Nationals Baseball: Wednesday Quickie - Transaction recap.

Wednesday, January 02, 2019

Wednesday Quickie - Transaction recap.

Hey everyone! Welcome back.  Let's get our footing back by going over anything you may have missed (or really what I may have missed) over the break

The Dodgers traded Puig, Kemp, Wood, and Farmer to Reds for Homer Bailey and a couple of prospects
This is seen by most as a way to free some cash and definitely OF space for Bryce Harper. The Dodgers deny this, but of course they would deny this. 

The Padres signed Ian Kinsler
The Rockies signed Daniel Murphy
The second base market is thinning out as teams see value here and are grabbing guys before they have to pay a lot for a player.  Murphy and Kinsler were two of the top options. Paying now is a gamble of sorts because there will be someone available for super cheap who will do perfectly fine because of the glut of "should be about average in 2019" guys out there. You could save money waiting. The Nats seem to be focused on Josh Harrison. The only question is if they wait to see if they can get that deal or feel forced to pull the trigger earlier. Still it won't cost them much.  Lowrie has been floated around but is still seen as unlikely as he's looking to get paid for a few years

The Cardinals signed Andrew Miller
The Brewers traded Domingo Santana for Ben Gamel
While we talked about the NL East setting themselves up for the next season with a lot of big moves, the NL Central hasn't been quiet.  The Cardinals grabbed Goldschmidt earlier and with Miller are potentially ready for a big step forward with one more big move. The Brewers, on the other hand, are trying to fix the edges of a successful 2018 squad, trading for a better fit 4th OF in the high-average potential of Gamel (Santana is a better hitter but a poor fielder and had no starting spot) and earlier a decent bet for a good bullpen arm in Alex Claudio.  The Cubs have been suspiciously quiet in the face of this and I wouldn't be surprised if they surprise. The Reds, long an afterthought in MLB off-seasons, seem to be looking to set up 2020 in 2019

There are a bunch of teams in these two divisions setting themselves up for 2019. The end result is two fold though. (1) Someone is going to be left out. This is what I keep talking about for the Phillies. No Machado, no Bryce and suddenly they are passing on 2019 and hoping things stay together and the FA market holds and they can lure guys NEXT year.  That's never a good plan. (2) The NL West is going to set up very nicely for the Dodgers and potentially an easy WC for the Rockies

Padres traded Clayton Richard to Blue Jays
A's signed Mike Fiers
Angels signed Trevor Cahill and Matt Harvey and LuCroy
Did the Nats need to sign Anibal Sanchez? For that much? Well here are some pitching deals that took place in the face of the Nats move. Perfectly cromulent rotation filler Richard was traded for nothing. Mike Fiers, with less history of being good than Anibal* but more health, signed a cheaper deal to stay in Oakland. Two gambles who were decent last year and signed for less were picked up by the Angels (good luck with all that)..  All this seems to say No and No were the answers but good luck to you Anibal. (Still - I can't say it's a bad deal. So don't try to read this as that)

Rangers traded Profar to the A's
This happened. Doesn't really impact the Nats but it is kind of a symbol of a "can't miss" rebuild that kind of missed. The Rangers rose to be a top level farm in 2010-2016 while being a playoff team that managed two WS appearances. The future looked very bright, but that pipeline of talent would translate into two LDS losses and four missed playoffs between 2013-2018.  There's a young crowd still left there but the smart money is probably on a sell-off of the offensive talent as there is no pitching at all to back it up.  Never buy into a great farm translating into a great team. There's too much variability in players. (This goes double for betting on not a farm but a handful of players - which is kind of what the Nats are doing currently)

*though Anibal's being good was like half a decade ago. 


Josh Higham said...

The Mets and Reds are a pair of teams that I think are going to cause some real chaos this year. The East was pretty clearly divided into 3 likely good teams and 2 likely bad ones going into the offseason, but the Philies have failed to get much better while the Mets have made a little noise, clearly thinking they can contend. If the Phillies strike out on Bryce/Machado, I think they finish 4th this year. Similarly the Reds seem to think they're a few moves away from being substantially better than both Pittsburgh and Milwaukee, hoping that the Cubs continue trending down, and the Cards aren't totally dominant.

Fangraphs 2019 projected standings have the whole NL Central packed between 87 and 77 wins, with the Brewers bringing up the rear, and the top 4 in the NL East between 92 and 79. Outside of the Dodgers killing their division, this looks like a very exciting season of NL baseball. It's still 3 months away but I'm getting very excited.

SM said...


You embiggen us with your vocabulary.

Anonymous said...

Are we realizing yet that the absurd demands of Boras the boring ass no longer carry any real weight with anyone? It’s going to be so awesome when Harper inevitably comes crawling back to the Nats on his hands and knees begging for another chance to accept the $300 million because nobody else even matched it.

Also, how badly has Machado hurt himself with his recent appalling behavior and his ongoing demands to
play shortstop instead of third base where he’s much better? He should have had big formal offers coming to him out the ass by now and he hasn’t had even one yet.

It’s going to be the Season of Humility for these guys, big time!

sirc said...

I don't understand why people attack Boras. He is very good at what he does. I wouldn't doubt him or his ability to get Harper where he wants and what he wants.

Jay said...

Jeff Passan wrote on ESPN that Harper has met several more times with the Nats. Not sure if they are trying to drum up a market, but we'll see how everything shakes out. I will say that I think MLB has to do something about tanking teams. The last two offseasons have been horrible for free agents. I think we are headed for a strike at this rate.

Josh Higham said...

@sirc Boras is pretty hateable insofar as your favorite team gets priced out of a top player, but the thing I've recently come to realize (as I've grown into an anti-owner pro-player type of fan) is that Boras has done more than basically anyone else to hold ground for players earning their share of MLB revenue. In my utopia where owners don't try to make yearly profits so hard and players are paid fairly, Scott Boras is a hero, even if he is an annoying blowhard.

BornInDC said...


As much as I tend to be pro-labor and, therefore, pro-player, from the fans' prospective, I think many of Boras' actions make the players he represents appear less valuable to the teams for which those players play. Part of what makes fans root for a team is the idea, romantic and unrealistic as it may be, that the players on their favorite team play for the fans. While rationally, we all know that nearly all players are basically hired mercenaries with no particular loyalty to a fanbase, Boras actions often rubs fans' noses in this fact and I don't think that's good for MLB players long-run.

As an example of the effect Boras may have on fans, I wonder how many Nats fans bought merchandise with Bryce's name on it in 2018, knowing that, as a Boras client, Bryce was likely to not be playing for the Nats in 2019? With the notable exception of Strasburg, a fan needs to be wary of investing much emotion in a Boras client or a Boras client's merchandise, because the fan knows there is a high likelihood that the player will be leaving the fan's team when his current contract is up.

sirc said...

I understand that perspective. My pushback is that there is no evidence that Boras does anything but get the best contract for his client. The blame, if in fact someone is seeking to blame someone, belongs with either the team or the player.

Every agent's job is to get the client what they want. Boras is good at that. People speak of him as if players surrender their wills to him when they hire him.

For example, the anonymous post above, supported by nothing but a combination of supposition and anger:

"Are we realizing yet that the absurd demands of Boras the boring ass no longer carry any real weight with anyone? It’s going to be so awesome when Harper inevitably comes crawling back to the Nats on his hands and knees begging for another chance to accept the $300 million because nobody else even matched it"

I wouldn't know where to begin other than to say that's your opinion and I see absolutely no data to support it and so I do not understand it, which was my original position. Maybe it turns out that Bryce does come back and sign the Nats' original offer. Does that mean Boras failed, or that he gathered additional data so that his client can make an informed decision? But it's Boras, so Boras will have done it wrong according to anon. THAT is what I do not understand.

BxJaycobb said...

@Harper: I assume you meant the Rockies would potentially have an easy 2nd place finish wrapped up, not an easy WC. I don’t see why they would have an easy WC.
Also. Great farms don’t translate to great teams? They do quite often. I assume you meant they don’t GURANTEE great teams. Because about 5-6 years ago among the best farms were *also* the Red Sox, Cubs, Astros, Dodgers. 7-8 years ago the Royals were ranked at the top. Then Braves shot up the rankings a couple years ago.
Of course if your farm is ranked high you’re not guaranteed* a ticket to a great run and a WS appearance, but in today’s game you don’t get those without having an excellent young home grown core. A really good farm is a necessary component but not sufficient. It can work with the volume version (Braves....tons and tons of very good prospects) or top tier version (Cubs and Red Sox were sort of like this, as they had a nice collection of top tier prospects.) Nats are trying to do something a bit unusual, which is hope an influx of 3-4 young top tier prospects and talents (turner, Robles, Soto, kieboom) is enough to supplement an aging core if you spend the money necessary (Corbin).

@Anon: you are badly confusing “hasn’t signed yet” with lack of interest for Machado and Harper. They both will sign gigantic deals. I assure you they have both received large offers already. You’re basically saying I haven’t seen publicly reported offers so Machado is gonna get stiffed bc he mentioned not playing hard in PS and Bryce won’t get a lot bc of Boras. January may well end with one of them still out there. But both will get huge deals.
@Everyone. There’s nothing wrong with Boras. He’s excellent at his job. That’s why the top players hire him. The problem re the recent FA trends is that baseball has finally realized in the post steroid era that guys in their 30s are not that productive (the fielding metrics and WAR also helped with this realization).....and thus the problem is not with teams tanking although that doesn’t help but with the pay structure. MLB needs to start paying young players closer to their worth. Because right now FAs depend on being paid their fair market price for their younger years basically, where they all got screwed. Baseball needs to start arb way earlier, maybe after rookie year....or do something. Because guys hitting FA any time in their 30s are not going to get deals like they used to. It makes no rational sense.

BxJaycobb said...

I think the Mets are perhaps one big move away (sign AJ Pollock and end up with a high upside outfield even without Cespedes) from being a true contender for NLE.

BxJaycobb said...

I noticed this Passan story too. This whole offseason I’ve been thinking to myself “I don’t think Bryce is going to do much better in years or money than the 300/10 he was offered by Nats.” It will be interesting to see what happens.

BxJaycobb said...

Ps I personally would have 100% paid Tulo the league minimum (or 1m if necessary) and handed him 2B job if he looked good in spring training and figured if he broke down then Kendrick can step in, and we spend money on solid 5th starter.

Josh Higham said...

@sirc and Bx, this has to be a case of owners pinching pennies (or getting honestly outbid) and shifting blame to someone else, right?

If you can't afford Bryce Harper, it's not because he's represented by a talented agent, it's because he's Bryce F. Harper and he is worth at least $30m per year and your budget simply cannot accommodate that. There's no way Bryce is worth $30m per year and you simply cannot afford to go up to $32, but Nationals fan hating, conniving Boras won't let local hero Bryce sign for less. If you can afford Bryce and make a competitive offer but he chooses to go somewhere else, the player just preferred to sign with not your team. Bummer.

In either case you the owner want the fans to a) not be angry with you or your team, b) not be eternally resentful toward the player who helped your team get to where it is (and could come back in a PR style move later), c) direct their class-based angst toward a different very rich person. The agent is the perfect scapegoat.

Anonymous said...

Even the 10 years / $300 million the Nationals offered him is an overpay (albeit a relatively small one).

I’m sorry, but he simply isn’t worth some kind of record-breaking contract, and anyone who think he is isn’t looking at his actual production honestly. He had one out of this world season which was a clear outlier, but over the last three years he has been nothing more than a top 30 to 40 position player, no better than a J.D. Martinez.

Ole PBN said...

I think Rizzo and the Lerner's recognize Bryce's talent and marketability better than anyone, as they drafted/developed him. Knowing that, when they decided to pay him $21M going into his final year before free agency, it was a decision of good faith: "Hey, we want you, we have the money," basically saying "there's more where that came from." I think after his season last year, they saw an exposed hitter who struggled defensively, and by most accounts, regressed from last year and has been largely inconsistent since his historical 2015 season. Still, he's 25 years old, is very marketable, and does have immense talent. The 10/$300 offer was the same thing as the $21M they gave him two years ago: a show of good faith to Bryce, but mainly to the fans to show that ownership isn't going to let the face of the franchise walk without a competitive offer. It's why they didn't trade him at the deadline last season, despite really tanking the season by shedding salary elsewhere and limiting our ability to put a competitive group on field for the last months of the season. Rizzo knew we were done, but couldn't let the fans know that we were done on Bryce too. Let is show that Bryce has his sights set elsewhere, always has. And I can't blame him for it - go out and get yours dude. But for someone like Bryce Harper, who was a kid prodigy on the SI cover at 16 years old... the Washington Nationals doesn't fit the bill for a figure of that stature. Maybe some day? But right now, that's LAD, NYY, CHC, etc. Big market, historic franchises that can put together a competitive roster. Right now, we only have the latter.

I think they offered him 10/$300 right out of the gate, knowing he wouldn't take it so early because he thinks he's worth $400M and so does his agent. We're maybe seeing that the market disagrees and the Nat's offer might be the best out there. I still think he gets $300 or $35M AAV from someone else, but he wants to play in another city. Apparently both Machado and Bryce aren't too keen on playing in Philly... "but wait, they have stupid money, right?" Why would he want to play in Phily or DC if he can be the star of LA or New York or Chicago? From our front office's standpoint, so much of this stuff reeks of optics and public perception to the fan base. But as long as that doesn't cloud our GM's vision that a single player (aside from Mike Trout) isn't worth $35-40M a year, I'm fine with whatever message our front office wants to peddle.

Don't read this the wrong way. I think Bryce enjoyed his time here. Him saying he wanted to play for the same team his whole career, like Jeter and Cal did, I believe that was genuine. He said all the right things. In his last game, he looked sad that it was over, because HE knew it was: he was ready to move on to another place. I think he wishes the team accomplished more while he was wearing a Nats uniform. We all do. Just didn't pan out. Best of luck to him, no hard feelings. I choose not to get emotional about this, but think practically, as a lot of you all do on here: He ain't worth that much money. Move on.

As long as that 10/300 deal is off the table, I can rest easy knowing our team will be better for it.

Josh Higham said...

@Ole PBN - I'm not sure 2018 actually showed an exposed hitter. His second half was, offensively at least, better than standard Bryce. His wRC+ was 159. FOr his career, it's 140.

His ISO was actually better in the first half than the second, and his BABIP was absurdly low. 0.226. His batted ball profile didn't change much between the two halves of the season. He hit the cover off the ball all year, but in March-June it went right at people 80% of the time.

Undeniably last year was not what you want in a walk year, but the last 3 years have shown that Bryce Harper is a hell of a hitter even with lingering injuries and nearly unfathomable bad luck.

I totally agree that we have also seen, pretty conclusively, that Bryce the outfielder is not very good at getting outs, whether he's hurting himself by hustling too hard, choosing not to hit the cutoff man, or dogging it to avoid injury. The thing is, literally everyone knows that Bryce is not a reliably elite 4-tool player because we're not hearing whispers of 400 million or half a billion dollars anymore like we were after 2015, when he really did look like a 4 or 5 tool superstar.

Josh Higham said...

@Ole PBN - this article isn't exactly what we're talking about but it posted within minutes of my comment, and to me it supports the idea that recent Bryce is worth the mammoth contract.

The author specifically ignores that the kid was a legit all star at 20 and that he was an MVP at 22. Just his last three years set him up to be a (not the) top player in the league over the next decade.

Anonymous said...

I think there will always be a "stat" that one can find to counter-argue that .249 hitter, with bad defense, and 1.3 WAR was actually "much better than people realize." Use a peripheral stats to support your own opinion, and ignore the rest.

G Cracka X said...

@Josh Higham Very interesting article, thanks for the link! I had assumed that much of Harper's future value was based on marketability, but this article uses data and relevant examples to show Harper's on-field worth and potential value. Maybe the Nats can bring him back!

G Cracka X said...

Interestingly enough, I think that article is a data-based version of what this blog's author/owner has been arguing for quite some time. Harper is in the pro-Bryce camp!

Josh Higham said...

@anon You're going to tell me to look at peripheral stats, then use batting average to say he was bad? fWAR and WARP both have Bryce as a 3+ win player even with very bad defense last year. bWAR is a clear outlier here.

Baseball Reference saw Bryce as the second worst defender in all of baseball last year (worst was Hoskins, who was so bad that perfectly useful Carlos Santana had to be dumped to make room at first), half a win worse than the third worst defender. I just don't believe he was that bad. The rest of his career, he's a replacement level defender. Even if you think b-r captured his true defensive level last year, I don't know how you can look at 26 year old Bryce and assume he will continue to be historically bad, and continue to be trotted out to right field.

DezoPenguin said...

The only thing I have to say about Bryce is that if Ted Lerner is willing to punt the luxury tax to sign Bryce to a mega-contract, he'd better not turn around and cheap out on a Rendon extension, or order Rizzo to trim salary elsewhere. Go big or go home.

(Rizzo, meanwhile, had best be on the phone to Cleveland the next day asking if they'd be interested in a package centered around Luis Garcia and Adam Eaton for Kluber, because unless Soto is moving to 1B signing Bryce means that Eaton is without a position (he's not a CF any more post-injury and we know Bryce isn't one from last year's failures) and All-Star grade corner outfielders on relatively team-friendly deals are not things one keeps around to play OF4.)

sirc said...

I know that there is every indication that the answer is no, but is there any chance that the Nats could play at the deep end of the relief market pool?

I believe that the Nats and Braves have both fallen behind the the Mets and now the Phils in the bullpen. The Nats have Doolittle for 2 more years (player option in 2020) for below market, around 6.5 million, and the rest of the Pen is also relatively inexpensive.

Britton might be attainable for 3 years. Kimbrel will get silly money and years most likely. But Britton...could it be a maybe?

BxJaycobb said...

@Anon You're way off-the-mark on like...5 or 6 different points. I apologize to everybody for the length of the following diatribe but I can't help myself.

1. Not worth 300/10? This isn't a mystery. We can get a very good approximation averaging fWAR and bWAR, and applying the dollar value per win. Bryce has produced about 30 WAR over 7 years—his age 19-25 seasons, i.e. he has been worth between 4-5 WAR/year (this is including time lost to injury...he averages 5-6 WAR per 150 games, or per healthy year). 1 WAR prices out to about 7 WAR on the open market. So Bryce has been worth 210 million/7 years, or precisely $30m per year. Addendum for extra credit: When you can put 6 WAR in one player there's premium value due to roster space; it actually prices out as more** valuable than 2 players with 3 WAR b/c you leave a roster space open to accumulate more value. And yes according to studies, this more than offsets the upside of risk management. Conclusion: Bryce has already proved he is worth $30+ million per year in terms of dollars on the free agent market.

2. "Top 30-40 position player." There is literally no GM in baseball who thinks Bryce Harper is only a top 30-40 position player. First of all, you're talking about somebody who had the best offensive season since Barry Bonds and did it at age 22, the youngest unanimous MVP in league history. I suppose you can just write that off as an "outlier" if you want, but that's silly, because it's not a random spin of the wheel. Probably 2 living baseball players are capable of coming within sniffing distance of those numbers. Are you suggesting Bryce Harper is not capable of having a .330/.460/.650 year again? Of course he is. He will probably do it again one or two more times before he retires. And there will be a healthy portion of .300/.420.580 MVP-ish years thrown in (he was of course on track to contend for another MVP in 2017 before he slipped on a base). This is a guy you can pretty safely assume will have a .400 OBP and a .500 SLG (indeed, his lifetime OPS is .900) many baseball players are there that project to a .900 OPS? Probably 6 in baseball (Just guessing: Goldschmidt, Betts, Judge, JD M, Trout, Harper). And in their age 19-25 years?

3. Your comparison to JD Martinez, who has spent roughly the same time in MLB as Bryce, so it's useful to contrast them:
(1) Bryce is hitting market age 26. Martinez hit it age 30.5 (one's prime was almost over, the other has like 6 years left).
(2) JD has never been able to play even passable defense or run, even when he was younger.
(3) Martinez has accumulated about 21 WAR over his career. Bryce has accumulated 30.
(4) Bryce has a much higher peak/ceiling (Martinez at 176 wRC+, Bryce 197 wRC+) AND a slightly higher average performance (136 wRC+ vs 140 wRC+).
To review: Compared to arguably the best hitter in the American League, Bryce Harper is 5 years younger, has produced more value, has a higher ceiling, and has more tools. These two people are not the same. Any other questions?

4. But his defense! you say. It appears you like outliers when it's his best offensive season but not when it's a defense metric that looks nothing like the rest of his career. Defensive metrics are the least reliable metric we have...people go from best defender in baseball to average year to year. Bryce has lost zero foot speed since he was a rookie year if you look at Stat Cast data (he will at some point, but he hasn't yet). You really think he now is a heinous defender but once was above average? I think it's more likely fielding metrics are pretty meh combined with the fact that he didn't want to take any chances in a contract year hurting himself diving for balls or running into walls.

BxJaycobb said...

@Dezo: Huge mistake to deal Eaton before signing Bryce. Although if the Indians are dumb enough to trade a few years of way below market Kluber for Eaton and Kluber you probably say yes before they realize they've slipped and hit their head.

DezoPenguin said...

@Bx: That's why I said "the next day" in my comment--as in, "the day after he signs Bryce."

Anonymous said...

Saying “1 WAR is worth $7 million on the open market” is a vast oversimplification, and it also happens to not be the way it actually works. That may well be how you and a few others think the players SHOULD be valued, but just because you think that doesn’t make it a reality. If this were really the case, Mike Trout would be able to garner over $60 million a year! Not going to happen.

I’m sorry, but there is simply no rational justification for giving Harper three times as many guaranteed dollars as J.D. Martinez, despite him being younger. Your analysis also completely and blithely ignores any possibility of injury risk. Does the name “Troy Tulowitzki” ring any bells? Of course, you and other analysts with no actual skin in the game can handwave that factor away because it’s not your money, but the teams neither cannot nor should not ignore that factor.

Nothing personal dude, but I believe that the folks who have been running the Red Sox in their recent history know what they’re doing a lot better than you do. There’s a reason why they have multiple titles over the last 15 years. It’s not just because they spend a lot of money, but they spend it lot more intelligently than you would.

Josh Higham said...

@Anon, Bx didn't ignore injury risk, but factoring injuries actually makes Bryce look LESS like JD Martinez. JD Martinez only played more than 125 games in 1 of the 4 seasons prior to signing in Boston--and was in the AL where he could DH if he was just gimpy rather than seriously hurt. Bryce has easily cleared 125 in 3 of his last 4 seasons, all in the NL.

Sure, Bryce could continue to get dinged up and not be very good at the end of his career, but that's built into the aging curve. And sure, Bryce has been a little dinged up in his career, but so has Trout.

Ole PBN said...

What is this whole Bryce argument about? Are people on here saying we should give him the 10/300 or more? Really? I think if the fan base (especially the intelligent ones on this blog) thought he was worth it, we'd be clamoring and begging to have him back? But I think the general consensus is that we're going to be fine with out him. Some say better, some say just fine, and a few are saying worse. $30M a year for a long period of time is absurd for someone like Bryce, but I'd pay that for Trout. See the difference? We once used to talk about who is better after 2015 - now its not even a conversation but we want to believe that he's worth that much money just because the Marlins were even more foolish with Stanton's deal?

Perfect analogy for all the "Bryce is worth 10/300" camp: Your girlfriend dumped you and you decided that you're better without her and have moved on, figuring it was all over anyway. You're confident and have a bright future ahead. Look at you! But then months later, you see she's still available and realize you need her in your life. No you don't dude. No you don't. Plenty of Robles and Sotos' in the sea.

Now if you think a DIFFERENT team should pay him 10/300 and we're just curious what will happen to Bryce, thats cool. I'm curious if Syndergaard will cut his hair. Let's see what happens. But don't wish that garbage deal on our team.

Josh Higham said...

@Ole PBN there are a lot of smart people who think the Nats should pony up for a 10 year 300 million dollar deal. The article I shared above says even if Bryce had not had seasons ranging from very good to phenomenal before turning 23, he'd conservatively project to be worth around $200m over the next 10 years, but he's got a superstar ceiling. 300/10 is a gamble, and a big one, sure, but I think it's a minority of smart people who don't think it would be worth going over the luxury tax threshold for.

I think you're right insofar as the majority of smart people who read this blog think Bryce's contract would be bad for the Nats, but Harper, the one person who approaches impartiality around here, thinks the Nats should go big and go for it.

Anyway, most of us are huge cynics and have convinced ourselves that the team is better off without him as a coping mechanism.

Ole PBN said...

I stand by what I've said before: there is always that one stupid team to grossly overpay a player. Always happens. It just better not be us.

Anonymous said...

Wait, if Harper's impartial and says we should go for it, doesn't that essentially mean "meh, why not?" Like telling someone to eat a tide pod because at least it would be funny for a little?

yanmaneee said...

moncler coat
golden goose superstar
golden goose starter
bape clothing
kd shoes
balenciaga shoes
jordan store
nike air max
yeezy boost 350
kyrie irving shoes