Chris Sale traded to Braves

[Hugh2]

You should see how easy it was to trade for Pablo Lopez. Not when Minnesota did it; when Miami did…

 

You mean before he ever pitched in AA?

 

So in other words it was easier when he was a prospect? And not when he was a cost controlled probable MLB arm with years of team control left.????? Which continues to be my argument.

[Hugh2]

Proven*

[moonslav59]

Weren’t all those guys rentals?

 

Sure some of them signed extensions and that’s the right ideal if you trade for them and feel co didn’t you can do so.

 

But didn’t they all have .5-1 year or team control.

 

Lopez had 2 full seasons on arbs.

 

Cease had 2 seasons left

 

Castillo had 1.3 seasons left.

 

It does happen, as do extensions.

 

We traded for Pedro & extended. Schilling and extended. Beckett and extended. Sale & extended. Porcello & extended. Nate & extended.

[Hugh2]

Lopez had 2 full seasons on arbs.

 

Cease had 2 seasons left

 

Castillo had 1.3 seasons left.

 

It does happen, as do extensions.

 

We traded for Pedro & extended. Schilling and extended. Beckett and extended. Sale & extended. Porcello & extended. Nate & extended.

 

 

I don't consider anyone with less than 1.5 years of control being cost controlled. When I think of trading for a guy with control I think of someone having 3 years left or so, I suppose to be fair we can say 2+

 

No one is saying those guys aren't traded, I'm saying it's very rare. That makes it hard, not impossible to find and trade for those guys. And usually makes them very expensive.

 

A lot of the examples laid out here have been on the tail end. Guys who are either "prospects" or are rentals and get extended. Those are other avenues of brining in pitching talent as well. But almost no one is just giving away a proven ace with mutliple years of team control left, that's rare. Guys are developing and hoarding those guys.

 

The fact that Sandy Alcantara or Pablo Lopez are traded for when they're "PROSPECTS" strengthens that argument. There's plenty of talented young arms that are traded for who become busts as well.

[moonslav59]

I don't consider anyone with less than 1.5 years of control being cost controlled. When I think of trading for a guy with control I think of someone having 3 years left or so, I suppose to be fair we can say 2+

 

No one is saying those guys aren't traded, I'm saying it's very rare. That makes it hard, not impossible to find and trade for those guys. And usually makes them very expensive.

 

A lot of the examples laid out here have been on the tail end. Guys who are either "prospects" or are rentals and get extended. Those are other avenues of brining in pitching talent as well. But almost no one is just giving away a proven ace with mutliple years of team control left, that's rare. Guys are developing and hoarding those guys.

 

The fact that Sandy Alcantara or Pablo Lopez are traded for when they're "PROSPECTS" strengthens that argument. There's plenty of talented young arms that are traded for who become busts as well.

 

Lopez pitched 5 seasons with MIA before being traded with 2 years remaining, which is more than the 1.5 you set.

 

Cease pitched 5 seasons with the CWS and was traded with 2 years remaining.

 

It's not as rare as it might seem.

 

There are also many examples of trading for an established and somewhat young SP'er and extending them- sometimes at a little less than FA market money, which might someday appeal to JH & Co.

 

The Sox have a long history of trading for an ace and extending them. Every ring we have this century was shortly after acquiring an ace-type pitcher or two.

 

It could happen, again, but I am not going to predict or expect it.

[notin]

You mean before he ever pitched in AA?

 

So in other words it was easier when he was a prospect? And not when he was a cost controlled probable MLB arm with years of team control left.????? Which continues to be my argument.

 

 

How about the names I mentioned earlier?

 

The Marlins didn’t deal Zac Gallen because he was down to 2+ years until arbitration…

[Hugh2]

How about the names I mentioned earlier?

 

The Marlins didn’t deal Zac Gallen because he was down to 2+ years until arbitration…

 

Again, as I said before, saying something rare isn't analogous with saying it never happens. I would point out there that going back 5 years to find an example is proof of this.

 

I'll admit my scope is a little narrow, because it's rare you can't always trade for a cost controlled "proven" mlb starter. There isn't too many "Spencer Striders" out there with teams willingly looking to deal them.

 

You have to either draft and develop them on your own, or trade for prospects who are still young and develop them, guys like the ones you pointed out along with Gallen in your previous post. And look, people remember the guys who worked out, no one remembers the Allen Websters or Ruby De La Rosas of the world; there are a lot more of those guys. I think you're including these guys into the young cost-controlled arms, I'm just adding "proven" into my definition, which seems relevant if you're a fan base that expects to compete now. Young, PROVEN, cost controlled, available arms are a very rare commodity.

 

For the Sox to do such things requires them to trade MLB talent. If you want prospect packages like that, we'd be trading guys like Juran Duran, or Tanner Houck, maybe you can throw guys like Nick Pivetta at the deadline in there as well.

 

I'm not opposed to trading for guys and developing them, our problem has been two-fold over the last decade or so. Not investing in pitchers in the draft, and not going a great job of developing pitchers, I've been a huge advocate of pouring money into the scouting and development department the last few years. Something the Sox ALLEGEDLY started under Bloom and have continued to ramp up under Breslow. For what it's worth, it looks like it's starting to pay off. Hopefully this is the tip of the iceberg.

[moonslav59]

Again, as I said before, saying something rare isn't analogous with saying it never happens. I would point out there that going back 5 years to find an example is proof of this.

 

I'll admit my scope is a little narrow, because it's rare you can't always trade for a cost controlled "proven" mlb starter. There isn't too many "Spencer Striders" out there with teams willingly looking to deal them.

 

You have to either draft and develop them on your own, or trade for prospects who are still young and develop them, guys like the ones you pointed out along with Gallen in your previous post. And look, people remember the guys who worked out, no one remembers the Allen Websters or Ruby De La Rosas of the world; there are a lot more of those guys. I think you're including these guys into the young cost-controlled arms, I'm just adding "proven" into my definition, which seems relevant if you're a fan base that expects to compete now. Young, PROVEN, cost controlled, available arms are a very rare commodity.

 

For the Sox to do such things requires them to trade MLB talent. If you want prospect packages like that, we'd be trading guys like Juran Duran, or Tanner Houck, maybe you can throw guys like Nick Pivetta at the deadline in there as well.

 

I'm not opposed to trading for guys and developing them, our problem has been two-fold over the last decade or so. Not investing in pitchers in the draft, and not going a great job of developing pitchers, I've been a huge advocate of pouring money into the scouting and development department the last few years. Something the Sox ALLEGEDLY started under Bloom and have continued to ramp up under Breslow. For what it's worth, it looks like it's starting to pay off. Hopefully this is the tip of the iceberg.

 

Certainly, developing our own pitchers, especially starters is a great way to build up a staff. We can see the boost Crawford, Houck and Bello have given this team and its future. We also acquired Pivetta, Wink and Whitlock, along with others, who have helps, but are not ace-types.

 

You set the bar at 1.5 years, and examples were given for 2 year guys being traded just months ago. Trades for proven, young or younger pitchers followed by extensions are numerous, as well. It is still a viable way to add a solid SP'er to a staff; it's just not been the Sox way since Nate (.5 yrs and re-signed,) Porcello (1 yr and extended 4 more,) and Sale (3 years and extended for 5 more.) Sometimes, trade & extensions come in below FA market value, which might be something JH would prefer over another David Price situation.

 

There are several ways to add pitching. DD and Bloom ended up providing a better staff than many of us imagined possible, of course with the help of Bailey and Brez. No doubt, our farm still looks pretty weak, when it comes to pitching, but we are strong enough and deep enough, there, to provide players and prospects to trade. Others have done it. It has gotten harder, as you have pointed out, but it is not impossible, and it is still happening, every winter.

[Hugh2]

Certainly, developing our own pitchers, especially starters is a great way to build up a staff. We can see the boost Crawford, Houck and Bello have given this team and its future. We also acquired Pivetta, Wink and Whitlock, along with others, who have helps, but are not ace-types.

 

You set the bar at 1.5 years, and examples were given for 2 year guys being traded just months ago. Trades for proven, young or younger pitchers followed by extensions are numerous, as well. It is still a viable way to add a solid SP'er to a staff; it's just not been the Sox way since Nate (.5 yrs and re-signed,) Porcello (1 yr and extended 4 more,) and Sale (3 years and extended for 5 more.) Sometimes, trade & extensions come in below FA market value, which might be something JH would prefer over another David Price situation.

 

There are several ways to add pitching. DD and Bloom ended up providing a better staff than many of us imagined possible, of course with the help of Bailey and Brez. No doubt, our farm still looks pretty weak, when it comes to pitching, but we are strong enough and deep enough, there, to provide players and prospects to trade. Others have done it. It has gotten harder, as you have pointed out, but it is not impossible, and it is still happening, every winter.

 

 

When I add talent to my team, I'd PREFER them to be here long term.

 

If they have 1-2 years left, they're not here long term. Unless of course you sign them, in which case you're spending BIG MONEY. This is why I set the bar at more than 2 years. I want guys under control long term

 

You can only spend so much, that's reality, you can't build a rotation with 5 40 million dollar men.

 

I want pitchers who are really really really good who are 3+ years away from free agency.

 

What's that Hugh? those guys are rare?

...

...

...

The point.

 

But yes, we agree they need to be developed, which is the antitode here. Sox need to invest more in pitching, whether that be trading for prospects, investing in better trainings and pitching coaches, better scouting, and better drafting.

[mvp 78]

The best rotation ERA- since at least 1967:

 

64 BOS 2024 and PHI 2024 (in progress)

70 LAD 2022

71 CHC '16, CLE '20

72 LAD '21

73 ATL '98, LAD '19, CIN '20, ATL '97

 

SOX Best

2024 (64)

2002 (77) Pedro 2.26, Lowe 2.58, Wake 2.81, Burkett 4.53, Castillo 5.07, Fossum 3.46

1990 (81) Clemens 1.93, Boddicker 3.36, 3.38 Bolton, 3.97 Kiecker, 4.00 Harris

1999 (82) Pedro 2.07, Saberhagen 2.95, 4.12 Rapp, Rose 4.87, Portugal 5.51

1993 (84) Sele 2.74, 3.26 Darwin, 3.14 Viola, 4.46 Clemens, Dopson 4.97, Quantrill 3.91

2018 (85) Sale 2.11, Price 3.58, ERod 3.82, Nate 3.33, Porcello 4.28, Johnson 4.17

1986 (86) Clemens 2.48, Hurst 2.99, 3.78 Boyd, 3.80 Seaver, Nipper 5.38

1978 (87) Eckersley 2.99, Tiant 3.31, Lee 3.46, Wright 3.57, Torrez 3.96 (notin has a good point)

1992 (88)

2017, 1979, 2008 (89)

1973, 2000, 2007 (90)

2004, 1995 (91)

2013, 1998, 1994 (92)

 

I like the 2002 and 1986 rotations, a lot. To me, 2018 was the best.

 

The 2004 one was great, but Wake was at 4.87 that year, and Lowe was at 5.42.

 

Best fWAR rotations:

1990 (20.6)

2002 (19.9)

1999 (19.7)

2004 (18.2)

1992 (18.1)

2003 (17.7)

 

 

I stan the 04 rotation simply because the 5 starters averaged 31 GS and 198.2 IP. I don't think we'll see that again, at least for a long time.

[Bellhorn04]

Meanwhile, the 2024 Red Sox have an ERA+ of 141, best in the majors. That's some pretty amazing work by the Breslow & Bailey Circus.

[moonslav59]

When I add talent to my team, I'd PREFER them to be here long term.

 

If they have 1-2 years left, they're not here long term. Unless of course you sign them, in which case you're spending BIG MONEY. This is why I set the bar at more than 2 years. I want guys under control long term

 

You can only spend so much, that's reality, you can't build a rotation with 5 40 million dollar men.

 

I want pitchers who are really really really good who are 3+ years away from free agency.

 

What's that Hugh? those guys are rare?

...

...

...

The point.

 

But yes, we agree they need to be developed, which is the antitode here. Sox need to invest more in pitching, whether that be trading for prospects, investing in better trainings and pitching coaches, better scouting, and better drafting.

 

Cease and Lopez were 2 years guys. That's 2 in 2 years. Why don't you count them? (Did you move the goalpost from 1.5 to more than 2?)

 

We extended Nate to $17M x 4. That beat FA market prices.

 

[Hugh2]

Cease and Lopez were 2 years guys. That's 2 in 2 years. Why don't you count them? (Did you move the goalpost from 1.5 to more than 2?)

 

We extended Nate to $17M x 4. That beat FA market prices.

 

 

You're missing my point.

 

Yes, I'm purposely exluding 1.5- 2 years because I want guys who are cheap. The further away from free agency they are the cheaper they are.

 

I think that's a relevant point when the point of contention is "controllable, young, proven" arms. The less years you have, the less control you have.

 

I want to be good for more than 1.5 years.

 

Spencer Strider costs 1 million dollars a year.

Tanner Houck costs $770K

Cutter Crawford costs $760K

Dylan Cease costs $8 million

Joe Ryan costs $760K

Za Gallen $10 million

Justin Steele - $4 million

George Kirby - $780K

 

When you have that on your roster, you have the capactity to go out and spend money elsewhere, Baseball is a team sport you need lots of good players. The more cheap cost controlled arms you have on your team the better you will be when you do spend money on talent.

[moonslav59]

I stan the 04 rotation simply because the 5 starters averaged 31 GS and 198.2 IP. I don't think we'll see that again, at least for a long time.

 

It's hard to fault that logic. That was amazing. We only needed 5 starts from others.

 

Those who look at ERA might find several teams that were better or way better, but these numbers look better than their ERAs do:

 

ERA Pitcher ERA+/FIP

3.26 Schilling 148/3.11

3.90 Pedro 124/3.58

4.03 Arroyo 120/3.82

4.87 Wake 99/5.08

5.42 Lowe 89/4.26

 

I still like others more, but GS and IP are of great value.

 

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think 2 years can really be considered long term. If 2 years is long term, that would mean the Red Sox traded Sale when they still had control over him long term.

 

3 years is the minimum IMHO.

[moonslav59]

You're missing my point.

 

Yes, I'm purposely exluding 1.5- 2 years because I want guys who are cheap. The further away from free agency they are the cheaper they are.

 

I think that's a relevant point when the point of contention is "controllable, young, proven" arms. The less years you have, the less control you have.

 

I want to be good for more than 1.5 years.

 

Spencer Strider costs 1 million dollars a year.

Tanner Houck costs $770K

Cutter Crawford costs $760K

Dylan Cease costs $8 million

Joe Ryan costs $760K

Za Gallen $10 million

Justin Steele - $4 million

George Kirby - $780K

 

When you have that on your roster, you have the capactity to go out and spend money elsewhere, Baseball is a team sport you need lots of good players. The more cheap cost controlled arms you have on your team the better you will be when you do spend money on talent.

 

Your point was set at 1.5 years. You changed your point.

 

Of course, I want young studs with 3-5 years, too, but not many are "proven" and have 4-5 years left.

 

Yes, those guys are hard to find.

 

Guys like Pivetta seem to be the best we can do.

[Hugh2]

Conversely, for the sake of argument, lets flip the script to the position side. Maybe this will make it easier to explain my point.

 

The year is 2027, and I want guys like Kyle Teel, Marcelo Mayer, Roman Anthony in my lineup playing for the league minimum, so I can still fit in my budget going out and spending $30 million+ on a power bat to play 2B/3B/RF (wherever) and fit in the lineup.

 

If everyone on my team is 1.5 years away from free agency I'm looking at breaking that team up in a year or two or going over budget and the reality is I'm not the METS.

 

That's why I want guys who are cost controlled for long periods of time. Perhaps my definition has been a bit amorophous but 1 1.5 years certainly does not project into your long term plans unless you're INEVITABLY PAYING those guys, in which case they're no longer "young, COST CONTROLLED, players"

[Hugh2]

Your point was set at 1.5 years. You changed your point.

 

Of course, I want young studs with 3-5 years, too, but not many are "proven" and have 4-5 years left.

 

Yes, those guys are hard to find.

 

Guys like Pivetta seem to be the best we can do.

 

changing my range by .5 years doesn't change my point. To be honest I dont' have a set range, I don't live in a world of absolutes.

 

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

[moonslav59]

I don't think 2 years can really be considered long term. If 2 years is long term, that would mean the Red Sox traded Sale when they still had control over him long term.

 

3 years is the minimum IMHO.

 

I don't consider it long term, either, but the point was no proven starters with 1.5 or less years of control are traded, these days.

 

The list of proven starters traded with 3+ years of control does involve going back several years. I agree with that point- just not the 2 year point.

 

Also, maybe one one traded, recently, but they just haven't become an ace, yet. (I know, I know, then they are not "proven.")

[Hugh2]

FOR THE RECORD

 

Just because I don't consider guys with 1 year of control as being long conrtrollable doesn't mean I'm opposed to aquiring such guys.

 

Also.

 

Just because I don't consider guys with 1.5 years of control long term controllable arms doesn't mean I'm opposed to aquiring such guys.

[Hugh2]

I don't think 2 years can really be considered long term. If 2 years is long term, that would mean the Red Sox traded Sale when they still had control over him long term.

 

3 years is the minimum IMHO.

 

It's highly subjective, but I agree.

[Hugh2]

I don't consider it long term, either, but the point was no proven starters with 1.5 or less years of control are traded, these days.

 

The list of proven starters traded with 3+ years of control does involve going back several years. I agree with that point- just not the 2 year point.

 

Also, maybe one one traded, recently, but they just haven't become an ace, yet. (I know, I know, then they are not "proven.")

 

Maybe I missed something here.

 

But I've been arguing that starters with long term control are rarely traded these days.

[moonslav59]

changing my range by .5 years doesn't change my point. To be honest I dont' have a set range, I don't live in a world of absolutes.

 

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

You did name a specific time frame instead of just saying long term. I responded to the criteria you established.

 

I agree that Cease and Lopez were not long term additions. I agree with your point being made.

 

Sorry for being a stickler for detail.

 

BTW, word was that Cease and Lopez were on the market a year or two, before they were traded, but I guess they wanted more than what anyone would offer. You are right, the cost to get "proven" and young SP'ers with 2.5 or more years of control in very difficult, and it has not happened in a while.

 

The days of guys like Sale being traded may be past us.

[moonslav59]

I get the value in adding a SP'er with 3-4 arbs remaining vs a trade like Luis Castillo, but I do think that trade was a very good one for SEA.

 

Castillo was about as proven as proven can be. Point one.

He was 29, when acquired, so maybe not as young as we'd like, but to get "proven," you do have to be good for a few years.

 

The part that is an issue was his extension. I tend to think $108M/5 was an excellent deal for SEA.

 

He'll be ages 30-34- not young, I know, but I like these types of deals.

 

I agree, though, nobody is trading a Strider, although there were rumors Kirby was being shopped.

[Old Red]

Another good outing for Sale last night as he 1 hit the Yankees through 5 IP with 8K’s giving up 1 run, and raising his record to 10-2 that counts in the all important standings. Not a bad season for the old boy that the Red Sox are paying the Braves $17M for Sale to pitch for them. And some on here has said JH is not to generous with his money. The Braves would probably say otherwise. 86.2 IP pitched, 65 H, and 107K’s with a 2.91 ERA. Pretty nice gift to the Braves. Edited June 22, 2024 by Old Red

[Duran Is The Man]

Another good outing for Sale last night as he 1 hit the Yankees through 5 IP with 8K’s giving up 1 run, and raising his record to 10-2 that counts in the all important standings. Not a bad season for the old boy that the Red Sox are paying the Braves $17M for Sale to pitch for them. And some on here has said JH is not to generous with his money. The Braves would probably say otherwise. 86.2 IP pitched, 65 H, and 107K’s with a 2.91 ERA. Pretty nice gift to the Braves.

 

yep....stupid f***ing trade.

[Randy Red Sox]

Another good outing for Sale last night as he 1 hit the Yankees through 5 IP with 8K’s giving up 1 run, and raising his record to 10-2 that counts in the all important standings. Not a bad season for the old boy that the Red Sox are paying the Braves $17M for Sale to pitch for them. And some on here has said JH is not to generous with his money. The Braves would probably say otherwise. 86.2 IP pitched, 65 H, and 107K’s with a 2.91 ERA. Pretty nice gift to the Braves.

 

just keep telling yourself that the Sox WON that trade

[Old Red]

just keep telling yourself that the Sox WON that trade

 

Think the Braves are doing the same thing? Probably 17 million times.

[Maxbialystock]

Another good outing for Sale last night as he 1 hit the Yankees through 5 IP with 8K’s giving up 1 run, and raising his record to 10-2 that counts in the all important standings. Not a bad season for the old boy that the Red Sox are paying the Braves $17M for Sale to pitch for them. And some on here has said JH is not to generous with his money. The Braves would probably say otherwise. 86.2 IP pitched, 65 H, and 107K’s with a 2.91 ERA. Pretty nice gift to the Braves.

 

I've ranted repeatedly on the same topic. To me it is one of two reasons to be skeptical of the new CBO, Craig Breslow. The other is signing Giolito for $38M for two seasons, one of which is already lost--and we have no idea what he will achieve next year. Oh, and don't forget Grissom the infielder the Sox have in return for Sale. Grissom might have potential, but so far he's a bust and, appropriately, currently on the IL.

 

On the other hand, the Sox pitching, 76 games into this season--with 81, the halfway mark, just 5 games away--is still ranked 5th in MLB in ERA. And that's without Sale, Giolito, and Whitlock. The Braves, FWIW, are ranked 7th in ERA.

 

With Sale on the Sox staff, maybe Houck goes to the bullpen. Without Sale, he is our ace and actually having a better season: more IP and lower ERA.

 

I still think the Sale for Grissom trade was idiotic--as was the acquisition of Giolito--but so far I like the Sox pitching, which would be even better it the Sox defense weren't the very worst in MLB.

[notin]

just keep telling yourself that the Sox WON that trade

 

I think Randy thinks he’s the only one who saw how that trade has turned out…