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
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 18:25:32 GMT -5
I can't agree with that. You'd willingly trade 3 guys who have good chances to be average-to-good major leaguers at worst, with real chances for all star ceilings, and Devers, for whom it's too early to say much other than that he appears to be miles ahead of all of his age appropriate competition, for one star player? I'd be willing to give up 2 of them, plus other guys, but overall, if those guys contribute on average 2 WAR each per season for a few years in the majors, it's going to be very difficult for any one player to replace that, and that's before you take into account the cost/team control aspect A prospect is a possibility. Give me the sure thing. A sure thing is also a possibility. You're counting on good health and hoping he doesn't turn into a under 4 WAR player that you're spending $30 million a year on.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 18:28:22 GMT -5
A prospect is a possibility. Give me the sure thing. A sure thing is also a possibility. You're counting on good health and hoping he doesn't turn into a under 4 WAR player that you're spending $30 million a year on. So you'd rather take a chance that Devers turns into an All Star someday rather than pay for a player who has already shown the ability to be an All Star like Car-Go? Of course you wouldn't, so I'm not sure what your point is...that every player in the world has some risk? Great, glad we established that. A prospect can have all the potential in the world, but nothing is a better indicator of future success than past success.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 18:36:43 GMT -5
A sure thing is also a possibility. You're counting on good health and hoping he doesn't turn into a under 4 WAR player that you're spending $30 million a year on. So you'd rather take a chance that Devers turns into an All Star someday rather than pay for a player who has already shown the ability to be an All Star like Car-Go? Of course you wouldn't, so I'm not sure what your point is...that every player in the world has some risk? Great, glad we established that. A prospect can have all the potential in the world, but nothing is a better indicator of future success than past success. I'm not saying that a trade for Stanton isn't worth it. I'm saying that there is a lot of risk in trading 3 top 15 prospects in all of MLB and Devers for him. Plus there is even a small chance, you're trading 2 Stanton- level players away. It's not a slam dunk. I mean think about the bitching if Stanton turns into Shawn Kemp, Owens turned into Cliff Lee, Devers turns into Miguel Cabrera and/or Swihart turns into Buster Posey. So all I'm saying is "give me the sure thing over the prospects" should not be a 100% slam dunk for anyone. Because some All-Star players regress early or get hurt and some prospects turn into Hall of Fame players. So come up with a happy medium of risk/reward trade instead of "take anyone you want out of our amazing group of prospects."
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 19:05:59 GMT -5
The odds that Stanton would turn into Kemp or that Owens turns into Lee or that Devers turns into Miggy or that Swihart turns into Posey are all very steep in their own right. The thought of all of those things happening simultaneously is damn near impossible. Each one of those prospects is just as likely to be Daniel Bard as they are to be Felix Hernandez. Stanton is ALREADY Stanton and has shown no signs of being a lesser player.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 19:10:08 GMT -5
The odds are greater than zero. The odds are pretty damn good that at least two of Owens, Betts and Swihart are above average MLB players.
If it's as simple as you say, teams wouldn't ever hold onto prospects.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 19:27:55 GMT -5
The odds that Stanton would turn into Kemp or that Owens turns into Lee or that Devers turns into Miggy or that Swihart turns into Posey are all very steep in their own right. The thought of all of those things happening simultaneously is damn near impossible. Each one of those prospects is just as likely to be Daniel Bard as they are to be Felix Hernandez. Stanton is ALREADY Stanton and has shown no signs of being a lesser player. Nobody is suggesting that Owens is going to be a Cy Young winner and that Devers and Posey are going to become the best players in the league at their positions. They don't have to to make trading all of them in one deal dumb. If they all hit their 50th percentile outcomes, we would lose that trade. You don't give up 6 years of team control of a solid lefty #3 starter, a good defensive catcher who can hit .290/.350/.440, and a corner infielder who can rake (I'm not sure what Devers' 50th percentile outcome is, and I don't want to predict it cause I might get carried away), and Mookie, who I almost forgot about. It's far more likely that those guys as a whole outproduce whoever you're getting in return over a 4-6 year time frame than the other way around, simply because sometimes quantity is worth more than quality, especially when we're talking about guys who have good chances to be impactful big league players. On a different note, it's silly to suggest that these guys have Bard's bust potential. Bard showed serious control issues from day 1 pretty much, and while Owens has struggled with control at times, he's already made far more progress as a starter than Bard did ever really. Devers' track record is short, but he was a highly touted signing and has dominated his competition so far, and mookie and swihart have performed pretty well since the get go. I'm not saying you never trade any of them, and I don't think anybody is. The point is you definitely don't trade all of them for 1 guy
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 19:30:30 GMT -5
The odds that Stanton would turn into Kemp or that Owens turns into Lee or that Devers turns into Miggy or that Swihart turns into Posey are all very steep in their own right. The thought of all of those things happening simultaneously is damn near impossible. Each one of those prospects is just as likely to be Daniel Bard as they are to be Felix Hernandez. Stanton is ALREADY Stanton and has shown no signs of being a lesser player. Nobody is suggesting that Owens is going to be a Cy Young winner and that Devers and Posey are going to become the best players in the league at their positions. They don't have to to make trading all of them in one deal dumb. If they all hit their 50th percentile outcomes, we would lose that trade. You don't give up 6 years of team control of a solid lefty #3 starter, a good defensive catcher who can hit .290/.350/.440, and a corner infielder who can rake (I'm not sure what Devers' 50th percentile outcome is, and I don't want to predict it cause I might get carried away), and Mookie, who I almost forgot about. It's far more likely that those guys as a whole outproduce whoever you're getting in return over a 4-6 year time frame than the other way around, simply because sometimes quantity is worth more than quality, especially when we're talking about guys who have good chances to be impactful big league players. On a different note, it's silly to suggest that these guys have Bard's bust potential. Bard showed serious control issues from day 1 pretty much, and while Owens has struggled with control at times, he's already made far more progress as a starter than Bard did ever really. Devers' track record is short, but he was a highly touted signing and has dominated his competition so far, and mookie and swihart have performed pretty well since the get go. I'm not saying you never trade any of them, and I don't think anybody is. The point is you definitely don't trade all of them for 1 guy The other factor to consider is Stanton's 25-30 million per year extension and what players we may miss out on because of less payroll flexibility. I'm on board with trading for Stanton, but I'm not giving up anywhere close to Betts, Owens, Swihart and Devers to get him. Maybe Betts and Owens, but not Devers as the wild card. And all of this discussion probably belongs in the Stanton thread on the trade forum.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 21:02:19 GMT -5
Forget about Stanton in particular. I am saying we need an impact bat, whoever it is. As for the money: If you are getting one of the top power bats in the league, of course you are going to have to pay big money for that. If you don't spend the 25 million on the impact power bat, please explain to me how that would be better spent elsewhere. Last I checked, good players are not taking small contracts to move teams in the off season. If you want a great player you have to trade for one or buy one unless you are lucky enough to draft and develop one. I am saying that I would rather go get a known commodity with the money and prospects this team has accumulated, rather than cross my fingers and hope one of the young guys develops into one down the road. I'm not saying that the prospects will never amount to anything. I am saying that the odds are that they will develop into solid players. You can sign/draft/trade and get solid players all the time. If you have a chance to get a true impact player, I think you have to do it, even if it means giving up 4 of the top 10 minor leaguers or something of that equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 21:16:20 GMT -5
Forget about Stanton in particular. I am saying we need an impact bat, whoever it is. As for the money: If you are getting one of the top power bats in the league, of course you are going to have to pay big money for that. If you don't spend the 25 million on the impact power bat, please explain to me how that would be better spent elsewhere. Last I checked, good players are not taking small contracts to move teams in the off season. If you want a great player you have to trade for one or buy one unless you are lucky enough to draft and develop one. I am saying that I would rather go get a known commodity with the money and prospects this team has accumulated, rather than cross my fingers and hope one of the young guys develops into one down the road. I'm not saying that the prospects will never amount to anything. I am saying that the odds are that they will develop into solid players. You can sign/draft/trade and get solid players all the time. If you have a chance to get a true impact player, I think you have to do it, even if it means giving up 4 of the top 10 minor leaguers or something of that equivalent. The 25 million has to be added to the risk of giving up 4 possibly above average players whether you want to do it or not. I'd venture to say that no one has ever given up a package of prospects as good as Betts, Owens, Swihart ever. That's 3 top 15 MLB prospects.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 9, 2014 21:24:46 GMT -5
One if the boston newspaper guys thought we could get staton for bogearts.
I am not sure that staton is worth what it would take to bring him to boston.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 21:26:11 GMT -5
Forget about Stanton in particular. I am saying we need an impact bat, whoever it is. As for the money: If you are getting one of the top power bats in the league, of course you are going to have to pay big money for that. If you don't spend the 25 million on the impact power bat, please explain to me how that would be better spent elsewhere. Last I checked, good players are not taking small contracts to move teams in the off season. If you want a great player you have to trade for one or buy one unless you are lucky enough to draft and develop one. I am saying that I would rather go get a known commodity with the money and prospects this team has accumulated, rather than cross my fingers and hope one of the young guys develops into one down the road. I'm not saying that the prospects will never amount to anything. I am saying that the odds are that they will develop into solid players. You can sign/draft/trade and get solid players all the time. If you have a chance to get a true impact player, I think you have to do it, even if it means giving up 4 of the top 10 minor leaguers or something of that equivalent. The 25 million has to be added to the risk of giving up 4 possibly above average players whether you want to do it or not. I'd venture to say that no one has ever given up a package of prospects as good as Betts, Owens, Swihart ever. That's 3 top 15 MLB prospects. *Typo: 50 I just think you are completely over-rating our prospects specifically as well as prospects in general.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 21:27:49 GMT -5
The 25 million has to be added to the risk of giving up 4 possibly above average players whether you want to do it or not. I'd venture to say that no one has ever given up a package of prospects as good as Betts, Owens, Swihart ever. That's 3 top 15 MLB prospects. *Typo: 50 I just think you are completely over-rating our prospects specifically as well as prospects in general. 3 top 15 prospects is not me.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 21:32:56 GMT -5
*Typo: 50 I just think you are completely over-rating our prospects specifically as well as prospects in general. 3 top 15 prospects is not me. You just stated it. And I disagree with it, whoever else apparently stated it. But that is off topic. On topic, I stand by my point that I think this team needs to trade for an impact bat before the start of 2015 and there is no prospect that I would say is totally off limits.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 21:36:56 GMT -5
3 top 15 prospects is not me. You just stated it. And I disagree with it, whoever else apparently stated it. But that is off topic. On topic, I stand by my point that I think this team needs to trade for an impact bat before the start of 2015 and there is no prospect that I would say is totally off limits. Baseball America states it. Would you be opposed to giving up our entire farm system for Stanton? If so, you also have a limit. If not, then you're crazy.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 9, 2014 21:37:36 GMT -5
Seems to me like you guys value prospects at the absolute ceiling and fear to part with them based on the possibility of one of those prospects hitting that ceiling.
Not all prospects hit that ceiling or come anywhere close.
But the fact that one just might, seems to cause everyone a bit of panic in discussing trades.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 21:38:48 GMT -5
There's no point in being overly dogmatic about this. Every prospect-for-veteran trade needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the team's situation and the players involved mean that it's a good idea to get the established veteran, and sometimes the young players are so promising that the team should keep them. Hard-and-fast statements like "I would rather go get a known commodity... rather than cross my fingers and hope one of the young guys develops into one down the road" don't seem all that useful if you don't know the specifics at hand. I mean, you wouldn't trade Xander and Betts and Swihart and Owens for Stanton, right? And, at the same time, if you could get Stanton for an offer like this one, you have to do it, even if those prospects have loads of potential. As in life, the devil's in the details. But yes, specific trade proposals for Stanton/etc. should go in the trade proposal subforum.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 21:38:54 GMT -5
Seems to me like you guys value prospects at the absolute ceiling and fear to part with them based on the possibility of one of those prospects hitting that ceiling. Not all prospects hit that ceiling or come anywhere close. But the fact that one just might, seems to cause everyone a bit of panic in discussing trades. Thinking that giving up our top 3 prospects is risky is not unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 21:45:37 GMT -5
For the record, I am not the one who made up that package you are talking about. As jmei stated, it is impossible to dissect a trade that has not happened and has no exact perimeters. Again, my point is that the Sox need to get a power bat for the 2015 season and I am in favor of them using prospects, yes even some of the top ones, in order to do so.
And the money is a non-factor in my eyes. A power bat like the guys people have thrown out there is easily worth that money and is quite a better way to spend 25 million dollars (or whatever) than on two solid players or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 21:51:29 GMT -5
For the record, I am not the one who made up that package you are talking about. As jmei stated, it is impossible to dissect a trade that has not happened and has no exact perimeters. Again, my point is that the Sox need to get a power bat for the 2015 season and I am in favor of them using prospects, yes even some of the top ones, in order to do so. And the money is a non-factor in my eyes. A power bat like the guys people have thrown out there is easily worth that money and is quite a better way to spend 25 million dollars (or whatever) than on two solid players or something like that. Well my entire reason for responding to this lengthy disagreement is that there is no way that I'd give up Betts, Swihart, Owens and Devers for Stanton. You seemed to agree with that proposal which started our disagreement. I might give up Betts, Middlebrooks, Ranaudo and Rijo.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 21:54:38 GMT -5
For the record, I am not the one who made up that package you are talking about. As jmei stated, it is impossible to dissect a trade that has not happened and has no exact perimeters. Again, my point is that the Sox need to get a power bat for the 2015 season and I am in favor of them using prospects, yes even some of the top ones, in order to do so. And the money is a non-factor in my eyes. A power bat like the guys people have thrown out there is easily worth that money and is quite a better way to spend 25 million dollars (or whatever) than on two solid players or something like that. Well my entire reason for responding to this lengthy disagreement is that there is no way that I'd give up Betts, Swihart, Owens and Devers for Stanton. You seemed to agree with that proposal which started our disagreement. I might give up Betts, Middlebrooks, Ranaudo and Rijo. No I am just agreeing with the strategy, not with the actual parameters of the deal. If people want to go throw out specific trade ideas, go do it another thread. The Sox have a nice top 10 of prospects right now and I think this offseason they should try to package a few of them for an impact bat.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 21:55:51 GMT -5
Again: there's a specific Stanton thread in the trade proposal subforum. We have a separate forum for speculative trade discussion for the very reasons illustrated in this thread.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 9, 2014 22:41:00 GMT -5
I can't remember a year where there was so much legitimate uncertainty about next year's roster at this point in the season. ... So, some key performances to track, in rough order of impact: Bradley (determines CF and impacts 3B), Victorino, Buchholz and De La Rosa, Middlebrooks, the top 3 PawSox starters; (second tier) Vazquez, Cecchini. That was June 21, and it's remarkable how much has settled (at least in my mind) in just 18 days. First, JBJ is your CF next year. Anyone who has him on the bench hasn't been paying attention. His defense is so good that he can be a good notch below average at the plate and still be a first-division regular, and he shows every sign, since he reverted to his old stance, of being at least an average hitter for a CF. That's the really good player we thought we had all along. Second, Mookie Betts demonstrated that he has the arm strength to play on the left side of the infield, where he will have much more value than in an OF corner. I don't think it's conceivable that WMB will be so good after his rehab that it would make more sense to keep him and play Mookie in RF, versus trading him and having Mookie at 3B. (I think Mookie's explosive first step and superior hand-eye coordination make him better suited to the reaction-heavy play at 3B, while Xander's chief infield asset is actually his size, where his long stride gives him surprising lateral range for a guy with his speed.) Mookie should be a defensive upgrade at 3B, and finding a corner OF who can hit better than WMB and field the position better than the inexperienced Betts should be very doable. Finally, Victorino has had one setback after another, and it's clear that he should be counted on for no more than the Gomes platoon role, with the added bonus of being able to back up CF as well. Holt's going to be a guy who can fill in anywhere and give you solid play, and should be much more valuable in that role than as a regular, since even at 3B he projects to be just average. So, they need at least one and preferably two corner OFers, since ideally you have Nava as a backup rather than a regular. It would be great to pick up a kid in the fire sale. I think that Brandon Moss will be available, and then there's that Marlins guy to dream on. They ought to have Marrero, Coyle, Margot, and Middlebrooks, plus some pitching to deal, plus much of what they pick up in the fire sale. How good a catcher they need to complement Vazquez remains to be seen. The pitching hasn't settled nearly as much, but there's a lot of time left.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 23:33:16 GMT -5
Well my entire reason for responding to this lengthy disagreement is that there is no way that I'd give up Betts, Swihart, Owens and Devers for Stanton. You seemed to agree with that proposal which started our disagreement. I might give up Betts, Middlebrooks, Ranaudo and Rijo. No I am just agreeing with the strategy, not with the actual parameters of the deal. If people want to go throw out specific trade ideas, go do it another thread. The Sox have a nice top 10 of prospects right now and I think this offseason they should try to package a few of them for an impact bat. Ok we agree on packaging prospects for an impact bat, but what me and jimed are saying is that in acquiring an impact bat (stanton is just the example we've been using) is only worth a certain cost, and that trading 4 guys who have legitimate all-star potential and comparatively high floors is not a good idea. If you wanted to package 2 of Owens, Swihart, Betts and Devers along with some other lower-level prospects for a big bat, I'd be on board with it. But the idea of gutting the farm system and dealing all of our top prospects, who are extremely valuable and pretty highly touted almost across the board, doesn't appeal. It's not that we're expecting them to all hit their ceilings- but if they all just become solid major leaguers in the middle of their projection range, then we'd have made a bad deal based on that alone, without considering the financial flexibility that we would gain by having 4 guys on rookie deals/arbitration, and lose by having a $25m+ contract on the books. I know it's uncommon for marquee players to hit free agency now, but I'd much rather wait a couple years, let the kids develop, and try to sign someone in free agency. If we're thinking solely about next year's team, I'd ask about him, but if that's the price, I think we walk away. Next year isn't more important than the 5 after it, and that's what we have to keep in mind
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 23:53:28 GMT -5
No I am just agreeing with the strategy, not with the actual parameters of the deal. If people want to go throw out specific trade ideas, go do it another thread. The Sox have a nice top 10 of prospects right now and I think this offseason they should try to package a few of them for an impact bat. Ok we agree on packaging prospects for an impact bat, but what me and jimed are saying is that in acquiring an impact bat (stanton is just the example we've been using) is only worth a certain cost, and that trading 4 guys who have legitimate all-star potential and comparatively high floors is not a good idea. If you wanted to package 2 of Owens, Swihart, Betts and Devers along with some other lower-level prospects for a big bat, I'd be on board with it. But the idea of gutting the farm system and dealing all of our top prospects, who are extremely valuable and pretty highly touted almost across the board, doesn't appeal. It's not that we're expecting them to all hit their ceilings- but if they all just become solid major leaguers in the middle of their projection range, then we'd have made a bad deal based on that alone, without considering the financial flexibility that we would gain by having 4 guys on rookie deals/arbitration, and lose by having a $25m+ contract on the books. I know it's uncommon for marquee players to hit free agency now, but I'd much rather wait a couple years, let the kids develop, and try to sign someone in free agency. If we're thinking solely about next year's team, I'd ask about him, but if that's the price, I think we walk away. Next year isn't more important than the 5 after it, and that's what we have to keep in mind Not disagreeing. I am not saying to go get a guy for just next year. I am saying to get your next middle of the order bat. Your next Manny. Those guys do not hit free agency, and if they do you are going to have to pay them 25 million at least anyway, so I still don't understand the problem with the contract. Do you guys want a team of 25 guys each making 8 million? You have to pay for premium talent. If we trade for a slugger and give him a big contract, then IF some other slugger becomes a free agent then we wont be able to sign them...I don't see the problem. Again, never mentioned those 4 specific prospects, just saying that we have a very good top 10 and I would package some of them this off season to get an impact bat. Would I package all 10? No of course not. This team is in desperate need of an impact bat and as much as we all love our prospects, the chances of 1 of them becoming as good as a Stanton or a Car-Go are very slim so I would definitely package a few of them (again, not ALL of them, but a few of them) to get the proven bat.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 10, 2014 12:28:29 GMT -5
Let me take a major theme from this thread. It seems that many fans and the media think that it's a foregone conclusion that the Red Sox will be in the pennant race in 2015 or at least should do everything they can to do so.
The Cubs, Phillies, Astros and to some extent the Yankees have taught us how quickly that line of thinking can lead you to a team that has very little future, and to boot doesn't make the playoffs. You can easilly end up just where you started only worse.
There is no real reason to think that the Red Sox will be competitive next year especially if they lose their best pitcher. They do have a very strong farm system so it's reasonable that they could easilly be an exciting team in 2016 or 17 when their younger players start to mature.
In that vein the Red Sox shouldn't be looking to see how many prospects they can trade for Cargo or Stanton. Instead they should probably be looking to trade not just Lester, but Napoli, Lackey and maybe even Pedroia.
The Red Sox farm system is very strong and very deep but it could definitely use more high end prospects. I'd love to see them acquire a young corner OF like Pederson or Bell. Or a top end pitcher like Harvey, Bundy, or Giolito.
Unfortunately the Red Sox seem to be obessessed with contending in 2015 and doing whatever it takes. They won't trade Lackey, and they may not even trade Lester. I fear the front office is on the verge of ruining all that they have worked hard to build.
|
|
|