Clears Cleaver said:
I agree with everything but trading Koji (extend him and re-sign Lester). I'd also add Nava and Carp to the trade list.
Red Sox Deadline Discussion
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I agree with everything but trading Koji (extend him and re-sign Lester). I'd also add Nava and Carp to the trade list.
Ed Hillel said:
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how ridiculous would it be that they acquired Drew for only money and then unload him for only salary relief? I wonder if the idea that they'd look pretty stupid plays any part in the decision making process.
I don't think they should look to get Marrero up before the end of 2014 myself. He was a mid-season promotion and if they move Drew I'd rather let Xander just spend the rest of the year back at SS without him thinking as to just how long he's got until Marrero is up and they move him back to 3B.Hank Scorpio said:
My timeline would be something like this:
Now and to the end of 2014: Move Drew soon, get Xander back to SS, Holt and when he's healthy WMB share 3B. They both pick up innings in the OF, spell Pedroia at 2B, and Napoli at 1B as well.
Spring Training 2015: Marrero, Cecchini, WMB, Coyle, Holt, and Xander all come in. Xander and Marrero play SS, the rest all compete at 3B. Short of some unforeseen revelation the opening day roster will be WMB/Holt (whomever ends 2014 strongest) at 3B, Xander at SS, and Cecchini, Marrero, and Coyle in AAA at 3B, SS, and 2B respectively. Cecchini would take work at both 1B and in the OF while Coyle will take time at 3B.
Mid-season 2015: Evaluate how everyone is doing. If Marrero is still hitting and Xander is still struggling assess the viability of moving Xander over. If WMB is hitting but playing mediocre D assess the viability of him becoming a full time OF who spot starts at 3B and 1B. If WMB isn't hitting and Cecchini or Coyle is then make the corresponding move, etc. etc..
I think mid-next season is when all of this could fall into place, but before getting to that point chronologically the club needs to finish it's evaluation of Xander Bogaerts the SS. Maybe they have and are unwilling to say, but I'd doubt it as that borders on antagonizing Bogaerts to tell him he's the SS of the future, sign Drew and reiterate that fact, but then never give him a real shot at the SS job.
Similar mindset at catcher honestly. Get AJP out and Vazquez up to work with the staff and start adapting to ML pitching. Start 2015 with Vazquez and Butler/Lavarnway (or get an old vet to serve as mentor if the club sees no future in either Butler or Lavarnway) as the catching tandem and Swihart in AAA. By mid-season Swihart will quite possibly be knocking on the door so the weakest half of the catching platoon gets traded/moved to make room.
Jayson Stark @jaysonst 1mE5 Yaz said:
As @GordonEdes reported, also hearing buzz that Peavy to #STLCards could happen "quick." Only Bos game Cards scouted was game Peavy pitched
Chris Cotillo @ChrisCotillo 6s
Per multiple reports, #STLCards are being aggressive in their pursuit of Jake Peavy. #RedSox
Signing Drew wasn't stupid, moving him for little now isnt stupid, but worrying how they look sure would be stupid. In May they were a team looking to contend with money to spend an a hole on the left side of the infield. Now they are a team playing out the string with young players to appraise and develop and Drew doesn't fit. Pretty obvious that circumstances changed.glennhoffmania said:
soxhop411 said:
In todays' terms this could be the equivalent of saying the GM's are on the phone haggling over pieces as I type.
I would really like something anything that could help this offense(allen craig allen craig allen craig). It's been a good run Jake. Enjoy the duck boat.
Stitch01 said:
In general, yes. But the circumstance that hasn't changed is that Drew was never the solution to any problem so the signing was stupid.
And my comment about the FO worrying about looking stupid now for trading him was tongue in cheek.
Hoplite said:
I think so, yes. But they have a few lower-level outfield prospects, one of whom, James Ramsey, has been pretty blocked: http://cardinalsfarm.com/2014/05/17/james-ramsey-st-louis-cardinals-forgotten-prospect/.
ETA: I think the appeal of Peavy is precisely that he wouldn't require a top-level prospect. If they wanted to make a big buy, wouldn't Piscotty and Carlos Martinez get you pretty close to David Price?
Yes, the same front office that apparently didn't know Shane Victorino was so injured at the end of last season that he'd barely be able to take the field this season, should have foreseen the emergence of Brock Holt as a legitimate major leaguer and that last years playoffs presaged a real collapse in Steven Drew's ability to hit a baseball rather than an ill-timed slump.glennhoffmania said:
C'mon. Any team with money to spend and a hole on the left side of the infield should have made that move. It was sound then, it would have been even sounder if they'd reacted as soon as the stories started flying in spring training that Drew regretted not taking the QO, and it will remain sound regardless.
I mean, I know you've been consistent in saying that they shouldn't have signed him, so kudos. But, it has been an unmitigated disaster in that he hasn't hit and they lost 15 of 22 to torpedo their season between when they signed him and when he started playing regularly, neither of those things was foreseeable, and the latter had nothing to do with him being signed.
Two professional organizations, so this may be as close to rumors as you'll get. You don't haggle for the perfect deal, and you don't shop. You recognize when needs coincide and you settle on good. Would not be surprised to see this announced very soon.
Craig for Peavy would be an awesome trade for the Sox. I'd happily part with a minor prospect or two to make that happen.
I'd love that deal. It's both selling and buying, which is sort of interesting.PrometheusWakefield said:
Plympton91 said:
This has nothing to do with Holt. It has to do with their mistaken belief that Drew could step right in and be productive. I don't blame the signing for their shitty season, nor do I blame it for Bogaerts' struggles. It was a dumb decision all on its own regardless.
As noted below, Peavy probably doesn't get you Piscotty, but...Hoplite said:
A subsidized Peavy along with an arm from our system at the bottom of the top tier? Or a blocked IF like Coyle (my favorite minor leaguer)?
In order to say that you've got to also be of the opinion that they shouldn't have tried to win in 2014. I know people are concerned about Bogaerts developing at SS, but look at what Marerro has been doing, and the quotes from Farrell at the end of spring training that I linked to in Marerro's Adopt a Prospect thread. It's highly likely that they already know Bogaerts isn't their shortstop of the future, because they see Marerro as in Iglesias's class defensively, with the added ability of Marrero to take a few walks and hit the ball to the outfield regularly.glennhoffmania said:
Didn't mean to start this fight again, my only point on Drew was that I don't think this front office is dumb enough to try and save face on the Drew signing. Good signing, bad signing, whatever, that ship sailed. His hitting isn't coming around and the team didn't hang around in the race long enough to justify running him out there every day for two weeks post all-star break. Cut bait and move on.
EDIT: Or tell X his days of playing SS are over forever and aren't based on who is on the roster and let him work on being a 3B, bolder call but that's fine too.
EDIT: Or tell X his days of playing SS are over forever and aren't based on who is on the roster and let him work on being a 3B, bolder call but that's fine too.
The Rays supposedly turned down Addison Russell and Billy McKinney for Price. I don't think Piscotty and Martinez are a better package than them.johnnywayback said:
Straight up it works for both sides, no need for additional greasing of the wheels unless the Cards want MI help as part of the deal. Craig is owed another $25M from '15-'17 and he's been very bad this year, so there is real risk there. Peavy has very little risk for the Cards as he's done after this season.PrometheusWakefield said:
To me the flex points would be:
1. How much do the Cards want the Red Sox to bridge the ~$6M payroll gap for the rest of the season?
2. How much do the Cards value additional middle infield help?
3. Just how attached are the Cardinals to their various OF prospects?
I don't think the Sox should look to expand the deal to include any legitimate prospects as the Cardinals simply won't deal young talent without knowing they're getting a big win. They'll move fringe guys (like the previously mentioned Thomas Pham), guys stalled and aging in the high minors, and extras from their own ML roster but they won't move a young player with a starter's projection who isn't completely blocked without getting blown away. That has been their modus operandi for quite some time now.
Hoplite said:
I think they'll be fine standing pat with Segura. He's still a young guy and I think the shoulder thing he came down with at the very end of Spring Training has sapped some production.
Mugsys Jock said:
Peavy and his contract covered plus Matt Barnes? I'm not sure that gets it done, but it might be a decent offer to get close to a deal.
As a Sox fan I wouldn't want to see them do that. Barnes has some questions as a starter but I think he could be a lights out closer. Piscotty is a lower tier version of Bradley, comparable offensive skill set but not as good as JBJ defensively, and I'd expect Betts to outproduce Piscotty handily.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Piscotty is highly touted because he's well rounded and has consistently produced up through the minors, but to date there isn't an elite tool that back up his game at the ML level. I'd be much more interested in Allen Craig (assuming Tavares is off the table even if offering Lester) as Craig has a history of ML level slugging, and he also likely wouldn't cost Barnes.
I am not getting why you would trade Peavy + prospects for Piscotty. Piscotty is basically JBJ without the defense.
Plympton91 said:
Look I understand your point of view and believe it or not I don't totally disagree with you. Where we disagree is the assumption you keep making that not only wasn't a good assumption at the time but has proven to be totally wrong since the signing. And that's that Drew wasn't going to materially improve their chances of winning in 2014. If they had acquired another SS in another way to move Bogaerts to 3B, fine. If they had acquired another 3B to replace WMB/Holt/Cecchini, fine. My only point, and the only thing we seem to disagree on, is that Drew wasn't the answer.
Exactly.TomRicardo said:
Grichuk? Maybe because you can bet on his plate discipline maturing and the contact + power + better defense than Piscotty is already there. The Sox would have to really believe they know what he's missing.
Tavares? Any prospect not named Xander Bogaerts pretty much.
Carlos Martinez? Definitely grounds to work something out with the high end of prospects but without touching Bogaerts or Swihart.
But Piscotty? Especially for someone like Barnes? Going into the season Barnes was a pretty comparable prospect. He's been up and down but it's not like Piscotty is hitting 1.000 in AAA or something himself. Peavy plus Deven Marrero circa April 2014 would be about right. Marrero has made real offensive steps forward though and at this point is a better prospect than Piscotty (and I don't give two shits what some prospect list says, Marrero hit about as well in AA this year as Piscotty did last year over a comparable sample and Marrero is a damn good defensive SS).
If the sticking point on Lester is the years, Hamels is owed an AAV of 23.5 for the next 4 seasons with a club option for 2019 for 20 million or a 6 million dollar buy out. The cost, even eating most or all o the money is going to be steep. He's an elite pitcher and I can't see Amaro letting him go for anything less than a couple of top ten prospects from Boston's system. Of course, that tweet isn't suggesting that he's being shopped, so it's probably just retweet/favorite fuel.
seantoo said:
Because I shouldn't have to. In no way are we likely to end up with one productive major leaguer out of three lottery ticket prospects. Until prospects get to AA, they are far more likely to flame out than reach the majors. Never mind have a solid major league career or better. Once a prospect gets into AA, it's really tough to justify calling them a lottery ticket. So you are arguing that a collection of three High-A or lower lottery ticket hitters is likely to end up yielding a major league caliber player, ignoring the fact that each one of those guys is far more likely to flame out than ever actually crack a major league record. It's ridiculous.
MakMan44 said:
Hamels would be very nice Lester insurance or just keep both. It would probably cost something like Owens Swihart Travis Shaw
2015 rotation of Lester Hamels Lackey Clay and any of still plenty of young arms. Owens and Swihart is a steep price to pay. May want to save the big prospect package for the inevitable Stanton derby.
Not saying I would do it in a heartbeat but I probably would ultimately do it.
jimbobim said:
They're not paying Cole Hamels the 5/120 he's still owed AND paying Lester the 5/120+ it will likely take to re-up him. It would surely be an either/or scenario.
But I don't think the Sox are going to be active in the trade deadline market from a buying perspective anyway, assuming there's anything at all to the idea of the Phillies shopping Hamels. I don't think there is.
jimbobim said:
It seems a bit perverse to give up that much talent just to swap in a guy who is essentially identical in role and value to Lester, for the sole purpose of shortening the contract by a couple of years.
(BTW, when you say "Travis Shaw" do you mean Travis Shaw, or Travis and Shaw? I'm guessing the former since it would be a little odd to give up both 1B prospects in the same deal.)
I agree. I have no idea why the Red Sox would be interested in Hamels. Keep your prospects and give the money to the guy you know.Savin Hillbilly said:
I agree that AA is the big jump where the men are separated from the boys, however you added nothing of value and you're better than that so you should have to. The Sox could package MLB veterans with mid tier prospects, or do as I said, it only takes one to get it rightSnodgrass'Muff said:
seantoo said:
Pointing out that your post was built on a flawed premise is not devoid of value. Word count is not a barometer for value added.
So when you say "lottery ticket," you're referring to a type of player who pans out at about a one-in-three rate?seantoo said:
Maybe pick a different phrase than "lottery ticket."
It's neither nor. Lottery ticket can also apply to a hi risk hi reward player who is finally showing his ability after injuries delayed his growth. Usually when this occurs his age is a year or two beyond his peers and the results while good are rightly questioned (whether or not it's right or wrong) because of the age factor. That also is a lottery ticket player. I would like the Sox to supplement the talent they have at AA and AAA by acquiring at least 1 slugging OF'er whether it's by trading MLB top level players such as Pedroia or easily expendable players such as Peavy or trading from the minor league pitching depth and/or infield prospects (minus of course firsrtbasemen) to do so or any combination there of, including acquiring lottery ticket like players such as Brian Daubach. Yes I over stated the chances however seaking out all means possible to speed up the rebuilding process should be taken including taking chances with lottery tickets even if it does not work. It's worth the chance that it does.Papelbon's Poutine said:
I don't think I have ever heard of the term "lottery ticket" being applied to anyone but more a guys with some tools and more flaws. That's fundamentally different than a high risk high reward guy because a lottery ticket is a small risk.seantoo said:
The guys who were injured or late blossoming prospects are generally called reclamation projects. They're different from lottery tickets in that their upside generally isn't very high. I think Brian Daubach is the most I have ever seen come from one of them though I suppose Daniel Nava has a chance to give him a run for his money.
Really, Nick? Other teams would prefer to have a better pitcher who's under contract next year for the league minimum? Solid scoop right there.
Corsi said:
Of course there is a lot of interest in Lackey. That's like someone shopping for ramen noodles and peanut butter (Peavy) and then they see a steak and can't help but ask the price.
Lackey is throwing very very well and is under control for next year. If he's dealt it better be for somebody who can be a beast offensively.
I read that from Cafardo this morning too, they should be more than willing to deal Lackey IMO. He's a middle of the rotation starter and I can see his 2015 option being a big selling point, but also having the potential to be a big distraction if he stays next year.
Trade both he and Peavy. We don't really need either. We can explore free agency next year and for the rest of the year we can use Workman, Ranaudo, Webster, Wright or whoever. I'm not worried about this season.
Trade both he and Peavy. We don't really need either. We can explore free agency next year and for the rest of the year we can use Workman, Ranaudo, Webster, Wright or whoever. I'm not worried about this season.
Sure, it's an obvious "report" but it does raise the question: What could the Sox realistically get for Lackey? He's older than Samardzija, and not as good, so a package like Addison Russell, Dan Straily and McKinney is a pipe dream. We're also not throwing in a Jason Hammel. That said, Lackey might be the most valuable trade piece we have that the front office would be willing to part with. If the team feels confident they can extend Lester, I wouldn't be surprised if Lackey gets traded.