A Realistic View at 2016

[Emp9]

That's OK, the White Sox don't touch it with a 10 foot pole and if you push, they ask for Bogaerts and Bradley (yes both of them) on top.

 

Ok. Let me ask you, do you think Swihart's overall trade value is below Moncada's? I'm honestly curious on anyone's opinion on that here.

[Kimmi]

Gray is still the guy I would get.

 

I doubt that DD is going to get another starter.

 

I think Dombrowski is very serious about getting another starter. I believe that he and Henry are all in this season. That doesn't necessarily mean that he will get one, but if there's a way to get a top starter without getting completely hosed in the deal, I think he will pull the trigger.

[Bellhorn04]

Ok. Let me ask you, do you think Swihart's overall trade value is below Moncada's? I'm honestly curious on anyone's opinion on that here.

 

Yes, I believe Swihart's current trade value is well below Moncada's.

[bowman]

Not even in the same conversation.....

[S5Dewey]

Ok. Let me ask you, do you think Swihart's overall trade value is below Moncada's? I'm honestly curious on anyone's opinion on that here.

 

Yes, I do think Moncada's trade value is higher than Swihart's. We're talking trade value here, remember, and not actual long-term value.

 

Swihart has a lot of value because he's a catcher but that value may have fallen slightly because of his injury and because he's also been playing a position other than catcher. Outstanding MiL'ers have a lot of trade value mostly because everyone wants that immediate impact player. Whether he turns out to be that player or not is beside the point. It's all about perception at the time of the trade.

 

Where Swihart's value is a known quantity, Moncada's value is all speculation and an optimistic GM looking for that young impact player would be willing to pay dearly for it.

 

That's not to say that I'm looking to trade Moncada for a Prince's ransom (as opposed to a King's ransom). I'm not. One of the benefits of being where the Sox are is that they have the option to hold onto a player with Moncada's perceived ceiling with the only risk being that he doesn't pan out. In short, the Sox aren't as desperate as some 2nd division team looking to break into the 1st division. So they hold onto him.

[Emp9]

Not even in the same conversation.....

 

See THIS is where you lose me. I more or less agree Moncada has the higher trade value, however I think it's much more close taking everything into consideration.

[Emp9]

Yes, I do think Moncada's trade value is higher than Swihart's. We're talking trade value here, remember, and not actual long-term value.

 

Ahh, but if I'm a GM looking to rebuild, long-term value (especailly at a premium position) is exactly what I want to trade for. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. Although I'm also one of the few on here that thinks Swihart's value has not dropped off AS MUCH as some claim. Also, Thanks for putting more thought into your answer than others.

[S5Dewey]

Ahh, but if I'm a GM looking to rebuild, long-term value (especailly at a premium position) is exactly what I want to trade for. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. Although I'm also one of the few on here that thinks Swihart's value has not dropped off AS MUCH as some claim. Also, Thanks for putting more thought into your answer than others.

 

...and here's where the rub comes. Trading prospects is always a crap shoot, whether trading them away or trading for them. Some are less than a crap shoot than others but at the end of the day, with a few exceptions (Mookie, Harper, Trout) it's hard to predict who's going to be an impact player and who isn't. And even then sometimes one will bite you.

 

As an example, when JBJ was a minor leaguer there were posters screaming to trade him away because he couldn't hit. [in fairness, that was on that other board because I wasn't here then.] The Sox weren't in a position where they had to trade someone with his upside so they held onto him to see if he'd blossom. He did. There was some risk involved in it but the Sox were able to take that risk because they weren't in a rebuilding mode where they had to trade away a prospect with a huge upside.

 

How would we feel right now if we'd traded him away one year ago today - before his August run last year - for a #3 pitcher because we needed to rebuild our pitching staff?

[Dojji]

Ok. Let me ask you, do you think Swihart's overall trade value is below Moncada's? I'm honestly curious on anyone's opinion on that here.

 

I do not. I honestly think Swihart and Moncada are roughly equal if you evaluate them as prospects, they're both kind of iffy on what position they're going to play, they both can play at least one defense-premium position, and they both are first and foremost about their offensive skillset -- but Moncada has one advantage in terms of raw trade value because his clock hasn't started and he still has all his options.

[User Name]

Moncada's ceiling is sky high because of his five-tool projection and projected ability to play an up-the-middle position. Whoever thinks the value of Swihart and Moncada is even remotely close is kidding themselves.

[moonslav59]

Yes, I do think Moncada's trade value is higher than Swihart's. We're talking trade value here, remember, and not actual long-term value.

 

Swihart has a lot of value because he's a catcher but that value may have fallen slightly because of his injury and because he's also been playing a position other than catcher. Outstanding MiL'ers have a lot of trade value mostly because everyone wants that immediate impact player. Whether he turns out to be that player or not is beside the point. It's all about perception at the time of the trade.

 

Where Swihart's value is a known quantity, Moncada's value is all speculation and an optimistic GM looking for that young impact player would be willing to pay dearly for it.

 

That's not to say that I'm looking to trade Moncada for a Prince's ransom (as opposed to a King's ransom). I'm not. One of the benefits of being where the Sox are is that they have the option to hold onto a player with Moncada's perceived ceiling with the only risk being that he doesn't pan out. In short, the Sox aren't as desperate as some 2nd division team looking to break into the 1st division. So they hold onto him.

 

I'm not sure I agree Swihart's value is "known", but I agree more is known about his value than Moncada's.

 

I think positional value may be more important than many think it is. The state of ML catchers these days is about the worst in my memory, and I'm not just talking about offense from catchers. It seems there are not many great defensive catchers either.

 

Let's look at team OPS from the catcher position:

 

Only 5 teams have a catcher OPS over .775. I personally project Swihart to have a consistent OPS at or above .775. In an era of low offense, teams would love to have a distinct offensive comparative advantage from a position like catcher.

 

The Astros have the 15th best catcher OPS at .683. Think about that: .683 is the median! The bottom third team catcher OPS are all under .660! Look at the team catcher OPS of some contending and near contending teams:

 

.662 Mariners

.633 Orioles

.609 Blue Jays

.608 Mets

.582 Pirates

.512 Guardians

 

I think some GM out there would gladly overpay for Swihart. I'm not saying he's a higher value prospect/player than Moncada or even Benintendi, but I think his value is higher than some here may imagine it is. I also don't think Swihart's 2016 performance and injury have not hurt his stock very much.

Edited July 24, 2016 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

Swihart also has slightly less years of team control than Moncada & Benintendi based on his ML service time. for teams looking to long term rebuilding an extra year of team control might swing the decision or add value.

[Hugh2]

I don't think the gap from Swihart to Moncada is astronomically high but Swihart is one year removed from being a top 25 prospect in all of baseball and has shown some promise at the MLB level. That adds value, but Moncada has the ceiling of being an ELITE player and as valuable as Swihart is two of him don't make up for excluding a guy like Moncada from the deal. Now Swihart could go a very long way in value when packaged up with a guy like Moncada, Moncada and Swihart should get just about any team listening in a trade deal. But when you trade for elite talent you have to give up elite potential.

[Hugh2]

It should also be worth mentioning that Moncada has been taking ground balls at 3B before games.

[moonslav59]

It should also be worth mentioning that Moncada has been taking ground balls at 3B before games.

 

...and, I caught flack for suggesting just such a plan to start just about now.

[moonslav59]

...and Beni made his debut in LF...

[User Name]

...and, I caught flack for suggesting just such a plan to start just about now.

Right. That's exactly why you caught flack.

[sk7326]

I do not. I honestly think Swihart and Moncada are roughly equal if you evaluate them as prospects, they're both kind of iffy on what position they're going to play, they both can play at least one defense-premium position, and they both are first and foremost about their offensive skillset -- but Moncada has one advantage in terms of raw trade value because his clock hasn't started and he still has all his options.

 

Moncada's potential with the bat is a lot higher. Now Swihart probably won't have to move positions - while he has not been a great catcher the actual evidence is fairly scant - but Moncada's bat projects anywhere. So even if (highly probable) he has to move to a corner (because 2B built like Dez Bryant are for the most part non-existent) he will profile as an all-around threat.

 

He is the one truly untouchable bat.

[moonslav59]

Right. That's exactly why you caught flack.

 

For being 100% right? Man, you guys are tough.

[moonslav59]

Moncada's potential with the bat is a lot higher. Now Swihart probably won't have to move positions - while he has not been a great catcher the actual evidence is fairly scant - but Moncada's bat projects anywhere. So even if (highly probable) he has to move to a corner (because 2B built like Dez Bryant are for the most part non-existent) he will profile as an all-around threat.

 

He is the one truly untouchable bat.

 

Plus, we already have so much financially invested in Moncada. I agree, he's about as untouchable as anyone on our roster, although I never view anyone as 100% untouchable.

[User Name]

For being 100% right? Man, you guys are tough.

 

No, for thinking you know anything about positional development for prospects. Management thinks now is the time to start working on other positions, not two months ago like you did with virtually no information. Two months is a lifetime in prospect development. You'd catch a lot less flack if you stopped trying to sell your ideas as viable.

[Emp9]

UN? ... That writing has been up on that wall for a while now regarding a Moncada & Benny position change. It seemed like they'd wait until AAA to do it, but some on here denied any possiblity it could happen sooner, and that anyone who thought sooner than later was indeed plausible were dubbed idiots who didn't know what they were talking about.

[User Name]

The point wasn't whether or not it would happen once they reached AAA, but rather when management thought it plausible instead of because of a perceived "need". Do not move the goalposts.

[Emp9]

The point wasn't whether or not it would happen once they reached AAA, but rather when management thought it plausible instead of because of a perceived "need". Do not move the goalposts.

 

I'm not moving the goal posts. You have a special talent for twisting someone else's words into the most negative extreme. What Moon suggested really wasn't that radical to begin with, but after you got done with it it was. And btw, LF IS a perceived need.

[Slasher9]

No, for thinking you know anything about positional development for prospects. Management thinks now is the time to start working on other positions, not two months ago like you did with virtually no information. Two months is a lifetime in prospect development. You'd catch a lot less flack if you stopped trying to sell your ideas as viable.

LMFAO. Moon was 100% right. You'd catch a lot less flack if you could admit other people are usually correct when you don't agree.....

[Nick]

It should also be worth mentioning that Moncada has been taking ground balls at 3B before games.

 

OH MY GOD! I thought he was stuck in the minors until 2021 when Pedey retired.

[User Name]

LMFAO. Moon was 100% right. You'd catch a lot less flack if you could admit other people are usually correct when you don't agree.....

 

For all you talked about tbsb, you sure have a lot of trolley quality yourself. The Sox will move Moncada off the position because they think he's ready to do so, not because of a perceived "need" or a stupid reason like they think he can't hack it at 2b. In fact, they are probably preparing to call him up in September. That's because he's treating AA as his personal playground.

[Emp9]

What I don't understand is that somehow questioning or speculating the timeline of a position change in the minors is out-right blasphemy. We question management about everything else don't we? Why is this off-limits? No doubt, every team has a typical baseline procedure of doing things, but it's not written in stone. Moncada & Benintendi aren't your typical minor leaguers either. I thought the most conservative approach was to wait until AAA, with the worst approach being to wait until they were brought up to the Majors (because we've seen this far too often). I like the proactive approach they're going with w/ these two right now. Sooner than later for these two. The signs have been glowing in neon and pointing to this for a while now. Yes, even 2 months ago.

[Dojji]

No, for thinking you know anything about positional development for prospects. Management thinks now is the time to start working on other positions, not two months ago like you did with virtually no information. Two months is a lifetime in prospect development. You'd catch a lot less flack if you stopped trying to sell your ideas as viable.

 

He's like I was when I first joined the forum, only perhaps a little more self assured, and the bold-font thing.

 

Ever since some of these BDC veterans joined the forum I've rarely felt the need to go on a massive big-idea tangent. they tend to fill that niche for me quite nicely.

[moonslav59]

come on! There was lots of information implying Moncada was close to MLB ready. You and others said the protocol was to not make a player start taking reps in practice so soon after a promotion. You and others made comments like that based on the same info.

I said I thought he should start taking reps at 3B soon. You disagreed, but somehow you can twist it around to make you appear right.

 

You guys were wrong. It's not a sign of weakness to admit it. It's actuAlly a sign of maturity.

 

No, for thinking you know anything about positional development for prospects. Management thinks now is the time to start working on other positions, not two months ago like you did with virtually no information. Two months is a lifetime in prospect development. You'd catch a lot less flack if you stopped trying to sell your ideas as viable.