Considering neither is expected to miss significant time (i.e. months), there's no real reason to trade for replacements. They have the depth to deal with this kind of thing, so they'll make do. That doesn't rule out shopping on the discard pile when guys on minor league deals start opting out or guys with no more options get waived.With Rodriguez and Smith on the DL opening day, will/should Dombrowski trade for pitching or is the team "all set" for now?
Unless it was a bad deal for bad deal kind of swap involving Sandoval or something, I'm not sure how much benefit the Sox could really derive from acquiring Shields even at a discount.Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 5m5 minutes ago
A few teams have talked to padres about James shields. O's are one. Red sox have talked to SD about SP; shields logical
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 4m4 minutes ago
Padres are willing to pay some of shields' backloaded deal (21M per now), how much depends on return. Nothing thought close
Castillo would be a hindrance to that deal, and in the offseason the Indians wanted Betts and Swihart for Carrasco or Salazar, so, yeah.Cleveland is reportedly interested in Bradley (not happening) and Castillo (hmmm). I doubt they'd give up Salazar without another significant piece, though.
Right. Bauer, Cashner - these are more guys with potential who could put it all together some day. The Red Sox have that. In other words, if they aren't going to be able to get a Ross or a Salazar - and I think those deals would require giving up someone we here would be pissed to see go, moreso than some were over Margot - then I'm not sure what the point would be unless Dombrowski is just that pessimistic about Castillo. I guess it's possible.Castillo would be a hindrance to that deal, and in the offseason the Indians wanted Betts and Swihart for Carrasco or Salazar, so, yeah.
I was listening to some big Cleveland podcast and they want to trade some combination of Trevor Bauer [can't throw strikes], Cody Anderson [can't strike anyone out] and Mike Clevinger [24 an in double-a] for JBJ.
I assumed that at least a platoon partner for Young might come back.If Castillo is traded, who's our starting LF?
Young can't hit right-handed pitching. Murphy's a terrible outfielder. Holt's too valuable as a utility piece. Shaw hasn't really played much LF.
I suppose it's possible that this is Benintendi's job by Labor Day, but at the very least I would want them to have a better plan in place for the first half of the season.
Also, Holt has a reverse split of .070 points of OPS in what's starting to be a decent sample size.If Castillo is traded, who's our starting LF?
Young can't hit right-handed pitching. Murphy's a terrible outfielder. Holt's too valuable as a utility piece. Shaw hasn't really played much LF.
I suppose it's possible that this is Benintendi's job by Labor Day, but at the very least I would want them to have a better plan in place for the first half of the season.
I think Castillo could be a 2 WAR CF with upside for more on a reasonable contract. That's something we don't need and the Padres don't have.I was saying to friends that I would really like this Red Sox team if I didn't have to watch Panda and Castillo play ever again. So, in my mind any trade that eliminates Castillo and/or Panda is a net net positive regardless of the return (partial tongue in cheek). Panda for Shields with some money going to SD? Done and Done! then you have excess pitching and a farm system that can get you a legitimate OFer before the deadline. I'm not sure Castillo is anything more than a AAAA player.
We had a 1 WAR LF last year in De Aza. Chris Young is also a 1 WAR LF. so were Sam Fuld, Khris Davis, and ryan Raburn etc etc. this are platoon players at best. Basically the Red Sox would be better off finding a platoon partner for Young than keep Castillo, unless you think he is a platoon partner for JBJ in CF. If so....then the logical thing to do is find either a LHH LF (Shaw) or a RHH 3B (with Shaw platooning both positions). Ideally, you'd axe Panda for Shields and get a RHH third baseman and have flexibility at almost every position on the field.I think Castillo could be a 2 WAR CF with upside for more on a reasonable contract. That's something we don't need and the Padres don't have.
Castillo hits a lot of hard groundballs to have a sub-.300 BABIP as a fast runner. If you could give him defensive innings in CF, he'd earn his paycheck.
That said, I don't want to run the guy out of town. A 1 WAR left fielder (again, with legitimate upside) is better than we had last season.
I think Castillo could in theory have a bit of positive trade value as a CF. He could easily earn his salary in a full-time role, and if he can improve offensively he could be a small-scale bargain.Do we all agree that Castillo has negative trade value at the moment?
No, I wouldn't classify Castillo as a negative trade value piece. Aren't his defensive metrics off the charts good? Play him in CF and he's good enough to earn his keep even if he's a bad hitter, and that has t been established yet. If I were a GM with a good budget and a CF vacancy like SD I'd be looking for a buy low opportunity.Do we all agree that Castillo has negative trade value at the moment? As do Shields and Panda, of course. Reasonable minds can disagree, but I think I'd say Shields is the "best", then Castillo and then Pablo. But they're all in the same general neighborhood.
On the other hand, Fenway's LF deflates defense metrics, yet Castillo does impressively well there -- mostly because of his arm. All samples are pretty small, but he certainly has the raw speed and throwing ability.His metrics were really good in RF last year, but only 350 innings and defensive metrics seem to be massively inflated playing in Fenway's RF on a yearly basis (Hello, Nava). Plus terrible error marks.
Ellsbury was legitimately awful in CF in 2009, and earned his low ratings (which, while bad, were not particularly bad in UZR). His false starts, slow breaks and inability to judge balls hit in front of him was the subject of endless game threadSingle season UZR is almost worthless. There was one season where Ellsbury was ranked last among all MLB OF'ers in UZR by quite a margin.
I'm not convinced of Castillo's trade value, but I don't want Betts or JBJ moved around just to accommodate a potential Castillo trade either. On this team, it's better to keep him in left; or send him to AAA if he can't break the Mendoza line.
Nick Cafardo (I know) is reporting the Padres are scouting Pablo
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/03/28/padres-are-scouting-pablo-sandoval/KeKF3M8kqXscesU88MtjwI/story.html
Not sure I would want Shields back though. I'd rather just give Sandoval away.
So... Fitzgerald and a 2017 #1?It could always be a three-team deal with Shields winding up elsewhere
The argument is that yes, he is that bad and you really don't want him playing any games. Roster spots have value and giving him away for nothing would increase the total talent on the team by allowing the team to fill that roster spot with someone who isn't terrible.Just curious... If the Sox were to give Panda away free but basically subsidize his entire contract, why not just keep him on the team if you're going to pay full freight anyway? I find it hard to believe that his true playing level has dropped so far that he's now below a bench player. Why not have Shaw start and Pablo be a substitute, if you're going to pay his entire contract anyway? What advantage is there in just giving him away for nothing?
Nick Cafardo (I know) is reporting the Padres are scouting Pablo
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/03/28/padres-are-scouting-pablo-sandoval/KeKF3M8kqXscesU88MtjwI/story.html
Not sure I would want Shields back though. I'd rather just give Sandoval away.
9 straight years of 200+ innings is impressive.Shields is a workhorse. Going to give you 15 wins and 200 innings. Not to mention a career 3.74 era.
Far better SP than Porcello. Far as Fenway stats who gives a rats arse.
The track record shows he should be worth the coin, at the very least the next 2 years.
Make the move. Dump a sh!t storm in Sandoval for a Veteran Arm that can pitch plus makes you a better defensive club in today's game where Pitching and Defense wins games..
Because going from World Series hero to forgotten bench warmer in two years probably makes for a sad Panda, which becomes sulking Panda and maybe even a clubhouse cancer?Just curious... If the Sox were to give Panda away free but basically subsidize his entire contract, why not just keep him on the team if you're going to pay full freight anyway?
Pitchers are going to give us wins, we're capitalizing Veteran Arm like we're Winnie the Pooh, and capital P Pitching and capital D Defense win games.Shields is a workhorse. Going to give you 15 wins and 200 innings. Not to mention a career 3.74 era.
Far better SP than Porcello. Far as Fenway stats who gives a rats arse.
The track record shows he should be worth the coin, at the very least the next 2 years.
Make the move. Dump a sh!t storm in Sandoval for a Veteran Arm that can pitch plus makes you a better defensive club in today's game where Pitching and Defense wins games..
I'd be cool with sending him to the Island of Misfit mascots for James Shields at this point.Because going from World Series hero to forgotten bench warmer in two years probably makes for a sad Panda, which becomes sulking Panda and maybe even a clubhouse cancer?
That is not an unusual reaction. No one wants to be panicky, least of all before a single game has been played.Pitchers are going to give us wins, we're capitalizing Veteran Arm like we're Winnie the Pooh, and capital P Pitching and capital D Defense win games.
I should probably get off your lawn.
I don't really give a damn about Pablo Sandoval or James Shields, but Shields was pretty mediocre last year, is due to be paid 21 million for each of the next three seasons, and oh yeah, can opt out after 2016. Meanwhile, Sandoval is something like five years younger and the standard for being a decent bat at third really isn't that high.
I'm kinda thinking we should see some real games before we go messing with the roster.
I'm a little unclear on whether you mean that Shields would not be an improvement on Porcello. To me, there's nothing to talk about between the two. Shields has made 31 starts in 2007 and either 33 or 34 in every year since 2008. His career ERA is in the 3s. Now it's true that Porcello has also been quite dependable in the starts made category but it took a late season surge last year to push his ERA below 5. It's also true that I don't what they would do with him. But Dombrowski is on record saying that money (invested by the previous regime) would not drive roster decisions. Whether it's regarding Panda or Porcello or both, it would be nice to see that theory in action. If you can get Shields,* either slot him in for an injured guy (at the time) or jettison the most under performing starter not named Price or Rodriguez.The are some rather practical implications of acquiring Shields - namely who gets bumped from the rotation? I suppose it would be Kelly - but I think he has the greatest upside of anyone in the rotation and I'd hate to see that chance missed. So I guess it would be Porcello - but what do you do with him? Trade him to upgradfe Rusney? And it would effectively end any hopes of breaking in Owens this year.
I really don't see Shields as an improvement on anyone in the rotation.