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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2015 19:05:48 GMT -5
I'll put my desire to trade Miley in different terms: Of the non-Rodriguez young starters, Owens looks to have the most upside. He's given up fewer hits than IP (SSS, but similar to his entire minor-league career), and pitched to a 4.5 ERA with roughly a K/IP (also similar to his minor league career). His performance so far looks like Miley, only with more swing-and-miss and less consistency.
Owens is 23, has a true 70-grade pitch in his CH (though he's been less consistent with it this year, arguably due to shelving it for his (improved) breaking stuff). He throws marginally harder than Miley. He's also five years younger, with three more years of team control, and working for league minimum. At 23, he's about three years from **entering** typical prime age for a pitcher (26-30), and figures to pitch most of his prime under arb, barring an extension.
Miley is dependable. Not just in terms of innings/health, but the fact that, **he's in the middle of his prime**. He's a terrific bet to do exactly what he's been doing for the next couple of years. He's also a terrific bet to **never get any better.**
In terms of trade value, who's worth more? Probably Miley, for all of those reasons mentioned. An acquiring team can basically "set-and-forget" with him.
Who has more long-term value? I would argue Owens, by a long shot. He carries more risk, but he's already shown both an ability to adapt and learn, and an ability to succeed at the MLB level. His performance in the minors and this far in the majors suggest a reasonable facsimile of Miley in 2016. But come 2017 and beyond, he's likely to provide substantial excess value, with better performance for substantially less cost.
So the only reason to keep Miley over Owens is certainty: Miley is a more sure bet to produce like himself next year. And this was why I mentioned Wright: because Wright in particular has shown the ability to replicate Miley's performance (more innings than Owens or Johnson). He is a perfectly reasonable fall-back plan if Owens struggles. And if both struggle, there's Johnson or Barnes.
Miley has more immediate trade value, less projected future value, and the risk of trading him is abrogated by getting a better starter in return and/or the depth the Sox have in their back-end SP corps. Plus, moving him opens up a spot for an upgrade. Personally, I think if Owens pitches as he has been for the rest of the year, with even marginal improvement, I think he deserves a shot for a full year. I've never understood why people are so eager to unload young pitchers well before their primes, and yet stick with totally underwhelming "inning-eater" veterans. If you have young pitchers to replace those innings, and those innings are #5-starter quality, dump the vet. The best way to acquire quality pitching is to develop it yourself, whether by draft/sign or by getting young pitchers other teams gave up on...Carlos Carrasco being the perfect example.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 25, 2015 0:59:35 GMT -5
The idea that Miley plus good but not great prospects can get you a Carrasco-type pitcher seems very far-fetched to me. That's your classic "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" trade.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 25, 2015 6:35:57 GMT -5
I look at this Red Sox team and think they are only a few adjustments away from being a contender.
The biggest problem is the bullpen. Hoping that one of Barnes/Hembree/Light can step forward as a power reliever. Ross I think can help as well.
The rotation I think is not as dire as we think. I won't say it needs and 'Ace', but i do think it needs some stability. Whether it's age (ERod, Owens), health (Buchholz), or erradic performance (Kelly, Porcello), there is just too much uncertainty. Needs some stability to take reliance off the others and not put as much pressure on the bullpen.
As for the lineup... I think it will be good honestly. I'm in the minority of people who want to see Hanley stay in left field. Selling low would be bad, his contact is reasonable, and he will eventually revert to his career 130 wRC+. On top of that, it will only take the smallest, most insignificant injury to Ortiz and his career is over. And there is no other player who can be acquired with Hanley offensive skills without incurring enormous costs, either in the form of money or prospects.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 25, 2015 7:12:16 GMT -5
It seems to me that there is really no good outcome for 2016 with Hanley. Placing him back in left really hurts our defense and maybe more importantly our pitchers psych. You are probably right that we would be selling him low coming off this season. Ortiz is our DH for next season. Hanley may be our best option for DH after that......although I'd rather NOT have a player be just a DH after Ortiz heads off into the sunset.
Our best club is with the 3 youngsters in the outfield. Hanley does need a "position".....even if he is eventually designated as just a DH. I say no to 1st base.
Let's say we can't move either Sandoval or Ramirez. Have Hanley ALSO play 3rd and just 3rd next year. He has taken grounders his whole life. He will probably be below average, but having him play there say 25% of the time and be our DH 25% of the time may be better than selling low......and definitely allowing him any where near the outfield next year is a boost.
Certainly paying him $20 mill for that type of playing time is bad.....but I'm looking for a way of having both still with us for 2016.
Hanley defense (and effort) should not be placed ahead of the defense (and offense) we would get from a Betts, Castillo, and Bradley Jr. outfield. I'd prefer to trade Hanley, but it is possible no one will find him desirable.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 25, 2015 8:53:27 GMT -5
The idea that Miley plus good but not great prospects can get you a Carrasco-type pitcher seems very far-fetched to me. That's your classic "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" trade. I'm not sure who you mean by "good." I think of Sam Travis as a good prospect. Most folks are onboard with making Margot a centerpiece of the trade, and including Guerra; I'd call those guys "very good," and Margot may be "great." And many of us realize that Swihart would greatly enhance the return, and he's certainly "great." The question is, how much of a marginal upgrade do you get over Miley with Margot and Guerra? Since they're both plus or plus-plus defenders, they have high floors, which means it's much harder to trade for them and lose the trade on paper, in terms of net WAR coming and going. That high floor mean their mean projections are something like 1.5 WAR a year, so you're shipping off 18 WAR, and divided over three or four years of control, that's a pretty good pitcher coming back. So the only thing you then have to deal with is your objection, WAR scarcity and non-linearity, which is to say that, to a contender, two 1.5 WAR players are not as valuable as one 3.0 WAR player. And there are two team situations that negate that factor. First, it is only true for good teams, and the opposite is true for bad, thin teams, who lack even replacement-level replacements; otherwise WAR wouldn't work. So high-floor prospects are particularly valuable to any team with a thin farm system. And obviously, the second factor is present non-competitiveness: when a team is rebuilding and does not expect to be competitive for the next year or two or three, marginal downgrades from trades do nothing other than get them better draft picks for those years. Whereas having a thin system makes the players you get more valuable, not contending for the next few years makes the player you're trading less valuable. So with the right trade partner -- a team with a thin system, a rebuilding team, ideally both -- I think the answer to the question is, a pretty good upgrade from Miley. If they're smart, they're looking to make a trade exactly like that, and the question is, who will give them the most in prospect value.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 25, 2015 9:23:02 GMT -5
Here's the thing: why would a non-contending team want to acquire Miley? He doesn't have a high ceiling, is making non-negligible (if still below-market) salary, and doesn't have that many years of team control left. His ability to eat innings at a league average rate makes him most valuable to a team like the Red Sox (who, in guys like Buccholz, Porcello, Rodriguez, and Owens, have a bunch of low-floor, highish-ceiling pitchers) and least valuable to a rebuilding team. If he's more valuable to the Red Sox than the selling team, both parties are probably better off swapping him out in a package for another piece.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 25, 2015 10:10:25 GMT -5
Here's the thing: why would a non-contending team want to acquire Miley? He doesn't have a high ceiling, is making non-negligible (if still below-market) salary, and doesn't have that many years of team control left. His ability to eat innings at a league average rate makes him most valuable to a team like the Red Sox (who, in guys like Buccholz, Porcello, Rodriguez, and Owens, have a bunch of low-floor, highish-ceiling pitchers) and least valuable to a rebuilding team. If he's more valuable to the Red Sox than the selling team, both parties are probably better off swapping him out in a package for another piece. Yeah, Miley to a third, contending team with a thin rotation, the prospect(s) coming back going to the main team. A lot of these trade scenarios have an implied third team. For instance, the Mets don't need catching, so if Swihart is to be the main bait to get Syndergaard or DeGrom, a third team has to be involved.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 25, 2015 11:26:16 GMT -5
The idea that Miley plus good but not great prospects can get you a Carrasco-type pitcher seems very far-fetched to me. That's your classic "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" trade. Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 25, 2015 11:52:27 GMT -5
The idea that Miley plus good but not great prospects can get you a Carrasco-type pitcher seems very far-fetched to me. That's your classic "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" trade. Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet. The idea that the Indians would trade a SP under cheap control for a very long time who has a top 5 xFIP in the MLB for Wade Miley, Manuel Margot, and Javier Guerra is absolutely ridiculous. That's like someone suggesting to give us two ok prospects and a mediocre pitcher for Mookie Betts. If you offer Rodriguez or Swihart + good prospects maybe you'll get them listening
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 25, 2015 15:23:01 GMT -5
Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet. The idea that the Indians would trade a SP under cheap control for a very long time who has a top 5 xFIP in the MLB for Wade Miley, Manuel Margot, and Javier Guerra is absolutely ridiculous. That's like someone suggesting to give us two ok prospects and a mediocre pitcher for Mookie Betts. If you offer Rodriguez or Swihart + good prospects maybe you'll get them listening What part of Margot being top-25 in two mid season lists did you not understand? That's the same position Addison Russell was in when the A's traded for Samardzija. And Guerra is a substantially higher value current prospect than Billy McKinley was at the time of that trade. Including Miley and not getting a second starter back, along with salary relief, is not ridiculous by any stretch. Giving up Swihart and Rodriguez would be, though. I'd love to hear exactly what constitutes a "good" prospect in your mind. Top-10? Top-15? Those are elite talents, and teams almost never trade them these days. CC is mid-prime, with a 1.5 year track record. His current deal is a terrific one, but he's not the kind of player gutting the farm system is worth.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 25, 2015 15:29:25 GMT -5
The idea that the Indians would trade a SP under cheap control for a very long time who has a top 5 xFIP in the MLB for Wade Miley, Manuel Margot, and Javier Guerra is absolutely ridiculous. That's like someone suggesting to give us two ok prospects and a mediocre pitcher for Mookie Betts. If you offer Rodriguez or Swihart + good prospects maybe you'll get them listening What part of Margot being top-25 in two mid season lists did you not understand? That's the same position Addison Russell was in when the A's traded for Samardzija. And Guerra is a substantially higher value current prospect than Billy McKinley was at the time of that trade. Including Miley and not getting a second starter back, along with salary relief, is not ridiculous by any stretch. Giving up Swihart and Rodriguez would be, though. I'd love to hear exactly what constitutes a "good" prospect in your mind. Top-10? Top-15? Those are elite talents, and teams almost never trade them these days. CC is mid-prime, with a 1.5 year track record. His current deal is a terrific one, but he's not the kind of player gutting the farm system is worth. Why would giving up Swihart or Rodriguez be ridiculous? Also Jeff Samardzija had only 1.5 years of control left, compared to Carrasco, who has 5 left. I've never seen a pitcher like Carrasco with 5 years of control traded. He'd absolutely be worth gutting the farm system for, I doubt he'd ever be traded though
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 25, 2015 16:38:09 GMT -5
The idea that Miley plus good but not great prospects can get you a Carrasco-type pitcher seems very far-fetched to me. That's your classic "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" trade. Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet. You still haven't responded to the issue I identified above. If the Indians went full rebuild (which is the only scenario in which they would trade Carrasco), why would they want Wade Miley in return? Rebuilding teams don't have much use for league-average innings-eaters. Even putting aside the "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" issue (which I continue to contend is a real one), the other problem is that a team like the Indians wouldn't value Miley as a nickel, which means the rest of the package would have to be that much better to compensate or it would have to be a three-team deal (which fixes the issue but makes such a trade more logistically challenging and thus less likely). As with all trade discussions, it's not just "does this make sense for the other team" but also "could they get a better deal from someone else." If the Indians shopped Carrasco around, teams like the Cubs or Dodgers or Astros are going to offer enticing packages headlined by better prospects. I just don't think a package headed by Margot would be enough. As soxfan1615 mentions above, considering his contractual status, Carrasco is considerably more valuable than, say, Hamels or Samardzija or Price or Cueto were. Also consider that Margot is likely to rank somewhere in the 30-50 range this offseason (he's cooled off considerably after his promotion), while Russell ranked #5 in the midseason 2014 BA top prospects list and #3 on the BA 2014-15 offseason top prospects list-- it's disingenuous to suggest that they're comparable.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Aug 25, 2015 16:48:18 GMT -5
Based on the tweets coming out of the conversations with Hanley in the last 30 mins, it seems like he fully behind the 1B transition and acknowledges it is the best way for the Sox to win with the current roster construction, with JBJ/Betts/Castillo in the OF.
He isn't going to be a left fielder, so at this point, get him work pregame at 1B, if he starts, he's probably still in LF, but the final score result is relatively meaningless from the Sox perspective at this point. If he can get some games in at 1B, then great. Would be fantastic just to at least have somewhat of a baseline to work off of going into the offseason, especially if they plan on keeping him. And if they do, a Sandoval for Shields or something similar seems like the more likely move.
I'm still in the camp that Sandoval can be pretty useful for the next two years. Not necessarily "worth" his deal, but we all knew it was an overpay from the start. If he can be a 2 fWAR player, like he was in 6 of the 7 years prior to 2015, that's fine and probably better than they'd get out of another 3B option right now, unless you think Shaw could be a 2 WAR guy at 3B, and you had a logical/legitimate move of Sandoval
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 25, 2015 17:04:02 GMT -5
Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet. You still haven't responded to the issue I identified above. If the Indians went full rebuild (which is the only scenario in which they would trade Carrasco), why would they want Wade Miley in return? Rebuilding teams don't have much use for league-average innings-eaters. Even putting aside the "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" issue (which I continue to contend is a real one), the other problem is that a team like the Indians wouldn't value Miley as a nickel, which means the rest of the package would have to be that much better to compensate or it would have to be a three-team deal (which fixes the issue but makes such a trade more logistically challenging and thus less likely). As with all trade discussions, it's not just "does this make sense for the other team" but also "could they get a better deal from someone else." If the Indians shopped Carrasco around, teams like the Cubs or Dodgers or Astros are going to offer enticing packages headlined by better prospects. I just don't think a package headed by Margot would be enough. As soxfan1615 mentions above, considering his contractual status, Carrasco is considerably more valuable than, say, Hamels or Samardzija or Price or Cueto were. Also consider that Margot is likely to rank somewhere in the 30-50 range this offseason (he's cooled off considerably after his promotion), while Russell ranked #5 in the midseason 2014 BA top prospects list and #3 on the BA 2014-15 offseason top prospects list-- it's disingenuous to suggest that they're comparable. Both of you have failed to recognize the salary relief aspect. That is a critical part of my argument, because in straight talent, you're right (unless the Sox include Devers). As to whether the Cubs or Dodgers could (certainly) or would (highly questionable) put together a better package, that's debatable. And Miley would have value to the Indians as an easily flipped asset, in a three-way deal for added prospects, or as a half-year stopgap who could be moved at the deadline. I believe Russell was moved before his #5 ranking, and was around 20 prior. But you're right, Margot has struggled some in AA, so he may drop into the 40 range. Personally, I don't like the idea of trading any more than what I'd mentioned for CC. I mentioned his name as somebody "in the mix," but I'm not interested in getting into a tit-for-tat over his acquisition. There's another thread somewhere that did that, in depth. My main issue with Carrasco is that he's halfway through his prime, and has a pretty short pedigree. As for trading Swihart: his defense has improved substantially along with his hitting, and there's no assurance Vazquez is healthy, meaning that trading him creates a gaping hole. And as for Rodriguez, look at Carrasco until he was 26 (and entering his prime). Trading young starters with ace stuff who have already shown an ability to bounce back between and within starts is just straight madness. Those are the players you trade FOR, if anyone's dumb enough to dump them. Giving up on high-upside pitchers is a huge mistake. I'd rather see them put Rodriguez out there in the 3 slot than CC in the 2, and have to give up two "good" prospects (apparently, Devers and Moncada are the only ones that qualify) as well. I'd rather they use FA for a 1, and trade Miley for a couple prospects, and give Owens a chance.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 25, 2015 17:22:10 GMT -5
Salary relief wasn't in your original proposal, and rebuilding teams are generally more inclined to keep salary (especially if it rolls off in the next year or two, as Bourn and Swisher both do) in order to get better prospects (see, e.g., the Phillies this year). Plus, teams like the Cubs or Dodgers can eat salary, too (and may be in a better place to do so-- one team doesn't care about the salary tax, while the other is well under the threshold).
I'm less concerned about nit-picking specific prospect proposals (apologies for getting distracted) and more concerned about why Miley should be moved. If we've conceded that he's unlikely to be a valuable part of a package for a rotation upgrade without a three-team-trade, then what you're really doing when you include Miley in that discussion is trading for a better pitcher and then trading Miley away for prospects. The second part of that doesn't make much sense to me-- he seems like the ideal back-of-the-rotation type to balance out what still looks like a fairly high-risk rotation, and I don't think the Red Sox would get enough back for him to make it worth trading him. If the worst case scenario is that Owens and Johnson are the sixth and seventh starters in the rotation to start the year, I'm not too worried about that. Every year, starts open up for guys on that rung of the depth chart, and if they look good enough to warrant it, the Red Sox could easily open up spots for them midseason by dealing/benching the most underperforming incumbents.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 25, 2015 17:23:23 GMT -5
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp 11m11 minutes ago Lovullo said trying Ramirez out at first base hadn't been discussed before Dombrowski came on board last week.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 25, 2015 17:23:42 GMT -5
Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet. You still haven't responded to the issue I identified above. If the Indians went full rebuild (which is the only scenario in which they would trade Carrasco), why would they want Wade Miley in return? Rebuilding teams don't have much use for league-average innings-eaters. Even putting aside the "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" issue (which I continue to contend is a real one), the other problem is that a team like the Indians wouldn't value Miley as a nickel, which means the rest of the package would have to be that much better to compensate or it would have to be a three-team deal (which fixes the issue but makes such a trade more logistically challenging and thus less likely). As with all trade discussions, it's not just "does this make sense for the other team" but also "could they get a better deal from someone else." If the Indians shopped Carrasco around, teams like the Cubs or Dodgers or Astros are going to offer enticing packages headlined by better prospects. I just don't think a package headed by Margot would be enough. As soxfan1615 mentions above, considering his contractual status, Carrasco is considerably more valuable than, say, Hamels or Samardzija or Price or Cueto were. Also consider that Margot is likely to rank somewhere in the 30-50 range this offseason (he's cooled off considerably after his promotion), while Russell ranked #5 in the midseason 2014 BA top prospects list and #3 on the BA 2014-15 offseason top prospects list-- it's disingenuous to suggest that they're comparable. Even if they went full rebuild, which they have no reason to, they have 2 elite pitchers and 2 elite position players plus another really good pitcher (Salazar) and position player (Lindor), they would still rather keep Carrasco than get Margot and Guerra. Carrasco has only 1 less year of control than a prospect. You'd need to give up Swihart or E-Rod, Devers, Margot and a lesser prospect like Johnson or Owens if you wanted Carrasco
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Aug 25, 2015 17:25:45 GMT -5
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp 11m11 minutes ago Lovullo said trying Ramirez out at first base hadn't been discussed before Dombrowski came on board last week. Absolutely absurd. I hope John Farrell gets better, but he absolutely should never manage this team again.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 25, 2015 17:27:10 GMT -5
The idea that Miley plus good but not great prospects can get you a Carrasco-type pitcher seems very far-fetched to me. That's your classic "quarter for two dimes and a nickel" trade. Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet. Also the "too good to tank but not good enough to compete" zone does not exist in baseball. This isn't basketball. Being mediocre is better than being bad, because being closer to competing is worth more than getting a higher draft slot, because the difference in draft pick value is so small. All you have to do is get into the playoffs, and you have a chance. The Indians could've made the playoffs this year had a couple things gone their way.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 25, 2015 17:27:27 GMT -5
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp 11m11 minutes ago Lovullo said trying Ramirez out at first base hadn't been discussed before Dombrowski came on board last week. Absolutely absurd. I hope John Farrell gets better, but he absolutely should never manage this team again. John Farrell does not get to make decisions like that. The guy who did was fired a week ago.
|
|
|
Post by whoareyoukarimgarcia on Aug 25, 2015 17:31:27 GMT -5
I'm curious if Atl would part Shelby Miller? The Braves made some seemingly bad trades last off season, with the exception of Miller and they love young talent. I would offer Miley to replace Miller in their rotation and something in the neighborhood of Margot and Guerra. Sign Price and call it a day.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 25, 2015 17:37:39 GMT -5
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp 11m11 minutes ago Lovullo said trying Ramirez out at first base hadn't been discussed before Dombrowski came on board last week. Would he really know though? Cherington basically implied otherwise last weekend.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 25, 2015 19:04:54 GMT -5
Margot was in the top-30s, and Guerra top-50s. With some salary relief (taking on Bourn, for instance), it seems eminently reasonable to me. The Indians can't draw any fans and they're stuck in the "too good to tank but too bad to contend" zone. And if not Carrasco, I'm sure there are NL teams (West especially) who might be willing to talk. Even if they can't get an established #2, they could trade him straight up for a couple of project arms a la his acquisition (only maybe further down the ladder) or with a prospect package for an MLB-established big arm who's lost some luster. Regardless, his performance is easily replaced, and the "two dimes and a nickel" argument simply isn't true, particularly when real cash gets involved. It's not common, but there are plenty of GMs out there who decide they don't like their quarters, whether it's because they're tarnished or they've been dropped in the toilet. Also the "too good to tank but not good enough to compete" zone does not exist in baseball. This isn't basketball. Being mediocre is better than being bad, because being closer to competing is worth more than getting a higher draft slot, because the difference in draft pick value is so small. All you have to do is get into the playoffs, and you have a chance. The Indians could've made the playoffs this year had a couple things gone their way. I said absolutely nothing about draft slot. They're really not all that valuable anyway, because every pick is a relative (to other sports) crapshoot, and more years away from contributing. You're taking my words and inferring your own meaning. If you'd like me to clarify, by "tank" I meant play so poorly that it effectively forces a sell-off and rebuild, as opposed to the "elective" rebuilds some smaller and mid-market teams do when they're in the 75-80 win range. Cleveland needs more than "a couple things" to go right to make the playoffs in that division, and far more than that to be a perennial contender, **which is what they need to bring fans back to an empty stadium.** they're in financial dire straits, hence my thinking that salary relief would be very valuable to them. It's fine if you want to argue, but at least read the whole post and not just the one line you disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 25, 2015 19:34:31 GMT -5
Carrasco is basically the same age as Miley, so it's not like he's some kind of uber untouchable young stud pitcher. If they wanted Margot and Guerra, Miley is a good get with them when giving up Carrasco.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 25, 2015 20:31:00 GMT -5
Olney tweet
Joey Votto on pace for 172 hits, 71 extra-base hits, and 136 walks this season: espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/i…
|
|
|