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 mattpicard on Oct 1, 2014 10:57:49 GMT -5
So, how do we snag Donaldson (FA in 2019) and Shark (after 2015) without giving up Mookie, Swihart, or Bogey? Owens, YC, Cecchini/Chavis, and Johnson/Barnes?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 1, 2014 11:43:53 GMT -5
So, how do we snag Donaldson (FA in 2019) and Shark (after 2015) without giving up Mookie, Swihart, or Bogey? Owens, YC, Cecchini/Chavis, and Johnson/Barnes? Donaldson probably costs more than Tulowitzki. I can't even wrap my head around what Beane might do there. But I bet he wants Betts or Bogaerts along with Vazquez and pitching. Not sure how he's going to change gears towards valuing prospects.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 1, 2014 14:20:03 GMT -5
Donaldson would attract me more if he wasn't already 29. I wouldn't empty the farm for him. His defense will only get worse and he's not that incredible offensively to the point where I'm essentially giving up on Cecchini, and trading 2 or 3 of Swihart, Owens, Margot, Rodriguez and Devers.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 1, 2014 14:33:56 GMT -5
Donaldson has 14.1 fWAR in last 2 seasons. Doesn't get much better than that. He's younger than Cespedes and has 3 arb years left. I don't think it's likely and would be hesitant to pay the likely trade cost, but I'm not going to discredit Donaldson in any way. One of the best players in baseball, for cheap.
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 2, 2014 8:44:32 GMT -5
Buster Olney wrote an article talking about how Oakland might move Josh Donaldson to help start the rebuilding process. He seems like a perfect fit for what we need. What do you guys think it would take to get him? If there was anyway to avoid moving Betts and Swihart you have to try your hardest but I don't think there is. One option would be to move Cespedes for players that Oakland is interested in and then package them with say Henry Owens, Garin Cecchini, and Deven Marrero. I don't think that would be enough but would definitely be a start. Think Donaldson probably represents one of the best fits for the team to empty out some of the prospect pool.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 2, 2014 10:22:03 GMT -5
So I figured it is just a matter of time before this thread was made, so I thought I'd get the jump on it. insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post/_/id/8223www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/don-t-expect-beane-to-stand-pat-in-wake-of-a-s-collapse-100114www.sportsworldreport.com/articles/34419/20141001/oakland-athletics-rumors-trade-with-josh-donaldson-jeff-samardzija-scott-kazmir-options-for-billy-beane-after-2014-collapse.htmObviously we have the need, and the pieces to make a Donaldson trade happen. I think we would have to know more about the A's mindset, is it a trade to address other area's of need, or a complete firesale that will build the farm system and get the A's a good draft pick slot? Personally I don't think the A's are done trying to win now, so if Donaldson was to be traded I think they need ML ready players back right now. That starts with Bogaerts or Betts, probably Betts. There are other non prospects I think that could fit the A's targets Nava, Holt, Vazquez, Victornio (with salary), Bradley, Craig. The A's look at players that are cheap and could be underrated in some way to maximize their value. Then obviously there is our farm system, where I think just about anyone is in play for Donaldson. I don't see the trade happening, but there is no way to stop the speculation. Not sure I would like the cost of the acquisition, so personally I would stay away from it. I'd go Betts and a throw in for Donaldson, just because I feel obligated to make a proposal on this forums. That doesn't get the deal done in my opinion. There is no need to tell me that again.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 2, 2014 10:56:47 GMT -5
Donaldson is one of the players I would be willing to trade Betts for. That's saying a lot.
It's tough to speculate on what else would have to be in the package. Guys I think Beane would be interested in include Bradley (buy-low), Cecchini (ditto), Owens (pitching up in the zone is the new OBP), Nava (elite platoon guy for cheap), Wright (free the knuckleball), but that's just spit-balling based on likely flawed stereotypes. I'd probably give up Betts and any two of the above for Donaldson, but I love me some Donaldson.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 2, 2014 16:13:25 GMT -5
Donaldson is one of the players I would be willing to trade Betts for. That's saying a lot. It's tough to speculate on what else would have to be in the package. Guys I think Beane would be interested in include Bradley (buy-low), Cecchini (ditto), Owens (pitching up in the zone is the new OBP), Nava (elite platoon guy for cheap), Wright (free the knuckleball), but that's just spit-balling based on likely flawed stereotypes. I'd probably give up Betts and any two of the above for Donaldson, but I love me some Donaldson. Hassan might be a guy he would like if were going on flawed stereotypes.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 2, 2014 17:32:02 GMT -5
Donaldson is one of the players I would be willing to trade Betts for. That's saying a lot. It's tough to speculate on what else would have to be in the package. Guys I think Beane would be interested in include Bradley (buy-low), Cecchini (ditto), Owens (pitching up in the zone is the new OBP), Nava (elite platoon guy for cheap), Wright (free the knuckleball), but that's just spit-balling based on likely flawed stereotypes. I'd probably give up Betts and any two of the above for Donaldson, but I love me some Donaldson. I mentioned Vazquez because I'm sure Beane knows about the value of pitch framing.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 2, 2014 17:39:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'd give up both Betts and Vazquez (or anyone ranked in the SP.com top 8) for Donaldson. I'd even hesitate to give up Nava. Betts and spare parts that won't help the team much in 2015? Sure. But including Vazquez in that package might not actually make the 2015 Red Sox better.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 2, 2014 17:42:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'd give up both Betts and Vazquez (or anyone ranked in the SP.com top 8) for Donaldson. I'd even hesitate to give up Nava. Betts and spare parts that won't help the team much in 2015? Sure. But including Vazquez in that package might not actually make the 2015 Red Sox better. I hesitate as well. I'm just guessing what Beane might demand.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 3, 2014 10:43:11 GMT -5
When thinking about trades, especially with super high value players like Donaldson, I always try to think of the context "what would other teams be willing to give up for this player?" That is why I think Betts + Role players makes sense, but probably won't happen.
Speaking of finding value despite stereotypes, the Yankees might be a good fit. (sorry for the buzz kill). If they paid A-Rod down to a 4M dollar player that is someone I think Beane would jump on as a buy low. They have ML cheap talent Murphy, Cervelle, and Bentances and other eat salary types Prado and Beltran. Anyone from their farm system would also be available in the trade. Also anything that got rid of A-Rod in NY would be thought of as the trade of the century, although he was playing 3B at an above average level.
Ignoring the Yankee spitballing, there would be a lot of teams in the bidding for Donaldson. High demand + low supply = high price.
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 7, 2014 8:55:40 GMT -5
To get Donaldson you are going to have to give up one of Swihart, Betts, or Bogaerts. I think given the construction of the team and the presence of Christian Vazquez that Swihart, although obviously tough to part with, would be the easiest to swallow getting rid of. My proposal is Donaldson and Samardzija for Swihart, Owens, Cecchini, Marrero, JBJ, Coyle and Ranaudo. Oakland gets both quality (I bet those are two top 40 prospects in most of the prospect rankings) and quantity. Red Sox get to deal away some of their surplus and acquire two players who fill massive needs and can help them win right away. If they are somehow able to add Lester after all of this, that is a very good and competitive team.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2014 14:18:35 GMT -5
Sorry to bring this up after your post, auger1, as this isn't only directed at you, but rather a pattern.
I've seen a lot of proposals of trades that involve 5-8 prospects getting traded in one direction the past couple months. But I'll ask the following: when has that EVER happened? I literally can't think of a two-team trade that didn't involve more than 4 prospects, and while I could see myself forgetting one that involved 5, I can't think of any trade involving 6 or more minor league players going in the same direction that involved only two teams. Can anyone else think of one?
My point is that teams don't give up quality for quantity. There's no overwhelming a team with quantity, even if it's good quantity. In this case, there's no way Oakland's going to be like, we're losing two really good players, but they threw Coyle and Ranaudo on top of the other five guys, so let's do it.
To trade for two guys who are that good, you're giving up at least two of Bogaerts, Betts, and Swihart. Remember, Oakland gave up Addison Russell (and Billy McKinney, plus more) for Samardzija (and Hammel). They're going to expect at least one player in that strata in return for him alone - adding Donaldson, the better player of the two, has to mean you're adding at least one more.
This goes for all of the Stanton proposals too. You're not going to overwhelm the Marlins by throwing seven or eight guys at them, even if they're all at least B prospects. They're either going to do it for the top 3 or 4 guys in the deal or they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 7, 2014 21:29:48 GMT -5
Chris, That's fair and generally big trades involve 4-5 prospects at most. I would like to counter to the rest of the post by saying that I don't think the A's will get back a prospect as good as Russell in a trade for Samardzija and I don't think they really expect to. Russell was generally regarded as a top 20 prospect in all of baseball at the time. First off, the A's were getting a year and a half of Samardzija versus only a year now. Also, I think it is generally regarded and I think fair to say that trades made during the year and before the trading deadline drive prices up in comparison to trades in the offseason.
Wouldn't it be safe to say that Russell would have been then and still would be the best prospect on the Red Sox? (I hope that didn't come off as snide because that's an honest question, I think he would be but you have more knowledge than I do on this stuff). And I don't think there's anyway the Sox would give up Swihart for just one season of Samardzija (although obviously I might be wrong on that)
What do you think it would take to get Donaldson and Samardzija Chris? I think Betts and Bogaerts are off the table for pretty much anyone...would it be possible to get them without the 2 B's included?
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 8, 2014 10:04:46 GMT -5
Chris, That's fair and generally big trades involve 4-5 prospects at most. I would like to counter to the rest of the post by saying that I don't think the A's will get back a prospect as good as Russell in a trade for Samardzija and I don't think they really expect to. Russell was generally regarded as a top 20 prospect in all of baseball at the time. First off, the A's were getting a year and a half of Samardzija versus only a year now. Also, I think it is generally regarded and I think fair to say that trades made during the year and before the trading deadline drive prices up in comparison to trades in the offseason. Wouldn't it be safe to say that Russell would have been then and still would be the best prospect on the Red Sox? (I hope that didn't come off as snide because that's an honest question, I think he would be but you have more knowledge than I do on this stuff). And I don't think there's anyway the Sox would give up Swihart for just one season of Samardzija (although obviously I might be wrong on that) What do you think it would take to get Donaldson and Samardzija Chris? I think Betts and Bogaerts are off the table for pretty much anyone...would it be possible to get them without the 2 B's included? Approach it from this point, would you be happy if the sox traded a top 5 MVP candidate who finished 2nd the last two years in WAR, and a very good #2 starter for a teams 4th and 5th best prospect? I think you would be rather pissed.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 8, 2014 10:46:54 GMT -5
I haven't thought about this too too much, but I'm pretty sure that I'd be willing to trade Betts and Swihart (and probably another couple mid-end pieces) for Donaldson and Samardzija. Donaldson is one of the ten best position players in baseball, in his prime, at a position of need, who is under control for four more years at a well below-market rate. He's probably one of the best trade assets in baseball-- Dave Cameron ranked him 17th in his midseason trade value list, just below Stanton and Darvish, which I might even call a little low (now that he's cemented the fact that his 2013 breakout was no fluke). He's 28 already, which means he'll be past his prime sooner than you know it, and a decent amount of his value comes from his defense and park adjustments. But that's why he's even semi-available, and why a package of Betts and Swihart+ even has a chance of being accepted. Hell, if I were the front office, I'd strongly consider offering Betts/Swihart for just Donaldson alone. If Samardzija's in there too, it's a pretty easy decision.
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 8, 2014 15:50:39 GMT -5
Chris, That's fair and generally big trades involve 4-5 prospects at most. I would like to counter to the rest of the post by saying that I don't think the A's will get back a prospect as good as Russell in a trade for Samardzija and I don't think they really expect to. Russell was generally regarded as a top 20 prospect in all of baseball at the time. First off, the A's were getting a year and a half of Samardzija versus only a year now. Also, I think it is generally regarded and I think fair to say that trades made during the year and before the trading deadline drive prices up in comparison to trades in the offseason. Wouldn't it be safe to say that Russell would have been then and still would be the best prospect on the Red Sox? (I hope that didn't come off as snide because that's an honest question, I think he would be but you have more knowledge than I do on this stuff). And I don't think there's anyway the Sox would give up Swihart for just one season of Samardzija (although obviously I might be wrong on that) What do you think it would take to get Donaldson and Samardzija Chris? I think Betts and Bogaerts are off the table for pretty much anyone...would it be possible to get them without the 2 B's included? Approach it from this point, would you be happy if the sox traded a top 5 MVP candidate who finished 2nd the last two years in WAR, and a very good #2 starter for a teams 4th and 5th best prospect? I think you would be rather pissed. Well that's all dependent on the system right? Some are deeper than others and have very good players as 4th and 5th best prospects. Like I think most would prefer our 4th and 5th best prospects to the best prospect in some systems
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 8, 2014 15:52:11 GMT -5
I haven't thought about this too too much, but I'm pretty sure that I'd be willing to trade Betts and Swihart (and probably another couple mid-end pieces) for Donaldson and Samardzija. Donaldson is one of the ten best position players in baseball, in his prime, at a position of need, who is under control for four more years at a well below-market rate. He's probably one of the best trade assets in baseball-- Dave Cameron ranked him 17th in his midseason trade value list, just below Stanton and Darvish, which I might even call a little low (now that he's cemented the fact that his 2013 breakout was no fluke). He's 28 already, which means he'll be past his prime sooner than you know it, and a decent amount of his value comes from his defense and park adjustments. But that's why he's even semi-available, and why a package of Betts and Swihart+ even has a chance of being accepted. Hell, if I were the front office, I'd strongly consider offering Betts/Swihart for just Donaldson alone. If Samardzija's in there too, it's a pretty easy decision. Yeah, Donaldson is a pretty ideal trade target. Of course, this is all based on one Buster Olney article and might not even be traded but if Olney is right then I expect the Sox to put on the full court press to get him
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 8, 2014 15:53:08 GMT -5
Approach it from this point, would you be happy if the sox traded a top 5 MVP candidate who finished 2nd the last two years in WAR, and a very good #2 starter for a teams 4th and 5th best prospect? I think you would be rather pissed. Well that's all dependent on the system right? Some are deeper than others and have very good players as 4th and 5th best prospects. Like I think most would prefer our 4th and 5th best prospects to the best prospect in some systems Ok, now you are just nitpicking. You've gotta give something to get something man.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 8, 2014 16:10:53 GMT -5
I like Donaldson a lot. I had been meaning to bring him up in another thread about 3Bs. However, I also like Betts a lot. I think he may become a superstar, one of the best players in baseball, better than Donaldson. If that happens, I think I would rather have him playing for the Sox.
If I were Beane I certainly would try to get Betts in a deal for Donaldson, and given the other choices the Sox might offer, I'd probably insist on it. It's a fair trade, but I sure would like to see how Betts handled 3B for the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 8, 2014 17:03:30 GMT -5
Comment From personable person Hey Dave, I ran this by Jeff yesterday and he seemed a little intrigued so I want to run it by you. I hate trade proposals but here goes: The A’s are in kind of rebuild/go-for-it-again limbo. The Red Sox seem poised to make a run of it though, and they need a 3B. Would a Donaldson for Betts trade make sense? There would of course be some finer details to the deal, but Donaldson is going to get too expensive for the A’s in a year or two probably and he’s right at his peak. Betts would give the A’s cheap value over a while, and the Red Sox would get a peak-ish 3B for a solid run. Any thoughts? 12:54 Dave Cameron: I don’t think the Red Sox would do it. Donaldson is a Super Two, so he’s about to get expensive, and he’s an older player who has probably already peaked.
From Dave Cameron's chat today. So it's not a slam dunk among people in the industry that Betts would HAVE to be included.
Also Freddy, how is that nit picking? What you said just isn't true. For example, the Dodgers have 3 of the best prospects in the game (Urias, Seager, and Joc Pederson) if someone made a trade for one of them do you think fans would be whining about the fact that he was the 3rd best prospect on the team? The Red Sox have a very good farm system and their 4th and 5th best prospects are both really highly rated. Swihart and Owens may not be enough to get Donaldson but I don't think it has anything to do with them being the 4th and 5th best prospects on the team
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 8, 2014 17:59:09 GMT -5
I have my doubts that Donaldson will continue to produce at this level. I'm also skeptical of players whose "WAR" is tied up to defense.
Not saying he's not a good player but I'm not going above and beyond to try to get him.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 8, 2014 18:42:57 GMT -5
Wonder if this would do it: Betts Bradley Rodriguez Cecchini/Middlebrooks
for
Donaldson Samardjiza Jaso
Would give the A's a short term stopgap at 3B (not a great option - but an option) a young stud 2B, a strong SP prospect for AAA and an OF who would immediately give Oakland the best OF defensive in baseball when they choose to play Moss at DH/1B.
I was tempted to lessen the SP prospect and/or throw-in Lavarnway as he would be a fun reclamation project for Beane - but he wouldn't tip the trade as he is on the 40-man bubble.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 8, 2014 18:53:24 GMT -5
I have my doubts that Donaldson will continue to produce at this level. I'm also skeptical of players whose "WAR" is tied up to defense. Not saying he's not a good player but I'm not going above and beyond to try to get him. These are my thoughts as well. I just don't have a lot of faith Donaldson continues to produce like he has.
|
|
|