Beyond Lester: Building a Rotation
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Strasburg, with 2 years of control left, is a guy I'd move an asset package that included ONE of the big guys (not Betts or Swihart). If the Sox could package the OFer that the Nats covet (Vic or Nava, more than likely) plus someone like Owens, and then include a major league ready piece like one of the young starter arms (Barnes/Raunado/Workman/Escobar), I think it happens. I think something like Nava, Marrero, and Owens would also work if they prefer Marrero to a possible long man in the pen. If Strasburg is truly on the market, it makes sense to get him for those 2 years of control, then see if they want him longer term.soxhop411 said:
This is just getting interesting.
soxhop411 said:
He'd be the type the Sox would potentially splurge on. He's still young, and a 7-8 year contract extension right now would only take him to 33-34. There's no rationally untouchable player in the Sox's system for a talent like Strasburg.
They seem to get ignored in some of our trade talks, but the current RS rotation has multiple players with positive trade value, who could be used as chips.
I could see a guy like Kelly, who also has experience working out of the bullpen, being interesting to the Nats.
I could see a guy like Kelly, who also has experience working out of the bullpen, being interesting to the Nats.
Pilgrim said:
Maybe as a supplemental piece. Trade talks start with Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart. Realistically Betts, as he matches up well with their 2B/OF needs.
He is a Boras client. I suspect if the Nats could do this extension, they'd be up to it. And they have a close relationship with Boras.
There could be other factors involved, but it is not insane to view this as a clear, sensible and early recognition that they are not keeping Stras and Harper long term, and they prefer Harper.
I understand and agree with everything you're saying. But in regards to Betts and Bogaerts, I think I'd rather bet on them being cheap, above-average major league regulars, instead of betting on Strasburg staying healthy the next 8 years.foulkehampshire said:
If the Nationals are open to trading Strasbourg, you do pretty close to anything to get him. If they want a package of Betts, Owens and another low prospect, you make that deal in a second. Preferably, they would rather have X, than Betts.
I don't think we need to make Betts or Owens available, nor should we, given that we're counting on them to play a role on the team in the near future. That said, if Strasburg is available, I'm not sure I can think of a better trade target likely to become available over that near future. Who beats a package of Swihart, Rodriguez, and some combination of Holt, Craig, Ranaudo, etc.?
Where would people draw the line on Strasburg? Is Betts, Owens, Nava and Margot too much? It might be, but I'd be tempted. If you can get a deal done without Betts included, obviously you do it, even if that means adding Swihart. But Strasburg is going to bring in a huge haul and he's probably worth it. Opportunities like this don't pop up often. If the Red Sox would be willing to pay what it takes to extend him, meaning coming close to market rate, they should be willing to part with what it takes to give themselves that two year window to work out the details.
Luis Taint said:
Margot and Betts together would probably be a deal breaker for me. That severely diminishes the OF depth going forward.
Betts is really my only off limits guy. Everything else is on the table, as trading X would probably bring back a one year solution in Desmond.
Are you serious? loads of people would beat that. Why are the nats all of a sudden interested in one of our retread OFs? Craig? Victorino? Why? Werth is prob ready for Opening day, and everyone on this board has been talking about how it is likely victorino and craig will never be anything like the players they used to be, and all of a sudden they are potential integral pieces in a stephen strasburg trade? i am a pretty big nats fan, that offer would be violently rejected by pretty much everyone i know. They need a 2B. They would want Betts for Strasburg, no questions. They dont have to trade him to us. There are many middle infielder prospects in the game and they would probably shop Stras to one of thosejohnnywayback said:
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I'm with the others in suggesting that the get it done offer here starts and ends with Betts. Intriguing no doubt, but idk about giving up Betts for 2 years of Strasburg and/or the right to pay him the Kershaw type contract Boras is likely insisting on for an early sign.
bosockboy said:
I'm stil drawing the line at Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart, with JBJ, Margot, Devers, and Marrero on the reluctant list with one of Owens/Rodriguez staying and the other on the reluctant list.
I just think things have shifted. The difference between a good pitcher and a great pitcher is smaller than the difference between a good hitter and a great hitter. Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart are all decent bets to be great hitters at least for their position.
If this means we go aceless into the season, I'm fine with that and would remind folks that we're not only dealing with a much lower scoring environment, but one where more teams make the post season than ever before.
Also, the scores of the wild card games have been 9-8, 8-0, 4-0, 6-2, which includes Johnny Cueto giving up four runs in 3.1, Jon Lester giving up six runs, and James Shields giving up four runs in five innings.
Yeah, we always want to have an ace for these kinds of games, but aces get beat more than we usually admit.
There's also this. Sounds like somebody will be out in Washington.
.http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/1/19/7853887/nationals-considering-trade-of-stephen-strasburg
sean1562 said:
If Mike Rizzo conducts trade negotiations the way you suggest -- asking for a specific player, being turned down, and deciding not to continue the negotiation further -- then, no, there wouldn't be a match. But if he conducts negotiations the way most sane general managers do -- seeking out the best possible deal -- then an offer of Swihart (the Nats don't have a catcher of the future when Ramos is a FA in 2016), Rodriguez, and a couple pieces that are useful for a team looking to contend in 2015 might hold some appeal. We also, for what it's worth, happen to have a pretty decent middle infielder prospect in Devin Marrero.
Yes, if Texas ponies up Joey Gallo, Jurickson Profar, and Jorge Alfaro, that'll be tough to beat. But would Texas offer that given that Strasburg seems likely to go to the market in two years? I wouldn't. Would a Toronto offer of Daniel Norris, Marcus Stroman, and Max Pentecost beat what I outlined? Maybe? If the Nationals are indeed committed to dealing one of Zimmermann or Strasburg, we should be sizing up the marketplace, as opposed to guessing what the Nats would want from us in a vacuum.
The point is, yes, the Nationals would certainly ask for Mookie Betts, and the Red Sox would certainly (or, at least, SHOULD certainly) say no. But I don't think that Rizzo would be so upset about not getting Mookie Betts that it would be the end of the conversation.
Yes. WAY too much. Betts for Strasburg straight up is reasonable, from a total value standpoint. Strasburg is more proven, so I'd be willing to another prospect like Barnes. I'd rather do Owens and Coyle, and a lesser prospect or a lesser MLB piece.Snodgrass'Muff said:
johnnywayback said:
I dont think they are committed to trading either of them and would be looking for a fairly specific thing. two more years of strasburg is very valuable, especially if they are letting zimmermann and fister walk. deven marrero is not even a top 100 prospect, he has been blown up on this board because somebody compared him to francisco lindor in the AFL. trea turner, the guy they just acquired is at the very least a comparable prospect. i also dont see why wilson ramos cant be the catcher they sign when he becomes a FA. he probably isnt looking at some mammoth deal. i would say any trade centered around someone like profar, or any of the cubs middle infielders is probably more appealing than one centered around swihart and our poor mans jose iglesias. the nats have fairly clearly stated they are not committed to trading either of them. and for that reason, i dont see either strasburg or zimmermann playing on the red sox next year.
Here's some somewhat informed speculation from Fangraphs. I have a tough time believing the Cubs aren't the team to beat in this race, for what that's worth.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-enormous-trade-value-of-stephen-strasburg/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-enormous-trade-value-of-stephen-strasburg/
Danny_Darwin said:
Interesting piece -- it also seems to suggest that refusing to talk about Betts doesn't take the Sox out of contention if the Nationals are motivated sellers.
The Cubs are certainly in that upper tier with us in terms of being able to put together the best offer, but they did just get themselves an ace for the next seven years, and everything I've ready about Theo's approach to team-building suggests that he wants to build around his young offensive prospects, not cash them in for a second ace.
I would be worried about Texas if they didn't just now trade Sardinas (a middle infield prospect) et al for Yovani Gallardo.
I would worry a bit about Toronto -- if the Nats want pitching back and/or aren't interested in Swihart, Sanchez+Norris is the start of a strong package, and it seems like the sort of splash Toronto might want to make with the division likely to be weak over the next year or two. But Toronto doesn't have a top-line position player to offer, and the Nationals have Giolito ready to take over for Zimmermann or Fister in 2016 -- seems like they'd want a hitter.
Re: San Diego, Is Hedges+Renfroe+Wisler > Swihart+Rodriguez+Marrero? Honestly not sure. They seem pretty analogous to me, but that would pretty much wipe out the Padres' top tier.
Who else would be able to make a play? Can't see the Nationals doing business with anyone in the NL East or the Orioles. The Yankees don't have the prospects. The White Sox don't need another ace. Houston, potentially, could try.
The Fangraphs article http://www.fangraphs...phen-strasburg/ refers to Strasburg having roughly 40 mil of surplus value coming over the next 2 seasons. After that, however, he's a free agent, and that makes a ton of difference. By 2017, he'll be getting paid about what he's producing on the field, or he'll be gone and the Red Sox get a draft pick when he turns down the QO. So, for the purposes of valuation, the return is around 40 mil or 45 mil heading to Washington for Stras. Betts alone is purportedly going to be worth 50 mil of surplus value over 6 seasons of control. Swihart, though not yet established in the majors, could be worth 30 mil by the same estimates. If you have to move one of them to get STras, I'd rather move Swihart, but I'd truly rather move Vazquez. Still, if Swihart had to be traded as the centerpiece to get Stras, I think the Red Sox might consider it, but not a whole lot more. Swihart, Marrero and one of the Barnes/Raunado/Workman/ group plus a surplus OFer might push them over the top. If they wanted any 2 of Betts/Owens/Swihart/Margot/Devers, I think the Sox would say no, and I believe they'd be justified in doing so. If they were convinced that Stras would be willing to sign an extension as part of a trade that sent that much talent away from the team, that would factor into what I'd be willing to pay, but Boras almost assures that such an extension isn't happening, so it won't be a consideration.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Washington is in win now mode. They won't want lots of future value. They'd ask for Betts, and I hope the Red Sox would say no. Aside from that, Kelly, an OFer and our closest young players (Swihart/Owens/ERod) are probably the guys they'd want to move Stras for. My guess is that the teams don't match up, but I would disagree that a package that included Betts, Owens, Nava and Margot would be a fair return for Strasburg. Barring a team friendly extension for him, that's far too much surplus value to give up to get a guy with only 2 years of control, in my opinion, all due respect to the poster who suggested it.
IF Washington truly wants to move Stras, the Padres look like the best team to match up to get him for lots of reasons. First, Preller is a beast who is willing to do whatever it takes to remake the roster. Second, Stras is from SD, went to SD State and probably covets playing long term there for those reasons. Third, the Padres have a nice OF piece to offer (Myers) who is a current major league asset, and they could also return a solid pen arm (Quackenbush or even Benoit) with a stud young player like Hedges, Wisler or Renfroe. If the Nats wanted a 2b solution or upgrade, they could talk Gyorko, who could well be in for a bounce back season after a solid minor league career. Would Myers, Benoit, Hedges and Gyorko be better than what the Sox would offer? Probably better in terms of the Nats needs, though your opinion of Hedges and Gyorko would certainly have to be high for that to be the case. I guess we'll see.
If the Sox move Betts plus for Stras, I'd be astounded, and not in a positive way.
The Nats are trying to win a championship this season; they are not going to trade Stephen Strasburg or Jordan Zimmerman for prospects who are ticketed for AA like Margot, or a middle infielder whose bat is worse than Danny Espinosa's like Marrero.
They'll want a major league ready 2B and some proven bullpen help. Unfortanately, the Red Sox have no bullpen help to offer as they're one of the few teams with less depth there right now than Washington. They do have Betts to offer as a second baseman, but like others, I'm really hesitant to include him for just two years of Strasburg (I thought he had 3 years left, in which case I'd be more willing).
Maybe this could be a case where Ben can work his three-team trade magic, and acquire Zobrist from the A's for prospects, and flip Zobrist with Kelly to the Nats for Zimmerman -- a one-year rental for a one-year rental, with Kelly offering them a potential bullpen piece or rotation insurance. Of course, the A's just traded them Escobar for Clippard, so that's probably not a great example.
They'll want a major league ready 2B and some proven bullpen help. Unfortanately, the Red Sox have no bullpen help to offer as they're one of the few teams with less depth there right now than Washington. They do have Betts to offer as a second baseman, but like others, I'm really hesitant to include him for just two years of Strasburg (I thought he had 3 years left, in which case I'd be more willing).
Maybe this could be a case where Ben can work his three-team trade magic, and acquire Zobrist from the A's for prospects, and flip Zobrist with Kelly to the Nats for Zimmerman -- a one-year rental for a one-year rental, with Kelly offering them a potential bullpen piece or rotation insurance. Of course, the A's just traded them Escobar for Clippard, so that's probably not a great example.
If I were Rizzo I'd keep them all. It sure as hell makes the idea of winning a WS that much more feasible. He would get 2 draft pick if Fisher & Zimmermann don't sign after the season. A 3rd one if Desmond leaves. Strasburg gives them another year with Max, Roark & Gio which makes them one of the top rotations in 2016. Let Strasburg go in 2016 and they get another draft pick. I don't see a need to trade if the Nats intent is to win it all this season.
The reason to make a trade is they need a second baseman and two high quality relief pitchers. Please don't tell me they're going to let Drew Storen ever attempt to close another playoff game.lxt said:
I'd have to believe that neither side would make that deal. Washington doesn't get enough current year help to make that worthwhile, and the Red Sox give up too much overall youth capital with Owens, Devers and Margot. Doesn't make enough sense for either side. In a vacuum, I think the overall value is actually pretty close, though that isn't the only vector driving the deal process. Washington's timeline to win is 2015. Their owner is 89 or something. They want to win right now. Current value would trump future value for their purposes.Rasputin said:
I love the Sox' prospects, but goodness, it's Stephen Strasburg. You don't get the chance to acquire pitchers of his caliber at his age very often.
Owens, Bogaerts, JBJ, and another piece (or two) for Strasburg and Desmond.
Desmond plays SS (maybe re-sign him…who knows) with Marrero waiting in the wings. Desmond has a positive glove and is a 20+ homer SS. I love X, but Desmond is already what we hope X will become (though we hope X has a better OBP when all is said and done).
Strasburg is….well….one of the very best SP in all of baseball.
Owens, Bogaerts, JBJ, and another piece (or two) for Strasburg and Desmond.
Desmond plays SS (maybe re-sign him…who knows) with Marrero waiting in the wings. Desmond has a positive glove and is a 20+ homer SS. I love X, but Desmond is already what we hope X will become (though we hope X has a better OBP when all is said and done).
Strasburg is….well….one of the very best SP in all of baseball.
Strasburg is a prickly sort and has been tough to work with from what I have heard (I listen to a DC sports radio podcast). I wouldn't give up too much as I'm not sure he has the chops to handle it in Boston. Moreover, I don't get why the Nats would trade him without getting a massive overpay in return.
The value that 2 years of Strasburg adds to an already decent Sox rotation is not worth more than the value of 5 years of Betts and the remaining list of top prospects that some of you are suggesting they trade.
jasvlm said:
The Red Sox would do that deal without thinking twice. They'd be offering two guys who are basically lottery tickets at this point, one prospect who's close but has no obvious pathway to a big-league role and has some major question marks, and a good pitching prospect whose loss could be withstood due to already existing depth.
BeantownIdaho said:
Yes! The other part of the equation, apart from Strasburg walking after 2 years as he will be directed to by Boras, is that, without spending more or less than $200 million, for Strasburg or another ace du jour, it is so much more cost effective to see if any or all of their top prospects can play in the majors. For every prospect retained or dealt who didn 't succeed, there were Jeff Bagwells, Cecil Coopers and Curt Schillings who, in the long run, were significantly more productive than the Larry Andersons, George Scotts and Mike Boddickers who contributed for 2 years or less. In this post steroid era, the pendulum has again swung back to a better equilibrium that favors prospects over established major leaguers juiced for success for years longer than what should have been the ordinary decline in their careers. The Sox have remained fairly disciplined both in not wastefully paying above and beyond their parameters for proven but older players but in more patiently grooming their prospects. The Sox arguably have their best combination of emerging youngsters already in the majors and top prospects than at anytime in their history including the influxes in 1967, 1975 and 1986. Unlike back then, the cost of free agents has grown to the point that it costs little to give youngsters every opportunity to produce, even if many fail, than the huge expense to fill gaps with premium free agents.
Why are people so hung up on prospects for a guy like Strasburg? Anyone that doesn't want Ownes to be head of a package what on earth are you hoping he turns into? Kershaw 2.0? I get all these cost controlled arguments but our payroll was 154 million last year, wouldnt the best use of funds to be spend it on a probably top 10 pitcher who many think still hasn't reached his peak? We are going to spend the money, why not spend it on one of the best players at their position. Is Swihart really going to add more value than Straburg? Maybe, MAYBE on a dollar to wins ratio, but I find it hard that anyone outside of Betts can offer TEAM value equal to that of Strasburg. And if we trade someone like Devers or Margot for an impact player and they turn into allstars who cares? A team like the Red Sox needs to be winning every year, this is not the Padres. Good teams win these days by taking chances, and not completely worrying if a player might be good in 5 years. Outside of Betts, if the Sox only get Straburg for 2 years, I can pretty much promise you that any package traded for him will not return the same WAR over those 2 years... combined.
The main problem with this (as I see it) is that if this post were written 12 months ago it would be Xander that is the untouchable player. Betts would not be have been anywhere near enough on his own to get Strasburg.The Mort Report said:
That and the fact that there are pitchers even of Strasburg quality (and better) available this offseason (well, up until yesterday at least) and more next offseason, who are available for "only" money. Of which you can have a lot more to spend on such players if you keep your prospects and develop them into low cost studs.
Lowrielicious said:
Very true, and looking at my post I might have been a little....ranty, but I decided to check Strasburg's numbers last year to Scherzer, and they are eerily close
Straburg 215 IP ERA 3.14 SO 242 WHIP 1.12
Scherzer 220 IP ERA 3.15 SO 252 WHIP 1.18
But Straburg is 26 and, like I said, still think hasn't reached his ceiling. Scherzer, for all his greatness, at 30 is probably at his peak
Also you almost make a point in trading Betts. X was great 2 years ago when he was called up, but he wasn't great last year. Yes I think the switch to third messed him up, but it proved that even the cant miss prospects can fail. Not for one second am I saying that X is a bust, but in the majors there is a bigger sample of him failing than succeeding.
And those pitchers next year, like Zimm, will require money and a pick, so you are also basically losing a first round talent to sign one of those guys, is that much different?
Averages for Strasburg's last three seasons: 31 starts for 186 IP; 210 Ks to 49 walks, and an ERA+ of 124.
NL performance does not equate to equivalent AL performance, for DH reasons.
Here's a bit of sacrilege for you: Pedroia for Strasburg? Pedroia is on the wrong side of 30 and making a fair bit going forward, and while he is still a REALLY good player, his regular injuries are starting to turn down the intensity of the laser show. Also, Betts is worth most at 2B and we have plenty of outfielders...
I know he's a superstar, but it also means his perceived value is a bit more than his real value -- a good time to trade.
Here's a bit of sacrilege for you: Pedroia for Strasburg? Pedroia is on the wrong side of 30 and making a fair bit going forward, and while he is still a REALLY good player, his regular injuries are starting to turn down the intensity of the laser show. Also, Betts is worth most at 2B and we have plenty of outfielders...
I know he's a superstar, but it also means his perceived value is a bit more than his real value -- a good time to trade.
No way. Pedroia is projected to outplay his contract by $10-15m per year. If he's a win 5 win player next year being paid an AAV of $15m, he's a +$20m surplus player based on $7m per win. How much surplus value are we getting from Strasburg? We'd be taking on a worse player who's on a shorter contract and not much cheaper since he's in arbitration now. Unless you could sign him to a contract that is below market value, there's no chance that trade is even close to being fair for us.
The elephant in the room with Strasburg is injury risk. As far as I know, he has stuck with his pre-injury mechanics, which Tommy John himself called "the worst mechanics I've ever seen in my life."
The Nationals don't want to change anything for fear of screwing him up. The arm lag is still there. They only own him for 2 more years anyway. They'll take the Lincecum approach and milk him for what he's got while they have him. It will work out great until it doesn't.
It's smart for the Nationals to look at this as something of a crossroads - 2 years of Strasburg has significant value in the market. I just hope that the Red Sox would evaluate the risks/rewards properly. For me, this would mean looking at him as a 2-year investment, rather than the pitcher you are going to give a Kershaw contract to in 2 years.
The Nationals don't want to change anything for fear of screwing him up. The arm lag is still there. They only own him for 2 more years anyway. They'll take the Lincecum approach and milk him for what he's got while they have him. It will work out great until it doesn't.
It's smart for the Nationals to look at this as something of a crossroads - 2 years of Strasburg has significant value in the market. I just hope that the Red Sox would evaluate the risks/rewards properly. For me, this would mean looking at him as a 2-year investment, rather than the pitcher you are going to give a Kershaw contract to in 2 years.
Yep. Live it here daily. Rizzo is no fool. That is why from a RS perspective, I'm really pleased that Boras forces his guys to FA. Rizzo likely will get his haul from someone, but w/o an extension, I am highly doubtful it will be from the RS.
There are maybe twenty players in baseball that I would trade Mookie Betts for, and Steven Strasburg is one of them. If he agrees to an extension, if our medical guys think he checks out, I think you absolutely make that move.
The bottom line is that this team needs a top of the rotation starter a lot more than they need a... whatever Betts is. I mean, we're committed to Boegarts and Pedroia for the next five years at least as our double play combination. Castillo and Ramirez seem locked in for two of the outfield spots. Right now, Betts is effectively replacing Victorino (or Craig or Nava) in the outfield, and while he's clearly better than the best of Vic/Craig/Nava, how much better? Moreover, isn't using a second baseman in right field not capitalizing on his full value?
Obviously I understand the financial advantages of Betts against Strasburg, and the health advantage. But offsetting that is the degree of established performance. I think that we can't presume that Betts is going to develop into the superstar that Strasburg already is. Steamer projects that Betts will hit .284/.353/.422 with slightly above average defense. That may be all Betts turns out to be! If that's all he is, of course, that's a solid player. But not the kind of player that you keep if Steven Strasburg is an option.
The bottom line is that this team needs a top of the rotation starter a lot more than they need a... whatever Betts is. I mean, we're committed to Boegarts and Pedroia for the next five years at least as our double play combination. Castillo and Ramirez seem locked in for two of the outfield spots. Right now, Betts is effectively replacing Victorino (or Craig or Nava) in the outfield, and while he's clearly better than the best of Vic/Craig/Nava, how much better? Moreover, isn't using a second baseman in right field not capitalizing on his full value?
Obviously I understand the financial advantages of Betts against Strasburg, and the health advantage. But offsetting that is the degree of established performance. I think that we can't presume that Betts is going to develop into the superstar that Strasburg already is. Steamer projects that Betts will hit .284/.353/.422 with slightly above average defense. That may be all Betts turns out to be! If that's all he is, of course, that's a solid player. But not the kind of player that you keep if Steven Strasburg is an option.
The problem that I have is that it is trading six years (and maybe more) of Mookie Betts for two years (and almost certainly no more) of Steven Strasburg. And yeah, we don't know where Betts is going to end up on the field, but we know where he will end up in the line-up.PrometheusWakefield said:
Frankly, I'd rather they trade the five years of Bogaerts but I'm not sure I would pull the trigger on that either.
Putting Strasburg to the side for one moment, wouldn't Tanner Roark be a decent trade target? I was surprised at how good his numbers were last year (and the half-year before). Solid K rate combined with a great BB rate gives him an excellent K/BB ratio and WHIP. Better overall numbers than Miley or Porcello. Still relatively young and cheap. Not really an "ace," but a guy who looks like he could pitch in the playoffs for you (even if the Nats didn't start him last year).
And I bring him up because he wouldn't likely cost Betts, X or Swihart.
And I bring him up because he wouldn't likely cost Betts, X or Swihart.