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 redsox4242 on Oct 21, 2014 21:56:26 GMT -5
The Cespedes trade makes NO SENSE if he is not signed long term.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Oct 21, 2014 22:36:10 GMT -5
So long as it is in ALL CAPS you can repeat yourself and give no explanation simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 22, 2014 9:42:48 GMT -5
The Cespedes trade makes NO SENSE if he is not signed long term. It makes "NO SENSE" to trade a half-year of a player who is hitting free agency on a non-contending team for a year of a player for a team that will start next season 0-0 like everyone else?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 22, 2014 9:43:27 GMT -5
I don't understand how people can say the Red Sox got nothing for Lester as if 2015 at-bats for Cespedes don't count for anything. If the Red Sox win the WS next year, Cespedes hits 35 HR during the 2015 year and walks as a FA, people will still get mad about the trade. I guess case in point, because the trade will make NO SENSE no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 22, 2014 11:56:12 GMT -5
If the Red Sox win the WS next year, Cespedes hits 35 HR during the 2015 year and walks as a FA, people will still get mad about the trade. I guess case in point, because the trade will make NO SENSE no matter what. The Sox got a year+ of an above average outfielder and a draft pick of an expiring asset. If you want to argue that not signing Lester earlier was the mistake, fine, but that's not the trade. Based on the circumstances that existed on the day the trade was made, it was an extremely good move. The Red Sox got a bunch of value for an asset that had essentially zero value for them. What is so hard to understand about this?
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 22, 2014 12:13:48 GMT -5
The Cespedes trade makes NO SENSE if he is not signed long term. What if, instead of signing him long term, they turn him over for a top starting pitcher like Johnny Cueto? Would that MAKE SENSE?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 22, 2014 12:34:22 GMT -5
I agree that Cespedes could play a key role on the 2015 Red Sox. Which is kind of why I'm frustrated about the Lackey deal. He was, as we've discussed ad nauseam, under contract for short money in 2015. He's also more likely to be good in 2015 than Kelly, and Cespedes makes Craig's role less obvious. The Lester trade was sort of a definitive statement that the Red Sox are a '15 contender, but the Lackey deal undermined that. I think that we are all being a bit too trade judgmental at this waaaay too early stage. Moreover we all believe that the team will look vastly different next May. As an aside, I don't think Mookie will be traded because leadoff guys are more rare than a blue lobster. I think the FO messed up the situation when they went out insisting on getting veterans back in deals rather than decent prospects, attempting to pacify seat fillers and the media over what is best for the long term best fit of the franchise. Not saying Kelly wasn't a decent pitcher, he is, taking back a struggling Craig who still had 3y guaranteed left and was already 30 didn't make sense. Lackey had to have been worth more, at least some organizations upper echelon kid. Miller brought back Rodriquez.. Why on earth did Lester go for another 1y rental for a guy without any chance of a QO? Lester should have gone for a package Garza like at the least. Instead, the FO focused on trying to keep a few more fans in the seats while they were in last place anyway? That makes all sorts of sense in an alternate reality of the NE media.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 22, 2014 12:40:20 GMT -5
I think that we are all being a bit too trade judgmental at this waaaay too early stage. Moreover we all believe that the team will look vastly different next May. As an aside, I don't think Mookie will be traded because leadoff guys are more rare than a blue lobster. I think the FO messed up the situation when they went out insisting on getting veterans back in deals rather than decent prospects, attempting to pacify seat fillers and the media over what is best for the long term best fit of the franchise. You just missed hitting Angry Rant Bingo in one sentence by "Larry Lucchino." Seriously man - that post is nothing but wild, baseless conjecture. We don't know that the Red Sox "insisted" on getting veterans back, we don't know if they were offered decent prospects, and they certainly didn't trade for Allen Craig and Joe Kelly in an attempt to pacify Shaughnessy and Massarotti. This kind of post is right out of the Herald comment section. Why is it so hard to believe that the Red Sox simply made a trade you disagree with. Why do there have to be these nefarious undertones of not doing what's right by the franchise?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 22, 2014 13:10:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 22, 2014 13:16:01 GMT -5
In the part that you quoted it says that the Red Sox were asking for prospects for Lester and didn't get them.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 22, 2014 18:42:24 GMT -5
Went after top prospects, then kicked it back to cespedes. Wish they would have made the move earlier before beane had made his deal for Samardza (spelling) and Russell would have still been in play.
Think about it, really. Most of the teams that eventually made it and were serious contenders had pretty nifty rotations, or fairly well set ones 1-3.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 22, 2014 18:47:26 GMT -5
Went after top prospects, then kicked it back to cespedes. Wish they would have made the move earlier before beane had made his deal for Samardza (spelling) and Russell would have still been in play. Think about it, really. Most of the teams that eventually made it and were serious contenders had pretty nifty rotations, or fairly well set ones 1-3. No he would not have been in play. One pitcher had another season left on his contract another is now a FA Edit: plus it was two pitchers to the A's not one
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Oct 22, 2014 19:19:26 GMT -5
The Cespedes trade makes NO SENSE if he is not signed long term. What if, instead of signing him long term, they turn him over for a top starting pitcher like Johnny Cueto? Would that MAKE SENSE? I would love that trade, Johnny Cueto is a solid pitcher. And is under 30 years old. That would be a instant upgrade to our rotation.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Oct 22, 2014 19:28:18 GMT -5
So long as it is in ALL CAPS you can repeat yourself and give no explanation simultaneously. So we trade our best pitcher for a rental player. And then we turn around and trade Cespedes or he walks after 2015. Sorry pal, I would rather have some top tier prospects who we have team control over rather then a selfish player like Cespedes, who won't play Right Field because he is all about himself. He was just as bad in left field like Johnny Gomes was. His laziness in the outfield cost us, epecially against seattle when we gave up 5 runs in the 9th. Sorry, I don't want players like that on the Red Sox. After this years disasterous season, we need players who play hard and put the team first and not this "me" first attitude.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 22, 2014 19:42:37 GMT -5
Maybe the Sox just wanted a power bat BADLY and Cespedes was the best they could do to address an area of obvious need at the break. I think it is as simple as that. They also liked that he wasn't horrible defensively. He's a good player and they probably thought they might even be able to extend him. Overall he was a good fit. Then they saw Betts emerge and signed Castillo. Paradigm shift...
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 22, 2014 19:45:46 GMT -5
So long as it is in ALL CAPS you can repeat yourself and give no explanation simultaneously. So we trade our best pitcher for a rental player. And then we turn around and trade Cespedes or he walks after 2015. Sorry pal, I would rather have some top tier prospects who we have team control over rather then a selfish player like Cespedes, who won't play Right Field because he is all about himself. He was just as bad in left field like Johnny Gomes was. His laziness in the outfield cost us, epecially against seattle when we gave up 5 runs in the 9th. Sorry, I don't want players like that on the Red Sox. After this years disasterous season, we need players who play hard and put the team first and not this "me" first attitude. And for the 100th time, isn't that what the Red Sox wanted as well? It was quoted today in one of these threads that after failing with the Dodgers, Pirates and Cardinals for a coup of prospects they went towards bolstering next years club with Cespedes. You are acting like the Red Sox had a pick of top end prospects and chose Cespedes. We got Cespedes and a draft pick which we have the ability to draft a talented prospect that we do control for 6 years. Had we held onto Lester we would have gotten a better draft pick by 30 or so slots, that is it. Yes the Red Sox were trading their best pitcher but this isn't 5 years ago when the Oakland A's or any team trading Lester would get the potential of two first round draft picks back. That was a time that it would be entirely reasonable to be upset with the return of Cespedes and I am nearly certain that the Red Sox would not have traded Lester for that return had the old rules been in place. At the end of the day the team trading for Jon Lester were trading for a couple of months of service and the ability to negotiate with him which any team realizes that is probably not worth a damn. He wasn't a tremendously valuable commodity when you want to talk about a team giving up serious prospects. As is the case with what happened with Oakland, there is really no incentive for a team to give up 6 years of control to roll the dice with Lester and believe he will return them with a World Series. Most people would be irate here if we traded Henry Owens or a Blake Swihart for someone that was a rental which we were not going to get any compensation for. Why is it unreasonable to applaud other teams for showing prudent behavior as well (Not specifically you but being happy a team like the Pirates didn't get far as they didn't want to part with their prospects as was said on this site)?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 22, 2014 19:59:12 GMT -5
So long as it is in ALL CAPS you can repeat yourself and give no explanation simultaneously. So we trade our best pitcher for a rental player. "Our best pitcher" (who was under contract for two more months) for a "rental" (who's under contract for 2015). A year of Cepedes is worth more than zero years of Lester. This math isn't hard.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Oct 22, 2014 20:12:09 GMT -5
If we could Eduardo Rodriguez for Andrew Miller, who also was a rental player for the Orioles, I am certain we could of got a top prospect for Jon Lester. Renato Nunez or Matt Chapman would of been reasonable compensation and I am sure one of them for Jon Lester straight up would of got the deal done.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 22, 2014 20:44:54 GMT -5
If we could Eduardo Rodriguez for Andrew Miller, who also was a rental player for the Orioles, I am certain we could of got a top prospect for Jon Lester. Renato Nunez or Matt Chapman would of been reasonable compensation and I am sure one of them for Jon Lester straight up would of got the deal done. Or not. What's your source on this?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 22, 2014 22:57:51 GMT -5
If we could Eduardo Rodriguez for Andrew Miller, who also was a rental player for the Orioles, I am certain we could of got a top prospect for Jon Lester. Renato Nunez or Matt Chapman would of been reasonable compensation and I am sure one of them for Jon Lester straight up would of got the deal done. Or maybe the Orioles saw the Tigers about to acquire Miller and decided to overpay with a prospect that had been struggling for them to bolster their bullpen and hinder a possible opponent in October. What teams desperately needed starting pitching? One could argue the Pirates but it is pretty clear they valued their prospects heavily. The Cardinals were discussed but it was more of a luxury for them as they had good enough SP to win it and likewise with the Dodgers although that didn't come to fruition. As for Renato Nunez or Matt Chapman why are you inclined to think one of them for Jon Lester would have gotten it done? We are talking about an A's team that had just traded away several key young assets to the Cubs. Could it have been very possible that they didn't want to go too deep into their farm for what they viewed as a luxury? The two most talked about teams (Cardinals and Dodgers) as well as the team who dealt for Lester all had pretty stable rotations as opposed to the Orioles who desperately needed a lefty out of the bullpen. Need will motivate you to give up more than you should on most occasions.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 23, 2014 10:25:48 GMT -5
Look at what the Rays got for Price, who had another year left and then compare the return.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 23, 2014 11:53:37 GMT -5
How about we get a realistic picture here? How many teams were even in the market for 2 months and maybe a few playoff games from the guy? What are we talking about, maybe 6? What's the pool of available talent? This thing is not open ended.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 23, 2014 13:18:48 GMT -5
How about we get a realistic picture here? How many teams were even in the market for 2 months and maybe a few playoff games from the guy? What are we talking about, maybe 6? What's the pool of available talent? This thing is not open ended. This seems kind of revisionist to me. In the days leading up to the trade deadline the talk was that it was a near perfect sellers market for pitching. There were a ton of teams still in the race. Specifically, the NL central was very tight and at least a couple teams seemed interested. At the end of the day we don't know what was offered, but the situation was such that a big return seemed probable.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 23, 2014 13:41:37 GMT -5
If we could Eduardo Rodriguez for Andrew Miller, who also was a rental player for the Orioles, I am certain we could of got a top prospect for Jon Lester. Renato Nunez or Matt Chapman would of been reasonable compensation and I am sure one of them for Jon Lester straight up would of got the deal done. Or not. What's your source on this? Hey now, let's not let facts get in the way of his crusade.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Oct 23, 2014 14:46:44 GMT -5
Just found out Cespedes is a finalist for the Gold Glove. This changes everything.
|
|
|