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 soxfan1615 on Sept 3, 2015 15:34:18 GMT -5
How about another question for the people wanting to trade for Archer, Sale, Gray or Carrasco.
What would you trade Mookie for in terms of a prospect package? If they were on another team would you trade Mookie for Johnson, Marrero, Shaw, Margot, and whatever other garbage people are suggesting to trade for these guys? No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't even think of trading Mookie for prospects ever, really. So speculating about trades for these guys is probably a waste of time, and if you're speculating about these guys while at the same time saying x, y, and z are untouchable, it's definitely a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Sept 3, 2015 18:46:03 GMT -5
How about another question for the people wanting to trade for Archer, Sale, Gray or Carrasco. What would you trade Mookie for in terms of a prospect package? If they were on another team would you trade Mookie for Johnson, Marrero, Shaw, Margot, and whatever other garbage people are suggesting to trade for these guys? No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't even think of trading Mookie for prospects ever, really. So speculating about trades for these guys is probably a waste of time, and if you're speculating about these guys while at the same time saying x, y, and z are untouchable, it's definitely a waste of time. Disagree. Some of these teams, especially Tampa and Oakland, have far greater payroll constraints than the red sox. I think Margot has greater value to another team, at the moment, than to Boston. I don't think anyone is suggesting the likes of Shaw or Marrero will be headlining a package for a frontline starter, but I also don't think it's a direct "if we wouldn't, they wouldn't".
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 4, 2015 3:01:43 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. I doubt they expected what he ended up doing. Regardless, he was still a salary dump. Didn't he veto a trade for Encarnacion? They (OK, we) did a lot of analysis on what happens after a year like that. My study indicated he'd bounce back and have a good year, and I bet Bill James did one, too. Now, granted, this was after the fact of the trade (at least on my part), because Jed Hoyer went to those meetings despairing over the availability of front-line pitching. That Beckett was made available was a surprise. I'm guessing , however, that they had scouting reports on the likelihood of his bounceback before the trade, so it was an informed gamble. Then the analysis confirmed it. BTW, they did shop him that winter anyway, because the plan had absolutely been to have Youkilis move back to 3B, and get a first baseman (my choices in order were, easy #1, Rangers' 24-year-old 71 OPS+ in 206 PA washout Adrian Gonzalez, and a pair of older disappointments, Carlos Pena and Chad Tracy, that I went back and forth between. Cue the Meatloaf song!*) But, predictably, no one was willing to give the value that we projected. *No, not all my player acquisition advice was this good!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 4, 2015 6:43:48 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. I doubt they expected what he ended up doing. Regardless, he was still a salary dump. Didn't he veto a trade for Encarnacion? They (OK, we) did a lot of analysis on what happens after a year like that. My study indicated he'd bounce back and have a good year, and I bet Bill James did one, too. Now, granted, this was after the fact of the trade (at least on my part), because Jed Hoyer went to those meetings despairing over the availability of front-line pitching. That Beckett was made available was a surprise. I'm guessing , however, that they had scouting reports on the likelihood of his bounceback before the trade, so it was an informed gamble. Then the analysis confirmed it. BTW, they did shop him that winter anyway, because the plan had absolutely been to have Youkilis move back to 3B, and get a first baseman (my choices in order were, easy #1, Rangers' 24-year-old 71 OPS+ in 206 PA washout Adrian Gonzalez, and a pair of older disappointments, Carlos Pena and Chad Tracy, that I went back and forth between. Cue the Meatloaf song!*) But, predictably, no one was willing to give the value that we projected. *No, not all my player acquisition advice was this good! I guess I didn't word it correctly. 2007 was the best season of his career and that certainly could not have been a predicted 50% outcome. More like 90+%. Is that fair?
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 4, 2015 9:58:01 GMT -5
How about another question for the people wanting to trade for Archer, Sale, Gray or Carrasco. What would you trade Mookie for in terms of a prospect package? If they were on another team would you trade Mookie for Johnson, Marrero, Shaw, Margot, and whatever other garbage people are suggesting to trade for these guys? No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't even think of trading Mookie for prospects ever, really. So speculating about trades for these guys is probably a waste of time, and if you're speculating about these guys while at the same time saying x, y, and z are untouchable, it's definitely a waste of time. Disagree. Some of these teams, especially Tampa and Oakland, have far greater payroll constraints than the red sox. I think Margot has greater value to another team, at the moment, than to Boston. I don't think anyone is suggesting the likes of Shaw or Marrero will be headlining a package for a frontline starter, but I also don't think it's a direct "if we wouldn't, they wouldn't". The payroll constraints are irrelevant because those starters are under cheap control for a long time. As for the nobody's suggesting that, I point you to this:
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 4, 2015 10:22:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Sept 4, 2015 13:27:32 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious that the players who can (and probably will) be traded are Margot, Owens, Guerra, and Marrero. My idea would be to package them all to San Diego (plus the prospect you get in return for Ryan Hanigan from a different team) for Tyson Ross and Craig Kimbrel. In free agency you sign Jordan Zimmerman (will cost less than Price and Cueto, has less mileage on his arm too) or Cueto (if he is as close to Pedro as is rumored) and a top lefty reliever (seen Tony Sipp's name mentioned so I will go with him). On the bench you need to add a lefty masher with the ability to play corner OF/1B/DH, I think Ryan Raburn could be available for a small fee.
And for two off the wall/less popular decisions I would not be surprised if Dombrowski keeps all of the big league rotation now and stashes ERod in AAA (Workman, Barnes, Johnson, Wright, and ERod is a hell of a AAA rotation) for depth/in case of flame outs. Also would not be surprised if he starts the season with a 6 man rotation (Cueto, Ross, Buch, Porcello, Miley, Kelly)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 5, 2015 3:41:41 GMT -5
They (OK, we) did a lot of analysis on what happens after a year like that. My study indicated he'd bounce back and have a good year, and I bet Bill James did one, too. Now, granted, this was after the fact of the trade (at least on my part), because Jed Hoyer went to those meetings despairing over the availability of front-line pitching. That Beckett was made available was a surprise. I'm guessing , however, that they had scouting reports on the likelihood of his bounceback before the trade, so it was an informed gamble. Then the analysis confirmed it. BTW, they did shop him that winter anyway, because the plan had absolutely been to have Youkilis move back to 3B, and get a first baseman (my choices in order were, easy #1, Rangers' 24-year-old 71 OPS+ in 206 PA washout Adrian Gonzalez, and a pair of older disappointments, Carlos Pena and Chad Tracy, that I went back and forth between. Cue the Meatloaf song!*) But, predictably, no one was willing to give the value that we projected. *No, not all my player acquisition advice was this good! I guess I didn't word it correctly. 2007 was the best season of his career and that certainly could not have been a predicted 50% outcome. More like 90+%. Is that fair? Yeah, nobody saw 5.0 bWAR coming. But 4.0? Sure. BTW, Theo then paid Lowell $37.5M to get 2.4 bWAR, and passed on acquiring 2 draft picks to boot. Probably the worst decision he ever made, and yet it's never listed among them.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Sept 5, 2015 7:58:52 GMT -5
Just one quick point - I didn't truly mean that Porcello would be completely wasted money. Others have called me on that - and they should have - though later on in the same post, I listed him as my most likely third starter. That is about how I see him. A number 2 starter on a bad team, a number 3 starter on a good team. People are absolutely correct that it doesn't make him wasted money, it makes him a bit over-paid. Mea culpa. I do hope people realize that my listing him as the likely third starter on the team, ahead of Rodriguez and Owens (Rodriguez whom I'm a HUGE fan of) shows that I don't think he's worthless.
For Hanley and Sandoval, I'm sticking by my wasted money stance. As Eric pointed out, he even sees there being a chance that Hanely simply cannot play 1b - my guess is that I see this chance as more likely than others. As a DH he'd be a weapon, but we already have one of those. I don't even mind keeping Hanley around as insurance against Ortiz breaking down (it will happen at some point, but who knows when). For what he brings to the table, though, he's wasted money.
Regarding Sandoval, I think he's completely done being an above average (or even average) baseball player. People continually say this year is an abberation, but offensively speaking he has declined for the past 5 seasons. Defensively speaking, he's declined in 4 of the past 5. A lot of people are also speaking about him "improving" in the second half, and I just don't see it. His second half line is .207/.268/.357/.625 and his defense while looking slightly better has still been very bad - admittedly to the eye test. I truly believe by simply having him on the team we are both losing in performance and in opportunity cost when I fully believe a Shaw/Holt platoon there would be far more valuable.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Sept 5, 2015 8:18:37 GMT -5
While I hesitate to speak for others, I will say that I'm in no way saying that I don't think Buchholz is "worth" $13m in a vacuum. I am saying that I don't think he's "worth" $13m to the 2016 Boston Red Sox becuase of the money they currently have on the books that look to be either overpriced (Porcello), fraught with question marks (Hanley) or completely without value (Sandoval). I would assume others who don't want his option pick up similarly think this because he just doesn't fit in the budget. The always phenonmenal Alex Speier outlines next year's salary and says that picking up Buchholz option, with other things (arbitration increases, etc) would give the team between $15m and $20m before hitting the luxury tax. Operating under the assumption that the payroll is $189M (the luxury tax) I'd far rather decline the option on Buchholz to sign David Price. If there's a way to get someone to eat 75% of Sandoval's deal and use that money plus the $15m-$20m extra on Price and then pick up Buchholz option, sure, I'd far rather do that. I think there is a very good chance Buchholz is worth $13m next season. However with his inconsistency, if my options are David Price or Clay Buchholz, I'm taking Price and it isn't even close. I also don't think anyone in the game would straight up take Sandoval if we offered him to them for literally no return and kicked in $20M over the next four years. Maybe UMass and others are right and we have a $200m payroll next season - I just don't see it happening. Assuming it doesn't, I don't think we have the luxury of having a $13m Clay Buchholz on our team next season - regardless of the fact that I think he is a good pitcher - though one not likely to give us a full season. I also certainly don't want one $13m Buchholz if it means we do something like trade Swihart, Bradley Jr and Devers for Sonny Gray as opposed to declining the option, spending the money on Price, and keeping those three players.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 5, 2015 9:09:06 GMT -5
Even if we assume a hard salary cap at the luxury tax threshold (which I and others are generally skeptical of), you still definitely pick up the option. Even if you need Buchholz's $13m to sign a top-end guy, the clear better plan is to pick up Buchholz's option and then trade him to a team like the Dodgers or Cubs, who would be glad to take on all of that salary and would even give you a prospect or two in return (the Dodgers in particular seem like they'd do that in a heartbeat-- think their signings of, among others, Brett Anderson and Brandon McCarthy).
There's also other salary they can move to fit a top free agent under the luxury tax threshold. You've already discussed Sandoval and Ramirez, but there's also Porcello, Miley, Uehara, Castillo, Hanigan, etc.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Sept 5, 2015 9:51:33 GMT -5
Interesting point, Jmei. Honestly, I didn't think that a team could pick up an option and then trade a player. I figured that it fell under the 6 month rule, but if it doesn't then you're totally right. You pick up the option and then trade him to another team if that'a allowed.
For what it's worth, I would absolutely try to move $13M of salary of Sandoval or Hanley to pick up Buchholz and another elite starter, I just don't think other teams would take on the 50% of those players salary in order to make that a true option. Looking at someone like Castillo, I'd frankly rather have the next five years of Castillo than the next two of Buchholz. I love the idea of the Betts, Bradley Jr, Castillo outfield for a long time.
IF the team is looking at Buchholz option and not being concerned about how it factors in to the $189m mark, I'm all for him being on the team of course.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 5, 2015 10:39:19 GMT -5
How about another question for the people wanting to trade for Archer, Sale, Gray or Carrasco. What would you trade Mookie for in terms of a prospect package? If they were on another team would you trade Mookie for Johnson, Marrero, Shaw, Margot, and whatever other garbage people are suggesting to trade for these guys? No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't even think of trading Mookie for prospects ever, really. So speculating about trades for these guys is probably a waste of time, and if you're speculating about these guys while at the same time saying x, y, and z are untouchable, it's definitely a waste of time. 1) Teams with severe payroll restrictions either due to market (OAK, TB) or payroll (Cle) are much more likely to consider deals involving one or a couple of highly-rated prospects, plus additional talent, particularly if that talent is high-ceiling despite being high-risk, or fills an MLB role at low cost 2) You're out of touch with the consensus if you're calling Manny Margot "garbage," which I presume is intended to label him as a worthless prospect 3) Calling human beings "garbage" to begin with is pretty distasteful and to any reasonable person I think would badly damage your credibility.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 5, 2015 10:46:59 GMT -5
Even if we assume a hard salary cap at the luxury tax threshold (which I and others are generally skeptical of), you still definitely pick up the option. Even if you need Buchholz's $13m to sign a top-end guy, the clear better plan is to pick up Buchholz's option and then trade him to a team like the Dodgers or Cubs, who would be glad to take on all of that salary and would even give you a prospect or two in return (the Dodgers in particular seem like they'd do that in a heartbeat-- think their signings of, among others, Brett Anderson and Brandon McCarthy). There's also other salary they can move to fit a top free agent under the luxury tax threshold. You've already discussed Sandoval and Ramirez, but there's also Porcello, Miley, Uehara, Castillo, Hanigan, etc. If Vazquez plays well in winter ball, and Leon sticks in AAA, I could see Hanigan moved. I'd also like to see Miley moved. I think Castillo would be tough to trade now simply because he's not established a solid baseline, and with his salary the return would likely be minimal until he "proves" he's a solid MLB outfielder. I think he will, fairly soon (before next trading deadline), but moving him without Margot or Benintendi ready to step in leaves a big hole. I do think Benintendi will move very quickly, and may result in Castillo being traded by this time next year. I would miss Koji, but he might bring something legitimate back. The issue then is finding a closer. I agree that picking up Buchholz's option is easily the move to make, and trading him may or may not be the ideal follow-up.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 5, 2015 13:18:51 GMT -5
How about another question for the people wanting to trade for Archer, Sale, Gray or Carrasco. What would you trade Mookie for in terms of a prospect package? If they were on another team would you trade Mookie for Johnson, Marrero, Shaw, Margot, and whatever other garbage people are suggesting to trade for these guys? No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't even think of trading Mookie for prospects ever, really. So speculating about trades for these guys is probably a waste of time, and if you're speculating about these guys while at the same time saying x, y, and z are untouchable, it's definitely a waste of time. 1) Teams with severe payroll restrictions either due to market (OAK, TB) or payroll (Cle) are much more likely to consider deals involving one or a couple of highly-rated prospects, plus additional talent, particularly if that talent is high-ceiling despite being high-risk, or fills an MLB role at low cost 2) You're out of touch with the consensus if you're calling Manny Margot "garbage," which I presume is intended to label him as a worthless prospect 3) Calling human beings "garbage" to begin with is pretty distasteful and to any reasonable person I think would badly damage your credibility. OK Margot isn't garbage, he's also not going to get you those guys. Alright, I won't call people that any more. But when has a small market team ever traded a guy like that with 5+ years of control for a bundle of prospects? There's only 1 trade ever I can think of. Pineda, and he was traded for a top 5 prospect in baseball, and wasn't on these guys' level. Teams simply don't trade guys like this.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 6, 2015 0:21:59 GMT -5
1) Teams with severe payroll restrictions either due to market (OAK, TB) or payroll (Cle) are much more likely to consider deals involving one or a couple of highly-rated prospects, plus additional talent, particularly if that talent is high-ceiling despite being high-risk, or fills an MLB role at low cost 2) You're out of touch with the consensus if you're calling Manny Margot "garbage," which I presume is intended to label him as a worthless prospect 3) Calling human beings "garbage" to begin with is pretty distasteful and to any reasonable person I think would badly damage your credibility. OK Margot isn't garbage, he's also not going to get you those guys. Alright, I won't call people that any more. But when has a small market team ever traded a guy like that with 5+ years of control for a bundle of prospects? There's only 1 trade ever I can think of. Pineda, and he was traded for a top 5 prospect in baseball, and wasn't on these guys' level. Teams simply don't trade guys like this. Well, Josh Donaldson just got traded for a high-risk but young MLBer "buy low" guy and change... Really, for the most part I agree in terms of the likelihood a team will give up a quality cost-controlled player for *just* minor-leaguers, unless they're truly premium ones. But it does happen when those players hit arbitration and/or salary relief is included. Hell, Miggy Cabrera was obtained for all minor leaguers, although two (that I recall) in Maybin and Miller were considered premium guys. Margot is borderline in that category, as is Guerra (both close but no cigar). There are certainly ways to get creative (three-team, Miley to the third team with that team sending a single 40-60 range player to the A's/TB/Cle and the Sox sending Margot/Guerra/top-10 to -15 player, plus maybe/or taking on a dead-weight contract) that work. Certain teams sometimes just *like* certain players, too (TB has gotten some industry-viewed head scratcher returns recently, but they seem to hit on them...). I don't think TB will deal with the Sox, anyway. But there are options. FWIW, the Sox have a tremendous surplus of CFers, and Margot is one who is considered a future plus-plus defender, which has premium value within the industry. He's 20 and holding his own in AA. He steals a ton of bases, and doesn't strike out much. His line doesn't look all that great, especially to us, because we watch him constantly and expect .280-.300/15/80. But he's a player who other teams probably value highly just because of his broad skillset. Guerra is seen as a likely plus-or-better SS in MLB...he doesn't need to hit much. Even if he projects as average or fringe-average power (12-18 HR), that's cake for most teams, because legitimate SSs are relatively rare, and defensive stalwarts are desirable provided they can hit *something*...even a .650 OPS with plus-plus defense is a top-15 and maybe top-10 MLB SS. That's one reason the Sox stockpile up-the-middle players. In the right combo, with the right side deal/3rd team deal, the Sox could offer cash (salary relief) to a low-revenue or cash-starved team, and four top-100 players (don't forget, Buchholz is another asset with value because of his team-friendly option situation...say to the Dodgers, maybe 1:1 for DeLeon, or Holmes and another arm) without giving up any of their MLB talent or even their "best" prospects beyond Margot (who has a ready replacement in Benintendi). Four top -100 prospects...including probably two top 30-50 players...instantly replenishes just about *any* minor league system, and makes a solid one top-5. Of course, I'm not sure I'd give all of that up to get one player, but it's not entirely impossible or necessarily that unreasonable to propose. Even Brian Johnson was top-40 in mid season lists...Owens was top-40 to -50...they have depth to make a deal, they just need a trade partner who likes one or more of those guys *a lot*.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2015 8:33:00 GMT -5
Maybin and Miller were ranked top 10 in baseball when they were traded. Margot might crack top 50s and Guerra might crack top 100s. There's a pretty big difference between those guys. It's not impossible that Margot and Guerra are enough to headline a trade for an Archer/Sale/Gray/Carrasco-type pitcher, but it is very, very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 6, 2015 8:57:21 GMT -5
I frequently see Carrasco lumped with Archer, Sale, and Gray as targets. I am probably undervaluing Carrasco but does he really fit into the same category as the others. I do not see how a Margot led package would net Sale, Archer, or Gray. However, Cleveland could trade Carrasco for such a package.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 6, 2015 9:06:54 GMT -5
OK Margot isn't garbage, he's also not going to get you those guys. Alright, I won't call people that any more. But when has a small market team ever traded a guy like that with 5+ years of control for a bundle of prospects? There's only 1 trade ever I can think of. Pineda, and he was traded for a top 5 prospect in baseball, and wasn't on these guys' level. Teams simply don't trade guys like this. Well, Josh Donaldson just got traded for a high-risk but young MLBer "buy low" guy and change... Really, for the most part I agree in terms of the likelihood a team will give up a quality cost-controlled player for *just* minor-leaguers, unless they're truly premium ones. But it does happen when those players hit arbitration and/or salary relief is included. Hell, Miggy Cabrera was obtained for all minor leaguers, although two (that I recall) in Maybin and Miller were considered premium guys. Margot is borderline in that category, as is Guerra (both close but no cigar). There are certainly ways to get creative (three-team, Miley to the third team with that team sending a single 40-60 range player to the A's/TB/Cle and the Sox sending Margot/Guerra/top-10 to -15 player, plus maybe/or taking on a dead-weight contract) that work. Certain teams sometimes just *like* certain players, too (TB has gotten some industry-viewed head scratcher returns recently, but they seem to hit on them...). I don't think TB will deal with the Sox, anyway. But there are options. FWIW, the Sox have a tremendous surplus of CFers, and Margot is one who is considered a future plus-plus defender, which has premium value within the industry. He's 20 and holding his own in AA. He steals a ton of bases, and doesn't strike out much. His line doesn't look all that great, especially to us, because we watch him constantly and expect .280-.300/15/80. But he's a player who other teams probably value highly just because of his broad skillset. Guerra is seen as a likely plus-or-better SS in MLB...he doesn't need to hit much. Even if he projects as average or fringe-average power (12-18 HR), that's cake for most teams, because legitimate SSs are relatively rare, and defensive stalwarts are desirable provided they can hit *something*...even a .650 OPS with plus-plus defense is a top-15 and maybe top-10 MLB SS. That's one reason the Sox stockpile up-the-middle players. In the right combo, with the right side deal/3rd team deal, the Sox could offer cash (salary relief) to a low-revenue or cash-starved team, and four top-100 players (don't forget, Buchholz is another asset with value because of his team-friendly option situation...say to the Dodgers, maybe 1:1 for DeLeon, or Holmes and another arm) without giving up any of their MLB talent or even their "best" prospects beyond Margot (who has a ready replacement in Benintendi). Four top -100 prospects...including probably two top 30-50 players...instantly replenishes just about *any* minor league system, and makes a solid one top-5. Of course, I'm not sure I'd give all of that up to get one player, but it's not entirely impossible or necessarily that unreasonable to propose. Even Brian Johnson was top-40 in mid season lists...Owens was top-40 to -50...they have depth to make a deal, they just need a trade partner who likes one or more of those guys *a lot*. Miguel Cabrera required an extension, hence the trade. Josh Donaldson A) Got traded for a Major Leaguer and prospects, B) was going to get very expensive in arbitration as a super 2, and C) Had personal problems with Billy Beane apparently Archer, Sale and Carrasco are all signed to extensions, and I don't think Gray will be a super 2, and he's not even in arbitration yet. These guys do NOT get traded, especially not for minor leaguers. It's not happening. Drop the fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 6, 2015 9:07:53 GMT -5
I frequently see Carrasco lumped with Archer, Sale, and Gray as targets. I am probably undervaluing Carrasco but does he really fit into the same category as the others. I do not see how a Margot led package would net Sale, Archer, or Gray. However, Cleveland could trade Carrasco for such a package. His peripherals are actually better than Gray's and about the same as Archer's. Really, the guy who shouldn't be lumped in is Gray, as he has by far the worst peripherals of the 4.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 6, 2015 9:25:38 GMT -5
Maybin and Miller were ranked top 10 in baseball when they were traded. Margot might crack top 50s and Guerra might crack top 100s. There's a pretty big difference between those guys. It's not impossible that Margot and Guerra are enough to headline a trade for an Archer/Sale/Gray/Carrasco-type pitcher, but it is very, very unlikely. I think that the package we're talking about (including Miley and Marrero to a 3rd team for another solid prospect) can get you a guy who might well become a frontline starter, but who isn't there yet. For instance, if I were the Mets and were a few years from contention, I would trade Syndergaard for that package (for all his stuff, he's been killed the 3rd time around the order and has been so-so on the road, and is headed for a 2.5 bWAR season). And what they need for next year is a stopgap at SS for Gavin Cecchini and, ideally, one in CF for Brandon Nimmo (who projects to be solid but nothing special), so in theory you could get a terrific MLB-ready or rookie CFer for Margot, Guerra, and Miley, and send him and Marrero to the Mets; they could then either deal Nimmo for another need, or, more likely, use him as a 4th OFer in 2017 and then have him replace Granderson in 2018. Of course, finding the third team may well be impossible. But a guy like that, sure. To move up to the next level we'll have to deal Swihart. This is essentially the one massive decision for DDo -- sign Price or Cueto, deal Swihart to get a young ace, or make the best trade you can without him. I go back and forth between the last two options myself.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 6, 2015 9:26:55 GMT -5
I know Margot is the top prospect most commonly sited as being available this off season, but is he really?
As much as we love what we've seen from the Betts-Castillo-Bradley outfield, there are still some questions about Bradley and Castillo. And who do we have for depth after that?
Margot is a guy that could be ready mid-season and be the depth the team needs should one of the top 3 get hurt or underperform. Unless he's part of a package for a premium pitcher, it may be worth it to hold.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2015 9:53:03 GMT -5
Maybin and Miller were ranked top 10 in baseball when they were traded. Margot might crack top 50s and Guerra might crack top 100s. There's a pretty big difference between those guys. It's not impossible that Margot and Guerra are enough to headline a trade for an Archer/Sale/Gray/Carrasco-type pitcher, but it is very, very unlikely. I think that the package we're talking about (including Miley and Marrero to a 3rd team for another solid prospect) can get you a guy who might well become a frontline starter, but who isn't there yet. For instance, if I were the Mets and were a few years from contention, I would trade Syndergaard for that package (for all his stuff, he's been killed the 3rd time around the order and has been so-so on the road, and is headed for a 2.5 bWAR season). And what they need for next year is a stopgap at SS for Gavin Cecchini and, ideally, one in CF for Brandon Nimmo (who projects to be solid but nothing special), so in theory you could get a terrific MLB-ready or rookie CFer for Margot, Guerra, and Miley, and send him and Marrero to the Mets; they could then either deal Nimmo for another need, or, more likely, use him as a 4th OFer in 2017 and then have him replace Granderson in 2018. Of course, finding the third team may well be impossible. But a guy like that, sure. To move up to the next level we'll have to deal Swihart. This is essentially the one massive decision for DDo -- sign Price or Cueto, deal Swihart to get a young ace, or make the best trade you can without him. I go back and forth between the last two options myself. Yeah, I think you can still get a good starter for a Margot/Guerra-headlined package (think Shelby Miller or Tyson Ross+), but Archer, Sale, and Gray are among the top handful of trade assets in all of baseball. Even with Swihart included, I'm skeptical that that would be enough to acquire one of those guys even if they were available.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 6, 2015 10:10:00 GMT -5
Maybin and Miller were ranked top 10 in baseball when they were traded. Margot might crack top 50s and Guerra might crack top 100s. There's a pretty big difference between those guys. It's not impossible that Margot and Guerra are enough to headline a trade for an Archer/Sale/Gray/Carrasco-type pitcher, but it is very, very unlikely. Yeah, that was kinda my point, although I'm not sure they were both top-10, they were certainly both top-20. But Cabrera is also a generational (and looked to be then) hitter. As a position player of that level of talent, there's a clear premium. Sale would be the closest equivalent pitching-wise, and I agree there's no way in hell he gets traded for anything less than Betts or Bogaerts plus a stable of top-100 guys, with ateast one Devers/Espinoza/etc in there. But Gray and Archer are a tier below, and Carrasco a tier below them (age-, if not performance- wise). You're right that Margot has lost some stock, but he was top-25 mid season, 40-50 is probably where he ends up. Guerra was top-50 on some lists. Take in a bum contract, add Owens and a player obtained in trade for Miley or Buchholz (maybe a more apropos headliner like LA's De Leon)... It all depends on who you're trading for (cuz Sale probably ain't going anywhere) and what that team needs. On the other hand, the White Sox **have** Sale and still stink, so gutting the MLB roster of young talent isn't going to make the Sox better. Personally, Id rather see them go after Trevor Bauer.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 6, 2015 10:20:00 GMT -5
FWIW, my preference is that they simply sign Cueto or Price. The long-term deal is going to be distasteful later, but by not trading prospects, they retain players in the system who can either be traded later, or who provide performance at minimal cost in the future to offset the egregious overspend that years 4-7 or so are likely to represent. That, or trade for Miller, or Bauer, or somebody else on the verge but not there quite yet. I still like me some Taijuan Walker, too. Clearly, the Sox are woefully short on *quality* pitching, but their offense and defense both look to be improved next year.
|
|
|