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.
Red Sox acquire A. Reed for Callahan, Nogosek and Bautista
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 11:27:35 GMT -5
The Cubs didn't get a rental and also got the best catcher on the market. This is why I told you I only wanted a rental. Huge difference in price. You get that, right?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2017 11:29:13 GMT -5
People are pointing out the 3-1 nature and all the DD prospects surrendered over the last year. But: Sox are young at C, SS, 3B, all three OF spots -- and all home-grown. They have a cornerstone at 2B. They have a AAA guy at 1B that some think is almost ready (I'm not as high on Travis, but whatever). They have two former Cy Youngs and possibly this year's CY, all on longer contracts,with 2 former all star starters as well (though one is out for the season). They have a young potential 2/3 in ERod.
I guess my point is: the farm system has done its work, and trading prospects seems like the right thing to do when there appears to be a pretty set roster for the next 3-ish years -- and, if the sox pay up, a really strong core for 7ish years.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 31, 2017 11:29:47 GMT -5
Feels like a modest overpay, but it's not gonna break us. Typical Dombrowski to me. Spent more than was probably necessary to get what he wanted. I'm just hoping they picked up the Addison Reed who has been pitching for the Mets the last couple seasons and not the guy who used to pitch for the White Sox and D-Backs. Given our luck with relievers coming over in trades, it is a legitimate concern. I am really just pissed how the Smith and Thornburg acquisitions have played out. We have gotten nothing from those.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 31, 2017 11:33:07 GMT -5
How good is this guy? 95mph fastball with a decent secondary but not a plus?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 11:34:21 GMT -5
The Cubs didn't get a rental and also got the best catcher on the market. This is why I told you I only wanted a rental. Huge difference in price. You get that, right? The Cubs got one extra year of control and a rental backup catcher and THAT makes a trade worth 2 top 100 prospects? Honestly I'm going to stop beating this dead horse. You're just going to keep rambling on how you are right while being arrogant. There's no talking to people like you, especially when you fail to see others points. "I don't need to jump on someone else's bandwagon." In other words in your opinion, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." That's your opinion. Great. Wonderful. Have fun with that.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 31, 2017 11:45:14 GMT -5
A decent value bet, however I still have concerns on getting a lefty who can get lefties out. Everything is too right handed as our relievers go. Reed definitely was a nice get. Reed actually has better numbers against LHB in his career (LHB OPS: 645, RHB OPS: 685) and this year (LHB OPS: 656, RHB OPS: 699).
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 31, 2017 11:47:53 GMT -5
This trade doesn't need to be debated or argued about. It's crystal clear that it was a great trade. If you want to speak for him answer me this? How is Wilson for Chavis a good trade and this trade for Reed isn't a grand slam ? Chavis could be in Boston next year helping the Red Sox in a big way fill there need for power. The players we traded wouldn't have. Don't make crazy trade offers if you can't live with a little criticism ! You seem to be very convinced that you are right. Almost as if your opinion is verifiably correct. Just recognize that others might not share the same worldview, and by extension, simply not sharing the same perspective does NOT automatically mean that they are wrong. Remember, terms such as "overvaluing" and "undervaluing" are RELATIVE. Someone can say that person A is overvaluing someone, while person B is undervaluing someone, when simply person A values that person more than person B. Neither one is necessarily wrong. I'm not as high on Chavis, but I don't really care about any of the proposals, my point is that some of your name dropping is excruciatingly unnecessary. It comes off as unjustifiably arrogant. You can make your point without getting "extra". I remember when you told a poster that you are glad he wasn't the GM of the team. I mean yes, we would all be unhappy with a GM that consistently overpays. At the same time, you've established a bit of a reputation for always want to get something for nothing. And that is equally as dangerous as a GM. I mean what is the point in "winning" every trade if nobody ever wants to do business with you? You can say "I think that xxx is a bit too steep for yyy" and move on without ruffling any feathers. You just open opportunities to get shots back at a later point. (Because let's face it, nobody is right all of the time)
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 31, 2017 11:51:00 GMT -5
I generally agree with the idea that this feels like a slight overpay for a pure reliever rental, albeit one that you can live with.
Gut feel: In trade negotiations when Dombroswki lays out his initial trade proposal, and GM X lays out their asking price......it feels like Dave often is the one to budge and meet the asking price (rather than GM X settling for the initial offer). There's starting to become increasing evidence that Dave is willing to include that one, seemingly little, extra piece to get the deal done.
In this case I would have rather traded Buttrey, Shepherd, or Martin instead of Callahan....but then again, I'm sure Dave would have too and the deal likely hinged upon Callahan's inclusion as the primary piece.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 11:53:57 GMT -5
I don't think that the original comment is as much an argument about the trade as it was to point out the gratuitousness of the mention. In other words, you can support the trade without rubbing anyone else's nose in it. And please remember that opinions are not only subjective, but also work both ways. This trade doesn't need to be debated or argued about. It's crystal clear that it was a great trade. If you want to speak for him answer me this? Chavis could be in Boston next year helping the Red Sox in a big way fill there need for power. The players we traded wouldn't have. I can speak for myself on this and you are WRONG. Callahan COULD of helped next year. In fact, he could be pitching for the Mets by SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR. Get it?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2017 11:59:45 GMT -5
Cut out the bickering. Not the first time either of you have been warned about this sort of thing. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 12:00:59 GMT -5
When you gauge a trade market and try to attach grades to trades. You look at all the trades and find a center point. You don't compare all trades to the best or worst deals.
Comparing any deal to the Cubs deal is crazy. Right now that clearly looks like the worst trade of the deadline by a mile. It seems like Theo is getting ready to leave the Cubs with the way he just keeps trading prospects. The fact the Tigers got more for Wilson and Avila than Martinez is shocking. It makes zero sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 12:02:02 GMT -5
Got scared for a second about pitching prospects until I realized who they were.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jul 31, 2017 12:07:48 GMT -5
Callahan leaves a spot at Pawtucket - Buttrey or Poyner up?
Spot at Portland filled by...Boyd or Glorius?
Three open spots at Salem - Bautista, Nogosek, whoever goes up to Portland...Mata ready to move up? Sexton? Gonzalez?
McAvoy and Osnowitz are rehab at Lowell - they could move up - need one more to move up to Salem
These domino effects are interesting....
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 12:07:51 GMT -5
We brought in a guy like Boyer over bringing up Callahan. A decent reliever prospect that can help a team like the Mets a lot more than us. Next year he was nothing more than depth for us. If that's the best player you give up for a guy like Reed it's a slam dunk.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jul 31, 2017 12:16:16 GMT -5
Callahan leaves a spot at Pawtucket - Buttrey or Poyner up? Spot at Portland filled by...Boyd or Glorius? Three open spots at Salem - Bautista, Nogosek, whoever goes up to Portland...Mata ready to move up? Sexton? Gonzalez? McAvoy and Osnowitz are rehab at Lowell - they could move up - need one more to move up to Salem These domino effects are interesting.... As much as I'd love to see Mata move up to Salem I don't think it's realistic. Remember that at the beginning of the year, BBA had him in the DSL. Greenville is already wicked aggressive. But all the other possibilities I can see happening.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 31, 2017 12:31:03 GMT -5
Gut feel: In trade negotiations when Dombroswki lays out his initial trade proposal, and GM X lays out their asking price......it feels like Dave often is the one to budge and meet the asking price (rather than GM X settling for the initial offer). There's starting to become increasing evidence that Dave is willing to include that one, seemingly little, extra piece to get the deal done. In this case I would have rather traded Buttrey, Shepherd, or Martin instead of Callahan....but then again, I'm sure Dave would have too and the deal likely hinged upon Callahan's inclusion as the primary piece. If you're not willing to trade Callahan (or Nogosek) for a guy like Reed even when he's a rental, you might as well not do any trades ever.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 12:31:25 GMT -5
We brought in a guy like Boyer over bringing up Callahan. Callahan wasn't ready yet. That was why. He could of still helped the Sox next year. I like the trade too. Value wasn't great, that is all.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 31, 2017 12:37:37 GMT -5
Reed is no Chapman, but he's pretty good, and when you consider what the market has been for relievers at the deadline the last couple years this deal looks great.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 31, 2017 12:40:29 GMT -5
Gut feel: In trade negotiations when Dombroswki lays out his initial trade proposal, and GM X lays out their asking price......it feels like Dave often is the one to budge and meet the asking price (rather than GM X settling for the initial offer). There's starting to become increasing evidence that Dave is willing to include that one, seemingly little, extra piece to get the deal done. In this case I would have rather traded Buttrey, Shepherd, or Martin instead of Callahan....but then again, I'm sure Dave would have too and the deal likely hinged upon Callahan's inclusion as the primary piece. If you're not willing to trade Callahan (or Nogosek) for a guy like Reed even when he's a rental, you might as well not do any trades ever. Oh don't get me wrong....its not that I wouldn't necessarily make this trade. I think our overpay was only slight and its not even because of the quality of what we gave up (Callahan or Nogosek), its because of the quantity (3-for-1 pure rental). Basically I agree with the point Dunne made on twitter, that is, just about every trade that Dombrowski has made is defensible (or at least close to) in isolation. On the whole however, continuously be on the end of trades in which we get back 1 player with limited control (ranging from a several month rental to 2-3 years) and giving up 3-4 prospects in return seriously depletes the farm and organizational depth.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2017 12:47:49 GMT -5
Now we know why they focused on the sheer number of prospects signed in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 31, 2017 12:53:48 GMT -5
Oh don't get me wrong....its not that I wouldn't necessarily make this trade. I think our overpay was only slight and its not even because of the quality of what we gave up (Callahan or Nogosek), its because of the quantity (3-for-1 pure rental). Basically I agree with the point Dunne made on twitter, that is, just about every trade that Dombrowski has made is defensible (or at least close to) in isolation. On the whole however, continuously be on the end of trades in which we get back 1 player with limited control (ranging from a several month rental to 2-3 years) and giving up 3-4 prospects in return seriously depletes the farm and organizational depth. Absolutely, I understand that and it's not an unreasonable way to look at it. Perhaps I underrate the value of the average prospect, but apart from the clearly top guys I don't think we lost much of anything by trading away these dudes. I don't see the point of hoarding middle-to-lower tier prospects when they're never going to be used on a trade for an elite player and aren't going to make the team anyway.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 13:02:45 GMT -5
Certain trades it seems like we gave up a little more than we should have. 4th player in the Kimbrel and Thornburg deals for example.
The notion this is a bad trade because it was 3 to 1. Seems way off. There were no elite prospects. I would rather do this type of deal than give up a prospect good enough for a 1 for 1 trade. I don't see how a Beeks or Johnson straight up is a better trade for example.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 31, 2017 13:04:10 GMT -5
There just isn't any way that people around here, and I think it is understandable, will ever view a DD trade without an "overpay" attached to it. It is a fait accompli at this point
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 13:23:30 GMT -5
Callahan leaves a spot at Pawtucket - Buttrey or Poyner up? Spot at Portland filled by...Boyd or Glorius? Three open spots at Salem - Bautista, Nogosek, whoever goes up to Portland...Mata ready to move up? Sexton? Gonzalez? McAvoy and Osnowitz are rehab at Lowell - they could move up - need one more to move up to Salem These domino effects are interesting.... Kent up maybe and move Villanhueva to the pen? Goetze maybe to Salem? Not sure if Boyd or Sexton are ready yet. Overall something like Poyner to Pawtucket, Kent to Portland, Mata, Goetze, and Gonzalez to Salem, Smith, Floriento, and LoBrutto to Grennville, and Perry, Schellenger, and Scherff to Lowell. Boston should designate Fister if he blows this start and Rutledge otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 31, 2017 13:48:30 GMT -5
Strange: Why do people keep mentioning Boyd to Portland? He was promoted to Salem earlier this month. Are people confusing him with Kent?
There aren't likely to be many interesting "dominoes" to fall. Buttrey is almost certainly going back up to Pawtucket. Osnowitz almost certainly will be activated in Salem. Not sure if Grover or Weems are actually hurt, but if either is a phantom injury, they'll be activated.
I doubt we'll see any interesting promotions as the result of the Reed trade. Even in the Salem rotation, where they need a guy, you'd assume Boyd slots into Anderson's old spot and O'Linger goes back down. Maybe a guy like Sexton or Gorst goes up once that happens, but that's about it.
|
|
|