2016 Trade and Roster Move Speculation thread

[Kimmi]

The reason I still like to "build from the top" is that the bottom ends up looking like many teams' top.

 

If we replace ERod with Quintana, then Pomeranz becomes our #5, Wright our #4 and Porcello our #3.

 

 

I completely understand this view. I agree with it for the most part. I just think there are other factors to take into consideration such as need, cost, long term ramifications, etc.

[Dojji]

And the need to maintain something that at least vaguely resembles a farm system?

[moonslav59]

I completely understand this view. I agree with it for the most part. I just think there are other factors to take into consideration such as need, cost, long term ramifications, etc.

 

Of course, I'm not for trading for Quintana if the cost in return players is much too high. I do think Quintana and Sale are worth an overpay (unlike Pomeranz & Kimbrel IMO) but not a "gross" overpay.

 

I'd probably start with an offer of Swihart, Devers, Travis, Kopech and one from Holt, Hernandez, Owens or Johnson. I might go as high as Benintendi, Swihart, Devers and Travis. If they say no, then we go back to hoping ERod meets expectations.

[Kimmi]

And the need to maintain something that at least vaguely resembles a farm system?

 

Absolutely - part of the long term ramifications that I was talking about. I do not at all agree with the 'win now at any cost' mentality.

[moonslav59]

Just for argument's sake, assuming the CWS would say yes, which trade would you prefer?

 

A) Espinoza for Pomeranz

 

Espinoza, Swihart, Devers and one or two from Hernandez, Holt, Owens, Johnson, Lakins or TBall for Quintana

 

 

Would you do the same deal adding Kopech and/or Travis to the choice of the 4th piece?

[Kimmi]

Of course, I'm not for trading for Quintana if the cost in return players is much too high. I do think Quintana and Sale are worth an overpay (unlike Pomeranz & Kimbrel IMO) but not a "gross" overpay.

 

I'd probably start with an offer of Swihart, Devers, Travis, Kopech and one from Holt, Hernandez, Owens or Johnson. I might go as high as Benintendi, Swihart, Devers and Travis. If they say no, then we go back to hoping ERod meets expectations.

 

I just can't see picking up someone like Quintana without having to grossly overpay. If we could get a top pitcher without gutting the farm, I'm all in.

[Bellhorn04]

Sure we can get a top pitcher - just have to start with the name Betts, Bogaerts or Bradley.

[Dojji]

Of course, I'm not for trading for Quintana if the cost in return players is much too high. I do think Quintana and Sale are worth an overpay (unlike Pomeranz & Kimbrel IMO) but not a "gross" overpay.

 

I'd probably start with an offer of Swihart, Devers, Travis, Kopech and one from Holt, Hernandez, Owens or Johnson. I might go as high as Benintendi, Swihart, Devers and Travis. If they say no, then we go back to hoping ERod meets expectations.

 

They're trading an impact player. A proven cost-controlled impact player who's still going to be playing for the team in 3 years. The kind of player you time rebuilds around. The last thing they want is a bunch of unproven guys. This is the White Sox, a big city team, one of the oldest teams in the league, and a team with just as much history and pride as we have. This is not some cash strapped small market nobody, they can afford these guys, even in a bad year these guys are an integral part of the 5 year plan and losing them would involve creating a new 5 year plan from scratch. No way Quintana or Sale comes without us giving up active impact players from our big league roster. STARTING with Bogearts or Betts... PLUS some of these guys you're mentioning.

 

Do you really think we can protect Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley, Benintendi, and Moncada, all of these, while trying to acquire Chris freaking Sale? Really? When Chicago can afford him and has no actual reason to make any trade at all? You really think that the kind of price you're thinking you can get him for is 1/1000 of the actual price to lure him here? Because seriously, I could use a hit of whatever moondust you're smoking. Hook me up.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Dojji

[moonslav59]

I know some posters seem to not view far away prospects as highly as others. The Espi trade brought some of that to light, but to me, our roster looks pretty solid (competitive) for the next 1-3 or 4 years. My bigger concern is how we may look 3-7 years from now. With the recent rule changes, the probability that we may not get many upper tier draft picks over the next few years, and our ban on IFA signings, I'm not sure we will be able to acquire top young talent like we have in the past. I'm glad we signed Groome. Devers, Ockimey and Basabe look promising way down the road as well, but will that be enough?

 

It's going to cost us a pretty penny to keep Bogey, Betts, JBJ and others in the fold 3-4 years from now. We may need to have some top young, inexpensive talent on the roster to allow us to keep our stars. That's one reason I disliked the Espi trade.

 

[Bellhorn04]

Nobody likes trading high-ceiling guys like Espinoza.

[moonslav59]

They're trading an impact player. A proven cost-controlled impact player who's still going to be playing for the team in 3 years. The kind of player you time rebuilds around. The last thing they want is a bunch of unproven guys. This is the White Sox, a big city team, one of the oldest teams in the league, and a team with just as much history and pride as we have. This is not some cash strapped small market nobody, they can afford these guys, even in a bad year these guys are an integral part of the 5 year plan and losing them would involve creating a new 5 year plan from scratch. No way Quintana or Sale comes without us giving up active impact players from our big league roster. STARTING with Bogearts or Betts... PLUS some of these guys you're mentioning.

 

Do you really think we can protect Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley, Benintendi, and Moncada, all of these, while trying to acquire Chris freaking Sale? Really? When Chicago can afford him and has no actual reason to make any trade at all? You really think that the kind of price you're thinking you can get him for is 1/1000 of the actual price to lure him here? Because seriously, I could use a hit of whatever moondust you're smoking. Hook me up.

 

I heard the same about Hamels.

 

(Note: I have some 10 year old brown chafe you can smoke, if you want it.)

 

[Dojji]

I know some posters seem to not view far away prospects as highly as others. The Espi trade brought some of that to light, but to me, our roster looks pretty solid (competitive) for the next 1-3 or 4 years. My bigger concern is how we may look 3-7 years from now. With the recent rule changes, the probability that we may not get many upper tier draft picks over the next few years, and our ban on IFA signings, I'm not sure we will be able to acquire top young talent like we have in the past. I'm glad we signed Groome. Devers, Ockimey and Basabe look promising way down the road as well, but will that be enough?

 

It's going to cost us a pretty penny to keep Bogey, Betts, JBJ and others in the fold 3-4 years from now. We may need to have some top young, inexpensive talent on the roster to allow us to keep our stars. That's one reason I disliked the Espi trade.

 

 

While I agree with you in principle... TINSTAAPP. Espinosa is to be evaluated on the basis that 150% of his current value is based on potential rather than reality. We have a good stable of young pitching prospects, and maybe 1 of those guys will actually crack the roster and reach 25% of his actual potential in reality. We need to keep drafting. plenty of great stuff to be found late in the first round. Lester himself was a second round pick.

 

The thing to do is to keep drafting the best pitching talent you can, obsessively hording 18 year olds because you're afraid of missing out on their potential, and sacrificing an opportunity to turn some of that value into actual wins on the roster right now, is an example of the miser's fallacy. Potential is valuable. Potential is never as valuable as reality.

[moonslav59]

Nobody likes trading high-ceiling guys like Espinoza.

 

Most preferred trading Espi over Moncada or Beni or maybe even Kopech and/or Travis. That was my point.

 

Many spoke of the highly speculative value of far-away prospects as a reason for liking the Pom trade.

[Dojji]

I heard the same about Hamels.

 

Cole Hamels was traded when he was 31 and his team knew it was falling out of contention for the very long term. Sale and Quintana are both 27 and their team is only a small step from legitimacy with plenty of money to play with, a hurdle any competent GM should be able to clear in the near future.

 

If you do the math, you'll see this rounds up to "you have no idea what you're talking about."

Edited July 22, 2016 by Dojji

[moonslav59]

While I agree with you in principle... TINSTAAPP. Espinosa is to be evaluated on the basis that 150% of his current value is based on potential rather than reality. We have a good stable of young pitching prospects, and maybe 1 of those guys will actually crack the roster and reach 25% of his actual potential in reality. We need to keep drafting. plenty of great stuff to be found late in the first round. Lester himself was a second round pick.

 

The thing to do is to keep drafting the best pitching talent you can, obsessively hording 18 year olds because you're afraid of missing out on their potential, and sacrificing an opportunity to turn some of that value into actual wins on the roster right now, is an example of the miser's fallacy. Potential is valuable. Potential is never as valuable as reality.

 

I totally disagree, because often the "reality" turns into a sham. Too many times the "sure bet" guy you sign or trade for disappoints by failing to meet expectations- many times by a long shot.

 

Pomeranz is not a 100% "reality" big plus pitcher. Even the sure bets like Price and Greinke have come up short or got hurt. We gambled on the 2.4 years of Pomeranz will be of more value than the more speculative value of 4-7 years of control on Espi.

 

I'm not trying to argue that The value of Pomeranz is equal or more speculative than Espi's. Clearly it is not, but if far away prospect value is so low, why don't we trade Groome, Devers, Ockimey and all our A top players?

 

[Bellhorn04]

Speaking about the efforts to trade for starting pitching, Dombrowski said, "The names we don't want to trade always seem to start the conversation."

[Dojji]

Because of course they do. The names we don't want to trade are always the most attractive names to the other team, for the same reason we don't want to trade them.

 

In all seriousness -- I think we could probably deal one player from our current big league plans to improve the pitching staff, if the right deal became available. As much as he's become a fan fave here, my choice of whom to trade would be JBJ. He's good, I'd love to keep him my price to move him would be very high, but I'd move him in the right trade because Betts and Benintendi could both slot into his position reasonably well, he's probably the most expendable ("least indispensible" may be a better way to phrase that) of our top young stars for that reason.

[moonslav59]

Cole Hamels was traded when he was 31 and his team knew it was falling out of contention for the very long term. Sale and Quintana are both 27 and their team is only a small step from legitimacy with plenty of money to play with, a hurdle any competent GM should be able to clear in the near future.

 

If you do the math, you'll see this rounds up to "you have no idea what you're talking about."

 

My offer with Benintendi is significantly better than the one for Hamels. That was meant to address the age and money disparity.

 

I never said the CWS would take my offer. I don't think they would, so that's why I said, if they say no, we then go back to hoping ERod reaches expectations. I was, more or less, setting my limits on what I'd give for a pitcher like Quintana. I didn't mean to imply I was sure the CWS would take my offer.

 

I can see how my comparative offer to the Espi deal looks like I felt it was a valid offer. I still think it's an offer that is much closer than what you feel it might need to be, but it's certainly not 1/1000th of what is needed.

 

[Bellhorn04]

We gambled on the 2.4 years of Pomeranz will be of more value than the more speculative value of 4-7 years of control on Espi.

 

There are some other factors though, namely the team's current circumstances - a dire need for another starter, and a team that may have a legit chance of winning it all.

 

When he traded for Peavy in 2013, I'm sure Ben had little or no expectation that 1.3 years of Peavy would be a better value than Detroit's years of Iggy.

[Dojji]

My offer with Benintendi is significantly better than the one for Hamels. That was meant to address the age and money disparity.

 

I never said the CWS would take my offer. I don't think they would, so that's why I said, if they say no, we then go back to hoping ERod reaches expectations. I was, more or less, setting my limits on what I'd give for a pitcher like Quintana. I didn't mean to imply I was sure the CWS would take my offer.

 

I can see how my comparative offer to the Espi deal looks like I felt it was a valid offer. I still think it's an offer that is much closer than what you feel it might need to be, but it's certainly not 1/1000th of what is needed.

 

 

 

Yes it is. You are not comprehending the difference between the 2014 Phillies and the 2016 White Sox. The Phillies would not be in contention for the remainder of Hamels' contract and they knew it, so losing the contract benefitted them and helped them rebuild. The White Sox have no reason to believe they will be out of contention for the lifetime of the contracts on either Sale or Quintana, so the idea that they have any motivation to accept even the most unreasonably, back-breakingly generous offer just has no support at all.

[moonslav59]

Because of course they do. The names we don't want to trade are always the most attractive names to the other team, for the same reason we don't want to trade them.

 

In all seriousness -- I think we could probably deal one player from our current big league plans to improve the pitching staff, if the right deal became available. As much as he's become a fan fave here, my choice of whom to trade would be JBJ. He's good, I'd love to keep him my price to move him would be very high, but I'd move him in the right trade because Betts and Benintendi could both slot into his position reasonably well, he's probably the most expendable ("least indispensible" may be a better way to phrase that) of our top young stars for that reason.

 

Out of Bogey, Betts and JBJ, I agree on JBJ being the "least indespensible".

 

To get back to my earlier focus, maybe we can't get Quintana, Sale or even Gray for my suggested lesser offers, but I want to point out a few things:

 

Swihart's name has come up often in trade talks. If you look at what some teams, even some of the best teams, have for catchers, you can see how his stock value is very high, despite the recent injury.

 

Espinoza was ranked 15th. True, his value was nearly 100$ speculative, he none the less had a lot of trade value. Getting 2.4 years of Pomeranz proved that.

 

Devers has more speculative value, but if Espi can bring us a pitcher like Pomeranz, certainly Devers has significant trade value as well.

 

Benintendi is near ML ready and is the talk of many scouts and ranking services. He has tremendous stock value. Clearly, he's not worth the same as JBJ, but teams that are looking to blow it all up and start over, and I'm not sure the CWS are there yet, often look for 4-5 prospects rather than a proven ML player.

 

Kopech and Travis both have good value as well.

 

If you listen to some posters here, Holt is more valuable than a FT player and is "indispensable".

 

Put a bunch of these guys together, and I think we can get someone very special- maybe not Quintana, but I do think the A's might listen. They are clearly in total rebuild mode.

 

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Yes it is. You are not comprehending the difference between the 2014 Phillies and the 2016 White Sox. The Phillies would not be in contention for the remainder of Hamels' contract and they knew it, so losing the contract benefitted them and helped them rebuild. The White Sox have no reason to believe they will be out of contention for the lifetime of the contracts on either Sale or Quintana, so the idea that they have any motivation to accept even the most unreasonably, back-breakingly generous offer just has no support at all.

 

If the CWS think they can win in the next 3 years (Sale) or 4 years (Quintana) then it makes no sense to trade away an ace-type pitcher.

 

Rumor has it, every player on their roster is on the block.

 

I'm not saying they have convinced themselves they are in complete rebuild mode, but they may be closer to that point than you think.

 

Maybe they are looking at it like simply wanting offense for pitching and want to win next year, but I just can't make sense of that philosophy.

[Dojji]

I don't want any pitcher currently on the A's. Not even Hill, really, certainly not Gray.

[Dojji]

If the CWS think they can win in the next 3 years (Sale) or 4 years (Quintana) then it makes no sense to trade away an ace-type pitcher.

 

Rumor has it, every player on their roster is on the block.

This rumor seems to be debunked, it's been widely reported that someone tried to back up the truck for Sale and the White Sox hung up the phone.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Out of Bogey, Betts and JBJ, I agree on JBJ being the "least indespensible".

 

To get back to my earlier focus, maybe we can't get Quintana, Sale or even Gray for my suggested lesser offers, but I want to point out a few things:

 

Swihart's name has come up often in trade talks. If you look at what some teams, even some of the best teams, have for catchers, you can see how his stock value is very high, despite the recent injury.

 

Espinoza was ranked 15th. True, his value was nearly 100$ speculative, he none the less had a lot of trade value. Getting 2.4 years of Pomeranz proved that.

 

Devers has more speculative value, but if Espi can bring us a pitcher like Pomeranz, certainly Devers has significant trade value as well.

 

Benintendi is near ML ready and is the talk of many scouts and ranking services. He has tremendous stock value. Clearly, he's not worth the same as JBJ, but teams that are looking to blow it all up and start over, and I'm not sure the CWS are there yet, often look for 4-5 prospects rather than a proven ML player.

 

Kopech and Travis both have good value as well.

 

If you listen to some posters here, Holt is more valuable than a FT player and is "indispensable".

 

Put a bunch of these guys together, and I think we can get someone very special- maybe not Quintana, but I do think the A's might listen. They are clearly in total rebuild mode.

 

 

 

 

 

No one ever said that Holt was indispensable. No one ever said he was more valuable than a full time player. It was posted that he has more value in his current role than he would as an everyday 2nd baseman. Huge difference. Holt also has more value for a contending team than he would for a rebuilding team.

 

The big question was why would a contending team trade a guy like Holt in the middle of a pennant race? The answer is that they wouldn't, which is why I asked you why you included his name in a hundred different trade proposals. I thought maybe you had something against the kid.

[Slasher9]

Good point about holt. he is definitely more valuable to a team in contention.

[mvp 78]

I don't want any pitcher currently on the A's. Not even Hill, really, certainly not Gray.

 

I'd take Mengden.

[S5Dewey]

I think the only fair way to evaluate the legacies of players that played during the steroid era is to realize that we have no reliable list of players who used PEDs with proof that they used. We do know enough to acknowledge that the use of PEDs was fairly pervasive during that era. There is hard evidence of use against very few players -- e.g. Palmiero, Bonds, ARod and Clemens, but with regard to others there is merely suspicion and innuendo e.g. Nomar. Next because there is no reliable list of who used, every player from that era should be viewed with suspicion. These decisions should not be made on the basis of rumor and innuendo.

 

For these reasons, I think the PED issue can't be an issue in voting for admission to the Hall, even for those who got caught. The use was pervasive, and if it wasn't openly encouraged by MLB (they loved the MaGwire - Sosa HR race because it brought baseball back from the 94 strike), they certainly turned a blind eye and tacitly approved it. They are in large part responsible for the pervasiveness of PEDs. They cannot act holier than thou at this juncture. As for tainting the players from that period, unfortunately they all carry a taint. Molitor and others went in without any taint, but that is not fair. No one should be beyond suspicion from that era including Jeter. When all the crap was going down with MaGwire and Bonds and Sosa, there was a time when the press was heralding ARod as the player who would rescue baseball from the steroid era by re-writing the record books and doing it the "right way". They could not have been more wrong. Everyone should carry the taint from that era, and if their achievements are borderline Hall-worthy, it should count against them.

 

Yes. this ^^

 

IMO MLB should designate certain years as the "steroid era" and every record set during that era should have an asterisk attached to it saying, "This record was established during the so-called 'steroid era' and may or may not have been the result of Performance Enhancing Drugs".

 

This would recognize the existence of PED's as well as the records set during those years and allow the fans to do their own research and draw their own conclusions as to who the "culprits" were.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Yes. this ^^

 

IMO MLB should designate certain years as the "steroid era" and every record set during that era should have an asterisk attached to it saying, "This record was established during the so-called 'steroid era' and may or may not have been the result of Performance Enhancing Drugs".

 

This would recognize the existence of PED's as well as the records set during those years and allow the fans to do their own research and draw their own conclusions as to who the "culprits" were.

 

You'd have to put an asterisk on the 60s and 70s as well. Actually farther back than that. There were bowls of amphetamines (greenies) in every club house.

[moonslav59]

No one ever said that Holt was indispensable. No one ever said he was more valuable than a full time player. It was posted that he has more value in his current role than he would as an everyday 2nd baseman. Huge difference. Holt also has more value for a contending team than he would for a rebuilding team.

 

The big question was why would a contending team trade a guy like Holt in the middle of a pennant race? The answer is that they wouldn't, which is why I asked you why you included his name in a hundred different trade proposals. I thought maybe you had something against the kid.

 

I have nothing against Holt. I have expressed my position several times. Sorry for saying you said he was "indispensable". I value Holt highly- so do other GMs. Most of my suggestions on trading Holt were about this winter, after Papi retires and the need for a supersub and his flexibility is somewhat lessened. I have mentioned him recently too, because he still has several years of team control left, and so fits into other teams' longterm plans.

 

As long as Young is on the shelf, we need Holt. However, going forward from 2017 onward, I don't see a big drop off from Beni in LF vs Holt and Hernandez at SS vs Holt. I realize the value of having one guy that can play 7 positions is not easily replaced, or you need 2 0r 3 guys to do it, but I keep going back to the same point: we are going to have to give to get. I try to construct trade proposals that offer valuable talent that hopefully the projected gain at the position we trade for outweighs the projected value loss at positions we trade away.

 

I'm not saying that just because our DH only star is retiring, Holt loses his flex value, but I do think it is not going to be as important as it is now. I realize an injury or two could quickly prove me wrong, but here's how I see each positions' depth next year without Holt:

 

C: Vazquez, Leon, Swihart (Hanigan option)

1B: Ramirez, Shaw, Sandoval, Travis (Swihart?)

2B: Pedroia, Moncada, Hernandez, Rutledge, Marrero, M Martinez

3B: Shaw, Sandoval, Moncada, Hernandez, Rutledge, Marrero, M Martinez (Swihart?)

SS: Bogaerts, Hernandez, Marrero, Rutledge, M Martinez

LF: Young, Benintendi (Moncada?), Swihart, Ramos, Castillo, LaMarre

CF: JBJ, (Betts), Benintendi, Ramos

RF: Betts, (Young), Benintendi, Swihart, Ramos, Castillo, LaMarre (Moncada?)

 

Underlined = 15 players expected to see significant ML time. I know there are usually only 13 slots for "everyday players", and that will cause a 25 man roster crunch that a player like Holt allows depth to the OF and IF with one slot. He'd still be very valuable next year, but consider these points:

 

1) If Sandoval makes the 25 man roster next year with Shaw as well, we'll be all covered at 1B, 3B, DH and our biggest need would likely be SS. If the other 4 slots are filled by Moncada, Beni, Hernandez and Swihart where are we lacking 2-3 player 25 man roster depth other than SS? Plus, I like Hernandez as a 15 day SS than Holt. (Note: I mentioned Pablo as the 9th player in the line-up replacing Papi's slot, but I actually feel Moncada and Beni will squeeze out Pablo and Young or Shaw.)

 

2) Having Vazquez, Leon and Swihart on the 25 man roster offers the manager tremendous flexibility to PH for the catcher position and still have that 3rd catcher for emergency situations. Swihart also provides the LF depth Holt does now. He may also be taught how to play a corner IF position or RF. I'm not saying Swihart's flexibility equals Holt's, but being able to play catcher is a huge flex piece.

 

3) Hernandez is (IMO) a much better fielder at 3B and SS than Holt. They may be even at 2B. Hernandez may be an equal or better hitter than Holt going forward. Even if we view Hernandez as a lesser value as SS/3B/2B depth, the drop off is not steep. That leaves 1B- the another position Holt plays.

 

4) 1B should have a lot of depth, especially if Pablo makes the 25 man roster as Shaw can play 1B well. HanRam, Shaw, Pablo and if needed Travis from AAA makes me not worry about needing Holt at 1B next year.

 

5) LF is probably the second worst depth position next to SS. With JBJ and Betts locked into CF and RF, we would have Young, Beni and Swihart as LF'ers. There's very little help from AAA, if 1 or 2 get hurt. Holt's value as a LF'er could be greatly missed if traded.

 

In summary, here's the 13 of the 25 man roster with Pablo and without Holt:

 

C- Vaz, Leon, Swi

1B- Ramirez

2B- Pedey

3B- Shaw/ DH Pablo

SS- Bogey, Hernandez

LF- Young, Beni

CF- JBJ

RF- Betts

(AAA- Moncada, Rutledge, Marrero, Castillo, Ramos)

 

Without Pablo and Holt:

C- Vaz, Leon, Swi

1B- Ramirez

2B- Pedey/ DH Moncada

3B- Shaw

SS- Bogey, Hernandez

LF- Young, Beni

CF- JBJ

RF- Betts

(AAA- Rutledge, Marrero, Castillo, Ramos)

 

I'm not seeing great depth issues anywhere in terms of daily flexibility. I see greater flex with our catchers, but less in LF with Hernandez over Holt.