Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: How The Kings Beat The Coyotes: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Red Sox Trade Values: Prospects

In Part 1 and 2 of the trade value series, I focused exclusively on the value of the major league players on the team. Predicting the value of players with a reasonable major league track record is not easy work, but it does produce much more reliable forecasts than attempts to predict the future value of players who have yet to see any time in the major leagues. Even the smartest front offices have trouble doing this. Every organization fields a vast array of minor league players as a result, and shifting through the numbers across different league environments and player levels is daunting even to the most experienced analysts. 

Star-divide

Fortunately, there has been some excellent research done by organizations like Baseball America, SBNation’s own Minor League Ball and many others to separate players into some order, prioritize the dozens of considerations teams look at in evaluating minor leaguers and break them down into some sort of rank. In some truly groundbreaking work, Victor Wang of the Hardball Times used the BA rankings and Sickels’ grading to calculate the average value of players who fall into certain ranges within the ranking systems. Unfortunately, neither Sickels nor Baseball America has released their 2011 ratings at this point. Rather than just using last year’s rankings, I am making some educated guesses on the Red Sox prospects. As with the major league projections, I am trying to give conservative estimates. Here they are:  

Prospect_trade_value_medium

(Click on this image for a larger version)

One thing that fans might find surprising is Casey Kelly’s value does not lead the way. In the work that Mr. Wang did, he found that hitting prospects produced far greater value than pitchers, primarily because pitchers busted far more often. The value for Kelly here reflects that, but he can easily be two or three times more valuable if he reaches the majors and translates his potential at that level. Anthony Rizzo looks like a safe bet to be Boston’s highest ranking hitter and therefore their most valuable commodity right now.

Josh Reddick and Ryan Kalish may well be more valuable in the near future, but both are less well liked by the prospect mavens of the world after last season. Jose Iglesias has seen his stock rising this year despite a lot of the concerns scouts had about his bat. He is already seen as a top-tier defensive player whose glove is major league ready. He takes a hit in his value as the Red Sox have him signed to a major league deal already. Another player who is rising through the ranks is Ryan Lavarnway. The young catcher was dominant in the Arizona Fall leagues and might even crack the BA top-100 as a result.

If there is one player who I am sure is radically undervalued here, it is Ryan Westmoreland. After missing a full year of baseball due to a brain surgery, the former top-20 prospect is likely to fall off the list entirely this year. However, recent updates suggest that he will be able to return to baseball without any lasting effects. If that is the case, Westmoreland could easily be a top-10 hitting prospect by this time next year, tripling his value to the organization.

I will have a revision of this chapter when the official rankings are available, but I think these are solid conservative estimates. The Red Sox have a lot of valuable pieces in the minors and clearly deserve their reputation for farm system depth and quality. In particular, they have done an amazing job in developing pitching. If top pitching prospects like Kelly, Anthony Ranaudo and Drake Briton make it all the way to Fenway, they can match players like Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester in value.

 

Comment 56 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

The volatility of prospects

Is precisely why they should trade practically whoever Arizona wants for Upton. I don’t know if the rumor that the Blue Jays said to Towers “pick five of whoever you want,” but I would not be opposed to the Sox doing a similar thing, perhaps with one less given the superiority of the Sox’s system. Kelly, Rizzo, Reddick, Doubront, Pimentel? I’d do it. Upton is that good, with the massive caveat of his labrum surgery that should be fully investigated, if possible. Nevertheless, consider what this list looks like compared to last years, and we see the volatility of prospects and why none should be untouchable in a trade for a proven superstar who is only 23!

by Sologub on Dec 3, 2010 10:46 AM EST reply actions  

Upton will not be traded for just prospects

I believe the last reported asking price was at least 5 players, at least 3 of them MLB-ready.

by wolf9309 on Dec 3, 2010 11:11 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah I guess they would want Buch

Who I would trade, but at a much lesser value…but I might still do Buch + Kelly + someone else

by Sologub on Dec 3, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions  

Not so fast

Upton: 4.6 WAR (2009), 3.1 WAR (2010)

In 2010:
Buchholz: 3.7 (in 28 starts)
Bard: 1.5 WAR
Lowrie: 1.8 WAR in 55 games (!)

In 2009:
Ellsbury: 2.7 WAR

So there’s a reasonable argument to be made that Upton isn’t worth more than Buchholz and Kelly. No way in heck would I give up multiple of the young players for one player in return. The payoff just isn’t worth it in the long run.

Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell

by lone1c on Dec 3, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Well right, not right now.

But you’re paying for Upton to improve dramatically. What makes him appealing is his youth and skillset – I wouldn’t advocate making a trade like this if he was 28 or 29 and a year or two from free agency, plus making 10 million in arbitration or what not. However, he’s signed at a very affordable six (now five) year deal and should only improve. 3.1 WAR in a down year is remarkable.

Also, and this goes to address Matt’s point below, I believe the argument that the sum total of what you give away is greater than just Upton is flawed. I say this because you are not just giving up on the position – you get to fill in players BESIDES Upton! So while yes, Bard + Buch + Kelly + Ellsbury may end up being more TOTAL WAR than Upton alone, don’t forget that the Red Sox are still filling in those positions. So while we may miss Bard, it’s easy enough to find a reliever…Buch would hurt, but we still can bring in another starting pitcher, as we have done very often, and we have Upton + say Cameron, Reddick, Kalish, even Lin as options in the outfield. Having a 7 win player at only ONE position is so valuable because we can complement him with excellent pieces besides, which the Sox have both the deep farm system and the financial wherewithal to easily afford.

by Sologub on Dec 3, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions  

It isn't simply the total WAR that makes 5-1 trades so difficult

It is the distribution of risk. It is almost always going to be worth trading 5 players who can put up 2 WAR for 1 who can put up 7 because, as you say, you do get to fill in other players for the ones you lose. However, Upton is not guaranteed to produce 7 WAR, and has never done so before. If Upton becomes “only” a 5 WAR player and just one of the five players you trade for him becomes a star it is a significant loss despite Upton being great. Consolidating the production into one player also means consolidating the risk into one player. I can’t see taking that risk when the upside of players like Buchholz could match Upton almost by itself.

- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com

by Mattsullivan on Dec 3, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

This is a fair point

but high upside from a 5-tool position player is probably less risky than high upside from any pitcher.

I think all this says is that the ‘right price’ lies somewhere in the middle. Upton’s probably not worth 5 ‘pick-whomever-you-want’ players. But he’s worth a lot more than a one-for-one young-player deal.

by mmmmm on Dec 3, 2010 2:38 PM EST up reply actions  

It could be

The history of big player trades is spotty. For every ridiculous Bartolo Colon trade (brought on by that maestro, Omar Minaya) there is a Miguel Cabrera or Johann Santana trade that hasn’t necessarily born fruit. It’s a gamble that has to be evaluated carefully, but with the limited knowledge I have, I would really try to make the trade, as I believe Buch’s trade value is very high right now and we have the resources to recoup the loss of other players.

by Sologub on Dec 3, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

buchholtz? he is a young cy young runner up

or does tower mean taylor buchholz?

don’t see the upside to the upton trade w/ buch, stealsburry and another MLB player, in addition to 2 prospects.

maybe a pick of the Bullpenner’s litter, dice and some big name or 2 non MLB starter – kalish/reddick/westmoreland – anyone really. and some money, of course. oh, yea, no problem including ells.

by Mick Lowe on Dec 3, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Present value versus future value

The problem is you’re sacrificing the present value of, say, Buchholz and Ellsbury or Bard and Lowrie now for the future potential of Upton. At the same time, depending on who you give up—for instance, Buchholz and Lowrie—then you’d be giving up more current value than you might recoup later on.

How much is a dollar worth to you now? Are you willing to give up $1 now for a 95% chance at $1.20 two years from now, with a 5% chance of $0.80?

Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell

by lone1c on Dec 3, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Absolutely

When my pockets are deep enough to easily afford the loss. If I’m, say, the Marlins or Padres, I am a little more gun shy.

by Sologub on Dec 3, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Where do you replace the production right now, though?

You’d have to spend a lot of money to replace the production you’d get from Bard, Buchholz, or Lowrie right now.

Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell

by lone1c on Dec 3, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

We'd take a hit with Buch

I don’t think we’d trade Lowrie. Why would AZ want him? Unless you want to really make it a blockbuster and bring Drew back too. Bard is a reliever – by definition the most replaceable role in the game. He could be replaced by basically anyone on a good year, although he’s become a fan favorite.

Buch is the worst loss, but even then, we could try to bring in Pavano or another pitcher, see what Doubront has, or try to make another trade. There are options.

by Sologub on Dec 3, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Present value versus future value

sounds more like risk.

present value or present worth (usually net – npv) usually looks at the cost of money between two periods – cash flow and time value of money

by Mick Lowe on Dec 3, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Kevin Towers was adamant about getting MLB-ready players

For Boston that would mean at least one of Buchholz, Bard, Ellsbury or Lowrie at least. One of those is not a terrible deal (though I would rather it be Ellsbury or Bard than Buch or Lowrie) but two of those and some cost at the prospect level starts to get to be an overpay. Three ML-ready players is hard to stomach almost regardless of who those players are (within reason). Is Upton really going to outperform the combination of Ellsbury, Bard, Doubront, Bowden and Reddick? He is a great young player, but even superstars rarely top 7 WAR. Five players for one is a big risk to take and the closer each one is to the majors the more risky it gets. Look at Atlanta’s trade for Mark Texeria. That trade practically built the 2010 Texas Rangers.

- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com

by Mattsullivan on Dec 3, 2010 11:47 AM EST reply actions  

It kind of depends on where you are at organizationally.

If you have adequate alternates for the prospects you are sending out, then you are going to come out ahead. I>e. suppose you send 4 players who would have totaled 10 WAR in return for a ‘7 WAR’ guy. Suppose further he ends up not quite so good and turns out to be just a ‘5 WAR’ player.

It then all comes down to who you replace those guys you sent away. Lets tighten it up and assume one of the guys you sent away was a position match for the guy you got. So you need your replacements for the other 3 to total at least 5 WAR and you are even, even if your new guy under performs. If he DOES perform at a 7 WAR level, you only need those three guys to provide 3 WAR total to break even.

Totally made-up numbers, but that’s the math.

So Upton would not need to “outperform the combination of Ellsbury, Bard, Doubront, Bowden and Reddick”. What needs to happen is for Upton PLUS the guys we retained and used in place of those five to out perform them.

by mmmmm on Dec 3, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

As I said above, present versus future value

For prospects, it’s a different calculus altogether.

But for someone who’s currently on your team, you need to have the replacement value right away. Most of the time, it’s not there. For example, we couldn’t trade Lowrie away right now and recoup that value with any player from the farm system, or even with Scutaro. Same deal with Buchholz.

Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell

by lone1c on Dec 3, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

I have to admit - as I said elsewhere, I do NOT want to let Lowrie go.

He’s one of the very few I think of as ‘untouchable’.

But, technically, if they did sign Beltre, then unless they DO THE RIGHT THING and start Lowrie at SS over Scutaro, Lowrie’s present value may not be that high. That’s not the RIGHT valuation of him (because Lowrie should be starting over Scutaro) but that might be how it plays out.

Buchholz obviously has a lot of present value as well.

The deal listed above, notably does not include either of those two guys. You definitely can easily replace the present value of “Ellsbury, Bard, Doubront, Bowden and Reddick” with enough talent so that you could bridge from now to Upton’s future value.

Ultimately as I said above, there is a “right price” that sits in the middle of the extremes.

by mmmmm on Dec 3, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

i'd have no problem what-so-ever trading

Ellsbury, Bard, Doubront, Bowden and Reddick next year. include kalish/lars/westmoreland/kelly etc.

maybe not exclusively for upton

no second thoughts about telling the d-backs or the padres to take your pick from this group.

i don’t see any of the listed 22 prospects as sacred – must keep – trade them all, if we get value in return.

we have a strong chance of winning the world series in 2011.

in fact, if this hot stove season comes together as i think it can, we may have a strong chance of running a couple of world series wins.

forget about the long term – the time is now. besides in the long term we may all be dead.

by Mick Lowe on Dec 3, 2010 6:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm in agreement here with you

add in the fact that we now have a draft machine and can afford to sign our picks

Hauling in a Vitek, Brentz, Raunado, Workman, Cecchini type draft drastically helps in restocking the farm system

by BobZupcic on Dec 3, 2010 10:24 PM EST up reply actions  

I have to question your projection for Rizzo.

Personally, I have Iglesias clearly ahead of him. I strongly doubt Rizzo will rank high enough on major prospect lists to merit that kind of value.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 1:00 PM EST reply actions  

Baseball America ranks him higher as well

but he is signed to a major league contract so I have subtracted the value of that deal from his total value. If I had not done that he would be even with Rizzo since it appears both will be Top 50 hitting prospects. If Rizzo is not a Top 50 hitting prospect than he would fall in value, of course. It looks like he will out rank Reddick who was 75th last year and judging from how highly praised Boston’s farm system has been, I think he at least gets close to top 50. Scouts really love his power potential. I do not anticipate Iglesias being top 25 though which is the only way his value goes up. His bat is just too much of an uncertainty. Maybe I should be more cautious with Rizzo, but I think Iglesias is accurately valued considering his contract cost.

- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com

by Mattsullivan on Dec 3, 2010 1:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Ah, that makes sense (the MLB contract)

I agree Iglesias is accurately valued.

I do doubt Rizzo is a top 50 guy, though. Personally, he’s not that close to top 50 for me. He’s more of a borderline top 100 guy.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, I'm not sold.

He doesnt have great power or a great hit tool and his approach isn’t all that good. He’s a good prospect who should hit a lot, but not a lot for a 1B. I’d be pretty surprised if Rizzo was our starting 1B for more than a year or two as a fill in – and even that is probably Theo’s plan C or D. To me, Rizzo is perfect trade bait to an org that doesn’t value 1B correctly.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Um... he has great power

Where have you been?

Watch The Internet Sport Show
Help get Lacrosse on SBN. Join the lacrosse community at The Lacrosse Blog
"This team loves to lose in the fourth quarter" - Phil Jackson

by Marisa Ingemi on Dec 3, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

.220+ ISO

Led the system in homers…

Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 3, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions  

He doesn't project for all that great power in the majors.

for a 1B

Its no longer a weakness in his game as we thought last year this time… but I’m not completely sold.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 10:31 PM EST up reply actions  

As a 21 year old he had an ISO of .218 in AA

21 is before power usually develops. If that doesn’t look like significant power, I don’t know what does. In A this year he had an ISO of .231. So it seems consistent through the year. I’m not sure when we thought he didn’t have power. When he was going through chemo? Remember, he was drafted as an 18 year old.

Well somewhat irrelevant anyways as he probably won’t be in the Sox organization tomorrow.

by wolf9309 on Dec 4, 2010 2:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Based on what?

His BB rate is good.

Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.

by Frederick0220 on Dec 3, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Swing and K rates are really high, to be fair.

But IIRC that tended to even out some as he gained experience at each level.

Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 3, 2010 5:32 PM EST up reply actions  

True, but that has nothing to do with patience.

I think Sologub was questioning Rizzo’s contact skills.

Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.

by Frederick0220 on Dec 3, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Mostly his O swing percentage

His OBP took kind of a dive last year as his power went up, so I don’t know if he was just making more contact in general or what. Just seems odd that for as much as he struck out he didn’t also show a good eye for the walk.

by Sologub on Dec 3, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions  

He had >10 BB%s

Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 3, 2010 7:29 PM EST up reply actions  

A high swing rate probably indicates a lack of patience, but a high K-rate may or may not...

The K-rate, I believe, was much more a product of having trouble making consistent contact.

Isn’t that what a high K-rate typically indicates?

Look at all the guys in the Majors who drop tremendous BB rates yet still strike out a ton.

They have plenty of patience.

They just swing-and-miss a lot.

Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.

by Frederick0220 on Dec 3, 2010 7:33 PM EST up reply actions  

The pinkhat elementary school playground dwellers at SoxProspects

have Rizzo at #3, Lars at #4, and Iglesias at #6.

What a disgrace.

Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.

by Frederick0220 on Dec 3, 2010 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think that's been updated in awhile.

They’re probably waiting until some point in the offseason to do a revamp. Kalish is still #2, and in that past I think they’ve been good about quickly removing guys.

I think those guys are pretty good, fwiw. Mellen & co see a lot of those players and their writeups are usually pretty nice.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Lars there is a joke

Everything is, great.

Watch The Internet Sport Show
Help get Lacrosse on SBN. Join the lacrosse community at The Lacrosse Blog
"This team loves to lose in the fourth quarter" - Phil Jackson

by Marisa Ingemi on Dec 3, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Not big on Iglesias

Rizzo has shown a tremendous bat and his 1B defense has gotten very positive reviews. For Iglesias, he plays great defense, no one will question that, but his .672 OPS in Portland gets him no where in my book. Rizzo is actually walking the walk, Iglesias so far has lived up to his no bat name.

"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.

by Rogue Nine on Dec 3, 2010 5:47 PM EST up reply actions  

but his .672 OPS in Portland gets him no where in my book.

Young Cuban kid, speaks no English, dropped into AA immediately in Portland, ME and had a wrist injury. I’m inclined to cut him some slack.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 10:33 PM EST up reply actions  

I am starting to feel that BA

may be slanted toward liking guys with impressive power more than other organizations. Ben and I have traded some emails about my ranking of Kalish, which is at the other extreme. BA hasn’t ranked Kalish highly in the past, despite a fairly advanced approach at the plate. Meanwhile, Reddick ranked 75th, and his approach is almost always referred to as “raw.” Rizzo appears to be in the Reddick mold. I think the Sox organization appraises things different and we, as fans, follow their lead.

- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com

by Mattsullivan on Dec 3, 2010 1:40 PM EST reply actions  

BA is also run by some old time baseball guys...

There are some excellent writers… but not all of them are excellent.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions  

BA really only cares about upside judging by their rankings.

But then they continually ranks guys like Kalish low and come very close to accusing them of being “tweeners.”

How on earth is he a tweener?

Sorry if he’s never going to hit 30 HRs in a season.

Their writers are also very poor. I love counting the grammatical mistakes and typos on each team’s top 10 prospect list.

Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.

by Frederick0220 on Dec 3, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions  

And he's maxed out at just 100 RBIs.

What a bust!

Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.

by Frederick0220 on Dec 3, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

And he only gets on base at about a .380 career average.

Absolutely pathetic.

Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell

by lone1c on Dec 3, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Instead of trading

Why don’t you sign Crawford or werth most likely Werth. It will be cheaper in the long run then you can go and get Adrian Gonzalez or someone else.

by Drew P on Dec 3, 2010 7:33 PM EST reply actions  

Let's just do both.

You do have a point, though, and it weighs on my mind.

The FO really must have a huge hard on for Gonzalez.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2010 10:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 7
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 6

Recent FanPosts

Pedroialazers2_small
The possibility of trading Kevin Youkilis
Moar_bacon_small
PSA vs. OTM Fantasy Smackdown Update
Small
The Curious Case of Daniel Nava
Rsz_ashleyspade_small
Top Red Sox Prospects
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 5
Small
Mariano Rivera and TS Elliot and maybe Robert Frost
Small
Rivera has torn ACL
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy Leagues Discussion

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Twitter_eb_2_small Marc Normandin

Authors

Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small lone1c

Jddrew_small gizmosandy

Pedoria1_small Mattsullivan

Baghead-1_small Matthew Kory

Photo__2__small BrendanOToole

Cee_small Cee Angi