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.
Dave Cameron: Cespedes for Cueto?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 5, 2014 12:53:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2014 13:02:31 GMT -5
I would be all over that one.
ADD: not sure the Reds would be, though.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 5, 2014 13:10:09 GMT -5
I would be all over that one. ADD: not sure the Reds would be, though. Same. I'm too quick to go "ok, sure" to make me think it's anything the Reds would take. Marshall reeks of Mike Lowell to me.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 5, 2014 13:18:50 GMT -5
Give us Marshal or keep him, I don't care. If they want to dump the salary, we'll take him. Otherwise they can keep him. They swap expiring contracts and get a cost controlled 4/5 SP with some upside under control for 6 years. I can see why they'd do it. But I agree that it seems unlikely they would.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 5, 2014 13:51:25 GMT -5
I'd be jumping for joy if that's all it took to land Cueto for a season. I can't imagine the Reds wouldn't want more than that. I would think that package might have a better shot at landing Latos, not Cueto.
I can see interest Cincinnati's short-term interest in Cespedes for a year, but I would think the Reds would demand either Owens or Rodriguez, potential #2/#3 type starters rather than backend projects like Ranaudo or Webster. Perhaps a Bryce Brentz or a Henry Ramos would be an OF they would look at as well for after Cespedes leaves.
I think there could be a basis of a deal between Boston and Cincy involving Latos/Cespedes or Cueto/Cespedes. It just depends upon how much extra the Sox are willing to give up.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Nov 5, 2014 13:52:11 GMT -5
In article on Just a bit Outside, Dave Cameron writes up a trade idea between Cincy and Boston: www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/boston-red-sox-cincinnati-reds-johnny-cueto-yoenis-cespedes-trade-makes-sense-for-both-110514Basically it's Cespedes (to play LF and add power for Cincy) and Webster/Ranaudo (to develop as a future rotation piece) for Cueto (to join 1 of the 3 FA Ps at the top of the rotation) and Marshall (mostly to alleviate Cincy of some salary and allow them to go after a FA innings eater) The idea confuses me a little however in how it's explained: a) Cincy's mid-market payroll won't allow them to pay all the young starters - but you're just putting off the decision to bump up the payroll. Cespedes would likely get less then Cueto but he'll still warrant some big cash. Add that to what you'd pay the innings-eater and your salary is likely comparable. So would you rather have the ace or the innings-eater and power hitter for the same money? I'm not sure on that, to be honest. Further, while he does mention the QO possibility for Cueto (and lack of that possibility for Cespedes) I think it's underplayed, especially for a team like Cincy. If someone outbids them for their FA (possible to likely), they need to get SOMETHING back, don't they? b) Boston going the trade route for a (2nd) starting pitcher bc of the risk of throwing out big money via the FA market at 2 pitchers - Aren't you just putting this off by a year? If they get one of the big three and pay them big bucks this year and trade for Cueto, they'll have to pay him NEXT year. Is staggering by a year that much of a difference? I'm not saying this is a bad trade suggestion (maybe someone else will), I just think the related information doesn't make as much sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 5, 2014 13:56:48 GMT -5
If I'm the Reds I wouldn't trade Cueto for Cespedes straight up, and I wouldn't trade Marshall and a supplemental first round pick for Ranaudo. So it's probably not a realistic deal.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 5, 2014 15:10:23 GMT -5
To maybe make this more realistic and hurt a bit more...
What if it were Cespedes and Barnes? What if it were Cespedes and Johnson? What if it were Cespedes and Rodriguez?
I think you'd need to send one of those three (or Owens).
With Marshall, I think you count on him to throw the middle innings, with the chance he does a lot more and a chance he doesn't even pitch.
EDIT: hadn't read redsox040713champs's post yet, but yeah, that sounds right. With Barnes or Johnson, maybe you throw one more guy in. But remember, taking Marshall off their hands is like sending them a player.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 5, 2014 15:44:51 GMT -5
To maybe make this more realistic and hurt a bit more... What if it were Cespedes and Barnes? What if it were Cespedes and Johnson? What if it were Cespedes and Rodriguez? I think you'd need to send one of those three (or Owens). With Marshall, I think you count on him to throw the middle innings, with the chance he does a lot more and a chance he doesn't even pitch. EDIT: hadn't read redsox040713champs's post yet, but yeah, that sounds right. With Barnes or Johnson, maybe you throw one more guy in. But remember, taking Marshall off their hands is like sending them a player. I think you are on the right track here. The Reds have two problems, no young pitching other than Stephenson, and a bloated major league payroll that is going to hamstring them for years to come if nothing is done. The Reds do however have a major asset in Cueto, and could mollify their fan base somewhat if a proven major league talent, like Cespedes, is included in the trade. Marshall is owed $6.5M for next year and taking him on would help their payroll slightly, but not enough to solve the long-term problem. For that $6.5 you could only get two decent relievers and you can't play in the Gregerson, Miller, Robertson market. I have suggested in the past taking on Phillips which would make a major dent. I also think that you need another pitcher in the deal other than the big three(Barnes, Rodriguez, Owens). A second tier guy like Ranaudo.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,917
|
Post by nomar on Nov 5, 2014 16:12:08 GMT -5
If Cueto realistically could be assumed to sign an extension I would give up Cespedes + Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Nov 5, 2014 16:18:49 GMT -5
If Cueto realistically could be assumed to sign an extension I would give up Cespedes + Johnson. I'd give that up if he wasn't expected to sign an extension easily
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2014 16:33:47 GMT -5
If I'm the Reds I wouldn't trade Cueto for Cespedes straight up, and I wouldn't trade Marshall and a supplemental first round pick for Ranaudo. So it's probably not a realistic deal. Eh, I'm not a huge fan of Ranaudo, but I still think he's worth a good bit more than a QO pick and a net negative in Marshall. Most supplemental first rounders don't sniff the majors, and six years of a cost-controlled back end starter is pretty valuable. ADD: there's also the fact that you get major-league production out of Ranaudo at least three or four years earlier than you'd get any production out of a 2016 pick. But yeah, there's still a pretty big gap between Cespedes and Cueto, one that Ranaudo probably doesnt bridge. I'd substitute Johnson if that's what it took (though I'm of the opinion that selling high on Johnson is a good idea).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2014 16:59:05 GMT -5
The idea confuses me a little however in how it's explained: a) Cincy's mid-market payroll won't allow them to pay all the young starters - but you're just putting off the decision to bump up the payroll. Cespedes would likely get less then Cueto but he'll still warrant some big cash. Add that to what you'd pay the innings-eater and your salary is likely comparable. So would you rather have the ace or the innings-eater and power hitter for the same money? I'm not sure on that, to be honest. Further, while he does mention the QO possibility for Cueto (and lack of that possibility for Cespedes) I think it's underplayed, especially for a team like Cincy. If someone outbids them for their FA (possible to likely), they need to get SOMETHING back, don't they? b) Boston going the trade route for a (2nd) starting pitcher bc of the risk of throwing out big money via the FA market at 2 pitchers - Aren't you just putting this off by a year? If they get one of the big three and pay them big bucks this year and trade for Cueto, they'll have to pay him NEXT year. Is staggering by a year that much of a difference? I'm not saying this is a bad trade suggestion (maybe someone else will), I just think the related information doesn't make as much sense to me. I think the logic from the Reds angle is that this is sort of a middle ground between full-fledged rebuilding and going for it in 2015 while losing Cueto at the end of the year. This way, they can still contend in 2015, except that they shuffle around their pieces such that they fill a big hole at a position where the FA options are extremely weak (LF) while also shedding some payroll and adding a potential long-term back end rotation option in Ranaudo who can contribute a lot sooner than a 2016 supplemental first-round pick would. If the Reds do indeed pursue this sort of middle road, I can see this sort of deal appealing to them (though, as mentioned above, perhaps with Johnson/Barnes/etc. in place of Ranaudo). But their front office might go for one of the extreme options instead, either trading Cueto for prospects or keeping him and just playing out 2015 with their rotation intact. Hard to guess what a smallish-market team might be thinking in that scenario-- any of the scenarios holds some appeal, and it just matters on your priorities (i.e., do you need to keep attendance up?, etc). From Boston's POV, putting off the decision for a year might be to their benefit. At that point, you've hopefully had extended time to evaluate how well Kelly/De La Rosa/Webster perform at the major-league level and the degree to which you can rely on them going forward (you might also include Wright and Barnes in that group). Meanwhile, Owens/Johnson/Rodriguez will have had a full year in Pawtucket, and you get get more of a handle on them as well. At that point, you can more fully decide whether a second long-term commitment to a SP is necessary and/or who might be the best fit. Oh yeah, and next year's SP crop tentatively looks incredibly stacked, with guys like Price, Fister, Zimmermann, Samardzija, Cueto, Iwakuma, Kennedy, Latos, Leake, Porcello, and more (though some of those guys will undoubtedly be extended before then).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 5, 2014 21:17:03 GMT -5
If I'm the Reds I wouldn't trade Cueto for Cespedes straight up, and I wouldn't trade Marshall and a supplemental first round pick for Ranaudo. So it's probably not a realistic deal. Eh, I'm not a huge fan of Ranaudo, but I still think he's worth a good bit more than a QO pick and a net negative in Marshall. Most supplemental first rounders don't sniff the majors, and six years of a cost-controlled back end starter is pretty valuable. ADD: there's also the fact that you get major-league production out of Ranaudo at least three or four years earlier than you'd get any production out of a 2016 pick. But yeah, there's still a pretty big gap between Cespedes and Cueto, one that Ranaudo probably doesnt bridge. I'd substitute Johnson if that's what it took (though I'm of the opinion that selling high on Johnson is a good idea). Even with it being true that the supplemental pick isn't necessarily likely to be an impact major leaguer, what it does to the whole draft strategy and free agent approach is huge. If you keep the pick you can draft aggressively, taking a tough sign or a higher risk/higher reward player (the Royals '13 strategy, for instance). Or you can sign another free agent with a qualifying offer attached, with less of a penalty - maybe your first pick drops from 16 to 33 rather than 16 to 51. The supplemental pick is worth more than the player taken with that pick.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2014 22:06:51 GMT -5
I could buy that the pick is slightly more valuable than the player, but you'd have to literally double the value of that pick to have it come close to what you could reasonably expect Ranaudo to produce. Just from a quick googling, it looks like the average 35th pick in the draft produces roughly between two and two-and-a-half wins over his first six years. Even if you want to inflate that a little due to optimism (every front office thinks it's going to draft better than average) and the strategy element, Ranaudo projects to easily surpass that. I honestly don't think a single front office would rather have the pick than Ranaudo, and that's not even taking into account Marshall's contract or the time value of money.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 5, 2014 23:19:53 GMT -5
Fair points. Two non-rhetorical questions: 1) do you think the Royals doubled the value of #34 pick with their 2013 strategy that netted them Manaea there? They overshot a bit for Dozier's signability (and that's looking like a good pick on merit right now); and 2) would you take on Marshall's contract to upgrade from Ranaudo to the 2013 (higher risk version of) Manaea?
I'm legitimately struggling with those question because the Dozier/Manaea maneuvering looks even better in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 6, 2014 7:20:20 GMT -5
Well, to get Manaea, they took a worse player with their first pick (right?). So it's not that they doubled the comp pick, it's more that they reallocated their pool.
People love upside, so Manaea ranks higher. But he is not the average comp pick and you can't assume every comp pick will get you a prospect of that caliber.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Nov 6, 2014 9:34:02 GMT -5
On paper this is a good and fair trade. One year of Cespedes for one year of Cueto, they have a surplus of pitching we have a surplus of outfielders, they need a left fielder and we need pitching. Obviously Cespedes is a step down in value but 6 years of team control of a pitcher should be sufficient to make up for that.
My issue with this is that if that was the price for Cueto, I'd have to imagine an array of teams lining up to offer a package a little better. So while that seems like a fair trade on paper I think Cameron is either not factoring in or is underestimating the premium added for a market of all teams bidding on a premium player.
I think we'd have to add another pitching asset from the Webster/RDLR/Barnes group OR we would have to upgrade Ranaudo to an Owens/Rodriguez type. That might be more realistic, and if an extension could be signed I'd still jump all over that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2014 9:40:44 GMT -5
On paper this is a good and fair trade. One year of Cespedes for one year of Cueto, they have a surplus of pitching we have a surplus of outfielders, they need a left fielder and we need pitching. Obviously Cespedes is a step down in value but 6 years of team control of a pitcher should be sufficient to make up for that. My issue with this is that if that was the price for Cueto, I'd have to imagine an array of teams lining up to offer a package a little better. So while that seems like a fair trade on paper I think Cameron is either not factoring in or is underestimating the premium added for a market of all teams bidding on a premium player. I think we'd have to add another pitching asset from the Webster/RDLR/Barnes group OR we would have to upgrade Ranaudo to an Owens/Rodriguez type. That might be more realistic, and if an extension could be signed I'd still jump all over that. I don't know. If Cespedes was the price for Lester, he should be enough for Cueto.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,917
|
Post by nomar on Nov 6, 2014 9:46:27 GMT -5
With Ranaudo's tendencies I think he'd get crushed by LHP in Cincy.
I'm definitely low on Ranaudo though. I don't think he has the stuff to make a shutdown reliever, and I don't think he's more than a backend starter on non-playoff teams. I don't like his lackluster K rates or the idea of someone of his command pitching to so much contact. He's easily below guys like Webster or Barnes who is is often clumped with IMO.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,917
|
Post by nomar on Nov 6, 2014 9:52:49 GMT -5
Well, to get Manaea, they took a worse player with their first pick (right?). So it's not that they doubled the comp pick, it's more that they reallocated their pool. People love upside, so Manaea ranks higher. But he is not the average comp pick and you can't assume every comp pick will get you a prospect of that caliber. If Manaea got hurt again, the Dozier pick would look lackluster too. He's raised concerns as to if he can hit advanced pitching especially in the power department. They passed on guys like Meadows, JP Crawford, and DJ Peterson, all of which look like impact players. If Dozier is an average 3B and Manaea is a #3/maybe 2 starter, you could ask if they could've gotten the same value drafting a pitcher with the 8th pick and not sacrificing what they had to. Regardless it's all hindsight and it's working out well for the Royals so far.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Nov 6, 2014 10:43:04 GMT -5
On paper this is a good and fair trade. One year of Cespedes for one year of Cueto, they have a surplus of pitching we have a surplus of outfielders, they need a left fielder and we need pitching. Obviously Cespedes is a step down in value but 6 years of team control of a pitcher should be sufficient to make up for that. My issue with this is that if that was the price for Cueto, I'd have to imagine an array of teams lining up to offer a package a little better. So while that seems like a fair trade on paper I think Cameron is either not factoring in or is underestimating the premium added for a market of all teams bidding on a premium player. I think we'd have to add another pitching asset from the Webster/RDLR/Barnes group OR we would have to upgrade Ranaudo to an Owens/Rodriguez type. That might be more realistic, and if an extension could be signed I'd still jump all over that. I don't know. If Cespedes was the price for Lester, he should be enough for Cueto. Hypothetically yes but inherently I have to think that Camerons trade just wouldn't be enough. The complexity's of the trade are different. We aren't trading with Oakland, and we aren't trading at the deadline either, and the pick the Reds lose isn't as good as the one the Sox gained; this is a separate event. I have to believe that there would be at least one team out there willing to give Cincinnati a higher return than that. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I was the Reds and I was willing to trade Cueto I'd go for the best return possible and I would think someone out there is willing to give up a better long term fit than Anthony Ranaudo. If I'm wrong here, and that is all it would take then I would have to think there is a good chance of this trade happening.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 6, 2014 17:58:13 GMT -5
I don't know. If Cespedes was the price for Lester, he should be enough for Cueto. Hypothetically yes but inherently I have to think that Camerons trade just wouldn't be enough. The complexity's of the trade are different. We aren't trading with Oakland, and we aren't trading at the deadline either, and the pick the Reds lose isn't as good as the one the Sox gained; this is a separate event. I have to believe that there would be at least one team out there willing to give Cincinnati a higher return than that. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I was the Reds and I was willing to trade Cueto I'd go for the best return possible and I would think someone out there is willing to give up a better long term fit than Anthony Ranaudo. If I'm wrong here, and that is all it would take then I would have to think there is a good chance of this trade happening. This, and don't forget the draft pick (and Gomes, I know, but that draft pick is worth far more than Gomes, which adds value coming back). I think we all agree it takes a better pitcher than Ranaudo at this point, yes?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 7, 2014 9:11:49 GMT -5
Hypothetically yes but inherently I have to think that Camerons trade just wouldn't be enough. The complexity's of the trade are different. We aren't trading with Oakland, and we aren't trading at the deadline either, and the pick the Reds lose isn't as good as the one the Sox gained; this is a separate event. I have to believe that there would be at least one team out there willing to give Cincinnati a higher return than that. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I was the Reds and I was willing to trade Cueto I'd go for the best return possible and I would think someone out there is willing to give up a better long term fit than Anthony Ranaudo. If I'm wrong here, and that is all it would take then I would have to think there is a good chance of this trade happening. This, and don't forget the draft pick (and Gomes, I know, but that draft pick is worth far more than Gomes, which adds value coming back). I think we all agree it takes a better pitcher than Ranaudo at this point, yes? I bet they'd ask for Owens or Rodriguez.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 7, 2014 14:18:21 GMT -5
|
|
|