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.
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 20:50:30 GMT -5
A recent redsox.com article stated this: "Having two prospects like Bradley and Bogaerts at the upper levels could present a dilemma come midseason. Say the Sox are doing well, perhaps exceeding expectations and look to be in the thick of things in the American League East. Would they consider dealing either player? Ultimately, that's general manager Ben Cherington's decision, but the organization doesn't appear to have made any "untouchable" designations for either player."boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130205&content_id=41402570&vkey=news_bos&c_id=bosI'd say that no matter how well the sox are playing, it would be stupid to trade two future core players to rent a player for half a season. that player won't bring any guarantees to win the world series. bogaerts should stay at ss and i do not want to trade him no matter what. he is a potential .300-30-100 at ss! exciting! imagine what it would be like not having a question at ss year after year... also if bradley is gone, who replaces ellsbury after he will leave via free agency? let me guess- they go out and trade barnes, brentz, kalish, and ceccchini for dexter fowler or colby rasmus or sign a washed up curtis granderson who hits .220 on a four year 70 million dollar contract. or they could avoid all of this by keeping bradley. the red sox need to start being smart with their transactions, and cherington has already made some bad moves. (lowrie, reddick, bowden trades) i WANT to rebuild with a young core group and i would really hate to trade that core to rent a couple of players on the wrong side of 30 that bring no guarantees to winning the ws. they have already loaded up on old washed up players this offseason for a combined 58 million dollars. (dempster, victorino, ross, uehara, drew, gomes) there is no appealing "wow" players in that group except uehara. every one of these players will be on the wrong side of 30 on opening day. obviously, these old guys were meant to carry the team until the prospects are ready. if there is a need sometime in the season, there is always the posibility of calling up bradley or bogaerts or someone else. prospects come up from AA all the time. does anyone agree that at this point, the sox are WAY better off keeping their top prospects and rebuilding with a young core?
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Feb 5, 2013 21:09:01 GMT -5
This team committed to a long term rebuild with youth with it's moves this offseason. If they were going to make that type of move for a veteran, it would have been much smarter to pursue one of the top FA's this winter when the cost would have been $$ rather than prospects. Outside an unlikely deal for Stanton, I'd be stunned if they dealt either JBJ or Bogey. Realistically, I'm expecting a mid-year sell off again that opens spots for Xander, Bradley, and possibly others in Boston, while continuing to supplement the prospect pool. This is a development year.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 21:13:27 GMT -5
if you are right, that is a very good thing. maybe they could open up more spots by trading gomes to bring up brentz or salty to bring up lavarnway. (if that doesnt happen before opening day) im all for a youth movement that will be winning in 2-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Feb 5, 2013 22:04:28 GMT -5
To give up top prospects, after resisting offers this off-season would, indeed, be foolhardy, regardless of the situation at the deadline.
But I question some of your reasons. Who would replace Ellsbury after his one good season in the last three if Bradley's traded? Isn't 't that why Cherington signed Victorino? While he doesn't have Ellsbury 's skillset, he's capable of holding the fort in CF until the next prospect comes along. It could be Margot orDe La Cruz, or someone else. Victorino is signed for three years.
Agree we got little for Lowrie, Reddick and Head, as these were bad trades, but[u[/u]Michael Bowden? C'mon.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Feb 5, 2013 22:15:59 GMT -5
Ultimately, that's general manager Ben Cherington's decision, Now that's just silly to believe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 22:31:43 GMT -5
Agree we got little for Lowrie, Reddick and Head, as these were bad trades, but[u [/u]Michael Bowden ? C'mon.[/quote] Michael Bowden had a 2.95 ERA in 36.2 frames with the Cubs. And the Sox got Byrd in return, who did nothing and was eventually DFA and released. www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bowdemi01.shtmlIf bradley is traded ( i REALLY hope he isnt) and victorino is in center, that would leave a hole in right field. in that case you could go outside the organization or internally, such as kalish, brentz, nava, linares, hazelbaker, de la cruz, hassan, or jacobs. if bradley is traded ( again, i hope he isnt) there are too many good internal options than to go outside the organization. bradley is very good defensively, good bat, excellent plate discipline, and above-average speed. hopefully he is the center fielder of the future is NOT TRADED. one more thing: is ellsbury 100% gone after next season or traded sometime during? there seems to be no news of any kind of extension. i guess the price is too high for a player that gets hurt alot. but then again, he is unfortunate- he collided with beltre in 2010 and brignac fell on him in 2012. you just never know- he may begin to stay healthy. what scares me is that granderson will be a free agent after next season too. i wouldn't be surprised to see ellsbury in pinstripes in 2014. i hope he is loyal enough not to got to ny
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 5, 2013 23:05:19 GMT -5
Bowden also put up a 4.73 xFIP and 4.48 FIP while pitching very low leverage innings (leverage index of 0.41, where 1 is league-average). Yeah, Byrd was less than useless, but there was a 100% chance that Bowden would have been DFAed by this point if he stayed with the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 5, 2013 23:20:33 GMT -5
Also, if I remember correctly, Bowden was DFAed before the trade for Byrd was completed. That is to say, if he wasn't traded for Byrd, he would have been exposed to waivers and any team could have claimed him. So basically the Red Sox gave the Cubs first waiver priority on Bowden in return for desperately-needed outfield depth (and I think the Cubs picked up most of Byrd's contract, as well). Even in hindsight, it's really, really hard to criticize the front office for making that trade.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 6, 2013 0:25:05 GMT -5
Also, if I remember correctly, Bowden was DFAed before the trade for Byrd was completed. That is to say, if he wasn't traded for Byrd, he would have been exposed to waivers and any team could have claimed him. So basically the Red Sox gave the Cubs first waiver priority on Bowden in return for desperately-needed outfield depth (and I think the Cubs picked up most of Byrd's contract, as well). Even in hindsight, it's really, really hard to criticize the front office for making that trade. Yes. Losing a MR for practically nothing, and having that player have a good half season or even a full good season somewhere is something that happens to practically every single GM. The guy I always think of was Chad Fox in 2003, who was terrible for the Red Sox and was (rightfully) released. He then signed with the Marlins in August and was lights out for them during their postseason run and pitched 9 games in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Feb 6, 2013 3:33:42 GMT -5
Also, if I remember correctly, Bowden was DFAed before the trade for Byrd was completed. That is to say, if he wasn't traded for Byrd, he would have been exposed to waivers and any team could have claimed him. So basically the Red Sox gave the Cubs first waiver priority on Bowden in return for desperately-needed outfield depth (and I think the Cubs picked up most of Byrd's contract, as well). Even in hindsight, it's really, really hard to criticize the front office for making that trade. Another thing to bear in mind; The Sox had to make room for Tazawa who was out of options. Bowden had run his course with this organization and would have been DFAd. The trade for Byrd made sense at the time since the team was desperate for outfielders because of injury. I can 't recall too many complaining about Bowden's departure at the time of the trade, so I can 't see the Monday AM quarterbacking this time.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 6, 2013 7:46:01 GMT -5
I seem to remember Byrd playing OK when he first came over and saved us from using Cody Ross in CF everyday (although Ross also went on the DL). At the time Bowden was out of options and would have been gone for nothing anyway. I don't think Bowden will be making us sorry anytime soon.
As for trading prospects.... If it's an absolute steal for Cherington or the names Gioncarlo or Felix come up I would trade either B-Boy.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 6, 2013 9:28:36 GMT -5
No one should ever use the word Untouchable or say someone should never be traded. It wasn't ever suggested that they'd trade top prospects for a 3 month rental. It's clear they are not going to do that this year. Trade top prospects that is. May trade from further down but even that seems like a low probability.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Feb 6, 2013 9:31:20 GMT -5
How about this concise version: "Trades of prospects should only be made with full consideration of their value, and the value of the return." Of course any GM will just say "duh" in response to this.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Feb 6, 2013 10:35:34 GMT -5
Byrd was worse than replacement level, which we knew before acquiring him, which made the acquisition ridiculous at any cost. There are dozens of retreads & minor league veterans who could have outperformed him.
In the new baseball economics, top cost-controlled talent is extremely valuable and (as a rule) should only be traded for other top cost-controlled talent. Expensive talent and mediocrity can be acquired through free agency or other means. I'm sure there are reasonable exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 6, 2013 11:06:13 GMT -5
I dont think we deal any of our top guys for a rental come July. That being said all indications are guys like Price and Stanton will be on the market in the next 6-18 months and I would not hesitate to get involved in those conversations. I think we could be somewhat competitive next year but im seeing 2015 more as the year we can make a run at the WS. I hope if we're right around .500 this year BC isnt afraid to trade some guys in the final year of their deals.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 6, 2013 11:11:49 GMT -5
Byrd was worse than replacement level, which we knew before acquiring him, which made the acquisition ridiculous at any cost. There are dozens of retreads & minor league veterans who could have outperformed him. Did we know that? He had a truly atrocious start to 2012 (3/43, no XBH), but Byrd averaged 2.8 fWAR per 600 PAs from 2009-2011 with good durability and both solid hitting and fielding numbers. He put up 2.1 fWAR in 482 PAs in 2011 on the back of a decent .276/.324/.395/.719 line and league-average CF defense. Moreover, he had hit .308/.346/.419 through late May 2011 before an Aceves fastball hit him and literally broke his face, and though he struggled when he returned that season, there was plenty of reason to think he'd bounce back with a full offseason's recovery. That certainly doesn't look like a sub-replacement level player to me. It was also April, and there aren't a lot of minor league veterans floating around at the start of the season, and certainly none who (a) had Byrd's track record of good performance, (b) were in-shape and ready to play, and (c) would have been as cheap to acquire. Remember, the Byrd trade was basically Theo and Ben doing each other a solid and giving each other first priority on two players who would have been put on waivers anyways. Bowden was DFAed six days before the trade went official, which meant that if he wasn't included in the deal, the Red Sox would have had to put him on waivers the next day and lost him anyways. Plus, the Cubs picked up almost all of Byrd's salary (the Red Sox were only on the hook for the veteran's minimum), so the only asset the Red Sox lost was a PTBNL (turned out to be Hunter Cervenka-- AKA minor league roster filler). Hindsight is 20/20, and a lot of players just fall off a cliff, especially at Byrd's age (he was 34 when acquired). But picking up a player who had been productive the year before basically for free so that Cody Ross wouldn't have to be the full-time starter in center and so that Nate Spears and Mike Aviles aren't your only backup outfielders is not a move you can really criticize.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Feb 6, 2013 11:20:40 GMT -5
Yes. The signs of Gary Matthews Jr Disease are clear for those who have eyes to see. I get tired of people rehashing how even though an acquisition doesn't work out they were still really right all along. Byrd's goose was cooked, period. He did help us get a good draft pick, so in hindsight maybe it was a good pickup in the end. I also panned the Punto pickup and that landed us De La Rosa & Webster. So I'll admit to being wrong at least twice in the span of a few months. It's not a big deal to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 6, 2013 11:22:09 GMT -5
Point to jmei (sorry, elguapo)
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 6, 2013 11:37:13 GMT -5
Absolutely a point to jmei, hindsight is 20/20 saying otherwise is douchebaggery
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 6, 2013 14:00:52 GMT -5
Just because a deal doesn't work out, doesn't mean it was a bad decision at the time. Crap happens. It's all about the risks and managing downside. You're talking about Michael Bowden. Just because Byrd sucked here doesn't mean the team was any worse off or it wasn't a guy worth taking a flyer on considering the situation. Remember they would have had to put someone out there and even if they couldn't have done much worse (in hindsight), they probably wouldn't have been much better either.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 6, 2013 14:13:07 GMT -5
I would only deal top prospects for a true #1 pitcher.
David Price of Tampa comes to mind.
Or the 2 future aces from the Mets organization, depending on the prospects required to make the deal happen.
But I do not deal top prospects for pitchers like Garza
I also don't deal any of our top prospects for position players, even a talent like Stanton.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 6, 2013 14:24:57 GMT -5
I remember an interview with Theo back in 05 or 06 that said something like <paraphrasing "If you get into late July and you think you have a legitimate chance at the Word Series if you are just a player or two away, you make that deal every time, even if it costs you some prospects you're really high on."
Doubtful that happens this year, but: It would be intriguing if, say, come July 29th, the top six or seven position players and four of the five starters all are having above average or career years and the Sox find themselves 3 or more games up in the AL East. Ben thinks he needs one more player - a closer, a left fielder, etc. - to really make a run - but that player would cost you one of Bradley, Bogaerts or Barnes. My sense is it would have to be an All Star with more than a couple months of control to get them to deal Xander but one of the other two could go in that scenario (esp with the recent lack of success and ownership wanting a team they could market into 2014 as being "Back").
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 6, 2013 14:45:50 GMT -5
I would say Xander and JBJ are off limits, unless you find a team in sell mode with a superstar, like Price or Felix on the block.
If the team is playing really well and looks like it could make a serious run at the WS, then I think everyone else is available. They seem to have some pitching depth in the minors for the first time in a while, and if someone offers a great deal for Webster/Rubby/Barnes then you seriously consider it.
I think they can/will contend for a WC this season, but won't be in good enough standing to make a move that could hurt the future. If they make the playoffs, it will be with people on the current roster/in the current system
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Feb 6, 2013 15:20:12 GMT -5
Even though I don't think this Sox team is very good, I also am not all that excited about any of the other AL East teams. So, it is entirely possible the Sox will contend, but only with a slightly better than average record. That would not be a good reason to trade two of the most promising players to come out of the system in years, and who well could be key to longer term Sox dominance.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 6, 2013 15:59:18 GMT -5
The signs of Gary Matthews Jr Disease are clear for those who have eyes to see. I get tired of people rehashing how even though an acquisition doesn't work out they were still really right all along. Byrd's goose was cooked, period. Yeah, like how Ortiz was done in 2009 or how Lance Berkman was done after 2010, right? Considering what they gave up for him, Byrd only needed something like a 5% chance of being the player he was the year before for the deal to be worth it. Again, hindsight is 20/20, but you'll be hard-pressed to find one analyst who criticized the trade at the time.
|
|
|