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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 17:09:41 GMT -5
Like the thought process. It's a lot to give up for a pitcher on that type of deal. The AAV is FA level.
Assuming they'd rather sign a FA or trade for a cost controlled guy
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 15:34:16 GMT -5
Lol. Let's look at context here: Miller got the job because Betances struggled in spring and his velo dropped. Yankees are ONLY making Miller available because they'd then go out and trade for Kimbrel or Chapman, or sign O'Day. They're not thinking of trading Andrew Miller and not replacing him.But dude, go ahead and keep deluding yourself into thinking Matt Barnes could get you a 50 save closer. You could try really really really hard, and you still couldn't come up with a less likely trade scenario. Kinda feel like you are arguing with yourself here. Don't think anyone here genuinely thinks that Barnes has enough value to be a center piece to acquire a top flight closer. Barnes has an arm that offers pretty big potential out of the bullpen. That's pretty much common sense in which you seem to be assuming nobody has. Barnes offers wild-card potential in any potential trade, but obviously trading him now would be selling lower than low and really wouldn't make much sense anyway. And your point really doesn't make much sense (I may just be confused), the Yankees want to trade a guy with top-closer stuff for a just as expensive guy with top-closer stuff? Not sure what you mean there. Signing O'Day might make some sense after a Miller trade, but why strengthen an area like your bullpen through an acquisition, and then immediately retract from it? Cashman never said Miller was "available" only that he'd listen to what teams had to offer, just like all good GM's do. We're wildly overstating Barnes' value. His arm has showed no ability to limit contact in the major leagues. 11.6 H/9, 1.7HR/9. The exact last thing we're looking for in a reliever. And his minor league campaign was not that great either. People can hit a flat 95mph fastball. The potential you're referring to is essentially, "well if he suddenly gains pinpoint accuracy and movement on his fastball, he might be effective." Sure, you could say that about me as well. And re: the Cashman thing, I was only giving a scenario in which it would make sense. They know Betances can cover closing role with his somewhat diminished velocity. They can sell Miller for a prospect or two, sign O'day to the same contract that Miller has remaining, and use that prospect to include and flip towards someone like Carrasco. Do I think it would ever happen? Probably not, but closing is VALUABLE. So someone might overpay. We'll just have to see if someone offers Cashman a big time stud prospect like Matt Barnes that has him so enticed he'll bite.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 15:20:47 GMT -5
I sincerely apologize for mentioning Barnes for Melancon without putting any thought into it. Time to move on with people added to my block list. Is this like on the playground when someone grabs their toys and stomps home? lol
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 14:50:59 GMT -5
Their pen is a huge asset. And that trio of guys combined for 1 save in 2015. 7 in their careers. Melancon was AUTOMATIC last year. Money is rarely prohibitive when a player is ELITE. If they weren't looking like contenders, sure he'd be gone. It just makes no sense. With only 1 year left on his contract, his value isn't drastically different than it will be at the deadline. Hell it might be more at the deadline, and then they have a better idea of how Watson could handle the closing role. If Melancon goes this offseason, it's for something GOOD. Not for money. Miller had 1 save before this year. No one cares about how many saves anyone has. Money is always prohibitive for small market teams. And interestingly enough, I just read Heyman saying that Miller could be traded this winter. Lol. Let's look at context here: Miller got the job because Betances struggled in spring and his velo dropped. Yankees are ONLY making Miller available because they'd then go out and trade for Kimbrel or Chapman, or sign O'Day. They're not thinking of trading Andrew Miller and not replacing him. But dude, go ahead and keep deluding yourself into thinking Matt Barnes could get you a 50 save closer. You could try really really really hard, and you still couldn't come up with a less likely trade scenario.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 14:35:24 GMT -5
Dan Duquette must really have his hands tied not to grab this guy. When a MN (smaller market) can sign this guy & have position redundancy to boot. Or you know, he likes Christian Walker... or just doesn't like Park.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 14:08:24 GMT -5
Missed the part about Barnes. Agreed he's definitely not close to enough for Melancon. As for "cutting the head" off of their bullpen, go look at what the rest of their bullpen did this year. This wasn't some crap bullpen that had a dominant closer bailing them out every game. Watson-Caminero-Hughes is a decently little top 3 for them to build a bullpen around, if they're trying to save a little money there. Their pen is a huge asset. And that trio of guys combined for 1 save in 2015. 7 in their careers. Melancon was AUTOMATIC last year. Money is rarely prohibitive when a player is ELITE. If they weren't looking like contenders, sure he'd be gone. It just makes no sense. With only 1 year left on his contract, his value isn't drastically different than it will be at the deadline. Hell it might be more at the deadline, and then they have a better idea of how Watson could handle the closing role. If Melancon goes this offseason, it's for something GOOD. Not for money.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 13:39:56 GMT -5
They're not cutting the head off their bullpen for savings on a 1 year deal. They WANT to go to the playoffs again. It's not happening, and it's especially not happening for Matt freakin' Barnes Do you remember when small market teams trade expensive players in the last year of their control? Oh yeah, it happens all the damn time. You are overvaluing relief pitchers on a 1 year $10 million contract. You don't have to be an ass to have a conversation with me. I'm not overvaluing anything. We just saw the Royals win a WS with their lockdown pen. We just saw the Red Sox hemorrhage away runs in the 6-9 innings with no pen. Pirates are coming off a post-season berth, they want to contend. A contending team doesn't salary dump a 51 save closer. If you want to trade for Mark Melancon, be ready to give up something valuable and cost-controlled. Matt Barnes doesn't move that needle even slightly, and I'm sorry you're offended, but you're wildly off in more ways than one. With how thin this relief market is, to think the best deal the Pirates would get offered is Barnes, is ludicrous in it's own right.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 13:18:56 GMT -5
They are a small market team and might not want to dedicate that much to bullpen arms. Hell, maybe Barnes would be a decent matchup. They could take the $10 million that Melancon is projected to get and spend it in other areas. Their opening day payroll in 2015 was $90M. For next year, they have $50,625,000 in pre-arb obligations (Liriano, McCutchen, Morse, Morton, Harrison, Marte, Kang), then another $45M in projected arbitration salaries. So maybe there could be something to that. That said, I'd say the $8.1M projected for Pedro Alvarez seems a likelier cost-cutting target. Jordy Mercer's $1.8M might make him a target if Kang is healthy. But yeah, the $16.8M in projected salaries for Melancon (10m), Watson (4.6M), and Hughes (2.2M) seem a bit steep for 3 relievers on a 490M payroll, especially with Caminero there too. It'd be worth looking into. They're not cutting the head off their bullpen for savings on a 1 year deal. They WANT to go to the playoffs again. It's not happening, and it's especially not happening for Matt freakin' Barnes
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 13:06:29 GMT -5
There's no logical reason as to why the Pirates would trade him. They contended last year, will again this year. Relief market isn't strong enough to warrant trading him and signing someone else to replace him. They are a small market team and might not want to dedicate that much to bullpen arms. Hell, maybe Barnes would be a decent matchup. They could take the $10 million that Melancon is projected to get and spend it in other areas. Holy crap you guys. No. Just no. Matt Barnes has NO value right now. He got lit up in relief. Pirates aren't salary dumping an elite closer who recorded 51 saves in an arbitration year. No one salary dumps 1 year deals! Repeat after me everyone, WE ARENT GETTING ELITE TALENT FOR OUR GARBAGE. WE ARENT GETTING ELITE TALENT FOR OUR GARBAGE.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 12:47:53 GMT -5
Eh, Castillo might have slight negative value, especially to a low-payroll team. If you put him on waivers right now, he probably gets claimed, but by no more than three or four teams. No chance in hell Castillo would get claimed by even 1 team. No way, no how. He would pass through waivers like **** passes through a goose. You're essentially claiming that 3-4 teams would sign Castillo RIGHT NOW to a 5/61 contract. Not one team would do that. Zero. None. Zilch.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 12:41:21 GMT -5
Sano will likely play LF
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 12:38:55 GMT -5
Barnes figuring it out in the bullpen could be a big key to turning the bullpen around. That he is showing up to ST knowing how to prepare and not getting bounced back and forth between starting and relieving is a good thing. Mark Melancon is entering his 3rd arb year. I wonder if the Red Sox would be interested in trading for him a 2nd time. There's no logical reason as to why the Pirates would trade him. They contended last year, will again this year. Relief market isn't strong enough to warrant trading him and signing someone else to replace him.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 23:00:19 GMT -5
If the plan is for Swihart to catch 52 games and move him around on the corners he's probably best used in a trade. I honestly can't buy that's the plan though. It makes some sense for one year while you evaluate Vazquez's elbow and further evaluate both of their bats. The bigger problem, I think, is finding all of the extra games for Swihart while not making the team weaker whenever he plays. It might make sense on a team where the backup SS was just that, and Swihart's job was to give various guys days off in some kind of rough rotation, but you already have Holt to do that job. If Swihart goes in a deal it's probably going to be for someone who is so good you don't quite care that Swihart is gone (i.e. Sonny Gray or Chris Sale). Though, it doesn't totally go without saying that Swihart did not have a good season defensively. Baseball Prospectus player pages have some good catching metrics that try to quantify pitch framing and blocking, etc. But I think they see a very real likelihood that he improves.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 22:38:46 GMT -5
Hanley + Miley + money for Salazar? WHAT?! They could literally get Hanley + Miley from us if they offered to pick up half of Hanley's contract lol. You think they're just going to throw in a cost controlled stud? You are in outer space with these trade proposals, man. Hanley's owed $22M a year. Alex Rodriguez was worth $21.4M as a full-time DH last year, playing 151 G. He had a 129 wRC+. Hanley's career wRC+ is 129.
Steamer projects him for a 120 wRC+ next year, but Steamer doesn't think he'll be a full-time DH and likely to avoid nagging injuries. If Hanley plays 140 games with a 129 RC+, he's worth $20M. If you put more faith in Steamer, you can degrade that to maybe $18M.
So, we would send $18 to $20M worth of Hanley plus $20M worth of Miley (average annual fWAR at today's market rate) to Cleveland, and we would receive back in cash $11M for Hanley, plus we would free up $6M that we were going to pay Miley. Oh, sure, we'd "literally" do that.
But thanks for challenging me and making me run the actual numbers. Hanley and Miley combined make $28M (then $30.75M, then $34M) and project to be worth $35M to $40M a year. You could pay none of Hanley's salary and get back about 2.7 WAR of projected surplus value. Every $2.7M of AAV you eat buys you another WAR.
You're correct in that it's not enough to get Salazar; it might make sense if Miley were making rather less and, crucially, if Salazar had only three years of control left instead of four. That fourth year of control at pre-arb costs has 3.0 WAR of surplus value all by itself. Even if eating $15M of Hanley's salary, you'd have to add significant prospect talent.
I like the analytical thought process, and all that stuff is great, it just applies better if you're looking at signing a free agent. I think it just boils down to the there being no rational sense in why the Indians would trade an extremely good player who is getting paid nothing, for a worse pitcher being paid more, and an oft-injured, position-less guy with an albatross contract. Honestly if the Sox even mentioned Hanley in that conversation they'd probably hang up or say "Sure if you throw in Betts, Owens, and Erod" haha. The amount of payroll the sox have to include to a team with tight pursestrings like the Indians just makes it entirely prohibitive. They'd rather just keep Hanley and trade for Salazar separately. People just need to take a reality check for a moment, and realize that if a trade a.) gets rid of someone we really really want to get rid of because signing him was a really bad decision... and b.) get back someone in return who extremely valuable performance, cost, and control wise... it's probably not going to happen. And that's not even mentioning that the odds Miley and Hanley are the best offer for Salazar... are next to nothing haha. Like everyone else's phones would have to be off the hook and their internet shut down. There's just no real world scenario where that deal makes even a hint of sense.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 21:46:29 GMT -5
"In his short time with the Red Sox, newly-minted Mariners GM Jerry Dipoto turned in a detailed report on the Sox organization from top to bottom, according to Red Sox top exec Dave Dombrowski. With that kind of intimate knowledge of the Sox, Cafardo speculates that it would make sense to watch for Mariners/Red Sox trade talks." www.mlbtraderumors.com/Isn't the guy who's seen all your internal reports the absolute last person you want to be in a trade negotiation with? I think you have the wrong idea on how trades in the MLB work 85% of the time. If you fleece everyone, trading becomes harder. Often, you and another GM are looking for a mutually beneficial trade. This is why the Red Sox and Mariners might link up. Though, looking over the mariners roster, I'm not exactly who the Sox want outside of possibly a reliever. Assuming they'd have interest in Gutierrez if he was still under contract with the Mariners but he's a FA.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 20:56:25 GMT -5
Sure, but he's under 30, and has 3-5 years of control left (depending on what options are picked up) at what essentially amounts to slightly elevated arbitration numbers. He is a HUGE asset. To think we're going to get him for a group of guys we don't mind losing is nothing short of delusional. To think the Indians are chomping at the bit to get Hanley Ramirez is nuts. The Indians DONT have to make this trade. They can wait a year. They can wait 2 years. It's just insane to think we're going to give them a package of our garbage and land him. It's just not a viable offer they would ever consider, and to go one step further to think that this offer is the best one out there, is just flat out nuts. I definitely would think a package would have to include Margot, especially if we dump Hanley on them. I'd be very willing to offer them (just spitballing here) Margot, Owens, and even Guerra, if it took that, as well as a lower-tier prospect or two if need be. But if they want an MLB-ready bat, maybe they would want Castillo. Can't completely can't that out. But Carrasco is certainly worth a lot and there's definitely no way we can offer an underwhelming package and expect Cleveland to take it. Any deal for Carrasco would be free of Hanley. Indians have payroll restrictions for sure. And Castillo has been baaaaaaaaad. No way he's an MLB-ready bat. He's shown absolutely nothing to assume that. HUGE contract for what amounts to a defensive OF-er. People take chances on guys on one year deals or for league minimum, not guys with 5 years 59+ mill left. The guy had a .288 obp, terrible iso, and a sub .360 slugging. He's just not a major league hitter. He had a 64% ground ball rate last year. And his speed doesn't play because his baserunning is so bad. 4 stolen bags to 5 caught. Gets out of box slowly. He's just a bad player. Could he be phenomenal next year? Sure, but no one is going to sell anyone of value for him until he shows at least something besides godawful baseball.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 20:06:25 GMT -5
This is nuts. No way the Indians would ever take on that much payroll for our detritus lol. The best way to check this trade is to ask yourself, "Do the Cleveland Indians NEED to give up Carrasco to acquire any of these players". The answer is unequivocally, "No." Carrasco is a young, gifted, under control pitcher. You trade that for something good, not 2 players a team would love to get rid of signed to huge money and a oft-injured pitcher. Indians are looking for a established bat. Mookie would fit the bill. JD Martinez, Pollock, Calhoun, Marte are some other guys. Not sure if they'll be able to pry any of those guys away, so maybe they'll look to less established bats like Aaron Judge. But Hanley and Castillo? Come on. Not to nitpick, but Carrasco isn't the usual definition of young and cost-controlled. He's 28, and also has had Tommy John. It isn't like trading for Chris Sale or even Sonny Gray. Sure, but he's under 30, and has 3-5 years of control left (depending on what options are picked up) at what essentially amounts to slightly elevated arbitration numbers. He is a HUGE asset. To think we're going to get him for a group of guys we don't mind losing is nothing short of delusional. To think the Indians are chomping at the bit to get Hanley Ramirez is nuts. The Indians DONT have to make this trade. They can wait a year. They can wait 2 years. It's just insane to think we're going to give them a package of our garbage and land him. It's just not a viable offer they would ever consider, and to go one step further to think that this offer is the best one out there, is just flat out nuts.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:54:48 GMT -5
I think Hanely will be more of a salary dump/swap. I'm thinking the White Sox and Melky Cabrea/Laroche type trade. Except that would put the White Sox on the hook for a.) more years and b.) more money
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:48:14 GMT -5
Does Red Sox not winning the bid on Park make us think he's a bad player given their access to Nexen's info? Not necessarily. It probably comes down to some combination of:
1. they have Hanley 2. Park strikes out A LOT -- 160 times in 140 games. 3. Sox have enough money committed to question marks. 4. Shaw and Sam Travis give the Sox hope. 5. Maybe the bid 12 mill and simply missed. 6. It was just bad timing with not enough time to move Hanley. 6b. If they somehow manage to pull off the unthinkable and deal Hanley, they still like the idea of going out and grabbing Adam Lind from the Brewers better than the idea of Park. Lind hits righties, Shaw hits lefties. Perfect platoon.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:44:00 GMT -5
What exactly did Passan mean by the "working agreement" tweet? The Red Sox and Nexen heroes have had a "working agreement" or what they call "a strategic partnership" for a few years now. It basically boils down to a mentorship, or consulting. Almost a big brother program haha. Basically Nexen thinks the Sox are top dawgs when it comes to running a farm system, player development/scouting and using analytics, so, as a relatively new franchise in the KBO, Nexen enlisted their help. From Boston's side, they're probably given money, but more importantly a closer insight into a potentially underutilized market of the KBO. Boston surely has an inside track on lots of KBO players, as they're probably given access to Nexen's scouting reports, video, etc.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:29:49 GMT -5
Hanley + Miley + money for Salazar?
WHAT?!
They could literally get Hanley + Miley from us if they offered to pick up half of Hanley's contract lol. You think they're just going to throw in a cost controlled stud?
You are in outer space with these trade proposals, man.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:17:11 GMT -5
All those offers are wayyyyy to high lol.
Fernandez is dirty, but you have a guy coming off Tommy John only under control for 3 more years in arbitration. Since he's coming off Tommy John, he's going to have innings limits for at least the next two years, and the Sox aren't exactly the team to shrug those off, especially considering Fernandez' biceps/arm problems this year. He will not be the 200IP guy the Sox are looking for.
Trade doesn't make too much sense for the Marlins, or for what the Sox are looking for (i.e. a HORSE). He's also a Boras client so the extension ain't happening. Probably worthless throwing out a trade proposal, as the Sox offer would not be high enough to sway the Marlins. (think Owens, Devers, Marrero, Raudes or Owens, Margot, Devers, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:09:21 GMT -5
Assuming an off-season signing of a top FA pitcher, I'd like to see us use our best trade chips to power up the back end of our bullpen. Chapman would be my ideal choice if he's made available again, which for a couple good future assets I can't see why the Reds wouldn't offer him up as he's now a year away from FA. Miley and Margot for Chapman and a lottery ticket arm would be my proposal. Miley gives the Reds a cost-controlled, dependable innings eater, something they could use. Margot is our best trade chip, but after a top starter (again, assuming a Price/Cueto sign first) the back end of our pen is the next big priority and where we should allocate our resources. Reds need to rebuild. So Margot makes sense. Miley makes zero sense for a rebuilding team. Short years of control, rising salary. Not happening. If Margot isn't enough, there's probably another low prospect the Reds would be interested in (i.e. ysla or raudes) along with him. Can't really surmise much past this, if the Reds don't really care for Margot then it's a bust.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 17:59:29 GMT -5
I'm proposing the following trade: Hanley Ramirez, Clay Buchholz, and Rusney Castillo for Carlos Carrasco, Justus Sheffield and we pay 20 million to help cover the contracts of Castillo and, especially, Hanley. This is nuts. No way the Indians would ever take on that much payroll for our detritus lol. The best way to check this trade is to ask yourself, "Do the Cleveland Indians NEED to give up Carrasco to acquire any of these players". The answer is unequivocally, "No." Carrasco is a young, gifted, under control pitcher. You trade that for something good, not 2 players a team would love to get rid of signed to huge money and a oft-injured pitcher. Indians are looking for a established bat. Mookie would fit the bill. JD Martinez, Pollock, Calhoun, Marte are some other guys. Not sure if they'll be able to pry any of those guys away, so maybe they'll look to less established bats like Aaron Judge. But Hanley and Castillo? Come on.
|
|
|