Would you trade Devers+ for Soto?

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
61,858
Would you have traded Mookie Betts because he was a 5th round pick and players emerge every year from all over the draft? People are seriously undervaluing Triston Casas and how easy it would be to replace him. He's ranked just as high as Marcelo Mayer but he's easy to replace and Marcelo isn't because reasons.
It's significantly because of position.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Soto is a generational talent though

Similarity scores through 22
  1. Mike Trout (956.3)
  2. Frank Robinson (955.8) *
  3. Bryce Harper (944.3)
  4. Miguel Cabrera (943.8)
  5. Mickey Mantle (927.9) *
  6. Tony Conigliaro (921.1)
  7. Henry Aaron (918.7) *
  8. Orlando Cepeda (911.5) *
  9. Giancarlo Stanton (909.4)
  10. Ken Griffey Jr. (908.6)
A bunch of 1st ballot HOF'ers plus Conigliaro, Harper (probable HOF'er) and Stanton (possible HOF'er)
That's fine. I would not make the deal but the question was how did the Dodgers farm system stay in tact. By only giving up 1 top 20 talent and 2 prospects that actually are of the replaceable kind.

If the Sox made the trade some people want them to, there would be literally no way to have a top farm system. You aren't replacing that much top level talent in a year or two. It would be a process. We are just getting out of that process now.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
44,871
Right, and when those player emerge, you keep them. You don't trade them.

They have other ways of obtaining talent like Mayer too. Players emerge every year from all over the draft, as you said. So why not trade him too? Why does his draft position matter if players emerge every year from all over the draft? What is the difference?

Mayer was considered a top 20 prospect right out of the draft and Casas wasn't? Why does it matter after Casas has established himself as a prospect on the level of Mayer and is much closer to the big leagues?

Would you have traded Mookie Betts because he was a 5th round pick and players emerge every year from all over the draft? People are seriously undervaluing Triston Casas and how easy it would be to replace him. He's ranked just as high as Marcelo Mayer but he's easy to replace and Marcelo isn't because reasons.
Where did I say that that Casas will be "easy to replace"? What I said was that they would have more opportunities to get guys like Casas, Bello, and Yorke. That doesn't make it easy - it's just reality. There will be more drafts. More good players will emerge. Mayer and Casas won't be the last top 20 prospects that the Red Sox have. Getting guys with Mayers' pre-draft pedigree likely won't be as easy for a team that doesn't figure to draft in the Top 5 very often. That's why I made that distinction.

It's clear we simply have a different approach to prospects and team building. I don't begrudge you for your opinion. You clearly don't agree with mine. That's fine.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It's significantly because of position.
That's fair. Quite a bit of Casas value is in offensive projection due to age and level. Mayer has everything covered and is already producing. I just wouldn't say the Sox will have plenty of opportunities to land a player like Casas. No, they won't. It might be slightly better odds than landing a player like Mayer. Top 20 prospects don't grow on trees. Many teams don't have one.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
67,323
Yeah, first baseman mostly don't get nearly enough respect, maybe because it is far down the 'defensive spectrum' and people seem to be under the assumption that basically anyone can move there and play it well. But it's as difficult a position as any to fill well, NY had trouble for years between Teixeira and Rizzo and BOS is having trouble right now.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,677
There’s a decent shot that Casas’ “replacement” ends up being Devers, eventually. I don’t think a ton of people would mind that outcome.

I have no idea what the Nats are looking for specifically, but I do wonder how they view offers that include top catching prospects. Those are volatile commodities and they just traded for one last year. The Dodgers (Cartaya), Mets (Alvarez), Cardinals (Herrera), Blue Jays (Moreno) and Padres (Campusano) all have backstops among their most valuable prospects. Along with a seeming ability to absorb Corbin’s contract, maybe the fact that the Sox top prospects aren’t behind the plate is fortunate here.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
44,871
There’s a decent shot that Casas’ “replacement” ends up being Devers, eventually. I don’t think a ton of people would mind that outcome.

I have no idea what the Nats are looking for specifically, but I do wonder how they view offers that include top catching prospects. Those are volatile commodities and they just traded for one last year. The Dodgers (Cartaya), Mets (Alvarez), Cardinals (Herrera), Blue Jays (Moreno) and Padres (Campusano) all have backstops among their most valuable prospects. Along with a seeming ability to absorb Corbin’s contract, maybe the fact that the Sox top prospects aren’t behind the plate is fortunate here.
You'd think they're looking for a combination of guys that can contribute now or very soon along with some upside guys that they can dream on. Casas would almost certainly be a necessity for us. Mayer would like be the guy you dream on who has the pedigree. No idea what they'd want to complete the package but I think the Sox have a nice mix of prospects to offer position-wise, which might be attractive to a team that basically needs everything.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
19,333
Yeah, first baseman mostly don't get nearly enough respect, maybe because it is far down the 'defensive spectrum' and people seem to be under the assumption that basically anyone can move there and play it well. But it's as difficult a position as any to fill well, NY had trouble for years between Teixeira and Rizzo and BOS is having trouble right now.
Very true. I wonder if Moneyball overly influenced that perception? If I have to watch Bobby and Franchy flounder around out there much more…
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Just looking at the Sox Prospects list

Name/Year acquired/how
Mayer 2021, draft
Casas 2018, draft
Bello 2017, IFA
Yorke 2020, draft
Walter 2019, draft
Mata 2016, draft
Bleis 2021, IFA
Rafaela 2017, IFA
Winckowski, 2021, trade
Murphy, 2019, draft.

So it took the Red Sox 7 years to acquire all of this talent. While prospects are "replaceable" it does take quite some time to replace them. None of the top 6 came in the same year.

Trading 6+ of these guys and having a top farm system just doesn't work. Rebuilding the farm with teams other elite prospects would probably require trading someone like Devers.

Maybe the Sox get lucky and draft a Casas clone next year. Then he spends 4-5 seasons in the minors. Outside of some incredible good fortune, I don't see a quick path to rebuilding the farm. That's fine if you think the Red Sox can just fill in with FA signings but those don't always work out either.

I get Covid plays some part in these numbers but Mata has been in the organization since 2016, missed 2 1/2 years to injury (so covid didn't matter) and turned 23 in May. Top talent takes awhile to acquire.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
This is old but this basically sums up my argument.

https://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

That drop off though.
53517

This article is more modern: https://www.twinkietown.com/2021/3/10/22314722/mlb-minnesota-twins-historical-context-top-100-prospect-future-value-kiriloff-lewis-larnach-jeffers

That article states that hitters ranked 1-20 on BA's top 100 list averaged 19 fWAR over their 6 controllable seasons. 42.5% of them met or exceeded 19 fWAR. Top 20 positional players are not like the others.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
Apr 3, 2001
43,727
Mtigawi
The way that I look at it is that we have to presume the Sox have a competitive advantage identifying and developing talent. Every single successful team these days needs to have some developed talent to offset the costs of acquiring or retaining top talent.

You are not trading away talent in that scenario. You are trading away the opportunity cost of those years that it takes to develop that talent. This is why I don’t like calling something a top ten system that is in large part based on the top end. If you have the financial resources, and have the solid track record of exercising those resources as the Sox do, then the equation may be different than looking at the farm system holistically. If you can fill the back end of your team entirely of cost controlled players who may have never sniffed a Top 25 player ranking then that would be a success. That allows you to spend a larger amount per player on the top end of the roster. That’s different than say Oakland where you need to develop talent to be your next stars (for five cost-controlled years atleast).

the main issue isn’t the names going away, it’s the composition and timing of what is leaving. Leaving the top end of the system barren for the messy two years would probably be worse than trading Mayer. With Mayer you have maybe 3 years to identify, develop or acquire other options.

(unless it’s Bagwell for Larry fucking Anderson that is)
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
44,871
The way that I look at it is that we have to presume the Sox have a competitive advantage identifying and developing talent. Every single successful team these days needs to have some developed talent to offset the costs of acquiring or retaining top talent.

You are not trading away talent in that scenario. You are trading away the opportunity cost of those years that it takes to develop that talent. This is why I don’t like calling something a top ten system that is in large part based on the top end. If you have the financial resources, and have the solid track record of exercising those resources as the Sox do, then the equation may be different than looking at the farm system holistically. If you can fill the back end of your team entirely of cost controlled players who may have never sniffed a Top 25 player ranking then that would be a success. That allows you to spend a larger amount per player on the top end of the roster. That’s different than say Oakland where you need to develop talent to be your next stars (for five cost-controlled years atleast).

the main issue isn’t the names going away, it’s the composition and timing of what is leaving. Leaving the top end of the system barren for the messy two years would probably be worse than trading Mayer. With Mayer you have maybe 3 years to identify, develop or acquire other options.

(unless it’s Bagwell for Larry fucking Anderson that is)
I think the simple reality is that if the Sox do choose to go the Soto route, they are making an explicit decision to flex their financial muscles. That means relying on FA more than they would like in the short-term, taking on bad deals to replenish their prospect pool, etc. The hope is that in the medium term, you've stabilized the farm, and the long-term isn't really impacted. To me, it ultimately comes down to price. If the price for the Sox is to give up Mayer/Casas/Bello and then 3 more guys on Cesar's list, then that's a tough pill to swallow, especially given the risk of Soto leaving in 2+ years.

If the price is more like Mayer, Yorke, Bello, and a few guys not on the list, then it's more palatable to me. Ultimately, I always prefer to cash in prospects for elite talent, when it's available. I wouldn't be so cavalier with trading Mayer, Casas, etc. if we were talking about Luis Castillo or something like that. In those scenarios, I am on Cesar's side.

But when transcendent talent is available, I almost always take that risk. But I absolutely understand that the risk level would be high, especially given the presence of Boras. I will say that I looked at the MLB.com Top 100 prospect list and every franchise but 1 (Phillies) has had a Top 20 prospect since 2019. If you move that up a year to 2020, the list grows to only 6 (Angels, Nationals, Brewers, Reds, Phillies, Rockies).
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
8,535
Along with a seeming ability to absorb Corbin’s contract, maybe the fact that the Sox top prospects aren’t behind the plate is fortunate here.

Corbin, Devers, Soto, Story, Paxton, and Sale would be ~$155m in ‘24 and 20 man short of a roster. I guess the team theoretically has the “ability” to do something like this, but the willingness?
 

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
61,858
Corbin, Devers, Soto, Story, Paxton, and Sale would be ~$155m in ‘24 and 20 man short of a roster. I guess the team theoretically has the “ability” to do something like this, but the willingness?
Based on that list of 6, neither Devers nor Soto is the problem. It’s overspending on the other 4 (Story may not be an overspend though but he’s not a transcendental talent).
I still prefer to team build by getting as many elite players as you can (Betts, Soto, Devers, would even include X and JDM recently) and fill
In the rest through farm and smart risk-controlled FA (not Sale at his age and bodytype , not Paxton/Richards at his injury history and not Story at the Coors Effect)
Corbin is a swallow to get Soto I guess.
 

Yaz4Ever

stumps for Trump
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
10,781
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Replacing Mayer is the toughest part of this. He was the #4 pick and probably should have gone #1. The Sox (hopefully) won't be in position to draft a guy like him for quite some time. But they will have plenty of opportunities to find more Casas', Bello's, Yorke's, etc. Guys like that will be available to the Sox every year in the draft. It all comes down to their scouting and develop. So, if you think that you have good people in place to keep that scouting machine going, I don't see why there would be a ton of angst about replacing them over the span of a few years. In the short-term, you may have to rely more on FA than you'd prefer to fill holes on the MLB team but in the long run, the farm system should be fine if your drafting/development operation is doing what it needs to do.
Even though we drafted 48 SS this year, he is still the toughest rumored piece to replace. That said, I would trade him and his clone for Soto without thinking twice. Prospects are far more replaceable than proven stars are to acquire, imho.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,677
Corbin, Devers, Soto, Story, Paxton, and Sale would be ~$155m in ‘24 and 20 man short of a roster. I guess the team theoretically has the “ability” to do something like this, but the willingness?
You say this like it’s self-evidently a problem. Would you mind doing a little more to show that it is?

The luxury tax threshold in ‘24 is $237M. Teams can spend up to $277M that year without getting bumped 10 spots in the draft. I think that Bloom could build the rest of that team well. We already know he spends almost nothing on the bullpen.

In your scenario, we don’t know Soto or Devers’ salary, whether Paxton’s option is picked up, or whether the Nats pay any of Corbin’s deal. And of course, Sale, Paxton and Corbin (about $65M) would be off the books the following year.

Seen another way, we have $28M in commitments in 2025, assuming X opts out. Add Devers and Soto to that ($65~M), and we have $93M, which is almost exactly where the Yankees, Phillies, and Angels are. If/when Turner re-ups with the Dodgers, they’re right there too.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
28,250
This is old but this basically sums up my argument.

https://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

That drop off though.
View attachment 53517

This article is more modern: https://www.twinkietown.com/2021/3/10/22314722/mlb-minnesota-twins-historical-context-top-100-prospect-future-value-kiriloff-lewis-larnach-jeffers

That article states that hitters ranked 1-20 on BA's top 100 list averaged 19 fWAR over their 6 controllable seasons. 42.5% of them met or exceeded 19 fWAR. Top 20 positional players are not like the others.
I think you are misreading the chart. There is no question from the data that the first 5 draft picks in the first round have an overwhelmingly better chance to have a successful career than (for example) the last five picks in the first round (and beyond). This article analyzed the 2005-2015 drafts and came up with this career WAR value chart.

53599

Yes, teams can find talents like Mayers in the later picks but it is way harder. That's why this article has the value of picks 1-5 in Rd 1 to be $45.5M, $41.6M, $38.2M, $34.8M, and $31.9M, respectively, while the value of picks 30-35 are $10.1M, $9.8M, $9.5M, $9.3M, and $9.0M, respectively.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think you are misreading the chart. There is no question from the data that the first 5 draft picks in the first round have an overwhelmingly better chance to have a successful career than (for example) the last five picks in the first round (and beyond). This article analyzed the 2005-2015 drafts and came up with this career WAR value chart.

View attachment 53599

Yes, teams can find talents like Mayers in the later picks but it is way harder. That's why this article has the value of picks 1-5 in Rd 1 to be $45.5M, $41.6M, $38.2M, $34.8M, and $31.9M, respectively, while the value of picks 30-35 are $10.1M, $9.8M, $9.5M, $9.3M, and $9.0M, respectively.
You are looking at something completely different. This is top 100 prospects, not picks.

Prospects are far more likely to work out than picks. Our 1st round pick this year is not a top 100 prospect.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
28,250
You are looking at something completely different. This is top 100 prospects, not picks.

Prospects are far more likely to work out than picks. Our 1st round pick this year is not a top 100 prospect.
OK. Going back through the thread I may have been misreading some of your posts but my basic argument is that prospects like Mayer are not easily "replaceable". If they were, Dombrowski could have done it (but did not). The way the system is currently set up, the most likely way to find premium talent is to pick in the first 5 picks every year. Like the Orioles did.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
OK. Going back through the thread I may have been misreading some of your posts but my basic argument is that prospects like Mayer are not easily "replaceable". If they were, Dombrowski could have done it (but did not). The way the system is currently set up, the most likely way to find premium talent is to pick in the first 5 picks every year. Like the Orioles did.
I don't disagree with any of this. My argument was that Casas isn't easily replaceable either. Premium talent is premium talent and just because the Sox happened to land a top 20 player with the 26th pick of the 1st round does not mean he's easily replaceable or that the Sox will have plenty of opportunities to replace him. Casas isn't that far off from Mayer. One is ranked 15, the other 19. To act like they'll have plenty of opportunity to replace one and not the other makes no sense to me.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
3,429
Most things in baseball come down to surplus value. You can pay your team $X. They need to produce $X+Y $ worth of wins for your team to be as awesome as possible.

If Soto is a free agent, signing him can be great. Take the risk, pay him his full market value, build the rest of your team as well as you can under whatever financial restraints are in place either from the league or ownership.

However, trading all your premium prospects for the opportunity to pay Soto full market value (since he won't be signing for a discount) cannot be a successful team-building model. You are trading away your young players who if they pan out would be providing you with the most surplus value, and trading for a great player who would be fun to have but is only going to be providing minimal surplus value over the course of the contract.

If the trade price is right & you're comfortable with the terms? Sure. But you only have so much money you can put into payroll, cutting off your options to fill out the rest of your budget around the new big-ticket player is tough. Keeping your own guys in the building, especially if they're happy & will be willing to take most, but not all, of full free market value to stay is great & the best way to differentiate yourselves from the Tampa Bay's of the world.

It's why the trade compensation for Mookie was always going to be disappointing as well. The whole thing is a process, & I trust Bloom will do the process right & get us to the place where we're a top contender basically every year - which is why I'm not surprised we're not really rumored to be in on Soto at the projected trade cost/salary
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
6,837
Florida/Montana
Most things in baseball come down to surplus value. You can pay your team $X. They need to produce $X+Y $ worth of wins for your team to be as awesome as possible.

If Soto is a free agent, signing him can be great. Take the risk, pay him his full market value, build the rest of your team as well as you can under whatever financial restraints are in place either from the league or ownership.

However, trading all your premium prospects for the opportunity to pay Soto full market value (since he won't be signing for a discount) cannot be a successful team-building model. You are trading away your young players who if they pan out would be providing you with the most surplus value, and trading for a great player who would be fun to have but is only going to be providing minimal surplus value over the course of the contract.

If the trade price is right & you're comfortable with the terms? Sure. But you only have so much money you can put into payroll, cutting off your options to fill out the rest of your budget around the new big-ticket player is tough. Keeping your own guys in the building, especially if they're happy & will be willing to take most, but not all, of full free market value to stay is great & the best way to differentiate yourselves from the Tampa Bay's of the world.

It's why the trade compensation for Mookie was always going to be disappointing as well. The whole thing is a process, & I trust Bloom will do the process right & get us to the place where we're a top contender basically every year - which is why I'm not surprised we're not really rumored to be in on Soto at the projected trade cost/salary
Agreed. I believe we just need to make it appear we are in the conversation just to drive up the price for the Yankees so they empty their farm system then we sign Judge.