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.
|
Post by jdb on Nov 16, 2017 9:07:53 GMT -5
I just don't know if I could get behind a Stanton trade when Martinez is out there for only money. I think acquiring either means we have to trade JBJ bc I don't think Martinez will sign to be a DH. If we have to break up our OF id rather JBJ go while filling another need (1B Belt?) or a couple pitching prospects to hopefully extend our window. We could lose 2 starters next offseason and E Rods health is always a question and we don't have any obvious replacemt at AA-AAA.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,719
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 16, 2017 9:24:58 GMT -5
I think the Sox should sign JDM AND trade for Stanton. It's taking me a while to come around to this position. The Sox should go for the best possible combination. They have money and they have enough prospects to make the Stanton trade. We are in the era of super teams and the Sox should be one of them. I am assuming that Hanley will be able to handle most of the load at 1B and that JBJ would go to Miami along with a couple of prospects not named Chavis or Groome. I don't think that's feasible if they want to stay under 237, but it certainly something that I've thought about. What a lineup that would be! But to make that work a lot of things would have to happen, and even then I think they'd be too close to the limit or it would limit them in extending Kimbrel, Pomeranz, Sale, or Betts down the road. I think you have a good idea regarding Hanley and Pedrofan mentioned Porcello. I think it would have to be a combo of both to work. Nobody is taking on Hanley for $22 million/year and nobody is taking on Porcello for $20 million/year. To save say $21 million, you'd have to find a team willing to pay Hanley $11 million to DH, although that's iffy to be kind. You'd have to find a team willing to pay Porcello $10 million/year for the next two years. Now that's a possibility. Getting Stanton and Martinez means Stanton in LF and Martinez at DH meaning the Sox need to trade Bradley and his potential $7 million/year. That would save them $28 million so that if Stanton (let's say the Sox pay almost all of the contract and hang onto Chavis) costs them $25 million/year in AAV and say the Sox sign Martinez for 6 years $150, that's another $25 million. That means the Sox have added $22 million to the payroll that's projected at $203 right now. That's fine, but now you need a 1b, at least for the first have of the season. You could trade JBJ for Brandon Belt perhaps but Belt would cost too much money and is coming off another concussion. You'd be better off trading for Chris Shaw to play 1b, and he's a LH bat. I don't think Shaw has superstar written on him, but I think you'd go into the season with him and if he struggles perhaps Chavis would be ready to play 1b. Basically I don't think the Sox could really even spend $5 million on a 1b, because I think the Sox will want to spend some money on a LH reliever like Jake McGee or Mike Minor. They might need a few million to get veteran depth like bringing back Fister as Porcello would be gone. And they need to leave room for July 31 acquisitions. And of course, there probably isn't any team that's willing to give Hanley $11 million for one year.. Maybe they'd do $8 million? Anyways, the lineup would look like this: 2b Pedroia (eventually) RF Betts CF Benintendi LF Stanton DH Martinez 3b Devers SS Bogaerts C Vazquez 1b Shaw (perhaps Chavis down the road?) And between Porcello and JBJ they could get somebody who can be a viable backend rotation/depth starter.. Rotation of: Sale Price Pomeranz Wright TBD I prefer to fill that spot with Ohtani of course. Since we're dreaming anyways!
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedKyle on Nov 16, 2017 9:45:17 GMT -5
I get more worried about Hanley's health than his glove when he plays first base.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 16, 2017 10:00:27 GMT -5
I just don't know if I could get behind a Stanton trade when Martinez is out there for only money. I think acquiring either means we have to trade JBJ bc I don't think Martinez will sign to be a DH. If we have to break up our OF id rather JBJ go while filling another need (1B Belt?) or a couple pitching prospects to hopefully extend our window. We could lose 2 starters next offseason and E Rods health is always a question and we don't have any obvious replacemt at AA-AAA. Until we know what “prospects” you’d have to give up for Stanton, I don’t see how people can take a stance of who’s better to acquire. The advantages to trading for Stanton are: 1. He’s younger 2. You guarantee you get him whereas with a free agent you can’t do that. 3. He’s arguably the better all around player.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 16, 2017 10:11:28 GMT -5
RJP, I can agree with all of that but the opt out scares me as well. The only way he doesn't opt out is if he has a ton of injuries. If he's on a similar pace (even pre 2017) he'd be crazy not to opt out into a free agency and market that will totally be reshape by Harper and Machado. I don't think they get top flight prospects but I could still see a Chavis/Groome package or whatever JBJ would fetch. I'd rather over pay for Martinez.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 16, 2017 10:15:15 GMT -5
I don't really question that Stanton is better than Martinez. But even not knowing what it would take to get either, I agree with the above point that the opt-out just seems to throw the risk-reward with Stanton all out of proportion. There just isn't enough possible upside when you consider the downside of the prospect package you'd have to give up and how much money you'd need to pay him if he gets hurt or his effectiveness quickly falls off. Like, I'd trade him for a decent second-tier prospect like Chavis or Houck straight up, but that's really it. It's possible that the cost for Martinez would get so high that I wouldn't particularly want him either, but to me that's independent of Stanton.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 16, 2017 11:17:32 GMT -5
RJP, I can agree with all of that but the opt out scares me as well. The only way he doesn't opt out is if he has a ton of injuries. If he's on a similar pace (even pre 2017) he'd be crazy not to opt out into a free agency and market that will totally be reshape by Harper and Machado. I don't think they get top flight prospects but I could still see a Chavis/Groome package or whatever JBJ would fetch. I'd rather over pay for Martinez. I don't really question that Stanton is better than Martinez. But even not knowing what it would take to get either, I agree with the above point that the opt-out just seems to throw the risk-reward with Stanton all out of proportion. There just isn't enough possible upside when you consider the downside of the prospect package you'd have to give up and how much money you'd need to pay him if he gets hurt or his effectiveness quickly falls off. Like, I'd trade him for a decent second-tier prospect like Chavis or Houck straight up, but that's really it. It's possible that the cost for Martinez would get so high that I wouldn't particularly want him either, but to me that's independent of Stanton. isn't the easy way to mitigate the opt-out risk to just pay it no valuation and make the deal as if you are going to be on the hook for the whole contract. If I was the decision maker that is what I would do. Whatever asset valuation you prescribe to the player, that is all you pay. If he opts out, you most likely underpaid for the asset, given performance regression toward the end of the contract. There should be a way to measure that against the FA Martinez signing. The hard part here, to me, is if you are more concerned about the long term implications of the contract, that would seem to be in conflict with the current strategic philosophy of winning while the young core is still here. Given that the org has turned the farm into professional assets, i am inclined to believe they will want to get Stanton and eschew the future liability concerns.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 16, 2017 11:30:01 GMT -5
RJP, I can agree with all of that but the opt out scares me as well. The only way he doesn't opt out is if he has a ton of injuries. If he's on a similar pace (even pre 2017) he'd be crazy not to opt out into a free agency and market that will totally be reshape by Harper and Machado. I don't think they get top flight prospects but I could still see a Chavis/Groome package or whatever JBJ would fetch. I'd rather over pay for Martinez. The fact he could opt out, and might, after his age 31 season makes me feel better about the contract. Not having to pay 30m a year for his age 32 -39 seasons isn’t something I’d be upset about - i don’t care what he’s done the 3 previous ones.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 16, 2017 11:34:46 GMT -5
I think the Sox should sign JDM AND trade for Stanton. It's taking me a while to come around to this position. The Sox should go for the best possible combination. They have money and they have enough prospects to make the Stanton trade. We are in the era of super teams and the Sox should be one of them. I am assuming that Hanley will be able to handle most of the load at 1B and that JBJ would go to Miami along with a couple of prospects not named Chavis or Groome. I don't think that's feasible if they want to stay under 237, but it certainly something that I've thought about. What a lineup that would be! But to make that work a lot of things would have to happen, and even then I think they'd be too close to the limit or it would limit them in extending Kimbrel, Pomeranz, Sale, or Betts down the road. I think you have a good idea regarding Hanley and Pedrofan mentioned Porcello. I think it would have to be a combo of both to work. Nobody is taking on Hanley for $22 million/year and nobody is taking on Porcello for $10 million/year. To save say $21 million, you'd have to find a team willing to pay Hanley $11 million to DH, although that's iffy to be kind. You'd have to find a team willing to pay Porcello $10 million/year for the next two years. Now that's a possibility. Champs, I kind of disagree that no one will take on all of Porcello's contract if the Sox wanted to go that route. I mentioned on one of the first pages on this thread that the Phillies have something like 20 million or something really low like that committed to their roster next year. Porcello would be perfect for them if they wanted to give up a B type of prospect and absorb all the money. They're looking for rotation help badly this off-season, at least two arms. The real question is if Porcello can even come close to replicating 2016 versus 2017. With a juiced baseball, I have my reservations. He does provide quantity regardless (innings), but for 20+ million a year, should the Sox be getting more quality too? That's the question I have about Porcello. Maybe even thinking out loud, a Porcello trade for a prospect could even add to a Stanton package.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 16, 2017 11:47:14 GMT -5
isn't the easy way to mitigate the opt-out risk to just pay it no valuation and make the deal as if you are going to be on the hook for the whole contract. But "on the hook" is the same as downside, and when you make a trade you're not just considering that, you're weighing the range of outcomes. You're "on the hook" for all of the money if things go sideways, but you don't have the team control that ideally you are buying in exchange for that risk. So the risk of $295 million AND prospects for the potential upside of what - like 30.0 WAR on the very high end? Like, if he's a 40.0+ WAR player over the next 10 years then he was good enough in those first three years that he's opting out. If he's mediocre enough in the next three years that he doesn't opt out, it's almost impossible to believe he'd be worth that 2021 through 2027 money. It's really hard to risk $295 million over ten years for 30.0 WAR, and it's crazy to give up a big prospect package for that. It's not valueless, it's just that there's very, very negligible excess value. If he were a free agent, would you give him that contract? Maaybe, and the qualifying offer wouldn't be a hindrance, so I feel like a second-tier prospect would be fair and sensible. But I'd be unwilling to trade Groome or a current major leaguer to take that on. Also, I've probably said this a thousand times, but selling low on Porcello would be a colossally bad move. He was fantastic in 2016, he'll have a manager who theoretically won't keep pushing him past his expiration (he faced more batters than Sale this year!), his K/BB numbers are outstanding, and there's a good chance they play with a normal baseball again next year.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 16, 2017 12:00:04 GMT -5
isn't the easy way to mitigate the opt-out risk to just pay it no valuation and make the deal as if you are going to be on the hook for the whole contract. But "on the hook" is the same as downside, and when you make a trade you're not just considering that, you're weighing the range of outcomes. You're "on the hook" for all of the money if things go sideways, but you don't have the team control that ideally you are buying in exchange for that risk. So the risk of $295 million AND prospects for the potential upside of what - like 30.0 WAR on the very high end? Like, if he's a 40.0+ WAR player over the next 10 years then he was good enough in those first three years that he's opting out. If he's mediocre enough in the next three years that he doesn't opt out, it's almost impossible to believe he'd be worth that 2021 through 2027 money. It's really hard to risk $295 million over ten years for 30.0 WAR, and it's crazy to give up a big prospect package for that. It's not valueless, it's just that there's very, very negligible excess value. If he were a free agent, would you give him that contract? Maaybe, and the qualifying offer wouldn't be a hindrance, so I feel like a second-tier prospect would be fair and sensible. But I'd be unwilling to trade Groome or a current major leaguer to take that on. Also, I've probably said this a thousand times, but selling low on Porcello would be a colossally bad move. He was fantastic in 2016, he'll have a manager who theoretically won't keep pushing him past his expiration (he faced more batters than Sale this year!), his K/BB numbers are outstanding, and there's a good chance they play with a normal baseball again next year. and i think that is fair. I guess what I am trying to say is, when you have a contract of that duration, it seems really difficult to run the outcomes with any degree of certainty, so it may best to streamline that valuation to a "worst case" liability probability and assign your monetary / prospect valuation and stick with it. There are non-baseball ways that contract couldn't go the distance.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 16, 2017 12:00:55 GMT -5
Yeah on Porcello, I think there's a 5 percent chance the Sox move him. They actually need him to start the year with Eduardo down to start the year.
Just refuting the idea that moving him to another team isn't impossible with his salary, I think they could easily move him.
Just please tell me that the baseball is normal again in 2018. Then I wouldn't entertain trading Porcello at all really.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 16, 2017 12:15:41 GMT -5
The attractive thing about Stanton is the $25 million AAV. JDM will probably surpass that or at least come close. Stanton is the much better player because he's actually a very decent RF, which would allow the Red Sox to trade JBJ or Benintendi. He is not Mookie Betts out there, but he is above average and has an above average range. AAVs of similar offensive players - albeit a bit younger - Harper and Machado - will exceed this, my guess is by $10m to $15m. That he plays a high value position, and could be given rests, and if he stays all 10 years, by DHing periodically and then full time. You could also save wear and tear on the hammies if you move him to left somewhere down the road, although it is a transition for players who've been in RF for most of their careers. I am more and more of the mind that the Sox save the prospects and take the whole salary (in a completely "leave the gun, take the cannoli" kind of way).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 16, 2017 12:55:22 GMT -5
So 2015 was because of that and not the fact he got injured? His hitting numbers were just fine, he showed no signs of it having any impact. You literally have no way of knowing that it did or did not affect his hitting. He's a great hitter regardless. It's a miracle he even put those numbers he put up in 2015. He posted the two worst years in his career OBP wise those two years outside of his rookie season. There is every indication that he probably wasn't seeing the ball as well those two years either due to vision problems or tentativenes after getting hit in the face. In 2015 he hit .265 .346 .606 .952. His career line is .268 .360 .554 .914. By all accounts he can back 100% in 2015. So blaming his crappy 2016 season on that makes no sense. The numbers clearly show it had no effects on his hitting.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 16, 2017 13:16:29 GMT -5
And what would this discussion be without including park effects? Submitted for your approval: www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactorHint: Marlins Park is one of the worst in MLB for HRs, while Chase Field in AZ and Comerica in MI are among the best.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 16, 2017 13:24:40 GMT -5
Who plays 1B or DH after you get Stanton? Ideally someone that JBJ brings back in a trade with Belt being my ideal candidate, but by trading JBJ you would save enough money to be able to sign a first baseman with no trouble if need be. So I'll ask you the same question. Who plays 1B after you get Martinez? If your answer is Hanley then that's just not an idea I'll ever get behind - and if you answer someone besides Hanley then what exactly will we be doing with our $22M player that will be pissed off that he isn't at least given the opportunity to try and vest his option? So you are blowing past the 237 million mark? Belts contract is 14.5 million a year on average. Stanton is 25 million, take away Bradley. You are adding like 35 million. Those moves alone get you over. Trading Bradley saves you like 5 million, so your options are rather limited. You can't sign Hosmer or any other guy that you most likely want if you plan to stay below 237 million. What are you doing with Hanley If you get Belt? I keep Hanley and add a guy like Duda for insurance. Even a guy like Mark Reynolds would be bad insurance. I want Hanley chasing that option, he could have a big year. I would also try Martinez at 1B and see what happens. You have Travis, Chavis and Ock for insurance. If you get Martinez I don't want to lockdown 1B and DH for years to come. Chavis, Ock and Travis playing one of the positions down the road will allow you to resign players like Betts, Bogaerts, Sale, Pomeranz, Kimbrel, etc. Who are you trading for Stanton?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 16, 2017 13:38:48 GMT -5
And what would this discussion be without including park effects? Submitted for your approval: www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactorHint: Marlins Park is one of the worst in MLB for HRs, while Chase Field in AZ and Comerica in MI are among the best. This year, Comerica park was among the best. Historically it's about average and in 2015 (when Martinez hit 38) it was among baseball's hardest.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Nov 16, 2017 13:48:10 GMT -5
And what would this discussion be without including park effects? Submitted for your approval: www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactorHint: Marlins Park is one of the worst in MLB for HRs, while Chase Field in AZ and Comerica in MI are among the best. This recent Fangraph's article included a J.D. Martinez hit chart (from 2015-2017) overlay at Fenway Park: Important to note that Martinez hits a fair share of opposite-field fly-balls. This is where he might lose some HR at Fenway (and would make him a scary fit in NY). The potential loss of right field HR at Fenway should be mitigated by an increase in HR over the monster. See the article for some brief discussion on the topic.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,719
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 16, 2017 13:50:02 GMT -5
I don't think that's feasible if they want to stay under 237, but it certainly something that I've thought about. What a lineup that would be! But to make that work a lot of things would have to happen, and even then I think they'd be too close to the limit or it would limit them in extending Kimbrel, Pomeranz, Sale, or Betts down the road. I think you have a good idea regarding Hanley and Pedrofan mentioned Porcello. I think it would have to be a combo of both to work. Nobody is taking on Hanley for $22 million/year and nobody is taking on Porcello for $10 million/year. To save say $21 million, you'd have to find a team willing to pay Hanley $11 million to DH, although that's iffy to be kind. You'd have to find a team willing to pay Porcello $10 million/year for the next two years. Now that's a possibility. Champs, I kind of disagree that no one will take on all of Porcello's contract if the Sox wanted to go that route. I mentioned on one of the first pages on this thread that the Phillies have something like 20 million or something really low like that committed to their roster next year. Porcello would be perfect for them if they wanted to give up a B type of prospect and absorb all the money. They're looking for rotation help badly this off-season, at least two arms. The real question is if Porcello can even come close to replicating 2016 versus 2017. With a juiced baseball, I have my reservations. He does provide quantity regardless (innings), but for 20+ million a year, should the Sox be getting more quality too? That's the question I have about Porcello.
Maybe even thinking out loud, a Porcello trade for a prospect could even add to a Stanton package. I think for the reasons you outlined, that's why a team wouldn't take on $40 million over 2 years to see if Porcello can bounce back. The ball was juiced in 2017. I have little doubt about that. I have no idea if it will be juiced in 2018. So that's uncertainty. There's a possibility that the strike zone will be changed from beneath the batter's knees to the top of the batter's knees. That's not going to help pitchers any. Perhaps that affects the Sox less. My eyes (which could by lying) tell me that the Sox pitchers like to live upstairs so maybe it would impact the Sox pitches less. But still not having the chance to get that low strike means that pitchers are going to have to come up higher in the zone and home runs will continue to fly out of the park. I'm trying to say that I'm of the opinion that Porcello's 2016 was his career year and that last year the hitters adjusted to him. They didn't wait for him to pound the strike zone. They jumped on him and he was missing location a lot more than he had before. I'm not saying he'll be terrible, but I am saying he's enough of a risk that I can't see another team paying $20 million/year for that risk, so I don't think the Sox could easily "dump" his salary. I do think that Porcello at $10 million/year is a fantastic gamble to take, one that many teams would have interest in and would be willing to surrender some good B type prospect(s) for, certainly prospects that could work for the Marlins in a Stanton deal as you suggested. And if that protects Chavis and Ockimey, then all the better. We know the Sox can get some good value in a JBJ deal, whether it's prospects or a 1b - and if Porcello is dealt then you'd hope you get a good pitching prospect back in either the JBJ or Porcello deal that the Sox keep, rather then send to Miami. The drawback for the Sox is that Porcello seems to be the one guy you can count on to be healthy and provide innings which does have value for the Red Sox given the health of their rotation.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 16, 2017 14:35:14 GMT -5
Ideally someone that JBJ brings back in a trade with Belt being my ideal candidate, but by trading JBJ you would save enough money to be able to sign a first baseman with no trouble if need be. So I'll ask you the same question. Who plays 1B after you get Martinez? If your answer is Hanley then that's just not an idea I'll ever get behind - and if you answer someone besides Hanley then what exactly will we be doing with our $22M player that will be pissed off that he isn't at least given the opportunity to try and vest his option? So you are blowing past the 237 million mark? Belts contract is 14.5 million a year on average. Stanton is 25 million, take away Bradley. You are adding like 35 million. Those moves alone get you over. Trading Bradley saves you like 5 million, so your options are rather limited. You can't sign Hosmer or any other guy that you most likely want if you plan to stay below 237 million. What are you doing with Hanley If you get Belt? I keep Hanley and add a guy like Duda for insurance. Even a guy like Mark Reynolds would be bad insurance. I want Hanley chasing that option, he could have a big year. I would also try Martinez at 1B and see what happens. You have Travis, Chavis and Ock for insurance. If you get Martinez I don't want to lockdown 1B and DH for years to come. Chavis, Ock and Travis playing one of the positions down the road will allow you to resign players like Betts, Bogaerts, Sale, Pomeranz, Kimbrel, etc. Who are you trading for Stanton? Stanton + Belt - Bradley will add ~$34.6M to the payroll which I have at right at $200M, so it certainly wouldn't "blow past" the $237 mark (admittedly it would limit the team). As for Belt: he is a first baseman. He's fine there. If I trade for him then I don't think about Hosmer and I put Hanley at his actual position. I'm honestly curious why your confused by this. But speaking of confused: thats what I am about a few things in your post. Neither Martinez or Hanley are full time first baseman, and any plan A that ends with the phrase "see what happens" is a bad plan. We "saw what happened" with Hanley in left. We "saw what happened" with relying on him to platoon at first last year. So no, I'm not buying stock in just "seeing what happens" with sticking an extremely high priced free agent, who is already a poor fielder, at a brand new position. Something else I'm confused about is your backup plan for 1B. The financial gap between your plan and mine is ~8.6M. How are you going to convince a capable 1B looking for a starting job to take quite a bit less than that, while also admitting to them that they aren't going to be used unless Hanley doesn't work out? It just doesn't make sense to me. Lastly, my plan doesn't block any prospects anymore than yours does. In fact, mine puts Belt at 1B for less time than your plan puts Martinez at DH. But, to answer your concern, adding Belt doesn't preclude the same backup guys from working their way into the roster. They can still fill in for Hanley just like your plan does (although I guess I'm not nearly as high on those prospects as you are to think that they can be a significant contributor before the end of this, or even next, season).
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 16, 2017 15:17:27 GMT -5
You literally have no way of knowing that it did or did not affect his hitting. He's a great hitter regardless. It's a miracle he even put those numbers he put up in 2015. He posted the two worst years in his career OBP wise those two years outside of his rookie season. There is every indication that he probably wasn't seeing the ball as well those two years either due to vision problems or tentativenes after getting hit in the face. In 2015 he hit .265 .346 .606 .952. His career line is .268 .360 .554 .914. By all accounts he can back 100% in 2015. So blaming his crappy 2016 season on that makes no sense. The numbers clearly show it had no effects on his hitting. He had a OBP under 14 points under his career average and that completely convinced you he was completely back?!!!
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 16, 2017 15:21:39 GMT -5
This recent Fangraph's article included a J.D. Martinez hit chart (from 2015-2017) overlay at Fenway Park: Important to note that Martinez hits a fair share of opposite-field fly-balls. This is where he might lose some HR at Fenway (and would make him a scary fit in NY). The potential loss of right field HR at Fenway should be mitigated by an increase in HR over the monster. See the article for some brief discussion on the topic. my, oh my, i am salivating. Can you do the same for Stanton? Actually looks like DD has some good, albeit expensive, options.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 16, 2017 15:54:53 GMT -5
So you are blowing past the 237 million mark? Belts contract is 14.5 million a year on average. Stanton is 25 million, take away Bradley. You are adding like 35 million. Those moves alone get you over. Trading Bradley saves you like 5 million, so your options are rather limited. You can't sign Hosmer or any other guy that you most likely want if you plan to stay below 237 million. What are you doing with Hanley If you get Belt? I keep Hanley and add a guy like Duda for insurance. Even a guy like Mark Reynolds would be bad insurance. I want Hanley chasing that option, he could have a big year. I would also try Martinez at 1B and see what happens. You have Travis, Chavis and Ock for insurance. If you get Martinez I don't want to lockdown 1B and DH for years to come. Chavis, Ock and Travis playing one of the positions down the road will allow you to resign players like Betts, Bogaerts, Sale, Pomeranz, Kimbrel, etc. Who are you trading for Stanton? Stanton + Belt - Bradley will add ~$34.6M to the payroll which I have at right at $200M, so it certainly wouldn't "blow past" the $237 mark (admittedly it would limit the team). As for Belt: he is a first baseman. He's fine there. If I trade for him then I don't think about Hosmer and I put Hanley at his actual position. I'm honestly curious why your confused by this. But speaking of confused: thats what I am about a few things in your post. Neither Martinez or Hanley are full time first baseman, and any plan A that ends with the phrase "see what happens" is a bad plan. We "saw what happened" with Hanley in left. We "saw what happened" with relying on him to platoon at first last year. So no, I'm not buying stock in just "seeing what happens" with sticking an extremely high priced free agent, who is already a poor fielder, at a brand new position. Something else I'm confused about is your backup plan for 1B. The financial gap between your plan and mine is ~8.6M. How are you going to convince a capable 1B looking for a starting job to take quite a bit less than that, while also admitting to them that they aren't going to be used unless Hanley doesn't work out? It just doesn't make sense to me. Lastly, my plan doesn't block any prospects anymore than yours does. In fact, mine puts Belt at 1B for less time than your plan puts Martinez at DH. But, to answer your concern, adding Belt doesn't preclude the same backup guys from working their way into the roster. They can still fill in for Hanley just like your plan does (although I guess I'm not nearly as high on those prospects as you are to think that they can be a significant contributor before the end of this, or even next, season). Are you getting Stanton for free? I would bet one or more of Chavis, Travis and Ock are gone in a trade for Stanton, along with some pitching like Mata or Groome. Chris just posted 4 hours ago in the Stanton trade thread 206.52 million is the current number. So your moves do in fact move you right buy that number. I'm confused because you think we had a platoon at 1B last year. Moreland was our full-time 1B guy last year. Ramirez has played a full season at 1B when healthy. Reports have said he should be fully healthy and his shoulders won't stop him from playing 1B. This is 1B even Ramirez was only below average there. We watched Napoli become a good 1B after being a poor catcher. Ramirez was way worse in the OF than Martinez and was just fine at 1B. I don't get the worry. A guy that has played the OF is going to be a better athlete than a lot of 1B guys. They are at 1B because they can't play anywhere else. Santana is another guy that went from crappy catcher to above average at 1B. It happens all the time. Duda hasn't been awesome lately and those guys haven't been getting paid a lot. Look at last year. Look what Moreland got. If you wanted more room for in season moves don't sign an insurance plan. It's more of a luxury than anything else. As I pointed out we have great depth ready or near ready to help.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 16, 2017 16:05:08 GMT -5
In 2015 he hit .265 .346 .606 .952. His career line is .268 .360 .554 .914. By all accounts he can back 100% in 2015. So blaming his crappy 2016 season on that makes no sense. The numbers clearly show it had no effects on his hitting. He had a OBP under 14 points under his career average and that completely convinced you he was completely back?!!! He traded OBP for SLG increase. It happens all the time. If his numbers were down across the board you might have a point. His OPS was above his career norm, so yea I'm convinced it was a non-issue. He increased his slugging by 52 percentage points and you think 14 points on his OBP means more? You are really nitpicking trying to prove his bad 2016 was anything other than what it was. A down year, that was most likely the result of a bunch of injuries. Coming back from season ending surgery and dealing with other injuries. Are you going to overlook his best year just so happens to be his healthiest year? Didn't Stanton come out and say he was 100% at the start of 2015? Edit- career splits for Stanton 1st half .351 on base % 2nd half .372
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 16, 2017 16:18:43 GMT -5
I think without a doubt the move is to get JDM. Why trade pieces in which you are already limited? And the marlins are going to get more for Stanton than what's been offered as candidates. And to think some mention of also adding Bour when the Sox top player they give up is JBJ, -- that juts ins't going to fly imo other than for Sox fans that overrate Bradley / underrate the combo of Stanton/Bour.
I think SOx need to keep replenishing some spots with cheap players to keep the train moving. Getting rid of players and getting Stanton when instead you could have gotten JDM is a bad way to go.
I'm hoping the Stanton move is more like a 5th option. The Marlins are going to want quality young players for the combo of Stanton/Bour and some decent young players on it's own for Stanton. Forcing them to take on start salary for average players as a feature like JBJ or often-injured ERod is not going to get it done. A guy like Chavis is not good enough.
And I don't agree with this -- "you can't upset Hanley" stuff. The organization owes nothing to Hanley. The idea is to get a 1st baseman that will compete with Hanley but hopefully at worst hits rh pitching well. Hanley would have opportunities because he can hit rh pitching. Only for the SOx - it would be nice to have a lefty bat that has a history of hitting rh pitching well. Let Hanley prove he can beat the guy out.
|
|
|