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 azblue on Jul 27, 2016 22:00:48 GMT -5
Trade deadline is August 1 and 5:00 p.m. EDT.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 27, 2016 22:08:38 GMT -5
Swihart, Chavis, Ockimey, Light. Rational trade proposals have no place on the internet, sir.
|
|
|
Post by joshmoody23 on Jul 27, 2016 22:46:47 GMT -5
in my opinion the biggest need for the Sox is a shutdown left handed reliever. Ross is starting to get hit and can't be relied upon late in the game and Layne shouldn't be on the major league team. I would love to have Lucroy and Will Smith from the Brewers starting with a Christian Vasquez or a Travis Shaw, or both. While I'm sure they are shooting for a top prospect like a Devers or Benintendi for the both of them. I doubt it happens but wouldn't be opposed to stock piling on offense. If you could land Lucroy, you would be able to talk Swihart/Shaw/Vasquez without hurting the major league team. Brock Holt/Aaron Hill could platoon at 3rd base with Hill seeing the bulk of the starts until Chris Young is back
Even if we could just get Will Smith I would be willing to give up probably anyone other than the top 6 guys currently ranked on Soxprospects.
|
|
|
Post by joshmoody23 on Jul 27, 2016 22:48:17 GMT -5
I personally probably like Swihart more than most Redsox fans. I just see a lot of potential and a great team player who wants to win. He fits what I look for in a player but I know a lot of fans are ready to use him as a trade chip. I would rather trade Christian Vasquez
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2016 23:40:15 GMT -5
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. So Paul O'Neil was a prospect?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 28, 2016 0:02:35 GMT -5
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. So Paul O'Neil was a prospect? The point was that they didn't trade a bunch of prospects to get him. They traded an established player, for whom they had a superior replacement, keeping the prospect (Williams) who became that superior player. That's what I'm advocating, and I've clarified my original post in those terms. Take it or leave it. But hey, you're saying Dombrowski wants to win, so we should agree with every move he makes. You're convinced he's the only GM out there who wants to win, and that's OK.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 28, 2016 0:15:45 GMT -5
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. So Paul O'Neil was a prospect? Here is my original quote: "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." Read the first statement. You can see where it ends because there's a period. That's one complete thought. Then read the second. It's a separate thought. You'll note it says "high-upside, relatively high-floor talent." It doesn't say "only prospects." Seriously, the mental gymnastics you go through to convince yourself you're "right" must be exhausting.
|
|
fenwayfaithful
Rookie
A prospect is fun to watch, but trading him for a sure thing in the Majors is never a losing deal.
Posts: 114
|
Post by fenwayfaithful on Jul 28, 2016 2:05:34 GMT -5
Well i think the main focus on this is our year type mentality is David Ortiz last season. I was looking at the pitchers DDo has traded for mid-season and wow that man has a resume. Pomeranz is gonna be something we will all look back on with thankfulness. Normally i would say this team is built for a few years so don't trade all our prospects in case we are a piece or 2 away from a W/S. BUT somehow we already got the Closer we got the Ace and we got another All-star lefty all in one season. Bradley finally shows his potential and it just seems like everything has come together. I don't think trading for Sale would be worth it. Not for everything we would have to give up. I honestly think Fernandez is a better option. Price/Fernandez would be a nasty lefty righty duo but even then giving up Moncada and Benintendi is too hard to even think about. its a toss up at this point. We have the best offense in baseball. Do we hope for the best or do we go all in for Davids last year........hmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 6:04:11 GMT -5
Well i think the main focus on this is our year type mentality is David Ortiz last season. I was looking at the pitchers DDo has traded for mid-season and wow that man has a resume. Pomeranz is gonna be something we will all look back on with thankfulness. Normally i would say this team is built for a few years so don't trade all our prospects in case we are a piece or 2 away from a W/S. BUT somehow we already got the Closer we got the Ace and we got another All-star lefty all in one season. Bradley finally shows his potential and it just seems like everything has come together. I don't think trading for Sale would be worth it. Not for everything we would have to give up. I honestly think Fernandez is a better option. Price/Fernandez would be a nasty lefty righty duo but even then giving up Moncada and Benintendi is too hard to even think about. its a toss up at this point. We have the best offense in baseball. Do we hope for the best or do we go all in for Davids last year........hmmmmmmmmm Are you implying that you'd make a big trade for Fernandez right now? Why would the Marlins do that? They are very much in contention for the Wild Card right now. Fernandez isn't going anywhere until he nears the end of his contract.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 28, 2016 7:23:02 GMT -5
Unpopular opinion time: Given Kopech's lack of third pitch and the fact that he's missed roughly 1/4 of his career development time after punching someone in the face, if there's a GM who values Kopech at the same level as Moncada/Benintendi/Devers the Red Sox should absolutely trade him to that team. As a critic of the Espinoza-for-Pomeranz trade, I'd have done the deal for Kopech in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 8:13:21 GMT -5
Unpopular opinion time: Given Kopech's lack of third pitch and the fact that he's missed roughly 1/4 of his career development time after punching someone in the face, if there's a GM who values Kopech at the same level as Moncada/Benintendi/Devers the Red Sox should absolutely trade him to that team. As a critic of the Espinoza-for-Pomeranz trade, I'd have done the deal for Kopech in a heartbeat. I like Kopech, but there's a decent possibility that he is a closer type down the road and not a viable starter. I hope that's not the case, but I concur with what you said. If the Pads had wanted Kopech instead of Espinoza I would have let him go, too. I'd have to think that the Padres are smarter than that and know that Espinoza is a better bet than Kopech. It's better than thinking that Dombrowski talked the Padres into taking Espinoza over Kopech. Truthfully, I do think it's the former and not the latter. Even though teams do a lot of dumb stuff, they're not usually that dumb. They knew that Espinoza is the real prize. Just wish that Dombrowski would have "protected" Espinoza the way he seems to be "protecting" Kopech, according to the Gammons article.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 28, 2016 8:25:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I should be clear that I don't think by any means that they could've made the deal with Kopech rather than Espinoza. I was just saying that there's a clear gap in how I rate them as prospects and I was using that deal to illustrate that point.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 28, 2016 8:31:45 GMT -5
I forgot which talking head it was but a few weeks before the Pomeranz trade they tweeted there's a good many executives in baseball that felt Kopech was the better prospect than AE. His floor to me is a top set up man with #2 upside. Hopefully in 2-3 years he's ready.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 9:12:04 GMT -5
I forgot which talking head it was but a few weeks before the Pomeranz trade they tweeted there's a good many executives in baseball that felt Kopech was the better prospect than AE. His floor to me is a top set up man with #2 upside. Hopefully in 2-3 years he's ready. Show us the tweet, if possible.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 28, 2016 10:22:45 GMT -5
So Paul O'Neil was a prospect? The point was that they didn't trade a bunch of prospects to get him. They traded an established player, for whom they had a superior replacement, keeping the prospect (Williams) who became that superior player. That's what I'm advocating, and I've clarified my original post in those terms. Take it or leave it. But hey, you're saying Dombrowski wants to win, so we should agree with every move he makes. You're convinced he's the only GM out there who wants to win, and that's OK. See this is what I mean by changing your point all the time. Your first post, that started this in no way was this what you were advocating. Yes you said fill holes with homegrown talent, which I never had a problem with, its the other half of the post, trade the veterans that the prospects are replacing for prospects to replenish the system that I have a problem with. As contending teams don't make those type of trades. You said the Red Sox are operating backwards by trading prospects for Veterans when they should be trading Veterans for prospects. So you are changing your mind is that what you are saying?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 28, 2016 10:33:13 GMT -5
So Paul O'Neil was a prospect? Here is my original quote: "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." Read the first statement. You can see where it ends because there's a period. That's one complete thought. Then read the second. It's a separate thought. You'll note it says "high-upside, relatively high-floor talent." It doesn't say "only prospects." Seriously, the mental gymnastics you go through to convince yourself you're "right" must be exhausting. First off please try and reply only once to my posts, not 2-3 times. You are leaving out the whole first paragraph with sentences like "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. " This is the sentence I've quoted like 5 times and now you want to act like it doesn't exist. So when talking about veteran players you talk about high upside, relatively high-floor talent? That is prospect talk. I'm sorry but while that doesn't say only prospects, that's what you are implying. You know because the paragraph before this one said "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. " Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/3538/2016-trade-deadline-news-discussion#ixzz4FiXeMqwP
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 10:40:01 GMT -5
If reports are true and Bradley Zimmer and Frazier are off the table for 1.5 years of Lucroy, which I think is fair, i hope we are still buying in there. At 32 years old Lucroy would be an easy re-sign for a large market team like us. He's fantastic with pitching staffs, and a good leader a la David Ross. The big 4 should be off the table, but it's worth exploring, especially if they're interested in Vazquez (MIL has time to wait on his bat to peak and approach average IMO).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 28, 2016 10:50:49 GMT -5
The only way I want Lucroy is if we can get him on the cheap and in this market that is just not happening.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2016 10:59:11 GMT -5
If reports are true and Bradley Zimmer and Frazier are off the table for 1.5 years of Lucroy, which I think is fair, i hope we are still buying in there. At 32 years old Lucroy would be an easy re-sign for a large market team like us. He's fantastic with pitching staffs, and a good leader a la David Ross. The big 4 should be off the table, but it's worth exploring, especially if they're interested in Vazquez (MIL has time to wait on his bat to peak and approach average IMO). How many years of catching does he have left before he turns into Joe Mauer? I'd guess 2.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 10:59:54 GMT -5
The only way I want Lucroy is if we can get him on the cheap and in this market that is just not happening. You never know. The Indians and Sox are in no need to be overly aggressive here, and the Brewers have little incentive to keep Lucroy given his age relative to their rebuild status, and that he's gone in 1.5 years.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 11:03:03 GMT -5
If reports are true and Bradley Zimmer and Frazier are off the table for 1.5 years of Lucroy, which I think is fair, i hope we are still buying in there. At 32 years old Lucroy would be an easy re-sign for a large market team like us. He's fantastic with pitching staffs, and a good leader a la David Ross. The big 4 should be off the table, but it's worth exploring, especially if they're interested in Vazquez (MIL has time to wait on his bat to peak and approach average IMO). How many years of catching does he have left before he turns into Joe Mauer? I'd guess 2. If you're into pitch framing, Lucroy is definitely a cut above Mauer in defense. If he recedes to a 100 wRC+ bat, he's still a 3 WAR player behind the plate with his defense. I would say he'll need to share more time and have a very competent backup then, absolutely, but he's a game changer over the next couple years. I agree that we shouldn't overpay, but I would be glad to have him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2016 11:09:40 GMT -5
How many years of catching does he have left before he turns into Joe Mauer? I'd guess 2. If you're into pitch framing, Lucroy is definitely a cut above Mauer in defense. If he recedes to a 100 wRC+ bat, he's still a 3 WAR player behind the plate with his defense. I would say he'll need to share more time and have a very competent backup then, absolutely, but he's a game changer over the next couple years. I agree that we shouldn't overpay, but I would be glad to have him. What I'm saying is that he's at that catching age where most start to fall apart. If he has to move to 1B, he's about worthless. It amazes me more and more what Carlton Fisk was able to do into his 40s.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 28, 2016 11:15:20 GMT -5
The only way I want Lucroy is if we can get him on the cheap and in this market that is just not happening. You never know. The Indians and Sox are in no need to be overly aggressive here, and the Brewers have little incentive to keep Lucroy given his age relative to their rebuild status, and that he's gone in 1.5 years. Yea if those were the only two teams interested, per ESPN Rangers, Mets, Indians, Red Sox, Astros and Tigers are all interested in him.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 11:16:08 GMT -5
If you're into pitch framing, Lucroy is definitely a cut above Mauer in defense. If he recedes to a 100 wRC+ bat, he's still a 3 WAR player behind the plate with his defense. I would say he'll need to share more time and have a very competent backup then, absolutely, but he's a game changer over the next couple years. I agree that we shouldn't overpay, but I would be glad to have him. What I'm saying is that he's at that catching age where most start to fall apart. If he has to move to 1B, he's about worthless. It amazes me more and more what Carlton Fisk was able to do into his 40s. That's fair, although if his bat stays as good as it is now at 1B, he's still solid there, even if he doesn't have traditional power. The cost will probably be too high as most would say, but he interests me still.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 28, 2016 11:46:31 GMT -5
If Vazquez + is traded for Lucroy, where does that leave Swihart? He would be worth more to trade him in that scenario. Or have him back up Lucroy for 1 1/2 years which will put him in his age 26 year.
|
|
|