If we bring in 2 SP what do they do with prospects

That would be a lot of talent but it would take something big to pry Trout away. The Red Sox are one of the few teams that could make that type of trade from a financial standpoint. If I was the Sox I would honestly try and push for something like that. Trout could go down as one of the top 5 players of all time. And marketing him as such in the prime of his career would be great for the team.
 
thewupk said:
That would be a lot of talent but it would take something big to pry Trout away. The Red Sox are one of the few teams that could make that type of trade from a financial standpoint. If I was the Sox I would honestly try and push for something like that. Trout could go down as one of the top 5 players of all time. And marketing him as such in the prime of his career would be great for the team.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well. Dombrowski pulled Cabrera out of Florida at about the same time in their careers....Didn't work out great for the Marlins though.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Somewhat off topic but:

What does everyone think about a Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, Kopech and Basabe trade with the Angels for Mike Trout? Would the Angels do it? Would the Sox?

I bring it up because the NY media was beating the drum that the Angels should trade Trout back mid-season, and the ideal destination surprise, surprise would be the Yankees. What I heard was essentially the whole Angels need a lot of players, Yankees could send them a lot.

My thoughts were it would be hard for the Angels to trade Trout for anyone under any circumstances. But, I would think the Bosox would be in a much better position to make a trade than the Yanks IF there was a trade to be made.

On one hand Trout is likely a future HoF and Boston is one of the few teams that would have little concern about being able to re-sign him. On the other hand, that's a lot of talent to give up for one guy.
Click to expand...

The dilemma the Angels face with Trout is that any package "worth" Trout would gut the other team's talent pool so dramatically they would be in the same boat the Angels are currently in...Trout and not much else. A package for Trout would represent an unprecedented amount of talent going both ways, and is unlikely to happen. The only 2 teams that could possibly pull off a deal like that would be the Cubs or BoSox.

This type of trade is not your typical "send equal WAR/$$ value by bundling good players together until they reach 10 WAR". There would have to be so many players sent to the Angels that WAR consolidation and physical number of positions on the roster become real problems. For example, on paper, the BoSox could send over 4 guys that project to produce 3+ WAR over the next 4-6 years, and that would seem to be "fair" for Trout. The reality (and problem) is that those 4 guys aren't replacing just Trout, they are replacing Trout plus 3 other guys on the roster who are (or will be) likely worth a combined 4-6 WAR, so the net improvement for the Angels is actually negative when you replace 14-16 WAR (Trout plus 3 current Angels players) with only 12+ WAR from the 4 guys you got.

So the other team would have to include even MORE. So something like 6+ guys that project to produce 3+ WAR for 4-6 years. Suddenly, there are no teams that can even produce that amount of talent, and if they did, they would be just as crappy as the Angels are now.
 
Enscheff said:
The dilemma the Angels face with Trout is that any package "worth" Trout would gut the other team's talent pool so dramatically they would be in the same boat the Angels are currently in...Trout and not much else. A package for Trout would represent an unprecedented amount of talent going both ways, and is unlikely to happen. The only 2 teams that could possibly pull off a deal like that would be the Cubs or BoSox.

This type of trade is not your typical "send equal WAR/$$ value by bundling good players together until they reach 10 WAR". There would have to be so many players sent to the Angels that WAR consolidation and physical number of positions on the roster become real problems. For example, on paper, the BoSox could send over 4 guys that project to produce 3+ WAR over the next 4-6 years, and that would seem to be "fair" for Trout. The reality (and problem) is that those 4 guys aren't replacing just Trout, they are replacing Trout plus 3 other guys on the roster who are (or will be) likely worth a combined 4-6 WAR, so the net improvement for the Angels is actually negative when you replace 14-16 WAR (Trout plus 3 current Angels players) with only 12+ WAR from the 4 guys you got.

So the other team would have to include even MORE. So something like 6+ guys that project to produce 3+ WAR for 4-6 years. Suddenly, there are no teams that can even produce that amount of talent, and if they did, they would be just as crappy as the Angels are now.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying and I DON'T think it will happen, but I think you missed a big component in your calculations and that is the money difference. Trout alone will be making $19.25M next year then that goes to $33.25M the following year. And the other 3-4 guys being replaced with incoming players would have some monetary value as well. That money could then be used by the Angels to fill other holes if the talent received from the BoSox was young enough to be really cheap.

It appears to me that the Angels are about to be in heavy rebuild mode whether they want to be or not. They might be able to move Pujols to the BoSox as part of the deal which would change the financial dynamic quite a bit. One of Pujols/Ramirez occupies 1B the other DH's. The rest of their team outside of Simmons is pretty much garbage and they have no farm. I can see a lot of reasons why it would make sense for them but I doubt they have the balls.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
The BoSox certainly didn't BELIEVE Teheran was any better than what they had. I think they convinced themselves of that because they didn't want to pay the price it was going to take to get him.

Whether it was Teheran or some other similar starter, it was pretty clear that they were short on SP and getting Pomeranz didn't really address the issue.

They really had Price and Porcello and almost nothing else.

However, I think a case could be made that their management knew that they were a year early in competing and weren't ready to sell the farm as a parting gift for Big Papi. If that was their thinking, I think they navigated the public relations pitfalls pretty well.
Click to expand...

I find it really interesting/odd that the Sox were given the opportunity to negate the trade and get their prospects back after it was found Preller withheld medical info on Pomeranz BUT didn't accept it. This was even after Pomeranz was moved to the bullpen and was pretty obvious he wasn't a factor in their postseason rotation. I think if I was in their shoes, I would have taken Anderson Espinoza back in a heartbeat.
 
blueagleace1 said:
I find it really interesting/odd that the Sox were given the opportunity to negate the trade and get their prospects back after it was found Preller withheld medical info on Pomeranz BUT didn't accept it. This was even after Pomeranz was moved to the bullpen and was pretty obvious he wasn't a factor in their postseason rotation. I think if I was in their shoes, I would have taken Anderson Espinoza back in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY. It shows how desperate they were to win for Big Papi and it wasn't about the future at this point, I believe. I still think it's ludicrious that they didn't trade for Teheran. YES, he could have made a difference - he's a really good pitcher.
 
blueagleace1 said:
I find it really interesting/odd that the Sox were given the opportunity to negate the trade and get their prospects back after it was found Preller withheld medical info on Pomeranz BUT didn't accept it. This was even after Pomeranz was moved to the bullpen and was pretty obvious he wasn't a factor in their postseason rotation. I think if I was in their shoes, I would have taken Anderson Espinoza back in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

REALLY?!?!?

I legit didn't know that. I'd get that guy back stat. Pomeranz is gonna pan out to be well...Pomeranz.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
even with the regressed second half, the price is higher than at the deadline. With the belief that this team has a shot to compete, Copy is not going to give away his best pitcher.
Click to expand...

I'm intelligent enough to have figured that out myself. Was asking if anybody knew of specific names being discussed.
 
Knucksie said:
I'm intelligent enough to have figured that out myself. Was asking if anybody knew of specific names being discussed.
Click to expand...

I don't think it ever got that far in public.

There was something said by the BoSox media mouthpieces (Gammons?) that they didn't consider Teheran that great a pitcher which was a pretty obvious signal that they had asked and had balked at the asking price and were getting out in front to their fans on the messaging.
 
Knucksie said:
I'm intelligent enough to have figured that out myself. Was asking if anybody knew of specific names being discussed.
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying you weren't. Just saying, I would imagine his price is even higher. But honestly, I don't think there has been any mention of possible trade of JT. I seriously doubt Copi is looking to move him. I think Boston would have to come calling and then it would have to be an incredibly strong offer to peak his interest. I wouldn't even venture to guess the talent Boston would have to part with.

I think the Shelby trade has really shifted the market to an extreme sellers market. It might take until the big FA class of 18 to get it back in line.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I don't think it ever got that far in public.

There was something said by the BoSox media mouthpieces (Gammons?) that they didn't consider Teheran that great a pitcher which was a pretty obvious signal that they had asked and had balked at the asking price and were getting out in front to their fans on the messaging.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know if names were ever discussed. I am sure there was some names being tossed around. but doubt that ever goes public.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
It would be interesting to know if names were ever discussed. I am sure there was some names being tossed around. but doubt that ever goes public.
Click to expand...

I can't find any reference to any actual names, but I think it's safe to make some logical conclusions based on a few known facts:

1. The BoSox called Atlanta's demands for Julio "crazy"
2. The Braves are looking to compete at the MLB level in 2017

Trading away Julio is a huge step back for the 2017 unless the return is MLB ready talent. The only "crazy" prospects in the BoSox system that are close to MLB ready are Moncada and Benintendi.

I think it's safe to assume the Braves demanded one of those guys, and perhaps even both. The Sox wisely declined.
 
I think it would be foolish for any team to give up the talent it would take to get JT. I know I wouldn't want to if roles were reversed. But in the same breathe, when you have a shot to make it happen, you have to take it as well. The Gnats are proof that you just can't assume you will be right back the next year. a'la Stras being shut down. Impossible to know how things would have played out if the Soxs did make a trade for JT.. maybe it changes their seeding and who knows from there. Maybe he gets shelled and we laugh at them like we do the Dbacks..
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I wasn't implying you weren't. Just saying, I would imagine his price is even higher. But honestly, I don't think there has been any mention of possible trade of JT. I seriously doubt Copi is looking to move him. I think Boston would have to come calling and then it would have to be an incredibly strong offer to peak his interest. I wouldn't even venture to guess the talent Boston would have to part with.

I think the Shelby trade has really shifted the market to an extreme sellers market. It might take until the big FA class of 18 to get it back in line.
Click to expand...

Reports came out that some other GM's actually said that they understood the DBacks motivation at the time. Nobody will ever say it looks good now from their perspective though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top