SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jdb on Nov 9, 2018 10:04:11 GMT -5
I don’t think we have the prospect good enough to headline a Goldy deal.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Nov 9, 2018 10:26:10 GMT -5
So you think Cecchini and Marrero are equal to Cassas and Groome? Those were the guys ranked 10th and 12th at this time in 2014. Sure I look at other teams prospscts, but lets not act like a guy going into his age 31 season with one year on his deal will cost a Sale package. That is what your saying if your talking about demolishing our system. Like it would take 4-5 top ten guys, including Chavis and Groome as the main pieces. Is that what you think? I wasn't being literal. I mean just go look at the list of prospects in 2014 and compare it to now. I'm saying that other teams could easily beat Chavis and Groome by giving up back end of their top 10 and not think twice. But for the Red Sox, they would lose their top 2 prospects, so yeah that would gut the system. I think it's a pretty big stretch to suggest that there are many teams that could top a chavis & groome package and not feel it - that would maybe apply to the top 3-5 farm systems in the game, and typically, those teams aren't going to be dealing prospects for win-now players with a single season of control. I also think the idea that their farm system is completely gutted and wildly shallow no longer holds up the way it did a year or so ago - they've had a couple of reallhgood drafts, some good player development, and some very promising signings out of Latin America the last couple of years, and it's easy to imagine that, with a couple of good performances from guys like casas, Flores, Diaz, howlett, etc we actually have a consensus top 15 system by the end of the year, and that ignores the guys that look poised to be major league contributors possibly like ockimey and chavis
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 9, 2018 17:29:56 GMT -5
So you think Cecchini and Marrero are equal to Cassas and Groome? Those were the guys ranked 10th and 12th at this time in 2014. Sure I look at other teams prospscts, but lets not act like a guy going into his age 31 season with one year on his deal will cost a Sale package. That is what your saying if your talking about demolishing our system. Like it would take 4-5 top ten guys, including Chavis and Groome as the main pieces. Is that what you think? I wasn't being literal. I mean just go look at the list of prospects in 2014 and compare it to now. I'm saying that other teams could easily beat Chavis and Groome by giving up back end of their top 10 and not think twice. But for the Red Sox, they would lose their top 2 prospects, so yeah that would gut the system. Lol yea ok, even when we had the top system in the game our backend top 10 guys couldn't beat Chavis and Groome. Let me guess your not being literal again? End of 2014 the backend was Johnson, Barnes, Chavis, Ranaudo, and Cecchini. Compared to now Houck, Mata, Flores, Chatham, and Feltman. Not much difference really Johnson and Mata are very close, Barnes and Houck are very similar, Chavis and Flores are both young very high upside guys, Ranaudo and Feltman maybe this is hindsight but I call that even because I bet Feltman has a much better career, yet Ranaudo was a starter, then Cecchini versus Chatham. Now I was crazy high on Cecchini yet by the end of 2014 he was declining in value, as his fringe D and lack of power were exposed. I'll give this one to Cecchini, yet it does seem rather close Chatham is a SS and play at least average D and most people seem higher on him than I do. I'm just not seeing some massive difference. Heck I like our current 11-20 a lot more. Great mix of solid players for depth and a bunch of high upside players. Now 2014 did have Swihart, Owens, Margot, Devers, and ERod at the top, compared to Chavis, Casas, Groome, Dalbec, and Hernandez. Its clear 2014 is better, they were ranked higher. There isn't a Swihart, yet you were never trading him for a rental, Chavis a big drop off, yet I almost feel he's underrated given the last year and half. One of the better power bats in the minors. I loved Owens but I guess the control worries were a lot bigger than I thought, a guy like Hernandez has better stuff and a higher upside though and control issues. Margot I always felt was overrated and that certainly seems rather right. Casas is highly uproven yet has big upside. Not as high as Margot, yet I never saw any reason why guys like Keith Law thought he'd be a 30 HR guy. Devers clearly has Dalbec beat, more upside, less risky. ERod clearly beats Groome, yet the upside of Groome is likely higher but he's crazy risky. The 2014 was better by a wide margin, with Swihart being an ultra prospect. Yet he wasn't yet ranked that way either at this time in 2014 he started the year at 56 and wasn't in the mid-season top 50, yet Owens and ERod clocked in at 42 and 43. He wouldn't be ranked 10th till January 2015. Devers and Margot weren't ranked either till January 2015 as top 100 guys. Our other top guys were all in the majors by that point so no Bogaerts, Bradley or Betts. So I don't really see your point because I don't see a guy going into his age 31 season on a slightly below market deal costing even Chavis and Groome. Maybe somone goes crazy, yet teams prize prospects more than ever now. Sure a bunch of teams could easily beat us, but why would they? The monster deals you're thinking about are for guys with 2-3 years of control at well below market rates. Nevermind we all love rankings yet teams own rankings are likely much different. I don't think for one second they look at our prospects and think they suck. Can't trade with them, no good talent. It's rather amazing how far this system has come in a short time. Last year started out horrible, yet by the end of the year the positives clearly outweighed the negatives. **Disclaimer I'm not a professional scout and I'm wrong just as much as I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2018 17:36:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 9, 2018 22:05:26 GMT -5
If you want to go by that list we have 2, no? It shows two guys and who knows how many we will have in 2019. I stand by my comments that outside a few upper guys this current system is rather close. We are loaded with the type of young high upside guys that prospect graders love and we have great depth.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 10, 2018 9:23:30 GMT -5
If you want to go by that list we have 2, no? It shows two guys and who knows how many we will have in 2019. I stand by my comments that outside a few upper guys this current system is rather close. We are loaded with the type of young high upside guys that prospect graders love and we have great depth. Groome isn't in the top 100 now. If you want to argue that 7-8 top 100 guys is close to 1 top 100 guy, I'm not sure what to say.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 10, 2018 12:29:38 GMT -5
If you want to go by that list we have 2, no? It shows two guys and who knows how many we will have in 2019. I stand by my comments that outside a few upper guys this current system is rather close. We are loaded with the type of young high upside guys that prospect graders love and we have great depth. Groome isn't in the top 100 now. If you want to argue that 7-8 top 100 guys is close to 1 top 100 guy, I'm not sure what to say. Oh so you want to look at a list in time and adjust it? At this time in 2014 three of those guys were in the majors no longer prospects and three others weren't top 100 guys anymore. Crazy funny to make your point you adjust prospects ranking, but dismiss it when I do that. We'd only have two top 100 guys Swihart and Owens, then we traded for ERod. Nevermind teams won't look at Groome that way just because he's injured. Maybe he won't be ranked but he won't lose value unless he doesn't look good when he's healthy. Just look at the rating on this site, his upside is so high that he only dropped two spots.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 10, 2018 12:39:24 GMT -5
Yeah you're right as always. The Red Sox have tons of great prospects to trade and should be able to beat any other team in a trade for Goldschmidt with their 29th ranked farm system. It's almost as good as their top ranked farm system from a few years ago. I can't believe I had the audacity to think otherwise. Good thing you're here to beat some sense into me with repetition. Great talk. I feel dumber now.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 10, 2018 13:27:03 GMT -5
Yea its called having an informed opinion and not just thinking guys suck because someone else didn't rate them high as a prospect. Your a Baseball junkie yet what you can't have your own opinion? I remember when I jumped on the Kopech wagon a year before everyone else. In your eyes he sucked, he wasn't ranked. I don't give two craps about propect top 100 lists or farm rankings, because everyone has a different opinion and they don't come close to the actual value teams place on these guys. I did a fairly detailed list compairing the systems. You can hold your hat high because Owens is rated highly and Hernandez isn't ranked as of right now. Hernandez has a higher upside, has a much better arm and is ever bit the prospect Owens was. Heck he's shown in the AFL just how dominant he can be if you use him in the bullpen. It's called being ahead of the curve my friend. Production matters not ranking, those come in time when people have to admit they were wrong. This is a farm system on the rise, just watch.
Nevermind the whole point of this was that an older 1B with one year on his deal won't take a massive offer. The reason they want to trade him is because they can't afford him. With reports the Dodgers have limited resourses due to debt issues, the Yankees because they might be going up for sale and want to increase the price. The Cubs are maxed out and looking to move core pieces because they can't afford them. Not many teams will have the ability to trade for him and then sign him. So teams trading for a rental won't go crazy. Heck a very young generational talent like Machado only cost a young risky like top 50 guy at the deadline when teams go crazy and that team was chasing a Championship. The new system limits his rental value because you only get a 2nd round pick when he leaves. When it used to be a first and before that a first and supplemental first.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 10, 2018 16:58:19 GMT -5
This was fun to read all the way back to 2013... crazy some of these posts...
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Nov 10, 2018 17:10:11 GMT -5
This was fun to read all the way back to 2013... crazy some of these posts... I read the first post of this thread and honestly, for a split second, thought someone was being a smartass -- and then I read the date.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 10, 2018 17:12:24 GMT -5
This was fun to read all the way back to 2013... crazy some of these posts... I read the first post of this thread and honestly, for a split second, thought someone was being a smartass -- and then I read the date. Too bad Arizona said no to that. HAHA
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 10, 2018 18:47:45 GMT -5
Lol. Me too...
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 20, 2018 22:52:52 GMT -5
I think the Yankees still have enough prospects to pull off a trade for Goldschmidt and enough payroll flexibility to sign Corbin.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 21, 2018 10:15:32 GMT -5
I think the Yankees still have enough prospects to pull off a trade for Goldschmidt and enough payroll flexibility to sign Corbin. I could easily see Luke Voit going the other way to AZ in a deal for Goldschmidt. Don't think they'd have to include other prospects. Voit has a lot of service time last year and hit very, very well in a 2 month sample size. Yeah, Yankee Stadium helped a lot, but he looked like somebody who can be productive for a few years so for one year of Goldschmidt I can see the DBacks take a guy who has hit and has service time like Voit rather than one good prospect and some secondary ones.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 21, 2018 13:42:27 GMT -5
I don't think it takes as much as other do, but Luke Voit isn't getting it done. Not after only 39 very good games. Look what they traded for him, no way his value is now sky high. We've seen Sandy Leon have good 30 games stretches before. I almost hope the Yankees trade for him, given their budget issues they won't be able to resign him. If they keep up this pace of trading prospects, we'll have a better farm system by next year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 21, 2018 22:09:57 GMT -5
This was fun to read all the way back to 2013... crazy some of these posts... I read the first post of this thread and honestly, for a split second, thought someone was being a smartass -- and then I read the date. I just read through the thread, and there's been a REMARKBLY consistent "the Diamondbacks will trade their best player for four mediocre Red Sox prospects because they are bad, and bad teams don't need their best players, and that gives the Red Sox all of the leverage". It's five years of the same wrong argument with different players intertwined.
|
|
|
Post by ed978 on Jul 14, 2023 6:25:07 GMT -5
Would Casas (maybe add Kiké for cash filler) for Goldy be a good trade?
Signed through next year and can be offered the qualifying offer in 2026.
My thinking is you add a better player short term while you switch Nathan Hickey to first base. Hickey could be similar to Casas offensively and in the meantime you make your lineup less left handed and more balanced.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Jul 16, 2023 7:17:32 GMT -5
This thread was fun to read back through. Ten years of Goldschmidt thirst.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 18, 2023 6:56:25 GMT -5
Not sure who the prospects moved in each case would be, but the Red Sox adding Goldschmidt and trading Turner could keep them under the luxury tax without a lot of other salary movement and would increase their ceiling. Goldschmidt at DH in 2024 on a decent deal sounds alright too.
I probably wouldn’t want to do it for the prospect cost though. Someone mentioned a Casas swap earlier and that’s probably fair but a no go for me.
Aside: was funny seeing people refer to Sam Travis as having an every day first baseman’s floor.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 18, 2023 11:06:49 GMT -5
Not sure who the prospects moved in each case would be, but the Red Sox adding Goldschmidt and trading Turner could keep them under the luxury tax without a lot of other salary movement and would increase their ceiling. Goldschmidt at DH in 2024 on a decent deal sounds alright too. I probably wouldn’t want to do it for the prospect cost though. Someone mentioned a Casas swap earlier and that’s probably fair but a no go for me. Aside: was funny seeing people refer to Sam Travis as having an every day first baseman’s floor. Is it all that fair though? Casas up to a 110 wRC+ this year and it's much better if you throw out the struggles he had early on. Goldschmidt is a better player right now but I'm not trading Casas and his 5+ years left at cheap prices for 1.5 of Goldschmit at his contract. It's not nearly enough of an upgrade to give up those 3 years of Casas in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 18, 2023 11:12:30 GMT -5
Not sure who the prospects moved in each case would be, but the Red Sox adding Goldschmidt and trading Turner could keep them under the luxury tax without a lot of other salary movement and would increase their ceiling. Goldschmidt at DH in 2024 on a decent deal sounds alright too. I probably wouldn’t want to do it for the prospect cost though. Someone mentioned a Casas swap earlier and that’s probably fair but a no go for me. Aside: was funny seeing people refer to Sam Travis as having an every day first baseman’s floor. Is it all that fair though? Casas up to a 110 wRC+ this year and it's much better if you throw out the struggles he had early on. Goldschmidt is a better player right now but I'm not trading Casas and his 5+ years left at cheap prices for 1.5 of Goldschmit at his contract. It's not nearly enough of an upgrade to give up those 3 years of Casas in my mind. Goldschmidt's been way, way better than Casas this year and is coming off an MVP season. It's within reason to expect another 5 win season from him this year and next. Casas has been barely above replacement level and is not just a much worse hitter than Goldschmidt but also a much worse fielder and baserunner. Plus there's a lot more uncertainty in his performance. I don't want to do it either, for the reasons you said, and I believe in Casas, but I think it's fair. 1.5 years of fairly confident star to super star level production for 5.5 years of projected league average-ish production. Add: The projections probably look something like 10/11 wins for Casas to 7.5 ish for Goldschmidt over the contracted terms. Casas is likely going to give you much better value for them but Goldschmidt's come now.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 18, 2023 11:18:34 GMT -5
Is it all that fair though? Casas up to a 110 wRC+ this year and it's much better if you throw out the struggles he had early on. Goldschmidt is a better player right now but I'm not trading Casas and his 5+ years left at cheap prices for 1.5 of Goldschmit at his contract. It's not nearly enough of an upgrade to give up those 3 years of Casas in my mind. Goldschmidt's been way, way better than Casas this year and is coming off an MVP season. It's within reason to expect another 5 win season from him this year and next. Casas has been barely above replacement level and is not just a much worse hitter than Goldschmidt but also a much worse fielder and baserunner. Plus there's a lot more uncertainty in his performance. I don't want to do it either, for the reasons you said, and I believe in Casas, but I think it's fair. 1.5 years of fairly confident star to super star level production for 5.5 years of projected league average-ish production. Add: The projections probably look something like 10/11 wins for Casas to 7.5 ish for Goldschmidt over the contracted terms. Casas is likely going to give you much better value for them but Goldschmidt's come now. I very much disagree that he's been way way better, certainly not since May 1st anyway after Casas seemingly made the adjustment that young ball players need to make. Since May 1st- Casas .276/.363/.492 wRC+ 131 Goldy .279/.356/.466 wRC+ 126. I do think Goldy is probably a better bet to be better the next 1.5 seasons but not for the $20M+ he's going to make over Casas next year and then he's a 37 year old FA. While Casas has 3+ years left of controllability and that's if they don't extend him. I don't see why we should expect only league average production out of Casas. His defense will get better and he's been very much an above average hitter for going on 3 months now.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 18, 2023 11:32:15 GMT -5
Goldschmidt's been way, way better than Casas this year and is coming off an MVP season. It's within reason to expect another 5 win season from him this year and next. Casas has been barely above replacement level and is not just a much worse hitter than Goldschmidt but also a much worse fielder and baserunner. Plus there's a lot more uncertainty in his performance. I don't want to do it either, for the reasons you said, and I believe in Casas, but I think it's fair. 1.5 years of fairly confident star to super star level production for 5.5 years of projected league average-ish production. Add: The projections probably look something like 10/11 wins for Casas to 7.5 ish for Goldschmidt over the contracted terms. Casas is likely going to give you much better value for them but Goldschmidt's come now. I very much disagree that he's been way way better, certainly not since May 1st anyway after Casas seemingly made the adjustment that young ball players need to make. Since May 1st- Casas .276/.363/.492 wRC+ 131 Goldy .279/.356/.466 wRC+ 126. I do think Goldy is probably a better bet to be better the next 1.5 seasons but not for the $20M+ he's going to make over Casas next year and then he's a 37 year old FA. While Casas has 3+ years left of controllability and that's if they don't extend him. I don't see why we should expect only league average production out of Casas. His defense will get better and he's been very much an above average hitter for going on 3 months now. I don't know how you can disagree that Goldschmidt's been way better. 2.8 fWAR to 0.2. Since May 1 it's 1.6 to 0.7. Goldschmidt's been way better on defense and on the bases, so even though they've been roughly equal as hitters since that point he's still more valuable. And Goldschmidt doesn't get platoon days off. Maybe Casas gets better on defense but in a trade proposal you can't just bank on that. The projection systems all unanimously don't love Casas that much, and think he's a 1.5 WAR/150 guy going forward this season. I think they might be underrating his offense but I don't think the Cardinals would say that in a trade negotiation. Anyways we agree we'd both rather have Casas. Doesn't mean the offer is unfair.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 18, 2023 12:54:48 GMT -5
If you think that the 1.5 years of Goldschmidt is not too much less than 5.5 years of Casas with the advantage of being front loaded then you might do it knowing you have not only Hickey but Blaze Jordan who can pick up 1B with the possibility of the QO to Goldschmidt to add a year of needed. If you think Casas is more of a 2-2.5 WAR guy going forward then it's a "no".
|
|
|