Jump to content

kj2018

Greene / Boyd Trade Options

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Bottom line is, the Tigers botched on Nick. They quite possibly botched on drafting him, and they definitely botched on developing him. But the news ain't all bad: at least he has enough money to live on for the rest of his life.

Regarding botching the Nick pick, whom should they have drafted with that pick?

I haven't looked, so maybe they did.  My guess is there are only a few guys drafted after him that had a significantly better career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Nick delivered far more value than should have been expected for where he was picked and paid in bonus.

And, remember, I hate Nick.

Nick being drafted isn't the problem.  It is all the guys they missed on.

 

16 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

yes, but he was a supplemental because of his salary demands.  He was projected much higher.

I still think Nick was a good draft pick and did provide some value.  I also don't think he's as bad as he's been this year--baseball is a mental sport and I think the uncertainty might be impacting his performance.  I do hope he can go on a Justin Upton-esque hot streak to help our fortunes, as well as his own.

but, in summation, there is zero chance the Tigers offer him the QO.

My point is more about resource management. Regardless of how we got either of them, on the date when we traded Garcia for Iglesias the word was the Sox would have taken either but we valued Nick higher. So at that point those players were both objectively worth a value we can  call one "Iggy" on the open market. Once Nick walks to complete the ledger we will have a zero where we should have 5-6 WAR of roster value. Whether it's because you don't evaluate your talent correctly, don't develop it to its best potential, fail to trade it for what it's worth, or destroy a players market value mishandling him, if you consistently lose or destroy roster value  you are going to have a bad team, and the Tiger have just been too good at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

 

My point is more about resource management. On the date when we traded Garcia for Iglesias the word was the Sox would have taken either but we valued Nick higher. So at that point those players were both worth a value we can can an "Iggy" on the open market. Once Nick walks to complete the ledger we will have a zero where we should have 5-6 WAR of roster value. Whether it's because you don't evaluate your talent correctly, don't develop it to its best potential, fail to trade it for what it's worth, or destroy a players market value mishandling him, if you consistently lose or destroy roster value  you are going to have a have a bad team, and the Tiger have just been too good at it.

I agree with this.  Are we somehow in dispute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tenacious D said:

I agree with this.  Are we somehow in dispute?

no - I'm just trying to  put my ducks in a straighter row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

My point is more about resource management. On the date when we traded Garcia for Iglesias the word was the Sox would have taken either but we valued Nick higher. So at that point those players were both worth a value we can can an "Iggy" on the open market. Once Nick walks to complete the ledger we will have a zero where we should have 5-6 WAR of roster value. Whether it's because you don't evaluate your talent correctly, don't develop it to its best potential, fail to trade it for what it's worth, or destroy a players market value mishandling him, if you consistently lose or destroy roster value  you are going to have a have a bad team, and the Tiger have just been too good at it.

Was/is Garcia significantly better than Castellanos, if better at all?

Either swap for Iglesias was a fair deal with modest return.

Are you arguing they shouldn't have let Iglesias walk?

Independent of that, it is hard to trade a player when there isn't a market for the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Was/is Garcia significantly better than Castellanos, if better at all?

Garcia is better at bedding players’ wives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Garcia is better at bedding players’ wives. 

I still think this was the impetus for Cabby's downward health spiral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Was/is Garcia significantly better than Castellanos, if better at all?

who knows?. As of today I'd project that Garcia is going have more value in the future. He plays a better OF and hits for more power. If I recall when they were both in Det the knock on Garcia was his lack of power but since that has now developed, I guess I'd tend to pick Avisail's as the more promising future from this date forward. OTOH, Nick's regression in plate discipline tends to make me think that last year may have been more the outlier than real trend for him. But these guys both also seem to have attitude issues  - though quite different ones - which appear to be capable of derailing either of them.

But the Tigers' problem here is that they both had more value in the past than the Tigers are ever going to realize from them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Since when is the standard for a supplemental pick that the player be a guy you build your future on?

If that is what should be expected, by all means, give the man a QO.  That supplemental pick will be transformational.

Except Nick would take the offer, so we wouldn't get the pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

But the Tigers' problem here is that they both had more value in the past than the Tigers are ever going to realize from them. 

not every decision has been a bust, though.  We got a season out of Alfredo Simon for that loser, Eugenio Suarez.  Wonder whatever happened to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

not every decision has been a bust, though.  We got a season out of Alfredo Simon for that loser, Eugenio Suarez.  Wonder whatever happened to him?

lol, this was entirely predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

not every decision has been a bust, though.  We got a season out of Alfredo Simon for that loser, Eugenio Suarez.  Wonder whatever happened to him?

Too lazy to look but wonder if there is any consistent pattern of over valuing OF prospects (Castellanos, Moya),  and undervaluing IF prospects (Suarez, Adames)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of the 50 players taken in the 1st round plus the supplemental round that year, castellanos ranks 13th in war.

of the players who have more war, none of them were available when the tigers took castellanos.

in the next 13 rounds, 19 players drafted have more war than nick.

castellanos was a successful pick even if there were a few other players selected after him who have developed in better players.  the most concerning part is that of all the players drafted after nick who became more successful, only one (drew smyly) was taken by the tigers.

that's the larger problem.  nick was a successful pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2019:

avi garcia, 1.8 war, 299/354/494

jose iglesias, 1.0 war 289/332/413

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Nick is a successful major leaguer, isn't it a given that we should be extending him with years? Otherwise, which contenders need someone of his value level in trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No contender would give value for him unless it's as a dh and they believe his production will improve this year to similar or better than the last 2 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Boras ever had a client who accepted the QO? If Det makes that offer and Nick stupidly declines, no team will offer him a 50+ mil contract so there will be no comp pick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, leflore said:

No contender would give value for him unless it's as a dh and they believe his production will improve this year to similar or better than the last 2 years

Which contender needs a full time DH of Nick’s level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Which contender needs a full time DH of Nick’s level?

I don’t know about DH, but there are a number of “contending” teams whose right field situation could be improved by the 800 ops version of castellanos. The degree of improvement varies. In no case do I see a team giving up much in value to get him. But when the tigers cover his salary, I think they will find someone to take him. 

Cubs, cards, rangers, dbacks, A’s, Braves, Indians, even the White Sox. 

That said, I only skimmed the depth charts on fangraphs so I’m sure there are factors in play for certain teams that would take them out of the running. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Nick was rushed?  He seemed ready based on his minor league stats, but he was very young when he was promoted and certainly struggled for a few seasons. Also having to learn a new defensive position a few times probably didn’t help.

He’s a good dude—hope he can turn it around quickly, and can be dealt to a contender. Win-win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, leflore said:

No contender would give value for him unless it's as a dh and they believe his production will improve this year to similar or better than the last 2 years

He would be fine defensively as a first baseman, but a first baseman is not much above a DH on the overall value score.  DH is all about hitting, and first base is almost all about hitting.  His current level of offense is nowhere near what you want for either spot.

A contender who has or winds up with a hole at corner outfield, such as due to injury, might take him on for the rest of the season and give the Tigers a minimal return for him, but I can't see us doing any better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

He would be fine defensively as a first baseman

He'll have to stay ahead of Schwindel baby!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Buddha said:

of the 50 players taken in the 1st round plus the supplemental round that year, castellanos ranks 13th in war.

of the players who have more war, none of them were available when the tigers took castellanos.

in the next 13 rounds, 19 players drafted have more war than nick.

castellanos was a successful pick even if there were a few other players selected after him who have developed in better players.  the most concerning part is that of all the players drafted after nick who became more successful, only one (drew smyly) was taken by the tigers.

that's the larger problem.  nick was a successful pick.

Exactly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,634
    • Total Posts
      2,909,393
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...