Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I suppose we could trade Nava and/or Gomes and go with this...

    LF: Stanton

    CF: Sizemore/JBJ

    RF: Victorino

    It wouldn't make any sense.  We had the best OPS in the league for LF.  The biggest improvement you can make as a team is to acquire a player to address your biggest weakness.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    +1

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to crowtrobot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to crowtrobot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'd probably give Middy, Barnes, Ranaudo, Betts, Johnson, de la Rosa, and Brentz or Hassan for Stanton & Cishek.

    Then sign Drew to $8M/1 and slide Bogey to 3B.

     



    That would definitely make the SOX  a much better team offensively and defensively.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Victorino would be in CF, so our OF defense would be worsened, unless we play Stanton in LF and trade Nava/Gomes.JBJ would be in AAA and Sizemore or Carp would be dealt or phantomed DL'd. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You seem to be giving up on Sizemore. With Stanton in the line-up the SOX could even live with JBJ's weak bat.

    [/QUOTE]

    If Stanton joins the Sox, someone gets benched.

    It won't be Victorino.

    It probably won't be Nava/Gomes.

    It most likely would be Sizemore/JBJ, and a forced move by Victorino to CF.

     

    I suppose we could trade Nava and/or Gomes and go with this...

    LF: Stanton

    CF: Sizemore/JBJ

    RF: Victorino

     

    (BTW, I have been saying I think Sizemore should start in CF and JBJ sent to AAA, so I'm not seeing how I am giving up on Sizemore.)

    [/QUOTE]


    NO WAY do I put Vic at CF fulltime. If Sizemore is healthy, you put him there. Its a no-brainer really. Keep Vic in RF where he won a GG, and if the team is dumb enough to give up a kings ransom for Stanton, then he goes to LF. You deal Nava or Carp and send JBJ to AAA (someone is getting traded) until Stanton, Sizemore and/or Vic (all would be big injury risks) get hurt and end up on the DL. JBJ will get a lot of games played with those 3 starting.

    I guarentee 2 of the 3 WILL be on the DL at least once. Most likely all 3 would.

    Thats a lot of moves and injury risk just to bring in one over-hyped player.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seannybboi's comment:

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140319-live-now-red-sox-chat-with-britton-and-macpherson.ece

    they think Owens, WMB, Betts, and Anthony Ranaudo or Brian Johnson could get Stanton.  Do you agree?  Would you do this trade if you were Sox GM?

    If Miami were to make Giancarlo Stanton available in trade, the Marlins probably could land an established young cost-controlled player and at least one elite prospect.

    The suggested Red Sox trade pieces fall into neither category. Will Middlebrooks' MLB exposure has raised doubts. The current Baseball America Top 100 prospect list ranks Henry Owens No. 40 and Mookie Betts No. 75 while three years have passed since Anthony Ranaudo's only ranking at No. 67 in 2011. Middlebrooks peaked at No. 51 in 2013 before losing his prospect status.

    I don't see the Marlins substituting quantity for quality in a trade of Stanton. I would expect a player or two who are or have been ranked among the Top 10 prospects and/or who have posted a promising WAR at the MLB level. I suspect other teams could make that offer.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hill, all these rankings are cool and all, but the Marlins are very interested in Middy. its been documented. Im not sure they really care about his former BA rankings.

    Just because you dont believe in him, doesnt mean another team doesnt value him much higher.

    Personally, I wouldnt make the trade... but Middy, Owens (3), Betts (10) and Ranaudo/Barnes (7/6), 3 who are currently Sox top 10 prospects and Middy, who was a #1 prospect for the Sox should do it. Maybe they would want a Vasquez or Margot to replace a name (all top 15), but thats a nice haul for Stanton. 2 top pitching prospects and 2 top position players. one is MLB ready and the other 3 are probably a year away. All but middy under control for 6 more years.

    See, IMHO, it all depends on how the team values the players, not how BA ranked them.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to crowtrobot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to crowtrobot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'd probably give Middy, Barnes, Ranaudo, Betts, Johnson, de la Rosa, and Brentz or Hassan for Stanton & Cishek.

    Then sign Drew to $8M/1 and slide Bogey to 3B.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That would definitely make the SOX  a much better team offensively and defensively.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Victorino would be in CF, so our OF defense would be worsened, unless we play Stanton in LF and trade Nava/Gomes.JBJ would be in AAA and Sizemore or Carp would be dealt or phantomed DL'd. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You seem to be giving up on Sizemore. With Stanton in the line-up the SOX could even live with JBJ's weak bat.

    [/QUOTE]

    If Stanton joins the Sox, someone gets benched.

    It won't be Victorino.

    It probably won't be Nava/Gomes.

    It most likely would be Sizemore/JBJ, and a forced move by Victorino to CF.

     

    I suppose we could trade Nava and/or Gomes and go with this...

    LF: Stanton

    CF: Sizemore/JBJ

    RF: Victorino

     

    (BTW, I have been saying I think Sizemore should start in CF and JBJ sent to AAA, so I'm not seeing how I am giving up on Sizemore.)

    [/QUOTE]


    NO WAY do I put Vic at CF fulltime. If Sizemore is healthy, you put him there. Its a no-brainer really. Keep Vic in RF where he won a GG, and if the team is dumb enough to give up a kings ransom for Stanton, then he goes to LF. You deal Nava or Carp and send JBJ to AAA (someone is getting traded) until Stanton, Sizemore and/or Vic (all would be big injury risks) get hurt and end up on the DL.

    I guarentee 2 of the 3 WILL be on the DL at least once. Most likely all 3 would.

    Thats a lot of moves and injury risk just to bring in one over-hyped player.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not for moving Shane to CF and have said so many times.

    I am for trying to get line-up protection for Papi as well as maybe his eventual replacement as the focal point of our offense. Also, moving Napoli to #6 makes a ton of sense.

    Sure, Stanton is a big risk as is obtaining any player, and to me OF, 3B and SS (move Bogey to 3B) are the 3 areas with possibilities for a major gain on offense. The fact is, there just aren't that many great offensive weapons on the trading block or future free agent market.

    I've said I am fine with our current roster and bright future, but eventually, we will need to find a big middle order hitter. Situations like Myers and Stanton do not come along very often... low cost and young available players.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to crowtrobot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to crowtrobot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'd probably give Middy, Barnes, Ranaudo, Betts, Johnson, de la Rosa, and Brentz or Hassan for Stanton & Cishek.

    Then sign Drew to $8M/1 and slide Bogey to 3B.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That would definitely make the SOX  a much better team offensively and defensively.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Victorino would be in CF, so our OF defense would be worsened, unless we play Stanton in LF and trade Nava/Gomes.JBJ would be in AAA and Sizemore or Carp would be dealt or phantomed DL'd. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You seem to be giving up on Sizemore. With Stanton in the line-up the SOX could even live with JBJ's weak bat.

    [/QUOTE]

    If Stanton joins the Sox, someone gets benched.

    It won't be Victorino.

    It probably won't be Nava/Gomes.

    It most likely would be Sizemore/JBJ, and a forced move by Victorino to CF.

     

    I suppose we could trade Nava and/or Gomes and go with this...

    LF: Stanton

    CF: Sizemore/JBJ

    RF: Victorino

     

    (BTW, I have been saying I think Sizemore should start in CF and JBJ sent to AAA, so I'm not seeing how I am giving up on Sizemore.)

    [/QUOTE]


    NO WAY do I put Vic at CF fulltime. If Sizemore is healthy, you put him there. Its a no-brainer really. Keep Vic in RF where he won a GG, and if the team is dumb enough to give up a kings ransom for Stanton, then he goes to LF. You deal Nava or Carp and send JBJ to AAA (someone is getting traded) until Stanton, Sizemore and/or Vic (all would be big injury risks) get hurt and end up on the DL.

    I guarentee 2 of the 3 WILL be on the DL at least once. Most likely all 3 would.

    Thats a lot of moves and injury risk just to bring in one over-hyped player.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not for moving Shane to CF and have said so many times.

    I am for trying to get line-up protection for Papi as well as maybe his eventual replacement as the focal point of our offense. Also, moving Napoli to #6 makes a ton of sense.

    Sure, Stanton is a big risk as is obtaining any player, and to me OF, 3B and SS (move Bogey to 3B) are the 3 areas with possibilities for a major gain on offense. The fact is, there just aren't that many great offensive weapons on the trading block or future free agent market.

    I've said I am fine with our current roster and bright future, but eventually, we will need to find a big middle order hitter. Situations like Myers and Stanton do not come along very often... low cost and young available players.

    [/QUOTE]


    I understand your point about a big bat, but just like Upton last year, I wouldnt give up a ton of top 10 talent for a guy who is under control for 3 years and cant stay on the field...or in Uptons case, very inconsistent. Its always a risk making a trade, but the red flags are already waiving with Stanton.

    Papi did fine with the lineup last year. I just wouldnt jump at this guy just because he has 40HR potential. There are other factors. Papi will probably be gone within 2 years (by the end of 2016 at the very latest.) Bogaerts, Middy, Naps are all big bats that should be hitting between 3-6. All with 25-30HR power.

    There will be other guys that the lower level teams wont be able to afford in the future. No need to deplete our future for a question mark.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    I understand your point about a big bat, but just like Upton last year, I wouldnt give up a ton of top 10 talent for a guy who is under control for 3 years and cant stay on the field...or in Uptons case, very inconsistent. Its always a risk making a trade, but the red flags are already waiving with Stanton.

    Papi did fine with the lineup last year. I just wouldnt jump at this guy just because he has 40HR potential. There are other factors. Papi will probably be gone within 2 years (by the end of 2016 at the very latest.) Bogaerts, Middy, Naps are all big bats that should be hitting between 3-6. All with 25-30HR power.

    There will be other guys that the lower level teams wont be able to afford in the future. No need to deplete our future for a question mark.

    The prospects are question marks as well, but I agree. I would not trade 5 top prospects for Stanton.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Why are so many RS in favor of trading the farm system for Stanton? Don't get it. Did we not learn anything from last yr. We won w/ depth, now everyone wants to trade it for a one dimensionel player, a guy who would hit a ton of home runs. If this were Mike Trout I might feel different about trading most of the farm. But lets face it the Marlins are never going to sign this guy to a contract why not wait til he hits FA. By that time we'll need a replacement for Ortiz, and a ton of $ will be off the books.

    RS fans should be more interested in the roster we do have [the one that won a WS last yr] then worrying about a one dimensionel player who has had trouble staying on the field as of late. Seems like we have at least 2 threads going on this guy at all times. Wake up smell the coffee RS fans. While he might look good in the middle of RS lineup, does trading all our top prospects make us a better team 5 yrs down the road? Think Ben knows better than this.

     

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why are so many RS in favor of trading the farm system for Stanton? Don't get it. Did we not learn anything from last yr. We won w/ depth, now everyone wants to trade it for a one dimensionel player, a guy who would hit a ton of home runs. If this were Mike Trout I might feel different about trading most of the farm. But lets face it the Marlins are never going to sign this guy to a contract why not wait til he hits FA. By that time we'll need a replacement for Ortiz, and a ton of $ will be off the books.

    RS fans should be more interested in the roster we do have [the one that won a WS last yr] then worrying about a one dimensionel player who has had trouble staying on the field as of late. Seems like we have at least 2 threads going on this guy at all times. Wake up smell the coffee RS fans. While he might look good in the middle of RS lineup, does trading all our top prospects make us a better team 5 yrs down the road? Think Ben knows better than this. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I do understand the interest in Stanton for 2 reasons: 1) Ortiz is near the end; 2) you could make a good argument that without Manny and Ortiz we wouldn't have won any of the 3 championships.

    I also agree with your point, though.  The price and the risk are too high.  Ben will figure out something better than trading away our top prospects. 

     

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Why are so many RS in favor of trading the farm system for Stanton? Don't get it. 

    My guess at the number one reason:

    There just aren't many young big hitters on the trading block these days.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Wake up smell the coffee RS fans. While he might look good in the middle of RS lineup, does trading all our top prospects make us a better team 5 yrs down the road?

    It does, if Stanton is extended and becomes a great hitter, and the prospects we give up never combine to do better than him.

     

    Think Ben knows better than this.

    I think so too, but rumor has it that there have been discussions, so Ben must like Stanton to some degree... maybe just not enough to part with the guys Miami wants.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why are so many RS in favor of trading the farm system for Stanton? Don't get it. Did we not learn anything from last yr. We won w/ depth, now everyone wants to trade it for a one dimensionel player, a guy who would hit a ton of home runs. If this were Mike Trout I might feel different about trading most of the farm. But lets face it the Marlins are never going to sign this guy to a contract why not wait til he hits FA. By that time we'll need a replacement for Ortiz, and a ton of $ will be off the books.

    RS fans should be more interested in the roster we do have [the one that won a WS last yr] then worrying about a one dimensionel player who has had trouble staying on the field as of late. Seems like we have at least 2 threads going on this guy at all times. Wake up smell the coffee RS fans. While he might look good in the middle of RS lineup, does trading all our top prospects make us a better team 5 yrs down the road? Think Ben knows better than this. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I do understand the interest in Stanton for 2 reasons: 1) Ortiz is near the end; 2) you could make a good argument that without Manny and Ortiz we wouldn't have won any of the 3 championships.

    I also agree with your point, though.  The price and the risk are too high.  Ben will figure out something better than trading away our top prospects. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    IMO, the 'wouldn't have won any of the 3 championships without Manny/Ortiz' arguement is my arguement for why I wouldn't put together a package for Stanton like I would for Manny/Ortiz.  I know Manny/Ortiz, and Stanton is no Manny/Ortiz.  Just a good middle of the order bat.  But I am not mortgaging future for him.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    IMO, the 'wouldn't have won any of the 3 championships without Manny/Ortiz' arguement is my arguement for why I wouldn't put together a package for Stanton like I would for Manny/Ortiz.  I know Manny/Ortiz, and Stanton is no Manny/Ortiz.  Just a good middle of the order bat.  But I am not mortgaging future for him.

    Thing is, I don't see too many hitters in the entire league these days who warrant comparison to Manny and Ortiz in their primes. We do have one of them, the actual Ortiz, who still does a good impression of the Ortiz of 2004...but beyond that, who? Cabrera, Trout, perhaps Davis if this year was the beginning of a trend...and beyond that, not many. In another thread, there was a poster chastising Cherington for not adding a 35-homer stud this winter...but how many such hitters even exist in MLB right now?

    The Manny/Ortiz combo will be the stuff of legend for many years, and for good reason. People hoping for it to be duplicated are likely to be disappointed.

    With that in mind, I do think Stanton (with a career .889 OPS and 117 homers at age 23) might be one of the best you're going to find if looking for that big power bat. I'm not in the "Trade everything for him" camp, but I do understand the allure. Opportunities to add those type of guys don't come around often. That's why I'm focusing my hopes on Bogaerts living up to his billing and Middlebrooks putting it together this year rather than dreaming about some other team's slugger.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO, the 'wouldn't have won any of the 3 championships without Manny/Ortiz' arguement is my arguement for why I wouldn't put together a package for Stanton like I would for Manny/Ortiz.  I know Manny/Ortiz, and Stanton is no Manny/Ortiz.  Just a good middle of the order bat.  But I am not mortgaging future for him.

    Thing is, I don't see too many hitters in the entire league these days who warrant comparison to Manny and Ortiz in their primes. We do have one of them, the actual Ortiz, who still does a good impression of the Ortiz of 2004...but beyond that, who? Cabrera, Trout, perhaps Davis if this year was the beginning of a trend...and beyond that, not many. In another thread, there was a poster chastising Cherington for not adding a 35-homer stud this winter...but how many such hitters even exist in MLB right now?

    The Manny/Ortiz combo will be the stuff of legend for many years, and for good reason. People hoping for it to be duplicated are likely to be disappointed.

    With that in mind, I do think Stanton (with a career .889 OPS and 117 homers at age 23) might be one of the best you're going to find if looking for that big power bat. I'm not in the "Trade everything for him" camp, but I do understand the allure. Opportunities to add those type of guys don't come around often. That's why I'm focusing my hopes on Bogaerts living up to his billing and Middlebrooks putting it together this year rather than dreaming about some other team's slugger.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, well put Flap.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to have Stanton in the middle of the Sox line-up.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to seannybboi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140319-live-now-red-sox-chat-with-britton-and-macpherson.ece

    they think Owens, WMB, Betts, and Anthony Ranaudo or Brian Johnson could get Stanton.  Do you agree?  Would you do this trade if you were Sox GM?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Half the starting line-up except Pedy and throw in Owens and Ranaudo

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Do not trade OWENS at any cost !!

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Good discussion, everyone, thanks.  I finally see why the fuss over Stanton.  The question as always is, how affordable is his price?  I know about Middlebrooks, but don't know those other guys on the way up. 

    Someone above pointed out that our outfield as currently envisioned--Vic in RF, Sizemore in CF, and Gomes/Nava in LF--should be decent at the plate and in the field.  Stanton in LF, his mostly like position, would not be that much of a plus-up.  Well, you say, he is the next DH, but the Sox just signed Ortiz thru 2015.  Plus, with MBR gone, we have to move Bogaerts back to 3B, which is good, and then go find a SS. 

    In fact, bat-wise, we would be giving up MBR's bat for Stanton's bat, plus we would give the Marlins a bunch of prospects. 

    On the other hand, Stanton just might have the best bat available and at a low salary.   

     

     

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to MadMc44's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Would you trade Xander even up for Giancarlo rather than put a package together?

    Stanton has shown he's capable of putting up pretty good numbers. Xander is still a prospect after a handful of games.

    I would be inclined to go for Stanton and Cishek, as I've advocated for in the past, in exchange for perhaps Xander, Taz, Johnson and  Brentz. No way I give up the pitching proposed earlier.

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    No Bogaerts! Let Renauldo, Barnes, Betts, Cecchini go, but no Bogaerts!

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Good discussion, everyone, thanks.  I finally see why the fuss over Stanton.  The question as always is, how affordable is his price?  I know about Middlebrooks, but don't know those other guys on the way up. 

    Someone above pointed out that our outfield as currently envisioned--Vic in RF, Sizemore in CF, and Gomes/Nava in LF--should be decent at the plate and in the field.  Stanton in LF, his mostly like position, would not be that much of a plus-up.  Well, you say, he is the next DH, but the Sox just signed Ortiz thru 2015.  Plus, with MBR gone, we have to move Bogaerts back to 3B, which is good, and then go find a SS. 

    In fact, bat-wise, we would be giving up MBR's bat for Stanton's bat, plus we would give the Marlins a bunch of prospects. 

    On the other hand, Stanton just might have the best bat available and at a low salary.   

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Stanton rates to be a significant upgrade over the Nava/Gomes platoon, and in theory, if we picked up Stanton via trade, we could trade Nava and/or Gomes for some prospects to help fill the void left by trading Middy, Ranaudo, Barnes, Betts and Brentz or whoever they'd have gotten.

    Stanton can bat 3rd or 4th. I doubt Nava/Gomes could handle that slot for long.

    I've never said I am for trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, but he fits the mold of what we need: a young, cheap, controlled slugger who plays OF.

    Remember, Gomes may be gone after this year, and Victorino's deal runs out after 2015, so getting Stanton soon could be a nice proactive move.

    Maybe at the deadline, our needs might be a little clearer and our prospects easier to project, but maybe we could do something like this:

    Trade 2 out of Nava, Gomes and Carp for the best prospects the Marlins like. Flip those prospects plus Betts, Middy and one of Ranaudo/Barnes/Webster/de la Rosa and see if that works. Then, bring up Cecchini  for this 25 man roster:

    C: AJP/Ross (Vazquez/Butler/Swihart next year)

    1B: Napoli/Papi

    2B: Pedroia

    SS: Bogaerts/Herrera

    3B: Cecchini (Next year: Betts if not part of the Stanton deal)

    LF: Stanton/1 out of Nava/Gomes/Carp

    CF: JBJ/Sizemore (next year: Hassan or Brentz)

    RF: Victorino

    SP: Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Peavy, Doubront, Capuano

    RP: Uehara, Mujica, Tazawa, Breslow, Miller, Badenhop

    (next year: Workman, Britton, Webster, Ranaudo or Barnes & Owens)

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    For those thinking we may get a big slugger or other notable free agents next winter, who do you see on this list of potential free agents for 2015?

    (* has a 2015 option)

    1B: Billy Butler*, Michael Cuddyer, Corey Hart, Adam Lind*, Victorino Martinez

    SS: JJ hardy, Jed Lowrie, Asdrubal Cabrera

    3B: Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, Aramis Ramirez, Chase Headley

    OF: Melky Cabrera, T Hunter, R Ibanez, N Markakis*, Mike Morse, C Rasmus, A Rios, A Sorinao, J Willingham

     

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    IMO, the 'wouldn't have won any of the 3 championships without Manny/Ortiz' arguement is my arguement for why I wouldn't put together a package for Stanton like I would for Manny/Ortiz.  I know Manny/Ortiz, and Stanton is no Manny/Ortiz.  Just a good middle of the order bat.  But I am not mortgaging future for him.

    We also wouldn't have won without good pitching.

    And i think good corner hitting is a lot easier to come by.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Imagine signing Grady Sizemore 6 years ago, if he hit free agency right before it all fell apart?

    Point being.  Do we really want to give up several + prospects who will all likely be at least average MLBers and possibly a couple allstars for a guy, ONE guy, who has a hard time staying on the field in his early 20's....for 3 years.

    Unless of course we sign him to a long term extension.  And while Cecchini, WMB, Betts, Owens + others are tearing it up in Florida we can sit here and say "gee I'm sure glad we gave up that boat load of cost controlled players to pay one guy 25 million a year to sit on the bench"

    Sometimes you just have to smell the coffee.  Stanton looks like he could possibly be in the early stages of someone who can't stay on the field. Trading the future for him would be dumb....very very very dumb.

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wouldn't make the trade.

    I'm always hesitant to trade a bunch of prospects for one player. There have been too many cases where it blows up in the face of the team that traded the prospects.

    And there's just something about Stanton that makes me want to stay away from him. I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps it's the hype. Perhaps it's him playing under 123 and 116 games respectively the last two years. I don't know, but something inside me says stay away.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. You never know what's going to happen with one player, and if something does, you lose all the guys you traded for him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Conversely, you never know what is going to happen with the prospects, either.   They could become superstars, but they could also all turn into mediocre players and career minor leaguers.

     

    If you like using the BA Top 100 as the Gold Standard for prospect evaluation, the suggested/reported offer contains #40, #75 and one unranked prospect.

     

    Obviously, the ranking means very little going forward and all rankings and classes are not equal, but to give some context to these rankings, starting in 2012 (assuming 2013 rankings are too soon to tell anything), the last 10 players ranked #40 are: Arodys Vizcaino, Brett Lawrie, Aaron Crow, Brett Wallace, Austin Jackson, Carlos Carrasco, Anibal Sanchez, Conor Jackson, Merkin Valdez, Andy Marte.   In the same years, the following players were ranked #75 by BA: Marcell Ozuna, Zack Cozart, Anthony Rizzo, Josh Reddick, Jose Tabata, Tyler Colvin, Joba Chamberlain, Matt Moses, Billy Butler, Bubba Nelson, and David Wright.  

     

    At the very least, there are mixed degrees of success.  It might be notable that with the sole exception of David Wright, there are no names connected with superstars at those rankings, although that is misleading because it involved 2 specific rankings and far more successful players do rank above and below every name on that list.  There are some familiar names, and even some the Sox dealt away not only without killing the franchise, but occasionally in deals that helped.  Sure, it hurts if you deal away 2006 #40 Anibal Sanchez and 2003 #75 David Wright in the same deal.  But it’s not so much a big deal if you old friend 2003 #40 Andy Marte and 2007 #75 Tyler Colvin.

     

    I know faith is really high in Owens and especially in Betts, but at some point it does become important to have some context, and acknowledge that prospects far more widely regarded than these two have failed to live up to expectations.   And prospects less regarded than both have gone on to far greater success than Owens or Betts ever will...

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO, the 'wouldn't have won any of the 3 championships without Manny/Ortiz' arguement is my arguement for why I wouldn't put together a package for Stanton like I would for Manny/Ortiz.  I know Manny/Ortiz, and Stanton is no Manny/Ortiz.  Just a good middle of the order bat.  But I am not mortgaging future for him.

    Thing is, I don't see too many hitters in the entire league these days who warrant comparison to Manny and Ortiz in their primes. We do have one of them, the actual Ortiz, who still does a good impression of the Ortiz of 2004...but beyond that, who? Cabrera, Trout, perhaps Davis if this year was the beginning of a trend...and beyond that, not many. In another thread, there was a poster chastising Cherington for not adding a 35-homer stud this winter...but how many such hitters even exist in MLB right now?

    The Manny/Ortiz combo will be the stuff of legend for many years, and for good reason. People hoping for it to be duplicated are likely to be disappointed.

    With that in mind, I do think Stanton (with a career .889 OPS and 117 homers at age 23) might be one of the best you're going to find if looking for that big power bat. I'm not in the "Trade everything for him" camp, but I do understand the allure. Opportunities to add those type of guys don't come around often. That's why I'm focusing my hopes on Bogaerts living up to his billing and Middlebrooks putting it together this year rather than dreaming about some other team's slugger.

    [/QUOTE]

     


    If the Sox could ge Stanton without giving up Bogaerts or Bradley, and really giving up only 2 of their top ten, they would be crazy not to make that deal.

     

    Wave all the red flags you want about Stanton, but the guy is putting up extremly solid production numbers in a huge ballpark with no protection in the lineup.  You can't say that about Mookie Betts, and you never will either...

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

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Imagine signing Grady Sizemore 6 years ago, if he hit free agency right before it all fell apart?

    Point being.  Do we really want to give up several + prospects who will all likely be at least average MLBers and possibly a couple allstars for a guy, ONE guy, who has a hard time staying on the field in his early 20's....for 3 years.

    Unless of course we sign him to a long term extension.  And while Cecchini, WMB, Betts, Owens + others are tearing it up in Florida we can sit here and say "gee I'm sure glad we gave up that boat load of cost controlled players to pay one guy 25 million a year to sit on the bench"

    Sometimes you just have to smell the coffee.  Stanton looks like he could possibly be in the early stages of someone who can't stay on the field. Trading the future for him would be dumb....very very very dumb.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not for trading those 5 for Stanton, but there is a good chance those 5 never add up to what Stanton can give, so I don't see it as very dumb. BTW, we wouldnt give WMB & Cecchini.

     

Share