example1

This. I assume that if the Sox were willing to part with Swihart or Betts it would have happened already, so any scenario of getting Hamels in my mind would be based on some other package. I would make a lot of my young players untouchable: Bogaerts, Betts, Vazquez, Swihart, Owens, Rodriguez and try to squeeze Hamels out anyway. They still have some pretty good pieces to offer even if they keep their best pieces off the table. The Phillies could get out of 22m a year and get the careers of some combination of Cecchini, Bradley Jr, Johnson, Margot, Devers, Barnes, Escobar, etc., Maybe they won't bite, but it's worth trying.

Alright, I'm going to try to disagree with those who are so strongly anti-Hamels. I see a lot of 2nd and 3rd degree reasons to wonder about him, but the overall numbers and pedigree (what I would consider the "1st degree" reasons) are hard to disagree with. Hamels: * 6'3, Lefty * 31 years old * 17th overall pick, breezed through the minors (1.49 ERA in only 218 IP) * 92.3 avg FB (Lester: 91.8) * 6 of last 7 years: 200+ IP * Last 5 seasons: 3.00 ERA, 1064 IP and 1021 K People make a lot of his starts against the AL East. I'm not sure how to find the stats exactly but it looks like he had about 13 starts against AL East teams. Less seems to be made of his 13 postseason starts and 3.09 ERA. Playoff performance should mean something, right? He's got an expensive contract but not more than he would get on the FA market. I believe the Sox want a good front line pitcher and that they will probably sign a FA next year if they don't have one yet. In that light I don't see anything wrong with trading future-stock for Hamels. It's all about what they have to pay for him. I have a hard time seeing what he's done to warrant so much skepticism. I am aware that there's concerns like having pitched in the NL or struggling against AL East foes, but he's pitched to major league batters not high-A guys. All things being equal wouldn't everyone gladly put Hamels in the rotation?

Bogaerts, age 19, between A+ and AA: 127 g, .307/.373/.523/.896; 20 HR, 81 RBI Bogaerts, age 20, between AA and AAA: 116 g, .297/.388/.477/.865; 15 HR, 67 RBI Those are excellent numbers for a player a few years ahead of his competition. I think it would be unrealistic to expect Moncada to do much better than that, wouldn't it? Those numbers and age made Bogaerts a top 10 prospect. Keep them both, maybe use other chips to get a Hamels. They have an enviable young offensive core on their hands. Yes, they need a top pitcher but not at the expense of a core cost controlled offensive player. All of these guys (Betts, Moncada, Swihart, Bogaerts, even Castillo) appear to be either defensively viable or plus, with decent to excellent speed. There are good FA pitchers available next year who won't cost a guy like Swihart. Patience is the best play here.

Are you being sarcastic? Sorry, I can't tell... Papelbon hasn't been that good in Philly. I think it would be hard to argue that he's had any seasons as good as his BOS years after he signed there, and his FB has been in steady decline. Sure, he's been okay. Still a good closer, but not worth the amount he's being paid. From his performance alone I don't think he would warrant being the highest paid closer in baseball, but with the Sox winning the WS with another (much cheaper) closer I can't imagine people are actually feeling like the Sox should have done anything other than what they did. The reason he wasn't a good investment wasn't just because he wasn't going to be as good. It was also because the role of closer is only really critical for teams that are actually going to win games. Philly has the equivalent of a very expensive FG kicker on a bad team. It's just not where resources should go.

It's an interesting proposal. Kelly would be nice to have over the next 5 years, but I think Owens is will have least a marginally better career than Kelly, with the chance to have a much better career than Kelly. It would be a loss, but not in 2 years when Owens could be their #2 or #3 pitcher. A package like Kelly, Barnes, Cecchini and Bradley Jr would be a great return for the Nationals long-term. I'm not sure they need to "win" a deal from a big name standpoint (getting Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart). They have a great team already and they're only offering a one year ace--not a 25 year old first year arb player.

No thanks on Shields for $24m/year. $20m is too much IMO.

I actually didn't think the 2013 rotation looked atrocious. I think the problem is that some people feel the need to have just the right combination of elements before they have any faith in the team or in the front office's ability to judge it's own talent. Those elements tend to be something like: 1) players produced last year; 2) players have a history of producing; 3) players are widely regarded as 'elite' talents (high draft pick, previous all-star, etc.,) 4) players are known to fans. It is pretty rare when all of those things line up and is even more rare when all line up and the season plays out accordingly. I read people acting as if Rick Porcello and Wade Miley are complete unknown entities who've never faced major league batters before. Licking their chops? I don't think so--these are legitimate MLB pitchers who tend to get a majority of their opponents out. They aren't hall of famers but I wouldn't be shocked if either had a really good year. I understand iortiz's point, I just think it is boring conversation that happens when you've run out of things to say. Yes, it's not the best rotation on paper that the Sox have had the last 10 years. Beyond that statement is there much point in evaluating where this rotation ranks on paper? Hell, it would be more compelling to look at their projections (those exist and are cited frequently on other boards) and previous numbers. That would be a good discussion. It would be great if iortiz would pull out some common set of projections for each of the previous 10 years and make a compelling case that this is the worst rotation by that measure. Without that grounding in actual performance it strikes me as a beauty contest that favors ineffective free agent signings of known entities (see #s 2 and 4 above) over attempts to get guys who might be less known but ascending.

Who was the #1 going into 2013? Lester? He had a 4.82 ERA in 2012. Buchholz? 4.52. Lackey was coming off an injury, and you're certainly not going to say Doubront. If we are looking to base #1-ness off of last year's performances then I'm going to go with Porcello (3.43 with 200+ IP) and say they have a better #1 than the 2013 Sox did.

But isn't that the problem? If he's a buy low candidate who DOES bounce back then by all means they should be on him. If he comes back to pitch like Cliff Lee then he's going to cost 85% of what Hamels will cost, which will be equally prohibitive for a team as cautious as the Red Sox are now. If the Sox believe he's going to be healthy I wouldn't have any trouble with the Sox spending to get Lee. He's a front end starter (at least in terms of leadership and demeanor) and even if he's not the Cliff Lee from 5 years ago he's a really formidable starter. I like the shorter contract for higher AAV.

I think this thread might be the worst in 10 years. It's early January. They have a bunch of pitchers who (admit it) you don't know well but who are well-respected by many in the game (not as #1s but as good young arms). We don't know if they are done. Not a single pitch has been thrown. This strikes me as another thread intended to just vent rather than provide anything substantive that can't be provided in one of the other gazillion threads on this board. But that's just me...

Well said. A700 might be right that the acrimony is relatively mild. It seems to be because there are only about 10 people who contribute regularly. I have never had a beef with User Name, but I can see that much of the tension there is between he and SBF, a700 and iortiz (probably a few more). I'm just looking for good/interesting/responsive dialogue about baseball. I hate it when it gets personal because it's like acknowledging that we can't have a discussion based on facts and the game. User Name seems pretty reactive at times and willing to make it personal, but he's not that way to everyone and I often understand why he gets frustrated. On the other end, SBF trusts his supposedly awesome player evaluation skills to make generalizing and definitive statements about players or management without waiting for the facts and results before making definitive evaluations. In that respect it strikes some as logically unsound and therefore hard to take too seriously. I try to roll with the punches, but a700 and I have a long history of pretty good arguments, sometimes becoming personal (regretfully) but we've worked them out every time. It's not worth getting to the point of ignoring one another. At that point the board is broken.

Two discussions here--Joe Kelly and do Sox need a #1. Joe Kelly--He could reasonably be a good contributor on a good team. Do Sox need a #1? Yes. They need someone who pitches at that level all season, preferably for a couple of seasons. The more I look at Porcello the more I like his trajectory. He's only 25 years old and has seen his ERA decrease every year of his career. He's just now entering his prime. I think he could turn into a solid #2 over the next few years. He probably won't be the #1 they need. I'm not sure if they need to trade for a #1 though--not if it costs them one of their best prospects. To be honest, I could wait 6 months for them to find the right guy if it means they get an all-star career or two from guys like Owens, Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts. I don't think there's an ace available who I would want them to trade Swihart, Betts or Bogaerts for knowing that they're likely to get a front of the rotation starter in the next year one way or another.

Those are valid points all. I think we know after many years on this site that we each have a different tolerance for uncertainty. I mean, until he's actually producing on the field you are going to be worried. I understand why you would be. I just think there's a lot of good ingredients there. Comparing him to Middlebrooks seems a little premature. In Middlebrooks' age 21 season he put up a .770 OPS, in High-A Salem. He had yet to have his breakout minor league season.

Reservations? No, it's too early for reservations. He's barely 22. Most other 22 year-olds are happy to be at AA, which is a level he's already put up an OPS of .922 at 19 and 20. If he's healthy this year and his OPS is under .800 I will be more concerned but for now I've seen enough offensive talent to see why MLB, BP and Baseball America all had him as the #2 prospect last year. My perspective about how good his defense needs to be is based on how good his offense is. If he's hitting like Miguel Cabrera and playing below average SS it's probably okay. If he's hitting like Nick Punto and fielding like Miguel Cabrera then his fielding is a huge problem. It's hard to think that Fred is being reasonable proclaiming that Bogaerts has some huge irreversible flaw. I think he will be in the big leagues for the next 12-15 years. Given that I'm willing to wait before I order the wording on his career-tombstone.

And Mark Reynolds had peak production at better than a backup catcher right around Middlebrooks current age, right? I don't think this is a bad trade for the Sox because Hanagan might be more valuable to them positionally right now. If I'm in a draft room and have the choice between the two I'm probably taking Middlebrooks.

You still have deep reservations about Bogaerts? No! You? That seems to be your main point 2/3 of the time. Maybe just put it in your sig line if you think the message hasn't been delivered clearly.

Shields is a workhorse who has thrown 200 IP for eight straight seasons. He should project to consistently have a 1.20ish WHIP and a 3.50ish ERA. That's really valuable, but he's not an ace in the traditional sense. He wouldn't be the world's strongest #1 but he could certainly anchor a decent staff. I would offer 4 x $19m (4/$76) and probably wouldn't get him. Pitching is just so expensive this year. As for trading Xander, I don't see it. Bogaerts just has too much value to part with unless they got a truly elite player in his early-mid 20's, with a few years under his belt. Sale, Bumgarner, Felix (4 years ago), Matt Harvey, etc., Otherwise he's not going anywhere. For all the criticism he got last year there were definite moments where I could see what makes him pretty special. That said, it is risky to hold him in such high regard so as to not trade him for a guy like Cole Hamels. Hamels is a very good pitcher and this team could use him. Hopefully they will find another direction to go. It would be foolish for Philly to really be holding out for a guy like Bogaerts if the Sox offered Barnes, Owens and Margot.

You would trade Bogaerts and Owens for Hamels? Wow. No thanks.

It's not really this clean though, is it? It's really Lester for 2 months of Cespedes, a year of Porcello, and whatever the $22m (minus Porcello year 1) that Lester would have received is turned into. Ultimately, trading Lester will have very long term repercussions, more than many Sox players I bet. It could be good or it could be bad, but it is a catalyst for a big reboot.

Ha. This got serious.

these moves are fine. Definitely could have been worse and basically what I expected once Lester was gone. They've added a few good innings eaters who should be able to take the ball every 5th day. If I were them I would still be pretty aggressive to get a #1 but I'd be less tempted to move the biggest MLB ready pieces in this environment. For instance, a guy like Henry Owens is probably ideal to have come in as a #5 later in the season than trading him away.

The difference is that they can reliably put Miley on the mound and believe he will be a serviceable MLB pitcher for the next few years. He's thrown 194 or more innings for the last three years at only 27. They can't be sure that either RDLR or Webster can do that, either next year or ever. I agree that the youngsters may have a higher ceiling but we can dream on both of them. Miley is an MLB pitcher right now. I think deals like this are what happen when fans (appropriately or not) demand that the team contend for a World Series this year. Ultimately, I prefer Miley over Jake Peavy from last year. He's a 1st round pick who finished 2nd for ROY three years ago. I don't love the trade but I understand it.

You think they're going to go light this year with hopes of being more aggressive next year? There's quite a few good names in there: Porcello Leake Latos Zimmerman Cueto Gallardo samardzija Price Norris Kennedy Chen Kazmir Fister Iwakuma Buehrle

That would be my low-end plan. Both of those guys are good enough for the job. I think Shields may be a feeding frenzy before the Scherzer signing. I can see any number of teams swooping in on him, so he's by no means a sure thing. Losing Lester means they've saved a bunch of money over the long term. It also means that to be competitive this year they're probably going to need to make up for it in prospects, overpaying to make crucial trades. I think that's okay--it's all currency. It just changes the strategy. They should be able to land Masterson and Porcello if they wanted to. I still believe they will add 2-3 interesting arms before the off-season is over. Now the action starts.

Exactly. He's got to take the money and the challenge. Wasn't it the second highest AAV for a pitcher in history? Right there with Verlander? I will give credit to the Cubs. This is the time they've been saving everything up for. They are loaded and Lester's perfect for that situation.