For Sale: At What Cost?

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
White Sox may consider moving Chris Sale (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/6319/chris-sale).
 
The details:
 
- will be 25 in March
- last two seasons:  3.06 era, 140 era+, 1.10 whip, 9.3 k/9
- contract:  
  - 2014:  3.5 m
  - 2015:  6 m
  - 2016:  9.2 m
  - 2017:  12 m
  - 2018:  12.5 m (team option)
  - 2019:  13.5 m (team option)
 
Clearly, given the age, ability, production, and contract, he has to be one of the most desirable players in MLB to acquire.  The White Sox have a lot of holes.  A bad lineup (just two regulars had an ops+ over 100), weak rotation, just not a lot there.  Well, they went 63-99 last year so that tells you something.
 
I wonder if the Sox could swing a deal for Sale.  They have tons of quality prospects that could make a lot of sense for Chicago.  What would you give up for Sale, and what might Chicago realistically expect?
 
 

BCsMightyJoeYoung

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,164
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
ivanvamp said:
White Sox may consider moving Chris Sale (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/6319/chris-sale).
 
The details:
 
- will be 25 in March
- last two seasons:  3.06 era, 140 era+, 1.10 whip, 9.3 k/9
- contract:  
  - 2014:  3.5 m
  - 2015:  6 m
  - 2016:  9.2 m
  - 2017:  12 m
  - 2018:  12.5 m (team option)
  - 2019:  13.5 m (team option)
 
Clearly, given the age, ability, production, and contract, he has to be one of the most desirable players in MLB to acquire.  The White Sox have a lot of holes.  A bad lineup (just two regulars had an ops+ over 100), weak rotation, just not a lot there.  Well, they went 63-99 last year so that tells you something.
 
I wonder if the Sox could swing a deal for Sale.  They have tons of quality prospects that could make a lot of sense for Chicago.  What would you give up for Sale, and what might Chicago realistically expect?
 
 
Just wandered in to post something similar .. Sale has to have far more value than Price given that contract. If the Sox are contemplating a big "prospects for stars" move like this I think Sale  and not Stanton, should be their target. Given that the Farm has a wide array of positional prospects and SPs one would think they could dangle a pretty attractive package (X and presumably Bradley excluded of course). No idea what the White Sox would be specifically looking for. They should be looking to get the best influx of talent regardless of position.  
 
Of course there would have to be lots of moving pieces as they would have to get rid of a couple of starters to make room. 
 
Edit: forgot the link:
 
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-white-sox-could-shop-left-handed-pitchers-at-winter-meetings-chris-sale-jose-quintana-hector-santiago-120813
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,945
Twin Cities
I'd be all over Sale.  I  wouldn't offer X or JBJ (now that Ells is gone).  I'd like to avoid including Cecchini but would do it if necessary.  They could choose any two of our top pitching prospects, including Doubront and Workman.  Add in a lower level riser like Betts.  They probably want hitting prospects, though, which could be a problem. 
 
Would Doubront, Workman/Webster, Brentz and Betts get a conversation going?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,154
The wrong side of the bridge....
If I'm the White Sox, I'm going to ask for at least three of our top 10s for Sale, plus 2 or 3 lesser (but better than lottery ticket) guys thrown in. Looking at Chicago's top 20 prospect list at mlb.com, it looks 3B and LHP are two positions they're organizationally thin on, so I think the conversation starts with Cecchini and Owens (well, I'm sure it starts with Bogaerts, but when it becomes serious, it starts with Cecchini and Owens). Then maybe Betts, plus a second-tier pitcher like Stankiewicz, plus another second- or third-tier piece.
 
Does that get it done, and are we willing to do it? Adding Sale would make an already good rotation dominant. But it's gonna mean a deep hit. Also, are there concerns about Sale's long-term viability? I feel like I've been hearing for a while that his delivery is an injury waiting to happen.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
10,798
Minneapolis Millers said:
I'd be all over Sale.  I  wouldn't offer X or JBJ (now that Ells is gone).  I'd like to avoid including Cecchini but would do it if necessary.  They could choose any two of our top pitching prospects, including Doubront and Workman.  Add in a lower level riser like Betts.  They probably want hitting prospects, though, which could be a problem. 
 
Would Doubront, Workman/Webster, Brentz and Betts get a conversation going?
The conversation would start and end with Xander. Chris Sale is one of the best pitchers in baseball, 25 years old, and cheap.

You don't acquire that guy without giving up your top prospect. Even if your number 5 prospect is better than most number 1's, there is always a weird political and perceptual thing with prospects. They are going to have to get the systems "numba one" prospect. End of story.
 

Brianish

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2008
4,833
Minneapolis Millers said:
I'd be all over Sale.  I  wouldn't offer X or JBJ (now that Ells is gone).  I'd like to avoid including Cecchini but would do it if necessary.  They could choose any two of our top pitching prospects, including Doubront and Workman.  Add in a lower level riser like Betts.  They probably want hitting prospects, though, which could be a problem. 
 
Would Doubront, Workman/Webster, Brentz and Betts get a conversation going?
 
Switch in Ranaudo/Owens for Workman/Webster, and Cecchini for Brentz. Then maybe. 
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,251
Town
Savin Hillbilly said:
If I'm the White Sox, I'm going to ask for at least three of our top 10s for Sale, plus 2 or 3 lesser (but better than lottery ticket) guys thrown in. Looking at Chicago's top 20 prospect list at mlb.com, it looks 3B and LHP are two positions they're organizationally thin on, so I think the conversation starts with Cecchini and Owens (well, I'm sure it starts with Bogaerts, but when it becomes serious, it starts with Cecchini and Owens). Then maybe Betts, plus a second-tier pitcher like Stankiewicz, plus another second- or third-tier piece.
 
Does that get it done, and are we willing to do it? Adding Sale would make an already good rotation dominant. But it's gonna mean a deep hit. Also, are there concerns about Sale's long-term viability? I feel like I've been hearing for a while that his delivery is an injury waiting to happen.
 
I think this is the rub with Sale. According to my (admittedly layperson's) eyes, his mechanics (arm action and landing leg in particular) must have some increased strain on his arm. I look at him as a possible future Tommy John case. While his contract would be very desirable, I'm not sure that the prospect package required would be worth the health risk here.
 
Edit:  Feel free to correct my admittedly rudimentary pitching mechanics observation.
 

Cumberland Blues

Dope
Dope
Sep 9, 2001
4,768
Two years of James Shields got 6.6 years of Wil Myers.  I've a hard time believing six years of Chris Sale in Boston happens w/out Xander going the other way along with at least 2 more top tens.  The Red Sox system does have the kind of depth to make a deal like this - but I still think it starts with Xander plus, and then a lot of that depth gets wiped out in one swell foop if they go that route. 
 

bohous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
2,731
Framingham
SouthernBoSox said:
The conversation would start and end with Xander. Chris Sale is one of the best pitchers in baseball, 25 years old, and cheap.

You don't acquire that guy without giving up your top prospect. Even if your number 5 prospect is better than most number 1's, there is always a weird political and perceptual thing with prospects. They are going to have to get the systems "numba one" prospect. End of story.
 
I was thinking the same but was going to say Xander or JBJ. I would strongly consider JBJ since I think there are ways you can piece together an outfield, at least short term. Opportunities for front end, young, cost controlled pitchers don't come around often.
 
As far as his mechanics, I admittedly don't know shit but this feels like looking for warts.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Cumberland Blues said:
Two years of James Shields got 6.6 years of Wil Myers.  I've a hard time believing six years of Chris Sale in Boston happens w/out Xander going the other way along with at least 2 more top tens.  The Red Sox system does have the kind of depth to make a deal like this - but I still think it starts with Xander plus, and then a lot of that depth gets wiped out in one swell foop if they go that route. 
 
Well if Xander HAS to be in the deal then I don't want Boston to do it, obviously.  They have a lot more quality pitching prospects than they do power-hitting SS prospects.  But I gotta believe that Chicago would at least listen to Cecchini, Owens, Betts, Ranaudo, and, say, Workman.  It would still leave the Sox with a pretty good farm system - not top 3, but still upper half in MLB.  
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,945
Twin Cities
It certainly would not be unreasonable for the CWS to demand X, but if that's where the convo starts and ends, then it doesn't go anywhere for us.  The question is whether they'd consider quality+quantity or insist on a "top 5 prospect in baseball" level talent.  Doubront, Owens, Cecchini, Betts?  That's starting to get painful enough for the Sox that it might be a feasible deal.
 
Hard to predict what might happen to Sale's arm.  Are there comparable guys out there with similar mechanics?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,422
AZ
I think it would likely take Bogaerts and a pitching prospect.  Kind of funny -- that would basically be the Hanley Ramirez trade all over again, wouldn't it?  
 
The Red Sox have won 3 world series despite having what -- upwards of 15 different short stops -- since Nomar.  So it's hard to look back on the Ramirez trade (even if you take out of the equation Mike Lowell's surprising resurgence) with anything but happiness.  Sale would be an incredible get, but after seeing Xander's seeming maturity in the playoffs, I'm kind of excited about the possibility of seeing one solid guy at that position for more than a year.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,610
If you are the White Sox, why do you even think for a second about trading Chris Sale, aside from seeing if one of your peers is really, really stupid and will overpay?  He is on a team-friendly deal for the next four years (with club options in 2018 and 2019).  A playoff spot should be achievable every year in that division.   
 
In other words, what is wrong with him?
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
This kind of thing is fun to talk about, but I think we need to understand the reality here.  The ChiSox have no reason to deal Sale other than being blown away.  They are not putting him on the market, they are merely listening to teams that are trying to get them interested in making a trade.  Offering them Cecchini, Owens, Ranaudo, isn't going to do that.  I mean I guess if you find out that Arizona is offering Shipley, Davidson and some B- prospects then you insert yourself in the conversation.  But the only prospect the Sox really have to compete with Archie Bradley is Xander.  So then if you don't want to include Xander you have to hope the Chicago wants quantity over quality.  And, frankly, I doubt that's what they want. 
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
ToeKneeArmAss said:
So how does Sale end up in pinstripes here?
 
I'm thinking it would have to be a three-way deal, but no one needs this guy more than they do.
 
Cash is a great lubricant.
I think Samardzija is a more likely target for them, though I don't think they have the prospects for either. 
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,612
Row 14
ToeKneeArmAss said:
So how does Sale end up in pinstripes here?
 
I'm thinking it would have to be a three-way deal, but no one needs this guy more than they do.
 
Cash is a great lubricant.
 
There is legitimately no way for the Yankees to pull that off.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,693
Somerville, MA
I want nothing to do with Sale and his mechanics.  The White Sox are smart to be shopping him, they're trying to sell high on a very high risk player
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
If the Sox didn't have an immediate need for Xander and JBJ, then I could see this deal getting done.
 
As it stands, no bullshit offer like Doubront, Workman, Brentz, and Marrero would even come close. They're going to ask for X and JBJ to start, and probably an arm like Ranaudo or Owens on top of it.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
JimD said:
If you are the White Sox, why do you even think for a second about trading Chris Sale, aside from seeing if one of your peers is really, really stupid and will overpay?  He is on a team-friendly deal for the next four years (with club options in 2018 and 2019).  A playoff spot should be achievable every year in that division.   
 
In other words, what is wrong with him?
I wonder if they think skinny Chris Sale won't hold up till their team is relevant again and the way they look at it is they can A) trade him in 2013 and get a king's ransom, B) trade him in 2015 when cracks have started to show and he's closer to free agency and get 1/2 a king's ransom or C) hold him till 2017 when the team is a power again but he's burnt out by that time.
 
Didn't he lose a lot of velocity on his fastball at the end of 2012?  I don't know if it happened again this year but it doesn't auger well for his long term durability and performance.
 
Yeah, their division sucks but they were terrible even playing those teams and I think they have a low rated farm system.
 

bohous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
2,731
Framingham
veritas said:
I want nothing to do with Sale and his mechanics.  The White Sox are smart to be shopping him, they're trying to sell high on a very high risk player
 
 I thought this mechanics thing was being overstated but checking out video and he really whips that elbow.
 
Slow mo slider delivery at 1:50
 
Link
 
EDIT: can't embed
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
13,112
Eugene, OR
The thing is, Sale's contract is SO good that it almost doesn't matter if he is an injury risk.  He is talented enough to demand a high prospect price, and affordable enough to actually get it.  I think that there is a slight chance that we can get him without including X, but if the price is something like JBJ, Owens, Cecchini, Swihart, & PTBNL (Ball), do you do it?
 
Not having Ellsbury hamstrings us a little in trades by making it very hard to move our second-best prospect.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
60,093
Oregon
pokey_reese said:
The thing is, Sale's contract is SO good that it almost doesn't matter if he is an injury risk.  He is talented enough to demand a high prospect price, and affordable enough to actually get it.  I think that there is a slight chance that we can get him without including X, but if the price is something like JBJ, Owens, Cecchini, Swihart, & PTBNL (Ball), do you do it?
 
Ummm ... no.
 
Your hypothetical is four excellent prospects for a guy who could get hurt ... because he has a good contract? Say he does blow out his elbow, would you still be happy with that contract and losing that package you describe?
 
Edit: I'll also add that starting pitching is hardly a position of need at the moment, so to give up a package that large is doubly dubious
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Meaning no offense, I remember having these conversations with people in November of 1997.  "What if Tommy LaSorda is right?!?!?!"  "I don't like that frame and his mechanics!"  etc. etc.
 
Meanwhile the whole world thought Mark Prior was going to be the next Tom Seaver (or Roger Clemens) with his immaculate mechanics and thought the Twins were stupid and cheap to draft Mauer.
 
However, unlike Pedro or even Josh Beckett, there is no indication that Sale is actually for sale, just that if someone bowls them over they will think about it.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
60,093
Oregon
Smas, that's quite fair. I was just responding to the hypothetical statement made that his contract being favorable makes it immaterial even if he goes down with an injury.
 
That his contract is good doesn't outweigh the package the poster proposed plus the hypothetical injury
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,463
Puffy said:
 
I think this is the rub with Sale. According to my (admittedly layperson's) eyes, his mechanics (arm action and landing leg in particular) must have some increased strain on his arm. I look at him as a possible future Tommy John case. While his contract would be very desirable, I'm not sure that the prospect package required would be worth the health risk here.
 
Edit:  Feel free to correct my admittedly rudimentary pitching mechanics observation.
 
I actually think his frame and use of leverage have me less worried about injury based on eyeballs and feel than many, but there has been a fair amount of talk about his inverted W launch position, and increased elbow strain from sidearmers in general.
 
Keith Law when asked said he did feel his mechanics represented an injury concern as a starter, although he didn't like him at all as a prospect originally, so could be some hold over of that initial mistaken evaluation and concerns.
 
His contract is big enough and long enough that I would not be overly concerned about his risk of missing a year to elbow compared to anybody else, especially considering the successful recovery history.  I would be more concerned with shoulder issues if they are related to any of his difficulty down the stretch in 2012.
 
However, I don't think we are likely to find value with this trade.  The amount we would have to give up would likely exceed his reasonable contributions to our team.  I would like to kick the tires a lot (especially since we got Peavy from them and the communication channel is there along with their evaluation of our system), but I have a feeling they would end up wanting too much and any trade they would accept wouldn't improve our team when the dust settled.  But on the flip side it is exciting to think about his top of the rotation stuff, and even more his LHB splits in our ongoing battle with the Yankees and their short porch lineup construction.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,945
Twin Cities
Going after Sale would be like trading for Beckett, except that he's controllable for longer.  We gave up Hanley then, we could give up Xander now.  But Xander is closer to helping (as in, now) and is more needed by us, so the Sox aren't in the same position to deal their top prospect. 
 
If the CWS were fixated on X, though, I suppose the way it could work would be to trade X plus pitching for Sale and resign Drew.  But given our strong starting pitching, its quality and depth, and the lack of true middle infield impact bats, I think such a move would be a huge mistake.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,577
Ananti said:
I wouldn't trader Xander for anyone. Well, maybe Trout or Harper, but thats' about it.
 
This.
 
I don't know that you can ever say never, but your exceptions should be about the width of a capillary.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,206
Minneapolis Millers said:
Going after Sale would be like trading for Beckett, except that he's controllable for longer.  We gave up Hanley then, we could give up
Xander now.  But Xander is closer to helping (as in, now) and is more needed by us, so the Sox aren't in the same position to deal their top prospect. 
I wouldn't make the trade, but it's not true that Hanley wasn't as close or as needed when he was dealt. His OPS was 138 points higher in 2006 than what Alex Gonzalez produced for the Red Sox.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,742
E5 Yaz said:
 
Ummm ... no.
 
Your hypothetical is four excellent prospects for a guy who could get hurt ... because he has a good contract? Say he does blow out his elbow, would you still be happy with that contract and losing that package you describe?
 
Edit: I'll also add that starting pitching is hardly a position of need at the moment, so to give up a package that large is doubly dubious
 
compared to a player who is at a 0 risk of ever getting injured?
 
They aren't shopping him and shouldn't be. (In case anyone clicked on the link, the geniuses at Rotoworld start at: "A general manager told ESPN's Jerry Crasnick that the White Sox are not shopping Chris Sale" and the next sentence is "Chicago will listen to offers for its ace left-hander, but it'll take a massive return to actually pluck him away."
 
In other words, while all the GMs are hanging out this week if one has a few too many martinis and offers their top 3 ML ready prospects, the White Sox will listen. I would think any package with the Red Sox would include X AND JBJ.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,105
Rio de Janeiro/Austin
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I think it would likely take Bogaerts and a pitching prospect.  Kind of funny -- that would basically be the Hanley Ramirez trade all over again, wouldn't it?  
 
 
Probably not worth much, but Xander is more highly regarded now than Hanley was at the time of the trade. Hanley was 21, coming off of a relatively underwhelming .271/.335/.385 season at Portland. He had come into the season as the #10 prospect in baseball, and slipped to #30. Xander is coming off a .297/.388/.477 season as a 20 year old at Portland and Pawtucket, and will certainly improve on his ranking, which was #8 coming into the season. 
 
Then again, while Sale doesn't have quite the hype Beckett had, he's been much better to the same point in their careers. I'm a lot more torn about trading Bogaerts now than I was Hanley in Fall 2005. Hanley not hitting a ton in the minors then more than matching his pedigree in the majors was kind of weird to see. Prospects are weird.
 
In short, I have no idea why the White Sox would even consider trading Sale unless they think his arm will Pineda. He's not going to fill all the holes they need filled, and will just make their rotation worse. He's the kind of guy you want around when the rebuilding process is complete; he's not a 30 or over starter that may be winding down by the time the White Sox are competitive again. 
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,945
Twin Cities
I realize baseball has changed in the past 6-8 years and that teams are going to the young guys sooner and with more frequency.  However, I don't recall the Sox even considering promoting Hanley to be the starting SS in 2005.  Did they?  I recall the discussion as focused entirely on keeping Cabrera or "upgrading" to someone like Renteria. 
 
Hanley had no time at AAA at that point and the tiniest cup of coffee at the end of 04.  As mt8th notes, his 2004 year in AA was a bit disappointing (although certainly not bad).  Most of us still thought he was a great prospect but were not convinced he'd stay up even with the Marlins in 05.  He did, of course, and took off, but as of the time of the trade, I'm pretty sure the Sox viewed Hanley then as a less valuable and less ready player than they view Xander now.
 

Paradigm

juju all over his tits
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
5,954
Touche?
The Red Sox just proved that you can win the World Series without a boldfaced name at the top of your rotation. Jon Lester and John Lackey are damn good pitchers who had damn good seasons, but neither made the 2013 All-Star Game and neither is a sexy, cost-controlled, young starting pitcher. The 2013 Sox proved that you win with quality across the board, which often results from having depth at different positions thanks to minor league talent.
 
The conversation stars and ends with Xander, and I think the Sox would understand that that's fair value and politely walk away.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,777
La Mancha.
I totally understand why Chi would trade him and, in principle, why a team like the Red Sox would be an ideal partner. When a team with a lot of holes trades one very valuable player for a group of good prospects/players from a team with few holes and a deep system, it can be a win-win if the overall "value" exchanged is equal.

However, I'd rather the Red Sox not be in on him. Our ML SP depth is good (not that Sale wouldn't make it better, of course) and I like that our prospect depth fits fairly well with our medium-term needs. They are talented enough to compete now with a deep enough farm to have a good chance to stay competitive for a while.

Also, trading many for one, even at equal value, increases risk. At times that may be a worthwhile gamble, but I don't like it now.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Jerry Reinsdorf is an idiot. Even if you are actively seeking to trade Chris Sale, why would you say what he said? Now, every GM wonders what's wrong with Sale.
 
Trading for Sale would be an intriguing possibility if the FO believed X wasn't quite as good as his hype. Yes, it's concerning that the White Sox want to move Sale, but you could probably find a way to offer X for Sale in a way that doesn't raise as many red flags about X as the Chisox have now raised about Sale. Also, position players are inherently less risky than pitchers -- the Chisox can see most of the relevant information and judge for themselves whether X is worthy of the hype.
 
But this is all beside the point -- nothing the FO has done makes me think they are down on X, and you simply don't trade a prospect of X's caliber unless you're bearish on him. And I can't imagine a trade for Sale that didn't include X. Therefore, Sale might move this winter, but he's not coming here.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
maufman said:
Jerry Reinsdorf is an idiot. Even if you are actively seeking to trade Chris Sale, why would you say what he said? Now, every GM wonders what's wrong with Sale.
 
Trading for Sale would be an intriguing possibility if the FO believed X wasn't quite as good as his hype. Yes, it's concerning that the White Sox want to move Sale, but you could probably find a way to offer X for Sale in a way that doesn't raise as many red flags about X as the Chisox have now raised about Sale. Also, position players are inherently less risky than pitchers -- the Chisox can see most of the relevant information and judge for themselves whether X is worthy of the hype.
 
But this is all beside the point -- nothing the FO has done makes me think they are down on X, and you simply don't trade a prospect of X's caliber unless you're bearish on him. And I can't imagine a trade for Sale that didn't include X. Therefore, Sale might move this winter, but he's not coming here.
 
Agreed. Young stud pitchers rule, but I started the playoffs with the position, "Hey, don't rush X and ruin him by putting too much pressure on him with the playoffs," to something like, "NVM--I thought I was talking about a regular person whom X apparently is not." I know some people project him to move to 3rd but there are precedents of big guys at SS--if he really is all that on offense and can play short, he's a special player.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,206
Minneapolis Millers said:
I realize baseball has changed in the past 6-8 years and that teams are going to the young guys sooner and with more frequency.  However, I don't recall the Sox even considering promoting Hanley to be the starting SS in 2005.  Did they?  I recall the discussion as focused entirely on keeping Cabrera or "upgrading" to someone like Renteria. 
 
Hanley had no time at AAA at that point and the tiniest cup of coffee at the end of 04.  As mt8th notes, his 2004 year in AA was a bit disappointing (although certainly not bad).  Most of us still thought he was a great prospect but
were not convinced he'd stay up even with the Marlins in 05.  He did, of course, and took off, but as of the time of the trade, I'm pretty sure the Sox viewed Hanley then as a less valuable and less ready player than they view Xander now.
You are off by a year. The trade was after the 2005 season and Ramirez was the opening day shortstop for the Marlins in 2006. Maybe SoSH and the Red Sox mis-read his readiness to play every day but the Marlins did not. If Boegarts puts up Hanley's rookie numbers next year I will be thrilled.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,105
Rio de Janeiro/Austin
snowmanny said:
Maybe SoSH and the Red Sox mis-read his readiness to play every day but the Marlins did not. 
 
Perhaps, but one thing to keep in mind is the Marlins may have been as lucky as they were smart. They let Alex Gonzalez go as a free agent after the 2005 season, and had only signed Pokey Reese in addition to acquiring Hanley. Robert Andino was their only other SS option in the system. Hanley was cheap with upside, so he fit in well with the the team's offseason fire sale (they shaved their payroll from $60MM to $14MM). I'm sure most on the board would think he'd do okay as a rookie, which I'm sure was the Marlins' baseline, but I'm not sure how many prospects have gone from putting up a .720 in AA, to .833 in the majors. Hanley's tools were always great, and he'd occasionally appear disinterested in the minors, but it was shocking how quickly he transformed into a star. The Sox will be extremely lucky if Bogaerts is even 85% of Hanley's peak, and even comes close to his rookie season.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
snowmanny said:
You are off by a year. The trade was after the 2005 season and Ramirez was the opening day shortstop for the Marlins in 2006. Maybe SoSH and the Red Sox mis-read his readiness to play every day but the Marlins did not. If Boegarts puts up Hanley's rookie numbers next year I will be thrilled.
 
Also notable is that - pre-trade - there was some chatter about converting Hanley to CF because he didn't have the quickness for SS and Damon was leaving.