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.
Young, Elite Starting Pitchers
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 13, 2012 10:30:51 GMT -5
Add Ryan Dempster to the young, elite starting pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 13, 2012 12:12:15 GMT -5
I really like that list. For a preliminary listing, Sickels did an excellent job, I think (which isn't surprising, he's takes this stuff seriously.) My one complaint - Gausman is too low. Sickels addresses that, saying he has too short of a pro performance record. Which is entirely fair, but I easily put Gausman in my top 10. I really like him.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Dec 13, 2012 13:05:22 GMT -5
I really like that list. For a preliminary listing, Sickels did an excellent job, I think (which isn't surprising, he's takes this stuff seriously.) My one complaint - Gausman is too low. Sickels addresses that, saying he has too short of a pro performance record. Which is entirely fair, but I easily put Gausman in my top 10. I really like him. Well, Sickels is a Bill James disciple, so I guess his response is fairly predictable. Looks to me like the Mariners and D-backs might have arms to spare...
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 13, 2012 13:23:23 GMT -5
More importantly, how do we acquire another on of those arms without giving one up?
And did Rubby miss the cut or not qualify?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 13, 2012 14:09:48 GMT -5
Didn't quality. He's not a rookie.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 13, 2012 14:38:25 GMT -5
The Mets have two really good young pitchers with huge upside. Harvey and Wheeler.
They seem to match up nicely with us for a big deal involving those two pitchers and their infinite needs.
This is a deal in waiting Cherrington needs to explore.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 13, 2012 14:43:03 GMT -5
The Mets are in a similar position as the Red Sox though as far as lining themselves up to be in contention long term. If they were a player or two away from contention, then trading one of those guys might make sense. But Harvey will almost certainly make the starting rotation out of spring training, and Wheeler may be up at the All-Star break.
I doubt they'd be interested in Ellsbury, with his injury history and proximity to free agency. What other package would the Red Sox put together that makes sense for the Mets?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 13, 2012 15:04:43 GMT -5
The Mets have two really good young pitchers with huge upside. Harvey and Wheeler. They seem to match up nicely with us for a big deal involving those two pitchers and their infinite needs. This is a deal in waiting Cherrington needs to explore. Why would they trade their two mos prize assets trying to build a competitive ball club? Haven't you seen the price of pitching? If you have it and plan to compete hold on to it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 13, 2012 18:44:21 GMT -5
No chance they deal either Harvey or Wheeler unless they get bowled over. Nobody the Red Sox are looking to trade would do said bowling.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 13, 2012 19:12:54 GMT -5
This. Harvey and Wheeler are right now seen as future 1 & 1As in that rotation (take your pick on who is 1 and 1A).
Jack Z is reportedly in the final year of his contract and things have not gone so smoothly over there so what he does this year may not follow his past habits/proclivities. Who knows if he's looking to deal given his track record in the last couple years.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 14, 2012 13:27:32 GMT -5
No chance they deal either Harvey or Wheeler unless they get bowled over. Nobody the Red Sox are looking to trade would do said bowling. With all the holes the Mets have, you don't think there is a package, for at least 1 of them, we could put together that would knock their socks off? I think the Sox should make some of the untouchable prospects available to pull this deal off.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 14, 2012 13:31:03 GMT -5
They haven't (or we think they haven't) made them available for proven pitchers and then they gonna turn around and make them available for prospects? Not happening.
And the knocking of the their socks off might not be worth it considering what they are looking for in a Dickey/Niese trade.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 14, 2012 19:21:33 GMT -5
I guess I have a problem with the word "elite". To my way of thinking there are 3 or 4 "elite" pitchers in MLB at this time. Verlander, Hernandez, Kershaw and, given a particular recent year, Weaver, Cain or any number of guys who have a career tear, like Dickey. I don't believe elite pitchers come along that often, nor do I believe that an elite pitcher will guarantee success, or even a post season appearance. What I do believe in is the underrated value of "innings eater". Give me a starting rotation that throws 900+ innings with reasonable ERA, WHIP, and K/BB ratio, and I feel good about making the playoffs, and depending on the matchups, possibly going deep into the playoffs. That said, my first choice for an available cost contained Young pitcher would be Rick Porcello. He won't be an opening day guy, but with a good (as in better than Detroit) defense he will deliver lots of innings and many quality starts IMO. Let our next "elite" pitcher (or the next best thing to one) emerge from the farm. Give me 5 horses and a lock down bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 14, 2012 19:55:17 GMT -5
No chance they deal either Harvey or Wheeler unless they get bowled over. Nobody the Red Sox are looking to trade would do said bowling. With all the holes the Mets have, you don't think there is a package, for at least 1 of them, we could put together that would knock their socks off? I think the Sox should make some of the untouchable prospects available to pull this deal off. No, I don't think there's a package that wouldn't be a massive overpay. Just because a team has holes it doesn't mean it's going to trade players who are good value for a bunch of guys who have average value to "plug" them. When I said the Sox don't have players that would bowl the Mets over, I meant that, literally, there is no package of minor leaguers that would pry one of those two guys from them.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 14, 2012 22:37:54 GMT -5
I guess I have a problem with the word "elite". To my way of thinking there are 3 or 4 "elite" pitchers in MLB at this time. Verlander, Hernandez, Kershaw and, given a particular recent year, Weaver, Cain or any number of guys who have a career tear, like Dickey. I don't believe elite pitchers come along that often, nor do I believe that an elite pitcher will guarantee success, or even a post season appearance. What I do believe in is the underrated value of "innings eater". Give me a starting rotation that throws 900+ innings with reasonable ERA, WHIP, and K/BB ratio, and I feel good about making the playoffs, and depending on the matchups, possibly going deep into the playoffs. That said, my first choice for an available cost contained Young pitcher would be Rick Porcello. He won't be an opening day guy, but with a good (as in better than Detroit) defense he will deliver lots of innings and many quality starts IMO. Let our next "elite" pitcher (or the next best thing to one) emerge from the farm. Give me 5 horses and a lock down bullpen. David Price = elite and left handed. If the Rays do in fact look for a "Hershel Walker"-type deal on him because they can't afford the arb money and don't want to pay him a reasonable extension, he's young enough to try to make a trade happen. My only caveat would be to also make it contingent on a 72 hour negotiating window (like they did with Schilling) to get an extension worked out so you're getting him for 5 years total (this is assuming he's moved in the next 12 months and healthy). Otherwise prob not worth it to give up Xander, Barnes, Rubby and 1 or 2 more for less than 3 years of control.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Dec 14, 2012 23:06:14 GMT -5
I guess I have a problem with the word "elite". To my way of thinking there are 3 or 4 "elite" pitchers in MLB at this time. Verlander, Hernandez, Kershaw and, given a particular recent year, Weaver, Cain or any number of guys who have a career tear, like Dickey. I don't believe elite pitchers come along that often, nor do I believe that an elite pitcher will guarantee success, or even a post season appearance. What I do believe in is the underrated value of "innings eater". Give me a starting rotation that throws 900+ innings with reasonable ERA, WHIP, and K/BB ratio, and I feel good about making the playoffs, and depending on the matchups, possibly going deep into the playoffs. That said, my first choice for an available cost contained Young pitcher would be Rick Porcello. He won't be an opening day guy, but with a good (as in better than Detroit) defense he will deliver lots of innings and many quality starts IMO. Let our next "elite" pitcher (or the next best thing to one) emerge from the farm. Give me 5 horses and a lock down bullpen. David Price = elite and left handed. If the Rays do in fact look for a "Hershel Walker"-type deal on him because they can't afford the arb money and don't want to pay him a reasonable extension, he's young enough to try to make a trade happen. My only caveat would be to also make it contingent on a 72 hour negotiating window (like they did with Schilling) to get an extension worked out so you're getting him for 5 years total (this is assuming he's moved in the next 12 months and healthy). Otherwise prob not worth it to give up Xander, Barnes, Rubby and 1 or 2 more for less than 3 years of control. Other than Friedman not trading him to the Red Sox and Price not agreeing to a 3 year extension, I could totally see this scenario playing out exactly how you've fantasized it to go down.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 14, 2012 23:43:31 GMT -5
Whew, thanks. I was worried for a sec it was a hypothetical wrappred in a halucination of an abject probability. Kind of the Aaron Small of predictions.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 17, 2012 13:41:00 GMT -5
With all the holes the Mets have, you don't think there is a package, for at least 1 of them, we could put together that would knock their socks off? I think the Sox should make some of the untouchable prospects available to pull this deal off. No, I don't think there's a package that wouldn't be a massive overpay. Just because a team has holes it doesn't mean it's going to trade players who are good value for a bunch of guys who have average value to "plug" them. When I said the Sox don't have players that would bowl the Mets over, I meant that, literally, there is no package of minor leaguers that would pry one of those two guys from them. So is there no pressure on Alderson to field a competitive Mets team in 2013?
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Dec 17, 2012 13:58:22 GMT -5
I really like that list. For a preliminary listing, Sickels did an excellent job, I think (which isn't surprising, he's takes this stuff seriously.) My one complaint - Gausman is too low. Sickels addresses that, saying he has too short of a pro performance record. Which is entirely fair, but I easily put Gausman in my top 10. I really like him. Anybody else notice no Yankees on the list?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 17, 2012 19:24:38 GMT -5
So as impossible as it seems to pry a top pitching prospect away from a team these days...anyone else notice that 3 of the top 16 were trade over the last couple of weeks?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 17, 2012 23:14:08 GMT -5
No, I don't think there's a package that wouldn't be a massive overpay. Just because a team has holes it doesn't mean it's going to trade players who are good value for a bunch of guys who have average value to "plug" them. When I said the Sox don't have players that would bowl the Mets over, I meant that, literally, there is no package of minor leaguers that would pry one of those two guys from them. So is there no pressure on Alderson to field a competitive Mets team in 2013? I'd say there isn't. They just traded the reigning Cy Young for prospects, so that kind of answers the question, no? Plus, Harvey is already in the majors, and Wheeler could be up midseason, so those two could be part of the next competitive Mets team anyway. It's a team that clearly seems to want to get younger right now, not older.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 18, 2012 13:58:14 GMT -5
So is there no pressure on Alderson to field a competitive Mets team in 2013? I'd say there isn't. They just traded the reigning Cy Young for prospects, so that kind of answers the question, no? Plus, Harvey is already in the majors, and Wheeler could be up midseason, so those two could be part of the next competitive Mets team anyway. It's a team that clearly seems to want to get younger right now, not older. You may be right now that the Dickey trade is complete. I'd say the Mets just used some excess pitching to plug a huge hole at catcher.
|
|
|
Post by aardsmacarta on Dec 18, 2012 23:37:22 GMT -5
It's weird. There seems to be more freaking out than ever about the Sox lack of pitching, while there are actually more interesting arms in the system than I can remember in my lifetime -- and by a lot, too. I guess the brief Lester-Pap-Sanchez period is close, but when did we ever have a 6th starter as exciting as Morales, who if healthy could be an impact lefty? When did we ever have a trio of minor league arms of the Barnes-Webster-De La Rosa character in addition to 5 legit starters, plus reserve active-roster swing options like Morales and Aceves? When was the next level of minor league arms -- including guys like Owens, Workman, Britton, Hernandez and Brian Johnson -- ever this interesting? When did we ever have the 7th pick in addition to all of this? When did we ever have so many bullpen arms that a guy like Daniel Bard is almost an afterthought?
If you throw out decline-phase guys like Dempster and Lackey, there are still about a dozen legit high-K power arms in the Sox system. We really just need one of those guys to become a #1. Why can't it be Webster? De La Rosa? Barnes? Because some web site says they're all #2s? We're all acting crazy, like we have no hope of finding a lead dog. Let's let the season pan out a little before we start bemoaning how hopeless our situation is.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 19, 2012 11:01:41 GMT -5
When did we ever have a trio of minor league arms of the Barnes-Webster-De La Rosa character I hate 'TINSTAAPP' as much as the next guy, but pitching prospects are undeniably tricky. It was exciting to dream on Morton-Gardiner-Quantrill for a season, and of course Rose-Pavano-Armas yielded one all-time great. (Not saying the three sets are equivalent.) If I'm not shouting about our current Big 3 it's because I'm busy holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 19, 2012 11:12:51 GMT -5
If you throw out decline-phase guys like Dempster and Lackey, there are still about a dozen legit high-K power arms in the Sox system. We really just need one of those guys to become a #1. Why can't it be Webster? De La Rosa? Barnes? Because some web site says they're all #2s? We're all acting crazy, like we have no hope of finding a lead dog. Let's let the season pan out a little before we start bemoaning how hopeless our situation is. It's my understanding that the language used doesn't refer to the #1 starter for each team and that #1 starter refers to the truly elite starters (Pedro, Verlander, etc). If we have 2-3 #2's then I'd say that's pretty good. Could Webster or Barnes take it to the next level and become the so-called "#1 starter"? Maybe, but as long as they remain solid #2's I think we're fine. We don't necessarily need that #1. If DLR really puts it all together (command & Health) he could be that #1, but I'd say he's more likely a closer.
|
|
|