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.
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 30, 2015 0:52:16 GMT -5
I don't think contending teams at the deadline really want high-risk high-reward type players. They usually want the opposite-- a sure thing that fills a hole in the roster. But yeah, it only takes one ***hole, as they say. Even still, how many contending teams can afford to part with MLB-readyish talent well-regarded enough at a position of need for the Red Sox? That's an honest question, btw. It's going to take a lot more than Baez for me to pull the trigger. Totally agree. Baez really does look like a Brandon Wood to me. He might turn it around, but...meh, even with ultra-elite bat speed, he's still got to make contact. I could see him as a buy-low, but the Cubs would have to include a better prospect, for sure. It's a good question as to who might deal. That's why I mentioned Glasnow. Maybe Berrios from the Twins, plus another guy (Meyer, a former Sox draftee, and another buy-low?). The Dodgers aren't parting with Urias or Seager, I imagine, but a one-for-one? I'd have to think about it. It would certainly hurt the Sox in the near-term, because if Lester is any indication, it's tough to replace a good arm, and it's similarly tough to predict what you're getting (see: Cubs tenure). The Dodgers don't have any other MLB-ready/almost-ready players. The Mets already have plenty of pitching, but I'd love to see the Sox pry away Matz. KC? Texas? There are lots of teams with talent who might be tempted to take their shot. KC, for one, certainly (perhaps rightfully) thinks they're just a step away...maybe Buchholz is the difference-maker.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 30, 2015 0:57:55 GMT -5
The short of it is you're essentially going to be asking for one of Grant Holmes RHP ( LA's 2014 1st rounder) or Jose De Leon RHP (2013 24th rounder who has broke out) as the foundational piece. I imagine LA would have interest in Clay considering the options and quality repertoire along with Greinkes potential opt out at seasons end. And I believe Clay would pitch great in LA. That said I am hesitant to give up on Clay. The potential dominance is still in there. So I'd have to feel I was getting a high upside E Rod type to make the move. Such a trade would as a result open a spot for one of Johnson or Owens next year as the youth movement continues. Neither Holmes nor De Leon would be a legitimate centerpiece to me. The Sox need a top-25, not a 50-70. I like De Leon, but he's way too far away. For *both*, that's more reasonable. Sox are dealing from strength...Buchholz's contract and performance this year make him very easy to keep.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 30, 2015 9:54:25 GMT -5
BTW, top 100 prospects for selected teams: Royals (leads ALC by 5.5) - Mondesi (33), Manaea (45), Zimmer (47), Finnegan (62), Almonte (69) Pirates (leads NLWC by 1.0/2.0) - Glasnow (10), Taillon (25), Bell (28), Meadows (37), McGuire (52), Kingham (61, TJ), Hanson (77) Cardinals (leads NLC by 8.5) - Piscotty (75), Gonzales (86), Reyes (87) Dodgers (leads NLW by 1.0) - Seager (5), Urias (6), Holmes (79), De Leon (94, but likely to move into the midseason top 50) Astros (leads ALW by 4.0) - Correa (2), Appel (24), Santana (58), Velasquez (71), Feliz (85), Phillips (95) Rangers (trails ALW by 5.0, ALWC by 3.0) - Gallo (8), Alfaro (36), Mazara (44), Thompson (68), Gonzalez (81) Twins (trails ALC by 5.5, ALWC by 0.5) - Buxton (1), Sano (9), Meyer (23), Berrios (26), Gordon (27), Stewart (29), Cubs (trails NLWC by 1.0/2.0) - Edwards (38), Schwarber (40), Almora (46), Torres (90), McKinney (97), Underwood (99) + Baez Kind of piggybacking off this list Meadows(Pitt) Reyes(STL) Mazara (Tex), and De Leon(LAD) have jumped into Laws updated top 25.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 30, 2015 11:09:21 GMT -5
Kind of piggybacking off this list Meadows(Pitt) Reyes(STL) Mazara (Tex), and De Leon(LAD) have jumped into Laws updated top 25. Schwarber, too. Royals - none Pirates - Glasnow (9), Meadows (13), Taillon (22) Cardinals - Reyes (23) Dodgers - Seager (2), Urias (67), De Leon (24) Astros - Correa (1) Rangers - Gallo (8), Mazara (12) Twins - Buxton (3), Sano (10), Berrios (25) Cubs - Schwarber (15) I think any of these players would headline a potential Buchholz deal, although I cannot see a top-10 player being traded. My view, for the record, is that if the Red Sox are 7+ games out of a wild card at the ASB, they should auction off Buchholz while his value is highest. As of this morning, the Red Sox are 6.5 games out of the second wild card.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 30, 2015 11:34:09 GMT -5
Would you add the Astros Jon Singleton to the list as a potential headline? Team friendly deal and we have a need at 1B going forward.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 30, 2015 11:50:00 GMT -5
Would you add the Astros Jon Singleton to the list as a potential headline? Team friendly deal and we have a need at 1B going forward. Funny, I was going to post that very thought late last night. I was pondering a Buchholz-for-Singleton/Feliz deal structure.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 1, 2015 16:44:45 GMT -5
I don't think we can just assume that we can replace Buchholz so easily. Are there any Porcello's available? For that reason, I'm keeping him unless blown away.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jul 2, 2015 1:11:39 GMT -5
I don't think we can just assume that we can replace Buchholz so easily. Are there any Porcello's available? For that reason, I'm keeping him unless blown away. Agreed, there are no viable replacements tthat are better than Clay at this point. We could go out and sign a few #4s in the offseason, but what does that solve. I think they are keeping clay, for better or for worse. But if we start the "battle for top 10 picks" in may next year as well... well let's just say it will be interesting to hear the smear campaign that comes out about him when he is moved.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 2, 2015 10:36:38 GMT -5
While Cherington may not be able to replace him immediately, there are multiple SP options in the off season including free agents. And, the point in moving Buchholz, is that the team will have basically given up the season.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,917
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 2, 2015 11:24:40 GMT -5
I really want to go for Price. He'll be very expensive but he's as low risk of a FA SP as they come IMO
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 2, 2015 11:53:26 GMT -5
While Cherington may not be able to replace him immediately, there are multiple SP options in the off season including free agents. And, the point in moving Buchholz, is that the team will have basically given up the season. I'm not confident he could be replaced next year or the year after.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 2, 2015 12:21:46 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to trading Buchholz, but the price has to be right. I think it has to be coupled with getting pitching back from AA-MLB talent and salary relief to play with in 2016 free agency. Without Buchholz our rotation is Porcello, Miley, and E-Rod, and we don't have a ton of extra cash to supplement this in the market. Johnson is an option, but we've been burned recently relying on young players, and you could never have enough pitching depth.
What I would find interesting is a trade pairing Buchholz and Castillo. That should give us a good return and allow us to sign a prize in the offseason. Cubs, Giants, Maybe Texas and Houston would be options.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 2, 2015 14:24:59 GMT -5
I really want to go for Price. He'll be very expensive but he's as low risk of a FA SP as they come IMO Yep, I consider him about as low risk as I would have considered Verlander in 2013.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,917
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 2, 2015 17:39:32 GMT -5
I really want to go for Price. He'll be very expensive but he's as low risk of a FA SP as they come IMO Yep, I consider him about as low risk as I would have considered Verlander in 2013. True, but even good looking investments can bust. Playing your odds, I like banking on Price more than I am on almost any other pitcher around his age.
|
|
|
Post by bmitchsox on Jul 2, 2015 23:53:48 GMT -5
With less sellers this year, I think it makes sense to trade a few pieces if we can't pull it together quick, as long as the price is right.
Was thinking about a Buccholz, Koji and Holt for Baez and Almora deal, would LOVE something like that, but it might not be super realistic. Maybe Buccholz, Koji and De Aza for Mondesi and Almonte.
Then i'd chase 2 of Cueto, Price, Fister, Zimmerman, Samardzija in the offseason and give Johnson a chance to shine this year.
Price - Cueto - ERod - Porcello - Miley/Johnson/Owens could be special!
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,917
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 2, 2015 23:59:08 GMT -5
Almora is of little value to us. Mookie, JBJ, Margot, and Benintendi are all CF I would place above Almora in terms of value. I wouldn't trade Holt for him, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 3, 2015 0:12:08 GMT -5
With less sellers this year, I think it makes sense to trade a few pieces if we can't pull it together quick, as long as the price is right. Was thinking about a Buccholz, Koji and Holt for Baez and Almora deal, would LOVE something like that, but it might not be super realistic. Maybe Buccholz, Koji and De Aza for Mondesi and Almonte. Then i'd chase 2 of Cueto, Price, Fister, Zimmerman, Samardzija in the offseason and give Johnson a chance to shine this year. Price - Cueto - ERod - Porcello - Miley/Johnson/Owens could be special! Baez has huge K issues; his hit tool is a giant question mark. Not a big fan. And Almora would slot pretty far down the CF depth chart. I think that would be an awful trade; I'm of the opinion that Buchholz should return a top-25 arm and a position player in the 75-100 range. One of the two should be within a year of ML-ready. Beyond that, Koji alone should have value enough to a contender with some salary relief to net a 60-90 range prospect plus a low-A high risk/reward arm. And Holt has lots of value to a contender. One look at his OBP...and I cringe at the idea of Baez again. Holt could start at 2b on a lot of teams, possibly even as a perennial starter on a first-division team. I've been down on him in the past as a starter, but he's holding up this year and has improved his selectivity. He's young and cost-controlled. Holt alone could easily net a top-50/60 prospect, possibly more given four more years of team control, and above-average offense at 2b plus excellent versatility.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 3, 2015 1:38:02 GMT -5
What about targeting Kyle Schwarber as a 1B replacement for Napoli long term? Think him for Buchholz straight up might be a good move?
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 5, 2015 8:09:47 GMT -5
Buchholz's revival does bring up some interesting questions.
To trade him or not to trade him. We Red Sox fans know it best, he has the talent to be this good every year, but talent has never been his issue. Staying healthy and consistent has.
With him pitching this well though and the fact that he is under control at a ridiculously good price for the next two years, makes him very valuable and means we could probably getting a kings ransom for him at the deadline. But it also means we would likely be giving up on the 2016 season as well. So what do we do?
I personally am leaning towards keeping him because I think we some work around the edges, there is plenty of talent to be in contention next year. But I certainly understand the trade him crowd. What better time than to cash in on the 30 year old, injury prone, inconsistent pitcher than in his prime when he is pitching his best.
It's an interesting concept.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 5, 2015 9:51:54 GMT -5
What about targeting Kyle Schwarber as a 1B replacement for Napoli long term? Think him for Buchholz straight up might be a good move? I brought that up a few weeks ago. Nobody likes it. In fact, I'm not sure we should do something like that. Mainly, because pitching is so expensive to get. I thought Porcello would rebound and give us what Buchholz is doing. Not very likely given his struggles. Figured we could make a run at Cueto. That would be 25m for Cueto and 20m for Porcello. Probably, better off keeping Buchholz on short term and money. Hope Porcello rebounds next year. Make a big move to upgrade the pen this coming off-season. I do love Schwarber though. We might be able to make a big in-season move next year for a starter. We'll have th loser of the Swihart/Vazquez battle for catcher, Margot knocking at the door and maybe someone like Henry O. A rebuilding team would give up a lot for cost-controlled; C, CF and young lefty. Need our prospects to develop a little more to build up their value. I'm patient.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 5, 2015 10:12:20 GMT -5
What about targeting Kyle Schwarber as a 1B replacement for Napoli long term? Think him for Buchholz straight up might be a good move? I brought that up a few weeks ago. Nobody likes it. In fact, I'm not sure we should do something like that. Mainly, because pitching is so expensive to get. I thought Porcello would rebound and give us what Buchholz is doing. Not very likely given his struggles. Figured we could make a run at Cueto. That would be 25m for Cueto and 20m for Porcello. Probably, better off keeping Buchholz on short term and money. Hope Porcello rebounds next year. Make a big move to upgrade the pen this coming off-season. I do love Schwarber though. We might be able to make a big in-season move next year for a starter. We'll have th loser of the Swihart/Vazquez battle for catcher, Margot knocking at the door and maybe someone like Henry O. A rebuilding team would give up a lot for cost-controlled; C, CF and young lefty. Need our prospects to develop a little more to build up their value. I'm patient. Why would you double up on 30+ year old starters with a decent amount of innings under their belt? Cueto will get a bad contract from someone for 6 years. I hope the Sox aren't that team. Pitching is inconsistent, but look at the teams succeeding this year. Many of them have young starters. I'd rather take the Braves route of acquiring guys like Shelby Miller if at all possible. That will require dealing guys like Margot, but so be it. Just because we don't deal Buchholz for a starter doesn't mean we can't deal out excess position player depth to do so later.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 6, 2015 9:14:08 GMT -5
Buchholz could be a key guy in the rotation going forward considering his recent success. He can be dominating. A real dilemma for Cherington at the deadline if the team is 4 -7 games out. As has been pointed out, he can be inconsistent and injury prone.
I would tend to hold onto him if he continues his performance to end of July. But, if someone blows our GM away, by all means, pull the trigger, contending or not.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 6, 2015 9:45:02 GMT -5
My view, for the record, is that if the Red Sox are 7+ games out of a wild card at the ASB, they should auction off Buchholz while his value is highest. As of this morning, the Red Sox are 6.5 games out of the second wild card. My view has not changed one iota. As of this morning, the Red Sox are 6 games out of the division and 5 games out of the second wild card.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 10:49:03 GMT -5
My view, for the record, is that if the Red Sox are 7+ games out of a wild card at the ASB, they should auction off Buchholz while his value is highest. As of this morning, the Red Sox are 6.5 games out of the second wild card. My view has not changed one iota. As of this morning, the Red Sox are 6 games out of the division and 5 games out of the second wild card. I agree, and the number of teams ahead of the Sox also matters . If they are 5 or 6 out ,but still last in the east, and ahead of just a few teams in the WC , I'd trade him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 11:13:24 GMT -5
I don't think the WEEI callers are going to stand for another sell off if they're playing like they are now in 3 weeks. They'll have to go on a losing run.
|
|
|