Yaz, you'll need to explain yourself. I need a tad more detail to understand why you'd consider this ridiculous. It's difficult to have a discussion when someone throws out a rash comment as you have. How am I to defend my post if I have no understand of why you are in disagreement.
Start, Sit, Trade: Play Along with Dave
- Thread starter nothumb
- Start date
Yeah, I actually don't think Boston and SD match up that well, unless Preller has had a crazy change of heart. He was really going for it last season, trading for big-league players, signing a big FA, and really giving the appearance of trying to field a winning team. It seems like it would be bizarre for him to do an immediate about-face and trade away their best big-league players for prospects and whatever Rusney Castillo is. Maybe Preller would do that, but he's got a fairly youngish team that are mostly in their primes - he may just try to sign like a Samardzjia and Desmond (that's probably not how you spell it but I'm too lazy to look it up) or something and hope for better luck next year.
At the moment, there aren't many teams who I think you could say have basically no shot next year, or more importantly, their GMs think they have no shot. The Phillies, obviously. Probably the Orioles, Rockies, Brewers, and Reds are taking a long look in the mirror. I could see the GMs of most of the other borderline teams sort of able to convince themselves that if they can shore up a few areas and everything goes right, they could compete (not that all of them should or will). Unfortunately, being terrible, those teams that seem hopeless to me don't have many excellent, tradable big-league players that seem to have a lot of appeal to the Red Sox.
EDIT: Oh right, Chapman. Duh. That makes a stupid amount of sense.
Last edited:
Your right, got my numbers wrong ... Sox have more than $140 million committed ... looks to be $157 ... $61.5 added and only $16 - 17 removed with maybe $30 million room leaves them a tad above the LT ... my bad.
For the contracts to be 5/125, they'd have to avg 25M a year ... so the ranges you mention in parenthesis don't even equal the contract you want to offer them
Not to mention that there is little chance the Red Sox spend $50M a year on signing two FA pitchers
$19M for O'Day is going to be less than what he winds up with. The $15M for Sipp will likely be the closest to a realistic offer. ... Unless, of course, you were using 3/$6.5 and 3/$5 in a parallel construction to the 5/$125 you used earlier in the sentence -- in which case you math is completely unrealistic.
But let's say for a moment that all your projects come to fruition. You're now at $61.6M for four additions to the pitching staff ... with the "save a little cash" coming from paying for a potion of Porcello's deal. (What portion is unclear since you don't say whether the 12.5-14 range is what the Sox would eat or expect the other team to pay). But even at the high end, "saving" that while adding $61.5M to the payroll (not counting raises and other potential additions wouldn't keep the Red Sox under the threshold.
Finally, the idea of trading an questionable commodity, a journeyman lefty and a guy coming off TJ for a utility infield and an outfielder seems a stretch. (Please cite an example of each that you believe Barnes, Ross and Workman could bring in return.)
If you had stopped to think, you would have seen that:
Your Cueto/Zimmermann numbers didn't add up
Your O'Day number is below what has been speculated, at best, and completely off-base at worst
Your Porcello trade savings are unclear as presented and unrealistic as an option
and your trade idea involving the roster bottom-feeders are a slapdash attempt at wish fulfillment with no attempt to present a plausible scenario
You asked for an explanation. There it is.
Ian Browne @IanMBrowne 8m8 minutes ago
Aroldis Chapman could impact the @RedSox more than any other target. @Reds definitely listening to offers. http://atmlb.com/1QvOpnd
Aroldis Chapman could impact the @RedSox more than any other target. @Reds definitely listening to offers. http://atmlb.com/1QvOpnd
I guess everyone wants to be the Royals now but has the sabermetric calculus on closers largely being overpaid and overrated really changed that much? Sure I get that WAR etc systematically underrate their value because you can deploy a ++ reliever at the highest-leverage situation, but aren't so many of the top relievers just failed or mediocre starters who happen to transition well to a new role (Miller, Betances, Wade Davis, Koji)? I also think the current Sox are particularly poorly-suited to picking up a shiny new closer, since their current closer is old and would likely not transition well to a less-regimented "relief ace" usage pattern. Unless the Reds just love one of our prospects a la Billy Beane in the Donaldson trade, I don't see a Chapman deal being a good use of resources.
Re: Chapman, do people think the Sox would trade for him without an expectation that they could and would extend him? We got ERod for 2 months of Miller; I'm guessing the Reds will want some real value even for just 1 year of AC. Henry Owens? That's probably light. Do we want to give up that much value+ for 1 year and the chance to make a QO?
Well, the E-Rod of the time of the trade was struggling in AA, and if he hadn't gone on to be crazily dominant upon arrival in Portland, I'm not sure he would have remained a top-100 prospect going into 2015. Owens has generally been rated higher on the prospect charts than Rodriguez throughout their careers, but not by much. That might be what it would take, although that would definitely hurt for a year of Chapman. Johnson might hurt a little less, but it's hard to know if he would be enough or worth it.
Let's see if I can set you straight.
1. The numbers provided in "()" are those provided by other poster (See around Page 9 of this thread) from source they found as being estimates for what each player would likely obtain - the source differed on amounts thus the range. Based on the estimates I went a tad higher to ensure a more likely acceptance of a contract (following what has been done in the past by the Sox - more money less years).
2. I disagree with you on whether the Sox would take on two $25 million contracts for "Ace" level pitchers. If you go back to 2004 when Curt and Pedro where with the Sox their combined salary then would likely add up to the amount we are talking about ... precedence.
3. The Porcello trade would not include any Sox share. The range specified in the "()" was what I think Porcello's salary is. I don't see a need to "dump" Porcello as his last 4 starts seem to indicate he is back to form. I see someone like SF being interested.
4. Not sure Barnes, Workman & Ross would bring back top quality utility players. They'd get us a couple guys that can fill temporary roles and step in to rest a player. We are not talking Holt caliber players here. If it makes you feel better than put them together with Porcello and go for a couple quality utility players. Again SF - Porcello, Barnes, Workman & Ross for Osich, Tomlinson and Blanco.
5. I see where you may have found my numbers a bit confusing for O'Day and Sipp. I was using annual amounts and not toals. Dor O'Day 3 yrs/$19.5 million and Sipp 3 yrs/$15 million. The O'Day and Sipp money once again are estimates based on what I've been reading (i.e., MLBTradeRumors). I've seen 2yr/$14 million (each year) stated for O'day so I went 3yrs/$19.5 (each year - $19.5 million total) at 33 I think 3 yrs is justifiable. Sipp numbers are a little inflated as I've not seen any firm statement on what he'd be worth. Sipps numbers may be inflated and somthing a little less may get the deal done. I went with 3 yrs/$15 million as I feel that's what it would take to lock him up. I wanted a solid lefty in the pen to go with Layne.
Hope this clears things up a bit for you and does not seem as ridiculous as you originally felt. Sorry for any "heartburn" I may have caused.
I won't bother to further hijack this thread, but I will add another piece to the easily found information that you have decided to guesstimate on:
Porcello's salary, for the next four seasons, goes like this (from Cot's):
The point is, this stuff is out there, found easily.
Porcello's salary, for the next four seasons, goes like this (from Cot's):
- 16:$20M, 17:$20M, 18:$21M, 19:$21M
The point is, this stuff is out there, found easily.
Last edited:
If you're going to post here and try to make a serious argument, you need to do more than list what you "think" someone's salary is. It's unbelievably easy to find that his salary is $20 million, 4/$82.5 million. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/
4 starts aren't going to get anyone to pick this up un-subsidized.
E5 can deal with your other explanations if he so chooses.
EDIT--what he said!
Last edited:
1. Thank you for the correction ... my bad ... then there would be greater savings if a trade was made ... I still would offer Porcello to SF.
2. As to Pedro and Curt their combined salary in 2004 ($29.5) would map fairly easily to the $50 million I mentioned for Cueto & Zimmermann. Take into account inflation both real and in the salaries offered to players today.
3. The joust of my point is that the Sox should sign both Cueto and Zimmermann for the rotation and O'Day and Sipp for the pen. Trade Porcello to unload some salary ($82.5 million) and see if the Sox can pick up some utility players by unloading Barnes, Workman and Ross. The point is that the rotation would be strong and the pen solid and we don't send prospects off in trades.
Rotation:
Cueto
Zimmermann
Buchholz
Miley
Rodriguez
Pen:
Uehara
Tazawa
O'Day
Layne
Sipp
Kelly
Owens/Johnson/Wright
Assume you meant to say without subsidizing the salary for Porcello.
Sorry about offering "thoughts" about salaries as I was focused on the point trying to be made ... sign FAs to rebuild the rotation and pen, sell off Porcello, rid the team of some pitchers who no longer really have a place on the team and try to get something worthwhile in return. We need to focus more on what is being suggested and spend less time "nit-picking".
lxt -
What Yaz and Bob are doing is not picking nits. They are pointing out obvious flaws in a lazy and poorly researched suggestion and encouraging you to do your homework.
This place was at its best when folks took the time to research their positions and articulate them clearly and plainly. It allowed for intelligent discourse and education.
I recognize that a certain amount of speculating and arm chair GMing goes on every offseason. However, what we don't need is lazily researched and poorly articulated suggestions.
If you want to discuss how to bring in two front of the rotation starters and two back end relievers, but don't want to put the effort into making a thoughtful and well researched post, then pose it as a question.
What Yaz and Bob are doing is not picking nits. They are pointing out obvious flaws in a lazy and poorly researched suggestion and encouraging you to do your homework.
This place was at its best when folks took the time to research their positions and articulate them clearly and plainly. It allowed for intelligent discourse and education.
I recognize that a certain amount of speculating and arm chair GMing goes on every offseason. However, what we don't need is lazily researched and poorly articulated suggestions.
If you want to discuss how to bring in two front of the rotation starters and two back end relievers, but don't want to put the effort into making a thoughtful and well researched post, then pose it as a question.
Very longtime lurker, and as this is my first post, I'll try to make it useful:
Trying to figure out the room in DD's budget is not hard. I know this is posted elsewhere, but Alex Speier did a great job last month breaking down where the payroll stands for 2016, and how that compares to the 2016 luxury tax threshold.
If you want to make your life even easier, and play around with various roster ideas, you make your own copy of this Google sheet I made, based off Speier's numbers. I rounded minimum salaries for the sake of convenience, and some of Speier's numbers are estimates anyway, but this should give you a sense of how much money there is to spend, roughly. I left off Allen Craig, since right now his $6.2 million AAV does not count against the luxury tax threshold.
Whether the luxury tax threshold is actually John Henry's budget is of course open for debate, but it seems like the only firm number anyone knows, and thus a good starting point for a roster tool like this one.
Trying to figure out the room in DD's budget is not hard. I know this is posted elsewhere, but Alex Speier did a great job last month breaking down where the payroll stands for 2016, and how that compares to the 2016 luxury tax threshold.
If you want to make your life even easier, and play around with various roster ideas, you make your own copy of this Google sheet I made, based off Speier's numbers. I rounded minimum salaries for the sake of convenience, and some of Speier's numbers are estimates anyway, but this should give you a sense of how much money there is to spend, roughly. I left off Allen Craig, since right now his $6.2 million AAV does not count against the luxury tax threshold.
Whether the luxury tax threshold is actually John Henry's budget is of course open for debate, but it seems like the only firm number anyone knows, and thus a good starting point for a roster tool like this one.
You understand that the amount of savings possible in a Porcello trade is highly limited, right? Sure he looked better in his last 4 starts but that isn't going to get anyone to take on the $82.5Mil remaining on his contract. I mean, of the 78 MLB pitchers who qualified for the ERA title, Porcello ranked 75th. If he isn't Panda or Hanley level untradable, the man is damn near close.
this isn't a trade rumor but I wonder if this leads to Fernandez being available
Marlins feud with agent Scott Boras over Ozuna, Fernandez
http://news.yahoo.com/marlins-feud-agent-scott-boras-over-ozuna-fernandez-013413088--spt.html
Marlins feud with agent Scott Boras over Ozuna, Fernandez
http://news.yahoo.com/marlins-feud-agent-scott-boras-over-ozuna-fernandez-013413088--spt.html
Man, the Marlins are such a disaster. Chewing through managers, blowing up teams, publicly alienating the most powerful player agent in Major League Baseball...good luck with that.
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber 29s29 seconds ago
Dombrowski just left GM meetings. Continued to stress high volume of talks on free agents, trades. No moves yet, though #RedSox
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 2m2 minutes ago
Dave Dombrowski just left the GM Meetings. Nothing imminent for #RedSox but he’s quite optimistic. Said a lot was accomplished here.
Dombrowski just left GM meetings. Continued to stress high volume of talks on free agents, trades. No moves yet, though #RedSox
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 2m2 minutes ago
Dave Dombrowski just left the GM Meetings. Nothing imminent for #RedSox but he’s quite optimistic. Said a lot was accomplished here.
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber 2m2 minutes ago
(1/2) Dombrowski on #RedSox making a big, bold move: "At some point, we're going to most likely do something that is painful. ...
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber 2m2 minutes ago
(2/2) "But if you're trying to get quality talent, you're going to have to do that" #RedSox
(1/2) Dombrowski on #RedSox making a big, bold move: "At some point, we're going to most likely do something that is painful. ...
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber 2m2 minutes ago
(2/2) "But if you're trying to get quality talent, you're going to have to do that" #RedSox
I want the Sox to add talent, but this already scares me. I know DDski isn't stupid, and tends to do well in trades, but all I can picture is dealing Betts and Bogaerts and Swihart for players that come in here and do ok, but we get to watch those guys become superstars elsewhere.
Or, like some of Dombrowski's previous trades, it could mean trading prospects at their helium peak for genuine talent. At the time he traded Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, those two prospects were among the most highly thought of in baseball. Both have gone on to have solid major league careers, but neither ever developed into a superstar.
I, for one, and excited that we have a GM who is willing to trade some prospects to bring in real talent. It sucks giving up a decade of control for a future all-star, but how much better would this franchise be if Ben Cherington had sold high on someone like Garin Cecchini, who a few offseason ago could have been a centerpiece prospect and is now borderline Rule 5 fodder? Hoarding prospects and failing to capitalize on their value can be just as detrimental as trading them away.
If there is one thing I trust DD to do, its evaluate talent shrewdly. It's all he's done in his career.
True. But he did trade Randy Johnson and two other guys for Mark Langston. Langston, of course, was a pretty good pitcher. Unit became one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history. It was early in DDski's career, but he's not at all immune from making humongous mistakes.
I agree with ACRS on this. It's OK for us fans to get attached to prospects, but it's DD's job to see them strictly in terms of their value as contributors to a winning team. That value can be realized just as well through trades as through playing in a Sox uniform, and even if we have sentimental preferences about which of those it turns out to be, DD should not. It's not his job to be as confused as us. I'm not eager for Betts or Bogaerts to be traded, and I think the number of such trades that would really be wins for us is probably pretty limited--but I'd be a lot more worried if DD was not willing to entertain such trades than if he is.
Last edited:
This is where I am, and why trade speculation about this particular Sox team is especially difficult. Many of the trading chips -- players like Castillo, JBJ, Marrero & Owens, to name a few -- are probably assessed and projected very differently by different teams.
Betts & Bogaerts are different. There is probably no disagreement on their futures. I doubt either will be traded, but if either is, I am pretty confident that the haul will be significant.
"I, for one, and excited that we have a GM who is willing to trade some prospects to bring in real talent. It sucks giving up a decade of control for a future all-star, but how much better would this franchise be if Ben Cherington had sold high on someone like Garin Cecchini, who a few offseason ago could have been a centerpiece prospect and is now borderline Rule 5 fodder? Hoarding prospects and failing to capitalize on their value can be just as detrimental as trading them away."
Garin Cecchini was never a centerpiece prospect. Looking at it the other way, how good would the Sox have been if instead of lusting after other players a few years ago. Instead of coveting AGon, just resign Beltre and keep Youk at first. Wouldn't Rizzo look great at first right now?
Garin Cecchini was never a centerpiece prospect. Looking at it the other way, how good would the Sox have been if instead of lusting after other players a few years ago. Instead of coveting AGon, just resign Beltre and keep Youk at first. Wouldn't Rizzo look great at first right now?
Like you said, it was early in his career. Also, and I suppose it's quibbling, but Randy Johnson was a lanky, fire-balling lefty with control problems, of which one or two exist in any organization at almost any time in baseball (Trey Ball, anyone?). To say that he defied the odds is obvious, but 9 times out of 10 those guys don't pan out to even have useful major league careers. Definitely a colossal mistake in hindsight, but it doesn't stand out as an unreasonable move at the time. Even great card players take worthy gambles that don't pan out, and my sense is that DD is a pretty good card player.
This doesn't scare me so much, partly because the "painful" part could be $$ to FAs, not just a trade of talent. But I also don't think there's much chance of Bogaerts, Netts or Swihart being dealt.
Bogaerts least likely, simply because there is no readily available replacement (unless 1. you're going to trade for Simmons, whose name is out there, but that seems like just shuffling dec chairs, or 2. you're going to sign Ian Desmond to replace him, which I also think is highly unlikely). With Vasquez' situation so uncertain, I also don't see there's much chance that Swihart goes. Mookie at least could be replaced in CF, which make a trade of him more theoretically likely, but he's probably the most valuable of the three, and the only way he goes is if a simalarly young, cost-controlled, Cy Young caliber stud is coming back. Not very likely with Gray, Sale and the Mets trio presumably not on the market.
If we're trading away talent, much more likely to be JBJ/Castillo/Owens at the ML level, or the top minor league guys. Of the latter, I would view Moncado, Benintendi, and Devers as "painful," and Espinoza and Kopech as only slightly less so. But of course it depends on what's coming back. If it's one of the Cleveland guys, i could live with losing one of these.
Well sure. But AGon would look great at first right now as well. That ended up being a very unique situation.
Cecchini peaked, as far as I can tell, at #69 on John Sickels' spring 2014 prospect list. That is one list and one opinion, but I think it's evidence enough to say that Cecchini was viewed as a pretty good prospect in the industry as late as 18 months ago. I should have clarified that when I say "centerpiece," I meant a player that could headline a trade for a pretty decent major league player. Not a superstar, but someone the Sox could have turned into a useful part of a winning team in 2014 and maybe beyond. He did not have an obvious fit in the team's future plans with Middlebrooks at 3B (oh, the irony) and had enough helium to help the team in other areas via trade. He just stands out to me as a guy that had a moment of peak value that the front office failed to capitalize on, and I feel like the front office missed that opportunity too many times over the years on guys that did not have a clear role with the team going forward.
Yeah, I can give him a little bit of a pass on the Randy Johnson trade. He traded Johnson when he was 25, where Johnson went on to lead the league in walks for three straight years while being an ok starter who missed a lot of bats and strikezones. He didn't become Randy Johnson, pretty damn good pitcher until he was 29, and didn't become Randy F'ing Johnson, Slayer of Dragons, Eater of Souls and Exploder of Winged Creatures until he was 31.
I can't even imagine a starter walking 6.8 batters per 9 innings across an entire season today. Would a team even allow that to happen? The highest qualified starter in 2015 was Trevor Bauer, with 4.06, followed by SoSH favorite Tyson Ross with 3.86. And then he went on to become one of the greatest pitchers of his generation. What a crazy career he had.
It wasn't just Sickels. BA had Cecchini at #74, and BP had him at #51. Just to compare, a year of Justin Upton was traded for Max Fried (BA #53, BP #55), and some other promising but out of the top 100 guys.
Thank you for using some specifics to make the point I was trying to make in the abstract
I'm fine with dealing any and all of the A-ball players. Shining A-ball prospects are pretty common, and they don't all make it. I trust in Dave and the evaluators to maybe keep one if they truly see something elite, but really, with all of the young talent we have playing already I'm comfortable gutting the lower minors.
How long would you say the list of grade-A top of the rotation studs is?
Just going by WAR last 2 years:
Kershaw
Kluber
Price *
Arrietta
Scherzer
Sale *
Lester
Greinke *
Quintana *
Keuchal
Bumgarner
Fernandez *
deGrom
Cueto *
Archer
Hamels
Zimmermann *
Carrasco *
Strasburg *
Cole
Ross *
McHugh
Gray
G. Gonzalez *
Richards
* Guys that maybe seem gettable?
I'm drawing the line at Phil Hughes. I refuse to live in a world where we call that dude an ace. It also leaves off Wainwright, Harvey and Tanaka, who all probably qualify but were hurt. Maybe Salazar too, if you like strikeouts as much as I do. Probably some others I can't think of.
Hopefully one or more of these guys will be on the Red Sox next year. We all know the guys available in FA. Quintana is actually kind of an interesting surprise in there. Not very sexy, but the guy has been solid and consistent, will only be 27 next year, and is signed to an amazingly cheap contract. His numbers aren't super flashy, but he doesn't seem wildly different than Sonny Gray. He's only 9 months older. Kind of hard to believe he's ahead of several of the names below him on that list, many of whom (like Cueto, Hamels, Bumgarner, etc) have thrown more innings than Quintana.
Also, I don't know who gave me the Welsh flag avatar, but well done.
Last edited:
I think one of the biggest appeals of Sonny Gray is that he will make $550,000 in 2016, which is exactly the reason Billy Beane will not trade him. Plus, his less-than-eilte peripherals mentioned in the article should give DD pause before he offers up the moon and the stars for Gray.
Slimmer, and crazier. He looks as if the spaceship from Close Encounters just landed in the lobby.
Looking good Billy Ray....
Workout pictures from players criticized for their weight/health, one of my favorite parts of the offseason. These are then followed by articles in spring training about these players "being in the best shape of their lives!" It will detail how they changed their body to adapt to a new position, to hold up better over a long season, or to hold up better as they age.
Regardless of his instagram output, I think Hanley has a high percentage chance of being the Sox starting First Baseman next year. Like 80%. Just because the return on a trade for him just wouldn't offset his potential offensive value at 1st. But you never know what Dombrowski could pull off, he seems quite creative and open minded.
Workout pictures from players criticized for their weight/health, one of my favorite parts of the offseason. These are then followed by articles in spring training about these players "being in the best shape of their lives!" It will detail how they changed their body to adapt to a new position, to hold up better over a long season, or to hold up better as they age.
Regardless of his instagram output, I think Hanley has a high percentage chance of being the Sox starting First Baseman next year. Like 80%. Just because the return on a trade for him just wouldn't offset his potential offensive value at 1st. But you never know what Dombrowski could pull off, he seems quite creative and open minded.
I don't think the Hanley comparison photos mean anything; one you can't see his lower body and his upper body is obscured by a windbreaker with something in the stomach pocket, while the other he's wearing tights.
Plus in one he's looking upward a bit, the other is more straight ahead and has his face/head partially covered. That kind of makes it hard to tell if his neck and face are puffier, indicating extra fat. Different lighting. It's kind of like an infomercial weight loss before/after. Maybe he is way more ripped, but those photos aren't conclusive evidence.