Trading for Starting Pitching
- Thread starter ivanvamp
- Start date
I think Amaro would be justified. Market value for pitching is still being established at this point. If Amaro is content to wait and see how this Lester thing plays out, then I don't think anyone could take issue with him adjusting his asking price. If Amaro is in active talks with a team with the understanding that they may make a slight overpay in order to proactively acquire Hamels, and he starts to slow play things and raise his price as Lester's reported AAV rises, that's another story.MakMan44 said:
They were interviewing someone on MLB radio yesterday morning. Forget who it was, but his takeaway on this topic was that Hamels would be with the Phils next year and as far as Amaro agreeing to any deal, he'd believe it when he saw it. Anecdotal, but may go to show that the perception fans have of Hamels isn't entirely different than how he's viewed in MLB circles.
I disagree. Trying to fleece someone because Lester has signed is bad business. Teams are generally unwilling to pay the adjusted price, and why should they?
EDIT: Again, a good deal for Hamels is still a good deal for Hamels if Lester is on the market or no.
EDIT: Again, a good deal for Hamels is still a good deal for Hamels if Lester is on the market or no.
Believe it was Jerry Crasnick in the interview. Also said the Sox were 'ehh' on Lester, or he was that way on thinking Lester would return, so I'm not sure how much stock I put in his thoughtsOnWisc said:
Yes, but he was also a major league GM, and they don't hand those roles out like candy.jimbobim said:
But in no way is he a journalist (and apparently, ESPN doesn't care) because he makes a declaration like this with no context. Do the Reds owners care? Are they worried it won't be a sell-out without the defending HR derby champ on the Reds? Has he ever heard a team take this into consideration, even if he isn't comfortable telling us who? That makes everything he writes suspect, thus no better than what the rest of use can come up with. And on that front, he doesn't seem to think Philly might get a better offer from someone else, or the Reds might not want a one-year rental[SIZE=14.3999996185303px], ASG be dammed.[/SIZE]jimbobim said:
I agree with this, and it probably means there's no deal until Lester signs. (And I'd include Mike Leake in the discussion.)67WasBest said:
But even if the Sox get him back, is Cespedes enough for any of these guys, even if a prospect has to be included to make good on the FA compensation front. They still need a pitcher to replace the guy they give up. Robbie Ray, Buck Farmer and Drew verHagen didn't shine for the Tigers last year, and if the Padres don't think they can win, Cespedes does nothing for them. Cole might replace Fister for Washington, but I don't know that they need an OF, with Harper, Span and Werth.
The Reds still seem to be a good match, if Cingrani is healthy and the Reds think he can be trusted. They also have a top prospect ready to pitch in triple A. I'd think the Reds would view Leake as the most expendable of Cueto/Latos/Leake, and they can use another OF and another hitter. But might they prefer a cheaper solution, while keeping Leake, who is maybe more extendable than Cueto and/or Latos? If there's another bidder for Latos, how much will the Sox offer beyond Cespedes?
We haven't heard many rumors on FA pitchers beyond Scherzer or Lester either. The Reds were a bottom 10 last year and could also go out and sign guys who rejected qualifying offers like Liriano and not lose their #1 pick. Or a reclamation guy like Josh Johnson/Santana. There is also Shields who could extend his shelf life in the NL.twothousandone said:
I would offer Johnson along with Cespedes and a guy like Coyle even to replace Phillips.
pdub said:
According to the Tribune Cruz is signed for DH and Seattle is still seeking a right fielder. But wow, that deal is horrible.
They have no choice. Need to GFIN because of the money they gave Cano last year. For the record Cruz will probably earn his money in 2 years because he's a DH now. Please get Walker!ehaz said:
What makes that deal worse is that Seattle management -had- an agreement with Cruz last year, but backed out when owners refused to sign off on it.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/01/reminder-meddling-owners-kept-the-mariners-from-getting-nelson-cruz-much-much-cheaper/
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/01/reminder-meddling-owners-kept-the-mariners-from-getting-nelson-cruz-much-much-cheaper/
Tyrone Biggums said:
Not to over-analyze a throwaway line about a pitcher I don't think the Red Sox have a real shot at acquiring, but is Walker, a fairly risky youngster, really what this team needs? Yeah, he's got more upside than anyone they currently have, but they need someone they can at least count on for league-average innings at this point (or better, obviously).
If we are looking for a good change of scenery trade for Will Middlebrooks, Seattle might be a good fit because they have a more limited budget to find another power bat after signing Cruz. The Sox could afford to be patient to acquire an injury compromised post-hype potential ace while WMB would have a place where he could get playing time to restore his career. UVA has produced their share of major leaguers in recent years and the Sox could afford to be patient to see if Danny Hultzen can recover some of his lost top prospect status. Hultzen could have a place as additional young pitching depth starting at AAA or helping to fill that lefty deficit in the Sox bullpen. I find this injury analysis encouraging, particularly if they could find a home for Middlebrooks, who is potentially more valuable to another organization than his actual value for the Sox, in exchange for someone else comparable who could benefit from getting a chance on another team:
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2014/10/19/7006753/a-closer-look-at-danny-hultzens-return-to-mlb
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2014/10/19/7006753/a-closer-look-at-danny-hultzens-return-to-mlb
I strongly doubt the Mariners sell that low on Hultzen, who still has a very high ceiling and is a good looking lefty. If he's healthy, he has the chance to be a top of the rotation lefty.. And where does WMB play in Seattle? They just locked up Seager at third, would be play first? Logan Morrison is projected to start there as it sits right now, another high potential - low results type so far in his young career, I just don't see it from a Mariners perspective.The Boomer said:
If the Mets are in on Cespedes like the reports indicate, I would be all over Harvey with a package deal for him. Only 25 and 4 years of team control remaining. He is coming off of TJ so possibly that brings his price down a little. With Boston not willing to go much more than 130 for Lester, then they will not be getting a top of the rotation starter through free agency.
Of course you would! We need to stop throwing out ridiculous hypotheticals like this where we trade one year of Cespedes for one of the better young pitchers in all of baseball..BeantownIdaho said:
BeantownIdaho said:
We're not getting Matt Harvey for Yoenis Cespedes. We're not even getting Zack Wheeler for Yoenis Cespedes. In short, no one is giving up a young cost controlled pitcher with upside for him, nevermind one of the best arms in all of baseball when healthy.
This is where BeantownIdaho responds that he said, "package deal for him" which means including Betts or Xander. Then the next 15 posts will be anger-fused ones about how we're not giving up Betts or Xander for a guy who just had TJ and the Mets probably would want to keep their ace anyway. There, I headed this thing off at the pass so we don't need the next 15 posts derailing this thread even more. You're welcome, SOSH.
Wow...that is pretty good Choi...you are exactly right. Amazing that people would miss that key word. Really the bottom line is that to get any good, top of the rotation starter we are going to have to give up some good young players.Hee Sox Choi said:
BeantownIdaho said:
Sure, you said "package" deal, but you also said "If the Mets are in on Cespedes," as though that simple fact somehow opens the door to discussions about Matt Harvey. It's possible the Mets would accept a package of four of our top ten prospects, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether we toss in Cespedes as a rounding error.
I said this before, but generally, if you're suggesting a trade target, consider what would happen if the roles were reversed. If the Red Sox already had any one of the pitchers whose names we've seen like Latos, Walker, Fister, Zimmermann, anyone, really, would even one of you be excited about Cespedes as the return? Even in a world where the Red Sox need an outfielder and have a surplus of pitchers?
No, we would not be excited about that return, but we are also not fans of teams that are working on much smaller budgets and may need to move a SP before he makes it to free agency in order to maximize a return. Now, obviously that only applies to a few of those guys, but the fact that payroll comes into play should not be discounted when theorizing on potential SP targets.Danny_Darwin said:
"If the Mets are in on Cespedes like the reports indicate, I would be all over Harvey with a package deal for him"
Responses:
We're not getting Matt Harvey for Yoenis Cespedes.
We need to stop throwing out ridiculous hypotheticals like this where we trade one year of Cespedes for one of the better young pitchers in all of baseball.
but I'd still want more than just Cespedes
would even one of you be excited about Cespedes as the return
It's almost like some of you can't even read. Even with a warning from Choi you couldn't help yourselves to change what I even posted.
Responses:
We're not getting Matt Harvey for Yoenis Cespedes.
We need to stop throwing out ridiculous hypotheticals like this where we trade one year of Cespedes for one of the better young pitchers in all of baseball.
but I'd still want more than just Cespedes
would even one of you be excited about Cespedes as the return
It's almost like some of you can't even read. Even with a warning from Choi you couldn't help yourselves to change what I even posted.
BeantownIdaho said:
Do you see the name "Matt Harvey" in my post?
Re: payroll, Cespedes is 10.5 million next year, probably the same or maybe even more than some of the pending FA pitchers.
Danny_Darwin said:
Was it not Boston that traded Lester for Cespedes? I know it was for two months but still. BC thought Cespedes was worth Lester. Would he offer up the list you offered. Under the same circumstance probably. In retrospect is BC and company kicking themselves for the trade? My guess is yes. IMO they made a mess of a bad situation and now their in a bidding war for Lester's services and trying to unload Cespedes.MakMan44 said:
Why would he regret the situation? It's pretty clear that Lester signed off on a trade. He now has a movable asset in Cespedes and he didn't ostracize Lester so he's in literally the same place he'd be if he hadn't traded Lester. Not trading Lester wouldn't have made it any easier to sign him now.
lxt said:
I think Cherington made his views on Cespedes clear when he signed a guy who had never played the outfield before to convert to the position that Cespedes played last year.
To Mak, I think lxt's point is that he didn't acquire Cespedes to trade him; he acquired him because he thought he'd be a key player on the 2015 team. He doesn't seem to think so anymore.
They're all worth way different amounts though.Danny_Darwin said:
Cespedes for Fister isn't unreasonable in a vacuum because it's a one for one at roughly 3.5 WAR a year at fairly close price (Cespedes is 9 mill and Fister made 7.2 last year and will get a raise).
Latos is better/more valuable than Fister due to age (26 vs 30) and is more in the Sox wheel house in terms of guys they'd try and lock up.
Zimmerman is a notch above both of them, and yes I'd be really pissed if that was the return.
Walker is on a different planet in value and is a completely unreasonable demand.
From our point of view, I'd be disappointed if we only got Leake for him.
I think your overall point was that we are overrating Cespedes' value, but two of those guys probably won't net much more than him.
SoxFanForsyth posted this in the other thread
https://twitter.com/jared_carrabis/status/539581140743778304
@Jared_Carrabis: @chris_synan I'm speaking with knowledge of the situation. They're listening to offers on Sale and the Red Sox have been in contact.
https://twitter.com/jared_carrabis/status/539559284787675136
@Jared_Carrabis: https://twitter.com/Jared_Carrabis@BostonStrong_34 Negative. Their plan B right now sounds like Sale.
Now I'm not quite sure how legitimate this is. He's the Red Sox blogger for Barstool and is followed by a ton of the baseball media, including Gammo himself. So it's probably worth discussing at least.
This whole offseason I've been firmly against trading high end prospects for pitchers. If throwing in Cecchini with Cespedes gets a Latos deal done, or whatever, then ok. But Betts, X, Swihart, Owens, etc should all be off the table. The cost comparison to the free agent market is just not worth it IMO.
But oh man, if Sale is actually available I'm not sure that my opinion would still be the way to go. I really don't want to trade X or Betts - I'm probably a bit too high on both of them, especially with bats at such a premium these days - but you'd probably have to do it for Sale. For those of you unfamiliar, Sale is 25 and is due to make $6, 9, and 12 million the next three years, with club options for 2018 and 2019 (his age 29 and 30 seasons) at $12.5 and $13.5. With an ERA+ of 148 in his three years of being a starting pitcher. I'm not sure you could ask for much more from a potential ace acquisition. He's even left-handed!
I kinda hope they sign Lester just so I don't have to watch the potential decision between Mookie or X and Sale unfold.
The winter meetings can't get here soon enough.
https://twitter.com/jared_carrabis/status/539581140743778304
@Jared_Carrabis: @chris_synan I'm speaking with knowledge of the situation. They're listening to offers on Sale and the Red Sox have been in contact.
https://twitter.com/jared_carrabis/status/539559284787675136
@Jared_Carrabis: https://twitter.com/Jared_Carrabis@BostonStrong_34 Negative. Their plan B right now sounds like Sale.
Now I'm not quite sure how legitimate this is. He's the Red Sox blogger for Barstool and is followed by a ton of the baseball media, including Gammo himself. So it's probably worth discussing at least.
This whole offseason I've been firmly against trading high end prospects for pitchers. If throwing in Cecchini with Cespedes gets a Latos deal done, or whatever, then ok. But Betts, X, Swihart, Owens, etc should all be off the table. The cost comparison to the free agent market is just not worth it IMO.
But oh man, if Sale is actually available I'm not sure that my opinion would still be the way to go. I really don't want to trade X or Betts - I'm probably a bit too high on both of them, especially with bats at such a premium these days - but you'd probably have to do it for Sale. For those of you unfamiliar, Sale is 25 and is due to make $6, 9, and 12 million the next three years, with club options for 2018 and 2019 (his age 29 and 30 seasons) at $12.5 and $13.5. With an ERA+ of 148 in his three years of being a starting pitcher. I'm not sure you could ask for much more from a potential ace acquisition. He's even left-handed!
I kinda hope they sign Lester just so I don't have to watch the potential decision between Mookie or X and Sale unfold.
The winter meetings can't get here soon enough.
I don't understand why the White Sox would trade Sale and that 5 year contract. He's exactly the kind of pitcher that you should be building around.
But if he really is available, he's one of the only pitchers I would trade Mookie for.
But if he really is available, he's one of the only pitchers I would trade Mookie for.
White Sox have holes everywhere, 2B, SS (if they trade Ramirez) 3B, LF, CF, possibly RF as Garcia hasn't shone. If he can fill all, and backfill Sale with Shark, a hometown boy, who knows.
They're probably just listening, in case someone overwhelms them. I mean, I don't believe that Sale will take a significant step back, but his value is probably close to the highest it's going to get.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
That being said, I agree, it would make no sense. Especially if they end up acquiring Samardzija as the rumors have it.
EDIT: Good point 67WasBest
BeantownIdaho said:
"I think we could get Allen Webster and Rubby De La Rosa from LAD for a package deal with Nick Punto."
They're not trading Matt Harvey.
BeantownIdaho said:
I've given up on Harvey anyway... even if we offered Cespedes, Betts and Bogaerts, the Yankees will just sweep in and top our offer with Beltran, Teixiera, A-Rod and Sabathia. Then they'd use all their new found flexibility to sign Lester and Scherzer and to buy Betts, Bogaerts and Swihart from the Red Sox so we have enough extra cash to sign Shields. Then they sign Shields too. Christ.
It was Bogaerts, in exactly this kind of deal that had me ask about trading X and I agree, is illogical in the endgrimshaw said:
So, yeah, I posted the Sale stuff in the wrong thread but it appears as though the ChiSox will listen on Sale.
They'll have to be overwhelmed, and the Sox would have to include Owens and Betts (per Carrabis), but Sale is a guy worth emptying a few of those big chips.
If the Sox went Betts, Owens, Margot, Cecchini, and Barnes, I can't imagine that wouldn't get close, and I would definitely be fine with parting ways with those guys
They'll have to be overwhelmed, and the Sox would have to include Owens and Betts (per Carrabis), but Sale is a guy worth emptying a few of those big chips.
If the Sox went Betts, Owens, Margot, Cecchini, and Barnes, I can't imagine that wouldn't get close, and I would definitely be fine with parting ways with those guys
If Sale were actually, realistically available, I think I'd be very worried that the ChiSox had it on good authority that his arm was about fly off (under the "you know your own players better clause").Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
With that said, Mookie is who I think is the most expendable in such a deal; he's out of position in RF and I can see another team valuing him more as a 2Bman. This is opposed to X who is really the only SS on the roster and Swiheart who has a lot more overall potential as a starting C than Vazquez.
If Lester is just too expensive and they can bite the bullet and trade Mookie + for Sale, then they can take Lester's money and sign Santana or McCarthy and throw the rest at Moncada. That leaves Cespedes available to play RF or to bring back another complimentary piece.
Sale's contract goes:
2015 - 6m (+24)
2016 - 9.15 (+ 20.85)
2017- 12m (+18)
2018 - option 12.5 (+17.5)
2019 - option 13.5 (+16.5)
He's signed through his age 30 (!) season. If he stays at 5.5 WAR or so per year (what he did last year at age 25) that's worth about 30 million a year and a team trading for him would profit by 95 mill or so in excess value over the course of that deal. I would think Bogaerts could average 3 +WAR per year to even it out for cheap money.
Still not sure I'd do it or that it makes sense.
2015 - 6m (+24)
2016 - 9.15 (+ 20.85)
2017- 12m (+18)
2018 - option 12.5 (+17.5)
2019 - option 13.5 (+16.5)
He's signed through his age 30 (!) season. If he stays at 5.5 WAR or so per year (what he did last year at age 25) that's worth about 30 million a year and a team trading for him would profit by 95 mill or so in excess value over the course of that deal. I would think Bogaerts could average 3 +WAR per year to even it out for cheap money.
Still not sure I'd do it or that it makes sense.
They want to trade for Chris Sale? I'm not sure how they expect to pull that off without trading Betts, Bogaerts, or even both in the same deal. I also think there's no way Chicago trades him, rumor has it they're in on Samardzija. There is no reason for them to trade for him if they're going to turn around and trade their superior pitcher. Plus, I can see Abreu and Sale being part of their core - Sale is the type you build around.
Which is all true .. Which makes be think that (as mentioned up thread) there might be some arm issues down the road. He does have that classic Mark Prior inverted W delivery after all. Every time I watch him pitch it screams of an impending Tommy John operation.pdub said:
But , if you are going to back up the farm for anybody he's the guy .. If healthy.
Probably because the W, inverted, shows a whole lot more of the arm angles involved, compared to an M.
That may be so, but is it correct? Is there any reason to believe it?Danny_Darwin said:
Lester was traded when the Red Sox knew they were out of contention. As such, assuming that they believed that trading Lester at that point would have no ramifications on future negotions (and yes, that's a big if, especially in the minds of some, but there is good reason to believe they were in general contact with Lester and his reps), then Lester's value towards winning a championship on his contract at the time was zero.
Trading Lester meant trading zero for a piece of some value. Some value > zero, no matter how little.
If you want to go really big game possibility, if Lester really does want to return to Boston, he would have wanted to be traded for a piee that could be traded later just so the team could be that much better when he came back.
The real point I'm trying to get across here is that we need to assess the assumptions that underly our positions when and as we present them; all positions/arguments have assumptions and the clearer we are about them, the better we can understand our thoughts.
I think Cherington's plan was to horde MLB level talent that was in short supply (RH power; Cespedes, Craig). It's not that they meant to flip any one player, but that they would have flexibility in filling out the roster or making a deal. Having ML talent to trade allows them to also deal with teams that are looking to win now and not necessarily looking for prospects.
Buster Olney @buster_ESPN 38m38 minutes ago
OAK needs a SS, and depending on how Oakland evaluates BOS SS prospect Deven Marrero, he could be a theoretical match for Jeff Samardzija.
OAK needs a SS, and depending on how Oakland evaluates BOS SS prospect Deven Marrero, he could be a theoretical match for Jeff Samardzija.