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.
2016 Trade Deadline News and Discussion
|
Post by kman22 on Aug 1, 2016 22:51:03 GMT -5
Fwiw “@barstoolwsd: FWIW I was told the #WhiteSox turned down a Benintendi, Kopech, Johnson/Ball, and PTBNL package for Quintana from #RedSox” Speculating that Swihart was the PTBNL. Seems steep. Whether you are high or low on Benintendi, you have to see him as aneeded upgrade over what's on LF currently, with the potential to be so much more. Also a little hard to believe they would have traded for a SP without moving one as well.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Aug 1, 2016 22:51:34 GMT -5
Fwiw “@barstoolwsd: FWIW I was told the #WhiteSox turned down a Benintendi, Kopech, Johnson/Ball, and PTBNL package for Quintana from #RedSox” Maybe I'm crazy but I don't like that at all
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Aug 1, 2016 22:58:24 GMT -5
Trolling us.
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Aug 1, 2016 22:58:58 GMT -5
That would have been an awful trade.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 2, 2016 0:16:33 GMT -5
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 2, 2016 0:31:19 GMT -5
As I wrote much earlier, I believe that if the Sox had offered either Benny or Moncada the deal would have been done. I think that report is BS.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,414
|
Post by ianrs on Aug 2, 2016 0:35:51 GMT -5
Today, Dave Dombrowski hung up the phone, enjoyed his evening, witnessed the preemptively traded-for Aaron Hill blast a tater to win tonight's ballgame, then called up Benintendi as he slowly, maniacally cackled to himself. Or maybe I'm just describing the own relief I'm feeling...
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedKyle on Aug 2, 2016 0:50:43 GMT -5
Fwiw “@barstoolwsd: FWIW I was told the #WhiteSox turned down a Benintendi, Kopech, Johnson/Ball, and PTBNL package for Quintana from #RedSox” The dude who tweeted it is an a-hole White Sox fan who's been trolling Red Sox fans on twitter all week. I'm taking this with a mound of salt.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 2, 2016 7:32:20 GMT -5
Seriously folks, just because "barstoolwsd" posts something on twitter doesn't mean you're obligated to get worked up about it. If you allow yourself to get trolled by something so obvious then you deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 2, 2016 7:47:42 GMT -5
If their was any validity to that claim whose to say the PTBNL isn't Groome.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,790
|
Post by nomar on Aug 2, 2016 8:19:08 GMT -5
That guy probably never even heard of Benintendi until a week or two ago. Most sports reporters know next to nothing about prospects. Barstool is obviously no exception to that.
|
|
|
Post by baseballguy350 on Aug 2, 2016 8:42:33 GMT -5
Barstool is obviously no exception to that. Minus the fact that he was the first to report on the Anderson call up. Might kill you to say, but he does have legitimate sources that have checked out before. Carrabis also knows nothing about prospects. Right?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 2, 2016 9:06:57 GMT -5
If their was any validity to that claim whose to say the PTBNL isn't Groome. I know this was a hypothetical, but MLB rules wouldn't allow that. You can no longer include a player ineligible to be traded as a PTBNL. It's part of the Trea Turner rule.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 2, 2016 9:10:31 GMT -5
If their was any validity to that claim whose to say the PTBNL isn't Groome. I know this was a hypothetical, but MLB rules wouldn't allow that. You can no longer include a player ineligible to be traded as a PTBNL. It's part of the Trea Turner rule. But you are able to trade them as long as they're named.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 2, 2016 9:16:12 GMT -5
I know this was a hypothetical, but MLB rules wouldn't allow that. You can no longer include a player ineligible to be traded as a PTBNL. It's part of the Trea Turner rule. But you are able to trade them as long as they're named. 2016 draftees aren't eligible to be traded until the offseason. They no longer can be included as a player to be named later for a deal that took place during that ineligibility period.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by gerry on Aug 2, 2016 9:52:24 GMT -5
Seriously folks, just because "barstoolwsd" posts something on twitter doesn't mean you're obligated to get worked up about it. If you allow yourself to get trolled by something so obvious then you deserve it. Wait. I was told by the cousin of a guy I know that if it's on twitter it's true. He would know!!!
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Aug 2, 2016 9:58:07 GMT -5
Whatever happened to the 12 year old kid who was breaking all the stories on Twitter a couple of years back? Maybe he can confirm this.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 2, 2016 11:40:47 GMT -5
I think we agree that the Ziegler, Hill, and Abad trades were great. The Pomeranz trade is a gamble. If in the long run he's as good as DDo thinks he is, and as good as I think he is (taking his numbers this year in SD as more or less a true indicator of his talent, and adding my own interpretation), which is to say a guy who, like Lester, could marginally start a game 1 of a post-season series and will be an asset starting a game 2 or 3, it's a good trade. If he's just a mid-rotation guy who would be better off starting a game 4, then of course we run the risk of regretting it. Look at the SP who were traded, ranked by bWAR (as of today) and SIERA: 2.9, 3.43, Rich Hill (LAD) 2.8, 3.75, Drew Pomeranz 1.4, 4.41, Matt Moore (SF) 0.6, 4.12, Ivan Nova (Pit) 0.6, 5.20, Lucas Harrell (Tex) 0.6, 4.48, Wade Miley (Bal) 0.3, 4.53, Jon Niese (NYM) 0.2, 4.48, Andrew Cashner (Mia) -0.7, 4.67, Francisco Liriano (Tor) Every contender wanted a cost-controlled young top-of-rotation starter, and only one got dealt.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 2, 2016 13:14:44 GMT -5
I think we agree that the Ziegler, Hill, and Abad trades were great. The Pomeranz trade is a gamble. If in the long run he's as good as DDo thinks he is, and as good as I think he is (taking his numbers this year in SD as more or less a true indicator of his talent, and adding my own interpretation), which is to say a guy who, like Lester, could marginally start a game 1 of a post-season series and will be an asset starting a game 2 or 3, it's a good trade. If he's just a mid-rotation guy who would be better off starting a game 4, then of course we run the risk of regretting it. Look at the SP who were traded, ranked by bWAR (as of today) and SIERA: 2.9, 3.43, Rich Hill (LAD) 2.8, 3.75, Drew Pomeranz 1.4, 4.41, Matt Moore (SF) 0.6, 4.12, Ivan Nova (Pit) 0.6, 5.20, Lucas Harrell (Tex) 0.6, 4.48, Wade Miley (Bal) 0.3, 4.53, Jon Niese (NYM) 0.2, 4.48, Andrew Cashner (Mia) -0.7, 4.67, Francisco Liriano (Tor) Every contender wanted a cost-controlled young top-of-rotation starter, and only one got dealt. I completely "get" why he made the trade, and in the context of the market, it's a pretty good one. But you know (well) my feelings on the "need" to acquire a starter. I argued (vehemently) that Rodriguez would sort things out. That meant a single open 5 spot in the rotation, which I much prefer they'd filled either internally or with a much less costly external alternative. I'm just not sold on Pomeranz. I liked him before the trade, even advocated getting him. I just wouldn't have done it for the price of Espinoza. Going back to my 1600s Netherlands analogy, just because someone's asking a price that looks good relative to the market doesn't mean you're getting a bargain. Sometimes, you just end up with a handful of tulip bulbs and no land to plant them on. FWIW, I really don't think it's fair to assess this trade now...Pomeranz (like Porcello and Price) may have an extended adjustment period. He certainly (along with Rodriguez) takes acquiring a SP off the table in the offseason. But he's only a TOR starter when he's doing it consistently, over an extended period of time.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 2, 2016 14:03:47 GMT -5
I think we agree that the Ziegler, Hill, and Abad trades were great. The Pomeranz trade is a gamble. If in the long run he's as good as DDo thinks he is, and as good as I think he is (taking his numbers this year in SD as more or less a true indicator of his talent, and adding my own interpretation), which is to say a guy who, like Lester, could marginally start a game 1 of a post-season series and will be an asset starting a game 2 or 3, it's a good trade. If he's just a mid-rotation guy who would be better off starting a game 4, then of course we run the risk of regretting it. Look at the SP who were traded, ranked by bWAR (as of today) and SIERA: 2.9, 3.43, Rich Hill (LAD) 2.8, 3.75, Drew Pomeranz 1.4, 4.41, Matt Moore (SF) 0.6, 4.12, Ivan Nova (Pit) 0.6, 5.20, Lucas Harrell (Tex) 0.6, 4.48, Wade Miley (Bal) 0.3, 4.53, Jon Niese (NYM) 0.2, 4.48, Andrew Cashner (Mia) -0.7, 4.67, Francisco Liriano (Tor) Every contender wanted a cost-controlled young top-of-rotation starter, and only one got dealt. I completely "get" why he made the trade, and in the context of the market, it's a pretty good one. But you know (well) my feelings on the "need" to acquire a starter. I argued (vehemently) that Rodriguez would sort things out. That meant a single open 5 spot in the rotation, which I much prefer they'd filled either internally or with a much less costly external alternative. I'm just not sold on Pomeranz. I liked him before the trade, even advocated getting him. I just wouldn't have done it for the price of Espinoza. Going back to my 1600s Netherlands analogy, just because someone's asking a price that looks good relative to the market doesn't mean you're getting a bargain. Sometimes, you just end up with a handful of tulip bulbs and no land to plant them on. FWIW, I really don't think it's fair to assess this trade now...Pomeranz (like Porcello and Price) may have an extended adjustment period. He certainly (along with Rodriguez) takes acquiring a SP off the table in the offseason. But he's only a TOR starter when he's doing it consistently, over an extended period of time. It will be a great position to be in this winter to not have to acquire any starting pitching. I'm worried that the Sale conversation will come up again, but they won't be forced to do anything which is where you always end up overpaying.
|
|
|
Post by thankumrboggs on Aug 2, 2016 14:37:52 GMT -5
It will be a great position to be in this winter to not have to acquire any starting pitching. I'm worried that the Sale conversation will come up again, but they won't be forced to do anything which is where you always end up overpaying.Can someone explain this to me? We have Price,Pomeranz,E-Rod, and possibly Owens and Johnson. I don't think there is another contending team with more then 2 starting LHPs. So why would we acquire Sale or Quintana? I don't necessarily know how a starting rotation of Price,Sale or Quintana,Porcello,Pomeranz and E-Rod is so dominant other then very starting LHP dominant, that first we would give up Benintendi et al... and we would deplete our farm system so bad of top tier talent. Its just a question, I always have when I come on this board (basically lurking) and think we are going to give the farm (pardon the pun) away for one of them. Is there a problem with too much starting LHP?Thanks I will hang up and listen
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Aug 2, 2016 14:50:47 GMT -5
Dave Dombrowski said that he had not spoken with the White Sox since last Friday in a NESN interview last night.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Aug 2, 2016 14:56:26 GMT -5
It seems to me, we should all listen to what DDo says, and stop speculating. Early in the process he announced the top guys were off limits to trades, yet we, me included, continued our wild speculation.
Here's what he said after the deadline passed
“I would say extremely,” he said. “They’re really good. Those two players are, and they’re not the only ones. Devers you could say is pretty close, too. He’s a little younger. These guys are special players, and they’re not far from the big leagues, either. These guys are really good players. It’s just a situation where, you know when you talk to other clubs and people offer you good big-league players for them. But I do think we feel we have a club that can not only win now, but we want to be good for years to come. They’re a really important part of what we’re going to do.”
That last part was, is, and will remain what really matters. He sees these kids as significant contributors to the Red Sox future, and we should all be happier for that
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 2, 2016 16:01:32 GMT -5
It seems to me, we should all listen to what DDo says, and stop speculating. Early in the process he announced the top guys were off limits to trades, yet we, me included, continued our wild speculation.Here's what he said after the deadline passed “I would say extremely,” he said. “They’re really good. Those two players are, and they’re not the only ones. Devers you could say is pretty close, too. He’s a little younger. These guys are special players, and they’re not far from the big leagues, either. These guys are really good players. It’s just a situation where, you know when you talk to other clubs and people offer you good big-league players for them. But I do think we feel we have a club that can not only win now, but we want to be good for years to come. They’re a really important part of what we’re going to do.” That last part was, is, and will remain what really matters. He sees these kids as significant contributors to the Red Sox future, and we should all be happier for that Uh, yeah, and then he went and traded Espinoza, who had previously been one of those "top guys [who] were off limits to trades" (e.g., here). Dombrowski has also said that no player is untouchable (not even Betts or Bogaerts!). Doesn't mean he's going to trade Benintendi or Moncada. But it's certainly possible.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 2, 2016 16:10:05 GMT -5
I completely "get" why he made the trade, and in the context of the market, it's a pretty good one. But you know (well) my feelings on the "need" to acquire a starter. I argued (vehemently) that Rodriguez would sort things out. That meant a single open 5 spot in the rotation, which I much prefer they'd filled either internally or with a much less costly external alternative. I'm just not sold on Pomeranz. I liked him before the trade, even advocated getting him. I just wouldn't have done it for the price of Espinoza. Going back to my 1600s Netherlands analogy, just because someone's asking a price that looks good relative to the market doesn't mean you're getting a bargain. Sometimes, you just end up with a handful of tulip bulbs and no land to plant them on. FWIW, I really don't think it's fair to assess this trade now...Pomeranz (like Porcello and Price) may have an extended adjustment period. He certainly (along with Rodriguez) takes acquiring a SP off the table in the offseason. But he's only a TOR starter when he's doing it consistently, over an extended period of time. It will be a great position to be in this winter to not have to acquire any starting pitching. I'm worried that the Sale conversation will come up again, but they won't be forced to do anything which is where you always end up overpaying. It's the one thing I really like about the trade. If you believe Price will rebound, and that this is the real Eduardo Rodriguez (I do), then Pomeranz is the #5 starter. That's a rotation you leave alone.
|
|
|