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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,947
|
Post by ericmvan on May 24, 2016 22:57:37 GMT -5
I actually thought about Swihart, Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, plus 2 or 3 others from below the top 4, and/or Owens, Johnson, Kelly. But Neo I don't trade. However, this would be the ideal time to invoke Theo's dictum "avoid the temptation to build an uber-team." I can live with Benintendi as the 3rd OFer, as much as you'd love to upgrade him to Trout. I want the surplus of talent that makes it likely that you'll have a great player at just about every position down the road. Right now, you have Benintendi, Moncada, Devers, Travis, Chavis, and Ockimey all looking like candidates to fill the three furthest spots on the defensive spectrum in 2019. The more alluring candidates you have, the better your chances. You can trade the excess talent when and only when it's clear that it actually is excess. When the weak link in your lineup is Brock Holt and the weak link in your rotation is Clay Buchholz, you can afford to stand pat and hoard the potential future talent. Having said that, I do wonder whether there's a trade that actually makes sense. It's essentially Benintendi plus a whole lot for Trout. Swihart is already expendable, and Devers is behind Shaw and the possibility of Moncada playing 3B. Owens is expendable unless bad things happen to Kelly / Buchholz / E-Rod. Moncada's too good to trade and Travis may fill a position of need as soon as next year. You try not to trade any young pitching with rapid-development top-of-rotation upside (I still think Owens gets there, but in his 5th year of team control). So Kopech is off the table initially. Now, I very much doubt that Benintendi, Swihart, Devers, Owens, and a couple of other guys -- anyone not already mentioned -- could get it done. But I do think there's a scenario where the stock of all four of those guys has risen so much by the end of the year (or even the trade deadline) that it does work. Since Trout is the upgrade from Benintendi, this is not gutting the farm system at all, and I would actually do it. But right now it's somewhat of a pipe dream to think that the Angels would believe they were getting 3 or 4 likely stars in that deal, and their believing that is what it will take. Now, if adding Kopech is enough to swing the deal, I do it. And in fact proclaiming him off-limits initially would be a negotiating strategy -- the best kind, because it's half-true. Final thought: the Angels' farm system is so thin that they would actually be interested in extra mid-level prospect bodies. If you offer say, the core four plus Kopech and Ockimey and they're just shy of doing it, adding, say, Trey Ball would ordinarily not make a difference to most teams, but it would for them. IOW, if you can get 3 very attractive guys out of the Expendable Four, I think you can get the trade done by supplementing with some sort of quantity. But the key is that 3 of those guys have to transcend "nice get" and have at least a little bit of wow factor.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on May 26, 2016 10:50:44 GMT -5
Doesn't that limit our capability to get a Drew Pomeranz or Jimmy Nelson? With those pieces we could get either one of those pitchers plus a bat like Wil Myers.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 26, 2016 11:16:03 GMT -5
I would much, much rather have Mike Trout than Wil Myers and one of Pomeranz/Nelson.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on May 27, 2016 7:44:43 GMT -5
I would much, much rather have Mike Trout than Wil Myers and one of Pomeranz/Nelson. Don't forget about the 28 million per (average) owed to Mike through 2020. That could net you Pomeranz/Myers/Encarnacion/Kenley Jansen. Obviously the last 2 for 2017-2021 or so. That's 4 different positions. I may be in the minority here, but I'd take those 4 over Trout.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2016 8:30:05 GMT -5
$28m a year isn't close to what you'd need to sign Jansen and Encarnacion (I'd guess closer to $40m a year), and you're ignoring Pomeranz and Myers' salaries and the two draft picks you'd have to give up.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on May 27, 2016 9:35:23 GMT -5
Highest AAV for a closer (David Robertson & Kimbrel) is 11 mil per...Open market Jansen may get a bit more. Good comp for Encarnacion would be Victor Martinez @ 18 mil per. Even though Victor can only DH these days, he is a much better hitter than EE. I'm not sure Myers/Pomeranz salaries would be a huge difference. But, as you said, the draft picks would hurt.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2016 10:06:18 GMT -5
Jansen should get at least in the neighborhood of $15m a year.
You're greatly underestimating Encarnacion-- he's a better hitter than Martinez, even peak Martinez. Over the past three+ years, Encarnacion is a .269/.360/.534 (144 wRC+) hitter, while Martinez was a .321/.381/.487 (137 wRC+) hitter in the three years before he re-signed with the Tigers in 2014. With inflation, Encarnacion should get in the $25m range in AAV. Hanley got $22m a year a year+ ago despite being a worse hitter (though, at the time, we thought he'd be a better fielder).
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on May 27, 2016 10:45:40 GMT -5
Good points....the next tiers down would be say Trumbo/Hochever. I can see Trumbo getting QO so this would kill the deal right there. You do see where I was going with this though, 4 very good players instead of one great player? I'll let it go now. Thanks for the numbers.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,947
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 1, 2016 8:11:17 GMT -5
Another factor in the Angels' willingness to trade is the performance of their so-called top prospects. It's early, but I thought I'd take a look. Position players first.
1. C Taylor Ward, last year's 26th overall pick out of Fresno State who dominated R+ and A leagues last year.
.237 / .302 / .277 at age 22 in high-A. For Inland Empire in the Cal Lg! .208 Davenport Peak Translation.
2. OF Jahmai Jones, last year's 2nd rounder. In XST at age 18.
8. 3B Kaleb Cowart, former top prospect who resurrected his career last year with a .285 DPT in the PCL (after starting with a demotion to high-A, where he was .233). Just .255 this year, at age 24.
10. CF Chad Hinshaw. He's 25 and is repeating AA, where he's gone from .260 to .212.
Wow, when your #10 prospect is a potential 4th OFer, that's a bad system.
11. SS David Fletcher, .182 in high-A, at age 22, down from about .230 last year.
12. SS Roberto Baldoquin. Also 22 in high-A, just 19 PA, 3 games in early April and 2 in early May. Presumably hurt.
14. SS Julio Garcia, 18 in XST.
15. RF Brandon Sanger, playing 2B in low-A at 22, .215, down from .250.
16. 3B Kyle Kubitza, 25 in AAA, .239, down from .255.
20. CF Jared Foster, 23 in low-A, .237. That's actually up from .217!
Is anyone else having having a good year?
Cowart's the best guy in AA. Best guy in AA is depth chart 3B Cal Towey at .269, but he's 26. Best guy in high-A is depth chart LF Caleb Adams, .243 at age 23. Non-prospect 3B Hutton Moyer has a .266 at low-A, but he's 23.
How bereft of talent is this organization? Their #18 prospect was CF Rafael Ortega, a 40 grade, 4th OF type coming off a .260 season at age 24 in AAA. He's now the Angels' starting LF, where he's rocking a 65 wRC+. At least his defense has given him an 0.9 aWAR / 150 GS.
Josh Ockimey might be their #1 position player prospect. Seriously. Those who think the Angels will never trade Trout may be unaware of just how bad this system is. For hitters, the entire system essentially consists of one guy in AAA who might be able to start at 3B for a bad team one day, and a kid who had a .252 DPT in the Arizona League last year.
There's no credible path to this team competing in the 4 years left on Trout's contract after this one. They have no payroll space, no young improving players (Ortega and C Carlos Perez (1.2 WAR with framing per 120 last time I looked) are their second youngest starters after Trout), and no hitting prospects who are less than 4 years away.
I may do pitchers later ...
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,947
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 1, 2016 8:24:30 GMT -5
One more note. Trout has a full no-trade, which he'd undoubtedly waive for a trade to a contender. The Sox have the talent to make this happen, as do the the Cubs and Dodgers (the Mets don't, nor do they have the payroll space). If he knows that, it's hard to imagine him approving a trade to anyone else, e.g., the Nats.
And none of those clubs need him, which will keep the price down. The offers will be rational ones rather than we-must-overwhlem-you-because-Trout! ones.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jun 1, 2016 9:33:41 GMT -5
Was watching their game last night against Detroit. They tried to pitch around him. Anibal gave him one pitch to hit with guys on & he went yard. Even their MLB roster looks thin.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jun 1, 2016 10:50:24 GMT -5
Trout is a Hall of Fame talent.
Trout in the middle of this lineup = World Series favorite
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,718
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 1, 2016 12:48:05 GMT -5
Trout is a Hall of Fame talent. Trout in the middle of this lineup = World Series favorite Not necessarily. Trout can't pitch? Can he? The Red Sox, last I checked, aren't having many issues with their offense. It's the pitching that has more question marks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2016 13:08:43 GMT -5
A run scored is just as valuable as a run saved. There's this tendency to think that it's better to shore up a weakness than to keep building up a strength, but there's no real reason that that'd be the case.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2016 13:30:37 GMT -5
A run scored is just as valuable as a run saved. There's this tendency to think that it's better to shore up a weakness than to keep building up a strength, but there's no real reason that that'd be the case. In most cases, it's easier to improve a weakness. I'd still be ecstatic with acquiring Reddick with no pitchers though if his thumb heals well. But that's a tricky injury.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2016 13:35:12 GMT -5
Fair enough, but I'd argue that LF is just as big a weakness as the rotation, if not moreso.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2016 13:41:33 GMT -5
Fair enough, but I'd argue that LF is just as big a weakness as the rotation, if not moreso. Definitely. Although, I'm pretty frightened at their depth overall also. One or two injuries could ruin the season, especially if it were Shaw.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jun 1, 2016 14:37:21 GMT -5
I guess it depends on who costs what then. I don't think we should use prospects to solve all 3 of our needs (LF, SP, RP) and I imagine that we can do all right with at least one or two of those internally. And if given the chance, I feel like I'd rather use our prospects to get a better starting pitcher than a LF, especially with Benintendi on his way up in the not so distant future.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,718
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 1, 2016 15:49:45 GMT -5
A run scored is just as valuable as a run saved. There's this tendency to think that it's better to shore up a weakness than to keep building up a strength, but there's no real reason that that'd be the case. I get what you're saying but I honestly think the impact is larger on the pitching side of things. The Red Sox offense is great. No doubt. If you get replace Swihart with a stronger offensive LF, then you increase your runs scored. Makes sense, but I don't think all runs are equal in this case. That means I'd expect more blowout wins. Or an increase in marginal runs. I think when you have a strong offense you tend to win a lot more of the blowout type of games, but if your pitching is weak, I think it's harder to win the games where your offense doesn't bash the ball and when you're in the post-season you're dealing with guys like Arietta, Sale, Quintana, Bumgarner, Syndergaard, Kershaw, etc. If E-Rod is looking like his old self, a #2 type starter to go with Price, Porcello, and Wright, and those four starting pitchers are doing well, and if the price of starting pitching is too high, then yeah, improve the bullpen and upgrade LF - those should be cheaper solutions. But if E-Rod isn't himself, Kelly is still a box of chocolates as in you never know what you're gonna get, and Buchholz is still throwing that hittable 92 MPH fastball, or there is an injury to either Price, Porcello, or Wright, then the rotation looks pretty short for the post-season, doesn't it? Injuries can happen to any player, but with starting pitching, if the depth is thin, then it gets pretty precarious.
|
|
|
Post by boxer3610 on Jun 1, 2016 16:14:34 GMT -5
Mike Trout is amazing but I'd rather see the Sox go after Jose Fernandez and Christian Yelich in a blockbuster trade. Something along the lines of Yoan Moncada, Andrew Benintendi, Blake Swihart, Pat Light, and Joe Kelly for Jose Fernandez and Christian Yelich. I dunno. Maybe it's stupid but I'm a big fan of Fernandez and Yelich and you can make this trade without giving up Devers and Espinosa.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2016 17:47:04 GMT -5
A run scored is just as valuable as a run saved. There's this tendency to think that it's better to shore up a weakness than to keep building up a strength, but there's no real reason that that'd be the case. I get what you're saying but I honestly think the impact is larger on the pitching side of things. The Red Sox offense is great. No doubt. If you get replace Swihart with a stronger offensive LF, then you increase your runs scored. Makes sense, but I don't think all runs are equal in this case. That means I'd expect more blowout wins. Or an increase in marginal runs. I think when you have a strong offense you tend to win a lot more of the blowout type of games, but if your pitching is weak, I think it's harder to win the games where your offense doesn't bash the ball and when you're in the post-season you're dealing with guys like Arietta, Sale, Quintana, Bumgarner, Syndergaard, Kershaw, etc. If E-Rod is looking like his old self, a #2 type starter to go with Price, Porcello, and Wright, and those four starting pitchers are doing well, and if the price of starting pitching is too high, then yeah, improve the bullpen and upgrade LF - those should be cheaper solutions. But if E-Rod isn't himself, Kelly is still a box of chocolates as in you never know what you're gonna get, and Buchholz is still throwing that hittable 92 MPH fastball, or there is an injury to either Price, Porcello, or Wright, then the rotation looks pretty short for the post-season, doesn't it? Injuries can happen to any player, but with starting pitching, if the depth is thin, then it gets pretty precarious. You're assuming that great offenses are at some sort of a relative disadvantage or that pitching is particularly important in the postseason. There's not really any empirical reason to think that's true. Offense and run prevention operate on a roughly linear spectrum, even in the postseason.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2016 18:44:59 GMT -5
A run scored is just as valuable as a run saved. There's this tendency to think that it's better to shore up a weakness than to keep building up a strength, but there's no real reason that that'd be the case. Yeah, Trout would immediately make this the best team in baseball, and a pretty good bet for 1000 runs scored. They would have a (truly) historically good offense. And despite the axiom "good pitching beats good hitting," with enough great hitting, somebody's going to get white hot (a la '13 Papi) in the playoffs, and hit no matter how good the pitching is. If the Sox could acquire Trout from excess (eric's got the right idea I think), I would absolutely do it. He'd hit 50 in Fenway. But I wouldn't include Espinoza or Moncada no matter what. With this summer's 12th position in the draft, the Sox can partially reconstitute their system, even trading volume, but they're unlikely to come close to replacing the upside of Espinoza and Moncada. Trout would break my uber-team rule, but he serves as replacement for Ortiz, who's going to leave a very big hole. Plus, his projected performance is likely sufficient to offset reduced performance from young players (Moncada, Espinoza, and whoever else in the next 2-3 years) being eased into MLB roles, which would preserve some salary flexibility. He'd also preclude the "need" to sign Encarnacion or Bautista. It's all about the package going out, because there's no doubt about what they'd be getting back.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,718
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 1, 2016 23:19:12 GMT -5
I get what you're saying but I honestly think the impact is larger on the pitching side of things. The Red Sox offense is great. No doubt. If you get replace Swihart with a stronger offensive LF, then you increase your runs scored. Makes sense, but I don't think all runs are equal in this case. That means I'd expect more blowout wins. Or an increase in marginal runs. I think when you have a strong offense you tend to win a lot more of the blowout type of games, but if your pitching is weak, I think it's harder to win the games where your offense doesn't bash the ball and when you're in the post-season you're dealing with guys like Arietta, Sale, Quintana, Bumgarner, Syndergaard, Kershaw, etc. If E-Rod is looking like his old self, a #2 type starter to go with Price, Porcello, and Wright, and those four starting pitchers are doing well, and if the price of starting pitching is too high, then yeah, improve the bullpen and upgrade LF - those should be cheaper solutions. But if E-Rod isn't himself, Kelly is still a box of chocolates as in you never know what you're gonna get, and Buchholz is still throwing that hittable 92 MPH fastball, or there is an injury to either Price, Porcello, or Wright, then the rotation looks pretty short for the post-season, doesn't it? Injuries can happen to any player, but with starting pitching, if the depth is thin, then it gets pretty precarious. You're assuming that great offenses are at some sort of a relative disadvantage or that pitching is particularly important in the postseason. There's not really any empirical reason to think that's true. Offense and run prevention operate on a roughly linear spectrum, even in the postseason. I'm walking thru this gingerly because I know the data isn't exactly supporting my opinion. I just think that there are certain games that are tight and certain games that just spin totally out of control. I think when you have a great offense there are days that runs are very easy to come by and you can be spectacular one day and be lousy the next couple of days and still have good numbers. That's why I referred to the extra offense as something like providing marginal runs. I just think in the post-season you need to expect to run into superior pitching and in this era, where there are teams that actually do have good to great pitching, I think that will cool off a superior offense when the game is close and not out of control, and if the pitching isn't there... I think this differs a bit from the regular season when it's good to win those out-of-hand blowout games because it allows you to rest your pen for closer games that may follow, in affect setting you up for a better shot of winning a close game. But in the post-season, filled with good pitching and days off in the schedule, I think that advantage is negated somewhat. That's what I think, but it's not necessarily what the data, anecdotal or otherwise necessarily supports. I mean, I know the Sox starting pitching wasn't that outstanding in 2013, yet they did the job when they needed to. I know the Royals didn't possess great starting pitching last season, but they had a lockdown pen and a pesky offense. The truth of the matter is simply that the team that catches fire at the right time is usually the team that wins, which is as "duh" a statement as can be made. My memory goes back a little further than yours does and I remember the Red Sox being stuck with Al Nipper and his 5.38 ERA (which was quite high for 1986) starting the 4th game of the '86 World Series because Tom Seaver had gotten injured toward the end of the season. It's like they punted that crucial game, and that's kind of what concerns me with the current Sox, especially if E-Rod isn't healthy by the end of the season or worse there's an injury to Price, Porcello, or Wright. The Sox aren't that deep in the rotation and it's not out of the realm of possibility the Sox would be looking at giving a post-season start in the ALCS or Series to Buchholz or Kelly, which is a frightening proposition. Like I said, though, if E-Rod is healthy and effective, Price is Price, and Porcello and Wright are solid and everybody's healthy, the Sox have their four starters they need, so it doesn't come as pressing to get a starter, other than perhaps a back-end guy who's not replacement level the way Buchholz and Kelly (and O'Sullivan and Owens) have been. If that's the case, then yeah, let's use some lesser chips to upgrade LF if Swihart is hitting enough, and grab a bullpen arm as I believe the depth of the pen is in question over the long-term of this season. The truth of the matter is that I'm not so anxious to part with good/great prospects to get a top notch starter if they don't really have to.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 2, 2016 0:31:29 GMT -5
One more note. Trout has a full no-trade, which he'd undoubtedly waive for a trade to a contender. The Sox have the talent to make this happen, as do the the Cubs and Dodgers (the Mets don't, nor do they have the payroll space). If he knows that, it's hard to imagine him approving a trade to anyone else, e.g., the Nats. And none of those clubs need him, which will keep the price down. The offers will be rational ones rather than we-must-overwhlem-you-because-Trout! ones. I think that's wishful thinking. It's going to cost a ton to get Trout.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 2, 2016 5:35:34 GMT -5
One more note. Trout has a full no-trade, which he'd undoubtedly waive for a trade to a contender. The Sox have the talent to make this happen, as do the the Cubs and Dodgers (the Mets don't, nor do they have the payroll space). If he knows that, it's hard to imagine him approving a trade to anyone else, e.g., the Nats. And none of those clubs need him, which will keep the price down. The offers will be rational ones rather than we-must-overwhlem-you-because-Trout! ones. I think that's wishful thinking. It's going to cost a ton to get Trout. Extremely wishful thinking. People are borderline insane if the Sox could get Trout without having to give up 3 out of the 4 best prospects in the system, plus maybe more. Moncada would be the first one gone in this scenario. The Sox would be lucky just to keep Espinoza.
|
|
|