Infinite trade speculation

jasvlm said:

First, the Angels aren't trading trout, nor do I believe they should. He's a once in a lifetime player for that organization, likely the best player they've ever had. It would be remarkably short sighted to allow a cascade of pitching injuries and a barren farm club force a trade of a guy like trout. So, I'll go on record as saying he's not moving, and I'm fine with that call.

Click to expand...

Just for that organization? I think the conversation will be framed in terms of "the history of baseball" if he stays healthy and has a long career producing like he does.

Regardless, I think they'd be idiots not to trade him. Unless they're planning to replace half the team with quality free agents, they look a whole lot like a 65-75 win team + 9 wins of Trout for the foreseeable future, and that doesn't get you anywhere. Wouldn't it be better to jump start your rebuild with 4 or 5 top prospects, possibly while also getting out from under the Pujols contract?

Does Swihart have the power desired from a corner outfielder? One talent evaluator feels he can be an Alex Gordon type, a guy who could hit between 15-18 homers and knock in 80-90 runs. Obviously, Swihart has a long way to go to become the defensive player Gordon is. That’s why his highest value is as a catcher. If he can hit .290-.300 with 15 homers and drive in 75 runs, he’d rank among the top-hitting catchers. Swihart still has a lot of value and other teams would still ask for him in trade over Christian Vazquez, whose offensive potential is still in question. “They wouldn’t trade him [Swihart] in a Cole Hamels deal, but if they need a No. 2 type pitcher, the feeling is Dave Dombrowski might include him in a package,” said one AL GM.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/05/07/nick-cafardo-how-baseball-big-offseason-trades-have-worked-out-far/EFjdZRN5YiqW7w50aRgTaI/story.html?event=event25

Click to expand...

If the Red Sox trade Swilhart for a number 2, that would probably spell the end for Buchholz, with J.Kelly pitching in AAA:

Price
Rodriguez
Wright
Porcello
Trade

I suppose if Buchholz is pitching well, they could attempt to move him for a prospect rather than deactivate him.

An interesting name for the Red Sox:

Julio Teheran, RHP, Braves — His name is popping up as talent evaluators and front office people start building their lists of players they think might be available before the trade deadline. Teheran has great stuff and the Braves may continue to sell off their players as they fall deeper out of contention. President of baseball operations John Hart has done well getting maximum return for his players. Teheran should land him a haul.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/05/07/nick-cafardo-how-baseball-big-offseason-trades-have-worked-out-far/EFjdZRN5YiqW7w50aRgTaI/story.html?event=event25

Click to expand...

Swihart for Gallo... who says no?

Cafardo would be 1 for 277 if he actually predicts a player move here.

I think if the Angels are entertaining dealing Trout, they would have to insist on Pujols being part of the deal. Pujols has 5 years / $140 left not counting this year ($25 mil), plus milestone bonuses of $3m for 3k hits and $7 m for 763 hrs. I’d say that best case scenario Pujols is worth half that contract.

Trout is owed 4/$119 not counting this year ($15.25). He very well could be worth $60-70 mil a year for the next four years making the collective contracts still positive. But if the Sox would be willing to take both contracts, They shouldn’t be giving up two of Espinoza, Devers, Moncada or Benintendi. I could see something involving Swihart or Vazquez, JBJ, and one of those 4, but not two or three like Anaheim would demand.

HangingW/ScottCooper said:

I think if the Angels are entertaining dealing Trout, they would have to insist on Pujols being part of the deal. Pujols has 5 years / $140 left not counting this year ($25 mil), plus milestone bonuses of $3m for 3k hits and $7 m for 763 hrs. I’d say that best case scenario Pujols is worth half that contract.

Trout is owed 4/$119 not counting this year ($15.25). He very well could be worth $60-70 mil a year for the next four years making the collective contracts still positive. But if the Sox would be willing to take both contracts, They shouldn’t be giving up two of Espinoza, Devers, Moncada or Benintendi. I could see something involving Swihart or Vazquez, JBJ, and one of those 4, but not two or three like Anaheim would demand.

Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat. They need so much of an influx of talent it would almost be a waste to not acquire all the top end minor leaguers they can get. If they are going to get younger and cheaper, then the one terrible contract they have shouldn't hamstring them too much. They are one of the few teams who could just eat that one too.

Though, the talent given up to get a deal done would be so ridiculous it's probably more palatable for the team trading for him.
I don't think I'd try and pull the trigger personally. There is so much risk investing it all in one player.

Slight OT, but I remember the miserable Hampton deal ended up being eaten by two different teams, so it was subsidized two ways. I wonder if something like that would have to happen down the line.

HangingW/ScottCooper said:

Swihart for Gallo... who says no?

Click to expand...

Makes a ton of sense to me but it requires Gallo to be able to play an acceptable left field.

grimshaw said:

Though, the talent given up to get a deal done would be so ridiculous it's probably more palatable for the team trading for him.
I don't think I'd try and pull the trigger personally. There is so much risk investing it all in one player.

Click to expand...

What if the main pieces were Benintendi and Swihart (no Espinosa, Moncada, or Devers)? The Angels would be getting the equivalent of two top 10 MLB prospects, but with the presence of Vazquez and Trout taking Benintendi's slot, the Sox would be well equipped to survive the hit to the farm system? Really though, I think the question is just how much the Sox' payroll can go up. Trout's deal is a ton less than he would make on the open market, but it's still a big bump in an already large payroll for the next 4+ years.

moondog80 said:

What if the main pieces were Benintendi and Swihart (no Espinosa, Moncada, or Devers)? The Angels would be getting the equivalent of two top 10 MLB prospects, but with the presence of Vazquez and Trout taking Benintendi's slot, the Sox would be well equipped to survive the hit to the farm system? Really though, I think the question is just how much the Sox' payroll can go up. Trout's deal is a ton less than he would make on the open market, but it's still a big bump in an already large payroll for the next 4+ years.

Click to expand...

If those were the top two guys, then ya of course, but I don't think that would come anywhere close. You don't move someone like him without getting the cream of the crop. Swihart's value has taken a major hit thanks to how the Sox have handled him, and he has looked clueless in AAA since his demotion.

I know it's tempting to try and use the formula up thread, for expected WAR using the KATOH model, but the Shelby Miller and Craig Kimbrel deals threw reason out the window.
I can't even imagine what the asking price would be much less the middle ground.

grimshaw said:

If those were the top two guys, then ya of course, but I don't think that would come anywhere close. You don't move someone like him without getting the cream of the crop. Swihart's value has taken a major hit thanks to how the Sox have handled him, and he has looked clueless in AAA since his demotion.

I know it's tempting to try and use the formula up thread, for expected WAR using the KATOH model, but the Shelby Miller and Craig Kimbrel deals threw reason out the window.
I can't even imagine what the asking price would be much less the middle ground.

Click to expand...

I guess the issue is Swihart's value. If it's up there with Joey Gallo (as another poster suggested), that's like a top 10 MLB prospect, at an elite position, so he and Benintendi would definitely be the cream of the crop. I'm inclined to say Swihart has just had a bad 90 PA in Pawtucket, but YMMV.

moondog80 said:

What if the main pieces were Benintendi and Swihart (no Espinosa, Moncada, or Devers)? The Angels would be getting the equivalent of two top 10 MLB prospects, but with the presence of Vazquez and Trout taking Benintendi's slot, the Sox would be well equipped to survive the hit to the farm system? Really though, I think the question is just how much the Sox' payroll can go up. Trout's deal is a ton less than he would make on the open market, but it's still a big bump in an already large payroll for the next 4+ years.

Click to expand...

I think JBJ also has to be in the deal.

As for Swihart's value, keep in mind that like Gallo, he was called up prematurely to fill a need. He held his own in the second half of last year so that can't be ignored. He obviously doesn't have Gallo's power potential, but he could very well be a top 5 catcher if he stays at the position.

Mike Trout is one of the best players in baseball. LAA would be right to demand every top prospect we had regardless of who they packaged with him. This isn't The Show.

SydneySox said:

Mike Trout is one of the best players in baseball. LAA would be right to demand every top prospect we had regardless of who they packaged with him. This isn't The Show.

Click to expand...

Sure, and the Red Sox would be right to say no thank you if they asked for Benintendi/Moncada/Swihart/Espinosa/Devers. So we're left trying to figure out at what point a deal makes sense for both sides, if such a point does exist.

moondog80 said:

Sure, and the Red Sox would be right to say no thank you if they asked for Benintendi/Moncada/Swihart/Espinosa/Devers. So we're left trying to figure out at what point a deal makes sense for both sides, if such a point does exist.

Click to expand...

I mean, you have to figure that Espinoza plus any two of the others is at least worth considering for the Angels in theory. But the reality is, Trout is young enough and signed for long enough that even if they rebuild he could be a part of their next good team several years from now. They have no real pressure to move him, so it would take a king's ransom.

But how do they rebuild by 2020 with what they have without dealing him? Last year they had 5 guys with a WAR above 2 per bbref. 2 of them are now on other teams, so you're left with Trout, Calhoun and the albatross Pujols. Their #1 starter just went down for TJ. The farm is barren. How do you build a competitive team with that?

moondog80 said:

Sure, and the Red Sox would be right to say no thank you if they asked for Benintendi/Moncada/Swihart/Espinosa/Devers. So we're left trying to figure out at what point a deal makes sense for both sides, if such a point does exist.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. In a scenario where this July, a 24 year old Mike Trout gets dangled, a player already signed to what's high but still probably not even what he's worth, LAA demands all of those guys. All of them.

And I think Dombrowski would be happy to have a chance to even consider having that conversation.

moondog80 said:

Sure, and the Red Sox would be right to say no thank you if they asked for Benintendi/Moncada/Swihart/Espinosa/Devers. So we're left trying to figure out at what point a deal makes sense for both sides, if such a point does exist.

Click to expand...

I am one of the biggest prospect humpers here and I pull the trigger on that if it's on the table. You don't pass up a chance to acquire a not quite 25 year old Mike Trout with 4.5 seasons of control left to hang on to potential, even a boatload of potential. Does that trade hurt? Yep. But we're not talking Justin Upton or Michael Brantley here. It's Mike Trout and we wouldn't be giving up Bogaerts or Betts.

By 4 years from now? A million things are going to change between now and then, many of them totally unforeseen by pretty much anyone.

If the Angels started spending money wisely and drafting well, they could easily keep Trout and have a good team before then. If they aren't going to choose good players, then trading Trout will just make them worse, and give their fans no reason to go to games or watch them on TV. Trout is always going to be worth watching, even this year when the team isn't going anywhere.

The Angels are a big money team in a huge market, they aren't going to trade the preeminent player in baseball at his age for A ball prospects. Any GM that does that is putting his job on the line in exchange for hoping on players who are several years away from even being rookies. Why would any GM do that? So that a couple years after they are fired and the team stinks and they are known as the guy who traded Trout, the team might be good again, maybe?

If you are a GM for team in that market, you are much better off keeping Trout and trying to build around him. They are in a division that usually isn't that great, so competing for a wild card spot won't take too much. The answer for them is to stop wasting money on the wrong players and start making smart small moves. They should use the rest of this year to find their own versions of Steven Wright, Travis Shaw and Brock Holt to be cheap useful pieces next year, while spending big on international free agents, and hopefully drafting better.

If they were going to trade Trout to the Red Sox, they should ask for something like Trout, Pujols and CJ Wilson for Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and Eduardo Rodriguez and probably more. Which the Red Sox would obviously not do. If the Angels traded the biggest superstar in the game it would have to be to reshape the team to contend as soon as possible, not to start some 5-year rebuilding plan, that would get a GM fired.

The Red Sox shouldn't give them what they would need, and I don't see a trade that would be good for both teams in the real world.

The Angels aren't trading Trout. He is the greatest player the organization ever drafted and developed. We could sabermetrically come up with a deal that would be fair to both sides, but the Angles aren't going there due to the long term value that Trout brings to the organization. The Angels don't have a long list of Mickey Mantle types: came up through the organization, legendary career, HOF inductee, retired number, etc. They finally have one in Trout and aren't trading it away for prospects.

We would be ecstatic if two of the Benintendi/Moncada/Swihart/Espinosa/Devers platter were, together, half as good as Trout.

FanSinceBoggs said:

The Angels aren't trading Trout. He is the greatest player the organization ever drafted and developed. We could sabermetrically come up with a deal that would be fair to both sides, but the Angles aren't going there due to the long term value that Trout brings to the organization. The Angels don't have a long list of Mickey Mantle types: came up through the organization, legendary career, HOF inductee, retired number, etc. They finally have one in Trout and aren't trading it away for prospects.

Click to expand...

They also have to market the game in LA and you need stars. Trout is their meal ticket.

SydneySox said:

We would be ecstatic if two of the Benintendi/Moncada/Swihart/Espinosa/Devers platter were, together, half as good as Trout.

Click to expand...

Shit, I'd give Swihart, Devers, Moncada and one of Espinosa or Benintendi without batting an eye.

David Cameron ‏@DCameronFG 2m2 minutes ago
With 2017 free agent pitching crop now a pit of nothingness, have to think A’s asking price for Sonny Gray is now “all your players."

PC Drunken Friar said:

Shit, I'd give Swihart, Devers, Moncada and one of Espinosa or Benintendi without batting an eye.

Click to expand...

How about Mookie, Espinoza and their choice of Moncada or Benentendi?

PC Drunken Friar said:

Shit, I'd give Swihart, Devers, Moncada and one of Espinosa or Benintendi without batting an eye.

Click to expand...

I would too. Who wouldn't, besides Moondog? And, given what DD gave San Diego for Kimbrel I have a hard time believing he wouldn't either.

But, this conversation is insane.

We should just give up on Trout and go get Harper.

RedOctober3829 said:

David Cameron ‏@DCameronFG 2m2 minutes ago
With 2017 free agent pitching crop now a pit of nothingness, have to think A’s asking price for Sonny Gray is now “all your players."

Click to expand...

I think if any franchise caliber pitcher gets shopped this year its going to be Fernandez. The Marlins were asking for the moon this offseason, but I think they might have been feeling out legitimate partners for when his value goes back up.

SydneySox said:

I would too. Who wouldn't, besides Moondog? And, given what DD gave San Diego for Kimbrel I have a hard time believing he wouldn't either.

Click to expand...

Even big market teams need good young (cheap) players to offset big money deals. Trade 4 of those 5 guys and all of a sudden their ability to add from within he next few years goes way down, and you're also adding a huge chunk to an already stuffed payroll. Sure, Trout is worth the money in theory, but you still need to work him in among your other commitments. No, I don't think any two of the guys combined will be with Trout in a given season, but the best two of them at basically no salary could, combined, be just as valuable from a roster construction standpoint. Depending on how you view Swihart, you're talking, maybe, about the equivalent of 4 #1 prospects (to an average MLB team). I wouldn't do that, and I don't think I'm the only one. If the Angels find a team that would, more power to them.

RedOctober3829 said:

David Cameron ‏@DCameronFG 2m2 minutes ago
With 2017 free agent pitching crop now a pit of nothingness, have to think A’s asking price for Sonny Gray is now “all your players."

Click to expand...

Sonny Gray is a pretty good pitcher, but peripherals have never supported the idea that he is a great pitcher. He sure sucked tonight, and if I were holding Sonny Gray right now I'd be pretty concerned that maybe that .255 BABIP in 2015 wasn't really sustainable. I wouldn't give even one of our top prospects for Sonny Gray, much less all of them.

Jose Fernandez, on the other hand, I'd give any two for and be totally thrilled with that.

Too bad this was not true. Apparently Buchholz thought he was traded when he was pulled from the game today, lol.

http://nesn.com/2016/05/clay-buchholz-thought-hed-been-traded-when-john-farrell-pulled-him-vs-as/

I`d rather keep the prospects than spend big money on players. Why let the Angels build for years down the road with our prospects when we have a very good team right now. Right now seems the best opportunity to have a mostly homegrown team with more coming up through the minors. It is pitching that we have fewer prospects and fewer homegrown players. Let`s wait and see if the prospects start panning out. High paid players are as much of a risk as hoping to see if a prospect turns out decent. At least if a prospect doesn`t work out they are alot easier to let go. I get sick of discussions about how to get rid of overpaid and "used to be decent" ball players. For every Crawford and Pablo there is a Lars Anderson or Sam Horn. If in July we see a glaring need we can make our trade for Larry Anderson or Eric Gagne.

According to Mayo's top 30 prospects, the Braves best catching prospect is a player named Lucas Herbert, who is ranked #20, currently in Single A hitting under .200.

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=atl

Thus, the Braves need a young catcher like Swihart. They have no one at the major league level either.

If we're talking hypotheticals, because I agree most with FanSinceBoggs, I think it's a fantasy that any trade would happen without Betts or Bogaerts. I would guess Betts/ Swihart/ Moncada/ Kopech? Christ that's a haul. But yeah they'd need at least one young sure thing. And Swihart isn't that just yet.

Ultimately, I also agree with TGE--whatever the price would be, it'd be a step too painful to be worth it, I think. I mean, the Angels have Trout and no farm system now and we're having a conversation about how they may be better off without him.

JBJ_HOF said:

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php/100654-Hughes-Sanchez-Chamberlain-Betances?s=4c5dafbddacb5e674e3421a94b203cbe&p=3791002#post3791002

ev references here: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/wcbs_allard_qa_with_sabermetrician_matthew_frank/

Click to expand...

Wow. Betances has been around that long? Insane.

Would it be rude of me to suggest that we don't actually need to make a trade?

Let's assume that Price turns back into an ace. Porcello should have convinced everyone he's a #2. I imagine Wright is going to see his ERA go up but between him and Eduardo Rodriguez I think we've got a pretty good three and four. That's a playoff rotation.

Kimbrel, Koji, Smith, Taz is a playoff bullpen.

The entire lineup save Mookie and Vazquez have an OPS+ of 100 or better.

Injuries will happen, players might not perform as well as we think, or they could fall off a cliff, a lot of things could happen.

But this looks like a team that can use the deadline to tweak the bullpen and bench and still have a decent shot to go deep in the playoffs.

I mean, Price has been shit, Buch has been shit, Owens had s convinced management to start Sean O'Sullivan and there's a grand total of one team in the AL with a better record.

We aren't necessarily going to need to trade for much and keeping the prospects has its own rewards.

Rasputin said:

Would it be rude of me to suggest that we don't actually need to make a trade?

Let's assume that Price turns back into an ace. Porcello should have convinced everyone he's a #2. I imagine Wright is going to see his ERA go up but between him and Eduardo Rodriguez I think we've got a pretty good three and four. That's a playoff rotation.

Kimbrel, Koji, Smith, Taz is a playoff bullpen.

The entire lineup save Mookie and Vazquez have an OPS+ of 100 or better.

Injuries will happen, players might not perform as well as we think, or they could fall off a cliff, a lot of things could happen.

But this looks like a team that can use the deadline to tweak the bullpen and bench and still have a decent shot to go deep in the playoffs.

I mean, Price has been shit, Buch has been shit, Owens had s convinced management to start Sean O'Sullivan and there's a grand total of one team in the AL with a better record.

We aren't necessarily going to need to trade for much and keeping the prospects has its own rewards.

Click to expand...

As much as I want to see all this rosiness, I do believe that the key piece to add for this team will be either a LHH LF or, more likely, a solid, dependable, innings eating 4/5 level starter, basically this year's version of Jake Peavy.

dhappy42 said:

For Trout? The question is more: who wouldn't you trade?

Betts, Swihart, Moncada, Marrero and a top 20 prospect pitcher.

Trout makes Betts redundant. Swihart is already redundant. Pedroia and Bogarts are playing 2B and SS through 2020. Moncada and Marrero are expendable.

Then sign Bautista as a LF/DH in 2017. Bautista-JBJ-Trout in left-center-right.

In 2017: Vaz, Hanley, Pedey, Bogarts, Shaw, Bautista, JBJ, Trout. Talk Big Papi into one more year. Or promote the other Travis and move Hanley to DH.

Click to expand...

Trout and Bautista? How high do you think payroll can go?

You seriously think that unloading Sandoval and Castillo will come without eating a BIG chunk of that 29 million?

Smiling Joe Hesketh said:

And how, exactly, do you plan to unload Panda and Castillo? They are the very definition of sunk costs. No one's taking them off our hands.

There's 0% the Sox ever even get the chance to trade for Trout.

Click to expand...

Panda + Castillo for Pujols?

dhappy42 said:

No. The Sox would probably have to eat most of their salaries. That's why I made the distinction between luxury tax payroll and real payroll. Sandoval and Castillo are sunk costs. While the Sox can afford to pay some other team to take them, they can't afford to have them taking up nearly $30 of payroll "space" on the 40-man roster.

Click to expand...

If they have to eat the salary to trade those players, it still counts against the luxury tax threshold.

I'd rather see the Red Sox eat bad contracts then take another terrible one on.
If Pujols ever became awful enough to take out of the lineup, which is a very real possibility, that's just going to cause another management/clubhouse headache.
It makes sense numbers wise sometimes, but there has to be other reasons why swapping problem contracts isn't ideal.

dhappy42 said:

No. The Sox would probably have to eat most of their salaries. That's why I made the distinction between luxury tax payroll and real payroll. Sandoval and Castillo are sunk costs. While the Sox can afford to pay some other team to take them, they can't afford to have them taking up nearly $30 of payroll "space" on the 40-man roster.

Click to expand...

If the Sox have to eat their salaries, they are spending "real" money and that money counts against the luxury cap. Please explain what on earth you are talking about with this post.

Rasputin said:

Would it be rude of me to suggest that we don't actually need to make a trade?

...snip...

We aren't necessarily going to need to trade for much and keeping the prospects has its own rewards.

Click to expand...

I still think the Sox could easily end up one good (115 ERA+) starting pitcher away from a playoff rotation. Now, if that one pitcher ends up being Buchholz or Rodriguez or even Kelly by the end of the year, that would be ideal. But it's not certain, so DDski has to know who he's willing to trade, and what player he would want to get in return.

If none of those three evolve as hoped this summer, the Sox should absolutely pull the trigger on a trade, as long as DDski can get the guy he actually wants to get. The offense looks remarkably deep and consistent in Papi's last year. And hopefully a net gain in the starters comes from more Price improvement than overall decline from the two guys who have been pitching out of their minds.

But you're right -- the upshot of 2014-15's cellar-dwelling is that while the Sox have the most consistent offense in the AL, with six pre-arb hitters in the regular lineup. And every one of the Sox regulars 1-9 is a "company guy," which is even more remarkable.