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.
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
Member is Online
|
Rich Hill
Jul 14, 2016 11:47:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Jul 14, 2016 11:47:00 GMT -5
Henry Owens (and maybe a low-minors lottery ticket or two) for Rich Hill. Buying low on a high upside arm, makes sense here.
|
|
|
Post by cto94 on Jul 14, 2016 12:59:14 GMT -5
Henry Owens (and maybe a low-minors lottery ticket or two) for Rich Hill. I'd love that deal to be done, but I'm curious, does Owens have that much trade value right now? I think he'd certainly be a good target for the A's given their park dimensions and the team control, but I would've thought that given how much he's struggled with command/control this year we'd have to sweeten the pot a little more for Hill? I guess it would depend on the lottery tickets- the remaining Basabe maybe? Kyri Washington?
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 14, 2016 13:07:02 GMT -5
I dunno. Is there that much of a gap from Hill, to say, Hellickson? I'd take whichever one costs the least. I'd move Chavis/Lakins as well. You do realize that if Hill had enough innings to qualify he'd lead the AL in ERA by a large margin, correct? I realize that. He had an injury which knocks the shine off that low ERA a bit. Also, the Oak Mausoleum probably helped him as well. I agree Hill is a better rental than Hell Boy, just not sure how much better.
|
|
|
Rich Hill
Jul 14, 2016 13:14:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by brendan98 on Jul 14, 2016 13:14:56 GMT -5
You do realize that if Hill had enough innings to qualify he'd lead the AL in ERA by a large margin, correct? I realize that. He had an injury which knocks the shine off that low ERA a bit. Also, the Oak Mausoleum probably helped him as well. I agree Hill is a better rental than Hell Boy, just not sure how much better. I agree with some of what your saying, but he pitched even better in 4 starts with the Sox last year, all in AL East parks, so I'm not sure you can pinpoint Oakland's park as the reason for his success. Injuries and workload do concern me though.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Jul 14, 2016 15:27:22 GMT -5
I would not trade Owens straight up for Hill, he's freaking 36 yrs old with an injury history. Interesting that both pitchers were scrapped from their next starts
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 14, 2016 16:21:44 GMT -5
Henry Owens (and maybe a low-minors lottery ticket or two) for Rich Hill. I'd love that deal to be done, but I'm curious, does Owens have that much trade value right now? I think he'd certainly be a good target for the A's given their park dimensions and the team control, but I would've thought that given how much he's struggled with command/control this year we'd have to sweeten the pot a little more for Hill? I guess it would depend on the lottery tickets- the remaining Basabe maybe? Kyri Washington? Both Rich Hill (blister) and Henry Owens (unknown) pulled from next scheduled starts. Careful what you wish for. Owens has a HOF ceiling. DDo traded this pitcher away, who in his first full season, was 0-4 with a 6.67 ERA and 1.84 WHIP (walks and hits per inning) with the Expos. He had given up 29 hits and 26 walks in 292/3 innings, to go along with his 26 strikeouts, and had just been demoted to the minors. "He was a hard thrower and showed you flashes," Dombrowski said, "but he was never consistent throwing strikes. He just didn't have command, and he struggled with his secondary pitches. "We liked him, but nobody said we were trading a Hall of Fame pitcher."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 14, 2016 16:31:54 GMT -5
I'd love that deal to be done, but I'm curious, does Owens have that much trade value right now? I think he'd certainly be a good target for the A's given their park dimensions and the team control, but I would've thought that given how much he's struggled with command/control this year we'd have to sweeten the pot a little more for Hill? I guess it would depend on the lottery tickets- the remaining Basabe maybe? Kyri Washington? Both Rich Hill (blister) and Henry Owens (unknown) pulled from next scheduled starts. Careful what you wish for. Owens has a HOF ceiling. DDo traded this pitcher away, who in his first full season, was 0-4 with a 6.67 ERA and 1.84 WHIP (walks and hits per inning) with the Expos. He had given up 29 hits and 26 walks in 292/3 innings, to go along with his 26 strikeouts, and had just been demoted to the minors. "He was a hard thrower and showed you flashes," Dombrowski said, "but he was never consistent throwing strikes. He just didn't have command, and he struggled with his secondary pitches. "We liked him, but nobody said we were trading a Hall of Fame pitcher." I bet he traded and released a whole lot more pitchers with similar stats who didn't make the Hall of Fame (or the majors). And I say this as a huge Owens fan.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 14, 2016 16:43:58 GMT -5
Both Rich Hill (blister) and Henry Owens (unknown) pulled from next scheduled starts. Careful what you wish for. Owens has a HOF ceiling. DDo traded this pitcher away, who in his first full season, was 0-4 with a 6.67 ERA and 1.84 WHIP (walks and hits per inning) with the Expos. He had given up 29 hits and 26 walks in 292/3 innings, to go along with his 26 strikeouts, and had just been demoted to the minors. "He was a hard thrower and showed you flashes," Dombrowski said, "but he was never consistent throwing strikes. He just didn't have command, and he struggled with his secondary pitches. "We liked him, but nobody said we were trading a Hall of Fame pitcher." I bet he traded and released a whole lot more pitchers with similar stats who didn't make the Hall of Fame (or the majors). And I say this as a huge Owens fan. Ah, wise one. It is I who mocks SSS anecdotes, now I have been hoisted by my own petards.
|
|
|
Post by gator39 on Jul 14, 2016 16:49:47 GMT -5
Henry Owens throws close to 10 MPH slower than Randy Johnson did. Not a reasonable comparison in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gator39 on Jul 14, 2016 16:52:04 GMT -5
Rich Hill has a 3.45 ERA in Oakland & a 1.41 ERA on the road this season. The Coliseum is not the reason for him having a great year. He is MUCH better than Jeremy Hellickson.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 14, 2016 16:57:24 GMT -5
Henry Owens throws close to 10 MPH slower than Randy Johnson did. Not a reasonable comparison in my opinion. Spoiler alert! Yes, but velocity alone does not reduce runs allowed. It's movement on secondary pitches, and command of those pitches, and deception. Basically, it's striking batters out, or inducing weak contact by getting them to swing at pitches they should take. That is what makes a HOF pitcher. (Though studies are incomplete, and I'm extrapolating, so please, you should feel free to disagree.)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 14, 2016 17:00:06 GMT -5
Henry Owens throws close to 10 MPH slower than Randy Johnson did. Not a reasonable comparison in my opinion. Spoiler alert! Yes, but velocity alone does not reduce runs allowed. It's movement on secondary pitches, and command of those pitches, and deception. Basically, it's striking batters out, or inducing weak contact by getting them to swing at pitches they should take. That is what makes a HOF pitcher. (Though studies are incomplete, and I'm extrapolating, so please, you should feel free to disagree.) It's pretty obvious that someone that throws as hard as Randy Johnson has and advantage over someone who throws as hard as Henry Owens when they make mistakes. And its those mistake pitches that is such a huge problem for Owens right now and that's probably why he's afraid to throw more strikes.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Jul 14, 2016 20:06:06 GMT -5
I'd love that deal to be done, but I'm curious, does Owens have that much trade value right now? I think he'd certainly be a good target for the A's given their park dimensions and the team control, but I would've thought that given how much he's struggled with command/control this year we'd have to sweeten the pot a little more for Hill? I guess it would depend on the lottery tickets- the remaining Basabe maybe? Kyri Washington? Both Rich Hill (blister) and Henry Owens (unknown) pulled from next scheduled starts. Careful what you wish for. Owens has a HOF ceiling. DDo traded this pitcher away, who in his first full season, was 0-4 with a 6.67 ERA and 1.84 WHIP (walks and hits per inning) with the Expos. He had given up 29 hits and 26 walks in 292/3 innings, to go along with his 26 strikeouts, and had just been demoted to the minors. "He was a hard thrower and showed you flashes," Dombrowski said, "but he was never consistent throwing strikes. He just didn't have command, and he struggled with his secondary pitches. "We liked him, but nobody said we were trading a Hall of Fame pitcher." Wonder if he will ever realize that potential while under the Red Sox control window tho. The regression this year was not encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 14, 2016 20:24:41 GMT -5
Well, if the Red Sox are intent on messing up their system how about Devers and Kopech for Rich Hill?
Seriously, when I see what's given up for Hill and compare it to what the Sox surrendered for Pomeranz (and yeah, I know Pomeranz has two more years of control and is a lot younger), I'll be pretty ticked that the Sox didn't come away with Hill for 2016 and deal with 2017 when 2017 comes around.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 14, 2016 21:10:10 GMT -5
Unless Clay or Erod figures it out this is just not going to happen this year ...enjoy Papi and Mookie they are incredible ball players ....there's hope still but they need in house pitchers to put it in high gear .
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 15, 2016 12:26:34 GMT -5
Well, if the Red Sox are intent on messing up their system how about Devers and Kopech for Rich Hill? Seriously, when I see what's given up for Hill and compare it to what the Sox surrendered for Pomeranz (and yeah, I know Pomeranz has two more years of control and is a lot younger), I'll be pretty ticked that the Sox didn't come away with Hill for 2016 and deal with 2017 when 2017 comes around.The problem with that is that 2017 WILL come around. The only SP (outside of Pom) that are locked into next year were Price/Porkchop/Wright/E-Rod....that's it. I'd rather he did this, than give up an Ock/Chavis/Lakins type package for Hill.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 15, 2016 14:30:27 GMT -5
Yes, I know it will. By then I'd think/hope that E-Rod would be more like his old self and completely healthy. I could survive not having those above mentioned names in the organization. I like Ockimey and think Chavis has a chance to be a decent player, but neither of those guys are top rated prospects in the way Espinoza is, nor would their potential loss impact as much. Between Travis and Moncada the infield corners should be well set for the future. Lakins isn't what Espinoza will be.
As far as 2017 goes E-Rod coming back would give them 4 solid starters unless there are more unpleasant surprises. I know it's slim pickings in '17, but it's not impossible to get a solid pitcher without giving up much. Steven Wright is a guy who emerged this season. Maybe Brian Johnson would be that guy next season. Who knows?
Or maybe the Sox give Hill a contract extension for small years and a middling kind of rate? I do have trouble believing that despite Beane's request that another team would give up a prospect the caliber of Espinoza for a rental like Hill. I think if Dombrowski hadn't been in a rush to get things done, the price for Hill would have softened, but we'll never really know now what the Sox could have done.
Don't get me wrong - I like Drew Pomeranz. I just don't like this deal. If it works as well as Mike Boddicker for Brady Anderson and Curt Schilling then I guess I'll live with it. I did like Mike Boddicker and found him impactful for a couple of division races.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 15, 2016 17:46:08 GMT -5
I would say, hope, and pray that this thread is out to rest. Trading. For hill would be a terrible move for this franchise at this point.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 16, 2016 11:00:16 GMT -5
I would say, hope, and pray that this thread is out to rest. Trading. For hill would be a terrible move for this franchise at this point. The reasons to think about it are 1) Texas, KC, Balt, Tor, Hou, even Det, are all competing for Hill, who could be the best pitcher the rest of the year; 2) These teams will all be forced to beat any bid the Sox make, and potentially hurt themselves. The somewhat Machiavellian strategy would be that DDo bids Devers for Hill, just so that the other teams are forced to beat that. This, by the way, was a good reason to take Pomeranz off the market early, so the frantic game of Rich Hill musical chairs could begin, and DDo was not caught in the game.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 16, 2016 12:55:48 GMT -5
Devers for a few months of Rich Hill sounds more masochistic than Machiavellian.
|
|
|
Post by dridiot on Jul 16, 2016 13:56:03 GMT -5
I would say, hope, and pray that this thread is out to rest. Trading. For hill would be a terrible move for this franchise at this point. The reasons to think about it are 1) Texas, KC, Balt, Tor, Hou, even Det, are all competing for Hill, who could be the best pitcher the rest of the year; 2) These teams will all be forced to beat any bid the Sox make, and potentially hurt themselves. The somewhat Machiavellian strategy would be that DDo bids Devers for Hill, just so that the other teams are forced to beat that. This, by the way, was a good reason to take Pomeranz off the market early, so the frantic game of Rich Hill musical chairs could begin, and DDo was not caught in the game. There has to be a downside to bluffing like that. I mean if Oakland says yes and then DD backs out that can't be good. It's a small world of baseball GMs and reputations like that spread fast and stay with you.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 16, 2016 17:00:48 GMT -5
The reasons to think about it are 1) Texas, KC, Balt, Tor, Hou, even Det, are all competing for Hill, who could be the best pitcher the rest of the year; 2) These teams will all be forced to beat any bid the Sox make, and potentially hurt themselves. The somewhat Machiavellian strategy would be that DDo bids Devers for Hill, just so that the other teams are forced to beat that. This, by the way, was a good reason to take Pomeranz off the market early, so the frantic game of Rich Hill musical chairs could begin, and DDo was not caught in the game. There has to be a downside to bluffing like that. I mean if Oakland says yes and then DD backs out that can't be good. It's a small world of baseball GMs and reputations like that spread fast and stay with you. Well, if you figure that there will be a 3x overpay, due to the intense bidding, and if Rich Hill has about $15M in excess value, then you'd need more than Devers (excess value of $38M). Also, Beane won't take a high A prospect who is too risky, like Devers, straight up. The Sox got Erod for a half season of a reliever Andrew Miller. At the time, Erod was ranked 4/5 with Devers. So yeah, the winning bid for Rich Hill will be more than Devers.
|
|
|
Post by dridiot on Jul 16, 2016 17:40:48 GMT -5
There has to be a downside to bluffing like that. I mean if Oakland says yes and then DD backs out that can't be good. It's a small world of baseball GMs and reputations like that spread fast and stay with you. Well, if you figure that there will be a 3x overpay, due to the intense bidding, and if Rich Hill has about $15M in excess value, then you'd need more than Devers (excess value of $38M). Also, Beane won't take a high A prospect who is too risky, like Devers, straight up. The Sox got Erod for a half season of a reliever Andrew Miller. At the time, Erod was ranked 4/5 with Devers. So yeah, the winning bid for Rich Hill will be more than Devers. I don't understand the logic. Either Devers is one of the top bids, and you risk having to actually make a trade you don't want to. Or, he's not, and it doesn't make a difference. There are a lot of bidders. The other bidders will drive up the price themselves. I don't see why the Red Sox have to take on risk to do this.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 16, 2016 18:35:46 GMT -5
Well, if you figure that there will be a 3x overpay, due to the intense bidding, and if Rich Hill has about $15M in excess value, then you'd need more than Devers (excess value of $38M). Also, Beane won't take a high A prospect who is too risky, like Devers, straight up. The Sox got Erod for a half season of a reliever Andrew Miller. At the time, Erod was ranked 4/5 with Devers. So yeah, the winning bid for Rich Hill will be more than Devers. I don't understand the logic. Either Devers is one of the top bids, and you risk having to actually make a trade you don't want to. Or, he's not, and it doesn't make a difference. There are a lot of bidders. The other bidders will drive up the price themselves. I don't see why the Red Sox have to take on risk to do this. Well, Machiavellianism is an alternative system of logic; it is the logic of popularity, dominance and duplicity. The Devers bid sets the market (popularity). Once Beane has Devers in hand then he can go to the others and say (dominance), I have a bid from the Red Sox I am prepared to accept unless you can give me [insert demand] (duplicity). It's sort of what the Sox did with Andrew Miller. They got a bid from DDo that DDo thought was a done deal, then used that to demand Erod from Baltimore.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 16, 2016 18:50:32 GMT -5
Well, Machiavellianism is an alternative system of logic; it is the logic of popularity, dominance and duplicity. The Devers bid sets the market (popularity). Once Beane has Devers in hand then he can go to the others and say (dominance), I have a bid from the Red Sox I am prepared to accept unless you can give me [insert demand] (duplicity). It's sort of what the Sox did with Andrew Miller. They got a bid from DDo that DDo thought was a done deal, then used that to demand Erod from Baltimore. Do opposing GM's need actual bids from other GM's in order to claim that they do to other teams? I mean can't Beane just lie and say that there is a bid from the Red Sox in order to instill fear and jack up the price, even if the Red Sox didn't make an offer? (I imagine that a team might have to be in on the lie) Either way, you can run into a scenario where the Red Sox are in on a lie against another team, or a situation where they make a fake offer to Beane to drive up the price and get called out on it and potentially rescinding the offer if it were accepted. Either way it could strain our relationship with other teams.
|
|
|