BosRedSox5 said:
Webster and De la Rosa were barely prospects anymore at the point they were traded.
And Miley isn't going anywhere. Even if he was, no one is going to overpay for him with a "top" prospect.
If we're sellers, who do we sell?
- Thread starter Rasputin
- Start date
Webster and De la Rosa were barely prospects anymore at the point they were traded.
And Miley isn't going anywhere. Even if he was, no one is going to overpay for him with a "top" prospect.
Not all teams have even fringe-worthy top 10 guys. Look at the Tigers and Phillies systems.BosRedSox5 said:
Guys like Renaudo and Cecchini were 9th and 10th by the end of last year as well since some guys were promoted. That would have also been a swindle of Miley.
FanSinceBoggs said:
Why is Hanigan worthless? He makes 3M a year, is under control for two more years, he has professional at bats and he's considered defensively solid. Seems like a valuable piece to me. Yeah, you won't get a "top prospect" but he's got to have value.
Hanigan gets on base, has a good rep with pitchers and has a good enough arm. Those three skills alone make him better than about 60% of catchers out there in MLB right now. If the Sox wanted to trade him, they'd find a buyer without much trouble at all.
Hanigan, Holt, De Aza, Victorino, and Napoli should all be dangled or dumped by mid-August. Holt would be the only one I'd be fine keeping around given his positional flexibility, but trading him now is pretty much the definition of maximizing value. Hard to assume you find a time where he will have more value, given the years of control and All Star appearance. Other teams will likely be skeptical due to his pedigree, but if they can wrestle away a solid power bat or high velocity pitching prospect for him, I'd have a hard time saying no.
Hanigan, Holt, De Aza, Victorino, and Napoli should all be dangled or dumped by mid-August. Holt would be the only one I'd be fine keeping around given his positional flexibility, but trading him now is pretty much the definition of maximizing value. Hard to assume you find a time where he will have more value, given the years of control and All Star appearance. Other teams will likely be skeptical due to his pedigree, but if they can wrestle away a solid power bat or high velocity pitching prospect for him, I'd have a hard time saying no.
Rovin Romine said:
Given that he's had two multi-HR games in his last five and has a season OPS above .900 and a K% that has now ticked below 14, I'm starting to wonder what he needs to do to reclaim a roster spot in Boston.
Not saying I wouldn't move him in a good deal, but I'd rather just stick him in CF and let him play.
According to Buster Olney both Victorino and Napoli would require the Sox to pay virtually all their salary and in return might get a C prospect in return. It seems like the only players that other teams may be interested in are ones we really don't really want to part with. I am leaning in the wait until FA.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/07/22/buster-olney-on-mfb-incredible-that-every-red-sox-move-hasnt-worked-out-this-season/
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/07/22/buster-olney-on-mfb-incredible-that-every-red-sox-move-hasnt-worked-out-this-season/
moondog80 said:
It's only 41 plate appearances, but Victorino has a 896 OPS against lefthanders. He seems like he's still capable of being very productive as the short side of a platoon when he's healthy, and being the short side of a platoon might help keep him healthy. If I were the Nats, I'd be willing to take him for 40 percent of his salary (reflecting his expected playing time) and give up a C prospect to never have to play Matt Den Dekker ever again. That's a deal that could be good for both teams.
Did we really need Buster Olney to tell us that, seems like it is pretty obvious to me.scotian1 said:
I'd prefer to trade De Aza who you could probably get a B prospect for and then you could bring in JBJ to get the bulk of the ABs in right. If you get something interesting for Vic then sure go ahead and trade him but if not let him hang around the rest of the year. Nap isn't blocking anyone, you won't get anything for him and you'll have to pay him anyway so I think we are stuck with him.
scotian1 said:
In my view for Victorino at least, he's just taking ABs from JBJ and Castillo, so if they can't trade him I'd rather they just waive him outright and give the reps to guys who have a future with the team. Napoli likely the same, though at his position there's not a guy sitting in AAA waiting for MLB at bats.
Agree, it's time for Vic to go. IMO he earned his contract in 2013. I remember a good deal of posters talking about how he overexerted himself for that WS championship and pretty much ruined his body for it, rendering him null for the remainder of the 3 year deal. True or not (it seems to be) I think the Sox front office should shake his hand, thank him for his role in winning the 2013 WS (he was a huge part of that team) and release him so he can work out his own deal and become a 4th OF on a contender.
nvalvo said:
I don't get this at all. Does Ben have an Instagram of JBJ committing crimes against nature? Is he on the TSA no-fly list?
The RS have brought up everyone but the clubhouse attendant. If they're trying to keep him encased in amber to maximize his trade value, they're may well regret it. Any potential suitor has a lot of data to show that JBJ is worth only a B prospect despite this year's stats. In a rational world, Ben would be far better off figuring out if JBJ has captured lightening in a bottle instead of taking a lottery ticket and watching JBJ flourish elsewhere.
Byrdbrain said:
But what argument is there for keeping Vic and Napoli around the rest of the year unless you think the Sox want to re-sign them and keeping them increases their odds of doing that?
Otherwise, pay 95% of the contract, get anything of marginal positive value, and get someone like JBJ or Shaw or whoever ABs. If we were talking some 20-year-old that you want to keep "blocked" for service time reasons, I'd understand keeping Vic around so you can play the long game (save money in the future), but that isn't the case here.
Give it a week for the Sox to find out if anyone is interested in Vic and Napoli. Not specifically because a deal has to get done by the trade deadline (both of them will cetainly clear waivers), but they should know by then whether there's even going to be a nibble.
As insane as it seems, I could see them riding out the season with Vic/de Aza, shipping out Bradley in the offseason, and adding a starting RF via free agency (and leaving Castillo in limbo).
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Yeah, Webster is veering into Daniel Bard territory this year (7.11 ERA in MLB, 8.28 in AAA), and while De La Rosa's peripherals have improved slightly, he's still sporting a 4.83 ERA (6th highest in the NL). No one from that deal is looking particularly impressive.
AB in DC said:
If anyone believes that you need good clubhouse guy veteran leadership to make it through the playoffs anymore, it seems like Victorino and Napoli certainly have that. Maybe not much else, but maybe a younger team like the Pirates or Cubs could use an older PH with some defensive value off the bench.
jscola85 said:
Castillo hasn't played for Pawtucket since Sunday July 19 and hasn't played the field since Saturday July 18 so something is up there. Seems odd that absolutely nothing has been reported anywhere on this, as far as I can tell. Perhaps a recurrence of the groin injury from early July? but again its radio silence as far as I can tell re why he isn't playing at all.
I may get shot for saying this, but would anyone take on 39-year-old Ortiz (assuming he would agree to trade)? Then we could put Hanley at DH full time.
Even if there's a market for him, he wouldn't waive his 10/5 rights. We have to just keep replenishing his embalming fluid and run his corpse out there until it's done padding its stats.
This is just spitballing, but would a package of Brock Holt, Wade Miley and Manuel Margot bring back a young starting pitcher? I doubt we can unload Panda on the Mets, or that those three players brings back on of their three young starters (Harvey, DeGrom, Snydergaard), but is it a start?
Margot is a highly ranked prospect, Miley is cheap, young, and established as a major league starter with success in the NL, and Holt is versatile and would be a massive upgrade over the dreck they've been running out at 3B this season.
Margot is a highly ranked prospect, Miley is cheap, young, and established as a major league starter with success in the NL, and Holt is versatile and would be a massive upgrade over the dreck they've been running out at 3B this season.
It's not a bad package, but Miley doesn't really fit. He's sort of like Jon Niese, a guy the Mets are looking to trade.Hank Scorpio said:
Hank Scorpio said:
If they're seeking out a good young starter who will immediately become the "ace" of the staff, it seems counter productive to trade two players (Miley and Holt) that already are and should continue to be contributors for the next couple years in order to get him. Yes, you gain your ace but the roster is weaker overall as a result. Not sure I see the wisdom in that kind of move.
Hank Scorpio said:
Absolutely no chance. Why would the Mets trade one of those three guys (who likely have top 30 contract/production values in baseball) for a Margot (10-30th prospect in baseball depending on who you talk to), an inconsistent mid-rotation starter (and that's generous given how some people here feel about him), and a nice utility player whose 116 wRC+ is buoyed by a BABIP which is wholly unsustainable?
This is a world where Billy Beane gave up Addison Russell for 1.5 years of Jeff Samardzija.
My guess is you could build something around Bogaerts.
BosRedSox5 said:
They gave up one year of a starting corner outfielder who was unproductive and uncooperative in his brief time in town. Let's not overstate things too much. This team isn't all that much better off with Cespedes on the roster instead of Porcello, given the lack of production from many other spots on the roster.
And we got back one year of a starting pitcher who has been arguably the worst starter in the entire AL. Porcello was a rental, too, until the Sox signed him to his massive extension. It seems like they felt that Cespedes wasn't worth an extension while Porcello was, but that's not really looking like great judgment at this point.Red(s)HawksFan said:
By this logic, none of the Red Sox' moves were bad because the team collectively is so bad that no one move would have changed anything. But that collective badness is made of up of smaller incidents of individual badness - like, say, trading a player whose 120 OPS+ would be best on the team for a pitcher whose ERA is almost half a run worse than the next-worst qualifying pitcher.Red(s)HawksFan said:
It's not even that I'm pining for Cespedes. I'm not upset they got rid of him. Apparently he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. All I was saying is that a starting outfielder was the price for a middle of the rotation guy which I think helps illustrate how the market is structured for pitchers.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I beg to disagree. Keeping Cespedes gives them an upgrade in LF over what they got. It would have prevented them from acquiring and extending Porcellos , the extension may have been more damaging than his poor 2015. It also would have allowed them to have Hanley play 3B and not sign Pablo. Keeping Cespedes for 1 yr in this scenario saves them 177 million, money which could have went to a guy like Scherzer, and could have made them about 9 wins better at SP and LF
Hank Scorpio said:
If you swap Miley for Johnson, you'd probably have a decent package for Teheran, assuming he's actually available and they are interested. And if they agree to take Chris Johnson back, they might even be able to get away with a lesser package.
Of course, then you'd have to ask yourself why the Braves would be interested in trading Teheran in the first place. They've seldom dealt a young player at the wrong time.