Trading X?

[MakMan44]

Dickey was a 37 year old knuckle baller with one year of control looking for a market contract, on a team headed into the downside of their competitive cycle.

Kluber is a 28 yo with four more years of pre FA club control on a team that is knocking on the door of being a playoff contender.

I don't think there's a lot that can be said about the two in common other than the fact that they won CYAs.

I think there's a case to be made that Kluber has peaked. I don't know how particularly strong it is and I agree that it's incredibly unlikely he gets moved but he's not going to get any better than 2014.
 
EDIT: If he is to get moved, it's going to be for a bigger haul than Dickey for reason you've pointed out. As much as I've been arguing that Xander would start the conversation, I don't even know if that's actually true from the Indians perspective. 

 

[MakMan44]

Bumgarner's performance in the World Series has made a lot of people ace obsessed. Iwould love to have Lester back but in the event he is not,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.

Ignoring the trade Xander talk for a second, you've set yourself up for an ugly rotation. Santana, Masterson, Buch, Kid, Kid is just not going to get it done, even if want to ignore the need for a traditional "ace"

 

[Rasputin]

If Hanley Ramirez has stuck at SS all this time,why can't Bogaerts?  Does anyone think he'll be appreciably worse?   

 
Why the hell would anyone think Bogaerts is going to be worse? 
 

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.

 
If the Sox whiff on Max and Lester, they trade for one of the not quite as good pitchers the same way they planned to do if they signed Lester. Sure, they look for trades for the better guys, but they don't trade Xander or Betts or Swihart and they look towards next offseason when there are more free agent pitchers and they'll have a better idea what they have in the in house guys.

 

[snowmanny]

Bumgarner's performance in the World Series has made a lot of people ace obsessed. .

I don't think it's just Bumgarner. The guy who went 2-0 0.59 in the previous World Series might have something to do with it as well.

 

[MakMan44]

If the Sox whiff on Max and Lester, they trade for one of the not quite as good pitchers the same way they planned to do if they signed Lester. Sure, they look for trades for the better guys, but they don't trade Xander or Betts or Swihart and they look towards next offseason when there are more free agent pitchers and they'll have a better idea what they have in the in house guys.

Jeez, way to talk me off the ledge Ras. You're right, if they're able to swing a Latos type deal that's probably enough. 
 
EDIT: Kluber/Xander was more of a thought experiment than a realistic possibility. 

 

[Doctor G]

Ignoring the trade Xander talk for a second, you've set yourself up for an ugly rotation. Santana, Masterson, Buch, Kid, Kid is just not going to get it done, even if want to ignore the need for a traditional "ace"

if you replace Santana with Lester it will still be ugly just more expensive. Plus you might have Lester in Eduardo Rodriquez in 2016

 

[MakMan44]

if you replace Santana with Lester it will still be ugly just more expensive. Plus you might have Lester in Eduardo Rodriquez in 2016

If you replace Masterson with Lester it'll be less ugly and spending all those dollars on Pablo and Hanley will make sense. 

 

[grimshaw]

 
Why the hell would anyone think Bogaerts is going to be worse? 
 
 

I for one don't, but a lot of people here think it's going to happen in the near future.

 

[Doctor G]

If you replace Masterson with Lester it'll be less ugly and spending all those dollars on Pablo and Hanley will make sense.

I agree.

 

[MakMan44]

I agree.

Well shoot, buddy, that was easy. Honestly, there are ways to get by without Lester, you're not wrong on that. He's just the best option because of past success/requiring the least given up (just money, no QO or prospects)

 

[67WasBest]

If there is any logic to trading Xander this year, the following should be true
 
1) His value has not diminished and the return would be as high as it ever should have been
2) They believe Marrero is their shortstop of the future and they have concern about Xander would handle a move off shortstop
 
There is a case to be made for nailing down the #1, or #2 starter spot for the next 5 to 6 years, but that would disturb the depth at SS to a less than acceptable level.  If pitching were not as available as it seems this year, I might feel different, but as of this moment, it's filling one risk and creating another.  Unacceptable!

 

[veritas]

If there is any logic to trading Xander this year, the following should be true
 
1) His value has not diminished and the return would be as high as it ever should have been
2) They believe Marrero is their shortstop of the future and they have concern about Xander would handle a move off shortstop
 
There is a case to be made for nailing down the #1, or #2 starter spot for the next 5 to 6 years, but that would disturb the depth at SS to a less than acceptable level.  If pitching were not as available as it seems this year, I might feel different, but as of this moment, it's filling one risk and creating another.  Unacceptable!

 
Bingo. Last year should change Bogaerts' value as a player to any smart talent evaluator. I don't think his ceiling or floor is any different, but his bell curve of possible long term outcomes for what he will be has shifted towards the negative after last season.
 
If there's a GM out there who is willing to give you the sort of return he would have gotten a year or two ago, you definitely have to consider it. Assuming of course the Red Sox don't have information that suggests last year was an aberration, whether it be an injury, correctable mechanical flaw, etc. that fans and other teams aren't aware of.
 
Also, I'd take Kluber for Xander in a heartbeat. It's a bit of a gamble given he's a late bloomer, but an ace with 4 years before free agency doesn't come along very often.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
Bingo. Last year should change Bogaerts' value as a player to any smart talent evaluator. I don't think his ceiling or floor is any different, but his bell curve of possible long term outcomes for what he will be has shifted towards the negative after last season.
 
If there's a GM out there who is willing to give you the sort of return he would have gotten a year or two ago, you definitely have to consider it. Assuming of course the Red Sox don't have information that suggests last year was an aberration, whether it be an injury, correctable mechanical flaw, etc. that fans and other teams aren't aware of.
 
Also, I'd take Kluber for Xander in a heartbeat. It's a bit of a gamble given he's a late bloomer, but an ace with 4 years before free agency doesn't come along very often.

 
Neither do the Bogaerts of the world .. and a position player - and a SS in particular is far more valuable than a SP - regardless of how good. 

 

[Leather]

 
Neither do the Bogaerts of the world .. and a position player - and a SS in particular is far more valuable than a SP - regardless of how good. 

 
Based on what?  

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
a SS in particular is far more valuable than a SP - regardless of how good. 

 
You don't really mean this, do you?

 

[Devizier]

 
You don't really mean this, do you?

its actually kind of remarkable when you think about it -- great pitchers and positional players tend to be worth roughly the same.. But even so, Pedro's '99 is worth a little more than Ripken's '91 by fWAR.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
You don't really mean this, do you?

 
OK - caveat for guys like Kershaw or Felix Hernandez
 
But, in general I would rather have a star everyday player than a star pitcher. Particularly at an up-the-middle position.
 
Part of this is the more fragile nature of pitchers in general. There's a reason why teams are reluctant to sign pitchers to 6 year plus deals.

 

[MakMan44]

 
OK - caveat for guys like Kershaw or Felix Hernandez
 
But, in general I would rather have a star everyday player than a star pitcher. Particularly at an up-the-middle position.
 
Part of this is the more fragile nature of pitchers in general. There's a reason why teams are reluctant to sign pitchers to 6 year plus deals.

That wasn't your point though. Well, it may have been your point but you phrased it horribly. The bolded is absolutely something I agree with, but if you give me the choice between a 2 win SS and a 7 win SP, I'm taking the SP every single time and that is what "a SS in particular is far more valuable than a SP - regardless of how good." sounded like. 

 

[67WasBest]

 
OK - caveat for guys like Kershaw or Felix Hernandez
 
But, in general I would rather have a star everyday player than a star pitcher. Particularly at an up-the-middle position.
 
Part of this is the more fragile nature of pitchers in general. There's a reason why teams are reluctant to sign pitchers to 6 year plus deals.

Wouldn't he have to be above average with leather for the bolded to matter?
 
With offense down all across baseball, X would be above average at most positions, if not all.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

That wasn't your point though. Well, it may have been your point but you phrased it horribly. The bolded is absolutely something I agree with, but if you give me the choice between a 2 win SS and a 7 win SP, I'm taking the SP every single time and that is what "a SS in particular is far more valuable than a SP - regardless of how good." sounded like. 

 
Yes - my apologies, I obviously worded it poorly .. should have said "a star SS in particular is far more valuable than a star SP" 

 

[MakMan44]

 
Yes - my apologies, I obviously worded it poorly .. should have said "a star SS in particular is far more valuable than a star SP" 

Yeah, no problem. Just pointing out what caused the confusion.  :buddy: