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.
Will the Red Sox add a front line starter for 2025?
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2024 8:59:30 GMT -5
Burnes since the all-star break: 6 GS, 5.75 ERA, 4.25 FIP, 4.25 xFIP, 8.0 K/9. He's a good pitcher, but I do not think he is the same pitcher he was in 2021. He isnt, but he is still pretty damn good. Six post all star break starts is a bit of cherry picking when looking at the body of work. I mean if we're going to use that as a smoking gun then Kutter Crawford should be sent to the minors as I'm sure his numbers are worse. I'm for the signing Burnes because the version he has been this year and the past few years are better than most pitchers in the league and much better than what the Sox have. The Sox are also much better off having cheap regulars with high ceilings in keeping Teel, Mayer, Campbell, and Anthony as their core moving forward. I say that as somebody who thinks that Abreu will ultimately not be as good as Anthony, whom I think could be a 35 HR and up HR guy with high OBP while I'm unconvinced that Abreu will be much more than a solid platoon RF. I dont think Story or even Campbell makes Mayer expendable. In my opinion the only guy who could ultimately make Mayer exoendable will be Arias and that wouldnt be for quite awhile and by then the idea of shifting Mayer to 3b and Devers to 1b if Casas leaves or DH might make more sense. I also think Campbell is becoming a legit rising star who can succeed at 2b or in the outfield where the Sox have less need. I also think Wong is having his career year and that shortly Teel will become the better option. I understand the "Anthony isnt that much better than Abreu" thought where the difference is negated by picking up stud pitcher X, but to me the risk is better off on the dollars spent than the top notch talent given up. Now if the Sox were to sign Soto, then ok, I could understand Anthony being used as the bait to snare this so called young ace pitcher. I'd be good with the Sox trading Crawford or even Bello if they think they can use lesser prospects to snare an upgrade. Good luck with that, too. Whoever is this dream pitcher they're supposed to get for one of the Big 4 is, he better have the durability that Burnes has displayed year in and year out because this pitcher X could have nice rate stats but if you cant count on him to make it through the year or provide 180 innings plus then what's the point of sacrificing any of the big 4?
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 25, 2024 9:15:10 GMT -5
Trading is the only way they're going to get a top of the rotation guy in his prime. The biggest cause of Yamamoto fever last winter was the fact that he was 25 and guys with top talent just don't come available at that age in free agency. They're all under someone's control and the only way to get them is via trade. What about Sasaki? He would have to choose Boston and the next report suggesting that he's leaning toward Boston will be the first. Signing Sasaki isn't a plan, it's a fever dream. Trading for a top arm as the Sox' window of contention opens is an actionable plan.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2024 9:46:43 GMT -5
Trading is the only way they're going to get a top of the rotation guy in his prime. The biggest cause of Yamamoto fever last winter was the fact that he was 25 and guys with top talent just don't come available at that age in free agency. They're all under someone's control and the only way to get them is via trade. What about Sasaki? He would have to choose Boston and the next report suggesting that he's leaning toward Boston will be the first. Signing Sasaki isn't a plan, it's a dream. Trading for a top arm as the Sox' window of contention opens is an actionable plan. So you're going to trade core members of the future for who exactly? Crochet? Isnt he pitching in relief these days because they're scared of his innings? Skubal and his 2 years of control assuming he isnt into testing the free agent market afterwards? Who is this young entering their prime with 3 or 4 seasons or more of control you speak of? Paul Skenes? I see no reason why the Sox can't improve their team signing Burnes, Fried, or Eovaldi. Then the year after that, Giolito is gone, opening up more money. Yoshida becomes more tradeable, opening up potentially more money.
|
|
|
Post by kwodes on Aug 25, 2024 9:51:53 GMT -5
Trading is the only way they're going to get a top of the rotation guy in his prime. The biggest cause of Yamamoto fever last winter was the fact that he was 25 and guys with top talent just don't come available at that age in free agency. They're all under someone's control and the only way to get them is via trade. What about Sasaki? He would have to choose Boston and the next report suggesting that he's leaning toward Boston will be the first. Signing Sasaki isn't a plan, it's a dream. Trading for a top arm as the Sox' window of contention opens is an actionable plan. So you're going to trade core members of the future for who exactly? Crochet? Isnt he pitching in relief these days because they're scared of his innings? Skubal and his 2 years of control assuming he isnt into testing the free agent market afterwards? Who is this young entering their prime with 3 or 4 seasons or more of control you speak of? Paul Skenes? I see no reason why the Sox can't improve their team signing Burnes, Fried, or Eovaldi. Then the year after that, Giolito is gone, opening up more money. Yoshida becomes more tradeable, opening up potentially more money. I'd honestly rather sign Flaherty and a reclamation guy like Buehler or a 1 yr deal for someone like Scherzer. Go with a 6 man rotation and spend money on extensions for young guys or extensions on guys they trade for.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 25, 2024 11:56:17 GMT -5
Trading is the only way they're going to get a top of the rotation guy in his prime. The biggest cause of Yamamoto fever last winter was the fact that he was 25 and guys with top talent just don't come available at that age in free agency. They're all under someone's control and the only way to get them is via trade. What about Sasaki? He would have to choose Boston and the next report suggesting that he's leaning toward Boston will be the first. Signing Sasaki isn't a plan, it's a dream. Trading for a top arm as the Sox' window of contention opens is an actionable plan. So you're going to trade core members of the future for who exactly? Crochet? Isnt he pitching in relief these days because they're scared of his innings? Skubal and his 2 years of control assuming he isnt into testing the free agent market afterwards? Who is this young entering their prime with 3 or 4 seasons or more of control you speak of? Paul Skenes? I see no reason why the Sox can't improve their team signing Burnes, Fried, or Eovaldi. Then the year after that, Giolito is gone, opening up more money. Yoshida becomes more tradeable, opening up potentially more money. I find it highly amusing that Crochet has become shorthand on this board for TJS risk, like he's the only guy. The reason TINSTAAPP is a thing is because every pitcher, young or old, is a ticking time bomb. Crochet is pitching shorter outings now (still starting every fifth game but 4 IP or less) because both he and CWS are better served by taking a conservative path the rest of this season. Crochet has hit an innings wall this season, not unlike Tanner Houck and Kutter Crawford. However, unlike Houck and Crawford who have to keep pitching max effort, Crochet's team is not in contention and both he and his team would benefit from a trade to a club that will give him an extension -- an extension, mind you, that is likely to be much smaller than what Burnes, Fried or even Flaherty will get. The price for the cheaper extension on the younger pitcher is a top prospect. It's pretty simple math that finds its way into lots of deals. Seems like Houck and Crawford are set for big things in 2025 because they've ramped up their innings in 2024, while Crochet is a ticking time bomb because he ramped up his innings in 2024.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2024 12:22:21 GMT -5
So you're going to trade core members of the future for who exactly? Crochet? Isnt he pitching in relief these days because they're scared of his innings? Skubal and his 2 years of control assuming he isnt into testing the free agent market afterwards? Who is this young entering their prime with 3 or 4 seasons or more of control you speak of? Paul Skenes? I see no reason why the Sox can't improve their team signing Burnes, Fried, or Eovaldi. Then the year after that, Giolito is gone, opening up more money. Yoshida becomes more tradeable, opening up potentially more money. I find it highly amusing that Crochet has become shorthand on this board for TJS risk, like he's the only guy. The reason TINSTAAPP is a thing is because every pitcher, young or old, is a ticking time bomb. Crochet is pitching shorter outings now (still starting every fifth game but 4 IP or less) because both he and CWS are better served by taking a conservative path the rest of this season. Crochet has hit an innings wall this season, not unlike Tanner Houck and Kutter Crawford. However, unlike Houck and Crawford who have to keep pitching max effort, Crochet's team is not in contention and both he and his team would benefit from a trade to a club that will give him an extension -- an extension, mind you, that is likely to be much smaller than what Burnes, Fried or even Flaherty will get. The price for the cheaper extension on the younger pitcher is a top prospect. It's pretty simple math that finds its way into lots of deals. Seems like Houck and Crawford are set for big things in 2025 because they've ramped up their innings in 2024, while Crochet is a ticking time bomb because he ramped up his innings in 2024. You basically made my point for me. They're all TJS risks, agreed, but that's only a part of the issue. Even when these guys are pitching, what are they doing, 170 innings max? I'm sorry but I dont give up a blue chipper like Anthony for that. That might just be me, but I don't think the starters impact enough these days, especially when factoring in the hovering TJS risk, for me to part with a prospect on Anthony or Campbell or Mayer's level nor Teel necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 25, 2024 12:41:04 GMT -5
I find it highly amusing that Crochet has become shorthand on this board for TJS risk, like he's the only guy. The reason TINSTAAPP is a thing is because every pitcher, young or old, is a ticking time bomb. Crochet is pitching shorter outings now (still starting every fifth game but 4 IP or less) because both he and CWS are better served by taking a conservative path the rest of this season. Crochet has hit an innings wall this season, not unlike Tanner Houck and Kutter Crawford. However, unlike Houck and Crawford who have to keep pitching max effort, Crochet's team is not in contention and both he and his team would benefit from a trade to a club that will give him an extension -- an extension, mind you, that is likely to be much smaller than what Burnes, Fried or even Flaherty will get. The price for the cheaper extension on the younger pitcher is a top prospect. It's pretty simple math that finds its way into lots of deals. Seems like Houck and Crawford are set for big things in 2025 because they've ramped up their innings in 2024, while Crochet is a ticking time bomb because he ramped up his innings in 2024. You basically made my point for me. They're all TJS risks, agreed, but that's only a part of the issue. Even when these guys are pitching, what are they doing, 170 innings max? I'm sorry but I dont give up a blue chipper like Anthony for that. That might just be me, but I don't think the starters impact enough these days, especially when factoring in the hovering TJS risk, for me to part with a prospect on Anthony or Campbell or Mayer's level nor Teel necessarily. Fair point. Glad I could help you articulate it. But you're still getting someone on the back nine of his career. If you want an ace in his prime, it's trade or win the Yamamoto/Sasaki lottery. Or maybe Payton Tolle blows all our minds (but even then he's prolle not ready until 2027). Agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 25, 2024 12:54:42 GMT -5
So many hypotheticals drifting around in this thread. Maybe better to do a few reframes?
Trading for a frontline starter comes down to: If you're Detroit, how many MLB top 100 prospects (or even Top 50) do you want for Skubal and his three more years of service time? Same for Seattle and Kirby's four more years of service time or (add your favorite potential front-line acquistion via trade here). Or even better: If either of those pitchers were on the Sox, what would demand in return for them?
Buying a frontline starter is much more straightforward (years+AAV with a side equation for injury history). Because of the playoff drought, I still believe that the Sox would have to dramatically set the market, not just beat another team by $1+M or so in AAV. There are always guys who want top dollar and don't care who pays it, but I think we've seen more and more case of, "If the money is roughly the same, I'll go with a proven contender and a chance to win it all than a team that hasn't been there for several years."
There's also a "create a topline starter where only a middling starter existed before" approach. LAD, Tampa and Houston seemed to have varying amounts of magic dust to produce these guys. Do you believe that Breslow/Bailey have access to such dust (i.e. metrics/biomechanical profiles/pitch design mechanics/secret sauce) to find an undiscovered/underutilized #1? This involves buying or trading for a guy or guys, but at a value if it succeeds, or ultimately a likely overpay if it fails.
Finally, there's the home grown method. Taking realistic look at the current near MLB-ready pitchers (AA, AAA or even a High A guy who looks to rapidly advance through AA into AAA next year), are there any realistic potential #1/2s sitting at those levels now?
You can mix and match these to spread the risk, but these seem like the major frameworks for this. Am I missing a model/approach?
|
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,524
|
Post by asm18 on Aug 25, 2024 22:40:46 GMT -5
Finally, there's the home grown method. Taking realistic look at the current near MLB-ready pitchers (AA, AAA or even a High A guy who looks to rapidly advance through AA into AAA next year), are there any realistic potential #1/2s sitting at those levels now? This is the concerning part - and not just in terms of producing front-line starters, but contributors in general. Like on the positional side guys like David Hamilton or Romy have been able to step up from AAA and help you win games this year. Has there really even been a comparable example of that on the pitching side? Criswell & Kelly both were on the bubble of the Opening Day Roster, I guess - as was Bernie, who should have made it to begin with. There’s not a lot of pitchers currently who can give you a shot in the arm, which is probably why we end up in the same situation August after August
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 26, 2024 8:24:23 GMT -5
Finally, there's the home grown method. Taking realistic look at the current near MLB-ready pitchers (AA, AAA or even a High A guy who looks to rapidly advance through AA into AAA next year), are there any realistic potential #1/2s sitting at those levels now? This is the concerning part - and not just in terms of producing front-line starters, but contributors in general. Like on the positional side guys like David Hamilton or Romy have been able to step up from AAA and help you win games this year. Has there really even been a comparable example of that on the pitching side? Criswell & Kelly both were on the bubble of the Opening Day Roster, I guess - as was Bernie, who should have made it to begin with. There’s not a lot of pitchers currently who can give you a shot in the arm, which is probably why we end up in the same situation August after August At least 2 or 3 pitchers in AAA are more highly regarded than Romy or Hamilton were going into the year. The difference is that the position players had a chance to play, the pitchers largely weren't given one (and sure, you can argue the org didn't give them one because of how they evaluated the pitchers etc. although personally I doubt that.) I very much would have liked to see a couple of pitchers, Fitts especially, get some time in the majors and/or a little bit more of a chance, rather than cycling through the AAAA emergency depth.
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Aug 26, 2024 17:22:32 GMT -5
This is the concerning part - and not just in terms of producing front-line starters, but contributors in general. Like on the positional side guys like David Hamilton or Romy have been able to step up from AAA and help you win games this year. Has there really even been a comparable example of that on the pitching side? Criswell & Kelly both were on the bubble of the Opening Day Roster, I guess - as was Bernie, who should have made it to begin with. There’s not a lot of pitchers currently who can give you a shot in the arm, which is probably why we end up in the same situation August after August At least 2 or 3 pitchers in AAA are more highly regarded than Romy or Hamilton were going into the year. The difference is that the position players had a chance to play, the pitchers largely weren't given one (and sure, you can argue the org didn't give them one because of how they evaluated the pitchers etc. although personally I doubt that.) I very much would have liked to see a couple of pitchers, Fitts especially, get some time in the majors and/or a little bit more of a chance, rather than cycling through the AAAA emergency depth. Hope they get some starts over the last month for Fitts and Priester. These guys seem like they were good pick ups. No reason to baby them, lets see what they have !!
|
|
|
Post by bettsonmookie on Aug 28, 2024 10:15:39 GMT -5
How does the community feel about Sean Manaea?
He is pitching well enough where it can be assumed he will decline his ~$14M player option for '25.
LHP with upside and still somewhat close to his physical prime.
If he were our 2nd best SP acquisition of the off-season, I would be into it. Surprised I have not heard more buzz about him.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 28, 2024 10:29:14 GMT -5
How does the community feel about Sean Manaea? He is pitching well enough where it can be assumed he will decline his ~$14M player option for '25. LHP with upside and still somewhat close to his physical prime. If he were our 2nd best SP acquisition of the off-season, I would be into it. Surprised I have not heard more buzz about him. Similar as you in a scenario where was the 2nd best SP acquisition this offseason I would not hate it.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 29, 2024 10:19:46 GMT -5
Good interview with Garrett Crochet: blogs.fangraphs.com/garrett-crochet-is-considering-becoming-a-craftier-power-pitcher/Quote that stood out to me:
Is Justin Willard licking his chops reading this?
Crochet's innings have been limited and the shine has come off him a little as he's had a few rough outings the last month but the results are still ridiculous, he's 2nd in baseball among starters in in-zone whiff rate, between Ragans and Skubal, and he's tied for 7th in chase rate with Zac Gallen.
I don't know what he would cost but man he would fit nicely on this team.
Edit: Something also interesting, looking at Crochet: his fastball velo has increased over the course of the season. Probably due to the innings limit but still interesting nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 29, 2024 10:27:25 GMT -5
I get that Crochet was going to run into an innings/pitch limit and that his stuff has still looked good the last few months but at this point we still have absolutely no clue if he can handle a starters workload for a full season. On no planet would I be okay with them dealing any of the big 4 prospects for this guy.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 29, 2024 10:33:59 GMT -5
I get that Crochet was going to run into an innings/pitch limit and that his stuff has still looked good the last few months but at this point we still have absolutely no clue if he can handle a starters workload for a full season. On no planet would I be okay with them dealing any of the big 4 prospects for this guy. He's made 27 starts and thrown 128 innings this year, which is more starts than either Houck or Crawford had in any season prior to this year. Crawford's career high in innings pitched entering the year was 129 and Houck's was 106. At what point do you consider Crochet to be able to 'handle a starters workload'?
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 29, 2024 10:39:39 GMT -5
I get that Crochet was going to run into an innings/pitch limit and that his stuff has still looked good the last few months but at this point we still have absolutely no clue if he can handle a starters workload for a full season. On no planet would I be okay with them dealing any of the big 4 prospects for this guy. He's made 27 starts and thrown 128 innings this year, which is more starts than either Houck or Crawford had in any season prior to this year. Crawford's career high in innings pitched entering the year was 129 and Houck's was 106. At what point do you consider Crochet to be able to 'handle a starters workload'? The guy hasn't thrown more than 4 innings in a start since June. What do Houck and Crawford have to do with my stance that I would not trade a package including any of the current top 4 Sox prospects for a guy who hasn't shown the ability to handle a starters workload?
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 29, 2024 10:41:40 GMT -5
He's made 27 starts and thrown 128 innings this year, which is more starts than either Houck or Crawford had in any season prior to this year. Crawford's career high in innings pitched entering the year was 129 and Houck's was 106. At what point do you consider Crochet to be able to 'handle a starters workload'? The guy hasn't thrown more than 4 innings in a start since June. What do Houck and Crawford have to do with my stance that I would not trade a package including any of the current top 4 Sox prospects for a guy who hasn't shown the ability to handle a starters workload? I'm legitimately asking - what would Crochet have to do for him to show you that he can handle a starter's workload? I think the workload question was pretty reasonable early in the season, but as the season continue to go on doesn't that give you an answer?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 29, 2024 10:44:09 GMT -5
I get that Crochet was going to run into an innings/pitch limit and that his stuff has still looked good the last few months but at this point we still have absolutely no clue if he can handle a starters workload for a full season. On no planet would I be okay with them dealing any of the big 4 prospects for this guy. He's made 27 starts and thrown 128 innings this year, which is more starts than either Houck or Crawford had in any season prior to this year. Crawford's career high in innings pitched entering the year was 129 and Houck's was 106. At what point do you consider Crochet to be able to 'handle a starters workload'? All true, but Houck and Crawford wouldnt cost a Big 4 prospect, so pass. And still, he hasn't pitched anywhere enough innings to qualify for even an ERA title. Just because Houck and Crawford are now doing it doesn't mean that Crochet will succeed. Hes a gamble either way, not a proven commodity. If they could get him for Abreu plus lesser prospects I'd do it, but not for any of the top 4.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 29, 2024 10:50:46 GMT -5
The guy hasn't thrown more than 4 innings in a start since June. What do Houck and Crawford have to do with my stance that I would not trade a package including any of the current top 4 Sox prospects for a guy who hasn't shown the ability to handle a starters workload? I'm legitimately asking - what would Crochet have to do for him to show you that he can handle a starter's workload? I think the workload question was pretty reasonable early in the season, but as the season continue to go on doesn't that give you an answer? Being able to pitch more than 4 innings in a start past June would certainly be a good start. I don't see how he has really put to bed any of the questions on his ability to be an effective starter deep into a season when he hasn't really been an effective starter past June. Now some of that is the ChiSox rightfully babying him but the question still remains in my head. I am not saying that I would not trade for Crochet, I think in a trade that doesn't cost any of the top 4 prospects on the Sox it could be very worthwhile. That's just where I personally draw the line on him.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 29, 2024 11:12:49 GMT -5
I'm legitimately asking - what would Crochet have to do for him to show you that he can handle a starter's workload? I think the workload question was pretty reasonable early in the season, but as the season continue to go on doesn't that give you an answer? Being able to pitch more than 4 innings in a start past June would certainly be a good start. I don't see how he has really put to bed any of the questions on his ability to be an effective starter deep into a season when he hasn't really been an effective starter past June. Now some of that is the ChiSox rightfully babying him but the question still remains in my head. I am not saying that I would not trade for Crochet, I think in a trade that doesn't cost any of the top 4 prospects on the Sox it could be very worthwhile. That's just where I personally draw the line on him. Whether or not you should trade for him is a separate question, he'll cost a lot and is obviously risky. I do think that Crochet is kind of on an island right now with his combination of age, stuff and availability though, usually it's pick 2 out of those 3.
|
|
|
Post by bettsonmookie on Aug 29, 2024 11:28:52 GMT -5
I'm legitimately asking - what would Crochet have to do for him to show you that he can handle a starter's workload? I think the workload question was pretty reasonable early in the season, but as the season continue to go on doesn't that give you an answer? Being able to pitch more than 4 innings in a start past June would certainly be a good start. I don't see how he has really put to bed any of the questions on his ability to be an effective starter deep into a season when he hasn't really been an effective starter past June. Now some of that is the ChiSox rightfully babying him but the question still remains in my head. I am not saying that I would not trade for Crochet, I think in a trade that doesn't cost any of the top 4 prospects on the Sox it could be very worthwhile. That's just where I personally draw the line on him. As another poster mentioned recently, the ChiSox are so far away from being a serious club that I think the T4 might actually be ready too soon for them. In pondering the Crochet possibility, I think a more realistic question is whether or not the best of the next tier (i.e. Arias, Montgomery, Cespedes, Bleis) would be worthwhile individually or in some combination.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 29, 2024 11:38:41 GMT -5
Being able to pitch more than 4 innings in a start past June would certainly be a good start. I don't see how he has really put to bed any of the questions on his ability to be an effective starter deep into a season when he hasn't really been an effective starter past June. Now some of that is the ChiSox rightfully babying him but the question still remains in my head. I am not saying that I would not trade for Crochet, I think in a trade that doesn't cost any of the top 4 prospects on the Sox it could be very worthwhile. That's just where I personally draw the line on him. There's definitely reason for concern with Crochet (or any pitcher really) but consider if he was a 25yo AAA pitcher who's at 128.2 innings, would that be concerning? Skubal's MiLB career high was 122.2 innings. Skenes is barely ahead of Crochet at 136.1 innings and if the Red Sox even approached the Pirates about trading from their top-4, the Pirates would assume they meant 'all 4' (may be slight hyperbole). Crochett isn't a pitcher who keeps breaking down and has shown he can't pitch a full season, he's a pitcher who was injured for 2 years and hasn't had a chance until now. He's already gone 54.1 innings (previous professional career high) to 128.2 innings, which should be looked at as a positive rather than negative. He's an outlier, which makes us worry. But along with the risk, there's enormous upside.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 29, 2024 11:52:01 GMT -5
The Red Sox are in a weird situation where they have prioritized acquiring position players for years with the rationale being that you can always trade for pitching, but trading for pitching is so inherently risky that everyone becomes gun shy when push comes to shove. If you aren't willing to part with Casas, Duran, Anthony, Mayer, Teel or Campbell for anyone but Paul Skenes, prioritizing position players doesn't really work.
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Aug 29, 2024 13:27:44 GMT -5
He's made 27 starts and thrown 128 innings this year, which is more starts than either Houck or Crawford had in any season prior to this year. Crawford's career high in innings pitched entering the year was 129 and Houck's was 106. At what point do you consider Crochet to be able to 'handle a starters workload'? All true, but Houck and Crawford wouldnt cost a Big 4 prospect, so pass. And still, he hasn't pitched anywhere enough innings to qualify for even an ERA title. Just because Houck and Crawford are now doing it doesn't mean that Crochet will succeed. Hes a gamble either way, not a proven commodity. If they could get him for Abreu plus lesser prospects I'd do it, but not for any of the top 4. I do wonder if this undervalues Abreu relative to the top 4. Abreu is already an above average starter who's on pace for 3.5 fWAR. (Granted, he has the platoon issue, which limits roster flexibility because you need a RRH to pair with him.) But what are the chances that, say, Mayer or Teel becomes that valuable? They might, but I'd put it at maybe 50%. I'm not saying that I wouldn't trade Abreu for Crochet, just that when you account for the real possibility that Mayer and Teel won't be above average regulars, I put them in roughly the same bucket, value-wise. (Personally, I think that Anthony is in a different category because of his age advancement.)
|
|
|