Red Sox hook Crochet for Kyle Teel, Braden Montgomery, Chase Meidroth and Wikelman Gonzalez

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
15,152
Alot has changed on SOSH over the years. Im glad to see our affinity for prospect humping remains strong.

The sox kept their THREE top prospects and acquired a 25 year-old starting pitcher who could be a legit ace for the next 8-10 years. The concerns about lack of history are overblown. If he had 3 years of history at this level he wouldn't be freaking 25 years old and we wouldn't be acquiring him for our 4th and 5th best prospects. This isn't some kid propped up with smoke and mirrors. Last season he had the best K% of anyone with at least 80IP. Yes. Better than Blake Snell, and Paul Skenes, and old friend Chris Sale.

People don't want to acquire Crochet because they want to keep an average offensive catching prospect and a kid still in freaking college?

Sheesh. Tough crowd.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,413
NH
It’s also weird in that many of the same people who don’t want the team to trade prospects also insist they shouldn’t move guys like Duran, Casas, Abreu, etc. If you want to make moves, you have to be willing to give up something of value! A prospects ranking, on its own, is not really meaningful.
I'd have much preferred they trade Duran or Abreu. They have so many outfielders, and Duran and Abreu are both likely at the peak of their value. Those are the exact kinds of guys you try to capitalize on.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
29,002
Unreal America
I'd have much preferred they trade Duran or Abreu. They have so many outfielders, and Duran and Abreu are both likely at the peak of their value. Those are the exact kinds of guys you try to capitalize on.
Well, sounds like the White Sox didn't want either of those guys. I mean, if we think they're at the peak of their value, wouldn't MLB GMs also realize they're at the peak of their value?
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,884
from the wilds of western ma
Absolutely insane the amount of outrage/prospect worship going on here. They got a young, cost controlled, elite arm, who’s already shown he be very effective at the MLB level. At a position of dire need. They gave up guys who are likely 2-3 years away from MLB promotion, if they stay healthy and get there. And they have external means of upgrading at catcher if need. There’s cost and risk in every major acquisition. Good grief.
 

pdaj

Fantasy Maven
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,431
From Springfield to Providence
Put me in the “I like it” crowd. Not excited about giving up Teel/Monty but it’s the cost of doing business. I view this like a trade up for a QB. If he’s what you think he is, you’re happy. If he’s not, you’re not.

If they can’t get an extension done, I like it a lot less. That is the key part for me.
My thinking is in line with yours. Pitching is really, really freakin' expensive. In the current context we're in, there are two primary choices.

1) Overpay FA pitchers and acquire their 31-38 seasons.

2) Trade prospect surplus for the right to ("buy out" cheap years) and (slightly less) overpay a pitcher's 25-32 seasons.

When you consider that Crochet is arguably the best pitcher in the bunch, I kind of prefer option 2.

Last season, Crochet reportedly stated that if he was traded at the deadline, he would not pitch in the playoffs without an extension. That means there's motivation on both sides to get a deal done. Beautiful.

P.S. Catching prospects are one of the most risky of the bunch. Teel may become a good player, but the chances he's exceptional are low.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,752
South Dartmouth, MA
I'd have much preferred they trade Duran or Abreu. They have so many outfielders, and Duran and Abreu are both likely at the peak of their value. Those are the exact kinds of guys you try to capitalize on.
But dont you think the white sox also realize Duran and Abreu are likely at the peak of their value? And had no interest in trading for them?

edit: damnit @8slim
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Had this same thought.

I’m not overly distraught about losing any of them individually, but all four together is a steep price - two top-five prospects and three of the top ten. Meidroth was kind of a binky, so that one stings. He should at least get a chance to play regularly in MLB this year.
More like a Duke deal, or whoever got Beckett. He's young and supposedly extendable.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,859
I feel pretty strongly that the Sox tried to include Abreu instead of Teel. They have way more good outfield prospects than catchers in the organization.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,691
I don't think it's just about willingness to spend money, especially if you believe reports about what they offered Fried. Again, Crochet is a 25-year-old Cy Young contender who is, I don't know, top 5 in MLB in terms of stuff. He had the best xFIP in baseball for anyone with more than 140 IP last season.

Getting Crochet makes sense no matter what you're willing to spend. Pitchers at his age with his stuff simply aren't available often.
Yeah, and what I'm saying is I'd have rather made the highest offer to Fried or Burnes, than trade for Crochet

I think Fried/Burnes on a huge contract + Teel +Montgomery + Meidroth +Gonzalez > Crochet + 50M? less than Fried/Burnes contract
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
96,437
Oregon
Well, sounds like the White Sox didn't want either of those guys. I mean, if we think they're at the peak of their value, wouldn't MLB GMs also realize they're at the peak of their value?
Plus, by the time the White Sox are rebuilt to contend, Duran/Abreu would be past their peaks. Those are the type of guys you trade to contending teams in a need-for-need deal
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,859
My thinking is in line with yours. Pitching is really, really freakin' expensive. In the current context we're in, there are two primary choices.

1) Overpay FA pitchers and (over)pay for their 31-38 seasons.

2) Trade prospect surplus for the right to ("buy out" cheap years) and (slightly less) overpay a pitcher's 25-32 seasons.

When you consider that Crochet is arguably the best pitcher in the bunch, I kind of prefer option 2.

Last season, Crochet reportedly stated that if he was traded at the deadline, he would not pitch in the playoffs without an extension. That means there's motivation on both sides to get a deal done. Beautiful.
Agreed with all of this.

My only disagreement is that I definitely prefer door 1. It’s just money and who the fuck knows what’s going to happen in 5 years. We could be living on the Fury Road by then
 

bosox1534

New Member
Dec 17, 2022
345
Yeah, and what I'm saying is I'd have rather made the highest offer to Fried or Burnes, than trade for Crochet

I think Fried/Burnes on a huge contract + Teel +Montgomery + Meidroth +Gonzalez > Crochet + 50M? less than Fried/Burnes contract
This is my thinking. Payroll can be fixed a lot easier than prospect depth.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
5,069
we gave up probably more than we did for Sale, and got less than we did.

They needed pitching but this trade is honestly ridiculous. Teel AND Montgomery? This organization will just never fucking learn. They've made this same mistake seemingly every 2-3 years since 2010. No vision at all. Maybe Breslow needed t odo something like this to keep his job, but this sucks, and it sucks even more if he doesn't extend.
No we didn’t. Teel is a top 25-50 prospect in MLB. That’s similar to where Kopech was ranked at the time of the Sale trade. Moncada was #1 overall.

The equivalent trade would be something like swapping out Montgomery for Roman Anthony.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I think Campbell’s emergence makes Montgomery more expendable.
Also Montgomery was the 12th pick in the '24 draft. We have the 15th pick in the next draft, where we can find another version of the guy. Or whatever. There are always more position players, however exciting they might be. Only for the top top guys do you have to treat them as not fungible, and that is Anthony.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
6,307
I wonder if Abreu goes to the Braves as part of a deal for Murphy. They desperately need someone better than Kelenic and have nothing in their system, whereas they have a catcher and SS in AAA already for those holes.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,958
The starting rotation seems to be locked in -- apart from getting another 4th/5th starter for depth, I think only a RHH bat may be needed to be competitive in the AL east.

4 of our 5 starters are ranked in the top 60 for steamer projects, FWIW:

1. Crochet --4.9 WAR (4th)
2. Houck - 2.9 WAR (36th)
3. Bello - 2.7 WAR (51st)
4.Crawford 2.3 WAR (60th)
5 Giolito 1.0 WAR (~)

13.9 projected fWAR for our starting 5 would put us in the top 5 for WAR in 2024 and a 2 WAR improvement over last year. We could bolster an already strong rotation, but this would kick out either giolito or crawford, neither of whom have high trade value currently ( esp. with crawford's poor 2nd half performance).
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
53,284
This is my point exactly. There's basically no downside to signing a Burnes or Fried. Every team in the league has bad contracts. Inevitably they're going to have to extend Crochet too, and their age advantage is matched by his lack of experience advantage. But now we have to issue a similar contract (hopefully?) while also losing two top 5 prospects. That's just clumsy reactionary management - the same management that signs Rusney Castillo and offers terrible contracts to guys like Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval. It's no different.
You listed 3 bad FA contracts as an example of poor management, how can you say there is no downside to signing Burnes or Fried in the same breath??
 

Dewey's 'stache

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2023
2,245
Someone on MLB Network said “over the last few years Red Sox fans have been promised Paris and have been delivered Poughkeepsie, Red Sox ownership had to do something”. Regardless of how you feel about this trade, this joke, I hope, makes you chuckle a bit like it did for me.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,859
Also Montgomery was the 12th pick in the '24 draft. We have the 15th pick in the next draft, where we can find another version of the guy. Or whatever. There are always more position players, however exciting they might be. Only for the top top guys do you have to treat them as not fungible, and that is Anthony.
Montgomery was supposed to be a top 5 pick. The Red Sox got extremely lucky that he fell to them.
The same thing happened with Teel so it will likely happen again but I don’t think it’s something that we should all expect or plan for
 

BaseballJones

slappy happy
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
27,685
I'm a prospect humper so it always stings losing some guys I'm high on. But Bleis and Gonzalez....no big deal. I was excited about Montgomery, but they already have the following outfielders:

Duran (28)
Abreu (25)
Rafaela (24)
Yoshida (31)
Refsnyder (33)

And then coming up soon:

Anthony (20)
Campbell (22)

Plus a couple more on SoxProspects: Jhostynxon García (22, their #15 prospect) and Allan Castro (21, their #22 prospect).

So OF depth is tremendous with this organization, so losing Montgomery isn't that big of a deal, even if he goes on to be a good MLB player.

The one that hurts is Teel. I've been so excited to see this guy in a Boston uniform, so I hate losing him. It's also a position of grave weakness for the Sox and their organization. Their next best C prospect is Johanfran Garcia (20), who projects as not much more than a backup in the majors. So they need to do some real work there.

However.......

Crochet is elite. 25 years old. Cost $800k in 2024 for Chicago, and is arbitration eligible for 2025 and 2026, so he'll obviously cost a lot more than $800k. But elite stuff, huge K numbers, whip of just 1.07. They've got him for two years minimum, but if I'm Boston, I'm working on redoing his deal to wipe out these two arbitration years and just giving him like a 10-year contract or something like that.

We've been crying here for the Sox to make a big splash and get pitching help, and they used their major currency advantage (hugely deep pool of prospects) to secure one of the very best pitchers in the world, who also happens to be just 25 freaking years old.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,737
Boston, MA
My thinking is in line with yours. Pitching is really, really freakin' expensive. In the current context we're in, there are two primary choices.

1) Overpay FA pitchers and acquire their 31-38 seasons.

2) Trade prospect surplus for the right to ("buy out" cheap years) and (slightly less) overpay a pitcher's 25-32 seasons.

When you consider that Crochet is arguably the best pitcher in the bunch, I kind of prefer option 2.

Last season, Crochet reportedly stated that if he was traded at the deadline, he would not pitch in the playoffs without an extension. That means there's motivation on both sides to get a deal done. Beautiful.

P.S. Catching prospects are one of the most risky of the bunch. Teel may become a good player, but the chances he's exceptional are low.
Crochet made $890,000 last year and he's in line for something like $2.5 million in arbitration this year. He'd be crazy to turn down a big money extension right now and risk an injury that prevents him from ever getting a big payday. We have tons of leverage in the extension negotiations that we wouldn't have with any of these FAs.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
7,621
Jesus.... that's a lot but the Sox put themselves into this mess. They had a very, very big need and apparently weren't willing to go with older FA pitchers and it's understandable. So the White Sox had the Red Sox in a very tough position.
And damn... within a year, three of those guys could be starting. Say Meidroth leading off and getting on base a ton and Montgomery and Roberts clubbing him in. Teel maybe in the 6 or 7 spot.
Again... this is the cost of top notch pitching WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. When the Sox added Sale it was steep, but not this level steep.... but they had two Cy Young Winners already on their team. They could play around with the sellers a little bit. This year... nope. It was clear to any dufus that the Sox were asses up in the air.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,702
I wonder if Abreu goes to the Braves as part of a deal for Murphy. They desperately need someone better than Kelenic and have nothing in their system, whereas they have a catcher and SS in AAA already for those holes.
The irony here is that there were people here who incessantly mocked the Mets for giving up Kelenic for a closer! A closer! (And the corpse of Cano).

But after four years, Kelenic has a career bWAR of 0.5. A cautionary tale.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
13,944
The Paris of the 80s
Alot has changed on SOSH over the years. Im glad to see our affinity for prospect humping remains strong.

The sox kept their THREE top prospects and acquired a 25 year-old starting pitcher who could be a legit ace for the next 8-10 years. The concerns about lack of history are overblown. If he had 3 years of history at this level he wouldn't be freaking 25 years old and we wouldn't be acquiring him for our 4th and 5th best prospects. This isn't some kid propped up with smoke and mirrors. Last season he had the best K% of anyone with at least 80IP. Yes. Better than Blake Snell, and Paul Skenes, and old friend Chris Sale.

People don't want to acquire Crochet because they want to keep an average offensive catching prospect and a kid still in freaking college?

Sheesh. Tough crowd.
Lost in other discussion was that the Sox really needed to decide which of their prospects they're keeping, and which were trade fodder. Crochet is very, very good. Anthony and Campbell seem to have landed in relatively untouchable land. We'll see about Teel and Mongomery but someone was going to have to go. The Sox still have surplus outfield depth too.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
29,002
Unreal America
Plus, by the time the White Sox are rebuilt to contend, Duran/Abreu would be past their peaks. Those are the type of guys you trade to contending teams in a need-for-need deal
I feel like some folks still have this adolescent idea that we can essentially trick teams into "losing" a trade with us.

And I love your use of "need-for-need deal". Too many people are obsessed with "winning" trades. The best dealmakers aren't looking to screw their trade partner. They're looking to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
13,183
around the way
Crochet is by far the closer to Sale than the closest of available free agent pitchers are to him. Crochet is really really good.
He has great stuff and had a great year. One great year. If they extend him, and he performs at this level for a bunch of years, I'll cheerfully eat a bunch of crow. Still feels like an 87 win team basically indefinitely. If that gives people good vibes, that's cool. It doesn't for me.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,493
Tough, if the Sox believe in Crochet as a long-term solution (and I am begging they have an extension as part of this) that's a reasonable price. Teel is obviously a real big-time prospect but catchers are quite tough to project out. If you go back to 2019's Top Catching Prospects, your top catching prospect was at #22 and was Joey Bart. You also had Francisco Mejia, Keibert Ruiz, and Sean Murphy in the Top 50 - Murphy is the only one of those four you might feel somewhat bad about Teel turning into. He could obviously be better of course - if he's Adley this will suck. But here's the #3 catching prospect in baseball from 2011 to present

'11, '13 - Gary Sanchez
'12 - Travis d'Arnaud
'14, '16, '17 - Jorge Alfaro
'15 - Kyle Schwarber (fun fact, #1 this year was Blake Swihart)
'18, '19 - Keibert Ruiz
'20 - Sean Murphy
'21 - Luis Campusano
'22 - Francisco Alvarez
'23 - Kevin Parada
'24 - Kyle Teel

High floor for sure - I think every player but Parada and Teel (obviously) got to the majors and were contributors at some level, but none of them were really huge stars to regret losing if you traded them for something of value.

Braden Montgomery is a major unknown - obviously big ceiling to be taken first round but he hasn't taken a professional pitch yet, could be huge but there's a ton of hurdles. Meidroth or Wikelman shouldn't hold up a deal - certainly both have potential value but I feel like if Meidroth is a huge loss for the Sox something really got effed up along the way with a lot of other guys and Wikelman struggled a lot les year and might be more meant for relief work.

Ultimately, this is the cost of a guy like this. One year of Corbin Burnes for Baltimore cost Joey Ortiz (who is already a productive pro in Milwaukee, DL Hall, and the 34th pick in the draft. The Padres gave up Drew Thorpe, Samuel Zavala, Jairo Iriarte, and Steven Wilson for Cease (Who they are shopping now) - similar to Boston three of their top ten prospects with two years of control. The price for Crochet was presumably higher due to his more affordable salary and potentially higher end stuff - and that Cease was worse in Chicago in 2023 than Crochet was in 2024.

This is obviously one the Sox could look back on and cringe on badly. Teel and Montgomery are LEGIT prospects with high end abilities and Meidroth and Gonzalez both have MLB level upside and value, but pretty much any deal - signing or trade - for a guy with Crochet's upside and talent is going to be that. Now, the big question is Crochet's ability to...actually pitch innings. Before last year he never threw - in college or the pros - more than 65 innings in a year. He got to 146 last year. If he can regularly do 150 IPs he's going to be worth this. If he can't? Well, that's your big risk. That and him not re-signing or the Sox trading him next year for a smaller package if it becomes evident he won't potentially.
Excellent summary. There is a lot of range of value, but a lot of guys on that list above could be had without a 100M contract.

1) Crochet is young with elite established upside. The type or rotation piece we want to add. Still hasn't proven to compete at that level consistently and stay healthy, as are always questions. Banking on a 25 year old starter who has had TJ and shoulder issues and has thrown more than 65 innings in a year once in his career (including college), but

2) Teel was a solid Sox prospect, now he is a White Sox prospect and I wish him well. I was rooting for him to turn into a long term anchor, but didn't have a ton of certainty as a prospect. As Fishercat showed above, we don't know which of these he is really going to turn into. I also throw out our recently released Reece McGuire who was a #14 pick lefty hitting catcher who did well in the minors as a 22 and debuted in the majors as a 23. Swihart very similar.
The hit rate of these types or prospects is not super high, and Teel's near term Wins Above Wong was very uncertain, although I expect him to be a better player long term.

3) Montgomery fell into our lap in the draft, and I was excited, but definitely a position of excess in the majors, and despite some elite performance at Stanford, Cape Cod, and A&M, ability to hit major league pitching and ankle health both keep his near term value and his career value in doubt. I also wish him well. With Duran, Anthony, Abreu as young lefty hitters with more immediate value, Montgomery's maximum value was either as a trade chip or allowing another of those three to be a trade chip...not having four lefty outfielders remain in the organization.

So while we might hope this Crochet is Sale 2.0, he is two years younger but has one cool season while Sale was coming off five.
And we might hope Teel is Swihart 2.0 (or Moncada 2.0), he could be much better, and Montgomery could be a good MLB player.

But given that the number one area of improvement was to add some elite starting pitching, and the depth of position playing prospects and relative probable value of the main two we gave up, I give this deal a thumbs up. If Crochet stays healthy and is extended it can be a great trade. But given the relative uncertainties of the players involved, I give it a thumbs up.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
36,672
Okay. guys, sorry for my panic. I have taken a few breaths, and have determined that I am on board with this. I appreciate your concern and patience with me in these trying times.

I will miss Chase Meidroth, though.
Your concerns about the catching situation are 100% warranted for a first reaction.

It's been a sore spot for a long time now, Teel falling to them last year gave us some hope there, and for now it's back to where it started.
 

bluefenderstrat

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2002
2,623
Tralfamadore
All free agents should come to Boston despite having their choice of destinations in which to make hundreds of millions of dollars to play baseball, and other teams should accept Breslow’s trade proposals regardless of their own needs and competing offers. Got it!
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,786
Rogers Park
Projected 2025 fWAR:
Crochet 4.9
Burnes 3.9
Snell 3.6
Fried 3.3

Some of you guys are nuts. Crochet could easily be the best of those 4 guys next year and they have him entering his prime. And they've barely spent any money. They're just prospects.
A useful exercise is going to the Fangraphs pitching leaders and adjusting the cutoff to 140 IP.

Under those criteria, Crochet was:

8th in WAR
4th in xERA
3rd in FIP
1st in xFIP
1st in SIERA
1st in K%
14th in BB%
1st in K-BB%
21st in GB%

Crochet is presently a better pitcher than any of Fried, Burnes, or Snell. He's basically putting up elite closer numbers as a starter.

He is also riskier in some respects — i.e., length of track record, injury history — but less risky in others — i.e., he is still young. By the time he is extended (which I am assuming will happen ASAP; I'd guess an 8-year deal), he will have cost more in blood and treasure than just signing one of the FAs would have. But in exchange, with a bit of luck, we get the prime years of an elite pitcher who fits our window perfectly without needing to commit deep into his 30s.

I'm really, really happy with this.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,737
Boston, MA
Also Montgomery was the 12th pick in the '24 draft. We have the 15th pick in the next draft, where we can find another version of the guy. Or whatever. There are always more position players, however exciting they might be. Only for the top top guys do you have to treat them as not fungible, and that is Anthony.
SoxProspects has his hit tool is fringe average and his K rate was over 20% in college. There are tons and tons of plus power prospects who hit a hit tool wall in AA or above. Until a hitter shows that he can keep his strikeouts down to a manageable level against big league quality pitching I think he's more likely to never play a game in MLB than he is to become an all star. It was great that a top prospect fell to us at #12 last year, because it allowed for this trade right now, but you don't hold up a trade for a guy like Crochet over a guy who has yet to play a game of professional baseball.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
36,672
I didn't know / remember Crochet had TJ already, early 2022 to mid 2023. That has to be a positive he's in the clear from one already, no?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
41,233
Hingham, MA
This place moves wayyyyy too fast when big news hits.

I haven't been more excited to watch a Sox starter pitch since when they traded for Sale.

If Crotchet stays relatively healthy, no one is going to care who they traded for him. It's a gamble, but it's ACE upside.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,493
He has great stuff and had a great year. One great year. If they extend him, and he performs at this level for a bunch of years, I'll cheerfully eat a bunch of crow. Still feels like an 87 win team basically indefinitely. If that gives people good vibes, that's cool. It doesn't for me.
Yes, 25 year old pitchers have a huge uncertainty aspect, and the ones who did not try being a starter until age 25 and have an injury history probably even less certain.

But counterpoint: he has tried being a starter exactly once, it is his most recent (and relevant) year, and he was elite in terms of performance and stayed healthy for 32 starts. He had never tried being a starter and failed, and despite the injuries, he also has low mileage over the last six years.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,383
I didn't know / remember Crochet had TJ already, early 2022 to mid 2023. That has to be a positive he's in the clear from one already, no?
I think at this point, I'm with the "ALL pitchers are at risk to have a career-derailing injury all the time." So you might as well go with youth, to get more prime years.
My hunch is that younger pitchers are better able to recover, but I can't prove that.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,323
I’m trying to think of the last blue chip prospect the Red Sox traded away where it significantly backfired on them. With the current management, it seems they have done really well in keeping the right prospects, and have seldom been burned trading away some of the ones that they have.

They chose Xander over Iglesias, Devers over Manuel Margot, and I don’t think anyone can really say it was a mistake to trade away Yoan Moncada or Michael Kopech either. Certainly Bagwell for Larry Anderson is one that still echoes 30 years later, but it seems like for the most part when we have traded away our prospects, it has worked out well.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,791
Manchester, N.H.
There's also the element of the market for talent not exactly being a market full of available talent and the risks involved there. The Top 5 pitchers on MLB's FA rankings (just purely WAR last year) either are Corbin Burnes or all signed deals into their late 30s (Snell, Kikuchi, Fried, and Eovaldi) for substantial money. which is absolutely its own type of risk, leaving your next range of guys as valuable players with tangible flaws you probably don't want at the top of your rotation (Flaherty, Kyle Gibson, 42 year old Verlander, Pivetta, and Manaea are the next five available). In terms of trade targets, you get tantalizing but flawed younger arms on bad teams (Crochet by far the best of the them, but Luzardo was another one bandied about) or pricy veteran arms that either struggled a lot or don't fit in with a new team's goals which would be cheaper in player cost but also come with a reclamation + financial cost to them.

Like, it's all imperfect. If he can't handle a rotation gig this will suck, but Max Fried's first season with over 35 innings was his Age 25 season, Corbin Burnes didn't hit over 60 innings until his Age 26 year (COVID shortened Age 25 year would have been there though). The bigger risk in this is probably if the Sox can extend him, for how much and how long, and if he delivers on that - and what the Sox do with the 30m AAV this is presumably saving them over putting in the kind of huge offer that brings Burnes to Boston.
 

manny

New Member
Jul 24, 2005
295
I’m trying to think of the last blue chip prospect the Red Sox traded away where it significantly backfired on them. With the current management, it seems they have done really well in keeping the right prospects, and have seldom been burned trading away some of the ones that they have.

They chose Xander over Iglesias, Devers over Manuel Margot, and I don’t think anyone can really say it was a mistake to trade away Yoan Moncada or Michael Kopech either. Certainly Bagwell for Larry Anderson is one that still echoes 30 years later, but it seems like for the most part when we have traded away our prospects, it has worked out well.
Hanley is one that comes to mind, though obviously it was worth it, and Hanley's prime didn't last too long.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,413
NH
You listed 3 bad FA contracts as an example of poor management, how can you say there is no downside to signing Burnes or Fried in the same breath??
It's reactionary. This is reactionary. They will have to either part with or pay Crochet either way.

My take on this trade is very different if he has another 2-3 years on the deal, or if he extends for a reasonable deal. But if we just turn around and lose him to FA, or if he isn't a 180ip pitcher, or if he extends for a completely insane deal (say Fried but 10 more aav) then how is this better than just signing one of the free agent pitchers in the first place?

If trading was always the plan, fine, but we better see an extension in the next few weeks.
 

Youkilis vs Wild

New Member
Mar 30, 2009
387
Boston, MA
As a duo, I think the question is, how do Teel and Montgomery compare to Moncada and Kopech or Ramirez and Sanchez? (And I suppose we can adjust a bit for Crochet lacking the track record of Sale and Beckett.)
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
7,351
If this was for Anthony I'd understand the concern - but Teel and Montgomery were excellent (mostly) surplus prospects that they can afford to trade. I really don't understand as it seems that unless the Sox overpay for an aging pitcher, people aren't going to be happy ("just spend money to show you care!!")
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
The fact that Connor Wong is now our only realistic catching option for the future is probably the most disappointing. The other 3 prospects we have are from positions of depth. Teel was it for catching depth. Don’t really know how we replace him unless they get Murphy, who is declining, and it’ll probably cost Abreu, which is another overpay. At the end of the day, I just hope they spend the money they might’ve spent on Burnes or Fried and use it to either extend Crochet or make more moves. If this is the only major move they make this offseason, then it’s a colossal failure imo. A move like this is made by a World Series contender, which without more moves they are not. An extension is pivotal for this trade to make sense in my eyes.
I don't get the freakout about Wong's defense. He was 19 runs below average per 135 games last year, though -6 for his career, so maybe he had a dip. It's not great. But bRef translated that to a -0.5dWAR... and his 2.7 oWar more than offsets it. The pitching was better than expected, and defense up the middle was a bigger issue, so... why do people think we can't live with his defense? Maybe he will improve a bit, and certainly they can have a reliable #2 to shore things up. But this is hardly an impediment to a winning season.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
958
Maryland
Someone on MLB Network said “over the last few years Red Sox fans have been promised Paris and have been delivered Poughkeepsie, Red Sox ownership had to do something”. Regardless of how you feel about this trade, this joke, I hope, makes you chuckle a bit like it did for me.
As someone born and raised in Poughkeepsie, I appreciate this comment. I'd like to know who on MLB Network said this.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,737
Boston, MA
The starting rotation seems to be locked in -- apart from getting another 4th/5th starter for depth, I think only a RHH bat may be needed to be competitive in the AL east.

4 of our 5 starters are ranked in the top 60 for steamer projects, FWIW:

1. Crochet --4.9 WAR (4th)
2. Houck - 2.9 WAR (36th)
3. Bello - 2.7 WAR (51st)
4.Crawford 2.3 WAR (60th)
5 Giolito 1.0 WAR (~)

13.9 projected fWAR for our starting 5 would put us in the top 5 for WAR in 2024 and a 2 WAR improvement over last year. We could bolster an already strong rotation, but this would kick out either giolito or crawford, neither of whom have high trade value currently ( esp. with crawford's poor 2nd half performance).
I don't think so. I think there's still a trade in the Abreu/Duran/Casas group for a pitcher coming. Imagine this rotation with Luzardo or Woo or Chamberlain or someone of that caliber fitting in with Crochet, Houck and Bello and this becomes one of the best young rotations in MLB.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,517
Yoknapatawpha County
It is a bunch to give up, but at least it is for a really legit pitcher, there's like an ocean of upside there. Trading any one of the big four was going to sting, so that's the sting.

It does make me rue the inability to lock down a FA and spend some cash, but there is a version of this where the guy coming back has more warts, or less upside, so I'm grateful for that and love they got better. He seems like he'll be an exciting player. I think this is a deal you do if you can even if you're viable in the FA market, honestly. Teel did seem like he'd be a gas to root for, so I'll keep an eye on him.

This shouldn't preclude them adding even more. Burnes should still be on their radar, and Flaherty wouldn't be bad as a backup to that.

Gotta figure out catcher, though.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,791
Manchester, N.H.
I’m trying to think of the last blue chip prospect the Red Sox traded away where it significantly backfired on them. With the current management, it seems they have done really well in keeping the right prospects, and have seldom been burned trading away some of the ones that they have.

They chose Xander over Iglesias, Devers over Manuel Margot, and I don’t think anyone can really say it was a mistake to trade away Yoan Moncada or Michael Kopech either. Certainly Bagwell for Larry Anderson is one that still echoes 30 years later, but it seems like for the most part when we have traded away our prospects, it has worked out well.
I think the argument exists for Anthony Rizzo. Sox traded him (and others) for 1.5 years of Adrian Gonzalez - one great season and one nice one before he was in that massive salary offloaded Nick Punto trade. They got Mike Napoli and the 2013 WS after but spent a good chunk of cash to get a capable 1B for that spot after him as Rizzo was pretty darn good for a decade for the Cubs.

Now, the Sox did end up winning two WS in that timeframe where Rizzo was at his best (and Napoli and Moreland were both key cogs) and Gonzalez was never really the problem, it's the kind of deal the Sox should make again even if it worked out that way, but that's the only one I can really think of that they might have wanted back.
 

Rustjive

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2009
1,128
I’m trying to think of the last blue chip prospect the Red Sox traded away where it significantly backfired on them. With the current management, it seems they have done really well in keeping the right prospects, and have seldom been burned trading away some of the ones that they have.

They chose Xander over Iglesias, Devers over Manuel Margot, and I don’t think anyone can really say it was a mistake to trade away Yoan Moncada or Michael Kopech either. Certainly Bagwell for Larry Anderson is one that still echoes 30 years later, but it seems like for the most part when we have traded away our prospects, it has worked out well.
Rizzo ended up being pretty good.

Edit: Beat to the punch.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
820
Melrose MA
It’s also weird in that many of the same people who don’t want the team to trade prospects also insist they shouldn’t move guys like Duran, Casas, Abreu, etc. If you want to make moves, you have to be willing to give up something of value! A prospects ranking, on its own, is not really meaningful.
I agree. And the people who think this way don't seem to understand that there are only 8 positions on the field other than pitcher and if you keep everyone where will they all play?
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,859
If this was for Anthony I'd understand the concern - but Teel and Montgomery were excellent (mostly) surplus prospects that they can afford to trade. I really don't understand as it seems that unless the Sox overpay for an aging pitcher, people aren't going to be happy ("just spend money to show you care!!")
You can quibble if you want about what Teel will turn out to be but he definitely wasn't a "surplus" prospect. This team has basically nothing at catcher organization wide.

The last sentence is pretty reductive and kind of ridiculous. Do you think that people specifically want them to sign aging pitchers?