SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by shane on Oct 18, 2015 12:02:36 GMT -5
I am not sure if the Indians are being reasonable in their request but one Indians writer suggests that the price for Salazar be one established big leaguer and one quality prospects: www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2015/10/hey_hoynsie_17.html. This also suggests that the Indians would shoot for the moon for Carrasco. "One established big leaguer and one quality prospect" could be anything from Mookie and Moncada to Castillo and Guerra. That's a pretty big range. Carrasco would take a big package, but I would think he would be worth at least considering, since he has a legitimate chance of becoming Kershaw/Sale, and obviously wouldn't cost as much as either of them.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 18, 2015 21:56:46 GMT -5
I am not sure if the Indians are being reasonable in their request but one Indians writer suggests that the price for Salazar be one established big leaguer and one quality prospects: www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2015/10/hey_hoynsie_17.html. This also suggests that the Indians would shoot for the moon for Carrasco. "One established big leaguer and one quality prospect" could be anything from Mookie and Moncada to Castillo and Guerra. That's a pretty big range. Carrasco would take a big package, but I would think he would be worth at least considering, since he has a legitimate chance of becoming Kershaw/Sale, and obviously wouldn't cost as much as either of them. CC can't become Kershaw/Sale because he's already older than both. He's also only got about 300 IP at his current (outstanding) level. At 29, he's likely to decline in 3-4 years. Certainly, he's still a great bargain contract-wise, but the prospect cost would probably be prohibitive. I'd rather get Salazar...he's about 4 years younger (at the same age, Carrasco was getting shelled and set to the minors) and just entering his prime, with excellent peripherals and a likely substantially lower cost trade-wise. Plus, he's an extension candidate for a contract to wrap him up at reasonable cost over 6 years...basically his entire prime.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 18, 2015 22:35:59 GMT -5
"One established big leaguer and one quality prospect" could be anything from Mookie and Moncada to Castillo and Guerra. That's a pretty big range. Carrasco would take a big package, but I would think he would be worth at least considering, since he has a legitimate chance of becoming Kershaw/Sale, and obviously wouldn't cost as much as either of them. CC can't become Kershaw/Sale because he's already older than both. He's also only got about 300 IP at his current (outstanding) level. At 29, he's likely to decline in 3-4 years. Certainly, he's still a great bargain contract-wise, but the prospect cost would probably be prohibitive. I'd rather get Salazar...he's about 4 years younger (at the same age, Carrasco was getting shelled and set to the minors) and just entering his prime, with excellent peripherals and a likely substantially lower cost trade-wise. Plus, he's an extension candidate for a contract to wrap him up at reasonable cost over 6 years...basically his entire prime. You could say that CC already has become Kershaw/Sale - they're the only three pitchers in the game to post two consecutive years of a SIERA below 2.75. Even if he does decline with age, he might still be alright. He'd have to decline pretty far to not be worth a couple team options at 9 and 9.5 million. To extend Salazar likely would be more than Carrasco's current contract anyway. Salazar is good, but to me, he's not elite. However, we don't know what Cleveland is asking for either of these guys. If they ask for Moncada and Devers for Carrasco, and Margot and Guerra for Salazar, obviously it should be Salazar. I'm just saying that if it's even remotely close, I would push as hard as possible for Carrasco.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Oct 19, 2015 6:59:51 GMT -5
"One established big leaguer and one quality prospect" could be anything from Mookie and Moncada to Castillo and Guerra. That's a pretty big range. So, Craig and Ball it is?
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 19, 2015 8:31:06 GMT -5
"One established big leaguer and one quality prospect" could be anything from Mookie and Moncada to Castillo and Guerra. That's a pretty big range. So, Craig and Ball it is?
How about Rutledge and Marrero?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 19, 2015 8:53:31 GMT -5
So, Craig and Ball it is?
How about Rutledge and Marrero? Craig, Hanley, Pablo and Henry Ramos?
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 19, 2015 9:56:44 GMT -5
How about Rutledge and Marrero? Craig, Hanley, Pablo and Henry Ramos? Maybe they'll even pay for Porcello
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 19, 2015 10:16:15 GMT -5
Nice guys! A fellow tries to be serious and what happens? Jokes.....that's what! LOL
Can you all imagine what Hanley and Panda think when they "read" your barbs? You are going to hurt their feelings badly.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 19, 2015 12:58:35 GMT -5
I can't seem to feel sorry for anyone making $20 MILLION dollars a year to play baseball.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 20, 2015 21:52:43 GMT -5
CC can't become Kershaw/Sale because he's already older than both. He's also only got about 300 IP at his current (outstanding) level. At 29, he's likely to decline in 3-4 years. Certainly, he's still a great bargain contract-wise, but the prospect cost would probably be prohibitive. I'd rather get Salazar...he's about 4 years younger (at the same age, Carrasco was getting shelled and set to the minors) and just entering his prime, with excellent peripherals and a likely substantially lower cost trade-wise. Plus, he's an extension candidate for a contract to wrap him up at reasonable cost over 6 years...basically his entire prime. You could say that CC already has become Kershaw/Sale - they're the only three pitchers in the game to post two consecutive years of a SIERA below 2.75. Even if he does decline with age, he might still be alright. He'd have to decline pretty far to not be worth a couple team options at 9 and 9.5 million. To extend Salazar likely would be more than Carrasco's current contract anyway. Salazar is good, but to me, he's not elite. However, we don't know what Cleveland is asking for either of these guys. If they ask for Moncada and Devers for Carrasco, and Margot and Guerra for Salazar, obviously it should be Salazar. I'm just saying that if it's even remotely close, I would push as hard as possible for Carrasco. We're actually probably fairly close on this, but I still contend that 1) Carrasco isn't close to Kershaw/Sale because his track record of pitching at an elite level is very short, and has occurred at his absolute (historically predicted) peak of 27-29. Both Sale and Kershaw have at least twice as many innings pitched at that elite level, and both have done so at substantially younger ages. CC still has great velocity, but his days of "elite" production are likely fairly limited (2-3 years) and he's not necessarily even a "good" bet to continue to do so; and 2) a Salazar extension would buy out some arb years, but if he were given a 6-year contract, the AAV relative to market rate would likely be similar to Carrasco's. Yes, it would almost certainly be higher in years 5-6 than Carrasco's years 5-6 (which would be 3-4 with the Sox), but those years would be more likely to be peak years than Carrasco's, because Salazar is four years younger. So, yeah, obviously ask about Carrasco, but my guess is Salazar would be a better target based on prospect cost, youth, and likely years of control. Frankly, I'd be happy with either if the price was right.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 20, 2015 23:20:45 GMT -5
You could say that CC already has become Kershaw/Sale - they're the only three pitchers in the game to post two consecutive years of a SIERA below 2.75. Even if he does decline with age, he might still be alright. He'd have to decline pretty far to not be worth a couple team options at 9 and 9.5 million. To extend Salazar likely would be more than Carrasco's current contract anyway. Salazar is good, but to me, he's not elite. However, we don't know what Cleveland is asking for either of these guys. If they ask for Moncada and Devers for Carrasco, and Margot and Guerra for Salazar, obviously it should be Salazar. I'm just saying that if it's even remotely close, I would push as hard as possible for Carrasco. We're actually probably fairly close on this, but I still contend that 1) Carrasco isn't close to Kershaw/Sale because his track record of pitching at an elite level is very short, and has occurred at his absolute (historically predicted) peak of 27-29. Both Sale and Kershaw have at least twice as many innings pitched at that elite level, and both have done so at substantially younger ages. CC still has great velocity, but his days of "elite" production are likely fairly limited (2-3 years) and he's not necessarily even a "good" bet to continue to do so; and 2) a Salazar extension would buy out some arb years, but if he were given a 6-year contract, the AAV relative to market rate would likely be similar to Carrasco's. Yes, it would almost certainly be higher in years 5-6 than Carrasco's years 5-6 (which would be 3-4 with the Sox), but those years would be more likely to be peak years than Carrasco's, because Salazar is four years younger. So, yeah, obviously ask about Carrasco, but my guess is Salazar would be a better target based on prospect cost, youth, and likely years of control. Frankly, I'd be happy with either if the price was right. That's a good point you make about innings. On the other hand though, fewer innings also means that he's potentially a lower injury risk. He's also not THAT old, he's only 28, so I don't think we should expect a massive decline. I think you could also argue that his peripherals are the best indicator of future performance, which would seem to show that if he pitches the same as he did this year (when he got really unlucky) he should be a Cy Young candidate. His peripherals show him to be at least one step above Salazar this year. Is it possible that Salazar takes that step next year? Of course, but it's not a given. Then again, it's not a given that Carrasco repeats this year's performance. Both would obviously be great additions to the rotation, and fortunately for us, it seems likely that Cleveland will at least think about shopping one or both of them.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 24, 2015 13:56:28 GMT -5
D Dom has never been afraid to trade major league talent and I wonder if a deal around JBJ could work. We have depth at CF and the Indians could use one. I think we could get a corner guy on the market.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,928
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 6, 2015 1:51:34 GMT -5
Salazar and Carrasco are certainly high on the list of targets.
The Indians seem to have no SP prospects in the high minors at all, so any such trade will very likely have Miley going in the other direction. But that still leaves a big value gap. With Lindor, they don't need Guerra at all, and it's hard to see anyone ranked lower than him getting it done; Kopech's bust rate as a starter is too high to make up the difference between 5 years of Salazar and 3 years of Miley, and after that, guys have too little upside. Moving in the opposite direction on our prospect list, they would have little interest in Margot or Benintendi; they have Tyler Naquin with an ETA in CF of 2017 sometime, and Bradley Zimmer and Clint Frazier behind him.
Miley and Devers would be a bold move. But in a perfect world you can get a guy as good as Salazar without dealing Devers.
However, the Indians do need a DH or 1B, and by 2017 they'll need 'em both. (They may also need a RF, if they move Chisenhall back to 3B after concluding that Giovanny Urshella is never going to hit, but we really don't have anyone to offer. And I'm guessing they'll keep Abraham Almonte as a stopgap CF until Naquin arrives, so Castillo's not a possibility.)
I'm pretty sure that, given their huge hole at the right end of the defensive spectrum, they'd rather have Hanley at Salazar's salary than Salazar himself, so there's a scenario where we also dump a heavily subsidized Hanley on them (of course, we'd probably add a prospect in exchange for paying less of the remaining bill). But that only makes sense if we have a brilliant cheap option for 1B (and, no, Travis Shaw is not it). If you have to eat $12M or $15M of Hanley's contract and sign Park for a similar amount, it makes less sense than simply signing Price.
I do think they will explore Miley and prospects, with and without Hanley, for Salazar or Carrasco. It's tough to see how it can make sense as the best option, though.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:29:49 GMT -5
Hanley + Miley + money for Salazar?
WHAT?!
They could literally get Hanley + Miley from us if they offered to pick up half of Hanley's contract lol. You think they're just going to throw in a cost controlled stud?
You are in outer space with these trade proposals, man.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,928
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 8, 2015 21:52:32 GMT -5
Hanley + Miley + money for Salazar? WHAT?! They could literally get Hanley + Miley from us if they offered to pick up half of Hanley's contract lol. You think they're just going to throw in a cost controlled stud? You are in outer space with these trade proposals, man. Hanley's owed $22M a year. Alex Rodriguez was worth $21.4M as a full-time DH last year, playing 151 G. He had a 129 wRC+. Hanley's career wRC+ is 129.
Steamer projects him for a 120 wRC+ next year, but Steamer doesn't think he'll be a full-time DH and likely to avoid nagging injuries. If Hanley plays 140 games with a 129 RC+, he's worth $20M. If you put more faith in Steamer, you can degrade that to maybe $18M.
So, we would send $18 to $20M worth of Hanley plus $20M worth of Miley (average annual fWAR at today's market rate) to Cleveland, and we would receive back in cash $11M for Hanley, plus we would free up $6M that we were going to pay Miley. Oh, sure, we'd "literally" do that.
But thanks for challenging me and making me run the actual numbers. Hanley and Miley combined make $28M (then $30.75M, then $34M) and project to be worth $35M to $40M a year. You could pay none of Hanley's salary and get back about 2.7 WAR of projected surplus value. Every $2.7M of AAV you eat buys you another WAR.
You're correct in that it's not enough to get Salazar; it might make sense if Miley were making rather less and, crucially, if Salazar had only three years of control left instead of four. That fourth year of control at pre-arb costs has 3.0 WAR of surplus value all by itself. Even if eating $15M of Hanley's salary, you'd have to add significant prospect talent.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 22:38:46 GMT -5
Hanley + Miley + money for Salazar? WHAT?! They could literally get Hanley + Miley from us if they offered to pick up half of Hanley's contract lol. You think they're just going to throw in a cost controlled stud? You are in outer space with these trade proposals, man. Hanley's owed $22M a year. Alex Rodriguez was worth $21.4M as a full-time DH last year, playing 151 G. He had a 129 wRC+. Hanley's career wRC+ is 129.
Steamer projects him for a 120 wRC+ next year, but Steamer doesn't think he'll be a full-time DH and likely to avoid nagging injuries. If Hanley plays 140 games with a 129 RC+, he's worth $20M. If you put more faith in Steamer, you can degrade that to maybe $18M.
So, we would send $18 to $20M worth of Hanley plus $20M worth of Miley (average annual fWAR at today's market rate) to Cleveland, and we would receive back in cash $11M for Hanley, plus we would free up $6M that we were going to pay Miley. Oh, sure, we'd "literally" do that.
But thanks for challenging me and making me run the actual numbers. Hanley and Miley combined make $28M (then $30.75M, then $34M) and project to be worth $35M to $40M a year. You could pay none of Hanley's salary and get back about 2.7 WAR of projected surplus value. Every $2.7M of AAV you eat buys you another WAR.
You're correct in that it's not enough to get Salazar; it might make sense if Miley were making rather less and, crucially, if Salazar had only three years of control left instead of four. That fourth year of control at pre-arb costs has 3.0 WAR of surplus value all by itself. Even if eating $15M of Hanley's salary, you'd have to add significant prospect talent.
I like the analytical thought process, and all that stuff is great, it just applies better if you're looking at signing a free agent. I think it just boils down to the there being no rational sense in why the Indians would trade an extremely good player who is getting paid nothing, for a worse pitcher being paid more, and an oft-injured, position-less guy with an albatross contract. Honestly if the Sox even mentioned Hanley in that conversation they'd probably hang up or say "Sure if you throw in Betts, Owens, and Erod" haha. The amount of payroll the sox have to include to a team with tight pursestrings like the Indians just makes it entirely prohibitive. They'd rather just keep Hanley and trade for Salazar separately. People just need to take a reality check for a moment, and realize that if a trade a.) gets rid of someone we really really want to get rid of because signing him was a really bad decision... and b.) get back someone in return who extremely valuable performance, cost, and control wise... it's probably not going to happen. And that's not even mentioning that the odds Miley and Hanley are the best offer for Salazar... are next to nothing haha. Like everyone else's phones would have to be off the hook and their internet shut down. There's just no real world scenario where that deal makes even a hint of sense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2015 9:53:03 GMT -5
Reportedly the Blue Jays and Indians almost agreed to a Norris, Hoffman and Pompey for Carrasco trade, so that should be some indication of what it would take. The Indians reportedly were the team to turn it down. I'm not sure if it's because they'd rather have bats or because it wasn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Nov 9, 2015 10:17:03 GMT -5
The Indians need help at third base and want a right-handed power bat to play in the outfield. I'm not sure Boston has the players that the Indians want, but if the Sox could get a third (or even fourth team) involved who really wants to stock their farm systems, I could see the Sox being players for Salazar or Carrasco.
Please, please, please don't bring up names like Wade Miley, Rusney Castillo, or Hanley Ramirez in this discussion. It's just not fair. I think we all need to play by the rules and assume that Cleveland is a team with a fan base and wants to win. There is no way in this market that they are going to trade elite, cost-controlled pitching for players that Red Sox fans are happy to see go.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 9, 2015 14:58:41 GMT -5
The Indians need help at third base and want a right-handed power bat to play in the outfield. I'm not sure Boston has the players that the Indians want, but if the Sox could get a third (or even fourth team) involved who really wants to stock their farm systems, I could see the Sox being players for Salazar or Carrasco. Please, please, please don't bring up names like Wade Miley, Rusney Castillo, or Hanley Ramirez in this discussion. It's just not fair. I think we all need to play by the rules and assume that Cleveland is a team with a fan base and wants to win. There is no way in this market that they are going to trade elite, cost-controlled pitching for players that Red Sox fans are happy to see go. From one who has brought up 2 of those names, I think your short sighted. (see the Trade Forum)
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 20:55:18 GMT -5
The Indians need help at third base and want a right-handed power bat to play in the outfield. I'm not sure Boston has the players that the Indians want, but if the Sox could get a third (or even fourth team) involved who really wants to stock their farm systems, I could see the Sox being players for Salazar or Carrasco. Please, please, please don't bring up names like Wade Miley, Rusney Castillo, or Hanley Ramirez in this discussion. It's just not fair. I think we all need to play by the rules and assume that Cleveland is a team with a fan base and wants to win. There is no way in this market that they are going to trade elite, cost-controlled pitching for players that Red Sox fans are happy to see go. From one who has brought up 2 of those names, I think your short sighted. (see the Trade Forum) explain your reasoning please
|
|
|