Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    the Tigers may be losing Peralta for the season which puts another big hole into their offense and makes their lineup even more lopsided.

    True enough.

    Mnny remember Manny and Papi, but those teams were deep as well. The Tigers may have to rely totally on 4 starters and 2 hitters.

    Sox4ever

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    the Tigers may be losing Peralta for the season which puts another big hole into their offense and makes their lineup even more lopsided.

    True enough.

    Mnny remember Manny and Papi, but those teams were deep as well. The Tigers may have to rely totally on 4 starters and 2 hitters.

    Sox4ever



    talk about putting your eggs into 1 basket.... but if there was a basket you'd want to put all of your eggs into it's the Tigers. Scherzer is probably the CYA winner if the season ended today, Verlander could get into gear by the time the playoffs roll around and Sanchez/Fister make a tough 3/4. Cabrera/Fielder could be the best 1/2 punch since the Manny/papi heyday.

    but it takes more than 6 players to win a 7 game series. Losing one of their best hitters outside of their 3/4 combo is a tough blow for the tigers..

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    There are certain prospects I dont move at all. There are a few that I move for the right deal that make a lot of sense for the Now and the future. I dont like the high risk deals like Jake Peavy.




    Hi paw.  "Right deal" is exactly the issue.  I think the Sox' judgement re trading "prospects" has been excellent over the past 10 years or so.  For example:

    Kept:  Youk, Pedroia, Ells, Papelbon, Lester, Buchholz....

    Traded presumed high value for known value:  Hanley Ramirez

    Other:  bit part outfielders here, one year wonders there....no major mistakes

     

    That's no guarantee another Bagwell misjudgement won't happen, but I think the Sox have shown excellent judgement for ages....and I hope and assume it will continue.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    ..."Right deal" is exactly the issue.  I think the Sox' judgement re trading "prospects" has been excellent over the past 10 years or so.  For example:

    Kept:  Youk, Pedroia, Ells, Papelbon, Lester, Buchholz....

    Traded presumed high value for known value:  Hanley Ramirez

    Other:  bit part outfielders here, one year wonders there....no major mistakes

     

    That's no guarantee another Bagwell misjudgement won't happen, but I think the Sox have shown excellent judgement for ages....and I hope and assume it will continue.



         How is Justin Masterson (traded in the Victor Martinez deal) doing in Cleveland, these days?

         The Sox better think twice before they part with top prospects, for a mercenary like Cliff Lee. My hope is that they pass. 

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

     How is Justin Masterson (traded in the Victor Martinez deal) doing in Cleveland, these days?

     

         The Sox better think twice before they part with top prospects, for a mercenary like Cliff Lee. My hope is that they pass.

    We essentially traded Masterson for VMart, Barnes and Owens.

    I would not trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now, so I am missing your point.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     How is Justin Masterson (traded in the Victor Martinez deal) doing in Cleveland, these days?

     

         The Sox better think twice before they part with top prospects, for a mercenary like Cliff Lee. My hope is that they pass.

    We essentially traded Masterson for VMart, Barnes and Owens.

    I would not trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now, so I am missing your point.

    Sox4ever

     



         That was not the original trade. That's just how things worked when, when the Sox decided to let V-Mart go. Masterson has won 12 games, and pitched 150 innings for Cleveland, thus far this season: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8194

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     How is Justin Masterson (traded in the Victor Martinez deal) doing in Cleveland, these days?

     

         The Sox better think twice before they part with top prospects, for a mercenary like Cliff Lee. My hope is that they pass.

    We essentially traded Masterson for VMart, Barnes and Owens.

    I would not trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now, so I am missing your point.

    Sox4ever

     



         That was not the original trade. That's just how things worked when, when the Sox decided to let V-Mart go. Masterson has won 12 games, and pitched 150 innings for Cleveland, thus far this season: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8194

     



    masterson winning 12 games and pitching 150 innings is "just how things worked out". V-Mart not signing is "just how things works out". By trading for Vmart he turned into Barnes and Owens. So yes, the trade was Masterson for V-mart + Barnes + Owens.

    Looking back in hindsight would you trade Masterson for V-mart knowing he would give you 2 years of production and Owens and Barnes. Meanwhile Masterson has only had 1 great season and a few mediocre seasons. not including 2013 which is shaping up to be solid.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     How is Justin Masterson (traded in the Victor Martinez deal) doing in Cleveland, these days?

     

         The Sox better think twice before they part with top prospects, for a mercenary like Cliff Lee. My hope is that they pass.

    We essentially traded Masterson for VMart, Barnes and Owens.

    I would not trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now, so I am missing your point.

    Sox4ever

     



         That was not the original trade. That's just how things worked when, when the Sox decided to let V-Mart go. Masterson has won 12 games, and pitched 150 innings for Cleveland, thus far this season: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8194

     



    No, of course it was not part of the original trade, but if you think Theo was not looking at the later choice of extending VMart or getting the comp picks when he walked as part of the value added to the trade, then you are kidding yourself.

    Now, I get your point, trading players for someone who will not get a QO after his deal runs out is not comparable to the VMart/Masterson deal. Michael Young will not get a QO. Cliff Lee will be too old to get a QO after his deal runs out. Peavy may be the only guy that may earn a QO by the end of his contract, so almost no deals "in the works" now seem to involve a later comp pick.

    The fact remains: Ownes and Barnes have close to equal or more value than Masterson right now, and we did get 1.3 years of pretty good production from VMart.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to mef429's comment:

     Looking back in hindsight would you trade Masterson for V-mart knowing he would give you 2 years of production and Owens and Barnes. Meanwhile Masterson has only had 1 great season and a few mediocre seasons. not including 2013 which is shaping up to be solid.

    RESPONSE: The Sox cashed in on the stupidity of another team signing V-Mart as a free agent. But, were it not for that, the V-Mart trade would have been a disaster. Meanwhile, Masterson has developed into a front line starter. Just how valuable is a top starter, in his prime, to a team?

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     Looking back in hindsight would you trade Masterson for V-mart knowing he would give you 2 years of production and Owens and Barnes. Meanwhile Masterson has only had 1 great season and a few mediocre seasons. not including 2013 which is shaping up to be solid.

    RESPONSE: The Sox cashed in on the stupidity of another team signing V-Mart as a free agent. But, were it not for that, the V-Mart trade would have been a disaster. Meanwhile, Masterson has developed into a front line starter. Just how valuable is a top starter, in his prime, to a team?

     

     



    Yeah. What a terrible idea signing one of the better pure hitters in the league. how dare them!

    Masterson is not a top of the rotation starter. that's beyond wishful thinking.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     Looking back in hindsight would you trade Masterson for V-mart knowing he would give you 2 years of production and Owens and Barnes. Meanwhile Masterson has only had 1 great season and a few mediocre seasons. not including 2013 which is shaping up to be solid.

    RESPONSE: The Sox cashed in on the stupidity of another team signing V-Mart as a free agent. But, were it not for that, the V-Mart trade would have been a disaster. Meanwhile, Masterson has developed into a front line starter. Just how valuable is a top starter, in his prime, to a team?

     

     



    Masterson may appear to be a "top starter" based on this year's numbers, but his overall numbers with Cleveland are worse than with the Sox (ERA 4.11 > 3.76 and WHIP 1.371 > 1.279) and certainly not "top starter" numbers.

    Of course, I'd love to have Masterson on our roster right now, but I'm not sure I'd start him over any of our top 5, except maybe Dempster. 

    Let's get beyond a trade that was made years ago. The trade worked outa alright for us and them. I don't see how the Masterson deal example can be used to disuade any future deals.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     Looking back in hindsight would you trade Masterson for V-mart knowing he would give you 2 years of production and Owens and Barnes. Meanwhile Masterson has only had 1 great season and a few mediocre seasons. not including 2013 which is shaping up to be solid.

    RESPONSE: The Sox cashed in on the stupidity of another team signing V-Mart as a free agent. But, were it not for that, the V-Mart trade would have been a disaster. Meanwhile, Masterson has developed into a front line starter. Just how valuable is a top starter, in his prime, to a team?

     

     

     

     



    Masterson may appear to be a "top starter" based on this year's numbers, but his overall numbers with Cleveland are worse than with the Sox (ERA 4.11 > 3.76 and WHIP 1.371 > 1.279) and certainly not "top starter" numbers.

     

     

    Of course, I'd love to have Masterson on our roster right now, but I'm not sure I'd start him over any of our top 5, except maybe Dempster. 

    Let's get beyond a trade that was made years ago. The trade worked outa alright for us and them. I don't see how the Masterson deal example can be used to disuade any future deals.



         You would put Masterson in the rotation as the 4th or 5th starter?? Whatever...LOL!!!

         Okay...if you don't like the Masterson trade as an example, how about the trade that sent Curt Shilling and Brady Anderson to Baltimore, for veteran starter, Mike Boddicker? Or, how about yesterdays' Peavy trade? If Iggy is as good a defensive SS as advertised, this is another bad trade. Peavy is stop gap starter, whose 32 years old, and has been injury prone throughout his career.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     Looking back in hindsight would you trade Masterson for V-mart knowing he would give you 2 years of production and Owens and Barnes. Meanwhile Masterson has only had 1 great season and a few mediocre seasons. not including 2013 which is shaping up to be solid.

    RESPONSE: The Sox cashed in on the stupidity of another team signing V-Mart as a free agent. But, were it not for that, the V-Mart trade would have been a disaster. Meanwhile, Masterson has developed into a front line starter. Just how valuable is a top starter, in his prime, to a team?

     

     



    It wasn't a disaster without the picks, two years of above average production from catcher for a mediocore pitcher. You can't discount the picks though the Red Sox knew they were getting them when they made the trade.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:



    It wasn't a disaster without the picks, two years of above average production from catcher for a mediocore pitcher. You can't discount the picks though the Red Sox knew they were getting them when they made the trade.



         As y'all know, I'm generally against trading good young prospects away for a stop gap veteran. That said, what do y'all think of the Peavy trade? The Boston sports writers seem to like the deal. 

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    It wasn't a disaster without the picks, two years of above average production from catcher for a mediocore pitcher. You can't discount the picks though the Red Sox knew they were getting them when they made the trade.

     

     



         As y'all know, I'm generally against trading good young prospects away for a stop gap veteran. That said, what do y'all think of the Peavy trade? The Boston sports writers seem to like the deal. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It is clear that Bogaerts made Iggy redundant. Better to sell him when he was at his highest.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:


    It is clear that Bogaerts made Iggy redundant. Better to sell him when he was at his highest.



         Here's a scouting report on the prospects given up in the Peavy trade: http://news.soxprospects.com/2013/07/trade-analysis-scouting-player-dealt.html

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    There are certain prospects I dont move at all. There are a few that I move for the right deal that make a lot of sense for the Now and the future. I dont like the high risk deals like Jake Peavy.

     




     

    Hi paw.  "Right deal" is exactly the issue.  I think the Sox' judgement re trading "prospects" has been excellent over the past 10 years or so.  For example:

    Kept:  Youk, Pedroia, Ells, Papelbon, Lester, Buchholz....

    Traded presumed high value for known value:  Hanley Ramirez

    Other:  bit part outfielders here, one year wonders there....no major mistakes

     

    That's no guarantee another Bagwell misjudgement won't happen, but I think the Sox have shown excellent judgement for ages....and I hope and assume it will continue.

    [/QUOTE]


    I didnt like giving up top prospects for peavy, but I dont mind letting Iggy go for him. he has some injury risk, but he was healthy all of last year and did well. He was also doing good this year until the broken rib. As far as I know, the arm is fine.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

    [QUOTE]
    It is clear that Bogaerts made Iggy redundant. Better to sell him when he was at his highest.

     

     



         Here's a scouting report on the prospects given up in the Peavy trade: http://news.soxprospects.com/2013/07/trade-analysis-scouting-player-dealt.html

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I recognized 2 of the 3 names last night when they were mentioned. I follow the prospects very closely.
    We essentially gave up 2 future bullpen arms and a future UI as it stands right now. Obviously that could change, but from what the scouts say, thats what their futures will be.

    Selling high on Iggy was a very smart move. His value wasnt going to be any higher than right now and with the Tigers desperate need for a SS, the time was right. Bogey, and to a lesser extent Marrero, made Iggy expendable.

    With Buch's injury being an issue, Lackey not pitching last year and could hit a wall this year, and Doubie never pitching more than 161IP in a single season ( also possible to hit a wall), getting another starter for insurance was a must. With the prices teams were looking for to acquire a SP, we got the deal of the year for Peavy. So yeah, Im good with the trade.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to southpaw777's comment:



    I recognized 2 of the 3 names last night when they were mentioned. I follow the prospects very closely.
    We essentially gave up 2 future bullpen arms and a future UI as it stands right now. Obviously that could change, but from what the scouts say, thats what their futures will be.


    Selling high on Iggy was a very smart move. His value wasnt going to be any higher than right now and with the Tigers desperate need for a SS, the time was right. Bogey, and to a lesser extent Marrero, made Iggy expendable.

    With Buch's injury being an issue, Lackey not pitching last year and could hit a wall this year, and Doubie never pitching more than 161IP in a single season ( also possible to hit a wall), getting another starter for insurance was a must. With the prices teams were looking for to acquire a SP, we got the deal of the year for Peavy. So yeah, Im good with the trade.



         You could be right about Iggy. Still, it's disquieting to see the Sox trade a guy labeled the best defensive SS prospect in years. This is especially so when you consider that this team has had so much turnover at this key defensive position. Having a SS with good range who can turn a double-play well is something the Sox have lacked since the days of Orlando Cabrera, in 2004. 

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    I'd bail on Iggy twice to get Peavy ... three times on Sunday. 

    There is a difference between prospects in general, which Iggy was, and real premium prospects, which Iggy was not really. He's not Bogaerts, and he's probably not even Middlebrooks. 

    He's certainly not Masterson, who was already a major leaguer at the point he was traded. 

    Defensive stars are all over the minors, and the kid wasn't going to hit like a big leaguer, despite his big streak this season. Cher did the right thing ... he sold while Iggy's stock was as high as it will ever be. 

    Peavy is going to win some games, and the Redsox have a logjam of prospects for the left infield. Really, a good deal for the guys on Yawkee. 

     

     
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jgallag1. Show jgallag1's posts

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    The thing to remember is that Peavy isn't just a rental. To get him for even more than just the last bit of this season for pretty much just Iggy is a great move. They needed to move somebody on the left side, and this says to me one of three things...they think WMB is going to come back strong and Iggy will regress...they are thinking of bringing back Drew next season...or they think Cecchini or Marrero are much closer than we all think.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     Looking back in hindsight would you trade Masterson for V-mart knowing he would give you 2 years of production and Owens and Barnes. Meanwhile Masterson has only had 1 great season and a few mediocre seasons. not including 2013 which is shaping up to be solid.

    RESPONSE: The Sox cashed in on the stupidity of another team signing V-Mart as a free agent. But, were it not for that, the V-Mart trade would have been a disaster. Meanwhile, Masterson has developed into a front line starter. Just how valuable is a top starter, in his prime, to a team?

     

     

     

     



    Masterson may appear to be a "top starter" based on this year's numbers, but his overall numbers with Cleveland are worse than with the Sox (ERA 4.11 > 3.76 and WHIP 1.371 > 1.279) and certainly not "top starter" numbers.

     

     

    Of course, I'd love to have Masterson on our roster right now, but I'm not sure I'd start him over any of our top 5, except maybe Dempster. 

    Let's get beyond a trade that was made years ago. The trade worked outa alright for us and them. I don't see how the Masterson deal example can be used to disuade any future deals.



         You would put Masterson in the rotation as the 4th or 5th starter?? Whatever...LOL!!!

         Okay...if you don't like the Masterson trade as an example, how about the trade that sent Curt Shilling and Brady Anderson to Baltimore, for veteran starter, Mike Boddicker? Or, how about yesterdays' Peavy trade? If Iggy is as good a defensive SS as advertised, this is another bad trade. Peavy is stop gap starter, whose 32 years old, and has been injury prone throughout his career.




    The Peavy trade might have long-term implications as well.  We also acquired 26-year-old RHP Brayan Villarreal, who is wild, but was an effective reliever last year, and can throw 97 MPH.  Also, assuming Peavy stays healthy and plays out his contract, he too will likely be a type A free agent.

    Also, devil's advocate, and because it's topical - we don't win the division (before the advent of the wildcard) in 1988 or 1990 without Boddicker.  He went a combined 24 - 11 those years.  If we win a WS either of those years, you might see the trade a little differently.  And in retrospect, and in light of recent events, it's hard not to put an asterisk by any accomplishments for a team led by Canseco and McGwire.

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    Of course, I'd love to have Masterson on our roster right now, but I'm not sure I'd start him over any of our top 5, except maybe Dempster. 

    Let's get beyond a trade that was made years ago. The trade worked outa alright for us and them. I don't see how the Masterson deal example can be used to disuade any future deals.



         You would put Masterson in the rotation as the 4th or 5th starter?? Whatever...LOL!!!

     

    What would you make him? The #2?

    I don't make someone a #2 starter based on 2/3rds of a season.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    I'd bail on Iggy twice to get Peavy ... three times on Sunday. 

    There is a difference between prospects in general, which Iggy was, and real premium prospects, which Iggy was not really. He's not Bogaerts, and he's probably not even Middlebrooks. 

    He's certainly not Masterson, who was already a major leaguer at the point he was traded. 

    Defensive stars are all over the minors, and the kid wasn't going to hit like a big leaguer, despite his big streak this season. Cher did the right thing ... he sold while Iggy's stock was as hiTed ox, Joe Lahoud, gh as it will ever be. 

    Peavy is going to win some games, and the Redsox have a logjam of prospects for the left infield. Really, a good deal for the guys on Yawkee. 

     



         You could be right. After all, for every prospect that turns out to be a star (Curt Shilling, and Jeff Bagwell), there's an Andy Marte, Ted Cox, and Joe Lahoud: http://www.whygavs.com/pittsburgh-pirates/march-2011/andy-marte.html

     

         But still, when a guy like Big Papi says that Iggy is the best defensive SS that he's ever seen, it should give pause. A great defensive SS like a Visquel, Ozzie Smith, or Larry Bowa, can make the team's pitching staff a half-run better per year, e.r.a. wise. 

         Plus, the Sox farm system has been so productive recently...with most of it's young star prospects making their mark in the majors (Pedroia, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Lester, Buchholz, Masterson, Rizzo, Hanley Ramirez, etc.).

         Here's an excellent article on the dilemma of whether to "go for it now", or to "keep the long term outlook" in mind, at the trading deadline:  http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/07/30/red-sox-shouldnt-go-all-in-at-trade-deadline/     

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    The Peavy trade might have long-term implications as well.  We also acquired 26-year-old RHP Brayan Villarreal, who is wild, but was an effective reliever last year, and can throw 97 MPH.  Also, assuming Peavy stays healthy and plays out his contract, he too will likely be a type A free agent.

    Also, devil's advocate, and because it's topical - we don't win the division (before the advent of the wildcard) in 1988 or 1990 without Boddicker.  He went a combined 24 - 11 those years.  If we win a WS either of those years, you might see the trade a little differently.  And in retrospect, and in light of recent events, it's hard not to put an asterisk by any accomplishments for a team led by Canseco and McGwire. 



         True about Boddicker. He did help the Sox win in those years. But, he was awful in the play-offs, and his acquisition didn't lead to the Sox winning a championship. So, was the deal worth it?

         You may also recall the Sox being desperate in 1990 for bullpen help. So, they traded away hot prospect Jeff Bagwell for a veteran reliever named Larry Andersen. Now...the Sox probably wouldn't have won the AL East without Andersen. But...did that make that trade worthwhile?  http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/midseason_trades/larry_andersen_red_sox.html?state=stop 

     

     

Share