Start, Sit, Trade: Play Along with Dave

[alwyn96]

 
And I know that you know that you're going to pay a lot of something for a great pitcher be it money or talent. And I know that you know that we've got the pitching depth worked out just fine. And I know that you know that the lineup is pretty much set. We're an ace starter and a couple bullpen arms away from being one of the best teams at the major league level AND having one of the top minor league systems.
 
Say we sign Grienke to an eight year deal and he's great for the first three, declining to rather pedestrian in years five and six. There's a good chance we're not going to need him to be an ace in those years. Rodriguez, Owens, and Johnson aren't even going to be 30. Porcello 31, Miley 32. Anderson Espinoza will be 22. Michael Kopech 24.
 
Payroll efficiency is not the goal. Winning the World Series as many times as possible is the goal. Most of the time, payroll efficiency supports the goal. Sometimes it doesn't.

 
Oh, I agree. I think I made a post almost exactly like yours a few weeks ago, and I generally agree with almost everything you write. I guess I was just responding to what I thought was your saying that trading for a pitcher would be silly. I don't think it would be, depending on the deal. Hell, I could see Dombrowski signing a big-money guy and making a sweet f'ing A trade. I got no problem with spending John Henry's money, although there's limits to what actual money can buy. The arguments about spending too much money on old pitchers are not silly, but I agree that sometimes if there's a screaming need, then maybe you take the chance. We're probably not really in disagreement. I just want to see an awesome baseball team, and there are multiple ways of getting there.

 

[jimbobim]

Wow talk about a lot of interesting perspectives. I haven't been reading the baseball boards in a bit, but seeing as there was a bit of news dropped yesterday by Mastrodonato I figured I drop it here.
 


Amazing to hear other execs talk about Red Sox' farm system and just gush over it. It's not just the prospect gurus who do the rankings.

 





Jason Mastrodonato ‏@JMastrodonato  14h14 hours ago
One rival exec fairly certain the Red Sox are going to blow up their farm system. "Dave is going to make some moves. He'll be busy."

 



So full disclosure. I loved the Hanley and Pablo signings at the time. I also liked the Porcello deal. Going into this offseason, it seems pretty clear that the Red Sox are likely going/want to to move one of Hanley or Pablo for roster flexibility and reliance purposes.
 
I don't thing any of three deals can be necessarily called complete albatrosses. Porcello and Pablo are probably the best bounce back candidates with Pablo being the less likely because of his utter tanking down the stretch. Hanley is a complete question mark and enigma that if one reads the tea leaves of the Boston press seems to be the prime target to be shipped. Problem is of the three, he is by far the hardest to move because after running into the wall he was nowhere near an average hitter.  
 
Now "moving" one of Hanley or Pablo is going to entail A) eating a ton/if not all of the money B) attaching prospects to get it done which is extremely unsavory when one would prefer dealing them for SP or RP help. As Mastrodonato tweets above DD is unlikely to move slowly and has a significant reputation for making deals. The promotion and retention of Eddie Romero to me makes it unlikely they are going to jettison all the jewels he acquired. Luckily he acquired a good amount.
 
4 Pretty Much Untouchables
1) Moncada 2) Espinoza 3) Benintendi 3a) Denvers 
 
Feel like Margot is definitely getting traded due to Mookie and Benintendi. I'd prefer not to trade Denvers, but I could see it. Guerra likely gone as well.  
 
I feel like DD is going to try and acquire another  high impact bat(if they successfully move one of Hanley/Sandoval)  ,likely 1b, to further balance out more regression/injury from Papi,Pedroia,and whichever stays of Hanley/Pablo. Again even in a DH position the trading of Hanley likely costs his entire contract in dead money and say Guerra and a youngish pitcher(say Owens or Johnson). Sandoval same low value with slight benefit of not having a shoulder injury to worry about. Would that make me uncomfortable  as the Sox ? Yes, but it depends on how they feel about either of those guys regaining the form they envisioned when they signed them. 
 
The high impact bat could also be added to the OF, but that would likely necessitate trading Castillo ,who the jury is still arguably out on, and isn't at a high value.
 
Also, I think It's highly unlikely DD agrees to be President under the microscope/heat in Beantown without getting prior approval from JH on signing a front line starter. As mentioned throughout this thread all the other teams know the Sox need front line pitching. You can reasonably argue they need a 1 and a 2 with Ed Rod Porcello and some combination of Buch/ Owens/Johnson or Hill being the 5th starter options. Miley could also be that 5th starter, but I'd imagine they would prefer a combo of Owens/ Johnson(injury late in year makes him a bit of a question mark, but not much more to prove in Pawtucket) for 200 innings and hence Miley could be packaged elsewhere. 
 
 I'm legitimately torn on Buch. When he is right like he was a for a stretch of this year he's a guy who can carry you with elite results for a stretch. Problem is it's now a given that you can depend on him for 120-150ish innings and no more. Subject to change the FA preferred list would probably be 
 
1) Price ( Everyone's number 1 and he's likely to get the biggest pitching contract ever with his considerable leverage. I imagine DD courts, but this is going to be similar to a Kershaw deal and I'd probably pass and assume more risk for ,long term, less exposure with options 2 or 3)
 
2) Cueto - Lot of smoke here via Gammo and even Cueto himself opining on it. Rough second half may(not definitive still likely to get 150-160 mill over 5/6 years) knock the price tag down about it. The options over the last years may be able to get more creative with well publicized health questions. 
 
3) Zimmermann- Regressed a bit this year but would still represent a high end starter. Again likely to get 130-140 mill.  

 

[smastroyin]

The last two years have made it kind of hard on the Red Sox.  Ben didn't do enough at the trade deadline in 2014 to either improve the 2015 team or improve the 2015-2019 teams, because he was trying to do both.  Yes, you do lose bets once in a while, but in general I don't think the team would really miss Kelly, Craig, Porcello, Miley, Ramirez, and Sandoval if they were all jettisoned together.
 
This isn't to say that all hope is lost and there isn't a chance for them all to be good as soon as next year.  But it does create the conundrum of what you do to improve the team.  For instance, in the starting rotation, the easiest thing to do is sign a FA starter.  OK, then you have to add in making the right choice of which guys not to bring back.  Porcello presumably can still be the guy they thought they were getting when they signed that extension, but do you trade him if you get the chance to clear that salary?  Miley is steady, pretty much what you have to expect, but also an easy place to upgrade if it comes down to it.  Kelly may have some future potential but can you wait it out?  Buchholz of course has that whole thread.
 
So now, not only do you have to decide who to bring in, you have to decide who will be replaced in the rotation and then make the right choice so that you don't keep the anchors while dealing the guys who improve.
 
With this in mind, it then seems a bit foolish to go ahead and ship out your prospects for the chance to throw a few deck chairs overboard.  If you have to create big prospect packages to both rid yourself of the undesirables and find their replacements, you risk a lot of wrong choices.  Obviously, that's what these guys are paid to do, and there is also such a thing as holding on to prospects too long.  I'm just saying, there is enough at risk performance wise that I don't want to gut the farm system just to make a play in 2016.  But I suspect we will see some of that.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Smas, you bring up a depressingly good point that the team would not be all that bad off if they got rid of those 6 recently acquired veteran players.  Ugh.   That said, I'm not that big on moving them with prospects, just to shed salary.  I think Kelly and Miley have positive trade value themselves.  If you wanted to move Miley for a less expensive but needed BP arm, and save a few bucks to put toward a FA starter who would take Miley's spot in the rotation anyway, then ok.  That makes some fiscal and roster building sense.  What I don't want to see is something like adding Margot to Sandoval just to save money (although I'm not a believer that they have to move Hanley or Sandoval - selling low, etc.).  If it were a multi-player deal, with us getting something decent and also taking back another bad but more usable contract (like, say, Andre Ethier, just to throw out an example), then maybe, but that crystal ball seems fuzzy to me.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

PP: If you weren't trying to be condescending, fine, I'll take your word for it and try not to be too sensitive.  At this point, I guess I'm confused about your overall position.  You seem to be saying:
1. We tend to overrate our own prospects.
2.  It's not wise to rely on BA, MLB.com, K.Law etc. because they're not actual GMs, and actual GMs can have markedly different views on prospects.
3.  We don't know what those views are.
4.  Past trades are not predictive of future behavior, at all... so, then, what?
5.  All trade speculation involving prospects is fruitless and should not be engaged in on this board?  Or trade speculation is ok but only if we grossly overestimate what it would take to land someone?  Trade speculation is only allowed if we have a credible source reporting on actual trade discussions?  We can only focus on free agents because that process involves far more certainty and fewer unknowable variables?  The whole point of this thread seems to be encouraging us to think about roster construction, organizational assets, and trade possibilities.
 
Obviously, we can disagree on the wisdom of trading certain prospects or young players, and opine about the likelihood (or lack thereof) of any possible deal.  And we can be called to task for making clearly inadequate suggestions (Gold Glove-caliber Christian Vazquez for Matt Harvey! etc.).  But you seem to be taking a pretty absolute position that no young, cost-controlled SP is obtainable - at all - absent a complete ransacking of our best prospects and young MLBers, resulting in a huge overpay.  I'm not sure why that's a more reasonable position to take than suggesting that a fair trade could be devised using a combo of good-but-blocked prospects (Margot being the best example, but Owens and Johnson might be as well) plus other valuable surplus (adding a MLB arm like Miley or Kelly, for example).  You're entitled to your opinion, but merely saying Donaldson is different, Gonzalez is different doesn't actually make your opinion sounder than mine.  In my opinion.

 

[Rasputin]

The last two years have made it kind of hard on the Red Sox.  Ben didn't do enough at the trade deadline in 2014 to either improve the 2015 team or improve the 2015-2019 teams, because he was trying to do both.  Yes, you do lose bets once in a while, but in general I don't think the team would really miss Kelly, Craig, Porcello, Miley, Ramirez, and Sandoval if they were all jettisoned together.

 
I do. We jettison those guys, we have squat for pitching depth and are looking for a third baseman and a plan a at first in addition to an ace and a bullpen.
 
That's a lot to ask of an off season.

 

[smastroyin]

OK, but my point is this.  If you had those holes and the $75 million those guys will cost in 2016 you are at least in an easier starting point than the Red Sox actually are (including the starting point being "we need another year of maturity of our own guys before we go for it")  If those were good players, then we could be on board for "let's go get it in 2016!"  (well, actually we would have been there in 2015).  If they were cheap but bad players, then we could say "here are the places we can upgrade."  Even if they were guaranteed to be bad players you could say "we have to deal with this for sure if we want to compete."  
 
Instead, they are, collectively, a big chunk of money tied to a lot of "what-ifs" other than Miley who is a guaranteed "ok" starter and Craig who is very much likely toast.  The problem with this is that the best thing for the Red Sox is to wait it out another year and see what they get out of Ramirez, Sandoval, and Porcello before subsidizing them elsewhere.  It also behooves them to let Margot, Benintendi, Devers, and Moncada play before making deals for the guys in front or behind them.  It behooves them to see what Christian Vazquez has and if Swihart continues progress and see whither JBJ and Rusney Castillo too.
 
Now, if you are ready to say, give me this 25 man roster with some minor upgrades here or there and we'll let all that play out, that's cool, but I was responding to points about DD seemingly not willing to do that, and instead looking to make large deals to improve the team.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Ras, if I'm reading Smas correctly, I think he's being somewhat rhetorical.  I think he is also implying that they could be replaced, certainly if we saved the salaries/AAVs that we'd otherwise be spending on them (nearly $80M).  Find a 3rd guy to go with Holt and Shaw (and Marrero?) at the corners, pick up a couple of lower-tier FA starters, plus Hill, to maintain SP depth....  that's doable for less than $80M and would replace what we've received from those guys thus far.  Of course, we've devoted pages of posts to the question of what we can expect to get out of those guys from this point on.  I think most of us agree that we should get more, perhaps a lot more, but maybe/likely not enough to justify their contracts, in the aggregate. 
 
Edit:  Oops. or I could have waited for Smas himself to respond; sorry.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

PP: If you weren't trying to be condescending, fine, I'll take your word for it and try not to be too sensitive.  At this point, I guess I'm confused about your overall position.  You seem to be saying:
1. We tend to overrate our own prospects.
2.  It's not wise to rely on BA, MLB.com, K.Law etc. because they're not actual GMs, and actual GMs can have markedly different views on prospects.
3.  We don't know what those views are.
4.  Past trades are not predictive of future behavior, at all... so, then, what?
5.  All trade speculation involving prospects is fruitless and should not be engaged in on this board?  Or trade speculation is ok but only if we grossly overestimate what it would take to land someone?  Trade speculation is only allowed if we have a credible source reporting on actual trade discussions?  We can only focus on free agents because that process involves far more certainty and fewer unknowable variables?  The whole point of this thread seems to be encouraging us to think about roster construction, organizational assets, and trade possibilities.
 
Obviously, we can disagree on the wisdom of trading certain prospects or young players, and opine about the likelihood (or lack thereof) of any possible deal.  And we can be called to task for making clearly inadequate suggestions (Gold Glove-caliber Christian Vazquez for Matt Harvey! etc.).  But you seem to be taking a pretty absolute position that no young, cost-controlled SP is obtainable - at all - absent a complete ransacking of our best prospects and young MLBers, resulting in a huge overpay.  I'm not sure why that's a more reasonable position to take than suggesting that a fair trade could be devised using a combo of good-but-blocked prospects (Margot being the best example, but Owens and Johnson might be as well) plus other valuable surplus (adding a MLB arm like Miley or Kelly, for example).  You're entitled to your opinion, but merely saying Donaldson is different, Gonzalez is different doesn't actually make your opinion sounder than mine.  In my opinion.

 
To your specific points, 
1. Yes. I think every fanbase is guilty of that and it's natural, because, well, they are our prospects. We know the most about them and they're like our kids. They are always better than the other guys. 
2. The rankings of the pundits is certainly a valuable and usable tool, but I think people need to understand that they are not absolute values and there is a lot of variance once you get outside of the top 15-20ish prospects. If you read those guys regularly, even they will tell you there's not a lot of difference between the #30 and #40 guy, for example. It's a matter of personal preference at that point. So citing "team X traded player Y for team Z's #3, #4 and #8 prospect" doesn't mean much to me. Above and beyond the variance in what the rankings mean and who they came from, not all farm systems are equal, so a ranking from John Sickels doesn't mean that Yoan Moncado is equal to the #1 in any other farm system. And yes, I think GMs can have markedly different opinions on players. Which is why when we see a trade and kind of scratch our heads, maybe we shouldn't. We see trades work out both ways, good or bad, for either side all the time. We obviously have focused on Billy Beane a lot here, so yes, when we see him make a trade and rage about the return he got, how our package could have been better, or why did he take those guys, etc. - I don't know how one can think they know more than him or that we can say really anything about how he could have gotten abetter deal elsewhere, when we don't know his and his staff's particular thoughts on the players, what other teams were actually offering, etc. He's not an idiot. He;s had his job for almost 20 years for a reason. 
3. I don't know how you would unless you're an employee of that team. I mean I guess if you're an employee of the Cardinals and have hacked into another team network, you might have a better idea. 
4. I don't understand how past trades could ever be predictive of future behavior without some kind of consistency that doesn't exist. Every team has multiple factors that impact the decisions they make. Their place in the competitive cycle, their finances, the people in the FO, their roster needs and wants, etc. A lot of us here (myself included) were certain the Marlins would trade Stanton. Why would we think otherwise? They've always traded their guys. But they didn't, they signed him to the biggest contract in the history of professional sports. No one thought Beane would trade Donaldson, Cespedes or Shark, but he did. He's traded a lot of guys, but he's also kept guys like Tejada, Giambi or Zito and let them walk. He's seemingly overpaid, underpaid, or made fair trades. How is that predictive? 
5. Never once have I said we shouldn't speculate, I'm saying to use a little better judgment and intelligence. You don't need to grossly over estimate, but don't grossly underestimate either. You joke about Christian Vazquez for Matt Harvey, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that someone has made a similar proposal, if not that exact one. I know you've been lurking for a long time, so maybe you've seen them. "Hey, let's trade Marrero and  Barnes for Cole Hamels. He's got a big contract, so RAJ should move him for cheap and even though their best prospect is a SS who is much more highly rated, I'm sure he will be happy with that return." I'm only saying I don't think it's a lot to expect people to do more than pick names out of a hat. 
 
I'm not saying a young, cost controlled SP is unobtainable. I'm saying they are the most valuable commodity in the game. So no, I don't think they can be gotten with surplus, #4 starters or blocked prospects, at least not the kind we have in stock. Those type of trades hurt to make. And no, I don't think it's necessarily an overpay, or at least certainly not a huge one. If you are Kenny Williams or Rick Hahn, and you've got Chris Sale locked up until 2019 on insanely cheap money, why the hell would you trade him for Wade Miley or Joe Kelly, Manuel Margot and a bunch of guy who have ceilings of being decent regulars or bench players? If analytics has taught us anything, it should be that two 2 WAR players do not equal one 4 WAR player and that's assuming equal cost. That may be oversimplified, but I assume you get my point. 
 
As I said earlier, if this is a "hey, let's throw shit against the wall" thread, by all means, have at it and I'll just stay out of it, it's not a big deal. But if people are making serious suggestions, then they need to be prepared for people to disagree with them or expect them to have an idea of what they are talking about.

 

[Rasputin]

OK, but my point is this.  If you had those holes and the $75 million those guys will cost in 2016 you are at least in an easier starting point than the Red Sox actually are (including the starting point being "we need another year of maturity of our own guys before we go for it")  If those were good players, then we could be on board for "let's go get it in 2016!"  (well, actually we would have been there in 2015).  If they were cheap but bad players, then we could say "here are the places we can upgrade."  Even if they were guaranteed to be bad players you could say "we have to deal with this for sure if we want to compete."  
 
Instead, they are, collectively, a big chunk of money tied to a lot of "what-ifs" other than Miley who is a guaranteed "ok" starter and Craig who is very much likely toast.  The problem with this is that the best thing for the Red Sox is to wait it out another year and see what they get out of Ramirez, Sandoval, and Porcello before subsidizing them elsewhere.  It also behooves them to let Margot, Benintendi, Devers, and Moncada play before making deals for the guys in front or behind them.  It behooves them to see what Christian Vazquez has and if Swihart continues progress and see whither JBJ and Rusney Castillo too.
 
Now, if you are ready to say, give me this 25 man roster with some minor upgrades here or there and we'll let all that play out, that's cool, but I was responding to points about DD seemingly not willing to do that, and instead looking to make large deals to improve the team.

 
I don't see how anyone can look at the roster and not be on board for going for it in 2016.
 
Sure, there's plenty of things that could go wrong, but it won't take a lot of things going right to make this one of the best teams in baseball.
 
That's assuming we bring in an ace and at least one, preferably two really high quality bullpen arms.
 
I guess I just don't see the advantage in waiting. It's not like we have to trade our best prospects to get the ace. If Ramirez or Sandoval goes completely belly up, we're going to have enough of a stockpile of good prospects to make trades. Maybe if we trade Margot in one of the reliever trades and one of the OFers goes completely off the rails, we'll need to trade for someone.
 
I guess I'm just not that worried because there aren't that many people on this roster that are indispensable. There's Papi and if he fell off the cliff it would be mitigated a lot of Ramirez came back. Most of the position players contribute a little bit in every part of the game, and in particular, the speed on this team is something we haven't had in ages. We're going to have an entire outfield, plus the catcher and middle infielders who can actually run a bit. Bogaerts is a beast on the bases.
 
And for all the things that could go wrong, there are things that could go really well. Bogaerts could break out the power. Eduardo Rodriguez could take a step forward. Swihart can continue to improve. Vazquez can come back healthy and shut down running games. Kelly might have taken the next step in figuring out what it means to be a pitcher. Porcello certainly looked like he stepped it up a notch in 2014, and if he figures out what the problem was in the first half of 2015, he could be even better.
 
Of course, that might be a bit off the topic, but finding five key contributors in a single off season is a pretty big task and I don't remotely think it's easier than what the Sox are facing now.

 

[soxhop411]

@ChrisCotillo: The Orioles and Red Sox are expected to keep an eye on Brandon Moss this winter: http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/10/19/9571297/brandon-moss-rumors-orioles-red-sox?utm_campaign=chriscotillo&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

@ChrisCotillo: The Orioles and Red Sox are expected to keep an eye on Brandon Moss this winter: http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/10/19/9571297/brandon-moss-rumors-orioles-red-sox?utm_campaign=chriscotillo&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

I'd rather them bring Nava's back

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

PP: thanks for fleshing that out.  You make only two points for which I have a quibble:
1.  Predictive value of past trade activity.  I agree, you can't say "Because Beane traded Donaldson, he is also going to trade Gray."  But certainly there are some GMs who are far more willing to trade (generally) than others.  There are some GMs who are far more willing to trade established players for prospects than are other GMs.  (And the converse: Some GMs being more willing to deal prospects for established veterans.)  There are some GMs who are far more willing to accept lower-level prospects as key pieces to a big deal (because they're more risk tolerant, or trust their scouting/analytics more, etc.).  There are some GMs who have the reputation of being more willing to put in the time to find a creative deal than are others.  You can see patterns in past activity that have some predictive value, don't you think?  With Oakland coming off a down year, with a farm system that is also relatively depleted, it's a reasonable guess/expectation that Beane is going to move veterans for younger players while trying to obtain not just unproven quality but also quantity.  If you had to bet $1,000 on whether Beane would make such a trade this offseason, wouldn't you bet that he would?  Might not be Gray, but something relatively substantial?  As opposed to say, betting on Amaro to trade Hamels last offseason, or to trade any of his veterans the prior offseason, when most could already see the writing on Philly's wall.  Upshot:  I think people fixate on Beane precisely because he has surprisingly traded players in the past that many other GMs seemingly wouldn't consider dealing.  So often, in fact, that it's not actually surprising. 
 
2.  Quantity+quality for more established quality:  you ask why would anyone trade a 4 WAR player for two (more easily obtainable) 2 WAR players.  Fair question.  Most here would agree that, absent a particular roster/personnel problem, GMs won't make that trade.  But that's not what people (or at least, I) am trying to propose.  We're trying to come up with a trade that DOES hurt, because we're giving up a lot of resources, and trading a total of $1.25 for $1, but we're willing to do it because we can't use all of those resources now given roster constraints (too many average starting pitchers) plus the need for more prospect development.  Now, maybe it has to be $1.35 for $1.  Or $1.50.  At some level, you reach the breaking point; if it gets to $2 for $1, maybe that's too much.  Or if they need to have a $.75 piece (Betts or X) included, plus three $.25 pieces (Margot et al), plus two dimes, you walk away.  But there are depleted teams with multiple holes to fill, who realize that their ace is likely to be wasted over the next two years, and will trade the guy to fill those roster holes with a combo of decent filler now (Miley, Kelly types), close good ceiling prospects (Owens, maybe Margot) and high ceiling lower-level prospects (Devers, Espinoza, even Moncada).

 

[lxt]

I keep coming back to Price and Chapman. Price will cost around $180 for 7 years but I don't see anyway around that. Chapman will cost a few kids but the Reds are talking about a rental. They may want more, a great package but one year is not enough to get anyone to cough up the farm. I think the rest of the team is okay where it is. I'm hoping Panda will come back to something of the player he was but I'm not look for anything dramatic, just some steady play. I'd like to see Hanley traded (assuming it will cost 50 cents on the dollar over the life of the contract - DH somewhere). I'd like to give Shaw the opportunity to show whether he's got a future based on his performance this year. I'd perfer Shaw to Hanley. A few have mentioned adding an arm or two to the pen. I'm okay with maybe one more, a lefty but most certainly not Papelbon. Maybe add someone like Zobrist for IF help but that's it. 
 
I'd kick the tires on Cueto and Zimmerman but only go after one if Price went off the market or the market went over $200 million. 
 
To be honest the only position player I like in FA is Jason Heyward, however; he'd push Bradley or Castillo to the bench.

 

[MikeM]

I keep coming back to Price and Chapman. 

 
Everybody keeps coming back to Price and Chapman, especially at low balled for the sake of making a better fit projection rates. 
 
Do you still come back to those two if it takes us 8y/$240m to trump the rest of the field on Price, and the trade for Chapman ends up costing a similar deal to the one PP proposed above on Strasburg (which was one of Owens/Johnson, Margot, and a lower level upside piece)? Because both those seem a lot more likely imo then Price signing at $30m less then what Max Scherzer got last winter. 
 
I know I don't on Price, and probably give the Chapman trade about 15 minutes of thought before concluding that is probably too much asset value to surrender on a closer rental (who like Price is probably looking at his own record setting overpay contract next winter) with Koji already in house and no real guarantee this team even plays .500 ball next year.

 

[chawson]

@ChrisCotillo: The Orioles and Red Sox are expected to keep an eye on Brandon Moss this winter: http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/10/19/9571297/brandon-moss-rumors-orioles-red-sox?utm_campaign=chriscotillo&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 
 
Brandon Moss, David Murphy, Garrett Jones, Alejandro de Aza, Matt Joyce, Will Venable, or Jon Jay will be on this team next year. Possibly even David DeJesus or Coco Crisp if we're assholes to each other all winter.

 

[nvalvo]

 
 
Brandon Moss, David Murphy, Garrett Jones, Alejandro de Aza, Matt Joyce, Will Venable, or Jon Jay will be on this team next year. Possibly even David DeJesus or Coco Crisp if we're assholes to each other all winter.

 
I would be fine with most of those guys for the fourth OF role. 
 
But man. Moss, Murphy, Crisp: what a list of Boston outfielders of the future, a decade ago. Matt Murton, where art thou?
 
(I googled it: Hanshin Tigers.)

 

[lxt]

 
Everybody keeps coming back to Price and Chapman, especially at low balled for the sake of making a better fit projection rates. 
 
Do you still come back to those two if it takes us 8y/$240m to trump the rest of the field on Price, and the trade for Chapman ends up costing a similar deal to the one PP proposed above on Strasburg (which was one of Owens/Johnson, Margot, and a lower level upside piece)? Because both those seem a lot more likely imo then Price signing at $30m less then what Max Scherzer got last winter. 
 
I know I don't on Price, and probably give the Chapman trade about 15 minutes of thought before concluding that is probably too much asset value to surrender on a closer rental (who like Price is probably looking at his own record setting overpay contract next winter) with Koji already in house and no real guarantee this team even plays .500 ball next year.

Whoa, big fellow. I already said if Price went above $200 that I'd go in another direction. That's why I'd kick the tires on Cueto, Zimmermann and Samardzija. I also indicated that Chapman would be my first pen objective but if Cincinnati was crazy I'd move on. Chapman is a one year rental at this point, nothing more. There are other possibilities ... I think Kimbel has been kicked around on this thread. 
 
The reason I want Chapman is because Koji like Ortiz is getting old. There is a point when old man time is going to catch up with them and they are not the player they were. Thus far they have managed to get one more year out of old man time. I think Koji has been great but as the season crosses into September I feel like at any moment he is about to hit empty. Chapman would fill in nicely.
 
What I was trying to say is I don't see a need to "blow things up" or "sell the farm". Price and Chapman would go a long way to creating a competitive, playoff capable team. We don't need much more than that.

 

[BaseballJones]

According to baseball-reference.com, the Sox' likely payroll, not counting trades or FA signings, but including options and arbitration, etc., is around $177 million.  Some moves I'd consider if I was DD:
 
- Sign Price. I know he's gonna cost a fortune.  No way around it, if you want a true #1 starter.  If a guy is a #1 and is cheap (see: Gray, Sonny), you aren't likely to be able to afford him via trade, or at least the cost will be so steep you don't want to do it.  The top FA guys are Price, Cueto, Zimmerman, and Gallardo.  You sign Price for 7/182 (yikes), swallow hard, and then just be happy that you have your true #1.  
 
- If you don't sign him, perhaps Gallardo is another good option.  Certainly would cost a ton less than Price, and he's been a pretty solid pitcher.  A year younger than Price too.  3.51, 3.42 era the last two seasons.  FIP numbers a little higher (3.94, 4.00), so that's a concern, as is his dropping k/9 rate.  But still, a proven quality MLB starter (career era of 3.66, career fip of 3.75, career era+ of 111).  I wouldn't mind having him in the rotation.
 
- Trade for Chapman.  I don't know what the final asking price would be - I assume a pretty good package - but I think it's doable.  Chapman is utterly dominant.  Koji in the 7th/8th, and Chapman in the 9th.  Two studs who can close.  
 
- Sign maybe one other bullpen arm, but I think I'd actually be ok with in-house options.  See below...
 
- If you can sign Hill cheaply, do it.  He showed me something at the end of the year.
 
So a rotation of Price (or Gallardo), ERod, Clay, Porcello, and Miley is pretty darned good.  Kelly and his 99 mph stuff moves to the bullpen.  Your bullpen becomes Chapman, Koji, Kelly, Layne, Taz, Ogando, with guys like Barnes and (hopefully) Workman and Ross able to step in as needed.  That's a lot of power arms in the bullpen suddenly.  Transforms the look of the bullpen considerably.  However, there's a caveat with Clay (see below).
 
You keep Owens, Johnson, Wright, Hill (maybe) stay in AAA for depth.  
 
Offensively, I don't really add anybody.  Try Hanley out at 1b, hope it works.  If not, eat the $$ and move him, because there's no place else to play him.  Any cost savings would be helpful.  In fact, that's something strongly to consider - how to shed some salary.  Because Chapman and Price will add a lot and put them over the luxury tax threshold.  So how to shed the salary?
 
The options are:  Craig, Hanley, Panda, Clay, Castillo, and Porcello.  For various reasons, each of these is not too enticing for other teams.  I think Clay could definitely be moved, and if you feel like Owens, for example, is good enough to start (or Kelly, and then keep Ross in the pen), or Hill, then you can deal Clay and shed his $13 million.  Personally, I think this is probably an ideal move.  When he's on, he's obviously tremendous.  But he's not on enough, and he doesn't pitch enough innings for me to be confident that he'll be what we want/need him to be.  So perhaps you can deal Clay and Panda, throwing in a prospect perhaps to make it happen) in the same deal or separate deals, and while you can't shed all of Panda's salary, you may be able to shed several million.  So between the two, you shed close to what you take on by adding Price.  And thus you're near the luxury tax threshold.  
 
As for 3b, Shaw plugs right in.  Hoping Hanley succeeds at 1b, or at least is passable.  Holt exists to back up 3b anyway, so you have some insurance.  Devers is the 3b of the future anyway.  Marrero becomes a utility guy for his glove.  
 
So..........all said and done:
 
Rotation:  Price, ERod, Porcello, Miley, Hill 
Bullpen:  Taz, Ogando, Ross, Kelly, Koji, Chapman
Pitching depth in AAA:  Workman, Barnes, Owens, Wright, Layne, etc.
Position players:
C - Swihart (Vazquez in AAA until he's ready)
1b - Hanley
2b - Pedroia
3b - Shaw
SS - Bogaerts
OF - Castillo, Betts, Bradley
DH - Ortiz
Bench - Hanigan, Holt, Marrero, RH bat with some pop (cheap FA addition)
 
And you still keep almost all of your stud prospects.  As always, fan speculation like this is almost certainly not going to happen, but it's a fun exercise anyway.  

 

[jimbobim]

According to baseball-reference.com, the Sox' likely payroll, not counting trades or FA signings, but including options and arbitration, etc., is around $177 million.  Some moves I'd consider if I was DD:
 
- Sign Price. I know he's gonna cost a fortune.  No way around it, if you want a true #1 starter.  If a guy is a #1 and is cheap (see: Gray, Sonny), you aren't likely to be able to afford him via trade, or at least the cost will be so steep you don't want to do it.  The top FA guys are Price, Cueto, Zimmerman, and Gallardo.  You sign Price for 7/182 (yikes), swallow hard, and then just be happy that you have your true #1.  
 
- If you don't sign him, perhaps Gallardo is another good option.  Certainly would cost a ton less than Price, and he's been a pretty solid pitcher.  A year younger than Price too.  3.51, 3.42 era the last two seasons.  FIP numbers a little higher (3.94, 4.00), so that's a concern, as is his dropping k/9 rate.  But still, a proven quality MLB starter (career era of 3.66, career fip of 3.75, career era+ of 111).  I wouldn't mind having him in the rotation.
 
- Trade for Chapman.  I don't know what the final asking price would be - I assume a pretty good package - but I think it's doable.  Chapman is utterly dominant.  Koji in the 7th/8th, and Chapman in the 9th.  Two studs who can close.  
 
- Sign maybe one other bullpen arm, but I think I'd actually be ok with in-house options.  See below...
 
- If you can sign Hill cheaply, do it.  He showed me something at the end of the year.
 
So a rotation of Price (or Gallardo), ERod, Clay, Porcello, and Miley is pretty darned good.  Kelly and his 99 mph stuff moves to the bullpen.  Your bullpen becomes Chapman, Koji, Kelly, Layne, Taz, Ogando, with guys like Barnes and (hopefully) Workman and Ross able to step in as needed.  That's a lot of power arms in the bullpen suddenly.  Transforms the look of the bullpen considerably.  However, there's a caveat with Clay (see below).
 
You keep Owens, Johnson, Wright, Hill (maybe) stay in AAA for depth.  
 
Offensively, I don't really add anybody.  Try Hanley out at 1b, hope it works.  If not, eat the $$ and move him, because there's no place else to play him.  Any cost savings would be helpful.  In fact, that's something strongly to consider - how to shed some salary.  Because Chapman and Price will add a lot and put them over the luxury tax threshold.  So how to shed the salary?
 
The options are:  Craig, Hanley, Panda, Clay, Castillo, and Porcello.  For various reasons, each of these is not too enticing for other teams.  I think Clay could definitely be moved, and if you feel like Owens, for example, is good enough to start (or Kelly, and then keep Ross in the pen), or Hill, then you can deal Clay and shed his $13 million.  Personally, I think this is probably an ideal move.  When he's on, he's obviously tremendous.  But he's not on enough, and he doesn't pitch enough innings for me to be confident that he'll be what we want/need him to be.  So perhaps you can deal Clay and Panda, throwing in a prospect perhaps to make it happen) in the same deal or separate deals, and while you can't shed all of Panda's salary, you may be able to shed several million.  So between the two, you shed close to what you take on by adding Price.  And thus you're near the luxury tax threshold.
 

Alright so this is a good example post I would say. The overall format is fine and this isn't intended to be condescending. The parts I underlined and bolded represent bold suggestions for the Sox to move Panda/Hanley contracts or trade for Chapman. 
 
With regards to Panda and Hanley the baseball industry's view of them is not a whole lot better than their respective atrocious WAR( which I don't think is a perfect measurement, but it is what it is ). Due to their respective terrible seasons moving them is going to involve a lot more than eating a little money or a bit prospect here or there. Therefore, the premise that moving them will open money for the Price contract is not really realistic IMHO.
 
The Red Sox will need to add considerable value to any moving them which seemed to be what they were gathering at the deadline( several Boston beat writers alluded to them trying to move "unmovable pieces"). Especially in regards to Hanley, I imagine the shoulder issue and corresponding terrible batting is going to be used like a club against the Sox during trade discussions. 
 
Essentially, when you propose a transaction,mostly trades , of either unattractive Sox contracts/players or bringing in Chapmen like studs, identify the prospects you would be sending the other way. Adds more to the discussion. 

 

[BaseballJones]

I hear you.  But it's a little hard to identify the prospects I'd send the other way when nobody in the world knows what other teams would be looking for.  I mean, I guess I could say that there's no way I'm throwing in Moncada to get rid of Panda, but other than things like that, I don't know what other teams would look for specifically.  Any suggestions there?

 

[ehaz]

- Sign Price. I know he's gonna cost a fortune.  No way around it, if you want a true #1 starter.  If a guy is a #1 and is cheap (see: Gray, Sonny), you aren't likely to be able to afford him via trade, or at least the cost will be so steep you don't want to do it.  The top FA guys are Price, Cueto, Zimmerman, and Gallardo.  You sign Price for 7/182 (yikes), swallow hard, and then just be happy that you have your true #1.  

The only problem I have is that I think we're underestimating how much Price gets on the FA market. I'd wager he gets a lot closer to 8/250 than 7/182. Where do you draw a line?

 

[jimbobim]

I hear you.  But it's a little hard to identify the prospects I'd send the other way when nobody in the world knows what other teams would be looking for.  I mean, I guess I could say that there's no way I'm throwing in Moncada to get rid of Panda, but other than things like that, I don't know what other teams would look for specifically.  Any suggestions there?

I mean I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole of publicly available prospect lists and their utility to opposing teams/what they would be asking for as discussed at length up thread, but soxprospects.com, mlbpipeline.com and fangraphs are all decent starting points for getting an idea of what names would have to be on the table.
 
In terms of the Sox trades this offseason I'd expect to hear Margot, Denvers, Guerra, Owens name frequently amongst the rumors. I omit Espinoza and Moncada because I don't think/hope DD will put them on the table. Deciding which among that pile goes for pitching or unloading a Hanley/Pablo is a dilemma.  

 

[BaseballJones]

The only problem I have is that I think we're underestimating how much Price gets on the FA market. I'd wager he gets a lot closer to 8/250 than 7/182. Where do you draw a line?

8/250???? At age 30 he's gonna get an 8-year deal worth north of $31 million per? That's insanity.

Well suffice it to say, I'd not touch THAT. I gave Gallardo as a very palatable alternative if it came to that.

 

[BaseballJones]

I mean I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole of publicly available prospect lists and their utility to opposing teams/what they would be asking for as discussed at length up thread, but soxprospects.com, mlbpipeline.com and fangraphs are all decent starting points for getting an idea of what names would have to be on the table.
 
In terms of the Sox trades this offseason I'd expect to hear Margot, Denvers, Guerra, Owens name frequently amongst the rumors. I omit Espinoza and Moncada because I don't think/hope DD will put them on the table. Deciding which among that pile goes for pitching or unloading a Hanley/Pablo is a dilemma.

I'm pretty familiar with who the Sox have as prospects. My question was really about not knowing who, specifically, other GMs would want. I mean, everyone will want Betts (not that he's a prospect at this point, but you get what I'm saying), but that's not happening. Do other GMs value Swihart more than, say, Moncada? Vazquez more than Devers? Owens more than Margot? All depends, right?

Edit: I do understand that the better proepect the Sox give, the more money the other team is likely to be willing to eat, and perhaps the better player the Sox can get in return. It's very much a sliding scale, and every GM fits in a different place along that line, given their situation and budget.

 

[ehaz]

8/250???? At age 30 he's gonna get an 8-year deal worth north of $31 million per? That's insanity.

Well suffice it to say, I'd not touch THAT. I gave Gallardo as a very palatable alternative if it came to that.

I said closer to. And since Scherzer was the same age and got 7/210, which is $30 a year, I don't think it's so unrealistic.

 

[BaseballJones]

I said closer to. And since Scherzer was the same age and got 7/210, which is $30 a year, I don't think it's so unrealistic.

Well you might be right, and if that's the cost, I say no.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

For all those willing to eat money to dump Hanley, let's take a look at that:
 
1. Assume 50 cents on the dollar, which seems to be a popular speculation
2. Assume he vests in 2019 @ $22M
 
50% discount means the Red Sox would be sending Hanley + $45,125,000 to another AL team
 
$45M is the entire value of his 2016 and 2017 seasons. The Red Sox could sit him on the bench for 2 years and break even on that portion of the deal.
 
The Red Sox will need a DH at some point in the future, let's say 2017 for argument's sake. That means the future Red Sox DH will be playing for an AL competitor, essentially paid for by the Red Sox - with the receiveing team now liable (in essence) for the remaining 2 years (2018 + 2019) at full contract value based on 2015 dollars and market.
 
The Red Sox will need to establish a DH for the 3 years: 2017-2019. Maybe they can trade back for Ramirez.
 
{Let's assume no vesting, even though that's a stretch for a guy his age: Hanley + $34,125,000 to a competitor. That money pays for Hanley to sit on the bench through 2016 and half of 2017...}
 
We can play with the numbers (discounts, vesting and Ortiz retirement age) to come up with multiple scenarios. The point is
 
- What's the point of paying Hanley's salary to an AL competitor for 1-2 years and still eventually needing a DH - when they could just send him to Paris for a year and a half and bring him back as DH at the cost differential of $22M minus whatever the replacement DH costs?
 
Am I making any sense?
 
{edit: The other variable being, of course, what - if anything - the Red Sox get in return for trading Hanley and eating his salary}

 

[chrisfont9]

8/250???? At age 30 he's gonna get an 8-year deal worth north of $31 million per? That's insanity.

Well suffice it to say, I'd not touch THAT. I gave Gallardo as a very palatable alternative if it came to that.

Re Gallardo, he seems OK but IMHO he also might not fit in Boston as well as somewhere else. Given the number of "maybe" candidates we already have, shouldn't our one payout to a potential top-end FA starting pitcher come with very low risk that he's less than a SP 1 or 2 type? To me Gallardo could be a pretty average pitcher in 2016. His K rates are plummeting, hits/9 rising, and the only stat I can see that kept him from the 4.00 ERA that FIP says he should have earned in his first year in the AL is a low HR rate. 
 
The Sox can't afford another OK pitcher, even if he comes at a discount. We need only one thing in the rotation: a guy who you can really count on to be an improvement over the remaining guys, otherwise what's the point? Price fits that bill, of course, and comes with far less risk that he would have trouble adjusting. His numbers across the board are stable and don't appear to rely on, say, low babip or any other mirage. He would have an immediate and potentially dramatic beneficial effect on the team, and is a good bet to pay off the first half of that hypothetical monster deal.
 
I guess I'm simply saying that Gallardo getting half the WARs of Price at half the cost is nowhere near as useful. We need that top guy, and that's really all we need. That requires a massive payout of prospects or $$. I prefer the latter, on a guy who we think we know what he'll do.

 

[lxt]

For all those willing to eat money to dump Hanley, let's take a look at that:
 
1. Assume 50 cents on the dollar, which seems to be a popular speculation
2. Assume he vests in 2019 @ $22M
 
50% discount means the Red Sox would be sending Hanley + $45,125,000 to another AL team
 
$45M is the entire value of his 2016 and 2017 seasons. The Red Sox could sit him on the bench for 2 years and break even on that portion of the deal.
 
The Red Sox will need a DH at some point in the future, let's say 2017 for argument's sake. That means the future Red Sox DH will be playing for an AL competitor, essentially paid for by the Red Sox - with the receiveing team now liable (in essence) for the remaining 2 years (2018 + 2019) at full contract value based on 2015 dollars and market.
 
The Red Sox will need to establish a DH for the 3 years: 2017-2019. Maybe they can trade back for Ramirez.
 
{Let's assume no vesting, even though that's a stretch for a guy his age: Hanley + $34,125,000 to a competitor. That money pays for Hanley to sit on the bench through 2016 and half of 2017...}
 
We can play with the numbers (discounts, vesting and Ortiz retirement age) to come up with multiple scenarios. The point is
 
- What's the point of paying Hanley's salary to an AL competitor for 1-2 years and still eventually needing a DH - when they could just send him to Paris for a year and a half and bring him back as DH at the cost differential of $22M minus whatever the replacement DH costs?
 
Am I making any sense?
 
{edit: The other variable being, of course, what - if anything - the Red Sox get in return for trading Hanley and eating his salary}

You've got some sound logic there from a money perspective. Not sure it's all about the money. I agree if Ortiz retires at the end of next year having Hanley around to play DH may be a good thing. I'm just looking at this season and him at 1B. I don't see it happening. I mean it may be a tad better than watching him chase down balls and throwing them once they've stop rolling but not by much. Sitting him on the bench can cause a club house nightmare ... chicken and beer all over again ... it may all turn out all right but my gut tells me this is not going to work out well. Don't get me wrong I like the idea of having Hanley as a DH. If there was a spot great but I just think its not going to be a good mix. We'll just have to wait and see what DD decides.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

You've got some sound logic there from a money perspective. Not sure it's all about the money. I agree if Ortiz retires at the end of next year having Hanley around to play DH may be a good thing. I'm just looking at this season and him at 1B. I don't see it happening. I mean it may be a tad better than watching him chase down balls and throwing them once they've stop rolling but not by much. Sitting him on the bench can cause a club house nightmare ... chicken and beer all over again ... it may all turn out all right but my gut tells me this is not going to work out well. Don't get me wrong I like the idea of having Hanley as a DH. If there was a spot great but I just think its not going to be a good mix. We'll just have to wait and see what DD decides.

 
Yeh, I'm repeating what I've said before - so I'll stop being redundant. Ramirez must be tried at 1B in 2016 because it's plain dumb to pay him to play for an AL competitor unless he brings back something of value, and Dumbrowski ain't Dumb (he's Brow).
 
That "something of value" is either tax space (i.e., don't eat a meaningful portion of his salary) or a viable player in return. The Red Sox need RH power. They'll figure it out.

 

[MikeM]

8/250???? At age 30 he's gonna get an 8-year deal worth north of $31 million per? That's insanity.

Well suffice it to say, I'd not touch THAT. I gave Gallardo as a very palatable alternative if it came to that.

 
That's the reality of free agency though. Where insanity surrounding the very best options it has to offer is the expected norm, and nobody else really cares about how much you or the Boston Red Sox ideally want to spend on a player. This isn't 2004 anymore where it's the Yankees out there spending big money, then us, then everybody else. The surface desire to remain conservative is great and all, but at the end of the day there realistically isn't any middle ground to be had if you want to swim in those waters. You either jump into that shark tank or you don't. Max Scherzer's contract all but guarantees that 7/182 and an offer to play here isn't making it past the first round of legitimate offers on David Price, much less made speculating the possibility we build an entire off-season plan on top of it worth even a second of your time. 
 
Gallardo is a name not getting a lot of play, but does present an interesting option if the money/years end up getting stupid on the top 4, which i guess could then result in an alternative scenario where see a lot of overall roster movement including DD adding 2 outside starters while cutting bait on Buchholz. Of course where most people are content projecting we leave the lineup alone and bring back the same team + a few tweaks, i personally don't see that playing out to be the case. Especially if/when the bigger names start getting crossed off and that per/player tweak value people are currently banking their hopes on goes down. 
 
It's kind of hard to speculate on the likes of a Gallardo atm though given how deep this free agent crop is. Or what kind of effect the constant inflation rate we've come to rationally expect on the very top guys is going to have on the still fairly lengthy list of quality players below them looking for their own big payday. From an overall perspective it's basically an unprecedented situation that should be fun to watch play out. Guessing there will be more then 1-2 "bargain values" popping up this winter that i'll probably fall in love with when the time comes. 

 

[OCD SS]

I said closer to. And since Scherzer was the same age and got 7/210, which is $30 a year, I don't think it's so unrealistic.

The deferred money changes the actual value of Scherzer's deal pretty substantially; somehow I think Price will want to top the raw numbers, but will settle for a similar present day value.

 

[alwyn96]

If we're at the "throwing ideas out there" phase of the offseason already, I'm happy to add my crazy thoughts. Maybe we should start a new thread for spitballing, but whatever. 
 
So I wonder if some kind of deal could be done with the Mariners. The Red Sox have a decent relationship with DiPoto or at least plenty of familiarity, and he clearly has a sense of how the Red Sox generally value their players and how they value other teams' players. Teams don't usually hire new GMs/Presidents to just do the same stuff - they usually want to make some deals and shake things up. DiPoto is going to make some moves.
 
I'm not going to propose the deal you're thinking - Seattle is not trading Felix. But! Depending on if/how DiPoto thinks Sandoval could bounce back, I think a deal for Seager might not be totally insane. Hear me out! Seager's deal pays him another $95.5M for his 28-33 seasons. Sandoval's deal is $72.4M for his 29-32 seasons. Pablo's a year older, but even including his disastrous 2015, Sandoval's career OPS+ is 117 compared to Seager's 116. The difference between them is almost entirely defense and a little bit baserunning (granted Sandoval's best hitting days were further in the past than Seager's, but their 2012-2014 hitting was almost exactly the same). Of course, 2015 happened, so Sandoval's value has really taken a hit, and the Red Sox would have to send some other stuff along with Sandoval. The Mariners have some interesting young pitching, but Iwakuma is getting older and injury prone, Paxton has been sidelined with injury for good portions of the last two years, and Ellis, Happ, Montgomery, and Nuno are all fairly low-ceiling guys, plus Happ's a FA. So maybe Owens sweetens it? Zunino has also been hugely disappointing, so maybe Vazquez would interest them, although he's still not a sure thing since his return from TJ. I'm kind of having a hard time figuring out a package of players and cash that would make sense for the Red Sox to send to Seattle to make a Seager/Sandoval deal work, plus it depends on DiPoto thinking Sandoval can bounce back to the player he was before 2015. So a Sandoval/Owens/Vazquez/$ deal for say Seager/Farquhar? Maybe a tough deal - trading a star and live-ish arm for a guy who put up one of the worst seasons in MLB (even if a bounce-back is likely), a defense-first C who's recovering from TJ, and a pitching prospect without much tangible MLB success is probably going to make the Seattle fans mad.
 
It won't happen, and doesn't work for either team very well, but that's my sad contribution to the crazy-trade proposals genre. Trades are hard. Really thinking about it, I'm kind of amazed most trades that aren't prospects-for-star-rental happen at all. 
 
EDIT: Just a fun note - baseball reference now has 2016 Marcels projections up for everyone on their player pages. Marcels are just crude-ish weighted averages of the last 3 years (with an age factor) and aren't great for rookies, but it's new Red Sox content nonetheless.

 

[chrisfont9]

If we're at the "throwing ideas out there" phase of the offseason already, I'm happy to add my crazy thoughts. Maybe we should start a new thread for spitballing, but whatever. 
 
So I wonder if some kind of deal could be done with the Mariners. The Red Sox have a decent relationship with DiPoto or at least plenty of familiarity, and he clearly has a sense of how the Red Sox generally value their players and how they value other teams' players. Teams don't usually hire new GMs/Presidents to just do the same stuff - they usually want to make some deals and shake things up. DiPoto is going to make some moves.
 
I'm not going to propose the deal you're thinking - Seattle is not trading Felix. But! Depending on if/how DiPoto thinks Sandoval could bounce back, I think a deal for Seager might not be totally insane. Hear me out! Seager's deal pays him another $95.5M for his 28-33 seasons. Sandoval's deal is $72.4M for his 29-32 seasons. Pablo's a year older, but even including his disastrous 2015, Sandoval's career OPS+ is 117 compared to Seager's 116. The difference between them is almost entirely defense and a little bit baserunning (granted Sandoval's best hitting days were further in the past than Seager's, but their 2012-2014 hitting was almost exactly the same). Of course, 2015 happened, so Sandoval's value has really taken a hit, and the Red Sox would have to send some other stuff along with Sandoval. The Mariners have some interesting young pitching, but Iwakuma is getting older and injury prone, Paxton has been sidelined with injury for good portions of the last two years, and Ellis, Happ, Montgomery, and Nuno are all fairly low-ceiling guys, plus Happ's a FA. So maybe Owens sweetens it? Zunino has also been hugely disappointing, so maybe Vazquez would interest them, although he's still not a sure thing since his return from TJ. I'm kind of having a hard time figuring out a package of players and cash that would make sense for the Red Sox to send to Seattle to make a Seager/Sandoval deal work, plus it depends on DiPoto thinking Sandoval can bounce back to the player he was before 2015. So a Sandoval/Owens/Vazquez/$ deal for say Seager/Farquhar? Maybe a tough deal - trading a star and live-ish arm for a guy who put up one of the worst seasons in MLB (even if a bounce-back is likely), a defense-first C who's recovering from TJ, and a pitching prospect without much tangible MLB success is probably going to make the Seattle fans mad.
 
It won't happen, and doesn't work for either team very well, but that's my sad contribution to the crazy-trade proposals genre. Trades are hard. Really thinking about it, I'm kind of amazed most trades that aren't prospects-for-star-rental happen at all. 
 
EDIT: Just a fun note - baseball reference now has 2016 Marcels projections up for everyone on their player pages. Marcels are just crude-ish weighted averages of the last 3 years (with an age factor) and aren't great for rookies, but it's new Red Sox content nonetheless.

Couple corrections: Happ got traded away mid-season and Iwakuma is a free agent. Your proposal isn't insane but I think the optics out here (I live in Seattle) would doom it. DiPoto hasn't been very warmly received -- Ms fans are sick of former Angel execs -- and dealing away a popular, productive guy for a flop like Pablo would infuriate a lot of the fans. But you're right about their need for catching and SP, and a deal that brought back Owens and Vazquez would be good for them. And IIRC one of their top prospects, DJ Peterson, is still slated to play third when he arrives as soon as 2016.

 

[alwyn96]

Couple corrections: Happ got traded away mid-season and Iwakuma is a free agent. Your proposal isn't insane but I think the optics out here (I live in Seattle) would doom it. DiPoto hasn't been very warmly received -- Ms fans are sick of former Angel execs -- and dealing away a popular, productive guy for a flop like Pablo would infuriate a lot of the fans. But you're right about their need for catching and SP, and a deal that brought back Owens and Vazquez would be good for them. And IIRC one of their top prospects, DJ Peterson, is still slated to play third when he arrives as soon as 2016.

 
Yeah, I live in Seattle too, but I'm more familiar with the USS Mariner-breed of fan (who tend to be more analytically minded thus somewhat more DiPoto-friendly) than the...I don't know, talk radio-breed, so I have no idea. I thought about Peterson, but like he had such a lousy 2015 at AA that his future is probably in some doubt. Plus with Seager there Peterson's blocked either way. Totally forgot about Iwakuma's contract being up, though. Seattle needs some better pitching beyond Felix (who's coming off an off-year for him) and Walker (who's still more potential than results).   
 
At any rate, yeah, Sandoval's contract would be pretty tough for any team's fans to take without some nice prospects attached. Even with some decent prospects fans would probably be bummed, since causal fans don't seem to care as much about prospects.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
Yeah, I live in Seattle too, but I'm more familiar with the USS Mariner-breed of fan (who tend to be more analytically minded thus somewhat more DiPoto-friendly) than the...I don't know, talk radio-breed, so I have no idea. I thought about Peterson, but like he had such a lousy 2015 at AA that his future is probably in some doubt. Plus with Seager there Peterson's blocked either way. Totally forgot about Iwakuma's contract being up, though. Seattle needs some better pitching beyond Felix (who's coming off an off-year for him) and Walker (who's still more potential than results).   
 
At any rate, yeah, Sandoval's contract would be pretty tough for any team's fans to take without some nice prospects attached. Even with some decent prospects fans would probably be bummed, since causal fans don't seem to care as much about prospects.

The best you can say about the hypothetical is that there are plenty of Red Sox fans around to explain to Ms fans why they should be excited about Owens and Vaz.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Trying to trade Sandoval right now makes no sense on multiple fronts. His value is essentially nonexistent--we probably literally couldn't give him away--yet there's no satisfactory in-house replacement, so trading him would create a hole. So we wouldn't be able to shop him without getting a 3B back, or getting one through FA--but the former option probably means overpaying in talent to motivate the seller to take on Pablo, and the latter means adding payroll that would be better spent on pitching this winter. Either way, we end up paying a premium to fill a "hole" that we supposedly filled, at considerable expense, just a year ago. That seems like a really bad way to run a ballclub.
 
It would make much more sense to keep Pablo around, hope he rebounds, and look at the possibility of dealing him again a year from now, when (a) his value will hopefully have recovered at least a bit, (b) there will be less money left on his contract, so subsidizing him should be less of a stumbling block, and (c) his likely successors (Moncada or Devers) will be a year closer to contributing. If he doesn't rebound, we'd arguably be no worse off than we are now; he would go from no value to negative value, but at least we'd have cut the financial liability by a quarter in the process.

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

Trying to trade Sandoval right now makes no sense on multiple fronts. His value is essentially nonexistent--we probably literally couldn't give him away--yet there's no satisfactory in-house replacement, so trading him would create a hole. So we wouldn't be able to shop him without getting a 3B back, or getting one through FA--but the former option probably means overpaying in talent to motivate the seller to take on Pablo, and the latter means adding payroll that would be better spent on pitching this winter. Either way, we end up paying a premium to fill a "hole" that we supposedly filled, at considerable expense, just a year ago. That seems like a really bad way to run a ballclub.
 
It would make much more sense to keep Pablo around, hope he rebounds, and look at the possibility of dealing him again a year from now, when (a) his value will hopefully have recovered at least a bit, (b) there will be less money left on his contract, so subsidizing him should be less of a stumbling block, and (c) his likely successors (Moncada or Devers) will be a year closer to contributing. If he doesn't rebound, we'd arguably be no worse off than we are now; he would go from no value to negative value, but at least we'd have cut the financial liability by a quarter in the process.

While I agree with the concept that Pablo has zero trade value right now, and waiting out another season can't do anything but help or stay status quo, the Sox do have a replacement at 3B. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Travis Shaw is playing 3B in winter ball this year, no? His Marcels projection has him hitting .270/.329/.468 with 14 HR over 324 PA (about 25 HR over 600 PA). The pop and SLG are a little aggressive for me on that projection, as I see him more as a 15-20, .150 ISO guy, which would take him to .270/.329/.420. Steamer over on FG has him hitting .259/.323/.428. This is probably closer to my expectation of him (maybe a couple ticks higher on avg/obp), which pegs him as a 101 wRC+ hitter.

Essentially, Shaw projects to be about the same hitter as Sandoval projects via Steamer(Sandoval steamer: .278/.330/.435, 104 wRC+) and actually significantly better via Marcels (Marcels .264/.317/.397).

I'm torn on this because Shaw's numbers at 3B look significantly better than Shaw's numbers at 1B, where the offensive baseline is much higher. At the same time, I am adamantly against putting two guys (Hanley and Shaw) at new positions for a full season in the IF.

FWIW, Hanley's Marcel numbers are .273/.335/.463, and his Steamer is .284/.345/.475 (120 wRC+), so both expect a pretty significant bounceback.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

While I agree with the concept that Pablo has zero trade value right now, and waiting out another season can't do anything but help or stay status quo, the Sox do have a replacement at 3B. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Travis Shaw is playing 3B in winter ball this year, no? His Marcels projection has him hitting .270/.329/.468 with 14 HR over 324 PA (about 25 HR over 600 PA). The pop and SLG are a little aggressive for me on that projection, as I see him more as a 15-20, .150 ISO guy, which would take him to .270/.329/.420. Steamer over on FG has him hitting .259/.323/.428. This is probably closer to my expectation of him (maybe a couple ticks higher on avg/obp), which pegs him as a 101 wRC+ hitter.

Essentially, Shaw projects to be about the same hitter as Sandoval projects via Steamer(Sandoval steamer: .278/.330/.435, 104 wRC+) and actually significantly better via Marcels (Marcels .264/.317/.397).

I'm torn on this because Shaw's numbers at 3B look significantly better than Shaw's numbers at 1B, where the offensive baseline is much higher. At the same time, I am adamantly against putting two guys (Hanley and Shaw) at new positions for a full season in the IF.

FWIW, Hanley's Marcel numbers are .273/.335/.463, and his Steamer is .284/.345/.475 (120 wRC+), so both expect a pretty significant bounceback.

 
I agree that it seems likely Shaw’s offense will play very well at 3B. My concern about Shaw at third is simple, and maybe simple-minded: if he’s really capable of providing adequate defense at that position, why has he been playing mostly 1B in the minors? After playing 34 games at 3B at Lowell in 2011, his totals since have been 10 (2012, A+/AA), 4 (2013, AA) and 11 (2014, AA/AAA), until this year when the Sox expanded his 3B role with 43 starts. If the organization thinks he can play 3B, why such limited deployment there until quite recently? Is it just because he’s been a contemporary of Cecchini in the system and the Sox were putting their money on the latter as their 3B of the future?
 
His ability to back up at third is an important part of his value, but giving him the starting job is a whole 'nother thing. If that's really a viable option I agree that it would change the conversation about moving Pablo.

 

[Fireball Fred]

Yes, the Sox thought they had a better prospect at third; in fact, they didn't really regard Shaw as much of a prospect, did they?  

 

[ALiveH]

Shaw has performed decently well, but it was over less than half a season and he dropped off significantly at the end.  Therefore, I would make him prove he can do it over a longer sample size before handing him the starting 3B job.
 
Sandoval will be easier to trade a year from now in any case.  At worst, in a year he will still be valued as a zero, but he'll be owed one less year.  And, there's a significant probability he will re-discover his value.

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

 
I agree that it seems likely Shaws offense will play very well at 3B. My concern about Shaw at third is simple, and maybe simple-minded: if hes really capable of providing adequate defense at that position, why has he been playing mostly 1B in the minors? After playing 34 games at 3B at Lowell in 2011, his totals since have been 10 (2012, A+/AA), 4 (2013, AA) and 11 (2014, AA/AAA), until this year when the Sox expanded his 3B role with 43 starts. If the organization thinks he can play 3B, why such limited deployment there until quite recently? Is it just because hes been a contemporary of Cecchini in the system and the Sox were putting their money on the latter as their 3B of the future?
 
His ability to back up at third is an important part of his value, but giving him the starting job is a whole 'nother thing. If that's really a viable option I agree that it would change the conversation about moving Pablo.

Let me ask a question. It may be stupid (and if so, that's fine), but I find it very interesting.

If, like most agree, it's near impossible to find a landing spot for Hanley, but we are able to get at least *some* trade interest for Pablo, and your concern (justified) is that you don't want to stick a kid at 3B with nearly no experience there, what are your thoughts on the following:

Why not move Hanley to 3B and stick Shaw at 1B? If you can get off of the hook for Panda, you can stick Hanley there. He's got plenty of experience on the left side of the infield. You'd be slightly displacing 1 player (Hanley) and keeping Shaw at 1B rather than displacing Shaw (3B) and Hanley (1b). If I'm going to keep Hanley in the infield, I'd rather stick him at a position that isn't responsible for essentially having a part in almost every ground ball out.

Basically, if I'm ok with the offensive output of Shaw and Hanley at 1B/3B, the defensive alignment should also be the most beneficial. Hanley would very likely be a better 3B than 1B, given that SS translates much better to 3B than 1B, and Shaw is a fine defensive 1B.

Just a thought...

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

The thing with Hanley and Pablo is that old saying where you put your hand over a candle. When asked how you can stand the pain the answer is " The trick is not to mind" 
 
There's a good likelihood that both players are unmovable and will remain bad. So what to do about it? The answer is to reduce the playing time as much as personalities and available personnel  allow.
 
When they both were out with injuries in August and September Shaw and Holt were more than adequate replacements - they were a large upgrade. - Which is why Shaw has to be on the team next year (at the expense of Marerro or a new 4th OF)
 
Just suck up the pain as much as possible and let performance (and not wages) dictate playing time 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Why not move Hanley to 3B and stick Shaw at 1B? If you can get off of the hook for Panda, you can stick Hanley there. He's got plenty of experience on the left side of the infield. You'd be slightly displacing 1 player (Hanley) and keeping Shaw at 1B rather than displacing Shaw (3B) and Hanley (1b). If I'm going to keep Hanley in the infield, I'd rather stick him at a position that isn't responsible for essentially having a part in almost every ground ball out.

 
It's an interesting idea. Hanley played a half-season at 3B in 2012, and while he wasn't good there, he wasn't horrific like he was in left this year. At this stage he'd probably be more or less a matador there, which is a concern with a groundball staff, and would put a lot of pressure on Xander. OTOH, it's less of a transition than 1B, obviously. He's played his whole career on the left side.
 
Probably the biggest argument against the idea is that they've already gotten his public buy-in to the 1B move, and to shift gears and put him at 3B after that, in the wake of what happened this year, might start to look like jerking him around. But this is all happening in the context of a hypothetical Pablo trade, and if that happens maybe it shuffles the cards enough that putting Hanley at third would make sense to everybody.
 
But I still agree with BCMJY: keep 'em both, hope they improve enough to be tradeable, and have Shaw at the ready in case they don't.

 

[chrisfont9]

I think if the Sox are set on unloading Hanley, Seattle makes a lot of sense. The second Vazquez is confirmed as healthy, Hanigan becomes surplus. Seattle, meanwhile, is beyond desperate for catching help -- after demoting Zunino again, they played uninteresting AAAA-type Jesus Sucre. The problem is, they don't really have any area of surplus to deal from at the 40-man roster level. So to get Hanigan, or any other decent option, they'd have to entice someone with lower-level lottery tickets, which the Sox won't want. Or, they can accept a subsidized contract dump from the Sox -- pick your poison, Hanley or Pablo. Hanley fits their lineup (which is a bit too left-handed), and three years of Hanley with the Sox paying maybe half the freight isn't so terrible, especially if he bounces back. I get the part about not selling super-low, but at least Pete Abe is convinced that's what Dombrowski intends to do.
 
So, Jesus Montero (a ML-level lottery ticket the Ms would love to move) and a bullpen prospect for Hanley and Hanigan?

 

[soxhop411]

 
Boston is said to be more willing than in past years to trade top prospects to get the ace they need, and that may have something to do with Dave Dombrowski taking over for Ben Cherington. After two straight off years, there is an urgency to win, and they must get a top-of-the-rotation starter. It's a decent year to be looking for one considering the star-studded free agent list. But they have the prospects to make deals, as well. Word is they won't touch infielder Yoan Moncada, center fielder Andrew Benintendi and right-handed pitcher Anderson Espinoza. Other than that trio, it is believed Boston would listen ... Red Sox people think Hanley Ramirez got a little too power conscious after his nice start with homers. In any case, they want him to lose weight so he's agile enough to convert to first base ... Someone should take a look at hitting coach Chili Davis for manager. Now that would really be an inspired choice ... Great news to hear that manager John Farrell's lymphoma is in remission, They caught it early, which is also great to hear. He will return to his job as manager in 2016.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25350518/inside-baseball-ins-and-outs-of-mattinglys-exit-skipper-searches-and-more

 

[jimbobim]

Boston is said to be more willing than in past years to trade top prospects to get the ace they need, and that may have something to do with Dave Dombrowski taking over for Ben Cherington. After two straight off years, there is an urgency to win, and they must get a top-of-the-rotation starter. It's a decent year to be looking for one considering the star-studded free agent list. But they have the prospects to make deals, as well. Word is they won't touch infielder Yoan Moncada, center fielder Andrew Benintendi and right-handed pitcher Anderson Espinoza. Other than that trio, it is believed Boston would listen ... Red Sox people think Hanley Ramirez got a little too power conscious after his nice start with homers. In any case, they want him to lose weight so he's agile enough to convert to first base ... Someone should take a look at hitting coach Chili Davis for manager. Now that would really be an inspired choice ... Great news to hear that manager John Farrell's lymphoma is in remission, They caught it early, which is also great to hear. He will return to his job as manager in 2016.
 
http://www.cbssports...arches-and-more
 
Couple thoughts: 
 
1) Notable Denvers and Swihart not mentioned as untouchables 
2) If you theoretically build a package around Swihart instead of say X or Betts Sox should be very competitive for the likes of a Carrasco,Gray, or Ross if they are shopped/moved. 
3. Think the three being taken off the table are very appropriate. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

From yesterday's Keith Law chat:
 
Brian: Keith, if the Mets decide Matt Harvey is too much of a headache and decide to trade him. Could the Red Sox put together a package that doesnt include Betts or Bogaerts that could get him? Should they? Thanks!
Klaw: If I were Alderson I’d hold firm on one of those two kids, because I don’t think getting someone farther away like Devers makes quite as much sense for a team that is already a legitimate contender, but in the abstract, Devers and a second prospect of note would be reasonable for Harvey if you agree with me that Devers is a monster in waiting.

 

[RIFan]

 
 
Couple thoughts: 
 
1) Notable Denvers and Swihart not mentioned as untouchables 
2) If you theoretically build a package around Swihart instead of say X or Betts Sox should be very competitive for the likes of a Carrasco,Gray, or Ross if they are shopped/moved. 
3. Think the three being taken off the table are very appropriate. 

I don't think Swihart not being included takes him off of the untouchable list, but rather that he's moved on from prospect to roster player.