I don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
That's not really Cameron's shining moment of a column.
Why would the Red Sox need Lucroy whatsoever at this point? They already have an elite pitch framer with no power.
And I don't think a team like the Red Sox would welcome a PED guy - he seems well suited for a smaller market team. Not that it's as large a deal as it used to be, but the public comments he made where he was completely defiant about not using, kind of made him look terrible to both fans and his peers.
As for upgrading offense - ya it's not really a need, but aside from adding a 2nd starter or possibly 1st if Hanley keeps up his mediocrity, it's probably the position that could benefit the most from an upgrade. I'd rather have a rental anyhow with Benintendi coming up. Bruce maybe.
I'm not so sure. If Porcello really is fixed, and Rodriguez develops as we hope, and even one of Kelly/Owens/Johnson appears to be a major-league-level starter, then our rotation is in pretty good shape for the next few years (even assuming the departure and/or ongoing unreliability of Buchholz). Sure, we might still want to improve the rotation, but will a front-line starter really be our #1 priority?the trade chips will get used for pitching
I think there's also the question of which starting pitcher will be available who is A) a clear-cut upgrade over the team's existing options, B) on a team that is unlikely to contend in 2016, and C) will cost Swihart but won't additionally require one of the big four. Not sure how many of the usual suspects fit those qualifications with Cleveland and Oakland hovering around .500 and Ross hurt.I'm not so sure. If Porcello really is fixed, and Rodriguez develops as we hope, and even one of Kelly/Owens/Johnson appears to be a major-league-level starter, then our rotation is in pretty good shape for the next few years (even assuming the departure and/or ongoing unreliability of Buchholz). Sure, we might still want to improve the rotation, but will a front-line starter really be our #1 priority?
.
Agree. It's tough to find a perfect fit, and we still need to wait to see who decides to potentially sell, but the names that I see that are possibilities are Quintana, Tyson Ross, or one of the Cleveland pitchers (Salazar or Carrasco). Would think the Sox would have to add Owens and another top 15 prospect for Quintana or the CLE guys but I think Ross for Swihart is pretty even on paper. In fact, honestly, I would prefer to keep Swihart over trading him for Tyson Ross but I think that's the type of player Dombrowski will be targetingI don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
Anyone catch this comment?That's not really Cameron's shining moment of a column.
Why would the Red Sox need Lucroy whatsoever at this point? They already have an elite pitch framer with no power.
And I don't think a team like the Red Sox would welcome a PED guy - he seems well suited for a smaller market team. Not that it's as large a deal as it used to be, but the public comments he made where he was completely defiant about not using, kind of made him look terrible to both fans and his peers.
As for upgrading offense - ya it's not really a need, but aside from adding a 2nd starter or possibly 1st if Hanley keeps up his mediocrity, it's probably the position that could benefit the most from an upgrade. I'd rather have a rental anyhow with Benintendi coming up. Bruce maybe.
For instance, why on earth would the team with the best record in the AL trade its second-best starter?Agree. It's tough to find a perfect fit, and we still need to wait to see who decides to potentially sell, but the names that I see that are possibilities are Quintana, Tyson Ross, or one of the Cleveland pitchers (Salazar or Carrasco). Would think the Sox would have to add Owens and another top 15 prospect for Quintana or the CLE guys but I think Ross for Swihart is pretty even on paper. In fact, honestly, I would prefer to keep Swihart over trading him for Tyson Ross but I think that's the type of player Dombrowski will be targeting
Is this like when NYYFans talked about cubic transformation of Phil Hughes' projections?Anyone catch this comment?
Eric M. Van says:
May 3, 2016 at 2:08 pm
Before the season I took the Steamer projections for every catcher, and added my own projection for pitch-framing from BP’s data, which included an extra factor for the reduced Y2Y correlation seen in 2015. For Christian Vazquez, I substituted a better defensive projection, since Steamer had regressed the hell out of his hard-to-believe SSS numbers, but scouting eyeballs put him as top-3 defensive catcher.
That combined projection put Vazquez as the second best catcher in baseball, at 4.8 WAR per 125 games. In his first 11 games, he’s surpassing it a bit; his bWAR is within the rounding error to the high side (0.3 versus 0.26) and he’s framing at a 2.5 WAR rate versus the projected 2.1. He’s still recovering arm strength … and the hitting projections may be low.
So no, Lucroy is not in the conversation.
So, no, Lucroy would not be in any such trade.
It's more like when Eric Van talked about anything.Is this like when NYYFans talked about cubic transformation of Phil Hughes' projections?
1--"I added my own projection"Before the season I took the Steamer projections for every catcher, and added my own projection for pitch-framing from BP’s data, which included an extra factor for the reduced Y2Y correlation seen in 2015. For Christian Vazquez, I substituted a better defensive projection, since Steamer had regressed the hell out of his hard-to-believe SSS numbers, but scouting eyeballs put him as top-3 defensive catcher.
That combined projection put Vazquez as the second best catcher in baseball, at 4.8 WAR per 125 games. In his first 11 games, he’s surpassing it a bit; his bWAR is within the rounding error to the high side (0.3 versus 0.26) and he’s framing at a 2.5 WAR rate versus the projected 2.1. He’s still recovering arm strength … and the hitting projections may be low.
God that was just wonderful. It warms the cockles of my cold, cold heart remembering that magical time.Is this like when NYYFans talked about cubic transformation of Phil Hughes' projections?
And more magical memories!It's more like when Eric Van talked about anything.
"I expect Hughes to essentially become Pedro, unless he doesn't, of course."For Hughes I expect his career ERA+ to exceed 150. I am well aware that the number of pitchers who have produced careers like that can be counted on a mutilated hand. That doesn’t change the projection. What could change the projection is if Hughes doesn’t produce ERA+ as good or better than he did those minor league equivalents.
Who was the fifth member of the royal flush again? I seem to remember Hughes, Joba, Kennedy, and Wang but I may be off.Royal Flush!
Absolutely agree. Benintendi and Moncada are hitters in the pipeline. If they trade Swihart in a package, DD would have to be targeting Sonny Gray.I don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php/100654-Hughes-Sanchez-Chamberlain-Betances?s=4c5dafbddacb5e674e3421a94b203cbe&p=3791002#post3791002Who was the fifth member of the royal flush again? I seem to remember Hughes, Joba, Kennedy, and Wang but I may be off.
A never-was named Humberto Sanchez, IIRC.Who was the fifth member of the royal flush again? I seem to remember Hughes, Joba, Kennedy, and Wang but I may be off.
Why are the big four off the table? They can absolutely afford to include one of Devers or Benintendi if the deal makes sense for both sides.I think there's also the question of which starting pitcher will be available who is A) a clear-cut upgrade over the team's existing options, B) on a team that is unlikely to contend in 2016, and C) will cost Swihart but won't additionally require one of the big four. Not sure how many of the usual suspects fit those qualifications with Cleveland and Oakland hovering around .500 and Ross hurt.
If he were cost controlled and you took out Devers and the surgery waiting to happen (partial UCL tear), maybe.Here's some completely baseless speculation: Tanaka has an opt out after 2017. The Yankees are terrible and are probably going to be terrible next year. What would it take, and would it be worth it?
Let's start with Swihart, Erod, and Devers. Who says no?
(Yes, he has a NTC, but I imagine he'd waive it to come here.)
Elbow surgery*I say no. That opt out would carry over... That's a haul for 1.3 seasons of shoulder surgery in the wAiting Tanaka
Anyone with half a brain says no.Here's some completely baseless speculation: Tanaka has an opt out after 2017. The Yankees are terrible and are probably going to be terrible next year. What would it take, and would it be worth it?
Let's start with Swihart, Erod, and Devers. Who says no?
(Yes, he has a NTC, but I imagine he'd waive it to come here.)
However, if I'm trying to get a pitcher from the Yankees at the trade deadline it would be Chapman. Effectively, the game would be over after 6 innings. Imagine a pen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, Chapman, and Kimbrel.Anyone with half a brain says no.
Besides the aforementioned elbow issues, why in the world would you trade three strong prospects for a guy who WILL opt out after 2017? The only way Tanaka doesn't opt out is if he re-injures the arm; and, if he does, you're stuck with damaged goods
Plus the cost would be less ... although I'd rather have Miller back. It won't be a surprise to see Dombrowski and Cashman swing a deal. I get the sense DD won't be as hesitant as some others to deal with the YankeesHowever, if I'm trying to get a pitcher from the Yankees at the trade deadline it would be Chapman. Effectively, the game would be over after 6 innings. Imagine a pen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, Chapman, and Kimbrel.
Or we can first get to imagine a bullpen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, and Kimbrel for a few weeks, before we consider a trade with the Yankees where we would not likely get value and overpay to improve what is already a potentially ridiculous back end.However, if I'm trying to get a pitcher from the Yankees at the trade deadline it would be Chapman. Effectively, the game would be over after 6 innings. Imagine a pen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, Chapman, and Kimbrel.
All fair points. I was just trying to say which pitcher I'd want more from NY. However, I don't think it would take as much to get Chapman as you think.Or we can first get to imagine a bullpen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, and Kimbrel for a few weeks, before we consider a trade with the Yankees where we would not likely get value and overpay to improve what is already a potentially ridiculous back end.
This team needs a #2 starter but who has to be an upgrade on Porcello, ERod to be worth it, and this team needs some thump in LF with the future of 1B/DH in mind too.
Here's some completely baseless speculation: Tanaka has an opt out after 2017. The Yankees are terrible and are probably going to be terrible next year. What would it take, and would it be worth it?
Let's start with Swihart, Erod, and Devers. Who says no?
(Yes, he has a NTC, but I imagine he'd waive it to come here.)
I really agree with all of this. Well said and important to remember. I love the "greed not need" language.Any infinite trade speculation has to start out with a position of need, not greed. The Red Sox bullpen is fine - probably one of the best in baseball. Their position players are set, except for a desire to improve Left Field and relegate Holt (and his good fielding/running) back to the bench for an incremental improvement awaiting the graduation of Benintendi. Chris Young has a history of hitting and there's no reason to just assume he's cooked. He can also adequately back up all outfield positions if needed.
I don't think it's "absurd," nor do I think they would necessarily be "giving up" on these guys if they traded them.Today they have no pressing needs. ... Giving up on Kelly or Buchholz is absurd.
In his defense, his projections for Lester, Papelbon, and Kershaw weren't that far off. Maybe he just needed to address this line of code that he must have had.The kicker for all of that: Hughes ended his Yankees career with the 3rd highest ERA of anyone with 500 IP or more in a Yankees uniform. His NYY HR rate (1.29 per 9 IP) was the highest in team history, min 500IP.
Maybe those are the peaks Hughes2.50 was talking about.
He's also generally right that the Sox would not have much interest in Lucroy.In his defense, his projections for Lester, Papelbon, and Kershaw weren't that far off. Maybe he just needed to address this line of code that he must have had.
If (IsAYankeeProspect == true)
{ERAplus = ERAplusPredicted + 60;}
It is too early to make a definitive call on this, but I'm inclined to think that the Red Sox will need starting pitching over offense.I don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
4--"had wet dreams about Casey Fossum passing Randy Johnson on career K list"1--"I added my own projection"
2--"included an extra factor"
3--"substituted a better defensive projection"
Well, no shit he looked good.
Now that I'm done fapping to the basic notion of turning JBJ into Mike f'ing Trout... it's obviously and hugely unrealistic. The Angels' needs start with ace-upside starting pitching, and unless you think Owens and E-Rod would be enticing I'm not sure we quite have that to offer. The Angels would be trading something like 20 WAR worth of net value (expected production minus salary cost), plus the incremental marketing value of Trout himself putting butts in seats. It would take the biggest king's ransom we'd ever seen in MLB to pry him away - it's not like a Pedro deal with one year left on the contract or something. But man, if you're going to have fun speculating about something unrealistic, might as well shoot for the stars.Boston Red Sox -- Keith rated them only the No. 10 organization but they have four huge upside talents in third baseman Rafael Devers (No. 7), second baseman Yoan Moncada (No. 17), center fielder Andrew Benintendi (No. 18) and pitcher Anderson Espinoza (No. 38). Moncada is hitting .348/.478/.506 with 19 steals for Class A Salem and Benintendi is hitting .376/.435/.653, although both have hit just one home run. Still, Benintendi could be on theMichael Conforto path: drafted in one year and reaching the majors the next. He should be moving up to Double-A soon and could reach Boston before September. Jackie Bradley Jr. also could be part of the deal, along with Pablo Sandoval (just kidding!).
Well, we'd offer Anderson Espinosa. If the Angels are trading Trout it's a full rebuild. Espinosa isn't worth as much as Urias or de Leon though, so yeah, the Dodgers would seem to have the advantage.If you enjoy "greed not need", you'll love this latest ESPN column from David Schoenfield, in which he argues that the Angels will be bad for the foreseeable future and wouldn't be able to re-sign Trout anyway - so they should trade him now. Trout's salary is $16M this year but goes to ~$34M for 2017-2020. At 10 WAR, that's of course a massive bargain.
He offers up 5 teams who might be able to make an enticing offer. I don't buy the Dodgers or Rockies, but could maybe see the Rangers or Cubs. The 5th team, of course, is the Red Sox, about which he says:
Now that I'm done fapping to the basic notion of turning JBJ into Mike f'ing Trout... it's obviously and hugely unrealistic. The Angels' needs start with ace-upside starting pitching, and unless you think Owens and E-Rod would be enticing I'm not sure we quite have that to offer. The Angels would be trading something like 20 WAR worth of net value (expected production minus salary cost), plus the incremental marketing value of Trout himself putting butts in seats. It would take the biggest king's ransom we'd ever seen in MLB to pry him away - it's not like a Pedro deal with one year left on the contract or something. But man, if you're going to have fun speculating about something unrealistic, might as well shoot for the stars.
The fact that Pujols is batting cleanup for LAA is more an indictment of the weakness of their lineup as it is a statement about Pujols still hitting well enough to support it.Albert f'ing Pujols batting 7th. Never thought I'd see the day, even hypothetically. Even in his present state in LA, he's batting cleanup.
The thing about Trout is that he's already been so good for a number of years now, that he kind of seems like he must be in his late 20s. But he's not even 25 yet, as you point out. He's just a kid. Just a kid who is currently in his 5th straight season with an ops+ of 168 or better. Think about that.Even assuming Trout is available, I don't think there's any way we get him without giving up at least two of Benintendi, Moncada, and Espinoza. Something in the neighborhood of Benintendi/Espinoza/Swihart/Kopech/Chavis sounds semi-realistic to me. I mean, we're talking about one of the best young outfielders in the history of the game, not yet 25 and signed at a bargain price for the next four years. A real-world price tag for that much value is not going to sound palatable. It's going to make us cringe.
With the two teams being a mere 30 miles apart, would that cause the Angels to balk at trading Trout to the Dodgers, regardless of the prospects offered in return? You're not only losing a generational talent, but your basically inviting fans to change laundry.Well, we'd offer Anderson Espinosa. If the Angels are trading Trout it's a full rebuild. Espinosa isn't worth as much as Urias or de Leon though, so yeah, the Dodgers would seem to have the advantage.