Giancarlo Stanton

[billge]

I want Stanton in left field and Jose Fernandez as our second ace Both have started slow. What would you give up to get them ?

[StephenCurry30]

In order to get those 2 guys, it would likely cost our whole farm system. Marlins just gave stanton a big extension,

[Jack Flap]

For both guys? Maybe Betts, Rodriguez, Swihart, Owens, Espinoza, and the entire Salem roster doesn't get you hung up on.

[Northern Star]

I want Stanton in left field and Jose Fernandez as our second ace Both have started slow. What would you give up to get them ?

 

Are you expecting Miami to pick up some of Stanton's gargantuan contract? I still wouldn't do it. And I'm not giving up good young players for a couple of players "who have started slow."

[Dojji]

There's no way the Sox and Marlins could agree on a price point. Not happening.

[Palodios]

I've never been a big fan of the sell-the-farm type trades. You always end up giving up a Hanley Ramirez, Anibel Sanchez, or Anthony Rizzo in the deal.

[Dojji]

I've never been a big fan of the sell-the-farm type trades. You always end up giving up a Hanley Ramirez, Anibel Sanchez, or Anthony Rizzo in the deal.

 

Well one of the trades you criticize worked out well for us since it got us a trophy the following season. But you're rignt in principle.

[Palodios]

Well one of the trades you criticize worked out well for us since it got us a trophy the following season. But you're rignt in principle.

 

Technically two of my examples.

 

What I find even crazier is the kind of talent this team has given up over the years for relievers. Reddick, Miley, David Murphy, Lowrie, and now Margot. It makes me very nervous to think about what a big starter trade would cost.

[Northern Star]

Besides, Giancarlo has to be on the Marlins so he can NOT opt out and leave them on the hook for all that lovely moolah. Couldn't happen to a better franchise.

[billge]

Right now the Kimbrel trade does not feel too bad as Margot and the other three have not had great starts. We never know with the kids. Devers has been awful while Moncada and Benintendi, who is hitting like Boggs 2 have been great

[jacksonianmarch]

The Marlins were genius in this move. Barring an unforeseen consequence, he is opting out. And because of this, they get him for 6yrs and $107 mil. On the open market, he is worth $30 mil a season right now. After 2020, he will be worth more provided good health. If he isn't, he stays put. If he continues to abuse pitching and hit 35+ HR a year with a high OBP, then he should be worth more than $218 mil over 7 yrs.

[sk7326]

Right now the Kimbrel trade does not feel too bad as Margot and the other three have not had great starts. We never know with the kids. Devers has been awful while Moncada and Benintendi, who is hitting like Boggs 2 have been great

 

It's May 5 - plus scouting the stat line always a bad idea

 

Devers is 19 - among the youngest regulars in High A. Benintendi is crushing a level which is about on par with the best college baseball league in the country - the one he was player of the year in. This is not to abate the excitement on Benintendi - he is on a fast track for a reason ... but like with all prospects, the verdict comes at AA.

Edited May 6, 2016 by sk7326

[billge]

Gee I will probably scout what I want.

[Hugh2]

I agree that scouting the stat line is a horrible ideal, especially when it is a small sample size and other things are not taken into account. Luck can have a huge factor, age to the level etc. Margot is about 6 years younger than the average AAA player. He's hitting the ball and has an insanely small SO rate, I suspect more power will come when the weather warms up. He's still just 21.

 

Devers also has the lowest BABIP in the Sox system and his K and BB numbers are actually very very good and he's been hitting a lot of line drives. He's literally been hitting the ball at everyone and has had a bad bought of luck. Devers could also spend all year in Salem and still be one of the youngest players next year but I'd be willing to be he mashes the ball by seasons end. I'd actually put more faith in Devers hitting ability than Margot and I've heard from scouts who have actually seen him at the plate and not in a box score that he's getting much better at bats than his stat line would suggest.

 

I would never put too much stock into the stats of A ballers who are 19-21 in early May.

[Dojji]

scouting the stat line has its place. I've been known to do that from time to time, and it's put me out in front on a couple pleasant surprises as a result. Sometimes traditional talent evaluation just misses a guy, especially an older prospect or one who started in the system late. Daniel Nava and Steven Wright are players I had my eyes on for a couple years before they were good because their statline indicated they may be underrated one way or another.

[sk7326]

scouting the stat line has its place. I've been known to do that from time to time, and it's put me out in front on a couple pleasant surprises as a result. Sometimes traditional talent evaluation just misses a guy, especially an older prospect or one who started in the system late. Daniel Nava and Steven Wright are players I had my eyes on for a couple years before they were good because their statline indicated they may be underrated one way or another.

 

There are no absolutes - but it is generally a bad idea ... especially when the goals in the minor leagues are completely different than the show. Older guys at lower levels are low percentage bets - as some guys have proven, low percentage does not mean zero. In Wright's case - ultimately knuckleballers are unscoutable - just close your eyes and hope.

[sk7326]

I've never been a big fan of the sell-the-farm type trades. You always end up giving up a Hanley Ramirez, Anibel Sanchez, or Anthony Rizzo in the deal.

 

If you do it - young, controllable major league studs is what you do it for. You give up a ton of quality - but you get quality with a faster payback. Stanton in particular qualifies as the sort of guy you consider giving your shiniest stuff for.

 

After all Tony Armas and Carl Pavano was tremendous prospect value to give up for Pedro. Can't worry too much about what they become - flags fly forever. I mean - even while the Beckett deal was probably a net loss, it directly led to one championship and a 25 year old with his history was precisely the sort of guy you make a high value trade for.

[sk7326]

Technically two of my examples.

 

What I find even crazier is the kind of talent this team has given up over the years for relievers. Reddick, Miley, David Murphy, Lowrie, and now Margot. It makes me very nervous to think about what a big starter trade would cost.

 

I cringed at the Margot price - although at least they got a stud. The Reddick deal was shaky also. The others were a bit easier to swallow (and I certainly think the position prospect for reliever deal is shaky on principle):

 

Miley we were selling low, and we got a stud reliever for him ... Lowrie had showed no ability to stay healthy, Murphy was a 4th outfielder/platoon sort. Those were all more defensible.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

I want Stanton in left field and Jose Fernandez as our second ace Both have started slow. What would you give up to get them ?

 

And here I thought I was asking for a lot when I requested the winning Powerball numbers in advance!

[Hugh2]

If you evaluate trades in a vacuum you can build any narrative you want if you pick the right trade. Trades almost always end up being lopsided because sometimes none of the prospects develop into good players and sometimes they all do.

 

If you look at the aggregate of major deals, it appears the team acquiring young talent seem to make out better in the long run. That doesn't mean you should ever trade prospects for talent thought because you're also trading future value for present value and a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Edited May 6, 2016 by A Red Sox fan named Hugh
I cant speel

[sk7326]

If you evaluate trades in a vacuum you can build any narrative you want if you pick the right trade. Trades almost always end up being lopsided because sometimes none of the prospects develop into good players and sometimes they all do.

 

If you look at the aggregate of major deals, it appears the team acquiring young talent seem to make out better in the long run. That doesn't mean you should ever trade prospects for talent thought because you're also trading future value for present value and a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

 

True. Really you can only evaluate trades at the time you make them - because all trades have imperfect information. But given the imperfect information are you making a high percentage decision (or at least high-ish).

[Hugh2]

True. Really you can only evaluate trades at the time you make them - because all trades have imperfect information. But given the imperfect information are you making a high percentage decision (or at least high-ish).

 

Exactly, trades should always be evaluated at the time they were made. Everyone can tell you now that it was a good ideal to buy Apple stock 10 years ago but not everyone would have 10 years ago!!!

 

I think there is real value to an evaluation process, and investing in a good scouting department, but at the end of the day.....no one has a crystal ball and you can't scout everyone.

[a700hitter]

Exactly, trades should always be evaluated at the time they were made. Everyone can tell you now that it was a good ideal to buy Apple stock 10 years ago but not everyone would have 10 years ago!!!

 

I think there is real value to an evaluation process, and investing in a good scouting department, but at the end of the day.....no one has a crystal ball and you can't scout everyone.

And the only way to know if your evaluation and scouting process works well is by using hindsight. Let's not kid ourselves. At the time of the trade, both sides think they made a good deal and surely they can make a good rational argument in favor of their side of the deal. Otherwise, deals couldn't get done. The proof is in the playing.

[Hugh2]

And the only way to know if your evaluation and scouting process works well is by using hindsight. Let's not kid ourselves. At the time of the trade, both sides think they made a good deal and surely they can make a good rational argument in favor of their side of the deal. Otherwise, deals couldn't get done. The proof is in the playing.

 

I agree, but you need a large sample for hindsight, and I think you need to judge a process and not individual decisions.

 

For example, if a team has drafted on average more MLB talent than any other team in baseball over the course of a certain period of time it is kind of nonsensical to complain about one draft pick or even one bad draft.

 

But you are absolutely correct that both teams need to feel like they've won the deal, and for that to happen it also has to hurt on both sides as well. You're not getting quality back without giving up quality.

[a700hitter]

I agree, but you need a large sample for hindsight, and I think you need to judge a process and not individual decisions.

 

For example, if a team has drafted on average more MLB talent than any other team in baseball over the course of a certain period of time it is kind of nonsensical to complain about one draft pick or even one bad draft.

 

But you are absolutely correct that both teams need to feel like they've won the deal, and for that to happen it also has to hurt on both sides as well. You're not getting quality back without giving up quality.

Evaluating drafting is different from evaluating a trade. Both need some kind of hindsight, but scouting and drafting procedures should be done on more of a macro level. It would be ridiculous to complain about one draft pick or one bad draft. The evaluation of potential is very imprecise. Trades, on the other hand, are looked at and evaluated by fans and press on a more transactional basis.

[Hugh2]

Evaluating drafting is different from evaluating a trade. Both need some kind of hindsight, but scouting and drafting procedures should be done on more of a macro level. It would be ridiculous to complain about one draft pick or one bad draft. The evaluation of potential is very imprecise. Trades, on the other hand, are looked at and evaluated by fans and press on a more transactional basis.

 

I agree, draft is all about process and judging one is stupid. The same process that brought the team Trey Ball brought us Andrew Benintendi (although ultimately the book is still open on both of them) I'd say you're right about trades as well, and that must partially be due to the fact that you're often trading for a known commodity such as Giancarlo Stanton, there is a book on him. There's not much of a book on a draft prospect, we can read baseball america but odds are teams know more about the guys they are looking at than they do. However there is a lot more information out there for me, you and the media to look at the guys a MLB player gets traded for.

[Maxbialystock]

I want Stanton in left field and Jose Fernandez as our second ace Both have started slow. What would you give up to get them ?

 

I completely disagree with the notion of what I call "the big fix." Stanton would make the hitting better, of course, but it's already very good with Holt in LF. Fernandez would almost certainly help our woebegone rotation, but right now I'm enjoying watching the Sox find ways to compensate and still win games.

[S5Dewey]

I completely disagree with the notion of what I call "the big fix." Stanton would make the hitting better, of course, but it's already very good with Holt in LF. Fernandez would almost certainly help our woebegone rotation, but right now I'm enjoying watching the Sox find ways to compensate and still win games.

 

I agree. Let's not go getting greedy here. We've got a good team for 2016 and a minor league program that's set for the future. Trading away the future so we can win our division by 10 games rather than two this year makes no sense to me.

[Jack Flap]

I agree. Let's not go getting greedy here. We've got a good team for 2016 and a minor league program that's set for the future. Trading away the future so we can win our division by 10 games rather than two this year makes no sense to me.

 

It's the mistake we made before 2011, really: chasing after new, shiny toys at the expense of the future and regardless of whether we really needed them. Totally agree with your post and Max's above.

 

 

On that note...anyone tempted?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/70439/think-the-unthinkable-angels-will-have-to-think-about-trading-mike-trout

[Bellhorn04]

It's the mistake we made before 2011, really: chasing after new, shiny toys at the expense of the future and regardless of whether we really needed them. Totally agree with your post and Max's above.

 

 

On that note...anyone tempted?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/70439/think-the-unthinkable-angels-will-have-to-think-about-trading-mike-trout

 

I'm very skeptical the Angels would trade Trout.