Hot Stove Rumors 2014, Part Deux

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
Which is why they got lucky spending so much money in competition with the Yankees back then.  That was fools gold.  They were later pretty unlucky with the group of mercenaries who were much better on paper than in the field until they were exiled in the Punto trade.  Theo, at the end, forgot that trying to match the Yankees dollar for dollar was foolish.  Cherington got much more for his money from all the acquisitions before the 2013 season.  Nevertheless, he seems determined not to repeat Theo's mistakes.  The strategy of developing a solid homegrown base is much better for the franchise.  The Sox can more cost effectively use their financial advantage to extend as many of their keepers as possible before they reach free agency while acquiring veterans (by free agency or trade) to plug those gaps that the organization can't fill from within during any particular year.  Rather than trade for Giancarlo Stanton, it's better to find your own (Bogaerts?) and extend them during their prime years of production (though Boras clients are tough signs).  Middlebrooks should get his chance but, if he falters, Cecchini is not far behind in their pipeline.  The Sox reload from season to season to exploit their financial advantage against most other teams (excepting the Yankees and Dodgers) rather than rebuild from scratch.  The only way for that to work is to continuously keep replenishing their talent with younger players (preferably those who you find, sign and develop yourself).  The smaller market teams can retain or replace their best veteran talents much better than they could even a decade ago.  The gap between the haves and have nots narrowed after the new collective bargaining agreement.  The plans that worked in 2004 won't work in 2014.

Yes but the reason that you try to find a Stanton is because it's extremely difficult to develop one. I don't think one person on this board has said include Xander in a deal for him. However if the Marlins come to you tomorrow and say give us Owens, JBJ and someone else you would almost have to say yes. Since the steroid era occured one of the hardest things to find is a true power threat. Especially one that is 24 years old. That doesn't grow on trees. Is he Trout? No but he's a young slugger who hasn't even hit his prime and even if he has a slight improvement you're looking at a 40 homer RF that isn't awful in the field.

It's the front office job to determine who has the best skill set to help the Sox at the next level and which players are best served as bait. I personally think a guy like Cecchini is best served as bait if WMB rebounds. Due to the fact his defense may push him to the outfield and he doesn't really project offensively as anything other than an average outfielder. Granted if he sticks at 3B then the game changes a bit. It's up to Ben and company to determine all this. The only downside with someone like Stanton is his injury history. If this guy ever stayed healthy for 150+ games there is no possible way he doesn't hit 50 in Fenway. None.

He will become the highest profile player the Marlins have traded since Miguel Cabrera. Think the Tigers wish they kept Miller and Maybin instead?

 

[Joshv02]

 
I get your point - and it's not a bad one.  However all of these guys, with maybe the exception of Beckett had sustained periods of excellence and little or no injury concerns.  

The year prior to being signed, Manny missed a 1/3 of the season with a hamstring injury.

 

[Rasputin]

When extreme power guys get rarer, it becomes easier to win without one.
 
Sure, a team with one of those guys has an advantage over other teams in that they need less from the rest of their offense, and it might be an advantage in a post season series where short sequence offenses have an edge. The Sox would have been pretty much completely fucked without David Ortiz in the World Series. But on the other hand, for all the dramatics of his one big hit, Ortiz only had two hits and three walks in the LCS.
 
It's not clear to me that a lineup with one big slugger, seven average hitters, and one terrible hitter, is going to be better at scoring runs than one with nine average hitters. If the latter is better at scoring runs, then having Stanton in left is going to be a hell of a lot less important than having Bogaerts at short.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The year prior to being signed, Manny missed a 1/3 of the season with a hamstring injury.

 
Umm.  He got injured in late May and was hitting 322/419/623  He came back on July 14 and played for the rest of the season, finishing at 351/457/697.  Total games played was 118.
 
The 4 years before that he played 147, 150, 150 and 152 games, OPSing 1.105, .978, .953, .981.
 
So I think the greater point stands.  Take a look at Stanton's game logs.

 

[Joshv02]

 
Umm.  He got injured in late May and was hitting 322/419/623  He came back on July 14 and played for the rest of the season, finishing at 351/457/697.  Total games played was 118.
 
The 4 years before that he played 147, 150, 150 and 152 games, OPSing 1.105, .978, .953, .981.
 
So I think the greater point stands.  Take a look at Stanton's game logs.

I'm only addressing the amount of games played, so I'm ignoring the OPS numbers (though, note that through age 23, Stanton has virtually the same OPS+, while Stanton has a higher wRC+.)  (Note: I was wrong above and should have said that Manny missed 1/4 of the season.)
 
After his age 23 season (Games Played)
Manny: 250
Stanton: 489
 
After his forth (real) year in the majors:
Manny: 552
Stanton: 489 (plus 53 more in the minors).
 
The three seasons prior to acquisition (incorrectly assuming Stanton is acquired right now):
Manny: 415
Stanton: 389
 
The four seasons prior to acquisition (assuming Stanton is acquired after 2014 and plays 150 games next year):
Manny: 556
Stanton: 539
 
So much of the narrative you are writing about Stanton assumes that he plays 118 games again -- or something significantly short of a full season -- next year.  But, if he doesn't, he isn't significantly different than Manny's career to that point (for games played).  It just depends on your baseline.  Stanton has played more games in the major leagues than Manny at this point in his career; Stanton has played roughly 60 fewer mlb games than Manny after his 4th full season in the majors.  Though, recall that when Stanton came up, he had already played over 50 games in the minors, while in Manny's first significant season he only played 91 games but didn't play any in the minors (the prior year was basically a September call up).  
 
In order to weave our narrative, it all depends on how we want to cut up our stories, but I see a guy who has played essentially the following number of games in the majors:
153
150
123 (excluding rehab)
116 (excluding rehab)
 
And from that data, I don't see an "injury prone" player any more than I see an injury prone player (i.e., Manny) who plays:
150
147
118
 
I agree you can't really tell that story about Pedro or Schilling (who missed time with a freakish broken finger the year before acquisition), but Manny wasn't a 100% obvious non-injury risk at the time.  (And of course he missed 62 games his first two years with the Sox.)

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm only addressing the amount of games played, so I'm ignoring the OPS numbers (though, note that through age 23, Stanton has virtually the same OPS+, while Stanton has a higher wRC+.)  (Note: I was wrong above and should have said that Manny missed 1/4 of the season.)
 
After his age 23 season (Games Played)
Manny: 250
Stanton: 489
 
After his forth (real) year in the majors:
Manny: 552
Stanton: 489 (plus 53 more in the minors).
 
The three seasons prior to acquisition (incorrectly assuming Stanton is acquired right now):
Manny: 415
Stanton: 389
 
The four seasons prior to acquisition (assuming Stanton is acquired after 2014 and plays 150 games next year):
Manny: 556
Stanton: 539
 
So much of the narrative you are writing about Stanton assumes that he plays 118 games again -- or something significantly short of a full season -- next year.  But, if he doesn't, he isn't significantly different than Manny's career to that point (for games played).  It just depends on your baseline.  Stanton has played more games in the major leagues than Manny at this point in his career; Stanton has played roughly 60 fewer mlb games than Manny after his 4th full season in the majors.  Though, recall that when Stanton came up, he had already played over 50 games in the minors, while in Manny's first significant season he only played 91 games but didn't play any in the minors (the prior year was basically a September call up).  
 
In order to weave our narrative, it all depends on how we want to cut up our stories, but I see a guy who has played essentially the following number of games in the majors:
153
150
123 (excluding rehab)
116 (excluding rehab)
 
And from that data, I don't see an "injury prone" player any more than I see an injury prone player (i.e., Manny) who plays:
150
147
118
 
I agree you can't really tell that story about Pedro or Schilling (who missed time with a freakish broken finger the year before acquisition), but Manny wasn't a 100% obvious non-injury risk at the time.  (And of course he missed 62 games his first two years with the Sox.)

 
My basic point was that Stanton has a recent injury history and in 2013 did not produce at an elite clip, either before or after his hamstring injury.  He's therefore somewhat risky - more so than a player who has a recent uninjured stretch of elite production.  That's the only "narrative" I'm writing. 
 
If you have a reason to explain Stanton's performance, particularly in light of what he's likely to do going forward, pitch it into the thread.  
 
**
 
You brought up Manny - I pointed out that Manny produced at elite levels both before and after his injury (although, as you note, his hamstring problems proved to be recurring after he signed his RS contract).  If you want to compare them as players by production/age, go right ahead.  Certainly you can make a case that Stanton has great potential.  I don't think you really need a direct Manny comparison to say that though.  

 

[wine111]

I think the Red Sox have a greater need to develop Owens to give the Sox a third quality starter behind Lester and Clay as opposed to acquiring Stanton.  Middlebrooks himself
could develop into an effective power bat.  Remember, Lackey, Dempster and Peavy are all on the downside of their careers and Dubrondt has neither the durability or consistency
to be considered a reliable future arm.  If we can replace Owens with a different pair of prospects, then the trade might work.  Perhaps Swihart and Webster in place of Owens added
to Bradley and Middlebrooks for Stanton and a solid prospect.  Owens should be off any trade consideration except in a package for a David Price type of ace.     

 

[jimbobim]

I would rather package Owens in a deal for a young controllable number 3/4 power hitter over a older pitcher like Price. Only because our overall system depth lacks a game changing bat outside of X.
 
Developing one potential prospect like X has taken a while.Advanced all star potential bats don't come around often even when your system is well rated.  Also if Owens continues to perform in line with the number 2 pitcher he projects out to be he'll only get more valuable as he gets closer to the big leagues. 
 
I would expect the Red Sox to be involved in almost any trade negotiation considering their deep system. Not necessarily advocating trading away the entirety of the farm but in the case of Stanton Owens would be a part of the price I'm willing to pay if the team doctors are are confident in Stanton's health.

 

[GreenMonsterVsGodzilla]

I think the Red Sox have a greater need to develop Owens to give the Sox a third quality starter behind Lester and Clay as opposed to acquiring Stanton.  Middlebrooks himself
could develop into an effective power bat.  Remember, Lackey, Dempster and Peavy are all on the downside of their careers and Dubrondt has neither the durability or consistency
to be considered a reliable future arm.  If we can replace Owens with a different pair of prospects, then the trade might work.  Perhaps Swihart and Webster in place of Owens added
to Bradley and Middlebrooks for Stanton and a solid prospect.  Owens should be off any trade consideration except in a package for a David Price type of ace.     

Agree with the need to develop Owens, but I'm not sure where you're getting this about Doubront.  In the two full years he's been up, he's started at least 27 games in both and threw almost exactly the same number of innings.  H/9, BB/9, almost exactly the same.  His K/9 went down last year, but so did his HR/9.  Seems like the very picture of consistency to me.  Now, you can say he's not a superstar in the making...but inconsistent / not durable don't fit. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

Nick Cafardo ‏@nickcafardo 2m
The Red Sox were one if the teams who watched Ryan Madson's workout in Phoenix Friday.
 

 

[MoGator71]

That's multiple times scouting Madson isn't it? I like the idea of adding him, nothing wrong with bullpen depth especially when your closer is a little old guy who would likely benefit from some appearance/innings management.

 

[TheYaz67]

Anyone want to take a ballpark guess at what Madson is asking/what teams might pay?  I mean are we taking $900K or $2.5M?

 

[jimbobim]

https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal Sox talking to Capuano as swingman 6th starter type.
 
Sounds like the cheaper better left handed version of Dempster for nowhere near 13 million.