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 philsbosoxfan on Dec 31, 2013 1:03:06 GMT -5
The Red Sox have 7 near-MLB-ready starting prospects in Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes, De La Rosa, Workman, Owens, and Britton (Except he is more of a reliever). Nearly all of these guys are ready for the big leagues. The amusing thing about that list is that it omits two of the five expected Pawtucket starters, Steven Wright and Dalier Hinojosa. You can remove Owens from that list as the one guy who'll be in AA, and you still have eight additional rotation candidates (we don't really know how food Hinojosa is, but they've said they want him to start, so they must like him). I haven't seen anyplace that said they want Hinojosa to start or relieve. I have only seen speculation (here) that his repertoire plays up better in the pen.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 6:40:33 GMT -5
Ben has said publicly that they want him to start. However that doesn't mean he'll start in the majors or that they see him that way. Starting gives a pitcher more innings and the opportunity to pitch more with runners on base.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2013 6:53:01 GMT -5
Yeah, it's definitely been reported that he's going into ST as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 31, 2013 8:47:39 GMT -5
I agree but even then they still have a $13M pitcher who although he threw a lot of innings last year, wasn't all that effective. I doubt you could get a team to eat most of the salary, $10-$13M. But you might get a team to give you a prospect if the Red Sox were eating the entire boat. Unless significant payroll is added to the roster, I wouldn't give him up unless I got our projected future starting RF in return. I also agree that it doesn't make sense to trade Dempster now unless you are either getting a good return OR you are specifically moving the payroll to reallocate to another expense. Also, I think you are right on about one of the primary questions for this teams future: Victorino's replacement in RF. Virtually every position other than RF and 1B has a long term solution either in the majors or in the high minors - and in some cases there are multiple layers of options. I suspect the Red Sox will be heavily involved in the 2016 RF market, which at this time looks quite strong (crossing my fingers Jason Heyward makes it to free agency!) I still think Mookie would make a fine RF. I think he has the athleticism (nothin more than ang arm out there though) and seems like he'll hit for enough power. Might be the best way to get him in the lineup for Boston anyway. Otherwise, you could trade Mookie and/or some of these near MLB-ready pitching prospects (to make this sort of related to the thread's topic) for the stud RF top prospect you need. Might be better than spending the big bucks on a free agent.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 31, 2013 9:36:10 GMT -5
The amusing thing about that list is that it omits two of the five expected Pawtucket starters, Steven Wright and Dalier Hinojosa. You can remove Owens from that list as the one guy who'll be in AA, and you still have eight additional rotation candidates (we don't really know how food Hinojosa is, but they've said they want him to start, so they must like him). I haven't seen anyplace that said they want Hinojosa to start or relieve. I have only seen speculation (here) that his repertoire plays up better in the pen. If only there were some sort of device whereby you could look back to see whether the words "Dalier Hinojosa" and "starter" appeared together in some sort of publication.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Dec 31, 2013 10:01:00 GMT -5
I'm in agreement with many that it doesn't make sense to make a trade to clear space. Keep listening, and if something makes sense, then go for it. Especially as noted, if a long-term solution at outfielder or first baseman presents itself. As noted, it's likely that things will need to shake out with Tanaka and the other free agents first.
On a side note, given the other starters and prospects, I think it's easy to devalue Dempster. Certainly, he's not a high value asset right now. But the best way to figure out what to expect for a player is not to look at last year's stats (as someone else noted, both his walks and home runs rose last year higher than we'd expect) but to look at projections, which incorporate not just last year but also previous years along with historical data. Steamer, which has been a little bit better than other projection systems, especially on pitchers, has Dempster projected for a 3.90 ERA next year. That's a solid #5 starter. Certainly, he's the pitcher that makes the most sense to deal if an opportunity presents itself, but I don't think you want to give him away when his value is at its lowest.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 31, 2013 10:48:23 GMT -5
I'll stick to the rules and not suggest a trade per se Burt I think young pitching is the most marketable commodity and that's what I would move.
I would see who is the highest regarding aaa started by others that is our lowest rated one. For me it is Webster.
I would look for in return a super sub who may be able to ultimately move to the outfield.
I think that is the gap in the current roster and it is thon rolling forward.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 31, 2013 11:28:09 GMT -5
I'll stick to the rules and not suggest a trade per se Burt I think young pitching is the most marketable commodity and that's what I would move. I would see who is the highest regarding aaa started by others that is our lowest rated one. For me it is Webster. I would look for in return a super sub who may be able to ultimately move to the outfield. I think that is the gap in the current roster and it is thon rolling forward. Webster if he learns control is going to be another Buchholz. That comparison has been made in a podcast to two and it makes sense. I wouldn't deal Webster for a super sub unless if it's a lifetime supply of them from Chicken Lou's (Northeastern Hangout). Let's be serious for a second if you look at Websters track record in the minors he has pretty much had to repeat most of the levels he has been at. Maybe this is a guy who just needs time to familiarize himself with his surroundings. Either way I think he'll learn control and become our best SP prospect this year. He is after all the only one besides Ball that has that #1 ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 31, 2013 13:42:31 GMT -5
It definitely makes sense to move Dempster to free up space, just as it makes sense to keep him for depth. Both options can make sense. Then it comes down to opinion on what makes the most sense. When it comes to Dempster, I think the roster spot could be wasted on him. Obviously guys will get injured, but we don't know to what degree.
If Dempster is in the pen, he's going to be on mop up duty. On one hand, if that's his role then it's not a role suited for a young prospect. On the other hand, if he's around he may get put into a role that's better suited for a young prospect, such as sixth starter, etc. if you don't have any real intensions of using him over Webster or Ranaudo or someone else as a sixth starter type then what's the point of having Dempster around just for mop up duty? Of course, perhaps they believe he could pitch late innings. If that's the case, I'd still dump his salary (assuming you can) and sign a K-Rod, Rodney or Balfour to an inflated 1 yr deal that'd still be less then Dempster's money. They are better in the pen.
Clearing the salary only gives further flexibility for in season trades and I believe gives better roster flexibility. Clearly, I believe having him take starts from any young kids is a minus.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 31, 2013 14:00:08 GMT -5
If they actually sign Tanaka then trade both Peavy and Dempster!
Coming back to reality though, they should at least be able to move most of Dempster's contract if they find a team really in need of a good starter, especially in the NL. Teams who are trying to make the playoffs might value that little oomph he could give and possibly the 1 year deal is a good fit. It may just mean waiting until spring but I would certainly be trying now.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 31, 2013 14:15:42 GMT -5
Webster if he learns control is going to be another Buchholz. Let's be serious for a second if you look at Websters track record in the minors he has pretty much had to repeat most of the levels he has been at. Maybe this is a guy who just needs time to familiarize himself with his surroundings. Either way I think he'll learn control and become our best SP prospect this year. I'm big on the Webster bandwagon for this year, completely think this year will be a break out season. The second year/familiarity isn't uncommon at all and is part of the reason I know I'm expecting big things. If we were at 5 starters and were talking about dealing one to open up a spot, it would make more sense to be more cautious. But going from 6 down to 5 with a deal and still knowing a talent like Webster could potentially step forward this year....it's a hell of a position to be in right now. I'd assume only the pitching market, which is being held up by Tanaka, is slowing down dealing one of the 6 veteran starters. Once one domino falls, the others should go soon after....
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Dec 31, 2013 14:34:55 GMT -5
I'll guarantee you that the Sox are shopping a number of pitchers, both current roster and prospects, right now. That's what management does all the time in the interest of keeping tabs on the market.
Will they end up trading any of them? Welllllllll, that's another kettle of fish .....
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 15:09:13 GMT -5
I would question if he's going to hit for enough power to handle RF. He's not that big a guy. Does he have the arm for that?
I think that's what they are hoping for. It would certainly be great if we are sitting here in two years and Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo, Workman, DelaRosa and Owens are all MLB starters and Mookie is a top 2B prospect who just tore up AAA. But we all know it's not going to work out that way. I wouldn't be surprised if no more than two of those guys ever got more than 100 major league starts.
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Dec 31, 2013 23:21:36 GMT -5
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Jan 1, 2014 0:34:26 GMT -5
Well, technically I guess the words weren't in the same sentence! :-)
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 2, 2014 12:32:57 GMT -5
It definitely makes sense to move Dempster to free up space, just as it makes sense to keep him for depth. Both options can make sense. Then it comes down to opinion on what makes the most sense. When it comes to Dempster, I think the roster spot could be wasted on him. Obviously guys will get injured, but we don't know to what degree. If Dempster is in the pen, he's going to be on mop up duty. On one hand, if that's his role then it's not a role suited for a young prospect. On the other hand, if he's around he may get put into a role that's better suited for a young prospect, such as sixth starter, etc. if you don't have any real intensions of using him over Webster or Ranaudo or someone else as a sixth starter type then what's the point of having Dempster around just for mop up duty? Of course, perhaps they believe he could pitch late innings. If that's the case, I'd still dump his salary (assuming you can) and sign a K-Rod, Rodney or Balfour to an inflated 1 yr deal that'd still be less then Dempster's money. They are better in the pen. Clearing the salary only gives further flexibility for in season trades and I believe gives better roster flexibility. Clearly, I believe having him take starts from any young kids is a minus. The team currently has something like $10M in "free space" to trade for, so trading Dempster solely to move his salary doesn't make sense to me. It also doesn't make sense to keep him for depth given the glut of starters in AAA whom you need to showcase because 1 or more will be starting in Boston in 2015. It's obvious that his market is depressed right now, but from 2008-2012 he was at least a 2.5 Win pitcher and that has a lot of value. There aren't many indications that he's "lost it". 2013 saw him walk more hitters and give up more home runs; both of which should regress to career norms in 2014 because his stuff doesn't appear to have changed. Interestingly, he seems to have thrown cutters and four-seamers at the expense of two seamers which appears to have killed the value of all three. I think, at this point in time, Dempster is the most likely to be traded, but the Red Sox expect his value is a 2.5 win player rather than a 1 win player. The market still has several of those types of pitchers available without having to worry about a trade. Two trade candidates, in my opinion are KC and ATL. Both could use a veteran starter to eat innings with a reasonable performance on a short-term deal.
|
|
|
Post by bmitchsox on Jan 2, 2014 21:07:06 GMT -5
I think it makes sense to just wait until the right deal pops up. We're not really in a rush to make a move. If a team looking to contend is willing to give up a top 5 prospect at some point whom BC sees as a potential star, it would make sense to deal Lackey. I'd love to see a Myers/Shield esq type of deal and get a young OF or 1B with big potential (I know we wont get a Myers type, but someone close would be nice). The fact that he makes 500k in 2015 will be intriguing to most teams. I could see KC or Seattle jumping in on him. We have so many young guys looking for their opportunity that it only makes sense.
I would personally go with Lester - Buccholz - Lackey - Peavy - Doubront to start the year. If we avoid injuries and the right deal pops up, then you can deal Lackey. Then Workman slides into the 5 spot. After the season, you let Peavy walk for a pick to let one of Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes step in. I also wouldn't be opposed to shopping Buccholz for a nice return considering he's too familiar with injuries. I wouldn't deal Doubront because it seems like he really flashed his potential last season, and I truly think he's going to improve even more this year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 2, 2014 22:37:00 GMT -5
Moved Mookie discussion to that thread.
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Jan 3, 2014 8:24:13 GMT -5
This is more of a side note, but the trade cost of top-tier pitching has DRASTICALLY risen over the years.
For example, in late 1997, the Red Sox traded Carl Pavano and Tony Armas for Pedro Martinez, who posted a 1.90 ERA that year and won the Cy Young award. At the time, Pavano and Armas were two very good pitching prospects, not elite, but very good. Unfortunately for them, neither of them fully reached their potential.
Now, if someone wanted to trade for a top-tier starter, let's say David Price, it would take 4-5 good prospects, with at least 1 elite one in that package.
Things have changed. Today, would you trade the Red Sox's top two pitching prospects for an elite starter, such as David Price? Absolutely. 100%. Unfortunately, to pull off a deal like that, it would also take Bogaerts, Barnes, Webster, Cecchini, and Brentz to maybe pull off that deal. The cost of great pitching is so high, which is strange, as it is more abundant today than it was in the heart of the steroid era in 1997.
By the way, I am not in any way saying that the Sox should trade for Price, I just used him as a top-tier example.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 3, 2014 10:24:35 GMT -5
This is more of a side note, but the trade cost of top-tier pitching has DRASTICALLY risen over the years. For example, in late 1997, the Red Sox traded Carl Pavano and Tony Armas for Pedro Martinez, who posted a 1.90 ERA that year and won the Cy Young award. At the time, Pavano and Armas were two very good pitching prospects, not elite, but very good. Unfortunately for them, neither of them fully reached their potential. Now, if someone wanted to trade for a top-tier starter, let's say David Price, it would take 4-5 good prospects, with at least 1 elite one in that package. Things have changed. Today, would you trade the Red Sox's top two pitching prospects for an elite starter, such as David Price? Absolutely. 100%. Unfortunately, to pull off a deal like that, it would also take Bogaerts, Barnes, Webster, Cecchini, and Brentz to maybe pull off that deal. The cost of great pitching is so high, which is strange, as it is more abundant today than it was in the heart of the steroid era in 1997. By the way, I am not in any way saying that the Sox should trade for Price, I just used him as a top-tier example. Its an interesting theory, but I'm just not sure it is true. It would be interesting to do a more complete analysis about how the return on a premium starting pitcher has changed over the years. You could have just as easily sited 2002 when Bartolo Colon cost Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 3, 2014 10:31:12 GMT -5
This is more of a side note, but the trade cost of top-tier pitching has DRASTICALLY risen over the years. For example, in late 1997, the Red Sox traded Carl Pavano and Tony Armas for Pedro Martinez, who posted a 1.90 ERA that year and won the Cy Young award. At the time, Pavano and Armas were two very good pitching prospects, not elite, but very good. Unfortunately for them, neither of them fully reached their potential. Now, if someone wanted to trade for a top-tier starter, let's say David Price, it would take 4-5 good prospects, with at least 1 elite one in that package. Things have changed. Today, would you trade the Red Sox's top two pitching prospects for an elite starter, such as David Price? Absolutely. 100%. Unfortunately, to pull off a deal like that, it would also take Bogaerts, Barnes, Webster, Cecchini, and Brentz to maybe pull off that deal. The cost of great pitching is so high, which is strange, as it is more abundant today than it was in the heart of the steroid era in 1997. By the way, I am not in any way saying that the Sox should trade for Price, I just used him as a top-tier example. Its an interesting theory, but I'm just not sure it is true. It would be interesting to do a more complete analysis about how the return on a premium starting pitcher has changed over the years. You could have just as easily sited 2002 when Bartolo Colon cost Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips. Or the Fister trade...
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 3, 2014 10:55:45 GMT -5
There is no set market cost for any player. Markets are incredibly fluid and always changing and evolving as teams needs and the decision markers wants change. The amount of variables are incredible. They include things that are somewhat identifiable, like team needs, and things that aren't, such as, a GMs personal feelings of job security. Then there is the variability of players and how they are valued from one evaluator to the next. A guy like Middlebrooks is a great example. One person could fall in love with the power while another won't touch him because of his K and BB rates.
Point being, we have no clue what it will take to get one player or another. Yes, Colon got a huge package. Shields and Davis got the top prospect in the game. Fister got much less. Oswalt didn't get Houston much. Bauer (prospect obvious difference), got a fairly light return when Arizona traded him (they damaged his goods). No one saw the Dodgers taking that salary from the Sox and give up 2 very high upside arms.
The unexpected happens all the time, which is why it's important for GMs to always get talking to keep pulse with what's up.
I'd be surprised if Ben couldn't get a team to at least take Dempster's salary. If I were Ben, I'd swing for the fences in a deal and rather then getting a safe depth player in return go for low level arm(s) with upside but low floors. Think Buttrey or Callahan types.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 3, 2014 12:09:30 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 3, 2014 15:16:15 GMT -5
This is more of a side note, but the trade cost of top-tier pitching has DRASTICALLY risen over the years. For example, in late 1997, the Red Sox traded Carl Pavano and Tony Armas for Pedro Martinez, who posted a 1.90 ERA that year and won the Cy Young award. At the time, Pavano and Armas were two very good pitching prospects, not elite, but very good. Unfortunately for them, neither of them fully reached their potential. Now, if someone wanted to trade for a top-tier starter, let's say David Price, it would take 4-5 good prospects, with at least 1 elite one in that package. Things have changed. Today, would you trade the Red Sox's top two pitching prospects for an elite starter, such as David Price? Absolutely. 100%. Unfortunately, to pull off a deal like that, it would also take Bogaerts, Barnes, Webster, Cecchini, and Brentz to maybe pull off that deal. The cost of great pitching is so high, which is strange, as it is more abundant today than it was in the heart of the steroid era in 1997. By the way, I am not in any way saying that the Sox should trade for Price, I just used him as a top-tier example. Pavano was BBAs 9th rated prospect and 4th pitcher. Armas showed a good arm and was 90th the year after the trade and 27 the year after that. Pavano was very elite, much more so than any of Boston's current pitching prospects, and had #1 potential, and Armas had possible #1 stuff.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 3, 2014 16:31:06 GMT -5
Also, the economics of baseball in terms of competitive balance were so screwed up in the 1997-98 offseason that only maybe a half-dozen teams had a realistic chance to sign Martinez to an extension. His contract was up at the end of '98, and I remember the only bit of consternation about the trade at the time was whether they'd be able to keep him long-term. Compare that to today, where you could make a case for 15 to 20 teams realistically being in the hunt for Price.
|
|
|