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 amfox1 on Jul 24, 2015 19:14:08 GMT -5
Jeff Passan ✔@jeffpassan Sources: Cleveland has been willing to listen on pitching, particularly Carlos Carrasco. May be a match there with Toronto. They've talked.
So, also hearing BOS may be interested in Carrasco, who has a team-friendly contract through age 33 (5yrs, $47.5mm potentially if both options are exercised).
I would think it would take Owens or Johnson, plus Margot, plus another prospect to get into the hunt.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 24, 2015 19:53:53 GMT -5
Jeff Passan ✔@jeffpassan Sources: Cleveland has been willing to listen on pitching, particularly Carlos Carrasco. May be a match there with Toronto. They've talked. So, also hearing BOS may be interested in Carrasco, who has a team-friendly contract through age 33 (5yrs, $47.5mm potentially if both options are exercised). I would think it would take Owens or Johnson, plus Margot, plus another prospect to get into the hunt. Thoughts? Johnson and Margot would probably be worth it, although I'd hate to see them lose Margot. But Carrasco's deal is a relative steal, and ends at the perfect time.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,789
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 24, 2015 20:26:11 GMT -5
Carrasco is getting insanely unlucky this year. He's filthy. Sign me up.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jul 24, 2015 21:31:40 GMT -5
If I can't have Salazar then Carrasco would be a perfectly fine consolation prize.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 24, 2015 22:22:32 GMT -5
Id trade Margot and Johnson plus another lesser prospect for him in a second. To me this seems like a Dodger trade with Puig though.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,789
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 24, 2015 23:15:01 GMT -5
Id trade Margot and Johnson plus another lesser prospect for him in a second. To me this seems like a Dodger trade with Puig though. You think LAD will trade Puig for Carrasco? They'd be stupid to IMO, but I haven't checked to see if that has been actually rumored or not. Puig has been forgotten about a bit this year, but he's a monster.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 25, 2015 8:18:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 25, 2015 8:39:38 GMT -5
If all it takes is Margot and Johnson, we should be all over him (but so will other teams). I'm guessing it would take Swihart... and I would seriously think about it. His defense independent numbers say he's an ace, and I'm not going to hold the Indians defense against him. I would love to see him heading the rotation near year.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,789
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 25, 2015 8:42:49 GMT -5
If all it takes is Margot and Johnson, we should be all over him (but so will other teams). I'm guessing it would take Swihart... and I would seriously think about it. His defense independent numbers say he's an ace, and I'm not going to hold the Indians defense against him. I would love to see him heading the rotation near year. I'm not sure it would take Swihart. It's a buyers market, and he's only been starting for a little more than a seasons worth of games since 2014, the first year that he put up dominant peripherals. Also, were taking Margot for granted because we have Betts, JBJ and Benintendi in our system. Teams with no center fielder and no good incumbent prospect in that spot would probably kill for Margot.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 25, 2015 8:51:11 GMT -5
Yan Gomes is still pretty young they may not even want Swihart. I think Margot then Owens or Johnson and another piece is close if we take back Bourne or Swisher.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 25, 2015 13:31:48 GMT -5
So wasn't the word on the street that they were willing to move Carrasco if it could get them out from Bourn AND Swisher? I dunno... that's a tough trade to put together. I really think it's just too much contract to take on for 2016-17 if they're giving up a prospect too. But, if I may expand the scope of this thread to any trade talks with the Indians, here is my idea:
Red Sox deal Jackie Bradley, Jr. to Cleveland for Trevor Bauer and Michael Bourn.
Bauer upgrades the rotation now and still offers upside and long-term control: he's still only 24 and he the Indians were able to play service time games with him well enough that he actually still has five years of team control left. He'll be Super Two arb-eligible after 2016 and a free agent after 2020. As a righty fly-ball pitcher Fenway's big right field should help knock down his HR/FB numbers, and his K rate is 23.9% - exactly the same as Felix Hernandez and Michael Pineda.
Bourn, I think, can be a useful backup outfielder. In fact, putting him in right on the days Bauer starts could really be useful. Since Bourn seems to have a less-than-usual platoon split he wouldn't make sense as the usual lefty half to pair with a righty hitter, but he can still be a running/defense guy off the bench. In the day of four-man benches, the backup outfielder needs to be able to play CF and Bourn fulfills that. At $13M AAV for 2016-17 he isn't cheap for a backup but pairing him with the very cheap Bauer makes financial sense. And unlike Swisher, who is dead money who is a legit DFA or outright release candidate, Bourn can probably provide a modicum of value (like 0.5-1.5 WAR) if used correctly.
Why do the Indians do this deal? They get to keep a front three of Kluber, Salazar, and Carrasco intact while still getting out of Bourn's contract. They upgrade their outfield with Bradley. They haven't gotten much out of center this year, and both Brantley and Zimmer (when he arrives around mid-season next year both still profile as corner guys to me). I know there is more buzz these days that Zimmer could stick in center, but given that the team needs two outfielders anyway, it's a choice between adding an offensive-first RF and sacrificing defense, or vice versa. It's going to be more expensive to add the kind of power they'd need to be equal to the value of Bradley's defense.
Why don't the Indians do this deal? They need pitching depth - their top 10 is composed mostly of position players. I don't deal Johnson or Owens for Bauer while taking on Bourn's contract, and I don't think Ball or Kopech get it done. I probably do Kopech in place of Bradley if the Indians demand it but I feel like the responses in this thread are going to want my head on a stick for suggesting it. But if the Indians are looking to get pitching depth back, it might not be a fit. And is Bradley too similar, value-wise, to Tyler Naquin?
Tell me if I'm way off here (and I know there are some who really dislike Bauer for various reasons, which is fair), but I think it's a deal that makes both teams better next year.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 25, 2015 14:05:13 GMT -5
Id take that and think having Willis as our pitching coach could be a plus. Like you said he's cheap with upside but we would still need to sign or trade for that top tier guy.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 25, 2015 15:30:07 GMT -5
Tell me if I'm way off here (and I know there are some who really dislike Bauer for various reasons, which is fair), but I think it's a deal that makes both teams better next year. My initial impression was that you are way off. I then did some further thinking and came to the conclusion that you are not way off, but I'd still rather trade more prospects and get Carrasco. See below. *** Let's say for the sake of argument that our choices are: Carrasco (5 yrs/$47.5mm post-2015) for Owens or Johnson, plus Margot, plus a third prospect or Bauer (4 years control post-2015 - assume $2mm, $4mm, $8mm, $12mm) for JBJ, plus BOS takes on Bourn (CLE pays all but pro-rata min salary in 2015, BOS pays entire $14mm in 2016) I balanced the salaries in 2015 so Carrasco vs. Bauer/Bourn would be a wash. Carrasco is 28YO and in his prime and is a better pitcher than Bauer, who is 24YO. Effectively, you get to pay Carrasco for 5 years, $47.5mm (ages 29-33) or pay Bauer (plus the Bourn salary) for 4 years, $40mm (ages 25-28). However, to get Carrasco, you have to give up Margot, Owens and a third prospect but, to get Bauer, you only have to give up JBJ. To me, it's a no-brainer, you trade for Bauer if you believe that he will be an 100+ ERA+/2.0+ WAR guy for the next four years. I'm not sure I do (I worry about the lack of control and command and the home runs), so I'd still likely go for Carrasco.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,789
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 25, 2015 17:00:07 GMT -5
I'm a fan of Bauer, but id give up specs for Carrasco as amfox said if I got to choose.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 25, 2015 17:22:50 GMT -5
So wasn't the word on the street that they were willing to move Carrasco if it could get them out from Bourn AND Swisher? I dunno... that's a tough trade to put together. I really think it's just too much contract to take on for 2016-17 if they're giving up a prospect too. But, if I may expand the scope of this thread to any trade talks with the Indians, here is my idea: Red Sox deal Jackie Bradley, Jr. to Cleveland for Trevor Bauer and Michael Bourn. Bauer upgrades the rotation now and still offers upside and long-term control: he's still only 24 and he the Indians were able to play service time games with him well enough that he actually still has five years of team control left. He'll be Super Two arb-eligible after 2016 and a free agent after 2020. As a righty fly-ball pitcher Fenway's big right field should help knock down his HR/FB numbers, and his K rate is 23.9% - exactly the same as Felix Hernandez and Michael Pineda. Bourn, I think, can be a useful backup outfielder. In fact, putting him in right on the days Bauer starts could really be useful. Since Bourn seems to have a less-than-usual platoon split he wouldn't make sense as the usual lefty half to pair with a righty hitter, but he can still be a running/defense guy off the bench. In the day of four-man benches, the backup outfielder needs to be able to play CF and Bourn fulfills that. At $13M AAV for 2016-17 he isn't cheap for a backup but pairing him with the very cheap Bauer makes financial sense. And unlike Swisher, who is dead money who is a legit DFA or outright release candidate, Bourn can probably provide a modicum of value (like 0.5-1.5 WAR) if used correctly. Why do the Indians do this deal? They get to keep a front three of Kluber, Salazar, and Carrasco intact while still getting out of Bourn's contract. They upgrade their outfield with Bradley. They haven't gotten much out of center this year, and both Brantley and Zimmer (when he arrives around mid-season next year both still profile as corner guys to me). I know there is more buzz these days that Zimmer could stick in center, but given that the team needs two outfielders anyway, it's a choice between adding an offensive-first RF and sacrificing defense, or vice versa. It's going to be more expensive to add the kind of power they'd need to be equal to the value of Bradley's defense. Why don't the Indians do this deal? They need pitching depth - their top 10 is composed mostly of position players. I don't deal Johnson or Owens for Bauer while taking on Bourn's contract, and I don't think Ball or Kopech get it done. I probably do Kopech in place of Bradley if the Indians demand it but I feel like the responses in this thread are going to want my head on a stick for suggesting it. But if the Indians are looking to get pitching depth back, it might not be a fit. And is Bradley too similar, value-wise, to Tyler Naquin? Tell me if I'm way off here (and I know there are some who really dislike Bauer for various reasons, which is fair), but I think it's a deal that makes both teams better next year. Well presented proposal and while I think JBJ still has alot of upside (I think he'll end up with the label late bloomer through no fault of his own). It's the kind of deal which forces you to think long and hard which means it's very realistic and plausible. More than anything the Sox need pitching, between the young players we've already seen; Bogaerts, Betts, Vasquez and E-Rod and the players perhaps a few years aways such as Devers, Margot and Mancado, the Sox appear set positionally however the pitching is the hardest thing to project so you should allways persue more pitching because it will allways be in demand.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,789
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 25, 2015 17:37:15 GMT -5
One thing that does worry me about Bauer is that he's always had a problem with the long all at every level. That may be a result of command issues, but it's a concern.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 25, 2015 18:49:29 GMT -5
I co-sign. I'd add a prospect in the 12+ range outside of Light (because I believe he has a 2016 role) if need be. And I'd be willing to be more aggressive than that too.
I'd like to get Mcallistar or Allen in the deal if possible. I'd start with Margot and Johnson with their choice of Ball, Buttrey, or Stank + choice of Cechinni, Dubon, Rijo, or Asuaje.
If we got him I would not trade Uehara, Tazawa, or Holt unless we got solid AAA pitching depth back. I'd try to trade Castillo, get a starting pitcher in free agency (to the best of the Sox financial constraints) put Bradley in the outfield, and work on 1b situation. I'd also move Kelly to the bullpen for the remainder of the year as an experiment.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Jul 25, 2015 19:13:50 GMT -5
Wait for a better Pitcher. CC has one good year under his belt and an ERA of 4 this year, not to mention giving it up tonight vs Chicago. Your going to trade top prospects you trade them for Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 25, 2015 20:27:13 GMT -5
Tell me if I'm way off here (and I know there are some who really dislike Bauer for various reasons, which is fair), but I think it's a deal that makes both teams better next year. My initial impression was that you are way off. I then did some further thinking and came to the conclusion that you are not way off, but I'd still rather trade more prospects and get Carrasco. See below. *** Let's say for the sake of argument that our choices are: Carrasco (5 yrs/$47.5mm post-2015) for Owens or Johnson, plus Margot, plus a third prospect or Bauer (4 years control post-2015 - assume $2mm, $4mm, $8mm, $12mm) for JBJ, plus BOS takes on Bourn (CLE pays all but pro-rata min salary in 2015, BOS pays entire $14mm in 2016) I balanced the salaries in 2015 so Carrasco vs. Bauer/Bourn would be a wash. Carrasco is 28YO and in his prime and is a better pitcher than Bauer, who is 24YO. Effectively, you get to pay Carrasco for 5 years, $47.5mm (ages 29-33) or pay Bauer (plus the Bourn salary) for 4 years, $40mm (ages 25-28). However, to get Carrasco, you have to give up Margot, Owens and a third prospect but, to get Bauer, you only have to give up JBJ. To me, it's a no-brainer, you trade for Bauer if you believe that he will be an 100+ ERA+/2.0+ WAR guy for the next four years. I'm not sure I do (I worry about the lack of control and command and the home runs), so I'd still likely go for Carrasco. If those were the choices, I agree 100%. The problem is that I don't know that Cleveland does that deal, where I think they are much more likely to grab the Bauer one. I get the sense that Cleveland is pushing hard to shed the Bourn and/or Swisher contracts, and I don't see them moving Carrasco unless it's to get out from at least one of them and more likely two. I think we're really on the same page here, though: Carrasco is much preferred and is the type I'd be willing to part with prospects to pick up.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 11:30:13 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind adding either Carrasco or Bauer. But you don't trade Owens to get Carrasco. This year is the most starts Carrasco has ever made in a season. Sure he can help us but he is more like a mid rotation guy not a top of the line guy we need. I have no problem trading Margot and other players, but not Owens.
Onto Bauer it seems like a pipe dream that you could trade Bradley for Bauer and a bad contract. I do that in 2 seconds flat. Just don't think that's a realistic trade for Cleveland. Bauer is 24 and a former top prospect that is getting better, has 4 years of team control, you don't just give those away.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 26, 2015 16:15:27 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind adding either Carrasco or Bauer. But you don't trade Owens to get Carrasco. This year is the most starts Carrasco has ever made in a season. Sure he can help us but he is more like a mid rotation guy not a top of the line guy we need. I have no problem trading Margot and other players, but not Owens. Carrasco is a frontline guy. Look past his ERA. Last calendar year, he's 5th in FIP among qualified starters, right between Jacob DeGrom and Chris Sale. If Owens ever becomes anywhere near as good as Carrasco has been lately, he'll have to be looked at as a huge, huge success.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 16:37:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind adding either Carrasco or Bauer. But you don't trade Owens to get Carrasco. This year is the most starts Carrasco has ever made in a season. Sure he can help us but he is more like a mid rotation guy not a top of the line guy we need. I have no problem trading Margot and other players, but not Owens. Carrasco is a frontline guy. Look past his ERA. Last calendar year, he's 5th in FIP among qualified starters, right between Jacob DeGrom and Chris Sale. If Owens ever becomes anywhere near as good as Carrasco has been lately, he'll have to be looked at as a huge, huge success. You understand that Carrasco made what 17 starts last year? So you can't compare him to other qualified starters because he wasn't qualified. All I am saying is that you don't know how he does as a 30 start 200 inning guy because he has never come close to those numbers and is 28 years old. So I'm not sure he is a good # 3 and you some how think he is a frontline guy based off of 17 starts. I would say chances are he can be a good middle of the rotation arm that has a chance to improve and be a frontline guy, but those chances are very slim.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 26, 2015 17:06:38 GMT -5
You understand that Carrasco made what 17 starts last year? So you can't compare him to other qualified starters because he wasn't qualified. All I am saying is that you don't know how he does as a 30 start 200 inning guy because he has never come close to those numbers and is 28 years old. So I'm not sure he is a good # 3 and you some how think he is a frontline guy based off of 17 starts. I would say chances are he can be a good middle of the rotation arm that has a chance to improve and be a frontline guy, but those chances are very slim. I was talking past calendar year (i.e. last August until now). He's made 30 starts, thrown 194 innings, and put up stupid good numbers (at least defense-independent wise). I don't think he's the 6th best starter in the majors, but he's probably a good number 3 or a number 2 going forward, with number 1 upside and a nice contract. If it really only takes Johnson or Owens and Margot, the Red Sox should be all over that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 26, 2015 17:52:37 GMT -5
Wait for a better Pitcher. CC has one good year under his belt and an ERA of 4 this year, not to mention giving it up tonight vs Chicago. Your going to trade top prospects you trade them for Hamels. Carrasco over the next four years is a good bet to be as good as Hamels. CC is entering his prime and Hamels is leaving it. At a $60M salary difference, I'd respectfully, and heartily, disagree. I also love the idea of getting Bauer. I'm less worried about his command issues because he is only 24. He's still 2-3 years from entering his prime. At 24 Wainright, Lee, Halladay, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Cliff Lee, and a host of other outstanding pitchers were all struggling with putting it together. Even Pedro was middling until age 26. Not that Bauer *will* be one of those guys, but he does have the stuff for it, and Fenway's deep RF and cavernous R-CF will help with the long ball.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 21:11:27 GMT -5
You understand that Carrasco made what 17 starts last year? So you can't compare him to other qualified starters because he wasn't qualified. All I am saying is that you don't know how he does as a 30 start 200 inning guy because he has never come close to those numbers and is 28 years old. So I'm not sure he is a good # 3 and you some how think he is a frontline guy based off of 17 starts. I would say chances are he can be a good middle of the rotation arm that has a chance to improve and be a frontline guy, but those chances are very slim. I was talking past calendar year (i.e. last August until now). He's made 30 starts, thrown 194 innings, and put up stupid good numbers (at least defense-independent wise). I don't think he's the 6th best starter in the majors, but he's probably a good number 3 or a number 2 going forward, with number 1 upside and a nice contract. If it really only takes Johnson or Owens and Margot, the Red Sox should be all over that. OK fair points. I would trade Johnson and Margot, but still don't think I trade Owens. I still see Owens as being at least a number 3 starter and you don't trade that for anyone but a guys that's an ace. I would like a trade for Carrasco, just not one including Owens. We have the depth in our system to make that happen.
|
|
|