Infinite trade speculation

[FanSinceBoggs]

What's the best recent comp (2 month rental where the team loses the compensation pick)? I was thinking Cespedes last year, but he had that clause in his contract where he couldn't get the QO, so the Tigers had less incentive to hang onto him. Johnny Cueto? I feel like he had a bit more value than Reddick does now, and he got the Reds a guy who was the Royals' 5th best prospect per Keith Law (and not in the overall top 100), and two guys who Law didn't have in the Royals top 15. So Brian Johnson or Michael Kopech, and two lesser pieces?

I'm not sure where Law was on Cody Reed, but he was/is an excellent prospect to go along with Finnegan (for Cueto).

For Zobrist, the A's obtained Manaea, a really good pitching prospect.

The Royals paid a high price in both instances. Of course, they won the W.S. and so it was worth it.

 

[moondog80]

I'm not sure where Law was on Cody Reed, but he was/is an excellent prospect to go along with Finnegan (for Cueto).

For Zobrist, the A's obtained Manaea, a really good pitching prospect.

The Royals paid a high price in both instances. Of course, they won the W.S. and so it was worth it.

Neither Reed not Manaea were in Law's top 100 for 2015, but both were there (54 and 59) this year. So yeah, they probably made a big jump between opening day 2015 and the time they were traded.

 

[plucy]

I think Sandoval is Ortiz's replacement (in a way). The Red Sox can't trade Sandoval without paying off the contract and so I think it makes sense to keep Sandoval and hope for a John Lackey type of turnaround in 2017. To be sure, the Red Sox will miss Ortiz's bat, but Betts and Bogaerts should continue to get better as offensive players, thus compensating for Ortiz's loss. I see Benintendi as the starting LF next year, keeping the Red Sox out of the free agent market i.e., no Reddick or Rasmus.[/QUOTE]

Sandoval does have a career wRC+ of 128 so while he won't be Papi, he could effectively keep the line moving as the greater part of a DH platoon. Also, if his left shoulder issues are the cause of his demise as a RHH, the surgery may return him to a FT hitter. As you said, it's better than flushing $55mm down the toilet.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

There's a ludicrous point where a trade is silly, but I think it's a general rule of thumb that just highlights the fact that HoFers are really, really good and it's a bad idea to trade them away for just about anything. There aren't a ton of examples, but I would guess that nearly every team that has traded away an inner circle HoF level player as they were entering their prime years has regretted it.

But that's begging the question, now. If the team knew in advance that they were an inner-circle HoF player, they wouldn't have traded them at all - except perhaps when losing them to free agency was assured and inevitable, in which case the regret is a bit misplaced.

Jeff Bagwell wasn't even done with his 2nd professional season, sitting in AA, when he was traded. For every Bagwell there are a hundred Lars Andersons and dozens of Eric Munsons. Randy Johnson was a 25-year-old failure, essentially, when Montreal gave up on him, and he was walking 5-6 per 9 for years thereafter. The trade of a 41-year-old Cy Young to cleveland is about the closest example I can think of to what you're talking about.

 

[DJnVa]

But that's begging the question, now. If the team knew in advance that they were an inner-circle HoF player, they wouldn't have traded them at all - except perhaps when losing them to free agency was assured and inevitable, in which case the regret is a bit misplaced.

Jeff Bagwell wasn't even done with his 2nd professional season, sitting in AA, when he was traded. For every Bagwell there are a hundred Lars Andersons and dozens of Eric Munsons. Randy Johnson was a 25-year-old failure, essentially, when Montreal gave up on him, and he was walking 5-6 per 9 for years thereafter. The trade of a 41-year-old Cy Young to cleveland is about the closest example I can think of to what you're talking about.

Frank Robinson was traded after the 1965 season, when he was 29 years old and was in the top 5 in MVP voting for 3 of the 5 years before the trade.

 

[alwyn96]

But that's begging the question, now. If the team knew in advance that they were an inner-circle HoF player, they wouldn't have traded them at all - except perhaps when losing them to free agency was assured and inevitable, in which case the regret is a bit misplaced.

Jeff Bagwell wasn't even done with his 2nd professional season, sitting in AA, when he was traded. For every Bagwell there are a hundred Lars Andersons and dozens of Eric Munsons. Randy Johnson was a 25-year-old failure, essentially, when Montreal gave up on him, and he was walking 5-6 per 9 for years thereafter. The trade of a 41-year-old Cy Young to cleveland is about the closest example I can think of to what you're talking about.

I agree with you. Even top prospects don't often turn into Hall of Famers, which is why it seems like a bad idea (for the Angels) to trade the guy who has already turned in 4 seasons of inner circle half of fame level play and is just entering his prime years for prospects.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

Frank Robinson was traded after the 1965 season, when he was 29 years old and was in the top 5 in MVP voting for 3 of the 5 years before the trade.

A solid counterexample, better even than Cy Young. Looking at what the Reds got back, that has to be one of the worst trades of all time (by resultant WAR and reasonable projections at the time of the trade, anyway).

I agree with Alwyn insofar as the Angels would be insane to trade Trout for prospects. I think everyone agrees on that point, although the idea - the mystery and excitement - of trading 4-5 top prospects for one guy and seeing what happens can be a bit alluring.

I do, however, think there's a combination of proven major leaguers, and salary relief (Pujols), that could cause a trade to make sense for both sides. The Red Sox may not be particularly well-served by any such possibilities, given JBJ's current status and their deep talent funnel currently. If we had a window of contention coming to an end soon, the analysis might well be different. Misuse of our outsized payroll capacity has cost the jobs of our last two GMs - just because we can take on an albatross doesn't mean it's an optimal use of resources. But there might be a few trades that would make sense from the Angels' perspective (at least on roster construction, not public relations), and it's kinda fun to imagine how that might look to the other side of the table.

 

[YTF]

Coming off a sweep over the train wreck that used to be The Oakland A's, I wonder what it might take to get Khris Davis. He's a left fielder with power, A right handed hitter who might be able to take advantage of the wall in left. He's 28 years old, signed through this year at $525,000, arb. eligible in 2017 and FA eligible in 2020. I don't think Oakland gave up a whole lot for him and if they can get back a couple of younger pieces that are team controlled for a longer period of time, perhaps something can be worked out. Given Oakland's track record with Billy Beane at the helm, that's something that has always been important for them. Of course, Beane is going to want the moon, but maybe there's some middle ground here somewhere depending on their needs and who the Sox might deem as blocked or redundant. Just tossing it out there to offer something other than the Trout speculation.

 

[bosockboy]

Davis seems awfully redundant with Young. I think a LHH who is the strong side of a platoon with Young is what they would look for.

 

[DanoooME]

Coming off a sweep over the train wreck that used to be The Oakland A's, I wonder what it might take to get Khris Davis. He's a left fielder with power, A right handed hitter who might be able to take advantage of the wall in left. He's 28 years old, signed through this year at $525,000, arb. eligible in 2017 and FA eligible in 2020. I don't think Oakland gave up a whole lot for him and if they can get back a couple of younger pieces that are team controlled for a longer period of time, perhaps something can be worked out. Given Oakland's track record with Billy Beane at the helm, that's something that has always been important for them. Of course, Beane is going to want the moon, but maybe there's some middle ground here somewhere depending on their needs and who the Sox might deem as blocked or redundant. Just tossing it out there to offer something other than the Trout speculation.

Jacob Nottingham was their #3 prospect according to BP, so it's not like wasn't much. Granted, compared to the Sox farm, he'd probably be somewhere from 6-10 at best, so are you willing to give up Sam Travis (let's say) and a lottery ticket for him?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Davis is kind of an all-or-nothing hitter: great power (#12 out of 250 qualifiers in HR/FB over his career, better than Trout, Papi, Cabrera, and Encarnacion, to name a few), but sporadic plate discipline, poor contact, and consistently low BABIP. On top of that, he's a below-average outfielder. The sum total is that he's never had an fWAR season higher than 1.7--and at 28, it's not likely he's on the verge of some breakthrough. I get the appeal of the elite righthanded power, but how much do we really want to give up for this mixed-bag talent while Benintendi finishes his prep?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

From what I've read, Castillo is getting 90% breaking balls thrown to him in AAA - because he's never been able to hit them. That's actually a good thing if he's ever going to figure out how to be a major league hitter. I guess at some point the team will be looking at Swihart or Castillo as a 5th outfielder. It's a long season. Things are going well. Teams should be dealing with the Red Sox on the Red Sox' terms because Boston is in the driver's seat when it comes to trades.

The only trade that comes to my mind would be something small for a Rich Hill rental in July, contingent on:

• The rotation having a glaring weakness or injury
• Hill continuing to pitch well, particularly in hitter's ballparks

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Double post

 

[dhappy42]

I agree with Alwyn insofar as the Angels would be insane to trade Trout for prospects. I think everyone agrees on that point, although the idea - the mystery and excitement - of trading 4-5 top prospects for one guy and seeing what happens can be a bit alluring.

I do, however, think there's a combination of proven major leaguers, and salary relief (Pujols), that could cause a trade to make sense for both sides. The Red Sox may not be particularly well-served by any such possibilities, given JBJ's current status and their deep talent funnel currently... But there might be a few trades that would make sense from the Angels' perspective (at least on roster construction, not public relations), and it's kinda fun to imagine how that might look to the other side of the table.

Agree that the Angels would be nuts to trade Trout and that this is all just-for-fun speculation. But if there are any teams that could make such a trade, the Sox are one of them. Fenway's RF is suited for a strong-armed centerfielder like Trout (or JBJ, for that matter.) A bad contract swap of Sandoval ($77.4m trough 2020) for Pujols ($135m through 2021) makes some sense for both teams. Betts + Sandoval obviously does not equal Trout + Pujols, but add three-four Sox prospects who are more-or-less blocked and the math starts to make sense.

To me, the reason such a trade makes no sense is the Angels would be nuts to trade Trout for any reason, the Sox don't need Trout and Pujols is just a more serviceable, but much more expensive, waste of resources. If you take Sandoval and Pujols out of the equation, you're talking about Betts+prospects for Trout. Trout is about 3-4 WAR/year better than Betts, maybe as much as 4-5 WAR. Four-and-a-half years of +5WAR is worth how many prospects? Too many, I'd think.

 

[YTF]

Travis could be one of those guys that might be considered blocked with Hanley playing a solid 1B thus far. Unless Travis is projected to be the 1B of the future and you want to slide Hanley into the void Ortiz leaves, but the question becomes would that happen in '17 or '18.

 

[DJnVa]

From what I've read, Castillo is getting 90% breaking balls thrown to him in AAA - because he's never been able to hit them. That's actually a good thing if he's ever going to figure out how to be a major league hitter

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I realize that how JBJ has been playing lately (and in August of last year) is most likely a mirage and even optimistically he's an .800 OPS hitter and I'll assume his fielding will rebound to what we expect from him..... how much greater actually IS Trout than that alone? Then figure in all these trade proposals that are hypothetically tossed out there that strip the top of our farm system into the mix and I'm not so certain that I'd pull the trigger on that.

 

[simplicio]

The only trade that comes to my mind would be something small for a Rich Hill rental in July, contingent on:

• The rotation having a glaring weakness or injury
• Hill continuing to pitch well, particularly in hitter's ballparks

If Rich Hill continues to pitch as well as he has, he's going to be the best SP rental available at the deadline and will surely cost a lot more than something small.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

A solid counterexample, better even than Cy Young. Looking at what the Reds got back, that has to be one of the worst trades of all time (by resultant WAR and reasonable projections at the time of the trade, anyway).

I agree with Alwyn insofar as the Angels would be insane to trade Trout for prospects. I think everyone agrees on that point, although the idea - the mystery and excitement - of trading 4-5 top prospects for one guy and seeing what happens can be a bit alluring.

I do, however, think there's a combination of proven major leaguers, and salary relief (Pujols), that could cause a trade to make sense for both sides. The Red Sox may not be particularly well-served by any such possibilities, given JBJ's current status and their deep talent funnel currently. If we had a window of contention coming to an end soon, the analysis might well be different. Misuse of our outsized payroll capacity has cost the jobs of our last two GMs - just because we can take on an albatross doesn't mean it's an optimal use of resources. But there might be a few trades that would make sense from the Angels' perspective (at least on roster construction, not public relations), and it's kinda fun to imagine how that might look to the other side of the table.

People who agree with the bolded, let me ask you all something. Lets say you're the Angels GM. What's your plan?

The Angels need a massive rebuild. I don't see how you can look at that roster and come to any other conclusion. Their rotation is a total mess. Jared Weaver is done. Hector Santiago is average at best. Andrew Heaney hasn't been able to show an ability to strike batters out at the major league level at even an average rate and unless he gets that going that limits his upside to about average. Nicolas Tropeano? Matt Shoemaker? Jhoyls Chacin was a nice pickup I thought, but he's not a real answer. It's basically a rotation of guys who aspire to be average.

Now look at the the top pitching names in the MLB free agent class. Fangraphs has the #1 SP free agent as Rich Hill, followed by James Shields, Clay Buchholz, Scott Kazmir and Andrew Cashner. Yikes.

By picking on their pitching, I of course don't want to understate the problems with their lineup. Right now outside of Trout the only player projected to be even average is Kole Calhoun, at 2.3 WAR. The rest of their lineup is old and has little upside. Daniel Nava, CJ Cron, Cliff Pennington, Yunel Escobar, and what remains of Pujols. It's a depressing list of retreads and average crap. And again, very little in free agency that looks like a real game changer, even if you could convince a top free agent to sign with the Angels, which you probably can't.

Like, lets pretend the Angels could go out and sign, say, Rich Hill (age 38) for 3/50 plus Andrew Cashner at 5/80 plus Edward Encarnacion for 5/$100 plus Neil Walker for 5/$80. Are they contenders now? Unlikely, it seems to me. Obviously, no game-changing talent in the minors.

Oh and by the way, the Dodgers are going to be World Series contenders every year for the next 10.

 

[dhappy42]

People who agree with the bolded, let me ask you all something. Lets say you're the Angels GM. What's your plan?

The Angels need a massive rebuild. I don't see how you can look at that roster and come to any other conclusion...

Okay, so say you are the Angels' GM. What do you demand in exchange for your only valuable asset, Mike Trout?

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

PW, I'm not sure my post made myself clear, but: I'm saying Billy Eppler would be insane to trade Trout for just prospects. I think he would probably listen to offers that included top prospects and pre-arb or early-arb proven ML talent, and should. Politically and also roster construction-wise, he can't trade Trout and then still have a 100-loss team; even if 2018 or 2019 end up being OK for them, he'll be canned long before. He needs to replace some of the WAR loss from losing Trout immediately, not just bet on farther-off upside.

There are always bargains to be had with waiver wires and AAAA types if you have the major league reps to offer them to give them a chance. I have no doubt that his current plan is to patch things up along similar lines, unless an earth-shattering trade opportunity comes up (always unlikely).

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Okay, so say you are the Angels' GM. What do you demand in exchange for your only valuable asset, Mike Trout?

The most I can get, I guess. Four top-100 prospects, including one top 10 or equivalent, and out from under the Pujols deal seems about right to me.

Then I'd sell everything else. You can probably get a few decent prospects for Simmons, I'd do that. You can probably get a top prospect or a couple good prospects for Calhoun, I'd do that. Maybe two more decent prospects for Santiago. Put that together with the Trout haul, that's maybe 8 top 100 prospects and a few lottery tickets.

Then I'd trade every other player with a contract above minimum salary and let every free agent walk.

Then I'd spend the offseason signing interesting players just looking for an opportunity to prove themselves at the major league level. Look for the next Brian Daubach or Steve Pearce or Rich Hill or whatever. If any of them start to show real results on the field, I'd trade them for more prospects. Better to lose games and get the top draft picks.

Look at the Astros. Look at the Cubs. The way to rebuild is to commit to the rebuild.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

The most I can get, I guess. Four top-100 prospects, including one top 10 or equivalent, and out from under the Pujols deal seems about right to me.

Then I'd sell everything else. You can probably get a few decent prospects for Simmons, I'd do that. You can probably get a top prospect or a couple good prospects for Calhoun, I'd do that. Maybe two more decent prospects for Santiago. Put that together with the Trout haul, that's maybe 8 top 100 prospects and a few lottery tickets.

Then I'd trade every other player with a contract above minimum salary and let every free agent walk.

Then I'd spend the offseason signing interesting players just looking for an opportunity to prove themselves at the major league level. Look for the next Brian Daubach or Steve Pearce or Rich Hill or whatever. If any of them start to show real results on the field, I'd trade them for more prospects. Better to lose games and get the top draft picks.

Look at the Astros. Look at the Cubs. The way to rebuild is to commit to the rebuild.

The fan base (both of them) will be LIVID, but PW is on the right track here. Unburden yourself of as much as you can and commit to a rebuild. Four years from now they can begin a rebuild or they can be in the midst of a legitimate shot at a wild card berth. Keeping Trout is a no-brainer for a GM who has decent talent around him. This GM is not in that position. He has a grand total of ONE marketable player. That player has to be traded if you care about winning. If you're too afraid to be the guy who traded Trout, you're in the wrong line of work.

 

[alwyn96]

The fan base (both of them) will be LIVID, but PW is on the right track here. Unburden yourself of as much as you can and commit to a rebuild. Four years from now they can begin a rebuild or they can be in the midst of a legitimate shot at a wild card berth. Keeping Trout is a no-brainer for a GM who has decent talent around him. This GM is not in that position. He has a grand total of ONE marketable player. That player has to be traded if you care about winning. If you're too afraid to be the guy who traded Trout, you're in the wrong line of work.

I'd guess that trading Trout is really an owner-level decision. As Angels GM, you could call around and feel out the best offers you can get from each team and present them to the owner, maybe recommending your favorite one, but I can't imagine a GM could pull the trigger for something that big on his/her own. I'd guess anything like that would be in large part Arte/Scoscia's call.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

PW, I'm not sure my post made myself clear, but: I'm saying Billy Eppler would be insane to trade Trout for just prospects. I think he would probably listen to offers that included top prospects and pre-arb or early-arb proven ML talent, and should. Politically and also roster construction-wise, he can't trade Trout and then still have a 100-loss team; even if 2018 or 2019 end up being OK for them, he'll be canned long before. He needs to replace some of the WAR loss from losing Trout immediately, not just bet on farther-off upside.

There are always bargains to be had with waiver wires and AAAA types if you have the major league reps to offer them to give them a chance. I have no doubt that his current plan is to patch things up along similar lines, unless an earth-shattering trade opportunity comes up (always unlikely).

OK, fair enough.

Still, I'd rather have pure prospects. Young major league talent is closer to free agency and has an irritating tendency win baseball games. Winning baseball games means you pick lower in the draft. Picking lower in the draft makes it hard to get the next Carlos Correa (#1 pick of the 2012 draft) or Kris Bryant (#2 pick) or Kyle Schwarber (#4 pick).

 

[moondog80]

I'd guess that trading Trout is really an owner-level decision. As Angels GM, you could call around and feel out the best offers you can get from each team and present them to the owner, maybe recommending your favorite one, but I can't imagine a GM could pull the trigger for something that big on his/her own. I'd guess anything like that would be in large part Arte/Scoscia's call.

That should work out well.

 

[alwyn96]

That should work out well.

Heh, yeah. Anything's possible.

You know what, hell, something might happen. I mean, Donald Trump might be president. The world is a crazy place. I thought the Punto trade was one of the craziest things I'd ever heard. Trading Mike Trout might be I don't know, the craziest, riskiest trade ever? But we live in crazy times. You guys are talking me into it.

Theo basically did a complete teardown in Chicago, and it was pretty rough for a few years, but now the dude looks like a genius yet again. I could see an executive selling that model to Arte.

 

[grimshaw]

I'm still firmly on the "no" side of trying to build a package for Trout. Really, nothing beats watching fruits from a farm system completely dominate and they finally seem to be approaching that with studs still in the wings. If you need a franchise altering player, lack star power and have been stuck in the middle of the pack and are hemorrhaging money each year, then by all means, go all in. This franchise just doesn't need that right now with emerging stars.

I remember Theo talking about not trying to build a super team, but to just try to approach 95 wins from year to year.
Is there a team over the next few years in the division who is going to challenge that? You're looking at improving marginal wins but it still being a crap shoot in the playoffs (see Seattle and it's 120 win season).

Keep stock piling pitching and let's be perennial winners that way, just like the good ole' days.

 

[johnnydrama]

He's no Trout but wouldn't Stanton cost us much less in prospects and still get us sick production to offset the loss of Papi?

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

STANTON TRADE SPECULATION SIGHTING!

 

[Moviegoer]

Only on SoSH could people be putting out mastrubatory trade ideas to get a bat for an offense that is absolutely killing the ball already. Instead of, you know, a pitcher.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

You say that like you haven't missed the 2003 offense for the past decade.

 

[nvalvo]

Only on SoSH could people be putting out mastrubatory trade ideas to get a bat for an offense that is absolutely killing the ball already. Instead of, you know, a pitcher.

I think it's easier to improve our LF situation than it is our SP situation.

With no attractive SP on the FA market (except Rich Hill, if he can keep this up), a trade that would meaningfully improve over our rotation backend would be hard to arrange. Most teams who have a good SP under contract for next season would like to have that SP under contract for next season. The only teams who wouldn't are entering rebuilds, and teams in that situation tend *not* to have good SP under contract, you know?

 

[DisgruntledSoxFan77]

STANTON TRADE SPECULATION SIGHTING!

Christ. Sorry I even brought him up!

 

[johnnywayback]

If Brock Holt gets hurt or his offense falls off (as it has before), our choices in LF are Chris Young, Rusney Castillo, an out-of-position Blake Swihart or Marco Hernandez, or an incredibly rushed Andrew Benintendi. And the same applies if Pedroia or Shaw gets hurt and we choose to move Holt back into the infield instead of having Hernandez/Marrero playing every day.

Whereas, if we lose a starting pitcher to injury or ineffectiveness, our choices include Joe Kelly, Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, Roenis Elias, and, now, Sean O'Sullivan (okay, maybe just the first four).

It's not just about improving the team on the field right now, which, frankly, would be hard to improve on. It's about understanding where you're most vulnerable, and planning accordingly. Meanwhile, acquiring a LF today bumps Brock Holt to 10th man and Josh Rutledge off the roster, which actually would be an improvement. Acquiring a starter today bumps Steven Wright out of the rotation and Joe Kelly off the roster, which may or may not be an improvement.

 

[begranter]

I think Calhoun would be a potential realistic target to upgrade LF for the Red Sox. He's arbitration eligible ($3.4 this year) and a FA in 2020 so you'd control him through his age 32 season. The Angels will probably try to sign him to an extension, so not sure what it would take, but I'd suspect a package built around Owens could make it happen (feel free to tell me how wrong I am on this). I'd rather see the Sox make a play for Calhoun to play LF daily than shred the farm system for Trout.

 

[tonyarmasjr]

If Brock Holt gets hurt or his offense falls off (as it has before), our choices in LF are Chris Young, Rusney Castillo, an out-of-position Blake Swihart or Marco Hernandez, or an incredibly rushed Andrew Benintendi. And the same applies if Pedroia or Shaw gets hurt and we choose to move Holt back into the infield instead of having Hernandez/Marrero playing every day.

Whereas, if we lose a starting pitcher to injury or ineffectiveness, our choices include Joe Kelly, Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, Roenis Elias, and, now, Sean O'Sullivan (okay, maybe just the first four).

It's not just about improving the team on the field right now, which, frankly, would be hard to improve on. It's about understanding where you're most vulnerable, and planning accordingly. Meanwhile, acquiring a LF today bumps Brock Holt to 10th man and Josh Rutledge off the roster, which actually would be an improvement. Acquiring a starter today bumps Steven Wright out of the rotation and Joe Kelly off the roster, which may or may not be an improvement.

You bite your tongue! Removing he of the 166 OPS+ and 1 error from the roster...

In reality, I really like the idea of bringing Reddick back, but I don't think 2/3 of a season of him is worth what it would take. Reddick, Rasmus, and Bruce all seem like palatable options, though, to be the LHH side of a monster platoon with Chris Young. And, the availability of 3 guys could end up driving that price down a little bit.

 

[nvalvo]

I think Calhoun would be a potential realistic target to upgrade LF for the Red Sox. He's arbitration eligible ($3.4 this year) and a FA in 2020 so you'd control him through his age 32 season. The Angels will probably try to sign him to an extension, so not sure what it would take, but I'd suspect a package built around Owens could make it happen (feel free to tell me how wrong I am on this). I'd rather see the Sox make a play for Calhoun to play LF daily than shred the farm system for Trout.

I bet a deal like that could work. Owens, warts and all, might be the best SP-not-on-the-60-day-DL the Angels have on the day of a hypothetical trade, especially in a pretty viable home ballpark for a fly ball pitcher. Or maybe second best: depends how you feel about Hector Santiago, I guess. The point is: they need young, controllable pitching with upside really, really badly. Plus, he's a local kid.

(And wasn't there something about how long-armed LHP in that ballpark appear to hitters to release the baseball out of the waterfall or something?)

 

[tims4wins]

What do people think about Ryan Braun? Buster Olney suggested today that the Brewers should trade him. If the Sox take on most of his contract they likely wouldn't need to give up much. His contract is kind of hefty but he is still hitting well, can play serviceable enough defense in left, and can eventually also split time at 1B / DH with Hanley.

 

[Rovin Romine]

What do people think about Ryan Braun? Buster Olney suggested today that the Brewers should trade him. If the Sox take on most of his contract they likely wouldn't need to give up much. His contract is kind of hefty but he is still hitting well, can play serviceable enough defense in left, and can eventually also split time at 1B / DH with Hanley.

He's 32, has had multiple PED incidents, and, while good, isn't close to the marquee player he once was. He costs $20M a year and is signed through 2020, with an option for 2021.

 

[DJnVa]

Only on SoSH could people be putting out mastrubatory trade ideas to get a bat for an offense that is absolutely killing the ball already. Instead of, you know, a pitcher.

Only because you're neglecting the throw-in for the Stanton trade. Jose Fernandez.

 

[tims4wins]

Right, but what about on a partial subsidy? He is owed say $100M for 2017-2021, which takes him through his age 37 year. What if that only cost the Sox say $60M and no top prospects?

Also, his OPS+ last year was 130 and he is at 172 this year vs. career of 142. So he's been pretty good.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Right, but what about on a partial subsidy? He is owed say $100M for 2017-2021, which takes him through his age 37 year. What if that only cost the Sox say $60M and no top prospects?

He and Lucroy are their best trade chips. Why exactly would they trade Braun and receive nothing in return?

 

[tims4wins]

He and Lucroy are their best trade chips. Why exactly would they trade Braun and receive nothing in return?

Salary relief. They suck, he is 32, and has $100M left on his contract.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Anyone think it might be useful to break out what could end up being a clusterfuck of a thread into individual targets? A thread for Braun, a thread for Hill, a thread for Calhoun, a thread for Trout, a thread for Machado, a thread for Kershaw, etc.

Or maybe threads by position.

Could save some time.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Salary relief. They suck, he is 32, and has $100M left on his contract.

Yeah, not enough of a reason

 

[tims4wins]

Yeah, not enough of a reason

Buster made it sound differently

Braun is making $20 million this season, and in each of the next two seasons, with his salary declining to $19 million in 2020 and $17 million in 2021; he has a $4 million buyout on an option for 2022. So he’s owed about $95 million on his deal, and some executives with other teams believe that because of his career rebound, his athleticism and his age – he’s older, but not old -- it’s possible for the rebuilding Brewers to structure a deal to move him.

“They’d have to eat a lot of that salary,” one executive said, “and he’ll control the process because of his no-trade clause.”

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't see why the Angels would want to trade Calhoun right now. He's not that expensive for the moment, and their outfield depth appears to be near-nonexistent.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Buster made it sound differently

That says that he has leverage in a deal and they'd have to eat salary ... but it doesn't say they should expect, as you brought up, no top prospects in return.

Now, I'm zipping out of this clusterhump of a thread ... sad that I let myself in to begin with

 

[smastroyin]

We are not going to have multiple rosterbation threads. One is really enough.