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.
The Big-Time Trade Target List
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 12:11:21 GMT -5
All of these guys fit 3 criteria:
1a) They play for a below-average team (based on pre-season power rankings and projections) with a below-average farm system, and hence trading them may be the only way to get better, or 1b) They're surplus talent on their team
2) It would make sense for us to trade for them
3) They're on Jonah Keri's latest top 50 trade value list.
I'll rank them, giving his ranking number.
1. Mike Trout. Worst farm system in MLB according to both BA and Law, projected 16th to 24th best team in MLB. Near-hopeless situation in terms of contending before his contract is up. 4. Paul Goldschmidt. Snakes made some bad trades to try to get better, but they're pegged 16th to 20th with a 22 (BA) or 24 (KL) farm system. A chance they have to blow it up next winter and start over. 12. Chris Sale. ChiSox being pegged 17 to 23, with a 22 or 23 farm. There's always been talk that they might need to deal him to get better. 28. Giancarlo Stanton. Massive contract and little present hope that they can build a contender around him, with a 17 to 23 ranked team and the #29 farm system according to both KA and Law. He'd stay healthier as a DH. 33. Kyle Schwarber. He's a DH, isn't he? Do they have that in his league? I think our GM knows theirs, too. 24. Jose Abreu. Moved down because a lot of his trade value is his cheapness rather than his greatness. 30. Jose Fernandez. Given the health risk, actually not sure he'd be worth the risk, but we'll know a lot more by next winter. 20. Sonny Gray. Moved down because of sabermetric doubts.
I think Trout is on the table if JBJ has a 4.0+ WAR season, Swihart solidifies his value with big strides forward, and Kelly and all the young pitching come up strong (and, yes, while I'm at it, I get to hang out with Eliza Dushku and watch some Buffy with her). And/or if DDo is willing to trade Moncada or Devers.
You want to dream? Given the cost difference, would the Angels think the downgrade from Trout to that version of JBJ for 4 years would be more than offset by Swihart, an Owens who looks top-of-rotation, a Castillo who has taken a big step forwards, and Basabe who has broken into the top 100? I'm not saying this is likely, or anything more than a fanboy wetdream right now, but there is a scenario where we can land Trout without trading any of the big four. Just like the scenario where Coyle, Marrero, and Cecchini all had breakout 2015 seasons and helped us land Stanton!
Realistically, I'll be disappointed if we're not in a position to land one of the first five guys on that list without giving up any of the big four. I'm not saying it's likely, but that's the goal.
Note that a Schwarber trade would almost certainly involve a third team, where our package goes to a contender or verge-of-contender with a good farm system, and prospects go to the Cubs to help restock after they graduated everyone. The Astros, Rangers, and Twins would be AL candidates.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 4, 2016 13:51:51 GMT -5
I think Stanton is the only realistic option and that will probably be when his salary rises in a year or two.
Jose Fernandez is realistic but will cost too much for too little control. Same with Gray.
I don't think it's ever realistic to see a Mike Trout trade and I can't see the D-Backs trading Paul in the next 2-3 because they're trying to contend during that time.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2016 14:33:04 GMT -5
All of these guys fit 3 criteria: 1a) They play for a below-average team (based on pre-season power rankings and projections) with a below-average farm system, and hence trading them may be the only way to get better, or 1b) They're surplus talent on their team 2) It would make sense for us to trade for them 3) They're on Jonah Keri's latest top 50 trade value list. I'll rank them, giving his ranking number. 1. Mike Trout. Worst farm system in MLB according to both BA and Law, projected 16th to 24th best team in MLB. Near-hopeless situation in terms of contending before his contract is up. 4. Paul Goldschmidt. Snakes made some bad trades to try to get better, but they're pegged 16th to 20th with a 22 (BA) or 24 (KL) farm system. A chance they have to blow it up next winter and start over. 12. Chris Sale. ChiSox being pegged 17 to 23, with a 22 or 23 farm. There's always been talk that they might need to deal him to get better. 28. Giancarlo Stanton. Massive contract and little present hope that they can build a contender around him, with a 17 to 23 ranked team and the #29 farm system according to both KA and Law. He'd stay healthier as a DH. 33. Kyle Schwarber. He's a DH, isn't he? Do they have that in his league? I think our GM knows theirs, too. 24. Jose Abreu. Moved down because a lot of his trade value is his cheapness rather than his greatness. 30. Jose Fernandez. Given the health risk, actually not sure he'd be worth the risk, but we'll know a lot more by next winter. 20. Sonny Gray. Moved down because of sabermetric doubts. I think Trout is on the table if JBJ has a 4.0+ WAR season, Swihart solidifies his value with big strides forward, and Kelly and all the young pitching come up strong (and, yes, while I'm at it, I get to hang out with Eliza Dushku and watch some Buffy with her). And/or if DDo is willing to trade Moncada or Devers. You want to dream? Given the cost difference, would the Angels think the downgrade from Trout to that version of JBJ for 4 years would be more than offset by Swihart, an Owens who looks top-of-rotation, a Castillo who has taken a big step forwards, and Basabe who has broken into the top 100? I'm not saying this is likely, or anything more than a fanboy wetdream right now, but there is a scenario where we can land Trout without trading any of the big four. Just like the scenario where Coyle, Marrero, and Cecchini all had breakout 2015 seasons and helped us land Stanton! Realistically, I'll be disappointed if we're not in a position to land one of the first five guys on that list without giving up any of the big four. I'm not saying it's likely, but that's the goal. Note that a Schwarber trade would almost certainly involve a third team, where our package goes to a contender or verge-of-contender with a good farm system, and prospects go to the Cubs to help restock after they graduated everyone. The Astros, Rangers, and Twins would be AL candidates. I agree that, in theory, Trout might be obtainable if: JBJ is a 4+ WAR player, Swihart plays average or solid-average defense and takes a step forward offensively into the .820 OPS range (with a little pop), and one of Kelly/Owens/Johnson performs at #2 starter level. I think it'd also take one or two prospects from the group of Kopech/Chavis (with a big year)/Basabe (another step forward)/Lakins (quality performance as a starter). To be honest, as much as I say I don't think it would really be worth it, it would probably totally be worth it. But yeah, major longshot. Schwarber would be a nice get, and may be relatively low-cost given his defensive deficiencies. The question is, who would be worth giving up? If he's going to be stuck at DH/maybe 1b, well, I don't know. I wouldn't want to give up any of the top-4, and I'd really prefer not to give up Kopech. Goldschmidt is a possibility. He'd be a fantastic 1b, add some pop, and his contract isn't ridiculous. Depends on how Hanley looks at first. Frankly, I'd love to see it but I'm not sure it would be worth the cost, given how important he is to the D'Backs. I think Sale is the best bet. He's a clear rotation upgrade over anyone in there but Price. The Sox have players the White Sox need. Sale's approaching FA, so the Sox would need to negotiate an extension, but it probably prices him out of Chicago's range right now. I mentioned it elsewhere, but I think appealing to the Pirates' intense frugality (and ability to develop/resurrect pitchers) and trying to pry away Gerrit Cole is a good idea. It would take a couple of good MLB players (a successful Kelly/Owens/Johnson, plus Swihart, Marrero, and some real minor-league talent like Kopech, but it's a maybe) Regardless, I think this is where the Sox need to be thinking: They have such minor league talent and MLB under-25 talent that it's pretty tough for them to improve at most positions. 1b (maybe...I hold out hope that Hanley can play, and I like Shaw a lot after last year, and that began with his crazy AFL batted-ball data from a couple of years ago), SP (and really only a 1, 1a, or young 2 with upside makes sense), maybe OF with a guy like Stanton going to LF and DH part-time. They're kinda stuck at 3b for now, and I like Devers for 3rd in a couple years. Otherwise they're pretty above-average at most spots. To be worth the cost in talent, they'd need a 5-WAR player back, because any less and it's a pretty small improvement.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2016 14:39:45 GMT -5
One wildcard: the Dodgers have a minor league system somewhat like Boston's: terrific talent at the top, but not especially deep. But the outstanding talent (DeLeon, Holmes) is there. Can the Sox move one or two of Kelly/Owens/Johnson/Elias to the Dodgers for a top-flight talent and some other pieces, and then flip that talent? I think the Sox may have some opportunities to trade this spring that will put them in good position to trade come June.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 14:52:46 GMT -5
One wildcard: the Dodgers have a minor league system somewhat like Boston's: terrific talent at the top, but not especially deep. But the outstanding talent (DeLeon, Holmes) is there. Can the Sox move one or two of Kelly/Owens/Johnson/Elias to the Dodgers for a top-flight talent and some other pieces, and then flip that talent? I think the Sox may have some opportunities to trade this spring that will put them in good position to trade come June. I believe it was FG that just ran down the Dodgers pitching depth and concluded that they're OK for now, but one injury from badly needing a competent SP. It's worth watching, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 4, 2016 19:21:15 GMT -5
One wildcard: the Dodgers have a minor league system somewhat like Boston's: terrific talent at the top, but not especially deep. But the outstanding talent (DeLeon, Holmes) is there. Can the Sox move one or two of Kelly/Owens/Johnson/Elias to the Dodgers for a top-flight talent and some other pieces, and then flip that talent? I think the Sox may have some opportunities to trade this spring that will put them in good position to trade come June. I can't see the Dodgers trading for someone of that ilk when they have Urias sitting right there with De Leon right behind him. Even as it sits right now with Anderson down, McCarthy not ready until midseason, and Ryu not looking good, the rotation is still Kershaw/Kazmir/Maeda/Wood/Bolsinger, which isn't amazing or anything but not something where they're desperate for the likes of one of the four competing for Boston's fifth spot, again, considering they've got Urias sitting in Triple-A. If they did make a move for someone, it'd be a more established arm. They don't need youth, necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2016 19:40:25 GMT -5
One wildcard: the Dodgers have a minor league system somewhat like Boston's: terrific talent at the top, but not especially deep. But the outstanding talent (DeLeon, Holmes) is there. Can the Sox move one or two of Kelly/Owens/Johnson/Elias to the Dodgers for a top-flight talent and some other pieces, and then flip that talent? I think the Sox may have some opportunities to trade this spring that will put them in good position to trade come June. I can't see the Dodgers trading for someone of that ilk when they have Urias sitting right there with De Leon right behind him. Even as it sits right now with Anderson down, McCarthy not ready until midseason, and Ryu not looking good, the rotation is still Kershaw/Kazmir/Maeda/Wood/Bolsinger, which isn't amazing or anything but not something where they're desperate for the likes of one of the four competing for Boston's fifth spot, again, considering they've got Urias sitting in Triple-A. If they did make a move for someone, it'd be a more established arm. They don't need youth, necessarily. Eh, forgot about Wood. Tbh I figured someone like Elias might appeal to them, since he has plenty of experience, good stuff, and is still fairly young. But you're right, they're not quite as strapped as I'd thought. Still, that's thin considering Anderson is almost assuredly out for three months, and McCarthy probably back maybe at the same time. Urias is definitely an option, although they may be a little reticent to rush him unless he starts off well. The main thing that works in the Sox's favor is that AZ and SF are both pretty good teams, so the Dodgers may be concerned about falling behind. But yeah, they might be more likely to ask for Kelly/Elias or even Buchholz, if they were asking at all.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 4, 2016 20:35:00 GMT -5
The biggest question mark is Kazmir as the article noted. It's highly unlikely he can give them more than 150 innings, but if he can do that I'd agree they have enough resources to wade through this till Ryu is ready to go, or an earlier version of Latos makes the scene.
The biggest problem is the bullpen. If they want to play it smart, they need to refrain from overworking those starters. Do they have the relievers to do that? Jansen is fantastic, and Howell is still serviceable, but beyond that it's a lot more tentative. Nicasio can be crazy wild, Peralta's prime is way off in the distance, and there's a bunch of young guys.
Dave Roberts will be tested from the get go.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 5, 2016 14:01:54 GMT -5
Trout isn't and won't be available haha.
The level that JBJ and Swihart and Kelly would have to rise to, means the Red Sox would never do that deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 5, 2016 15:11:53 GMT -5
Trout isn't and won't be available haha. The level that JBJ and Swihart and Kelly would have to rise to, means the Red Sox would never do that deal. Yeah, my main issue would be, if those two are worth 7-9 WAR (plus giving up another couple good players) and Trout is worth 9, then the Sox have to pay Trout's salary **and** pay for replacements.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 5, 2016 16:04:42 GMT -5
One four win season does not make Bradley a four win player going forward, just like one really good season from Swihart or Owens or anyone else does not make them project to be what they were in 2016. Yes, one unexpectedly good year changes a player's projection, but it only does so by so much. To think otherwise is, well, the kind of relentlessly over-optimistic homerism that explains why we have a trade proposal subforum.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 5, 2016 18:51:37 GMT -5
But you can say that about Betts, Bogaetts, Correa, Seager, or basically anyone else. Look at the Miley trade, for a established starter we got a reliever with out a strong prospect profile and only 1 year sample, and a long man. Bradley and swig art were both top 50 prospects when they graduated, and it's easy to see Bradley elite defensive play and Swiharts potential on both sides.
What I don't get is why would would want to trade our 4 win players. Why not keep them and build around them? Although a Swihart for schwarber trade might make sense next season.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 6, 2016 14:21:43 GMT -5
But you can say that about Betts, Bogaetts, Correa, Seager, or basically anyone else. Look at the Miley trade, for a established starter we got a reliever with out a strong prospect profile and only 1 year sample, and a long man. Bradley and swig art were both top 50 prospects when they graduated, and it's easy to see Bradley elite defensive play and Swiharts potential on both sides. What I don't get is why would would want to trade our 4 win players. Why not keep them and build around them? Although a Swihart for schwarber trade might make sense next season. Why would they trade Swihart for Schwarber? Schwarber is horrendous in the field
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 6, 2016 20:21:24 GMT -5
Trout isn't and won't be available haha. The level that JBJ and Swihart and Kelly would have to rise to, means the Red Sox would never do that deal. Yeah, my main issue would be, if those two are worth 7-9 WAR (plus giving up another couple good players) and Trout is worth 9, then the Sox have to pay Trout's salary **and** pay for replacements. But you can say that about Betts, Bogaetts, Correa, Seager, or basically anyone else. Look at the Miley trade, for a established starter we got a reliever with out a strong prospect profile and only 1 year sample, and a long man. Bradley and swig art were both top 50 prospects when they graduated, and it's easy to see Bradley elite defensive play and Swiharts potential on both sides. What I don't get is why would would want to trade our 4 win players. Why not keep them and build around them? Although a Swihart for schwarber trade might make sense next season. For the Angels to trade the best player on the planet, they would indeed have to be convinced they were winning the trade fairly decisively, in addition to feeling that they could not expect to contend any time soon without making a trade that they won by that much. So why would we want to lose a trade like that? Because it's really hard to play two guys at the same position at the same time. If Owens and Kelly are both 3 WAR pitchers but you have only one open rotation slot and depth behind them like Wright and Elias and/or Johnson, the guy who doesn't start has only 0 to 1 usable WAR for you. If Swihart is a 3 WAR catcher for the Angels, he's an 0.5 to 1.0 WAR catcher as your backup. You can trade the Angels 5 to 6 WAR and get back 8, and they can turn the 5 to 6 WAR into 10 just via extra PT. (And then you can pick up a couple of fungible guys and regain another 0.5 to 1 WAR.) The question you need to ask is, just what do you do if the farm system generates more really good talent than you could possibly use? Bundling the excess to get a superstar, a guy who represents a big upgrade over what you've got, is one answer and maybe the best. One four win season does not make Bradley a four win player going forward, just like one really good season from Swihart or Owens or anyone else does not make them project to be what they were in 2016. Yes, one unexpectedly good year changes a player's projection, but it only does so by so much. To think otherwise is, well, the kind of relentlessly over-optimistic homerism that explains why we have a trade proposal subforum. That was shorthand for a 4.0 WAR season that also convinces scouts that he's for real. Of course we only statistically identify "true breakout" seasons after the fact. But pegging them at the time is one of the things we have scouts for. I once posted the embarrassingly low projections that every system had for Jose Bautista after his first great year; they all had him regressing about 70% of the way to his past level. Any scout would have told you those were just silly, and in fact he went on to have a considerably better season than his breakout.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 6, 2016 20:24:59 GMT -5
But you can say that about Betts, Bogaetts, Correa, Seager, or basically anyone else. Look at the Miley trade, for a established starter we got a reliever with out a strong prospect profile and only 1 year sample, and a long man. Bradley and swig art were both top 50 prospects when they graduated, and it's easy to see Bradley elite defensive play and Swiharts potential on both sides. What I don't get is why would would want to trade our 4 win players. Why not keep them and build around them? Although a Swihart for schwarber trade might make sense next season. Why would they trade Swihart for Schwarber? Schwarber is horrendous in the field Which he would very rarely play, if your starting OF is Benintendi, Bradley, and Betts, and you have a solid 4th OFer. The only reason Schwarber might be available is that he's born to DH.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Mar 7, 2016 11:17:31 GMT -5
Why would they trade Swihart for Schwarber? Schwarber is horrendous in the field Which he would very rarely play, if your starting OF is Benintendi, Bradley, and Betts, and you have a solid 4th OFer. The only reason Schwarber might be available is that he's born to DH. I agree there is no fit for Schwarber on this team, even going forward. Round peg/square hole thing. Hanley looks to be a prototypical DH. IMO, DD leans heavily on defense abilities.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 7, 2016 11:40:50 GMT -5
Which he would very rarely play, if your starting OF is Benintendi, Bradley, and Betts, and you have a solid 4th OFer. The only reason Schwarber might be available is that he's born to DH. I agree there is no fit for Schwarber on this team, even going forward. Round peg/square hole thing. Hanley looks to be a prototypical DH. IMO, DD leans heavily on defense abilities. That depends on what Hanley does this year. There are two scenarios where Schwarber would be a big upgrade - 1. If Hanley doesn't hit, he's gone and they need a DH. 2. If he's decent at 1B, he can stay at 1B and the Red Sox could upgrade at DH.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 7, 2016 12:46:32 GMT -5
I was looking at Schwarber as a 1B/DH candidate, as others pointed out. If everything goes right, we have Vazquez/Swihart as everyday catchers with Hanigan as a very capable veteran backup, and Hanley manning 1B/DH with the other spot being open. If Schwarber isn't playing 1B/DH, where would he fit on any team?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 7, 2016 14:35:11 GMT -5
I suspect Schwarber could play 1B at an acceptable level-- he's just blocked there with the Cubs. If that's true, there isn't really any issue with his fit on the Red Sox, even if Hanley flames out defensively.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 7, 2016 17:45:05 GMT -5
I suspect Schwarber could play 1B at an acceptable level-- he's just blocked there with the Cubs. If that's true, there isn't really any issue with his fit on the Red Sox, even if Hanley flames out defensively. I'm not really that makes much sense. With the logjam of DH candidates the Sox have in Hanley and Pablo, them trading for another guy with no definitive position (there's no evidence Schwarber can play first base, outside the thought "ehh, he could probably do it") just sorta makes little sense from a front office standpoint. If Hanley bombs, and Shaw can't handle it, and Travis isn't ready, I doubt they go looking for another project 1B. The other hitch in all of this, is that if the Cubs deal Schwarber, they're gonna want young SP in return. Basically, Schwarber makes little realistic sense, imo.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 7, 2016 18:17:21 GMT -5
I suspect Schwarber could play 1B at an acceptable level-- he's just blocked there with the Cubs. If that's true, there isn't really any issue with his fit on the Red Sox, even if Hanley flames out defensively. I'm not really that makes much sense. With the logjam of DH candidates the Sox have in Hanley and Pablo, them trading for another guy with no definitive position (there's no evidence Schwarber can play first base, outside the thought "ehh, he could probably do it") just sorta makes little sense from a front office standpoint. If Hanley bombs, and Shaw can't handle it, and Travis isn't ready, I doubt they go looking for another project 1B. The other hitch in all of this, is that if the Cubs deal Schwarber, they're gonna want young SP in return. Basically, Schwarber makes little realistic sense, imo. Schwarber was fine at 1b in the minors. He had no chance of playing there for the Cubs because Anthony Rizzo is an outstanding defensive 1b. Schwarber makes sense depending on what the Cubs want in return. Yes, he's a 1b/DH only. But Sandoval doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify for that designation. His bat isn't remotely sufficient. Once the end of this year rolls around, the Sox need a 1b or DH, depending on how Hanley looks. If the Sox can get Schwarber for redundant players, young pitching or not (don't forget, Kopech and Espinoza are likely to finish the year in high A or even AA, and the Sox are 9 starters deep), it's a smart deal. Schwarber is a .330/.400/.550 line waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 7, 2016 18:21:14 GMT -5
If Pablo has to change positions, I'd expect the Red Sox to eat as much salary as necessary to trade him.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Mar 9, 2016 10:08:53 GMT -5
Would it be crazy to add Votto to the list? If that were to happen I'd imagine we shed a little payroll. I think if Pablo or Castillo produce one could be dealt and replaced by the likes of Shaw, Moncada or Benny.
Stanton worries me. That contract is back loaded after the opt out and he's having issues this spring on a knee he's already had surgery on. A small LF and DHing some could take some pressure off though.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 9, 2016 13:26:05 GMT -5
Would it be crazy to add Votto to the list? If that were to happen I'd imagine we shed a little payroll. I think if Pablo or Castillo produce one could be dealt and replaced by the likes of Shaw, Moncada or Benny. Stanton worries me. That contract is back loaded after the opt out and he's having issues this spring on a knee he's already had surgery on. A small LF and DHing some could take some pressure off though. Either guy would take a very special, very unexpected, and powerball odds-esque set of special circumstances. Realistically, it's an absolute waste of time to think about either guy. Price for either would be so high, Red Sox would likely not be interested.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 9, 2016 14:09:02 GMT -5
Votto seems dead set on completing his contract with the Reds, whether the team is good or bad. Not likely he waives his no trade.
|
|
|