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 telson13 on Mar 16, 2015 20:45:11 GMT -5
I'm curious to hear what people think about trade possibilities for young, #1/2-talent level starters like Syndergaard or Taijuan Walker. With Wheeler's injury Syndergaard might be off the table, but I'm curious as to why we don't hear more about the Sox trading some of their excess MLB/MLB-ready talent for guys whose stock is down (Walker) or maybe a single-A/AA level player (Glasnow?) from a team that needs cost-controlled depth.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Mar 16, 2015 20:51:27 GMT -5
Cause teams rarely trade that type of player for other prospects. In fact they rarely trade prospects for prospects.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 16, 2015 22:47:07 GMT -5
Would you be interested in trading Bogaerts and Betts for three or four Grade B prospects? Like, if the Astros came in with something like Moran/Brett Phillips/McCullers/Hader for Bogaerts, would you have any interest at all?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 17, 2015 1:42:35 GMT -5
The closest and most recent comp to this that I can think of is the Montero for for Pineda trade. But Montero was was ranked as a top 10 guy by most media outlets and Pineda already had a year under his belt.
The question is: are you offering Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts in a possible trade? If Vazquez hits far better than expected, I could see a 'Swihart for SP with Ace potential' deal explored, but it would still be tough to find a partner who's needs, talent and evaluations match.
As of right now the Red Sox have an abundance of near MLB ready pitchers with talent - so they're probably best off just waiting for now. Who knows, that young pitcher with '#2, #3 or #4' upside just may turn into an ace after all. It's always a bit of a crapshoot; so you're better off not putting all of your chips into the pot at once.(i.e. I feel more comfortable with 3 #2/3 pitchers in AAA than 1 'potential ace' who is a single pitch away from looking for a new line of work)
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 17, 2015 13:48:27 GMT -5
There's a huge difference between an MLB-ready #1-caliber starter, and a high-A guy or someone like Taijuan Walker, whose value has fluctuated with some struggles. FWIW, there was some talk of a Cespedes-Wheeler deal; throwing Marrero and another prospect into that deal (someone in A ball with upside) might have made Syndergaard an option. The reality is that top-20-in-baseball pitchers have only about half of the success rate that hitters do (35% vs 60%) for average-or-better performance. Obviously, teams covet #1 starter talents and rarely trade them even if they look more like #3s with time. But, teams do buy low (see:Frank Montas) on riskier players who have limited development but big arms, and on players like Walker who've struggled some. Do teams ship elite talents with pristine records for packages of B-grade prospects? No. But I'm not talking elite players with pristine minor league numbers or packages solely comprised of B-grade prospects.
I do think that a #6-9 prospect in Boston's system (say Cecchini, who was a top-60-in-baseball before a down year) who is major-league ready would immediately become a top-3 (or one, if we're talking about the Angels) in many systems. He could also start for a fair number of MLB teams, right now. If he, or Marrero (who had a great AFL), or any other of the on-the-cusp players (Johnson? Escobar?) continues to build value, why not package them with ML talent for a guy like Walker (Seattle has two SSs, neither of who is particularly good, and they need OFers and offense in general), who has a lot of questions around him but may pull a Julio Teheran. Or, do one-for ones (or twos) with the goal of stockpiling class-A arms with big upside? Yeah, teams don't like to trade prospects all that much because they "like" their guys, but the Sox have a glut of players on the border who have nowhere to play. I like the idea of rebuilding value (Cecchini, JBJ, Escobar) or improving value (Marrero, Barnes, Johnson) while maintaining depth, but at some point, the logjam has to break. If big arms are the system's weak point, use the upper-level positional strength and MLB excess to go get it.
Some responses seem to think I'm expecting the Sox to get Glasnow for JBJ...that's just silly. I guess I'm curious to hear about who you think some buy-low quality arms might be. Again, three years ago (I think) Teheran looked like a disaster. Even Eduardo Rodriguez was a buy-low with #2 upside. Beyond Walker, there have got to be more guys out there like that...pitching equivalents of JBJ (once a top-35 guy himself).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 17, 2015 13:57:41 GMT -5
The closest and most recent comp to this that I can think of is the Montero for for Pineda trade. But Montero was was ranked as a top 10 guy by most media outlets and Pineda already had a year under his belt. The question is: are you offering Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts in a possible trade? If Vazquez hits far better than expected, I could see a 'Swihart for SP with Ace potential' deal explored, but it would still be tough to find a partner who's needs, talent and evaluations match. As of right now the Red Sox have an abundance of near MLB ready pitchers with talent - so they're probably best off just waiting for now. Who knows, that young pitcher with '#2, #3 or #4' upside just may turn into an ace after all. It's always a bit of a crapshoot; so you're better off not putting all of your chips into the pot at once.(i.e. I feel more comfortable with 3 #2/3 pitchers in AAA than 1 'potential ace' who is a single pitch away from looking for a new line of work) I do think your last point is a key one; obviously, in getting rid of Ranaudo, Webster, and RDLR, the Sox made clear who they think the next wave is. And yeah, 4 "#3" ceiling guys is probably as good as one "#1," given attrition rates. I'm pretty hopeful that at least one of their current AAA group will reach Lester-like #2 status, or not too far from it. And the ones who don't will likely still have value. Would I trade Swihart for Gerritt Cole or Jose Fernandez? Maybe and yes...but I wouldn't for Chris Sale, who's constantly injured. Yeah, I know, Fernandez and TJ and all...but that's a highly successful surgery. The real question is, can the Sox acquire pitchers who've lost their luster with poor high-minors seasons or ML years 1-3, without giving up B-B-S? Devers? Margot? Depends on the pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 17, 2015 14:07:16 GMT -5
Would you be interested in trading Bogaerts and Betts for three or four Grade B prospects? Like, if the Astros came in with something like Moran/Brett Phillips/McCullers/Hader for Bogaerts, would you have any interest at all? Would the Astros have traded Appel for Cecchini-Marrero-class A lottery ticket before he had some AA success? I don't know, but again, minor league hitters in the top 20-25 prospects in baseball are about half as likely to bust as pitchers. I'm sure there are teams in contention (making the Astros not the best example) that would love to get their hands on some of the Sox' MLB-ready talent. Pedro Martinez was acquired for Pavano and Tony Armas Jr. Armas Jr was considered a #2 ceiling guy, and the Sox got him **for a half-season of Mike Stanley**. Can the Sox package one of Craig/Nava/Victorino and somebody like Cecvhini to acquire a pair of high-A arms with upside? History says yes (although prospect valuation, to be fair, has changed).
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 17, 2015 14:46:15 GMT -5
Would I trade Swihart for Gerritt Cole or Jose Fernandez? Maybe and yes...but I wouldn't for Chris Sale, who's constantly injured. Yeah, I know, Fernandez and TJ and all...but that's a highly successful surgery. The real question is, can the Sox acquire pitchers who've lost their luster with poor high-minors seasons or ML years 1-3, without giving up B-B-S? Devers? Margot? Depends on the pitcher. Hey Telson - the problem you keep making is that you are setting up an argument for 'why someone else should want our stuff because Ace potential pitchers often flame out' while at the same time, trying to trade our stuff for an Ace potential pitcher who may flame out. You don't buy your own argument and nobody else will either. I've never heard of a team trading multiple prospects for an Ace-potential prospect before. If BC offered Swihart straight-up for Cole, Fernandez or Sale - he would be told 'No'. I would happily take any of those three for Swihart and throw far more into the mix - but it doesn't seem likely. In order to get a 'buy low guy with Ace potential' which you want, you would first have to have a player that the other team really wants (i.e. they come to YOU looking for a deal). Then you can ask for that 'future ace' and when you get turned down you could then try to sweeten the pot with B-type prospects. Usually this only happens during the season, and only for MLB players. Let's say Cecchini is hitting well in AAA, Panda gets hurt for 4 weeks, Cecchini gets called up and proceeds to crush in MLB, then a team desperate for a 3B may make a bad deal to get Cecchini - but 4 different things have to go just right for that to happen and even then it would be months down the line. If you are looking for a Pedro comp, the closest I can think of would be a deal for Cueto. If you offer a Rodriguez/Cecchini package then perhaps the Reds are listening, but only because of his contract status.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 17, 2015 15:09:35 GMT -5
FWIW, there was some talk of a Cespedes-Wheeler deal; throwing Marrero and another prospect into that deal (someone in A ball with upside) might have made Syndergaard an option. The reality is that top-20-in-baseball pitchers have only about half of the success rate that hitters do (35% vs 60%) for average-or-better performance. Any Cespedes-Wheeler talk was pure speculation made by people without any knowledge. Unless BC said "how about Cespedes for Wheeler, huh, huh" while jabbing his elbow in someones rib I doubt this was ever discussed. I think you are idealizing this. Cecchini who was briefly ranked in the top 100 has good value, but Walker who was ranked in the top 10 the majority of his career is not? Cecchini has still been getting positive reviews, but the ranking when he had a OBP .400 in AA was the pinnacle of his value until he proves otherwise. Also, teams really don't care about where a player would rank in their own farm system when making trades, as it means nothing. I think you are calling out all the upside on the players you want to include and all of the downside of the players you want back, which maybe a great sales pitch but it doesn't change the players value. Cecchini or Marrero do not start over Seager or Miller in 99.99% of possibilities. Walker will be a serious piece in the Mariners team, who should compete for the division (if not be the favorites as some analyst call out) this year. You're asking for them to give up long term upside while making their team worst in the short term. If you were to include Johnson, Chavis and Barnes the Mariners still probably wouldn't spend a minute considering it. They held him out of trade proposals the entire winter, for names much bigger than Cechini and Marrero, and their is a reason for that. No, I doubt they would. Astro's had the choice of Appel, Gray, Bryant, Stewart, Fraizer, and the rest of the class and they went with Appel (I thought they'd take Gray). There wasn't much he could do in a 44 IP A ball sample size that would change their opinion on him that much, unless of course he went all Jon Denney on them. Closest recent trades to what you are talking about are the two Heaney trades this offseason. That included an 2B with solid upside and team control and another veteran SP. Heaney was then flipped 30 seconds later for one year of a top 5 second baseman, which I thought was a bit of an undersell. Next closest trade after that has to be the Miller - Rodriguez trade. Rodriguez was a top 50 prospect who's value fell before the Red Sox acquired him, and he is showing a #2 ceiling since being traded.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 17, 2015 16:29:23 GMT -5
Prospect-for-prospect trades just don't happen, period, for the most part.
This was a big topic of discussion in the 2013 offseason. The top two prospects in baseball were Profar and Taveras (RIP), both played positions that were a strength already for their organizations and were weaknesses for the other, so many wondered aloud if the Rangers and Cards should swap them. One of the best explanations I heard came, I think, from the Fringe Average podcast, where Parks explained how you'd be taking an asset that you're more familiar with than anyone and trading it for one of, in theory, comparable value that you don't know quite as much about. That uncertainty leads to questions in both directions - why is that team trading an asset it's more familiar with than I am for a piece that I value not quite as highly or at least comparably?
If you think it through, it makes sense. But yeah, there's a reason why most trades involving prospects are for major leaguers.
Also, Chris Sale has averaged 193 innings over the past 3 seasons. Where are you getting that he's "always hurt"?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 18, 2015 7:09:10 GMT -5
Prospect-for-prospect trades just don't happen, period, for the most part. Haha best statement I've read in a while.... Definitely, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 18, 2015 7:10:39 GMT -5
Don't bring up prospect trades from the mid 90s as evidence of anything in today's landscape. It's completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 18, 2015 7:14:32 GMT -5
The question is: are you offering Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts in a possible trade? If Vazquez hits far better than expected, I could see a 'Swihart for SP with Ace potential' deal explored, but it would still be tough to find a partner who's needs, talent and evaluations match. Not to derail the thread, but I'm not so sure they would consider moving Swithart unless far better than expected means .300 hitter stuff. Not until they give Swithart the opportunity to be what they think he is. It's becoming clearer and clearer that they feel Swithart could be a generational type catcher both with the glove and bat. He may not be on the exact level as Vasquez with the glove, but I don't think the gap is that big or going to be that big.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 19, 2015 20:01:32 GMT -5
What seems likelier is an overpay-on-paper deal for an established young starter with a few years of control left.
Corey Kluber, Julio Teheran, Sonny Gray, Jose Fernandez, and Yordano Ventura are all guys who pitch for financially limited teams and who might be attractive trade targets within the next couple of years. You'd have to give up more theoretical value than you're receiving, but having lots of cost-controlled young players is how such teams can get deep into the post-season. We'll probably have those guys to spare.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2015 23:40:52 GMT -5
Would I trade Swihart for Gerritt Cole or Jose Fernandez? Maybe and yes...but I wouldn't for Chris Sale, who's constantly injured. Yeah, I know, Fernandez and TJ and all...but that's a highly successful surgery. The real question is, can the Sox acquire pitchers who've lost their luster with poor high-minors seasons or ML years 1-3, without giving up B-B-S? Devers? Margot? Depends on the pitcher. Hey Telson - the problem you keep making is that you are setting up an argument for 'why someone else should want our stuff because Ace potential pitchers often flame out' while at the same time, trying to trade our stuff for an Ace potential pitcher who may flame out. You don't buy your own argument and nobody else will either. I've never heard of a team trading multiple prospects for an Ace-potential prospect before. If BC offered Swihart straight-up for Cole, Fernandez or Sale - he would be told 'No'. I would happily take any of those three for Swihart and throw far more into the mix - but it doesn't seem likely. In order to get a 'buy low guy with Ace potential' which you want, you would first have to have a player that the other team really wants (i.e. they come to YOU looking for a deal). Then you can ask for that 'future ace' and when you get turned down you could then try to sweeten the pot with B-type prospects. Usually this only happens during the season, and only for MLB players. Let's say Cecchini is hitting well in AAA, Panda gets hurt for 4 weeks, Cecchini gets called up and proceeds to crush in MLB, then a team desperate for a 3B may make a bad deal to get Cecchini - but 4 different things have to go just right for that to happen and even then it would be months down the line. If you are looking for a Pedro comp, the closest I can think of would be a deal for Cueto. If you offer a Rodriguez/Cecchini package then perhaps the Reds are listening, but only because of his contract status. I think you're misunderstanding me. My original post is regarding young, high-ceiling pitchers, who are either still in the minors or have had poor showings in the majors but are young and talented. I brought up Pedro not because Im talking about the Sox getting an equivalent pitcher (OK, there are none...Cueto is probably the closest), but because **in order to obtain him, the Sox beat out NYY by fleecing them of a high-ceiling talent in Tony Armas Jr**, for a half season of Mike Stanley, no less. The Sox apparently fleeced Baltimore of an outstanding "buy-low" talent in Rodriguez, who was having a poor AA showing (albeit at 21) following a minor knee/thigh injury. The price was a third of a season of a superb reliever in Andrew Miller...I can only hope this trade becomes Larry Andersen in reverse. I'm not talking about trading just prospects, and trading just for healthy, on-the-cusp major league-ready #1 ceiling guys. That's silly and futile, for the most part. But, high-ceiling pitchers can be obtained in trades when 1) they're just hitting AA (Armas Jr) or are struggling to put it together, especially in single A (Frank Montas), John Smoltz (for Doyle Alexander) or 2) they've had a couple of down years on the AAA/MLB cusp. The Sox have an abundance of trade chips, from Craig, Vic, and Nava to Cecchini, Marrero, etc. My original post was more about "who's a great buy low pitching prospect the Sox could target," and not "why can't the Sox trade a bag of rocks and three used toothpicks for Noah Sundergaard?" I think the Rodriguez trade is a good, though not perfect example: a team with perceived "need" being convinced to give up on a talented player who was underperforming. Edwin Escobar is a somewhat similar case (for a lesser player in Peavy) that didn't pan out (possibly because he was further along in development and represented a lower ceiling but higher floor). As for Chris Sale...meh. Has yet to pitch a full season and has an atrocious delivery. Injury disaster waiting to happen. But that's another thread. Also, Cueto shouldn't cost two top guys, as a three-month rental. You're offering more than Price brought, with a year's less control. I'm thinking more Marrero (he's a prior Cincy draftee and they need a SS), Nava (fits their OBP jones, and is cheap), and an arm like Johnson. Of course, it all depends on who else wants him and how much leverage Cincy has, because trade offer competition will probably be it...I doubt they can keep him.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2015 23:59:36 GMT -5
What seems likelier is an overpay-on-paper deal for an established young starter with a few years of control left. Corey Kluber, Julio Teheran, Sonny Gray, Jose Fernandez, and Yordano Ventura are all guys who pitch for financially limited teams and who might be attractive trade targets within the next couple of years. You'd have to give up more theoretical value than you're receiving, but having lots of cost-controlled young players is how such teams can get deep into the post-season. We'll probably have those guys to spare. Eric, this is a great point that I agree with wholeheartedly. I think Ventura, especially, might be a good target...simply because he's short and throws hard, which the data say might be a **slight** increased injury risk...but not remotely close to the **perceived** risk...again, similar to Pedro. I do agree that the landscape for prospect value has greatly changed, but you're stating **exactly** why I posted this thread...can the Sox accumulate enough high-ceiling arms to package 2-3 of them for a, say, 3rd-4th year young starter who they can subsequently sign to a favorable extension (a la Pedro, who had one of the best seasons of the last 30 years in Montreal before the trade, and cost the Sox a pitcher viewed as a future 1/2 (Pavano) and one considered a future 2/2a (Armas Jr)). The Sox have so much talent on the cusp of the majors (including the four AAA starters) that simply can't all make the roster. If those players sit too long in AAA, they lose value. Just as the theoretical prospect value for an established MLBer is often an overpay, so too could the Sox possibly get teams to "overpay" in talent that's three years away for an MLB-ready player now (or a veteran spare part). It relieves a logjam and gives the system depth, and time to work in players gradually rather than in a high-pressure JBJ/Bogaerts-2014-style. Then they can cherry-pick the "keepers" and/or use that continued depth to go after a pitcher as you mentioned above. Sonny Gray might be another good one...he's also short, and Oakland shares the Sox philosophy and might be more likely to covet players in their system.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 21, 2015 0:16:59 GMT -5
Prospect-for-prospect trades just don't happen, period, for the most part. This was a big topic of discussion in the 2013 offseason. The top two prospects in baseball were Profar and Taveras (RIP), both played positions that were a strength already for their organizations and were weaknesses for the other, so many wondered aloud if the Rangers and Cards should swap them. One of the best explanations I heard came, I think, from the Fringe Average podcast, where Parks explained how you'd be taking an asset that you're more familiar with than anyone and trading it for one of, in theory, comparable value that you don't know quite as much about. That uncertainty leads to questions in both directions - why is that team trading an asset it's more familiar with than I am for a piece that I value not quite as highly or at least comparably? If you think it through, it makes sense. But yeah, there's a reason why most trades involving prospects are for major leaguers. Also, Chris Sale has averaged 193 innings over the past 3 seasons. Where are you getting that he's "always hurt"? You're completely right about Sale, I was thinking about last year when he had a couple of minor issues, but somehow I'd made that into him missing more time than he did in 2012. I still think he missed at least 2-3 starts each in '12-'13 but I could be wrong. Regardless, his delivery makes me nervous...I suppose I let that emotion irrationally taint my perception, especially in light of last year. I would argue that a three-year average looking at IP doesn't tell the full story...starts made and the trend need to be considered. But point taken. I'm actually a little more bullish on him in light of a quick perusal of his fg page. I've read the "unknowns=risk" theory and I think it's a great point. Teams (and fans) overvalue their own prospects based on familiarity and lower perceived risk.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 4, 2015 23:38:33 GMT -5
What seems likelier is an overpay-on-paper deal for an established young starter with a few years of control left. Corey Kluber, Julio Teheran, Sonny Gray, Jose Fernandez, and Yordano Ventura are all guys who pitch for financially limited teams and who might be attractive trade targets within the next couple of years. You'd have to give up more theoretical value than you're receiving, but having lots of cost-controlled young players is how such teams can get deep into the post-season. We'll probably have those guys to spare. Eric, this is a great point that I agree with wholeheartedly. I think Ventura, especially, might be a good target...simply because he's short and throws hard, which the data say might be a **slight** increased injury risk...but not remotely close to the **perceived** risk...again, similar to Pedro. I do agree that the landscape for prospect value has greatly changed, but you're stating **exactly** why I posted this thread...can the Sox accumulate enough high-ceiling arms to package 2-3 of them for a, say, 3rd-4th year young starter who they can subsequently sign to a favorable extension (a la Pedro, who had one of the best seasons of the last 30 years in Montreal before the trade, and cost the Sox a pitcher viewed as a future 1/2 (Pavano) and one considered a future 2/2a (Armas Jr)). The Sox have so much talent on the cusp of the majors (including the four AAA starters) that simply can't all make the roster. If those players sit too long in AAA, they lose value. Just as the theoretical prospect value for an established MLBer is often an overpay, so too could the Sox possibly get teams to "overpay" in talent that's three years away for an MLB-ready player now (or a veteran spare part). It relieves a logjam and gives the system depth, and time to work in players gradually rather than in a high-pressure JBJ/Bogaerts-2014-style. Then they can cherry-pick the "keepers" and/or use that continued depth to go after a pitcher as you mentioned above. Sonny Gray might be another good one...he's also short, and Oakland shares the Sox philosophy and might be more likely to covet players in their system. Kluber (who was 4 years from free agency) and Ventura (who was five years away) just agreed to identically structured extensions -- five years plus 2 option years. If the options are picked up, Ventura will be a FA when he's 31, Kluber when he's 36. I don't think that changes their trade likelihood that much. You're only getting either player if the organization feels it has holes to fill that are leaving it short of championship caliber, and if you can fill those holes while replacing the pitcher with someone who might be as good, or nearly as good, and has some only a small amount of risk. The same is probably true of Teheran and Fernandez. All of these guys are seen as the ace of a future championship staff; for any of them to be available, their teams are going to have to suffer disappointments elsewhere. Sonny Gray is another story, of course. He will almost certainly be available at some point.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 5, 2015 19:21:27 GMT -5
Eric, this is a great point that I agree with wholeheartedly. I think Ventura, especially, might be a good target...simply because he's short and throws hard, which the data say might be a **slight** increased injury risk...but not remotely close to the **perceived** risk...again, similar to Pedro. I do agree that the landscape for prospect value has greatly changed, but you're stating **exactly** why I posted this thread...can the Sox accumulate enough high-ceiling arms to package 2-3 of them for a, say, 3rd-4th year young starter who they can subsequently sign to a favorable extension (a la Pedro, who had one of the best seasons of the last 30 years in Montreal before the trade, and cost the Sox a pitcher viewed as a future 1/2 (Pavano) and one considered a future 2/2a (Armas Jr)). The Sox have so much talent on the cusp of the majors (including the four AAA starters) that simply can't all make the roster. If those players sit too long in AAA, they lose value. Just as the theoretical prospect value for an established MLBer is often an overpay, so too could the Sox possibly get teams to "overpay" in talent that's three years away for an MLB-ready player now (or a veteran spare part). It relieves a logjam and gives the system depth, and time to work in players gradually rather than in a high-pressure JBJ/Bogaerts-2014-style. Then they can cherry-pick the "keepers" and/or use that continued depth to go after a pitcher as you mentioned above. Sonny Gray might be another good one...he's also short, and Oakland shares the Sox philosophy and might be more likely to covet players in their system. Kluber (who was 4 years from free agency) and Ventura (who was five years away) just agreed to identically structured extensions -- five years plus 2 option years. If the options are picked up, Ventura will be a FA when he's 31, Kluber when he's 36. I don't think that changes their trade likelihood that much. You're only getting either player if the organization feels it has holes to fill that are leaving it short of championship caliber, and if you can fill those holes while replacing the pitcher with someone who might be as good, or nearly as good, and has some only a small amount of risk. The same is probably true of Teheran and Fernandez. All of these guys are seen as the ace of a future championship staff; for any of them to be available, their teams are going to have to suffer disappointments elsewhere. Sonny Gray is another story, of course. He will almost certainly be available at some point. Eric, I found both of these signings interesting, especially the Ventura one. For Kluber, it sets him up to be in a similar "bracket" as Cole Hamels, ie a top-notch starter under contract into projected decline years, but likely at a discount relative to going FA market prices. I'm not sold on Cleveland's predictions of success (even dominance) this year, but I do think it gives them an asset both for their team, or in trade. In essence, I think this increased his value to the Indians across the board. I was bummed at first about Ventura, but in thinking about it, I think his contract has a similar effect as Kluber's, but accentuated. It certainly makes him even more attractive to a potential acquiring team, since his guaranteed years basically end with his prime, and the two option years cover "plateau" seasons when pitchers undergo usually mild decline, but are still pitching very close to prime levels. This is a **terrific** signing theoretically for the Royals. And frankly, I would, as a Sox fan, be amenable to them giving up a top prospect package (next wave, eg Devers/Margot/whoever steps forward) to get him if he continues to improve. What's really interesting is that the Royals have several holes, and would do well to get MLB-ready talent back, along with prospects. They also put a premium on defense, so a guy like Marrero might have more value to them than some other teams. I'd love to see Marrero hit in AAA like he did in Portland and the AFL; if he does and Cecchini has a comeback .315/.400/.450 or so year, the Sox will have two very, very nice trade chips to package with an All-Star upside prospect to go after a cost-controlled #1. I'm still wishing they could find a way to coax the Mariners into trading Walker, but after his spring, it looks like that's not happening without including Mookie, Swihart, or Moncada.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 5, 2015 20:12:38 GMT -5
Considering the attrition rates (mostly TJ-wise) on young pitchers (most of whom have increasing amounts of mileage on their arm by the time they reach the majors due to year-round youth leagues and such), I'm not sure that it makes much sense to trade for high-end pitching prospects (under the assumption that you'd have to give up high-end hitting prospects to get those guys).
ADD: by which I mean that I'd hesitate to trade, say, Swihart+ for Walker. Or, say, Margot+ for Hunter Harvey.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 6, 2015 7:37:54 GMT -5
I also don't see why the Royals would be all that interested in trading Ventura. They are finally in a spot with their team where they are contenders and he's a big part of that. There is no way they can sell another rebuild after one year of being in it. These teams don't trade the young players they are able to lock up to longterm team friendly deals, they trade the young players they aren't able to do that with. He's a Royal for the next few years. Maybe once he has 2 years left (the team options) we can start talking about him.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 6, 2015 11:58:11 GMT -5
Considering the attrition rates (mostly TJ-wise) on young pitchers (most of whom have increasing amounts of mileage on their arm by the time they reach the majors due to year-round youth leagues and such), I'm not sure that it makes much sense to trade for high-end pitching prospects (under the assumption that you'd have to give up high-end hitting prospects to get those guys). ADD: by which I mean that I'd hesitate to trade, say, Swihart+ for Walker. Or, say, Margot+ for Hunter Harvey. Absolutely...I don't think there's really anyone I'd trade Swihart for, particularly with Vazquez post-TJ. And in terms of minor leaguers for other minor leaguers (Margot-Harvey) I think the research shows that position players in the upper tiers of prospects have about twice the success rate as pitchers (somebody at BA did an analysis on this, but I don't have the link). I think it makes more sense to deal depth (say, MLB-ready excess like Marrero-Cecchini, both of who are probably top-150, and top100 with good seasons this year) and a major-leaguer with a favorable contract (Craig, IF he hits) along with a top prospect for a younger pitcher in MLB (Ventura, Gray, lesser package for Walker or Archie Bradley). Or, try to get an A/AA ball arm (Harvey, Glasnow, etc) with upside to a team in the hunt that's pushing to make a move. The Kimbrel trade isn't an ideal example, but SD didn't really give up THAT much to get an outstanding arm. Could the Sox get Jose Fernandez for Owens, Devers, a hitter like Craig, and salary relief? Probably not, but it's worth exploring. Or, could the Sox (and this is why I think Victorino is in RF despite Castillo looking obviously superior) trade a veteran for a single A arm or two (like the Peavy-Iglesias/Montas trade in reverse) to a team in need? I guess my thoughts are still that, with so much MLB/MLB-ready depth, why not stockpile high-risk, high-reward arms and improve your odds, *given* the high attrition rate? There's a pitching dearth in Salem/Portland, which is OK if the AAA guys establish themselves as viable big-leaguers, but it'll hurt if at least two don't, either in wins or big FA dollars. I think adding a couple of arms to Kopech, Ball, Cosart, Espinoza, and Acosta would help ensure a strong next wave. It seems that clubs do value prospects more these days, but Eduardo Rodriguez is a great example of how teams will still give up big arms for a win-now mentality. Drop the acquired player's level (increase his risk/development time), and ship a guy who's got a reasonable contract/controlled time or is playing well at the end of a contract, and they could get real value back. If Craig shows he's .280/.350/.450-capable, somebody's gonna want him for the drive, and I'd rather see the Six get two quality single A arms than a high-floor AAA guy and an MLB reliever. If Cecchini (who projects as MLB-average at this point) bounces back and raises his value a bit, wouldn't some team take a flyer on him for a premium full-season A-ball arm and a short season guy?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 6, 2015 12:15:31 GMT -5
I also don't see why the Royals would be all that interested in trading Ventura. They are finally in a spot with their team where they are contenders and he's a big part of that. There is no way they can sell another rebuild after one year of being in it. These teams don't trade the young players they are able to lock up to longterm team friendly deals, they trade the young players they aren't able to do that with. He's a Royal for the next few years. Maybe once he has 2 years left (the team options) we can start talking about him. Probably true. They'd have to be wowed. But they also lack depth and, with Cleveland improved, may wind up ticketed for third (or, if Smardzjia pitches well and Sale stays healthy, fourth). Obviously, they're not going to trade him if they don't think they "need" to...but it doesn't hurt to put the bug in their brain. Trading Ventura can be sold as a retool, not rebuild, if the fans are staring at a .500-.520 team, especially if MLB-ready talent like Cecchini-Marrero-Owens are included. All three could step in right away, and a prospect like Margot (who I'd hate to see go) might tip the equation. I think a LOT hinges on JBJ, Marrero, and Cecchini and how they perform this year. If JBJ and Cecchini both hit, does Napoli become tradable, with Ramirez to 1b and JBJ to CF, Betts to RF, and Castillo to left, with Cecchini as depth for DH/1b/3b? Marrero opened some eyes hitting .328 with a .400 OBP in the AFL...if he hits .280/.360/.400 in AAA, with his defense, he's suddenly looking a lot like Francisco Lindor (OK, a stretch, but the D is there, and an MLB SS who hits .260/.330/.370 with GG defense is a huge asset). All of the talk about trading for an ace...why not get several arms and try to develop one? Fwiw, I misread Kluber's deal...I didn't realize it was only 5/$38M. That is a huge bargain for Cleveland. And now Carrasco.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Apr 6, 2015 12:22:28 GMT -5
A problem I see is most teams rate their own prospects to a higher value than everybody else. I do think it would benefit teams to trade equal value players for each other.
Maybe we'll get our next ace this draft, or already have one who is still developing.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Apr 6, 2015 14:29:36 GMT -5
Prospect-for-prospect trades just don't happen, period, for the most part. This was a big topic of discussion in the 2013 offseason. The top two prospects in baseball were Profar and Taveras (RIP), both played positions that were a strength already for their organizations and were weaknesses for the other, so many wondered aloud if the Rangers and Cards should swap them. One of the best explanations I heard came, I think, from the Fringe Average podcast, where Parks explained how you'd be taking an asset that you're more familiar with than anyone and trading it for one of, in theory, comparable value that you don't know quite as much about. That uncertainty leads to questions in both directions - why is that team trading an asset it's more familiar with than I am for a piece that I value not quite as highly or at least comparably? If you think it through, it makes sense. But yeah, there's a reason why most trades involving prospects are for major leaguers. Also, Chris Sale has averaged 193 innings over the past 3 seasons. Where are you getting that he's "always hurt"? Whenever you hear "MLB teams or an MLB team doesn't do or usually doesn't do X", there has to be a good reason behind it. Sometimes there is good reason behind it. The Red Sox tend to want to use veteran pitchers whenever possible especially down the stretch, because young pitchers can often greatly disappoint, especially in crucial situations for instance. In this case there is a somewhat good reason given for not making prospect for prospect trades, but I don't think it tells the whole story and it certainly doesn't seem like a logical reason not to make such a trade if you think it makes your organization better. This offseason we saw one straight out prospect for prospect trade, the Kubitza trade, and another trade, the Nats, Rays Padres blockbuster that was mostly a prospect trade. The past few years have brought major changes to the game that increase the incentive to make such trades. First off we have many more adventurous GMs like A.J. Proeller who have new ideas and are willing to do what it takes to win regardless of the unwritten rules. I would say that there are many more GMs today who would be open to doing prospect for prospect trades if it truly helped their organization. Secondly, we can't discount the effect that the second wild card, and the Giants winning out of the second wild card spot has had on the game. Many more teams would have been in rebuild mode only a few years ago, now dream of treating their fans to a pennant race and maybe even an improbable long playoff run. As a consequence, there will be fewer teams willing to trade veterans for prospects. You will likely see many more trades that involve mostly established major league players, like the Lester trade, and many more prospect for prospect trades. Thirdly constraints on spending both in the Rule 4 draft and a likely future international draft cuts down an avenue for many teams to acquire prospects that they like. It maybe the only way to acquire a young phenom pitcher is to trade from a stable of young bats. No we haven't seen anything like the theoretical Profar for Tavares trade, but I think it's only a matter of time until we do. The largest obstacle to such a trade is "Bill DeWitt" disease, named for the GM who famously traded Frank Robinson in his prime. No one wants to be known forever as the GM who traded the next great superstar for a flame out. To circle back to the topic, the Red Sox have a GM who while conservative has shown the willingness to be bold and break with conventional wisdom. Further, he has job security and large stable of prospects, two things that would be necessary to make prospect for prospect trades. Over the next several years, the Sox will likely have the opportunity to trade prospects for other prospects who fit their organizational needs better and I believe that if they find one that's right they will do so. Especially if it brings in the next great Red Sox ace.
|
|
|