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 gatorgreenwell on Dec 11, 2015 12:03:14 GMT -5
Umm...what? Is this Marlins official "smoking the reefer?"
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 11, 2015 12:10:40 GMT -5
These are 3 or 4 cornerstone type players....I'm sure the "another pitcher" was Anderson Espinoza. I know you have to give quality to get quality, but.....really.....
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 12:11:43 GMT -5
I wouldn't even trade Mookie for him. Three years of control with an innings limit isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2015 12:20:31 GMT -5
That would be a truly awful trade for the Sox. As much as I like Fernandez, he's coming off of TJ and he's awfully young to have had his first one. On top of that, he'd be switching leagues, and going to a hitter's park which pretty much guarantees an ERA bump of a quarter to a half a run. I'm not sure Rodriguez is all that far away from being a 1a himself, meaning they'd be trading a, roughly, 18-9 3.25 200 IP pitcher for a 20-7, 2.90, 200 IP pitcher. That's not worth Moncada. And I wouldn't trade Betts straight up for Fernandez. What a ridiculous proposal by the Marlins.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Dec 11, 2015 12:25:14 GMT -5
That Marlins deal HAD to have included Stanton. Even then, I'd have to have Fernandez agree to have the 1st year of his free agency bought out (call it an extension). Otherwise, are you fkn kidding me!!!!!!!!! DDo would have = NoMo if he made that a xmas to remember for the Marlins.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2015 12:27:18 GMT -5
I would love to see the Sox get Cueto on a pillow contract. It'd be worth it for a multitude of reasons, although it would blow them past the salary cap. But...it would allow them to pick up some prospects for Buchholz, and net them a #35 or so pick when Cueto turns down the QO. It all depends on how confident he is in his health and abilities. It certainly worked for Beltre and Nelson Cruz. Then again, pitchers are a different animal.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2015 12:34:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't even trade Mookie for him. Three years of control with an innings limit isn't enough. I have Mike Trout in a keep-six twelve team mixed league, and of course many people have proposed trades for him. And, of course, I haven't come close to accepting any of them. But what's more significant is that I don't think I've ever made a counter-offer. Given the structure of the league, I literally cannot come up with any possible trade that even comes close to making sense for both parties. This is basically the situation with Betts. A young, cost controlled hitter is the holy grail of player development. He's the thing everyone wants; the thing that has the most possible value in baseball as it presently exists. The only thing you could possibly want to trade him for is another player just like him, and then what's the point? It's hard to believe that someone who works in baseball thinks you could get him AND MORE for a pitcher, any pitcher, is insane.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2015 12:35:29 GMT -5
To be clear, that trade proposal is ridiculous and deserves all of the mockery it is bound to get. With that said, let's not underrate Fernandez here. On a per-inning basis, he's probably one of the five best pitchers in baseball. Even if you think he'll be on a strict innings limit, 160 innings of cost-controlled, elite performance is really, really valuable. Probably not Betts valuable, and certainly not Betts, Rodriguez, Moncada+ valuable. But I'd have no qualms giving up, say, Rodriguez and Swihart for him. I think he's easily a run or two better than Rodriguez per nine.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 11, 2015 13:37:51 GMT -5
I wouldn't even trade Mookie for him. Three years of control with an innings limit isn't enough. I have Mike Trout in a keep-six twelve team mixed league, and of course many people have proposed trades for him. And, of course, I haven't come close to accepting any of them. But what's more significant is that I don't think I've ever made a counter-offer. Given the structure of the league, I literally cannot come up with any possible trade that even comes close to making sense for both parties. This is basically the situation with Betts. A young, cost controlled hitter is the holy grail of player development. He's the thing everyone wants; the thing that has the most possible value in baseball as it presently exists. The only thing you could possibly want to trade him for is another player just like him, and then what's the point? It's hard to believe that someone who works in baseball thinks you could get him AND MORE for a pitcher, any pitcher, is insane. What about Mookie for Sale? 4 yrs/$50 of arguably the 2nd best pitcher in MLB in his prime. From a purely baseball perspective, that might be difficult to say no to.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 13:40:57 GMT -5
I have Mike Trout in a keep-six twelve team mixed league, and of course many people have proposed trades for him. And, of course, I haven't come close to accepting any of them. But what's more significant is that I don't think I've ever made a counter-offer. Given the structure of the league, I literally cannot come up with any possible trade that even comes close to making sense for both parties. This is basically the situation with Betts. A young, cost controlled hitter is the holy grail of player development. He's the thing everyone wants; the thing that has the most possible value in baseball as it presently exists. The only thing you could possibly want to trade him for is another player just like him, and then what's the point? It's hard to believe that someone who works in baseball thinks you could get him AND MORE for a pitcher, any pitcher, is insane. What about Mookie for Sale? 4 yrs/$50 of arguably the 2nd best pitcher in MLB in his prime. From a purely baseball perspective, that might be difficult to say no to. The problem is that the White Sox would probably ask for the same deal the Marlins did. Maybe we should sit back and wait for teams to call us and then demand $500 million in prospects in return for someone like Espinosa after his rookie year. Is it just me or did prospects go from being extremely overvalued to extremely undervalued in one year?
|
|
|
Post by mannofsteele on Dec 11, 2015 13:44:15 GMT -5
A top two of David Price and Jose Fernandez would be something worth salivating over, but to consider that you're giving up half your youth and talent in the system. Betts is a non starter, and unless they come back down to Earth, there's not a lot to consider here. A package of: Rodriguez, Vazquez, Bradley, Owens and Devers still makes me cringe, but that's probably the borderline of insanity.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Dec 11, 2015 13:46:11 GMT -5
What about Mookie for Sale? 4 yrs/$50 of arguably the 2nd best pitcher in MLB in his prime. From a purely baseball perspective, that might be difficult to say no to. The problem is that the White Sox would probably ask for the same deal the Marlins did. Maybe we should sit back and wait for teams to call us and then demand $500 million in prospects in return for someone like Espinosa after his rookie year. Is it just me or did prospects go from being extremely overvalued to extremely undervalued in one year? Nah, Neo's a keeper. If he's not traded (or injured) within 2 years then he'll be doing his best Pedro impersonation (minus the head-hunting) for the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 11, 2015 14:22:55 GMT -5
Is there any evidence that BABIP and HR/FB are uncorrelated? It seems to me that they're both (potentially) indications of a weak contact skill Well OK a bit inaccurate perhaps to say they are completely uncorrelated. There are different types of BABIP skills - for instance R.A. Dickey has a better-than-average BABIP for his career but a completely mundane middle-of-the-road HR/FB. A guy like Uehara who gets a great BABIP via lots of IFFB will also naturally suppress his HR/FB.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:15:53 GMT -5
Is there any evidence that BABIP and HR/FB are uncorrelated? It seems to me that they're both (potentially) indications of a weak contact skill Well OK a bit inaccurate perhaps to say they are completely uncorrelated. There are different types of BABIP skills - for instance R.A. Dickey has a better-than-average BABIP for his career but a completely mundane middle-of-the-road HR/FB. A guy like Uehara who gets a great BABIP via lots of IFFB will also naturally suppress his HR/FB. I like subtracting IFFB from FB since popups are obviously a skill. So IMO, the stat should be HR/(FB-IFFB). It was probably a year ago when I was arguing with almost everyone about some pitchers having BABIP skills when talking about Owens. Is it now accepted as fact?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 11, 2015 15:23:53 GMT -5
Every time I see this thread I just think of the response "hire Dave Dumbrowski".... He's done a remarkable job so far. Hit every goal he had and got his targeted guys. He paid for them but he did so while keeping the major league team and top of the system in tact. I was scared that he'd have little regard for prospects and thus far he's calmed those fears and I have to give him kudos.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:36:29 GMT -5
Every time I see this thread I just think of the response "hire Dave Dumbrowski".... He's done a remarkable job so far. Hit every goal he had and got his targeted guys. He paid for them but he did so while keeping the major league team and top of the system in tact. I was scared that he'd have little regard for prospects and thus far he's calmed those fears and I have to give him kudos. That was half of the answer. The other half was to wait. There was no way that the team was as bad as it was through June. And they started playing to their potential for the 2nd half. I think that's why Dombrowski knew he didn't have to make too many changes.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2015 15:36:52 GMT -5
It was probably a year ago when I was arguing with almost everyone about some pitchers having BABIP skills when talking about Owens. Is it now accepted as fact? This is one hell of a straw man. I cannot remember anyone (and certainly not me) arguing that BABIP is not a skill that some pitchers have (at least not in the last couple years, anyways). If I remember correctly, the argument I made was that even if Owens did have a BABIP skill, it was likely to regress up from the unsustainably low mark he put up in AAA last year. You can revisit the DIPS thread here. Quickly reading through it, I don't think I disagree now with anything I wrote then.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:48:44 GMT -5
It was probably a year ago when I was arguing with almost everyone about some pitchers having BABIP skills when talking about Owens. Is it now accepted as fact? This is one hell of a straw man. I cannot remember anyone (and certainly not me) arguing that BABIP is not a skill that some pitchers have (at least not in the last couple years, anyways). If I remember correctly, the argument I made was that even if Owens did have a BABIP skill, it was likely to regress up from the unsustainably low mark he put up in AAA last year. You can revisit the DIPS thread here. Quickly reading through it, I don't think I disagree now with anything I wrote then. This is one of your quotes from that thread. So do some pitchers have control over their BABIP or don't they? I thought that's what everyone means by saying the phrase BABIP-skill.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2015 16:01:25 GMT -5
I don't want to derail this thread, so I posted my response in the DIPS thread.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 11, 2015 16:15:02 GMT -5
If you can package one of the young catchers, most likely Swihart, E-rod, and potentially any prospects not named Moncada/Devers/Benintendi/Espinoza you do the deal in a relative heartbeat.
The word about what the Marlins wanted is lunacy. Three years of control and a slight inside track on FA is only worth so much. Barring some team panicking and trading for him at the deadline, his value isn't going to go up much, and will probably trend down from what it is right now
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2015 16:35:12 GMT -5
If you can package one of the young catchers, most likely Swihart, E-rod, and potentially any prospects not named Moncada/Devers/Benintendi/Espinoza you do the deal in a relative heartbeat. The word about what the Marlins wanted is lunacy. Three years of control and a slight inside track on FA is only worth so much. Barring some team panicking and trading for him at the deadline, his value isn't going to go up much, and will probably trend down from what it is right now ERod should be an untouchable, for the time being. He added two pitches to his arsenal over his last six starts, and has yet to throw all five pitches in a game. And none of those pitches is a curve, which he could still add. In terms of the quality of his 4-seamer, change, and slider, he's very likely a #1 starter, and he's just shown the ability to add a sinker and cutter that are average to plus. His upside is silly. Whatever they eventually decide to trade for, Swihart and Owens (or Johnson) should be a very good starting point. If you were willing to trade Devers after moving Moncada to 3B, all the more so. You might not get someone as good as Fernandez, but I think you're better off in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 11, 2015 21:54:18 GMT -5
The last few pages are why I keep coming back here, great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 12, 2015 7:28:49 GMT -5
Peter Gammons @pgammo 6m6 minutes ago Good news for Red Sox:Christian Vazquez's last 10 games in Puerto Rico:.366/.381/.415
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,126
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 12, 2015 8:21:45 GMT -5
Umm...what? Is this Marlins official "smoking the reefer?" Can I suggest another explanation of that Gammons quotation, keeping in mind his clipped and elliptical way of writing? Could the source have said something like, "they have so many great young players and prospects like A, B, C, D, and E, that I thought that we had a situation in which something might work out" [in which we would get some of them]?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2015 8:34:38 GMT -5
Umm...what? Is this Marlins official "smoking the reefer?" Can I suggest another explanation of that Gammons quotation, keeping in mind his clipped and elliptical way of writing? Could the source have said something like, "they have so many great young players and prospects like A, B, C, D, and E, that I thought that we had a situation in which something might work out" [in which we would get some of them]? Could be, but given the responses of the DBacks (who preferred to be ripped off by the Braves instead) or the Dodgers, I think was Gammons reported was reasonably accurate. After all, if you're the Marlins, why would you trade Fernandez if you really didn't have to. You'd have to be overwhelmed to do so, so the Marlins were entertaining and demanding overwhelming offers, as well they should. In time, when the Marlins really do need to trade Fernandez, those offers from them won't be as demanding and the return for Fernandez will increase naturally, based on natural competition from trade partners, rather than ridiculous demands from the Marlins.
|
|
|