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.
Would You Trade Swihart for Hamels?
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 21, 2014 3:27:04 GMT -5
Easy no. Trades like that are why the Yankees are where they are right now. If we are trading Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts it better be a for a star in his mid 20s (24-28). Not someone already past the age of 30. Just like there is no guarantee that prospects turn out to be what they are projected to be, there is no guarantee 30+ year old ball players continue to be what they were in the past. The Yankees are were they are because of all the big contracts they gave older players and the fact that those older players are now a shell of what they once were . Also their farm system has been weak and not because of trades. They have been very poor at drafting and developing players(add in some bad luck). The last trade I can think of were the Yankees gave up decent MLB players was when they traded Kennedy and Jackson to get Granderson. Now Kennedy and Jackson went on to have some good seasons, but are no where near all star level talent.
The big difference is that Swihart, Betts and Bogaerts all have a higher ceiling for me. They could all be all stars. If you trade one and he goes on to make 10 all star teams it could hurt for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 21, 2014 11:05:41 GMT -5
Another thing to keep in mind that has hurt the Yankees has been (for lack of any better term) the acquisition cost for getting some of those high priced free agents. Looking back chronolgoically in 2014 they didn't have a first round / supplemental pick; they had 3 in 2013; they had one in 2012; one in the supplemental portion of 2011; and one in 2010. So a total of 6 top 50ish picks in the last 5 drafts. This is a big reason they have a lower tier farm system.
Now lets look at the Red Sox on the other hand, a team with a big budget, similar success in the same time frame and a focus on development. We had two in 2014; one in 2013; three in 2012; four in 2011; and three in 2010, a total of 13 top 50ish picks in the last 5 years. These are huge reasons that we have a consenus top 5 system in the game.
So not only are the Yankees on the hook for some of those terrible contracts, but they also missed out on the excess picks to build up their farm system from said picks. Having that increased number of high talent picks obviously increases the chances that you hit on some of those players.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 21, 2014 11:56:12 GMT -5
Easy no. Trades like that are why the Yankees are where they are right now. If we are trading Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts it better be a for a star in his mid 20s (24-28). Not someone already past the age of 30. Just like there is no guarantee that prospects turn out to be what they are projected to be, there is no guarantee 30+ year old ball players continue to be what they were in the past. The Yankees are were they are because of all the big contracts they gave older players and the fact that those older players are now a shell of what they once were . Also their farm system has been weak and not because of trades. They have been very poor at drafting and developing players(add in some bad luck). The last trade I can think of were the Yankees gave up decent MLB players was when they traded Kennedy and Jackson to get Granderson. Now Kennedy and Jackson went on to have some good seasons, but are no where near all star level talent.
The big difference is that Swihart, Betts and Bogaerts all have a higher ceiling for me. They could all be all stars. If you trade one and he goes on to make 10 all star teams it could hurt for a long time.
Maybe the situations aren't exactly the same, but it starts with trading a top prospect for a 30 year old on a huge deal. That in turn means you have less in the pipeline and if the other prospects you haven't traded don't pan out, you are stuck in a situation where you have no choice but to spend big in FA, where most of the free agents are over 30, because that is now the only way to improve the team. It's just a bad precedent.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 21, 2014 13:10:28 GMT -5
The Yankees are were they are because of all the big contracts they gave older players and the fact that those older players are now a shell of what they once were . Also their farm system has been weak and not because of trades. They have been very poor at drafting and developing players(add in some bad luck). The last trade I can think of were the Yankees gave up decent MLB players was when they traded Kennedy and Jackson to get Granderson. Now Kennedy and Jackson went on to have some good seasons, but are no where near all star level talent.
The big difference is that Swihart, Betts and Bogaerts all have a higher ceiling for me. They could all be all stars. If you trade one and he goes on to make 10 all star teams it could hurt for a long time.
Maybe the situations aren't exactly the same, but it starts with trading a top prospect for a 30 year old on a huge deal. That in turn means you have less in the pipeline and if the other prospects you haven't traded don't pan out, you are stuck in a situation where you have no choice but to spend big in FA, where most of the free agents are over 30, because that is now the only way to improve the team. It's just a bad precedent. You realize that the it's very likely that the Red Sox are going to HAVE to trade a talented young catcher at some point in the near-ish future, right? I don't want to gut the farm system either but there is such a thing as dealing from depth. The notion that as soon as you trade one guy away, you're on the path to giving Brian McCann a zillion dollars is slippery-slope nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 21, 2014 14:18:10 GMT -5
You act like that excess value actually exists. Actually I'm just too lazy to type out "average of the excess values over the full range of projected outcomes" or the more statistically accurate "expected value of excess value" because everyone except you already knew that that's what I mean. No I know what expected value is, you just act like it's going to work out that way and you lose any trade that doesn't follow your monetary value formula. You ignore any reasons to go outside of it. Which is fine- that's your philosophy - a GM who operated that way all the time would have a hard time building a winning team because strategic "over-pays" (using you calculations) are often times necessary and smart.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 21, 2014 17:34:35 GMT -5
Maybe the situations aren't exactly the same, but it starts with trading a top prospect for a 30 year old on a huge deal. That in turn means you have less in the pipeline and if the other prospects you haven't traded don't pan out, you are stuck in a situation where you have no choice but to spend big in FA, where most of the free agents are over 30, because that is now the only way to improve the team. It's just a bad precedent. You realize that the it's very likely that the Red Sox are going to HAVE to trade a talented young catcher at some point in the near-ish future, right? I don't want to gut the farm system either but there is such a thing as dealing from depth. The notion that as soon as you trade one guy away, you're on the path to giving Brian McCann a zillion dollars is slippery-slope nonsense. If they do have to trade one, it should be for someone younger. I already said that. I'd trade either Betts or Swihart, but only for someone in their 20s.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 21, 2014 18:14:25 GMT -5
Easy no. Trades like that are why the Yankees are where they are right now. If we are trading Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts it better be a for a star in his mid 20s (24-28). Not someone already past the age of 30. Just like there is no guarantee that prospects turn out to be what they are projected to be, there is no guarantee 30+ year old ball players continue to be what they were in the past. Like what trades?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 21, 2014 18:42:20 GMT -5
Ted Lilly for Jeff Weaver
Scott Wiggins for Raul Mondessi
Contreras for Loaiza
Ramon Ramirez and Eduardo Sierra for Shawn Chacon
Hector Made for Sal Fassano
C.J. Henry, Jesus Sanchez, Matt Smith and Carlos Monasterios.for Bobby Abreu and Corey Lidle
Scott Proctor for Wilson Betemit.
Jeff Karstens, Ross Ohlendorf, Daniel McCutchen and Jose Tabata for Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte
Farnsworth for Ivan Rodriguez
Casey Weems for jerry Harriston Jr.
Zach McAlister for Austin Kearns
Andrew Shive and Matt Cusick for Kerry Wood
Mark Melancon and Jimmy Paredes for Lance Berkman
Montero for Pineda
That's the bulk of the Yankees deals for the last decade... Who's the one that got away?
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 21, 2014 18:58:12 GMT -5
Jeebus, what a bunch of bums. That's not a story of which one got away, but one of what a bunch of useless lateral moves. Abreu excluded.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 21, 2014 19:08:23 GMT -5
Easy no. Trades like that are why the Yankees are where they are right now. If we are trading Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts it better be a for a star in his mid 20s (24-28). Not someone already past the age of 30. Just like there is no guarantee that prospects turn out to be what they are projected to be, there is no guarantee 30+ year old ball players continue to be what they were in the past. Bogaerts for Hamels (no I'm not a proponent of this): Better bet over the next 5 years: Hamels (ages: 31-35) Chance of either playing for the Sox come 2020, their next FA year: Near zero Money saved with Bogaerts: Substantial My concern with FSG's pocketbook: Zero I'm not a proponent of that trade primarily because it would destroy our SS position and depth, as our FO went all in with Bogaerts last year. But given similar talent instead? I'd do it. Hamels could be an extremely valuable piece for this team presently banking on another possible Smoltz/Penny brainfart.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 21, 2014 21:35:57 GMT -5
You realize that the it's very likely that the Red Sox are going to HAVE to trade a talented young catcher at some point in the near-ish future, right? I don't want to gut the farm system either but there is such a thing as dealing from depth. The notion that as soon as you trade one guy away, you're on the path to giving Brian McCann a zillion dollars is slippery-slope nonsense. If they do have to trade one, it should be for someone younger. I already said that. I'd trade either Betts or Swihart, but only for someone in their 20s.I agree in principle, but the reality is that the Red Sox are constrained both by the players available in trade, and their own needs. It's not like the Red Sox can trade Swihart for a third baseman at this point. Of the options that are actually available and that make sense for the Red Sox, I like Hamels pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 21, 2014 21:39:01 GMT -5
Ted Lilly for Jeff Weaver That's the bulk of the Yankees deals for the last decade... Who's the one that got away? If only the Yankees still had the 39 year old and also retired Ted Lilly, they wouldn't be in the mess they are today.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 22, 2014 3:48:20 GMT -5
This was really hard. I don't want to trade Swihart. He could be an all star catcher, more likely an above average starting catcher. I would trade him for Hamels. I would make him the centerpiece. For me to do this, the Phillies have to take lesser prospects to fill out the trade. For example Swihart, Ranaudo and Coyle. I would make that trade. I will not make Swihart the centerpiece and then include players like Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson and even Barnes. If the rumors are true and the Phillies crave Swihart, maybe including him gets the Phillies to lower the rumor of 3 top prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 7:34:25 GMT -5
Ted Lilly for Jeff Weaver Scott Wiggins for Raul Mondessi Contreras for Loaiza Ramon Ramirez and Eduardo Sierra for Shawn Chacon Hector Made for Sal Fassano C.J. Henry, Jesus Sanchez, Matt Smith and Carlos Monasterios.for Bobby Abreu and Corey Lidle Scott Proctor for Wilson Betemit. Jeff Karstens, Ross Ohlendorf, Daniel McCutchen and Jose Tabata for Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte Farnsworth for Ivan Rodriguez Casey Weems for jerry Harriston Jr. Zach McAlister for Austin Kearns Andrew Shive and Matt Cusick for Kerry Wood Mark Melancon and Jimmy Paredes for Lance Berkman Montero for Pineda That's the bulk of the Yankees deals for the last decade... Who's the one that got away? The ones they didn't draft.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 22, 2014 9:58:44 GMT -5
That wasn't the exercise. The exercise was about the Yankees gutting their system with bad trades not drafting poorly. Also, remember that drafts up until a couple years ago were s lot different. Just because the Yankees lost a bunch of top picks doesn't mean they couldn't have stocked theirs system with later bonus guys. In fact, they should have and chose not to. Their choice not to do that hurt them just as much if not more than the losing of the picks. In fact it's more because at least when they gave up the pick they added a top talent to their major league roster. It's certainly the combination of the two and the recent farm is more a result of not having picks but it hasn't been that good for a while. One year it was rated pretty well but all those guys failed to live up to the hype. The killer Bs and all their catchers, etc.
|
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on Feb 28, 2015 8:55:56 GMT -5
No! Non! Nyet! Nein!
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 28, 2015 11:13:21 GMT -5
Something like Johnson, Marrero and Cecchini seems more reasonable to me. If Philly insists on Swihart or Betts, we could always get someone else at the deadline, like Cueto, when the Reds are out of contention. We should be able to get him (or another true rental guy) for something more reasonable, then perhaps extend him.
Look at what the Tigers gave up for a year and a half of Price. Giving up Swihart for Hamels would be insane, he is a huge part of our future.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 2, 2015 16:54:59 GMT -5
Something like Johnson, Marrero and Cecchini seems more reasonable to me. .... Phillies need ss and esp. 3b much less than they need other things.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Mar 2, 2015 17:11:13 GMT -5
Isn't their top prospect a SS who could be ready next year?
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 2, 2015 18:06:42 GMT -5
Isn't their top prospect a SS who could be ready next year? JP Crawford, more likely to be ready in 2017, but they're not trying to compete in the near future so someone like Marrero won't be considered. I still think a deal can get done for Hamels that doesn't involve Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, or Owens. Something like Margot/Devers + E. Rodriguez + Cecchini/Coyle should be more than enough to get it done, and I'd be willing to do that.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Mar 2, 2015 20:15:04 GMT -5
I don't think we'd do Devers alone, and definitely not both Margot and Rodriguez. i think they'd probably look for something involving any of Johnson, Cecchini, Bradley and Kelly before any of our top specs. Maybe Margot + Johnson but I don't think we would want to sell Devers and Margot until they're closer to the majors and of more value.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 2, 2015 22:06:37 GMT -5
I don't think we'd do Devers alone, and definitely not both Margot and Rodriguez. i think they'd probably look for something involving any of Johnson, Cecchini, Bradley and Kelly before any of our top specs. Maybe Margot + Johnson but I don't think we would want to sell Devers and Margot until they're closer to the majors and of more value.You can't say that assuredly. For all we know Devers could pull a Michael Almanzar and have zero value at that point (though it's unlikely). You're not going to get Cole Hamels for a bunch of B-/C+ prospects. I must say though, this thread takes speculation to another level since Hamels' return will be highly contingent on how much $ Philly takes on.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 2, 2015 22:29:50 GMT -5
Isn't their top prospect a SS who could be ready next year? BBA TOP 10 for 2015 1. J.P. Crawford, ss 2. Aaron Nola, rhp 3. Maikel Franco, 3b/1b 4. Roman Quinn, of/ss ((speed for cf)) ... TOP 15 PLAYERS 25 AND UNDER (NOV 2013) No Player, Pos. (Age) Peak Level 1. Maikel Franco, 3b (21) Double-A 2. Jesse Biddle, lhp (22) Double-A 3. J.P. Crawford, ss (19) Low Class A 4. Ben Revere, of (25) Majors 5. *****Cody Asche, 3b (23) Majors 6. Jonathan Pettibone, rhp (23) Majors 7. Roman Quinn, ss (20) Low Class A 8. Carlos Tocci, of (18) Low Class A 9. Ethan Martin, rhp (24) Majors 10. Freddy Galvis, ss (24) Majors
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Mar 2, 2015 23:01:34 GMT -5
I don't think we'd do Devers alone, and definitely not both Margot and Rodriguez. i think they'd probably look for something involving any of Johnson, Cecchini, Bradley and Kelly before any of our top specs. Maybe Margot + Johnson but I don't think we would want to sell Devers and Margot until they're closer to the majors and of more value. You can't say that assuredly. For all we know Devers could pull a Michael Almanzar and have zero value at that point (though it's unlikely). You're not going to get Cole Hamels for a bunch of B-/C+ prospects. I must say though, this thread takes speculation to another level since Hamels' return will be highly contingent on how much $ Philly takes on. Correct, but I'm saying I think we'd bet on the odds that he does. Many people picking him and Margot as breakout prospects this year. I don't even think Hamels is a lock to succeed in the AL East, so I'm not particularly persuaded to trade Devers, Margot, Owens, or Rodriguez for Hamels. The last two could be better than Hamels by the end of 2017 for all we know, and will cost next to nothing at the time. I'd rather wait and assess the rotation mid-year then sell off these great assets right now.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 3, 2015 21:57:00 GMT -5
I think this question should be changed to: "How much of Cole Hamels' remaining contract would the Phils have to take on to let Swihart go?"
|
|
|