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 James Dunne on Jul 27, 2016 12:39:16 GMT -5
Hellickson accepts a QO if he's offered one, right?
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 27, 2016 12:44:51 GMT -5
I think so. Maybe we can trade our top 5 prospects for Sale and then we can trade our 5th best prospect (which would be in the Lakins/Chavis/Dubon tier) for Hellickson.
|
|
|
Post by Costigan on Jul 27, 2016 12:45:32 GMT -5
Hellickson accepts a QO if he's offered one, right? I'd imagine he'd be near the top of the list of available free agent starters next year. I'd bet he declines the option.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 27, 2016 12:55:32 GMT -5
So basically, here, you're agreeing with my concern about trading away too many elite prospects. You're arguing against a concept you agree with, because you disagree about the player (Margot). But was Espinoza elite? You seem to be contradicting yourself if you think so. My original post was about not trading high-end prospects, but rather developing them so that the team can trade "average" incumbents and replace them with high-end prospects. Why? Because average incumbents have similar, if not more value in trade, but less long-term value. No. I don't agree with this ""But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." I've never once said we don't need to maintain a good farm system. I just think it's crazy every time we make a trade you act like our future is gone. Teams make trades and prospects flame out more than they become stars. Even after our trades we still have a top 5 farm system. In your post that I replied to you talked about trading Bradley, that's your idea of "average"? While talking about Margot replacing him, which is crazy because that's a big drop off in my book. I would have no problem trading Shaw and replacing him with Moncada or Devers when they are ready. But here's the thing, I wouldn't trade Shaw for prospects, I would trade him for something that would help us win now, a veteran player. Espinoza was an elite prospect, but is like 3 years away and was in no way dominating like you would expect a prospect of his level to. I wouldn't want to trade many players like that, but can understand why DD made that trade as he thinks Pomeranz can help us win now. How am I contradicting myself? Because I don't hate the trade? I also don't love the trade, that is not like the Kimbrel trade were the best player traded was a 2nd division starter in my eyes. The funny thing is people on here still hate the Kimbrel trade with passion, but most are OK with Pomeranz trade. It's funny because the Pomeranz trade is the one that could really come back to bite us. To the bolded points I would say that while Espinoza is struggling, he's a good deal younger than every batter he faces. He's only 18. He won't be Dwight Gooden at age 19 obviously, but by time he's 21, 22 or even 23, he should be in the big leagues, and by 23 I expect, if he stays healthy, he will be an excellent pitcher, one when the Red Sox fans annually bemoan their lack of pitching, will wish they had. I don't agree with your assessment of Margot as a second division regular - he kind of reminds me of a Marquis Grissom type, good defense, can hit a bit, has some pop, gets some doubles and triples, can hit 10 - 15 homers per year, and steal bases. It's not going to necessarily be easy to bat him leadoff, but he's going to be a really good player, but certainly not better than what Bradley or Betts is now or what Benintendi and Moncada will become. He's going to be a good regular player, but not a star. On the other hand, I've seen all the stats about flameout rates for pitchers and the values that jmei points out. To me it comes down to, what do you think of Anderson Espinoza as an individual, and not necessarily as part of a comparables group. Those values say that the Sox and Padres made a fair trade. I personally think the Red Sox will far more regret the Pomeranz/Espinoza deal far more than the 4 for 1 deal for Kimbrel. Yet most are up in arms about the Kimbrel deal (you'd think Margot is a HOFer waiting to happen, rather than that the Padres got 6 years of a good player (who might take a year of two to get good) versus 3 years of what was supposed to be a great closer (Great is certainly not a word I'd use to describe Kimbrel's performance in 2016 unfortunately). With Pomeranz, I have doubts as to whether he's anything more than a middle of the rotation pitcher, and I'm not 100% convinced he's going to be that over the rest of this season and the next two years. He's certainly much better than what they have, but to sacrifice Espinoza for something that's not a sure thing. Espinoza, of course, isn't a sure thing, but if you believe in him as an individual then you feel that the Sox gave up a future #1 or #2 starter for a #3/4 starter who can't make it past the 6th inning because of high pitch counts (occasional command issues). If you feel that Espinoza is simply a lottery ticket, then I guess the Sox made a great deal. I'm in the former camp, and I think in time, Margot will succeed, Guerra will amount to nothing, Asauje will make a nice utility man/2nd division type regular, and Allen will be a back-end starter and nobody will be that upset about losing Margot. But I think the Sox will have a crying need for Espinoza's talents by the beginning of the decade and if Kopech is indeed a closer and not a starter, that only leaves Groome as a legit possibility (I'm starting to get hopes for Josh Pennington) of a pitcher who can come up thru the farm and impact the Red Sox pitching, and the fact that the Sox don't have these kinds of guys knocking on the door is the reason why the Sox have to give up way too much to get pitching, and always seem to have pitching problems. So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your final point.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 27, 2016 13:14:04 GMT -5
“@jaysonst: Teams talking to Phillies about Jeremy Hellickson say they want ”one of your top 5 prospects“ - or they’ll keep him & take the draft pick” Good. Jeremy Hellickson is awful, I hoped all along DD would stay the heck away there. He's been pretty good recently. Hope that will drive up the price for Baltimore.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 27, 2016 13:33:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 27, 2016 13:38:56 GMT -5
The big four is dead; long live the big four.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jul 27, 2016 15:04:22 GMT -5
Thank you, Dave Dombrowski for taking the Gang of Four off the table.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 27, 2016 15:16:56 GMT -5
I'm guessing a package deal “@jcrasnick: The #Brewers Jonathan Lucroy talks are intensifying. Offers getting more serious. Momentum building toward a trade by the deadline.”
“@jcrasnick: #Rangers, #Indians, #Astros, #Mets, #Redsox have been mentioned in Lucroy mix. And believe it or not, there appears to be a ”mystery team.‘’”
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 27, 2016 15:27:45 GMT -5
The '94-'98 Yankees were built as I'm describing: young core supplemented with free agents, and intelligently orchestrated trades where internal options were available. And you make my point exactly: by trading Armas Jr for the pennant run, the Yankees began a run of win-now overpays that led to the depletion of what had been an outstanding farm system, resulting in increased dependence on free agents, and escalating costs of their core, without internally developed options. That directly led to an extended slow decline (staved off with massive payrolls), starting in '99-'00. Throughout the mid-90s, NY maintained one of the best farm systems in baseball. Their MLB decline coincides pretty closely with the decline of the farm system. The funny thing is, you initially said that no team ever had taken that approach, and then focused on the latter days of a team that tried it, had some success, and fell prey to the win-now mentality. I was pretty clear in my initial comment that I'm not opposed to trading prospects as a matter of course. Rather, I'm opposed to trading *too many* prospects, especially high-quality ones for moderate returns. I'll never be a fan of the Kimbrel trade, but I've come to terms with it. Same with Pomeranz. If that's the end of it, it's not ideal, but it's not yet a problem. My opinion is that in both cases there were options with slightly less current-day appeal, but substantially more long-term value. Now, people are talking about even more trading. I think it's foolish. Trade the top three and a couple of other guys for Sale? To me, that's a problem. It limits the window of success to three years, and almost guarantees a collapse after. Same thing that happened in '11-'12 to the Sox, because of the hole in the minor league system from '08-'10. They won with remnants and some great FA pickups in '13, but it was an aberration in the '09-'15 general decline trend. Any Red Sox fan with a remote grasp of history knows that those aberrational WS wins aren't easy to come by. Maybe you haven't been watching long enough, but I can guarantee you, they're *extreme* outliers. And example of the strategy I'm advocating was NY developing Rivera, allowing them to let Wetteland go as a FA, and get 2 first-round picks under the old CBA. Under tge current CBA, it's much more sensible to trade a player like that. But the concept is generally the same. The Sox are in position to do that sort of thing with Shaw and maybe even Hanley once Devers and Moncada are ready (provided they're still in the organization). NY did it in developing Bernie Williams. He was "blocked" by Tartabull and R. Kelly, and almost traded for Larry Walker. NY might have done better to trade either of their two incumbents a little earlier and insert Williams, but the idea was the same: replace a passable, or even solid, encumbent with an excellent homegrown player, before a "hole" develops. It's really not a difficult concept. I don't understand your obsession with all-or-nothing interpretation. At no point did I say that they should develop players just to trade them away and create holes by doing so. The Sox aren't Tampa Bay, they have the financial resources to keep their best players. What I'm advocating is developing players so that incumbents can be traded without an immediate severe drop-off, and with reasonable expectation of future improvement (to the point of representing a substantial upgrade). That means preserving a fair stockpile of high-end minor-league talent. If anything, the Ziegler acquisition should illustrate that there are plenty-viable (and more effective) alternatives to selling off your best young players to gain only marginal, temporary, improvement. My issues was when you said this "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. and 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. " The Yankees of the 90s did not do this, show me a ton of trades like you describe? Now your changing your story to include letting free agents goes, acting like that is the same as trading guys, it is not. You didn't say let expensive veterans go and replace them with young talent, while getting a comp pick, like you are now saying! The majority of the veterans trades I mention came in the 94-98 time frame you are talking about, go look it up. The Yankees kept making trade for veterans like the ones you say we derail this team and all it did for them was get them titles. "The funny thing is, you initially said that no team ever had taken that approach, and then focused on the latter days of a team that tried it, had some success, and fell prey to the win-now mentality. " Show me when they took your approach??? Teams that are trying to compete like we are, do not take your approach, it's that simple. Players like Bradley that you mentioned would be resigned by the Yankees. Big difference in the value of someone like Bradley and a closer like Wetteland who is the really the only example you have given. Again you said ""But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." The Yankees did not do that! They traded for veterans to help them win! The Yankees sucked in early 90's but developed a great farm system, they then used that system to go to 6 world series, winning 4 of them in 96, 98, 99 and 2000. While losing in 2001 and 2003. If DD depletes our system so we can go to 6 world series and win 4 of them I think he has done his job. They had a great 10 year run, how long of a run do you want? If you had said we need to maintain our farm system I would have had no problem with that, it's your idea on how you think we need to maintain our farm system that I have a problem with. The " "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." Teams that are trying to win a title don't keep making trades like that, they trade for veterans to help them win. Rebuilding teams or teams like Tampa make trades like that. You're still obsessed with black-and-white. "A ton?" I ever said that that was all a team did, or should, do. But it's an established means of maintaining a farm or getting young MLB talent. My point is clear: use established veteran talent to replenish the farm when needed. Those can be FA signings like Miller will for NY, or veterans the team has options for internally. Why don't you stop nitpicking and see the forest?
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 27, 2016 15:39:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 27, 2016 15:42:18 GMT -5
Add Basabe, Chavis and Longhi to the list of untouchables.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 27, 2016 15:42:47 GMT -5
I'm guessing a package deal “@jcrasnick: The #Brewers Jonathan Lucroy talks are intensifying. Offers getting more serious. Momentum building toward a trade by the deadline.” “@jcrasnick: #Rangers, #Indians, #Astros, #Mets, #Redsox have been mentioned in Lucroy mix. And believe it or not, there appears to be a ”mystery team.‘’” RP and Lucroy for?
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 27, 2016 15:49:56 GMT -5
Add Basabe, Chavis and Longhi to the list of untouchables. Yeah, those three names belong to the "untouchables" family about as much as I belong to the British royal family.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 27, 2016 16:03:13 GMT -5
I'm guessing a package deal “@jcrasnick: The #Brewers Jonathan Lucroy talks are intensifying. Offers getting more serious. Momentum building toward a trade by the deadline.” “@jcrasnick: #Rangers, #Indians, #Astros, #Mets, #Redsox have been mentioned in Lucroy mix. And believe it or not, there appears to be a ”mystery team.‘’” RP and Lucroy for? Swihart, Chavis, Ockimey, Light.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 27, 2016 16:44:18 GMT -5
Joel Sherman @joelsherman1 5m5 minutes ago #Braves getting Travis demeritte from #Rangers for Harrell and Alvarez
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2016 16:46:11 GMT -5
My issues was when you said this "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. and 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. " The Yankees of the 90s did not do this, show me a ton of trades like you describe? Now your changing your story to include letting free agents goes, acting like that is the same as trading guys, it is not. You didn't say let expensive veterans go and replace them with young talent, while getting a comp pick, like you are now saying! The majority of the veterans trades I mention came in the 94-98 time frame you are talking about, go look it up. The Yankees kept making trade for veterans like the ones you say we derail this team and all it did for them was get them titles. "The funny thing is, you initially said that no team ever had taken that approach, and then focused on the latter days of a team that tried it, had some success, and fell prey to the win-now mentality. " Show me when they took your approach??? Teams that are trying to compete like we are, do not take your approach, it's that simple. Players like Bradley that you mentioned would be resigned by the Yankees. Big difference in the value of someone like Bradley and a closer like Wetteland who is the really the only example you have given. Again you said ""But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." The Yankees did not do that! They traded for veterans to help them win! The Yankees sucked in early 90's but developed a great farm system, they then used that system to go to 6 world series, winning 4 of them in 96, 98, 99 and 2000. While losing in 2001 and 2003. If DD depletes our system so we can go to 6 world series and win 4 of them I think he has done his job. They had a great 10 year run, how long of a run do you want? If you had said we need to maintain our farm system I would have had no problem with that, it's your idea on how you think we need to maintain our farm system that I have a problem with. The " "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." Teams that are trying to win a title don't keep making trades like that, they trade for veterans to help them win. Rebuilding teams or teams like Tampa make trades like that. You're still obsessed with black-and-white. "A ton?" I ever said that that was all a team did, or should, do. But it's an established means of maintaining a farm or getting young MLB talent. My point is clear: use established veteran talent to replenish the farm when needed. Those can be FA signings like Miller will for NY, or veterans the team has options for internally. Why don't you stop nitpicking and see the forest? Your point is anything but clear as it keeps changing. I am in no way nitpicking just pointing out what history tells us. Why don't you see the light and get behind our GM and understand that he is making trades to help us win a championship. You say you don't mind trades, but then blow up every time a legit prospect is traded. As the 90s Yankees showed us that trading for Vets to bolster a great young core can lead to many titles. Everyone on here loves our prospects, but you take it to a whole new level. We were never going to have a team with 100% home grown talent.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 27, 2016 16:52:17 GMT -5
Add Basabe, Chavis and Longhi to the list of untouchables. Obv none of these three are untouchable. Personally, I would be reluctant to trade Longhi, whose power may manifest itself once he leaves the Carolina League. The org may be more reluctant to trade Basabe, given his ceiling. If there is ever a deal with ATL, Chavis would be a likely chip, given their predilection for local baseball talent. Note that Basabe and Chavis were discussed in yesterday's Scouting Scratch.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 27, 2016 16:58:56 GMT -5
Joel Sherman @joelsherman1 5m5 minutes ago #Braves getting Travis demeritte from #Rangers for Harrell and Alvarez BTW, this is another in a string of really nice trades for ATL.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 27, 2016 18:10:31 GMT -5
Add Basabe, Chavis and Longhi to the list of untouchables. Obv none of these three are untouchable. Personally, I would be reluctant to trade Longhi, whose power may manifest itself once he leaves the Carolina League. The org may be more reluctant to trade Basabe, given his ceiling. If there is ever a deal with ATL, Chavis would be a likely chip, given their predilection for local baseball talent. Note that Basabe and Chavis were discussed in yesterday's Scouting Scratch. Longhi is a wildcard. The OBP has always been very good. He did slump a bit at Greenville in the second half but the player was 19. Above average defender at 1B and RF. You would think the OBP keeps u around. It would be nice to get one of those KC setup relievers? Herrera Hochevar. Flynn from the left side vs LHB (6 - 50) could be a better version of the "hit man Layne"? Bedrosian LAA Ohlendorff CIN Cishek SEA
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 27, 2016 18:15:07 GMT -5
You're still obsessed with black-and-white. "A ton?" I ever said that that was all a team did, or should, do. But it's an established means of maintaining a farm or getting young MLB talent. My point is clear: use established veteran talent to replenish the farm when needed. Those can be FA signings like Miller will for NY, or veterans the team has options for internally. Why don't you stop nitpicking and see the forest? Your point is anything but clear as it keeps changing. I am in no way nitpicking just pointing out what history tells us. Why don't you see the light and get behind our GM and understand that he is making trades to help us win a championship. You say you don't mind trades, but then blow up every time a legit prospect is traded. As the 90s Yankees showed us that trading for Vets to bolster a great young core can lead to many titles. Everyone on here loves our prospects, but you take it to a whole new level. We were never going to have a team with 100% home grown talent. No, you change your interpretation of it so you have something to argue endlessly about. You made up your own initial interpretation, and then proceeded to entertain yourself with that straw man. For instance, the Yankees developed Roberto Kelly and then, when they had Bernie Williams, traded Kelly for Paul O'Neill. You're obsessed with arguing facts of your own interpretation or extrapolating every statement as you see fit, so that you have something to argue. And, you seem to have no interest in or capability to discuss concepts. Your incessant nitpicking is boring. Why don't I just nitpick your claims that "no team has done that," despite numerous instances offered to you by myself and others? Oh yeah, because it's not worthwhile. You perseverate on the NY example and argue details over substance. Jimmy Key was another FA turned comp A that they let go. The baseball landscape has changed, and the comparable technique today is to trade vets, rather than let them go to FA. Good grief, just drop it and I'll do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2016 19:52:07 GMT -5
Thank you, Dave Dombrowski for taking the Gang of Four off the table. I won't believe this until 5 p.m., July 31
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 27, 2016 20:20:00 GMT -5
Where do I sign up! (This was on MLBN)
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 27, 2016 20:32:04 GMT -5
LOL You acquire 50 million and give back 30
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 27, 2016 21:52:07 GMT -5
Where do I sign up! (This was on MLBN) One of these days MLBN will actually be right about something. And on that day I'll scared to death of the monkeys that are flying out of my butt. I know they're just tossing random stuff around, but how about having based slightly in reality?
|
|
|