How does Breslow keep surviving??!!!Green Monster said:
I see zero downside here, he was really good over the last two years. Could just need a change.
Red Sox Deadline Discussion (nothing is credible) thread
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I see zero downside here, he was really good over the last two years. Could just need a change.
@Jared_Carrabis: Was just told that there's a Phillies scout at the PawSox game tonight scouting Henry Owens.
Speaking of:
@PawSox: Another superb start by Henry Owens - 6 IP, 5 H, 1 R, 1 BB, 3 SO but he can't win it as the #PawSox trail Norfolk 1-0 top 7.
@PawSox: Another superb start by Henry Owens - 6 IP, 5 H, 1 R, 1 BB, 3 SO but he can't win it as the #PawSox trail Norfolk 1-0 top 7.
@AdamRubinESPN: Meanwhile, the #RedSox have a special assistant at #Mets-#Rockies Double-A game, but speculation is it's just routine coverage.
Owen has been great lately. I think the Sox will keep him unless they get a good deal. Don't think it'll be Hamels.
Why would the Sox pay a premium for a top-flight starter when they don't look like they'll contend for several years? Hamels is the piece you add when you are on the cusp of winning a division and in position to make a deep run.jscola85 said:
Am I to understand that, in your view, prime young assets like Swihart/Betts/Owens/Devers are easily replaceable and not necessarily integral to a top-to-bottom several year rebuilding process? Hanley for Beckett happened at the optimal moment—this is almost exactly the opposite moment.bosockboy said:
First, this won't be a rebuild as much as a retool. They will absolutely try to win next year.catomatic said:
And no, the deal has to be right, and none of those would have went for Hamels, who now appears headed to Texas.
The point was there are limited opportunities to get top 20-25 starters and you have to be opportunistic or you'll never get one. The alternatives are 200 million plus for Cueto or Price.
You're very optimistic—I see no reason to think this group can turn this particular team around that quickly. If you think those assets are better spent creating an 80-85 win team next year over a 90-95 win team in three years, you're of course entitled to that opinion—I don't share it in the slightest.bosockboy said:
How do you know what it would have taken from Boston? Special knowledge.
This team is 13 games under .500 and in a tailspin, talk of contending next year—in the absence of any rotation assets beyond Edro—seems Panglossian.
Yes, if you're looking to pay top dollar to get to the 80 win plateau, Cueto and Price may be the best options for next year. That's not how I read this landscape.
We will find out shortly on Hamels, but it's been out there for a couple weeks that Amaro had backed off that level of prospects and was focusing on the lower level types like Margot.catomatic said:
I think any top 5 payroll can win any given year if things break right. 2013, for example. And no one picked the Yankees to win north of 90 this year, but it appears they will. A pitching staff can be rebuilt in one winter with a checkbook and a couple of shrewd trades.
Citing 2013 as a "things-break-right" scenario regularly within reach of cellar-dwellers doesn't particularly strengthen your position, I wouldn't build my space program on the expectation of catching Halley's Comet in year 35 of its 75 year cycle. Shit is rare, indeed.bosockboy said:
"It was out there for a couple of weeks that________ was in play for _______ is a very, very low threshold.
You've used this term "shrewd trades" with respect to Cherington after what we're witnessing this year? Wanna make that case?
I personally thought the Yankees looked better on paper than the Red Sox—especially their rotation, and by a good bit.
This is what drives me nuts about this place. The incessant rancid negativity.catomatic said:
You saw a team go from last place to the World Series to last place. You know that having a shitty year this year doesn't mean you're going to have a shitty year next year. Not for Porcello, not for whoever the hell ends up in right field, not for whoever the hell ends up at first.
You know the rotation isn't empty beyond Rodriguez. You know the minor league system is stacked. You know a player can improve dramatically on defense from one season to another. You know there are more high quality free agent pitchers available this off season than you've ever seen.
We've all seen this. We all know this.
This team is better positioned to win soon and for a long time than it was right after the Punto trade. It's in a better position than it was right after the deadline last year.
And so many people just want to wallow in the worst case scenario.
catomatic said:
So what is your suggestion? Liquidate and Tank? Baseball has so much parity that any big market team can win it any given year. Coming to the conclusion that if everything breaks right the Sox win 80 games next year (assuming they sign Price or Cueto) is a little bit ridiculous. This team had flaws coming into the season that everyone recognized. On the flip side you trade for someone like Hamels who is a big game pitcher and not already assume the team won't contend for the next 3 years and work towards next year. Sooner or later you cannot keep spending money and he has a very good contract in comparison to the 30 million dollar deals that will be handed out this offseason. Not every single prospect from this farm system is a sure thing to pan out.
Rasputin said:
That 2012 Red Sox team was not as bad as this year's team. That team lost 93 games and had a -72 run differential. The wheels only fell off after August, when the team pulled the trigger on the Punto Trade and went into a full-on tank. That team's Pythagorean win-loss was 74 wins, and their true talent likely above that because they spent the last 60 games of the year playing with a skeleton crew.
This team already has a -76 run differential and is 14 games below .500, with a Pythagorean W-L of being 15 games under. They're on pace for just 69 wins based on that run differential and that is before they start playing the young guys. With Buchholz likely gone all year and lumps likely to be swallowed by rookies getting called up, I would bet the under on an over/under of 69 wins this year.
Perhaps most importantly, the 2012 team got a clean slate in a variety of ways. The tragicomedy of Bobby Valentine was wiped away, and The Punto Trade allowed the FO a clean slate to retool the team. John Lackey also bolstered the 2013 as a free addition after missing all of 2012. The freeing of payroll allowed them to sign Ross, Gomes, Drew, Victorino, Napoli and Uehara for ~$60M in 2013 salaries. Barring a similar trade where the team can dump Sandoval or move a few other deals, they will have nowhere near that kind of flexibility. They have over $140M committed to Ramirez, Porcello, Sandoval, Ortiz, Pedroia, Buchholz, Castillo, Craig, Uehara, Miley, Hanigan, leaving them ~$40-50M to fill the other 15 spots. Guys like Bogaerts, Betts, EdRod and Holt will help offset that, but they should use some of the remaining payroll space to extend those four long-term.
This is going to take more than a few tweaks to fix. The team is worse than they were in 2012, with less roster and payroll flexibility. That's a really bad combination.
jscola85 said:
And what is preventing that list of players to which $140M is committed from being decidedly better in 2016 than they've been in 2015? Is that not an option? Ortiz and Uehara are 40+ so they're unlikely to improve, but Ramirez, Porcello, Sandoval, Castillo, and Miley could very easily be better, and Pedroia, Buchholz, and Hanigan being healthy should mean improvement as well. You mention Lackey as a "free addition" for 2013, and he was, but at the time, weren't we expecting about as much out of him in 2013 and you seem to expect out of Porcello or Miley? Not to mention Lester and Buchholz were coming off poor seasons as well, so it's not like expectations for them were all that high. As clean as the slate was, expectations heading into 2013 for the returning players was not high at all.
To the bolded, though, why would they use a penny more than necessary of their remaining uncommitted payroll to extend any of those guys? The soonest any of them can leave is after 2019 (Holt). While it would be nice to lock guys up beyond 2021, there's absolutely no rush to do so. By the time those guys get relatively expensive in arbitration, more than half of that list of commitments will be long gone.
And let's be clear here....no one who is citing 2013 as evidence that thing aren't necessarily dire for 2016 is saying that the 2016 season is going to be another championship year. Only that the 2013 season proves that a last place finish in one year isn't a guarantee of doom for the following year.
Anyone.... anyone at all... who claims that having John Lackey back in 2013 was what was the difference maker is seriously high. There may have been some optimism that he was going to be a back end of the rotation type of guy coming into that season after one missing season and two disasters prior to 2013. Lester was also just awful in 2012 and we were looking at dumping him here on this board.jscola85 said:
I wouldn't blink at all if Miley, Porcello or Kelly turned into a top of the rotation starter next season (I also wouldn't blink if they ended up DFA'd and out of baseball too...). The only addition I can think of that was celebrated here as a major plus was Drew. People thought Uehara was old, Victorino was too banged up, Gomes was an uninspired bench scrub that couldn't play defense. Napoli had a degenerative hip condition and was a nerve wracking one year contract because of it. Pretty much everything went well (and against most of every SoSH'ers predictions)
edit- I mean the underlined to convey people's opinions from the beginning of 2013 not after a WS victory, in which, yes... he clearly was a difference maker.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Expectations are kind of irrelevant - that 2012 team was better than this team, and they had more freedom to make changes to that roster than they will in the 15/16 offseason, which is the point I am making.
Regarding the extensions, what often happens in those extensions is that you give the young guy a bit of a pay bump up front from their MLB minimum so they get some security and benefit on the back-end with below-market salaries and/or buyouts of free agent years. It likely won't eat a ton of space, but it likely will eat some if they do sign those guys to extensions.
Miley has pitched pretty much to expectations - low 4's FIP and mid 4's ERA for 200 IP. I don't see any good reason to believe a bounceback by Sandoval, given the multi-year deterioration in his BB%, ISO, and defensive ratings, not to mention his huge jump in groundball rate and complete dissipation of his HardHit%. Hanley I can certainly see a bounceback, primarily by finding him a position that he can field not-atrociously. Porcello I have to assume will revert back closer to his career numbers.
All of those players could improve materially and it still may only improve the record to around 80 wins. When you win only ~65-69 games, you're 20+ wins of improvement from playoff contention. This isn't a team about to win 69 games that had an awful record in 1-run losses and their run differential suggested they were a 75-80 win team. They are truly as bad as their record. Pedroia's/Buchholz's injuries are fairly irrelevant, as they have been around for 80%+ of the current record thus far, which even with their positive contributions still resulted in a 69-win pace. Even if those two hadn't gotten hurt, this roster was on pace to win ~70 games.
The one thing you leave out which is a massive difference between the two teams is that in 2011 and 2012 the major league ready talent in AAA was not there. Going forward that shouldn't be an issue. The Sox will find out over the next two months who can and can't play. Does the Panda contract look bad? Sure. Does Porcellos? Sure. But this is the Boston Red Sox not the Tampa Rays. One or two bad contracts won't sink them provided it's not like the Crawford one. The front office needs an overhaul and they probably need to change the manager but there really shouldn't be this much doom and gloom around here.jscola85 said:
Trotsky said:
At the time, yes, but in reality what they got back was a #2 starter out of thin air, almost pure luck yes but it did happen. Assuming that happens in 2016 to help the team like the 2013 got is totally unrealistic. Regarding the FA additions, fans may have questioned the decisions but my primary premise was that the team had the flexibility to add $60M of salaries in the first place. This team does not have that ability coming up in the offseason barring a salary dump.
To summarize to a tl:dr level:
1. This team is worse than the 2012 team, even adjusting for the fact that by end of 2012 they had lost Gonzalez
2. The Punto Trade meant during the 2012/13 offseason, this organization had a greater ability to re-tool the roster. They had over $60M of payroll space, whereas this team will have maybe $20-25M barring a trade
Tyrone Biggums said:
It's not just one or two bad contracts though. The only guy making over $10M/yr on this team right now that has been worth his salary has been Pedroia. Hanley, Sandoval, Napoli, Ortiz, Castillo, and Porcello have all provided well less than their salary, as did Victorino. Napoli and Vic will be solved by attrition, but Porcello's contract almost doubles to $20M+ next year, Ortiz will continue aging, Sandoval's peripherals are terrifying, and Hanley has no position he can capably play.
Some of these guys will bounce back. I suspect Hanley, Castillo and Porcello will all play better in 2016 than 2015. They might improve though and still be severely overpaid, and on the flip side, Ortiz/Sandoval may slide even further south due to age/weight issues.
As for talent in the minors, there was plenty of high-end talent in AA/AAA in 12/13. JBJ, Bogaerts, Brentz, Ranaudo, Webster, RDLR, and Workman were all in AA/AAA. The shine rubbed off a bunch of those guys, but at the time they were viewed with similar optimism as Johnson, Owens, and Swihart.
jscola85 said:
In 2012 - RDLR didn't throw a pitch for the Sox and the Punto trade happened in August. Ranaudo wasn't ready yet and neither was Brentz and JBJ. The only player who was somewhat ready was Xander out of the ones you mentioned. This organization between 2011 and 2012 had almost nothing in the high minors in regards to pitching.
Ortiz is earning his money as of late and has options on his contract. Napoli is a free agent. Hanley's contract isn't as bad as what people believe it is. Castillo we haven't really seen this year because of injuries and Victorino. So you're really looking at only Panda and Porcello who are "bad contracts". I mean quite honestly the Panda one was defensible at the time. Even Porcello, 26 years old coming off his best year. It wasn't a terrible gamble. Just the result has not worked to expectations so far. Its very easy to write contracts off as bad after 1 season.
Rasputin said:
This, and: Beyond the merely unpleasant-to-read wallowing, there's a dangerous sentiment that, because the team is so disappointing right now, we shouldn't attempt to compete for at least a couple years -- not only shouldn't we look to make a major free-agent acquisition in the off-season, we shouldn't be making any trades with an eye toward upgrading 2016. Forget "GFIN," it's almost as if some folks think GFI at all is a prize reserved only for teams that aren't painful to watch.
Porcello is lost, Buchholz is hurt, Kelly is all over the place, the bullpen is thin, Sandoval is fat, Ramirez is a mess on defense, and they're getting nothing from first base or right field. There's no reason to believe they can't fix at least some of these problems going into next year, and no reason not to start trying to do so at the deadline this year.
And, you know what? Even if they can't, there's no reason to hope for a Marlins-style teardown project. It's not arrogant and it won't jinx anything to expect that a team with this much money and this strong a core of young position players figure out a path to being competitive every single year.
People are underestimating just how badly Ramirez is hurting this team with his glove and on the bases. He ranks 151st out of 161 qualified players by Fangraphs' baserunning and ranks as the worst defender in all of baseball by a long stretch (-19.5 vs. -14 for Matt Kemp). He's also now at a wRC+ of just 107. If you run and defend like Manny Ramirez, you cannot hit just slightly above-average. Going into 2016, I think we can assume his baserunning is not going to get better given his body change and leg injuries, and even if he vastly improves his defense, he will still be well below-average.
Castillo is a complete unknown, I agree.
Ortiz may be hitting better now but to be paid $15M+ as a DH he needs to be great. He's overpaid and not likely at 40 to be worth that salary next year.
The Panda deal was first-guessed at large, and then Sandoval showed up even further overweight and has exhibited seriously terrifying declines in all key performance indicators. This isn't a "bad luck / injury"-driven season. Many thought he was overpaid at the outset, and now he's overweight and exhibiting signs of serious deterioration.
There's lots of reason for improvement next year. Further development by Rodriguez, Betts, and Bogaerts. Full seasons of solid production from Owens, JBJ and Johnson. Porcello getting back to his career norms and Castillo breaking out to be what the scouts believe. I am just not banking on Ortiz, Hanley and Sandoval being huge catalysts in a bounceback given their age, injuries/position, and weight issues, respectively.
Castillo is a complete unknown, I agree.
Ortiz may be hitting better now but to be paid $15M+ as a DH he needs to be great. He's overpaid and not likely at 40 to be worth that salary next year.
The Panda deal was first-guessed at large, and then Sandoval showed up even further overweight and has exhibited seriously terrifying declines in all key performance indicators. This isn't a "bad luck / injury"-driven season. Many thought he was overpaid at the outset, and now he's overweight and exhibiting signs of serious deterioration.
There's lots of reason for improvement next year. Further development by Rodriguez, Betts, and Bogaerts. Full seasons of solid production from Owens, JBJ and Johnson. Porcello getting back to his career norms and Castillo breaking out to be what the scouts believe. I am just not banking on Ortiz, Hanley and Sandoval being huge catalysts in a bounceback given their age, injuries/position, and weight issues, respectively.
I would absolutely bank on Hanley. The reason he got his money is because of the dearth of power in baseball. I've been saying the same thing since April. Hanley has been playing hurt since he injured his shoulder. Ortiz is doing more than what you could expect from a 39 year old DH. Panda is a complete unknown right now.jscola85 said:
If you can cash in some of these prospects for a top of the line bat or arm with some years left on it then it needs to be considered.
jscola85 said:
I don't think anyone else is doing the bolded either. But Hanley and Sandoval bouncing back to producing near their career averages isn't out of the question and would certainly help the 2016 team's prospects while not being "huge" catalysts for the team's overall success. And if that happens in combination with everything else you say in that paragraph (further development from the kids, Porcello/Castillo producing, Pedroia/Buchholz healthy, etc), we could be looking at at least an 82-85 win team. And that's before they dip toes in the free agent and trade markets to plug holes (1B, bullpen, rotation).
I don't think it takes blind optimism to have expectations of a better year in 2016 without a complete roster teardown.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I don't either. But there is a wide chasm between "better than 2015" and "playoff team". They could improve by 10 wins and 100 runs and still be well out of the playoff chase next year despite a $180M+ payroll. With $160M+ in preexisting commitments, they likely can make one splashy signing or 2 middling signings, so I doubt the FA market will be a huge source of improvement.
Many here are banking on Hanley and Sandoval getting back to being 2.5-3+ WAR players like they used to be, but how many times have hitters who've played 130+ games and posted WARs below replacement level bounced back the next year to post a WAR north of 2.5? Only Nick Markakis, Trevor Plouffe and Starlin Castro went from sub 0.5 WAR to 2.5+ WAR from 2013 to 2014. Markakis is probably the best comp, as both Plouffe and Castro were significantly younger than Hanley and Pablo. Of players with <0.5 WAR in 2012, only Eric Hosmer (age 23) achieved a WAR above 2.5 in 2013.
Simply put, when you get to the level of suckitude that Hanley and Sandoval have exhibited so far, you rarely see a bounceback to becoming an above-average player, even if they have a track record of prior success.
EDIT - clarification
jscola85 said:
I actually think this is a very valid point and a reason why I wouldn't sit in the "everyone should tend to career norms!" camp.
That said, Hanley's negative fWAR is almost entirely due to a ridiculous defensive component. Put him at 1B or DH with his current numbers and league average defense (obv, default for DH) and he's on pace for ~1-2 fWAR this season and regress his BABIP to xBABIP given his contact profile and he's at 2-3. So I don't think what you are saying is unreasonable is actually unreasonable if you think A) he's going to improve in LF, B) the defensive metrics are way too negative on him, or C) both A/B are wrong, but the team will move him somewhere where he can't do damage with the glove.
I'm less optimistic re: Sandoval finding value, but I've been sour on that deal since Day 1.
Agree in principle, though I don't think a bounce back like Cano or Ortiz had the following year after their worst seasons is a difficult leap though w/r to Hanley. These guys have much better track records than the above examples. There are other examples that aren't as extreme.jscola85 said:
My problem with Ramirez is this though:
2010 4.2 wRC 127+
2011 .9 (92 games) wRC+ 97
2012 2.5 wRC+ 106
2013 5.1 (86 games) wRC+ 191
2014 3.3 wRC+ 135
2015 -.9 wRC+ 107
And those seasons are all factoring in the positional adjustments. What is his career norm? Anyone?
He's like the Clay Buchholz of position players. No clue what you are going to get from him on a year to year basis. If you blame his past production on injuries, and gloss over this year in the same way, then what does that say going forward as he leaves his prime?
grimshaw said:
Yes, as I said in another thread, you could easily see a bounceback by Hanley, but only get him for 100-120 games, thus wiping out a lot of the value recovered. He's been relatively successful in staying on the field this season, which is something that he hasn't exhibited throughout the last 4 prior seasons.
With the Gomez deal falling apart, the Red Sox should go after Wheeler. The Mets are obviously willing to trade him if the price is right (whereas the Mets won't move their other top starters).
Tyrone Biggums said:
The 2011 Red Sox farm system included Miguel Gonzalez, who has since pitched 541 2/3 innings at a 3.56 ERA clip. For Baltimore.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Yup. My theory, and hope, going back to letting Lester go was that they were already preparing to go hard after at least one of the upcoming FA group. Guys like Price, Cueto, and Zimmermann will all be a little younger than Lester was. Greinke is better. Maybe Shark will be cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go after two FA pitchers depending on budget. If they could get, say, Zimmermann and someone like Kennedy or Latos, then at least you may start looking at a very respectable rotation. I just can't imagine that two years in a row they're going to enter a season with Buchholz and Porcello as the top two starters on the roster.
FanSinceBoggs said:
And who do the Sox have that approximates a healthy version of Carlos Gomez that they'd be willing to part with to get him? The Mets are clearly looking for cost controlled major league players with all star caliber talent for their lineup. Where is the match? Betts? Bogaerts? A heavily subsidized Hanley? I don't see a way to make that work that doesn't hurt the Red Sox.
MLB TV is so bad right now. Throwing out such insane ideas for the Sox that I may concentrate on work instead.
Deal one:
Betts/Owens/Prospect
for
Strasburg/Michael Taylor
Deal two:
Wiley/Moncada/Holt/Benintendi(wtf?)
for
Tyson Ross/Kimbrel
George Costanza would be a better talking head.
Deal one:
Betts/Owens/Prospect
for
Strasburg/Michael Taylor
Deal two:
Wiley/Moncada/Holt/Benintendi(wtf?)
for
Tyson Ross/Kimbrel
George Costanza would be a better talking head.
Clearly wouldn't take Betts or Xander since the Mets were willing to give Wheeler and Flores for less than two seasons of Gomez. But you're right, there doesn't seem to be a match here unless Alderson is enamored with Brock Holt or they bring in a third team.Snodgrass'Muff said:
I remember back in the good ol days when this was a credible rumors thread. Man those were some good times....back in the summer of 69.
This type of crap doesn't go in here. Credible rumors. If you want to start a ridiculous trade ideas thread, be my guest.shoosh77 said:
Doctor G said:
I would hope they are looking to get pitching out of SD....preferably Ross. We do match up well. And I'd do the Panda/Shields swap as well.
He already said it was insane and there are much better examples of off topic posts if you read the last 3 pages.absintheofmalaise said: