|
Post by jmei on Feb 10, 2015 13:33:59 GMT -5
If the Mets and or Marlins do nothing, they have no shot at the playoffs. There's also far bigger shortage of position players right now than pitchers.I also think you guys are under selling Victorino, especially if we include cash. The risk is minimal because he's a one year contract, it's nowhere near the risk that the Padres just took with Kemp. The long-term risk is nonexistent, but there's a great deal of short-term risk. There's a significant chance that Victorino gives you nothing or effectively nothing in 2015 even if he starts the season healthy, as he's missed significant time due to his back/hamstring over the past two seasons and turns 34 this year. And while his one-year contract means there's no risk of becoming a Kemp-esque albatross, it also means that, as mentioned above, he'd only be valuable to teams who want to make a strong push in 2015. Neither the Mets nor the Marlins (or even the Mariners or the As) strike me as the kind of team that should be trading lots of future value for 2015 value, as those are all teams with relatively young cores. ADD: a few teams I think might be better fits for Victorino as part of a more traditional prospect-for-veteran-(and cash) trade: White Sox (relying on Avisail Garcia), Rangers (relying on Michael Choice), Tigers (if Victor Martinez is going to miss the start of the season, they might move J.D. Martinez to DH and need more RF reps; alternatively, Craig seems like a good fit there as well).
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 10, 2015 14:03:46 GMT -5
The Red Sox probably have another trade in them, but it probably won't happen until well into spring training. The Sox are going to want to give everyone a chance to show that they're healthy and productive both because it'll build the value of those players and because if everyone isn't healthy they may just decide it's better to hold onto the depth.
If and when a trade does happen, it's probably going to be relatively boring. The Sox don't have any glaring needs on the MLB roster other than in the rotation, and I don't think they're likely to get a meaningful upgrade there for the likes of Victorino or Craig, so it probably ends up being another reliever or a modest prospect package.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 10, 2015 19:02:41 GMT -5
A couple of things.
Shane Victorino is $13m. In 2013 he put up a 5.6 fWAR. He's 100% cleared from the doctors (since early December) and is BSHOL. Mujica, also mentioned as excess, is a decent 8th inning guy.
If the Sox were to trade for a young cost controlled pitcher, they would hypothetically have 4/5 of their rotation for the next few years with Buchholz, Kelly, Miley and the added pitcher. We have six possible candidates for the near future rotation, Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, Johnson, Wright, Escobar. Getting an additional cost controlled starter would make adding a few of those to a package more palatable. They aren't chopped liver and as I said, with a B prospect or two AND cash. We also have $60m coming off the books should a need arise.
It's not unreasonable, your mileage may vary.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,897
|
Post by nomar on Feb 10, 2015 19:11:52 GMT -5
I still have a feeling Victorino is dealt before opening day.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Feb 11, 2015 3:35:48 GMT -5
I still have a feeling we've written pages full of posts about why Victorino shouldn't and won't be traded back in November. Go back 50 pages in this thread and reply to those posts if you think you have a reasonable argument that he should/will be traded.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 11, 2015 8:10:30 GMT -5
A lot of teams have maxed out their 2015 budgets. Even if he has a good spring training you are talking about the Sox taking the bulk of his money without getting a significant prospect in return. Given what he did in 2013, just dumping him doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Feb 11, 2015 21:45:50 GMT -5
Random question but does anyone know when number changes are finalized? Gotta change my softball number from JBJ to 50 for Mookie if he's keeping it.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Feb 12, 2015 4:37:11 GMT -5
Random question but does anyone know when number changes are finalized? Gotta change my softball number from JBJ to 50 for Mookie if he's keeping it. I'd bet against Mookie keeping #50.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 12, 2015 7:24:17 GMT -5
Boston.com Sox News ?@bdcsox 4m4 minutes ago It's Truck Day! bit.ly/1CYFeWY #RedSoxTruckDay
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2015 10:20:36 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,897
|
Post by nomar on Feb 12, 2015 10:33:28 GMT -5
I don't even check the Hamels talk anymore. Pointless. Nobody would be dumb enough to give Swihart or Betts for Hamels, and I'm willing to wait until midseason to acquire a starter. I'm not sure I would even want to give up Margot for Hamels at this point in time I'm not saying his trade value is higher than Hamels', but I'm not 100% sold on Hamels as a fit here to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Feb 12, 2015 14:32:25 GMT -5
It's crazy though csn can't stop talking about Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 12, 2015 14:44:19 GMT -5
I don't live in the Boston area anymore, so maybe the following is completely off base since I don't get much more than twitter and blogs/newspaper. But I get the sense that the people consistently talking about Hamels to Boston on TV and radio are the same people who think this team stands no shot without an "ace"
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 12, 2015 16:06:11 GMT -5
I don't live in the Boston area anymore, so maybe the following is completely off base since I don't get much more than twitter and blogs/newspaper. But I get the sense that the people consistently talking about Hamels to Boston on TV and radio are the same people who think this team stands no shot without an "ace" Wilbur's article today is ridiculous. He practically is writing them off this year and stating we should be all in for Hamels.....even if it takes Swihart. I'm so glad we don't have an idiot like him making the decisions for the Red Sox. The 2015 Red Sox are in a pretty position with all of the trade pieces we have, a powerful line-up, and a lot of talent in AAA almost ready. There will be several periods this season when we can pick up an upgrade for the rotation without losing a prospect like Swihart. I for one would be outraged if we don't have the opportunity of seeing Swihart, Xander, and Mookie playing together for several years. That folks is our core along with one of those sweet lefthanders in AAA. That is our Posada, Jeter, Rivera, and Petitte. That could easily be the guys who allow us to compete for World Series over several years. Eric Wilbur, Nick Cafardo, and Dan Shaughnessy have an opinion which has very little to do with the long term. All they want is a quick fix to what they perceive to be a problem. To them it is a HUGE problem. For someone who seriously follows the development of a baseball organization, losing a prospect like Swihart is almost unthinkable.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Feb 12, 2015 16:53:04 GMT -5
Felger is pretty much saying betts is a bum and should be traded for Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 12, 2015 16:55:21 GMT -5
Felger is pretty much saying betts is a bum and should be traded for Hamels. Felger is a loud mouth know nothing who knows very little about baseball. All he knows is act miserable and skeptical and get ratings, right out of the CHB handbook. Eric Wilbur isn't much better. Bottom line is if the Sox think that over the next six years that Owens will be appreciably better or Rodriguez or that Margot or Devers are stars, then they shouldn't deal them for Hamels' ages 31 - 35 seasons. If they feel Swihart is an all-star catcher waiting to happen or that Mookie Betts has the ability to be the premier leadoff man in the league, the Sox would be stupid to make the trade. You sign a guy like Hamels as a free agent. You don't trade your young talent if you believe that they're going to be as good or better down the road than the guy you're trading. The question is how highly do the Sox value Rodriguez and Owens? Devers and Margot?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 12, 2015 20:52:25 GMT -5
IIRC Wilbur's source is Mr Ed.
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Feb 12, 2015 23:07:25 GMT -5
Glenn Ordway thinks that the Red Sox shouldn't hesitate to trade any of their prospects since they are all overated and probably won't pan out. Pointing to Middlebrooks and Bradley as guys that they thought were the next big thing and lost all trade value. He doesn't seem to think Baseball America is reliable.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 12, 2015 23:33:25 GMT -5
That's hilarious, the echo chamber in action. The very media jerks who pumped up those guys are the ones now saying that they were worthless and overrated, as they listen to the sound of their very own voices reverberating from two years back. Bradley got yanked around like a yo-yo, with the press insisting he had to be brought up before he had any AAA at-bats, and touting Middlebrooks as some kind of power-god even as his flaws were obvious. Those flaws were mentioned over and over again on sites such as SoxProspects, the sort of analysis that the talking heads never bother with.
This isn't about knowledge, it's about noise.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 12, 2015 23:37:34 GMT -5
Glenn Ordway thinks that the Red Sox shouldn't hesitate to trade any of their prospects since they are all overated and probably won't pan out. Pointing to Middlebrooks and Bradley as guys that they thought were the next big thing and lost all trade value. He doesn't seem to think Baseball America is reliable. I think the bolded and underlined part of your quote about Ordway is accurate about his ability to consider the possibility that not all prospects are created equal. First off, everybody here could see that WMB's ceiling appeared to be Butch Hobson back in the late 70s. His glaring lack of plate discipline was obvious. I guess we'll give up on Bogaerts, because at age 22 there's no chance he'll develop, right? And there's no chance that Bradley won't hit a little better and play otherwordly defense? But hey, if Bradley fails that means Betts will fail to. Let's trade him. I love the Boston media. Most of them absolutely clueless. I can't imagine how they can make so much money knowing so little.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 13, 2015 0:22:52 GMT -5
I guess we'll give up on Bogaerts, because at age 22 there's no chance he'll develop, right? I love the Boston media. Most of them absolutely clueless. I can't imagine how they can make so much money knowing so little. Give these guys more credit. I'm sure they're all well aware of the last time we had a 21 y/o prospect this well thought-of ... who then proceeded to be below replacement level (-0.5 aWAR; Xander at least was 0.3). Oh, wait.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 13, 2015 1:03:12 GMT -5
Who cares what the media thinks? They are paid to reflect the feelings of the average fan. I would bet that most fans think they should trade Swihart for Hamels. However if you listen to the fans you end up sitting with them.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Feb 13, 2015 7:17:23 GMT -5
Nothing gets under my skin more than implication that, because some previous young player fell short of expectations, Mookie or anyone else from our current group is somehow predestined to do so as well.
That, and how the likes of Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, etc. seem to be retconned into far more impressive prospects than they ever were at the time in order to push some "Red Sox farm system is overrated" narrative.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Feb 13, 2015 8:01:43 GMT -5
Glenn Ordway thinks that the Red Sox shouldn't hesitate to trade any of their prospects since they are all overated and probably won't pan out. Pointing to Middlebrooks and Bradley as guys that they thought were the next big thing and lost all trade value. He doesn't seem to think Baseball America is reliable. I think the bolded and underlined part of your quote about Ordway is accurate about his ability to consider the possibility that not all prospects are created equal. First off, everybody here could see that WMB's ceiling appeared to be Butch Hobson back in the late 70s. His glaring lack of plate discipline was obvious. I guess we'll give up on Bogaerts, because at age 22 there's no chance he'll develop, right? And there's no chance that Bradley won't hit a little better and play otherwordly defense? But hey, if Bradley fails that means Betts will fail to. Let's trade him. I love the Boston media. Most of them absolutely clueless. I can't imagine how they can make so much money knowing so little. Repeat after me: The purpose of a business is, first and foremost (and in truth, maybe ONLY) to make money. Media businesses make money by attracting followers. As long as that is the case, decisions on who writes will be based primarily on the hiring person's judgment about who writes in a style that will attract customers. Intelligence and accuracy are secondary considerations, if they are considerations at all. The sooner one accepts that, the more angst one can save oneself.
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Feb 13, 2015 8:06:36 GMT -5
Glenn Ordway thinks that the Red Sox shouldn't hesitate to trade any of their prospects since they are all overated and probably won't pan out. Pointing to Middlebrooks and Bradley as guys that they thought were the next big thing and lost all trade value. He doesn't seem to think Baseball America is reliable. I think the bolded and underlined part of your quote about Ordway is accurate about his ability to consider the possibility that not all prospects are created equal. First off, everybody here could see that WMB's ceiling appeared to be Butch Hobson back in the late 70s. His glaring lack of plate discipline was obvious. I guess we'll give up on Bogaerts, because at age 22 there's no chance he'll develop, right? And there's no chance that Bradley won't hit a little better and play otherwordly defense? But hey, if Bradley fails that means Betts will fail to. Let's trade him. I love the Boston media. Most of them absolutely clueless. I can't imagine how they can make so much money knowing so little. Good response. I disagreed with his take too. Since he is going in the other direction of overrating prospects and underrating them.
|
|