Red Sox Hot Stove Rumors
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
TomRicardo said:
I didn't say that the Red Sox wouldn't sign him for $118/6 if he was an FA. Nor did I state anything about the number of teams that would be interested in signing him if he was an FA. My point was that I wouldn't want them to make that deal, primarily because, despite his talent, he couldn't stay on the field in his 20s and now on the wrong side of 30 the risk is even more substantial. If you want to debate his value relative to his risk, I'm fine with that, but don't put words in my mouth to argue a strawman.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
I can't imagine why anyone would bet on him missing fewer games going forward than he has over his career so far. He just turned 30 and he had a torn hip labrum repaired last year. Even if none of this prior injuries would be considered chronic, he's not likely to become more durable and recover faster as he gets older. And then when he misses his annual 50 to 60 games and you throw Marrero in there, you weaken the lineup and you weaken the bench. And you're still paying him $20m per year. He's the definition of high risk acquisition given his history, contract and age. Plus there's this:
gammoseditor said:
This was my thinking; if Colorado would take Betts as the centerpiece then the Sox are dealing from their OF surplus (possibly leveraging Betts' positional value in the IF) and avoiding Sandoval (who I don't like for the Sox). It also keeps the payroll in line for them to add a high prices SP.Rudy Pemberton said:
touchstone033 said:
First actual piece of Hot Stove rumour in three pages!
He sounds like a bottom of the rotation guy at best.
I should add that I'm very wary of Tulo in general, and would rather see the Sox use their prospect depth to field a young team (either by playing the kids or trading them for other young play with control) - MLB is now a young mans game.
Also, as far as his position goes, IIRC he said he would never move from SS to 3B; if you trade for him you probably have to be prepared for him to decline in the middle of the diamond.
Also, as far as his position goes, IIRC he said he would never move from SS to 3B; if you trade for him you probably have to be prepared for him to decline in the middle of the diamond.
Uh, is there any rumor linking Tulo to the Sox, other than rumors circulating in July? Seems pretty clear the FO was content to have Bogaerts play SS in 2015.
gammoseditor said:
How do those cherries taste that you just picked? Projecting him for 88 games next year is absurd and transparently a product of making sure to include his 47 game season and nothing further back. He's cleared that mark in every season except one. If you want to use bWAR, he has been between 5.3 and 6.7 in five of the last six seasons, with the one exception being the year that he played 47 games due to the groin injury. There's no doubt that he should project to decline at some point soon but the peak is much higher and more consistent than you're allowing and I never said that he would be a 5-6 win player well into the future. We're talking about next year.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Assume you have to trade Bogaerts. If Tulo ends up being a 6 win player, and Bogaerts a 3 win player, are those three wins worth the $20 million a year difference? As you point out, you also have less money to upgrade the other holes in the roster, which are still there.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
He played 91 games last year. The 47 game season isn't the only outlier. His season numbers are still good last year because he had by far his best offensive season of his career, at age 29. And I don't see why we're just talking about next year. He's signed for the next 6. I could see going after him if SS was our primary need. This team has a few far more important needs.
gammoseditor said:
If Bogaerts is required in the trade, then your last point stands. If not, Bogaerts slides to 3rd and you are filling that hole with the trade.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I'm in the minority, but I thought Bogaerts looked awful at 3B and want to see a year from him at SS.
Expanding on the cherry picking, which was a fair point, Tulo for his career, excluding his first year where he played 25 games, has averaged 117 games at 4.8 WAR (bref). His contract to me is about right, but I wouldn't want to bet on a guy who has averaged 117 games for his career aging well. I'd rather keep the prospects it would take to get him, and use our money to fill our actual needs.
Is there a baseball player that's come back to be healthy and effective after hip labrum injury? Because I can think of a few guys who more or less were not.
What about 6 years/123?
Does anyone think Ellsbury is going to outperform Tulo over the next 6 years? He makes more money and had been labeled injury prone as well before that deal. He's also a year older. I say no because he's a good player (though RC+ of 107 last year makes the offensive side a bit suspect going forward) paid like a superstar and Tulo is a superstar paid like a good player.
I'll give you that the torn hip labrum may be tougher to bounce back from (maybe a doctor can comment). I trust the Sox to do their injury history homework like they did with Napoli (but perhaps not with Craig). They would certainly review medicals in great detail before pulling the trigger and I would think they know what they're doing.
The Red Sox can absorb Tulo losing 40 games because they have option b (Holt) and c (Marerro) in the organization. It's not like they're dropping down to Mike Benjamin.
The team needs to improve, period. He's the best available player out there and makes Sandoval and Headley much less palatable. Especially if those guys are both looking for a minimum of 5 years.
Does anyone think Ellsbury is going to outperform Tulo over the next 6 years? He makes more money and had been labeled injury prone as well before that deal. He's also a year older. I say no because he's a good player (though RC+ of 107 last year makes the offensive side a bit suspect going forward) paid like a superstar and Tulo is a superstar paid like a good player.
I'll give you that the torn hip labrum may be tougher to bounce back from (maybe a doctor can comment). I trust the Sox to do their injury history homework like they did with Napoli (but perhaps not with Craig). They would certainly review medicals in great detail before pulling the trigger and I would think they know what they're doing.
The Red Sox can absorb Tulo losing 40 games because they have option b (Holt) and c (Marerro) in the organization. It's not like they're dropping down to Mike Benjamin.
The team needs to improve, period. He's the best available player out there and makes Sandoval and Headley much less palatable. Especially if those guys are both looking for a minimum of 5 years.
grimshaw said:
No, but I don't think that many posters on this site think or thought that the Ellsbury deal was a good deal either. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with the risk associated with giving any player over 30 a $120/6 deal that have the type of injury history and durability concerns that Tulo and Ells both have.
Also, Tulo has averaged missing 40 games a season during his professional career, during his 20s (admittedly this is driven in part by 1 47-game season, but regardless he has had some type of injury and lost substantial time to it in 50% of the seasons he's played). This does not bode well for someone as they progress into their 30s and through the downside of their career in the post-PED era. Moreover, its a reasonable expectation that his average games missed per season will only increase over the next 6 seasons.
My concern is further heightened by his hip labrum condition. My novice opinion on this is that such an injury can be nagging/degenerative even with surgery and has a substantial impact on hip rotation, which would affect both his ability to turn on the ball and to field and throw from SS on balls hit to his right. However, I'd be open to hear from medical experts about this condition and this may temper my concerns to some degree. Although, even with a best case scenario on his hip labrum, I'd still likely hold a risk adverse position on Tulo.
Mike Lowell had surgery in late 2008 to repair a torn hip labrum. He never came close to regaining his pre-injury agility.
Harry Hooper said:
Mike Lowell was going into his age 34 season. Tulowitzki is going into his age 30 season. That's a relevant difference. I don't know how likely Tulo is to make a full recovery, but I'm not sure Mike Lowell is a good comp.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I think his problems at 3rd were more in his head than in his ability to actually play the position. There were several comments on this board around that - some blaming Sox management for putting poor X in that terrible position ..... and some that asked X to suck it up.
gryoung said:
Well, he had played a hell of a lot more shortstop than third base as a professional, after all. Just because a position is easier than the one you're used to, that doesn't mean there won't be a learning curve.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Lowell was slightly older, and it was also his right (power) hip vs. Tulowitzki's left that had the injury. Still, it's a big hunk of risk to add on to any "Get Tulo" scenario.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Here's the thread. The loss of Rizzo was felt less severely because we were getting the guy to replace him (which would be similar, I guess, to a Tulo-Bogaerts swap). But there was a lot of recognition that the Sox had to give up something of real value to get Gonzalez. Kelly was ranked #1 in the system at the time, but Rizzo was #3.
kieckeredinthehead said:
Which supports my contention that the two scenarios aren't all that similar. It wasn't Rizzo+ for Gonzalez. It was two prospects at the top of the farm system who hadn't seen major league time yet, plus Reymond Fuentes for one season of control over Gonzalez. That many of us acknowledged that Rizzo was not a throw in does not change anything. It was a vastly different scenario than sending Bogaerts, who has a little over a year of major league service time under his belt, plus (which is still a vague "Bogaerts isn't enough" addition with no clarification) to Colorado for 6 years of control over Troy Tulowitzki.
The words I'm disagreeing with are "That actually strikes me as very similar to the Adrian Gonzalez trade. Except if Rizzo was much further along in his development and Gonzalez already had a large contract and was injury prone." So "very similar" except for these two huge differences that he pointed and the fact that he's ignoring a more highly rated prospect that was in the trade. He's not the only one who has done this lately, either. People forget about Casey Kelly because Rizzo turned out to be the better player, but Kelly was the top prize in that deal at the time.
I get that people are tired of nitpicking posts on the main board, but if we're not even going to make an effort to be accurate when posting, what's the point?
Edit: I'll leave it at that, though, as we've derailed the thread long enough.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Point taken, I'll try to be better next time. I figured the years of control wasn't a big difference here since it was pretty widely assumed (or at least that's what I remember) that the Sox would ink Gonzalez to an extension when the trade went down.
Revisionist history, plus the ripple effects of the trade for years afterwards, made it stick in my head as a comparison. Really just a round about way of saying that I don't want to look up 4 years down the road and wish we had kept Bogaerts.
Drek717 said:
To continue the thread derailing until some actual rumors come about….
This is where you lose me. Production is not homogenous, both offensive and defensive. Gonzalez has less value against lefty starters and in certain ballparks, just as Heyward will have less value with a ground ball pitcher on the mound. These things even out (as a side note, Fenway's RF, if anything, should enhance his defensive value).
I'm on board with the large error bars for many players' defensive statistics, but Heyward's consistently elite metrics and scouting reports make me think his D really is that good. I agree the errors bars on his D are still bigger than for offensive production, but I honestly don't think they are all that big in his case. Put another way, I don't think we need to do much regressing to the mean for Heyward's defensive numbers.
You seem to want to take it a step further and universally decrease defensive value (even if it seems to be pretty accurate in describing how good someone is relative to his peers) compared to other baseball analysts by some unknown fudge factor just…. well just because. Maybe you are right that even an accurate description of someone's defensive abilities overvalues that person by %X, who knows. It's a provocative thought, and one that if true, lots of teams would be interested in. But you've hardly come close to supporting it.
Also…. comparing Heyward to Victorino is fine, but that's easy. Of course they can be easily compared, since they have similar skillets. The more interesting question is comparing the overall value of two players who do different things well.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Well, sure, but he did become one of the best defensive leftfielders in baseball, and he started hitting once he was moved to the outfield, and the Royals did have a stud prospect who also profiled at third. I don't think it was as simple as "hip injury? Better move him to the outfield."
Do you remember his "mobility" before the surgery? Other than as a 22-year-old in AA, he was never really a speed guy in terms of high stolen base totals, but I'll admit that I wasn't really following his career back in those days.
Maybe a more relevant example of a guy who had the hip surgery and came through fine, Chase Utley, who had the surgery after the '08 season as an almost-30-year-old, and proceeded to have one of the best seasons of his career in '09. The injuries that derailed him afterwards were to his knees, but even factoring that in, he's been a good player these last two years as a 34- and 35-year-old.
All that said, I'm not crazy about the idea of Tulo simply because even after the hip injury, he seems reluctant to move off of shortstop.
Adding to the Gordon's game 7 triple stuff, I read somewhere (can't remember where) that they went back and timed Gordon's home-to-3rd times on prior triples he'd hit and found he was something like a second quicker normally. It was part of some theorizing about whether he hustled, and if he did hustle would it have been a good gamble to send him. Neither here or there I suppose re: Tulo and his hip, but I do think it's fair to say Gordon is currently moving a whole lot better than post-surgery Mike Lowell.
Also not sure if anyone still had Giancarlo pipe dreams, but the Marlins are apparently working on an extension - 13/$325M.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/11/14/giancarlo-stanton-marlins-contract-extension/19040675/
Also not sure if anyone still had Giancarlo pipe dreams, but the Marlins are apparently working on an extension - 13/$325M.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/11/14/giancarlo-stanton-marlins-contract-extension/19040675/
I fail to see any logic to trading away minor league talent for major league players that have a similar contract to those that can be signed in free agency. Why would we give away players and pay Tulo when we can simply sign someone to play 3rd and keep the farm? Granted, it depends on the talent you give away...why not just sign Lester rather than trade away assets to get Hamels who has similar numbers and potentially a similar contract? Makes no sense.
Plympton91 said:
:unsure2:[SIZE=13.63636302948px] [/SIZE]
This is how we refer to what's widely considered the greatest film of all time now?
I'll admit Tulo was still intriguing up to this last injury, but at what put does an injury become the straw that breaks the camels back? I was basically there before but this last hip injury clinches it. The difference was Mike Lowell was fairly healthy up to that point and Tulo has never really been. I don't understand the persistence to want a guy whose nearly always injured and now has what is often a serious limiting injury going forward whose on the wrong side of 30. If a Bentley (or insert your expensive car of choice) is always in the garage what good is it? The arguments laid out by others has never really been answered yet some insist they want the shiny new toy. The argument for him is not based on logic but ill advised hope that somehow someway he finally at 30/31 becomes healthy.Snodgrass'Muff said:
In addition Mike Lowell was a secondary piece in that trade, after 1 bad season Miami wanted to unload him/his contract and the Sox got him on the cheap. Josh Beckett was the centerpiece coming back to the Sox there.
I guess I won't check this thread anymore for rumors. It has turned into a Lowell-Tulo discussion.
Don't forget that an injury to your hip (anywhere really) can alter your mechanics and increase the chances of injuries to other body parts down the road, the hip movement, if you've ever hurt it, affects every step you take. Basically what I'm suggesting is the hip injury and the knee injuries to Chase Utley could very well be relatedDanny_Darwin said:
Between 2010 and 2013, Utley played 115, 103, 83 & 131 games and that would be the same age seasons that Tulo enters now but Chase was also very durable before that while Tulo has been anything but, so the comp while not the best should be a reason why not to go after Tulo.
And as enchanting as the reward may be the risk is simply to high. I'd rather the Sox build a line-up of 9 collectively above average players then make the risk of trading 3 of them to get at best more of the same from Tulo and what should be expected diminishing returns. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he has one more great relatively healthy (135+ games) season which he has done once on 6 seasons, but I'd be very surprised if he has more than 1, great heathly year, based on the past six years and how players age, especially ones that have had numerous injuries in there 20's.
One solid counterpoint mentioned by others and a reason to go after Tulo was that despite the injuries he's still been among the top 10 WAR players year after year. The problem I have with that is many of his injuries ended the season for him, and posting a great WAR does not help the team if you are not there for the stretch run and playoffs. He's simply not dependable.
Edit: for clarity
I AM NOT SURE HOW TO POST TWEETS, BUT THESE ALL JUST APPEARED ON @BostonStrong_34. I guess these fit the classification of a rumor:
IF Yoan Moncada had his showcase at Guatemala City, he has been declared a free agent and the Red Sox are interested.
Yoan Moncada has been the #1 prospect from Cuba since he was 14 years old, he's 19 now an continues to impress.
Yoan Moncada plays: 3B, SS and 2B.
Had the chance to talk with Moncada last week, told me that he wanted to play for the Red Sox or Yankees.
IF Yoan Moncada had his showcase at Guatemala City, he has been declared a free agent and the Red Sox are interested.
Yoan Moncada has been the #1 prospect from Cuba since he was 14 years old, he's 19 now an continues to impress.
Yoan Moncada plays: 3B, SS and 2B.
Had the chance to talk with Moncada last week, told me that he wanted to play for the Red Sox or Yankees.
I don't know who the actual person tweeting is, but the tweets I have seen are often right in line with what can be found elsewhere or here. As I stated, seemed like an appropriate post for a rumor thread, especially given the tweets have actual pictures of Moncada's workout.soxhop411 said:
- Status