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 blizzards39 on Aug 22, 2015 21:36:40 GMT -5
No reason to give Hanley away. If you can pay 40% of the ticket then let him go. If not keep Hanley as Ortiz insurance and use him in LF sometimes. The more I think about it nothing else makes sence. I think it will be easyer to move Panda if you have to clear a spot. The Pablo/shields thing still makes some sence. But in reality the way to improve the team is to trade prospects. It's not like Pedroia is going to net you degrom anyways. Pedroia would be an easy trade if the FO wanted to go that way but it's a guarantee to further deteriorate the defence and I just don't see anyway it improves the team. Holts greatest value is his versatility not being an everyday player. Holt on the bench allows you to keep a guy like Shaw around intead of an extra middle infielder. Let's face it Devers would probably bring as much as Pedroia. Mets would want Boegarts or Betts. And we realy have no reason to rob Peter to pay Paul when we have JHs money and DDs farm. There is a reason JH brought in his buddy DD. Trick is determining which ones of these guys to part with. I think it is safe to say we will be losing 4-5 of the top 9 prospects and one of the catchers and maybe Bradley or Castilo. I'm fine with that. We have a protected pick and lots of good young players. YES WE NEED PITCHING but sign one, trade for one fortify the pen and maybe we will be lucky enough to add a bat on top of that. For Lords sake we are the Boston Red Sox and have been the worst team in MLB the last 2 seasons. There is more than one reason for the farm system. Let's use it and have something to be excited about next year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 22, 2015 21:46:28 GMT -5
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. My argument against acquiring a second frontline pitcher was made a day before we learned that Buchholz is unlikely to pitch again this year. That actually adds a lot of uncertainty to his performance next year, if the past is any indicator. I think that had he returned this year and pitched well, you would eliminate the option of getting two guys. I think there is now an argument for getting two guys if and only if Steven Wright and Henry Owens and are collectively somewhat unimpressive the rest of the way. Especially Owens. Your rotation next year starts with: First frontline acquisition, Porcello, and Rodriguez. Now you have two options for the last two spots: When Buchholz is healthy:Buchholz Wright OR second acquisition (with Wright in the pen) Buchholz hurt:Wright Owens OR second acquisition The value of the second guy is (how much better he is than Wright) * (percentage of season Buchholz pitches) + (how much better he is than Owens * percentage of time Buchholz is hurt). The better Wright and Owens project, the less value the guy has. I happen to think that Wright is very likely to be an average or above average MLB starter next year if given the chance, and that Owens had a solid chance at it. We will know better at year's end, and the team will know better about Buchholz's health. But if this were just the difference between the acquisition and Wright, based on what we've seen from Wright so far, it would make no sense. It makes sense if Wright pitches poorly the rest of the way, and it definitely makes sense if Owens ends up looking more like a work-in-progress than a guy you would eagerly add to the rotation whenever a slot opened up. Another strategy, BTW, and perhaps the one I endorse right now, is to keep Miley at least through ST, and deal him to open a rotation spot for Wright only when you know Buchholz is ready.
|
|
jodyreidnichols
Veteran
Dustin Pedroia injured
Posts: 1,552
Member is Online
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 22, 2015 21:49:29 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. To further your point and stop the non-sense of the Dustin fanboys, how do they address the following? They will not. 2007: Broken hamate (surgery after season) 2008: No surgery or DL 2009: No surgery or DL 2010: Broken bone in foot (surgery during season); DL 2011: Foot continued (surgery at end of season) 2012: Broken finger (surgery after season); DL 2013: Torn UCL (surgery after season) 2014: Hand/wrist (surgery after season) 2015: Knee/hamstring; DL You can't say his numbers have suffered because he was hurt and then dismiss the fact he's been hurt every single year for 8 straight years. He's not the heart and soul of a team that just may finish last 3 out of 4 years. STOP! stop acting like your 12 with his poster over your bed. Every player is trade-able. The Sox have several holes to fill and need alot of help and I hope the don't go for it all at once. This approach leads you to the path of signing the big names in free agency such as Ramirez and Sandoval this past year. That is a, 'thanks captain obvious', statement. So if they are patient and build right it will likely take 2 to 3 years to contend for the WS again. Dustin at 32 years old will obviously be declining hard, that is if he's on the field at all, by the time we contend again. Captain Obvious would tell you that he should already have been traded and should be traded preciously because he still has value. Value where we are deepest as an organization. The fan boys have no clue how to build a team because they are sentimental toward their binky and talk about souls and face of the franchise crap. You don't trade pennies hoping for quarters, you do trade the dime before others realize the dime is down to 2 cents. The fan boys here (thank god they are fewer and fewer) say how great he is on one hand and how little value he has to other teams. Simply making that statement does not make it true even if it's been repeated ad naseam. The fan boys cannot make a valid argument because they are talking with their hearts and refuse to listen to their heads.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 22, 2015 22:01:46 GMT -5
2014: He couldn't hit outside pitches the other way, got killed low and away 2015: Learned how to go with the pitch to opposite field, but has to actively try to do so each at bat 2016: Hopefully learning to recognize when he should be looking to pull the ball and when it's better to just go with the pitch Last year he could not spot a slider if it had a neon sign attached to it. This year, he still can not spot a slider, but he knows if a pitch is away, how to poke it to right field. As long as they keep throwing him sliders away, he will take the base hits and say thank you every time. He's gone from -2.57 runs per 100 sliders to -0.23. That's a huge improvement. And you do have to identify a slider to hit it.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 22, 2015 22:08:58 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. To further your point and stop the non-sense of the Dustin fanboys, how do they address the following? They will not. 2007: Broken hamate (surgery after season) 2008: No surgery or DL 2009: No surgery or DL 2010: Broken bone in foot (surgery during season); DL 2011: Foot continued (surgery at end of season) 2012: Broken finger (surgery after season); DL 2013: Torn UCL (surgery after season) 2014: Hand/wrist (surgery after season) 2015: Knee/hamstring; DL You can't say his numbers have suffered because he was hurt and then dismiss the fact he's been hurt every single year for 8 straight years. He's not the heart and soul of a team that just may finish last 3 out of 4 years. STOP! stop acting like your 12 with his poster over your bed. Every player is trade-able. The Sox have several holes to fill and need alot of help and I hope the don't go for it all at once. This approach leads you to the path of signing the big names in free agency such as Ramirez and Sandoval this past year. That is a, 'thanks captain obvious', statement. So if they are patient and build right it will likely take 2 to 3 years to contend for the WS again. Dustin at 32 years old will obviously be declining hard, that is if he's on the field at all, by the time we contend again. Captain Obvious would tell you that he should already have been traded and should be traded preciously because he still has value. Value where we are deepest as an organization. The fan boys have no clue how to build a team because they are sentimental toward their binky and talk about souls and face of the franchise crap. You don't trade pennies hoping for quarters, you do trade the dime before others realize the dime is down to 2 cents. The fan boys here (thank god they are fewer and fewer) say how great he is on one hand and how little value he has to other teams. Simply making that statement does not make it true even if it's been repeated ad naseam. The fan boys cannot make a valid argument because they are talking with their hearts and refuse to listen to their heads Not saying he is the most durable guy but come on. This is only Dustins 2nd year that he will not be 135 plus games. Plus I just don't buy this declining production. His ISO K rate and BB rate have all been reasonably consistant. He is still a plus defender. And just what do you think he would return? ? Its not going to be a cost controlled pitcher top of rotation pitcher. If we must have Degrom or Gray then there is 2 ways. Betts + small piece or Devers/Moncada + Margot/Benintenid+ Owens/Kopech. Pedroia has value because he is a good player. If you want to rebuild then go ahead and trade him but if we are trying to make a run at this thing why would you trade Pedroia???
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 22, 2015 22:46:35 GMT -5
If right now we had four really good outfielders who will be around for a while (the way we have one great and one becoming-quite-good catcher -- Swihart's gone from about -1 to +3 runs pitch framing runs in just the last month or less), than moving Betts to second and trading Pedroia would make sense. And then you could start on the intangibles argument, the injury argument, and so on.
If right now we had a shortage of trade chips to get a young cost-controlled starter (or a 1B), it would make sense to talk about trading Pedroia.
If Dustin Pedroia had been providing a less than sterling return on his current contract, it would make sense to talk about trading him. If, for instance, he weren't worth much more than he is paid, then you can structure a series of subsequent moves and come out ahead.
But not one of these things is true.
Right now we have two great outfielders and one guy who's probably OK. Moving Betts back to 2B means you now have a hole in RF or LF. Does it make sense to trade Pedroia, with his contract, and sign Heyward? That's one of the few viable options for filling the hole Mookie would leave in the OF.
And of course we have a lot of talent to deal, especially if we get positive medical reports on Vazquez (who will be playing winter ball, according to the latest reports).
Finally, so far on this contract extension, we've paid Pedroia $25M. FanGraphs has the return at $46.4M, and bWAR has it at $47.2.
This entire argument is based on two facts: Betts is probably right now a better 2B than Pedroia, and Betts would have more value at 2B than in LF. Both of those things are true. But that doesn't mean that you can trade Pedroia, make Betts the 2B, and make the team better. Because Pedroia is still a very good 2B, is worth nearly double his salary, Mookie will be a great LF, and there is currently a huge scarcity of corner OF.
Here's an analogy (and literary analogue!) which I'm surprised to find is actually pretty good.
You have a great marriage, and your spouse is very low-maintenance.
You have a best friend who is in many ways an even more interesting and more attractive person; you've had a crush on them for a while, but also value their friendship. They're always giving you good advice about stuff. But they're insanely high-maintenance. Pure drama city.
Best friend confides that they return the crush.
Do you divorce the spouse and marry the best friend? It's a fact that the positive side of a marriage to the ex-best friend will be even better than the positive side of your marriage. It's a fact that a spouse is more valuable than a best friend; if you really like and are attracted to someone, spouse is better.
But:
1) The cost (negative side) of the relationship will be hugely worse 2) You're out a best friend and will suffer without having one to bounce your brain off, and finding a new one will be difficult 3) Everyone you know will think you're a shit (analogous for the downside of signing a guy to that contract and then shipping him out of town)
BTW, except for the best-friend component, this is precisely the plot of Philip K. Dick's Confessions of a Crap Artist, in which the decision to divorce a "perfectly good wife" and marry a dangerous dynamo of a woman is portrayed as a terrible idea. And which was based on what Dick himself had done a few months previously! So, yes, we are naturally drawn to maximize the one thing we are most focused on (who we get to bang, who's playing 2B next year). But often, maximizing that one thing damages everything else around it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 22, 2015 22:56:43 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. To further your point and stop the non-sense of the Dustin fanboys, how do they address the following? They will not. 2007: Broken hamate (surgery after season) 2008: No surgery or DL 2009: No surgery or DL 2010: Broken bone in foot (surgery during season); DL 2011: Foot continued (surgery at end of season) 2012: Broken finger (surgery after season); DL 2013: Torn UCL (surgery after season) 2014: Hand/wrist (surgery after season) 2015: Knee/hamstring; DL You can't say his numbers have suffered because he was hurt and then dismiss the fact he's been hurt every single year for 8 straight years. He's not the heart and soul of a team that just may finish last 3 out of 4 years. STOP! stop acting like your 12 with his poster over your bed. Every player is trade-able. The Sox have several holes to fill and need alot of help and I hope the don't go for it all at once. This approach leads you to the path of signing the big names in free agency such as Ramirez and Sandoval this past year. That is a, 'thanks captain obvious', statement. So if they are patient and build right it will likely take 2 to 3 years to contend for the WS again. Dustin at 32 years old will obviously be declining hard, that is if he's on the field at all, by the time we contend again. Captain Obvious would tell you that he should already have been traded and should be traded preciously because he still has value. Value where we are deepest as an organization. The fan boys have no clue how to build a team because they are sentimental toward their binky and talk about souls and face of the franchise crap. You don't trade pennies hoping for quarters, you do trade the dime before others realize the dime is down to 2 cents. The fan boys here (thank god they are fewer and fewer) say how great he is on one hand and how little value he has to other teams. Simply making that statement does not make it true even if it's been repeated ad naseam. The fan boys cannot make a valid argument because they are talking with their hearts and refuse to listen to their heads. Pedroia has more value to the Red Sox than to other teams. You can insult "fanboys," but their point has weight: Pedroia has marketing value and leadership value to the team. He also has a team-friendly contract, provided he plays to about 2.5-3 WAR per season. Given his performance this year prior to injury, it seems a fair bet that he'll do that for a few more years, at least. Now, it's also true that his presence creates a logjam by pushing Betts to CF/LF instead of 2b. The question is whether or not trading Pedroia and shifting Betts to 2b with a "new" CF/RF combo (Bradley, Castillo?) has more value than, say, trading Castillo (guessing Hanley is stuck for the short-term in LF) in a package and keeping Pedroia and Betts where they are. If you trade Pedroia, it's a pretty safe bet that Mookie is a 3-4 WAR 2b, maybe more. But you'd better be damn sure you can replace his value in CF. If Bradley struggles again or Castillo doesn't produce, you've wasted a cost-neutral player with intangible value and created new holes.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 22, 2015 22:57:18 GMT -5
If right now we had four really good outfielders who will be around for a while (the way we have one great and one becoming-quite-good catcher -- Swihart's gone from about -1 to +3 runs pitch framing runs in just the last month or less), than moving Betts to second and trading Pedroia would make sense. And then you could start on the intangibles argument, the injury argument, and so on. If right now we had a shortage of trade chips to get a young cost-controlled starter (or a 1B), it would make sense to talk about trading Pedroia. If Dustin Pedroia had been providing a less than sterling return on his current contract, it would make sense to talk about trading him. If, for instance, he weren't worth much more than he is paid, then you can structure a series of subsequent moves and come out ahead. But not one of these things is true. Right now we have two great outfielders and one guy who's probably OK. Moving Betts back to 2B means you know have a hole in RF or LF. Does it make sense to trade Pedroia, with his contract, and sign Heyward? That's one of the few viable options for filling the hole Mookie would leave in the OF. And of course we have a lot of talent to deal, especially if we get positive medical reports on Vazquez (who will be playing winter ball, according to the latest reports). Finally, so far on this contract extension, we've paid Pedroia $25M. FanGraphs has the return at $46.4M, and bWAR has it at $47.2. This entire argument is based on two facts: Betts is probably right now a better 2B than Pedroia, and Betts would have more value at 2B than in LF. Both of those things are true. But that doesn't mean that you can trade Pedroia, make Betts the 2B, and make the team better. Because Pedroia is still a very good 2B, is worth nearly double his salary, Mookie will be a great LF, and there is currently a huge scarcity of corner OF. Here's an analogy (and literary analogue!) which I'm surprised to find is actually pretty good. You have a great marriage, and your spouse is very low-maintenance. You have a best friend who is in many ways an even more interesting and more attractive person; you've had a crush on them for a while, but also value their friendship. They're always giving you good advice about stuff. But they're insanely high-maintenance. Pure drama city. Best friend confides that they return the crush. Do you divorce the spouse and marry the best friend? It's a fact that the positive side of a marriage to the ex-best friend will be even better than the positive side of your marriage. It's a fact that a spouse is more valuable than a best friend; if you really like and are attracted to someone, spouse is better.
But:1) The cost (negative side) of the relationship will be hugely worse 2) You're out a best friend and will suffer without having one to bounce your brain off, and finding a new one will be difficult 3) Everyone you know will think you're a shit (analogous for the downside of signing a guy to that contract and then shipping him out of town) BTW, except for the best-friend component, this is precisely the plot of Philip K. Dick's Confessions of a Crap Artist, in which the decision to divorce a "perfectly good wife" and marry a dangerous dynamo of a woman is portrayed as a terrible idea. And which was based on what Dick himself had done a few months previously! So, yes, we are naturally drawn to maximize the one thing we are most focused on (who we get to bang, who's playing 2B next year). But often, maximizing that one thing damages everything else around it.Beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 22, 2015 23:26:20 GMT -5
If right now we had four really good outfielders who will be around for a while (the way we have one great and one becoming-quite-good catcher -- Swihart's gone from about -1 to +3 runs pitch framing runs in just the last month or less), than moving Betts to second and trading Pedroia would make sense. And then you could start on the intangibles argument, the injury argument, and so on. If right now we had a shortage of trade chips to get a young cost-controlled starter (or a 1B), it would make sense to talk about trading Pedroia. If Dustin Pedroia had been providing a less than sterling return on his current contract, it would make sense to talk about trading him. If, for instance, he weren't worth much more than he is paid, then you can structure a series of subsequent moves and come out ahead. But not one of these things is true. Right now we have two great outfielders and one guy who's probably OK. Moving Betts back to 2B means you know have a hole in RF or LF. Does it make sense to trade Pedroia, with his contract, and sign Heyward? That's one of the few viable options for filling the hole Mookie would leave in the OF. And of course we have a lot of talent to deal, especially if we get positive medical reports on Vazquez (who will be playing winter ball, according to the latest reports). Finally, so far on this contract extension, we've paid Pedroia $25M. FanGraphs has the return at $46.4M, and bWAR has it at $47.2. This entire argument is based on two facts: Betts is probably right now a better 2B than Pedroia, and Betts would have more value at 2B than in LF. Both of those things are true. But that doesn't mean that you can trade Pedroia, make Betts the 2B, and make the team better. Because Pedroia is still a very good 2B, is worth nearly double his salary, Mookie will be a great LF, and there is currently a huge scarcity of corner OF. Here's an analogy (and literary analogue!) which I'm surprised to find is actually pretty good. You have a great marriage, and your spouse is very low-maintenance. You have a best friend who is in many ways an even more interesting and more attractive person; you've had a crush on them for a while, but also value their friendship. They're always giving you good advice about stuff. But they're insanely high-maintenance. Pure drama city. Best friend confides that they return the crush. Do you divorce the spouse and marry the best friend? It's a fact that the positive side of a marriage to the ex-best friend will be even better than the positive side of your marriage. It's a fact that a spouse is more valuable than a best friend; if you really like and are attracted to someone, spouse is better.
But:1) The cost (negative side) of the relationship will be hugely worse 2) You're out a best friend and will suffer without having one to bounce your brain off, and finding a new one will be difficult 3) Everyone you know will think you're a shit (analogous for the downside of signing a guy to that contract and then shipping him out of town) BTW, except for the best-friend component, this is precisely the plot of Philip K. Dick's Confessions of a Crap Artist, in which the decision to divorce a "perfectly good wife" and marry a dangerous dynamo of a woman is portrayed as a terrible idea. And which was based on what Dick himself had done a few months previously! So, yes, we are naturally drawn to maximize the one thing we are most focused on (who we get to bang, who's playing 2B next year). But often, maximizing that one thing damages everything else around it.Beat me to it. Biggest risk is you go to far and piss off your wife. Then a guy is realy screwed.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 22, 2015 23:46:38 GMT -5
If right now we had four really good outfielders who will be around for a while (the way we have one great and one becoming-quite-good catcher -- Swihart's gone from about -1 to +3 runs pitch framing runs in just the last month or less), than moving Betts to second and trading Pedroia would make sense. And then you could start on the intangibles argument, the injury argument, and so on. If right now we had a shortage of trade chips to get a young cost-controlled starter (or a 1B), it would make sense to talk about trading Pedroia. ... Here's an analogy (and literary analogue!) which I'm surprised to find is actually pretty good. You have a great marriage, and your spouse is very low-maintenance. You have a best friend who is in many ways an even more interesting and more attractive person; you've had a crush on them for a while, but also value their friendship. They're always giving you good advice about stuff. But they're insanely high-maintenance. Pure drama city. Best friend confides that they return the crush. Do you divorce the spouse and marry the best friend? It's a fact that the positive side of a marriage to the ex-best friend will be even better than the positive side of your marriage. It's a fact that a spouse is more valuable than a best friend; if you really like and are attracted to someone, spouse is better.
But:1) The cost (negative side) of the relationship will be hugely worse 2) You're out a best friend and will suffer without having one to bounce your brain off, and finding a new one will be difficult 3) Everyone you know will think you're a shit (analogous for the downside of signing a guy to that contract and then shipping him out of town) BTW, except for the best-friend component, this is precisely the plot of Philip K. Dick's Confessions of a Crap Artist, in which the decision to divorce a "perfectly good wife" and marry a dangerous dynamo of a woman is portrayed as a terrible idea. And which was based on what Dick himself had done a few months previously! So, yes, we are naturally drawn to maximize the one thing we are most focused on (who we get to bang, who's playing 2B next year). But often, maximizing that one thing damages everything else around it.For a minute I was sure this analogy was gonna end up at Anna Karenina, but maybe that would work better for the whole Cespedes-->Hanley fiasco... Anyway, the bolded statement seems like the essential point: it seems strange to me that this thread, predicated on the goal of making the team better, has focused so heavily on trading Pedroia and Betts, two of the team's best players. Just seems strange when we have this whole gosh-durned Best Farm System in America to cash in on without having to sacrifice value at the major league level.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 23, 2015 0:29:05 GMT -5
I sure hope Billy Beane and Mark Shapiro (and other baseball executives with good cost-controlled pitching to move) are checking out this site so that they can see first-hand the terrible angst gripping Red Sox Nation over the possibility that the Red Sox may emerge from this off-season with too much talent in their farm system. I'm sure that once are aware of the levels of desperation, they will do their best to assist the Red Sox in liquidating as much of that talent as possible.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2015 1:36:26 GMT -5
The fan boys have no clue how to build a team because they are sentimental toward their binky and talk about souls and face of the franchise crap. You don't trade pennies hoping for quarters, you do trade the dime before others realize the dime is down to 2 cents. .... Simply making {a} statement does not make it true even if it's been repeated ad naseam. The fan boys cannot make a valid argument because they are talking with their hearts and refuse to listen to their heads. So far, the dime has been worth 18.72 cents.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonsterwhalers on Aug 23, 2015 2:28:19 GMT -5
The only untouchables should be Xander and E-Rod.
I would hate to trade Pedroia because of the leadership, work ethic, and intangibles he brings to the table, but I have to admit that moving Mookie to second has some appeal- he's cheaper, more likely to stay healthy, and may end up being a better player than Pedroia as one declines and the other ascends. Plus, it's a way of keeping Mookie on the roster without having him be an odd fit. It's unlikely I would trade him, but not completely out of the question.
Speaking of which, Betts is tradeable because if JBJ is in CF and Pedroia is at 2B, where does Mookie go? He doesn't have an ideal arm for RF, and putting him in left would be a waste of his ability to cover ground. That doesn't mean he can't be a good player for us, but it does mean that he could be worth more to other teams. I'd prefer to keep him but I could envision scenarios where I'd deal him, but he would have to net us a young ace or middle-of-the-order bat or at least be the headliner in a deal for one.
Swihart is tradeable because of Vazquez. Sure, Swihart has the higher ceiling but ending up with a cheap, controllable Yadier Molina isn't bad either (and might be better). Obviously the health of Vazquez is a big deal. If the medical staff believes he will be fine, I would strongly consider dealing Swihart if he can net us a young ace or middle-of-the-order bat or at least be the headliner in a deal for one. Part of the reason I'd be comfortable trading Swihart is that he has huge value. The bigger part is that I love Vazquez.
Every other prospect in our system is tradeable at the right price. Anderson Espinoza would be really hard for me to trade unless we get major value back. We would definitely be selling high, but it's hard to trade a guy who could be Pedro. Chances are he won't be, but very rarely do you have a guy who has a chance to be that elite. I wouldn't want to be the GM who traded him unless I got a Joc Pederson-quality player back, which isn't going to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 2:39:21 GMT -5
I can think of a team that Pedroia would almost certainly waive his no-trade clause to be a part of - the Cubs. If I was a betting man, I'd actually put that possibility at even money at some point over the next two years (presuming of course that the Red Sox continue to stink up the joint). What the return would be is anyone's guess. Schwarber is a fine hitter but isn't any better in LF than Hanley or any better at C than Lavarnway. He can't DH in the NL and he's blocked with Rizzo at 1B. At some point, a Pedroia and JBJ for Schwarber and say C.J. Edwards deal might make a lot of sense for both teams.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 23, 2015 4:12:55 GMT -5
I can think of a team that Pedroia would almost certainly waive his no-trade clause to be a part of - the Cubs. If I was a betting man, I'd actually put that possibility at even money at some point over the next two years (presuming of course that the Red Sox continue to stink up the joint). What the return would be is anyone's guess. Schwarber is a fine hitter but isn't any better in LF than Hanley or any better at C than Lavarnway. He can't DH in the NL and he's blocked with Rizzo at 1B. At some point, a Pedroia and JBJ for Schwarber and say C.J. Edwards deal might make a lot of sense for both teams. I don't know that I'm nearly as confident as you are about this (the Cubs do have a number of internal 2B candidates), but it does seem like a good fit.
|
|
jodyreidnichols
Veteran
Dustin Pedroia injured
Posts: 1,552
Member is Online
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 23, 2015 7:58:21 GMT -5
You're right, the underlying numbers for both Swihart and Bogaerts are probably closer than most realize. If I had to guess, Bogaerts is probably getting away with it more, because: - this is still a dramatic improvement for him relative to last year
- his K rate is a full 10 points lower than Swihart
- he isn't competing with Christian Vazquez for a starting job next year
Would you take this Xander, though, or last season's? Let's hope that next season he maintains the average, and adds more homers and walks. .300/.350/15-20 homers, anyone? An overly simple way to predict a breakout player is a player whose younger than 26 and who has alot more doubles than HR's. The correlation between the 2 is fairly high. Bogaerts power will come let there be no doubt about it, the 2 questions are when and how much not if.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 23, 2015 8:41:26 GMT -5
I can think of a team that Pedroia would almost certainly waive his no-trade clause to be a part of - the Cubs. If I was a betting man, I'd actually put that possibility at even money at some point over the next two years (presuming of course that the Red Sox continue to stink up the joint). What the return would be is anyone's guess. Schwarber is a fine hitter but isn't any better in LF than Hanley or any better at C than Lavarnway. He can't DH in the NL and he's blocked with Rizzo at 1B. At some point, a Pedroia and JBJ for Schwarber and say C.J. Edwards deal might make a lot of sense for both teams. I don't know that I'm nearly as confident as you are about this (the Cubs do have a number of internal 2B candidates), but it does seem like a good fit. But beyond that, does anyone see Theo Epstein/Jed Hoyer chomping at the bit to divest themselves of prospects/young players?
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Aug 23, 2015 9:03:30 GMT -5
Hopefully this doesn't go too far down the "trade rabbit hole" (and if it does, please feel free to move my post to the sub forum) but I think an interesting thing to consider is not necessraily whom we'd want to trade, but what type of value they could return. While I naturally agree that Betts, Bogaerts, Rodriguez, Swihart and Owens have the most value (maybe Owens doesn't belong with the others) there is no reasonable chance I think we should move any of them.
The unfortunate thing is that I think we presently have two contracts that no other team would even take off your hands for nothing unless you subsidize them greatly (Sandoval, Ramirez). We have a third in Porcello where I believe there would be more interest, but you'd still have to throw in some cash or take bad a bad contract, and a fourth in Pedroia that might get you back a decent return, but is not nearly the albatross the other three are.
Sandoval is the one I want off the team at whatever financial "throw in" it costs, and I get that all you'd be getting in return is the other "half of the money back", which is a boon in my opinion since I think Sandoval will continue to be an even more negative value player going forward. That said, if you can move any of Sandoval, Ramirez or Porcello for any decent value or somehow getting someone to pay 75% of the deal or more, you do that and don't look back.
So my question becomes, for the board as a whole and a bunch of people much smarter than I am, what kind of return can you expect for the following type of players.
Porcello, Miley, Wright, Holt, Buchholz (assuming you're allowed to move him presently so another team can pick up the option), and basically all of our prospects.
I'm of the opinion that you can acquire Price for just money (and I'd accomplish this by getting rid of Sandoval at half cost - $10m; not figuring any way Buchholz is on the team next season - $13m; the money coming off the books from the Dodgers deal - $4m).
Personally, I do agree with the idea of having two legit top of the rotation starters, so my question is, can you acquire a Sonny Gray, Matt Harvey type player with just the prospects, and what would that deal look like. I don't think you can without including the pieces from our MLB roster mentioned above, and for me that is a bridge too far.
I instead would look to acquire a slightly lesser pitcher (Carlos Carrasco, Jose Quintana, Hector Santiago) for considerably less of a prospect cost of something like Johnson, Margot, Kopech and Guerra. This is the deal I would more highly pursue.
In my opinion, this is a FAR better use of resources than even considering moving guys like Betts, Bogaerts, Rodriguez, Swihart or Owens. Those players should all be absolute non-starters in trade talks. If GMs truly won't come to the table with our prospect stash, then use the money to sign Price and someone like Wei-Yen Chen, or Yovani Gallardo. Also take the knowledge that apparently prospects are under-valued and move Miley or Porcello for the best package of prospects you can get.
Either way you go into the season with a rotation of Price, Carrasco (or Chen), Rodriguez, Porcello (assuming that Miley has the most trade value of the two) and Owens.
Line up is C - Swihart; 1b - Shaw; 2b - Pedroia; 3b - Holt; SS - Bogaerts; LF - Betts; CF - Bradley Jr; RF - Castillo; DH - Ortiz. Bench is Ramriez (but in my opinion he starts about 90 games in LF while getting others a day off, 10 at 3b and 30 ad DH); Hanigan, Rutledge and a 4th OF. I get that this means you're paying $22M for a bench player. However, bad things happen when you sign players that there is no position at which to pay them and they drastically under-perform. It doesn't mean you should keep playing that guy and ship off better / cheaper players.
|
|
|
Post by beantown on Aug 23, 2015 10:00:54 GMT -5
DD won't look to trade kopech unless he deems it absolutely necessary. That kid is everything DD likes in a young pitcher. Tall w/ explosive fastball
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 23, 2015 10:26:49 GMT -5
I hope you're wrong. Kopech is exactly the kind of guy they should be willing to move.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 23, 2015 10:49:08 GMT -5
I don't know that I'm nearly as confident as you are about this (the Cubs do have a number of internal 2B candidates), but it does seem like a good fit. But beyond that, does anyone see Theo Epstein/Jed Hoyer chomping at the bit to divest themselves of prospects/young players? For Pedroia, yes. He'd be an ideal leader for a young on-the-cusp team, and who knows his intangible qualities better than Theo and Jed? Not sure about the trade presented, but in theory I would think the Cubs would be the odds-on favorites if Pedroia was traded.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 23, 2015 11:02:10 GMT -5
I can think of a team that Pedroia would almost certainly waive his no-trade clause to be a part of - the Cubs. If I was a betting man, I'd actually put that possibility at even money at some point over the next two years (presuming of course that the Red Sox continue to stink up the joint). What the return would be is anyone's guess. Schwarber is a fine hitter but isn't any better in LF than Hanley or any better at C than Lavarnway. He can't DH in the NL and he's blocked with Rizzo at 1B. At some point, a Pedroia and JBJ for Schwarber and say C.J. Edwards deal might make a lot of sense for both teams. KLaw has been writing for a long time that Schwarber is not a catcher, but he also underestimated his hitting. He appears to be an elite hitter, but possibly one without a position. It isn't known what kind of 1B he would be. I don't think the Cubs need Pedroia and I don't think they would trade for him. And giving up JBJ and Pedroia is too much for the Sox for a player without a position, even if he is a great hitter. Pedroia is the leader of a young and up and coming team now, and that team needs him.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 23, 2015 11:04:52 GMT -5
Hopefully this doesn't go too far down the "trade rabbit hole" (and if it does, please feel free to move my post to the sub forum) but I think an interesting thing to consider is not necessraily whom we'd want to trade, but what type of value they could return. While I naturally agree that Betts, Bogaerts, Rodriguez, Swihart and Owens have the most value (maybe Owens doesn't belong with the others) there is no reasonable chance I think we should move any of them. The unfortunate thing is that I think we presently have two contracts that no other team would even take off your hands for nothing unless you subsidize them greatly (Sandoval, Ramirez). We have a third in Porcello where I believe there would be more interest, but you'd still have to throw in some cash or take bad a bad contract, and a fourth in Pedroia that might get you back a decent return, but is not nearly the albatross the other three are. Sandoval is the one I want off the team at whatever financial "throw in" it costs, and I get that all you'd be getting in return is the other "half of the money back", which is a boon in my opinion since I think Sandoval will continue to be an even more negative value player going forward. That said, if you can move any of Sandoval, Ramirez or Porcello for any decent value or somehow getting someone to pay 75% of the deal or more, you do that and don't look back. So my question becomes, for the board as a whole and a bunch of people much smarter than I am, what kind of return can you expect for the following type of players. Porcello, Miley, Wright, Holt, Buchholz (assuming you're allowed to move him presently so another team can pick up the option), and basically all of our prospects. I'm of the opinion that you can acquire Price for just money (and I'd accomplish this by getting rid of Sandoval at half cost - $10m; not figuring any way Buchholz is on the team next season - $13m; the money coming off the books from the Dodgers deal - $4m). Personally, I do agree with the idea of having two legit top of the rotation starters, so my question is, can you acquire a Sonny Gray, Matt Harvey type player with just the prospects, and what would that deal look like. I don't think you can without including the pieces from our MLB roster mentioned above, and for me that is a bridge too far. I instead would look to acquire a slightly lesser pitcher (Carlos Carrasco, Jose Quintana, Hector Santiago) for considerably less of a prospect cost of something like Johnson, Margot, Kopech and Guerra. This is the deal I would more highly pursue. In my opinion, this is a FAR better use of resources than even considering moving guys like Betts, Bogaerts, Rodriguez, Swihart or Owens. Those players should all be absolute non-starters in trade talks. If GMs truly won't come to the table with our prospect stash, then use the money to sign Price and someone like Wei-Yen Chen, or Yovani Gallardo. Also take the knowledge that apparently prospects are under-valued and move Miley or Porcello for the best package of prospects you can get. Either way you go into the season with a rotation of Price, Carrasco (or Chen), Rodriguez, Porcello (assuming that Miley has the most trade value of the two) and Owens. Line up is C - Swihart; 1b - Shaw; 2b - Pedroia; 3b - Holt; SS - Bogaerts; LF - Betts; CF - Bradley Jr; RF - Castillo; DH - Ortiz. Bench is Ramriez (but in my opinion he starts about 90 games in LF while getting others a day off, 10 at 3b and 30 ad DH); Hanigan, Rutledge and a 4th OF. I get that this means you're paying $22M for a bench player. However, bad things happen when you sign players that there is no position at which to pay them and they drastically under-perform. It doesn't mean you should keep playing that guy and ship off better / cheaper players. I like your plan and I think it's on the right track but I don't see anyway we go into the season with that lineup. Way to many questions and lack of power. I'm all for the outfield and I like your plan with Hanley but I still have my doubts on Shaw and don't think Holt is suited for everday. His value is as a jack of all trades. I think DD will be looking for something bigger. Something bold. Something like Joey Votto. What would it take to get Votto and Chapman???
|
|
jodyreidnichols
Veteran
Dustin Pedroia injured
Posts: 1,552
Member is Online
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 23, 2015 11:40:31 GMT -5
Hanley has negative value to us and even worse negative value at 2b. The answer to our problems is to not make the problems we have worse. You could not possibly improve one pitcher enough to sustain the dropoff from Pedroia to Hanley at 2b. You couldn't even break even under any circumstances, let alone improve the team. If the FO thinks we can win next year it won't be hard for the SOx to get pitching. It is the largest FA pool for starting pitching ever. There are 3 legitimate aces and several others that would slot in nere the top of are rotation. On top of that we have a deep farm that we could acquire almost any cost controlled pitcher that would be available. If the FO dose not think we can win next year then there is no reason to invest prospect or money in pitching and surely no reason to keep Hanley over pedroia. I'm quite confident that it is more than reasonable for the Sox to be competitive next season. Let's use the extra pieces we have to acquire pitching, not are best players. What don't you understand about trades? Value begets value. Hanley is a man without a position and has little value to other teams that don't need a DH and that is a very short list and he makes to much money to be attractive to other teams. Chances are they are stuck with him until his overall contract value drops aka at least one more year. This is not the one or the other deal you are trying to make it. The Sox at 2B have Betts, Holts and top prospect Yoan Mancada on the horizon too. We are stacked at second. Pedroia's extension begins next year and already many fans, beat writers and other journalist are questioning why they rushed to extend him. Most see that his best days are behind and wonder at 32 how many good years are left in the tank. I'm sure he has at least one more that is if he can stay on the field and be healthy too. I'd always trade a player a year to soon than a year to late, as this would increase the chances that other GM's would want to work with me. Say Pedroia is good next year plays 135 games and has a WAR around 4-5, then its 2017 he's 34 and is injured again his play drops due to normal aging even when he's healthy and he's what he was this year a 1.8 WAR player and continues to fizzle out there-after, what then? He's had surgery 6 of the past 9 seasons and is about to miss more than half the season for the second time. He's a small man who dives around care free balls out and is 32. It does not take a genius to figure out how this is extremely likely to play out. 2007: Broken hamate (surgery after season) 2008: No surgery or DL 2009: No surgery or DL 2010: Broken bone in foot (surgery during season); DL 2011: Foot continued (surgery at end of season) 2012: Broken finger (surgery after season); DL 2013: Torn UCL (surgery after season) 2014: Hand/wrist (surgery after season) 2015: Knee/hamstring; DL Have you not learned that by trying to win it all back in 1 yr usually the moves become forced and it sets you back again and again (perhaps the past couple of seasons would have taught you that. Ben C. is in today's globe as saying his biggest mistake was not showing more patience, just as I posted a few days ago. Often it's better to take a step back to go 2 steps forward rather than the other way around. Most GM's feel compelled to go for it now and hope to get lucky to buy job security. That approach is what dooms most of them. You build up a team that has finished last several of the past few seasons 1 step at a time. We need pitching badly. Even over a year after I floated the idea of trading Pedroia, that he was on the wrong side of 30 and has had injuries or surgery 6 of the past 8 straight seasons the fansboys cannot see the trees because they are so deep inside the forest. It's been explained by myself, and now many others too, ad nauseam with logical well laid out thoughts and in response we get, 'he's the best, he's the face of the franchise, how will I explain it to little tommy, that is souless' yadda yadda yadda. No logical responses only emotional child like ones. If you want to build a team up then having favorites has no role in that process. Look at what the Pats do, that's is how you compete year in and out. Just stop with the non-sense.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 23, 2015 11:58:35 GMT -5
If the FO thinks we can win next year it won't be hard for the SOx to get pitching. It is the largest FA pool for starting pitching ever. There are 3 legitimate aces and several others that would slot in nere the top of are rotation. On top of that we have a deep farm that we could acquire almost any cost controlled pitcher that would be available. If the FO dose not think we can win next year then there is no reason to invest prospect or money in pitching and surely no reason to keep Hanley over pedroia. I'm quite confident that it is more than reasonable for the Sox to be competitive next season. Let's use the extra pieces we have to acquire pitching, not are best players. What don't you understand about trades? Value begets value. Hanley is a man without a position and has little value to other teams that don't need a DH and that is a very short list and he makes to much money to be attractive to other teams. Chances are they are stuck with him until his overall contract value drops aka at least one more year. This is not the one or the other deal you are trying to make it. The Sox at 2B have Betts, Holts and top prospect Yoan Mancada on the horizon too. We are stacked at second. Pedroia's extension begins next year and already many fans, beat writers and other journalist are questioning why they rushed to extend him. Most see that his best days are behind and wonder at 32 how many good years are left in the tank. I'm sure he has at least one more that is if he can stay on the field and be healthy too. I'd always trade a player a year to soon than a year to late, as this would increase the chances that other GM's would want to work with me. Say Pedroia is good next year plays 135 games and has a WAR around 4-5, then its 2017 he's 34 and is injured again his play drops due to normal aging even when he's healthy and he's what he was this year a 1.8 WAR player and continues to fizzle out there-after, what then? He's had surgery 6 of the past 9 seasons and is about to miss more than half the season for the second time. He's a small man who dives around care free balls out and is 32. It does not take a genius to figure out how this is extremely likely to play out. 2007: Broken hamate (surgery after season) 2008: No surgery or DL 2009: No surgery or DL 2010: Broken bone in foot (surgery during season); DL 2011: Foot continued (surgery at end of season) 2012: Broken finger (surgery after season); DL 2013: Torn UCL (surgery after season) 2014: Hand/wrist (surgery after season) 2015: Knee/hamstring; DL Have you not learned that by trying to win it all back in 1 yr usually the moves become forced and it sets you back again and again (perhaps the past couple of seasons would have taught you that. Ben C. is in today's globe as saying his biggest mistake was not showing more patience, just as I posted a few days ago. Often it's better to take a step back to go 2 steps forward rather than the other way around. Most GM's feel compelled to go for it now and hope to get lucky to buy job security. That approach is what dooms most of them. You build up a team that has finished last several of the past few seasons 1 step at a time. We need pitching badly. Even over a year after I floated the idea of trading Pedroia, that he was on the wrong side of 30 and has had injuries or surgery 6 of the past 8 straight seasons the fansboys cannot see the trees because they are so deep inside the forest. It's been explained by myself, and now many others too, ad nauseam with logical well laid out thoughts and in response we get, 'he's the best, he's the face of the franchise, how will I explain it to little tommy, that is souless' yadda yadda yadda. No logical responses only emotional child like ones. If you want to build a team up then having favorites has no role in that process. Look at what the Pats do, that's is how you compete year in and out. Just stop with the non-sense.
|
|
|