|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 28, 2013 18:52:22 GMT -5
Hey Guys. In the Alex Speier podcast with K-Law, I heard something from Law that got the gears in my mind turning. He said something along the lines of "you need stars on the left side" with his proposition of having Garin at 3B and Xander at SS. I don't agree with this setup because of the defensive implications, but the comment got me thinking that depth and complimentary pieces (Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, Drew, Ross) can always be acquired by free agency and homegrown stars (Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholtz) are what really creates a World Series team.
If you look at some of the prospects that we currently have in the system, you can see that there are a ton of (projected) solid major-leaguers to good major-leagures, but outside of Xander, no surefire all-star/potential MVP-type of talents. I'm not saying that we should empty out the entire farm so that we only have a few star prospects and just bet on them, but I like the idea of them giving up a few blue-chippers to get one more Xander-type. I have no information to the trade-availability of the Xander-types to base this off of but if there were, hypothetically, a deal out there for Byron Buxton would you package together 3 or 4 of our blue chippers (Cecchini, Bradley, Barnes, Ranaudo, Owens, De La Rosa) and 1-3 B-Level prospects (Brentz, Britton, Workman, Marrero, Vasquez) to get a perennial All-Star or potential MVP like Buxton?
Just some thoughts I'd like to get feedback on (I didn't find a thread related to this). It's a lot easier to get Buxton/Xander type while he's still in the minors than when he's in the majors (think how hard it would be to get Mike Trout from the Angels).
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 28, 2013 21:11:17 GMT -5
Sorry damgood - but these trades only happen in fantasy sports games (like Madden). The only trades that happen in real life are:
1. Competing team trades away prospects to non-competing team for established player
2. Big market team trades away prospects, or cheap and affordable MLB players, to small market team for high-priced players who are no longer in their budget
3. Teams trade borderline prospects who they won't use and can't keep to teams who may be able to use them, in exchange for cash or PTBNL.
The trade you proposed is fun, and at the right price would make sense, but simply never happens in real life baseball because any quality for quantity trade could/should be made with a MLB player (with FA or $ issues) being the 'quality'.
|
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 28, 2013 21:12:43 GMT -5
I moved the thread to the trade proposal subforum FYI.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 28, 2013 21:13:38 GMT -5
I mean if your the Astros and you have a bare cabinet and you want to get more quantity than quality have many fringe-stars rather than one superstar
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 28, 2013 22:53:06 GMT -5
I mean if your the Astros and you have a bare cabinet and you want to get more quantity than quality have many fringe-stars rather than one superstar No team thinks this in a sport without a salary cap. The idea is that you should just keep your star and sign in FA/trade for solid complementary talent to surround them. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 28, 2013 23:15:07 GMT -5
Consolidating prospects is potentially a good idea, but you don't get to consolidate them into other, better prospects. You consolidate them into Adrian Gonzalez or Roy Halladay or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 28, 2013 23:33:20 GMT -5
It scares me to go and get an established major leaguer because the entitlement that this team wreaked of last year was almost unbearable and if someone came up through one or two levels of the minor leagues in your system and fought and earned their spot it would make for a better team culture if they grew together rather than tearing away from the culture in your clubhouse by getting the big names who act like they own the place. It doesn't have to be a straight up prospect-for-prospects deal it could be a part of a deal like the Hanarhan deal. I think that the trade was in two parts,(All-Star) Melancon and Pimmentel for Hanarhan then Sands and DeJesus for Holt. Just speculation but something like this could happen on a larger scale that would be like the consolidation of prospect talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 0:05:56 GMT -5
I mean if your the Astros and you have a bare cabinet and you want to get more quantity than quality have many fringe-stars rather than one superstar No team thinks this in a sport without a salary cap. The idea is that you should just keep your star and sign in FA/trade for solid complementary talent to surround them. How's that working for the Twins and Joe Mauer |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 29, 2013 9:23:11 GMT -5
See, you're talking about a pre-arb prospect, not an aging star on a huge contract. A team knows it has 6 years of (cheap) team control over an elite prospect to build a winning team. No team in baseball thinks it can't become a winning team in six years or less.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 10:21:11 GMT -5
I like the A's and Red Sox depth style of making a roster. Many good players and a few stars, but no perennial MVP candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 30, 2013 0:06:39 GMT -5
I like the A's and Red Sox depth style of making a roster. Many good players and a few stars, but no perennial MVP candidates. No perennial MVP candidates? What are Ortiz and Pedroia? Seriously, listen to what posters have told you. Nobody would trade the kind of prospect you're taking about, of which there are maybe 10-15 in the game at a given time, for a pu pu platter of B and C level prospects. There is zero reason to. You'd be pissed if the Red Sox traded Bogaerts like that, so why on earth would another team do that? |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 30, 2013 0:22:20 GMT -5
I like the A's and Red Sox depth style of making a roster. Many good players and a few stars, but no perennial MVP candidates. Then why are you trying to get rid of prospects in bulk in exchange for one superstar? |
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 30, 2013 9:26:54 GMT -5
The entire organization is very deep and that is the reason why I think that a lot of the depth could be sold while maintaining the "depth model" if that makes sense.
Hatfield: 3-4 Bradleys and Cecchinis and 1-3 Swiharts aren't exactly a "pu pu platter of B and C level prospects" but I do understand your point that prying away a prospect of a Boegarts-caliber would be very difficult and would probably require dealing Boegarts himself which would do no good.
|
|
