Memo To Cherry: Trade Proposal: Ellsbury, Bailey and Carp for Rangers top prospect & Moreland

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Memo To Cherry: Trade Proposal: Ellsbury, Bailey and Carp for Rangers top prospect & Moreland

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Smoak, Jackson, just to name a few. In Smoak's case, he went for just one MLB rental player.

    Profar is a prospect, this isn't any Brycye Harper. Anyone remember Tim Beckham? How 'bout Chris Burke?

     



    Not nearly close enough.  Smoak was rated #13.  Which Jackson?

    Chris Burke was ranked as high as #51, not #1.

    Tim Beckham was rated as high as #67 once he started playing, not #1.

    But you need to understand the concept at work.  I'm not saying that high draft picks like Beckham and Burke are guaranteed to succeed, only that #1 prospects are virtually never traded, and if traded, they will net you an awful big haul.  Not one year of Ellsbury, no matter how much you like the guy.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Memo To Cherry: Trade Proposal: Ellsbury, Bailey and Carp for Rangers top prospect & Moreland

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Joe, you seem resolute about calling this trade proposal absurd. How did you feel about the Red Sox trading their top prospect for one year of control for an NL pitcher with blister problems and one masssive two year salary dump veteran? What did you think about that trade, Joe?



    Let's correct all your mistakes first.

    1-'Trading top prospect'-This seems to be of a similar nature to your remarks on Burke and Beckham.  You seem to think that 'their top prospect' is the same as being the #1 prospect in all of BB.  Hanley was ranked #30 at the time of the trade, and yes, I was fine with the trade.

    2-Beckett had two years of control left, not one.

    Two years of control for a top pitcher in return for #30.

    One year of control for a top CF for a #1.

    These two equations are not close.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Memo To Cherry: Trade Proposal: Ellsbury, Bailey and Carp for Rangers top prospect & Moreland

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Joe, neither your nor the Red Sox understand the "concept here at work".

    You failed to respond to the Red Sox trading their top prospect for a one year rental and a massive 2 year salary dump. Your comment "not good enough" is nonsense. It's not science, they are prospects. The guy isn't Harper or Hanley, which is why the BA rankings don't have any stability.

    But, go ahead and approach the trade market thinking that "you need a big haul" for one top prospect. That's nonsense.



    Actually, it is science.  Just because future projections don't always pan out, doesn't mean it is not science.

    Just out of curiosity, what do you think Ellsbury is worth if we were trading him for a draft pick this year?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Memo To Cherry: Trade Proposal: Ellsbury, Bailey and Carp for Rangers top prospect & Moreland

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    No, Joe, factually, it's not science. You claiming someone was rankeed "30" is a function of who is making the subjective rankings.

    Beckett wasn't "a top pitcher", he had injury issues that were an issue during the trade. He was given extension one year after the Red Sox acquired him, after just one year of arbitration. Lowell came as a massie salary dump.

    The top prospect in MLB is almost always a month to month subjective ranking, which is always after the fact most recent minor league numbers. With the exception a few special young talents, it's meaningless to say "he's the #1 but this guy is the #30". The issue is what are his skills and what does his current team have in front of him and what do they need.

    This management group doesn't have a clue on the trade or FA market.



    1-I think in every case, I said the player 'topped out at'.  That's not subjective.  That's factual.

    2-Beckett was 15-8 with a 3.38 when they acquired him.

    3-The fact that the RS extended Beckett with one year of control left doesn't mean he only had one year of control left.  That's a little far-fetched even for you.

    4-It's only meaningless to differentiate between #1 and #30 if you don't understand the difference.  It's idiocy to think of them as equivalents.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Memo To Cherry: Trade Proposal: Ellsbury, Bailey and Carp for Rangers top prospect & Moreland

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    No, Joe, factually, it's not science. You claiming someone was rankeed "30" is a function of who is making the subjective rankings.

    Beckett wasn't "a top pitcher", he had injury issues that were an issue during the trade. He was given extension one year after the Red Sox acquired him, after just one year of arbitration. Lowell came as a massie salary dump.

    The top prospect in MLB is almost always a month to month subjective ranking, which is always after the fact most recent minor league numbers. With the exception a few special young talents, it's meaningless to say "he's the #1 but this guy is the #30". The issue is what are his skills and what does his current team have in front of him and what do they need.

    This management group doesn't have a clue on the trade or FA market.

     



    1-I think in every case, I said the player 'topped out at'.  That's not subjective.  That's factual.

     

    2-Beckett was 15-8 with a 3.38 when they acquired him.

    3-The fact that the RS extended Beckett with one year of control left doesn't mean he only had one year of control left.  That's a little far-fetched even for you.

    4-It's only meaningless to differentiate between #1 and #30 if you don't understand the difference.  It's idiocy to think of them as equivalents.



    you both could just look at their MiLB numbers with scouting reports and settle the value issue once and for all

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share