Red Sox Hot Stove Rumors
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
Craig can get 400 ABs as a 10th hitter. Keep Hanley and Napoli healthy and great insurance to ease in Castillo [Betts to CF].
Remember, the AAV on Craig's contract is only a little over $6 million, that's of zero value to teams like the Marlins who only have reason to care about the real money he's owed and could potentially become a huge bargain to a team like the Red Sox if he remembers how to hit. And then add in that he still could be optioned to the minors if that seems necessary, and I find it almost impossible to imagine that the Red Sox could agree on the value of Craig's contract with a team that's looking for immediate help and has absolutely no reason to care about the AAV of it.
There's still time to make a productive trade of Cespedes, Nava, or Victorino, but If everyone is healthy at the end of spring training, then you either have to get Craig to accept a demotion to AAA, demote Castillo or Betts instead, or cut one of Nava or Victorino. So there's a potentially large opportunity cost of hanging onto Craig for the off chance he isn't cooked.
Plympton91 said:
Can Craig refuse an optional assignment? According to BBref he will have only just over 4 years of MLB service time on January 1. If I'm reading the rules right, that means the Sox are free to option him as they see fit (players can refuse an optional assignment only after they reach 5 years service time), unless there's some other obscure option rule in play here that I'm not aware of.
I suppose it could be written into his contract, but I don't think there's any reason to believe it is. The Red Sox really need to decide now who they'd be willing to option and who they'd be willing to lose for nothing if it comes to that, and they need to use that decision to help them decide who to trade or not trade now, and they need the resolve to stick to whatever they decide now no matter who happens to look like the best or worst player in the history of the universe during spring training.
I was assuming he had enough time to refuse, so you're probably right.Savin Hillbilly said:
Of course, there's a problem with this strategy. If they want to option him, that means he still looks like a marginal major leaguer even after another offseason of. Recovery time. So, needing to option him means it's more likely the contract is a bust. And, if he looks good enough to keep, you essentially are trading him for the player you'd otherwise keep on the 25 man. Even if that's optioning Betts or CastiLlo, you lose their production relative Craig's, so its not a free option.
Plympton91 said:
I'm assuming the strategy would be to option him and then give him a chance to show he's back by pulverizing AAA pitching. At that point, he arguably becomes more attractive trade bait than he is right now even without bringing him up to MLB, or in the other direction, it becomes more viable to consider moving Napoli to make room for Craig on the 25-man.
Bottom line: we really can't do anything with Craig--either play him or trade him--until he shows that he's gotten over whatever his problem was last year. And the only place where he can show that, given our crowded roster, is AAA.
Only to add to the couple of posts above, if Craig can re-establish value in AAA (which is where I think he should be), he's insurance against a bunch of injuries, given the other roster flexibility. Is there a compelling reason to do anything else with him at this point? Trade him for a B prospect and watch him resurrect his career with the Marlins? And if a couple of guys don't pan out (Castillo)or get injured (Pedroia, Ortiz, Ramirez, Victorino, Napoli) that move looks pretty stupid.
This and the article indicating that they are looking at Craig may allow the Sox to move Craig (will likely cost another unless Sox pick up 2015 salary) and get something in return. I like Heaney as he is a lefty, shown promise (6.1So/9 - 2.1BB/9) and has had a touch of ML experience but do the Sox actually need another pitching prospect. Only LHH I see available would be Nava which the Sox may want to hang on to as he is inexpensive, can be an effective offensively, useful OF/1B and bats LH.MakMan44 said:
Plympton91 said:
I was just pondering this. Even if they trade, say, Cespedes for a starting pitcher, they don't have room for Nava, Victorino, and Craig on the same roster (assuming Castillo and Betts are major leaguers). I suppose, as you say, you could bring them all to spring training and wait for the inevitable injury to create space. I suppose there are enough health question marks among Napoli with his sleep apnea surgery, Craig with his foot, and Victorino with his entire body. Not to mention the fact that Betts and Castillo haven't played a full season in the big leagues before. I'm guessing they hang on to everyone but Cespedes and keep the rest around as insurance, unless they get a really interesting offer for Craig or Victorino (or Nava, for that matter).
Puffy said:
Exactly. They don't need to push a trade agenda for these players, because someone will get injured / show up out of shape / fail to hit a lick before the season begins. There's absolutely no pressure to make a trade with any of these players unless there's a really substantive pitching-related opportunity. And on the off chance that by the end of spring training that all the names above are healthy, hitting, looking good in the field, sleeping at night etc, there will be a team somewhere with an OF / 1B crisis, so a trade can happen when their value is maximised, enabling a restocking of any prospects given up along with Cespedes. It's highly unlikely there will be any opportunity cost to keeping Craig throughout the off-season.
I'm assuming the front office is being clear in their thoughts - focus on a Cespedes-based trade (with add-ins as needed) for a useful starter; sign a top of the rotation FA, add a backup catcher and something nice for the bullpen, then let's go to spring training and let the rest sort itself out there. Because it will. It always does.
"MLB trade rumors: Tigers interested in Yoenis Cespedes, may trade Rick Porcello..."
ttp://www.blessyouboys.com/2014/11/28/7298131/yoenis-cespedes-mlb-trade-rumors-rick-porcello
ttp://www.blessyouboys.com/2014/11/28/7298131/yoenis-cespedes-mlb-trade-rumors-rick-porcello
I wouldn't mind Porcello. He's not sexy, but he's a workhorse (his career low is 27 starts), he doesn't walk people, and he keeps it on the ground. He's gotten steadily better over his past several seasons, and he's still young--he won't turn 26 till next month.
Porcello is an acceptable return. I think he is a free agent after this year though.Savin Hillbilly said:
He doesn't seem too durable, though. 177 innings in 2012 and 2013 (and managed to give up the most hits of any pitcher in 2012 in those 177 innings). Last year he pitched 205 innings but seemingly tired toward the end with a 1.905 WHIP in September. Tigers seemed to try to keep him to 100 pitches per start. He throws strikes, so that was good enough for a 6.1 average last year, but he can't be counted on to go deep. He's a decent number 4 and probably fair for Cespedes, but nothing to do back flips about. It's interesting that after 1 below average start in the 2011 ALDS, Detroit relegated him to the bullpen in the next three years in the playoffs and barely used him. Maybe when you have Verlander and Scherzer, that's what you do.
Looking at Porcello's year last season compared to his previous 5, here are the biggest differences I noticed:
Career low in BABIP against, LOB% above career rate.
He gave up a lot more flyballs, but they left the park at the lowest rate of his career.
He threw the fastball less. and walked the fewest guys in his career.
Career low in BABIP against, LOB% above career rate.
He gave up a lot more flyballs, but they left the park at the lowest rate of his career.
He threw the fastball less. and walked the fewest guys in his career.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
67WasBest said:
I'd do the deal. Almost makes too much sense.
Both have avg slightly under a 3 war
Both have contracts up at the end of the year.
Porcello is younger and has more upside, Detroit needs a OF bat. The team isn't dealing Cespedes for prospects, and If he goes to Philly he's basically a throw in unless Armaro is insane. In no case do I see X, Betts, Swihart, Owens included. I think it would have to take Cespedes, Rodriguez, and Devers. The difference between Porcello and Hamels is probably 1 to 1.5 war.
For me bottom line just overpay for Lester, as long as its not too insane and use Cespedas to get a quality MLB proven starter.
Porcello only concerns me after watching what an entire rotation of 5 K/9 guys did this past year after the trade deadline. At a certain point, you have to recognize that the best predictor of future pitching success (at least in terms of SIERA, xFIP) is going to be strikeout rate, simply because it is something the pitcher has a lot of control over. If you have a ton of guys who don't miss bats, you need to rely on more luck. We already have Kelly, who has a very similar K rate and batted ball/GB profile to Porcello, and I think he is likely to turn into a similar pitcher as he gets his walks down a bit.
If we are going to trade Cespedes, I would rather take a chance on a guy with slightly worse recent numbers but a better K rate, and hope that the pitching coaches can reduce walks and/or home runs that often plague such pitchers.
If we are going to trade Cespedes, I would rather take a chance on a guy with slightly worse recent numbers but a better K rate, and hope that the pitching coaches can reduce walks and/or home runs that often plague such pitchers.
Yeah, though he's been a starter all his career and by 2012 he had three years and nearly 100 starts under his belt. So there's good reason to think he is what he is in terms of durability. I'm not saying 170 innings is something to sneeze at. That's top 40 or 50 in the league, I think. Just that for for five years, he was a 170 inning guy, and when they tried to pitch him more lastt he was not very good in those last 30 innings. The Tigers treat him as a 100 pitch guy. If he can truly be a sub 3.80 or so FIP guy, maybe he's a 3, but he will definitely require consumption of bullpen resources.67WasBest said:
I'm not disagreeing with any of the numbers, only trying to point out that he was young and still learning how to pitch. It's quite reasonable to accept he finally figured it out at 25, the same age as our kids who are still trying to refine their tools. He was solid in 2014 and I see that performance more indicative of what we should expect going forward.
That relish must have been bitter when he spun a 6 hit, 1 run 8 inning win against us last year.mfried said:
I was hoping that Coespedes might snag Iwakuma. But now I'm reading that Iwakuma isn't available. Is that right?
Hadn't read that anywhere, but it does make sense because they may have to trade some young pitching for hitting and that could leave them short.InsideTheParker said:
Porcello's career ERA vs the Red Sox is 7.67.
He's just really not very good. I think there's also a reasonable chance that the Sox already have the second coming of Porcello in Allen Webster
Trying to get myself excited about the possibility of Rick Porcello in a Red Sox uniform.
I admit it's hard for me to do.
Last year? Yeah, not bad when all is said and done: 204.2 ip (between 6.1 and 6.2 ip per game), 3.43 era, 116 era+, 3.67 fip, 4.0 bWAR
If that's what the Sox are getting, then that's a solid #2 starter. Those numbers are better than Lackey's in 2013:
Porcello (2014): 204.2 ip (between 6.40 ip per game), 3.43 era, 116 era+, 3.67 fip, 4.0 bWAR
Lackey (2013): 189.2 ip (6.52 ip per game), 3.58 era, 117 era+, 3.86 fip, 2.8 bWAR
And we won a World Series with Lackey (not saying Porcello would duplicate his post-season performance; just saying you can win with a #2 like this).
So, yay, rah-rah.
But……I just can't get excited about him. If he gave us what he produced in 2014, then yes, I'll be happy. I just am not at all convinced that he will deliver that. Career numbers just aren't inspiring. However, a few things to note:
1. Look at his era numbers from 2010-2014: 4.92, 4.75, 4.59, 4.32, 3.43. Is 3.43 an aberration? Maybe. But it's also the last data point on a very positive trend. So maybe he's just hitting his stride.
2. Which is possible, given that he's entering his prime years. He'll be just 26 in 2015. So maybe he's just started to figure it out.
3. Contract: Arbitration eligible for 2015, free agent in 2016. So….would he be a good candidate for an extension, or are we trading one one-year rental for another? Who knows.
Long story short, my idea was that if we can't get Lester, we load up on quality #2 types, and Porcello *MAY* fit that bill.
Did I just convince myself that the Sox should do this deal? Ummmmmm………. not so sure yet.
I admit it's hard for me to do.
Last year? Yeah, not bad when all is said and done: 204.2 ip (between 6.1 and 6.2 ip per game), 3.43 era, 116 era+, 3.67 fip, 4.0 bWAR
If that's what the Sox are getting, then that's a solid #2 starter. Those numbers are better than Lackey's in 2013:
Porcello (2014): 204.2 ip (between 6.40 ip per game), 3.43 era, 116 era+, 3.67 fip, 4.0 bWAR
Lackey (2013): 189.2 ip (6.52 ip per game), 3.58 era, 117 era+, 3.86 fip, 2.8 bWAR
And we won a World Series with Lackey (not saying Porcello would duplicate his post-season performance; just saying you can win with a #2 like this).
So, yay, rah-rah.
But……I just can't get excited about him. If he gave us what he produced in 2014, then yes, I'll be happy. I just am not at all convinced that he will deliver that. Career numbers just aren't inspiring. However, a few things to note:
1. Look at his era numbers from 2010-2014: 4.92, 4.75, 4.59, 4.32, 3.43. Is 3.43 an aberration? Maybe. But it's also the last data point on a very positive trend. So maybe he's just hitting his stride.
2. Which is possible, given that he's entering his prime years. He'll be just 26 in 2015. So maybe he's just started to figure it out.
3. Contract: Arbitration eligible for 2015, free agent in 2016. So….would he be a good candidate for an extension, or are we trading one one-year rental for another? Who knows.
Long story short, my idea was that if we can't get Lester, we load up on quality #2 types, and Porcello *MAY* fit that bill.
Did I just convince myself that the Sox should do this deal? Ummmmmm………. not so sure yet.
MakMan44 said:
Yes, but that was due to an unusually high strikeout rate: 7.2 k/9. He had never come close to that before, and didn't again in 2014. K/9 rates:
2009: 4.7
2010: 4.6
2011: 5.1
2012: 5.5
2013: 7.2
2014: 5.7
So it's a pretty big outlier. If he ever could combine his nice sinking action with a lot of strikeouts, then he becomes a very nice pitcher.
As a #2 I'm okay with it but if he's the ace of the rotation then I'm a tad concerned. He's a solid pitcher that comes to play every start but he's not and ace. Well, not yet at least. Good numbers this season, nice career trending, young, not a one year rental. Having him with Lester makes great sense. His pitching style differs enough from Lester to make the lefty/righty even more significant. The Sox defense should be able to handle the ground balls well enough.
I worry that his best year came from lots of fly balls in Comerica, but the chart doesn't actually look too bad:
There are between 6 and 10 outs there that look like HRs or XBH in Fenway (depends on those couple right at the wall in Left and the triangle.) however RF takes back 4 HRs,
There are between 6 and 10 outs there that look like HRs or XBH in Fenway (depends on those couple right at the wall in Left and the triangle.) however RF takes back 4 HRs,
Beyond just maturing into a better pitcher in 2014, it must have been nice for Porcello to get away from the infield of Cabrera, Peralta, Infante and "Fielder."
Of course the Sox should do this deal, that is unless they can find someone better for Cespedes, which they likely will not unless adding pieces. Trading surplus OFers for decent to good pitching is a no-brainer, IMO.
Speaking of adding pieces, Porcello is likely going to warrant draft pick compensation next year so that would be an added plus vs. Cespedes.
Good point and with the Sox already banking the supplemental next year, would Detroit ask for an arm like Webster to be included?wade boggs chicken dinner said:
sackamano said:
Are you kidding me? His war the past four years is 2.95. Webster has the command of Bard lite lite, Porcello walked over three batters per 9 once in his career. He's a really good piece, is he a ace no. He's better than anyone on the current staff, Buchholz is as reliable as Jonas Gray charger.
- Status