Waiting until the market thins makes sense but I'm not convinced he'll get a significantly better deal at the trade deadline. He might but any team acquiring him is only getting 10 or so starts plus they can't offer him a QO and Billy has no idea what other SP will be on the market this year. For example, if the Reds are out of it maybe they move Cueto. When you toss in that Shark may get hurt and he gets nothing in that scenario and looking for the right deal now makes a whole lot more sense.
Trading for Starting Pitching
- Thread starter ivanvamp
- Start date
The Boomer said:
Well, the Red Sox have finished last 2 of the last 3 years and failed to make the playoffs in 4 of the last 5 years. Their winning in 2013 had more to do with free agents and veterans than prospects, and their financial flexibiity was a gift from the Dodgers coming at a time when the Red Sox were going nowhere with Bobby V. at the helm
The Yankees financial inflexibility is a self inflicted one. From 2003-2009 they averaged 97 wins while spending almost 50 million dollars a year more on payroll than 2010-2014 (averaging 91 wins), using 2014 dollars that assume payroll inflation at 5%. This drop despite a large revenue jump due to the new stadium. Its true the Red Sox don't have the sending power of the Yankees, but the Yankees are no longer using their spending power to full advantage, not since Hal Steinbrenner took over day to day operations after the 2009 season. Even last year their spending spree still allowed them to reduce opening day payroll 30 million, thanks in part to Arods suspension.
That said, the Red Sox have so little committed to 2016 (83 million) that signing Lester and even another mid tier SP'er will pose no problem for getting back under the threshold. Unlike the Yankees who seem to give a full NTC to every FA, the Red Sox only provided limited NTC protection which allows them to dump salary more easily when needed. I suspect they would prefer the 2nd SP'er, should they acquire one, to be more of a rental than a long term commitment given the prospects in the pipeline, so a trade with Oakland for Shark makes perfect sense
Every writer seems to mention the A's need for middle infielders, but what is the A's Outfield for 2015: Reddick, Crisp, Fuld? The 31-year old Gentry?
Cespedes is a 3.1 WAR projected at 2.7
Samardzija 4.1 projected at 2.9
Cespedes: 1 year at $9M
Samardzija: 1 year at $9-10M
According to Heyman, the A's are pitcher-rich:
I guess the A's want to get younger/cheaper - but this seems to be a fair trade on paper, particularly if a B prospect (or someone like Craig) is thrown in.
Cespedes is a 3.1 WAR projected at 2.7
Samardzija 4.1 projected at 2.9
Cespedes: 1 year at $9M
Samardzija: 1 year at $9-10M
According to Heyman, the A's are pitcher-rich:
I guess the A's want to get younger/cheaper - but this seems to be a fair trade on paper, particularly if a B prospect (or someone like Craig) is thrown in.
I'd add a sweetener as a way to offset the lost draft pick. A single A guy equivalent of a Supplemental #2 pick from a list of the Sox choosing.geoduck no quahog said:
geoduck no quahog said:
I agree with the above.67WasBest said:
In response to Geoduck's post, I wonder if Reddick gets moved as his public comments about the Donaldson trade. I think Beane is far too smart to do something emotionally, but if Cespedes is wanted back for LF, does that make things easier for BB to move a potential headache in JR?
Ike Davis was picked up to play 1b and it appears Butler will be their DH. That means that Brandon Moss (who had the second highest OPS on the team after Donaldson) is probably the team's starting left fielder next year. This also might be a better spot for him defensively as his [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]career UZR/150 numbers are far better in LF than 1b.[/SIZE]geoduck no quahog said:
If the A's are looking for middle IF (assume SS but possibly also 2B) and as Kaz says Moss would be moved to LF why would they want Cespedes? They have Crisp, Reddick & Smith already in the OF. If the intent is to become " younger/cheaper" as Goeduck states would Cespedes be something Oakland would want.kazuneko said:
Would a better trade package be something like Marrero, Coyle & Roji? Another package could include Holt to address A's most immediate middle IF problems. Packaging him with Marrero & Roji might be more to BB liking. I'm not sure what other piece Oakland would want as this is a tad light of a return for a player like Samardzija. However, it seems to be more inline with what the A's are trying to do based on the articles I've read.
Ranaudo may be a piece of interest to the As. He's an extreme flyball pitcher and that's never going to work in the AL East having to play 81 games in Fenway and 37 games in the ALE hitter parks. However, he's near the zone and his fly ball tendencies play better in the larger ALW ball parks. If so, then he provides the As with a good cost controlled back of the rotation arm or bullpen piece for them at present. The major problem with Oakland is that they are clearly trying to sell off their less cost controlled pieces for more cost controlled pieces and rebuild their farm and a trade based around Cespedes does not help them accomplish this. It would likely take a 3rd team to spend prospects to the Sox for Cespedes that could then be turned to the As for Shark or the Sox to include a more accomplished prospect than those being mentioned.
Edit: Clarify 3rd sentence.
Edit: Clarify 3rd sentence.
Who is this Smith? Are you speaking of the pitcher Murphy Smith? Or, are you referring to Seth Smith, who is with the Padres?
In terms of the A's Of ... Crisp, Reddick and Moss could use an upgrade.
Spelling of the names are similar ... Jed Lowrie is the SS that Oakland lost to FA. BB seems to be trying to work out a trade with Chicago White Sox for Alexei Ramirez using Samardzija.swingin val said:
Who is Cespedes replacing? If you platoon Reddick/Gentry in right you end up with better defense and production than you can expect out of Cespedes. in LF, Moss is both cheaper and better offensively than Cespedes. And there is no way Beane is trading for Cespedes to put that glove in CF.sackamano said:
That's because the scoring environment has trended downward (4.07 runs per game in 2014 vs. 4.59 in 2005), not because there are more "aces" now. Using raw xFIP to make an argument like this is pretty much meaningless.chawson said:
Savin Hillbilly said:
I think you're missing the point about the relative value of hitting vs. pitching in the current run environment. The definition of an "ace" (or # 1, or # 2, and so on) is subject to nebulous definition, but if you think that it's just the top 8-12 pitchers across baseball the number of "aces" (or any group for that matter) is set apriori and will only vary slightly according to aggregate performance and where you arbitrarily draw the dividing line, but what's important isn't so much the label, but the performance relative to the rest of the league. Whatever metric you care to use should point to the overall number of pitchers putting up better performances relative to a past era, since that's basically how we define eras. If you switch and use context adjusted stats you should preserve the number of pitchers in each group by simply sorting the players into strata at different benchmarks, but that doesn't tell us much about the relative values.
So why did the run scoring environment trend down? The most compelling explanation I've seen (a Fangraphs article from the summer) pointed to the low strike to being called with much greater frequency and pitchers subsequently really throwing to this part of the zone since the results of missing with the pitch are not as damaging. If more pitchers are able to exploit this trend then overall offense goes down as the raw number of hard hit balls decreases (obviously in conjunction with other factors, like new drug testing, talent cycles between pitchers and hitters, and just random variance). I think this would point to players that are better hitters at any given position increasing in value since what they provide (hard hit baseballs) is rarer compared to what you get from a similar population of pitchers; it's basic supply and demand.
OCD SS said:
But context-adjusted stats are the only way to do this, because the value of performance is always context-relative. The fact that lots more pitchers rack up ERAs or FIPs or whatever under 4.00 now than in 2005 does not mean that it's easier to find a good pitcher now than in 2005, because allowing 4 runs per nine innings does not have the same value--it won't help you as much to win a ballgame--as it did in 2005. And the value of any statistical performance toward winning ballgames is the only thing that matters about it. Otherwise we make the same mistake as the people who used to laugh at Home Run Baker's nickname because he never hit more than 12 HR in a season.
From mlbtraderumors:
There are teams interested in Red Sox right-hander Clay Buchholz. Theres a lot of talent there that hasnt come out, one NL scout said.
I wonder who wants Clay and what Boston could get for him. Obviously they need to add quality starting pitching, not lose it. But still.... I'm curious what might be happening here.
There are teams interested in Red Sox right-hander Clay Buchholz. Theres a lot of talent there that hasnt come out, one NL scout said.
I wonder who wants Clay and what Boston could get for him. Obviously they need to add quality starting pitching, not lose it. But still.... I'm curious what might be happening here.
I could definitely see a strategy of acquiring three SP with Clay shipping out in one of the deals.ivanvamp said:
ivanvamp said:
That is interesting, but I don't think I really buy it. If the Sox are talking about Buck, I think they're probably looking more towards trading him next offseason. It really just doesn't make much sense this year unless they either manage to bring in three pitchers or go with two of the kids, both of which seem unlikely to me.
I mean, Lester, X, Buchholz, Kelly, RDLR/Webster would be fine to start the season and I'd think they want to work Owens in at some point. If they do that, they could pick up Buchholz' option and trade him and start 2016 with Lester, X, Kelly, Owens, Rodriguez, but even then I'd think they'd want to start with one of the other guys and work Rodriguez in over the course of the season.
billy ashley said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
sackamano said:
I'm pretty sure you are all talking about Brett Lawrie, the ex-Blue Jays first rounders who will now be an Oakland A. This is a completely different human being than Jed Lowrie, who went to Stanford, had streaks of being the second coming, but injured his way out of Boston, to the A's, via the Astros.
ivanvamp said:
Well, yeah, of course that's an option, but we want to keep the winners and trade the guys who aren't quite as good and I think a lot of folks think Owens has a higher floor and ceiling than most of the rest of the guys.
The way it works in my mind is that we start with RDLR or Webster in the rotation and they do okay, but Owens gets a chance mid season and runs with it while RDLR kicks ass out of the bullpen.
Sorry guys, typing on a tablet and didn't proofread... Meant Lawrie. Hope the context made it clear.
Bowden is pretty dumb and was fired for a reason but I would do this in a heartbeat from the Red Sox perspective. Lester and Hamels and Miller lets rock ...
Philadelphia Phillies | Cincinnati Reds | Boston Red Sox
Red Sox acquire: Cole Hamels from Philadelphia
The Red Sox are determined to get an ace, and if they can’t convince Jon Lester to return to Boston, then they’ll do what they can to land Hamels from the Phillies. The Red Sox would love to use Yoenis Cespedes or their outfield depth to get Hamels, but the Phillies would much prefer to load up on younger players. This is where the three-way deal comes in handy. Hamels has four years at $22.5 million per year remaining on his contract -- because of that, the Red Sox probably would be willing to part with Cespedes and two of their top pitching prospects inHenry Owens and Matt Barnes.
Reds acquire: Yoenis Cespedes from Boston
The All Star Game is in Cincinnati this year, and the Reds have four starting pitchers in their free-agent walk years. The formula is there for the Reds to make a run, and they desperately need a right-handed, power-hitting left fielder to lengthen their lineup and provide the much-needed offense the pitching staff deserves. GM Walt Jocketty has two years remaining on his contract, and the club is in a win-now mode. Therefore, a deal of pitching prospect Michael Lorenzen and outfielder Phil Ervin to the Phillies that would land Cespedes from Boston would make sense, at least for the short term. Cespedes should be able to hit 30-32 home runs at Great American Ball Park, and if Joey Votto and Jay Bruce bounce back, it would give the Reds a lethal lineup to go with their special defense and solid pitching.
Phillies acquire: Henry Owens, Matt Barnes from Boston; Michael Lorenzen and Phil Ervin from Cincinnati
If the Phillies are going to trade Hamels, they need to get overpaid with young starting pitching, and this three-way deal would accomplish that. The Phillies would get three top starting pitching prospects, all of whom should be ready to contribute by September. Moreover, all three could develop into double-digit winners. Ervin is still a few years away, but if he hits, he could develop into a top-of-the-order type. All in all, a pretty strong prospect package for Hamels.
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/the-gms-office/post?id=10550&ex_cid=Insider_share_10550_Potential%20winter%20meetings%20trades
Philadelphia Phillies | Cincinnati Reds | Boston Red Sox
Red Sox acquire: Cole Hamels from Philadelphia
The Red Sox are determined to get an ace, and if they can’t convince Jon Lester to return to Boston, then they’ll do what they can to land Hamels from the Phillies. The Red Sox would love to use Yoenis Cespedes or their outfield depth to get Hamels, but the Phillies would much prefer to load up on younger players. This is where the three-way deal comes in handy. Hamels has four years at $22.5 million per year remaining on his contract -- because of that, the Red Sox probably would be willing to part with Cespedes and two of their top pitching prospects inHenry Owens and Matt Barnes.
Reds acquire: Yoenis Cespedes from Boston
The All Star Game is in Cincinnati this year, and the Reds have four starting pitchers in their free-agent walk years. The formula is there for the Reds to make a run, and they desperately need a right-handed, power-hitting left fielder to lengthen their lineup and provide the much-needed offense the pitching staff deserves. GM Walt Jocketty has two years remaining on his contract, and the club is in a win-now mode. Therefore, a deal of pitching prospect Michael Lorenzen and outfielder Phil Ervin to the Phillies that would land Cespedes from Boston would make sense, at least for the short term. Cespedes should be able to hit 30-32 home runs at Great American Ball Park, and if Joey Votto and Jay Bruce bounce back, it would give the Reds a lethal lineup to go with their special defense and solid pitching.
Phillies acquire: Henry Owens, Matt Barnes from Boston; Michael Lorenzen and Phil Ervin from Cincinnati
If the Phillies are going to trade Hamels, they need to get overpaid with young starting pitching, and this three-way deal would accomplish that. The Phillies would get three top starting pitching prospects, all of whom should be ready to contribute by September. Moreover, all three could develop into double-digit winners. Ervin is still a few years away, but if he hits, he could develop into a top-of-the-order type. All in all, a pretty strong prospect package for Hamels.
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/the-gms-office/post?id=10550&ex_cid=Insider_share_10550_Potential%20winter%20meetings%20trades
Love it Bowden. Not just around 30 home runs, or a little over 30 home runs, or plenty of home runs, or just '30 home runs' with the understanding that this is a round-number that stands for a certain level of power production without specifically meaning 30 home runs; no, Jim crunched the numbers, reviewed the spray charts, and came up with more than 29 but less than 33.
Wait, we're going to give Cespedes and two prospects away for Hamels?jimbobim said:
At this point maybe I'd give Owens straight up for Hamels, but why the hell would you throw in the rest? His contract is market rate, there's no extreme surplus value there that would need prospects and a 3 WAR player to be sent their way.
Owens in the best case scenario is Hamels in a year and a half. Or he could be a back of the rotation type. There's hardly a consensus. More likely two years before he's ready for a 200 ip workload. Barnes may end up in the pen or a 4th starter. Cespedes is superfluous and is getting dealt anyway.
This is purely a fallback option to not signing Lester. They could handle both deals in 2016, but it would put them uncomfortably close to their spending line and remove the flexibility they crave.
Let's hope they sign Lester in the next couple of days and render this discussion moot.
Let's hope they sign Lester in the next couple of days and render this discussion moot.
67WasBest said:
I'm going to completely disagree. I'm not sure I make the trade if Lester isn't in house. If he is, then this trade would ensure we have the top two spots in the rotation locked up for several years. If we don't have those guys locked in up top, it puts a higher premium on keeping the guys who could become those top guys. That means Owens and Eduardo Rodriguez.
They can accomplish the same thing both this year and next without committing longer term money. Two years from now, they could have possibly found one or two of those guys. If they sign Lester, i expect the 2nd pitcher arriving to be more like Porcello, Kennedy or Fister
If tehre is a long term option for the top of the rotation I suspect it will be more cost controlled. I just don't see them paying $50M per the next 5 year for two pitchers. That they are both lefties is another issue when they have 3 really good left hand options in house.
If tehre is a long term option for the top of the rotation I suspect it will be more cost controlled. I just don't see them paying $50M per the next 5 year for two pitchers. That they are both lefties is another issue when they have 3 really good left hand options in house.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Bowden offers that caveat that this scenario is if we can't sign Lester. However, Lester would probably have to go for what, 6/$170 or more in order to make Hamel's contract that much more attractive that it would also be worth giving up Owens, Cespedes and Barnes? While the information out there seems to be of dubious credibility, there's also the fact that Cespedes is being projected as a key part of possible packages to land us our #2 type starter. If he goes in the Hamels deal, that's more of our prospect assets out the door for that #2, or we spend well over whatever our savings on Hamels vs Lester ends up being on someone like Shields.jimbobim said:
Sign Lester, package Cespedes with whatever reasonable pieces are needed on another starter. The above scenario should only be considered if Lester's price climbs astronomically over the course of the week, or he decides that he simply doesn't want to play in Boston. I've yet to see an argument that rationally supports dealing valuable pieces for Hamels while Lester remains on the board at a price that hasn't reportedly climbed through the stratosphere.
If the Phillies just ate some of their damn money, teams would probably be more receptive to including top prospects. I'd only do Owens if the Phillies make the math work evenly. I don't have any issues including Barnes but don't see why the Red Sox need the Reds in a three team deal when they can just deal Cespedes directly for something good.
I'd rather try and find a 3rd team for Doug Fister. The Tigers got a so-so starting pitching prospect, bullpen guy and utility infielder for him last year at this time. Another year later his value should be less as he approaches free agency.
I'd rather try and find a 3rd team for Doug Fister. The Tigers got a so-so starting pitching prospect, bullpen guy and utility infielder for him last year at this time. Another year later his value should be less as he approaches free agency.
Question: When you trade a player like Hamels, and decide to pay some of his contract even as you deal him, how is that calculated against your own luxury tax? Could you say, I'll pay all of hist 2015 and 2016 salary, but you're on the hook for 2017, 2018, and 2019? If so, how does that work in terms of the luxury tax?
I believe it would just spread the Sox portion across the life of his deal. So if the Sox picked up years 15 and 16 at 21mm a year, and had him for 5 years, the LT hit would be 42mm/ 5 years, so 8.4mm/year.ivanvamp said:
Cash out is meaningless for LT purposes
Another consideration in the hypothetical Hamels trades is that the value of Hamels' contract doesn't exist in a vacuum. The more Lester appears likely to sign for, the more Hamels below market deal is worth. While Owens for Hamels may become attractive to the Sox once Lester passes 6/150 or so, the value of Hamels contract, and Amaro's asking price, also probably goes up at that point. There's likely no static package that Amaro will accept independent of what Lester signs for. By the time Lester's sticker price reaches a point where Ben feels it's worth moving Owens for Hamels, Amaro's asking price may have increased to more than just Owens. It's moving goalposts and its entirely possible that Amaro's asking price for Hamels will make a trade unattractive regardless of where Lester ends up.
EDIT: I'm just using Owens as an example. I have no idea what Amaro's interested in. But my point is that I don't think we can determine a cutoff AAV where dealing for Hamels becomes more attractive than signing Lester, because Amaro's trade demands could also increase at higher Lester AAVs.
EDIT: I'm just using Owens as an example. I have no idea what Amaro's interested in. But my point is that I don't think we can determine a cutoff AAV where dealing for Hamels becomes more attractive than signing Lester, because Amaro's trade demands could also increase at higher Lester AAVs.
Eh, had dropped Iwakuma so far down the list this announcement became inconsequential On a positive note, one less hitter available in a market where more teams seek hitters than pitchers.pdub said:
I agree that's what Amaro might do, but I have a hard time believing most other teams do this. If that was the case, you'd probably never see any trades done around the league. These guys have to do with business with each other every year and if they don't negotiate in good faith (not saying take a lesser price, just that a good deal for Hamels is still a good deal for Hamels no matter what Lester signs for) you're going to create a lot of enemies around MLB.OnWisc said: