Moncada is coming

[sk7326]

It may not worry you, but don't say it's not significant. It's a red flag that not only the Red Sox have waved.

 

Interesting that the Phils also turned down the Padres who offered their top guys ... Amaro clearly is aiming way too high for now.

[User Name]

It all depends on the value of the prospects.

 

I would argue Lester and Cole Hummus are roughly the same value. Hummus has a career 125 ERA+, Lester 121 ERA+. Both inning eaters, both have anchored a World Series rotation.

 

Lester costs 45 million more than Cole. Can you get him without giving up 45 million worth of prospects? Definitely.

 

It's not that clear cut. With the current monetary value of a win slightly exceeding $7 million, a collection of three prospects that can be projected to, on the whole, provide at least 2 WAR per year over their pre-arb years, the picture becomes much more murky. Because exceeded value drops significantly after a player reaches arbitration, it can't be considered such a big "overpay", but still. Why trade marketeable assets in a situation that's not clearly advantageous? That's the way I see it, and I'm sure that figures into the Sox' thinking.

[User Name]

Interesting that the Phils also turned down the Padres who offered their top guys ... Amaro clearly is aiming way too high for now.

 

Amaro's terrible. He should've jumped at the offer headlined by Hedges.

[GomesBeard]

Amaro's terrible. He should've jumped at the offer headlined by Hedges.

 

Agree. Phillies fans I know can't stand him. Re: Hamels - I never really looked at his numbers before but he has good splits, has been pretty consistent throughout his career and has been very durable. If it was either the prospects or the money, I think the Sox would have done something by now. But the combination of owing $110 million and potentially costing top prospects, I think it also makes sense to wait a bit. The Phillies are going nowhere and Amaro is going to have to take quantity over (top) quality at some point relatively soon, I would think.

 

As far as Pedroia is concerned, I also see him having a big year assuming he doesn't slide head-first again. The offense has a chance to be really, really good and I don't see Pedey wanting to be left out. He's one of those players who, when healthy, can really will himself to a big year.

 

I like the depth the Sox have all over the place and like the Moncada signing, especially with the hand-wringing done by the Yankees fans over NOT getting him. The feeling that Moncada OWED them the chance to make the last bid because they are the YANKEES, damn it.... That's really hilarious.

[iortiz]

It all depends on the value of the prospects.

 

I would argue Lester and Cole Hummus are roughly the same value. Hummus has a career 125 ERA+, Lester 121 ERA+. Both inning eaters, both have anchored a World Series rotation.

 

Lester costs 45 million more than Cole. Can you get him without giving up 45 million worth of prospects? Definitely.

I think that teams which are interested in Hummus and mostly AL teams are more worried about the package/value of prospects involved than the 30 games that this guy has pitched against the AL.

 

Also, I would bet that Amaro has plenty of teams which want to trade for Hummus. I think he is in a very good to position to ask for top value. This is a stud we are talking about here. On the other hand and If you ask me, I do not see the Red Sox giving up Blake, Betts, Owens, etc. and I do not see Amaro asking for less... So I don't think it is going to happen.

Edited February 25, 2015 by iortiz

[cp176]

Why be the only team to offer anything of value? Just wait Amaro out. I'd rather have Swihart, Betts, Owens, Rodriguez, etc.

 

me too - taken me a while to get to this point though. I want them to stay young. It would be a different story if we were talking about someone between 25 and 29 with a talent of course.

[Bellhorn04]

I really don't think the monetary aspects of any potential deal factor much into the current Red Sox thinking. They are going to get who ever they want if money is the only deciding factor. I just don't see them going after any over 30 pitcher for more than just one season. Doesn't seem to fit their current trend of getting younger.

 

But they did reportedly make an offer for Hamels which didn't include that much in the way of top prospects-I think Kelly was in there?

[User Name]

But they did reportedly make an offer for Hamels which didn't include that much in the way of top prospects-I think Kelly was in there?

 

He was. The Phillies like Kelly but want their "headliner" to be Swihart. That would be a terrible idea IMO.

[cp176]

But they did reportedly make an offer for Hamels which didn't include that much in the way of top prospects-I think Kelly was in there?

 

That's kind of what I mean. They could have him if they want him.

[mvp 78]

me too - taken me a while to get to this point though. I want them to stay young. It would be a different story if we were talking about someone between 25 and 29 with a talent of course.

 

If he was 27, you fall all over yourself to make a deal. At 31, you wait it out.

[User Name]

If he was 27, you fall all over yourself to make a deal. At 31, you wait it out.

 

Exactly. 31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime.

[BSN07]

He was. The Phillies like Kelly but want their "headliner" to be Swihart. That would be a terrible idea IMO.

 

I'm not huge on Hamels. His age is a bit of a concern, but I guess less since he really isn't a power P. I don't particularly like his numbers against the AL. I would not be happy in any scenario involving Swihart, Betts and Xander being dealt. These are the types of offensive threats you need to ride until the end. I also would like them to keep Kelly but I guess I could waiver on that.

 

JBJ+ Cechinni+ Owens + a lotto ticket if the Phillies kick in 10M+ is the absolute most I'd give up for him. And I doubt that makes Amaro jump right now.

[Spudboy]

No, because I would personally rather play the lottery ticket and acquire Cliff Lee, assuming health. Amaro wants Swihart for Hamels, and if the Red Sox are going to absorb Hamels' 110 million contract, that's a deal they shouldn't do.

 

The secondary reasons as you call them are enough not to warrant such a gargantuan investment.

 

This is how I feel as well.

 

I'd add that Hamels is already 31 years old. I think the Sox are targeting younger arms for the rotation.

[iortiz]

Exactly. 31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime.

 

So why did you want Shields?

[mvp 78]

Cheaper than Hamels and no loss of prospects?

[User Name]

Cheaper than Hamels and no loss of prospects?

 

Same reason I want Lee. But replace "no loss of prospects" with "possibly clearing OF logjam"

[iortiz]

But isn't it still a lot of money for a guy who is in the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime.?

[User Name]

For a grand period of one year. On a year where the Red Sox already blew past the LT, to boot.

[iortiz]

I meant Shields.

[Palodios]

It's not that clear cut. With the current monetary value of a win slightly exceeding $7 million, a collection of three prospects that can be projected to, on the whole, provide at least 2 WAR per year over their pre-arb years, the picture becomes much more murky. Because exceeded value drops significantly after a player reaches arbitration, it can't be considered such a big "overpay", but still. Why trade marketeable assets in a situation that's not clearly advantageous? That's the way I see it, and I'm sure that figures into the Sox' thinking.

 

Let me clarify my math.

 

If the Red Sox get stupid, and trade Swihart one-for-one. Swihart's value isn't just WAR x value per win. It is (WAR x value per win) - contract cost. If he performs, you're probably looking at 25-30 million in contracts. Consider the glaring 30-40% probability of top prospects reaching their ceilings.

 

That being said, the Red Sox don't value Hummus at 155, they value him at 120-130. My argument was a bit unclear, but the Red Sox could have gotten Hummus at a better value than Lester.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Palodios

[Spudboy]

Cheaper than Hamels and no loss of prospects?

 

And a demonstrated ability to pitch in the AL.

 

But yeah, lower cost to attain.

[User Name]

Shields was never going to go for the length of time or amount of money Hamels is going for, plus no prospects, and an excellent track record in the AL. Even though he's older, Shields was more of a known quantity than Hamels. However, the FO disagreed with my assesment and let him sign elsewhere. Maybe age is a bigger concern for them on that specific deal, whereas prospects is the issue with Hamels. Contrary to your theory, all signs indicate towards money not being the issue with signing a pitcher, but rather age/length of contract.

 

In any case, it seems to me that Lee would be the perfect fit for the Sox. It's a calculated risk on a one-year deal that wouldn't cost them top prospects. Even better, they can keep him for an extra year if he's healthy and performs well.

[mvp 78]

But isn't it still a lot of money for a guy who is in the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime.?

 

Prospects >>>> Money (see Moncada and Castillo signings)

[User Name]

Let me clarify my math.

 

If the Red Sox get stupid, and trade Swihart one-for-one. Swihart's value isn't just WAR x value per win. It is (WAR x value per win) - contract cost. If he performs, you're probably looking at 25-30 million in contracts. Consider the glaring 30-40% probability of top prospects reaching their ceilings.

 

That being said, the Red Sox don't value Hummus at 155, they value him at 120-130. My argument was a bit unclear, but the Red Sox could have gotten Hummus at a better value than Lester.

 

He'd be making league minimum for the first three years of control, and Swihart alone isn't getting the Hamels deal done. Check your math again. Even if they (or even if it's Swihart alone) provides positive value during his arb years, it's almost impossible for the final calculation to shift in the Sox' favor. The X factor here, as you mentioned above, is prospect failure rate. But how can you really justify taking that chance?

[iortiz]

You are missing the point, why would you give 80 M to a guy who is in the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime in the first place?

[User Name]

You are missing the point, why would you give 80 M to a guy who is in the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime in the first place?

 

No, you're missing the point. 80 million over 4 years is not an obscene amount of money for a pitcher, even though his age is against him in this pitching economy. Giving 110 million/5 PLUS prospects for a guy with a spottier health history, bad track record against the AL, and who also has age against him is way riskier. What's the part you're not understanding?

 

Maybe I should clarify that it's not that I absolutely hate the idea of Hamels. He'd be a worthy addition, but not at Amaro's asking price.

[iortiz]

No, you're missing the point. 80 million over 4 years is not an obscene amount of money for a pitcher, even though his age is against him in this pitching economy. Giving 110 million/5 PLUS prospects for a guy with a spottier health history, bad track record against the AL, and who also has age against him is way riskier. What's the part you're not understanding?

 

Maybe I should clarify that it's not that I absolutely hate the idea of Hamels. He'd be a worthy addition, but not at Amaro's asking price.

 

My point has nothing to do with Hamels or Lee.

 

What I can not understand is that you are saying that is not an obscene amount of money for a guy who is in the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime.

 

To me is a lot of money to a guy who eventually is going to s*** the bed.

[mvp 78]

They paid Dempster $13M! They don't see any amount of money as obscene.

[iortiz]

if money had not been the problem then they should have signed Lester or Shields, don't you think?, and they are far better than Dempster.

 

While they have money, it is always about the money.

[User Name]

My point has nothing to do with Hamels or Lee.

 

What I can not understand is that you are saying that is not an obscene amount of money for a guy who is in the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime.

 

To me is a lot of money to a guy who eventually is going to s*** the bed.

 

I don't even know what to respond to this. I'm not going to start a flame war over this, but just try to use some common sense.