Start, Sit, Trade: Play Along with Dave
- Thread starter nothumb
- Start date
Well, the "they need to outbid the value to the Marlins of three seasons of Jose Fernandez" part that you conventiently left out of his quote, that's kind of key. Maybe it would have been more clear if it was "they also need to outbid the value..", but to me the meaning was clear. And true enough, if not obvious.
I didn't conveniently leave it out, I left it out because it's irrelevant to the point and as you say, obvious. In response to someone asking if another team could beat the value of a package offered, he responded with the quote i cited. It's pretty simple, if they do decide to trade him, he most certainly will be auctioned off. So yes, it certainly does matter if another team can beat the Sox offer. It goes without saying that any team making an offer needs to meet the value the Marlins see in him for retaining him for 3 more years. So adding the word "also" really doesn't make anything more clear nor does it give any more validity to the other point he is trying to make.
I respect the positions that others have taken on the board about the proposed deal I floated to get Fernandez (and a pen arm). I took into consideration the fact that Fernandez is not "on the block", and tried to frame an offer that the Marlins would see as interesting enough to engage in realistic discussions. I'm not sure other teams would be willing to top the package I suggested, but I do feel confident that they would probably take that offer if it were made. In almost any other combination of prospects/players, I saw a reason for Miami to just hold onto Fernandez, rather than accept a package that didn't include the 4 assets I suggested trading: JBJ/Swihart/Owens/Devers.
I totally understand that trading JBJ/Swihart and Owens opens up holes on the roster. I'd like to believe that there are players of comparable value who could step into those roles in 2016 and perform similarly. If this kind of deal were made, the money that would be invested in the search for an ace free agent starter might be redirected towards someone like Gordon or Hayward, both of whom would be nice fits where Bradley used to be. Johnson doesn't carry as high an upside as Owens, but in 2016, is there a huge difference in their projected performances? I think the biggest hit would be in the comparison of Swihart and Vazquez, where the latter isn't as good a hitter (nor does he project to improve in that area as much I expect Swihart to), but I also have to consider that this downgrade is much smaller than the potential upgrade from Buchholz (or whomever you see as the #1 Sox starter right now) to Fernandez.
The deal isn't a steal for the Red Sox and represents a payment of full market value PLUS, but I do believe it is an equitable exchange of talent given the current circumstances. Fernandez might be on the brink of being a top 5 major league pitcher for the next 5 seasons. The Sox don't have anyone of that skill level near the majors (and I like Espinoza as much as the next fellow), and those are the types of assets that you utilize a deep system to acquire.
I stand by the rationale behind the proposal, and continue to welcome discussion and dissent.
I totally understand that trading JBJ/Swihart and Owens opens up holes on the roster. I'd like to believe that there are players of comparable value who could step into those roles in 2016 and perform similarly. If this kind of deal were made, the money that would be invested in the search for an ace free agent starter might be redirected towards someone like Gordon or Hayward, both of whom would be nice fits where Bradley used to be. Johnson doesn't carry as high an upside as Owens, but in 2016, is there a huge difference in their projected performances? I think the biggest hit would be in the comparison of Swihart and Vazquez, where the latter isn't as good a hitter (nor does he project to improve in that area as much I expect Swihart to), but I also have to consider that this downgrade is much smaller than the potential upgrade from Buchholz (or whomever you see as the #1 Sox starter right now) to Fernandez.
The deal isn't a steal for the Red Sox and represents a payment of full market value PLUS, but I do believe it is an equitable exchange of talent given the current circumstances. Fernandez might be on the brink of being a top 5 major league pitcher for the next 5 seasons. The Sox don't have anyone of that skill level near the majors (and I like Espinoza as much as the next fellow), and those are the types of assets that you utilize a deep system to acquire.
I stand by the rationale behind the proposal, and continue to welcome discussion and dissent.
Obviously the Marlins know that if they trade Fernandez, they're not going to get back full value. Therefore if he's put on the trading block, it will be because they feel like they have to trade him. There would be a negative value in keeping him that would partially outweigh the positive contributions he makes on the pitcher's mound. Obviously we have no way of assessing the internal Marlins situation. But if they have to trade him, the Sox will be able to put together a package just as good as anyone else's.
Apologies for not being clear. I was responding to johnnywayback's post that a package of Swihart/JBJ/Devers/Owens would be better than any other team might offer for Jose Fernandez.
My point was that acquiring Jose Fernandez is not simply about outbidding other teams, but whether or not it's enough value to compel the Marlins to trade the player. Of course they have to have the best offer on the table relative to other teams. And we can debate about whether or not there is a team with enough name prospects to "beat" that offer, but at the end of the day the debate should be about whether or not that is enough surplus value for the Marlins to make the trade.
I don't think a package centered on Swihart will get it done, not because the objective value isn't there, but because he wouldn't be much of an upgrade over Realmuto. The Marlins needs are in the starting rotation and their minor league system. To me that means the first player they ask about is Erod, followed by Moncada. While I think in terms of strict value a Swihart, Owens, Devers deal is fair, its just not enough to meet the Marlins needs. A trade involving Erod would be my prediction. Their values, after factoring in years of control and cost, aren't that far apart so it would mean the difference could be made up without including any of the big 4 from our system. It also wouldn't preclude signing Price.
"Rebuilding the Red Sox" courtesy of Bryan Grosnick at Sports on Earth. He thinks Greinke is a better fit than Price for an ace and offers 5 different scenarios:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/157999220/red-sox-offseason-hot-stove-free-agency-trades
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/157999220/red-sox-offseason-hot-stove-free-agency-trades
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 44s44 seconds ago
Farrell on WEEI says Bradley will play CF for #RedSox with Betts in RF and Castillo in LF.
Farrell on WEEI says Bradley will play CF for #RedSox with Betts in RF and Castillo in LF.
Works for me. I've come around to thinking that Castillo in LF is the right choice regardless of how you deploy the other two, if only because Castillo is probably the weakest player of the three and the most likely to be replaced in the near term, and putting him in LF gives you the widest range of possible replacements (or platoon partners). And as solid a CF as Betts is, JBJ is that much better. JBJ also has the better arm, but Betts is no Damon or Ellsbury; his average-ish arm in RF won't be a strength but it shouldn't be a damaging weakness either.
I'm probably a bit more bullish on Castillo than many here, but regardless, it was impressive how quickly he learned to play the Wall last year. And his arm in left will be a weapon to keep guys from trying to take an extra base. I think this is the right setup.
Last edited:
And Castillo showed some real flair for playing the Monster: he showed better-than-expected judgment for the carom, and a strong, accurate throw to second base.
Mookie will air-mail plenty of throws from right field, but he will also get to more balls in the air than any rightfielder since Victorino.
Glad to hear that they're making the smart decision and aligning the OF optimally. I'm also glad to hear that they've got JBJ set to start rather than trade bait. It didn't seem like they'd be able to get enough return for his upside, despite all the rumors that the media are throwing out there.
I still think, based on his tools and his arm, that Rusney is the ideal fit for right field, but it's hard to argue with just about any alignment. I think making a decision now is infinitely more helpful than having it be a distraction this spring.
Looking for something to read while you wait for the workday to end and your holiday to start? Trying to kill some time while traveling?
Check out our articles about Swihart, Betts, and Boegarts from this season.
While you're at it, learn something about pitches.
Or let Iayork show you how the strike zone is called.
Check out our articles about Swihart, Betts, and Boegarts from this season.
While you're at it, learn something about pitches.
Or let Iayork show you how the strike zone is called.
That's great news. Castillo showed solid reads off the Monster, and has great footspeed to give chase into the corner. Hopefully can nab a bunch of guys trying to stretch singles into doubles, too.
I was resigned to JBJ being relegated to RF, but I'm glad sanity won out. He's just too good out there in CF, and hopefully his experience there means more time able to devote to making adjustments at the plate.
The pitching staff is going to show a tremendous bounce-back from improved outfield defense, not even considering Kimbrel and whoever else is added to the staff.
Good that JBJ has been declared the starter in CF, although it says "play CF". Could have had the stronger arm (Castillo) in RF though. Maybe they feel Betts is the most valuable and he's safer from himself in RF (vs. crashing himself into the monster playing LF or CF). He said something like the experience he had from a previous impossible play helped him make that fabulous catch when he ended up teetering on the bullpen wall. All subject to change though, I'm sure. Mookie has now gone from second baseman to right fielder. Not many do that.
I've noticed when Mookie is coming in for a ball, say a single in front of him, he gets good momentum behind throws and they aren't bad. Of course, on balls he gets to going back or to either side, this won't happen. Mookie had 10 assists last year!
It's funny - thinking about the guys who've played RF for the Red Sox in the recent past - Drew, Nixon, Victorino - those guys weren't exactly guys you think of as super healthy. Now I don't think their being guys who've been hurt a bunch has much to do with their playing RF in Fenway, but it's just kind of an odd phenomenon. It's probably just because Boston's had guys in their 30s manning the position for the last 10 years.
I listened to the interview, and DD provided the caveat that JBJ would have to hit to be the full time CF. It wasn't a given that the OF alignment would be Castillo/JBJ/Betts, but that DD felt that JBJs defensive ability warranted an opportunity to play CF full time IF he could hold up offensively. I like JBJ as much as the next guy, and I fully admit that JBJ is the better defensive player, has a better arm, etc. than either Castillo or Betts. That being said, I believe there is also value to having a franchise caliber player (like Betts) stay in one spot, especially because he certainly acquitted himself well in CF in 2015, and was comfortable there. JBJ may well be the Sox CF for the next 5 years or so, but I don't think anyone views him as a franchise player. I'd love to see JBJ hit like he did in Pawtucket, admitting that the August rush was a small sample. If JBJ can hit .270/.350/.450, he's a major asset to the team. Betts has already shown extended levels of performance at that level or higher, and is 3 years younger than JBJ. For my money, as much as I love JBJs defense, I want Betts left alone in CF, with Bradley platooning in RF with Castillo and LF manned by someone else probably not yet on the roster. JBJ can be a late inning defensive replacement on an OF corner when he's not starting against LHP, but that's how I'd use him until he proves he can sustain a prolonged level of offensive productivity-which I think he could. When he actually DOES, then he'll play full time, but in RF, not in CF.
I fully acknowledge that this is a minority opinion, but I really do think there is value in having the face of your franchise (which Betts is going to be when Ortiz retires, though Pedey is the elder statesmen and still a very respected player) stay in a stable, important position and leaving him there. He's a good CF, and Bradley can be a great RF next to him. Just one man's opinion.
I fully acknowledge that this is a minority opinion, but I really do think there is value in having the face of your franchise (which Betts is going to be when Ortiz retires, though Pedey is the elder statesmen and still a very respected player) stay in a stable, important position and leaving him there. He's a good CF, and Bradley can be a great RF next to him. Just one man's opinion.
Yeah, I have thought JBJ would be terrific in Fenway's right field and could move to CF if it made sense in other ballparks. But every time I have made that argument, others have answered that it would somehow be counter-productive to move the fielders around. I am just not convinced that that is true.
Only way I can see it being counter-productive is if the players themselves aren't particularly comfortable with the idea. Like if any of them feel slighted by the notion of being shifted to LF at Fenway or RF at the Toilet because it is the smallest/easiest field to cover and being put there means they're third best, it could be detrimental.
However, If they're all willing and able and buy into it being nothing personal where they play, there's no reason it couldn't work.
FWIW, Betts' profile at SoxProspects says "Solid-average arm. Could play at all outfield positions, but profiles best in center field." Granted, the SP guys aren't the be-all end-all, but they know a hell of a lot more than I do.
I don't think that's the best argument against JBJ RF. The best argument is that 40-ish percent of balls hit to outfielders are hit to CF, so you should put your best defender there unless you have a compelling reason not to.
Plus the comfort of reading balls off the bat (lh or rh) after half a season of fielding from the same spot. A good outfielder can read anything, but moving around has to have some impact, doesn't it?
I think the jury is out concerning Toolsney. He has the ability to be a great Fenway right fielder, but we haven't seen enough of him to be certain of that. I have no problem putting him in LF for the time being. Put another way, no one's going to take an extra base on that arm in LF.
Pretty good problem to have: 3 center fielders in your outfield.
I think the jury is out concerning Toolsney. He has the ability to be a great Fenway right fielder, but we haven't seen enough of him to be certain of that. I have no problem putting him in LF for the time being. Put another way, no one's going to take an extra base on that arm in LF.
Pretty good problem to have: 3 center fielders in your outfield.
I can't quite figure out how to make the splits fall out correctly, but I would love if somebody could look at doubles hit to LF at Fenway with and without Hanley in 2015. It's one of those defensive metrics that should typically be so minor that it would be hard to measure, but I swear the difference between Hanley and Rusney was unreal.
The OF situation is very fluid, and I think the Red Sox are quietly much less convinced that Castillo is an everyday player than they are letting on. What aspect of his year in 2015 indicates growth towards being a plus player? He's 28 already, so significant improvement in any one area might not be that likely anymore. I'd be much more concerned about finding a corner OFer (preferably a LH hitter who gets on base) and allowing JBJ/Castillo to platoon in RF than about any other aspect of this team aside for the quest for an ace starter. I'm not sure who has such an OFer on the block, but Heyward is just about a perfect fit for the team needs and profile. Trading for the ace and signing Heyward might be the best allocation of team resources that I can envision, and would keep the team out of a long term contract situation with a 30+ year old starting pitcher. I'm not saying it will happen, but I hope DD and the group is at least considering this course of action.
Jason Heyward is perhaps the best defensive right fielder in baseball though. You don't shift him to LF so that you can platoon JBJ and Castillo. While JBJ may be as good, or perhaps even a better defensive RF as Heyward, Castillo is certainly not. And you certainly don't sign Heyward to a mega contract, with a good portion of that money tied into his defensive abilities, only to shift him to a less demanding position.
If the Sox go the unlikely route of signing Heyward to play RF, one of the current outfielders is most definitely traded for another need.
If the Sox go the unlikely route of signing Heyward to play RF, one of the current outfielders is most definitely traded for another need.
How much of this is a chicken-egg scenario? That is, 40-ish % of the balls hit to the OF are hit to the centerfielder. But so many times, if the LF and CF (or RF and CF) are converging on a ball, the CF always takes it. So are 40% of the balls hit to the centerfielder because most teams put their best outfielder in center, so you want him taking every ball he can, even if another outfielder can get it? Or do most teams put their best outfielder in center because 40% of the balls are hit to the centerfielder, and you want to maximize the number of chances he gets?
In other words, if JBJ is their best fielding outfielder, and a ball is hit to right center, and JBJ and Betts are converging, with both guys being able to make the play, baseball tradition says that the CF gets it, whether it's Betts or JBJ. But if JBJ is their best fielder and he's in right, why couldn't he just take that ball? And if he would, on a regular basis, wouldn't that obviously change the percentage of balls hit to the centerfielder?
That 40% figure isn't describing who is catching the baseball, it is describing where on the field the ball is hit.
Ok gotcha. From fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/does-outfield-alignment-actually-matter/), it appears that roughly speaking, here's the average number of chances for each OF spot:
LF: 630
CF: 840
RF: 630
So JBJ would get 210 more chances in center than in right. Based on their fielding percentages, here's how many balls they turn into outs:
JBJ (.994)
- CF: 834 outs in 840 chances
- RF: 626 outs in 630 chances
Betts (.987)
- CF: 829 outs in 840 chances
- RF: 623 outs in 630 chances
So if you had these 1470 chances, here's the number of outs with each alignment:
- JBJ in CF and Betts in RF: 1457 out of 1470 (.991)
- Betts in CF and JBJ in RF: 1455 out of 1470 (.990)
This doesn't include range factor, and frankly I don't know how to calculate how many balls hit in their general area they would catch because they're that much better than another player. But it doesn't matter if JBJ is in CF and Betts is in RF, or vice-versa, on balls hit into the RCF gap. It might make some difference on balls hit to LCF because Castillo can't cover as much ground. but over the course of an entire season, you're not talking about much of a difference in terms of balls put in play that are turned into outs, if JBJ is in center vs. right.
Fielding percentages are a poor indicator because 1) lots of outfield errors are due to poor throws, not dropped balls; 2) better outfielders are almost universally the ones that get to more balls rather than the ones that drop fewer balls. Chances are a poor indicator because high flies that can be fielded by both the CF and RF/LF are generally deferred to the CF.
I hear you. The fangraphs article argues the same basic point I just made, however. The conclusion of the article:
"The main point is to get the right guys on the field; how you align them once they’re starting is more of a minor problem. Don’t worry too much about whether a center fielder is being wasted in a corner spot. There are a lot of chances to go around, and center fielders don’t get so many more meaningful chances that there’s a huge advantage to be gained by shuffling players between OF positions. There’s enough extra opportunities that your best guy should go in center field, but if it isn’t patently obvious who the best guy is, don’t stress about it too much. In the end, just put them side by side in some fashion and the results won’t be drastically different."
Betts is terrific. JBJ is incredible, and is a better fielder. So it makes sense, even for the small advantage, to put JBJ in center. But the point is that I don't think it will make that much of a difference, so much that if you flipped them around it is likely to really cost you.
"The main point is to get the right guys on the field; how you align them once they’re starting is more of a minor problem. Don’t worry too much about whether a center fielder is being wasted in a corner spot. There are a lot of chances to go around, and center fielders don’t get so many more meaningful chances that there’s a huge advantage to be gained by shuffling players between OF positions. There’s enough extra opportunities that your best guy should go in center field, but if it isn’t patently obvious who the best guy is, don’t stress about it too much. In the end, just put them side by side in some fashion and the results won’t be drastically different."
Betts is terrific. JBJ is incredible, and is a better fielder. So it makes sense, even for the small advantage, to put JBJ in center. But the point is that I don't think it will make that much of a difference, so much that if you flipped them around it is likely to really cost you.
Except that not all outfields are created equally. JBJ in right field at the Toilet or in Minute Maid is a waste. There are also parks out there with centerfields that play large (Royals come to mind) and it seems you'd want your best fielder playing center.
There's also the taking the extra base factor. We lived through it with Ellsbury. Bradley has a better arm than Betts. Theoretically Bradley would prevent more extra bases than Betts for balls hit to RF. Except more balls are hit to CF than RF. I'm guessing that more extra bases are saved by having a stronger arm in CF than RF, despite the fact that those RF throws are more dramatic. In critical game situations, it could be important that the batter stops at 1st or 2nd for a ball hit to CF if for no other reason than a fly ball will go that direction 20% more of the time. It's unfair to compare Ellsbury to Betts, but why put your best fielder in RF?
{edit: late with the response, sorry}
There's also the taking the extra base factor. We lived through it with Ellsbury. Bradley has a better arm than Betts. Theoretically Bradley would prevent more extra bases than Betts for balls hit to RF. Except more balls are hit to CF than RF. I'm guessing that more extra bases are saved by having a stronger arm in CF than RF, despite the fact that those RF throws are more dramatic. In critical game situations, it could be important that the batter stops at 1st or 2nd for a ball hit to CF if for no other reason than a fly ball will go that direction 20% more of the time. It's unfair to compare Ellsbury to Betts, but why put your best fielder in RF?
{edit: late with the response, sorry}
Given the numbers posted earlier on the thread, it makes sense to leave Betts in CF full time, every day. Bradley, if he's capable of becoming a major league hitter, gets a permanent home in RF, and moves to CF if Betts gets a day off. Castillo is the LF, but I still contend that the Sox would be best served allowing him to build a major league approach on the short half of a platoon with a lefty hitter with some on base ability. It may not shake out that way, but Castillo has yet to prove that he can be a full time player and offensive asset, and as a corner OFer, he's got to be at least that, and perhaps more, given the $ invested in his contract.
All this conjecture is window dressing for the time being. I don't know that DD sees the OF as an area he'd like to upgrade, or that could be upgraded via free agency or trades. He's more likely focused on improving the rotation (as he should be), and directing his assets in that direction first. Still, this OF situation bears some attention, and while it has been assumed thus far in the offseason that the OF will be Betts/JBJ and Castillo in some combination, I have an inkling that there will be another bat in the mix out there before Opening Day.
All this conjecture is window dressing for the time being. I don't know that DD sees the OF as an area he'd like to upgrade, or that could be upgraded via free agency or trades. He's more likely focused on improving the rotation (as he should be), and directing his assets in that direction first. Still, this OF situation bears some attention, and while it has been assumed thus far in the offseason that the OF will be Betts/JBJ and Castillo in some combination, I have an inkling that there will be another bat in the mix out there before Opening Day.
1. Hanley Ramirez, 1B-DH, Red Sox — There’s now talk in the front office that Dave Dombrowski is trying to move Ramirez in a deal. The Mariners, Orioles, and Angels seem to be the targets, and all three make sense. There are huge hurdles to cross, however. One is money. With a little more than $68 million remaining on Ramirez’s deal, the Red Sox would need to eat at least half. The other hurdle is position. All three teams would have use for him as a DH. Mariners GM Jerry Dipoto, after evaluating the Sox organization, knows Ramirez’s weaknesses. Dan Duquette of the Orioles signed Ramirez originally with the Red Sox and has always loved his bat. Duquette also faces the possibility of losing Chris Davis. The Angels could use another bat. There is also a question as to whether Ramirez could play third base. If he lost the 20 pounds the Sox want him to, maybe.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/29/red-sox-seen-favorites-land-free-agent-david-price/8zOlzgpkvW6PvCaHt62dKP/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/29/red-sox-seen-favorites-land-free-agent-david-price/8zOlzgpkvW6PvCaHt62dKP/story.html
If Hanley Ramirez was a free agent this year, what would his expected contract be?
He certainly would get more than 3/34, so not sure why the Sox would have to eat half of his money. In fact, I could see a team in need of a DH throw a 3/60 deal at him.
I find it unlikely that the Sox would have to pay much to unload him, and would only need to do so in order to receive more than a lottery ticket in return.
He certainly would get more than 3/34, so not sure why the Sox would have to eat half of his money. In fact, I could see a team in need of a DH throw a 3/60 deal at him.
I find it unlikely that the Sox would have to pay much to unload him, and would only need to do so in order to receive more than a lottery ticket in return.
I don't see a trade to Baltimore as a good one for the Sox. While the Orioles could use him, I think that their farm system is pretty empty. Additionally, why trade him to a division rival? Not being familiar with the Angels and Mariners systems, I don't know what they could offer, but it has to be better than anything the Orioles could pony up.
If the Red Sox trade Hanley you sure as hell don't need to be worried about the other team's farm system.
Except no one is giving up a good prospect for him. The best trade target is the team who asks the Sox to eat the least amount of money on his contract. (And if Hanley really isn't a good clubhouse presence, all the better to dump him on Showalter)
Well, if it's a pure salary dump, true. If they expect to get something back, then that's another story.
This is true--if Hanley is truly an asshat, the resulting combustion with Showalter could rival the explosion after Spengler warned Venkman not to cross the streams.
The password is "pillow."
I mean, you're talking about a 32-year-old whose value has gone down sharply each of the past two years, who has played in more than 130 games only once since 2010, who has no position, and who was a below-replacement player last year. Something on the order of 1/12 seems like a likely outcome.
I think it would be a near-miracle if the Sox could deal him while subsidizing only half the deal, and if they could pull that off I think we should expect very little talent in return.
Kendrys Morales seems like a comp. Coming off of a -1.7 WAR age 31 season, he signed a 2/$17m deal with KC. But Hanley has more upside with the bat, so I'd imagine his deal would be considerably more valuable.
I don't think 3/$34 is such an outlandish suggestion. Maybe a bit high: 3/$27?
I don't think 3/$34 is such an outlandish suggestion. Maybe a bit high: 3/$27?
Hanley has more upside with the bat, but also less consistency: that -1.7 WAR season was the only year in his past five when Morales had a wRC+ under 119, and that was clearly related to his extended holdout and consequent rust. Hanley has had a wRC+ under 110 three out of the past five years--and also a 191 and a 135. He's been all over the place.
Still, it's a good comp as to age and player type, and I think you're right that if Hanley signed a two-year deal it would probably be for a bit more than Morales' thanks to the upside--somewhere in the low 20s, probably. But that's why I think if he were actually a FA today he'd be looking for a pillow contract to see if he could have another monster year and maybe get something like 3/$40M for his age 33-35 years.
Okay, but is it really that different?
Morales' down year was probably due to holdout rust, which could be expected not to recur for a team who would have him for spring training. But there was a risk that it was something else — age-related decline, a vision issue, what have you.
Hanley's down year was probably due to a shoulder injury incurred playing a position he, in hindsight, should not have been asked to play. That should be cleared up, but there's some risk. Also, Hanley's 2015 (.308 wOBA) was much, much better than Morales' 2014 (.271 wOBA) at the plate.
Hanley would get a much better deal were he an FA now than Morales got.
Jerry Crasnick @jcrasnick 1m1 minute ago
#Redsox and #Cubs are teams that could match up with Atlanta on a Shelby Miller deal, said person familiar with #Braves thinking.
#Redsox and #Cubs are teams that could match up with Atlanta on a Shelby Miller deal, said person familiar with #Braves thinking.
They could match up - but do we really want to expend our dwindling prospect capital on a guy who projects as a, at best a #2 SP? He's put up nice numbers - in a non-DH league and, last year in a pitchers park in a pitchers division. Translate that to the AL East and he'd be lucky to have an era south of 4.