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.
possible Red Sox and Braves blockbuster
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 9:32:34 GMT -5
I don't believe there is a deal in place. What deepjohn likely means is that the teams have discussed general parameters for a deal and BOS understands what ATL wants in order to get a deal done. Then, if BOS wants to do the deal, they can go back to ATL at any time in the future and close a deal quickly. Teams do this all the time, and many times no trade is made. In this case, we know that Frank Wren has scouted Teheran and other ATL players, and he has likely advised Dombrowski of the merits of trading for Teheran. Beyond that, I am not prepared to sign off on deepjohn's analysis of the situation or of the alleged "ask" by ATL. According to Jon Heyman, Teheran has been told by ATL management that he's not being traded. I did see the denial: “He’s going nowhere!!!” one Braves official said in the most convincing of dozens of denials to date. But if Heyman had asked the question, did you have a deal in place to trade Teheran for Moncada/Devers/Kopech, with Shaw as a substitution for Kopech, awaiting the Sox to decide? then he might have gotten a different answer. As to the "deal in place" idea, as I hope I've tried to say (and as you say), it's up to the Sox to "pull the trigger." Trading for Hill could have been the first step, allowing Shaw to be moved. Teheran happens to be the only trade DDo can make in the way of young elite arms. Sale and Fernandez are not in play. Rich Hill is not young. Hellickson is not elite.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 9:39:57 GMT -5
Teherans contract makes him valuable but I agree with the crowd that he wouldn't be near the pitcher in the AL as he is now which is still a solid 2-3 only. Smaller parks, deeper lineups and not being able to strike out the pitcher twice a game would put him more of a 3-4 in the AL in my mind. Deepjohn can talk value all he wants but nobody besides him thinks that value would carry over to the AL. The big chips would be off the table for me and I'd have a hard time adding a smaller secondary piece with Shaw to get Teheran. Shaw has an extra year of control and actually has a higher FWar this year. Exactly. Not to mention, he's more or less a known commodity against division competition, he's suited for Fenway in every way that Teheran isn't, and he carries lower injury risk as a position player. I'm flattered, but this is not about me or my opinions. This is just about a heads up that a trade is set, awaiting the Sox to decide. You hate the trade. I get that. If Teheran holds the Cubs to two hits over seven innings, as he did in June, twice more in the WS, then maybe a WS championship will take the sting away. If Teheran is a huge bust in Fenway, you will all get to say how right you were. Either way, you come out ahead.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2016 9:43:30 GMT -5
Exactly. Not to mention, he's more or less a known commodity against division competition, he's suited for Fenway in every way that Teheran isn't, and he carries lower injury risk as a position player. I'm flattered, but this is not about me or my opinions. This is just about a heads up that a trade is set, awaiting the Sox to decide. You hate the trade. I get that. If Teheran holds the Cubs to two hits over seven innings, as he did in June, twice more in the WS, then maybe a WS championship will take the sting away. If Teheran is a huge bust in Fenway, you will all get to say how right you were. Either way, you come out ahead. The only way anyone comes out ahead is if we get to see all the prospects in that stupid trade go on to have long Red Sox careers.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 8, 2016 10:09:59 GMT -5
I don't believe there is a deal in place. What deepjohn likely means is that the teams have discussed general parameters for a deal and BOS understands what ATL wants in order to get a deal done. Then, if BOS wants to do the deal, they can go back to ATL at any time in the future and close a deal quickly. Teams do this all the time, and many times no trade is made. In this case, we know that Frank Wren has scouted Teheran and other ATL players, and he has likely advised Dombrowski of the merits of trading for Teheran. Beyond that, I am not prepared to sign off on deepjohn's analysis of the situation or of the alleged "ask" by ATL. According to Jon Heyman, Teheran has been told by ATL management that he's not being traded. I did see the denial: “He’s going nowhere!!!” one Braves official said in the most convincing of dozens of denials to date. But if Heyman had asked the question, did you have a deal in place to trade Teheran for Moncada/Devers/Kopech, with Shaw as a substitution for Kopech, awaiting the Sox to decide? then he might have gotten a different answer. As to the "deal in place" idea, as I hope I've tried to say (and as you say), it's up to the Sox to "pull the trigger." Trading for Hill could have been the first step, allowing Shaw to be moved. Teheran happens to be the only trade DDo can make in the way of young elite arms. Sale and Fernandez are not in play. Rich Hill is not young. Hellickson is not elite. Amfox1 is right on. Just because that's what Atlanta wants, in no means a deal is in place. By saying a deal is in place your saying Sox have agreed in some way to that deal and that's just not true.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 10:15:51 GMT -5
I'm flattered, but this is not about me or my opinions. This is just about a heads up that a trade is set, awaiting the Sox to decide. You hate the trade. I get that. If Teheran holds the Cubs to two hits over seven innings, as he did in June, twice more in the WS, then maybe a WS championship will take the sting away. If Teheran is a huge bust in Fenway, you will all get to say how right you were. Either way, you come out ahead. The only way anyone comes out ahead is if we get to see all the prospects in that stupid trade go on to have long Red Sox careers. The Sox strategy has been to draft and develop the best up-the-middle position players available and then use that talent to trade for pitchers, who tend to be a higher risk to bust. An exception was when they drafted Trey Ball instead of Austin Meadows. Trey Ball has taken longer to develop than Austin Meadows who (before his eye injury) could have been included in a trade for a pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 10:17:36 GMT -5
I did see the denial: “He’s going nowhere!!!” one Braves official said in the most convincing of dozens of denials to date. But if Heyman had asked the question, did you have a deal in place to trade Teheran for Moncada/Devers/Kopech, with Shaw as a substitution for Kopech, awaiting the Sox to decide? then he might have gotten a different answer. As to the "deal in place" idea, as I hope I've tried to say (and as you say), it's up to the Sox to "pull the trigger." Trading for Hill could have been the first step, allowing Shaw to be moved. Teheran happens to be the only trade DDo can make in the way of young elite arms. Sale and Fernandez are not in play. Rich Hill is not young. Hellickson is not elite. Amfox1 is right on. Just because that's what Atlanta wants, in no means a deal is in place. By saying a deal is in place your saying Sox have agreed in some way to that deal and that's just not true. I think, you, Amfox and I are all in agreement. There is a deal in place if the Sox "pull the trigger" as I've always tried to be careful to say. ADD: That said, the Sox may be hoping the Braves reduce their ask as the trade deadline gets closer, but the Braves are saying that's their final offer, and that they'll just keep Teheran if they don't get what they want. So we'll see who blinks first ...
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 8, 2016 10:35:43 GMT -5
Amfox1 is right on. Just because that's what Atlanta wants, in no means a deal is in place. By saying a deal is in place your saying Sox have agreed in some way to that deal and that's just not true. I think, you, Amfox and I are all in agreement. There is a deal in place if the Sox "pull the trigger" as I've always tried to be careful to say. ADD: That said, the Sox may be hoping the Braves reduce their ask as the trade deadline gets closer, but the Braves are saying that's their final offer, and that they'll just keep Teheran if they don't get what they want. So we'll see who blinks first ... You just don't get it, there is no deal in place just what Atlanta is asking for/wants. What your saying is totally different. Your implying the Sox have agreed to trade but said something like give us a few weeks for our pitchers to turn things around and if they don't we'll make the deal. There is no deal in place! Just because Atlanta told Sox what it would take to get Teheran in no way means a deal is in place if Sox "pull the trigger".
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jul 8, 2016 10:36:47 GMT -5
Jesus, this guy is still trying to troll us with this? You have stock invested in Terheran or something? Moncada and Devers and Shaw, lmao. IF DD did that then he should be fired. And this whole "if the sox pull the trigger" thing is funny. What are you 15? I trade Hanley, Panda and Clay for Trout, is up to the Angels to pull the trigger then.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 8, 2016 10:59:44 GMT -5
Exactly. Not to mention, he's more or less a known commodity against division competition, he's suited for Fenway in every way that Teheran isn't, and he carries lower injury risk as a position player. I'm flattered, but this is not about me or my opinions. This is just about a heads up that a trade is set, awaiting the Sox to decide. You hate the trade. I get that. If Teheran holds the Cubs to two hits over seven innings, as he did in June, twice more in the WS, then maybe a WS championship will take the sting away. If Teheran is a huge bust in Fenway, you will all get to say how right you were. Either way, you come out ahead. It's pretty asinine to pretend that you're not expressing your opinion or making an argument. Literally every post you've made on the subject have consisted almost entirely of reasons the Red Sox would want to make a trade for Teheran.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 12:10:03 GMT -5
I'm flattered, but this is not about me or my opinions. This is just about a heads up that a trade is set, awaiting the Sox to decide. You hate the trade. I get that. If Teheran holds the Cubs to two hits over seven innings, as he did in June, twice more in the WS, then maybe a WS championship will take the sting away. If Teheran is a huge bust in Fenway, you will all get to say how right you were. Either way, you come out ahead. It's pretty asinine to pretend that you're not expressing your opinion or making an argument. Literally every post you've made on the subject have consisted almost entirely of reasons the Red Sox would want to make a trade for Teheran. Well, I'm describing the contrarian view, that may not be as well known, or requires some digging, which I enjoy. The argument against seems obvious (to me): He regresses to his projection, and 2015 was not an outlier. He has not found that Arietta/Lester timing that suddenly made them aces, when for years both Arietta and Lester were far worse than Teheran. If the Sox believe this, then certainly they will not "pull the trigger". Seems obvious.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 12:19:59 GMT -5
I think, you, Amfox and I are all in agreement. There is a deal in place if the Sox "pull the trigger" as I've always tried to be careful to say. ADD: That said, the Sox may be hoping the Braves reduce their ask as the trade deadline gets closer, but the Braves are saying that's their final offer, and that they'll just keep Teheran if they don't get what they want. So we'll see who blinks first ... You just don't get it, there is no deal in place just what Atlanta is asking for/wants. What your saying is totally different. Your implying the Sox have agreed to trade but said something like give us a few weeks for our pitchers to turn things around and if they don't we'll make the deal. There is no deal in place! Just because Atlanta told Sox what it would take to get Teheran in no way means a deal is in place if Sox "pull the trigger". I did see, and agree with Amfox's point, but you lost me here. I know you have a good point, because you typically do. But I can't see it. It seems like you are saying the saying the exact same thing as me. There is no actual deal until the Sox "pull the trigger." It is a really big deal that there is this proposed deal for Teheran. There is no deal at all for Sale or Fernandez. Teheran is the only young elite arm that DDo can trade for, but at least there's one.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2016 12:33:25 GMT -5
You just don't get it, there is no deal in place just what Atlanta is asking for/wants. What your saying is totally different. Your implying the Sox have agreed to trade but said something like give us a few weeks for our pitchers to turn things around and if they don't we'll make the deal. There is no deal in place! Just because Atlanta told Sox what it would take to get Teheran in no way means a deal is in place if Sox "pull the trigger". I did see, and agree with Amfox's point, but you lost me here. I know you have a good point, because you typically do. But I can't see it. It seems like you are saying the saying the exact same thing as me. There is no actual deal until the Sox "pull the trigger." It is a really big deal that there is this proposed deal for Teheran. There is no deal at all for Sale or Fernandez. Teheran is the only young elite arm that DDo can trade for, but at least there's one. And there's a house down the street listed for double what it's worth, just sitting there collecting dust. But at least it's for sale. I have a deal in place to buy it for list price, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 12:35:02 GMT -5
I did see, and agree with Amfox's point, but you lost me here. I know you have a good point, because you typically do. But I can't see it. It seems like you are saying the saying the exact same thing as me. There is no actual deal until the Sox "pull the trigger." It is a really big deal that there is this proposed deal for Teheran. There is no deal at all for Sale or Fernandez. Teheran is the only young elite arm that DDo can trade for, but at least there's one. And there's a house down the street listed for double what it's worth, just sitting there collecting dust. But at least it's for sale. I have a deal in place to buy it for list price, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. location, location, location. If it's down the street from you, just sayin!
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 8, 2016 13:26:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 8, 2016 19:20:47 GMT -5
Amfox1 is right on. Just because that's what Atlanta wants, in no means a deal is in place. By saying a deal is in place your saying Sox have agreed in some way to that deal and that's just not true. I think, you, Amfox and I are all in agreement. There is a deal in place if the Sox "pull the trigger" as I've always tried to be careful to say. ADD: That said, the Sox may be hoping the Braves reduce their ask as the trade deadline gets closer, but the Braves are saying that's their final offer, and that they'll just keep Teheran if they don't get what they want. So we'll see who blinks first ... John, seriously, this is ridiculous, even if it's semantics. That's like saying the Red Sox have a deal with the Angels in place, where they get Mike Trout for whomever the Angels came to them asking about. "You want Bogaerts? Trout straight-up." Waiting on the Angels' approval. That's not a "deal in place." They've heard a Braves ask, that's all. Otherwise they've had deals in place for Hamels, Gray, and just about everyone else they've ever inquired about. Just stop it, it's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 8, 2016 20:40:24 GMT -5
I think, you, Amfox and I are all in agreement. There is a deal in place if the Sox "pull the trigger" as I've always tried to be careful to say. ADD: That said, the Sox may be hoping the Braves reduce their ask as the trade deadline gets closer, but the Braves are saying that's their final offer, and that they'll just keep Teheran if they don't get what they want. So we'll see who blinks first ... John, seriously, this is ridiculous, even if it's semantics. That's like saying the Red Sox have a deal with the Angels in place, where they get Mike Trout for whomever the Angels came to them asking about. "You want Bogaerts? Trout straight-up." Waiting on the Angels' approval. That's not a "deal in place." They've heard a Braves ask, that's all. Otherwise they've had deals in place for Hamels, Gray, and just about everyone else they've ever inquired about. Just stop it, it's ridiculous. It's nothing like that at all. There is a protocol for teams to negotiate, and the GMs go to some effort to be courteous to each other, knowing that they will likely have long term working relationships. DDo in particular has a certain style of no-nonsense negotiating. The fact that Coppy for the Braves went so far as to make Teheran available on specific terms is a very big deal. These are players' lives at issue, and when a trade is actually proposed it is never cavalier or glib. Sale and Fernandez, for example, will not be the subject of any trade discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jayhawk on Jul 8, 2016 21:21:36 GMT -5
John, seriously, this is ridiculous, even if it's semantics. That's like saying the Red Sox have a deal with the Angels in place, where they get Mike Trout for whomever the Angels came to them asking about. "You want Bogaerts? Trout straight-up." Waiting on the Angels' approval. That's not a "deal in place." They've heard a Braves ask, that's all. Otherwise they've had deals in place for Hamels, Gray, and just about everyone else they've ever inquired about. Just stop it, it's ridiculous. It's nothing like that at all. There is a protocol for teams to negotiate, and the GMs go to some effort to be courteous to each other, knowing that they will likely have long term working relationships. DDo in particular has a certain style of no-nonsense negotiating. The fact that Coppy for the Braves went so far as to make Teheran available on specific terms is a very big deal. These are players' lives at issue, and when a trade is actually proposed it is never cavalier or glib. Sale and Fernandez, for example, will not be the subject of any trade discussion. It's not that big of a deal when the ask is completely unreasonable. I have a nice house. I'm quite fond of it. My house is not worth anywhere near $10million but I will gladly sell it for $10million tomorrow to anyone who wants it. By stating this, do I now have a deal in place? No. I've got a pie-in-the-sky wish that someone will meet my absurd asking price. That is exactly what Atlanta has.
|
|
|
Post by jayhawk on Jul 8, 2016 21:41:37 GMT -5
It's pretty asinine to pretend that you're not expressing your opinion or making an argument. Literally every post you've made on the subject have consisted almost entirely of reasons the Red Sox would want to make a trade for Teheran. Well, I'm describing the contrarian view, that may not be as well known, or requires some digging, which I enjoy. The argument against seems obvious (to me): He regresses to his projection, and 2015 was not an outlier. He has not found that Arietta/Lester timing that suddenly made them aces, when for years both Arietta and Lester were far worse than Teheran. If the Sox believe this, then certainly they will not "pull the trigger". Seems obvious. I don't mean to pick on you but saying "He has not found that Arietta/Lester timing that suddenly made them aces, when for years both Arietta and Lester were far worse than Teheran." does little to refute Jmei's point.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 9, 2016 0:01:49 GMT -5
John, seriously, this is ridiculous, even if it's semantics. That's like saying the Red Sox have a deal with the Angels in place, where they get Mike Trout for whomever the Angels came to them asking about. "You want Bogaerts? Trout straight-up." Waiting on the Angels' approval. That's not a "deal in place." They've heard a Braves ask, that's all. Otherwise they've had deals in place for Hamels, Gray, and just about everyone else they've ever inquired about. Just stop it, it's ridiculous. It's nothing like that at all. There is a protocol for teams to negotiate, and the GMs go to some effort to be courteous to each other, knowing that they will likely have long term working relationships. DDo in particular has a certain style of no-nonsense negotiating. The fact that Coppy for the Braves went so far as to make Teheran available on specific terms is a very big deal. These are players' lives at issue, and when a trade is actually proposed it is never cavalier or glib. Sale and Fernandez, for example, will not be the subject of any trade discussion. So Dombrowski goes to the Braves, and in good faith says "we really like him, who do you need back to make it happen?" The Braves say "Moncada, Devers, and Kopech." The Sox say "We can't do that, work with us." The Braves say "OK, we'll take Shaw instead of Kopech." The Red Sox say "We'll think about it." I do the same thing at a car dealership. I don't laugh in the guy's face, I respectfully defer and never go back for the car that's being overpriced. That's not a "deal in place." You said it yourself...there's protocol. But if the Sox aren't laughing inside, I fear for their future. Shaw alone is likely to have similar excess value. He's on 3-WAR pace, and we know Fenway's good for him, not a nightmare waiting to happen. If the Sox had any sense that the ask was remotely fair, they'd bite, shake hands, and THEN a deal would be in place, pending physicals. They got an offer, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 9, 2016 0:13:45 GMT -5
It's nothing like that at all. There is a protocol for teams to negotiate, and the GMs go to some effort to be courteous to each other, knowing that they will likely have long term working relationships. DDo in particular has a certain style of no-nonsense negotiating. The fact that Coppy for the Braves went so far as to make Teheran available on specific terms is a very big deal. These are players' lives at issue, and when a trade is actually proposed it is never cavalier or glib. Sale and Fernandez, for example, will not be the subject of any trade discussion. It's not that big of a deal when the ask is completely unreasonable. I have a nice house. I'm quite fond of it. My house is not worth anywhere near $10million but I will gladly sell it for $10million tomorrow to anyone who wants it. By stating this, do I now have a deal in place? No. I've got a pie-in-the-sky wish that someone will meet my absurd asking price. That is exactly what Atlanta has. Not sure if you've been following all the posts above. The $107M excess value can be supported with the estimate in a previous post (top 30 pitcher for the next 4.5 years). There's a website that estimates excess value of prospects that is also in a previous post: Moncada, Devers and a third player might be right around $107M. This way of negotiating makes it possible to strike a deal quickly and analytically. Coppy for the Braves is known to be analytical. Nothing unreasonable about how Coppy is negotiating. It's all in good faith. DDo wanted a prospects only deal, and that's what he has. DDo likely wanted an option not to give up both Moncada and Benintendi, and not to give up his top pitching prospects, and that's what he has.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 9, 2016 0:27:41 GMT -5
It's nothing like that at all. There is a protocol for teams to negotiate, and the GMs go to some effort to be courteous to each other, knowing that they will likely have long term working relationships. DDo in particular has a certain style of no-nonsense negotiating. The fact that Coppy for the Braves went so far as to make Teheran available on specific terms is a very big deal. These are players' lives at issue, and when a trade is actually proposed it is never cavalier or glib. Sale and Fernandez, for example, will not be the subject of any trade discussion. So Dombrowski goes to the Braves, and in good faith says "we really like him, who do you need back to make it happen?" The Braves say "Moncada, Devers, and Kopech." The Sox say "We can't do that, work with us." The Braves say "OK, we'll take Shaw instead of Kopech." The Red Sox say "We'll think about it." I do the same thing at a car dealership. I don't laugh in the guy's face, I respectfully defer and never go back for the car that's being overpriced. That's not a "deal in place." You said it yourself...there's protocol. But if the Sox aren't laughing inside, I fear for their future. Shaw alone is likely to have similar excess value. He's on 3-WAR pace, and we know Fenway's good for him, not a nightmare waiting to happen. If the Sox had any sense that the ask was remotely fair, they'd bite, shake hands, and THEN a deal would be in place, pending physicals. They got an offer, that's all. I guess the car analogy might be helpful here? When a car dealer offers you a price, it's a deal in place, at least for a certain window of time. To make it legal, there may be a deposit and a contract to sign if you want to hold the deal. Obviously, GMs don't use deposits and contracts, because their word is good. But the import is the same. Coppy gave DDo his word. And DDo can count on it. (For what window of time, I don't know.)
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 9, 2016 0:34:28 GMT -5
Well, I'm describing the contrarian view, that may not be as well known, or requires some digging, which I enjoy. The argument against seems obvious (to me): He regresses to his projection, and 2015 was not an outlier. He has not found that Arietta/Lester timing that suddenly made them aces, when for years both Arietta and Lester were far worse than Teheran. If the Sox believe this, then certainly they will not "pull the trigger". Seems obvious. I don't mean to pick on you but saying "He has not found that Arietta/Lester timing that suddenly made them aces, when for years both Arietta and Lester were far worse than Teheran." does little to refute Jmei's point. I try not to argue or refute. I just like to tell stories or even entertain. Yes, that part about "when for years both Arietta and Lester were far worse" was meant to entertain. I hope it brought a smile to someone's face.
|
|
|
Post by jayhawk on Jul 9, 2016 8:23:44 GMT -5
It's not that big of a deal when the ask is completely unreasonable. I have a nice house. I'm quite fond of it. My house is not worth anywhere near $10million but I will gladly sell it for $10million tomorrow to anyone who wants it. By stating this, do I now have a deal in place? No. I've got a pie-in-the-sky wish that someone will meet my absurd asking price. That is exactly what Atlanta has. Not sure if you've been following all the posts above. The $107M excess value can be supported with the estimate in a previous post (top 30 pitcher for the next 4.5 years). There's a website that estimates excess value of prospects that is also in a previous post: Moncada, Devers and a third player might be right around $107M. This way of negotiating makes it possible to strike a deal quickly and analytically. Coppy for the Braves is known to be analytical. Nothing unreasonable about how Coppy is negotiating. It's all in good faith. DDo wanted a prospects only deal, and that's what he has. DDo likely wanted an option not to give up both Moncada and Benintendi, and not to give up his top pitching prospects, and that's what he has. I'm not arguing that price is too high for an ace, I'm saying I do not have faith Teheran would be an ace in Boston and so the $107million in excess value is fools gold. Keeping it in excess value terms for you... is the proposed Teheran deal still a good idea if he ends up a 2 WAR player? There is a massive amount of risk in trading for Teheran and hoping he becomes an ace given that he: 1. Has historically been much worse away from his home park 2. Would be going from the weakest hitting division in baseball to one of the strongest 3. Does not have a consistent track record of success
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 9, 2016 8:26:15 GMT -5
Well said. In a nutshell, that is the argument against, with a little more detail than mine, "He regresses to his projection." Nice!
|
|
|
Post by soxhuskies on Jul 9, 2016 8:46:28 GMT -5
Hey guys, registered to see what you all thought about something I've been pondering the past few days.
I'm sure as you all know, Teheran's stuff does not quite play well for Fenway, especially when looking at his 2016 spray chart. But after the all-star break we have a quick 3 game trip to New York then a 9 game home stand; after that, 67% of the remaining games are on the road. While some of those games would be in ballparks less friendly than Fenway, it would seem that Teheran could be sheltered a bit.
Secondly, as with the acquisition of Cespedes, he was traded immediately in the following offseason. In my little fantasy world we would be able to do the same with Teheran. Would the Padres be open to swapping Wil Myers for Teheran? With Papi retiring a power bat would be a necessity, and even with Myers' great success at Petco Park it would seem his skill set is a better fit for Fenway while Teheran would do well in one of the bigger NL parks.
This does not account for how open the Braves are to trading Teheran or if the Padres would be open to that kind of swap. Think it would have to be Shaw+ to get Teheran.
|
|
|