The all-new should we trade for Mike Stanton thread
- Thread starter ivanvamp
- Start date
johnnywayback said:
Except that yes, Swihart and Vazquez are (or more accurately, may) both play catcher for us and Pedroia and Betts will play second base for us. Yes, in the same season on the same team. That's kind of the point of Mookie Betts. He can probably play seven positions in a short term capacity and that would provide tremendous flexibility in finding the other pieces.
If Stanton were going to be available for Marrero, Barnes, and Ranaudo, of course you'd do it, but there is no reason to think that he will. They're going to be asking for the guys who do stand a good chance of being in the playoff rotation. They're going to be asking for Bogaerts and Swihart. And yeah, Bogaerts might not stick at short. He may move over to third. Guess what, he's pretty damn valuable there too.
All that depth is on the high end of the defensive spectrum though.johnnywayback said:
So both Marrero and Bogaerts are legit ML regulars. All that means is Bogaerts moves to 3B, LF, or RF depending on where there is a hole.
Betts is a 2B for now but used to be a SS and CF as well. If Pedroia is still an iron man when Betts is ready for the bigs Betts could move to any position on the diamond except catcher and pitcher (and maybe short).
While not all five AAA pitchers + Owens are going to be members of the starting five not all of them are going to be ML levels starters period. The likely outcome is a couple worthwhile starters, a couple relievers, and a couple flame outs. So At the price of the flame outs returning little value themselves the Red Sox can get a couple starters and a couple bullpen arms at ML minimum salaries for half a decade. Lot better outcome than trading two of the six only to find out they traded the two who made it as worthwhile starters.
The "logjam" of prospects will take care of itself. It always does, and that has never been more true than during this season. After 2014 the team should have a good idea on WMB, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Doubront at the ML level. They should also have a good idea on the hierarchy they stack the AAA pitchers in, where Cecchini can best fit defensively, and if Betts is a early 2015 or late 2015 call up. They likely already have a pretty good idea on Vazquez as the starting C for next year, but that will only get more conclusive with time. They might even know if Marrero is ready enough to take SS if Bogaerts can't or to be the utility infielder if Bogaerts is up to SS full time. A lot of long term questions get answered this summer.
The one big unknown that's lingering out there that most concerns me is who the next wave behind these guys could be. Betts was in that group, he's leapfrogged himself into the next group. Really it's Margot, Rijo, and Devers for position players and Callahan, Brian Johnson, and hopefully some combination of Stank/Ball/Butrey for pitchers. The next wave has a lot of questions still to be answered.
Rasputin said:
No. Just no. This is absolutely not the point of Mookie Betts if he is at all the kind of player he appears to be now. You don't groom hot prospects to be supersubs whose playing time is dependent on the injuries or inconsistencies of others. You groom them to be everyday stars with a position of their own. And if there isn't a position open (or opening) that they are a good fit for, you trade them for somebody who does fill an open position.
The Zobrist example is really distorting this discussion. Zobrist became a multi-position player because he had a slow and late start as a major leaguer (on his 27th birthday, he had a career OPS of .518 in 316 PA) and it looked like a utility guy might be his ceilling. He blossomed in that role and became a late-blooming multi-position star. But he wasn't a top prospect groomed to play multiple positions. He was a sixth rounder who was never on anybody's top 100.
If Mookie Betts ends up a supersub, it will be because plan A failed.
Savin Hillbilly said:
I read Ras's point on Betts to mean that he's not "blocked" at any particular position because he likely has the ability to move to just about any position and succeed. That doesn't mean he's destined to be a multi-position super sub in the Zobrist or Tony Phillips mold, it means that if Pedroia's presence blocks Betts from making it to Fenway at 2B, he can move to CF or RF or 3B or wherever the team has a need at the time and break on to the roster that way.
The idea isn't all that unprecedented even for top prospects. Miguel Cabrera came up as a 3B, but moved to LF (and RF and even a little SS in the post-season) because of the presence of Mike Lowell. Albert Pujols came up as a 3B as well, but played 3B, 1B, LF, and RF over the course of 161 games as a rookie (winning ROY in doing so) because of guys like Polanco and McGwire "blocking" him from a regular starting job at one position. Hell, even if it's a SSS, Bogaerts last year is another example with him playing 3B because that was the best way to get him into the lineup in September/October.
There's no reason that moving him around the diamond can't be plan A in getting Mookie Betts on to the big league roster when the time comes. He can settle into a more permanent position when it's clear at what position he would help the team the most.
Plympton91 said:
A couple of things. ARod is 10/275 not including the marketing bonuses. Also, didn't Trout sign his deal with two years less service time than Stanton would have if he signed an extension?
WenZink said:
You are assuming a trade and sign this year, and I was contemplating a post 2016 deal as he enters FA at the age of 27. Kinda doubt that 8/210 gets it done this year, who knows. My point was only that any Stanton for prospects deal has to include signing him to huge money long-term, which the Sox and many around here seem reluctant to do. Personally I would rather see them keep the kids, and hope to sign Stanton as free agent post 2016, assuming he is still elite power bat by then.
I'm not saying this as a vote either way, but assuming all of these guys work out and are legitimate major leaguers is a bit much. I have seen a lot of hype around Marrero, which is perhaps justified because of his fielding, but he looks more like Adam Everett than Nomar Garciaparra to me. I guess that's still a legit major leaguer and some people really want to see awesome defense, but I wouldn't plan the future of the organization around him. For all the people who are worried about Cecchini's power bat this is a guy who even with an aluminum bat had trouble generating power. He seems to project as a 280/340/350 type of guy in the majors. I'm not sure that would be enough to push Xander off of SS.
Vazquez probably needs to stay at catcher to be a major leaguer. Swihart might hit enough to go to another position, but I wouldn't rely on it right now.
Depth is good, falling in love with every prospect and assuming they will reach their top potential is a bit naive. As well, putting so much hype on these guys creates situations where we have the well-credentialed members of SoSH claiming that Jackie Bradley "just isn't a major leaguer" when they don't immediately perform to those lofty expectations. thankfully the FO is a bit more realistic, and a bit more patient.
But you also have to be careful with redundancy and making the right choices. Jeff Bagwell got traded because he was redundant. Cooper and Naehring kind of had 3B covered, and Mo Vaughn was over at 1B. Of these four guys, should Gorman have known that Bagwell would have the best career? Well, probably, that is a subject of some debate. I'm just pointing out the potential hazards of the idea of "let's just trade Mookie because he has no place to play." Obviously Giancarlo Cruz-Michael Stanton is no Larry Andersen, but the point remains, in general.
Vazquez probably needs to stay at catcher to be a major leaguer. Swihart might hit enough to go to another position, but I wouldn't rely on it right now.
Depth is good, falling in love with every prospect and assuming they will reach their top potential is a bit naive. As well, putting so much hype on these guys creates situations where we have the well-credentialed members of SoSH claiming that Jackie Bradley "just isn't a major leaguer" when they don't immediately perform to those lofty expectations. thankfully the FO is a bit more realistic, and a bit more patient.
But you also have to be careful with redundancy and making the right choices. Jeff Bagwell got traded because he was redundant. Cooper and Naehring kind of had 3B covered, and Mo Vaughn was over at 1B. Of these four guys, should Gorman have known that Bagwell would have the best career? Well, probably, that is a subject of some debate. I'm just pointing out the potential hazards of the idea of "let's just trade Mookie because he has no place to play." Obviously Giancarlo Cruz-Michael Stanton is no Larry Andersen, but the point remains, in general.
Unless something goes askew, Stanton isn't going to hit FA. He'll be traded for and likely signed to an extension then or soon after. You don't give up the amount of assets it'll take to acquire Stanton and then let him walk.KillerBs said:
nvalvo said:
Not this year.
Free agents (10, assumes Peavy gets a QO) - Lester, Miller, AJP, Breslow, Ross, Gomes, Uehara, Badenhop, Sizemore, Capuano
Rule 5 definite adds: Matt Barnes, Blake Swihart
Rule 5 possible adds: John Ely, Mickey Pena, Noe Ramirez, Miguel Celestino, Travis Shaw
There are more issues next year (Betts, Johnson, Kukuk, Light, Margot, Marrero, Mercedes and Owens).
I'm not sure that the Marlins could trade Stanton for minor leaguers and low-cost players. While MLB doesn't have a clear-cut minimum payroll, there does seem to be a de facto floor for teams receiving revenue sharing money. (See: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4819982 ) Stanton is currently making $6.5 million. I can't imagine that there are too many other players with comparable pay and service time whom the Marlins would rather have than Stanton.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
With the caveat that this ability is almost entirely speculative at this point--he's played exactly two positions as a pro, one of them for 13 games in his first year--I'd agree with this, although I wouldn't put him at catcher or (because of his size) 1B.
But this isn't what Ras said, at all. He said that the "point" of Betts (which to me means his primary projected role, his Plan A--maybe I misunderstood) is that he could play multiple positions within the same year--the Zobrist (or even Cesar Tovar) kind of player who has no permanent home but plays wherever the hole du jour is. And my point was that no team in their right mind makes that Plan A for a top-100 type prospect, because doing so assumes that your roster is going to be a bit of a mess, with limited and/or injury-prone players at multiple positions. The ability to help turn lemons into lemonade in that scenario adds to Mookie's value, as it has added to Zobrist's value to the Rays. But you don't plan around having to use him that way.
I certainly didn't mean that the Sox must decide now what Bett's position is and never play him anywhere else. That's just as silly as building your strategy around having him play 40 games each at four positions.
I wouldn't be surprised if something like Betts + Owens + Ranaudo + Vazquez could make Miami start thinking. Arguably, the two top prospects in the system are in that package. Honestly, only prospect I'd hate to give up right now is Swihart. Betts looks like a stud in the making and will be a prerequisite, but there are concerns about where he could play in this lineup. Owens could be amazing but is in no way a sure thing until he either picks up velocity on his fastball or improves his curve. It seems as if everyone on this board overrates Owens compared to the opinions of BP/BA. One of the AAA rotation members is certainly expendable, and Swihart our catcher of the future. If Bogaerts needs to move to 3rd down the line, we still have one of the best defensive shortstops in the minor leagues in Marrero. Cecchini stays to potentially learn LF, and while the pitching takes a hit, there's enough between Workman/Webster/Barnes/De la Rosa/Ball/etc. to provide depth for now and in the future.
Now the question is if thats the best use of resources. Because I can't see any reason for Miami to trade the best young power hitter in baseball for anything less if at all.
Now the question is if thats the best use of resources. Because I can't see any reason for Miami to trade the best young power hitter in baseball for anything less if at all.
Savin Hillbilly said:
I get what you're saying here and you are mostly likely correct, but thinking a bit outside the box is what this ownership group does. They are constantly looking to find value in places no one else has looked before, and the idea of having a lot of platoon guys isn't new to the 2014 Sox. The 2013 squad made excellent use of platoon match ups and positional flexibility. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they take a chance with Betts and try something new if he stays with the organization long enough and his bat continues to produce at a level that eventually forces the issue.
There's a pretty good chance that other factors will open up a more stable spot for him defensively, but I don't think the fact that no top prospect has been groomed for such a role is necessarily the end of the discussion. Of course, we're veering off topic a bit, and the continuation of this tangent is probably better suited for the Mookie thread in the Adopt A Prospect sub forum.
Agree with the above that a trade is unlikely to be imminent, though that is definitely the eventual outcome. He's not going to sign long term IMO and getting mere draft picks for him would be stupid.
However, 1. their payroll is low and he's not yet making big dollars and 2. the motivation to move him prior to his last year would be to increase the return. Given his age I don't know how much more you get by trading him ahead of his final year.
Any team trading for him will have to give up a bunch of assets. Any team trading for him will presumably want to extend him for the better part of a decade. Extending him at age 25 or age 27... either way teams should be willing to go up to 10 years.
This is a fun topic and I think Boston will be in the conversation this year or the next or the next, but I have a hard time seeing this happen this year/offseason.
However, 1. their payroll is low and he's not yet making big dollars and 2. the motivation to move him prior to his last year would be to increase the return. Given his age I don't know how much more you get by trading him ahead of his final year.
Any team trading for him will have to give up a bunch of assets. Any team trading for him will presumably want to extend him for the better part of a decade. Extending him at age 25 or age 27... either way teams should be willing to go up to 10 years.
This is a fun topic and I think Boston will be in the conversation this year or the next or the next, but I have a hard time seeing this happen this year/offseason.
I'm not too keen on what will actually happen, but I do love this topic for the simple reason of knowing that Cashman couldn't even get the Marlins to return his call.
All I know is that Giancarlo Stanton is the type of player you trade significant assets for if you are the Red Sox. Ortiz is not getting any younger and there's no one in the minor leagues that could come close to replacing his power. It's typical SoSH to love our prospects and want to hold onto them, but Stanton is a proven stud and is young enough to lock up to a long-term deal.
This. It would be our most optimistic ceiling to have any one of these prospects, including Xander, develop into the proven player that Stanton is. I realize the money has to come into play but I really believe this is the kind of guy, at this age, that warrants a big contract. His 162 game average is 39 HRs and a 138 OPS+, and he's only in his age 24 season, so theoretically hasn't hit his peak.RedOctober3829 said:
Merkle's Boner said:
Not hitting your peak window is not the same as not hitting your peak. That said, I'm more than open to trading away a significant group of prospects if the Marlins are willing to be reasonable. So this isn't meant as a slight to Stanton or to dissuade people from wanting to see a trade for him. It's just worth pointing out that him being 24 doesn't necessarily mean he's going to get better. Yes, I saw you said "theoretically." Just figured it was worth clarifying.
It was as much tongue-in-cheek as I really don't think he needs to get any better from his recent production. He is already a premier proven performer.Snodgrass'Muff said:
If in the short term, they move him around, that's fine, kinda like Bogaerts last year, especially if he's called up later in the season and we are contending. But preferably having him at one spot would be better.Savin Hillbilly said:
However, I could see a Biggio-esque career position-wise for Betts. Biggio started at catcher, then went to 2B for ~10 seasons, then to CF when the Astros signed Jeff Kent, then went back to 2B.
Lets say they include JBJ in a Stanton trade, and Betts plays center. Then after Pedroia moves to DH or retires, Betts would still be fairly young and moving him back to second could work. A plus-hitting 2B is nothing to shake a stick at, especially in this era of run reduction.
Any of the prospects traded for Stanton ever being as good as Stanton is completely irrelevant. Would you rather have 5 WAR Stanton in LF and league average guys at 3B, C, RF, and two of the five starting pitching spots, or a bunch of 2 WAR guys with league minimum contracts filling in all those positions and freeing up near unlimited money to buy a LF bat?Merkle's Boner said:
The problem with trading for Stanton isn't the part where you give up significant assets. It's the part where the Marlins have no interest in a mutually beneficial deal. The only way they're trading Stanton before the winter prior to his walk year is if some team is stupid enough to let them absolutely pillage their farm system. It won't be one of Betts/Owens/Swihart + one of Webster/Workman/RDLR/Ranaudo/Barnes + one of Marrero/Vazquez/Cecchini/Middlebrooks + one of Callahan/Margot/Rijo/Devers. It'll be two from the first group and their pick of at least three from the rest, probably more like four.
So sure, Owens + Webster + Marrero + Margot seems like something you gulp and swallow. But what about Betts + Owens + Barnes + Vazquez + Cecchini + Rijo?
At some point a sane person tells them to jump in a lake. The Marlins are clearly looking for the first insane person who doesn't.
Drek717 said:
This sums it up well.
A key point here is that, given that Stanton is going to sign a monster extension with whoever he joins, his price isn't going to be massively influenced by the amount of cost controlled time he has left. Mainly what you're paying for is the right to lock him up to a big deal, not the marginal difference in the size of that deal that might come into play by trading for and signing him this July versus doing so next offseason or next July. So the Marlins can afford to wait at least until next offseason, if not further, before feeling any kind of real pressure to make a deal. If they're smart, they ask for the moon in any talks during this season. And if the Red Sox are smart, they don't pay that price.
I also think its worth pointing out that Stanton has accumulated 14.6 fWAR in 516 games over 4+ seasons in the majors. He's a very good player, especially if this year represents a new performance level, but its not obvious that he's a truly elite guy. For example, Longoria has accumulated 24.2 fWAR over the same period (545 games). Maybe Stanton is getting ready for a steady run of 6-7 fWAR seasons and justifies the price tag. But maybe he's really a 3-4 fWAR type of guy whose deficiencies are masked by his highlight reel power.
RedOctober3829 said:
I agree, but a tendency in SoSH trade threads is assuming it will *only* take our best prospects to get an elite player like Stanton.
Wouldn't MIA also want at least one proven ML player as part of the package? And I'm not talking about, say, a backup catcher, or WMB - whose career could presently be (devil's advocated) as "an injury prone player with one outlier power season."
I don't believe this is a world where Dustin Pedroia ever gets traded, but his contract is friendly, and even if MIA can't take it the Sox aren't shy about more creative (three-way) swaps. And this *is* the organization that traded Nomar during a pennant race.
If Stanton is worth it, then all scenarios are probably being run by the FO - and many of them are ones we wouldn't ever imagine or necessarily support even if we like Stanton that much. Which is why these wishcasting threads are fun, but also very one-dimensional.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Shockingly, I disagree.
I agree to the point that it isn't necessarily plan a for the player but the team can't think of one player in isolation. The team has to think of the entire roster and the entire roster is going to be better with a guy available to play multiple positions.
He's not going to knock Pedroia out of second and short is only available if Bogaerts outgrows it. He'd only play third if Middlebrooks fails, Bogaerts stays at short, and he beats out Cecchini. Maybe he takes left or right, and that's fine, but I find it highly unlikely that he's going to be better in center than JBJ which means he plays left, right, first, or every position he can.
Hell, if we have an outfielder who plays worse D than him who hits RHP and one that plays better D than him who hits LHP we have him platoon in left and right while giving the occasional day off to Pedroia, Bogaerts and whoever else is not playing first while, on his off days, being available to pinch run and steal a base.
Everything you are saying seems to imply that if he actually is half as good as he looks lately his value would be greatest to a team with a hole at second base.Rasputin said:
I mean, if he can play decent second base defense and put up an OBP of .350 wtf is he doing in left-field? Maximizing resources might include
trading him to someone who can get the most out of all his abilities.
Edit: Not that I'm dying to trade Betts, but if Stanton or some near equivalent is coming back then yes.
snowmanny said:
But a Stanton deal is not going to be for Betts alone. Maybe he would be most valuable to a team with a hole at second, but that's primarily because second base is the second worst hitting position in the American League but if he's hitting for a high OBP with some power and some speed he'll be fine at left or right.
He's not going to displace our gold glove, MVP second baseman. He's not going to displace JBJ who makes gold glove caliber play in CF look easy. If he's remotely as good as he looks now he's going to play a position very well and his versatility is going to be a tremendous asset.
johnnywayback said:
Some others have addressed this already, but to piggyback.... I wouldn't look at depth this way. Sure, the most efficient use of the farm system is to trade the eventual flameouts at their peak (we all wish Lars Anderson was traded when he was at AA), and hold onto the potential superstars. But there is real value in having that depth. If you don't really know who will turn out to be good, you want as many chances as possible. Having Xander, Middlebrooks, Cecchini, Marrerro, and Betts is significantly more valuable than having just a couple of them. If you are playing the lottery, you want a bunch of tickets, not just one or two.
Now if the Red Sox see good value out there, I am totally on board with them making a trade. For example, maybe they think Owens is overvalued by other teams, and are skeptical he can add a useful breaking ball or gain more velocity. If they can trade some top prospects at peak value, then it's worth considering. If you can use your inside knowledge of your own prospects to your advantage, that's a smart move.
But the redundancy has real value. Even with a good system, odds are out of any group of 10 top prospects, a good number will flame out, some will make the majors, and 1 or 2 will be impact players. Unless you can reliably distinguish who fits into which group before other teams can, you don't want to decrease your chances at producing an elite player out of your farm system by trading away your "extra" prospects (unless perhaps the 40 man roster crunch is an issue). If the byproduct of that conservative mindset is selling low on guys like Lars Anderson, Michael Bowden, Ryan Lavarnway, etc.... so be it.
Just curious, does anyone care that Stanton strikes out in 1/3 of his at-bats? I mean, I guess he's a decent OB% guy and more of a pure slugger, who would probably improve all those numbers in Fenway. But if you're going to empty out the prospect bank, you need a 1.000 OPS guy in return, or someone very close and fairly sure not to unravel. I don't get to see him outside of highlights, so do we know about his ability to control the strike zone?
chrisfont9 said:
But who's a "1.000 guy" at age 20-24? What about in the last 10 years? If you're going to limit emptying the farm (and I'd argue we'd still retain a relatively strong system), exclusively for a 24 year old Pujols, Cabrera or Trout then that's a pretty high standard. And those guys are never made available (except for Cabrera, which was a slam dunk for the Tigers). And I don't even think Stanton's that far behind those guys, even if he's a clear notch below (I mean we're talking about two of the greatest hitters ever, and one who's very much on the way to that conversation).
Chrisfont, are you adjusting the idea of a 1.000 OPS guy for the new lower run scoring environment? What does the 1.000 OPS slugger of ten years ago look like today? The answer, of course, is David Ortiz. Papi had an OPS of. 959 last year.
chrisfont9 said:
no
[edit: I certainly don't - in fact, his K% leaves lots of room for improvement]
Whether this is a good thing or not, this deal seems to be inevitable (a lifelong Tribe friend of mone told me in 1976 that Eck would be pitching for the Sox within two years). It will probably happen this off-season, however.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I think the biggest question is how likely it is that Stanton will be a 5-6 win player. Aside from giving up prospects and signing a huge contract, there's a big risk that you may not be getting the guy you hoped for.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Ah thanks. That makes more sense.
How do you fill all those other slots through other means when as you said free agency is now generally overpriced and stocked with guys on the wrong side of 30? Especially when you're already paying $25M+ to Stanton in LF?Papelbon's Poutine said:
I'd much rather be the team outbidding others for the Mike Napoli/Shane Victorino equivalent in LF for 2015 than the team with no farm system or disposable cash left because we gave the former to the Marlins for the right to give the later to Stanton.
That's not to say I wouldn't want Stanton. In fact I think the Sox are the optimal landing spot for Stanton. They've got the talent to make Miami happy and the money to make Stanton happy. The Sox need to use that as leverage and wait for when Miami will take a fair deal for him. No other team was willing to overpay for him the last few years. Hell, no team was willing to meet Tampa Bay's demands for David Price this past winter. Teams are getting stingy with their best prospects, making the trade value received when teams flip guys like Stanton and Price before their deals expire go down. It's up to Cherrington and company to shoot the middle of this market trend and be the team who outbids everyone else when the Marlins finally decide they've got to make a move.
The Marlins got two top end prospects in Maybin and Miller, a fringey AAAA type, and three fliers/low ceiling guys for Cabrera and Willis (who was coming off his first bad season at the time). That needs to be the line in the sand for the Sox. Two of their top five guys and lottery/filler or one top five, two 5-15 guys, and less lottery/filler.
radsoxfan said:
But having, for instance, Betts in our farm system may well be less valuable to us than having what he could bring back in trade -- precisely because we have so much depth.
radsoxfan said:
The challenge isn't to forecast which of our prospects won't pan out and trade them. The challenge is to forecast which of our prospects would have a bigger impact on our major league roster as trade bait and use that to inform our trade strategy. We are lucky to have, I think, several of those, thanks to having Pedroia on a great contract and having a lot of young depth at C, SS, 3B, and SP. And even if they turn out to be as good as we'd hoped when they were ours, we may still be better off having traded them if we get the right assets back -- even if Matt Barnes is a poor man's Brian Rose, I don't want to trade him for Bronson Arroyo, and even if Mookie Betts is a poor man's Brandon Phillips, I'm willing to trade him for Giancarlo Stanton.
I am confident in this front office's ability to scout players and draft well so the farm system will get replenished with good players. Therefore, I'm not worried about giving up significant assets to get Stanton. As others have said, where is that mid 20's elite power bat on the open market these days? Younger players are getting locked up earlier and earlier in this day and age. If he's truly available, they need to do as much as they can to get him. There's always a point where too much to give is too much, but for me the bar is set higher for Stanton than pretty much any other player in the game given his age and the Red Sox needs going forward.
Presently the Sox 2016 contract obligations consist of Pedroia at $13 million. That's it. They have close to $170 mil per year to spend without going over the cap. If they trade-and-sign for Stanton, they'll have $145 mil available, plus Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, and Bradley under club control, plus they'll still have one of the better farm systems even after losing 3 or 4 of thier better prospects for Stanton. Do you really think that on Opening Day 2016, the Red Sox starting lineup will be Betts-Pedroia-Middlebrooks-Bogaerts-Cecchini-Vazquez-Bradley-Brentz-Marrero? What's that $25-$30mil in payroll? Do you really think even half of the top farm kids become even part-time MLB players? We're talking about Mookie Betts as the new-and-improved version Zobrist, and all he's done is shag flyballs during batting practice.Drek717 said:
An earlier poster brought up the Miguel Cabrera trade as a good 2007 comp. Cabrera was 24 years old, a terrific hitter, but also considered a risk because he was fat and slow and there were whispers about his personal problems that showed up a year later when he got bagged for a DUI the night before a play-in game to the postseason. Like Stanton, Cabrera still had two years under club control.
The Tigers traded their 2 top prospects to the Marlins, including Cameron Maybin, ranked as high as 6th by Baseball America's top prospects, Andrew Miller, ranked between #10-#17. Both those prospects had been drafted in the top 10 of the first round. The Tigers also threw in 4 other farm products including our own Burke Badenhop, and a AAA pitcher, Trahern, that was projected as a 4/5 starter at the time. And, the Tigers had to take on Dontrelle Willis and the $30 mil of dead money on his contract. The Tigers, using the two arb years left, as leverage, signed Cabrera to a deal worth $154 mil/7yrs.
Was that a good deal or bad deal or fair deal? At the time the Tigers won out on the bidding because they were one of the few teams with both the prospects and money.
If the Red Sox think Stanton is a top-5 offensive player, and that his health-risk is manageable, (and I trust their judgement over mine), then I'm nearly certain they'll try to pull off a 3 or 4 prospects for Stanton trade.
There's parts of this I agree with and parts I don't.Drek717 said:
I agree that there's a point where the Sox have to say no to the Marlins. I'm more than willing to let them draw the line, because they know their prospects better than most on this board.
However, I think it's silly to automatically slot Stanton into LF. He's been a plus RFer every season excluding 2013, according to DRS and UZR. He's a lot more valuable in RF too, so I'd assume the Sox would give him every chance to stick in RF if Vic isn't here. Sorry to keep beating this drum but nobody else is mentioning it and nobody has replied to me bringing up either. I get that Fenway RF is HARD to play but there's nothing to suggest that Stanton can't be a plus RF there.
I also think that makes Stanton a much better use of financial resources then. I can't think of a single hitter that is going to be available in the next year or two that I'd rather lock up for long term and big money than Stanton. Here's the list of upcoming FAs: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/2015-mlb-free-agents.html
Maybe, Chase Headley? And that doesn't even make sense for the Red Sox, considering Middlebrooks and Cecchini are at the same spot.
I share the same sentiments as the rest of you. Some injury concerns aside, I think Stanton is the type of player we should be trading for. We'd be getting not only his peak years but would also get rid of his contract by the time he's 34-35. That's fantastic in terms of fiscal planning and ensuring we have no bad deals. Assuming, of course, that he produces up to his usual standard.
Then, I look at free agents. I don't see anyone who could fit the same profile as Stanton and yet could be had just for money. Our two main sluggers in Ortiz and Napoli are aging and have some injury and regression concerns. In terms of our young guys, JBJ, Cecchini, and Betts all seem to profile as OBP guys as opposed to raw power players.
I guess what I'm saying is, Stanton is the guy I'd trade for if I'm trading for anyone at all. I would definitely explore deals for CarGo, for example, but would be more hesitant on giving up top prospects. As for who I'd give up? Betts, Swihart, and Barnes, plus a bit more. Is that enough? I have no idea. I also would not hesitate if WMB needed to be included.
Still, its a big decision gutting the farm like that. But its not like we still wouldn't have a decent farm left over.
Then, I look at free agents. I don't see anyone who could fit the same profile as Stanton and yet could be had just for money. Our two main sluggers in Ortiz and Napoli are aging and have some injury and regression concerns. In terms of our young guys, JBJ, Cecchini, and Betts all seem to profile as OBP guys as opposed to raw power players.
I guess what I'm saying is, Stanton is the guy I'd trade for if I'm trading for anyone at all. I would definitely explore deals for CarGo, for example, but would be more hesitant on giving up top prospects. As for who I'd give up? Betts, Swihart, and Barnes, plus a bit more. Is that enough? I have no idea. I also would not hesitate if WMB needed to be included.
Still, its a big decision gutting the farm like that. But its not like we still wouldn't have a decent farm left over.
That's the thing. The Sox' system is so deep right now, and so redundant in several spots, that it makes so much sense to pursue a deal like this. Will it happen? Probably not. Should it happen? A matter of opinion. Personally, I'd like the Sox to do something like this.
I don't see Betts as Ben Zobrist, I see Betts as: the hedge that Bradley can't put it together and the club needs a new CF as soon as next season, the hedge that Bogaerts can't stick at SS and has to move to 3B while Marrero proves himself unable to hit ML pitching, the hedge against a career ending or derailing injury to Pedroia, and lastly the hedge that there are no other good corner OFs from the farm so either Betts plays LF or Bradley moves to RF, depending on what other prospects have done and what signings have been made.WenZink said:
He doesn't need to play a half dozen positions. He needs to play one that the Red Sox need. Given that he currently looks like a plus 2B, was playing some short when he first joined the Sox, and still shags balls in CF because it was his most comfortable position in high school I think there is a realistic chance there will be a home for him when and if his bat demands a spot in the lineup.
Same goes for the rest of the prospects. I'll repeat this point yet again: the rational opposition to unloading all the "redundant" players in the farm for Stanton is that guys DO NOT pan out, not the belief that everyone will and we'll magically re-align the roster into an all-farm hands starting lineup.
The rational observer looks at our current SS position and sees Bogaerts: good bat, questionable glove. Marrero: good glove, questionable bat. Betts: good low minors bat, unknown glove. Lin: good glove, not an ML quality bat. So sure, if Bogaerts sticks it's all roses. But we don't know that yet.
Same with CF. Jackie Bradley: good glove, questionable bat. Betts: good low minors bat but unknown glove. Margot: high potential but a question mark across the board.
Or 3B. Will Middlebrooks: good power, questionable OBP and BA make his bat a concern. Defense vacillates between above average and below average game to game. Cecchini: good ML contact and OBP, highly questionable power, defense needs real work. Asuaje: old for his league but hitting and fielding well in the low minors. Question mark. Rafael Devers: high potential, huge question mark, sounding more and more likely to move to 1B with each new scouting report.
I could go on, but in short this club has too many questions now to view the farm hands as redundant. Lets see WMB, Bogaerts, and Bradley prove themselves before we assume we've got three high value positions locked up with young cost controlled options and trade away the depth from those spots. Same with pitching.
Also, $170+M is a lot of money when only Pedroia is committed to, but I'd like to think the Sox will have a front line ace starter at that time and I'm pretty sure that guy isn't coming from Webster, Ranaudo, RDLR, or Workman. Maybe Barnes, but that's questionable. Owens is the best bet but he'd be gone in any deal that nets Stanton any time before winter 2016. Same with the rest of the rotation. If we blow our wad on getting Stanton now the SP depth on the farm will go back to the days of getting Abe Alvarez types up for multiple starts a season.
Willis had just one bad year prior to the trade and looked like an upgrade for Detroit's rotation, not a dead money contract. But anyhow, I'd say that was a pretty reasonable deal. Miami bet on young, high pedigree prospects and lost, but that doesn't mean the value exchanged was wildly inappropriate.
However, since then there has been a legitimate transition in how teams value players and in today's market Maybin and Miller, with their combined 221 games of professional experience, don't carry the value that more matured players do. Largely thanks to teams like the Marlins who put so much weight on pedigree that they rushed both guys up to the majors, only to watch them flame out in short order.
Sure. And completely fail in the process. 3 or 4 prospects don't get you Stanton this year unless those 3 are Betts, Owens, and Bogaerts. At 4 you could probably get by with Betts, Owens, Swihart, and Cecchini, but that might not even be enough.
If the Marlins where willing to take a fair package for Stanton he'd already be traded. They aren't and they won't for about another year and a half. Maybe less if he wins a big arb. number and they get cheap, but it won't happen this season. This season he costs an arm, a leg, an eye, and a few ribs.
I'm not saying I wouldn't trade for Stanton, but I have a few concerns.
First, this team really needs a left handed bat. We replaced Drew with Middlebrooks in the everyday lineup this year going from a left handed bat to a right handed bat. We replaced Ellsbury with JBJ. Obviously they are both lefties but offensively this was a downgrade. Same thing for the Salty to Pierzynski switch. And Nava's bat has disappeared as well.
I think radsoxfan's post in this thread sums up my feelings. Prospects are risky, but that's why depth is important. We don't know which ones will be the next Lars Anderson and which ones will be the next Dustin Pedroia.
Clearly Stanton is a star level bat, but he's not as good as Miguel Cabrera or a young Albert Pujols. It's funny someone upthread asked if we'd be better off signing Choo, indicating we clearly wouldn't. I agree with that, but only because of age. Choo has pretty much been an equal value offensively the last few years as Stanton.
First, this team really needs a left handed bat. We replaced Drew with Middlebrooks in the everyday lineup this year going from a left handed bat to a right handed bat. We replaced Ellsbury with JBJ. Obviously they are both lefties but offensively this was a downgrade. Same thing for the Salty to Pierzynski switch. And Nava's bat has disappeared as well.
I think radsoxfan's post in this thread sums up my feelings. Prospects are risky, but that's why depth is important. We don't know which ones will be the next Lars Anderson and which ones will be the next Dustin Pedroia.
Clearly Stanton is a star level bat, but he's not as good as Miguel Cabrera or a young Albert Pujols. It's funny someone upthread asked if we'd be better off signing Choo, indicating we clearly wouldn't. I agree with that, but only because of age. Choo has pretty much been an equal value offensively the last few years as Stanton.
Yeah, I suppose. So if he's a .950 OPS going forward, then he's worth cleaning out the cupboard for? Maybe, but my other question about his K rate stands. Mind you, I'm not dissing the guy, I'm just questioning what exactly his value would be as we debate the price tag.Snodgrass'Muff said:
gammoseditor said:
I hadn't though about L/R handedness since it seems in recent years, right-handed power has been the scarcer resource... but things don't always remain the same. Vazquez hits from the right side and Swihart is a switch-hitter, although he's much better from the right side. Bottom line, for all the depth in the Sox farm system, there's not a lot of power, left or right, in the system. Of course, it's true that power is usually late to develop. They do have LH Kendrick Perkins in Low-A, who was drafted in 2010 (and paid a bonus over-slot), but he's still a project almost 4 years after being drafted.
And Stanton does appear to be a notch below Cabrera at 24, but both were in the majors at 20, and it's always possible Stanton wasn't as ready as Cabrera at that age.
Drek717- I see your argument that we have some level of uncertainty with Bradley, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Betts, etc etc so it's better to hedge your bets by keeping them all.
But there certainly is a counter-argument that the best way to hedge that is by trading some uncertainty for relative certainty, eg a young proven all-star.
But there certainly is a counter-argument that the best way to hedge that is by trading some uncertainty for relative certainty, eg a young proven all-star.
And I'd be totally up for that if the Marlins would entertain reasonable offers, but they really have no reason to do so for at least the rest of this season.snowmanny said:
Basically I think the farm + the younger guys on the 25 man need 2014 before we make any big decisions. By the end of this season we should know:
1. If Bogaerts can hit ML pitching (likely) and if he can play ML SS (somewhat less likely)
2. Is WMB is the answer at 3B?
3. If Bradley's bat is going to show up at the ML level
4. If Betts is an early 2015 or early 2016 arrival (based on how he handles a AAA promotion in a few months)
5. If Cecchini can even play 3B given a bit more time to learn
6. What is Deven Marrero's ceiling?
7. Can Vazquez hit enough for his defense to reward us as the full time catcher?
8. Is there enough talent in the B. Johnson, Callahan, Kukuk, Stank, Butrey, Ball, etc. pool to mitigate the risk in trading Owens/one or more of the AAA starters?
9. Are any of Lavarnway/Hassan/Brentz group worth anything to the Red Sox, if so which ones and in what roles?
Now obviously some of these, namely the AAA starter club and the last three guys, are in serious threat of aging themselves out of club control/prospect status. So moving one or two of them in the right deal could make a lot of sense. But the complete stripping of depth that would be needed for Stanton isn't worth it when the Sox still need to confirm their own answers at SS, 3B, CF, C, and SP long term. If Bogaerts, Bradley, and Middlebrooks all have good years then sign me up for entertaining trades of Marrero, Betts, and Cecchini. Until they do though it doesn't hurt the later three at all to mature up the ladder when they're all performing well and increasing in value.