The "Too Soon to Judge The Kelly/Craig Trade?" Thread.
- Thread starter moondog80
- Start date
moondog80 said:
It's just 1.3 years of Lackey (at bargain rates) for 3.3 years of Kelly and what appears, right now to being on the line for $25 million of salary. So the liability, at this point, is just money. Which is a big difference than losing all of Bagwell's outstanding career.
A trade almost as bad, was sending Reggie Smith to St. Louis for Rick Wise and Bernie Carbo, after the 1973 season. Smith, then only 28, went on to accumulate 30 WAR over the rest of his season, whereas Wise had just 5 seasons of league average pitching. (But Bernie did have that 3 run homer!!)
Next in line, would be the infamous Sparky Lyle going to the Yankees for Danny Cater.
Lackey for Kelly and Craig just doesn't belong in the same category.
Kelly was better for us last year than Lackey was for STL. The first couple months this year have been a disaster, and Craig looks shot, but even so they gave up very little of value for them, and Kelly is young under team control and has good enough stuff that there is a chance he provides value in the future.
I'm not sure it's even a bad trade nevermind one of the worst. (BTW Babe Ruth is the worst, and nothing is likely ever coming close to it.)
I'm not sure it's even a bad trade nevermind one of the worst. (BTW Babe Ruth is the worst, and nothing is likely ever coming close to it.)
moondog80 said:
Even if we never get a single good thing from Kelly or Craig beyond what we already have, there is no way in hell this is the worst trade ever. Nor is it in the top ten, and I'm guessing it would be a stretch to be in the top 25.
Seriously, this trade isn't even in the same spectrum of bad as Kason Gabbard and David Murphy for Eric Gagne.
Much less, worst trade ever. Sheesh.
Much less, worst trade ever. Sheesh.
The trade needs to be judges against the opportunity cost of what they turned down in favor of Kelly/Craig.WenZink said:
Certainly not covering Ben in glory.
Plympton91 said:
If there was a better-looking SP than Kelly that could have been had for Lackey, I'd love to see some evidence of it.
Wise was the starter and winner in the ALCS final game at Oakland that put the Sox in the WS in 1975. But yeah, Reggie was a stud for the Dodgers for almost as many years as he was in Boston.WenZink said:
Plympton91 said:
Well, he turned down not having Craig and Kelly.
The real answer, of course, is prospects. 1.3 years of supercheap Lackey should have had some real value. Certainly more than .3 years of Peavy, maybe as much as .3 years of Miller?
Plympton91 said:
There's no way you can measure that "opportunity cost." They could have traded Lackey for a prospect who might turn out to be a HOFer or a bust.
All you can do is compare if the trade had never had been made. You probably would have had Lackey pitching 180 innings with an ERA+ of 110 or so, for league minimum. And you still can't quantify the other side of the balance sheet until you see what Kelly and Craig deliver over the next 3 years (minus a whole pile of money.)
Rasputin said:
"Worst ever" was intentionally hyperbolic -- of course it's not as bad as Bagwell, though I'm pretty sure taking on Craig's contract for Lackey as his league min this year would easily fall into the to 25 of any quantitative analysis. But getting two utter disasters like this back in the same deal is a special kind of suck. The reverse Slocumb deal?
Drek717 said:
Dogman2 said:
'drek', rightly hated this from the instant it was announced.Drek717 said:
Plympton91 said:
Ha ha! 20+ other teams should have drafted Mike Trout before the Angels did in the mid 20s. What's the opportunity cost of those 20 or so bad decisions?
So if you're so wise, please fill us in with your expert, insights as to what other deals the Sox had on the table, last July, when they were marketing John Lackey?
WenZink said:
You're doing an excellent job of missing the point.
soxhop411 said:
I don't know, but I'm guessing John Henry and Larry Lucchino either already know, or are very interested in finding out. Ben got some 'splainin' to do.
too early to tell yet about kelly and craig, as bad as they've been so far this year
Earl Wilson for Don Demeter was up there with worst Sox trades ever. The Sox and Yaz would've won it all in '67 with Lonborg and Wison at the top of that rotation. Of course, then there wouldn't have been the great thrill of breaking the curse in '04
Earl Wilson for Don Demeter was up there with worst Sox trades ever. The Sox and Yaz would've won it all in '67 with Lonborg and Wison at the top of that rotation. Of course, then there wouldn't have been the great thrill of breaking the curse in '04
Except he was wrong about Kelly. Kelly put up more innings at a better ERA than Lackey over the second half of last year. Pointing to 6 starts this year as proof Kelly is a failure and ignoring last year to validate a predicition that Kelly would be terrible in 2014 is creating a false narrative.Marbleheader said:
You might want to tell us when in that 3 1/2 hour YouTube that is, or give us a BBREF box score link instead.rlsb said:
I don't want to resurrect this whole discussion, but I think it is at least a possibility that Ben viewed Lackey as having low or no value because he would not pitch for the Sox for $500k this year.
After the trade, Lackey certainly implied that this had been a risk.
<quote>Cherington was asked specifically if Lackey wanted to leave Boston.
"Look, I'm not going to get into every conversation I had with John Lackey," Cherington said. "I think he did a lot for the Red Sox and I think he's happy where he is now."
Even before Lackey was dealt to the Cardinals, rumors swirled that he wanted out of Boston and may consider retiring rather than play for the $500,000 major league minimum outlined in his contract due to him missing all of the 2012 season after undergoing Tommy John surgery.
Lackey assured St. Louis that he would honor his current contract and play for the minimum next year. Naturally, reports that he was unhappy in Boston picked up steam.
When asked in St. Louis Tuesday if he would have done the same had he remained with the Red Sox, Lackey did not want to get into it.
"I don't know about that honestly," Lackey said. "I didn't get that far ahead to think about it at that point... You guys are trying to stir stuff up."<\quote>
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2014/08/did_john_lackey_ask_ben_cherington_to_trade_him_ou.html
After the trade, Lackey certainly implied that this had been a risk.
<quote>Cherington was asked specifically if Lackey wanted to leave Boston.
"Look, I'm not going to get into every conversation I had with John Lackey," Cherington said. "I think he did a lot for the Red Sox and I think he's happy where he is now."
Even before Lackey was dealt to the Cardinals, rumors swirled that he wanted out of Boston and may consider retiring rather than play for the $500,000 major league minimum outlined in his contract due to him missing all of the 2012 season after undergoing Tommy John surgery.
Lackey assured St. Louis that he would honor his current contract and play for the minimum next year. Naturally, reports that he was unhappy in Boston picked up steam.
When asked in St. Louis Tuesday if he would have done the same had he remained with the Red Sox, Lackey did not want to get into it.
"I don't know about that honestly," Lackey said. "I didn't get that far ahead to think about it at that point... You guys are trying to stir stuff up."<\quote>
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2014/08/did_john_lackey_ask_ben_cherington_to_trade_him_ou.html
There is zero evidence that BC thought Lackey wouldn't honor the contract. There was lots of message-board speculation, and reports in the media like the one you cite, which merely rehash the logic of message board speculation. Lackey says "you guys are trying to stir stuff up," ie, you reporters are inventing this issue. The fact that Lackey's only public statement on the issue was to assure the Cards he would honor the contract suggests one thing: he was planning to honor the contract. Claiming that this somehow shows he was "unhappy in Boston" is pure speculation. Look at how it is worded "Naturally, reports... picked up steam." That's just a way of reframing media drivel as of it were actual evidence.
Craig was the lottery ticket in this deal, even if I'm not supposed to use the term "lottery ticket" in this forum. He hasn't worked out, appears unlikely to work out. Oh well.
Kelly may yet become a closer. Or valuable setup man. There's still the possibility that he becomes the starter we had hoped he be. If any of those happen, then the trade wasn't so bad. After all, it took until Year 4 of the Lackey contract for him to become the pitcher we thought the team was acquiring.
The idea that there was some other, better deal just sitting out there for Cherington to take is laughable.
Kelly may yet become a closer. Or valuable setup man. There's still the possibility that he becomes the starter we had hoped he be. If any of those happen, then the trade wasn't so bad. After all, it took until Year 4 of the Lackey contract for him to become the pitcher we thought the team was acquiring.
The idea that there was some other, better deal just sitting out there for Cherington to take is laughable.
After the Cespedes trade, they were quite explicit about bringing back ML level talent, as they thought the farm was pretty well stocked. You can criticize them for that strategy (keeping in mind the fact the minor league system is already doing well, the ML club sucked, and there's a 40-man to adhere to), but if you're trying to extract ML players from teams that are in contention, the universe of possible trades is pretty limited.Rudy Pemberton said:
rlsb said:
Fred Lynn: Traded by the Boston Red Sox with Steve Renko to the California Angels for Jim Dorsey, Joe Rudi and Frank Tanana.
Rick Burleson: Traded by the Boston Red Sox with Butch Hobson to the California Angels for Mark Clear, Carney Lansford and Rick Miller.
The second one actually worked out OK in hindsight, as Hobson sucked and Rooster only played 250 games over six years with the angels.
And Lansford didn't exactly suck for us. Hated to see Rooster go, though. Loved that guy. No comment on the Lynn trade.Eddie Jurak said:
The few times I've been able to see Kelly pitch he's really impressed me. Upthread someone mentioned that he's had two very outings so far, two he's been very unlucky (pitched well but had a few costly mistakes) and two disasters. I still think he's got great stuff and is figuring it out. He reminds me a lot of Buchholz, but with a better brain. I'm confident he'll figure it out and turn into a very good starting pitcher. I doubt he'll ever be an "ace" but I think he's going to be very good for us for a few more years.
I just don't see any support for the idea that Kelly is an "utter disaster," and don't know why you keep trying that angle. His FIP is two runs lower than his ERA. He's 26 with about two seasons' worth of innings at the ML level under his belt. He throws 97, so even if he never quite figures out the craft of being a starting pitcher he has plenty of usefulness in the bullpen. You might like 1.3 seasons of Lackey better than that, but it's absurd to call him an "utter disaster." His last two starts? OK, disasters. If this is a thread about whether we should dump starting pitchers based on two starts, then fire away I guess.moondog80 said:
Craig seems like a guy we can dump (soon) and eat some salary, which is bad, but he was a flier.
Sorry to go back, but indulge me for a moment. The Sox traded Lynn then released all the guys they traded for him the next year. Why not just let him go a free agent and get one year of a good player?
His Sox FIP is 4.57 in an era when league average is about 4. His rate stats have been poor, K/BB of 1.6. I guess I won't quibble is you want to say "pretty bad" instead of "utter disaster", and I agree the play is to move him to the pen. But I'll be surprised if he's in the rotation next year.chrisfont9 said:
And dumping Craig will require eating just about all of his salary. Not just some.
reggiecleveland said:
Keeping Lynn (to play out his lame-duck year) in 1981 would have turned out even worse for the Sox., Freddie was only able to play in less than half the games and ended up with an OPS+ of 86. He'd also missed significant time at the end of the 1980 season.
It looks like a bad trade at this moment in time unless the Red Sox had some inkling (real or imagined) that Lackey would threaten retirement to force their hand into an extension, and we have no idea they did. The fact there have been no public reports of private discussions on the matter is not evidence such discussions never took place. We simply can't say one way or another.
The key to the trade of course is Kelly. Craig was what they had to take on to get Kelly IMO, like Lowell was required to get Beckett, and like the Dodgers having to take Beckett and Crawford to get Agon. Beckett did not look as good as expected his first year and some said then it was a clear win for the Marlins. Lowell of course was much more productive in 2006 than Craig has been. 2007 changed all that to a clear win, for a time. Now I think most would agree it was a trade that worked out for both sides (even if I include Anibal Sanchez which I omitted for simplicity). Do Kelly and Craig turn into the 2007 Lowell and Beckett down the road? No clue.
So yeah, to answer the threads title, its too soon to judge
The key to the trade of course is Kelly. Craig was what they had to take on to get Kelly IMO, like Lowell was required to get Beckett, and like the Dodgers having to take Beckett and Crawford to get Agon. Beckett did not look as good as expected his first year and some said then it was a clear win for the Marlins. Lowell of course was much more productive in 2006 than Craig has been. 2007 changed all that to a clear win, for a time. Now I think most would agree it was a trade that worked out for both sides (even if I include Anibal Sanchez which I omitted for simplicity). Do Kelly and Craig turn into the 2007 Lowell and Beckett down the road? No clue.
So yeah, to answer the threads title, its too soon to judge
To your larger point, yes, it is indeed way too soon to judge. The idea that there should be a thread about this at this point in time is...silly.Sampo Gida said:
As to the bolded, if Ben really took on a pitching project and $25m owed to a walking question mark for Lackey without any indication from Lackey that he was going to be a pain in the ass about coming back this year, he should be fired yesterday. It seems to me more plausible that Lackey was making unpleasant noises than Ben et al are less competent at Analytics & Scouting 101 than posters on a fan board.
He's also ignoring the fact the Joe Kelly never played for Dave Duncan, who retired the year before smelly made the majors. So, no, not Dave Duncan smoke and mirrors. Sorry.Cellar-Door said:
I think someone needs to patiently explain to me why Joe Kelly is a good enough pitcher to warrant taking on Craig and the giant fork sticking out of his back for the privilege of employing. Other than just "UM HELLO, HE THROWS 97!"
Danny_Darwin said:
There's a lot out there on Kelly. http://bosoxinjection.com/2015/01/20/25-25-joe-kelly/
He's a high upside, low cost, 26 year old pitcher who has had a recent history of success as a starter. And 97. He's arb eligible in 16 and a FA in 19. He could end up being a closer type if he stumbles starting. So he's a very valuable piece. With the exception of Rodriguez, I'm not even sure any of the current Sox pitching prospects would fetch a better return than Kelly alone (or Kelly after a month in the pen.)
Also Craig had a decent chance to rebound to something like a league average player. Didn't happen, and the window is closing. I can't imagine the Sox doing the exact same deal if they magically knew Craig's track record to date. Who knows. Maybe AAA will light a fire under him.
Also (maybe mentioned upthread) the Sox needed someone who could credibly start in the majors last year - hence the trade for Kelly while the other pieces fetched prospects, etc. I think the trade is really best viewed as "The Sox cleaned out their moveable pieces in 2014 - what did they get for them?" instead of looking at the piecemeal individual trades from a won/loss perspective.
Rovin Romine said:
Just to be clear, saying Kelly is a FA in 2019 means "after the 2018 season". So he's got this year and 3 years of arb left. And yes, he does have some value. But Henry Owens is a consensus top 50 prospect, something Kelly never was, he has all of his cost-controlled years ahead of him, and he's yet to damage his value in the majors. There are zero teams that would prefer Kelly to Owens in a trade. I'll bet you won't find many that would take him over Johnson, Kopech, Barnes, or Ball either.
moondog80 said:
Kelly as he is right now, a career 4.50 ERA guy or so, is way more likely to be of value to a major league team than even Eduardo Rodriguez, who last year at this time, was doing just as poorly as Kelly is right now, but in AA. You are also correct that Owens has yet to damage his value in the majors, but that is because he's doing plenty to damage his value in AAA, also performing almost as badly as Kelly is in the majors.
Craig has been and looks like an absolute bust; projecting that failure onto Kelly at this stage is way premature. If he can't become a good mid-rotation starter, he'll be an excellent set up man. If the Red Sox get a good set up man out of their current crop of pitching prospects, that will be one more useful piece than they got out of their last set of pitching prospects.
He could be an excellent set up man.Plympton91 said:
Kelly is of more value right now to the Red Sox than Rafael Devers. Which one would you rather trade? Those three pre-arb years are an enormous thing, and they are about 75% gone.
I'd like to see how Kelly does over another 10-15 starts. Right now he is striking out a batter an inning, but his HR/FB rate is a career high 15% and his strand rate an ugly 58%; his GB% is also oddly low vs. career rates. I doubt those figures stay so unfavorable all year. His first strike % is a respectable 61%, he has a low contact rate at 80%, and a respectable 8% swinging strike %. All that suggests he should be a respectable starter if he can just display a bit better composure in higher-leverage situations.
I'd also add that getting him, an actual major league starter, was important. The Sox don't want to rush the kids if possible. Kelly belongs with the big club, at the very least, and if you're subtracting Lackey and Lester as the Sox were, they needed people in the short term for the rotation. So a functioning ML starter with some high-ceiling potential that may or may not occur but won't cost you much to find out was probably just what they needed last year, and this year. You can't just deal MLers for prospects over and over, at some point you need to field a team, and in our case (as opposed to the former Houston model) hopefully one that can win.Rovin Romine said:
I'm going to give Ben the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he had received strong indications from Lackey and his agent that the pitcher would retire rather than pitch in Boston for $500k unless his contract was reworked as part of an extension.
In regards to the deal itself from a Sox perspective, I'm probably more hopeful than many. Kelly still has time to become a pretty valuable back of the rotation or bullpen asset and even Craig could turn it around and put himself in the first base mix for next season (if he's not too proud and can avoid letting his ego get in the way, his Pawtucket time could be just what he needs).
In regards to the deal itself from a Sox perspective, I'm probably more hopeful than many. Kelly still has time to become a pretty valuable back of the rotation or bullpen asset and even Craig could turn it around and put himself in the first base mix for next season (if he's not too proud and can avoid letting his ego get in the way, his Pawtucket time could be just what he needs).