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 umassgrad2005 on Sept 2, 2015 13:56:18 GMT -5
I don't think a team like the Red Sox can't not pick up that option. 13 million for Clay is still a good deal for us. It took 10 million to get Masterson for one year. Also I don't worry about payroll, after last two years I am expecting to see payroll around 200 million if not more. Dodgers are now approaching 300 million, Red Sox should be at 200 plus million then!!
How can you be so short sighted? Saying Porcello is wasted money is crazy talk. He will be better next year. Sure he might be overpaid, but its not going to be just wasted money. I will go on record saying at worst he's one of the best 4-5 in baseball over the rest of his deal. More likely he is a solid #3. He just had a down year, an outlier year. There are no signs he's an Alan Craig and he just lost it. He has had some really good games this year and some really bad ones.
Same really goes for Hanley and Pablo. They are having outlier years, down years, nothing more. I expect both to bounce back next year. Now that Dave has done what Ben should have and pulled Hanley from OF and gave him a 1B glove, no need to move Hanley. If they both suck again next year, then you move them, not now.
I agree with everything until the last part. If they count on him to play 1st next year, there are almost no teams willing to trade until close to the deadline. That's way too long to suffer with another disaster like he was this year. If Papi wasn't hitting like he is now, I might think differently. But we don't need a platoon at DH. They need to figure out if he can play first over the next month and if he looks awful, then they have to dump him, eating any amount of money to get it done this winter. I have no doubt that he can play an ok 1B. This is a player that played every year but this year in the infield. He just can't play in space, he looks lost with all that room in the OF. People seem to be blinded by how bad he has been in the OF, to the fact that the skills need in the infield and OF are night and day. History shows that bad SS and 3B can become average to above average 1B. It's happen a lot. Now older infielders moving to OF has not happened a ton and I think your seeing the reason its just a different skill set. Hanley doesn't seem to cover a lot of ground at 1B that won't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Sept 2, 2015 16:21:21 GMT -5
If they plan on getting an ace on the market, no chance they can stay under the luxury tax. At that point, you might as well pick up Buchholz's option. Worst case, you are out $. Best case, he pitches like a stud for at least half a season, or he becomes a decent trade piece at the deadline Or they pick up his option and trade him in the offseason. My guess is that DD's plan re: pitching is this: 1. Pick up Buchholz's option 2. Find an ace in free agency 3. Find at least one back-end bullpen arm in free agency 4. Trade Buchholz/Miley/prospects in one or more deals for a #2 starter and/or additional bullpen help Result: Rotation - [FA], [trade], Porcello, Rodriguez, Kelly Bullpen - Uehara, [FA 8th inn.], Tazawa, [trade], Hembree, Ross +1 (Ogando/Machi/Layne/Wright/?) No problem with that, though I feel like if they pick up the option, which IMO is an obvious move if he looks like he'll be 100% by March, him having not pitched in nearly a year would make the return minimal. A good April/May would make him far more valuable, and especially if they go get a #1, they have the depth to back it up with him as one of the top 3 starters. The bullpen is always the interesting part, because it's so volatile and it's pretty hard to build one without either handing out too much $ on a risk or building from within. They have the closer, they have Tazawa. That's a very good back end assuming both are healthy. Kelly would seemingly make more sense in the pen as a guy who can throw hard, which seems to be the growing trend for many pens. It's something that hasn't necessarily been the route the Sox have gone at all. Pat Light could be interesting, there are certainly plenty of spots up for grabs
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 2, 2015 19:56:43 GMT -5
I am not in favor of picking up Buchholz's option, but I think Amfox1 has laid out the most probable scenario for the off-season. The only part of it I question is trading Buchholz. With him shut down for the season questions about his health are going to linger until spring training.
If I thought he really could be traded - in a deal that yielded a top young pitcher - then I would change my mind about picking up his option.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 2, 2015 22:48:38 GMT -5
If they plan on getting an ace on the market, no chance they can stay under the luxury tax. At that point, you might as well pick up Buchholz's option. Worst case, you are out $. Best case, he pitches like a stud for at least half a season, or he becomes a decent trade piece at the deadline Or they pick up his option and trade him in the offseason. My guess is that DD's plan re: pitching is this: 1. Pick up Buchholz's option 2. Find an ace in free agency 3. Find at least one back-end bullpen arm in free agency 4. Trade Buchholz/Miley/prospects in one or more deals for a #2 starter and/or additional bullpen help Result: Rotation - [FA], [trade], Porcello, Rodriguez, Kelly Bullpen - Uehara, [FA 8th inn.], Tazawa, [trade], Hembree, Ross +1 (Ogando/Machi/Layne/Wright/?) This is reasonable, but do you really think John Henry would sign off on it? My take from (a) what I've read, and (b) watching what Theo Epstein has done in Chicago with relatively free reign is that John Henry expects his teams to win every year and that he expects them to do so without signing pitchers over thirty to long-term contracts. My real concern is that the while the Red Sox are really close to being a wild card contender, they are still a couple years away from being a team capable of competing for a division crown. They are about a 30 WAR team this year (a couple of weeks ago I had them a couple WAR less). With some regression to the norm from under-performing veterans (Ramirez-Sandoval-Porcello-Kelly) and continued improvement from their young core (Bogaerts-Betts-Swihart-Bradley Jr-Castillo-Rodriguez and maybe even Owens, Johnson or Wright) they are really just a starter and some bullpen pieces away from being a wild card team. On the other hand, Toronto is a 50 WAR team. You would need to basically mortgage a good chunk of the future and have a lot go right to be in position to actually win the division next year. The strategy you outlined sounds about right: sign a top of the rotation starter, preserve your core prospects (Devers, Espinoza, Moncada, Benintendi and maybe Margot and/or Guerra) and those young players currently on the roster, and leverage Dombrowski's ability to identify under-valued talent to find additional pitching to compete for a wild card (thus ensuring meaningful games in August and September) while keeping the potential 2018 juggernaut in place. However, given his recent history, I just don't see John Henry signing up to this.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Sept 2, 2015 23:15:32 GMT -5
Or they pick up his option and trade him in the offseason. My guess is that DD's plan re: pitching is this: 1. Pick up Buchholz's option 2. Find an ace in free agency 3. Find at least one back-end bullpen arm in free agency 4. Trade Buchholz/Miley/prospects in one or more deals for a #2 starter and/or additional bullpen help Result: Rotation - [FA], [trade], Porcello, Rodriguez, Kelly Bullpen - Uehara, [FA 8th inn.], Tazawa, [trade], Hembree, Ross +1 (Ogando/Machi/Layne/Wright/?) This is reasonable, but do you really think John Henry would sign off on it? My take from (a) what I've read, and (b) watching what Theo Epstein has done in Chicago with relatively free reign is that John Henry expects his teams to win every year and that he expects them to do so without signing pitchers over thirty to long-term contracts. My real concern is that the while the Red Sox are really close to being a wild card contender, they are still a couple years away from being a team capable of competing for a division crown. They are about a 30 WAR team this year (a couple of weeks ago I had them a couple WAR less). With some regression to the norm from under-performing veterans (Ramirez-Sandoval-Porcello-Kelly) and continued improvement from their young core (Bogaerts-Betts-Swihart-Bradley Jr-Castillo-Rodriguez and maybe even Owens, Johnson or Wright) they are really just a starter and some bullpen pieces away from being a wild card team. On the other hand, Toronto is a 50 WAR team. You would need to basically mortgage a good chunk of the future and have a lot go right to be in position to actually win the division next year. The strategy you outlined sounds about right: sign a top of the rotation starter, preserve your core prospects (Devers, Espinoza, Moncada, Benintendi and maybe Margot and/or Guerra) and those young players currently on the roster, and leverage Dombrowski's ability to identify under-valued talent to find additional pitching to compete for a wild card (thus ensuring meaningful games in August and September) while keeping the potential 2018 juggernaut in place. However, given his recent history, I just don't see John Henry signing up to this. I think you're focusing too hard on this year and not on what the future looks like. Toronto is going to lose Price. They also have a 32 year old C, 30 year old often-injured SS, 34 year old RF, and 32 year old DH. All 4 are providing a huge chunk of that WAR and may be below average players in 2017 due to aging. Kevin Pillar has already showed his initial burst was a fluke as he has a .573 OPS in the 2nd half. On the pitching side, Mark Buerhle is also coming to the end of his career and Marco Estrada is having a career year well out of line with his FIP. Add it all up and it's easy to see how they could lose a ton of wins just like the 2014 Red Sox and 2015 Orioles have compared to the year before. Looking at the rest of the division, the Rays still won't spend the money and don't have the prospects to put together a solid lineup. The Yankees entire team had resurgent years and again are all in their mid-30's. The Orioles will be losing Davis, Wieters, and Chen among others and they're also unlikely to spend big money with Machado hitting arbitration. I don't like signing a big money pitcher because you're looking at a big time $/WAR loss, but making a move to go get Gray, Archer, Odorizzi, or Carrasco would probably make sense considering our depth and young core that aren't far away from a playoff berth. I'd love to see a deal where Buchholz moves to a team like the Pirates or Orioles, Prospects from that team move to the A's, and the Red Sox also send prospects to the A's to get Gray. This would give the A's the opportunity to get a large package of their guys and the Sox the ability to not give up as much in prospects.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 2, 2015 23:38:40 GMT -5
This is reasonable, but do you really think John Henry would sign off on it? My take from (a) what I've read, and (b) watching what Theo Epstein has done in Chicago with relatively free reign is that John Henry expects his teams to win every year and that he expects them to do so without signing pitchers over thirty to long-term contracts. My real concern is that the while the Red Sox are really close to being a wild card contender, they are still a couple years away from being a team capable of competing for a division crown. They are about a 30 WAR team this year (a couple of weeks ago I had them a couple WAR less). With some regression to the norm from under-performing veterans (Ramirez-Sandoval-Porcello-Kelly) and continued improvement from their young core (Bogaerts-Betts-Swihart-Bradley Jr-Castillo-Rodriguez and maybe even Owens, Johnson or Wright) they are really just a starter and some bullpen pieces away from being a wild card team. On the other hand, Toronto is a 50 WAR team. You would need to basically mortgage a good chunk of the future and have a lot go right to be in position to actually win the division next year. The strategy you outlined sounds about right: sign a top of the rotation starter, preserve your core prospects (Devers, Espinoza, Moncada, Benintendi and maybe Margot and/or Guerra) and those young players currently on the roster, and leverage Dombrowski's ability to identify under-valued talent to find additional pitching to compete for a wild card (thus ensuring meaningful games in August and September) while keeping the potential 2018 juggernaut in place. However, given his recent history, I just don't see John Henry signing up to this. I think you're focusing too hard on this year and not on what the future looks like. Toronto is going to lose Price. They also have a 32 year old C, 30 year old often-injured SS, 34 year old RF, and 32 year old DH. All 4 are providing a huge chunk of that WAR and may be below average players in 2017 due to aging. Kevin Pillar has already showed his initial burst was a fluke as he has a .573 OPS in the 2nd half. On the pitching side, Mark Buerhle is also coming to the end of his career and Marco Estrada is having a career year well out of line with his FIP. Add it all up and it's easy to see how they could lose a ton of wins just like the 2014 Red Sox and 2015 Orioles have compared to the year before. Looking at the rest of the division, the Rays still won't spend the money and don't have the prospects to put together a solid lineup. The Yankees entire team had resurgent years and again are all in their mid-30's. The Orioles will be losing Davis, Wieters, and Chen among others and they're also unlikely to spend big money with Machado hitting arbitration. I don't like signing a big money pitcher because you're looking at a big time $/WAR loss, but making a move to go get Gray, Archer, Odorizzi, or Carrasco would probably make sense considering our depth and young core that aren't far away from a playoff berth. I'd love to see a deal where Buchholz moves to a team like the Pirates or Orioles, Prospects from that team move to the A's, and the Red Sox also send prospects to the A's to get Gray. This would give the A's the opportunity to get a large package of their guys and the Sox the ability to not give up as much in prospects. I would love to see the Sox get Gray, but I think the cost in prospects would be prohibitive, and the venue change would put a big dent in Gray's numbers, in my thinking. Oakland has a *ton* of foul territory. And as much as I like the Pirates as a trade partner, I'm not sure they'd give up much for Buchholz given his health issues. He'd be a terrific pitcher in the NL I think, but who would the Pirates give up? Taillon? Bell? Meadows? Those are the types of players the A's would want (plus probably Swihart and, say Kopech plus another top-100 guy), and Taillon is the only one (with his own health questions) I could see Pittsburg considering moving, and probably not for Buchholz 1:1. I like the three-team trade idea, but Beane is going to be asking for high-upside, moderate-or-better risk prospects and established young MLBers. And Dombrowski isn't trading JBJ from the sound of it (thankfully). Add: I also still contend that trading Swihart is a really, really bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2015 6:59:08 GMT -5
I am not in favor of picking up Buchholz's option, but I think Amfox1 has laid out the most probable scenario for the off-season. The only part of it I question is trading Buchholz. With him shut down for the season questions about his health are going to linger until spring training. If I thought he really could be traded - in a deal that yielded a top young pitcher - then I would change my mind about picking up his option. Brandon McCarthy just got a 4/$45 million contract last year and you really don't think Buchholz is worth 1/$13? Masterson got 1/$10. You people thinking Buchholz isn't worth $13 million as a free agent have a really distorted view of what $13 million should be worth for pitchers. Ervin Santana got 4/55. Liriano got 3/39. Buchholz for 1/13 is such a no-brainer it makes my head hurt that some want to just throw him away. Why would you only want to pick up the option if you could trade him a top young pitcher? Why wouldn't you pick up the option if you could trade him for anything of value (which of course they would)?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 3, 2015 7:51:55 GMT -5
The problem I have with Buchholz is that he can't pitch a full season. When he is pitching and is healthy he is so good that when he goes down he leaves a huge hole in the rotation that is almost impossible to fill adequately in the middle of a season. It's the same as losing a star player at any position when there isn't anyone nearly comparable to take his place. It was even worse this year because all the other pitchers were struggling.
The logical kind of deal that includes Buchholz is a deal for another good pitcher. Maybe it could be for a top RP as well. Unless they can find a better 3B or 1B option than they players they have now, which seems highly unlikely, I think the post season acquisition efforts will be mostly to improve the pitching.
I read last night that Buchholz is throwing now and may get into a game for an inning or so. If he does and he looks OK, then the Sox no doubt will pick up his option.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,826
|
Post by nomar on Sept 3, 2015 7:55:06 GMT -5
I think you have to think long and hard about something like a Swihart+ and Archer/Gray swap. His value may be peaking.
The flip side is that if Swihart is a 115 wRC+ or better hitter, he could be a serious star if his defense and framing continue to improve.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 3, 2015 8:08:31 GMT -5
Can you imagine the reaction if Swihart is traded and becomes an All-Star, which seems increasingly likely, and Vazquez hurts his arm again, or his throwing is not the same? That isn't a risk I would want to take. Catcher probably is the weakest position in the Sox minor league system. There aren't any good options if Swihart is gone and Vazquez isn't the same.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Sept 3, 2015 8:24:42 GMT -5
Can you imagine the reaction if Swihart is traded and becomes an All-Star, which seems increasingly likely, and Vazquez hurts his arm again, or his throwing is not the same? That isn't a risk I would want to take. Catcher probably is the weakest position in the Sox baseball's minor league systems. There aren't any good options if Swihart is gone and Vazquez isn't the same. I agree. You don't move him at this point. And if Swihart's bat is good enough, you might have the perfect platoon situation with Vazquez catching 75% of the games because of his elite defense and Swihart playing 1B regularly and spelling Vazquez.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 3, 2015 8:29:55 GMT -5
Can you imagine the reaction if Swihart is traded and becomes an All-Star, which seems increasingly likely, and Vazquez hurts his arm again, or his throwing is not the same? That isn't a risk I would want to take. Catcher probably is the weakest position in the Sox minor league system. There aren't any good options if Swihart is gone and Vazquez isn't the same. If you evaluate any trade by the worst case scenario its not gonna look good. What if Swihart busts?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 3, 2015 8:36:02 GMT -5
You have to give value to get value. Swihart sure does have a lot of potential, but so does Gray.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2015 9:00:07 GMT -5
A trade for Gray would probably remind me of the trade for Beckett in terms of what they were getting and what they gave up. It worked out because they won a WS, but if they didn't? I dunno, Annibal Sanchez probably equaled Beckett on his own overall and then they got Hanley too.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Sept 3, 2015 9:20:22 GMT -5
A trade for Gray would probably remind me of the trade for Beckett in terms of what they were getting and what they gave up. It worked out because they won a WS, but if they didn't? I dunno, Annibal Sanchez probably equaled Beckett on his own overall and then they got Hanley too. Lowell was the world series MVP in 2007, helps balance that example out.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2015 9:31:18 GMT -5
A trade for Gray would probably remind me of the trade for Beckett in terms of what they were getting and what they gave up. It worked out because they won a WS, but if they didn't? I dunno, Annibal Sanchez probably equaled Beckett on his own overall and then they got Hanley too. Lowell was the world series MVP in 2007, helps balance that example out. Think that was just luck it turned out like that. He had completely cratered before we got him and was basically a salary dump. Probably would have given up even more if we didn't take him back.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,826
|
Post by nomar on Sept 3, 2015 10:27:33 GMT -5
Sorry for beating a dead horse, but am I the only one who prefers Archer to Gray/Carrasco? I love what he brings to the table in terms of swing and miss stuff. More fly balls and less GB than Gray, but with our outfield, that's mitigatable. With Sandoval at 3B (and Hanley at 1B), GBs may sting us next year. Also Archer's contract is incredibly team friendly.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Sept 3, 2015 11:19:28 GMT -5
Sorry for beating a dead horse, but am I the only one who prefers Archer to Gray/Carrasco? I love what he brings to the table in terms of swing and miss stuff. More fly balls and less GB than Gray, but with our outfield, that's mitigatable. With Sandoval at 3B (and Hanley at 1B), GBs may sting us next year. Also Archer's contract is incredibly team friendly. Archer's contract is stupid good, but I think that's why he's basically in the Chris Sale category of untouchable. You bring in Mookie, maybe, but I don't think a package of prospects could get him.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 3, 2015 12:16:06 GMT -5
Sorry for beating a dead horse, but am I the only one who prefers Archer to Gray/Carrasco? I love what he brings to the table in terms of swing and miss stuff. More fly balls and less GB than Gray, but with our outfield, that's mitigatable. With Sandoval at 3B (and Hanley at 1B), GBs may sting us next year. Also Archer's contract is incredibly team friendly. I agree. Archer is on his way to being one of top five pitchers in baseball, if he is not there already. Tampa needs rebuilding and the Sox have the players to do a deal, assuming that Tampa is not outrageous and they usually aren't. But it would be an expensive deal in terms of talent given up.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 3, 2015 12:35:13 GMT -5
It's hard for me to imagine a trade of this magnitude between the Red Sox and the Rays, but both the Rays and DD don't mind trading within the division. Still to pry Archer would be very costly.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Sept 3, 2015 13:27:55 GMT -5
I will have to agree, I prefer Archer over Sale/Gray just because he knows this division inside out, as well as age/contract. But moving Swihart is going to be hard, who after a horrid start is coming on strong and looks like a future all star. I can offer Marrero/Johnson/Miley/Chavis/Cecchini and Shaw/Margot for him. I don't know if that's enough or too much, because everyone sees everything different including GMs. There are only 5 players in the minors I would not trade - Moncada, Espinoza, Benintendi, Kopech and Devers (all this talk about Espi, Moncada, Benni and we forget Devers is still 18) Players in the Majors I will not trade are E-rod & Owens (they need more time), X-man, Betts, Bradley, Vazquez and Swihart. Hanley and Panda are untradeable unless we eat some of that contract and Pedroia has a NTC - he really needs to be our DH when Moncada gets promoted.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 3, 2015 14:17:02 GMT -5
Can we stop with the nonsense please?
First, it's hard to imagine the Rays trading Chris Archer for anything. He has so much control left, they have no reason to trade him. Unlike people on this site, teams don't trade established players for prospects because they LOOOOVE prospects. They trade them because they have no other option, because they will lose the player for nothing if they don't trade them for prospects. Young, cheap major leaguers like Chris Archer are 2000x better than prospects.
Second, if in this fantasy situation, all it took was Blake Swihart to get Chris Archer, yous have to be out of your mind to say no. Marrero, Cecchini, Johnson, Margot, Shaw and more spare parts? Are you kidding? That probably wouldn't get Archer if he had one year of control left, nevermind Archer now. That's a joke of an offer for Chris Archer.
Third, the Rays are in our division. They would never trade Chris Archer to us if he had one year of control.
I get that it's fun to speculate and all, but can we at least keep it somewhat realistic? How about focusing on pitchers who are already in arbitration on poorer teams who may not be able to extend them, or on bad teams who won't get use out of them until they hit free agency? Those are the players who will get traded. I don't have a list right now, so I don't know who would fit that category, but if you're looking for a trade target, look there. Sale, Gray, Archer and Carrasco are never going to be traded to us.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 3, 2015 14:18:15 GMT -5
Lowell was the world series MVP in 2007, helps balance that example out. Think that was just luck it turned out like that. He had completely cratered before we got him and was basically a salary dump. Probably would have given up even more if we didn't take him back. Luck? How about scouting? Is everything luck to you? Players often bounce back from down years. It was a very smart gamble to take.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by gerry on Sept 3, 2015 15:04:36 GMT -5
There are, as Dski says, a number of redundant players with which to trade. These players, more than anything, determine who he will be able to trade for. Redundant is the key word.
Agree with danr that Swihart is not redundant at this point, not only because his upside may be outrageous, but because CV, having not returned from TJ surgery, is an unknown. Nor is Hanigan, for the same reason.
On the verge of having the best defensive OF in baseball for years to come, one with bragging rights regarding speed, OBP, SLG, youth, cost, hustle and the intangibles, they are probably untouchable in order to address Dombrowski's stated goal of getting a top of the rotation starter. They would not be needed to sign David Price (who he already recruited and believes in) or another FA SP; or in a trade for young studs other than Sale/Archer, etc.
RP's will not cost at that level, nor will a replacement for Panda or Hanley if that is called for. FA's like Soria have as much potential as most trade candidates not named Chapman.
Redundant players may include Margot, Guerra, Longhi, Kopech and some others. They may also include an elite prospect like Devers, Moncada, Benitendi, if the return is huge, truly huge, which would be alright.
But with the need for an "ace", a couple of big RP arms, an OF bench player to replace deAza, maybe a 1B, there will be far fewer players and prospects lost than anticipated to improve this already improved young team.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2015 15:05:34 GMT -5
Think that was just luck it turned out like that. He had completely cratered before we got him and was basically a salary dump. Probably would have given up even more if we didn't take him back. Luck? How about scouting? Is everything luck to you? Players often bounce back from down years. It was a very smart gamble to take. I doubt they expected what he ended up doing. Regardless, he was still a salary dump. Didn't he veto a trade for Encarnacion?
|
|
|