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 dnfl333 on Jul 26, 2016 14:10:51 GMT -5
Intelligent use of talent assets involves fully developing them and *then* trading them to get more assets, such that the talent supply at the MLB level never (or at least, rarely) forces a team into paying inflated prices. The Sox were probably a year or two away from that state of equilibrium, but Dombrowski has put them in a big hole with the Kimbrel and Pomeranz trades. The IFA restrictions after Guamairo et al are going to severely damage their pipeline, too. This franchise looks headed in the wrong direction again. They may very well make the playoffs, but when Ortiz leaves, this isn't a playoff team anymore. Then, it's back to wasting more money and making more ill-advised bandaid trades. While I agree with you that Dombrowski is taking the franchise in the wrong direction, I disagree as to how far Dombrowski needs to drive to ruin it. The Red Sox still have a core of cost-controlled talent that makes them the envy of a majority of other teams. Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley Jr. - these are guys that Dombrowski is not going to trade and who still have several years of excess value ahead of them. In Steven Wright, they have a very good starter who is making the league minimum. Porcello's contract is looking like a very good bargain at this point. Pedroia, for now, is still taking less money than his production on the field would warrant. And I don't know which of Vazquez, Swihart or even Leon it's going to be but the Sox are going to have one of the best catchers in the league for pennies. David Ortiz, amazing as it is what he can still do with the bat at his age, is not the only person who can propel this team into the playoffs. With so many budget superstars, the Sox easily have the money to take on the contract of someone like Joey Votto if they want another superstar hitter. That would hurt down the road but it would certainly keep them in playoff contention for at least another 5 years. (And it's only "playoff contention" instead of "guaranteed playoff spot" because the AL East is so tough.) Define wrong direction? Betts, XB, JBJ to an extent Shaw and Vazquez gives you 5 homegrown starting players. 3 of 5 are All-Stars. The Organization moves on from a prospect OF and Pitcher for Kimbrell and Pomeranz. They replace Espinoza with Groome whom by all acounts could have been the #1 overall pick. I will agree with most Kimbrell was an overpay. The system has not been decimated. You still have 4 prospects in the BA top 50 plus Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 26, 2016 14:30:52 GMT -5
“@philgrogers: Can say @whitesox love redsox CF Andrew Benintendi. He could be the front man in a multi-player Chris Sale trade if talks progress.”
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 26, 2016 15:04:52 GMT -5
While I agree with you that Dombrowski is taking the franchise in the wrong direction, I disagree as to how far Dombrowski needs to drive to ruin it. The Red Sox still have a core of cost-controlled talent that makes them the envy of a majority of other teams. Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley Jr. - these are guys that Dombrowski is not going to trade and who still have several years of excess value ahead of them. In Steven Wright, they have a very good starter who is making the league minimum. Porcello's contract is looking like a very good bargain at this point. Pedroia, for now, is still taking less money than his production on the field would warrant. And I don't know which of Vazquez, Swihart or even Leon it's going to be but the Sox are going to have one of the best catchers in the league for pennies. David Ortiz, amazing as it is what he can still do with the bat at his age, is not the only person who can propel this team into the playoffs. With so many budget superstars, the Sox easily have the money to take on the contract of someone like Joey Votto if they want another superstar hitter. That would hurt down the road but it would certainly keep them in playoff contention for at least another 5 years. (And it's only "playoff contention" instead of "guaranteed playoff spot" because the AL East is so tough.) Define wrong direction? Betts, XB, JBJ to an extent Shaw and Vazquez gives you 5 homegrown starting players. 3 of 5 are All-Stars. The Organization moves on from a prospect OF and Pitcher for Kimbrell and Pomeranz. They replace Espinoza with Groome whom by all acounts could have been the #1 overall pick. I will agree with most Kimbrell was an overpay. The system has not been decimated. You still have 4 prospects in the BA top 50 plus Swihart. I hate when this is quoted this way. "well, we signed Groome, so now we can trade Neo". It is insane to think we couldn't use both. I look at these 2 transactions as separate, not "replacing" one for the other. If it were a replacement, it's like we traded our #12 pick with Pomeranz.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2016 15:11:29 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree on your point. Look, JBJ could have a career threatening injury tomorrow (perish the thought) and suddenly his position is wide open and oh, no wouldn't Margot look great in CF? You can make that argument on any position at any time, but the reality is that you can't just hoard prospects, try one out, see if it works, if it doesn't, try out another one, etc. Sooner or later, presented with an opportunity to improve your ballclub enough to have a better shot at winning (as marginal as the % are - nobody wants to be in the Wild Card game) the World Series, you sometimes have to make a concrete decision that the guy you are dealing is not better than what you already have or having him is at best a marginal upgrade in the future that is not more important than the upgrade to your ballclub that is needed now. In other words, Margot IS blocked. The Red Sox have four better options for the OF than him. But either way presented with the opportunity Dombrowski decided that JBJ IS his CF for the next several years. Margot in LF or RF wasn't a very realistic scenario. His bat profiles as a CF. His bat doesn't play as well in LF and it's not as promising as Benintendi's. The idea isn't too collect CF prospects. It's to shape your talent so it improves your ballclub. The object of a trade isn't to win the trade. It's to improve your club. Say you quantify the number you gave up as 8, and you only got a 6 in return, but that 6 was applied to a glaring need that needs to be addressed while the 8 you give up has virtually no chance of hurting your present and small chance of hurting your future, then why wouldn't you make the deal? You brought up Betts as an example of being blocked. Some guys can be converted to fill another position. It wasn't shocking that Betts was converted to the OF where there was a glaring need. Betts' bat was so dominant, the Sox were forced to find a spot for him and his athleticism allowed for it. Margot doesn't have Betts' rare bat, so it's a different scenario. The Red Sox had very few bats the caliber of Betts. That's why Betts really wasn't expendable and Margot's was. When you plan the future of your team, Betts was going to be on it, just like Bogaerts was, just like Benintendi and Moncada will be. I'm of the opinion that Devers should be, but I expect he will be dealt. At some point, you make a decision on what your team is going to look like over the next several years and you give it a real try. In that vein, I'm of the opinion that Swihart should get every opportunity to win the catching job at some point next year (once they re-acquaint him with catching). That would make Vazquez expendable, not that teams are jumping at the bit to get him. If the Sox determine that they need to deal either Swihart or Vazquez as part of a package to get a top notch pitcher, then they need to do that and not worry about, "What if we trade Swihart and Vazquez fails or what if we trade Vazquez and Swihart fails?" At some point they have to decide about who they're willing to go with and not have themselves a catching carousel. As far as your other examples go, Rizzo was traded because Gonzo was supposed to be the 1b for the next seven years. It wasn't Gonzo's ineffectiveness that scotched that plan, and there was no way they were going to get Gonzo without losing Rizzo. You might recall that Gonzo had a monster 2011 season. But his shoulder was never the same after that and we all know the rest. I don't ever remember being too worried about having too many pitchers. None of those pitchers you mentioned were considered top shelf pitchers in the way that Espinoza, Groome, and Kopech are. Back end starters are very expendable. Top of the rotation starters bust, too, of course, but unless you have more than five of these guys, there's room for them. It's not like having 5 guys who can play CF and you have room for all 5. This is why I complained about losing Espinoza, but not Margot. You had Espinoza pegged with a particular value based on historical values, etc, which is sensible, but that doesn't necessarily tell me about that particular player. I mean, if we always go by historical comparisons, then David Ortiz would have been jettisoned a long time ago, because players don't do what he does at age 40. you develop an opinion on a particular player. I believe that Espinoza will be a top of the rotation type starter by time he's 23. He certainly could bust or be nothing, but I think from everything I've read, he'll get thru his issues and succeed, and that will be a certain talent that will be hard to replace from the Red Sox POV. Speedy CFs who can hit aren't that rare to find and replace. Great young pitching is much rarer to find. This is why I reacted to losing Espinoza vs losing Margot (who I like as a player in a Marquis Grissom sort of way). And all the 3b prospects you mentioned - well the Sox could have chosen who they thought their best bet was for 3b and perhaps gotten something of value for who they felt was expendable, but they sat on all of Ideally, it can be argued, the Sox go with what they have, keep Margot et al, and play out 2016. Once they have an idea that either Margot or Benintendi is a viable OF option, they could have theoretically traded JBJ to a team like the Mets for a huge haul of players. I'd actually have preferred they keep him and seasoned the young guys even more. But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. Meanwhile, assemble the bullpen from internal options (Barnes, Kelly, Light, Martin, Hembree, etc.) and let them take their lumps. Make Ziegler-style trades to supplement. And save the $ and minor league depth. Then, deal veterans from a position of strength after assessing internal talent. Get much more in return, and save money doing so. Replenish the pipeline, and let the system's own graduates fill the holes. The Red Sox are operating backwards. A *truly* good team is able to trade solid-performing veterans because they have equally viable internal options ready to take that spot. And by trading veterans for high-upside, relatively high-floor talent, a team can withstand a few prospect busts because they're producing their own star-quality players regularly. Glad your not GM as you would produce zero winning seasons. We have had this discussion before and it was clearly pointed out that no team has won with your formula. Your formula doesn't work in Boston were fans demand you should compete most years. I think you should become a Tampa fan because that's basically what your saying. How good has Tampa done with your formula?
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Jul 26, 2016 15:33:17 GMT -5
“@philgrogers: Can say @whitesox love redsox CF Andrew Benintendi. He could be the front man in a multi-player Chris Sale trade if talks progress.” If he trades AB I'm done. Sale has an awful delivery. He's an injury waiting to happen. AB is the real deal.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 26, 2016 15:36:45 GMT -5
“@philgrogers: Can say @whitesox love redsox CF Andrew Benintendi. He could be the front man in a multi-player Chris Sale trade if talks progress.” If he trades AB I'm done. Sale has an awful delivery. He's an injury waiting to happen. AB is the real deal. I hated Esponiza for Pomeranz deal, but if you hate Chris Sale for Benintendi (let's just assume it's 1 for 1 for now), then who the heck do you want? I view "AB" as a really good talent that you won't miss if packaged in the right deal. Moncada and Espinoza on the other hand....
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Jul 26, 2016 16:33:38 GMT -5
I'd drive AB to the airport if he gets us Sale rather than having to give up Moncada. AB is hyped up on here. I would gladly part with him to get an ace.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 26, 2016 16:38:59 GMT -5
Well. Things are off to an excellent start with his new team! “@csnmooney: Chapman, through translator, says he woke up from nap when Theo/Ricketts called and has no specific memory re: off-field expectations talk.” From a few days ago
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2016 16:39:40 GMT -5
I'd drive AB to the airport if he gets us Sale rather than having to give up Moncada. AB is hyped up on here. I would gladly part with him to get an ace. His floor is much higher than Moncada's. Should be a plus COF whereas Moncada is a mystery at 3B (not good at 2B). He strikes out 1/3 of the amount Moncada does, and should take longer to adjust to the MLB. He may be hyped here, but he has a pretty damn similar offensive profile as Mookie but from he left side of the plate. There's a reason why CWS may prefer him to Moncada.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2016 16:41:06 GMT -5
Well. Things are off to an excellent start with his new team! “@csnmooney: Chapman, through translator, says he woke up from nap when Theo/Ricketts called and has no specific memory re: off-field expectations talk.” From a few days ago How touching, even though if anything the team that benefited from the situation (NYY) should have to answer to this, not CHC.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 26, 2016 16:50:03 GMT -5
I'm 100% fine with AB headlining the trade, especially if we keep Swihart and Moncada. Because with AB gone, I'd have to think the team believes in Swihart as a leftfielder. That's a pretty sweet lineup with Moncada in there next year at some point at 3rd and a rotation of Sale, Price, Pomeranz, Porcello, Wright is pretty nice.....yeah....I'm good with that for a few years.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Jul 26, 2016 16:54:49 GMT -5
“@philgrogers: Can say @whitesox love redsox CF Andrew Benintendi. He could be the front man in a multi-player Chris Sale trade if talks progress.” If he trades AB I'm done. Sale has an awful delivery. He's an injury waiting to happen. AB is the real deal. No worries. Farrell said today that he thinks they won't be making any trades between now and the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 26, 2016 17:01:42 GMT -5
Ideally, it can be argued, the Sox go with what they have, keep Margot et al, and play out 2016. Once they have an idea that either Margot or Benintendi is a viable OF option, they could have theoretically traded JBJ to a team like the Mets for a huge haul of players. I'd actually have preferred they keep him and seasoned the young guys even more. But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. Meanwhile, assemble the bullpen from internal options (Barnes, Kelly, Light, Martin, Hembree, etc.) and let them take their lumps. Make Ziegler-style trades to supplement. And save the $ and minor league depth. Then, deal veterans from a position of strength after assessing internal talent. Get much more in return, and save money doing so. Replenish the pipeline, and let the system's own graduates fill the holes. The Red Sox are operating backwards. A *truly* good team is able to trade solid-performing veterans because they have equally viable internal options ready to take that spot. And by trading veterans for high-upside, relatively high-floor talent, a team can withstand a few prospect busts because they're producing their own star-quality players regularly. Glad your not GM as you would produce zero winning seasons. We have had this discussion before and it was clearly pointed out that no team has won with your formula. Your formula doesn't work in Boston were fans demand you should compete most years. I think you should become a Tampa fan because that's basically what your saying. How good has Tampa done with your formula? In theory that style of team building makes sense and would consistently provide excess value - in many ways it's comparable to how the Patriots operate by trading veteran players and relying on younger less established players once the veteran has lost a step. But first you need a year-in-year-out successful team and a Coach/GM with unlimited control and complete job security. Perhaps Dombrowski would like to do this, but if he did it now then he would be fired before the team ever became good enough.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2016 17:04:35 GMT -5
I really hope Farrell has little say in roster/organizational management, since he can barely understand how to use a bullpen or what splits are.
If I was DD I would treat Farrell like a baby brother. Unplug a controller and tell him he's playing against you in Ken Griffey's Major League Baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 26, 2016 17:19:54 GMT -5
If he trades AB I'm done. Sale has an awful delivery. He's an injury waiting to happen. AB is the real deal. Do you promise?
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Jul 26, 2016 17:26:41 GMT -5
If he trades AB I'm done. Sale has an awful delivery. He's an injury waiting to happen. AB is the real deal. I hated Esponiza for Pomeranz deal, but if you hate Chris Sale for Benintendi (let's just assume it's 1 for 1 for now), then who the heck do you want? I view "AB" as a really good talent that you won't miss if packaged in the right deal. Moncada and Espinoza on the other hand.... What do I want? I want 6 years of a cost controlled asset and an allstar outfield for the next half decade. The Sox don't need to compete with the Yankees. Stop accumulating other teams stars and just build a homegrown powerhouse.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 26, 2016 17:38:18 GMT -5
Define wrong direction? Betts, XB, JBJ to an extent Shaw and Vazquez gives you 5 homegrown starting players. 3 of 5 are All-Stars. The Organization moves on from a prospect OF and Pitcher for Kimbrell and Pomeranz. They replace Espinoza with Groome whom by all acounts could have been the #1 overall pick. I will agree with most Kimbrell was an overpay. The system has not been decimated. You still have 4 prospects in the BA top 50 plus Swihart. I hate when this is quoted this way. "well, we signed Groome, so now we can trade Neo". It is insane to think we couldn't use both. I look at these 2 transactions as separate, not "replacing" one for the other. If it were a replacement, it's like we traded our #12 pick with Pomeranz. LOL like the other post says, I'm glad your not the Sox GM.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2016 17:42:37 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 2m2 minutes ago Talked to multiple MLB execs who say same thing: Sale trade 'highly unlikely' unless White Sox absolutely blown away
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 26, 2016 17:46:14 GMT -5
I hated Esponiza for Pomeranz deal, but if you hate Chris Sale for Benintendi (let's just assume it's 1 for 1 for now), then who the heck do you want? I view "AB" as a really good talent that you won't miss if packaged in the right deal. Moncada and Espinoza on the other hand.... What do I want? I want 6 years of a cost controlled asset and an allstar outfield for the next half decade. The Sox don't need to compete with the Yankees. Stop accumulating other teams stars and just build a homegrown powerhouse. It's a catch 22 my friend. IF you land Sale,Robertson this squad just might win it all.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2016 18:36:54 GMT -5
I hate when this is quoted this way. "well, we signed Groome, so now we can trade Neo". It is insane to think we couldn't use both. I look at these 2 transactions as separate, not "replacing" one for the other. If it were a replacement, it's like we traded our #12 pick with Pomeranz. LOL like the other post says, I'm glad your not the Sox GM. Yeah, everyone knows every similarly ranked prospect is equal.
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Jul 26, 2016 18:38:05 GMT -5
This team is on life support don't blame DD if he has to make a big move now .
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2016 18:43:09 GMT -5
This team is on life support don't blame DD if he has to make a big move now . Our insane one game losing street must end at any cost. It's a weird time to hit a skid, but it can't be the reason why you make a drastic change in plan.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2016 18:47:03 GMT -5
Glad your not GM as you would produce zero winning seasons. We have had this discussion before and it was clearly pointed out that no team has won with your formula. Your formula doesn't work in Boston were fans demand you should compete most years. I think you should become a Tampa fan because that's basically what your saying. How good has Tampa done with your formula? In theory that style of team building makes sense and would consistently provide excess value - in many ways it's comparable to how the Patriots operate by trading veteran players and relying on younger less established players once the veteran has lost a step. But first you need a year-in-year-out successful team and a Coach/GM with unlimited control and complete job security. Perhaps Dombrowski would like to do this, but if he did it now then he would be fired before the team ever became good enough. No it doesn't work. Prospects bust in Baseball at a very high rate, especially pitchers. That theory also doesn't take into account selling high on prospects. Also if you have a good team like Sox do how to you develop players like Benintendi and Margot, while you have Bradley and Betts? You run into same issue we have with Vazquez and Swihart. Swiharts value has dropped a ton due to lack of playing time and Sox switching him to LF to get him playing time.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 26, 2016 20:20:44 GMT -5
In theory that style of team building makes sense and would consistently provide excess value - in many ways it's comparable to how the Patriots operate by trading veteran players and relying on younger less established players once the veteran has lost a step. But first you need a year-in-year-out successful team and a Coach/GM with unlimited control and complete job security. Perhaps Dombrowski would like to do this, but if he did it now then he would be fired before the team ever became good enough. No it doesn't work. Prospects bust in Baseball at a very high rate, especially pitchers. That theory also doesn't take into account selling high on prospects. Also if you have a good team like Sox do how to you develop players like Benintendi and Margot, while you have Bradley and Betts? You run into same issue we have with Vazquez and Swihart. Swiharts value has dropped a ton due to lack of playing time and Sox switching him to LF to get him playing time. The answer to your question is pretty easy. You continue to develop them then trade them for mirror images at a position of need. Prospects who are MLB ready are obviously worth more than guys further away as the floor is higher. Everyone forgets that JBJ is only under control 3 more years and then he's going to cost a fortune (more likely that he's gone). Trading him after next year means you can get a kings ransom. Teams can be built this way, but big market teams get too impatient. I don't mind dealing prospects for sure-fire position players or SP in their prime with 3 cost-controlled or arb years. Personally not crazy about Pomeranz as a player, but I don't mind that kind of a deal. What I don't like is dealing them for an expensive reliever. We've gotten burnt more than once there.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 26, 2016 21:13:22 GMT -5
My concern isn't so much for the next 3-4 years when Ortiz leaves, this isn't a playoff team anymore. We may be in agreement, we may not be, it's hard to tell. I should have qualified my Ortiz comment more fully. With a marginal replacement, all other things considered, they're not. With a replacement who can approximate (because, let's be realistic, expecting a .330/.420/.650 or so line out of anyone is unfair) his production, and a few dominoes falling right elsewhere, yes, they are. Problem being, that replacement is going to cost 30-50% more, for 4-5 years, and probably only give you 80% or less of the value that Ortiz does.
|
|
|