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?
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 6, 2015 10:51:27 GMT -5
I'm hoping for a Hanley trade, but have trouble seeing it. The only clubs that may be hypnotized into taking him (and I do think with need the Great Kreskin here) are the following AL teams: Mariners, A's, White Sox, Rays, Indians, and Orioles. Terry Francona may only be talked into taking Hanley, if we kidnap a child of his). All of those clubs could use a DH or a 1st baseman (LOL). The only 2 NL teams that may think of Hanley as a 1st base upgrade are the Rockies and the Brewers. That, IMO, is 8 teams we need to "pull the wool over their heads on", pay $15 mill per year towards his salary, and promise the GM a one night stand with Verlander's girl friend.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 10:52:33 GMT -5
We have capable backups for them if the manager will actually put them on a short leash. Farrell gave Hanley, Pablo and Porcello way too much slack.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 10:57:18 GMT -5
We have capable backups for them if the manager will actually put them on a short leash. Farrell gave Hanley, Pablo and Porcello way too much slack. That's actually the issue. They have to save Farrell from himself since he'll be back. He'd probably play Craig over Castillo if given the chance. We can hope that they rebound, but if they play like this year, it's pretty much a guarantee that they miss the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 11:26:58 GMT -5
We can hope that they rebound, but if they play like this year, it's pretty much a guarantee that they miss the playoffs. Maybe, but I think the odds of them being as bad next year as they were this year are pretty low. It's like saying "if Bogaerts and Bradley hit as poorly next year as they did in 2014, the team is screwed, so we have to sell high on them now!" There's just no nuance in that argument. The analysis is (a) how good do you think they will be next year (and for the rest of their contracts) and (b) can you move enough of their salary such that the money you save can be used for more productive uses.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Oct 6, 2015 12:01:28 GMT -5
I don't see DD having any intention of watching Hanley try to play 1B next year. The value of a good defensive first baseman is huge and one the Sox have acknowledged that with the players they've put there over the years. They brought him in with hopes they could "hide" him in LF for a couple of years, then let him play DH, the only position he seems suited for at this point. That plan failed and DD has a clean slate, it won't be looked at as his failure when they move Hanley, he'll just be cleaning up someone else's mess.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Oct 6, 2015 12:13:28 GMT -5
I think the Sox will trade them if the right offer reveals itself. Which I don't think is happening. The value of what a team might give us for them now (we would eat a lot of salary) is probably not worth the upside of each having a bounce back year. Both these guys are much better than they were this year; lets not lose sight of that.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 6, 2015 12:54:36 GMT -5
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). I stand corrected, but I think you made my point for me. Sandoval complained (or whined depending on your opinion) that the Giants wanted him to stay in shape while the nice Red Sox didn't hassle him about that, so the Sox paid him all that money guaranteed and Sandoval did not put in the effort to control his weight as he was very comfortable. After all, he has his big money. Will he be motivated? I know you think he will be. I'd like to think he would be, but it's very possible that either he isn't that motivated by pride because he already has his money, or it's very possible that even if he tries to get himself into better shape, his skills which have been on the decline (the trend is unmistakable - he has been in decline for several years, and underwent a bigger one last year.) continue to trend downward. He's not 24 or 25 on the way up. He's nearing 30 with a body type that doesn't necessarily age well.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 6, 2015 13:01:59 GMT -5
I think any suggestion of trading Pablo Sandoval and/or Hanley Ramirez requires a reality-based idea about how to do that. I don't think it's useful to have a discussion about removing one or both from the roster without discussing what the cost will be in terms of dollars or prospects to make that deal happen.
I don't think it's impossible, but one of the reasons I voted "neither" is because I just can't see a deal out there that would make sense for the Red Sox and their trading partner. I'm interested what ideas other posters might have.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 6, 2015 13:10:56 GMT -5
I think any suggestion of trading Pablo Sandoval and/or Hanley Ramirez requires a reality-based idea about how to do that. I don't think it's useful to have a discussion about removing one or both from the roster without discussing what the cost will be in terms of dollars or prospects to make that deal happen. I don't think it's impossible, but one of the reasons I voted "neither" is because I just can't see a deal out there that would make sense for the Red Sox and their trading partner. I'm interested what ideas other posters might have. Yea, this is kind of what I was getting at when I create the poll. I ramble a lot when I try to prove my point. I just don't see any team trading for one of these guys in a way that would benefit the Red Sox, outside of the Shields swap I noted in my opening post.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Oct 6, 2015 13:11:12 GMT -5
Hanley's deal - (Sox payment towards his salary + Shaw's salary) = ~13.5 million in freed up money for 2016, assuming you make it so the trade partner gets a DH for 14 million. Most likely you add in a prospect or two depending on what you are trying to get back.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 13:26:12 GMT -5
From Speier's newsletter today:
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 13:34:16 GMT -5
It's also worth noting, that none of those guys are going to go back to their prime and the further away they get from that, the more likely they are going to disappoint.
It's pretty scary that we need a 3 WAR improvement from both of these guys just to reach something that isn't a disaster.
Ruben Sierra had 4.8, 3.1 and then a -2.6 fWAR seasons from age 25-27. He spent the rest of his way too long career as a below replacement level player.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 6, 2015 13:51:10 GMT -5
It's pretty scary that we need a 3 WAR improvement from both of these guys to revert to career norms just to reach something that isn't a disaster. It's worth noting that 2015 was an enormous outlier for both Ramirez and Sandoval. fWAR, year-by-year, for each: Sandoval, 2009-2015: 5.2, 1.2, 5.3, 2.6, 2.0, 3.1, (-2.0) Ramirez, 2006-2015: 4.4, 5.2, 7.5, 7.1, 4.2, 0.9, 2.6, 5.1, 3.3, (-1.8) (note that in the 0.9 WAR season, he was limited to 92 games by injury) So yeah, if you think of it as "a 3 WAR improvement," sure, it sounds unrealistic. But consider their respective career averages were 3.2 and 4.5 entering 2015. Is it really THAT unrealistic to hope Sandoval to be a 2 win player and Ramirez to be a 3 win player, regardless of the fact that'd represent, respectively, a 4- and 5-win jump from each?
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Oct 6, 2015 13:55:01 GMT -5
I think Speier has outlined the probable approach to take with Hanley and Pablo. The Sox have no leverage for any potential negotiations, and the course that seems most likely to get value from either contract is to hold onto both players and see what next year brings.
I mean, the Sox worked around both players to have a nice end of the year run, so they won't necessarily cripple the club next year.
The big question is whether there is a front office with enough need and moxie to give up anything of signifigance for either player. BC basically lost his job over those two signings, and I don't think other decision makers will take any real risk to acquire either player.
The only way either is moved is if the Sox pay, either in money or other players, to ship them out and the receiving team sees (and can market) the acquisition as a risk free, buy-low move. If that is the case, the sox have less to lose by holding onto both players and hope for rebounds. The can dump/give away either player away literally at any time, so they can afford to wait.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 6, 2015 14:10:47 GMT -5
Good stuff. Ramirez can hit - when he's healthy. That's never been an issue. Here's what his numbers looked like before he crossed paths with the wall in the left-field corner: .283/.340/.609. Shiny. He was mashing.
Here's what they looked like the remainder of the season: .239/.275/.372. No more mashing. Anyone who thinks that's some sort of statistical fluctuation needs to think again. I'd like to believe he took one for the team by staying on the field, but that didn't help a bit. The defense was excruciating, and that was before the injury. After that happened, the pitchers were in line for psychiatric care, it was just.. so... bad.... And the hitting chops had completely evaporated. Why he was kept out there for as long as he was is one of life's great mysteries.
This doesn't answer the question of where he actually can play if he's healthy. That has yet to be determined, and it's why guys like Dombrowski get the big bucks. But on a team that did have a spot for him that doesn't require 24-hour surveillance, like DH, he might just replicate that April line year long. He does know how to hit, people.
If he was sent off somewhere else and did just that, there would be a lot of folks on this site singing the blues.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 14:11:27 GMT -5
It's also worth noting, that none of those guys are going to go back to their prime and the further away they get from that, the more likely they are going to disappoint. It's pretty scary that we need a 3 WAR improvement from both of these guys just to reach something that isn't a disaster. Ruben Sierra had 4.8, 3.1 and then a -2.6 fWAR seasons from age 25-27. He spent the rest of his way too long career as a below replacement level player. Sandoval is 29 and Hanley is 31, which is close enough to their prime that I don't think it's fair to call this permanent age-related decline. Sometimes good players have randomly terrible years.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 14:48:51 GMT -5
It's also worth noting, that none of those guys are going to go back to their prime and the further away they get from that, the more likely they are going to disappoint. It's pretty scary that we need a 3 WAR improvement from both of these guys just to reach something that isn't a disaster. Ruben Sierra had 4.8, 3.1 and then a -2.6 fWAR seasons from age 25-27. He spent the rest of his way too long career as a below replacement level player. Sandoval is 29 and Hanley is 31, which is close enough to their prime that I don't think it's fair to call this permanent age-related decline. Sometimes good players have randomly terrible years. Last time, we had this argument about Allen Craig.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 14:50:30 GMT -5
Fielder was a sub 2 WAR player this year still.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 6, 2015 15:24:17 GMT -5
Sandoval is 29 and Hanley is 31, which is close enough to their prime that I don't think it's fair to call this permanent age-related decline. Sometimes good players have randomly terrible years. Last time, we had this argument about Allen Craig. Well he didn't say EVERY player who has a terrible year bounces back. I'll see your Allen Craig, but also mention Chris Davis and Albert Pujols as examples of guys bouncing back. The skill is in figuring out which is which. It's probably too much to expect Hanley to be an MVP candidate again, or for Sandoval to be a 3-4 win player, but like I said, hoping for Sandoval to be a 2 win player and for 3 wins from Hanley, as a reasonable best-case, isn't crazy. At the very least, I think it's more likely that happens than either putting up another below-replacement season.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Oct 6, 2015 15:26:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 6, 2015 15:41:44 GMT -5
I have no idea on this to be honest. Never a fan of selling low, and, especially for Hanley, that would be the deal here and the sunk cost may outweigh trying to get him to play a passable 1st next year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 15:44:13 GMT -5
Last time, we had this argument about Allen Craig. Well he didn't say EVERY player who has a terrible year bounces back. I'll see your Allen Craig, but also mention Chris Davis and Albert Pujols as examples of guys bouncing back. The skill is in figuring out which is which. It's probably too much to expect Hanley to be an MVP candidate again, or for Sandoval to be a 3-4 win player, but like I said, hoping for Sandoval to be a 2 win player and for 3 wins from Hanley, as a reasonable best-case, isn't crazy. At the very least, I think it's more likely that happens than either putting up another below-replacement season. I expect Hanley to bounce back hitting wise, but there are enough questions about transitioning to 1B to make it less likely to me that he'll be a 3 win player. I don't expect Pablo to have a 4 win turnaround from -2 to +2. And yeah, I do attribute much of that to what kind of shape he's in. Maybe if he really surprises us and comes to spring training resembling the 'after' picture promoting a P90X workout dvd I'd be hopeful. But there's a difference between a heavy athlete (think of NFL linemen) and someone who is ready to faint and has to come out of a game after running 3 bases. You can actually be in good cardiovascular shape while heavy and if it's literally impossible for Pablo to lose weight as some are suggesting, it is not impossible for him to be in good enough shape to run as little as you need to in baseball. No one is going to convince me that being in better shape wouldn't help him be a better player, especially on the bases and in the field.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 16:30:37 GMT -5
Sandoval is 29 and Hanley is 31, which is close enough to their prime that I don't think it's fair to call this permanent age-related decline. Sometimes good players have randomly terrible years. Last time, we had this argument about Allen Craig. I'll note that I was actually quite bearish on Craig. The big difference between Craig and Sandoval/Ramirez is that the various indicators of Sandoval and Ramirez's decline can be explained by luck/small-sample-based stats, while literally every part of Craig's offensive game (the only thing he brought to the table) collapsed, which was verified by both statistical analysis and scouting. Ethan has already posted a Hanley analysis above while Norm has brought up the shoulder injury issue, but if you look at Sandoval's peripherals, you'll note that the major difference between his performance last year and his performance this year is (a) 30 points of BABIP and (b) a huge drop in defense (on the order of two-and-a-half wins). Defensive stats are prone to huge fluctuations because of the small samples involved and because the difference between an out and a double or a two-base-error is so large, and I'm pretty confident that he'll pick up at least a win or two there. He already looked much-improved defensively over the second half of the year. He was at -12 DRS through July and ended up -11, which means he was +1 in the second half. That sounds about right (there were multiple articles about his defensive improvement, and by my eye test, he was legitimately much improved). Offensively, there was a little slippage in K/BB/ISO, but not a lot, and the main culprit looks like BABIP. One-year blips like that happen, and players regularly bounce back from it. The other biggest cause of his offensive decline was his complete inability to hit LHP to start the year (.103/.153/.132 (-30 wRC+) in 73 PAs). Of course, he then dropped switch-hitting and hit .278/.305/.316 (66 wRC+) in 82 PAs lefty-on-lefty to end the year, and if he continues to do so, that tentatively looks like a true-talent improvement.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 16:33:44 GMT -5
But there's a difference between a heavy athlete (think of NFL linemen) and someone who is ready to faint and has to come out of a game after running 3 bases. You can actually be in good cardiovascular shape while heavy and if it's literally impossible for Pablo to lose weight as some are suggesting, it is not impossible for him to be in good enough shape to run as little as you need to in baseball. No one is going to convince me that being in better shape wouldn't help him be a better player, especially on the bases and in the field. He had pneumonia, so that anecdote is pretty much meaningless. The argument isn't that he wouldn't benefit from being in better shape. It's that he's always been fat and yet was able to put up multiple five-win seasons and plus defensive seasons at 3B despite being fat.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 16:40:48 GMT -5
But there's a difference between a heavy athlete (think of NFL linemen) and someone who is ready to faint and has to come out of a game after running 3 bases. You can actually be in good cardiovascular shape while heavy and if it's literally impossible for Pablo to lose weight as some are suggesting, it is not impossible for him to be in good enough shape to run as little as you need to in baseball. No one is going to convince me that being in better shape wouldn't help him be a better player, especially on the bases and in the field. He had pneumonia, so that anecdote is pretty much meaningless. The argument isn't that he wouldn't benefit from being in better shape. It's that he's always been fat and yet was able to put up multiple five-win seasons and plus defensive seasons at 3B despite being fat. I'm talking about when he got "dehydrated" over the summer after running 1st to home and was thrown out by 30 feet. Being fat is harder when you get older.
|
|
|