A Realistic View at 2016

[moonslav59]

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.

 

Salazar is 3 years younger and has one more year of control. I go with Danny.

 

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

 

Probably right. The CWS were looking to compete this year, so they'd need more in terms of ML ready players than just Frazier, Holt and Kelly. Maybe Cincy would have taken Devers, Asuage and Logan for Frazier, so the CWS could have gotten Swihart added to their package as another ML starter.

 

Frazier, Swihart, Kelly, Holt, Margot & Guerra for Quintana.

[User Name]

Way too much.

[moonslav59]

Way too much.

 

You say I'm "all over the place", but didn't you first say no team is going to give us an ace for that package?

 

Now, you say my package is "way too much".

 

Which one is it?

[Dojji]

It can be both at the same time -- a price can be too high for us, and still be considered a lowball by them. Negotiations are like that.

[southpaw777]

Moon, my friend...i have been telling you for a few years that your trade proposals of 6 prospects for one guy is too much quantity and not enough quality... They dont want "darn good" prospects for elite talent, they want elite prospects and probably some Young controlled Proven MLB talent.

 

I think the Sox wouldnt part with Xander just because there isnt anyone to replace him and hes looking more and more like a perennial All Star. Id say either one or even two of JBJ, Mookie, and Swihart or Shaw would have to be available in a trade as well as a couple from the top 5...

 

3-4 top players/prospects

 

But for me to give up that much it HAS to be for a proven young controlled TOTR starter.

[moonslav59]

So, Todd Frazier, Swihart, Devers and Margot aren't 4 "top players/prospects"?

Throwing in Holt, Owens and Guerra doesn't help?

It;s not like these guys are slouches.

I've also mentioned the idea of taking on a second (unwanted) player, making it a 6 for 2 trade or involving another team to make it less than 6 for 1.

The theory goes like this: trade 3 very good prospects for 1 very good player (like Frazier), then maybe trade another 3 for 1 and then flip those two plus another prospect or two for one awesome player.

 

Maybe I am too "pie in the sky" by hoping we could have gotten a player like Salazar, Carrasco or Quintana through this method, but it's not like I was asking for a Mets starter or Sale.

 

I also suggested offering Kelly over Owens/Johnson, so that might change the dynamic to Frazier, Kelly, Swihart. and Margot . There's 4 for 1, but I still think any team wouldn't have turned down Devers and Guerra or Holt just because 6 for 1 deals are rare.

[moonslav59]

I think the Cubs once traded 5 guys for Matt Garza, and most of them became ML players.

Garza wasn't really an ace, but it does happen.

One of those players was Chris Archer, and I think some others were Sam Fuld and Brandon Guyer. I can't think of the other two, but one was a catcher.

I'm sure somewhere at sometime there was a 6 for one deal or 6 or 7 for two.

[User Name]

It can be both at the same time -- a price can be too high for us, and still be considered a lowball by them. Negotiations are like that.

 

^This.

[southpaw777]

So, Todd Frazier, Swihart, Devers and Margot aren't 4 "top players/prospects"?

Throwing in Holt, Owens and Guerra doesn't help?

It;s not like these guys are slouches.

I've also mentioned the idea of taking on a second (unwanted) player, making it a 6 for 2 trade or involving another team to make it less than 6 for 1.

The theory goes like this: trade 3 very good prospects for 1 very good player (like Frazier), then maybe trade another 3 for 1 and then flip those two plus another prospect or two for one awesome player.

 

Maybe I am too "pie in the sky" by hoping we could have gotten a player like Salazar, Carrasco or Quintana through this method, but it's not like I was asking for a Mets starter or Sale.

 

I also suggested offering Kelly over Owens/Johnson, so that might change the dynamic to Frazier, Kelly, Swihart. and Margot . There's 4 for 1, but I still think any team wouldn't have turned down Devers and Guerra or Holt just because 6 for 1 deals are rare.[/quote

 

First of all, i want what your smoking if you would have gave Swihart, Devers, Margot, Holt, Owens, and Guerra for Frazier...WOW man

Second of all, i am specifically talking about trading for top pitching, not some 30yo late bloomer 3b whos batting 220 currently. He was overrated. Besides having hit 30hr for the first time most of his other stats are really kind of mediocre to me...

Besides, id rather have Kimbrel than Frazier. Guerra and Margot helped us there. Its nice having a shutdown closer again, isnt it? Do you really miss those two? I dont...

 

Now, if you want a top starter like say Carasco (not saying he available, just his type)

Think something like this...

JBJ, Swihart, Devers, and Espinoza

 

Thats a pretty fair deal for both teams.

Stud CF with years of control (MLB)

SH catcher with years of control (MLB)

20yo power bat 3b with high ceiling (High A)

19yo phenom starter who hit 100MPH effortlessly (Low A)

 

All have been a#1 prospect in our system or in the top three.

[S5Dewey]

Now, if you want a top starter like say Carasco (not saying he available, just his type)

Think something like this...

JBJ, Swihart, Devers, and Espinoza

 

Thats a pretty fair deal for both teams.

Stud CF with years of control (MLB)

SH catcher with years of control (MLB)

20yo power bat 3b with high ceiling (High A)

19yo phenom starter who hit 100MPH effortlessly (Low A)

 

All have been a#1 prospect in our system or in the top three.

The trouble with made-up "trades" like this is that they're made up in a vacuum, implying that the only effect on the team would be who we are gaining and ignoring who we're losing.

 

If a team were absolutely desperate for a GG CF'er with power AND had a surplus of young stud pitchers they MAY be willing to give up one of those pitchers for the outfielder they need. By the same token, if the Sox were desperate for a young stud pitcher they MAY be willing to give up that outfielder to get the pitcher. However, the problem for the Sox is that they're then stuck with an outfield of Holt, Mookie, and Young in exchange for a player who takes the mound every five days. I see that as not being a good trade from the Sox perspective.

 

I see four position players on the Sox team who should be essentially untouchable. Bogaerts, JBJ, Mookie and Vazquez. These are the guys you build a team around. It's not impossible to think about Swihart as the centerpiece of a trade along with two or three of our top prospects for that pitcher we need, but in order for that to happen the Sox need to find a team with a pressing need at catcher and a stud pitcher they're willing to give up - which may be hard to do. As with everything, it's all about the matchups.

[southpaw777]

From what ive read and heard, the asking price for a starter the calibur of a Carasco or Syndergaard will cost a hefty haul...

It may only take one MLB player and prospects, but i think you understand what it will take...

I also agreee that it wont be easy to acquire that top starter. We have to match up perfectly and be willing to pay the price without hurting the current roster...Unfortunately It usually hurts a bit...

[S5Dewey]

The asking price and the selling price are two different things. The Sox may be dealing from a position of weakness in their needing pitching but they're definitely dealing from a position of strength when it comes to dealing prospects. There's nothing wrong with saying, ,"No, those four players are untouchable. Now, how badly do you want that catcher? Badly enough to take on 3 or 4 top prospects and build for your future?"

 

That's the kind of thing good teams can get away with because they have both the players and the resources to deal from strength. And if you're not willing to deal from the position of strength when you're strong what's the point to being in that position?

Edited May 23, 2016 by S5Dewey
clarity

[Dojji]

The Kansas City Royals just won the world series with a bunch of durable, middling quality starters, a dynamite bullpen and a deep lineup. Sure they went out and rented Cueto, but Cueto was less than brilliant for them. Shields was their rotation leader for most of that season and he's more of a super-3 than an ace -- very very very durable, but more of a great supporting piece than a true rotation leader.

 

Durable #3 types don't put you over the top, but they do put you in the picture, and the more you have, the better a chance you have to bring other assets into play to help you win.

[User Name]

The Kansas City Royals just won the world series with a bunch of durable, middling quality starters, a dynamite bullpen and a deep lineup. Sure they went out and rented Cueto, but Cueto was less than brilliant for them. Shields was their rotation leader for most of that season and he's more of a super-3 than an ace -- very very very durable, but more of a great supporting piece than a true rotation leader.

 

Durable #3 types don't put you over the top, but they do put you in the picture, and the more you have, the better a chance you have to bring other assets into play to help you win.

 

Shields was in San Diego during the Royals' run to the championship last year. He was their ace during the 2014 season when they made to the WS and lost to the Giants.

[Maxbialystock]

Ah, the trade wars are back. With all due respect to moonslav, I am an almost total nonbeliever. Why? Because whoever is available via trade probably isn't worth what we would have to give up. One of the best trades recently was in 2012 when the Sox gave up A-Gon, Beckett, and Crawford--three guys the Sox had previously gone after in trades or via free agency.

 

Yes, the Sox need pitching, but the price is almost always too high and the good too suspect.

[User Name]

Two words: Shelby Miller

[a700hitter]

Ah, the trade wars are back. With all due respect to moonslav, I am an almost total nonbeliever. Why? Because whoever is available via trade probably isn't worth what we would have to give up. One of the best trades recently was in 2012 when the Sox gave up A-Gon, Beckett, and Crawford--three guys the Sox had previously gone after in trades or via free agency.

 

Yes, the Sox need pitching, but the price is almost always too high and the good too suspect.

I would prefer that they build their rotation in the off season than to try to build it during the season. The cost is always higher during the season. The whining is already finding its way into the press about the cost of acquiring pitching at the trading deadline. They can't have it both ways. They don't fill out the rotation with quality during the off season, but tell us that they can address any holes during the season and then they feign surprise about the cost of addressing the pitching issue during the season. They need to take that BS elsewhere. I am not buying it. That type of BS is why I generally have a low opinion of all FO personnel.

[Bellhorn04]

I would prefer that they build their rotation in the off season than to try to build it during the season. The cost is always higher during the season. The whining is already finding its way into the press about the cost of acquiring pitching at the trading deadline. They can't have it both ways. They don't fill out the rotation with quality during the off season, but tell us that they can address any holes during the season and then they feign surprise about the cost of addressing the pitching issue during the season. They need to take that BS elsewhere. I am not buying it. That type of BS is why I generally have a low opinion of all FO personnel.

 

Who in the Sox FO is whining?

[a700hitter]

Who in the Sox FO is whining?

The whining comes through the press. Cafardo and others are already saying that the cost of acquiring pitching will be very high during the season because so many teams competing for the post season need pitching. How would the press know the cost unless they are speaking to someone in the organization? It is possible they are just talking out of their asses. If so, they shouldn't be press members, they should be posting here. I think it is more likely that they are hearing these things from their sources. I am reading between the lines. The Boston press has a tendency to be a proxy for the FO.

 

Edit: Plus, the whining happens every year. It is nothing new. Every FO puke makes the excuse when they can't help the team.

[User Name]

I read a Sam Kennedy quote yesterday stating literally the opposite of what you're saying.

[a700hitter]

I read a Sam Kennedy quote yesterday stating literally the opposite of what you're saying.

That's interesting. But he isn't Baseball Operations is he? That is DD's territory, no?

[User Name]

That's interesting. But he isn't Baseball Operations is he? That is DD's territory, no?

 

He's club president. He manages the coffers to a large extent, and he's technically above DD. And you'll never hear DD whine about the cost of upgrades. That man will trade his mother in the right deal.

[a700hitter]

He's club president. He manages the coffers to a large extent, and he's technically above DD. And you'll never hear DD whine about the cost of upgrades. That man will trade his mother in the right deal.

Let's hope so. I will reserve judgment on DD in this regard, but this excuse is pretty standard amond FO personnel around baseball.

[robert vonhalle]

Let's hope so. I will reserve judgment on DD in this regard, but this excuse is pretty standard amond FO personnel around baseball.

 

maybe the sox should wait for the young guys that are comeing up!

[a700hitter]

maybe the sox should wait for the young guys that are comeing up!

Which pitchers are close?

[Dojji]

Shields was in San Diego during the Royals' run to the championship last year. He was their ace during the 2014 season when they made to the WS and lost to the Giants.

 

Damn, you're right. My memory is just not very good anymore :/ I used to be able to be a lot more confident in how well I recalled things.

 

my overall point stands though. The Royals rotation was not very good when they won the world Series. For the most part their job was to hold the team in the game until late innings and let the bats and the bullpen carry the game. It worked well enough for their purposes.

[User Name]

The fact that they didn't have Shields last year does not detract from your point, it reinforces it.

[S5Dewey]

He's club president. He manages the coffers to a large extent, and he's technically above DD. And you'll never hear DD whine about the cost of upgrades. That man will trade his mother in the right deal.

Have you met his mother?? Maybe it's justified!

[sk7326]

Damn, you're right. My memory is just not very good anymore :/ I used to be able to be a lot more confident in how well I recalled things.

 

my overall point stands though. The Royals rotation was not very good when they won the world Series. For the most part their job was to hold the team in the game until late innings and let the bats and the bullpen carry the game. It worked well enough for their purposes.

 

Also - the Royals built to ballpark ... meh starters, but guys who can keep it in the yard ...

[royf19]

Have you met his mother?? Maybe it's justified!

 

Well, she just didn't have her game anymore. The ironing was sloppy, she kept burning supper and she was just going through the motions when cleaning the house.