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 xanderdu on Nov 4, 2015 0:42:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome.
On Hanley, the cost to Cleveland would be equal to Carrasco. When dangled last year, the reported asking price was an MLer, and a prospect, so that is what I offered. At zero cost, and dealing from their strength, Hanley at DH would be a good add, and allow them to go after other hitters, likely in the OF. By maintain a flat cost basis in this exchange, they'd be in a position to go after Gordon, or Upton. That would be a significant offense boost for them.
The Gray deal was parroted from the radio show. The one way it does make sense for Oakland is in how it brings added franchise value back to them. If we assume Gray a pitcher worth $35M per year, with 4 years remaining, we have a $140M asset. Buchholz had a $25M value last year, so that is $50 over his two years. I'm doing this on phone, so tough to look up values, but let's say $10M per for Kelly, and the same for Margot and Owens, with all having potential for more. That's 16 years, at $10M per for a value of $160M. Combined with Buchholz, Beane would turn a $140M asset into $190M in assets. Since he's unlikely to compete in 2016, is future asset value a greater need? Gray isn't going to increase in value from here, maybe a little on an annual level, but that would be lost because of fewer years.
Not sure why 3 years of league average starter isn't worth one year of a closer? But if a kid were required, there are many that can be added. The Reds do have a need for an inning eating starter.
On Hill; likely as significant an overpay as you suggest, and if available for less, then great. The value was nominated based on reports im seeing. The option would be IP based, so if gained, then great because he earned it. As I looked at the rotation, I saw my big question mark at the likely 2 hole, in Buchholz. I thought it better to exchange my 100 to 120 inning starter from the 2 hole to the 5 hole, and that's why I suggested Hill They're going to need a way to find Johnson innings, and the safest route to that seemed a 100 inning guy in the 5 hole, as opposed to 2. Granted, a longshot.
It's just my idea, and now I think I've explained it fully, so I won't litter the board with any more defenses. Thanks for reading, and commenting.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 4, 2015 2:33:15 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats 7m7 minutes ago Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats 3m3 minutes ago Dombrowski on EEI: Leaning towards adding a RHH as 4th outfielder. It took me a while to figure this out, but this eliminates the middle scenarios on Rusney, where you're hesitant to let him play nearly every day in LF, but haven't given up on him as the starting LF. If they follow the consensus from the poll and are committed to giving him a few months of essentially full-time play (sitting him only against RHP who have big problems with LHH), then you do indeed want a RHH 4th OF to platoon with Holt (or Shaw) whenever one of the three regulars is hurt. And that guy can also play instead of Bradley or Ortiz vs. LHP who are death on LHH. (If Castillo fails, you get a LHH mid-season or at the deadline to platoon with either Castilo or the 4th OFer.) Note that this always seemed to be the way to go back when Rusney was hitting well (which is why I thought they'd give Craig another look, since the old Craig fits the bill of what they're looking for pretty exactly); it was only Rusney's September collapse that made the idea of instead adding a LHH to platoon with him make any sense. However, there's another way of interpreting this, which is that DDo is being a bit coy or close to the vest here. And there are two scenarios that fit that. There's at least one intriguing FA RHH, Franklin Gutierrez, who could be signed and handed the starting job, making Rusney the platoon guy. (I think it would be hard to sign Gutierrez as a 4th OFer.) More likely, they could have already decided to trade Rusney to a team that wants a good defensive CF, while planning to do something like trade for Reddick. In which case you obviously want a 4th OFer who is a RHH. I'd say the odds are 70% Rusney is the LF, 20% he's dealt, and 10% he's the backup.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Nov 4, 2015 5:52:18 GMT -5
On Hanley, the cost to Cleveland would be equal to Carrasco. When dangled last year, the reported asking price was an MLer, and a prospect, so that is what I offered. At zero cost, and dealing from their strength, Hanley at DH would be a good add, and allow them to go after other hitters, likely in the OF. By maintain a flat cost basis in this exchange, they'd be in a position to go after Gordon, or Upton. That would be a significant offense boost for them. Think about it from the Red Sox perspective. Would you trade, say, Xander Bogaerts for Justin Verlander and a good prospect or two? Then, probably the Indians would not deal Carlos Carrasco for Hanley Ramirez, unless Betts and Moncada were coming, too.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 4, 2015 7:30:36 GMT -5
On Hanley, the cost to Cleveland would be equal to Carrasco. When dangled last year, the reported asking price was an MLer, and a prospect, so that is what I offered. At zero cost, and dealing from their strength, Hanley at DH would be a good add, and allow them to go after other hitters, likely in the OF. By maintain a flat cost basis in this exchange, they'd be in a position to go after Gordon, or Upton. That would be a significant offense boost for them. Think about it from the Red Sox perspective. Would you trade, say, Xander Bogaerts for Justin Verlander and a good prospect or two? Then, probably the Indians would not deal Carlos Carrasco for Hanley Ramirez, unless Betts and Moncada were coming, too. Carrasco will be 29 before spring training next year. He's not comparable to Xander. He's probably closer to a healthy version of Buchholz. It's great that Carrasco has 5 years of control, but some of those years will likely be declining, and then there is not much of a chance that you're going to resign him as a premium free agent at the end of the deal. That is unlike Xander, who will be 27 when he hits free agency. Having him on your team to possibly re-sign him is worth something if you have the money.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 4, 2015 7:45:10 GMT -5
I think Dombrowski was a bit more circumspect than some of the posts/tweets indicate; when prompted, he said that Betts and Bogaerts are players that you would "think are the backbone for years to come" and that he'd be very surprised if they're not strong parts of the lineup *next* year, so pretty banal.
And this is obvious (although the usual suspects here would disagree), but he clearly distinguished Betts from Rusney and Jackie when discussing the OF. He said they're the starting OF going into the season (exact positions not addressed)
And he also characterized Jackie as one of the best defensive OF he's ever seen
Barnes is a reliever.
Shaw is an option for some OF play.
Of course, you should listen to it yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 4, 2015 10:04:23 GMT -5
I think Dombrowski was a bit more circumspect than some of the posts/tweets indicate; when prompted, he said that Betts and Bogaerts are players that you would "think are the backbone for years to come" and that he'd be very surprised if they're not strong parts of the lineup *next* year, so pretty banal. And this is obvious (although the usual suspects here would disagree), but he clearly distinguished Betts from Rusney and Jackie when discussing the OF. He said they're the starting OF going into the season (exact positions not addressed) And he also characterized Jackie as one of the best defensive OF he's ever seen Barnes is a reliever. Shaw is an option for some OF play. Of course, you should listen to it yourselves and draw your own conclusions. While there has been justifiably talk or trading one of JBJ or Rusney, I just don't feel we have adequate depth in the OF unless you make Holt a starter, which I don't think he is built to be a starter. Margot may be a half a year away. No one in Paw is knocking down the door. With the needs for pitching, I don't feel we would have the capital to sign an Upton or Heyward. JBJ for Kelvim Herrera, maybe, but then who plays center/right....sign a De Aza?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 4, 2015 10:33:57 GMT -5
...Shaw as LH option in the OF... Like I've said, Shaw backing up 1B/3B/LF is the perfect spot for him, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 4, 2015 11:54:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 4, 2015 12:29:06 GMT -5
I assume A-gon and CC told greinke ALL about BOS
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 4, 2015 12:41:29 GMT -5
I assume A-gon and CC told greinke ALL about BOS Maybe Gomes told Gordon on how GREAT Boston is.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 4, 2015 12:45:23 GMT -5
So what's the concensus at the moment about whether or not you'd sacrifice a draft pick for Gordon?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 4, 2015 12:55:51 GMT -5
While there has been justifiably talk or trading one of JBJ or Rusney, I just don't feel we have adequate depth in the OF unless you make Holt a starter, which I don't think he is built to be a starter. Margot may be a half a year away. No one in Paw is knocking down the door. With the needs for pitching, I don't feel we would have the capital to sign an Upton or Heyward. JBJ for Kelvim Herrera, maybe, but then who plays center/right....sign a De Aza? I'm not sure the Red Sox have adequate OF depth even with JBJ and Castillo.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 4, 2015 12:58:37 GMT -5
So what's the concensus at the moment about whether or not you'd sacrifice a draft pick for Gordon? Depends on the market for Castillo/Betts. Doesn't really make sense unless you are turning one of those two over. If we could get someone to take 100% of Castillo's contract and give us something else back, or JBJ gets valued the way most of us here value him, I'd be open to it.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 4, 2015 13:05:49 GMT -5
So what's the concensus at the moment about whether or not you'd sacrifice a draft pick for Gordon? Depends on the market for Castillo/Betts. Doesn't really make sense unless you are turning one of those two over. If we could get someone to take 100% of Castillo's contract and give us something else back, or JBJ gets valued the way most of us here value him, I'd be open to it. The market for Betts is just about any player in MLB. For Castillo? Nada They should never appear on either sides of a slash
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 4, 2015 13:47:49 GMT -5
Think about it from the Red Sox perspective. Would you trade, say, Xander Bogaerts for Justin Verlander and a good prospect or two? Then, probably the Indians would not deal Carlos Carrasco for Hanley Ramirez, unless Betts and Moncada were coming, too. Carrasco will be 29 before spring training next year. He's not comparable to Xander. He's probably closer to a healthy version of Buchholz. It's great that Carrasco has 5 years of control, but some of those years will likely be declining, and then there is not much of a chance that you're going to resign him as a premium free agent at the end of the deal. That is unlike Xander, who will be 27 when he hits free agency. Having him on your team to possibly re-sign him is worth something if you have the money. I think there could be the framework of some type of deal which could send Buchholz to Cleveland and Carrasco to Boston. Obviously the Sox would have to add a big chip or two. Perhaps Margot (and the Indians would send a reliever like Manship or McAllister or Shaw). Or maybe perhaps Shaw would be part of the deal, too, as Cleveland could use him at 3b if they're not happy with Chisenhall or Chris Johnson. Or they could DH him or move him to 1b and have Carlos Santana. FWIW (probably very little) I think that the Sox will go after Zimmerman. It would give them a top 3 of Carraso/Zimmerman/Rodriguez to go along with Porcello and Miley with Kelly either dealt or sent to the bullpen.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 4, 2015 14:13:05 GMT -5
I refuse to believe we'd accept the risk of starting Castillo and JBJ without acquiring someone like Rasmus to spell them. Way too much bust potential between those two.
More likely I think Castillo gets dealt and we sign Gordon/Cespedes/Heyward/Upton. His upside isn't too high but he's a startable CF signed long term. Not sure how I feel about losing a mid 1 rounder though if it was Gordon (Upton we prob won't have interest in).
JBJ is interesting too. He's more valuable than Castillo and for all we know we could be selling high if we trade him now. If he actually hits, that wouldn't be the case.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 4, 2015 14:21:50 GMT -5
Depends on the market for Castillo/ Betts JBJ. Doesn't really make sense unless you are turning one of those two over. If we could get someone to take 100% of Castillo's contract and give us something else back, or JBJ gets valued the way most of us here value him, I'd be open to it. The market for Betts is just about any player in MLB. For Castillo? Nada They should never appear on either sides of a slash Oops, meant JBJ. Got it right on the second sentence.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 4, 2015 15:28:22 GMT -5
I refuse to believe we'd accept the risk of starting Castillo and JBJ without acquiring someone like Rasmus to spell them. Way too much bust potential between those two. More likely I think Castillo gets dealt and we sign Gordon/Cespedes/Heyward/Upton. His upside isn't too high but he's a startable CF signed long term. Not sure how I feel about losing a mid 1 rounder though if it was Gordon (Upton we prob won't have interest in). JBJ is interesting too. He's more valuable than Castillo and for all we know we could be selling high if we trade him now. If he actually hits, that wouldn't be the case. Of the OFs you mention I only feel comfortable giving up the pick for Heyward. Obviously if they sign someone like Greinkie then giving up a 2nd pick for Gordon becomes more palatable.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 4, 2015 16:48:45 GMT -5
I refuse to believe we'd accept the risk of starting Castillo and JBJ without acquiring someone like Rasmus to spell them. Way too much bust potential between those two. More likely I think Castillo gets dealt and we sign Gordon/Cespedes/Heyward/Upton. His upside isn't too high but he's a startable CF signed long term. Not sure how I feel about losing a mid 1 rounder though if it was Gordon (Upton we prob won't have interest in). JBJ is interesting too. He's more valuable than Castillo and for all we know we could be selling high if we trade him now. If he actually hits, that wouldn't be the case. Of the OFs you mention I only feel comfortable giving up the pick for Heyward. Obviously if they sign someone like Greinkie then giving up a 2nd pick for Gordon becomes more palatable. I'd say there's less than a 1% chance Greinke comes here. If it's a FA it will be Price I would assume, and obviously he and Cueto can't be QO'd. I'd definitely be down for Heyward, but I don't see STL letting him go so I'm not getting my hopes up there. I am a huge Gordon fan, but we still have an early pick this year, so that's a steep price to pay when you could have Cespedes for only a few million more AAV and no draft pick loss.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 4, 2015 16:52:44 GMT -5
I assume A-gon and CC told greinke ALL about BOS Maybe, but I wouldn't assume that. We don't know that they're good buddies and talked about the Boston experience. Being teammates doesn't necessarily mean being good friends and/or buddies.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 4, 2015 16:55:34 GMT -5
Of the OFs you mention I only feel comfortable giving up the pick for Heyward. Obviously if they sign someone like Greinkie then giving up a 2nd pick for Gordon becomes more palatable. I'd say there's less than a 1% chance Greinke comes here. If it's a FA it will be Price I would assume, and obviously he and Cueto can't be QO'd. I'd definitely be down for Heyward, but I don't see STL letting him go so I'm not getting my hopes up there. I am a huge Gordon fan, but we still have an early pick this year, so that's a steep price to pay when you could have Cespedes for only a few million more AAV and no draft pick loss. I wouldn't rule out the Sox spending for Jordan Zimmerman. I wouldn't be happy if the Sox spent the 12th pick of the draft on a 32 year old outfielder, even though I do like Gordon. If the Sox are going to spend on an outfielder, I doubt it would be that much. It would be a waste of resources. They're going to spend the bulk of their money on pitching, particularly starting, although they will also probably bring in a closer or at least some late inning bullpen help.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 4, 2015 17:20:57 GMT -5
Well I think the idea would be that signing Gordon allows you to use a JBJ as part of a deal for pitching. If it's a cost-controlled pitcher, then the total outlay for Gordon and the pitcher is potentially the same or comparable to the outlay you'd have for a FA pitcher and JBJ. If the former pairing is better on-field (Gordon-Betts-Castillo OF with trade pitcher versus Castillo-JBJ-Betts OF with FA pitcher), than that makes sense to do, right?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 4, 2015 17:21:13 GMT -5
I refuse to believe we'd accept the risk of starting Castillo and JBJ without acquiring someone like Rasmus to spell them. Way too much bust potential between those two. More likely I think Castillo gets dealt and we sign Gordon/Cespedes/Heyward/Upton. His upside isn't too high but he's a startable CF signed long term. Not sure how I feel about losing a mid 1 rounder though if it was Gordon (Upton we prob won't have interest in). JBJ is interesting too. He's more valuable than Castillo and for all we know we could be selling high if we trade him now. If he actually hits, that wouldn't be the case. I don't think there's much "bust potential" in either Castillo or JBJ. A bust is a guy who's around replacement level and is therefore killing you. The floor for Castillo, thanks to his outstanding defense in LF, would seem to be below-average starter and the floor for JB seems to be above-average starter. You personally might be worried that whatever JBJ did last winter to make him the best hitter in all of the minors before posting a 121 wRC+ in 255 MLB PA might disappear (the overall numbers, BTW, being consistent with his career other than 2014), leaving us with the 2014 JBJ, but it would be insane to make a personnel move based on that possibility. Signing a FA OFer only makes sense if you're "selling high" on JBJ. You can then wait a year to see whether Benintendi or Margot is the heir to Castillo for the 3rd OF spot, just as you'd be doing anyway. Adding a big contract for an OFer when you have Betts and Bradley means that you're probably blocking both Margot and Benintendi. I think all rational evidence is that trading JBJ now would be selling low. Steamer is projecting him for a 97 wRC+, and it's going to be hard for opposing GMs to not feel that that's right (just as many folks on this board seem to feel that it's right), because they've seen him struggle. But that would be his second-worst professional season, by a mile. Davenport Age-Adjusted Translations, TAv (where 97 wRC+ is about .255): .304 .274 (average of these first two years: .290) .204 .293 (.289 in MLB) Hmm, one thing not like the others. And we know what happened to turn the .204 into the .293 and have a pretty good idea what turned the .290 into the .204. This is clearly a case where the expectation should be based more on the median than the mean.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 4, 2015 17:22:03 GMT -5
So what's the concensus at the moment about whether or not you'd sacrifice a draft pick for Gordon? Gordon, no. Heyward, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 4, 2015 17:25:05 GMT -5
I refuse to believe we'd accept the risk of starting Castillo and JBJ without acquiring someone like Rasmus to spell them. Way too much bust potential between those two. More likely I think Castillo gets dealt and we sign Gordon/Cespedes/Heyward/Upton. His upside isn't too high but he's a startable CF signed long term. Not sure how I feel about losing a mid 1 rounder though if it was Gordon (Upton we prob won't have interest in). JBJ is interesting too. He's more valuable than Castillo and for all we know we could be selling high if we trade him now. If he actually hits, that wouldn't be the case. I don't think there's much "bust potential" in either Castillo or JBJ. A bust is a guy who's around replacement level and is therefore killing you. The floor for Castillo, thanks to his outstanding defense in LF, would seem to be below-average starter and the floor for JB seems to be above-average starter. You personally might be worried that whatever JBJ did last winter to make him the best hitter in all of the minors before posting a 121 wRC+ in 255 MLB PA might disappear (the overall numbers, BTW, being consistent with his career other than 2014), leaving us with the 2014 JBJ, but it would be insane to make a personnel move based on that possibility. Signing a FA OFer only makes sense if you're "selling high" on JBJ. You can then wait a year to see whether Benintendi or Margot is the heir to Castillo for the 3rd OF spot, just as you'd be doing anyway. Adding a big contract for an OFer when you have Betts and Bradley means that you're probably blocking both Margot and Benintendi. I think all rational evidence is that trading JBJ now would be selling low. Steamer is projecting him for a 97 wRC+, and it's going to be hard for opposing GMs to not feel that that's right (just as many folks on this board seem to feel that it's right), because they've seen him struggle. But that would be his second-worst professional season, by a mile. Davenport Age-Adjusted Translations, TAv (where 97 wRC+ is about .255): .304 .274 (average of these first two years: .290) .204 .293 (.289 in MLB) Hmm, one thing not like the others. And we know what happened to turn the .204 into the .293 and have a pretty good idea what turned the .290 into the .204. This is clearly a case where the expectation should be based more on the median than the mean. Well don't forget that it's not like other teams' scouting departments didn't see him in the minors. Bradley certainly wouldn't be the first piece in a deal, but I could see a team taking a chance on him as the second in a deal with a very good third piece.
|
|
|