|
Post by bigpupp on Jul 16, 2014 10:30:15 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. But the bar at short is so low that an average bat and well above average glove at shortstop makes him one of the best players, at that position, in the league.
|
|
|
Post by mainesoxfan on Jul 16, 2014 13:44:13 GMT -5
I'm not in favor of untouchables but I would say Swihart and Vazquez are pretty close. Good defensive catchers are worth their weight in gold. One or both of them may hit enough to be an every day player. The Sox shouldn't rush into trading their prospects. Even if only 1/3 of the hot prospects makes it, that's a lot of talent to bring in with veterans like Pedroia and Lester to build around.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 16, 2014 13:52:42 GMT -5
I'm not in favor of untouchables but I would say Swihart and Vazquez are pretty close. Good defensive catchers are worth their weight in gold. One or both of them may hit enough to be an every day player. The Sox shouldn't rush into trading their prospects. Even if only 1/3 of the hot prospects makes it, that's a lot of talent to bring in with veterans like Pedroia and Lester to build around. I understand the logic behind making Swihart or Vazquez untouchable, but not both. If they both pan out the Red Sox will most likely end up trading one of them.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 16, 2014 14:13:24 GMT -5
Not sure I buy the argument that you're more likely to end up on the losing end by dealing for an established star.
Sure, the Giants wish they didn't trade Wheeler for a Beltran rental, but the Marlins got two top 10 guys (essentially) for Miggy and they both did little to nothing for them. Typically, when you lose you lose big and when you win you win big.
Situations like the Beckett/Hanley trade are rarer where both teams can be happy. Players Sox gave up have carried a lot more value (not necessarily for Miami tho) since the trade but the WS trumps everything.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 16, 2014 15:00:07 GMT -5
Counting value after the existing contracts (or 6 years of pre-FA play) gets tricky. The Sox gave up a bit of value for some lower risk and quicker returns. They never had to deal with the potential discipline issues of Ramirez, or the injuries of Sanchez.
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Jul 16, 2014 15:50:42 GMT -5
1) Mookie 2) Xander 3) Vazquez 4) Devers
While I agree that no one is "untouchable", I would be hard pressed to give up on any of the names above. On a side note, I am still quite high on Barnes - I feel as though he has closer material if he doesn't cut it as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 17, 2014 10:09:49 GMT -5
rjp313jr, do you think that the new CBA at least impacts that process some? It would seem to me that prospects are more highly valued now, than they were in the days of a rampant overslot signings, unlimited international signings...etc. When more teams now are locking up their top players before free agency. If a top contending team used to do such deals in the past, like the Redsox or Yankees, they could just go out and replenish the farm quickly with lots of overslot signings in the draft. That option is so much harder now with the new system.
I think that drops the number of prospects needed for guys like Stanton. Demand for prospects is up. They are not as readily available for contending teams.
Of course such deals will happen still, but less prospect talent should be needed for such deals going forward.
For example, the haul for Johan Santana a few years ago was substantial but we are hearing crazy proposals for Stanton IMO. Things like Betts, Bogaerts and 2-3 other top 100 guys. I'm not doing such deals. 6 years of control of Betts, 5 years of control of Bogaerts....etc. at a much lower cost for 2 years of control of Stanton ( or whatever it is ). I just don'[t think it's worth it now where almost any team should be able to afford to contend if they can develop decent talent on their own and make judicious use of their revenue sharing allotment.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 17, 2014 16:39:26 GMT -5
Is it the new CBA ? The Yankees could have but never went out and replenished anything during the old CBA... I guess the Sox played that game with Type A free agents but not trades.
I also don't think it changes the winners and losers any. You're citing Betts and Bogaerts but the Sox aren't trading them for Stanton even if it's being asked. That beings said, if they did and Mookie and Xander don't pan out then it's a Sox win. These guys we love and have high expectations for but until they prove it they aren't that. A trade like that could still work out in the Sox favor.
I'm not a Stanton guy but my point was we analyze these things up front by putting a projection on prospects like they are sure things to be that projection. For a weird example. What if GC never even gets it going in AAA? If a guy like him can not even produce in AAA then Mookie and Xander can flame out in the majors. I'm not betting they do but it's possible.
We should go back and look at the major stars who were traded between about 2005 and 2011 to see who won and lost. Who are the players? Let's get a list first then look at the deals. Quick start..
Miggy Beckett Upton Teixeira Santana Greinke
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 22, 2014 12:04:21 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. Maybe they do care about lower level, high-ceiling prospects after all, says Ben Badler in this piece: www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-lower-level-trade-targets-playoff-contenders/As the trade deadline approaches, these are short-season prospects from teams in the buyer’s market that could be enticing to trade partners. I’m only including players who are already in the United States. There’s no rule preventing teams from trading for a player in the Dominican Summer League or the Venezuelan Summer League, but it’s extremely rare to see one of those players traded, since most general managers are too risk averse to pull it off and don’t dedicate resources to scouting those clubs anyway.
|
|