Can't honestly see Mets losing patience any time soon with Harvey. If they did, who could the Sox possibly offer to nab Harvey?
The Mets will not be able to sign all 5 young starters they have(Big 4 plus Zach Wheeler). I think Matt Harvey is going to be traded eventually. He is the oldest of the bunch, has Boras as his agent, and has had Tommy John surgery. However, I don't believe for a second that Harvey would be a deadline deal. That would be a deal that would happen in the offseason because the Mets can get more suitors involved. The Red Sox have a lot of pieces the Mets need but there is no shot they deal any major league young pieces nor the top of the minor league food chain due to the massive contract they'd have to give him.
How often do teams makes trades like this? Such trades happen but are the exception more than the rule. If and when the A's trade Hill, they will want to acquire a player who fills a need or soon-to-be need (in other words, a prospect with a clear path to the majors). For obvious reasons, the A's will prefer this type of prospect over a player like Swihart who has no clear path to a starting job for the A's and would be used as a trade commodity in another deal.
Harvey took a no hitter into the fifth against the White Sox today, still going through 7 with a two hit shut out. I think that story just unwrote itself.
The Mets are a game out of first place and likely will be contending right through the end of the season. That alone is reason enough for them to not trade away any of their starting pitching during the season. The notion that he'd be available to anyone this season is laughable.
Any word on velocity? Can't wait for tomorrow morning to listen to the FAN dummies who said they couldn't put him back out there.
Agreed, I only said I'd be happy to take advantage of their stupidity if thwy were so inclined.
Like that even matters. Rich Hill is in his mid-30's and only just figured it out late last season. Blake Swihart was a top 20 prospect in all of baseball last season and the best catching prospect in all of baseball at that time. Billy Beane's only difficulty in accepting a Swihart for Hill deal would be the risk of asphyxiation from the irrepressible laughter he would be plagued by at finding someone willing to make a worse trade than Shelby Miller for Dansby Swanson.
A top 20 prospect who had a solid rookie year despite skipping AAA last year for a mid-39's journeyman turned reliever with injury problems who has only had it figured out for about 20 starts now. Something is being exaggerated but it sure as hell isn't Swihart's value.
Trade deadline deals are often irrational and so expect Hill to bring back a talented young player with a long career ahead of him versus Hill who is already old and a free agent at the end of the season. Teams take strange risks at the trade deadline.
I agree with this, but Swihart is now 24 and not hitting for much power. Overall, this is an interesting issue that should be addressed empirically (or historically). To adequately address the matter, we would need to gather data from multiple non-steroids generations to see how mid-20s power correlates to late-20s power. I suspect there is a strong relationship; however, I suspect there is a somewhat weak relationship between early 20s power and late 20s power.
That was his best minor league season offensively, the only season where he posted an OPS above .800.
There is a reason why Manaea started out slowly in the minors. I'm not sure what your Syndergaard point is or how it relates to anything here. I would rather have Manaea than Swihart. I'll take the prospect with top-of-the-rotation potential over a LF prospect that has a decent but not exceptional hit tool. I would feel differently about Swihart if I believed in his defensive ability behind the plate. As it stands, there are concerns about his defense behind the plate and such concerns inevitably lower his value.
Sure, but Swihart for Rich Hill would be one of the biggest deadline overpays of all time. I can't even think of a good comparative deal where a team gave up one of the best prospects in all of baseball for a mid-30's journeyman in the midst of a 20-30 game streak of good performance
So you agree that early 20's power production is not a reliable indicator of late 20's power production but then reiterate that Swihart isn't hitting for much power? What the hell are you saying?
I'm sure you would see a stronger correlation in the mid-20's range than the early 20's, but then that isn't particularly relevant to Blake Swihart, who is just now in the first few months of his age 24 season. His only relevant window is his early 20's.
The offensive projection for Swihart has generally been that of an above average hitter thanks to all his tools grading out as average or better. A .280-.300 BA, .340-.360 OBP, and a .420-.480 SLG with counting stats of around 15 HRs and 25 2Bs over a little more than 400 PAs (since a starting catcher player much more than 100 games is rare). If he was to stick in LF I've seen comparisons to to Alex Gordon, which mean skewing all those rate stats to the high end of the spectrum thanks to the reduced workload of playing catcher while also adding more PAs to pile up more HRs and 2Bs, probably putting him in the 15-20 HR range with 25-35 doubles.
And? He had a .794 OPS the year before in A+ ball and a .702 in A ball the year before that. This from a high school kid who didn't start really learning to catch until A ball and who only picked up switch hitting his junior year of high school. So work on that math for a bit. Swihart, with only two HS seasons under his belt batting predominantly from the LH side of the plate, stepped into pro ball and hasn't posted an OPS below .700. In fact, he's dramatically improved his OPS while going up each level despite his lack of experience from the left side. He picked up over .090 points in the move from A to A+ and about .050 points in the move from A+ to AA, the first really big jump. He's never gotten and is never going to get the opportunity to make a normal transition to AAA because of the need last year, but as a kid who effectively jumped over AAA he posted a .712 OPS in the majors last year at 23.
Because he had an injury immediately after being drafted? Other than that he was a collegian first round pick bonus baby. If the Red Sox drafted someone with Manaea's mL track record with a first round sandwich pick people here would have been freaking out over his low minors start, assuming the injury had derailed him or that he was a bust and we just didn't see it for an extra year because of said injury.
Apparently back to where it should be--95.6 on fastball and slider a tick over 90.
I'm pretty sure Manaea was injured prior to the draft. Some saw him as a potential number one pick, but then he got hurt and fell in the draft. I think he had a few injuries while in the Royals system as well. Nevertheless, he has a high ceiling and the potential to be a frontline starter--I would take that kind of prospect over Swihart and I think the A's would too.
That Schilling trade proposal is so outrageous. I wouldn't give up one of those guys for Archer let alone both.
The price of milk is already high this year, and will probably go higher.
As I mentioned in the starting pitching thread, we already have Sean O'Sullivan. I'd put money on him being better here than either Shields or Weaver, and he costs nothing.
Of course he costs less. He's also almost certainly worse than Shields. Shields at this point isn't very good, but he at least has a track record of success. Is that worth $20+ million a year? Probably not. But if you're gunning for a championship this year, is money the real issue?
That is a steep price but I don't think it would be the smart thing to do at all. Benintendi and Moncada are going to be cost controlled for longer than Archer would be here for. If we all think those two players' potential is as big as it seems right now, is it the smart move to give one of them up?
I'd be interested in either of those guys, particularly Santana, but with so little pitching on the market, I bet the cost is going to be crazy.
Interesting. Certainly the Phillies are likely to be motivated sellers, as they're crashing back to Earth right now but otherwise in the middle of rebuilding, with some hopes of a future.
For me, Nolasco isn't enough of an upgrade over what the Red Sox already have.
I haven't seen anyone, even Schilling who brought it up, say they think it was a good idea. It has just been stated that is likely what it would take to get it done.
Uh....holy crap there's zero chance I'd not but a gut laughing if the Braves told me that was the price for Teheran.
A 20-year old who can touch 100 mph, and with less miles on his arm than most?
If the deal is Bradley, Benintendi, and Kopech, the key in that deal isn't Kopech. He's the sweetener. Bradley is an emerging all-world player with several years of cost-controlled production. Benintendi is one of the top prospects in all of baseball. Those are the key pieces.
I meant in general and not necessarily in that specific hypothetical, but the super condescending reply was appreciated all the same.
My apologies. It wasn't meant to be condescending at all. Sorry if I came across that way. I just thought you were suggesting he was a key piece in that deal and I was disagreeing.
Yeah, similar conditions never stopped Papelbon from being useful.
This is the way I feel. I wouldn't mind sending out some low-level guys for an innings eater, but when I hear names like Moncada or Benintendi or anyone on the current roster not named Chris Young, I start to feel queasy.
