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 burythehammer on Nov 17, 2015 17:48:19 GMT -5
Come on, man. This is exactly the scenario many people in this thread described when giving reason for why they hate the Kimbrel trade so much. Nobody thinks Margot or Guerra would be the center piece for Jose Fernandez, but if people are gonna pretend that they wouldn't be potentially important pieces in a deal like that we should just lock this thread right now. Not to mention all the people who literally said "Where is this young, top of the rotation guy available through trade? They don't exist!" in an attempt to rationalize overpaying for Kimbrel. No offense, but you're putting way too much weight on an unsourced, throwaway tweet from a random radio host. He probably won't be moved. Doesn't change anything I said. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 17, 2015 13:33:13 GMT -5
You think it would take three of those guys PLUS Margot and Guerra? Fernandez is valuable, but he's not Mike Trout.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 17, 2015 13:21:31 GMT -5
Come on, man. This is exactly the scenario many people in this thread described when giving reason for why they hate the Kimbrel trade so much. Nobody thinks Margot or Guerra would be the center piece for Jose Fernandez, but if people are gonna pretend that they wouldn't be potentially important pieces in a deal like that we should just lock this thread right now.
Not to mention all the people who literally said "Where is this young, top of the rotation guy available through trade? They don't exist!" in an attempt to rationalize overpaying for Kimbrel.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 17, 2015 13:10:59 GMT -5
Dave Dombrowksi: "I don't see the guy we want available on the trade market."
Gee, I wonder if it being literally the first week of action in the off-season might have something to do with that. But you know, when you have a 60 inning stud on the table you just have to pounce.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 17, 2015 13:05:51 GMT -5
Boy it's a good thing there were no young, cost-controlled stud starting pitchers available through trade this offseason, and thank god we didn't ship out two of our best trade chips for a 60 inning reliever. Good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 15, 2015 22:39:21 GMT -5
Has anyone said that prospects don't always pan out yet? I've read the whole thread and I don't think I've seen it mentioned five thousand times so I just want to make sure we are clear on that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 15, 2015 13:48:19 GMT -5
Ok, let's try again, I'll go slow.
You said O'Day would get 3 yrs at 9-11m, which is roughly what Kimbrel is owed. Therefore, you are saying that Kimbrel's production projects to so far exceed O'Day's that the difference is worth Margot, Guerra, Allen and Asuaje.
Now THAT is insane. And it has nothing to do with keeping anybody, which I haven't once advocated for.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 15, 2015 13:35:48 GMT -5
Yeah I read your post. You think the difference between Kimbrel and O'Day is worth the total value of the assets we just gave up. I respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 15, 2015 13:23:24 GMT -5
Margot is a good prospect. I liked him a lot, but for anyone to think that he will mathematically be more valuable over the next six than Kimbrel will be over the next three is... difficult to gage and not true, in my humble opinion. I would think that Kimbrel will be WAY more valuable to the Sox than Margot would be. Kimbrel is a dominant closer. Margot, even if he is comparable to say Dexter Fowler, I'm not so sure he would be more valuable to the Sox. We needed a closer and there are not many consistently dominant relivers. We can get outfielders. Closers like Kimbrel are more valuable in my opinion. They are pretty rare. He will most likely be more valuable than Kimbrel because even if he is just a 1.5 WAR player, WAR greatly undervalues relievers/closers. That is where these people are coming from when they say "value." You have to remember a large majority of posters here are SABR oriented and don't think about things that could be at play outside of the stats. The only thing that matters is what the stats say. And nothing we say will change that. It's really weak to say this when you have a post on this very page talking about GB% and BABIP. I guess when SABR thinking supports your opinion it's totally cool, right? Even if you believe WAR "greatly" undervalues relievers, it's still lopsided in favor of the Padres. I'm sorry some of us like to go a little bit deeper than, "We gave up some good players, but we got a great player in return, so it's good trade." I'm pretty sure major league front offices are past that point as well, basing decisions mainly off of gut and feeling and impressions. If I read a good, rational argument in favor of this trade, I would say so, but there hasn't been one presented yet. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 15, 2015 5:55:59 GMT -5
I think my feelings on this trade are well established, but this idea that DD's past bullpen troubles are relevant, as if he has some anti-Midas touch and Craig Kimbrel is going to suddenly turn into John Wasdin because he was acquired by DD, is so dumb. Yes, he's had trouble building bullpens. That has nothing to do with this trade. Kimbrel is as sure a thing as you can find wrt relief pitchers.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 19:58:19 GMT -5
Hmm, I'd love too see which hypothetical top of the line starter we could have gotten for this package that everyone is clamoring about? Please enlighten the rest of the board with some potential examples of who we could have gotten for our prospects? There were reports on many potential partners. For anyone not to believe DD knew EXACTLY what other teams were requiring is not practical thinking. By the time he finished talking with every team he knew who they would be willing to trade, and who they might consider in trade, and what they wanted in return. In the end he thought the Kimbrel deal was the best one to make. The cost was high, and that should trigger others to ask, "OMG, how much does a cost controlled starter (Carrasco, Salazar, Sale, et al) cost." Instead there is a belief that a better deal was absolutely available. That's a huge assumption to make. This is the exact same BS we heard about the Fister trade. "DD knows what he's doing, Robbie Ray must be a secret stud, he knows more than we do." How'd that work out? By your logic no trade by any GM can ever be criticized because they're all pros who do their due diligence and can only make the deals that are available. It's nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 16:26:31 GMT -5
Man, some of you really want us to be the Phillies in three years, huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 14:36:30 GMT -5
I refer you to the 100 dollar gallon of milk analogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 14:29:14 GMT -5
"Saying DD should not have made this deal is OK. Saying that he should have been as brilliant a negotiator as you and forced SDPadres to accept less than he paid is a little naive about his and your respective talents."
Another straw man. Clearly the Padres had an exorbitant asking price. Maybe no amount of shrewd negotiation would have gotten it down. So you walk away and get your relief ace elsewhere, if you can. As soon as you start saying "This is the guy we want and we have to have him" is when you make trades as bad as this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 10:38:57 GMT -5
As stacked as the minors are, if they give up that first rounder we're looking at two years with little or no infusion of talent into the system. We can't sign IFAs for another year and a half. So while it appears that we don't need to trade the top end of the system now, needs will surely arise and when they do we won't have the pieces to get a deal done without dealing the elite guys. So when we deal Moncada or Devers or Espinoza for a rental, you can blame it on the fact that we rushed out and overpaid for a reliever in November. What do you mean, I was told DD ignored the farm system in Detroit per the orders of his 100 year old owner. Surely he's going to be a completely different guy now. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 10:29:02 GMT -5
Not one person in this thread has advocated for "hoarding prospects." If you can find one, please show it to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 10:01:55 GMT -5
By that measure the Sox got the best player, which is usually the sign of at least a decent trade. Personally, I think it's a cliche that's not backed up by anything in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 9:33:57 GMT -5
If you think this trade looks bad now, just wait until we see the other trades that happen this offseason.
Hell, you don't even have to wait, look at the Simmons trade. The Angels gave up less than we did for a 26 year old above-average everyday SS who's owed 53m over the next 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 9:26:22 GMT -5
If you're dying of thirst and there's literally one store within 100 miles. Hilarious. You can't be serious. Just say, "I'm happy we got a really good pitcher and I don't care if it was a bad trade", and be done with it. The rationalizations are getting absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 7:01:33 GMT -5
There's enough straw men in this thread to build a skyscraper out of.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 6:53:54 GMT -5
Exactly. Where is this mythical starter we could get? Come on. You guys can come up with better rationalizations than "There are literally no starters available on the trade market!" |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 0:28:22 GMT -5
So what would Kimbrel get on the open market, in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 14, 2015 0:14:01 GMT -5
Another completely unreliable, biased source here weighs in:
Jim Callis @jimcallismlb 2m2 minutes ago
Boston would have been better served using this package for a frontline SP.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 23:55:42 GMT -5
I'm not assuming anything. I'm looking at the current market of baseball economics and making an informed judgement. Feel free to describe a scenario, using specific numbers, in which Craig Kimbrel provides equal or more surplus value than the four prospects we gave up. Because I've already given my explanation of how it's not even close. See this is the problem Burythehammer. If the goal of every team is to acquire the most possible war on a squad, why would you have any relief pitchers at all? Craig Kimbrel will NOT exceed the value of the prospects given up if you judge value solely by cumulative war. Do you see that? THAT'S where your assumption lies: That cumulative war in a trade is the end all to judging the value of a trade. According to your standards, the only way Craig Kimbrel provides equal value to the prospects given up is if there are enough craig kimbrel innings pitched to compete with the thousands of position player innings that will most likely be played by Margot/Guerra/Asuaje. That of course is impossible. So then explain to me why Andrew Miller gets 4/36 on the open market. If he's worth so much more than WAR tells us, shouldn't he get a lot more? Or are you saying you know something that 30 MLB teams don't know? |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 23:41:34 GMT -5
Its well known we grossly overrate our own prospects, and because of that we often come up with unrealistic trades that would never happen because we overrate how much talent were giving up. The next person that says this should be banned for a week. |
|
|
