2019 Trade Deadline

Status
Not open for further replies.

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Maybe a bit hyperbole but a 1st basemen with an obp barely over .300 and an OPS under .800 isn't worth trading for, especially one making as much as Abreu. How is he an upgrade over what we already have?

And as you said, he hasn't missed a game at all and the Whitesox are ranked 26th in overall production at 1b. He's also clearly in decline but he's a FA after this year so that doesn't matter.
I think we agree that the Sox have much greater needs than Abreu, I just don't agree with the statement that he's been terrible this season.
 

sgfeer

lurker
Mar 14, 2016
17
Queensbury, NY
This is such a lopsided suggestion according to the baseballtradevalues site (114.50 to 27.1) that even if Boston included Devers (63.4), it would still be way in Boston's favor.


Well, it is the Mets, so a maybe??
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,805
Newton
People are seriously talking about giving up a rookie position player with 16 HR and and 785 OPS for a relief pitcher with an ERA of nearly 5?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,914
People are seriously talking about giving up a rookie position player with 16 HR and and 785 OPS for a relief pitcher with an ERA of nearly 5?
And it would be a steal. Remember, Dombrowski gave up a much better prospect than Chavis in Margot (plus others) for three years of Craig Kimbrel at market value.

Diaz doesn’t have quite the track record Kimbrel did in 2016, but his stuff gets even more whiffs, his K-BB% is slightly better, and he’s younger and cheaper than Craig was when we got him. We’d have him for this stretch run plus three years after it.

We paid a premium for Kimbrel, and I don’t think anyone here pines for Manuel Margot. Unlike the Padres at that time, the Mets are in a state of chaos, which is a good time to buy, plus Allard Baird is already enamored of some players in our system. I think something will happen.
 

iddoc

lurker
Nov 17, 2006
40
With some notable exceptions, many on this board thought the Thornburg trade was a splendid idea at the time:
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,770
This is such a lopsided suggestion according to the baseballtradevalues site (114.50 to 27.1) that even if Boston included Devers (63.4), it would still be way in Boston's favor.

Then that trade simulator isn’t worth much, as Devers is by far the best player in that group.
 

splendid splinter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
985
Greenville, SC
Then that trade simulator isn’t worth much, as Devers is by far the best player in that group.
If Dombrowski called the Mets and said "I'm interested in Conforto, according to this site I should send you Rafael Devers and like $500K, what do you think?" the next thing he'd hear would be the boom of Brodie Van Wagenen breaking the sound barrier on his way to the fax machine to send the deal to MLB HQ. It would be the second-fastest paperwork filing in American history, behind only Rick Ocasek's marriage license application when Paulina Porizkova said "Yes."
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Yes I'd say that site is fairly worthless, it says that X for Diaz would be an even deal and even a slight win for the Sox.
I'm sure that has to do with X being paid essentially market value and Diaz not reaching arb yet but if you are putting together a site like that and you get those kind of results you may want to rethink your methodology.
 

j44thor

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,464
Then that trade simulator isn’t worth much, as Devers is by far the best player in that group.
Yeah that is best treated as fan fic. Has Judge worth 2x Devers. Might get more realistic trade values on MLB the Show.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,914
So, in order to get a closer who is struggling this year, the Sox would give up Workman and/or Hernandez, two who have surprised by doing well? I'm confused. (But what else is new?)
No, I speculated Workman because the Mets were reported to want MLB players in return, still wanting to compete in 2020. Workman would give them that — or at least that cover (“Don’t worry Mets fans, this guy’s got a 2.08 ERA!”).

Workman’s been great this year, but I’m surprised by how closely many folks here are guarding him. He’s got one of the oddest profiles in baseball. He’s had a long injury history, he’s not a super hard thrower, and his 47% curveball rate is a high injury risk. That super low home run rate (1 in 47 innings), very high walk rate (6.04 BB/9), an absurdly low BABIP (.174) would feel more sustainable to me if he were 25, but he’s 31 in two weeks. The only other similar statistical comp for Workman is Ottavino — a compelling one to be sure, though it’s a different pitch mix and hardly predictive enough to bank on.

Do we really think this is Workman’s new baseline? Even if it is, he’s got one more year under contract. Do we think that year, plus the chance of re-signing him long term at 32 — isn’t worth giving up for 3.5 years of a dominant 25-year-old with the third highest swinging strike rate in baseball from 2018-19?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,770
No, I speculated Workman because the Mets were reported to want MLB players in return, still wanting to compete in 2020. Workman would give them that — or at least that cover (“Don’t worry Mets fans, this guy’s got a 2.08 ERA!”).

Workman’s been great this year, but I’m surprised by how closely many folks here are guarding him. He’s got one of the oddest profiles in baseball. He’s had a long injury history, he’s not a super hard thrower, and his 47% curveball rate is a high injury risk. That super low home run rate (1 in 47 innings), very high walk rate (6.04 BB/9), an absurdly low BABIP (.174) would feel more sustainable to me if he were 25, but he’s 31 in two weeks. The only other similar statistical comp for Workman is Ottavino — a compelling one to be sure, though it’s a different pitch mix and hardly predictive enough to bank on.

Do we really think this is Workman’s new baseline? Even if it is, he’s got one more year under contract. Do we think that year, plus the chance of re-signing him long term at 32 — isn’t worth giving up for 3.5 years of a dominant 25-year-old with the third highest swinging strike rate in baseball from 2018-19?
It very well may be worth it in the long run but the Sox are trying to win it THIS YEAR, and this year Workman has been significantly better than Diaz. Will he be next year? Probably not. But that’s not what interests the Sox at the moment.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,627
St. Louis, MO
No, I speculated Workman because the Mets were reported to want MLB players in return, still wanting to compete in 2020. Workman would give them that — or at least that cover (“Don’t worry Mets fans, this guy’s got a 2.08 ERA!”).

Workman’s been great this year, but I’m surprised by how closely many folks here are guarding him. He’s got one of the oddest profiles in baseball. He’s had a long injury history, he’s not a super hard thrower, and his 47% curveball rate is a high injury risk. That super low home run rate (1 in 47 innings), very high walk rate (6.04 BB/9), an absurdly low BABIP (.174) would feel more sustainable to me if he were 25, but he’s 31 in two weeks. The only other similar statistical comp for Workman is Ottavino — a compelling one to be sure, though it’s a different pitch mix and hardly predictive enough to bank on.

Do we really think this is Workman’s new baseline? Even if it is, he’s got one more year under contract. Do we think that year, plus the chance of re-signing him long term at 32 — isn’t worth giving up for 3.5 years of a dominant 25-year-old with the third highest swinging strike rate in baseball from 2018-19?
Offseason sure. You can’t do it in season if you’re trying to win this year.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,919
Yes I'd say that site is fairly worthless, it says that X for Diaz would be an even deal and even a slight win for the Sox.
I'm sure that has to do with X being paid essentially market value and Diaz not reaching arb yet but if you are putting together a site like that and you get those kind of results you may want to rethink your methodology.
The site is pretty new, it is far from perfect but it is also far from worthless. Devers has taken off in the past few months and skyrocketed in value, and they don't have a good way to deal with that yet. The point was just that the trade Plympton proposed, with Conforto as a throw-in, was absolutely ridiculous.
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,559
Suburbs of Washington, DC
I don't get idea of trading Chavis. Of course, in the right package, everyone is available, even off the major league roster. Although Chavis has cooled down, in 300 major league ABs he's still above league-average in OPS and will likely finish with more than 20 home runs, maybe 25. I'm looking more at 2020, when Chavis could be our starting 2B or 1B for league-minimum salary. That kind of production at that salary is incredibly efficient and would give Dombrowski significant running room to address other needs. Would trading Chavis in 2019 so dramatically increase the odds of winning the World Series this year that it would be worth sacrificing his production/salary efficiency for the next few years?
 

PhilPlantier

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2005
2,447
Westborough, MA
Yes I'd say that site is fairly worthless, it says that X for Diaz would be an even deal and even a slight win for the Sox.
I'm sure that has to do with X being paid essentially market value and Diaz not reaching arb yet but if you are putting together a site like that and you get those kind of results you may want to rethink your methodology.
They're starting to work out some kinks. A couple weeks ago, I was able to trade Mookie for Trout straight-up. Now, the price is 2.5 Mookies.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
The site is pretty new, it is far from perfect but it is also far from worthless. Devers has taken off in the past few months and skyrocketed in value, and they don't have a good way to deal with that yet. The point was just that the trade Plympton proposed, with Conforto as a throw-in, was absolutely ridiculous.
Worthless was strong and probably wrong, this was my first time looking at the site and that really stuck out to me.
Certainly agreed about the trade proposal that was made, Conforto isn't a throw-in by any stretch and he won't be part of a trade with the Sox.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,914
Offseason sure. You can’t do it in season if you’re trying to win this year.
I would argue you can.

2019 xFIP
Diaz: 3.24
Workman: 3.69

To my eyes, Workman is doing what David Robertson did in 2017, or Brett Cecil did in 2015, which is to go all in on the curveball, throwing it literally half the time. Maybe relatedly, those guys got hurt. It makes sense that Workman, a low leverage guy and borderline nontender candidate the last few years, would make a similar decision for his career, but it’s a much less bankable and more dangerous profile than a guy who sits 98.
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
44,335
deep inside Guido territory
I would argue you can.

2019 xFIP
Diaz: 3.24
Workman: 3.69

To my eyes, Workman is doing what David Robertson did in 2017, or Brett Cecil did in 2015, which is to go all in on the curveball, throwing it literally half the time. Maybe relatedly, those guys got hurt. It makes sense that Workman, a low leverage guy and borderline nontender candidate the last few years, would make a similar decision for his career, but it’s a much less bankable profile than a guy who sits 98.
Another thing to think about with Workman is that if he is throwing his curveball more than he ever has is that arm trouble could be next on the docket for him. Not to mention the league adjusting to him next year and he can't replicate the same results. It may be time to cash in on his value.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,587

.@Buster_ESPN just said on @GetUpESPN that the Sox May have to give up either Andrew Benintendi or Jackie Bradley, Jr. to get Diaz.

Question for .@RedSox fans, would you part with either one if you’re Dave Dombrowski - and if yes, which of the two?
This would be selling really low on Beni. I think JBJ adds too much known value to the team to give him up for a reliever who may or may not be really good. Giving the Mets more for Diaz than they gave up for Stroman doesn't make sense to me.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,970
In the stupid trivia department, IIRC, it was not 100% clear that Larry Andersen was going to be a free agent when acquired by the Sox. He was part of the MLBPA's ongoing collusion case vs. MLB. He was granted free agent status after the season ended as part of the case's resolution.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,812
Another thing to think about with Workman is that if he is throwing his curveball more than he ever has is that arm trouble could be next on the docket for him. Not to mention the league adjusting to him next year and he can't replicate the same results. It may be time to cash in on his value.
We're not sellers. And if we're not sellers we're not trading Workman during the season.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
8,691
Santa Monica
People are seriously talking about giving up a rookie position player with 16 HR and and 785 OPS for a relief pitcher with an ERA of nearly 5?
right? Not only Chavis but also offering our #2 prospect (Dalbec) with top pitching prospects (Hernandez)...trade fever for RPs happens with so many BS
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,812
I'm more talking about including him in a Diaz deal. Not selling him.
Okay, but small sample sizes aside, that's not much of an upward moved based ONLY on how they're pitching this season--which is what's important if we're pushing towards a playoff spot.

(Yes, small sample sizes, etc. but no one can be sure when Workman's or Diaz's regression to the mean may kick in)
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
So, in order to get a closer who is struggling this year, the Sox would give up Workman and/or Hernandez, two who have surprised by doing well? I'm confused. (But what else is new?)
The push back against this is understandable, but you have to remember that this isn't a rental type situation. Diaz is not a FA until 2023 and at 25, he's certainly not past his prime years from a baseball perspective. Though the 57 saves last season might not be replicated, it's not unreasonable to think that there is still something there. He did log 34 save in 2017 and has a career 14.1 K/9 innings. The $64,000 question is what is DD willing to part with? I'm still a bit skeptical that BVW lets Diaz go cheap considering he's saddled with Cano in the deal that brought Diaz to the Mets. Also IF (big if) the mets head into next season with deGrom, Syndergaar and Stroman along with a decent young core on the field that he thinks might compete, trading Diaz leaves a huge hole in an already pretty crappy bullpen.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,714
Mark Feinsend says Sox have talked to Mets about Diaz. Says Casas is off the table, Dalbec may be in play, and everyone else can be had. Says Chavis would be a good start to a package for Diaz. He also says they may go for another arm as well. Others mentioned as targets are Raisel Iglesias, Vazquez of Pittsburgh, Will Smith/Sam Dyson in SF, Daniel Hudson, Mychel Givens, Francisco Liriano/Kela in Pittsburgh, and Shane Greene.

I'm starting to think that Diaz isn't happening now, so might as well look at some of those other names. Not sure there's an obvious match with the Reds (who don't really need infield help) or Pirates (who are asking for a lot for Vazquez, rightfully so). The Giants apparently are buyers now? Greene seems get-able, but the consensus seems to be that he's not actually all that great - though he'd really only have to be an upgrade over the worst or most-expendable guy, who I'd say is Brewer but I'll hear arguments to the contrary. I'm guessing one of those lesser lights will wind up here - Givens, Hudson, or Liriano.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,981
NY
If they are really going after two relievers I'm going to be pretty annoyed. It seemed pretty obvious in the offseason that they needed pen help. They could've signed a guy or two and it would've cost nothing buy money. Now in late July, when everyone's prediction about the pen has proven to be accurate, they're going to lose multiple players to fill the holes. Getting Diaz, who could potentially be an elite reliever with multiple years of control and who wasn't available over the winter, is one thing. Getting two other guys that are no different than what was available in FA last year is another.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,586
To answer a question posed above, I do not trade JBJ or Benintendi to get Diaz unless there's an at-least-as-good major league outfielder ready to step in and play everyday coming back in the deal. Weakening the major league team doesn't seem like the path to mid-season trading success.
 

mr_smith02

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2003
2,235
Upstate NY
If they are really going after two relievers I'm going to be pretty annoyed. It seemed pretty obvious in the offseason that they needed pen help. They could've signed a guy or two and it would've cost nothing buy money. Now in late July, when everyone's prediction about the pen has proven to be accurate, they're going to lose multiple players to fill the holes. Getting Diaz, who could potentially be an elite reliever with multiple years of control and who wasn't available over the winter, is one thing. Getting two other guys that are no different than what was available in FA last year is another.
Completely agree. How does adding "lesser names" to a bullpen filled with lesser names, while giving away players, help this team?!?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,914
If they are really going after two relievers I'm going to be pretty annoyed. It seemed pretty obvious in the offseason that they needed pen help. They could've signed a guy or two and it would've cost nothing buy money. Now in late July, when everyone's prediction about the pen has proven to be accurate, they're going to lose multiple players to fill the holes. Getting Diaz, who could potentially be an elite reliever with multiple years of control and who wasn't available over the winter, is one thing. Getting two other guys that are no different than what was available in FA last year is another.
Relievers’ abilities fluctuate wildly year to year. It also seems lately that they’re constantly trying out new pitches and pitch mixes, some that work and some that don’t. There are some elite ones who are pretty consistent, but a lot of newly signed free agents show up to spring training hurt or ineffective. Better to identify someone midway through the season who’s getting it done.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,586
If they are really going after two relievers I'm going to be pretty annoyed. It seemed pretty obvious in the offseason that they needed pen help. They could've signed a guy or two and it would've cost nothing buy money. Now in late July, when everyone's prediction about the pen has proven to be accurate, they're going to lose multiple players to fill the holes. Getting Diaz, who could potentially be an elite reliever with multiple years of control and who wasn't available over the winter, is one thing. Getting two other guys that are no different than what was available in FA last year is another.
Putting aside for now the fact that part of the bullpen's issue has been the failure of starters, one reason to wait is that the volatility of relief pitching suggests (to me, anyway) that you might not know with any degree of reliability who is going to be good *this* year until this year is underway.

Completely agree. How does adding "lesser names" to a bullpen filled with lesser names, while giving away players, help this team?!?
Because it's not about "names." It's about whether they can pitch well for a few months. "trading" isn't "giving away players" any more than signing a relief pitcher to a multi-year deal is "giving away money."
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,770
If they are really going after two relievers I'm going to be pretty annoyed. It seemed pretty obvious in the offseason that they needed pen help. They could've signed a guy or two and it would've cost nothing buy money. Now in late July, when everyone's prediction about the pen has proven to be accurate, they're going to lose multiple players to fill the holes. Getting Diaz, who could potentially be an elite reliever with multiple years of control and who wasn't available over the winter, is one thing. Getting two other guys that are no different than what was available in FA last year is another.
Well let's say your annoyance is justified. What do you want them to do? Every team goes into the season with a plan, and if that plan doesn't quite work out, they make adjustments as the season goes along. The Sox thought they had a good plan, but it hasn't worked out as they hoped. If they acquire bullpen help, it may signal a bit of a mea culpa on their part regarding their bullpen plan. But if they need the help, would you rather you not be annoyed and they not fix it?

Completely agree. How does adding "lesser names" to a bullpen filled with lesser names, while giving away players, help this team?!?
If the "lesser names" they acquire are better than the "lesser names" they currently have.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,714
We're not talking about trading Chavis away for these guys; someone in the Givens/Liriano tier will probably cost someone who will likely never play in Boston (or Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc). And, as alluded to above, the new acquisitions don't need to be an upgrade over Barnes, Workman, or Walden to help; they only need to be better than whoever you think is the worst and/or most-expendable pitcher in the pen. I assume that's Brewer, but I'll hear arguments to the contrary.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
19,025
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
We're not talking about trading Chavis away for these guys; someone in the Givens/Liriano tier will probably cost someone who will likely never play in Boston (or Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc). And, as alluded to above, the new acquisitions don't need to be an upgrade over Barnes, Workman, or Walden to help; they only need to be better than whoever you think is the worst and/or most-expendable pitcher in the pen. I assume that's Brewer, but I'll hear arguments to the contrary.
What are we thinking Liriano would cost?
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,981
NY
Putting aside for now the fact that part of the bullpen's issue has been the failure of starters, one reason to wait is that the volatility of relief pitching suggests (to me, anyway) that you might not know with any degree of reliability who is going to be good *this* year until this year is underway.



Because it's not about "names." It's about whether they can pitch well for a few months. "trading" isn't "giving away players" any more than signing a relief pitcher to a multi-year deal is "giving away money."
Sure, but waiting three or four months will end up costing you prospects, or in this case possibly Bradley or Chavis. Why not sign, say, Britton in Jan? I'd much rather "give away money" than "give away players and money."
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,914
What they need is a fairly typical fastball/slider guy from the right side, because Brasier is off and Hembree is hurt (and mysteriously lost his breaking ball this year) and Walden’s slider was excellent until hitters figured it out and Shawaryn isn’t good/ready yet and they don’t really know what they’re getting from Eovaldi.

Darwinzon and Taylor are actually filling the FB/SL needs from the left, but they need a RHP reliever who can get out RHH vulnerable to hard sliders.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,981
NY
Well let's say your annoyance is justified. What do you want them to do? Every team goes into the season with a plan, and if that plan doesn't quite work out, they make adjustments as the season goes along. The Sox thought they had a good plan, but it hasn't worked out as they hoped. If they acquire bullpen help, it may signal a bit of a mea culpa on their part regarding their bullpen plan. But if they need the help, would you rather you not be annoyed and they not fix it?
Like I said, getting Diaz would be great because he would fill a need today and going forward. He wasn't available for just money in the winter so I'd have no problem trading for him today. What annoys me is the rumor that even if they get Diaz they'd still try to get another guy, or if they don't get Diaz they want to get two guys, when comparable talent was available for just money six months ago. This isn't hindsight. Many people questioned the pen going into the season. Putting Eovaldi in the pen plus adding two new guys that will cost prospects suggests to me that the initial plan was a total failure.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
11,526
Bi-Coastal, for the time being
Call me crazy, but I won't be disappointed if they head into August without having made any move at all.

Giving up Workman or Darwinson, to me, weakens a weak spot of the team unless it's a certain improvement like Vazquez or Iglesias or Yates coming back.

Giving up JBJ opens a colossal hole in the OF. I don't know the Sox could replace his bat, much less his glove.

Giving up Chavis surrenders an amazing 2B opportunity for the next 3 years given the dollars he'll require.

Giving up Casas, Duran or pretty much any important pitching prospect (Groome, Houck, Mata) thins out an already unacceptably thin farm system.

I'm okay moving Dalbec because Devers, but other than that unless the return is Vazquez or Yates, let's move on.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
4,428
It's probably not worth the energy spent over the phrase "lesser names" because when all the dust settles after the trade deadline it'll just be another speculative tweet in a sea of essentially meaningless tweets. Happens ever single year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.