Depends on how many pennies on the dollar they'd settle for. His stock is at an all time low.Fireball Fred said:
Start, Sit, Trade: Play Along with Dave
- Thread starter nothumb
- Start date
Hopefully Alex Cora gets the managerial job in San Diego so we can send his pal Rusney over there. Many pitching pieces there we could use, both SP and RP. Of course, Rusney would never be the centerpiece of a big deal.
I'm still bullish on Castillo. Showed signs of improving and was his first full year state side. Next year will tell a lot. Remember he was out of baseball for a little bit as well. If he can come close to replicating someone like Gardner then he's a steal at the price.ArgentinaSOXfan said:
Castillo will not ever come close to replicating Gardner. His batting approach is more like Garner's diametric opposite. His baserunning skills are, as well. Frankly, Castillo is probably most like Gardner's evil twin, essentially different in every way that matters.Tyrone Biggums said:
If the Sox are really, really lucky, Castillo might come close to replicating Vernon Wells.
Fireball Fred said:
Hanley is the guy I'd most like to move. He doesn't have a natural position, he needs to produce at a high level offensively to cover up his defensive flaws, he has had injury problems in recent years and there are long standing question marks about his attitude (which is not a as big of a problem as some in the media like to argue). Plus, the Sox seem to have a guy in Travis Shaw that can step in for him and provide similar value and another kid in Sam Travis who may be less than a year away from doing the same. However, as others have pointed out there is no market for Hanley, so he's likely immoveable.
Pablo on the other hand may have a market. 3B is not a strong position across baseball and Pablo has been a good 3B as recently as 2014. I don't think a team is going to take on his whole contract (given its size and his size), but if subsidized, there is a team out there that could be interested in him. The problem with trading Pablo, is that it may create a hole in the roster because while there are guys that may be able to play 3B, there are some serious questions and limitations regarding those options that may make them lesser options than Pablo.
So, if DD needs to free up payroll to address pitching, then I'd focus on trading Pablo because he's imminently more moveable. However, if payroll is not an issue, I'd try to get another season or two out of Pablo before jettisoning him (and for what its worth I think he is ultimately moved before his contract ends).
Sonny Gray has the same amount of service time accrued this winter as Josh Donaldson last year. Maybe Beane sees moving these guys multiple years away from arbitration as a new market efficiency I don't know (actually there is a good chance this was the reasoning).......what I DO know is that we have a precedent of Beane tradng a cost controlled star so dismissing it altogether would be foolish.
What would it take? Based on last years deal you'd need a replacement for Gray's inning in Miley just as Lawrie was for JD (which is an ideal fit for both teams)......then some top prospects. Miley, Margot, JBJ, and Owens? One more prospect?
What would it take? Based on last years deal you'd need a replacement for Gray's inning in Miley just as Lawrie was for JD (which is an ideal fit for both teams)......then some top prospects. Miley, Margot, JBJ, and Owens? One more prospect?
HomeRunBaker said:
Brett Lawrie and Wade Miley are not analogous. Neither are Donaldson and Gray.
Lawrie is a 25 year old pre-arb player with a solid pedigree (1st round pick, top 100 prospect) and high ceiling. He was rushed to the majors and has not yet lived up to potential, but has been a good 3B (solid defense with a mid-.700 OPS). He was a solid bet to replace Donaldson's 2013/2014 production moving forward. Wade Miley will be 29 in 2016 and is signed through age 31 (with option). He costs ~$7M per season. He boasts a career 101 ERA+. He is the definition of a league average innings eater. He does not have the stuff or the pedigree to expect he will ever be much more. The only thing he has a chance of replacing is Gray's innings, but in now way will he come close to Gray's performance. On the other side of the trade proposal, Donaldson was a very talented late bloomer who had problems with the organization, which prompted Beane to trade him. Gray is a 26 year old elite starter who has been a stud since he was called up and has no problems with the organization (or so it seems).
In the Donaldson trade, Beane replaced a very good player that he had problems with, with a younger player who profiled as a good bet to replace most if not all of Donaldson's production and he got 2 near MLB ready pitchers and a stud SS prospect. In the trade you are proposing, Beane would trade a young cost controlled elite pitcher with a more expensive older league average pitcher and some hodgepodge of good young Sox players, which does not include any of their best options for IF, OF or Ps (e.g., EdRo, Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza). Do you not see how these situations and trade proposals are widely different? And why your proposal is not just off base but totally out to lunch? If not, consider this, if Beane was to eat stupid pills and decide trade Sonny Gray, don't you think he would get a better offer than one that features Wade Miley, his ~$7M per year contract, Owens and Margot?
If I am Beane, I'm looking to trade Gray (and I wouldn't be), I would not settle for less than a King's ransom. That means at least Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart with Owens or EdRo, Barnes, Workman or Light and a couple nice pieces from the lower minors (e.g., Guerra, Kopech, Chavis, Bentendi, Rijo). If you could talk me off of Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart then I'm looking for Moncada and Espinoza. Cost controlled starting pitchers don't get traded for less than bluechip pieces in return and certainly don't get traded for Wade freaking Miley.
The Donaldson trade is an outlier. It was done due to extenuating circumstances resulting from his relationship with the organization. Trades like this are not the new norm. In 2015, teams are holding on to young cost controlled players, particularly elite starting pitchers. Just because we want Sonny Gray and wouldn't mind getting rid of Wade Miley and good organizational filler doesn't mean it is going to happen. This is discussed over and over again in the My Unrealistic Trade Ideas thread. Give it a read and please stop with Sonny Gray (same for Chris Sale or Jose Fernandez).
Not only that, but if there were a pitcher worth giving up a King's ransom for, as you called it, I don't think it would be Gray. Yes, he's had two good years in a row, but I think he's a serious regression candidate. He posted a league average K%, a worse than average BB%, and misses bats at a mediocre rate. His SIERA of 3.80 (as compared to his ERA of 2.73) shows that he's not a lock to be elite in the future.jasail said:
As you said, just to get Beane to even pick up the phone would require an incredible offer. If I'm going to give up that massive package of young talent, I would want someone with far less risk than Gray.
A serious question: why, right now, would any team with a young, good, cheap starting pitcher make any trade with the Red Sox where they settle for anything less than Moncada/Espinoza/Devers (or, depending on the team, Betts/Swihart)? The entire league knows the Sox need a top-flight starter. Very few of them have compelling reasons to move that pitcher in the first place, since they are, as mentioned, still cheap and those teams would also like to be good in the near future. In short, I'm not sure where the Sox are getting the leverage that would enable them to move the "tier two" guys, however you want to define that, instead of the big three (or four).
It's not about leverage, it's about the fact that teams with outstanding young pitchers generally just don't trade them. If there is one traded, they would be traded for whatever the trading team could get.Danny_Darwin said:
Regardless, it's silly. There's no reason to go trading for someone when there are more really high quality pitchers available as free agents this offseason than pretty much ever in recorded history.
Rasputin said:
Well, I know you know the arguments against signing an older FA pitcher for a hell of a lot of money. Odds are the ends of those contracts are probably going to be ugly. The contracts signed this offseason may make Lester's deal like look a bargain. If they can trade some 'maybe someday they'll be awesome in MLB' guys for 'awesome right now in MLB' guys at a reasonable price, then maybe they can avoid being left holding a deadweight contract later on. Obviously everything depends on the price, though. If the number of good starters on the market means they can get a good deal on Cueto or something, great. But if for some reason they can use some prospect depth to get a good deal on a Sale or something insane, also great.
Although I totally agree that outstanding young pitchers don't generally get traded. Acquiring players like that is basically the ultimate goal of every GM.
I would gladly take a dead year or two of paying Price or Greinke or Cueto a big chunk of change in five years over watching Betts or X be a stud for some other team. Because if you're targeting a Sale or a Gray, both pipe dreams mind you, that's who it's going to take. Packages built around Wade Miley and Manuel Margot aren't getting us a young, price controlled stud. People can cite recent trades and try to make equivalencies but bottom line is that there are dozens of factors built into any trade that we literally know nothing about.
"Well Beane traded Donaldson for X, Y and Z. That should equal A, B and C from our system so we can probably get Gray for him". No, you probably can't. You don't know what Beane and the A's scouting department think about any of those players. You don't know if Beane is buddies with Anthoupolis and was out having drinks and lost a bet. You don't know if Epstein had pictures of Beane that led to him trading Addison Russell for Shark and Hamels or Kenny Williams took care of a dead hooker for him for moving Shark to him for Semien and junk.
But really, we don't know how teams rate other teams prospects and how valuable those ratings are. If DD called up another GM tomorrow with a trade offer, that GM isn't pulling up the Internet to check what Callis or Sickels or Law thinks. He's calling his scouting department. And much like many do on NFL draft day with BB, sometimes it's going to make us scratch our heads because they don't line up. Sometimes that gets you a Sebastian Vollmer. Sometimes it gets you a Tavon Wilson. It's no different. People way overestimate how much difference there is between a player ranked #20 and ranked #50.
I'm sorry, I'm on a tangent, but it drives me nuts. You can't try to cite previous trades because it changes daily and there's a ton of dynamics we don't know or can't understand. As to the question of paying or trading for a stud, I would prefer to pay. We are cost controlled everywhere other than Porcello, Ramirez and Sandoval and all those guys wil be off the books by the time we would need to worry about eating a dead year at the back end of a contract. And if it pays out I have no problem doing that. We ate three years of Lackey and I'd do it again in a heartbeat because it won a WS.
X, Betts, Swihart, JBJ, EdRod are all cheap as shit for 4-5 more years. Pedroia, Miley, Castillo are controlled for a value surplus. Clay is a crapshoot. Papi and Koji are off the books soon. There's money to be spent. Spend it. Then deal the flotsam for young power arms for the bullpen. Keep the studs.
As a side note, not that I'm citing anyone specifically, but I'd love to do a cross reference on those saying they should dump Sandoval or Hanley out of one side of their mouth and then also saying they should trade for rather than sign a big name pitcher. I don't understand how those feeling are reconciled other than a personal dislike of Pablo or Hanley. There's no bigger example of dead money than paying a guy to play for another team. At least if a Price is putting up a 4.50 era in five years he's eating innings for the team.
"Well Beane traded Donaldson for X, Y and Z. That should equal A, B and C from our system so we can probably get Gray for him". No, you probably can't. You don't know what Beane and the A's scouting department think about any of those players. You don't know if Beane is buddies with Anthoupolis and was out having drinks and lost a bet. You don't know if Epstein had pictures of Beane that led to him trading Addison Russell for Shark and Hamels or Kenny Williams took care of a dead hooker for him for moving Shark to him for Semien and junk.
But really, we don't know how teams rate other teams prospects and how valuable those ratings are. If DD called up another GM tomorrow with a trade offer, that GM isn't pulling up the Internet to check what Callis or Sickels or Law thinks. He's calling his scouting department. And much like many do on NFL draft day with BB, sometimes it's going to make us scratch our heads because they don't line up. Sometimes that gets you a Sebastian Vollmer. Sometimes it gets you a Tavon Wilson. It's no different. People way overestimate how much difference there is between a player ranked #20 and ranked #50.
I'm sorry, I'm on a tangent, but it drives me nuts. You can't try to cite previous trades because it changes daily and there's a ton of dynamics we don't know or can't understand. As to the question of paying or trading for a stud, I would prefer to pay. We are cost controlled everywhere other than Porcello, Ramirez and Sandoval and all those guys wil be off the books by the time we would need to worry about eating a dead year at the back end of a contract. And if it pays out I have no problem doing that. We ate three years of Lackey and I'd do it again in a heartbeat because it won a WS.
X, Betts, Swihart, JBJ, EdRod are all cheap as shit for 4-5 more years. Pedroia, Miley, Castillo are controlled for a value surplus. Clay is a crapshoot. Papi and Koji are off the books soon. There's money to be spent. Spend it. Then deal the flotsam for young power arms for the bullpen. Keep the studs.
As a side note, not that I'm citing anyone specifically, but I'd love to do a cross reference on those saying they should dump Sandoval or Hanley out of one side of their mouth and then also saying they should trade for rather than sign a big name pitcher. I don't understand how those feeling are reconciled other than a personal dislike of Pablo or Hanley. There's no bigger example of dead money than paying a guy to play for another team. At least if a Price is putting up a 4.50 era in five years he's eating innings for the team.
I admit I have this opinion, and I think it's logically consistent, assuming Henry's going to treat the Luxury Tax threshold as a relatively hard cap to his spending.Papelbon said:
I reconcile the apparent logical contradiction of my opinion this way: the Red Sox farm system has actually now produced enough cost-controlled hitting with surplus value remaining, that Panda's expected contribution on offense and defense marginally above, say, Travis Shaw and Brock Holt sharing full-time duties at 3B, is not likely to be as significant as the expected improvement to the team by allocating some of that money to improving the bullpen, because the farm system has not actually now produced any cost-controlled relief pitching of a championship quality since Tazawa, who is in his last year of club control.
In other words, allocating some of Panda's money to upgrade the pen from Barnes or Machi to, say, Clippard, "wasting" the rest as a sunk cost offset against the surplus value provided by the good, young position players, and banking the rest (if any) to pay for a mid-season trade acquisition, should improvem to the overall performance of the team. But only because the farm has completely failed to produce any quality relief pitchers since 2012 and the Sox are close to what's assumed to be Henry's spending limits, not because it's an efficient or elegant way to do business going forward.
The money is already there to sign a "big name" starter, but not to do that AND fix the bullpen. At least, not without freeing up some cash from bad contracts currently on the books or totally blowing through what we have come to expect to be Henry's spending limit. And any offseason strategy must begin first with the team's most glaring need: to add quality arms to the pen.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I think before we say Castillo is controlled for a value surplus he has to establish what his value is. If he can be at least a 2-win major league player consistently, his contract will be a solid bargain. That's not a high bar, and it seems likely he can clear it, but we haven't seen enough yet to call that a given. Most of his value on paper so far has been defensive. With the bat he's been pretty bad--poor discipline, mediocre contact, and fringey power. If he doesn't improve significantly, it will take a lot of defense to make up for that, especially if he's not playing center, which for us he almost certainly won't be.
PP: You're right, we don't know what other GMs think of our prospects, but they could like them, too. We do know that Beane has a long history of trading cost-controlled young players for multiple younger players, typically out of low budget necessity. It's not just Donaldson. He traded 4 years of Gio Gonzalez for the Nat's #3, 4, 9 and Milone. No Harper or Strasburg or Rendon. Gio wasn't as good as Gray, but he was still good. And desirable. Of course, he dealt Cahill that off-season, too, as part of a rebuild coming off a disappointing season. Like this past season.
None of which is to say that Gray's available or that the Sox will get him. But DD should explore it, and no one would or should be shocked if he pulled it off without giving up X or Betts or even Swihart.
None of which is to say that Gray's available or that the Sox will get him. But DD should explore it, and no one would or should be shocked if he pulled it off without giving up X or Betts or even Swihart.
alwyn96 said:
And I know that you know that you're going to pay a lot of something for a great pitcher be it money or talent. And I know that you know that we've got the pitching depth worked out just fine. And I know that you know that the lineup is pretty much set. We're an ace starter and a couple bullpen arms away from being one of the best teams at the major league level AND having one of the top minor league systems.
Say we sign Grienke to an eight year deal and he's great for the first three, declining to rather pedestrian in years five and six. There's a good chance we're not going to need him to be an ace in those years. Rodriguez, Owens, and Johnson aren't even going to be 30. Porcello 31, Miley 32. Anderson Espinoza will be 22. Michael Kopech 24.
Payroll efficiency is not the goal. Winning the World Series as many times as possible is the goal. Most of the time, payroll efficiency supports the goal. Sometimes it doesn't.
Buzzkill Pauley said:
This line of thinking kills me. A couple guys have some less than stellar seasons and now their contracts are bad. Here's a fact for you. You can't have any confidence that Sandoval or Ramirez are going to have bad years next year. It's one thing to say there are going to be bad years at the end of the contract and another entirely to say there aren't going to be good years first. Meanwhile the team can be good now and oh by the way, it has players coming along--highly regarded ones--that can be playing first and or third a few years from now.
How does it make sense to pay someone else to play them now? Play them now when they're relatively good. When Devers and Moncada or whoever become better options, dump them. Same dead money, but you get the good years.
As for not having the money to fix the bullpen, I don't buy it. We're talking two guys. Chapman and Kimbrel combined don't make 20 million next year and they're the two top guys anyone talks about. And frankly, ownership can pay 20 million over the luxury tax without a big problem.
Buzzkill Pauley said:
I had a long response that the board ate, so I'll just summarize:
- There's no reason to think the luxury line is a hard cap. Henry has gone past it before, stated this year that the benefits of staying under it weren't what they expected and going over for a year or two is not going to be very expensive to do. I don't expect them to be the Dodgers or be repeat offenders for the next five years, but with the expectation it will rise i the very near future, I fully expect them to go over. YMMV.
- Eating half of Sandoval's contract nets you one reliever, which is what market rates are these days. And that gets you one of the more volatile and unpredictable commodities in baseball on a 3-4 year deal. The odds are solid that if you go pay Tyler Clippard the money you save over the same period, you end up wasting that money too. The Sox should be targeting young, hard throwing guys. The Henry Owens, Brian Johnsons and Deven Marreros of this organization should be used to go get those guys, because they are not bring you back a #1 pitcher.
- I have no idea how you can reconcile Shaw sharing fill time duties at third base, but in another thread claim he shouldn't be the backup 1B because of his defense.
Minneapolis Millers said:
This is precisely the type of nonsense I am talking about.
You're arbitrarily choosing one pundit rankings and trying to use those to assign value to the trade package he received. You have no fucking clue how Beane and his staff rated the players (of which Strasburg was no longer a prospect, btw), be it the prospects targeted or the player they were moving. Maybe they were scared off by Rendon's shoulder injury. Maybe, unlike you, he understood the rules and knew that Rendon couldn't even be traded at that point because he had just been drafted.
Either way, the #3 prospect in one system =/= the #3 prospect in any other system. They most likely aren't even considered the #3 prospect by another GM, because no two systems value players exactly the same way. Once Harper and Rendon made the MLB, does the guy that was #3 and is now "#1" suddenly become more valuable? No, he doesn't.
Which is to say nothing of the marble mouthed attempt at forging some kind of equivalency. "Well, Gio isn't as good as Gray, but he was good and desirable. And they were rebuilding and might be now too. So really, our #3, #4 and #9 should get it done. Espinosa, Margot and Travis and we are done." It doesn't work that way. GMs don't work with these terms or off this value system.
Rasputin said:
There are only three years left in Hanley's contract, so if he's going to give us good years first he'd better get a move on.
I think it's reasonable to call Hanley's deal "bad" at this point, considering that in order for the Sox to break even on it they'll need him to be about a 4-win player over the next three years as a 1B-then-DH, at ages 32 to 34. Being a 4-win player as a 1B is hard. As a DH it's really hard.
Even if you forget about 2015 and just look at the chances of the Sox getting $66M worth of value over the next three years, the chances don't look good. At this point the question isn't whether it's a bad contract, it's "how bad?".
Minneapolis Millers said:
Just to piggyback on this--it looks to me like the Oakland system is in the worst shape it's been in for a long, long time. The big-league roster is ghastly and the minor-league system was ranked #23 in MLB by BA going into this year. It seems highly improbable that they can contend much before 2020 unless ownership gives Beane carte blanche to spend money. So they might very well be looking at a situation where Gray won't be able to help them win anything until he's not a good value anymore. If that's the case, it might be good strategy to try to cash him in for several prospects who are likely to be useful by 2020.
I'm not saying this means Gray will be available at a price we'll be comfortable with. But I don't understand the idea that Beane wouldn't be interested in trading him, or willing to listen to reasonable offers. For the next 2-3 years, unless Beane has a deux ex machina lurking or I'm missing something, Gray is probably the difference between a 70-win team and a 75-win team. Might as well deal him for pieces that might, a few years later, be the collective difference between an 80-win team and a 90-win team.
And a few years ago he turned a 74 win team into a team that made three straight playoffs appearances that no one expected. Billy Beane retools he doesn't rebuild.
OK, it's impossible for us to know for sure what which good, young starting pitchers are going to be available this offseason, if any. And if there are any, it's impossible for us to know what their team(s) would be looking for in return. But we know the Sox need an ace, and we know the Sox have one of the most highly regarded farm systems in baseball so if there is someone available, the Sox should be aggressive in making a deal. All it takes is one GM who looked at JBJ's godlike month and saw a future MVP, and he's the centerpiece of a trade for an ace. All it takes is for the Mets ownership to decide they are dumping Harvey for the best offer, and the Sox have the ability to make the best offer.
So I don't know exactly what the trade parameters will be, but of the two options I'd rather see the Sox get an ace through a trade than by signing Price.
So I don't know exactly what the trade parameters will be, but of the two options I'd rather see the Sox get an ace through a trade than by signing Price.
Not sure. But any trade for Mark Pri-- I mean Stephen Strasburg, involving any one of Betts, X, EdRo, Swihart, Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, or Espinoza is bound to look awful.soxhop411 said:
I'd be willing to see how far Margot and Owens gets you but Stras is a very high risk rental.
- If you think the Sox are going to blow through the luxury tax threshold because of Henry's comments, that's cool. We're starting from a different set of assumptions, and so are bound to come to different conclusions.Papelbon's Poutine said:
- Clippard was just a name I pulled out of a hat. But he would still likely be a huge upgrade in the pen over the 2015 version of Barnes or Machi. If you want to put up any specific names you'd prefer, no one's stopping you from naming names.
- I never said anywhere that the Sox shouldn't use Shaw as a backup 1B. I said I thought they had a better option for Hanley's 9th inning defensive replacement in Marrero. There's a difference in tactical use and expectations between those two functional roles, that I was trying to highlight. But whatever, go ahead and pile on.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
It's hard to escape the conclusion that he got really, really lucky in 2012 and 2013 (perhaps a bit less so in 2014, when he assembled a genuinely good, as opposed to lovably overachieving, starting rotation).
Anyway, that patented Beane smoke-mirrors-and-scrap-heap-revivals stuff worked when the AL West was a weak, four-team division. It's a stronger five-team division now, and I think to contend going forward the A's are going to have to develop some talent and/or spend some money, just like everybody else.
Buzzkill Pauley said:
It wasn't that long ago that the Sox were the second most luxury taxed team in the history of major league baseball. Using the phrase "blow[ing] through the luxury tax threshhold" suggests going through it easily and by a lot, but nobody is even remotely suggesting that. A free agent ace can fit under the cap which means the extent the team needs to go over the cap is limited by the fact that the money is being used to fix the bullpen. The bullpen. Those are relatively cheap guys. If the Sox could somehow pluck both of the top two bullpen trade targets, the total expenditure would still be less than $20 million in 2016. That's not blowing through the cap. It's a carefully considered expenditure that results in a relatively low luxury tax burden.
Buzzkill Pauley said:
Why the hell would you even think of using Marrero at first? It just doesn't compute. He's not a first baseman, he's not going to practice there. Practicing there is wasting his time.
soxhop411 said:
Strasburg does present a potentially interesting alternative option to going to FA route, especially once past an acknowledgement that the cost controlled possibilities like Gray/Sale/ect are pure not-even-on-the-table fantasy.
If Nats decide to move him you'd have to guess that the expected return value would be somewhat limited, at least in a sense that nobody is probably going to be trading away any young studs that have already broken some ground at the MLB level for a rental (with durability concerns to boot). So i can't really see them having the leverage to stand firm on an inclusion of Betts or X, or even Swihart for that matter.
There is also value in buying us another year of avoiding the mega deal (that's not going to end up being David Price), and/or at least getting an in-house look at a guy before doing so. Not sure atm and offhand what i would or wouldn't Trade for Strasburg, but assuming it would take a similar deal to pull off the commonly suggested Chapman acquisition, i'd probably prefer making that type of play on the former.
PP:
It would be "marble-mouthed" perhaps if I were talking, but I'm typing, so... Look, I get that you think you're a smarter internet GM than the rest of us. I get that you want to fight, so you ignore caveats, in favor of pejoratives and absolutes. Doesn't make you right.
In fact, by your quasi-logic, since no available rankings systems are reliable and GMs might well have completely different valuations, maybe we should just hope that Beane LOVES Marrero and trades us Gray straight up for him, cuz, well, who knows.
Prospects get traded. Studs get traded, Young studs get traded. No one's actually suggesting Marrero for Gray, just quantity+quality instead of only quality. It's a simple enough equation to speculate over, and one that Beane has shown an appreciation for, even if you haven't.
It would be "marble-mouthed" perhaps if I were talking, but I'm typing, so... Look, I get that you think you're a smarter internet GM than the rest of us. I get that you want to fight, so you ignore caveats, in favor of pejoratives and absolutes. Doesn't make you right.
In fact, by your quasi-logic, since no available rankings systems are reliable and GMs might well have completely different valuations, maybe we should just hope that Beane LOVES Marrero and trades us Gray straight up for him, cuz, well, who knows.
Prospects get traded. Studs get traded, Young studs get traded. No one's actually suggesting Marrero for Gray, just quantity+quality instead of only quality. It's a simple enough equation to speculate over, and one that Beane has shown an appreciation for, even if you haven't.
soxhop411 said:
1 year of Strasburg (who has generated a total of three 5th place Cy Young votes in his career) has to cost a good bit less than DD paid for 1.5 years of Price, right?
Initially I thought Owens/Devers/Shaw. But through that lens, I think that might be too much.
moondog80 said:
Yeah, that strikes me as too much.
Owens, Guerra, and Ball might be a better bet. Owens is major league ready. Guerra is a potential plus player at a premium position, and Ball is a bit of a lottery ticket, but more like a four number keno than the Powerball.
Miley + Marrero + Rijo for Strasburg + Papelbon + $7.5MMsoxhop411 said:
Nats get three years of a veteran #3 innings eater and six of a MLB-ready good-glove SS to gfin before the Harper/Scherzer/Gonzalez window closes, plus a low-odds lottery ticket middle infielder. And of course, they get rid of the headache who choke-slammed the team's biggest star.
The Sox get one year of a health-risk #1, some funds to offest any luxury tax payable on the season, and a hard-throwing bullpen arm. Who is also a headache, of course, but who might be more less of one under his old pitching coach's steady hand.
moondog80 said:
So I guess this is what I'm talking about, because I just don't get why any team is going to do the Red Sox any favors in these hypothetical negotiations. This is how I'm envisioning these conversations going down.
DD: So, Strasburg?
Rizzo: Sure, for Moncada. Maybe Devers and Espinoza. But, yeah, mostly Moncada.
DD: Hm. What about for Margot/Owens/Shaw? I'll even throw in Trey Ball and Javy Guerra!
Rizzo: <three beeps indicating the call has ended> <trades Strasburg to NY for Bird and Severino instead>
If Strasburg really is available, there will be no shortage of teams who are at least interested. And not every one of them has someone as good as Moncada or a Devers, but many of them do have good prospects who project to be big-league regulars (and I agree with PP - the rankings of BA/Law/whoever mean nothing to front offices).
Now, inevitably, several of you will point out that Strasburg isn't that good. Fine. Sub in your favorite trade target and the point remains the same.
Were the Rays doing the Tigers a favor when they traded Price (who was better, more durable, and had an extra year of team control) without getting anyone's top prospect in return? How about the Red Sox with Lester?Danny_Darwin said:
moondog80 said:
Those are deadline deals (which is a different animal from a winter-meeting deal to begin with) where at least one of those teams was looking to reload rather than get anyone's top prospect to begin with. Maybe Washington would be too, but I'm just responding to what people are saying here. If that's the case, then we're back to the other guys wanting Betts-Swihart, and everyone knows that isn't happening so what is even the point?
Minneapolis Millers said:
The point is none of us are "smart internet GMs", because none of us are actual GMs. We have no idea what each individual GM factors into his decisions. It's fun to sit and speculate, but at some point some reality has to set in and some proper perspective. It's not about ignoring caveats and focusing on absolutes and pejoratives, it's about acknowledging our limitations and our prejudices. The history of prospect humping around here dates far past your membership. Last year around this time we had a member claiming we could trade for Cueto using only Sean Coyle and Travis Shaw. Think that over for a bit and the compare it to what they got for two months of him.
If you think GMs rely on BA and Law and Sickels, etc. I would ask you why they spend so much time and money on scouting departments? Wouldn't it make more sense just to buy subscriptions to everything and have an intern put together a spreadsheet?
As to the bolded, no GM worth his salt is selling a dollar for four quarters. My problem is some don't even know how to identify a quarter in this scenario. Case in point:
Buzzkill Pauley said:
The Nats already have six years of a good glove and also good bat SS that is a far better player than Marrero. His name is Trea Turner. I'm not sure they would place much value in Marrero when his ceiling is likely this generation's Adam Everett.
Didn't realize that about Turner, since I don't follow the Nats.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Who would YOU suggest, PP?
Papelbon also isn't a hard thrower anymore, and I want him nowhere near a roster full of young kids just breaking into the majors.
Buzzkill Pauley said:
Thank you again for proving my point. You don't even know the roster of the team you're proposing a trade with.
Let's turn back the clock a year and say the Sox were possibly putting Lester on the market. You're sitting with a Diamondbacks fan and he proposes Wade Miley, Didi Gregorious (who is about as much as I think you could ever hope for from Marrero) and a low odds lottery ticket middle infielder. Would you not have at least discounted anything that came out of his mouth after that, at least for the simple fact that we had X breaking in? Let alone what your opinion of the package was?
What would I suggest? I would suggest not trading prospects for one season of a guy that's going to hit the FA market break the bank after that, unless it's marginal pieces like you suggest and I think that has a very small change of getting it done. I also want nothing to do with Papelbon at this point.
What do I think it would cost? I'd have to take a longer look at it but off the top of my head, I'd probably say one of Owens/Johnson, Margot (because they're going to want/need an OF if they lose Span to FA and we have nothing else to offer there) and a lower level guy with upside, so maybe a Chavis, Ball or a Logan Allen. I certainly may be overestimating, but he's not going to come cheap, FA status or not.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
This sounds about right imo. Although in Buzzkill's defense and pegging Wash as more of a retool situation, i guess that would leave a little more flexibility to work around deals that potentially include some of our MLB pieces they might see helping them with enough of an overall kicker incentive in place (that obviously isn't Marrero + Rijo). Guys like Miley, Kelly if they like that flyer, maybe Bradley/Castillo.
I wouldn't want anything to do with Papelbon at this point either though. Some things are just better left in the past.
First, try not to be so condescending. I've been lurking since before the Cabin Mirror days. Second, I've followed the team - and baseball - for a while. My brother was a clubhouse assistant for the team back during the Impossible Dream era. Heck, I even rode in one of Yaz's own Ford's - how's that for bona fides??Papelbon's Poutine said:
All that irrelevant background (see what I did there) to the side, please point out where I suggested that GMs rely on any online scout/rater. I'm not prospect humping here. I'm suggesting that the Sox have surplus value and roster limitations. Time to cash in volume for value. If Beane's not interested in quantity, fine. Move on. I'm guessing somebody with good pitching might.
Of course I don't know precisely what the Nats' system has, nor do I know how high the Nats' FO rates their various prospects internally, nor do I know what other offseason moves they might be considering, which might require them to build some redundancies.Papelbon's Poutine said:
I don't know, because I'm not a GM. And I don't claim to know. I'm just a guy posting on an online messageboard to a thread specifically dedicated to offseason speculation by fans, for fans. Because speculating about this stuff can be fun, and not for any reason else.
So if your point is that we fans, who are none of us GM's, shouldn't bother speculating because it's worthless and meaningless in the end, then it begs the questtion: why are you even on this online messageboard reading this thread?
I mean, it's not like this is a news thread, or an analysis thread. It's all right there in the title.
Because the fact is, deals happen, and they happen every winter. And some of those deals leave us fans scratching our heads. Not one SoSH member predicted a Donaldson trade last offseason, and I'm sure there would have been a SoSH brigade of pitchforks to denounce whoever would have been so damn foolish to openly speculate it, had there been one that guessed the true return. Or the Doug Fister one after 2013. Or the Trevor Bauer trade after 2012.
But these are all offseason deals that actually happened, made by actual GM's who, you know, actually manage actual teams. That don't make sense, actually.
But they happened.
Why on earth would the Sox trade for Strasburg (unless they didn't give up much)? They already have Buchholz as a significant injury risk at SP. Do they really need to take on that much more risk?
And I like Strasburg a lot, but the Sox seem like a poor fit from the risk perspective.
And I like Strasburg a lot, but the Sox seem like a poor fit from the risk perspective.
Minneapolis Millers said:
I'm not sure what you took as condescending, but nothing was intended as such. So maybe if I need to try to be less condescending, maybe you need to try being less sensitive? The comment about your tenure here was a point made towards the ever persistent trend that has always been around. I genuinely wonder how many people own a Lars Anderson jersey. I also did not accuse you directly of being a prospect humper. It was a general statement about a lot of the ideas thrown about around here even more so lately that fall directly into that category. It's the nuance of reading the words in a post (see what I did there?). As to your comment about GMs and rankings, if you aren't suggesting GMs rely on them, or your wishy washy comparisons of players, then what did you mean by this?:
Because I'm otherwise confused where you're getting your rankings from and what relevance they have if not from sources outside a scouting department. As to you and your brother's history of following the team for a long time or working in the clubhouse, that sounds cool. It just doesn't really mean a whole lot. And again, that's sincerely not meant to be condescending. My dad has probably watched 90% of every Sox game since the late 1950s. If I said the name Yoan Moncada to him, he would stare at me blankly.
Buzzkill Pauley said:
It's really not that tough to do a little bit of research to find out what a team's roster looks like and what their targets might be in a trade. It takes a five minute google search. I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to expect someone that is going to propose trade packages to actually understand the dynamics involved, rather than resort to "hey, crazy shit happens all the time". You don't need to follow a team on a daily basis to have an idea of what their situation is. It might just be me, but if I were going to suggest a trade for the Sox - be it sending out an asset or trying to acquire one - I'd take a look. A google search of "Washington Nationals prospects" immediately turns up plenty of information which tells anyone uninformed that their top two prospects are a highly rated SP and an MLB ready SS. So I probably wouldn't label my package as GFIN with a much lesser valued SP and SS when trying to acquire a pretty valuable commodity.
I never once said people shouldn't speculate on stuff. In fact, I said it's fun to do. What I'm saying is have a little bit of knowledge about what you're talking about, tempered by some knowledge of what you don't, before you start speculating. If this is a "throw shit against the wall and see what sticks thread" then my apologies, I'll shut up and stay out of it. Otherwise, I don't see the problem with expecting some intelligent discourse and people being able to take opposition without resorting to getting defensive. You ask why I post here? Well, I started because the standards for the main board used to be higher. It is what it is now and I understand why, so the main board is actually where I spend my least amount of time. You should check out the back pages, there's plenty of discussion on how to properly use the term "begs the question".