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.
Will the Red Sox trade Hanley or Pablo?
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 5, 2015 16:34:11 GMT -5
Ok, so I've been reading that the Red Sox will trade one of, or both of Hanley and Sandoval this offseason, with some people being certain that Hanley has played his last game as a Red Sox. Personally I'm not buying it, and I'm wondering what the forums opinion is on this.
The question is do you think the Red Sox will trade 1 of, both of, or neither of these players, not do you think the Red Sox should trade/not trade these players. You should post some high level detail of what you think the trade will be, I.E. I think the Red Sox will trade this player in exchange for another bad contract, I think they will eat half the contract to dump this player, I think the Red Sox won't eat any salary and get a good prospect back for one of these players.
So my thinking is there is at least an 80% chance both these players stay in Boston. Both these guys were signed 1 year ago and had the worst seasons of their careers. To trade one of these players, I think you would have to eat roughly 50% of their salary or take on an equally bad contract, and there is enough of Ben Cherington's staff remaining to defend these players past that trade cost. Although they have been DREADFUL this year, I still believe they should be above replacement level at a minimum in the future. There's also is no obvious replacement to thees players if you do trade one/both of these guys, depending on your evaluation of Shaw and Holt. So to trade Hanley and sign another replacement, say Davis or Napoli, you are really paying their replacements free market value + the Hanley trade cost, which is $20-$30M+, and with holes in the pitching staff it doesn't make sense to me. In my eyes there is to much working against a trade being beneficial.
I know I'm probably in the minority here (wondering by how much). I'm also optimistic that both these guys will be better than replacement level next year, and I saw glimpses of very good players throughout the year. Let's not forget how well Hanley was hitting the ball before running into the wall.
I'll also note, that about 15% of my 20% chance of trade lies with Padres and James Shields. I'd say there is only ~5% chance one is traded and it does not involve James Shields.
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 5, 2015 16:48:51 GMT -5
I voted Hanley, but I think they'll trade either or both if they can do it with a low enough amount of pain. Since I don't know what it will take, I am not too confident of any answer.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Oct 5, 2015 17:19:33 GMT -5
As well as ^^I chose Hanley but only because he's the only one moveable, but I don't see it happening unless someones first born is given up
A Pablito bounce back and possible platoon at first with some time at DH for Hanley would be ok with me. When he was healthy he was hitting missiles and we all loved in, then he ran into the wall at his top speed and hurt himself.
I think Pablo is salvagable, and if Hanley is playing well early next year possibly he'd be moved during the year?
edit- hanley/shaw platoon...er..or something
|
|
|
Post by awall on Oct 5, 2015 18:50:06 GMT -5
I think it's Hanley because they don't like his work ethic and have no faith in him at 1B, plus he will be marginally easier to move than Sandoval. My guess is he gets moved in a deal along with a guy like Owens or Margot plus the Sox eat 30% of the deal. Sox get a guy who can compete for the closer role and another prospect.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Oct 5, 2015 19:36:19 GMT -5
I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere else, but did you hear that the sox wanted Hanley to lose 15-20 pounds? What the hell did they say to Panda then???
I think they'll move both. I don't think we'll be impressed with the return on either, but I think it get's done. I view it more as freeing up salary to spend where DD wants it.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 5, 2015 20:00:15 GMT -5
I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere else, but did you hear that the sox wanted Hanley to lose 15-20 pounds? What the hell did they say to Panda then??? I think they'll move both. I don't think we'll be impressed with the return on either, but I think it get's done. I view it more as freeing up salary to spend where DD wants it. Probably 30 to 40, but I bet it won't happen. He may take off 10, but that will not be enough. Even if he does miraculously, his hitting style won't work in Boston. It makes you think what Ben was thinking when he "beat out" San Diego and San Fran for his services.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Oct 5, 2015 20:20:55 GMT -5
Read they told panda to lose 60-80 this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 5, 2015 20:24:04 GMT -5
Probably 30 to 40, but I bet it won't happen. He may take off 10, but that will not be enough. Even if he does miraculously, his hitting style won't work in Boston. It makes you think what Ben was thinking when he "beat out" San Diego and San Fran for his services. Probably thinking 'if we don't win this year then I'll be out of a job' To me it's neither because you would need to find a big budget team(s) with needs at 1B and 3B. Problem there is that the Red Sox ARE the big budget team with the greatest need at 3B and 1B. Teams with the same needs and budget constraints don't typically match-up well in trades. Take this for instance - if someone approaches you and says 'I need $400 for a plain ticket. Could I give you $200 for that watch so I can sell it?' would you do it? You would assume that either they are trying to scam you or that your watch must be worth more than $200 to someone. It doesn't make sense for the Red Sox to make a trade unless they can trick someone into taking a bad deal. But to make things worse, if they trade either of these guys then they need to go and find a 1B or 3B who can take their place (please don't say Travis Shaw - not yet). I have heard nary a word about potential outside replacements. The good news is that in Holt and Shaw there is strong bench depth for when one/both of these guys falter. Now they need to pickup a RHH OF/1B and they can move on to a focus on pitching (I'm assuming they blow by the luxury tax this year). I'm gonna cross my fingers that Pedey/Xander can convince these guys to go to API this year and get themselves into shape before the season starts.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 5, 2015 21:03:02 GMT -5
It's all well and good to say the Sox will trade either or both. The arguments are in their favor: out of shape, poor work ethic, injury prone, etc. But as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. Who would want Hanley with his history of injuries, bad attitude, lack of athleticism and exorbitant contract? Why would even an AL team needing a DH pick up that headache? Even if the Sox pick up 75% of his salary, he's still a liability.
At least Pablo, the worst 3B in the league, seems to care and puts forth a good effort. Maybe Orsillo's new team will try again to acquire his services, though his 2015 production has diminished his value.
I'm afraid we're stuck with both.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 5, 2015 21:52:42 GMT -5
I don't think the Sox will be either to dump either contract. If they could only get rid of one, I'd hope it would be Sandoval. He was terrible offensively and defensively last year and I don't think he'll be bouncing back. He has never cared to get himself into playing shape and I don't think it'll improve this offseason either. I hope Travis Shaw's time at 3b this offseason will be helpful to him.
Hanley has always been an excellent bat, and I think that his season can be attributed to two things, the injury playing LF early in May and his bulking up which also lead to his home run or nothing approach.
A huge if, but if they get him into reasonable shape and if he can handle 1b at all, he, in my opinion, is more likely to return to the skills he has had or at least enough of them to be productive.
Either way, though, I can't see another team biting on their contracts without the Sox either more than half of those deals. I think they'll wind up with Hanley at 1b and Sandoval at 3b and hope Shaw can cover whichever one can't hack it. And if both can't do it, the Sox will wind up having to make an in-season trade next year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 5, 2015 22:00:12 GMT -5
He was terrible offensively and defensively last year and I don't think he'll be bouncing back. He has never cared to get himself into playing shape and I don't think it'll improve this offseason either. In my mind, this is actually a point in Sandoval's favor. He's always been fat, but has a track record of being a pretty good player, including at least an average defender. His 2015 seems flukier to me.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 5, 2015 22:35:50 GMT -5
This has been said before, but I'm going to say it again just to see if we can get it through to people. The idea that everyone has absolute control of their weight is a notion that needs to be s*#t-canned, now. It has no basis in reality. The medical literature clearly points to early childhood as a determinant of metabolic rate via the number of fat cells. Those stay constant right into adulthood. Now, what that means is that you can hammer Sandoval's parents for his early diet, or you can be thoughtful enough to inquire about what may have been a something they had little control over. But the sneering jibes tell us a lot more about the posters than they do about Sandoval. You might also ponder what this means for this society going forward, given what we know about the near complete subversion of the modern US diet.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,651
|
Post by gerry on Oct 6, 2015 1:34:36 GMT -5
This has been said before, but I'm going to say it again just to see if we can get it through to people. The idea that everyone has absolute control of their weight is a notion that needs to be s*#t-canned, now. It has no basis in reality. The medical literature clearly points to early childhood as a determinant of metabolic rate via the number of fat cells. Those stay constant right into adulthood. Now, what that means is that you can hammer Sandoval's parents for his early diet, or you can be thoughtful enough to inquire about what may have been a something they had little control over. But the sneering jibes tell us a lot more about the posters than they do about Sandoval. You might also ponder what this means for this society going forward, given what we know about the near complete subversion of the modern US diet. Early habits do much to dictate diet. As does becoming nouveau riche with the "good things" in life as a perpetual smorgasboord. But both factors are dominated by genetics. He may never be able to be svelte. But he has to try to be fit and nimble, including modifying his food and liquid intake, eliminating damaging foods such as wheat based breads. pastas, pastries. Unlike most humans, he can afford to eat privately prepared strictly organic, local and fresh, even on the road; even at pubs and restaurants. I would like to see him discipline himself and his posse to get as fit and agile as his body type, genetics and upbringimg allow. We want him to be as good as he can be, and he must want that as well. If he can't uae his wealth and motivation to modify his lifestyle, we all lose, but he and his family lose the moat
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 6:51:10 GMT -5
This has been said before, but I'm going to say it again just to see if we can get it through to people. The idea that everyone has absolute control of their weight is a notion that needs to be s*#t-canned, now. It has no basis in reality. The medical literature clearly points to early childhood as a determinant of metabolic rate via the number of fat cells. Those stay constant right into adulthood. Now, what that means is that you can hammer Sandoval's parents for his early diet, or you can be thoughtful enough to inquire about what may have been a something they had little control over. But the sneering jibes tell us a lot more about the posters than they do about Sandoval. You might also ponder what this means for this society going forward, given what we know about the near complete subversion of the modern US diet. So if he ate and trained like a high school wrestler, he couldn't be in better shape? Why do you just assume he tries but he genetically can't lose weight? He's getting paid 9 figures. He should try. He has every advantage at his disposal including all that money and trainers.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 6, 2015 7:06:59 GMT -5
I'm not blaming their parents until I see genuine efforts to lose weight by modifying diet and engaging in exercise and learn they're not successful.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,947
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 6, 2015 7:14:26 GMT -5
Once you're overweight, your body wants you to stay overweight. If you eat a lot less, your body thinks you are starving and slows down your metabolism. If Sandoval "ate and trained like a high school wrestler" it would probably be very very bad.
There is also no way that Sandoval can lose weight fast and be a successful athlete: you can't play baseball for years with one body and then try to perform repetitive tasks like hitting a baseball with a vastly different body.
But he can be more fit, and can eat better, and can gradually lose weight the way that Ortiz did.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Oct 6, 2015 7:20:09 GMT -5
Once you're overweight, your body wants you to stay overweight. If you eat a lot less, your body thinks you are starving and slows down your metabolism. If Sandoval "ate and trained like a high school wrestler" it would probably be very very bad. There is also no way that Sandoval can lose weight fast and be a successful athlete: you can't play baseball for years with one body and then try to perform repetitive tasks like hitting a baseball with a vastly different body. But he can be more fit, and can eat better, and can gradually lose weight the way that Ortiz did.This is absolutely true and a reasonable expectation.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 6, 2015 7:22:53 GMT -5
Scott Lauber has a good column in today's Herald on the dilemma of the "Gold Bust Twins". Straight forward and no excuses.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Oct 6, 2015 7:33:24 GMT -5
Would love to see them trade both for some good relievers. Get Chris Davis to play 1st and put Shaw at 3rd.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 7:34:05 GMT -5
This has been said before, but I'm going to say it again just to see if we can get it through to people. The idea that everyone has absolute control of their weight is a notion that needs to be s*#t-canned, now. It has no basis in reality. The medical literature clearly points to early childhood as a determinant of metabolic rate via the number of fat cells. Those stay constant right into adulthood. Now, what that means is that you can hammer Sandoval's parents for his early diet, or you can be thoughtful enough to inquire about what may have been a something they had little control over. But the sneering jibes tell us a lot more about the posters than they do about Sandoval. You might also ponder what this means for this society going forward, given what we know about the near complete subversion of the modern US diet. So if he ate and trained like a high school wrestler, he couldn't be in better shape? Why do you just assume he tries but he genetically can't lose weight? He's getting paid 9 figures. He should try. He has every advantage at his disposal including all that money and trainers. It is pretty ridiculous to claim that he has not tried to control his weight over his career. There are plenty of stories about the efforts he has gone to to try and do so, both in Boston and in San Francisco. Now, it is fair to say that he could put more effort into controlling his weight than he did last offseason and through most of the 2015 season. But it is patently absurd to claim that he has never tried. ADD: the better (and more accurate) argument is that Sandoval has put effort into controlling his weight (see the link above re: his 2013-2014 offseason weight loss), but did not do so last offseason, at least in part because he got comfortable after signing a big contract and, all else equal, he would prefer not to be part of an intense weight regimen. That's absolutely on him for getting sloppy (lazy), but there's a decent chance that he responds to the criticism and puts in more of an effort this year. More broadly, I think too much emphasis is placed on his weight. As mentioned, he's always been overweight, but he's had good seasons before, and the correlation between how much he weighs and how well he performs seems pretty weak (see, e.g., his mediocre season last year (including a very slow start) despite coming into camp in arguably the BSOHL, his bad 2010 despite spending that offseason on his first weight regimen (the counterpoint is his excellent 2011 season, before which he did reportedly lose a bunch of weight)). His biggest issue this year was with his defense, and while some of that is probably weight-related, some of it wasn't (e.g., bad hands, bad footwork, airmailing throws).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 6, 2015 9:02:51 GMT -5
Read they told panda to lose 60-80 this offseason. That was someone on this forum and they were joking, fyi.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 6, 2015 9:12:02 GMT -5
So far it looks like Eno's column on Fangraphs was extremely prescient. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/which-pablo-sandoval-did-the-red-sox-buy/Anyway, Hanley Ramirez, for all his warts, could well be the difference between the 2015 Red Sox scoring runs and the 2015 Red Sox being the most feared offense in the USA. Does eating the bulk of his contract to get him to go away really make sense? Likewise does paying your third basemen (a position we don't have alternatives at) to go away make sense? At some point, TRADING THEM AWAY! so you can pretend they never existed and pencil in some 22 year olds instead isn't a productive use of resources. The Sox made their bed and they have to lie in it. I am cautiously optimistic about Ramirez personally.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 6, 2015 10:30:54 GMT -5
There's far more upside in holding onto a devalued asset than selling it at a massive loss. If both of these guys are truly cooked, there's not really much difference to the team in trading them now versus DFAing them later. A few million in salary relief, maybe. The best case scenario by far for the Red Sox is that they hold onto these guys and they're actual contributors next year.
How bad would Texas look right now if they'd taken whatever they could get for Fielder and Choo last offseason? Buy low, sell high. It's a cliche because it's true.
(Although there is tremendous upside for me personally if they trade Sandoval, in that this forum wouldn't be 50% weight loss advice anymore.)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 10:40:35 GMT -5
So far it looks like Eno's column on Fangraphs was extremely prescient. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/which-pablo-sandoval-did-the-red-sox-buy/Anyway, Hanley Ramirez, for all his warts, could well be the difference between the 2015 Red Sox scoring runs and the 2015 Red Sox being the most feared offense in the USA. Does eating the bulk of his contract to get him to go away really make sense? Likewise does paying your third basemen (a position we don't have alternatives at) to go away make sense? At some point, TRADING THEM AWAY! so you can pretend they never existed and pencil in some 22 year olds instead isn't a productive use of resources. The Sox made their bed and they have to lie in it. I am cautiously optimistic about Ramirez personally. If they don't greatly improve, it would be literally better to pay them to go away and replace them with nothing. We can hope for a rebound, but it's also possible that we don't get one and we're stuck with negative 4 wins between the two of them.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 6, 2015 10:43:44 GMT -5
Read they told panda to lose 60-80 this offseason. That was someone on this forum and they were joking, fyi. That's correct. The Panda would have to not eat for 3 months and have his stomach stapled to have a chance for 60 lbs. My idea of 30 to 40 is really impossible also!
|
|
|