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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by jchang on Jul 20, 2015 13:02:37 GMT -5
Urias for Jordan Betts? + one of the grade 5 prospects? the Dodgers drive a hard bargain, but we'll take it!
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 20, 2015 13:09:29 GMT -5
This team has to identify a pitcher . I think they can not afford another Porcello show so they have to go after like a Urias from the Dodgers and let's say the Dodgers really want Devers something like that. This won't happen but this is what they have to do .that will offset the money being drained on Porcello. I afraid we make a deal for example for Hamels give up two really good kids and now we have 40% of our rotation making over 40 million for 4 years. Do you understand Hamels has to be the man . They have to be 100% on him. How cool would it be if Johnson pans out and in two weeks they give Owens a shot and he pans out in Boston. That would be a good feeling. Things would change fast . How worst could it be? Masterson is all done. Who knows about Buch. Coming back sooner or later. Time to see what some of these kids can do. I like. To move Napoli and De Arza and see what Shaw and JBJ can do or maybe give Craig a shot or Castillo . I mean these guys are sitting there and need to be reevaluated . The veterans failed this team pretty much. This . . . does . . . not . . . compute . . . . What is so hard about it. That trade won't happen because the Dodgers want that kid. But that is the type of deal the Sox should do. Instead of getting a Hamels and giving up prospects and more money tied in.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 20, 2015 13:12:09 GMT -5
It's pretty simple. The Sox need to figure out if they're better off giving up too much $ and years on a top notch pitcher or dealing guys like Swihart, Devers, Owens, and Margot (and no I don't mean all in the same package - I'm just listing the Sox top trading chips) plus others.
If you sign Cueto, you risk a lot of money for a potentially injured and/or eventually declining pitcher, spending way too much money, and taking on too many years. The upside is that if the guy gives you 4 ace like seasons you've done pretty well, and you haven't surrendered any young talent or draft picks to acquire him. So as time marches on, the contract is an issue, but it's offset some by having young regular players and young pitchers available to the team that don't cost much money, guys you haven't traded away to acquire a top notch pitcher. If a guy like Price (assuming he isn't dealt) or Zimmerman are signed, then you do give up a draft pick.
If you deal for Hamels or somebody like him, you risk giving up too much young talent that could have been excelling on our team for cheap, and will need to spend additional money to replace that young talent that departs in the deal. And of course Hamels or whoever could break down and/or decline, but at least it's only for a few years, as opposed to seven years, and it's a three to five million/year cheaper during those four years. Saving that money down the road could allow for others to be brought in, although that money might need to be spent to replace a Margot or a middle-of-the-rotation or better guy like a Henry Owens.
The third option is the ridiculous Urias or Chris Sale or Fernandez of Miami, or whatever silly pitcher who can be listed that isn't really available in real life.
If you turn down those three ace acquiring options, then you're looking at lesser pitchers, something the Sox have plenty of. And then you're spending big bucks for guys like Fister, Kazmir, or the Shark.
Personally, I would have preferred the Sox sign Lester last season and forego these options, but since that ship has sailed, I personally would go after Cueto, keep our prospects, and keep our draft pick, and pray that this guy's arm holds up well enough. It's not a perfect idea, but I don't think there really is one. I prefer it to dealing young talent away. I believe the young talent traded away, dollar wise, needing to be replaced, would cost more than the difference between getting Hamels and signing Cueto.
I like Cueto's pitching ability, consider him to have ace talent, and I don't think he will fall off the cliff performance-wise, but I can see him missing time like Buchholz does.
I liked Lester a lot last year, because even though I consider his abilities to be lesser than Cueto's, the guy was durable, and I could see him aging gracefully like Andy Pettitte did.
I'm not sure Cueto will, but at this point the Sox need to go out and find front-line starting pitching, and they're going to have to take a costly gamble.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 20, 2015 13:16:41 GMT -5
This . . . does . . . not . . . compute . . . . What is so hard about it. That trade won't happen because the Dodgers want that kid. But that is the type of deal the Sox should do. Instead of getting a Hamels and giving up prospects and more money tied in. The Dodgers aren't the only team that would want to keep a kid like that. It's too early to compare, but do you see the Red Sox waving Anderson Espinoza around offering to deal him? Young potential aces are about the most valuable commodities in baseball. Teams aren't going to deal them away. Looking for them is something I wouldn't bank on happening. It's not very realistic. You don't normally see young Nolan Ryans being given away. I'd say the Sox did as well as you can with it last year. They got a very good prospect who had some of the shine taken off him, according to the O's, as he was struggling coming off an injury. He got healthy and the Sox made some adjustments, and the Sox had one of the hottest commodities available for a deal last year, a dominating lefty reliever good enough to be a strong closer. But I wouldn't count on the Sox doing that again. That's as rare as picking up a Luis Tiant or a David Ortiz off the scrap heap. It can happen, but it's so rare. I think they're most likely going to have to make a deal or spend big bucks to get what they need.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 20, 2015 13:18:47 GMT -5
Until Moncado started to hit, Devers was regarded by many analysts as the position player in the Sox minor league system most likely to become a superstar, a batting champion. And both KLaw and soxprospects scouts now say his defense is good and he can stay at 3B - basically eliminating the one question that remained from last season.
No way I would trade him for a pitcher, any pitcher, but especially either an older veteran or an unproven youngster who hasn't had his TJ yet.
I would consider trading him in a deal for a superstar position player nearing or in his prime years - but not older.
I used to be in favor of a Hamels trade, but not anymore. If Cueto's arm hasn't fallen off by fall, I'd be in favor of signing him - but not trading for him now. That's just a waste.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 20, 2015 13:19:48 GMT -5
This . . . does . . . not . . . compute . . . . What is so hard about it. That trade won't happen because the Dodgers want that kid. But that is the type of deal the Sox should do. Instead of getting a Hamels and giving up prospects and more money tied in. It's hard to understand how they need to do something that is impossible. What now? Fold the team?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 20, 2015 13:58:26 GMT -5
This . . . does . . . not . . . compute . . . . What is so hard about it. That trade won't happen because the Dodgers want that kid. But that is the type of deal the Sox should do. Instead of getting a Hamels and giving up prospects and more money tied in. Bold move offering the 3rd best 3rd base prospect to a team having the #1 prospect in the game at that position.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 20, 2015 14:23:14 GMT -5
One thing I've been looking at lately is the Sox ineffectiveness at home in 3 of the last 4 years. No doubt a percentage of this is linked to overall poor play, but I've heard and read many GMs over the years (Theo included) talking about the importance of building a team for your home park and trying to go at least .500 on the road. Even in 06 when the Sox failed to make the playoff (they did won 86 games that year) they did go .593 at home. Yet in 3 of the last 4 years (so far - they may still pull off a winning record at home this year), this team has not excelled at home, and in 12 and 14 they were actually better on the road.
Of course there are a ton of variables figuring into this, including how awful the 12 and 14 teams ended up being, and I won't pretend that I've distilled them all out. But I wonder if creating a "monster team for Fenway" is still part of the calculus on Yawkey Way or if they've been following an altered approach, offensively.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 20, 2015 14:27:21 GMT -5
One thing I've been looking at lately is the Sox ineffectiveness at home in 3 of the last 4 years. No doubt a percentage of this is linked to overall poor play, but I've heard and read many GMs over the years (Theo included) talking about the importance of building a team for your home park and trying to go at least .500 on the road. Even in 06 when the Sox failed to make the playoff (they did won 86 games that year) they did go .593 at home. Yet in 3 of the last 4 years (so far - they may still pull off a winning record at home this year), this team has not excelled at home, and in 12 and 14 they were actually better on the road. Of course there are a ton of variables figuring into this, including how awful the 12 and 14 teams ended up being, and I won't pretend that I've distilled them all out. But I wonder if creating a "monster team for Fenway" is still part of the calculus on Yawkey Way or if they've been following an altered approach, offensively. Wasn't this the general idea, getting Sandoval "who's swing was made for Fenway", hiding Hanley a power hitting RH infielder (read DH) in LF, and going after GB starting pitching in the offseason?
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 20, 2015 14:31:47 GMT -5
What is so hard about it. That trade won't happen because the Dodgers want that kid. But that is the type of deal the Sox should do. Instead of getting a Hamels and giving up prospects and more money tied in. It's hard to understand how they need to do something that is impossible. What now? Fold the team? Are you okay? Fold the team? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 20, 2015 14:32:41 GMT -5
One thing I've been looking at lately is the Sox ineffectiveness at home in 3 of the last 4 years. No doubt a percentage of this is linked to overall poor play, but I've heard and read many GMs over the years (Theo included) talking about the importance of building a team for your home park and trying to go at least .500 on the road. Even in 06 when the Sox failed to make the playoff (they did won 86 games that year) they did go .593 at home. Yet in 3 of the last 4 years (so far - they may still pull off a winning record at home this year), this team has not excelled at home, and in 12 and 14 they were actually better on the road. Of course there are a ton of variables figuring into this, including how awful the 12 and 14 teams ended up being, and I won't pretend that I've distilled them all out. But I wonder if creating a "monster team for Fenway" is still part of the calculus on Yawkey Way or if they've been following an altered approach, offensively. Wasn't this the general idea, getting Sandoval "who's swing was made for Fenway", hiding Hanley a power hitting RH infielder (read DH) in LF, and going after GB starting pitching in the offseason? There were a whole lot of "general ideas" thrown around last off-season, and I heard specific things about pitching and cost-certainty philosophy. Just wondering out loud if building a "Fenway offense" continues to be part of the philosophy or they are looking for a more balanced approach.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 20, 2015 14:32:51 GMT -5
What is so hard about it. That trade won't happen because the Dodgers want that kid. But that is the type of deal the Sox should do. Instead of getting a Hamels and giving up prospects and more money tied in. Bold move offering the 3rd best 3rd base prospect to a team having the #1 prospect in the game at that position. You should learn to read better. Try reading with your glasses on. I JUST SAID THAT WONT HAPPEN!!!!
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 20, 2015 14:34:38 GMT -5
What is so hard about it. That trade won't happen because the Dodgers want that kid. But that is the type of deal the Sox should do. Instead of getting a Hamels and giving up prospects and more money tied in. The Dodgers aren't the only team that would want to keep a kid like that. It's too early to compare, but do you see the Red Sox waving Anderson Espinoza around offering to deal him? Young potential aces are about the most valuable commodities in baseball. Teams aren't going to deal them away. Looking for them is something I wouldn't bank on happening. It's not very realistic. You don't normally see young Nolan Ryans being given away. I'd say the Sox did as well as you can with it last year. They got a very good prospect who had some of the shine taken off him, according to the O's, as he was struggling coming off an injury. He got healthy and the Sox made some adjustments, and the Sox had one of the hottest commodities available for a deal last year, a dominating lefty reliever good enough to be a strong closer. But I wouldn't count on the Sox doing that again. That's as rare as picking up a Luis Tiant or a David Ortiz off the scrap heap. It can happen, but it's so rare. I think they're most likely going to have to make a deal or spend big bucks to get what they need. [/quot It just happened last year with us and the O's. Did they want to deal E-rod no but it happens in this sport.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 20, 2015 14:37:52 GMT -5
The Cardinals traded Shelby Miller for Hayward. good young pitching out the door.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 20, 2015 14:45:25 GMT -5
The Cardinals traded Shelby Miller for Hayward. good young pitching out the door. That trade happened because the Cardinals wanted Jason Heyward and the Braves wanted Shelby Miller and their trade values were viewed as roughly equal by the teams making the deal. The Red Sox don't have an equivalent player to Shelby Miller or to Jason Heyward right now (though arguably Mookie Betts and Heyward could both fit a type).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 20, 2015 14:53:22 GMT -5
It's hard to understand how they need to do something that is impossible. What now? Fold the team? Are you okay? Fold the team? Really? It was said to show you how ridiculous it is to say that they need to do something that is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Jul 20, 2015 15:02:57 GMT -5
Bold move offering the 3rd best 3rd base prospect to a team having the #1 prospect in the game at that position. You should learn to read better. Try reading with your glasses on. I JUST SAID THAT WONT HAPPEN!!!! Maybe you should take your own advice. You keep saying they need to do something that you also say is impossible. Urias is not being traded, and neither is any other pitcher that has that kind of potential no matter what team they are on. How do you expect them to do something that isn't going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Jul 20, 2015 15:08:37 GMT -5
Until Moncado started to hit, Devers was regarded by many analysts as the position player in the Sox minor league system most likely to become a superstar, a batting champion. And both KLaw and soxprospects scouts now say his defense is good and he can stay at 3B - basically eliminating the one question that remained from last season. No way I would trade him for a pitcher, any pitcher, but especially either an older veteran or an unproven youngster who hasn't had his TJ yet.I would consider trading him in a deal for a superstar position player nearing or in his prime years - but not older. I used to be in favor of a Hamels trade, but not anymore. If Cueto's arm hasn't fallen off by fall, I'd be in favor of signing him - but not trading for him now. That's just a waste. So you wouldn't trade an unproven youngster (because no matter what anyone says about Devers' potential, that's all he is at the moment as well) for an unproven youngster? I understand that pitchers probably carry more risk of injury, but Urias is the type of player that every team would love to have. If in some imaginary fantasy baseball world I could trade Devers straight up for Urias I don't even think I would hesitate in making that deal.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 20, 2015 15:57:52 GMT -5
The Dodgers aren't the only team that would want to keep a kid like that. It's too early to compare, but do you see the Red Sox waving Anderson Espinoza around offering to deal him? Young potential aces are about the most valuable commodities in baseball. Teams aren't going to deal them away. Looking for them is something I wouldn't bank on happening. It's not very realistic. You don't normally see young Nolan Ryans being given away. I'd say the Sox did as well as you can with it last year. They got a very good prospect who had some of the shine taken off him, according to the O's, as he was struggling coming off an injury. He got healthy and the Sox made some adjustments, and the Sox had one of the hottest commodities available for a deal last year, a dominating lefty reliever good enough to be a strong closer. But I wouldn't count on the Sox doing that again. That's as rare as picking up a Luis Tiant or a David Ortiz off the scrap heap. It can happen, but it's so rare. I think they're most likely going to have to make a deal or spend big bucks to get what they need. [/quot It just happened last year with us and the O's. Did they want to deal E-rod no but it happens in this sport. Apples and oranges. Rodriguez was not regarded as the best young pitching prospect in baseball as Urias is. He was behind Dylan Bundy and somebody else's name who I forget (Hunter Harvey?) on the O's depth chart. Rodriguez is not necessarily going to be an ace down the road, although he is pitching well and does look like he can be a 2 or maybe, just maybe a 1. Urias is supposed to be the next Fernando Valenzuela or the next King Felix or the next Doc Gooden. There is a difference. The Sox don't even have a chip like Miller this year, so how is this deal coming off exactly for the Sox? Are the Sox loaning Allan Baird to another organization to evaluate for another team so they can make a deal?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 20, 2015 16:02:59 GMT -5
If in some imaginary fantasy baseball world I could trade Devers straight up for Urias I don't even think I would hesitate in making that deal. I'd trade like one and a half Deverses for Urias.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 20, 2015 16:26:03 GMT -5
Julio Urias is two months older than Devers and was shoving in Double-A before they shut him down so he could finally get his eye fixed. Think about that. When he goes back up, he'll be the youngest player in Double-A by more than a full year.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 20, 2015 18:50:04 GMT -5
Julio Urias is two months older than Devers and was shoving in Double-A before they shut him down so he could finally get his eye fixed. Think about that. When he goes back up, he'll be the youngest player in Double-A by more than a full year. I would think the Dodgers would have to be blown away by an incredible offer before trading urias. Same with bc in regards to devers.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 20, 2015 19:38:50 GMT -5
The Dodgers wouldn't trade Urias for Betts. I think you're forgetting that the Dodgers are actually run by smart people now.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 20, 2015 19:57:28 GMT -5
I didn't know anything about Urias when I wrote that. I have since done a little research. He is a superb prospect with the potential of being a top of the rotation guy.
He was activated on the 10th. He's only pitched 35 innings this year with a 3.00 ERA. Ron Shaw of fangraphs did a scouting report on him last September in which he said the kid was about ready for the majors and shouldn't be used much in the minors. I guess they followed that advice. He doesn't throw as hard as Espinoza and he doesn't have the same command and control, but he has good stuff.
I still wouldn't trade Devers for him. As pitching has gotten better, good hitters are increasing in value. Elite hitters, as Devers may well become, are enormously valuable and extremely hard to find, harder to find than pitchers like Urias.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 20, 2015 20:02:41 GMT -5
I didn't know anything about Urias when I wrote that. I have since done a little research. He is a superb prospect with the potential of being a top of the rotation guy. He was activated on the 10th. He's only pitched 35 innings this year with a 3.00 ERA. Ron Shaw of fangraphs did a scouting report on him last September in which he said the kid was about ready for the majors and shouldn't be used much in the minors. I guess they followed that advice. He doesn't throw as hard as Espinoza and he doesn't have the same command and control, but he has good stuff. I still wouldn't trade Devers for him. As pitching has gotten better, good hitters are increasing in value. Elite hitters, as Devers may well become, are enormously valuable and extremely hard to find, harder to find than pitchers like Urias. You should understand that IF you could trade Devers for Urias - which the Red Sox would do in a heartbeat and the Dodgers would laugh at - and you still wanted a hitter instead, you could trade Urias for a better hitting prospect (or player) than Devers. Urias is arguably the most valuable prospect in baseball.
|
|
|