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 9, 2016 17:51:20 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. 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. Votto's contract is so ridiculously large that he actually doesn't have great trade value. Since signing it, he's never been ranked in the top 50 by either Johah Keri, or Dave Cameron at FG. Keri has Freddie Freeman at 51, for a point of comparison. Assuming they buy out his age 41 season, he'll be paid $23M in 2017, at age 33, and $26M a year from 2018 to 2025, for ages 33 to 40. IOW, he'll be a big bargain to them while they're rebuilding, and his contract will go to negative value at about the time they're ready to contend. They would be much better off trading him. I think this is absolutely true: there is some deal, in terms of talent going to Cinci and money coming back, that works for both clubs. In fact, there are probably many such deals. The Reds would probably like to pay some money to get back a better talent return. I think that if Swihart has the season we're hoping for, he would be more than enough by himself to land an unsubsidized Votto. In terms of the no-trade, I have no doubt that his desire to play the rest of his career in Cinci is real. If the Sox are great this, I also think there's a solid chance he would waive it to play for a team that looks like it will be among the top WS contenders for the foreseeable future. Edit: At $231M through age 40, he needs to put up 24.5 WAR if there's a 5% annual inflation of value, 25.0 if it's 4%. The list of 1B or DH who have done that in ages 33 to 40 (bWAR): Edgar Martinez Stan Musial Paul Molitor Rafael Palmeiro + PEDs Johnny Mize Brian Downing (just sneaks over if you include his age 41 season, plus Votto's option) The leaderboard for age 26 to 31 1B: 51.2 Gehrig 49.3 Musial 48.9 Pujols 42.0 Helton 41.8 Bagwell 41.3 Fox 38.5 Cabrera35.2 Votto Martinez, Molitor, Mize, and Downing did not even have 30.0 WAR at those ages and had freakish late-career value. Gehrig'a a special case, but that Pujols, Helton, and Bagwell were all significantly better does not augur well for Votto's chances.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Mar 10, 2016 0:56:51 GMT -5
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. Schwarber never appeared at first base in the minors.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 10, 2016 1:01:03 GMT -5
The guy who would be the best fit on that list is of course Goldschmidt -- the superstar at the one position that we expect to be vacant.
So, what are Arizona's weak positions, based on the average of BP and FG's WAR projections (per 600 PA, or 450 for the catcher)?
0.1 Wellington Castillo, C (I added my pitch-framing projection to FG's) 0.5 Yasmany Tomas, LF 1.5 Nick Ahmed, SS 1.7 Jean Segura, 2B
Hmm, our top three potentially blocked player positions for 2017 are, in order, C, LF, and SS.
I think that if you offer them a 1.0 WAR upgrade on the field via a deal, they have to start thinking about doing it, given that Goldschmidt is signed for 2 years and the guys going in the other direction will have 5 and 6 years of control. At a 3 WAR upgrade, it gets hard to resist.
There is a credible scenario (not likely, but credible) where Swihart justifies his #17 prospect ranking and projects to be a first division starter in 2017, Castillo breaks out a bit on offense and continues to play elite defense but Benintendi looks better already, and some kind of Travis (Sam or Shaw) projects as an immediate solid contributor at 1B. Let's toss in Marrero as a possible upgrade, too.
+2.5 to 3.0 at catcher +2.0 to 2.5 in LF (Castillo at 2.5 to 3.0) +0.0 to 0.5 at SS -4.0 to -3.5 at 1B (a Travis at 2.0 to 2.5)
That's an 0.5 to 2.5 upgrade, or call it about 1.5. You're in the discussion even without adding Owens or Kelly, or Basabe or blocked breakout TBD.
It's such a good fit that I think this is the one you want to keep an eye on. It will take multiple things breaking right for the Sox, plus a bad year for the Snakes, but this is the one to dream on.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 10, 2016 7:40:12 GMT -5
Goldschmidt has a very reasonable $14.5m option ($2m buyout) for the 2019 season (the season in which he turns 32), which means that even looking forward to next offseason, the Diamondbacks would have three cheap seasons of team control left of a six win player in his prime. I think no matter what happens in 2016, the odds of them moving him are virtually zero.
Generally, when is the last time a true star player on a below-market contract was moved with more than two years (or, hell, one year) of team control left? Off the top of my head, the guy who comes to mind is Josh Donaldson (which, boy, would have been a pretty nice get by the Red Sox), but I can't think of anyone else. It's the kind of nickles for a quarter deal that doesn't happen, even if you offer six nickles.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 10, 2016 16:24:53 GMT -5
Goldschmidt has a very reasonable $14.5m option ($2m buyout) for the 2019 season (the season in which he turns 32), which means that even looking forward to next offseason, the Diamondbacks would have three cheap seasons of team control left of a six win player in his prime. I think no matter what happens in 2016, the odds of them moving him are virtually zero. Generally, when is the last time a true star player on a below-market contract was moved with more than two years (or, hell, one year) of team control left? Off the top of my head, the guy who comes to mind is Josh Donaldson (which, boy, would have been a pretty nice get by the Red Sox), but I can't think of anyone else. It's the kind of nickles for a quarter deal that doesn't happen, even if you offer six nickles. Even besides that, the price tag would be insanely prohibitive.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 10, 2016 16:45:04 GMT -5
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. Schwarber never appeared at first base in the minors. I stand corrected. Obviously I never saw him play, but I'd read some commentary about his 1b abilities and it must've been speculative rather than descriptive. He certainly wasn't a very good catcher, and isn't a good left fielder.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 10, 2016 19:51:33 GMT -5
Goldschmidt has a very reasonable $14.5m option ($2m buyout) for the 2019 season (the season in which he turns 32), which means that even looking forward to next offseason, the Diamondbacks would have three cheap seasons of team control left of a six win player in his prime. I think no matter what happens in 2016, the odds of them moving him are virtually zero. Generally, when is the last time a true star player on a below-market contract was moved with more than two years (or, hell, one year) of team control left? Off the top of my head, the guy who comes to mind is Josh Donaldson (which, boy, would have been a pretty nice get by the Red Sox), but I can't think of anyone else. It's the kind of nickles for a quarter deal that doesn't happen, even if you offer six nickles. Even besides that, the price tag would be insanely prohibitive. Of course the price will be insane, but if the guys you're giving up will not be playing for you, it ceases to become prohibitive. And if you have a ton of talent and nowhere to play it, your choice is either to overpay for a superstar or trade for prospects. But if you do the latter and succeed ... you just have the same "problem" again. (If we still have excess talent as the big 4 are about to finish graduating -- say, Devers or Kopech are blocked -- then it might well make sense to try to restock the farm system. But if you have big-time excess talent, a top 5 MLB team and top 5 farm system, the wise thing to do is upgrade the least impressive position, long-range, by acquiring a better player.) If the Diamondbacks can make their team an average 2 or 3 wins better on the field immediately (giving them a margin of error) plus get 25 or 30 WAR long-term for Goldschmidt's 18, it becomes really hard for them not to pull the trigger, all the more so if they feel they cannot contend in the next two years any other way. jemi, you're right about the rarity of 4-dimes-for-a-quarter deals. It would take the following: 1) A bad team with an already high payroll and a very bad farm system, who has a star player 2) Another team that has the excess top-quality talent to overpay for the star 3) The excess talent happens to be at positions where the bad team has players that are replacement level or close to it. The point of my little analysis is that this crazy confluence of conditions is actually on the table. I mean, the earth getting hit by an asteroid is a rare enough event that you ordinarily not need to think about it at all. Just like that kind of trade. What I'm doing here is spotting a big rock heading roughly in our direction, only it's a good rock. Of course the odds are that it will miss, and probably comfortably so. All I'm saying is, keep watching the skies.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 11, 2016 2:30:06 GMT -5
Since the Dbacks just sold the farm to build around Goldschmidt, I have a hard time believing they would trade him so quickly.
I think your chances are better at hoping the Chisox implode and choose to rebuild.
Perhaps they could pry Sale, Abreu and Robertson away for Espinoza, Benintendi and Swihart - with Marrero and Travis thrown in.
Not sure how I feel about that, but it would take a huge haul to get those guys.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 11, 2016 19:34:56 GMT -5
Since the Dbacks just sold the farm to build around Goldschmidt, I have a hard time believing they would trade him so quickly. I think your chances are better at hoping the Chisox implode and choose to rebuild. Perhaps they could pry Sale, Abreu and Robertson away for Espinoza, Benintendi and Swihart - with Marrero and Travis thrown in. Not sure how I feel about that, but it would take a huge haul to get those guys. That deal is insanely unrealistic.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 11, 2016 20:13:36 GMT -5
Since the Dbacks just sold the farm to build around Goldschmidt, I have a hard time believing they would trade him so quickly. I think your chances are better at hoping the Chisox implode and choose to rebuild. Perhaps they could pry Sale, Abreu and Robertson away for Espinoza, Benintendi and Swihart - with Marrero and Travis thrown in. Not sure how I feel about that, but it would take a huge haul to get those guys. The D'backs trade is supposed to be hard to believe; my point is that it's not impossible as it seems at first glance. It would require them not contending all year, and quite possibly, a change of GM's as a consequence. Trading Benintendi is a big probable downgrade in LF; it's unclear that you'd rather have Abreu and Castillo in the starting lineup than Benintendi and Shaw or Travis. And when you have a top 5 team full of young talent, it makes less than zero sense to trade a top 20 prospect like Espinoza to upgrade an already strong position. And between Kelly, Owens, Wright, Elias, and Johnson, our 5th starter projects to be very strong. I like the idea of getting Sale by trading Swihart, Owens or Kelly, and whatever else that we can spare that's reasonable. That's taking your excess talent (rather than a future potential franchise lynchpin) and using it to upgrade a position from good to great.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 11, 2016 22:52:31 GMT -5
Since the Dbacks just sold the farm to build around Goldschmidt, I have a hard time believing they would trade him so quickly. I think your chances are better at hoping the Chisox implode and choose to rebuild. Perhaps they could pry Sale, Abreu and Robertson away for Espinoza, Benintendi and Swihart - with Marrero and Travis thrown in. Not sure how I feel about that, but it would take a huge haul to get those guys. I like the idea of getting Sale by trading Swihart, Owens or Kelly, and whatever else that we can spare that's reasonable. That's taking your excess talent (rather than a future potential franchise lynchpin) and using it to upgrade a position from good to great. They're not going to accept a plethora of 4/5 starters and Swihart for Sale. If you want Sale you better be ready to part with Betts, Rodriguez, and probably two high level prospects.
The White Sox are not positioned to sell. They've got good players under reasonable contracts. Sale for 4 years under good money, Rodon poised to take a step forward, Quintana under a great deal, Abreu on a great deal, Brett Lawrie with a few more years, Eaton under a reasonable contract, Garcia under control and looking AMAZING with his new stance and approach this spring. Heck, they just added a 35 homer bat in Todd Frazier.
They have a great core under reasonable money, there is no reason to sell them off. If they want, they can trade guys like Lawrie, LaRoche, Frazier, and Melky at the deadline if they blow and recoup some prospects, and figure out other things to do in the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 13, 2016 3:09:40 GMT -5
I like the idea of getting Sale by trading Swihart, Owens or Kelly, and whatever else that we can spare that's reasonable. That's taking your excess talent (rather than a future potential franchise lynchpin) and using it to upgrade a position from good to great. They're not going to accept a plethora of 4/5 starters and Swihart for Sale. If you want Sale you better be ready to part with Betts, Rodriguez, and probably two high level prospects.
The White Sox are not positioned to sell. They've got good players under reasonable contracts. Sale for 4 years under good money, Rodon poised to take a step forward, Quintana under a great deal, Abreu on a great deal, Brett Lawrie with a few more years, Eaton under a reasonable contract, Garcia under control and looking AMAZING with his new stance and approach this spring. Heck, they just added a 35 homer bat in Todd Frazier.
They have a great core under reasonable money, there is no reason to sell them off. If they want, they can trade guys like Lawrie, LaRoche, Frazier, and Melky at the deadline if they blow and recoup some prospects, and figure out other things to do in the offseason. Come on, I wouldn't trade Betts straight up for Sale. Betts has to be top5 in the trade value for the whole league. Look at last years salary and WAR and get back to me.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 13, 2016 12:25:41 GMT -5
They're not going to accept a plethora of 4/5 starters and Swihart for Sale. If you want Sale you better be ready to part with Betts, Rodriguez, and probably two high level prospects.
The White Sox are not positioned to sell. They've got good players under reasonable contracts. Sale for 4 years under good money, Rodon poised to take a step forward, Quintana under a great deal, Abreu on a great deal, Brett Lawrie with a few more years, Eaton under a reasonable contract, Garcia under control and looking AMAZING with his new stance and approach this spring. Heck, they just added a 35 homer bat in Todd Frazier.
They have a great core under reasonable money, there is no reason to sell them off. If they want, they can trade guys like Lawrie, LaRoche, Frazier, and Melky at the deadline if they blow and recoup some prospects, and figure out other things to do in the offseason. Come on, I wouldn't trade Betts straight up for Sale. Betts has to be top5 in the trade value for the whole league. Look at last years salary and WAR and get back to me. Lol, Betts for Sale would never get it done. I'm sorry to tell you that, but it's the absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 13, 2016 12:46:25 GMT -5
Come on, I wouldn't trade Betts straight up for Sale. Betts has to be top5 in the trade value for the whole league. Look at last years salary and WAR and get back to me. Lol, Betts for Sale would never get it done. I'm sorry to tell you that, but it's the absolute truth. That's pretty much why none of these trades will ever get done. I wouldn't trade Betts either.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 13, 2016 13:03:03 GMT -5
Lol, Betts for Sale would never get it done. I'm sorry to tell you that, but it's the absolute truth. That's pretty much why none of these trades will ever get done. I wouldn't trade Betts either. I agree with all that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 13, 2016 13:24:03 GMT -5
Come on, I wouldn't trade Betts straight up for Sale. Betts has to be top5 in the trade value for the whole league. Look at last years salary and WAR and get back to me. Lol, Betts for Sale would never get it done. I'm sorry to tell you that, but it's the absolute truth. 2015 rWAR for Betts 6.00 for Sale 3.3. Betts has 8.1 wars in 1 and a 1/3 seasons, that is very very elite. Betts is 3 years younger and makes a lot less money. So how do you think Sale has a higher trade value??
By saying Betts would never get it done, all your saying is that the White Sox won't trade Sale at all. There is a 99% chance that Betts straight up for Sale is by far and away the best deal they could ever get. Then add in the fact that with Sales build and the way he throws everyone worries that at some point he's going to have injuries(you just don't know when). You have no such worries with Betts.
Are you a White Sox fan?? The way you value Sale to Betts makes it seem that you are.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 13, 2016 13:35:38 GMT -5
Lol, Betts for Sale would never get it done. I'm sorry to tell you that, but it's the absolute truth. 2015 rWAR for Betts 6.00 for Sale 3.3. Betts has 8.1 wars in 1 and a 1/3 seasons, that is very very elite. Betts is 3 years younger and makes a lot less money. So how do you think Sale has a higher trade value??
By saying Betts would never get it done, all your saying is that the White Sox won't trade Sale at all. There is a 99% chance that Betts straight up for Sale is by far and away the best deal they could ever get. Then add in the fact that with Sales build and the way he throws everyone worries that at some point he's going to have injuries(you just don't know when). You have no such worries with Betts.
Are you a White Sox fan?? The way you value Sale to Betts makes it seem that you are.
I'm sorry dude, but you're wrong. It's not a straight WAR comparison. Sale has the track record of a perennial top 5 cy young finalist year after year. It's the absolute hardest thing to find in baseball, and he's on a great contract. It makes no sense for them to trade Sale anyway the way they're set up. His value is almost indeterminable with how good of contract he's on. They can wait two years and if he's the same guy can trade him for essentially the same package. I personally wouldn't do it, but I bet if White Sox offered Sale for Betts, DD would have pulled the trigger.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 13, 2016 16:02:43 GMT -5
2015 rWAR for Betts 6.00 for Sale 3.3. Betts has 8.1 wars in 1 and a 1/3 seasons, that is very very elite. Betts is 3 years younger and makes a lot less money. So how do you think Sale has a higher trade value??
By saying Betts would never get it done, all your saying is that the White Sox won't trade Sale at all. There is a 99% chance that Betts straight up for Sale is by far and away the best deal they could ever get. Then add in the fact that with Sales build and the way he throws everyone worries that at some point he's going to have injuries(you just don't know when). You have no such worries with Betts.
Are you a White Sox fan?? The way you value Sale to Betts makes it seem that you are.
I'm sorry dude, but you're wrong. It's not a straight WAR comparison. Sale has the track record of a perennial top 5 cy young finalist year after year. It's the absolute hardest thing to find in baseball, and he's on a great contract. It makes no sense for them to trade Sale anyway the way they're set up. His value is almost indeterminable with how good of contract he's on. They can wait two years and if he's the same guy can trade him for essentially the same package. I personally wouldn't do it, but I bet if White Sox offered Sale for Betts, DD would have pulled the trigger. Well your saying two different things. I would totally understand if the White Sox didn't want to trade Sale at all. Thinking they are set up to compete for the next 2-3 years. I don't agree as they have not been very good that last few years with that core you keep raving about that is not that young. It's another thing to think Betts value at least doesn't equal or in your case come close to equaling Sale. I get Sale is a very good pitcher, signed to a very good contract and has crazy good value. What you seem to be missing is that Betts is a crazy good player with an even better contract.
Betts age 22 season was worth 6 rwar. I can't stress to you how rare it is to have a player that young have a season that good. There is no GM in baseball that would trade Betts, EROD and two high level prospects for Sale. You are the one that is dead wrong!! You have no clue what the value of young top notch prospects that have proven themselves in the majors are worth. Lets say the White Sox put Sale on the trade market. A package of EROD and two of our top prospects would most likely be the best deal they can get. Remember our top 4 prospects are all top 50 guys, some of the best in the game.
No way DD does a Betts for Sale deal, we need Betts more then we do Sale. If we didn't have Price maybe DD makes that deal, not when we have Price. Also Sales contract means a lot more to small market teams then it does to a team like the Red Sox that can spend 180 to 200 million a year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 13, 2016 16:22:28 GMT -5
You have to overpay for guys like Sale, which is why they don't get traded. So you're both right.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 13, 2016 17:07:53 GMT -5
If DD was offered Sale straight up for Betts at the beginning of the offseason I believe he would have pulled the trigger near instantaneously. Once he got Price, no, then the deal doesn't make quite the same sense. The narrative for the offseason was that DD went around figuring out the asking prices for Ace starting pitching early on, so of course that's the timing I was assuming. Essentially Betts would have went for Sale, DD would have acquired O'Day and Smith, and then probably signed a higher profile OFer than Young.
Hell, 3 years of Shelby Miller took a 4 WAR OFer under control for 5 seasons, a #1 prospect (both system and draft) who they just gave 6.5mill to, and a highly rated pitching prospect.
Sale is far and away a better pitcher with an extra year of control.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 13, 2016 17:09:35 GMT -5
You have to overpay for guys like Sale, which is why they don't get traded. So you're both right. You can't even really put a Price on Sale. There's so much control left that the asking price is just almost indeterminable. They can wait 2-3 years and if he's the same guy they can still get a similar package.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 13, 2016 22:28:11 GMT -5
You can't even really put a Price on Sale. There's so much control left that the asking price is just almost indeterminable. They can wait 2-3 years and if he's the same guy they can still get a similar package. Sure - but, the control on Mookie is longer......(2-5 years vs 2-4 years) If the White Sox became sellers, Mookie is probably the best they can get for Sale. But I agree, they're unlikely to trade Sale unless they think he's an injury risk. Here is Dave Cameron's trade value list - with Mookie at 611 and Sale at 116. As Mookie had a stronger 2nd half than Sale, I'm betting they're about dead even. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2015-trade-value-the-full-list/
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 13, 2016 22:31:01 GMT -5
FYI, on the Cameron trade value list, you got that backwards-- Sale was at 6 and Betts was at 11.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2016 22:33:31 GMT -5
I like the idea of getting Sale by trading Swihart, Owens or Kelly, and whatever else that we can spare that's reasonable. That's taking your excess talent (rather than a future potential franchise lynchpin) and using it to upgrade a position from good to great. They're not going to accept a plethora of 4/5 starters and Swihart for Sale. If you want Sale you better be ready to part with Betts, Rodriguez, and probably two high level prospects.This is like the Diamondbacks scenario. Any such trade requires a lot of things to break right. If we get Sale, it's because Owens has such a great year that six cost-controlled years of him look more or less as desirable as Sale's 3/$39.5. (Or, less likely, three cheap years of Kelly represent a downgrade from just Sale to a solid #2.) And because the actual centerpiece of the deal is a Swihart who, next winter, looks like the second coming of Posey. BP has them ranked 15th in projected Win%. FG has them 18th. ESPN, SI, and CBS had them ranked 23rd, 17th, and 23rd respectively in pre-season power rankings. They have BA's 23rd ranked farm system and KLaw's 22nd. This is in fact a team that seems to be stuck in the worst place, for just the reasons you cite: not good enough to contend, not bad enough to land a couple of top-5 picks in a row. Again, to make this trade they need to be in such bad straits that they feel that there is no way to win a WS in the foreseeable future without pulling the trigger on a trade that fills important holes, including getting a likely future All-Star at catcher (where they will have literally nobody), while only downgrading Sale's rotation spot a bit. And again, that's not likely, but it is very clearly possible.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2016 8:18:24 GMT -5
Most people view Arizona as insane for the Shelby Miller trade. And then you heard the Fernandez rumors which were so crazy that you just laugh at the supposed prices. Sale would likely be worth even more than that because of the extra control and because he doesn't have an innings limit. There is almost no way that the White Sox trade Sale for less than an insane return that the Red Sox would never pay, nor would I want them to because it's hard to trust pitchers. You know damn well that they'd demand Moncada and Espinoza, plus a lot more.
And if Swihart is the second coming of Posey, they wouldn't trade him either.
|
|
|