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 Trade Deadline Thread - Discussion Only
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 29, 2014 9:18:15 GMT -5
And if no one is willing to give this. "Massive haul" you are talking about, do we keep them? Yes I would keep him. Chances of resigning him are better if we keep him. I'd trade Lackey for Joc Pederson and filler, but not Lester. With the lack of elite pitching on the market, and so many teams looking for pitching, I have to think one team would make us a lot better offer then just Joc Pederson and filler.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 9:22:26 GMT -5
It's kind of curious how much whining there is lately. Did some Red Sox fans forget that we just went 86 years without a championship? Or are there a lot of under 20 year olds who don't even remember Aaron Boone? Furthermore, you could hardly write a better possible script than: -- Solid 90-win team has everything go right and wins WS-- Same team next year has everything go wrong, gets the opportunity to trade half a dozen or more free agents for serious prospects, nab the #8 or #9 pick in the draft (or better), and -- Is still totally positioned to contend the year after. I'll only whine if Ben blows the fire sale. Completely agree. And this isn't that bad for me anyway, because we'll be watching the kids mop up the season instead of Scott Posednik and Pedro Ciriaco. It seems some would rather have us be more like the Yankees just to appear like we're trying harder. Going 84-78 isn't a good thing. Especially when the only way the record was that high was by giving up several draft picks and paying hundreds of millions for players who should have retired before their contracts run out. And the only option they have every year is to double down on stupidity.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 29, 2014 9:28:16 GMT -5
Furthermore, you could hardly write a better possible script than: -- Solid 90-win team has everything go right and wins WS-- Same team next year has everything go wrong, gets the opportunity to trade half a dozen or more free agents for serious prospects, nab the #8 or #9 pick in the draft (or better), and -- Is still totally positioned to contend the year after. I'll only whine if Ben blows the fire sale. Completely agree. And this isn't that bad for me anyway, because we'll be watching the kids mop up the season instead of Scott Posednik and Pedro Ciriaco.Oh, geeze, tremendous point. I should have had that in the original, something like: -- And this happens in a season where the AAA club is overstocked with top prospects who could play out the string and get a proper MLB evaluation ... and who are blocking guys in AA who need promotions, to boot! It's basically the perfect storm silver lining.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 29, 2014 9:28:51 GMT -5
You don't trade Lester to Dodger for Joc Pederson and two filler prospects that's crazy. So, you'd rather have the #33 prospect in next year's draft, than ... Joc Pederson and $7M? There's certainly some crazy here, for sure. If you trade Lester it hurts your chances of resigning him. It means something to a lot of players to play for one and only one team their whole career. At pick #33 you should be able to get a prospect that has the upside of Pederson and what does 7 million mean to the Red Sox? Also Lester is making like 13 million this year, how would we save 7 million by trading him? Thinking it be more like 4 million. I know Pederson is safer, almost MLB ready and fits a need. But I feel any Lester trade needs to get us much more then the 33 pick. Do you really think that the best offer we'll get is Joc Pederson and filler? I don't, someone always pays a ransom for elite pitching, even if its just a rental.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 9:31:11 GMT -5
So, you'd rather have the #33 prospect in next year's draft, than ... Joc Pederson and $7M? There's certainly some crazy here, for sure. Do you really think that the best offer we'll get is Joc Pederson and filler? I don't, someone always pays a ransom for elite pitching, even if its just a rental. It's impossible to predict, but it sounds pretty damn good with 8 teams reported being in on him.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 29, 2014 9:34:41 GMT -5
Do you really think that the best offer we'll get is Joc Pederson and filler? I don't, someone always pays a ransom for elite pitching, even if its just a rental. It's impossible to predict, but it sounds pretty damn good with 8 teams reported being in on him. It's not even going to be the 33rd pick. If we keep Lester and get the comp pick. But, if we finish in the top 10 and sign a free agent we lose the comp pick. It's really the 50th pick. Unless, you think the Red Sox sit out another free agent year after losing Lester.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 29, 2014 9:35:43 GMT -5
Why wouldn't we trade Uehara? Seems to be a huge market for him and it would seem we could get a huge return.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 29, 2014 9:36:47 GMT -5
And if no one is willing to give this. "Massive haul" you are talking about, do we keep them? Yes I would keep him. Chances of resigning him are better if we keep him. I'd trade Lackey for Joc Pederson and filler, but not Lester. I thought I read someone who said that wasn't the case, that our chances would be just as good .. who was that? Oh, Jon Lester. Oh, I think that's quite true, and that's why Ben set the initial bar as high as he did. But it makes no sense to turn down something that will benefit you just because you thought you would do better. It is human nature a bit, to do that because it seems "unfair ," but it is irrational and counter-productive. If for some strange reason the best they can do is one Pederson-like guy, that's still way better than keeping him.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jul 29, 2014 9:40:26 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 29, 2014 9:42:30 GMT -5
At pick #33 you should be able to get a prospect that has the upside of Pederson If Pederson (or any other top MLB-ready prospect who has raised his floor with great numbers in AAA) were put into the draft, he'd go a lot higher than 33 ... top 5-ish. Last I heard, it was worth $7 million. That was explained within the last hour or two of posts. You'll do better here if you read the ongoing discussion before chiming in.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 29, 2014 9:49:08 GMT -5
Why wouldn't we trade Uehara? Seems to be a huge market for him and it would seem we could get a huge return. I'm of this thinking also, that we should be listening on Uehara. Doesn't mean we have to trade him but we can see what we would get for him. Just speculation, but I get the feeling that the Red Sox feel they can't resign Uehara if they trade him, but they don't feel the same way about Lester and Miller. I don't want to stereotype all Japaneses players, but I remember Kuroda vetoing a trade out of loyalty to the Dodgers (was that to the Red Sox?). I've read a couple articles also about the value of prospects. Read the fangraphs article that put players like Pederson, Urias, Seager value somewhere between 30-40 million. So theoretically if they can get a prospect worth 20M for Uehara, they can offer 19M over market value to him in the offseason and still see a positive net. Theoretical of course. In other news good chat on Fangraphs about the trade deadline. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?powerpress_pinw=157337-podcastInteresting there is a tangent that lasts at least 2 minutes talking about the amount of heroin the Red Sox front office would have to smoke to trade Lester for Kemp. They come to the conclusion that it would have to be the entire front office (not just Ben) and it would have to be all the heroin in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 29, 2014 9:49:57 GMT -5
The cynic in me thinks that teams that aren't in the race don't trade potential big name free agents to minimize the PR hit especially in the larger markets.
If Jon Lester plays somewhere else next year, especially if it's in the Bronx, talk radio will blow up as it is. I am already hearing the refrain on the radio that the Red Sox have to resign Lester because ticket prices are high.
If the team keeps the potential free agent they can argue that they did all they could to sign the player including turning down potential trades at the deadline, not that it made any difference at all. They can then put the onus on the "greedy" player and attempt to refute the argument that the cheap team is ripping off the fans.
I get the thinking but you can't run a team that way.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 29, 2014 9:52:46 GMT -5
He'd replace Hutchison or Happ in their rotation, which is a smaller upgrade than most other clubs. We've got to get them and the Orioles bidding against each other. Unfortunately, the prize would be a pitcher (Norris from the Jays) rather than an OF.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 29, 2014 9:53:41 GMT -5
I thought I read someone who said that wasn't the case, that our chances would be just as good .. who was that? Oh, Jon Lester. I think Lester deserves for us to take what he says at face value - he's earned that from us at this point, right? That said, if he goes to the Dodgers or Giants, they go to the Series, and he enjoys the atmosphere - that has to factor into a decision, right? A lefty pitching in AT&T Park in front of that defense? And getting to face pitchers rather than DHs? I wouldn't blame him for liking that more than he thinks he would right now.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 29, 2014 9:54:07 GMT -5
Yes I would keep him. Chances of resigning him are better if we keep him. I'd trade Lackey for Joc Pederson and filler, but not Lester. I thought I read someone who said that wasn't the case, that our chances would be just as good .. who was that? Oh, Jon Lester. Oh, I think that's quite true, and that's why Ben set the initial bar as high as he did. But it makes no sense to turn down something that will benefit you just because you thought you would do better. It is human nature a bit, to do that because it seems "unfair ," but it is irrational and counter-productive. If for some strange reason the best they can do is one Pederson-like guy, that's still way better than keeping him.
Lester said he would still consider resigning with the Sox if they traded him, not that the Red Sox chances would be the same. You have to be crazy to think that if you trade a player your chances are the same if you just keep the player. What if the Dodgers win the world series with three elite pitchers and offer him 8 years and 200 million. If you trade him anything can happen, its a big risk if your goal is to have Lester for 2015. Your of the mind set that we have to trade Lester, that's the only way you would settle for a package. I'm of the mind set that we only trade Lester if we can get a massive return, otherwise keep him and try and resign him. We have a ton of other players we can trade and get very good returns for, while also opening up some spots for the players in our stocked minor leagues.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 29, 2014 9:54:39 GMT -5
Me thinks they are using way too low a beta in their model.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 29, 2014 10:00:22 GMT -5
UMass. I think you are missing the point.
The scenario you are talking about has an equal chance of happening regardless of if they trade him or not. It's pretty obvious that the Red Sox do not want to offer Lester a contract large enough for him to want to forgo free agency. How is that going to change between now and the start of the free agency period?
Keeping Lester past Thursday doesn't decrease the chances that he's going to file. Unless the Red Sox have a major change of heart, he's filing for free agency regardless of what happens this week.
Ummm no it doesn't. I know I sound like a broken record but players who reach free agency generally take the offer that gives them the most projected earning power throughout their career after taxes. There is no added benefit to keeping Lester other than what he can provide for the team this season.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Jul 29, 2014 10:10:25 GMT -5
Completely agree. And this isn't that bad for me anyway, because we'll be watching the kids mop up the season instead of Scott Posednik and Pedro Ciriaco.Oh, geeze, tremendous point. I should have had that in the original, something like: -- And this happens in a season where the AAA club is overstocked with top prospects who could play out the string and get a proper MLB evaluation ... and who are blocking guys in AA who need promotions, to boot! It's basically the perfect storm silver lining. Yeah this team is still far easier to watch than 2012's. We could see Bogaerts, JBJ, Squez, and Mookie from here on out, with a mixture of rookies in the rotation. Sounds good to me. Can't win it all every year.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 29, 2014 10:10:43 GMT -5
While Lester might be saying all the right things about giving the Red Sox the oportunity to bid for his services when he is a free agent, the reality is likely that his market value in terms of offers of years and money (e.g. something in the range of 5 to 6 years and $150 million plus) will be way outside of what the Red Sox management would be willing to offer. If they seriously wanted to retain Lester, the Red Sox management would have made closer to market offers to Lester last offseason. Instead they made an initial low ball offer in terms of years and money and then make slight increases of that initial offer according to Passan.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 29, 2014 10:14:04 GMT -5
At pick #33 you should be able to get a prospect that has the upside of Pederson If Pederson (or any other top MLB-ready prospect who has raised his floor with great numbers in AAA) were put into the draft, he'd go a lot higher than 33 ... top 5-ish. Last I heard, it was worth $7 million. That was explained within the last hour or two of posts. You'll do better here if you read the ongoing discussion before chiming in. You are crazy, taking just part of what I said to prove your point. I said at 33 you should be able to get a prospect that has the upside of Pederson, not Pederson himself. I went on to say that prospect wouldn't be as safe of a prospect as Pederson, would be much further away and might not be at a position of need like Pederson. I only said the prospect would have the upside of a Pederson. For a person telling me to make sure I read the post before commenting on them, you sure do look like a fool. 7 Million dollars is nothing to the Red Sox, stop acting like them saving that money would having anything to do with trading Lester, it will not. I didn't see the (that Lester's Salary and signing bonus). So sorry, but its a dumb point. The Red Sox are a large market team, they are not going to be trading players so they can save 7 million dollars. You also don't look at the net benefit of getting a much larger draft pool to sign your players by also having pick number 33 or whatever it would be.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 10:16:48 GMT -5
If Pederson (or any other top MLB-ready prospect who has raised his floor with great numbers in AAA) were put into the draft, he'd go a lot higher than 33 ... top 5-ish. Last I heard, it was worth $7 million. That was explained within the last hour or two of posts. You'll do better here if you read the ongoing discussion before chiming in. You are crazy, taking just part of what I said to prove your point. I said at 33 you should be able to get a prospect that has the upside of Pederson, not Pederson himself. I went on to say that prospect wouldn't be as safe of a prospect as Pederson, would be much further away and might not be at a position of need like Pederson. I only said the prospect would have the upside of a Pederson. For a person telling me to make sure I read the post before commenting on them, you sure do look like a fool. 7 Million dollars is nothing to the Red Sox, stop acting like them saving that money would having anything to do with trading Lester, it will not. I didn't see the (that Lester's Salary and signing bonus). So sorry, but its a dumb point. The Red Sox are a large market team, they are not going to be trading players so they can save 7 million dollars. You also don't look at the net benefit of getting a much larger draft pool to sign your players by also having pick number 33 or whatever it would be. I think you'd be really fortunate to wind up with a top 20 prospect when he reaches AAA at #33. Like really really fortunate. I'd take Pederson and it's not close. I'd probably trade our top 4 picks of 2014 for Pederson.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 29, 2014 10:26:20 GMT -5
UMass. I think you are missing the point. The scenario you are talking about has an equal chance of happening regardless of if they trade him or not. It's pretty obvious that the Red Sox do not want to offer Lester a contract large enough for him to want to forgo free agency. How is that going to change between now and the start of the free agency period? Keeping Lester past Thursday doesn't decrease the chances that he's going to file. Unless the Red Sox have a major change of heart, he's filing for free agency regardless of what happens this week. Ummm no it doesn't. I know I sound like a broken record but players who reach free agency generally take the offer that gives them the most projected earning power throughout their career after taxes. There is no added benefit to keeping Lester other than what he can provide for the team this season. Until I see multiple reports saying that Red Sox will not meet Jon Lester's demands, I assume they want to resign him. Everything the team has done points to that. I think they made a mistake low balling Lester and by the time they tried to fix it, the season had started and Lester wanted no part of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but at this moment I believe the Red Sox want Lester back and I think they'll give him close to market value. Now if this isn't the case and the Red Sox now know that they can't resign Lester, then yes you have to trade him. That just doesn't seem to be the case. The Sox have tried to get a new deal done and Lester said we have to wait till the season is over. How does that sound like a team that doesn't want to resign him? If around the all star break if Lester had listened to there offer and rejected it, I might feel that they are too far a part, but that never happened.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 29, 2014 10:29:51 GMT -5
Drafting is very hard. The 33th pick is valuable no question, but Pederson is probably at least the 33th best prospect in the game. The 33th pick is conceptually the 33th best pick of a pool of over 1000 players, most of whom will never make it to AA. Kopech was the 33th pick this year, he is ranked by this site as the 15th best prospect, Pederson would be top 5. (Pederson was an 11th rounder btw)
I'd have to think Pederson is the #1 target (well, outside of Tavares, but you know that won't happen), because he fills an immediate need. Personally I would do Lester for Pederson straight up without thinking about it. I still think we can resign Lester in the offseason at a price less than 140M.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 29, 2014 10:31:20 GMT -5
He'd replace Hutchison or Happ in their rotation, which is a smaller upgrade than most other clubs. We've got to get them and the Orioles bidding against each other. Unfortunately, the prize would be a pitcher (Norris from the Jays) rather than an OF. I agree that the player X upgrade to Lester thing matters but don't think the return position matters as much. If we get a better prospect as a pitcher rather than a lower prospect as an outfielder then I'm happy. I think one of the reasons we went with the package we did from the Giants is because I see a lot of trading off of what we have now and a lot of trading of those players acquired or the glut of SP we have in the minors in the off season to get the players for next years team.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jul 29, 2014 10:33:47 GMT -5
Why wouldn't we trade Uehara? Seems to be a huge market for him and it would seem we could get a huge return. Just guessing, but I think maybe the Sox think Uehara in 2015 would be worth a one-year contract at the qualifying offer rate ... Uehara would pretty much have to accept that deal, and it's a chance they'd only have if he's on the team.
|
|
|