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 fenwaythehardway on Jan 2, 2020 17:36:40 GMT -5
You’re right... pitchers report soon— don’t you think that suggests teams with pitching needs are going to get very anxious very soon? The Sox were never gonna get a decent deal as long as other options remained in free agency. Now that those options have become very shallow, teams are going to circle back to the Sox. Unloading Price for a reasonable deal was always going to take time and patience. The only reason we need to “pick a path” right now would be to satisfy certain impatient members of the baseball writing community— that’s hardly a reason to do it. I know that spring training isn't really the time for a big trade, but I do kind of wonder if getting the best return on Price means waiting until other teams can see him on a mound and looking healthy again.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 2, 2020 17:42:27 GMT -5
Donaldson, man. Price could even come in a little under the $23m AAV they're not giving him anymore. And I still think the Twins and White Sox should be on the list. Donaldson was a one year flier with absolutely no risk and all the upside. If Donaldson stays injured, they're only in it for 23 million for one year. The Price thing is the exact opposite. Disagree with this. Yes, one-year contracts reduce risk but they also reduce gain. What did Donaldson actually do for the Braves? He was a good player but did they win the NL? The WS? One year contracts for big money are fine for teams one piece away from making a run at a WS. But for decent but not great teams like Atlanta? Doesn’t make huge sense. Let me put it another way. Go back one year. Braves sign Donaldson for one year at 23 million. If he has a bad year, you just wasted 23 million. But if he has a great year, what then? Either you have to resign him for crazy money or you let him go and get little in return. In other words, you really didn’t accomplish anything with the one year deal (btw I’m defining success based on playoff victories and NL and/ or WS titles). Less risk = less reward and upside. Conversely, you get Price at say three years, 60 million-ish. Yes, more risk (longer deal, more money). But if he’s successful, you now have a good pitcher at a reasonable amount of money for several years. More risk = more reward So I’m not quite sure you can say the Donaldson signing was low risk, all upside. Don’t you think the Braves are wishing they offered Donaldson 3 years at 60 million last off-season? Risk vs Reward.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 2, 2020 18:00:42 GMT -5
Pitchers and catchers reports on February 11th. So it's not like we have months and months here. It's kinda of crazy how slow everything is moving. The big guys signed kinda early this year, which I thought would move the market along more. It just hasn't happened. Let's pick a path. If our owner was truthful and resetting was just a goal, then we should have options. Can't find the right deal, then keep Price and build a team for next year. It's going to be a lot easier trading him when he shows he's healthy and pitching well. Let's give this team one more legit shot at a championship! I miss the old days, when this time of year most free agents had already signed and most major trades already happened. You know when teams spent money and most teams wanted to try and win the next year. You’re right... pitchers report soon— don’t you think that suggests teams with pitching needs are going to get very anxious very soon? The Sox were never gonna get a decent deal as long as other options remained in free agency. Now that those options have become very shallow, teams are going to circle back to the Sox. Unloading Price for a reasonable deal was always going to take time and patience. The only reason we need to “pick a path” right now would be to satisfy certain impatient members of the baseball writing community— that’s hardly a reason to do it. Those other options have been gone for a while now, been almost two weeks since the last guy seen as TOR was signed. I also don't think every team was waiting on him. The market conditions you talk about have been here for a while now. Maybe we'd like to know what we can spend before all the options at 1B are gone. We've watched Smoke sign for 5 million and Shaw go for 4 million. I don't know about you, but I'm not ok with just waiting to February and picking whoever is left. If there is even anyone worth signing at that point. Reports say the Price trade is holding up everything.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 2, 2020 18:14:07 GMT -5
Donaldson was a one year flier with absolutely no risk and all the upside. If Donaldson stays injured, they're only in it for 23 million for one year. The Price thing is the exact opposite. Disagree with this. Yes, one-year contracts reduce risk but they also reduce gain. What did Donaldson actually do for the Braves? He was a good player but did they win the NL? The WS? One year contracts for big money are fine for teams one piece away from making a run at a WS. But for decent but not great teams like Atlanta? Doesn’t make huge sense. Let me put it another way. Go back one year. Braves sign Donaldson for one year at 23 million. If he has a bad year, you just wasted 23 million. But if he has a great year, what then? Either you have to resign him for crazy money or you let him go and get little in return. In other words, you really didn’t accomplish anything with the one year deal (btw I’m defining success based on playoff victories and NL and/ or WS titles). Less risk = less reward and upside. Conversely, you get Price at say three years, 60 million-ish. Yes, more risk (longer deal, more money). But if he’s successful, you now have a good pitcher at a reasonable amount of money for several years. More risk = more reward So I’m not quite sure you can say the Donaldson signing was low risk, all upside. Don’t you think the Braves are wishing they offered Donaldson 3 years at 60 million last off-season? Risk vs Reward. Donaldson wanted a short term deal so he could show teams he wasn't washed up. So I don't think that was even an option. I don't think many teams will think the way you do. Free agents aren't performing well, so less risk is a much smarter play than trying to get a reward. I'd much rather sign Donaldson for one year 23 million, than chase rewards with a long-term deal and end up with Pablo on my books for five years. If Price had one year left on his deal we would have zero issues trading him. The long-term risks scares teams and makes it much harder.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 2, 2020 18:17:50 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 2, 2020 18:55:19 GMT -5
Being thorough about my claim that there's no longer anyone else like Price available ...
Buster Onley named four other starters who may be on the trade market. I've added Steamer bWAR projections and contract status.
Mike Clevinger, Cle, 4.8, 3 years of arb. Would take a ginormous talent package.
Charlie Morton, TB, 4.4, 1/$15M plus easy vesting option. Still a big talent package.
Marco Gonzales, Sea, 1.8, 4 years of control OR
Yusei Kikuchi, Sea, 1.4, 2/$28.7M plus 3 years of team options.
J.A. Happ, NYY, 0.9, 1/$17M plus vesting option, and maybe off the market with the German suspension.
Olney implies that teams have asked about Clevinger rather than that the Indians are shopping him, and focuses his story on a potential Morton trade, which would make great sense for a team with financial constraints but a deep farm system. However, the Rays already have the best farm system in MLB and are contenders, so I just can't see them moving him.
The Braves, Dodgers, and Blue Jays have the talent to get Clevinger, and in theory there's a package that would be so attractive it would make the Indians decide to reboot. Given that the Dodgers aren't in need of a guy quite that good, or that cost-controlled, they seem very unlikely suitors. (In fact, the Rays themselves are the best fit for a Clevinger trade. That would be bad new for us, actually.)
The Brewers are in a position to go after Kikuchi.
But Price is still unique: a likely #2 you can get just for $ without giving up young talent, which has never been valued more.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 2, 2020 22:05:14 GMT -5
Not sure how you figure the Red Sox don't have a fifth starter: they have Sale, Price, Rodriguez, Eovaldi, and Perez. The assumption that they're going to trade Price is also the assumption that trading Price is what other moves are contingent on, right? So, if they're standing pat/stuck, then they have a 5th starter. If there are moves coming, then we have no idea what they're going to have and not, so getting upset because they might only trade people and not acquire any seems kinda silly. The only hope for the Red Sox is that they spend the money and get stuck if they want to keep the team together for a competitive 2020. Staying under the CBT this year gives the Sox more of a shot at extending Mookie in free agency next year. So the Sox are in this rabit hole of picking their poison. That's a pretty good reason to be upset. The Sox should be just spending the money in both scenarios without blinking an eye. This isn't a video game. "just spending the money without blinking an eye" is not a reasonable or realistic solution.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 2, 2020 22:16:22 GMT -5
Am I the only one to whom this feels like the Dodgers trying to put pressure on the Indians?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 2, 2020 22:27:53 GMT -5
The only hope for the Red Sox is that they spend the money and get stuck if they want to keep the team together for a competitive 2020. Staying under the CBT this year gives the Sox more of a shot at extending Mookie in free agency next year. So the Sox are in this rabit hole of picking their poison. That's a pretty good reason to be upset. The Sox should be just spending the money in both scenarios without blinking an eye. This isn't a video game. "just spending the money without blinking an eye" is not a reasonable or realistic solution. It should be for one of the top 10 teams in sports value wise according to Forbes, but I digress.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 2, 2020 22:30:17 GMT -5
Am I the only one to whom this feels like the Dodgers trying to put pressure on the Indians? Maybe, but Price and Mookie are a better fit for the Dodgers. You don't have to do that thing with moving Seager to third, Turner somewhere else like you have to do in a deal for Lindor. You simply just put Price in the rotation and Mookie in RF. Seemless fits on paper with roster construction.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 2, 2020 23:48:36 GMT -5
This isn't a video game. "just spending the money without blinking an eye" is not a reasonable or realistic solution. It should be for one of the top 10 teams in sports value wise according to Forbes, but I digress. "Value" is not equal to liquid assets. The franchise being worth 3.2 billion dollars doesn't mean they have that money to spend. They operate on a budget, just like every other business on the planet. They're not going to recklessly spend money if it puts them at a loss or kills their profit. That's bad business.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 3, 2020 0:09:50 GMT -5
It should be for one of the top 10 teams in sports value wise according to Forbes, but I digress. "Value" is not equal to liquid assets. The franchise being worth 3.2 billion dollars doesn't mean they have that money to spend. They operate on a budget, just like every other business on the planet. They're not going to recklessly spend money if it puts them at a loss or kills their profit. That's bad business. They have the money and they have the profits. The Red Sox are a cash cow when considering the total revenue. It just makes more sense to reset for a whole lot of reasons. Money sadly being prior number one for them, as pointed out by Speiers' article saying that they'd save 80-100 million dollars by not going over this season in future years.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 3, 2020 0:19:11 GMT -5
"Value" is not equal to liquid assets. The franchise being worth 3.2 billion dollars doesn't mean they have that money to spend. They operate on a budget, just like every other business on the planet. They're not going to recklessly spend money if it puts them at a loss or kills their profit. That's bad business. They have the money and they have the profits. The Red Sox are a cash cow when considering the total revenue. It just makes more sense to reset for a whole lot of reasons. Money sadly being prior number one for them, as pointed out by Speiers' article saying that they'd save 80-100 million dollars by not going over this season in future years. Exactly, and the Red Sox are a business, and every business is going to try to save 100 MILLION DOLLARS whenever possible. That is why I said you can't treat it like a video game.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 3, 2020 1:10:48 GMT -5
Am I the only one to whom this feels like the Dodgers trying to put pressure on the Indians? I'm thinking the opposite. If you're making a win now move, doesn't Betts and Price fit like a glove?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 3, 2020 1:18:13 GMT -5
They have the money and they have the profits. The Red Sox are a cash cow when considering the total revenue. It just makes more sense to reset for a whole lot of reasons. Money sadly being prior number one for them, as pointed out by Speiers' article saying that they'd save 80-100 million dollars by not going over this season in future years. Exactly, and the Red Sox are a business, and every business is going to try to save 100 MILLION DOLLARS whenever possible. That is why I said you can't treat it like a video game. You get who the owners are and their history? They litterally acted like it was a game till the debt ratio got too high, MLB stepped in and they cut payroll to pay down debt on orders. Which they have and they can now go crazy again if they want too.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 3, 2020 10:38:35 GMT -5
Can we please not have yet another debate about whether the Red Sox ownership should or should not try to get under the CBT? The discussion itself is valid, but it doesn't feel like any new points are being brought to the table here.
Hopefully there's movement or actual news soon, but we're going in circles a bit here.
Note this post is more from Chris the poster than Chris the staff member.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 9, 2020 19:12:39 GMT -5
Heyman throws an interesting nugget, suggesting that Liberatore could be flipped to the Sox for what I'm assuming could be David Price (the Cardinals can definitely use him in their rotation).
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 9, 2020 23:06:10 GMT -5
Heyman throws an interesting nugget, suggesting that Liberatore could be flipped to the Sox for what I'm assuming could be David Price (the Cardinals can definitely use him in their rotation). Key words there being "no real info on this". Liberatore was a highly regarded prospect out of high school, it's very possible that the execs in St. Louis like him a lot as well.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 9, 2020 23:35:22 GMT -5
Out of all the Heyman tweets, this is actually not a bad one though. Carlos Martinez is a question in the middle of the rotation and Liberatore is clearly at least 2 years away. The Cardinals just went to the NLCS and are knocking on the door.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 9, 2020 23:41:04 GMT -5
Out of all the Heyman tweets, this is actually not a bad one though. Carlos Martinez is a question in the middle of the rotation and Liberatore is clearly at least 2 years away. The Cardinals just went to the NLCS and are knocking on the door. I think it's wishful thinking. Liberatore would be quite the prize. Hard to see St. Louis giving him up, but then again I wouldn't have foreseen Tampa giving him up. Like you said Liberatore is two years away at least and if the Red Sox are going to pretend to contend I would think they'd take back a starter in a deal or a guy knocking on the big league door anyways as opposed to somebody this far away - not that I wouldn't be thrilled with Liberatore as the guy for Price. Again this is just supposition by Heyman, not an actual rumor of any sort.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 13, 2020 12:23:03 GMT -5
I have the Sox needing to shed $20.5M to get under the tax limit. That's not more than Price's value per year, so they could just trade him largely as a salary dump, fill in the remaining roster spots internally for cheap, and call it quits.
However, if they also trade JBJ, that frees up an extra $10.5M (if he's replaced at minimum cost) which could be use three ways simultaneously: to re-sign Mitch Moreland (and maybe add Cishek to the pen or replace JBJ at a higher cost), to create space for trade deadline pickups, and to eat more of Price's contract in exchange for some real prospect return. There may not even be a decline in competitiveness this year, which means you pick up any real prospects for free.
The tricky factors involved here:
-- The market for Price. One hopes it's higher than some in the media seem to think. His value for the Dodgers or Giants includes keeping him away from the other team. In particular, the Giants outbidding the Dodgers would be a small coup for them, and they have a strengthening farm system, so they won't fall short if it comes to offering the right prospect package.
-- How much do you reserve for deadline deals? I bet Bloom believes that they seldom make a difference. If you're willing to go low here, you can get more in the way of prospects for Price.
-- Who do you have in mind to replace JBJ, what's he going to cost, and how good do you think he'll be? If they follow the pattern so far, they want a guy with a high floor because of solid D, but some offensive upside, a la Peraza. I've noted that former Ray Cesar Puello fits that description, but they may have someone else in mind.
One example: pick up $14M per year of Price's contract; Price at 3/$51 can bring you back some serious prospects. Trade JBJ (also for a solid prospect). You're now $7.5M under; you sign Moreland and Puello for a total of $3M and have $4M+ for the deadline, which means you can pick up $12M worth of contracts.
Now, if Perez, Peraza, Puello and the guys in the pen realize any significant part of their upside, you have a really good team.
I'm optimistic that the delay has been caused by the presence of multiple bidders and the above complications.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jan 13, 2020 13:53:03 GMT -5
I have the Sox needing to shed $20.5M to get under the tax limit. That's not more than Price's value per year, so they could just trade him largely as a salary dump, fill in the remaining roster spots internally for cheap, and call it quits. However, if they also trade JBJ, that frees up an extra $10.5M (if he's replaced at minimum cost) which could be use three ways simultaneously: to re-sign Mitch Moreland (and maybe add Cishek to the pen or replace JBJ at a higher cost), to create space for trade deadline pickups, and to eat more of Price's contract in exchange for some real prospect return. There may not even be a decline in competitiveness this year, which means you pick up any real prospects for free.
The Cishek part isn't happening, unfortunately. www.chicagotribune.com/sports/white-sox/ct-chicago-white-sox-steve-cishek-20200107-s3pgjw2xbjb5lfndpafd27wymq-story.html
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Jan 14, 2020 5:25:07 GMT -5
I have the Sox needing to shed $20.5M to get under the tax limit. That's not more than Price's value per year, so they could just trade him largely as a salary dump, fill in the remaining roster spots internally for cheap, and call it quits. However, if they also trade JBJ, that frees up an extra $10.5M (if he's replaced at minimum cost) which could be use three ways simultaneously: to re-sign Mitch Moreland (and maybe add Cishek to the pen or replace JBJ at a higher cost), to create space for trade deadline pickups, and to eat more of Price's contract in exchange for some real prospect return. There may not even be a decline in competitiveness this year, which means you pick up any real prospects for free.
The tricky factors involved here: -- The market for Price. One hopes it's higher than some in the media seem to think. His value for the Dodgers or Giants includes keeping him away from the other team. In particular, the Giants outbidding the Dodgers would be a small coup for them, and they have a strengthening farm system, so they won't fall short if it comes to offering the right prospect package.
-- How much do you reserve for deadline deals? I bet Bloom believes that they seldom make a difference. If you're willing to go low here, you can get more in the way of prospects for Price. -- Who do you have in mind to replace JBJ, what's he going to cost, and how good do you think he'll be? If they follow the pattern so far, they want a guy with a high floor because of solid D, but some offensive upside, a la Peraza. I've noted that former Ray Cesar Puello fits that description, but they may have someone else in mind. One example: pick up $14M per year of Price's contract; Price at 3/$51 can bring you back some serious prospects. Trade JBJ (also for a solid prospect). You're now $7.5M under; you sign Moreland and Puello for a total of $3M and have $4M+ for the deadline, which means you can pick up $12M worth of contracts. Now, if Perez, Peraza, Puello and the guys in the pen realize any significant part of their upside, you have a really good team.
I'm optimistic that the delay has been caused by the presence of multiple bidders and the above complications.
JBJ (30 yrs old & 1 yr $11m) by himself for a solid prospect? I would love it. Doesn’t seem realistic though, can you give an example of a GM & team that might be willing do it?
|
|
|
Post by lennsakata on Jan 14, 2020 8:04:27 GMT -5
I have the Sox needing to shed $20.5M to get under the tax limit. That's not more than Price's value per year, so they could just trade him largely as a salary dump, fill in the remaining roster spots internally for cheap, and call it quits. However, if they also trade JBJ, that frees up an extra $10.5M (if he's replaced at minimum cost) which could be use three ways simultaneously: to re-sign Mitch Moreland (and maybe add Cishek to the pen or replace JBJ at a higher cost), to create space for trade deadline pickups, and to eat more of Price's contract in exchange for some real prospect return. There may not even be a decline in competitiveness this year, which means you pick up any real prospects for free.
The tricky factors involved here: -- The market for Price. One hopes it's higher than some in the media seem to think. His value for the Dodgers or Giants includes keeping him away from the other team. In particular, the Giants outbidding the Dodgers would be a small coup for them, and they have a strengthening farm system, so they won't fall short if it comes to offering the right prospect package.
-- How much do you reserve for deadline deals? I bet Bloom believes that they seldom make a difference. If you're willing to go low here, you can get more in the way of prospects for Price. -- Who do you have in mind to replace JBJ, what's he going to cost, and how good do you think he'll be? If they follow the pattern so far, they want a guy with a high floor because of solid D, but some offensive upside, a la Peraza. I've noted that former Ray Cesar Puello fits that description, but they may have someone else in mind. One example: pick up $14M per year of Price's contract; Price at 3/$51 can bring you back some serious prospects. Trade JBJ (also for a solid prospect). You're now $7.5M under; you sign Moreland and Puello for a total of $3M and have $4M+ for the deadline, which means you can pick up $12M worth of contracts. Now, if Perez, Peraza, Puello and the guys in the pen realize any significant part of their upside, you have a really good team.
I'm optimistic that the delay has been caused by the presence of multiple bidders and the above complications.
JBJ (30 yrs old & 1 yr $11m) by himself for a solid prospect? I would love it. Doesn’t seem realistic though, can you give an example of a GM & team that might be willing do it? I wonder if Texas might be interested if we ate a couple mil. I imagine they could end up with Ozuna which would change the conversation but I don't think he can play center...I think they have Choo, Santana and Calhoun beyond that and I don't think any of those guys should be rolled out in Center (Santana played 27 games their last year) They have interesting prospect depth...Owen White was one of my favorite prospects in the 2018 draft and he is ranked 29 in their system according to MLB Pipeline. That is of course largely due to undergoing Tommy John before throwing a pitch. Ricky Vanasco is ranked 25 and has a ridiculous live arm, needs some control improvements. Heriberto Hernandez is ranked 27th and led the AZL league in a bunch of categories while finishing second in homers...needs a position home but the bat looks potentially special. Obviously these rankings may not jive with how Texas views them internally but there are teams like this where you got some interesting guys outside the top 10
|
|
|