Sox depth - what is next?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
The Dodgers managed to win 94 games with that particular defensive hole. Saying he's a defensive liability at short is one thing, and true. Saying he's a crippling liability that a contending team can't sustain, even for one year, is another thing, and silly.

 
Then it's a good thing I didn't say that.
 
I was simply disagreeing with the idea that Bogaerts is no longer needed. And YTF, just because teams will want Bogaerts, that doesn't mean he's likely to be moved. If the Red Sox had a thin farm system I might be more inclined to agree with you, but they have a ton of prospect depth and plenty of top 100 prospects in the system to build a deal with. Unless the Red Sox believe that the Bogaerts who struggled for most of last season is an indication that he's never going to be an impact bat, I just don't see how they would sell on him while his value as at it's low point. Even if that low point is still valuable, he's worth less now than he was at this time last year.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Fact of the matter is that somebody HAS to go. I don't necessarily want to see Bogaerts go and I'm not really advocating for anything here, but we often talk about "bridge years" for teams, might Hanley be a bridge in '15 to Marrero in '16 and then moved to 1B or OF? I think most of us are still of the mind that the Sox are looking for at least 2 impact pitchers. Both aren't going to come via the FA route. Cespedes has long been thought of as trade bait and more recently Napoli's name has been mentioned here, but time after time, after time we talk about young, cost controlled, MLB ready players being the target of every team. Bogaerts fits that mold.

 
There is more than enough prospect depth to acquire a good starter without touching Bogaerts or Betts.

 

[OzSox]

 
In no world is Cueto a number 2 nor is he only worth Cespedes and one of the pitching prospects. He's a better pitcher than Hamels and even with just one year of control is probably worth more in a trade. Cueto is one of the best pitchers in the game. Lumping him in with the rest of the number 2 guys is sort of silly.

 
OK, take Cueto out of the No. 2 range and add him to the ace range with Hamels. In any case I think it all hinges on Lester. If Lester can be brought back, there's no need to part with Bogaerts/Betts/Swihart. If Lester signs elsewhere, the Red Sox may need to dangle a top prospect to lure an ace, and that's where Ramirez comes in by (theoretically) being able to play one of several positions depending on how it all shakes out and who gets dealt.

 

[YTF]

There is more than enough prospect depth to acquire a good starter without touching Bogaerts or Betts.
 
 
 
This may be true, but again teams value young, cost controlled MLB ready talent. The Sox now have Hanley Ramirez locked up for the next 5 seasons. Say what you will about his defense, but he's been an MLB shortstop for the majority of his career. And exactly what should we expect from him defensively in LF where many here seem to have him penciled in? I'm merely saying that the signing of Ramirez make Bogaerts expendable, or at least more so than he was a day ago.

 

[soxfan121]

 
Did you even read my posts?  If you don't agree I'd appreciate more thought than this as a response.  
 
But to answer your question - it's because we don't have perfect information.  We don't know how he will recover from his back surgery but it is unlikely to have him out for the season and last I heard they expected him to be ready for spring training.  If you have other information, please share.  If you are just making a guess, then great.  However, since they opted to have the surgery rather than rest, we can presume there was a problem to be fixed.  I have to assume they would not perform back surgery without having a good idea that they were fixing something.  It is too risky for "oh, maybe this will help."   
 
Beyond that, maybe John Henry made an extra billion last year and just wants to blow money, but I tend to doubt that is actually the case.  So the Red Sox will be looking to find a way to maximize the value of the players that they have, both on the field in 2015, and for the future.  Letting a healthy Victorino languish on the sidelines doesn't seem to accomplish either goal.  

 
There's a history of a player "blowing himself out" during a post-season run and then collapsing completely. There's a history of ownership eating a sunk cost on a playoff hero. There's a history of paying for a redundant player to go away. 
 
As for his back - it's a back injury. Nobody knows nothing other than back injuries are rarely a good thing and often linger, even after surgery. But the assumption that surgeons don't cut unless they are fixing something is not always accurate. $0.10 for that nugget, please. ;-) 
 
But it's not just the back; it's the hamstring. Or maybe the elbow. Or maybe the multitude of injuries that have piled up on a guy who played very hard and was thought to be breaking down when he signed his three year deal. [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]It's certainly possible that Victorino can still play but why would he play here?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]The acquisition of approximately twelve outfielders since Victorino's surgery indicates the FO isn't factoring him into the 2015 plan. [/SIZE]

 

[opes]

So who all is possible bait?  We all know the OF is a logjam, so their will be movement there for sure.
Craig, Nava, Cespedes are the likely candidates.
Victorino lesser so due to his contract.  JBJ and holt are possiblities dependant on the deal.  And Middlebrooks is redundant at this point.  The only ones I can see untouchable, or nearly so, would be Castillo, Betts, and Bogaerts.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
There is more than enough prospect depth to acquire a good starter without touching Bogaerts or Betts.

 
Obviously this depends on what you mean by "good," and by how much prospect depth (and which prospect depth) you're willing to give up in order to keep those two.
 
 

 
Then it's a good thing I didn't say that.
 
I was simply disagreeing with the idea that Bogaerts is no longer needed.

 
I guess I find this an odd way of putting it. What does it mean to say that Bogaerts is "needed" unless you mean that the Sox have no other viable shortstop options? I mean, obviously, every good player is "needed" in the sense that it would be better to have them than not. But there are only so many roster spots and lineup positions. Today's acquisitions mean that between Ramirez, Sandoval, Cespedes, Bogaerts and Napoli we have five guys for four positions, and none of them are guys that it would make sense to bench or platoon. Somebody's gotta go, and presumably it has to be one of the three guys we didn't just sign. So we need to trade either Cespedes, Napoli, or Bogaerts.
 
I completely agree that Cespedes is the most expendable candidate of those three because his position is where there's the greatest redundancy now, followed by Napoli. But that's not quite the same thing as saying that Bogaerts is "needed." Hanley Ramirez just played 900+ innings at shortstop for a team that won a lot of games. He could be our shortstop for 2015, and we have a defensively gifted shortstop working on his hitting in Pawtucket--also, note, we now have an offensively robust enough lineup that we could probably get away with a black hole in the 9 spot, especially if Swihart's offense is decent out of the gate in 2016.
 
So while I agree that keeping Bogaerts is desirable, I think "needed" is a stretch.

 

[C4CRVT]

The Red Sox have a huge stable of young, mid to high ceiling SP prospects to combine with Cecchini and or Cespedes. In my opinion, it's just a matter of Ben finding the best deal he can for a front-line SP. There's no need to deal Bogearts (or Betts for that matter). Ben is in an enviable position of having that move 'at his disposal' but that sure seems like a dumb move.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

So while I totally agree that keeping Bogaerts is desirable, I think "needed" is a stretch.

 
"isn't needed" means, to me, redundant. I think Bogaerts is probably a good 10 runs better than Hanley defensively. That's not a redundancy to me. If I had to choose between a lineup with Bogaerts at short and Hanley in left or Hanley at short and Cespedes in left, I pick the former. The offense might be better in the Cespedes lineup, but I'm expecting a step forward from Bogaerts so I think the offensive gap between the two won't be terribly large while the defensive gap might be huge. If Bogaerts is a neutral defender at short (debatable) and Hanley is better suited to playing left field in Fenway than Cespedes (who looked lost a lot last year), the scales may tip in favor of the Bogaerts lineup overall. If Bogaerts breaks out, it may be far and away a better lineup. Plus, with so many young pitchers and the chance that we will not land one of Lester or Scherzer, I want as good a defense as possible to help suppress runs.
 
Edit: It's fine to disagree, though.

 

[ivanvamp]

I will be STUNNED if Bogaerts is traded. At all. Or Betts.

I think the FO is smarter than that.

 

[YTF]

If Bogaerts is the piece that the other team NEEDS, does he now prevent you from getting the piece that you NEED? I say less so today than yesterday.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Fact of the matter is that somebody HAS to go. I don't necessarily want to see Bogaerts go and I'm not really advocating for anything here, but we often talk about "bridge years" for teams, might Hanley be a bridge in '15 to Marrero in '16 and then moved to 1B or OF? I think most of us are still of the mind that the Sox are looking for at least 2 impact pitchers. Both aren't going to come via the FA route. Cespedes has long been thought of as trade bait and more recently Napoli's name has been mentioned here, but time after time, after time we talk about young, cost controlled, MLB ready players being the target of every team. Bogaerts fits that mold.

 
I guess that's true, but if Ben has put himself in a position that the only way the roster makes sense is to trade Boegarts, I have to think that would a huge mistake.
 
Having said that, am I the only one who is befuddled about how the Sox have been approaching player acquisition since the trading deadline?  If they knew they were going to spend over $400M in player contracts, what's the point of getting Cespedes for two months and Allan Craig?  Maybe some more prospects would have helped to put a deal together for Hamels or another top starting pitcher.
 
But it's true - other than Boegarts and Betts, it seems unlikely that some GM is going to help out the Red Sox by taking one or more of our surplus OF/IB off our hands unless it's close to a giveaway.

 

[Cellar-Door]

If Bogaerts is the piece that the other team NEEDS, does he now prevent you from getting the piece that you NEED. I say less so today than yesterday.

Sure but what is the piece you would NEED so badly that you give up what projects to be a top hitting young SS making almost no money to get it, and there are no alternative similar players you can get for any of the other tons of assets we have?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

If Bogaerts is the piece that the other team NEEDS, does he now prevent you from getting the piece that you NEED. I say less so today than yesterday.

 
If there was only one pitcher available on the trade market, sure. Thankfully, the trade market is a bit more populated than that. If my choice is Hamels but I have to give up Bogaerts or Latos and I can send out something like Cespedes, Marrero and a lotto ticket, I pick the latter and don't look back.
 
Also, consider the impact on roster flexibility after moving Xander. With Xander and Hanley on the roster, they can go with a more bat heavy bench if they want for pinch hitting situations. Maybe it allows them to go with a bench of Victorino, Nava, and Craig (if the two old guys are healthy come spring training) instead of carrying Holt who has no bat. Hanley backs up short and third. Bogaerts backs up third. Betts backs up second and both Craig and Nava back up first.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I don't think you can have all your backup infielders be guys who are starting. I mean, what happens if someone gets hurt? What if Hanley gets hurt in such a scenario- you move Bogaerts to 3B...and who plays SS?

 
Rudy, I just listed all the redundancies and how every position is covered with at least one player on the 25 man roster. The only two with only one player of depth behind the starter are short and second, and there is plenty of depth for each in Pawtucket as well. There are no gaps in covering positions in the case of any individual injury.
 
Also, Hanley isn't playing third. Pablo Sandoval is.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
There is more than enough prospect depth to acquire a good starter without touching Bogaerts or Betts.

 
As Cherington alluded to at the start of the offseason, Sox can now trade off legitimate MLB power bats, so they shouldn't need to touch Bogaerts, Betts, or Swihart in order to acquire starting pitching.
 
I thought he was referring to Middlebrooks, but the Sox "40-man plus" has an absolute glut of RHH.  Some of those would be extremely attractive to clubs like Seattle or Washington, who have arms aplenty but need to up their offense. 
 
All of Napoli, Cespedes, Victorino, and Middlebrooks easily could be off the 40-man by April...without the FO batting an eye.  Then again, I think the Sox are far more likely to end up with Iwakuma or Latos than Hamels.  If only because I think Amaro is likely to be willing to take nothing less than Betts for his staff ace.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

If they keep their young players, the acquisitions seem like the 2006-07 off-season, when they got Lugo, Drew, Dice-K, Okajima and did not block any of their young prospects (Youkilis, Pedroia, Lester, Papelbon, etc.)  If they sign FAs and discard the young core, then it feels like 2010-11.
 
Anything is possible, but I would be sorely disappointed if they traded Bogaerts to make room for Hanley Ramirez.  That would be a major kick in the balls.

 

[YTF]

wade boggs chicken dinner


SoSH Member

•            
• 
  
• 
• 6,943 posts

Posted Today, 02:25 PM

 
 
Am I the only one who is befuddled about how the Sox have been approaching player acquisition since the trading deadline?  If they knew they were going to spend over $400M in player contracts, what's the point of getting Cespedes for two months and Allan Craig?  Maybe some more prospects would have helped to put a deal together for Hamels or another top starting pitcher.
 
 
 
I was really puzzled by the trade with St. Louis. Lackey bounced back nicely in '13 and was having a really good season last year. We never truly know the inner workings of things, but doesn't it seem like the Sox could have come to some sort of agreement about his contract for '15 and extension? Perhaps they felt no obligation and that's fine, but it would have been a much more affordable option heading into the upcoming season as well as one less need to address..
 
 

 

[soxhop411]

As others have said with the lack of 40 man space it seems the sox have a few trades lined up so they can add both Pablo and Hanley to the 40 man

 

[ehaz]

I believe that Napoli and Cespedes will be the most likely to leave.  Teams like the Mariners/Mets/Padres could use either (or both) and have the starting pitching we need.  Craig and Victorino don't have a lot of trade value right now, but it's not entirely unreasonable to think Craig could outhit Napoli.  You'd take the hit on defense, but Allen Craig was the best hitter on the best team in the NL from 2011-2013 and he's barely 30.

 

[grimshaw]

 
 
 
  Some of those would be extremely attractive to clubs like Seattle or Washington, who have arms aplenty but need to up their offense. 
 
 

I'd love Washington's pitching but they are loaded everywhere.  Rendon, Desmond, and Zimmerman are locks for the IF with 2B the only iffy spot with Espinosa (maybe A Cabrera if he resigns .  The OF is Span, Werth and Harper (with a few ml ready OF prospects as well).  I'd maybe, maybe include Betts in a Jordan Zimmerman deal but not sure where else they'd need help.

 

[67WasBest]

Bogaerts is not being dealt, nor is any other prospect not rendered superfluous.  There's simply no reason to trade anyone who has a chance to contribute when you have healthy Cespedes and Napoli with Cecchini and WMB, then possibly a re-established Victorino and Craig during the season.
 
Sign Lester.  From there, the next move offers dozens of options and I'm sure they can find the one that fits best.,

 

[amarshal2]

My thoughts on the position players.
 
Has to go
The only player who "has to go" is Cespedes.  There is no place for him and he definitely has more value playing every day on another team than he does riding the pine in Boston.
 
Probably better off somewhere else - Higher paid vets Vic and Craig
Vic - When healthy, he can play all 3 spots.  He's great insurance.  But if you're up against a budget and you need to clear space to make room for pitching help then maybe he's better off elsewhere.
Craig - Depends what you can get and what you think the odds are he can bounce back and build value.  Hard to see him having a role to even build that value given existing depth.  It's not unprecedented though...see Carp, Mike.
 
Better off keeping them
Napoli - Not sure why you'd trade his bat to clear salary assuming you can move Vic or Craig
Holt - I'd like to keep him as super utility man, particularly if Vic is traded.  If someone else loves him then he is worth more somewhere else...I'm assuming that most teams think he's best utilized as a super utility guy on a top team instead of a starter on a bad team.
 
Rebuild value/wait and see or trade them now?
WMB - I would trade now.  Doesn't have much of a role anymore, particularly if they keep Holt.  It's a matter of if you think he can regain value in AAA.  I don't think he will and I want Cecchini taking ABs and reps at 3B.
JBJ - I'd rather wait and see.  A great defensive replacement but he should be getting every day at bats.  Pawtucket seems like a good choice for him and Red Sox so he can be 4th OF in the event of an injury.  Long term it's unlikely there's a role for him but it could happen if he really turns it around in AAA (see below).
Cecchini - Wait and see.  I think he finds his stroke and improves his stock.  Like JBJ he's likely to be more valuable to another team once he regains some trade value but there's a chance (edit he proves he should be in Boston (/edit) or that the roster shakes out such that he's worth keeping around.
 
Do not trade - X and Betts
The only players who absolutely should not go are X and Betts (unless they receive a similarly talented player very early in his career).  Betts and X are the guys who make the math work.  You don't want to pay every man on your roster 8 figures into his 30's.  These are the guys you bet on, no pun intended.
 
------
 
I really don't think there's that much of a log jam.  Rather, I think they are being proactive on two fronts.  
-The first is preventing a problem should Ortiz (or Napoli) finally succumb to age.  Without these moves the entire offense hinges on Ortiz staying healthy.  
-The second is relying on a JBJ type of player to step in right away and hold down a spot only to have him be one of the worst every day players in MLB.  Marrero could have found himself in a JBJ similar situation.  Now there's going to be no desire to rush him.  You could argue Castillo is in the same boat but at $70M we all f'ing hope not.
 
In terms of sorting it all out, I think it will take care of itself.  
-Ortiz and Napoli are only signed for 2 more years and are long in the tooth. Panda and Hanley can occupy those two spots if need be.  (This is why I'd wait and see on Cecchini, too.)
-X can try his hand at SS for the next two seasons.  If it doesn't work then he can move to 3B.  If Marrero proves he needs to be starting in Boston then this is the same answer.

 

[YTF]

67WasBest, doesn't all of this really depend on who you're trading with and their needs?

 

[ehaz]

I'd maybe, maybe include Betts in a Jordan Zimmerman deal but not sure where else they'd need help.

 
That's not a maybe, it should be a firm no. Or even hell no. Or hang up the damn phone.  But not maybe 5+ seasons of Betts for 7 months of Zimmerman.

 

[dbn]

No, you aren't the only one. That Craig and Cespedes suddenly are expendable makes one wonder why they were ever acquired in the first place.

Then again- the whole Castillo signing changed a lot of things.

 
Because it would turn two months of Jon Lester pitching for a Red Sox team that was not going to the playoffs for whatever then wind up getting back for Cespedes. Now one might wonder why the didn't just trade Lester for that in the first place, but there are many possible answers including that they couldn't get anything as valuable as Cespedes at the deadline, that they thought at the time that Cespedes would be part of the 2015 team, etc.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

They traded Lackey to get Craig, and they believed that he was a much better hitter than he had shown in the first half.  He was terrible, which they did not expect.  This happens -- saying that they have changed their plan is saying that they are processing new information rather than stubbornly insisting on their old plan.  This is a strength, not a weakness.
 
Also, they had no idea they would get Castillo.  Also, I am sure Mookie Betts came along much quicker than they thought.  When they acquired Cespedes they had zero productive outfielders -- they had the worst outfielders in all of baseball by any measure.  Now they are swimming in outfielders, and Cespedes is expendable.  
 
Smart teams need to adapt to unexpected things.  If they don't sign Lester, it will not be because they wanted Hanley Ramirez instead.  It will be because someone paid Lester more than they wanted to pay, and Ramirez wanted to play here.  So much of what GMs do is written about like some major philosophical plan, when most of it is reacting to what is possible.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I was really puzzled by the trade with St. Louis. Lackey bounced back nicely in '13 and was having a really good season last year. We never truly know the inner workings of things, but doesn't it seem like the Sox could have come to some sort of agreement about his contract for '15 and extension? Perhaps they felt no obligation and that's fine, but it would have been a much more affordable option heading into the upcoming season as well as one less need to address..

 
Craig was (and still is) a high-upside risk on a reasonable contract, but the cornerstone always seemed to me the 4 1/2 years of Kelly.

 

[twothousandone]

The Red Sox have a huge stable of young, mid to high ceiling SP prospects to combine with Cecchini and or Cespedes. In my opinion, it's just a matter of Ben finding the best deal he can for a front-line SP. There's no need to deal Bogearts (or Betts for that matter). Ben is in an enviable position of having that move 'at his disposal' but that sure seems like a dumb move.

 
By now, I believe every Red Sox fan on the planet wants to move Cespedes. One challenge in packaging him with younger guys -- that requires someone who wants to contend, yet also needs to get younger. That probably matches Cincinnati and Milwaukee, but will the Reds part with Latos and still contend?  Will the Brewers trade Gallardo, who is about to make $11 million and has an option after that? Is there a match in Seattle?

 

[67WasBest]

67WasBest, doesn't all of this really depend on who you're trading with and their needs?

Sure, but there are so many trade possibilities finding a partner shouldn't be hard.  Reds (Latos, Leake), Mariners (Iwakuma, Walker) Oakland (Smardzija) and Nationals (Fister, Zimmerman) are all looking for offense.  San Diego (Ross, Cashner, Kennedy) and Philly (Hamels) are looking for bodies to fill their many holes.  Mets could also be seen as a team seeking offense, but their money issues make them dubious.
 
There are so many routes that can be taken and if Lester is signed, they can take the route that offers the best retrurn, without giving up anyone who may contribute in the future.. 

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
Is there a match in Seattle?

 
Of course there's a match in Seattle -- Cano and Seager need RH support, and the team conveniently has both 1B and OF holes.
 
The better question is, does Seattle have enough pitching for both Napoli and Cespedes? 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I know everybody knows this, but BA Red Sox top prospects (outside of pitching) are projected at Catcher, 3B, SS and CF.
 
C - Swihart: say...2016?
3B - Devers: say...2019?
CF - Margot: say...2017?
SS - Marrero: say 2016?
3B - Cecchini: who knows...
 
Doesn't that kind of work into the way things are panning out...

 

[NWsoxophile]

They traded Lackey to get Craig, and they believed that he was a much better hitter than he had shown in the first half.  He was terrible, which they did not expect.  This happens -- saying that they have changed their plan is saying that they are processing new information rather than stubbornly insisting on their old plan.  This is a strength, not a weakness.
 
Also, they had no idea they would get Castillo.  Also, I am sure Mookie Betts came along much quicker than they thought.  When they acquired Cespedes they had zero productive outfielders -- they had the worst outfielders in all of baseball by any measure.  Now they are swimming in outfielders, and Cespedes is expendable.  
 
Smart teams need to adapt to unexpected things.  If they don't sign Lester, it will not be because they wanted Hanley Ramirez instead.  It will be because someone paid Lester more than they wanted to pay, and Ramirez wanted to play here.  So much of what GMs do is written about like some major philosophical plan, when most of it is reacting to what is possible.

Is this true? I'd say they traded lackey to get Kelly, and had to take Craig as part of the deal.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

 

Am I the only one who is befuddled about how the Sox have been approaching player acquisition since the trading deadline?  If they knew they were going to spend over $400M in player contracts, what's the point of getting Cespedes for two months and Allan Craig?  Maybe some more prospects would have helped to put a deal together for Hamels or another top starting pitcher.
 
I was really puzzled by the trade with St. Louis. Lackey bounced back nicely in '13 and was having a really good season last year. We never truly know the inner workings of things, but doesn't it seem like the Sox could have come to some sort of agreement about his contract for '15 and extension? Perhaps they felt no obligation and that's fine, but it would have been a much more affordable option heading into the upcoming season as well as one less need to address..
 

 
On Craig and Cespedes, I'm not befuddled. There was (I think) a broad, framework plan that was 1)To have a competitive team in 2015 and 2) to acquire power, because power was at a premium, and substantially lacking across the organization. Cespedes was a play for that (with the anticipation that if he works out, you resign him); Craig was a buy-low play for that, but more of a gamble, obviously. I don't think that broader plan has changed (in fact, I'd argue that getting Hanley + Panda reinforces that plan). The only thing that has changed are the pieces. That plus you can't predict what premium bat you'll be able to sign in free agency. If you don't take advantage of opportunities because maybe you'll sign somebody, you may end up with nobody (or rather pay somebody you may not be inclined to pay, like Nelso Cruz or Melky Cabrera).
 
I get that people wanted prospects, but that wouldn't have helped the 2015 mandate + they did get some in the Peavy + Miller deals + if there's something this organization has, it's prospects.
 
Now, the Lackey deal, I didn't like, but not because of Kelly and Craig. They weakened an area that was already weak, that's what doesn't make sense to me. I can only surmise that Lackey forced their hand a bit, let it know he didn't want to be here (and his broad attitude has seemed to support that). Once that happens, you kind of have to deal the guy. 

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Is this true? I'd say they traded lackey to get Kelly, and had to take Craig as part of the deal.

 
I oversimplified, but I believe that they wanted both Kelly and Craig.  Craig's contract was not bad at all -- it is bad if he hits .150, but they did not expect that. 

 

[grimshaw]

 
By now, I believe every Red Sox fan on the planet wants to move Cespedes. One challenge in packaging him with younger guys -- that requires someone who wants to contend, yet also needs to get younger. That probably matches Cincinnati and Milwaukee, but will the Reds part with Latos and still contend?  Will the Brewers trade Gallardo, who is about to make $11 million and has an option after that? Is there a match in Seattle?

The Reds want to try Chapman as a starter again, so I'd say Latos is a possibility and probably the cheapest out of the 2's or 3's out there due to elbow issues.  He had some sort of stem cell procedure done this offseason.  No thanks on Gallardo though.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
Minor point, but I think they might be better off stashing him in Pawtucket to try to resurrect his offense. Or try him at different positions around the diamond in PAW (1b, 2b, corner of, DH) and keep him around for deep depth or a future trade chip. 

We have no long term solution at 1B with Napoli in his final year, so that would make sense. Not that he can be counted on to earn a promotion, but there's no reason to give Middlebrooks away for nothing.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
Of course there's a match in Seattle -- Cano and Seager need RH support, and the team conveniently has both 1B and OF holes.
 
The better question is, does Seattle have enough pitching for both Napoli and Cespedes? 

Only if you think they'd give up Paxton or Walker, which nobody does. 
 
How about Cespedes for Elias, who is then packaged with Margot, Cecchini and Owens for Hamels? I'm not sure Philly would accept less, and I don't know if we could stand to pay more, but keeping Devers, Betts and Bogaerts and getting Hamels sounds OK to me.

 

[67WasBest]

We have no long term solution at 1B with Napoli in his final year, so that would make sense. Not that he can be counted on to earn a promotion, but there's no reason to give Middlebrooks away for nothing.

I can see a few routes to them filling out their pitching, and retaining all their kids.  If so, they create a 2016 scenario where Marrero, WMB, Cecchini, JBJ, Swihart could all be pushing for spots.  Even if only Swihart steps up, the others would likely be replacement level players at low cost and return a good young prospect in deals.  That in turn keeps the developmental wheel turning

 

[67WasBest]

Only if you think they'd give up Paxton or Walker, which nobody does. 

I think Iwakuma could be had on his last year deal.

 

[chrisfont9]

I think Iwakuma could be had on his last year deal.

Maybe, and he might be of value to the Sox. I'm not sure he'd be as valuable as Elias as a trade chip though. And the Ms would have to find another starter, pronto, if they did that. [McCarthy?]

 

[67WasBest]

Maybe, and he might be of value to the Sox. I'm not sure he'd be as valuable as Elias as a trade chip though. And the Ms would have to find another starter, pronto, if they did that. [McCarthy?]

Ya, that's the way I am thinking.  M's have an issue attracting hitters, especially those who may go after another contract after the one they are presently negotiating.  They have expressed interest in Nelson Cruz, but there is no way he is going to that home run graveyard.  They have to acquire hitters via trade.  Trade Cespedes for Iwakuma, then sign a guy like McCarthy and it sets up basically the same excellent rotation they had last year, but now they have added some power.

 

[chrisfont9]

On Cespedes...
 
* Is there a scenario where he doesn't get traded? I think we find out in the next day or so when the team and Hanley start talking about where they are planning to play him. My guess is he has to go, between the logjam and the either very real friction with the team, or the future friction caused by someone (coughlucchinocough) trashing him to the Globe.
 
So where can he go?
 
* Eliminate all of the rebuilding teams who won't want him on a one-year deal. IMHO that's CWS, MIN, HOU, PHI, Cubs, COL, ARI.
 
* Eliminate a few bad fits, either lack of need or, you know: NYY, WAS, KC, LAAAA, LAD, PIT, STL, MIL. Maybe CLE
 
* A few oddball maybe's, at a cheap price: San Diego, who seem to want to make a splash. Texas, who aren't as bad as their 2014 season. Miami are probably too cheap and still developing, but it's not inconceivable. TBR are in about the same place -- could swing it, might work OK, but unlikely, esp within division.
 
That leaves:
 
* Baltimore: division foe is an obstacle
* Toronto: ditto
* Detroit: possible
* Oakland: would be weird but the fans did love him
* Seattle: possible
* Atlanta: possible but I'm guessing no
* Mets: possible
* Reds: possible assuming they're in win-now, which I don't know
* SF: possible, and might steal some As fans.

 

[67WasBest]

I wouldn't discount the ChiSox.  They just added LaRoche and get healthy for 2015.  If they could add a 2B and a catcher along with Cespedes, they could be in the ALC hunt.
 
I would also remove Atlanta from consideration.  Detroit is a fit for him that I hadn't considered, could they bundle Cespedes with some arms to gain Porcello or Price? 

 

[Fireball Fred]

The Lackey deal was a reverse salary dump - the Sox unloaded him for questionable value (Kelly not an established starter, Craig not hitting) because his contract for '15 was too small. The Lester trade, by contrast, was utterly inexplicable. Oddly, the lesser trades were just fine.

Cespedes has to go to a win-now team, but I wonder if Philly might be the team that would take Victorino (popular star) or Craig (upside, years to go) along with young talent for their rebuilding effort, in exchange for costly pitching.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Because it would turn two months of Jon Lester pitching for a Red Sox team that was not going to the playoffs for whatever then wind up getting back for Cespedes. Now one might wonder why the didn't just trade Lester for that in the first place, but there are many possible answers including that they couldn't get anything as valuable as Cespedes at the deadline, that they thought at the time that Cespedes would be part of the 2015 team, etc.

 
While we'll never know, at this point, I would say that it is pretty much a given that whatever we could have gotten for Lester in August in terms of prospects will be a lot less than we're going to get for Cespedes now.  The Red Sox have no leverage in any trade negotiations since they have approximately $60M in outfield contracts (assuming that Hanley is in LF) and not nearly enough playing time to make everyone happy.
 

Smart teams need to adapt to unexpected things.  If they don't sign Lester, it will not be because they wanted Hanley Ramirez instead.  It will be because someone paid Lester more than they wanted to pay, and Ramirez wanted to play here.  So much of what GMs do is written about like some major philosophical plan, when most of it is reacting to what is possible.

 
No one is arguing that smart teams have to adapt.  However, if they know they are going to be willing/able to pay $250M to position players, what really is the point of getting Cespedes and Craig?

 

[C4CRVT]

The trade deadline moves were all about stockpiling assets. I don't think Ben was conceiving of some sort of master plan. Craig was a gamble that so far looks like a bust.
 
It's still early yet to gauge the success of the trades, both individually and as a set of moves. 

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

 
The Red Sox have no leverage in any trade negotiations since they have approximately $60M in outfield contracts (assuming that Hanley is in LF) and not nearly enough playing time to make everyone happy.

The leverage will be supplied when 2 teams become interested in Cespedes.  Or 1 team with the Red Sox making them THINK another team is interested.  There's your leverage.  To think that they are going to have to give away a valuable asset in November is asinine.  

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

The trade deadline moves were all about stockpiling assets. I don't think Ben was conceiving of some sort of master plan. Craig was a gamble that so far looks like a bust.
 
It's still early yet to gauge the success of the trades, both individually and as a set of moves. 

 
Those two sentences contradict each other. Craig was a "bust" when they acquired him, that's why he was available in the first place.
 
This is crazy. People talk a good game about buying low in theory, and when they do just that, they get killed for it. Craig was a gamble, one that may or may not work, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[RedOctober3829]

REALLY hope the kid is wrong about this one....

 

Jake Wesley MLB ‏@mlb_nl_al 27s28 seconds ago
SOURCE: Xander Bogaerts and/or Yoenis Cespedes will DIFFIDENTLY be moved before Christmas. Sox have nothing but confidence in Castillo
 

https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184