Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Sox in on Dickey?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#1 Finn's Dad

  • 74 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:07 PM

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8706592/boston-red-sox-7-others-talk-new-york-mets-ra-dickey-source-says

The initial asking price seems high (Boegarts and Bradley, Jr.), but if you can have the Mets back down, do you make the deal? What do you think would be "reasonable" for the Sox to part with him, or should they stay away?



#2 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:24 PM

He's a soon-to-be-38-yo knuckleballer who has been working in one of the best pitcher's parks in the National League for the past three years. His best K/9 season before this year was 5.9; this year it was 8.9. Is a jump like that sustainable? Even if it's sustainable at Citi, is it sustainable at Fenway? How much talent do we really want to give up to find out?

If it's true we can get Gavin Floyd--a good, solid, bankable #3 type--for Salty one-up, that's a no-brainer. If we could also have Dickey for Salty, I'd say roll the dice. But it's clear that he's going to cost more, and it's not at all clear that he's going to be worth it.

Pass.

#3 SoxLegacy

  • 548 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:26 PM

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8706592/boston-red-sox-7-others-talk-new-york-mets-ra-dickey-source-says

The initial asking price seems high (Boegarts and Bradley, Jr.), but if you can have the Mets back down, do you make the deal? What do you think would be "reasonable" for the Sox to part with him, or should they stay away?



My opinion is stay away, especially at that price. If Ben heard that and didn't bust out with "Hoo, now that's a good one!" I would be surprised. There is a lot more about Dickey in one of the other threads (can't recall which one) but I think he's too old and that 2012 was a career year for him--I doubt he finds as much success in the future, especially in the AL.

#4 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26068 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

He's a soon-to-be-38-yo knuckleballer who has been working in one of the best pitcher's parks in the National League for the past three years. His best K/9 season before this year was 5.9; this year it was 8.9. Is a jump like that sustainable? Even if it's sustainable at Citi, is it sustainable at Fenway? How much talent do we really want to give up to find out?

If it's true we can get Gavin Floyd--a good, solid, bankable #3 type--for Salty one-up, that's a no-brainer. If we could also have Dickey for Salty, I'd say roll the dice. But it's clear that he's going to cost more, and it's not at all clear that he's going to be worth it.

Pass.


This. He's a useful piece but there are better ones out there that we can get for talent that is either less, non extistent, or redundant.

#5 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 12484 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:48 PM

I hate to be 'that' guy, but the thread title is explicitly misleading and unless we just want to have a hypothetical chat about Dickey's trade value to the Sox, not thread-worthy. All we got from the only source in the article is that Ben and Sandy had a chat at the winter meetings (OMG!), Dickey's name came up, the Mets asked an outlandish price, and that's it. Probably took five seconds of a 30-minute meeting. The writer called it out because the source gave him the prospect names. Don't fall into his trap.

#6 Papelbon's Poutine


  • SoSH Member


  • 5459 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:02 PM

Savin - I agree to pass but one question:

What does ballpark have to do with K/9 rate? I agree that jump is likely not sustainable but unless you were more talking about AL/NL as opposed to Citi vs Fenway, Im missing your point.

(null)

#7 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2740 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:07 PM

Most negatives about Dickey could have also been said about Kuroda and he worked out pretty good for the Yankees. He's not a one year wonder. He's been pretty good for three years. I doubt anything happens because of the cost, but fwiw there have been multiple reports that the teams never even exchanged names and the initial reports of the Mets asking for Bogaerts and Bradley are bogus. I don't see anyone better available right now so I hope we're at least having conversations about him.

#8 BoSox Rule

  • 1420 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:12 PM

Savin - I agree to pass but one question:

What does ballpark have to do with K/9 rate? I agree that jump is likely not sustainable but unless you were more talking about AL/NL as opposed to Citi vs Fenway, Im missing your point.

(null)

Park effects can have a lot to do with strikeouts. Here's a pretty good summary http://www.baseballp...?articleid=6559

#9 Papelbon's Poutine


  • SoSH Member


  • 5459 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:33 PM

That's pretty interesting. Thanks. Any newer info on where Citi ranks vs Fenway?

(null)

#10 AB in DC

  • 224 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:02 AM

Is Doug Mirabelli still in the league?

#11 Detts

  • 829 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:11 AM

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8706592/boston-red-sox-7-others-talk-new-york-mets-ra-dickey-source-says

The initial asking price seems high (Boegarts and Bradley, Jr.), but if you can have the Mets back down, do you make the deal? What do you think would be "reasonable" for the Sox to part with him, or should they stay away?

Any time you can trade a cost controlled replacement for Els and a 20 YO potential All Star caliber SS with elite bat speed, highly coachable, and a potential for 3-4-5 power for a 38 YO pitcher...you gotta make that trade.




I'm not sure 'seems' is the right word in this question....

IHMO the only teams that should give up anything of value are 'going for it now'..and the Sox are not one of those teams.

#12 Papelbon's Poutine


  • SoSH Member


  • 5459 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:16 AM

Obviously not what for what they are asking for but if they want a young catcher, would Swihart be in play for anyone? Not strong one way or the other just trying to gauge what we think he is worth?

(null)

#13 C4CRVT

  • 2404 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:48 AM

Obviously not what for what they are asking for but if they want a young catcher, would Swihart be in play for anyone? Not strong one way or the other just trying to gauge what we think he is worth?

(null)

I'll bite- It's a 5 million dollar team option- one year of control. You're probably getting some pretty good value for that contract so you'd have to give up something of value (top 10 plus a couple of top 30). Not sure it's a fit though. It seems like the RS should be hanging on to the kids at this point and using their financial advantage to "fix the team via FA" and leave the kids alone for a while.

I do believe Jimbo has bingo in this thread though.

#14 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 12484 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:51 AM

I do believe Jimbo has bingo in this thread though.


It's worth noting that I dismissed, mocked, and outright ridiculed everyone who thought there was anything at all to the story about Gonzo being picked up on waivers by LA. Everyone goes through waivers! Everyone is discussed at the winter meetings! Silliness!

#15 HriniakPosterChild

  • 3519 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:31 AM

Is Doug Mirabelli still in the league?

He's now playing in a different league, but he can probably be posted.

#16 DanoooME


  • SoSH Member


  • 6355 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:14 AM

The Mets don't have anyone worth Bogaerts and JBJ on their entire roster.

#17 Hokie Sox

  • 83 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:37 AM

I'm going to give Ben the benefit of the doubt and interpret this story as simple conjecture by some bored reporter who heard a report about a conversation such as this:

Collins: You could use an innings-eater, right Ben?
Cherington: (standard cliche) We're always exploring our options.
Collins: Dickey?
Cherington: Price?
Collins: Let's say... Bradley and Bogaerts?
Cherington: Oh Fuck Off Terry. *walks away*

#18 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4998 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:02 AM

I hate to be 'that' guy, but the thread title is explicitly misleading and unless we just want to have a hypothetical chat about Dickey's trade value to the Sox, not thread-worthy. All we got from the only source in the article is that Ben and Sandy had a chat at the winter meetings (OMG!), Dickey's name came up, the Mets asked an outlandish price, and that's it. Probably took five seconds of a 30-minute meeting. The writer called it out because the source gave him the prospect names. Don't fall into his trap.


I think you're dead on here. And I think this "rumor" is a good example of the type of thing we see all winter long every winter, twitter and social media just make it that much more prevalent. Reporters are anxious to report "something" so they'll report anything that looks like "something". To be honest, I think the Lester-Myers thing is in the same mold. A tiny tidbit that probably doesn't have legs gets out in the twitterverse and suddenly we have two days worth of sports radio chatter, a bunch of blog posts and articles, and multi-page threads on forums. It can be fun fodder for discussion, so long as it remains in perspective as hypothetical ideas rather than real possibilities. We're smart enough here to know the difference. Sports radio hosts and most of their moronic callers...not so much.

#19 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2740 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:34 AM

I'm going to give Ben the benefit of the doubt and interpret this story as simple conjecture by some bored reporter who heard a report about a conversation such as this:

Collins: You could use an innings-eater, right Ben?
Cherington: (standard cliche) We're always exploring our options.
Collins: Dickey?
Cherington: Price?
Collins: Let's say... Bradley and Bogaerts?
Cherington: Oh Fuck Off Terry. *walks away*


Both Alex Speier and Met reporter Andy Martino refuted the report that the Mets asked for Bradley and Bogaerts, and went on to say that no specific prospects had been discussed. The news that the Mets were increasingly likely to trade Dickey just came out yesterday. They were trying to work out an extension before then. It makes sense that Ben checked in to get an idea of what the Mets are looking for. All that means is they are considering making an offer.

#20 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6959 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:37 AM

My guess is Ben checked in to see if there was any scenario to build a deal around Salty and let's say, Brentz.

#21 Philip Jeff Frye


  • SoSH Member


  • 5346 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:12 AM

Any time you can trade a cost controlled replacement for Els and a 20 YO potential All Star caliber SS with elite bat speed, highly coachable, and a potential for 3-4-5 power for a 38 YO pitcher...you gotta make that trade.

You could just as easily say "any time you can trade two minor leaguers who might never amount to anything for a Cy Young winner who just won 20 pitching for a terrible team... you gotta make that trade."

I'm not saying I make this deal either, but the prospect love around here is out of control. I'd love to get in the SoSH time machine and see the complaints in the winter of 1997 about the Pavano/Armas trade. "Pedro's not cost controlled! The Expos just slagged his arm! He's never pitched in the AL! Pavano has #1 potential and Armas is even better!"

#22 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4998 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:18 AM

You could just as easily say "any time you can trade two minor leaguers who might never amount to anything for a Cy Young winner who just won 20 pitching for a terrible team... you gotta make that trade."

I'm not saying I make this deal either, but the prospect love around here is out of control. I'd love to get in the SoSH time machine and see the complaints in the winter of 1997 about the Pavano/Armas trade. "Pedro's not cost controlled! The Expos just slagged his arm! He's never pitched in the AL! Pavano has #1 potential and Armas is even better!"


While I agree that there is a level of prospect love around here that can be a bit out of whack, the Pedro comparison falls short here. There is a world of difference between acquiring 27-year-old, in-his-prime Pedro and 38-year-old, late-bloomer-and-potential-flash-in-the-pan-gimmick-pitcher R.A. Dickey. This isn't prospect love preventing acquisition of a HOF-caliber difference maker, this is prospect love arguing against overpaying for an aged knuckleballer who may have simply caught lightning in a bottle for a couple seasons. Apples and oranges.

#23 lexrageorge

  • 3043 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

The Mets see a cost-controlled (for 1 season) pitcher who just won the Cy Young, feel his value will never be higher, and are looking to see if they can use that value to help their own rebuilding efforts.

The rebuilding Red Sox likely see a 38 y/o pitcher who may very well have had his one career year, and who may very well be gone after 2013. Acquiring Dickey doesn't appear to me to be the best use of their top prospects. I'm not opposed to trading top prospects for the right player, but the Cy Young label seems more like a red herring in this case.

#24 Drek717

  • 1989 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:31 PM

You could just as easily say "any time you can trade two minor leaguers who might never amount to anything for a Cy Young winner who just won 20 pitching for a terrible team... you gotta make that trade."

I'm not saying I make this deal either, but the prospect love around here is out of control. I'd love to get in the SoSH time machine and see the complaints in the winter of 1997 about the Pavano/Armas trade. "Pedro's not cost controlled! The Expos just slagged his arm! He's never pitched in the AL! Pavano has #1 potential and Armas is even better!"


Not a valid comparison. I think we'd all set aside our prospect love if Xander Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley was going to land us Felix Hernandez, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about R.A. Dickey, a 38 year old knuckleballer who would be moving from the NL to the AL.

Prospects are volatile, but the probability that both Bogaerts and Bradley not only miss, but miss so badly they're worth less than one year of Dickey is incredibly slim.

#25 pjr

  • 454 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

According to Adam Rubin ESPN NY the Mets are asking for Wil Myers in a trade for Dickey.

Edited by pjr, 04 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.


#26 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 7715 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:16 PM

I suspect that this story started as a Sox leak in order to intervene in the Gavin Floyd talks.

I don't know if that's consistent with the laughable prospect cost identified. Maybe ESPN asked the Mets for comment.

#27 Yaz4Ever


  • can't find anyone to sit with at games


  • 8290 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:21 PM

According to MLB TradeRumors the Mets are asking for Wil Myers in a trade for Dickey.


Good, now maybe KC will give us Myers and Hochevar for Lester and Nava and feel successful.

#28 Andrew


  • broke his neck in costa rica


  • 9567 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:28 PM

He's now playing in a different league, but he can probably be posted.


It's cool that he was a Pokemon charity foundation.

#29 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 25311 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

According to MLB TradeRumors the Mets are asking for Wil Myers in a trade for Dickey.


Actually, that's according to espn.com, as repeated by MLBTR ... just to give JimBosox9 some company in the "that guy" bus

Gammons and Heyman on MLB Network each said today that Dickey is likely to be dealt. Gammons said the early Red Sox prospect rumor was bogus, that those names had not been mentioned.

#30 Rovin Romine

  • 2951 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:59 PM

Not a valid comparison. I think we'd all set aside our prospect love if Xander Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley was going to land us Felix Hernandez, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about R.A. Dickey, a 38 year old knuckleballer who would be moving from the NL to the AL.

Prospects are volatile, but the probability that both Bogaerts and Bradley not only miss, but miss so badly they're worth less than one year of Dickey is incredibly slim.


Not that Bogaerts and Bradley are sure things, but assume they are. As a thought experiment, would you trade Ellsbury and H-Ram for Pedro in his prime? Given those players' WAR (thusfar) and Pedro's ability to dominate a playoff series says "yes."

#31 johnnywayback

  • 459 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:10 PM

I really don't think we're R.A. Dickey away from serious championship contention in 2013 -- at least, not the way we were Pedro Martinez away from serious championship contention in 1998.

#32 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2740 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:12 PM

According to Andy Martino on twitter, the Dodgers offered Zach Lee and Dee Gordon and were turned down. As much as I like Dickey I wouldn't want to see the Sox top that offer. I don't get it. They won't give him the reasonable extension he wants and they won't take that package for him.

#33 Bowlerman9


  • bitchslapped by Keith Law


  • 5031 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:15 PM

According to Andy Martino on twitter, the Dodgers offered Zach Lee and Dee Gordon and were turned down. As much as I like Dickey I wouldn't want to see the Sox top that offer. I don't get it. They won't give him the reasonable extension he wants and they won't take that package for him.


Have you looked up the stats for the 2 players mentioned? I wouldnt trade RA Dickey for that package, either. Alderson is a sabermetrics guy and I cant see why Lee and Gordon would be of interest to him. I know Lee is very young for the league and his peripherals are "good" but not great, but thats not the type of guy Alderson is looking for.

#34 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2740 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:18 PM

Have you looked up the stats for the 2 players mentioned? I wouldnt trade RA Dickey for that package, either. Alderson is a sabermetrics guy and I cant see why Lee and Gordon would be of interest to him. I know Lee is very young for the league and his peripherals are "good" but not great, but thats not the type of guy Alderson is looking for.


Agree on Gordon but I like Lee a lot and he was rumored to be the on guy LA wouldn't trade in the Punto deal. He's very young, and I wouldn't just look at numbers, but I do see where they'd want someone major league ready. That being said, I still think thats a pretty good offer for a guy with one year left and who you won't give 15/year to.

#35 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:27 PM

Maybe they're hoping they can drive a harder bargain once the better FA pitchers fall off the board.

#36 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9675 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:58 PM

Red Sox are not one of the teams pursuing RA Dickey. At least not until they know if they can land Ryan Dempster.

https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/278982093642551297
link to tweet




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users