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.
Is It August 31st yet? 2020 Trade Deadline Thread
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Aug 18, 2020 9:49:53 GMT -5
I'd take him in a heartbeat but you need young offensive building blocks. Devers Xander and Verdugo are those with maybe Benny if he can figure it out. You don't trade those for 30 year old pitchers if you're not close to contending. But Clevinger and Plesac are absolutely two players to try and buy low on. This will blow over and the Sox could potentially get two controlled arms for 50 cents on the dollar. The article didn't have them getting both for verdugo, just one I understand that. Just saying that while I wouldn't trade Verdugo I'd be interested in both if I were Bloom.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 9:50:52 GMT -5
The article didn't have them getting both for verdugo, just one I understand that. Just saying that while I wouldn't trade Verdugo I'd be interested in both if I were Bloom. Then be ready to give up Casas and Downs
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 18, 2020 9:52:40 GMT -5
I understand that. Just saying that while I wouldn't trade Verdugo I'd be interested in both if I were Bloom. Then be ready to give up Casas and or Downs FTFY
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 18, 2020 9:54:41 GMT -5
I think it is fair to say optics are out the window at this point in that arena. And all the mathematicians on this board won’t care. What is the $:year:WAR ratio of the return? It is all that matters. I'd have to look, but optics absolutely matter to the red sox ownership. Trading a 24yr old outfielder for a 30yr old SP who's teammates voted to demote because he put a leukemia survivor and manager with chronic health issues at risk. Not to mention the dude has already cheated on his wife and caused a ton of drama there. I'm all set with him. Well, I did not mean a specific trade. Just that WAR chips are WAR chips. And cheated on his wife? Again, the Sox have no problem trading for guys with scandals on their ledger. Cf. Mookie trade.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 10:00:45 GMT -5
Then be ready to give up Casas and or Downs FTFY For 2 cost controlled pitchers? Neither is a top 60 prospect, your offer of one of those guys is getting beat 100 out of 100 times.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Aug 18, 2020 10:01:23 GMT -5
I understand that. Just saying that while I wouldn't trade Verdugo I'd be interested in both if I were Bloom. Then be ready to give up Casas and Downs No chance he costs both. Indians wouldn't be looking for prospects they are looking to win now. Part of the reason you keep Verdugo is because he's essentially the only young cost controlled outfielder other than Duran. If you trade him then the outfield depth mirrors the SP depth in terms of talent. You'll have the OF equivalent of Kyle Hart roaming RF. But gun to your head do you trade Casas for Clevenger? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 18, 2020 10:08:26 GMT -5
Then be ready to give up Casas and Downs No chance he costs both. Indians wouldn't be looking for prospects they are looking to win now. Part of the reason you keep Verdugo is because he's essentially the only young cost controlled outfielder other than Duran. If you trade him then the outfield depth mirrors the SP depth in terms of talent. You'll have the OF equivalent of Kyle Hart roaming RF. But gun to your head do you trade Casas for Clevenger? Yes. I don’t. Clevenger is going to be 30, and he hardly turns this mess around. I am usually for trading unproven prospects for proven guys, but the Sox need to be getting guys that affirmatively answer the question “will you help in 2-3 years?” Casas fits that better than Clevenger. IF they trade Casas or Downs or Verdugo... and I’m not opposed... it has to be with an eye towards a more distant future (not than them... I mean than Clevenger).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 18, 2020 10:11:56 GMT -5
Not saying they should, but why couldn't they afford to trade Verdugo? Optics for one. He's arguably the most exciting guy they have, people and the media are finally coming around on him (as mookie rakes in the distance) and suddenly he's gone? I don't think they should worry about the optics and I think I disagree that the optics are necessarily bad. I mean, you can't start worrying about optics AFTER trading Mookie Betts. That's probably the best time to make bold and possibly unpopular deals that build organizational talent. Not saying they should consider this deal in particular, but a "trading Alex Verdugo is off the table because of optics" is self-defeating.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 18, 2020 10:27:44 GMT -5
Looking at what the Indians need and would want, Verdugo is the most obvious. The second piece should be up to them but considering their desire to lock up Lindor, I'd imagine cost control is important. Clevinger & Plesac with neither of them pitching for the Sox in 2020 for Verdugo & the Indians choice of Casas, Downs, Mata, Groome or Chavis (win now) seems fair to both sides under the entirety of the situation.
A future rotation of Sale, ERod, Clevinger, Plesac and Eovaldi or Perez is one to dream on and would certainly change the near term picture. I also don't see the likelihood of the Sox trading two cost controlled outfielders.
There are not going to be many teams in the bidding because of the clubhouse aspect for 2020.
ADD: If neither pitch in 2020, the Sox have 3 more years of Clevinger and 6 more years of Plesac. I doubt if the players union would be upset with that.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 10:27:57 GMT -5
Optics for one. He's arguably the most exciting guy they have, people and the media are finally coming around on him (as mookie rakes in the distance) and suddenly he's gone? I don't think they should worry about the optics and I think I disagree that the optics are necessarily bad. I mean, you can't start worrying about optics AFTER trading Mookie Betts. That's probably the best time to make bold and possibly unpopular deals that build organizational talent. Not saying they should consider this deal in particular, but a "trading Alex Verdugo is off the table because of optics" is self-defeating. I would trade Xander before I traded Verdugo. He'd net you a ton more, and he's more than likely opting out in 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 18, 2020 10:31:48 GMT -5
I don't think they should worry about the optics and I think I disagree that the optics are necessarily bad. I mean, you can't start worrying about optics AFTER trading Mookie Betts. That's probably the best time to make bold and possibly unpopular deals that build organizational talent. Not saying they should consider this deal in particular, but a "trading Alex Verdugo is off the table because of optics" is self-defeating. I would trade Xander before I traded Verdugo. He'd net you a ton more, and he's more than likely opting out in 2 years. ? ? ? ? Verdugo is minimum wage. Xander isn't.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 10:35:30 GMT -5
I would trade Xander before I traded Verdugo. He'd net you a ton more, and he's more than likely opting out in 2 years. ? ? ? ? Verdugo is minimum wage. Xander isn't. Xander is a known commodity at a position of value, he'd net you a ton
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 18, 2020 10:35:39 GMT -5
I don't think they should worry about the optics and I think I disagree that the optics are necessarily bad. I mean, you can't start worrying about optics AFTER trading Mookie Betts. That's probably the best time to make bold and possibly unpopular deals that build organizational talent. Not saying they should consider this deal in particular, but a "trading Alex Verdugo is off the table because of optics" is self-defeating. I would trade Xander before I traded Verdugo. He'd net you a ton more, and he's more than likely opting out in 2 years. Wait... you are worried about optics, but you’d have Bloom trade Mookie and Xander in a calendar year? He’d be one of the great villains in Red Sox history.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 10:37:30 GMT -5
I would trade Xander before I traded Verdugo. He'd net you a ton more, and he's more than likely opting out in 2 years. Wait... you are worried about optics, but you’d have Bloom trade Mookie and Xander in a calendar year? He’d be one of the great villains in Red Sox history. I was just informed optics didn't matter and now is the time to do unpopular things, so let's get crazy
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 18, 2020 10:41:48 GMT -5
Wait... you are worried about optics, but you’d have Bloom trade Mookie and Xander in a calendar year? He’d be one of the great villains in Red Sox history. I was just informed optics didn't matter and now is the time to do unpopular things, so let's get crazy I accept that. But I wouldn’t trade Xander.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 18, 2020 10:43:01 GMT -5
Well if your reason to keep Verdugo is optics, then you can't be thinking about trading Xander.
If you're not worried about optics then everyone should be on the table, but Bogaerts would be awfully tough to replace. Verdugo is a very good prospect, but Bogaerts is an established commodity and still a young player at a key position on a relatively friendly contract. I agree if someone were to blow them away then they should probably be thinking about it, but it would take quite a bit more in return to part with Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 10:47:28 GMT -5
Well if your reason to keep Verdugo is optics, then you can't be thinking about trading Xander. If you're not worried about optics then everyone should be on the table, but Bogaerts would be awfully tough to replace. Verdugo is a very good prospect, but Bogaerts is an established commodity and still a young player at a key position on a relatively friendly contract. I agree if someone were to blow them away then they should probably be thinking about it, but it would take quite a bit more in return to part with Bogaerts. You literally told me not to worry about optics, so I took that out of the equation. What's the fastest way to replenish talent for a barren farm system? Moving ' Xander. Hard to replace, but there's a guy in Cleveland that will be a free agent soon, Trevor Story's contract is running up, and both of those franchises pinch pennies like nobodies business. They should have plenty of money available for whichever guy they want.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 18, 2020 10:48:10 GMT -5
Well if your reason to keep Verdugo is optics, then you can't be thinking about trading Xander. If you're not worried about optics then everyone should be on the table, but Bogaerts would be awfully tough to replace. Verdugo is a very good prospect, but Bogaerts is an established commodity and still a young player at a key position on a relatively friendly contract. I agree if someone were to blow them away then they should probably be thinking about it, but it would take quite a bit more in return to part with Bogaerts. In a year when every team is losing millions and not all owners being billionaires, I'll bet no sizable contracts get moved this year across all of baseball.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 18, 2020 10:53:44 GMT -5
Well if your reason to keep Verdugo is optics, then you can't be thinking about trading Xander. If you're not worried about optics then everyone should be on the table, but Bogaerts would be awfully tough to replace. Verdugo is a very good prospect, but Bogaerts is an established commodity and still a young player at a key position on a relatively friendly contract. I agree if someone were to blow them away then they should probably be thinking about it, but it would take quite a bit more in return to part with Bogaerts. I teased about the optics thing, but I agree (just not re: Verdugo). I mean, regardless of return, if Bloom traded Xander after Mookie, I’d want his head. I might not follow the Sox until the FO and roster turned over and it was a whole new landscape. Who wants to root for an organization that doesn’t keep its best players... and its faces? JDM, Verdugo, hell, Price, Sale... they are outsiders brought in. Easy come, easy go. But some guys should never wear another uniform. But I am an aesthete. I’d rather lose romantically than win scientifically. I am here for entertainment, which is not exclusively about wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 18, 2020 10:55:49 GMT -5
Well if your reason to keep Verdugo is optics, then you can't be thinking about trading Xander. If you're not worried about optics then everyone should be on the table, but Bogaerts would be awfully tough to replace. Verdugo is a very good prospect, but Bogaerts is an established commodity and still a young player at a key position on a relatively friendly contract. I agree if someone were to blow them away then they should probably be thinking about it, but it would take quite a bit more in return to part with Bogaerts. You literally told me not to worry about optics, so I took that out of the equation. What's the fastest way to replenish talent for a barren farm system? Moving ' Xander. Hard to replace, but there's a guy in Cleveland that will be a free agent soon, Trevor Story's contract is running up, and both of those franchises pinch pennies like nobodies business. They should have plenty of money available for whichever guy they want. That's a great example. Moving Xander to pay Lindor double the AAV and tack three extra years at the end seems like what got them into this mess. They should have plenty of money, yes... and paying hundreds of millions for a marginal upgrade at their best position feels like the wrong way to spend it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 18, 2020 10:55:53 GMT -5
Yeah it's not just this year, it's Cleveland having to pay people next year that needs to be accounted for. Like you can pay down this year's salary, yet a ton of teams will have money issues next year.
I love Chavis, yet if your hunting for young cost controlled pitching he's the guy I use as bait. Especially because they don't seem to want to play him at 2B.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 18, 2020 10:59:49 GMT -5
Yeah it's not just this year, it's Cleveland having to pay people next year that needs to be accounted for. Like you can pay down this year's salary, yet a ton of teams will have money issues next year. I love Chavis, yet if your hunting for young cost controlled pitching he's the guy I use as bait. Especially because they don't seem to want to play him at 2B. I have a hard time believing Chavis gets much of anything. We can all see his weaknesses. He is a massive risk. I like him, having him. He should get a chance. But I’d be reluctant to give up a good package for him not having him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 18, 2020 10:59:54 GMT -5
Honestly I think Bogaerts stays so it won't be an issue. I think Bloom will build the team around Bogaerts and Devers (despite this season) and get rid of everybody else.
He'll fill in with value additions, whether it's scrap heap players or bridge guys while they try to repair the farm system.
I wouldn't label Verdugo as untouchable but I don't think he'll move him for Clevenger or Plesac. If he moved Verdugo it would probably be for an up and coming front line starter talent rather than one turning 30 who can disrupt a clubhouse.
I think he'll try to do what Cherington did in 2013 - sign a bunch of value/bridge guys. Can't expect the success of 2013, but every big move he makes will be with an eye toward the future, not the next year or two.
Also, Roenicke will be a gone and he'll hire a long-term guy he truly wants - not Cora, but somebody through his Tampa connections.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 11:05:30 GMT -5
Yeah it's not just this year, it's Cleveland having to pay people next year that needs to be accounted for. Like you can pay down this year's salary, yet a ton of teams will have money issues next year. I love Chavis, yet if your hunting for young cost controlled pitching he's the guy I use as bait. Especially because they don't seem to want to play him at 2B. The only thing Chavis gets you is a chuckle on the other end of the line
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 18, 2020 11:07:07 GMT -5
Honestly I think Bogaerts stays so it won't be an issue. I think Bloom will build the team around Bogaerts and Devers (despite this season) and get rid of everybody else. He'll fill in with value additions, whether it's scrap heap players or bridge guys while they try to repair the farm system. I wouldn't label Verdugo as untouchable but I don't think he'll move him for Clevenger or Plesac. If he moved Verdugo it would probably be for an up and coming front line starter talent rather than one turning 30 who can disrupt a clubhouse. I think he'll try to do what Cherington did in 2013 - sign a bunch of value/bridge guys. Can't expect the success of 2013, but every big move he makes will be with an eye toward the future, not the next year or two. Also, Roenicke will be a gone and he'll hire a long-term guy he truly wants - not Cora, but somebody through his Tampa connections. Why would Xander not opt out? He could hold the team over a barrel. It would be a horrible financial decision not to see what he could get, because it will absolutely be above 20/yr. Let's not overlook who his agent is as well.
|
|
|