Jordan4life_2007 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 07:29 PM) So you want to trade a once prospect who has had some success for more prospects? This logic baffles me. It makes sense if you're talking about SP or position prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 05:26 PM) Point about his arm not having mileage on it. I just think that as empty as the Sox farm system is, it'd be best to cash in the Santos chips now rather than later. If he becomes an elite closer next year, which I think is definitely possible, his value will be even higher. I'm willing to take that gamble if I'm KW. I don't see much downside short of a freak injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 07:47 PM) It makes sense if you're talking about SP or position prospects. So we trade our closer who is under our control for six seasons, for a prospect who is under our control for six seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:01 PM) So we trade our closer who is under our control for six seasons, for a prospect who is under our control for six seasons. Which is why my statement was 2 prospects before I even start thinking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 09:01 PM) So we trade our closer who is under our control for six seasons, for a prospect who is under our control for six seasons. If said prospect(s) ceiling is that of a 5-6 WAR SP or position player, you bet. Craig Kimbrel had an X-Box type season and topped out at 3.2 WAR. Relievers are a distant third behind SP and position players in terms of importance. Give Reed a shot to close. If he bombs, find somebody else to pitch those 60 innings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 11:16 PM) If said prospect(s) ceiling is that of a 5-6 WAR SP or position player, you bet. Craig Kimbrel had an X-Box type season and topped out at 3.2 WAR. Relievers are a distant third behind SP and position players in terms of importance. Give Reed a shot to close. If he bombs, find somebody else to pitch those 60 innings. Remember though, even a top prospect probably has close to a 50% bust rate, or even higher if it's only a moderate level prospect, so a 50% rate of not even getting to where Sergio currently is. That's why the price has to be higher than just 1 position player/pitcher top prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:31 PM) Remember though, even a top prospect probably has close to a 50% bust rate, or even higher if it's only a moderate level prospect, so a 50% rate of not even getting to where Sergio currently is. That's why the price has to be higher than just 1 position player/pitcher top prospect. No question. I was saying one or the other as a centerpiece. You would definitely need more than just that. I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a reliever equivalent package to what the Indians gave up for Ubaldo that doesn't sound Tim McCarverish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:31 PM) Remember though, even a top prospect probably has close to a 50% bust rate, or even higher if it's only a moderate level prospect, so a 50% rate of not even getting to where Sergio currently is. That's why the price has to be higher than just 1 position player/pitcher top prospect. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:31 PM) Remember though, even a top prospect probably has close to a 50% bust rate, or even higher if it's only a moderate level prospect, so a 50% rate of not even getting to where Sergio currently is. That's why the price has to be higher than just 1 position player/pitcher top prospect. Santos is closer to being Jesse Crain than he is to being Jonathon Papelbon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 11:44 AM) Santos is closer to being Jesse Crain than he is to being Jonathon Papelbon. Cost-effective and good instead of overpaid and bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Cost-effective and good instead of overpaid and bad? If you think Papelbon is bad, how can you think Santos is good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) If you think Papelbon is bad, how can you think Santos is good? Their numbers are actually really comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) If you think Papelbon is bad, how can you think Santos is good? Cause Papelbon was super-bad two years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 05:58 PM) Cause Papelbon was super-bad two years ago. Sergio was worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Santos was a few pitches away from being one of the most dominant relievers in baseball last season, but he didn't make the pitches. If a team wants to give the Sox the value that comes with making those pitches, or at least half of them, plus a pretty team friendly contract, I say move him, but if they are just going to give you talent that is worthy of a questionable reliever, dominant at times, meat others, the Sox might as well hang on to him. In a nutshell, either get a team to overpay or keep him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 06:10 PM) Sergio was worse. And a rookie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 06:20 PM) And a rookie. Yeah, I get all the mileage on the arm stuff and the inexperience stuff, however, like many football players who turn into baseball players and miss out on serious development time in their teens and early twenties, I think most of the time its hard to get that back. IMO, there's a better chance Santos is what he is or can improve slightly, which would make him All Star calibur, than a guy who is going to keep growing based on his lack pitching experience. He'll probably be terrific most of the season, but make a few boneheaded pitches in crucial situations to keep from being called truly elite. I like him, and wouldn't trade him unless I knew I was getting more than he's worth, but I don't think his upside is much higher than where he's at now. But that's still pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 06:10 PM) Sergio was worse. In a few areas. In others he was much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 06:20 PM) And a rookie. And Papelbon had a down year after a half decade of pure dominance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Cost-effective and good instead of overpaid and bad? None of the pitchers mentioned are bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Never mind. Its been said. I thought that was the end of the thread for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 06:31 PM) Yeah, I get all the mileage on the arm stuff and the inexperience stuff, however, like many football players who turn into baseball players and miss out on serious development time in their teens and early twenties, I think most of the time its hard to get that back. IMO, there's a better chance Santos is what he is or can improve slightly, which would make him All Star calibur, than a guy who is going to keep growing based on his lack pitching experience. He'll probably be terrific most of the season, but make a few boneheaded pitches in crucial situations to keep from being called truly elite. I like him, and wouldn't trade him unless I knew I was getting more than he's worth, but I don't think his upside is much higher than where he's at now. But that's still pretty good. You make some good points. I agree with your stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.