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.
2012 MLB Non Sox
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 10, 2012 5:22:39 GMT -5
The trade we know the Sox turned down was Myers for Lester. Passan just reported on Twitter that at one point the Rays turned down Myers for Shields straight up. So while Friedman deserves praise for swindling the Royals on this one, he turned down essentially the exact same trade we know the Red Sox turned down. We know nothing else about how this deal went down w/r/t the Rays or Red Sox. For all we know the Sox actually were in on it, or perhaps the Royals went hard after the two Rays guys. Is it possible Cherington missed the boat? Sure, but unless someone here is holding out on us, we have no reason to believe that as a fact, unless you're willing to say the same thing about the other 27 GMs in baseball. You just said the Red Sox turned down Lester for Myers straight up, which I don't know is a fact, but that's missing the boat to me. Imagine being a KC fan. The equivalent package from the Red Sox would be Bogaerts, Barnes and Ranaudo. How suicidal would we be right now if we just gave that up for Shields and Davis? Except you're rooting for a franchise that hasn't done anything in decades.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 10, 2012 7:05:51 GMT -5
The trade we know the Sox turned down was Myers for Lester. Passan just reported on Twitter that at one point the Rays turned down Myers for Shields straight up. So while Friedman deserves praise for swindling the Royals on this one, he turned down essentially the exact same trade we know the Red Sox turned down. We know nothing else about how this deal went down w/r/t the Rays or Red Sox. For all we know the Sox actually were in on it, or perhaps the Royals went hard after the two Rays guys. Is it possible Cherington missed the boat? Sure, but unless someone here is holding out on us, we have no reason to believe that as a fact, unless you're willing to say the same thing about the other 27 GMs in baseball. If the key to this deal was that the Royals received two MLB rotation-ready pitchers, then the Red Sox simply couldn't match that and have anything approaching a competitive team in 2013. I agree with Norb that the analogous deal would have been Lester and Doubront, which would have left the Red Sox with three holes in the rotation to fill rather than one. The Rays, meanwhile, slot in some combination of Niemann, Cobb, and Archer and they're fine. That assumes that the Royals plan to move Wade Davis back to the rotation. He has been much better in the pen, where has had much better stuff. If the Royals wanted Davis to start, then yes, he is Doubront. If they wanted the guy who was coming off a great year in the pen then the Red Sox easily could have made a deal. Maybe Dayton Moore believes that Wade Davis can improve from being a pretty mediocre starter, but Davis's track record says otherwise. Again, this makes me wonder about the perception of Myers with among MLB GMs.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 10, 2012 8:05:32 GMT -5
Oh boy, was this ever a moronic trade. How in the world Dayton still has a job?
|
|
|
Post by benfromma on Dec 10, 2012 8:18:38 GMT -5
The real question all fans must answer what place today would the Red Sox finish in the AL East. So are we trying to build a team that will win championships or just hope to compete. Tampa Bay is able to do both and made a great trade to provide youth or great trade chips for their ML team. I realize #1 we are not in their position and # 2 hopefully we are not done building our team but I question what direction is our team going in. This may have been an opportunity to add to our young talent and build for the future and I think Ben should be exploring other trades that would add talent that would be ready in 1 or 2 years. Then when are ready to compete we have young talent to add to the Boegarts, Barnes,and Webster type players or have some trade chips to add ML talent. I question on our Major League roster how many players would you really call untouchable ?(my answer is very few) Maybe the Kansas City trade was not in the cards for us, but Ben needs to use all his powers to find other ones for us.
t
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,830
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 10, 2012 8:20:16 GMT -5
THAT was a great trade for BOTH sides!
KC had to finally get in the game and become a viable competitor. This trade does it. They lose no regulars and pick up, potentially, two starters.
For one who has seen a lot of Shields, he is freakin "horse". He is a great competitor and will instantly improve their chances for a potential wild-card berth. And don't discount Wade Davis. He easily could be a solid 4.
The Tampa Bay fans are upset because of their love of "Big Game", but they had to do something like this. At best, Shields would have been in Tampa Bay for one year more at best.
They NEEDED a potential power bat like Wil Myers badly. Their farm does not have this type of impact bat. Ordozzi may be solid. Montgomery has ability, but has lost most of his luster.
Great trade for both organizations.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 10, 2012 8:42:52 GMT -5
Andrew Friedman is playing the game at it's highest level. Ben Cherrington is just watching...and picking up Larry Lucchino's dry cleaning when he's told. so we are going back to the BC is a puppet route..... YIPPE :-l ENOUGH for F*** sake Calling him a puppet/errand boy is actually a compliment. Personally, I think he's incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by justen on Dec 10, 2012 8:46:22 GMT -5
THAT was a great trade for BOTH sides! KC had to finally get in the game and become a viable competitor. This trade does it. They lose no regulars and pick up, potentially, two starters. For one who has seen a lot of Shields, he is freakin "horse". He is a great competitor and will instantly improve their chances for a potential wild-card berth. And don't discount Wade Davis. He easily could be a solid 4. The Tampa Bay fans are upset because of their love of "Big Game", but they had to do something like this. At best, Shields would have been in Tampa Bay for one year more at best. They NEEDED a potential power bat like Wil Myers badly. Their farm does not have this type of impact bat. Ordozzi may be solid. Montgomery has ability, but has lost most of his luster. Great trade for both organizations. Nobody is saying that the Royals got their pants pulled down because of who they received, but because of who they gave up. This trade could have easily been accepted without the inclusion of Myers, or he could have at least be replaced by a lower-tier prospect. From the Kansas City standpoint, this is at best an ok trade, just from what they gave up. Tampa is ridiculous. They definitely greatly improved their lineup with the Myers addition alone. The added to an already deep pitching depth, even with trading Shields and Myers. I wouldn't go as far as saying it was a great trade for both teams. It was a great trade for the Rays, but the Royals overpaid.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 10, 2012 8:49:41 GMT -5
You have to tip your hat to Tampa Bay. They had a surfeit of pitching and a dire need for another impact bat.....And don't they have about a $65M payroll +- with Shields gone & Longoria signed?.....Heck we paid 1/2 that for our 'transformative' FA pick-ups.
The East is going to be tougher for a while I fear. We might have to call in special ops.
Texas and the Dodgers look like baseball's 400 lb. gorillas too.
Those are a lot of hills to climb.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 10, 2012 8:59:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Dec 10, 2012 9:13:31 GMT -5
Passan with another: A's turned down Myers for Brett Anderson straight up. Does the list of deals the Royals proposed and were turned down say more about the price of ML pitching or Myers' perceived value around the league? Serious question.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 10, 2012 9:31:08 GMT -5
Combination of both, I'd say. I mean, we are a prospect-based forum, so it makes sense that we'd overvalue prospects slightly. Billy Beane has never shied away from trading established players for prospects, and a guy with an injury history like Anderson for a young, power-hitting outfielder would certainly seem like his kind of deal, unless he really loves Anderson (which is also possible).
Also, keep a healthy dose of skepticism here. Trades that didn't happen get leaked because someone wanted them to get leaked.
EDIT: Also, there may have been a level of gamesmanship here, and Friedman may have simply beaten Cherington and Beane (and anyone else involved). I mean, Dayton Moore being on the hot seat is one of the least kept secrets in the league. The Sox and A's may also have been trying to milk Moore for all he was worth, knowing that Moore was switching to win-now mode, but the Rays either beat them to it or ended up offering the "best" deal.
|
|
|
Post by kindasweaty on Dec 10, 2012 9:44:57 GMT -5
They also leak because a team official told the reporter off the record and that reporter understands that if he releases it too early he'll lose the trust of his contact inside that organization.
But I understand the question of whether or not Myers value to us is higher than his value to GMs. The guy did strike out in 24% of his PAs last year. And Tampa did have all the leverage. That doesn't mean KC should have given up all that talent but still.
I saw a tweet that made a good point: Gio Gonzalez, Michael Pineda, and Mat Latos were all traded for less last year and had way more controllable years. The Royals fucked up. . . well, royally.
Almost too fitting.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 10, 2012 9:56:22 GMT -5
They also leak because a team official told the reporter off the record and that reporter understands that if he releases it too early he'll lose the trust of his contact inside that organization. But I understand the question of whether or not Myers value to us is higher than his value to GMs. The guy did strike out in 24% of his PAs last year. And Tampa did have all the leverage. That doesn't mean KC should have given up all that talent but still. I saw a tweet that made a good point: Gio Gonzalez, Michael Pineda, and Mat Latos were all traded for less last year and had way more controllable years. The Royals fucked up. . . well, royally. Almost too fitting. That's my point. We may overvalue prospects in general, but top prospects have always fetched a king's ransome in trade (Michael Pineda for Montero last year for instance). The GMs were not treating Myers like a top five prospect.
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Dec 10, 2012 10:11:21 GMT -5
They also leak because a team official told the reporter off the record and that reporter understands that if he releases it too early he'll lose the trust of his contact inside that organization. But I understand the question of whether or not Myers value to us is higher than his value to GMs. The guy did strike out in 24% of his PAs last year. And Tampa did have all the leverage. That doesn't mean KC should have given up all that talent but still. I saw a tweet that made a good point: Gio Gonzalez, Michael Pineda, and Mat Latos were all traded for less last year and had way more controllable years. The Royals fucked up. . . well, royally. Almost too fitting. Latos was traded for what was thought to be two top hitting prospect and a proven back of the rotation starter. On top if all that, Latos was said to have issues and everyone knew the Padres wanted to show him the door. Pineda was traded for what some scouts believed was one of the best hitting prospects in a decade. Montero while there were questions about his position, scouts believed his bat was more special then Myers in the long term. The cost for starting pitching is expensive. Not everyone can start Aaron Cook.
|
|
|
Post by kindasweaty on Dec 10, 2012 10:20:35 GMT -5
I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or not. The Rays got a haul of young controllable talent for 31 and 32 year old James Shields. The Padres got a lesser package for ~4 years of 24 and up Mat Latos. The Mariners got a lesser package for 5 years of 22 year old Michael Pineda.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 10, 2012 10:29:50 GMT -5
The Royals got fleeced and Cherington didn't have his shears sharpened. No two ways about it.
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Dec 10, 2012 10:34:11 GMT -5
I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or not. The Rays got a haul of young controllable talent for 31 and 32 year old James Shields. The Padres got a lesser package for ~4 years of 24 and up Mat Latos. The Mariners got a lesser package for 5 years of 22 year old Michael Pineda. Sorry, I was not clear. I don't think it is as lop sided as everyone says it is. I just feel that Myers strikes out too much and ends up as a 260/310/480 guy. I think he will hit for his power but believe the K's will hinder his game.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Dec 10, 2012 10:36:08 GMT -5
As a prospect follower and a Red Sox fan, I am incredibly jealous of the way the Rays are run.
But if you're BC and the Royals offer you that package for Lester and Doubront do you do it? Again, if you are Ben Cherrington, GM of the Boston Red Sox, with everything that entails, do you take that offer?
I'm not sure I do.
(By the way, is it inconceivable that Dayton Moore values Shields and Davis highly enough that he would consider the equivalent Red Sox offer Lester, Doubront, and Tazawa? Lester and Buchholz?)
|
|
|
Post by mantush on Dec 10, 2012 10:51:55 GMT -5
I think the cost to get that deal done from the Sox's perspective would be either Lester and Buchholz or Lester and Doubront. If I'm Cherington, after spending close to one hundred million on some patchwork free agents, I don't consider trading my number one starter and another with mid-rotation potential (or more).
If this trade was offered to the Red Sox before they had deals in place for Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, and others, then I'd probably pull the trigger in a heartbeat -- and turn my attention to attracting Anibal Sanchez and Ryan Dempster to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 10, 2012 10:56:39 GMT -5
If this trade was offered to the Red Sox before they had deals in place for Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, and others, then I'd probably pull the trigger in a heartbeat -- and turn my attention to attracting Anibal Sanchez and Ryan Dempster to Boston. No reason they couldn't have still done that - Myers in the OF, sign Sanchez & Dempster, trade Ells for pitching.
|
|
|
Post by mantush on Dec 10, 2012 11:15:50 GMT -5
If this trade was offered to the Red Sox before they had deals in place for Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, and others, then I'd probably pull the trigger in a heartbeat -- and turn my attention to attracting Anibal Sanchez and Ryan Dempster to Boston. No reason they couldn't have still done that - Myers in the OF, sign Sanchez & Dempster, trade Ells for pitching. You are right, we probably could. I don't know how close we are to reaching our budgetary allowance or the luxury tax threshold though. I think Sanchez's demands, with the contract Greinke has been given, would eat away whatever remaining budget room we have left.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Dec 10, 2012 11:17:49 GMT -5
If they consider Sanchez to be worth whatever it is going to end up taking to sign him then they can and will do that now, though, right?
And if they don't consider him to be worth the money then signing him anyway just to make up for the value lost with Lester? Then we're starting to cut sharply into the value this trade would have.
|
|
|
Post by mantush on Dec 10, 2012 11:33:47 GMT -5
If they consider Sanchez to be worth whatever it is going to end up taking to sign him then they can and will do that now, though, right? And if they don't consider him to be worth the money then signing him anyway just to make up for the value lost with Lester? Then we're starting to cut sharply into the value this trade would have.This is a great point. If we would have to go fishing for rotation pieces and overpay for them to fill the void left by a potential trade, then you'd have to question both the short-term and long-term value of the trade for the organization. It's fine and dandy to trade from a position of strength like the Rays did, but our rotation is extremely weak and our prospects are no guarantee. If the team is trying to be competitive this year and make a run at the playoffs in 2014, then Lester and Buchholz (and Doubront) have more value to us than Myers and the other prospects the Rays received. I'd take our chances with Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Lackey, and one question mark than three question marks and a combination of Doubront/Buchholz and Lackey.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 10, 2012 11:49:16 GMT -5
As a prospect follower and a Red Sox fan, I am incredibly jealous of the way the Rays are run. But if you're BC and the Royals offer you that package for Lester and Doubront do you do it? Again, if you are Ben Cherrington, GM of the Boston Red Sox, with everything that entails, do you take that offer? I'm not sure I do. (By the way, is it inconceivable that Dayton Moore values Shields and Davis highly enough that he would consider the equivalent Red Sox offer Lester, Doubront, and Tazawa? Lester and Buchholz?) It would certaintly take a lot of guys to make this trade as BC. If this trade goes sour, and that's a legit possibility, then the trade might cost BC his job. GMs are rarely fired for the great moves they fail to make. GMs can be fired for making bad moves. A GM with a long track record can afford to make these riskier trades. Our friend in Tampa has a great track record, thus he can afford to take risks. Also the smaller market is expected to take more risks. He needs to take those risks to field a competitive team. BC has alternative ways to build his team.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Huegel on Dec 10, 2012 12:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|