Red Sox sign Alex Bregman

[Duran Is The Man]

4 minutes ago, notin said:

Why?  Yoshida’s contract is hardly prohibitive.  Especially if people live in a fantasy world that if the Sox save that money, they’ll spend it elsewhere…

that's the way i see it. if they got rid of him and ALL of his salary today, i'd be very surprised if they spent the money elsewhere.

[Bellhorn04]

On the other hand I don't think "they'll just pocket the money" is a very good argument for not moving him if a reasonable deal was to present itself.

[notin]

4 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

On the other hand I don't think "they'll just pocket the money" is a very good argument for not moving him if a reasonable deal was to present itself.

That proposal was LIGHT YEARS from being a good deal.  Castillo (1.8 bWAR / 2.3 fWAR) is arguably NOT an upgrade over Crawford (2.0 bWAR / 1.9 fWAR), unless you’re looking to upgrade the payroll commitments by over $70mill.  But to include two MLB-ready pitchers plus for the sole purpose of unloading a contract that is hardly a problem WHILE TAKING ON A WORSE ONE?  Why not just pair up Yoshida with Roman Anthony or Kristian Campbell with Yoshida so we can pick up someone’s perception of a lock down closer??

[Bellhorn04]

10 minutes ago, notin said:

That proposal was LIGHT YEARS from being a good deal.  Castillo (1.8 bWAR / 2.3 fWAR) is arguably NOT an upgrade over Crawford (2.0 bWAR / 1.9 fWAR), unless you’re looking to upgrade the payroll commitments by over $70mill.  But to include two MLB-ready pitchers plus for the sole purpose of unloading a contract that is hardly a problem WHILE TAKING ON A WORSE ONE?  Why not just pair up Yoshida with Roman Anthony or Kristian Campbell with Yoshida so we can pick up someone’s perception of a lock down closer??

According to BTV the proposed deal was a fair swap.  Do we think BTV is a credible tool or not?   

You could actually cut down the proposal to Crawford + Yoshida for Diddlesquat and it would work.  

[notin]

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

According to BTV the proposed deal was a fair swap.  Do we think BTV is a credible reference or not?   

You’re changing the argument.

The reason this deal is bad is Castillo is NOT an upgrade over Crawford.  He’s just more expensive.  Did BTV provide any insights there? You were provided WAR values from two websites.  Why are they not in your conclusion?

[Old Red]

Remember the Red Sox reportedly discussed a Casas for Castillo trade at the Winter Meetings, and tried to throw in Masa, and it was a no go for Seattle, so I don’t think Seattle has any interest.

[Bellhorn04]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

You’re changing the argument.

The reason this deal is bad is Castillo is NOT an upgrade over Crawford.  He’s just more expensive.  Did BTV provide any insights there? You were provided WAR values from two websites.  Why are they not in your conclusion?

I'm not expecting BTV to provide insights, notin.  They do numbers.  Are their numbers wrong?

Yoshida's underwater contract is the main driver behind the deal for the Sox.  Obviously no one would just swap Crawford for Castillo. 

[harmony]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Speaking for Castillo AND changing the deal midstream?!?! 

Simply offering thoughts on a trade proposal by someone else at Baseball Trade Values.

[notin]

41 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

On the other hand I don't think "they'll just pocket the money" is a very good argument for not moving him if a reasonable deal was to present itself.

So you think the lateral move from Crawford to Castillo that includes unloading three pitching prospects - two of which have already debuted in MLB - is reasonable?

[Bellhorn04]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

So you think the lateral move from Crawford to Castillo that includes unloading three pitching prospects - two of which have already debuted in MLB - is reasonable?

What 3 pitching prospects?  I'm only talking about the actual BTV proposal that was linked.  It was moon who said he'd include Priester and Fitts and I said that was going overboard.

 

[harmony]

42 minutes ago, notin said:

You’re changing the argument.

The reason this deal is bad is Castillo is NOT an upgrade over Crawford.  He’s just more expensive.  Did BTV provide any insights there? You were provided WAR values from two websites.  Why are they not in your conclusion?

Thank you for the feedback.

Please be familiar with the Baseball Trade Values methodology:

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-major-leaguers

Locked on Mariners podcasters have mentioned that the Mariners have expressed interest in Kutter Crawford in the past.

FWIW Steamer and ZiPS project Luis Castillo with 2025 WAR of 2.8 and 2.7 while projecting Crawford with 2025 WAR of 1.6 and 1.6.

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/luis-castillo/15689/stats?position=P#dashboard

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kutter-crawford/20531/stats?position=P#dashboard

ZiPS gives Castillo a three-year WAR projection of 2.7, 2.3 and 1.9 while giving Crawford a three-year WAR projection of 1.6, 1.8 and 1.5:

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/luis-castillo/15689/stats?position=P#zips-3-year-projections

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kutter-crawford/20531/stats?position=P#zips-3-year-projection

ZiPS give Masataka Yoshida a three-year WAR projection of 1.3, 0.8 and 0.4:

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/masataka-yoshida/31837/stats?position=DH/OF#zips-3-year-projections

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah, if I had to put money on it, I'd have to go with Castillo being a bit better than Crawford the next 3 years.

[notin]

23 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

What 3 pitching prospects?  I'm only talking about the actual BTV proposal that was linked.  It was moon who said he'd include Priester and Fitts and I said that was going overboard.

 

And that was when I jumped in - the inclusion of Fitts and Priester.

But even the original deal was designed to exploit a loophole in BTVs system.

That loophole involves players looking at reduced or benched roles despite their talent.  Crawford might be looking at a reliever role.  As such, he would likely post less WAR than as a starter, which would then reduce his value on BTV.  As they allegedly use multiple projections, if one of them projects Crawford’s bullpen numbers, it would alter his value on their site .  And that reduced value makes this trade look equal…

[Bellhorn04]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

And that was when I jumped in - the inclusion of Fitts and Priester.

But even the original deal was designed to exploit a loophole in BTVs system.

That loophole involves players looking at reduced or benched roles despite their talent.  Crawford might be looking at a reliever role.  As such, he would likely post less WAR than as a starter, which would then reduce his value on BTV.  As they allegedly use multiple projections, if one of them projects Crawford’s bullpen numbers, it would alter his value on their site .  And that reduced value makes this trade look equal…

OK, so we'd have to take a closer look at how they valued Crawford.  But I don't see it as unfair that Crawford's status as a starter or reliever is still somewhat up the air.  I don't think that's necessarily a 'loophole'.  

[notin]

20 minutes ago, harmony said:

Thank you for the feedback.

Please be familiar with the Baseball Trade Values methodology:

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-major-leaguers

Locked on Mariners podcasters have mentioned that the Mariners have expressed interest in Kutter Crawford in the past.

FWIW Steamer and ZiPS project Luis Castillo with 2025 WAR of 2.8 and 2.7 while projecting Crawford with 2025 WAR of 1.6 and 1.6.

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/luis-castillo/15689/stats?position=P#dashboard

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kutter-crawford/20531/stats?position=P#dashboard

ZiPS gives Castillo a three-year WAR projection of 2.7, 2.3 and 1.9 while giving Crawford a three-year WAR projection of 1.6, 1.8 and 1.5:

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/luis-castillo/15689/stats?position=P#zips-3-year-projections

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kutter-crawford/20531/stats?position=P#zips-3-year-projection

ZiPS give Masataka Yoshida a three-year WAR projection of 1.3, 0.8 and 0.4:

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/masataka-yoshida/31837/stats?position=DH/OF#zips-3-year-projections

ZiPS and Steamer both project Crawford as a reliever.  54 games, 18 starts.  Thats reliever numbers.  Of course he’s going to get less WAR than as starting pitcher.

Whats tomorrow’s big reveal? That Cal Raleigh will have better projections than Carlos Narvaez?

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

OK, so we'd have to take a closer look at how they valued Crawford.  But I don't see it as unfair that Crawford's status as a starter or reliever is still somewhat up the air.  I don't think that's necessarily a 'loophole'.  

Right now his health is up in the air.

[notin]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

OK, so we'd have to take a closer look at how they valued Crawford.  But I don't see it as unfair that Crawford's status as a starter or reliever is still somewhat up the air.  I don't think that's necessarily a 'loophole'.  

If you look at Fangraphs, Crawford is projected for 54 games and 18 starts by both Zips and Steamer..  Thats going to dent his projections.  It is a loophole, but it is also one that gets exploited in real trades on occasion

[notin]

3 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Right now his health is up in the air.

If that’s the case, Seattle is unlikely to make this deal…

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

If that’s the case, Seattle is unlikely to make this deal…

A lingering knee problem since last season is not a good sign.

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, notin said:

If you look at Fangraphs, Crawford is projected for 54 games and 18 starts by both Zips and Steamer..  Thats going to dent his projections.  It is a loophole, but it is also one that gets exploited in real trades on occasion

A loophole is generally defined as an unforeseen weakness in a law that gets exploited.  I don't think it applies here.  There are logical reasons for projecting him as a #6 starter type.  It's all just guesswork, of course.  But i don't think there's any deliberate intent to harm his value...  

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

On the other hand I don't think "they'll just pocket the money" is a very good argument for not moving him if a reasonable deal was to present itself.

Then why get rid of Yoshida?

[notin]

30 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yeah, if I had to put money on it, I'd have to go with Castillo being a bit better than Crawford the next 3 years.

Normally, but Castillo is 3 plus years older.

Is Castillo ages 32-34 better than Crawford ages 29-31?  

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

Then why get rid of Yoshida?

To some he’s clogging up the roster, and lineup.

[notin]

6 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

A loophole is generally defined as an unforeseen weakness in a law that gets exploited.  I don't think it applies here.  There are logical reasons for projecting him as a #6 starter type.  It's all just guesswork, of course.  But i don't think there's any deliberate intent to harm his value...  

steamer doesn’t give a s*** about Crawford’s value on a website they may have never heard of.

But playing time is a factor in projections, and if a player’s role is to be reduced for whatever reason, it will impair most projections.  Not ones like Steamer 600 that normalize it anyway.  But Zips and Steamer? Absolutely.  And this happens regardless of player talent.  Crawford isnt any worse than last year; just expected to pitch in a smaller role…

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

To some he’s clogging up the roster, and lineup.

it's as simple as that.  If we're going to move Devers off third, something has to give.  

[notin]

2 minutes ago, Old Red said:

To some he’s clogging up the roster, and lineup.

… which is a dumb criticism of a player who still has all his options.

And if he’s clogging up the lineup, isnt that a problem created by Cora?

[notin]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

it's as simple as that.  If we're going to move Devers off third, something has to give.  

And dealing Yoshida is the only possible option!!!

 

(this is sarcasm)

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, notin said:

And dealing Yoshida is the only possible option!!!

 

(this is sarcasm)

It's not the only option, but it's certainly the most obvious one.

Most Sox fans would rather move Yoshida than Casas.

[harmony]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

steamer doesn’t give a s*** about Crawford’s value on a website they may have never heard of.

But playing time is a factor in projections, and if a player’s role is to be reduced for whatever reason, it will impair most projections.  Not ones like Steamer 600 that normalize it anyway.  But Zips and Steamer? Absolutely.  And this happens regardless of player talent.  Crawford isnt any worse than last year; just expected to pitch in a smaller role…

Last year Kutter Crawford posted 1.9 fWAR (2.0 bWAR) in 183.2 innings.

Steamer and ZiPS project Crawford with 2025 WAR of 1.6 each in 134 and 147.2 innings, respectively.

Thank you, everyone, for the meaningful discussion.

[notin]

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

It's not the only option, but it's certainly the most obvious one.

Most Sox fans would rather move Yoshida than Casas.

It’s not necessary to move either one.  This is a Strawman argument.