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.
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,827
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 11, 2015 12:41:48 GMT -5
Not sure why, but Salazar (according to our Wiz of BS - Cafardo) is more apt to be traded than Carrasco this winter. Danny Salazar had a very nice season this year is not arb eligible until 2017 and is 25 years old. His K, WHIP, W/L record, and ERA were very solid in pretty much his 1st full season for the Indians. In 185 innings he gave up just 156 hits and had 195 K's. He had a WHIP of just 1.13 and his record was 14 and 10.
He is definitely someone to consider and would like to hear what you folks think of him and what he may be worth. How does Miley and Hanley sound with us paying half of Ramirez's freight? Cleveland needs a bat, and they don't have a DH.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 11, 2015 13:26:32 GMT -5
Though both would be great additions to our rotation, I'd be more interested in Carrasco than Salazar. It seems like Cleveland would probably just want to trade whichever one got them a better return. Carrasco is a little older (28 vs. 25), but has a very team-friendly contract with 3 years and $19 million remaining, plus two team options for $9 million and $9.5 million. Carrasco this year had a swinging strike percentage of 14.0%, which ranked fifth in baseball after Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, and Liriano. He also led the league in O-Swing% (percent of pitches outside the zone swung at by hitters), and numbers 2-5 on that list were DeGrom, Scherzer, Kluber, and Sale. His K% of 29.6 ranked fourth after Kershaw, Sale, and Scherzer. His SIERA the past two years was 2.58 and 2.74. The only other pitchers to post a SIERA below 2.75 two years in a row were Kershaw and Sale.
He might be slightly more expensive to trade for than Salazar, but then again he might not, since Salazar is still a year away from arbitration and is three years younger. If we could get him without giving up our entire minor league system, that would be great. I think they would need at least a couple good prospect as well though. Maybe someone like Margot. Would something like (subsidized) Hanley, Miley, Margot, Johnson, and Light be enough?
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Oct 11, 2015 13:42:09 GMT -5
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,827
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 11, 2015 13:42:57 GMT -5
Though both would be great additions to our rotation, I'd be more interested in Carrasco than Salazar. It seems like Cleveland would probably just want to trade whichever one got them a better return. Carrasco is a little older (28 vs. 25), but has a very team-friendly contract with 3 years and $19 million remaining, plus two team options for $9 million and $9.5 million. Carrasco this year had a swinging strike percentage of 14.0%, which ranked fifth in baseball after Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, and Liriano. He also led the league in O-Swing% (percent of pitches outside the zone swung at by hitters), and numbers 2-5 on that list were DeGrom, Scherzer, Kluber, and Sale. His K% of 29.6 ranked fourth after Kershaw, Sale, and Scherzer. His SIERA the past two years was 2.58 and 2.74. The only other pitchers to post a SIERA below 2.75 two years in a row were Kershaw and Sale. He might be slightly more expensive to trade for than Salazar, but then again he might not, since Salazar is still a year away from arbitration and is three years younger. If we could get him without giving up our entire minor league system, that would be great. I think they would need at least a couple good prospect as well though. Maybe someone like Margot. Would something like (subsidized) Hanley, Miley, Margot, Johnson, and Light be enough? Shane, I know we are all throwing some ideas out there, but your offer seems IMO as too much for Danny Salazar. Now for Carrasco, who I also like better, it may be close. The Indians actually may be close to competing next season with the addition of an elite bat. It may be hard to argue this after what transpired this season, but Hanley is an elite bat normally and the Indians would never normally be able to afford him (and probably he would never have gone there under his own free will). Hanley batting 4th and DHing for the tribe could be very valuable for them. Miley himself would duplicate 75% of Salazar. I truly do understand you have to hurt also when making a trade, but I'm not sure all 3 of those kids also is necessary (for Salazar). Cleveland is in a really good place with respect to their rotation. Kluber and company certainly represent the strength of their ball club. I'm not interested, personally, in Trevor Bauer. You may be right. Cleveland doesn't have to move a starter, but with the lineup they have presently, they really don't have enough fire power.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,827
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 11, 2015 13:47:05 GMT -5
I guess I could see that, especially with Benitendi and Margot coming fast. I would certainly rather make it Castillo instead of Jackie, but I'm sure we would need to throw in another prospect.....probably a good one (Johnson?). I really like the Indians big 3, and one great thing about Salazar is his age and control. This may be the kind of thing we should be looking into in 2016 instead of going for broke on a David Price.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Oct 11, 2015 14:58:23 GMT -5
With the Indians payroll restrictions, they would want to see the trade to be salary neutral or better. Therefore, I do not see them wanting Castillo. The Indians only have 1 bad contract - Chris Johnson to potentially add to the trade. His contract does not offset Castillo's.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 11, 2015 15:21:19 GMT -5
Though both would be great additions to our rotation, I'd be more interested in Carrasco than Salazar. It seems like Cleveland would probably just want to trade whichever one got them a better return. Carrasco is a little older (28 vs. 25), but has a very team-friendly contract with 3 years and $19 million remaining, plus two team options for $9 million and $9.5 million. Carrasco this year had a swinging strike percentage of 14.0%, which ranked fifth in baseball after Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, and Liriano. He also led the league in O-Swing% (percent of pitches outside the zone swung at by hitters), and numbers 2-5 on that list were DeGrom, Scherzer, Kluber, and Sale. His K% of 29.6 ranked fourth after Kershaw, Sale, and Scherzer. His SIERA the past two years was 2.58 and 2.74. The only other pitchers to post a SIERA below 2.75 two years in a row were Kershaw and Sale. He might be slightly more expensive to trade for than Salazar, but then again he might not, since Salazar is still a year away from arbitration and is three years younger. If we could get him without giving up our entire minor league system, that would be great. I think they would need at least a couple good prospect as well though. Maybe someone like Margot. Would something like (subsidized) Hanley, Miley, Margot, Johnson, and Light be enough? Shane, I know we are all throwing some ideas out there, but your offer seems IMO as too much for Danny Salazar. Now for Carrasco, who I also like better, it may be close. The Indians actually may be close to competing next season with the addition of an elite bat. It may be hard to argue this after what transpired this season, but Hanley is an elite bat normally and the Indians would never normally be able to afford him (and probably he would never have gone there under his own free will). Hanley batting 4th and DHing for the tribe could be very valuable for them. Miley himself would duplicate 75% of Salazar. I truly do understand you have to hurt also when making a trade, but I'm not sure all 3 of those kids also is necessary (for Salazar). Cleveland is in a really good place with respect to their rotation. Kluber and company certainly represent the strength of their ball club. I'm not interested, personally, in Trevor Bauer. You may be right. Cleveland doesn't have to move a starter, but with the lineup they have presently, they really don't have enough fire power. I would push as hard as possible to make it Carrasco instead of Salazar. Salazar is a good pitcher, but I think that Carrasco is truly elite. I agree with you: I expect Hanley to bounce back next year and be one of the best hitters in baseball, albeit with terrible defense. I also agree that my offer is a lot, but I would do it if that was what it took to get Carrasco. If I had the choice, I would want to either switch a subsidized Hanley for a subsidized Castillo, or switch Margot to a lesser prospect, perhaps Guerra or Sam Travis. But if Hanley, Miley, Margot, Johnson, and Light was what it took to get Carrasco, I would do it.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2015 17:29:44 GMT -5
Shane, I know we are all throwing some ideas out there, but your offer seems IMO as too much for Danny Salazar. Now for Carrasco, who I also like better, it may be close. The Indians actually may be close to competing next season with the addition of an elite bat. It may be hard to argue this after what transpired this season, but Hanley is an elite bat normally and the Indians would never normally be able to afford him (and probably he would never have gone there under his own free will). Hanley batting 4th and DHing for the tribe could be very valuable for them. Miley himself would duplicate 75% of Salazar. I truly do understand you have to hurt also when making a trade, but I'm not sure all 3 of those kids also is necessary (for Salazar). Cleveland is in a really good place with respect to their rotation. Kluber and company certainly represent the strength of their ball club. I'm not interested, personally, in Trevor Bauer. You may be right. Cleveland doesn't have to move a starter, but with the lineup they have presently, they really don't have enough fire power. I would push as hard as possible to make it Carrasco instead of Salazar. Salazar is a good pitcher, but I think that Carrasco is truly elite. I agree with you: I expect Hanley to bounce back next year and be one of the best hitters in baseball, albeit with terrible defense. I also agree that my offer is a lot, but I would do it if that was what it took to get Carrasco. If I had the choice, I would want to either switch a subsidized Hanley for a subsidized Castillo, or switch Margot to a lesser prospect, perhaps Guerra or Sam Travis. But if Hanley, Miley, Margot, Johnson, and Light was what it took to get Carrasco, I would do it. Shane, honestly, when's the last time a team did a 5-1 deal? Von Hayes about 33 years ago or so? You can add as many bodies as you want, but if it's just quantity and not a ton of quality, why would the Indians do it? The Indians could use the same kind of strategies the Sox used in 2013, do middle tier free agents to get themselves a corner OF and a DH, or something like that. They don't need to deal Salazar or Carrasco unless they're overwhelmed, and I don't think the Sox have to act that desperate to get a possible #1, or a guy they hope takes that leap.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 11, 2015 19:12:06 GMT -5
I would push as hard as possible to make it Carrasco instead of Salazar. Salazar is a good pitcher, but I think that Carrasco is truly elite. I agree with you: I expect Hanley to bounce back next year and be one of the best hitters in baseball, albeit with terrible defense. I also agree that my offer is a lot, but I would do it if that was what it took to get Carrasco. If I had the choice, I would want to either switch a subsidized Hanley for a subsidized Castillo, or switch Margot to a lesser prospect, perhaps Guerra or Sam Travis. But if Hanley, Miley, Margot, Johnson, and Light was what it took to get Carrasco, I would do it. Shane, honestly, when's the last time a team did a 5-1 deal? Von Hayes about 33 years ago or so? You can add as many bodies as you want, but if it's just quantity and not a ton of quality, why would the Indians do it? The Indians could use the same kind of strategies the Sox used in 2013, do middle tier free agents to get themselves a corner OF and a DH, or something like that. They don't need to deal Salazar or Carrasco unless they're overwhelmed, and I don't think the Sox have to act that desperate to get a possible #1, or a guy they hope takes that leap. Hamels this year was a 6-for-2. Garza in 2013 was a 4-for-1. Upton in 2013 was a 5-for-2. Just a few ideas. They don't have to trade any of their pitchers, but they might consider it. They did reportedly shop Carrasco at the deadline, so I think it's likely they'd at least search for possible offers. I think the Red Sox should try as hard as possible to get him for the best deal Cleveland would agree to. I don't think Carrasco is simply a guy that could take the leap into being an ace - as I described in my first post, I think he's already there. Next year, it helps the Red Sox a lot to have a guy like that. If it works out, it puts them back in the playoffs, and maybe a World Series contender if the rest of their team steps up too. Were there any reports on what Cleveland was asking for at the deadline? That would serve as a decent guideline for what it would take.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2015 19:36:10 GMT -5
Shane, honestly, when's the last time a team did a 5-1 deal? Von Hayes about 33 years ago or so? You can add as many bodies as you want, but if it's just quantity and not a ton of quality, why would the Indians do it? The Indians could use the same kind of strategies the Sox used in 2013, do middle tier free agents to get themselves a corner OF and a DH, or something like that. They don't need to deal Salazar or Carrasco unless they're overwhelmed, and I don't think the Sox have to act that desperate to get a possible #1, or a guy they hope takes that leap. Hamels this year was a 6-for-2. Garza in 2013 was a 4-for-1. Upton in 2013 was a 5-for-2. Just a few ideas. They don't have to trade any of their pitchers, but they might consider it. They did reportedly shop Carrasco at the deadline, so I think it's likely they'd at least search for possible offers. I think the Red Sox should try as hard as possible to get him for the best deal Cleveland would agree to. I don't think Carrasco is simply a guy that could take the leap into being an ace - as I described in my first post, I think he's already there. Next year, it helps the Red Sox a lot to have a guy like that. If it works out, it puts them back in the playoffs, and maybe a World Series contender if the rest of their team steps up too. Were there any reports on what Cleveland was asking for at the deadline? That would serve as a decent guideline for what it would take. But what does "try hard" really mean? I have no doubt that DDo will look into the possibility. It's his job. I'm sure most other teams will do the same as Carrasco or Salazar is highly affordable. It will come down to who's willing to give up the most? But sometimes when a guy is put out there, it's simply to see what the market would bring, not that the guy is going to get traded, unless it's an overpay situation. I'm sure the Indians are well aware of Carrasco's FIP, and a team trying to acquire him is going to have to pay until it hurts, and possibly beyond. Any deal that involves a pitching ace will likely include Anderson Espinoza, as teams normally would want to replace a young ace with an even younger potential ace, and that guy is the only guy that has "ace" potential on the Sox. I would expect Devers would be another guy the other team would want - I would expect the Sox to draw a line at Moncada. Margot would likely be gone, and Owens probably, too. So something like Anderson, and 3 of four of Devers, Margot, Swihart and Owens, would probably be in line with what Cleveland would demand for a cost controlled ace. And if that's the case, it would be too steep to do. The Sox are going to have to find the next failed prospect who suddenly turns it around, sort of the way they found Andrew Miller. Somebody mentioned Gray of Colorado and that's the right idea, although I doubt the Rox are ready to give up on him yet. Sort of the way the Orioles were ready to give up on a failure named Arrietta. That's the guy the Sox need to scout and find - if they want that future ace. The problem is that kind of guy is too much of a risk, so they need something more stable without getting killed in a trade for a starter.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 11, 2015 20:38:08 GMT -5
I think it came out the Indians turned down a package from Torono headlined by Norris for Carasco.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 11, 2015 20:43:33 GMT -5
I like the idea of getting Salazar, who's younger and not yet in his prime, because the cost is likely to be lower than Carrasco. CC also has only a year and a half of great pitching under his belt, so there's still risk. Plus, the Sox don't **need** an "ace," they simply need a stronger rotation...more 2/3 guys instead of 3/4/5. 2013 shows that a team without a de facto ace can still compete, provided somebody steps up in the postseason. Trading Swihart creates a problem, even if it solves one. I think picking up young guys pitching like 2/3s with upside is preferable to emptying the system for a true #1. Salazar/Rodriguez is a pretty solid 1/2, particularly with the depth the Sox have past that. If just one more guy steps up, they'd have a very good 1-2-3, and at least average 4/5, if not better. Giving up Espinoza in just about any trade is madness.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 11, 2015 20:46:48 GMT -5
Hamels this year was a 6-for-2. Garza in 2013 was a 4-for-1. Upton in 2013 was a 5-for-2. Just a few ideas. They don't have to trade any of their pitchers, but they might consider it. They did reportedly shop Carrasco at the deadline, so I think it's likely they'd at least search for possible offers. I think the Red Sox should try as hard as possible to get him for the best deal Cleveland would agree to. I don't think Carrasco is simply a guy that could take the leap into being an ace - as I described in my first post, I think he's already there. Next year, it helps the Red Sox a lot to have a guy like that. If it works out, it puts them back in the playoffs, and maybe a World Series contender if the rest of their team steps up too. Were there any reports on what Cleveland was asking for at the deadline? That would serve as a decent guideline for what it would take. But what does "try hard" really mean? I have no doubt that DDo will look into the possibility. It's his job. I'm sure most other teams will do the same as Carrasco or Salazar is highly affordable. It will come down to who's willing to give up the most? But sometimes when a guy is put out there, it's simply to see what the market would bring, not that the guy is going to get traded, unless it's an overpay situation. I'm sure the Indians are well aware of Carrasco's FIP, and a team trying to acquire him is going to have to pay until it hurts, and possibly beyond. Any deal that involves a pitching ace will likely include Anderson Espinoza, as teams normally would want to replace a young ace with an even younger potential ace, and that guy is the only guy that has "ace" potential on the Sox. I would expect Devers would be another guy the other team would want - I would expect the Sox to draw a line at Moncada. Margot would likely be gone, and Owens probably, too. So something like Anderson, and 3 of four of Devers, Margot, Swihart and Owens, would probably be in line with what Cleveland would demand for a cost controlled ace. And if that's the case, it would be too steep to do. The Sox are going to have to find the next failed prospect who suddenly turns it around, sort of the way they found Andrew Miller. Somebody mentioned Gray of Colorado and that's the right idea, although I doubt the Rox are ready to give up on him yet. Sort of the way the Orioles were ready to give up on a failure named Arrietta. That's the guy the Sox need to scout and find - if they want that future ace. The problem is that kind of guy is too much of a risk, so they need something more stable without getting killed in a trade for a starter. I agree, Carrasco's not going to come cheap. I don't think he'd be THAT expensive, but if it were the Red Sox, I certainly wouldn't want them giving him away. Though I don't think Cleveland's as smart as Boston, it's their job to know that he can be better. The reason I find him interesting, however, is that if you read my first post, his SIERA the last two years puts him in company with Kershaw and Sale. Kershaw's not going anywhere, and if Sale, somewhat miraculously, did get moved, it would be for a lot more than Carrasco. I also don't think the Rockies would be in a hurry to get rid or Gray. They have nothing to lose, and he did just post a SIERA of 3.88.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 11, 2015 21:15:27 GMT -5
I think it came out the Indians turned down a package from Torono headlined by Norris for Carasco. Wow, that might erase our chances on Carrasco. Is there any chance the Indians asked for Norris and the Blue Jays turned it down?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2015 21:15:51 GMT -5
But what does "try hard" really mean? I have no doubt that DDo will look into the possibility. It's his job. I'm sure most other teams will do the same as Carrasco or Salazar is highly affordable. It will come down to who's willing to give up the most? But sometimes when a guy is put out there, it's simply to see what the market would bring, not that the guy is going to get traded, unless it's an overpay situation. I'm sure the Indians are well aware of Carrasco's FIP, and a team trying to acquire him is going to have to pay until it hurts, and possibly beyond. Any deal that involves a pitching ace will likely include Anderson Espinoza, as teams normally would want to replace a young ace with an even younger potential ace, and that guy is the only guy that has "ace" potential on the Sox. I would expect Devers would be another guy the other team would want - I would expect the Sox to draw a line at Moncada. Margot would likely be gone, and Owens probably, too. So something like Anderson, and 3 of four of Devers, Margot, Swihart and Owens, would probably be in line with what Cleveland would demand for a cost controlled ace. And if that's the case, it would be too steep to do. The Sox are going to have to find the next failed prospect who suddenly turns it around, sort of the way they found Andrew Miller. Somebody mentioned Gray of Colorado and that's the right idea, although I doubt the Rox are ready to give up on him yet. Sort of the way the Orioles were ready to give up on a failure named Arrietta. That's the guy the Sox need to scout and find - if they want that future ace. The problem is that kind of guy is too much of a risk, so they need something more stable without getting killed in a trade for a starter. I agree, Carrasco's not going to come cheap. I don't think he'd be THAT expensive, but if it were the Red Sox, I certainly wouldn't want them giving him away. Though I don't think Cleveland's as smart as Boston, it's their job to know that he can be better. The reason I find him interesting, however, is that if you read my first post, his SIERA the last two years puts him in company with Kershaw and Sale. Kershaw's not going anywhere, and if Sale, somewhat miraculously, did get moved, it would be for a lot more than Carrasco. I also don't think the Rockies would be in a hurry to get rid or Gray. They have nothing to lose, and he did just post a SIERA of 3.88. Why? It's not like it's the early days of Money Ball and the Sox are one of a few teams ahead of the curve. Most teams these days know the SIERA, the FIP, and all sorts of other innovative stats. Plus they use their scouting. The Red Sox aren't unique in all that. And if the Indians did indeed turn down Norris, who I think will be an excellent pitcher, rest assured Henry Owens won't be nearly enough to headline a deal. It's going to cost somebody who has a higher probability of being an ace pitcher down the line. The Sox have Kopech and Espinoza and the latter is the guy other teams will want. Again, the Indians don't need to trade Carrasco to the Red Sox or anybody at all. One of the most valuable commodities in baseball is a young cost controlled ace. You don't trade one unless the talent you get back is superior to what you're giving up. It's a lot easier to fill other holes on your club via free agency, bargain basement hunting, smaller trades, etc. Getting a young ace pitcher is a lot harder. Getting one closer to the cusp of free agency usually costs less. Again, the most cost effective way is to find a guy that fails and hopes he turns into the next Miller or Arrietta. Get a guy coming off an injury (that's how the Sox wound up with Luis Tiant all those years ago) who returns to form is another way (certainly risky, too). Look at the Sox history of aces. They signed one who had been injured off the scrap heap in Tiant, traded for one in Eckersley - but he was dealt for issues most likely not having to do with his pitching, drafted one in Clemens, traded for a rental on the cusp of free agency in Pedro, and gave up a lot of young impact talent in a young Hanley, and a young Anibal Sanchez for Beckett and a guy considered a contract dump in Lowell, and drafted the other in Lester who was almost dealt away in the aborted A-Rod deal.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2015 21:17:27 GMT -5
I think it came out the Indians turned down a package from Torono headlined by Norris for Carasco. Wow, that might erase our chances on Carrasco. Is there any chance the Indians asked for Norris and the Blue Jays turned it down? Unlikely. The Jays were quite willing to sacrifice six years of Norris for a rental ace in Price, though instead of a "young ace" under contractual control for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 11, 2015 21:27:11 GMT -5
I agree, Carrasco's not going to come cheap. I don't think he'd be THAT expensive, but if it were the Red Sox, I certainly wouldn't want them giving him away. Though I don't think Cleveland's as smart as Boston, it's their job to know that he can be better. The reason I find him interesting, however, is that if you read my first post, his SIERA the last two years puts him in company with Kershaw and Sale. Kershaw's not going anywhere, and if Sale, somewhat miraculously, did get moved, it would be for a lot more than Carrasco. I also don't think the Rockies would be in a hurry to get rid or Gray. They have nothing to lose, and he did just post a SIERA of 3.88. Why? It's not like it's the early days of Money Ball and the Sox are one of a few teams ahead of the curve. Most teams these days know the SIERA, the FIP, and all sorts of other innovative stats. Plus they use their scouting. The Red Sox aren't unique in all that. And if the Indians did indeed turn down Norris, who I think will be an excellent pitcher, rest assured Henry Owens won't be nearly enough to headline a deal. It's going to cost somebody who has a higher probability of being an ace pitcher down the line. The Sox have Kopech and Espinoza and the latter is the guy other teams will want. Again, the Indians don't need to trade Carrasco to the Red Sox or anybody at all. One of the most valuable commodities in baseball is a young cost controlled ace. You don't trade one unless the talent you get back is superior to what you're giving up. It's a lot easier to fill other holes on your club via free agency, bargain basement hunting, smaller trades, etc. Getting a young ace pitcher is a lot harder. Getting one closer to the cusp of free agency usually costs less. Again, the most cost effective way is to find a guy that fails and hopes he turns into the next Miller or Arrietta. Get a guy coming off an injury (that's how the Sox wound up with Luis Tiant all those years ago) who returns to form is another way (certainly risky, too). Look at the Sox history of aces. They signed one who had been injured off the scrap heap in Tiant, traded for one in Eckersley - but he was dealt for issues most likely not having to do with his pitching, drafted one in Clemens, traded for a rental on the cusp of free agency in Pedro, and gave up a lot of young impact talent in a young Hanley, and a young Anibal Sanchez for Beckett and a guy considered a contract dump in Lowell, and drafted the other in Lester who was almost dealt away in the aborted A-Rod deal. I agree, the Indians aren't stupid or anything. I just personally think the Red Sox are smart because they always have a great farm system, and have won three World Series in ten years. But obviously they know Carrasco is good. Just curious, what would you say the modern equivalent to the Beckett trade would be?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 11, 2015 21:36:05 GMT -5
Why? It's not like it's the early days of Money Ball and the Sox are one of a few teams ahead of the curve. Most teams these days know the SIERA, the FIP, and all sorts of other innovative stats. Plus they use their scouting. The Red Sox aren't unique in all that. And if the Indians did indeed turn down Norris, who I think will be an excellent pitcher, rest assured Henry Owens won't be nearly enough to headline a deal. It's going to cost somebody who has a higher probability of being an ace pitcher down the line. The Sox have Kopech and Espinoza and the latter is the guy other teams will want. Again, the Indians don't need to trade Carrasco to the Red Sox or anybody at all. One of the most valuable commodities in baseball is a young cost controlled ace. You don't trade one unless the talent you get back is superior to what you're giving up. It's a lot easier to fill other holes on your club via free agency, bargain basement hunting, smaller trades, etc. Getting a young ace pitcher is a lot harder. Getting one closer to the cusp of free agency usually costs less. Again, the most cost effective way is to find a guy that fails and hopes he turns into the next Miller or Arrietta. Get a guy coming off an injury (that's how the Sox wound up with Luis Tiant all those years ago) who returns to form is another way (certainly risky, too). Look at the Sox history of aces. They signed one who had been injured off the scrap heap in Tiant, traded for one in Eckersley - but he was dealt for issues most likely not having to do with his pitching, drafted one in Clemens, traded for a rental on the cusp of free agency in Pedro, and gave up a lot of young impact talent in a young Hanley, and a young Anibal Sanchez for Beckett and a guy considered a contract dump in Lowell, and drafted the other in Lester who was almost dealt away in the aborted A-Rod deal. I agree, the Indians aren't stupid or anything. I just personally think the Red Sox are smart because they always have a great farm system, and have won three World Series in ten years. But obviously they know Carrasco is good. Just curious, what would you say the modern equivalent to the Beckett trade would be? Hard to say. Don't know of any contracts the Indians are looking to unload. I would say the closest talent the Sox have to a young Hanley is Moncada, but he's not a SS nor a guy who will jump to the majors from AA the way Hanley did, but I'd say Moncada is close to that guy for the Sox. Owens perhaps is comparable to Sanchez, but that might be a stretch. And that's if the Sox took on a salary dump in addition to said pitcher. More likely the other team would demand Espinoza in a deal for a young cost controlled ace. How could you not? I think the Sox would lose at least one of Moncada or Espinoza in the kind of deal you're looking for. The Sox starting staff needs an ace, yes, but they don't have to be desperate to get one. They need Porcello to pitch more like he was toward the end of the year. They need Buchholz to be healthier longer. They need Kelly to perform better which he was toward the end of the year. They need Rodriguez to step forward (most likely scenario). Any combo of these things. And a better defense and bullpen would go a long way to support the starting staff. They don't need to gut their farm system and if they want to get a more guaranteed short-term performance, they can sign a free agent starter.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 12, 2015 0:30:50 GMT -5
I agree, the Indians aren't stupid or anything. I just personally think the Red Sox are smart because they always have a great farm system, and have won three World Series in ten years. But obviously they know Carrasco is good. Just curious, what would you say the modern equivalent to the Beckett trade would be? Hard to say. Don't know of any contracts the Indians are looking to unload. I would say the closest talent the Sox have to a young Hanley is Moncada, but he's not a SS nor a guy who will jump to the majors from AA the way Hanley did, but I'd say Moncada is close to that guy for the Sox. Owens perhaps is comparable to Sanchez, but that might be a stretch. And that's if the Sox took on a salary dump in addition to said pitcher. More likely the other team would demand Espinoza in a deal for a young cost controlled ace. How could you not? I think the Sox would lose at least one of Moncada or Espinoza in the kind of deal you're looking for. The Sox starting staff needs an ace, yes, but they don't have to be desperate to get one. They need Porcello to pitch more like he was toward the end of the year. They need Buchholz to be healthier longer. They need Kelly to perform better which he was toward the end of the year. They need Rodriguez to step forward (most likely scenario). Any combo of these things. And a better defense and bullpen would go a long way to support the starting staff. They don't need to gut their farm system and if they want to get a more guaranteed short-term performance, they can sign a free agent starter. Chris Johnson has 2/17.5 left, not a huge contract by any means, but somewhat similar to Lowell's 2/18 at the time. Looking back on it, Hanley was the 10th best prospect in baseball according to sources, so he's similar to either Moncada (8) or Devers (13). However, I don't know if Owens is a good comp for Sanchez - though he turned out to be a success, he never made any top-100 prospect rankings. How do you think Carrasco overall compares to Beckett? Beckett might have been slightly better, and was still in arbitration, however Carrasco has a longer contract that's not by any means expensive.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 12, 2015 6:09:06 GMT -5
Let's not forget that Carrasco will be 29 before the season starts next spring. The 5 years of control are great, but you're still going to get some decline years in those years of control.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,917
|
Post by nomar on Oct 12, 2015 9:50:32 GMT -5
Norris had a high prospect ranking, but was only extremely successful in 2014. This year he didn't look great at any level. It's conceivable that the Indians had seen him this year and weren't impressed. Even if a prospect has big trade value, if you don't believe in him, it's not worth giving someone like Carrasco for him.
Also, if JBJ and Miley is enough for Carrasco or Salazar, I would pull the trigger. JBJ could be just as valuable as either of them as soon as this year, but also has much more downside/risk. Miley fills the gap between their value pretty well, and we are getting kind of lefty heavy so I think losing him instead of Kelly actually makes some sense for us.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Oct 12, 2015 10:37:05 GMT -5
There's all this talk about mining for gold and trying to find the next Arrieta, but we can't immediately write off Kelly. Sure, he was inconsistent for most of the year, but he was dominant in those last two months or so. Isn't that what Ben was hoping for in that trade? Before we all hope Dombrowski goes out and puts forth a huge package for Carrasco, likely including Espinoza (which would be absolutely devastating for us in the long run), we should wait and see if the changes Kelly made hold up in the spring and early next season. We don't have to destroy the farm, likely giving up Anderson, Swihart, Devers, or any other includeable top prospect, if we already found our own Arrieta, in Kelly. Let's be patient about this. And we have to constantly bear in mind how high Anderson and Kopech's ceilings are.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 17, 2015 9:49:45 GMT -5
Hard to say. Don't know of any contracts the Indians are looking to unload. I would say the closest talent the Sox have to a young Hanley is Moncada, but he's not a SS nor a guy who will jump to the majors from AA the way Hanley did, but I'd say Moncada is close to that guy for the Sox. Owens perhaps is comparable to Sanchez, but that might be a stretch. And that's if the Sox took on a salary dump in addition to said pitcher. More likely the other team would demand Espinoza in a deal for a young cost controlled ace. How could you not? I think the Sox would lose at least one of Moncada or Espinoza in the kind of deal you're looking for. The Sox starting staff needs an ace, yes, but they don't have to be desperate to get one. They need Porcello to pitch more like he was toward the end of the year. They need Buchholz to be healthier longer. They need Kelly to perform better which he was toward the end of the year. They need Rodriguez to step forward (most likely scenario). Any combo of these things. And a better defense and bullpen would go a long way to support the starting staff. They don't need to gut their farm system and if they want to get a more guaranteed short-term performance, they can sign a free agent starter. Chris Johnson has 2/17.5 left, not a huge contract by any means, but somewhat similar to Lowell's 2/18 at the time. Looking back on it, Hanley was the 10th best prospect in baseball according to sources, so he's similar to either Moncada (8) or Devers (13). However, I don't know if Owens is a good comp for Sanchez - though he turned out to be a success, he never made any top-100 prospect rankings. How do you think Carrasco overall compares to Beckett? Beckett might have been slightly better, and was still in arbitration, however Carrasco has a longer contract that's not by any means expensive. The offseason they were traded, BA had Hanley ranked 30th and Sanchez ranked 40th. I'd say that's a reasonable value comp to Margot and Owens.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 17, 2015 20:59:16 GMT -5
Chris Johnson has 2/17.5 left, not a huge contract by any means, but somewhat similar to Lowell's 2/18 at the time. Looking back on it, Hanley was the 10th best prospect in baseball according to sources, so he's similar to either Moncada (8) or Devers (13). However, I don't know if Owens is a good comp for Sanchez - though he turned out to be a success, he never made any top-100 prospect rankings. How do you think Carrasco overall compares to Beckett? Beckett might have been slightly better, and was still in arbitration, however Carrasco has a longer contract that's not by any means expensive. The offseason they were traded, BA had Hanley ranked 30th and Sanchez ranked 40th. I'd say that's a reasonable value comp to Margot and Owens. If it's Carrasco and Chris Johnson for Margot and Owens, let's do it!
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Oct 18, 2015 6:14:04 GMT -5
I am not sure if the Indians are being reasonable in their request but one Indians writer suggests that the price for Salazar be one established big leaguer and one quality prospects: www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2015/10/hey_hoynsie_17.html. This also suggests that the Indians would shoot for the moon for Carrasco.
|
|
|