Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

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

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    What type of prospects do we think we could even get back for Lackey?  I'm sure we could get some quality guys, but it's not like we would get a top 25 prospect. And if we wanted prospects with higher ceilings, then we would likely have to accept guys that are younger, more raw, and further away (not that I'm entirely opposed to that).  It's not like we would get back Xander Bogaerts or anything for him. 

    Lackey might not be as good as he was last year, but perhaps he comes really close for the next two years.  If you can explain away his 2011 season (because it is obvious he was pitching hurt the entire time) then he is effectively the same pitcher today as he has always been.....perhaps he does give us two more solid years.

    And if he does pitch solid for two more years, then he's a Q.O. candidate, which means he would either give us one more year, or return a draft pick and thus give us a prospect anyways. 




    He probably wouldnt be the only one involved in the trade. And of couse, it depends on the return. Lackey could get someone better than 25. Id bet $$ on that.




    Well if he could, then I might be up for a trade.  In reality, everyone is tradeable it all comes down to price. 

    I for the life of me would never trade Xander Bogaerts, not even for Stanton.  But If I was the G.M. and Miami came forward and offered Stanton and Fernandez for Bogaerts and Owens....I'd take it in a heart beat.   But that would never happen. 

    If the return was is a good haul, the G.M. should always pull the trigger. 

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

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    What type of prospects do we think we could even get back for Lackey?  I'm sure we could get some quality guys, but it's not like we would get a top 25 prospect. And if we wanted prospects with higher ceilings, then we would likely have to accept guys that are younger, more raw, and further away (not that I'm entirely opposed to that).  It's not like we would get back Xander Bogaerts or anything for him. 

    Lackey might not be as good as he was last year, but perhaps he comes really close for the next two years.  If you can explain away his 2011 season (because it is obvious he was pitching hurt the entire time) then he is effectively the same pitcher today as he has always been.....perhaps he does give us two more solid years.

    And if he does pitch solid for two more years, then he's a Q.O. candidate, which means he would either give us one more year, or return a draft pick and thus give us a prospect anyways. 



    He's predicted for a 3.2 WAR next year.  If you dropped his following year to 2.8, you would have a 6 WAR pitcher, equivalent to $30M, for about $17M, or excess value of $13M.  Somebody must have done some research into what prospects 1-100 are worth.  I don't know the numbers myself, but a guy like Davidson has to be worth at least $13M over 6 control years, and probably a bit more than that, right?

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

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    Well if he could, then I might be up for a trade.  In reality, everyone is tradeable it all comes down to price. 

    I for the life of me would never trade Xander Bogaerts, not even for Stanton.  But If I was the G.M. and Miami came forward and offered Stanton and Fernandez for Bogaerts and Owens....I'd take it in a heart beat.   But that would never happen. 

    If the return was is a good haul, the G.M. should always pull the trigger. 

    That's my figuring.  I wouldn't necessarily make a minor positive move that might upset chemistry, but if you could trade $10M in value and get $15M in value back, then it doesn't make that much difference to me if it is short-term value or long-term value.  If we get a little worse over the next few seasons, but really good this season, cool.  If we get a little worse this year, but a whole lot better the next few seasons, cool.

    I just want to keep getting better.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Well if he could, then I might be up for a trade.  In reality, everyone is tradeable it all comes down to price. 

    I for the life of me would never trade Xander Bogaerts, not even for Stanton.  But If I was the G.M. and Miami came forward and offered Stanton and Fernandez for Bogaerts and Owens....I'd take it in a heart beat.   But that would never happen. 

    If the return was is a good haul, the G.M. should always pull the trigger. 

    That's my figuring.  I wouldn't necessarily make a minor positive move that might upset chemistry, but if you could trade $10M in value and get $15M in value back, then it doesn't make that much difference to me if it is short-term value or long-term value.  If we get a little worse over the next few seasons, but really good this season, cool.  If we get a little worse this year, but a whole lot better the next few seasons, cool.

    I just want to keep getting better.



    Exactly. And trading players while their value is high or highest is usually the best way to make that happen.

    The value Lackey brings to our team is worth the same of maybe even more to other GMs who do not have as deep a SP pool to choose from. That is the basis for a good trade, when a player we have is worth more to another team than to ourselves.

    There will be several desperate for pitching help GMs at the end of this winter.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Exactly. And trading players while their value is high or highest is usually the best way to make that happen.

    The value Lackey brings to our team is worth the same of maybe even more to other GMs who do not have as deep a SP pool to choose from. That is the basis for a good trade, when a player we have is worth more to another team than to ourselves.

    There will be several desperate for pitching help GMs at the end of this winter.



    And what about the adage 'you can never have enough pitching'?  Wouldn't that in itself preclude trading Lackey?

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Exactly. And trading players while their value is high or highest is usually the best way to make that happen.

    The value Lackey brings to our team is worth the same of maybe even more to other GMs who do not have as deep a SP pool to choose from. That is the basis for a good trade, when a player we have is worth more to another team than to ourselves.

    There will be several desperate for pitching help GMs at the end of this winter.



    And what about the adage 'you can never have enough pitching'?  Wouldn't that in itself preclude trading Lackey?

     




    You all are making some very valid arguements.

    This is one of the only threads that have barely named anyone when suggesting trading one of our own. Usually we see all sorts of names. Me and Joe have named a couple names, but thats it.

    Some dont even want to consider trading lackey. Some dont believe we would get anything good for him. Lots of good veiwpoints.

    So what teams do you guys think are good trade partners and what do you think we could get for Lackey and maybe another player? I know Me and Joe like Matt Davidson in Az.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Exactly. And trading players while their value is high or highest is usually the best way to make that happen.

    The value Lackey brings to our team is worth the same of maybe even more to other GMs who do not have as deep a SP pool to choose from. That is the basis for a good trade, when a player we have is worth more to another team than to ourselves.

    There will be several desperate for pitching help GMs at the end of this winter.



    And what about the adage 'you can never have enough pitching'?  Wouldn't that in itself preclude trading Lackey?

     




    Not if it makes your overall team better. I seriously believe we could lose 1 pitcher and still be ok with Workman, Webster, Wright, and Hinojosa. Ranaudo isnt too far behind and Britton has been a starter his whole career. We do have a lot of options that are ready to step in if needed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    Not if it makes your overall team better. I seriously believe we could lose 1 pitcher and still be ok with Workman, Webster, Wright, and Hinojosa. Ranaudo isnt too far behind and Britton has been a starter his whole career. We do have a lot of options that are ready to step in if needed.



    Some of this is a philosophical difference.  I think the Red Sox are still in 'win now' mode.  We have a core of players that is capable of contending for a title again next year.

    I have no doubt we can make a trade with Lackey that will make us a better team somewhere down the road.  I do not believe we can make a trade with Lackey that will make us a better team in 2014.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    Not if it makes your overall team better. I seriously believe we could lose 1 pitcher and still be ok with Workman, Webster, Wright, and Hinojosa. Ranaudo isnt too far behind and Britton has been a starter his whole career. We do have a lot of options that are ready to step in if needed.



    Some of this is a philosophical difference.  I think the Red Sox are still in 'win now' mode.  We have a core of players that is capable of contending for a title again next year.

    I have no doubt we can make a trade with Lackey that will make us a better team somewhere down the road.  I do not believe we can make a trade with Lackey that will make us a better team in 2014.

     

     




    I think the Sox have to be in "win now" mode every year just because they are the red sox and have the money that they do. Only small budget teams are in the "win now" mode your talking about because they have a much smaller window and a much lower budget. We won a WS in what was supposed to be a bridge year to get to the kids.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    Not if it makes your overall team better. I seriously believe we could lose 1 pitcher and still be ok with Workman, Webster, Wright, and Hinojosa. Ranaudo isnt too far behind and Britton has been a starter his whole career. We do have a lot of options that are ready to step in if needed.




    To trade any starting pitcher, IMO it would have to be a move that makes the overall team better.  In other words, I do not like the idea of trading a starting pitcher for an equivalent position player, with the thought that we have have a surplus of pitching and can afford to trade one.

    I would rather keep the pitching depth, which I think ends up being more valuable over the course of the season, and find another way to fill the other holes.

    Unless it's a deal that really favors the Sox, I think the idea of trading Lackey is crazy.

     

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

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Exactly. And trading players while their value is high or highest is usually the best way to make that happen.

    The value Lackey brings to our team is worth the same of maybe even more to other GMs who do not have as deep a SP pool to choose from. That is the basis for a good trade, when a player we have is worth more to another team than to ourselves.

    There will be several desperate for pitching help GMs at the end of this winter.



    And what about the adage 'you can never have enough pitching'?  Wouldn't that in itself preclude trading Lackey?

     



    That's why it is an adage.  5 SPs is never enough since you will lose games to injuries.  The best possible solution is to estimate how many games you will lose to injury, and figure the most cost-effective way of addressing it.

    Think of the exercise like you were picking a #4 OF.  If you're lucky, you'll average 145-150 GS from each OF, meaning you'll need say 50 starts from your #4 OF.  You want the most cost-effective #4, not the best #4.  If you want the best #4, that might be Granderson for #14M.

    For the #6, Dempster is not a bad solution.  But for $500k, wouldn't Workman provide a similar value?  For #7/8, don't we need to take a look at DLR and Webster, and maybe others?  Two years ago, in the bridge was being built.  In that case, I'd probably pay more for a guy like Dempster since we had no other AAA choices.  Now?  Not so very much.

    So, if you can come to the conclusion that Workman, Webster, DLR, Renaudo, etc., are fine choices for 6/7/8/9, the Dempster, especially at his salary, becomes too much pitching.

    Now, if you have reached the conclusion that we can rid of a vet SP, I'm guessing almost everyone would be comfortable getting rid of Dempster.  However, and this relates a bit to what Hugh said, you have to consider the value.  

    All these guys have a value.  Dempster is not getting us anything.  Maybe I have stars in my eyes because of what TB and the NYMs did to KC and TO, but if that type of deal popped up for us, I think we absolutely have to weight 6 years of good prospect(s) v one or two years of Lester and Lackey.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    All these guys have a value.  Dempster is not getting us anything.  Maybe I have stars in my eyes because of what TB and the NYMs did to KC and TO, but if that type of deal popped up for us, I think we absolutely have to weight 6 years of good prospect(s) v one or two years of Lester and Lackey.



    I think Lester should be locked up with an extension, assuming his demands are reasonable.  I know you covered this in one of your earlier posts on this thread.

    A guy like Lester is extremely difficult to replace IMO.  Of course I'm also assuming that he can continue to pitch like he did the last half of 2013, and doesn't revert to 2012 off-form.

     

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

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    All these guys have a value.  Dempster is not getting us anything.  Maybe I have stars in my eyes because of what TB and the NYMs did to KC and TO, but if that type of deal popped up for us, I think we absolutely have to weight 6 years of good prospect(s) v one or two years of Lester and Lackey.



    I think Lester should be locked up with an extension, assuming his demands are reasonable.  I know you covered this in one of your earlier posts on this thread.

    A guy like Lester is extremely difficult to replace IMO.  Of course I'm also assuming that he can continue to pitch like he did the last half of 2013, and doesn't revert to 2012 off-form.

     



    Choice #1, by far, is to extend him.  But if he wants to test the market, and see what the NYY are offering in 2015, then choice #2 is to see what other teams want to offer us for him right now.  Last year, with Ellsbury, I didn't think we'd get a lot, and thought we were much better off with him than without him, and was very comfortable with a #35 pick.

    But with Lester, he could really bring back a lot after his second half and after his playoff performance.  He can't be replaced, but we can't and shouldn't outbid the NYY for him, if that's where it is going.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    If they can work out an extension with Lester we will probably know it in April and not before, because of the AAV shenanigans.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Exactly. And trading players while their value is high or highest is usually the best way to make that happen.

    The value Lackey brings to our team is worth the same of maybe even more to other GMs who do not have as deep a SP pool to choose from. That is the basis for a good trade, when a player we have is worth more to another team than to ourselves.

    There will be several desperate for pitching help GMs at the end of this winter.



    And what about the adage 'you can never have enough pitching'?  Wouldn't that in itself preclude trading Lackey?

     



    Normally, yes, but with 4 huge gaps to fill and only $30M to spend, tough decisions have to be made.

    I also do not think the drop off from Dempster to a combination of Morales, Workman, britton, Webster, Rinojosa, Ranaudo, and maybe even Owens by August is not very large. I think even without Dempster, our SP depth is better than average.

    The drop off from Salty to Lava, Ellsbury to JBJ, and Napoli to Carp is larger and more significant than the drop off from Dempster. The $10M+ saved by dealing Dempster could mean better upgrades at one or more of these slots.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    Dempster is not getting us anything.

    The $10M of salary relief can net us a very good piece or upgrade from a good piece to an excellent piece.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    I'm in agreement that trading Dempster would make sense.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    Maybe I have stars in my eyes because of what TB and the NYMs did to KC and TO, but if that type of deal popped up for us, I think we absolutely have to weight 6 years of good prospect(s) v one or two years of Lester and Lackey.

    Last winter, I suggested trading Lester for Myers and then signing Anibal Sanchez. 

    I think I'd still rather have 4 more years of Sanchez and 5+ years of Myers for 1 year of Lester.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I'm in agreement that trading Dempster would make sense.



    I agree, but I think that other teams would balk at the Sox asking for a bag of golf balls in return for him. Totally unreasonable.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    I ask this because the Dbacks really need, and are looking for a Pitcher like Lackey to solidify their rotation. At an average of 8.5M a year for 2 years, hes a great bargain. He would do well at Chase Field too.

    The Dbacks have loads of good young pitching, as well as position players, and are willing to deal some of their prospects for pitching. Im sure we could always add to the deal, but I think the Sox and Az match up good. Just a thought.




    This is a good question. IMO if you feel the RS can compete for another WS ring in the next 2 yrs you have to hold onto him. Lackey IMO has proven himself in big spots and someone you want in the post season rotation. With him and Lester have to feel good about your chances in  any series. Peavy would be the guy to unload but would not bring anywhere near the same return w/ his contract vs. Lackey's. I'm a believer that RS will have a tough time matching what they did in 13 next yr [banquet hangover], but believe that 15 and beyond RS may be contenders for a good 5 yr+ period if young guys develope as projected and veterans can stay healthy.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    I ask this because the Dbacks really need, and are looking for a Pitcher like Lackey to solidify their rotation. At an average of 8.5M a year for 2 years, hes a great bargain. He would do well at Chase Field too.

    The Dbacks have loads of good young pitching, as well as position players, and are willing to deal some of their prospects for pitching. Im sure we could always add to the deal, but I think the Sox and Az match up good. Just a thought.




    This is a good question. IMO if you feel the RS can compete for another WS ring in the next 2 yrs you have to hold onto him. Lackey IMO has proven himself in big spots and someone you want in the post season rotation. With him and Lester have to feel good about your chances in  any series. Peavy would be the guy to unload but would not bring anywhere near the same return w/ his contract vs. Lackey's. I'm a believer that RS will have a tough time matching what they did in 13 next yr [banquet hangover], but believe that 15 and beyond RS may be contenders for a good 5 yr+ period if young guys develope as projected and veterans can stay healthy.

     



    This is more my thinking. I think the projected numbers with Peavy and Lackey are so close that it wouldnt be much of a falloff, if any. The worry with Peavy is injuries. Hes had no issues with his shoulder since it was worked on. Still, the track record for him is there.

    The funny thing is nobody thought we had a chance at a playoff spot, nevermind a WSC. Now, were possibly losing 4 key players to FA. If there is a chance to stay competetive AND gain some pieces for the future, Im all in. The return HAS to make sense though. I trust Ben will make the right moves and non-moves.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I think I'd still rather have 4 more years of Sanchez and 5+ years of Myers for 1 year of Lester.



    Not an apples-to-apples comparison, because with Sanchez you also have a salary at about $17 million a year for 4 years.  If we had Sanchez our payroll room would be less than it is now. 

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    I ask this because the Dbacks really need, and are looking for a Pitcher like Lackey to solidify their rotation. At an average of 8.5M a year for 2 years, hes a great bargain. He would do well at Chase Field too.

    The Dbacks have loads of good young pitching, as well as position players, and are willing to deal some of their prospects for pitching. Im sure we could always add to the deal, but I think the Sox and Az match up good. Just a thought.




    This is a good question. IMO if you feel the RS can compete for another WS ring in the next 2 yrs you have to hold onto him. Lackey IMO has proven himself in big spots and someone you want in the post season rotation. With him and Lester have to feel good about your chances in  any series. Peavy would be the guy to unload but would not bring anywhere near the same return w/ his contract vs. Lackey's. I'm a believer that RS will have a tough time matching what they did in 13 next yr [banquet hangover], but believe that 15 and beyond RS may be contenders for a good 5 yr+ period if young guys develope as projected and veterans can stay healthy.

     



    This is more my thinking. I think the projected numbers with Peavy and Lackey are so close that it wouldnt be much of a falloff, if any. The worry with Peavy is injuries. Hes had no issues with his shoulder since it was worked on. Still, the track record for him is there.

    The funny thing is nobody thought we had a chance at a playoff spot, nevermind a WSC. Now, were possibly losing 4 key players to FA. If there is a chance to stay competetive AND gain some pieces for the future, Im all in. The return HAS to make sense though. I trust Ben will make the right moves and non-moves.



    I predicted the Sox would make the playoffs southpaw.  I also feel Peavy should address his eye problems either by trying glasses, Lasic Etc. if it's a possibility.  Any pitcher having problems picking up his catchers signs should make the effort to correct the issue.  Jake is still a solid pitcher and will have another good year but it would probably help.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    I ask this because the Dbacks really need, and are looking for a Pitcher like Lackey to solidify their rotation. At an average of 8.5M a year for 2 years, hes a great bargain. He would do well at Chase Field too.

    The Dbacks have loads of good young pitching, as well as position players, and are willing to deal some of their prospects for pitching. Im sure we could always add to the deal, but I think the Sox and Az match up good. Just a thought.




    This is a good question. IMO if you feel the RS can compete for another WS ring in the next 2 yrs you have to hold onto him. Lackey IMO has proven himself in big spots and someone you want in the post season rotation. With him and Lester have to feel good about your chances in  any series. Peavy would be the guy to unload but would not bring anywhere near the same return w/ his contract vs. Lackey's. I'm a believer that RS will have a tough time matching what they did in 13 next yr [banquet hangover], but believe that 15 and beyond RS may be contenders for a good 5 yr+ period if young guys develope as projected and veterans can stay healthy.

     



    This is more my thinking. I think the projected numbers with Peavy and Lackey are so close that it wouldnt be much of a falloff, if any. The worry with Peavy is injuries. Hes had no issues with his shoulder since it was worked on. Still, the track record for him is there.

    The funny thing is nobody thought we had a chance at a playoff spot, nevermind a WSC. Now, were possibly losing 4 key players to FA. If there is a chance to stay competetive AND gain some pieces for the future, Im all in. The return HAS to make sense though. I trust Ben will make the right moves and non-moves.



    I predicted the Sox would make the playoffs southpaw.  I also feel Peavy should address his eye problems either by trying glasses, Lasic Etc. if it's a possibility.  Any pitcher having problems picking up his catchers signs should make the effort to correct the issue.  Jake is still a solid pitcher and will have another good year but it would probably help.




    I should have worded it differently. as MOST people didnt think we were a PO team, but my point is still there.

    Im not sure, but I think I heard/read that Peavys vision issues arent fixable with lasic. dont quote me though. Hes done pretty good so far, but It could be getting worse now into his 30's.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Would you trade Lackey for younger prospects ?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    What type of prospects do we think we could even get back for Lackey?  I'm sure we could get some quality guys, but it's not like we would get a top 25 prospect. And if we wanted prospects with higher ceilings, then we would likely have to accept guys that are younger, more raw, and further away (not that I'm entirely opposed to that).  It's not like we would get back Xander Bogaerts or anything for him. 

    Lackey might not be as good as he was last year, but perhaps he comes really close for the next two years.  If you can explain away his 2011 season (because it is obvious he was pitching hurt the entire time) then he is effectively the same pitcher today as he has always been.....perhaps he does give us two more solid years.

    And if he does pitch solid for two more years, then he's a Q.O. candidate, which means he would either give us one more year, or return a draft pick and thus give us a prospect anyways. 



    He's predicted for a 3.2 WAR next year.  If you dropped his following year to 2.8, you would have a 6 WAR pitcher, equivalent to $30M, for about $17M, or excess value of $13M.  Somebody must have done some research into what prospects 1-100 are worth.  I don't know the numbers myself, but a guy like Davidson has to be worth at least $13M over 6 control years, and probably a bit more than that, right?



    That's an interesting concept on how teams value prospect in terms of future MLB value but I'm sure it's also an arbitrary process that differs from Organization to organization.  Remember not all #45 ranked prospects (just using any old slot) are created equal.  One could be a very good high floor guy in triple A that is MLB ready while another year the 45th ranked guy could carry much more Raw talent but be a Low A guy with a higher bust potential.  That 45th guy could be 20th to one organization and 80th to another depending on how they weight ceiling vs. proximity to the majors.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share