2016 Trade and Roster Move Speculation thread

[Hugh2]

We've had a lot of can't miss prospects over the years that missed. Once in a while one comes along that is a franchise player. Look back to the gold dust twins Lynn and Rice. The hype with them in the line up was crazy. Still early in the game, but with the killer B's Betts, Bogie, and Bradley at such a young age were pretty lucky. People keep going back and forth on Moncada or Benny being traded for a starter. There is no way of knowing right now how good they will be. If you trust your baseball IQ and really believe that Moncada is the cream of the crop, you would have to be a fool to let him go. Right now we have a lot of talent in our rotation, but things aren't clicking for a few of them. Personally if I was going to trade guys like that it would be for a young stud like Arenado and have him at 3b. You have to keep the main core of young star players together and enjoy them mature.

 

While I generally agree with the theme here, I think it's important to note that fans often pump prospects up higher than their ranking or value around baseball for various reasons. Some thought Henry Owens was a future ace, or #2 but he never had that potential pedigree as a prospect. WMB was highly regarded because he was our #1 prospect, but he was also a #1 in a system that was regarded as weak at the time and wasn't a top 50 guy like Bogaerts, Swihart, JBJ, Betts (was slated to be #9 before he graduated). Sure, there are also your Kalishs, and Websters, and Hansens, then there are other guys who developed elsewhere such as Reddick and Lowrie. Sometimes guys get hurt, I'll always wonder what could have been with Ryan Westmoreland.

 

Still, if you look at the WAR of our top 100 prospects vs. the WAR of all other teams top 100 prospects over the last 10 years I think we've done as good as if not significantly better than any other team. Our guys pan out better, so I think we should put more stock into our own prospects.

[moonslav59]

I can understand why some people would be pissed off at the time of the trade, especially if they didn't know much about Xander Bogaerts, but to say that making that trade was "lunacy" at this point in time, seems to be, well, "lunacy."

 

The Red Sox won the World Series "with some help from Iglesias defense" & Peavy certainly helped out when Buchholz went down. Some pitchers even said he was like having a 2nd pitching coach in the dugout.

 

Iglesias has lost a lot of time due to injury, he's had attitude issues, he has an OPS below .690 & the metrics aren't loving his defense, while the Red Sox have a much better all around SS. Just surprised anyone can look back at that trade and not love it.

 

It's "lunacy" to "love it".

 

I'd rather have Iggy as our back-up SS than have had Peavy for a short time. Maybe having Iggy would have prevented Sandy's signing...maybe not.

 

You can't know Iggy would have been injured had he not been traded. A .690 OPS is not that bad for a SS. I'm not sure what metrics you are looking at, but out of 36 SS with 2,000+ innings at the SS position, Iggy places 5th in UZR/150 at +9.6. He's 10th in DRS, but if you pro-rate the innings, he'd be 9th out of 36. (Note: Bogey is 27th in DRS out of 36 and he places 22nd in UZR/150 at -0.5 over the same period.)

 

I'm happy with Bogey at SS. He's improved way beyond my expectations. I have admitted I was wrong about moving him to 3B, but it's not a horrible thought to have wanted Iggys at SS and Bogey at 3B over Bogey-Sandy.

[/b.]

[moonslav59]

We've had a lot of can't miss prospects over the years that missed. Once in a while one comes along that is a franchise player. Look back to the gold dust twins Lynn and Rice. The hype with them in the line up was crazy. Still early in the game, but with the killer B's Betts, Bogie, and Bradley at such a young age were pretty lucky. People keep going back and forth on Moncada or Benny being traded for a starter. There is no way of knowing right now how good they will be. If you trust your baseball IQ and really believe that Moncada is the cream of the crop, you would have to be a fool to let him go. Right now we have a lot of talent in our rotation, but things aren't clicking for a few of them. Personally if I was going to trade guys like that it would be for a young stud like Arenado and have him at 3b. You have to keep the main core of young star players together and enjoy them mature.

 

Not all Sox number one prospects were considered "can't miss". Look at how many Sox prospects were ranked very highly by national services that failed. I'm having a hard time thinking of any in the Henry era.

 

Lars Anderson, Casey Kelly, Kalish, Middy & Michael Bowden were never called "can't miss".

[moonslav59]

While I generally agree with the theme here, I think it's important to note that fans often pump prospects up higher than their ranking or value around baseball for various reasons. Some thought Henry Owens was a future ace, or #2 but he never had that potential pedigree as a prospect. WMB was highly regarded because he was our #1 prospect, but he was also a #1 in a system that was regarded as weak at the time and wasn't a top 50 guy like Bogaerts, Swihart, JBJ, Betts (was slated to be #9 before he graduated). Sure, there are also your Kalishs, and Websters, and Hansens, then there are other guys who developed elsewhere such as Reddick and Lowrie. Sometimes guys get hurt, I'll always wonder what could have been with Ryan Westmoreland.

 

Still, if you look at the WAR of our top 100 prospects vs. the WAR of all other teams top 100 prospects over the last 10 years I think we've done as good as if not significantly better than any other team. Our guys pan out better, so I think we should put more stock into our own prospects.

 

I think, in general, only top 10 or 20 prospects, depending on the strength of each class, are called "can't miss".

 

Am I forgetting someone, or have we had a "can't miss prospect" fail under Henry's watch?

[Eddy Ballgame]

It's "lunacy" to "love it".

 

I'd rather have Iggy as our back-up SS than have had Peavy for a short time. Maybe having Iggy would have prevented Sandy's signing...maybe not.

 

You can't know Iggy would have been injured had he not been traded. A .690 OPS is not that bad for a SS. I'm not sure what metrics you are looking at, but out of 36 SS with 2,000+ innings at the SS position, Iggy places 5th in UZR/150 at +9.6. He's 10th in DRS, but if you pro-rate the innings, he'd be 9th out of 36. (Note: Bogey is 27th in DRS out of 36 and he places 22nd in UZR/150 at -0.5 over the same period.)

 

I'm happy with Bogey at SS. He's improved way beyond my expectations. I have admitted I was wrong about moving him to 3B, but it's not a horrible thought to have wanted Iggys at SS and Bogey at 3B over Bogey-Sandy.

[/b.]

 

Xander Bogaerts made it clear that he didn't feel comfortable at 3rd after the 2014 season. You don't take a player with star potential and put him somewhere he's not comfortable. It would be like making a phenomenal athlete like Moncada a designated hitter at the age of 21.

 

Do you seriously think that Jose Iglesias, who is at best, cocky to a fault, would be happy as a back up SS at this point in his career, never getting a chance to be a starter? The answer is no.

 

The Red Sox probably have one of the best medical staffs on the planet, so yes, they were concerned that he was an injury risk, especially with his shins. It was written about publicly. Google it if you don't believe me.

 

Defensive metrics are certainly argumentative & the farthest thing from definitive, but I'm glad you found some that help him look good. He's definitely the first SS that I heard that Pedey wanted to strangle though.

 

I really didn't want to crucify Iglesias, I just can't understand how a Red Sox fan could ever have an issue with that trade.

[Bellhorn04]

You saw the look that Verlander gave Iggy last night on that toss to first that would have been a double play. Verlander didn't say anything or go all Lackey on him, but it was a long, WTF stare of disbelief that Iggy didn't make the play.

[Eddy Ballgame]

You saw the look that Verlander gave Iggy last night on that toss to first that would have been a double play. Verlander didn't say anything or go all Lackey on him, but it was a long, WTF stare of disbelief that Iggy didn't make the play.

 

Exactly. That's who he is. My guess is that if you polled 100 pitchers, 95 of them would take a Stephen Drew, who supposedly sucks defensively based on the metrics, twice on Sunday over a Jose Iglesias.

[moonslav59]

Exactly. That's who he is. My guess is that if you polled 100 pitchers, 95 of them would take a Stephen Drew, who supposedly sucks defensively based on the metrics, twice on Sunday over a Jose Iglesias.

 

Isn't Drew playing 2B now?

[moonslav59]

Defensive metrics are certainly argumentative & the farthest thing from definitive, but I'm glad you found some that help him look good.

 

I was just responding to the statement that claimed Iggy did not look good on defensive metrics. I think UZR/150 and DRS are the two most respected defensive metrics around.

 

I didn't cherry-pick the only metrics that make Iggy look good. I picked the only two I know and respect.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Isn't Drew playing 2B now?

 

He's a utility infielder now who's played about the same amount of games at SS, 3B & 2B. I figured a guy like you who loves to break down statistics would be able to find that out.

 

When I posted "a" Stephen Drew and "a" Jose Iglesias, the point was comparing any two shortstops, one who is considered "steady," one who is considered "flashy."

[Eddy Ballgame]

Maybe it's just me, but when I watch Xander Bogaerts play the game, I want John Henry to hand him a blank check. When I watch Jose Iglesias play the game, I want someone to drill him the ass with a fast ball. Those feelings started when Iglesias played in Pawtucket, RI.

[moonslav59]

Maybe it's just me, but when I watch Xander Bogaerts play the game, I want John Henry to hand him a blank check. When I watch Jose Iglesias play the game, I want someone to drill him the ass with a fast ball. Those feelings started when Iglesias played in Pawtucket, RI.

 

LOL. I hear ya.

[moonslav59]

What does anyone think we can get in return for an offer of Swihart, Devers, Owens and Johnson?

 

(And, I don't mean a rental.)

[Spudboy]

Maybe it's just me, but when I watch Xander Bogaerts play the game, I want John Henry to hand him a blank check. When I watch Jose Iglesias play the game, I want someone to drill him the ass with a fast ball. Those feelings started when Iglesias played in Pawtucket, RI.

 

Lol.

 

Did you see him play in Pawtucket?

[moonslav59]

I saw him play in Portland long ago.

 

He made a few plays I've never seen a Sox SS ever make. Maybe that clouded my judgment.

[cp176]

Maybe it's just me, but when I watch Xander Bogaerts play the game, I want John Henry to hand him a blank check. When I watch Jose Iglesias play the game, I want someone to drill him the ass with a fast ball. Those feelings started when Iglesias played in Pawtucket, RI.

 

you know what, I kind of agree with you. XB worked his nuts off to become an excellent ss. A good kid who plays the game the right way. Basically I feel the same way about JB and MB.

[Jack Flap]

I think, in general, only top 10 or 20 prospects, depending on the strength of each class, are called "can't miss".

 

Am I forgetting someone, or have we had a "can't miss prospect" fail under Henry's watch?

 

I never hear anyone describe our prospects as "can't miss" except for disgruntled fans and media...anyone who actually follows and evaluates prospects for a living would use that term extremely seldom or not at all. Maybe the closest thing we've had would be guys like Bogaerts and Moncada, elite talents who end up ranked among the top 2 or 3 in the game, but with prospects there is always some uncertainty and room for something to go wrong. Even in the current top 10 or 20 there will be a few guys who will end up busting.

[cp176]

I never hear anyone describe our prospects as "can't miss" except for disgruntled fans and media...anyone who actually follows and evaluates prospects for a living would use that term extremely seldom or not at all. Maybe the closest thing we've had would be guys like Bogaerts and Moncada, elite talents who end up ranked among the top 2 or 3 in the game, but with prospects there is always some uncertainty and room for something to go wrong. Even in the current top 10 or 20 there will be a few guys who will end up busting.

 

You are right - they use a numbering system now that basically says the exact same thing.

[Jack Flap]

You are right - they use a numbering system now that basically says the exact same thing.

 

Even a high ranking is not some kind of guarantee that the player has no bust potential, though...that was kind of my point.

[oldtimer]

What does anyone think we can get in return for an offer of Swihart, Devers, Owens and Johnson?

 

(And, I don't mean a rental.)

 

We have a good defensive and offensive team with only a few field positions that need additional shoring up. Left field and outfield depth in general are two of these and perhaps the third base/first base combo. Help is on the way for the outfield with Swihart and Young returning and Benintendi in the minors. We have help for the infield as well with Holt for utility and Moncada if he can become a solid defensive infielder. Shaw is good at first or third but needs to hit lefties better. That may come as he is still young to the majors. Hanley is a question mark in my mind. He has a terrific couple of days and then he goes dormant offensively.

 

I guess the point is that with Kimbrel coming back and our 5 starters fairly solid, I would be very careful about unloading our prospects, especially for someone like Sale who might be a bit of a head case. I would be very selective and I think DD will be. The other consideration is Farrell. He has some pitching problems to deal with but I don't see him making the right choices. Each game we give away puts us further in the hole and we have had 2 last place finishes in a row so DD should think hard about our managerial direction going forward.

[Nick]

Wright's 5 of last 6 outings have been a disaster. He's 3-1 but in 26 1/3 innings, 36 hits, 3 hits batter, 10 walks for 1.88 WHIP, 29 runs, 23 earned.

 

Knuckle ball pitchers are similar to golfers. You never know what you're going to get. Brilliance one week is often followed by not making the cut.

 

I'm beginning to see Moon's argument. We still need top of line pitching help. Until then, it's a crap shoot. And we will need someone like Encarnacion to alleviate the pending loss of Ortiz. We need a power bat.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Nick

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

Not that our vote counts but I'm glad to see most everyone is against a deal for Sale given the players/prospects it would take. When I see the names discussed on TV I shudder.

[moonslav59]

We have a good defensive and offensive team with only a few field positions that need additional shoring up. Left field and outfield depth in general are two of these and perhaps the third base/first base combo. Help is on the way for the outfield with Swihart and Young returning and Benintendi in the minors. We have help for the infield as well with Holt for utility and Moncada if he can become a solid defensive infielder. Shaw is good at first or third but needs to hit lefties better. That may come as he is still young to the majors. Hanley is a question mark in my mind. He has a terrific couple of days and then he goes dormant offensively.

 

I guess the point is that with Kimbrel coming back and our 5 starters fairly solid, I would be very careful about unloading our prospects, especially for someone like Sale who might be a bit of a head case. I would be very selective and I think DD will be. The other consideration is Farrell. He has some pitching problems to deal with but I don't see him making the right choices. Each game we give away puts us further in the hole and we have had 2 last place finishes in a row so DD should think hard about our managerial direction going forward.

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

Did you imply you would not trade Swihart, Devers, Owens and Johnson for Sale? I would without blinking. The CWS would laugh at that offer.

[moonslav59]

Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post

I think, in general, only top 10 or 20 prospects, depending on the strength of each class, are called "can't miss".

 

Am I forgetting someone, or have we had a "can't miss prospect" fail under Henry's watch?

 

I never hear anyone describe our prospects as "can't miss" except for disgruntled fans and media...anyone who actually follows and evaluates prospects for a living would use that term extremely seldom or not at all. Maybe the closest thing we've had would be guys like Bogaerts and Moncada, elite talents who end up ranked among the top 2 or 3 in the game, but with prospects there is always some uncertainty and room for something to go wrong. Even in the current top 10 or 20 there will be a few guys who will end up busting.

 

Agreed. My point was not about how to categorize "can't miss prospects". I happen to agree with your position on that.

 

My point was that even if you widen the criteria to call someone "can't miss", we still have not had a failure by a nationally recognized prospect since Henry took control of the team.

 

[cp176]

Even a high ranking is not some kind of guarantee that the player has no bust potential, though...that was kind of my point.

 

i know exactly what your point was. Hope you know what mine was. There are some prospects of course that look like they have a better chance of making it than others. If using a numbering system based on a plethora of statistics makes someone feel as they know something special about a prospect great. i still absolutely believe in the eye test. With that in mind, I would not lose one ounce of sleep if Benintendi was traded in a package for the "right" young prospect. As a matter of fact, i would consider trading every player on the Portland franchise plus their mascot for the right young pitcher.(minus Moncada of course.)

Obviously i am being a little sarcastic here but as much as I like what the future might hold for Andrew Benintendi, I think that he is replaceable. Moncada may be as well but for the time beiing it looks like his combination of speed and power and overall size could lead to something special.

[mvp 78]

You didn't answer my question.

 

Did you imply you would not trade Swihart, Devers, Owens and Johnson for Sale? I would without blinking. The CWS would laugh at that offer.

 

Devers has a chance to be better than Moncada (can't hit righthanded) and Benintendi (small, not overly athletic).

[Jack Flap]

Peter Gammons: Boston was in to inquire about [Wade] Davis, but the Red Sox have let other teams know they will not discuss four players: Yoan Moncada, Andrew Benintendi, Michael Kopech and Rafael Devers.

 

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-trade-rumors-hall-of-fame-and-more-notes-from-july/

 

Interesting, but probably nothing. After the Chapman package, we'd probably have to give up one of those guys and more for Davis, which is nuts.

[Jack Flap]

i know exactly what your point was. Hope you know what mine was. There are some prospects of course that look like they have a better chance of making it than others. If using a numbering system based on a plethora of statistics makes someone feel as they know something special about a prospect great. i still absolutely believe in the eye test. With that in mind, I would not lose one ounce of sleep if Benintendi was traded in a package for the "right" young prospect. As a matter of fact, i would consider trading every player on the Portland franchise plus their mascot for the right young pitcher.(minus Moncada of course.)

Obviously i am being a little sarcastic here but as much as I like what the future might hold for Andrew Benintendi, I think that he is replaceable. Moncada may be as well but for the time beiing it looks like his combination of speed and power and overall size could lead to something special.

 

Yes, I definitely hear where you're coming from and don't disagree. For what it's worth, I don't really believe in true "untouchables" - in the right deal, anyone is on the table.

[mvp 78]

Peter Gammons: Boston was in to inquire about [Wade] Davis, but the Red Sox have let other teams know they will not discuss four players: Yoan Moncada, Andrew Benintendi, Michael Kopech and Rafael Devers.

 

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-trade-rumors-hall-of-fame-and-more-notes-from-july/

 

Interesting, but probably nothing. After the Chapman package, we'd probably have to give up one of those guys and more for Davis, which is nuts.

 

I'm surprised Kopech is untouchable.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm surprised Kopech is untouchable.

 

I guess because he's our only major pitching prospect above the age of 17.