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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 27, 2014 11:31:51 GMT -5
I don't like using excess vale numbers to determine trade value like Cameron does. But Margot + Cecchini + Ranaudo sounds fair to me Value is relative. Per Fangraphs, the Red Sox are currently projected for 87 wins which is just about the spot where the value of additional wins is highest. Yes, Hamels is going to be an overpay in terms of "value", but no one gives out trophies for payroll efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 27, 2014 12:22:14 GMT -5
As a reference, the Padres offer is centered around Myers and Renfroe. Both struggled mightily in 2014. Renfroe posted a .232 BA and .659 OPS in 251 ABs after promotion to AA. His strikeouts aren't all that high but he rarely walks. Myers .222 BA .614 OPS. They are also reportedly asking the Phils to kick in $15m. Hamels is $114/5 including option max.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 27, 2014 14:24:31 GMT -5
Here's a story from Bleacher Report: Boston Red Sox's Biggest Steal at the MLB Offseason's 2-Month MarkIt includes a (well-deserved) nod to SoxProspects and Ian Cundell. They use his eval of the minor league players involved in the Cespedes trade. The story is about Porcello and his potential to slot at the top of the Sox' pitching rotation. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 27, 2014 14:33:17 GMT -5
... Steamer has Betts at .290/.358/.425, which is still a fantastic line and maybe a little optimistic, but it at least exists within the realm of possible outcomes. .400+ OBP, .500+ SLG? I have all the respect in the world for what Gammons has done over his career but if he's reporting those numbers in earnest maybe it's time to start enjoying a well-earned retirement. Exactly. If he gets up near .800 OPS we'd all be ecstatic. I think he can do that, but .900 seems a bit crazy. The analytical trajectory starts to deviate from the norm this time of the year. It's probably the snow out the window that brings on fuzzy-brain...
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 27, 2014 15:17:14 GMT -5
Javier Guerra? Take out the other two and see if "get Javier Guerra the way the Cubs got Addison Russell" makes any sense ... gotta love Gammons. In one paragraph he made Garin Cecchini into a "rising star" and elevated Javier Guerra to headliner status. So you're saying PG is s sloppy writer? Revolutionary insight. Nope! I'm saying that he has a variety of entertaining ways of boosting prospects - especially Sox prospects - that he has employed for years. There's nothing sloppy about what he did there ... and honestly, I have too much nostalgic affection for Gammons's Sunday Notes column (and his genuine love for baseball) to do much criticizing of the guy, but it's fun to point out when he does stuff like that.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 27, 2014 15:32:07 GMT -5
I don't like using excess vale numbers to determine trade value like Cameron does. But Margot + Cecchini + Ranaudo sounds fair to me I would think one more big piece would be needed. I would think they want Owens or Rodriguez, but if the Sox have Cecchini and Margot as part of the package, perhaps the Sox could get them to bite on Brian Johnson instead. I don't like giving up Margot, but I'd personally rather keep Devers than Margot as I think Devers will be a middle of the order hitter, an impact lefty hitter to plug into the middle of the order by the time Ortiz will probably be retired. I would do Johnson/Cecchini/Margot/Ranaudo for Hamels, but I doubt Amaro would. Maybe Gillick can talk some sense into him. If the Sox had added another 15 - 20 million to Lester's offer, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing which prospects we don't want to part with for a needed top of the rotation starter, but that's water under the bridge at this point. If those four above for Hamels doesn't do the trick, perhaps if and when Cueto is available, the Sox will be able to make a deal for him. Perhaps by then Swihart is knocking on the door and Vazquez becomes expendable giving the Sox a great trade chip, although to make a deal with Cincy, a third team in a deal would be needed since catching isn't a problem for them.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 27, 2014 16:09:18 GMT -5
I don't like using excess vale numbers to determine trade value like Cameron does. But Margot + Cecchini + Ranaudo sounds fair to me I would think one more big piece would be needed. I would think they want Owens or Rodriguez, but if the Sox have Cecchini and Margot as part of the package, perhaps the Sox could get them to bite on Brian Johnson instead. I don't like giving up Margot, but I'd personally rather keep Devers than Margot as I think Devers will be a middle of the order hitter, an impact lefty hitter to plug into the middle of the order by the time Ortiz will probably be retired. I would do Johnson/Cecchini/Margot/Ranaudo for Hamels, but I doubt Amaro would. Maybe Gillick can talk some sense into him. If the Sox had added another 15 - 20 million to Lester's offer, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing which prospects we don't want to part with for a needed top of the rotation starter, but that's water under the bridge at this point. If those four above for Hamels doesn't do the trick, perhaps if and when Cueto is available, the Sox will be able to make a deal for him. Perhaps by then Swihart is knocking on the door and Vazquez becomes expendable giving the Sox a great trade chip, although to make a deal with Cincy, a third team in a deal would be needed since catching isn't a problem for them. Giving Lester another $15-$20m is the equivalent of trading for Hamels and giving him a 6th year at $36-41 with a worse payout timetable. Vazquez for a half year rental with no draft pick is a serious overpay and isn't likely to happen. On another note, Gammons was pointing out Bill James numbers on Betts not making up his own projections. Not quite as egregious. I'd also likely do Johnson, Margot, Ranaudo, Cecchini but based on the Padres offer, I think Hamels is going to go for less than that, there aren't going to be a lot of suitors and the Sox aren't likely to look for money in the deal.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 27, 2014 16:22:44 GMT -5
So you're saying PG is s sloppy writer? Revolutionary insight. Nope! I'm saying that he has a variety of entertaining ways of boosting prospects - especially Sox prospects - that he has employed for years. There's nothing sloppy about what he did there ... and honestly, I have too much nostalgic affection for Gammons's Sunday Notes column (and his genuine love for baseball) to do much criticizing of the guy, but it's fun to point out when he does stuff like that. If Gammons were in this decade a consistently careful and well edited writer you could say he is elevating Guerra to the level of Margot and Devers. But he's not a careful creator of sentences so it's wrong to read him as though he were
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 27, 2014 16:46:00 GMT -5
I would think one more big piece would be needed. I would think they want Owens or Rodriguez, but if the Sox have Cecchini and Margot as part of the package, perhaps the Sox could get them to bite on Brian Johnson instead. I don't like giving up Margot, but I'd personally rather keep Devers than Margot as I think Devers will be a middle of the order hitter, an impact lefty hitter to plug into the middle of the order by the time Ortiz will probably be retired. I would do Johnson/Cecchini/Margot/Ranaudo for Hamels, but I doubt Amaro would. Maybe Gillick can talk some sense into him. If the Sox had added another 15 - 20 million to Lester's offer, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing which prospects we don't want to part with for a needed top of the rotation starter, but that's water under the bridge at this point. If those four above for Hamels doesn't do the trick, perhaps if and when Cueto is available, the Sox will be able to make a deal for him. Perhaps by then Swihart is knocking on the door and Vazquez becomes expendable giving the Sox a great trade chip, although to make a deal with Cincy, a third team in a deal would be needed since catching isn't a problem for them. Giving Lester another $15-$20m is the equivalent of trading for Hamels and giving him a 6th year at $36-41 with a worse payout timetable. Vazquez for a half year rental with no draft pick is a serious overpay and isn't likely to happen. On another note, Gammons was pointing out Bill James numbers on Betts not making up his own projections. Not quite as egregious. I'd also likely do Johnson, Margot, Ranaudo, Cecchini but based on the Padres offer, I think Hamels is going to go for less than that, there aren't going to be a lot of suitors and the Sox aren't likely to look for money in the deal. I'd rather have given Lester the market value $3/million year than have to deal away Owens or Devers or Margot quite frankly. I'd be willing to bet that Owens' value will exceed the extra $15 - $20 million, so the Sox will likely be out a pitcher like Owens if they are to make a deal for Cueto or Zimmerman or Hamels. As far as Vazquez goes, I'd absolutely give him up if Swihart is busting down the door and Cueto is available in a deal. I like Vazquez and get that his value is pretty high for a rental but with the Sox he'd likely be a backup catcher once Swihart is ready - and let's face it - this scenario might not come to pass as perhaps Swihart will still be needing more seasoning come July 31st, but if there is a scenario where Swihart is obviously ready to play everyday in the majors and the Sox need a #1 starter and say Cueto is duplicating his year from last year and the Reds are struggling, then I'd be very willing to deal Vazquez in a 3 team deal to get Cueto. Rather do that than deal Owens or Rodriguez, whom the Sox will need. In a vacuum it's an overpay, but in the reality of winning everything and what Vazquez's future with the Sox would actually be, it would be a deal to make - especially if it helps convince Cueto that Boston is the place to be long-term. Again, a lot of scenarios have to fall just right for the above to happen and the odds are against it, but it's something to consider. As far as the Pads' reported offer, I only know of Myers to be the headliner of the package and the Sox, unless they put a Betts or a Bogaerts in the package, cannot beat the #1 component of the deal (and if I were the Sox I wouldn't do it). That's why I suggested Vazquez later on - a major league ready regular making minimum wage with a good ceiling. Eventually it's going to come down to Vazquez vs Swihart, and I would take Swihart despite how amazingly good defensively Vazquez is.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 27, 2014 18:59:22 GMT -5
I honestly hope the Padres get Hamels so we can move on and focus on more realistic guys. We shouldn't get into a bidding war with a team already offering Myers.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 27, 2014 19:11:14 GMT -5
Giving Lester another $15-$20m is the equivalent of trading for Hamels and giving him a 6th year at $36-41 with a worse payout timetable. Vazquez for a half year rental with no draft pick is a serious overpay and isn't likely to happen. On another note, Gammons was pointing out Bill James numbers on Betts not making up his own projections. Not quite as egregious. I'd also likely do Johnson, Margot, Ranaudo, Cecchini but based on the Padres offer, I think Hamels is going to go for less than that, there aren't going to be a lot of suitors and the Sox aren't likely to look for money in the deal. I'd rather have given Lester the market value $3/million year than have to deal away Owens or Devers or Margot quite frankly. I'd be willing to bet that Owens' value will exceed the extra $15 - $20 million, so the Sox will likely be out a pitcher like Owens if they are to make a deal for Cueto or Zimmerman or Hamels. As far as Vazquez goes, I'd absolutely give him up if Swihart is busting down the door and Cueto is available in a deal. I like Vazquez and get that his value is pretty high for a rental but with the Sox he'd likely be a backup catcher once Swihart is ready - and let's face it - this scenario might not come to pass as perhaps Swihart will still be needing more seasoning come July 31st, but if there is a scenario where Swihart is obviously ready to play everyday in the majors and the Sox need a #1 starter and say Cueto is duplicating his year from last year and the Reds are struggling, then I'd be very willing to deal Vazquez in a 3 team deal to get Cueto. Rather do that than deal Owens or Rodriguez, whom the Sox will need. In a vacuum it's an overpay, but in the reality of winning everything and what Vazquez's future with the Sox would actually be, it would be a deal to make - especially if it helps convince Cueto that Boston is the place to be long-term. Again, a lot of scenarios have to fall just right for the above to happen and the odds are against it, but it's something to consider. As far as the Pads' reported offer, I only know of Myers to be the headliner of the package and the Sox, unless they put a Betts or a Bogaerts in the package, cannot beat the #1 component of the deal (and if I were the Sox I wouldn't do it). That's why I suggested Vazquez later on - a major league ready regular making minimum wage with a good ceiling. Eventually it's going to come down to Vazquez vs Swihart, and I would take Swihart despite how amazingly good defensively Vazquez is. We're on opposite sides of the fence on pretty much everything but that's what life's all about.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 27, 2014 19:34:09 GMT -5
I hope the Padres get Hamels so that he can get traded to us subsequently.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 27, 2014 20:22:58 GMT -5
I honestly hope the Padres get Hamels so we can move on and focus on more realistic guys. We shouldn't get into a bidding war with a team already offering Myers.TB does not trade off cheap assets unless there's a problem. In this case it should be obvious that they traded Myers' offensive potential for others offensive potential. In other words, in one year's time they became disenchanted with his potential. I have a lot of respect for TB's player evaluation hierarchy; I'd bet that Myers is actually poop.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 27, 2014 21:17:09 GMT -5
I honestly hope the Padres get Hamels so we can move on and focus on more realistic guys. We shouldn't get into a bidding war with a team already offering Myers.TB does not trade off cheap assets unless there's a problem. In this case it should be obvious that they traded Myers' offensive potential for others offensive potential. In other words, in one year's time they became disenchanted with his potential. I have a lot of respect for TB's player evaluation hierarchy; I'd bet that Myers is actually poop.It's the Phillies's talent evaluators that actually matter here.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 27, 2014 21:24:39 GMT -5
Presuming they have little respect for TB's I guess that's true. Doubt it though.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Dec 27, 2014 21:43:11 GMT -5
I honestly hope the Padres get Hamels so we can move on and focus on more realistic guys. We shouldn't get into a bidding war with a team already offering Myers.TB does not trade off cheap assets unless there's a problem. In this case it should be obvious that they traded Myers' offensive potential for others offensive potential. In other words, in one year's time they became disenchanted with his potential. I have a lot of respect for TB's player evaluation hierarchy; I'd bet that Myers is actually poop. Agreed with you. Myers' trade reminds me of Delmon Young's.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 27, 2014 22:47:36 GMT -5
I'd rather have given Lester the market value $3/million year than have to deal away Owens or Devers or Margot quite frankly. I'd be willing to bet that Owens' value will exceed the extra $15 - $20 million, so the Sox will likely be out a pitcher like Owens if they are to make a deal for Cueto or Zimmerman or Hamels. As far as Vazquez goes, I'd absolutely give him up if Swihart is busting down the door and Cueto is available in a deal. I like Vazquez and get that his value is pretty high for a rental but with the Sox he'd likely be a backup catcher once Swihart is ready - and let's face it - this scenario might not come to pass as perhaps Swihart will still be needing more seasoning come July 31st, but if there is a scenario where Swihart is obviously ready to play everyday in the majors and the Sox need a #1 starter and say Cueto is duplicating his year from last year and the Reds are struggling, then I'd be very willing to deal Vazquez in a 3 team deal to get Cueto. Rather do that than deal Owens or Rodriguez, whom the Sox will need. In a vacuum it's an overpay, but in the reality of winning everything and what Vazquez's future with the Sox would actually be, it would be a deal to make - especially if it helps convince Cueto that Boston is the place to be long-term. Again, a lot of scenarios have to fall just right for the above to happen and the odds are against it, but it's something to consider. As far as the Pads' reported offer, I only know of Myers to be the headliner of the package and the Sox, unless they put a Betts or a Bogaerts in the package, cannot beat the #1 component of the deal (and if I were the Sox I wouldn't do it). That's why I suggested Vazquez later on - a major league ready regular making minimum wage with a good ceiling. Eventually it's going to come down to Vazquez vs Swihart, and I would take Swihart despite how amazingly good defensively Vazquez is. We're on opposite sides of the fence on pretty much everything but that's what life's all about. Yup, we are, but that's cool, too.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 28, 2014 12:10:51 GMT -5
The Sox should be quite comfortable with the rotation they have now, and reluctant to make any kind of major trade for the time being.
-- Porcello projects to be plenty good enough to be the ace of a WS contender. The rest of the rotation has more risk than you'd like, but still projects to be good enough as well.
-- They should be willing to gamble that the trade value of all their blocked and excess prospects does not collectively decline over the next season.
-- A year from now they'll have a much better sense of how they should spend that talent. There are scenarios where adding a stud 1B bat would be the smartest thing, and others where they'd be looking to acquire a super-elite pitcher.
-- A year from now they ought to have Swihart or Vazquez available to be the centerpiece of trade. If Hanley can play a plus defensive LF (if he can't, he probably ends up at 1B), then it's quite likely that a resurgent Bradley or Castillo will be available as well. Oh, and Marrero, Cecchini, and Coyle. And one or two first-rate pitching prospects / rookies from the current projected AAA staff. It may be clear that we're set for the foreseeable future in the OF, which would make Margot comfortably expendable. It may be clear that won't be room for both Devers and Chavis, and one of those could be on the market as well.
That's enough talent to get almost anyone. But at present we don't know precisely whom we want to keep versus trade, not do we know what we most need long-term.
One can argue that this is always the case, and that is true. But it's especially the case this year. How often does a team have a second-year player who projects to be of All-Star caliber, right now, plus the best prospect in baseball at the same position a year behind him? (And where both players derive most or nearly all of their value from defense, so that you can't move either one to a different position?) How often does a team have four guys in their AAA rotation with clear upside as mid-rotation starters? How often does a team have three or four additional position players at AAA who project to be MLB starters, perhaps first-division starters, and who are all blocked in MLB? How often does a team have all three of these things happening at once?
Not often. So you wait a year.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 28, 2014 13:58:44 GMT -5
The Sox should be quite comfortable with the rotation they have now, and reluctant to make any kind of major trade for the time being. -- Porcello projects to be plenty good enough to be the ace of a WS contender. The rest of the rotation has more risk than you'd like, but still projects to be good enough as well. -- They should be willing to gamble that the trade value of all their blocked and excess prospects does not collectively decline over the next season. -- A year from now they'll have a much better sense of how they should spend that talent. There are scenarios where adding a stud 1B bat would be the smartest thing, and others where they'd be looking to acquire a super-elite pitcher. -- A year from now they ought to have Swihart or Vazquez available to be the centerpiece of trade. If Hanley can play a plus defensive LF (if he can't, he probably ends up at 1B), then it's quite likely that a resurgent Bradley or Castillo will be available as well. Oh, and Marrero, Cecchini, and Coyle. And one or two first-rate pitching prospects / rookies from the current projected AAA staff. It may be clear that we're set for the foreseeable future in the OF, which would make Margot comfortably expendable. It may be clear that won't be room for both Devers and Chavis, and one of those could be on the market as well. That's enough talent to get almost anyone. But at present we don't know precisely whom we want to keep versus trade, not do we know what we most need long-term. One can argue that this is always the case, and that is true. But it's especially the case this year. How often does a team have a second-year player who projects to be of All-Star caliber, right now, plus the best prospect in baseball at the same position a year behind him? (And where both players derive most or nearly all of their value from defense, so that you can't move either one to a different position?) How often does a team have four guys in their AAA rotation with clear upside as mid-rotation starters? How often does a team have three or four additional position players at AAA who project to be MLB starters, perhaps first-division starters, and who are all blocked in MLB? How often does a team have all three of these things happening at once? Not often. So you wait a year. I am in agreement with most of this excepting trading Vazquez or Swihart. I want both on the team. Vazquez won't get you that much unless he proves significantly better with the bat and I certainly don't want to lose Swihart. I can't wait to see what another year does for Margot. If Devers can stay at third maybe he replaces Panda at the end of that contract.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 29, 2014 9:53:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 29, 2014 10:51:25 GMT -5
The Sox should be quite comfortable with the rotation they have now, and reluctant to make any kind of major trade for the time being. -- Porcello projects to be plenty good enough to be the ace of a WS contender. The rest of the rotation has more risk than you'd like, but still projects to be good enough as well.
-- They should be willing to gamble that the trade value of all their blocked and excess prospects does not collectively decline over the next season. -- A year from now they'll have a much better sense of how they should spend that talent. There are scenarios where adding a stud 1B bat would be the smartest thing, and others where they'd be looking to acquire a super-elite pitcher. -- A year from now they ought to have Swihart or Vazquez available to be the centerpiece of trade. If Hanley can play a plus defensive LF (if he can't, he probably ends up at 1B), then it's quite likely that a resurgent Bradley or Castillo will be available as well. Oh, and Marrero, Cecchini, and Coyle. And one or two first-rate pitching prospects / rookies from the current projected AAA staff. It may be clear that we're set for the foreseeable future in the OF, which would make Margot comfortably expendable. It may be clear that won't be room for both Devers and Chavis, and one of those could be on the market as well. That's enough talent to get almost anyone. But at present we don't know precisely whom we want to keep versus trade, not do we know what we most need long-term. One can argue that this is always the case, and that is true. But it's especially the case this year. How often does a team have a second-year player who projects to be of All-Star caliber, right now, plus the best prospect in baseball at the same position a year behind him? (And where both players derive most or nearly all of their value from defense, so that you can't move either one to a different position?) How often does a team have four guys in their AAA rotation with clear upside as mid-rotation starters? How often does a team have three or four additional position players at AAA who project to be MLB starters, perhaps first-division starters, and who are all blocked in MLB? How often does a team have all three of these things happening at once? Not often. So you wait a year. I'm bullish on Porcello and actually think they should seek out an extension deal before spring training, but let us remember about pitcher "projections." To wit, ZIPS for Sox Pitchers 2014: ERA ERA- FIP FIP- Lester 3.73 3.77 89 90 Peavy 3.74 3.67 89 87 Buchholz 3.64 3.89 87 93 Lackey 4.07 4.10 97 98 Doubront 4.26 4.15 101 99
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 30, 2014 6:57:21 GMT -5
Given that Heyman is known to be Boras's media mouthpiece, I'm inclined to think that the hype is just that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Dec 30, 2014 8:49:42 GMT -5
That is coming from a list of 9 possible suitors. I'm not so sure that's an exact ranking per se, because it's not explicitly stated anywhere. Red Sox just happened to be listed first. But they are numbered, so I guess it's all up to speculation. Yankees seem to me like the most likely suitor yet they are at #9.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 30, 2014 9:43:32 GMT -5
It's just a slow time of year. There is no news on the Scherzer front so writers are just making things up. The bad news for Scherzer is most teams have positioned themselves to NOT need him. Seriously... Who?
San Fran? Probably best bet
Detroit? Price - Sanchez - Verlander.... I think they'd rather resign Price than Max
Yankees? I think they are real about not spending unless the price comes down
Dodgers? I doubt it.. Friedman is there now and he will spend but do it smart. Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu, McCarthy... They will add a starter, but I doubt it's Max considering they didn't go that hard for Lester.
Red Sox? I wish, but no...
He will sign somewhere at some point, but some day Boras is going to overplay his hand and teams aren't going to meet his asking price or come close to it. Scherzer will NOT see $200m.... I'm very interested in how this plays out.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 30, 2014 10:28:54 GMT -5
Not buying Scherzer to the Sox. If I am trying to be objective, the only piece I buy is that Scherzer's lack of market would push his value down, in which case the Red Sox would consider it. But in that scenario I don't see Scherzer taking less than Lester's 155M and I find it very hard to imagine the Sox would go north of 145M. If Lester's max bid from the Sox was 135M I don't see the Sox varying far from that figure for Scherzer.
|
|
|