Gitter done, Theo: let's put all our dumb I mean brilliant trade suggestions in this thread

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,934
Maine
Except that Sale would have to be crazy to opt out of the deal. The player is always looking out for his own best interest, not the team's. Now, if it were an opt-out either the team or the player could exercise (without approval of the other), that would be something!
Opt-outs are just a fancy name for player options, a contract feature that's been around for years. So team opt-outs do exist...they're called team options.

It's all down to how the contract is treated for the purposes of calculating luxury tax obligations.
 

Benj4ever

lurker
Nov 21, 2022
65
Except that Sale would have to be crazy to opt out of the deal. The player is always looking out for his own best interest, not the team's. Now, if it were an opt-out either the team or the player could exercise (without approval of the other), that would be something!
Absent the luxury tax/pseudo salary cap, throwing more cash per year at a player just to have certainty might be the way to go. But your $7M/year add on to "buy out" any opt-outs could be the difference in the team's ability to add a solid role player or take on a high priced deadline acquisition if they are consistently spending to/over the cap. Certainly so if it's something they have to do with every player who wants an opt-out in their deal. The Sox alone had three guys with opt-outs this off-season (Sale, Hosmer, and Bogaerts). If people think Sale was a mistake at $30M/year, what would we be saying if they had given him $35M/year in order to skip the opt-out he ultimately didn't take anyway?
Opt-outs are just a fancy name for player options, a contract feature that's been around for years. So team opt-outs do exist...they're called team options.

It's all down to how the contract is treated for the purposes of calculating luxury tax obligations.
Yes, but generally team options are tacked on at the end of a contract, not in the middle. That's a huge difference!
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
65,711
Yes, but generally team options are tacked on at the end of a contract, not in the middle. That's a huge difference!
They’re getting more complicated both ways now, Britton had one where NY had to opt into two more years or he could opt out.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
431
This is a bad example, because the Sox should have never given the stick man an extension in the first place. Opt-outs are generally a lose-lose situation for management, because if a player underperforms, he won't take the opt-out, but if he overperforms, he opts-out. Management is screwed, either way. I believe it's worth something to avoid this scenario. It's a form of insurance against the latter scenario. Sure, one can always find exceptions to the rule, but this doesn't invalidate the rule!
That was a tongue-in-cheek comment by me---there has been a lot of digital ink on this board arguing that opt-outs can be beneficial for the team (the situation cites is a productive player in the midst of a significant contract opting out and then getting a new contract with a different team during which they decline---which is certainly possible but that particular sequence of events does not occur frequently enough to be an effective argument in favor of opt-outs).
 

Benj4ever

lurker
Nov 21, 2022
65
That was a tongue-in-cheek comment by me---there has been a lot of digital ink on this board arguing that opt-outs can be beneficial for the team (the situation cites is a productive player in the midst of a significant contract opting out and then getting a new contract with a different team during which they decline---which is certainly possible but that particular sequence of events does not occur frequently enough to be an effective argument in favor of opt-outs).
Sorry, I'm a newbie here. I didn't get the joke.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
2,481
That was a tongue-in-cheek comment by me---there has been a lot of digital ink on this board arguing that opt-outs can be beneficial for the team (the situation cites is a productive player in the midst of a significant contract opting out and then getting a new contract with a different team during which they decline---which is certainly possible but that particular sequence of events does not occur frequently enough to be an effective argument in favor of opt-outs).
Any time you can acquire all the downside risk & none of the upside risk you kind of have to do it.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,677
They’re getting more complicated both ways now, Britton had one where NY had to opt into two more years or he could opt out.
His deal was a bit different than you describe, but yes---it was an interesting risk-balance. At end of 2020 season he had one year remaining for 2021. If the team exercised his 2022 option he was committed for two years; if they did not, he then had the option of opting out of the 2021 season. So effectively he had one year left, a team option on a second iwth a very early exercise date, and then a player option if the team opted out of that second year.

That all makes sense in his case because he was coming off an injury in 2020. So essentially team bet was that if he's healthy/good they get two more years (a good option for a team without a real payroll constraint), and if he was injured/bad they only have to pay 2021...and depending on how he looked he might opt out of that which limits their downside. So effectively, team and player were risk-sharing around whether he'd come back strong in 2020.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
431
Any time you can acquire all the downside risk & none of the upside risk you kind of have to do it.
I'm not denying that there is a possible scenario where it works out very well---team signs young player to big contract, player performs well pre-opt out, opts out, and then signs with another team who then pays the player handosmely for his decline years. But its a strategy that assumes a. Some other team is stupider than you (and you don't wind up succumbing to the pressure to "keep" your player and become the stupid team yourself and b. that you...are able to replace the player's production/position realtively easily and without overpaying yourself. Our current situation is a good encapsulation of all of the potential pitfalls; let's say another team offers a stupidly high contract that the majority of the board is happy not to be exceeding. We still have a Xander-sized hole in our lineup and infield. Can Story occupy that role? Maybe? Maybe his arm holds up? Now all we have to do is find a new second baseman as well as a new middle of the order bat. It's not an ideal situation.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
2,481
I'm not denying that there is a possible scenario where it works out very well---team signs young player to big contract, player performs well pre-opt out, opts out, and then signs with another team who then pays the player handosmely for his decline years. But its a strategy that assumes a. Some other team is stupider than you (and you don't wind up succumbing to the pressure to "keep" your player and become the stupid team yourself and b. that you...are able to replace the player's production/position realtively easily and without overpaying yourself. Our current situation is a good encapsulation of all of the potential pitfalls; let's say another team offers a stupidly high contract that the majority of the board is happy not to be exceeding. We still have a Xander-sized hole in our lineup and infield. Can Story occupy that role? Maybe? Maybe his arm holds up? Now all we have to do is find a new second baseman as well as a new middle of the order bat. It's not an ideal situation.
Not sure if you thought I was disagreeing, but I don't.

Now the Red Sox just need to sign 1 more slightly overpriced starting pitcher (Lugo? Rodon???) & they can move both Houck & Pivetta for...something?

How about Houck/Pivetta/Duran for Burnes/Yelich/$50m (BTV has that as a win for the Brewers)?
 

Mo Vaughn Over!

4416
SoSH Member
Apr 27, 2007
717
Rockport,Mass
Not sure if you thought I was disagreeing, but I don't.

Now the Red Sox just need to sign 1 more slightly overpriced starting pitcher (Lugo? Rodon???) & they can move both Houck & Pivetta for...something?

How about Houck/Pivetta/Duran for Burnes/Yelich/$50m (BTV has that as a win for the Brewers)?
For conversations sake, could Yelich handle Fenway’s RF? Or Verdugo for a full season?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,594
Not sure if you thought I was disagreeing, but I don't.

Now the Red Sox just need to sign 1 more slightly overpriced starting pitcher (Lugo? Rodon???) & they can move both Houck & Pivetta for...something?

How about Houck/Pivetta/Duran for Burnes/Yelich/$50m (BTV has that as a win for the Brewers)?
Bob Nightengale reported last week that the Brewers are telling teams they won’t move Burnes or Woodruff, FWIW.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,280
I tried to figure out a good Bieber deal, but gave up.
I think the best, most realistic pitching trade target is Pablo Lopez. Bieber’s so good the cost would be tough to swallow. Same goes for Woodruff and Burnes (unless you take on Yelich) but they’re reportedly off the table anyways. Zac Gallen is another pipe dream— but unlike the others Gallen is under contract for three seasons so that won’t happen.

Lopez has seemingly been on the block forever. Not as good as the others, but he’s younger (26 years old) and you get two seasons. More of a #2/3 than an ace, but he’s young enough and has the stuff where you could talk yourself into Lopez taking another step forward. And if you wanted an extension right away for parting with the prospects required to get him, he’d only be 32 at the end of a 6-year deal.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
8,563
Duval
What would a Lopez deal even look like? Would MIA be a team that could value a Verdugo and/or Hosmer?
Along those lines, what are the assets this team has that, barring a mega deal, we’d consider tradable?
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,280
What would a Lopez deal even look like? Would MIA be a team that could value a Verdugo and/or Hosmer?
Along those lines, what are the assets this team has that, barring a mega deal, we’d consider tradable?
I think I've heard it reported that the Marlins are prioritizing position players. So maybe you can start with Ceddane Rafaela and Houck + lower minors bats like Matt Lugo or Blaze Jordan. I don't think Hosmer has much value, but I could definitely see them being interested in Verdugo. I could also see them valuing Enmanuel Valdez highly if they're looking for closer to MLB guys.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,594
What would a Lopez deal even look like? Would MIA be a team that could value a Verdugo and/or Hosmer?
Along those lines, what are the assets this team has that, barring a mega deal, we’d consider tradable?
Hosmer's from Miami so I'd have to think there's a decent chance he'd approve a trade there. They want to give Bryan de la Cruz 550 PAs, which means they're gonna have to play him in a corner. Sending them Verdugo and Hosmer for Avisaíl Garcia and one of their non-Alcantara starters make sense to me. (I'd prefer Rogers, because López has some concerning shoulder issues and only two years remaining.) Maybe they also want to move on from Stallings after his disastrous year, and maybe Bloom is still into him.

MIA receives: Verdugo, Hosmer, Wong or R. Hernández
BOS receives: Rogers, García, Stallings
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,594
Hosmer's from Miami so I'd have to think there's a decent chance he'd approve a trade there. They want to give Bryan de la Cruz 550 PAs, which means they're gonna have to play him in a corner. Sending them Verdugo and Hosmer for Avisaíl Garcia and one of their non-Alcantara starters make sense to me. (I'd prefer Rogers, because López has some concerning shoulder issues and only two years remaining.) Maybe they also want to move on from Stallings after his disastrous year, and maybe Bloom is still into him.

MIA receives: Verdugo, Hosmer, Wong or R. Hernández
BOS receives: Rogers, García, Stallings
Better add Miguel Rojas to this.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
2,481
I hope people don't come to the hypothetical trades thread for breaking news.

But yeah, I think every argument post should include one.

So...

Tatis/Suarez

for

Devers/Duran/Downs/Dalbec
I was semi-joking about this several days ago...buuuuuut am I dumb for thinking there might be something there?

Tatis would have to sign off on it because he has a full no trade, but me might be grumpy with the Padres treatment of him last year. He turns 24 in January & was elite in his age 22 season. He has 12 years left on his 14 year contract with a $24.3m AAV & more actual cash output as the last 2 years have been cheap.

He should have more value to a team that could use a shortstop than as a left fielder.

On the other end, the Padres don't really need Devers as they already have Machado, but Machado only has 1/$32m left & could easily be moved to a 3rd team. Devers would get to be reunited with X & we don't have to worry about trying to resign him, while comfortably rooting for the Padres as our NL team. Padres extend Devers for 15/$425m.

So I'll give it like a 0.00000003% chance of a deal around Devers/Tatis happening, but it would be fun.
 
Dec 8, 2017
57
Here's a crazy thought. Offer the Padres Hosmer (they're already paying him) and Dalbec for Ha-Seong Kim.

The rumor is that SD will play X at SS, move Kim (GG-caliber SS) to 2B, and move Cronenworth (good defender at 2B) to 1B. This trade would allow them to leave Cronenworth at 2B and play a Hosmer/Dalbec platoon at 1B, and would save them Kim's $7M less Dalbec's arb figure for the next 3 years. So they'd be replacing Kim's offense with the platoon's. Using Kim's numbers from last year (ignoring his weaker rookie year) and Hosmer's & Dalbec's career split numbers:

Kim: .251/.325/.383/.708
Hosmer vs R: .287/.353/.457/.810
Dalbec vs L: .268/.333/.522/.855
 
Sep 12, 2022
190
I think the Padres and Phillies will not be looking so cool in 2 or 3 years.
To me the Astros and Dodgers model looks better.
A lot of people talk about Carlos Correa, but he left the Astros last year and the Astros won the World Series without him. That shows you can win without a high priced star if you draft good.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
65,711
I think the Padres and Phillies will not be looking so cool in 2 or 3 years.
To me the Astros and Dodgers model looks better.
A lot of people talk about Carlos Correa, but he left the Astros last year and the Astros won the World Series without him. That shows you can win without a high priced star if you draft good.
Also George Springer, also Gerrit Cole, the key is player development behind your stars so guys are ready to fill in when injuries or departures happen.
 

Yaz4Ever

stumps for Trump
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
10,625
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Also George Springer, also Gerrit Cole, the key is player development behind your stars so guys are ready to fill in when injuries or departures happen.
This. If Mayer were ready to step in now, fewer people would be upset about losing Xander. As well loved as he is, having a replacement ready makes his loss that much easier. We're now in the position of needing (at least) a stopgap.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Conversely, everyone bemoans the end of long term contracts where the player is unproductive and taking up a roster spot (there were years of inane “trade Pedroia” proposals). I think the issue isn’t that Bloom doesn’t know the value of star players, it’s that he has a better understanding of it than we do, and is willing to wear the short-term frustration that comes with looking at the long term.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,564
St. Louis, MO
Interesting note, the Cardinals with a rich and successful history and 2 championships since 2006, just signed their highest priced FA ever in Contreras at 87.5 million. They’ve never signed a FA to a 100 million dollar contract. They have relied on player development, signing their young stars, and the trade market.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
Apr 3, 2001
43,290
Mtigawi
Conversely, everyone bemoans the end of long term contracts where the player is unproductive and taking up a roster spot (there were years of inane “trade Pedroia” proposals). I think the issue isn’t that Bloom doesn’t know the value of star players, it’s that he has a better understanding of it than we do, and is willing to wear the short-term frustration that comes with looking at the long term.
A few folks have complained about how unlikely it was we did anything in 2018 with legacy contracts, such as Pedroia's, around. Pedroia's was about as team-friendly a star contract has ever been. Remaining relatively free of legacy contracts and by having cost-controlled stars is the new market efficiency. It's more easily done in markets where a splace is required to bring the team to relevance -- the downside risk of places such as San Diego is that you return to your rather insignificant selves in 5 years. In those 5 years, though (as @Traut mentioned elsewhere) is that you get five years to grease the engine.

There is no way that a team that wants to build a machine to compete every single year for the next decade signs a shortstop who is already showing signs (albeit mild) of aging to a ten year contract that brings him into his 40s. You could make a case that you can if you balance, but they're going to need to sign Soto and address Machado, both unquestionably better than Xander, to contracts that will be coterminous with the one that was just signed. I'll give them this, though, it beats the previous method of overpaying for tier 2 stars such as Hosmer and Myers. There is credit due for getting to this point. The Machado signing made that possible, just like the Rangers did with Ivan Rodriguez two decades ago.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I would argue that the Rangers had to start that process again, and that's what the Seager and Seimien deals were all about.

My overall frustration with the FO process has been that they haven't been locking up their young stars earlier, being willing to spend more in the short term so that they can keep them longer. They legitimately tried to do this with Mookie, and I think to a lesser extent X, and there's a degree to which they (and their agent) weren't having any of it. They were basically looking for a FA payday without ceding any $ for the risk the FO was incurring by guaranteeing the contract years early.

OTOH my criticism of the FO stems from the fact that they aren't getting to these guys early when it is possible, and extending their years of team control into their early 30's. I'm not sure if this is because they've run right up to the CBT numbers so often that they always needed that wiggle room, or if they were waiting for the player to prove it, but it leaves us with Devers being so close to FA that he may as well go to FA. The discount that would've been there 3 years ago isn't there now. They're going to need to absorb some Eric Hinske like mistakes in this process, which they seem loathe to do. The Goldilocks player who's completely worth the early expenditure is simply never going to be available.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
6,543
Boston, MA
OTOH my criticism of the FO stems from the fact that they aren't getting to these guys early when it is possible, and extending their years of team control into their early 30's.
They did exactly that with Xander. He just got an opt-out so he was a free agent when he was 30 rather than 32.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
They did exactly that with Xander. He just got an opt-out so he was a free agent when he was 30 rather than 32.
Yes, but X was extended basically right before he went to FA. In order to get X to sign and not go directly to FA with Boras, they needed to include the opt out. I would argue that the contract worked out as intended, for both sides: The team got an additional 3 years of his prime. X got earnings certainty and another bite at the apple when he would still have value.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,813
BTV has Javier Baez at -31.5 value and it's just not making sense to me after the SS deals we've seen this offseason. He's got 5 years left on his deal at around $23.3M per season for CBT purposes and coming off a 2.5 WAR season. I was going to propose a deal for Baez, but BTV isn't making it easy.

For fun, let's say his deal is actually +31.5 value. A deal for Baez and Eric Haase could looks something like: Houck, Rafaela and Romero or Houck, Romero, Yorke, Anthony.

Yoshida, Hernandez, Devers, Story, Casas, Baez, Verdugo, Haase (DH), McGuire/Wong
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
65,711
Are there any rumors that the Tigers actually want to trade Baez? That seems unlikely to me.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,813
Are there any rumors that the Tigers actually want to trade Baez? That seems unlikely to me.
Nope. That was just me looking for a SS who might be available on a team that isn't likely to compete next year and offering them a number of young, cost controlled guys to add to their system.
 

pedro1999mvp

lurker
Dec 9, 2022
31
This is by no means my plan A for the off-season, but at this point...
1. See if SD has any interest in Pivetta for Kim? Dalbec could be a piece too, which would allow SD to keep Cronenworth at 2B where he is very good. Kim is a very good SS in the short term for us.
2. Sign Wacha to replace Pivetta (and I still feel we need more pitching than just Wacha).
3. Talk to the Marlins about Lopez. He seems like the best young pitcher available. Ask them what prospects not named Meyer it would take and go from there.
 

Yaz4Ever

stumps for Trump
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
10,625
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
This is by no means my plan A for the off-season, but at this point...
1. See if SD has any interest in Pivetta for Kim? Dalbec could be a piece too, which would allow SD to keep Cronenworth at 2B where he is very good. Kim is a very good SS in the short term for us.
2. Sign Wacha to replace Pivetta (and I still feel we need more pitching than just Wacha).
3. Talk to the Marlins about Lopez. He seems like the best young pitcher available. Ask them what prospects not named Meyer it would take and go from there.
If you're willing to part with Devers, maybe. Otherwise, I don't expect Pablo to be heading this way, and I'm not sold they'd do it for one year of Devers.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
2,264
This is by no means my plan A for the off-season, but at this point...
1. See if SD has any interest in Pivetta for Kim? Dalbec could be a piece too, which would allow SD to keep Cronenworth at 2B where he is very good. Kim is a very good SS in the short term for us.
2. Sign Wacha to replace Pivetta (and I still feel we need more pitching than just Wacha).
3. Talk to the Marlins about Lopez. He seems like the best young pitcher available. Ask them what prospects not named Meyer it would take and go from there.
(it's Mayer, so they probably ask for him instead :p)

I like Kim a lot and I'd be happy with him at SS (he fits the pre-Mayer window nicely) and I agree that he seems redundant in SD, but:
1. The Padres just gave away their expensive 1st baseman for free (to us!) because he wasn't good. I'm not sure why they'd want to replace him with someone worse.
2. BTV (grain of salt warning) has Kim being worth quite a bit, and Dalbec and Pivetta both worth approximately nothing.
3. However, BTV also seems to think either Schreiber or Houck for Kim+ a lottery ticket would be fair, and I think I'd happily sign up for that.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,280
If you're willing to part with Devers, maybe. Otherwise, I don't expect Pablo to be heading this way, and I'm not sold they'd do it for one year of Devers.
Miami wouldn't be interested in Devers but I also don't think Lopez's cost would be prohibitive. Maybe I'm misjudging the market for SP, but he's a young #2/#3 pitcher with just two years of control. It's not like he's Woodruff/Barnes. Miami reportedly wants position players. Behind Alcantara and Lopez, they have a stable of pre-arb and arb-1 guys who are cheaper and further away from FA like Luzardo, Cabrera, Garrett, and Rogers. They also have top prospects Eury Perez, Max Meyer, and Sixto Sanchez not far behind.

Verdugo is the same age as Lopez and is also 2-years away from FA. Maybe you start with that, add Rafaela as the centerpiece + Enmanuel Valdez (MLB ready) and/or a lower minors bat at a position of depth like Lugo or Blaze Jordan.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
134
New York, USA
Not an endorsement but some posts about taking on an albatross contract for some young controllable pitcher or a corner OF. The Brewers with Christian Yelich and Burnes/Woodruff for example.

How can the Sox utilize their financial might to take on a bad contract and who fits the model?

Stephen Strasburg might be done but is there a player/$ retention that makes the Nationals move on?

Any off the wall thoughts?
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,126
San Diego
Not an endorsement but some posts about taking on an albatross contract for some young controllable pitcher or a corner OF. The Brewers with Christian Yelich and Burnes/Woodruff for example.

How can the Sox utilize their financial might to take on a bad contract and who fits the model?

Stephen Strasburg might be done but is there a player/$ retention that makes the Nationals move on?

Any off the wall thoughts?
I mean... Hassell would fit pretty nicely. We don't have a ton of great OF prospects. Wood would also be a target. Just depends on how badly the Nationals want to move Strasburg.
 

pedro1999mvp

lurker
Dec 9, 2022
31
Not an endorsement but some posts about taking on an albatross contract for some young controllable pitcher or a corner OF. The Brewers with Christian Yelich and Burnes/Woodruff for example.

How can the Sox utilize their financial might to take on a bad contract and who fits the model?

Stephen Strasburg might be done but is there a player/$ retention that makes the Nationals move on?

Any off the wall thoughts?
I really like this idea of using our financial power to take on a bad contract in order to get a really good player. However, I can't seem to see anything reasonable. Taking on Yelich to get Burnes or Woodruff seems like the most obvious, but Milwaukee claims they aren't trading either. Rendon? I don't see any reasonable targets on the Angels that make it worth taking on Rendon (Ohtani isn't happening). Strasburg? Washington is mostly a young team, and not many good players that would help. Bumgarner? Ketel Marte had a disappointing 2022, so I wouldn't want to take on Bumgarner with the hope that Marte bounces back. Pittsburgh doesn't have any horrible contracts to take on to make the cost of Reynolds go down. I like this theory, but can't seem to find one that makes sense.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
134
New York, USA
I mean... Hassell would fit pretty nicely. We don't have a ton of great OF prospects. Wood would also be a target. Just depends on how badly the Nationals want to move Strasburg.
Just did a quick search of worst current contracts. Nationals also have Patrick Corbin on the hook for another $59m. Would the Angels have anything to attach to Rendon and his $152m? Besides Trout of course.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
553
I already made my pitch to trade for one of the Brewers starters (Woodruff or Burnes) and take on Yelich's contract. Absorbing bad deals is one of the big financial advantages the Sox have available and, based on the somewhat lackluster free agent list, I'd like to see them use it.

So, what other good player+ a bad contract options are out there?

I'm sure the Nationals would love to move Patrick Corbin but I don't see any players on that roster that would justify taking on that awful contract.

MJ Melendez and Hunter Dozier from the Royals (they might want Hosmer back?)
German Marquez and Charlie Blackmon/Randal Grichuk from the Rockies
I'm sure Dipoto in Seattle would make a move.

EDIT: and if the Phillies are in fact linked to Yoshida, I'm definitely on board with a Kyle from Waltham reunion. (It might just be that Yoshida would like to go to Philly.)
Here are some earlier suggestions. I left the Yoshida comment for posterity's sake. Speaking of the Phillies, I'm guessing that Castellanos could be made available, maybe at a subsidized price?
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,280
Not an endorsement but some posts about taking on an albatross contract for some young controllable pitcher or a corner OF. The Brewers with Christian Yelich and Burnes/Woodruff for example.

How can the Sox utilize their financial might to take on a bad contract and who fits the model?

Stephen Strasburg might be done but is there a player/$ retention that makes the Nationals move on?

Any off the wall thoughts?
I mean... Hassell would fit pretty nicely. We don't have a ton of great OF prospects. Wood would also be a target. Just depends on how badly the Nationals want to move Strasburg.
I think Strasburg is impossible to move at this point. He's owed $140M over the next 4 seasons and has thrown ~30 innings since the end of 2019. There's just no way the Nats could construct a deal, they'd have to add so much money/prospects to get off him it just wouldn't make sense for either party.

Corbin could make some sense since it's "just" $60M thru the next 2 seasons. He's been absolutely putrid. Even still, the Nats don't really have any valuable players to target. They're pretty much all pre-arb guys and prospects. Would they staple a prospect just to get off that contract? I guess maybe if the new owner wants to cut costs, but it's not like a Yelich/Woodruff situation where the trade piece is a guy who is a couple years from FA.

The only interesting players they have are from the Scherzer/Turner and Soto deals (Hassell, Abrams, Gray, Gore, etc.). Giving up one of those for a lesser piece and some salary relief would be a disaster move.
 

pedro1999mvp

lurker
Dec 9, 2022
31
I think a Verdugo for Hoskins swap makes a lot of sense. With Harper needing to DH once he comes back, that would mean Schwarber in the OF which isn't ideal. So them getting Verdugo to play LF, moving Schwarber to 1B makes sense. For us, we get less left-handed. Hoskins is a middle of the order bat who can platoon with Casas against tough lefties and also DH against righties.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,934
Maine
I mean... Hassell would fit pretty nicely. We don't have a ton of great OF prospects. Wood would also be a target. Just depends on how badly the Nationals want to move Strasburg.
I'm betting the Nationals aren't really in any hurry to move Strasburg or Corbin. Those are their only two significant salary obligations (a shade under half of their current projected payroll) and they're going nowhere in that division for a few years. They'd probably do just as well to ride the contracts out and hang on to any/all their prospects for better uses.