Red Sox 2025 Trade Deadline Thread

[Sox 42]

Don't know about the professionals.  But in high school and military most pitchers wanted to throw first pitch strikes because they didn't want to fall behind - mostly fastballs because that is what they could control best.  If you ever fell behind 0-2 you could expect a curve - look for the hanger!  Don't know if it is more important to know the tendencies of pitcher, catcher, or coaches.  See the ball - hit the ball! 

[moonslav59]

No doubt players adjust or try to adjust many times over their career. Sometimes it works, while other times it doesn't work. Players are often asked or "suggested" to make adjustments or changes to their approach, stance, swing or other areas of their batting.

We've seen Duran change his approach, stance and other aspects of batting several times at the MLB level, and word was he adjusted many times in the minors, too. His muscle mass also underwent a significant change. We can assume one or more adjustments and or the increased strength have worked.

There are examples where hitting coaches were blamed for players' declines in production.

I certainly think this scenario could happen:

1. The team asks Rafaela to change his approach and attempt to be more selective, or he decides to try it himself.

2. He makes some sort of adjustment to swing less at balls outside the K zone of maybe just swing less, overall.

3. The change in approach messes up his swing or confidence, or he stops swinging at balls he should have swung at and sees his production drop.

4. Then, he wonders how long he should give the adjustment a chance and if he returns to his old way, can he get back to the level he was before trying to "improve." Now, he's got issues in his head to deal with, when before he was successful, because he was more or less carefree about is approach and that worked for him, at least well enough to be above the league OPS.

[Maxbialystock]

14 hours ago, Sox 42 said:

Don't know about the professionals.  But in high school and military most pitchers wanted to throw first pitch strikes because they didn't want to fall behind - mostly fastballs because that is what they could control best.  If you ever fell behind 0-2 you could expect a curve - look for the hanger!  Don't know if it is more important to know the tendencies of pitcher, catcher, or coaches.  See the ball - hit the ball! 

Baseball in the military was mostly during WWII and the Korean War.  By the 1960's it was mostly softball.  

[Maxbialystock]

12 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

No doubt players adjust or try to adjust many times over their career. Sometimes it works, while other times it doesn't work. Players are often asked or "suggested" to make adjustments or changes to their approach, stance, swing or other areas of their batting.

We've seen Duran change his approach, stance and other aspects of batting several times at the MLB level, and word was he adjusted many times in the minors, too. His muscle mass also underwent a significant change. We can assume one or more adjustments and or the increased strength have worked.

There are examples where hitting coaches were blamed for players' declines in production.

I certainly think this scenario could happen:

1. The team asks Rafaela to change his approach and attempt to be more selective, or he decides to try it himself.

2. He makes some sort of adjustment to swing less at balls outside the K zone of maybe just swing less, overall.

3. The change in approach messes up his swing or confidence, or he stops swinging at balls he should have swung at and sees his production drop.

4. Then, he wonders how long he should give the adjustment a chance and if he returns to his old way, can he get back to the level he was before trying to "improve." Now, he's got issues in his head to deal with, when before he was successful, because he was more or less carefree about is approach and that worked for him, at least well enough to be above the league OPS.

An excellent tale.  As Betty Hutton once sang, you go to do what comes natcherly.  

We have one carping critic on talksox who comments endlessly on swinging at balls outside the strike zone as if it were the only criterion for judging hitting effectiveness.  He's wrong.  

[Maxbialystock]

22 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

I've been a big critic of swing and miss this whole decade, but am encouraged that it's obvious the Red Sox have made positive adjustments in the past month plus.

And it doesn't take much to envision guys like Story or Rafaela whiffing less if they stop chasing pitches that land in the dirt of the lefty batter's box. Those aren't strikes if they don't swing, and they couldn't reach them with a meter stick fitted with a decimeter extension (sorry to decimate fans of metrics).

 

Simple as that, heh?  Baloney. 

One of the bedrocks of good pitching is to get hitters to go after less than ideal pitches.  That goes side by side with avoiding anything right down the middle.  And it helps pitchers that batters need to make split second decisions, on top of which the are trying to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely.  

I just took a peek at the top four OPS's in MLB--Judge, Ohtani, Schwarber, and Raleigh.  Did I find they live up to your dictum of never swinging  at bad pitches?  Heck, no.  All 4 strike out at least once a game.  

Then I looked at the 6 hitters with the most K's in MLB, and found that their OPS's were .816, .831, .718, .709, .991, and .967.  Guess who those last 2 hitters are?  Ohtani and Schwarber.  

 

 

[notin]

23 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

I've been a big critic of swing and miss this whole decade, but am encouraged that it's obvious the Red Sox have made positive adjustments in the past month plus.

And it doesn't take much to envision guys like Story or Rafaela whiffing less if they stop chasing pitches that land in the dirt of the lefty batter's box. Those aren't strikes if they don't swing, and they couldn't reach them with a meter stick fitted with a decimeter extension (sorry to decimate fans of metrics).

 

No one is arguing about the theory that Sox will strike out less if they swing at fewer bad pitches.   But the problem is, it’s not that easy to implement.  If it was only as simple as “don’t swing at bad pitches.”  Thats about as effective as trying to solve anyone’s problems with the universally good yet still meaningless advice “just don’t make mistakes.”

[Maxbialystock]

38 minutes ago, notin said:

No one is arguing about the theory that Sox will strike out less if they swing at fewer bad pitches.   But the problem is, it’s not that easy to implement.  If it was only as simple as “don’t swing at bad pitches.”  Thats about as effective as trying to solve anyone’s problems with the universally good yet still meaningless advice “just don’t make mistakes.”

I like your response better than mine.  It's simpler. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

26 minutes ago, notin said:

No one is arguing about the theory that Sox will strike out less if they swing at fewer bad pitches.   But the problem is, it’s not that easy to implement.  If it was only as simple as “don’t swing at bad pitches.”  Thats about as effective as trying to solve anyone’s problems with the universally good yet still meaningless advice “just don’t make mistakes.”

Of course it's not easy. Hitting a pitched baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports.

You made a good point about having less than half a split second to decide whether to swing or not.

It's not like Little Leaguers who are taught to be ready to hit every pitch by thinking, "Yes, yes, yes- no!" MLB batters have the best hand-eye coordination in sports, but modern velo and spin barely let them prepare with, "Ye- na!"

That's why I loathe check-the-check as the worst change in big league baseball in the past 50 years. Batters HAVE to start early if they want a prayer of being on time. Is any human really getting fooled when modern pitchers throw five different pitches in the mid-90s? The one thing I look forward to with the impeding automated strike zone is some kind of computerized ruling on what actually constitutes a legitimate swing.

And finally, there is no such thing as a batter "ambushing" a pitcher. If I step in the box with a bat in my hands, it's my job to use it. There's absolutely nothing sneaky about hitting a first-pitch fastball down the middle -- especially since it just may be the best pitch to barrel in the entire at bat. 

 

[Bellhorn04]

Sox fans used to give JDM a hard time about striking out on low and away breaking pitches too.

The thing is, MLB pitchers are really good at setting the hitter up for those pitches with the previous pitches in the sequence.   

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

11 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Sox fans used to give JDM a hard time about striking out on low and away breaking pitches too.

The thing is, MLB pitchers are really good at setting the hitter up for those pitches with the previous pitches in the sequence.   

Yup, those Ks were always JD's kryptonite, but at least he admitted his plan was to always try to hit the ball in the air. He never wanted to just hit a line drive, because in his words, "Big deal, a single."

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, notin said:

No one is arguing about the theory that Sox will strike out less if they swing at fewer bad pitches.   But the problem is, it’s not that easy to implement.  If it was only as simple as “don’t swing at bad pitches.”  Thats about as effective as trying to solve anyone’s problems with the universally good yet still meaningless advice “just don’t make mistakes.”

It's like hearing, "The manager needs to tell his players to focus more on defense."

If that works, then who needs a manager?

[notin]

22 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

It's like hearing, "The manager needs to tell his players to focus more on defense."

If that works, then who needs a manager?

Hey they need someone to tell those left-handed hitters they can’t play against left-handed pitchers…

[Maxbialystock]

22 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Of course it's not easy. Hitting a pitched baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports.

You made a good point about having less than half a split second to decide whether to swing or not.

It's not like Little Leaguers who are taught to be ready to hit every pitch by thinking, "Yes, yes, yes- no!" MLB batters have the best hand-eye coordination in sports, but modern velo and spin barely let them prepare with, "Ye- na!"

That's why I loathe check-the-check as the worst change in big league baseball in the past 50 years. Batters HAVE to start early if they want a prayer of being on time. Is any human really getting fooled when modern pitchers throw five different pitches in the mid-90s? The one thing I look forward to with the impeding automated strike zone is some kind of computerized ruling on what actually constitutes a legitimate swing.

And finally, there is no such thing as a batter "ambushing" a pitcher. If I step in the box with a bat in my hands, it's my job to use it. There's absolutely nothing sneaky about hitting a first-pitch fastball down the middle -- especially since it just may be the best pitch to barrel in the entire at bat. 

 

Check-the-check is almost as old as MLB.  The difference is that MLB agreed homeplate umpires did not have the best view of batters' swings, so it was moved to the 1b and 3b umpires--except when the homeplate umpire is confident he saw a swing.    And what I like about the current version is that there is no appeal.  Most of the time they signal it was not a swing.  

No MLB pitcher in MLB is capable of 5 different pitches in the 90's.  But it is true that the mix of pitches is crucial to pitching success.  In 2013 Koji Uehara was hugely successful as a closer even though he threw just 2 pitches--a slow fastball that peaked at 89 mpg and a nasty splitter.  Plus excellent control.

Swinging at first pitches takes cojones in this modern era of scientific hitting (sabermetrics).  I mean the entire movie Moneyball was about how Billy Beane went after hitters with good OBP's.  Pitching didn't matter.  Hitting dingers sure didn't.  Fielding was in the back seat.  So was stealing bases.  Near the end of the movie John Henry offers him the highest GM (now CBO) salary in MLB. 

But guess what?  John Henry was not the least bit interested in going cheap as Billy Beane did.  He wanted good hitters and good pitchers, whatever the cost.  When the curse ended in 2004 the Sox payroll was the 2d biggest in MLB--behind the Yankees of course.  

 

 

 

 

[oldtimer]

Speaking of hitting, had we picked up a better hitting first baseman at the trade deadline, would we have been in a better position to win a game like the 10 inning loss to the Padres? I see losses like that one as a cost of inaction by our GM, perhaps as informed by ownership. 

As far as hitting goes, I'm not a fan of chasing outside the zone. On the other hand, I hate to see a hitter take a third strike fastball down the center of the plate. I am for allowing the batter to swing when they see a pitch they think they can handle, unless the manager has  a play on. Anthony has a great sense of the strike zone, however he seems to be constrained from swing at the first pitch and I have seen him take third strike fastballs down the middle and wondered why. I know it is not easy up there but hitters have to give themselves a chance to succeed. 

[moonslav59]

33 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Speaking of hitting, had we picked up a better hitting first baseman at the trade deadline, would we have been in a better position to win a game like the 10 inning loss to the Padres? I see losses like that one as a cost of inaction by our GM, perhaps as informed by ownership. 

As far as hitting goes, I'm not a fan of chasing outside the zone. On the other hand, I hate to see a hitter take a third strike fastball down the center of the plate. I am for allowing the batter to swing when they see a pitch they think they can handle, unless the manager has  a play on. Anthony has a great sense of the strike zone, however he seems to be constrained from swing at the first pitch and I have seen him take third strike fastballs down the middle and wondered why. I know it is not easy up there but hitters have to give themselves a chance to succeed. 

Great post, oldtimer, as always.

I had wished we traded for a 1Bman, too, but I keep wondering why we keep playing Toro, when Campbell should be ready, by now. Even going with Romy FT seems like a better option.

We also keep playing Yoshida, but at least he has started to show some life in his bat.

I'd swap Abreu for Yoshida in the last few line-ups, but WTH...

[oldtimer]

8 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Great post, oldtimer, as always.

I had wished we traded for a 1Bman, too, but I keep wondering why we keep playing Toro, when Campbell should be ready, by now. Even going with Romy FT seems like a better option.

We also keep playing Yoshida, but at least he has started to show some life in his bat.

I'd swap Abreu for Yoshida in the last few line-ups, but WTH...

Toro is a below average hitter and an okay first baseman. There were other teams who made the trade we could have made. If the reason for not doing so is that we have Casas back next year, I still don't get it, as we have a real chance at a wild card. If the reason was we were ready to bring Campbell back, then why haven't we? 

As far as Yoshida is concerned, I was all for trading him, even if we had to pay half his remaining salary. He is not a terrible player but he isn't a good fit on our team. We have a surplus of outfielders, including one in AAA we should bring up. Yoshida is not a capable defensive outfielder, hasn't a lot of power or growth potential. We could easily fill the DH role from players we want to keep on the roster.

 

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Toro is a below average hitter and an okay first baseman. There were other teams who made the trade we could have made. If the reason for not doing so is that we have Casas back next year, I still don't get it, as we have a real chance at a wild card. If the reason was we were ready to bring Campbell back, then why haven't we? 

As far as Yoshida is concerned, I was all for trading him, even if we had to pay half his remaining salary. He is not a terrible player but he isn't a good fit on our team. We have a surplus of outfielders, including one in AAA we should bring up. Yoshida is not a capable defensive outfielder, hasn't a lot of power or growth potential. We could easily fill the DH role from players we want to keep on the roster.

 

i'm not for giving top prospects for a rental, but 1B rentals are not very costly. We didn't need to get the best- just a platoon 1Bman who can hit .725 and play decent D. No top prospect was needed.

On Yoshida, I think we'd have to have paid $12-14M out of the $18M for nothing in return. We could have added someone like Mullins and maybe saved a few more millions.

Now that he has just 2 years left, maybe a taker can be found for Yoshida. We could also take back a high priced pitcher with a little hope left in his arm.

[Maxbialystock]

13 hours ago, oldtimer said:

Toro is a below average hitter and an okay first baseman. There were other teams who made the trade we could have made. If the reason for not doing so is that we have Casas back next year, I still don't get it, as we have a real chance at a wild card. If the reason was we were ready to bring Campbell back, then why haven't we? 

As far as Yoshida is concerned, I was all for trading him, even if we had to pay half his remaining salary. He is not a terrible player but he isn't a good fit on our team. We have a surplus of outfielders, including one in AAA we should bring up. Yoshida is not a capable defensive outfielder, hasn't a lot of power or growth potential. We could easily fill the DH role from players we want to keep on the roster.

 

No one was/is going to take Yoshida at half his salary--which I'm sure the Sox have tried to do.  He is a DH/PH, not an outfielder.  His OPS in July was .625 but so far in August is .822.  Ref DH's against lefties.  

Why would the Sox ever want to bring up another outfielder?  Tryouts are over.   The argument about bringing Grissom up vs returning Hamilton is a better case, but Grissom is a righty hitter, as is Gonzalez.  End of argument.  

Great observations on swinging vs taking pitches, but we should not forget that the Padres have one terrific bullpen.  Last night Cease went 6, giving up 0 runs.  

In the 7th, Duran led off with a walk and Story singled, so in came Adam in relief of Cease. Adam hit Yoshida to load the bases, but then Bogaerts booted a sure double play grounder, to bring in the only 2 Sox runs.  Abreu singled to load the bases again, still with no one out.

Then both Rafaela and Toro struck out badly.  With Anthony coming up, lefty Morejon was brought in and struck him out on a 3-2 count with his 5th sinker which was well inside (not in the strike zone).  That sixth pitch was the only one Anthony swung at. 

 Saturday night King started for the Padres and gave up 2 runs in 2IP.  Then Peralta, Estrada, Morejon, Miller, Suarez, and Adam went 8 IP giving up 2 runs.  

 

 

[mvp 78]

14 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

i'm not for giving top prospects for a rental, but 1B rentals are not very costly. We didn't need to get the best- just a platoon 1Bman who can hit .725 and play decent D. No top prospect was needed.

On Yoshida, I think we'd have to have paid $12-14M out of the $18M for nothing in return. We could have added someone like Mullins and maybe saved a few more millions.

Now that he has just 2 years left, maybe a taker can be found for Yoshida. We could also take back a high priced pitcher with a little hope left in his arm.

O'Hearn AND Laureano got Padres 6, 8, 16th prospects and 3 other prospects. Hard to say what O'Hearn gets on his own. Padres have a bad farm system after the very top so those numbers could be knocked down for a stronger system like the Sox. 

Josh Naylor got the Mariners 13 and 16th ranked prospects. Mariners have a very strong farm system.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

On 8/10/2025 at 11:17 AM, Maxbialystock said:

No MLB pitcher in MLB is capable of 5 different pitches in the 90's. 

Four-seamer, two-seamer, splitter, cutter, sinker, slider, change-up -- 7 for sure... someone probably has a curve that hits 90, but I'm not going to say "sweeper" which is just a new nickname for any breaking ball that talking heads can't agree is a curve, slider or change. 

 

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Four-seamer, two-seamer, splitter, cutter, sinker, slider, change-up -- 7 for sure... someone probably has a curve that hits 90, but I'm not going to say "sweeper" which is just a new nickname for any breaking ball that talking heads can't agree is a curve, slider or change. 

 

Sweeper is just what they are calling a slower slider TBF if a guy has two velo bands for a slider. 

According to AI, Chapman throws a 105.1 mph curveball! 🤖🔫

I cursory search found a youtube video of Joe Kelly throwing a 90 mph curveball. It's possible. 

[Maxbialystock]

13 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Four-seamer, two-seamer, splitter, cutter, sinker, slider, change-up -- 7 for sure... someone probably has a curve that hits 90, but I'm not going to say "sweeper" which is just a new nickname for any breaking ball that talking heads can't agree is a curve, slider or change. 

 

So name the pitcher who throws 5 of those 7 in the 90's.  

 

[Maxbialystock]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Sweeper is just what they are calling a slower slider TBF if a guy has two velo bands for a slider. 

According to AI, Chapman throws a 105.1 mph curveball! 🤖🔫

I cursory search found a youtube video of Joe Kelly throwing a 90 mph curveball. It's possible. 

Meh.  Arguing that a single pitcher would throw 5 different pitches in the 90's  reminds me of what Samuel Johnson once said about a dog walking on its hind legs--"it is not done well; but you are surprised to find it is done at all."  

[mvp 78]

10 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Meh.  Arguing that a single pitcher would throw 5 different pitches in the 90's  reminds me of what Samuel Johnson once said about a dog walking on its hind legs--"it is not done well; but you are surprised to find it is done at all."  

Should they vs could they is two different arguments. I was just here for "could." 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

21 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

So name the pitcher who throws 5 of those 7 in the 90's.  

"modern pitchers throw five different pitches in the mid-90s"

Never said one specific pitcher, but if an arm can break 90 with one delivery, why can't it with another? Tolle's heater was pushing 100, and his change broke 90 yesterday, so why couldn't he alter his grip to also make it break in, out, and down?

Same release point with the same arm speed is what sells a pitch, but the drag and spin are what changes.

Koufax and Ryan had great curves to go with their fastballs, but if there was too much separation in speeds between those pitches they would've been less effective vs. human batters.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

O'Hearn AND Laureano got Padres 6, 8, 16th prospects and 3 other prospects. Hard to say what O'Hearn gets on his own. Padres have a bad farm system after the very top so those numbers could be knocked down for a stronger system like the Sox. 

Josh Naylor got the Mariners 13 and 16th ranked prospects. Mariners have a very strong farm system.

I would not have grossly overpaid for a top 1B. I just wanted a platoon guy who hits .750 v RHPs.

On SEA's strong farm: I think ours is pretty close, if not better, depending on who we say has graduated or not. I'd have been okay with offering two from this group of sox prospects w their SP's rankings provided:

9. Sandlin + 16. Cespedes

10. Romero + 12. Bleis

If adding Castro gets it done, fine. I might even add Mullins.

Ideally, 12 Bleis, 16 Cespedes & 22 Mullins

[mvp 78]

45 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I would not have grossly overpaid for a top 1B. I just wanted a platoon guy who hits .750 v RHPs.

On SEA's strong farm: I think ours is pretty close, if not better, depending on who we say has graduated or not. I'd have been okay with offering two from this group of sox prospects w their SP's rankings provided:

9. Sandlin + 16. Cespedes

10. Romero + 12. Bleis

If adding Castro gets it done, fine. I might even add Mullins.

Ideally, 12 Bleis, 16 Cespedes & 22 Mullins

I'm not big on Naylor, but wouldn't have been too upset if those or similar were the trade that they had to do to get him. Anyone lower than Valera would have been on the table for me in a Naylor trade TBH.

[Kimmi]

On 8/6/2025 at 7:13 PM, moonslav59 said:

I didn't either.

I just wanted a solid SP'er by more than I did not want to trade someone good.

BTW, you mentioned Campbell: his best position might be OF, where we already have 4 deserving OF'ers w 3+ years of control, plus Jh Garcia, Refsnyder and even Yoshida in a pinch.

Fair enough.

I'm thinking of Campbell playing infield, not outfield.  I know his defense needs work.  Perhaps he'd be a fit at first base.

[Kimmi]

On 8/7/2025 at 8:34 AM, mvp 78 said:

The rumor is Luis Castillo for Hamilton. Several teams asked about David Hamilton and Breslow turned them down. Big miss. 

If the Mariners offered Castillo for Hamilton, and Breslow turned them down, then yes, that's a big miss.  I imagine that was nothing more than a rumor though.

Not knowing what the other teams were offering for Hamilton, I can't say whether that was a miss or not.

[Kimmi]

On 8/9/2025 at 12:12 PM, Bellhorn04 said:

Sox fans used to give JDM a hard time about striking out on low and away breaking pitches too.

The thing is, MLB pitchers are really good at setting the hitter up for those pitches with the previous pitches in the sequence.   

I always wonder why the hitters continue to fall for being set up like that.  LOL  I know it's a lot easier said than done, but wouldn't you think that the hitter would be expecting that low and away pitch and lay off of it?