Start, Sit, Trade: Play Along with Dave
- Thread starter nothumb
- Start date
This is why you don't trade Bogaerts as there is no redundancy at his position. We have redundancy with Swihart/Vazquez (plus Hanigan for stability), in CF with Betts/JBJ at the ML level (plus Benintendi on the horizon) which is why Margot was surely the odd man out this winter, and lefthanded SP in E-Rod/Owens/Miley/Johnson. It is from these positions of strength that you deal from therefore avoiding creating a hole while still being able to offer elite prospects to improve the current team. So theoretically we "could" trade Vazquez, JBJ, and Owens without creating any hole on the current team whereas trading Bogaerts would.......which is one reason you don't trade Bogaerts, the other being you better receive an outrageous return if you do.
Personally I was a little surprised, and disappointed, that Guerra was included as his progression would have lined up nicely as protection for losing Bogaerts to FA down the road. I do understand that DD isn't worrying about the 2019 season and is focusing solely on a short term plan.
I've thought a lot about this. Given the trade last week for Kimbrel which in my opinion is a great move the Sox now have an excellent young core at the major league level consisting of Kimbrel Swihart EdRo Betts Boegarts these are players under 30 who under no circumstances should be traded. Then you have the sentimental Pedroia who when healthy is on an amazing contract and Ortiz. So out of 25 there are 7 who I would consider untouchable.
Then you have the next group of Castillo and JBJ. These are the guys who can go either way in 2016. Either they'll be considered part of the core going forward or they will be nothing more than fodder. The Sox should at least listen to offers for either and if they get a great offer not be afraid to move them.
Then you have the group of questionable contracts that currently look bad. Porcello Craig Hanley and Sandoval. Craig might not count against the luxury tax right now but its important to mention that he still is making $10 million next year. Why? Because he is inevitably getting called up again at some point. Do you just cut bait at this point with any of these guys? It seems like at least out of necessity that the Sox will hang on to Panda and Hanley for at least one more season so we will see. Porcello was going to be a slight overpay even if everything broke right and it was far from that in 2015. However it's only money and while that's a dangerous mindset to have the Sox can afford to. Which leads me to what I would do this off-season,.
Sign
Victorino 1/5million
Price 7/217
You really don't have to make many signings with this team. This is why it's feasible to give Price a big contract. Sure, you're taking on a little more money than last year however with acquiring Kimbrel that makes a scenario of being under the tax unavoidable. Remember that you also now have to look at possibly extending Betts and Xander.
Victorino because he can play all three positions and will probably come cheaper than a guy like Rajai Davis. We know that he can play in Boston. The main question is will he be able to handle being the 4th outfielder?
As far as trades I'm sure they'll be a trade or two involving Miley or someone unless they move Kelly to the pen which might not happen since he did finish very strong last year and seemingly had things figured out finally.
Then you have the next group of Castillo and JBJ. These are the guys who can go either way in 2016. Either they'll be considered part of the core going forward or they will be nothing more than fodder. The Sox should at least listen to offers for either and if they get a great offer not be afraid to move them.
Then you have the group of questionable contracts that currently look bad. Porcello Craig Hanley and Sandoval. Craig might not count against the luxury tax right now but its important to mention that he still is making $10 million next year. Why? Because he is inevitably getting called up again at some point. Do you just cut bait at this point with any of these guys? It seems like at least out of necessity that the Sox will hang on to Panda and Hanley for at least one more season so we will see. Porcello was going to be a slight overpay even if everything broke right and it was far from that in 2015. However it's only money and while that's a dangerous mindset to have the Sox can afford to. Which leads me to what I would do this off-season,.
Sign
Victorino 1/5million
Price 7/217
You really don't have to make many signings with this team. This is why it's feasible to give Price a big contract. Sure, you're taking on a little more money than last year however with acquiring Kimbrel that makes a scenario of being under the tax unavoidable. Remember that you also now have to look at possibly extending Betts and Xander.
Victorino because he can play all three positions and will probably come cheaper than a guy like Rajai Davis. We know that he can play in Boston. The main question is will he be able to handle being the 4th outfielder?
As far as trades I'm sure they'll be a trade or two involving Miley or someone unless they move Kelly to the pen which might not happen since he did finish very strong last year and seemingly had things figured out finally.
Almost certainly. The Red Sox have a little more than $12 million under the luxury tax threshold using Speier's numbers. In theory, if DD has a mandate from ownership to get under the threshold in 2016, he could trade Buchholz for a package that includes a pre-arb RHH outfielder (Mark Canha? Keon Broxton? Randal Grichuk?) and have enough room ($24 million AAV) to sign the likes of Johnny Cueto or Jordan Zimmermann. Hanigan could also be moved for a bullpen piece (Fernando Salas?) or traded for a lottery ticket to free up room for a flyer-type bullpen signing (David Hernandez? Jason Frasor?)
Otherwise, he is probably going over. I wonder to what degree ownership figures that if you're going to go a dollar over and take the hit, you might as well (over)spend it on the right player(s).
I agree with both of those signings. At this point in his career, and knowing how much he is LOVED here, I think Shane would be happy to sign here. If healthy, he could easily slide in for injuries/rest/pinch-hitting and basically see full-time at bats by the end of the season.
Shane Victorino has played in just 101 games over the past two seasons. Why anyone would assume that he would be healthy enough to offer anything is beyond my comprehension.
Different animal now. He wouldn't be asked to play more than the normal 4th outfielder and if you get in a pinch that's where Holt Shaw or Brentz comes into play. You still have to have the same approach as a starter, to be ready at all times. But I doubt anyone would have the expectations of Victorino starting.
4th OF types are usually healthy younger guys with a skill or two, but a significant problem with their overall skill set - usually the bat. You tend to look for a guy with speed who can PR, or a guy with a platoon split who can spell the regulars now and then. They sit on the bench until needed.
With Victorino's injury history, it's very likely he won't be available when needed. Or the team will have to DL him and bounce Brentz, et. al., up and down. If it comes right down to it, I don't know if Victorino would outproduce Holt, Shaw, or Brentz at the plate right now. Have you seen his stats since 2013?
With Victorino's injury history, it's very likely he won't be available when needed. Or the team will have to DL him and bounce Brentz, et. al., up and down. If it comes right down to it, I don't know if Victorino would outproduce Holt, Shaw, or Brentz at the plate right now. Have you seen his stats since 2013?
Yes, that's the role he was asked to play in LAA after he was traded. Here's how that worked out
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/victosh01.shtml?mobile=false
There is no non-sentimental argument to be made for signing Shane Victorino. If you want DD to make sentimental moves, fair enough, but I don't see how you can make a realistic case that Victorino would be likely to make the 2016 team better. He's been a replacement-level player for two straight years, he's 35 and gimpy. That ship has sailed, and it was a lovely cruise.
How about a Rule 5 claim on Danny Hultzen? Mariners just DFAd him and his shoulder is still an issue. Maybe it's not worth it if his injuries are beyond repair, but there's also nothing to lose... unless they have another Rule 5 pick in mind.
Why would you use a Rule 5 pick on the guy when you can just claim him off of waivers?
Sorry, I'm showing my ignorance of procedure. There was a note in MLBTR that he's available via rule 5 but I guess that's only if he went unclaimed? Anyway, the underlying point is that he might be worth a flier.
Perhaps later in the offseason. It's doubtful there's going to be a rush for his services. Today is the roster-setting day, and there are in-system players who need spots on the 40 before they take these type of risks
Just a heads up: DD will be on Jim Bowden's MLB Network radio show today at 12:35 pm. It is on Sirius channel 209 and XM 89.
Dave Dombrowski just told us that the two area's he's looking to improve are a number 1 starter and a right-handed hitting 4th outfielder. He also said no decision has been made on who will play center and who will play right between Mookie Betts and Jackie Bradley Jr. He also said the Red Sox are in on all of the top free agent starting pitchers as well as trades for the like.
http://espn.go.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0460140348245546006-4
http://espn.go.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0460140348245546006-4
The more I read the tea leaves, and knowing the history of DD, I think I can see a way that a deal for Jose Fernandez is not only possible, but the realistic target of the team's offseason quest for an ace. Fernandez has 3 more years of control, at arbitration level salaries, making him arguably the best combination of cost efficiency and talent that the team could acquire. He has made lots of noise about getting out of Miami, and it wouldn't be at all hard to see a scenario where he's wearing out his welcome despite his electrifying skills.
If Fernandez was indeed on the block, it would likely take a package headed by Swihart and Bradley Jr, and that would have to include at least Devers and probably another piece along the lines of an Owens/Johnson to make it work. I assume that the Marlins will also be moving Ozuna this offseason, making a CF opening obvious.
The offer could be Swihart, Bradley Jr., Owens and Devers for Fernandez and perhaps a lesser piece (pen arm?).
Is that too much to offer to get a player of his quality? I think that if DD puts those names on the table in a conversation with Miami, they'd have to at least consider it.
If Fernandez was indeed on the block, it would likely take a package headed by Swihart and Bradley Jr, and that would have to include at least Devers and probably another piece along the lines of an Owens/Johnson to make it work. I assume that the Marlins will also be moving Ozuna this offseason, making a CF opening obvious.
The offer could be Swihart, Bradley Jr., Owens and Devers for Fernandez and perhaps a lesser piece (pen arm?).
Is that too much to offer to get a player of his quality? I think that if DD puts those names on the table in a conversation with Miami, they'd have to at least consider it.
Trading for Fernandez just opens up more roster holes for the sake of closing another. I like the fantasy appeal involved in drooling over mega trades as much as the next guy, but going forward while pegging Christian Vazquez as your starting catcher in 2016 (because Hanigan sure as heck isn't going to hold up as one) shouldn't even really be viewed as a current option atm/imo.
The more I read the tea leaves, the more I find myself bracing for the possibility that DD signs David Price to contract that is going to make quite a few heads spin. Done under the banner goal that he went out and got the 2 best available (and non-rental) upgrade pitching pieces on the board.
If we do make another trade it's more likely to be for a starting outfielder and lineup upgrade imo. With Betts staying in center, and Bradley/Castillo splitting time in right (which will be less about min/max split potential then hoping at least one of the 2 steps up to show more full time promise).
The more I read the tea leaves, the more I find myself bracing for the possibility that DD signs David Price to contract that is going to make quite a few heads spin. Done under the banner goal that he went out and got the 2 best available (and non-rental) upgrade pitching pieces on the board.
If we do make another trade it's more likely to be for a starting outfielder and lineup upgrade imo. With Betts staying in center, and Bradley/Castillo splitting time in right (which will be less about min/max split potential then hoping at least one of the 2 steps up to show more full time promise).
There is no way the Marlins trade Fernandez without starting a conversion involving Betts or Xander. Sure we could put together a package of 4 guys. Lots of teams could.
1. Swihart, Bradley Jr., Owens and Devers for Fernandez is a huge overpay. You are giving up many years of cheap production for a great pitcher no doubt. But one that is getting progressively more expensive. Sure, he's cheaper than a FA. But the lost value of those prospects far exceeds the $ you are saving over signing David Price.
People really have to start understanding that we cant be looking through rose colored glasses. You go to the Nats and offer that for Harper. They'd die of laughter. You go to the Angels and ask that for Trout. They would do the same.
People - If you are come up with a crazy trade idea for a stud, be prepared the only way that is possible is trading away a stud.
1. Swihart, Bradley Jr., Owens and Devers for Fernandez is a huge overpay. You are giving up many years of cheap production for a great pitcher no doubt. But one that is getting progressively more expensive. Sure, he's cheaper than a FA. But the lost value of those prospects far exceeds the $ you are saving over signing David Price.
People really have to start understanding that we cant be looking through rose colored glasses. You go to the Nats and offer that for Harper. They'd die of laughter. You go to the Angels and ask that for Trout. They would do the same.
People - If you are come up with a crazy trade idea for a stud, be prepared the only way that is possible is trading away a stud.
I think the Sox have become convinced that you're better off having everyone be average than having a couple tremendous guys and some guys that really suck. I think that's the lesson from 2013 that most people don't really understand. Trading a bunch of good guys for one great guy isn't the way to make a team.
I agree, Opes. Want Fernandez? You're probably looking at Mookie or XB, Swihart, and then you can include the next tier of additional prospects. That is a shit-ton of value. Given that there are quite a few starting pitchers on the market, I'd rather just throw money at one of them.
Are you really saying Fernandez will net a package of Betts AND Swihart AND top tier prospects? That's insane. You can stop after the first 'and'. The Fangraphs trade value has Betts at 11, Fernandez 23, and Bogaerts 33. That's not gospel of course, but absent any other information, it's a pretty good gauge. Note that Fernandez has only 3 years left, while Betts has 5 and Bogaerts has 4.
I forget if I said it here or another thread, but Swihart absolutely is good enough to be the centerpiece of a package for Fernandez. I'm not sure if I'd trade Betts or Bogaerts for him (probably no on the former, maybe on the latter if I had a replacement SS lined up), but either one would be a reasonable swap of value, straight up.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2015-trade-value-the-full-list/
The only comp I can think of in the last 10 years is the trade of Pineda for Montero. Fernandez is better than Pineda was but comes with less years of control and (compare to the perception of Pineda at the time) more injury risk, so I think their value wouldn't be too far apart. At the time montero was BA's #3 overall prospect behind Harper and Trout. In addition to the pedigree Montero had also just had an extremely impressive cup of coffee. Obviously, we don't have that player in the system, but it also means that Betts and Bogaerts would be an overpay. l also remember that the general reaction here was that the mariners had gotten the worst of it. I think for us it means a package of either Swihart or JBJ, Johnson, and Devers. The Pineda-Montero trade also is also a cautionery tale that young cost controlled starters sometimes don't pan out.
Isn't the lesson also that top 3 prospects sometimes don't pan out? I'd hate to do it, but a team with Fernandez and Jason Heyward is probably better over the next four years than one with Betts and Cueto.
I read variations of this argument on here a lot, and I just really don't understand it.
Are you saying that, even if our "four guys" package is better than any other team's (and whose "four guys" package beats Swihart/JBJ/Owens/Devers?), the other GM will turn it down because we have Betts and Bogaerts -- in other words, that the presence of Betts and Bogaerts on our roster somehow devalues any other package from our organization? That seems insane! We wouldn't turn down a deal we liked for Jose Quintana just because we wish we could have Chris Sale instead. No GM would do that.
Are you saying that there's evidence that teams only trade "studs" (whatever that means -- I assume it means established, elite, friendly-contract major leaguers?) for other "studs"? It seems like there's a lot of evidence to the contrary -- from Pedro Martinez to Miguel Cabrera to Craig Kimbrel.
Or are you saying that you don't think we can offer the best package for a guy like Fernandez unless we include Betts or Bogaerts? I don't know who could beat an offer of Swihart/JBJ/Owens/Devers (which I agree is a huge overpay). The Cubs? Houston? This, at least, seems like something worth discussing (and possibly the only aspect of the fantasy-GM stuff that is worth discussing).
I certainly don't have any more inside information about the trade market than anyone else. We're all just kind of irritatedly guessing past each other. And there is not much value to insisting that Player X should be available for Wade Miley and Bryce Brentz and demanding that Dombrowski "get it done." But is "We'll never get Player X without coughing up Betts and Bogaerts" really any more substantive, or is that just putting on blinders because we're worried about wearing rose colored glasses (a metaphor that doesn't really work)?
DD wasn't a part of the Sox prior to this fall. Whatever the Lucchino/Cherington philosophies were in the past are just that. What we should have learned from DD's first trade is that he IS willing to give up multiple pieces of quality to acquire a tremendous guy at his position.
There are plenty of guys in the front office who have been around for a while. There's nothing to prevent someone from learning from something someon else does. The Kimbrel trade opened up a grand total of zero holes on the major league roster and involved none of the studs. Quality prospects, sure, but the guys with the highest ceilings are also the furthest away and less likely to hit them.
So you think they hired DD to learn from his subordinates rather than lead them and carry on the philosophy already instilled in the organization, which has produced the results we have seen the last five or six years? As opposed to hiring him to change the view they don't find acceptable?
You are talking about acquiring a player worth 4.1 fWAR or 6.3 bWAR in his best season. To get him, you suggest dealing potential starters at two positions, a depth arm with potentially significant upside, and a blue chip prospect. I get that this may be an appropriate exchange of value, in some eyes, but even if it is, don't you also have to account for how the roster fits together? That's three people who had roles ready in 2016 and another guy who has a decent chance of contributing in maybe 2018 or thereabouts. All of them are gone. Fernandez can only win one out of five games; in the other four you have Hanigan and maybe Vazquez catching with modest offense, and an outfield situation that gets shaky in a hurry.
The Sox are by all appearances aggressively trying to win in 2016, so the only blockbuster deal that makes sense is one heavy on prospects going the other way, not major leaguers.
Is that really the lesson they should have taken from 2013?
In 2013 we had 3 of the top 20 position players be fwar in mlb (ells, shane, pedey) plus 2 more top 50 (nap, ort), we had 2 top 30 SP by ra9war (lester, lackey), plus the best reliever in baseball by any war (koji).
imo the lesson learned should have been the importance of elite talent, even if we were lucky enough to get those elite performances from unlikely sources.
Josh Donaldson last year. 3 years remaining both cases. Similar value, just because Fernandez is a pitcher, that doesn't double the price. Even if you want to argue that the return on Donladson was abnormally low, fine, up it by 15% an you're still not anywhere near Betts+Swihart+others.
I agree that Swihart/Devers/Johnson is likely in the neighborhood.
I really wish people would stop using the Josh Donaldson trade as a comp. Billy Beane made a bad trade, and everyone in baseball knows he did not get enough for Donaldson, especially GMs whose job it is to monitor the market for players. The Donaldson deal is not evidence that the price for Jose Fernandez could be more reasonable than you think; it's a cautionary tale for why GMs need to make sure they ask for the moon when trading valuable players. Just because the Blue Jays gave up not nearly enough for Donaldson does not mean that DD can reasonable expect to give up not nearly enough for Jose Fernandez/Chris Sale/Carlos Carrasco etc. etc. etc.
Yes and no--but mostly no.
The "3 of the top 20" method seems pretty ragged to me. How about evaluating teams by how much WAR they got from players with 4+ fWAR (which Fangraphs defines as "All-Star" performance)?
Here's how the 2013 AL playoff teams stack up:
28.7 Tigers
16.8 Red Sox
15.9 Rays
7.6 A's
4.5 Indians
Now, what about how much WAR they got from players with less than 4 fWAR?
37.0 A's
35.1 Red Sox
31.4 Indians
29.8 Rays
24.9 Tigers
So the lesson from 2013 isn't that you need average guys more than elite guys, or vice versa. It's that you need some of each.
But there's another lesson that's relevant right now. Look at two things about our 2013 elite trio of Victorino, Ellsbury and Pedroia: how we acquired them, and how they've done since. Not one of those guys was acquired as an elite player. Two of them were homegrown, and the other signed to a modest three-year deal after an off year. And more importantly, not one of them has matched his 2013 season since.
So if one of the lessons of 2013 is "you need elite players to win", it is not one of the lessons of 2013 that the way to get elite players is to acquire them, at major cost in resources, when they're already elite.
Last edited:
I agree with you from a value perspective. We would certainly give up a ton of a value that may not be proportionate to what we are acquiring in return. But this fact ignores market forces. Fernandez is an elite pitcher with age and cost-control on his side. He is already established. Why wouldn't Florida ask for something similar in return? That means Betts or Bogaerts. I feel much more comfortable saying Mookie and Xander have figured it out as opposed to Swihart, and I'm sure Florida also knows that.
Florida has Fernandez for another three years, they don't need to rush a trade. If anything, they can wait until the free agent market for starters is much weaker and then strike gold. There is no reason for them to "settle" on Swihart.
Savin: all good points. So would you advocate looking for a bounce back Victorino type fit the rotation - Shark maybe? Or going the 2004 route of buying/getting exactly what you need (again, a top closer- done- and a top SP). Or something else?
+1.
Exactly. The Marlins do not have to trade Jose Fernandez until July 31, 2018, and even then they could still hold on to him and net a pretty good draft pick for letting him go in free agency. You don't trade a commodity like Fernandez three years before you need to and settle for something less than awesome simply because you fear that is the best you are going to get. And I don't think anyone on this board can make the argument that Blake Swihart and Rafael Devers is the kind of "Godfather offer" haul that the Marlins would jump at.
At the risk of sounding evasive, I would advocate for having both top-tier and lesser-tier targets, and biting whenever a satisfactory deal for one of them becomes available. I'm not crazy about Shark, and I think his ceiling is not high enough to justify much of a gamble on him, but if he's cheap enough, maybe. I'd be higher on Iwakuma in that tier.
Mostly, I would draw a line at a certain point and say "we're not going to get crazier than that"--even if means coming up dry. In the end, our rotation was league-average last year, and there's good reason to believe it will be better this year even if we do nothing. A #1-type arm would certainly improve our chances, and there'll be a lot of moaning if we don't add one, but I wouldn't say that we can't win without one.
point taken....but i'm not sure the 4war cutoff is any less ragged tbh.
we can try all sorts of methods to evaluate this. like say looking at the top 10 players (using ra9war for pitchers):
BOS 44.1
DET 42.2
or top 5
DET 27.2
BOS 25.7
I think it's safe to say we got a huge impact from our top of roster players in 2013 without which we don't go very far.
and here's where the question lies.
we know that that worked in 2013 - but we don't know that that means it is a sustainable model of team building going forward. we have arguably seen the downside of that model in 3 of the last 4yrs...with our biggest weakness last year arguably being our clear lack of elite performers.
In the end i'm not sure HOW you acquire those elite performers is more important than THAT you acquire them.
We can argue which method is better for getting that talent - but i'm not convinced that our 2013 model (i.e. getting 15+war from the bargain bin) from is a dependable blueprint for doing that.
Of course they don't have to trade him. But if it's true that they're taking him to market (and reports are conflicting), they likely expect prospects in return, because that's how these deals usually go. Sure, they can ask for Betts, but that's only a little more realistic than asking for Manny Machado. They're going to get no for an answer. So they can either decide between the hypothetical Swihart/Devers offer or whatever similar ones they get elsewhere, or they can keep Fernandez. But if they do in fact want to trade him, there is an incentive to do it sooner, because the fewer years of control they give up, the lower the return.
Last edited:
This argument, or some variation on it, has been popping up here—not all organizations' #5 prospects are created equal, and we shouldn't weight them equally when discussing trades—and it makes obvious intuitive sense. So I thought it was interesting when I read this, in a Sean McAdam article hitting up MLB sources for reactions to the Kimbrel trade (http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/did-red-sox-give-up-too-much-some-mixed-reviews-on-craig-kimbrel-trade):
NL EXECUTIVE: "It's a great get with to Kimbrel, but huge return for a reliever despite the fact that he will help them. Problem with the Red Sox -- and it's a good problem to have, but it can make it tough to make trares - is that they have so many high end prospects that their #5-8 prospects are as good as most teams' No. 1. So it seems like a huge return to the rest of the industry but it's hard hard to make trades for elite players when you start to go outside of your Top 10 prospects.
"So yes, it's a lot. But knowing how hard it is for them to make trades, I think it makes sense. If they're philosophically willing to give up a lot for an elite closer, then that's the price they'd have to pay."
I'd actually say that the biggest weakness in 2015 was a clear abundance of truly awful performances. For the first half of the season, the Red Sox got basically zero (or worse) from 1B, LF, C, and 3B. On the pitching side, SP2, SP3, SP4 and SP5 were all pretty lousy. The bullpen beyond Uehara and Tazawa were replacement level or worse. Rodriguez did help stabilize things, but the damage was done. There were just so many terrible performances on that team in the first half. If you make those players merely average instead of godawful, that probably adds 8-10 wins in the first half, and the Red Sox are at about 50-39 and leading the AL East at the break.
I think getting 5+ win level performances (my own personal definition of "elite", although I guess one could argue for 4) out of players is probably strongly predictive of a team to make the playoffs, and it's also really important not to have total zeros. I think it's tough to predict who's going to turn that 5+ win performance in, though. It's often not the guys you've stuck the "elite" tag on beforehand. I mean, the Royals elite player was...Lorenzo Cain? I mean, he turned in a great season, but I'm not sure many (any?) people had him tagged as a 6+ win player going into 2015. The Cards' elite players were Jason Heyward and...Matt Carpenter? John Lackey? Carlos Martinez and Grichuk were solid, but I don't think you'd say they were "elite". Are Garcia and Lynn "elite"? If the Red Sox acquired one of them last season, I'm not sure people would have thought they'd just acquired a #1 elite starter. Just looking at the depth of the Cards pitching staff last year, the number of guys who came up to give great pitching performances is just totally insane. I mean look at those goddamn ERA+s going all the way down the page. It's kind of making me angry just looking at that. How the hell did they do that?
Anyway, I got off track, but basically we probably all agree that Dombrowski should get the best players he can and then we hope they luck into awesome seasons all at the same time. If they're "elite" or whatever, great. If they're merely very good, I'm happy with that too. What's a real problem is if they totally suck.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter if anyone could beat that offer, because the Marlins are not auctioning off Jose Fernandez. The Red Sox don't have to outbid other offers, they need to outbid the value to the Marlins of three seasons of Jose Fernandez.
In what world do you think that is how trades work? Why would the Marlins not take offers from other teams?
Of course they have to outbid other teams. Have you ever negotiated for something?
I think he's saying that just because the Sox may offer the best package, that doesn't mean they'd get Fernandez, because the Marlins could just keep him. Which is kind of obvious I think; my counter is that if the Marlins truly are looking to trade him, they've pretty much decided that he's going to the highest bidder, provided said bid meets some reasonable threshold. And there's no way that threshold would be "Mookie Betts plus other stuff".
If the Marlins trade Fernandez you can be dammed sure they will let other clubs know about it. I mean, why wouldn't they?
So they create an auction for him to get as many offers as possible. If the "best" of those exceeds their own internal valuation of Fernandez then that's the offer they select? If not, no deal.
So , of course it matters. The Sox have to satisfy both requirements.