Trade Rumors

jasail · Nov 11, 2015

bankshot1 said:
X is going to be a star SS for the next 15 years. If his power expands, he will be a super-start SS, face of the franchise player. He should be considered untouchable straight-up 1-on-1 for any Met pitcher.

I am a big fan of Xander, but I disagree. I'd definitely trade Xander for any of the Mets' big 3. However, if they do trade X, they have to keep Swihart at C, probably trade JBJ and bring in an OF bat that can hit 5th or 6th in the lineup to keep the offense viable. A bottom half of Pablo - Castillo - JBJ - Vaz - Marrero would be too weak.

Of the Mets' big 3, Syndergaard would be my top choice(although I can't fathom why the Mets would do it). He is 23 years old and under team control through 2021 (age 29); two years longer than Xander. He has an ideal pitchers frame being both tall (6'6") and sturdy (240 lbs) and features hard (~97 avg of FB and 85 avg on SL) swing and miss stuff (47.5%). In his first pro-season he put up an xFIP of 2.91 with 1.040 WHIP, 10 k/9 and 1.9 bb/9. Sky is the limit for this guy. Plus, that flow; Eck would be all over lettuce like that.

I'd probably be a little bit more hesitant with DeGrom and Harvey because of their age (27) and in Harvey's case his team control (one year fewer than X) and his injury history. However, I'd still pull the trigger. These guys are legit front of the rotation power arms. They have career xFiPs in the high 2.00s, average >9 k/9 and ~5 k/bb, their average FB velocity is ~95 mph and they get swinging strikes on about 12% of pitches. That's legit ace material right there.

That said, if the Sox want to keep Xander and take advantage of the Mets pitching surplus, I'd take a long look at Zack Wheeler. He's not quite as good, with an xFIP in the mid-3.00s and he gives up more hits and walks. However, he's still a guy who throws in the mid-90s with swing and miss stuff (~10% rate) and racks up Ks (> 9 k/9). Plus, he can probably be had for much less than Xander. He's probably more of a 2/3 type, but he essentially replaces Buchholz. They still need a top flight arm, but they would be improving the rotation for the future.

Savin Hillbilly · Nov 11, 2015

Has a pitcher coming off TJ ever been traded before his major league re-entry? It's an interesting concept. How do you determine trade value in that context?

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat · Nov 11, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
Has a pitcher coming off TJ ever been traded before his major league re-entry? It's an interesting concept. How do you determine trade value in that context?

Well, he and Flores were almost traded for Carlos Gomez at the deadline.

jasail · Nov 11, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
Has a pitcher coming off TJ ever been traded before his major league re-entry? It's an interesting concept. How do you determine trade value in that context?

I can't recall. However, he and Flores were almost traded in season for Carlos Gomez before it fell through b/c of Wheeler's medicals. That was surprising, so there is a willingness on the Mets side to trade him.

Assuming the Sox are interested, and I'm not sure they would be given the injury, would JBJ provide a similar comp to Gomez? He doesn't have the track record, but he's a better defensive player and projects similarly offensively, is a few years younger and has 4 more years of team control. Mets need OF help (even if the retain Cespedes) particularly on the defensive side of the ball, so there could be a fit there. I imagine there would have to be other pieces involved b/c I think the Sox would want something back. In all likelihood, Wheeler is probably not an off-season trade but someone that teams look to acquire mid-season based on his recovery and medicals and the Mets needs.

Pilgrim · Nov 11, 2015

What makes people think Deven Marrero is an acceptable starting shortstop?

He was a below average hitter at 23 and 24 at Pawtucket. His profile doesn't looks like it should get any sort of easy translation- he strikes out a bunch, doesn't really walk much, and hasn't hit for power in years. he hit 226/268/283 in the majors this year, with a huge K rate. Steamer projects him at a 71 RC+ this year, which actually looks fairly optimistic. He would have to put up monster defensive numbers to even be a 1 or 2 win player.

Meanwhile, the guys Harvey would replace kind of stink, but at least they have held down major league jobs for a couple years. Wade Miley and Joe Kelly belong on *someones* 25 man roster, which is more than I can say for Marrero.

Lowrielicious · Nov 12, 2015

HomeRunBaker said:
You can win a WS without an elite SS.....it's unlikely you win a WS without an elite SP. if you feel Marrero can hit enough you make this deal for the right guy.....Thor is the right guy but not sure why the Mets would do this. If you do go with Marrero it almost certainly makes Vazquez the catcher to trade (which he may be anyway) as you don't want to commit to both of their bats in the lineup.

On the other hand you can buy an elite SP on the free agent market virtually every year. Most years there are more than one to choose from.
How often can you buy an elite SS?

Papelbon's Poutine · Nov 12, 2015

Pilgrim said:
What makes people think Deven Marrero is an acceptable starting shortstop?.

Prospect humping.

I recommend a vaccine if you plan to visit the main board this offseason., because it's gonna be an epidemic.

I have no idea why anyone would want someone with the ceiling - the ceiling, mind you - of Adam Everett to be our starting SS when we have X, there are multiple stud pitchers out there and we have more money than maybe two or three other teams in baseball.

Trading X for three or four years of a non controlled pitcher should be a non starter. It's asinine to even be mentioned as an option. Were it a situation like the Cubs with Russel, Baez and Castro - sure, bandy it about. But Deven Merrero is not the guy that drives that kind of move.

Which is to say nothing of how some have anointed the Mets guys as guaranteed studs after a year or two.

moondog80 · Nov 12, 2015

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Which is to say nothing of how some have anointed the Mets guys as guaranteed studs after a year or two.

Fine, but can we also slow down a bit about our SS who has had exactly one good year? I'm excited about him too, but it's not hard for me to imagine his BABIP and D numbers regressing next year. The notion that he (or anyone else for that matter) is "untradable" is ridiculous.

smastroyin · Nov 12, 2015

Sure, but the "I would sell my mother for cost controlled starting pitching" crowd really need to shut up faster.

Getting stuck making dogmatic decisions because you fapped to a playoff series is literally the worst type of team management you can do. A dartboard would be better.

Contenders are built many ways. Obsessing over any one thing will get you in trouble.

Lowrielicious · Nov 12, 2015

moondog80 said:
Fine, but can we also slow down a bit about our SS who has had exactly one good year? I'm excited about him too, but it's not hard for me to imagine his BABIP and D numbers regressing next year. The notion that he (or anyone else for that matter) is "untradable" is ridiculous.

Untradable doesn't mean your wouldn't trade him for any offer ever. It means you wouldn't trade him for any offer that would reasonably be offered or accepted.

Is trout untradable? Yes.
Would the Angels trade him for the mets entire pitching rotation? Probably.
Would that trade ever happen? Never.

BaseballJones · Nov 12, 2015

smastroyin said:
Sure, but the "I would sell my mother for cost controlled starting pitching" crowd really need to shut up faster.

Getting stuck making dogmatic decisions because you fapped to a playoff series is literally the worst type of team management you can do. A dartboard would be better.

Contenders are built many ways. Obsessing over any one thing will get you in trouble.

If the Mets had won the WS, we'd have said that they won primarily on the backs of four young stud starting pitchers.

If the Blue Jays had won the WS, we'd have said that they won primarily with a powerhouse lineup.

If the Cubs had won the WS, we'd have said they combined young power bats with two top-of-the-rotation aces.

And the Royals won the WS with great fielding, a group of solid position players that can do pretty much everything well, a good (not great) rotation devoid of any real studs, and an incredible bullpen.

Four very different approaches, and any of them could have won the WS. So to your point, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

moondog80 · Nov 12, 2015

Lowrielicious said:
Untradable doesn't mean your wouldn't trade him for any offer ever. It means you wouldn't trade him for any offer that would reasonably be offered or accepted.

Is trout untradable? Yes.
Would the Angels trade him for the mets entire pitching rotation? Probably.
Would that trade ever happen? Never.

Are Bogaerts and Trout in the same category?

Not that they are the final authority, but the Fangraphs Trade Value column has Bogaerts 33, Harvey 27, Syndergard 22, and DeGrom 20. It's a perfectly reasonable deal, particularly logical from the Mets side.

johnnywayback · Nov 12, 2015

There are several excellent pitchers for whom we could trade.

There are several excellent trading chips who are *blocked in our system* whom we could use to get them.

The logic behind trading for the best pitcher we can get using only the blocked assets is overwhelming.

Trading Bogaerts, who is not at all blocked, for a pitcher is nuts. Not because he's more valuable than whichever pitcher we're talking about (although he is, because pitchers get hurt), but solely because we don't *have* to trade him to fill the slot in our rotation. So why on earth would we?

smastroyin · Nov 12, 2015

The other half of the reason this talk drives me crazy is that it comes from not a place of "let's see if we can trade from a position of strength for a position of weakness" it comes from "I think Xander is not as good as he was last year and I want to WIN ALL THE TRADES by selling early." Which is also not really how you build a non-fantasy team (though of course it helps).

The problem I have with trading Xander is not just routine "OMG can't trade our guys" it's that this team needs to make up 12 wins somewhere to really be contenders. Not that I want to get into a WAR discussion but for illustrative purposes let's say that Xander is a 5 win player in 2016 and any of the Mets guys are 6 win pitchers, and let's assume the replacement stuff is a wash. (As in, you play Marrero who is worth X, but you are displacing Miley who is worth Y and X and Y are equal) OK yay, you won the trade!! But you only made up 1 win in the standings and you have 11 more to go. Where will you get it?

Let's say the alternative is to just sign David Price and he is worth six wins. Now you've sent out a ton of cash, but you've made up half of your distance to being a contender, which is worth much more money.

Again, this is illustrative, I'm not saying they HAVE TO go out and sign David Price or whomever. Just to say, there is a price to any option.

BaseballJones · Nov 12, 2015

johnnywayback said:
There are several excellent pitchers for whom we could trade.

There are several excellent trading chips who are *blocked in our system* whom we could use to get them.

The logic behind trading for the best pitcher we can get using only the blocked assets is overwhelming.

Trading Bogaerts, who is not at all blocked, for a pitcher is nuts. Not because he's more valuable than whichever pitcher we're talking about (although he is, because pitchers get hurt), but solely because we don't *have* to trade him to fill the slot in our rotation. So why on earth would we?

Who are the "blocked" prospects, in your opinion? A possible list:

SS Marrero (because of Xander)
1b Shaw or Travis (because of Hanley?)
C Vazquez/Swihart (because of the other?)
OF Margot (because of JBJ/Betts?)
2b Moncada (because of Pedroia?)
3b Chavis (because of Panda/Devers)
2b Rijo (because of Pedroia/Moncada)
OF Benintendi (because of JBJ/Castillo/Betts/Margot?)

I don't know how "blocked" these guys are because maybe the move is to trade JBJ and/or Castillo for something useful, then acquire a stopgap OF (Chris Young?) for a year or two until Benintendi or Margot is ready.

moondog80 · Nov 12, 2015

smastroyin said:
The other half of the reason this talk drives me crazy is that it comes from not a place of "let's see if we can trade from a position of strength for a position of weakness" it comes from "I think Xander is not as good as he was last year and I want to WIN ALL THE TRADES by selling early." Which is also not really how you build a non-fantasy team (though of course it helps).

The problem I have with trading Xander is not just routine "OMG can't trade our guys" it's that this team needs to make up 12 wins somewhere to really be contenders. Not that I want to get into a WAR discussion but for illustrative purposes let's say that Xander is a 5 win player in 2016 and any of the Mets guys are 6 win pitchers, and let's assume the replacement stuff is a wash. (As in, you play Marrero who is worth X, but you are displacing Miley who is worth Y and X and Y are equal) OK yay, you won the trade!! But you only made up 1 win in the standings and you have 11 more to go. Where will you get it?

Let's say the alternative is to just sign David Price and he is worth six wins. Now you've sent out a ton of cash, but you've made up half of your distance to being a contender, which is worth much more money.

Again, this is illustrative, I'm not saying they HAVE TO go out and sign David Price or whomever. Just to say, there is a price to any option.

If they trade Boagerts, do you really think they won't have thought about his replacement at SS? Maybe they think Ian Desmond is a good bounce back candidate. As a counter to your scenario (which I realize was just an example, as is this), maybe they sign him and Samardzija for roughly the same money as Price, and now you have DeGrom/Desmond/Shark instead of Bogaerts/Price, with a lot less financial risk and the freedom to trade Buchholz or Miley.

smastroyin · Nov 12, 2015

Yeah yeah we can play the game forever, but it's nice for you to completely miss the point, which is that even the sainted "cost controlled pitcher" has a real cost when you account for acquisition.

Some people think that the cost in $$$ is exceptionally high compared to the cost in value lost. But there is not a hard cap in baseball, and the luxury tax should be treated just as additional cost. Avoiding it is not a moral imperative except to people who get off on the Win/$ calculation, a calculation which would have left the Red Sox without any World Series titles since 1918.

DanoooME · Nov 12, 2015

jasail said:
Assuming the Sox are interested, and I'm not sure they would be given the injury, would JBJ provide a similar comp to Gomez? He doesn't have the track record, but he's a better defensive player and projects similarly offensively, is a few years younger and has 4 more years of team control. Mets need OF help (even if the retain Cespedes) particularly on the defensive side of the ball, so there could be a fit there. I imagine there would have to be other pieces involved b/c I think the Sox would want something back. In all likelihood, Wheeler is probably not an off-season trade but someone that teams look to acquire mid-season based on his recovery and medicals and the Mets needs.

Really? They have a young stud in Conforto, a solid regular in Granderson, a JBJ clone in Juan Lagares, plus Cuddyer, all under control for 2016 (and beyond for the first three). I don't see the Mets investing any more in their OF especially with their capital funding issues.

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Prospect humping.

Which is to say nothing of how some have anointed the Mets guys as guaranteed studs after a year or two.

But it worked so well the last time the Mets had three young studs like this (Wilson, Pulsipher, Isringhausen).

moondog80 · Nov 12, 2015

smastroyin said:
Yeah yeah we can play the game forever, but it's nice for you to completely miss the point, which is that even the sainted "cost controlled pitcher" has a real cost when you account for acquisition.

Some people think that the cost in $$$ is exceptionally high compared to the cost in value lost. But there is not a hard cap in baseball, and the luxury tax should be treated just as additional cost. Avoiding it is not a moral imperative except to people who get off on the Win/$ calculation, a calculation which would have left the Red Sox without any World Series titles since 1918.

I couldn't care less about win/$, completely agree that many miss the point that the goal is not just to be efficient but to win games, and (in theory) spending $175 mil to win 90 games is better than spending $100 mil to win 85. I *think* your point is that Bogaerts > DeGrom because in the current market it will be easier to get another DeGrom? That's great and all, but realistically there's a limit to what they will spend, and they simply might not be willing to do what it takes to get a guy who will have the impact of DeGrom in FA. Which means you have to get creative, and it's absurd to take any option off the table.

johnnywayback · Nov 12, 2015

BaseballJones said:
Who are the "blocked" prospects, in your opinion? A possible list:

SS Marrero (because of Xander)
1b Shaw or Travis (because of Hanley?)
C Vazquez/Swihart (because of the other?)
OF Margot (because of JBJ/Betts?)
2b Moncada (because of Pedroia?)
3b Chavis (because of Panda/Devers)
2b Rijo (because of Pedroia/Moncada)
OF Benintendi (because of JBJ/Castillo/Betts/Margot?)

I don't know how "blocked" these guys are because maybe the move is to trade JBJ and/or Castillo for something useful, then acquire a stopgap OF (Chris Young?) for a year or two until Benintendi or Margot is ready.

I think Javier Guerra is the biggest name you're missing on this list -- a top-50 prospect who will probably never play for the major league team because, unless Dombrowski does something stupid, we have a 23-year-old All-Star shortstop penciled in there for the foreseeable future. Marrero is also very tradeable for the same reason, although I don't think he's a major piece.

I think Margot is blocked, not just because we have our starting outfield set for the next few years, but because even if we do trade one of them, Benintendi is just as viable an option for the 2017/2018 outfield, and given that we have three plausible CF on the major league roster, I'd prefer to keep the guy for whom offense is a bigger part of his skill set.

I think Chavis is blocked enough that I'd be willing to trade him; Devers and Moncada are probably both better options for 3B playing time in the high minors over the next couple years, and more likely to occupy positions in the majors that Chavis could plausibly play.

I have said here that it'd be silly to keep both Vazquez and Swihart for the long term, but folks have made a good argument that the time to choose one and trade the other may not be now, so I wouldn't include them here.

So, yeah: Guerra and Margot. Then, for the right guy, willing to talk about Chavis and Rijo as an additional piece (along with all the other guys at their level: Teddy Stankiewicz, Pat Light, etc.). Marrero, sure. Or Brock Holt (with Marrero becoming the utility infielder). Maybe even Wade Miley. There are a lot of chips we can use without touching the catchers, Devers, Moncada, Espinoza, Rodriguez, or Owens -- let alone Betts or Bogaerts.

Rovin Romine · Nov 12, 2015

The trade Bogaerts stuff is a little nuts from an offensive perspective. Our two players without major question marks are Bogaerts and Betts - and they both have a good chance of raising their game by adding some power to their overall packages. And the two next most likely to produce - Ortiz has a limited shelf life, Pedroia is constantly dinged up and is operating at a slightly lower level with reduced power.

The rest have at least a decent chance to have some sort of significant problem. Would it shock anyone if Hanley/Sandoval/JBJ/Castillo/Swihart - which'd be more than half the lineup, could each individually produce at below league average? I mean sure, they could each also produce at an average or above average level, but we said that before the beginning of last year, and they didn't. While the final numbers weren't bad - our 2015 offense relied on guys like DeAza, Shaw, JBJ, and pre-injury Hanley getting hot.

I think the only way you trade Bogaerts or Betts is if you're blowing up the team. While it would suck from an emotional perspective, I'd trade Pedroia before either of them.

smastroyin · Nov 12, 2015

- My point is that there is a long string of "of course you do anything you can to get one of the Mets pitchers (or Gray or whoever)" and I don't agree with that line of thinking.
- I also agree with the other thoughts that in terms of available replacements that you can get for just money in 2015, there is more pitching available than left side of infield help.
- And I agree with the thoughts that if you don't focus solely on the Mets, you open yourself up to a lot of potential trades of prospects who weren't going to help the 2016 (or 2017) teams all that much.
- Last, I don't agree with Bogaerts skeptics, which seem to come from either the group that thinks he will have lower value going forward or the group that thinks he can't have value except as a superstar. And this conversation was started by a Bogaerts skeptic.

Savin Hillbilly · Nov 12, 2015

johnnywayback said:
Trading Bogaerts, who is not at all blocked, for a pitcher is nuts. Not because he's more valuable than whichever pitcher we're talking about (although he is, because pitchers get hurt), but solely because we don't *have* to trade him to fill the slot in our rotation. So why on earth would we?

The obvious answer is that the other options for filling that slot with an elite arm involve either spending copious amounts of money that we don't necessarily have at the moment, or seriously draining the farm. There's nothing inherently irrational about the idea of trading one very good cost-controlled player for another. The question is whether that trade leaves the team better than it was before.

And that's the real reason not to trade Bogaerts for a cost-controlled ace, IMO: the hole he leaves seems likely to be more problematic than the hole we trade him to fill. Say that if we stand pat, our rotation next year is Buchholz/Porcello/Miley/EdRo/Kelly. If trading Bogaerts for (say) deGrom is to improve the team, we have to believe that the difference between deGrom and Kelly is greater than the difference between Bogaerts and Marrero. And that seems unlikely, the more so when you consider that we have alternatives to Kelly in Owens, Johnson and Wright who may, if called upon, turn out to be closer to deGrom's value than Kelly would be. If Marrero is given the job and tanks, we got nuttin'.

moondog80 · Nov 12, 2015

RedOctober3829 said:
Bradford's latest....

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2015/11/12/gm-meetings-notebook-will-indians-solve-red-s

What kind of trade value could we expect JBJ to have? i have no idea -- maybe below Margot, above Marrero, maybe similar to Guerra?

PrometheusWakefield · Nov 12, 2015

Way above all of them. 2.4 WAR last year in 255 PAs. That's more WAR then Troy Tulowitzki, Christian Yelich, or Carlos Gonzalez in less than half of the PAs. You can add a lot of regression to his offense and he still projects as a very high quality player next year. And he's cheap, team controlled for years. He's a very valuable asset.

If you assume that Cleveland is looking first and foremost for a young, cost controlled, high quality outfielder who can play a strong center field, I doubt there is a better player available than JBJ.

Margot had a lower RC+ last year in AA than JBJ had in MLB.

Eddie Jurak · Nov 12, 2015

Smastroyin pretty much nails it but I'm in the mood for beating a dead horse, so...

Does everyone remember the World Champion 2000 Boston Red Sox? I didn't think so. Having an elite ace might be necessary to win (though I would not go that far), but having one of the very best in the 100+ year history of the game is not even enough to ensure a postseason berth never mind a championship.

Alex Cole's Rec Specs · Nov 12, 2015

Seems like the cost of Matt Harvey or Jacob DeGrom would probably be Bogaerts. The value of such a trade has been widely discussed, but I thought this was relevant.

Doctor G · Nov 12, 2015

BaseballJones said:
Who are the "blocked" prospects, in your opinion? A possible list:

SS Marrero (because of Xander)
1b Shaw or Travis (because of Hanley?)
C Vazquez/Swihart (because of the other?)
OF Margot (because of JBJ/Betts?)
2b Moncada (because of Pedroia?)
3b Chavis (because of Panda/Devers)
2b Rijo (because of Pedroia/Moncada)
OF Benintendi (because of JBJ/Castillo/Betts/Margot?)
I would includeJavier Guerra SS on that list.
I don't know how "blocked" these guys are because maybe the move is to trade JBJ and/or Castillo for something useful, then acquire a stopgap OF (Chris Young?) for a year or two until Benintendi or Margot is ready.

I advocated Bogaerts for Syndergaard last winter. If the Sox had made that trade they probably would have finished third in the AL East.

I would not do the same today as X's 22year old compares favorably with Jeter's 23 yr old season.

You don't trade Derek Jeter for an under 25 year old pitcher who has not had TJS yet.
You don't trade Derek Jeter at all. You do what the Yankees did and sign him to the longest term contract you can before he hits free agency.

Hendu for Kutch · Nov 12, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
Smastroyin pretty much nails it but I'm in the mood for beating a dead horse, so...

Does everyone remember the World Champion 2000 Boston Red Sox? I didn't think so. Having an elite ace might be necessary to win (though I would not go that far), but having one of the very best in the 100+ year history of the game is not even enough to ensure a postseason berth never mind a championship.

Doesn't your argument directly apply to the value of an all-star level SS too? Nomar was at his absolute peak in 2000 and it didn't get the Red Sox in the playoffs.

As a reader, this thread is way more interesting to me as a place for actual rumors and discussion of those rumors than knocking down other people's ideas on how to build a team. It's OK to disagree. Some prefer pitching, others prefer the positional players. An argument like this simply comes down to preference, more or less, so debating it doesn't really lead anywhere. Again, just my opinion.

johnnywayback · Nov 12, 2015

PrometheusWakefield said:
Way above all of them. 2.4 WAR last year in 255 PAs. That's more WAR then Troy Tulowitzki, Christian Yelich, or Carlos Gonzalez in less than half of the PAs. You can add a lot of regression to his offense and he still projects as a very high quality player next year. And he's cheap, team controlled for years. He's a very valuable asset.

If you assume that Cleveland is looking first and foremost for a young, cost controlled, high quality outfielder who can play a strong center field, I doubt there is a better player available than JBJ.

Margot had a lower RC+ last year in AA than JBJ had in MLB.

Yeah, Margot's best-case scenario is JBJ's hit tool with somewhat better speed, but just a plus defender instead of an elite one.

One problem with Cleveland is that, with Lindor in place, they're not likely to have much more use for Guerra than we do. Maybe JBJ and flotsam gets us the starter we need, but a deal that starts with Margot has no obvious second strong prospect component unless they really like Chavis.

smastroyin · Nov 12, 2015

It's impossible to discuss the merit of rumors without having a philosophy, though. I agree this thread got off track, but for my part I find the "discuss every rumor thrown against the wall by the twitterverse" even more boring.

Eddie Jurak · Nov 12, 2015

Hendu for Kutch said:
Doesn't your argument directly apply to the value of an all-star level SS too? Nomar was at his absolute peak in 2000 and it didn't get the Red Sox in the playoffs.

No. The argument was that you need an ace pitcher to win more than you need an elite SS, thus, if you have an elite SS, he should be dealt for an ace pitcher. I'm just pointing out that having an ace pitcher guarantees nothing.

Also, "you don't need an elite SS to win" is kind of stupid on its face. Should a team with exactly 2 young and consistent offensive contributors trade one of them for a pitcher? Lunacy.

smastroyin · Nov 12, 2015

RedOctober3829 said:
It's a "Trade Rumors" thread created by a moderator to discuss trade rumors. What else are we supposed to do?

This thread was split because talking about every rumor tends to clog up every thread on the main board every off-season, not because we absolutely need a place to discuss rumors that have a .01% chance of happening. Not that I should speak for that moderator, but I'm familiar enough with his work to guess his intentions.

This is why I'm not really into strictly enforcing the dialog within this thread.

absintheofmalaise · Nov 12, 2015

smastroyin said:
This thread was split because talking about every rumor tends to clog up every thread on the main board every off-season, not because we absolutely need a place to discuss rumors that have a .01% chance of happening. Not that I should speak for that moderator, but I'm familiar enough with his work to guess his intentions.

This is why I'm not really into strictly enforcing the dialog within this thread.

That is the reason I split the trade rumors off into this thread.

Bowlerman9 · Nov 12, 2015

Doctor G said:
I advocated Bogaerts for Syndergaard last winter. If the Sox had made that trade they probably would have finished third in the AL East.

Syndergaard was a 2.0 win player last year. Bogaerts was a 4.6 win player.

How would the Sox have won 4 more games?

Corsi · Nov 12, 2015

Peter Gammons ‏@pgammo 2m2 minutes ago
That's four people insisting this morning that Aroldys Chapman will be moved by the end of the weekend.

SeanBerry · Nov 12, 2015

Well Syndergaard didn't debut until mid-May so that 2.1 is over only 3/4 of the season.

Plus who in this hypothetical is Syndergaard replacing? And who would be replacing Bogaerts?

pjr · Nov 12, 2015

Code:

https://twitter.com/ScottLauber/status/664849219510018048

Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber 6m6 minutes ago
Sense from other teams is #RedSox would have to be blown away to trade Betts or Bogaerts. But many of their minor leaguers likely available

soxhop411 · Nov 12, 2015

Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi 31s31 seconds ago
#Mariners looking at a number of CF options and have interest in trading for Jackie Bradley Jr. @FOXSports

moondog80 · Nov 12, 2015

Corsi said:
Peter Gammons ‏@pgammo 2m2 minutes ago
That's four people insisting this morning that Aroldys Chapman will be moved by the end of the weekend.

johnnywayback said:
Yeah, Margot's best-case scenario is JBJ's hit tool with somewhat better speed, but just a plus defender instead of an elite one.

One problem with Cleveland is that, with Lindor in place, they're not likely to have much more use for Guerra than we do. Maybe JBJ and flotsam gets us the starter we need, but a deal that starts with Margot has no obvious second strong prospect component unless they really like Chavis.

I'm not sure I agree that JBJ's trade value is that high. But if it is, does he get you Chapman (who would be a one year rental)? Is Cincy comfortable going forward with Billy Hamilton and his "bat" in CF?

Savin Hillbilly · Nov 12, 2015

moondog80 said:
What kind of trade value could we expect JBJ to have? i have no idea -- maybe below Margot, above Marrero, maybe similar to Guerra?

FWIW, Steamer has him projected for about 2 WAR next year. I can't find a link to 5-year projections, but assuming they are similar, that's basically elite reliever/fringey starter value. But he might fit nicely into a package for a SP upgrade--I don't think you're going to get a Gray/Harvey type without giving up either Bogaerts/Betts or at least one of our top 5 prospects, but maybe a Carrasco could be had for a JBJ + low-pain prospects type deal.

johnnywayback said:
Yeah, Margot's best-case scenario is JBJ's hit tool with somewhat better speed, but just a plus defender instead of an elite one.

I wonder about this. It's true Bradley hit better in the low minors, but he was older when he took his first professional AB than Margot is now in AA. JBJ OPS'd .809 in Portland at age 22. Margot hit .745 at age 20. Isn't that pretty comparable? And looking at their SoxProspects profiles, it looks to me like their scouts are higher on Margot's bat than they were on JBJ's--certainly in the power department if nowhere else. He doesn't seem to have JBJ's plate discipline, but he seems to have better contact skills. Seems like there's a decent chance he ends up a better overall offensive player than JBJ.

soxhop411 · Nov 12, 2015

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 38s38 seconds ago
As expected, #RedSox aggressive on multiple fronts. Chapman believed to be one. Team also could go for setup type to put in front of Uehara.

soxhop411 · Nov 12, 2015

One NL executive said the Red Sox were among the most "active" clubs this week in terms of trade talks. The executive guessed Dombrowski won't be shy about trading several of the Sox' touted prospects, citing center fielder Andrew Benintendi among the few minor leaguers he doesn't seem willing to move. Even second baseman Yoan Moncada could be available in the right deal.

Despite Dombrowski's insistence that the Sox aren't actively looking to trade an outfielder, most teams are skeptical that the Sox will go into the season with both Jackie Bradley Jr. and Rusney Castillo on the roster. By virtue of his salary, Bradley is far more likely to draw interest. Mookie Betts is a different story. The Sox would have to be blown away (think A's ace Sonny Gray or the White Sox' Chris Sale) to trade Betts or shortstop Xander Bogaerts.

Dombrowski continues to sound like he's bracing to make a big, bold move via free agency, a trade or both. "At some point, we're going to most likely do something that is painful one way or the other," he said. "But if you're trying to get quality talent, you're going to have to do that at some point."

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/clubhouse_insider/2015/11/lots_of_talk_no_action_yet_for_red_sox_as_gm_meetings

nvalvo · Nov 12, 2015

I'll put down a marker: if Dombrowski trades Bradley, we'll regret it. His rocky entry into the majors makes it hard to get fair value for his considerable talents. Other GMs are interested in him as a buy-low candidate, and rightly so.

Steamer is projecting him to only 1.9 WAR, but I'm not sure why they're expecting his defensive value in a full season to crater to about half of what he notched in 600 innings in 2015; perhaps they don't expect him to play CF? Nor am I sure why they expect him to hit the same number of HR in about half the PA, or lose .100 points of his ISO. These are fairly pessimistic assumptions, and they *still* leave him a pre-arb player worth two wins.

Yaz4Ever · Nov 12, 2015

nvalvo said:
I'll put down a marker: if Dombrowski trades Bradley, we'll regret it. His rocky entry into the majors makes it hard to get fair value for his considerable talents. Other GMs are interested in him as a buy-low candidate, and rightly so.

Steamer is projecting him to only 1.9 WAR, but I'm not sure why they're expecting his defensive value in a full season to crater to about half of what he notched in 600 innings in 2015; perhaps they don't expect him to play CF? Nor am I sure why they expect him to hit the same number of HR in about half the PA, or lose .100 points of his ISO. These are fairly pessimistic assumptions, and they *still* leave him a pre-arb player worth two wins.

I agree that JBJ will likely outperform the SoSH consensus.

moondog80 · Nov 12, 2015

nvalvo said:
I'll put down a marker: if Dombrowski trades Bradley, we'll regret it. His rocky entry into the majors makes it hard to get fair value for his considerable talents. Other GMs are interested in him as a buy-low candidate, and rightly so.

Buying low would have been the case on July 31. Now, I'm not so sure.

Wold you trade him for Chapman?

bankshot1 · Nov 12, 2015

Listening to Francesa today and a caller mentions Betts for Harvey.

FF (paraphrase). "I want Betts and Boegarts" and expand the trade.
If the Mets get Betts, Boegarts and Chapman, they're set for a very long time."

No shit.

FF's implication seems to be Harvey + a couple of pounds of chopped liver gets them prime protected X and Betts.

The belief is the Mets can't sign Harvey because of Boras.

Harvey may be a great pitcher, but he strikes me as a prima donna/headache (two with Boras) waiting to happen. So he may be available as the Mets don't want to deal with Boras either. As a FA (2019) he's going to get (if he's still healthy) $35MM+ for 6-8 years. If the Mets want him for 3 years before he bolts for FA, so be it.

I would exhaust the FA SP options before trading X or Betts. Both of them appear to be studs for a very long time. I would have to be overwhelmed. And this is said understanding the Boras situation with X.

Trade Rumors

Member

loves the secret sauce

has big, douchey shoulders

Member

Member

Member

Homeland Security

heart is two sizes two small

simpering whimperer

Member

ivanvamp

heart is two sizes two small

Member

simpering whimperer

ivanvamp

heart is two sizes two small

simpering whimperer

above replacement level

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Johnny Rico

Member

simpering whimperer

loves the secret sauce

heart is two sizes two small

Member

canderson-lite

New Member

Member

Member

Member

simpering whimperer

Member

canderson-lite

simpering whimperer

too many flowers

bitchslapped by Keith Law

isn't shy about blowing his wad early

Knows about the CBA.

Member

news aggravator

heart is two sizes two small

loves the secret sauce

news aggravator

news aggravator

Member

MemBer

Member

heart is two sizes two small

Member