Trading X?
- Thread starter 67WasBest
- Start date
67WasBest said:
Yes. I'd take 5 years of cost controlled Grey over 5 years of cost controlled Xander. I'd take one year of Shark over one year of Cespedes. And I'd give them Cecchini to make sure I could get both. With that rotation and the new additions to the offense, I'd be more than fine suffering through Vazquez and Marrero hitting 8th and 9th.
Yes your right they sent Smith to SD. That leaves Gentry. It may be an upgrade adding Cespedes but I'm not sure that is the direction Oakland is going. Based I what I've been reading BB is trying to address the loss of Lowrie. He may come back around for OF but I think he's using Samardzija to get a SS, thus the White Sox reporting on a potential trade.sackamano said:
Nice catch.
I have a weird feeling they will deal Bogaerts for an ace. If not this offseason, then before next year.
They have what they hope Xander becomes in Hanley. Let him play SS, and if Marrero is ready next year, move him to 1B. By locking down that second rotation spot with such a ballplayer, their kid pitchers can ease in as back of the rotation guys, and their host of position players are trying to fill 1B and maybe a corner OF spot. Sure beats going into next year seeking another #2 guy. Giving away Xander is tough, but obtaining an ace would ease overall roster management and a step worth taking in my opinion.
They have what they hope Xander becomes in Hanley. Let him play SS, and if Marrero is ready next year, move him to 1B. By locking down that second rotation spot with such a ballplayer, their kid pitchers can ease in as back of the rotation guys, and their host of position players are trying to fill 1B and maybe a corner OF spot. Sure beats going into next year seeking another #2 guy. Giving away Xander is tough, but obtaining an ace would ease overall roster management and a step worth taking in my opinion.
This should probably be its own topic, because there's a lot to talk about.67WasBest said:
I think a lot has to break right for Xander to be traded before next season. Marrero has to show he can hit MLB pitching, Xander has to bounce back, and a the right type of pitcher has to pop up. Aces are going to show up on the market quite frequently, but if you're trading Xander (with increased trade value) you want someone who's young and cost controlled. That's a lot rarer.
If we follow the A's trend, that being potentially "younger/cheaper" and how BB works then Kazmir and Shark would be what he would want to trade. I believe Gray is more in tune with how things are shaking out in Oakland in that he is cheap and controllable. They'd need and arm to replace the losses in the rotation. What arm would the Sox want to trade? Would the Sox really want Kazmir? Would Kazmir survive in Boston? Not sure I'd want to go with this trade.67WasBest said:
Not sure I'd let Bogaerts go until he proves he cannot handle SS and Marrero proves he can hit. Marrero did well in AFL but I think he needs to prove he can continue to hit in AAA. The All-star break would be a good time to reassess that.
Edit: Concur with MakMan this requires its own thread.
Thinking we should note that trading a stud SS prospect like Hanley for an ace in 2005 is not analogous to trading a stud SS prospect like Bogaerts for an ace today. Bogaerts is worth far more in this environment.
It was a lot harder to get an "ace" back when we traded for Beckett. Only 40 qualified starting pitchers had an xFIP under 4.00 over 2003-2005. From 2012-2014, there were 80 of those.
Not saying Hanley and Bogaerts are the same player, or that they'll have the same value over their careers. But the marginal value of a run is a lot more nowadays. Standout hitters are worth more.
So in the abstract, team needs aside, Bogaerts should very easily bring back Sonny Gray. Recall that Dave Cameron had Bogaerts had #23 in the league in his trade value rankings (Gray was #31).
It was a lot harder to get an "ace" back when we traded for Beckett. Only 40 qualified starting pitchers had an xFIP under 4.00 over 2003-2005. From 2012-2014, there were 80 of those.
Not saying Hanley and Bogaerts are the same player, or that they'll have the same value over their careers. But the marginal value of a run is a lot more nowadays. Standout hitters are worth more.
So in the abstract, team needs aside, Bogaerts should very easily bring back Sonny Gray. Recall that Dave Cameron had Bogaerts had #23 in the league in his trade value rankings (Gray was #31).
Anything's possible and few players are really untouchable. But the Sox can go out and buy 2 good pitchers without trading anyone, let alone their 22 year old potential All Star SS. They'll also be able to get a guy like Ross or Shark for < Bogaerts. They have almost no reason to do anything stupid and desperate.
Absent actual intel suggesting the Sox ARE talking X trades, let's leave him out of our rank speculations. He's going to be raking in Fenway for the next decade plus if we're lucky.
Absent actual intel suggesting the Sox ARE talking X trades, let's leave him out of our rank speculations. He's going to be raking in Fenway for the next decade plus if we're lucky.
This times ten. Dealing Bogaerts now would be, IMO, incredibly reckless and desperate. This isn't necessary at all right now and I suspect, what with all we've heard about Xander and how long we've heard it from BC et al, they remain high on him.Rasputin said:
Xander stays. 'Cause I say so.
Agree, Bogaerts isn't going anywhere except to Fort Myers in a few months. Gray though... if the Donaldson deal taught us anything it's that Billy Beane will deal anyone. Certainly not saying Gray will get traded and I'm not 14 so I have no sources on this matter, but at this point I wouldn't say there's anyone Beane won't trade.
Perhaps the no trade group has a stronger point. At least by this blurb they are:
“[E]very organization now thinks it has pitching,” says an NL executive. “Maybe not as much as the Mets, but more than in the past. No one can find bats. I just think the teams with bats are king right now.” Here are more notes from the National League.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/
“[E]very organization now thinks it has pitching,” says an NL executive. “Maybe not as much as the Mets, but more than in the past. No one can find bats. I just think the teams with bats are king right now.” Here are more notes from the National League.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/
67WasBest said:
Toronto was able to find a bat. And that was for a price a lot of teams could have met.
So you would have rather have given up pretty good prospects and someone equitable to Lowrie for Donaldson? The two top hitters on the market played 3rd Base! I assume that you're in favor of trading for an ace rather than resigning Lester if that's the case.Wingack said:
This keeps getting repeated but I do not believe it to be true. Lowrie has been a solid regular when healthy, at an age in which being solid is often a precursor to being excellent. It's true that he has had trouble staying on the field and he hasn't lived up to his debut, but he is only 25. He has upside.Wingack said:
Add to that a legit top 100 talent and two useful but limited arms and the deal doesn't look that bad, it just all depends on Lowrie.
The equivalent package the Sox would have had to give up would have been Devers, Barnes and a young, above average regular positional player i.e. good version Middlebrooks, plus a C level bullpen arm. I think the A's come out ahead, and if the Jays don't make the playoffs in the next few years it turns out to be terrible.
I definitely wouldn't trade X for an ace in this pitching environment, and trading him seems ridiculous to me short of a young stud RF (Harper).
This thread is going to look dumb in June.
I definitely wouldn't trade X for an ace in this pitching environment, and trading him seems ridiculous to me short of a young stud RF (Harper).
This thread is going to look dumb in June.
Agreed, especially considering the Red Sox may already have a young stud in RF named Mookie Betts.
It's a very short list of players I'd consider trading Bogaerts for right now.
If the goal is to be the opposite of Billy Beane then selling Xander now, while his value is low to medium, would be a good plan.
A lot of the mystery here comes down to how well Xander is going able to handle the SS position defensively.
It seems with the Sandoval and Ramirez signings, there's nowhere but SS for him to play with the Red Sox.
It seems with the Sandoval and Ramirez signings, there's nowhere but SS for him to play with the Red Sox.
dewystoetap said:
I assume that means you'd offer Lester 5/160 minimum*, because I see Bogaerts as worth at least $50Million over his salary the next five years, and I see Lester as at least equal to Hamels.
*I realize there are luxury cap implications that make 5/160 more problematic than 5/110, but I believe the point still stands.
Is this just a hypothetical thread or had there been legitimate chatter about a Sox/A's deal involving these players?
I would assume Hanley plays SS until Marrero is ready in 2016. But that idea is horrible to me.MakMan44 said:
Count me in the 'don't trade Bogaerts unless it's an absolute overpay' camp
Just because we could trade Bogaerts for an ace doesn't mean we should.
I think, right now, we have the parts to deal for a number 2 and a number 3 starting pitcher without delving into our top prospects or projected everyday players.
I'd rather have something like Lester, Shark, Ross (for example) and five years of Bogaerts than something like Lester, Shark, Gray and lose a Bogaerts (or Betts). Maybe something changes by next season, such as the emergence of Marrero where you trade Bogaerts for a cost controlled starter, but I think as of right now, that hole can be filled by Cespedes and the Websters, Cecchinis and Ranaudos of the world.
I think, right now, we have the parts to deal for a number 2 and a number 3 starting pitcher without delving into our top prospects or projected everyday players.
I'd rather have something like Lester, Shark, Ross (for example) and five years of Bogaerts than something like Lester, Shark, Gray and lose a Bogaerts (or Betts). Maybe something changes by next season, such as the emergence of Marrero where you trade Bogaerts for a cost controlled starter, but I think as of right now, that hole can be filled by Cespedes and the Websters, Cecchinis and Ranaudos of the world.
I know that Bogaerts for Gray (or someone similar) would be a fair trade on the face of things, and it probably net-net makes them a better team next season, but I hope the Red Sox don't go that route. The three year difference between the two players is fairly substantial, and I like the fact that the Red Sox effectively have two+ players at every position right now. It gives them a lot of flexibility, which is nice because injuries will happen. Given who's on the market right now, trading Bogaerts for any ace short of the Kershaw, Hernandez, Darvish, Kluber tier would be a bit of a folly at this time. And last I checked, none of those guys is getting traded.
Shortstop is arguably the toughest position to fill. Consider the last decade of Red Sox teams and count how little we have gotten on both sides of the ball from shortstop. We have a cost controlled, homegrown product who can hit and field and projects to do both even better over time.
And we don't have anyone of near his pedigree in the system. Why would we trade Bogaerts again?!
And we don't have anyone of near his pedigree in the system. Why would we trade Bogaerts again?!
MakMan44 said:
Why would Cleveland want a young shortstop? Does Lindor profile better elsewhere?
I would like to see both actually. I understand the upside and potential, but I don't see X sticking at SS and 3B/LF are blocked. Marrero is close and we are cost controlled at C, RF, and bullpen, as well as reasonable deals at 2B and if things workout CF. Nap, Victorino, and Cespedes come off the books next year. I love homegrown prospects as much as anyone, but sometimes you have to trade "potential" for a proven talent.snowmanny said:
I'd have to double check his numbers but I think he's going to need at least another season in AAA. When he's ready Xander could slid over to 3rd because it's not like Lonnie is anything special over there. I don't think it's actually going to happen, but I do think it makes sense for both sides.Danny_Darwin said:
EDIT: Actually, Lindor did better in AAA than I had thought, but he's 21 and his walk rate plunged after AA so I could see him getting the full season.
sackamano said:
I believe this is where the FO is at. They think it's "more likely than not" that Bogaerts can handle SS for several seasons, but they will listen to strong offers since there's a legitimate chance {3 in 10?} that he can't really play SS.
MakMan44 said:
Except for the fact that it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THE RED SOX.
Jesus people, let's not start making holes in the lineup when we don't need to.
There are free agent pitchers. We have money to spend. Let's go get some pitchers.
And not fuck up the team in the process.
The whole reason the sox were able to sign panda and sandoval and are able to have $$ for Lester is bc they have guys like Bogaerts, Betts, and Vazquez taking up 1/3 of the starting lineup at league min.
The Sox aren't in the business of dishing cost controlled high end talent just to replace with a worse player at a higher cost.
Bogaerts won't be moved
The Sox aren't in the business of dishing cost controlled high end talent just to replace with a worse player at a higher cost.
Bogaerts won't be moved
If Hanley Ramirez has stuck at SS all this time,why can't Bogaerts? Does anyone think he'll be appreciably worse? IMO at 22, he is more likely to improve than regress in the field, provided he doesn't get a lot bigger.
I just don't see either GM calling up the other with the intent to move their guy. The Indians were 85-77 last year. They're a piece or two away from contention. Why move their Cy Young? Makes no sense to me at all.
I just don't see either GM calling up the other with the intent to move their guy. The Indians were 85-77 last year. They're a piece or two away from contention. Why move their Cy Young? Makes no sense to me at all.
In the scenario where the Sox whiff on Max and Lester, what happens then? They're going to need to trade for that level of pitcher and we have no clue what it'll actually take to get Hamels. Trading Xander isn't plan A, B, or C, obviously.
MakMan44 said:
Make offers to Shields and/or Kuroda? Take a flier on a gamble like Josh Johnson or Brett Anderson?
Not an ideal scenario, but those guys could be useful on short contracts. The Sox have enough depth at SP to take some chances. I would rather see them sign Lester or Scherzer.
There is plenty in our farm system to get pitching and not include X, Betts and whichever catcher they want to keep between Vaz and Swihart. The Red Sox would probably prefer to keep all four but anyone of them under control for 5-6 years is just incredible value. The type of value needed to pry a Cueto, Zimmerman, Hamels, Gray and to a much lesser extent Shark away from their respective teams. Now Hamels and Gray are already cost controlled so if the Red Sox give up one of the above four ( I'm guessing as to Vaz's value but the Red Sox are expecting him to start next year so I think it's safe to assume other teams similarly hold that value) there shouldn't be much else going from the Sox farm or team.
We have too many OF's and a surplus of lefty pitching prospects. I would consider X and Betts untouchable but I think they're going to have to choose this offseason between the two catchers as a centerpiece of a deal for elite pitching....
We have too many OF's and a surplus of lefty pitching prospects. I would consider X and Betts untouchable but I think they're going to have to choose this offseason between the two catchers as a centerpiece of a deal for elite pitching....
Shields maybe, but none of those other names are like to put up Ace like numbers including all of in house options. I'd rather they sign Lester too, it's why I think they should go 7 years but if they don't, it's a big gamble to go into next season with a question mark at the #1 spot.Devizier said:
Bless you.Rasputin said:
Trading Xander is opening up a hole we don't need to open up at a spot where we are very likely to have an advantage offensively and financially for the next decade. I'd rather have not-so-big game James/Ervin Santana AND Xander (AND money left over) than Cole Hamels. Are there people who wouldn't?
Edit because my fingers are depressed they didn't call the PI on the Gronk play.
Bumgarner's performance in the World Series has made a lot of people ace obsessed. I would be willing to take my chances with Ervin Santana Justin Masterson Andrew Miller and Sergio Romo.
This would cost about 40M next year and you get to keep everyone of your kids. Plus you have 2 potential replacements for Uehara in Miller and Romo.
you could substitute Mc carthy for Santana if you want to save some cash for injury replacement during the season.
This would cost about 40M next year and you get to keep everyone of your kids. Plus you have 2 potential replacements for Uehara in Miller and Romo.
you could substitute Mc carthy for Santana if you want to save some cash for injury replacement during the season.
I sure as hell hope BC and Friends aren't giving this possibility as much thought as SOSH is.
"Don't Free Xander!"
"Don't Free Xander!"