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.
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 30, 2015 13:22:52 GMT -5
Not sure why people keep saying this. Its simply not true. Teams get rental players for very reasonable packages almost every season. There is no reason to cave into Amaro's demands. In many cases the veteran is approaching free agency. Not the case with Hamels. In other cases, it's a small market that can't afford to keep the vet. Not the case with Hamels. Sometimes, a vet demands a trade or pouts. Again, not the case with Hamels. Amaro has a lot of leverage. And, now other teams to dangle Hamels to. Dodgers, Cards and Yanks come to mind. Then don't trade for Hamels. His best days are likely behind him.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Apr 30, 2015 14:30:18 GMT -5
Comparing Cole Hamels to Larry Anderson is total BS. Gotta give to get. Not sure why people keep saying this. Its simply not true. Teams get rental players for very reasonable packages almost every season. There is no reason to cave into Amaro's demands. I actually looked into this
|
|
|
Post by 11mikem on Apr 30, 2015 15:19:13 GMT -5
"Then don't trade for Hamels. His best days are likely behind him."
You mean he's in the twilight of his career?
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 30, 2015 15:39:25 GMT -5
Dale and Holley just referenced the rankings on this site on the WEEI today. They were talking about Margot in a trade for Hamels. Holley seemed to be of the "they're just prospects" crowd and Dale seemed more skeptical. Dale seems to be the one who reads here and I thought he was the more knowledgable of the two.
The deal they were talking about was Johnson, Barnes, Margot, and Marrero for Papelbon and Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by dridiot on Apr 30, 2015 16:08:08 GMT -5
Are we paying for Papelbon? If so that deal is insane. If not I still think it's kind of crazy.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Apr 30, 2015 16:11:25 GMT -5
I think a lot of people are over-looking the fact that trading for Hamels not only means parting with prospects, but given the rest of Red Sox' payroll, may preclude any other big signings for a couple years.
With Ramirez and Sandoval and Pedroia and Porcello and Castillo requiring almost $90 million to cover just five positions each of the next four years and Craig getting $10 million each of the next two, do the Red Sox REALLY have payroll flexibity to take on two more big contracts and effectively fill the rest of the roster?
And if they don't, do we really want that last big name free agent to be Cole Hamels?
|
|
|
Post by dridiot on Apr 30, 2015 16:39:20 GMT -5
Agreed. I don't think a Cole Hamels deal even begins to make sense unless it means a shot at the world series this year. There will be plenty of arms to buy in the coming offseason.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Apr 30, 2015 17:26:08 GMT -5
I think a lot of people are over-looking the fact that trading for Hamels not only means parting with prospects, but given the rest of Red Sox' payroll, may preclude any other big signings for a couple years. With Ramirez and Sandoval and Pedroia and Porcello and Castillo requiring almost $90 million to cover just five positions each of the next four years and Craig getting $10 million each of the next two, do the Red Sox REALLY have payroll flexibity to take on two more big contracts and effectively fill the rest of the roster? And if they don't, do we really want that last big name free agent to be Cole Hamels? We lose; Napoli, Victorino, Mujica, Masterson and I'd cut Buchholz. Plenty of room on the payroll for Hamels. Hamels and E-Rod would cost you the same as Buchholz/Masterson? Give me the former.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Apr 30, 2015 17:51:15 GMT -5
I go back and forth on this but think I agree with Chris. If a Margot/Owens starting point gets a subsidized Hammels I have to think hard about it. Margot barely has 150 High A ABs and could easily be the next Lars Anderson or Bowden who flames out in the upper levels and most think Owens is a mid rotation guy and have Rodriguez a touch above him. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 30, 2015 22:05:08 GMT -5
In many cases the veteran is approaching free agency. Not the case with Hamels. In other cases, it's a small market that can't afford to keep the vet. Not the case with Hamels. Sometimes, a vet demands a trade or pouts. Again, not the case with Hamels. Amaro has a lot of leverage. And, now other teams to dangle Hamels to. Dodgers, Cards and Yanks come to mind. Then don't trade for Hamels. His best days are likely behind him. Exactly. He's not the only option or even necessarily the best (Cueto). He'll probably never perform commensurate with his salary. Why on earth would the Sox (or any fan) want to trade for him if the price is supposedly going up? Or, for that matter, at all if it's going to cost anyone (Rodriguez, Devers, Margot, Owens) of significant value?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 30, 2015 22:11:22 GMT -5
Pray that Johnson or Rodriguez come through if we need to replace one of the current starters in the rotation. I had flashbacks to the moan that came from deep inside me when Jeff Bagwell was traded for Larry Anderson. Yup. Bagwell absolutely killed it in New Britain that year. Only 4 HR but Mo only hit 8 there, and Bagwell hit something like .333 with a mid-400 OBP. He was clearly superior to Scott Cooper, at least to everyone but Lou Gorman. Margot is an all-around talent. I genuinely just don't see the Sox trading him unless it's for a young, cost-controlled starter with huge upside. The big-$ post-30 pitchers clearly aren't their bag (thankfully). Here's hoping Eduardo Rodriguez is our Bagwell.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 1, 2015 9:06:01 GMT -5
Margot is an all-around talent. I genuinely just don't see the Sox trading him unless it's for a young, cost-controlled starter with huge upside. The big-$ post-30 pitchers clearly aren't their bag (thankfully). Here's the thing ... from a pure market value standpoint, Hamels does not have excess value to trade. He's got a market contract going into his decline years. If you are just looking at cost/benefit, do you trade six years of Manuel Margot and Henry Owens (discounted for risk) for that? I mean, sure, there's a risk premium attached to prospects, but there's also significant risk to Cole Hamels. But, the counter-argument is that Cole Hamels makes a difference for this staff for the next couple of years, at least, you spend future value for greater performance now, and the risk premium for prospects is actually very high, higher than prospect-lovers like us credit. Personally, I don't buy any trade rumors with significant assets beyond Margot, and I'm not sure I buy one with Margot at all because of the valuation and the risk/reward profile on Manuel. I think the Sox won't trade core guys, and I think Margot might be in that core. I'd put the core as Swihart, Rodriguez, Margot (and Devers/Chavis/Kopech group isn't going to be traded). And of course Betts/Bogaerts, but that goes without saying. Other guys may be in play, but I think the media is generally over-valuing Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 2, 2015 22:36:05 GMT -5
I think a lot of people are over-looking the fact that trading for Hamels not only means parting with prospects, but given the rest of Red Sox' payroll, may preclude any other big signings for a couple years. With Ramirez and Sandoval and Pedroia and Porcello and Castillo requiring almost $90 million to cover just five positions each of the next four years and Craig getting $10 million each of the next two, do the Red Sox REALLY have payroll flexibity to take on two more big contracts and effectively fill the rest of the roster? And if they don't, do we really want that last big name free agent to be Cole Hamels? We lose; Napoli, Victorino, Mujica, Masterson and I'd cut Buchholz. Plenty of room on the payroll for Hamels. Hamels and E-Rod would cost you the same as Buchholz/Masterson? Give me the former. Just because they have money doesn't mean they should waste it. Buchholz has team options. Masterson is signed for one year. After the season they'll know what to do with those potential savings. But dropping 4.5/$100M for Hamels AND trading away two high-quality prospects? That makes absolutely no sense to me, unless he represents a clear massive upgrade, the kids all flop, and he's the obvious difference-maker in a WS run. Otherwise, save that money and sign Cueto. Or trade for a younger pitcher with upside, not an aging #1a-2 who gets shelled against AL teams. If they're going to trade Margot, package him with Marrero and a lower-level prospect for Stephen Matz of the Mets. Acquiring a past-prime starter with a fat contract who also costs prospects is both a terrible baseball, and business, move.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 2, 2015 22:51:58 GMT -5
Margot is an all-around talent. I genuinely just don't see the Sox trading him unless it's for a young, cost-controlled starter with huge upside. The big-$ post-30 pitchers clearly aren't their bag (thankfully). Here's the thing ... from a pure market value standpoint, Hamels does not have excess value to trade. He's got a market contract going into his decline years. If you are just looking at cost/benefit, do you trade six years of Manuel Margot and Henry Owens (discounted for risk) for that? I mean, sure, there's a risk premium attached to prospects, but there's also significant risk to Cole Hamels. But, the counter-argument is that Cole Hamels makes a difference for this staff for the next couple of years, at least, you spend future value for greater performance now, and the risk premium for prospects is actually very high, higher than prospect-lovers like us credit. Personally, I don't buy any trade rumors with significant assets beyond Margot, and I'm not sure I buy one with Margot at all because of the valuation and the risk/reward profile on Manuel. I think the Sox won't trade core guys, and I think Margot might be in that core. I'd put the core as Swihart, Rodriguez, Margot (and Devers/Chavis/Kopech group isn't going to be traded). And of course Betts/Bogaerts, but that goes without saying. Other guys may be in play, but I think the media is generally over-valuing Hamels. I agree 100%. I think the team has put a premium on core prospects, with a clear preference to develop their own talent and let the cream rise. It seems to me that they're quite content to hold on to position players especially (makes sense due to their lower "fail" rate). It doesn't seem (rightfully so) that Hamels, to the Sox's brass, represents such a clear *significant* benefit in the short term to cancel out the long term cost risk PLUS the cost *and* talent-drain risk of giving up players as well. The media is abetting Amaro's overvaluing of Hamels in the abscence of significant, even massive, salary relief (in terms of prospect cost). Put this way: the Dodgers are absolutely not giving up Seager or Urias, and I doubt NY gives up both Severino and Judge (which is close to, if not analogous to, Margot and Rodriguez). The Cards don't have the chips on offense. The Cubs might be in play, but they can drive a very hard bargain, especially if Lester starts pitching well. People can call "seller's market" all they want, but you need buyers to have a market, and nobody's buying at Amaro's price.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Jun 2, 2015 12:51:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 2, 2015 14:23:11 GMT -5
Unsurprising. He went from hot to cold so quickly, you had to wonder if something else was going on. Could be a good amount of BIP luck involved, particularly for someone like him with an extremely aggressive approach (which was a big reason why he had the strikeoutless streak), but: Through 4/26: 21 for 58, 4 2B, 3 3B, 1 HR, .362/.391/.586 4/28 through 5/9: 4 for 43, 0 XBH .116/.204/.116
|
|
|
Post by Nick Rabasco2 on Jun 2, 2015 17:10:06 GMT -5
Small sample but baseball savant says he's hit just three line drives (7.4%) since 4/28. Had 13.3% LD before that. Also K rate is 13.5% since 4/28
|
|
|
Post by theburn on Jun 10, 2015 10:21:06 GMT -5
Should the Red Sox become buyers at the deadline or later this offseason, I wonder if Andrew Benintendi makes Margot any more expendable.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 10, 2015 10:33:13 GMT -5
Should the Red Sox become buyers at the deadline or later this offseason, I wonder if Andrew Benintendi makes Margot any more expendable. We're clearly not a championship team. If you're not, why not sell? Maybe someone likes Buchholz or Koji. Maybe, even a vet like Napoli or Victorino. I think we are 2-3 years from contending. We need Mookie to develop more. Like Xander did this year. Swihart to get entrenched as the C. Hope Rusney emerges as a good MLB player. Then, let's talk. We'll still have Pedey at 2b, Hanley at DH and Fatso at 3b. Maybe, some young kids such as; Moncada, Devers or Benentendi are ready to make a splash. But, we're talking 2018. Not next year. I see Margot as trade bait. Unless someone likes Castillo and gives us something worthwhile. As, Margot is about to break in.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jun 10, 2015 11:14:04 GMT -5
I'm sure you have all noticed how much better Salem plays with Margot in the line-up. A world of difference.
Sadly, the forecast of 2018 may be right on. I guess I'm thinking more 2016, but a lot of our talent will be close to making their debuts in 2018 like Devers, Guerra, Chavis, Kopech, and even Benintendi. Margot may be ready by 2017 as Moncada. In 2018, Anderson Espinosa will be all of 20. Probably more ready by 2020.
I think the future looks bright, but I can't imagine the Sox brain trust or fans will be real patient.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 10, 2015 11:42:03 GMT -5
I'm sure you have all noticed how much better Salem plays with Margot in the line-up. A world of difference. Salem is 19-16 with him in the lineup. 11-11 without him. Per the Salem game notes.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,977
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 10, 2015 13:13:08 GMT -5
... I think we are 2-3 years from contending. We need Mookie to develop more. Like Xander did this year. Swihart to get entrenched as the C. Hope Rusney emerges as a good MLB player. Then, let's talk. We'll still have Pedey at 2b, Hanley at DH and Fatso at 3b. Maybe, some young kids such as; Moncada, Devers or Benentendi are ready to make a splash. But, we're talking 2018. Not next year.... This seems way too pessimistic. A team with 3rd year Xander, 3rd year Mookie, 2nd year Swihart, 2nd year Rusney, 2nd-year ERod, veterans performing at their normal standards, and binders full of prospects who can be used or traded, is not going to be that far below other AL East teams.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on Jun 10, 2015 13:22:37 GMT -5
Should the Red Sox become buyers at the deadline or later this offseason, I wonder if Andrew Benintendi makes Margot any more expendable. We're clearly not a championship team. If you're not, why not sell? Maybe someone likes Buchholz or Koji. Maybe, even a vet like Napoli or Victorino. I think we are 2-3 years from contending. We need Mookie to develop more. Like Xander did this year. Swihart to get entrenched as the C. Hope Rusney emerges as a good MLB player. Then, let's talk. We'll still have Pedey at 2b, Hanley at DH and Fatso at 3b. Maybe, some young kids such as; Moncada, Devers or Benentendi are ready to make a splash. But, we're talking 2018. Not next year. I see Margot as trade bait. Unless someone likes Castillo and gives us something worthwhile. As, Margot is about to break in. [ this post has is a joke. The team spent a lot of money this offseason and will contend this year. If you can say any team in the AL east has much more talent than us your lying to yourself. They are playing to win this year and will end up in the race this year. Sell buchholz? He has been our best pitcher I will be willing to make a bet they won't be selling him. Why post if your even gonna post something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 10, 2015 13:26:22 GMT -5
Let's keep this thread on the topic of Manuel Margot. There's like seven threads to discuss whether or not the Sox will contend. Thanks everyone.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 10, 2015 16:49:15 GMT -5
We're clearly not a championship team. If you're not, why not sell? Maybe someone likes Buchholz or Koji. Maybe, even a vet like Napoli or Victorino. I think we are 2-3 years from contending. We need Mookie to develop more. Like Xander did this year. Swihart to get entrenched as the C. Hope Rusney emerges as a good MLB player. Then, let's talk. We'll still have Pedey at 2b, Hanley at DH and Fatso at 3b. Maybe, some young kids such as; Moncada, Devers or Benentendi are ready to make a splash. But, we're talking 2018. Not next year. I see Margot as trade bait. Unless someone likes Castillo and gives us something worthwhile. As, Margot is about to break in. [ this post has is a joke. The team spent a lot of money this offseason and will contend this year. If you can say any team in the AL east has much more talent than us your lying to yourself. They are playing to win this year and will end up in the race this year. Sell buchholz? He has been our best pitcher I will be willing to make a bet they won't be selling him. Why post if your even gonna post something like that. Regardless of the talent, they need to put up Ws and play to that talent level, and right now they're not doing it. I still think they're a month away from legitimately packing it in vs. buying, but they'll be doing one or the other, I don't see them standing pat. If they're still playing this poorly by then, I *really* hope they're sellers. I don't think giving up Margot, or any of their other top guys, makes any sense at this point.
|
|
|