Who are your four untouchable prospects?

Pick 'em!

  • Trey Ball

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Matt Barnes

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Mookie Betts

    Votes: 284 97.6%
  • Xander Bogaerts

    Votes: 253 86.9%
  • Jackie Bradley, Jr.

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Garin Cecchini

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • Sean Coyle

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Rafael Devers

    Votes: 76 26.1%
  • Edwin Escobar

    Votes: 11 3.8%
  • Brian Johnson

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • Manuel Margot

    Votes: 37 12.7%
  • Deven Marrero

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Henry Owens

    Votes: 90 30.9%
  • Noe Ramirez

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Henry Ramos

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eduardo Rodriguez

    Votes: 61 21.0%
  • Travis Shaw

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Blake Swihart

    Votes: 260 89.3%
  • Christian Vazquez

    Votes: 38 13.1%
  • Other - Identify

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • Total voters
    291

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Let's say the Phillies called today and said, "we'll trade you Hamels (or the Reds and it's Cueto or chose your own adventure) and we want Cespedes (or Craig), and two prospects of our choice, after you take 4 of them off the table".  Who are the 4 you take off?
 
These are lots of guys considered prospects by many, I've carved out guys Under 25 years old for this poll (Ranaudo is over 25).  Pick no more than 4:
 
 
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
I think you're going to see 3 guys dominate the poll and a bunch of quibbling over the 4th spot. I went with Eduardo Rodriguez as my 4th, personally. 
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,824
I would be real bummed if they traded Devers right now. The dude is the equivalent of a HS senior and has the potential for 40 HR power.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I really only have two untouchables, Betts and Owens.
 
I added Swihart and Vazquez, as I would hate to lose either and you asked for four.
 
And there are other guys who I would also hate to lose, of course.
 
But if Hamels (or Cueto) is the bait, the only two who I would absolutely not trade are the first two I mentioned.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,946
I don't believe in untouchability, but for purposes of this exercise I was able to easily identify Swihart, Betts and Owens.  After that I was stumped but picked Rodriguez.  Can never have too much pitching, as we have learned lately. 
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,817
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Why are some people leaving Bogaerts out of this? Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and Rodriguez for me. Like Owens a lot, but Rodriguez has a higher ceiling and is the only guy on the system I can see headlining a rotation some day.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Lose Remerswaal said:
I've carved out guys Under 25 years old for this poll (Ranaudo is over 25).  Pick no more than 4:
 
Prospect denotes a player without significant major league experience; most often qualifying as a rookie. IOW, Ranaudo is more of a "prospect" than Bogaerts. The latter is a cost-controlled major league regular, at minimum.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,946
I left Bogaerts out because defensively, he is now locked into a position that he doesn't play especially well and he has not yet proven that he can adjust to hit pitchers who have adjusted to him.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,244
Falmouth
Koufax said:
I left Bogaerts out because defensively, he is now locked into a position that he doesn't play especially well and he has not yet proven that he can adjust to hit pitchers who have adjusted to him.
 
Who on this list has done that?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
soxfan121 said:
 
Prospect denotes a player without significant major league experience; most often qualifying as a rookie. IOW, Ranaudo is more of a "prospect" than Bogaerts. The latter is a cost-controlled major league regular, at minimum.
 
True, but I wanted this to be an objective listing of players, not a subjective one that would lead to arguments about what determines who is and who is not a prospect.  For purposes of the question (untouchable players), my definition works as well as any other, while avoiding that discussion.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts, Owens.
 
The nice thing is that there are a LOT of guys I really don't want to see the Sox move.  Tons of talent in the system.  
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,230
Portland
There is no question about my top 3 - same as everyone's
I went with Margot as my 4th.  They don't have much dynamic speed in the organization, or a true centerfielder who has some pop (unless Bradley turns a corner).
 
He already has plus+ speed (not changing) and plus plus defensive potential.  He's also 20 in high A and ripped it apart in August, so it isn't inconceivable he hits the majors by 22.  Seems like the Devon White skill set
 
I didn't want to move Owens until a few days ago, because it seems like it will be necessary to move top end talent for top end talent.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,096
I had a super hard time picking the fourth after the obvious Bogaerts/Betts/Swihart. I went Escobar, because I think he might have a higher ceiling than Ownes - but it's really a toss-up between them. Devers is damn close to this tier too; yea he's super young but in this offensive environment you don't let guys like that go.
 
EDIT: I voted/posted Escobar, but I meant Rodriguez. Oy.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Laser Show said:
I had a super hard time picking the fourth after the obvious Bogaerts/Betts/Swihart. I went Escobar, because I think he might have a higher ceiling than Ownes - but it's really a toss-up between them. Devers is damn close to this tier too; yea he's super young but in this offensive environment you don't let guys like that go.
You sure you mean Escobar?  It sounds like you're describing Rodriguez
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,682
I went Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart and Devers. Owens is not untouchable to me since he doesn't have ace upside. 
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
2,415
New Mexico
Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart and Devers. I would prefer them to only take one of Owens/Rodriguez, but honestly, neither one of them is likely to be as good as Hamels.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]You'd have to expand the list to 7 or 8 before I'd do the "pick 2" deal with Philly that's described in the OP, but I didn't fight the hypo.[/SIZE]
 
Above-average starting pitching needs to come from somewhere. If you're pretty much never going to hand out a $150mm contract to a pitcher, you can pretty much never trade a pitching prospect of Henry Owens's caliber. Guys with his track record in the high minors have a pretty good record of turning into mid-rotation or better MLB starters, though it doesn't happen overnight. (I'm not as bullish on Eduardo Rodriguez as others, though he's obviously a fine prospect we wouldn't trade lightly.)
 
Went with the standard Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart trio for the rest, but honestly, I think you'd be more likely to get a fair return for one of those guys than for Owens. 
 

pockmeister

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
372
London, England
In terms of prospects who have not yet reached the majors, the only one who is untouchable is Swihart, as average / above average defensive catchers with strong  hitting skills are among the rarest commodities in MLB.  Prospects lower down the farm system are too far from the majors to be untouchable, and have plenty of opportunities to flame-out or fail to reach their potential, so I don't see any of them as untouchable.  None of our pitching prospects are exciting enough to be untouchable in a trade that brings back proven MLB pitching.
 
As for those in the majors, Betts is untouchable because it's hard to envisage him bringing back something better in return and he looks like being a MLB regular this season.  Xander's value took a blow this year but he has the potential to to rebound and be a top-draw major league player at a position where the Sox have struggled to find stability so I would view him as untouchable for this coming season at least.  He's our starting short-stop an no longer a "prospect" as such.  Same for Vazquez - he's a starter and so I wouldn't include him as a prospect either
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
TheoShmeo said:
I really only have two untouchables, Betts and Owens.
 
I added Swihart and Vazquez, as I would hate to lose either and you asked for four.
 
And there are other guys who I would also hate to lose, of course.
 
But if Hamels (or Cueto) is the bait, the only two who I would absolutely not trade are the first two I mentioned.
 
I picked the same four, and think the same about Betts and Owens. I don't want to keep Swihart and Vazquez both forever, but I think a year from now they'll be worth more. 
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,674
Melrose, MA
Betts, Bogaerts and Vazquez are not prospects.

The 4 prospects I would take off the table are Devers, Swihart, Rodriguez or Owens (not both), Margot.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
Betts Swihart ERod and Devers.No Bogaerts as I see him as a guy who will be chasing a position and might not have consistent HR power to play left field.
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,313
Boston, MA
Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, and Devers for me, same as a lot of people.  Mix of minor league track record and upside, mainly at premium spots on the defensive spectrum (even if you don't think that they will be great defenders at those positions).  No one that I will be following as closely as Devers this coming year.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
From the list provided, Bogearts, Betts, Swihart and Devers. Hitting is tough to come by. Elite hitting is exceptionally difficult to lock down. I'd really hope that they didn't pick both Owens and Rodriguez, but I'd rather lose both than any of the four I picked. If we amend this to just prospects meaning no Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, or JBJ I get that the question is less interesting, but I think it's more accurate. If the Phillies are insisting on being able to select from a group of those major league assets, Ben is walking away from the table. Of course, if those names are off the table I doubt the Phillies would give the Sox four get out of jail free cards.
 
Even still, I'd pick Swihart, Devers, Margot and Rodriguez. Again, hitting is king and I like Rodriguez's upside more than Owens' higher probability to reach his lower ceiling.
 

mjohnson406

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2011
23
I also went with Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and Devers but with the caveat that I wouldn't include Owens and Rodriguez in the same deal.  Rodriguez has the higher ceiling so I would prefer to hold on to him. I can see Henry Owens settling into a Ted Lilly type career, prime years with ERA+ in the 110-130 range, couple of years with 4ish WAR.  Certainly valuable, but worth giving up for Hamels for the next 5 years.  
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I really only have three: Betts, X, and Swihart, but I added Vazquez because it would be problematic to replace him for this season, and I love his defense and how well that sets up for this revised roster (having added more hitting to the everyday line-up).  I'm not sure that anyone of them is truly untouchable in the right deal for the right player, but it wouldn't be a guy under control for one year (Cueto, etc.) or Hamels, a very good not great SP on a good not great contract.
 
Also, I wouldn't deal both Rodriguez and Owens for one of the rumored-to-be-available pitchers, but the other team could pick either.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,096
Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
You sure you mean Escobar?  It sounds like you're describing Rodriguez
You're spot on. I've been mixing the two up ever since they came in. Meant to vote for Rodriguez.
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
None are untouchable is the real answer, but I played along and picked Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and in a close pick, Margot over Devers.  It seems pitching is everywhere and guys who can hit what they throw less so.  That slanted my choices toward the hitters and Margot got the nod because he's closer.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,106
UWS, NYC
I listed Michael Chavis as my other.  Partly to be contrary... but the kid wound up having a promising first year and has RH power and I think at least deserves a spot on the list.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
I only have 3 untouchables - Bogaerts, Betts & Vasquez b/c those are the only guys who have shown me enough on the ML level that I think they will provide tremendous excess value through their pre-arb years.
 
Everyone else has major questions marks, even the great Swihart whose defense (while great) is not as good as Vasquez' & while people rave about his offensive potential there are major doubts his bat will play elsewhere as he owns a lifetime minor league OPS of 0.768, about 0.100 points below both Bogaerts & Betts, despite being 1-2 years older at every level.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
I'm at three. Betts, Xander and Swihart. 
Betts is so flexible and all round good I think you'd be crazy to give him up.
Xander is still going to be a star
Swihart is such an excellent prospect at such a hard position I include him too. IF Vasquez blows up with the bat next year then maybe. But I think that's a long shot.
 
I think the rest can't be untouchable. Owens is not an ace, so if he gets you an ace done. Devers is very expensive but I don't make a guy that far away untouchable, but he's not lottery ticket, he's an top prospect.
Rodriguez is the only other one I debated, but bottom line he is a helium guy and if someone makes you the right offer you can't say he's a certain anything. 6mths ago he was a middling guy.
 

Dewy4PrezII

Very Intense
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2003
2,802
Outside The District
Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and Devers.  I don't think Devers is so much an untouchable but given his age and how he was able to perform at a lower level of professional ball he simply would not bring back the type of return that the others would.  Basically it amounts to: what if they had traded a guy like Bogaerts or Hanley Ramirez when they were still in A ball rather than after they established that they could do it at a higher level.  The return would have been much less and not necessarily worth it. 
 

jasail

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,190
Boston
I voted Xander, Betts, Swihart and ERod. However, the poll doesn't really get at the nuance of my thinking.
 
Betts is in a league of his own. He is cost controlled for six more seasons. He appears to be a guy that can roll out of bed and contribute at a high level on both sides of the ball. It would take a supreme overpay for me to let him go.
 
Xander and Swihart are a notch below for different reasons. I have concerns about X's defense at SS and plate approach and Swihart hasn't proven himself for a long enough period at high levels (no fault of his own) and still has to develop his hit tool. However, between their team control and ceilings, I would only consider moving them as part of a package for a cost controlled ace with a pitcher's frame and good mechanics. I would also be less willing to move Xander than Swihart because of the presence of Vazquez making Swihart potentially more expendable. If Marrerro continues to establish himself and progress into a player similar to Vazquez, I'd view them similarly.
 
I chose ERod as my 4th. However, he occupies the next level down with Owens, as the Sox best starting pitching prospects. I have a strong preference to ERod over Owens. This is because ERod is younger, has a power fastball and three pitch mix and this makes me believe that he has fewer constraints facing him to become a top of the rotation pitcher. Whereas, I have more concerns that Owens may max out as a middle of the rotation guy because his stuff may not play at higher levels, he's up in the zone often and he lacks an MLB quality 3rd pitch. For these reasons, I'd trade Owens in a deal for a player at a position of need that I really like but do not love. To illustrate, if Ruin Tomorrow was willing to move Hammels for a package around Owens, I would jump at it, but I would not jump at a the same deal if it featured ERod instead of Owens. However, if the Sox could get someone of the ilk of Cueto or Zimmerman and they were open to an extension (which I understand is unlikely), I would be willing to build a package around ERod.  
 
Just below that I'd place Devers, Margot and Chavis. These are three guys that are young and have shown a lot at lower levels. However, I'd prefer to see how they mature. As another poster above pointed out, if you wait a half-season or more, these players may substantially enhance their value. Granted, the flip side is true and they may go from young blue chip to a lotto ticket. However, I am optimistic, based on their tools and the scouting reports on them, that these guys are more likely to evolve into guys that are Betts/Swihart/Xander level "untouchable" or a guys that you can move for an elite player than they are guys that you are going to regret not moving in 2015.
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,374
Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts were no brainers for me. 
 
Outside of that the two mindsets I battled with were those which have more value or potential value to the major league team this year as valuable pieces (Vazquez,potentially Eduardo Ramirez,Owens) versus premium talent in the system with high upside.
 
I chose the latter and I chose Trey Ball. [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]I chose Ball mainly because the Sox chose him at a higher overall pick than they have had in over 10 years(or much longer? I only looked back 10 or so), and as a 6'6" lefty he's got the potential to be a tough AB. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]This was admittedly a bad pick for two reasons: [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]1)TINSTAAPP : especially considering he is 20 years old and 185 lbs soaking wet.[/SIZE]
 
2) Margot and Devers: Wow. I knew about them in theory but damn: These guys look like they can rake, and they are younger than the competition. I am going to look in this forum to learn more about them.
 
I agree that if you can trade Owens for Hamels you do it. I like Owens a lot, but the upside is limited with his stuff. I feel that less so with Ramirez. I don't think the Sox are willing to trade either of these guys straight up for Hamels because IMO if they were it would be a done deal by now. 
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,342
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I just want to know who the three miscreants were that didn't vote for Mookie.
 
I'm guessing Felger and Mazz are members of the forum
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
As for the oppositte of this question, I'm actively rooting for the Sox to trade Joseph Winterburn so he no longer wastes my time when i'm trying to read up on real prospects.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,954
Had to go with Margot as my 4th.  
 
Betts age 19 season (Lowell): 251 AB, .262/.352/.307, 20 SB
Margot age 19 (Greenville/Salem): 420 AB, .293/.356/.462, 42 SB
 
Obviously, they're small sample sizes and Mookie made some huge adjustments entering his age 20 season, but Margot is just such an advanced hitter at such a young age while playing against competition nearly 4 years older.  He's very underrated and with reports of ++ defense in CF, he's going to be a very special player.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,004
Alexandria, VA
Manramsclan said:
 
I agree that if you can trade Owens for Hamels you do it.
 
I don't mean to pick you out in particular, just this point that a lot of people have made.
 
People keep saying things like this and TINSTAAPP as reasons to justify leaving pitchers off their lists.  It seems almost duplicitous or confused or something to me.  Would you not trade Betts for, say, the Trout of 2 years ago?
 
To me, either there's no such thing as untradeable (which I believe), or "untradeable" really mean "untradeable unless I get an amazing offer".  Well, yeah.  Either one is true.  But pretending that there's a bright line distinction between Owens and Betts or Bogaerts in that manner seems like it's a manufactured difference--for a player who represents their already realized potential, who's young and cost-controlled, you trade anyone.
 
I'm open to being convinced otherwise.  Talk to me, people.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,439
Koufax said:
I left Bogaerts out because defensively, he is now locked into a position that he doesn't play especially well and he has not yet proven that he can adjust to hit pitchers who have adjusted to him.
I see this a lot and disagree.  Didn't Bogaerts exactly do this?  Didn't he start out awesome, then go into an epic slump (mind you... after being moved off his natural position) and then make adjustments and begin to hit very well again (mind you, yet again... after being moved BACK to his original position).
Neither Betts nor anyone else has played as long as X and had the time to make adjustments... if all we saw of X was his September there wouldn't be anyone leaving him off this list.  There might be some pause for some lack of BB's, but nobody would think he wouldn't be a future all start
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
Trotsky said:
I see this a lot and disagree.  Didn't Bogaerts exactly do this?  Didn't he start out awesome, then go into an epic slump (mind you... after being moved off his natural position) and then make adjustments and begin to hit very well again (mind you, yet again... after being moved BACK to his original position).
Neither Betts nor anyone else has played as long as X and had the time to make adjustments... if all we saw of X was his September there wouldn't be anyone leaving him off this list.  There might be some pause for some lack of BB's, but nobody would think he wouldn't be a future all start
i don't see the position change explanation for his summer hitting woes as a positive factor in his evaluation. I don't believe Xander has ever said it was a factor. What was more likely a factor is he started slumping at the point in the season when pitchers are starting to throw their best breaking stuff. You have to remember why the position change took place. he was erratic defensively at shortstop. The Sox reacted by moving him to a position where he had been at least adequate the previous year. I put his season down to a case of putting too much responsibility on a young player during a season where the team was not as strong offensively as they were the year before. The opposition was well aware of Bogaerts' struggles with runners in scoring position which were actually worse than JBJ's.

I'm just hoping he can get off to a good start this year, in a lineup with a lot more firepower. I like him just as much as the other young guys. I just don't think it does any good for the player for the fans to make excuses for him . He wasn't the only highly touted rookie to struggle at the plate last year. He was just one of the only ones whose club continued to keep him in the lineup all season. This will be a positive in the long view.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Yeah, this is revisionist. They moved him because vast bottomless pit of suck at 3B needed fixing and the easiest/most affordable option was Stephen Drew, who was also a SS, better defensively and cost nothing but $. They surveyed the landscape of 3Bs available by trade, found it overpriced or underwhelming and took route B by signing Drew and moving X to 3B. I'm pretty sure they went into the season expecting their 21 yo SS to be erratic at times. He was hitting well enough to outweigh that.
AT the time they moved him Brock Holt was the everyday third baseman and was their leadoff hitter. Xander was still hitting when he was moved but was inconsistent in the field. They didn't sign Drew for his bat. Holt was productive enough to stay in the lineup until he was injured in September.I dont think I'm revising history when I say the reason for the move was Xander's SS defense.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,444
Wilmington MA
AT the time they moved him Brock Holt was the everyday third baseman and was their leadoff hitter. Xander was still hitting when he was moved but was inconsistent in the field. They didn't sign Drew for his bat. Holt was productive enough to stay in the lineup until he was injured in September.I dont think I'm revising history when I say the reason for the move was Xander's SS defense.
Brock Holt was recalled from AAA on 5/17 when Middlebrooks broke his finger, Drew was re-signed on 5/21 when Holt was still batting 8th or 9th. Now, by the time Drew joined the team, it looked like a mistake because of how well Holt had been playing, but it's not like they could take it back at that point, or like Holt wasn't an upgrade at the other positions he played after that, too.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,439
 
 
And they just locked themselves into it for possibly up to 5 years with the Panda signing,
Not sure if I agree with this.  I see this season as a tryout for X as a long-term SS solution more than anything else.  If he sticks, great!  Problem solved.  If his defense doesn't at least get up to close to league average I could easily see Panda moving across the diamond in '16 with X moving to 3rd for the long term and another more defensive player (Marrero?) taking over SS 
 

FinanceAdvice

New Member
Apr 1, 2008
167
Albany, NY
When you take a look at the current SR of Porcello, Buchholz, Kelly, Miley and Masterson, along with the chances of adding Hamels ( has always been my first choice) or Cueto,my list would be very short:  Betts, Vazquez, Bogaerts. To follow the guidelines of 4 I would then add Edwin Rodriquez OR Devers, if he could make transition from 3rd to ss (added insurance for Bogaerts).
 
Perhaps I take a rather restrictive role of prospects as I've seen far too many "high grade prospects" over the years that never materialized not to count anyone out as trade chips.  However,I went with Betts, Bogaerts and Vazquez because  although a small sample they have proven to perform as everyday MLB players.
 
Betts:  talking about having him lead-off and his versatillity
Bogaerts:  Do people forget his role in WS?
Vazquez:  the machinations of him being somewhat like a Yadier?
:rolling: