Infinite trade speculation

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,296
I don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
That's not really Cameron's shining moment of a column.

Why would the Red Sox need Lucroy whatsoever at this point? They already have an elite pitch framer with no power.

And I don't think a team like the Red Sox would welcome a PED guy - he seems well suited for a smaller market team. Not that it's as large a deal as it used to be, but the public comments he made where he was completely defiant about not using, kind of made him look terrible to both fans and his peers.

As for upgrading offense - ya it's not really a need, but aside from adding a 2nd starter or possibly 1st base if Hanley keeps up his mediocrity, it's probably the position that could benefit the most from an upgrade. I'd rather have a rental anyhow with Benintendi coming up. Bruce maybe.
 
Last edited:

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
That's not really Cameron's shining moment of a column.

Why would the Red Sox need Lucroy whatsoever at this point? They already have an elite pitch framer with no power.

And I don't think a team like the Red Sox would welcome a PED guy - he seems well suited for a smaller market team. Not that it's as large a deal as it used to be, but the public comments he made where he was completely defiant about not using, kind of made him look terrible to both fans and his peers.

As for upgrading offense - ya it's not really a need, but aside from adding a 2nd starter or possibly 1st if Hanley keeps up his mediocrity, it's probably the position that could benefit the most from an upgrade. I'd rather have a rental anyhow with Benintendi coming up. Bruce maybe.

Yeah, I don't get Lucroy, it's like Cameron forgot why Swihart was sent down in the first place.

He does acknowledge the presence of Benintendi though, and says the plan would be to shift Braun to DH after his year, which makes some sense. I don't think it happens because yeah, the trade chips will get used for pitching, but there is deal there that makes sense in a vacuum.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
the trade chips will get used for pitching
I'm not so sure. If Porcello really is fixed, and Rodriguez develops as we hope, and even one of Kelly/Owens/Johnson appears to be a major-league-level starter, then our rotation is in pretty good shape for the next few years (even assuming the departure and/or ongoing unreliability of Buchholz). Sure, we might still want to improve the rotation, but will a front-line starter really be our #1 priority?

Especially considering Life After Papi. Even if you assume that Hanley will bounce back to be a middle-of-the-order bat, our lineup looks a lot weaker with a 4-5-6 of Ramirez, Shaw, and...Holt? Signing Bautista or Encarnacion would obviously be a great way to solve that problem, but if that fails, I'd be willing to bet the Big Trade we make with Swihart and whoever gets squeezed out of the mix in the middle minors involves a power-hitting DH/1B. And if they manage to solve that problem early in a way that also fills the pre-Benintendi LF hole and gives us a preposterously good 2016 lineup, all the better.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
I'm not so sure. If Porcello really is fixed, and Rodriguez develops as we hope, and even one of Kelly/Owens/Johnson appears to be a major-league-level starter, then our rotation is in pretty good shape for the next few years (even assuming the departure and/or ongoing unreliability of Buchholz). Sure, we might still want to improve the rotation, but will a front-line starter really be our #1 priority?
.
I think there's also the question of which starting pitcher will be available who is A) a clear-cut upgrade over the team's existing options, B) on a team that is unlikely to contend in 2016, and C) will cost Swihart but won't additionally require one of the big four. Not sure how many of the usual suspects fit those qualifications with Cleveland and Oakland hovering around .500 and Ross hurt.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,271
I don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
Agree. It's tough to find a perfect fit, and we still need to wait to see who decides to potentially sell, but the names that I see that are possibilities are Quintana, Tyson Ross, or one of the Cleveland pitchers (Salazar or Carrasco). Would think the Sox would have to add Owens and another top 15 prospect for Quintana or the CLE guys but I think Ross for Swihart is pretty even on paper. In fact, honestly, I would prefer to keep Swihart over trading him for Tyson Ross but I think that's the type of player Dombrowski will be targeting
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
7,254
That's not really Cameron's shining moment of a column.

Why would the Red Sox need Lucroy whatsoever at this point? They already have an elite pitch framer with no power.

And I don't think a team like the Red Sox would welcome a PED guy - he seems well suited for a smaller market team. Not that it's as large a deal as it used to be, but the public comments he made where he was completely defiant about not using, kind of made him look terrible to both fans and his peers.

As for upgrading offense - ya it's not really a need, but aside from adding a 2nd starter or possibly 1st if Hanley keeps up his mediocrity, it's probably the position that could benefit the most from an upgrade. I'd rather have a rental anyhow with Benintendi coming up. Bruce maybe.
Anyone catch this comment?


Eric M. Van says:
May 3, 2016 at 2:08 pm


Before the season I took the Steamer projections for every catcher, and added my own projection for pitch-framing from BP’s data, which included an extra factor for the reduced Y2Y correlation seen in 2015. For Christian Vazquez, I substituted a better defensive projection, since Steamer had regressed the hell out of his hard-to-believe SSS numbers, but scouting eyeballs put him as top-3 defensive catcher.

That combined projection put Vazquez as the second best catcher in baseball, at 4.8 WAR per 125 games. In his first 11 games, he’s surpassing it a bit; his bWAR is within the rounding error to the high side (0.3 versus 0.26) and he’s framing at a 2.5 WAR rate versus the projected 2.1. He’s still recovering arm strength … and the hitting projections may be low.

So no, Lucroy is not in the conversation.

So, no, Lucroy would not be in any such trade.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
Agree. It's tough to find a perfect fit, and we still need to wait to see who decides to potentially sell, but the names that I see that are possibilities are Quintana, Tyson Ross, or one of the Cleveland pitchers (Salazar or Carrasco). Would think the Sox would have to add Owens and another top 15 prospect for Quintana or the CLE guys but I think Ross for Swihart is pretty even on paper. In fact, honestly, I would prefer to keep Swihart over trading him for Tyson Ross but I think that's the type of player Dombrowski will be targeting
For instance, why on earth would the team with the best record in the AL trade its second-best starter?
 

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
538
Anyone catch this comment?
Eric M. Van says:
May 3, 2016 at 2:08 pm

Before the season I took the Steamer projections for every catcher, and added my own projection for pitch-framing from BP’s data, which included an extra factor for the reduced Y2Y correlation seen in 2015. For Christian Vazquez, I substituted a better defensive projection, since Steamer had regressed the hell out of his hard-to-believe SSS numbers, but scouting eyeballs put him as top-3 defensive catcher.

That combined projection put Vazquez as the second best catcher in baseball, at 4.8 WAR per 125 games. In his first 11 games, he’s surpassing it a bit; his bWAR is within the rounding error to the high side (0.3 versus 0.26) and he’s framing at a 2.5 WAR rate versus the projected 2.1. He’s still recovering arm strength … and the hitting projections may be low.

So no, Lucroy is not in the conversation.

So, no, Lucroy would not be in any such trade.
Is this like when NYYFans talked about cubic transformation of Phil Hughes' projections?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Before the season I took the Steamer projections for every catcher, and added my own projection for pitch-framing from BP’s data, which included an extra factor for the reduced Y2Y correlation seen in 2015. For Christian Vazquez, I substituted a better defensive projection, since Steamer had regressed the hell out of his hard-to-believe SSS numbers, but scouting eyeballs put him as top-3 defensive catcher.

That combined projection put Vazquez as the second best catcher in baseball, at 4.8 WAR per 125 games. In his first 11 games, he’s surpassing it a bit; his bWAR is within the rounding error to the high side (0.3 versus 0.26) and he’s framing at a 2.5 WAR rate versus the projected 2.1. He’s still recovering arm strength … and the hitting projections may be low.
1--"I added my own projection"
2--"included an extra factor"
3--"substituted a better defensive projection"

Well, no shit he looked good.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
For Hughes I expect his career ERA+ to exceed 150. I am well aware that the number of pitchers who have produced careers like that can be counted on a mutilated hand. That doesn’t change the projection. What could change the projection is if Hughes doesn’t produce ERA+ as good or better than he did those minor league equivalents.
"I expect Hughes to essentially become Pedro, unless he doesn't, of course."

Hughes' lifetime ERA+ is 97, BTW.

Ah, memories.
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
I don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
Absolutely agree. Benintendi and Moncada are hitters in the pipeline. If they trade Swihart in a package, DD would have to be targeting Sonny Gray.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
I mean, Cameron's trade kind of makes sense. It makes more sense if you drop Lucroy from the Brewers' side, and substitute some second tier prospect. I don't like that trade, but it would be much closer to fair value. Honestly, I just hope Dombrowski is patient enough to fill needs as they arise.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,296
I think there's also the question of which starting pitcher will be available who is A) a clear-cut upgrade over the team's existing options, B) on a team that is unlikely to contend in 2016, and C) will cost Swihart but won't additionally require one of the big four. Not sure how many of the usual suspects fit those qualifications with Cleveland and Oakland hovering around .500 and Ross hurt.
Why are the big four off the table? They can absolutely afford to include one of Devers or Benintendi if the deal makes sense for both sides.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,296
Here's some completely baseless speculation: Tanaka has an opt out after 2017. The Yankees are terrible and are probably going to be terrible next year. What would it take, and would it be worth it?

Let's start with Swihart, Erod, and Devers. Who says no?

(Yes, he has a NTC, but I imagine he'd waive it to come here.)
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Here's some completely baseless speculation: Tanaka has an opt out after 2017. The Yankees are terrible and are probably going to be terrible next year. What would it take, and would it be worth it?

Let's start with Swihart, Erod, and Devers. Who says no?

(Yes, he has a NTC, but I imagine he'd waive it to come here.)
If he were cost controlled and you took out Devers and the surgery waiting to happen (partial UCL tear), maybe.
He's making 22 mill per though. No way you give up a blue chipper on top of two other good prospects for a guy already being paid. Sale or Harvey, maybe.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
Here's some completely baseless speculation: Tanaka has an opt out after 2017. The Yankees are terrible and are probably going to be terrible next year. What would it take, and would it be worth it?

Let's start with Swihart, Erod, and Devers. Who says no?

(Yes, he has a NTC, but I imagine he'd waive it to come here.)
Anyone with half a brain says no.

Besides the aforementioned elbow issues, why in the world would you trade three strong prospects for a guy who WILL opt out after 2017? The only way Tanaka doesn't opt out is if he re-injures the arm; and, if he does, you're stuck with damaged goods
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Anyone with half a brain says no.

Besides the aforementioned elbow issues, why in the world would you trade three strong prospects for a guy who WILL opt out after 2017? The only way Tanaka doesn't opt out is if he re-injures the arm; and, if he does, you're stuck with damaged goods
However, if I'm trying to get a pitcher from the Yankees at the trade deadline it would be Chapman. Effectively, the game would be over after 6 innings. Imagine a pen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, Chapman, and Kimbrel.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
However, if I'm trying to get a pitcher from the Yankees at the trade deadline it would be Chapman. Effectively, the game would be over after 6 innings. Imagine a pen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, Chapman, and Kimbrel.
Plus the cost would be less ... although I'd rather have Miller back. It won't be a surprise to see Dombrowski and Cashman swing a deal. I get the sense DD won't be as hesitant as some others to deal with the Yankees
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
However, if I'm trying to get a pitcher from the Yankees at the trade deadline it would be Chapman. Effectively, the game would be over after 6 innings. Imagine a pen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, Chapman, and Kimbrel.
Or we can first get to imagine a bullpen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, and Kimbrel for a few weeks, before we consider a trade with the Yankees where we would not likely get value and overpay to improve what is already a potentially ridiculous back end.

This team needs a #2 starter but who has to be an upgrade on Porcello, ERod to be worth it, and this team needs some thump in LF with the future of 1B/DH in mind too.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The kicker for all of that: Hughes ended his Yankees career with the 3rd highest ERA of anyone with 500 IP or more in a Yankees uniform. His NYY HR rate (1.29 per 9 IP) was the highest in team history, min 500IP.

Maybe those are the peaks Hughes2.50 was talking about.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Or we can first get to imagine a bullpen with Tazawa, Carson Smith, Koji, and Kimbrel for a few weeks, before we consider a trade with the Yankees where we would not likely get value and overpay to improve what is already a potentially ridiculous back end.

This team needs a #2 starter but who has to be an upgrade on Porcello, ERod to be worth it, and this team needs some thump in LF with the future of 1B/DH in mind too.
All fair points. I was just trying to say which pitcher I'd want more from NY. However, I don't think it would take as much to get Chapman as you think.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
Here's some completely baseless speculation: Tanaka has an opt out after 2017. The Yankees are terrible and are probably going to be terrible next year. What would it take, and would it be worth it?

Let's start with Swihart, Erod, and Devers. Who says no?

(Yes, he has a NTC, but I imagine he'd waive it to come here.)

For that I want Sonny Gray. Sox would be crazy to pay that for Tanaka.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Any infinite trade speculation has to start out with a position of need, not greed. The Red Sox bullpen is fine - probably one of the best in baseball. Their position players are set, except for a desire to improve Left Field and relegate Holt (and his good fielding/running) back to the bench for an incremental improvement awaiting the graduation of Benintendi. Chris Young has a history of hitting and there's no reason to just assume he's cooked. He can also adequately back up all outfield positions if needed.

The starting rotation is difficult to assess this early in the season. Let's give in and assume (rightfully) that Price is a true ace. Today the #2 is Wright, #3 is Porcello, #4 is Rodriguez and # 5 is Buchholz or Kelly. I choose to look at that as the Red Sox having 5 potential #2 starters (with Wright and Porcello pleasant surprises). It's as likely that 4 of those 5 pitch to their abilities as it is for a couple of them to tank. Making an assumption on that on Cinco de Mayo is absurd. Giving up on Kelly or Buchholz is absurd.

Swihart is one of the most valuable commodities in positional baseball - a young, cost controlled, switch hitting catcher with big upside. If he's redundant, then the haul for him should be substantial, really substantial (and agree that the Red Sox would then be one Vazquez injury away from a catching platoon of Hanigan and Leon). Benintendi and Moncada should be untouchable, unless they bring back a bona fide young, cost controlled ace. The last thing I would want to see is trading one of them in July to marginally improve the team's chances of making it to the playoff lottery.

The Red Sox will sit back and await to see what injuries occur and which pitchers really suck before establishing what their needs are. Today they have no pressing needs.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Any infinite trade speculation has to start out with a position of need, not greed. The Red Sox bullpen is fine - probably one of the best in baseball. Their position players are set, except for a desire to improve Left Field and relegate Holt (and his good fielding/running) back to the bench for an incremental improvement awaiting the graduation of Benintendi. Chris Young has a history of hitting and there's no reason to just assume he's cooked. He can also adequately back up all outfield positions if needed.
I really agree with all of this. Well said and important to remember. I love the "greed not need" language.

Today the Red Sox are half a game out of 1st place and looking pretty good.

Here's where I would push back a little:

Today they have no pressing needs. ... Giving up on Kelly or Buchholz is absurd.
I don't think it's "absurd," nor do I think they would necessarily be "giving up" on these guys if they traded them.

To get something of value, you often have to give something of value. The Sox have nearly a decade's worth of data about Buchholz, and have seen plenty of Joe Kelly at this point. Both are talented pitchers who have trouble being consistent from start to start (and pitch to pitch). The AL East is a notoriously unforgiving place for inconsistency. So they might have more value to a team in, say, the NL West than they do to the Red Sox.

I also think it's worth noting that as a team, the Sox have a 4.58 ERA from their starters, 10th in the AL. Last season their starter ERA was 4.39, 13th in the AL. This is becoming a big enough sample to be concerned, hence their decision to spend a ton on David Price.

I will also add a note of caution here. The Sox starters looked pretty good overall in their 11 games against the Rays, Braves, and Yankees. Those happen to the 3 worst offenses in baseball by runs scored (and in a fairer context, 3 of the bottom 7 by OPS).

I don't think things are as dire as they once seemed, particularly if Price settles, Porcello and Wright stay hot, and EdRod comes back strong. But if any of those things don't happen, there are real reasons to explore the trade market.
 

BuellMiller

New Member
Mar 25, 2015
449
The kicker for all of that: Hughes ended his Yankees career with the 3rd highest ERA of anyone with 500 IP or more in a Yankees uniform. His NYY HR rate (1.29 per 9 IP) was the highest in team history, min 500IP.

Maybe those are the peaks Hughes2.50 was talking about.
In his defense, his projections for Lester, Papelbon, and Kershaw weren't that far off. Maybe he just needed to address this line of code that he must have had.

If (IsAYankeeProspect == true)
{ERAplus = ERAplusPredicted + 60;}
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
In his defense, his projections for Lester, Papelbon, and Kershaw weren't that far off. Maybe he just needed to address this line of code that he must have had.

If (IsAYankeeProspect == true)
{ERAplus = ERAplusPredicted + 60;}
He's also generally right that the Sox would not have much interest in Lucroy.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
I don't see why the Sox would trade for more hitting at this point. They're scoring plenty of runs. If they trade Swihart, they better get back a #2 starter at worst.
It is too early to make a definitive call on this, but I'm inclined to think that the Red Sox will need starting pitching over offense.

Putting Owens and Swilhart in a package together for the best pitcher possible might make sense. However, I wonder if the Red Sox missed an opportunity to trade Swilhart in the off-season when his value was pretty high. There are questions about Swihart's defense behind the plate and he isn't hitting in AAA (albeit a small sample size). If he doesn't start hitting, his trade value will continue to plummet, making it more difficult to obtain a quality SP.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I disagree about Swihart - he was demoted, and then reassigned to work in another department. There's a lot of ways to spin what happens this season for him in RI.

Anyone who trades a very good MLB starter for a Swihart-headlined package isn't going to be focused on his immediate results in AAA, because that team isn't going to be in win-now mode.

Owens' trade value, on the other hand....
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
1--"I added my own projection"
2--"included an extra factor"
3--"substituted a better defensive projection"

Well, no shit he looked good.
4--"had wet dreams about Casey Fossum passing Randy Johnson on career K list"
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
If you enjoy "greed not need", you'll love this latest ESPN column from David Schoenfield, in which he argues that the Angels will be bad for the foreseeable future and wouldn't be able to re-sign Trout anyway - so they should trade him now. Trout's salary is $16M this year but goes to ~$34M for 2017-2020. At 10 WAR, that's of course a massive bargain.

He offers up 5 teams who might be able to make an enticing offer. I don't buy the Dodgers or Rockies, but could maybe see the Rangers or Cubs. The 5th team, of course, is the Red Sox, about which he says:

Boston Red Sox -- Keith rated them only the No. 10 organization but they have four huge upside talents in third baseman Rafael Devers (No. 7), second baseman Yoan Moncada (No. 17), center fielder Andrew Benintendi (No. 18) and pitcher Anderson Espinoza (No. 38). Moncada is hitting .348/.478/.506 with 19 steals for Class A Salem and Benintendi is hitting .376/.435/.653, although both have hit just one home run. Still, Benintendi could be on theMichael Conforto path: drafted in one year and reaching the majors the next. He should be moving up to Double-A soon and could reach Boston before September. Jackie Bradley Jr. also could be part of the deal, along with Pablo Sandoval (just kidding!).
Now that I'm done fapping to the basic notion of turning JBJ into Mike f'ing Trout... it's obviously and hugely unrealistic. The Angels' needs start with ace-upside starting pitching, and unless you think Owens and E-Rod would be enticing I'm not sure we quite have that to offer. The Angels would be trading something like 20 WAR worth of net value (expected production minus salary cost), plus the incremental marketing value of Trout himself putting butts in seats. It would take the biggest king's ransom we'd ever seen in MLB to pry him away - it's not like a Pedro deal with one year left on the contract or something. But man, if you're going to have fun speculating about something unrealistic, might as well shoot for the stars.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I doubt they'll look to move Trout. He's signed through 2020, which will be his age 28 year -- meaning, even if you write off 2016 AND 2017 as rebuilding years, you have three years of Prime Trout to build around starting in 2018.

That said...imagine a package of Swihart, JBJ, Devers, Kopech, and Chavis. A replacement for a fraction of Trout's CF value, plus two top prospects at positions where they're not remotely blocked, plus Chavis's upside, plus a far-away high-ceiling arm.

The question isn't whether that's fair value for Trout. The question is whether it would beat the next-best offer in the event that they do decide to trade him. I think the Dodgers could beat that offer, because they have a better top prospect in Seager, a better arm in Urias, plus major league guys like Puig and Pederson who might be interesting rolls of the dice for a rebuilding team. But would the Dodgers do Puig, Seager, Urias, and more? And would the Angels trade Trout to the other LA team even if that offer were available? Same deal with Texas: Mazara, Gallo, Profar, and Tate would match the above Sox offer, for sure. But would the Angels trade Trout within the division? I don't buy that the Cubs could beat us with Torres/Contreras/Soler, or that the Rockies could beat us with anything.

And, honestly, I don't buy that the Angels are going to decide they HAVE to trade Trout in the first place (which is the way you could get him without matching the 20 WAR of value). My point is simply that, even keeping Betts/Bogaerts/Moncada/Benintendi/Espinoza out of it, the Red Sox should be able to come close to matching any other team's offer for a stud player -- and, in Trout's case, two of the teams we'd be in stiffest competition with might well be disqualified.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Even assuming Trout is available, I don't think there's any way we get him without giving up at least two of Benintendi, Moncada, and Espinoza. Something in the neighborhood of Benintendi/Espinoza/Swihart/Kopech/Chavis sounds semi-realistic to me. I mean, we're talking about one of the best young outfielders in the history of the game, not yet 25 and signed at a bargain price for the next four years. A real-world price tag for that much value is not going to sound palatable. It's going to make us cringe.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
If you enjoy "greed not need", you'll love this latest ESPN column from David Schoenfield, in which he argues that the Angels will be bad for the foreseeable future and wouldn't be able to re-sign Trout anyway - so they should trade him now. Trout's salary is $16M this year but goes to ~$34M for 2017-2020. At 10 WAR, that's of course a massive bargain.

He offers up 5 teams who might be able to make an enticing offer. I don't buy the Dodgers or Rockies, but could maybe see the Rangers or Cubs. The 5th team, of course, is the Red Sox, about which he says:



Now that I'm done fapping to the basic notion of turning JBJ into Mike f'ing Trout... it's obviously and hugely unrealistic. The Angels' needs start with ace-upside starting pitching, and unless you think Owens and E-Rod would be enticing I'm not sure we quite have that to offer. The Angels would be trading something like 20 WAR worth of net value (expected production minus salary cost), plus the incremental marketing value of Trout himself putting butts in seats. It would take the biggest king's ransom we'd ever seen in MLB to pry him away - it's not like a Pedro deal with one year left on the contract or something. But man, if you're going to have fun speculating about something unrealistic, might as well shoot for the stars.
Well, we'd offer Anderson Espinosa. If the Angels are trading Trout it's a full rebuild. Espinosa isn't worth as much as Urias or de Leon though, so yeah, the Dodgers would seem to have the advantage.

If I were the Angels, I would also be starting out by attaching Trout to Pujols. Which would be the combination of the contract Cameron rated last July as the best in baseball with the 5th worst in baseball. Put them together and you've got a 5 year WAR of 54.3 for $299m. Depending on how you value WAR, I've got Trout overall as worth about $376m over the next 5 years, with Pujols worth $57.5m (based on WAR values of $7m per win in 2016 escalating by .5 per year). So that would be about $134.5m in excess value for the 5 year period to 2020, which then goes down to $104.5 once you count Pujols' $30m in 2021.

Angels contracts are backloaded, so that value would be heavily front loaded: $43.1m in extra value in 2016, $40.3 in 2017, $27.2 in 2018, $27 in 2019, $26.9 in 2020, -30 in 2020.

Can we find $104m in excess value for the Angels to get in return? Sure. Without even digging in to the major league roster, using Fangraphs' Katoh projection system, we could do it with Devers (9.6 WAR), Benintendi (7 WAR) and Espinosa (6.2 WAR). Katoh is all "through age 28" and I can't find a way of breaking that down by year, but still. That's 22.4 WAR in value, which depending on when exactly these guys start producing is at least $160m or so in value, at contracts that will be minimal.

Putting aside what the Dodgers or whoever else might be offering, put aside the impact on the fan base or the organization's willingness to enter into a complete rebuild, Pujols and Trout for Devers, Benintendi and Espinosa looks to me like a very good deal for the Angels. It gives them a toolsy replacement for Trout, a potential top of the rotation starter and a long term answer at third while getting them out of $299 million payroll obligations. So, like, imagine it's 2018; would you rather have Trout in center and Pujols at DH or Devers at third, Espinosa in the rotation, Benintendi in center and $60 million worth of free agent talent to fill in some of the other positions. Easy call, right?

So there's no question we could do this if we wanted to. We would get a ton of extra value for at least the next few years, and it's hard to say no to the idea of adding a inner circle HoF talent.

The Angels absolutely should trade Trout, and it's only unlikely because teams (and for that matter organizations of all kinds) rarely have the guts to honestly assess their current predicament. The Angels predicament is close to the worst in all of baseball. They have no farm system, not nearly enough talent to compete with their current roster, they are loaded with terrible contracts and their more popular cross town rivals look like they are set up for years. They sell everything, tank, get some top draft picks, and aim for 2018 at the earliest.
 
Last edited:

luckysox

Indiana Jones
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2009
8,073
S.E. Pennsylvania
Just for fun, because this trade speculation re: Trout is pretty fun in a "I just won the Powerball" kind of way, here's a 2018 lineup based on PW's above post:
Moncada 3B
Bogaerts SS
Betts LF
Trout RF
Shaw 1B
Pedroia 2B
Pujols DH
Vasquez - C
JBJ - CF


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. How many runs would this lineup score, assuming Moncada is as good as he seems? I would't even now the optimal place to bat most of these guys. But even the loss of Devers and Benintendi (I get that the Espinoza loss is the scary one for most of us) wouldn't make me bat an eyelash if this was the trade-off. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure we'd still find things to complain about. It DOES look a little right handed heavy.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Albert f'ing Pujols batting 7th. Never thought I'd see the day, even hypothetically. Even in his present state in LA, he's batting cleanup.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,224
Albert f'ing Pujols batting 7th. Never thought I'd see the day, even hypothetically. Even in his present state in LA, he's batting cleanup.
The fact that Pujols is batting cleanup for LAA is more an indictment of the weakness of their lineup as it is a statement about Pujols still hitting well enough to support it.
 

jasvlm

New Member
Nov 28, 2014
177
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.
IF the sky fell, and they'd put him up for bid, it would likely cost a package that included Betts, Swihart, ERod, Devers and one of Benintnedi or Moncada. They'd probably have to send another lower level pitching asset along, like Owens or Johnson, and perhaps even a lottery ticket from the lower minors. I could see Espinoza in there instead of Moncada, but that's the deal you'd have to put up to get in the game. If I'm the Angels GM (eppler?), I hang up the phone unless I'm getting 5 major assets back, and I still might want you to eat Pujols deal to make it work. I don't have to trade trout, so there is no pressure to move on less than a monster package. As the man says..."Convince me..."
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Even assuming Trout is available, I don't think there's any way we get him without giving up at least two of Benintendi, Moncada, and Espinoza. Something in the neighborhood of Benintendi/Espinoza/Swihart/Kopech/Chavis sounds semi-realistic to me. I mean, we're talking about one of the best young outfielders in the history of the game, not yet 25 and signed at a bargain price for the next four years. A real-world price tag for that much value is not going to sound palatable. It's going to make us cringe.
The thing about Trout is that he's already been so good for a number of years now, that he kind of seems like he must be in his late 20s. But he's not even 25 yet, as you point out. He's just a kid. Just a kid who is currently in his 5th straight season with an ops+ of 168 or better. Think about that.

Espinoza, Benintendi, Swihart, Devers, plus one more lesser guy.

Or, as has been suggested, you give away less but take on Pujols' monstrously awful deal to help the Angels out. Personally, I'd prefer to do that, eat the money, and keep more chips here, but maybe LAA wouldn't want that.

Sox' lineup (assuming they don't add Pujols):

C - Vazquez
1b - Shaw
2b - Pedroia
3b - Moncada
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Trout
CF - Bradley
RF - Betts
DH - Hanley

Holy crap indeed.

Betts
Pedroia
Trout
Hanley
Shaw
Moncada
Bogaerts
Bradley
Vazquez

Sick, sick, sick.

Well, one can dream, right?
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,913
Salem, NH
Well, we'd offer Anderson Espinosa. If the Angels are trading Trout it's a full rebuild. Espinosa isn't worth as much as Urias or de Leon though, so yeah, the Dodgers would seem to have the advantage.
With the two teams being a mere 30 miles apart, would that cause the Angels to balk at trading Trout to the Dodgers, regardless of the prospects offered in return? You're not only losing a generational talent, but your basically inviting fans to change laundry.