2015 Red Sox Trade Deadline Thread

[RedSoxNC84]

Ryan Cook for a PTBNL

[NativeBostonian]

Ryan Cook or a cook named Ryan?

 

Panda would love a team cook.

[RedSoxNC84]

Panda would love a team cook.

 

He's already got all the local pizza delivery places on speed dial. He's probably ordering from the clubhouse while the Sox are at bat.

[RedSoxNC84]

Or begging Farrell to order for him

[sk7326]

Deadline is creeping up quick, still nothing solid happening.

 

The deadline that matters is still a month away

[Spudboy]

********.

 

I very much doubt that the Sox will make any substantial or impact moves in August.

[User Name]

He's talking about selling pieces during the waiver period. Chill.

[jacksonianmarch]

The pieces you're gonna want to sell will all pass through waivers. So Sept 1 is the real deadline for you

[Spudboy]

********.

 

I very much doubt that the Sox will make any substantial or impact moves in August.

 

Obviously I am aware of this. I just do not see the Sox making any significant moves in August. None that will make a huge difference.

[sk7326]

Obviously I am aware of this. I just do not see the Sox making any significant moves in August. None that will make a huge difference.

 

There won't be any substantial buys ... but sells are possible, especially with the bad contracts. I would not expect anything, but I would not be stunned either.

[a700hitter]

There won't be any substantial buys ... but sells are possible, especially with the bad contracts. I would not expect anything, but I would not be stunned either.

 

We have no players with bad contracts that could help anyone. Porcello is a terrible contract, but a 6 ERA will not help anyone down the stretch. Someone might want Napoli or Koji for a month, but those will not becbig deals. I am with Pete on this. There is nothing big coming to or leaving the Sox for the remainder of the season. They threw in the towel regarding adding players and we really have very little to sell. Pathetic.

[sk7326]

We have no players with bad contracts that could help anyone. Porcello is a terrible contract, but a 6 ERA will not help anyone down the stretch. Someone might want Napoli or Koji for a month, but those will not becbig deals. I am with Pete on this. There is nothing big coming to or leaving the Sox for the remainder of the season. They threw in the towel regarding adding players and we really have very little to sell. Pathetic.

 

You are probably right - although trading for fun is also stupid, so reserve the pathos for later. Also, Porcello has a lot of control left, so if a team sees an easy fix, he's not priced outrageously.

[Spudboy]

Can you really see any team committing 4/80 on a guy who has been putrid all year? How many teams have that kind of financial flexibility?

[a700hitter]

You are probably right - although trading for fun is also stupid, so reserve the pathos for later. Also, Porcello has a lot of control left, so if a team sees an easy fix, he's not priced outrageously.

 

If a team thinks they can fix Porcello, that kind of trade would happen after the season ends. A contender will not be looking to obtain a guy that needs to be fixed.

 

We will do nothing big probably until at least Thanksgiving. That is my prediction. We have a loooong wait to have something interesting to happen.

[Spudboy]

If a team thinks they can fix Porcello, that kind of trade would happen after the season ends. A contender will not be looking to obtain a guy that needs to be fixed.

 

We will do nothing big probably until at least Thanksgiving. That is my prediction. We have a loooong wait to have something interesting to happen.

 

I don't know the exact dates, of course. But definitely after the post season. Ben implied that they had laid the groundwork with other clubs. I'm not sure much can be said about that until something happens.

 

Your point about Porcello makes lots of sense. I just think it would ask a lot of any team to take on that kind of deal with such poor recent performance. I guess that there is the fact that he is still young and should rebound. That's cool. But any team that snags him is taking a chance. A big chance. It was very dumb to pay him that deal so early.

 

Just dumb.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't know the exact dates, of course. But definitely after the post season. Ben implied that they had laid the groundwork with other clubs. I'm not sure much can be said about that until something happens.

 

Your point about Porcello makes lots of sense. I just think it would ask a lot of any team to take on that kind of deal with such poor recent performance. I guess that there is the fact that he is still young and should rebound. That's cool. But any team that snags him is taking a chance. A big chance. It was very dumb to pay him that deal so early.

 

Just dumb.

 

This is the old 20/20 hindsight deal though. Because how many times have we also said how dumb it was for the Sox not to lock Lester up for 6/120 or thereabouts when they had the chance.

 

Porcello is making it look dumb though, that's for sure.

[reYoukilis]

This is the old 20/20 hindsight deal though. Because how many times have we also said how dumb it was for the Sox not to lock Lester up for 6/120 or thereabouts when they had the chance.

 

Porcello is making it look dumb though, that's for sure.

Porcello was much more of a gamble. We pretty much got him because of last years success.

[Bellhorn04]

Porcello was much more of a gamble. We pretty much got him because of last years success.

 

The advanced metrics say Porcello was just about as good in 2013 as he was in 2014.

 

I don't want to open up this Porcello thing all over again.

 

I would much rather have Lester, trust me.

[sk7326]

The advanced metrics say Porcello was just about as good in 2013 as he was in 2014.

 

I don't want to open up this Porcello thing all over again.

 

I would much rather have Lester, trust me.

 

Pretty much ... 200 innings of 2013-14 Porcello would make the deal a net win (albeit a smallish one). Ultimately he'll have to figure out where the groundballs went - the big source of his success.

[a700hitter]

Porcello was a 4 + ERA for the 5 full seasons prior to 2014. That is who he is. Coming to Fenway was not going to improve that.

 

Edit: pitchers very rarely dramatically improve their performance level after they have logged more than 1,000 innings in the big leagues. It happens so rarely that it would be impossible to project. Projecting the improvement and extending a big long term contract based on a projection that was such a long shot was not a smart move.

Edited August 2, 2015 by a700hitter

[sk7326]

Porcello was a 4 + ERA for the 5 full seasons prior to 2014. That is who he is. Coming to Fenway was not going to improve that.

 

Edit: pitchers very rarely dramatically improve their performance level after they have logged more than 1,000 innings in the big leagues. It happens so rarely that it would be impossible to project. Projecting the improvement and extending a big long term contract based on a projection that was such a long shot was not a smart move.

 

The history of young pitchers improving is relatively straightforward - setting aside the relatively arbitrary 4.00 ERA which would have been scandalously bad in 1971 and downright good in 2000. Plenty of guys like Tom Glavine, Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, Doug Drabek (that took me less than 10 minutes to dig up) had significant mucking around periods before hitting their stride. It's more likely for 26 year olds to improve than not. Even somebody like Pedro, who was great from the second he took full time work ... had his first Cy Young in his age 26 season - and got better and better after that. Now the projection for Porcello was from #3 level starter to #2 level - which would have worked out well - was not franchise changing but totally reasonable. Happens all the time at his stage. Clearly it has not worked - and that has to be answered for (I have already suggested the field coaching to walk the plank).

[a700hitter]

The history of young pitchers improving is relatively straightforward - setting aside the relatively arbitrary 4.00 ERA which would have been scandalously bad in 1971 and downright good in 2000. Plenty of guys like Tom Glavine, Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, Doug Drabek (that took me less than 10 minutes to dig up) had significant mucking around periods before hitting their stride. It's more likely for 26 year olds to improve than not. Even somebody like Pedro, who was great from the second he took full time work ... had his first Cy Young in his age 26 season - and got better and better after that. Now the projection for Porcello was from #3 level starter to #2 level - which would have worked out well - was not franchise changing but totally reasonable. Happens all the time at his stage. Clearly it has not worked - and that has to be answered for (I have already suggested the field coaching to walk the plank).

A pitcher's development is not just a function of age. It is also a function of experience. What you will find very few pitchers who appreciably improved the level of performance after they have pitched 1,000 big league innings. It is so rare as to be anamolous. The problem is that Ben like you probably looked at age as the developmental factor without looking at his big league experience. By the time a pitcher gets to 1,100 big league innings, he is what he is, and Porcello is a back of the rotation pitcher.

 

With regard to the examples you listed, by the time Glavine had thrown 1,000 innings he had led the league in wins twice and had already won a Cy Young Award

 

By the time Kevin Brown pitched 800 innings, he had a 20 win season and an All Star selection.

 

Randy Johnson? The only question about Johnson was whether he could consistently throw strikes. And even with his developmental issues due to being 6'10". By the time he had as many innings as Porcello, he was a huge star and had 2 All Star game selections.

 

Drabek had most of his best years before he threw 1,000 innings.

 

And Pedro, by the time he hit Porcello's current experience level, he had 2 Cy Young's (should have been 3) and 4 All Star game selections. He was already a megastar.

Edited August 2, 2015 by a700hitter

[iortiz]

Young pitchers can improve, yes, but when they are talented, not because they are young. Porcello is not talented, that's the thing. This is what I've been saying since day one. He's mediocre at best, and probably going forward he is going to be worse than that if he remains in the ALE.

[sk7326]

Much of the jibber jabber about 1000 innings is also making the wrong point ... The better observation might be, where were they when they crossed the 1000 inning rubicon. I used the last full season when that happened. And then where did things go from there.

 

Pedro's last 241 IP 8.6 fWAR ... the NEXT 1000 ... 40.1 WAR in 978 IP (.036 fWAR/IP to .041 WAR/IP)

Randy ... 255.1 IP 7.3 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 40.6 WAR in 1185 IP (.029 to .034)

Brown ... 233 IP 4.4 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 30.8 WAR in 1069 IP (.019 to .029)

Glavine ... 225 IP 4.9 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 21.2 WAR in 1077 IP (.022 to .020)

Maddux ... 263 IP 5.9 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 38.8 WAR in 1191 IP (.022 to .033)

Drabek ... 231 IP 4.3 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 18.4 WAR in 1076 IP (.019 to .017)

Clemens ... 264 IP 9.2 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 28.5 WAR in 1001 IP (.035 to .028)

Jim Palmer ... 282 IP 4.6 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 18.1 WAR in 1071 IP (.016 to .017)

Steve Carlton ... 253 IP 3.6 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 23.3 WAR in 1202 IP (.014 to .019)

Whitey Ford ... 225 IP 5.0 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 17.5 WAR in 1027 IP (.022 to .018)

 

Obviously this is not exhaustive but on average you have .023 WAR/IP at the tipping point, .026 WAR/IP after, a 13% improvement. The basic idea that the first 1000 innings determines a fate which never improves over the next 4-5 seasons is very flawed. After all the 13% improvement assumes the performance stays flat the NEXT 1000 innings, which is of course false.

[a700hitter]

Much of the jibber jabber about 1000 innings is also making the wrong point ... The better observation might be, where were they when they crossed the 1000 inning rubicon. I used the last full season when that happened. And then where did things go from there.

 

Pedro's last 241 IP 8.6 fWAR ... the NEXT 1000 ... 40.1 WAR in 978 IP (.036 fWAR/IP to .041 WAR/IP)

Randy ... 255.1 IP 7.3 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 40.6 WAR in 1185 IP (.029 to .034)

Brown ... 233 IP 4.4 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 30.8 WAR in 1069 IP (.019 to .029)

Glavine ... 225 IP 4.9 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 21.2 WAR in 1077 IP (.022 to .020)

Maddux ... 263 IP 5.9 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 38.8 WAR in 1191 IP (.022 to .033)

Drabek ... 231 IP 4.3 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 18.4 WAR in 1076 IP (.019 to .017)

Clemens ... 264 IP 9.2 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 28.5 WAR in 1001 IP (.035 to .028)

Jim Palmer ... 282 IP 4.6 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 18.1 WAR in 1071 IP (.016 to .017)

Steve Carlton ... 253 IP 3.6 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 23.3 WAR in 1202 IP (.014 to .019)

Whitey Ford ... 225 IP 5.0 WAR ... NEXT 1000 ... 17.5 WAR in 1027 IP (.022 to .018)

 

Obviously this is not exhaustive but on average you have .023 WAR/IP at the tipping point, .026 WAR/IP after, a 13% improvement. The basic idea that the first 1000 innings determines a fate which never improves over the next 4-5 seasons is very flawed. After all the 13% improvement assumes the performance stays flat the NEXT 1000 innings, which is of course false.

it looks like a fair number of the pitchers listed had their performance go down in after a 1000 innings, which really cuts against your argument about the track record of pitchers improving at Porcello's juncture.

 

I never said that pitchers never improve after 1,000 innings. I said that their performance doesn' t improve dramatically after 1,000 innings. Before you attempt to define "dramatic improvement" with some percentage of WAR let me tell you what I meant by the term. I used the term so I should be the one to define what I meant by it. The pitchers in your list had established the quality of pitchers that they were by 1,000 innings in the major leagues. No one in your list went from being a back of the rotation pitcher to a top of the rotation pitcher after they had pitched more than 1000 innings or 5 full seasons. They had all established themselves as top starters before they got to 1,000 innings or 5 full seasons. None of them made the dramatic improvement from a back end starter to a top starter after that, and neither will Porcello. You might find a rare few that did it-- maybe some knuckleballers, but they would be an anomaly. By the time a starting pitchers has pitched 5 or 6 full seasons, he has pretty well established his quality level.

Edited August 2, 2015 by a700hitter

[sk7326]

it looks like a fair number of the pitchers listed had their performance go down in after a 1000 innings, which really cuts against your argument about the track record of pitchers improving at Porcello's juncture.

 

I never said that pitchers never improve after 1,000 innings. I said that their performance doesn' t improve dramatically after 1,000 innings. Before you attempt to define "dramatic improvement" with some percentage of WAR let me tell you what I meant by the term. I used the term so I should be the one to define what I meant by it. The pitchers in your list had established the quality of pitchers that they were by 1,000 innings in the major leagues. No one in your list went from being a back of the rotation pitcher to a top of the rotation pitcher after they had pitched more than 1000 innings or 5 full seasons. They had all established themselves as top starters before they got to 1,000 innings or 5 full seasons. None of them made the dramatic improvement from a back end starter to a top starter after that, and neither will Porcello. You might find a rare few that did it-- maybe some knuckleballers, but they would be an anomaly. By the time a starting pitchers has pitched 5 or 6 full seasons, he has pretty well established his quality level.

 

Porcello did not have to dramatically improve to justify his salary - he just had to improve on a level a normal person would expect. He has been below replacement level, which no reasonable person could have anticipated.

 

Lots of flaws in the quick methodology of course - the assertion that the last 200 innings are what matters for the before picture ... and the after assumes uniform performance which is shaky too. It also assumes 1000 as a number matters, which is even shakier since the number was chosen because it looks cool.

[a700hitter]

Porcello did not have to dramatically improve to justify his salary - he just had to improve on a level a normal person would expect. He has been below replacement level, which no reasonable person could have anticipated.

 

Lots of flaws in the quick methodology of course - the assertion that the last 200 innings are what matters for the before picture ... and the after assumes uniform performance which is shaky too. It also assumes 1000 as a number matters, which is even shakier since the number was chosen because it looks cool.

There was no good reason to believe that he would become a top of the rotation pitcher. They didn't sign him to an immediate large extension because they thought they were locking up a #4 which is what he is. #4s get contracts like Miley's.

[Northern Star]

There was no good reason to believe that he would become a top of the rotation pitcher. They didn't sign him to an immediate large extension because they thought they were locking up a #4 which is what he is. #4s get contracts like Miley's.

 

5.8.12.20,20,21,21.

 

Mindblowing.

[Northern Star]

Shouldn't Ben be shown the door just for Porcello, Panda and Castillo?

[Kimmi]

There was no good reason to believe that he would become a top of the rotation pitcher. They didn't sign him to an immediate large extension because they thought they were locking up a #4 which is what he is. #4s get contracts like Miley's.

 

There is plenty of good reason to believe that he could be a top of the rotation pitcher. He pitched like a #2 last year. It was a calculated risk which, unfortunately, looks really bad right now. But it was a good calculated risk to take.

 

Going back to something Bellhorn said, if Porcello had pitched well and we lost him in free agency, we would never hear the end of how we should have locked him up during ST. Just like we are with Lester.

 

Beckett is another example. People want to criticize the FO for re-signing him before free agency, then want to turn right around and critcize the FO for not re-signing Lester. You can't have it both ways.

 

IMO, locking up a player that you want back before he hits FA is always a good idea.