moonslav59

Swihart also has slightly less years of team control than Moncada & Benintendi based on his ML service time. for teams looking to long term rebuilding an extra year of team control might swing the decision or add value.

I'm not sure I agree Swihart's value is "known", but I agree more is known about his value than Moncada's. I think positional value may be more important than many think it is. The state of ML catchers these days is about the worst in my memory, and I'm not just talking about offense from catchers. It seems there are not many great defensive catchers either. Let's look at team OPS from the catcher position: Only 5 teams have a catcher OPS over .775. I personally project Swihart to have a consistent OPS at or above .775. In an era of low offense, teams would love to have a distinct offensive comparative advantage from a position like catcher. The Astros have the 15th best catcher OPS at .683. Think about that: .683 is the median! The bottom third team catcher OPS are all under .660! Look at the team catcher OPS of some contending and near contending teams: .662 Mariners .633 Orioles .609 Blue Jays .608 Mets .582 Pirates .512 Guardians I think some GM out there would gladly overpay for Swihart. I'm not saying he's a higher value prospect/player than Moncada or even Benintendi, but I think his value is higher than some here may imagine it is. I also don't think Swihart's 2016 performance and injury have not hurt his stock very much.

Sale and Quintana are both the type of pitcher a GM dreams of having a chance to acquire. These type of low cost, team- controlled, top quality SP'ers don't become available very often. I've been against many of the deals we have made so far, because I think we overpayed for the wrong type or pitcher (Pomeranz) or the wrong position and high cost (Kimbrel) pitcher. These two pitchers are the types of pitchers I envisioned hoarding all our top prospects to assemble a massive package that blows away other trade contenders. Maybe we could not get either of these guys for Swihart, Espi, Margot, Devers, Guerra and Kopech. The CWS would almost certainly demand Moncada and/or Benintendi plus some from my list above to pry one of these guys loose, but it does make me wonder... what if...?

I didn't say we would offer the best package, but we probably could offer the best package of young players and/or top quality prospects than just about anyone else.

If Ben had a record like this...

Maybe it's a good thing we only signed 2 free agents last winter.

What you're overlooking is that even if they don't think they're contenders in the lifetime of those 2 contracts, and I don't see why they'd think that since they're barely a tick below .500, easily in the range of a couple strong roster moves putting them into the playoffs, but even if not, they should be able to re-sign Quintana and Sale. or at least the odds of doing so are high enough that no team is going to throw away the ace in hand without at least trying. I just don't see why any team that thinks they can win in the nest 3-4 years would trade an ace pitcher signed for 3-4 years at such a low cost. The only way it makes sense is that they are totally rebuilding, or Sale is a clubhouse problem.

Pinch me.

Even with Espi, Margot, Guerra and others already traded, we may still have the best possible prospect package to offer.

We could see Moncada at 3B, Shaw at 1B and HanRam at DH next year. If Shaw stays around .800, he'll always have a place to play.

I was never 100% sold on Shaw as well, but I think he will be fine. I think he's done enough long enough to prove he's going to be a better MLB player than his prospect status ever warranted, but always thought he just got hot at the right time last year and early this year. I'm still at the point where I think he may be more likely to become a platoon player than our FT 3Bman (or 1Bman eventually). Still, I think given how disastrous the Pablo signing has been, he's been a big breath of fresh air and if the organization does plan on moving Moncada to 3B then I'm more than fine with him as a place holder. Agreed. Moncadas only weakness seems to be batting against LHP. Right now he's at .260/.394/.351 on the year with those numbers slightly worse at the AA level. Besides that, he looks very close to MLB ready. Agreed, and I think it is very near the time to give him some reps at 3B (and/or maybe LF) My guess is, assuming the plan is to play Moncada at 3B at some point next year is he starts getting reps there in the Arizona fall league, possibly end of the season or beginning next year. Someone on the last soxprospects podcast said interestingly that they wouldn't be completely surprised if the Sox brought Moncada up for a playoff push as a runner off the bench. He's got that speed/power combo that makes his game so special across the board. He could also PH.

Agreed, and if his bat is way ahead of his glove at 3B (or LF), then- despite his athleticism- he may start at DH next year. Yes, there's a long way to go. The Pablo factor is a bit of a wild card.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply he'll become a supersub, but if they teach him to play LF not 3B, it changes the depth chart when considering trading Holt before next year. To me, 3B is our thinnest position next year. I have no faith in Pablo and am more skeptical of Shaw as many here seem to be. While having just Young and Beni as our 3/4 OF'ers looks thin, finding LF help is about as easy as it gets in terms of midseason pick-ups (see DMac & de Aza).

I never viewed the Sox as being in total rebuild mode, but if we were, I'd consider my package. I might say no, because I value top SP'ers more than almost anyone I know. Maybe I assume some GMs love them much less than I do. I get that. I don't get the CWS putting low cost quality SP'ers on the block. Since both are under team control for 3 and 4 years, I assume it is a total rebuild move not a sideways trade view (like Cespedes for Porcello). I can't see any sense in looking for equal ML talent when you have Sale and Quintana. I'd keep both, unless I don't see the chances of winning in 3-4 years as likely. If this is the case, then looking for far-away prospects makes more sense than even ML ready prospects that may be FAs in 4-5 years. That's why I suggested something like Beni, Espi, Swi & Devers when I asked if posters would rather have Espi for Pom or Quintana for all 4 + midlevels. I'm fine with people thinking my offer was not enough. I said it probably wasn't myself, but I think your 1/1000th comment was out of line or pure hyperbole. If the CWS are looking to win 4-5 years from now, why ask for Boegy or Betts who will hit the market around then? I can see them wanting Moncada, Beni, Epsi & Swihart and/or Devers, but I'd say no to that offer.

Maybe suggesting trades with Swihart AND Holt would not be as advantageous as I originally thought, in terms of depth and roster flexibility. I wonder how many positions Moncada will eventually be taught.

I have nothing against Holt. I have expressed my position several times. Sorry for saying you said he was "indispensable". I value Holt highly- so do other GMs. Most of my suggestions on trading Holt were about this winter, after Papi retires and the need for a supersub and his flexibility is somewhat lessened. I have mentioned him recently too, because he still has several years of team control left, and so fits into other teams' longterm plans. As long as Young is on the shelf, we need Holt. However, going forward from 2017 onward, I don't see a big drop off from Beni in LF vs Holt and Hernandez at SS vs Holt. I realize the value of having one guy that can play 7 positions is not easily replaced, or you need 2 0r 3 guys to do it, but I keep going back to the same point: we are going to have to give to get. I try to construct trade proposals that offer valuable talent that hopefully the projected gain at the position we trade for outweighs the projected value loss at positions we trade away. I'm not saying that just because our DH only star is retiring, Holt loses his flex value, but I do think it is not going to be as important as it is now. I realize an injury or two could quickly prove me wrong, but here's how I see each positions' depth next year without Holt: C: Vazquez, Leon, Swihart (Hanigan option) 1B: Ramirez, Shaw, Sandoval, Travis (Swihart?) 2B: Pedroia, Moncada, Hernandez, Rutledge, Marrero, M Martinez 3B: Shaw, Sandoval, Moncada, Hernandez, Rutledge, Marrero, M Martinez (Swihart?) SS: Bogaerts, Hernandez, Marrero, Rutledge, M Martinez LF: Young, Benintendi (Moncada?), Swihart, Ramos, Castillo, LaMarre CF: JBJ, (Betts), Benintendi, Ramos RF: Betts, (Young), Benintendi, Swihart, Ramos, Castillo, LaMarre (Moncada?) Underlined = 15 players expected to see significant ML time. I know there are usually only 13 slots for "everyday players", and that will cause a 25 man roster crunch that a player like Holt allows depth to the OF and IF with one slot. He'd still be very valuable next year, but consider these points: 1) If Sandoval makes the 25 man roster next year with Shaw as well, we'll be all covered at 1B, 3B, DH and our biggest need would likely be SS. If the other 4 slots are filled by Moncada, Beni, Hernandez and Swihart where are we lacking 2-3 player 25 man roster depth other than SS? Plus, I like Hernandez as a 15 day SS than Holt. (Note: I mentioned Pablo as the 9th player in the line-up replacing Papi's slot, but I actually feel Moncada and Beni will squeeze out Pablo and Young or Shaw.) 2) Having Vazquez, Leon and Swihart on the 25 man roster offers the manager tremendous flexibility to PH for the catcher position and still have that 3rd catcher for emergency situations. Swihart also provides the LF depth Holt does now. He may also be taught how to play a corner IF position or RF. I'm not saying Swihart's flexibility equals Holt's, but being able to play catcher is a huge flex piece. 3) Hernandez is (IMO) a much better fielder at 3B and SS than Holt. They may be even at 2B. Hernandez may be an equal or better hitter than Holt going forward. Even if we view Hernandez as a lesser value as SS/3B/2B depth, the drop off is not steep. That leaves 1B- the another position Holt plays. 4) 1B should have a lot of depth, especially if Pablo makes the 25 man roster as Shaw can play 1B well. HanRam, Shaw, Pablo and if needed Travis from AAA makes me not worry about needing Holt at 1B next year. 5) LF is probably the second worst depth position next to SS. With JBJ and Betts locked into CF and RF, we would have Young, Beni and Swihart as LF'ers. There's very little help from AAA, if 1 or 2 get hurt. Holt's value as a LF'er could be greatly missed if traded. In summary, here's the 13 of the 25 man roster with Pablo and without Holt: C- Vaz, Leon, Swi 1B- Ramirez 2B- Pedey 3B- Shaw/ DH Pablo SS- Bogey, Hernandez LF- Young, Beni CF- JBJ RF- Betts (AAA- Moncada, Rutledge, Marrero, Castillo, Ramos) Without Pablo and Holt: C- Vaz, Leon, Swi 1B- Ramirez 2B- Pedey/ DH Moncada 3B- Shaw SS- Bogey, Hernandez LF- Young, Beni CF- JBJ RF- Betts (AAA- Rutledge, Marrero, Castillo, Ramos) I'm not seeing great depth issues anywhere in terms of daily flexibility. I see greater flex with our catchers, but less in LF with Hernandez over Holt.

I doubt the CWS trade Sale or Quintana. This reminds me of last winter, when the Guardians reportedly offered up Carrasco and Salazar, but then said no to every offer or pulled them off the table.

You make some excellent points. I think the doubts on Pedro's physique and projected durability played a role in that trade. On the Hamels comp: I realize the situation was vastly different in several ways. The Phillies were clearly in rebuild mode. Hamels was older and more expensive, but my suggested offer for Quinatana, IMO, was much much better than the Hamels package from the Rangers: Jorge Alfaro- ranked 31 and 45 at the time of the deal Jerad Eickhoff- not sure where he was ranked, but I think he was in the top 100 Matt Harrison - a declining ML talkent Jake Thompson- 43rd and 47th Nick Williams- ranked 71st Alec Asher- not sure if he was ranked Benintendi, Swihart, Espi and Devers are all ranked much higher than their counterparts in the Hamels trade. Holt > Harrison too. It's probably still not enough, but I feel my suggested offer is significantly better than the Ranger's package.

If the CWS think they can win in the next 3 years (Sale) or 4 years (Quintana) then it makes no sense to trade away an ace-type pitcher. Rumor has it, every player on their roster is on the block. I'm not saying they have convinced themselves they are in complete rebuild mode, but they may be closer to that point than you think. Maybe they are looking at it like simply wanting offense for pitching and want to win next year, but I just can't make sense of that philosophy.

Out of Bogey, Betts and JBJ, I agree on JBJ being the "least indespensible". To get back to my earlier focus, maybe we can't get Quintana, Sale or even Gray for my suggested lesser offers, but I want to point out a few things: Swihart's name has come up often in trade talks. If you look at what some teams, even some of the best teams, have for catchers, you can see how his stock value is very high, despite the recent injury. Espinoza was ranked 15th. True, his value was nearly 100$ speculative, he none the less had a lot of trade value. Getting 2.4 years of Pomeranz proved that. Devers has more speculative value, but if Espi can bring us a pitcher like Pomeranz, certainly Devers has significant trade value as well. Benintendi is near ML ready and is the talk of many scouts and ranking services. He has tremendous stock value. Clearly, he's not worth the same as JBJ, but teams that are looking to blow it all up and start over, and I'm not sure the CWS are there yet, often look for 4-5 prospects rather than a proven ML player. Kopech and Travis both have good value as well. If you listen to some posters here, Holt is more valuable than a FT player and is "indispensable". Put a bunch of these guys together, and I think we can get someone very special- maybe not Quintana, but I do think the A's might listen. They are clearly in total rebuild mode.

My offer with Benintendi is significantly better than the one for Hamels. That was meant to address the age and money disparity. I never said the CWS would take my offer. I don't think they would, so that's why I said, if they say no, we then go back to hoping ERod reaches expectations. I was, more or less, setting my limits on what I'd give for a pitcher like Quintana. I didn't mean to imply I was sure the CWS would take my offer. I can see how my comparative offer to the Espi deal looks like I felt it was a valid offer. I still think it's an offer that is much closer than what you feel it might need to be, but it's certainly not 1/1000th of what is needed.

I totally disagree, because often the "reality" turns into a sham. Too many times the "sure bet" guy you sign or trade for disappoints by failing to meet expectations- many times by a long shot. Pomeranz is not a 100% "reality" big plus pitcher. Even the sure bets like Price and Greinke have come up short or got hurt. We gambled on the 2.4 years of Pomeranz will be of more value than the more speculative value of 4-7 years of control on Espi. I'm not trying to argue that The value of Pomeranz is equal or more speculative than Espi's. Clearly it is not, but if far away prospect value is so low, why don't we trade Groome, Devers, Ockimey and all our A top players?

Most preferred trading Espi over Moncada or Beni or maybe even Kopech and/or Travis. That was my point. Many spoke of the highly speculative value of far-away prospects as a reason for liking the Pom trade.

I heard the same about Hamels. (Note: I have some 10 year old brown chafe you can smoke, if you want it.)

I know some posters seem to not view far away prospects as highly as others. The Espi trade brought some of that to light, but to me, our roster looks pretty solid (competitive) for the next 1-3 or 4 years. My bigger concern is how we may look 3-7 years from now. With the recent rule changes, the probability that we may not get many upper tier draft picks over the next few years, and our ban on IFA signings, I'm not sure we will be able to acquire top young talent like we have in the past. I'm glad we signed Groome. Devers, Ockimey and Basabe look promising way down the road as well, but will that be enough? It's going to cost us a pretty penny to keep Bogey, Betts, JBJ and others in the fold 3-4 years from now. We may need to have some top young, inexpensive talent on the roster to allow us to keep our stars. That's one reason I disliked the Espi trade.