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 Chris Hatfield on Oct 27, 2015 12:07:53 GMT -5
deanlefebvre, just FYI, you can edit a prior post. We typically prefer that posters do that rather than post multiple times consecutively, unless the point is that the posts are on separate thoughts.
Just letting you know! Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 27, 2015 12:40:32 GMT -5
deanlefebvre, just FYI, you can edit a prior post. We typically prefer that posters do that rather than post multiple times consecutively, unless the point is that the posts are on separate thoughts. Just letting you know! Thanks for posting. Thanks Chris.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Oct 27, 2015 13:02:13 GMT -5
I would never consider trading Betts straight up for Syndergaard Betts just had a 4.8 fWAR season (NS at 3.1). If for no other reason than the inherent risk of pitcher injury.
The real test case would be Sale; still young (2016 is his age 27 season), absurdly affordable contract (4/47m), I would hate myself, but you have to do that, don't you?
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,673
|
Post by gerry on Oct 28, 2015 2:42:12 GMT -5
I would never consider trading Betts straight up for Syndergaard Betts just had a 4.8 fWAR season (NS at 3.1). If for no other reason than the inherent risk of pitcher injury. The real test case would be Sale; still young (2016 is his age 27 season), absurdly affordable contract (4/47m), I would hate myself, but you have to do that, don't you? No, don't have to. Not for any pitcher, especially with the number of quality arms available this offseason Mookie is incredibly valuable to the offense, defense and attitude of this team and promises to be so for a decade and more. Ample FA $$ and redundant players for trades are available without messing with the core, which includes Mookie. That 4.8 fWAR isn't even the most compelling reason, but it's enough.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 28, 2015 8:33:42 GMT -5
I would never consider trading Betts straight up for Syndergaard Betts just had a 4.8 fWAR season (NS at 3.1). If for no other reason than the inherent risk of pitcher injury. The real test case would be Sale; still young (2016 is his age 27 season), absurdly affordable contract (4/47m), I would hate myself, but you have to do that, don't you? No, don't have to. Not for any pitcher, especially with the number of quality arms available this offseason Mookie is incredibly valuable to the offense, defense and attitude of this team and promises to be so for a decade and more. Ample FA $$ and redundant players for trades are available without messing with the core, which includes Mookie. That 4.8 fWAR isn't even the most compelling reason, but it's enough. Good point...But a lot of people are saying that there are plenty of good pitchers on the market, but if we don't want to lose our high draft pick (which I agree on), that narrows things down to Price & Cueto if we want a TOR starter, & they will not be worth their contracts.....just seems like the trade route is the only way to get a 1 or 2.......hope DD is a great salesman.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 28, 2015 9:11:45 GMT -5
A way of looking at this is to analyze where the team needs to, or should, make replacements in the next two to four years.
The pitching is the obvious area where improvement is needed now and improving is going to cost either a huge amount of money or the trade of some very promising players.
c - The Sox are in good shape here and I would not trade Swihart this year, maybe not at all. Much depends on how Vazquez recovers. No really good minor league prospects at this position, at least none that have emerged yet.
1B - Can Hanley handle it? Is Shaw a good alternative? Sam Travis is the only real 1B prospect in the upper minors. I am dubious of Hanley, fairly high on Shaw and Travis. If Hanley is traded - and I hope he is - I would take a risk here with Shaw because there probably aren't any really good 1Bs available as FAs, or in trades.
2B - Pedroia is there as long as he plays reasonably well.
3B - Panda has to make a substantial recovery or he will have to be replaced. One of either Moncada, Devers or Chavis has to be kept. And another might be a future 1B. Moncada might be an OF. It would be my preference not to trade any of them this year unless one of those positions, 3B, 1B, or OF, is filled by a trade for a premium player.
SS - Bogaerts there until he hits FA. Some good, but not great, SS prospects in Marrero, Hernandez and Dubon in upper levels, outstanding prospect in Guerra, who looks like one of the best bets for trading, along with one of the other three.
OF - Betts is an untouchable as far as I am concerned. I also love JBJ as the CF and would be reluctant to trade him, but not entirely opposed to it. Castillo is OK, but in another year either Margot or Benintendi will be preferable, I think. I would keep Benintendi and trade Margot. I am not nearly as high on Margot as many on the board and many in the baseball community. His value is fairly high and I would cash it in to get an ace starter.
SPs - The only untouchables for me are Rodriguez, Espinoza and Kopech. An ace has to be acquired and I hope a really good number 2 also is acquired. I would keep either Johnson or Owens. Any of the existing SPs, other than Rodriguez, should be available for trade. I have been persuaded that Buchholz's option should be picked up - assuming decent medicals - but I would trade him if decent value could be received, or as part of a big deal for an ace, or in a deal for a solid number 2.
BP - Major rework needed. The only one I wouldn't trade, mostly because his value to the Sox is far higher than what he might bring in a trade, is Koji.
Thus, my conclusion is that players who I think should not be traded are Swihart, Shaw, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Benintendi, Devers, Moncada, Chavis, Espinoza, Rodriguez, Kopech, one of either Owens or Johnson, and Koji. The list could be shortened if a premium position player was acquired.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 28, 2015 9:59:59 GMT -5
A way of looking at this is to analyze where the team needs to, or should, make replacements in the next two to four years. The pitching is the obvious area where improvement is needed now and improving is going to cost either a huge amount of money or the trade of some very promising players. c - The Sox are in good shape here and I would not trade Swihart this year, maybe not at all. Much depends on how Vazquez recovers. No really good minor league prospects at this position, at least none that have emerged yet. 1B - Can Hanley handle it? Is Shaw a good alternative? Sam Travis is the only real 1B prospect in the upper minors. I am dubious of Hanley, fairly high on Shaw and Travis. If Hanley is traded - and I hope he is - I would take a risk here with Shaw because there probably aren't any really good 1Bs available as FAs, or in trades. 2B - Pedroia is there as long as he plays reasonably well. 3B - Panda has to make a substantial recovery or he will have to be replaced. One of either Moncada, Devers or Chavis has to be kept. And another might be a future 1B. Moncada might be an OF. It would be my preference not to trade any of them this year unless one of those positions, 3B, 1B, or OF, is filled by a trade for a premium player. SS - Bogaerts there until he hits FA. Some good, but not great, SS prospects in Marrero, Hernandez and Dubon in upper levels, outstanding prospect in Guerra, who looks like one of the best bets for trading, along with one of the other three. OF - Betts is an untouchable as far as I am concerned. I also love JBJ as the CF and would be reluctant to trade him, but not entirely opposed to it. Castillo is OK, but in another year either Margot or Benintendi will be preferable, I think. I would keep Benintendi and trade Margot. I am not nearly as high on Margot as many on the board and many in the baseball community. His value is fairly high and I would cash it in to get an ace starter. SPs - The only untouchables for me are Rodriguez, Espinoza and Kopech. An ace has to be acquired and I hope a really good number 2 also is acquired. I would keep either Johnson or Owens. Any of the existing SPs, other than Rodriguez, should be available for trade. I have been persuaded that Buchholz's option should be picked up - assuming decent medicals - but I would trade him if decent value could be received, or as part of a big deal for an ace, or in a deal for a solid number 2. BP - Major rework needed. The only one I wouldn't trade, mostly because his value to the Sox is far higher than what he might bring in a trade, is Koji. Thus, my conclusion is that players who I think should not be traded are Swihart, Shaw, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Benintendi, Devers, Moncada, Chavis, Espinoza, Rodriguez, Kopech, one of either Owens or Johnson, and Koji. The list could be shortened if a premium position player was acquired. I believe it is going to be too painful to obtain an ACE...would cost more than Margot...I think all we need is a 1A or a strong 2...I agree to hang on to the kids you mentioned, but to do that, you are bringing your trade chips from a Sale/Harvey/Gray to the next tier below. I think the ONLY prospect I'd give up is Margot, & even that I don't like....I think he'd get a decent 2 (with another smaller piece). With all the prospects who fail, I think you need to keep as many as you can....I mean EVERYONE had Lars Anderson pegged for greatness & he succeeded in the upper minors. Most of our prospects have only done well in low a ball.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,673
|
Post by gerry on Oct 29, 2015 2:23:05 GMT -5
No, don't have to. Not for any pitcher, especially with the number of quality arms available this offseason Mookie is incredibly valuable to the offense, defense and attitude of this team and promises to be so for a decade and more. Ample FA $$ and redundant players for trades are available without messing with the core, which includes Mookie. That 4.8 fWAR isn't even the most compelling reason, but it's enough. Good point...But a lot of people are saying that there are plenty of good pitchers on the market, but if we don't want to lose our high draft pick (which I agree on), that narrows things down to Price & Cueto if we want a TOR starter, & they will not be worth their contracts.....just seems like the trade route is the only way to get a 1 or 2.......hope DD is a great salesman. Trade is good. Trading Mookie for a pitcher is not. Replacing Mookie would cost too much in too many ways. Building a team by tearing out essential players is counter productive, which is not good trading at all
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 29, 2015 6:57:26 GMT -5
Fenway nation has an article saying that outside of moncada, benintendi, and Espinoza all minor leaguers are available to trade for a young ace.
If true, makes me think dombrowski has some players he is targeting. The article mentions gray and Harvey.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 29, 2015 7:15:35 GMT -5
Before last night I thought Johnnie Cueto was someone to take a serious look at. After last night I'm sure about it.....but the competition has gone up with his complete game 2-hitter. I definitely like Price better, but I think Cueto will cost us $50 mill less. If, and that is a big if, Buchholz is healthy, with Cueto we could have 3 solid number 2's. Porcello IMO will be a good #3 next season. I'm fine with those guys with the depth we have in Pawtucket. The bull pen is another (huge) matter!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 29, 2015 7:27:44 GMT -5
Before last night I thought Johnnie Cueto was someone to take a serious look at. After last night I'm sure about it.....but the competition has gone up with his complete game 2-hitter. I definitely like Price better, but I think Cueto will cost us $50 mill less. If, and that is a big if, Buchholz is healthy, with Cueto we could have 3 solid number 2's. Porcello IMO will be a good #3 next season. I'm fine with those guys with the depth we have in Pawtucket. The bull pen is another (huge) matter! Cueto is certainly a big hit or a big miss, and I, too, hope the Sox go after him. I'd like to think his overall performance with KC is a blip and that what he has done in Cincy (and last night) is more what could be expected of him. If he's THAT guy, then he'd be a great target for the Sox. Wouldn't have to give up prospects or a draft pick, and his price, overall, probably has dropped from where it would have been prior to his trade. The worry about him is his injury potential or if his overall performance in KC is a preview of what's to come if they sign him to a big deal. There are questions about how he handles pressure I think. I'm guessing that's why Yost has him making both WS starts in KC, so that he doesn't have to deal with opposing crowds razzing him and getting in his head. I'm not so convinced that he can't pitch well in a big ballgame despite his awful performance in Toronto and some of his past performances in the post-season. He's a very risky guy to commit big $ to, but in a way, he's probably the "safest" choice. Honestly, I love the "Luis Tiant" that he puts into his delivery. That's a lot of fun to watch. I think he'd be a good signing for the Sox, and that fans would enjoy watching him pitch. My gut tells me that Ben Cherington probably would have gone after this guy (assuming that John Henry gave him permission to sign a 30 year old, but I think DDo will go in a different direction, and either sign Zimmerman (and forfeit his draft pick) or deal Devers, Margot, and either Kopech or Owens to obtain a front line starter.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,839
|
Post by nomar on Oct 29, 2015 7:28:37 GMT -5
Before last night I thought Johnnie Cueto was someone to take a serious look at. After last night I'm sure about it.....but the competition has gone up with his complete game 2-hitter. I definitely like Price better, but I think Cueto will cost us $50 mill less. If, and that is a big if, Buchholz is healthy, with Cueto we could have 3 solid number 2's. Porcello IMO will be a good #3 next season. I'm fine with those guys with the depth we have in Pawtucket. The bull pen is another (huge) matter! The difference between Price and Cueto is bigger than $50M spread across 6 years though IMO. This isn't the division for Cueto. Honestly the Mets have just played like crap lately. His line last night wasn't impressive at all, NY just didn't hit.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 29, 2015 7:43:20 GMT -5
Honestly the Mets have just played like crap lately. . That's a pretty interesting way to describe a team that just swept the NLCS without ever trailing. Anything to avoid giving credit to a player you don't want the Red Sox to sign, I suppose. The dude just pitched a two-hitter in the World Series. That doesn't necessarily mean the Red Sox should sign him, but he was outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2015 7:46:55 GMT -5
Fenway nation has an article saying that outside of moncada, benintendi, and Espinoza all minor leaguers are available to trade for a young ace. If true, makes me think dombrowski has some players he is targeting. The article mentions gray and Harvey. Until a team actually puts "a young ace" on the trading block, I'm going to assume that every team wants to keep them unless they're offered a massive overpay. I seriously don't understand the logic of teams being willing to trade them away. I really believe it will be more of a move to acquire a pitcher that is one small tweak away from becoming an ace or it will be free agency, maybe both. And for the 100th time, Gray is not an ace.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 29, 2015 8:17:44 GMT -5
Fenway nation has an article saying that outside of moncada, benintendi, and Espinoza all minor leaguers are available to trade for a young ace. If true, makes me think dombrowski has some players he is targeting. The article mentions gray and Harvey. Until a team actually puts "a young ace" on the trading block, I'm going to assume that every team wants to keep them unless they're offered a massive overpay. I seriously don't understand the logic of teams being willing to trade them away. I really believe it will be more of a move to acquire a pitcher that is one small tweak away from becoming an ace or it will be free agency, maybe both. And for the 100th time, Gray is not an ace. Agree on Gray not being a TOR guy.....I think we should aim for a solid #2 & even that is a gray area. Some people think Lester is a #2 but look what he got in free agency, he got paid like a 1. I believe we should go after Carrasco or Kluber & that will cost plenty. To go after a "perceived" #1 like Gray, will be like a shark bite. I don't like the Padres guys as they are probably similar to our current guys (unless one can be packaged with Kimbrel). We'd simply have to give way too much to get that "young ace".
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 29, 2015 8:32:15 GMT -5
Fenway nation has an article You're better than this, bud.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 29, 2015 8:41:19 GMT -5
I believe it is going to be too painful to obtain an ACE...would cost more than Margot...I think all we need is a 1A or a strong 2...I agree to hang on to the kids you mentioned, but to do that, you are bringing your trade chips from a Sale/Harvey/Gray to the next tier below. I think the ONLY prospect I'd give up is Margot, & even that I don't like....I think he'd get a decent 2 (with another smaller piece). With all the prospects who fail, I think you need to keep as many as you can....I mean EVERYONE had Lars Anderson pegged for greatness & he succeeded in the upper minors. Most of our prospects have only done well in low a ball. I didn't mean to say that Margot would bring an ace by himself. I suspect it would take at least one of the existing Sox SPs, Margot, one more really good prospect, maybe Guerra and maybe another position player or RP.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,361
|
Post by radiohix on Oct 29, 2015 11:08:41 GMT -5
The way the Royals have been playing over the last two years should in my opinion make us more appreciative of Manny Margot: He got the skill set that made the Royals such a dominant force! He got speed, makes tons of contact and is a plus defender! I mean, like Theo said the other day "FOs will be trying to emulate the WS winner blue print (and the Royals made the last 2 WS) during the off season", doesn't this make Margot's value higher*? Curious to read you guys thoughts on that. EDIT: * By Higher, I meant instead of "a second piece in a package for a TORS" being "The headliner of a package"
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 29, 2015 11:37:55 GMT -5
I suppose TOR works, but the entire concept is what we called vaporware in my business: poorly defined, and with little to hang your hat on. How about "high-value pitcher", or some such thing? That starts to capture the quantitative side without overtly naming xFIP or some other statistical measure? I do think you've hit on a good way to highlight Margot's value. His contact rate is ridiculous, and that does have real value. He also mentions on this link (thanks juniorp) that his focus will be on improving his knowledge of the strike zone. As an aside, if he did say all the stuff that's credited to him on that page, he has a future as a diplomat if he can't cut it in pro ball! The guy has a very rich skillset and he's all of 20 years old. The Sox are nurturing a whole group of prospects who have a tremendous amount of potential. Good time to be a fan of prospects, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 29, 2015 12:34:28 GMT -5
I suppose TOR works, but the entire concept is what we called vaporware in my business: poorly defined, and with little to hang your hat on. How about "high-value pitcher", or some such thing? That starts to capture the quantitative side without overtly naming xFIP or some other statistical measure? I do think you've hit on a good way to highlight Margot's value. His contact rate is ridiculous, and that does have real value. He also mentions on this link (thanks juniorp) that his focus will be on improving his knowledge of the strike zone. As an aside, if he did say all the stuff that's credited to him on that page, he has a future as a diplomat if he can't cut it in pro ball! The guy has a very rich skillset and he's all of 20 years old. The Sox are nurturing a whole group of prospects who have a tremendous amount of potential. Good time to be a fan of prospects, I'd say. I know this has been said a million times. A small percent of prospects actually become productive big leaguers. I would simply hate to trade the wrong chunk of prospects & watch a McCutchen or Posey or De Grom play for another team, & watch Lavarnway, Bowden & Lars come up to Boston. I'd say keep them all just in case & sign a #2 in FA (lose the pick if we have to). This is just too good of group. Maybe better than the last group that produced MB, XB, Swihart. Even the best GM's trade wrong guys.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 29, 2015 12:52:22 GMT -5
My only really untouchable are Mookie and Xander. I'm fine trading any prospects its a matter of the value ei not just for anyone. Moncada is a different matter since the team made a 60m + commitment to him so kind of hard to see them trade him. I want to include Espinoza as an untouchable but he is so young and is a pitcher, too much risk for me to say that he is untouchable.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 29, 2015 14:05:33 GMT -5
I suppose TOR works, but the entire concept is what we called vaporware in my business: poorly defined, and with little to hang your hat on. How about "high-value pitcher", or some such thing? That starts to capture the quantitative side without overtly naming xFIP or some other statistical measure? I do think you've hit on a good way to highlight Margot's value. His contact rate is ridiculous, and that does have real value. He also mentions on this link (thanks juniorp) that his focus will be on improving his knowledge of the strike zone. As an aside, if he did say all the stuff that's credited to him on that page, he has a future as a diplomat if he can't cut it in pro ball! The guy has a very rich skillset and he's all of 20 years old. The Sox are nurturing a whole group of prospects who have a tremendous amount of potential. Good time to be a fan of prospects, I'd say. I know this has been said a million times. A small percent of prospects actually become productive big leaguers. I would simply hate to trade the wrong chunk of prospects & watch a McCutchen or Posey or De Grom play for another team, & watch Lavarnway, Bowden & Lars come up to Boston. I'd say keep them all just in case & sign a #2 in FA (lose the pick if we have to). This is just too good of group. Maybe better than the last group that produced MB, XB, Swihart. Even the best GM's trade wrong guys. The Sox in this century, however, have had a much higher hit rate than average, because (I believe) of their emphasis on assessing and valuing makeup. Practically speaking, this makes it easier to trade either Margot or Benintendi, whereas you really might want to hang onto them both for another year if you thought they had ordinary bust rates. And it makes it easier to trade Chavis, because you have even less fear that he's a keeper and there are enough busts among Devers, Moncada, Margot, and Benintendi (two busts if you've traded one of Margot or Benintendi, three if you've kept them both) that there's room for him at 3B or in LF. Guerra remains the one guy who seems blocked and hence tradable no matter what. The conservative move for the off-season would be to deal just Miley and Guerra and hold all the other major pieces. But given our low bust rate, I'd unhesitatingly add Chavis to that list, and I would swap Margot for him in the right deal, and even deal them both.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 29, 2015 14:24:57 GMT -5
I suppose TOR works, but the entire concept is what we called vaporware in my business: poorly defined, and with little to hang your hat on. How about "high-value pitcher", or some such thing? That starts to capture the quantitative side without overtly naming xFIP or some other statistical measure? I do think you've hit on a good way to highlight Margot's value. His contact rate is ridiculous, and that does have real value. He also mentions on this link (thanks juniorp) that his focus will be on improving his knowledge of the strike zone. As an aside, if he did say all the stuff that's credited to him on that page, he has a future as a diplomat if he can't cut it in pro ball! The guy has a very rich skillset and he's all of 20 years old. The Sox are nurturing a whole group of prospects who have a tremendous amount of potential. Good time to be a fan of prospects, I'd say. I know this has been said a million times. A small percent of prospects actually become productive big leaguers. I would simply hate to trade the wrong chunk of prospects & watch a McCutchen or Posey or De Grom play for another team, & watch Lavarnway, Bowden & Lars come up to Boston. I'd say keep them all just in case & sign a #2 in FA (lose the pick if we have to). This is just too good of group. Maybe better than the last group that produced MB, XB, Swihart. Even the best GM's trade wrong guys. I do understand what the expectations have become with the Sox. I actually love that we believe it is our "right" to be playing meaningful games every year in September. God knows this was not always true. But I'd like to see Dombroski do one of two things: 1) stay the course with our kids in the majors and the minors for one more year to evaluate them a little more....and then make your play.....or 2) sign a Cueto or Price, improve the pen....and see how it plays out without losing our 1st rounder There is no reason to say we have to push all of our cards to the middle in 2016. Maybe with patience 2017 will be the REAL start!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 29, 2015 14:35:48 GMT -5
My only really untouchable are Mookie and Xander. I'm fine trading any prospects its a matter of the value ei not just for anyone. Moncada is a different matter since the team made a 60m + commitment to him so kind of hard to see them trade him. I want to include Espinoza as an untouchable but he is so young and is a pitcher, too much risk for me to say that he is untouchable. Espinoza should be untouchable, because of his upside. Guys of his age and build who have low-effort deliveries with great mechanics often add 2-3 mph. No one is projecting him to add 2-3 mph, or even considering it much, because there's simply no such thing as a starter who sits at 99 and touches 102 and 103. It seems absurd. But it's actually within the realm of possibility for Neo. We saw in this post-season that even guys as good as Kershaw and Arrieta are nothing like sure bets to win their starts. But if you look at Pedro in the post-season in '99 -- 17 shutout innings with a 1.55 FIP and a .152 BABIP with no XBH, including 13 IP with a 1.28 FIP and .095 BABIP after he got badly hurt, a nd it becomes reasonable to think that there is a level beyond Kershaw, Arrieta, Greinke, etc., where an expectation of 0 or 1 ER allowed is reasonable, and it becomes tangibly and truly less likely that you lose any post-season series if that guy starts two games. It's the glory of baseball that no one guy, not even a Trout or Kershaw, can have the impact that a Tom Brady or Bill Russell has on his team. But when you get into inner-circle HOF pitchers at the top of their game, you start to edge into that territory. Neo has that upside. When you factor in how good his mean projection is, it should make him untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2015 15:11:37 GMT -5
I know this has been said a million times. A small percent of prospects actually become productive big leaguers. I would simply hate to trade the wrong chunk of prospects & watch a McCutchen or Posey or De Grom play for another team, & watch Lavarnway, Bowden & Lars come up to Boston. I'd say keep them all just in case & sign a #2 in FA (lose the pick if we have to). This is just too good of group. Maybe better than the last group that produced MB, XB, Swihart. Even the best GM's trade wrong guys. The Sox in this century, however, have had a much higher hit rate than average, because (I believe) of their emphasis on assessing and valuing makeup. Practically speaking, this makes it easier to trade either Margot or Benintendi, whereas you really might want to hang onto them both for another year if you thought they had ordinary bust rates. And it makes it easier to trade Chavis, because you have even less fear that he's a keeper and there are enough busts among Devers, Moncada, Margot, and Benintendi (two busts if you've traded one of Margot or Benintendi, three if you've kept them both) that there's room for him at 3B or in LF. Guerra remains the one guy who seems blocked and hence tradable no matter what. The conservative move for the off-season would be to deal just Miley and Guerra and hold all the other major pieces. But given our low bust rate, I'd unhesitatingly add Chavis to that list, and I would swap Margot for him in the right deal, and even deal them both. I think having a guy like Guerra is great insurance for Xander if it looks like he's going to test the market. Trading him would give Boras more leverage. He'd also be Xander insurance for a long term injury for a few years. I know there's a limit to how much value that gives, but it's definitely more than nothing.
|
|
|