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 telson13 on Aug 2, 2016 16:15:33 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 It's only an issue if they aren't any good. You could argue it's not ideal in Fenway. But, because of resource scarcity, having lefties is a good thing. They have intrinsic value to teams in divisions heavy with good LH hitters but which have all/most-RH rotations. I don't worry about the Sox having too many lefties, as long as they pitch like Rodriguez did last night.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Aug 2, 2016 17:12:38 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. Pretty sure he made the declaration after trading Espinoza, and that was the basis for my post. I could be wrong however. It just seems to me he's been pretty truthful, and up front about what he does. Much different than the secrecy the previous administration's seemed to operate with. I'm going to stop trying to read between the lines with him, and start believing what he says more completely.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 2, 2016 17:19:05 GMT -5
Dombrowski recently made the declaration that Benintendi, Moncada and Devers are really good prospects that they'd like to keep. Well, duh. He did not say that they were "off limits to trades," which is what your post said. It's not "wild speculation" to think that those guys were and will continue to be brought up in trade talks, or that Dombrowski would be willing to trade them under certain circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Aug 2, 2016 18:05:30 GMT -5
I just realized that the Orioles acquired Wade Miley for their version of Aaron Wilkerson. A baffling trade from the Mariners' point of view.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 2, 2016 19:12:21 GMT -5
Very few players on an intelligently run major league team truly are untouchable. A smart and opportunistic GM will trade almost anyone if he sees a chance to significantly improve his team without wrecking its future. I have been fine with the Espinosa trade because the odds are much greater that Pomeranz will be an asset to the Sox than they are that Espinosa will even make it to the majors. So yes, there almost always is the possibility of the right deal for any player. The really good GMs know one when they see it. I think the Pomeranz deal was one of those. But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 3, 2016 16:32:32 GMT -5
Very few players on an intelligently run major league team truly are untouchable. A smart and opportunistic GM will trade almost anyone if he sees a chance to significantly improve his team without wrecking its future. I have been fine with the Espinosa trade because the odds are much greater that Pomeranz will be an asset to the Sox than they are that Espinosa will even make it to the majors. So yes, there almost always is the possibility of the right deal for any player. The really good GMs know one when they see it. I think the Pomeranz deal was one of those. But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. Well, I'm not sure that that's entirely accurate, but top pitching prospects end up busting at a fairly high rate: www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospectsWhat really makes sense is that the Sox held on to their top position players, who bust relatively infrequently, and become above-average players nearly 2/3 of the time. Based on the latest rankings, Espinoza has about a 1/5 shot of being very good or better, and a 3/5 shot of washing out. Then again, I'm not sure what I'd put the odds at of Pomeranz having any real value to the Sox. Maybe 2/3? 50-50?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 3, 2016 22:22:41 GMT -5
Very few players on an intelligently run major league team truly are untouchable. A smart and opportunistic GM will trade almost anyone if he sees a chance to significantly improve his team without wrecking its future. I have been fine with the Espinosa trade because the odds are much greater that Pomeranz will be an asset to the Sox than they are that Espinosa will even make it to the majors. So yes, there almost always is the possibility of the right deal for any player. The really good GMs know one when they see it. I think the Pomeranz deal was one of those. But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. I should clarify: I was referring to the second part. I agree wholeheartedly with the first. It all depends on return.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 3, 2016 22:37:58 GMT -5
Very few players on an intelligently run major league team truly are untouchable. A smart and opportunistic GM will trade almost anyone if he sees a chance to significantly improve his team without wrecking its future. I have been fine with the Espinosa trade because the odds are much greater that Pomeranz will be an asset to the Sox than they are that Espinosa will even make it to the majors. So yes, there almost always is the possibility of the right deal for any player. The really good GMs know one when they see it. I think the Pomeranz deal was one of those. But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. Well, I'm not sure that that's entirely accurate, but top pitching prospects end up busting at a fairly high rate: www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospectsWhat really makes sense is that the Sox held on to their top position players, who bust relatively infrequently, and become above-average players nearly 2/3 of the time. Based on the latest rankings, Espinoza has about a 1/5 shot of being very good or better, and a 3/5 shot of washing out. Then again, I'm not sure what I'd put the odds at of Pomeranz having any real value to the Sox. Maybe 2/3? 50-50? TINSTAAPP TINSTAAPP TINSTAAPP
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 4, 2016 5:16:56 GMT -5
I know that was a made up rumor but people really think Benintendi and Kopech plus some filler for Quintana is a bad trade? Quintana is not that much less valuable than Sale. The White Sox would turn down that offer if it was real (which it isn't).
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 28, 2016 18:25:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedKyle on Aug 28, 2016 18:30:08 GMT -5
Proud of Dave for controlling himself!
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 28, 2016 19:15:21 GMT -5
There are some pitchers I'd definitely trade Jackie for straight up, because even though it's opening one hole to close another, it seems a lot easier to replace an outfielder than a starting pitcher, particularly given Mookie and Benintendi could play center, and Moncada at least has the speed and athleticism for it. If they wanted to keep him at third they'd just be looking for a left fielder.
It'll never happen as a straight swap, but here's the list of pitchers I would trade 1-for-1 for JBJ: deGrom, Kluber, Bumgarner, Sale, Syndergaard, Urias, Quintana. A few that would be borderline are McCullers, Archer, Fernandez, Cole and Giolito.
I have to say though, with the Sox rotation looking as good as it does right now it makes it tough to want to make really any of these trades. Price-Porcello-Pomeranz-Rodriguez-Wright looks like a legitimately good starting 5, and you'd have to trade one of them to make room for the new guy so it'd really depend on the value you could get back for whichever of them goes out.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 28, 2016 20:06:53 GMT -5
though I think we will hear more rumors in the offseason
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 28, 2016 20:28:09 GMT -5
And often hard to tell which ones are true and which ones are not. Who knows who's leaking these things and what their agenda is.
|
|
|