2016-2017 Offseason Trade Speculation Thread

[harmony]

Maybe but at least both of them have actually played in the last couple seasons. With Wheeler, you not only get standard prospect question marks, but also legitimate health concerns.

Blake Swihart has not played since June 4 after a lower left leg injury sidelined him for the second year in a row. Swihart is not without health concerns.

[Dojji]

Swihart had a very slight ding to his left toe in 2015. He was put on the DL to protect our control over Sandy Leon as much as over that very minor injury.

 

The two injuries are very probably complete coincidences. Anyone can sprain an ankle.

[notin]

Blake Swihart has not played since June 4 after a lower left leg injury sidelined him for the second year in a row. Swihart is not without health concerns.

 

Are you really trying to compare the health histories of a catcher/outfielder who hurt his ankle and missed a few months with a pitcher who has had multiple surgeries on his pitching arm and hasn't pitched since 2014?

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Are you really trying to compare the health histories of a catcher/outfielder who hurt his ankle and missed a few months with a pitcher who has had multiple surgeries on his pitching arm and hasn't pitched since 2014?

 

There is greater risk but also greater reward. It's not like the Red Sox would be trading a high upside talent like Moncada for Wheeler. Instead, the trade would involve Swihart, who has some offensive ability but doesn't profile as a unique or special offensive player. And so the downside risk is minimal overall. I like Wheeler's upside. He is recovering form Tommy John, not from shoulder surgery, and we know that most pitchers make it back from Tommy John, though it does take some time. We also know that Wheeler has electric stuff, strikeout stuff, the kind of stuff that misses bats, the kind of stuff that can win a big game in the playoffs in October.

 

Speaking of risks. I was watching MLB today and a guy from Fangraphs mentioned that Sale's strikeouts and velocity were down last year. Even though I've wanted Sale, I don't think I would meet the high asking price. The White Sox will want Moncada or Benintendi, along with Kopech (probably), and I'm not willing to give up such great assets for Sale. The decline in Sale's velocity is worrisome. Sale has a violent delivery that puts a lot of stress/strain on his arm.....

[southpaw777]

I agree that some players cannot be moved around, but in most cases, I think it's more of a mental/ego thing than it is an ability thing. The decisions about where a player plays have to be made based on what's best for the team, not what's best for the player. I don't think management would ask a player to play a position that they did not think the player has the ability to play.

 

If a player is asked to take on a less 'prestigious' role for the betterment of the team, then he should do it with a team first attitude. It should not be considered as a demotion, but rather as how the player can best help his team.

 

He did just that. But it was obvious that 3b has much different reaction times. you cant teach everyone to have good quick twitch reflexes needed for the corners...that was the point. Not his attitude.

They couldnt teach Hanley the Of but damn, he picked up 1b pretty good...Besides, im not so sure Xander has the arm for 3b. Hes no Machado with the arm...

[moonslav59]

He did just that. But it was obvious that 3b has much different reaction times. you cant teach everyone to have good quick twitch reflexes needed for the corners...that was the point. Not his attitude.

They couldnt teach Hanley the Of but damn, he picked up 1b pretty good...Besides, im not so sure Xander has the arm for 3b. Hes no Machado with the arm...

 

He doesn't have to be as good as Machado- just better than Shaw, Holt, Pablo & Co.

[notin]

There is greater risk but also greater reward. It's not like the Red Sox would be trading a high upside talent like Moncada for Wheeler. Instead, the trade would involve Swihart, who has some offensive ability but doesn't profile as a unique or special offensive player. And so the downside risk is minimal overall. I like Wheeler's upside. He is recovering form Tommy John, not from shoulder surgery, and we know that most pitchers make it back from Tommy John, though it does take some time. We also know that Wheeler has electric stuff, strikeout stuff, the kind of stuff that misses bats, the kind of stuff that can win a big game in the playoffs in October.

 

Speaking of risks. I was watching MLB today and a guy from Fangraphs mentioned that Sale's strikeouts and velocity were down last year. Even though I've wanted Sale, I don't think I would meet the high asking price. The White Sox will want Moncada or Benintendi, along with Kopech (probably), and I'm not willing to give up such great assets for Sale. The decline in Sale's velocity is worrisome. Sale has a violent delivery that puts a lot of stress/strain on his arm.....

 

Well, we know what Wheeler was. TJ surgery has also shown to have a very high rate of recurrence, usually with 600 IP. Wheeler has already had two and is starting to look like Jarrod Parker. He's probably best avoided unless the price is dirt cheap.

 

I don't see Sale as an option. The Sox seem more llikely to go with the six starters they have and upgrade the bullpen with Holland and/or Hudson or ? Really not sure how many arms they can realistically add, ad they have Kimbrel, Kelly, Barnes, one displaced starter (barring injury), Hembree, Ross, Abad and Elias. One or two of those guys has to go...

[notin]

He doesn't have to be as good as Machado- just better than Shaw, Holt, Pablo & Co.

 

So if the Sox moved Bogaerts to third, which isn't going to happen, who plays short? Internal options are guys like Marrero and Hernandez. Are they upgrades over Sandoval or Shaw or Holt?

[Dojji]

The whole point of this argument is wistful hindsight about not trading Iglesias for basically Peavey, and an idea that Iglesias would have covered SS at least adequately while Bogaerts learned third base.

 

It's rivisionist history at its finest, at the time we thought we had no problems at 3B, Middlebrooks was still considered a good prospect and we had Cecchini behind him and if those failed there was always the free market. So 2 prospects and money behind them were our depth at third base in midseason 2013 when the trade was made, why again are we moving our best SS talent in a generation over to another position exactly?

 

Only when both Middlebrooks and Cecchini, and the guy we signed afterward to cover the gap they left, all subsequently imploded within about 18 months of each other, did the hindsight brigadee come out in droves, trying to apply reason to a situation that from our perspective turned out in an absolutely unreasonable way.

 

There was so little reason to expect that all avenues that did ultimately fail, were going to fail, at the time Iglesias was traded, that the hindsight brigade really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, not that that will stop them.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Dojji

[notin]

The whole point of this argument is wistful hindsight about not trading Iglesias for basically Peavey, and an idea that Iglesias would have covered SS at least adequately while Bogaerts learned third base.

 

It's rivisionist history at its finest, at the time we thought we had no problems at 3B, Middlebrooks was still considered a good prospect and we had Cecchini behind him and if those failed there was always the free market. So 2 prospects and money behind them were our depth at third base in midseason 2013 when the trade was made, why again are we moving our best SS talent in a generation over to another position exactly?

 

Only when both Middlebrooks and Cecchini, and the guy we signed afterward to cover the gap they left, all subsequently imploded within about 18 months of each other, did the hindsight brigadee come out in droves, trying to apply reason to a situation that from our perspective turned out in an absolutely unreasonable way.

 

There was so little reason to expect that all avenues that did ultimately fail, were going to fail, at the time Iglesias was traded, that the hindsight brigade really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, not that that will stop them.

 

Which leads to two other points.

 

While a good defender, Iglesias was not some freakish generational talent at shortstop. He's no Andrelton Simmons, and players like him do exist and come along quite frequently. Zack Cozart is a free agent right now. Nick Ahmed is a brilliant defender as well. And there are others.

 

And really, if you want the proper hindsight argument, Iglesias should have stayed at third. Bogaerts is and was clearly more comfortable at short, and Iglesias was probably the best defensive third baseman I have ever seen on the Sox.

 

Oh, and that whole "we did win a World Series" argument.

 

Iglesias is a good player, but hardly worth three years of debate about whether or not he should have been dealt, especially after it all worked out so well. The guy the Sox should not have dealt was Anthony Rizzo, but for some reason the obsession remains with Iglesias. ..

[S5Dewey]

The whole point of this argument is wistful hindsight about not trading Iglesias for basically Peavey, and an idea that Iglesias would have covered SS at least adequately while Bogaerts learned third base.

 

It's rivisionist history at its finest, at the time we thought we had no problems at 3B, Middlebrooks was still considered a good prospect and we had Cecchini behind him and if those failed there was always the free market. So 2 prospects and money behind them were our depth at third base in midseason 2013 when the trade was made, why again are we moving our best SS talent in a generation over to another position exactly?

 

Only when both Middlebrooks and Cecchini, and the guy we signed afterward to cover the gap they left, all subsequently imploded within about 18 months of each other, did the hindsight brigadee come out in droves, trying to apply reason to a situation that from our perspective turned out in an absolutely unreasonable way.

 

There was so little reason to expect that all avenues that did ultimately fail, were going to fail, at the time Iglesias was traded, that the hindsight brigade really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, not that that will stop them.

 

I was completely with you until you until you talked about moving our best SS to 3B. We didn't. We moved our best hitting SS to 3B and traded our best defensive SS.

 

That aside, this is the problem with putting too much stock in prospects. Too many of them wash out. I agree that when the trade was made we had Middlebrooks and Chiccini as "sure things" at 3B but when neither of them materialized we were stuck with what we had. That's why were I the GM I'd rely on scouting to identify the 3-4 cream of the crop prospects - the guys like Mookie and JBJ - and I'd make everyone else available in trades.

 

Yes, those of us in "the brigade" are sometimes frustrated by what could have been, and when that happens we express our frustration. It's frustrating to see The Fat Man occupying a spot on the bench and sucking salary money that could better have been spent elsewhere when (IMO) it was foreseeable that trading Iggy was a mistake in the long term view. So we talk about it. As Moon said, there are good points on both sides of this discussion. Those who liked the trade are happy about it. Those of us who didn't are frustrated. And life goes on.

[Dojji]

Becuase we really haven't had a positional crisis at 1B. Since Rizzo was traded we've had Napoli and Ramirez at 1B and both of them were pretty decent there, not as good as Rizzo at his peak, but really nothing to complain about. We had, and possibly have, a positional crisis on the left side of the infield, so the hindsight brigade wallows in borrowed misery about moves made on the left side of the infield.

[notin]

 

That aside, this is the problem with putting too much stock in prospects. Too many of them wash out. I agree that when the trade was made we had Middlebrooks and Chiccini as "sure things" at 3B but when neither of them materialized we were stuck with what we had. That's why were I the GM I'd rely on scouting to identify the 3-4 cream of the crop prospects - the guys like Mookie and JBJ - and I'd make everyone else available in trades. n.

 

That's essentially what teams do. At the time, Iglesias was clearly not identified as one of the top three or four best prospects and was made available. That they misidentified Middlebrooks as a better prospect is all part of the risk anyone takes in any job that involves predicting the future.

 

The Red Sox even had to bring a third team in to make this work. Middlebrooks filled a clear need for the White Sox, unlike Iglesias. But the Red Sox were still very high on him for some reason that was clearly unrelated to reading my numerous posts about him on BDC

 

While you make it sound easy, but identifying what prospects will work out and what ones won't is extremely complicated and, in many cases, dependant on luck. In this case, the Sox gambled not only on Middlebrooks but also on Bogaerts, and it at least worked out in one case out of two. It could have been worse.

[notin]

Becuase we really haven't had a positional crisis at 1B. Since Rizzo was traded we've had Napoli and Ramirez at 1B and both of them were pretty decent there, not as good as Rizzo at his peak, but really nothing to complain about. We had, and possibly have, a positional crisis on the left side of the infield, so the hindsight brigade wallows in borrowed misery about moves made on the left side of the infield.

 

But the solution they keep leaping back to was never going to happen. Whether or not Iglesias' defense is superior to Bogaerts is immaterial in that he clearly was never going to supplant him. Ever. And that doesn't mean anyone is ignoring defense. It does mean they prefer the better overall player. The Sox could sign Raja Davis this off-season based on his defense being superior to Benintendi, who made a defensive lapse that was instrumental in a post-season loss, but they aren't going to. Because Benintendi is (very likely) a better overall player than Davis..

[S5Dewey]

That's essentially what teams do. At the time, Iglesias was clearly not identified as one of the top three or four best prospects and was made available. That they misidentified Middlebrooks as a better prospect is all part of the risk anyone takes in any job that involves predicting the future.

 

The Red Sox even had to bring a third team in to make this work. Middlebrooks filled a clear need for the White Sox, unlike Iglesias. But the Red Sox were still very high on him for some reason that was clearly unrelated to reading my numerous posts about him on BDC

 

While you make it sound easy, but identifying what prospects will work out and what ones won't is extremely complicated and, in many cases, dependant on luck. In this case, the Sox gambled not only on Middlebrooks but also on Bogaerts, and it at least worked out in one case out of two. It could have been worse.

 

Saying 'Iglesias was clearly not identified as one of the top three or four best prospects and was made available' is a circular argument. Was he not identified as a ML player the reason he was made available, or was he made available because he was misidentifed? The FO made two mistakes. The first was misidentifying Iggy as a true ML SS and the second was misidentifying Middlebrooks as a keeper. Oh-for-two. If you choose to include Bogaerts (even though I see him as a slam-dunk) then they're 1-3

 

There are a few players whom even you and I could identify as players to hold onto. Mookie, Benintendi, Bogaerts, probably JBJ & Iggy if a GM truly believes in defense, and possibly Vazquez. Three CF'ers, a SS and a catcher. What do they all have in common? They all have the defensive skills to play 'up the middle'. These are the guys you keep because they have the skills to play anyplace and are harder to replace.

 

You then juggle them as necessary to build a team - and at this point a low-cost team. After the juggling is done the remaining corner spots are filled with players within the organization with strong offensive skills or with FA's.

 

The scouting was good. The Sox have been blessed with five or six guys who could be the future of the team. Every one of them whom they trade away weakens the team and/or costs money. That's why we're paying Sandoval $14M when we could be paying Iggy $2.7M to play 3B (and bust my chops about this if you wish. I didn't look those salaries up but they're close). Even if Sandoval had worked out trading Iggy would still be a bad idea.

[Eddy Ballgame]

As always, you fail to include the fact that the Sox had concerns about his medical reports, concerns about his attitude/focus and concerns about his ability to hit with any kind of power at all. All of these concerns have proved to have merit since he was traded.

 

I have yet to have a conversation with a single Sox fan who has ever uttered the phrase, "Boy, I wish we still had Jose Iglesias," yet you present this trade as if it set the Sox organization back 10 years. This topic has been beat to death. Let it go, man!

[notin]

Let's not also forget at that time Stephen Drew was not only relevant, but also very good. Coupled with Bogaerts, they aapparently liked their shortstop situation not only at the time, butalso going forward. One could argue they traded a ffuture piece for a ring, hardly an uncommon practice.

 

But really they liked Bogaerts as an all-around player better than Iglesias. Bogaerts was never really in play for the future at third. He tried it and reportedly was very uncomfortable. The decision to force him there to accommodate another equally unaccomplished player wasn't going to happen. It's not the same as moving Betts to the outfield to accommodate a former MVP knocking on the door to Cooperstown.

 

At some point in the future, Bogaerts may have to move to third. That won't be an indictment of trading Iglesias, either, but more likely just a player aging out of a premium defensive position.

 

And Sandoval, disappointing as he has been, may not be the direct fallout here many believe. Free agents are not only acquired to fill gaps, but also as PR - a message to the fans and ticket buyers that the team is willing to spend to win. Certainly every GM is aware of the high risk and rate of failure associated with these types of contracts. But they are also aware that big name players, like reigning World Series MVP, can generate a lot of interest after a bad season. The Sox were clearly going to make big moves, so unless Iglesias could have kept them out of the cellar in 2014 (not likely as I believe that was the season he missed), the Sox were going to spend. If not on Sandoval, possibly on someone equally disastrous....

[Bellhorn04]

As always, you fail to include the fact that the Sox had concerns about his medical reports, concerns about his attitude/focus and concerns about his ability to hit with any kind of power at all. All of these concerns have proved to have merit since he was traded.

 

I have yet to have a conversation with a single Sox fan who has ever uttered the phrase, "Boy, I wish we still had Jose Iglesias," yet you present this trade as if it set the Sox organization back 10 years. This topic has been beat to death. Let it go, man!

 

Imagine what it would be like if we DIDN"T win it all that year...

[Bellhorn04]

And Sandoval, disappointing as he has been, may not be the direct fallout here many believe. Free agents are not only acquired to fill gaps, but also as PR - a message to the fans and ticket buyers that the team is willing to spend to win. Certainly every GM is aware of the high risk and rate of failure associated with these types of contracts. But they are also aware that big name players, like reigning World Series MVP, can generate a lot of interest after a bad season. The Sox were clearly going to make big moves, so unless Iglesias could have kept them out of the cellar in 2014 (not likely as I believe that was the season he missed), the Sox were going to spend. If not on Sandoval, possibly on someone equally disastrous....

 

Excellent point.

[moonslav59]

So if the Sox moved Bogaerts to third, which isn't going to happen, who plays short? Internal options are guys like Marrero and Hernandez. Are they upgrades over Sandoval or Shaw or Holt?

 

I'm not for moving Bogey to 3B with our roster as it is now, but if he fails to improve at SS, I'd keep it as an option depending on who we might pick up or how Dubon progresses.

 

It was more about the past.

[moonslav59]

It's rivisionist history at its finest, at the time we thought we had no problems at 3B, Middlebrooks was still considered a good prospect and we had Cecchini behind him and if those failed there was always the free market. So 2 prospects and money behind them were our depth at third base in midseason 2013 when the trade was made, why again are we moving our best SS talent in a generation over to another position exactly?

 

You got the timing wrong. We had Iggy playing 3B when we traded him. Middy was already toast.

[S5Dewey]

I have yet to have a conversation with a single Sox fan who has ever uttered the phrase, "Boy, I wish we still had Jose Iglesias," yet you present this trade as if it set the Sox organization back 10 years. This topic has been beat to death. Let it go, man!

 

What am I? Chopped liver? If it will make you feel better, "Boy, I wish we still had Iglesias."

 

In fact, I DO think it set the organization back, if not 10, then 3-4 years.

 

I do agree that it's been beaten to death. That's why in spite of my simmering feelings about it I never bring it up. I know that at this point I'm not going to convince anyone else and they're not going to convince me. However, when someone else brings it up I will rise to the bait. Hey, everyone has their weaknesses. Mine are good scotch, pretty blondes, and the Iglesias trade. Edit; Not necessarily in that order.

Edited November 22, 2016 by S5Dewey

[moonslav59]

But the solution they keep leaping back to was never going to happen. Whether or not Iglesias' defense is superior to Bogaerts is immaterial in that he clearly was never going to supplant him. Ever.

 

Once I realized Sox management felt this way, although I disagreed with that assessment, I understood the trade for Peavy and actually thought Peavy's 1.3 years of control was a good return for what amounted to a utility IF'er on the Sox.

 

And that doesn't mean anyone is ignoring defense. It does mean they prefer the better overall player.

 

Again, it wasn't, IMO, Iggy vs Bogey; it was Iggy & Bogey vs Bogey & Middy/Cecchini.

[moonslav59]

What am I? Chopped liver? If it will make you feel better, "Boy, I wish we still had Iglesias."

 

In fact, I DO think it set the organization back, if not 10, then 3-4 years.

 

I do agree that it's been beaten to death. That's why in spite of my simmering feelings about it I never bring it up. I know that at this point I'm not going to convince anyone else and they're not going to convince me. However, when someone else brings it up I will rise to the bait. Hey, everyone has their weaknesses. Mine are good scotch, pretty blondes, and the Iglesias trade. Edit; Not necessarily in that order.

 

Are we down to just the two of us?

 

I'm also happy never to bring it up again.

 

I may bring up Bogey's failure to improve on defense again, however.

 

[Eddy Ballgame]

What am I? Chopped liver? If it will make you feel better, "Boy, I wish we still had Iglesias."

 

In fact, I DO think it set the organization back, if not 10, then 3-4 years.

 

I do agree that it's been beaten to death. That's why in spite of my simmering feelings about it I never bring it up. I know that at this point I'm not going to convince anyone else and they're not going to convince me. However, when someone else brings it up I will rise to the bait. Hey, everyone has their weaknesses. Mine are good scotch, pretty blondes, and the Iglesias trade. Edit; Not necessarily in that order.

 

Ha! ..2 out of 3 solid vices ain't bad.

[Bellhorn04]

It's rivisionist history at its finest, at the time we thought we had no problems at 3B, Middlebrooks was still considered a good prospect and we had Cecchini behind him and if those failed there was always the free market. So 2 prospects and money behind them were our depth at third base in midseason 2013 when the trade was made, why again are we moving our best SS talent in a generation over to another position exactly?

 

You got the timing wrong. We had Iggy playing 3B when we traded him. Middy was already toast.

 

Middy was injured, no? He actually finished the season fairly well that year when he came off the DL. (.805 OPS in August/September).

[notin]

 

In fact, I DO think it set the organization back, if not 10, then 3-4 years.

 

 

Set it bsck 3 or 4 years? From what?

 

They won a World Series in 2013. If your argument is that the Sox wouldn't have been a last place team with Iglesias, then there is fallout from that, too. For starters, they wouldn't have had the chance to draft Benintendi.

 

The Lackey trade was far worse. At a time to restock and instead they saddle themselves with an immovable bad contract in Craig. (Rumors that Lackey would retire were unsubstantiated and based on misinterpretations of an article by Ken Rosenthal, who said it was Lackey's only leverage, not his plan.)

[S5Dewey]

Are we down to just the two of us?

 

I'm also happy never to bring it up again.

 

I may bring up Bogey's failure to improve on defense again, however.

 

 

Yeah, it probably is. I prefer to think about it as its not being because we're wrong but rather that most people have accepted it and moved on. After all, "everyone IS entitled to their opinion....."

 

Fair warning though... the next time Iggy's name is brought up you can expect me (and maybe Moon) to be right in the middle of the conversation!

[S5Dewey]

Set it bsck 3 or 4 years? From what?

 

They won a World Series in 2013. If your argument is that the Sox wouldn't have been a last place team with Iglesias, then there is fallout from that, too. For starters, they wouldn't have had the chance to draft Benintendi.

 

The Lackey trade was far worse. At a time to restock and instead they saddle themselves with an immovable bad contract in Craig. (Rumors that Lackey would retire were unsubstantiated and based on misinterpretations of an article by Ken Rosenthal, who said it was Lackey's only leverage, not his plan.)

 

The Lackey trade? That's ancient history. Give it up.

[Spudboy]

What am I? Chopped liver? If it will make you feel better, "Boy, I wish we still had Iglesias."

 

In fact, I DO think it set the organization back, if not 10, then 3-4 years.

 

I do agree that it's been beaten to death. That's why in spite of my simmering feelings about it I never bring it up. I know that at this point I'm not going to convince anyone else and they're not going to convince me. However, when someone else brings it up I will rise to the bait. Hey, everyone has their weaknesses. Mine are good scotch, pretty blondes, and the Iglesias trade. Edit; Not necessarily in that order.

 

My Man!!!!