I don't know about that, 2012 had a roster that looked like a single A squad and the following year they won the series. Anything can happen.dcmissle said:
Red Sox Deadline Discussion
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
bosockboy said:
I'd love it but I can't see the Pirates doing that.
If I were Neal Huntington, as tough as it would be, I'd probably do nothing and let the Pirates fall out of the race rather than give up a top prospect for a rental. I'd try to contend in 2015 when conceivably I'd have a healthy Cole, with Taillon joining the team midseason and maybe Kingham in the rotation, with Polanco improved with more ABs under his belt.
If they are confident they can get Hamels, 2015 is a go. They have tremendous payroll flexibility.
They're free agents, is there a reason why we should have expected them to be on the 2015 Red Sox whether they're traded now or not?
Jason Mastrodonato @JMastrodonato 25s
FWIW, heard the Phillies have multiple scouts watching Red Sox's Double-A affiliate in New Britain this weekend.
https://twitter.com/JMastrodonato/status/493445993883783168
FWIW, heard the Phillies have multiple scouts watching Red Sox's Double-A affiliate in New Britain this weekend.
https://twitter.com/JMastrodonato/status/493445993883783168
Who cares about Kemp's arm? He has no range, which is far more important. He shouldn't be in CF or RF for the Red Sox. If they get Kemp, he's a LF/future DH.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
I'm not sure the breakeven point on a subsidy for Kemp, but given his injuries and recent play, I'd have to think close to half of his salary should be covered (and that's with zero value going back to LA). Getting a subsidized Kemp shouldn't really be added into the equation for what Lester is worth unless the Dodgers cover well over half his contract.
Put another way, if Lester is traded in a deal that includes a half priced Kemp, some serious prospects should also be coming to the Red Sox as well.
I really hope that's just posturing. I'd rather pay Lester $20+ million for his age 35 and 36 seasons rather than give up cost-controlled assets that could either contribute to the MLB club or be used to land a bat like Stanton.Puffy said:
So can someone please explain something to me? I keep reading that Owens' ceiling is a mid-rotation starter, which sounds like a quality #3 or a borderline #2. How can it be "horrifying" to think of a guy like that as the centerpiece of a deal for a proven borderline #1/solid #2 in his prime? Isn't that taking prospect love a bit too far?Puffy said:
Plympton91 said:
The 3 players as mentioned are free agents, so all the RS lose is their exclusive negotiating rights. The RS would have to pay free agent value, but presumably all 3 players have significantly furthered their careers in Boston, and I would think all have a positive outlook on being members of the RS. You would think matching the highest would secure the signing. Of course, it is extremely unlikely the RS will match the highest offer on all 3 players, but the point is the players will all be signable (unless the Lester extension talk has any validity) if the RS want to throw money around (not that I think the sign at any cost approach is a good one).
If Ben manages to haul in 5 top 100 prospects including 2 top 50 prospects for 2 months of Lester. Koji and Miller, he should be given an immediate raise. In the Punto trade, he managed to completely rework a roster that seemed completely inflexible by not only shedding unwanted payroll but somehow fleecing the Dodgers for prospects as well. That resulted in one World championship. Now he is turning a year of chicken shit into chicken soup, which could last a decade. Clearly, the RS would have the strongest farm system in the majors and all kinds of short term and long term assets. Also the rumored moves perfectly fit with the JH philosophy and the fact that players <30 are underpaid, players > 30 are overpaid. I am looking forward to seeing in the next few days to see if Ben can work some magic.
I have read good things and bad things about Pederson. Is anyone here fairly familiar with him and can comment on whether he's an almost sure thing worth giving up on Lester? I'm assuming if they trade him he ain't coming back.
The difference is that the 2012 free agent class had enough players that turned out to be good, and the front office identified them and signed them. Look at the non Red Sox free agents and tell me who you want to give a 3 year - $39 million contract to.Tyrone Biggums said:
Plympton91 said:
Total non-starter. If you went back to July 2012 and were asked who amongst those impending free agents would be worth a 3/39 or any 13M AAV deal, you wouldn't have said Victorino, Napoli or Dempster. Yet they all worked out fine.
There very well could be a Victorino, Napoli, and/or Dempster in the 2014 free agent class. It's up to the front office to identify them and hopefully be correct again. Obviously the success of the 2012-2013 off-season is indicative of nothing for the 2014-2015 off-season, but at the very least it should give any of us pause before we definitively rule out the 2015 Red Sox finding the right players and contending.
Again, he's got some flaws but so does every single prospect ever. He does a lot of things well though, and he's walking a lot this season which helps offset his bad K rate. If I had to break it down to his biggest flaw, it keeps coming back to his hitting lefties. I can't check his splits right now, on my phone, but that's what I keep reading. Outside of that, yeah, he's ML ready, cost controlled for 6 seasons, and certainly a lot less of a risk than a comp pick would be.glennhoffmania said:
Would I prefer Seager? Possibly, but I think Ben jumps at the offer if he can get Joc.
glennhoffmania said:
I think that the consensus is that Pederson is as close to a sure thing as you can get. He's a 5 tool player who can definitely man CF. His knocks have always been that he strikes out a lot and can't hit lefties, but he at least has the floor of a righty mashing platoon player.
Pederson's a good player, but when you're in a hitters league (PCL), 111 Ks in 89 games is freaking scary. Even though he's a few years away, I think Seager has a better shot to be an everyday player although it's not clear yet what position he'll be playing at.
glennhoffmania said:
I wouldn't call him a sure thing - he's got a pretty high strikeout rate, struggles against lefties and his stats are inflated by the PCL - but the prospects without some flaws aren't ones teams are gonna trade away. Looks like a dynamic player at a position of need, though.
EDIT: Or what everyone else said. I'm slow.
EDIT2: Ok, Pederson's line against lefties this year is 296/409/536, which is merely ok in Albuquerque, the most extreme hitters park in all of professional baseball, and it comes with about a 30% strikeout rate, which is pretty bad.
I fully admit that I don't know shit about their system. But Seager is so young it makes me wonder how confident one can be that he'd end up being better in the long run.MakMan44 said:
They were 28th (Seager) and 29Th (Pederson) in pre season Top 100 for MLB. Pederson, as an outfielder fits the need better.glennhoffmania said:
Source: Sox consider trade for Matt Kemp
July, 27, 2014
JUL 27
2:56
PM ET
By Gordon Edes | ESPNBoston.com
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- He has had debilitating ankle and shoulder injuries that have limited his play the last two seasons, is still owed roughly $118 million on a contract that runs through 2019, and has a mixed reputation as a clubhouse presence, but the Red Sox are considering making a move for Dodgers outfielder Matt Kemp, according to a club source.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/39198/source-sox-mull-lester-for-kemp-trade
July, 27, 2014
JUL 27
2:56
PM ET
By Gordon Edes | ESPNBoston.com
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- He has had debilitating ankle and shoulder injuries that have limited his play the last two seasons, is still owed roughly $118 million on a contract that runs through 2019, and has a mixed reputation as a clubhouse presence, but the Red Sox are considering making a move for Dodgers outfielder Matt Kemp, according to a club source.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/39198/source-sox-mull-lester-for-kemp-trade
He's been below replacement level for two years running by both Bref and fangraphs. I guess some of that could has to do with playing an awful CF, but even subsidized and playing left, a five year commitment is just horrific.
Also, if the Dodgers are dumping an OF, there's no way Joc is part of the deal. The whole point is that they don't really have a legitimate CF on their roster right now.
Also, if the Dodgers are dumping an OF, there's no way Joc is part of the deal. The whole point is that they don't really have a legitimate CF on their roster right now.
If the Phillies were scouting the SeaDogs, as reported, they saw Johnson throw a one hit, 12K gem against New Britain.
I don't think they were implying a trade to NY necessarily, just that he could be traded more easily because of this crass action of enjoying a few hours of our national pastime at a ballpark near his doctor's office while on the DL.glennhoffmania said:
yup. Rather they were scouting him than Owens.67WasBest said:
Ugh, MLBTR is saying a potential deal involving Lester and Kemp is in the works. What good would that do the team? Give up your ace for a .770OPS outfielder with injury concerns? Kemp is amazing when healthy but we need to add him in addition to Lester. Don't like this at all.
If that's a deal that's being considered there has to be more to the deal or the Dodgers are seriously picking up the entire contract.pdub said:
No matter where they trade Lester I would think he's going to strongly lean towards coming back.
Dealing Kemp would open up an OF slot for Pederson in LA; from their point of view what's the point of dealing Kemp and Pederson?
I would imagine that the Sox take Kemp as a way to pry Seager loose (maybe getting other prospects and/or $ to pay Kemp); if Miami covets him then he becomes Tony Armas in a Stanton trade.
I would imagine that the Sox take Kemp as a way to pry Seager loose (maybe getting other prospects and/or $ to pay Kemp); if Miami covets him then he becomes Tony Armas in a Stanton trade.
Alex Speier's latest on Lester. He reaffirms that Lester wants to be here beyond 2014 and that nothing is close with LA.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/07/27/jon-lester-says-he-would-be-unlikely-to-consider-extension-with-team-that-traded-for-him/
He'd be an idiot to say otherwise. Lester and his agent have been doing and saying all the right things. There's no way he comes out and says he'll never go back to Boston if traded at this point.
“@Ken_Rosenthal: Sources: #RedSox listening on Lester but seeking huge return. #Dodgers among teams interested.”
https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/493518660095328256
https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/493518660095328256
Letting Ellsbury and Lester walk because you didn't want to commit to them into their mid-30s but then instead buying Matt Kemp's age 30 to 34 seasons is mind-bogglingly inconsistent and counterproductive.
Kemp has some similarities to Ellsbury, in that he is overall a solid player who had a monster 2011 season-- only Kemp can't run anymore and can't play CF and has attitude issues. Oh and Kemp's injuries are more likely to be long-term debilitating (unless Beltre happens to run over Ellsbury again.) We're passing on Lester's age 30-35 seasons to buy Matt Kemp's age 30 to 34 seasons? Step back from the trade frenzy for a minute and look at the big picture there.
I'm sure the Dodgers will pay a bunch of Kemp's salary, but he will be locked into this roster and lineup until 2019-- when he's not hurt. You won't be able to trade him for anything and he has a huge cratering risk. And you're choosing that guy to have in your locker room when you are bringing up loads of young players. He's already whining about not being played in CF. He certainly will not be played in CF in Boston. I'm sure the Boston writers won't be asking him about it every single day until he whines about it here too.
Kemp brings a huge risk of poor play, multiple long term injury issues, untradeable contract, and locker room whining and distractions for 5 more years. But Lester is the one who has too much risk??
Kemp has some similarities to Ellsbury, in that he is overall a solid player who had a monster 2011 season-- only Kemp can't run anymore and can't play CF and has attitude issues. Oh and Kemp's injuries are more likely to be long-term debilitating (unless Beltre happens to run over Ellsbury again.) We're passing on Lester's age 30-35 seasons to buy Matt Kemp's age 30 to 34 seasons? Step back from the trade frenzy for a minute and look at the big picture there.
I'm sure the Dodgers will pay a bunch of Kemp's salary, but he will be locked into this roster and lineup until 2019-- when he's not hurt. You won't be able to trade him for anything and he has a huge cratering risk. And you're choosing that guy to have in your locker room when you are bringing up loads of young players. He's already whining about not being played in CF. He certainly will not be played in CF in Boston. I'm sure the Boston writers won't be asking him about it every single day until he whines about it here too.
Kemp brings a huge risk of poor play, multiple long term injury issues, untradeable contract, and locker room whining and distractions for 5 more years. But Lester is the one who has too much risk??
One additional note: One industry source suggested that there has been no meaningful dialogue about a rumored trade possibility involving the Red Sox and Dodgers that would have the Sox sending Lester to Los Angeles with Matt Kemp coming back to Boston.RedOctober3829 said:
So Gordo puts it on the blast speaker of ESPN and I'm sure Baseball Tonight but according to Speier no chance of extension talk with another team. I just don't buy the last line "no meaningful dialogue " seems to be a bit dubious .
Gordo had the smoke before the A-gone deal escalated at least in part.
I won't understand any moves that don't result in the Red Sox having one of baseball's best pitching staffs in 2015. It's pitching that wins. Hitting is just too variable.
I know it's evident that the Red Sox run scoring woes have led to this down year, along with 1-run losses and lack of power, but I just don't trust offense-minded team constructions.
I thought I'd take a simple look at runs/hit on a team-by-team basis so far. Much of the numbers have to do with power, but another portion is just stupid luck (particularly if you belive, like me, that "clutch hitting" is overblown).
The A's (at the top) score 0.566 runs for every hit. The next team (Angels) is far behind at 0.529.
I don't want to list every team, so in .20 increments, the stats go like this:
.570 to .550 runs per hit:
OAK
.549 to .530 runs/hit:
----
.529 to .510 runs/hit:
LAA, TOR
.509 to .490 runs/hit:
DET, MIN, CWS, COL
.489 to .470 runs/hit:
WAS, CHC, NYM, SFO, HOU, LAD, BAL, PIT, MIA
.469 to .450 runs/hit:
CIN, SEA, TEX, BOS, ATL, NYY, TAM, ARI
.449 to .430 runs/hit:
PHI, STL, KC, SD
That looks like a pretty good bell curve to me, with the Reds, Mariners, Rangers, Red Sox, Braves, Yankees, Rays and Diamondbacks being on the wrong side of that curve. I'm not going to get into the power or park effects - but just leave it that with more luck, all of those teams could have been scoring substantially more runs.
I'd rather put my money on pitching, which is why losing Lester versus re-signing him (now or later) and actually adding another front line pitcher is to me a better recipe for long-term success.
I know it's evident that the Red Sox run scoring woes have led to this down year, along with 1-run losses and lack of power, but I just don't trust offense-minded team constructions.
I thought I'd take a simple look at runs/hit on a team-by-team basis so far. Much of the numbers have to do with power, but another portion is just stupid luck (particularly if you belive, like me, that "clutch hitting" is overblown).
The A's (at the top) score 0.566 runs for every hit. The next team (Angels) is far behind at 0.529.
I don't want to list every team, so in .20 increments, the stats go like this:
.570 to .550 runs per hit:
OAK
.549 to .530 runs/hit:
----
.529 to .510 runs/hit:
LAA, TOR
.509 to .490 runs/hit:
DET, MIN, CWS, COL
.489 to .470 runs/hit:
WAS, CHC, NYM, SFO, HOU, LAD, BAL, PIT, MIA
.469 to .450 runs/hit:
CIN, SEA, TEX, BOS, ATL, NYY, TAM, ARI
.449 to .430 runs/hit:
PHI, STL, KC, SD
That looks like a pretty good bell curve to me, with the Reds, Mariners, Rangers, Red Sox, Braves, Yankees, Rays and Diamondbacks being on the wrong side of that curve. I'm not going to get into the power or park effects - but just leave it that with more luck, all of those teams could have been scoring substantially more runs.
I'd rather put my money on pitching, which is why losing Lester versus re-signing him (now or later) and actually adding another front line pitcher is to me a better recipe for long-term success.
Exactly. Lester is the poster child for how to handle these negotiations. All other MLB players would do well to study him.glennhoffmania said:
“@Ken_Rosenthal: Also on #RedSox: Team had top scout at #Braves’ Triple A game today. Braves seeking LH reliever, known interest in Miller.”
https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/493525135563833344
https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/493525135563833344
Olney just on ESPN pregame stating that Dodgers are one of the teams that have called about Lester. Mentioned that all teams moving players have been getting good returns and that the Sox return for Lester could be a haul. Said the preseason gap was wide on the offers and if the Sox don't think they would/could sign him, he would definitely be moved. So essentially saying, if he gets moved, he's not playing for us next year.
RedOctober3829 said:
Before that was Sabathia for Matt LaPorta, Michael Brantley, Zach Jackson and Rob Bryson.
Just a thought... I'm very surprised Cleveland is laying low in vying for John Lester. They were at one point one of the interested teams in trading for David Price. They need a front line starter, have a history with Francona/Lester, and are riding a wave of exposure with their basketball (LeBron James) and football (Johnny Manziel) teams.
They also have the no.6 rated outfielder prospect to trade (Clint Frazier) in a Lester deal. Also, if we were to lose Lester to another team, Cleveland would be my first choice.
They also have the no.6 rated outfielder prospect to trade (Clint Frazier) in a Lester deal. Also, if we were to lose Lester to another team, Cleveland would be my first choice.
geoduck no quahog said:
But both of these deals were in the era when the buying team could get a draft pick for a mid-year pickup, which is a huge difference. Segura was a 60-ish ranked prospect going into 2012, and Greinke was at least as highly regarded at that point as Lester is now. So that comp should tell us to temper our expectations compared to some of the stuff that's been posted today.
geoduck no quahog said:
Is hitting really more variable than pitching (and what exactly do we even mean by "more variable")? What data would you base this on?
My first choice would be the Astros, for our sake. But I think we all agree who our last choice would be.