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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 18:32:45 GMT -5
Craig Mish @craigmish 1h1 hour ago Growing sentiment around Baseball and internally with the @marlins is Jose Fernandez will be traded this offseason. They really want Stanton to opt out of that contract don't they. One caveat with Fernandez, TJ did eat up two of his control years. He is only controlled for the next 3 years. I'm not saying he isn't crazy valuable, just something to consider. He also threw 90 last year and was held up with bicep tightness. 2-3 of those remaining years will be innings capped. Doesn't exactly sound like the "horse" Dombrowski is looking for, but the market could change that.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 18:30:11 GMT -5
Based on these numbers, the safest bet of the top 4 is Greinke. Price's contract will be so damn big that it could look like Sabathia's in a few years. Cueto carries too many uncertainties, ranging from how inconsistent he was in the AL to his weight. Zimmerman is five years into Tommy John surgery. Among the second tier, only Kazmir interests me, and only mildly at that. Lackey and Fister actually interest me more. Consider, however, that Price is two years younger than Greinke and has about 800 fewer professional innings on his arm (comes down to about 550 fewer innings if you include his 3 years at Vandy). To me, that's a big part of why he's going to get a bigger contract, not just the pick - he's got more left in his arm, in theory. It's a plus in Price's column for sure. Then again, it's merely 1 component to a much larger question that involves things like body composition, injury history, and the history of how those innings were accumulated. Greinke's not a max effort guy. Price isn't so much either anymore, but he used to be a fastball pumper. (and I agree Price will get the overall bigger contract, not entirely sure about AAV however.)
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 18:16:17 GMT -5
And we're going to add those pieces. And be even better.
What happens in your scenario if O'Day has family in New York and wants to pitch for the mets?
You wait two months and eat your hat trading for Chapman?
Remember, you're GM'ing from an armchair with a laptop and a mug of cocoa, not a crystal ball. Everyone on here evaluates trades in a vacuum with ZERO knowledge of actual market conditions. It's laughable.
We view guys like Margot and Guerra in terms of surplus value estimates because our knowledge of them as players, only scratches the surface. We're not pro-scouts. We don't know their day to day work ethic. We take SoxProspects write ups as gospel, and then acting like the actual team, with a bevy of player development personel who are sought out and paid handsomely, somehow don't know what we know? They know when they take risks. And they are calculated.
To think that we, with the little crumbs of information we're afforded, somehow make evaluations that trump theres, is pretty ignorant.
I'm not saying everything they do will be correct, or won't harm future teams. But when they do that, it's because they think they have a genuine chance of adding present value when our core is extremely young and extremely gifted. We did not move Vazquez, we did not move Swihart, we did not move Erod, we did not move Betts, we did not move Bogaerts, we did not move Holt, we did not move Owens, we did not move Johnson, we did not move JBJ.
They made an impact move that they saw as a move where they maxed out a position in levels of achievable performance. They got the best guy they could possibly get.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 17:45:21 GMT -5
Again you're viewing this trade in a vacuum and actually sort of backed into proving my point. Our current team is filled with really useful 1-3 war players. They're assets. But in current form, we are not close to winning. We need to complement them with elite talent to build a strong team. It's a balance. If those are the two prospects we give up this offseason and we add Kimbrel and Proce/Greinke, good job! ...and this post proves my point, which is that you're fetishizing elite talent. The roster, pre-Kimbrel, probably projects in the 81 to 84 win range, which is not that far from contention. They didn't need to add elite talent to be a contender-- add three or four above-average guys (whether via trade or free agency) and they would certainly be in the playoff picture. Honest question: take the 2016 Red Sox, subtract Kimbrel, and add O'Day. How much worse do you think they are? The answer to this one question probably explains a good chunk of the divergence here. I think it's no more than one game, maybe a game and a half if you squint. If that's the case, this was a totally unnecessary trade. I'm not fetishizing elite talent whatsoever. Our 40man roster is comprised of an insane amount of homegrown talent. We have ENOUGH complimentary pieces. And you're viewing everything in a vacuum it's so unrealistic. WE DONT HAVE THE ROOM ON THE TEAM TO ADD 3-4 ABOVE AVERAGE GUYS. Then we're moving established above average under control guys we have for the sake of other slightly above average guys. You realize there are other people bidding on free agents right? You think we're going to go out and sign the top 3 relievers on the market? Are you bonkers? Is the rest of the league with their needs going to just take that? I think Kimbrel has a chance to be a 2-3 WAR player this season. I think O'Day will settle around .8-.9. And I think there is still a chance they go get O'Day.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 17:33:34 GMT -5
Hanley Ramirez + Anibal Sanchez for Josh Becket (mike lowell was a salary dump the Marlins insisted the Sox take on).
Does anyone here do that trade at the time? In a vacuum, it's awful. 2 years of NL pitcher and a high aav aging 3rd baseman whose lost his swing for 12 combined years of a stud SS prospect everything thinks will be a future all star and a stud pitcher with front of the rotation stuff for two years of control of Josh Beckett?
Beckett didn't even work out the 1st season! But he was dirty in 07 and the move paid off with a CHAMPIONSHIP.
These are the moves you never foresee when you view everything in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 17:27:16 GMT -5
Philosophical question for people, what is the end game for a FO, "winning trades" and extracting more value than they gave up or assembling a roster that has a legitimate chance of winning the World Series? It seems like people are offended by the perceived value difference (in addition to the other arguments about where any particular trade assets should have been invested)? You don't necessarily have to "win" a trade for it to be a good trade. You hear all the time about trades that are good for both teams involved - Since they fill obvious needs of each team. The problem here is with the particular position filled by the trade for the Sox. Closers are a notoriously finicky lot. Very few have a good run that lasts more than a few years. Take Francisco Rodriguez for example. This guy entered the scene guns blazing, then imploded, only to resurface five years later. However good Kimbrel is now, history tells us it's far less likely he'll finish his career looking like Mariano Rivera than the afore-mentioned K-Rod. At that point, whatever you gave up for Kimbrel may well look like a monstrous waste of resources. History also tells us Javier Guerra and Margot will only be blips on the MLB radar lol
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 16:25:24 GMT -5
You overpay for elite talent. The only question of whether or not this deal will hurt the Sox is based on how Kimbrel performs. Nothing else. If he's elite, it's a good deal. Guerra is a big strikeout, dead pull hitter whose bat was augmented in that league/park. He had an insane amount of helium. In two years he'll most likely be deven marrero, a guy we're throwing in proposed deals left and right. Margot is an everyday CF-er. Not a potential all-star. A guy who doesn't walk, a guy who is ultra aggressive at the plate. We have no idea how he'll fare against advanced stuff. Allen is polished and has 3 pitches. Nothing close to plus. He'll be a back of rotation starter. None of these are guys a team with a big payroll can't replicate. I tend to think that this mindset overrates elite talent and underrates average talent. 1.5 to 3 win players don't grow on trees, and having six years of cheap team control over guys like that is hugely valuable, even for big market teams. Having guys like Bradley and Vazquez and Holt saves you from having to go out and sign the Sandovals and Porcellos of the world and frees up money to go after elite guys in free agency or extend your young stars. I saw the same arguments made about trading away guys like Masterson, Reddick, and Lowrie (that a big market team can afford to trade away sub-elite talent), but think about how much better the team would have been had they kept those guys. Again you're viewing this trade in a vacuum and actually sort of backed into proving my point. Our current team is filled with really useful 1-3 war players. They're assets. But in current form, we are not close to winning. We need to complement them with elite talent to build a strong team. It's a balance. If those are the two prospects we give up this offseason and we add Kimbrel and Proce/Greinke, good job!
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 15:09:09 GMT -5
Using surplus value estimations to evaluate a trade is putting heavy heavy stock into a complete list of unknown, estimated values and drawing huge conclusions. The very basis of surplus value is assigning concrete values to complete unknowns.
It's a fun exercise, but it completely disregards far more important factors like timing, market, and the specific needs of two separate clubs.
Baseball trades do not exist in a vacuum. Evaluating them in a vacuum is short-sighted and poor form.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 14:18:22 GMT -5
160 innings of 23 year old Jose Fernandez (3 years of control) > 70 innings of 27 year old Craig Kimbrel (3 years of control), for both the present and long term. However, because of this reality, I think we would have had to give much more (think Margot, Guerra, Devers, Owens/Johnson/Kopech, and that might not even do it). I think its silly to speculate about potential acquisitions when we really have no idea about Fernandez (or others) availability. Matthew Kory released an article showing that the Padres essentially gave $72m/4 yr for Kimbrel, given prospect costs and BJ Upton's contract. The Red Sox actually paying $37m + the going-rate prospect cost ($54m) = $91m for 3 years of Kimbrel (a commenter corrected Kory's faulty math in the article). Imagine if the Red Sox gave Kimbrel a 3 year contract with an AAV of 30.3 million? You're essentially paying 433k for every inning. That's insane. I still believe this deal was unforgivable, regardless of other potential acquisitions, regardless of positional redundancies in the system, regardless of the Royals "winning formula", regardless of the strength of the rest of the system, regardless of the fact that we now have an "elite closer." These arguments do not look at the mathematical, market-based facts. They are an appeal to ethos, arguments based on recent realities (Royals WS, bad bullpen, amazing system) that read like getting drunk with power in the face of a stacked system and an unhealthy obsession with immediate gratification (i.e., next season's record). To me, this is the only evidence needed to show that it was a shortsighted move that will not only hurt the organization long term, but was a costly move given the current market. Note that this response is not to you in particular, but instead, a general reasoning for my dislike of the move (stated earlier in the thread) that I could not really articulate until now. ian, did you see my post above? Matthew got the arithmetic a little wrong (or really Rosenthal did previously), I think. Essentially, the Padres are subsidizing about $10 million a year of Kimbrel's apparent "surplus value". If Kimbrel does have that much "surplus value" then the Red Sox pulled off a brilliant trade, perhaps the trade of the decade. Another way to look at this is that trades reveal the true "surplus value" of the players, where the wages market is "rigged" (or monopolized) to underpay the players. I love love love the math everyone does for value and all that kind of stuff. But the biggest problem is that it views everything in a vacuum. If we get David Price, Cubs will probably offer him 7/196. We'll probably have to go 7/225 to get him. It'll be an overpay, and value will not be great. BUT, if he is elite for 3 years, great for 2 more, and dead for 2, then we've gotten what we need to maximize the value of our entire team with Owens, Erod, Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, Vazquez all under control, and when he gets to be a burden, we'll have Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, Espinoza up or close.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 14:15:00 GMT -5
1. DD felt he needed to trade for a top closer because none were available via free agency. 2. We don't know Fernandez is really available. 3. Margot probably had very little value to the Marlins as they gave a great young outfield. 4. Every team values prospects differently. For example, The Padres seem to value Asuaje more than most teams would and that same logic can be applied to higher ranked prospects. Therefore, you have no way to know if any of the guys dealt for Kimbrel would have any real value to the Marlins. 5. The Marlins may be looking for a more MLB ready package than these guys would offer. Like what it's reported the Reds want for Chapman. I doubt they signed Stanton to a mega deal to trade Fernandez for a bunch of guys years from the big leagues. Similar to Harvey....3 year club control left, TJ behind them.....I don't think we would part with the package they would demand. I think the most I do is Swihart/E-Rod or something similar & don't think that would be enough...He will not sign an extention as Boras has already made that clear. At least Harvey showed his arm is fine for 200IP though. Fernandez came back and ran into bicep troubles immediately.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 14:13:47 GMT -5
And you're absolutely right that Owens and Devers or similar guys would have to be included in a Fernandez deal. Those are the guys that have a chance to hurt you more than Margot/Guerra.
Devers is a monster bat at a really young age, and Owens came up last year and threw 8 dominant starts. The other 3 were blowouts that really skewed his numbers. More swing and miss potential than anyone else on this roster.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 14:10:40 GMT -5
You overpay for elite talent. The only question of whether or not this deal will hurt the Sox is based on how Kimbrel performs. Nothing else. If he's elite, it's a good deal.
Guerra is a big strikeout, dead pull hitter whose bat was augmented in that league/park. He had an insane amount of helium. In two years he'll most likely be deven marrero, a guy we're throwing in proposed deals left and right.
Margot is an everyday CF-er. Not a potential all-star. A guy who doesn't walk, a guy who is ultra aggressive at the plate. We have no idea how he'll fare against advanced stuff.
Allen is polished and has 3 pitches. Nothing close to plus. He'll be a back of rotation starter.
None of these are guys a team with a big payroll can't replicate.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 13:57:32 GMT -5
Nothing at all against Jose Fernandez. Just think Price + Kimbrel and keeping owens and devers is superior to Fernandez and O'Day and giving up Margot, Guerra, Owens, Devers.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 13:56:19 GMT -5
Is Fernandez the innings eating ace we need when he's probably capped at 160 next season? He's coming off TJ and threw 90 this season and suffered a bicep injury. Love love love the talent he has. He's a guy you go out and get when you can, but he'll be capped for much of the time he's left under contract He might night be but he's the type of talent you roll the dice on because you're talking about all time great talent. And what does he have left? 3 years? The third of which he hits 200 innings? And he's a Boras client so he's not staying.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 13:55:29 GMT -5
1. DD felt he needed to trade for a top closer because none were available via free agency. 2. We don't know Fernandez is really available. 3. Margot probably had very little value to the Marlins as they gave a great young outfield. 4. Every team values prospects differently. For example, The Padres seem to value Asuaje more than most teams would and that same logic can be applied to higher ranked prospects. Therefore, you have no way to know if any of the guys dealt for Kimbrel would have any real value to the Marlins. 5. The Marlins may be looking for a more MLB ready package than these guys would offer. Like what it's reported the Reds want for Chapman. I doubt they signed Stanton to a mega deal to trade Fernandez for a bunch of guys years from the big leagues. One thing you forgot to mention: IT'S THE MARLINS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. Cheap, cost-controlled players is exactly what they want. They always sign guys and then trade them as they start to get expensive. This is exactly why people were angry about the Kimbrel trade, we bid against ourselves as it was still WAY TOO EARLY to know who was really going to be made available. If Fernandez is indeed on the trade market, Margot and Guerra would have been fantastic pieces to add in a package for him but instead we traded them for a closer. That's the main problem I have with the deal, we did not maximize their present value. That's assuming Dombrowski and co wants a post-TJ, light innings (capped for 2-3 years) Fernandez rushed back with lingering arm problems.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 13:50:34 GMT -5
Is Fernandez the innings eating ace we need when he's probably capped at 160 next season? He's coming off TJ and threw 90 this season and suffered a bicep injury.
Love love love the talent he has. He's a guy you go out and get when you can, but he'll be capped for much of the time he's left under contract
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 17, 2015 1:52:37 GMT -5
The Braves have already moved one of the best SS in baseball who was signed to a team friendly long term contract (thru 2020), Simmons, for two young pitching prospects (AA cups of coffee in a weak system) and a rental in Aybar plus the difference in their salaries. Their farm is loaded with pitching but pretty barren in position players. They are clearly thinking 2018/9 or after and looking around, there aren't many teams that have an opening at first base. Note that Tehran is not your typical high velocity young gun and that he had an off year. He's not an 'ace' but likely significantly better than Miley. I just don't see what's attractive about that deal at all to the braves. They get Devers I guess? They have Aybar as a stopgap to Albies, not sure why they need Marrero? They essentially sit him for this year, and then play him next year, and then deal him? Why not just get a prospect they have a future for? Also why would they want Miley as opposed to a prospect like Owens? Teheran and Miley's deals are oddly similar, except Teheran has an extra year on the front for 3.5 million. Why not just keep Teheran if he's better? They're essentially getting worse at pitcher and first, and instead of having control of guys when they could compete, they now are loading up on guys earning salaries when they're not competing. And the only useful prospect from their perspective is Devers?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 23:33:00 GMT -5
I took a look at the MLBTraderumors for the Braves and it appears that the Braves are also looking to move Tehran. I like Tehran but was disappointed with his 2015 stats but a closer exam says, no drop in velocities, a miserable first half with significant improvement over the second half and a dominant Sept/Oct. He's 24, signed cheap through 2019 with a 2020 option. Heresy but if I were DD.. Hanley Devers Marrero (Aybar is a rental) Miley cash (difference between Freeman and Hanley's contracts) for Freeman Tehran You'd be GM of the decade if you could pull off that trade.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 23:22:48 GMT -5
Another issue: Kimbrel has been used strictly as a 1 IP reliever (looks like in last 4 years, only 7 times has he pitched more than an inning - all 1.1) Now maybe that's his managers, maybe it's him. But Farrell isn't exactly an innovator, hard to imagine he'll be used any differently, therefore minimizing his team value regardless of how brilliantly he performs. 3 days later, despite the sycophantic justifications (Speier has become a company man), I hate this trade as much as before, and I hate what it portends of the future for this team This is an absolute joke.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 21:34:37 GMT -5
So you got me thinking.... Can a team support two guys successfully like Bradley and Vazquez assuming both were great gloves but lineup drags. Absolutely. Plus defense up the middle. (and in Fenway, in right). I mean, are we even debating this? Jackie Bradley had a 2.4WAR in 74 games last year. Christian Vazquez appeared in 55 games in 2014 and had a 0.6WAR, and his bat is capable of more. These guys are assets, not anchors around our necks. We trade Margot over JBJ because JBJ's elite defense (Margot is not elite) makes him a worthwhile player without his bat.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 20:17:36 GMT -5
Why is Price the obvious top target? Greinke should be. He's better, doesn't suck in the playoffs and is right handed. With Miley, Rodriguez and Owens we don't want another lefty IF a right handed pitcher is a legit option. Now is rather Price than Zimmerman but that's because I'm not downgrading just to have a righty. Greinke is not better than Price, is older and costs a pick. Greinke furthermore has anxiety issues, while Price is AL East proven. The anxiety stuff is infuriating. He mentioned that in 2010. As a much younger guy about to head into free agency, trying to make some big bucks. Since then, he's dominated in the 6th to 7th biggest market in baseball. He's pitched in the postseason. He's gotten married. He's had a kid. He's made enough money to set up generations of his family. Let's not pretend the game of baseball is the same nerve wracking experience it was back then when he was trying to cash in. Let's not forget David Price saying his nerves got to him this year in that really bad postseason start. No one is immune from it. The two are sort of a wash. Greinke is not a max effort guy whatsoever. Seems like someone who will age well. Price seemed to make that shift a little, especially this season after he added a cutter. Price used to be a max effort guy pumping fastballs. Honestly I could care less between the two. Get one of them. 12th pick be damned. One of those two guys being the man the next 3 years while bogaerts betts swihart and erod are all in prime years is good by me.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 19:52:01 GMT -5
Signing a package of two guys if we strike out on Price/Greinke is very unrealistic. That's an approach the Cubs will be thinking about, but with our depth (which is actually a strength)? That doesn't make sense to me. To be honest, I cannot see them miss out on Price/Greinke. It's very likely that we will make the highest offer to at least one of the two. So the only reason they won't end up here if they take less elsewhere. Gun to my head: Greinke for 5/150. FO is not fond of handing out long-term deals for 30+ pitchers, but you might argue that 5 for a 32 year old is "safer" than 7 for a 30 year old Price. If signing Greinke wouldn't cost us the #12 pick, he would actually be the undisputed #1 on my list. I actually don't think 5/150 gets it done.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 16:16:09 GMT -5
I wouldn't put too much stock in that Cueto and Zimmerman story. That's Rosenthal wanting eyes, with no credible source. Him and Jon Heyman are two guys that have amazing connections and break stories, but really suffer when they start throwing out their own theories.
If DD can't get Price or Greinke, I see him kicking the tires on Cueto and Zim, but potentially going after Kazmir and more pen help instead.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 16:10:20 GMT -5
I agree with that NEED for a lights out closer....Madson/O'Day/Sipp are all good relievers, but all have a chance of not even being a 8th inning guy due to injury histories, age, ect ).......Kimbrel automatically makes all our starters a little bit better by not having to be perfect in that 3 to 1 lead in the 6th inning. Last year, how many of those games turned into a 6 to 3 loss. Those 3 or Soria all seem to have Mejia written all over them. I don't see them all succeeding & lord forbid we pick the wrong guy. My point is that the bullpen probably could've been better constructed, in terms of not trading four valuable assets for Kimbrel. There's so much time before the season starts, though, (to add to it further) and the bullpen definitely is significantly aided by Kimbrel closing. But it being bolstered probably could've happened in a more prescient way. How? You throw crazy money at 33 year old Darren O'Day who's out there throwing smoke and mirrors? Joakim Soria who is 1 year removed from a 4.91 ERA? Ryan Madson who's essentially held together by duck tape? Chapman on a 1 year deal for JBJ and Guerra? Who are you getting that's better for wildly less? Who's trading away cost controlled relievers for peanuts? Margot is good. Guerra's glove will carry him to the majors. Honest evaluation, his bat is a mirage. 4-1 k to bb ratio, dead pull hitter, at a park/league that wildly inflates power numbers. Christian Vazquez hit 18 bombs there in 2011. Kimbrel checks all the boxes. Strikes people out. Insane velocity and breaking pitch. Has done it for years and stayed healthy. In the past when he had a leg injury, he still worked out by getting on his knees and throwing. He's 27. You can spend less but you'll get less. Cherington was king of the half measures, and he put us in a situation where we NEED to spend more for elite talent because we've failed so long with value plays. This team needs elite talent, and Dombrowski struck first and paid a premium. But it was so he could check a box and hopefully save himself some pain later.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 15:14:04 GMT -5
I'm just more worried about it this year because we probably aren't getting much from international free agency. Normally I'd agree but we're in a dangerous spot to go dry on the farm. our view is a little skewed right now. We've recently graduated 2 catchers who would be top 10, prospects in most systems, one of which who would be a top 3 in most systems. A shortstop who would be a #1. An OF who would be a #1. Two lefty's who would be top 5's. JBJ who could be a top 10. Travis Shaw who would probably be a top 10. It's an insane amount of talent that has graduated. To think we still have a top 3 system after that, is insane. Yes, we need to protect it, but farms don't find longevity through hoarding, they find longevity through quality drafting. Sox have ramped up their efforts in places like Venezuela. They'll be in on Kenta Maeda. They'll find ways to do some good things. Remember, Reddick for Bailey hurt. A lot. But NOT trading Bowden for Montero also really really hurt. When it comes down to it, a farm system is a way to supplement a major league team. Decisive strikes like the one for Kimbrel, if it pays off (and it's about a sure thing as you can get), saves you from spending more prospects and money later.
|
|
|