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 ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 11:49:25 GMT -5
Well I'd like to see him get another shot in Boston anyway. But with regards to Stanton, he's an auxiliary piece of any deal as you guys said, so it's not really material. Would Barnes or Ranaudo have more value? Also, while advanced metrics obviously have spread extensively around the majors, do we know that the Marlins rely on them as a major aspect of their prospect/player evaluation? With the Red Sox, we know they rely fairly heavily on them, but I'm sure it differs from team to team. If they see the ERA and walks down, combined with his stuff, I doubt he's much less attractive than he was last year
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 11:41:50 GMT -5
For the sake of clarity, we're talking about #3 being Owens' most likely projection right? cause I don't have a problem with that as a middle of the road projection for him, but there's no way that's his ceiling. Also, can we clarify what a #3 guy looks like? I've been thinking of guys like Bronson Arroyo, Mark Buerhle, Ervin Santana: they're almost always solid, but they've also had some great years, and some worse ones. Am I in the right ballpark? Putting numbers on pitchers like this is really confusing at times- especially cause guys like Santana put up ace-type numbers one year and significantly worse ones the next
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 11:14:38 GMT -5
As for another basher, I think you have to hope that Bogaerts and/or WMB fit that profile, and that some help is on the way for the OF at some point down the line. I don't think you can go out and steal or sign a Stanton. But Marrero plays into that discussion too, as he certainly isn't one, and would harm our lineup construction (which is really the issue at the moment). I don't see why we can't deal for an impact bat. By the time the season's over, we might have 10 guys who are consensus top 100 guys (betts, owens, swihart, vazquez(?), coyle, marrero, Devers, Ranaudo, margot(?), trey ball, and maybe chavis or someone). At least 3 of them will be top 50, and Owens and Betts are already in some top 20's, and Swihart's headed for top-30 or so I would think. With all of that in the system, plus guys like Barnes, webster, de la Rosa, workman and Middlebrooks, I think there's definitely a way to work out a big trade. Maybe not Stanton, but someone. I know people hate dealing prospects, and I certainly wouldn't trade all of our top 3 guys for one player, but if the front office wants to add a big bat (and we need one) there's no question in my mind we have the pieces to do it
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 10:47:26 GMT -5
Praying they don't get Love- depending on next year's cap (which I think is going to be around $65m), we would have space to sign Love and extend Rondo, and have all of our picks, plus the young guys from this year's draft, and whoever we get next year. We've got about $22m on the books next year, give or take $1-$2m, and that's committed to 7 players. We could build a serious long term contender starting next summer. Danny Ainge is the man
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 10:27:14 GMT -5
What is our version of G Spring and C Correa? I think we should base any speculation off of that. It's going to take Blake, Owens, another top 10 and possibly a lotto ticket. But they were never going to get both Springer and Correa from the Stros. Realistically, there's no way I can see it getting done without Betts, who I think fits really well for them. Owens might have to be included, but I'd avoid it if I could. After that, I think we can find a combo of lottery tickets and high-floor guys who would interest them. Middlebrooks, Margot and Ranaudo/Johnson/Webster? Maybe sub Sean Coyle in for WMB if that appeals more to them, or just put him in the deal anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 10:19:26 GMT -5
Yea if anyone wants to give Lester the Scherzer deal, I would reluctantly let him go. If we offered 5 for $120m and a vesting option or player option with a buy-out clause, I could live with it, but 6 for $144m is way more than Lester is worth to me. I still don't think he can get that on the open market though, short of the Yankees doing something colossally dumb and shortsighted, which of course is always more than a possibility I guess
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 10:14:13 GMT -5
Pick is top 10 protected in 16-18 and unprotected in 2019. Does this mean they need to take it ne of those first 3 years if it falls outside the top 10 or can they roll it over if they want? They can't choose to roll it over, if it falls outside the top 10 any of those 3 years, that's the pick we want. Now we just have to hope Lebron signs there and then they get blown up in 2019 when his contract will expire (assuming he doesn't have another opt out clause in there, which he will, but still)
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 10:06:22 GMT -5
I think the Orioles pick up Markakis' option after this year, for all the reasons you just stated. I would love to know what the Sox plan is going forward into 2015. I completely agreed with Papi since 2011 - they need more pop in this line-up. They won the Series last year without more than him and Napoli, but, as we all know, such timely hitting is nothing that can be counted on (See: 2014). I am a firm believer in Earl Weaver's dictum of Pitching, defense, six or more high on base guys and the three-run homer." Papi saved this team time and time again last year, but he won't be what he is forever. This team needs a basher or two in a time when they are rare. This should be very interesting. Agreed, but I'm not sure where we find them. I was just checking for upcoming free agents, and the only guy who looks promising would be Hanley Ramirez, which is interesting, but realistically the Dodgers will probably give him a big contract, and we'll just say "We have Middlebrooks, why pay through the nose for a guy who's at least approaching the downside of his career?" I do think there's a pretty good chance that we see a major trade made by the Sox this offseason though, I can't see any other way to significantly improve this offense in time to contend next year
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 9:49:14 GMT -5
According to the article. Bradley has returned to a more open stance that he used in the minors. A stance he got away from when he slumped after being rushed to the majors last year. One of the things young players hopefully learn on the minors is how to make adjustments and get in and out of slumps. If they don't learn this a poor 35 AB stretch can easilly turn into a disasterous 100 ABs. Bogarts and Bradley were never given the chance to get into a slump in the minors and had their first slumps in the majors. You have now seen the consequences of this. Betts was never given a chance to slump either. Let's see how that works out. Bogaerts also had a rough first month in Portland, and he hit .260 in Greenville- I'm sure he went through some slumps there too. Bradley also went through a slump in Portland a few weeks after being promoted, if I remember correctly. Regardless, they obviously have gone through slumps at some level- every player has. They know they have to make some kind of adjustment, but this is the major leagues, so it's tougher, and takes more time. Guys struggle for full seasons, but it doesn't mean they should've been in AAA from the beginning learning how to make adjustments from a slump. In all likelihood, if they've been called up, they weren't being challenged enough for them to go through a prolonged slump requiring significant adjustments. And I'd point out that both Bradley and Bogaerts have shown positive signs recently. Also, on Bradley's stance adjustment, he was sent down to AAA last year and played 80 games there- did that help this year? No. Because the level of competition wasn't adequate to prepare him for the bigs. At a certain point, guys will only improve if you let them play in the majors, and I'm pretty convinced that when Bogaerts and Bradley were called up permanently (this year), they were at that point. Betts is another argument, and one we can have if/when he makes it necessary- I think he's probably headed back to Pawtucket soon, barring us making the outfield a little less crowded, cause he needs ABs
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 9:36:11 GMT -5
I can't see Miami trading Stanton until following the 2015 season. If they do at all. That might change the haul. I think they want cost-controlled players for as long as they can get em. Xander will be done with his second year. Mookie will be done with his rookie year. Might not want guys with accrued years. Just projecting. But, maybe following next years a package of; Swihart, Owens and Margot? Hopefully, some of our younger guys have righted the ship. I'm thinking Xander, Mookie and JBJ. If Vazquez looks decent at the plate, it eases the pain of trading Swihart. Need to give to get. Owens. Margot could be in their of by mid-17 I don't like that deal for either team. I think Swihart is our catcher of the future, I'd much rather give up Vazquez. I'd also rather trade Betts than Owens- I think they'd prefer Betts anyway, their rotation is young and pretty strong, and they already have a really good LHP prospect in Andrew Heaney. I doubt that Betts will have enough service time for it to factor in, but I'm shaky on those rules, so I don't know. Regardless, 5 years of team control of a 22-year old, versatile top prospect is a good starting point. If we included on top of that Vazquez, Margot, and possibly Middlebrooks I think that gets us in the conversation, but it probably needs one more top-100 guy at least for us to come close. But we really don't know what the market is like- I just know from those Astros notes that leaked that the Marlins' GM is asking for extortionate prices from anyone who asks about Stanton, but the asking price is going to come down as he comes closer to free agency
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 15:44:00 GMT -5
In the late 90's I heard on ESPN that if you were an up and coming HS pitcher and you had the choice that you actually should have the TJ surgery because you actually come back stronger. Take into account years of improvement in the surgery and rehab process and it's not a dealbreaker anymore by any means. Sure, it's not 100% but also take into account a few extra less miles on the shoulder in an unprofessional environment and like you said, how much time do they really lose? It's a myth that's perpetuated by how hard most people work rehabbing their arm. They become stronger because they work harder at getting strong. But TJS takes at least 18 months away and then limits innings by a great deal for young kids for 2-3 years after they're back. For example, RDLR is 26 and limited to about 130 innings this year. Yea but he wasn't high school age when he got TJ- he was what 22? He would've been either a college junior or senior in terms of age, so the concern for his development time would be greater- had he been 18, he would be at a normal-ish workload by 21 again by conservative estimates, which is perfectly reasonable, especially cause that's assuming that he would've been getting some pro experience while being eased back from rehab
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 15:20:24 GMT -5
Also, when looking at the worse production of guys like Pedroia and Ortiz, I think you have to a count for how weak this year's line up has been compared to last years. They don't work counts as well, the 6-9 hitters every night are hitting something like .200/.250/.300 with about 8 homers between them. It's not like the other guys at the top of the order are doing much either. I think that this probably makes a huge difference- lots of plate appearances that last year would've taken place against bullpen guys/tired starters with runners on base and threatening bats behind them, while this year it's relatively fresh starters, not too many runners, and when they do get on, everyone who hits after Napoli is typically god awful offensively, so the guys who might do damage aren't going to get anything to hit
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 14:56:43 GMT -5
If Pederson is off the table in Price talks I can't imagine he would be available for Lester. I suppose so, but if it were me, and I had a chance at Price I would absolutely trade Pederson. I'd listen to Lester deals including him as well. It's not like ace/borderline ace lefties are available every year. Although I suppose with their current rotation and Urias in the minors, it makes some sense that they want to make their outfield a little cheaper than the $80m-ish they're paying 4 guys to be mediocre or Yasiel Puig this year
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 14:07:54 GMT -5
Chicago is not trading Jimmy Butler (a promising young player with upside) just to offload Boozer's contract. They still have the amnesty available and can amnesty Boozer if they need cap space. Plus, you can't combine trade exceptions with other contracts, which means the Celtics would have to send salary back to Chicago (think guys like Brandon Bass) in order to take on Boozer's contract, which negates the whole purpose from Chicago's end. I didn't know about the combining trade exceptions with salaries. However, their owner is notoriously cheap, so I doubt he wants to pay Boozer to play for another team, which he'd have to if they amnestied him. Probably couldn't get Butler, but I'd still be willing to take on salary in the short term if we can get picks/young players, that's the general idea for me. And there are plenty of teams that want cap room. At this stage, I think dealing Rondo around this season's deadline is the best move for us, because he's unlikely to re-sign unless this team outperforms expectations and/or acquires a star or near-star caliber player, which is looking increasingly unlikely. As long as taking on salary doesn't mess up our cap room more than a year or 2 down the road, I think we should take advantage of the fact that we're probably not competing in the short run and get as many assets out of this situation as we can
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 13:54:34 GMT -5
I agree that we're more than a player away this year, but I'm not sure about next. Hypothetically, if Lester stays and enjoys a similar season to this one, and we acquired a big bat like Tulo, the rest of the line up would need to improve somewhat top to bottom. Still, is it much of a stretch to think that Xander could put up a .280/.350/.430 slash at 3B next year? Or that Betts could be pretty productive in LF if necessary, and Bradley might be able to push his average towards .250 and add a little doubles pop and improve on his K/BB rates? There's a lot of improvement that should come simply as a matter of time (hopefully) while the only guy I'm truly concerned about regressing severely with age is Ortiz. Pedroia's trajectory is worrying, but I think that he's more of a bounce back candidate than a guy who's consistently going to get worse from now on. Worst case he's a gold glove slap hitter at 2B, which isn't ideal, but isn't terrible either. Overall though, plug Tulo in for the at bats taken by Drew, Herrera, Middlebrooks, and whoever else's playing time he would be eating into and there's probably a 6-win improvement there alone. If you're cautiously optimistic on our other young players, there's a pretty good case to be made that this team isn't much more than one elite player away from being competitive again.
I also read today that Tulo might ask for a trade this offseason- that probably reduces the asking price. Looking at our system, I really think we have the depth to deal for a good big league player without seriously compromising the future of the organization. If you scroll down the rankings on this site, you can see a lot of guys who have pretty good shots at becoming solid big league players at least. If we could build a package around Betts and Marrero without including Swihart and Owens and hopefully keeping Devers and Margot too, it's something we should very strongly consider. If we could get Stanton for a similar package, I'd do it in a second, but because I doubt we can, and we'll be able to try to sign him in his prime, I think if we're going to make a big deal, Tulo would be the guy I'd target 1st
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 13:37:55 GMT -5
I think people read into it what they want to. JBJ's defense has been stellar, though I would never take half a season or so of data to make a case about defensive value. Nor would I use 50 PAs to make a case that a guy had turned things around. It's just a funny coincidence that Betts shows up and suddenly JBJ makes an adjustment and has a modicum of success. I first noticed him opening up his stance in Seattle, so I'm pretty sure he made the adjustment before Betts was called up; it just didn't pay off for a little while. Or maybe you're right and it's a sample size aberration, but either way, I don't think the adjustment and Bett's call up happened at the same time
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 13:30:42 GMT -5
Just saw this from Ken Rosenthal via MLB Trade rumors: Multiple reports today have indicated that the Cardinals have interest in Jake Peavy of the Red Sox, and Rosenthal reports that the two sides spoke a month ago, though not necessarily about Peavy. Boston has interest in the Cardinals’ young outfielders, and while St. Louis won’t deal Randal Grichuk or Stephen Piscotty for Peavy, the teams could expand the deal to include other players and make something work. Rosenthal floats the idea of a scenario in which Allen Craig heads to Boston, though that appears to be speculation.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 13:23:54 GMT -5
I would do that in a heartbeat ADD: Don't think that gets us Piscotty though, given that we've been discussing him as the key piece in a Lester deal, although I guess we could ask as a jumping off point and see if they go for it
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 12:05:32 GMT -5
Can't see it. The guy just signed an incredibly team-friendly extension when he knew he could probably get at least an additional $40m on the open market with Cano signing that massive deal with the M's. I don't think that totally precludes him getting traded, but I would be pretty shocked, and I think that it would really gut the team as a whole They signed him before they knew how bad of shape we're in. I don't think this is a quick fix. Well I don't agree on how bad the situation is, although it's not exactly a quick fix, I'll concede that. But I think it's wrong to assume that in a year, with reasonable progression from our young guys and the addition of a legit middle of the order bat, this team is a serious contender again. And there's the fact that Pedroia has all the intangibles, is your key clubhouse guy, and is still a pretty good player. You're not going to find a better 2B than him for his price, and this team isn't in need of a complete tear down, just missing a few key pieces. Finally, trading him sends a horrible message to other players you want to extend and free agents. Who wants to sign somewhere where they convince you to take a below market deal with the idea that you'll finish your career there, only to have them turn around and deal you a year and a half later? I really can't see a scenario where that happens
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 11:35:25 GMT -5
Can't see it. The guy just signed an incredibly team-friendly extension when he knew he could probably get at least an additional $40m on the open market with Cano signing that massive deal with the M's. I don't think that totally precludes him getting traded, but I would be pretty shocked, and I think that it would really gut the team as a whole
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 11:31:58 GMT -5
I looked through the last few years' worth of trade deadline deals for rental players, and the best comps I could find for a Lester deal were (2013) Matt Garza for Mike Olt, C.J. Edwards, Justin Grimm, and a PTBNL and (2012) Zack Greinke for Jean Segura, John Hellweg, and Ariel Pena. Teams just aren't giving up elite prospects for half-year-rentals anymore; the headliners in both those deals were back-end top-50 types (Olt was ranked 44th on the 2013 BA T50, Segura was ranked 43rd on the 2012 BA T50). Of course, the Giants did trade Zack Wheeler (#10 on the 2012 Midseason BA T50) for a half-season of Carlos Beltran, and all it takes is one team willing to go all-in for 2014, but I wouldn't expect a true blue-chipper (read: Taveras or Bundy or Pederson) in any Lester deal. Guys like Josh Bell or Stephen Piscotty might be in play, though. Well if you peg Lester somewhere in between there, cause I think he's substantially better than Garza, but not as good as Greinke, that puts us in line for a pretty good return. As I said, I'm just looking for a top-50 guy and ideally a lottery ticket or 2, which lines up well with what the Cubs got for Garza. I know Keith Law was high on Edwards, and I think had him as a borderline top-100 guy at the time, although I remember Olt's stock being down because of an eye issue as well. I agree that Bundy is out of the question; wouldn't want Lester on the O's anyway. But is Pederson really in that tier yet? Taveras is a top 5 guy in all of baseball and has been for 2 years. Pederson became a top 50 guy this offseason/this season, depending on whose rankings you read/value, and I don't think it would be out of the question for Lester and some other useful players (bullpen/catching help) could get him from LA
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 11:23:31 GMT -5
Stanton also has an injury history, and while it's true that it's less of a concern cause he's younger, I don't think there's a huge gap there. I just think if you could get Tulo for less than what the Marlins are asking for Stanton, which is undoubtedly a ton, and probably more than he's worth right now, then you should definitely make the effort.
As for his being in decline when our young players are ready to be absolute studs, what about Pedroia? He's declining already. If Bradley and bogaerts make solid progress going into next season, there's a pretty strong looking line up there: C-Vazquez/platoon, 1B- Napoli, 2B- Pedroia, 3B- Bogaerts, SS- Tulo, and I'm honestly not sure on the outfield yet. Bradley, Betts, and Victorino? Ortiz is still DHing of course, and there ought to be some solid bench bats too. If we re-sign Lester, that team is a solid bet to win the AL East, and that's not taking into account any other additions that we might make. I think they may be more willing to spend this offseason after seeing where conservatism got them this year, which means that adding another solid bat in the outfield is certainly a possibility
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 11:06:11 GMT -5
I think it has more to do with the changed stance, not that he suddenly decided he better hit or else he'll lose his job. It's not Mookie has hit yet, either. Mookie has had 20 PA's, so it's pretty unfair to say he hasn't hit yet. He hasn't gotten the chance. I have to say, I'm not happy with the way Farrell is handling/has handled the young guys. I was all for Mookie getting called up, but it's incredibly stupid to call him up and not let him play. I'm glad Bradley's playing better, but why not put Mookie in there for Nava sometimes, play him in CF or RF against lefties, or something? He's been up for a couple weeks now, and he's gotten into 5 games. What's the point of calling him up then? I thought the same with Bogaerts last year, although I'm not sure it's had any impact on him this season, I don't get why he didn't get more reps last year, especially against lefties, given the way Drew hits them. I don't think aggressive placement has been the problem with our player development- I think it's a lack of ABs for guys once they've been pushed to a level where they will initially struggle, although in Bradley's case, we have to give credit for their faith in him I guess
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 10:52:19 GMT -5
There is a significant revenue downside to having a firesale. If the FO gives up, many fans will also. TV ad revenue drops. Attendance potentially drops some. Intangible revenue drops ( business "goodwill"). I don't think the Sox will have a fire sale any time soon, even with the current situation. I think most fans have pretty much given up. I was all for trying to salvage the season 2 weeks ago, but it's pretty clear that this team just can't hit. At all. And the Red Sox aren't going to lose sponsors, I imagine most of the ad spots on NESN and around Fenway are sold before the season, so I'm not sure that this matters. Honestly, even if it did, they sell out pretty much every game with some of the highest ticket prices in the league, they make tons of money off memorabilia, and they own most of NESN. The Red Sox aren't going to try to stay semi-competitive if it hurts the team in the long run just to squeeze a couple more million in revenue out of this team; they're better off doing whatever they can to position us to be good next year
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 10:46:32 GMT -5
I'd be interested in making a run at him, but I would've thought we don't have the prospects. I don't know why the asking price would be much lower than the one for Stanton, and most people don't seem to think we could actually pull that off. Tulo is, when healthy, a better player now. If he could be had for Betts and Swihart plus a couple of other high upside guys, or one or 2 of the near-ready pitchers, I would do it I think. If we could keep both Owens and Swihart, I would absolutely do it, because much as I like Mookie, he's the one guy that we might have to force open a spot for, whereas Swihart I think will be a really good catcher, which is rare. Owens should be untouchable at this stage just because of the cost of good pitching on the open market, and the fact that we might lose Lester. Owens is the best internal bet to replace his production in the next few years, even if it's a bit of a long shot that he actually does it 29 vs. 24. And yeah you'd have to pay for Stanton, but I imagine a deal of that magnitude probably requires an extension. Ok but there's a track record involved too. And the question of positional value, depending on where you stand on that. Tulo would give us the best SS in the American League, and a legit middle of the order bat, while freeing us up to make use of trade pieces like Marrero, Middlebrooks and potentially some others if we were to make additional moves, plus his contract seems pretty reasonable. Stanton, despite his performance this year, doesn't have the same track record and is a minus defensively, which is probably a bigger problem in Fenway than in Miami. Beyond that, Tulo has never played 120 games in a season without putting up at least 5 WAR. Basically, I like the fact that he's a very proven commodity, and that if his price is in fact below Stanton's, we should make a move for him, and try to find cheaper options in the outfield
|
|
|