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.
What would it take for you to trade Mookie?
|
Post by jdb on May 18, 2014 12:26:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on May 18, 2014 22:41:15 GMT -5
Yes well I didn't say it was a likely trade. He just seems to be the most blocked major league ready prospect. And I think you could argue they have somewhat similar value. Of course the Dodgers have options at 2nd although none as entrenched as Pedroia and a possible opening at SS next season. An OF position obviously doesn't make sense if you already have Pederson. So I would put long odds on anything happening on this front.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 23, 2014 15:00:04 GMT -5
One guy I'm not trading Mookie for is Samardzija.
|
|
|
Post by nattyburns2 on May 24, 2014 15:07:14 GMT -5
First off, Tampa won't trade Price in the division. If they'd do that they would regret it for years to come. I'd propose the trade of Jake Peavey, Mookie Betts, And will Middlebrooks for Giancarlo. Here's my reasoning. Peavey is a free agent after this year, Pedroia is signed with us for the next 6 years. Xander is not going anywhere and Garin is coming up this year with the 40 man or next year to stay. So betts would just be waiting in the wings for 6 years. However I do understand they are working him out a little in the outfield. I don't see this as enough of an option to not keep him. It'd have to be the right trade. I don't know if it's only me, but will middlebrooks is starting to remind me of Nomar; all the power in the world, great defense, but in and out of the DL. Trade middlebrooks because it'll only be worse once he feels the pressure of chechinni on his heels. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 24, 2014 16:26:17 GMT -5
Why on earth would the Marlins want Peavy or WMB? Are you going to also eat all of Peavy's salary? Because Loria sure isn't going to pay it.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 10, 2014 10:37:15 GMT -5
I've heard he's not going to stick defensively as a middle infielder in the bigs though, which makes this more interesting. I thought mookie would be higher ranked, but at least keith law has pederson and him 21 and 22 in his updated top 25, so they actually match up pretty well. pederson gives us immediate outfield help, mookie gives them either a cost controlled 2b or OF for the future. Still, if we were going to deal him, i'd rather we packaged him for someone like stanton than doing a prospect-for-prospect swap
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Jun 10, 2014 11:58:53 GMT -5
I would be willing to include Mookie in a deal for Taveras
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Jun 10, 2014 12:46:59 GMT -5
Mookie had a high BA, OBP, has some power, and can steal 30 bases a year. In other words, he's a perfect lead off hitter. If he can learn to handle CF, you would never want to trade him. He could be there for years. If JBJ can't hit anymore, he either goes to AAA or used as a defensive replacement. Our outfield is a mess and Mookie could be part of the solution. We have plenty of good potential arms in the minors right now. Don't need to trade for another.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 13, 2014 12:59:34 GMT -5
Mookie looks blocked at his natural position (2B), which naturally leads to some trade speculation. What do you think his trade value is? What realistically-available players would it take for you to be willing to move him? Here's my tentative list (note: I tried to limit this to players who I think might be available sometime this year or during the offseason. There are obviously a ton of other players that I'd be tempted to move him for who are unavailable): Giancarlo Stanton Jose Bautista Carloz Gonzalez Alex Gordon David Price Johnny Cueto Cliff Lee Cole Hamels ...and that's probably it. I second that list and would add one more name from a team that values its own young players highly, but needs more: George Springer It would obviously have to be a 3 for 1 type deal, and would likely include one of Barnes/Owens/Webster/RDLR plus, prob Cecchini. But as much as Springer is a big piece for Houston they've shown in the past 12 months they'll deal one high talent/long control player for packages of more high talent/long control players. And FWIW I would go after Price and extend Lester, and include Mookie if I have to. If you can't extend Price between the deal and next Nov., you get the draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 13, 2014 16:08:18 GMT -5
Mookie looks blocked at his natural position (2B), which naturally leads to some trade speculation. What do you think his trade value is? What realistically-available players would it take for you to be willing to move him? Here's my tentative list (note: I tried to limit this to players who I think might be available sometime this year or during the offseason. There are obviously a ton of other players that I'd be tempted to move him for who are unavailable): Giancarlo Stanton Jose Bautista Carloz Gonzalez Alex Gordon David Price Johnny Cueto Cliff Lee Cole Hamels ...and that's probably it. I second that list and would add one more name from a team that values its own young players highly, but needs more: George Springer It would obviously have to be a 3 for 1 type deal, and would likely include one of Barnes/Owens/Webster/RDLR plus, prob Cecchini. But as much as Springer is a big piece for Houston they've shown in the past 12 months they'll deal one high talent/long control player for packages of more high talent/long control players. And FWIW I would go after Price and extend Lester, and include Mookie if I have to. If you can't extend Price between the deal and next Nov., you get the draft pick. To extend Price you're talking at least an eight year $30 million/year type of commitment. Would the Sox go that high? Would you want them to? They're already balking at extending Lester. If he's a one year rental, I wouldn't include Betts or Swihart or Owens. That and give up a bunch of talent? I don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 13, 2014 16:26:43 GMT -5
I don't want to trade Betts for anyone we have to pay 20-30 million a year to. I want him to turn into the player, we're debating on giving that much money to in 2020-2021.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 30, 2014 13:33:08 GMT -5
End of season update-- the full and complete list of players (who might plausibly be available this offseason) for whom I would be willing to trade Mookie Betts is as follows:
Giancarlo Stanton Bryce Harper Troy Tulowitzki Anthony Rizzo (or Kris Bryant, or maybe Baez/Russell) Yu Darvish (Maybe Adrian Beltre or Jose Bautista)
Most notably, I would NOT be willing to trade Betts for any of the following (unless it was a package deal in which significant additional value was also coming back): Carlos Gonzalez, Cole Hamels, Jason Heyward, Justin Upton, Mat Latos, Johnny Cueto, Jeff Samardzija, David Price (basically anyone with only one year of team control or anyone who is highly paid enough that there's not much surplus value).
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 30, 2014 14:04:31 GMT -5
End of season update-- the full and complete list of players (who might plausibly be available this offseason) for whom I would be willing to trade Mookie Betts is as follows: Giancarlo Stanton Bryce Harper Troy Tulowitzki Anthony Rizzo (or Kris Bryant, or maybe Baez/Russell) Yu Darvish (Maybe Adrian Beltre or Jose Bautista) Chris Sale? Not sure he'd be available, but it would make sense given the ChiSox' situation
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 30, 2014 14:24:33 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd also do Sale, but I didn't think he'd be available. If you want to add a few more extra long-shot names, you could add guys like McCutchen, Seager, Rendon, Gomez, Bumgarner, Strasburg, and maybe Archer or Gray or Quintana.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Aug 30, 2014 16:14:39 GMT -5
If Cueto would agree to a long term extension, I would trade Betts. Cueto has been relatively healthy is whole career(besides 2013) Turns 29 next season. I would be comfortable with a 6 year 140 million contract.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 30, 2014 16:40:33 GMT -5
I don't get the practicality of not trading Betts for a guy like Hamels. Why because Hamels is paid appropriately and Betts is cost controlled? Hamels is an established top of the rotation arm who should produce for the remainder of his contract.
Mookie is an unknown still and while he has promise that's still no guarentee. Big market teams are lucky they don't need to make all their decisions that way. By your logic the Tigers shouldn't have traded Miller and Maybin for Cabrera.
And I don't understand how Stanton is more beneficial to trade a huge prospect package for than a guy signed to a long contract. Stanton only has 2 years of control which will be fairly expensive and then if you lose him you only get a pick and if you keep him you're paying through the nose...
Hamels is 4 years of probably slightly below market money.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Aug 30, 2014 17:40:06 GMT -5
I'll pay a player like Stanton 25 million a year. If it takes more, sign me up. Stanton will hit 35 HRs or more every year and drive in 100 runs. That is the type of production we need, especially after this years dismal performance offensively.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 30, 2014 17:46:00 GMT -5
If you think there's a guarantee with Cole Hamels, or with any player for that matter, I don't agree. Forget the money, I'd be willing to bet Mookie flat out outproduces him over the next 4 seasons.
That said, a 24 year old superstar outfielder is a bit more of a sure thing than a very good, but not great, pitcher on the wrong side of 30. Years of control is not actually a bonus for a guy like Hamels.
And, once again, the Red Sox would not give up as much for Stanton if he's not willing to sign an extension, so those concerns are completely overblown.
edit: Oh, I see you also compared Hamels to acquiring a 24 year old Miguel Cabrera. You can't just put players into the two camps of "proven" and "unproven." Not all "proven" players are created equal and ditto for prospects.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 30, 2014 18:38:22 GMT -5
End of season update-- the full and complete list of players (who might plausibly be available this offseason) for whom I would be willing to trade Mookie Betts is as follows: Giancarlo Stanton Bryce Harper Troy Tulowitzki Anthony Rizzo (or Kris Bryant, or maybe Baez/Russell) Yu Darvish (Maybe Adrian Beltre or Jose Bautista) Most notably, I would NOT be willing to trade Betts for any of the following (unless it was a package deal in which significant additional value was also coming back): Carlos Gonzalez, Cole Hamels, Jason Heyward, Justin Upton, Mat Latos, Johnny Cueto, Jeff Samardzija, David Price (basically anyone with only one year of team control or anyone who is highly paid enough that there's not much surplus value). not being willing to trade Mookie Betts for Jason Heyward may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this site, and thats saying something. Shouldn't we be looking to trade him? Hes a blocked prospect, and we'll lose value if we try to fit him in the lineup
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 30, 2014 19:33:10 GMT -5
I don't get the practicality of not trading Betts for a guy like Hamels. Why because Hamels is paid appropriately and Betts is cost controlled? Hamels is an established top of the rotation arm who should produce for the remainder of his contract. Mookie is an unknown still and while he has promise that's still no guarentee. Big market teams are lucky they don't need to make all their decisions that way. By your logic the Tigers shouldn't have traded Miller and Maybin for Cabrera. And I don't understand how Stanton is more beneficial to trade a huge prospect package for than a guy signed to a long contract. Stanton only has 2 years of control which will be fairly expensive and then if you lose him you only get a pick and if you keep him you're paying through the nose... Hamels is 4 years of probably slightly below market money. The idea that surplus value drives trade value is baseball economics 101. Hamels and his contract are not that valuable because you can sign a comparable player on the free agent market for not too much more money, or use that money to sign multiple free agents who aggregate to approximate his production. There are reasons to think that a strict $/WAR valuation might slightly undersell star-caliber players, because star-caliber free agents are scarce and wins per roster spot might be exponential rather than linear (i.e. one 4 win player is more valuable than two 2 win players), but that's a minor concern at best. Stanton is valuable even though he only has two years of guaranteed control left because of his age and apparent willingness to sign a long-term extension with the right team, one that would likely be slightly below-market (in the absence of open bidding, most extensions are slightly below-market). Age matters in this context because an extension would start buying out his age 27 season and beyond, which means it would cover more prime years than a typical free agent signing would. Stanton is also just much better than Hamels is, providing much more surplus value in the short-term (he'll be vastly underpaid during his remaining two arbitration years). Even in the surplus value framework, trading team-controlled prospects for star players can still make sense. First, as you allude to, there's the idea that a proven, veteran player provides more certain production. But more importantly, there are intertemporal preference issues involved. You might prefer three wins next year to four wins two years from now because next-year wins are more valuable to you than two-years-away wins. With regards to Cabrera specifically, all the arguments above about why Stanton has a ton of trade value also apply (Cabrera was in pretty much the exact same situation when he was traded to the Tigers).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 30, 2014 19:50:38 GMT -5
not being willing to trade Mookie Betts for Jason Heyward may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this site, and thats saying something. Shouldn't we be looking to trade him? Hes a blocked prospect, and we'll lose value if we try to fit him in the lineup Heyward only has one more year of team control, and while he's wildly underpaid over that one year (just $7.8m), it's tough to imagine any one-year rental being worth a prospect of Betts' caliber. If Heyward seemed amenable to a long-term extension, that might make me consider including Betts in such a deal (especially since Heyward, like Stanton, is very young (he's on pace to reach free agency at 26)), but I think he'd be less amenable to an extension and any potential extension would be closer to full market value since he's closer to free agency. The same logic is mostly true (though to a lesser extent since they're all older than Heyward) for the other one-year-team-control guys (Upton, Latos, Cueto, Samardija). You're right, though, maybe I'm overvaluing Stanton and undervaluing Heyward. If Heyward signed a below-market extension as part of a trade, I'd probably be willing to include Betts in that deal. Betts is blocked at 2B, but he'd still be a very good player in the outfield, and the Red Sox are either one trade of Cespedes or one year of letting him leave in free agency away from having the starting RF spot open up. Betts may also fit in at SS or 3B. Yes, they'd lose some value that way (compared to playing him at his natural 2B), but they'd lose less value than if they traded him for a substandard return.
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 31, 2014 0:58:36 GMT -5
I will only trade Betts for these guys below:
1.Jay Bruce 2.Cole Hamels 3.Bryce Harper 4.Chris Sale 5.Mat Latos 6.Wei-Yin Chen 7.Yovani Gallardo 8.Troy Tulowitzki 9.Mike Minor 10.Andrew Cashner
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 31, 2014 11:07:04 GMT -5
I will only trade Betts for these guys below: 1.Jay Bruce 2.Cole Hamels 3.Bryce Harper 4.Chris Sale 5.Mat Latos 6.Wei-Yin Chen 7.Yovani Gallardo 8.Troy Tulowitzki 9.Mike Minor 10.Andrew Cashner If those are the only guys you would trade Betts for, I have no doubts you would put a terrible team together.
|
|
|
Post by rsoxman07 on Aug 31, 2014 13:06:02 GMT -5
I will only trade Betts for these guys below: 1.Jay Bruce 2.Cole Hamels 3.Bryce Harper 4.Chris Sale 5.Mat Latos 6.Wei-Yin Chen 7.Yovani Gallardo 8.Troy Tulowitzki 9.Mike Minor 10.Andrew Cashner And thankfully your logic isn't shared by Ben Cherrington and Co.
|
|
|
Post by rsoxman07 on Aug 31, 2014 13:24:56 GMT -5
The only 3 players of value I know that may be available are
1) Mike Stanton - Betts, + either Swihart/Vazquez+ Middlebrooks+ Nava/Holt/Coyle.(If I were the Marlins I would leap at the opportunity to acquire 3 legit prospect bats (Betts,Swihart or Vazquez,Coyle + a 3rd baseman with power
The Marlins have long inquired about Middlebrooks and they are fairly deep in SP,I can't see them pushing for one of our pitchers. They would want a MLB ready OF bat in return which is a given to fill Stanton's shoes which Holt/Nava can provide. Betts could play OF but I see the Marlins wanting to us him in their INF.
2) Chris Sale - Betts + 2 pitchers from Barnes/Johnson/Escobar/Rodriguez/Ranaudo/Webster/DeLaRosa
3) Cole Hamels- is a significant step down in return then Chris Sale (mostly due to age/salary) For Cole I won't even consider parting with Owens/Swihart/Betts/Boegarts/Devers - however we should allow them to have any of our other young players which is still substantial in comparison to the Phillies current barren farm system
**Bryce Harper would be a dream scenario for the Boston Redsox but the Nationals are a patient team, I can't see them even contemplating trading Harper unless he says/does something incredibly immature to turn the current roster against him.
4) Tulo or Carlos Gonzalez - no chance! they have the muscular structure of a china doll. The first hint of injury and they will crack under the Boston Pressure cooker.
Here are some additional names- Ryan Braun, Jose Fernandez, Alex Gordon, Jose Bautista, Adrian Beltre
To be honest if we can re-sign Lester we should be contender once again.
|
|
|