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.
Poll: Who Else Would You Deal In Addition to Cespedes?
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 24, 2014 21:03:32 GMT -5
The poll should be adjusted to include Castillo. I'm not saying he should be the one traded, but he should be a consideration depending on how much we could get for him. There's literally no chance he's getting traded.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Nov 24, 2014 21:13:28 GMT -5
Webster and nava Workman and victorino Buck and Craig
Luccino please
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 24, 2014 22:02:46 GMT -5
Unless it's Napoli or Nava, of the players likely to be traded, we will be selling low. I'd also expect WMB to be gone as a part of a package even though we'd be selling low.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Nov 24, 2014 22:04:10 GMT -5
Sandoval and Buchholz
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 24, 2014 22:12:01 GMT -5
Allen Craig has no place on this team, and while Victorino would be an excellent backup/bench guy realistically that would make for a miserable Shane Victorino, not to mention a very overpaid backup. Obviously those two players should be dealt.
But who would want Craig at this point? And until Victorino proves he is healthy, and even if he does, would a team want to take on $13 million for even one year?
I have trouble realistically seeing how the Sox would shed salary. I have to think the Sox finally decided to say the heck with the salary cap. I do believe that Henry called it a soft cap anyways and with the luxury tax rates reset the Sox were OK with going over it.
It's weird. If the Sox do come away with Lester and Miller, it's a little like watching the Yankees go on a shopping spree. It is quite fun as a fan, but I just hope the Sox will do it the right way and build around the young guys incorporating them into the core of the team, guys like Bogaerts, Swihart, Betts, and eventually Rodriguez, Owens, perhaps Barnes, and down the road Devers and Margot.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 24, 2014 22:23:39 GMT -5
I loathe the idea of selling low on Craig and Victorino, both of whom I think are in store for decent-sized bouncebacks. But I also love me some Napoli and Nava and think they're two of of the most underrated players on the roster.
In a vacuum, I'd trade Napoli, but I'm not sure what his market would be. The Mariners are an obvious fit, but I honestly can't think of another team that (a) has money to spend, (b) needs a 1B, and (c) is a contender. Maybe the Brewers, if they decided to add payroll? Maybe the Rangers, if they moved Fielder to DH? Maybe the Pirates or Marlins, if the Red Sox ate money?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 24, 2014 22:26:41 GMT -5
I loathe the idea of selling low on Craig and Victorino, both of whom I think are in store for decent-sized bouncebacks. But I also love me some Napoli and Nava and think they're two of of the most underrated players on the roster. In a vacuum, I'd trade Napoli, but I'm not sure what his market would be. The Mariners are an obvious fit, but I honestly can't think of another team that (a) has money to spend, (b) needs a 1B, and (c) is a contender. Maybe the Brewers, if they decided to add payroll? Maybe the Rangers, if they moved Fielder to DH? Maybe the Pirates or Marlins, if the Red Sox ate money? I don't see any reason to move Napoli. I wouldn't want to see a Nava/Craig platoon at 1B and Napoli is a solid defensive 1B. The Sox need him too much in my opinion, unless you think Travis Shaw could be the answer in 2015. I think Nava, Victorino, Holt, and David Ross (temporarily until Swihart regulates Vazquez to the bench) would be one helluva bench, although Victorino doesn't really belong on the bench, and any of Nava, Vic, or Holt could have some trade value.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 24, 2014 22:28:38 GMT -5
This continues to be fascinating to watch. Obviously one, if not two big trades coming. It's possible that Cespedes is dealt for 1 or more prospects who then get flipped for a starter, or who remain to defray the prospects the Sox will lose in a deal for a starter.
The rest is a mishmash to me. I assume Papi and Pedroia are immovable, and Mookie and Xander are close to that. I like Napoli and think if that finger is healed he'll hit 25+ HRs this year and have an OBP > .360. Also love his defense. But if they don't want to eat salary on both Victorino and Craig, he's probably gone and they gamble on Craig. Just fascinated to see how this plays out. I still haven't a clue on who is moving next but I a certain that the big trade(s) are on the near horizon. If they sign Lester my guess is they try a big deal for a high-value, controllable arm like Wheeler, DeGroom, Ross etc. A one year rental (Zimmerman, Iwakmura, etc) is also possible but seems expensive prospectwise for one all in year plus a draft pick. Can't see them signing Lester AND trading for Hamels, however. Too much combined salary. Could see a trade for Hamels and a buy on a second tier arm like McCarthy or (Pick one).
Then again, I would've never predicted Panda AND Hanley, either, so go figure.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 24, 2014 22:41:13 GMT -5
I loathe the idea of selling low on Craig and Victorino, both of whom I think are in store for decent-sized bouncebacks. But I also love me some Napoli and Nava and think they're two of of the most underrated players on the roster. In a vacuum, I'd trade Napoli, but I'm not sure what his market would be. The Mariners are an obvious fit, but I honestly can't think of another team that (a) has money to spend, (b) needs a 1B, and (c) is a contender. Maybe the Brewers, if they decided to add payroll? Maybe the Rangers, if they moved Fielder to DH? Maybe the Pirates or Marlins, if the Red Sox ate money? I don't see any reason to move Napoli. I wouldn't want to see a Nava/Craig platoon at 1B and Napoli is a solid defensive 1B. The Sox need him too much in my opinion, unless you think Travis Shaw could be the answer in 2015. I think Nava, Victorino, Holt, and David Ross (temporarily until Swihart regulates Vazquez to the bench) would be one helluva bench, although Victorino doesn't really belong on the bench, and any of Nava, Vic, or Holt could have some trade value. The reason is that you'd presumably get much more of a return for Napoli. If, say, Cespedes and Napoli got you Iwakuma and Edwin Diaz, I'd definitely think about it.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 24, 2014 22:46:40 GMT -5
The guy at fan graphs thinks the sox will package Napoli and cespedes in a deal for a left handed bat, probably at first base.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 24, 2014 23:01:44 GMT -5
Hmmm, unless it's Rizzo or Freeman I don't think I'm feeling it, Larry. And I don't think either of those guys are for sale right now.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 25, 2014 1:32:38 GMT -5
I think folks are missing how logical it is to trade Brock Holt. Lots of folks have wanted to sell high on him, so I'm shocked he has only 5 votes.
Holt's job is to back up 2B, SS, and 3B. (His ability to play a decent CF and RF is of less use to us than almost anyone else.) That mostly means playing 3B when Sandoval is hurt. So let's look at that.
Sandoval's out of the lineup for a few days. Which is better: playing Holt at 3B, or playing Hanley at 3B and using the Nava / Craig platoon in LF?
Clearly the latter, I think. Neither Holt nor Hanley seems like a particularly good defensive 3B, but in their respective SSS's Hanley has been better. More importantly, you'll definitely get more offense from the Nava / Craig platoon. And if you have a healthy Victorino available, you're going to be much better off with him in the OF than with Holt at 3B.
The same logic applies to Xander missing time, which is probably going to a rare thing.
And on the rare days when Pedroia is out of the lineup, you're going to be better off with Betts at 2B and one of the three outfielders in the OF, than with Holt at 2B.
One argument against this is that it's unusual for outfielders to double as backup infielders. But when they've just been converted to the OF (which, of course, is itself unusual), it's not at all a crazy idea.
Another argument is that Hanley, your backup SS and 3B, is himself injury prone and might be out of the lineup for a few days but not on the DL, when the same thing happens to Sandoval (or Bogaerts). Well, every team ought to have emergency players for such contingencies. You decide in ST whether your emergency up-the-middle lineup is Pedroia at SS and Betts at 2B, or vice versa, and you find an emergency 3B from among Betts, Pedroia, Craig, and even Castillo.
Note that if and when Victorino is on the DL, you have the option of calling up almost any sort of player: Jemile Weeks, WMB, Cecchini, Bradley, Brentz -- whoever looks to be most useful, including a 13th pitcher. Holt could actually start for some teams at 2B. You wouldn't be selling low on him at all, and he'd be a nice addition to a Cespedes package for some teams.
The bottom line is this: you're not going to save significant payroll by dumping Victorino, nor are you going to get much of anything for him. His cost is sunk. If you keep him and he washes out, the downside of having kept him and dealt Holt is minimal. As above, you really weren't going to use Holt as a backup, if you wanted to put the best team on the field without artificial concerns about moving guys between two positions. Nor are you going to lose the pennant because you were shuffling Weeks, WMB, Cecchini, Bradley, Brentz and a 13th pitcher through what used to be Holt's roster spot (and was subsequently Victorino's, before he got hurt); in fact, that flexibility might prove to be a plus.
And if Victorino returns to form, he's obviously a better and more valuable player than Holt. He might well be your starting RF, with Betts in CF, and with Castillo getting 400 - 450 PA backing up all three OF positions (since Hanley and Betts will be spending some time in the infield).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 25, 2014 2:18:22 GMT -5
I picked Napoli. I dont think anyone touches Vic at his salary and a Nava/Craig platoon at 1B can get the job done and if Craig rebounds he could outhit Napoli. I don't know if you could package both Cespedes and Nap together and get that main chip for Hamels or you could separate them out and get a #2 for one and a prospect for the other to offset the lost draft picks. Craig has never and will never carry Napoli's value. The latter has accumulated four times more wins above replacement over his career. Craig has never had more than 2.6 in a season while Mike Napoli matched or exceeded that 5 times, including last year. Included in that total are seasons of 5.4 and 4.2. The team may decide to trade the guy, but it won't be because Craig is a better hitter.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonsterwhalers on Nov 25, 2014 4:09:28 GMT -5
The poll should be adjusted to include Castillo. I'm not saying he should be the one traded, but he should be a consideration depending on how much we could get for him. There's literally no chance he's getting traded. Why not? Again, I'm not saying he should be the one to go but I don't see any reason to not consider him as a trade option depending on what the Sox could get for him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2014 7:41:52 GMT -5
Good luck finding a team who wants Napoli and has so much pitching they can afford to give a good one up and compete. You're twisting my words up. I didn't say good. Maybe a decent 4th or 5th. The point is to free up salary to get that "good" starter, and/or get equal value in return. There is no point in trading Napoli for a 4th or 5th. We have a dozen of those. Until we're showing that it's penny pinching time, the best team includes Napoli in the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2014 7:46:55 GMT -5
Can someone help me out?
How often does a team who hopes to contend trade away a good pitcher for a guy like Cespedes or Napoli with 1 year on their contracts?
IOW, if the Reds or the Mariners hope to contend, don't they need Cueto and Iwakuma? I just don't see these kinds of deals as likely without 3rd teams involved. Most people were pretty shocked at Billy Beane for giving up a major piece of his contending team last year to upgrade in another area, but I don't think we're at the point where we can call that normal. I think people are assuming that because we traded Lester for Cespedes, we can trade Cespedes for a little less than Lester (if done before the season). I don't think it's the case at all.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 25, 2014 8:14:13 GMT -5
Can someone help me out? How often does a team who hopes to contend trade away a good pitcher for a guy like Cespedes or Napoli with 1 year on their contracts? IOW, if the Reds or the Mariners hope to contend, don't they need Cueto and Iwakuma? I just don't see these kinds of deals as likely without 3rd teams involved. Most people were pretty shocked at Billy Beane for giving up a major piece of his contending team last year to upgrade in another area, but I don't think we're at the point where we can call that normal. I think people are assuming that because we traded Lester for Cespedes, we can trade Cespedes for a little less than Lester (if done before the season). I don't think it's the case at all. The Tigers traded Austin Jackson and Drew Smyly for David Price. The Cardinals just gave up Shelby Miller for Heyward. The Mariners traded Jason Vargas (one year of team control at the time) for Kendrys Morales (also one year of team control) in 2012. The Mariners acquired one year of Mike Morse for John Jaso in 2013. It's not super common, but it absolutely does happen.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 25, 2014 11:26:08 GMT -5
Plus, you'd likely dd someone like a Ranaudo to any Cespedes deal (maybe another prospect, too, such as Coyle or Marrero) so the contra team is swapping one year contracts and adding 1-2 decent prospects with 5-6 years of team control.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Nov 25, 2014 11:41:56 GMT -5
Craig is the one player on the Sox who might be a real sleeper in a trade. If his rapid decline was mostly due to injuries, then he might make a strong recovery. However, I also have read that his bat speed has been declining for a while. But is it possible that also was due to injuries?
In any case, there may be teams out there willing to take a chance, if the price isn't too high, or if he packaged with one or two decent prospects.
On the other hand, maybe he's the guy in the OF mix (along with Nava) the Sox should keep.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Nov 25, 2014 13:32:26 GMT -5
I would trade Victorino. Napoli I would keep because he is really good player and fits well in our clubhouse. At the end of the year we can give him a QO and get a draft pick. We will probably not give a QO to Victorino.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 25, 2014 16:17:25 GMT -5
Craig is the one player on the Sox who might be a real sleeper in a trade. If his rapid decline was mostly due to injuries, then he might make a strong recovery. However, I also have read that his bat speed has been declining for a while. But is it possible that also was due to injuries? In any case, there may be teams out there willing to take a chance, if the price isn't too high, or if he packaged with one or two decent prospects. On the other hand, maybe he's the guy in the OF mix (along with Nava) the Sox should keep. Beware the "bat speed" reports, Dan. That was one of the hits on Lowell when he was traded to the Sox. In fact I distinctly remember Gammo saying how poor his bat speed looked in spring training with the Sox that first year. Similar reports on Victorino's bat speed after he signed with the Sox.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 25, 2014 19:02:18 GMT -5
Craig is the one player on the Sox who might be a real sleeper in a trade. If his rapid decline was mostly due to injuries, then he might make a strong recovery. However, I also have read that his bat speed has been declining for a while. But is it possible that also was due to injuries? In any case, there may be teams out there willing to take a chance, if the price isn't too high, or if he packaged with one or two decent prospects. On the other hand, maybe he's the guy in the OF mix (along with Nava) the Sox should keep. Beware the "bat speed" reports, Dan. That was one of the hits on Lowell when he was traded to the Sox. In fact I distinctly remember Gammo saying how poor his bat speed looked in spring training with the Sox that first year. Similar reports on Victorino's bat speed after he signed with the Sox. Folks had Ortiz washed up and shipped out of town in '09 because he'd supposedly lost so much bat speed.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 25, 2014 19:49:38 GMT -5
Craig is the one player on the Sox who might be a real sleeper in a trade. If his rapid decline was mostly due to injuries, then he might make a strong recovery. However, I also have read that his bat speed has been declining for a while. But is it possible that also was due to injuries? In any case, there may be teams out there willing to take a chance, if the price isn't too high, or if he packaged with one or two decent prospects. On the other hand, maybe he's the guy in the OF mix (along with Nava) the Sox should keep. I'm sort-of of this belief also. We traded for Craig under similar assumptions, he was having a terrible year but he is relatively cheap and under team control, and was one of the better hitters in recent years. Now he continued to have a crumby year so it didn't raise his stock, but it wasn't long ago that he was thought of as a valuable player. The contract terms would make him more attractive to smaller market teams than napolis would. Also, unlike Napoli, Craig can stand in the outfield and look for balls when he isn't in the batters box or the dugout (best way I could describe his defensive versatility.).
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Nov 25, 2014 19:50:21 GMT -5
Trade Victorino and a prospect(merrero) and let that club eat the money.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Nov 25, 2014 20:57:23 GMT -5
The only played I check off was Victorino. Ideally we trade only Cespedes and Victorino, plus keep Weeks on the 40 man. Bench would be: Holt - Super UTIL Craig - 1B/LF/RF Nava - 1B/LF/RF Acquisition - C
Holt can back up all positions, but most importantly 3B, 2B, and all outfield positions. If one of Pedroia or Bogaerts is out for an extended period of time, call up Weeks. Hanley can also back up SS while Betts can back up 2B. I don't think any team wants to take on Craig and his 3 remaining years. Boston took a gamble and needs to stick with it. I'd relagate Craig to Mike Carp 2014 duties until he starts to show something. When Napoli departs after 2015, Craig and Hanley both provide internal options to succeed him.
|
|
|