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 thelavarnwayguy on Oct 15, 2014 16:59:13 GMT -5
i'm not buying that Miller can maintain his current level. He has had control issues in the past. I think we played that game perfectly. Wish him well going forward.
I would seriously consider signing some quality relievers though. Maybe even go with short term deals for 2nd level starters like Santana and Liriano and spend some money at back up catcher ( not much should be needed there ) and relief pitchers. Maybe even look at Sandoval up to 5 years and 70 mil. Ideally have some cash left over if needed midway through the year.
Everything we do needs to have a price attached though and until we know the prices we really can't lock anything in.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 15, 2014 17:09:37 GMT -5
But the "12 starts of Lester" were useless to them because they were out of contention. You really can't look at it like that. The only value they "lost" in that trade would be whatever value could be assigned to the idea that trading Lester decreased the chances he would sign after the season, assuming the Red Sox even want to re-sign him (I am of the opinion they do not). So the trade is really that in exchange for Cespedes. If the team didn't want to re-sign him anyway (which you could critique, for sure, outside the trade), then they literally turned an asset with no value to them into an asset with value. If Lester re-signs anyway, the same is true. If Lester wasn't going to sign with them anyway, the same is true. My point is that it's not very realistic that we trade Cespedes for a #2 starter. I've even seen suggestions that we trade him for a controllable #2. Ah. Vigorous co-sign then.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 15, 2014 18:19:24 GMT -5
Let's not rehash the Lester trade for the third or fourth time. It's been discussed ad nauseum and there's a thread devoted to it elsewhere. Remember, part of being a good poster is not taking the bait when someone rehashes a "controversial" topic that's been discussed to death already. You don't have to respond to every post you disagree with, especially when doing so derails the thread or if there's nothing new to add. That's not what I was doing, except to gauge the trade value of Cespedes. There are a lot of mentions of trading him for a #2 and don't think it's realistic, especially for a full season. That comment wasn't aimed at you-- several posters followed up by diving back into the Lester trade. But I do think the idea of swapping Cespedes (and another minor piece or two to compensate for the fact that you can't offer him a QO) for a guy like Latos seems perfectly reasonable. Oakland likely didn't see Lester as a #2 when they traded for him, and teams pay a premium for trade deadline additions, so your analogy isn't necessarily applicable. A year of Cespedes should be able to fetch a year of a comparably-talented pitcher, which is probably a number two or a high-end number three. One of the Reds guys would fit, or maybe a three-way deal for Scott Kazmir or Kris Medlen or Ian Kennedy.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 15, 2014 18:34:10 GMT -5
That's not what I was doing, except to gauge the trade value of Cespedes. There are a lot of mentions of trading him for a #2 and don't think it's realistic, especially for a full season. That comment wasn't aimed at you-- several posters followed up by diving back into the Lester trade. But I do think the idea of swapping Cespedes (and another minor piece or two to compensate for the fact that you can't offer him a QO) for a guy like Latos seems perfectly reasonable. Oakland likely didn't see Lester as a #2 when they traded for him, and teams pay a premium for trade deadline additions, so your analogy isn't necessarily applicable. A year of Cespedes should be able to fetch a year of a comparably-talented pitcher, which is probably a number two or a high-end number three. One of the Reds guys would fit, or maybe a three-way deal for Scott Kazmir or Kris Medlen or Ian Kennedy. This. You have to understand the great amount of value a contending team places on the acquisition of an ace-like pitcher at the trading deadline. That is, you can't reduce such a trade to "they traded for only X amount of starts from him." As for Cespedes, I agree that he easily can be the foundation of a deal for a solid #2/#3 pitcher. Where as players like Nava are going to have their skill sets undervalued out on the trade market, Cespedes is the exact opposite. A power starved team is going to crave the addition of his bat in the middle of their order, rather than viewing him as a sketchy defensive left fielder with a good chance of failing to eclipse an .800 OPS.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 15, 2014 18:47:45 GMT -5
And he's pretty good. Trying not to get too deep into the specific trade speculation, but a team like the Reds that got zero production from left field last season and has some pitching depth would be smart to have Cespedes (and Nava, for what it's worth) on its radar.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Oct 15, 2014 20:16:28 GMT -5
That comment wasn't aimed at you-- several posters followed up by diving back into the Lester trade. But I do think the idea of swapping Cespedes (and another minor piece or two to compensate for the fact that you can't offer him a QO) for a guy like Latos seems perfectly reasonable. Oakland likely didn't see Lester as a #2 when they traded for him, and teams pay a premium for trade deadline additions, so your analogy isn't necessarily applicable. A year of Cespedes should be able to fetch a year of a comparably-talented pitcher, which is probably a number two or a high-end number three. One of the Reds guys would fit, or maybe a three-way deal for Scott Kazmir or Kris Medlen or Ian Kennedy. This. You have to understand the great amount of value a contending team places on the acquisition of an ace-like pitcher at the trading deadline. That is, you can't reduce such a trade to "they traded for only X amount of starts from him." As for Cespedes, I agree that he easily can be the foundation of a deal for a solid #2/#3 pitcher. Where as players like Nava are going to have their skill sets undervalued out on the trade market, Cespedes is the exact opposite. A power starved team is going to crave the addition of his bat in the middle of their order, rather than viewing him as a sketchy defensive left fielder with a good chance of failing to eclipse an .800 OPS. Cespedes for Iwakuma is a trade I've seen suggested that just makes way too much sense.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 15, 2014 21:26:10 GMT -5
As shields works deeper into the season, it seems like signing one of the big three fa pitchers this offseason is not going to happen.
Assuming cherrington makes a huge trade with Philly for hamels, what other options are available to us for a #2 starter? Please don't say Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 16, 2014 7:54:31 GMT -5
And he's pretty good. Trying not to get too deep into the specific trade speculation, but a team like the Reds that got zero production from left field last season and has some pitching depth would be smart to have Cespedes (and Nava, for what it's worth) on its radar. You know, I was about to disagree with you and then I remembered what the Orioles gave up for a half-year of Andrew Miller. So, in short, a team with a level of desperation who wants to win this year might over-pay. Mind you that the team who trades for him now will be compensated with a draft pick should he choose to walk away as a free agent. I know if I was running the Red Sox I wouldn't give anything up of serious value for a year of a player if I didn't think they could retain him, but every team is in a different situation.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 16, 2014 9:00:27 GMT -5
This. You have to understand the great amount of value a contending team places on the acquisition of an ace-like pitcher at the trading deadline. That is, you can't reduce such a trade to "they traded for only X amount of starts from him." As for Cespedes, I agree that he easily can be the foundation of a deal for a solid #2/#3 pitcher. Where as players like Nava are going to have their skill sets undervalued out on the trade market, Cespedes is the exact opposite. A power starved team is going to crave the addition of his bat in the middle of their order, rather than viewing him as a sketchy defensive left fielder with a good chance of failing to eclipse an .800 OPS. Cespedes for Iwakuma is a trade I've seen suggested that just makes way too much sense. It does, but we probably have to add something because of the likely draft pick attached to Iwakuma after 2015.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
|
Post by nomar on Oct 16, 2014 10:59:47 GMT -5
Cespedes for Iwakuma is a trade I've seen suggested that just makes way too much sense. It does, but we probably have to add something because of the likely draft pick attached to Iwakuma after 2015. The pick packaged with Cespedes makes sense to me. Turning half a year of Lester into (basically) 1.5 of iwakuma is a good good deal. Especially because I can see Iwakuma being not so difficult to extend because he manages to float under the radar. Also interesting on iwakuma: He gives up .5 HR/9 more on the road. You'd think it would be the other way around. Just found that a little odd. Maybe it's because Safeco isn't that bad for LHB now. Makes Fenway even better of a for for him though.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 16, 2014 12:03:31 GMT -5
It does, but we probably have to add something because of the likely draft pick attached to Iwakuma after 2015. The pick packaged with Cespedes makes sense to me. Turning half a year of Lester into (basically) 1.5 of iwakuma is a good good deal. Especially because I can see Iwakuma being not so difficult to extend because he manages to float under the radar. Also interesting on iwakuma: He gives up .5 HR/9 more on the road. You'd think it would be the other way around. Just found that a little odd. Maybe it's because Safeco isn't that bad for LHB now. Makes Fenway even better of a for for him though. There would be a pick attached to Cespedes as well, or am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 16, 2014 12:08:29 GMT -5
The pick packaged with Cespedes makes sense to me. Turning half a year of Lester into (basically) 1.5 of iwakuma is a good good deal. Especially because I can see Iwakuma being not so difficult to extend because he manages to float under the radar. Also interesting on iwakuma: He gives up .5 HR/9 more on the road. You'd think it would be the other way around. Just found that a little odd. Maybe it's because Safeco isn't that bad for LHB now. Makes Fenway even better of a for for him though. There would be a pick attached to Cespedes as well, or am I missing something? Link
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 16, 2014 13:40:49 GMT -5
The pick packaged with Cespedes makes sense to me. Turning half a year of Lester into (basically) 1.5 of iwakuma is a good good deal. Especially because I can see Iwakuma being not so difficult to extend because he manages to float under the radar. Also interesting on iwakuma: He gives up .5 HR/9 more on the road. You'd think it would be the other way around. Just found that a little odd. Maybe it's because Safeco isn't that bad for LHB now. Makes Fenway even better of a for for him though. There would be a pick attached to Cespedes as well, or am I missing something? Now would be a time to move cespedes. A lot of potential trade partners.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
|
Post by nomar on Oct 16, 2014 14:59:33 GMT -5
There would be a pick attached to Cespedes as well, or am I missing something? LinkI meant the draft pick he was packaged with from the A's
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 16, 2014 15:17:24 GMT -5
No. That pick cannot be traded again.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
|
Post by nomar on Oct 16, 2014 15:29:03 GMT -5
No. That pick cannot be traded again. Oh thanks. Odd that you can't. Regardless I think we could figure something out Cespedes+ for Iwakuma. Sorry for getting a little trade specific by the way.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 16, 2014 21:27:50 GMT -5
How about trading cespedes and nava to Atlanta for heyward and a left handed reliever?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 16, 2014 21:29:49 GMT -5
How about trading cespedes and nava to Atlanta for heyward and a left handed reliever? This is the kind of stuff that should go in the trade proposal subforum. Let's try to clean up the trade speculation in this thread. Yes, that includes the Cespedes/Iwakuma/etc. stuff above.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 17, 2014 4:44:30 GMT -5
As for Cespedes, I agree that he easily can be the foundation of a deal for a solid #2/#3 pitcher. Where as players like Nava are going to have their skill sets undervalued out on the trade market, Cespedes is the exact opposite. A power starved team is going to crave the addition of his bat in the middle of their order, rather than viewing him as a sketchy defensive left fielder with a good chance of failing to eclipse an .800 OPS. He's looked sketchy for us because he hasn't (as yet) learned to play LF in Fenway. But (aggregating UZR, DRS, and 1/2 weight TZ) he's been a career +7 R/150 in LF, or +4 if you include his bad play in CF translated to LF. So he's good, though nothing special, and all of the goodness is the plus arm; range-wise he's just average or a tick below.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 17, 2014 5:33:12 GMT -5
As for Cespedes, I agree that he easily can be the foundation of a deal for a solid #2/#3 pitcher. Where as players like Nava are going to have their skill sets undervalued out on the trade market, Cespedes is the exact opposite. A power starved team is going to crave the addition of his bat in the middle of their order, rather than viewing him as a sketchy defensive left fielder with a good chance of failing to eclipse an .800 OPS. He's looked sketchy for us because he hasn't (as yet) learned to play LF in Fenway. But (aggregating UZR, DRS, and 1/2 weight TZ) he's been a career +7 R/150 in LF, or +4 if you include his bad play in CF translated to LF. So he's good, though nothing special, and all of the goodness is the plus arm; range-wise he's just average or a tick below. Love defense... Manny Cespedes, age 28, Last 3 years WAR: 3.9, 1.6, 4.1 Dwight Heyward, age 25, Last 3 years WAR: 5.8, 3.4, 6.3
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 17, 2014 7:33:34 GMT -5
As for Cespedes, I agree that he easily can be the foundation of a deal for a solid #2/#3 pitcher. Where as players like Nava are going to have their skill sets undervalued out on the trade market, Cespedes is the exact opposite. A power starved team is going to crave the addition of his bat in the middle of their order, rather than viewing him as a sketchy defensive left fielder with a good chance of failing to eclipse an .800 OPS. He's looked sketchy for us because he hasn't (as yet) learned to play LF in Fenway. But (aggregating UZR, DRS, and 1/2 weight TZ) he's been a career +7 R/150 in LF, or +4 if you include his bad play in CF translated to LF. So he's good, though nothing special, and all of the goodness is the plus arm; range-wise he's just average or a tick below. Part of the problem is that his defense is not really well-suited for Boston's left field. He doesn't read the ball very well coming off the bat and takes bad routes, but makes up for it with excellent acceleration and elite top-end speed. That's perfectly suited for a big home stadium like O.co, where he can make up for bad routes by just being really fast. But because Fenway's LF is so small, it stresses his routes and reads (especially in terms of playing the wall) while diminishing the impact of his speed. Plus, the fact that the Monster is so close to the infield might actually deflate the value of his arm. The value of a cannon-armed left fielder is lessened in Fenway because most guys will be able to make the necessary throws just because it's so close to home plate/second base.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 17, 2014 8:15:41 GMT -5
He's looked sketchy for us because he hasn't (as yet) learned to play LF in Fenway. But (aggregating UZR, DRS, and 1/2 weight TZ) he's been a career +7 R/150 in LF, or +4 if you include his bad play in CF translated to LF. So he's good, though nothing special, and all of the goodness is the plus arm; range-wise he's just average or a tick below. Part of the problem is that his defense is not really well-suited for Boston's left field. He doesn't read the ball very well coming off the bat and takes bad routes, but makes up for it with excellent acceleration and elite top-end speed. That's perfectly suited for a big home stadium like O.co, where he can make up for bad routes by just being really fast. But because Fenway's LF is so small, it stresses his routes and reads (especially in terms of playing the wall) while diminishing the impact of his speed. Plus, the fact that the Monster is so close to the infield might actually deflate the value of his arm. The value of a cannon-armed left fielder is lessened in Fenway because most guys will be able to make the necessary throws just because it's so close to home plate/second base. Not only are his reads questionable, but the guy is blatantly lost when it comes to playing the wall, whether it's knowing when he has more room to make a catch, or getting himself in position to field a carom. This was an issue both at and away from Fenway Park. The throwing components of UZR and DRS gave him an incredible boost in their overall valuations of his defense in 2014, but in terms of range, he's rated below average in two of his three seasons by both metrics. Yes, outside of throwing, he has the athleticism to make plays that several left fielders wouldn't make, but he's also prone to botch a bunch, too. At a park like Fenway, I'd wager that reliability/consistency is more important than costly flubs and occasional plus plays, even if overall YC's UZR and DRS rate similarly to such a player.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
|
Post by nomar on Oct 17, 2014 8:43:52 GMT -5
As shields works deeper into the season, it seems like signing one of the big three fa pitchers this offseason is not going to happen. Assuming cherrington makes a huge trade with Philly for hamels, what other options are available to us for a #2 starter? Please don't say Buchholz. Shields' playoff run is like the new "Yu Darvish trade" for you. Shields is now on an 8 year streak of 200+ IP. The Rays made the World Series in 2008, and he logged 215 IP that season. The next season (2009), he finished with 219 IP, the same number of games started, and peripherals with no significant difference from the previous season. There's risk of getting hurt with any pitcher, but deep playoff run or not, Shields is a guy you can depend on to give you a high volume of quality innings. He's going to get a fairly significant less amount of money than Lester most likely, and unless you're confident that Lester will consistently put up 6 WAR seasons (I'm not), he might be the better per dollar investment, however he'll be given a QO. Other #2 possibilities: Cueto, Iwakuma, Latos, Kris Medlen, Scott Kazmir, and Leake/Kennedy for #3s.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 17, 2014 9:17:01 GMT -5
I'm fine with Shields, as long as they sign Lester or trade for Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 17, 2014 9:53:47 GMT -5
Nobody ever accused Jim Rice of being Carl Yastrzemski out in LF either and Rice's arm was nothing like the one Cespede's has, nor was his speed.
Not saying Cespede's is some GG caliber guy to be out there next season, but maybe if the team is determined to play in in left.. Have him taking tons of balls off the duplicate wall at The Fort during ST at least for a couple weeks and see if it's workable with him in left
The team has had several people playing left in Rice, greenwell and Ramirez over the last few decades after all who took considerable time to learn the basics of wall ball and if he's only going to wear the Sox uni for 1 season, or they think he's planning on it? Maybe rather than deal with it, move onto plan B and move him in a deal.
|
|
|