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.
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,506
|
Post by asm18 on Jul 11, 2024 22:22:27 GMT -5
I’m fine with taking on some salary (or salary risk - like that of a player option) to reduce the prospect cost, but Javy Baez or someone with a similarly long contract is probably on the extreme end of that. If Sammy Kennedy is telling the truth* and the team “has the resources” at the deadline, more feasible examples of this “we’ll take the money - just give us the player” might include: -Jack Flaherty - but take on part of Kenta Maeda’s remaining deal instead? (10 mil next year) -Blake Snell: has a a weird 30 mil player option for next year where half of it seems to be deferred to 2027 were it exercised - which seems unlikely but definitely not impossible at the moment -Erick Fedde with… the last guaranteed year of Yoan Moncada’s deal? Moncada is making 24.8 mil this year, with a club option of 25 mil next year that might honestly get declined. He’s currently on the 60 Day IL but set to start a rehab soon. Would noted philanthropist Jerry Reinsdorf happily take a lesser return to save 8 million dollars (the remainder of Moncada’s salary at the deadline) before you decline that club option in the winter? *big if lol I read Kennedys comments more as they'd take on added salary for the future if it was a viable player now. I sure hope he's not angling to take back crappy contracts to get a better deal. I think that'd be the worst thing they could do right now. It’s probably not ideal, but if prospects of a certain caliber (I.e. the dudes teams actually want) are off the table in trades at the moment, being able eat money instead might be one of the better cards you have. They did in the Sale deal - wouldn’t something like this be similar? (Not that I expect it to play out like this)
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jul 11, 2024 22:29:21 GMT -5
Seems like the consensus is that 1 or 2 starters and a right handed bat are the key needs. I hope that they are going to reward this emerging young core and be buyers.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingdude on Jul 11, 2024 22:34:44 GMT -5
Efflin yes, arozarena why? Who is he an improvement on? I don't think he's a fit for the Red Sox - but the last 23 games/28 days, he's been pretty dang good at the plate. They'd really have to trade an outfielder or Yoshida to really make it work which at this point I think would make the team worse - but he's also a playoff monster.
EDIT: He's also not a free agent until after 2026.
He’s not a good defender, and certainly much worse than the outfielders we currently employ. He may be an upgrade at DH, but that’s a lot of resources at a position that doesn’t really convert to WAR between Yoshida’s contract and the prospects for Randy. He’s a fun player when he’s on, but if you took away his name and just looked at his profile and what he’s done this year i think everyone would be underwhelmed if we acquired him. I’d much rather see a Rooker or Pete trade if that’s the route you want to go.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Jul 11, 2024 22:43:34 GMT -5
I don't think he's a fit for the Red Sox - but the last 23 games/28 days, he's been pretty dang good at the plate. They'd really have to trade an outfielder or Yoshida to really make it work which at this point I think would make the team worse - but he's also a playoff monster.
EDIT: He's also not a free agent until after 2026.
He’s not a good defender, and certainly much worse than the outfielders we currently employ. He may be an upgrade at DH, but that’s a lot of resources at a position that doesn’t really convert to WAR between Yoshida’s contract and the prospects for Randy. He’s a fun player when he’s on, but if you took away his name and just looked at his profile and what he’s done this year i think everyone would be underwhelmed if we acquired him. I’d much rather see a Rooker or Pete trade if that’s the route you want to go. I don't really want him, so no skin off my estabula. But I also don't care if other people would be underwhelmed. His splits the last 23 games: .284/.392/.873. He's a right handed bat and he's going to cost you A LOT less in terms of money and prospects than Rooker or Alonso. And I don't really think the Rays need to tie him to Eflin, but if you get both that's also a plus. And as I mentioned he has a playoff pedigree that someone like Rooker simply doesn't have.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Jul 11, 2024 23:31:46 GMT -5
He’s not a good defender, and certainly much worse than the outfielders we currently employ. He may be an upgrade at DH, but that’s a lot of resources at a position that doesn’t really convert to WAR between Yoshida’s contract and the prospects for Randy. He’s a fun player when he’s on, but if you took away his name and just looked at his profile and what he’s done this year i think everyone would be underwhelmed if we acquired him. I’d much rather see a Rooker or Pete trade if that’s the route you want to go. I don't really want him, so no skin off my estabula. But I also don't care if other people would be underwhelmed. His splits the last 23 games: .284/.392/.873. He's a right handed bat and he's going to cost you A LOT less in terms of money and prospects than Rooker or Alonso. And I don't really think the Rays need to tie him to Eflin, but if you get both that's also a plus. And as I mentioned he has a playoff pedigree that someone like Rooker simply doesn't have.
Honestly I don’t think he’s gonna cost less than Rocker or even Alonso cause he’d be traded within the division and the Rays would reasonably want extra for that. Not to mention, I’m sure they’ve picked out the exact targets in the minors that Craig and Co consider untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Jul 12, 2024 1:50:07 GMT -5
I wouldn't be mad if we stood pat. We're overachieving right now and I'd rather keep the prospects. I don't think adding 1 or 2 players puts us over the top with Story and Gio being injured and Casas being hurt were really not sure if he will be 100% this year. Is it worth trading prospects? I would love to think so but being realistic I think we just keep building from within. Trading players on expiring deals that we don't intend to resign is probably the best move if we can get some decent prospects in positions of future need.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,108
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 12, 2024 6:22:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't be mad if we stood pat. We're overachieving right now and I'd rather keep the prospects. I don't think adding 1 or 2 players puts us over the top with Story and Gio being injured and Casas being hurt were really not sure if he will be 100% this year. Is it worth trading prospects? I would love to think so but being realistic I think we just keep building from within. Trading players on expiring deals that we don't intend to resign is probably the best move if we can get some decent prospects in positions of future need. I spent much of the last two months focused on 2025 when we will have a serious collection of talent, and thinking there was no reason not to sell in 2024. Now I think we should be modest buyers, not just because we have a slight chance to win in 2024, but because as Breslow said in a recent interview, competing in September and maybe October is excellent experience for the young core we have now, and will help them in 2025 and beyond. So we need at least a #5 or 4 starter who can go 6 innings and give up “only” four runs. I’d also like to acquire a little more talent that will be here next year.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 12, 2024 6:37:51 GMT -5
My favorite scenario is we get someone like Detmers, unfortunately I just don’t know why the Angels (or any team with a similar sort of situation) would trade him right now, but they’re weird so you never know.
2nd favorite is going for one of the 1.5 year of control guys, specifically Eflin or Fedde, which also gives the team more flexibility in its free agency strategy. Don’t know what these guys will cost.
I’d also like to acquire another team’s 40 man headache. Particularly a starting pitcher, since I have some optimism that the pitching lab could turn that player into a real guy. Even if the player is already on the 40 we have room to handle that, but this could be a way to buy low on some talent.
I’d also consider paths where they move any of the rental guys and buy players with longer control, though I’m not sure what the specific deal is where that makes sense, especially since Pivetta and O’Neill are QO candidates.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 12, 2024 7:22:38 GMT -5
Ten Theses on the Trade Deadline:
1. The practical significance of deadline trades for buyers is not that great, usually like 1 win or so. 2. The ritual significance of deadline trades is greater: it is a statement about whether the team is "going for it" or not. 3. The practical significance of deadline trades for the 2024 Red Sox is even less than usual because they have no glaring holes to fill. 4. The Red Sox' seemingly being at the beginning of a multi-year period of contention makes it a poor time to trade away significant prospect value. 5. Given (3) and (4), the Red Sox have little practical interest in "going for it" at the trade deadline.
6. Following two disappointing seasons with mixed activity at the trade deadline, the Red Sox have a lot of interest in amplifying the ritual significance of "going for it" at the trade deadline this year. 7. Fans' sense of who a sexy trade target would be is largely indexed to how good a given player was ~3 years ago. 8. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would therefore have outsized ritual significance. 9. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would come at a relatively lower cost in prospect value. 10. The Red Sox should trade for Max Scherzer.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 12, 2024 7:29:01 GMT -5
I’m fine with taking on some salary (or salary risk - like that of a player option) to reduce the prospect cost, but Javy Baez or someone with a similarly long contract is probably on the extreme end of that. If Sammy Kennedy is telling the truth* and the team “has the resources” at the deadline, more feasible examples of this “we’ll take the money - just give us the player” might include: -Jack Flaherty - but take on part of Kenta Maeda’s remaining deal instead? (10 mil next year) -Blake Snell: has a a weird 30 mil player option for next year where half of it seems to be deferred to 2027 were it exercised - which seems unlikely but definitely not impossible at the moment -Erick Fedde with… the last guaranteed year of Yoan Moncada’s deal? Moncada is making 24.8 mil this year, with a club option of 25 mil next year that might honestly get declined. He’s currently on the 60 Day IL but set to start a rehab soon. Would noted philanthropist Jerry Reinsdorf happily take a lesser return to save 8 million dollars (the remainder of Moncada’s salary at the deadline) before you decline that club option in the winter? *big if lol There is always a first time
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,328
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 12, 2024 7:56:08 GMT -5
Ten Theses on the Trade Deadline:
1. The practical significance of deadline trades for buyers is not that great, usually like 1 win or so. 2. The ritual significance of deadline trades is greater: it is a statement about whether the team is "going for it" or not. 3. The practical significance of deadline trades for the 2024 Red Sox is even less than usual because they have no glaring holes to fill. 4. The Red Sox' seemingly being at the beginning of a multi-year period of contention makes it a poor time to trade away significant prospect value. 5. Given (3) and (4), the Red Sox have little practical interest in "going for it" at the trade deadline.
6. Following two disappointing seasons with mixed activity at the trade deadline, the Red Sox have a lot of interest in amplifying the ritual significance of "going for it" at the trade deadline this year. 7. Fans' sense of who a sexy trade target would be is largely indexed to how good a given player was ~3 years ago. 8. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would therefore have outsized ritual significance. 9. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would come at a relatively lower cost in prospect value. 10. The Red Sox should trade for Max Scherzer.
All valid points especially #2 in my eyes. Last year you had Cora and Devers, the manager and cornerstone player coming out publicly with statements in essence saying they were disappointed that the they did not add anyone. I do believe that the true value of the trade deadline is giving your guys a push saying we're going for it. For that matter alone I think it is important they make some trade even if it is just a decent middle reliever. Gotta do something this deadline, unless the wheels completely fall off the next two weeks but they'd pretty much have to go winless in that stretch to fall out of the playoff race.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 12, 2024 8:01:01 GMT -5
Ten Theses on the Trade Deadline:
1. The practical significance of deadline trades for buyers is not that great, usually like 1 win or so. 2. The ritual significance of deadline trades is greater: it is a statement about whether the team is "going for it" or not. 3. The practical significance of deadline trades for the 2024 Red Sox is even less than usual because they have no glaring holes to fill. 4. The Red Sox' seemingly being at the beginning of a multi-year period of contention makes it a poor time to trade away significant prospect value. 5. Given (3) and (4), the Red Sox have little practical interest in "going for it" at the trade deadline.
6. Following two disappointing seasons with mixed activity at the trade deadline, the Red Sox have a lot of interest in amplifying the ritual significance of "going for it" at the trade deadline this year. 7. Fans' sense of who a sexy trade target would be is largely indexed to how good a given player was ~3 years ago. 8. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would therefore have outsized ritual significance. 9. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would come at a relatively lower cost in prospect value. 10. The Red Sox should trade for Max Scherzer.
Mostly agree though a counterpoint on the practical significance is that per FG’s recent study no team gains more in terms of playoff odds by adding an incremental win than the Red Sox do. It’s difficult to do that on the position player side, but on the pitching side swapping out Criswell/Winckowski for a Scherzer or better pitcher probably gives them an extra projected win. Plus in the playoffs it gives you another potential starter in a short series, bumping Bello and/or Pivetta down a slot.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 12, 2024 8:18:07 GMT -5
I think they should trade for one pitcher. Don't mortgage the future. But trade for a guy who can eat innings and is decent. I think that along with getting Casas, Martin and maybe Hendriks back is enough.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 12, 2024 8:26:38 GMT -5
Ten Theses on the Trade Deadline:
1. The practical significance of deadline trades for buyers is not that great, usually like 1 win or so. 2. The ritual significance of deadline trades is greater: it is a statement about whether the team is "going for it" or not. 3. The practical significance of deadline trades for the 2024 Red Sox is even less than usual because they have no glaring holes to fill. 4. The Red Sox' seemingly being at the beginning of a multi-year period of contention makes it a poor time to trade away significant prospect value. 5. Given (3) and (4), the Red Sox have little practical interest in "going for it" at the trade deadline.
6. Following two disappointing seasons with mixed activity at the trade deadline, the Red Sox have a lot of interest in amplifying the ritual significance of "going for it" at the trade deadline this year. 7. Fans' sense of who a sexy trade target would be is largely indexed to how good a given player was ~3 years ago. 8. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would therefore have outsized ritual significance. 9. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would come at a relatively lower cost in prospect value. 10. The Red Sox should trade for Max Scherzer.
Mostly agree though a counterpoint on the practical significance is that per FG’s recent study no team gains more in terms of playoff odds by adding an incremental win than the Red Sox do. It’s difficult to do that on the position player side, but on the pitching side swapping out Criswell/Winckowski for a Scherzer or better pitcher probably gives them an extra projected win. Plus in the playoffs it gives you another potential starter in a short series, bumping Bello and/or Pivetta down a slot. That article found that the Red Sox' playoff odds increase about 15% if they add 2 wins. Swapping out Criswell for Scherzer would net them about 0.4 wins over the last two months of the season, according to Steamer and Zips. In terms of their playoff chances it's really not that significant an addition.
I think there are two caveats to that though. First is what you said: Scherzer is someone you'd start in the playoffs, and that's probably the greatest benefit of adding him. Second is that they're in a pretty bad place with even one more injury to the starting rotation, and in that event I think that having the extra pitching depth would be more significant than just the straight Criswell-for-Scherzer comparison would suggest.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 12, 2024 8:29:02 GMT -5
Ten Theses on the Trade Deadline:
1. The practical significance of deadline trades for buyers is not that great, usually like 1 win or so. 2. The ritual significance of deadline trades is greater: it is a statement about whether the team is "going for it" or not. 3. The practical significance of deadline trades for the 2024 Red Sox is even less than usual because they have no glaring holes to fill. 4. The Red Sox' seemingly being at the beginning of a multi-year period of contention makes it a poor time to trade away significant prospect value. 5. Given (3) and (4), the Red Sox have little practical interest in "going for it" at the trade deadline.
6. Following two disappointing seasons with mixed activity at the trade deadline, the Red Sox have a lot of interest in amplifying the ritual significance of "going for it" at the trade deadline this year. 7. Fans' sense of who a sexy trade target would be is largely indexed to how good a given player was ~3 years ago. 8. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would therefore have outsized ritual significance. 9. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would come at a relatively lower cost in prospect value. 10. The Red Sox should trade for Max Scherzer.
10 steps to lure me into trading for Max Scherzer. My only concern is the luxury tax. I think we would have to shed 6-10 million to get under if we pick up his contract. Perhaps Texas can throw some cash in, but they'd expect a greater return for certain.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 12, 2024 8:35:24 GMT -5
Mostly agree though a counterpoint on the practical significance is that per FG’s recent study no team gains more in terms of playoff odds by adding an incremental win than the Red Sox do. It’s difficult to do that on the position player side, but on the pitching side swapping out Criswell/Winckowski for a Scherzer or better pitcher probably gives them an extra projected win. Plus in the playoffs it gives you another potential starter in a short series, bumping Bello and/or Pivetta down a slot. That article found that the Red Sox' playoff odds increase about 15% if they add 2 wins. Swapping out Criswell for Scherzer would net them about 0.4 wins over the last two months of the season, according to Steamer and Zips. In terms of their playoff chances it's really not that significant an addition.
I think there are two caveats to that though. First is what you said: Scherzer is someone you'd start in the playoffs, and that's probably the greatest benefit of adding him. Second is that they're in a pretty bad place with even one more injury to the starting rotation, and in that event I think that having the extra pitching depth would be more significant than just the straight Criswell-for-Scherzer comparison would suggest.
Eh I see 1.3 vs .4 on the higher end of what the gap could be, similar for Eflin, though it gets smaller every start between now and the deadline. Even if it’s a 3-5% boost to their odds though that’s pretty meaningful. Agreed re; depth too. How much is worth trading for a 3-5% lift (+2025 in Eflin’s case) that I am unsure of. Add: also my point was more about the relative practical value compared to other teams and other deadlines. Every win the Red Sox can add is relatively more significant than any other team adding a win (at least roughly and based on this one model). Not sure how Criswell stacks up with other playoff teams’ fifth starters though
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,108
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 12, 2024 8:35:37 GMT -5
Efflin yes, arozarena why? Who is he an improvement on? I don't think he's a fit for the Red Sox - but the last 23 games/28 days, he's been pretty dang good at the plate. They'd really have to trade an outfielder or Yoshida to really make it work which at this point I think would make the team worse - but he's also a playoff monster.
EDIT: He's also not a free agent until after 2026.
"Where would we play Willie McGee?" I would offer Abreu in a package for Arozarena. Could help this year, and really help in the next two years (and beyond?) as a 2-3 WAR RHH LF to hit between Devers and Casas. But it depends on the scouting, and the diagnosis of why he was poor earlier this year (as well as your projections for Abreu). This could be a good example of our using our (presumed) willingness to spend in 2025-26 to get a good player.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,328
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 12, 2024 8:36:09 GMT -5
Ten Theses on the Trade Deadline:
1. The practical significance of deadline trades for buyers is not that great, usually like 1 win or so. 2. The ritual significance of deadline trades is greater: it is a statement about whether the team is "going for it" or not. 3. The practical significance of deadline trades for the 2024 Red Sox is even less than usual because they have no glaring holes to fill. 4. The Red Sox' seemingly being at the beginning of a multi-year period of contention makes it a poor time to trade away significant prospect value. 5. Given (3) and (4), the Red Sox have little practical interest in "going for it" at the trade deadline.
6. Following two disappointing seasons with mixed activity at the trade deadline, the Red Sox have a lot of interest in amplifying the ritual significance of "going for it" at the trade deadline this year. 7. Fans' sense of who a sexy trade target would be is largely indexed to how good a given player was ~3 years ago. 8. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would therefore have outsized ritual significance. 9. Trading for a player who was really good ~3 years ago would come at a relatively lower cost in prospect value. 10. The Red Sox should trade for Max Scherzer.
10 steps to lure me into trading for Max Scherzer. My only concern is the luxury tax. I think we would have to shed 6-10 million to get under if we pick up his contract. Perhaps Texas can throw some cash in, but they'd expect a greater return for certain. I don't believe this to be the case. The Mets retained most of Scherzer's salary for this season, plus it is more than halfway through the year so I think Scherzer would only add about 6M or so to the LT equation and I believe the Sox are 10-13M under.
|
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,506
|
Post by asm18 on Jul 12, 2024 8:37:06 GMT -5
10 steps to lure me into trading for Max Scherzer. My only concern is the luxury tax. I think we would have to shed 6-10 million to get under if we pick up his contract. Perhaps Texas can throw some cash in, but they'd expect a greater return for certain. The Mets are paying most of Scherzer’s expiring deal from their trade with Texas last year. The Rangers are on the look for like 12 mil this year, meaning at the deadline that’s prorated to like 4 mil. The catch: Scherzer has a full no trade clause.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 12, 2024 8:51:49 GMT -5
well...(excitingly laughs).... sign me up for some Scherzer
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 12, 2024 8:57:39 GMT -5
10 steps to lure me into trading for Max Scherzer. My only concern is the luxury tax. I think we would have to shed 6-10 million to get under if we pick up his contract. Perhaps Texas can throw some cash in, but they'd expect a greater return for certain. The Mets are paying most of Scherzer’s expiring deal from their trade with Texas last year. The Rangers are on the look for like 12 mil this year, meaning at the deadline that’s prorated to like 4 mil. The catch: Scherzer has a full no trade clause.We can only speculate, but he (presumably?) waived his no-trade clause to go to the Rangers, and even waived his opt out to boot. I'd have to think he would accept a trade to a team that's ticketed for the playoffs. Though would he consider the Red Sox at ~50% playoff odds to be such a team or would he effectively demand a trade to the Orioles or Dodgers or something...?
|
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,506
|
Post by asm18 on Jul 12, 2024 9:14:50 GMT -5
The Mets are paying most of Scherzer’s expiring deal from their trade with Texas last year. The Rangers are on the look for like 12 mil this year, meaning at the deadline that’s prorated to like 4 mil. The catch: Scherzer has a full no trade clause.We can only speculate, but he (presumably?) waived his no-trade clause to go to the Rangers, and even waived his opt out to boot. I'd have to think he would accept a trade to a team that's ticketed for the playoffs. Though would he consider the Red Sox at ~50% playoff odds to be such a team or would he effectively demand a trade to the Orioles or Dodgers or something...? Do we know if his wife is doing a medical residency in the area
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 12, 2024 10:15:14 GMT -5
We can only speculate, but he (presumably?) waived his no-trade clause to go to the Rangers, and even waived his opt out to boot. I'd have to think he would accept a trade to a team that's ticketed for the playoffs. Though would he consider the Red Sox at ~50% playoff odds to be such a team or would he effectively demand a trade to the Orioles or Dodgers or something...? Do we know if his wife is doing a medical residency in the area Even if she is, I'd tell him that he can just go back in October or November, with each additional day away making the whole thing MORE worthwhile. Heck I bet the Sox would even give him the last week off if they're out of contention by then!
|
|
|
Post by markm7 on Jul 12, 2024 10:15:15 GMT -5
If ownership was willing to pay him and extend him I wouldn’t be opposed to trading for Bo Bichette and having a long term lead off hitter and shortstop that allows Rafaela to move back to CF and Duran in LF
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 12, 2024 10:30:13 GMT -5
If ownership was willing to pay him and extend him I wouldn’t be opposed to trading for Bo Bichette and having a long term lead off hitter and shortstop that allows Rafaela to move back to CF and Duran in LF This got me curious to look up his numbers and man he just keeps getting worse.
wRC+ by month:
April: 65 May: 107 June: 54 July -5
Anyways, I'll take my chances with Mayer for tens of millions fewer dollars, thanks.
|
|
|