Trades before the deadline?

[a700hitter]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Red Sox do not need to do anything.

s*** happens. Injuries. That is why you have to reinforce. You improve weaknesses while admittedly creating some redundancy. If Buchholz continues to be nagged by injury,that would create a glaring need. Rosters will not remain static for our competitors. Right now, we are as good as anyone, but you can probably expect Texas to add a significant piece or two. They have been active in past seasons at the deadline. If they get Cliff Lee they will be very very tough to beat unless we counter. I don't think we have a shot at Lee, and I don't like the rest of the crop available as I don't view them as upgrades. I would move for a big bat, preferably to play everyday in LF who could provide more protection for Ortiz than Napoli can provide. I'd like to see a dominating murderer's row of Pedroia, Ortiz and fill in the blank. A middle like that would make the entire lineup better.

[Bellhorn04]

I would definitely like to see us add a good reliever. To me that's the one area that stands out as a potential weakness. Adding a starter or a bat would be great but it'd be so expensive. I think our offense is pretty damn good as it is.

 

Unfortunately history also shows that deadline deals for relievers can prove to be very costly. Larry Andersen and Eric Gagne come to mind.

 

The Rangers traded Chris Davis and Tommy Hunter to the O's for Uehara. I think they'd like that one back.

[mvp 78]

Gagne didn't work out, but it doesn't even compare to the Bagwell/Andersen trade.

[Dojji]

What you look for isn't the big name to put you over the top. You make an assessment of your needs and add supporting talent that makes sense. Just remember the difference between solid supporting cast, and barely adequate shlub.

 

The thing is in our case our needs are pretty small. What we really need is a bit of SP depth and late inning bullpen help. Who doesn't need those things? Basically our biggest needs are things everyone always needs and what that tells you is that we're pretty well put together.

 

What I'd love to do if I could find a way to do it, is orchestrate a trade that solved a problem position for the team going forward. First base is probably the single biggest area of focus because unlike other potential issue areas like SS or RF or 3B we don't have a stable of prospects waiting in the wings, and our current starter is effectively a temp -- around only as long as it makes sense to both teams, or 3 years, whichever comes first. Naps is not a bad first baseman by any means but not a real longterm solution.

 

I'd love to see this team pick up a younger longterm option at 1B if one becomes available. Eschew the knee-jerk reaction and make a move to set us up with not a superstud, but a quality 1B in his mid to late 20's who'll go 20-25 with something in the .270/.340/.460 range or a little better and man his position defensively. If we find that guy, I'd rather pick him up than go after someone's favorite name.

 

And who knows? Like the other wish list items you can dream up, it's possible we already have that guy. Mike Carp looks like a new man since coming to Boston, and he certainly has the talent to play the role I have in mind.

 

And if we are going after starters, I stand by my statement that Ervin Santana is one of the more interesting targets out there. More interesting than Cliff "Much Too Expensive" Lee and Matt "Going The Way Of Mark Prior" Garza. We've made the kind of mistake each of these guys respectively represent, too recently. I don't want a guy who's arm is going to fly off, and we just had to sell low on too many big contract guys for me to be comfortable adding another one.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Dojji

[BSN07]

What you look for isn't the big name to put you over the top. You make an assessment of your needs and add supporting talent that makes sense. Just remember the difference between solid supporting cast, and barely adequate shlub.

 

The thing is in our case our needs are pretty small. What we really need is a bit of SP depth and late inning bullpen help. Who doesn't need those things? Basically our biggest needs are things everyone always needs and what that tells you is that we're pretty well put together.

 

What I'd love to do if I could find a way to do it, is orchestrate a trade that solved a problem position for the team going forward. First base is probably the single biggest area of focus because unlike other potential issue areas like SS or RF or 3B we don't have a stable of prospects waiting in the wings, and our current starter is effectively a temp -- around only as long as it makes sense to both teams, or 3 years, whichever comes first. Naps is not a bad first baseman by any means but not a real longterm solution.

 

I'd love to see this team pick up a younger longterm option at 1B if one becomes available. Eschew the knee-jerk reaction and make a move to set us up with not a superstud, but a quality 1B in his mid to late 20's who'll go 20-25 with something in the .270/.340/.460 range or a little better and man his position defensively. If we find that guy, I'd rather pick him up than go after someone's favorite name.

 

And who knows? Like the other wish list items you can dream up, it's possible we already have that guy. Mike Carp looks like a new man since coming to Boston, and he certainly has the talent to play the role I have in mind.

 

And if we are going after starters, I stand by my statement that Ervin Santana is one of the more interesting targets out there. More interesting than Cliff "Much Too Expensive" Lee and Matt "Going The Way Of Mark Prior" Garza. We've made the kind of mistake each of these guys respectively represent, too recently. I don't want a guy who's arm is going to fly off, and we just had to sell low on too many big contract guys for me to be comfortable adding another one.

 

I wonder is Seattle would conside trading Smoak? He's hit pretty decent this season. His slash line might get a bump leaving Seattle.

[Dojji]

I thought they got rid of Carp because they were committed to Smoak and didn't have the playing time to develop Carp.

[BSN07]

I thought they got rid of Carp because they were committed to Smoak and didn't have the playing time to develop Carp.

 

Could be the case, he's just the guy that sprang to mind when I was reading your post. We need a list of teams with good 1B prospects that are blocked

[Bellhorn04]

Gagne didn't work out, but it doesn't even compare to the Bagwell/Andersen trade.

 

Sure, agreed. The thing that always amazed me about the Gagne deal, though, was that we had to give up 3 prospects to get one guy who was going to pitch about 20-25 innings for us.

[Dojji]

Could be the case, he's just the guy that sprang to mind when I was reading your post. We need a list of teams with good 1B prospects that are blocked

 

I suspect the team has Carp in mind as one of the first guys to try if a hole opens up. But yeah, we're very light at 1B in terms of depth.

 

Frankly I think it's philosophical. I don't think this organization believes in 1B prospects per se -- their definition of a "1B prospect" over the Theo/Cherington era seems to be a player at another position who's struggling to maintain the athleticism required to thrive there. Michael Almanzar springs to mind as an example.

 

In fairness, their prejudice has borne out in reality. Our best 1B's have come from other positions over most of that time, from Millar who came in as more of an outfielder who moonlighted at first base, to Youkilis, who was always much better at first than at third, and now to Napoli the former catcher. When we've tried to go straight 1B we've wound up with disasters for the most part.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Dojji

[BSN07]

I suspect the team has Carp in mind as one of the first guys to try if a hole opens up. But yeah, we're very light at 1B in terms of depth.

 

Frankly I think it's philosophical. I don't think this organization believes in 1B prospects per se -- their definition of a "1B prospect" over the Theo/Cherington era seems to be a player at another position who's struggling to maintain the athleticism required to thrive there. Michael Almanzar springs to mind as an example.

 

In fairness, their prejudice has borne out in reality. Our best 1B's have come from other positions over most of that time, from Millar who came in as more of an outfielder who moonlighted at first base, to Youkilis, who was always much better at first than at third, and now to Napoli the former catcher. When we've tried to go straight 1B we've wound up with disasters for the most part.

 

Good points. I could see them concentrating on more premiere positions and leave 1B open-ish for a guy that can hit but needs to move off his current position.

[Standing Room]

Olney is reporting that the Cubs are advancing in trade talks regarding Matt Garza. They're reported to be talking to the Rangers, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Guardians and Dodgers.

 

He also reported that Brian Wilson expects to audition for teams in late July or early August. He would be a nice pickup, we have plenty of salary flexibility and he wouldn't cost prospects. We were connected to him earlier and he's a New England native.

[Palodios]

In a similar report, Olney and Stark both agreed that Garza will be the most expensive player to get traded this year. I'm assuming that excludes players with long term contracts and might get traded like Gallardo, Stanton or Price, but still makes me significantly less interested. If they want him badly enough, pay him in the offseason.

[redsoxfan3]

Olney is reporting that the Cubs are advancing in trade talks regarding Matt Garza. They're reported to be talking to the Rangers, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Guardians and Dodgers.

 

He also reported that Brian Wilson expects to audition for teams in late July or early August. He would be a nice pickup, we have plenty of salary flexibility and he wouldn't cost prospects. We were connected to him earlier and he's a New England native.

 

Bringing in Wilson would be a low risk, high reward scenario. He could be a nice arm at the back-end of our rotation if he can regain some of his 2008-2011 form. We do not need him to be a closer, unless of course he can prove that he is worthy to do so. Uehara is looking like a hell of a closer so far. He could add some value to the pen if he can prove to be a reliable arm. What is the worst that can happen? He is not able to be a reliable bullpen arm and we are exactly where we are at now with a first place team.

 

The rotation is tricky.

 

Doubront has not given up more than 3 ER's in his last nine starts. Obviously, it would be nice if he could start pitching deeper into games than his average that is over 5 innings per game.

 

Lackey has been great so far. I couldn't ask for a better comeback from someone.

 

We need Lester to continually improve. His last two outing have been steps in the right direction. If we can get consistency from him, then that will be huge down the stretch. He doesn't have to be an ace, but it would help if he can become consistent.

 

Dempster has been okay as of late. If he is consistent and go out and pitch 6+ innings and only give up two to three runs a game like he did in June, I think he will be a decent starter for us.

 

Webster had a decent start in his major league debut where he went 6 innings and only giving up 2 earned runs. He had a couple bad games against the Twins and Tigers. He proved why he is one of our top pitching prospects in his last outing. I think he is a decent option to fill-in the rotation when there is a need for it. With Buchholz out, I think he has came in during his last two outings and has kept us in the game. He is definitely a nice option to have for depth.

 

Aceves' last three spot starts were huge for us. He has proven that he can come in and be an effective spot starter. Although, four of his last six starts in AAA have been pretty bad. It is hard to tell if we can count on him to be a realistic option without more consistency in AAA.

 

De La Rosa has been pretty effective in AAA, so he might be a decent option if it were to come down to needing him to fill-in in the rotation.

 

Buchholz has been the best pitcher in baseball when he was healthy this year. We need to hope that he can start off right where he left off. His success will be critical to the team's success down the stretch. It has almost been a month now since he last pitched. We need to get him healthy and hope he can be just as effective.

 

In terms of trading for another starting pitcher, the way I look at it is that we should always look for ways to improve our team. Garza looks like he would be a good addition to the team, but there are always questions involved with making a trade at the deadline. What package do we have to include to get him in Boston? Can we trade for him without giving up top prospects? What happens to one of the current starters? My guess is that Doubront goes before anyone else. Lester, Lackey, Dempster, and Buchholz are probably not going anywhere. Does the reward of landing Garza outweigh the risk of potentially risking losing prospects for less than a half year of Garza? Will the move help out the ultimate team goal of trying to win a World Series?

 

Right now, it seems like Buchholz is our number one when he is healthy. Lackey has been a great number two in the rotation. We need to count on Lester to be at least a number three starter. Dempster is a serviceable number four as of late. We need Doubront to be a decent number five. If we traded for Garza, he would be a better option than having Doubront in the rotation. It all depends on what it takes to get him.

[Dojji]

I'm not trading high for Garza. The extra risk of his injury history combined with the fact that his team will expect to be paid as if for a top of the line starter puts him comfortably outside my price range.

 

We're talking about replacing an injured starter. Durability needs to be the key word here, or all you get for your assets is two injured starters. Haven't we been down that road often enough to figure that out by now?

 

That doesn't necessarily mean Ervin Santana, who's the guy I want, but one guy it definitely does not mean is Matt Garza.

 

If we were trading big for a starting pitcher and putting our top guys on the line, I'd want nothing less than a true frontline guy. That being the case, I have to wonder -- if we dangled Bogaerts, who is incredibly valuable but honestly something of a luxury right now, is there any way we could bring James Shields to Boston? Sure, I'm going back to the KC well again, but I'm doing it because I think the teams line up fairly well. What KC has going spare tends to be pitching right now, and they're starving for offense, while what we have to trade is position players and position prospects, many with high offensive potential, and any major weaknesses we have are in pitching.

 

If I thought we could get both Shields AND Greg Holland, I would happily dangle Bogaerts plus Webster/RdlR plus Brentz plus one more prospect in the B+ range -- someone like Workman or Swihart. I'd expect that kind of offer to at least keep Dayton Moore on the phone. It would solve all our major evident problems in one fell swoop, and set us up for the future as well, and we can technically spare all of these prospects while fielding a highly competitive team.

 

Considering they're unlikely to keep James beyond next year I have to think that offer would keep KC on the phone even with all they've invested in "Big Game James" and considering that we'd get an additional year out of him, and he's one of the most durable and reliable starters in major league baseball, I'd have no problem knocking the doors off Kauffman Stadium to get him.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Dojji

[mvp 78]

In a similar report, Olney and Stark both agreed that Garza will be the most expensive player to get traded this year. I'm assuming that excludes players with long term contracts and might get traded like Gallardo, Stanton or Price, but still makes me significantly less interested. If they want him badly enough, pay him in the offseason.

Gallardo shouldn't be expensive. He's been horrible this year and his velocity is way down. He's not an upgrade over any of our starting five.

[User Name]

How does your trade scenario "set up up for the future"? You're sacrificing three top prospects for a year + of Shields and a good reliever. That is extremely short sighted. Also, again, what is your thing with KC players? @Dojji

[Thunder]

s*** happens. Injuries. That is why you have to reinforce. You improve weaknesses while admittedly creating some redundancy. If Buchholz continues to be nagged by injury,that would create a glaring need. Rosters will not remain static for our competitors. Right now, we are as good as anyone, but you can probably expect Texas to add a significant piece or two. They have been active in past seasons at the deadline. If they get Cliff Lee they will be very very tough to beat unless we counter. I don't think we have a shot at Lee, and I don't like the rest of the crop available as I don't view them as upgrades. I would move for a big bat, preferably to play everyday in LF who could provide more protection for Ortiz than Napoli can provide. I'd like to see a dominating murderer's row of Pedroia, Ortiz and fill in the blank. A middle like that would make the entire lineup better.

 

Normally I would agree, but the guys who replaced the injured guys have been great. Snyder, Lavarnway, Bailey for Hanrahan until a few weeks ago. The only exception to this is Webster, but he looked decent yesterday. Nava and Gomes have been big when needed, so until I see otherwise, I don't think a move is needed here. The LAD trade last year really allowed this to happen, both mentally for the team and financially.

[RedSoxNC84]

Not a bad idea to have pitching depth, but I agree with what a700 said in an earlier post, that a hitter might be the way to go at the deadline.

[Standing Room]

If I thought we could get both Shields AND Greg Holland, I would happily dangle Bogaerts plus Webster/RdlR plus Brentz plus one more prospect in the B+ range -- someone like Workman or Swihart. I'd expect that kind of offer to at least keep Dayton Moore on the phone. It would solve all our major evident problems in one fell swoop, and set us up for the future as well, and we can technically spare all of these prospects while fielding a highly competitive team.

 

This proposal is terrible. You don't trade the next Hanley Ramirez for a 31 year old #2 starter.

[User Name]

This proposal is terrible. You don't trade the next Hanley Ramirez for a 31 year old #2 starter.

 

It really is. If i was going to trade Xander and Webster/RDlR and Brentz AND one more prospect, i'd expect at least pitcher that's younger, better and cheaper than Shields, plus a good BP arm and a good prospect. AT LEAST.

[seabeachfred]

Well we will certainly see about Doubrant tonight when he toes the rubber against the hot Angels and attempts to get the Red Sox to a positive start on this 10-game West Coast trip. He most certainly didn't much of anything good when he faced the Angels in Boston and he is the last guy in the rotation I want opening a long trip with. I certainly hope I can eat my words tonight but except for one terrific game against the Yankees he has been the weak link in our rotation---a five inning pitcher, too many walks and a poor WHIP. He has been out of shape and lazy for much of the time the past two seasons.....when he has been healthy and not on the shelf, that is. I hope the rumors of Pedro Martinez getting in his head and helping him is true. This is one series I do not want to lose and will be very upset if we do.

[redsoxfan3]

If I thought we could get both Shields AND Greg Holland, I would happily dangle Bogaerts plus Webster/RdlR plus Brentz plus one more prospect in the B+ range -- someone like Workman or Swihart. I'd expect that kind of offer to at least keep Dayton Moore on the phone. It would solve all our major evident problems in one fell swoop, and set us up for the future as well, and we can technically spare all of these prospects while fielding a highly competitive team.

 

Considering they're unlikely to keep James beyond next year I have to think that offer would keep KC on the phone even with all they've invested in "Big Game James" and considering that we'd get an additional year out of him, and he's one of the most durable and reliable starters in major league baseball, I'd have no problem knocking the doors off Kauffman Stadium to get him.

 

You are willing to trade our best positional prospect, one of our two best pitching prospects, and then include two more of our top 15 prospects for less than a year and a half of Shields and for four and a half years of Holland? Count me out. We all know that closers come and go. Count me in if it were a package for a 27 year old Felix Hernandez who has a contract through 2020. That is 7 and a half years of team control and an ace who will only be 34 or 35 when his contract is up.

 

I am not against trading our top prospects in the right situation, but I am against trading out top prospects for a year and half of Shields. Bogaerts is 20. Webster is 23 and De La Rosa is 24. Swihart is 21 and Brentz and Workman are both 24. I am strongly against risking 10+ years of our future players to possibly get some starting pitching help for one and a half years and a closer for a little over four years. You are right, that offer would keep Dayton Moore on the phone, because you would have to be an idiot not to accept that.

 

They would get a future middle-of-the-rotation starter and a player who has the potential to be an All-Star. Not to mention you are offering two of; an athlete in Swihart (who could switch positions if catcher does not work out for him), a player who is projected to be a decent future right fielder in Brentz, or a guy who projects as a set-up man in Workman (if he cannot improve on his mechanics to start regularly).

 

I am sure the Royals love Shields and Holland, but I am sure they can forget the short-term to help benefit them in the long-run.

[Palodios]

Gallardo shouldn't be expensive. He's been horrible this year and his velocity is way down. He's not an upgrade over any of our starting five.

 

The last four seasons he's had 180-200 innings, 200+ strikeouts, and an ERA in the mid 3s. He's a pitcher who has been consistently healthy, and is signed for two and a half more years at a very affordable price. I certainly think that he is worth more than half a year of Garza.

[a700hitter]

The last four seasons he's had 180-200 innings, 200+ strikeouts, and an ERA in the mid 3s. He's a pitcher who has been consistently healthy, and is signed for two and a half more years at a very affordable price. I certainly think that he is worth more than half a year of Garza.

The guy is lost right now, and his velocity has beendown since the beginning of the year. They should consider getting him only if Buchholz is going to miss more time.

[SoxFanForsyth]

The last four seasons he's had 180-200 innings, 200+ strikeouts, and an ERA in the mid 3s. He's a pitcher who has been consistently healthy, and is signed for two and a half more years at a very affordable price. I certainly think that he is worth more than half a year of Garza.

 

Who would Gallardo replace in the rotation though? You're making a trade just to make a trade, he's a wash with Dempster or Doubront and is another guy that I'd rather roll the dice with Webster or RDLR rather than giving up something for him

[Palodios]

Just to be clear, I was in no way advocating that the Red Sox go out and get Gallardo. I just think he will cost more in the trade market.

[SoxFanForsyth]

This is the first year in a while that I would not be upset if we stood pat (as of right now, obviously things can change with injury). But if we've got Buchholz coming back, Middlebrooks heating up, Webster and De La Rosa on the burner along with Bogaerts, Brentz, and Bradley, there are no glaring needs.

 

I feel like this is a pretty common feeling too

[Dojji]

You are willing to trade our best positional prospect, one of our two best pitching prospects, and then include two more of our top 15 prospects for less than a year and a half of Shields and for four and a half years of Holland?

 

For a year and a half of one of the most durable and reliable starters in the entire major leagues, a man proven in the AL East who's never pitched less than 200 innings a season in his life and who's been a legit ace type each of the last 3 years, plus an instant solution to our closer problem? Yer darn tootin. We're one of the teams that would have the ability to sign Shields after his contract expires, and you have to factor that in. We'd never have gotten him from the Rays, but now he's in play, and he's exactly the sort of pitcher it's safest to take an expensive risk on from our perspective.

 

And for clarification, I meant one of Webster and RdlR (not both), plus Bogaerts and 2 B+ prospects, which for an ace and a top young closer is a fair price to pay even if the bill makes you cringe. Heck, it makes me cringe, and it's still a fair price to pay.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Dojji

[SoxSport]

I suspect they are in the market for a BP guy who can be obtained for a low level prospect. I also wonder about M. Young, but Philly will want too much for him. They have to be prepared for injuries which dig into their depth--currently their strength. I don't see any major additions which will cost them high level prospects. Everything is going too well right now. It will be interesting to see what the Yankees do. It looks like they have to make a big splash to stay in contention, and like the Lakers, money is no object.

[User Name]

For a year and a half of one of the most durable and reliable starters in the entire major leagues, a man proven in the AL East who's never pitched less than 200 innings a season in his life and who's been a legit ace type each of the last 3 years, plus an instant solution to our closer problem? Yer darn tootin. We're one of the teams that would have the ability to sign Shields after his contract expires, and you have to factor that in. We'd never have gotten him from the Rays, but now he's in play, and he's exactly the sort of pitcher it's safest to take an expensive risk on from our perspective.

 

And for clarification, I meant one of Webster and RdlR (not both), plus Bogaerts and 2 B+ prospects, which for an ace and a top young closer is a fair price to pay even if the bill makes you cringe. Heck, it makes me cringe, and it's still a fair price to pay.

 

No, it really isn't. It's an absolutely horrible proposal.

Edited July 6, 2013 by User Name?