San Diego should just contract. If you're giving away your only decent offensive player for pie-in-the-sky prospects, it's time to close up shop. Not sure how they're going to score any runs next year.
San Diego should just contract. If you're giving away your only decent offensive player for pie-in-the-sky prospects, it's time to close up shop. Not sure how they're going to score any runs next year.
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
Well after they signed Harang, they had to clear a spot on the big-league roster.
320
I'd rather listen to Kelch read the phone book than suffer through Thom Brennaman's attempt to make every instance on the field the most important event since the discovery of manned space flight. -westofyou
I'm not happy with the package either, but we should realize that the Red Sox have one of the best minor league systems in baseball and parted with 3 of their top 10 prospects. Jim Callis of Baseball America had them at #1 (Kelly), #3 (Rizzo) and #6 (Fuentes).
If we had given up, say, Mesoraco, Yorman Rodriguez and Billy Hamilton (with a PTBNL) how would people feel about the fairness?
I wonder how we might compare Gonzalez's value to Zack Greinke's?
I think we all have a tendency to discount other people's prospects more than we'd like to admit. The Padres got 3 very good prospects. Time will tell how it all works out, but let's not pretend like they just gave him away.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
The Padres got a good package for Gonzazlez, but Kelly is the only prospect they got that compares to the three Reds prospects you mentioned.
Rizzo compares to Francisco and Fuentes commpares Sappelt, IMO. To me a comperable Reds package would be Alonso, Francsico and Sappelt. solid, but not as good as I expected.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
I agree with your point, but think its understated. Kelly, as a top arm, has a lot more value than Alonso even if you still think Alonso is going to be a .300/.400/.500 guy in the big leagues. Lots of good 1B. Rizzo doesn't have the huge plate discipline issue to overcome that Francisco does, so he's a better bet to carry it to the majors. Rizzo is probably better than Francisco but not as good as Alonso. Chapman, Alonso and Sappelt is probably a better comp for what the Sox gave up. Fuentes doesn't have Sappelt's numbers, but he was a first round pick in A ball at 19 so its hard to read much into his stat line. I'd say the Sox gave-up a lot.
Its not so much what the Sox gave up that is so appalling. The Padres were on the verge of making the post-season and instead of building on that, they appear to be restarting. That has to be demoralizing for the SD fan base.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
Demoralizing, maybe. But is it really worse than deluding yourself in to thinking you had sustainable greatness on your hands. The Royals and Mariners both made that mistake in recent years and paid for it. I say kudos to the Padres for not getting caught up in 1 year's unexpected success.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
There are well-run rich franchises (Yankees, Red Sox) and well-run poor franchises (Twins, Reds?). There are also poorly-run rich franchises (Dodgers, Cubs) and poorly-run poor franchises (Pirates, Royals--although the latter may be on the up and up).
In my view, it isn't so much about assessing outcomes. Sometimes the poor succeed and the rich fail--like in anything. Rather, it's about ensuring that every team has an equal chance to succeed. That's what is sad about the San Diego scenario--that they were a good team primed to build on success, but simply didn't have the financial stability to do so. Instead, they had to tear down. Meanwhile, the Yankees and Red Sox are in a perpetual state of gobbling up everything they want. These teams have, by default, more chances to succeed and a bigger margin of error with every transaction. To me, that's not good for the game--and it's just not fair.
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
First, Chapman is worth more than all three prospects the Padres gave up combined. He's truely one of a kind prospect with the highest ceiling a prospect could have.
Second, Kelly projects to be a solid #2-3 starter. He's no ace. He's a low 90's sinkerballer with good control. He might be higher than Alonso, simply because he's pitcher, but not by much.
Third, Rizzo has similar contact issues as Francisco (as well as on base problems) Rizzo K'd once in every 4.9 PA's, Francisco, once in every 4.3. Francsico is worse, but both are very bad, and won't survive the majors unless addressed.
Fourth, a first rounder by the Red Sox is like a second or third rounder for a team like the Reds this past decade. Guys from #15 to #100 usually aren't that different in talent. Fuentes seems like a reach for the Red Sox, a guy with great tools, that needs to learn the game.
I like what the Padres got, I'm just trying to point out that the #1, 3 and 5 prospects from the Red Sox are not the same as the #1, 3 and 5 prospects from the Reds. Making the playoffs nearly every year vs. losing record every year will do that.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
The deal fell through per MLB Trade Rumors.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
"Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons
So by your logic MLB should get rid of the draft. Obviously it's not fair that the worst teams get the opportunity to pick the best amateur talent. And why should the teams have all the power? Is it fair to the labor that they are forced to play for teams that they might not sign with if they were free agents?
What if every team starts out with an 'equal' chance to succeed but a few organizations have a habit of making good decisions and in so doing they build up their business to where they may have a bit of a competitive advantage. Under your system you would punish those teams for the years of good decisions they made by re-equalizing the playing field once again.
So, the deal fell through, if the Sox offered a similar deal to the Reds for Votto, would you take it?
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |