A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    I'm at the point that I almost always say no when I hear a Stanton trade proposal. Everyone thinks it will take a lot but it's still only 2-3 years of control of a guy who may well be not much better than Middlebrooks.

    Call me crazy but it's real tough to bet on power bats sometimes. They can be streaking and a guy with Stanton's body type can also get hurt.

    Here are the 2014 WAR projections for Giancarlo Stanton and Will Middlebrooks from Steamer, Oliver and ZiPS as well as Oliver's five-year WAR projection:

    GS S: 4.6, O: 6.1, Z: 4.3, O5: 32.1

    WM S: 2.0, O: 2.1, Z: 1.8, O5: 10.0

    And their MLB career lines:

    GS 2002 PA, .265/.354/.535/.889, OPS+ 138

    WM 660 PA, .254/.294/.462/.756, OPS+ 102

    And their minor league career lines:

    GS 1427 PA, .272/.365/.565/.931

    WM 1902 PA, ..275/.332/.455/.788

    Stanton is a year younger than Middlebrooks.



    While Middy has some upside, Stanton can get better too.

    I'd bet Stanton ends up with a career OPS 100 points or more higher than Middy.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Moon, I like Stanton but the whole deal would be more palatable if we could mix some vets in the deal with the kids--Gomes or Nava or Carp with Barnes, I'm ok with losing him...don't really want to lose that catcher, 2nd baseman ok, buy I don't want to give up JBJ either...just seems like we're giving up our best prospect at every position.  

    Jid thanks with putting up with all that to exercise your journalistic duties.  Your reports are always appreciated.  Your comments about Sizemore resonated with me.  He looked soooooo smooth in everything he did.  Hey, what do you think of Britton so far?  I don't think we should go to sleep on this kid.  He seemed a little cocky and jaunty to me but I think he might be a big plus for us, especially since he could start or relieve.  Also what's your view of Hassan, sounds like he's starting to hit.  How far away is he?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Moon, I would like to see this whole Stanton deal discussed in more depth by the board.  How much would he impact our offense?  What do the Marlins need?  What would be a good deal for them and us?  Do we know which of our three young catchers  is going to be the best?  Hasn't Butler joined the other two?  Only speaking for myself, but Webster is starting to strike me as someone with tools but not the mental makeup and Rubby just seems wild.  I'd rather throw them in a deal and keep Britton and Workman who seemed to come through the fire last year. Admittedly I don't know pitching so maybe they just need more time.  That seems to be a major challenge at this point about our prospects--which are the best?  Three years from now we'll know--and then it may be too late, we gave the best ones away.  I think you and others on the board could shape a fair trade.  

    Boom, do you want Stanton at all?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jcri's comment:

    Moon, I like Stanton but the whole deal would be more palatable if we could mix some vets in the deal with the kids--Gomes or Nava or Carp with Barnes, I'm ok with losing him...don't really want to lose that catcher, 2nd baseman ok, buy I don't want to give up JBJ either...just seems like we're giving up our best prospect at every position.  

    I'm not for the deal either, but there'sd no way the Marlins want our vets like Gomes or Nava, well maybe Nava, since he is cheap, but they wany prospects.

    They may go for far away prospects that other teams may not value... like Luis Diaz, Rijo, Margot, Devers, Callahan or Denney. Maybe a larger package of some of these lower guys plus Barnes, Middy and Carp or Nava might get us close, but I doubt it.

    Jid thanks with putting up with all that to exercise your journalistic duties.  Your reports are always appreciated.  Your comments about Sizemore resonated with me.  He looked soooooo smooth in everything he did.  Hey, what do you think of Britton so far?  I don't think we should go to sleep on this kid.  He seemed a little cocky and jaunty to me but I think he might be a big plus for us, especially since he could start or relieve.  Also what's your view of Hassan, sounds like he's starting to hit.  How far away is he?



    I have always been higher on Hassan than most here, and liked Britton over Workman last spring, but who knows...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Moon, how about Webster or Rubby, Barnes, Betts, Swihart, Carp...and if they start sharpening the pencil, change the "or" to "and."  They get two possible starters, a reliever, a 1st baseman/outfielder, 2nd baseman, and catcher.  Who would we really miss?  As you say, we  probably have other #3 starters, Swihart and Betts blocked.  Or are we just better to look for another young hitter who might cost less?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 808soxfan. Show 808soxfan's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Stanton could be Papi/Manny for 15 years. Sure, the Marlins would want many prospects, but they are still prospects. Some important points are raised. (1) Where would Stanton play in the near term? Only reasonable position would be LF or DH, so if RS got Stanton, then Gomes would have to go. (2) Would Stanton accept a near term deal? I interpret this as 5-6 years at 10-12 million a year. If he is not going to accept a deal along these lines, then we are spending prospects for 2-3 years of Stanton. Not worth it in my opinion.

    I have a similar concern as expressed by Moon. Who is the next Papi? Stanton fits that bill.

    Odds are likely that with Stanton and Victorino playing in the OF, our 4th OF may see 80-100 games in a given season. 

    Unless Sizemore is rock solid (which we can't count on now), I can't see trading JBJ. He will be needed to cover alot of ground.

    Still, Stanton, JBJ/Sizemore, and Victorino in the OF would be pretty amazing.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    I think we'll have Papi for another two years, and that's when Stanton is a FA. I was more for a trade for Stanton last year when it would've made more sense, but the team was holding it's own, Stanton got hurt, & of course winning the WS changes things too. 

    With the way Pedroia plays all out on every play, it be nice to hold on to Betts for as long as possible. If Sizemore proves he's healthy and atleast 80% of what he was we cld move JBJ. One of Cecchini or Marrero. One C & SP prospect. So yeah, i'd trade four of the right players for Stanton for two years in the hope that he re-signs with us later even though he could only play LF. The Marlins are not going anywhere so they may as well get some incredible value for him. He's not worth what Cafardo is putting out there. No way in H.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Stantons bat at Fenway would be scary. But with him not sure it really matters, when he hits them doesn't matter what park he's in. But still do not like Cafardo's pkg. If say I had to deal either Barnes or Owens, plus Middlebrooks or Cecchini, and a lesser prospect then would consider. But would not clean out the farm for him, I agree w jcri that he seems to have body type that will be on DL alot, may have already started last yr. Like I said previously we have a WS club right now, lets go defend the title with what we have [w/ Sizemore looking more and more everyday that he may make it back, have to like what this team could become]. Marlins price tag will drop closer we get to 2017 when Giancarlo gets closer to FA. Or we can just wait til he gets to FA and keep all the young talent. Why would you want to break up what we have and what everyone in baseball wishes they had a championship club and a farm system loaded w/ talent for one guy. Remember when everyone here thought Agon was the 1 player we desperately needed? I like it when we have a ton of depth and not dependent on a few players to stay healthy and have a good years to be succesful. Look at roster seems we could take just about any guy out of lineup and replace him w/ a quality guy from within. Count me out on this trade unless it is on our terms!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    100, 150, 123, and 116.  The number of games Stanton has played the last 4 years. He's 24 and the talent is there but what will his bill of health look like in his late 20's if he can't stay healthy as a 20 year old????

    I don't care if your name is Babe Ruth, if you can't stay on the field your only going to be so valuable...and there is a chance that Stanton could break down and be even more injury prone.  

    And to even think about giving up a boat load for him?  

    After the recent squabble between front offices I would think that a thread that is supposedly "realistic" would kill the talk of a Stanton trade.

    Lets pull our heads out of our arses people. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from javaukti1. Show javaukti1's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    Stantons bat at Fenway would be scary. But with him not sure it really matters, when he hits them doesn't matter what park he's in. But still do not like Cafardo's pkg. If say I had to deal either Barnes or Owens, plus Middlebrooks or Cecchini, and a lesser prospect then would consider. But would not clean out the farm for him, I agree w jcri that he seems to have body type that will be on DL alot, may have already started last yr. Like I said previously we have a WS club right now, lets go defend the title with what we have [w/ Sizemore looking more and more everyday that he may make it back, have to like what this team could become]. Marlins price tag will drop closer we get to 2017 when Giancarlo gets closer to FA. Or we can just wait til he gets to FA and keep all the young talent. Why would you want to break up what we have and what everyone in baseball wishes they had a championship club and a farm system loaded w/ talent for one guy. Remember when everyone here thought Agon was the 1 player we desperately needed? I like it when we have a ton of depth and not dependent on a few players to stay healthy and have a good years to be succesful. Look at roster seems we could take just about any guy out of lineup and replace him w/ a quality guy from within. Count me out on this trade unless it is on our terms!


    Agree.

    RS and Marlins match up really well fell for this deal, but it's not something we need today or tomorrow or even this year. The Marlins are more likely to get itchy. Let them see how injury-prone Stanton might be. It's mjch too fun to see how our prospects progress, what Sizemore can do, how the competition pushes JBJ (and what he can learn from Sizemore).

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Florida and the Sox have some bad blood right now, so a trade is not likely.  Perhaps that could die down soon enough.  But the cost for Stanton is going to be really really high.  Yes not all prospects turn out, but the Sox have such a good player development system that their hit rate is much higher than most other teams.  So we are likely giving up at least 1 all star, 2 above average regulars and perhaps 1-2 role players (like a high leverage bullpen arm) for a guy who might have a hard time staying on the field the rest of his career.

    I say don't trade for him.  Let him prove he can stay healthy and if he hits free agency in a few years lock him up; we should have tons of money to spend then anyways. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    If Miami made Giancarlo Stanton available in trade, the Marlins would likely receive an offer that started with the equivalent of Xander Bogaerts and Henry Owens.

    The Red Sox would not be negotiating with the Marlins in a vacuum.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to hill55's comment:

    If Miami made Giancarlo Stanton available in trade, the Marlins would likely receive an offer that started with the equivalent of Xander Bogaerts and Henry Owens.

    The Red Sox would not be negotiating with the Marlins in a vacuum.



    Bogaerts is the #2 prospect in the game is he not?  So technically only one other team has an equivalent prospect.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    If Miami made Giancarlo Stanton available in trade, the Marlins would likely receive an offer that started with the equivalent of Xander Bogaerts and Henry Owens.

    The Red Sox would not be negotiating with the Marlins in a vacuum.



    Bogaerts is the #2 prospect in the game is he not?  So technically only one other team has an equivalent prospect.

     



    This is true, but it would take a blue chip prospect who has a very high ceiling to start the deal.  Bogaerts may be the #2 in all of baseball but there are other prospects who fit that criteria

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Like I said in my last post, "Call me crazy", but I'm not arguing with what it would take to trade for Stanton but as Hugh just noted above look at how many times he can't stay on the field even as a guy in his early 20s. And it's not some rare injury which is just random. It's the type of injury premium athletes often get like hamstrings and such isn't it? ( I haven't looked it up but my book on him is that he really is injury prone).

    And no doubt he probably puts up an absolute monster year or 2 in his career staying healthy and learning his craft to become a megastud for an entire year but so far he doesn't look like a high average hitter ever and we don't know how he does in a big market either. So far he hasn't done that well in the WBC if I remember correctly and it will cost a fortune for him. And only 2-3 years of him even, as compared to 6 years of control over some premium prospects.

    Again, call me crazy but I wouldn't even trade EITHER Bogaerts OR Owens for him. I'd certainly think for a while on Owens but NWIH I'd trade Bogaerts for him. I MIGHT trade Cechinni straight up for him. I know that isn't REALISTIC in the conventional baseball world but that's how I feel about Stanton. We don't even know for sure we would end up getting a 1st rounder when he left for FA ( he could end up an injury bust ). Or if we could extend him at all for under $150 mil. I'm not betting on a guy that injury prone and that streaky. Sometimes power guys can hit 10 HR more than normal one year and everyone thinks he's the second coming. We don't even know if he is PED proof. He is from Miami for example, the hotbed of the Genesis scandal.

    We keep thinking that we need another stud hitter to replace Ortiz but you know what...I think Bogaerts is that guy already. I think we are going to be pleasantly surprised by the numbers he puts up even this year. So far, no one has found a weakness. He may not have one. The guy might end up being a Hanley Ramirez level hitter. He looks like one so far. If you have a lot of good hitters in a lineup and 2 Hanleys in the lineup you have a top hitting team. The bottom line is do we score runs in the top 2-3 teams of the league. If yes then not to worry.

    Don't get me wrong. I'd absolutely love to have a stud power hitter in LF going forward but I want to win long term and I think we have to generally play our cards with most of the prospects we have. I think we can still add premium free agents in key positions going forward, like Tanaka was ...etc., but I'm rolling the dice with Bradley in CF, Middlebrooks at 3rd and Bogaerts at SS. Let's see what happens.

    Lots of people are down on Middlebrooks but he is healthy this year and my bet he is closer to the hitter he was when he first came up than he was when he was hurt for most of last year.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    So yes Crit, I would trade Mike Carp for Stanton straight up!

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Looks like I need a new avatar. Don't even want to think about Ellsbury in pinstripes.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    Looks like I need a new avatar. Don't even want to think about Ellsbury in pinstripes.



    Better get used to it, since we'll be facing him over 120 times over the 7 years of his deal. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Bogaerts is the #2 prospect in the game is he not?  So technically only one other team has an equivalent prospect.

    Texas infielder Jurickson Profar, who is younger than Xander Bogaerts, is a former No. 1 prospect and who, like Bogaerts, remains under team control for six seasons (although Profar will be a likely Super Two candidate following the 2015 season).

    I mentioned a package starting with the equivalent of Bogaerts and Henry Owens, whom Baseball America ranked No. 2 and No. 40 on its recent prospect list.

    Using this year's BA list, the Twins could offer the No. 2 and No. 6 prospects, the Astros No. 7 and No. 18, the Pirates No. 10 and No. 22, the Cardinals No. 3 and No. 31, the Rockies No. 12 and No. 24, the Mets No. 16 and No. 38, and the Cubs No. 23, No. 26 and No. 36.

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2014-baseball-america-top-100-prospects-free/

    That list does not include players who remain under team control for six seasons despite the loss of their prospect status.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    I am astounded by all the talk about Stanton because to me Cherington is absolutely not interested in those long term acquisitions while giving up multiple good players.  Instead, he dumped three of them in mid 2012.  He made no real effort to hang onto Ellsbury (with which we all agree--Yankees paid too much).  He probably had some role in letting Pap go to Philly on a long term contract.   He kept Pedroia long term because Pedroia wanted to stay and went for smaller dollars.  He is probably going to keep Lester the same way.  He made no effort to keep Drew after a pretty good year.  Salty, gone (for a longer term deal with Miami)--and good riddance in my view. 

    Someone please set me straight.  Give me an example of Cherington seriously going after a big bat.  Just one. 

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    Someone please set me straight.  Give me an example of Cherington seriously going after a big bat.  Just one.  



    No, Cherington hasn't gone after a big bat, yet.  But it could easily be argued he hasn't had to yet, with Ortiz still being Ortiz.

    Also I wouldn't assume that Cherington is completely opposed to the 'big move'.  He did go on record that he was one of the guys in the organization who strongly supported the Crawford signing.    

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Bogaerts is the #2 prospect in the game is he not?  So technically only one other team has an equivalent prospect.

    Texas infielder Jurickson Profar, who is younger than Xander Bogaerts, is a former No. 1 prospect and who, like Bogaerts, remains under team control for six seasons (although Profar will be a likely Super Two candidate following the 2015 season).

    I mentioned a package starting with the equivalent of Bogaerts and Henry Owens, whom Baseball America ranked No. 2 and No. 40 on its recent prospect list.

    Using this year's BA list, the Twins could offer the No. 2 and No. 6 prospects, the Astros No. 7 and No. 18, the Pirates No. 10 and No. 22, the Cardinals No. 3 and No. 31, the Rockies No. 12 and No. 24, the Mets No. 16 and No. 38, and the Cubs No. 23, No. 26 and No. 36.

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2014-baseball-america-top-100-prospects-free/

    That list does not include players who remain under team control for six seasons despite the loss of their prospect status.



    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Re Stanton, Ellsbury, Trout, Bogaerts, and every other ballplayer post-Reserve Clause....it's no longer only about talent anymore.  Only idiots and horse-and-buggy "thinking" anachronisms don't seem to be able to understand that.

    The poster child for the issue surrounds, but is not only about, the excellent player Adrian Gonzalez.  His value to the 2011 Red Sox was huge.  Paid around $6-8m (not sure), delivered $25-30m (not sure) WAR value.  I still assume that was part of the plan.

    Once his $20-22m/year (not sure) contract kicked in in 2012 his value plummeted...he was after that paid 22 million quatlubes/year for 22 million quatlubes/year of presumed value.  Which is exactly why many of us laughed at Earvin "Mr. Baseball" Johnson for saving our franchise by taking him off our hands.

    Overpay, happily, if necessary, for a Pedroia, Ortiz, Rivera, Bench, etc.  But if you're paying market value for a player and lose him you have the money to ATTEMPT to find a replacement...plus a draft pick.

    Honestly.....how many times do the Moons/Notins/Hughs/Hills/Booms/hfs/etc have to drag their weary hands over their keyboards to point out, yet again, to the Great Unwashed, that trading for, say, a Stanton, isn't just about x prospect(s) for y player(s) anymore....

    Stanton delivered HUGE value from 2011-2013, obviously (apols to the clued).   $6.5m in 2014 will be a bargain, IMO, if he achieves near his best.  If he stays healthy from 2014-2016 and stays great he'll earn WAY less than his value including ARB....say $6.5m, $11m, and $15m (estimates, but not crazy IMO).  But after that he'll pull market value.

    The value is NOW.  Durr.

     

     

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.



    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share