“@JonHeymanCBS: Andrew Miller obviously wouldn’t come cheap. Yanks would seek ace type or haul in return, someone like Stephen strasburg.”
Why the hell would the Yankees be trading him, and why would anyone trade Stephen Strasburg or someone like him, for Miller? None of this makes any sense at all?
This sounds right to me, and this is why I don't see our top starting pitcher coming by trade. Teams who have the kinds of starters we want will want Betts/Bogaerts or *at least* Swihart in return.
I think they probably see their path to getting the bolded is via trade. With Brantley their only good outfielder of note and his chances of starting the season on the DL being fairly good (shoulder surgery yesterday), they're expected to be fairly aggressive in finding at least one more good outfielder this winter. They don't have the budget to grab someone like Heyward, Gordon, or Upton in free agency, so they will have to target someone else's good (young) outfield talent.
Admittedly, some on SoSH (and communities like it) didn't help matters by continually posting his tweets as gospel because he got lucky/stole the Sandoval signing news.
After two straight dissapointing seasons you'd have to think Jay Bruce and his $12.5M AAV is almost a salary dump at this point. At the very least he isn't likely to yield that impressive of a return. If the Sox do trade an OF for a starter it might be interesting to follow up with a trade with the Reds for Bruce and Chapman. Bruce could be more useful if he was paired with a RH hitting platoon mate (Young?).
Harvey hits free agency a year before Xander. You'd have to think that and Harvey's injury history would make it hard to justify a straight up trade of the two. Xander for DeGrom or even Syndergaard (not as established but the farthest from free agency) might be more tempting. It also seems possible that Carrasco might be available for a package that wouldn't have to include either Xander or Betts. If that's true a trade with Cleveland would seem the better direction..
I'm not even slightly torn on it, when one certain alternative is to sign Price or Cueto and a possible alternative is trading for a guy like Carrasco or Salazar without giving up one of our core players. No.
I felt Bruce was looking like a fairly solid sleeper type upgrade right around the deadline. Keeping in mind I'm also a guy who wasn't/isn't sold on the prospect of a full time BBC outfield. Bruce is only 28, could potentially fill the 5th spot in our lineup with a LH bat, and gun to my head still probably ends up looking like a better roster fit going forward then Castillo will.
Boy, Syndergaard for Bogaerts, I wouldn't complain about that trade. 23 year old with nasty stuff who had a hell of a 1st season.......
...and also a position that is much more subject to injury and aging. Wouldn't you say that great young pitchers come with a substantial element of risk? (some more than others)
I agree with this. imo Betts is untouchable, Bogaerts is touchable. Maybe even a sell high candidate.
You think X is a "sell high" candidate?? Boy, that's gotta be a pretty distinct minority opinion, and not just on this site.
No? Beane did. It wouldn't even be inconceivable for the Cubs also to trade Russell for a top SP (though Castro or Baez is more likely to be moved).
He traded Russell when he was a prospect. Big difference between that and trading Bogaerts now as an All Star caliber shortstop. Regardless, my opinion continues to be that X is/should be the only true untouchable on the team.
I will put it differently so as not to offend your screen name - Bradley will likely not be the centerpiece of any trade that nets the Red Sox a top pitcher.
certainly don't want to introduce myself by bashing Xander. i'm pessimistic on prospects/kids in general and think they are overvalued for the most part, and mostly flop, so it's not just about him.
It seems to me that the considerable BABIP risk is tempered by both his age and the considerable chance he can tap into his power. How am I wrong?
Seriously, there are like a dozen good pitchers on the market and people are Talking about Deven Marrero playing shortstop for some reason. Wtf. None of these trade proposals even seem like they would make next years team better, just shuffling problems around.
Thing is, the Sox have won not one but three World Series Championships since Nomar last played for them. Look at the teams that have won the World Series (or even made the playoffs) over, say, the past six seasons and very few had "franchise" players at SS. They have, by and large, each had very good pitching or at least one strong starter and a great bullpen.
Lol, that is what scares me.
This isnt about team building philosophy, though. The Red Sox won 78 games last year. Even if there was some secret sauce for winning in the playoffs, thats got nothing to do with them. They need to worry about getting as many good players as they can.
X is going to be a star SS for the next 15 years. If his power expands, he will be a super-start SS, face of the franchise player. He should be considered untouchable straight-up 1-on-1 for any Met pitcher.
No, not "the second we get one [a franchise shortstop since Nomar], we're going to trade him."
Great but 11 of those years might be elsewhere. The Red Sox control four years of Bogaerts and that's how long I expect him to be here and that's what they can offer in trade to get more than four years of cheap pitching. I don't see it as a no-brainier either way.
