2019 Trade Deadline

Status
Not open for further replies.

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
47,308
I feel like it's a lot more likely they were hoping to scout Shane Greene.

Boyd to BOS seems incredibly unlikely: 1) he will be really pricy in terms of prospects since he's under control until 2023, 2) he has given up 10 HRs in 29 innings in June, and 3) not sure where I saw this earlier today, but he has been way worse against good teams than bad teams so far this season.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,814
St. Louis, MO
I feel like it's a lot more likely they were hoping to scout Shane Greene.

Boyd to BOS seems incredibly unlikely: 1) he will be really pricy in terms of prospects since he's under control until 2023, 2) he has given up 10 HRs in 29 innings in June, and 3) not sure where I saw this earlier today, but he has been way worse against good teams than bad teams so far this season.
I thought of Greene also and seems much more likely.
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
2,452
Just informational, Greene did not pitch last night for Detroit.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,475
Who will the Sox make available for a guy like Greene?

EDIT_ but more importantly, I should add... what will it actually take to get him?
 

YTF

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Who will the Sox make available for a guy like Greene?

EDIT_ but more importantly, I should add... what will it actually take to get him?
\
And keep him. Remainder of this season would be somewhere between 1.3 and 2 million depending on when such a deal might be made, he's arbitration eligible next season (assuming you might want to try to keep him) and a free agent in 2021.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,393
As I said in the bullpen thread, I think there's a certain logic to getting a starting pitcher who can consistently give you six innings to take some of the pressure off of the relievers as a unit rather than overpaying for a bullpen piece, and if you get someone with an extra year (or more!) of control remaining, you get a potential Porcello replacement for 2020 to boot. I could see Detroit being interested in Dalbec also as part of a deal for either Boyd or Greene (though I don't think he's enough in either case), since Candelario has been mostly a bust so far - though he's only 26, so maybe they don't want to give up on him just yet.

I don't think it's likely, but I do think it’s possible.
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
I believe this is the first step toward selling.

First see what talent at what cost is available to improve the underperforming Sox.

Then decide to buy or sell.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,437
I believe this is the first step toward selling.

First see what talent at what cost is available to improve the underperforming Sox.

Then decide to buy or sell.
They have a perfectly decent chance of making the wild card. Then it's a coin flip to make the actual playoffs. At which point the bullpen likely automatically improves. Why are they selling? Because the Yankees are good?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,259
I believe this is the first step toward selling.

First see what talent at what cost is available to improve the underperforming Sox.

Then decide to buy or sell.
The WC standings in 3 weeks will determine whether the RS are sellers or not. As things stand now, no. They are in a cluster of a handful of teams. They are not going to bail on a season while that is the case.
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
Scouting other teams' major league talent is a first step toward selling? How does that work?
Fair question. My economy of force approach to writing requires reflection.

I believe underperforming Red Sox will have parts sold off before the deadline. Sox leadership is taking prudent steps to explore the possibility and cost of improvement - but ultimately ending where I began.

Sell.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,424
The wrong side of the bridge....
Fair question. My economy of force approach to writing requires reflection.

I believe underperforming Red Sox will have parts sold off before the deadline. Sox leadership is taking prudent steps to explore the possibility and cost of improvement - but ultimately ending where I began.

Sell.
OK, so what you're saying is they'll take a first step toward buying, but in the end they'll go in the other direction. Got it.

If management thinks the Sox are truly underperforming (as opposed to just inadequately constructed), then they won't sell, they'll gamble on a 2nd-half surge and then see where they are over the winter. The only major piece on the current roster not under control for 2020 is Porcello, I think (unless you count the 1B tandem under that head). So even if they've given up on 2019 there would be no panic to move anyone at the deadline.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,475
I would definitely say that Chavis is on the trade market for a bullpen arm. I don't think he necessarily fits long term in the Sox plan.... his value is probably somewhat high right now (can play a variety of positions, 5+ more years on team that picks him up, has shown power swing). Moreland should be back soon for the short term and the Sox have a few 1B/3B/DH options that could fill that role if Devers needs to move around (yeah, I'd prefer to keep Devers at 3B though).
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,393
With the bullpen being discussed elsewhere, I'll bring up maybe a low-priority trade deadline possibility: improving the bench, specifically options against left-handed pitching. The Red Sox as a team have a .731 OPS against left-handed pitching as of this moment. It's possible that the return of Pearce will help out in this area, though he was not hitting well when he went on the IL. But ... I'll skip the long preamble and say that I'm just suggesting a Nunez replacement at this point. One might think this is not really necessary given the existence of Holt, Lin, and Hernandez, but they're all left-handed. (It's true that Cora could start playing one of them against LH pitching more, but he hasn't this season - Holt has only started six games against LHPs, for instance). Nunez is the worst player (hitter or pitcher) on the team by BB-Ref WAR and second from the bottom in Fangraphs. It seems like an easy place to upgrade.

Of course, when I was researching possible targets and looking at teams who are obvious sellers at the moment, the best I could come up with was Tim Beckham, which... not great, Bob. He'd be an upgrade over Nunez! And he can legitimately back up shortstop! But he's also sort of an infield version of Bradley only without the good defense - he'll look amazing for about a month at a time, followed by a month where he looks like he should be in AA. I doubt he'd move the needle enough to make such a deal worth it. Maybe Iglesias (Jose, not Raisel) if the Reds fall out of it, but I suspect they'll wait as long as possible before deciding to sell.

The other option would be to get a legit fourth outfielder so you don't have to throw JD out there, since it seems like he's been needing games off more and more frequently afterwards.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,437
Having Mookie’s OPS against LHP improve from the .622 it is this year towards the 1.207 it was last year would help.
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
2,150
East Bay
I would definitely say that Chavis is on the trade market for a bullpen arm. I don't think he necessarily fits long term in the Sox plan.... his value is probably somewhat high right now (can play a variety of positions, 5+ more years on team that picks him up, has shown power swing). Moreland should be back soon for the short term and the Sox have a few 1B/3B/DH options that could fill that role if Devers needs to move around (yeah, I'd prefer to keep Devers at 3B though).
The problem with this is that the Sox need Chavis (or I guess some player, it doesn't have to be Chavis) to play 2B or 1B for the league minimum or close to it so that they can afford to give raises to Mookie, Benintendi, Rodriguez, etc. He has a lot of value in that sense, if he can hit a fastball and keep his K% under 40%.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,330
The problem with this is that the Sox need Chavis (or I guess some player, it doesn't have to be Chavis) to play 2B or 1B for the league minimum or close to it so that they can afford to give raises to Mookie, Benintendi, Rodriguez, etc. He has a lot of value in that sense, if he can hit a fastball and keep his K% under 40%.
Definitely. There are young players who may be stars, like Devers. And there are guys who will give you league average or a bit above performance, but do it cheaply, like Chavis. Hey, maybe he develops into something special too, but so far he looks like a home grown version of what the Sox have been paying free agents market rate to do at 1B. That savings could be huge in keeping emerging talent over the next few years.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,475
Definitely. There are young players who may be stars, like Devers. And there are guys who will give you league average or a bit above performance, but do it cheaply, like Chavis. Hey, maybe he develops into something special too, but so far he looks like a home grown version of what the Sox have been paying free agents market rate to do at 1B. That savings could be huge in keeping emerging talent over the next few years.
I get that.... but it seems like Dalbec could possibly step in and do that right now. He's got a better defensive rep, flashes more power and has the same strikeout problem. Not advocating... but Chavis doesn't really seem to be an irreplaceable part even considering his cost. With Porcello, Panda money (and JDM money) about to come off the books, it seems that they'd be able to find the money there to pay Mookie and give raises around. Additionally, I'm pretty sure the tax threshold will go up a good $15M (gut feeling, no data).
To me, a good reliever is going to cost Chavis or Dalbec and possibly another minor arm (like Tanner Houk). If it's Chavis or Dalbec, I think Dalbec has both the higher ceiling and higher floor.*

*Getting flashbacks to the Rizzo-Anderson and Khalish-Reddick (Sox lost on both them... betting on Anderson and Reddick)
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,330
I get that.... but it seems like Dalbec could possibly step in and do that right now. He's got a better defensive rep, flashes more power and has the same strikeout problem. Not advocating... but Chavis doesn't really seem to be an irreplaceable part even considering his cost. With Porcello, Panda money (and JDM money) about to come off the books, it seems that they'd be able to find the money there to pay Mookie and give raises around. Additionally, I'm pretty sure the tax threshold will go up a good $15M (gut feeling, no data).
To me, a good reliever is going to cost Chavis or Dalbec and possibly another minor arm (like Tanner Houk). If it's Chavis or Dalbec, I think Dalbec has both the higher ceiling and higher floor.*

*Getting flashbacks to the Rizzo-Anderson and Khalish-Reddick (Sox lost on both them... betting on Anderson and Reddick)
I think we have a slightly better idea of the floor on Chavis than a kid currently with 350 at-bats in AA. I'm not picking a horse in the race between them, because I am a crap minor league baseball player evaluator, but I'd be more comfortable keeping the one who has shown something in the majors. I'd be more inclined to give up someone who is a bit more blocked than Chavis or Dalbec. I also don't think trading things of real value for relief pitchers is a good idea. As noted above, you're usually just paying for someone who had a good half season so far, and I'll have to look for the article, but I believe fangraphs had a piece a while ago showing that performance over the first half of a season had little predictive power for performance over the second half for relievers. And paying for a proven multi year reliever stud is just not going to be in the budget in terms of cash or prospects.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,558
I think we have a slightly better idea of the floor on Chavis than a kid currently with 350 at-bats in AA. I'm not picking a horse in the race between them, because I am a crap minor league baseball player evaluator, but I'd be more comfortable keeping the one who has shown something in the majors. I'd be more inclined to give up someone who is a bit more blocked than Chavis or Dalbec. I also don't think trading things of real value for relief pitchers is a good idea. As noted above, you're usually just paying for someone who had a good half season so far, and I'll have to look for the article, but I believe fangraphs had a piece a while ago showing that performance over the first half of a season had little predictive power for performance over the second half for relievers. And paying for a proven multi year reliever stud is just not going to be in the budget in terms of cash or prospects.
Chavis is also younger than that kid in AA. You don't need to be an expert to know what that means in regards to prospects and age related performances.
 

RoDaddy

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2002
2,323
Albany area, NY
Felipe Vazquez? Lights out with a good contract moving forward, he'd be a shut down closer for a number of years at a good price. The Pirates might be sellers depending on the next few weeks and if they decide to offer Vazquez, would likely ask for a significant overpay. For him or anyone, I think the Sox have some valuable potential trade pieces including Chavis or Dalbec (they're redundant), Chatham (having a pretty good year, and we have plenty of shortstops in the system with X signed long term), Duran, D Hernandez, Houck, Mata and maybe even ERod if Wright looks good as a starter
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,558
Wright isn't going to be starting. The rest of your list is a laundry list of players. Which one(s) fill a Pirates need?
He also can't play a role in the playoffs, where as EdRod can and most likely will. They aren't going to leave a hole in their playoff roster because they have Wright.

They shouldn't be trading away any pitching anyway.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,893
I don't see a reason to make a trade this season, unless we need an emergency salary dump for some bizarre reason right now. The farm system, despite the recent successes, remains to poor to be effective buyers, and we're certainly not sellers.

Obviously, if we could use mind control to get a player of choice, I'd want a left-handed closer like Felipe. It's nice to want. It's still not going to happen.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,558
It's really just about what the Red Sox need.
I could see the Pirates actually wanting EdRod, but I wouldn't trade EdRod for Vazquez alone and as I noted earlier, it just leaves another potential hole come playoff time.

The other guys he mentioned, I don't see why the Pirates would settle for any of them outside of maybe Chavis because they could get a better return from other teams. If the season ended today, I'm not sure any of those guys would be a consensus top 100 pick, save maybe Dalbec.

On a side note, I really like Dalbec and maybe he does have a career comparable to Chavis but calling them interchangeable right now is a huge disservice to Michael Chavis. Chavis is in the majors slashing .263/.336/.449 in 262 PA and doesn't turn 24 until August 11th. Bobby Dalbec is slashing .233/.370/.457 in 300 PA at AA and turned 24 today. Happy birthday fella.

Chavis has pretty much been 1 or 2 levels ahead of Bobby Dalbec throughout their minor league careers.

In 413 PA in AA during ages 21 and 22, Chavis hit .268/.337/.497.
In 424 PA in AA during ages 23 and 24, Dalbec hit .242/.356/.475.

As a 21 year old in Salem, Chavis slashed .318/.388/.641 in 250 PA.
As a 23 year old in Salem, Dalbec slashed .256/.372/.573 in 419 PA.

I get the comparison, but 2 years is a huge f'n deal and makes the comparison moot.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,610
New York City
"It's hard to imagine fielding a better team." Wtf? It's really not THAT hard, just look at everyone above you in the standings.

Also them claiming it's not a luxury tax issue seems like total BS.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,312
That article quoting Henry includes a mention that the Sox are already over the luxury tax threshold of $246 million, according to this site. I believe that is incorrect as the $251.4 payroll figure erroneously includes Rusney Castillo's $11.8 million. Anyone have a definitive answer on this?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,194
Maine
"It's hard to imagine fielding a better team." Wtf? It's really not THAT hard, just look at everyone above you in the standings.

Also them claiming it's not a luxury tax issue seems like total BS.
The team they have, when healthy, won the World Series last year with a franchise best in wins. It's not unreasonable to have the view that it's hard to imagine fielding a better team, especially if we're talking about deadline trades and adding payroll. They have invested heavily up and down the roster already. It's not as though they can simply discard those that aren't performing well and replace them with players guaranteed to be significantly better. Should they be trading the precious few resources they have in terms of prospects to upgrade spots that could be improved just as easily with players they already have either coming back from injury or simply breaking out of whatever slump they're in?

When you're spending $13M on 1B already, and both players have spent more time on the IL than off, is it wise to invest more in another 1B or wait for one or both of them to get healthy? When you have a $17M pitcher on the IL who is in the process of working his way back, do you spend more to get another pitcher or wait for him to come back? Easy for a fan to say spend whatever it takes, but a lot harder for the team to do so considering not just the financial implications but also roster construction. They only have so many roster spots.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
6,160
Springfield, VA
That article quoting Henry includes a mention that the Sox are already over the luxury tax threshold of $246 million, according to this site. I believe that is incorrect as the $251.4 payroll figure erroneously includes Rusney Castillo's $11.8 million. Anyone have a definitive answer on this?
Similar question -- suppose the Sox trade Castillo, and include cash in the deal to pay a chunk of his salary next year. Does that cash get counted toward the luxury tax threshold? Or is it off the books, just like his original salary? And does this depend on whether the other team puts him on the 25-man roster?
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
786
If there was a trade market for Castillo it would have been taken advantage of by now.
I must admit that any post on this site or the Globe that inçludes the phrase "bring up Rusney Castillo" I immediately dismiss
 

soxin6

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
2,978
Huntington Beach, CA
The team they have, when healthy, won the World Series last year with a franchise best in wins. It's not unreasonable to have the view that it's hard to imagine fielding a better team, especially if we're talking about deadline trades and adding payroll. They have invested heavily up and down the roster already. It's not as though they can simply discard those that aren't performing well and replace them with players guaranteed to be significantly better. Should they be trading the precious few resources they have in terms of prospects to upgrade spots that could be improved just as easily with players they already have either coming back from injury or simply breaking out of whatever slump they're in?

When you're spending $13M on 1B already, and both players have spent more time on the IL than off, is it wise to invest more in another 1B or wait for one or both of them to get healthy? When you have a $17M pitcher on the IL who is in the process of working his way back, do you spend more to get another pitcher or wait for him to come back? Easy for a fan to say spend whatever it takes, but a lot harder for the team to do so considering not just the financial implications but also roster construction. They only have so many roster spots.
No, the team they have didn't win the WS. The team they had last year had a closer and another bullpen pitcher capable of throwing 100 MPH. Kelly was hit and miss, but last year's pen was not the same as this tire fire. Couple that with below expectation performances by players like Sale, JD, and Mookie and you have a mediocre team. It doesn't take much to go from a champion to a wild card contender.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,147
Ashburnham, MA
No, the team they have didn't win the WS. The team they had last year had a closer and another bullpen pitcher capable of throwing 100 MPH. Kelly was hit and miss, but last year's pen was not the same as this tire fire. Couple that with below expectation performances by players like Sale, JD, and Mookie and you have a mediocre team. It doesn't take much to go from a champion to a wild card contender.
If the team is a wild card contender with a major starting pitching piece on his way back from the DL and a couple of major pieces playing below expectations (though not poorly), that really does seem to point to not making many major moves. Maybe if there's a bullpen upgrade available in the right price range that might be worth it, but standing pat seems like it falls within the reasonable choices.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,194
Maine
No, the team they have didn't win the WS. The team they had last year had a closer and another bullpen pitcher capable of throwing 100 MPH. Kelly was hit and miss, but last year's pen was not the same as this tire fire. Couple that with below expectation performances by players like Sale, JD, and Mookie and you have a mediocre team. It doesn't take much to go from a champion to a wild card contender.
Top six relievers listed by # of appearances, one is 2018 and one is 2019. Which one looks like a tire fire and which one looks like a championship bullpen?

1.70 ERA, 2.87 FIP, 280 ERA+, 1.027 WHIP
3.41 ERA, 4.71 FIP, 140 ERA+, 1.136 WHIP
4.93 ERA, 2.85 FIP, 97 ERA+, 1.356 WHIP
3.48 ERA, 3.36 FIP, 137 ERA+, 1.114 WHIP
4.08 ERA, 3.71 FIP, 117 ERA+, 1.755 WHIP
2.51 ERA, 3.93 FIP, 190 ERA+, 1.116 WHIP

4.39 ERA, 3.57 FIP, 101 ERA+, 1.355 WHIP
4.20 ERA, 4.19 FIP, 105 ERA+, 1.333 WHIP
2.74 ERA, 3.13 FIP, 161 ERA+, 0.995 WHIP
3.65 ERA, 2.71 FIP, 121 ERA+, 1.265 WHIP
3.18 ERA, 4.15 FIP, 139 ERA+, 1.447 WHIP
3.27 ERA, 4.42 FIP, 136 ERA+, 1.210 WHIP

Is it really as simple as not having Kelly and Kimbrel? Kelly's sporting an ERA north of 6 (4.30 FIP) in LA. Many of the blown saves everyone is bemoaning have come before the 9th inning so I fail to see how much of a difference Kimbrel would make in that regard.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
3,894
Doesn't sound like the Sox will be adding salary, so they might need to unload salary to add salary


View attachment 25031
I guess it comes down to the definition of "a lot".

I thought this was the most interesting quote in the article:
"My take is that maybe it isn’t the best thing in the world to bring back the same team in its entirety every time. You don’t want to break a team down. But maybe a few changes wouldn’t hurt. But the feeling is always different after you win, apparently."
Perhaps a bit of Eovaldi and Pearce buyer's remorse. DD's posterior might be starting to feel a tinge of warmth.
 

Ted Cox 4 president

Member
SoSH Member
Was it Theo who opined that it’s a good idea to not bring back a WS-winning team in its entirety (not that the RS did, not 100 percent), that some turnover is good, even though it means breaking up a proven winner? IIRC, someone with cred expressed doubt, without specifically naming Pearce and Eovaldi.
 

chawson

Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,672
Tweet from Joel Sherman: “Logan Morrison had a July 1 opt out date from AAA with #Yankees, who called up Mike Ford to replace Luke Voit (IL). So this morning Morrison requested his unconditional release.”

This is hardly an endorsement but LoMo makes some sense right about now. Been hitting .289/.341.658 in AAA.
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
5,273
New Hampshire
Tweet from Joel Sherman: “Logan Morrison had a July 1 opt out date from AAA with #Yankees, who called up Mike Ford to replace Luke Voit (IL). So this morning Morrison requested his unconditional release.”

This is hardly an endorsement but LoMo makes some sense right about now. Been hitting .289/.341.658 in AAA.
Assuming Moreland and Pearce aren't walking through that door anytime soon, Morrison is a perfect platoon partner for Chavis. He also has significant outfield corner experience, so we wouldn't have to risk JD out there.

Probably can't beat the price, either.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,194
Maine
Assuming Moreland and Pearce aren't walking through that door anytime soon, Morrison is a perfect platoon partner for Chavis. He also has significant outfield corner experience, so we wouldn't have to risk JD out there.

Probably can't beat the price, either.
Pearce just had a set back and ended his rehab so he's not a factor at the moment. LoMo as a LHH would ostensibly be for Moreland's spot. Moreland reportedly began "baseball activities" last week so he can't be too far off from a return. I don't think Moreland and LoMo can really co-exist on the same roster, but if they want to give a trial run to LoMo with the thought of maybe spinning him off once Moreland comes back, it might be worth the flier.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,393
For what it's worth, Chavis has a pretty big reverse split this year: .288/.367/.473 vs RHP vs .180/.231/.443 vs LHP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.