July 29, 20196 yr I'd pass personally. Closer can be filled at any time when the team is actually good. Unless the Mets are infatuated with someone like Micker and are highly motivated I don't see how it makes sense the Mets will want too much.
July 29, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: I'd pass personally. Closer can be filled at any time when the team is actually good. Unless the Mets are infatuated with someone like Micker and are highly motivated I don't see how it makes sense the Mets will want too much. Micker is the one guy in the org outside of the obvious (Kopech/Cease/Gio/Eloy/Madrigal/Yoan/Robert/Vaughn) that I am not moving unless we're getting a controllable star. Micker has been an enigma, but he has as high of an upside as anyone in our system outside of Robert. The guy could be a star in this game. DO NOT TRADE HIM AT HIS LOWEST VALUE! Edited July 29, 20196 yr by ChiSox59
July 29, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said: Micker is the one guy in the org outside of the obvious (Kopech/Cease/Gio/Eloy/Madrigal/Yoan/Robert/Vaughn) that I am not moving unless we're getting a controllable star. Micker has been an enigma, but he has as high of an upside as anyone in our system outside of Robert. The guy could be a star in this game. DO NOT TRADE HIM AT HIS LOWEST VALUE! Idk if I'd go that far, but I'm definitely not trading him to buy low on a closer.
July 29, 20196 yr 6 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said: Micker is the one guy in the org outside of the obvious (Kopech/Cease/Gio/Eloy/Madrigal/Yoan/Robert/Vaughn) that I am not moving unless we're getting a controllable star. Micker has been an enigma, but he has as high of an upside as anyone in our system outside of Robert. The guy could be a star in this game. DO NOT TRADE HIM AT HIS LOWEST VALUE! I think he has a high upside but he's going on about 4 years now of injury or working through an injury. He feels like a guy that might break out in 2023 or so like Quentin around age 26-28 and then goes back to being injured all the time by the time he's 31. We're at the point where they're going to have to make some decisions on keepers and tossers in the MiLB system. I don't mind trading guys like Micker for proven MLB talents like Diaz. That said, I doubt the Sox give up anybody in their top 20 this deadline for a closer. Even if the back end of that list isn't that exciting it doesn't make much sense to trade for a closer when you really don't even know what your offseason is going to look like. Edited July 29, 20196 yr by chitownsportsfan
July 29, 20196 yr 36 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: I think he has a high upside but he's going on about 4 years now of injury or working through an injury. He feels like a guy that might break out in 2023 or so like Quentin around age 26-28 and then goes back to being injured all the time by the time he's 31. We're at the point where they're going to have to make some decisions on keepers and tossers in the MiLB system. I don't mind trading guys like Micker for proven MLB talents like Diaz. That said, I doubt the Sox give up anybody in their top 20 this deadline for a closer. Even if the back end of that list isn't that exciting it doesn't make much sense to trade for a closer when you really don't even know what your offseason is going to look like. Yah, the Micker comment was more in general - not just with respect to Diaz. I just wouldn't trade him right now unless its the piece that gets us a controllable SP with TOR potential or a legit RF for the foreseeable future.
July 29, 20196 yr 34 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: The Cubs bought Quintana and paid full price for him when there were signs that he had started falling apart in 2017. His velocity hadn't changed, his strikeouts hadn't changed, his peripherals were good, so the Cubs paid the price of "Near all star pitcher under control for 4 years" for him. Instead, they got an asset that had just fallen apart, but they didn't recognize it. I feel like getting Edwin Diaz would require paying nearly full price for Edwin Diaz, as the Cubs did for Quintana, and there's a risk that you're paying full price for an asset that has depreciated. Yeah I am not sure I follow this. You're using "full price" and "depreciation" as pretty general terms. Full price is dependent on what the asking team wants. That can be in excess of the player's fair market value or short of the their fair market value. Depreciation is related to carrying value. At the end of the day, the market decides what someone is worth. The Cubs offered the best package on the market for Quintana so they got him. In they year of acquisition he pitched better for the Cubs than he did the Sox so I am not sure the asset had "fallen apart." "I feel like getting Edwin Diaz would require paying nearly full price for Edwin Diaz, as the Cubs did for Quintana, and there's a risk that you're paying full price for an asset that has depreciated." Again, I don't know what "full price" is. If the Sox acquired Edwin Diaz they would establish what his fair market value. Fair market value is essentially a player's carrying value adjusted for the market place (how many people in need? how many similar players available? Timing, etc.) and adjusted for a player's reputation. Saying you're worried the Sox acquire that has depreciated doesn't make all that much sense. It'd be like buying a 2016 Camry for full 2016 new Camry sticker price and then being like, "Oh this car actually has 50,000 miles on it." I think you just don't think Diaz is as good as the market participants may think he is.
July 29, 20196 yr 1 minute ago, raBBit said: Yeah I am not sure I follow this. You're using "full price" and "depreciation" as pretty general terms. Full price is dependent on what the asking team wants. That can be in excess of the player's fair market value or short of the their fair market value. Depreciation is related to carrying value. At the end of the day, the market decides what someone is worth. The Cubs offered the best package on the market for Quintana so they got him. In they year of acquisition he pitched better for the Cubs than he did the Sox so I am not sure the asset had "fallen apart." "I feel like getting Edwin Diaz would require paying nearly full price for Edwin Diaz, as the Cubs did for Quintana, and there's a risk that you're paying full price for an asset that has depreciated." Again, I don't know what "full price" is. If the Sox acquired Edwin Diaz they would establish what his fair market value. Fair market value is essentially a player's carrying value adjusted for the market place (how many people in need? how many similar players available? Timing, etc.) and adjusted for a player's reputation. Saying you're worried the Sox acquire that has depreciated doesn't make all that much sense. It'd be like buying a 2016 Camry for full 2016 new Camry sticker price and then being like, "Oh this car actually has 50,000 miles on it." I think you just don't think Diaz is as good as the market participants may think he is. I think there's a risk he isn't that great, his numbers are genuinely bad all across the board this year, and I don't have any idea why the Mets would give him up if they weren't getting a substantial return.
July 29, 20196 yr Just now, Balta1701 said: I think there's a risk he isn't that great, his numbers are genuinely bad all across the board this year, and I don't have any idea why the Mets would give him up if they weren't getting a substantial return. Sure. That's totally a fair point. Your prior argument was convoluted with the "full price" and misuse of depreciation.
July 29, 20196 yr 6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I think there's a risk he isn't that great, his numbers are genuinely bad all across the board this year, and I don't have any idea why the Mets would give him up if they weren't getting a substantial return. He's 13th for all qualified relievers in K-BB% striking over 13.7/9 while walking less than 3/9. He leads all relievers in BABIP. Safe to say he's had some back luck.
July 29, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, raBBit said: He's 13th for all qualified relievers in K-BB% striking over 13.7/9 while walking less than 3/9. He leads all relievers in BABIP. Safe to say he's had some back luck. Yeah, but his BABIP is bad but he's also in the top 5% of the league in hardest contact made against him.
July 29, 20196 yr 3 hours ago, Balta1701 said: Yeah, but his BABIP is bad but he's also in the top 5% of the league in hardest contact made against him. That's true, lots of hard contact and bottom 4% in exit velocity for Diaz. Still, I think its premature to rule out the possibility of there being value in the move. It all depends on the price going to New York of course.
July 29, 20196 yr 30 minutes ago, raBBit said: That's true, lots of hard contact and bottom 4% in exit velocity for Diaz. Still, I think its premature to rule out the possibility of there being value in the move. It all depends on the price going to New York of course. If I were the Mets, I certainly wouldn't be giving him away without something of value in return, not when we've seen relievers go up and down so often and when he's not expensive.
July 30, 20196 yr 25 minutes ago, DirtySox said: With the Rays, Red Sox and Dodgers rumored to be involved, I don't see the White Sox jumping in. I think the price will be too rich for us.
July 30, 20196 yr 41 minutes ago, DirtySox said: And then Diaz bounces back and grabs 50 saves and an era under 2 next year because Rays.
July 30, 20196 yr 1 minute ago, Moan4Yoan said: Buster Olney tweeting that Diaz will be traded and the Red Sox have shown the most interest... https://mobile.twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1155952961513594882 Red Sox make a lot of sense. I feel like they'd be most likely to overpay, or at the very least meet the expectations the Mets are looking for.
July 30, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said: Buster Olney tweeting that Diaz will be traded and the Red Sox have shown the most interest... https://mobile.twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1155952961513594882 The Red Sox have a terrible system, which means the price can’t be that outrageous. I’d be trying really hard to grab Diaz & Nimmo for some of our secondary prospects. You really never know who the Mets might be infatuated with.
July 30, 20196 yr 1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said: The Red Sox have a terrible system, which means the price can’t be that outrageous. I’d be trying really hard to grab Diaz & Nimmo for some of our secondary prospects. You really never know who the Mets might be infatuated with. Mhmmmmmmmm. Id be so damn fired up if Sox got Nimmo. Just such a good fit, and may have been the first to suggest it.
July 30, 20196 yr Just now, ChiSox59 said: Mhmmmmmmmm. Id be so damn fired up if Sox got Nimmo. Just such a good fit, and may have been the first to suggest it. He really would be...just not sure if the Mets would actually want to sell low on him.
July 30, 20196 yr I don't know how comfortable I'd be trading for a guy with neck and back issues already.
July 30, 20196 yr 17 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: The Red Sox have a terrible system, which means the price can’t be that outrageous. I’d be trying really hard to grab Diaz & Nimmo for some of our secondary prospects. You really never know who the Mets might be infatuated with. Rumors in New England seem to indicate it will be Boston's #1 or 2 prospects Dalbec or Casas . Both are corner infielders. They really would be their # 3 and 4 since 1 and 2 are already in Boston.
July 30, 20196 yr 20 hours ago, raBBit said: There are no parallels that I see. Sox sold on Quintana at the absolute height of his value for an outstanding return during the start of the rebuild phase. This would be the Sox buying low on a great talent just prior to their window of contention opening. Quintana was having a mediocre year with the Sox when traded. That's the parallel he/she was making with Diaz.
July 30, 20196 yr 4 minutes ago, aeichhor said: If I was a mets fan this would make me happy, but I wonder if it means Diaz will stay (not just that boston was outbid)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.