Start, Sit, Trade: Play Along with Dave
- Thread starter nothumb
- Start date
Jody McDonald on MLB Network radio this morning stated he knows David Price wants to pitch for the Cubs and is willing to discount his price to assure that happens. If this is true, we need to start thinking beyond Price as the #1 guy.
Price on the Cubs would be...interesting. Not sure how that plays out long term for Arrieta. By 2018, that would be a very, uh, pricey rotation....
How does that work with Lester owed more than $100,000,000 through 2020/21 and Price getting even more $ for more years? Can the Cubs do that?
Very true, but they could also afford it easily. Montero and Hamels will be off the books, as will Jackson and Castro will likely be moved by then. They'll have a bunch of kids in the first year of arbitration but otherwise Lester and Rizzo on an insanely cheap deal and they're at something like $50M committed for 2018. The upside of all those young position players is being able to spend on the rotation. By the time they are FA eligible, Lester is almost done freeing up money there. As good as they were this year they still were bottom ten in payroll, around $120M in a big market. I'm not buying into Price taking a discount but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they went after him. I think it would be short sighted to ignore him if they like him in anticipation of Arrieta being legit and worrying about him in three years. Especially if it gets them a ring in the mean time.Minneapolis Millers said:
They have 80 mil committed to payroll next year, and I'm sure they could go above 150 if they wanted (they were at 144 in 2010). Now might be the time to do it before all the young hitters get expensive (by which point Price's 30 will be more like today's 20 mil).geoduck no quahog said:
geoduck no quahog said:
In the short term, I don't see why not. Even with Lester's salary, they were only at around $125M in total salary this year. They've got a ton of young cheap talent on that team that's going to remain young and cheap for the next 3-4 years. They've only got about $50M in committed salary in 2019 when guys like Bryant and Schwarber and Baez and Russell will just be getting to the stages of "expensive" through arbitration. Provided they are capable of spending right up to the luxury tax threshold (and it's not like they don't have deep-pocketed ownership), adding Price at $30M+ AAV wouldn't really get them into too much trouble for at least four years. By which point they might have a World Series or two and be ready to rebuild/reload (i.e. get cheaper at some spots to balance the bottom line).
EDIT: What follows is better said in previous posts.geoduck no quahog said:
They have virtually zero cost for their lineup over the next three years. The costs will start rising by year 4, but they could easily handle the Lester and Price deals, and still contemplate retaining Arietta for these first 4 years. I'm not sure Theo would do it, but I thought they might have gone after Scherzer, in addition to Lester last year, so I guess my gut tells me he will play on Price.
Not to shoot the messenger, but we've heard all of this about Greinke for years. Maybe what's different is the Red Sox being linked to him, or were they ever linked to him before also?soxhop411 said:
67WasBest said:
Ehh, I don't recall Chicago being a serious player on Scherzer last winter, and I'm also not buying into the notion that Price is taking a noteworthy discount to sign there.
Theo signing Lester last winter wasn't some complete abandonment of philosophy imo. Similar to my thoughts on where we'll end up, I still see him being conservative enough that he's not going to be the guy out there paying the #1 player premium and handing a starting pitcher this winter's biggest mega contract.
Theo could end up throwing a wrench in our ideal winter plans for a second year in a row in the event he targets in on one of Cueto/Zimmerman though.
There's a lot of reasons that last offseason and this can't really be compared by looking at it as Scherzer vs Price.
For one, no one expected the Cubs to be this good, this quickly. Most of the kids and unproven guys worked out as well as you could expect. Bryant, Soler, Russell all grew up quick. Castro bounced back. Schwarber came out of nowhere way ahead of schedule. Arrieta broke through to Cy Young caliber. Theo made good pick ups in Montero and Fowler that panned out well. I would venture that even Theo wouldnt admit to expecting a run to the NLCS as a reality this season.
Above and beyond that, their revenue has grown immensely over the last year. Forbes has their evaluation having grown by a full 50% since 2014. They sold a minority block of the franchise for $150M which Forbes pegs at an EV of $2B for the club. They spent tons to renovate, they saw attendance increase and can expect it to again, so they can raise ticket prices.
Their place in the competitive cycle and their financial situation will look remarkably different heading into 2016.
For one, no one expected the Cubs to be this good, this quickly. Most of the kids and unproven guys worked out as well as you could expect. Bryant, Soler, Russell all grew up quick. Castro bounced back. Schwarber came out of nowhere way ahead of schedule. Arrieta broke through to Cy Young caliber. Theo made good pick ups in Montero and Fowler that panned out well. I would venture that even Theo wouldnt admit to expecting a run to the NLCS as a reality this season.
Above and beyond that, their revenue has grown immensely over the last year. Forbes has their evaluation having grown by a full 50% since 2014. They sold a minority block of the franchise for $150M which Forbes pegs at an EV of $2B for the club. They spent tons to renovate, they saw attendance increase and can expect it to again, so they can raise ticket prices.
Their place in the competitive cycle and their financial situation will look remarkably different heading into 2016.
Al Zarilla said:
If Greinke were really averse to media attention and pressure, why the hell did he sign with the LA Dodgers last time he was a free agent? Surely he could've returned to the Brewers or Royals or some other small market team and continued to hide from the limelight as much as possible.
It's something we continually see speculation about from all types of sources, but it really isn't reflected in his actions at all. Personally I'm more convinced by the latter.
Considering his teammate is Carl Crawford, I would think Greinke may have some insight into what Boston can be like.derekson said:
moondog80 said:
Seriously. Price has been angling for free agency ever since he got to the league. He's been traded twice, wouldn't even entertain an extension. And now he's going to give a discount because...what, Maddon? I'll believe it when I see it.
On Price and the Cubs, "but they can afford it!" has traditionally been the foundation for big mistakes. We could "afford" Hanley and Sandoval too.
And Theo would know about it, given that free agency is not exactly where he's done his best work..
So yeah, maybe they pay top dollar for Price, but 1)I think it'd be a mistake, with what they're building + the Lester contract and 2) I don't see them doing that, shifting philosophies at this point. They could use front-end pitching, like everybody else. Not sure paying $200m+ for it is the smart way to go about it.
And Theo would know about it, given that free agency is not exactly where he's done his best work..
So yeah, maybe they pay top dollar for Price, but 1)I think it'd be a mistake, with what they're building + the Lester contract and 2) I don't see them doing that, shifting philosophies at this point. They could use front-end pitching, like everybody else. Not sure paying $200m+ for it is the smart way to go about it.
The Cubs are one of the few teams that don't really "need" top-end pitching though. Arrieta/Lester is as good or better than just about everyone minus the Dodgers. They could make a play for a lesser free agent starting pitcher who can slot in behind those two while also pushing Hendricks and Hammel down.
LA is SoCal laid back and not many there would bother Greinke if he did poorly for any reason. Well, it's not like San Diego, where you're like living in a place as close to paradise as you can on the mainland, so why get yourself way upset about some baseball player. Boston, NY, Philly, that's about it, right, for places that would get on a guy for some problem he had and he might should avoid?derekson said:
swingin val said:
Remember after 2007, when Theo almost got Johan Santana right after winning a championship behind Beckett and Schilling, with strong rookie performances by Matsuzaka and Lester, and Buchholz having tossed a no-hitter but still waiting in the wings?
Trying to monopolize available elite starters is business as usual for Theo. Especially with the Maddon connection, I always expected him to go hard for Price, and at least be on the short-list at the end.
swingin val said:
The Braves didn't *need* top-end pitching in 1992 with Glavine/Smoltz/Avery making their top of the rotation as good or better than just about everyone, but they went ahead and signed the reigning Cy Young winner to the richest deal to date anyway.
The Cubs may not pursue or land Price for financial reasons, but I can't see them turning down a chance at him just because they don't "need" someone that good. Every team's philosophy should be to sign the very best players they can within whatever their financial limitations are. The Cubs have the money to spend. If Price's demands exceed what they are willing to spend, so be it, but they have to be in the conversation until that point.
Lackey would be ideal for them....a solid #3 who can pitch in big games. He could be had for probably 2/28 or so.swingin val said:
I'm sure it's pure conjecture by baseball writers trying to find an angle to play with the Mets in the World Series, but the Harvey for Bogaerts/Betts deal floated earlier is pretty intriguing. It would be incredibly painful to deal away either Bogaerts or Betts but I think I'd do it for Harvey. And the fact that I'm so hesitant makes me wonder if there's actually a chance the Mets would do it.
The more I think about it, the more I think a Bogaerts for Harvey deal makes a lot of sense on paper. Both are represented by Boras, Bogaerts has one year of control more than Harvey, but neither would be a "rental" in any sense. If the Sox were to make that deal, they could then use the money they save from not signing someone like Price to sign another starter or a back-end reliever. They'd have to be sold that Marrero could hold down the job for a year or two (otherwise they'd have to go dumpster diving for a replacement), but if they were, it might be the best way to upgrade the front of the rotation without making a long-term commitment to a guy over 30.
Again, not entirely sure I'd do it, but I'd think a long time about it if I were Dombrowski. What about the rest of you? Would you pull the trigger?
The more I think about it, the more I think a Bogaerts for Harvey deal makes a lot of sense on paper. Both are represented by Boras, Bogaerts has one year of control more than Harvey, but neither would be a "rental" in any sense. If the Sox were to make that deal, they could then use the money they save from not signing someone like Price to sign another starter or a back-end reliever. They'd have to be sold that Marrero could hold down the job for a year or two (otherwise they'd have to go dumpster diving for a replacement), but if they were, it might be the best way to upgrade the front of the rotation without making a long-term commitment to a guy over 30.
Again, not entirely sure I'd do it, but I'd think a long time about it if I were Dombrowski. What about the rest of you? Would you pull the trigger?
Nope
But I suppose I could consider Betts for Harvey ..not because I think any less of Betts - rather the Sox could absorb Mookie's loss easier than X due to the overabundance of OFs on the 25man and in the minors.
Don't think I'd do it though .. Harvey's pitching environment is pretty much the extreme opposite of Fenway. A pitchers park in a pitchers division in a pitchers league - to , well you know.
But I suppose I could consider Betts for Harvey ..not because I think any less of Betts - rather the Sox could absorb Mookie's loss easier than X due to the overabundance of OFs on the 25man and in the minors.
Don't think I'd do it though .. Harvey's pitching environment is pretty much the extreme opposite of Fenway. A pitchers park in a pitchers division in a pitchers league - to , well you know.
Doesn't it get back to the old question: Why would you trade an every day All-Star prospect for a pitcher who goes out every 5th day? Especially one who's already had arm surgery.
I don't know if Margot will flame out. I don't know if and when Benintendi will ever be ready to face ML pitching. I do know what Betts can do, and it's not easily replicated or replaced.
Remember Garin Cecchini and Lars Anderson. The RS let Beltre walk because they had Garin ready to go.
I don't know if Margot will flame out. I don't know if and when Benintendi will ever be ready to face ML pitching. I do know what Betts can do, and it's not easily replicated or replaced.
Remember Garin Cecchini and Lars Anderson. The RS let Beltre walk because they had Garin ready to go.
It would be pointless. There's a large market of pitchers available for cash or prospects, there is zero reason to be trading franchise players. You would just end up having to get involved in a different market anyway, as neither Marerro or Holt is really an acceptable starter. The downgrade would be far worse than the improvement on Kelly's rotation spot.
Otis Foster said:
The Red Sox let Beltre walk because they were looking to trade for Adrian Gonzalez and thought Kevin Youkilis would go back to 3B and be excellent there.
Garin had all of zero professional plate appearances at the time Beltre signed with the Rangers.
Regardless, the question of Mookie for <insert pitcher> should not rest on whether Mookie is 100% (or more) replaceable. It should rest on how the entire team is made up, including of course salary considerations with service time, etc. Making a trade of Mookie for another player of similar value to Mookie doesn't mean that the guy replacing Mookie in the lineup needs to also replace Mookie's value.
The Filthy One said:
The Sox have more quality OF than SS in the system. Holt, of course, could play short and probably be a better than average replacement, all things considered. But if the Sox would deal Bogaerts for Harvey, would it make sense to expand it to include Flores? Not a good OBP guy (.295 this year), but good power (16 homers), and he's just 24, so he could still very much be the front side of his career arc.
I don't know what else the Sox would have to include, but Bogaerts + XYZ for Harvey and Flores? Or would you rather just put Holt at SS and plug Marrero in at the utility infielder spot?
They are not trading Betts or Bogaerts. Or, how about this: someone could do a probability of being traded estimate % for all the Red Sox players. Those two I'd have at < 1% this winter. Such a chart would be a waste of time too, because somebody either gets traded or they don't, so it's either 100% or 0 in the end you'd be comparing to.BaseballJones said:
Back to Betts and Bogaerts though, the only scenario I could see for one of them being traded is if you had good backups and the GM felt the team was a frontline pitcher away from being a really serious deep in the playoffs contender, like Toronto this year. I don't think we're there yet, and even if they were, I still wouldn't do it. The old every day star player for a once in five days star pitcher is the other argument against. There's Harvey's recently off Tommy John also.
There would seem to be a nonzero chance that the Red Sox and Indians match up for a deal where the Red Sox get a SP like Salazar or Carrasco and the Indians get Bradley, Margot and perhaps a non top 10 prospect. The Tribe needs an OFer, preferably one who can play CF, and the Sox are probably the best match for that need with someone like Bradley with Margot to be ready by 2018 for the Tribe. Carrasco and Salazar are both young and cost controlled, and that might be the best argument for the Sox to build a trade to acquire one of them. There aren't many other starters who profile to be as effective, young and cheap as they are (no, there is no shot that the A's move Sonny Gray for a similar package), so this might be where the focus of their offseason quest for a dominant starter begins. DD likes deals more than free agents, though he's done both in the past, but I'd have to believe he'd move the assets I've speculated about to get Salazar or Carrasco before he'd pony up 150M plus to get a Cueto or Zimmerman. That the Mets might consider moving Harvey or Syndergaard sounds like wishful thinking. I'd love to have deGrom if he's seen as their 3rd or 4th best guy, but any deal to acquire one of those players costs you Betts or Bogaerts, and I don't see either moving. Strasburg might be an interesting test case, but he's older, has less control and will cost more than the Indians pair, and would probably require a higher outlay of talent based on his pedigree.
Just throwing out ideas. I have no basis for any of these trade concepts.
Just throwing out ideas. I have no basis for any of these trade concepts.
Pilgrim said:
Depending on which perspective one chooses to prioritize you can really make that same general argument for either side. With the Mets already currently sitting where the Red Sox feel they need a Matt Harvey to get to mind you. Heck, they are a coin flip away from being the reigning World Champions when these type of discussions heat up a month from now.
Colon is a FA-to-be, Neise is coming off a down year, and Gee is looking pretty meh atm. Color me skeptical that their off-season plan this winter is going to revolve around a desire to shoot a massive crater sized hole in their rotation and the competitive advantage that comes with that. Instead of..you know...going out and exploring their own alternative options out there that FA/trade has to offer.
The Mets need to be out there trading the cost controlled years of Harvey about as much we need to be messing around with the up-the-middle core this team is being built around. Which is likely why both teams end up saying no to the presented concept there imo.
Does anyone ever trade cost-controlled assets that they need, besides the A's and whoever is in big-time rebuilding mode? Teams that are either winning now or think they can will be dealing from a perceived excess at a position, or shedding guys who don't justify their cost (but might to someone else). That's in part why I'm skeptical of any discussion of trading Bradley, which would put our outfield back into chaos. And the Mets trading starters... none of their top 4 will even generate a return phone call.MikeM said:
They had a deal in place to trade Wheeler at the deadline. They'll absolutely return a phone call and see how badly teams want one of their young studs.chrisfont9 said:
chrisfont9 said:
Man, I hope they aren't counting on Bradley so much that losing him would result in chaos. I mean, he had a good season at AAA and 2 great months in MLB (well, one otherwordly month and one decent month), but if he's not traded and gets hurt or returns to 2014 form or something I'd hope it wouldn't tank the season. There are two other CF-capable players on the team (3 if you think Holt could fake it), and I assume they'll bring in a Pearce or Joyce or something borderline startable as a 4th OF.
But I think you're right that it's really hard to predict trades of high-level players outside of a teardown and Beane - it just doesn't happen much. I guess maybe Kemp/Grandal or Kinsler/Fielder, but none of those guys are pitchers and those were more about money. Maybe Shields/Myers? I do think Dombrowski's willing to trade just about anyone for the right deal, though. Until he actually comes out and says, "I'm not trading this guy," I think pretty much everyone's on the table.
Yeah, they aren't counting on him to carry the offense, I'm sure. My point was more that they aren't dealing any OF from a position of great strength, so maybe they shouldn't be dealing OFs. We may have 3 CFs defensively speaking but we're only feeling certain about one of them being a significant contributor, until further notice.alwyn96 said:
I dunno, Wheeler is #5, and coming off TJ surgery. I think he's the guy they're dangling out there so they can build around Matz, Syndergaard, DeGrom and Harvey. But we'll see.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
Joel Sherman talked to executives who think Dombrowski is very high on Alex Gordon and that the Sox are a serious contender to sign him.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/red-sox-emerge-as-crafty-contender-for-alex-gordon/
http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/red-sox-emerge-as-crafty-contender-for-alex-gordon/
I love Gordon but this feels like a CC redux. $20M+/year for a LF who derives a lot of his value from defense to play in Fenway half the time...not sure that makes sense.
In terms of "expandable" players it's JBJ. I don't think Betts gets moved unless it's a young Cost controlled starter (and even then I would think the sox would rather move prospects than someone who has proven themselves so far in the majors)absintheofmalaise said:
Papelbon's Poutine said:
My thoughts exactly. Why not keep the current OF intact and spend that money on pitching?
Five years too late. The trick would be to find the next Alex Gordon, and go get him instead.RedOctober3829 said:
I suppose the argument would be that they see Gordan being a better bet to be worth the value of his contract than any similarly priced pitcher (Cueto?). If they do, they might prefer to invest in Gordan and trade Betts for Harvey (a distinct possibility if Cespedes isn't resigned) . I'm not sure if I agree or not but at least a reasonable argument could be made for Harvey/Gordan > Betts/Cueto.RIrooter09 said:
Or Castillo is moved. And Gordon could play RF. Gordon/JBJ/Betts would be the best defensive outfield in quite some time.