|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 23, 2015 15:54:01 GMT -5
The fan in me would never trade Pedroia, the business side of me would definitely consider it. Now, we don't HAVE to trade him because he is a good player that makes this team better. But It could make sense to get his money and late years off the books while allowing Betts to slide into 2nd and JBJ to take over in CF. However, even if I was going to trade Pedroia, I'd do it after the 2016 season because I think we can compete in 2016 and Margot might be ready to slide into RF by then. By then you'd have to ask for Dustin Pedroia's permission as he becomes a 10-5 guy at some point late in the season. I've been driving the bus, and I'll admit it's a long shot. When I first mentioned it over a year ago and before the Sox signed Castillo when I was pressed to name a player I came up with Calhoun. Now JBJ has reasserted himself into the pitcure too. Just a year ago the OF looked bleak with little help on the horizon. Things change. Pedey getting hurt again, Gomer Pyle says, "surprise surprise surprise", did not help matters at all. He's had 6 surgeries including one every year since & including 2010. Maybe he avoids actual surgery for the first time this year but that hardly matters considering he's barely played more than half a season with 12 games to go. If the team is doing well and contending next year, which with the addition of an ace and at least half a rebuilt bullpen can happen, it would be hard to move him if he's doing well. Other than that scenario it HAS to be explored, I'm a fan too, of the uniform, and the Sox will be around a long time after Pedey is gone. If there is a chance to make this team better even if it's long term as long as the present is as good I make that move 8 days a week. Winning is the means to the end. That is the duty of a GM whether or not anyone here like that. DD has no loyalty towards anyone here not should he.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 24, 2015 8:16:41 GMT -5
i don't think it's as easy as trade Pedroia and slide Betts into second base. What happens with the outfield then? So we fill one hole and open up another? Also,who's going to give up an ace or cost controlled up and coming pitcher for an aging second baseman who's best years could very well be behind him. I think Pedroia's more valuable to the red sox than to most other teams. I don't think the return is would be worth it in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 24, 2015 13:04:49 GMT -5
i don't think it's as easy as trade Pedroia and slide Betts into second base. What happens with the outfield then? So we fill one hole and open up another? Also,who's going to give up an ace or cost controlled up and coming pitcher for an aging second baseman who's best years could very well be behind him. I think Pedroia's more valuable to the red sox than to most other teams. I don't think the return is would be worth it in my opinion. We only need a stop gap solution in the OF, as Margots' ETA is late next yr and Benintendis' is late 2017, although I'm slightly bullish on his ETA. This years FA OF class is listed below. Another idea is to go all in on Heyward in RF (he's likely to get the kind of deal Panda received except he's likely to earn it. He has the 2nd best WAR (5.1 & 5.2 in '14) of RF'ers in baseball way behind Harper. He'll be 26 for most of next season to so even a 5 yr deal would get him to 30 and another big payday for him, thus making the length of the deal one his agent is likely seeking. The OF would be Castillo, JBJ & Heyward. Margot then becomes even more expendable perhaps as part of a package with Pedrioa and/or Buchholz ($26M+ combined next yr) for Strasburg plus. Your outfield is set for 5 years and still has flexibility to move pieces. These proposals along with the expiring money owed to the Dodgers adds about $10M to the coffers. Your infield has cornerstones up the all important middle for at least 4 years in Bogaerts & Betts manning the middle and reminds me of the Detriot duo of Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker. Top prospects Moncada and Devers continue to develop and can round out this infield before either Betts or Bogaerts potentially become free agents. Assuming the Sox sign an ace like pitcher this offseason and spend $25M+ on Price/Cueto/Zimmerman/Grienke type pitcher (Side note Kazmir would be far cheaper and not a bad booby prize), adding Strasburg (or another similar pitcher in a similar situation) to the mix in a trade with our 3, 4 & 5 pitchers being Miley/Porcello and E-Rod in no particular order and Kelley/Owens/Johnson/Wright would provide us alot of depth too. Outfielders Jeff Baker Jose Bautista * Yoenis Cespedes Alejandro De Aza David DeJesus * Marlon Byrd * Rajai Davis Chris Denorfia Dexter Fowler Alex Gordon * Corey Hart Jason Heyward Torii Hunter Austin Jackson Matt Joyce Nate McLouth * David Murphy Gerardo Parra Carlos Quentin * Ryan Raburn Alex Rios * Cody Ross * Grady Sizemore Denard Span Drew Stubbs Ryan Sweeney Justin Upton Will Venable Shane Victorino Chris Young Delmon Young
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Sept 24, 2015 13:26:38 GMT -5
Pedroia will not be traded anytime soon PERIOD!!! As we all know the Sox have an abundance of young players that have and will continue to make it to the show. Pedey is the perfect role model and leader of these young guys. On top of that he is still a very good player when healthy. And then there is the fact that he is John Henrys favorite player.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 24, 2015 14:04:01 GMT -5
Jason Heyward is getting at least twice as much as Sandoval, if not more (total money committed). If you add Sandoval and Hanley's deals together that's roughly the Heyward projection (I expect more than that tbh). The only way Heyward would consider a deal for less than 8 years would be with a massive AAV overpay (definitely over $25m per) and/or an early player friendly opt-out. If he decides to target 5 year deals he's still getting $28-30m per, easily.
Comparing the Sandoval deal to Heyward's future deal is as misguided as comparing Price's future deal to Porcello's.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 24, 2015 20:48:32 GMT -5
Jason Heyward is getting at least twice as much as Sandoval, if not more (total money committed). If you add Sandoval and Hanley's deals together that's roughly the Heyward projection (I expect more than that tbh). The only way Heyward would consider a deal for less than 8 years would be with a massive AAV overpay (definitely over $25m per) and/or an early player friendly opt-out. If he decides to target 5 year deals he's still getting $28-30m per, easily. Comparing the Sandoval deal to Heyward's future deal is as misguided as comparing Price's future deal to Porcello's. In retrospect, chances are he'll get a deal that on a yearly basis will be closer to what you claim but I disagree on the length. Its makes sense to get 5 yr deal make a ton then get another huge payday at 30 years old. If Boras is his agent he'll likely do that. Who compared Prices deal to Porcello's? No-one straw man argument.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 24, 2015 22:38:56 GMT -5
Players don't look to sign for 3-5 years less than the market will give them, players look to maximize their total earnings. His age is unique, but it's much more likely Heyward would insist on an opt out clause around the third or fourth season of a contract to give him the best of both worlds. He's having a very good season and his stock is high, this will be the best opportunity he ever has to get paid. It'd make no sense to take a shorter guarantee and leave tons of money on the table just to angle for a potential second free agency half a decade later. He's likely to get an offer around the $200m mark this winter, even at $30m per on a five year deal he'd be leaving $50m+ on the table just for this potential second free agency payday. I'm guessing this winter he'll either sign for $200m+ on a long term deal or $140-160m with some type of player friendly opt out in the contract.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 25, 2015 10:23:07 GMT -5
Players don't look to sign for 3-5 years less than the market will give them, players look to maximize their total earnings. His age is unique, but it's much more likely Heyward would insist on an opt out clause around the third or fourth season of a contract to give him the best of both worlds. He's having a very good season and his stock is high, this will be the best opportunity he ever has to get paid. It'd make no sense to take a shorter guarantee and leave tons of money on the table just to angle for a potential second free agency half a decade later. He's likely to get an offer around the $200m mark this winter, even at $30m per on a five year deal he'd be leaving $50m+ on the table just for this potential second free agency payday. I'm guessing this winter he'll either sign for $200m+ on a long term deal or $140-160m with some type of player friendly opt out in the contract. Chances are you are right. He will seek and there is a solid chance he'll get that opt out to. Back to potential plan A, stop gap measure then waiting for the prospects on the farm to blossom.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 25, 2015 21:57:09 GMT -5
Jason Heyward is getting at least twice as much as Sandoval, if not more (total money committed). If you add Sandoval and Hanley's deals together that's roughly the Heyward projection (I expect more than that tbh). The only way Heyward would consider a deal for less than 8 years would be with a massive AAV overpay (definitely over $25m per) and/or an early player friendly opt-out. If he decides to target 5 year deals he's still getting $28-30m per, easily. Comparing the Sandoval deal to Heyward's future deal is as misguided as comparing Price's future deal to Porcello's. In retrospect, chances are he'll get a deal that on a yearly basis will be closer to what you claim but I disagree on the length. Its makes sense to get 5 yr deal make a ton then get another huge payday at 30 years old. If Boras is his agent he'll likely do that. Who compared Prices deal to Porcello's? No-one straw man argument. Heyward will be looking for 200M$. And I'm pretty sure he will get it.
|
|