[Foulkey Reese]

Quote

1. My friends Jon Heyman and Tom Verducci of SI.com wrote last week that the Red Sox tried to re-acquire Hanley Ramirez from the Marlins earlier this winter. A person who had been briefed on those discussions confirmed the accuracy of the report and took it a step further: This source told me the Red Sox had been building their offseason around adding Mark Teixeira and since he went to the rival Yankees New York Yankees that Boston has turned its focus to the trade market to see if they can find a strong offensive component for its lineup. The Red Sox preference would be someone young who is capable on defense, as well.

Quote

Who do I think the Red Sox would target? How about Texas center fielder Josh Hamilton, Houston first baseman Lance Berkman, Atlanta catcher Brian McCann, Cincinnati first baseman Joey Votto and San Diego first baseman Adrian Gonzalez (I wonder if there is a way to expand this to include Jake Peavy either also coming to Boston or part of a three-way to the Cubs). I also wonder if Detroit could be in enough financial distress that the Tigers would be looking to dump the seven years at $141 million left on the contract of Miguel Cabrera, who in many positive and negative ways might be a young Manny Ramirez.

http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/st/archives...bosox_hitt.html

This is just Sherman speculating, but I certainly hope that the Sox really are looking to add a strong offensive player.

This post has been edited by Foulkey Reese: 02 January 2009 - 10:03 PM

[sodenj5]

Part of building a functioning farm system that consistently produces major league talent is to trade some of it away in order to acquire premium young talent in return. (See: Josh Beckett)

If it doesn't require Anderson or Lester, I'd be to package almost any combination of talent in order to get a young offensive force like Miguel Cabrera or Hanley Ramirez.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Quote

Who do I think the Red Sox would target? How about Texas center fielder Josh Hamilton, Houston first baseman Lance Berkman, Atlanta catcher Brian McCann, Cincinnati first baseman Joey Votto and San Diego first baseman Adrian Gonzalez (I wonder if there is a way to expand this to include Jake Peavy either also coming to Boston or part of a three-way to the Cubs). I also wonder if Detroit could be in enough financial distress that the Tigers would be looking to dump the seven years at $141 million left on the contract of Miguel Cabrera, who in many positive and negative ways might be a young Manny Ramirez.

Jeez, let's include Albert Pujols and David Wright while we're at it. Why would the Reds want to trade Joey Votto or the Rangers Josh Hamilton?

[Bowlerman9]

Kevin Mortons Ghost, on Jan 2 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Jeez, let's include Albert Pujols and David Wright while we're at it. Why would the Reds want to trade Joey Votto or the Rangers Josh Hamilton?

Because neither team has a lot of money to spend and neither team is 1 player away from being competitive either. If they can trade 1 young star for 3-4 guys who might turn into stars, that will get them a lot closer to having a winning team. If Texas can get, lets say, Bowden, Ellsbury, Bard, and two high upside A-ballers for Hamilton, that will help them a lot more in 2010 and 2011 than just Hamilton.

[amarshal2]

Kevin Mortons Ghost, on Jan 2 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Jeez, let's include Albert Pujols and David Wright while we're at it. Why would the Reds want to trade Joey Votto or the Rangers Josh Hamilton?

Funny you say that. He already went there.

Quote

My first thought when I heard that was that the Mets have three players who could fit this category: Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes and David Wright.

This post has been edited by amarshal2: 02 January 2009 - 01:56 PM

[dauber23]

Rather than add another corner infielder, I really like the idea of acquiring an offensive force behind the plate, such as Brian McCann.

I don't know much about McCann's defense/pitch selection abilities. But if he is good behind the plate, this would be a way to turn a need into a strength.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Bowlerman9, on Jan 2 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Because neither team has a lot of money to spend and neither team is 1 player away from being competitive either. If they can trade 1 young star for 3-4 guys who might turn into stars, that will get them a lot closer to having a winning team. If Texas can get, lets say, Bowden, Ellsbury, Bard, and two high upside A-ballers for Hamilton, that will help them a lot more in 2010 and 2011 than just Hamilton.

Hamilton made barely more than the major league minimum last year. He won't be a free agent until 2013. He just finished 7th in the MVP voting in his first full year, plays a critical defensive position, and is the "Feel Good Story of the Year." There's no way he gets traded unless he falls off the wagon, hard.

amarshal2, on Jan 2 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Funny you say that. He already went there.

Hah! I guess I should click through to these links sometimes!

[JayMags71]

sodenj5, on Jan 2 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

If it doesn't require Anderson or Lester, I'd be to package almost any combination of talent in order to get a young offensive force like Miguel Cabrera or Hanley Ramirez.

Then you'll be sorely disappointed. Either Lars the Great, or Lightnin' Lester will have to be sent away to acquire premium young talent. Possibly both.l

[Bowlerman9]

Kevin Mortons Ghost, on Jan 2 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

Hamilton made barely more than the major league minimum last year. He won't be a free agent until 2013. He just finished 7th in the MVP voting in his first full year, plays a critical defensive position, and is the "Feel Good Story of the Year." There's no way he gets traded unless he falls off the wagon, hard.

Except none of the things you mentioned there in any way change the fact that Texas was dead last in the AL with a team ERA of 5.37.

If Boston offers Ellsbury, who created 50 runs less than Hamilton, along with Buchholz or Bowden, plus Bard, and lets say Pimentel and Bryan Price ...... Texas would be stupid to not at least consider it, and even pull the trigger based on their own scout's expectations for Ellsbury and the pitchers the Sox happen to offer.

[Wingack]

Some people in this thread are acting as if Texas doesn't have a chance of winning in the near future, and that is something that I strongly disagree with. The LAAAAA have suffered some critical hits to their roster and while I think the the A's have improved and will be contenders this year, I don't think the Rangers will be too far behind them.

They also have a very nice farm system, and while sure it is nice to load up on even more prospects, why trade Josh Hamilton? Couldn't they just acquire Buchholz for some of their catching depth?

[Bowlerman9]

Wingack, on Jan 2 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

Some people in this thread are acting as if Texas doesn't have a chance of winning in the near future, and that is something that I strongly disagree with. The LAAAAA have suffered some critical hits to their roster and while I think the the A's have improved and will be contenders this year, I don't think the Rangers will be too far behind them.

They also have a very nice farm system, and while sure it is nice to load up on even more prospects, why trade Josh Hamilton? Couldn't they just acquire Buchholz for some of their catching depth?

I'm not saying they have to trade Josh Hamilton, or that Cincy has to trade Joey Votto - but there absolutely is a reason to do so - teams with multiple holes who are not necessarily going to compete in 2009 can benefit if another team is willing to trade a large package of potential impact players for their one young stud.

Texas can trade a catcher for pitching, have a few prospects pan out, and be competitive. They do not have to trade Hamilton. But if Boston sees Hamilton as someone who could have a large impact on their future, and is willing to give up Buchholz, Ellsbury, Bard, Pimental, and Price, Texas has to consider it.

Heck, if Boston offered Buchholz, Ellsbury, Anderson, and Bard for Salty and Hamilton, Texas would once again have a tough decision to make.

[Paul M]

Bard, Pimental, and Price might not even rank in Texas top 12 prospects; I think some of the names of players in the quoted text are pipe-dreams.

Texas has perhaps the best farm system in baseball and should try to move a catcher to add a pitcher or two.

Brian McCann isn't going anywhere, by the way. Some of the other names might be available like Gonzalez or Votto, but I definitely like the idea of a CF coming instead of a 1B.

[Paradigm]

Bowlerman9, on Jan 2 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

I'm not saying they have to trade Josh Hamilton, or that Cincy has to trade Joey Votto - but there absolutely is a reason to do so - teams with multiple holes who are not necessarily going to compete in 2009 can benefit if another team is willing to trade a large package of potential impact players for their one young stud.

Texas can trade a catcher for pitching, have a few prospects pan out, and be competitive. They do not have to trade Hamilton. But if Boston sees Hamilton as someone who could have a large impact on their future, and is willing to give up Buchholz, Ellsbury, Bard, Pimental, and Price, Texas has to consider it.

Heck, if Boston offered Buchholz, Ellsbury, Anderson, and Bard for Salty and Hamilton, Texas would once again have a tough decision to make.

There's little history of teams doing this to support your strategy. First, they own Hamilton for five more seasons. Whether they are competitive in 2009 or not doesn't factor in. They have big time prospects on the way up, like Neftali Feliz (pitcher, and #5 AL prospect per BA), Justin Smoak (see: Lars Anderson) and could sign a free agent like Ben Sheets to help fill their gap. If the Rangers plan to trade for pitching, they should ship a guy like Hank Blalock or even Michael Young, or if they are forced to part with young talent, Chris Davis (and not Josh Hamilton).

Also, let's stop overstating Clay Buchholz and Michael Bowden's trade value. How does Buchholz compare to Derek Holland, or Bowden to Michael Main, each of whom is already in the Rangers' system and might contribute in 2010 or 2011, when the team is competitive. Neither of our guys is a guaranteed ace. At this point, Buchholz's ceiling might be a #2 starter. No pitcher is a sure thing to succeed and we've seen countless stud pitching prospects fizzle in the past few years (Homer Bailey, anyone?).

[smastroyin]

It is more fun to talk about trade possibilities, but let me interrupt for a moment.

I think some of this is just reporter speculation, but discounting that. And what I mean here is let's just say that the report is accurate.

How could the Red Sox possibly have decided that their off-season was based around Teixeira? Have they really accumulated the hubris to say "this is our plan it will not go awry?"? This line disturbs me greatly if true. I don't think it is true. Clearly they need to build up the offense, but why make that such a priority in 2008/9 when it wasn't in 2007/8? Why re-sign Mike Lowell? Why not get in on Cabrera? Hell, why not be in on Teixeira in July when he could have really helped? It doesn't all quite add up to me. Did he only become the plan when extending Manny stopped being a possibility? And if they were banking on Manny then why the shit-show? It just seems like there is a lot of inconsistency here. And, most importantly, if Teixeira was that important to you, then why not promise him the moon to make it happen? I personally do not agree with that but the way they approached the negotiation does not seem to be consistent with the idea that their entire plan was based on him.

All of this adds up to that statement being an exaggeration, but it still bothers me.

[Paradigm]

smastroyin, on Jan 2 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

It is more fun to talk about trade possibilities, but let me interrupt for a moment.

I think some of this is just reporter speculation, but discounting that. And what I mean here is let's just say that the report is accurate.

How could the Red Sox possibly have decided that their off-season was based around Teixeira? Have they really accumulated the hubris to say "this is our plan it will not go awry?"? This line disturbs me greatly if true. I don't think it is true. Clearly they need to build up the offense, but why make that such a priority in 2008/9 when it wasn't in 2007/8? Why re-sign Mike Lowell? Why not get in on Cabrera? Hell, why not be in on Teixeira in July when he could have really helped? It doesn't all quite add up to me. Did he only become the plan when extending Manny stopped being a possibility? And if they were banking on Manny then why the shit-show? It just seems like there is a lot of inconsistency here. And, most importantly, if Teixeira was that important to you, then why not promise him the moon to make it happen? I personally do not agree with that but the way they approached the negotiation does not seem to be consistent with the idea that their entire plan was based on him.

All of this adds up to that statement being an exaggeration, but it still bothers me.

I agree that it sounds preposterous, and I think it is worded improperly, but I believe it, only because I think this team plans for things long in advance -- namely, I think in the 2006 and 2007 offseasons, the team probably worked toward a primary strategy of signing Daisuke Matsuzaka instead of shelling out cash for players like Carlos Silva, Ted Lilly, Gil Meche, Jason Schmidt, etc. I don't think the Red Sox had one offseason plan ("sign Matsuzaka") but I think that was their Plan A, and in that case it worked. I assume (eek) that they had a Plan B and C in case they were beaten in their posting bid for Matsuzaka.

Let's say that the Red Sox' goal during THIS offseason was "improve the offense" or maybe it was "acquire an impact bat." Plan A to accomplish that seems to have been "sign Teixeira" and it didn't work, so they have to move to Plan B, which is probably "trade prospects for that bat." Plan B was not Raul Ibanez and Rafael Furcal, or some of the other free agent pieces that have dropped. The Red Sox were going to make big moves to get offense -- whether that big move was committing $160 million or trading Clay Buchholz and Michael Bowden. And frankly, I'll bet ownership would be just as happy to give away talent rather than be on the hook for that kind of contract.

This post has been edited by Paradigm: 02 January 2009 - 03:18 PM

[behindthepen]

Bowlerman9, on Jan 2 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Because neither team has a lot of money to spend and neither team is 1 player away from being competitive either. If they can trade 1 young star for 3-4 guys who might turn into stars, that will get them a lot closer to having a winning team. If Texas can get, lets say, Bowden, Ellsbury, Bard, and two high upside A-ballers for Hamilton, that will help them a lot more in 2010 and 2011 than just Hamilton.

Just for reference, the Rangers traded Edison Volquez for Hamilton, and I think they believe they got a steal. And all Volquez did was give the Reds 196 IP of 3.21 ERA with 206 K's (2nd in the NL), at 24 y.o.

[koufax32]

I don't think the Sox stand much of a chance of acquiring Hamilton. Like many have said already I think it's just a reporter throwing something out there. Just for fun though I'll play the devil's advocate.
What situation would make Texas a better team this season?

A) present team minus Salty or Teagarden plus one young pitcher who could possibly help this year.
B) minus Hamilton and Salty, plus Buchholz, Ellsbury, Bard, etc AND Manny Ramirez

Add or subtract whatever Sox mL names you'd like. Question #2 is what scenario would make TEX a better team say 2-3 years from now? I would argue B.

Question #3 is what scenario would create the nec. buzz to "put fannies in the seats?" I think that would be a push.

The point is that trading Hamilton is not complete and utter nonsense. That said I have doubts as to whether this type of discussion would ever occur between the two front offices.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

smastroyin, on Jan 2 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

How could the Red Sox possibly have decided that their off-season was based around Teixeira? Have they really accumulated the hubris to say "this is our plan it will not go awry?"? This line disturbs me greatly if true. I don't think it is true. Clearly they need to build up the offense, but why make that such a priority in 2008/9 when it wasn't in 2007/8? Why re-sign Mike Lowell? Why not get in on Cabrera? Hell, why not be in on Teixeira in July when he could have really helped? It doesn't all quite add up to me. Did he only become the plan when extending Manny stopped being a possibility? And if they were banking on Manny then why the shit-show? It just seems like there is a lot of inconsistency here. And, most importantly, if Teixeira was that important to you, then why not promise him the moon to make it happen? I personally do not agree with that but the way they approached the negotiation does not seem to be consistent with the idea that their entire plan was based on him.

What Paradigm said, plus things change over time. Maybe they think they needed Teixeira more now than last summer because of developments on the David Ortiz/Mike Lowell injury front. Maybe they saw things playing out differently with Manny.

Anyway, its good to see the FO being proactive about this sort of stuff.

[Joshv02]

behindthepen, on Jan 2 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Just for reference, the Rangers traded Edison Volquez for Hamilton, and I think they believe they got a steal. And all Volquez did was give the Reds 196 IP of 3.21 ERA with 206 K's (2nd in the NL), at 24 y.o.

For more reference, at the time he was traded, Volquez was a very good prospect, but never higher than #56 in BA's rankings (which he was in 2006), and just OK numbers in a rushed major league career (his first 40+ innings were horrific - more BBs than SO, an over 2 WHIP, more runs than innings pitched). And he was 24.5 when traded.

For comparison's sake, Clay is 24.4 now, has more pedigree (BA ranked him #4) and a more dominant minor league record. And his over all major league record showed a lot more success than Volquez's did at the time of that trade. Of course, Clay won't bring Hamilton as (a) Hamilton had more risk in 2007/08 than he does now and (b) I agree that Texas did think it got a steal (but that is in part b/c Daniels for some reason really soured on the DVD nonsense).

(Not directed to you:) We have a tendency to try to overstate how our prospects aren't as good as we'd like them to be. In part this is an anti-fanboi reaction. But, a #4 ranking by BA, a history of real dominance in the minors, and impressive major league caliber stuff means that Clay is very good trade bait.

[SoxFanPJ]

Not to hijack, because he isn't a strong offensive component anymore, but the Dodgers have reportedly reached agreement deferring most of Andruw Jones' 2009 salary. If you can get him at $3-4M as a RH hitting Outfielder who can play Centerfield, he would make an interesting candidate as a 4th OF for the Redsox in 2009.

Quote

The Los Angeles Dodgers and Andruw Jones have agreed to rework his contract to save the team $12 million off its 2009 payroll, SI.com has learned. The deal likely will lead to Jones playing elsewhere next year.

The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that the sides were working on such an arranagement.

With Jones agreeing to defer more than half his $20 million salary to aid the team, it stands to reason that the team will agree to part ways with him at some point. Jones expressed a desire to the Dodgers that he'd like to play elsewhere in 2009.

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/hot_stov...244?eref=fromSI

Quote

# 2 years/$36.2M (2008-09)

* signed by LA Dodgers as a free agent 12/07
* $12.2M signing bonus ($5.1M in 2008, $2.1M in 2009, $5M in 2010)
* 08:$9M, 09:$15M
* no-trade clause
* perks: suite on road
* Jones to donate $0.15M annually to club charity

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/l...es-dodgers.html


Based on his original contract it looks like Jones was due $17.1M total in 2009 (salary+bonus) and according to Heyman the renegotiated deal with the Dodgers cuts $12 Million from the Dodgers payroll this season.

If you can get the Dodgers to kick in $1-2M so that Jones becomes a $3-4M player he could be an interesting option as a 4th OF for the Redsox. We know the team is looking for a Right handed hitting 4th OF and one that can play CF as well.

This post has been edited by SoxFanPJ: 02 January 2009 - 04:43 PM