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.
Lester, Gomes & cash traded to OAK for Cespedes + draft pick
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2014 8:24:50 GMT -5
To be fair Greinke isn't exactly a model of consistency either. Does Lester "deserve" the money? That's a hypothetical question. He's going to get it. No, the question was does Lester deserve Greinke money? Greinke is way more consistent than Lester. And better. Is he? ERA+ by year since 2008: Player A: 125, 205, 100, 103, 115, 135, 129, AVG = 125 Player B: 144, 136, 134, 124, 87, 110, 155, AVG = 124 ERA- by year since 2008: Player A: 78, 48, 100, 99, 87, 73, 77 Player B: 71, 73, 75, 82, 113, 90, 63 xFIP by year since 2008: Player A: 3.71, 3.09, 3.60, 2.56, 3.22, 3.45, 2.72 Player B: 4.03, 3.09, 3.18, 3.62, 3.82, 3.90, 3.10 Since you are a Red Sox fan and can likely spot Lester's 2012 season a mile away, it's probably clear which player is which, but at least with ERA+ considering that Lester's got by far the low outlier season, and Greinke's got by far the high outlier season, yet they're still about equal in average over that span, at the very least you can pretty much throw out that Greinke is "way more" consistent or "way" better than Lester. Maybe one of our more statistically inclined folks can explain why xFIP does seem to like Greinke more than ERA+ or ERA- does.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 7, 2014 8:33:09 GMT -5
I hated both the Lester and Lackey trade. In my mind the Miller trade was a steal, Peavy trade prob got us an average pen arm, and the other two were awful, but the Lackey trade has the potential to have some lasting upside if Craig can be what he was (or close) and Kelly proves to be a solid #3. Still, personally, I wouldn't have done either deal and would've worked the Lackey contract into a 2 year deal or explored trades for him in the off season where I could've gotten 20-25 teams involved. I didn't really like the return for Lester and Lackey, but I sorta get what the Sox were going for ... the team really, really needed guys in mid-career to round out the team. They had an aging core and guys who were just starting their careers. But the Late-Theo fallow period for the farm was coming back to bite them ... they had almost no one in their prime (Pedroia and Buchholz should be but have had trouble lately). So, they decided to take a chance with Cespedes, Craig, and Kelly, a trio of guys who are mid-career {edit to add: Kelly's sorta at the early stages of mid-career, but still} but still with some upside, and the latter two have considerable amount of team control in their contracts at reasonable rates. It's not a crazy strategy, and I think many people on this board (including me) were probably a little extra disappointed because of a focus that's a little too prospect-heavy. I'm still not convinced that was the best return for those assets, but if you think you need more guys in the middle of their career, you aren't going to get sure-fire stars for 2 months of Lester and a year+ of Lackey.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 7, 2014 8:37:51 GMT -5
I'm not denying that this has played into his terrible season, but I don't think it fully explains his lack of bat speed at the moment. That's what's killing him. His timing is off on large part because his bat has slowed down. I'm not going to assume or count on a full offseason of working out healthily is going to drastically change that. The fact is if you ignore his OPS and look more into his batted ball rates and HR/contact rate, he's been in decline for since the 2013 ASB, not just this year. There's a very real chance that Craig is done for good. I hope he can turn it around and think he can, but it's frustrating because he's making a lot of money, has upside, but his floor is as bad as it gets really and he's very hard to project. Yeah, the idea is that a lack of core/leg strength (which is vitally important for your swing) slowed his bat this year, and that maybe a full offseason means he can get it back. Players do sometimes just have one-year dips in their bat speed that they can recover from ( this ill-fated Keith Law prediction comes to mind, for instance). Like you said, we shouldn't assume that he'll return to the player he was in prior years, but we also shouldn't assume that he's a lost cause, either. Craig is a huge risk in that he could be great or he could be terrible, but the Red Sox aren't counting on him to be a starter-level guy (and, as braintoast mentioned, he's cheap in terms of cap dollars), so I think they can they afford to bear the risk. (Whether that means the Lackey trade was a good one is another question entirely. I am on record as being very much against it, which I still am. Think of it this way-- would you trade Kelly and Craig for a minimum-salaried Lackey this offseason? You'd do it in a heartbeat, right?)
Maybe, maybe not. If Craig's is a "core issue"...even though players were pretty good before they knew they had cores, and he comes back..no. Kelly is young and has a power arm. Plus do we know that Lackey would have played for the Sox at his low contract price? I recall rumblings that the Sox would have to up the ante or Lackey would retire. After the trade Lackey apparently expressed dissatisfaction with Boston and announced that he would accept the low 2015 salary with St. Louis where he would not have with Boston. Kelly will be around for a long time...How much time does Lackey have left? If Lackey had stayed, would he still be here for the turnaround or would it take years? The Sox jettisoned two older pitchers in an effort to get younger and they have made progress there.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 9:13:23 GMT -5
I guess I'm just not enamored with Kelly. He throws hard, but doesn't get swings-and-misses on his fastball and lacks the secondary stuff necessary to rack up strikeouts. Meanwhile, he also struggles to command his fastball and can't throw it consistently for strikes. He's a decent enough 4th starter, but this organization has that sort of guy in droves. I guess he's got upside, but at a certain point, guys just are who they are (I'm rapidly reaching that point with Webster, by the way).
There were rumors that Lackey was dissatisfied, but I think it was mostly just the idea of the team trading his buddy Lester and the specter of a lengthy rebuild that spooked him. If the Red Sox set themselves up as a contender next year and/or extended him for reasonable dollars, I think he would have been fine sticking around.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Oct 7, 2014 11:30:25 GMT -5
I guess I'm just not enamored with Kelly. He throws hard, but doesn't get swings-and-misses on his fastball and lacks the secondary stuff necessary to rack up strikeouts. Meanwhile, he also struggles to command his fastball and can't throw it consistently for strikes. He's a decent enough 4th starter, but this organization has that sort of guy in droves. I guess he's got upside, but at a certain point, guys just are who they are (I'm rapidly reaching that point with Webster, by the way). There were rumors that Lackey was dissatisfied, but I think it was mostly just the idea of the team trading his buddy Lester and the specter of a lengthy rebuild that spooked him. If the Red Sox set themselves up as a contender next year and/or extended him for reasonable dollars, I think he would have been fine sticking around. www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20141005-will-red-sox-come-to-regret-trading-john-lackey.eceIn the link above, Lackey is quoted on saying he did not know if he was going to honor the last year of his contract (with Boston). Considering Lackey's mostly crappy time with the Red Sox, I tend to believe that Lackey made it clear that he wanted out, and that the front office had enough. There was chicken and beer gate, Lackey getting pummeled by fans and media for his performance while pitching hurt in 2012 and probably in 2011 as well, his generally surly public attitude, and his high profile divorce. Hell, he was barely able to acknowledge the fans during the clinching game of last year's world series. Here is his quote after the Sox won the world series with Lackey on the Mound:“It’s been tough,’’ Lackey said of his personal journey since 2011, while the celebration roiled around him on the field. “There have been some times that weren’t a whole lot of fun, but it was pretty nice tonight.’’ Lackey walked off to a frenzied standing ovation, the crowd chanting his name, after he loaded the bases with two outs in the seventh. Unlike his departures after previous postseason starts at Fenway, he doffed his cap to a fandom that has often been rough on him. “It sounded a little different,’’ he said, bemused, of the crowd’s love. “It was nice.’’ Lackey clearly has not forgotten the scorn and anger that has been directed at him. Asked to reflect on his redemptive experience, he said, “I’ll be honest with you, I’m so tired of talking about what I went through.’’ Moments earlier, he had been smiling and holding his young daughter, resplendent in her pink tiara earmuffs. Now, he was telling reporters, “Can we talk about winning this and having a good season one time?’’ When he was asked about the Sox bouncing back from last year’s hellish season, he reminded the reporter, “I didn’t play last year, but I get blamed for that one, too.’’ www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/10/31/red-sox-pitcher-john-lackey-completes-turn-redemption/m4rF3zU5CO5sLA3B5hbmQJ/story.htmlIn the midst of what should have been unmitigated celebration, Lackey was recounting old hurts and nursing old grudges. I don't think it is a stretch to say that Lackey has been wanting out for awhile, and the terrible 2014 season was probably the last straw/perfect opportunity to force his way out. Not directly responding to Jmei anymore, but a common refrain on this board is the desire to see the front office buy players in front of their peak years or buy low on good players having a down year and see those players rebound as Red Sox. It is a pretty sound idea, and I think that is exactly what the front office was trying to do in this case. Not to sound like John Henry's press secretary, but if one wants the Red Sox to be bold and to take good risks, then these are the types of trades that you have to be okay with, or at least wait andsee how they play out. And before you write off Allen Craig, google "David Ortiz struggling" and look for stories from 2009-2010. Hell, many posters here were positive that Ortiz was done, specifically because his bat looked glacier slow. Kelly and Craig was a classic high-risk, high reward play and credit to the front office for making that effort.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 7, 2014 11:58:23 GMT -5
I just realized that Felix Doubrount put up 1.8 fWAR in 2012, and Joe Kelly put up 1.9 fWAR between 2012-2014 (MLB Career). Doubrount was worth 2.9 fWar in 2013. Doubrount is a little more that 7 months older than Kelly.
Who was the headliner in the Lackey trade, Kelly or Craig? I really don't know. I agree with the high risk thought on this, if Craig and Kelly hit their ceilings this trade would of been a steal, but there is also a pretty good chance they don't add much value as Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 12:25:55 GMT -5
a common refrain on this board is the desire to see the front office buy players in front of their peak years or buy low on good players having a down year and see those players rebound as Red Sox. It is a pretty sound idea, and I think that is exactly what the front office was trying to do in this case. Not to sound like John Henry's press secretary, but if one wants the Red Sox to be bold and to take good risks, then these are the types of trades that you have to be okay with, or at least wait andsee how they play out. And before you write off Allen Craig, google "David Ortiz struggling" and look for stories from 2009-2010. Hell, many posters here were positive that Ortiz was done, specifically because his bat looked glacier slow. Kelly and Craig was a classic high-risk, high reward play and credit to the front office for making that effort. It's a fair point, and the buy-low strategy is great when you're picking up low-cost free agents or filling the back end of your roster with wild cards. But the 2015 roster is already filled with players like that (Castillo, Victorino, Buchholz, Webster/RDLR, and to a lesser extent Betts and Vazquez), and they could sure use a steady number two/three starter more than a couple more high-risk/reward guys. Even if they had to move Lackey, I think they might have been better off opting either for more certain veterans (though this would have been difficult; not many contenders would have followed Oakland's lead) or opting for trade chips that they could flip during the offseason for more certain veterans (read: prospects). Of course, not knowing what else was on the table makes evaluating that difficult, which is why the only way I've ever criticized the Lackey trade is to suggest that they would have been better off keeping Lackey and calling his bluff re: retiring. Maybe you're right and he was serious about not wanting to play in Boston, though.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 12:30:49 GMT -5
I just realized that Felix Doubrount put up 1.8 fWAR in 2012, and Joe Kelly put up 1.9 fWAR between 2012-2014 (MLB Career). Doubrount was worth 2.9 fWar in 2013. Doubrount is a little more that 7 months older than Kelly. This is mostly one of those FIP-WAR versus RA9-WAR things. Kelly has put up just 1.9 FIP-wins but 4.4 RA9-wins over his career. The former would make him a fringy fifth starter (1.2 wins/200 IP), the latter would make him a very good third starter (2.7 wins/200 IP). Doubront is basically the opposite, with 4.9 FIP-WAR over his career but just 2.0 RA9-WAR.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 7, 2014 12:37:56 GMT -5
I really don't understand what people were hoping to get for John Lackey and Jon Lester. People who were against the Lester deal befuddle me. The offense has clearly been more productive with Cespedes in the lineup. Just look at the tailspin that ensued after the Oakland Athletics traded him. Granted, a lot of players were also caught crashing back down to Earth as well. The Red Sox will now have Cespedes going into 2015 and have every opportunity to extend him while giving up essentially nothing at this point. There was no way Jon Lester wasn't going to test the free agent market. The Red Sox can also now re-sign Lester and literally add to 2015 and beyond (also acquired a draft pick) without subtracting any assets.
John Lackey was not going to play in Boston for the minimum. Even if he did, so what? I'll take a kid who has the ceiling of a borderline 2/3 and the floor of a 4 for the next few years than one year of a 1/2. Mix that with a guy who has the potential to be a starting 1B and can play some outfield and that's not a bad haul. Maybe it could have been better, but the value was definitely there.
Let's see how the 2015 roster looks come spring training before fully grading out these trades.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Oct 7, 2014 12:40:39 GMT -5
<I thought something on August 1; I still think it now. I'll repost in a few months.>
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 7, 2014 13:32:14 GMT -5
<I thought something on August 1; I still think it now. I'll repost in a few months.> C'mon. A meteor might hit the planet before then. Plus, like, you need to throw that marker down on the table now.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 7, 2014 14:57:56 GMT -5
<I thought something on August 1; I still think it now. I'll repost in a few months.> C'mon. A meteor might hit the planet before then. Plus, like, you need to throw that marker down on the table now. I also have a prediction on who will win the world series, in how many games, and the scores of those games. I'll post next month not to ruin the surprise.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 7, 2014 15:19:16 GMT -5
C'mon. A meteor might hit the planet before then. Plus, like, you need to throw that marker down on the table now. I also have a prediction on who will win the world series, in how many games, and the scores of those games. I'll post next month not to ruin the surprise. Love it. After you post the WS results, I'll post the 2015 RS 25 man roster.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Oct 7, 2014 16:26:52 GMT -5
I hated both the Lester and Lackey trade. In my mind the Miller trade was a steal, Peavy trade prob got us an average pen arm, and the other two were awful, but the Lackey trade has the potential to have some lasting upside if Craig can be what he was (or close) and Kelly proves to be a solid #3. Still, personally, I wouldn't have done either deal and would've worked the Lackey contract into a 2 year deal or explored trades for him in the off season where I could've gotten 20-25 teams involved. These trades were made simply because the Sox knew they were going nowhere and wanted to build up the offense which was terrible. Both trades were made with an eye on the future giving young pitchers their chance to show what they could give them in the Majors. It was all evaluating exactly what they had with these youngsters. I saw a lot of good prospects with decent projectability. Mookie Betts is a definite keeper. The young pitchers were not lights out,but did have some decent games. Lackey was to play for 500 thou this year and was reported to be disgruntled in thinking about that and yet when traded to the Cardinals said he would play for that amount no problem. Tells me that he wasn't to thrilled with Boston from all the reporting in previous years. Better to trade him than to have a malcontent pitching for you.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 7, 2014 16:57:53 GMT -5
... In the midst of what should have been unmitigated celebration, Lackey was recounting old hurts and nursing old grudges. I don't think it is a stretch to say that Lackey has been wanting out for awhile, and the terrible 2014 season was probably the last straw/perfect opportunity to force his way out. Not directly responding to Jmei anymore, but a common refrain on this board is the desire to see the front office buy players in front of their peak years or buy low on good players having a down year and see those players rebound as Red Sox. It is a pretty sound idea, and I think that is exactly what the front office was trying to do in this case. Not to sound like John Henry's press secretary, but if one wants the Red Sox to be bold and to take good risks, then these are the types of trades that you have to be okay with, or at least wait andsee how they play out. And before you write off Allen Craig, google "David Ortiz struggling" and look for stories from 2009-2010. Hell, many posters here were positive that Ortiz was done, specifically because his bat looked glacier slow. Kelly and Craig was a classic high-risk, high reward play and credit to the front office for making that effort. You've laid out the case very well. The relentless criticisms from the press can't help but push their way into the attitude of the general public, and onto this board. Given the fact that the old Lackey returned, all was supposed to be forgotten, but that's a bit of stretch. These are human beings after all. I don't think he was willing to stick around either. I suppose they could have kept him and insisted that he honor his contract, but it's hard to see what indentured servitude would bring to the team. I wasn't surprised at all that he changed his tune once a Cardinal. The contradictions you describe, the understanding of what the FO has said they'd like to do, and the rancor when they do it, isn't restricted to the search for trade value either. It's also reflected in the unwillingness to let young players develop. The expectation is that they should perform immediately so that the team can get on with being the Red Sox©. That ignores both the typical trajectory for young players, and the radically changed environment that has the team choosing to grow their own, and doing it patiently. They've chosen a very different business model than that of the MFY. I'm willing to see how that plays out over the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 7, 2014 17:29:13 GMT -5
I liked the Lackey Trade, given his issues with sticking to the contract, his age and how good Kelley's stuff is- even if Craig is a no go. The Lester deal was the best they could do given the market at the time and the new reticence of teams to trade prospects. But given the historical value of acquiring a true ace with Lester's elite post season pedigree, it was a surprisingly low return to get a corner outfielder on a one year deal with an about .760 ops.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 7, 2014 19:33:58 GMT -5
I guess I'm just not enamored with Kelly. He throws hard, but doesn't get swings-and-misses on his fastball and lacks the secondary stuff necessary to rack up strikeouts. Meanwhile, he also struggles to command his fastball and can't throw it consistently for strikes. He's a decent enough 4th starter, but this organization has that sort of guy in droves. I guess he's got upside, but at a certain point, guys just are who they are (I'm rapidly reaching that point with Webster, by the way). There were rumors that Lackey was dissatisfied, but I think it was mostly just the idea of the team trading his buddy Lester and the specter of a lengthy rebuild that spooked him. If the Red Sox set themselves up as a contender next year and/or extended him for reasonable dollars, I think he would have been fine sticking around. www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20141005-will-red-sox-come-to-regret-trading-john-lackey.eceIn the link above, Lackey is quoted on saying he did not know if he was going to honor the last year of his contract (with Boston). Considering Lackey's mostly crappy time with the Red Sox, I tend to believe that Lackey made it clear that he wanted out, and that the front office had enough. There was chicken and beer gate, Lackey getting pummeled by fans and media for his performance while pitching hurt in 2012 and probably in 2011 as well, his generally surly public attitude, and his high profile divorce. Hell, he was barely able to acknowledge the fans during the clinching game of last year's world series. Here is his quote after the Sox won the world series with Lackey on the Mound:“It’s been tough,’’ Lackey said of his personal journey since 2011, while the celebration roiled around him on the field. “There have been some times that weren’t a whole lot of fun, but it was pretty nice tonight.’’ Lackey walked off to a frenzied standing ovation, the crowd chanting his name, after he loaded the bases with two outs in the seventh. Unlike his departures after previous postseason starts at Fenway, he doffed his cap to a fandom that has often been rough on him. “It sounded a little different,’’ he said, bemused, of the crowd’s love. “It was nice.’’ Lackey clearly has not forgotten the scorn and anger that has been directed at him. Asked to reflect on his redemptive experience, he said, “I’ll be honest with you, I’m so tired of talking about what I went through.’’ Moments earlier, he had been smiling and holding his young daughter, resplendent in her pink tiara earmuffs. Now, he was telling reporters, “Can we talk about winning this and having a good season one time?’’ When he was asked about the Sox bouncing back from last year’s hellish season, he reminded the reporter, “I didn’t play last year, but I get blamed for that one, too.’’ www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/10/31/red-sox-pitcher-john-lackey-completes-turn-redemption/m4rF3zU5CO5sLA3B5hbmQJ/story.htmlIn the midst of what should have been unmitigated celebration, Lackey was recounting old hurts and nursing old grudges. I don't think it is a stretch to say that Lackey has been wanting out for awhile, and the terrible 2014 season was probably the last straw/perfect opportunity to force his way out. Not directly responding to Jmei anymore, but a common refrain on this board is the desire to see the front office buy players in front of their peak years or buy low on good players having a down year and see those players rebound as Red Sox. It is a pretty sound idea, and I think that is exactly what the front office was trying to do in this case. Not to sound like John Henry's press secretary, but if one wants the Red Sox to be bold and to take good risks, then these are the types of trades that you have to be okay with, or at least wait andsee how they play out. And before you write off Allen Craig, google "David Ortiz struggling" and look for stories from 2009-2010. Hell, many posters here were positive that Ortiz was done, specifically because his bat looked glacier slow. Kelly and Craig was a classic high-risk, high reward play and credit to the front office for making that effort. That's good information, fellow rook, and I recall Lackey saying that he wasn't sure whether he'd play out 2015 for $500k. But at the time, I took it to be a transparent ploy for a longer-term commitment. Also, let's think this through. Once he was traded, he quickly declared that he'd play 2015 in St.L. for the $500,000. But are we really to believe that if the RS had offered him $10 million a year/2 years, he would have turned it down? Was he that down on Boston that he's happier with $19.5 million less in guaranteed money in St.L? I just find that hard to believe. I'd also note that a lot (not all) of the crappiness he experienced in Boston didn't have anything to do with where he was playing. His 2011 and 2012 were miserable because of a major injury and subsequent surgery. And without knowing (or wanting to know) the details, I have to think his divorce had nothing to do with Boston either. I also recall that his wife had breast cancer, which had to be tough. But again, no Boston connection there. And his time in Boston clearly had its high points. He was decent in 2010 when he led the staff in IP and, of course, there was 2013. I remain baffled as to why the RS felt compelled to move a solid SP who was due to pitch for the minimum in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 7, 2014 19:53:46 GMT -5
There had to be some bad blood and he had to go. I think Lackey got a raw deal also and would have preferred if they had extended him but they obviously felt they had to clean house.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 7, 2014 22:21:14 GMT -5
I really don't understand what people were hoping to get for John Lackey I was hoping to get something as good as or better than having Lackey on the team for 2015. Is that really too much to ask? As best I can tell, Kelly is no better than Wright and Craig is no better than Nava, so the only thing they are adding to the Red Sox is salary cap hits.
|
|
conoz
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by conoz on Oct 7, 2014 22:40:25 GMT -5
I really don't understand what people were hoping to get for John Lackey I was hoping to get something as good as or better than having Lackey on the team for 2015. Is that really too much to ask? As best I can tell, Kelly is no better than Wright and Craig is no better than Nava, so the only thing they are adding to the Red Sox is salary cap hits. I
|
|
conoz
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by conoz on Oct 7, 2014 22:45:39 GMT -5
I am thinking from down here in Miami,that one of the options with Cespedes is to include him in a possible Stanton trade since his marketability as a Cuban will fit in nicely if marlins can't sign Stanton.no matter what the Marlins are saying about not trading Stanton.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 7, 2014 22:57:38 GMT -5
I am thinking from down here in Miami,that one of the options with Cespedes is to include him in a possible Stanton trade since his marketability as a Cuban will fit in nicely if marlins can't sign Stanton.no matter what the Marlins are saying about not trading Stanton. Why would the Marlins want a rent-a-player for Stanton? I doubt they even trade him this winter anyways. And if they do trade Stanton, they're going to want top prospects/and/or young major leaguers for him, guys they can control for five to six years. If Cespedes gets dealt it's either for a LH hitting corner OF, a LH hitting 3b, or a starting pitcher who can hopefully take Lackey's place in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 14, 2014 8:59:24 GMT -5
I am thinking from down here in Miami,that one of the options with Cespedes is to include him in a possible Stanton trade since his marketability as a Cuban will fit in nicely if marlins can't sign Stanton.no matter what the Marlins are saying about not trading Stanton. Why would the Marlins want a rent-a-player for Stanton? I doubt they even trade him this winter anyways. And if they do trade Stanton, they're going to want top prospects/and/or young major leaguers for him, guys they can control for five to six years. If Cespedes gets dealt it's either for a LH hitting corner OF, a LH hitting 3b, or a starting pitcher who can hopefully take Lackey's place in the rotation. The key word in his post is "include" Cespedes in a Stanton trade. Of course, other top prospects would be part of the package. Cespedes could help mute some of the criticism from the Miami fans about dealing Stanton away. Yoenis and the Marlins could be interested in a long term agreement. As for taking Lackey's place in the rotation, I'm thinking Kelly can be that guy. He impressed after his first few starts in the Boston rotation. Lackey was #3 in the Sox rotation in 2013 and early in this season.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 14, 2014 9:36:02 GMT -5
There has been 0 indication that Miami would even listen to offers for Stanton. Everything that has come out publicly would suggest the exact opposite, that Stanton is not available and that Miami would like to extend him. The same way King Felix and Tulo have never been available to this point. It is wishful speculation to think otherwise. Until the 2015-16 offseason, any time spent thinking about a Stanton trade is time wasted.
So let me waste just a couple more minutes and say that Cespedes is a terrible match as a headliner in a Stanton trade. You want to trade a less productive, older, more expensive players with less team control, to a rebuilding team for their cornerstone homegrown superstar? Sure include him in a package, Cespedes + X = Stanton but I think you are underestimating what X would have to be to justify the deal.
As for the Lackey trade, I have to think the Red Sox had higher opinions of Kelly and Craig than their performance this year. I tend to think that Lackey should have brought back more, but let's think of it this way. This offseason would you trade back Kelly and Craig for 1 season of Lackey at league minimum? It is very well possible that Kelly and Craig put up better value than Lackey in 2014 alone, not counting the future season value. I would also bet that Kelly + Craig make less money than Lackey alone in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 14, 2014 9:44:25 GMT -5
At this point, i'll remind everyone that this thread is supposed to be discussing the Cespedes/Lester trade. It has gone way off course organically, but at this point, a lot of the discussion is duplicative of things in other threads. Unless you're going to discuss the Cespedes/Lester trade or something related, this isn't the thread for you.
|
|
|