Or, to put it another way, when you've got a bullpen full of negative-WAR players, a 3 WAR player is probably worth 4 wins compared to whoever he'd actually replace.
Sox get Kimbrel
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Which means shit, because what date a trade occurs means nothing. His price may very well have gone up the longer it went.
Which means shit, because projections are useless in reality and not a single person on this site would have been content with acquiring Benoit as the closer. Also because prospect value is not static, nor is market value of players.
Which leads me to believe that you honestly think DD didn't check on their cost and/or have a different evaluation on their abilities and length of control.
This is what, the Allard Baird Principle? Do you honestly believe that DD got swept up in Frank Wren's nostalgia over having developed Kimbrel, so he just basically opened the cupboards?
It is a lot to give up. That it's too much or that it was so much more than any other team was willing to pay is what I'm taking issue with in your stance. Because there is no possible way you know what other offers Preller had on the table. None. No five minute google search is going to tell you that.
Well no shit. I'm not sure why that's an issue though. These players would not garner a starter that is going to fix this rotation. They would be complimentary pieces in that scenario. So, if you're upset that Margot and Guerra were #1 and #2 to get a premier closer, as opposed to #3 and #4 along with a Betts/Bogearts/Swihart and a Devers/Moncada as the #1 and #2 for a legit SP, then we just have a different set of expectations and desires for moves this team will make.
The next time a "reported asking price" for a guy that didn't get moved is accurate, it will likely be the first. Which is to say nothing of the variables inherent in trying to compare trade targets. Chapman =/= Kimbrel. Even if you want to assume they are exact equals in value on the field, I would much rather trade four with two legit prospects for three years of control on Kimbrel than three with one legit for one season of Chapman who I could easily then lose at the end of the year unless I pony up and beat the market. Reasonable minds can differ on that.
Half the shit you just spouted can hardly be considered "facts". Which is to say nothing of the point of my post that you quoted. You can cite whatever you like, but the most definite "fact" is that you have no idea what other teams were willing to pay for Kimbrel. So when you say stuff like this
yeah, I read that as you talking out of your ass. Because there's quite literally no possible way you could what other teams were offering. Or what Preller was asking. Nor any of half the rest of the stuff you are quoting as facts to support your stance. And there's no five minute google search that is going to tell you that stuff is true. I'm not being ignorant, I'm just not being presumptuous enough that I know the dynamics more than the guy getting paid to make these decisions. But please don't let me interrupt everyone's Chicken Little performance.
Why, though? Your first example is a ridiculous proposition that would never exist in the real world, plus you can argue it would be a lateral move at best for the major league team.
I haven't seen one argument in defense of hating the Kimbrel deal other than "well, I really believe Margot and Guerra were going to be awesome!" Which is what it is, but it doesn't help the major league team any time soon, nor does it address any of their weaknesses. You're not getting a Sale, Gray, or deGrom without including X, Mookie, or Swihart and it's looking more and more as if they don't want to move any one of those three assets.
Last edited:
Why don't you tell us what you think this package - Margot, Guerra, Allen and Asuaje - would have garnered for a SP? Or another position you feel needs to be addressed? Anyone feel free to chime in.
A lot of this depends on how good we think this team actually is.
We won 78 last year. If we can get up into the ballpark of 90 wins, then overpaying in future value for a top-3 closer in the game makes a lot of sense — the differences among the range of scenarios in which we win the East, make the play-in game as the home team, make it as the visitor, and miss out on all playoffs are all very important in terms of Championship odds. If we're not in that 88-92 win range, it doesn't make as much sense. Even if Margot and Guerra are blocked, they were top-100 prospects who could be centerpieces of different deals down the road.
So how good are we?
Behind that spoiler, there's a bunch of off-the-cuff accounting about what improvements can reasonably expected, given the changes in personnel (Kimbrel in, Ogando out; better performance from 3B from Pablo playing better or else losing playing time, etc.). Without even discussing the rotation, because we don't know what Dave is going to do with that, I come to +12 wins, which looks like 90, plus or minus a huge amount of error. That squares, I think, with how this team looked down the stretch, when they climbed back within a few games of .500 even with a ton of blown saves from a depleted bullpen.
I didn't really think so even a few days ago, but I think this might be a team worth sinking some future value into.
We won 78 last year. If we can get up into the ballpark of 90 wins, then overpaying in future value for a top-3 closer in the game makes a lot of sense — the differences among the range of scenarios in which we win the East, make the play-in game as the home team, make it as the visitor, and miss out on all playoffs are all very important in terms of Championship odds. If we're not in that 88-92 win range, it doesn't make as much sense. Even if Margot and Guerra are blocked, they were top-100 prospects who could be centerpieces of different deals down the road.
So how good are we?
We've just replaced Ogando (-1 fWAR) with Kimbrel (2 fWAR). That's a big deal right there. +3.
I also read a fascinating piece on Fangraphs that argued that WAR misses just shy of wins of value of having an elite reliever. In other words, that the set of teams with an elite reliever tended to have records a bit better than conventional WAR accounting would suggest, and teams without did worse. Pending Uehara's wrist coming through the offseason well, we now have two. So that's something to keep in mind. You can decide for yourself if this is credible, but I'm going to give us +2.
Sandoval put up -2 WAR last season. I have no idea how to project him, but if he bounces back even to a 1 WAR season, that would be a swing nearly as large. Or he might lose playing time to Shaw or Holt. If he can get back to 3 WAR Panda, let alone approach his 5 WAR career seasons, we're probably a really, really good team. Steamer projects him for 2 WAR, FWIW. I'll score that conservatively +2, imagining that we'll get 0 WAR out of 3B, although there's a lot of headroom here and I expect him to be somewhat better.
Same story with Hanley. He was also worth about -2, as he was one of the worst defenders in baseball and slumped to a career low 89 wRC+. Steamer projects a 120 wRC+ and bad (but not absymal) defensive value, enough for 2 WAR. That's optimistic, but I think credible. That's a +4.
Roster-wise, Hanley replaces Napoli, who would have been worth about 1 WAR on a whole season, and moves Shaw to the bench, who was worth 1.6 in 65 games. So I'd judge that we give back 2 WAR there. -2.
Which we immediately reclaim by giving Ramirez' outfield playing time to Castillo and Bradley. This is pretty conservative, I think, as it is basically projectable just from defense. +2.
The catching situation should be much better. Blake Swihart really came along with bat and glove last season, and Hannigan was fine when he wasn't injured. Vazquez may be a factor, too, later in the season. Basically, keeping Sandy Leon in AAA is a big help. +2.
Ortiz will probably regress a little. He's old, and that was a very, very good season he had. -1.
And, then the rotation. Hard to say what that looks like at this point, so I'll leave it aside. I have +12 wins, before any rotation help.
I also read a fascinating piece on Fangraphs that argued that WAR misses just shy of wins of value of having an elite reliever. In other words, that the set of teams with an elite reliever tended to have records a bit better than conventional WAR accounting would suggest, and teams without did worse. Pending Uehara's wrist coming through the offseason well, we now have two. So that's something to keep in mind. You can decide for yourself if this is credible, but I'm going to give us +2.
Sandoval put up -2 WAR last season. I have no idea how to project him, but if he bounces back even to a 1 WAR season, that would be a swing nearly as large. Or he might lose playing time to Shaw or Holt. If he can get back to 3 WAR Panda, let alone approach his 5 WAR career seasons, we're probably a really, really good team. Steamer projects him for 2 WAR, FWIW. I'll score that conservatively +2, imagining that we'll get 0 WAR out of 3B, although there's a lot of headroom here and I expect him to be somewhat better.
Same story with Hanley. He was also worth about -2, as he was one of the worst defenders in baseball and slumped to a career low 89 wRC+. Steamer projects a 120 wRC+ and bad (but not absymal) defensive value, enough for 2 WAR. That's optimistic, but I think credible. That's a +4.
Roster-wise, Hanley replaces Napoli, who would have been worth about 1 WAR on a whole season, and moves Shaw to the bench, who was worth 1.6 in 65 games. So I'd judge that we give back 2 WAR there. -2.
Which we immediately reclaim by giving Ramirez' outfield playing time to Castillo and Bradley. This is pretty conservative, I think, as it is basically projectable just from defense. +2.
The catching situation should be much better. Blake Swihart really came along with bat and glove last season, and Hannigan was fine when he wasn't injured. Vazquez may be a factor, too, later in the season. Basically, keeping Sandy Leon in AAA is a big help. +2.
Ortiz will probably regress a little. He's old, and that was a very, very good season he had. -1.
And, then the rotation. Hard to say what that looks like at this point, so I'll leave it aside. I have +12 wins, before any rotation help.
Behind that spoiler, there's a bunch of off-the-cuff accounting about what improvements can reasonably expected, given the changes in personnel (Kimbrel in, Ogando out; better performance from 3B from Pablo playing better or else losing playing time, etc.). Without even discussing the rotation, because we don't know what Dave is going to do with that, I come to +12 wins, which looks like 90, plus or minus a huge amount of error. That squares, I think, with how this team looked down the stretch, when they climbed back within a few games of .500 even with a ton of blown saves from a depleted bullpen.
I didn't really think so even a few days ago, but I think this might be a team worth sinking some future value into.
Exactly the point I raised above. What if that group only gets you T.Ross? Would that make people happier? We don't know, but I'm pretty sure that group doesn't get Sale or Gray or Carrasco. I'm guessing those teams would have wanted either or both a better top prospect added in or good young MLB talent. It's possible, maybe likely, that DD likes our best young players enough that he decided trading less for an elite reliever and paying for a FA starter made more sense.
That shouldn't be the (only) question. What would Margot, Guerra, and Owens have garnered? The problem isn't that they traded these specific guys, it's that they used both of their best redundant assets to improve only 60 innings when they could have been used in a different way to improve 200 innings.
We're all going around and around. Yes, perhaps, but if DD is worth his salt, he discussed this and likely found that using those guys STILL would have required a big extra piece - like Betts or maybe Moncada - and he likely decided he didn't want to do that, given the FA alternatives. So he "overpaid" with lesser total talent to get a lockdown, elite BP fix.
OK, I can rephrase.
Tell me what you think any package of guys not named Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Devers, Moncada or Espinoza would have gotten you? Because without one or possibly two of those names we were not acquiring someone to fix our rotation issues. And I otherwise don't see a need to be addressed outside of bullpen help. (I also don't think there's any chance they are eating Pablo's or Hanley's contracts so we may differ on that.) In which case I see it as we moved a blocked guy in Margot, a probable sell high in Guerra, a nobody in Asuaje and a lottery ticket in Allen.
For a starter? No one that would make us feel any better about our rotation going into next year. I highly doubt they would've even gotten to the Carrasco/Salazar level. Which still would have left us needing a #1 and a closer.
Edit: I didn't see Owens in there, because I didn't cite him. Throwing Owens in might have gotten us up to Carrasco/Salazar. Which still leaves us with the same needs and now down one in our depth.
Double edit: And now I realize you weren't even talking to me.
Last edited:
Wow, Margot crushed lefties and was terrible vs. Rs last year:
AA
vs. R .236/.288/.313
vs. L .381/.443/.746
A (adv)
vs. R .244/.276/.370
vs. L .391/.451/.565
Same in A-ball in '14. Interesting.
AA
vs. R .236/.288/.313
vs. L .381/.443/.746
A (adv)
vs. R .244/.276/.370
vs. L .391/.451/.565
Same in A-ball in '14. Interesting.
Not to double back on you, but I listened John Tomase make this argument on WEEI today and if I hadn't been busy I would have pulled over to call in.
All innings are not created equal. There's a thing called leverage. Which is to say nothing of quality.
Shark threw 214 innings this year at a 4.94 clip. Would you rather have those 214 innings or Kimbrel's 60?
Assuming equal quality, of course more innings are more valuable. But they don't cost the same to acquire.
Not sure if this is appropriate for a general bullpen comment but that squad isn't complete. Taz or Koji could easily plop 2016 with injury or attrition.
Kimbrel's huge, and indicates the Sox are all in on elite reliever value. (Weren't we calling this "secret sauce" 10 years ago?) But it could be hard to lure a marquee set-up guy with the 7th-9th innings already assigned.
I expect everyone in baseball to play a long, exhausting game of Find the Next Wade Davis! this winter, but I think Trevor Cahill's relief work with the Cubs was pretty sexy and promising, especially in the playoffs. It would not take much.
Kimbrel's huge, and indicates the Sox are all in on elite reliever value. (Weren't we calling this "secret sauce" 10 years ago?) But it could be hard to lure a marquee set-up guy with the 7th-9th innings already assigned.
I expect everyone in baseball to play a long, exhausting game of Find the Next Wade Davis! this winter, but I think Trevor Cahill's relief work with the Cubs was pretty sexy and promising, especially in the playoffs. It would not take much.
Last edited:
Hanley Ramirez probably had a higher WAR than Beckett (I'm too lazy to look it up), but we won a World Series, therefore we won that trade.
Guerra
vs RHP as LHB 16 hr, 292/346/479
vs LHP as LHB 2 hr, 244/283/370 (33% K rate, 45 K, 5 BB)
It was 13 HRs vs. Rs, but those are nice stats. It's easier to find a bench bat that crushes Ls obviously. Will be interesting to follow these guys over the next few years.
I have no clue, I'm simply responding to the question that asked what sort of starter the Sox could have gotten if we limited the trade to only the players sent over to the Padres. My point is that the Sox used up valuable currency to improve a fraction of the innings they could have improved in a different deal.
And just for the record, I'm not saying it was the worst deal in history or that I'll even miss the guys that were traded. I just think they blew their extra resources in the wrong area.
And, as was mentioned further up in the thread, adding Kimbrel pushes everyone else in the bullpen down a level, which improves the quality of those innings as well.
You could argue that it shouldn't be factored into the deal, since Kimbrel himself isn't pitching those innings, but I think you'd be wrong not to factor it in. There's lots of opposition to the trade based on the market value of the players, but you have to consider the value of those players respective to the teams involved in the deal, and the shift in overall bullpen performance that Kimbrel's presence has the potential to cause definitely increases Kimbrel's value to the Red Sox specifically.
Likewise, the prospects we gave up had less relative value to the Red Sox because they were either blocked, or far from the majors (arguably both, depending on how our current crop of young players performs going forward). Our only other major area of need is the rotation, so I'm not seeing why the outrage over this trade is warranted, when A) Margot and Guerra weren't netting us an ace on their own, and B) there's a glut of killer free agent starters that could be had for just cash.
At best, you're looking at getting Kimbrel for just Margot and Guerra, while trading Asuaje and Logan for maybe a middle reliever or a bench guy. On that basis, yeah, it's an overpay, but if I'm Dombrowski, I don't think twice about adding those two to the deal if that's the holdup. You could hold on to Asuaje and Logan and hope they prove useful to the team later, but in their present state, they're both completely expendable.
We fill an area of need while giving up pieces we didn't have an urgent need for, the Padres get to restock their farm system a bit. I chalk this up as a win for both.
Make your points without the vitriol. There's plenty to talk about without getting nasty about it.
JJ Cooper @jjcoop36Source: That's the entire deal: Asuaje, Allen, Guerra and Margot for Kimbrel. No one else
Damn good
Sorry, but when someone is citing opinions or conjecture as fact and accuses me of being ignorant for not taking the same leap, I might drop the word "shit" once in a while. Apologies for offending you or anyone else, I didn't realize we had gone completely G rated here. If I had used "means nothing" would that have been ok?
I don't think it's nasty to cite that people are perhaps overreacting just a tad, so yeah, I think Chicken Little is an apt characterization of some of the posts in the last 24 hours on this topic. Again, if that is over the top, apologies.
Power in A ball means nothing. Brentz hit the ball harder than anyone I have seen in Greenville...then he hit AA. This plays out so often as low A pitchers cannot pitch.
5"11 165. Guerra does not look like a power hitter. His bat speed is not extraordinary. DD sold high.
Allen is a lottery ticket 4 to 5 years from the majors. Woopdeedoo
Margot was expendable.
It is so easy to shit on trades like this because of OH MY GOD HE IS GOING TO BE AN ALLSTAR.
We just picked up an elite closet for a AA Prospect a couple of kids in A ball and below and a 24 yr old utility guy in AA.
Not bad.
Edit: and if anyone thinks DD Is going to be fleeced by San Diego....
5"11 165. Guerra does not look like a power hitter. His bat speed is not extraordinary. DD sold high.
Allen is a lottery ticket 4 to 5 years from the majors. Woopdeedoo
Margot was expendable.
It is so easy to shit on trades like this because of OH MY GOD HE IS GOING TO BE AN ALLSTAR.
We just picked up an elite closet for a AA Prospect a couple of kids in A ball and below and a 24 yr old utility guy in AA.
Not bad.
Edit: and if anyone thinks DD Is going to be fleeced by San Diego....
I like the trade, but this is a bad argument because:
1) Even if Margot and Guerra had no future with this team, they could have been used in another acquisition.
2) Margot could have been a starting OFer for this team by the end of 2016 if one of the BBC goes belly up.
3) Guerra just finished at Greenvile. Give him one year at Salem, Portland, and Pawtucket and suddenly Pablo Sandoval only has one guaranteedd year left on his contract and we may be looking at moving Bogaerts over and using Guerra as our starting shortstop.
Of course, it's entirely possible this works out completely differently, too.
But this is exactly the kind of deal where you should be willing to trade guys you wouldn't want to trade in other deals. In any given season, ace relievers are rare. It's a very volatile position. What's rarer than an ace reliever is someone who is consistently an ace reliever over multiple seasons. I haven't done the research by every time anyone publishes any research on the volatility of relievers, there are a very, very few who are consistently excellent. Kimbrel is one of them. He's young enough that age-related performance drop should happen after the end of the contract. The contract is for three seasons at reasonable dollars.
Elite young talents that show stability in a position of instability who are locked into reasonable contracts are EXACTLY who you should be willing to make painful deals for.
He's right, you are clearly full of beans today. However, I haven't minded it since I pretty much agree with everything you've posted.
I think there are a lot more in house candidates than that, and I think that one of the interesting sub plots to 2016 is going to be finding Koji's replacement as set up guy. Barnes is still a candidate. Pat Light is still a candidate. If he washes out as a starter, Henry Owens is a candidate.
Plus, the guy they trade Kopech and Chavis for at the deadline, he's a candidate too.
Sunday Notes says the Red Sox were in talks for Chapman for a similar trade package, plus JBJ.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/15/jackie-bradley-center-trade-talks/Erq23ga95cRm7DRRcTlFpN/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/15/jackie-bradley-center-trade-talks/Erq23ga95cRm7DRRcTlFpN/story.html
I've been thinking about the same thing. The market inefficiency (more like an extreme scarcity) might simply be the availability of elite closers with HOF potential and under team control during their prime years of peak production.
Dennis Eckersley, Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Hoyt Wilhelm are the only HOF closers.
They are all from different eras with different career makeups and only Bruce Sutter was exclusively a closer his whole major league career. Era differentials notwithstanding, his 162 game average performance is arguably not as good as Kimbrel's career so far:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/suttebr01.shtml
The GOAT, Mariano Rivera, will soon join these closers in his first year of HOF eligibility:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/riverma01.shtml
Though he still has a long way to go, Kimbrel, if he doesn't get hurt, is arguably on the same career trajectory:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kimbrcr01.shtml
Rivera's per 162 game averages held up amazingly well until the end. Nevertheless, so far, Kimbrel's 162 game averages for ERA, FIP, WHIP, ERA+, K/9 and K/BB are all better than Mo's. Only bad health and lack of longevity could derail Kimbrel's HOF trajectory. However, even if Kimbrel takes a step back from his career averages during the next 3 years of Sox control, he is still worth the money and probably still on his HOF path. It is a significantly safer bet that Kimbrel will give the Sox elite closer performance during his contract than any of the 4 prospects traded away will have much more than a marginal major league impact during their next 3 seasons. Viewed this way, the Sox just received gold in exchange for 2 and maybe 3 potentially high payoff lottery tickets. I covet prospects but given the quality and depth of who remains in their system, the Sox didn't give up anything they couldn't afford to lose.
There must be another elite closer who was traded away from his original team during his prime to go on to a HOF like career but I can't think of who. Sutter from the Cubs (surprise) to the Cardinals might qualify. Maybe someone else can come up with more examples. The point is that a closer as proven and projectible as Kimbrel almost never if ever comes on the trade market. You can argue that to get a closer of Kimbrel's caliber for good but not the top (within the Sox organization) prospects, is impressive - particularly considering that the team getting the best player usually wins the trade. No doubt, Wren's familiarity with Kimbrel and DD's nightmares in always chasing after closers with very good Tigers teams affected their thinking. The only real regret the Sox might have eventually is if one of these prospects eventually turns into Rizzo or Bagwell. It might happen but odds are it won't.
At first I thought, like everyone, that this seemed like a lot to give up for a 60 IP per season closer. Thinking this through, it seems like DD might have pulled off the best trade for a closer since the Cardinals swiped Sutter from the Cubs (mainly for Leon Durham and Ken Reitz).
Last edited:
Yup. I think Bill James' best guess was that closer innings were worth double the nominal total in figuring their value.
So the Sox were in simultaneous discussions with the Padres and Reds and when it became clear that the Reds were going to demand a package as significant (or more) for a one year rental as the Padres were for a guy under control for three years, the Sox said, "Yeah, we're gonna take the guy with three years of control, here are your parting gifts, a copy of the home game, one of those commemorative bricks they were hawking a few years ago, and a Remsillo bobbledesk. Enjoy."
This is what I've been saying: we just learned what the top bullpen arms cost now. Remember when Theo said everyone this offseason was going to try to recapitulate KC's success? If the deal for Kimbrel was a way of stocking the bullpen while retaining Bradley, Dombrowski did the right thing.
Bradley's breakout is going to be a huge story for us in 2016.
Just because Ca-fat-do is reporting this doesn't mean it was the actual offer... it's hard to think the Reds would hold Chapman at that high a ransom for only one year
We have an entire thread devoted to making sport of him. On the main board, I suggest referring to him by name without the juvenile snark
True. Also, he said it was "a similar package to the Kimbrel deal (maybe a tick more) and included Bradley." I'd think that means Bradley in place of Margot.
Thanks, I try. Sometimes.
I think there is a lot of truth to the first part. Value is determined by the market which is influenced by recent events. The Royals just showed that a decent rotation and an excellent bullpen can be a championship caliber pitching staff. It shouldn't be surprising that the cost of the top of the line relievers is going up.
Also, if Bradley breaks out huge, we're going to win the World Series.
If we win the World Series in 2016, Ben Cherington should win executive of the year while adjuncting at Columbia.
If, as many believe, the lack of an excellent reliever was the sine qua non that kept the Sox out of the post-season, then how do we view the failure to sign Andrew Miller?
Everyone has been complaining about Kimbrel's "drop off" during the 2015 season, though it seems confined to just the first couple of months after his trade to San Diego. Surprisingly, after looking at this again, Kimbrel's ERA, FIP, WHIP, ERA+, K/9 and K/BB for just 2015 look to be almost exactly on a par with Mo Rivera's 162 game averages for his long and, until now, unprecedented career.
Baseball Reference inexplicably has this relatively pessimistic projection for Kimbrel in 2016:
ERA S whip K/9 k/bb
2016 Proj. 28 3 3 .500 2.80 28 61.0 46 21 19 6 21 1 75 2 0 4 248 1.098 6.8 0.9 3.1 11.1 3.57
I'm not sure, unless he gets hurt, Kimbrel drops off this much next year, particularly after this trade to a hopefully better team than the Padres. Even so, if this somewhat but not terribly diminished production is Kimbrel's new norm for his next 3 seasons, he is still well worth what it cost to get him. If Kimbrel maintains his higher career averages to this point, he will be an immense acquisition.
Last edited:
agree... Though I do wonder what a bidding war for JBJ would look like
The closest comp to a HoF-ish closer being traded is Billy Wagner at 31 to the Phillies in 2003 for Brandon Duckworth, Taylor Buchholz and Ezequiel Astacio.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wagnebi02.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wagnebi02.shtml