Red Sox Trade Deadline 2022

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,699
Bloom’s definitely has got his guys. Santana has had such a strange career; two years with OPS+ over 110, every other year below 65. And he’s got a PED suspension on his record, too. For AAA depth, he’s fine, I guess? It’s….something.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
18,572
Miami (oh, Miami!)
If Bloom is going to catch some lightning, I'm largely indifferent as to the bottle.

That said, he'll probably go to the minors for a bit to work on his timing. As long as he does not collide with a rehabbing Sox player, there's little risk here. And as little upside, I suspect.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,084
Bloom’s definitely has got his guys. Santana has had such a strange career; two years with OPS+ over 110, every other year below 65. And he’s got a PED suspension on his record, too. For AAA depth, he’s fine, I guess? It’s….something.
Who’s another one of Bloom’s guys?

Santana’s career is not really linear. He’s just a depth signing and probably won’t see any time for the Sox. The reason I think he’s interesting (besides his public battle with a “suffocating” anxiety) is a swing change he made a few years ago, which resulted in the biggest exit velocity leap of the entire decade.

I’ve taken some shit on this board for being optimistic about Santana, and I’ll admit I have a soft spot for guys like this, dynamic players who make big mechanics changes, and getting through an anxiety hump like that (and talking about it) endears me to him too. That said, I doubt we see any of him this year.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,699
Maybe it’s not so much Bloom’s guys but there seems to be an over-representation with bringing back players who have been here. Shaw, Santana, Iglesias, Hill, Bradley, Workman, Feliz…
 

GB5

lurker
Aug 26, 2013
391
Someone who never gets mentioned in the trade discussion who I wouldn’t be stunned to find a new home, is Sawamura. He has pitched fairly well, is a pending FA, with the team having a $3M option. Won’t bring back much except a lottery ticket or even a PTBNL, but if the Sox don’t intend to bring him back they should see if anyone wants him.
 
Jul 16, 2005
78
[QUOTE="ElcaballitoMVP, post: 5109037, member: 53750"
I'm not sure Vazquez would be of much interest for SD, nor do I think Hassell is realistic in that scenario. SD already has Alfaro and Nola with Campusano waiting in the wings. But I was thinking of a deal with SD for Bogaerts, something like X + Strahm for Campusano, Jackson Merrill and Myers. Value is almost even if you look at BTV (18.4 vs 19). The Sox could then look to move Vazquez elsewhere for another prospect and give the job to Campusano.

Then trade JDM + Eovaldi, maybe package them to somewhere like Minnesota for one of their pitching prospects.
[/QUOTE]
No interest in Myers and his dead-weight contract.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
79,282
Oregon
It's unlikely that Nate's trade market will come into focus until the top two options - Castillo and Montas - are off the market.
True, although teams that have checked in on those two and deemed the price too high might want to pick off Eovaldi ahead of those deals to cut the Castillo/Montas "losers" off at the pass
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
63,122
True, although teams that have checked in on those two and deemed the price too high might want to pick off Eovaldi ahead of those deals to cut the Castillo/Montas "losers" off at the pass
The problem is he is down in velocity at the worst possible time to be dealt:

 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
79,282
Oregon
no doubt, but that doesn't mean he would be better than what some teams scrambling for a spot have for their 3-5 starters
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,971
The back of your computer
Everyone's going to have high prices until the deadline. Dombro usually doesn't wait, so it is possible he'll jump in with a prospect package that makes sense. Note that Nate is scheduled to pitch on Monday, the night before the deadline. BOS may want to deal him before then and/or skip his start. My guess is that the velo decrease isn't going to scare teams off but may reduce their trade package until just before the deadline.
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,254
Town
I could see Dombrowski as the type of GM who could be sold on Eovaldi's postseason experience and bulldog reputation. Dombrowski also likes to carry players around with him from team to team. He's already signaled that they aren't ready to part with their top prospects for the top tier SPs. Bloom could look to DD for a potential mild overpay, if Dombrowski weighs Eovaldi's postseason background and their previous connection. I wonder if they might be able to pry someone like Johan Rojas away. Phillies probably need middle infield, outfield defense, and especially bullpen help as well.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,242
Maine
Someone who never gets mentioned in the trade discussion who I wouldn’t be stunned to find a new home, is Sawamura. He has pitched fairly well, is a pending FA, with the team having a $3M option. Won’t bring back much except a lottery ticket or even a PTBNL, but if the Sox don’t intend to bring him back they should see if anyone wants him.
He's not a pending free agent. He's under team control through 2026. That said, seeing as he's 34, I won't be sad if they trade him for something valuable. But it won't be because he's a pending free agent.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,699
Is Matt Vierling a guy the Phillies would give up, and someone the Sox could be interested in? Versatile defensively, has struggled this year in 150 big league at bats, but solid AAA numbers. Granted another OF without a ton of power may not be ideal but he seems like a potential fit.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,084
Is Matt Vierling a guy the Phillies would give up, and someone the Sox could be interested in? Versatile defensively, has struggled this year in 150 big league at bats, but solid AAA numbers. Granted another OF without a ton of power may not be ideal but he seems like a potential fit.
Vierling seems like a decent fit. The versatility is good, especially if we’re keeping Duran, who he could probably platoon with when he’s not elsewhere. Looks like he’s rather fringy defensively in center. The power question is interesting: he hasn’t had it, but the launch angle and exit velocities are solid.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,699
Yeah he seems like a Bloom type and he fits the profile of a guy who can step in and contribute right away at a position of need. Admittedly, I don’t know much about him but would be nice to lock up a few areas of need before the off-season and get an extended look at potential help. It’s also the kind of move that doesn’t necessarily wave the white flag.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
791
San Diego
[QUOTE="ElcaballitoMVP, post: 5109037, member: 53750"
I'm not sure Vazquez would be of much interest for SD, nor do I think Hassell is realistic in that scenario. SD already has Alfaro and Nola with Campusano waiting in the wings. But I was thinking of a deal with SD for Bogaerts, something like X + Strahm for Campusano, Jackson Merrill and Myers. Value is almost even if you look at BTV (18.4 vs 19). The Sox could then look to move Vazquez elsewhere for another prospect and give the job to Campusano.

Then trade JDM + Eovaldi, maybe package them to somewhere like Minnesota for one of their pitching prospects.

No interest in Myers and his dead-weight contract.
I mean yeah, but he's not going to break the bank and they need someone to play the outfield this year. You could do a lot worse for a bench bat next year, too. If a year of Myers gets them Hassell or Campusano, you do that in a heartbeat.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
79,282
Oregon
Here's the thing I keep having to remind myself: Anyone of substance -- Xander*, JDM, Eovaldi, Vasquez -- who the Red Sox could conceivably trade would be a rental to the other team. The return isn't going to be needle-moving (Xander* would come closest) unless Bloom gets really creative and/or it's part of a bigger deal.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,395
Here's the thing I keep having to remind myself: Anyone of substance -- Xander*, JDM, Eovaldi, Vasquez -- who the Red Sox could conceivably trade would be a rental to the other team. The return isn't going to be needle-moving (Xander* would come closest) unless Bloom gets really creative and/or it's part of a bigger deal.
If it's for prospects they don't have the place on the 40 man roster, they can trade said prospects for other team's prospects closer to the bigs that do need to be put on the 40 but don't have the spots to do so. I don't know if any of those players will be needle moving either, though.
 

jwbasham84

lurker
Jul 26, 2022
37
South Bend, IN
I disagree with the premise that the players can't be needle moving for a rental. I know it has been stated earlier but the Aroldis Chapman trade brough back the Yankees a very good prospect in Gleyber Torres. As it is said in some many other areas. It only takes one to be interested to score a good return.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,634
Here's the thing I keep having to remind myself: Anyone of substance -- Xander*, JDM, Eovaldi, Vasquez -- who the Red Sox could conceivably trade would be a rental to the other team. The return isn't going to be needle-moving (Xander* would come closest) unless Bloom gets really creative and/or it's part of a bigger deal.
I think because catcher is so weak league-wide, they could get a real player for Vazquez. Maybe not a future star, but not a JAG either.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
79,282
Oregon
If it's for prospects they don't have the place on the 40 man roster, they can trade said prospects for other team's prospects closer to the bigs that do need to be put on the 40 but don't have the spots to do so. I don't know if any of those players will be needle moving either, though.
I'm just laying the foundation for the eventual gnashing of teeth when one of those guys is traded for never-heard-of-before prospects
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,395
I disagree with the premise that the players can't be needle moving for a rental. I know it has been stated earlier but the Aroldis Chapman trade brough back the Yankees a very good prospect in Gleyber Torres. As it is said in some many other areas. It only takes one to be interested to score a good return.
Andrew Miller brought the Red Sox back EdRod. Though I guess that was awhile ago.
I'm just laying the foundation for the eventual gnashing of teeth when one of those guys is traded for never-heard-of-before prospects
Yeah, it's going to happen. Unless they do MLB talent for MLB talent but that's rare and last time it didn't work out so well. I mean, I guess Rick Porcello was ok.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I disagree with the premise that the players can't be needle moving for a rental. I know it has been stated earlier but the Aroldis Chapman trade brough back the Yankees a very good prospect in Gleyber Torres. As it is said in some many other areas. It only takes one to be interested to score a good return.
Agreed. The days of getting a top-100 prospect for a 2-month rental are long gone, but a lot of guys who weren’t highly touted as minor leaguers end up having solid major-league careers.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
10,141
Springfield, VA
He's not a pending free agent. He's under team control through 2026. That said, seeing as he's 34, I won't be sad if they trade him for something valuable. But it won't be because he's a pending free agent.
I"m not sure why anyone is talking about trading anyone not a pending FA this offseason (or eligible for opt-out I guess). The team is shedding a lot of players and a lot of salary for 2023. Why get rid of someone who might be a decent fit for next year and beyond?

Folks are mentioning guys like Sawamura and Schreiber on the trading block and i have no idea why the Sox would get rid of anyone under contract for 2023.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,920
Portland
One of the most notable patterns we've seen from Bloom is that nearly without exception (Schwarber) he brings in guys who at the time were considered above average at defense and/or versatile.

Year one it was Moreland, Plawecki, Peraza, Pillar and Verdugo. Verdugo was considered above average if he played left field.
Year two it was Hernandez, Marwin Gonzalez, Santana, Renfroe, Iglesias and he shipped out Chavis.
Year three it was Story, JBJ. and Refsnyder.

Duran marinated a lot longer than most of us wanted last season in AAA(myself included) and unsurprisingly Bloom knew more than us. I would guess that this pattern would continue if they were to look at cost controlled players because at least they have the floor of run prevention which the team has had a great deal of difficulty with and the pitching desperately needs. At some point they will have to expend some resources to get one without a noodle bat.

Once the shift is banned, range is going to be very important again. This may be part of the reason they are loading up on shortstops.
 
Last edited:

jwbasham84

lurker
Jul 26, 2022
37
South Bend, IN
I think people are mentioning guys like Sawamura and Schrieber because with the incredible variability of relievers they may be good sell high options. While I know many, like myself, cringe every time Sawamura comes into pitch, his overall stat line this year is pretty decent 2.97 ERA with a 1.22 WHIP. That is valuable to someone other than the Red Sox. Personally, I would keep Schrieber, but the same methodology applies.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,971
The back of your computer
I"m not sure why anyone is talking about trading anyone not a pending FA this offseason (or eligible for opt-out I guess). The team is shedding a lot of players and a lot of salary for 2023. Why get rid of someone who might be a decent fit for next year and beyond?

Folks are mentioning guys like Sawamura and Schreiber on the trading block and i have no idea why the Sox would get rid of anyone under contract for 2023.
Sawamura has a $1mm buyout (on a $3mm salary) that is likely to be exercised, so he is effectively a FA (and trading him saves the team the buyout), plus his stats look better than he has pitched. Schreiber is a potential 'sell-high' candidate because no one knows if he's having an outlier year or whether his improvement is permanent (as permanent as a reliever's improvement can be). His stats are coming back to early a bit, so I suspect it's somewhere in between. I'm not advocating for a Schreiber trade, but it may be a good time to get max value for him.

The answer to why you trade someone under contract for next year is simple. If the trade package exceeds the player's replacement value, you make the trade. Bullpen arms are mostly fungible, so if you can get something for one of those arms with a higher future value, you do it.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
791
San Diego
It could be worse. We all knew about Allen Craig.
Don't want to get off track here but I take issue with this. That seemed like a really good trade to me at the time - trading 35-year-old John Lackey and an A-ball pitcher for an outfielder who had averaged .312/.364/.500 with an OPS+ of 136 for three previous seasons was a great return, plus a young fireballer with mid-rotation potential in Joe Kelly. If the Sox get that kind of return for JD, Vaz, or Eovaldi I'd be ecstatic.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
23,089
Newton
Don't want to get off track here but I take issue with this. That seemed like a really good trade to me at the time - trading 35-year-old John Lackey and an A-ball pitcher for an outfielder who had averaged .312/.364/.500 with an OPS+ of 136 for three previous seasons was a great return, plus a young fireballer with mid-rotation potential in Joe Kelly. If the Sox get that kind of return for JD, Vaz, or Eovaldi I'd be ecstatic.
Agree but I think the issue was that Craig was seen as damaged goods at the time. Which he 100% turned out to be.

Machine Gun Kelly, tho, he was great once they threw him into the 7th-8th inning role. Dude was nails down the stretch in 2018.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
9,228
Don't want to get off track here but I take issue with this. That seemed like a really good trade to me at the time - trading 35-year-old John Lackey and an A-ball pitcher for an outfielder who had averaged .312/.364/.500 with an OPS+ of 136 for three previous seasons was a great return, plus a young fireballer with mid-rotation potential in Joe Kelly. If the Sox get that kind of return for JD, Vaz, or Eovaldi I'd be ecstatic.
Are you kidding? Joe Kelly certainly had some value (if some frustration along the way), but the Craig part was a disaster. He might have put up a 136+ OPS in the three prior seasons, but he was at 79 when the Sox traded for him that year. He had had some bad foot injuries and his career never recovered. A 21+ OPS for the Sox over less than 200 plate appearances parts of two seasons. The Sox paid Craig something like $31 million over several years for the privilege, if the Internet is to be believed.

Kelly was an important part of 2018, so maybe in a David Price sort-of-way this deal was worth it, but in isolation, its one of the worst financial moves the Sox ever made.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
9,831
Some fancy town in CT
Are you kidding? Joe Kelly certainly had some value (if some frustration along the way), but the Craig part was a disaster. He might have put up a 136+ OPS in the three prior seasons, but he was at 79 when the Sox traded for him that year. He had had some bad foot injuries and his career never recovered. A 21+ OPS for the Sox over less than 200 plate appearances parts of two seasons. The Sox paid Craig something like $31 million over several years for the privilege, if the Internet is to be believed.

Kelly was an important part of 2018, so maybe in a David Price sort-of-way this deal was worth it, but in isolation, its one of the worst financial moves the Sox ever made.
All of that plus Lackey was signed for 2015 at a price of $500K. That's $0.5M for an effective starter. Hell not getting back Carlos Martinez or Oscar Taveras (who I know tragically passed away) or even Kolten Wong ... something ... was really bad on the part of Cherington.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
791
San Diego
Are you kidding? Joe Kelly certainly had some value (if some frustration along the way), but the Craig part was a disaster. He might have put up a 136+ OPS in the three prior seasons, but he was at 79 when the Sox traded for him that year. He had had some bad foot injuries and his career never recovered. A 21+ OPS for the Sox over less than 200 plate appearances parts of two seasons. The Sox paid Craig something like $31 million over several years for the privilege, if the Internet is to be believed.

Kelly was an important part of 2018, so maybe in a David Price sort-of-way this deal was worth it, but in isolation, its one of the worst financial moves the Sox ever made.
I'm saying at the time the trade was made, we were getting a promising young pitcher and an injured outfielder who had a track record of offensive success. There was a pretty good chance he'd bounce back. Sure, in hindsight, it was a pretty mediocre trade, but if you're asking me in 2014 who's more likely to be valuable going forward - a 29-year-old outfielder or a 35-year-old pitcher - I'm taking the former 100% of the time.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,395
I'm saying at the time the trade was made, we were getting a promising young pitcher and an injured outfielder who had a track record of offensive success. There was a pretty good chance he'd bounce back. Sure, in hindsight, it was a pretty mediocre trade, but if you're asking me in 2014 who's more likely to be valuable going forward - a 29-year-old outfielder or a 35-year-old pitcher - I'm taking the former 100% of the time.
Except there wasn't a good chance he'd bounce back. Has anyone had a successful return after Lisfranc surgery?

A lot of us were mentioning it at the time.