thxfrthmmrs

Vlady is someone who has naturally advanced swings so comparing anyone to him is fruitless exercise because you could spend your entire career playing and not be able to hit like him. But look at Acuna, he was k’ing at 31% at A ball before they promoted him to AA where his k rate improved to 23%. Tatis Jr spent 12 games at A- where he k’d 27% at before promoting to A+ and his k% is consistent at every stop. There are many other examples I’m not going to pull up. Prospect development isn’t linear, but holding the prospect at a level for as long as possible HOPING his k rate would improve is just an asinine approach.

There is no guarantee he will improve his K rate if he stays at A ball where he’s not getting challenged and continues to go by the same mechanics he’s been using. Just as there is no guarantee that his K rate wouldn’t go down at the next level where he learns from better coaching and better opponents. And at the end of the day, Robert might just be someone who strikes out 25% of the time but also hits the ball really hard. Being so fixating on one stat and thinking the only or the best way to help the player develop is to spend as much time at that level as possible is where you’re completely wrong.

Prospect development isn’t about giving everybody a full year at each level (every prospect as a different timeline). When a player who’s naturally talented proved he’s twice as good as others around him, you aren’t rushing him. Also promoting Robert has no direct impact to our scouting, drafting and developing of other players. But I’m sure other young prospects like Vladdy, Acuna, Tatis, Soto (the list goes on and on) were ruined because they didn’t spend a full season at each minor league level.

What’s the rush? The clock is ticking on Eloy, Moncada, and Anderson and the young pitchers. The sooner Robert, Cease, and Madrigal could learn from playing at the highest level the better. It is the same reason Padres promote Tatis at ripe age of 20. Do you really think Moncada would have made a drastic change to his approach if he didn’t fall flat on his face last year? Prospect development isn’t linear and prospects aren’t called up without flaws, get it through your head. (If I do come across as condescending it’s because I think your Robert K posts are becoming troll posts at this point.)

You do realize prospect development isn’t linear, and 22% k rate is hardly a bad number for someone who hits the ball as hard as he does. The case for promoting him is there is much more for him to learn at AA than A ball. That’s not to say that he could work on correcting any swing and miss issues at the next level. The reality is he’s so much more talented than other players around him he’s getting away with his flaws at this level.

Pace has not only hit on picks in general, but also picks they traded up to make. At this point I would trust his judgment and be happy he got the guy he wanted at a reasonable cost.

Not sure if he has tweaked his swing. His LD% is down to 8.6% which is comically bad, and GB% is up to 68.6%. These numbers are huge deviation from his results last year and I hope they catch on the issue and correct it ASAP.

Valentine has a team option, it could be declined if needed. In my dream scenario, you trade Dunn along with Blakeney and Felicio and not take money back (I know, unlikely), then trade Hutch for future pick. This gets you up to $32.5M. However I think Asik's salary is dead weight at this point, not sure if it's movable. Honestly, I am fine with Morant as my pick at 3rd, but still go for broke by signing Klay to just below max, then sign Collison to MLE. I wouldn't move Hutch in this scenario. Collison / Morant Lavine / Hutch Klay / Porter Lauri / Porter WCJ

By the way, this is a great tool to simulate your off season fantasies. http://www.shamsports.com/capulator

1st pick cap hold is $9.6M, so there isn't a way to max Klay unless we shred all salary besides our top 4 and not take any salaries back.

In a family where you’re only the second besss, yes

If your brother is named Yoan, it would be a disappointment if you were named Juan, just saying.

Did we sign Moncada’s brother to play catcher?

Given you want to use SV to measure trade value and we do not have the scaled SV calculations for each org, the publicly available info is all we could use. Can't have your cake and eat it too. As I said earlier, he produced 1.6 bWAR in 3 months on a $4.5M prorated salary. I do not have the expected WAR output, but as I said, according to "publicly available" WAR value, he had $30M in surplus value in the 1 1/2 years before the trade, and $10M in surplus value in the 3 months after the trade, so it's not like he jumped out of nowhere and produced. Point is you let him on as a zero or negative value player, that is far from the truth from SV perspective, no matter how scaled the team's calculations are.

At the time of trade, I believe it was $10M per WAR. SV calculations are flat by most outlets but even if you want to use your increasing marginal scale he was worth more between 3 - 3.5 WAR/yr from depending on whether it's FG or BR for 5 year span from 2013-2017. By no means we're talking a 1 WAR player being paid at $10M here. In the SV theory, $20M+ SV player do not grow on trees and are definitely not worth nothing. And on top of that, to say that Yankees could have "find a replacement that would have equaled his production, but cost less" is asinine considering how little they have given up.

I am not saying in you're wrong from a statistical perspective but there are many teams that are still willing to for those intangibles, therefore additional value. However, Miller and Hader also brought other intangibles to the table that WAR does not measure, ability to pitch in any situation and for multiple innings. Also please do explain how does a guy who had $30M in surplus value in the 1 1/2 years before the trade, and $10M in surplus value in the 3 months after the trade had no value, since you keep wanting to use SV as your argument?

1. That just isn't true. Case in point, a guy who could close games continues to get the ball in 9th inning. Closer experience is something surplus value doesn't measure. If I need a good reliever, I would opt for the guys with closer experience than the guy without, if everything else is equal. Similarly, whether how archaic it is, teams still pay for guys with playoff experience, clubhouse presence, and such. These things SV does not measure but are valuable at trade deadline, which is why DR and TF had more value than you let on. 2. You already lost the argument when you wanted to use SV as your argument but said Frazier had 0 or negative SV. But continue to conveniently ignore it.

Agreed with this. One example I would give is a 1.5 WAR closer with playoff experience on a $12 mil contract would be worth than a 1.5 WAR 7th inning RP with no PO experience on the same salary, especially around TDL. And if I were to consider team needs, I would potentially pay more for a 1.5 WAR closer with 0 surplus value than to pay for a 0.5 WAR reliever with the same surplus value.

I think you are discrediting what the Sox gave out. Frazier while was awful in BA still brought his value to the team, which is often overlooked due to his low BA as I mentioned. He had 5 bWAR in his year and half in his time with the Sox and over $15M in salary, pretty good surplus value if you want to use that measurement. While I was and still am realistic that no team was willing to pay a premium for his surplus value, to say that he was worthless is an overblown statement. His time with yankees? 1.6 bWAR on $5M salary. Robertson meanwhile did not provide much in the means of surplus value, but teams are willing to give up a valuable piece (B or B+ prospects) for a player who could close or pitch in high leverage. Kahnle had a good run with Sox and shown no signs of slowing down at the time. He could have been more valuable in the off season given 100 innings of track record of being an effective high leverage option. Also high sight is 20/20, but had he stayed with Sox in 2018, there is good chance he could have continued his success, given he could continue to work with Coop, and pitching in front of Sox crowd is a lot different than Yankees crowd in late game situation. What could have been was a 1.5+ WAR HL, cost controlled, reliever.

I, along with a few others, Shack, IIRC was disappointed by the return at the time for a couple of reasons - 1) expectation were high for a return since it was less than a week after the Q trade 2) value for premium relievers was at all time high after the Chapman trade and Andrew Miller success from prior years, even though Kahnle lacked the track record 3) red flags on Blake and his results in pro ball. Some outlets, I think KLaw had him off top 100 altogether. Those who were optimistic at the time feel like he could eventually develop into a plus hit and above average power tool, and get back into the top 100 or 50 conversation, which hasn't happened.

So did the yankees overpay then? According to you Frazier and Robertson are worthless (which isn't true, before the trade, most on this board thought they could at least get a B level prospect for Robertson alone), and Kahnle's value at the time was whatever he gave them, which is a 0 WAR worthless pitcher. But they actually gave us a Top 100 prospect for it? Sounds like a fleece to me.

Back of Top 100 value is a lot different than top 50 value like the OP was mentioning. Also he's in the back 100 due to his draft pedigree, if you were to evaluate based on tools, he wouldn't have been there. The knocks were a bat first player who hits too many ground balls, not enough power and doesn't draw enough walks. As the draft hype as worn off, you don't even see him inside most top 150 or 200 this season despite having a fairly solid 2018. That said I am not panicking on Rutherford, but I am also realistic that Sox did not get a top 50 or 100 value prospect in return despite trading out fairly decent value. Also the bold part cant be true. If they envisioned him having the same value he's given them, they wouldn't have acquired him in the first place.

You missed the part where most of the industry, including the Yankees, were down on Blake at the time of trade. His value had fell considerably from when he was drafted or even at the start of that season. Had he still been a top 50 prospect, Yankees wouldnt made him available. Yet Sox paid the price as if Blake was still a top 50 prospect, if not more. Hindsight is 20/20, but Kahnle at the time had a fair amount of trade value. What's crazy is Yankees still did not lose the trade even though Kahnle basically fell back down to earth. Had he been anything more, Yankees would have won by a landslide.

No guarantee he'd had the same success with Cooper. I was going to post this yesterday, but it's frustrating because our bullpen is a mess so far.

I know you’re staying on the positive side but your posts are extremely apologetic for this front office has done and ignoring an important fact. Fact is Sox plays in Chicago, not Tampa, not Milwaukee. Guess the Sox payroll in 2006 and 2007? Ranked 9th and 4th in entire league. The whole “payroll constraint” you’re referring to is a direct result by years of incompetence. Sox has not played competitive baseball for 6+ years now, and we’re left wondering why the payroll is shrinking. Let’s call a spade when we see one.