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.
Discussion of 2014 and 2015 pitching rotations
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 10, 2014 6:53:16 GMT -5
The big question is whether Hamels' actual value exceeds max{Swihart's actual value, Swihart's trade value}. Well, the odds of Amaro accepting such a trade are approximately zero. It's a due diligence step, whose chief purpose is to lay grounds for a possible future trade, with maybe a 1% chance that the current discussion leads to a deal that both sides like. That's why we shouldn't be paying Amaro's prices. I wouldn't ever dream of giving up Swihart for any 30 year old pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Dec 10, 2014 7:09:48 GMT -5
So what should the Sox do now? This is based on trusting Steamer projections as reasonably representative, with some work to adjust them, but not a lot of close examination of the various candidates. 1A) Trade Cespedes, Ranaudo, Hembree or Wilson, and, if necessary, Marrero and/or Holt for Cueto (probably with a third team involved, since Ranaudo is a bad fit for their park, and they don't have much of a need for Holt). 1B) A somewhat lesser package for Iwakuma -- see if you can change their mind about trading him. 1C) A somewhat lesser package for Zimmermann. 2A) Make a big push to sign Brandon McCarthy. 2B) Inquire whether Swihart and two lesser prospects, say Rijo or Guerra, plus Stankiewicz or Mercedes, can get Hamels. (Logic: Swihart's trade value plus Vazquez's actual value exceeds Vazquez's trade value plus Swihart's actual value in almost every scenario going forward.) 2C) If both 2A and B fail (which seems somewhat likely), weigh signing Justin Masterson to a pillow contract, versus trading for Fister, Kazmir, Latos, Porcello, maybe Leake, Gallardo, Kennedy. The trade chips would be everyone already mentioned who's still around (except for Swihart), plus Coyle and everyone eligible ranked 21+ here except Wright, Brentz, and Butler. After the Mets signed Michael Cuddyer, most people here saw a Cespedes-Mets trade as an afterthought. I was talking with a Mets fan friend of mine who was still all about acquiring Cespedes. While Lucas Duda had a breakout year last season, his career splits are quite significant. Considering the fact that 1B is Cuddyer's 2nd most player position (behind RF), I could see the Mets picking up another outfielder, with Duda playing <50% of games vs. LHP. So I'm not willing to write off the Mets, who still appear to be an ideal partner with their plethora of pitching. I'd add Jon Niese, Jacob DeGrom, and Dillon Gee (meh) to that list, and possibly even Noah Syndengaard, though that would likely require one of Betts/Bogahhts. Lucas Duda career: .212/.291/.317/.608 vs. LHP Michael Cuddyer career: .291/.379/.506/.885 vs. LHP (though his splits aren't too significant)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 10, 2014 8:39:05 GMT -5
After the Mets signed Michael Cuddyer, most people here saw a Cespedes-Mets trade as an afterthought. I was talking with a Mets fan friend of mine who was still all about acquiring Cespedes. While Lucas Duda had a breakout year last season, his career splits are quite significant. Considering the fact that 1B is Cuddyer's 2nd most player position (behind RF), I could see the Mets picking up another outfielder, with Duda playing <50% of games vs. LHP. So I'm not willing to write off the Mets, who still appear to be an ideal partner with their plethora of pitching. I'd add Jon Niese, Jacob DeGrom, and Dillon Gee (meh) to that list, and possibly even Noah Syndengaard, though that would likely require one of Betts/Bogahhts. Lucas Duda career: .212/.291/.317/.608 vs. LHP Michael Cuddyer career: .291/.379/.506/.885 vs. LHP (though his splits aren't too significant) If we were looking for guys with multiple years of control left, DeGrom would be of interest, as would Wade Miley whom the D'Backs are shopping. But do those guys project to be any better, over the next 3 to 5 years, than the best 1 or 2 of our 8 to 10 prospects? DeGrom did not do much of anything until his age 26 season, and he had insanely high batting order splits (379 OPS points, 3 & 4 hitters versus 7 through 9). Those guys would be valuable to a team that was thin on cost-controlled young pitching, especially if they had to keep payroll low, which doesn't quite describe us. Niese has had two seasons above 1.0 rWAR / 30 GS: 3.4 (2012) and 1.7 (2014). We can do much better.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 10, 2014 9:18:17 GMT -5
After the Mets signed Michael Cuddyer, most people here saw a Cespedes-Mets trade as an afterthought. I was talking with a Mets fan friend of mine who was still all about acquiring Cespedes. While Lucas Duda had a breakout year last season, his career splits are quite significant. Considering the fact that 1B is Cuddyer's 2nd most player position (behind RF), I could see the Mets picking up another outfielder, with Duda playing <50% of games vs. LHP. So I'm not willing to write off the Mets, who still appear to be an ideal partner with their plethora of pitching. I'd add Jon Niese, Jacob DeGrom, and Dillon Gee (meh) to that list, and possibly even Noah Syndengaard, though that would likely require one of Betts/Bogahhts. Lucas Duda career: .212/.291/.317/.608 vs. LHP Michael Cuddyer career: .291/.379/.506/.885 vs. LHP (though his splits aren't too significant) If we were looking for guys with multiple years of control left, DeGrom would be of interest, as would Wade Miley whom the D'Backs are shopping. But do those guys project to be any better, over the next 3 to 5 years, than the best 1 or 2 of our 8 to 10 prospects? DeGrom did not do much of anything until his age 26 season, and he had insanely high batting order splits (379 OPS points, 3 & 4 hitters versus 7 through 9). Those guys would be valuable to a team that was thin on cost-controlled young pitching, especially if they had to keep payroll low, which doesn't quite describe us. Niese has had two seasons above 1.0 rWAR / 30 GS: 3.4 (2012) and 1.7 (2014). We can do much better. I was down on Niese just like you. Until another poster posted his contract details, which is two years and two options years, for a total of 4 years for under 40 million. He is also an extreme ground ball pitcher that doesn't give up a lot of home runs. Niese wouldn't be a bad #3 starter.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 10, 2014 9:30:45 GMT -5
Ok... I have been friends with Masterson's wife (Meryl) since High School. Texted her this morning to see what her feel is. This is what was said: Me: Heard Boston offered 2+ years to the Masterson family to be a starting pitcher. Now the question is, will they accept?? Meryl: "I want to!!!! I'm like begging. All I heard from his agent was they offered 1yr/$7m with incentives. Justin and his agent were thinking more like $10m for 1 year but I think they're aiming wayyyy too high especially after his horrible season last year. Injured or not, it was no good. So we will see." I'm not a reporter, I just am friends with the family. It's interesting she told me it was only for 1 year and reporters said it was for multiple years. Maybe that was part of the 'incentives'. Its cool that your friends. But I would not post that on here, seems personal and probably a great way to ruin a friendship. ...and become a witness in a divorce...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 10, 2014 9:30:50 GMT -5
Well, the odds of Amaro accepting such a trade are approximately zero. It's a due diligence step, whose chief purpose is to lay grounds for a possible future trade, with maybe a 1% chance that the current discussion leads to a deal that both sides like. That's why we shouldn't be paying Amaro's prices. I wouldn't ever dream of giving up Swihart for any 30 year old pitcher. Betts and Bogaerts I can agree with. But I have no problem giving up a top 30 prospect for a current top 10 pitcher who now has, as yesterday's events showed, a significantly below-market contract. I wouldn't want to give up a ton on top of Swihart, but if Amaro came to me and said "Swihart for Hamels, straight up" I'd do it.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 10, 2014 9:39:57 GMT -5
That's why we shouldn't be paying Amaro's prices. I wouldn't ever dream of giving up Swihart for any 30 year old pitcher. Betts and Bogaerts I can agree with. But I have no problem giving up a top 30 prospect for a current top 10 pitcher who now has, as yesterday's events showed, a significantly below-market contract. I wouldn't want to give up a ton on top of Swihart, but if Amaro came to me and said "Swihart for Hamels, straight up" I'd do it. I gotta believe a Hamels deal starts with one of Owens/Rodriguez and one of Swihart/Mookie/Xander and they need two more top 5-12 guys on top of that. Phils under no real pressure to trade Hamels who is their best player except if they can get mostly high upside, controllable MLB or MLB-ready players back. One way you lower the prospect cost is to take one of the bad contracts back (like the Beckett deal when everyone thought Lowell was done). Papelbon seems like the lesser of the evils here, but they'd have to be confident he would be OK with a non 9th inning role and Phils would have to eat some of that contract. If not, you're giving up blue chips. Hamels is at or nearly at his peak. And the Red Sox are not the only potential trading partners here. LA, Texas and yes, the Cubs, could jump right in and edge the Sox out.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Dec 10, 2014 9:43:06 GMT -5
No that's too much for Hamels this franchise can't afford to give up that much in terms of talent.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 10, 2014 9:54:07 GMT -5
As a psych major, I would say that the single biggest factor here is Lester's preference for familiarity versus novelty. It trumps everything else, really. And we have no way of knowing that, and we tend to project our own preferences onto him. and for others, it's irresistible. I don't think the supposed low-ball and trade factors in at all. The trade did him a favor, given how competitive he seems to be. And in the other thread I argue (apparently convincingly) that they obviously wanted to go to free agency from the beginning. It's funny how we reduce the majors to a nickname... Psychology majors are psych majors, Sociology majors are Soch majors, English majors are jerks... Remember your bartenders and waitresses! I can't see him moving on. His representatives did an excellent job of pushing his chosen team to the max dollars as well. All that happened this spring was his agent's after hearing talk of a home town discount, gave Jon a well versed lesson in the ancient Scottish Marshall art of Phuk yu Hookay.......
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 10, 2014 10:07:13 GMT -5
Betts and Bogaerts I can agree with. But I have no problem giving up a top 30 prospect for a current top 10 pitcher who now has, as yesterday's events showed, a significantly below-market contract. I wouldn't want to give up a ton on top of Swihart, but if Amaro came to me and said "Swihart for Hamels, straight up" I'd do it. I gotta believe a Hamels deal starts with one of Owens/Rodriguez and one of Swihart/Mookie/Xander and they need two more top 5-12 guys on top of that. Phils under no real pressure to trade Hamels who is their best player except if they can get mostly high upside, controllable MLB or MLB-ready players back. One way you lower the prospect cost is to take one of the bad contracts back (like the Beckett deal when everyone thought Lowell was done). Papelbon seems like the lesser of the evils here, but they'd have to be confident he would be OK with a non 9th inning role and Phils would have to eat some of that contract. If not, you're giving up blue chips. Hamels is at or nearly at his peak. And the Red Sox are not the only potential trading partners here. LA, Texas and yes, the Cubs, could jump right in and edge the Sox out. You continue saying this, but answer this question for me. How would the Red Sox be better off replacing those guys in free agency which is what they would probably have to do and pay Hamels $22 million a year? They would have been far better off overpaying Lester. There is just no way in hell that Hamels is getting that much unless Amaro finds an equally insane GM.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 10, 2014 11:33:20 GMT -5
I don't know how the Sox replace that, but I am basing fair return on what Hamels is - a 30 year old #1 or 1A starter who has proven durability and 4 years of control, his affordable (at least in this market) contract, and the fact that the Phils have almost all the leverage here in that they don't have to move him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 10, 2014 11:38:15 GMT -5
I don't know how the Sox replace that, but I am basing fair return on what Hamels is - a 30 year old #1 or 1A starter who has proven durability and 4 years of control, his affordable (at least in this market) contract, and the fact that the Phils have almost all the leverage here in that they don't have to move him. Great, let him rot there, like Cliff Lee.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Dec 10, 2014 11:43:07 GMT -5
I don't know how the Sox replace that, but I am basing fair return on what Hamels is - a 30 year old #1 or 1A starter who has proven durability and 4 years of control, his affordable (at least in this market) contract, and the fact that the Phils have almost all the leverage here in that they don't have to move him. Mookie will likely match Hamels in WAR this year making the league minimum. You're overrating his trade value a lot. No way Hamels is worth the rest of his deal and the option. giving up impact prospects doesn't make sense for him. I wouldn't even do Margot for Hamels straight up personally.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 10, 2014 11:50:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 10, 2014 11:52:09 GMT -5
Hey, I am on the record as saying I would NOT trade Betts for anyone not named Kershaw, Trout, Stanton, or Harper.
I also think you can get a piece or two the Phils like by dealing Cespedes to a 3rd team, but again, just a guess.
I was also one of the people advocating you buy Lester or Scherzer and save most of the top prospects to mitigate costs downstream. Just stating what I think ask would be for a pitcher of Hamels' profile, of which there are very few in terms of performance and control.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 10, 2014 11:54:02 GMT -5
With enough hitting, do you need an ace? Baltimore, for example, has tons of hitting that covered the lack of any ace KC - none, bullpen LA - weird mix of 2/3s like Weaver, Wilson, Richards Oakland - Sonny Gray and cobbled together until Lester/Szamarjia, after which they dropped Detroit - the gold standard
Pittsburgh - Liriano and a potential future ace in Cole St.louis - Wainwright Yes, but after that Lance Lynn Washington - Strasburg Yes, Zimmerman, Yes LA - Kershaw, maybe, Greinke, yes SF - Bumgartner, borderline, rest is bunch of scrubs
I say the Sox cobble together a rotation this year, no Hamels, sign Shields, Maeda and Masterson, and a bunch of bullpen arms.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 10, 2014 11:59:32 GMT -5
With enough hitting, do you need an ace? Baltimore, for example, has tons of hitting that covered the lack of any ace KC - none, bullpen LA - weird mix of 2/3s like Weaver, Wilson, Richards Oakland - Sonny Gray and cobbled together until Lester/Szamarjia, after which they dropped Detroit - the gold standard Pittsburgh - Liriano and a potential future ace in Cole St.louis - Wainwright Yes, but after that Lance Lynn Washington - Strasburg Yes, Zimmerman, Yes LA - Kershaw, maybe, Greinke, yes SF - Bumgartner, borderline, rest is bunch of scrubs I say the Sox cobble together a rotation this year, no Hamels, sign Shields, Maeda and Masterson, and a bunch of bullpen arms. In the American League East you hit your way into contention for the playoffs and pitch your way during the last 6 weeks of the season towards a championship
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
|
Post by mobaz on Dec 10, 2014 12:03:16 GMT -5
With enough hitting, do you need an ace? Baltimore, for example, has tons of hitting that covered the lack of any ace KC - none, bullpen LA - weird mix of 2/3s like Weaver, Wilson, Richards Oakland - Sonny Gray and cobbled together until Lester/Szamarjia, after which they dropped Detroit - the gold standard Pittsburgh - Liriano and a potential future ace in Cole St.louis - Wainwright Yes, but after that Lance Lynn Washington - Strasburg Yes, Zimmerman, Yes LA - Kershaw, maybe, Greinke, yes SF - Bumgartner, borderline, rest is bunch of scrubs I say the Sox cobble together a rotation this year, no Hamels, sign Shields, Maeda and Masterson, and a bunch of bullpen arms. Depending on the price of Shields, I agree. Next offseason, and probably the trade deadline will bring plenty of options that make a future-killing trade even more dumb. I also think it's time to get a little creative, and bring in a high-upside, high risk arm in Medlen.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 10, 2014 12:14:33 GMT -5
I'm also not afraid to start the year with two of our better young starters in the rotation.
If the sox sign Masterson, then begin the year with five Rdlr starts and another four from whoever performs best in the spring (I'm thinking Barnes), I don' t see this as a tragic outcome.
Deals can still be made in June and July.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 10, 2014 12:28:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure how much it would take, but if they could put together a rotation of Zimmermann, Miley, Buchholz, Kelly, Masterson, and De La Rosa with one of the last for spot starting or pitching in long relief, I could live with that. If you replace Masterson with Medlen, and let De La Rosa start as your #5 starter, you could get a huge boost when Medlen returns, potentially bumping Miley to your #3 starter.
For what it's worth, I'd be looking to lock Zimmermann up in this scenario. Ideally, Medlen would have a 2 year deal, so you get a full season of him healthy in 2016. Miley is under team control through 2017.
How out of the question is that?
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 10, 2014 12:46:52 GMT -5
My trade preference for Starting Pitching in order would be;
1) Stephen Strasburg 2) Gio Gonzalez 3) Anibal Sánchez 4) Cole Hamels 5) Jon Niese 6) Homer Bailey 7) Johnny Cueto 8) Rick Porcello 9) Mike Leake 10) Jordan Zimmermann
Preferably I would like to get one from the top 4 and one from 5-10
Realistically I think we could end up with 2 of Niese, Porcello or Leake
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Dec 10, 2014 12:46:59 GMT -5
Haven't heard much about Medlen but I'd love to take a chance on him.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Dec 10, 2014 12:54:01 GMT -5
Medlen is coming off his 2nd TJ surgery. Google 'Hall of Famer's who have had 2 TJ surgeries' and then you understand why even the cost-conscious Braves weren't willing to take a <$6M risk on him.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Dec 10, 2014 12:55:59 GMT -5
Really doubt we end up with two of Leake, Porcello and Niese. Niese alone is probably like a 5% chance at best. Those are some weird rankings my friend
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Dec 10, 2014 13:00:17 GMT -5
Medlen is coming off his 2nd TJ surgery. Google 'Hall of Famer's who have had 2 TJ surgeries' and then you understand why even the cost-conscious Braves weren't willing to take a <$6M risk on him. True. I mean if he isn't going to make the Hall of Fame why waste our time with him?
|
|
|