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.
Which means shit, because what date a trade occurs means nothing. His price may very well have gone up the longer it went.Because I know the deal was made on November 13, one day after the end of the first GMs meeting, and less than two full weeks after the World Series ended.
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.Because I know Dipoto traded Preller far less than half the prospect value to get a reliever whose projected MLB value in 2016 is well above half that of Kimbrel and whose remaining owed contract is much less than half of Kimbrel's.
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.Because Chapman and Giles are still available on the trade market, both of whom are projectible to a relatively equivalent production to Kimbrel next season.
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?Because Wren was the GM who initially developed Kimbrel with the Braves, and is now DDski's assistant.
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.Because every major and minor sports media outlet that focuses attention on baseball prospects has reported this as being a lot to give up by the Sox, and DDski himself stated last night he felt it was a lot to give up.
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.Because DDski cannot now use either Margot or Guerra to further improve the team, and DDski has admitted he planned this to be his major trade of the offseason.
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.Because the Reds' reported asking price was three prospects, including one legit prospect, at the deadline last season; the Red Sox just paid four, with two legit prospects, for Kimbrel.
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 thisSuch facts are readily available to anyone who can perform a simple five-minute google search. I'm surprised you were so ignorant of them that you couldn't imagine what I used as basis for my opinion.
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....when there wasn't any other team obviously willing to give up anywhere near so much to Preller.
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.There has got to be some limit. Trading Moncada + Devers + Espinoza for say, Brett Cecil would improve the 2016 Red Sox but probably isn't a good idea. Again my objection isn't to trading Margot or other prospects. It is to trading them in this deal.
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.There has got to be some limit. Trading Moncada + Devers + Espinoza for say, Brett Cecil would improve the 2016 Red Sox but probably isn't a good idea. Again my objection isn't to trading Margot or other prospects. It is to trading them in this deal.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
OK, I can rephrase.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.
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.What would Margot, Guerra and Owens have garnered? You asked the question - answer it.
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.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.
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.Ok, but what if the Padres "win the trade" and the Sox, say, make the ALCS twice in the next three years?
You know this already, but the marginal value for both teams is very different. It gets really tempting to think of transactions as zero-sum equations — that's how fans talk about trades at water coolers; it's how people bet on sports, etc. — but that's become such an overwhelming mindset that I bet there's actually some market inefficiency involved. I imagine lifting a guy like Preller up with a trade that looks to be in his favor — dude had a real rough year, after all — opens up conversations with other GMs that wouldn't otherwise be there.
GuerraWow, 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.
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.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)
Good find.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.
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.What would Margot, Guerra and Owens have garnered? You asked the question - answer it.
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.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.
Make your points without the vitriol. There's plenty to talk about without getting nasty about it.Which means shit,
Which means shit,
Which leads me to believe that you honestly think
This is what, the Allard Baird Principle? Do you honestly believe
Well no shit.
Half the shit you just spouted can hardly be considered "facts".
But please don't let me interrupt everyone's Chicken Little performance.
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?Make your points without the vitriol. There's plenty to talk about without getting nasty about it.
We need Sprowl here to define what constitutes an "elite closet."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.
I like the trade, but this is a bad argument because:As good as they may be in the future, what kind of opportunity did either Margot or Guerra have with this team? Our outfield is presumably set and SS looks like Bogaerts job to lose. Its a steep price to pay but definitely necessary. Our bullpen was atrocious last season.
And a very good candidate is in-house, Joe Kelly.I expect everyone in baseball to play a long, exhausting game of Find the Next Wade Davis! this winter.
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.There has got to be some limit. Trading Moncada + Devers + Espinoza for say, Brett Cecil would improve the 2016 Red Sox but probably isn't a good idea. Again my objection isn't to trading Margot or other prospects. It is to trading them in this deal.
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.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.
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.And a very good candidate is in-house, Joe Kelly.
This is all bad news for teams pursuing Bradley. The Royals had him atop their list as an Alex Gordon replacement, willing to give up one of their bullpen pieces. New Mariners GM Jerry Dipoto, who conducted an extensive six-week study on the Red Sox organization when he was in Boston, could have used Bradley in center field, and Seattle reliever Tom Wilhelmsen could have been had after Dipoto obtained Joaquin Benoit last week. The Cubs also were thinking of Bradley in center.
The GMs we spoke to said Bradley is one of the most coveted outfielders this offseason. “His low cost, his elite defense, and his emerging offense” are major selling points, according to an American League GM. But those are also the reasons Boston wants to keep him.
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.Ok, but what if the Padres "win the trade" and the Sox, say, make the ALCS twice in the next three years?
You know this already, but the marginal value for both teams is very different. It gets really tempting to think of transactions as zero-sum equations — that's how fans talk about trades at water coolers; it's how people bet on sports, etc. — but that's become such an overwhelming mindset that I bet there's actually some market inefficiency involved. I imagine lifting a guy like Preller up with a trade that looks to be in his favor — dude had a real rough year, after all — opens up conversations with other GMs that wouldn't otherwise be there.
Yup. I think Bill James' best guess was that closer innings were worth double the nominal total in figuring their value.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.
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."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
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.JBJ, Margot, Guerra, Asauje, Logan Allen for 1 year of Chapman? Yikes.
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 snarkJust 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
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.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
You really do have a way with words sometimes. This is wonderful. :fbSo 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."
Thanks, I try. Sometimes.You really do have a way with words sometimes. This is wonderful. :fb
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.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.
If we win the World Series in 2016, Ben Cherington should win executive of the year while adjuncting at Columbia.Also, if Bradley breaks out huge, we're going to win the World Series.
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?If we win the World Series in 2016, Ben Cherington should win executive of the year while adjuncting at Columbia.
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.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).
Miller did yield EdRo. That transaction was a win.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?
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."
agree... Though I do wonder what a bidding war for JBJ would look likeThis 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.