|
Post by Guidas on Jul 14, 2014 12:02:32 GMT -5
We all go back and forth on these prospects, and at heart we want to see them all succeed. Sadly, such is not the reality of baseball, nor life. Being that it's All Star break I thought it might be fun to show everyone our own personal untouchables in the farm system, a subject that seems to come up a LOT when we are talking about overall evaluations and performances of players in general. For simplicity's sake, let's keep this to prospects only - i.e. Let's assume Xander's an MLB player isn't going anywhere. That said, who would you absolutely, positively never want to see traded because you think he's going to be special?
For me it is, in order:
Swihart Mookie Devers Margot
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 14, 2014 12:05:32 GMT -5
I agree with your top two rated guys. But, I'd still deal em for Stanton. So, my answer is none. And, I'm including Xander and JBJ in that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 14, 2014 12:07:39 GMT -5
By this time next year, I bet a lot of people have Holt in that list.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jul 14, 2014 12:07:45 GMT -5
Nobody is an untouchable. There's a price for every asset.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jul 14, 2014 12:10:28 GMT -5
Nobody is untouchable for me in the right deal, I don't see a super star like I did with Xander, maybe Devers but he is so far away it's unrealistic to think he is untouchable in the right deal.
There are guys I value highly and if we are parting with a super star should be coming to Boston and they are:
Swihart and Devers. If we are counting rookies with the Big League team add Xander and Betts.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 14, 2014 12:11:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't consider anyone untouchable. What my list would be is players I would have to be overwhelmed for.
Swihart Devers Owens Webster (binky)
In addition I wouldn't consider these player in a trade for an established veteran, like Stanton. I would add Betts to that list also.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 14, 2014 12:15:29 GMT -5
Nobody is an untouchable. There's a price for every asset. Agree - this is why it's your own personal untouchables. I mean really, if the Sox dealt all four of my guys for Stanton or Rizzo or Kershaw or whomever it would be a tough pill to swallow - until the next day when Stanton hit a ball through the monster.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 14, 2014 12:16:01 GMT -5
Kids like Devers are probably untouchable because he doesn't have a ton of trade value at this point and it would be pointless to give him up as well as pointless for the other team to insist on him. I can't imagine him being a key piece to any deal that prevents it from happening.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 14, 2014 12:19:00 GMT -5
By this time next year, I bet a lot of people have Holt in that list. I'd like to hear why you think that (but in this thread, so that it doesn't derail this one).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 14, 2014 12:21:22 GMT -5
Kids like Devers are probably untouchable because he doesn't have a ton of trade value at this point and it would be pointless to give him up as well as pointless for the other team to insist on him. I can't imagine him being a key piece to any deal that prevents it from happening. Texas insisted on Engel Beltre in the (player I won't mention) deal and Devers is 1/2 season from A ball. So there is precent.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 14, 2014 12:23:54 GMT -5
I think part of this question is where do you see the market value of the player compared to where we see it. That's probably why everyone is included Devers. Really at this point he's not a huge trade piece, he wouldn't be someone who could headline a deal for a big player, like Bogaerts has been talked about in the past. But his ceiling is sky high. So we see a big difference between market value and perceived value. Expanding on that you can probably put a no trade on Cecchini and Barnes, as trading them now would be selling lower than their potential value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 14, 2014 12:27:07 GMT -5
Kids like Devers are probably untouchable because he doesn't have a ton of trade value at this point and it would be pointless to give him up as well as pointless for the other team to insist on him. I can't imagine him being a key piece to any deal that prevents it from happening. Texas insisted on Engel Beltre in the (player I won't mention) deal and Devers is 1/2 season from A ball. So there is precent. Maybe I guess? Murphy and Gabbard were the higher ranked prospects and Beltre was so far away that the Red Sox probably didn't care. And I still have to imagine the deal still happens if the Red Sox offered someone else.
|
|
|
Post by rider on Jul 14, 2014 12:29:15 GMT -5
Swiharts the only guy I wouldn't move for anything.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 14, 2014 12:34:48 GMT -5
Vazquez Swihart (One or both of these guys is going to be a catching God. You trade neither until you have at least 350 innings of pitch-framing data on Swihart*. There's a decent chance you trade Swihart because Vazquez is an elite pitch-framer and actually the better player.) Devers (8 upside) Owens (likely underrated by other clubs' scouts) Betts as a 3B but not as a corner outfielder
*You could have Swihart come up at the next ASB and deal one guy next winter, or have him share catcher in 2016 and deal one guy at the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Jul 14, 2014 12:42:21 GMT -5
Devers is the only guy for me outside of Xander, think he's only one in a great system that has the potential to be a true star, at least at this point.
I could buy Swihart, but he doesn't have impact offensive upside (position aside), and Vasquez's presence makes me okay with letting go of him, but only in a package for something special in return.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 14, 2014 12:49:36 GMT -5
Texas insisted on Engel Beltre in the (player I won't mention) deal and Devers is 1/2 season from A ball. So there is precent. Maybe I guess? Murphy and Gabbard were the higher ranked prospects and Beltre was so far away that the Red Sox probably didn't care. And I still have to imagine the deal still happens if the Red Sox offered someone else. Murphy was the Sox #15 prospect coming into the season and was hitting .280 / .347 / .423 at Pawtucket. Beltre was the #20 and was hitting .208 / .310 / .400 in 145 PA at age 17 in the GCL. Gabbard was a depth chart guy and a throw-in. A decent comp for Beltre in terms of trade value, right now, would be Wendell Rijo, but Rijo would have rather more (a level more advanced relative to age, two levels closer to MLB, having a better season at a more defensive position, versus having had a bonus only 90% as large, adjusting for inflation).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 14, 2014 12:50:34 GMT -5
Hard to say anybody is truly untouchable. If the Angels wanted Bogaerts for Mike Trout I'd hand him over, but there are guys you want to keep and build the future of the "Next Great Red Sox Team" around.
Obviously Bogaerts is that guy as I expect he will improve as the season goes on and I think he'll have a break out season in 2015. So is Betts and I'm assuming he will adapt to RF. Swihart is a keeper - he has all star catcher written all over him. Owens is a keeper. He is the one young pitcher that could be a top of the rotation starter. And I have that same feeling that a lot of people have - that Devers is going to be a big time player.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 14, 2014 12:52:53 GMT -5
Swihart and bogaerts are the guys I basically don't move at any price till it's dumb to say no. The next couple of guys for me would be Margot and Devers- obviously both are a long way away, but given how young they are and their performances, I'd hate to see them go at this stage. Owens and Betts are the guys I'd be building a package for a star around because they have the most value in the system and Betts at least is blocked at his optimal positions and I think is probably more valuable to someone else than he is to us, and he's the one I'd deal first, even though I think he's going to be an all-star
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 14, 2014 12:55:17 GMT -5
Maybe I guess? Murphy and Gabbard were the higher ranked prospects and Beltre was so far away that the Red Sox probably didn't care. And I still have to imagine the deal still happens if the Red Sox offered someone else. Murphy was the Sox #15 prospect coming into the season and was hitting .280 / .347 / .423 at Pawtucket. Beltre was the #20 and was hitting .208 / .310 / .400 in 145 PA at age 17 in the GCL. Gabbard was a depth chart guy and a throw-in. A decent comp for Beltre in terms of trade value, right now, would be Wendell Rijo, but Rijo would have rather more (a level more advanced relative to age, two levels closer to MLB, having a better season at a more defensive position, versus having had a bonus only 90% as large, adjusting for inflation). I was looking at the rankings history here. As of June 07, Murhpy was #10 and Gabbard was #13. Beltre wasn't ever listed in the top 20. In any event, Devers is #11 now at age 17. There's no way he'd get full value in a trade.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 14, 2014 12:58:52 GMT -5
Nobody, but it would have to be a big time player for either of the catchers. I wanted the place holder because I thought Vazquez would be ready this year and Swihart by this time next year.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 14, 2014 12:59:55 GMT -5
Hard to say anybody is truly untouchable. If the Angels wanted Bogaerts for Mike Trout I'd hand him over, but there are guys you want to keep and build the future of the "Next Great Red Sox Team" around. Right, and if Mina Kunis wanted to pay me a million dollars to make out with her, I would also do that.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 14, 2014 13:06:44 GMT -5
No one but it would take a lot for me to move:
Swihart Mookie Devers
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 14, 2014 13:46:04 GMT -5
Hard to say anybody is truly untouchable. If the Angels wanted Bogaerts for Mike Trout I'd hand him over, but there are guys you want to keep and build the future of the "Next Great Red Sox Team" around. Right, and if Mina Kunis wanted to pay me a million dollars to make out with her, I would also do that. Go $500k, trust me. Chapped lips.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 405
Member is Online
|
Post by badfishnbc on Jul 14, 2014 13:48:56 GMT -5
until the next day when Stanton hit a ball through the monster. That would be a ground rule double, no? Kid needs to get some more loft on his swing if he's going to succeed here.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jul 14, 2014 14:12:44 GMT -5
Nobody really..................but Swihart and Xander would be very difficult. I wish I had a pitcher or two on this list. That scares me!
|
|