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.
Your Personal Untouchables
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 14, 2014 14:30:21 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. The only thing the kid would need to succeed here is a Red Sox jersey
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 14, 2014 14:34:21 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! I feel like to get guys that really profile as top of the rotation arms (who would probable be on everyone's list) you have to draft higher than the Sox have for the most part, with the exception of Trey Ball, who has obviously disappointed thus far. Owens seems to be so difficult to accurately quantify/find a consensus between scouts and numbers that I think most people kept him off their lists because it's possible he could be a little overrated by people who might want to acquire him. The other good pitchers in the system are solid prospects who I see as guys that will save you from overpaying for mid/back of the rotation guys; they're valuable, but you certainly don't think of them as off the table in trade talks (although I would hate to see RDLR go personally)
|
|
|
Post by sturmrider on Jul 14, 2014 17:10:47 GMT -5
Swihart, Vazquez and Bogaerts are on my list. The first two because finding good catchers in today's market is difficult. Bogaerts because I believe he has the potential to be a perennial all star.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jul 14, 2014 17:44:38 GMT -5
Funny title for a thread, personal untouchables. Was that a Freudian slip Eric? Yeah, I have a sick mind.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 14, 2014 17:48:45 GMT -5
Oh no, the double entendre was premeditated. One wants people to do the click throughs.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Jul 14, 2014 19:40:31 GMT -5
Nobody is untouchable for me. Xander, Betts, Owens, Devers my top guys. If I am trading these guys in a package it needs to be for a young cost controlled star.
One of the things I am most interested in following over the next 12 months is just how Ben C. uses these prospect. There is a huge glut of prospects that all play similar positions (left side infield, pitcher) and are knocking on the door. Can't keep everyone, need to turn them into useable pieces.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 15, 2014 4:05:56 GMT -5
1. Bogaerts 2. Webster 3. Betts 4. Swihart
While I get the sentiment that nobody should be untoucheble, I really think it's that much better to win with players you developed. I mean, a whole lot of reason the yankees of the 90s will be considered all time greats is they had Jeter, Mariano, Posada grown under their eyes.
I think those four players have the potential to be great. And, to add: Two of those (Webster and Betts) could really shatter their projections (they already did, partly), and wouldn't that be a great story? Man, maybe I just love underdog-stories...
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 15, 2014 7:02:18 GMT -5
Is this where we post photos of our untouchables?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 15, 2014 8:21:31 GMT -5
Nobody is an untouchable. There's a price for every asset. A lot of people are saying this, but in a practical sense it's not actually true. Yeah, if the Angels want to trade Mike Trout and pick up half his contract I'd include anyone and everyone in that deal, but they don't want to do that. No one trades these mythical "young cost-controlled superstars" that people are willing to give up huge amounts of talent for, not even the Marlins. There's just too much money in the industry right now for even the "poorest" teams to not retain any young star-level they have. To reformulate the old saying about "fast, good, and cheap: choose any two.", when it comes to trading for players, you're not getting anyone who's young, good, and cheap because there's no team that's motivated to trade a good, young, cheap player. At the absolute best you're going to get two of those qualities and most of the time you'll be lucky to get one and a half. So to get back to the original question, would I theoretically trade Mookie or Xander? Yes. Would I trade them in any realistic deal? I don't really see it. Obviously the guy we're all really talking about here is Stanton and if he's traded I think that the winner's curse will be in full effect. He may be good and young, but he's not cheap anymore. Having hit arbitration he doesn't even have much of an incentive to sign a below-market deal, so you're giving up a ton of young, cheap talent for one player who's going to require a giant contract to retain for more than a few years almost immediately. In other words, if anyone is getting a young, cheap all-star in the deal it's the Marlins, not the team that gets Stanton. It's still probably possible to win that trade by giving up a few highly-rated prospects who end up not panning out, as in the Miguel Cabrera deal. With that in mind I'd probably be willing to give up Owens and Swihart in a Stanton deal because maybe Owens's game just doesn't play in the majors (plus the injury risk inherent with any pitcher), and because Swihart because as much as I like him catching prospects are notorious for not panning out. But I don't know that a package headlined by those two gets the deal done anyway. So basically, Xander and Betts are just too good to be traded, period. Owens and Swihart I can sort of see if I squint hard enough but I'd probably turn down any realistic deal involving them. I wouldn't trade Devers either because the upside potential there is too great compared to what anyone would pay for a guy who's still 17 with a handful of GCL at-bats under his belt. Beyond those guys I'm pretty much open to trading whoever.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 15, 2014 8:38:42 GMT -5
I agree with that logic, but I bump Betts down slightly because he is blocked at his two most valuable positions (2B and SS). Betts as a CF is still a valuable player, but he's much less valuable both because he's yet to show that he can be a plus defensive outfielder (while it's fair to project him to eventually improve his reads enough to get there, there's always a risk that he won't) and because of the nature of positional adjustments. As such, I can see a scenario where another team values him highly enough at 2B that they'd trade something resembling 'good, young, and cheap' for a package centered around Betts. There aren't a lot of guys who'd fall into that category and might conceivably be on the market, but there are enough (Stanton, CarGo/Tulo, Bautista/Encarnacion, Darvish, maybe Heyward, etc.) that it wouldn't be unthinkable.
ADD: I also disagree with the idea that Stanton has limited trade value because he'll be expensive. Yes, he will be expensive, but he's also one of the best four or five best position players in baseball, and that sort of production has enormous value even if you have to pay market-ish rates to get it (both because a trade-and-extend usually gets you a slightly below-market price and because concentrating that much production in one roster spot is super valuable). For a big market team like the Red Sox, the "cheap" part of the "good, young, and cheap" trifecta matters the least, and Stanton is certainly good and young (he's just 24; an eight-year extension would just cover his prime years).
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 15, 2014 9:58:22 GMT -5
Yeah, he may want a 10-year deal. If I were Stanton, I'd insist on that. Someone will give it to him.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Jul 15, 2014 10:43:55 GMT -5
No player in any organization is untouchable. Can you imagine what Trout would bring in? I will look at it it this way. My players who are rookie eligible or not yet in the majors. I will drop the value of a player who is "blocked" from their top position.
Xander Owens Swihart Devers Mookie
I see the above players to be all-stars for at least one year.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 15, 2014 11:13:43 GMT -5
I just feel uncomfortable talking about my personal untouchables.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 15, 2014 11:35:53 GMT -5
ADD: I also disagree with the idea that Stanton has limited trade value because he'll be expensive. Yes, he will be expensive, but he's also one of the best four or five best position players in baseball, and that sort of production has enormous value even if you have to pay market-ish rates to get it (both because a trade-and-extend usually gets you a slightly below-market price and because concentrating that much production in one roster spot is super valuable). For a big market team like the Red Sox, the "cheap" part of the "good, young, and cheap" trifecta matters the least, and Stanton is certainly good and young (he's just 24; an eight-year extension would just cover his prime years). This may be the reason we don't agree on this. I'm not sure he's even one of the five best outfielders in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 15, 2014 11:40:02 GMT -5
Betts is someone who I would almost be LOOKING to trade. I think his value is extremely high, and we don't really have a spot for him, even more so due to Holt's emergence. I don't think the Sox can go with so many unprovens, and I think he's the best combo of blocked and over-valued that we've got.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 15, 2014 11:46:25 GMT -5
I agree with that logic, but I bump Betts down slightly because he is blocked at his two most valuable positions (2B and SS). Betts as a CF is still a valuable player, but he's much less valuable both because he's yet to show that he can be a plus defensive outfielder (while it's fair to project him to eventually improve his reads enough to get there, there's always a risk that he won't) and because of the nature of positional adjustments. As such, I can see a scenario where another team values him highly enough at 2B that they'd trade something resembling 'good, young, and cheap' for a package centered around Betts. There aren't a lot of guys who'd fall into that category and might conceivably be on the market, but there are enough ( Stanton, CarGo/Tulo, Bautista/Encarnacion, Darvish, maybe Heyward, etc.) that it wouldn't be unthinkable. It's funny that you give Heyward the "maybe" qualifier because he's kind of the only guy I'd want the Red Sox to trade for of that group, because you'd be buying low and more importantly getting younger.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 15, 2014 12:42:42 GMT -5
Betts is someone who I would almost be LOOKING to trade. I think his value is extremely high, and we don't really have a spot for him, even more so due to Holt's emergence. I don't think the Sox can go with so many unprovens, and I think he's the best combo of blocked and over-valued that we've got. Yup, this is where I am too. I love Betts, but if you can use him as the centerpiece of a deal for a star, you have to do that when you have no idea what position he even plays on this team next year.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 15, 2014 13:06:44 GMT -5
ADD: I also disagree with the idea that Stanton has limited trade value because he'll be expensive. Yes, he will be expensive, but he's also one of the best four or five best position players in baseball, and that sort of production has enormous value even if you have to pay market-ish rates to get it (both because a trade-and-extend usually gets you a slightly below-market price and because concentrating that much production in one roster spot is super valuable). For a big market team like the Red Sox, the "cheap" part of the "good, young, and cheap" trifecta matters the least, and Stanton is certainly good and young (he's just 24; an eight-year extension would just cover his prime years). This may be the reason we don't agree on this. I'm not sure he's even one of the five best outfielders in baseball. Who makes the cut ahead of him right now, apart from Trout and Mccutchen? Stanton would be the next guy on that list for me, unless you think Puig or Carlos Gomez is better too? I'm not sure if I'd go quite as far as top 4-5 position players in the game, but he can't be far off, and I definitely can't think of 5 better outfielders
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 15, 2014 13:26:57 GMT -5
I agree with that logic, but I bump Betts down slightly because he is blocked at his two most valuable positions (2B and SS). Betts as a CF is still a valuable player, but he's much less valuable both because he's yet to show that he can be a plus defensive outfielder (while it's fair to project him to eventually improve his reads enough to get there, there's always a risk that he won't) and because of the nature of positional adjustments. As such, I can see a scenario where another team values him highly enough at 2B that they'd trade something resembling 'good, young, and cheap' for a package centered around Betts. There aren't a lot of guys who'd fall into that category and might conceivably be on the market, but there are enough ( Stanton, CarGo/Tulo, Bautista/Encarnacion, Darvish, maybe Heyward, etc.) that it wouldn't be unthinkable. It's funny that you give Heyward the "maybe" qualifier because he's kind of the only guy I'd want the Red Sox to trade for of that group, because you'd be buying low and more importantly getting younger. That's a fair point on age, but Bautista (and maybe Encarnacion) are the only guys in that group entering their decline phrase, and both those guys still offer immense present offensive production (something this team could certainly use). Heyward is only a maybe because he's the one guy in that group whose production comes primarily (almost entirely, really) through fielding, and I'm still a little skeptical how reliable those stats are. Coincidentally enough, all the guys in the above group have two years of team control left.
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Jul 15, 2014 17:38:52 GMT -5
Nobody is an untouchable. There's a price for every asset. A lot of people are saying this, but in a practical sense it's not actually true. Yeah, if the Angels want to trade Mike Trout and pick up half his contract I'd include anyone and everyone in that deal, but they don't want to do that. No one trades these mythical "young cost-controlled superstars" that people are willing to give up huge amounts of talent for, not even the Marlins. ... I was thinking this reading the thread, so thanks FTHW. I was also thinking about personal untouchables ... and refocused on the personal part. The way I'm going to answer the question is by naming the players I really, really want to watch playing baseball every night at 7:10PM (or every 5th night), and will be really, really bummed out if they only come to Fenway in road grays. These guys are flat out fun to watch. Swihart Owens Marrero (I'm excluding anyone already on the active MLB roster, or below AA because this is personal and I haven't seen them yet)
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 15, 2014 18:35:29 GMT -5
I only have one untouchable. Bogey.
Bogey is a generational player and next to no offer could knock my sox off enough to trade him.
Everybody else can be moved, depending on the offer.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 15, 2014 23:27:21 GMT -5
Nobody is untouchable for me. I don't think our prospects really have the highest ceilings and none of them really blow me away, so if you can get a #1 starter or a #3 hitter (not rental) I'd be willing to listen on anyone.
But personally I hope they hang on to Marrero.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 16, 2014 7:42:21 GMT -5
I don't get the Marrero love. We traded Iglesias for 2 years of control of Peavey and Iglesias was roughly equivalent to Marrero, if not better.
And I really think the days of trading a boatload of prospects for a Stanton or whoever is largely over. Someone will do it but it is almost definitely a bad trade for whoever pulls that trigger. With the new parity in the league, most teams will never be able to recover that value over the next 5 years. I get that a Stanton can bring you a championship in some circumstances but it also puts you in "Houstonville" for 4-5 years potentially after he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2014 8:08:48 GMT -5
Marrero is showing that he can hit a lot better than Iglesias with slightly less glove. He was a first round draft pick who fell and is developing exactly as expected. He's not exciting, but he's probably eventually better than Drew if he finishes developing.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 16, 2014 8:22:02 GMT -5
He didn't hit well in college and he didn't hit well in the minors until this year and even this year isn't that great. He has an outstanding glove but my bet is his bat will always be average at best. And worst than that normally. He is definitely tradeable in my book.
He has worth of course but he is not even close to untouchable. I get that people may like him and want to keep him but his value isn't so great that we shouldn't trade him for most any top 50 prospect.
|
|
|