Poll: Which Red Sox "kids" are The Untouchables?

[bankshot1]

The Red Sox look very well stocked with young high-ceiling players, many of whom will form the core of future teams. But there seems to be some overlap in players, positions, and needs.
 
Lets assume that the Red Sox and Phillies are negotiating a trade for Cole Hamels, and lets say the Phillies want 3 top young players/prospects for Hamels. Further assume Jon Lester will not be on the 2015 team. Who would you not make available for a Hamels trade? Or who would you rather keep for future use either as a Sox player or a trading chip to get a RH power bat, or any other purpose? Who are the untouchables?  Who are not, and who is not for this particular proposed trade?
 
Please limit your choices to no more than 3 in the poll.But feel free to expand in the thread.
 
I'd prefer to not make the trade, but my untouchables now are: Owens and Boegarts, maybe JBJ,

 

[MakMan44]

Swihart and Bogaerts. If Swihart sticks at catcher, the upside is just too great to give up. Xander's going to be an important part of competing in 2015, it's hard to justify moving him now.
 
Other than that, prospects are likely to fail. I wouldn't be happy moving Owens, Betts, or Rubby but I wouldn't call them untouchable for one reason or another. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't think any of them are untouchable. It depends on the deal. (Would I trade Bogaerts for Stanton one-up? Hell yes.) But I would agree with MakMan44 that assuming realistic trade scenarios, Swihart and Bogaerts are pretty close.
 
Also, I would not trade both of Betts and Bradley. One or the other, in the right deal, but not both.
 
Further, I would consider Cecchini semi-untouchable right now, because his stock has fallen so much this year. After he has had a chance to prove that this was just a hurdle, not a brick wall, he is eminently touchable.

 

[foulkehampshire]

Swihart and Bogaerts. If Swihart sticks at catcher, the upside is just too great to give up. Xander's going to be an important part of competing in 2015, it's hard to justify moving him now.
 
Other than that, prospects are likely to fail. I wouldn't be happy moving Owens, Betts, or Rubby but I wouldn't call them untouchable for one reason or another. 

 
I voted the same way. The tantalizing promise of offense and defense from upper-spectrum defensive positions (C, SS/3B) is irreplaceable anywhere else.   

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

NM, didn't read the proposal.

 

[Rovin Romine]

It's hard to designate any particular pitcher (RDLR, Webster, Raunado, Workman, Barnes, Owens, Ball) as "untouchable," particularly since there are other comparable prospects in the system.   I think it's a safe bet that one of the seven will be rotation mainstay and one a useful reliever.   Most likely we'll get two starters out of that group.
 
However, once you trade two or three of them away, you could be looking at a bust. (I'd gladly trade any three of them for a Pedroesque talent though.)
 
As a thought experiment - does the value of any single one of them go up if the others are traded?  For example, if Webster was the only man standing due to a couple of trades and/or catastrophic injuries, would Webster become "untouchable?"   

 

[IdiotKicker]

No one is untouchable, but the top of my list would be Bogaerts, Betts, and Swihart.  Up the middle guys (hopefully) with good bats.  But again, no one is untouchable.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Went with Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, Swihart.
 
Bogaerts and Swihart are the obvious choices.  X may be a generational talent, and Swihart is a switch-hitting catcher, who is hitting, has some power, and is throwing out over 50% of the runners stealing on him.
 
As for Betts, what's not to like (plus he has the speed dynamic), and JBJ is going to be an all-star.  The hope is that opening up his stance brings him towards a OBP heavy 800 OPS.  With that defense, he's going to be a big part of that outfield.

 

[bankshot1]

 

It's hard to designate any particular pitcher (RDLR, Webster, Raunado, Workman, Barnes, Owens, Ball) as "untouchable," particularly since there are other comparable prospects in the system.   I think it's a safe bet that one of the seven will be rotation mainstay and one a useful reliever.   Most likely we'll get two starters out of that group.
 
However, once you trade two or three of them away, you could be looking at a bust. (I'd gladly trade any three of them for a Pedroesque talent though.)
 
As a thought experiment - does the value of any single one of them go up if the others are traded?  For example, if Webster was the only man standing due to a couple of trades and/or catastrophic injuries, would Webster become "untouchable?"   

Yes I think it does. For example, for all I've read it seems that Swihart is more highly valued than Vazquez, and may be the Sox #2 eventually. But as the Sox have two young high-ceiling catchers, IMO neither individually would be "untouchable" but I'm keeping one of them. If i had to choose between the two, Swihart is more untouchable than Vaz, but it would depend upon the deal, and other players involved.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I didn't go with either Swihart or Vazquez merely because the other exists. Each makes the other expendable. We're not going to platoon those guys for 12 years, and they are too similar in service time, options, free agency issues that one of them likely ends up elsewhere if they both pan out.
 
I went Bradley, X, and Ball...but I fucked up my lefties. So that vote was supposed to be for Owens.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I didn't go with either Swihart or Vazquez merely because the other exists. Each makes the other expendable. We're not going to platoon those guys for 12 years, and they are too similar in service time, options, free agency issues that one of them likely ends up elsewhere if they both pan out.
 
I went Bradley, X, and Ball...but I fucked up my lefties. So that vote was supposed to be for Owens.

 
I'm in the same boat as far as the catchers are concerned. Either could be the centerpiece of a big package, and we'd still have the other as a foundation of a solid young core. 
 
Went with Bogaerts, Betts, and Owens. 

 

[BornToRun]

I forgot to vote for Mookie. I am indescribably ashamed of myself.

 

[BornToRun]

 
Yes I think it does. For example, for all I've read it seems that Swihart is more highly valued than Vazquez, and may be the Sox #2 eventually. But as the Sox have two young high-ceiling catchers, IMO neither individually would be "untouchable" but I'm keeping one of them. If i had to choose between the two, Swihart is more untouchable than Vaz, but it would depend upon the deal, and other players involved.

This was my thinking when I voted for Swihart. I figured we had to hold on to one of the catchers and I figured Blake had a higher ceiling than Vaz.

 

[jscola85]

Bogaerts is the only "untouchable" for me, and even he would be bait if someone like Stanton or Tulowitzki would be available via trade.  As others have said with Swihart/Vazquez, having both of them means you have a bit more of a luxury to trade one to help the team in other places.

 

[normstalls]

I wouldn't say any are 'untouchable', obviously for the right deal you move anyone at any time.  That said, I voted 'Don't make that trade'.  I would not trade 3 of those kids for the right to pay Cole Hamels 15:$22.5M, 16:$22.5M, 17:$22.5M, 18:$22.5M,19:$20M club option ($6M buyout)
 
The cost in prospects + salary is too high in my opinion.

 

[CoRP]

None. I want a Giant Carlos Stand-in. Make it happen. Back up the truck.

 

[Rasputin]

I don't make the trade. I sign Lester.

 

[ivanvamp]

Swihart and Bogaerts. If Swihart sticks at catcher, the upside is just too great to give up. Xander's going to be an important part of competing in 2015, it's hard to justify moving him now.
 
Other than that, prospects are likely to fail. I wouldn't be happy moving Owens, Betts, or Rubby but I wouldn't call them untouchable for one reason or another. 

 
The only reason I wouldn't put Bogaerts on the untouchable list is because he might be required to pry Stanton from the Marlins.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, not gonna happen.  I get it.  But it if WERE to happen, I think X has to be included.  And if he is, I'd do it, because the Sox have Betts and Marrero able to fill in at SS, but they have no comparable person to be a power bat in the OF.
 
But since we're talking about a deal involving Hamels, I think X needs to be on the list.  Because he either needs to stay here in Boston or be shipped for Stanton.  Those are the only two options, IMO.

 

[ivanvamp]

I wouldn't say any are 'untouchable', obviously for the right deal you move anyone at any time.  That said, I voted 'Don't make that trade'.  I would not trade 3 of those kids for the right to pay Cole Hamels 15:$22.5M, 16:$22.5M, 17:$22.5M, 18:$22.5M,19:$20M club option ($6M buyout)
 
The cost in prospects + salary is too high in my opinion.

 
Option 1:  Keep the kids, and sign Lester for 6 years, $150 million, taking him through 2000 at $25 million per year.
Option 2:  Trade Lester for a few excellent prospects, then trade a few excellent prospects to get Hamels, and have Hamels with the contract you cite above.
Option 3:  Keep Lester for this year, then offer him a QO, and then get the draft pick when he inevitably signs elsewhere.  Make the trade for Hamels.
 
I'd prefer option 1.  But option 2, assuming they can get a good haul for Lester in a deal, isn't a bad alternative.  It's cheaper in dollars, and if they get a good package back, it would essentially make up the difference from what they lose in trading for Hamels.
 
Of course, then there is the question (being discussed elsewhere) of who is better:  Lester or Hamels…...

 

[MillarTime]

Swihart and Bogaerts. If Swihart sticks at catcher, the upside is just too great to give up. Xander's going to be an important part of competing in 2015, it's hard to justify moving him now.
 
Other than that, prospects are likely to fail. I wouldn't be happy moving Owens, Betts, or Rubby but I wouldn't call them untouchable for one reason or another. 

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Granite Sox]

Swihart and Bogaerts. If Swihart sticks at catcher, the upside is just too great to give up. Xander's going to be an important part of competing in 2015, it's hard to justify moving him now.
 
Other than that, prospects are likely to fail. I wouldn't be happy moving Owens, Betts, or Rubby but I wouldn't call them untouchable for one reason or another. 

 
Exactly how I feel.

 

[SoxLegacy]

I don't make the trade. I sign Lester.

Seconded.

 

[Manramsclan]

I don't make the trade. I have no idea why the Sox wouldn't pay that money to Lester. 4/90 with an option for $20M is a better offer than the Sox have on the table for Lester right now(as far as we know). 5/$110 sounds like the offer the Sox should have made at the beginning of the season. Now it's not likely to get it done.
 
I also don't think trading these guys for a pitcher in or nearing his 30's is a good idea AT ALL. Money, sure, but not players who have future value to the franchise. It's not like the Sox are one frontline starter from winning it all.
 
If it is just a generic "untouchable" list, my list would be a lot longer than many on here. I fully understand the logic behind "no one is untouchable", but besides a generational power bat like Stanton, I don't think there is any one player who warrants following that philosophy.
 
The reason why the Sox were able to win in 2007 and 2013 was in large part due to not trading Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon, Pedey, Ells, Manny Delcarmen, Lowrie. That's a ridiculously high percentage of top 10 prospects in 2006 that went on to All-star and useful major league careers. That shouldn't be expected again even if the same draft rules still applied. However, holding onto a larger inventory of these guys increases the hit rate. I especially think the Sox should hold onto the higher draft picks like Ball who the Sox suffered through 2012 to get. Outside of Stanton, my list would look something like this:
 
Ball
Bogaerts
JBJ
Cecchini
Owens
Swihart
RBDLR
Vazquez
 
I know, no Mookie. He's exciting and unreal, and useful (I see him as a prime Chone Figgins). He also might have "Hey shiny new thing!" trade value that will bring back a nice return.

 

[Plympton91]

I forgot to vote for Mookie. I am indescribably ashamed of myself.

I did too. I would make him my fourth untouchable along with Owens, Bogaerts, and Swihart. I find it hard to rate them, other than having Bogaerts a notch higher than the other three. So I would have needed four votes in a poll that asked us to limit to 3.

But if I'd scrolled down before voting, I would have chosen the "don't trade for Hammels" option. So, my votes reflect who I see as untouchable generally, rather than who I see as untouchable for Hammels.

I just see that really high ERA in interleague play---one that looks eerily similar to that of Ryan Dempster---and just say no.

 

[MakMan44]

I did too. I would make him my fourth untouchable along with Owens, Bogaerts, and Swihart. I find it hard to rate them, other than having Bogaerts a notch higher than the other three. So I would have needed four votes in a poll that asked us to limit to 3.

But if I'd scrolled down before voting, I would have chosen the "don't trade for Hammels" option. So, my votes reflect who I see as untouchable generally, rather than who I see as untouchable for Hammels.

I just see that really high ERA in interleague play---one that looks eerily similar to that of Ryan Dempster---and just say no.

He has 175 interleague innings. You don't throw that out entirely, but if the Red Sox decide Hamels isn't worth trading for, I doubt his interleague ERA is going to be at the top of the reasons. 
 
EDIT: Savin also brings up good points, I agree with everything he says. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I just see that really high ERA in interleague play---one that looks eerily similar to that of Ryan Dempster---and just say no.

 
The thing with Dempster, though, is that the interleague split wasn't the only trouble sign. He also had sizable splits in his performance vs. over .500/under .500 teams. He was clearly a guy who feasted on mediocre lineups and got battered by good ones. This is not Hamels' pattern at all; he actually has slightly lower ERA and OPS allowed vs. +.500 teams.
 
I think the larger point is correct that Hamels will not be as dominant in the AL, because the AL is just tougher, and that replacing Lester with him will therefore probably be a wash at best. But the Dempster comp is a bridge too far.

 

[Rasputin]

For the most part, were talking about prospects that have already had some success at AAA which means they're a lot less likely to flame out completely than a random prospect who may not have had success in high A yet.

We have kids with a lot of talent and AAA experience at center, right, third, short, and catcher. We have vets we aren't going to move at first, second, and DH. Being in some power in left and we're good.

On the pitching side of we bring Lester back, we have two horses at the top, someone who is often brilliant but erratic in Buchholz and a half a dozen guys who have either already seen some major league time or are virtually guaranteed to. For the guys at AAA plus Owens, Doubront, and Workman, failing means becoming a reliever.

Why would you mess with this?

Assuming Bogaerts pulls his head out of his ass, this is a team that can compete in 2015.

Sign Lester, sign someone (I'd prefer the Cuban to Cruz but I'll live) and let's get going.

 

[hellborn]

I picked Owens, JBJ and Bogaerts, but I would sign Lester and not make the trade for Hamels.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, Swihart, and Other (Devers).
 
Devers has too much offensive upside to be a throw-in right now, and too little pro-ball track record to be anything else.  Including him or not isn't going to break any deal, so he's the most "untouchable" for me at this moment.  Swihart isn't at the peak of his value yet, and that peak value may very well be best appreciated on the MLB stage.
 
As for the three currently on the MLB team, I'm all for bringing up a pack of youngsters in a down year, letting them take their lumps together, and seeing whether anyone busts after a 600 PA trial at the MLB level.  JBJ's adjustments at the plate seem to be paying off well enough that his all-world defense plays up; Bogaerts had too good a run at the beginning of the year to make me think there's not something easily correctible in his plate approach; the Red Sox need a top-of-the-order bat too much to deal Betts before they learn whether he can or can't become that presence hitting ahead of Pedroia.
 
I think Owens should be traded now, at the height of his value as a prospect. 

 

[seantoo]

I voted on Bogaerts, Owens & Swihart, even though I wouldn't make anyone truly untouchable, everyone has a price.
But I listed these 3 for several reasons, one it's possible it could actually increase their value, I said possible. To me these three are the best we have at key positions on the field and are arguably the three best "prospects" we have. Obviously if you had your 2 top prospects playing the same position you are more likely to trade one or of course shift one to another position.
 
I'd also hold onto Lester

 

[Just a bit outside]

I voted for X.  He has a chance to be a generational player where any of the others don't have that quality.  If I added two more it would be Swihart and Betts.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

No one is untouchable should have been an option

 

[ALiveH]

i voted bogarts, bradley & Owens.  bogarts has the potential for plus-plus bat and adequate defense at premium defensive position (or just plus bat and plus defense at a corner position).  JBJ is presently plus-plus defense at a premium defensive position with the potential for adequate-to-plus bat.  Owens has an outside chance of being a cost-controlled top-of-the-rotation starter which is the most valuable thing in baseball - just can't give that up; even is he's "only" a mid-to-back of the rotation starter he'd still be a lot of value (yeah i know he could bust too).
 
I would've included Betts, but with him being "blocked" by pedroia at 2B, he'll be at a corner, not a premium position & Bogarts and JBJ are slightly more proven.
 
Swihart was also hard to leave off, but he's still in AA, so is the least proven of the position players.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

No one is untouchable should have been an option

 
Except that the OP made clear that it's "untouchable" vis-a-vis a trade for Hamels.
 
As someone who'd prefer the Sox simply re-sign Lester, there are more "untouchables" than if we were assuming a trade for Stanton or Tulowitzki (or Trout).

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Bogaerts, JBJ and Swihart.  I don't think any of the prospects we have are truly untouchable, but Swihart is as close as it gets right now.  Unless he's the centerpiece in a Stanton trade and is bringing down the rest of the return for the Marlins significantly (ie... something like Swihart, Ranaudo, Barnes and Coyle versus Betts, Owens, RDLR, Margot and Devers), I'm probably not considering him in any trades.  His upside, as MakMan said, is just too high.  Bogaerts and Bradley aren't prospects anymore, but regardless, they aren't going anywhere.  Bogaerts is the highest potential they've had in a home grown player in a long long time and Bradley is the only real long term option they have in center field.  Now that it looks like his bat is starting to come around, he's the best option I can see for filling that position going forward.  The free agent market doesn't look promising and I'm not keen on the idea of burning trade chips on it when there are more glaring holes to fix.
 
As exciting as some of the other kids are (Betts, RDLR, Ranaudo, Devers, Margot, Marrero) there are reasons to sell high on them if a good return is on the table.  For Hamels, I probably include any two of that group with choices from two other lesser groups of prospects to get a deal done.  Another interesting question might be "Who will be the next group of "untouchables" to arise in the system?  That's a minor league forum debate, though, as it's not related to any potential trade that would impact the major league roster.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

No one is untouchable should have been an option

 
I used "Other" for that, and then explained. But you're right.
 
 

 
Except that the OP made clear that it's "untouchable" vis-a-vis a trade for Hamels.

 
He didn't, though. He asks two or three different versions of the question. At one point he says "Who are the untouchables? Who are not, and who is not for this particular proposed trade?" Well, wait, which question am I answering? The general question, or the "for this particular proposed trade" question?

 

[bankshot1]

No one is untouchable should have been an option

I thought giving that specific option would have a dulling effect on getting a more expansive view on SoSH view on the prospects. I thought the "other", "don't make the trade" and the thread would cover most bases. I was more interested in seeing how a large population viewed the prospects, and used a possible Hamels trade and its likely requirement for several prospects as the thread starter.

 

[mfried]

 
Except that the OP made clear that it's "untouchable" vis-a-vis a trade for Hamels.
 
As someone who'd prefer the Sox simply re-sign Lester, there are more "untouchables" than if we were assuming a trade for Stanton or Tulowitzki (or Trout)
 

I voted on Bogaerts, Owens & Swihart, even though I wouldn't make anyone truly untouchable, everyone has a price.
But I listed these 3 for several reasons, one it's possible it could actually increase their value, I said possible. To me these three are the best we have at key positions on the field and are arguably the three best "prospects" we have. Obviously if you had your 2 top prospects playing the same position you are more likely to trade one or of course shift one to another position.
 
I'd also hold onto Lester

Has everyone forgotten our agony in identifying a leadoff hitter? Of all those mentioned as well as veterans, the only possible replacement for Holt at leadoff is Betts.  Mookie is unproven as leadoff hitter whereas I have confidence in Holt maintaining a .340+ OBA.  Unless a trade includes somehow who would be better at leadoff, I would stick to Brock.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

mfried, what makes you confident that Brock Holt is likely to be a .340 wOBA hitter going forward?

 

[The Mort Report]

I went with Bogaerts, Swihart and Owens, like many others, so I'm not going to repeat what has already been said
 
On the Hamels front, and not to hijack the thread, but why are we having the Hamels or Lester discussion?  If we offered Lester the same money Hamels is making he would almost assuredly take it, correct?  To me it makes no sense to trade 3 of our best prospects to take on a very similar player to one we already have that would only cost us roughly the same amount of money.  I'd go as far to say I'd rather pay Lester and extra million or two a year if it means we keep the prospects

 

[MakMan44]

I think it's the amount of years that Lester wants that's scaring the FO. Hamels at 4 years might be preferable to Lester at 6 or 7.

 

[Rasputin]

JBJ is the leadoff hitter to be. Strong on base skills, not a ton of power, decent enough speed. He's not going to steal the bases Ellsbury did but he's not a base clogger.

 

[tims4wins]

I see JBJ's ceiling as something like Coco Crisp. To me that removes him from the "untouchable" category.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Right -- even based on his AAA line, JBJ won't likely make enough contact to warrant a place at the top of the order.  
 
But his high-OBP skills are hugely valuable as a "lineup-lengthener" at the bottom, so long as they develop to a league average floor and are paired with exquisite defense.

 

[Detts]

Right -- even based on his AAA line, JBJ won't likely make enough contact to warrant a place at the top of the order.  
 
But his high-OBP skills are hugely valuable as a "lineup-lengthener" at the bottom, so long as they develop to a league average floor and are paired with exquisite defense.

 
Not that you are biased or anything.
 
 
(And yes, I'm still sitting on the band wagon that you are driving).

 

[Rasputin]

I don't see it. In the minors, he's got a woeful 63% SB success rate. With nobody on, he's been brutal (196 / 287 / 265). Strikes out way too much.

I don't think he profiles a leadoff guy, although I could certainly see Bogaerts there as early as next year.

I don't even know where to start. You look at his minor league numbers to dismiss him as a leadoff guy based on stolen base percentage?

Who gives a fuck if he steals bases? His career minor league OBP is .404 and in Portland and Pawtucket it dropped all the way down to the low .370s.

He doesn't have a ton of power so he's not a middle of the order hitter.

If you don't see JBJ as a leadoff hitter you probably can't see at all.

But Bogaerts with all his power is a leadoff guy?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I see JBJ's ceiling as something like Coco Crisp. To me that removes him from the "untouchable" category.

 
This is reasonable, but with two asterisks:
 
1) JBJ was a better hitter in the minors than Crisp. Not hugely, but non-trivially, particularly in the power department.
 
2) Crisp has been a 30-WAR player in the majors, and is still going strong at 34. That's a real good player. You pop champagne corks if a prospect has that career. Not the expensive stuff, but not Taylor either. Granted, you said that was JBJ's ceiling--which I think is slightly pessimistic, but not that far off--but still, depending on how good a bet one thinks JBJ is to reach that semi-ceiling, that might make him untouchable.

 

[SoxLegacy]

I know he's not a "kid" so feel free to split this out if needed, but does anyone see the possibility of the Sox moving Buchholz as part of a package? I only ask this because it seems to me that he's (hopefully) replaceable by RDLR or one of the other AAA pitchers, is fairly young and has a manageable salary. When he's on, he's lights out, but it seems to me that he's always one pitch away from another long DL stint (which I know brings his value down). I just don't believe that the Sox can rely on Buchholz to be a steady part of their rotation. He's a good pitcher, but whenever it's his turn in the rotation, I always wonder which Clay shows up.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

I don't even know where to start. You look at his minor league numbers to dismiss him as a leadoff guy based on stolen base percentage?

Who gives a fuck if he steals bases? His career minor league OBP is .404 and in Portland and Pawtucket it dropped all the way down to the low .370s.

He doesn't have a ton of power so he's not a middle of the order hitter.

If you don't see JBJ as a leadoff hitter you probably can't see at all.

But Bogaerts with all his power is a leadoff guy?

 
JBJ over 413 PA has managed a .299 on-base clip in the bigs. Sure, he could (and hopefully will) improve. But to say someone "can't see at all" because they don't anticipate a guy to undergo a complete transformation from what they have proven to date? Holy hostility batman.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I'm a little surprised that Brock Holt hasn't gotten more love.  I suppose it's a function of there being other brighter prospects, at least in theory, and the belief that midnight might yet strike on Brockerella.
 
Maybe this is exactly the right time to sell high on Holt but at the same time, if one of the Sox home grown kids had produced in AAA the way Holt has produced for the Sox this season, I think there would be a tremendous amount of excitement around him and that many folks would have him in their top three.