The search for an ace

[Orange Juiced]

WFAN right now is talking about the Mets possibly (probably?) trading Matt Harvey in the offseason, and they said that the Red Sox would likely be at the top of the list, given the Sox' need and what they could offer.

 

Now, you gotta give something to get something. Harvey is an absolute stud. Just 25, big-time pitcher, still relatively inexpensive, because he'll not be a FA, but will enter his arbitration years. What is a package that you'd be willing to offer for Harvey, one that is the offer the Mets would take (because there would be other suitors), but that you'd be ok giving up? Please let's not say Hanley + Panda for Harvey. Obviously that won't work. It may mean parting with Betts or Bradley or Bogaerts or Swihart, but maybe not. Who knows?

 

Here's an offer I think might work and I'd be willing to do:

 

Castillo/Holt/Owens/Margot

 

Young, up-and-coming OF, an all-star jack-of-all-trades, a stud pitching prospect, and a dynamic OF prospect. That's four pieces for one. It might not be enough.

[a700hitter]

WFAN right now is talking about the Mets possibly (probably?) trading Matt Harvey in the offseason, and they said that the Red Sox would likely be at the top of the list, given the Sox' need and what they could offer.

 

Now, you gotta give something to get something. Harvey is an absolute stud. Just 25, big-time pitcher, still relatively inexpensive, because he'll not be a FA, but will enter his arbitration years. What is a package that you'd be willing to offer for Harvey, one that is the offer the Mets would take (because there would be other suitors), but that you'd be ok giving up? Please let's not say Hanley + Panda for Harvey. Obviously that won't work. It may mean parting with Betts or Bradley or Bogaerts or Swihart, but maybe not. Who knows?

 

Here's an offer I think might work and I'd be willing to do:

 

Castillo/Holt/Owens/Margot

 

Young, up-and-coming OF, an all-star jack-of-all-trades, a stud pitching prospect, and a dynamic OF prospect. That's four pieces for one. It might not be enough.

That is a non-starter. The Mets will not want an OFer with a $72 million price tag. Second, they will no want Owens. Their pitching is better than our pitching prospects. Holt is a utility player. That offer will no get it done. If you want Harvey, it will cost Betts or Bogaerts. Forget any pacakage that doesn't include one of them. They have no need for Swihart. They have d'Arnaud as their young catcher and Plawecki as the back up.

[sk7326]

That is a non-starter. The Mets will not want an OFer with a $72 million price tag. Second, they will no want Owens. Their pitching is better than our pitching prospects. Holt is a utility player. That offer will no get it done. If you want Harvey, it will cost Betts or Bogaerts. Forget any pacakage that doesn't include one of them. They have no need for Swihart. They have d'Arnaud as their young catcher and Plawecki as the back up.

 

This is mostly right. What is possible - not likely but possible - is that if the Red Sox offer the Mets a place to send Michael Cuddyer's contract, that it could help reduce the package a little bit.

[Dojji]

I don't think Matt Harvey's coming here. Could be wrong of course but my sense of things is that the Red Sox will look to free agency. Don't be too surprised if they look across the ocean too, I'm not sure what the IFA market looks like but the Red Sox aren't afraid to go that route if they think it'll benefit them.

[a700hitter]

This is mostly right. What is possible - not likely but possible - is that if the Red Sox offer the Mets a place to send Michael Cuddyer's contract, that it could help reduce the package a little bit.

Cuddyer is only under contract for one more year. It's not that big of a contract.

[Orange Juiced]

That is a non-starter. The Mets will not want an OFer with a $72 million price tag. Second, they will no want Owens. Their pitching is better than our pitching prospects. Holt is a utility player. That offer will no get it done. If you want Harvey, it will cost Betts or Bogaerts. Forget any pacakage that doesn't include one of them. They have no need for Swihart. They have d'Arnaud as their young catcher and Plawecki as the back up.

 

You're probably right. Would you trade either Betts or Bogaerts for Harvey? Or more to the point, what package would you offer that you think the Mets would take, if such a package exists?

[sk7326]

You're probably right. Would you trade either Betts or Bogaerts for Harvey? Or more to the point, what package would you offer that you think the Mets would take, if such a package exists?

 

I would consider it - because you're trading young talent for young talent. Getting a young star is why you touch untouchable players. I'd look at Sale first though - but you collect the chips for a reason, and the Sox are loaded up the middle.

[cp176]

I would not trade Bogaerts. High quality ss who is only going to get better. Would not like to see the current outfield trio broken up but if it meant one or none it would be Betts for me only because no one would take Castillo. I would actually be ok with one big free agent signing. Maybe one more solid starter but I don't know how much of the field players on the current roster I would give up. If Vasquez recovers the way he is likely to, I would be surprised to see both of them (Swihart and Vasquez) with the team next year. Depending on what Dombrowski wants to do, he does have the chips to deal.

[a700hitter]

You're probably right. Would you trade either Betts or Bogaerts for Harvey? Or more to the point, what package would you offer that you think the Mets would take, if such a package exists?

The Mets would love Bogaerts as they have been having trouble for eons in getting a good SS. They could probably get him in a one for one trade for XB, but I have always hated trading everday star players for a pitcher. I wouldn't do it. Betts is a possibility. I could see that, but again it is not an easy call. I don't know what the Mets would accept beyond that. I would assume Moncado is untouchable. If they would take Bradley and minor leaguer, that would be great. Maybe if Bradley keeps hitting like a beast through the end of the season we could get that done. I think that would be a good trade for both teams.

[sk7326]

I would not trade Bogaerts. High quality ss who is only going to get better. Would not like to see the current outfield trio broken up but if it meant one or none it would be Betts for me only because no one would take Castillo. I would actually be ok with one big free agent signing. Maybe one more solid starter but I don't know how much of the field players on the current roster I would give up. If Vasquez recovers the way he is likely to, I would be surprised to see both of them (Swihart and Vasquez) with the team next year. Depending on what Dombrowski wants to do, he does have the chips to deal.

 

Oh I actually think someone would take Castillo now - there is clearly a solid player there, and if you think this is a legit guy his salary is really modest for that production. But no, not as a centerpiece for a 26 year old ace sort.

[a700hitter]

Oh I actually think someone would take Castillo now - there is clearly a solid player there, and if you think this is a legit guy his salary is really modest for that production. But no, not as a centerpiece for a 26 year old ace sort.

The Mets will not take salary. That is the deal killer. That kills the deal before discussing the quality of the player.

[cp176]

The Mets would love Bogaerts as they have been having trouble for eons in getting a good SS. They could probably get him in a one for one trade for XB, but I have always hated trading everday star players for a pitcher. I wouldn't do it. Betts is a possibility. I could see that, but again it is not an easy call. I don't know what the Mets would accept beyond that. I would assume Moncado is untouchable. If they would take Bradley and minor leaguer, that would be great. Maybe if Bradley keeps hitting like a beast through the end of the season we could get that done. I think that would be a good trade for both teams.

 

Betts and Margot? I don't want to see JBJ go.

[a700hitter]

Betts and Margot? I don't want to see JBJ go.

 

I am sure that would get it done.

[cp176]

I think that we might see something like that happen. That would be a power move if they also signed that big free agent we all want to see in Fenway.

[Spudboy]

f*** trading Betts for a pitcher.

 

Just dumb.

[cp176]

I would hate to see it happen but if they trade for the best they can get, somebody good is going to go. Pick your poison. I'd be happy if they signed one big free agent pitcher as in Price but I think that Dombrowski is apt to be a little more aggressive than that. They need a big time top of the rotation guy and almost a complete rebuild of the pigpen. Plus they have to figure out a way to continue to keep Ramirez off the field. He ain't gonna make everybody happy.

[mvp 78]

f*** trading Betts for a pitcher.

 

Just dumb.

 

Especially not for a guy who had TJS.

[Orange Juiced]

Especially not for a guy who had TJS.

 

Well THAT is the wild card in all this. Lots of pitchers have TJ surgery and come out of it very well. But TWO of those surgeries? Not sure anyone has come back from that. So he's a major risk that should dampen his trade value a little.

[a700hitter]

Well THAT is the wild card in all this. Lots of pitchers have TJ surgery and come out of it very well. But TWO of those surgeries? Not sure anyone has come back from that. So he's a major risk that should dampen his trade value a little.

 

I don't think Harvey had 2 surgeries.

[a700hitter]

f*** trading Betts for a pitcher.

 

Just dumb.

 

I'd hate to part with Betts too. I never like trading fill time stars for a pitcher. I'd prefer to trade Bradley.

[cp176]

I'd hate to part with Betts too. I never like trading fill time stars for a pitcher. I'd prefer to trade Bradley.

 

I would hate to have to pick between the two. We won't have to. Hopefully we keep them both. We all have our favorites though don't we.

[cp176]

I would hate to have to pick between the two. We won't have to. Hopefully we keep them both. We all have our favorites though don't we.

 

The bigger picture here for me is would I like to see the Red Sox trade for Matt Harvey or someone close to his ability? Outside of trading Bogaerts the answer is yes. As much as I would hate to see a great potential outfield broken up, I don't think that we are talking Rice, Lynn, and Evans. You aren't going to win championships without champions on the mound.

[a700hitter]

The bigger picture here for me is would I like to see the Red Sox trade for Matt Harvey or someone close to his ability? Outside of trading Bogaerts the answer is yes. As much as I would hate to see a great potential outfield broken up, I don't think that we are talking Rice, Lynn, and Evans. You aren't going to win championships without champions on the mound.

They are the under 5'"10 versions of Lynn, Rice, and Evans. Those guys were specimens. We have a disproportionate number of small players. Is that something the scouts look for these days? Personally, that body-type would be a negative for me in scouting anything other than middle infielders. I want small agile middle infielders. I am not a big believer in outfielders under 5'10".

[sk7326]

They are the under 5'"10 versions of Lynn, Rice, and Evans. Those guys were specimens. We have a disproportionate number of small players. Is that something the scouts look for these days? Personally, that body-type would be a negative for me in scouting anything other than middle infielders. I want small agile middle infielders. I am not a big believer in outfielders under 5'10".

 

Perhaps a source of arbitrage. Of course, Pedroia is a total freak - very little about him has ever made sense from a scouting perspective. Betts of course was a middle infielder who has forced them to figure out a way to get him on the field.

 

Sox have definitely favored acquiring CFs and middle infielders - since the scouts have coveted premium athleticism and that's where you find them for the most part.

[jd98]

If I had to choose between Betts and Bogaerts, I'd trade Bogaerts. I think Betts is better, but the main reason is that Betts is under control for an extra year, 5 years vs 4 for XB. Also, Bogaerts has Boras as agent, so it will be easier and cheaper to extend Betts if the team wants to.

 

Five years of Betts for 3 years of Harvey. No thanks. Four years of Bogaerts for 3 years of Harvey. Probably not, but I wouldn't hang up the phone right away.

[Orange Juiced]

I don't think Harvey had 2 surgeries.

 

He hasn't. He's just had one. But that makes him a higher risk because a second one pretty much does him in.

[cp176]

They are the under 5'"10 versions of Lynn, Rice, and Evans. Those guys were specimens. We have a disproportionate number of small players. Is that something the scouts look for these days? Personally, that body-type would be a negative for me in scouting anything other than middle infielders. I want small agile middle infielders. I am not a big believer in outfielders under 5'10".

 

I agree! Have felt the same way for quite sometime now.

[cp176]

Hopefully we don't have to choose! If I had to choose in this case I think that any of those outfielders is much more easily replaced than a shortsop who should be an all-star for many years.

[iortiz]

I wouldn't trade any young talent, especially when you have plenty of money. Of course I like Harvey or Gray, but I wouldn't let walk my top prospects when out there will be good FAs. Just sign 2 solid/durable SPs. If they accomplish the 70% of the expected value I'll call it deal. Look at Pepelbon. Look at Buehrle. Wait and see Shields and Lester. Thing is to have the eye of the tiger and DD seems to have it. Edited September 10, 2015 by iortiz

[Spudboy]

Cy Kelly has been shut down for the 2015 season.