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.
2013 Non-Waiver Trade Deadline Discussion
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 20:53:44 GMT -5
Although it is almost two months away, it wouldn't be bad to start talking about the trade deadline on July 31.
It appears that the biggest need for the Red Sox if they are still contenders by the trade deadline is probably starting pitching. There are not many enticing options that will be on the trade market, outside of a few good ones. One is Cliff Lee. If he was traded for though, it may take a package of good prospects. In addition, Lee is owed a lot of money over the next few years. I don't know if the Phillies would take on some of his salary, but he still would cost a lot nevertheless, and it seems the Sox are trying to stay away from huge contracts. I am not much for the "rent a player" philosophy, because it can either turn out great or bad. He could really help the team in the post-season, as he has experience in October. Again though, that brings rise to questions: Who will be booted from the rotation? Where does that put Webster? What will be the rotation be long term, as Barnes, Ranaudo, and RDLR are not far away?
Questions remain on whether or not Ellsbury or Salty will be staying in Boston, as they are both in contract years.
I have compiled a list of my set of untouchable prospects: Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Cecchini, Workman, Iglesias, Brentz, Ranaudo
Prospects that I would trade: Britton, Swihart, Marrero, Jacobs, De La Cruz, Shaw
Young Players that I can't decide on yet: Lavarnway, Kalish
Reply for your thoughts on trade options, both on players the Red Sox could trade for and who they could trade, and prospects you WOULD and WOULD NOT trade.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 1, 2013 22:14:37 GMT -5
Ranaudo is missing from your (untouchable or trade) list? I am thinking we would have to give up one of the top 5 pitchers currently in AA or AAA. Assuming this is a salary dump by Philly, they would probably want one of the cheap Boston pitchers, of which only Doubront is a starter. At some point this season, it would probably make sense to package several players needing to be on 40-man this winter for one (near) star?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2013 7:38:02 GMT -5
Sorry, that was my mistake. I'm editing my post to include Ranaudo.
I would include prospects that will be rule-5 eligible for a player that have little chance of being added to the 40-man such as Jacobs, KDLC, Vinicio, and Almanzar. Because of his recent DUI incident, I would also trade Britton.
I'd hang on to Doubront because he has been very solid as of late. I would sooner trade Dempster than Doubront. He is young and still has good potential.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 2, 2013 8:26:52 GMT -5
If you're the Phillies or anyone else, you're much going to prefer Doubront than Dempster. Cost controlled pitcher who's getting better versus a veteran rental is a no-brainer.
For Cliff Lee, Doubront would be a starting point, but I don't think you can part with depth beyond Doubront to get him. You'd be looking at one of Webster/Barnes/De La Rosa/Ranaudo/Owens. The Phillies would also probably want Cecchini, assuming Bogaerts is off-limits.
It would be a costly deal. I'd prefer the Sox stay the course they're on. They're going to have a slew of young pitching coming up over the next few years. With only Buchholz signed long-term, they'll need it.
Personally, I'd like to hang on to Swihart - he's just starting to develop and could be the catcher the Sox have sought since a young Varitek.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2013 10:33:50 GMT -5
I think your untouchable list is unrealistically long if the Sox are to acquire top talent. An untouchable should be a player who is so good that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to acquire a player of equal skill, promise, etc.
If the Sox could acquire Lee, or Stanton, or someone else in that class, they would have to give up some real talent.
Players on your untouchable list I think really are not untouchable: Barnes, Workman, Brentz, and Ranaudo. To get Stanton I would trade anyone except Bogaerts and Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 2, 2013 10:48:38 GMT -5
I have been pondering this for a while.
I think the big question is would the Phillies look more for a salary dump, or a prospect haul? If they eat half of Lee's contract there would be a long list of suitors to pick him up. If they just wanted to get his salary off the books, Red Sox are on a short list of teams who can take that contract as is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2013 11:49:25 GMT -5
If you're the Phillies or anyone else, you're much going to prefer Doubront than Dempster. Cost controlled pitcher who's getting better versus a veteran rental is a no-brainer. For Cliff Lee, Doubront would be a starting point, but I don't think you can part with depth beyond Doubront to get him. You'd be looking at one of Webster/Barnes/De La Rosa/Ranaudo/Owens. The Phillies would also probably want Cecchini, assuming Bogaerts is off-limits. It would be a costly deal. I'd prefer the Sox stay the course they're on. They're going to have a slew of young pitching coming up over the next few years. With only Buchholz signed long-term, they'll need it. Personally, I'd like to hang on to Swihart - he's just starting to develop and could be the catcher the Sox have sought since a young Varitek. Personally, I feel the same way. I am all set hanging on to all of our prospects (except for R5 eligible players that wont be added to the 40-man) because I like building teams with a young core of players. I probably wouldn't trade for Lee because the cost would be too high and he isn't young.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 2, 2013 12:12:09 GMT -5
It depends on the Phillies motivations and long term plans. They may want Lee off their books, therefore you may be able to be him for a package starting with Doubront. Remember JA Happ was the bigger piece to the Phillies Oswalt deal. In some ways Doubront has more value then a Matt Barnes. Young lefty with power strikeout stuff who's has major league success.
The untouchable list is entirely too long and out of hand though.
The fact you are also unsure of train Kalish and Lavarnway in a deal shows you are too attached and overvalue the Sox prospects. I think I understand and partially agree with your overall philosophy, but be careful going too extreme.
I'm curious as to what value WMB may have. It'd be a pretty bold move but maybe you can trade him and Doubront for Lee. Then pick up a decent veteran on the cheap. Maybe they include Michael Young. Or the Sox roll with Iglesias at third. I'm as big a WMB fanboy as there is. Since he was drafted even, but its a curious thought. No chance it happens but still
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Jun 2, 2013 13:40:25 GMT -5
I'm against any trade that takes any of the top guys in the system (none above Brentz) and even that one has to make a loooot of sense as a medium to long-term bet. Cliff Lee is borderline that, if the Phillies eat some money and it requires no more than a Doubront/WMB I´d do it. Still, I'm mostly with the stick with the plan and don't cave in crowd.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2013 14:36:36 GMT -5
I generally agree with nheck. The Sox are doing well right now with what they have, even with some players out. However, the reason to get someone like Lee is to win in the post-season. The Sox may have the pitchers to get the team to the post season, but probably not what they need to win in the post season.
So a move on a Lee quality pitcher happens when and if management thinks the post season is a probability and if the opportunity arises to make a trade that doesn't deplete the minors, or create a hole in the major league team.
The only way I would trade for an OF would be to get someone like Stanton - and there aren't very many like him. But he definitely is better than anyone in the Sox system now, or in the foreseeable future, and thus is worth giving up a lot to get.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jun 2, 2013 15:00:07 GMT -5
Any talks about Stanton would start with Bogaerts and include 2-3 more players on your 'untouchables' list. So I wouldn't advise getting your hopes up for Stanton.
I currently don't see a need for a starting pitcher. Dempster should be a solid #4 throughout the year as expected and the top 3 guys are all looking pretty good. For the #5 spot, Doubrant has been erratic and Webster blew his first chance to snag a rotation spot, but there are still 2 months to get that straightened out. I say table any thoughts of acquiring a SP until mid-July and re-check the #5 candidates as well as the health of the others.
If WMB continues to be injured or struggle, then they should consider a 3B, but there really aren't many holes on this team.
If they choose to go the other way and sell, then Drew, Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia should bring back some solid prospects. This should be considered even if they are in it depending on how Lavarnway, Iglesias/WMB and Bradley/Brentz are looking. Then the Red Sox can deal from strength in order to get prospects to plug whatever holes pop up between now and the end of July.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 3, 2013 6:29:09 GMT -5
Just to be clear, the red sox wouldn't be trading for Lee to build their roster, in the same way they signed Napoli, victorino, and traded for hanrahan, they would trade for him to win the world series.
I think the roster with lee is set up to win in the playoffs. 3 starters who would give you a chance to win every game. 3 good relivers behind them. High Obp team who scores runs and good defense. I am also against giving the future away. If there is some middle ground here docs could take on salary and not had to give up a ton of prospects I think the deal makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jun 5, 2013 10:31:40 GMT -5
Prospects I would not trade for the typical rental:
Bogaerts, Bradley, Cecchini, Iglesias, Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Ranaudo, Swihart, Vazquez
If the target is an exceptional starting pitcher, that may be different.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Jun 5, 2013 13:23:36 GMT -5
Prospects I would not trade for the typical rental: Bogaerts, Bradley, Cecchini, Iglesias, Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Ranaudo, Swihart, Vazquez If the target is an exceptional starting pitcher, that may be different. With you except possibly Iglesias depending on how valuable he is. BABIP warrior so far, and if he keeps it up they could sell high.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 5, 2013 14:07:07 GMT -5
We can trade some players from the major league roster, for example Carp or Gomes, Nava, Salty, or Ross, Middlebrooks...etc. To me any of those players can be replaced. Internally.
Not hating Nava. If you look at my record here I have been one of his biggest advocates for many years. He is clearly of value. He's also cheap and controllable for a long time and of interest to other teams. He is a major trade asset now. But JBJ can step in now and fill his spot. We can't trade Victorino or Gomes probably. Nava is tradeable.
For prospects would probably hold onto: Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Cecchini, Iglesias, Ranaudo, Swihart, Lavarnway
Prospects that I would trade: Britton, Marrero, Jacobs, De La Cruz, Shaw, Brentz, Just about any reliever, Workman, Hernandez, Kalish
In the right deal though I would trade my sister, if I had one.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 10, 2013 9:41:05 GMT -5
I just don't see where we could upgrade besides the pen. It looks like Bud Norris will be the best SP available but is he a huge upgrade from Doubront? Stanton isn't going anywhere and I'm now even skeptical about dealing the farm for a player with his injury concerns. What happens when he gets to his mid to late 20's? The OF seems set if we're healthy in 6 weeks. Catcher seems impossible to upgrade this year unless we take on Mauer and give up some top prospects in the process. 3B has Headly out there but SD is rumored to want to try and extend him. I think our best bet here is for WMBs to get straitened out in AAA. I think it's back to the pen and I would look at Crain and Thorton from the Chi Sox.
|
|
|
Post by britalb on Jun 10, 2013 11:12:12 GMT -5
I don't think the Sox need (or want) to trade away prospects right now. With the new CBA and the soft cap on the draft, prospects are more valuable than they used to be. Buchholz, Lester and Lackey are good enough if they continue to pitch to their potential. And the 4/5 pitcher roster is, if anything, overcrowded. It would only be worth trading prospects if one of these pitchers doesn't perform, but any of them is at least as good a bet as a reasonably-priced pitcher on the trade market.
I'd actually like to see the Sox sell at the deadline. The combination of the Biogen scandal and the expanded wildcard is a perfect storm. More teams think they have a shot at the postseason, and several of them will be looking for a rental as they lose a star player for 50 or 100 days. With the Player's Union likely appealing the suspensions, the timing should be just about right.
If Carp and Iglesias don't fall off a cliff, and Middlebrooks returns to even a semblance of last year's production, the Sox have excess talent in Victorino and Drew. Neither player is a lock for draft compensation, so this might be the best opportunity to get something for them. I think the Sox should shop them for the best deal they can find, eating salary if it nets prospects.
The extra forty-man roster space could be used to sign Grady Sizemore to a two-year, incentive-laden deal, as a possible Ellsbury replacement for next year. Sizemore would be a perfect lottery ticket for a rich team in contention with cap space and no glaring holes. By the end of the season, the Sox should have a better idea of what he might be able to contribute and of how Bradley is playing. This would help them decide whether to meet Ellsbury's demands.
If Ellsbury and Napoli both walk, the Sox will be well-positioned for what should be a pretty good draft.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 10, 2013 12:43:14 GMT -5
It's been five years since Sizemore played a full season. The odds seem awfully long that he will again. Supposedly he is rehabbing from his knee injury that kept him out last year, but that doesn't mean much now. I cannot imagine any circumstances justifying a two-year contract, and I doubt the Sox give him a thought.
In response to the post about trading Nava. JBJ clearly is not ready to replace Nava. Why would the Sox consider trading one of their very best performers, who seems to be improving as the season goes along?
At this point, if the Sox do anything, they are going to be buyers, and I think starting pitching is what they would look for.
|
|
|
Post by britalb on Jun 10, 2013 13:35:43 GMT -5
Like I said - a lottery pick, assuming he passed a physical. They'd have the roster and cap space. Sizemore's a good clubhouse guy, and could teach Bradley & possibly Ellsbury a thing or two. His talent and work ethic have never been questioned; he's had plenty of time to heal, assuming the surgery was successful.
If they truly needed him, he'd be too much of a risk. But in many ways it's safer to buy low on a healthy player with a proven track record coming off an injury than to pay top dollar for a free agent, even Ellsbury, hoping he doesn't get injured.
As to the two-year deal, I meant the remainder of this season and the next. No point signing him for just this season - there'd be competition in the fall, but no compensation should he walk. The Indians would probably woo him away.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jun 10, 2013 14:29:23 GMT -5
As noted in the Cliff Lee thread, I would be happy to take on that salary in exchange for some 40-man crunch guys (perhaps centered around Doubront).
Untouchables include: Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, Owens, Cecchini, Iglesias.
I'm actually probably looking to move a couple other guys including Workman, one of Lavarnway, Vasquez or Butler, one of Doubront, Ranaudo, Webster or Rubby, one of KDLC or Jacobs, perhaps one of Brentz or Almanzar, all because of 40-man crunch, especially with pitchers.
Don't want to trade anyone having a down year (Kalish, maybe Jacobs, KDLC, Marrero) especially if it takes them out of Rule 5 consideration.
I continue to think that the guys we could part with who have the most value are Workman, Doubront, Wilson, Aceves and Vasquez, but these would all need a lot coming back.
Getting Lee would give you a 2014 rotation identical to the end of this year, with Barnes, Webster, Rubby, Ranaudo, and Britton ready to fill in, and Owens only a year away. If they can't get Lee, I'd be happy to trade some of the 40-crunch-bunch for some high upside younger players who could help out (at least our interest level) at Greenville this year.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 11, 2013 14:35:07 GMT -5
I guess Aramis Ramirez is a name to watch if WMBs can't turn it around. Owed 16 million next year so it could be more of a salary dump. If acquired maybe slide him to first next year?
|
|
|
Post by curiousle on Jun 11, 2013 16:24:07 GMT -5
There might be some tinkering around the 40 man crunch, however...1). every team is now about building the farm-that's the core of how you compete and you must have talent and you must have surplus-putting even potent vets (Beckitt, Gonzo, Punto, Crawford)don't cut it if the core is not home grown-ie). I think most teams move more cautiously on young players. 2). In the A.L. with the exception of Detroit-all teams have flaws/injuries-and it looks wide open. I think the sox can win with what they have, plus a small addition-but I would not burn best prospects for even a 'Stanton-like' asset. 3). I would not 'sell young pitching' including Doubront, for old pitching (four quarters for a $1) you can't have enough young pitching-and you'll have to horde it. Love what the sox did in the draft-I think Cherington is feeling his oats......
If teams think the Sox have a pinch on the 40 man-they probably won't be inclinded to help-too much. The rule 5 guys aren't going to add much to another team either-think Navarro for the guy we shipped to Cleveland-not a game changer....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2013 16:37:18 GMT -5
I guess Aramis Ramirez is a name to watch if WMBs can't turn it around. Owed 16 million next year so it could be more of a salary dump. If acquired maybe slide him to first next year? It's actually $20M for next year when you include the $4M buyout of his contract. Even so, I don't think you are getting him for nothing. He's not much of a 3B but he is playing quite well this year. The Yankees would love to have him and I am sure other teams would as well. Further the Brewers could wait till the winter when more teams have money freed up to trade for Ramirez. The 3B free agent class is a very sorry lot. It might require trading Middlebrooks to get him which I would certainly jump on if I were the Brewers and consider if I were the Sox. FWIW Middlebrooks' approach seemed no better last night. Constantly in 0-2 counts letting pitches down the middle go while trying to pull pitches outside the zone. I know we all love Will Middlebrooks but if he can't turn this around over the next month they can't have him play 3B anymore. No Iglesias is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by curiousle on Jun 11, 2013 16:50:30 GMT -5
(Moonstone)What he said-I think WMB is a concern, and I think we have options coming (XMan or Gavin) that will make WMB expendable-so if that's a cornerstone for a pkg there and some 40 man crunch guys-then fine-I would go for that..but other prospects I think you have to back off.....and don't trade Doubront
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 11, 2013 19:41:10 GMT -5
So this will be weird as I've been hiding back the Nava lovers for a while, but IF he's legit then he's not someone you want to trade. The possibility that he is far outweighs what you could hope to get back. He's 30 so he should have a few more good seasons at cheaper dollars. He's the type of lower cost productive player that championship teams need.
I'm only dealing for Cliff Lee, if you can wrk a deal around Doubront and maybe guys like Britton whie taking on all the money. I wouldn't cry about losing Barnes as he doesn't impress me much, but I'm hesitant to go down that road. He's lost value, I'm sure. Do you trade him now before it possibly plummets by next year this time? Or is he someone you hold on to because he's trying talented?
|
|
|