Would You Trade Swihart for Hamels?

We're not getting Hamels without including one top prospect; I'd just tell the phillies that they're not getting Betts and Swihart, and probably not Bogaerts either. Build a package around Owens, maybe offer Joe Kelly, possibly Margot or Marrero? But we don't need Hamels at this stage, so we shouldn't be giving up a guy with a good chance of being a very good player at a thin position around the league.
I would listen on Bogaerts for one reason: as currently constructed, our entire rotation is pretty ground ball prone, and Bogaerts is the one potential weak spot in the infield defense at a key position. Still, I'm pretty disinclined to give him up, even for Hamels

Really surprised by how against this trade people are. I'm not on the "Red Sox NEED an ace" train, but that said, a front line starting pitcher is really the one thing the Red Sox can add that substantially improves them in the near future. Hamels is as good a pitcher as you're likely to acquire, and what remains of his deal is a relative bargain. And while I do think the Swihart is going to be a better player than Vazquez, the difference might not be that much, certainly far less than the difference between Hamels and whoever he displaces in the rotation. Yeah, you're paying more per win, but you're also getting more wins total which is what actually matters.

And I hate to be the "they're just prospects" guy, but it seems like everyone is just assuming that Swihart is automatically going to turn into Buster Posey or something approaching that, and that's just not being realistic. You're not trading a guy who's as good as Cole Hamels, you're trading a guy who has like a 20% chance to be as good as Cole Hamels and might not get there anytime soon.

Can I call you George Steinbrenner?

(More seriously, search for posts by jmei that include the term "opportunity cost" if you need a refresher why excess value matters.)

They are just prospects. I mean, Jeebus, are we blind to what Buchholz, Lavarnway, and, oh please no, Xander and JBJ so, so recently became? I was so high on the Iceman, Workman, a year ago, I'm still in shock about how pedestrian he likely is.

Earth to prospect huggers, even most of the top one's will never be worth 1 year of Hamels, never mind 5 of them.

That said, I still wouldn't trade Swihart for Hamels, for two reasons: 1) the league is in such short supply of above average backstops the Yanks were forced to eat that terrible McCann deal. That's how bad good teams want quality one's. I think Swihart's potential is more valuable than the established Hamels and his swanky contract because there are more stud starters than catchers, of which Swihart promises to be.

2) We have plenty of other ML ready players that Philly also needs but we don't. The trade should not have to hinge on Swihart.

Why is it apples to apples because they are both prospects?  Because they both came straight out of high school?  Because that is all Betts and WMB have in common.  Please explain why I am killing you?  My point is Betts is an elite prospect and WMB was an good prospect.  Betts was in the Majors at age 21, WMB was 23.   You can't project what Betts will do by looking at what WMB did/didn't do.  That doesn't make sense?  You are killing me!

I would not trade any of Betts, Swihart or Devers for Hamels. I would rather they sign Shields for a 3 year $57 million contract with an option of a 4th year of $18 million with a $5 million buyout.

In my opinion, the only two truly "untouchable" names on the Red Sox from our young players should be Bogaerts and Betts. Bogaerts has a ceiling of an elite talent, and a reaosnable ceiling of a multi-time All Star. Even last season, factoring in his time at short stop only, he was a top tier short-stop in the game. Betts has a slightly lower ceiling overall, but a similar reasonabe ceiling and probably a bit higher floor since his defense would likely make him easily a top tier RF of 2b in the game. They are also both current parts of the major league line up, and are huge reasons we can afford to slightly overpay for guys like Ramirez and Sandoval. Those two are going nowhere.

Whether or not I would trade Swihart depends on the rest of the package surrounding him. Without getting too much into "salary coming back" which can always change the equation, I would probably in the end give up Swihart and a package of lower rated prospects (Ranaudo and lower). With Owens, I'd give up a package including some higher level prospects though I would in no way give up Johnson or Rodriguez with him.

I'd also say, just in general, that it's fair to compare Betts at this point to Middlebrooks following the 2012 season. That doesn't mean in any way that I think Betts = Middlebrooks, but they're certainly valid to compare as "top prospects" in the Red Sox system, after between 200 and 300 PA at the major league level. They even had similar rankings by the big prospect sites heading into the year, so they were viewed in approximately similar views by objective talent evaluators. The main difference comes in the scouting reports between the two with Betts much more mature and disciplined approach at the plate with more sustainable skills. He is also roughly two years (21 vs 23) on the age advancement scale. A reasonable comparison between the two is valid - but comparing them doesn't make them the same.

However, for Dickerson or anyone to suggest that Bogaerts or Betts might fail just because Middlebrooks did is insanity. It'd be like saying "Joe Kelly could turn into Pedro Martinez because we acquired both of them in their 26 year old season from the National League." Sure, either of those things could happen (as a very small probability), but that dosn't mean that projecting it based on random similarities is a logical conclusion.

I noticed that too. Between him, Edes and Pete Abe its getting to be a bit much. Especially since their proposed deals seem like deals that aren't that favorable to the Sox.

What about Vazquez as a centrepiece for Hamels?? Could start the year with Hanigan and hope Swihart emerges by the summer??

Hi all first time posting here. Lifetime Sox fan love the board.

The question that seems to never be getting asked is "If we keep Swihart, what do we do with Vazquez"? As good as they both are, you can't have two guys behind the plate unless you want to stash one of them as the backup, which in either case would be a tremendous waste. It leaves you with the following options:

1. Move Swihart off catcher to first base. This would be the best move from a cost standpoint since we keep both young, cost-controlled guys. With Xander at SS and Betts in RF nearly half the lineup plays for league minimum. The drawback is that it's also a big waste of Swihart defensively. Also we all know he'll hit very well for a catcher, but 1B is a different story. Look no further than Joe Mauer for proof of this concept.

2. Trade Swihart for Hamels. You gain one of the top pitchers in the league, give up a guy who will probably be a top 5 player at a premium position. You also take on a 9-figure contract for a pitcher who may not make it in the AL east.

3. Trade Vazquez for Hamels. Maybe Amaro is willing to concede this point if we include a couple guys like Owens, Margot, etc. HE still gets his catcher just not the one he wants. Given the fact that this is Amaro we're talking about this is about as likely as Grandma literally getting run over by a reindeer this Christmas.

4. Keep both, have Vazquez start this year and maybe next year decide which one we like best and trade the other at that time.

All told, I would have to go with option 2. I know you are all madly in love with the prospects, but you have to give to get, and Swihart has yet to see a MLB pitch. I know he's put up great minor league numbers but that's no guarantee he's the next Buster Posey or Joe Mauer.

Just a side note (and yes I know it sounds incredibly juvenile but what the heck), but if you've checked the 2015 schedule you know we open the season in Philly. It would be hysterical to have Hamels as our pitcher that day instead of theirs on their turf.

If it were straight up Hamels for Swihart I would probably make that trade. I'm about where Chris is on this one. To me Swihart's defense gives him a solid mlb floor right off the bat and his bat is probably above average for a catcher. The only thing which keeps me from immediately pulling the trigger is my inclination that Swihart is still way under rated in mlb circles. His athleticism and mlb track record tells me he's probably only going to keep getting better as a hitter for many years to come. He has been consistent and he usually finishes the year strong. Zero passed balls last year...you've got to be kidding! And scouts compare his intangibles to Pedroias. Clone this guy quick.

All that said, which is admittedly considerable, Hamels is an extremely consistent, innings eating, playoffs proven, top flight pitcher under control for 4-5 more years with a decent contract. At the most key position in baseball IMO.

I'd probably pull the trigger on either Bogaerts or Swihart straight up but I still wouldn't do it for Betts.

Thanks. I did leave out one idea though; just sign Shields and keep both. Then everybody's happy. Except Amaro of course