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.
2017 Trade Deadline Thread (Red Sox discussion)
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2017 21:54:50 GMT -5
By the way, there' not a lot of free agenty quality of position players in the offseason. Hosmer, JD Martinez and...not much else
Gonna be tough to improve this offense on the open market if you have bid against 12+ teams for either of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 27, 2017 22:10:08 GMT -5
All 5 starting pitchers are back next season.
The bullpen is back mostly intact next offseason.
This offseason, the key to making this offense a juggernaut again is one veteran power hitter.
We will have to trade for one and because dave has depleted the prospect pool, we are going to have to give up a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 27, 2017 22:11:18 GMT -5
I think the trade you're proposing could be the play which the Sox could go for. Especially if Bruce proves he can play a competent first base tonight. I don't think they'd need to add more value because of Young. Young would be just a throw in. He's a throw-in the Mets don't need. I'm sure they're looking to shed $, not take any back, not that I have any problem saying see ya to Young as I would be more than happy to see Brentz get a shot at this point. I'm leery of the price they'd have to pay. I wouldn't deal Chavis or Mata for any rentals and at this point I don't think there is any impact player the Red Sox would be chasing that would be worthy of parting with either of those two guys. If the Mets package Reed with Cabrera elsewhere I'd be fine with it. Bruce by himself shouldn't be that costly in talent and the Sox could find a reliever like Kintzler who'd also be a rental. He's not as good as Reed but he's reasonably effective and would cost a lesser player I'd think. Two or three lesser players is better than dealing away one of your top prospects, even if I do think in totality Reed and Bruce are the best package to get. I just can't shake the feeling that one of Chavis, Mata, and/or Shawaryn are goners, with my sense that if they do the package deal, Chavis is a goner and I won't be too happy about it. I would probably include Chavis, Hembree, Young, and Travis for Bruce and Addison Reed. That's not a bad deal for the Mets either. Losing Chavis might hurt but the guy has no position at the moment. You would be upgrading 2 positions at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 27, 2017 22:34:45 GMT -5
I'd be on board with a three teamer. Price to the Dodgers who are already over the cap significantly and are looking for a top arm and a cost controlled stud 1Bman coming back. Travis to the third team. I'd say Goldshmidt but the Dodgers and Diamondbacks are same division and the Diamondbacks are still in the wildcard hunt.
I'd prefer stud & Johnson over the clubhouse nightmare we've got going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jul 27, 2017 22:36:19 GMT -5
He's a throw-in the Mets don't need. I'm sure they're looking to shed $, not take any back, not that I have any problem saying see ya to Young as I would be more than happy to see Brentz get a shot at this point. I'm leery of the price they'd have to pay. I wouldn't deal Chavis or Mata for any rentals and at this point I don't think there is any impact player the Red Sox would be chasing that would be worthy of parting with either of those two guys. If the Mets package Reed with Cabrera elsewhere I'd be fine with it. Bruce by himself shouldn't be that costly in talent and the Sox could find a reliever like Kintzler who'd also be a rental. He's not as good as Reed but he's reasonably effective and would cost a lesser player I'd think. Two or three lesser players is better than dealing away one of your top prospects, even if I do think in totality Reed and Bruce are the best package to get. I just can't shake the feeling that one of Chavis, Mata, and/or Shawaryn are goners, with my sense that if they do the package deal, Chavis is a goner and I won't be too happy about it. I would probably include Chavis, Hembree, Young, and Travis for Bruce and Addison Reed. That's not a bad deal for the Mets either. Losing Chavis might hurt but the guy has no position at the moment. You would be upgrading 2 positions at the same time. I can see the appeal but that is a massive overpay in my opinion. Bruce has virtually no trade value because of low demand. So you're essentially giving up chavis and Travis for half a season of reed. It would be nice to have reed, but he's not someone you overpay for-- especially considering he's a rental and his high workload this season. I'm in the camp that thinks we stand down and wait until the offseason. Save what prospects we have and go all-in for Stanton or some other power bat. We'll need chavis and Travis to do that (and then some). |
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Jul 27, 2017 22:42:13 GMT -5
With Duda gone, he's playing first base tonight against the Padres. Other than taking throws, I haven't seen him field any grounders. Wow yeah they are definitely auditioning him there tonight. No doubt. Bruce has looked comfortable at first tonight. Not many fielding chances but had a nice pick on a bad throw and he just homered off a left-hander. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2017 22:43:49 GMT -5
Chavis is already starting to show up on top 105 prospects list. This seems to be a buyers market.
The idea of Chavis, Travis, Hembree for two be free agents is just crazy bad value!! Take a look at the deals being made.
I would like Bruce and Reed, but not for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 27, 2017 22:45:33 GMT -5
Wow yeah they are definitely auditioning him there tonight. No doubt. Bruce has looked comfortable at first tonight. Not many fielding chances but had a nice pick on a bad throw and he just homered off a left-hander. Yeah I see the Sox being all over Bruce if this is the case. He's better then Moreland and more versatile. He'd be a nice candidate to extend for cheaper money too. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 27, 2017 22:47:39 GMT -5
Chavis is already starting to show up on top 105 prospects list. This seems to be a buyers market. The idea of Chavis, Travis, Hembree for two be free agents is just crazy bad value!! Take a look at the deals being made. I would like Bruce and Reed, but not for that. I thought Reed had more team control. Maybe it'd take a lot less than that for both players. I'm not sure but this has to be the Sox options to upgrade. Wilson is probably going to cost more then that. |
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jul 27, 2017 22:49:26 GMT -5
Wow yeah they are definitely auditioning him there tonight. No doubt. Bruce has looked comfortable at first tonight. Not many fielding chances but had a nice pick on a bad throw and he just homered off a left-hander. When the Mets traded for Bruce, he was pretty terrible for the remainder of that season. I remember listening to an interview with him and he said the reason he was bad was because he's a creature of habit and it took him until the offseason to really get back into a routine he was comfortable with. I'm concerned if we traded for Bruce, the same thing might happen. |
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Jul 27, 2017 23:00:08 GMT -5
Bruce has looked comfortable at first tonight. Not many fielding chances but had a nice pick on a bad throw and he just homered off a left-hander. When the Mets traded for Bruce, he was pretty terrible for the remainder of that season. I remember listening to an interview with him and he said the reason he was bad was because he's a creature of habit and it took him until the offseason to really get back into a routine he was comfortable with. I'm concerned if we traded for Bruce, the same thing might happen. That would be my worry as well. Given that he has about 4.5mil left, I wouldn't want to give up too much. I believe the Sox have about 6 mil to go before the cap ceiling. I think DD is going after a reliever first and may try to squeeze a hitter in if he can fit them within what's left of luxury tax cap (assuming the prospect demand isn't too heavy). Given the luxury tax they are trying to stay under, I don't see them claiming much on the waiver wire after the deadline. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 27, 2017 23:26:49 GMT -5
He's a throw-in the Mets don't need. I'm sure they're looking to shed $, not take any back, not that I have any problem saying see ya to Young as I would be more than happy to see Brentz get a shot at this point. I'm leery of the price they'd have to pay. I wouldn't deal Chavis or Mata for any rentals and at this point I don't think there is any impact player the Red Sox would be chasing that would be worthy of parting with either of those two guys. If the Mets package Reed with Cabrera elsewhere I'd be fine with it. Bruce by himself shouldn't be that costly in talent and the Sox could find a reliever like Kintzler who'd also be a rental. He's not as good as Reed but he's reasonably effective and would cost a lesser player I'd think. Two or three lesser players is better than dealing away one of your top prospects, even if I do think in totality Reed and Bruce are the best package to get. I just can't shake the feeling that one of Chavis, Mata, and/or Shawaryn are goners, with my sense that if they do the package deal, Chavis is a goner and I won't be too happy about it. I would probably include Chavis, Hembree, Young, and Travis for Bruce and Addison Reed. That's not a bad deal for the Mets either. Losing Chavis might hurt but the guy has no position at the moment. You would be upgrading 2 positions at the same time. You would be very kind and generous to give the Mets that package. Getting 4 years of control over a decent reliever like Hembree who probably would fare better in a big ballpark would be a nice pickup for the Mets, one that I'd be willing to give up given the abundance of RH middle relief pitching on the Red Sox, but including 6 seasons of control for Chavis AND 6 years of control for Travis, both of whom project to be regulars, is a massive overpay. I wouldn't give up either one of them to rent Bruce. The problem with the Red Sox is that they don't have many offensive players other than Chavis, Travis, a struggling Swihart, and Ockimey to bargain with. They do have some pitchers like Beeks and Callahan to dangle. But either way if Dombrowski made a deal like that most of us would be screaming bloody murder. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 27, 2017 23:28:38 GMT -5
I'm with the idea that Beeks be given a shot as a LHRP. His platoon splits are basically nonexistent, he's approaching his innings max (around 105 right now, and you'd have to think 130-140 for the season), and he's got multiple weapons including his new cutter. The CB works well on lefties, and he's right around 91-93 as a SP meaning he probably sits 93-94 in shorter stints. He's pitched extremely well at both AA and AAA, and his control's gotten better as the year's gone on. He really doesn't have much left to prove in AAA. He'd save them $/talent, and they can always send him back to starting in AAA next year (or move him to the MLB rotation depending on how he pitches and what sort of movement occurs over the winter). He's slid under the radar being short and a lower-Rd pick, but he's done nothing but improve each year. He misses bats and gets plenty of weak contact.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 28, 2017 0:19:20 GMT -5
I would probably include Chavis, Hembree, Young, and Travis for Bruce and Addison Reed. That's not a bad deal for the Mets either. Losing Chavis might hurt but the guy has no position at the moment. You would be upgrading 2 positions at the same time. You would be very kind and generous to give the Mets that package. Getting 4 years of control over a decent reliever like Hembree who probably would fare better in a big ballpark would be a nice pickup for the Mets, one that I'd be willing to give up given the abundance of RH middle relief pitching on the Red Sox, but including 6 seasons of control for Chavis AND 6 years of control for Travis, both of whom project to be regulars, is a massive overpay. I wouldn't give up either one of them to rent Bruce. The problem with the Red Sox is that they don't have many offensive players other than Chavis, Travis, a struggling Swihart, and Ockimey to bargain with. They do have some pitchers like Beeks and Callahan to dangle. But either way if Dombrowski made a deal like that most of us would be screaming bloody murder. For some reason I thought Reed came with more team control. He's only a rental. That would be a overpay. Still, I can see Dave Dombrowski giving up more than what people are comfortable with to get both these players. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 28, 2017 1:07:22 GMT -5
When the Mets traded for Bruce, he was pretty terrible for the remainder of that season. I remember listening to an interview with him and he said the reason he was bad was because he's a creature of habit and it took him until the offseason to really get back into a routine he was comfortable with. I'm concerned if we traded for Bruce, the same thing might happen. That would be my worry as well. Given that he has about 4.5mil left, I wouldn't want to give up too much. I believe the Sox have about 6 mil to go before the cap ceiling. I think DD is going after a reliever first and may try to squeeze a hitter in if he can fit them within what's left of luxury tax cap (assuming the prospect demand isn't too heavy). Given the luxury tax they are trying to stay under, I don't see them claiming much on the waiver wire after the deadline. Considering the alternative, I'd rather trade for Jay Bruce. Mitch Moreland hasn't hit in over a month now and has regressed to the same awful offensive numbers as last year. Moreland is a 89 wRC+ hitter this year as opposed to 87 wRC+ last year. He's doing this while having a BAbib over 20 points from this year to last year. People are blaming injuries for his lack of performance, and while that may have *something* to do with it, he's still a bad offensive player regardless. He has been for 2 years now. Give me a uncomfortable Jay Bruce over a bad offensive injured player in Moreland any day. Jay Bruce has way more potential upside and if he can play a capable first base, he's a massive upgrade. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 28, 2017 9:48:26 GMT -5
I'm with the idea that Beeks be given a shot as a LHRP. His platoon splits are basically nonexistent, he's approaching his innings max (around 105 right now, and you'd have to think 130-140 for the season), and he's got multiple weapons including his new cutter. The CB works well on lefties, and he's right around 91-93 as a SP meaning he probably sits 93-94 in shorter stints. He's pitched extremely well at both AA and AAA, and his control's gotten better as the year's gone on. He really doesn't have much left to prove in AAA. He'd save them $/talent, and they can always send him back to starting in AAA next year (or move him to the MLB rotation depending on how he pitches and what sort of movement occurs over the winter). He's slid under the radar being short and a lower-Rd pick, but he's done nothing but improve each year. He misses bats and gets plenty of weak contact. Beeks threw 145 innings last year (67.1 in Salem, 65.1 in Portland, 12.1 in the AFL). There's no reason to think he's approaching an innings limit. |
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jul 28, 2017 10:31:29 GMT -5
Looks like we may need a starter after all
|
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jul 28, 2017 10:32:59 GMT -5
Looks like we may need a starter after all Beeks is ready!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 28, 2017 11:28:33 GMT -5
Ken RosenthalVerified account @ken_Rosenthal 25m25 minutes ago
More
#RedSox do not currently anticipate pursuing starting pitcher due to Price injury. With Dombrowski, subject to change.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,532
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2017 11:52:28 GMT -5
Is this the deadline where my non-believing in Sonny Gray finally lands him in Boston? Dombrowski publicly saying we won't add pitching seems like posturing unless he really believes in Johnson or Beeks (in which case we'd probably still need depth).
|
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Jul 28, 2017 12:24:01 GMT -5
Is this the deadline where my non-believing in Sonny Gray finally lands him in Boston? Dombrowski publicly saying we won't add pitching seems like posturing unless he really believes in Johnson or Beeks (in which case we'd probably still need depth). I don't they can rely on Beeks as he is probably fast approaching his innings limit for the year. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 28, 2017 12:42:39 GMT -5
Is this the deadline where my non-believing in Sonny Gray finally lands him in Boston? Dombrowski publicly saying we won't add pitching seems like posturing unless he really believes in Johnson or Beeks (in which case we'd probably still need depth). I don't they can rely on Beeks as he is probably fast approaching his innings limit for the year. Mr. Hatfield addressed this previously: Beeks threw 145 innings last year (67.1 in Salem, 65.1 in Portland, 12.1 in the AFL). There's no reason to think he's approaching an innings limit. Realistically, I'm not sure that Beeks has an innings limit at this point, if it came to that. It would probably be in the 170 to 180 range and it's hart to see him getting there even if he ended up the #5 starter in the majors for a couple months. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 28, 2017 13:01:13 GMT -5
Any reason we haven't seen Beeks yet? Usually they at least give a guy a chance when he is having the type of season Beeks is.
|
|
|
|
Post by bnich on Jul 28, 2017 13:12:14 GMT -5
Any reason we haven't seen Beeks yet? Usually they at least give a guy a chance when he is having the type of season Beeks is. He just pitched last night. Johnson, Velazquez and Kendrick were more known commodities along with Fister when the Sox needed an extra starter. As of now, he's being developed as a starter. He's only been in Pawtucket since June. Just hasn't been in the cards. I think his time is coming though. I've been a big fan of his since he was drafted. |
|
|
|
Post by bnich on Jul 28, 2017 13:13:49 GMT -5
I don't they can rely on Beeks as he is probably fast approaching his innings limit for the year. Mr. Hatfield addressed this previously: Beeks threw 145 innings last year (67.1 in Salem, 65.1 in Portland, 12.1 in the AFL). There's no reason to think he's approaching an innings limit. Realistically, I'm not sure that Beeks has an innings limit at this point, if it came to that. It would probably be in the 170 to 180 range and it's hart to see him getting there even if he ended up the #5 starter in the majors for a couple months. He also threw 145 2/3 the year before in Greenville according to his Soxprospects profile. I agree with the no innings limit at this point. |
|
|
