sk7326

Concussion + missed time with back problems. Personally I wouldn't bet the farm. Betts has real star potential, and the Bogaerts story is very much unwritten. I do think there are some questions about how this administration is handling development, especially with the big league ready guys - but that has nothing to do with the valuation.

You asked the wrong question. I'd have issues letting go of them both, but it is something which has to be considered. In any case I think Stanton and the Dodgers are a better match. But guys like him don't show up all the time. What I referred to was the package that would win (the least it would take). I think it's a moot point though.

My expectation - either way - is that Vasquez starts at C. I suspect the Sox listen to offers on both guys, especially as components to get a significant player. It is the plus on having two legitimate starters. Swihart has the higher ceiling but also the higher variability. I don't think they will usher Vasquez out for free or anything (nor should they). You have two starters worth of depth, it means you can listen on both of them if a team calls with an interesting offer.

Betts and/or Bogaerts would have to be there. The tricky thing - and why the Sox aren't a great match - is that the Marlins have always loved power arms in this context. When you look at the young pitching we have, is there the "stuff" guy to tempt the Marlins. De La Rosa and Owens (although the latter is not the flavor of guy the Marlins have chased) but that's it

Here is the thing. A big league roster has 2 catchers, but one of the catchers is only getting 40-50 starts. So, if two catchers who legitimately deserve 120 starts are on the roster, somebody is getting screwed. First, the player - since the reason he does not have a starting gig is geographic accident and service time - and second, the org who is under employing somebody who could get them something valuable in trade. It'd be nice to have Vasquez for a year and then Swihart (assuming Swihart is not really ready until 2016, and that Swihart is a better prospect overall). But timelines are hard to predict and a good deal can show up at anytime. Knowing which guy the org is leaning towards allows the team to be agile when an opportunity pops up. It's like what Danny Ainge says all the time - nobody is untouchable, but that doesn't mean the price is low. After all if the Angels offered us Trout for Betts no strings attached, I'd drive Mookie to the airport fully expecting him to become a real star. Now if the org expects Swihart to be the 120 start guy, and a team thinks Vasquez can be a starter, there is a potential match and no reason not to listen on it.

LOL, no worries ...

US sponsored Sunni genocide *cough*

Oh I agree - I think he is a very tradeable contract and one of the big reasons they landed him.

True - brain fart here ... although the point for Lester holds ... hurts to be senile

I doubt the Nats are shopping Harper, although it'd help if they had a manager with a pulse.

Tricky part with FA is the winner curse of FA. You are overpaying to win the auction, and for the most part the guys who get to UFA are at or past their peak. Trading is how you can get Josh Beckett at 25 years old (never mind his mixed career, that is still a super premium asset). It's how you could get Pedro Martinez at the BEGINNING of his era defining brilliance. An org is only as good as its own development machine, but a good part of that machine is developing currency to acquire guys. Nabbing one of the premium pitching FAs this year is easier since for Price and Lester, all it costs is money. If the Red Sox want to win a bidding war, they can - there is no draft pick issue. For me, if you can snag one of the Lester-Scherzer-Price trio (at least) and perhaps one other solid arm, then you can look through your org depth and try to fill your #4/5 positions that way. Barnes, Kelly and Owens and De La Rosa all look like reasonable possibilities there. Workman and Webster could be dynamite late inning options, but their utility as starters is very very limited.

In 2012 he had a .356 OBP. He has not done it the last two years, but there is evidence that guy is there. He has been a decent to good LF in the past (it's valued in Oakland certainly). I am not sold on him, but it's not a high price either.

Who is? His peers are mostly stuck in High A/AA. What is funny is how much kinder the evaluation of him would be if he did this in AA.

Cespedes was a good guy to trade for because the "trade/sign" question can be answered in either direction. His current deal is friendly, his defense is solid (more from measurement than perception) power is increasingly scarce in today's baseball and he at least has SHOWN (in his rookie year) that he might be able to deliver enough on-base to unlock all of the good stuff. But the last two seasons of ghastly on-base (with outs being the only true measure of time in baseball) raises concern as to whether he is more empty calories or not. He has to get better - but there is evidence that it is possible.

maybe

You don't give anybody away - but if a deal for Johnny Cueto hinged on Vasquez and the org has evaluated that Swihart is the long term guy - then you make the trade without regret. One of the things - one of the jobs an org has - is to evaluate who is untouchable. Catching is a place where Boston has org depth - so it is a place you can make a determination on who is the best of the bunch. (Although it is a secondary consideration it's ALSO NOT FAIR TO THE PROSPECTS) Lavarnway was never a surefire catcher prospect. There was a reason we dealt for Salty knowing Lavarnway was there.

The tricky part of the match with the Cubbies is all of their blue chippers are bats. The Marlins have historically prized arms - and the Cubs system is barren as far as quality arms. The Marlins would have to either want what the Cubs are selling - or the Cubs will have to find some pitching. I also think the industry view on Bogaerts is way way higher than you think. The questions about SS/3B are real - but the industry sees a guy who was super young and struggled in the middle of sloppy management. (there is real question on that front in the post- Theo administration ... so far the evidence on how they have handled kids now vs how Theo and Tito did it is not good) He is still way too young not to project significant things. The worst you can say about him is that maybe he is a change of scenery guy - but I doubt even that. Bradley and WMB are different animals - you start getting to 25, 26 years old and plateauing, that is a major red flag. When WMB turned down a chance to go to AFL that was even worse. I think where the horse chips came from is the phalanx of pitchers we have. There are a lot of arms (which the Cubs don't have) but after the one month tryout - nobody with a Top 2 projection outside of Owens (who we didn't see). Workman and Webster look like short relievers, Barnes has some potential. Ranaudo looks wholly fungible. The Marlins would love live arms (like when we had Anibal Sanchez) - we have some work to do there. Now, great relievers matter - look at us a year ago and the Royals this year - but when that is the ceiling as prospect depth that is less awesome.

The Red Sox can put a good deal together. Problem is the Dodgers can put up a better one. They can build something around Puig and a couple of true star prospects. Red Sox have more depth but probably more debate around that depth.

I'll say this slowly: 1. Most of Bogaerts' peers just finished SINGLE A ... Tulo was not in the show at his age. He had a horrendous 2 months. But there is a lot there. One can say "well he is an underachiever compared to Ken Griffey and Mike Trout at that age". That describes a lot of people. 2. Red Sox have to make a real assessment on who to bet the catcher position on - Vasquez or Swihart. If Swihart is the choice (and he is the ceiling guy of the two) - then Vasquez is trade bait now. 3. The verdict on Bogaerts has not been given - aside from management dithering on him and listening to WEEI too much in handling him. His age and track record are too strong to not still be in on him. Betts is another strong buy. Those are guys you build around - the other guys you figure out.

Looking at his minor league numbers, Vasquez has seemed to be able to (after working through promotion) provide some decent on base skills. He's no 2007 Albert Pujols or anything, but he has the potential to be a .320-.330 on base which combined with an All-Star Glove would make him a clear above average starting catcher. Swihart's ceiling is clearly higher, but Vasquez is very likely to have a strong career playing baseball for a living.

Vasquez will start somewhere - if it's not Boston it is because Swihart is the answer. Glove-only is an issue at a lot of positions, but the replacement level for catcher is so poor that Vasquez really only has to be a .250/.300/.400 sort to be a solid starter assuming his defense holds. We are in a much more run-poor environment than we have been so quality run prevention is still very valuable. Up the contact rate a little bit, he'll be fine. He needs to get up to "average" to be an all-star, but he has clear "everyday catcher" promise.

I think they looked at it as a (relatively) free look at Cespedes. He has a spinnable contract, and serious talent. If you look at how little they gave up, the move makes sense. (2 months of control of Lester and Gomes, neither which they needed) Now, I was critical of the deal at the time because I was not sure they optimized Lester's value. However, when you saw how little the Rays got back for David Price, I think it was much more of a buyer's market than it seemed.

We have won 3 titles since 1918 - Beckett was indispensible to one of them. He gets a warm hat tip from this direction.

They tried to be patient with Bradley - and I'd still be willing to do so. At the same time, it is clear that Betts is the future and Castillo is worth a look. Bradley killed a lot of his value this year - definitely needs a change of scenery.

The only guy to get a hit for the Yankees in this game