A Realistic View at 2016

[Hugh2]

You're not getting an ACE for QTY, I feel like this debate was had over at BDC every year. Those types of trades never happen. Qty does not make up for quality, the other team isn't living in a world where the Redsox can figure out how to not give up Bogaerts Betts, and if the situation dictates a prospect package you better believe you're giving up 2 of Devers, Benintendi, Espinoza, Moncada plus two from your list.

[moonslav59]

You're not getting an ACE for QTY, I feel like this debate was had over at BDC every year. Those types of trades never happen. Qty does not make up for quality, the other team isn't living in a world where the Redsox can figure out how to not give up Bogaerts Betts, and if the situation dictates a prospect package you better believe you're giving up 2 of Devers, Benintendi, Espinoza, Moncada plus two from your list.

 

The Cole Hammels deal shows otherwise, although his contract was steep.

 

I don't disagree that these deals are near impossible to find.

 

Many felt Salazar, Carrasco and Quintana were not ace material, and I was talking more about getting one of those guys than Sale, Gray or a Mets starter. I consider the former 3 aces.

 

We got Pedro for two prospects, but that was long ago.

 

We got Schilling for quantity.

 

I'm not saying it's easy, but I think we may have been able to get Salazar for Holt, Swihart, Devers, Guerra, Margot, Johnson or Owens. When I suggested a deal like this, most posters felt I was offering much to much!

[User Name]

The Cole Hammels deal shows otherwise, although his contract was steep.

 

I don't disagree that these deals are near impossible to find.

 

Many felt Salazar, Carrasco and Quintana were not ace material, and I was talking more about getting one of those guys than Sale, Gray or a Mets starter. I consider the former 3 aces.

 

We got Pedro for two prospects, but that was long ago.

 

We got Schilling for quantity.

 

I'm not saying it's easy, but I think we may have been able to get Salazar for Holt, Swihart, Devers, Guerra, Margot, Johnson or Owens. When I suggested a deal like this, most posters felt I was offering much to much!

 

How? The Phillies got four of the Rangers' top 15 prospects, and a consensus top 50 prospect in Alfaro. The equivalent would be giving up Devers, Kopech, Chavis and Pat Light plus a projectable high A guy like Glorius. That's a painful haul.

[moonslav59]

How? The Phillies got four of the Rangers' top 15 prospects, and a consensus top 50 prospect in Alfaro. The equivalent would be giving up Devers, Kopech, Chavis and Pat Light plus a projectable high A guy like Glorius. That's a painful haul.

 

Doesn't look too painful to me.

Besides, the Sox had better prospects than the Rangers.

I think we get way way more for my suggested offer than Devers, Kopech, Chavis and Light.

[User Name]

Doesn't look too painful to me.

Besides, the Sox had better prospects than the Rangers.

I think we get way way more for my suggested offer than Devers, Kopech, Chavis and Light.

 

But you're conveniently ignoring that Hamels isn't a 26-year old, mid-prime guy. He was a guy over 30 making market value money.

[moonslav59]

But you're conveniently ignoring that Hamels isn't a 26-year old, mid-prime guy. He was a guy over 30 making market value money.

 

I didn't want Cole for that reason and his steep contract, so I don't think I'm ignoring anything.

My pint was that if we could have gotten Hammels for Devers, Kopech, Chavis and Light, certainly we could have gotten someone very very good for 6 of the 8 guys I mentioned.

I also pointed out that we could have made it a 6 for 2 deal by taking on a big contract.

I didn't really consider Tyson Ross and ace, but I think he could have been picked up, if we took on M Upton's deal or maybe even Kemp (and not signed Young). I'm glad we didn't get him.

I didn't consider Shields an ace, but he'd have been a nice pick-up. I guess that's going off topic here.

I do think Swihart and Devers had very high stock numbers this past winter. Catchers are rare these days.

I heard rumors that Cleveland wanted JBJ and more, and I'm glad we didn't trade Jackie. I do agree that Cleveland and the White Sox were not in rebuild mode, so trading 6 prospects was not enticing to them. Sonny Gray will eventually be dealt, but last winter was probably not the time to convince Billy to take 6 kids.

Maybe involving a third team would be needed to take all or some of the prospects and give up a major league piece to the Guardians or White Sox or Mets.

I had suggested soem deals involving Cincy and their third baseman going to Cleveland with prospects going to Boston and Salazar coming here, but those deals are hard to make.

[User Name]

You're all over the place.

 

The point, to center the argument, is that no one is giving up a young guy with ace potential for a bunch of mid-level prospects. The guys you could get are either overpriced, or not that good, which you point out in the above post yourself. The Sox marginally overpaid for Kimbrel because of the flood of available RP, but SP cost is extremely high in prospects AND money. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

[moonslav59]

You're all over the place.

 

The point, to center the argument, is that no one is giving up a young guy with ace potential for a bunch of mid-level prospects. The guys you could get are either overpriced, or not that good, which you point out in the above post yourself. The Sox marginally overpaid for Kimbrel because of the flood of available RP, but SP cost is extremely high in prospects AND money. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

Swihart, Devers, Margot and Guerra were not mid level prospects last winter.

Adding Holt plus 2 from Owens, Johnson and Kopech is a powerful package.

 

Explain why you "overpay" when the supply is higher than the demand for RP'ers?

Edited May 22, 2016 by moonslav59

[southpaw777]

I'm not defending the current -.3 rating, but what I am saying is that so far this year, despite his undeniable talent in the field, JBJ has seemed to me to be not as good as last year or the year before. My suspicion, only that, is that his fielding is slacking off commensurate with his success at the plate. To me he is the polar opposite of Bogaerts who, despite his excellent hitting stats, is super conscientious about his fielding at SS. It also helps that Bogaerts knows he ain't the greatest fielding shortstop around. My guess is that JBJ thinks he is God's gift to centerfielding and can rest on his laurels. That is just a guess. I say again, his talent is undeniable. He not only has a great arm, but also a great instinct for where the ball is going. As I recall, the complaints about Ellsbury were that he had weak arm and less than great instincts about where the ball was going, but he was faster than JBJ is and was pretty good at not making errors.

 

Your guesses about Xander and JBj are head scratchers....Xander was 5th for a GG last year, but good thing he knows hes not "the greastest ss"...and JBJ, who thinks hes Gods gift? lol...where do you come up with this stuff? Talk about just chucking something against a wall...Xander is one of the best SS in the league and JBJ seems pretty humble to me, especially after what it took for him to get, and stay here the last two years...usually people form opinions based on facts and solid info...Im just wondering what info gives you these opinions?

[southpaw777]

Of course this is assuming that the Mets want the trade off of hitting for pitching. They might not want that, and they might want to move prospects for hitting to keep their pitching core in tact.

 

The Mets have been looking for offense since last year. They have plenty of pitching.

With that said, i said a guy LIKE Syndergaard and also said i wasnt saying he was available.

 

Im pretty sure they arent letting him, or anyone go fpr that matter, if they are in the race. Thats kind of a given...

My point was giving up top talent for a young controlled totr type.

Edited May 22, 2016 by southpaw777

[southpaw777]

Now, for a guy like Syndergaard (not saying hes available) I would give up names like Espinoza, benintendi, swihart and Devers to start the conversation...

 

Heres my quote...

 

Never said Thor was available...nor was i meaning to give up all of these kids in one deal.

[User Name]

Swihart, Devers, Margot and Guerra were not mid level prospects last winter.

Adding Holt plus 2 from Owens, Johnson and Kopech is a powerful package.

 

Explain why you "overpay" when the supply is higher than the demand for RP'ers?

 

An elite RP still holds a value edge over a "decent" SP.

 

If you're going to give up that much value for a meh or overpriced starter I am very glad you are not running this team, because it both hurts the farm and it's not getting an elite arm back. It's an issue of value.

[sk7326]

Swihart, Devers, Margot and Guerra were not mid level prospects last winter.

Adding Holt plus 2 from Owens, Johnson and Kopech is a powerful package.

 

Explain why you "overpay" when the supply is higher than the demand for RP'ers?

 

They overpaid for Kimbrel - but they got a stud with control. I did not like the deal, but I understood it.

 

A haul for a young, controllable stud starter is going to require some significant value (think the Beckett deal in 2006)

[User Name]

Hey, but Holt (who the team honestly can't trade), a lefty with no fastball command, a guy who broke his hand being a f***ing idiot, and another one getting treatment for anxiety would net us that elite young starter we're looking for!

[Bellhorn04]

They overpaid for Kimbrel - but they got a stud with control. I did not like the deal, but I understood it.

 

A haul for a young, controllable stud starter is going to require some significant value (think the Beckett deal in 2006)

 

As in Betts or Bradley plus, right?

[User Name]

Any deal for a young, #1 guy starts with Bradley, Betts or Bogaerts.

[Hugh2]

Im going to repeat myself here because this point can't be stressed enough.

 

No team is going to trade away an ACE for 6 B level prospects when you have 3-4 blue chippers at the top of your organization.

 

Also QTY almost never makes up for quality. If I had Sale or Thor I'm asking for your top 4, and I wouldn't even consider taking 20 Kopechs in replace of that.

 

Also supply of RP isn't higher than demand, elite RP at least. If anything the trade market and FA market reflect the demand is going up.

 

And the Rangers package for Hamels did include top prospects. But if Hamels was 5-6 years younger and making pennies that package would have to be doubled in value. Apples to Oranges when talking about bringing in young cost controlled elite arms.

[a700hitter]

Im going to repeat myself here because this point can't be stressed enough.

 

No team is going to trade away an ACE for 6 B level prospects when you have 3-4 blue chippers at the top of your organization.

 

Also QTY almost never makes up for quality. If I had Sale or Thor I'm asking for your top 4, and I wouldn't even consider taking 20 Kopechs in replace of that.

 

Also supply of RP isn't higher than demand, elite RP at least. If anything the trade market and FA market reflect the demand is going up.

 

And the Rangers package for Hamels did include top prospects. But if Hamels was 5-6 years younger and making pennies that package would have to be doubled in value. Apples to Oranges when talking about bringing in young cost controlled elite arms.

Syndegard is such a pipe dream that he is not even worth discussing. Any GM that calls the Mets and mentions his name will hear a click on the other end.

[User Name]

Syndegard is such a pipe dream that he is not even worth discussing. Any GM that calls the Mets and mentions his name will hear a click on the other end.

 

Unless the names "Correa", "Machado", "Bryant", "Betts" or "Arenado" are immediately followed by "to headlight the package."

[a700hitter]

Unless the names "Correa", "Machado", "Bryant", "Betts" or "Arenado" are immediately followed by "to headlight the package."

I honestly don't even think one of those names gets it done. They are all closer to free agency and big $ than Syndegard, and pitching is just at such a premium.

[sk7326]

I honestly don't even think one of those names gets it done. They are all closer to free agency and big $ than Syndegard, and pitching is just at such a premium.

 

it's close. but flags fly forever, and the mets window is now. Mets are not poor, though they act it - and the most teams are flush with cash.

[mvp 78]

No, they are poorer than you think. Being duped by Madoff wrecked them.

[sk7326]

No, they are poorer than you think. Being duped by Madoff wrecked them.

 

To a certain degree, but it has often been thus with the Wilpons ... like Loria they can afford it, they'd prefer not to

[CliffKlowers]

Price, Porcello, and and Wright are good and Kelly was great yesterday. Buccholz seems to be one bad pitch per game away. Fingers crossed on ERod. Edited May 22, 2016 by CliffKlowers

[moonslav59]

Im going to repeat myself here because this point can't be stressed enough.

 

No team is going to trade away an ACE for 6 B level prospects when you have 3-4 blue chippers at the top of your organization.

 

But, if a team doess not have 3-4 blue chippers, they will make a deal then?

 

Look, Swihart was considered a "blue chipper" last winter and the one before. Devers was pretty close to "blue chipper" designation as well last winter. Guerra and Margot would have been a top 3-4 prospect on most teams. You think GMs didn't know this?

 

 

Also QTY almost never makes up for quality.

 

It's quantity of some pretty darn good quality

 

 

If I had Sale or Thor I'm asking for your top 4, and I wouldn't even consider taking 20 Kopechs in replace of that.

 

My names were Salazar, Quintana, Carrasco and maybe Gray due the rebuilding nature of the A's. I also mentioned a thrid team could get involved that would contribute the ML player contending teams would need to make the deal, such as prospects goig to Cincy and Todd Frazier going to CLE or CWS with added prospects going to them as well, or taking on a contract those teams would like to dump to allow them to sign some FA to fill another need on their ML roster to contend this year

 

 

Also supply of RP isn't higher than demand, elite RP at least. If anything the trade market and FA market reflect the demand is going up.

 

I was responding to a poster who saaid we overpayed because there were a lot of RP'er available. I didn't say I agreed with the assessment.

 

 

 

And the Rangers package for Hamels did include top prospects. But if Hamels was 5-6 years younger and making pennies that package would have to be doubled in value. Apples to Oranges when talking about bringing in young cost controlled elite arms.

 

The package the Rangers got pales to the one I am suggesting, and that difference is what might get us a younger aged pitcher and/or a cheaper pitcher.

 

Repeat: I am not saying this package would get us Sale, Harvey or Kershaw. My names were guys many on these types of sites don't even consider "aces".

[User Name]

If it's not an ace, why would you sell half the farm? That is the point.

[moonslav59]

Lets look at the Guardians position last winter. The sorely needed a ML ready bat and would have really loved to build their farm blue chip or near blue chip prospects. Anyone calling Swihart, Margot, Devers, Margot and Guerra "B prospects" just because we also had Moncada, Espinoza and Benintendi may not understand prospect terminology. To me, B level prospects might be guys like Owens, Kopech, Marrero, or TBall.

 

Maybe the Guardians wouldn't want Swihart for LF, but the Reds would have loved to get Swihart. They ended up trading Frazer (a 35 HR guy last year) for Brandon Dixon, Jose Peraza and Scott Schebler. Swihart alone probably had more trade value than these 3. Plus, he plays a position of great need in MLB. The Guardians ended up settling on Uribe, who now has an OPS below .600. I think the Guardians have one guy over .750 and are battling to stay above .500 due to a very weak offense.

 

So, we offer Swihart, Asuage and Logan to Cincy. Frazier goes to Cleveland. We then send Cleveland Holt, Margot, Devers, Guerra, and two from Owens, Johnson and Kopech for, hopefully, 26 year old Danny Salazar and his 5 years of team control, but more likely Cleveland might have insisted we take 29 year old Carrasco and his 4 years of team control at a reasonable cost.

 

I think I heard some talk that the Guardians preferred trading Salazar to Carrasco, but I couldn't find any mention of that when I googled it.

 

Maybe Holt could have played OF until Margot was ready and saved the Guardians the $5.3M they ended up paying Raj Davis. With that $5M, the Guardians could have plugged another hole somewhere. Their farm would have improved enormously and they's have Frazier, Holt, Owens and maybe Johnson on thier ML roster this year. Margot, Devers and Guerra in the wings.

 

I think it's tremendous deal for the Guardians... maybe even too much!

 

[moonslav59]

If it's not an ace, why would you sell half the farm? That is the point.

 

The term "ace" is subjective.

 

I called Quintana, Salazar and Carrasco "aces" because they are all top 30 starters.

 

Salazar and Quintana clearly look like aces now. I think Carrasco got hurt.

 

The CWS ended up getting Frazier, so maybe some 3 way deal could have been made with them, but they'd probably have wanted Kelly instead of Owens/Johnson. I'd have done that, even though I love Kelly's future.

[User Name]

Carrasco is the only one of those guys I would sell part of the farm for. He has higher upside than Salazar (IMO). Quintana may see some regression at Fenway, since he's not a big K guy.

 

I also doubt the CWS were actually interested in trading Quintana.

[a700hitter]

No, they are poorer than you think. Being duped by Madoff wrecked them.

We will never know the full extent of their exposure to Madoff, but they were hurt very badly. Prior to Madoff, they were very big spenders. After Madoff, they came dangerously close to losing the franchise. Selig probably would have forced their sale if he wasn't wading through the debacle of the Dodgers at the same time. It would not have been good for the game to force the sale of two teams in the 2 biggest markets. The Mets twice had to borrow money from MLB to meet payroll. I think they borrowed a total of $50 million. They were in distress. They still don't have any capital. I read that they will not dig out of their debt for 20-30 years. Fred Wilpon will be taking a dirt nap long before that.