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.
Acquiring an Ace: FA or Trade?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 6, 2015 9:35:20 GMT -5
This is one of DDo's biggest decisions.
After looking at the basic numbers (bWAR/GS and league-adjusted SIERA, which I've turned into standard deviations and weighted equally to get a good rough idea of how guys ranked), I can find seven aces and one clear potential ace who might be available this winter.
FA: David Price.
Trade targets (ranked by 2015 performance): Stephen Strasburg, Chris Sale, Jacob deGrom, Chris Archer, Matt Harvey, Sonny Gray, and clear potential ace (currently a good #2) Noah Syndergaard.
(Strasburg actually finished between Harvey and Gray in my quick-and-dirty metric, but he was awful before his first DL stint, and after he came back in late June he posted a 2.13 aSIERA. Clayton Kershaw led MLB with 2.30. As a 1-year rental, he also has by far the lowest acquisition cost. And health concerns, of course.)
The good question is this: why would you sign Price, who as the sole FA ace is going to incite an insane bidding war among the deep-pocketed teams who have no other way to get an ace, and therefore almost certainly will earn a contract he won't be worth, when you have more trade chips than any other team in baseball, and five teams with seven players to talk trade to?
We have as trade chips Wade Miley, a guy who among 150 starters with 15 GS or more ranked 64th in bWAR/GS and 95th in aSIERA, making him literally the most MLB-average pitcher of the 150 and hence putting him right on the cusp between a 3 and 4 starter, and he's a guy who never misses a start. Two years of that at $7.6M AAV (plus an $11.5M option less buyout) has got some real value ... and then you have Manny Margot, Javier Guerra, and Deven Marrero. If you re-sign Rich Hill, and I've already argued that we have a better chance than anyone, you can also deal Henry Owens.
And if a team wants Rusney Castillo as a CF, you wouldn't hesitate to trade him and find a rental corner OFer (Josh Reddick, Andre Ethier, Carlos Gonzalez, or Franklin Gutierrez).
And of course there are enough guys who you wouldn't hesitate to deal (basically everyone ranked 9th and below here who doesn't project to contribute next year) as sweeteners.
I don't think there's a pitcher on that list you couldn't get, if you went all in. With five teams to talk to and seven guys to evaluate as smartly as possibly, I just don't see any way in which signing Price could possibly be the smartest or best thing to do.
Counter-arguments?
(Oh, BTW, Porcello's aSIERA of 3.07 after he came off the DL would have tied him with deGrom as the 10th best figure in MLB. And Clay Buchholz ranked 14th in MLB in my metric, and Eduardo Rodriguez 44th (2nd / 3rd starter cusp). This could be a tremendous staff.)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 6, 2015 10:15:06 GMT -5
Well, the "why" obviously depends on what it's going to take to make said trade, right? If Miley, Margot, Guerra is enough to build a package around, then yeah, giddyup. I just wonder if that'd really be enough, although I guess it is a league-average MLB starter signed for reasonable money plus two top-100 prospects.
I sort of feel like the Salem-ish level infield situation almost demands such a trade. Is there enough room for Rijo, Moncada, Devers, Chavis, Guerra, and Dubon in the same system? Of course, I said this about that glut of pitching and it took them two years to deal from it (and turn it into Miley, Ross, and two MLB relievers in Barnes and Workman).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 10:15:40 GMT -5
I don't think there's a pitcher on that list you couldn't get, if you went all in. With five teams to talk to and seven guys to evaluate as smartly as possibly, I just don't see any way in which signing Price could possibly be the smartest or best thing to do. If you're limiting their trade pieces to Miley, Margot, Guerra, Owens, and Marrero (and maybe Castillo), which is what it seems like you're doing, I would strongly disagree that that is enough to get five of the seven guys on your list (the ones who have 4+ years of cheap team control ahead of them). It'd be enough for Strasburg, but he only has one year of team control left. It might be enough for Harvey, but only because this innings limit controversy might encourage them to move him (even then, he has three arb years left, plays on a contending team, and they seemed to have moved past it), and even if he was available, other teams are likely to be able to trump that offer with one centered around higher-end top prospects. The other five guys (Sale, deGrom, Archer, Gray, Syndergaard) are among the 30 or so most valuable trade assets in baseball. There is no chance in my mind that you're getting one of them for two top 30-50 prospects (Margot and Owens), two 50-100 guys (Guerra, the prospect equivalent to Miley) and throw-ins.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 10:19:38 GMT -5
I love Harvey as a target because he's getting such criticism for reasons that don't even represent any red flags. I hope we target him, because I think he'll be undervalued.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 6, 2015 10:20:55 GMT -5
Good points. If signing Price is beyond reason financially, and Cueto comes with health problems, DD is left with QO aces. Greinke, if he opts out, Zimmermann, who shouldn't be more than a #2, would be considered the leading second tier candidates. They will both come with first round compensation.
With the no. 12 pick the Sox can select from a list of top available draftees. So a trade is the way to go. Those prospects you mention would not cripple the future for the club, though I'd be very reluctant to move Benintendi If Rusney is traded. Strasbourg, off his late season performance, gets my vote even though he'd be a one year rental with Boras for an agent. But, as you pointed out it would take less to acquire him because of that expiring contract.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 6, 2015 10:22:53 GMT -5
I don't think there's a pitcher on that list you couldn't get, if you went all in. With five teams to talk to and seven guys to evaluate as smartly as possibly, I just don't see any way in which signing Price could possibly be the smartest or best thing to do.
By "all-in" do you mean including Betts or Bogaerts? Otherwise I find this statement impossible to believe. If the Red Sox could get someone like Harvey or Syndergaard for spare parts like Miley and Marrero and a single A lottery ticket.. why hasn't it already happened? Personally, the only name that screams 'available' is Strasburg. He has one year left before he becomes very expensive. He's a bit of a question mark despite his hype and talent, and he's on a team that doesn't need him that badly, needs to shake things up, and likely wants to get younger. Strasburg would fit what the Sox need in a few ways. He's young, he's talented. We have money so the impending FA is a game we can play. I guess Gray and Archer are available in the sense that their clubs exist to be exploited and not compete at baseball. But even then, calling them available seems like a stretch. They'd be gone already. Lots of teams would give up lots of players for a young horse. EDIT: Somewhat off-topic but how do we feel about the disconnect between Gray's peripherals and results? He scares me - I wouldn't want to pay full price to acquire Gray and find his ERA plummeting back to "normal" good pitcher levels.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 6, 2015 10:27:11 GMT -5
Eric, IMO, each one the starters you mentioned will be EXTREMELY difficult to purchase. I like them all, although have reservations about Strasburg because of his inconsistency and his pending free agency. I would not want to trade away quality prospects for a rental, and he really may be just that.
Definitely picking up a so-called "ace" is very important for us to get back in contention and I'm on board doing most anything. I must admit, my preference is to sign David Price....even if it takes 7 years and $210 million. Many on this site will be against this......including you. I get that. I do. But man have I changed my tune watching the Red Sox compete with one arm tied behind their back for the last couple of years. Lester WAS a huge mistake.....although I never quite saw him until his last season with us as an ace. This year in Chicago backs up my feelings. But with that said, Lester was hugely important to us every 5 days.
I absolutely LOVE Matt Harvey. The others you mentioned I would place in this order (from best to least): Harvey, Sale, Archer, DeGrom, Sydergaard, and Gray. To me the Mets are sitting so pretty, why would they let any of those 3 pitchers go? Along with Matz they can actually dominate every night. Yes they have some potential offensive problems next season, but with those pitchers they have an excellent chance every night of coming away with a win.
Now if you are asking me if we would move Mookie Betts or Xander for one of those guys? The answer is no, and I can see them wanting one of them and having the right to ask for one of them! They probably have no interest in Blake Swihart because of their two young talented catchers. So what does that leave us to entice them with? There are 3 kids in the minors who I have no interest talking about. You probably know who they are (Moncada, Benitendi, and Anderson Espinoza). So could we put together a package with what is left that the Mets would consider moving either of those 3 pitchers for? Not if you omit those 5 players (IMO).
So what I'm saying Eric, I think we should use free agency 1st, and trade for a 2nd above average starter also. That 2nd starter could be a Carrasco. And I know this last statement will cause some unrest.....but I'd rather pony up for Cueto or Zimmerman than allow any of those 5 players to be traded.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 6, 2015 11:27:22 GMT -5
I don't think there's a pitcher on that list you couldn't get, if you went all in. With five teams to talk to and seven guys to evaluate as smartly as possibly, I just don't see any way in which signing Price could possibly be the smartest or best thing to do. If you're limiting their trade pieces to Miley, Margot, Guerra, Owens, and Marrero (and maybe Castillo), which is what it seems like you're doing, I would strongly disagree that that is enough to get five of the seven guys on your list (the ones who have 4+ years of cheap team control ahead of them). It'd be enough for Strasburg, but he only has one year of team control left. It might be enough for Harvey, but only because this innings limit controversy might encourage them to move him (even then, he has three arb years left, plays on a contending team, and they seemed to have moved past it), and even if he was available, other teams are likely to be able to trump that offer with one centered around higher-end top prospects. The other five guys (Sale, deGrom, Archer, Gray, Syndergaard) are among the 30 or so most valuable trade assets in baseball. There is no chance in my mind that you're getting one of them for two top 30-50 prospects (Margot and Owens), two 50-100 guys (Guerra, the prospect equivalent to Miley) and throw-ins. The Mets wouldn't think that the downgrade from Syndergaard to Owens was worth Castillo, Marrero (who fill holes for them next year as they try to contend), Margot (who is a top-25 prospect in most rankings), Guerra (who's appearing in top 50 lists), and the prospects they can get for Miley? Really? Remember that Margot and Guerra, as elite defenders, are high-floor guys. Syndergaard got swings and misses on 12.4% of his pitches; Owens 12.3%, despite walking 7.8% of his batters versus 4.8%. Owens had the higher percentage of strikes that were swinging, 19.9% to 18.9%. Owens established that his floor, even if he never improves his command at all, is 4th starter, and he put to death the silly argument that his stuff wouldn't play up as expected in MLB relative to the minors. No, they didn't sit on and kill his changeup because his command was mediocre, because the only MLB hitter who looks for offspeed pitches first is Bryce Harper. A plus pitch like that is still a plus pitch, and mediocre command is its own issue that he needs to work on to reach his #2 / #3 upside. There's some chance that Owens alone is more valuable over the next 6 years than Syndergaard, not just because of his upside, but since they're both pitchers and pitchers get hurt. And the same logic works with every other pitcher. I'll amend my assertion to say that they have a chance to get any of those guys. They're not getting hung up on; they're having a conversation. Obviously Sale and Archer are the toughest, and probably not very realistic options. And the Mets have no reason to move deGrom rather than Harvey or Syndergaard. Gray, on the other hand, may have an unsustainable BABIP and Beane may be looking to sell high on him. With Strasburg and Harvey, that's four realistic options.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 6, 2015 11:58:35 GMT -5
Price will probably be around the Scherzer 7 year $210M contract, without deferring half of the salary. Yankees and Dodger will be in on him. I'm not completely against pursuing him, but that is Hanley's + Pablo's contract combined for a pitcher over the age of 30.
I've named these guys a couple times before, but what's wrong with Quintana and Carrasco as targets?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 6, 2015 11:59:45 GMT -5
I'd have no interest in acquiring Strasburg unless the trade package was absurdly low. There's nothing he could do in 2016 that would make me feel confident in an extension. He'll almost certainly get a QO but that draft pick will be factored into the original trade and you'll have to pay for it on the front end. He's also not the type of pitcher you can give a heavy workload to during your one rental season. He's just not a good fit with the current staff.
I'd imagine the other pitchers listed except maybe Sonny Gray would require a more significant return than just Miley/Margot/Guerra/filler, that seems more like a best case scenario. Depending on the cost I'd love any of those targets, but I'd imagine the *real* cost would make them unattractive. I'd target "potential aces" in trades rather than trying to buy high on an established ace this winter, unless of course you could find a favorable trade like the Miley/Margot/etc package discussed above.
It's not reasonable to plan on signing David Price in free agency, other teams have tons of money too and we have no idea what the offers will be. The idea of approaching the offseason with a blank check for David Price is bad business. If the Red Sox can sign David Price within their valuation great, but it obviously can't be the only plan, and you need to prepare for the real possibility that one or more teams will spend stupid money on him.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 12:13:33 GMT -5
Price will probably be around the Scherzer 7 year $210M contract, without deferring half of the salary. Yankees and Dodger will be in on him. I'm not completely against pursuing him, but that is Hanley's + Pablo's contract combined for a pitcher over the age of 30. I've named these guys a couple times before, but what's wrong with Quintana and Carrasco as targets? Nothing. Carrasco would be one of my top choices really, but I'm not sure it even makes sense for Cleveland to deal him.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Oct 6, 2015 12:15:10 GMT -5
Gee I don't want to be the guy with a one liner trying to contribute to the convo but why not both?
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 6, 2015 12:28:04 GMT -5
Eric, IMO, each one the starters you mentioned will be EXTREMELY difficult to purchase. I like them all, although have reservations about Strasburg because of his inconsistency and his pending free agency. I would not want to trade away quality prospects for a rental, and he really may be just that. I absolutely LOVE Matt Harvey. The others you mentioned I would place in this order (from best to least): Harvey, Sale, Archer, DeGrom, Sydergaard, and Gray. To me the Mets are sitting so pretty, why would they let any of those 3 pitchers go? Along with Matz they can actually dominate every night. Yes they have some potential offensive problems next season, but with those pitchers they have an excellent chance every night of coming away with a win. So what I'm saying Eric, I think we should use free agency 1st, and trade for a 2nd above average starter also. That 2nd starter could be a Carrasco. And I know this last statement will cause some unrest.....but I'd rather pony up for Cueto or Zimmerman than allow any of those 5 players to be traded. I also believe that Eric is underselling how hard it may be to make a trade for an ace. And I agree with you that we should try to sign for and trade for 2 top of the rotation pitchers. In trades, I would focus on both the Mets and Cleveland as both teams that have 3 good pitchers each that are years away from arbitration and precisely because they have 3 pitchers each team is more likely to make 1 available. In any trade discussion I would start with Buchholz & Margot. I would make other pieces available but I would make that the foundation of the trade. As an aside I see way to much discussion about pitchers that does not include the all important IP, even Eric structured his argument around pitchers who made 15 starts. Why 15 starts? It's not nearly enough. How about 20, or 25 even? Miley then becomes a solid #3.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 12:31:37 GMT -5
We really don't need two stud pitchers to become a playoff team IMO. If it means giving up someone like Swihart or Rodriguez I'd pass.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 6, 2015 12:39:29 GMT -5
I would think that most of those guys Eric mentioned if not all would put a big dent into the farm system.
They're not going to be looking for Wade Miley and Rusney Castillo types (certainly not as centerpieces of the deal). They're going to want some multi player combo of Devers, Moncada, Espinoza, Margot, Guerra, Kopech, and Benintendi. Obviously not all of them, but I would think at least two or three of them. Sure you could surrender Margot or Benintendi if you believe that Bradley and Betts will make up the other 2/3 of the OF for a long time.
Maybe you sacrifice Guerra because Bogaerts is the SS thru 2019 and you deal Kopech if they're willing to take him over Espinoza, which would be hard to believe.
I assume Owens would be a goner, too.
Perhaps Owens, Kopech, Guerra, and Margot could get you an Archer, but that's a pretty steep price for the Sox and I'm not even sure Tampa would make that deal.
I'd personally rather the Sox spend the money, and take their chances, and have let their farm system develop. I would think the cost of the gamble would be offset by the amount of minimum wage talent coming thru the farm system. I'd go all out for Price, and I still (if Cueto's health checks out) go after Cueto. I know he has struggled, but I'm not convinced that he won't bounce back.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 6, 2015 12:48:54 GMT -5
I know that wild figures have been thrown around in the media about how much money the Sox can spend, but if you look at anything Alex Speier has written the Red Sox have about $20-25 million to spend in terms of AAV before hitting the luxury tax in 2016. That figure is about $30-35 million if Buchholz is removed from the equation either by declining his option or trading him.
The Sox can afford to sign David Price for $30 million, but some other decisions about Buchholz and the bullpen have to be made before that can happen - if the plan is to stay under the luxury tax, which I think it is.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 6, 2015 12:58:28 GMT -5
I know that wild figures have been thrown around in the media about how much money the Sox can spend, but if you look at anything Alex Speier has written the Red Sox have about $20-25 million to spend in terms of AAV before hitting the luxury tax in 2016. That figure is about $30-35 million if Buchholz is removed from the equation either by declining his option or trading him. The Sox can afford to sign David Price for $30 million, but some other decisions about Buchholz and the bullpen have to be made before that can happen - if the plan is to stay under the luxury tax, which I think it is. If that's the case, then perhaps the Sox, because it's unlikely they shed the contracts of Porcello, Sandoval, or Hanley, have to deal the mid tier ones in Miley and Castillo (and/or Buchholz of course.) It's more realistic the Sox deal Miley and/or Castillo to save money (or even Uehara now that I think of it), mid-tier players who have value. The Sox would have to pick up a cheap OF if Castillo was dealt and the Sox certainly have the bodies to replace Miley, particularly if Price came aboard.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 6, 2015 13:15:08 GMT -5
I can't see the Mets trading any arms. They don't spend much money as it is, Zack wheeler is coming back, I don't see it unless at the deadline next year if they are spitting the bed.
Strasburg is more interesting, but IMO would require Swihart +++. I think alot of teams would love to have Swihart's potential on the roster.
Price should be the target. Back up the Brinks truck and give him his cash. No prospects....only concern from indoctrinated Nostradamians about 5 years down the road....big deal.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 6, 2015 13:18:47 GMT -5
I know that wild figures have been thrown around in the media about how much money the Sox can spend, but if you look at anything Alex Speier has written the Red Sox have about $20-25 million to spend in terms of AAV before hitting the luxury tax in 2016. That figure is about $30-35 million if Buchholz is removed from the equation either by declining his option or trading him. The Sox can afford to sign David Price for $30 million, but some other decisions about Buchholz and the bullpen have to be made before that can happen - if the plan is to stay under the luxury tax, which I think it is. They could go over temporarily, wait for Buchholz to show he's "healthy" and then trade him next season. In the end they could go over but not actually pay any luxury taxes.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 13:43:16 GMT -5
The Mets wouldn't think that the downgrade from Syndergaard to Owens was worth Castillo, Marrero (who fill holes for them next year as they try to contend), Margot (who is a top-25 prospect in most rankings), Guerra (who's appearing in top 50 lists), and the prospects they can get for Miley? Really? Remember that Margot and Guerra, as elite defenders, are high-floor guys. Syndergaard got swings and misses on 12.4% of his pitches; Owens 12.3%, despite walking 7.8% of his batters versus 4.8%. Owens had the higher percentage of strikes that were swinging, 19.9% to 18.9%. Owens established that his floor, even if he never improves his command at all, is 4th starter, and he put to death the silly argument that his stuff wouldn't play up as expected in MLB relative to the minors. No, they didn't sit on and kill his changeup because his command was mediocre, because the only MLB hitter who looks for offspeed pitches first is Bryce Harper. A plus pitch like that is still a plus pitch, and mediocre command is its own issue that he needs to work on to reach his #2 / #3 upside. There's some chance that Owens alone is more valuable over the next 6 years than Syndergaard, not just because of his upside, but since they're both pitchers and pitchers get hurt. And the same logic works with every other pitcher. I'll amend my assertion to say that they have a chance to get any of those guys. They're not getting hung up on; they're having a conversation. Obviously Sale and Archer are the toughest, and probably not very realistic options. And the Mets have no reason to move deGrom rather than Harvey or Syndergaard. Gray, on the other hand, may have an unsustainable BABIP and Beane may be looking to sell high on him. With Strasburg and Harvey, that's four realistic options. Yes, Owens had a really good swinging strike rate. He also had a below-average strikeout rate because so many of his swings-and-misses came in hitter's counts and put up a below-average ERA-/FIP-/xFIP-/SIERA in his time in the majors. Steamer projects Owens for a 4.41 ERA and Syndergaard for a 3.18 ERA, which is a pretty huge gap. More importantly, this is the classic quarter for two dimes and a nickel trade that rarely happens because contending teams don't trade stars for a worse player who plays the same position and prospects. I'll challenge you to find a single example of a contending team trading a pre-arb star player for a package of lesser prospects. It just doesn't happen. Similarly, you habitually overlook that it's not just a question of whether that offer makes sense for the other team, but whether that offer is likely to outbid other potential acquirers. Other teams will almost certainly be willing to offer packages that trump the ones described above, especially because these sorts of trades tend to focus on the centerpiece prospect more than the quality of the third or fourth piece, and the centerpiece here is a good-but-not-great prospect (Owens or Margot). I feel like we have this same argument every single time, and I feel like history is on my side here. For instance, it took a hell of a lot more than " Kelly (or Miley), and some combination of Ranaudo, Coyle, Marrero, Cecchini, and, say, Stankiewicz" to acquire Cole Hamels and Jonathan Papelbon. Other trade proposals you've brought up in the same vein like " Cespedes, Ranaudo, and someone like Rijo, Travis, Stankewicz, or Longhi" for Heyward or Kelly and Marrero for Zimmermann also don't look much better in hindsight. I'll concede that Gray is more available than the Mets guys (largely because Oakland may see themselves as a rebuilding team and has been willing to sell high on an asset), and Beane is idiosyncratic enough that there's a greater possibility that that sort of package piques his interest. But that's really only because Beane is so unpredictable. On paper, that package doesn't seem like it'd be enough.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 6, 2015 13:56:01 GMT -5
The Mets wouldn't think that the downgrade from Syndergaard to Owens was worth Castillo, Marrero (who fill holes for them next year as they try to contend), Margot (who is a top-25 prospect in most rankings), Guerra (who's appearing in top 50 lists), and the prospects they can get for Miley? Really? Remember that Margot and Guerra, as elite defenders, are high-floor guys. .... This is real good thinking if the Mets want to think about the next 6 years, but after just winning the division this year after spending time in purgatory it's hard to imagine them doing anything that will, they must surely think, make them worse next year like replacing the hard-throwing low-cost Syndergaard with Owens and his changeup.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 6, 2015 14:21:35 GMT -5
We really don't need two stud pitchers to become a playoff team IMO. If it means giving up someone like Swihart or Rodriguez I'd pass. That's true but if we want to seriously contend to win it all, it would go along way to making that happen.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 14:39:40 GMT -5
We really don't need two stud pitchers to become a playoff team IMO. If it means giving up someone like Swihart or Rodriguez I'd pass. That's true but if we want to seriously contend to win it all, it would go along way to making that happen. Still have to find a balance in trying to make that happen both in the present and the future.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 6, 2015 15:24:00 GMT -5
The 2013 Red Sox won the World Series with a rotation of Lester-Lackey-Buchholz-Peavy-Doubront/Dempster. All of the recent "super rotations" (the Nats this year and Tigers & Phillies before them) have come up short. It'll be impossible to pair two better pitchers than Kershaw/Greinke, and that hasn't resulted in a WS for the Dodgers yet either. Too many people overstate the importance of stacked rotations in terms of winning a title, it's as if people assume a good team with great SP is more likely to win a title than a great team with good SP. The key is to win your division and hope your starters are healthy and able to pitch their best baseball of the season during the playoffs (like Lester and Lackey in 2013). Lester pitched well in 2013 but he wasn't an ace by any reasonable definition, and Lackey put up a regular season in line with Rick Porcello's 2013-2014 production.
Every postseason we see good pitchers outperform great ones in individual games and series. To win a championship you should try to build the best and most balanced team possible, selling out for multiple top of the rotation pitchers isn't going to translate to additional championships. It sounds boring but the key to roster building is consistently making good deals and not selling out for a specific need.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 6, 2015 15:54:27 GMT -5
I don't think there's a pitcher on that list you couldn't get, if you went all in. With five teams to talk to and seven guys to evaluate as smartly as possibly, I just don't see any way in which signing Price could possibly be the smartest or best thing to do. If you're limiting their trade pieces to Miley, Margot, Guerra, Owens, and Marrero (and maybe Castillo), which is what it seems like you're doing, I would strongly disagree that that is enough to get five of the seven guys on your list (the ones who have 4+ years of cheap team control ahead of them). It'd be enough for Strasburg, but he only has one year of team control left. It might be enough for Harvey, but only because this innings limit controversy might encourage them to move him (even then, he has three arb years left, plays on a contending team, and they seemed to have moved past it), and even if he was available, other teams are likely to be able to trump that offer with one centered around higher-end top prospects. The other five guys (Sale, deGrom, Archer, Gray, Syndergaard) are among the 30 or so most valuable trade assets in baseball. There is no chance in my mind that you're getting one of them for two top 30-50 prospects (Margot and Owens), two 50-100 guys (Guerra, the prospect equivalent to Miley) and throw-ins. I agree with this. I think for one of those guys you're probably looking at a deal built around Swihart, and not straight up, either. My guess is for Grey or Thor, because of the team control, age and lower cost that goes with elite performance, you're probably looking at Swihart, Margot and a pitcher (Miley plus salary or Owens). Just a guess though. Anyone of those guys will be a painful trade for the faithful.
|
|
|