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.
The Red Sox trade deadline deals were awful/awesome/meh
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,634
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 22, 2014 13:16:49 GMT -5
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? I think the Cespedes/Lester and Craig+Kelly/Lackey trades are about philosophy perspective. I think the Sox didn't get a long-lasting high probability asset for Lester. They got a decent to good rental player for a year. (I'm not counting Aug & Sept 2014, because honestly who cares?). My philosophy is that the Sox should have grabbed a high end talent if not elite young talent for a pitcher as accomplished as Jon Lester. The problem is we'll never know what was really offered to the Red Sox. Say the Sox had a chance to get Josh Bell in a deal with Pittsburgh, then I think the Sox were dead wrong not to acquire a young talent who'd they have under their control, would fit a need, and would come up as a core member of the team along with Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, and Castillo. The problem again is that we don't know if that's what was offered up to the Sox. I have to imagine there were prospects packages. The question is how good were those prospects packages? Without knowing this all we can do is deal in hypotheticals and philosophies. I personally didn't care for the deal because at best they get one year of an alright/decent player with some significant strengths, and some overriding flaws (in my view). This player's value is what he does for the team in 2015 or what he brings back in a deal and I'm inclined to think because he has no compensation attached to him he brings back a lot less in a deal than is hoped for here. The problem is that there is no smoking gun that can be said that the Sox should have gotten this young player or that prospect package rather than making a deal for Cespedes, and to Cherington's credit he did grab a draft pick as either early compensation for losing Cespedes or compensation for losing Lester as a free agent. Philosophically, I think Lester and Lackey should have been cashed in for young players who they can control for six years, although if Kelly is as good as the Sox seem to think he is, then I would reassess that deal. While they were at it they should have cashed in on Uehara in a similar manner. However, I think when all is said and done it will be the Andrew Miller for Eduardo Rodriguez deal that is exactly the type of deal the Sox should have made for Lester and perhaps Lackey. The Sox will control Rodriguez for six years and he should be a core member of the team in the 2nd half of this decade, which I believe would have meshed with the influx of talent just here now or on the way. Problem is that the Sox are trying to do the balancing act of now versus tomorrow, which is what I think John Silver is alluding to. I could go another year or mediocrity if I had to if the Sox are stockpiling an abundance of impact talent for the second half of this decade that would lead to Theo Epstein's stated goal of making the post-season 4 years out of 5. Of course, I would have simply have given Jon Lester his money in spring training in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 22, 2014 15:44:12 GMT -5
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? I think the Cespedes/Lester and Craig+Kelly/Lackey trades are about philosophy perspective. I think the Sox didn't get a long-lasting high probability asset for Lester. They got a decent to good rental player for a year. (I'm not counting Aug & Sept 2014, because honestly who cares?). My philosophy is that the Sox should have grabbed a high end talent if not elite young talent for a pitcher as accomplished as Jon Lester. The problem is we'll never know what was really offered to the Red Sox. Say the Sox had a chance to get Josh Bell in a deal with Pittsburgh, then I think the Sox were dead wrong not to acquire a young talent who'd they have under their control, would fit a need, and would come up as a core member of the team along with Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, and Castillo. The problem again is that we don't know if that's what was offered up to the Sox. I have to imagine there were prospects packages. The question is how good were those prospects packages? Without knowing this all we can do is deal in hypotheticals and philosophies. I know that the Red Sox weren't offered Josh Bell. 'Cause Josh Bell ain't in the Red Sox system right now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 22, 2014 16:03:50 GMT -5
Created this thread for general discussion about the trade deadline deals so it doesn't clog up the offseason thread.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 22, 2014 16:09:11 GMT -5
Created this thread for general discussion about the trade deadline deals so it doesn't clog up the offseason thread. Honestly I don't see much point. Each of the trades has their own thread and conflating things together doesn't really help advance the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 22, 2014 16:39:24 GMT -5
There really isn't much more advancing the discussion but some people still want to talk about it. Everything that could be said has been said 100 times. There won't be much else to say until one of Craig or Cespedes gets traded. I just can't see how both can stay. And then the Lester or Lackey trade will be finalized. If they both stay, then we can bitch about Betts being stuck in AAA.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 22, 2014 17:19:18 GMT -5
Since you gave me three options I'd go meh.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 22, 2014 17:55:21 GMT -5
The Lester trade was great.
The Lackey deal was a big gamble of which we don't know the results, but that probably has more upside than downside.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 22, 2014 18:34:06 GMT -5
That is true of virtually everything on this site, yet people keep "discussing" who will be the FA starters next season.. Where will Betts play next season. Is Middlebrooks as awful as his numbers have shown?
Remember when the talk went on all summer about when would Bobby V get fired? Same thing. Some like talking about one topic and not the other.. Just let those discuss the topic they like and ignore the ones you don't. Myself? I think the Cespedes being dealt is very relevant, as one-two of the OF have to go and he's gonna' bring back the most.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 22, 2014 20:34:53 GMT -5
Since you gave me three options I'd go meh. +1
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 22, 2014 21:17:47 GMT -5
Lester - Awful Lackey - Meh unless Craig returns to pre injury form then Awesome Miller - Awesome Peavy - More than Meh less than Awesome
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 22, 2014 22:04:46 GMT -5
Lester/Gomes - good Lackey - awful Miller - awesome Peavy - good
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,405
|
Post by ianrs on Oct 22, 2014 22:33:06 GMT -5
Lester/Gomes: Meh (more like too early to tell, depends what Cespedes fetches or how he performs in 2015) Lackey: Meh (more like too early to tell, depends on how Kelly/Craig compare to Lackey in 2015) Miller: Awesome Peavy: Good
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 22, 2014 22:40:57 GMT -5
I can't believe Kelly's peripherals are so mediocre with the stuff he has. I expect a breakout of sorts from him soon enough.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,634
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 22, 2014 23:31:29 GMT -5
I think the Cespedes/Lester and Craig+Kelly/Lackey trades are about philosophy perspective. I think the Sox didn't get a long-lasting high probability asset for Lester. They got a decent to good rental player for a year. (I'm not counting Aug & Sept 2014, because honestly who cares?). My philosophy is that the Sox should have grabbed a high end talent if not elite young talent for a pitcher as accomplished as Jon Lester. The problem is we'll never know what was really offered to the Red Sox. Say the Sox had a chance to get Josh Bell in a deal with Pittsburgh, then I think the Sox were dead wrong not to acquire a young talent who'd they have under their control, would fit a need, and would come up as a core member of the team along with Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, and Castillo. The problem again is that we don't know if that's what was offered up to the Sox. I have to imagine there were prospects packages. The question is how good were those prospects packages? Without knowing this all we can do is deal in hypotheticals and philosophies. I know that the Red Sox weren't offered Josh Bell. 'Cause Josh Bell ain't in the Red Sox system right now. Didn't say they were offered Bell. We know they weren't offered the big 3 by LA or else you'd think they'd jump on it. Who knows what St. Louis and/or Pittsburgh offered? The point I'm making is that for Andrew Miller, a reliever, the Sox got a potential #2/#3 type starter. Obviously the Sox weren't going to get a future ace for Lester, nor were they going to get a young superstar OF, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a potential six year core member of the team that wasn't offered. When I think of core member of the team I'm thinking potentials Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Castillo, Pedroia (because he's signed long-term), and possibly Cecchini. You figure Owens and/or Rodriguez are now part of that as well. The last home grown core had Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz along with Youkilis to go along with a signed David Ortiz in his prime, and they wound up bookending two championships. Doubt the Sox could have gotten a blue chipper, but perhaps they had a choice of a potential core member, somebody they could have penciled into their rotation or lineup for six years, perhaps not as an all-star, but as a solid contributing player, but perhaps they didn't want to wait for the player to develop and wanted a player who was more of a sure thing right now and virtually guaranteed to be a key part of the 2015 team. Enter Cespedes. Not my preference if that is the choice they were choosing from. We'll never know what exactly was offered other than the Sox were probably understandably shooting for the moon in asking for prospects. As far as my trade reactions: Lester for Cespedes, not too happy about it although a good return for Cespedes could make it better (not optimistic about that though). Too soon to have a final judgment on. Would have preferred a six year asset or better yet would have preferred that Lester was signed in spring training, but that dead horse has long since left the barn. Lackey for Craig/Kelly, not thrilled by it. Not devastated by it either though. Again, wish a useful young player had been sought. I don't believe Craig will bounce back. I believe his best days are behind him. I don't think Kelly will be anything more than a #4/#5 type starter and the Sox are loaded with those already. Hope I'm wrong. I think Kelly could salvage the deal if the numbers ever catch up to his stuff. Miller for Rodriguez, love the deal. Liked it when I thought Rodriguez could be a #3/#4 type starter down the road. Love it now that Rodriguez could be a #2/#3 starter sooner than later. Exactly the type of deal I would have liked to have seen for Lackey and Lester. Peavy for Escobar and Hembree, liked the deal. Would have preferred that young A ball power hitting OF from St. Louis that was rumored to be a target, but can't complain about two possible middle relief bullpen pieces, one righty and one lefty - as I think Escobar ultimately winds up in the pen. For the remains of Jake Peavy, it was a fine deal, and even with Peavy finding the perfect ballpark to pitch in, I think it was a good deal for the Sox. And why are we still talking about this? Because there is practically nothing to talk about until the Series ends. The Sox obviously need some LH thump, preferably a 3b, and at least one, if not two top of the rotation starters (and a backup catcher). None of which will happen for a little while. I'm starting to think the Sox, instead of giving Lester the 7 years $175 million that Theo or somebody else will give him, will opt to spread the money out for Shields and Sandoval, something that I guess makes sense in a vacuum, but I really hope they don't do as I don't like either player long-term.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 23, 2014 7:03:13 GMT -5
Let's assume for a second that Bell was on the table.
Bell is a very good prospect and the Red Sox don't really have anyone like him in their system. However he's not a flawless prospect and still has a lot of work to do especially from the right side of the plate.
Cespedes, at the very least will give the team certain major league value. You can't say that about Bell. I wouldn't be surpised if Bell never gives as much major league value as Cespedes will.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 23, 2014 7:13:48 GMT -5
Somewhere between meh and awesome. As in most trades, we won't no the effects, positive or negative, for some time. Sox appear to be a clear winner in the Rodriguez trade. The Gomes trade should work out in the Sox favor considering Lester is likely to walk away from Oakland and the Sox still have Cespedes bat for another season or as a trade chip to bring in a quality starter.
The St. Louis transaction is still a work in progress. Kelly , off his Boston performances looks like a solid #3. And, if Craig rebounds to his 2012, 2013 production it's another plus in Ben's column.
Almost forgot about the Peavy trade. Since it seems unlikely he would have been resigned, Ben, at least got two young pitchers who are ML ready and have options.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 23, 2014 8:10:23 GMT -5
The Cespedes deal was a good one in that this give the Sox the best chance to win in 2015. If they extend him, that's icing on the cake.
The Lackey deal was awesome and I still can't figure out why people are bashing it so much. If Craig rebounds to what he was last year and Kelly performs like a 3, that alone is tremendous value for a half-year of a pitcher who reports say was not going to play for the Red Sox next season. Even if Lackey pitched for the Sox next season, there is a real chance that Kelly and Lackey could have roughly the same numbers.
Peavy trade was good.
Miller trade was incredible.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 23, 2014 10:29:55 GMT -5
It was stated many times that the Pirates balked at trading Bell and Meadows and obviously weren't trading their top pitchers or Polanco either.
Most teams overvalue prospects at this time (relative to other years) and the ones who don't, don't have any. Sucks to be in firesale mode that year.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,634
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 23, 2014 10:45:45 GMT -5
Let's assume for a second that Bell was on the table. Bell is a very good prospect and the Red Sox don't really have anyone like him in their system. However he's not a flawless prospect and still has a lot of work to do especially from the right side of the plate. Cespedes, at the very least will give the team certain major league value. You can't say that about Bell. I wouldn't be surpised if Bell never gives as much major league value as Cespedes will. True, you don't know what value Bell would give the team. Honestly you can't say that about any prospect so if that's the case then why ever trade for a prospect? Most likely Bell wasn't on the table, so with Marte, McCutchen, and Polanco around they still want their outfield prospects, but anyways for the sake of argument say Bell had been available, I would much rather take a chance on Bell becoming a productive core member of the team hitting the majors when Castillo, Bogaerts and Betts are established, and Swihart, and hopefully Cecchini are coming onto the scene with Devers, Margot and Chavis behind them. We're talking 2016 - 2020 for these guys and emphasizing that over one year of Cespedes for 2015 and yes I say that knowing full well that Ortiz isn't likely part of that 5 year time frame (and likely Bogaerts would be gone by 2020). The Red Sox can't just close up shop because one day David Ortiz is finally defeated by a larger Papi, Father Time. I like the idea of stockpiling for that time frame better than converting your best tradable asset into a one year go-for-it option. Again that's just my philosophy and that doesn't make me right and you wrong or vice versa.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,634
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 23, 2014 10:51:58 GMT -5
The Cespedes deal was a good one in that this give the Sox the best chance to win in 2015. If they extend him, that's icing on the cake. The Lackey deal was awesome and I still can't figure out why people are bashing it so much. If Craig rebounds to what he was last year and Kelly performs like a 3, that alone is tremendous value for a half-year of a pitcher who reports say was not going to play for the Red Sox next season. Even if Lackey pitched for the Sox next season, there is a real chance that Kelly and Lackey could have roughly the same numbers. Peavy trade was good. Miller trade was incredible. They're bashing it because there's a lot of people who see Craig as a guy who will never be the same hitter he was after his Lisfranc injury and think he's a defensive liability so that if he doesn't hit the way he did in St. Louis from 2011 thru 2013 then he's a waste of a roster space. There's also people who see Kelly as a backend starter because despite his impressive stuff he doesn't miss many bats and his FIP numbers aren't that great. If the Sox are going to seriously compete in 2015 who would you rather have? I'd rather have Lackey. Despite that feeling I'm not sorry that he's gone. Who knows what issues he would have given the Sox had they kept him at baseball minimum wage? And he is getting older and he might even be replaceable by one either or Rodriguez eventually. Lester on the other hand isn't as easily replaceable, so losing Lackey isn't the problem. It's that with him getting minimum wage, I would have preferred the Sox got a young #3 type starting pitcher. Perhaps they did in Kelly and my argument is all wet or maybe Craig bounces back, allows the Sox to deal Cespedes for something useful, and it's a great trade. There seems like too many ifs. I give Craig a 25% chance of bouncing back and Kelly a 40% chance of being as good as Lackey was in 2013, so you can say I'm not too high on them, but again, that doesn't mean I'm right. I've been wrong before and I hope I'm wrong about this deal. I do hope I'm right about the Rodriguez/Miller deal - I really like that one.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 23, 2014 11:04:42 GMT -5
The Cespedes deal was a good one in that this give the Sox the best chance to win in 2015. If they extend him, that's icing on the cake. The Lackey deal was awesome and I still can't figure out why people are bashing it so much. If Craig rebounds to what he was last year and Kelly performs like a 3, that alone is tremendous value for a half-year of a pitcher who reports say was not going to play for the Red Sox next season. Even if Lackey pitched for the Sox next season, there is a real chance that Kelly and Lackey could have roughly the same numbers. Peavy trade was good. Miller trade was incredible. They're bashing it because there's a lot of people who see Craig as a guy who will never be the same hitter he was after his Lisfranc injury and think he's a defensive liability so that if he doesn't hit the way he did in St. Louis from 2011 thru 2013 then he's a waste of a roster space. There's also people who see Kelly as a backend starter because despite his impressive stuff he doesn't miss many bats and his FIP numbers aren't that great. If the Sox are going to seriously compete in 2015 who would you rather have? I'd rather have Lackey. Despite that feeling I'm not sorry that he's gone. Who knows what issues he would have given the Sox had they kept him at baseball minimum wage? And he is getting older and he might even be replaceable by one either or Rodriguez eventually. Lester on the other hand isn't as easily replaceable, so losing Lackey isn't the problem. It's that with him getting minimum wage, I would have preferred the Sox got a young #3 type starting pitcher. Perhaps they did in Kelly and my argument is all wet or maybe Craig bounces back, allows the Sox to deal Cespedes for something useful, and it's a great trade. There seems like too many ifs. I give Craig a 25% chance of bouncing back and Kelly a 40% chance of being as good as Lackey was in 2013, so you can say I'm not too high on them, but again, that doesn't mean I'm right. I've been wrong before and I hope I'm wrong about this deal. I do hope I'm right about the Rodriguez/Miller deal - I really like that one. well 25% is just stupid in my opinion
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 23, 2014 11:32:27 GMT -5
Why? The team is on the hook for a $6.6 million cap hit. If he fails to the extent that he only generates 1 win above replacement, they've recouped their investment. As fenway pointed out, this is a relatively low risk high reward proposition. Guys and gals, this is business, not fantasy.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,634
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 23, 2014 11:46:23 GMT -5
They're bashing it because there's a lot of people who see Craig as a guy who will never be the same hitter he was after his Lisfranc injury and think he's a defensive liability so that if he doesn't hit the way he did in St. Louis from 2011 thru 2013 then he's a waste of a roster space. There's also people who see Kelly as a backend starter because despite his impressive stuff he doesn't miss many bats and his FIP numbers aren't that great. If the Sox are going to seriously compete in 2015 who would you rather have? I'd rather have Lackey. Despite that feeling I'm not sorry that he's gone. Who knows what issues he would have given the Sox had they kept him at baseball minimum wage? And he is getting older and he might even be replaceable by one either or Rodriguez eventually. Lester on the other hand isn't as easily replaceable, so losing Lackey isn't the problem. It's that with him getting minimum wage, I would have preferred the Sox got a young #3 type starting pitcher. Perhaps they did in Kelly and my argument is all wet or maybe Craig bounces back, allows the Sox to deal Cespedes for something useful, and it's a great trade. There seems like too many ifs. I give Craig a 25% chance of bouncing back and Kelly a 40% chance of being as good as Lackey was in 2013, so you can say I'm not too high on them, but again, that doesn't mean I'm right. I've been wrong before and I hope I'm wrong about this deal. I do hope I'm right about the Rodriguez/Miller deal - I really like that one. well 25% is just stupid in my opinion Stupid because....? Would you be happier with 33.46%? I think it's more likely that Craig is declining with age and injuries and won't be the same hitter he was most of the time in St. Louis. You obviously think he'll snap right back. I figure either he snaps back and hits near .280 - .300 with .450ish SA and a decent OBP or he hits near .250 with a mediocre OBP and mediocre SA or he hits somewhere near as bad as he was in 2014 (I don't mean his .130 BA with the Sox) and his other numbers are awful. All of these choices come with mediocre defense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 23, 2014 11:47:28 GMT -5
Why? The team is on the hook for a $6.6 million cap hit. If he fails to the extent that he only generates 1 win above replacement, they've recouped their investment. As fenway pointed out, this is a relatively low risk high reward proposition. Guys and gals, this is business, not fantasy. It's not the money. It's the roster spot and plate appearances. Who's are you taking away and what is the cost that he doesn't rebound? 200 plate appearances of below replacement level? And how is he going to bounce back with basically a Mike Carp role? Are we sticking Betts in AAA because of him? What about Victorino if he's healthy? I see much surer things than Craig in front of him on the depth chart. Enough surer things that he shouldn't be getting much time absent of significant injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 23, 2014 11:56:34 GMT -5
In other words, just enough to generate that 1 win. Unless of course he busts out.
|
|
|