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 sox fan in nc on Nov 20, 2015 12:07:27 GMT -5
Price will also fall a lot over the next 4 years. Now that we know Ortiz is retiring after this season, I'm not sure I want to cut bait on Hanley. I don't think there's a good DH situation in 17 if we do. Encarnacion will be a free agent, and I love him, but he'll be 34 too by 2017. Agree on Price.....that's a big roll of the dice for him to be even good in years 5, 6, 7 or maybe 8 @ 30 Mil per year. Seems like Hanley was made to be a DH as was Ortiz, will be fine in '17 & '18, just have get thru this year. I'm not sold on Encarnacion & don't think he'll age well. Seems injury prone.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2015 15:36:02 GMT -5
I am not worried about Price for the next 4 years. I think he will be a very good pitcher over that time. It's years 5,6,7 and maybe 8 as you said that scare me a ton. Sure Price might start to decline a little bit, but Salazar needs to take a major jump up to even get close to Price's level. I think Salazar is a very good young pitcher with a high upside, but he is no where near being a top5, top10 type pitcher.
I would bet a ton of money that Price is better then Salazar over the next 4 years and I don't think its even going to be that close.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Nov 22, 2015 12:00:57 GMT -5
Four years is a long time. We would've said the same thing about Verlander.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 22, 2015 16:09:10 GMT -5
Nomar yes it is, but I would bet Price declining slightly is more likely then Salazar making a massive jump. Verlander is an outlier to me. Most pitchers that were as elite as he was don't just drop off a cliff like he did at age 31. Also Verlanders numbers last year in 20 starts were actually very good and compare to Salazar. 2014 could turn out to just be a fluke.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 27, 2015 23:17:58 GMT -5
Now that dombrowski appears to be opening the bank vault for price, we need to be working a deal with Cleveland for one of their two starters.
I am thinking moncada, Owens, rameriez, Devers and some cash considerations equal to the amount owed rameriez for carrasco.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 28, 2015 10:42:09 GMT -5
If they sign Price, they aren't trading for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 28, 2015 11:01:45 GMT -5
If they sign Price, they aren't trading for anyone. Why not? Price carrasco Rodriguez Porcello Miley With injured ducks Kelly and Buchholz as fill ins is a very nice rotation.
|
|
|
Post by bcpatsox18 on Nov 28, 2015 12:48:14 GMT -5
Now that dombrowski appears to be opening the bank vault for price, we need to be working a deal with Cleveland for one of their two starters. I am thinking moncada, Owens, rameriez, Devers and some cash considerations equal to the amount owed rameriez for carrasco. I sincerely hope you're kidding. Moncada wouldn't be traded straight up for carrasco, I have my doubts about if they'd trade devers straight up for him, and you want to not only package them together but ADD Owens too? If you're trying to trade for Chris sale go for it, but no way I'd give that much for carrasco
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 28, 2015 12:55:31 GMT -5
If they sign Price, they aren't trading for anyone. Why not? Price carrasco Rodriguez Porcello Miley With injured ducks Kelly and Buchholz as fill ins is a very nice rotation. Because they aren't gutting the farm so they have two aces. I guess anything can happen. I've seen you trying to trade Moncada for everyone and think you're going to be disappointed. They don't need two aces.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Nov 28, 2015 13:34:38 GMT -5
Now that dombrowski appears to be opening the bank vault for price, we need to be working a deal with Cleveland for one of their two starters. I am thinking moncada, Owens, rameriez, Devers and some cash considerations equal to the amount owed rameriez for carrasco. Hell no
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Dec 4, 2015 20:39:00 GMT -5
I think you guys are severely underestimating the value of both Salazar and Carrasco. Pitchers like those two don't grow on trees....I would go as far to say that both of those pitchers are top 6-8 starters in all of baseball in terms of trade value. Both being under control for a handful more years is huge along with both being budding aces. Pitching is more valuable today than ever. Cleveland has absolutely no reason to trade either of these pitchers if they are not getting at least 2 impact players in return. You guys are not going to like this at all, but to get Salazar/Carrasco it has to really HURT. I'm talking: Henry Owens, Rafael Devers, and Nick Longhi for Carrasco/Salazar and Bryan Shaw. As painful as that trade would be, you would get one of Salazar or Carrasco who is an upgrade over Owens and you give up a future impact payer in Devers, but he is still a few years away at least. If we were to get one of those #1s from Cleveland then we would probably end up winning a World Series before Devers even gets his cup of coffee. Now, you probably could sub in JBJ for Devers and add in Michael Chavis and it gets done as well. But as I've seen mentioned before, JBJ + spare parts doesn't get you either Carrasco or Salazar. Honestly I wish that DD pushed harder in the Kimbrel trade to get Tyson Ross included in that deal....but the more I look at it the more I like both Salazar/Carrasco for being under team control for longer. I say if DD can swing a deal for either of them without giving up: Betts/Bogaerts/ERod/Benintendi/Moncada/Espinoza/Vazquez then he should 100% go for it. ....ok, flame on.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 4, 2015 21:27:39 GMT -5
They're also overestimating the value of Buchholz. Now would be a bad time to trade him. He is affordable to wealthy teams but a lot of the teams we'd want to trade with can't really afford him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 4, 2015 23:05:13 GMT -5
I think you guys are severely underestimating the value of both Salazar and Carrasco. Pitchers like those two don't grow on trees....I would go as far to say that both of those pitchers are top 6-8 starters in all of baseball in terms of trade value. Both being under control for a handful more years is huge along with both being budding aces. Pitching is more valuable today than ever. Cleveland has absolutely no reason to trade either of these pitchers if they are not getting at least 2 impact players in return. You guys are not going to like this at all, but to get Salazar/Carrasco it has to really HURT. I'm talking: Henry Owens, Rafael Devers, and Nick Longhi for Carrasco/Salazar and Bryan Shaw. As painful as that trade would be, you would get one of Salazar or Carrasco who is an upgrade over Owens and you give up a future impact payer in Devers, but he is still a few years away at least. If we were to get one of those #1s from Cleveland then we would probably end up winning a World Series before Devers even gets his cup of coffee. Now, you probably could sub in JBJ for Devers and add in Michael Chavis and it gets done as well. But as I've seen mentioned before, JBJ + spare parts doesn't get you either Carrasco or Salazar. Honestly I wish that DD pushed harder in the Kimbrel trade to get Tyson Ross included in that deal....but the more I look at it the more I like both Salazar/Carrasco for being under team control for longer. I say if DD can swing a deal for either of them without giving up: Betts/Bogaerts/ERod/Benintendi/Moncada/Espinoza/Vazquez then he should 100% go for it. ....ok, flame on. No need to flame, but I would say it would hurt a lot more than the package you mentioned. In it only Devers would be a major loss. Owens has value but not that much value and Longhi's value is negligible. He's not exactly a sure fire major leaguer and not projected to be a major impact one. The trade for these guys would hurt and Devers could be a part of that hurt, but it would probably cost the Sox either Kopech or Espinoza as well. I would think Swihart might be involved in the deal perhaps if not JBJ. Cleveland is not dealing these guys unless they extract a king's ransom, nor should they.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 5, 2015 0:15:24 GMT -5
We can afford to pay a king's ransom. We already over paid for a reliever!
Who cares what it takes as far as the backend of our roster and super prospects, because carrasco is worth it.
Price Carrasco Rodriguez Porcello Miley
Equals playoff team.
The beauty of a trade with Cleveland is they need a bat like Hanley's.
We have the cash and prospects to make this deal.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 5, 2015 1:34:23 GMT -5
You should go to their office and tell them personally how much they need Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 5, 2015 2:07:37 GMT -5
We can afford to pay a king's ransom. We already over paid for a reliever! Who cares what it takes as far as the backend of our roster and super prospects, because carrasco is worth it. Price Carrasco Rodriguez Porcello Miley Equals playoff team. The beauty of a trade with Cleveland is they need a bat like Hanley's. We have the cash and prospects to make this deal. No Larry, the Red Sox really can't afford to pay a king's ransom unless you really don't care if the Sox have a farm system at all. The Sox are going to need Moncada, Espinoza, Benintendi, and Devers sooner or later. Getting rid of a couple of them isn't going to help the Red Sox when they need to have young cheap players playing in key positions for them. Having these guys around will also allow the Sox to keep spending money on top notch free agents. And your point about "overpaying" for a reliever has nothing to do with gutting the farm. The Sox don't have many prospects like Espinoza. The Sox have Bradley, Betts, and Benintendi who project to be better players than Margot and Guerra is blocked by Bogaerts. This isn't the case with Moncada or Benintendi or even Devers. Or maybe a trade for Carrasco includes guys like JBJ and Swihart and Kopech. That's a huge price to pay, and those are guys the Sox need now and in the future. The Red Sox are already a playoff caliber team at this point. And what in the world makes you think the Indians are desperate for Hanley's bat? Until Hanley can show that he can stay healthy, he's not wanted by an other team. He is going to be the Sox 1b, like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Dec 5, 2015 7:42:04 GMT -5
No need to flame, but I would say it would hurt a lot more than the package you mentioned. In it only Devers would be a major loss. Owens has value but not that much value and Longhi's value is negligible. He's not exactly a sure fire major leaguer and not projected to be a major impact one. The trade for these guys would hurt and Devers could be a part of that hurt, but it would probably cost the Sox either Kopech or Espinoza as well. I would think Swihart might be involved in the deal perhaps if not JBJ. Cleveland is not dealing these guys unless they extract a king's ransom, nor should they. Yeah honestly I could see Kopech being included as well....and even after I posted that I realized my trade offer probably wouldn't get it done. Maybe Owens, JBJ, Devers is a more realistic trade package.I think Swihart and Owens plus (Sam Travis maybe?) could work, but Cleveland has Gomes so I don't necessarily think they would have a need for Swihart as he has much more value at catcher than he would at say first base. I think they would definitely want Owens to replace Salazar/Carrasco and probably Devers who can profile at third base or first base which are two big holes for them. Either way I think Cleveland won't trade either pitcher for a couple years, even though they could fill a few holes on offense for the future if they traded them now.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 6, 2015 23:16:58 GMT -5
Seems to be way too much smoke surrounding These two pitchers for there not too be something there.
And Cleveland does still need a couple of bats.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 6, 2015 23:52:09 GMT -5
We can afford to pay a king's ransom. We already over paid for a reliever! Who cares what it takes as far as the backend of our roster and super prospects, because carrasco is worth it. Price Carrasco Rodriguez Porcello Miley Equals playoff team. The beauty of a trade with Cleveland is they need a bat like Hanley's. We have the cash and prospects to make this deal. That is hands-down the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here. That's like saying that if you own a home you should sell it for a two-year lease on a Bugatti Veyron. Because, you know, Bugatti for two years. Worry about being homeless and destitute later. Needless short-lived luxury. Worst. Idea. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 7, 2015 12:10:37 GMT -5
We can afford to pay a king's ransom. We already over paid for a reliever! Who cares what it takes as far as the backend of our roster and super prospects, because carrasco is worth it. Price Carrasco Rodriguez Porcello Miley Equals playoff team. The beauty of a trade with Cleveland is they need a bat like Hanley's. We have the cash and prospects to make this deal. That is hands-down the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here. That's like saying that if you own a home you should sell it for a two-year lease on a Bugatti Veyron. Because, you know, Bugatti for two years. Worry about being homeless and destitute later. Needless short-lived luxury. Worst. Idea. Ever. Don't know if it's the worst idea ever.....I all depends on the $$$ going to Cleveland. I think they'd take on 20% of Hanley's salary & along with JBJ + It may make sense for them. I just don't see a fit......The point to where they'd be comfortable (money received)with Hanley will be a point to where we're NOT comfortable (money going) in unloading him.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2015 23:59:01 GMT -5
That is hands-down the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here. That's like saying that if you own a home you should sell it for a two-year lease on a Bugatti Veyron. Because, you know, Bugatti for two years. Worry about being homeless and destitute later. Needless short-lived luxury. Worst. Idea. Ever. Don't know if it's the worst idea ever.....I all depends on the $$$ going to Cleveland. I think they'd take on 20% of Hanley's salary & along with JBJ + It may make sense for them. I just don't see a fit......The point to where they'd be comfortable (money received)with Hanley will be a point to where we're NOT comfortable (money going) in unloading him. "Paying a king's ransom" was previously defined as giving away Moncada (top-10 in baseball), Devers (top-20), Owens (a top 50 before he lost eligibility, and who pitched reasonably well in MLB at 23 with a fantastic SwStr%), and the projected starting 1b/ future DH (and paying roughly $40M), all for the privilege of acquiring a 28-y/o starter who's had all of 300 quality MLB innings. Granted, they've been very, very good...but he got absolutely destroyed four years ago and sent down to the minors. He's got a very short track record of success. And throwing in salary relief for Hanley basically means he's being paid 80% of market value. And you're tossing away the $63M paid Moncada. And handing out basically half (more, really, since you're giving up your top two) of the farm system. That is absolute fiscal lunacy. Carrasco is probably worth 3 wins, at most, over whichever starter he replaces (Kelly/Owens/Johnson/Elias, now that Miley is gone)...4-5 WAR vs 1-2. This team played to a Pythagorean .500 record. They had the worst bullpen in the league, with something like -2 WAR. They've added Kimbrel and Smith, and have a (hopefully) healthy Koji. They should have a 4-6 WAR bullpen barring total disaster. Adding Price means another 3 WAR. That's a 90-win team, and that's not betting on any improvement at all from Hanley, Sandoval, and Porcello (simple regression to career averages adds 6-7 WAR there), or Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, Swihart, C Vazquez's return, Owens, or a full season of Pedroia. Granted, none is guaranteed...but just about everything that could possibly go wrong last year did, with the exception of Betts and Bogey breaking out, and I think they're both on the upswing. Truly mortgaging the future to pay what works out to basically market rate for a risky shot at gaining a couple wins you might not need? Bad idea jeans.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 12, 2015 20:45:56 GMT -5
Looks like dombrowski has closed shop for the winter without securing a #2 starter.
And while the price would have been extremely high, I think getting one of these guys would have been huge for our 2016 season.
To be continued.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2015 21:10:27 GMT -5
Looks like dombrowski has closed shop for the winter without securing a #2 starter. And while the price would have been extremely high, I think getting one of these guys would have been huge for our 2016 season. To be continued. Larry, they do play baseball after the 2016 season. It would be foolish for DDo to get the #2 starter you want if it wrecks their team or their minor league system. No sense messing up 2017 and beyond looking to make the team look perfect in December. Why don't you wait and see if ERod becomes the #2 or if Buchholz can stay healthy enough to be a #2 when they really need him to be?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 13, 2015 13:52:27 GMT -5
Looks like dombrowski has closed shop for the winter without securing a #2 starter. And while the price would have been extremely high, I think getting one of these guys would have been huge for our 2016 season. To be continued. Larry, they do play baseball after the 2016 season. It would be foolish for DDo to get the #2 starter you want if it wrecks their team or their minor league system. No sense messing up 2017 and beyond looking to make the team look perfect in December. Why don't you wait and see if ERod becomes the #2 or if Buchholz can stay healthy enough to be a #2 when they really need him to be? I agree that the cost currently is prohibitive, and that I'd like to see what the current staff can do. However, there is a flip side to this. If this team flounders early, and Erod struggles, along with Porcello and Kelly, I doubt they'll wait around long before DD does something to right the ship. And at that time, it will NOT come cheap. And if it's Kelly that's struggling, you're looking at not having much ML talent to offer, and paying a huge price prospect wise. That being said, there's also a chance Vazquez, Marrero, Shaw/Travis could all increase their values and look more like depth pieces as well, easing some strain on a potential deal.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 14, 2015 10:19:37 GMT -5
Larry, they do play baseball after the 2016 season. It would be foolish for DDo to get the #2 starter you want if it wrecks their team or their minor league system. No sense messing up 2017 and beyond looking to make the team look perfect in December. Why don't you wait and see if ERod becomes the #2 or if Buchholz can stay healthy enough to be a #2 when they really need him to be? I agree that the cost currently is prohibitive, and that I'd like to see what the current staff can do. However, there is a flip side to this. If this team flounders early, and Erod struggles, along with Porcello and Kelly, I doubt they'll wait around long before DD does something to right the ship. And at that time, it will NOT come cheap. And if it's Kelly that's struggling, you're looking at not having much ML talent to offer, and paying a huge price prospect wise. That being said, there's also a chance Vazquez, Marrero, Shaw/Travis could all increase their values and look more like depth pieces as well, easing some strain on a potential deal. With our SP depth, I can't see all 7 or 8 depth pitchers being bad. If Porcello/Kelly/Erod all struggle, we're done. This would be the case for any ML team & while it could happen, DD won't panic & trade the farm for help. With Johnson, Owens, Wright there for insurance, I think we can weather 2 starters injured/ineffective, but I'm not sure we can withstand 3 of the top 5 going south.
|
|
|