One is going to free agency. One is not.
CJ Catham just got promoted to AAA also. Spend money elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 3, 2019 7:41:11 GMT -5
The thing that the 'trade Mookie' takes seem to not be accounting for (despite ericvman mentioning it in the original post) is that he gets paid with a large amount of American dollars.
So on the one hand, as eric said, his trade value is not that high - what are you really expecting a team to give up for one year of Betts when he's already making $20m+? It's not like you're going to get a sure-fire can't-lose projected all-star for that.
And on the other hand, if they keep Betts and don't re-sign him, that's $20m+ they have to play with after 2020. You could at least find an acceptable replacement for that much money, no? In other words, they're not "getting nothing" if he leaves in free agency; they're getting $20m+ of cap space to work with.
Both of these factors shrink the margin between the value of trading him now vs. the cost of keeping him and letting him walk in a year. And for this relatively small margin, you'd punt away a full year of Betts in a season where the Red Sox project to be very good?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Sept 3, 2019 7:56:27 GMT -5
Granted, there is always risk on any given player's near-future performance with respect to a projection of his history. Usually, the high cost/value players available are free-agents, hence 28-30 years old. Mookie is 26 now, and 27 next year. I am inclined to think that player performance risk is lower for one at age 27-28 versus 30+. In this regard, there is higher risk-adjusted floor per year for Mookie than signing a free agent to a 5 year deal for ages 29-34.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 3, 2019 8:00:14 GMT -5
The thing that the 'trade Mookie' takes seem to not be accounting for (despite ericvman mentioning it in the original post) is that he gets paid with a large amount of American dollars. So on the one hand, as eric said, his trade value is not that high - what are you really expecting a team to give up for one year of Betts when he's already making $20m+? It's not like you're going to get a sure-fire can't-lose projected all-star for that. And on the other hand, if they keep Betts and don't re-sign him, that's $20m+ they have to play with after 2020. You could at least find an acceptable replacement for that much money, no? In other words, they're not "getting nothing" if he leaves in free agency; they're getting $20m+ of cap space to work with. Both of these factors shrink the margin between the value of trading him now vs. the cost of keeping him and letting him walk in a year. And for this relatively small margin, you'd punt away a full year of Betts in a season where the Red Sox project to be very good? www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25461805/arizona-diamondbacks-trade-paul-goldschmidt-st-louis-cardinals%3fplatform=ampGoldsmidt was making 14.5 million before the deal and was 31. Goldsmidt was worth 5.9 bWAR and 5.4 bWAR the two years leading up to his trade and only played first base. Luke Weaver is worth 1.4 bWAR this year. Carson Kelly is worth 2 bWAR this year. Andy Young had a 140 wRC+ in AA and 129 wRC+ in AAA. Plus a really good draft pick. Mookie Betts is worth 10.9 and 5.5 bWAR the two seasons leading up to this off-season. This value doesn't even include the fact that he can play CF. His value goes up even more when that happens. Basically, Mookie is worth the freight and money in a trade package. Anthony Rendon and Gerrit Cole are the only two players worth over 5 WAR this off-season in free agency. We can agree that they are worse players, or hope to. Mookie is worth more of a investment than those players. If money is a small issue, the Sox can throw in money for next year to get a larger package. I disagree that Mookie isn't worth a lot because of the money. I think you can rob the top 3 prospects of most clubs farm systems with even one year of Mookie. These players don't hit the market often. You're not trading Mookie if you don't get that type of deal. Not trying to give him away here.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Sept 3, 2019 9:37:58 GMT -5
A sneaky big offseason priority is the 4th OF spot. It's clear as day to me that JD cant play the field anymore, and they could use another RHH in the OF to spell Beni/JBJ.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 3, 2019 9:54:16 GMT -5
This could be true if you could guarentee me a year out of Chris Sale next year, you know, the Sox best pitcher.
At this point, it's a hope. I'm not going all in and keeping Betts around in a year where you *hope* to have your best pitcher around. Without Sale, you're as much of a contender as you are this year (as in not much of a contender). You trade Mookie Betts for more controllable great young talent next year and bite the bullet for 2020. Still, you're banking on him giving him solid production if you keep Betts. Not to mention the rotation questions beyond him. Eovaldi always being a question. Price should be okay, but nothing given there. Porcello gone and that's no major loss, based on what's been given this year. Eduardo having maybe his first full major league season ever this year. The whole rotation is a major question frankly and your only viable depth right now in 2020 is a 20 year old pitcher in AA named Mata. I'm not risking only one year of Betts with a rotation that's currently in the state it's in right now. Add- We are already talking about 2020 because of this pitching staff right now as a whole. The Sox already have the number one offense in baseball and they're already out of it basically, baring a miracle. Sale, who had averaged 5.6 WAR per year, gave us 2.2 WAR this year, and the Sox have still been a 100 talent-win team after the slow start.
Rick Porcello has alternated good and bad years for six years now. In 2014-2015 he averaged 2.2 WAR per year. In 2016-2017 he average 2.2 WAR per year. In 2018 and 2019 he's fallen off dramatically and projects to only average 2.1 WAR.
So the "no great loss" was exactly the contribution from Sale whose absence you think is both likely, and which would warrant punting the season.
You talk as if every MLB pitcher isn't a question mark. It's absolutely true that for all their extraordinary talent, not one of Sale, Price, Eovaldi, or E-Rod have been consistently healthy and/or have pitched up to their potential. Note that we got 100 wins worth of talent with essentially nothing from Eovaldi, and with Porcello having one of his down years; they've combined for 0.8 WAR. This roster is insanely talented now. Your attitude is, well, we can't be certain that everyone will be as good as we reasonably expect, so let's blow it up!
Add- We are already talking about 2020 because of this pitching staff right now as a whole.
No, as I explained in the post you presumably read, the pitching overall (since the slow start) hasn't fallen off that far from last year, in terms of what they have allowed in terms of hits, homers, walks, and so on. It's just 3 wins less. That's not 3 wins below average, that's 3 wins less than we got last year. It's still 2 wins above average. When you have an offense that's 16 wins above average, having a pitching staff that's just 2 wins above average does not, I think, cost you a playoff spot ... hmm ... let's see ... 81 + 16 + 2 = 99. Yup.
We're talking about 2020 already because two different things happened: the slow start, which cost us 6 wins, and because the pitching has been terrible at avoiding big innings and the hitters have been terrible at rallying from just behind at the end of games, and that's cost another 6 wins. If neither of those things had happened we'd be way in the WC lead. if only one had happened, we'd be a bit in the lead.
But I said all that already, didn't I?
(I did have you blocked, and I won't be responding to your further posts.)
You can't remove the first 19 games calling them a 100 win talent team since then, while also using those first 19 games to make Sales impact seem less than it was. Sale overall 6-11 4.40 ERA, 3.40 FIP, remove his first four starts 6-7 3.83 ERA and 2.97 FIP. The Sale your including in your projections was a lot better than a 2.2 war pitcher. He's in like 90 percent of those projections and his impact was much closer to a 5 war player in those than a 2 war player. So Sale impact on next season is going to be big and really hard to replace if he can't pitch or isn't that guy you used in those projections. So we really can't talk about next year because of the pitching right now. Get back at me after Sale is cleared and good to go for 2020. If you replace his starts after those 19 games with a guy like Johnson or better yet someone worse while he was injured it's going to kill those projections. Nevermind the impact on the bullpen if you had that many short starts and bullpen games. Sale after those four starts was basically regular Sale, just a little higher ERA because of extra HRs. Yet it's the year of the home run in Baseball.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 3, 2019 10:13:51 GMT -5
So, it appears as if that trading JBJ will free up some needed space under the tax limit, which they otherwise will be very close to. (These roster rundowns assume Devers, Xander, Benny, Mookie, CV, and a backup C. That's 6 known guys with known roles.)
If they keep JBJ (7), you're looking at JDM (8) as mostly DH again, Marco Hernandez at 2B (9), Chavis as his platoon partner who also plays some 1B and backs up 3B (10), Lin as the backup MI (11), and Travis as the platoon 1B (12). What you really want from the 13th player is a starting LHB for first base. And maybe Mitch Moreland takes a super-cheap deal and you stay under the cap. But you might have to fill that roster spot with a AAAA bat or with Dalbec (who would essentially duplicate Chavis, without the 2B ability), or even give Ockimey a shot. Or trade Dalbec and get a comparable 1B prospect ... if one exists. But if you trade JBJ, you should have room to re-sign Brock Holt. Let me first explain why this is a terrific idea, and then why it's doable. This starts with some posts from another thread ...
It’s really gonna bum me out, but I don’t think Holt is back. And that’s a shame, because he’s a terrific utility guy, a pretty solid hitter (excellent this year) and a great clubhouse presence. I hope they re-up, but my guess is he’s too costly. They'll still be trying to win a WS with one of the four best rosters in the game. So, they want to maximize bang for buck as they try to get under the salary cap.
Since he switched to the Axe bat last August, Holt has a 137 wRC+ and ranks 28th in MLB in fWAR / PA out of 294 guys with 300+ PA (Holt has 331). He's been the Sox 4th best player, after Bogaerts (6th), Betts (7th), and Devers (23rd). He's been better than all three of the Cubs' best players (Baez 38, Rizzo 40, Bryant 42).
Yeah, yada yada, regression to the mean. I have run these numbers periodically and they're barely regressing. And they include his little experiment trying to hit with one functional eyeball!
There is some concern about Holt playing too much. But he's been worth 3.4 fWAR per 450 PA. That is $27M of value. You'll get him for somewhat less than that.
There are several factors that cause a player to be available to a team at less than his true value. One of them, positional abundance, is not in play here. There's not exactly a glut of players who are solid defenders at 2B and either OF corner, and can fill in adequately everywhere else but P and C. But two other factors are very much in play. The first might be called the Rich Hill factor, which applies to players who have a dramatic upturn in performance late in their career. There is, I think, an automatic tendency for opposing GMs to suspect it's a fluke. Even with all the analytics that would argue otherwise, I think that there's an intuitive fear that giving a guy a contract well above what he was previously getting will prove to be a bad idea.
But there's an even stronger reason why no one will give Holt a contract anywhere near what he's worth. You simply cannot pay a free agent a sum that will be unanimously criticized by the local press and fan base as a crazy overpay. All the player is going to hear from day one is how he's expected to be worth a sum of money that no one believes he's worth. It puts extravagant, undue pressure on him, and it puts the GM under a corresponding microscope. The most you can offer a guy like Holt is the least you think he'll be worth. You pay him by his floor, not his median projection, and that floor in this case is basically what he used to be.
So anyone who signs him is very likely to get great bang-for-buck. Why not us?
But wait, there's more.
If you were writing a novel and you needed, as a plot point, a player who took a huge "hometown discount" to stay with his current team, you'd invent Brock Holt. And you'd be criticized for a lack of realism!
OK, so he has close ties to the community with charity work. OK, he's a key figure in a very tight clubhouse, a guy who apparently likes his teammates hugely and is equally liked in return. OK, so the team, two years previously, was in the conversation for greatest team of all time and they should be in the thick of the WS race again this year. All that I can buy, Mr. Beginner Author.
But this bit about how he's from Texas, but he was the only player who spent last winter in Boston because he likes to shovel snow? Seriously? Shoot me. You had a solid scenario. With this extra, silly detail you lose all credibility.
Of course it's all true. And you should be able to get him for, what, 20% less than his best outside offer?
Furthermore, once you agree on a deal, you can spread it out an extra year to reduce the AAV.
I have no idea what kind of deal he'd get, but I'm quite sure the AAV will be less than JBJ's arb reward (he made $8.55M last year), and it's an upgrade on the field -- JBJ has settled in at about a 2.5 WAR player, and Holt has the extra positional versatility.
Tomorrow I'll look at the roster with Holt instead of JBJ. The idea is that you can either fill that 13th roster spot or upgrade Lin's with the tax limit space you've cleared. And maybe both.
Holt is playing well, yet he usually has stretches where he plays very well in a season. Just have to ask why no statcast data? Holt's at .321 with a .453 slugging, statcast expected is .282 and .387, wOBA is .366, xwOBA is .338
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 3, 2019 10:53:17 GMT -5
The thing that the 'trade Mookie' takes seem to not be accounting for (despite ericvman mentioning it in the original post) is that he gets paid with a large amount of American dollars. So on the one hand, as eric said, his trade value is not that high - what are you really expecting a team to give up for one year of Betts when he's already making $20m+? It's not like you're going to get a sure-fire can't-lose projected all-star for that. And on the other hand, if they keep Betts and don't re-sign him, that's $20m+ they have to play with after 2020. You could at least find an acceptable replacement for that much money, no? In other words, they're not "getting nothing" if he leaves in free agency; they're getting $20m+ of cap space to work with. Both of these factors shrink the margin between the value of trading him now vs. the cost of keeping him and letting him walk in a year. And for this relatively small margin, you'd punt away a full year of Betts in a season where the Red Sox project to be very good? www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25461805/arizona-diamondbacks-trade-paul-goldschmidt-st-louis-cardinals%3fplatform=ampGoldsmidt was making 14.5 million before the deal and was 31. Goldsmidt was worth 5.9 bWAR and 5.4 bWAR the two years leading up to his trade and only played first base. Luke Weaver is worth 1.4 bWAR this year. Carson Kelly is worth 2 bWAR this year. Andy Young had a 140 wRC+ in AA and 129 wRC+ in AAA. Plus a really good draft pick. Mookie Betts is worth 10.9 and 5.5 bWAR the two seasons leading up to this off-season. This value doesn't even include the fact that he can play CF. His value goes up even more when that happens. Basically, Mookie is worth the freight and money in a trade package. Anthony Rendon and Gerrit Cole are the only two players worth over 5 WAR this off-season in free agency. We can agree that they are worse players, or hope to. Mookie is worth more of a investment than those players. If money is a small issue, the Sox can throw in money for next year to get a larger package. I disagree that Mookie isn't worth a lot because of the money. I think you can rob the top 3 prospects of most clubs farm systems with even one year of Mookie. These players don't hit the market often. You're not trading Mookie if you don't get that type of deal. Not trying to give him away here. I fully agree most posters on here are greatly undervaluing Betts trade value, mainly because they want to keep him and don't want to even think about him leaving. I think you picked the perfect trade, at minimum it seems crazy a Goldschmidt type trade isn't available. Now you can debate what we should do and if that's is enough all day long. It's risky, we are using hindsight with that trade. Yet it was a top 50 guy at a very premium position, a former top 100 major league ready starter, another prospect and a good draft pick. Given the difference in age, quality of the player and position I don't see how a case can be made that you get less. In fact you should get a lot more. The one season of Betts your trading for is likely to have been projected to be worth close to double the bwar. The Red Sox can simple pay down Betts salary if that means maximizing returns. Crazy trades that make no sense long-term happen all the time in Baseball. Only takes one owner that wants to win right now for them to happen. With that being said, do you really think most teams give up their top three prospects for one year of Betts? Most posters are overblowing how much Betts value will be effected, yet you are going full on other direction no?
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Sept 3, 2019 11:52:13 GMT -5
The thing that the 'trade Mookie' takes seem to not be accounting for (despite ericvman mentioning it in the original post) is that he gets paid with a large amount of American dollars. So on the one hand, as eric said, his trade value is not that high - what are you really expecting a team to give up for one year of Betts when he's already making $20m+? It's not like you're going to get a sure-fire can't-lose projected all-star for that. And on the other hand, if they keep Betts and don't re-sign him, that's $20m+ they have to play with after 2020. You could at least find an acceptable replacement for that much money, no? In other words, they're not "getting nothing" if he leaves in free agency; they're getting $20m+ of cap space to work with. Both of these factors shrink the margin between the value of trading him now vs. the cost of keeping him and letting him walk in a year. And for this relatively small margin, you'd punt away a full year of Betts in a season where the Red Sox project to be very good? Another viewing angle: Mookie could get $25M in this final arb year. At that price, on a one year deal, we have to agree his trade value likely won’t be anything equivalent in terms of comparable talent. Also, JDM’s late season surge could mean his opting out, wanting more than Mookie’s $25M. With both Mookie and JDM gone the Sox can re-set the cap, sign some lesser talent for lesser money, and punt 2020 and beyond. Hooray! Or, as you suggest, hold Mookie close for a shot at 2020. He is worth more to 2020 team success than anyone he can bring back in trade. This increases his chances of extending with us. He’s our guy and is critical to any postseason run upcoming, and worth taking risks to keep him. This is where guys like Dalbec, Chavis, Marco, Duran, Darwinzon, Taylor, Walden, Houck, Feltman, Shawaryn enter the picture as young, talented, low cost support staff for a roster full of expensive stars. All 10 of them will cost less than $10M. The Sox can build around Mookie at the top $$ end because they can still build around these guys at the bottom $$ end. Yes the team will gamble on Sale, Price, Eovaldi, ERod and whomever. It’s the same gamble every team makes, but with their talent, a better gamble than most of them. The Sox weren’t the only MLB team to lose that gamble in 2019, but with that talent it may be the most likely to win that gamble going forward. I just can’t get too worried about Price, ERod, Eovaldi in 2020, and a good chance that Sale will be solid. Other good SP options are available and affordable. Ultimately, though, it is retaining a top offense (including Mookie), defense (including Mookie), running game (including Mookie), and nurturing good, young, low $$ talent that makes that gamble possible. With all the strengths of this team, winning it all in 2020 is do-able and, especially now, should be the goal, even if it means pushing up against the top cap.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2019 12:23:13 GMT -5
Keep in mind that Goldschmidt clearly was open to signing an extension, which may be the only reason why the Cardinals traded for him.
Players saying that they will go to free agency no matter what the circumstance has not happened before.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 3, 2019 12:33:49 GMT -5
Tomorrow I'll look at the roster with Holt instead of JBJ. The idea is that you can either fill that 13th roster spot or upgrade Lin's with the tax limit space you've cleared. And maybe both.
You should be able to do both.
You fill the 13th roster spot with a LHB 1B who hits righties better than the available options (Chavis, Travis, Dalbec). That's a position where there's always a glut. You should be able to re-sign Moreland, still a solid 1 -2 WAR player and a known positive clubhouse presence, for very little. That's your fallback. Logan Morrison and Eric Thames are interesting FA's. I'm sure there are plenty of other inexpensive possibilities. You could buy low on Justin Bour, who was a colossal bust for the Angels and then got hurt. And so on.
Having Holt makes Hernandez the backup MI and that makes Lin redundant. You keep him through ST as insurance against an injury to Devers, Bogaerts, Holt, or Hernandez, and you should be able to get him through waivers (he''ll be out of options). And since you've used JBJ's money to sign Holt who ultimately knocks Lin off the roster, you want to replace Lin with an inexpensive OFer who can play RF in Fenway.
And here's where that huge Fenway RF helps you. A defense-first CF/RF type is just a fourth OFer or second division starter for anyone else, but for the Sox he can bat 8th or 9th and play RF at home.
And the other key to this puzzle is that Brock Holt, on the road, is a perfectly solid defensive RF. You lose some value with him there rather than at 2B, but your original plan was that Hernandez starts at 2B and JBJ is still in the OF. Having Hernandez at 2B and Holt in the OF is an upgrade from that, when you factor in Holt's bat.
I spent a while last night looking for guys who might fit, and one really interesting name is the Phillies' Adam Haseley. The 8th pick of the draft two years ago, he struggled enough at the plate that he was only ranked #100 that winter. He hit well last year but didn't get back in the rankings, and they completely blocked him by signing Harper, and trading for Segura and moving Scott Kingery, with a much better prospect history, from SS to CF. He's a lower-OBP guy with a bit of pop, so he could hit 8th rather than 9th, but he also might be a good fit for Fenway offensively (based on an older scouting report; I very annoyingly can't find my 2019 Prospect Handbook).
Now, the ideal guy would be a RHB and a higher OBP (.330 to .340) guy with little pop who could bat 9th. I might continue looking for candidates, but at this point I'm convinced that it's doable. Heck, Billy Hamiltion remains an elite defender in CF and 1 WAR is better than nothing. (His crazy numbers with the Braves since they got him appear to be pure BABIP luck.)
So let's say we get Haseley. Against RHP at home, he's in RF and Holt is at 2B. On the road, you have the option of playing Hernandez at 2B and Holt in RF. Lefties pose more of a problem because you have Travis at 1B and Chavis at 2B, and that means you have to have either Holt, Hernandez, or Haseley in the lineup. But maybe there is a RHB who fits this description.
It's doable and you shouldn't have to trade Dalbec, either. He could be next year's Chavis in terms of injury protection for multiple positions.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 3, 2019 12:39:43 GMT -5
The thing that the 'trade Mookie' takes seem to not be accounting for (despite ericvman mentioning it in the original post) is that he gets paid with a large amount of American dollars. So on the one hand, as eric said, his trade value is not that high - what are you really expecting a team to give up for one year of Betts when he's already making $20m+? It's not like you're going to get a sure-fire can't-lose projected all-star for that. And on the other hand, if they keep Betts and don't re-sign him, that's $20m+ they have to play with after 2020. You could at least find an acceptable replacement for that much money, no? In other words, they're not "getting nothing" if he leaves in free agency; they're getting $20m+ of cap space to work with. Both of these factors shrink the margin between the value of trading him now vs. the cost of keeping him and letting him walk in a year. And for this relatively small margin, you'd punt away a full year of Betts in a season where the Red Sox project to be very good? www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25461805/arizona-diamondbacks-trade-paul-goldschmidt-st-louis-cardinals%3fplatform=ampGoldsmidt was making 14.5 million before the deal and was 31. Goldsmidt was worth 5.9 bWAR and 5.4 bWAR the two years leading up to his trade and only played first base. Luke Weaver is worth 1.4 bWAR this year. Carson Kelly is worth 2 bWAR this year. Andy Young had a 140 wRC+ in AA and 129 wRC+ in AAA. Plus a really good draft pick. Mookie Betts is worth 10.9 and 5.5 bWAR the two seasons leading up to this off-season. This value doesn't even include the fact that he can play CF. His value goes up even more when that happens. Basically, Mookie is worth the freight and money in a trade package. Anthony Rendon and Gerrit Cole are the only two players worth over 5 WAR this off-season in free agency. We can agree that they are worse players, or hope to. Mookie is worth more of a investment than those players. If money is a small issue, the Sox can throw in money for next year to get a larger package. I disagree that Mookie isn't worth a lot because of the money. I think you can rob the top 3 prospects of most clubs farm systems with even one year of Mookie. These players don't hit the market often. You're not trading Mookie if you don't get that type of deal. Not trying to give him away here. 1) That was a pretty good return for Arizona, but if the Red Sox got a similar return for Betts it would kill their 2020 chances. As has been pointed out, with the quality of the Red Sox roster Betts is especially valuable for them in particular.
2) It's hindsight to judge them by their stats this season; how did they look at the time of the trade? Here's fangraphs' coverage at the time. It's not like they've blown past expectations or anything, but you could say that the outcome so far has fallen in the better range of possible outcomes for Arizona. Though Luke Weaver hasn't been in a game in 3 months (pitchers, amirite) so it's not like he's definitively established his value. And I guess when I said you wouldn't be getting a sure-fire all-star type prospect for Betts... well, I'd say that's consistent with what Arizona got for Goldschmidt.
3) Having said all that, I'm not actually against a Betts trade out of hand. I'd consider it for the right price. But you're giving up an awful lot by losing Betts for 2020, and my standard for what I'd want back would be higher than what Arizona got for Goldschmidt.
4) Finally... like, what would be your vision for the Red Sox if you were GM? If it's not worth going for it in 2020 because Sale is unreliable - well, that's not a situation that'll get any better for the next 4 years of his contract after that. Price isn't getting any younger either. In what year do they project to have a better shot than in 2020?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2019 12:42:46 GMT -5
The main team that needs one year of Mookie Betts in 2020 is the Red Sox. If he weren't on the team, they'd be looking to trade for him.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2019 12:51:44 GMT -5
3) Having said all that, I'm not actually against a Betts trade out of hand. I'd consider it for the right price. But you're giving up an awful lot by losing Betts for 2020, and my standard for what I'd want back would be higher than what Arizona got for Goldschmidt. It seems like there's a pretty wide consensus that Arizona totally roasted the Cards in that deal. So yeah, if the Red Sox some team to massively overpay for one year of Betts, sure, make the trade. But that's also my policy for every Red Sox player.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 3, 2019 14:16:33 GMT -5
www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25461805/arizona-diamondbacks-trade-paul-goldschmidt-st-louis-cardinals%3fplatform=ampGoldsmidt was making 14.5 million before the deal and was 31. Goldsmidt was worth 5.9 bWAR and 5.4 bWAR the two years leading up to his trade and only played first base. Luke Weaver is worth 1.4 bWAR this year. Carson Kelly is worth 2 bWAR this year. Andy Young had a 140 wRC+ in AA and 129 wRC+ in AAA. Plus a really good draft pick. Mookie Betts is worth 10.9 and 5.5 bWAR the two seasons leading up to this off-season. This value doesn't even include the fact that he can play CF. His value goes up even more when that happens. Basically, Mookie is worth the freight and money in a trade package. Anthony Rendon and Gerrit Cole are the only two players worth over 5 WAR this off-season in free agency. We can agree that they are worse players, or hope to. Mookie is worth more of a investment than those players. If money is a small issue, the Sox can throw in money for next year to get a larger package. I disagree that Mookie isn't worth a lot because of the money. I think you can rob the top 3 prospects of most clubs farm systems with even one year of Mookie. These players don't hit the market often. You're not trading Mookie if you don't get that type of deal. Not trying to give him away here. I fully agree most posters on here are greatly undervaluing Betts trade value, mainly because they want to keep him and don't want to even think about him leaving. I think you picked the perfect trade, at minimum it seems crazy a Goldschmidt type trade isn't available. Now you can debate what we should do and if that's is enough all day long. It's risky, we are using hindsight with that trade. Yet it was a top 50 guy at a very premium position, a former top 100 major league ready starter, another prospect and a good draft pick. Given the difference in age, quality of the player and position I don't see how a case can be made that you get less. In fact you should get a lot more. The one season of Betts your trading for is likely to have been projected to be worth close to double the bwar. The Red Sox can simple pay down Betts salary if that means maximizing returns. Crazy trades that make no sense long-term happen all the time in Baseball. Only takes one owner that wants to win right now for them to happen. With that being said, do you really think most teams give up their top three prospects for one year of Betts? Most posters are overblowing how much Betts value will be effected, yet you are going full on other direction no? I don't think you make the trade unless you're overpaid Umass. Like the Sox are going to listen on Mookie Betts is the consensus, not willing to trade. Big difference. Yeah there's a million things you can do for a Mookie package. You can- -Add money to increase value -Add a Workman to get a even better package -You can include a 72 hour negotiating window if the other team is ready to give Betts 350 million right now. Yeah, people don't think Mookie is that valuable because they've grown attached. It's simply not the case. A MVP CF? That's one of the main reasons Trout is so valuable and is a every year MVP.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 3, 2019 14:23:56 GMT -5
www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25461805/arizona-diamondbacks-trade-paul-goldschmidt-st-louis-cardinals%3fplatform=ampGoldsmidt was making 14.5 million before the deal and was 31. Goldsmidt was worth 5.9 bWAR and 5.4 bWAR the two years leading up to his trade and only played first base. Luke Weaver is worth 1.4 bWAR this year. Carson Kelly is worth 2 bWAR this year. Andy Young had a 140 wRC+ in AA and 129 wRC+ in AAA. Plus a really good draft pick. Mookie Betts is worth 10.9 and 5.5 bWAR the two seasons leading up to this off-season. This value doesn't even include the fact that he can play CF. His value goes up even more when that happens. Basically, Mookie is worth the freight and money in a trade package. Anthony Rendon and Gerrit Cole are the only two players worth over 5 WAR this off-season in free agency. We can agree that they are worse players, or hope to. Mookie is worth more of a investment than those players. If money is a small issue, the Sox can throw in money for next year to get a larger package. I disagree that Mookie isn't worth a lot because of the money. I think you can rob the top 3 prospects of most clubs farm systems with even one year of Mookie. These players don't hit the market often. You're not trading Mookie if you don't get that type of deal. Not trying to give him away here. 4) Finally... like, what would be your vision for the Red Sox if you were GM? If it's not worth going for it in 2020 because Sale is unreliable - well, that's not a situation that'll get any better for the next 4 years of his contract after that. Price isn't getting any younger either. In what year do they project to have a better shot than in 2020? [/div][/quote]I would trade away JBJ and Betts off the roster and replace them with 2 young outfield prospects ready to play now and a starting pitching prospect ready play now. I would then sign Nick Castellanos for 4 or 5 years to play first base mostly (has infield experience before). Give him all spring training to learn the position. Lessen the blow on Mookie's offense. Resign JDM for the DH position. Fill out the rest of the roster with maybe a Calhoon as a 4th outfielder type. Sign one or 2 relievers and call it a off-season. Give yourself a new 3 year window. Not bank on one Mookie Betts year, with the hope to resign. Especially given the status of the rotation right now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2019 14:44:47 GMT -5
So next year, everyone can argue over hypothetical trades that didn't happen without knowing who was offered and what Mookie Betts is and was thinking and endlessly declaring themselves right about something that can never be proved. Can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 3, 2019 15:45:26 GMT -5
We can't know for sure what the trade market will be for Mookie this offseason, but please keep in mind that if the Red Sox were to trade Mookie for prospects then it would free up enough space to add Zack Wheeler or Madison Bumgarner to the rotation. And right now, the Red Sox are in desperate need of rotation help as their old pitchers aren't performing and the quickest way to fix it is by adding more old pitchers unfortunately.
(Quite a bit of Mookie's value comes from fielding and baserunning which has a lower value than offense on the trade/FA market, and along with his much higher salary, will likely diminish any trade packages to be less than what Arizona got for Goldschmidt - but as stated earlier, it only takes 1 desperate/stupid owner)
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 3, 2019 20:36:34 GMT -5
We can't know for sure what the trade market will be for Mookie this offseason, but please keep in mind that if the Red Sox were to trade Mookie for prospects then it would free up enough space to add Zack Wheeler or Madison Bumgarner to the rotation. And right now, the Red Sox are in desperate need of rotation help as their old pitchers aren't performing and the quickest way to fix it is by adding more old pitchers unfortunately. (Quite a bit of Mookie's value comes from fielding and baserunning which has a lower value than offense on the trade/FA market, and along with his much higher salary, will likely diminish any trade packages to be less than what Arizona got for Goldschmidt - but as stated earlier, it only takes 1 desperate/stupid owner) Who is "Zach Wheeler?" Another version of Rick Porcello but more apt for injury? As far as Bum -- he is going to get a ton of money. You loose mookie -- then the Sox four-man squad of Xander, Devers, JDM and Beni better not get hurt or have a down year if you get Bum because you'll be strapped in 2020 to do much more. **I don't even think we can afford Mooke and JDM together nor do I think we could afford Bum. I don't understand that others think we can afford both. Mookie is going to get closer to $30m than $25m isn't he? And Pablo still counts for $5m against the cap doesn't he? Just sayin- I'm okay either way but prefer he stays. I think we agree even if we lose him in 2020-- in 2020 or 2021 - we can get some fine players too.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 3, 2019 22:08:33 GMT -5
I agree with the first half of your analysis and believe this is an excellent, top-5 roster position player wise going into 2020. Not one that can't be tweaked, but that's for another time. And I do not disagree with your 'Don't Trade Mookie' stance either, in a vacuum. But we do not know that some of your assumptions are true, mainly that he'll likely take a slight home town discount and that is all it will take to bring him back. This is to be determined. Also the idea that he won't re-sign If we trade him would really depend on circumstance. If the Sox made a fair to generous offer and Mookie still prefers to wait for a potential bidding war in FA to drive up his price, why wouldn't he be open to us next year if we are the top bidder? In this scenario the team's approach wouldn't be disrespectful to Mookie at all. With what we know right now, yes, trading Mookie is likely a bad idea. If it plays out where no extension is signed and it is clear he wants to be a FA no matter what, I don't see how this wouldn't be worthy of discussion by the organization, and by us. Even if he doesn't re-sign, having him on the team in 2020 has the absolute most value to the Red Sox, as stated in Eric's post. On top of that is the fact that he’ll absolutely net a draft pick, albeit possibly not a very high one depending on the acquiring team and the Sox’s payroll, but it IS draft $, and it should be considered in the calculus of return for trading Mookie. Mookie’s excess value is likely to be $10M-$30M (roughly 1-3 WAR; assuming he gets an arb salary around $25-27M). assuming he’s due for 4-7 WAR. You could maybe argue, if you’re on the Sox, that 4-7 is a low range based on the last four years, and it’s more like 5.5-9. That’s maybe more like a $25M-$65M spread at $10M per win. Based on Craig Edwards’ trade values, ( blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/ ), you’re looking at a 60-65 FV prospect, and that’s it. That’s the high end. And you need to match up. Before the season. And you’re more likely looking at a 55, a 3-win player, unless someone makes a silly offer. For all the reasons Eric noted, this is just a terrible idea. Betting WS chances on a single player in return, and possibly (probably) hurting your chances to re-sign him. Hard pass. Run with the horses ya got.
|
|
|
Post by mwgray on Sept 3, 2019 22:13:36 GMT -5
Trading JBJ's 10M or so is the obvious thing to do to free up money but it doesn't get you much other than a prospect. Cap situation doesn't get any easier. Getting rid of JBJ to resign Holt, and keep young players like Dalbec, Chavis, and Hernandez is the only real option if you want both Betts and Martinez. Filling out the bench requires bringing up Lin or De La Guerra, and keeping Leon there is the only option.
The rotation will improve with a simple change of the calendar. I wouldn't count on this rotation for a ton of innings. No starter will pitch 190 innings, but the ERA quality will improve. Sale, Price, and Eovaldi will provide the majority of that improvement. Having Hernandez start allows us to explore a high potential/value player, I'd be ok with 3\4innings if the pitch count gets high early to protect the arm. Utilizing Johnson, Velaquez, and Wright for multi innings needs to become more routine to bridge the gap for the lack of innings from the starters.
We will also need to save money for the 26th man. Probably minimum salary but nevertheless.
Betts - CF 25M Devers - 3B .7M Bogaerts - SS 20m Martinez - DH 23.75M Benintendi - LF 4M Chavis- RF/UT .6M Holt - 2B/UT 6M Dalbec - 1B .55M Vazquez - C 4.2M
De La Guerra - INF .55M Hernandez - INF 1M Leon - C 2.6M
Sale 30M Price 32M Eovaldi 17M Rodriguez 6M Hernandez .6M
Workman 2.5M Barnes 2M Taylor .6M Walden .6M Johnson .7M Velaquez .6M Hembree 1.8M Wright 1.8M Brewer/Hart .56M
Pedroia 13.125 Manny 2M Pablo 5M
With the roster above we come in at about 205.835M. With that said improvement must come from within, bouceback seasons, pitching prospect filling out the bullpen needs, and position prospects should be able to fill in out the bench. High end prospects after calling up the guys above is very limited. If 208M is the limit, this team looks strikenly similar.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 3, 2019 22:44:33 GMT -5
Trading JBJ's 10M or so is the obvious thing to do to free up money but it doesn't get you much other than a prospect. Cap situation doesn't get any easier. Getting rid of JBJ to resign Holt, and keep young players like Dalbec, Chavis, and Hernandez is the only real option if you want both Betts and Martinez. Filling out the bench requires bringing up Lin or De La Guerra, and keeping Leon there is the only option. The rotation will improve with a simple change of the calendar. I wouldn't count on this rotation for a ton of innings. No starter will pitch 190 innings, but the ERA quality will improve. Sale, Price, and Eovaldi will provide the majority of that improvement. Having Hernandez start allows us to explore a high potential/value player, I'd be ok with 3\4innings if the pitch count gets high early to protect the arm. Utilizing Johnson, Velaquez, and Wright for multi innings needs to become more routine to bridge the gap for the lack of innings from the starters. We will also need to save money for the 26th man. Probably minimum salary but nevertheless. Betts - CF 25M Devers - 3B .7M Bogaerts - SS 20m Martinez - DH 23.75M Benintendi - LF 4M Chavis- RF/UT .6M Holt - 2B/UT 6M Dalbec - 1B .55M Vazquez - C 4.2M De La Guerra - INF .55M Hernandez - INF 1M Leon - C 2.6M Sale 30M Price 32M Eovaldi 17M Rodriguez 6M Hernandez .6M Workman 2.5M Barnes 2M Taylor .6M Walden .6M Johnson .7M Velaquez .6M Hembree 1.8M Wright 1.8M Brewer/Hart .56M Pedroia 13.125 Manny 2M Pablo 5M With the roster above we come in at about 205.835M. With that said improvement must come from within, bouceback seasons, pitching prospect filling out the bullpen needs, and position prospects should be able to fill in out the bench. High end prospects after calling up the guys above is very limited. If 208M is the limit, this team looks strikenly similar. Your numbers don't take into account Medical ($15m) the minor leagues ($2.5m). While Sale is only $25,666,666. I still think Mookie will get more than $25m. OFC if he has more 0-4 nights . . .
|
|
|