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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Feb 4, 2020 23:59:46 GMT -5
I love Mookie and have much respect for Price, but first and foremost... I’m a Sox fan. This team is more one or two players. I don’t love this deal but I’m not going to take my toys and go home, throw a temper tantrum, and never watch a game again either. I get the frustration but this team will be fine. We may not win the WS this year but I’m still gonna be cheering them on, engaging with all of you on this website, and rooting for the Yankees to explode. We’re gonna be okay, gang. Edit: I meant to say rooting for the Yankees to implode but I think I’ll keep my original sentence.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Feb 4, 2020 21:58:00 GMT -5
I hope we announce an extension of Devers tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Feb 4, 2020 21:46:12 GMT -5
Graterol is a top 100 prospect, i dont really know much about him though I’m pretty sure I saw him pitch against the Red Sox at Fenway this summer. Had some pretty electric stuff He pitched out of the twins bullpen during the playoffs if I remember correctly. Hit 100 and a nice slider, too.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Feb 4, 2020 21:23:46 GMT -5
Its either the Reds or Cardinals IMO. The Sox better come out of this with more than two players. This is ridiculous. 2nd player has to be a pitcher. Maybe twins and we get Graterol?
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 29, 2020 18:22:24 GMT -5
Because I’m fairly sure, although not certain— I’m not a lawyer or law enforcement officer, that holding a gun to Preller’s head and demanding he sign off on that deal is illegal. Never said that, nice reach... But we should we try to get Gore or Seager. I think it's funny when people say that that's too much for a one year rental, when history has shown that it is not. I love Mookie, but if 10/350 can't get him to stay, then get an awesome package for him before the season starts. Of course we should try to get Gore. You think anyone on this site or anyone in the entire Red Sox org disagrees with that? The Sox have had discussions with the SD before. You don’t think Bloom asked for him? The point of my joke before is that it doesn’t matter what you want, because it takes two sides to agree.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 29, 2020 18:14:59 GMT -5
Very interesting! Although I doubt they give up Seager. They were willing to give him up for Lindor. But without someone coming back to play that position, they’d be upgrading one position while downgrading another. Honestly, if it were the Dodgers, I think the return is Verdugo and a few lottery tickets. Unless they want us to take on someone like Pollock’s contract then maybe Verdugo and Downs/ Gray and cash/ another prospect in the teens- range. The Dodgers need to make room for Lux. He had a 188 wRC+ in AAA last season. Sure, he looks like a stud. I’m just saying if I were the Dodgers and was looking for a World Series victory, I’d want some depth. By starting Lux, you have less depth and you’d be hoping he doesn’t go through the usual rookie slumps and adjustment periods. I’d rather keep both and then in the next offseason trade Seager.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 29, 2020 18:11:04 GMT -5
Greetings All and Happy New Year (Better late than never) I have a question, why can't we get Gore, Luchesi, Adams and Myers (whole salary) for Betts? Because I’m fairly sure, although not certain— I’m not a lawyer or law enforcement officer, that holding a gun to Preller’s head and demanding he sign off on that deal is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 29, 2020 18:04:19 GMT -5
Extremely. Wonder what the package would be going back to Boston in this case? I'm guessing it starts with Verdugo and a prospect in the 3-5 range then probably 1 or 2 more in the 10-15 range? Or you could get Seager and other pieces and have Seager learn 2nd base in camp. Very interesting! Although I doubt they give up Seager. They were willing to give him up for Lindor. But without someone coming back to play that position, they’d be upgrading one position while downgrading another. Honestly, if it were the Dodgers, I think the return is Verdugo and a few lottery tickets. Unless they want us to take on someone like Pollock’s contract then maybe Verdugo and Downs/ Gray and cash/ another prospect in the teens- range.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 29, 2020 17:53:54 GMT -5
To everyone screaming about Myers' negative value, again, they're not paying his whole deal. I can live with Myers at 3.33M AAV. That's what they're paying Peraza and Moreland. If he can be a 1 or 2 win player, I'm ok with Myers up to 5M. I get what you’re saying, and from a salary cap perspective it makes sense. If Myers returned to a two or even one WAR player again and you’re only paying 3 mil AAV, that’s a sweet deal. Of course, if it’s such a good deal and the Padres were willing to even part with a throw-in prospect, why haven’t a host of teams done it? Because at the end of the day, while his AAV may be low, you still gotta pay him 30 million. Yes I understand that most of that doesn’t count towards the cap, it’s still 30 million. Plus there’s also the concern that he doesn’t return to form and has another year like last season. So you’re paying a lot and not huge upside (there’s some, don’t get me wrong). Hence why no one team has jumped on the Will Myers reclamation bandwagon; he’s seen as a negative asset because he is one. Or at the very least you’re paying 30 million in hopes he becomes kinda of a decent value asset? At the very least, you better get more than a throw in prospect to take him.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 29, 2020 15:22:08 GMT -5
The years of control is a big thing for me. 3 years of Margot. 4 years of Luchessi aren't ideal, if two of these guys are packaged with another MLB player like Naylor or Quantrill. Change that to 2 top 100 prospects (Campusano, Morejon) on top of Margot or Luchessi or Quantrill, you have something. The starting pitching depth in the minors would go from a point of weakness, to a point of strength almost instantly with this trade. Maybe if you didn’t include Myers. But adding Myers to the deal would make a Campusano, Morejon, Margot deal terrible.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 28, 2020 19:23:54 GMT -5
Seems like we have all the leverage in the trade discussions: 1. Two teams from the same division are vying for Betts’ services 2. We don’t have to trade him. We could keep Mookie and trade him at the deadline if we are out of it, or keep him and offer a QO at season’s end. 3. Mookie is the most impactful player who is available. My guess, whoever blinks first between the Dodgers and Padres will end up getting him and we’re ultimately going to end up liking the haul we get for him. LAD: Pollock, Seager, Verdugo and Ruiz SD: Myers, Campusano, Patino and Margot Those are my two guesses. I agree we’re in a great position. But I think your Dodgers offer is high and the SD offer is too low. Note: Don’t get me wrong, if the Dodgers offered that I’d take it. Dodgers: Ruiz (or Gray), Pollock, Verdugo, and a lottery ticket (two if it’s Gray over Ruiz) SD: Myers, Grisham, comp pick, Patino, Campusano, little bit of cash.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 28, 2020 19:09:30 GMT -5
Nice! Love me some Mitchie two bags!!
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 28, 2020 15:08:29 GMT -5
This, and exactly this. People are acting like any prospect that isn't Gore is useless. Stomping your foot and demanding you get a top prospect back for an expiring contract is just completely ignoring how value works. Also, someone against trading Mookie lamented the Sox weren't going to get "creative" and keeping Mookie is literally the least creative option possible, so I'm not sure I understand that point of view. I am going to be bummed if/when he gets traded, but the writing on the wall right now is that he's at best a 50/50 proposition to re-sign and I'd much rather get a few pieces and financial flexibility in the future for him than just lose him outright if I am not confident the Sox will be one of the 5 best teams in the MLB next year, which I am not. I view it more like 'if the Red Sox are not completely blown away, then keep Mookie'. I want Mookie to remain, even if it's only for this season. The only way around this is if there is a handshake deal where he said he'd re-sign next fall after being traded. But that would never even be a rumor. Taking a lousy deal for Mookie —especially one that doesn’t even get us under the cap— should be avoided. I really want Mookie in uniform opening day. However, if trading Mookie increases our chances of resigning him next offseason (and getting under the cap this season would seem to be a requirement for that) then I’m on board. I don’t think there will be a handshake. I think it’ll be who offers the most cash. And no way could we win a bidding war if we’re getting destroyed by cap penalties as well. I think getting solid prospects for Mookie, getting under the cap this offseason and then next offseason resign Mookie, extend Devers and Eddie (might have to dump Price or NE’s contract to do that— in which case the prospects we get this offseason would be used to replace them or help grease the wheels for another team to take their contracts). That’s what I hope happens.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 28, 2020 13:32:22 GMT -5
I've been checking into the Padres Reddit site frequently during this. I'm really getting the feeling that the Padres are about to put the Sox over a barrel. I think the pressure is on SD not the Red Sox. The front office in SD is more likely to be fired at the end of this season than Bloom. It’s the SD fan base that’s excited about getting Betts, not the Sox fan base over losing Mookie and getting Myers etc. I think of it this way, with the way this has been hyped... SD fans will be bummed if the deal doesn’t happen. Would Sox fans, even those in the “trade Mookie” camp, really be upset if we backed away from Margot, Myers, one prospect for Mookie deal? Not really. If anything, it may be time to turn up the heat on the Padres.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 27, 2020 16:06:04 GMT -5
Just to clarify: Naylor is a first baseman. He only moved to the outfield when the Padres got Hosmer. That's part of the problem though, right? They'd need an outfielder. Oh I agree. I’m just saying he’s not an outfielder. He’s a bat first, second, third only first baseman.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 27, 2020 15:57:55 GMT -5
I strongly disagree. Margot has shown to be nothing more than a bootleg Chinese knockoff of JBJ. Naylor at least gives them a potential power bat at 1st. This all depends on who the prospect is. Say if the return is Quantrill, Naylor, Myers and Campusano then the Sox come out of this on the surface as long term winners. This isn't going to occur though. Preller isn't that stupid and the Sox need to get under the threshold and get something for Mookie before he leaves for nothing. The prospect will more than likely be someone like a Baez who is a pure lottery ticket but could also become the next closer. Well, I'm not just assuming that Naylor can move to 1B. Some OF have been playing OF their entire life and have never fielded a ground ball. Which is why I assume that JDM doesn't own a 1B glove yet. Also, Myers has severe negative trade value and that's the only trade that's even worth discussing because of that. It's actually not even one that I'd want because I don't like Naylor. He's 5'11" 255 and only 22. Just to clarify: Naylor is a first baseman. He only moved to the outfield when the Padres got Hosmer.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 27, 2020 15:52:29 GMT -5
If you think Naylor is a potential .850+ OPS guy, and Quantrill a middle of the rotation perennial 12-14 win starter, and you also get Campusano and maybe another prospect... maybe it's worth taking on an overpaid Wil Myers for three years? Perhaps. But those are big IFs. The problem is that Naylor is so poor defensively (at best he might be an average first baseman) that he has to hit .850 ops just to be of any value whatsoever— lot of pressure on that bat to hold his value. And I just don’t see Quantrill as a mid rotation guy. I remember watching his I wanna say second start last season (small sample size alert and he is still young and room for improvement) but I wasn’t at all impressed. He stuff aside from his change up— which was excellent— was decidedly average (well that’s not fair his slider looked decent). The thing I was most concerned about was his 4 seamer. Yeah he hit 95ish but it had zero movement. Like none. A friend of mine, who is a Padres fan, told me that Quantrill used to have lots of life in his fastball but since his tommy john surgery his velocity has come back, the control is slowly coming back, but all movement/ run from his fastball is gone and has shown no indication of coming back. Maybe a change in mechanics or continued development will fix that but I just have visions of that fastball being eaten up by big leaguers. He seems more of a back of the rotation guy to me.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 27, 2020 15:33:49 GMT -5
Margot simply fills a need. Yes he's a bang average big leaguer, but if the Red Sox trade Mookie they literally only have one guy capable of playing CF on the roster, and RF is no cake-walk in Fenway. He's a good fielder. Something that has extra value when looking at the depth chart the Red Sox possess. He's also not the headliner in return, so getting caught up in Margot's inclusion seems silly. True but why not go for someone who has a tad more upside, controlled for more years, and can also play CF like Trent Grisham? Rather than Margot, I’d insist on him if I were bloom. Let me put it another way: if everything else is agreed upon between the clubs (percentage of Myers contract, prospects etc) but the Sox demand Grisham over Margot, do the Padres walk away? I don’t think so.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 27, 2020 13:31:42 GMT -5
Margot/ Naylor and Quantrill/ Lucchesi and 50-75% of Myers’ contract for Betts is so bad that I can only assume this was the initial offer Padres made and not what’s currently on the table.... I hope. If that prospect is Capusano then it's a good deal. Myers, Capusano, Naylor, and Quantril for one yr of Betts is a good trade. Depends what the Dodgers are offering but I'd also like Verdugo and some pitching prospects like Gonsolin and Gray and maybe Ruiz. Either way this seems to be heading to a conclusion w all these names being tossed around in the media from SD reporters and Boston reporters w Speier. I’m not at all high on Quantril and a bat-first first baseman like Naylor. But Naylor, Quantril, and Capusano straight up for Betts is fair (value-wise... Although I’d prefer the Dodger players you mentioned or other players like Grisham over Naylor). But when you add Myers and 50-75% of his contract it’s no longer a good deal.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 27, 2020 12:47:24 GMT -5
Margot/ Naylor and Quantrill/ Lucchesi and 50-75% of Myers’ contract for Betts is so bad that I can only assume this was the initial offer Padres made and not what’s currently on the table.... I hope.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 27, 2020 12:19:31 GMT -5
Assuming the anonymous Padres account has some credibility, the following trade (using baseballtradevalues.com) might be appealing:
Padres Receive:
Betts OF 50.7
Total Value 50.7
Red Sox Receive: Lucchesi SP 38.3
Campusano C 25.1 Grisham OF 18.8 Cronenworth 2B 5.5 Myers 1B -55.3 Cash 18
Total Value 50.4
If the Padres are willing to part with the compensatory draft pick, you could replace Cronenworth in the above trade scenario. Thoughts?
Sox aren't getting that much. More than likely they're going to be choosing between Grisham and Campusano and they'll get someone like Margot back added on. Myers Lucchessi and Campusano and possibly a lottery ticket are probably the best they will do from SD. No way Bloom makes that deal (gulp Im hoping anyway). Speier wrote a while back that a source said SD would offer a package that would exceed the Goldie trade. Lucchesi Myers Campusano doesn’t do that... again I hope!
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 25, 2020 11:28:08 GMT -5
Forget acquiring Mookie - what type of prospect package would it require for a team to take on Wil Myers at 3/68.5m? If you use Fangraphs prospect value chart, a package of Campusano AND Trammell or Morejon would get you close to offsetting the negative value of Myers. Now, in addition to dumping Myers, the Padres would also have to pay for a year of Mookie Betts. There's no scenario where the Red Sox and Padres could agree on a prospect return in this trade before agreeing to how much the Padres will subsidize Myers contract..the amount directly impacts the prospect return. If the Padres pay nothing, at minimum they have to add two of their better prospects IN ADDITION to whatever they'd be paying for Mookie alone. If they pay it down to the point where Myers counts for like $4m against the luxury tax, ok, he's basically a throw in and lesser prospects can be attached to him. People are really underestimating the negative value Myers carries and how much talent it'd take to get him off the Padres books. Just think of what the Red Sox would have to include to get a team to absorb Eovaldi's deal right now, and then keep in mind Myers is about $6m more (in real dollars) per year over the next three, and remember he projects to be a much less valuable player than Eovaldi next season. Agreed. I’m sure the Padres/ Sox are doing their due diligence but this is just a weird fit. Part of me wonders if this isn’t just an attempt to scare the Pirates into giving Marte away at a cheaper price.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 19, 2020 11:55:52 GMT -5
You're going to have a hell of a time with your fantasy draft if that's your standard for evaluating pitcher health. Let’s start one With the first pick of the 2020 fantasy draft, dmaineah selects.... Steve Selsky, outfielder, manager of Arby’s
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 13, 2020 15:23:42 GMT -5
Wow, thats an absolute bombshell. Absolutely. Wow I’m stunned. I wonder if Cora resigns rather than wait for the inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jan 2, 2020 17:42:27 GMT -5
Donaldson, man. Price could even come in a little under the $23m AAV they're not giving him anymore. And I still think the Twins and White Sox should be on the list. Donaldson was a one year flier with absolutely no risk and all the upside. If Donaldson stays injured, they're only in it for 23 million for one year. The Price thing is the exact opposite. Disagree with this. Yes, one-year contracts reduce risk but they also reduce gain. What did Donaldson actually do for the Braves? He was a good player but did they win the NL? The WS? One year contracts for big money are fine for teams one piece away from making a run at a WS. But for decent but not great teams like Atlanta? Doesn’t make huge sense. Let me put it another way. Go back one year. Braves sign Donaldson for one year at 23 million. If he has a bad year, you just wasted 23 million. But if he has a great year, what then? Either you have to resign him for crazy money or you let him go and get little in return. In other words, you really didn’t accomplish anything with the one year deal (btw I’m defining success based on playoff victories and NL and/ or WS titles). Less risk = less reward and upside. Conversely, you get Price at say three years, 60 million-ish. Yes, more risk (longer deal, more money). But if he’s successful, you now have a good pitcher at a reasonable amount of money for several years. More risk = more reward So I’m not quite sure you can say the Donaldson signing was low risk, all upside. Don’t you think the Braves are wishing they offered Donaldson 3 years at 60 million last off-season? Risk vs Reward.
|
|
|