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 thursty on Aug 21, 2015 23:22:21 GMT -5
Or how bout this as a plan? Sign Price and Greinke to anchor the front of the rotation and put together a strong package of veterans and prospects to get Goldschimdt? No having to give up Betts, Swihart, E-Rod, JBJ or Owens because we have enough depth in the organization to not have to give any of them up. I am trying to imagine a JBJ-Betts-Benintendi OF in a few years...and the thought of it is borderline scary. Goldschmidt is one of the few guys out there that you'd have to give up Betts or Bogaerts for IMO. The only outside shot otherwise would be Swihart plus a lot more because they're incredibly thin at C. I don't think they're interested in trading him anyway. Goldschmidt would take both Betts and Bogaerts
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Aug 21, 2015 23:33:33 GMT -5
Goldschmidt is one of the few guys out there that you'd have to give up Betts or Bogaerts for IMO. The only outside shot otherwise would be Swihart plus a lot more because they're incredibly thin at C. I don't think they're interested in trading him anyway. Goldschmidt would take both Betts and Bogaerts Then no deal. Betts is going to be an elite talent in this league very soon. Statistically every bit that Goldy is imo. There is no chance I trade Mookie for anyone (except maybe Trout of Kershaw), none, nil, nada. I still think X, Castillo, a mix of some veterans (it would be nice if Porcello comes back and has a strong finish) and other top prospects could get a deal done.
But I don't want to get too far into the weeds with this Goldy scenario. The spirit of the thread was not to get into specific potential deals...we have a separate trade subforum for that. My whole intention when I started down this road was to suggest we could trade for an elite position player if we signed Price and Greinke to anchor the front of the rotation, instead of trading for pitching.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 21, 2015 23:39:17 GMT -5
This thread has some of the most insane suggestions Ive ever seen on this site, and that's saying something. Trade Betts? Pedroia? Betts has put up 4.8 fWAR and 6.2 rWAR in what's about 1 full season in the majors. He's 22 years old, and actually looks to gain improvement since his BABIP is low this year, and he's a speedy guy which should lead to a high BABIP. I'm of the belief that everyone should be available, but what on earth would you expect to get back for Betts to make it worth trading him? He has 5 years of control, is already an elite player, and will most likely get better. If GMs come calling offering Trout, Harper, Machado or Goldschmidt, or maybe Rizzo or Sale, I'd do it, but that's never happening.
As for Pedroia, are you kidding me? The man has been an elite player for years and actually hit BETTER this year. Hes also signed to a team friendly contract for very long time. Trading him would be selling extremely low, and what would you expect to get back to make trading Pedroia worth it? More prospects? Like we don't already have enough of those? I'll take an elite player signed to an extremely team friendly contract instead. 6 years 84 million is nothing for a player like Pedroia who has been putting up 5 WAR seasons for ages and has shown no signs of slowing down (if 1 year WAR based on unreliable SSS defensive stats is your argument, don't even mention it). I don't expect anyone to give us that much for him, and certainly not his value. We'd be selling extremely low, and that would be dumb.
Everything on this site seems to be geared towards opening up more playing time for prospects. It's ridiculous. How about the elite players we already have? Like I said, I'm all for everyone being available for the right price, but there's realistically nothing anyone could offer us that would be worth giving up Pedroia or Betts. And to seek to trade Pedroia or Betts is crazy.
Here's guys we should be looking to trade
Margot Blocked, in AA which seems to be a good spot for trades, since he's pretty close, high value, low plate discipline. Also So many of our prospects have hit a wall in AAA that I'd like to trade one before they reach AAA.
Sam Travis Not impressed by low power 1Bmen who don't walk much, yet he seems to have a high value anyway, also in AA which is a good spot imo. Having a 1Bman of the future is extremely overrated in my opinion. 1B is an easy position to fill. We should be filling the position with aging sluggers or stars acquired by trade. Look, in 2004 and 2013 we had Millar and Nap at 1B. It's not hard to find 1B.
Brian Johnson Good pitching prospect in AAA, who other teams could use more than us. Please trade.
Here's guys we should listen on
Blake Swihart He's good, but we also have Christian Vazquez who is likely going to be undervalued by the league. Swihart's a good player, but a lot of his game screams trade to me. First, he has good speed for a catcher which scouts LOVE, but really isn't that useful. Speed is useful in baseball because it can help in both offense AND defense, moreso on defense. Swihart's speed doesn't help on defense, and overall it helps much less than scouts would have you believe. Also his production this year hasn't been that good, and has been 100% BABIP fueled. I'd be terrified if we went into the season next year with him as our starting C. I'd deal him if he could be the centerpiece of a deal for an elite trade asset (elite player under control for a while or willing to sign team friendly extension)
Rafael Devers Has some red flags like plate discipline, defense, and a hitch, which could create some bust potential, and he's top 15 prospect so he could bring back a ton of value, however, he does have very good bat speed. Like Swihart, I wouldn't seek out to trade him, but if he could be one of the key players included in a deal for an elite trade asset, I'd have to do it. Javier Guerra He's intriguing as a prospect and as a trade chip. Hes technically blocked, but people can be moved, and if you think he's gonna gain a lot of value, now'd be a poor time to use him as a trade chip. However, if you don't think he will continue this, which is probably a good bet, now might be the best time to trade him.
Henry Owens When I was typing this post I put Owens in the first group, talking about BABIP suppression and how it wasn't sustainable. Then I looked and saw he has a 26.9 pop-up % so far in the majors. That's a real skill. It hasnt come close to stabilizing yet, so he's still in this category. We should definitely listen on Owens, and I'd include him in a trade if we needed to, but I wouldn't look to trade him.
Deven Marrero I would've put him in the first group if he didn't suck so much this year. He should've been used as a trade chip before, but now, he might have more value as an optional 4th string utility IF. If someone offers anything of value for him, send him away, but I don't think that's gonna happen.
Group 3: I listen to everybody, but we won't receive fair value on these guys most likely
Yoan Moncada We paid more for him than anyone else, and value him more highly. We probably won't receive fair value. Andrew Benintendi Recent draft picks are usually undervalued in prospect lists, and Trea Turner seemed undervalued last year in that trade, and is showing that he was. Likely to be undervalued. Christian Vazquez His skillset is likely not valued fairly by the league Michael Kopech I'd like to trade him, fireballers are often overrated, but he got suspended. Trade him at the deadline next year. Anderson Espinoza Too far away to return fair value, and high ceiling prospects are more valuable to teams like the Red Sox than anyone else.
Xander Bogaerts, Mookie Bwtts, Dustin Pedroia, and more See above, its absolutely ridiculous people are suggesting to trade any of them.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 22, 2015 0:25:59 GMT -5
I'm also skeptical that effectively acting as big buyers of a cost controlled elite SP as a 5th place team is the right way to go. We have a lot of holes other than pitching and we may need to be patient here. I do not think we are all that far away. 2 front end starters, 2 relievers and a resolution to the rameriez mess. I think the sox go hard after greinke this offseason. Then it is what can we give up for one of the mets young starters since they are losing cespedes in the offseason and will need offense. Buchholz or porcello then becomes a #3 starter, Rodriguez #4,and Miley #5. It may take a combination of porcello or Buchholz plus Castillo plus Kelly or Johnson or Owens plus Margot and others to get the mets to do the deal, but it will be well worth it to us. Throw in a pedroia, provided he agrees to waive the no trade clause and maybe the price tag goes down some. Finding relievers is not too terribly difficult, I wold call the Padres about quakenbush to start. However, resolving rameriez could be sticky,
|
|
|
Post by bruinsfan94 on Aug 22, 2015 0:55:40 GMT -5
If I'm the Red Sox I look to put Hanley at third or first and hope him and Sandival rebound. If not I give Shaw first shot over Pablo. I would see if there is anyway to unload Porcello or Sandoval. Maybe go after one of the big pitchers and then trade from our surplus of talent. Players who I would see what I could get for would be: Johnson Gurria Margot Chavis Brentz Coyle Cecchini Marreio Vazquez Travis Miley Craig
I would build around Betts Bogarts Pedroia Hanley (Dh after next year hopefully) Swihart JBJ Castillo Owens Erod Moncada Devers Benindeni Holt
I'd like to see Barnes, Wright, Kelly,Aro,Escbar, Diez,Hembree and Rameiz get alot of work in the bullpen the next month, and a look in spring training.
2017/2018 is where I'm really looking at. If we don't make a run next summer I'd hope to move the free agent to be pieces and Buch if his value is good.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 22, 2015 6:30:56 GMT -5
Brian Johnson isn't going to be traded until next year at best, given his injury status.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 6:33:50 GMT -5
This thread has some of the most insane suggestions Ive ever seen on this site, and that's saying something. Trade Betts? Pedroia? Betts has put up 4.8 fWAR and 6.2 rWAR in what's about 1 full season in the majors. He's 22 years old, and actually looks to gain improvement since his BABIP is low this year, and he's a speedy guy which should lead to a high BABIP. I'm of the belief that everyone should be available, but what on earth would you expect to get back for Betts to make it worth trading him? He has 5 years of control, is already an elite player, and will most likely get better. If GMs come calling offering Trout, Harper, Machado or Goldschmidt, or maybe Rizzo or Sale, I'd do it, but that's never happening. What is insane about suggesting a Betts for deGrom trade? deGrom has 7.9 fWAR in 291.2 innings and has 5 years of control. I know how good Betts is. You don't seem to know how good deGrom is. You can argue against the trade, but just calling it insane doesn't make it true. The main argument is that it would take more than Betts to get him.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 22, 2015 7:31:26 GMT -5
If DDo wants to acquire two pitchers, one via trade and one via FA, then you would indeed trade either Johnson or Owens, ideally the former. But I really, really hope they do not acquire two frontline pitchers. There are two or three reasons why (the first two are related). 1) The marginal upgrade of the FA pitcher, as he begins his decline years, over the best of Owens, Wright, or Johnson (or the second best, when Buchholz is hurt) can't possibly be worth the money. 2) One of Theo's best rules (and one he violated massively for 2011) was "try to avoid the temptation to build an uberteam." At a certain point, the money you pay to make the team better does not make you significantly likelier to make the post-season or win the WS. If you've got an excellent team, they're going to make the post-season unless disaster strikes, and the extra guy you paid $$$ to turn the excellent team into an apparent "team for the ages" isn't going to help. And the post-season itself is too much of a crapshoot. The only thing that building an uberteam does is give you less flexibility to deal with unexpected adversity later. 3) If there is a FA pitcher they really like, they'd probably be better off bundling some or all of the talent we're talking about with a heavily subsidized Hanley and grabbing a great 1B. Make the idea of gambling that Hanley can play 1B adequately and return to his 130 wRC+ hitting ways irresistible to someone else, rather than taking the gamble ourselves. Just wanted to say this was a really interesting post... one I totally agree with. Point number 2 sounds a lot like Belichick's philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Aug 22, 2015 8:37:37 GMT -5
I'm also skeptical that effectively acting as big buyers of a cost controlled elite SP as a 5th place team is the right way to go. We have a lot of holes other than pitching and we may need to be patient here. I do not think we are all that far away. 2 front end starters, 2 relievers and a resolution to the rameriez mess. I think the sox go hard after greinke this offseason. Then it is what can we give up for one of the mets young starters since they are losing cespedes in the offseason and will need offense. Buchholz or porcello then becomes a #3 starter, Rodriguez #4,and Miley #5. It may take a combination of porcello or Buchholz plus Castillo plus Kelly or Johnson or Owens plus Margot and others to get the mets to do the deal, but it will be well worth it to us. Throw in a pedroia, provided he agrees to waive the no trade clause and maybe the price tag goes down some. Finding relievers is not too terribly difficult, I wold call the Padres about quakenbush to start. However, resolving rameriez could be sticky, With deGrom, Syndegaard, Harvey, Matz (and Wheeler when he's healed), the Mets have arguably the best young pitching staff in baseball. Why would they want Porcello and/or Buchholz and the baggage they bring? In another thought you have them as a #3 starter on the Red Sox staff. And, "throw in" a Pedroia, like he's Nick Punto? BTW, it's Ramirez as in Manny. Like to see Greinke, though. I think DD will go hard after him and/or Price in the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 22, 2015 8:41:26 GMT -5
This thread has some of the most insane suggestions Ive ever seen on this site, and that's saying something. Trade Betts? Pedroia? Betts has put up 4.8 fWAR and 6.2 rWAR in what's about 1 full season in the majors. He's 22 years old, and actually looks to gain improvement since his BABIP is low this year, and he's a speedy guy which should lead to a high BABIP. I'm of the belief that everyone should be available, but what on earth would you expect to get back for Betts to make it worth trading him? He has 5 years of control, is already an elite player, and will most likely get better. If GMs come calling offering Trout, Harper, Machado or Goldschmidt, or maybe Rizzo or Sale, I'd do it, but that's never happening. What is insane about suggesting a Betts for deGrom trade? deGrom has 7.9 fWAR in 291.2 innings and has 5 years of control. I know how good Betts is. You don't seem to know how good deGrom is. You can argue against the trade, but just calling it insane doesn't make it true. The main argument is that it would take more than Betts to get him. That's close to equal value, but would likely never happen
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 8:42:50 GMT -5
What is insane about suggesting a Betts for deGrom trade? deGrom has 7.9 fWAR in 291.2 innings and has 5 years of control. I know how good Betts is. You don't seem to know how good deGrom is. You can argue against the trade, but just calling it insane doesn't make it true. The main argument is that it would take more than Betts to get him. That's close to equal value, but would likely never happen It was a hypothetical. I wouldn't trade Mookie unless you got someone like that.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 22, 2015 8:44:14 GMT -5
That's close to equal value, but would likely never happen It was a hypothetical. I wouldn't trade Mookie unless you got someone like that. I didn't take a look at all the individual posts, I saw people saying that people wanted to trade Mookie
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 22, 2015 9:05:47 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. I agree with you. I have been saying this more or less for weeks. My point here was that the option exists by which he could be traded because Bogaerts could be moved to third. However, that is not what I would do now.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,689
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Aug 22, 2015 9:17:52 GMT -5
Bogaerts doesn't hit enough for third base and was horrible there defensively. I have zero interest in moving him to third.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 9:21:40 GMT -5
Bogaerts doesn't hit enough for third base and was horrible there defensively. I have zero interest in moving him to third. And then we'd need a SS.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 22, 2015 10:24:51 GMT -5
But I really, really hope they do not acquire two frontline pitchers. There are two or three reasons why (the first two are related). 1) The marginal upgrade of the FA pitcher, as he begins his decline years, over the best of Owens, Wright, or Johnson (or the second best, when Buchholz is hurt) can't possibly be worth the money. 2) One of Theo's best rules (and one he violated massively for 2011) was "try to avoid the temptation to build an uberteam." At a certain point, the money you pay to make the team better does not make you significantly likelier to make the post-season or win the WS. If you've got an excellent team, they're going to make the post-season unless disaster strikes, and the extra guy you paid $$$ to turn the excellent team into an apparent "team for the ages" isn't going to help. And the post-season itself is too much of a crapshoot. The only thing that building an uberteam does is give you less flexibility to deal with unexpected adversity later. 3) If there is a FA pitcher they really like, they'd probably be better off bundling some or all of the talent we're talking about with a heavily subsidized Hanley and grabbing a great 1B. Make the idea of gambling that Hanley can play 1B adequately and return to his 130 wRC+ hitting ways irresistible to someone else, rather than taking the gamble ourselves. Just wanted to say this was a really interesting post... one I totally agree with. Point number 2 sounds a lot like Belichick's philosophy. Yes Eric, I like this post as well and agree whole-heartedly. I missed it before but wanted to add my support for the ideas. Maybe get one top starter particularly if you can pay for him. I hate the Hanley "affect" so I would try like hell to move him in a package and with subsidy. The difference in his adaptation to the OF vs. Mookie's is eye-opening. Panda at a lower weight will be better...get him on the Jared Sullinger 'train' but still he is never going to fix that swing at everything mantra. We need a 3B so he stays but maybe in a year or two we can wave as his ship sails. The bullpen is at least as important as the starting pitching though. I think DD's emphasis is going to change regarding all the pitching as he noted with Don & Jerry, he values hard-throwing pitchers...a shift perhaps from our perceived emphasis of strike-throwers first mentality.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 22, 2015 10:36:47 GMT -5
The reason a Pedroia trade won't happen is because the Red Sox won't be able to do it (no-trade clause). But its exactly the type of bold move the team ought to be making right now.
Betts is a 2B who is arguably the best hitter (besides Ortiz) on the team at 22. He isn't hitting free agency for a long time. And we're playing him out of position, AND playing Bradley out of position... to accommodate a 32 year old, good albeit oft-injured second baseman who is owed $84M still.
If you could trade Pedroia for fair value, you get better at 2B (half a decade of pre-FA top 5 play at the position). You get more value out of Bradley (in his actual position). You are set up the middle for a long time, with players who are improving and not predictably missing games.
If Pedroia is going nowhere, then you have to consider trading Betts. Because if you won't clear a path for him to play his position, someone else might, and would offer you a package that reflects that.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Aug 22, 2015 10:41:44 GMT -5
This is a really interesting thread Eric, thanks for starting it. As I mentioned in a post in the Dombrowski thread, there are presently a handful of players that I would not even consider dealing unless it's in a trade so lop-sided for the Red Sox that merely suggesting it in the trade proposal sub forum would be met with scorn and laughter. Those players are Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Eduardo Rodriguez, Blake Swihart, Jackie Bradley Jr and Henry Owens. From the minors its Rafael Devers, Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Andrew Benintendi. For the record, I don't want to trade David Ortiz either. He has 10/5 rights and has said he won't waive them, so it's a moot point anyway. I don't necessarily WANT to trade Pedroia, but I would listen if someone asked. That said, I think he has a full NTC in his contract, but we don't know for sure one way or the other.
Following that are players I wouldn't ask to trade, but would listen on, obviously, these have varrying degress of value and some of these will be included in acquisitions mentioned below : Dustin Pedroia; Rusney Castillo, Juichi Tazawa, Travis Shaw, Christian Vazquez, Ryan Hanigan, Hanley Ramirez, Wade Miley, Brian Johnson, Stephen Wright.
There is one player I would move at any financial cost : Pablo Sandoval. I've mentioned this in other threads, but he has been declining offensively for five straight seasons and defensively (yes, difficult to quantify, but it meets the eye test too) in four of the last five. I think he is a complete sunk cost. He has been "worth" this year a net loss of $10m (according to FanGraphs). My guess is you would need to eat half of his salary to get another team to take him. Personally, I'd rather hypothetically light $10M a year from the payroll on fire than $20M.
There is a second player I would deal for whatever prospect you could get - Clay Buchholz. I understand that he is valuable when he pitches and could be "worth" more than his option. That said, I'd rather have the $13M from his option next season to use toward other resources. I think there are some smaller market teams that would give you a lottery ticket for him to have the options. If not, just decline the option and use the money to other resources.
Guys I would make shop / make available (also to varying degrees of return) are as follows: Rick Porcello, Brock Holt, Manny Margot, Javier Guerra, Michael Kopech, Sam Travis, and the rest of our prospects / major league talent.
Our team right now is in a very similar position to where the Cubbies were last year at this time (which is why I think making a decision that allowed Ben Cherington to leave was a HUGE mistake). There is a ton of young talent, a lot of which is showing it belongs at the major league level in some capacity. This is the off-season (in my opinion) to spend money (not players) on an Ace, and that ace to me is David Price. Then, as mentioned above, with the $10m savings from Sandoval, $13m from Buchholz and $4m coming off the books from Gonzalez, you're at what Price would likely cost per season. From most estimates, that still leaves us around $25m in cap space.
I'd use the players mentioned above to trade for a good #2 pitcher with reasonable cost (Jose Quintana, Tyson Ross type of player).
You go into next season with something like this: c - Swihart; 1b - Shaw; 2b - Pedroia; 3b - Ramirez; ss - Bogaerts; lf - Betts; cf - Bradley Jr; rf - Castillo; dh - Ortiz. bench - Hanigan, Holt, Rutledge, OF.
sp - Price, "Quintana", Rodriguez, Owens and whichever of Miley / Porcello isn't moved. Depth in Pawtucket includes something like Wright, Escobar, Couch and Barnes.
bp - Uehara, Tazawa, and spend some of the remaining money to build up the back end here.
Well, there you have it. Sorry for the long post, but it's going to be a complicated off-season. I think the moves above set up a team that will contend in the short term and not sacrifice the long term dynasty we're looking to build. Have at it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 22, 2015 11:39:21 GMT -5
Sam Travis Not impressed by low power 1Bmen who don't walk much, yet he seems to have a high value anyway, also in AA which is a good spot imo. Having a 1Bman of the future is extremely overrated in my opinion. 1B is an easy position to fill. We should be filling the position with aging sluggers or stars acquired by trade. Look, in 2004 and 2013 we had Millar and Nap at 1B. It's not hard to find 1B. Why is everyone so down on Travis? He is 21 in double A and hitting .290 with a .359 OBP. He has 21 BB to 24 K, don't know about you but that's an excellent walk to K ratio for me. Where does he doesn't walk come from? In high A this year he hit .313 with a .378 OBP with 26 BB to 43 K.
Unless some team really likes him and values him highly I am not looking to trade our only good 1B in the system that is close to being major league ready. There is value to having depth in the system in case of injury. Sure he lacks power, but at 21 he could still develop enough power to be a good first baseman.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 22, 2015 11:52:11 GMT -5
But I really, really hope they do not acquire two frontline pitchers. There are two or three reasons why (the first two are related). 1) The marginal upgrade of the FA pitcher, as he begins his decline years, over the best of Owens, Wright, or Johnson (or the second best, when Buchholz is hurt) can't possibly be worth the money. 2) One of Theo's best rules (and one he violated massively for 2011) was "try to avoid the temptation to build an uberteam." At a certain point, the money you pay to make the team better does not make you significantly likelier to make the post-season or win the WS. If you've got an excellent team, they're going to make the post-season unless disaster strikes, and the extra guy you paid $$$ to turn the excellent team into an apparent "team for the ages" isn't going to help. And the post-season itself is too much of a crapshoot. The only thing that building an uberteam does is give you less flexibility to deal with unexpected adversity later. 3) If there is a FA pitcher they really like, they'd probably be better off bundling some or all of the talent we're talking about with a heavily subsidized Hanley and grabbing a great 1B. Make the idea of gambling that Hanley can play 1B adequately and return to his 130 wRC+ hitting ways irresistible to someone else, rather than taking the gamble ourselves. Just wanted to say this was a really interesting post... one I totally agree with. Point number 2 sounds a lot like Belichick's philosophy. I thought it was an interesting post too. I usually agree with EV, but unlike the posters above, I'm a bit puzzled by this line of thinking. What is wrong with having two front line pitchers? To me, that's a basic blueprint for a championship team, all the more so one that will need to come out of the AL East. Or may be this is just a quibble on what an "uberteam" is. So, as much as I agree with the concerns associated with building an uberteam as described above, I don't think trying to have two front line pitchers rises to that "uberteam" standard - (to me, "uberteam" means you try to have 4-5 "front line pitchers" and stars all around the diamond). This team needs solid front line pitching. Currently, it has: -A pitcher who is reliable, but slots more as a 3-4 (Miley) -A high-ceiling rookie (Ed Rod) -An oft-injured pitcher capable of ace-like performances when is healthy - but can't be counted upon to be healthy for long stretches (Buch) -A pitcher who can potentially be a #2-3, but is coming off the worst season of his career and has a big contract (so you have to keep him) (I'm not including Owens/Johnson/Wright, etc., as I consider them the back-ups). Those are my characterizations, and I understand that there may be differences on those. But that's high downside volatility at three spots in your regular rotation. And the guy who's a bit of a stable value is more of a #3/#4. I think that's too much downside for a team that will aim to at least get to the playoffs. And In my opinion, you have to push that risk down further. Bring in two pitchers that put the above group in those #3/4/5 slots, however you want to play it out. Porcello and Ed Rod are pretty much guaranteed spots already, for different reasons. I think your #3 is either Miley or Buchholz; the first because that's kind of what he is, the second because he's too often injured to be counted upon to be more than that. That means you need two pitchers who can slot ahead of the current group (the names could be different depending on trades and such, but the principle remains). Some have argued one is enough, but I believe they need two. Would that make this an uberteam? I don't think so. But it'll greatly increase their chances. The question is obviously how you get these two - and the Free Agent + Trade approach sounds sensible to me. I understand that the marginal upside of new pitcher when they decline will be lower than what you'll get from an Owens. But that doesn't do anything for 2016 (or 2017). Ben Cherington lost his job partly because people think he was too patient with prospects. I happen to agree with his prospect hogging (I believe you build through the farm), and would have preferred to keep him and fix major league evaluation. But it's quite evident with the firing + the DD hiring that this ownership (along with many on this board and this market, perhaps) doesn't care for that. But now that you've gone on that path, you can't go back to the ragtag rotation. Sometimes we're guilty (not me lol) of overthinking things. This team needs frontline pitching. As things stand, they don't have it. They have to find a way to get it. And yes, I fully expect loss of long term flexibility (just need to look at what DD left in Detroit), but this is now the chosen path. As Joel Sherman said in the New York Post the other day, look who's the evil empire now.
|
|
|
Post by beantown on Aug 22, 2015 12:20:22 GMT -5
I think we're just beginning to scratch the surface of what Swihart can do. Someone on this thread said his performance is mainly BABIP/luck driven, but via fangraphs, 2015 LD% is 29.3. I don't buy it. The guy makes consistent, hard contact, and we're seeing it more and more as he gets comfortable at the dish. The power will come too (50+ future raw power). Vazquez brings acceptable, Hanigan-caliber offense and gold glove defense.. but in Swihart we're looking at a future All-Star.
I love me some CV, but Swihart just has a much higher ceiling. It's an intriguing idea to flip him, but let's not forget what we'd risk losing.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,689
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Aug 22, 2015 12:32:23 GMT -5
I think we're just beginning to scratch the surface of what Swihart can do. Someone on this thread said his performance is mainly BABIP/luck driven, but via fangraphs, 2015 LD% is 29.3. I don't buy it. The guy makes consistent, hard contact, and we're seeing it more and more as he gets comfortable at the dish. The power will come too (50+ future raw power). Vazquez brings acceptable, Hanigan-caliber offense and gold glove defense.. but in Swihart we're looking at a future All-Star. I love me some CV, but Swihart just has a much higher ceiling. It's an intriguing idea to flip him, but let's not forget what we'd risk losing. What it really boils down to is whether you buy completely into framing WAR statistics. If you do, Vazquez may have the highest WAR for things other than offense in the MLB.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 22, 2015 12:58:39 GMT -5
I think we're just beginning to scratch the surface of what Swihart can do. Someone on this thread said his performance is mainly BABIP/luck driven, but via fangraphs, 2015 LD% is 29.3. I don't buy it. The guy makes consistent, hard contact, and we're seeing it more and more as he gets comfortable at the dish. The power will come too (50+ future raw power). Vazquez brings acceptable, Hanigan-caliber offense and gold glove defense.. but in Swihart we're looking at a future All-Star. I love me some CV, but Swihart just has a much higher ceiling. It's an intriguing idea to flip him, but let's not forget what we'd risk losing. You expect Swihart to maintain a .367 BABIP? LD% at the major league level is very unreliable because the scorers are really bad. It has a lower year to year correlation than BABIP
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 13:02:00 GMT -5
I think we're just beginning to scratch the surface of what Swihart can do. Someone on this thread said his performance is mainly BABIP/luck driven, but via fangraphs, 2015 LD% is 29.3. I don't buy it. The guy makes consistent, hard contact, and we're seeing it more and more as he gets comfortable at the dish. The power will come too (50+ future raw power). Vazquez brings acceptable, Hanigan-caliber offense and gold glove defense.. but in Swihart we're looking at a future All-Star. I love me some CV, but Swihart just has a much higher ceiling. It's an intriguing idea to flip him, but let's not forget what we'd risk losing. You expect Swihart to maintain a .367 BABIP? LD% at the major league level is very unreliable because the scorers are really bad. It has a lower year to year correlation than BABIP Someday, we'll have the Statcast data and there will be no more guessing. And can finally have a real xBABIP stat based on hardness of contact and difficulty of pitcher. And then maybe from that, a SIERA type stat for batters. He does have a .333 BABIP in his minor league career so it might just be a little high and not absurdly high.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 22, 2015 13:14:10 GMT -5
This is a really interesting thread Eric, thanks for starting it. As I mentioned in a post in the Dombrowski thread, there are presently a handful of players that I would not even consider dealing unless it's in a trade so lop-sided for the Red Sox that merely suggesting it in the trade proposal sub forum would be met with scorn and laughter. Those players are Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Eduardo Rodriguez, Blake Swihart, Jackie Bradley Jr and Henry Owens. From the minors its Rafael Devers, Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Andrew Benintendi. For the record, I don't want to trade David Ortiz either. He has 10/5 rights and has said he won't waive them, so it's a moot point anyway. I don't necessarily WANT to trade Pedroia, but I would listen if someone asked. That said, I think he has a full NTC in his contract, but we don't know for sure one way or the other. Following that are players I wouldn't ask to trade, but would listen on, obviously, these have varrying degress of value and some of these will be included in acquisitions mentioned below : Dustin Pedroia; Rusney Castillo, Juichi Tazawa, Travis Shaw, Christian Vazquez, Ryan Hanigan, Hanley Ramirez, Wade Miley, Brian Johnson, Stephen Wright. There is one player I would move at any financial cost : Pablo Sandoval. I've mentioned this in other threads, but he has been declining offensively for five straight seasons and defensively (yes, difficult to quantify, but it meets the eye test too) in four of the last five. I think he is a complete sunk cost. He has been "worth" this year a net loss of $10m (according to FanGraphs). My guess is you would need to eat half of his salary to get another team to take him. Personally, I'd rather hypothetically light $10M a year from the payroll on fire than $20M. There is a second player I would deal for whatever prospect you could get - Clay Buchholz. I understand that he is valuable when he pitches and could be "worth" more than his option. That said, I'd rather have the $13M from his option next season to use toward other resources. I think there are some smaller market teams that would give you a lottery ticket for him to have the options. If not, just decline the option and use the money to other resources. Guys I would make shop / make available (also to varying degrees of return) are as follows: Rick Porcello, Brock Holt, Manny Margot, Javier Guerra, Michael Kopech, Sam Travis, and the rest of our prospects / major league talent. Our team right now is in a very similar position to where the Cubbies were last year at this time (which is why I think making a decision that allowed Ben Cherington to leave was a HUGE mistake). There is a ton of young talent, a lot of which is showing it belongs at the major league level in some capacity. This is the off-season (in my opinion) to spend money (not players) on an Ace, and that ace to me is David Price. Then, as mentioned above, with the $10m savings from Sandoval, $13m from Buchholz and $4m coming off the books from Gonzalez, you're at what Price would likely cost per season. From most estimates, that still leaves us around $25m in cap space. I'd use the players mentioned above to trade for a good #2 pitcher with reasonable cost (Jose Quintana, Tyson Ross type of player). You go into next season with something like this: c - Swihart; 1b - Shaw; 2b - Pedroia; 3b - Ramirez; ss - Bogaerts; lf - Betts; cf - Bradley Jr; rf - Castillo; dh - Ortiz. bench - Hanigan, Holt, Rutledge, OF. sp - Price, "Quintana", Rodriguez, Owens and whichever of Miley / Porcello isn't moved. Depth in Pawtucket includes something like Wright, Escobar, Couch and Barnes. bp - Uehara, Tazawa, and spend some of the remaining money to build up the back end here. Well, there you have it. Sorry for the long post, but it's going to be a complicated off-season. I think the moves above set up a team that will contend in the short term and not sacrifice the long term dynasty we're looking to build. Have at it. I agree with much of what you write but for two things. Hanley Ramirez is not going to play 3B. He pretty much has said that and he would be no good at it. He wasn't good when he did play it and his body was in better infielder condition then. He has bulked up and has the kind of body now that gets injured by a lot of movement and bending, both of which are required at 3rd. The only other internal option at third is Shaw and, at best, he is a backup there. He is much better defensively at first and he may be there. So, Sandoval is really the most reasonable option at third. I think you overstate his "decline." As I have pointed out previously, last year he had a bad start, but then hit extremely well, and, of course, had that great post-season. His defense has been much better in recent weeks. I think he is settling in. He made a great play yesterday. His hitting has been a bit better recently as well and I think will get even better. I don't think there is much chance of him playing anywhere next year other than Boston. Things will start to get more interesting after next year as those guys at Greenville, especially Devers and Moncada, hit the upper minor league levels. I also am opposed to picking up the Buchholz option. I would much rather see than $13 million put towards a contract for Price or Cueto (yesterday's performance notwithstanding).
|
|
|