Sox get Kimbrel

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
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
Thanks for this. Wagner was 4 years older than Kimbrel but, because the 4 prospects just dealt for him are no where close to the majors, I am becoming more convinced that he will truly be a bargain acquisition for the Sox.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
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
Thanks for this. Wagner was 4 years older than Kimbrel but, because the 4 prospects just dealt for him are no where close to the majors, I am becoming more convinced that he will truly be a bargain acquisition for the Sox.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
Lets review who the Red Sox had input from on this deal:
1. Dave Dombrowski, GM or President of a MLB team for the last 27 years
2. Mike Hazen, Red Sox GM, plus most of ex-GM Ben Cherington's inner circle (including Allard Baird ex-Royals GM)
3. Frank Wren, ex-Atlanta Braves GM for 7yrs
4. Jerry Dipoto, ex-Angels GM and current Mariners GM, just reviewed and analyzed the Sox Minor League system from top to bottom
5. Red Sox ownership group, 3 World Championships over the last 11 years
6. John Farell, manager, also previously worked in Player Development for the Cleveland Indians
7. Plus numerous internal scouts that have analyzed every Minor League inning of Margot and Guerra.

and we're really worried about what Keith Law thinks?

and that AJ Preller, a year into being a GM, completely 'pantsed' us?

If you can't trust our group, you may have control issues and its time for therapy.

Put me in the camp that DD tee'd up Preller with the pre-mature 'pain' comment and just sold some prospects high.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
As an only occasional contributor, I'm also a bit disappointed with the trade. I feel like we gave up more than we needed to. That being said, many of the opponents to the trade keep talking about the hypothetical return we could have gotten for these prospects and, well, its entirely theoretical Ok, so yeah, I would have preferred for the prospects to be used for a SP but what if they are not enough to get a big one? Until we see a significant SP traded for prospects, I don't think we can really value this trade as an overpay or as fair market. Or at least til we see what someone gives up for Chapman. Just because we hump prospects doesn't mean the rest of the MLB does the same.

I think we all agree that both ends of our pitching needed upgrading. We spent prospects---maybe too much---on one end. Now our bullpen is vastly better, top to bottom. Maybe we could have spent less, but we have yet to see any significant pitching trades. Any chance we could wait to judge a trade regarding an elite reliever until we see what it cost for other relievers/mid-tier SP in the meantime? No?
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
This trade sucks.

The package we gave away is more or less the package I wanted to trade for Carrasco. I imagine if we could have gotten Carrasco for that package we would have done so. This trade is a bucket of cold water on our sense of the value of our prospects, and that makes it suck all the more. Now, if we give away another package of four prospects for an ace we are really hollowing out our farm system, or trading away one of the top guys (Moncada or Espinoza).

I think our bullpen could have easily made do with a couple of mid-tier acquisitions. For example, with the money we will pay Kimbrel we could have probably could have signed both O'Day and Shawn Kelley (fangraphs crowdsourcing has O'Day at 3/$21 and Kelley at 2/$8) and kept the four young players.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
This trade sucks.

The package we gave away is more or less the package I wanted to trade for Carrasco. I imagine if we could have gotten Carrasco for that package we would have done so. This trade is a bucket of cold water on our sense of the value of our prospects, and that makes it suck all the more. Now, if we give away another package of four prospects for an ace we are really hollowing out our farm system, or trading away one of the top guys (Moncada or Espinoza).

I think our bullpen could have easily made do with a couple of mid-tier acquisitions. For example, with the money we will pay Kimbrel we could have probably could have signed both O'Day and Shawn Kelley (fangraphs crowdsourcing has O'Day at 3/$21 and Kelley at 2/$8) and kept the four young players.
Where does Carlos Carrasco get us, though? I'm not seeing where he is the guy to lead the rotation, at least not in the sense many of us are pounding the table for. He's a nice pitcher and he had a good year, but it's not like he's an established "ace". We all say how the goal is to find the next breakout candidate and I completely agree with that, but I don't think you try to find that guy and make him your ace from day one. You find that guy by already having an ace and making a shrewd acquisition to fill a lower spot in the rotation and then let that guy blossom. The guys like Carrasco or Salazar fit that mold of acquisition -the young guy that shows promise and is ready to break out - but the team doesn't fit the details of having an established guy to carry the burden while he develops more.

So if you traded the same package for Carrasco, were you comfortable going into next season with a rotation of Carrasco/Buch/Porcello/Rodriguez/Miley? Personally, I wouldn't be, but I'm open to someone convincing me. In that event, I would still want them to sign a true established guy. So end of day, if the choices were trade the same guys for a more trust worthy closer and sign a a more trust worthy SP - as opposed to trading for a potential stud and paying for relievers who aren't as established - I much prefer that route, even if it costs more money.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
Where does Carlos Carrasco get us, though? I'm not seeing where he is the guy to lead the rotation, at least not in the sense many of us are pounding the table for. He's a nice pitcher and he had a good year, but it's not like he's an established "ace". We all say how the goal is to find the next breakout candidate and I completely agree with that, but I don't think you try to find that guy and make him your ace from day one. You find that guy by already having an ace and making a shrewd acquisition to fill a lower spot in the rotation and then let that guy blossom. The guys like Carrasco or Salazar fit that mold of acquisition -the young guy that shows promise and is ready to break out - but the team doesn't fit the details of having an established guy to carry the burden while he develops more.

So if you traded the same package for Carrasco, were you comfortable going into next season with a rotation of Carrasco/Buch/Porcello/Rodriguez/Miley? Personally, I wouldn't be, but I'm open to someone convincing me. In that event, I would still want them to sign a true established guy. So end of day, if the choices were trade the same guys for a more trust worthy closer and sign a a more trust worthy SP - as opposed to trading for a potential stud and paying for relievers who aren't as established - I much prefer that route, even if it costs more money.
Last two seasons, Carrasco's had a better xFIP than everybody but Kershaw. Well, he's tied with Strasburg for second. Fourth in FIP. He's good. He strikes out five times as many hitters as he walks. He hasn't pitched 200 IP yet, but there's a reason people are thinking of him as an ace.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Which is great but he spent half his season in the bullpen in 2014. So he's spent about ~ 270 innings as a starter putting up good numbers. I'm not seeing that as a reliable savior to the front of the rotation, but I guess I could just be being overly cautious.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The thing that doesn't make sense with Carasco is why, given how good and cheap he is, would Cleveland want to trade him?

They either want a king's ransom or think something is about to go wrong with him. Either way a near-ace for a "painless package" should be viewed with a lot more skepticism.
 

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
538
The thing that doesn't make sense with Carasco is why, given how good and cheap he is, would Cleveland want to trade him?

They either want a king's ransom or think something is about to go wrong with him. Either way a near-ace for a "painless package" should be viewed with a lot more skepticism.
Their GM said they think Salazar is another ace in the making and have tons of pitching and no way to add other impact talent.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I see where many see this as an over pay and IF this is the only addition to the team this season you may well be right. I think you have to look at the total of ALL of the off season moves before you can declare this an over pay or not. Lets say the Sox somehow sign Price. Now look at Price and Kimbrel for the cost of these four players and $$$. I know you'll still say "but they should have paid less for Kimbrel", but what IF you get Price, Kimbrel and perhaps another complimentary FA or minor trade to bolster the rotation, pen or bench? You don't lose a draft pick as well as not losing any of Betts, JBJ, X and Swihart. On the whole, that ain't so bad is it?
 

Don Buddin's GS

Member
SoSH Member
I think it is always illustrative to see how disinterested third parties view situations that we are folllowing intently. Sean McLelland of the Dayton Daily News expressed dismay that the Reds were not going to be able to deal closer Aroldis Chapman to the Sawx since Boston got Kimbrel. Kimbrel was acquired from the Pads for "four middle-of-the-road prospects" according to McClelland.

Obviously, the #25 prospect in all of MLB ain't m-o-t-r, but according to him, the Sawx didn't give up much.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I see where many see this as an over pay and IF this is the only addition to the team this season you may well be right. I think you have to look at the total of ALL of the off season moves before you can declare this an over pay or not. Lets say the Sox somehow sign Price. Now look at Price and Kimbrel for the cost of these four players and $$$. I know you'll still say "but they should have paid less for Kimbrel", but what IF you get Price, Kimbrel and perhaps another complimentary FA or minor trade to bolster the rotation, pen or bench? You don't lose a draft pick as well as not losing any of Betts, JBJ, X and Swihart. On the whole, that ain't so bad is it?
I think this is exactly right.

Between the sum total being the most important point in the end, the fact that SS and CF will be blocked for a good long time, our natural tendency to over value our own prospects and the fact that Kimbrel at the end of the pen is a huge upgrade and strengthens the 8th inning position (with Koji, assuming he's healthy), I like this trade quite a bit.

As a side point and as others have likely mentioned, I really don't understand why DD has announced to the agents for the starting pitchers that he is done pursuing a starter via the trade route. That immediately improves their leverage. Telling the world that is pointless and self-defeating. Dombrowski could not be more different than Belichick in this regard and not in a good way.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Their GM said they think Salazar is another ace in the making and have tons of pitching and no way to add other impact talent.
So they're looking for a King's Ransom. They were probably not going to be content with minor league players a few years away, unless it happened to be Moncada.

I think it is always illustrative to see how disinterested third parties view situations that we are folllowing intently. Sean McLelland of the Dayton Daily News expressed dismay that the Reds were not going to be able to deal closer Aroldis Chapman to the Sawx since Boston got Kimbrel. Kimbrel was acquired from the Pads for "four middle-of-the-road prospects" according to McClelland.

Obviously, the #25 prospect in all of MLB ain't m-o-t-r, but according to him, the Sawx didn't give up much.
I think you have to keep in mind just how differently mainstream media tends to look at baseball transactions and prospects. Remember when the Rockies were considering trading Helton? Rockies mainstream media assumed they'd be getting multiple Sox blue chip prospects back (Ellsbury + from the delusional report that sticks with me). Margot still doesn't look like much more than a speed and defense CFer, maybe with a bit of upside with the bat, of which there are quite a few bouncing through MLB.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
I think this is exactly right.

Between the sum total being the most important point in the end, the fact that SS and CF will be blocked for a good long time, our natural tendency to over value our own prospects and the fact that Kimbrel at the end of the pen is a huge upgrade and strengthens the 8th inning position (with Koji, assuming he's healthy), I like this trade quite a bit.

As a side point and as others have likely mentioned, I really don't understand why DD has announced to the agents for the starting pitchers that he is done pursuing a starter via the trade route. That immediately improves their leverage. Telling the world that is pointless and self-defeating. Dombrowski could not be more different than Belichick in this regard and not in a good way.
I read it a much different way. DD acknowledges that he gave up a lot in the deal so teams looking to deal starters are licking their chops. It stops ridiculous offers from rolling in. I'm sure if Miami calls up today and offers JoFer for Owens Vazquez and 2 lower tier guys the next call DD makes is to the agents of said players and personally pays any relocation fees any of these players may have.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
I suspect that that Sox "overpaid" in the sense of giving up two fifty-cent pieces and two quarters for a dollar coin. But when you can only use twenty-five coins at a time, and you've got 20 fifty-cent pieces and 40 quarters, it's really nice to have that dollar.

I'm in the camp that, on paper, this trade is a win-win. Only the future will tell us what the reality will be, but I really like the shiny new dollar coin on my favorite team.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think this is exactly right.

As a side point and as others have likely mentioned, I really don't understand why DD has announced to the agents for the starting pitchers that he is done pursuing a starter via the trade route. That immediately improves their leverage. Telling the world that is pointless and self-defeating. Dombrowski could not be more different than Belichick in this regard and not in a good way.
As long as there are still multiple FA starters available, I don't see it affecting leverage much at all. What it says to me is that DD is planning to strike quickly to get the guy he wants.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I read it a much different way. DD acknowledges that he gave up a lot in the deal so teams looking to deal starters are licking their chops. It stops ridiculous offers from rolling in. I'm sure if Miami calls up today and offers JoFer for Owens Vazquez and 2 lower tier guys the next call DD makes is to the agents of said players and personally pays any relocation fees any of these players may have.
What is the harm in ridiculous offers coming in? Wasted time on the phone? Even a ridiculous offer gives you more information than you had before it was made.

And Bob, how could it not increase the free agent pitchers' leverage. Yes, DD may be planning to act quickly, but if you are an agent, you know that Dave intends to get a front line starter and, if he is to be believed about the trading angle being cut off, has only one means to achieve his goal. Wouldn't that encourage you to ask for more from DD?

Even if you say that it's not a big deal because DD can just change his mind and can remind agents that he is always free to do that, I don't see what benefit Dombrowski gets in being so candid.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
And Bob, how could it not increase the free agent pitchers' leverage. Yes, DD may be planning to act quickly, but if you are an agent, you know that Dave intends to get a front line starter and, if he is to be believed about the trading angle being cut off, has only one means to achieve his goal. Wouldn't that encourage you to ask for more from DD?

Even if you say that it's not a big deal because DD can just change his mind and can remind agents that he is always free to do that, I don't see what benefit Dombrowski gets in being so candid.
My point is that because there are multiple FA starters available, he can just tell the agent he's going to go after Zimmerman because he's asking too much for Cueto. How did asking for more from DD in that case benefit the agent or his player? I just don't see much change in leverage at all as long as DD has multiple FA pitchers to go after.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
What is the harm in ridiculous offers coming in? Wasted time on the phone? Even a ridiculous offer gives you more information than you had before it was made.

And Bob, how could it not increase the free agent pitchers' leverage. Yes, DD may be planning to act quickly, but if you are an agent, you know that Dave intends to get a front line starter and, if he is to be believed about the trading angle being cut off, has only one means to achieve his goal. Wouldn't that encourage you to ask for more from DD?

Even if you say that it's not a big deal because DD can just change his mind and can remind agents that he is always free to do that, I don't see what benefit Dombrowski gets in being so candid.
This only makes sense if you think that a pitcher isn't just going to take the biggest offer. If that's the case, then leverage really doesn't matter as long as DD doesn't overestimate other teams' offers.

Also, isn't every big market team "targeting a free agent starter"? I'm not sure that saying it out loud really alerts the landscape any. The Dodgers didn't say they plan to sign a free agent starter, but I'd bet every agent is working off that assumption anyway.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I suspect that that Sox "overpaid" in the sense of giving up two fifty-cent pieces and two quarters for a dollar coin. But when you can only use twenty-five coins at a time, and you've got 20 fifty-cent pieces and 40 quarters, it's really nice to have that dollar.

I'm in the camp that, on paper, this trade is a win-win. Only the future will tell us what the reality will be, but I really like the shiny new dollar coin on my favorite team.
This is a nice way to sum-up the trade.

Sure, maybe if DDski held out longer than a week, he'd only have had to pay $1.25 in loose change for that dollar coin, rather than a buck-fifty, but he did get genuine legal tender back. From yesterday's notes looking into Chapman, it certainly sounds like Jocketty began negotiations at a higher asking price than the Sox paid, and for two fewer years.

Kimbrel will be a godsend for the Sox' pen, most especially if Koji has any complications at all returning to form.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
My point is that because there are multiple FA starters available, he can just tell the agent he's going to go after Zimmerman because he's asking too much for Cueto. How did asking for more from DD in that case benefit the agent or his player? I just don't see much change in leverage at all as long as DD has multiple FA pitchers to go after.
The ability to bid the highest -- as Boggs pointed out -- is the most important driver, of course.

I hear your point and mine is not that DD just made some massive blunder. I just don't see any benefit in telling agents that the Sox have one fewer means of addressing their need. And I guess I just wonder why Dave feels like the public needs to know that he will no longer entertain trades. Why go there? Even if it doesn't hurt that much, I can't think of any benefit to the Sox in announcing that. Candor is nice but not when it even marginally reduces leverage.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
The ability to bid the highest -- as Boggs pointed out -- is the most important driver, of course.

I hear your point and mine is not that DD just made some massive blunder. I just don't see any benefit in telling agents that the Sox have one fewer means of addressing their need. And I guess I just wonder why Dave feels like the public needs to know that he will no longer entertain trades. Why go there? Even if it doesn't hurt that much, I can't think of any benefit to the Sox in announcing that. Candor is nice but not when it even marginally reduces leverage.
Maybe he is still planning some trades and he's just posturing now.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
If that was what it was going to take to get either Chapman or Kimbrel then getting Kimbrel was the right move and not really an overpay. It seems that us what the market may be dictating.

To get Carrasco I'm guessing they were looking at least one of JBJ, Betts or Swihart to go with a package of 2-3 prospects. DD apparently does not want to give those guys up, at least not for Carrasco, at least not yet. If he strikes out on the FA market for ace pitchers that may change.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
As a side point and as others have likely mentioned, I really don't understand why DD has announced to the agents for the starting pitchers that he is done pursuing a starter via the trade route. That immediately improves their leverage. Telling the world that is pointless and self-defeating. Dombrowski could not be more different than Belichick in this regard and not in a good way.
Top-tier free agent starters have enormous leverage, no matter what a GM says in a press conference. Their agents also know the Red Sox will be a major player this winter and have a need to return to contention, equaling even more leverage. Fortunately, Dave Dombrowski is a highly-successful executive who knows how to work with agents and rival GM's. I seriously doubt that these comments are going to have any impact on any negotiations the team undertakes. They were made for media and fan consumption.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Regarding Carrasco .. The tea leaves seem to have indicated Cleveland was looking for a MLB OF plus prospects. That means JBJ - they wouldn't trade Betts - plus a couple of premium prospects .. The problem is that the prospects DD was willing to deal were Margot and Guerra. And I don't think the Sox could trade both JBJ AND Margot ..

So it was probably just a case of not matching up with Cleveland.

I disliked the deal as an overpay but am coming around to it. Prospect value is defined solely by the market - so it is was it is. And if they were aquiring a Closer, Kimbrel was a hell of a lot more attractive then a one year rental of Chapman. Plus we kept the premium guys.

The other thing I think is Guerra .. It's highly possible the Sox thought his breakout was a bit of a fluke - especially in the power department. Weren't there reports during the summer that most of his HRs were of the "down the RF line into a short porch" variety? DD may very well have thought he was selling high here.
 
Aug 22, 2014
61
Maybe you should, if only Koji hadn't broken his throwing wrist last season. But he did, so you shouldnt.

Getting Kimbrel to re-anchor the back of the bullpen is a really strong move to better the team. Not only because he's a terrific pitcher, and still has three years on his contract, but also because Koji's injury makes him such a risk for next season.

The certainty of being able to rely on Kimbrel for the last outs should make sorting out next season's bullpen roles and uncertainties much easier for Farrell to navigate throughout the season.
but isn't the "relief ace" the more demanding role?
 
Aug 22, 2014
61
All those complaining about overpaying for Kimbrel, what's your alternative?

Until yesterday, the Sox had probably the worst bullpen in the majors, headlined by a guy who's turning 41 before opening day, and with the only other reliable pitcher having fallen apart last summer (and only under team control for one more year anyway). Fixing the bullpen was by far the #1 priority this offseason, and they needed players who could anchor the bullpen after Koji and Taz were both gone. Who better than Kimbrel?

OK, fine, bellyache all you want about the prospects you've fallen in love with. But there's no way that a bullpen with Darren O'Day and a few spare parts would have put the team into serious contention for the next three years. A deal like this was really the only way to go, and I'm sure every other potential trade partner knew that. So yeah, the price was a bit high for Kimbrel. But all the Margots and Guerras in the world won't help when your bullpen can't hold a two-run lead.
well i think if we look at, say, the playoff bullpens this year we'd find that they were built mostly with internal failed starters and free agents. not sure any of them were built by paying a high price for a proven closer.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
The ability to bid the highest -- as Boggs pointed out -- is the most important driver, of course.

I hear your point and mine is not that DD just made some massive blunder. I just don't see any benefit in telling agents that the Sox have one fewer means of addressing their need. And I guess I just wonder why Dave feels like the public needs to know that he will no longer entertain trades. Why go there? Even if it doesn't hurt that much, I can't think of any benefit to the Sox in announcing that. Candor is nice but not when it even marginally reduces leverage.
I think the prices for these guys is pretty much known and has been set by previous FA crops at this point. Agents for Price/Greinke will point to Scherzer, Verlander, etc. Agents for Cueto/Zimmermann will point to Lester and his tier. The next level down will likely point to Porcello, Bailey and their caliber. I see what you're saying, but it's not like Boras is going to ask for $5M/yr from the Sox because DD said what he said.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
well i think if we look at, say, the playoff bullpens this year we'd find that they were built mostly with internal failed starters and free agents. not sure any of them were built by paying a high price for a proven closer.
Does it matter how you get the pieces or that you have them? It'd be great to build the pen from within, unfortunately it's not an option right now.
 
Aug 22, 2014
61
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.
well i think there's a pretty solid principle that has been written a ton about regarding how poor investments relievers are, and how quickly their fortunes can change, even the good ones. we have mucho recent experience with this ourselves with bailey, melancon, etc. we also know this means that good relievers can be found for cheap regularly - uehara and tazawa being examples.

so it's not just about the prospects.
 
Aug 22, 2014
61
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?

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.

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.
last year we were told that everything went wrong in 2014 and that most would naturally correct itself in 2015. didn't happen. I wouldn't expect an organic improvememt of 10+ wins from this group of players next year, either. especially not based on a babip infused late season hot streak after we were already oi
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?

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.

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.
Last year we were told that everything went wrong in 2014 and we could expect huge improvement from natural bouncebacks in 2015. didn't happen. I wouldn't expect an organic 10+ win improvement from this roster next year. That seems wildly optimistic for any team. There's a number of key contributors i'm worried will be significantly worse. I don't put a lot of stock in our late season "surge" either, when it could just have been a babip infused late season hot streak when we were already way out of it.
 
Aug 22, 2014
61
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.
that is the first post on the thread that makes me feel better about this trade. thank you.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
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
Is this supposed to make us feel better about what they gave up in this deal? Because any such "talks" that don't end with Dombrowski laughing would be disturbing. Four prospects and a major leaguer of some quality (possibly a lot) for one year of a closer would be grounds for dismissal. Since it's Cafardo I'll assume he's just mentioning that hypothetical so we feel more grateful for the Kimbrel deal. I'm for the deal, but very suspicious of what seems like an agenda at the Globe to trade all the young guys.
 

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
538
Or Cafardo was just lying?
Kimbrel was a bit of a different animal than Chapman, in terms of club control,” says new Reds GM Dick Williams. “We didn’t feel like we missed out on a deal with them. There will be other teams that are interested in Chapman.”
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
What is the harm in ridiculous offers coming in? Wasted time on the phone? Even a ridiculous offer gives you more information than you had before it was made.

And Bob, how could it not increase the free agent pitchers' leverage. Yes, DD may be planning to act quickly, but if you are an agent, you know that Dave intends to get a front line starter and, if he is to be believed about the trading angle being cut off, has only one means to achieve his goal. Wouldn't that encourage you to ask for more from DD?

Even if you say that it's not a big deal because DD can just change his mind and can remind agents that he is always free to do that, I don't see what benefit Dombrowski gets in being so candid.
The harm in a ridiculous offer is that your peers won't take you seriously. You do it enough if they won't take your phone calls.

This isn't a Sunday-Funday fantasy football league where you try to snooker Megatron out of your friend for Jimmy Garrapolo.

It's partly the reason why Reuben Amaro is our first base coach now.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Where does Carlos Carrasco get us, though? I'm not seeing where he is the guy to lead the rotation, at least not in the sense many of us are pounding the table for. He's a nice pitcher and he had a good year, but it's not like he's an established "ace". We all say how the goal is to find the next breakout candidate and I completely agree with that, but I don't think you try to find that guy and make him your ace from day one. You find that guy by already having an ace and making a shrewd acquisition to fill a lower spot in the rotation and then let that guy blossom. The guys like Carrasco or Salazar fit that mold of acquisition -the young guy that shows promise and is ready to break out - but the team doesn't fit the details of having an established guy to carry the burden while he develops more.

So if you traded the same package for Carrasco, were you comfortable going into next season with a rotation of Carrasco/Buch/Porcello/Rodriguez/Miley? Personally, I wouldn't be, but I'm open to someone convincing me. In that event, I would still want them to sign a true established guy. So end of day, if the choices were trade the same guys for a more trust worthy closer and sign a a more trust worthy SP - as opposed to trading for a potential stud and paying for relievers who aren't as established - I much prefer that route, even if it costs more money.
Yes, I feel comfortable with Carrasco as the #1, although I've felt all along that we should be looking for two front end starters this offseason. So I would have either signed a fa to go with him or traded Swart for Quintana and gone with Carrasco, Quintana, Buchholz, Porcello, Edro. Then trade the excess starters for bullpen help.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
well i think there's a pretty solid principle that has been written a ton about regarding how poor investments relievers are, and how quickly their fortunes can change, even the good ones. we have mucho recent experience with this ourselves with bailey, melancon, etc. we also know this means that good relievers can be found for cheap regularly - uehara and tazawa being examples.
Oh, so it's that easy. Got it.

last year we were told that everything went wrong in 2014 and that most would naturally correct itself in 2015. didn't happen. I wouldn't expect an organic improvememt of 10+ wins from this group of players next year, either. especially not based on a babip infused late season hot streak after we were already oi


Last year we were told that everything went wrong in 2014 and we could expect huge improvement from natural bouncebacks in 2015. didn't happen. I wouldn't expect an organic 10+ win improvement from this roster next year. That seems wildly optimistic for any team. There's a number of key contributors i'm worried will be significantly worse. I don't put a lot of stock in our late season "surge" either, when it could just have been a babip infused late season hot streak when we were already way out of it.
that is the first post on the thread that makes me feel better about this trade. thank you.
With the late-breaking admission that you actually don't know the first thing about the players involved, maybe it's time to slow your roll in here for a lil while.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Does it matter how you get the pieces or that you have them? It'd be great to build the pen from within, unfortunately it's not an option right now.
This. The fact that other teams have won championships without spending big in talent or $ to acquire an elite reliever doesn't mean that acquiring an elite reliever isn't going to help you win a championship. It just means that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

As for the volatility of reliever performance, not to suggest it isn't real--it's inherent in the IP/BF sample size to some degree--but I think it's less real for elite relievers. From 1990 through 2012 there are five relievers who racked up at least 90 saves, 10.0 K/9, and 150 or better ERA+ through their age 25-27 seasons. Here's how they did in those departments for their age 28-30 seasons:

Jonathan Papelbon: 106, 10.8, 154
Billy Wagner: 80, 10.6, 142
John Wetteland: 105, 9.4, 189
Joakim Soria: 18, 10.1, 118
Francisco Rodriguez: 51, 9.8, 126

So, three out of five of these guys remained elite. One missed his age-28 year after TJ surgery and came back a still useful but no longer elite reliever. One declined gradually over the three years, but was a solid contributor throughout that time. Aside from Soria's TJ year, all of them continued to hold important bullpen jobs through age 30, and none of them sucked.

Obviously five guys is a really small sample, but it would have to be, since few relievers are anywhere near as good as Kimbrel. And FWIW, the recent evidence suggests that mid-20s relievers who are as good as Kimbrel has been for the past three years tend to be pretty good for the next three years as well.
 

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,167
Sydney, Australia
Is this supposed to make us feel better about what they gave up in this deal? Because any such "talks" that don't end with Dombrowski laughing would be disturbing. Four prospects and a major leaguer of some quality (possibly a lot) for one year of a closer would be grounds for dismissal. Since it's Cafardo I'll assume he's just mentioning that hypothetical so we feel more grateful for the Kimbrel deal. I'm for the deal, but very suspicious of what seems like an agenda at the Globe to trade all the young guys.
Let's try to keep in mind that the (World Series winning) GM previous was dismissed (in part) for for not trading away any of the plethora of prospects for ML-ready help. The bullpen was a disaster last year, even after the team started hitting in August. I think it's a given that more minor leaguers will go as they seek to improve the 25 man roster. You can only horde talent for so long before you have to place some bets about who you think will pay off eventually versus who will not. I am not really calling out this post as much as the general discomfort with trading prospects that I am hearing in this thread and on the board at the moment.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
Last year we were told that everything went wrong in 2014 and we could expect huge improvement from natural bouncebacks in 2015. didn't happen. I wouldn't expect an organic 10+ win improvement from this roster next year. That seems wildly optimistic for any team. There's a number of key contributors i'm worried will be significantly worse. I don't put a lot of stock in our late season "surge" either, when it could just have been a babip infused late season hot streak when we were already way out of it.
Okay... so your view is that single recent seasons are generally more predictive than career norms? Not sure I agree.

Who will be significantly (say, more than a win) worse? Bogaerts, Holt and Swihart had elevated BABIPs, which we'd expect to regress somewhat. But both Bogaerts and Swihart also showed less power than they had shown in the minors, which we'd expect them (at their ages) to get nearer to tapping into in games. I wouldn't be the least surprised if Holt is worse in 2016; I also expect him to be traded.

(Ramirez and Sandoval both had very, very low BABIPs, FWIW.)

I'm not sure if you read my spoiler, but a large part of the upside I project is that I don't expect the team to tolerate two players playing at a -2 WAR rate for an entire season. LITERAL REPLACEMENT LEVEL PERFORMANCE — just starting Marrero and Shaw, say — from 1B and 3B would be a four win improvement over what we had last season, even if Hanley is unplayable at first and Sandoval can no longer play baseball.

We don't need that much growth out of our young, athletic up-the-middle two-way players to get us to where we're close enough to contending that acquiring a closer makes sense, which is what I was trying to determine. And if you're not expecting improvement from those players collectively... why not?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Yes, I feel comfortable with Carrasco as the #1, although I've felt all along that we should be looking for two front end starters this offseason. So I would have either signed a fa to go with him or traded Swart for Quintana and gone with Carrasco, Quintana, Buchholz, Porcello, Edro. Then trade the excess starters for bullpen help.
I guess we just have different ideas about what would make us feel confident. Carrasco doesn't have enough track record for me, but certainly reasonable minds can differ on that.

Let's try to keep in mind that the (World Series winning) GM previous was dismissed (in part) for for not trading away any of the plethora of prospects for ML-ready help. The bullpen was a disaster last year, even after the team started hitting in August. I think it's a given that more minor leaguers will go as they seek to improve the 25 man roster. You can only horde talent for so long before you have to place some bets about who you think will pay off eventually versus who will not. I am not really calling out this post as much as the general discomfort with trading prospects that I am hearing in this thread and on the board at the moment.
Wait, what? Are you referring to Ben Cherington? Because he wasn't dismissed. If you want to call bringing in DD kind of default dismissal, ok, but BC had Luchino over him before that and the role needed to be filled. I'm not sure that move was made because BC didn't trade enough prospects. I think that move was made because while they saw the value in the farm system BC had built, they didn't have a whole lot of faith in his ability to build the major league roster, via trade or FA signing.

And just for clarity on the bolded - are you implying that BC should have made trades to acquire bullpen help in July or August? This season was cooked long before that. I'm not sure we would have looked too kindly on him moving any pieces, no matter how small, to trade for a reliever after about mid June or so. Trading for the entire KC bullpen wasn't making a difference by that point.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Last year we were told that everything went wrong in 2014 and we could expect huge improvement from natural bouncebacks in 2015. didn't happen. I wouldn't expect an organic 10+ win improvement from this roster next year. That seems wildly optimistic for any team. There's a number of key contributors i'm worried will be significantly worse. I don't put a lot of stock in our late season "surge" either, when it could just have been a babip infused late season hot streak when we were already way out of it.
That's not what happened and not what was said. The lineup disappointed for awhile but got going, and if you don't believe this is a good lineup I'm not sure what to say. The big risk for 2016 is an Ortiz injury or stubbornness in not benching underperforming players (e.g. if Ramirez/Sandoval/Castillo struggle).

What was said last year, basically, was that if we get 2014 Porcello, 2013 Kelly, 2012 Miley, pre-2014 Masterson and a healthy Buchholz the team could be very good. Everyone knew there was a collapse potential based on the number of ifs in that equation.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
Let's try to keep in mind that the (World Series winning) GM previous was dismissed (in part) for for not trading away any of the plethora of prospects for ML-ready help. The bullpen was a disaster last year, even after the team started hitting in August. I think it's a given that more minor leaguers will go as they seek to improve the 25 man roster. You can only horde talent for so long before you have to place some bets about who you think will pay off eventually versus who will not. I am not really calling out this post as much as the general discomfort with trading prospects that I am hearing in this thread and on the board at the moment.
The discomfort comes from trying to remember that the best Sox teams always have a strong core of homegrown stars. 1946, 1967, 1975, 1986, 2004, 2007 and 2013 could not have happened without quality Sox developed talent. Spending like the Yankees might work for a while if you are the Yankees but, as recent seasons show, even the Yankees can't remain on top just by spending. 2 out of the 3 last place finishes for the Sox prove that spending money can't always buy happiness.

The Sox farm system, even after the Kimbrel trade, is probably among their best ever with its most recent graduates already impacting the major league team. There is a big difference between trading for an elite closer in the off season (with the trade of Kimbrel caliber closers virtually unprecedented in ML history) and trading for Larry Anderson, Heathcliff Slocumb and Andrew Miller at the trade deadline. Overpaying in prospects for less than elite closers isn't the same thing as acquiring an elite signed closer going into his prime who compares favorably with the best closers ever. Worrying about trading away prospects is a healthy sign for Sox fans. The bottom line is that the Sox have nobody remotely like Kimbrel in their system (few teams ever have) and, though the quality and quantity of the 4 prospects sacrificed yields scary visions of losing another Cooper, Bagwell or Rizzo, they did not trade for an overpaid aging past his prime "name" player. They got a team controlled fairly priced elite closer just reaching his prime.

Prospects and elite emerging starters are no longer plentiful or available commodities these days. As much as anyone would covet Sonny Gray, Sale and Carrasco, they are now a scarce commodity that are too costly to acquire in terms of prospects. Except for the 2 months immediately after his unexpected opening day trade, Kimbrel has been as consistent as you would expect any elite closer to be. His availability in trades twice in less than 1 year is astounding. Other than Bruce Sutter, there are never cost controlled elite closers available to acquire in their primes. This is far beyond a market inefficiency to exploit, it's a market scarcity that is unlikely to change anytime soon again.

The Sox are lucky to have potential future aces Rodriguez and Espinoza in their system. The probability that they will succeed in the majors while they are cost controlled Sox pitchers, seems much greater than the probability of acquiring a Gray, Sale or Carrasco that any team would be foolish to trade away until the possibility of losing such a pitcher to free agency is imminent.

It's hard to see DD trading more of his elite youngsters unless you value someone like Syndergaard (from the Mets pitching surplus) more than Bogaerts. 6 years of Thor every 5th day could be arguably more valuable than 4 years of Boras controlled Bogaerts. This too seems like an unlikely possibility though the teams seem like a match. However, unless you can acquire Syndergaard or maybe Matz, Bogaerts and Betts should be close to untouchable.