Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Bad Fish Posted: July 01, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4170907)
I know you said that you didn't want to focus on who or what they could get, but the only people on this list that would have to be replaced in the short term are Beckett and Lester, so the for once the Sox are in a position where they can both play for the now and trade for the future. I am of mixed mind about prospects. It seems as if they are always overvalued, so trading them away for known production seems smart, but every once in a while you swap a Jeff Bagwell for a bag of turds.

I would prefer to see them trade Salty rather than Shoppach. Lavarnway is a lefty, right (?) and probably replaces Salty's production with better plate discipline - although I do like Jarrod's earnestness...he tries very hard to be a good player and teammate. Also, Shoppach is the better defensive player.
I don't see them betting rid of Ross, he is a right handed power hitter and draws walks. I prefer Nava to either Sweeny or Podsenick. He has a great approach at the plate, complements Ross, seems like he runs well, and I think he does just fine in the field. Also he is cheap and therefore will be valuable for a while, assuming he continues to hit well.

I'm happy to see Iglesias go, I don't think he will ever have a major league bat, but facing another year of .290 OBP from our SS will be tough, even if he hits 20-25 homeruns.
   2. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 01, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4170920)
Lavarnway is a righty so I think the logical move is to deal Shoppach.

I agree on Nava over Sweeney and Pods but I think Nava is going to be the player teams are more interested in and as much as I love the job he has done he is not a player I think the Sox should be particularly bothered by dealing.

I don't think they want to deal Ross but I think they are going to be asked about him regularly over the next month. If I were a GM dealing with the Sox for an outfielder he'd be the guy I'd ask for.

Promoting Iglesias won't cure the problem of a year of .290 OBP and he isn't bringing close to 20 homers with it. Iglesias is superior to Aviles defensively of course but Aviles has been pretty good and I think the Sox can feel comfortable with him if someone offers them something useful for Iglesias.
   3. The District Attorney Posted: July 01, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4170940)
Lavarnway is a lefty, right (?)
No.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't refresh somehow.
   4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 01, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4170954)
Lavarnway is a righty so I think the logical move is to deal Shoppach.
No one wants to deal Lavarnway for the hell of it - the point would be to deal Lavarnway in order to acquire a good starting pitcher. Shoppach won't help with that task, except at the margins, while it's conceivable that a non-contending club might value Lavarnway comparably to a good starting pitcher.

I continue to recoil a bit at the blithe "let's trade away useful major league players because he have too many useful major league players" tone of many of these discussions. (Not directed at anyone in particular, and probably partly a symptom of reading SoSH this afternoon.) Just a month ago the Sox needed every single piece of depth in the system, plus some outside of it, to maintain a winning roster. I don't want to trade away useful players unless there's a significant return in value for this season.

And, barring any new major injuries, "significant return in value for this season" means good, possible playoff starting pitching. Does it mean anything else? I guess you could make a case for dealing some bullpen depth for a 7th starter type. But otherwise, it's about getting a Matt Garza, or better a Cole Hamels or a Zack Greinke. And in those trades, conceivably the Sox could score a B/C prospect for some of their depth, but the major pieces would have to be minor leaguers.

So it seems to me like the discussion should be more about the minor leaguers, who's tradeable, who's untouchable, who's worth a good-not-great starter, who's worth more than that, and so on. To kick it off, I give the MCoA "Will Middlebrooks is worthless let's dump him now" seal of approval to shopping Bryce Brentz as a primary piece in a medium trade or secondary piece in a big trade.
   5. Textbook Editor Posted: July 01, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4171001)
OK, here goes one man's fantasy, F-ing A trade:

It would seem Cole Hamels would be available (if various reports are true); the issue there is that unless he's wowed by the ambiance over the two months you have him, he's either going to cost you top-FA $ to re-sign or you'll lose him (but you'd get a pick because you almost certainly would make him a qualifying offer that would get you a pick).

OK, so if you work on the assumption Hamels can be had, what would the Phillies want/need, both to see out 2012 and onward into 2013?

1) They need a LF (in 2012) and a CF (for 2013, assuming Victorino walks)
2) They need a 3B
3) The need a 2B platoon partner (RHB) for Utley that--it seems likely--will be more like a job-share going forward
4) They need a SP to replace Hamels and one to replace Blanton for 2013
5) They need salary relief going forward

With Blanton ($8 million), Victorino ($9.5 million), and Polanco ($4.5 million, after buyout) coming off the books for 2013, the Phillies have $22 million already lined up to be saved for 2012. Hamels being gone would save $15 million more, and then you have various buyouts that could save you salaries on Wigginton ($3.5 million net savings), Contreras ($2 million), Thome ($1.5 million), Qualls ($1.15 million), Pierre ($0.8 million). If they really wanted to go crazy they could deal Pence before his arbitration hearing and save themselves another $11-$12 million. To sum up:

No Blanton, Victorino, Polanco in 2013 = $22 million saved
No Hamels in 2012 = $15 million saved
No Wigginton, Contreras, Thome, Qualls, Pierre in 2013 = $8.95 million saved
TOTAL POSSIBLE SAVINGS: $45.95 million

Now, you can get quite a lot for $46 million or so, but you're also needing to replace your CF, 2 SPs, a fair amount of backup/bullpen depth, and both 3B you started 2012 with. And you still need an everyday LF you feel good about (and maybe a RF if you decide to save some more $ by non-tendering/trading Pence).

If the Red Sox play their cards right, it's possible they could get Hamels as part of a deal to dump Crawford. Crawford is the sort of guy the Phillies F.O. would seem to love--a speed guy with some power--and who plays a position that currently is in a state of flux. I know Crawford's hurt and I know it's a long shot and unless Crawford comes up soon and starts hitting/playing well, this has no shot of happening... But if Crawford shows any signs of life, I think you might be able to package him along with someone like Ross and a couple of the bullpen arms (and, yes, probably a bit of cash) and land Hamels. The Phillies would get to say it wasn't a salary dump (which it wouldn't be, since they were getting an All-Star-caliber LF in return), but a "recalibration"--acquiring offense instead of going after SP, with an eye towards a more balanced approach in 2013.

If they dump Pence in the offseason (to save more $), Ross would slot into RF if Brown wasn't ready, or into CF if he was. If they want another SP instead of Ross (and they might), offer Dice-K and some extra cash… Though I'll admit this might be a situation where someone like Dubront (or if you want to sell really high on Morales) might have to come into play in order to make it work for Philly.

If you're ever going to dump Crawford, now--and to Philly--might be the time to do it. It would be (for me, at least), less about acquiring Hamels (who I'd expect to be gone after 2012) and instead all about shedding one of the big albatross contracts on perhaps the only team that might be fool enough to take him (given their institutional biases in favor of players like Crawford).

[/pipe dream]
   6. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:15 AM (#4171060)
Crawford for an impact player approaching FA? TE, sign me right the #### on up.

Aside from that, agree with MCoA's 2nd para. If garbage is what they got for Youk, I shudder to think what the return might be for Ross.
   7. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:45 AM (#4171091)
Let me be clear, I am certainly not advocating a trade "because he have too many useful major league players." What I was getting at was just a recognition of what the Sox have to deal and how those players will break down. I think the point MCoA made in some of the Youk threads (paraphrasing: "good trades are good, bad trades are bad") is important. I think we have to recognize what the Sox have though.
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:48 AM (#4171092)
And after we trade Crawford "plus a could of bullpen arms" (and cash!) for Hamels, then I'd imagine that Ruben Amaro will call his friends Joe Jonas and Carly Rae Jepsen, and they can come over and eat pizza and ice cream with us and make a youtube lipsynch video of "Boyfriend", and then they can take us to their personal stables and give us all a pony.

Would it be possible to land Hamels for a package that didn't include Barnes, Bradley, or Bogaerts? I would be on board for trading anyone in the farm system apart from the killer Bs for Hamels. Every midseason, there's usually at least one star traded for an underwhelming, Jacobs/Brentz/Iglesias kind of package, so I don't think it's entirely implausible. (As a response to Jose's post, I still rate Bogaerts as the best prospect in the system - dude is 19 - and I definitely don't buy that Bradley or Barnes has easily surpassed him.)
   9. I Am Not a Number Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:58 AM (#4171095)
[/pipe dream]

Yeah, crack pipe.

   10. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 08:06 AM (#4171097)
I should say, trading Lavarnway to get Hamels would hurt. I'm sure I could talk myself into it if it happened, which would be a lot harder to do with Barnes, Bradley, or Bogaerts.

But Lavarnway seems like the kind of guy that most teams are not going to rate as highly as the Sox do, so I'm not really worried about losing Lavarnway to anyone other than the Cubs.

The farm system for me is:

Bogaerts-Barnes-Bradley
-gap-
Lavarnway-(Travis Shaw if the scouting reports match the results)
-gap-
everyone else in some order
   11. Textbook Editor Posted: July 02, 2012 at 08:30 AM (#4171102)
You guys underestimate how dumb Amaro is. You wouldn't need Lavarnway or any of the three B's to get Hamels. Amaro learned at the feet of Ed Wade... you toss a couple of usable bullpen arms with shiny ERAs at him, plus Crawford, plus a middling prospect, plus cash, for what will likely amount to a 2-month rental of Hamels, and I think he jumps. They aren't going to sign Hamels, and this gives him the chance to wave the trade in front of the fans and say "See! I got something useful! And that meanie Hamels wasn't going to sign anyway!"

But really, you underestimate how bad Amaro is at his job/how poor he is valuing talent. He there to be swindled, I say; it might as well be us who does it.
   12. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 08:33 AM (#4171105)
You guys underestimate how dumb Amaro is.
No, I don't.
   13. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 02, 2012 at 08:36 AM (#4171106)
Jeff Bagwell haunts Red Sox Nation for obvious reasons.

Jeff Bagwell haunts everybody else's fans because it will, for years to come, represent the example of a deadline deal that ends up netting the "selling off" team a Hall of Fame prospect.

I'm not sure what people thought Youkilis was going to fetch the Red Sox - he's old, he's slow, he's heavy, he was hitting .216 with increasingly frequent injuries, he's a free agent at the end of the season...I mean, CC Sabathia got traded to Milwaukee a few years back, was the hottest deadline deal target in recent history, and the guys acquired by Cleveland for him have done jack ####.

A couple of examples of the kind of trade I'd like to see the Sox make, though:

July 31, 2010: Boston gets Salty for three low-ceiling minor leaguers. The Sox were not going to the playoffs that year, but they saw a chance to buy low on a 24-year-old catch with pop, but who had gotten Mackey Sasser Disease.

July 31, 2010: Octavio Dotel to the Dodgers, Pirates get James McDonald. McDonald was 24, no real success in limited time in the majors, but with pitchers, you never know.

If you can get a prospect on whom you are buying low, or if you can get a young pitcher with limited success in the majors, but who can strike out a guy an inning in the minors, you go for it. You're not getting Jeff Bagwell.
   14. bfan Posted: July 02, 2012 at 08:44 AM (#4171107)
The Miles Head trade is going to turn out for the Red Sox like the Jeff Bagwell trade. They dumped a great hitter because he could only play 1B/3B. That limitation may be true, but...
   15. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 02, 2012 at 08:44 AM (#4171108)
But Lavarnway seems like the kind of guy that most teams are not going to rate as highly as the Sox do, so I'm not really worried about losing Lavarnway to anyone other than the Cubs.

The farm system for me is:

Bogaerts-Barnes-Bradley
-gap-
Lavarnway-(Travis Shaw if the scouting reports match the results)
-gap-
everyone else in some order


I've got Bogaerts somewhere between that first and second group. If he can stick at short I think he is legitimately in that top group but no one seems to think that is going to happen. I would put Brentz in with Lavarnway but other than that no quibbles with your breakdown. What about Iglesias though? I'm not entirely certain what I think of him and I'm not certain I have a handle on how the Sox think of him.
   16. tfbg9 Posted: July 02, 2012 at 08:58 AM (#4171112)
Middlebrooks has now gotten hurt, the hamstring. Right after they dump Youks. Awesome. Its supposedly unclear how severe the injury is. Perfect.
   17. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4171143)
If Xander Bogaerts were a 19-year-old with plus-plus power and one of the best hitting lines in the Carolina League, who was expected to stick at shortstop, he'd be our best prospect by a significant margin. It's only because he's likely to be moved to 3B that he's merely in the top three. Bogaerts is a couple years younger than either Barnes or Bradley, and he's playing at the same level as Barnes, with Bradley only promoted two weeks ago. He's behind them a bit in baseball skills, but his upside is just crazy at this point given his age, performance, and tools.
   18. The District Attorney Posted: July 02, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4171255)
Isn't everyone saying that there won't be compensation for Hamels? I have no idea at all how this works.

I don't see any way in the world that Carl Crawford can, by July 31, undo all of the damage to his value that has been done in the past year and a half.

The Miles Head trade is going to turn out for the Red Sox like the Jeff Bagwell trade.
Wow.
   19. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4171258)
Well, now the Sox have a hole at 3B that they need filled by a stopgap. This seems like a perfect opportunity to trade some depth, either minor or major league, for a cromulent infielder. I wonder what kind of return we could get for Brent Lillibridge and Zach Stewart.

It shouldn't cost much of anything to acquire someone better than Nick Punto. Brandon Inge is the first name I thought of
   20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4171259)
Isn't everyone saying that there won't be compensation for Hamels? I have no idea at all how this works.
My understanding is that Hamels would definitely bring compensation. The new CBA says you have to offer a qualifying contract to get compensation. In the first year, that qualifying contract would be ~$12M, and that's a no-brainer offer. (Unless Hamels has a no-arbitration clause in his contract or something, but I don't see anything of that sort on Cot's.)
   21. Dan Posted: July 02, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4171263)
I thought you couldn't get a compensation pick if the free agent in question was on your team for less than a full season?
   22. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4171268)
I thought you couldn't get a compensation pick if the free agent in question was on your team for less than a full season?
This is correct. I was wrong - didn't know that. No compensation for Hamels.
   23. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 02, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4171285)

It shouldn't cost much of anything to acquire someone better than Nick Punto. Brandon Inge is the first name I thought of


Extra Bases notes that Andy Laroche is now in Pawtucket the Sox have a 40 man roster issue. Frankly, if Andy Laroche is better than Brent Lillibridge then you waive Lillibridge. EB also notes that the Padres are shopping Chase Headley. I am a huge Headley fan and if they can get him I'm all for it.

Are we jumping the gun though? What's the seriousness of Middlebrooks' injury, it seems like that's not clear yet.
   24. Nasty Nate Posted: July 02, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4171287)
But the Phillies would still lose compensation by trading him away, correct?
   25. Martin Hemner Posted: July 02, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4171317)
I think Hamels for Crawford is unlikely. Would you trade Crawford (5 years, around $20 mil per year)for Cliff Lee (minimum 3 years / 87.5 mil, vesting option could make it 4 @ 102 mil)?
   26. Textbook Editor Posted: July 02, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4171376)
Would you trade Crawford (5 years, around $20 mil per year)for Cliff Lee (minimum 3 years / 87.5 mil, vesting option could make it 4 @ 102 mil)?


Yes, but the Phillies aren't making that trade. They will get rid of Hamels by the trade deadline. If it's leaking now that they're listening to offers, that's just so the public can get used to the idea over the next 30 days. The leaked story that they made several offers that were turned down should be set to appear in about a week or so, followed the following week by a leaked story of how greedy he is, followed the following week by a leaked story that Hamels "was always a California kind of guy" who "didn't fit the Philly mold," etc., etc...

I'm more interested in dumping Crawford than getting Hamels for 2 months (as is probably obvious). If getting Hamels means giving up anything that will be missed, I would pass. (And yes--for me, at least--Crawford would not be missed.)
   27. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: July 02, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4171387)
I'm more interested in dumping Crawford than getting Hamels for 2 months (as is probably obvious). If getting Hamels means giving up anything that will be missed, I would pass. (And yes--for me, at least--Crawford would not be missed.)
I just don't see any way we are getting out from under Crawford's contract--*especially* if we're getting something valuable like Hamels back--unless we eat a significant portion of that contract, or taking on a similarly large contract of the Phillies'.
   28. Textbook Editor Posted: July 02, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4171410)
I just don't see any way we are getting out from under Crawford's contract--*especially* if we're getting something valuable like Hamels back--


The Phillies are trading 2-3 months of Hamels. That's it. Unless you are the Yankees with gobs of $ or a team based in CA, you cannot expect more than a 2-3 month rental. That has limited value, trade-wise. I'd argue Crawford (at a reduced cost or with other players added in) has significantly more value going forward than 2-3 months of Hamels... even with the problems he's had.

unless we eat a significant portion of that contract


What's significant? $5 million/year? $7.5 million/year?

   29. Kurt Posted: July 02, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4171414)
I'd argue Crawford (at a reduced cost or with other players added in) has significantly more value going forward than 2-3 months of Hamels

That parenthetical phrase is doing a hell of a lot of work, isn't it? Hamels has limited trade value but Crawford has negative trade value, to the point where you need to add other players or tens of millions of dollars to generate any interest.
   30. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4171416)
But the Phillies would still lose compensation by trading him away, correct?


Yes. His new team won't get compensation, either. You can only offer qualifying offers (that net a draft pick if the player turns down) if the player has been on your team for at least a full season.
   31. Martin Hemner Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4171445)
Yes, but the Phillies aren't making that trade.

Why not? If they believe Crawford has good value going forward, then they can make this trade, save about $5-6 million a year, and sign Hamels, a better and younger pitcher, to a deal like Lee's before he hits free agency hopefully. The only reason they wouldn't is if they believe that there is good chance that Crawford may be a lost cause, which is likely what most of baseball believes right now.
   32. Kurt Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4171466)
Why not? If they believe Crawford has good value going forward, then they can make this trade, save about $5-6 million a year, and sign Hamels, a better and younger pitcher, to a deal like Lee's before he hits free agency hopefully. The only reason they wouldn't is if they believe that there is good chance that Crawford may be a lost cause, which is likely what most of baseball believes right now.

Crawford doesn't have to be a lost cause for the Phillies to turn down the trade; he only has to be a worse player than Cliff Lee. Even if Lee's option vests the $5-6 million/yr in savings gets mostly wiped out in 2017, when Crawford is on the books for $21 million and Lee is free as a bird.
   33. Martin Hemner Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4171502)
Crawford doesn't have to be a lost cause for the Phillies to turn down the trade; he only has to be a worse player than Cliff Lee. Even if Lee's option vests the $5-6 million/yr in savings gets mostly wiped out in 2017, when Crawford is on the books for $21 million and Lee is free as a bird.

I'm not particularly high on Crawford now, so I wouldn't make this deal if I were the Phillies. And I agree with your previous point that Crawford likely has negative trade value.

But, if the starting point is that the Phillies are in some way willing to take on Crawford's contract, I have to assume that they would rather dump a struggling pitcher with a mega-contract back on the Red Sox then simply assume the contract on its own. Additionally, while your point is valid about 2017, the Phillies might be willing to put that worry on the backburner if it meant that the current differences in Crawford's and Lee's contracts would allow them to keep Hamels. In essence, they would be upgrading from Lee to Hamels (under the assumption that Hamels is otherwise leaving).
   34. TomH Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4171521)
www.minorleagueball.com; Sickels out wiht his updated top 120 prospect list

11) Xander Bogaerts, SS, Boston Red Sox
36) Jackie Bradley, OF, Boston Red Sox
41) Matt Barnes, RHP, Boston Red Sox
59) Ryan Lavarnway, C, Boston Red Sox

   35. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4171526)
The Phillies are trading 2-3 months of Hamels. That's it. Unless you are the Yankees with gobs of $ or a team based in CA, you cannot expect more than a 2-3 month rental. That has limited value, trade-wise. I'd argue Crawford (at a reduced cost or with other players added in) has significantly more value going forward than 2-3 months of Hamels... even with the problems he's had.
I know, it's at most half a season of Hamels. But that's worth something. You'd also have first dibs on resigning him, which also has some value.

But that's not really my point. Crawford is still owed something like $112 million over the next 5.5 seasons. He's coming off an abysmal season, and an injury, and he's a speed player now on the wrong side of 30. And he hasn't actually played in MLB yet this year. Why would the Phillies assume all or even most of that financial risk and throw in a trade chit as well?

What's significant? $5 million/year? $7.5 million/year?
If I'm Amaro, I'm probably asking for at least $7.5/year to start. Crawford's contract, especially at this moment, looks like a huge overpay. If he comes back very soon and hits and runs and fields like his 2010 self, sure maybe the equation changes. But I still don't see anyone tripping over themselves for the right to pay him $20 million per for 5+ more years.
   36. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4171531)
11) Xander Bogaerts, SS, Boston Red Sox
36) Jackie Bradley, OF, Boston Red Sox
41) Matt Barnes, RHP, Boston Red Sox
59) Ryan Lavarnway, C, Boston Red Sox


Clearly I'm underrating Bogaerts. I don't think I'm appreciating his ability to improve as time goes on.

And that is incredibly exciting. That the Sox would have 3 legitimate top 50 prospects plus meaningful contributions from three rookies in Kalish*, Doubront* and Middlebrooks is awfully exciting.

* are Kalish and Doobs considered rookies? Either way, "young players" works just as well there.
   37. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4171542)
There are still more Sox on the list:
11) Xander Bogaerts, SS, Boston Red Sox (30)
36) Jackie Bradley, OF, Boston Red Sox (unranked)
41) Matt Barnes, RHP, Boston Red Sox (74)
59) Ryan Lavarnway, C, Boston Red Sox (97)
90) Blake Swihart, C, Boston Red Sox (unranked)
105) Brandon Jacobs, OF, Boston Red Sox (89)
119) Henry Owens, LHP, Boston Red Sox (unranked)

Honorable Mention: Bryce Brentz, Garin Cecchini, Jose Vinicio
It's been a great couple months in the minors for the Red Sox.

EDIT: And I found the one disappointing thing on that list - no Travis Shaw. Suggests the scouting reports on Shaw remain underwhelming.
   38. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4171547)
Amaro learned at the feet of Ed Wade... you toss a couple of usable bullpen arms with shiny ERAs at him

Which relief pitchers have the Phillies traded for, since Ed Wade was fired post-2005?

2012: none
2011: none
2010: none
2009: Jack Taschner
2008: Scott Eyre
2007: Brad Lidge, Julio "The Scumbag" Mateo (never pitched for Phillies in the majors)
2006: Arthur Rhodes

   39. Textbook Editor Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4171583)
Crispix, if the Phillies prefer all of their in-house options for fixing their bullpen woes this year, then I certainly stand corrected. Can I offer a slightly used Cody Ross or perhaps a plucky Nick Punto instead? :)
   40. tjm1 Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4171601)
In essence, they would be upgrading from Lee to Hamels (under the assumption that Hamels is otherwise leaving).


So far this year, Lee and Hamels have the same strikeout rate. Lee has a better walk rate, and a better home run rate. Lee has been better than Hamels most of the past five years. Hamels is younger, so he might be a slightly better bet going forward, but I don't know that there's a real difference in what to expect from Lee vs. Hamels the rest of this year, unless you think Lee's struggle the past few starts are related to an injury.
   41. Darren Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4171617)
To get back to Matt's early comment, I don't think you can move forward trying to be prepared for the plague that befell the Sox because you can't know where you'll be hit (OF? SP? IF?) and you can't be that deep everywhere. When/if everyone's healthy, the Sox will have Nava/Ross/Sweeny/Kalish/Crawford/Ellsbury, and all of those guys are arguably starting quality OF. Stashing 1 in AAA and trading one still leaves you with depth in the Majors and at AAA.

Now, as for how to replace Youk/Middlebrooks (ha, they deserve that predicament), I like Daniel Murphy. He belongs at 3B and the Mets need some relief, which the Sox can spare.
   42. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4171626)
When/if everyone's healthy, the Sox will have Nava/Ross/Sweeny/Kalish/Crawford/Ellsbury, and all of those guys are arguably starting quality OF. Stashing 1 in AAA and trading one still leaves you with depth in the Majors and at AAA.
That's only if they're all healthy. Probably one of those guys will be injured. Stash one more at AAA and you have the depth you want.

As Jose quoted me saying, good trades are good. I have nothing against trading from our outfield depth to get something the team needs. I don't want the club to make a trade in order to get rid of something, and I'm opposed to trading from the outfield depth to get a random C-prospect flyer.
   43. Darren Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4171635)
I only advocate dealing Ross because I think he'll bring something good back without hurting the team much. Unfortunately, it may not be a piece that helps much this year, but I'd take it.
   44. Darren Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4171638)
Plus Linares!
   45. Darren Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4171644)
Also have to agree that Bogartes is as untouchable as it gets. If Seattle suddenly decides that they want to be rid of King Felix, okay, but otherwise, he's staying put...
   46. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4171645)
I think losing Cody Ross hurts the team pretty significantly. He's the #4 outfielder no matter who the first three are, because all of Nava, Kalish, and Sweeney should sit against LHP if Ross is available. He's an excellent bench bat who provides some tactical flexibility - if a right-hander starts and the opposition brings in a lefty, Ross is the best pinch-hitter to cover our platoons at RF and C.
   47. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4171647)
Crispix, if the Phillies prefer all of their in-house options for fixing their bullpen woes this year, then I certainly stand corrected. Can I offer a slightly used Cody Ross or perhaps a plucky Nick Punto instead? :)

I'm just saying Ruben Amaro Jr. doesn't make a habit of trading for relievers, and especially not midseason. But yes, the current situation is certainly one where Andrew Miller or Scott Atchison would probably improve the team. Due to various injuries and the sad performances of Chad Qualls and the once-touted Joe Savery, we have Raul Valdes, Schwimer and Bastardo all pitching pretty well, Papelbon doing his thing, and nothing else.
   48. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4171649)
Brent Lillibridge has started 2 games in CF in the last week.

Brent Lillibridge.

Yesterday, he even led off.

Brent Lillibridge.
   49. Darren Posted: July 04, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4173193)
Split with Seattle and swept by Oakland--maybe this team is no good at all.
   50. Dale Sams Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4173237)
Wait, we traded Coco Crisp, Lowrie, and Reddick for relievers...surely we can get other teams to give us something for ours? Oh we can't? okay.
   51. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:55 AM (#4173421)
I just don't know what to think right now. On the one hand they went 2-5 on the trip but west coast trips are always unpleasant and they lost all five games by one run. Meanwhile for all the hubbub about the first half they are only 3 games out of a Wild Card spot and the cavalry is about a week away.

At the same time, they are 42-40 and I'm expecting 43-43 at the break. Dustin Pedroia looks like he might be in the first stage of a Youkilis, Adrian Gonzalez is in the midst of the lamest 15 game hitting streak ever and the pitching that has held up so well is showing some cracks.

They were 42-39 at the 81 game mark and I kind of feel like 84-78 is a pretty reasonable forecast. I can see this team collapsing and I can see them getting crazy hot. I think in the end they are going to keep doing what they've been doing all year, playing just well enough to disappoint.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3307 seconds
41 querie(s) executed