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 Trade Deadline Thread - Discussion Only
|
Post by jmei on Jul 24, 2014 12:40:40 GMT -5
Yeah, all mentions of possibly acquiring players have come with the caveat that they have to be under control in future years. Presumably it's in case guys like Stanton or Gonzalez or Hamels or Lee become available and the Red Sox acquire them even as they simultaneously pivot and focus on 2015 (e.g., by trading away Peavy/Gomes/etc).
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 24, 2014 14:23:21 GMT -5
So in the Gammons piece, he pretty much literally says "three GMs told me that what I'm writing here is crazy and won't happen, but it's my website now so I'm going to write it anyway... Wheeeee!" I wouldn't put any stock at all in that piece. Even worse, unless I'm missing something, there's a completely unattributed quote just dropped in the middle of the piece: Followed by a new paragraph. Like, seriously? Is he just pontificating on his own there an accidentally put quotation marks or what? As for what Hatfield pointed out, sometimes I feel like Gammons just likes to name drop prospects to show everyone that he knows who they are. Like, "It would be huge if they could get phenom Julio Urias (p.s. the Dodgers will never trade him in a million billion years)", I can't think of any other reason for writing things like that. Oh, and the closing sentence is a total train-wreck and I'm pretty sure it contains a typo.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 24, 2014 18:10:39 GMT -5
I hope we trade Lester. If contract negotiations are really off, there is no reason not to move him. He's a top tier lefty starter in this league. He could bring us back some really good future pieces.
Then again if I were running the team pretty much all the veterans would be available. Uehara, Miller, Badenhop, Breslow, Lackey, Lester, Gomes, Victorino, Drew, Ross, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 24, 2014 20:01:58 GMT -5
I highly doubt Lester gets moved. It sounds like talks are being tabled but both sides legitimately think there's a chance for a deal after the season, and the Red Sox still want to resign him, so they won't trade him and, for all intents and purposes, give up on that. I still doubt that they end up paying him what he wants, so it seems like the most likely result is that he leaves and all we get is a pick.
Even if we keep Lester though, we could still get a lot for what we do have. Koji and Miller should each bring back one solid prospect each, if we move them, and we could get decent smaller pieces for other guys we have (Peavy, Gomes etc.) I would especially like to see the bullpen guys moved, considering how much other teams will value them for a stretch run. It should be pretty easy to find a solid piece or two on the FA market, or through a trade, that would make our bullpen perfectly fine, even if it's no longer the best in the majors next year.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 24, 2014 20:19:10 GMT -5
Then again if I were running the team pretty much all the veterans would be available. Uehara, Miller, Badenhop, Breslow, Lackey, Lester, Gomes, Victorino, Drew, Ross, etc. I agree on everyone except Lackey. I mean, he's obviously not untouchable, I would listen on offers, but they would have to blow me away.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 24, 2014 20:59:35 GMT -5
Jayson Stark ?@jaysonst 39s What team had itts scouts zeroing in on the #RedSox double-A team this week? We'll tell you on Baseball Tonight at 10 et
OOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 24, 2014 21:16:57 GMT -5
Phillies. Stark speculated that Red Sox are in on Hamels (as a prelude to letting Lester walk or trading him).
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jul 24, 2014 21:24:56 GMT -5
Phillies. Stark speculated that Red Sox are in on Hamels (as a prelude to letting Lester walk or trading him). Just no Swihart, please.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 24, 2014 21:33:18 GMT -5
Swihart, for sure, but I assume the Red Sox would fight to keep him out of any deal. Same with Owens.
Coyle would be one obvious choice, as he's a suburban Philly kid. Gibson would be another, as he's from Delaware. Diaz, who pitched Tuesday, would be a third candidate. Besides some of the relievers, most of the other Portland prospects have been promoted or are hurt.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 24, 2014 21:45:01 GMT -5
I highly doubt Lester gets moved. It sounds like talks are being tabled but both sides legitimately think there's a chance for a deal after the season, and the Red Sox still want to resign him, so they won't trade him and, for all intents and purposes, give up on that. I still doubt that they end up paying him what he wants, so it seems like the most likely result is that he leaves and all we get is a pick. See, it sounds to me like the front office is milking this "no midseason extension talks" stuff as an excuse to not make a last-ditch re-signing attempt and to give the team some cover to trade Lester at the deadline. I think they'll at least quietly take offers on Lester and see if they can grab the sort of B+ prospect that would make it worth forgoing the hometown discount. Re: Phillies-- Doubt they'd give up Hamels without getting one of Swihart/Owens, and that seems too much to me. But I'd be all over Lee-for-Coyle.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 24, 2014 21:54:10 GMT -5
It's absurd that they would think of paying Hamels 90m over the next 4y, plus give up either Owens, or Swihart and multiple others to get him, all because the FO won't pay Lester 115-120m over the next 5 seasons.
Because of that irrationality, it could knock them out of having a key piece for any possible Stanton deal in a situation that didn't even need to occur to begin with. Foolishness over 1y and 20-22m dollars. Something I generally don't delve into. Same principle they had last winter with Miller. They pick these fights with the wrong guys, yet throw away money on people like AJP and Drew.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 24, 2014 22:13:06 GMT -5
It's absurd that they would think of paying Hamels 90m over the next 4y, plus give up either Owens, or Swihart and multiple others to get him, all because the FO won't pay Lester 115-120m over the next 5 seasons. If it were 5 years at $23-24mm/year, I would think there is a good chance a deal with Lester gets done. The concern is that the ask is now up to 6-7 years and $24-25mm/year. Now you're talking about the difference between $90mm and $144-$175mm. At that point, it very well may make sense to give up a top 25 prospect to lock in a similar pitcher to Lester on better terms. And, it doesn't necessarily foreclose (although it likely does) re-signing Lester.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 24, 2014 22:58:08 GMT -5
Point well taken Amfox. Still, I would rather see one of those 2 blue chip kids moved in exchange for a premium bat if indeed one must be moved to help the team, even if Lester leaves.
The team will have a window to see if any of the kids emerge as a close to the top of the rotation arm over the next couple of years. Moving 1-2 of the top prospects would be more of damage control than anything and i think they should be looking at Ortiz's age and a potential replacement for him than anything else. My 2c.
|
|
|
Post by rsnationiowa on Jul 24, 2014 22:59:40 GMT -5
I think the Sox have to seriously be shopping Koji at this point. I get that they want him back next year, but it appears the closer market is pretty good right now. Detroit gave up their #4 and #6 prospects for Soria. Soria is good, but he has an injury history and absolutely no history of success in the playoffs. Although the market is small in terms of the number of teams searching for a closer, I think Koji should be the #1 sell right now. Why hang on to a closer that would be very much valued on the market when the team is clearly not going to play in meaningful games the rest of the way? Especially when he can bring a return similar or better than what Soria brought?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 24, 2014 23:55:00 GMT -5
2nd Wildcard race tightening up. Orioles shut out Seattle tonight, 4-0. Seattle is 2-5 since the All Star game.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 3:10:40 GMT -5
2nd Wildcard race tightening up. Orioles shut out Seattle tonight, 4-0. Seattle is 2-5 since the All Star game. You would prefer to give up what we could get as a return for a low chance of a one game playoff on the road followed by a series on the road where you've likely used your best pitcher ? To me, it's division or nada, the wildcard was never an interest, especially the second wildcard.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 9:48:38 GMT -5
See I don't buy this line of thinking at all.
Most of the time free agents take the offer that they believe will maximize their earnings over their career. In short, make the best offer, land the player, don't and you won't. I really don't see any evidence that trading an impending free agent percludes you from signing him in the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 9:55:04 GMT -5
You would prefer to give up what we could get as a return for a low chance of a one game playoff on the road followed by a series on the road where you've likely used your best pitcher ? To me, it's division or nada, the wildcard was never an interest, especially the second wildcard. Am totally with you! You shouldn't change your strategy to increase your chances for the second wild card. It isn't worth it. I don't think, Larry Lucchino would allow that, most teams think that way though. we don't want to get yelled at.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 25, 2014 10:08:43 GMT -5
It's absurd that they would think of paying Hamels 90m over the next 4y, plus give up either Owens, or Swihart and multiple others to get him, all because the FO won't pay Lester 115-120m over the next 5 seasons. If it were 5 years at $23-24mm/year, I would think there is a good chance a deal with Lester gets done. The concern is that the ask is now up to 6-7 years and $24-25mm/year. Now you're talking about the difference between $90mm and $144-$175mm. At that point, it very well may make sense to give up a top 25 prospect to lock in a similar pitcher to Lester on better terms. And, it doesn't necessarily foreclose (although it likely does) re-signing Lester. Hamels also has a 24m vesting option. Needs to pitch 400 innings in 17 and 18. With 200 coming up 18. Some inury language in there too. That would bring it up to 5/114. If that option doesn't vest, it's a bad trade. If it does, it's getting you pretty darn close to what it would take to get Lester. 6/144m. I just think it's crazy to give up prospects to get Hamels and not pay Lester. Joel Sherman believes the Mets have contacted Colorado about Tulo and Cargo. Wouldn't mind Tulo to the Mets. And, the Sox getting in on Cargo. nypost.com/2014/07/24/mets-to-rockies-lets-talk-tulowitzki-cargo-trades/
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 25, 2014 10:37:39 GMT -5
It's worth pointing out that by trading Lester, you remove the possibility of draft pick compensation, which a) means more teams are willing to bid for his services, and b) teams, if they want to think that way, can take the value of the pick they would have had to give up, and invest it in his salary.
This is one reason why the notion that Lester would be upset if they traded him is hard to support. It might make him millions.
So the only reason not to trade him is to reduce his free-market value. In order not to trade him, you'd have to be a) certain you wanted to resign him and b) pretty confident that you could re-sign him. If we were in that position (especially "a"), I think we would have signed him already.
The team that trades for him gets his value for two months and through the post-season, and they also gain the ability (which they share with everyone else, however) to sign him without giving up a pick. But adding a pitcher of his caliber has to have a very large impact on a team's chances to succeed in the post-season, especially if that team has a weak fourth starter who would be bumped out of the playoff rotation.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 25, 2014 11:41:42 GMT -5
The top guys still get their money under a QO. I don't see it hurting Lester's market.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2014 11:58:07 GMT -5
So the only reason not to trade him is to reduce his free-market value. In order not to trade him, you'd have to be a) certain you wanted to resign him and b) pretty confident that you could re-sign him. If we were in that position (especially "a"), I think we would have signed him already. As we've discussed before, trading him also severs a significant amount of the "hometown discount" he'd be willing to give to re-signing in Boston. Maybe not all of it, but at least a significant portion of it. That's a tangible cost, though far from a dispositive one.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 11:59:57 GMT -5
Jim Callis ?@jimcallismlb 45m I look at which contenders are best positioned in terms of talent to make splash at trade deadline: atmlb.com/1nChTkN . No. 1? @pirates Perfect fit, especially if we eat dollars for prospects.....
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 25, 2014 12:47:00 GMT -5
Jim Callis ?@jimcallismlb 45m I look at which contenders are best positioned in terms of talent to make splash at trade deadline: atmlb.com/1nChTkN . No. 1? @pirates Perfect fit, especially if we eat dollars for prospects..... Agreed, we also have a history of trading with them which seems to make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 25, 2014 17:56:45 GMT -5
|
|
|