Sox Acquire Kimbrel; Madrigal, Heuer to Cubs

[Bob Sacamano]

5 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

That's fine but I'm having some 2nd thoughts on using Madrigal to acquire a guy who is going to pitch maybe 10 innings in the playoffs and maybe 60 overall in Chicago.  I'm not sure that's the best use of a trade chip.  I'm excited about using Kimbrel in the playoffs, but I'm not thrilled that's all Chicago could turn Madrigal into.

Right. You think with what the Sox gave up that the Cubs would have eaten some salary.

I always figured if any young guy from the core was dealt it would be for another SP or a RF (with control). I guess with Lynn extending and Kopech sliding into the rotation next year there really isn't a hole in the rotation next year though (as of now that is).

Edited August 10, 2021 by manbearpuig

[chitownsportsfan]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

Let's look at some things:

1. The Sox went out and acquired Ceasar Hernandez for basically nothing. VERY early but so far the results have been promising. And we've talked ad nauseam about how 2B is the easiest position to fill on the diamond. 

2. Those "10 innings" could be some of the highest leverage innings in the playoffs. Having the 2021's best RP as your setup man creates a very large advantage for you in those playoffs

3. What should have been the return for Nick Madrigal? And how are they acquiring Kimbrell or another high leverage bullpen arm? What assets are they using? 

Those are all good points.  Getting Ceasar makes this "work" and the innings will be important that Kimbrel does pitch, hopefully very well.

The 3rd point is tough.  Sometimes you have a declining asset or one that is stagnating and you have to cut bait.  There is a decent chance that Madrigal is just an injury prone 3 WAR player.  That's not that valuable and if he has a setback with the hammy this winter (a decent chance) then he's really lost value headed into next year.  So hey, you make decisions and hope they work out.  It's not easy.

[ptatc]

10 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

That's fine but I'm having some 2nd thoughts on using Madrigal to acquire a guy who is going to pitch maybe 10 innings in the playoffs and maybe 60 overall in Chicago.  I'm not sure that's the best use of a trade chip.  I'm excited about using Kimbrel in the playoffs, but I'm not thrilled that's all Chicago could turn Madrigal into.

Just like someone else said, its not just the quantity but the quality of the innings. I think we have seen many games even this year in a really good year that quality bullpen pitchers are more important than the WAR counting number show. A good bullpen can mask or create other issues.

I didn't like giving up Madrigal but they needed to give up quality to get quality.

[ShoeLessRob]

7 minutes ago, manbearpuig said:

Right. You think with what the Sox gave up that the Cubs would have eaten some salary.

I always figured if any young guy from the core was dealt it would be for another SP or a RF (with control). I guess with Lynn extending and Kopech sliding into the rotation next year there really isn't a hole in the rotation next year though (as of now that is).

I don’t think that’s a guarantee. 

[Tony]

5 minutes ago, ShoeLessRob said:

I don’t think that’s a guarantee. 

It's not....but things are going to get a lot tougher and a lot more expensive if he doesn't. 

[gogosox1959]

Kimbrell is also the ultimate insurance policy if Hendriks were to get hurt.

[caulfield12]

Some have a theory that Kimbrel had a hard time challenging Cubs’ hitters inside because they were just his teammates…that they weren’t at all scared or intimidated by him.  Between that and a 368 homer that goes out in just a handful of stadiums, let’s see how he does against the AL pennant contenders.

Still not a huge fan of this but Hernandez has fit in pretty seamlessly, isn’t expensive at all, it’s more the risk attached to having two Top 5 reliever deals on one roster.

[South Side Hit Men]

32 minutes ago, Tony said:

Let's look at some things:

3. What should have been the return for Nick Madrigal?

Mike Trout, Shohei Ohtani, Raisel Iglesias and David Fletcher. Well, only because Nick is injured, if not obviously they should have gotten a lot more than these minor upgrades. 

With all due seriousness, Kimbrel also provides Hendriks insurance, remains the better pitcher of the two, and will be very valuable the next two seasons (perhaps beyond). That he is willing to serve in a set-up role is an added bonus.

Craig Kimbrel: 1.12 ERA, 40 1/3 IP, 68K, 13 BB, 2 HR

Liam Hendriks: 2.40 ERA, 48 2/3 IP, 79 K, 5 BB, 8 HR

[Colome's Hat]

Someone posted this but apparently Kimbrel has allowed 3 or more runs within the first five or six appearances he has had on a new team.  It might mean nothing but it also could just mean it sometimes takes him a second to adjust to a new setting.  Could have just been amped to face his old team.  He looked great in his games against Cleveland.  And looked solid on Saturday.

[35thstreetswarm]

22 minutes ago, Tony said:

Let's look at some things:

1. The Sox went out and acquired Ceasar Hernandez for basically nothing. VERY early but so far the results have been promising. And we've talked ad nauseam about how 2B is the easiest position to fill on the diamond. 

2. Those "10 innings" could be some of the highest leverage innings in the playoffs. Having the 2021's best RP as your setup man creates a very large advantage for you in those playoffs

3. What should have been the return for Nick Madrigal? And how are they acquiring Kimbrell or another high leverage bullpen arm? What assets are they using? 

On #3, this is similar to some other responses I've seen to skepticism about the prospect cost of the Kimbrel trade (and other past trades), where the premise of the cross-examination seems to be that fans have no room to criticize a trade because they (i) don't know for sure there were better deals available for the same return, (ii) don't know for sure whether there were preferable returns the other team would have accepted for Kimbrel/player, or (iii) don't know for sure whether there were better deals out there in general.  Fair point I guess, but keep in mind you can make the same point about any layperson criticism of any trade, and taken to its extreme it makes every FO move above reproach. You can always point to the informational advantages of the FO to suggest that whatever trade was made had to be the best and only one available.  You don't really have to have FO-level transparency into the market, or your own solidly-formulated and vetted alternative trade, to opine that a trade was an overpay.

[Colome's Hat]

I also just think that Heur and Madrigal weren't helping us win games this year.  Kimbrel will.  He also just makes the rest of the guys better.  Bummer has pitched much better since Kimbrel's arrival.  I'm already picturing game 4 of the ALDS.  Keuchel for 4.  Cease in the fifth, Bummer in the sixth, Kopech in the seventh, Kimbrel in the eighth, and Hendriks slams the door.  Other team ain't scoring on us.

[wegner]

1 minute ago, Colome's Hat said:

I also just think that Heur and Madrigal weren't helping us win games this year.  Kimbrel will.  He also just makes the rest of the guys better.  Bummer has pitched much better since Kimbrel's arrival.  I'm already picturing game 4 of the ALDS.  Keuchel for 4.  Cease in the fifth, Bummer in the sixth, Kopech in the seventh, Kimbrel in the eighth, and Hendriks slams the door.  Other team ain't scoring on us.

At this point, I am going with Cease in game 4 over Dallas but otherwise I agree with your points.

[35thstreetswarm]

4 minutes ago, Colome's Hat said:

I also just think that Heur and Madrigal weren't helping us win games this year.  Kimbrel will.  He also just makes the rest of the guys better.  Bummer has pitched much better since Kimbrel's arrival.  I'm already picturing game 4 of the ALDS.  Keuchel for 4.  Cease in the fifth, Bummer in the sixth, Kopech in the seventh, Kimbrel in the eighth, and Hendriks slams the door.  Other team ain't scoring on us.

Yeah, this is the reason I'm at peace with the trade despite my skepticism about the price.  There's no question it dramatically improved our team this year, and every contending season is precious.  No guarantee we'll get a clearer shot again.

[Chicago White Sox]

51 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

That's fine but I'm having some 2nd thoughts on using Madrigal to acquire a guy who is going to pitch maybe 10 innings in the playoffs and maybe 60 overall in Chicago.  I'm not sure that's the best use of a trade chip.  I'm excited about using Kimbrel in the playoffs, but I'm not thrilled that's all Chicago could turn Madrigal into.

With days off for travel, Kimbrel should only require two days off max when the team has three consecutive games.  If we go the full distance (19 games) he could theoretically pitch 10% of our total innings in the playoffs, which would be super valuable.

[Tony]

6 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

On #3, this is similar to some other responses I've seen to skepticism about the prospect cost of the Kimbrel trade (and other past trades), where the premise of the cross-examination seems to be that fans have no room to criticize a trade because they (i) don't know for sure there were better deals available for the same return, (ii) don't know for sure whether there were preferable returns the other team would have accepted for Kimbrel/player, or (iii) don't know for sure whether there were better deals out there in general.  Fair point I guess, but keep in mind you can make the same point about any layperson criticism of any trade, and taken to its extreme it makes every FO move above reproach. You can always point to the informational advantages of the FO to suggest that whatever trade was made had to be the best and only one available.  You don't really have to have FO-level transparency into the market, or your own solidly-formulated and vetted alternative trade, to opine that a trade was an overpay.

I see what you're saying and agree for the most part, but I wasn't trying to say you can't criticize the trade, you or anyone else has every right. I guess the question was more to the OP who said they would have expected more from a Madrigal return. In their mind, what should have the return been? What is realistic or reasonable? And were you against them going to get Kimbrell? We now know the cost of Kimbrell. If that was too much in your mind, who else would you have gone after the help improve the team, and what assets were you OK giving up? 

I think those are fair questions to ask. 

[ptatc]

15 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

On #3, this is similar to some other responses I've seen to skepticism about the prospect cost of the Kimbrel trade (and other past trades), where the premise of the cross-examination seems to be that fans have no room to criticize a trade because they (i) don't know for sure there were better deals available for the same return, (ii) don't know for sure whether there were preferable returns the other team would have accepted for Kimbrel/player, or (iii) don't know for sure whether there were better deals out there in general.  Fair point I guess, but keep in mind you can make the same point about any layperson criticism of any trade, and taken to its extreme it makes every FO move above reproach. You can always point to the informational advantages of the FO to suggest that whatever trade was made had to be the best and only one available.  You don't really have to have FO-level transparency into the market, or your own solidly-formulated and vetted alternative trade, to opine that a trade was an overpay.

You can but you also need to realize that it is an opinion that is based on not having all of the information. 

[Colome's Hat]

10 minutes ago, wegner said:

At this point, I am going with Cease in game 4 over Dallas but otherwise I agree with your points.

It's a good problem to have right?  The reason I like Dallas to start is he is typically good for three or four innings.  I think Cease's stuff is pretty electric but using him in relief in the playoffs might allow us to avoid the worst of him.  Was at the start at Yankee Stadium where he no hit the Yankees for four innings before getting shelled.  I'm also just skeptical of using someone with a fastball that doesn't top 80mph in a high leverage relief situation in the playoffs.

 

Also, on another topic, hoping the Sox win the ALDS at Yankee Stadium so I can go and watch their fans be miserable.  Having lived in NYC for nearly a decade, they are the worst.

[35thstreetswarm]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

You can but you also need to realize that it is an opinion that is based on not having all of the information. 

This applies to every opinion about the organization that's expressed on this board, really, except maybe the ones coming from Jerry Reinsdorf/Rick Hahn's joint burner account.

[ptatc]

7 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

This applies to every opinion about the organization that's expressed on this board, really, except maybe the ones coming from Jerry Reinsdorf/Rick Hahn's joint burner account.

That would be correct. That's why I said everyone is entitled to their opinion but everyone needs to realize that no one here has all of the information.

[he gone.]

I think there's an okay chance that Heuer is the bigger piece 3 years from now that Madrigal, and that is coming from a big Madrigal guy. 

He's so controversial, but is he not just David Fletcher? Or Eckstein? I love those type of guys ... I really do. And i do think a guy like fletcher getting on base before Ohtani, Trout, Rendon, etc. is huge. Just like Madrigal getting on base before Eloy, Abreu, Robert, Vaughn is huge. 

But in the scheme of things if you said we traded David Fletcher for Kimbrel we'd be ecstatic. Or if the shoe was flipped and we traded Hendicks to the Angels for Fletcher we'd be less than thrilled. It is all relative and although I'll miss Madrigal .... this was a good trade. Both side feel like they won, both sides feel like they lost. Good trade. 

[CentralChamps21]

8 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

I think there's an okay chance that Heuer is the bigger piece 3 years from now that Madrigal, and that is coming from a big Madrigal guy. 

He's so controversial, but is he not just David Fletcher? Or Eckstein? I love those type of guys ... I really do. And i do think a guy like fletcher getting on base before Ohtani, Trout, Rendon, etc. is huge. Just like Madrigal getting on base before Eloy, Abreu, Robert, Vaughn is huge. 

But in the scheme of things if you said we traded David Fletcher for Kimbrel we'd be ecstatic. Or if the shoe was flipped and we traded Hendicks to the Angels for Fletcher we'd be less than thrilled. It is all relative and although I'll miss Madrigal .... this was a good trade. Both side feel like they won, both sides feel like they lost. Good trade. 

I think there's still another shoe to drop on the Kimbrel trade. I think some team out there will really want a closer upgrade in the off season and make a good trade offer for him. Kimbrel could turn into that good left-handed bat that would fit nicely in the lineup.

[southsider2k5]

42 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

On #3, this is similar to some other responses I've seen to skepticism about the prospect cost of the Kimbrel trade (and other past trades), where the premise of the cross-examination seems to be that fans have no room to criticize a trade because they (i) don't know for sure there were better deals available for the same return, (ii) don't know for sure whether there were preferable returns the other team would have accepted for Kimbrel/player, or (iii) don't know for sure whether there were better deals out there in general.  Fair point I guess, but keep in mind you can make the same point about any layperson criticism of any trade, and taken to its extreme it makes every FO move above reproach. You can always point to the informational advantages of the FO to suggest that whatever trade was made had to be the best and only one available.  You don't really have to have FO-level transparency into the market, or your own solidly-formulated and vetted alternative trade, to opine that a trade was an overpay.

If you don't,  then Don expect others to take your "opine" seriously.  Soxtalk is better than the typical comments section replies for a reason, because most people here have thought deeper than "This trade sucks!".

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

37 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

With days off for travel, Kimbrel should only require two days off max when the team has three consecutive games.  If we go the full distance (19 games) he could theoretically pitch 10% of our total innings in the playoffs, which would be super valuable.

This is a tricky one for me. The reliever aspect of this makes it tougher.

In order for Kimbrel to be worth his price, the Sox need to not only get that far in the playoffs, but also play in close enough games that him being used over a replacement was significant enough for his impact to be a big reason why the Sox won.

This is why I'll forever be frustrated that the Sox didn't go after Bryant and a lesser reliever perhaps; or just Bryant.

Bryant impacts every inning of the game - regardless of score. Kimbrel impacts the game only in circumstances where the leverage was high enough and the game close enough that having him over someone else is incredibly valuable.

As I have said prior, paying extra to have him next year is just a waste of prospect/player capital because you could have just signed a top reliever next year and paid him less money and gotten 95% of the productivity that Kimbrel would give you, and I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that there is no guarantee that Kimbrel is absolutely dominant next year; all without giving up Madrigal/Codi.

If the Sox, say, lose in the first round this year then you paid a premium to use a guy in situations that never came up. That's obviously the risk of trading for any rental, but even more so a reliever rental imo.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

If you don't,  then Don expect others to take your "opine" seriously.  Soxtalk is better than the typical comments section replies for a reason, because most people here have thought deeper than "This trade sucks!".

To be fair, you literally refused to acknowledge any logical argument in rebuttal of the move because you were euphoric over the idea that the Sox acquired the big piece for the first time in forever; which is fine. I actually get the mindset 100%, as I wanted them to push the chips in and this move certainly signified that. Now I would have shoved all my chips in a different direction, but the moral of the story is still that they shoved and it's exciting to watch your team shove.

[35thstreetswarm]

 

48 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

On #3, this is similar to some other responses I've seen to skepticism about the prospect cost of the Kimbrel trade (and other past trades), where the premise of the cross-examination seems to be that fans have no room to criticize a trade because they (i) don't know for sure there were better deals available for the same return, (ii) don't know for sure whether there were preferable returns the other team would have accepted for Kimbrel/player, or (iii) don't know for sure whether there were better deals out there in general.  Fair point I guess, but keep in mind you can make the same point about any layperson criticism of any trade, and taken to its extreme it makes every FO move above reproach. You can always point to the informational advantages of the FO to suggest that whatever trade was made had to be the best and only one available.  You don't really have to have FO-level transparency into the market, or your own solidly-formulated and vetted alternative trade, to opine that a trade was an overpay.

 

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If you don't,  then Don expect others to take your "opine" seriously.  Soxtalk is better than the typical comments section replies for a reason, because most people here have thought deeper than "This trade sucks!".

I'm afraid you've missed the point.  It's not open to question whether you "do" or "don't." [have FO-level transparency into the market e.g.].  You don't.  Neither does anyone on the board.