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.
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by nomar on Aug 21, 2015 14:41:05 GMT -5
I would rather trade Pedroia and move Mookie to 2B than trade Betts for any pitcher personally. We have a deep enough farm to get just about anyone without letting go of Betts. I also think trading Pedroia and moving Mookie to 2B and keeping JBJ in the outfield is a decent idea. Pedroia's contract is very team friendly, and perhaps a potential contender like NYM would be willing to part with a young pitcher in a deal for Pedroia. I'm fine with that as well, as long as DDo continues his record of keeping the best prospects and trading the busts. I'm curious what kind of trade value Castillo has also. Yeah same. He's been hot so I hope he keeps it up. I would give up Pedroia for Wheeler and a good reliever Or Pedroia + Margot for DeGrom/Syndergaard/Harvey I think Pedroia would be number one on my list, Swihart 2, Margot 3, Hanley 4 simply because he won't bring in as much, then Owens, Johnson and Guerra. There's simply no reason to trade Betts IMO. His bat is going to play anywhere, Pedroia is likely going to be out at some point where Mookie can back up 2B, and he's younger. I would be very disappointed if we let go of Mookie.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 21, 2015 14:53:13 GMT -5
Is that largely because you think Chavis' stock will go up? It's hard to find a scenario where he ever starts for us -- if Devers ends up at 1B, and by all reports he's becoming a very good defensive 3B, Moncada probably ends up at 3B. Nor does Chavis look likely to break into the OF. I think Chavis' stock may go up, but I cannot see why he is unlikely to break into the OF. He is 2-3 years away, at a minimum, and we cannot possibly assume that who will be in our outfield in 2018. The kid's bat speed is elite and his power is real. He is not Jason Place. I know being a 2-strike hitter is never easy, but he is young and hardworking. He could, even next year, learn how to go the other way and put the ball in play. He does have some real tools, but certainly he could make a big jump next year. A sale this offseason could be at a real low value for him. I don't see him currently as a valuable trade piece.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Aug 21, 2015 15:47:45 GMT -5
I would rather trade Pedroia and move Mookie to 2B than trade Betts for any pitcher personally. We have a deep enough farm to get just about anyone without letting go of Betts. I also think trading Pedroia and moving Mookie to 2B and keeping JBJ in the outfield is a decent idea. Pedroia's contract is very team friendly, and perhaps a potential contender like NYM would be willing to part with a young pitcher in a deal for Pedroia. I'm fine with that as well, as long as DDo continues his record of keeping the best prospects and trading the busts. I'm curious what kind of trade value Castillo has also. Rusney does have a calculated 162 game line of .291/.332, 18 homers, 74 RBI, in his prime, for a reasonable contract. Sounds quite valuable to me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 21, 2015 15:55:56 GMT -5
It's not so much that I think he can't hit enough for LF. It's that we don't need his defense in LF and there are so many other options on the way. I like a Hanley/JBJ/Castillo OF with deGrom (or one of 4-5 other similar guys) as our #1 than Betts/JBJ/Castillo. Given that at least one of Benintendi, Moncada, Margot should be quite a good starting option in a couple years, it makes the loss of Betts easier to handle. And there are usually plenty of LF free agents available year to year. When is Bautista a FA? It's fine if CFers are now hitting better than LFers, but it's still probably a lot harder to find a good fielding CF who can hit than an average LF who can hit. I don't mind keeping Mookie in LF, but I think he'd be worth more to other teams in CF. I say this mainly because it now seems to be inevitable that we're trading for a young stud pitcher. I would be pretty terrified of a Hanley/Bradley/Castillo outfield next year due to a combination of injury risk (Hanley and Castillo) and performance risk (Hanley's defense, Bradley and Castillo's bats). That's especially true because there's no real internal outfield depth beyond those guys (Brentz and Cecchini inspire zero confidence and Holt is better served as an all-over utility type), which means they have to sign/trade for a robust fourth outfieder/borderline starter-type, which you haven't accounted for in your above math. I also don't know that it's fair to say that they don't need defense in LF. You do play half your games on the road, and LF defense still matters in Fenway (Exhibit 1: Hanley Ramirez). I would rather go into the year with the four-man outfield of Hanley, Betts, Bradley and Castillo and look to move guys like Swihart and Margot for the pitching they need.
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on Aug 21, 2015 16:06:06 GMT -5
Pining to trade Pedroia is fine, but other teams are going to look at him as a post-prime, 32 year old 2B with declining skills, recurring injuries, and eight year old dust on his MVP trophy who's owed $84 million. You will be looking at incredulous stares if you suggest trading Pedroia for anything of value.
Besides, he still has substantial value for the RS. Eric's description of his leadership abilities is spot on. Dustin is the guy you go into battle with. He makes his teammates better. He is our own Captain Intagibles. But those intangibles carry little water elsewhere.
You can salary dump him if you like, but I don't see the point of that. He's a generational Red Sox. You're going to retire his number one day. He's not washed up, but you can't trade him. There is no market for him. It's a complete non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 21, 2015 16:07:10 GMT -5
It's not so much that I think he can't hit enough for LF. It's that we don't need his defense in LF and there are so many other options on the way. I like a Hanley/JBJ/Castillo OF with deGrom (or one of 4-5 other similar guys) as our #1 than Betts/JBJ/Castillo. Given that at least one of Benintendi, Moncada, Margot should be quite a good starting option in a couple years, it makes the loss of Betts easier to handle. And there are usually plenty of LF free agents available year to year. When is Bautista a FA? It's fine if CFers are now hitting better than LFers, but it's still probably a lot harder to find a good fielding CF who can hit than an average LF who can hit. I don't mind keeping Mookie in LF, but I think he'd be worth more to other teams in CF. I say this mainly because it now seems to be inevitable that we're trading for a young stud pitcher. I would be pretty terrified of a Hanley/Bradley/Castillo outfield next year due to a combination of injury risk (Hanley and Castillo) and performance risk (Hanley's defense, Bradley and Castillo's bats). That's especially true because there's no real internal outfield depth beyond those guys (Brentz and Cecchini inspire zero confidence and Holt is better served as an all-over utility type), which means they have to sign/trade for a robust fourth outfieder/borderline starter-type, which you haven't accounted for in your above math. I also don't know that it's fair to say that they don't need defense in LF. You do play half your games on the road, and LF defense still matters in Fenway (Exhibit 1: Hanley Ramirez). I would rather go into the year with the four-man outfield of Hanley, Betts, Bradley and Castillo and look to move guys like Swihart and Margot for the pitching they need. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Hanley is good enough and he'd only be acceptable if he improved. I just meant that we don't need an above average CF in LF and that Betts would be worth more to another team who needs a CF more than we do. I also would bring someone cheaper as depth - maybe a De Aza re-signing and/or see how Shaw does out there. Plus we still have Holt. Losing Betts is an acceptable risk for me with Benintendi and Margot on the way and two other excellent/above average CF on the team. Even Holt would be pretty good as a CF for a period of time. This is all assuming that they could get a young #1/ace with 4+ years of control straight up for Betts. We need that more than a 3rd or 4th CF.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Aug 21, 2015 16:10:45 GMT -5
What's bigger than an elephant? A whale in the room?
1. Xander
-same positional scarcity that makes him valuable to the Red Sox, applies for other teams as well - coming off a year where his offense "looks" better than it really has been, with an unsustainable BABIP (don't know if that fools anyone these days) - I still think that there's a consensus that the power will come, and better to cash that in now than in a couple of years if it hasn't - one less controllable year than Betts - Boras his agent
Replacement is a bit tricky, could Guerra be ready by 2017? Pretty sure that's a substantial defensive upgrade.
Let the hate begin.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Aug 21, 2015 16:13:07 GMT -5
Hey, I got an idea...
We need an ace...sign Price. Then we won't have to gut our farm. Or is that not in "the spirit" of this thread?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 21, 2015 16:18:01 GMT -5
What's bigger than an elephant? A whale in the room? 1. Xander -same positional scarcity that makes him valuable to the Red Sox, applies for other teams as well - coming off a year where his offense "looks" better than it really has been, with an unsustainable BABIP (don't know if that fools anyone these days) - I still think that there's a consensus that the power will come, and better to cash that in now than in a couple of years if it hasn't - one less controllable year than Betts - Boras his agent Replacement is a bit tricky, could Guerra be ready by 2017? Pretty sure that's a substantial defensive upgrade. Let the hate begin. So you want to trade a young elite hitting short stop when we have no replacement ready because he has a high BABIP? That makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 21, 2015 16:18:23 GMT -5
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Hanley is good enough and he'd only be acceptable if he improved. I just meant that we don't need an above average CF in LF and that Betts would be worth more to another team who needs a CF more than we do. I also would bring someone cheaper as depth - maybe a De Aza re-signing and/or see how Shaw does out there. Plus we still have Holt. Losing Betts is an acceptable risk for me with Benintendi and Margot on the way and two other excellent/above average CF on the team. Even Holt would be pretty good as a CF for a period of time. This is all assuming that they could get a young #1/ace with 4+ years of control straight up for Betts. We need that more than a 3rd or 4th CF. A few responses: - My ideal configuration would be Betts in CF, Bradley in RF, Hanley as a LF/DH, Castillo as a fourth outfielder (who plays more than most to give Bradley time off versus LHP and to fill Hanley's spot in LF). With that configuration, even if you really believe in wasted defense, there's not much of it.
- I don't believe in wasted defense, by the way, even in Fenway. We've seen (e.g., Royals outfield, Heyward, etc.) that corner outfield range can make a huge impact on your run prevention. A plus CFer who becomes a plus-plus corner outfielder is still super valuable.
- Shaw doesn't have the range for LF, De Aza is both mediocre and will get a more sizable contract than you think, and Holt doesn't seem good enough to be an everyday outfielder.
- Neither Margot nor Benintendi are likely to reach the majors in 2016, and even early 2017 seems like a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 21, 2015 16:20:14 GMT -5
What's bigger than an elephant? A whale in the room? 1. Xander -same positional scarcity that makes him valuable to the Red Sox, applies for other teams as well - coming off a year where his offense "looks" better than it really has been, with an unsustainable BABIP (don't know if that fools anyone these days) - I still think that there's a consensus that the power will come, and better to cash that in now than in a couple of years if it hasn't - one less controllable year than Betts - Boras his agent Replacement is a bit tricky, could Guerra be ready by 2017? Pretty sure that's a substantial defensive upgrade. Let the hate begin. The lack of replacement options is what will make this unpopular. Even in free agency, there's Ian Desmond and a bunch of role-player-types.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 21, 2015 16:24:42 GMT -5
Pining to trade Pedroia is fine, but other teams are going to look at him as a post-prime, 32 year old 2B with declining skills, recurring injuries, and eight year old dust on his MVP trophy who's owed $84 million. You will be looking at incredulous stares if you suggest trading Pedroia for anything of value. Besides, he still has substantial value for the RS. Eric's description of his leadership abilities is spot on. Dustin is the guy you go into battle with. He makes his teammates better. He is our own Captain Intagibles. But those intangibles carry little water elsewhere. You can salary dump him if you like, but I don't see the point of that. He's a generational Red Sox. You're going to retire his number one day. He's not washed up, but you can't trade him. There is no market for him. It's a complete non-starter. You start to think about not having Pedroia as your 2B when he's on his way to his second consecutive season with a WAR / 150 less than 2.0, which is to say, when he stops contributing on the field to your being an above-average team. He's at 2.6 this year, which is hugely off his previous 5.4 (last year) or 5.6 (last 3 years). Any kind of projection has him as a guy who still really helps you be good. The whole notion of moving him off 2B is a non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 21, 2015 16:27:23 GMT -5
What's bigger than an elephant? A whale in the room? 1. Xander -same positional scarcity that makes him valuable to the Red Sox, applies for other teams as well - coming off a year where his offense "looks" better than it really has been, with an unsustainable BABIP (don't know if that fools anyone these days) - I still think that there's a consensus that the power will come, and better to cash that in now than in a couple of years if it hasn't - one less controllable year than Betts - Boras his agent Replacement is a bit tricky, could Guerra be ready by 2017? Pretty sure that's a substantial defensive upgrade. Let the hate begin. He's under control for four more years (ages 23-26) and the Red Sox option to replace him is either a Holt/Marrero/M.Hernandez combo in the short term or a pick up of some veteran replacement-value FA. I see no reason to trade him before he enters his arb3 year at the end of 2018. By then, Guerra could be ready (2016, Salem; 2017, Portland; 2018, Pawtucket) if everything breaks right. If there is one untouchable in the organization, he's probably it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 21, 2015 16:27:43 GMT -5
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Hanley is good enough and he'd only be acceptable if he improved. I just meant that we don't need an above average CF in LF and that Betts would be worth more to another team who needs a CF more than we do. I also would bring someone cheaper as depth - maybe a De Aza re-signing and/or see how Shaw does out there. Plus we still have Holt. Losing Betts is an acceptable risk for me with Benintendi and Margot on the way and two other excellent/above average CF on the team. Even Holt would be pretty good as a CF for a period of time. This is all assuming that they could get a young #1/ace with 4+ years of control straight up for Betts. We need that more than a 3rd or 4th CF. A few responses: - My ideal configuration would be Betts in CF, Bradley in RF, Hanley as a LF/DH, Castillo as a fourth outfielder (who plays more than most to give Bradley time off versus LHP and to fill Hanley's spot in LF). With that configuration, even if you really believe in wasted defense, there's not much of it.
- I don't believe in wasted defense, by the way, even in Fenway. We've seen (e.g., Royals outfield, Heyward, etc.) that corner outfield range can make a huge impact on your run prevention. A plus CFer who becomes a plus-plus corner outfielder is still super valuable.
- Shaw doesn't have the range for LF, De Aza is both mediocre and will get a more sizable contract than you think, and Holt doesn't seem good enough to be an everyday outfielder.
- Neither Margot nor Benintendi are likely to reach the majors in 2016, and even early 2017 seems like a stretch.
Brock Holt has a career +17.6 UZR/150 in the outfield. Granted, that is only 581 innings, but it matches the eye test for me. I don't agree that he's not good enough to be an injury replacement. I wasn't implying that going from Mookie to De Aza or Shaw is not a downgrade. De Aza is certainly decent enough defensively for LF in Fenway. I'm just saying it's not an overall team downgrade when you add an ace to the team. I mentioned Margot and Benintendi more for the later years of Mookie's team control.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 21, 2015 16:28:49 GMT -5
I find it interesting that despite how much he is disliked that no one suggested that Sandoval be on this list. Maybe some think his contract and his other problems make him untradeable. I am not sure of that.
There were a lot of rumors at the deadline that the Sox were in discussions that might involve a trade of Sandoval - I think to San Diego. I think that if his recent improvement continues, he could be marketable. Whether he should be traded is another question.
Who would replace him? The same question raised about Bogaerts.
I still am of the belief that the Sox were right to move Bogaerts to third, but not in the way they did it. That was dumb. But the idea was not. He has worked hard to become a decent shortstop, but it seems unlikely he ever will win a Gold Glove (and that doesn't mean I put a lot of weight on those).
I think it still is something that is likely to occur at some point, maybe later in his career, maybe with another team. In terms of future possibilities it is something that should not be dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 21, 2015 16:31:03 GMT -5
I find it interesting that despite how much he is disliked that no one suggested that Sandoval be on this list. Maybe some think his contract and his other problems make him untradeable. I am not sure of that. There were a lot of rumors at the deadline that the Sox were in discussions that might involve a trade of Sandoval - I think to San Diego. I think that if his recent improvement continues, he could be marketable. Whether he should be traded is another question. Who would replace him? The same question raised about Bogaerts. I still am of the belief that the Sox were right to move Bogaerts to third, but not in the way they did it. That was dumb. But the idea was not. He has worked hard to become a decent shortstop, but it seems unlikely he ever will win a Gold Glove (and that doesn't mean I put a lot of weight on those). I think it still is something that is likely to occur at some point, maybe later in his career, maybe with another team. In terms of future possibilities it is something that should not be dismissed. Why would they move Bogaerts to 3rd when he's average at worst at SS? It's harder to find a SS.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 21, 2015 16:32:37 GMT -5
Hey, I got an idea... We need an ace...sign Price. Then we won't have to gut our farm. Or is that not in "the spirit" of this thread? Trading players who project to never start for you is not "gutting the farm." The point of having a tremendous farm system is to trade the excess talent, no matter how good, to get talent that fills holes. We are in a position to trade Margot because we have two great outfielders and two great prospects, ETA mid-2017, to fill the third spot. Does Margot have more value to us as 4th outfielder, or as the centerpiece of Billy Beane's next great A's team? If you believe in Vazquez (and I've been pounding that drum for two or three years), then you have Swihart, Margot, Guerra, and Marrero all blocked by (at present) better players. That's mind-boggling. That can turn Wade Miley into almost any pitcher in baseball. And those guys have very little value to you.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 21, 2015 16:33:15 GMT -5
Brock Holt has a career +17.6 UZR/150 in the outfield. Granted, that is only 581 innings, but it matches the eye test for me. I don't agree that he's not good enough to be an injury replacement. I wasn't implying that going from Mookie to De Aza or Shaw is not a downgrade. De Aza is certainly decent enough defensively for LF in Fenway. I'm just saying it's not an overall team downgrade when you add an ace to the team. I mentioned Margot and Benintendi more for the later years of Mookie's team control. I think it's a pretty big downgrade from Betts to some combination of Holt/De Aza/Shaw, especially once you take into account the trickle-down effects. If that's in the magnitude of two or three wins (which I think it is), I'm not sure the upgrade is worth it, especially since you're almost certainly getting fewer years of team control on the back end.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 21, 2015 16:34:19 GMT -5
I find it interesting that despite how much he is disliked that no one suggested that Sandoval be on this list. Maybe some think his contract and his other problems make him untradeable. I am not sure of that. There were a lot of rumors at the deadline that the Sox were in discussions that might involve a trade of Sandoval - I think to San Diego. I think that if his recent improvement continues, he could be marketable. Whether he should be traded is another question. To me, the problems with Sandoval are fixable and there is no internal replacement for him. He's given up switch-hitting, he's making the transition from SF to BOS and he appears to be recognizing that his weight is an issue. I, for one, don't see the need to ship him off just yet. As to the SD rumors, that was simply a lot of people putting 2 + 2 together with respect to underperforming bad contracts, but there were no legitimate rumors that either Shields or Sandoval were being shopped. Also keep in mind that DD saw Sandoval destroy his team in the World Series some years back, and I'm sure this resonates as to the type of potential Sandoval has. He is a different kettle of fish than Hanley IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 21, 2015 16:44:13 GMT -5
Brock Holt has a career +17.6 UZR/150 in the outfield. Granted, that is only 581 innings, but it matches the eye test for me. I don't agree that he's not good enough to be an injury replacement. I wasn't implying that going from Mookie to De Aza or Shaw is not a downgrade. De Aza is certainly decent enough defensively for LF in Fenway. I'm just saying it's not an overall team downgrade when you add an ace to the team. I mentioned Margot and Benintendi more for the later years of Mookie's team control. I think it's a pretty big downgrade from Betts to some combination of Holt/De Aza/Shaw, especially once you take into account the trickle-down effects. If that's in the magnitude of two or three wins (which I think it is), I'm not sure the upgrade is worth it, especially since you're almost certainly getting fewer years of team control on the back end. And going from Joe Kelly to someone like Jason deGrom (who has 5 years of control) would be more than 2-3 wins.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Aug 21, 2015 16:44:48 GMT -5
Hey, I got an idea... We need an ace...sign Price. Then we won't have to gut our farm. Or is that not in "the spirit" of this thread? If you believe in Vazquez (and I've been pounding that drum for two or three years), then you have Swihart, Margot, Guerra, and Marrero all blocked by (at present) better players. That's mind-boggling. That can turn Wade Miley into almost any pitcher in baseball. And those guys have very little value to you.You think those 5 net you Sale or Fernandez?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 21, 2015 16:47:05 GMT -5
I think it's a pretty big downgrade from Betts to some combination of Holt/De Aza/Shaw, especially once you take into account the trickle-down effects. If that's in the magnitude of two or three wins (which I think it is), I'm not sure the upgrade is worth it, especially since you're almost certainly getting fewer years of team control on the back end. And going from Joe Kelly to someone like Jason deGrom (who has 5 years of control) would be more than 2-3 wins. Joe Kelly is not projected to get a starting rotation spot next year. It's more the difference between whatever pitcher you can get for Betts (and I don't think you'd be able to get deGrom for Betts in a one-for-one) and someone like Owens or Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 21, 2015 16:49:20 GMT -5
And going from Joe Kelly to someone like Jason deGrom (who has 5 years of control) would be more than 2-3 wins. Joe Kelly is not projected to get a starting rotation spot next year. It's more the difference between whatever pitcher you can get for Betts (and I don't think you'd be able to get deGrom for Betts in a one-for-one) and someone like Owens or Johnson. And ditto on the idea that they can replace the LF with someone better than De Aza/Shaw/Holt. I'm not saying they definitely should trade him. I just think it wouldn't hurt as much as people might think. There are plenty of #1 type pitchers out there we could get for Mookie straight up I think. I do think they're more likely to go the 4 for 1 route though.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Aug 21, 2015 16:54:21 GMT -5
does anyone have detailed recollection of the Bagwell - Mo Vaughn time period? I just do not like the thought of trading Swihart because we have Vazquez, I would rather play on out of position until both have a MLB hitting track record. Just because we already have King Kong does not mean there is no place for Godzilla.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Aug 21, 2015 16:55:05 GMT -5
And going from Joe Kelly to someone like Jason deGrom (who has 5 years of control) would be more than 2-3 wins. Joe Kelly is not projected to get a starting rotation spot next year. It's more the difference between whatever pitcher you can get for Betts (and I don't think you'd be able to get deGrom for Betts in a one-for-one) and someone like Owens or Johnson. I'd say no on Boston's end to that.
|
|
|