PDA

View Full Version : Rate the Sim: Bagwell368 as GM



RedSoxtober
12-05-2013, 01:14 PM
Before ST sign:

Grant Balfour: 2 years for $9.75M, mutual option 1 yr for $5.75M, buyout $.5k. One of the best set-up guys in the game.

Jeff Niemann - $3M ‘14 + $4.25M for ’15 if he appears in more than 20 games in ’14 (Majors & Minors combined). Oft injured, but experience in AL East. A fairly young vet at age 30, Young could be key 6th SP.

Rajai Davis - $2.75M 1 year (he wants to be full time, but with a LHH rookie in front of him he figures to get all LHS, PH for JBJ, Pinch base running, and some action vs RHP).

Eric Chavez: $4.25M for ’14. Just need him for about 55-70 starts (unless WMB hurt or dealt), maybe some PH. Have to overpay a bit, since he likes the Diamonbacks.

Ceasar Izturis: $875k for ‘14. Back-up/late inning guy for the kid, banjo bat.

Napoli - $29M for 2 years, mutual option in ‘16 for $15M or $1M buyout

During ST:

Trade Lackey, Peavy, Webster, RDLR, Nava, Brentz, Betts in 4 way (Lackey, Peavey, Nava to contenders – 2 high specs back to Marlins (1 ML top 15-50 types), Webster, RDLR, Brentz, Betts to Marlins for Stanton.

As part of deal Stanton signs 7/$122.5M deal ($17.5M per). It sounds low because we’re buying Stanton’s arb years (3 of them) for more than the arb years will ever get him, and a good salary for the 4 following years when he’d be a FA.

After opening day:

Lester signs 5 year/$117.5M extension ($23.5M per). ’18 + ’19 combined over 250 innings, 6th year vested at $27.5M. AAV $23.5M starts in ’15.

Other: Still a good chance that we could deal Dempster at the deadline, along with a pen arm or two – not clear now. This budget allows more money to be added if needed for ’14.

Summary: Besides dealing for Stanton, pretty much just patching holes.

Line-up:

vs LHS --- vs RHS

Victorino Victorino
Pedroia Pedroia
Ortiz Ortiz
Stanton Stanton
Chavez Napoli
Napoli XB
AJP WMB.
XB Ross (note I don’t believe in platooning catchers, but it looks good)
Davis JBJ

This line-up is straight death vs LHP. Lower 1/3 vs RHP a bit weak.

Budget:

My Red Sox budget for 2014: $177,050.00. Can’t push it to allow for other moves, and Lesters AAV goes from $9.37M this year to $23.5M in 2015 and beyond.

I list my projected 40 man roster, and all AAV numbers, plus extras:

Bennies $10.8M
Annual payment to Dodgers $3,900,000.00 for Gonzalez deal

SP: 7: $34.95M

Dempster: $13.25M
Lester: $9.37M
Buchholz: $7.75M
Jeff Niemann - $3M
Doubront - .58M
Workman .5M
Ranaudo .5M

RP: 11 $21.025M

Balfour $5.125M
Uehara: $4.25M
Breslow: $3.13M
Miller: (Arb: $1.9M)
Morales: (Arb: $1.8M)
Badenhop: (Arb: $1.95M)
Tazawa: (Arb: $1.1M)
Britton – .5M
Villarreal – 502k
Wilson - .5M
Wright - .5M

OF/DH: (9) $58.05M

Stanton: $17.5M
Ortiz: $17M
Victorino: $13M
Gomes: $5M
Rajai Davis $2.75M
Carp – Arb: $1.3M
Bradley .5M
Castellanos - .5M +
Hassan .5M +

C/INF: 13 $48.325M

AJP $8.25M
Ross: $3.1M
Napoli: $15M
Pedroia: $13.3M
Eric Chavez $4.25M
Izturis $875k
Middlebrooks .55M
Bogaerts - .5M
Lavarnway - .5M
Vazquez - .5M
Butler - .5M +
Holt - .5M
Cecchini - .5M

Key: + = liable not to be on 40 man by end of the year

ruckus16969
12-05-2013, 01:49 PM
I like the general idea behind it. But no way Stanton cost that much. That's 7 players for one. The Sox would be ridiculous to do that

PaudBall
12-05-2013, 03:10 PM
I like the general idea behind it. But no way Stanton cost that much. That's 7 players for one. The Sox would be ridiculous to do that

Really? I actually wasn't sure it was enough. The specs we give up aren't elite, so the fact that it's 7 doesn't matter. The hypothetical specs from the third team will have to be very enticing fir Miami.

homie564
12-05-2013, 04:10 PM
I like the general idea behind it. But no way Stanton cost that much. That's 7 players for one. The Sox would be ridiculous to do that

I actually think that's on the low end for Stanton.

Walligans
12-05-2013, 08:49 PM
No way the Marlins would trade Stanton for our spare parts. And we'd need at least a 27-man roster to fit all of those bench players on the major league team.

bagwell368
12-05-2013, 09:54 PM
Really? I actually wasn't sure it was enough. The specs we give up aren't elite, so the fact that it's 7 doesn't matter. The hypothetical specs from the third team will have to be very enticing fir Miami.

That's what I was going for. Trying to find contenders hungry for vet SP's to put on the top half of their rotation who would kick back the prime time picks that Miami wants.

Young corner OF's with big time production bats have become quite rare lately. They are going to get a king's ransom when they deal him.

Also in order to keep the budget in order I had to deal some big salary away, not just kids on minor league deals.

bagwell368
12-05-2013, 09:58 PM
No way the Marlins would trade Stanton for our spare parts. And we'd need at least a 27-man roster to fit all of those bench players on the major league team.

Firstly the specs they get (2) are not 100% sure to be ML players on Day 1. Brentz, Betts certainly are not ML ready. RDLR and Webster could go either way.

Nothing keeps Miami from moving players off the bottom half of their roster to other teams, the minors, or the streets in favor of what they got in the deal.

rollins94
12-05-2013, 10:07 PM
Im more concerned with the fact that this is basically gutting the rotation. Beyond Lester and Doubront and the 2/3 of a season you will get from Buch, its pretty much duct tape veterans and guys who havent yet established themselves. Im all for giving them that chance, but id feel more comfortable keeping one of peavy/lackey and chucking other prospects as necessary, allowing Ranaudo and Workman to compete for the fifth slot. Having both niemann and Buch makes that hard, and dempsters time here should be done after last year

That being said, that lineup you pose is formidable and probably a pretty good best case scenario as to how to upgrade offensively. your side piece FAs are good fits, from Davis, Niemann and Balfour (FWIW, would rather have him than Mujica for that $). very good sim

Bos_Sports4Life
12-06-2013, 01:29 AM
Not too shabby just disagree on a couple things.

1) Not really interested in Stanton and that deal kinda kills the pitching depth in the short term and those 3 prospects while not exactly "untouchable" type guys, Those 3 are still interesting.

2) Lesters 5 yr extension that will be from ages 31-35 (Possibly 36). He was obviously lights out in October however the past 2 seasons his rate stats have been pretty average. I just think 5-6 yr deals in the pitchers 30's carries a bit of risk.

I'd personally wait it out some, you could argue the closer we are away from free agency the more he will demand...But my argument is his value is at a high.

Walligans
12-06-2013, 02:18 AM
Firstly the specs they get (2) are not 100% sure to be ML players on Day 1. Brentz, Betts certainly are not ML ready. RDLR and Webster could go either way.

Nothing keeps Miami from moving players off the bottom half of their roster to other teams, the minors, or the streets in favor of what they got in the deal.

Go back and read what I said nice and slow.

bagwell368
12-06-2013, 07:10 AM
Im more concerned with the fact that this is basically gutting the rotation. Beyond Lester and Doubront and the 2/3 of a season you will get from Buch, its pretty much duct tape veterans and guys who havent yet established themselves. Im all for giving them that chance, but id feel more comfortable keeping one of peavy/lackey and chucking other prospects as necessary, allowing Ranaudo and Workman to compete for the fifth slot. Having both niemann and Buch makes that hard, and dempsters time here should be done after last year

That being said, that lineup you pose is formidable and probably a pretty good best case scenario as to how to upgrade offensively. your side piece FAs are good fits, from Davis, Niemann and Balfour (FWIW, would rather have him than Mujica for that $). very good sim

I see it as essential that the Sox deal high priced pitching while it has value/shelf life from a business angle, and also in terms of blocking young specs.

Nothing says Niemann will be ready either, so Workman, etc. get their chances.

Thanks.

bagwell368
12-06-2013, 07:15 AM
Lesters 5 yr extension that will be from ages 31-35 (Possibly 36). He was obviously lights out in October however the past 2 seasons his rate stats have been pretty average. I just think 5-6 yr deals in the pitchers 30's carries a bit of risk.

I think Lesters issues have been explained. 3 pitching coaches in 3 years. When he pitched to Salty in those two years it was a big drop compared to the other catchers. He still pitched 205 innings a year every year pretty much, and obviously has no damage. He's also got a solid chance to be the greatest LHP in Sox history, so in the way the team has kept Yaz, Rice, Ortiz, etc. there is that career Sox angle to consider. I think if he has a 4.0 or better rWAR season this year in the open market he could hit $25M per- or more.

I'd personally wait it out some, you could argue the closer we are away from free agency the more he will demand...But my argument is his value is at a high.[/QUOTE]

bagwell368
12-06-2013, 07:27 AM
No way the Marlins would trade Stanton for our spare parts. And we'd need at least a 27-man roster to fit all of those bench players on the major league team.

Spare parts?

Clearly if they are getting 2 very high specs out of the pitchers/Nava they would be projected as starting candidates. Webster would seem to be a starter and RDLR could well be in the pen. Brentz and Betts are longer term pieces that may be ready to debut in 2015 and 2017 respectively - or just deal off if they like.

What's your deal for Stanton? XB, Cecchini, Swihart, Barnes, and Ranaudo?

TragicallyHip
12-06-2013, 09:46 AM
If that's the deal that lands us Stanton, I do it all day.

RedSoxtober
12-06-2013, 01:23 PM
In 2007 the Tigers sent the following players to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera (and a salary-dumped Dontrelle Willis):


Dallas Trahern: 34th round pick who jumped the system after a slow start; never BA ranked and still hasn't broken into MLB
Burke Badenhop (yes, that Badenhop): 19th round pick who moved up the chain and broke into MLB after the deal
Frankie De La Cruz: Amateur FA (2001) signed out of HS and traded after 5yrs in the minors; had a 6.75ERA, 2.10 whip when dealt
Cameron Maybin: Prize A of the deal, a first round pick who was ranked in BA's top 10 for MLB
Andrew Miller: Prize B of the deal, another first round pick (2006) ranked "closest to MLB" when drafted and a BA top 10
Mike Rabello: 4th round pick (2001) who enjoyed a cup of coffee before the deal


Of the six players sent (in return for 2), only two were ever ranked in the BA top 100 players. They were extremely high (#8, 10) but the others were not all that well regarded. Trahern was fringe top 10 and Badenhop a top 25 for the Tigers system at the time of the deal.

I believe it's worth reviewing the past to get some perspective here. Cabrera was similarly viewed at the time of the deal. I remember Gammons rambling on about his HR totals at a young age and comparing him to elite power hitters in the HOF. There were concerns about his weight and work rate. The deal also required an enormous salary dump (Willis) to be absorbed.

How do Cabrera and Stanton compare?
Cabrera (age 24): .327/.407/.588 with 227 HR in 5.5yrs; averaged 158 games/yr in his full seasons
Stanton (age 23): .265/.354/.535 with 117 HR in 4yrs; averaged 122 games/yr

Head to head Cabrera dwarfs Stanton at the time of potential deals. The eras are somewhat different; power is a scarcer commodity today across MLB. Still, I cannot see how that in any way accounts for the discrepancy in the deals:

Lackey/Peavy represent more than what was offered in the Cabrera deal. While they are shorter-term solutions, the proven (and at a reasonably high level of success) track records exceeds what Maybin and Miller could promise.

The shine is off Webster in the eyes of many. While his MLB performance (and 2013 in general) was uneven, he also flashed some brilliant stuff. By some objective measures he did things that even Scherzer did not equal in (e.g., 20 or 21 swings and misses against DET). He's a top 100 MLB and top 10 farm system talent (in the top-rated system in MLB readiness).

De La Rosa is tougher to gauge because he's expired his rookie eligibility. He's a top 20 talent in the system, probably in the mid-teens.

Betts is another top 10 talent who may crack the bottom of the BA top 100 in the pre-2014 list.

Brentz is a top 20 system talent who fell out of the top 100 when he shot himself in the leg (more because of stupidity than anything).

Nava is hard to categorize as well. He's the little engine that could, and even while finishing with some top 10 hitting numbers I don't view him as much more than a nice complementary piece. He's accomplished more in MLB than Maybin did and represents more than any of the peripheral talent dealt for Cabrera.


When I roll all that together I see the Red Sox dealing significantly more than what the Marlins got for a much better hitter. I am not at all trying to downplay Stanton either. He's a good hitter and I want him on the club if the Sox can pull it off. I am simply trying to objectively weigh the deal and it looks like we're giving up too much. Those who suggest we're not giving up enough are being absurd.

Super.
12-06-2013, 06:53 PM
Go back and read what I said nice and slow.

Whatsup North Country?

bagwell368
12-06-2013, 09:40 PM
Whatsup North Country?

*snort*

Yup, in spirit if not in the flesh...

bagwell368
12-06-2013, 09:59 PM
In 2007 the Tigers sent the following players to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera (and a salary-dumped Dontrelle Willis):


Dallas Trahern: 34th round pick who jumped the system after a slow start; never BA ranked and still hasn't broken into MLB
Burke Badenhop (yes, that Badenhop): 19th round pick who moved up the chain and broke into MLB after the deal
Frankie De La Cruz: Amateur FA (2001) signed out of HS and traded after 5yrs in the minors; had a 6.75ERA, 2.10 whip when dealt
Cameron Maybin: Prize A of the deal, a first round pick who was ranked in BA's top 10 for MLB
Andrew Miller: Prize B of the deal, another first round pick (2006) ranked "closest to MLB" when drafted and a BA top 10
Mike Rabello: 4th round pick (2001) who enjoyed a cup of coffee before the deal


Of the six players sent (in return for 2), only two were ever ranked in the BA top 100 players. They were extremely high (#8, 10) but the others were not all that well regarded. Trahern was fringe top 10 and Badenhop a top 25 for the Tigers system at the time of the deal.

I believe it's worth reviewing the past to get some perspective here. Cabrera was similarly viewed at the time of the deal. I remember Gammons rambling on about his HR totals at a young age and comparing him to elite power hitters in the HOF. There were concerns about his weight and work rate. The deal also required an enormous salary dump (Willis) to be absorbed.

How do Cabrera and Stanton compare?
Cabrera (age 24): .327/.407/.588 with 227 HR in 5.5yrs; averaged 158 games/yr in his full seasons
Stanton (age 23): .265/.354/.535 with 117 HR in 4yrs; averaged 122 games/yr

Head to head Cabrera dwarfs Stanton at the time of potential deals. The eras are somewhat different; power is a scarcer commodity today across MLB. Still, I cannot see how that in any way accounts for the discrepancy in the deals:

Lackey/Peavy represent more than what was offered in the Cabrera deal. While they are shorter-term solutions, the proven (and at a reasonably high level of success) track records exceeds what Maybin and Miller could promise.

The shine is off Webster in the eyes of many. While his MLB performance (and 2013 in general) was uneven, he also flashed some brilliant stuff. By some objective measures he did things that even Scherzer did not equal in (e.g., 20 or 21 swings and misses against DET). He's a top 100 MLB and top 10 farm system talent (in the top-rated system in MLB readiness).

De La Rosa is tougher to gauge because he's expired his rookie eligibility. He's a top 20 talent in the system, probably in the mid-teens.

Betts is another top 10 talent who may crack the bottom of the BA top 100 in the pre-2014 list.

Brentz is a top 20 system talent who fell out of the top 100 when he shot himself in the leg (more because of stupidity than anything).

Nava is hard to categorize as well. He's the little engine that could, and even while finishing with some top 10 hitting numbers I don't view him as much more than a nice complementary piece. He's accomplished more in MLB than Maybin did and represents more than any of the peripheral talent dealt for Cabrera.


When I roll all that together I see the Red Sox dealing significantly more than what the Marlins got for a much better hitter. I am not at all trying to downplay Stanton either. He's a good hitter and I want him on the club if the Sox can pull it off. I am simply trying to objectively weigh the deal and it looks like we're giving up too much. Those who suggest we're not giving up enough are being absurd.

Hell of a write up. The comments on my deal are already all over the map. I try to avoid ridiculous 3 utility player deals for a stud ideas that can't be taken seriously. I also hate to give up specs that really seem to fit our needs.

As much as Peavy and Lackey are worth to certain teams, they are costly to us in terms of 2014 salary. If we want to trade and sign for a stud like Stanton, it will cost much of our discretionary budget. With the two moves we've just made plus say Stanton (on an extension) for all specs that would be about it. Very tough to sign Napoli, RHH CF, back-up INF, and not go over the luxury tax. Since SP is where we are deep, and carrying much of our current budget. Why not cash in Lackey and Peavy? There is no promise that pitchers of their ages may actually pitch up to expectations. We lower our costs, xfer their value into kids for Miami?

We trade:

1. Nava who may have just had his career season (and has no real place here with Stanton in LF)
2. Brentz who is very likely never to be an AS player IMO - certainly 4th/platoon OF here.
3. Betts who has no position (other than 2B which he won't be playing here for some time) and as you yourself have written, is going to be facing much more difficult pitching than he has seen so far next year - so perhaps his star will dim shortly.
4. RDLR may never be healthy
5. Webster looks like a #4 at best - we have quite a brace of #3-4 SP types coming along.

So I just traded a brace of players who mostly appear to have no place (or a limited one) here 3 years from now (and beyond) and going forward for a young long term controlled RHH corner OF who we have exactly zero in our system/team. That's what I was going for.

corky831
12-06-2013, 10:39 PM
Your napoli contract almost spot on....nice job bags

SirHizz
12-07-2013, 08:28 AM
Well, without judging whether the Stanton trade is realistic or not. But isn't the likelihood of him getting traded in 2013 like 5% max? I am not saying it couldn't happen, I just don't think the Marlins are inclined on trading him after the down-season he was having. And there's not much of a chatter around baseball.

Otherwise I like most of your moves (maybe the figures in lester's extension are a bit high...how about a 6/108 deal?). Chavez would be a great tandem with Mil'Brooks. I hope he signs here...

bagwell368
12-07-2013, 08:51 AM
Well, without judging whether the Stanton trade is realistic or not. But isn't the likelihood of him getting traded in 2013 like 5% max?

I really don't know, but I'm hoping they decide two very high specs, and the rest of it is enough to get them off the fence.


I am not saying it couldn't happen, I just don't think the Marlins are inclined on trading him after the down-season he was having. And there's not much of a chatter around baseball.

Well chatter never did make a deal, and there is always the risk he'll suffer a bad injury and they'll have nothing to show if they hold him too long.


Otherwise I like most of your moves (maybe the figures in lester's extension are a bit high...how about a 6/108 deal?). Chavez would be a great tandem with Mil'Brooks. I hope he signs here...

Yeah, I wrote this before Lester said he was focused on playing here. 6/108 was my starting point, but I didn't want to make it too much of a deal for the Sox since players rarely these days don't go max hunting.

Thanks

The_Great_8
12-07-2013, 09:03 AM
Very much enjoyed the sim. Wouldn't it be nice if all the Logan Morrrison talk was just a smoke screen for a bigger Stanton deal!

Also good comparison of the Cabrera package vs. what Bags has us dealing away to acquire Stanton. The biggest flaw I have in the deal is that in the Cabrera deal, the Marlins were unloading the HUGE albatross of a contract in Willis to move Cabrera. They had their fire sale last year with the trade with Toronto, so I'm just not sure they'd want to deal away their only marquee player for such a return. It's a potentially better package than what they got for Cabrera but Stanton's contract is not overwhelming atm and he's still controlled at a reasonable rate for several more years. I just think it'll take more to get Stanton on the Sox than that package (not in # of players but in potential talent of players - why not include Swihart?), unless there was another big contract on the Marlins that we'd take back, much like Willis in the Cabrera deal or how Lowell was thrown in in the Beckett deal.

Always enjoy reading Bagwell's posts. Well thought out! (Plus it gives another chance to check out the girl in his sig! Who is she?? Gorgeous!)

RedSoxtober
12-07-2013, 12:03 PM
Hell of a write up. The comments on my deal are already all over the map. I try to avoid ridiculous 3 utility player deals for a stud ideas that can't be taken seriously. I also hate to give up specs that really seem to fit our needs.

...

So I just traded a brace of players who mostly appear to have no place (or a limited one) here 3 years from now (and beyond) and going forward for a young long term controlled RHH corner OF who we have exactly zero in our system/team. That's what I was going for.

Oh, I get the logic to the deal but you know me... I'm a lot more conservative on player costs in deals. I think that Lackey+Peavy heading up a single deal is too much. In comparison to other deals it seems that way.

bagwell368
12-07-2013, 01:25 PM
Very much enjoyed the sim. Wouldn't it be nice if all the Logan Morrrison talk was just a smoke screen for a bigger Stanton deal!

Also good comparison of the Cabrera package vs. what Bags has us dealing away to acquire Stanton. The biggest flaw I have in the deal is that in the Cabrera deal, the Marlins were unloading the HUGE albatross of a contract in Willis to move Cabrera. They had their fire sale last year with the trade with Toronto, so I'm just not sure they'd want to deal away their only marquee player for such a return. It's a potentially better package than what they got for Cabrera but Stanton's contract is not overwhelming atm and he's still controlled at a reasonable rate for several more years. I just think it'll take more to get Stanton on the Sox than that package (not in # of players but in potential talent of players - why not include Swihart?), unless there was another big contract on the Marlins that we'd take back, much like Willis in the Cabrera deal or how Lowell was thrown in in the Beckett deal.

Always enjoy reading Bagwell's posts. Well thought out! (Plus it gives another chance to check out the girl in his sig! Who is she?? Gorgeous!)

Well the reason I'm going heavy on expensive short term SP's and B+ level on the other guys is that I'm not dealing XB, Swihart, Vazquez, Cecchini, and the top 3 P's specs - since they project well. But if I had to give up one more of these guys to do it - it would be one of the P's or Swihart probably - but then it would be too much.

No name on the young lady, sorry, random web babe.

bagwell368
12-07-2013, 01:30 PM
Oh, I get the logic to the deal but you know me... I'm a lot more conservative on player costs in deals. I think that Lackey+Peavy heading up a single deal is too much. In comparison to other deals it seems that way.

So you mean Lackey & Peavy is too much more Stanton already? Wow.... two guys that might be real good, but might end up being real done with little contract control and none probably wanted after the current deals are over? We're loaded with P's not loaded with RH power, and we lose enough dough to pay for the first 1.5 years of Stanton (on a cheap deal already if my projections are true)?

If that's what you mean, I might buy that I'm too high by 10-15%, but you're low by at least 50% IMO (and projectable kids do not always pan out - so more has to be added on that side to be sure Miami gets good working pieces).

The_Great_8
12-07-2013, 02:51 PM
Well the reason I'm going heavy on expensive short term SP's and B+ level on the other guys is that I'm not dealing XB, Swihart, Vazquez, Cecchini, and the top 3 P's specs - since they project well. But if I had to give up one more of these guys to do it - it would be one of the P's or Swihart probably - but then it would be too much.

No name on the young lady, sorry, random web babe.

If the marlins (plus a 3rd team as you mentioned in your sim) would agree to take your offer + 1 add'l prospect like Swihart or a SP, I'd make the deal in a heartbeat. IMO the team that lands the more proven player (esp one as young and with such great potential in the future as Stanton) almost always wins out. Like the deal we made in acquiring Pedro for 2 of our best prospects at the time, Brian Rose and Carl Pavano. To me, if we are acquiring a player like Stanton, only XB and Cecchini are untouchables.

Bos_Sports4Life
12-07-2013, 03:29 PM
I think Lesters issues have been explained. 3 pitching coaches in 3 years. When he pitched to Salty in those two years it was a big drop compared to the other catchers.

I think one can find reasons for possible struggles, but I think linking those issues together as 100% proof? I don't know about that.



He still pitched 205 innings a year every year pretty much, and obviously has no damage. He's also got a solid chance to be the greatest LHP in Sox history, so in the way the team has kept Yaz, Rice, Ortiz, etc. there is that career Sox angle to consider.

I disagree with the career angle standpoint, that wasn't enough to keep fisk/Clemens around.

Also, Best LHP in franchise history? I guess that depends how someone measures it, im guessing you are going with total value/WAR.

However peak wise Lefty grove kills him as he has 30.2 WAR combined using his top 3 seasons as a sox with lesters top 3 seasons coming out at 17.6.




.
I think if he has a 4.0 or better rWAR season this year in the open market he could hit $25M per- or more.

You are probably right however, 2 things to consider imo..

* If the red sox are out, What has more value than a pitcher that is capable of anchoring a staff in October? If they d find themselves out of it (I cant see themselves being out of the race in july, but possibly waiver wire deal when standings become a bit more clear). Anyways, under such circumstances I would deal him.

* He has been durable so far, but a big injury or he throws a season similar to '12? His market will go down. Not expecting either of these things as the coaching staff is back with AJ>Salty..And a contract yr to boot.

I would also consider trading him now, to an NL team of course, For the right package.

celticsman2009
12-07-2013, 03:29 PM
If the marlins (plus a 3rd team as you mentioned in your sim) would agree to take your offer + 1 add'l prospect like Swihart or a SP, I'd make the deal in a heartbeat. IMO the team that lands the more proven player (esp one as young and with such great potential in the future as Stanton) almost always wins out. Like the deal we made in acquiring Pedro for 2 of our best prospects at the time, Brian Rose and Carl Pavano. To me, if we are acquiring a player like Stanton, only XB and Cecchini are untouchables.

I would like to hope Owens is untouchable too.

bagwell368
12-07-2013, 05:39 PM
I think one can find reasons for possible struggles, but I think linking those issues together as 100% proof? I don't know about that.

That's true - but - his velocity hasn't taken a dive, it's regressed a bit over time like all good healthy pitchers. So with no structural damage, a history of going out for his 32 starts a year and amassing about 205 IP per, and his rock solid and brilliant post season... I mean, how much more does the guy have to do to deserve to be treated as a Pedroia type. He took the team friendly deal early, unlike Ells, and has made noises about being willing to take a sane deal again. Run, don't walk to get that lined up IMO.


I disagree with the career angle standpoint, that wasn't enough to keep fisk/Clemens around.

Clemens had 4 meh years in a row, with velocity decline before he left. He looked very much like a guy with 2-3 good years in the tank at most and then broken/injury plagued seasons. The media, fans, and FO didn't like him much either.

Fisk was let go on a technicality. The GM failed to post an offer by the proper date. The Sox had every reason and intent to sign Fisk.


Also, Best LHP in franchise history? I guess that depends how someone measures it, im guessing you are going with total value/WAR.

I wrote "He's also got a solid chance to be the greatest LHP in Sox history".

The only guy well ahead of him is Lefty Grove. Parnell, Ruth, and someone else who evades my memory at the moment are quite close with Lester. A good year this year and he's liable to be in 2nd place at the end of it. That isn't too shabby, and fans like polite quiet pitchers who go out and seize the moment in the WS, set team records, and don't act like D-bags.


However peak wise Lefty grove kills him as he has 30.2 WAR combined using his top 3 seasons as a sox with lesters top 3 seasons coming out at 17.6.

That's why I'm talking at the end of six years, and I said he had a good shot at it, not that it was a slam dunk. BTW, Grove is at worst the 2nd best lefty of all time - most of his greatest years were for the A's. On the Sox he was sort of like a modern SP (or Tiant after the Indians), not able to post big innings (Tiant lost a ton of velocity due to a terrible arm injury in '69 I think it was) which were par for the course, but posting awesome ERA's in a major hitters park because he was not afraid to pitch inside. Jon Lester is no match overall for Lefty Grove and is well under .005% to ever be.


You are probably right however, 2 things to consider imo..

* If the red sox are out, What has more value than a pitcher that is capable of anchoring a staff in October? If they d find themselves out of it (I cant see themselves being out of the race in july, but possibly waiver wire deal when standings become a bit more clear). Anyways, under such circumstances I would deal him.

I can't see that. The return would have to be enormous. I like our farm kids a lot - but not ONE of them has the look of a #1 or a high #2. Lester is textbook #1, and since sometime in late '07, he probably in the top dozen SP's in the Majors.


* He has been durable so far, but a big injury or he throws a season similar to '12? His market will go down. Not expecting either of these things as the coaching staff is back with AJ>Salty..And a contract yr to boot.

Go ahead and look at all the aces I was just talking about since '07 and tell me how many haven't had a year cut way short by injury or pitched very poorly (like 85 ERA+ land). Your expectations vs the reality of modern MLB pitching isn't reasonable IMO.


I would also consider trading him now, to an NL team of course, For the right package.

And what? go with Lackey, Peavy, Buchholz, Workman, Doubront? By mid 2015, Peavy will be long gone, Buchholz will be on his 3rd DL trip, Workman and Doubront may both be league average SP's - perhaps one of them with shoulder woes. Are you that confident in the farm, Dempster, FA, or the return on this deal that we'll have what they say you need to win a WS? Two aces and an ace closer? I can't see it out of that bunch, and our current closer figures not to be nearly as effective by then either - and our new closer in waiting wasn't even put on the WS roster due to velocity issues.

Trading Lester is a bad idea unless we get a royal flush in return. If he'll sign an extension for 5 * 20 after opening day I would look at anybody having a problem with that as touched. Even 5 * 22.5 is not unreasonable.

ruckus16969
12-08-2013, 12:16 PM
I have to agree with ya about Lester. Is he a true ace?? No I don't think so. But he is a beast going down the stretch and in the play offs. The guy is willing to stay home on a discount. He is an innings eater from hell. I mean unless we got a significant return for him than we are better off keeping him.

For me the same goes for Doubrount. He is young. Cheap and continues to improve. I wouldn't trade him.

Clay I'm on the fence with. I kinda like unless we are basically ripping someone off or we are completely out of it by the dead line we can't trade him. He may only pitch 120-130 innings but when he is out there he is usually lights out.

I think I would keep those 3 guys. Unless we got completely blown away.

Lackey I would want to keep to but I just feel like the return we could get on him would be astronomical considering his price combined the next 2 years.

If that bat came around in a trade I'd consider trading guys like RDLR Workman and Webster. Or who ever we get if we flip Dempster Peavy or Lackey.

bagwell368
12-08-2013, 01:22 PM
I badly want to deal Buchholz, but, when he's just posted a great 12 game run and everyone is all high on him. Then - not now.

Workman to me looks like the real deal - ahead of Doubront in terms of make-up at least - already.

ruckus16969
12-08-2013, 02:38 PM
I badly want to deal Buchholz, but, when he's just posted a great 12 game run and everyone is all high on him. Then - not now.

Workman to me looks like the real deal - ahead of Doubront in terms of make-up at least - already.

That's exactly why I suggested trading him. I mean he could potentially be the headliner in a deal for a Stanton, Kemp, or Gordan.

But I'm definitely ok with keeping him. He could be great for us for a long time.

I liked this sim allot btw besides the thing about giving up 7 guys for 1. But like ya said there is less quality and more quantity. I get that.

Do mind if I steal your format to do my sim???

RedSoxtober
12-08-2013, 04:22 PM
So you mean Lackey & Peavy is too much more Stanton already? Wow.... two guys that might be real good, but might end up being real done with little contract control and none probably wanted after the current deals are over?

No. There are two separate points that I've tried to make that were badly smashed together here. Point 1: Lackey and Peavy are greater than the top talent of past deals given their established status and high rate of success. Point 2: I won't be surprised to see them both dealt this offseason (I expect two SP to be moved), just not in the same deal.

At the very least you should be getting two good prospects for Lackey and one decent prospect for Peavy (maybe more if you eat some contract). The Sox get better value by splitting them over two deals.

Package them into one deal and that takes the deal to 9 players for Stanton. He could field a team by himself? Yikes!

bagwell368
12-09-2013, 07:38 AM
That's exactly why I suggested trading him. I mean he could potentially be the headliner in a deal for a Stanton, Kemp, or Gordan.

But I'm definitely ok with keeping him. He could be great for us for a long time.

I liked this sim allot btw besides the thing about giving up 7 guys for 1. But like ya said there is less quality and more quantity. I get that.

Do mind if I steal your format to do my sim???

Go for it. Thanks.

bagwell368
12-09-2013, 07:48 AM
No. There are two separate points that I've tried to make that were badly smashed together here. Point 1: Lackey and Peavy are greater than the top talent of past deals given their established status and high rate of success. Point 2: I won't be surprised to see them both dealt this offseason (I expect two SP to be moved), just not in the same deal.

At the very least you should be getting two good prospects for Lackey and one decent prospect for Peavy (maybe more if you eat some contract). The Sox get better value by splitting them over two deals.

Package them into one deal and that takes the deal to 9 players for Stanton. He could field a team by himself? Yikes!

Did I say 4 team deal? I did, that's two teams. I agree that the SP's must go elsewhere, but was flummoxed about which specs it might be coming back to Miami - so I stopped and just said two top 50 specs. Plus I tossed in Nava on that side, so Nava and Peavey for one and Lackey for another - both from contenders short of SP (a long list of teams).

Two high specs, two more distant but rated specs, and a couple of ML ready players. Six total players to Miami - not 7 or more.

RedSoxtober
12-09-2013, 09:58 AM
Sorry, I misunderstood your intentions. That makes more sense.

Walligans
12-10-2013, 10:40 PM
Stanton's history of injuries and behavioral issues kind of remind me of Matt Kemp. Stanton seems vastly overrated, he has trouble making contact and his OBP is inflated by the fact that no one else in the Marlins lineup can hit. Power all goes downhill after age 24.

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hitter_isoaging.jpg

bagwell368
12-11-2013, 07:18 AM
Stanton's history of injuries and behavioral issues kind of remind me of Matt Kemp. Stanton seems vastly overrated, he has trouble making contact and his OBP is inflated by the fact that no one else in the Marlins lineup can hit. Power all goes downhill after age 24.

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hitter_isoaging.jpg

Well, since you criticized my trade for Stanton in post #5 as not being worthy since it was done using "spare parts", than we should take it that you like my proposed traded now.

If not, maybe you should address the whole Forum with a thread since he's been a pet fantasy around here for a couple of years. I wouldn't want anybody to miss your scholarship.

Walligans
12-17-2013, 08:28 PM
Well, since you criticized my trade for Stanton in post #5 as not being worthy since it was done using "spare parts", than we should take it that you like my proposed traded now.

If not, maybe you should address the whole Forum with a thread since he's been a pet fantasy around here for a couple of years. I wouldn't want anybody to miss your scholarship.

Hahahaha, are you drunk?

bagwell368
12-17-2013, 11:15 PM
Hahahaha, are you drunk?

It took you almost a week to come up with that response?

Clever.