Red Sox Deadline Discussion
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
So if they get Seager (who Miami apparently covets) + a heavily subsidized Kemp (say the Sox are on the hook for 5/55 the rest of the way), and then the Sox:
1. Sign Shields or Masterson
2. Trade Seager/Escobar/Betts for Stanton
They enter next year with the following lineup:
C - Vazquez
1b - Napoli
2b - Pedroia
3b - Middlebrooks
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Stanton
CF - Bradley
RF - Kemp
DH - Ortiz
subs - Holt, Ross/Swihart, Nava, etc.
Lineup:
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Ortiz
Stanton
Kemp
Napoli
Middlebrooks
Vazquez
Bradley
That's a LOT of thump in the Giant Part of the Order (™).
1. Sign Shields or Masterson
2. Trade Seager/Escobar/Betts for Stanton
They enter next year with the following lineup:
C - Vazquez
1b - Napoli
2b - Pedroia
3b - Middlebrooks
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Stanton
CF - Bradley
RF - Kemp
DH - Ortiz
subs - Holt, Ross/Swihart, Nava, etc.
Lineup:
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Ortiz
Stanton
Kemp
Napoli
Middlebrooks
Vazquez
Bradley
That's a LOT of thump in the Giant Part of the Order (™).
My natural instinct is to feel people here have a false sense of hope of a "trade and return" of Lester. The fact that Lester has openly stated a trade would not close the door on returning here and the extent of his explanation however cannot be ignored. The point you make here is also very creative in how to create value while minimizing the risk of signing Lester.67WasBest said:
Regardless, we must play a hand in either getting an extension done by Thursday or include Lester in a deal to strength our Stanton positioning with prospects. Allowing this deadline to pass without an aggressive move one way or the other is unacceptable.
DavidTai said:
Not really, no. The Phillies acquired Lee at the deadline in 2009, exercised his 2010 option, and traded him to the Mariners over the winter. The Mariners then traded him the Rangers at the 2010 deadline. The Phillies re-signed him at the end of that season. So there was an extra year and a third team involved.
You never really know how the market will play out. I do think that if Lester gets traded the chances of him coming back are very slim. If they think they can sign him, they will want to avoid having him test the market at all.
I think there is at least a 70% chance that Jon Lester is pitching for the Red Sox August 1, which will cause another round of Lester thread extensions.
I think there is at least a 70% chance that Jon Lester is pitching for the Red Sox August 1, which will cause another round of Lester thread extensions.
rembrat said:
Well previously they would have had to give up a draft pick to resign him after trading him which makes the cost significantly more prohibitive.
This is a rather unique circumstance with a big market team potentially selling a piece that they will absolutely need in the off-season and with plenty of resources to pay for said player.
Perhaps Ben sees this as a new market loophole to exploit. Trade FA's for a valuable piece and then sign them back for just $$. You can do this with Lester/Koji/Miller. Now you have 3-4 cost controlled prospects that will help reduce the overall payroll thus allowing you to sign them back at market value.
This Red Sox regime has historically been very good at exploiting market and league inefficiencies, targeting players with High OBP early on, abusing the draft system before that was revised. Would it be that surprising if this was part of the plan?
j44thor said:
It would be kind of surprising, since they don't have a lot of control over the "re-sign them when the season's over" part, and that doesn't happen all that often. It doesn't seem smart to make that the centerpiece of your plan.
I love how everyone has their MFY blinders on here. If he gets to FA he will almost assuredly be wearing pinstripes next year.
Shipping him to LA increases the likelihood he resigns there.
Shipping him to LA increases the likelihood he resigns there.
I, as many here I'm sure, want to see Lester extended. Though, it sure looks less likely by the day.
But then this thought popped into my head: Jon Lester was the "leader" on a staff and part of a team that has: collapsed (2011), finished in last (2012), and looks like it will finish in last (2014). And these were during his peak years.
Where I'm getting at is, maybe he isn't as important as it seems.
Still want to keep him though.
But then this thought popped into my head: Jon Lester was the "leader" on a staff and part of a team that has: collapsed (2011), finished in last (2012), and looks like it will finish in last (2014). And these were during his peak years.
Where I'm getting at is, maybe he isn't as important as it seems.
Still want to keep him though.
That damn Jon Lester, why couldn't he keep John Lackey's elbow together in 2011? Why couldn't he keep JD Drew and Carl Crawford healthy and productive? And why now can't he keep Shane Victorino healthy or make JBJ and XB better adjust to the majors?
“@Buster_ESPN: There's a growing expectation from rival execs that Jon Lester is going to be traded before Jdeadline; LAD viewed as likely landing spot.”
https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/493764904008962049
https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/493764904008962049
smastroyin said:
Seriously. He's no Jeter. If Lester's had Jeter's leadership skills and intangibles he would've willed the team in 2012 and 2014 to third place finishes.
MLBTR via Cafardo
Then there's this nugget of blatant ignorance:
1) There is no 40-man roster crunch this fall. In fact, this is shaping up to be one of the more flexible roster management periods the club has seen in years. Obviously that's dependent on the roster status of any players received in deadline deals (both guys the Giants sent for Peavy were on the 40-man), but right now there'll be AT LEAST seven vacancies with only 4 or 5 eligible prospects looking like locks to be added.
2) Really, Nick? You're actually wondering if the club might trade a bunch of prospects?? You mean the exact same concept this message board and countless other forums and blogs have been discussing for the past year-plus? Wow, thanks for the awesome insight, jagoff.
Then there's this nugget of blatant ignorance:
1) There is no 40-man roster crunch this fall. In fact, this is shaping up to be one of the more flexible roster management periods the club has seen in years. Obviously that's dependent on the roster status of any players received in deadline deals (both guys the Giants sent for Peavy were on the 40-man), but right now there'll be AT LEAST seven vacancies with only 4 or 5 eligible prospects looking like locks to be added.
2) Really, Nick? You're actually wondering if the club might trade a bunch of prospects?? You mean the exact same concept this message board and countless other forums and blogs have been discussing for the past year-plus? Wow, thanks for the awesome insight, jagoff.
HillysLastWalk said:
Hey we're just trying to have a little fun during these dark days.
Back to trade speculations now.
HillysLastWalk said:
Then what are you getting at? You just said Jon Lester "led a staff" what does that even mean and how is it relevant to his value?
He also "led a staff" of a World Series winner and four 90 win teams (and a fifth that won 89). Does that not count? Or is it just 2011 and 2012 where he was the leader and you are going to give Beckett "credit" for 2008-2010? Tell you what, let's say John Lackey "led" the 2013 staff and now we can say Lester is just a loser.
If you are going to make vague comments, you don't get to defend yourself with "that's not what I was getting at." Say what you were getting at. I still think you are probably wrong (in my opinion of course), but at least put a couple of coherent thoughts together instead of "let me throw shit on the wall and let people interpret it."
“@Buster_ESPN: Some rival officials feel that the Dodgers' best chance to move Kemp is to tie him to one of their elite prospects in a deal.”
https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/493765782002618369
https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/493765782002618369
The Mariners are reported to have interest in Kemp. I wonder if there's a three-team deal to be made here.
Edited to add Twitter link: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/493435329672933377
Edited to add Twitter link: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/493435329672933377
smastroyin said:
Do you want to have a serious conversation? Otherwise this is a waste of time. The initial salvos leave a lot to be desired.
I mean, you must have missed the parts where I said that I wanted to extend him, or that I wanted to keep him. I think he's a great pitcher, and great pitcher's can help to achieve the goal of a championship, right? Let's sign all the greatest pitchers! (if there were unlimited resources).
As we've seen, having the "greatest ever" on your team doesn't ensure anything. Pedro Martinez won with the Red Sox when he came down from his peak - that was because he finally had a team around him that could win. Mike Trout, and all his greatness, can't will a team to win when you have a poorly constructed team.
I have an implicit trust in this organization. Let's get that out of the way. And if the Sox don't extend him before the end of the season, or lose out in Jon Lester during Free Agency, I believe they have the ability to find ways to replace his production. I want Lester to be Plan A, and I'm sure the Sox do too, but that doesn't mean Plan B won't work either.
Basically, where I'm getting at is that one person is not the difference maker. It's the overall construction of the team that's going to lead to wins. I want him on the team that I root for, but am resigned to the fact that it might not happen, and it might just be OK. He shouldn't be the be-all-end-all.
tomdeplonty said:
Not to mention that Cherington and this ownership group have the acumen to regard the transactions separately - first analyzing the costs/benefits on the deadline trade(s), and then later making independent assessments about the free agent players as assets in the context of the competitive marketplace.
What if the Sox are working a 3 team deal with LA and Miami? If you really do look at it it's not far fetched. Something such as
LA gets Lester Miller
Miami gets Betts Seager and 2 mid level prospects (1 from Boston 1 from LA)
Boston gets Kemp and Stanton.
LA gets Lester Miller
Miami gets Betts Seager and 2 mid level prospects (1 from Boston 1 from LA)
Boston gets Kemp and Stanton.
To be sure. But no one should expect the Nats to panic and part with prime prospects to fill a Zimmerman void. It's not how Rizzo does business.Manramsclan said:
And they are more than content to play Rendon at third and Harper in left during Zimmerman's stint on the DL.
The only way you're getting anything decent out of Washington, IMO, is to dangle Miller and play the Nationals against the Braves.
Any deal involving Stanton would be an offseason move and that's after Miami exhausts all opportunities to re-sign him.
Tyrone Biggums said:
In that scenario Kemp better be heavily subsidized. Lester, Miller, Betts and another prospect for Stanton and a Kemp liability is not something that would make me happy.
DrewDawg said:
The Dodgers are looking for a way to get Pederson into the outfield. They have Either, Kemp, Crawford, Puig and Van Slyke at the major league level and Pederson in AAA. Trading Kemp and Pederson leaves them with Either, Crawford and Puig as their starters and Van Slyke. They would go from having one fringe center fielder (Ethier) and a prospect being blocked to having just one fringe center fielder with no depth to back up the position and the worst possible combination of leftovers after a trade to fill out the outfield. If they are looking to win now, that is the worst trade they can make to get there. Kemp might be traded. Pederson might be traded. They are not being traded together.
Tyrone Biggums said:
The Red Sox currently have Gomes, Nava, Bradley, Victorino and Carp for the outfield. Carp would have to go, and he has no value to speak of, which still leaves you with Gomes, Nava, Bradley and Vic for 2014 and that group minus Gomes for next season. Victorino or Nava would have to be moved in addition to Carp to make room on the roster because they are not going into next season with Kemp, Nava, JBJ, Stanton and Victorino. LA trading Seager with Kemp makes more sense than Pederson with Kemp, but there are just too many moving parts here.
Call their bluff on Kemp and keep this clean. I suspect LA wants Lester badly enough, though there is no way to be sure -- until you shop Lester elsewhere, which is what the FO should be doing anyway.
Kemp comes here and shits the bed, they will need several gorilla costumes.
Kemp comes here and shits the bed, they will need several gorilla costumes.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Exactly. Dodgers have enough bats. They're looking for young legs and a glove in centerfield. So, unless you add a JBJ to the deal (but I doubt that all happens), Kemp and Pederson together ain't happenin'.
I'm sure in this trade scenario there can be other moving parts added for both teams roster balance. The most obvious is Victorino heading to LA to replace Kemp in the outfield (and the DL) while we get his $13m off the books next year......or essentially swapping Kemp's subsidized deal into that slot.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
I don't want Kemp at all, but I particularly don't want both him and Stanton, since Kemp is basically redundant with Stanton at a lower quality level (and higher price tag).
Why do we want Kemp again? His bat isn't potent enough anymore to offset his defensive liabilities. I don't think he'll ever be the guy he was pre-injury.
I'm pretty sure that Kemp would come subsidized. I'm curious as to the logic of why you would balk at a subsidized Kemp and Stanton in the outfield? Kemp would be in left and Stanton would play RF. The guy has a great arm and would play a decent RF. If the price for Stanton is taking on Kemp (to flip Seager) and half of his contract then you need to make that move. It's probably the only way that you get Stanton and keep most of the farm in tact.Savin Hillbilly said:
foulkehampshire said:
I'll take a stab at the other side of the argument and defend Kemp, although I still wouldn't want him unless LA kicks in a chunk of cash.
Over his career, and definitely recently, he has a road split. So maybe Fenway would give him a nice boost and getting away from Dodger Stadium would help. This year his LD% is at his career high. He's also hitting more ground balls though. His fly ball percentage has tanked and his HR/FB is below career norms.
According to FG he's never been a plus defender except in 2009. So maybe he would be a good fit in LF at Fenway but I don't think sticking him in RF would make any sense.
Overall if you could get him with a nice subsidy he might be worth a shot. Health is obviously a major concern. But he's not even 30 yet and while he'll never put up 2011 numbers again I could see him being a useful LF who may become the Ortiz replacement at DH in a couple of years. If the cost is reasonable it may make some sense.
To acquire the pieces necessary to entice Miami to move Stanton acquiring Kemp may be the cost of doing business. It isn't nearly so much as "Hey we can get Kemp here at Victorino money for 5 years!" than it is to accumulate top level prospects that Miami would want to do a deal.Savin Hillbilly said:
There are more moving parts than Lester for Kemp here.....it's about the big picture. The big picture is to acquire Stanton while retaining our young cost-controlled players. By doing so we are able to take on Kemp's subsidized deal to get this done.
Kemp can be useful in LF for the time being while being a potential Papi replacement at DH in two years.
rembrat said:
But this is what I clarified. Does that not count for anything? This is the trouble with reading message board posts ... take for example the air quotes. There was nothing snarkily in my intentions. None at all. It was quoted as more of a lack of a better word, than snark. Snark was farthest from my mind (as in the thought wasn't even there). Yet this is the impression you are taking away. Hence, before the pitchfork and torches come out, shouldn't there at least be a request for clarification, and to take it at face value?
Again, today's comment was more along the lines of letting out a bit sigh of resignation in regards to this season. A 5 game losing streak after getting your hopes slightly up will do that. Personally I want Jon Lester on my team going forward. I think that the Sox can be contenders next year, and I want him on my team. That being said, if it doesn't work out, it's going to suck (especially if he goes to the Yankees), but my trust in the Sox putting together the next great Red Sox team wouldn't be broken.
It's not an earth-shattering comment in the least, but has turned into multiple posts because people want blood! They want to ridicule! And dammit, my further explanations are ruining that. It was just a reminder that the Sox will be OK, and that his signing shouldn't be the be-all-end-all.
That's it. I don't know how else to explain it. No snark. No smear. Resignation to a long unsatisfying season and the realization that Jon Lester might not be on my team anymore.
Tyrone Biggums said:
What do you do with Nava, Victorino and Carp? The answer is not as simple as "trade them!" Those are assets and the team shouldn't just give them away. In order to fit Kemp and Stanton on the roster, they need to have deals in place for Nava, Victorino and Carp, or they need to be including JBJ in the deal, which makes no sense if Pederson isn't coming to Boston and Betts is part of the outgoing package.
There are just too many moving parts for this to be even remotely possible. I know it's a time honored tradition here to get your Theo on and speculate about complicated three team deals, but the silly season has gone several steps beyond silly this season.
HomeRunBaker said:
And here's another example. So the Dodgers are sending out Kemp and Pederson for Lester, Victorino and what? They're also taking on a ton of cash this way. Sure, they're swimming in gold coins Scrooge McDuck style, but now we're expecting two months of Lester to get us Pederson, while we do LA the favor of letting them pay Kemp to play for us while also taking Victorino's 13 million off the books for us?
Pederson is the best outfielder of that trio when you factor in health. Pederson also has roughly the same value as Seager as a prospect. Why would the Dodgers lean toward an exponentially more complicated trade when they could offer Seager instead and likely get the same return while plugging an actual center fielder into the outfield instead of another fringe center fielder with a significant injury history? I could see the Dodgers being interested in Victorino in a vacuum, but given their current outfield situation, Shane makes zero sense for them. Beyond having an oft injured, barely good enough defensively to be called a center fielder defender out there in Ethier, they also have Carl Crawford who brings a lot of the same skills to the table as Shane, only with less arm.
For a team hoping to win a title in the next two post seasons, Ethier, Pederson and Puig with Crawford as the 4th makes infinitely more sense than Ethier, Victorino, Puig and Crawford. You're talking about covering one position (left field) between two injury risk players with Van Slyke capable of filling in should both fall down. In the second configuration you're hoping that three injury risk players on the wrong side of 30 can cover left and center with Van Slyke only being able to back up left. Look no further than this year's Red Sox to see a cautionary tale about making bets on multiple injury risk type guys with thin depth at center field. Never mind that you are including one of the guys who has been injured for Boston, leading to that terrible outfield in the first place.
What do you do with Nava Victorino and Carp? Carp is fodder that hasn't hit a homer this year. Nava could be moved for a song and Victorino can move to CF and platoon with Bradley. If that's the biggest problem they have in acquiring Stanton then its worth every bit of it.
Tyrone Biggums said:
I'll give you Carp but I'm not convinced the Sox would just cut him. Anyway, you want the team to give Nava away and squeeze Kemp, JBJ, Stanton and Victorino into the same outfield? What in this front office's history suggests to you that they would simply eat Nava's value to make room for Kemp, who might not even be a better player at this point? Even if they were inclined to do so, you are advocating "upgrading" from Nava to Kemp for significantly more money (even after a subsidy from L.A.) and then asking Victorino to accept a platoon role for 2015, which is probably his last chance at a multi-year free agent contract.
Silly season.
If somehow there was a sequence of trades that landed the Sox both and Stanton and a subsidized Kemp, I would guess there is a secondary move sending the now-subsidized Kemp to another team that has coveted him, such as the Mariners.
I mean, in a vacuum, I could see Kemp worthy of filling Gomes role as a lefty mashing LF-type - with admittedly considerable upside, but also substantial risk.
I mean, in a vacuum, I could see Kemp worthy of filling Gomes role as a lefty mashing LF-type - with admittedly considerable upside, but also substantial risk.