jsinger121 said:
Yup, at that point you're basically exchanging certainty for money. The Red Sox have money and need certainty.
Maybe something like Owens/JBJ/Ranaudo/Coyle? (Or is that a little too much talent?)
Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested
- Thread starter Laser Show
- Start date
- Status
Yup, at that point you're basically exchanging certainty for money. The Red Sox have money and need certainty.
Maybe something like Owens/JBJ/Ranaudo/Coyle? (Or is that a little too much talent?)
Hamels is the best-case outcome for Owens, and I'd put the probability of him reaching that ceiling at ~10-15%. Yes, if he does, you get him for 6-7 years at much cheaper money, but for a large-payroll team like the Sox who ostensibly want to compete in 2015, trading money for certainty of production seems like a no-brainer.
jscola85 said:
Well, let's say Lester gets a 6/150 deal (evenly spread), versus Hamel's current contract. Here's what they'd end up being:
2015
Lester (31), $25m
Hamels (31), $22.5m
2016
Lester (32), $25m
Hamels (32), $22.5m
2017
Lester (33), $25m
Hamels (33), $22.5m
2018
Lester (34), $25m
Hamels (34), 22.5m
2019
Lester (35), $25m
Hamels (35), possible $20m if he reaches the terms of his contract to trigger the option, or if Boston simply chooses to exercise it
2020
Lester (36), $25m
So it's possible that Lester would only be an extra year commitment.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Is there any salary relief coming back in that deal? Because I'd rather pay Lester for another year or two and keep all of those guys unless Hamels becomes significantly cheaper than Lester.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Not sure Philly would have any interest in JBJ. They already have a youngish, speed-and-D (though his D isn't great) CF in Ben Revere. Coyle could be an interesting consolation prize for Betts if we refuse to include Mookie. I'd bet something like Owens, Matt Barnes, Cecchini/Coyle could get them interested, assuming Amaro isn't still acting like Amaro.
TomRicardo said:
Absolutely agree. We have had too much prospect love around the Sox (and this board) for the last couple of seasons - it's easy to be attached to them, but when there is proven top drawer major league talent is available at a reasonable cost and (almost) the right side of 30, then the proven talent wins. When overloaded with prospects and no clear plan as to how they fit together (the Sox current situation), then the right use of them is to trade effectively.
Hamels for Owens + any combination of upper second tier prospects ought to work for both teams. Sox get a top of the rotation starter to enable them to compete within the "Papi window" and leaves them with payroll space to add another FA starter as required. Philly get a prospect who just might be an ace by the time they come back into contention (a fair risk when rebuilding), some useful additions to their rotation / lineup in the short term, whilst getting younger and and beginning to clear up their payroll mess.
The other question I would have is, what would the Cubs have to offer in competition with the Sox, in terms of a package for Hamels?
ivanvamp said:
An extra $30M, possibly $50M commitment is a big difference when you're talking pitchers in their mid-30's. Again, all depends on the prospects you give up, but if it's mainly centered around that glut of AAA starters the Sox have (Workman, Ranaudo, Webster, Barnes, RDLR, Owens, Rodriguez, Escobar, Johnson), you're trading from a position of strength and can afford to trade away a few of those guys.
EDIT - forgot Barnes. That makes 9 guys who are fairly equivalent in value right now, and are on a similar age progression.
Pick one from each group:jsinger121 said:
Trade 1: Owens/Rodriguez, Workman/Ranaudo/Johnson, Coyle/Marerro, and one of Hembree/Wilson/Kurcz/Couch/Shaw/Hassan/other similar depth
Trade 2: Owens/Rodriguez, RDLR/Webster/Escobar, and two of Hembree/Wilson/Kurcz/Couch/Shaw/Hassan/other similar depth
So, you get 4 players, but Coyle/Marrero instead of deep depth if you take a lesser second starter prospect, although I may be willing to include Coyle either way. With Asuaje and Gragnani establishing themselves as real 2B prospects this season, he's expendable to get the deal done.
This is going to be an interesting offseason in large part because Ben is going toe to toe with Theo for many of the same resources.
jscola85 said:
Good point. Maybe Brentz, then? Cespedes? Victorino? (I kid, sorta, but sorta not. Their corner OF situation is kind of a shambles, with prospect help coming but not soon enough. A proven MLB corner OF on a one-year deal might suit their needs pretty well.)
Plympton91 said:
Trade 1 - Owens / Ranaudo / Coyle / Couch (though Philly should want something better than what is listed there)
Trade 2 - Owens / Escobar / Shaw / Hembree
Brief rundown of the players in that deal and their 2015 projections from the Fangraphs depth charts:nattysez said:
- A 3-3.5 win SP (Hamels) being paid $90M over four years. A slightly generous projection might be 11 WAR, which at $7M per win and 5% inflation gives $82M value, or a surplus of -$8M over the course of the deal. If we assume he will be a true talent 4 win player next season (probably a bit of a reach) that becomes a $7M surplus.
- A closer (Papelbon) being paid $26M over two years. Steamer is surprisingly pessimistic about Papelbon, projecting a FIP of 3.63 and just 0.3 WAR. I would be inclined to trust the projections, but for the sake of generosity lets give him 1.5 WAR for 2015 and 2.5 total over the life of the deal. That still gives him negative surplus value, -$4M.
- A sub-replacement level backup DH (Howard) being paid $60M over the next two years. Howard can't hit, can't field, and can't run, so the Red Sox (and the Phillies, for that matter) should probably just cut him. -$60M surplus value.
All told, with some fairly generous projections for Pap and Hamels, we get a package with a combined surplus value of -$57M. I hope the Red Sox stay very clear of that one.
EDIT: as an alternate presentation, the Sox would be paying $176M for approximately 13.5 WAR, or $13M per win. They would be better off flinging stupid money at some free agents than dealing a bag of balls for that package.
The larger issue is that no sensible organization would want to play him in the first place.jscola85 said:
I echo what others are saying: is 2yr/$60M extra worth the prospects we may have to surrender? I am very opposed to giving away Betts or Bogaerts unless its for a guy like Stanton. I'd much rather sign a blank cheque for Scherzer, Lester, or some other ace pitcher. Our prospects are way too valuable when we have comparable players on the market who can be had for only money. One thought that has crossed my mind is packaging Owens + Cecchini + whatever, along with taking on the remainder of Papelbon's salary and his clubhouse issues. The guy comes off as a jerk but we know he has the guts to pitch here.
However, that's where salary absorption should end. I am so absolutely opposed to assuming any part of Ryan Howard that its not even funny. I don't know if its injuries or whatever but he looks done. Defensively he has no value so he'd essentially be clogging up the DH spot. His OPS hasn't sniffed .800 in 3 years. He *might* possibly be a guy that just needs a change of scenery but I'd rather not risk it.
However, that's where salary absorption should end. I am so absolutely opposed to assuming any part of Ryan Howard that its not even funny. I don't know if its injuries or whatever but he looks done. Defensively he has no value so he'd essentially be clogging up the DH spot. His OPS hasn't sniffed .800 in 3 years. He *might* possibly be a guy that just needs a change of scenery but I'd rather not risk it.
In many ways this is very good news for the Sox. Not only do they have a chance to get Hamels for , hopefully, a reasonable package but if they miss out then Its more than likely he goes to the Cubs which takes them out of the Lester sweepstakes. Of course, the converse is also true for the Cubs.
Could Boston trade for Hamels AND sign Lester?
Could Boston trade for Hamels AND sign Lester?
I had this thought but I don't see that the Sox would be willing to spend that much money on two 30+ year old pitchers. I hope I am wrong as I think it would be great to have Lester and Hamels as #1 and #1a in the rotation.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
They seem to be going young in the field and have the money if they choose to spend it that way.
Or they could just play the prospects in those holes. Having Lester and Hamels in your rotation gives you a lot more room for error in breaking in kids, especially given those who got their feet wet this year and should improve. 3B is still a hole in this scenario, but that's about it.maufman said:
1) Well, as others have said, given the logjams in the back of the rotation, the OF, and 3B, they're probably going to deal some of these guys no matter what.maufman said:
2). Honest question: How many holes are there on the Sox roster outside of the top of the rotation?
They need to add pieces to the bullpen and ideally a LH power bat. But looking around the diamond, I'm not seeing a lot of empty positions, especially if you think the 2015 3B is already on the roster.
Edit: corrected LH vs. RH
maufman said:
The other holes are basically third base and the back end of the bullpen. Koji is probably signing before the World Series is over. And if you have Lester and Hamels back, I think we're okay going cheap at third, at least to start the season, considering A) it's possible Cecchini will be fine there, B) it's possible Middlebrooks will regain his not suck, C) it's possible Marrero will hit will enough to push Bogaerts to third.
I see this as something you consider only after you've failed to acquire at least one, if not two, top free agent arms.
We have money and we have a protected pick. We should be thinking about free agency first.
We have money and we have a protected pick. We should be thinking about free agency first.
Sorry, yes, LH. I had originally written "someone who can hit RH pitching," and edited.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Just want to chime in that I think the Phillies won't really try to trade Hamels until after Scherzer, Lester, and Shields sign. They will try to leverage being the only really good pitcher left on the market to whoever wanted one of those first 3 guys but missed. So to me this conversation is likely to start over completely fresh come January.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Of course they could. However we would start looking like '14 Phillies in four to five years.
bellowthecat said:
Quite the opposite. They want to trade him early. If the Cubs sign Lester and bow out, the Phillies will get a much worse package from the Red Sox who would only have to beat a Yankees offer (So Like Webster and Marrero would be enough, god the Yankee's farm sucks)
dynomite said:
To understand the "holes," it's important to understand what we're expecting from the spots that aren't deemed to be holes:
-- Another healthy, elite season from David Ortiz, who will be 39 next season.
-- Another strong season from Napoli, who will be 33 next season, and whose 119 GP this season was the 3rd highest total of his career.
-- Health and continued league-average production at a premium defensive position from Pedroia.
-- Substantial improvement from X, who posted a 659 OPS in his first full major league season.
I think all four of those things are worth betting on, but the smart money says at least one of them, and quite possibly two, won't come to pass.
The other known quantity is CV -- I'm all in favor of handing him the catching job, but I expect nothing from the bat.
I'm in favor of giving two of the starting OF jobs to Castillo and Betts, but they're both unknown quantities. It's likely that one will fail to meet expectations.
In a different context, I'd be happy to grab a stopgap option at 3B and roll the dice on a bounceback season from Cespedes, but I think something more robust is needed to address the downside risk and known holes elsewhere in the offense. And with the underwhelming FA options, that's going to require trading prospects.
Good points and good post.maufman said:
As much as I agree with you, though, I think the team is where it is with a lot of these guys, if that makes sense.
Unless the team is going to gut the entire roster, I think the Phillies are a natural trade partner. They need to shed salary and veterans, we need to clear some logjams of young talent and are looking for veteran talent in the rotation.
Not unless most of the prospects miss. Five years from now you'd still have Swihart, Betts, and Bogaerts just entering their primes, along with whoever survives from the group of 7 or 8 pitchers currently in AA or AAA that wouldn't be included in the Hamels deal ranging from 27 to 30 years old, and Marrero, Vazquez, and Cecchini still on the right side of 30 as well. That's a long way from where the Phillies are now, even projecting to get nothing from what they currently have below AA, which is unlikely.TomRicardo said:
To echo some posts above, I only would move Hamels for a quantity over quality prospects package. I wouldn't trade Xander, Betts, or Swihart. Owens/Rodriguez I'd try to avoid, but maybe consider one of them.
The Red Sox are in a nice position to trade at least 2 or 3 near major league ready pitchers without hurting their depth too much. Out of Workman, Ranaudo, Webster, Barnes, RDLR, Escobar, and Johnson.hopefully the Red Sox can convince Amaro to bite on the 3 they like the least. Even if Amaro likes the 1 of those 6 the Sox are highest on, I'd still go for it. Maybe round out the package with a mid-level position player. If the Phillies are intent on the highest upside guys I mentioned in the first paragraph, I would just focus on free agency.
I would also not take Howard unless essentially no decent prospects are involved and we could dump Victorino and/or Craig on the Phillies. 60M in dead money makes Hamels deal essentially 4/150. At that point, you're better off just dealing with FA.
The Red Sox are in a nice position to trade at least 2 or 3 near major league ready pitchers without hurting their depth too much. Out of Workman, Ranaudo, Webster, Barnes, RDLR, Escobar, and Johnson.hopefully the Red Sox can convince Amaro to bite on the 3 they like the least. Even if Amaro likes the 1 of those 6 the Sox are highest on, I'd still go for it. Maybe round out the package with a mid-level position player. If the Phillies are intent on the highest upside guys I mentioned in the first paragraph, I would just focus on free agency.
I would also not take Howard unless essentially no decent prospects are involved and we could dump Victorino and/or Craig on the Phillies. 60M in dead money makes Hamels deal essentially 4/150. At that point, you're better off just dealing with FA.
If you could get Rollins in the deal, you could move X to 3rd. He's a FA at the end of 2015 too. He was bad in 2013, but pretty good outside of that.
I'd rather they sign a FA SP though.
I'd rather they sign a FA SP though.
One small thing about the debate of trade-for-Hamels vs sign-Lester that favors the latter is that it'll be easier to afford a marquis SP the more rosters spots are being occupied by cost-controlled quality players, and the more prospects they hold on to the better the chance they have more rosters spots being occupied by cost-controlled quality players.
bosox79 said:
Not sure I want to bet on a SS as old as Rollins. Plus, I would really like to see the X-to-3rd discussions die. He was awful defensively there and his hitting tanked when he moved there. Not blaming the move on it but there may have been some impact on his hitting as he was trying to learn a position he'd not really played at all.
Owens is on my short list of frontline prospects that I would give up in a trade for Hammels or another front line starter. He has the cache, his value is high and I'm not sold that the product is real. I fear holding on to him too long may be a mistake. Swihart, Xander and Betts, otoh, are untouchable in 99% of trade scenarios. Would a package of Owens, another AAA Pitcher not named Rodriguez, and a lotto ticket be enough? That's the top ranked pitching prospect in the organization, another top 10 guy in a deep organization and a young lotto ticket in the 10-20 range. Maybe it doesn't get Hammels because Ruin Tomorrow is terrible, but I have to imagine that that package should pry loose a front tier starter from somewhere.
Imo all the pitchers are available. Betts and X? Not so much.
The sox have a bunch of back rotation arms who might put it together and be more, but the best case of anyone (except maybe rdlr) is Hamels. Owens absolute best case is a cheaper Hamels, but likely not for a while and the sox can afford it.
Barnes, Webster, ranaudo, Owens, Johnson etc you just have to trust they decide to keep the right guys but you trade them in the right deal.
Edit
Kelly I assume stays. And I forgot the other trade guys, Rodriguez I'd keep and Escobar is trade bait too.
The sox have a bunch of back rotation arms who might put it together and be more, but the best case of anyone (except maybe rdlr) is Hamels. Owens absolute best case is a cheaper Hamels, but likely not for a while and the sox can afford it.
Barnes, Webster, ranaudo, Owens, Johnson etc you just have to trust they decide to keep the right guys but you trade them in the right deal.
Edit
Kelly I assume stays. And I forgot the other trade guys, Rodriguez I'd keep and Escobar is trade bait too.
No.jasail said:
If they want Hamels (and I'm agnostic on that question), at least one and possibly two guys that elicit a collective "Fuck!" from SoSH are likely to be involved.
Rudy Pemberton said:
God you should not plan on sitting on a prospect's value. Look at a guy like Michael Bowden who at one point could have netted you Miquel Montero.
Agree with this. I think we may have waited too long on our large crop of AAA pitchers, many of whom have lost some luster. Time to make a deal.TomRicardo said:
I have a question for the keep the farm people.
What do you think we should do with Ranuado, Webster, Rodriguez, Workman, Johnson, Kelly, De La Rosa, Barnes, Johnson, Owens, Escobar?
You know they all can't start. Hell if you move them to the bullpen you only have one more spot for another pitcher. Tough with Buchholz under contract.
What do you think we should do with Ranuado, Webster, Rodriguez, Workman, Johnson, Kelly, De La Rosa, Barnes, Johnson, Owens, Escobar?
You know they all can't start. Hell if you move them to the bullpen you only have one more spot for another pitcher. Tough with Buchholz under contract.
If Koji leaves you could always get the Phillies to also send Papelbon back with Hamels. Taking on that money would potentially allow the Sox to send less prospects. So something like
Owens + Craig + Johnson + Coyle for Hamels and Papelbon might get them to bite. Doubt it but you never know.
Owens + Craig + Johnson + Coyle for Hamels and Papelbon might get them to bite. Doubt it but you never know.
The likelihood of Owens becoming a top of the rotation guy is slim, and becoming a top 10 guy ala Cole Hamels slimmer.
If anything, he's closer to a LHP version of Ian Kennedy.
If anything, he's closer to a LHP version of Ian Kennedy.
Look at a guy like Jon Lester who at one point could have netted you part of Johan Santana.TomRicardo said:
Obviously Owens (or insert-pitching-prospect-here) is probably not going to turn into Jon Lester, people here almost certainly overate our prospects, and there is nothing wrong with trading prospects for established players in the right deal. That said (and I may be reading your statement more literally than intended), the idea that you should trade be sure to trade your prospects before they bust and become worthless is a great way to ensure that you don't have any young, cost controlled players who are (by far) the most valuable assets in the game.
Theo will presumably be doing some serious shopping, and other teams will be floated, if only to drive up the price. Theo will be in there. Hamel's not being moved for two middle-of-the rotation projections and a lottery ticket.maufman said:
There has never been a prospect this board is more mixed-up about than Owens. The gist of our collective wisdom about him seems to be "this guy is untouchable! He might even be league average!"foulkehampshire said:
It's interesting that the Cubs are mentioned here. Whatever payroll room or redundant prospects the Red Sox have, that applies twice as much to Chicago. Hamels makes a ton of sense for them, although one could argue that just buying FA pitching makes even more sense. Anyway, they're at a similar point to the Sox where they need to figure out which prospects are worth more in a trade.
- Status