2015 Red Sox Trade Deadline Thread

[iortiz]

I'm not comparing the offenses but still... with a better pitching, the offense could be taxed in the good way (by the pitching)

 

What I meant is that we could have been fighting for a WC spot at least with a better pitching... like TOR or other team contending for a WC.

Edited August 6, 2015 by iortiz

[cp176]

Craig will remain in AAA unless he really catches fire. The reason being, they somehow got him off the 40-man roster and therefore his salary doesn't count for luxury tax purposes unless they put him back on it.

 

You can't make this s*** up.

 

 

If they just focused on the actual game of baseball, it would be good enough for me. It would make sense from a purely baseball move to see what he can do throughout the rest of the season. Maybe it just makes to much sense.

[Kimmi]

Does not doing something count?

 

Not trading Bogaerts or Betts.

 

Trading Miller for Eduardo Rodriguez.

 

Other than that, I'm drawing a blank...

 

Excellent point, and one often overlooked, about the deals not made.

 

I would also add the lesser moves of Hanigan and De Aza as good moves, although the FO's track record as of late is not good by any means. That said, it is too early in many of these deals to rule them as good moves or not.

 

I would also say that what turns out to be a bad move is often a good move at the time it occurred.

[Kimmi]

By getting rid of Craig, St. Louis got a nice little salary dump out of the deal. Just a terrible transaction. Should have just asked for a prospect back.

 

Yes, a terrible transaction, in hindsight.

[Kimmi]

If they just focused on the actual game of baseball, it would be good enough for me. It would make sense from a purely baseball move to see what he can do throughout the rest of the season. Maybe it just makes to much sense.

 

I agree that the Sox should see what they have in Craig for the remainder of the season. Right now, they are showcasing Napoli and De Aza, so there really isn't going to be much playing time for Craig until the end of the month.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, a terrible transaction, in hindsight.

 

Kimmi, I think many people questioned the move at the time. Too bad Palodios is on hiatus-I think he was the loudest voice here crying 'What are they doing?'

 

And there still isn't a very clear explanation for it. To me the only way it makes sense is if Lackey was making huge problems about honoring the 2015 year at minimum salary. But that has never been confirmed.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree that the Sox should see what they have in Craig for the remainder of the season. Right now, they are showcasing Napoli and De Aza, so there really isn't going to be much playing time for Craig until the end of the month.

 

What about the luxury tax thing with Craig?

[Kimmi]

a bit??? Toronto is the best offensive team in baseball!

 

The Blue Jays are the team that the Sox were supposed to be this year, a middle of the pack pitching staff coupled with a top offense (although the Sox were supposed to have better defense than what the Jays currently have). The Jays' rotation was good enough to keep the Jays in most games, allowing the offense to do its thing. They were also good enough to keep the Jays in the hunt until reinforcements could be brought in midseason. Sound like a familiar plan? The Jays might not make the playoffs, but they are showing that the plan can work.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, I think many people questioned the move at the time. Too bad Palodios is on hiatus-I think he was the loudest voice here crying 'What are they doing?'

 

And there still isn't a very clear explanation for it. To me the only way it makes sense is if Lackey was making huge problems about honoring the 2015 year at minimum salary. But that has never been confirmed.

 

Yes, I know Pal was vocal against the move. There was still plenty of good reason to think that it was a good move when you consider the potential and the number of years of control that Kelly and Craig both have. And if Lackey was making noise about not playing for the minumum (which has also not been denied by Lackey or anyone else), then it was an even better move.

 

I like Lackey and have always defended him, so I'm not trying to bash on him now. But I'm wondering why Lackey would not come out and deny this speculation if it is not true. My understanding is that Lackey was really turned off by the way the FO treated Lester during the negotiations in ST, and hence his not wanting to play for the Sox for league minimum. If that's the case, then the FO is to blame for the blunder of not only losing Lester, but also subsequently losing Lackey.

[Kimmi]

What about the luxury tax thing with Craig?

 

That is a fair point. I honestly would have to look into that more, as I do not know all of the specifics. I'm wondering why the Sox couldn't put him back on the 40 man roster this year, then if he doesn't work out, take him back of the 40 man next year so they wouldn't have to pay the tax.

[a700hitter]

Yes, I know Pal was vocal against the move. There was still plenty of good reason to think that it was a good move when you consider the potential and the number of years of control that Kelly and Craig both have. And if Lackey was making noise about not playing for the minumum (which has also not been denied by Lackey or anyone else), then it was an even better move.

 

I like Lackey and have always defended him, so I'm not trying to bash on him now. But I'm wondering why Lackey would not come out and deny this speculation if it is not true. My understanding is that Lackey was really turned off by the way the FO treated Lester during the negotiations in ST, and hence his not wanting to play for the Sox for league minimum. If that's the case, then the FO is to blame for the blunder of not only losing Lester, but also subsequently losing Lackey.

it was a bad move at the time. We heard the arguments at the time for the move and many of us rejected those justifications at the time. One and a half years of Lackey, who was having a good season and who had just helped us win a Championship at minimum salary was a hugely tradeable asset. He should have netted us a top prospect without question. Instead we got a pitcher who we knew was a project and a broken down player with 2 or 3 years left on a sizeable contract. As you would say, there is no sugar coating it, and these facts were known at the time. They took 2 long shots (and one is expensive) in return for a known high producing cheap asset. Yuk! Then and even bigger yuk right now.

[a700hitter]

The Red Sox have placed Mike Napoli, Rusney Castillo, Jackie Bradley Jr., Brock Holt, Hanley Ramirez, Craig Breslow and Justin Masterson on waivers. Of that group, I’d imagine that Napoli (earning $16MM in 2015), Castillo (owed $56.5MM from 2016-20), Ramirez ($66MM from 2016-18) and Masterson (earning $9.5MM in 2015) would each clear just based on salary alone. The remaining portion of Breslow’s $2MM salary isn’t exactly prohibitive, but he’s posted a 4.25 ERA this year with unsightly peripheral stats that have led stats like FIP and xFIP to suggest that his ERA should be north of 5.00. Lefties are hitting .271/.354/.456 against Breslow in 2015.

Holt and Bradley, on the other hand, would probably be interest to a large number of teams. The versatile Holt can play all over the diamond and is hitting .277/.351/.380 on the season with an increased walk rate and positive value contributed both defensively and on the basepaths. He’s controllable through 2019, and the Sox almost certainly aren’t interested in moving him, though a claiming team will have the opportunity to offer something substantial. Bradley’s stock has fallen quite a bit from his days as a Top 100 prospect, but he’s an elite glove in center field that is still just 25 years old and can be controlled through 2020. Certainly, there are teams that would have interest in trying to sort out his offensive struggles. (He’s batted just .188/.264/.269 in 589 Major League plate appearances.)

get rid of all of them! Get a new GM and start over! As they say, press the reset button.

[a700hitter]

Shields has been placed on waivers by SD. It would be nice if he cleared waivers and we made a deal.

[iortiz]

get rid of all of them! Get a new GM and start over! As they say, press the reset button.

 

 

Not sure about Holt but I would have added Miley and Porcello as well.

[a700hitter]

Not sure about Holt but I would have added Miley and Porcello as well.

i guess they didn't want the othe GMs to double over laughing. We can't get rid of those contracts for # 5 pitchers with ERA s between 4.5 and 6. Only a dunce would want those deals or should I say a Boob.

[Kimmi]

it was a bad move at the time. We heard the arguments at the time for the move and many of us rejected those justifications at the time. One and a half years of Lackey, who was having a good season and who had just helped us win a Championship at minimum salary was a hugely tradeable asset. He should have netted us a top prospect without question. Instead we got a pitcher who we knew was a project and a broken down player with 2 or 3 years left on a sizeable contract. As you would say, there is no sugar coating it, and these facts were known at the time. They took 2 long shots (and one is expensive) in return for a known high producing cheap asset. Yuk! Then and even bigger yuk right now.

 

I completely disagree, even if Lackey were willing to play for us this season at minimum wage. I'm not going to bother stating all the rationale again, but there was some very good rationale for making that deal. What you can't sugar coat is how bad it looks at the moment.

[Kimmi]

Shields has been placed on waivers by SD. It would be nice if he cleared waivers and we made a deal.

 

It the Sox are okay with picking up the remainder of his contract, they should put a claim in on him. I'm sure SD is looking to dump the rest of his salary. Based on the way he is pitching this season, I don't think I would do it.

[Kimmi]

i guess they didn't want the othe GMs to double over laughing. We can't get rid of those contracts for # 5 pitchers with ERA s between 4.5 and 6. Only a dunce would want those deals or should I say a Boob.

 

Pretty much the entire league is put on waivers at some point or another in August. The act of putting a player on waivers is almost meaningless as far as determining who the Sox are serious about getting rid of.

[Kimmi]

i guess they didn't want the othe GMs to double over laughing. We can't get rid of those contracts for # 5 pitchers with ERA s between 4.5 and 6. Only a dunce would want those deals or should I say a Boob.

 

Also, I think you can safely remove my quote from your signature. I would call the Cubs a serious playoff contender this year. They are 1/2 game out of the wildcard (They are even in the loss column.) and they were buyers at the deadline. As I have said many times, Theo is a genius.

[iortiz]

i guess they didn't want the othe GMs to double over laughing. We can't get rid of those contracts for # 5 pitchers with ERA s between 4.5 and 6. Only a dunce would want those deals or should I say a Boob.

 

Yup, no one want expensive garbage.

[a700hitter]

I completely disagree, even if Lackey were willing to play for us this season at minimum wage. I'm not going to bother stating all the rationale again, but there was some very good rationale for making that deal. What you can't sugar coat is how bad it looks at the moment.

 

I have heard and read all the rationale before, so I am glad that you didn't waste your time repeati g any of it. J never agreed with the rationale. Just because they gave the reasoning for their actions doesn't make the judgment sound.

[a700hitter]

Also, I think you can safely remove my quote from your signature. I would call the Cubs a serious playoff contender this year. They are 1/2 game out of the wildcard (They are even in the loss column.) and they were buyers at the deadline. As I have said many times, Theo is a genius.

That will stay there until he makes the playoffs.

[Bellhorn04]

That will stay there until he makes the playoffs.

 

Isn't the quote 'serious playoff contender' though?

[a700hitter]

Isn't the quote 'serious playoff contender' though?

 

It is the first week of August, even that has not been established.

[Bellhorn04]

It is the first week of August, even that has not been established.

 

I don't disagree there, but when is it officially established?

[a700hitter]

I don't disagree there, but when is it officially established?

 

If they take one of the wild cards. Everyone is alive for the wild cards in September except for real garbage like us.

[iortiz]

I don't disagree there, but when is it officially established?

 

I think around the second week of September you have the serious contender teams.

[iortiz]

If they take one of the wild cards. Everyone is alive for the wild cards in September except for real garbage like us.

 

I think it is better way to see it. Even with a WC spot, you are not in POs, you still need to win that game.

[SoxnCycles]

I love it.

Take a quote from someone else and then dictate to them what it means.

 

Arrogant DBs.

[Bellhorn04]

I think it is better way to see it. Even with a WC spot, you are not in POs, you still need to win that game.

 

What makes you think the wild card games don't qualify as postseason, playoff games?