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?
|
Post by artfuldodger on Oct 6, 2015 16:11:24 GMT -5
I believe that DD is more inclined to trade than sign a big name FA based on his history. I see him making a pitch with JBJ as the centerpiece.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 6, 2015 16:18:44 GMT -5
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. This is ignoring the bigger issue which is that the Mets will not be sellers this offseason.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,702
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 16:41:52 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. I think they trade one. Cespedes is going to be a big loss they need a little more talent in the field. Great pitching is awesome but they won't win the World Series with a lineup that can't hit. If I were them I would probably trade Syndergaard. More valuable than Wheeler and more risky than Harvey or DeGrom. Since we won't be dealing Bogaerts or Betts and Swihart isn't someone they'd have interest in, I'm not sure we'd be willing to top other offers they'd get, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 6, 2015 16:44:55 GMT -5
Honestly, if I were in charge, the one name I'd really be sniffing around is Tyson Ross.
I know the way 2015 went awry has got people really gunning for star pitching, but in terms of being a considerable improvement, but attainable short of trading away the top 5 or so young players we have, is there any more attractive option than him? He has qualities that should play well in Fenway.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 6, 2015 17:40:22 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. I think your point here is eminantly reasonable. However, I have 2 thoughts: 1). Because a stacked rotation doesn't win a world series doesn't mean it's not worth it. Short series carries more variability, what ends of being a performance fluctuation shouldn't deter teams from wanting as many top arms as possible. 2). We went into 2015 with pitching questions and DD is on the record as that being as saying it has to be improved. By the end of the season the whole team was playing well......ergo...the balance was better. I think that a top flight pitcher is the easiest way to upgrade the current roster and I think it will most definitely happen.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 6, 2015 19:02:56 GMT -5
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. Agree 100%. I've noted that most mistakes GM's make is attempting to correct all weaknesses in 1 offseason often forcing the issue and making matters worse. Owners often don't give them the luxury to build from within and slowly. The Sox did this very thing last year with both Hanley and Pablo. I proposed to sign a TOR picture this offseason and sign at least a top set-up reliever. I'd like to trade for another very good reliever this offseason as well. I'd make another trade for a TOR pitcher during next offseason. I'd like to trade only one of our top prospects and no more than two and only if it makes sense. I'd like to keep all the young talent that is allready on the 25 man roster. I'd keep Swihart and Vazquez for at least a year and possibly 5 more. I'd use free agency for 2 of the 4 moves mentioned. Only 1 trade would required trading prospects, and that would be centered on Margot and possibly Javier Guerra. Both of those are from positions that we can afford to do without jeopardizing today or tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 6, 2015 19:36:19 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. You have alot of different ideas going on here and it's hard to sort them out. Lester (twice finished fourth for Cy -Young) and Lackey (finished third for CY-Young in '07) both have pitched like aces at different times of their careers and have led staffs and in fact so did Peavy (1 Cy Young) and even Dempster (finished 6th for CY Young in '08. Clay for half a year was the best pitcher in baseball. That was a stacked rotation. Balance is the key and we had the fourth best offense right in the middle of all the AL play-off teams. We were a mere 16 runs below the second place NYFY and based on the ages of our positional players verse theirs I'd say there is a good chance without any offensive additions we easily could have the second best offense in the AL next year. A good rule of thumb for projections on positional players is to expect 1/3 to exceed, 1/3 to achieve expections and 1/3 to fall below expectations. With so many young players on the rise or veterans coming off bad years (see Panda and Ramerez), i'd be mildy surprised if at least 4 Sox players do not exceed their projections and no more than 2 fall below. We allowed 753 runs or next to last on runs allowed. So we have ALOT of improvement there to be a serious contender, 1 pitcher no matter how good is not going to bridge that required gap. Only Texas was close to us in runs allowed and sniffed the play-offs. I'd call them the exception to the rule. I agree with you about the healthy and hope they are pitching their best and that part of it is a bit of a crap shoot however the better the talent the more likely you are to have that happen
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,702
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 6, 2015 21:31:02 GMT -5
Definitely looking like a great time to trade for Harvey.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 6, 2015 21:54:06 GMT -5
A few points - I think the Sox need 2 top end pitchers. Only Buchholtz, who is not trustable and E Rod, who is a rookie, can be top of rotation guys. Maybe not 2 potential aces but 2 top end pitchers. - Why would the Mets trade pitching?? Only way is if they get MLB ready hitting. And they already have a catcher. We want Thor or de groom , they are going to ask for betts. Maybe get them to bite on Harvey but??? -price is going to better Scherzers deal. Especially if he has post season success and wins the CY. 8/250 not out of the question - the Nats are going to want to shake things up. This does make Strasbourg intriguing. - I don't want anything to do with Carasco. If we are knocking on Clevlands door why not ask for Kluber? ? - Grienke will opt out. The Dodgers will resign him or price. - a San Diego deal makes sense. Ross, Kimbril shields. 3 guys I would like to gets. They need a SS (marrero/ guerra) CF (Castillo/JBJ /Margot) C (Vazquez /Swihart). And maybe somehow get them to take Pablo. - CHRIS SALE. The white sox have a lot of holes and nowhere near winning. This is the guy to target but the cost will be tremendous. -Cespedes, Davis and Heyward are all looking at 100M$ plus deals, but lets not forget J Upton. He may be an interesting option if one of the OFs are moved. -it's sure going to be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 6, 2015 21:58:42 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. You have alot of different ideas going on here and it's hard to sort them out. Lester (twice finished fourth for Cy -Young) and Lackey (finished third for CY-Young in '07) both have pitched like aces at different times of their careers and have led staffs and in fact so did Peavy (1 Cy Young) and even Dempster (finished 6th for CY Young in '08. Clay for half a year was the best pitcher in baseball. That was a stacked rotation. Balance is the key and we had the fourth best offense right in the middle of all the AL play-off teams. We were a mere 16 runs below the second place NYFY and based on the ages of our positional players verse theirs I'd say there is a good chance without any offensive additions we easily could have the second best offense in the AL next year. A good rule of thumb for projections on positional players is to expect 1/3 to exceed, 1/3 to achieve expections and 1/3 to fall below expectations. With so many young players on the rise or veterans coming off bad years (see Panda and Ramerez), i'd be mildy surprised if at least 4 Sox players do not exceed their projections and no more than 2 fall below. We allowed 753 runs or next to last on runs allowed. So we have ALOT of improvement there to be a serious contender, 1 pitcher no matter how good is not going to bridge that required gap. Only Texas was close to us in runs allowed and sniffed the play-offs. I'd call them the exception to the rule. I agree with you about the healthy and hope they are pitching their best and that part of it is a bit of a crap shoot however the better the talent the more likely you are to have that happen While I agree with you re: the offense (barring a Papi-off-the-cliff performance), it's disingenuous to say that the 2013 rotation was stacked. Lester was barely above league average, and fronted the staff. Yes, Clay was awesome, but as usual he was hurt for half the year. Lackey was statistically their best pitcher, and he pitched like a borderline 2. Peavy was a shadow of his former self, as was Dempster. Just because a pitcher has had a good season 4-8 years previously doesn't suddenly make him a great pitcher in the moment. Just because CC Sabathia had a great career doesn't mean he's a great pitcher now, and I don't think anyone would call NY's rotation "stacked" these days. The 2013 Sox got solid, unspectacular performances from everyone but Clay, who was fantastic for 100 or so innings. They won because they had a terrific offense, very good defense, reasonable starting pitching depth, and Koji emerging from a surprisingly resilient bullpen. No starter on that team was ever an "ace," and Lackey's days as a 1a were behind him. Lester's never been more than a first-division 1a/2, with the exception of the 2013 postseason and most of 2014, when he was a legitimate #1. Then again, when I think "ace," I think of a guy who's a *perennial* Cy candidate, not a pitcher who occasionally (like Lester or Hamels) threatens to crack the top 3. That said, I think this team will have a markedly better defense next year with Ramirez out of left, and hopefully a Pablo rebound. And I think you're right that a #2 offense is a completely reasonable prediction. Eduardo Rodriguez pitched like a 2/3 this year, and I'm pretty confident that he can take the #2 slot next year. So a legitimate #1 makes them a contender pretty quickly, provided they shore up the 'pen (or some of the young guys like Barnes, Hembree, and Light step up).
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 6, 2015 23:46:14 GMT -5
Some random thoughts:
(1) While I think the Mets would consider trading one of their pitchers, they are not likely to trade a pitcher for prospects. They just won the division and should be in win-now mode. Unless the Red Sox are willing to trade Bogaerts or Betts, they will not end up with one of the Mets' pitchers.
(2) I am not sure I understand the desperation to trade Manuel Margot. I suspect Benintendi and Margot may well be an upgrade on Bradley Jr. and Castillo. In the long run, I would rather keep Margot, all things being equal.
(3) I think a lot of people of are underestimating the actual cost in prospects required to acquire a top starter via trade. GM's value present wins much more than future wins -- they can easily be fired before prospects contribute. Sonny Gray -- in my mind the least of the names bandied about on this site -- will cost the Red Sox something like Devers AND Margot and probably a pitcher besides.
(4) The Red Sox have a LOT of pitchers who could end up providing 2 WAR next year: Porcello, Miley, Rodriguez, Owens, Buchholz, Kelly, Wright, Johnson. Acquiring a 4 WAR player like Sonny Gray will cost a lot in prospects for an additional two wins.
(5) While I would love to see the Red Sox acquire a top of the rotation starter, I really don't understand the desperation. The Red Sox were a 30 WAR team this year, and they were even better than that the last two months. The Red Sox could field the exact same team with no changes (other than adding a couple bullpen pieces) and be a 40 WAR team. Since one out of every three teams will make the playoffs that would be good enough to win at least a wild card. But beyond that, this team will be better in 2018 than it will be next year, if for no other reason than this year's 22 and 23 year olds will be 24 and 25 (and Margot and Benintendi and Moncada will be knocking on the door). Bogaerts is under team control through 2019; Betts through 2020 (and at least one, if not both, of them WILL be extended). Bradley Jr. is also controlled through 2020 and Swihart, Rodriguez and Owens are under team control through 2021.
When my father discovered baseball, every team started the season with a 1 in 8 chance of making the playoffs and a 1 in 2 chance of winning the world series if they won the pennant.
When I discovered baseball teams had a 1 in 6 chance of making the post-season and 1 in 4 chance of winning the World Series if they did.
Today, each team starts the season with a 1 in 3 chance of playing in the post-season, but only a 1 in 8 or 1 in 16 chance of winning it all after making the playoffs. It no longer makes any sense to trade multiple prospects -- each having six plus years of control and thus the possibility of contributing to six playoff seasons -- for two or three or even four years of control of a veteran. Unless someone is willing to deal one of their pitchers for well less than market value, I would opt for free agency over trade.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 7, 2015 0:01:10 GMT -5
Some random thoughts: (1) While I think the Mets would consider trading one of their pitchers, they are not likely to trade a pitcher for prospects. They just won the division and should be in win-now mode. Unless the Red Sox are willing to trade Bogaerts or Betts, they will not end up with one of the Mets' pitchers. (2) I am not sure I understand the desperation to trade Manuel Margot. I suspect Benintendi and Margot may well be an upgrade on Bradley Jr. and Castillo. In the long run, I would rather keep Margot, all things being equal. (3) I think a lot of people of are underestimating the actual cost in prospects required to acquire a top starter via trade. GM's value present wins much more than future wins -- they can easily be fired before prospects contribute. Sonny Gray -- in my mind the least of the names bandied about on this site -- will cost the Red Sox something like Devers AND Margot and probably a pitcher besides. (4) The Red Sox have a LOT of pitchers who could end up providing 2 WAR next year: Porcello, Miley, Rodriguez, Owens, Buchholz, Kelly, Wright, Johnson. Acquiring a 4 WAR player like Sonny Gray will cost a lot in prospects for an additional two wins. (5) While I would love to see the Red Sox acquire a top of the rotation starter, I really don't understand the desperation. The Red Sox were a 30 WAR team this year, and they were even better than that the last two months. The Red Sox could field the exact same team with no changes (other than adding a couple bullpen pieces) and be a 40 WAR team. Since one out of every three teams will make the playoffs that would be good enough to win at least a wild card. But beyond that, this team will be better in 2018 than it will be next year, if for no other reason than this year's 22 and 23 year olds will be 24 and 25 (and Margot and Benintendi and Moncada will be knocking on the door). Bogaerts is under team control through 2019; Betts through 2020 (and at least one, if not both, of them WILL be extended). Bradley Jr. is also controlled through 2020 and Swihart, Rodriguez and Owens are under team control through 2021. When my father discovered baseball, every team started the season with a 1 in 8 chance of making the playoffs and a 1 in 2 chance of winning the world series if they won the pennant. When I discovered baseball teams had a 1 in 6 chance of making the post-season and 1 in 4 chance of winning the World Series if they did. Today, each team starts the season with a 1 in 3 chance of playing in the post-season, but only a 1 in 8 or 1 in 16 chance of winning it all after making the playoffs. It no longer makes any sense to trade multiple prospects -- each having six plus years of control and thus the possibility of contributing to six playoff seasons -- for two or three or even four years of control of a veteran. Unless someone is willing to deal one of their pitchers for well less than market value, I would opt for free agency over trade. Well said. We still need an ace though.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 7, 2015 0:13:21 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. Yeah, I do have a tendency to underrate what it would take to trade for guys. In my partial defense, though, the Hamels suggestion was before most of the quantity tanked while the Zimmerman trade might well have been a solid one in the long run for the Nats; time will tell. A couple of general points: 1) Whether you acquire one or two pitchers reduces to the question of whether you trade Clay Buchholz and replace him with someone not quite as good but more durable. That doesn't really change the main question. 2) No one has actually given any kind of argument against pursuing a trade, arguing instead that we probably don't have the trade chips to get an ace. That's not an argument about strategy. If your choice is trying to hit on the very attractive person of the appropriate gender at the other end of the bar versus paying for an elite escort, you don't begin with the latter as your strategy even if you suspect the other person is out of your league. You called Margot a good but not great prospect, but you have to do due diligence and find out if one of the relevant teams does think he's great. 3) If in fact we can't get a #1, here's a list of guys coming off #2 seasons who play for non-contenders and who may still have upside left: The frequently aforementioned Jose Quintana, CHA, 27 Jake Odorizzi, TB, 26 Raisel Iglesias, Cin, 26 Patrick Corbin, Ari, 26 Chad Bettis, Col, 27 I skipped over Tyson Ross (who would have otherwise been second) because he'll be 29 and he's probably not getting any better, and because I have looked into him more deeply and didn't like what I saw at all. I think he's particularly well suited both to pitching in his big park and to pitching to weaker lineups. He'd be much less effective for us than for the Padres, and a lot less potent in the post-season than in the regular season to boot.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 7, 2015 0:17:15 GMT -5
While I agree with you re: the offense (barring a Papi-off-the-cliff performance), it's disingenuous to say that the 2013 rotation was stacked. Lester was barely above league average, and fronted the staff. Yes, Clay was awesome, but as usual he was hurt for half the year. Lackey was statistically their best pitcher, and he pitched like a borderline 2. Peavy was a shadow of his former self, as was Dempster. Just because a pitcher has had a good season 4-8 years previously doesn't suddenly make him a great pitcher in the moment. Just because CC Sabathia had a great career doesn't mean he's a great pitcher now, and I don't think anyone would call NY's rotation "stacked" these days. The 2013 Sox got solid, unspectacular performances from everyone but Clay, who was fantastic for 100 or so innings. They won because they had a terrific offense, very good defense, reasonable starting pitching depth, and Koji emerging from a surprisingly resilient bullpen. No starter on that team was ever an "ace," and Lackey's days as a 1a were behind him. Lester's never been more than a first-division 1a/2, with the exception of the 2013 postseason and most of 2014, when he was a legitimate #1. Then again, when I think "ace," I think of a guy who's a *perennial* Cy candidate, not a pitcher who occasionally (like Lester or Hamels) threatens to crack the top 3. That said, I think this team will have a markedly better defense next year with Ramirez out of left, and hopefully a Pablo rebound. And I think you're right that a #2 offense is a completely reasonable prediction. Eduardo Rodriguez pitched like a 2/3 this year, and I'm pretty confident that he can take the #2 slot next year. So a legitimate #1 makes them a contender pretty quickly, provided they shore up the 'pen (or some of the young guys like Barnes, Hembree, and Light step up). If you finish in the running for a Cy-Young for the season you were an ace for that season. The Sox had about 6 pitchers that led there staff at one time or another making you at least a #1. Everyone has different definitions of what an ace is. I had many arguments with my brother regarding Lester being an ace. He was consistently good and compared favorably over a 5 years period to pitchers who were considered aces. The problem was he was our guy so we saw all the worts but when you looked at other so called aces they'd usually have one subpar season in the mix while Lester was just very good year after year. It's a debate without an answer as it becomes a preference thing. Regarding the 2013 Sox starting pitching and ERA+, they had Clay with a mind blowing 237 Lackey @ 117, Lester @ 110 and Peavy @ 102. They had 4 guys make 27 starts or more which bode well for the regular season. Several pitchers did step up in the playoffs and they had pedigrees to suggest they could such as Lester (Career playoff -2.57 ERA) and Lackey (Career playoff -3.08 ERA) both of those guys had won world series in their past.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 7, 2015 0:32:29 GMT -5
Some random thoughts: (4) The Red Sox have a LOT of pitchers who could end up providing 2 WAR next year: Porcello, Miley, Rodriguez, Owens, Buchholz, Kelly, Wright, Johnson. Acquiring a 4 WAR player like Sonny Gray will cost a lot in prospects for an additional two wins. (5) While I would love to see the Red Sox acquire a top of the rotation starter, I really don't understand the desperation. The Red Sox were a 30 WAR team this year, and they were even better than that the last two months. The Red Sox could field the exact same team with no changes (other than adding a couple bullpen pieces) and be a 40 WAR team. Since one out of every three teams will make the playoffs that would be good enough to win at least a wild card. But beyond that, this team will be better in 2018 than it will be next year, if for no other reason than this year's 22 and 23 year olds will be 24 and 25 (and Margot and Benintendi and Moncada will be knocking on the door). Bogaerts is under team control through 2019; Betts through 2020 (and at least one, if not both, of them WILL be extended). Bradley Jr. is also controlled through 2020 and Swihart, Rodriguez and Owens are under team control through 2021. This is, I think a really good argument for trading the players you think are expendable for the best possible pitcher, and if that's a #2, so be it. After all, Buchholz ranked 14th in my quick-and-dirty metric, Porcello's SIERA after he came off the DL would have tied for 10th, and Hill's SIERA in his four starts blows away every pitcher in MLB, and would probably rank consistently very high if you took one set of four consecutive starts at random from the best pitchers in MLB. (Hey, that's such an interesting idea that I'll do that in the next post!) It makes perfect sense if you have so much talent that you believe those guys will never play regularly for you. Ideally, we'll be dealing Swihart of Vazquez in a year. Ideally, Betts, Bradley, Benintendi, and Margot are one too many OFers than we can use and will all be here by the end of 2017, which is the argument that Margot is expendable now. Ideally, Guerra will never supplant Bogaerts, ditto. You have to decide whether these beliefs are warranted and, if so, when's the right time to trade the blocked player. (The Guerra belief is almost certainly warranted, and his stock seems high now. Elite defensive ml SS do have a pattern of turning into ordinary plus defenders (e.g., Julio Valdez, who had jaws dropping in ST as a 21 or 22 y/o).
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Oct 7, 2015 7:41:58 GMT -5
At one time or another, 6 2016 SP FA were estimated to get $100+ contracts (Cueto, Greinke, Kazmir, Price, Samardzija, Zimmermann). There's little chance all 6 will end up with such contracts in the same offseason. There will be several that end up without a chair when the music stops.
So I would suggest picking one among Chen/Fister/Kazmir/Leake/Samardzija/Zimmermann (whichever one represents the best value/$), they'd probably be the Red Sox #1 going into 2016 (although not an ace).
Then do something unconventional, and try to move Sandoval+ (Kelly?, Margot?) to Detroit for Verlander, evil contract for evil contract. Verlander has $134 guaranteed left, Sandoval $70; obviously, that's a bitter pill to swallow, but if you think of it as 5 years of Verlander for $64, it's a little easier.
Verlander is a shadow of his Cy Young self, but you might squeeze 10-12 WAR out of the rest of that contract; would the Tigers be willing to swallow Sandoval (insert joke)? The hope is that they'd be willing to do it to get out of Verlander's contract and their patience is being tried with Castellanos
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 7, 2015 7:47:33 GMT -5
I think just as important as who the Red Sox add to the rotation is who they subtract to make room for those additions. Right now, the Sox have 5 starters under contract for 2016:
Porcello Buchholz Miley Kelly Rodriguez
I suppose one could demote Kelly to the pen, or demote Rodriguez to the minors, but neither move seems prudent. And keeping them all around "because you can never have enough pitching" is problematic when the Red Sox only have $20 million or so space under the luxury tax. The good news is that two of those guys, Buchholz and Miley, are both very, very tradable, Buchholz because of his upside and Miley because of his durability.
Any ideas on what kind of trade value Buchholz and/or Miley might have, and where they could be headed?
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 7, 2015 8:11:24 GMT -5
Verlander is a shadow of his Cy Young self, but you might squeeze 10-12 WAR out of the rest of that contract; would the Tigers be willing to swallow Sandoval (insert joke)? The hope is that they'd be willing to do it to get out of Verlander's contract and their patience is being tried with Castellanos Verlander had a nice bounce-back season for the Tigers, posting a 3.38 ERA and 113 Ks in 133 innings in 2015, And Castellanos is still only 23. That seems like a team still built to win now, and Verlander is probably part of the solution, not part of the problem in Detroit. He is overpaid but the Tigers would spend a lot of money trying to replace him. Think about it this way: would you rather spend roughly $125 million over the next four seasons on Verlander and Castellanos or roughly $175 million over the next four seasons on Pablo Sandoval and a free agent ace?
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 7, 2015 8:45:11 GMT -5
I don't understand why so many feel that Buchholz is so tradeable. He has a history of injuries, not the least of which was his latest which caused the team to shut him down. Sure, he could report healthy to ST and rebound his career. But, any value he would establish would have to be later, not now. If I'm a GM, I want to see him firing away in Spring Training before I make offers.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Oct 7, 2015 8:54:08 GMT -5
I think just as important as who the Red Sox add to the rotation is who they subtract to make room for those additions. Right now, the Sox have 5 starters under contract for 2016: Porcello Buchholz Miley Kelly Rodriguez I suppose one could demote Kelly to the pen, or demote Rodriguez to the minors, but neither move seems prudent. And keeping them all around "because you can never have enough pitching" is problematic when the Red Sox only have $20 million or so space under the luxury tax. The good news is that two of those guys, Buchholz and Miley, are both very, very tradable, Buchholz because of his upside and Miley because of his durability. Any ideas on what kind of trade value Buchholz and/or Miley might have, and where they could be headed? So no one would demote ERod to AAA. Kelly to the pen would be prudent IMO. Would love for the Sox to trade him but would probably be selling low on him? I don't know maybe this is just as good as he will ever be? Maybe he gets better in the back end of the pen? Doubt it but would be more interested to see them try that then have him start in the rotation again. Would have to think either Miley or Buch will be traded. Probably Miley. Owens will be in the rotation to.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,702
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 7, 2015 8:55:43 GMT -5
Castellanos has a beautiful batted ball profile, and his hard and soft% are impressive. Once he fills out he will definitely improve offensively. But the K and BB rates will ultimately determine his fate because they're very poor at this point. He's also a poor defender. I don't think he's someone to invest in given our 3B prospects who project to be better than him. Sandoval likely will outperform him with a rebound on either side of the ball.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 7, 2015 9:18:11 GMT -5
I think if/when the Sox obtain a #1 via trade or FA they need to obtain an alpha type guy.....Obviously Price is that type, not Kazmir...or Smardjia is that type as well along with Harvey.....Don't think a Tyson Ross is...I think they need a leader as well as a good pitcher....when they look at their choices, they need to keep that in mind....
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2015 9:27:15 GMT -5
I think just as important as who the Red Sox add to the rotation is who they subtract to make room for those additions. Right now, the Sox have 5 starters under contract for 2016: Porcello Buchholz Miley Kelly Rodriguez I suppose one could demote Kelly to the pen, or demote Rodriguez to the minors, but neither move seems prudent. And keeping them all around "because you can never have enough pitching" is problematic when the Red Sox only have $20 million or so space under the luxury tax. The good news is that two of those guys, Buchholz and Miley, are both very, very tradable, Buchholz because of his upside and Miley because of his durability. Any ideas on what kind of trade value Buchholz and/or Miley might have, and where they could be headed? Joe Kelly should have options left and has not racked up the five years of service time it takes to refuse being optioned. Between that and the possibility that he gets converted to the bullpen, I don't think he's much of a roadblock to opening a rotation spot for a top-of-the-rotation guy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2015 9:48:00 GMT -5
I don't understand why so many feel that Buchholz is so tradeable. He has a history of injuries, not the least of which was his latest which caused the team to shut him down. Sure, he could report healthy to ST and rebound his career. But, any value he would establish would have to be later, not now. If I'm a GM, I want to see him firing away in Spring Training before I make offers. Buchholz on a one-year, $13m deal (with a $13.5m option for 2017) would be snapped up pretty quickly. Remember, last offseason, Brett Anderson got $10m (with $4m in innings-pitched incentives) despite not throwing more than 100 innings since 2010 and coming off back surgery. Justin Masterson got $9.5m guaranteed, plus $2.5m in incentives despite coming off shoulder, knee and back issues and seeing a 3 mph drop in his fastball velo. Other injury risks like Brandon McCarthy (4/$48m) and Francisco Liriano (3/$39m) got substantial guarantees as well. The risk on a one-year deal for a SP is so low that the teams with cash to spend and a little risk tolerance (I'm thinking of the Dodgers and Cubs specifically here, and you can add teams like the Mariners, Angels, Texans, Cardinals, etc.) would be more than willing to take on that contract. Remember, when healthy, Buchholz has been one of the best starting pitchers in the league. I'm not particularly inclined to move him, because he's the sort of risk I think a team like the Red Sox can and should be willing to take (assuming they don't plan on staying under the luxury tax threshold, which I think will be the case).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 7, 2015 10:02:30 GMT -5
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. Yeah, I do have a tendency to underrate what it would take to trade for guys. In my partial defense, though, the Hamels suggestion was before most of the quantity tanked while the Zimmerman trade might well have been a solid one in the long run for the Nats; time will tell. A couple of general points: 1) Whether you acquire one or two pitchers reduces to the question of whether you trade Clay Buchholz and replace him with someone not quite as good but more durable. That doesn't really change the main question. 2) No one has actually given any kind of argument against pursuing a trade, arguing instead that we probably don't have the trade chips to get an ace. That's not an argument about strategy. If your choice is trying to hit on the very attractive person of the appropriate gender at the other end of the bar versus paying for an elite escort, you don't begin with the latter as your strategy even if you suspect the other person is out of your league. You called Margot a good but not great prospect, but you have to do due diligence and find out if one of the relevant teams does think he's great. 3) If in fact we can't get a #1, here's a list of guys coming off #2 seasons who play for non-contenders and who may still have upside left: The frequently aforementioned Jose Quintana, CHA, 27 Jake Odorizzi, TB, 26 Raisel Iglesias, Cin, 26 Patrick Corbin, Ari, 26 Chad Bettis, Col, 27 I skipped over Tyson Ross (who would have otherwise been second) because he'll be 29 and he's probably not getting any better, and because I have looked into him more deeply and didn't like what I saw at all. I think he's particularly well suited both to pitching in his big park and to pitching to weaker lineups. He'd be much less effective for us than for the Padres, and a lot less potent in the post-season than in the regular season to boot. Completely agree.
|
|
|