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
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 21, 2016 1:47:52 GMT -5
rWAR (also called bWAR) swaps out FIP for runs allowed. You shouldn't use his 2015 outlier rWAR to make any inferences of him declining -- he had two random stinkers vs. the Twins, lasting 3.0 innings in each and giving up 9 (8 ER) and 6 runs in them. Then there were the back-to-back starts against the Red Sox and Rays where he gave up 7 runs in each (but with a 16/4 K/BB). I remember in that Red Sox game, he got BABIP'd around mostly on singles -- looks like he only yielded one XBH (an Ortiz 2B). He was otherwise typically dominant, and led the league in FIP, K/9, and K/BB. I'm pretty comfortable with his Steamer projection. Sure the ERA may turn out to be worse, but it could also easily turn out to be even better. We know the peripheral numbers are going to be there, and that's what matters for predicting how he'll do. Yeah, that ERA+ was a product of bad luck. He approached 300 K, with his independent numbers pretty steady. Chicago's poor defense didn't do him any favors. Chris Sale would be a huge get. But he'd almost assuredly drop their farm talent into the 22-27 range. They have the 12th pick this summer, so they could rebound a little, but I'm not convinced that Sale instead of ERod is worth it. Tough call. Personally, they're so talented that I think the Sox are better off seeing where the chips fall with the guys they have, and then trading established MLB talent to restock the farm system. Rushing to get better results in Adrian Gonzalez. In 1-2 years, their MLB team is going to be incredibly stacked, and surprisingly young. Then they'll be on the other end of the 4-for-1 heist, with a guy they can replace internally.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Mar 21, 2016 9:38:08 GMT -5
Just thought about this for a minute.....We say (and rightly so) we would hesitate to trade AE for Sale. But look at it if you're a White Sox fan. If the deal is made, how would they feel about an unknown, at least in their eyes, trading Chris Sale for a pitcher who has only pitched well in the GULF COAST League. That's like us trading Mookie for an 18 year old who played well in the Pioneer league.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 21, 2016 9:45:43 GMT -5
Chris Sale is like a younger, healthier, and more consistent Rich Hill (2015), on a more favorable contract.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 21, 2016 15:07:05 GMT -5
Chris Sale is like a younger, healthier, and more consistent Rich Hill (2015), on a more favorable contract. That's it. Close the thread.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 21, 2016 16:00:07 GMT -5
Chris Sale is like a younger, healthier, and more consistent Rich Hill (2015), on a more favorable contract. Or he's exactly like a Cy Young winning version of Felix Doubront.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 22, 2016 8:55:25 GMT -5
Chris Sale is like a younger, healthier, and more consistent Rich Hill (2015), on a more favorable contract. Or he's exactly like a Cy Young winning version of Felix Doubront. I'm obviously saying it in jest, but look Hills K, BB, and HR stats from 2015 and compare them to Sales stats. What Rich hill did miraculously last year is what Sale does all the time. Leader board
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2016 15:20:12 GMT -5
Just thought about this for a minute.....We say (and rightly so) we would hesitate to trade AE for Sale. But look at it if you're a White Sox fan. If the deal is made, how would they feel about an unknown, at least in their eyes, trading Chris Sale for a pitcher who has only pitched well in the GULF COAST League. That's like us trading Mookie for an 18 year old who played well in the Pioneer league. I wouldn't hesitate one second trading AE for Sale. I wouldn't even think about it, done deal. The chances that AE is better Sale are very slim, just for the fact that Sale is one of the better pitchers in the whole league. This is just an example of us overvaluing our prospects.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Mar 23, 2016 8:16:13 GMT -5
Just thought about this for a minute.....We say (and rightly so) we would hesitate to trade AE for Sale. But look at it if you're a White Sox fan. If the deal is made, how would they feel about an unknown, at least in their eyes, trading Chris Sale for a pitcher who has only pitched well in the GULF COAST League. That's like us trading Mookie for an 18 year old who played well in the Pioneer league. I wouldn't hesitate one second trading AE for Sale. I wouldn't even think about it, done deal. The chances that AE is better Sale are very slim, just for the fact that Sale is one of the better pitchers in the whole league. This is just an example of us overvaluing our prospects. Makes sense.....the key would be the 2nd or 3rd piece....I know this trade is never going to happen, but what would you kick in, Swihart, Johnson, Owens? After the Kenny Williams roasting, it can't be real comfortable for Sale in that clubhouse. Not sure I'd want him in our clubhouse after his remarks to their front office. Regarding the Laroche situation, what if EVERY player had his kid in the clubhouse at all times? When Laroche got the OK when he signed, the FO probably didn't think his son would actually be there every day.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 24, 2016 15:44:03 GMT -5
I think Sale showed he's a leader and was protecting a teammate he felt was being mistreated by the team. Front office knew exactly how much Drake was going to be there as he was in Washington's clubhouse all the time. I think this could ruin the White Sox season as it seems what players said to Sale and Eaton was different then what they told FO. If Williams and players that had problems just told the truth this wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it became.
I don't want to trade Swihart. Much harder to get a catcher then a starter.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2016 20:07:10 GMT -5
I think Sale showed he's a leader and was protecting a teammate he felt was being mistreated by the team. Front office knew exactly how much Drake was going to be there as he was in Washington's clubhouse all the time. I think this could ruin the White Sox season as it seems what players said to Sale and Eaton was different then what they told FO. If Williams and players that had problems just told the truth this wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it became. I don't want to trade Swihart. Much harder to get a catcher then a starter. Espinoza for Sale straight-up, sure. I wouldn't "like" it, but it would be crazy not to. But the issue is pieces 2-4. A Sale trade would absolutely deplete the farm system. This is what the Sox did in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez. If Sale stays healthy and pitches well, it's probably not such an issue, although it affects cost certainty and forces a more rigid pay structure in the future by requiring those holes that would have been filled by low-cost homegrowns to be populated with free agents. I'm not a fan of those sorts of trades, even for as outstanding a talent as Sale (who has a very funky delivery), and especially not giving up a player as talented as Espinoza. The comparison of "catcher" to "starter" is specious, too, in that, while it's true, "starter" should be qualified with "top of the rotation", in which case that statement isn't really accurate.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 24, 2016 21:18:43 GMT -5
I think Sale showed he's a leader and was protecting a teammate he felt was being mistreated by the team. Front office knew exactly how much Drake was going to be there as he was in Washington's clubhouse all the time. I think this could ruin the White Sox season as it seems what players said to Sale and Eaton was different then what they told FO. If Williams and players that had problems just told the truth this wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it became. I don't want to trade Swihart. Much harder to get a catcher then a starter. Espinoza for Sale straight-up, sure. I wouldn't "like" it, but it would be crazy not to. But the issue is pieces 2-4. A Sale trade would absolutely deplete the farm system. This is what the Sox did in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez. If Sale stays healthy and pitches well, it's probably not such an issue, although it affects cost certainty and forces a more rigid pay structure in the future by requiring those holes that would have been filled by low-cost homegrowns to be populated with free agents. I'm not a fan of those sorts of trades, even for as outstanding a talent as Sale (who has a very funky delivery), and especially not giving up a player as talented as Espinoza. The comparison of "catcher" to "starter" is specious, too, in that, while it's true, "starter" should be qualified with "top of the rotation", in which case that statement isn't really accurate. Sure trade would hurt, but not sure it depletes system. Example a trade of Erod, Swihart and AE doesn't come close to depleting farm system. It' way harder to acquire a catcher with Swiharts upside then top of rotation starter. Look at past year top of rotation arms like Price, Grienke and Hamels have all changed teams. I can't think of top catchers changing teams. Catcher has to be weakest position in all the majors right now.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2016 23:41:10 GMT -5
Espinoza for Sale straight-up, sure. I wouldn't "like" it, but it would be crazy not to. But the issue is pieces 2-4. A Sale trade would absolutely deplete the farm system. This is what the Sox did in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez. If Sale stays healthy and pitches well, it's probably not such an issue, although it affects cost certainty and forces a more rigid pay structure in the future by requiring those holes that would have been filled by low-cost homegrowns to be populated with free agents. I'm not a fan of those sorts of trades, even for as outstanding a talent as Sale (who has a very funky delivery), and especially not giving up a player as talented as Espinoza. The comparison of "catcher" to "starter" is specious, too, in that, while it's true, "starter" should be qualified with "top of the rotation", in which case that statement isn't really accurate. Sure trade would hurt, but not sure it depletes system. Example a trade of Erod, Swihart and AE doesn't come close to depleting farm system. It' way harder to acquire a catcher with Swiharts upside then top of rotation starter. Look at past year top of rotation arms like Price, Grienke and Hamels have all changed teams. I can't think of top catchers changing teams. Catcher has to be weakest position in all the majors right now. Eh, I wouldn't put Hamels in that group. But I'll give you that catching certainly is fairly weak right now. And I would never do that trade anyway...I don't see Sale as being 3-4 wins better than Rodriguez in two years. That trade would leave the Sox with one viable catcher, no #1 starting prospects (with a questionable MLB rotation, given Price's opt-out), and probably only about 4-5 net WAR over the next two years. That depletes their system pretty significantly. Yes, you can do a trade without ruining the farm, but it's silly to dump all of that talent in Espinoza and Swihart just to upgrade from a #2/3 (current, with eminently reachable 1/1a upside) to a 1. That's a horrible value trade, and it's liable to create major problems down the road, especially if Sale gets injured. The point of acquiring a guy like Sale is to replace the fifth starter, not the guy who's the functional (if not in name) #2. Hence, my dislike of trading for him. The Sox don't have the established high-level MLB *redundant* talent to reduce the prospect requirements without creating major holes that would be expensive in talent/$ to fill. And five prospects for Sale is prohibitive. Now, if, say, a couple of the young guys in this wave establish themselves as All-Stars, and a couple of the current top 4 establish themselves as quality contributors with upside, then a trade for a guy like Sale makes more sense, since the sustainable core would be in place, rather than just coalescing. At that point, they may have attractive young MLB talent with high trade value who could be the main chip, with only 1-2 prospects needed. Or, heck, trade those guys to stockpile high-quality arms who've taken value hits (mid-season Taijuan Walker last year, or Orioles version Arrieta), and hope you hit on one. But a major outlay of talent for the Sox right now is a major mistake IMO. Right now, the Sox are looking like the '94-'95 Yankees...not yet the '98-'99 version.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2016 23:50:23 GMT -5
Simply put, I think any *reasonable* trade proposal (i.e., a guy like Sale would probably require Espinoza, Swihart, and several other valuable pieces) at this point is awful for the Sox **unless** they can somehow deal from redundancy. And that means they need success at both the MLB and MiLB levels for their bigger-name talent (plus a few sleeper breakouts) to be able to do so. Otherwise, they're stuck either losing a key young MLB guy (or two), or mortgaging the farm. There's just too much talent uncertainty right now. By next offseason, I think the picture will be much clearer, both in terms of who has significant value at the MLB level, and who can be counted on among MiLB players to step in relatively soon.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2016 2:19:22 GMT -5
Sure trade would hurt, but not sure it depletes system. Example a trade of Erod, Swihart and AE doesn't come close to depleting farm system. It' way harder to acquire a catcher with Swiharts upside then top of rotation starter. Look at past year top of rotation arms like Price, Grienke and Hamels have all changed teams. I can't think of top catchers changing teams. Catcher has to be weakest position in all the majors right now. Eh, I wouldn't put Hamels in that group. But I'll give you that catching certainly is fairly weak right now. And I would never do that trade anyway...I don't see Sale as being 3-4 wins better than Rodriguez in two years. That trade would leave the Sox with one viable catcher, no #1 starting prospects (with a questionable MLB rotation, given Price's opt-out), and probably only about 4-5 net WAR over the next two years. That depletes their system pretty significantly. Yes, you can do a trade without ruining the farm, but it's silly to dump all of that talent in Espinoza and Swihart just to upgrade from a #2/3 (current, with eminently reachable 1/1a upside) to a 1. That's a horrible value trade, and it's liable to create major problems down the road, especially if Sale gets injured. The point of acquiring a guy like Sale is to replace the fifth starter, not the guy who's the functional (if not in name) #2. Hence, my dislike of trading for him. The Sox don't have the established high-level MLB *redundant* talent to reduce the prospect requirements without creating major holes that would be expensive in talent/$ to fill. And five prospects for Sale is prohibitive. Now, if, say, a couple of the young guys in this wave establish themselves as All-Stars, and a couple of the current top 4 establish themselves as quality contributors with upside, then a trade for a guy like Sale makes more sense, since the sustainable core would be in place, rather than just coalescing. At that point, they may have attractive young MLB talent with high trade value who could be the main chip, with only 1-2 prospects needed. Or, heck, trade those guys to stockpile high-quality arms who've taken value hits (mid-season Taijuan Walker last year, or Orioles version Arrieta), and hope you hit on one. But a major outlay of talent for the Sox right now is a major mistake IMO. Right now, the Sox are looking like the '94-'95 Yankees...not yet the '98-'99 version. I think Hamels clearly is in that group. I wouldn't make that trade just showing that you wouldn't have to gut system. Also no team gets a guy like Sale to replace your 5th starter. If your the Sox and you get Sale so you have two aces making 4 starts in playoff series. Teams get guys like Sale to lead rotation or CO lead in Sox case. The Red Sox currently have a crap load of young talent in majors and in minors. You can trade a bunch of players and not hurt us in the future if you acquire younger players like Sale that are signed long term. I would really not have a problem trading Erod for Sale, it's Swihart that scares me. I look at catcher stats and it's crazy how bad the catchers currently in the league are. A guy with Swiharts bat that at worst should become an average catcher could lead league in bwars in a few years for catchers.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2016 2:43:36 GMT -5
Simply put, I think any *reasonable* trade proposal (i.e., a guy like Sale would probably require Espinoza, Swihart, and several other valuable pieces) at this point is awful for the Sox **unless** they can somehow deal from redundancy. And that means they need success at both the MLB and MiLB levels for their bigger-name talent (plus a few sleeper breakouts) to be able to do so. Otherwise, they're stuck either losing a key young MLB guy (or two), or mortgaging the farm. There's just too much talent uncertainty right now. By next offseason, I think the picture will be much clearer, both in terms of who has significant value at the MLB level, and who can be counted on among MiLB players to step in relatively soon. With all the young talent Sox have don't think you can say it would take this guy and this guy. All depends what they want and are looking for. I do agree that this up coming season will answer a lot of questions about a bunch of players I think have a ton of talent like Bradley, Owens, Johnson, Shaw, Vazquez, Castillo, Barnes, Erod and Swihart. Look at a guy like Vazquez before last season his trade value was very high. A catcher with elite D that had seemed to improve bat enough to be at least league average or better.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 25, 2016 10:22:26 GMT -5
Eh, I wouldn't put Hamels in that group. But I'll give you that catching certainly is fairly weak right now. And I would never do that trade anyway...I don't see Sale as being 3-4 wins better than Rodriguez in two years. That trade would leave the Sox with one viable catcher, no #1 starting prospects (with a questionable MLB rotation, given Price's opt-out), and probably only about 4-5 net WAR over the next two years. That depletes their system pretty significantly. Yes, you can do a trade without ruining the farm, but it's silly to dump all of that talent in Espinoza and Swihart just to upgrade from a #2/3 (current, with eminently reachable 1/1a upside) to a 1. That's a horrible value trade, and it's liable to create major problems down the road, especially if Sale gets injured. The point of acquiring a guy like Sale is to replace the fifth starter, not the guy who's the functional (if not in name) #2. Hence, my dislike of trading for him. The Sox don't have the established high-level MLB *redundant* talent to reduce the prospect requirements without creating major holes that would be expensive in talent/$ to fill. And five prospects for Sale is prohibitive. Now, if, say, a couple of the young guys in this wave establish themselves as All-Stars, and a couple of the current top 4 establish themselves as quality contributors with upside, then a trade for a guy like Sale makes more sense, since the sustainable core would be in place, rather than just coalescing. At that point, they may have attractive young MLB talent with high trade value who could be the main chip, with only 1-2 prospects needed. Or, heck, trade those guys to stockpile high-quality arms who've taken value hits (mid-season Taijuan Walker last year, or Orioles version Arrieta), and hope you hit on one. But a major outlay of talent for the Sox right now is a major mistake IMO. Right now, the Sox are looking like the '94-'95 Yankees...not yet the '98-'99 version. I think Hamels clearly is in that group. I wouldn't make that trade just showing that you wouldn't have to gut system. Also no team gets a guy like Sale to replace your 5th starter. If your the Sox and you get Sale so you have two aces making 4 starts in playoff series. Teams get guys like Sale to lead rotation or CO lead in Sox case. The Red Sox currently have a crap load of young talent in majors and in minors. You can trade a bunch of players and not hurt us in the future if you acquire younger players like Sale that are signed long term. I would really not have a problem trading Erod for Sale, it's Swihart that scares me. I look at catcher stats and it's crazy how bad the catchers currently in the league are. A guy with Swiharts bat that at worst should become an average catcher could lead league in bwars in a few years for catchers. We'll have to agree to disagree on Hamels. And I don't think you're understanding the issue I brought up. Replacing your #2-3 starter with Sale nets you maybe 2 wins. Replacing your five with Sale nets 4. The former isn't a worthwhile improvement. You're confused if you think I meant Sale becomes the fifth starter. I'm talking about the eventual composition of the rotation, i.e, Price-Sale-Rodriguez-Buchholz-Porcello/Kelly vs Price-Sale-Buch-Porcello-Kelly. Sale has four years of control, so they would have him one year longer than Price's opt-out. And no, if you trade a "crapload" of young players, you end up being the 2011-2015 Red Sox, especially if Sale misses time or you have a series of poor drafts. You'd end up trading a ton of future (and present) value for a marginal (2-4 WAR) improvement, all tied up in a single player, and create holes elsewhere in your system, including C.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 25, 2016 10:25:19 GMT -5
Simply put, I think any *reasonable* trade proposal (i.e., a guy like Sale would probably require Espinoza, Swihart, and several other valuable pieces) at this point is awful for the Sox **unless** they can somehow deal from redundancy. And that means they need success at both the MLB and MiLB levels for their bigger-name talent (plus a few sleeper breakouts) to be able to do so. Otherwise, they're stuck either losing a key young MLB guy (or two), or mortgaging the farm. There's just too much talent uncertainty right now. By next offseason, I think the picture will be much clearer, both in terms of who has significant value at the MLB level, and who can be counted on among MiLB players to step in relatively soon. With all the young talent Sox have don't think you can say it would take this guy and this guy. All depends what they want and are looking for. I do agree that this up coming season will answer a lot of questions about a bunch of players I think have a ton of talent like Bradley, Owens, Johnson, Shaw, Vazquez, Castillo, Barnes, Erod and Swihart. Look at a guy like Vazquez before last season his trade value was very high. A catcher with elite D that had seemed to improve bat enough to be at least league average or better. Good grief, it's not like there's any mystery as to who teams are going to ask for once they've been told Betts/Bogaerts aren't on the table. And there's a reason I used "probably."
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 25, 2016 12:37:32 GMT -5
I think Sale showed he's a leader and was protecting a teammate he felt was being mistreated by the team. Front office knew exactly how much Drake was going to be there as he was in Washington's clubhouse all the time. I think this could ruin the White Sox season as it seems what players said to Sale and Eaton was different then what they told FO. If Williams and players that had problems just told the truth this wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it became. I don't want to trade Swihart. Much harder to get a catcher then a starter. Espinoza for Sale straight-up, sure. I wouldn't "like" it, but it would be crazy not to. But the issue is pieces 2-4. A Sale trade would absolutely deplete the farm system. This is what the Sox did in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez. If Sale stays healthy and pitches well, it's probably not such an issue, although it affects cost certainty and forces a more rigid pay structure in the future by requiring those holes that would have been filled by low-cost homegrowns to be populated with free agents. I'm not a fan of those sorts of trades, even for as outstanding a talent as Sale (who has a very funky delivery), and especially not giving up a player as talented as Espinoza. The comparison of "catcher" to "starter" is specious, too, in that, while it's true, "starter" should be qualified with "top of the rotation", in which case that statement isn't really accurate. I can count the number of players I would trade Espinoza even-up for on the fingers of one finger. And if you think that's a fishy answer in more ways than the obvious one, look for my "AE is underrated" post in his thread on the main board.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 25, 2016 14:35:39 GMT -5
Espinoza for Sale straight-up, sure. I wouldn't "like" it, but it would be crazy not to. But the issue is pieces 2-4. A Sale trade would absolutely deplete the farm system. This is what the Sox did in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez. If Sale stays healthy and pitches well, it's probably not such an issue, although it affects cost certainty and forces a more rigid pay structure in the future by requiring those holes that would have been filled by low-cost homegrowns to be populated with free agents. I'm not a fan of those sorts of trades, even for as outstanding a talent as Sale (who has a very funky delivery), and especially not giving up a player as talented as Espinoza. The comparison of "catcher" to "starter" is specious, too, in that, while it's true, "starter" should be qualified with "top of the rotation", in which case that statement isn't really accurate. I can count the number of players I would trade Espinoza even-up for on the fingers of one finger. And if you think that's a fishy answer in more ways than the obvious one, look for my "AE is underrated" post in his thread on the main board. No need to tell me, I started that thread. I might go so far as to say two, but really, I just don't see any sense in it. He's got transcendent talent. I think those are the guys a team needs to develop. They have cache, value to the franchise beyond the field. Edit: if I were a GM, and had the offer, I would do it because I'd probably lose my job if I didn't. But from the armchair, no thanks. I'd rather see Espinoza develop and succeed with Boston.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2016 19:35:37 GMT -5
I think Hamels clearly is in that group. I wouldn't make that trade just showing that you wouldn't have to gut system. Also no team gets a guy like Sale to replace your 5th starter. If your the Sox and you get Sale so you have two aces making 4 starts in playoff series. Teams get guys like Sale to lead rotation or CO lead in Sox case. The Red Sox currently have a crap load of young talent in majors and in minors. You can trade a bunch of players and not hurt us in the future if you acquire younger players like Sale that are signed long term. I would really not have a problem trading Erod for Sale, it's Swihart that scares me. I look at catcher stats and it's crazy how bad the catchers currently in the league are. A guy with Swiharts bat that at worst should become an average catcher could lead league in bwars in a few years for catchers. We'll have to agree to disagree on Hamels. And I don't think you're understanding the issue I brought up. Replacing your #2-3 starter with Sale nets you maybe 2 wins. Replacing your five with Sale nets 4. The former isn't a worthwhile improvement. You're confused if you think I meant Sale becomes the fifth starter. I'm talking about the eventual composition of the rotation, i.e, Price-Sale-Rodriguez-Buchholz-Porcello/Kelly vs Price-Sale-Buch-Porcello-Kelly. Sale has four years of control, so they would have him one year longer than Price's opt-out. And no, if you trade a "crapload" of young players, you end up being the 2011-2015 Red Sox, especially if Sale misses time or you have a series of poor drafts. You'd end up trading a ton of future (and present) value for a marginal (2-4 WAR) improvement, all tied up in a single player, and create holes elsewhere in your system, including C. My bad on 5th starter issue that makes total sense. With all the young talent we have I just don't see one trade changing our future in the way you do. Not when you are getting a young player like Sale that's locked up long term. The what if games goes both ways, what if Sale doesn't get injured and we go on to have a series of good drafts. What if 3\4 of the prospects we trade bust or get injured? What if none of them bust, but never come close to becoming the players we thought they would? Getting a player like Sale can have a bigger impact then just the 2-4 war increase on paper. I dream of Price and Sale starting 4 games every playoff series and how much it would increase our chances of winning a title.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2016 19:47:36 GMT -5
With all the young talent Sox have don't think you can say it would take this guy and this guy. All depends what they want and are looking for. I do agree that this up coming season will answer a lot of questions about a bunch of players I think have a ton of talent like Bradley, Owens, Johnson, Shaw, Vazquez, Castillo, Barnes, Erod and Swihart. Look at a guy like Vazquez before last season his trade value was very high. A catcher with elite D that had seemed to improve bat enough to be at least league average or better. Good grief, it's not like there's any mystery as to who teams are going to ask for once they've been told Betts/Bogaerts aren't on the table. And there's a reason I used "probably." I think there is mystery as to which players certain teams would want if you said pick two of ERod, Swihart, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, Benintendi and even Kopech. Hence why I think saying probably Espinoza and Swihart is foolish. A team could easily want any combo of those 7. Heck think it was Spiers that said some teams valued Travis same as our top 4 prospects. You never know how certain teams value our players.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2016 19:54:22 GMT -5
Espinoza for Sale straight-up, sure. I wouldn't "like" it, but it would be crazy not to. But the issue is pieces 2-4. A Sale trade would absolutely deplete the farm system. This is what the Sox did in acquiring Adrian Gonzalez. If Sale stays healthy and pitches well, it's probably not such an issue, although it affects cost certainty and forces a more rigid pay structure in the future by requiring those holes that would have been filled by low-cost homegrowns to be populated with free agents. I'm not a fan of those sorts of trades, even for as outstanding a talent as Sale (who has a very funky delivery), and especially not giving up a player as talented as Espinoza. The comparison of "catcher" to "starter" is specious, too, in that, while it's true, "starter" should be qualified with "top of the rotation", in which case that statement isn't really accurate. I can count the number of players I would trade Espinoza even-up for on the fingers of one finger. And if you think that's a fishy answer in more ways than the obvious one, look for my "AE is underrated" post in his thread on the main board. Fishy? No. Foolish? Oh yea. I can think of a bunch of players I would trade him for. I see the upside, but you act like it's a 100% fact he's the next Pedro.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 25, 2016 21:42:01 GMT -5
Good grief, it's not like there's any mystery as to who teams are going to ask for once they've been told Betts/Bogaerts aren't on the table. And there's a reason I used "probably." I think there is mystery as to which players certain teams would want if you said pick two of ERod, Swihart, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, Benintendi and even Kopech. Hence why I think saying probably Espinoza and Swihart is foolish. A team could easily want any combo of those 7. Heck think it was Spiers that said some teams valued Travis same as our top 4 prospects. You never know how certain teams value our players. Eh, look at LA with Kershaw-Grienke. Compare with the 2007 Sox, or 2013 edition. A player like that makes the team reasonably better in the immediate term, but there's substantial ripple. Reduced roster flexibility, increased dependence on FA (and less familiarity with players' "fit", psychological or skill-wise), increased long-term cost, reduced internal options for unexpected needs, reduced trade options for unexpected needs... I'm not a fan of trades that are predicated on volume out, at least when that volume is non-redundant.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2016 22:57:09 GMT -5
I think there is mystery as to which players certain teams would want if you said pick two of ERod, Swihart, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, Benintendi and even Kopech. Hence why I think saying probably Espinoza and Swihart is foolish. A team could easily want any combo of those 7. Heck think it was Spiers that said some teams valued Travis same as our top 4 prospects. You never know how certain teams value our players. Eh, look at LA with Kershaw-Grienke. Compare with the 2007 Sox, or 2013 edition. A player like that makes the team reasonably better in the immediate term, but there's substantial ripple. Reduced roster flexibility, increased dependence on FA (and less familiarity with players' "fit", psychological or skill-wise), increased long-term cost, reduced internal options for unexpected needs, reduced trade options for unexpected needs... I'm not a fan of trades that are predicated on volume out, at least when that volume is non-redundant. I just don't see the connection between Kershaw-Grienke, 2007 Sox and 2013 Sox. LA didn't trade a bunch of prospects for either pitcher and 2013 Sox didn't make a major trade for an elite arm either. Only the 2007 team that traded Ramirez and Sanchez for Beckett seems to compare to Sox trading a bunch of prospects for an elite pitcher. How did that workout? We won a title so in my book that was a slamdunk trade. You seem to prefer to keep all our prospects, were I prefer winning titles and if we need to trade some prospects to do it so be it.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 12, 2016 12:48:02 GMT -5
I didn't know where to put this, and I didn't want to start a new thread for it because it's kind of silly, but here's my attempt.
Rangers get
Swihart Castillo
Padres get
Kelly Savdoval
Red Sox Get
Mazara Shields Hedges Solarte
So this is really 2, 2 team trades. I wrote it as a three team trade for simplicity, and because I believe there could be some more balance added to this. Also, I would not do one trade without doing the other.
Rangers get their catcher and an outfielder that would both be used now. They give up a big, near ready prospect, but someone who should be comparable to Swihart. They might need some cash.
Padres would not do Shields for Sandoval, but Kelly for Hedges and Solarte should be more than enough to compensate that. Padres MLB roster remains whole, getting a 3B and a Pitcher for a 3B, Pitcher and a AAA catcher.
Red Sox solve their logjam at catcher while maintaining their catching depth. Hedges is a good 3rd option with some upside and control. They shed their two big bench contracts, and they get some outfield and infield depth. Mazara could be the long term replacement to Bradley if Bradley doesn't take (moving Betts to CF) to pair with Benintendi/Moncada when they are ready. In the mean time you can platoon him with Young or put him in the minors, which would require another LH bat (maybe Padres include Jon Jay?). Shields isn't a good fit in Fenway, but neither is Sandoval on the bench.
I think this needs more balancing, but it's framework I'd be interested in.
|
|
|