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 RHP Quinn Priester for Nick Yorke
|
Post by puzzler on Jul 30, 2024 11:58:52 GMT -5
On the Priester side of the trade; I could be completely off base, but I feel like he has Hauck potential. There's a lot of pitches to work with; and just watching a small sample of him pitching, there's a lot of good stuff. The curveball and changeup particularly are impressive. If he can harness his command like Hauck did in the first half of the season, refine the pitch shape of a pitch or two to be more effective, he could be electric. The video of his first start was tantalizing. When he wasn't missing, he was dominating. Tons of groundball outs (maybe need to improve the infield defense to unlock the full potenial, but..), lots of movement on the changeup. Now, the downside was that every mistake got punished badly. So no guarantees, but I'm excited to see what they can do.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 30, 2024 13:55:31 GMT -5
Toronto was apparently interested in Valdez for Nate Pearson but ultimately went with another package. Pearson is worth a lot less than Priester. I agree there is still room to deal from the 2B logjam Good insight. Thanks. I think I would have more interest in Yorke also so not surprised if this is industry opinion. I’m not sure it’s that cut and dried. All other things being relatively equal (neither is a great defender or a speed merchant or hits LHP well), Yorke appears to have the better hit tool and Valdez has proven in-game power. Both need to show improvement, Valdez with more consistency and Yorke by simply showing he can translate his minor league numbers to the bigs. However, Valdez’s minor league numbers are just as good as Yorke’s in a much larger sample size. One explanation for TOR seemingly valuing Valdez less (via the transitory law of rumored trade packages) is that he’s had a chance at the bigs and hasn’t yet flourished, where you can still fully dream on Yorke - he hasn’t had his big league opportunity and therefore he hasn’t disappointed yet.
|
|
|
Post by vt2carolinaroy on Jul 30, 2024 14:23:09 GMT -5
Implied only that we are going to see more of Grissom than we like due to a desire to make that trade look good. Not sure how you interpret my statement in any other manner.
This is the kind of theory where a) the team/GM is desperate to look good in the eyes of fans like you, but b) you are savvy enough to see right through it. It's self-flattering on two different levels. In this particular scenario there's nothing that even needs explaining; it was a totally reasonable trade that most people lauded at the time and since then Grissom's gotten hurt and barely played, so spinning up this scenario where the team plays him just to look good (even though he plays poorly??) is completely hypothetical. Why not just accept what's obvious on the face of it - that they acquired Grissom because they liked him but then he got injured?
Awesome! An insult. Way to go!
Savvy? Me? Nope. It's just good 'ol fashioned Minor League player development politics. Granted, these sort of politics are not something I've witnessed first hand. Just some kids that didn't make it from way back when I was a kid, a few chance encounters here and there and then quite a few more when I got old enough to play geezer league ball. And please, there is no denying Franchy being Bloom's chosen "investment".
Perhaps I'll be proven wrong on the Grissom front and with Breslow's attachment. Hell, I probably will be. I'd certainly like to be. My comment was in anger. For the record, I was amongst those who lauded the move. Then I saw him play 2b when he got of the IL and my heart sunk. This wasn't a kid pressing and making silly throws.
|
|
|
Post by vt2carolinaroy on Jul 30, 2024 14:40:17 GMT -5
I guess I just don't understand why people feel this way. Their profiles look extremely similar to me, right down to the injury struggles and the question marks about the glove.
Beyond the profiles, the stats will tell you that Grissom has hit significantly better at every level than Yorke has. Yorke was injured in his age 20 season in A ball, and except for his 38 game AAA campaign this year has not really impressed with bat or glove. Grissom hit (and fielded) his way to ATL in 2022 when he overpressed at SS, resulting in a demotion to AAA (where again he hit better than Yorke.) He was injured this year, missing ST, and his rehab starts at AAA have dragged his numbers down somewhat. I like Yorke. He's a legit prospect with a chance to blossom into an everyday MLB 2B. But Grissom is an obvious notch higher in both fielding and hitting. I hear what you're saying on the stats front. I would absolutely agree with you if I were to look only at the stats. His bad year was something Grissom did not have. Grissom did not sell out the way Yorke did in 2022. One day Yorke had a perfect RH gap to gap stroke and then all of a sudden he didn't. I don't know if he thought he was Dave Kingman or what it was, but he tried to cream everything.
So yes, I'm guilty of relying too much on the eye test. Grissom will hit, but what I saw at 2b this year was not solid defense. Then again, what little I saw of Yorke's field attempts this year didn't give me warm fuzzies, either. It did last year, though.
|
|
|
Post by vt2carolinaroy on Jul 30, 2024 14:58:36 GMT -5
Implied only that we are going to see more of Grissom than we like due to a desire to make that trade look good. Not sure how you interpret my statement in any other manner.
Grissom's ceiling far higher than Yorke's? A stretch, but that's just my opinion. Talking about other 2B in the chain doesn't make Grissom a player with a higher ceiling. All's I know is they have a similar offensive profile and neither are afraid of pulling their hands in for a liner over the 2B's head. Yorke is on the slow side as far as defensive range goes, but Grissom has the worst footwork I think I've ever seen at the position. It's what I'd imagine Emo Phillips would look like if he was to lace them up. To Grissom's defense, he did come up a SS.
I'm not sure what your third point has to do with anything I said, but nice of you to pile it on. Is this a thing here, a moderator throwing around some weight to a new guy in lieu of conversation? Irrelevant points and an absolutely clear objective of putting me down? Get over yourself. Grissom looks to me like he has a higher ceiling defensively. I think Yorke will be fine on defense actually, just won't have as much range as Grissom will. Yorke may currently have better hands/glove, but long term I see them the same. Also, Yorke will never play 3rd base and will never have a good arm for left field, whereas I could see Grissom developing into a decent left fielder. With the bat - I think Yorke is going to struggle to translate his power in MLB, but will have an easier time of it in Pittsburgh than he would have had in Fenway. He hits the ball the other way a ton. But Grissom has over 1500 at bats in the minors with a line of .318/.407/.471 whereas Yorke has 1600 at bats with a line of .277/.359/.437. Grissom has struggled in MLB - but I'm not sure there is anything Yorke's profile that suggests he just won't. He struggled mightily in AA in over 700 at bats - at the least compared to Grissom. Grissom is more athletic, has more speed, has better range defensively (albeit only from what I've seen in games, which isn't much) and has a stronger track record hitting than Yorke does. That to me translates to a much higher ceiling. But I'd love to hear the counterpoint as to why Yorke has a similar ceiling (or better) to Grissom. I thought Fenway was going to give Yorke enough pull-side cookies to make up for what the deep Right-Center was going to take away from him HR-wise. I can easily see him as one of those line-drive over 2B first and turn on some inside when it presented itself.
Anyhow, I think he'll hit for average well enough in Pittsburgh, but that place has strikes me as one of those massive power alley outfield types of parks. At least that's the way if looks on TV to me.
Counterpoint to why I think Yorke will do as well as Grissom? I said it in an post to someone a few minutes ago, but I see it in his swing. Just the eye test. Time will tell. I've not seen Grissom enough to know what kind of base-runner he is, but I do like Yorke on the base paths. Fielding? Again, Yorke has some work to do, but I thought Grissom looked like a fish out of water at 2b.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 30, 2024 16:31:06 GMT -5
Beyond the profiles, the stats will tell you that Grissom has hit significantly better at every level than Yorke has. Yorke was injured in his age 20 season in A ball, and except for his 38 game AAA campaign this year has not really impressed with bat or glove. Grissom hit (and fielded) his way to ATL in 2022 when he overpressed at SS, resulting in a demotion to AAA (where again he hit better than Yorke.) He was injured this year, missing ST, and his rehab starts at AAA have dragged his numbers down somewhat. I like Yorke. He's a legit prospect with a chance to blossom into an everyday MLB 2B. But Grissom is an obvious notch higher in both fielding and hitting. I hear what you're saying on the stats front. I would absolutely agree with you if I were to look only at the stats. His bad year was something Grissom did not have. Grissom did not sell out the way Yorke did in 2022. One day Yorke had a perfect RH gap to gap stroke and then all of a sudden he didn't. I don't know if he thought he was Dave Kingman or what it was, but he tried to cream everything.
So yes, I'm guilty of relying too much on the eye test. Grissom will hit, but what I saw at 2b this year was not solid defense. Then again, what little I saw of Yorke's field attempts this year didn't give me warm fuzzies, either. It did last year, though.
Grissom is a work in progress at 2b and that progress was interrupted. He has been injured twice this year, probably stemming back from winter ball and he aggravated the injury afterwards and then he got sick. He has a lot of extenuating circumstances. I wouldn't let your impression of him while hes at his absolute worst be the overriding vision of what hes capable of being. Give him health like he had prior to winter ball and then let him hit and give him time to acclimate to 2b. You might recall Boggs was not a good 3b when he started. Duran was abysmal. Boggs went on to be a good 3b. Duran looks great in CF now. You have to be patient with young players and at age 23 Grissom is still pretty young. Hes not a finished product.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 30, 2024 18:13:55 GMT -5
A comment on Priester: I wonder if they can dumb his stuff down to where he just needs to go one-time through, max, as a long man for the rest of the season and playoffs. His stuff is pretty tantalizing.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jul 30, 2024 20:16:16 GMT -5
Best move of the deadline for Boston, and it’s not close (to me).
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 1, 2024 11:03:42 GMT -5
A comment on Priester: I wonder if they can dumb his stuff down to where he just needs to go one-time through, max, as a long man for the rest of the season and playoffs. His stuff is pretty tantalizing. I agree. Then offseason/ spring try and set him up As 5/6 starter. Bonus if he is only up for the days bot to count his service time
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 1, 2024 11:10:15 GMT -5
A comment on Priester: I wonder if they can dumb his stuff down to where he just needs to go one-time through, max, as a long man for the rest of the season and playoffs. His stuff is pretty tantalizing. I agree. Then offseason/ spring try and set him up As 5/6 starter. Bonus if he is only up for the days bot to count his service time I'd like to see them use that, um, "disservice" time to work on him in the lab, maybe first in Ft. Myers and then an appearance or two in Worcester or Portland (whoever's home at the time), then bring him up as Pazton's piggy-back.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 4, 2024 9:18:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 4, 2024 9:44:54 GMT -5
Great and I really like him But how exactly do you get a guy to just bump back up to 96-98 if he is sitting 93?
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 4, 2024 10:06:16 GMT -5
I don’t know but the good news is he’s only 23 and has been there. I don’t know if it’s an offseason working with Boddy or going to more 4 vs 2 seams. Would a specific grip change add some MPH maybe at the expense of movement looking for more change of pace?
|
|
|
Post by cba82 on Aug 4, 2024 10:44:38 GMT -5
Yorke has been raking for Indianapolis since the trade. Good for him, hope he makes it.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 4, 2024 11:31:57 GMT -5
Yorke has been raking for Indianapolis since the trade. Good for him, hope he makes it. 103 wRC+ in 17 PA 🤔
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Aug 4, 2024 11:40:55 GMT -5
Yorke has been raking for Indianapolis since the trade. Good for him, hope he makes it. 103 wRC+ in 17 PA 🤔 Small sample size, but yeah just looked it up and though he’s hitting pretty well, he’s got no HRs and has been caught twice stealing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 4, 2024 19:32:48 GMT -5
This is the thing with Twitter. You see a guy's highlights and figure they must be doing well. But then it turns out those were the only good things the guy had done in weeks.
|
|
|
Post by lronhoyabembe on Aug 5, 2024 6:44:43 GMT -5
This is the thing with Twitter. You see a guy's highlights and figure they must be doing well. But then it turns out those were the only good things the guy had done in weeks. This statement should be tattooed on every forehead in America.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 5, 2024 8:35:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trotman on Aug 5, 2024 10:03:14 GMT -5
To go off what Chris said. I saw some highlights of Priester's start and boy did he look wild. Did anyone watch his start yesterday? Curious if his box line was really that bad. He had a clean 2nd but blew up in the 1st and 3rd. 2.1IP, 6H, 8ER, 4BB, 4K, 2 Wild Pitches.
Edit: Looking at the gameday thread he moved off his 4 seamer to a sinker. I'll defer to what cdj said "Can chalk it up to learning a new pitching philosophy"
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 5, 2024 11:08:27 GMT -5
That's also not how a "sunk cost" works, and is in fact kind of the opposite, but that's really more of a semantic point.
|
|
|
Post by rickasadoorian on Aug 5, 2024 14:32:09 GMT -5
That's also not how a "sunk cost" works, and is in fact kind of the opposite, but that's really more of a semantic point. Yeah, Grissom isn't even on a guaranteed contract. Weird take. He hasn't even been bad in AAA minus the lack of power but that can change quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 5, 2024 14:42:59 GMT -5
That's also not how a "sunk cost" works, and is in fact kind of the opposite, but that's really more of a semantic point. Yeah, Grissom isn't even on a guaranteed contract. Weird take. He hasn't even been bad in AAA minus the lack of power but that can change quickly. Might've been referring to trading Sale.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Aug 5, 2024 14:57:18 GMT -5
Yeah, Grissom isn't even on a guaranteed contract. Weird take. He hasn't even been bad in AAA minus the lack of power but that can change quickly. Might've been referring to trading Sale. Yes, of course it’s the acquisition cost and not any future salary commitment to Grissom. According to FG’s simplistic value model Sale’s production has been worth ~33M. Toss in the 17M the Sox paid the Braves and they are in the hole 50M. That is a rather humongous sunk cost. But I would be surprised it had that much of an impact on the Sox future actions with respect to Grissom. It helps that it’s a one year unicorn situation.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 6, 2024 8:01:29 GMT -5
Might've been referring to trading Sale. Yes, of course it’s the acquisition cost and not any future salary commitment to Grissom. According to FG’s simplistic value model Sale’s production has been worth ~33M. Toss in the 17M the Sox paid the Braves and they are in the hole 50M. That is a rather humongous sunk cost. But I would be surprised it had that much of an impact on the Sox future actions with respect to Grissom. It helps that it’s a one year unicorn situation. Right, but the economics term "sunk cost" is based on the bygones principle. It means you've already spent that, make the best of the situation, don't try to recoup costs. See more* below. As Chris alluded to, trading Yorke BECAUSE of the Sale/Grissom trade would actually be an example of the "sunk cost fallacy", specifically the irrational outcome the sunk cost principle is trying to avoid. All that said, besides the point, because we still believe Grissom is better than Yorke, and THAT's the real reason for both trades. *sunk cost example: you buy Red Sox tickets, but it's cold and drizzly. The sunk cost fallacy would be that you should go even if you'll hate it because you spent the money already. But the sunk cost (principle) is that you should probably watch the game at your buddy's place where the beer is cheaper rather than throwing good money (and time) after bad -- or do whatever would be most enjoyable with the those three hours. Micro econ was possibly my favorite course in college (it was unrelated to my majors). Check out the links (or google it).
|
|
|