|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 15, 2013 14:57:15 GMT -5
I wanted to take a different approach to the trade talk. Who would you put on your list of players who are untouchable. Yes I know, no one is untouchable because if LA calls and says Trout is available you would trade for him. What I am asking is who do you think should not be traded barring a lopsided deal and why. I'm thinking try to limit it to 3-5 players and focus on the young guys (26 and below)
Middlebrooks - cost controlled 3b of foreseeable future
De La Rosa - Highest ceiling of any advanced pitching prospect. Major league ready and experience.
Bradley - Seems like he has the highest floor of any player in the minor league system. Will not be blocked in 2014. Great plate discipline and defense makes him valuable even when slumping
Boegarts - what do i have to say? Potential 30 HR a year at SS
Doubrount - cost controlled starting pitcher with a probable floor going forward of a 5th starter. Looking at what Blanton is getting paid in this open market, Doubrount can fill a needed role and free up money to be spent elsewhere. Also K Rate looks impressive and has ML experience at a young age.
I personally would not like to see any of the top 10 prospects traded, these are just the the top 5 I would not consider trading. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 15, 2013 20:02:43 GMT -5
Doubrount - cost controlled starting pitcher with a probable floor going forward of a 5th starter. Looking at what Blanton is getting paid in this open market, Doubrount can fill a needed role and free up money to be spent elsewhere. Also K Rate looks impressive and has ML experience at a young age. Honestly if Doubront is your idea of an "untouchable" player, what you're really saying is that you don't want to make any trades. Who exactly do you expect the Red Sox to acquire without even giving up back-end starter types?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 16, 2013 9:58:17 GMT -5
Doubrount - cost controlled starting pitcher with a probable floor going forward of a 5th starter. Looking at what Blanton is getting paid in this open market, Doubrount can fill a needed role and free up money to be spent elsewhere. Also K Rate looks impressive and has ML experience at a young age. Honestly if Doubront is your idea of an "untouchable" player, what you're really saying is that you don't want to make any trades. Who exactly do you expect the Red Sox to acquire without even giving up back-end starter types? Like I said, I don't think of these players as untouchables, just players that should not be traded unless you think the trade is overwhelming. I would rather trade Barnes or Webster than Doubrount, and I know that is probably unpopular. One big reason why is I think Doubrounts trade value would be considered down while Barnes would be up. He is also ready to help the team now and will come at a great bargain over the next 5 years. Everyone expects him to improve the next year or two. It is biased for me to put Doubrount on the list because I think he will be better than the general public feels. I think 2012 we saw his potential, instead of who he really is. Just my opinion, I may be wrong but I am entitled to it. And no, I don't think the Red Sox need to make any big trades. I think the team should focus on getting younger. I would of liked to see them make a move for Myers or Bauer, and patch the 2013 season with FA that will let us compete, although we would not be favorites. I also don't see anyone being available that would solve the Red Sox problems. Look to trade a catcher, OF, or bullpen arm, but not put together a package for Upton. But the point of the post was to call out who you personally would not want to trade. There seems to be a disagreement among everybody with who we should trade, I though who do you think we shouldn't trade.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Jan 16, 2013 10:27:21 GMT -5
Bryce Brentz
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Jan 16, 2013 15:19:27 GMT -5
Everyone is touchable besides Bogaerts and maybe Bradley because I think theres no shot Ellsbury is here after this year; likely this June.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 16, 2013 15:36:01 GMT -5
That he's trade-able? of course.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Jan 16, 2013 17:07:50 GMT -5
That he's trade-able? of course. Out of our top 10 specs I would deem him most touchable aside from Iglesias.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 16, 2013 20:20:17 GMT -5
Xander - 20 year old shortstop who potentially could be our #3 hitter for the next 10 years!
Bradley - excellent all around player who could be an elite lead-off hitter and an elite center fielder
and maybe the most controversial....Matt Barnes. Why? Because he has the potential to be a solid #2 in our rotation for years to come.....and I like good pitching more than good hitting for us to get back to the playoffs.
The next wave, who I would have to hide my eyes, I don't want to trade unless it is a big win for us: 1) De La Rosa 2) Pedroia 3) Swihart 4) Buchholz 5) Webster
Notice how many players who will be on our 25 going north?
Doubront is not in my top 10. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 21, 2013 13:07:54 GMT -5
Untouchable in the literal sense - nobody.
Untouchable in the sense that there's almost no way you'll get the return for him that you'd want - Bogaerts.
That's it.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jan 22, 2013 14:29:59 GMT -5
Untouchable in the literal sense - nobody. Untouchable in the sense that there's almost no way you'll get the return for him that you'd want - Bogaerts. That's it. Wasn't Hanley Rameriez in this same position once upon a time, and we traded him, and got a World Series ring for our troubles. If there is a #1 starting pitcher out there that could give us around 20 Wins and be counted on to end losing streaks, then I would not be afraid to move Bogaerts to get that guy. Unfortunately, I do not see a pitcher available that currently fits the bill.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Jan 23, 2013 8:53:41 GMT -5
I know that a site dedicated to prospect watching is likely going to be plagued by homerism, but how any one can actually argue that any of our prospects other than Xander and maybe if you squint hard enough Bradley are untouchable is rather silly.
De La Rossa- Has phenomenal stuff no doubt and could become a top rotation guy. BUt he currently lacks the comand and control to do so and is more likely never to gain it. Additionaly he has a lengthy injury history. There is a reason why he was practically giving to us as part of a 250 million dollar gift basket from LA.
Barnes- Pitching prospects have a tendency to break your heart... or simply break. Yes he could be a number 2, but he has not yet faced high quality batters and tends to rely too heavily on his fb which on its own is enough to get guys out in A ball.
Doubront-Projects to be valuable in the way that a guy who can give you a season worth of moderatley above average innings is valuable.
WMB- Ditto on what was said on Doubront but change to guy with 20+ Home Runs and good defense at third.
Bryce Brentz- Is like Will Myers, if Myers had the cieling of Ryan Ludwick.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Jan 23, 2013 11:23:40 GMT -5
I know that a site dedicated to prospect watching is likely going to be plagued by homerism, but how any one can actually argue that any of our prospects other than Xander and maybe if you squint hard enough Bradley are untouchable is rather silly. De La Rossa- Has phenomenal stuff no doubt and could become a top rotation guy. BUt he currently lacks the comand and control to do so and is more likely never to gain it. Additionaly he has a lengthy injury history. There is a reason why he was practically giving to us as part of a 250 million dollar gift basket from LA. Barnes- Pitching prospects have a tendency to break your heart... or simply break. Yes he could be a number 2, but he has not yet faced high quality batters and tends to rely too heavily on his fb which on its own is enough to get guys out in A ball. Doubront-Projects to be valuable in the way that a guy who can give you a season worth of moderatley above average innings is valuable. WMB- Ditto on what was said on Doubront but change to guy with 20+ Home Runs and good defense at third. Bryce Brentz- Is like Will Myers, if Myers had the cieling of Ryan Ludwick. Well put
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Jan 24, 2013 8:19:31 GMT -5
The original poster stipulated that "everyone is touchable in the right deal"
So if you bite on his original premise then your list should look identical to your top 5 prospect list, or I should say your top 5 under 25y.o. list.
1. Bogaerts 2. Bradley 3. Middlebrooks 4. Barnes 5. Rubby DLR
different people may have different lists, but it all depends on who you are higher on.
If you take the thread starters point who else could you possibly substitute Webster, Brentz, Owens..... Everyone has their personal "binkies." The more interesting question would be who would hurt you most to trade assuming you are getting a top flight, but aging superstar? Who would you look at in 10 years and say " we had that guy once?"
I think the unanimous answer would be Xander
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jan 25, 2013 14:08:51 GMT -5
Barnes- Pitching prospects have a tendency to break your heart... or simply break. Yes he could be a number 2, but he has not yet faced high quality batters and tends to rely too heavily on his fb which on its own is enough to get guys out in A ball. Seems to me that Barnes has a tendency (going back to college) to get a tired arm after 80 innings or so. But no doubt in my mind, his future success is tied to the development of his secondary pitches.
|
|