Moncada is coming

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

So, the Sox would essentially be paying $60 mil more for 2 less WAR.

 

That's insane!

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Nice read. The more I read about him, the more excited I get. Speed is good, but have I mentioned that stolen bases are overrated? LOL

 

But I'm with you, let's get this season started! We need April to get here! I'm sick of cold weather, as we await another snowstorm tonight.

[User Name]

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.

 

Buchholz (14.8 million), WMB (6.1 million) and Bard (17.1) provided the Red Sox with 37.3 million dollars in production in their three pre-arb years, and that's not accounting for the cheaper value for a win in years prior, and made less than four million combined. You are severely undervaluing the cost/benefit reality of a prospect's pre-arb years. Even at a slightly-above replacement level, they are valuable.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Well, we'll have to wait and see Fred. I know he has a reputation for having a bad attitude, but people to eventually grow up. Maybe he has actually matured. I'm also guessing that Papi and Pedroia are not going to allow him to become a clubhouse problem. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

I agree Fred. My Yankees friends will vehemently disagree with this, but it does seem like the pattern. If the Sox are fortunate enough to win another title this year, all the caution that the Yankees have taken this offseaon will be thrown to the wind.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Agreed. Yes, Cano's contract was insane too, but how can the Yankees let their best player (and best free agent) go, yet offer Ellsbury and McCann that much money? Not that I'm complaining.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Not all veterans can supply leadership. And while you may consider some of those guys veterans, some are still quite young. I think Shields is the type of guy who would perform, while at the same time providing leadership and mentorship to the young guys. So would Hamels, IMO. I agree, performance is what is needed too, but I wholeheartedly buy into the ideas of leadership and mentorship. Part of the leading and mentoring is given through performing. Having a guy to provide that in a rotation is a good thing.

[iortiz]

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.

Do not take me wrong I would have preferred Shields over Hamels all the way, but that is not what I'm disputing here.

[iortiz]

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.

 

Bingo.

 

This is why I'm not against all $/long contracts, although there is always a risk involved. Also this is why I think it was a mistake letting walk Lester and pass on Shields.

[Palodios]

Buchholz (14.8 million), WMB (6.1 million) and Bard (17.1) provided the Red Sox with 37.3 million dollars in production in their three pre-arb years, and that's not accounting for the cheaper value for a win in years prior, and made less than four million combined. You are severely undervaluing the cost/benefit reality of a prospect's pre-arb years. Even at a slightly-above replacement level, they are valuable.

 

I would argue that the 7 million dollar number you keep using isn't a fair assessment of mediocre players. Maybe a guy with 5 WAR is worth 35 million, but is a guy worth 1 WAR worth 7 million?

 

Look at Nick Punto. He's a mediocre journeyman. He's compiled 15 WAR over 14 years in the majors. Do you think the guy is worth 105 million over his career? He has only made 20 million.

[User Name]

I would argue that the 7 million dollar number you keep using isn't a fair assessment of mediocre players. Maybe a guy with 5 WAR is worth 35 million, but is a guy worth 1 WAR worth 7 million?

 

Look at Nick Punto. He's a mediocre journeyman. He's compiled 15 WAR over 14 years in the majors. Do you think the guy is worth 105 million over his career? He has only made 20 million.

 

That's an extremely flawed argument, since the whole point of the statistic is eliminating bias. A win is a win in the context of the current baseball economy, and is adjusted on a year to year basis for fangraph's dollar value. A win costs what it costs, and you either agree with it or you don't, but you can't move the goalposts. Most of the years Punto played a win wasn't nearly as costly as it is now, and dollar values used in fangraphs reflect that. You are misinterpreting the assigned dollar value, and doing it awfully. Also, even accounting for the inflation of the win and the general overvaluing of defense by WAR (an actual flaw you could point to) he has a dollar value that's way below the 105 million you're floating around. I'm not making this up, there's an actual formula that concludes a win's dollar value.

 

The "well he has only made X amount" argument is also very bad. Mike Trout posted MVP numbers making league minimum. Does that mean he wasn't worth the assigned dollar value because he was being paid peanuts? That's a massive leap in logic.

 

Also, is a 1 WAR guy worth 7 million? That's an excellent question, but one that depends on context. The relative value for a win last year was 6.2 million, and I bet I can find you 20 or more guys who were paid even more than that per win because of bad contracts, injury, etc.

 

In the end, the idea is to assign a value to what a guy making league minimum actually provides to a ballclub on the basis of his production, and, considering FO's actually use a value-per-win system when doing their FA forecasts, I don't think your criticism of the system denies the initial point, which I will simplify to avoid needless discussion:

 

Production from a player that's making league minimum is a premium asset, specially if it's anywhere above average. Whether we can assign an actual value is up for discussion (the WAR formula and the dollar conversion do have their flaws), but can you find a better, more consistent method? Because that's the point.

[Palodios]

That's an extremely flawed argument, since the whole point of the statistic is eliminating bias. A win is a win in the context of the current baseball economy, and is adjusted on a year to year basis for fangraph's dollar value. A win costs what it costs, and you either agree with it or you don't, but you can't move the goalposts.

 

I just don't like using free-agent-only dollar/WAR value. It is heavily skewed by big free agent busts, and overvalues the low end players. The MLB value is closer to 2-3 million per WAR.

 

I found an interest article that breaks up different positions... Apparently the free agent RP dollar/fWAR is 17 million. That's nuts. Free agent catcher value is only 4.2 million, and SS is 4.1. Catcher dWar might be an issue there, but those are two positions stocked with plenty of mediocre talent where you can can always find bargains.

[Spudboy]

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.

 

Again with the logic!!!!

[User Name]

I just don't like using free-agent-only dollar/WAR value. It is heavily skewed by big free agent busts, and overvalues the low end players. The MLB value is closer to 2-3 million per WAR.

 

I found an interest article that breaks up different positions... Apparently the free agent RP dollar/fWAR is 17 million. That's nuts. Free agent catcher value is only 4.2 million, and SS is 4.1. Catcher dWar might be an issue there, but those are two positions stocked with plenty of mediocre talent where you can can always find bargains.

 

If you don't like the values, I can respect that. As I pointed out above, the formula certainly has its flaws, but the main point stands: Even average production at league minimum cost is extremely valuable. And the more likely a prospect is to provide that (Swihart's D would likely be average in MLB right now), then the more likely you are to give away significant value while trading a young player for an expensive veteran.

 

David Murphy gave the Rangers 5.5 WAR over three years of league-minimum salary, and the Red Sox got f***ing Eric Gagne out of the deal. Think about that for a second.

[User Name]

Also Pal, remember that the 7 million figure I'm using is an attempt to normalize and account for positional discrepancies. I know the article you're talking about, (on fangraphs, regarding the estimated 6.2 million value of a win for 2014) and I believe there's some mention of that in there.

[a700hitter]

I'm away on business, In the middle of the second martini, things become clear. Our staff is a collection of medicrity and "ifs". It is a long shot that this turns out well. That slim chance rests in the narrow shoulders of Buch. Without a big year from him, third place at best.

[cp176]

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 - I can't even follow this thread anymore. I will say again though that the amount of money any of these big players throw at prospects or veterans is insane. The level of the insanity is debatable i guess. Once again, i do not think that money will serve as a deterring factor at all for the Red Sox. Giving up prospects will. People seem to think that the sox blew it with Lester. Maybe they did from our perspective, I think they absolutely know what they are doing. I really do not think that they have seen the pitcher they want badly enough to give up prospects and dollars for just yet. i don't think that value on the dollar means much to them right now. They someone they want they get them. It is as simple as that. As for Moncada - if he makes it, i see him !. 3rd 2. 1st 3. outfielder 4. 2nd base

[Kimmi]

I just want to say, Pal and User Name, good discussion.

 

Baseball porn.

[cp176]

If he was 27, you fall all over yourself to make a deal. At 31, you wait it out.

 

Agree totally.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi - I can't even follow this thread anymore. I will say again though that the amount of money any of these big players throw at prospects or veterans is insane. The level of the insanity is debatable i guess. Once again, i do not think that money will serve as a deterring factor at all for the Red Sox. Giving up prospects will. People seem to think that the sox blew it with Lester. Maybe they did from our perspective, I think they absolutely know what they are doing. I really do not think that they have seen the pitcher they want badly enough to give up prospects and dollars for just yet. i don't think that value on the dollar means much to them right now. They someone they want they get them. It is as simple as that. As for Moncada - if he makes it, i see him !. 3rd 2. 1st 3. outfielder 4. 2nd base

 

 

I still disagree cp. I think they are more willing to part with money than with prospects, no doubt. But I do think they have a monetary limit on every player, no matter how badly they want him. But we're all just guessing here.

[User Name]

Length of contract more than money IMO.

[cp176]

I still disagree cp. I think they are more willing to part with money than with prospects, no doubt. But I do think they have a monetary limit on every player, no matter how badly they want him. But we're all just guessing here.

 

I really am not looking for the last word here but I truly do believe that they will attempt to outbid any team in the hunt for the player they really want. The key would be how badly they want that player. I think the key for me is the amount they have been willing to spend on players that have literally no experience with any major league franchise. We all hope that becomes money well spent.

[cp176]

Length of contract more than money IMO.

 

Length of contract and age at signing for sure.

[Kimmi]

Length of contract more than money IMO.

 

 

Agreed.

[Kimmi]

I really am not looking for the last word here but I truly do believe that they will attempt to outbid any team in the hunt for the player they really want. The key would be how badly they want that player. I think the key for me is the amount they have been willing to spend on players that have literally no experience with any major league franchise. We all hope that becomes money well spent.

 

 

Fair enough opinion cp.

[cp176]

As much as I get frustrated with them on occasion, I feel so fortunate right now that the Red Sox have been in my blood for the past 60 years. One of the best farm systems in the game - owners willing to spend(regardless whether or not we like what they spend for) and a management team that has a plan that is starting to take shape. Also - i think that it is a plan that we all will enjoy. the future success of this franchise looks to me as though it might take me right to the finish line.

[Spitball]

As much as I get frustrated with them on occasion, I feel so fortunate right now that the Red Sox have been in my blood for the past 60 years. One of the best farm systems in the game - owners willing to spend(regardless whether or not we like what they spend for) and a management team that has a plan that is starting to take shape. Also - i think that it is a plan that we all will enjoy. the future success of this franchise looks to me as though it might take me right to the finish line.

 

I believe Cherington has a plan with his ground ball specialists. It is a conservative plan, but it is a safe plan. I like it far more than trading for a Hamels at this point. If it proves his plan has glitches, he has the prospects to trade for a Cueto or a similar pitcher.

[cp176]

I believe Cherington has a plan with his ground ball specialists. It is a conservative plan, but it is a safe plan. I like it far more than trading for a Hamels at this point. If it proves his plan has glitches, he has the prospects to trade for a Cueto or a similar pitcher.

 

 

Sooner or later they will get the pitcher that they want. I think that they are still looking and when that young man becomes available, I think that he will be in a Red Sox uniform. I think that they are happy with what they have done this off season and they should be. Could be Cueto and it might be somebody else. I don't think that there is a time table. They know perfectly well what they have in their group of starters and when that special pitcher is available I think that they will be all in. I would have liked to have seen Lester in Boston but I'm just guessing but I think that their thinking is that they can do better. They are in the middle of building a team that could contend for a long time.

 

Watching them come in to camp is impressive. They look so much bigger and stronger as a team. I think that eventually we are looking at something very special.

[seabeachfred]

I'm away on business, In the middle of the second martini, things become clear. Our staff is a collection of medicrity and "ifs". It is a long shot that this turns out well. That slim chance rests in the narrow shoulders of Buch. Without a big year from him, third place at best.

 

Well Ted, I predicted a division title and I'm not out on a limb but I will not go back on that. If three of our starters rise to the occasion and the bullpen is adequate we should have enough fire power from our lineup to prevail over what appears to be a weaker AL East this year. OTOH, that is the reason I want a trade for Hamels or Lee. We need that solid extra starter to put us over the top. I hope Ben is busy looking over those two or someone on the Nationals that could be the difference for us.

[seabeachfred]

As much as I get frustrated with them on occasion, I feel so fortunate right now that the Red Sox have been in my blood for the past 60 years. One of the best farm systems in the game - owners willing to spend(regardless whether or not we like what they spend for) and a management team that has a plan that is starting to take shape. Also - i think that it is a plan that we all will enjoy. the future success of this franchise looks to me as though it might take me right to the finish line.

 

It will only be 15 years for me cp when August rolls around, but don't let anybody kid you....once you get Red Sox fever it becomes a itch you cannot scratch and it gets more intense with each passing year. My wife and I were comparing notes the other day. She knows that when I was a kid I rooted for the Brooklyn Dodgers, 11 years of it and got only one WS Title. I have three with the Red Sox in 14, a much better record, but four would be better. There is no way we will be as bad as we were last season and that should buoy us all up. I especially want to take care of our rivals in the division.