Moncada is coming

[User Name]

if money had not been the problem then they should have signed Lester or Shields, don't you think?, and they are far better than Dempster.

 

While they have money, it is always about the money.

 

Again, common sense.

[Palodios]

He'd be making league minimum for the first three years of control, and Swihart alone isn't getting the Hamels deal done. Check your math again. Even if they (or even if it's Swihart alone) provides positive value during his arb years, it's almost impossible for the final calculation to shift in the Sox' favor. The X factor here, as you mentioned above, is prospect failure rate. But how can you really justify taking that chance?

 

Swihart for Hamels is too high a price. However, there is a point where the Red Sox need to just use probable success rate when calculating evaluations of these prospects.

 

It seems like the Red Sox often and are blinded by potential, and don't see the 70% bust rate. That being said, I commend their decades-long strategy of holding onto the high ceiling pieces, and trading away the ones with high floors.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Palodios

[iortiz]

I don't even know what to respond to this. I'm not going to start a flame war over this, but just try to use some common sense.

 

You just can't.

 

You are saying that "31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime". On the other hand you were all-in for Shields who is not 31 but 33. Where is your common sense here?

 

Then you said that 80 million over 4 years is not an obscene amount of money for a pitcher. Then I challenged that argument asking you why would you even give 80 M to a guy who is not 31 but 33 if he would eventually s*** the bed... considering that "31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime".

 

I'm not insulting you nor starting a flame war over this, I just find funny the contradictions here.

Edited February 25, 2015 by iortiz

[Spudboy]

There is no contradiction if you consider that one player costs about 33% less money ( as in actual $ ) and costs nothing in prospects.

 

And that does not factor in that one player has demonstrated success of some kind in the AL while the other has not.

 

These are two different types of apples.

[sk7326]

Swihart for Hamels is too high a price. However, there is a point where the Red Sox need to just use probable success rate when calculating evaluations of these prospects.

 

It seems like the Red Sox often and are blinded by potential, and don't see the 70% bust rate. That being said, I commend their decades-long strategy of holding onto the high ceiling pieces, and trading away the ones with high floors.

 

Oh I think they see the 70% bust rate, it's just the expectation that the 30% which hit more than pay for the other 70%. Overall it is a net positive, or at least that is the idea. There is a little more risk often with holding onto the guys with ceiling, but given how hard it is to get stars at their prime, that becomes the focus. Personally, I think it's the sensible way for a large revenue team to use its farm system.

[iortiz]

There is no contradiction if you consider that one player costs about 33% less money ( as in actual $ ) and costs nothing in prospects.

 

And that does not factor in that one player has demonstrated success of some kind in the AL while the other has not.

 

These are two different types of apples.

 

but again... why would you even give 80 M to a guy who is not 31 but 33 in the first place if he would eventually s*** the bed... considering that "31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime".

[iortiz]

There is no contradiction if you consider that one player costs about 33% less money ( as in actual $ ) and costs nothing in prospects.

 

And that does not factor in that one player has demonstrated success of some kind in the AL while the other has not.

 

These are two different types of apples.

 

 

Again.. it has nothing to do with Hamels or Lee.

 

It is about saying that "31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime" vs. to be all-in for Shields who is not 31 but 33.

Edited February 25, 2015 by iortiz

[User Name]

but again... why would you even give 80 M to a guy who is not 31 but 33 in the first place if he would eventually s*** the bed... considering that "31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime".

 

Do you even know what that means?

 

And again, this is common sense issue. If you assign a monetary value to prospects and sum it to the amount of money in the Hamels vs. Shields debate, you'd come out with a calculation that tells you that Hamels would be about 50% more expensive than Shields, whose likelihood to fail is probably lower than Hamels because of his track record in the AL.

 

It's not rocket science.

[iortiz]

Do you even know what that means?

 

And again, this is common sense issue. If you assign a monetary value to prospects and sum it to the amount of money in the Hamels vs. Shields debate, you'd come out with a calculation that tells you that Hamels would be about 50% more expensive than Shields, whose likelihood to fail is probably lower than Hamels because of his track record in the AL.

 

It's not rocket science.

 

Which part of the "Hamels has nothing to do with my point" you do not understand? Where did you leave your common sense and reading comp drum?

Edited February 25, 2015 by iortiz

[sk7326]

Steamer has Hamels for 2.7 WAR this season. So, if you extrapolate this to the next 4 years with a slight downward trend, let's estimate 10 WAR between 2015 and 2018.

 

Assuming 7.5 million per win (which assumes some inflation and the Red Sox are always on the high end of this scale) let's call it $75M of value. We'd be paying $110M for it. Time value of money is a non-issue in this case.

 

Suppose we add Mookie Betts as the core prospect. Steamer used 2.6 WAR. So you'd have 12 WAR over those 4 seasons using conservative estimates for development. That's $90M of value. We'd be paying 2 arb years at best, so let's say it would cost Boston $50 million maybe.

 

Now the dollars for WAR and stuff are really sketchy for lots of good reasons - but this gives some idea of the cost of doing business in a deal like this.

[seabeachfred]

Interesting that the Phils also turned down the Padres who offered their top guys ... Amaro clearly is aiming way too high for now.

 

sk--this guy Amaro never seems to learn anything about getting down and dirty in trade talks. He keeps over-hyping his players and asking ridiculous demands in exchange. The fact that Hamels has said he wants out of Philadelphia should be enough to teach the GM that he doesn't need a major distraction for a team that is going nowhere this year and unless they start rebuilding aren't going anywhere next year or the year after. The Padres offered Amaro their prize young catcher and best hitting outfield prospect along with a pitching prospect and he turned them down. His ass is going to be out the door very soon unless he gets his s*** together. He needs to trade Hamels......and soon.

[SoxnCycles]

Whenever possible, getting players for "just money" is preferable to having to pay both money and players.

 

And good post. You should post more often.

 

Thanks.

There's really not much to say at this time of year, except let's play ball already!

 

Back to Moncada, I though this was an interesting read

 

A 6.6 60 yd dash is impressive.

It'll be nice to see the Sox stealing a lot again, when this kid comes up.

[seabeachfred]

When I first heard about the Hanley signing, his attitude was a concern to me. However, everything that I have read and heard since then has changed my mind about that. He really does seem to have matured, and he seems to have a great attitude about being back in Boston. The rapport/chemistry among these guys seems to be strong.

 

Please Kimmi, learn from history. Hanley is always on his best behavior when he goes to a new team and within two or three years it's the same old story. Understand this--I live in the LA area and the Dodgers spent all last season denying that Hanley was a problem but stuff kept leaking out and when it was all over the Dodgers made no effort whatever to bring him back. That said, I will be a strong Hanley man this year and next because I think the guy is headed for a big season for us this year provided we can keep him healthy. Here's also a shock.....he may be better as an outfielder than some may think is possible. It's just that attitude that worries me down the road. If he has turned a new leaf then kudos to you and we have ourselves an authentic middle of the order hitter moving on.

[Bellhorn04]

Which part of the "Hamels has nothing to do with my point" you do not understand? Where did you leave your common sense and reading comp drum?

 

If I may interject here, the 'exit stage right' was referring to a pitcher's prime. At 31 a pitcher is leaving his physical prime, as a general rule. That doesn't mean he can't have a number of good years after that, but the risk of decline keeps increasing. Some guys, like Shields and Lee, have proven to have exceptional longevity.

[seabeachfred]

I hope Nap has a big year and is signed to an extension by the Sox.

 

Tubbo can stay at 3rd for now while Moncana learns how to play baseball everyday in the minors.

 

Right Spud. I feel the same way as you do, but Napoli has to have a solid season for that to happen. The thing to remember is that Mike wants to play in Boston, feels comfortable here and is a good fit for this city. The ball is in his court and if he has that solid year it will be up to Henry not to play lowball and give him a contract. The guy could hit until his late 30's and he is only 33 right now and that is not old for a hitter.

[seabeachfred]

Alright, I'm going to try to disagree with those who are so strongly anti-Hamels. I see a lot of 2nd and 3rd degree reasons to wonder about him, but the overall numbers and pedigree (what I would consider the "1st degree" reasons) are hard to disagree with.

 

Hamels:

* 6'3, Lefty

* 31 years old

* 17th overall pick, breezed through the minors (1.49 ERA in only 218 IP)

* 92.3 avg FB (Lester: 91.8)

* 6 of last 7 years: 200+ IP

* Last 5 seasons: 3.00 ERA, 1064 IP and 1021 K

 

People make a lot of his starts against the AL East. I'm not sure how to find the stats exactly but it looks like he had about 13 starts against AL East teams. Less seems to be made of his 13 postseason starts and 3.09 ERA. Playoff performance should mean something, right? He's got an expensive contract but not more than he would get on the FA market. I believe the Sox want a good front line pitcher and that they will probably sign a FA next year if they don't have one yet. In that light I don't see anything wrong with trading future-stock for Hamels. It's all about what they have to pay for him.

 

I have a hard time seeing what he's done to warrant so much skepticism. I am aware that there's concerns like having pitched in the NL or struggling against AL East foes, but he's pitched to major league batters not high-A guys.

 

All things being equal wouldn't everyone gladly put Hamels in the rotation?

 

I would but not for Swihart.....no way in hades to I want that trade if he is included. Sometime ago User mentioned Cliff Lee as an alternate because if he is healthy (and that's the key), he would cost us a lot less. Still the Red Sox seem to want to hold out for Hamels but no Swihart in any deal, and I'm pissed off enough that now I am hearing that Betts might be in such a trade. Where your point is strong, besides what you listed, is that we are depending on five starters and to me it is bizarre that that fivesome will stay healthy all season, and let me be clear on this.....Workman is not a possibility as a replacement starter. Teams eat him up the second time around the lineup as his 1-10 record indicated. He is best suited for a one or two inning stint from the pen. Right now my head is spinning from all these rumors and talks......Hamels or Lee? Just get me a good No. 1 starter. It could mean the difference between the division and wild card or just getting into the playoffs even though I went out on a limb and predicted an AL East Title for the Red Sox this season.

[seabeachfred]

Why be the only team to offer anything of value? Just wait Amaro out. I'd rather have Swihart, Betts, Owens, Rodriguez, etc.

 

Your idea is sound and that's what I would suggest also except for who we're dealing with. In the last three or four off seasons, we've seen how Amaro is stubborn to the core asking hold-up returns on some of his veterans and then refusing to deal unless every demand he asks for is met. In fact, he has gone the other direction whether out of spite or not and resigned two of his aging stalwarts, his catcher and second baseman to extensions. Amaro will go down with is ship if he has to. We should tell him what we're willing to offer and if he balks just walk away. I'm tired of hearing his name of listening to his ********.

[Kimmi]

Betts obviously has already found another position. Moncada has been projected to play all positions other than pitching and catching. I don't think that his arm will be the issue. If they are even on the same field together, those who have to make those decisions will put them where they want them I guess. I'm certainly ok with whatever they do but Betts has proven his ability to play second base very well.

 

 

I read today that Moncada's position of choice is second base, for whatever that's worth. And I agree that if Pedroia gets injured this season, Betts is the logical choice to play second.

[sk7326]

I read today that Moncada's position of choice is second base, for whatever that's worth. And I agree that if Pedroia gets injured this season, Betts is the logical choice to play second.

 

2B is sensible, although there is a lot of high contact there and he has the arm for 3B. I think given his age and his size already, 3B/RF is the realistic outcome - if he just grows a little.

[Kimmi]

I absolutely agree with you with respect to the length of contract being a primary factor during Red Sox negotiations. I guess I just haven't seen monetary restraint being much of a factor when they truly have a player that they want to sign. Age is also a major consideration for them at present and thankfully so. I am not even close to understanding what an insane amount of money to spend for some of the more wealthy teams might be. i only hope that the old adage that you get what you pay for works for our team.

 

 

An insane amount of money is what you see the Yankees giving out to many players, prior to this offseason. And they are feeling the brunt of those bad contracts now. What they gave Ellsbury and McCann last year is insane, IMO.

[Kimmi]

2B is sensible, although there is a lot of high contact there and he has the arm for 3B. I think given his age and his size already, 3B/RF is the realistic outcome - if he just grows a little.

 

Who knows where he'll end up, but the sense that I'm getting is that he will end up at 3B with Panda moving to 1B. That said, I have read that Allen Craig has been impressing so far in ST (I know, it's very early). But if he can bounce back to the form he had a couple of years ago, maybe he is our 1B of the future.

[User Name]

If I may interject here, the 'exit stage right' was referring to a pitcher's prime. At 31 a pitcher is leaving his physical prime, as a general rule. That doesn't mean he can't have a number of good years after that, but the risk of decline keeps increasing. Some guys, like Shields and Lee, have proven to have exceptional longevity.

 

Clearly he didn't know what that means, then wonders why I'm calling him out on reading comprehension. The irony is palpable.

[sk7326]

Who knows where he'll end up, but the sense that I'm getting is that he will end up at 3B with Panda moving to 1B. That said, I have read that Allen Craig has been impressing so far in ST (I know, it's very early). But if he can bounce back to the form he had a couple of years ago, maybe he is our 1B of the future.

 

A lot of where Moncada starts is also based on where the Sox start him - maybe they'll start him at 2B and Devers at 3B if they are starting Moncada in Greenville.

[Kimmi]

This is how I feel as well.

 

I'd add that Hamels is already 31 years old. I think the Sox are targeting younger arms for the rotation.

 

 

I agree that the cost of obtaining Hamels is too high, and I like the idea of the Sox going younger. That said, I do think it would be a good idea to have a veteran presence in the rotation. This is one of the reasons why I wanted Shields.

[seabeachfred]

An insane amount of money is what you see the Yankees giving out to many players, prior to this offseason. And they are feeling the brunt of those bad contracts now. What they gave Ellsbury and McCann last year is insane, IMO.

 

Kimmi, if you can check back over the post seasons after the Red Sox win a World Series, the Yankees out of their minds. After 2004 that team paid through the nose for that pitcher who was once a star for Montreal (there, I can't remember names anymore) and he didn't pitch for them the four season they had him. They also signed a couple of others to big contracts that fall. In 2007 they gave A-Fraud that ridiculous extension, and after 2013 came Ellsbury, McCann and two other guys. That is the Yankee playbook. If we are fortunate and win this year a league or WS Title you will see the Yankees once again go on a spending spree.

[sk7326]

An insane amount of money is what you see the Yankees giving out to many players, prior to this offseason. And they are feeling the brunt of those bad contracts now. What they gave Ellsbury and McCann last year is insane, IMO.

 

What is insane is not those contracts specifically, but that they cheaped out on Cano! Both of those moves actually make sense if you keep the actual superstar.

[Palodios]

Suppose we add Mookie Betts as the core prospect. Steamer used 2.6 WAR. So you'd have 12 WAR over those 4 seasons using conservative estimates for development. That's $90M of value. We'd be paying 2 arb years at best, so let's say it would cost Boston $50 million maybe.

 

The problem is that we, and the Red Sox are assuming that Mookie Betts is going to be worth 90 million (minus 40 million). The prospect burnout rate is roughly around 60-70%. We've seen WMB, Bradley, Lavarnway, Bard, Buchholz and others look like studs for the future, but it doesn't always turn out that way.

[Spudboy]

I would like to see a "stopper" at the top of the rotation. I don't see a "veteran" as being much use as a #1 if he can not shut down a decent team and compete with that team's #1 on more or less equal footing.

 

I do not buy into the "leadership" and "mentor" ideas of a veteran pitcher.

 

Performance is what is needed.

 

Masterson is a veteran. Porcello is a veteran. Miley is a veteran. Buch is a veteran.

 

These guys need to perform not lead a young staff.

[Kimmi]

Which part of the "Hamels has nothing to do with my point" you do not understand? Where did you leave your common sense and reading comp drum?

 

 

Iortiz, you keep saying that Hamels or Shields has nothing to do with it, but I think it has everything to do with it. Even though Shields is older, he is proven in the AL East, and he is much less expensive than Hamels, and for one less year. Even though they might both be exiting their primes, the cost/risk for Shields is much lower than the cost/risk for Hamels. You have to take the other factors into account, and can't just look at their ages in a vacuum.

[sk7326]

The problem is that we, and the Red Sox are assuming that Mookie Betts is going to be worth 90 million (minus 40 million). The prospect burnout rate is roughly around 60-70%. We've seen WMB, Bradley, Lavarnway, Bard, Buchholz and others look like studs for the future, but it doesn't always turn out that way.

 

This is all true - although that describes any projection. The prospect burnout rate is high - but not all of said prospects are created equal. Guys who outperform their age at a given level are far less likely to bust.

 

Betts might be a flash in the pan, but a guy who was a 2 win player in 1/3 of a season before his 22nd birthday is (assuming health) as strong a bet as you get.