Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,492
"3 others" is doing an awful lot of work here. I guess we can assume it's 3 guys less valuable than Houck, but how much less?

Even if it's zero others, I'm not sure how I feel about giving up 5 years of Houck for 2 of Kim to help a .500-ish team. Alhough Fangraphs projects him to have a wRC+ or 106, which is actually higher than last year. So...maybe?
Is it 2 years of Kim or 4? He’s got two left on his current deal, but that would only be 4 years of service time, so wouldn’t there be 2 arb years left? Spotrac has him as a UFA in 2027.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,680

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,274
Cot’s is always better than Spotrac, he is signed through 2024 with a mutual option for 2025. The extra arb years don’t apply because he was an unrestricted IFA, I believe.

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/nl-west/san-diego-padres/
It’s a mutual option for $1 with a $2.5M buyout, so you are basically getting two years of him. Is that worth however number of years they control Houck, plus whatever else? Given all the other holes on the team, I’d say no, not really sure Kim moves the needle on the ‘23 team in any significant way.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,253
Spotrac (and BBRef) got me on Kim too @Average Game James, don’t feel bad.

Count me as one whom is thrilled we didn’t come close to what LAD gave up for Rojas. An approximation in our system to Amaya is Valdez (FanGraphs gives Amaya a 45 FV and Valdez a 40) and I’d have been beyond upset to give up 6 years of Valdez and the slim chance he is really good for 1 year of Rojas (or Wendle, or anyone of similar ilk) in a season where we probably project out for 4/5 in the division.

On Kim, I’m torn, I really like the player, but he’s only here for two years (see above) and I expect very little from the 2023 Red Sox, even though I think Kim is a massive upgrade. Ultimately, I don’t think I’d want to give up Houck based on his age, his stuff, and his contract (controlled through 2027) for Kim (through 2024). Upgrading the 2023 and 2024 Red Sox while hurting the years there is actually a window just isn’t worth it to me.

If their years of control were similar, absolutely I’d move Houck, Dalbec, Arroyo and even another piece for Kim. But Houck’s control lines up better with a window. Now, if we’re allowed to negotiate an extension with Kim (I don’t know of that is allowed in the current CBA, forgive me, I couldn’t find that specified one way or the other on a Google search) and Houck is contingent on that, absolutely, but not for just the 2023 and 2024 seasons based on our current 2023 roster AND what we have under control for 2024.

On Dalbec and Arroyo, they both carry almost no value. MLB trade simulation has them combined to be worth around 2.5; Kim and Houck are both around 18. If the Sox were anywhere close to contending for a title in 2023, sure, but that would require a ton of things to go just right.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,692
Wonder if we could do something basically built around this:

Boston gets: Arraez, Kepler, Stallings
Miami gets: Rafaela, Wong, Yorke
Minnesota gets: Verdugo, López

That's not perfect by BTV, but it's close, and could get there by adding a few other parts. I could see it expand so that the Twins get a heavily subsidized Jorge Soler, who they could DH, or Avisail García, who would help balance their very left-handed corner outfield crew of Gallo, Kirilloff, Larnach, Gordon and Wallner. They might also include Kyle Farmer ($5.9M AAV in arb2), Angel Pagan ($3.7M) or Kenta Maeda ($3.1) if they want to move some payroll after the Correa signing.

Aside from being the reigning batting champ, Arraez is beloved in Minnesota, where he's the second coming of Rod Carew. I'd be surprised if he's dealt. But this is not the first rumor I've heard this offseason where he's available. For us, he'd be the second coming of Boggs, and would fill a hole at second base, where he's defensively solid. He's blocked at second by Polanco, who is also on a favorable contract through 2025.

Would you trade Verdugo, two of our better prospects and Connor Wong for three years of Arraez, two of Max Kepler and two of Stallings? I think I would.
Would the Marlins trade two years of López for a prospect haul like that? I think they'd be smart to.
Would the Twins trade Arraez and Kepler for Verdugo and López? It's possible. One of the reasons they're interested in moving Kepler is that he's a less capable CF backup in case Buxton gets hurt. Verdugo, three years younger than Kepler, is debatably a more capable one, and cheaper. But Kepler is a better RF, which makes him a better fit for us.
 

bosox1534

New Member
Dec 17, 2022
130
Wonder if we could do something basically built around this:

Boston gets: Arraez, Kepler, Stallings
Miami gets: Rafaela, Wong, Yorke
Minnesota gets: Verdugo, López

That's not perfect by BTV, but it's close, and could get there by adding a few other parts. I could see it expand so that the Twins get a heavily subsidized Jorge Soler, who they could DH, or Avisail García, who would help balance their very left-handed corner outfield crew of Gallo, Kirilloff, Larnach, Gordon and Wallner. They might also include Kyle Farmer ($5.9M AAV in arb2), Angel Pagan ($3.7M) or Kenta Maeda ($3.1) if they want to move some payroll after the Correa signing.

Aside from being the reigning batting champ, Arraez is beloved in Minnesota, where he's the second coming of Rod Carew. I'd be surprised if he's dealt. But this is not the first rumor I've heard this offseason where he's available. For us, he'd be the second coming of Boggs, and would fill a hole at second base, where he's defensively solid. He's blocked at second by Polanco, who is also on a favorable contract through 2025.

Would you trade Verdugo, two of our better prospects and Connor Wong for three years of Arraez, two of Max Kepler and two of Stallings? I think I would.
Would the Marlins trade two years of López for a prospect haul like that? I think they'd be smart to.
Would the Twins trade Arraez and Kepler for Verdugo and López? It's possible. One of the reasons they're interested in moving Kepler is that he's a less capable CF backup in case Buxton gets hurt. Verdugo, three years younger than Kepler, is debatably a more capable one, and cheaper. But Kepler is a better RF, which makes him a better fit for us.
I don’t mind it but I think the Twins come out looking a lot better than everyone else in this trade. Kepler hasn’t been good for a couple year, and I think Verdugo is capable of putting up similar offensive numbers to Arraez, maybe less average but more power. If we’re giving up Rafaela and Verdugo it’s gotta be for a little more imo. I’m probably undervaluing Arraez though.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,424
I think I'm out on that fake trade, but I really love all the work Chawson puts into this stuff & his work is a big reason I kept coming back to the forum.

Arraez is pretty good, but there's no real evidence that Kepler or Stallings are even average hitters. Kepler is the better defensive RF, but Verdugo has been the better hitter, & is 3 years younger. Kind of a wash to me. For tax purposes it looks like Kepler would cost $7m AAV this year & $10m next year if they take the club option. Verdugo's arb estimate for this year is $7.1m & he has 1 more arb year, so that's kind of a wash, too.

So then there's the Wong to Stallings thing. Seems like a fairly significant defensive upgrade, but Wong is projected to be the better hitter than Stallings this year, is 7 years younger & is under control for like 6 more years (as opposed to Stallings' 2 arb years). Also, McGuire is already a really good defensive catcher, so I don't really see much point in going that route, unless we expect McGuire not to be able to hit enough to stay in the lineup. It's also not like Stallings crushes lefties either - he had a 69 wRC+ against lefties last year, 72 against righties. For his career he is 87 against lefties, 82 against righties. Then again, for the Red Sox, Wong has a -23 wRC+ against lefties & 130 against righties, but I'll chalk this up to a sample-size issue (24 PAs against lefties, 46 against righties). His splits in the minors seem pretty even, too, though, with him hitting lefties slightly better the past 2 seasons, but righties significantly better in 2019. Anyway, based on cost/window/existence of McGuire as a glove 1st catcher, I wouldn't do this straight up.

So I'm left with trading Rafeala & Yorke for 3 years of Arraez. If we had a championship caliber team this year, I could certainly see that as the right move. Arraez does a lot of the things the Red Sox seem to be really valuing with their off season moves to date. It feels like they would be selling really low on Yorke, though, & I think he's going to bounce back from an injury plagued 2022, where he started super slow but then got better when he was healthy & crushed Fall League.

Yorke isn't even 21 yet, & if he stays on track he fits great into the future infield with Casas/Meyer/Devers. I think I'd be willing to go Rafaela/Lugo, but that's about it.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
34,413
They better be right that Ort/Brasier are more useful going forward than the guys they've lost this offseason.

(Already having nightmares about Darwinzon saving a game against us even though he sucked major ass last year)
 

bosox1534

New Member
Dec 17, 2022
130
We still have Ort, though, right? Why? (Seems Seabold has more potential)

Maybe they only see Seabold as a swing-type guy and value a traditional reliever more since they already have Whitlock and Houck, who are better versions of Seabold.
 

Tim Salmon

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,340
They better be right that Ort/Brasier are more useful going forward than the guys they've lost this offseason.

(Already having nightmares about Darwinzon saving a game against us even though he sucked major ass last year)
If that happens, then it means we stayed within three runs of a divisional powerhouse for most of the game. My glass is half-full.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,553
Maine
This is an odd choice over Ort, right? Ort, who turns 31 next month, is about 4 years older.
I'm not sure it is. They had more optionable AAA starting depth like Seabold on the 40-man (Winckowski, Crawford, Mata, Walter, Murphy) than similar relieving depth (Ort, Kelly, German, Mills, Taylor). It makes sense to DFA some of that starting depth to make room for a starting pitcher.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,692
This is an odd choice over Ort, right? Ort, who turns 31 next month, is about 4 years older.
I think what they may find promising with Ort is his ability to miss bats on pitches in the zone.

Zone Contact% (min. 20 IP in 2022)
Whitlock - 72.9% (5th of 321 qualified pitchers)
Mills - 76.8% (18th)
Diekman - 80.5% (65th)
Martin - 80.6% (67th)
Schreiber - 80.7% (69th)
Ort - 81.3% (80th)
Jansen - 81.9% (94th)
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,424
Am I excited about keeping Brasier/Ort? No.

Do I think Seabold is a good pitcher? Also no.

Hopefully they have some sort of deal lined up to get something of some value that they couldn't if they chose Ort/Brasier? Might also indicate that they're looking to start Whitlock/Houck & they like are comfortable with their depth ahead of Seabold.

Sale
Paxton
Pivetta
Bello
Kluber
Whitlock
Houck
Winckowski
Crawford
Murphy
Walter
Mata

If you see Seabold as like your 13th best starter option, & can get a flyer for him from someone who believes in him? Why not. Doubt they trust his control issues & don't think they're particularly fixable in the way they seem to have fixed like Walter, or hope to fix with a player who is 2 1/2 years younger like Murphy.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
21,544
I'm not sure it is. They had more optionable AAA starting depth like Seabold on the 40-man (Winckowski, Crawford, Mata, Walter, Murphy) than similar relieving depth (Ort, Kelly, German, Mills, Taylor). It makes sense to DFA some of that starting depth to make room for a starting pitcher.
Gotcha, but I'm thinking about development potential going forward and not just roster-building for this season. But it's likely that neither guy has a particularly bright future, so it's probably not worth spending much time thinking about.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,224
Boston, MA
Ort and Brasier throw hard, so there's always hope that something clicks and they're good for a year. Seabold doesn't. I think it's as simple as that.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,274
Isn’t Seabold a cautionary tale of pitching prospects? Folks were gushing over him not that long ago, the centerpiece of Bloom’s best trade, and after a few years including a handful of terrible starts in Boston, has value plummeted to zero (or whatever we get for him in a deal).
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,126
Isn’t Seabold a cautionary tale of pitching prospects? Folks were gushing over him not that long ago, the centerpiece of Bloom’s best trade, and after a few years including a handful of terrible starts in Boston, has value plummeted to zero (or whatever we get for him in a deal).
He sustained an injury. That happens. He was very intriguing pre-injury.

Players get injured.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,424
Ort was also kinda decent toward the end of the season & if you take out 1 game (8 runs in 2/3 of an inning against the Blue Jays), his ERA was 3.90 last season. Obviously you can't & it was 6.35 in real life.

He's a fastball/slider guy against righties & a fastball/changeup guy against lefties. If he gets his control locked in a bit better, & maybe slows his changeup down a bit without losing arm action (96 mph fastball, 90 mph changeup isn't enough of a difference), he could be a useful guy. Unlike Seabold who probably does not have a path to ever being much more than a depth starter.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,680
If no one claims Seabold, they get him back and clear the 40 man spot, these moves aren’t done until he lands somewhere.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,424
Isn’t Seabold a cautionary tale of pitching prospects? Folks were gushing over him not that long ago, the centerpiece of Bloom’s best trade, and after a few years including a handful of terrible starts in Boston, has value plummeted to zero (or whatever we get for him in a deal).
I mean, trading 2 guys who were pending free agents who combined threw 22 1/3 innings for the Phillies & allowed 23 earned runs is a pretty great piece of work regardless of what comes back.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,327
around the way
Wakefield for part of a season when he first came to Boston.
Those guys, including Roger, all had some highly dominant stretches and performances. I'm not sure that any of them besides Pedro was ever the best pitcher on the planet while they were here. Like maybe for a week or a month of dominance, but it seems wrong to lump them in with a guy who lapped the field for 2 calendar years.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
21,544
Those guys, including Roger, all had some highly dominant stretches and performances. I'm not sure that any of them besides Pedro was ever the best pitcher on the planet while they were here. Like maybe for a week or a month of dominance, but it seems wrong to lump them in with a guy who lapped the field for 2 calendar years.
Understood. I wouldn't lump Wakefield in with Pedro and Roger, but over the course of his first 15-20 Boston starts, Wakefield was the best pitcher in baseball.

EDIT: Or at least in the conversation with Maddux (not sure how Maddux fared during the same period, but I'm sure it at least nearly as comparable).
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,327
around the way
Understood. I wouldn't lump Wakefield in with Pedro and Roger, but over the course of his first 15-20 Boston starts, Wakefield was the best pitcher in baseball.
That was a fantastic run. Really loved that team of misfit toys. Wake was appointment viewing for months, not just because of the knuckleball novelty either.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
21,544
That was a fantastic run. Really loved that team of misfit toys. Wake was appointment viewing for months, not just because of the knuckleball novelty either.
It really was, and it's hard to believe that it was more than 27 years ago. I was sad when it all came crashing down (in Minnesota, I believe). EDIT: Nope, Seattle.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,327
around the way
It really was, and it's hard to believe that it was more than 27 years ago. I was sad when it all came crashing down (in Minnesota, I believe).
Yep. Then we all wrote off the bad performance as a dome thing, but he struggled on and off for the rest of that year. Damn that was half my life ago.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,425
Isn’t Seabold a cautionary tale of pitching prospects? Folks were gushing over him not that long ago, the centerpiece of Bloom’s best trade, and after a few years including a handful of terrible starts in Boston, has value plummeted to zero (or whatever we get for him in a deal).
TNSTAAPP
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,433
Those guys, including Roger, all had some highly dominant stretches and performances. I'm not sure that any of them besides Pedro was ever the best pitcher on the planet while they were here. Like maybe for a week or a month of dominance, but it seems wrong to lump them in with a guy who lapped the field for 2 calendar years.
Clemens certainly was in 1986.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,327
around the way
Clemens certainly was in 1986.
Yeah probably, but when you look at all of the numbers from both leagues...was he really that dominant? Not top bWAR, ERA+ was great, but wasn’t really that much better than Scott's, who also had way more Ks (NL, I know). He was 4th in FIP.

Maybe I'm reading too much into "best pitcher on earth". Clemens probably was, but it was arguable.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/1986-pitching-leaders.shtml

When Pedro was Pedro, it was inarguable who was the best on earth.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,395
Isn’t Seabold a cautionary tale of pitching prospects? Folks were gushing over him not that long ago, the centerpiece of Bloom’s best trade, and after a few years including a handful of terrible starts in Boston, has value plummeted to zero (or whatever we get for him in a deal).
I don't think anyone here needs a reminder that TINSTAAPP. But fine: TINSTAAPP. Having stated that clearly, let me add that it would be a very bad development indeed if baseball executives were to stop making trades for promising young pitchers that they hope will develop just because TINSTAAPP. Connor Seabold was once a promising young pitcher. He got hurt and has so far never been able to regain his stuff. I'm glad Bloom turned drek into him and Pivetta, even as I am disappointed that he never developed. TINSTAAPP.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,253
Isn’t Seabold a cautionary tale of pitching prospects? Folks were gushing over him not that long ago, the centerpiece of Bloom’s best trade, and after a few years including a handful of terrible starts in Boston, has value plummeted to zero (or whatever we get for him in a deal).
Do you mean in that we didn't try to flip him for something if other people perceived he had value? In that case, sure.

Case in point, obviously Baseball Trade Values is not the be all and end all, but it has Schrieber for Kim as a slight edge to the Padres. I think this is patently insane and in and of itself makes me question the entire tool because if we offered that to Preller he'd spend 45 minutes laughing into Bloom's ear until Bloom hung up. Then Preller would call him back just to continue laughing for another 45 minutes. So yeah, if at some point Seabold had that kind of value to anyone else, move him for sure, but I don't recall there even being a slight rumor to that (just like I doubt anyone in the real game of baseball actually perceives Schrieber as valuable as Kim).

However, if you meant the idea of trading for him in the first place, I'd strongly disagree. Landing Seabold and Pivetta for Workman is in my opinion one of the best moves Bloom has made.

2020 is / was exactly the way one should have handled a deadline where you're not inside the playoff bracket. Trade guys whom aren't part of the next year's team and that you aren't going to make a QO to for literally anything you can get that might one day be good. If you're going to suck, then REALLY suck so that you get better picks - heck, imagine how much worse our farm system would look if we'd been the last team out of the playoffs that year and had Sam Bachman instead of Nick PIvetta, Connor Seabold and Marcelo Mayer.

Make that kind of deal 100x out of 100, THEN evaluate your guys and move those where someone else might value them more than you do (this is something Dombrowski was excellent at, it's also where it seems guys like Bloom and Cherington struggle).
 
Last edited:

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,974
Yeah probably, but when you look at all of the numbers from both leagues...was he really that dominant? Not top bWAR, ERA+ was great, but wasn’t really that much better than Scott's, who also had way more Ks (NL, I know). He was 4th in FIP.

Maybe I'm reading too much into "best pitcher on earth". Clemens probably was, but it was arguable.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/1986-pitching-leaders.shtml

When Pedro was Pedro, it was inarguable who was the best on earth.
There is no argument about Clemens in 1986. None. Sometimes numbers don't tell the entire story.

Clemens was absolutely dominant that year. No pitcher was even close, and that includes Gooden and Scott in the NL. The idea was that Scott was cheating like crazy because his splitter came out of nowhere--before that year Scott was just another dude who bounced around a few organizations. Supposedly he met Roger Craig who imparted some wisdom (among other stuff) and Scott's career took off. Clemens was a phenom and he wasn't using whatever Scott was using, he was throwing hard and throwing it by batters night after night after night.

While he wasn't Pedro 1999-01, a Clemens start (especially after the 20K game) was appointment TV. At one point he was 14-0 and it didn't look like he'd ever lose. I hate to say this, but if you didn't experience peak Clemens, you really missed something. Dude was incredible.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,327
around the way
There is no argument about Clemens in 1986. None. Sometimes numbers don't tell the entire story.

Clemens was absolutely dominant that year. No pitcher was even close, and that includes Gooden and Scott in the NL. The idea was that Scott was cheating like crazy because his splitter came out of nowhere--before that year Scott was just another dude who bounced around a few organizations. Supposedly he met Roger Craig who imparted some wisdom (among other stuff) and Scott's career took off. Clemens was a phenom and he wasn't using whatever Scott was using, he was throwing hard and throwing it by batters night after night after night.

While he wasn't Pedro 1999-01, a Clemens start (especially after the 20K game) was appointment TV. At one point he was 14-0 and it didn't look like he'd ever lose. I hate to say this, but if you didn't experience peak Clemens, you really missed something. Dude was incredible.
I didn't miss it. It was appointment TV for me too. Guy was a dominant horse.

I just think that the nostalgia doesn't 100% align with the numbers. In Pedro's case, it clearly does. I'd take Clemens over Scott any day, especially because Scott's season was so fluky, as you note.

I'm not arguing that Clemens wasn't the best pitcher on earth that year. He probably was, but it was closer than everyone remembers.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,680
Mike Scott was clearly the best pitcher in the game down the stretch in 1986, he pitched a no-hitter the final week of the regular season and then back to back complete games in the NLCS, 18 8 1 1 1 19, the second game on 3 days rest (!!!). The Mets were dreading seeing him a third time in game 7, which is what made their extra inning wins in games 5 (I was there) and game 6 that much more important.

Clemens was not exceptional by the time it got to the postseason that year, a couple of really good games and a few bad ones, I was actually at game 2 of the WS that year and it was a very disappointing showdown between Clemens and Gooden, neither pitched well.

Anyway, every manager in baseball would have picked Scott over Clemens for that postseason. That is almost certainly the only month of their careers where that was close to true, but it's still true.