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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Jan 19, 2015 11:53:59 GMT -5
Eddy Rodriguez is a comparable prospect to Owens and we got him for half a season of Miller. Owens+Marrero seems more than reasonable for a player worth roughly twice as much for roughly twice as long. Can't use one trade as a tool like that. Especially because everyone in baseball recognized it as a huge overpay.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 12:09:33 GMT -5
Why would the Nats want Kelly? He would actually degrade their rotation. Craig would be a maybe, but because he's looked so bad since Sept 13 to present day you are eating a lot of salary or a prime prospect is going with him. Ditto Victorino. Really, Rizzo is sitting in the catbird seat with Zimmerman, Fister, Gonzalez or even Straussberg for that matter. No need to deal anyone because draft picks are coming back for the first two, and they can stick Roak in AAA if they want to, save a year of eligibility and lose nothing now that they have Scherzer on board. If they trade anyone they should get max value back. Adding Scherzer was a boss move all around. It improves the team and gives them flexibility to add prime MLB-ready prospects to reduce costs down the road and keep rolling in talent. Just pointing out what the value actually is.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 12:13:20 GMT -5
I know that this is a Red Sox prospects website, and therefore people here really love their prospects, but at the end of the day you have to give up something to get something. I think that a lot of proposed offers would be great for us but would get the opposing GM fired. Often being too stingy with prospects in a trade is the other extreme of demanding too much for veterans in a trade, both are preventing deals from getting done. It's one thing to not pull a trigger on a deal unless it's absolutely on your terms, but keep in mind that a lot fewer deals get done that way, and that can hurt you done the road when you need to make an upgrade. You don't have to overpay for something you don't absolutely need.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Jan 19, 2015 12:26:37 GMT -5
Trying to figure out why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman for anything less than Owens or Swihart, except of course to satisfy all of us. Can't even see why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman right now at all if his objective is to win a World Series. Unless they now need to trade Zimmerman's contract to maintain this year's budget, I don't see a reason that they would have to trade anyone from their rotation.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 19, 2015 12:38:36 GMT -5
Eddy Rodriguez is a comparable prospect to Owens and we got him for half a season of Miller. Owens+Marrero seems more than reasonable for a player worth roughly twice as much for roughly twice as long. Can't use one trade as a tool like that. Especially because everyone in baseball recognized it as a huge overpay. Rodiguez value jumped after the trade due to his performance (in a small sample size) with Portland. He took about 4.0 pts off his ERA, walked 1 less better per inning, struck out 1.5 more per inning, and reduced his WHIP .40 pts. He wasn't considered a top 100 prospect at the time of the trade either. I think Webster is a much closer comp to what we got at the time than Owens. Even at the time when he was ranked low, people called it an overpay. Also, SoxProspects is usually ahead of the curve on Red Sox prospects, and have Rodiguez ranked higher then most other sources as of now. FWIW, I'm not trying to argue the Nationals asking price for Zimmerman, just what I think the Red Sox should give up. I wouldn't trade Owens for Zimmerman straight up, although I realize there is an argument that I should. I don't think he is traded, because I don't think the Nats have any real holes they need to improve, and to trade a great pitcher for prospects in a year they should destroy the division and compete for the WS doesn't make a ton of sense. If for example, they had a real hole in the OF, I could see them trading Zimmerman for Cespedes +, but there is not a ton we can offer the 2015 Nationals as an upgrade. I think they would listen on any of their pitchers, with Fister being the most likely to move.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 19, 2015 12:59:53 GMT -5
A World Series would absolutely change the medium-term future of the Nationals franchise, cementing it into the DC landscape in all new ways. And that rotation puts the Nationals in the inner circle of favorites going into this year. If I'm Rizzo, I don't deal Zimmermann unless it's a trade that alters the trajectory of the franchise's talent base. Marrero's nice, but he ain't that. And Marrero+Ranaudo (or whatever) isn't either.
Personally, if I'm running the Nats, I'd have to get a very good return to make a trade. With the Sox, I dunno, maybe I'd consider Margot+whichever AAA lefty was my favorite, but I'd probably want another lesser piece, like Rijo. A World Series is always worth going for, but for a new team like the Nationals who are still building their market, I think it's even more important. Doesn't mean exclusively important, but it just adds to the "keep" side of the calculus.
This isn't a prediction, though, just what I'd do in his place.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 19, 2015 13:11:06 GMT -5
Strasburg reportedly available
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 19, 2015 13:33:39 GMT -5
He will be mine...oh yes...
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 19, 2015 13:41:27 GMT -5
As retweeted in the SP staff twitter feed by Matt H Jim Duquette ? @jim_Duquette Major league source told me it's unlikely that anyone will be traded out of the Nats rotation for this year #Nats
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 19, 2015 13:56:45 GMT -5
As retweeted in the SP staff twitter feed by Matt H Jim Duquette ? @jim_Duquette Major league source told me it's unlikely that anyone will be traded out of the Nats rotation for this year #Nats That's old news
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 19, 2015 14:35:49 GMT -5
As retweeted in the SP staff twitter feed by Matt H Jim Duquette ? @jim_Duquette Major league source told me it's unlikely that anyone will be traded out of the Nats rotation for this year #Nats That's old news He tweeted that today. The report that Strasburg is available is from? Edit: Ok just saw its from today as well. Not that it means anything since they said they wouldn't sign a pitcher and now they have. If the Nats were the Red Sox I would want them to hold on to everyone and go for it unless someone came in with a ridiculous offer.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 19, 2015 14:43:16 GMT -5
Moved some posts to a more appropriate thread in the trade proposal sub-forum. Edit: Here a better place to talk about the Nationals and the possibility of Strasburg being available.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jan 19, 2015 14:49:08 GMT -5
I know that this is a Red Sox prospects website, and therefore people here really love their prospects, but at the end of the day you have to give up something to get something. I think that a lot of proposed offers would be great for us but would get the opposing GM fired. Often being too stingy with prospects in a trade is the other extreme of demanding too much for veterans in a trade, both are preventing deals from getting done. It's one thing to not pull a trigger on a deal unless it's absolutely on your terms, but keep in mind that a lot fewer deals get done that way, and that can hurt you done the road when you need to make an upgrade. You don't have to overpay for something you don't absolutely need. I agree, but note that "overpay" and "something you don't absolutely need" are subjective. I guess my point is that I'd rather "overpay" or "let someone else win a trade" if it makes our team better than to sit back and do nothing because the other team actually wants us to give up value for something, or lowball the other teams and then tell them off when they counter. It depends where on the spectrum you are, I'd rather be in the middle than on one of the extremes. As much as we rip on Amaro for his extreme, the other side of the coin does exist. What I mean is that we make fun of other team's fans for what kind of offers they propose and as much as this is a higher end forum with higher end analysis, some of us are still fans first and analysts second and I can only imagine what other team's fans would have to say about our proposals.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 14:54:05 GMT -5
You don't have to overpay for something you don't absolutely need. I agree, but note that "overpay" and "something you don't absolutely need" are subjective. I guess my point is that I'd rather "overpay" or "let someone else win a trade" if it makes our team better than to sit back and do nothing because the other team actually wants us to give up value for something, or lowball the other teams and then tell them off when they counter. It depends where on the spectrum you are, I'd rather be in the middle than on one of the extremes. As much as we rip on Amaro for his extreme, the other side of the coin does exist. What I mean is that we make fun of other team's fans for what kind of offers they propose and as much as this is a higher end forum with higher end analysis, some of us are still fans first and analysts second and I can only imagine what other team's fans would have to say about our proposals. I know some people don't like hearing this, but it seems the sweet spot for contending for a championship every single season is to shoot for 90 wins. Not 100 while selling out the future. Look at recent history. We don't have to give up the future for this year. We should make the playoffs as is with an average amount of luck.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2015 16:03:05 GMT -5
I agree, but note that "overpay" and "something you don't absolutely need" are subjective. I guess my point is that I'd rather "overpay" or "let someone else win a trade" if it makes our team better than to sit back and do nothing because the other team actually wants us to give up value for something, or lowball the other teams and then tell them off when they counter. It depends where on the spectrum you are, I'd rather be in the middle than on one of the extremes. As much as we rip on Amaro for his extreme, the other side of the coin does exist. What I mean is that we make fun of other team's fans for what kind of offers they propose and as much as this is a higher end forum with higher end analysis, some of us are still fans first and analysts second and I can only imagine what other team's fans would have to say about our proposals. I know some people don't like hearing this, but it seems the sweet spot for contending for a championship every single season is to shoot for 90 wins. Not 100 while selling out the future. Look at recent history. We don't have to give up the future for this year. We should make the playoffs as is with an average amount of luck. As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 16:08:13 GMT -5
I know some people don't like hearing this, but it seems the sweet spot for contending for a championship every single season is to shoot for 90 wins. Not 100 while selling out the future. Look at recent history. We don't have to give up the future for this year. We should make the playoffs as is with an average amount of luck. As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. Is that your 50% outcome? Because that's really low.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 19, 2015 16:31:57 GMT -5
As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. Is that your 50% outcome? Because that's really low. I've got them in the 85-87 range. With plenty of caveats.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2015 17:11:08 GMT -5
As constructed right now I don't believe this is a 90 win team. Maybe 84. Is that your 50% outcome? Because that's really low. Like I said before I'll hold judgement until we get closer to April 1 but this rotation is mediocre at best and I am not buying the sunny projections. Lotta potential suck with Masterson, Kelly, Miley and Buchholz (and I like Buchholz!), and Porcello could just as easily be a #3 starter as a #2. If this is the staff going into opening day then it's a big fail by the front office.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 17:19:02 GMT -5
Is that your 50% outcome? Because that's really low. Like I said before I'll hold judgement until we get closer to April 1 but this rotation is mediocre at best and I am not buying the sunny projections. Lotta potential suck with Masterson, Kelly, Miley and Buchholz (and I like Buchholz!), and Porcello could just as easily be a #3 starter as a #2. If this is the staff going into opening day then it's a big fail by the front office. www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=3I know it's fun to be pessimist Red Sox fan but we have a lot better lineup than we had last year. And our pitching still is 5th out of 30 teams here. Yes I know, projections are stupid. But I think you're overestimating other teams, especially the AL East.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 19, 2015 17:40:22 GMT -5
Like I said before I'll hold judgement until we get closer to April 1 but this rotation is mediocre at best and I am not buying the sunny projections. Lotta potential suck with Masterson, Kelly, Miley and Buchholz (and I like Buchholz!), and Porcello could just as easily be a #3 starter as a #2. If this is the staff going into opening day then it's a big fail by the front office. www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=3I know it's fun to be pessimist Red Sox fan but we have a lot better lineup than we had last year. And our pitching still is 5th out of 30 teams here. Yes I know, projections are stupid. But I think you're overestimating other teams, especially the AL East. I agree. I don't think the rotation is ideal, but when you compare it to other teams I don't see how you can pick 14 other teams that are better. I'll agree 5th is optimistic, but top 10 is reasonable depending on how you rank the rotation. That's before you calculate in the minor league depth. While most other teams would be starting players like Wright or Escobar in AAA we don't have a spot for them. Of the 5 starters on the projected AAA roster, any of them could be deserving of a midseason callup or spot start, and I would think that would be pretty rare across the league. I'll say we have the best offense in the league, and that should be a consensuses.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jan 19, 2015 21:12:18 GMT -5
ADDED FWIW @jim_Duquette 25 minutes ago Major league source told me it's unlikely that anyone will be traded out of the Nats rotation for this year #Nats Certainly doubt the Nationals would come out and make is clear they were trying to trade someone immediately after spending $210 million dollars. By saying they are going to keep everyone, regardless of what their real plans are they keep all the leverage on their side. If teams know they are looking to trade a guy for max value before the season their leverage shrinks as we get closer to Spring Training. Not saying it will happen, but just pointing out why we always hear quotes like that. If there is a Nationals pitcher to trade for, go all out for Strasburg.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Jan 19, 2015 21:16:02 GMT -5
What's "all out mean"? Because I take Bogaerts or Betts over two years of Strasburg.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jan 19, 2015 21:32:50 GMT -5
What's "all out mean"? Because I take Bogaerts or Betts over two years of Strasburg. All out in terms of prospects. I don't consider either a prospect.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 19, 2015 22:02:19 GMT -5
The rotation is lacking a frontline #1 stud starter....I know it's fashionable to claim you don't need one...but I'd rather have one.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 19, 2015 22:05:06 GMT -5
|
|
|