I'm pretty sure Carl Crawford was on the DL when the Sox traded him.Are teams prohibited from trading players who are on the DL?
I'm pretty sure Carl Crawford was on the DL when the Sox traded him.Are teams prohibited from trading players who are on the DL?
This statement is only true if you believe that there was no way to predict that the pitchers who turned out to be ineffective would be ineffective. If that's true, then maybe they should have gotten some more arms to insulate themselves from that luck. And since two of the pitchers are pitching better than expected maybe their "luck" isn't really so terrible?Based on the info DD had in October, he made the moves he thought was necessary. The fact that the original three, four, five, seven and eight pitchers got hurt/ineffective is crap luck nothing more.
"This FanPost was written by a member of the Gaslamp Ball community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Gaslamp Ball managers or SB Nation."Just saw this:
http://www.gaslampball.com/2016/7/13/12175192/si-prediction-padres-trade-pomeranz-to-red-sox-but-no-moncada
From the link, which is picked up from SI, but I couldn't locate the source link, "LHP Drew Pomeranz for 3B Rafael Devers, OF Andrew Benintendi, SS Devin Marreroand LHPs Henry Owens "
Now I like Pomeranz... but he's not had much of a track record and he hasn't ever passed 100 innings in a single season without injury. He seems like the type of guy that would be worth a haul like this and then blow out his shoulder or elbow by mid August and rarely ever pitch again
So the reason to get Gray now - not that I necessarily think they should - is because of the candidates, he's the only one both under contract for next year and still possessing of some upside beyond what he's shown in 2016. In other words, if you get Gray now, it is more about 2017 and beyond. The wisdom of that is certainly debatable, of course, particularly since that upside is probably why Oakland won't let him go on the super-cheap. Devers-Kopech-Chavis, maybe?I guess my question is why you'd want him now. As noted, given his season I'm not certain he'd be an upgrade. And while he's underperforming his peripherals currently, you'd still be paying based on the overvalued perception set last year and his youth. I'd be much more interested in someone with fewer question marks like Santana.
Not sure why you're downgrading Devers out of the big 4 either. He's every bit the prospect Espinosa is; they're both young and a ways away still but absolutely worth holding on to unless we're talking about trading for proven aces.
It is probably about what it would take to get it done, which is why it won't get done.Way to much for Pomeranz, The writer is also way off that Devers and Benintendi are blocked like Margot. If they reach close to their potential, there no one on the current roster that would block either of them, except maybe Moncada. But if Devers hits like he is projected, a switch to 1st base solves that problem.
the author notes he/she was just spitballing: or, as he/she puts it "pulling things out your @$$""This FanPost was written by a member of the Gaslamp Ball community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Gaslamp Ball managers or SB Nation."
That's about the appropriate temperature for a 4 or 5, which is really all we need, I think. And DD has done a great job staying away from the top 5 prospects so far; let's just hope that continues.That's a fair price in this market for Pomeranz given how much control he has left.
Which is why I'm also in luckysox's camp, and I'm really lukewarm on Santana.
Probably the only 2 players I would give that up for are 2 Mike Trouts.Just saw this:
http://www.gaslampball.com/2016/7/13/12175192/si-prediction-padres-trade-pomeranz-to-red-sox-but-no-moncada
From the link, which is picked up from SI, but I couldn't locate the source link, "LHP Drew Pomeranz for 3B Rafael Devers, OF Andrew Benintendi, SS Devin Marreroand LHPs Henry Owens "
Now I like Pomeranz... but he's not had much of a track record and he hasn't ever passed 100 innings in a single season without injury. He seems like the type of guy that would be worth a haul like this and then blow out his shoulder or elbow by mid August and rarely ever pitch again
And they have the gall to say:Probably the only 2 players I would give that up for are 2 Mike Trouts.
E.Santana is a guy who might pass through waivers. I would say he is a borderline case. If someone claimed him, I could see the Twins letting him go for nothing, thereby saving 27 million, possibly 41 million with the vesting option.Since we really only need a back of the rotation starter couldn't we possibly pick that up after the trade deadline in a waiver wire deal?
Just go with what we have (Clay/EdRo).Yep - reading all the tea leaves it looks like DD isn't going to be giving up any premium prospect talent for the pitching drek that's available.I think the Big Five (welcome to the club @MKopech105) are safe for this trading season.
If DD does bring in a 4/5 SP its likely the cost will be minimal. I don't even think Shaw will be traded for the Hellicksons of the world.
I don't think it's so much that they're only interested in a piece that will help get them there as it is that the only pitchers available for a reasonable price are the types that are only good enough to help get them there. Last July, we saw guys like Hamels, Cueto, and Price moved to teams where they were instantly the top guy in the rotation. There are no pitchers like that available right now. Hell there are barely any Mike Leake or Scott Kazmir types to be had.Are you guys of the opinion the trio of Price (if he gets it together), Wright, and Porcello (at current levels) is enough for the playoffs?
Those 3 plus the offense beating up the other teams 2-4 starters may be enough. Looks to me like the Sox are only interested in a piece that will help get them there. Like the Peavy deal in 2013.
Oh - I agree regarding Shaw. No idea if DD shares our opinion though. The Hill acquisition did raise a Spockian Eyebrow though.Just go with what we have (Clay/EdRo).
There is no way you even consider dealing Travis Shaw for a 4/5 pitcher, especially a rental. Shaw is a 2-3 WIN player on a minimum salary. He doesn't get the credit he should from some around here.
This is exactly what the Red Sox did with Rich Hill last year.I don't think it's so much that they're only interested in a piece that will help get them there as it is that the only pitchers available for a reasonable price are the types that are only good enough to help get them there. Last July, we saw guys like Hamels, Cueto, and Price moved to teams where they were instantly the top guy in the rotation. There are no pitchers like that available right now. Hell there are barely any Mike Leake or Scott Kazmir types to be had.
Dombrowski's best bet might be pulling off something like the Pirates did last year and acquire a JA Happ level guy and have him catch fire out of nowhere. Of course, the Sox don't have the track record of turning guys around like Brad Fischer and the Pirates do, so it's not something to bet the farm on.
Have you looked at his numbers lately? He was riding the BABIP pumpkin coach early in the year. Midnight struck about a month ago. I'm not saying he's not a major leaguer, but I don't see any reason to doubt that his current line reflects the kind of major leaguer he's going to be: a more or less league-average hitter, and a decent corner defender. A role player, a useful guy to have around, but not someone you hesitate to trade if you can fill a need by doing so and you have a backup plan in place (which we do now with Hill). I wouldn't trade him for a fringey rental like Hellickson, but a respectable #4 type with a couple of years of reasonably priced control, like Santana? Maybe.Just go with what we have (Clay/EdRo).
There is no way you even consider dealing Travis Shaw for a 4/5 pitcher, especially a rental. Shaw is a 2-3 WIN player on a minimum salary. He doesn't get the credit he should from some around here.
If we're going for it, I would *definitely* trade Shaw for a fourth starter. Hill seems like he can replace Shaw's production this year, and Moncada can take over at third sometime next year. (Maybe we retain Hill on a one-year deal and trade him when Moncada's ready.) What I'm saying is that while Shaw is a fine player, I don't see him as part of the core: he's closer to Brentz than he is to Betts.Have you looked at his numbers lately? He was riding the BABIP pumpkin coach early in the year. Midnight struck about a month ago. I'm not saying he's not a major leaguer, but I don't see any reason to doubt that his current line reflects the kind of major leaguer he's going to be: a more or less league-average hitter, and a decent corner defender. A role player, a useful guy to have around, but not someone you hesitate to trade if you can fill a need by doing so and you have a backup plan in place (which we do now with Hill). I wouldn't trade him for a fringey rental like Hellickson, but a respectable #4 type with a couple of years of reasonably priced control, like Santana? Maybe.
I guess my wording was sub-par there. I was not meaning to degrade Devers only to imply he'd be the one I'd be most comfortable parting with as I feel his positional availability is somewhat redundant to what we would already have with Shaw/Moncada/SandovalI guess my question is why you'd want him now. As noted, given his season I'm not certain he'd be an upgrade. And while he's underperforming his peripherals currently, you'd still be paying based on the overvalued perception set last year and his youth. I'd be much more interested in someone with fewer question marks like Santana.
Not sure why you're downgrading Devers out of the big 4 either. He's every bit the prospect Espinosa is; they're both young and a ways away still but absolutely worth holding on to unless we're talking about trading for proven aces.
The tea leaves were cloudy after all.Yep - reading all the tea leaves it looks like DD isn't going to be giving up any premium prospect talent for the pitching drek that's available.I think the Big Five (welcome to the club @MKopech105) are safe for this trading season.
I think we're done. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a minor move for a left fielder, but I think we're done on the pitching front.I think my first post in this thread holds up okay. Is Pomeranz it, or are we adding another?
Another Reliever? It'd make senseI think we're done. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a minor move for a left fielder, but I think we're done on the pitching front.
It would make all kinds of sense to try to get something for Owens, since his path to Sox relevance has never seemed more blocked, yet he might still be interesting to somebody. A middle relief arm might be a reasonable return for Owens + lottery ticket.Another Reliever? It'd make sense
Think they're going to try to ride out Koji and Ziegler until Taz and Kimbrel return. A bullpen of those four by the time the playoffs roll around should be good enough.Another Reliever? It'd make sense
Another Reliever? It'd make sense
I've been wanting a better primary lefty since before the season started. Maybe Henry Owens is that guy. I don't know what's behind his control troubles, but if he can dump the slider maybe he can make the curve more effective. Or hell, maybe he can get through inning-length outings on just a fastball and a change.It would make all kinds of sense to try to get something for Owens, since his path to Sox relevance has never seemed more blocked, yet he might still be interesting to somebody. A middle relief arm might be a reasonable return for Owens + lottery ticket.
But what about next week?I don't know. It's a long way to the playoffs - pitchers get hurt easy. This is Dealin' Dave we're talking about. I wouldn't rule out like 2-5 more deals.
Click here to see three deals Dave'll do next week that blow your mind. #2 will make you laugh. #3 will make you cry.But what about next week?
I agree. It just seemed those two or three posters actually may have seen something we did not.It's Doubront.
The situation now is not the situation then.
Then we had whatever it was, nine candidates for the rotation. Bringing in two more didn't make any sense. An inordinate number of them have failed, leaving us with three, maybe four starting pitchers.
They didn't see anything we didn't, they just assumed everything would turn out for the worst.I agree. It just seemed those two or three posters actually may have seen something we did not.
The Kelly experiment is also coming out of product testing. Never know. Maybe it'll pleasantly surprise.Think they're going to try to ride out Koji and Ziegler until Taz and Kimbrel return. A bullpen of those four by the time the playoffs roll around should be good enough.