2016-2017 Offseason Trade Speculation Thread

[Bellhorn04]

Well, if you're going to sign Price to a record contract and trade away Espi, Margot and others, I'd like to be a top 5 contender for 3 years. I think we were this year (barely), and I hope we can lose papi and still be top 5, but that remains to be seen.

 

We were clearly Top 5 this year. How many teams had a better run differential, other than the Cubs?

[moonslav59]

We were clearly Top 5 this year. How many teams had a better run differential, other than the Cubs?

 

I meant as viewed at the start of the season.

 

I think before the playoffs started we had the 3rd best odds of winning the WS- behind the Cubs and Dodgers--I think.

 

I fount this...

 

Team .....Opening odds/June 20

Chicago Cubs 10-1 5-2

Texas Rangers 12-1 6-1

Boston Red Sox 18-1 12-1

Washington Nats 10-1 8-1

 

I'd say 4th best is barely top 5.

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

One service had this on April 4th:

 

Cubs +500

SFG +800

TOR +1000

NYM +1200

LAD +1200

BOS +1400

KCR +1400

HOU +1600

 

[Kimmi]

He simply stated that he was very uncomfortable over there which is expected because he's never played there before except a few games in 2013... people forget that he was only 20-21...and yes, it was kind of a demotion. Farrell had zero patients because Xander made a couple errors early on looked a bit shakey. Once again, he was 20-21 yo...so he was moved over the third and Ben actually brought Stephen Drew back, so why wouldnt he think of it as a demotion? it was a stupid move in the first place. First of many major blunders by Farrell

 

But I don't think Xander was moved to 3rd because of any inability of his own. He was moved to 3rd out of necessity when Middlebrooks got injured. The FO could not find a viable 3B replacement, so signing Drew and moving Xander to 3rd was the best option for the team.

[Kimmi]

Well.. based on the thinking that his being moved from SS to 3B is some kind of a "demotion" - which you've already agreed to - this has left me shaking my head. Is it a demotion of someone is moved to another position because management thinkis that move is in the best interest of the team? This is in the same vein as the discussion about Kimbrel asking for a trade if the Sox pick up Chapman in the off season. Baseball is a team sport and it's not "all about ME".

 

Maybe I'm 'old school'. I think that when a player signs that contract they're agreeing to play whenever and wherever management wants them to play, and do it to the very best of their ability.

 

I agree 100% with this.

 

FTR, I don't think that Xander was demoted. I think that he thought that he had been demoted. If that's the case, then that attitude is a little disconcerting. But as Southpaw said, Xander was very young at that time.

[Kimmi]

a yankees fan POV.

John Henry will 100% reset the LT rate by not going over the threshold this season. book it. we are the Red Sox not the Yankee$$$$.

 

Despite what some people think, Henry does not have an unlimited payroll. He may not reset this year, but he will be looking to reset at least by next year, which means he can't go out and sign several large free agent contracts.

[Kimmi]

If has been discussed here, I sure as hell have missed it. I'm sure that you would agree that when people start "suggesting" what others are thinking based on nothing that character assassination follows. We have been down this road unfortunately before with Hanley. Bogaerts name has even been recently been brought up because of his response (i guess) at being moved from short to third - what - 2 years ago. Over the past 2 years this kid has done nothing but work his ass off to be as good as he can become. Even bringing up that tired old story is flat out ********.

 

Ha.

 

That's the only response that line deserves.

[Kimmi]

I always viewed Ben's plan as a 5 year plan that would keep us competitive but not faves until 2016.

 

The Lester extension fiasco was a major cluster F%^&! Once it was certain, JL was leaving, I understood the plan to have the summer purge. I had hoped it was more about the longer look, but luckily Cespedes magically turned into Porcello.

 

Ben built the farm up like nobody since 2003-2005. I believe his plan was to fix the offense in 2015, but HanRam and Pablo both were horrible in 2015- leading to a last place finish (again). I truly believe Ben would have signed Price or Cueto last winter, had he still been here. I'm not sure about the Kimbrel deal, but I think he would have traded some prospects for some other big piece for 2016. His main objective, to me, was to keep us as strong contenders beyond just 2016. I think he tried to learn from Theo's mistakes. Grantedk, he signed Pablo to 5 years and HanRam to 4, but let's not forget Theo signed CC to 7 years and traded away Rizzo.

 

DD's plan was a one year plan with Price and Kimbrel under team control for 3 total years. Pom has a couple years left as well. Young was a great signing to bridge to Beni and partially to help fill the gap left by Papi's retirement.

 

It's hard to compare DD to Ben, especially since Ben was removed before the 5 year plan took effect.

 

 

^^ This!!!

 

I have said many times that Ben should have been allowed to see his plan come to fruition.

 

Our team should have been competitive in both 2014 and 2015, IMO. Ben cannot be held responsible for what took place on the field in terms of underperformances.

 

And I still do not believe that Ben would have signed Pablo without directives from higher ups. Pablo is just not a Ben type move.

[a700hitter]

^^ This!!!

 

I have said many times that Ben should have been allowed to see his plan come to fruition.

 

Our team should have been competitive in both 2014 and 2015, IMO. Ben cannot be held responsible for what took place on the field in terms of underperformances.

 

And I still do not believe that Ben would have signed Pablo without directives from higher ups. Pablo is just not a Ben type move.

He can watch from Toronto. The 2014 and especially the 2015 Red Sox teams were bad teams that were poorly constructed. Some unexpected bad performances may keep you from the playoffs, but you are simply bad when you thud into last place like those 2 Red Sox teams. Edited October 17, 2016 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

But I don't think Xander was moved to 3rd because of any inability of his own. He was moved to 3rd out of necessity when Middlebrooks got injured. The FO could not find a viable 3B replacement, so signing Drew and moving Xander to 3rd was the best option for the team.

 

Yup. One can argue that Drew was not worth the money to bring back but it can not be ignored that Drew was a better defensive SS at THAT time.

[Spudboy]

He can watch from Toronto. The 2014 and especially the 2015 Red Sox teams were bad teams that were poorly constructed. Some unexpected bad performances may keep you from the playoffs, but you are simply bad when you thud into last place like those 2 Red Sox teams.

 

And it was all unnecessary.

 

I have yet to hear a good justification for blowing up the 2014 rotation.

 

Dumb.

[moonslav59]

^^ This!!!

 

I have said many times that Ben should have been allowed to see his plan come to fruition.

 

Our team should have been competitive in both 2014 and 2015, IMO. Ben cannot be held responsible for what took place on the field in terms of underperformances.

 

And I still do not believe that Ben would have signed Pablo without directives from higher ups. Pablo is just not a Ben type move.

 

I think maybe Pablo's post season heroics might have given Sox management that maybe he could be a mini-Papi (pun intended). They might have even seen his weight as a non-issue, because they planned on having him take Papi's place at DH. Just speculation on my part, but I agree, the Pablo signing was probably something that upper management wanted.

[Jasonbay44]

And it was all unnecessary.

 

I have yet to hear a good justification for blowing up the 2014 rotation.

 

Dumb.

We needed to acquire some young MLB ready studs like Craig and Kelly.

[moonslav59]

I have yet to hear a good justification for blowing up the 2014 rotation.

 

It's hard to justify a bad situation largely created by the guys who chose to dump 80% of the rotation, but here's how I see it:

 

The Peavy and Doubront trades were not really all that significant, especially since Peavy was on his last year, and not many wanted him back, so basically we're talking Lester and Lackey.

 

Don't take this as me defending the choices made. The Lester initial offer was one of the worst decisions made under Henry's reign- next to maybe the CC signing. It's hard to know what they were thinking. Maybe the Pedey "hometown discount" made them think Lester might take a low ball offer too. It's my contention that once that offer was refused, we should have immediately given our mea culpa and come back with their top offer. Once that ball was dropped, I think the writing was on the wall: Lester was going to test the FA market. I doubt he'd have taken what the Cubs ended up giving him had we had offered him that in March or June. He was a lost cause. I think the whole bidding scheme that next winter was a farce. Lester was never coming back to Boston. If you believe this, and I'm fine with those who don't, because I'm not sure myself, then trading him during a lost season made total sense. Trading for Cespy and the supplemental pick was strange.

 

The Lackey situation was very strange. I'm not sure if I believe the rumors that he'd retire rather than play for nothing, but then was fine pitching for the Cards. I suggested over and over that we offer him an extension (2 years) that would pay him bonuses over the 2015 season that would essentially pay him more than the minimum, but less over the next two years. I'm not sure, if that was ever a consideration. If the rumor was true, maybe Sox management felt the guy was a bum to renig on a contract he willingly signed. After all, he did get paid handsomely the year he sat out injured and the year he sucked with us pitching while injured. I'd have loved to have him back from 2015 to 2017. I'd have loved to have had Lester too-- more than Price. Letting them both go was dumb, but certainly there was reasons to do what they did, once the situation reached the point of no return.

 

 

[S5Dewey]

I have yet to hear a good justification for blowing up the 2014 rotation.

 

It's hard to justify a bad situation largely created by the guys who chose to dump 80% of the rotation, but here's how I see it:

 

The Peavy and Doubront trades were not really all that significant, especially since Peavy was on his last year, and not many wanted him back, so basically we're talking Lester and Lackey.

 

Don't take this as me defending the choices made. The Lester initial offer was one of the worst decisions made under Henry's reign- next to maybe the CC signing. It's hard to know what they were thinking. Maybe the Pedey "hometown discount" made them think Lester might take a low ball offer too. It's my contention that once that offer was refused, we should have immediately given our mea culpa and come back with their top offer. Once that ball was dropped, I think the writing was on the wall: Lester was going to test the FA market. I doubt he'd have taken what the Cubs ended up giving him had we had offered him that in March or June. He was a lost cause. I think the whole bidding scheme that next winter was a farce. Lester was never coming back to Boston. If you believe this, and I'm fine with those who don't, because I'm not sure myself, then trading him during a lost season made total sense. Trading for Cespy and the supplemental pick was strange.

 

The Lackey situation was very strange. I'm not sure if I believe the rumors that he'd retire rather than play for nothing, but then was fine pitching for the Cards. I suggested over and over that we offer him an extension (2 years) that would pay him bonuses over the 2015 season that would essentially pay him more than the minimum, but less over the next two years. I'm not sure, if that was ever a consideration. If the rumor was true, maybe Sox management felt the guy was a bum to renig on a contract he willingly signed. After all, he did get paid handsomely the year he sat out injured and the year he sucked with us pitching while injured. I'd have loved to have him back from 2015 to 2017. I'd have loved to have had Lester too-- more than Price. Letting them both go was dumb, but certainly there was reasons to do what they did, once the situation reached the point of no return.

 

 

 

I agree with that whole thing. The FO set themselves up for failure in the Lester negotiations and then refused to backtrack when they found out that they actually WOULD fail.

 

The Lackey thing wasn't a whole lot different. The FO was pissed at his agent for implying that Lackey might retire rather than play for the league minimum so they traded him.

 

Larry Lucchino has always impressed me as being a stubborn son-of-a-bitch.

[Dojji]

I meant as viewed at the start of the season.

 

Contradictory. We had not yet traded Espi for Pom at the start of the season.

[moonslav59]

I agree with that whole thing. The FO set themselves up for failure in the Lester negotiations and then refused to backtrack when they found out that they actually WOULD fail.

 

The Lackey thing wasn't a whole lot different. The FO was pissed at his agent for implying that Lackey might retire rather than play for the league minimum so they traded him.

 

Larry Lucchino has always impressed me as being a stubborn son-of-a-bitch.

 

If the rumors were true about Lackey balking at the contract, I can understand being an SOB, but I'd have still offered a respectable extension. Not a great one, but one that would pay him something during 2015.

 

I have a bigger beef over what we got for the two than deciding to trade them once their ship had already sailed.

[S5Dewey]

If the rumors were true about Lackey balking at the contract, I can understand being an SOB, but I'd have still offered a respectable extension. Not a great one, but one that would pay him something during 2015.

 

I have a bigger beef over what we got for the two than deciding to trade them once their ship had already sailed.

 

I never saw or heard that Lackey himself said anything about not finishing the contract. Anything I heard about it came from his agent and when read it I rolled my eyes and realized it only was a bargaining position. After that it took on a life of it's own and before we knew it Lackey was traded.

 

It appears that it's OK for Lucchino to make an insulting offer to a player but when a player insults Larry the player gets traded. I'm glad Larry's gone. I was glad he was leaving the moment I heard about it.

[moonslav59]

I never saw or heard that Lackey himself said anything about not finishing the contract. Anything I heard about it came from his agent and when read it I rolled my eyes and realized it only was a bargaining position. After that it took on a life of it's own and before we knew it Lackey was traded.

 

It appears that it's OK for Lucchino to make an insulting offer to a player but when a player insults Larry the player gets traded. I'm glad Larry's gone. I was glad he was leaving the moment I heard about it.

 

Agreed on LL.

[Spudboy]

We needed to acquire some young MLB ready studs like Craig and Kelly.

 

Finally I understand!!!

 

Thanks Jaybay.

[Spudboy]

Luchino is a total self promoting slime bag.

 

Has anyone followed his follies in Rhode Island?

 

He is a giant turd.

[mvp 78]

Luchino is a total self promoting slime bag.

 

Has anyone followed his follies in Rhode Island?

 

He is a giant turd.

 

Yeah, the new PawSox ownership has no idea what they are doing.

[Kimmi]

I never saw or heard that Lackey himself said anything about not finishing the contract. Anything I heard about it came from his agent and when read it I rolled my eyes and realized it only was a bargaining position. After that it took on a life of it's own and before we knew it Lackey was traded.

 

It appears that it's OK for Lucchino to make an insulting offer to a player but when a player insults Larry the player gets traded. I'm glad Larry's gone. I was glad he was leaving the moment I heard about it.

 

I am glad Lucchino is gone too.

 

My impression (and I heard rumblings somewhere) was that Lackey did not appreciate the way that the FO handled Lester's contract negotiations. Supposedly, it was their disrespect towards Lester, followed by what was perceived disrespect towards Lackey with their unwillingness to renegotiate Lackey's contract, that turned Lackey off to wanting to play for the minimum. It wasn't the amount of money, per se, but rather the lack of respect.

 

All speculation, of course.

[moonslav59]

I am glad Lucchino is gone too.

 

My impression (and I heard rumblings somewhere) was that Lackey did not appreciate the way that the FO handled Lester's contract negotiations. Supposedly, it was their disrespect towards Lester, followed by what was perceived disrespect towards Lackey with their unwillingness to renegotiate Lackey's contract, that turned Lackey off to wanting to play for the minimum. It wasn't the amount of money, per se, but rather the lack of respect.

 

All speculation, of course.

 

How about the respect Lackey was paid when he was out injured for a whole year after s***ing the bed the previous year playing hurt. The injury we were worried about when we put in that clause actually took away 2 years of his 5 year deal. What did he end up making? $82M for not much time doing well?

 

I just didn't see Lackey being in a position to expect an extension. I'd have done it from the Sox perspective, because he was good enough to want him back, but I can at least see how LL could take the stance of a prick against Lackey & his agent.

[Kimmi]

How about the respect Lackey was paid when he was out injured for a whole year after s***ing the bed the previous year playing hurt. The injury we were worried about when we put in that clause actually took away 2 years of his 5 year deal. What did he end up making? $82M for not much time doing well?

 

I just didn't see Lackey being in a position to expect an extension. I'd have done it from the Sox perspective, because he was good enough to want him back, but I can at least see how LL could take the stance of a prick against Lackey & his agent.

 

Oh, I agree. I'm not saying that Lackey was in any position to expect or demand an extension. He signed the contract. He should be willing to honor it.

 

But if there is any truth to that, then Lackey kind of forced the FO's hand.

 

I'm not trying to dis Lackey either. I like him, and have been his biggest defender.

[Bellhorn04]

How about the respect Lackey was paid when he was out injured for a whole year after s***ing the bed the previous year playing hurt. The injury we were worried about when we put in that clause actually took away 2 years of his 5 year deal. What did he end up making? $82M for not much time doing well?

 

I just didn't see Lackey being in a position to expect an extension. I'd have done it from the Sox perspective, because he was good enough to want him back, but I can at least see how LL could take the stance of a prick against Lackey & his agent.

 

And the Sox are the ones who ended up looking a bit foolish on the deal, especially for taking all that dead money on Craig. Not too often you're a seller at the deadline and end up being the one who throws away a pile of money.

[Kimmi]

And the Sox are the ones who ended up looking a bit foolish on the deal, especially for taking all that dead money on Craig. Not too often you're a seller at the deadline and end up being the one who throws away a pile of money.

 

That deal looks really, really bad for the Sox right now.

[moonslav59]

That deal looks really, really bad for the Sox right now.

 

Totally agree, but does anyone really think we'd have won in 2015 with Lackey?

 

His last contract year was 2015.

 

Again, I'm not defending the deal. I disliked it at the time, even though I liked Kelly and thought he showed promise. I thought we should have and could have done better. I know that seems like my never-ending mantra, but I see what others get for worse pitchers.

[Bellhorn04]

Totally agree, but does anyone really think we'd have won in 2015 with Lackey?

 

His last contract year was 2015.

 

Again, I'm not defending the deal. I disliked it at the time, even though I liked Kelly and thought he showed promise. I thought we should have and could have done better. I know that seems like my never-ending mantra, but I see what others get for worse pitchers.

 

The deal actually would have been more palatable if we had traded just for Kelly, or for Kelly plus something else we didn't have to pay much money for. Somebody in the Sox scouting department may have really sold them that Craig was going to come back strong.

[Bellhorn04]

Totally agree, but does anyone really think we'd have won in 2015 with Lackey?

 

 

Most people that bitch about the Lackey trade, including myself, are packaging it with letting Lester go.

 

If we had Lester and Lackey in 2015 instead of Porcello and Kelly, it's very conceivable we would have made the playoffs.

 

And as you know, when you're a Sox fan every season matters.