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.
Stephen Strasburg for Rick Porcello plus
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 11, 2015 16:46:42 GMT -5
We eat 7m per year of Porcello's contract. Washington gets him for 4/52. They've had good luck with two former Tigers in Fister and Scherzer. We'll get one good year from Strasburg. He's struggled this year because of a prob with lat injury and recovery. But, no arm problems since TJ Sugery in 2011. Pitched 3 years without missing any starts. Boras is his agent. Can't see Wash keeping him and Harper with so much money allocated to Scherzer.
The plus has to be good. Because, even if Strasburg walks. We'd get a comp pick. So would the Nats if they keep him. I'm thinking they would want Margot. If JBJ looks good the next two months maybe him. Less wear and tear on Harper if he plays a corner OF.
My hope is that Strasburg thrives in the role of an ace. Likes Boston and talks Boras into getting him a long-term contract with the Sox. Even if he leaves, we save 13m per year. The comp pick makes up for loss of Margot.
I think Washington has prob seen a lot of Porcello in the process of scouting Fister and Scherzer. They aren't turned off by his struggles in Boston and see 4/52 as a decent deal for a 3-4. Which is what he really is. Get Margot instead of waiting on a comp pick.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 12, 2015 1:03:40 GMT -5
We eat 7m per year of Porcello's contract. Washington gets him for 4/52. They've had good luck with two former Tigers in Fister and Scherzer. We'll get one good year from Strasburg. He's struggled this year because of a prob with lat injury and recovery. But, no arm problems since TJ Sugery in 2011. Pitched 3 years without missing any starts. Boras is his agent. Can't see Wash keeping him and Harper with so much money allocated to Scherzer. The plus has to be good. Because, even if Strasburg walks. We'd get a comp pick. So would the Nats if they keep him. I'm thinking they would want Margot. If JBJ looks good the next two months maybe him. Less wear and tear on Harper if he plays a corner OF. My hope is that Strasburg thrives in the role of an ace. Likes Boston and talks Boras into getting him a long-term contract with the Sox. Even if he leaves, we save 13m per year. The comp pick makes up for loss of Margot. I think Washington has prob seen a lot of Porcello in the process of scouting Fister and Scherzer. They aren't turned off by his struggles in Boston and see 4/52 as a decent deal for a 3-4. Which is what he really is. Get Margot instead of waiting on a comp pick. Well, Margot's probably top-40 or better in postseason lists. That's about the going rate for pitchers with a year to play or less. Throwing in Porcello and paying $28M to do so to get one year of Strasburg seems like a pretty big overpay. Basically, they'd be giving away a #3 who'd cost pretty much what a #3 costs (with salary relief, about $13M a year) who's entering his prime and has four years of control. Or, they're giving away Margot. I still have hope for Strasburg, but less than I did, and I just don't see him doing a 1-year morph into the real deal all while deciding to forgo free agency.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Aug 12, 2015 7:09:28 GMT -5
Strasburg is going to get a ton of "you know my name" money and you want to give up Porcello, 7M/yr and major prospects for one year of him?
I understand that we need a TOR pitcher, but I don't think that's the one to target.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 12, 2015 8:56:26 GMT -5
Well, Margot's probably top-40 or better in postseason lists. That's about the going rate for pitchers with a year to play or less. Throwing in Porcello and paying $28M to do so to get one year of Strasburg seems like a pretty big overpay. Basically, they'd be giving away a #3 who'd cost pretty much what a #3 costs (with salary relief, about $13M a year) who's entering his prime and has four years of control. Or, they're giving away Margot. I still have hope for Strasburg, but less than I did, and I just don't see him doing a 1-year morph into the real deal all while deciding to forgo free agency. I think this is a trade that neither side would really want to do. We'd be selling low on Porcello, dealing away a very good prospect in Margot (who actually has ranked as a top-30/top-20 guy on midseason prospect lists), and eating money for a rental, and the Nats would be buying a guy who's pitched horribly this year and selling a guy with a ton of name recognition and potential, if nothing else. I think they could get a deal that makes more sense for them if they're going to deal for Strasburg, and if we were going to target him, I'd rather see if we could get him as a free agent, hopefully coming off another down year or something. Even Boras can't convince teams to throw a boatload of cash at a guy who's been hurt and inconsistent for most of his big league career
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 24, 2015 12:45:15 GMT -5
Strasburg is going to get a ton of "you know my name" money and you want to give up Porcello, 7M/yr and major prospects for one year of him? I understand that we need a TOR pitcher, but I don't think that's the one to target. I agree wholeheartedly but don't understand your desire for a Toronto ? pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 24, 2015 13:12:51 GMT -5
Strasburg is going to get a ton of "you know my name" money and you want to give up Porcello, 7M/yr and major prospects for one year of him? I understand that we need a TOR pitcher, but I don't think that's the one to target. I agree wholeheartedly but don't understand your desire for a Toronto ? pitcher. That's Top of the rotation. I don't like this trade, but hope the Sox have some out of the box thinkers like greg.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2015 17:43:26 GMT -5
I agree wholeheartedly but don't understand your desire for a Toronto ? pitcher. That's Top of the rotation. I don't like this trade, but hope the Sox have some out of the box thinkers like greg. Best case scenario is that Porcello returns to pitch well and finishes out the year looking a lot more like his 2014 version, who was a quality 3/borderline 2, especially on a team with good defense. In that case, and given Strasburg's injury problems this year (and really, too often for my tastes), a 1-for-1 would make sense, even if neither team would do it, provided the Sox contributed that salary relief. I like the idea of trying for Strasburg, provided he'd sign an extension, but that's a huge longshot and a gamble given his injury history and lack of real improvement. The only thing working in a team's favor on a trade-and-sign would be that, given his health issues and performance, he might be willing to take a little less for some security. Sure, he's young...3 years younger than Price/Cueto/Scherzer at FA, but he also hasn't come close to any of their pedigrees.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 8, 2015 14:17:09 GMT -5
Reports have the Nats wanting to shake things up in the offseason. They have enough talent on the team to compete so I don't think they trade Strasburg for prospects.
Would Buch + a lesser piece for Strasburg and Storen work? They get two years of Buch when Zimmerman and Fister are probably walking and they seem to have grown tired of Strasburg. I don't think they could pay Storen $10+ million to set up either.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 8, 2015 15:36:54 GMT -5
Reports have the Nats wanting to shake things up in the offseason. They have enough talent on the team to compete so I don't think they trade Strasburg for prospects. Would Buch + a lesser piece for Strasburg and Storen work? They get two years of Buch when Zimmerman and Fister are probably walking and they seem to have grown tired of Strasburg. I don't think they could pay Storen $10+ million to set up either. I actually think that would be far more palatable to both teams than Porcello. Buchholz has more upside, shorter commitment, and an extra year as compared with Strasburg. However, it's not guaranteed and it's not Porcello's locked-in extension. The injury risks are similar. Strasburg might welcome a change of venue and Boras might encourage it (see Beltre, Adrian). And the Sox need and can pay for Storen, plus have MLB-ready talent the Nats might be interested in (Marrero, among others, with Desmond probably gone). Strasburg nets a draft pick, too, if he leaves. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 13, 2015 9:06:15 GMT -5
Come on guys. We're not getting Strasburg and Storen for Buchholz + junk. There is no way Washington would trade Strasburg for Buchholz straight up. I want to get out of Porcello's contract. That's why I'd deal him. He never was nor is going to be a 20m+ pitcher. I don't even care if Strasburg leaves after a year. We'd get a comp pick to replace the prospect we'd have to give up.
I'd try to deal Clay(After picking up his option) to Cubbies for some prospects and flip them for Kimbrell or Chapman.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 16, 2015 9:14:23 GMT -5
Nice outing by Strasburg last night, albeit vs the pathetic Phillies: 8IP, 1H, 0R, 1BB, 14Ks.
|
|
|
Post by kalinis on Sept 16, 2015 11:43:47 GMT -5
Nice outing by Strasburg last night, albeit vs the pathetic Phillies: 8IP, 1H, 0R, 1BB, 14Ks. people are right not getting strasburg and storen for buch and junk but could get them for margot, brian johnson, maybe matt barnes and maybe a couple low a guys like a javiar guerra or a devin marrero.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Sept 16, 2015 17:34:19 GMT -5
Nice outing by Strasburg last night, albeit vs the pathetic Phillies: 8IP, 1H, 0R, 1BB, 14Ks. people are right not getting strasburg and storen for buch and junk but could get them for margot, brian johnson, maybe matt barnes and maybe a couple low a guys like a javiar guerra or a devin marrero. I wouldn't do Margot, Johnson, and Guerra unless we had him for longer, personally.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 16, 2015 19:08:20 GMT -5
people are right not getting strasburg and storen for buch and junk but could get them for margot, brian johnson, maybe matt barnes and maybe a couple low a guys like a javiar guerra or a devin marrero. I wouldn't do Margot, Johnson, and Guerra unless we had him for longer, personally. Exactly. That would be a huge overpay, based on the market (that's arguably more than Price cost the Jays, and Strasburg has nowhere near his performance history), and a waste of talent. Not to mention, Strasburg has a pretty extensive injury history. Why get rid of Porcello if you're paying $7m a year? They're going to have to pay 10-15m a year for 3-4 years to pick up a #3 to replace him. Judging the guy on one bad year after a very linear progression of improvement strikes me as incredibly short-sighted.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 16, 2015 19:35:24 GMT -5
Come on guys. We're not getting Strasburg and Storen for Buchholz + junk. There is no way Washington would trade Strasburg for Buchholz straight up. I want to get out of Porcello's contract. That's why I'd deal him. He never was nor is going to be a 20m+ pitcher. I don't even care if Strasburg leaves after a year. We'd get a comp pick to replace the prospect we'd have to give up. I'd try to deal Clay(After picking up his option) to Cubbies for some prospects and flip them for Kimbrell or Chapman. A comp pick in the 35 range is worth far less than Margot. Margot is likely to rank higher in postseason top-100 lists than is Andrew Benintendi, who was 7th overall and had a great first half-season. There's very little chance that a supplemental first-rounder comes close to "replacing" Margot, even if the pick gets two years to develop. Of recent Sox 1s picks, consider Ranaudo, Bradley Jr, Swihart. One is a total bust, one is a terrific defensive player with lingering questions about his offense-and ability to be a regular, and one is a top-notch prospect just breaking into the majors four years after being drafted. Margot is a top-notch prospect on the verge of breaking in now. The supplemental pick is a big step backwards in MLB-readiness, and probably talent.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 17, 2015 10:45:41 GMT -5
Come on guys. We're not getting Strasburg and Storen for Buchholz + junk. There is no way Washington would trade Strasburg for Buchholz straight up. I want to get out of Porcello's contract. That's why I'd deal him. He never was nor is going to be a 20m+ pitcher. I don't even care if Strasburg leaves after a year. We'd get a comp pick to replace the prospect we'd have to give up. I'd try to deal Clay(After picking up his option) to Cubbies for some prospects and flip them for Kimbrell or Chapman. A comp pick in the 35 range is worth far less than Margot. Margot is likely to rank higher in postseason top-100 lists than is Andrew Benintendi, who was 7th overall and had a great first half-season. There's very little chance that a supplemental first-rounder comes close to "replacing" Margot, even if the pick gets two years to develop. Of recent Sox 1s picks, consider Ranaudo, Bradley Jr, Swihart. One is a total bust, one is a terrific defensive player with lingering questions about his offense-and ability to be a regular, and one is a top-notch prospect just breaking into the majors four years after being drafted. Margot is a top-notch prospect on the verge of breaking in now. The supplemental pick is a big step backwards in MLB-readiness, and probably talent. I doubt that Margot becomes the hitter JBJ is.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 17, 2015 11:03:52 GMT -5
Setting the bar awefully low aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 17, 2015 11:58:02 GMT -5
FYI, there is an "edit" function on posts if you want to go back and change something.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 17, 2015 12:03:27 GMT -5
Thanks lol.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 17, 2015 13:39:25 GMT -5
DD values power arms and we need top of the rotation talent but its very unlikely that Boras will want to extend Strasburg before FA SO...... Adding Storen may make some sense. The Nats are also in a possession with lots of FAs and coming off a couple underachieving seasons. How bout Miley/(or)Kelly, Margot, Travis/(or)Shaw and Guerra fro Storen and Strasburgh. The basis to tho is that the Nats may have a lot more interest in Kelly or Miley due to the much lower AAV than Porcello.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 18, 2015 16:36:09 GMT -5
A comp pick in the 35 range is worth far less than Margot. Margot is likely to rank higher in postseason top-100 lists than is Andrew Benintendi, who was 7th overall and had a great first half-season. There's very little chance that a supplemental first-rounder comes close to "replacing" Margot, even if the pick gets two years to develop. Of recent Sox 1s picks, consider Ranaudo, Bradley Jr, Swihart. One is a total bust, one is a terrific defensive player with lingering questions about his offense-and ability to be a regular, and one is a top-notch prospect just breaking into the majors four years after being drafted. Margot is a top-notch prospect on the verge of breaking in now. The supplemental pick is a big step backwards in MLB-readiness, and probably talent. I doubt that Margot becomes the hitter JBJ is. Well, he's got two years plus in AA to catch up. He's got more raw power than JBJ did and far more speed. Regardless, he was top-20s or so on BA's midseason list, which is higher than JBJ ever was, and he's only 20. And there's sill the risk of prospect failure and the additional development time. So it's still a waste.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 19, 2015 11:47:01 GMT -5
people are right not getting strasburg and storen for buch and junk but could get them for margot, brian johnson, maybe matt barnes and maybe a couple low a guys like a javiar guerra or a devin marrero. I wouldn't do Margot, Johnson, and Guerra unless we had him for longer, personally. I would ink this trade in a heartbeat in washington said yes.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 19, 2015 12:26:50 GMT -5
I think I would too considering we'd get a pretty good prospect back with the QO right? We still can offer him a QO if we acquire him before the season starts.
I don't think the Nationals are ready to sell yet though they just went out and got Scherzer and have the best player in baseball. They're more likely to fire Williams and fix their bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 19, 2015 21:28:54 GMT -5
I think I would too considering we'd get a pretty good prospect back with the QO right? We still can offer him a QO if we acquire him before the season starts. I don't think the Nationals are ready to sell yet though they just went out and got Scherzer and have the best player in baseball. They're more likely to fire Williams and fix their bullpen. They'd get a comp pick (provided they didn't sign someone else), probably in the 35-40 range. That's a moderate-ceiling/low-risk college player (Brian Johnson, or someone with a little more defensive value than Sam Travis, who went 67(?) because he was a 1b and good but not outstanding hitter) who's at best 2-3 years away, or a high-ceiling/high-risk HSer, who's probably 4-5 years away (Kopech...and remember, Trey Ball was considered "much better" than in this category). Margot is in AA at 20 and projects to be a plus-plus CF who steals bases, and is a year away. Guerra reasonably projects as a plus-plus SS with fringe-average power and probably fringe-average (or average for a SS) overall offense. Both have high ceilings and are arguably lower risk (having both performed well in full-season ball) than anyone the Sox could get outside of the top12 to -15 in the draft. They're much lower risk than a 35-overall pick, and even Guerra is reasonably projected to make MLB as soon as, or faster than, anyone they would draft at that spot. You would be trading two players (Margot/Johnson) who are reasonably likely to produce 1-3 WAR per season for their six years of control, and a third who has a similar expectation but at higher risk, for one year of a 3-4 WAR pitcher with 5-6 (risky) upside and a draft pick that has a mean career expectation of 1-3 WAR...in 3-5 years. I think they can do **much** better than that. That's giving away roughly 15-30 WAR in talent (or more, over the next six years) for one year of a 6-WAR ceiling player who is probably more likely to produce 4 WAR, and thus only be a 2-3 WAR improvement over the pitcher he replaces...and a player who's more likely to bust than be anything of value, and who's highly unlikely to be of significant value. If they trade Margot/Johnson/Guerra, I would hope it would be for someone with substantially more control time and/or likelihood to be an All-Star level producer in his short Sox tenure. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them get Strasburg, but definitely not at that cost.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 19, 2015 22:03:45 GMT -5
Sorry, this is nit-picky, but I think you're throwing around the term "plus-plus" a little too willy-nilly. Margot and Guerra are terrific defenders, but I think it's a stretch to say that they reasonably project to be plus-plus defenders. They're described as "plus range, projects as a well above-average defender" and "potential plus defensive shortstop", respectively, in their SoxProspects profiles, and Kiley McDaniel grades their future field tools as 65s. That's plus to a notch better, but not plus-plus. Not meant to be a knock on either (there are maybe only a couple true 70 defenders at each position at any given time), but I'm sensitive about grade inflation.
|
|
|