The "Too Soon to Judge The Kelly/Craig Trade?" Thread.

[Drek717]

He's also ignoring the fact the Joe Kelly never played for Dave Duncan, who retired the year before smelly made the majors. So, no, not Dave Duncan smoke and mirrors. Sorry.

A. you made this same comment in that thread, which I replied to directly.
 
B. Dave Duncan 1. was directly involved in scouting and drafting Joe Kelly in the 3rd round (he was involved with all pitchers selected during his tenure, FYI) 2. has spoken at great lengths about how much potential he think Kelly has, and 3. has directly taken credit for transitioning Kelly from a reliever (which he was in college) to a starter.
 
As for the trade as a whole, I'm honestly much more optimistic on Kelly now than I was last deadline.  He's made some strong progress.  Up until this season he was a guy with great raw stuff but couldn't consistently command it (resulting in wheels fell off innings) and couldn't channel that raw stuff into strikeouts.  So far this season it looks like he's figured out the later of those two issues.  Given another three years of control I'm very interested to see what happens if he figures out the former.  If not I would now have great confidence in him being an elite bullpen arm starting next season if there is reason to push someone out of the rotation.
 
Those additional years of control will likely make him worth more than Lackey, so not a bad deal.
 
I personally view the Craig acquisition under the following conditions: not knowing the Sox were going to get Castillo, Hanley, and Sandoval shortly thereafter, knowing Papi's age and Napoli's health/inconsistency concerns, would any of us have objected to the Sox submitting a claim on Craig if he was put on waivers at the deadline instead of traded?  The opportunity cost of just money for a guy with Craig's recent history should have been far too enticing for an offense strapped Sox club to turn down.  They happened to remove the need for Craig in 2015 via three successive acquisitions, but I'd rather have too much instead of too little.  Now he's got a chance to play every day in AAA and get his swing back right.  If he does he'll be a huge asset in 2016.  If he doesn't, well, it's not like the Sox are going to dip into the red over Craig's contract.
 
So basically young, years of control, lot of upside Kelly for the last bit of Lackey's value, 1/3rd of which is constrained to a season the Sox have no chance in, with the Craig lottery ticket thrown in as a sweetener.  I hated it at the time because I felt like Lackey should have been getting a real prospect haul and seeing him go to a team with the prospect chips but getting none of them was a real bummer.  It wasn't the trade deadline heist that a few months of Andrew Miller for Eduardo Rodriguez was, but then it isn't fair to judge any deals by that standard.

 

[moondog80]

I personally view the Craig acquisition under the following conditions: not knowing the Sox were going to get Castillo, Hanley, and Sandoval shortly thereafter, knowing Papi's age and Napoli's health/inconsistency concerns, would any of us have objected to the Sox submitting a claim on Craig if he was put on waivers at the deadline instead of traded?  The opportunity cost of just money for a guy with Craig's recent history should have been far too enticing for an offense strapped Sox club to turn down.  They happened to remove the need for Craig in 2015 via three successive acquisitions, but I'd rather have too much instead of too little.  Now he's got a chance to play every day in AAA and get his swing back right.  If he does he'll be a huge asset in 2016.  If he doesn't, well, it's not like the Sox are going to dip into the red over Craig's contract.
 

 
Castillo/Hanley/Panda didn't just fall out of the sky, I think there was at least some idea they'd be adding bats beyond Craig.  And don't forget, they had already acquired Cespedes.   Even without Castillo/Hanley, they had Bradley/Vic/Nava/Betts/Cespedes in the OF.  There was never a point where Craig fit into the roster for 2015.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
Castillo/Hanley/Panda didn't just fall out of the sky, I think there was at least some idea they'd be adding bats beyond Craig.  And don't forget, they had already acquired Cespedes.   Even without Castillo/Hanley, they had Bradley/Vic/Nava/Betts/Cespedes in the OF.  There was never a point where Craig fit into the roster for 2015.

 
You need to think of him as a bat.  If Craig rebounded, he was Nap/Ortiz/Corner OF insurance.   He's 30, and signed through 2017 with a 2018 team option.  Pre-injury, he was a high .800 OPS type player.  
 
Also, Craig was traded for in July 31 of 2014 (same day as Cespedes).  Betts had been up for 10 games at that point and his OPS was 660.  JBJ was in freefall.  Gomes was toast (and sent to Oakland w/ Lester for Cespedes).   Sizemore had been canned, and Brockholt! was cooling off.  So the trades for Cespedes and Craig made perfect sense. 
 
In the 2014 off-season, Hanley and Castillo sort of did fall out of the sky.  Was anyone saying mid-season that the Sox were a mortal lock on either and that Hanley would change positions?  Craig had little or no trade value at that point, and so we flipped Cespedes for Porcello (with Hanley and Castillo added to the mix.)
 
However, at the end of the 2014 off-season, there was no guarantee that Nap (major surgery) or Ortiz (age) were going to be effective, or that the OF was going to gel.  You can't guarantee a viable 4 man OF out of:  Vic (injury), Nava (quasi-age and recent suck), JBJ (suck), Betts (sophomore), Hanley (new position/new league), Castillo (new to MLB). 
 
Craig had perhaps some trade value in spring training, but was there a partner?  And did we want to trade him if he could potentially recover and produce?
 
Dumping on the RS for acquiring and/or keeping Craig is kind of revisionist history.  

 

[In my lifetime]

After his performance in 2014, Craig had no value, i.e. negative value, coming into spring training. He certainly wasn't needed then (pre-Castillo injury) and I am sure if the RS had any teams interested they would have been happy to eat a little salary to move him.

The RS in order to not eat substantial salary needed him to show in the spring that he was recovered from 2014. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Hence, they are stuck with him and have only 3 choices: 1. DFA and eat his salary 2. Eat his salary and trade him for a bag of balls. 3. Send him to AAA and hope he figures it out to increase his trade value or become a viable bat for the team.

 

[Drek717]

 
Castillo/Hanley/Panda didn't just fall out of the sky, I think there was at least some idea they'd be adding bats beyond Craig.  And don't forget, they had already acquired Cespedes.   Even without Castillo/Hanley, they had Bradley/Vic/Nava/Betts/Cespedes in the OF.  There was never a point where Craig fit into the roster for 2015.

Hanley  more or less did fall out of the sky, pursuing Boston at least as much as they pursued him, by most FA prognosticator's estimates leaving at least some money and definitely some years on the table and changing positions to come here.  On Sandoval they were neck and neck with the Giants, his desire to go somewhere new and Ortiz' strength as a pitchman weren't guarantees the Sox could plan for.
 
Also, Cespedes was a 1.3 year rental at that point with no ability to attach a Q.O. to him.  He was an asset, but one just as easily moved as not (as we saw once they'd gotten enough additional bats in-house).
 
Craig meanwhile was a 1B/corner OF option with multiple years of cost control at a reasonable price tag.  I still think the real judgement on picking up Allen Craig will come in 2016 if/when he can step in to replace one of Ortiz or Napoli in the lineup.  He was acquired because the FO sees a scarcity of good bats as an ongoing concern, not just a scarcity of good bats for 2015.
 
Honestly, I think the current status of this deal is as optimal for the Red Sox as possible short of an everything coming up roses scenario where Kelly suddenly put it all together and looks like a good #2 starter and Craig hitting like it's 2012.  Kelly looks to have made some legitimate maturation as a pitcher, translating his impressive raw stuff into superior pitch-ability and generating more strikeouts.  Craig looks physically healthy, just caked in layers of rust, but is now assigned to AAA where he can get regular ABs, beat up on some AAAA pitching, and get both his timing and his confidence back.

 

[lexrageorge]

Any team taking a flyer on Craig prior to spring training would likely ask the Sox to eat most of his contract.  At that point, there is little reason for the Sox to dump Craig aside from freeing up a spot at the bottom of the 40-man roster.  Right now, Craig's in AAA.  Probable best case is that he lights up AAA and makes it less painful for the Sox to get something of marginal value back in a trade.  Downside is that Craig never gets back, and the Sox have to eat the remainder of his contract

 

[aron7awol]

After his performance in 2014, Craig had no value, i.e. negative value, coming into spring training. He certainly wasn't needed then (pre-Castillo injury) and I am sure if the RS had any teams interested they would have been happy to eat a little salary to move him.

The RS in order to not eat substantial salary needed him to show in the spring that he was recovered from 2014. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Hence, they are stuck with him and have only 3 choices: 1. DFA and eat his salary 2. Eat his salary and trade him for a bag of balls. 3. Send him to AAA and hope he figures it out to increase his trade value or become a viable bat for the team.

I just don't think you can say so definitively that Craig had zero or negative value coming into Spring Training.  I don't remember ever seeing any public trade offers that were rejected.  For all we know, Ben may have been receiving offers left and right for Craig, just none that he felt were worth accepting given the team's higher valuation of Craig than the market was dictating.
 
Now obviously I can't say definitively that was the case, either, but baseball teams have some really smart people making these decisions, and I just find it hard to believe that no teams out there think he will be worth 4+ WAR in the next 2.8 seasons, if they also think he is now healthy or will be healthy soon.  He's 30 years old with an established track record of a high BABIP through the minors and a career .321 BABIP in MLB despite 2014 at .266 and 2015 at .176 so far.  The stats from 2014 should probably be ignored due to injury, but even still, his xAVG last year was .274.  His xAVG this year is .253.  The batted ball profile hasn't dropped off too much.  He's continued to hit 20%+ line drives through 2014 and into 2015, which is right where Pedroia stands for his career, 20.7%.
 
In any case, throw out 2014 for injury and you have way too small a sample to judge him by for 2015.  At that point all you have to go by is his earlier seasons, and there is nothing bad to see.  I think plenty of teams would be willing to bet that he bounces back to something close to that level, given his age and assuming the injury isn't going to affect him chronically.  The fact that he can be sent to AAA is just icing on the cake.  It's a no-brainer to send him down rather than release him so he can go bounce back for some other team.  Sure, his defense is bad, but there are AL teams starting worse hitters at DH, and he was a 2.5 WAR player in each of 2012 and 2013 despite really bad defense.  2.5 WAR is nothing to sneeze at, being worth close to 20M on the free agent market.  His contract still looks great to me.
 
Edit: 1M buyout on 2018 option makes minimum owed 26.5M.  At $7M/WAR, that's only 3.8 WAR.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

I just don't think you can say so definitively that Craig had zero or negative value coming into Spring Training.  I don't remember ever seeing any public trade offers that were rejected.  For all we know, Ben may have been receiving offers left and right for Craig, just none that he felt were worth accepting given the team's higher valuation of Craig than the market was dictating.
 
Now obviously I can't say definitively that was the case, either, but baseball teams have some really smart people making these decisions, and I just find it hard to believe that no teams out there think he will be worth 4+ WAR in the next 2.8 seasons, if they also think he is now healthy or will be healthy soon.  He's 30 years old with an established track record of a high BABIP through the minors and a career .321 BABIP in MLB despite 2014 at .266 and 2015 at .176 so far.  The stats from 2014 should probably be ignored due to injury, but even still, his xAVG last year was .274.  His xAVG this year is .253.  The batted ball profile hasn't dropped off too much.  He's continued to hit 20%+ line drives through 2014 and into 2015, which is right where Pedroia stands for his career, 20.7%.
 
In any case, throw out 2014 for injury and you have way too small a sample to judge him by for 2015.  At that point all you have to go by is his earlier seasons, and there is nothing bad to see.  I think plenty of teams would be willing to bet that he bounces back to something close to that level, given his age and assuming the injury isn't going to affect him chronically.  The fact that he can be sent to AAA is just icing on the cake.  It's a no-brainer to send him down rather than release him so he can go bounce back for some other team.  Sure, his defense is bad, but there are AL teams starting worse hitters at DH, and he was a 2.5 WAR player in each of 2012 and 2013 despite really bad defense.  2.5 WAR is nothing to sneeze at, being worth close to 20M on the free agent market.  His contract still looks great to me.
 
Edit: 1M buyout on 2018 option makes minimum owed 26.5M.  At $7M/WAR, that's only 3.8 WAR.

 
I'm amazed you were able to type this while squinting so hard

 

[aron7awol]

 
I'm amazed you were able to type this while squinting so hard

Injured previous all-stars still in their primes are a market inefficiency that smart teams take advantage of.  I'm sorry that you think my being happy that the Red Sox made a smart move means I'm squinting.  

 

[Plympton91]

Injured previous all-stars still in their primes are a market inefficiency that smart teams take advantage of.  I'm sorry that you think my being happy that the Red Sox made a smart move means I'm squinting.  

 
Well, if there are teams taking advantage of them, that actually is pretty damning of the Red Sox. How much money have they spent on Brad Penny, John Smoltz, Sizemore, Craig, Andrew Bailey, Eric Bedard, etc to cumulative negative WAR effect.
 
Dan Duquette used to be pretty good at it, but even then for every Bret Saberhagen in 1998 there was a contract extension for Bret Saberhagen 99-01 and a Ramon Martinez disaster.
 
I suppose Rich Hill gave them a few good innings one year, but other than that, it doesn't seem like the Red Sox are very good at this particular "market inefficiency."

 

[radsoxfan]

At $7M/WAR, that's only 3.8 WAR.

 
I'm sure I am falling victim to the recency bias that you are describing, but I'll take the under on 4 more WAR for Allan Craig.  
 
I hope there are some GMs out there that agree with you though, because it would be nice to be able to trade him without having to eat any money. 

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Well, if there are teams taking advantage of them, that actually is pretty damning of the Red Sox. How much money have they spent on Brad Penny, John Smoltz, Sizemore, Craig, Andrew Bailey, Eric Bedard, etc to cumulative negative WAR effect.
 
Dan Duquette used to be pretty good at it, but even then for every Bret Saberhagen in 1998 there was a contract extension for Bret Saberhagen 99-01 and a Ramon Martinez disaster.
 
I suppose Rich Hill gave them a few good innings one year, but other than that, it doesn't seem like the Red Sox are very good at this particular "market inefficiency."

Victorino in 2013 (you could argue a 3 year deal was a bad idea, but he bounced back big from an injury hampered year),
Not all-stars but players who had been good that they took buy lows on:
Drew, Aviles, Beltre,

 

[aron7awol]

 
Well, if there are teams taking advantage of them, that actually is pretty damning of the Red Sox. How much money have they spent on Brad Penny, John Smoltz, Sizemore, Craig, Andrew Bailey, Eric Bedard, etc to cumulative negative WAR effect.
 
Dan Duquette used to be pretty good at it, but even then for every Bret Saberhagen in 1998 there was a contract extension for Bret Saberhagen 99-01 and a Ramon Martinez disaster.
 
I suppose Rich Hill gave them a few good innings one year, but other than that, it doesn't seem like the Red Sox are very good at this particular "market inefficiency."

I should have been more specific in that frequently injured pitchers or pitchers with shoulder injuries aren't part of the market inefficiency.  I suppose young pitchers coming off of TJ would qualify.  I'd say out of your list only Sizemore and Craig qualify.  I actually think it's still too soon to give up on Sizemore.  After 4 years of injury I would give him at least a full season's worth of consistent PA (preferably in AAA) before I start to judge him. Unfortunately, he's not getting consistent playing time, nor has he since August of 2014.
 

 
I'm sure I am falling victim to the recency bias that you are describing, but I'll take the under on 4 more WAR for Allan Craig.  
 
I hope there are some GMs out there that agree with you though, because it would be nice to be able to trade him without having to eat any money. 

Do you think Craig's current struggles are due to his foot still nagging him, or do you think he's 100% healthy but he has lost the skills that made him a really good hitter?

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Do you think Craig's current struggles are due to his foot still nagging him, or do you think he's 100% healthy but he has lost the skills that made him a really good hitter?

 
Not sure, but if I had to guess, I wouldn't think his current performance is directly injury related.  Obviously Lisfranc injuries are potentially serious, but he didn't require surgery, the injury was a couple years ago, and he never relied on much athleticism anyway.  If anything, maybe the injury and time off got his mechanics out of whack and he hasn't ben able to re-figure it out. 
 
My pessimism isn't so much injury related as performance related.  In his prime, he wasn't really that good.  His career WAR accumulation according to fangraphs is 5.0, and he's going to be 31 in August. Even his best years he was a 2-2.5 WAR guy dragged down by terrible D.  Now he's even less athletic, and hasn't hit in 2 years.  
 
4 WAR isn't a huge number, and it's definitely not out of the realm of possibilities he could do that. But if I had to bet, I'd bet against it. 

 

[Stanley Steamer]

Really, it's no use complaining. The Cardinals have done so much for us over the past, say, eleven years that to get upset over a perceived slight in a trade where our primary goal was to blow it up is getting too picky. I thought the trade seemed fair at first glance, but we traded consistency for risk, and thus far, we'd rather have Lack back. I'm hopeful that Kelly may give us more in the end, but even if he washes out, we'll always have 2004 and 2013, and I feel that St.L gave us everything we wanted. It would be mean not to give them a little something in return.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

From the day we made the trade, I saw it as Lackey for Kelly with Craig being a makeweight. At the time I hated it. I wanted a year of Lackey to help keep the team competitive while transitioning to a younger staff.
 
But now, having watched him pitch, I'm happy to have Joe Kelly. He's got all the ingredients. He has an excuse (converted outfielder) to be a late bloomer. He's shown that when he keeps the ball down he's a mid-rotation starter. He's also shown the ability to miss bats more frequently this year. He seems durable and like he has a good makeup. He might never put all the ingredients together but looking back, IMO it was worth the shot.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

From the day we made the trade, I saw it as Lackey for Kelly with Craig being a makeweight. At the time I hated it. I wanted a year of Lackey to help keep the team competitive while transitioning to a younger staff.
 
But now, having watched him pitch, I'm happy to have Joe Kelly. He's got all the ingredients. He has an excuse (converted outfielder) to be a late bloomer. He's shown that when he keeps the ball down he's a mid-rotation starter. He's also shown the ability to miss bats more frequently this year. He seems durable and like he has a good makeup. He might never put all the ingredients together but looking back, IMO it was worth the shot.

 
Well summarized. Enough talent there to still have a real shot at being a Derek Lowe-ish starter or a high-leverage reliever. Certainly worth the gamble for one (admittedly great bang-for-buck) year of Lackey.