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.
Dreaming up an Athletics - Red Sox trade proposal
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 11:45:23 GMT -5
I love Gray, but you can't trade Swihart for him. With so little depth at catcher in MLB you can't trade Swihart now. Gray is the type of player that I would be willing to give up Owens for. I would give up Margot as I think he is the most overrated prospect we have. Add Javier Guerra and another top 20 prospect and I think you have the making of a trade if they are looking to move Gray
|
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2015 12:20:38 GMT -5
I love Gray, but you can't trade Swihart for him. With so little depth at catcher in MLB you can't trade Swihart now. Gray is the type of player that I would be willing to give up Owens for. I would give up Margot as I think he is the most overrated prospect we have. Add Javier Guerra and another top 20 prospect and I think you have the making of a trade if they are looking to move Gray They are not looking to move Gray. Smart teams don't trade a quarter for a bunch of nickels. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 12:37:20 GMT -5
I love Gray, but you can't trade Swihart for him. With so little depth at catcher in MLB you can't trade Swihart now. Gray is the type of player that I would be willing to give up Owens for. I would give up Margot as I think he is the most overrated prospect we have. Add Javier Guerra and another top 20 prospect and I think you have the making of a trade if they are looking to move Gray They are not looking to move Gray. Smart teams don't trade a quarter for a bunch of nickels. Really? You started this thread and I did say if they are looking to move him, just like you did when you proposed a deal for a player you don't think will be traded. The Red Sox are not trading Swihart, its not going to happen!! I also wouldn't call Owens, Margot and Guerra nickels, as those are three top 100 prospects! That's more like trading a quarter for two dimes and a nickel, which is what Oakland does all the time by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2015 13:00:49 GMT -5
OK. Smart teams don't trade a quarter for two dimes and a nickel.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 13:05:15 GMT -5
Did you miss the Josh Donaldson trade? Because that is exactly what Oakland did.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 13:06:41 GMT -5
Actually that was a quarter for nickels trade, there weren't any dimes in that trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 13:28:55 GMT -5
Citing the most lopsided trade in recent history does much less to bolster your point than you think it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 13:41:32 GMT -5
Citing the most lopsided trade in recent history does much less to bolster your point than you think it does. For one the most lopsided trade in recent memory was the Andrew Miller trade, without question. The best player in the Donaldson trade was a 19 year old SS, and we won't know how good he will be for years. That trade 100% bolsters by point. Oakland doesn't want/need to win the trade in the publics eyes. They do what they think is best long term, even if people think its a bad trade. If 5 years from now Franklin Barreto is a top 5 SS, teams/people will look back and think wow that was a good trade for Oakland.
|
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 26, 2015 14:09:55 GMT -5
Citing the most lopsided trade in recent history does much less to bolster your point than you think it does. For one the most lopsided trade in recent memory was the Andrew Miller trade, without question. The best player in the Donaldson trade was a 19 year old SS, and we won't know how good he will be for years. That trade 100% bolsters by point. Oakland doesn't want/need to win the trade in the publics eyes. They do what they think is best long term, even if people think its a bad trade. If 5 years from now Franklin Barreto is a top 5 SS, teams/people will look back and think wow that was a good trade for Oakland.
You've made some good points. Moneyball Billy has made some questionable trades over his career, the most recent being Donaldson trade and acquisition of Samardzija from the Cubs. Who knows, if he's tempted by the prospect package BC can offer, Gray could be moved. And it wouldn't surprise me. |
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 26, 2015 14:13:20 GMT -5
I think we should acknowledge the difference between a trade that seems lopsided at the time, and a trade that seems lopsided in hindsight. Also, we never know how other teams rate prospects. The Oakland A's might view Owens as someone who has a very small chance of breaking a MLB rotation and is an up/down 5th option at best. Or they might think Javier Guerra is a top 20 prospect in all of baseball with all star potential at SS. We see the differentiation in opinion from different scouting bodies so obviously other teams can be much higher/lower on guys than other teams.
For all we know Swihart, Margot and Owens might get them to the table depending on how they feel about those guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2015 14:56:01 GMT -5
For one the most lopsided trade in recent memory was the Andrew Miller trade, without question. When the trade was made last year, Rodriguez (who was a top 30 prospect at the beginning of last year) had regressed. His velocity had backed up and he had some control issues. He was probably a back-end-of-the-top-100 prospect at the time of the trade. The Red Sox made the call that his issues were fixable, and they were right. So, I would not put the Miller-for-Rodriguez trade in the same category as some of the other trades mentioned in this subforum. |
|
|
|
Post by thebrassbuckle1993 on Jul 26, 2015 15:02:11 GMT -5
I think an offer of Margot, Owens, Guerra, and one (or even two) of JBJ, Marrero, Hernandez, Ball, gets the deal done. Margot and Owens are legitimate top 50 prospects with Margot possibly able to crack the top 10 by the time 2016 lists come out. Guerra is the wild card here. If Beane views his power as better than some scouts have suggested, i.e Guerra won't just run into a few home runs, he might have him rated even higher than Margot. Also, if Beane views Owens more favorably than others, even better. The deal would give Oakland's farm system star power along with much needed depth. Win-Win for both organizations.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 15:06:08 GMT -5
Citing the most lopsided trade in recent history does much less to bolster your point than you think it does. For one the most lopsided trade in recent memory was the Andrew Miller trade, without question. The best player in the Donaldson trade was a 19 year old SS, and we won't know how good he will be for years. That trade 100% bolsters by point. Oakland doesn't want/need to win the trade in the publics eyes. They do what they think is best long term, even if people think its a bad trade. If 5 years from now Franklin Barreto is a top 5 SS, teams/people will look back and think wow that was a good trade for Oakland. The point that "GMs value prospects differently, which means that there is always a possibility that a proposal which seems lopsided gets accepted" is a fair one. Lopsided trades happen. But that does not mean they're likely. Citing outliers like the Miller or Donaldson trades bolsters the point that such trades are possible. They do not bolster the point that such trades are likely. |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,788
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2015 15:07:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't put JBJ in the same category of Marrero, Hernandez or Ball. But that proposal seems realistic enough.
Margot + Owens + Guerra + Marrero (ML ready) + Ball (lottery ticket)
|
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jul 26, 2015 15:55:26 GMT -5
If I'm the Sox GM, my short list of players/prospects that I do not trade is as follows: Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Rodriguez, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, & possibly Benintendi.
If I could get a deal done with BB for Gray without including these guys, I'd be all in. What would that look like? Gotta think the deal starts with our best prospect not in that group of 8, Margot. Also gotta think Beane is going to need at least 1 starter coming his way, Owens, Johnson, Kopech, are the 3 highest ranked on the site. Throw in another solid prospect from the likes of Buttrey, Ball, Guerra, Marrero, Cechhini, Chavis, and the package would look something like Margot, Owens, Chavis for Gray, I'd do that deal in a heartbeat, and consequently don't think there is a snowballs chance Beane does it, make it Margot, Owens, Johnson, and say Cecchini and maybe Beane bites. I doubt he can get a better package elsewhere, but does that type of deal give him more value than simple hanging on to Gray, who he can always trade a few years down the line (when he starts to get expensive), for just as good a package, if not better. That would be the final issue. At the end of the day, a deal for Gray would be extremely costly, as it should be, and extremely unlikely, as it should be (#1 pitchers don't grow on trees).
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,788
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2015 16:00:55 GMT -5
Beane is in his own word usually. Tough to know who he likes and doesn't like, so it would be hard to project. I think he would deal Gray in the right deal, it's his nature. He's not going to come out to the media and say he's available regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 16:20:13 GMT -5
For one the most lopsided trade in recent memory was the Andrew Miller trade, without question. The best player in the Donaldson trade was a 19 year old SS, and we won't know how good he will be for years. That trade 100% bolsters by point. Oakland doesn't want/need to win the trade in the publics eyes. They do what they think is best long term, even if people think its a bad trade. If 5 years from now Franklin Barreto is a top 5 SS, teams/people will look back and think wow that was a good trade for Oakland. The point that "GMs value prospects differently, which means that there is always a possibility that a proposal which seems lopsided gets accepted" is a fair one. Lopsided trades happen. But that does not mean they're likely. Citing outliers like the Miller or Donaldson trades bolsters the point that such trades are possible. They do not bolster the point that such trades are likely. So you think that Owens, Margot, Guerra and another lower prospect is an Miller or Donaldson trade? I just don't think that's true, that's currently 3 top 100 prospects and another low level guy with high upside. That is a fair package or very close to it. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 16:31:21 GMT -5
For one the most lopsided trade in recent memory was the Andrew Miller trade, without question. When the trade was made last year, Rodriguez (who was a top 30 prospect at the beginning of last year) had regressed. His velocity had backed up and he had some control issues. He was probably a back-end-of-the-top-100 prospect at the time of the trade. The Red Sox made the call that his issues were fixable, and they were right. So, I would not put the Miller-for-Rodriguez trade in the same category as some of the other trades mentioned in this subforum. At the deadline it was said many times that Rodriquez was the best prospect traded during the deadline and he was traded for a set up guy that was a to be free agent. This was the same deadline that saw David Price get traded.
So I don't think anyone thought Rodriguez was a back end of the top 100 guy. Sure he wasn't pitching great, but everyone knows that young pitchers experience growing pains as they more up through the minors. Its the same reason that I think Henry Owens value is still very high, sure he had a rough couple of months, but that doesn't change what he did before or lower what his ceiling could be. Look at the last month, Owens is doing the same thing Rodriguez did last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebrassbuckle1993 on Jul 26, 2015 16:47:27 GMT -5
Cherington should call up Beane and start with a Gray offer of something like Margot+ Owens+ Guerra+ Hernandez/Marrero/Chavis/Rijo+ Ball/Buttrey/Stank and work from there. I would not trade Devers, Moncada, Espinoza, E-rod, Betts, Xander, or Swihart
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 16:48:21 GMT -5
The point that "GMs value prospects differently, which means that there is always a possibility that a proposal which seems lopsided gets accepted" is a fair one. Lopsided trades happen. But that does not mean they're likely. Citing outliers like the Miller or Donaldson trades bolsters the point that such trades are possible. They do not bolster the point that such trades are likely. So you think that Owens, Margot, Guerra and another lower prospect is an Miller or Donaldson trade? I just don't think that's true, that's currently 3 top 100 prospects and another low level guy with high upside. That is a fair package or very close to it. I think that package sounds a lot like the offer that got the Red Sox Adrian Gonzalez, who was a comparable talent but was four years older and just a year from free agency. In other words, not close to being enough to bring back one of the better pitchers in the AL with four cost-controlled seasons ahead of him. |
|
|
|
Post by thebrassbuckle1993 on Jul 26, 2015 16:50:23 GMT -5
Owens and Margot are certainly not nickels. I don't think Guerra is either but his status is more debatable than the other two.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,969 
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 26, 2015 16:50:13 GMT -5
When the trade was made last year, Rodriguez (who was a top 30 prospect at the beginning of last year) had regressed. His velocity had backed up and he had some control issues. He was probably a back-end-of-the-top-100 prospect at the time of the trade. The Red Sox made the call that his issues were fixable, and they were right. So, I would not put the Miller-for-Rodriguez trade in the same category as some of the other trades mentioned in this subforum. ,,, So I don't think anyone thought Rodriguez was a back end of the top 100 guy. ...
, 21, was ranked by Baseball America, MLB.com, and "Baseball Prospectus as a top-100 prospect before the season began, falling into the 60-70 range in each list. 2014 has not gone entirely according to plan, with Rodriguez putting up a 4.79 ERA for the Double-A Bowie Baysox, but Rodriguez still has reasonable peripherals (69:29 K:BB in 83 innings) and is quite young to be starting in Double-A." Wouldn't being ranked 60-70 and then having a poor year = " a back end of the top 100 guy"? |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 26, 2015 16:52:01 GMT -5
,,, So I don't think anyone thought Rodriguez was a back end of the top 100 guy. ...
, 21, was ranked by Baseball America, MLB.com, and "Baseball Prospectus as a top-100 prospect before the season began, falling into the 60-70 range in each list. 2014 has not gone entirely according to plan, with Rodriguez putting up a 4.79 ERA for the Double-A Bowie Baysox, but Rodriguez still has reasonable peripherals (69:29 K:BB in 83 innings) and is quite young to be starting in Double-A." Wouldn't being ranked 60-70 and then having a poor year = " a back end of the top 100 guy"? Yes. Rodriguez was a backend of the top 100 when acquired. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 16:59:55 GMT -5
So you think that Owens, Margot, Guerra and another lower prospect is an Miller or Donaldson trade? I just don't think that's true, that's currently 3 top 100 prospects and another low level guy with high upside. That is a fair package or very close to it. I think that package sounds a lot like the offer that got the Red Sox Adrian Gonzalez, who was a comparable talent but was four years older and just a year from free agency. In other words, not close to being enough to bring back one of the better pitchers in the AL with four cost-controlled seasons ahead of him. It is similar, but I think my current offer has better talent. If I remember right Raymond Fuentes was never ranked as a top 100 prospect. So your looking at 2 top 100 prospects compared to 3 top 100 prospects. Also the 4th player included would be a lot better in my trade idea. Also I think we can all agree that the value of prospects has gone way up in the almost 5 years since the Gonzalez trade.
Also how can you think a trade package that landed Gonzalez and produced a young star in Rizzo is a Miller or Donaldson trade? If you think its close but not just enough, that doesn't make it one of the most lop sided trades in recent memory as you put it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 17:02:56 GMT -5
,,, So I don't think anyone thought Rodriguez was a back end of the top 100 guy. ...
, 21, was ranked by Baseball America, MLB.com, and "Baseball Prospectus as a top-100 prospect before the season began, falling into the 60-70 range in each list. 2014 has not gone entirely according to plan, with Rodriguez putting up a 4.79 ERA for the Double-A Bowie Baysox, but Rodriguez still has reasonable peripherals (69:29 K:BB in 83 innings) and is quite young to be starting in Double-A." Wouldn't being ranked 60-70 and then having a poor year = " a back end of the top 100 guy"? He was a top 30 guy to start the year not 60-70. Like I said many baseball writers and scouts said he was the best prospect traded during the deadline!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
