Register now to remove this ad

Page 214 of 371 FirstFirst ... 114164204212213214215216224264314 ... LastLast
Results 3,196 to 3,210 of 5552

Thread: A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

  1. #3196
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    31,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    That's about minus 50 million, which I think matches what the trade simulator says.
    They say minus $60.

    The thing about Price is that he still pitches every year. He might have had more IP'd this year had we been in the race.

    While 109 IP is not good, he's had just one season under that in his whole career (2017).

    While 282 IP over the past 2 years sucks, within the context of MLB, he placed 70th in IP. If you figure there are 150 rotation slots in MLB (30 teams x 5 pitchers), he's above the mean.
    Sox 4 Ever

  2. #3197
    Quote Originally Posted by 5GoldGloves:OF,75 View Post
    I tried to use that trade site to find a way to get Pache. Braves would get Barnes 24.6 + Taylor 5.8 + Walden 5.8 + Workman 5.3 + Dalbec 18.8 + Chavis 17.7, and the Sox would get Pache 79.1. Unfortunately, we fell short, 79.10 to 78.00 -- and the trade was unaccepted. It's asking for another player or cash. I'm not sure if I'd be willing to give up seven guys for someone who's never played a game in the majors... though he did hit .277 in two levels of the minors last year.
    The Braves would be unlikely to trade quality for quantity.

  3. #3198
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    31,587
    Quote Originally Posted by harmony View Post
    The Braves would be unlikely to trade quality for quantity.
    Yes, they have one of the deepest rosters in MLB, if not THE deepest. In all liklihood, they might be looking for a 2 or 3 for 1 deal the other way, so they can add some prospects to the 40 man roster or sign a vet to an area of need without having to DFA a talented player/prospect.
    Sox 4 Ever

  4. #3199
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,582
    Quote Originally Posted by harmony View Post
    The Braves would be unlikely to trade quality for quantity.
    He’s also joking in a snarky way.

    As you have used the simulator, you know:

    1. It wouldn’t reject a trade if the values differed by 1. Not even if they were 1 and 0.

    2. It actually does not allow 7 for 1 trades. It stops at like 5 (?) and says it’s unrealistic.


    (As per your comment, is Pache really “quality”? He’s “potential” and nothing more.)
    Last edited by notin; 12-06-2019 at 09:21 AM.

  5. #3200
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    5,802
    To me Price is equivalent as Cole Hamels now. He would be a very good addition, to any team that wants to lengthen their Starting Rotation, if healthy.

  6. #3201
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    31,587
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    He’s also joking in a snarky way.

    As you have used the simulator, you know:

    1. It wouldn’t reject a trade if the values differed by 1. Not even if they were 1 and 0.

    2. It actually does not allow 7 for 1 trades. It stops at like 5 (?) and says it’s unrealistic.


    (As per your comment, is Pache really “quality”? He’s “potential” and nothing more.)
    Yes, and potential have real value. Look what some teams can get for that potential.
    Sox 4 Ever

  7. #3202
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,582
    Quote Originally Posted by OH FOY! View Post
    To me Price is equivalent as Cole Hamels now.
    Hamels got $18mill, so it’s not an unreasonable comp.

    Trading for Price gives teams the chance to dump another (hopefully) lesser contract, unlike the signing of Hamels did...

  8. #3203
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,582
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    Yes, and potential have real value. Look what some teams can get for that potential.
    “Potential” certainly has value, but it also carries significant risk. Let’s not equate “potential” with “quality”...

  9. #3204
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    31,587
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    “Potential” certainly has value, but it also carries significant risk. Let’s not equate “potential” with “quality”...
    No, it's unproven quality, but never the less, it has tangible trade value.

    Even "proven" vets are a risk, though, and there's a certain amount of potential value or loss of value attached to them, too.

    It's like the posters who champion the Pomeranz trade, because Espinoza has not amounted to squat, so far. The kid had enormous value, back then. It might have been used to trade for someone else. It might have been used within our own system had he not gotten hurt.

    We traded Buttrey for a proven quality.

    We traded Beeks for Eovaldi.
    Sox 4 Ever

  10. #3205
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,582
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    No, it's unproven quality, but never the less, it has tangible trade value.

    Even "proven" vets are a risk, though, and there's a certain amount of potential value or loss of value attached to them, too.

    It's like the posters who champion the Pomeranz trade, because Espinoza has not amounted to squat, so far. The kid had enormous value, back then. It might have been used to trade for someone else. It might have been used within our own system had he not gotten hurt.

    We traded Buttrey for a proven quality.

    We traded Beeks for Eovaldi.
    I’m not saying potential has no value, just saying it’s not quality yet.

    The Sox traded away half of a pitching staff the last few years for proven vets. It did get them one title and some division banners, but left them in a bad and expensive position going forward, which is where we are today...

  11. #3206
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    24,688
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    The Sox traded away half of a pitching staff the last few years for proven vets. It did get them one title and some division banners, but left them in a bad and expensive position going forward, which is where we are today...
    But I think you've also argued elsewhere that we could trade Betts and still be competitive (90 wins or more) next year.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

  12. #3207
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    But I think you've also argued elsewhere that we could trade Betts and still be competitive (90 wins or more) next year.
    We could. It all depends on what the Sox get, doesn't it? And what other moves if any are made.

    It's also not contrary to that previous statement...

  13. #3208
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    24,688
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    We could. It all depends on what the Sox get, doesn't it? And what other moves if any are made.

    It's also not contrary to that previous statement...
    It all depends on what we mean by a bad position.

    I think most of us feel that Bloom can get us back into a good position within a year or two if he's as shrewd as we hope.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

  14. #3209
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    It all depends on what we mean by a bad position.

    I think most of us feel that Bloom can get us back into a good position within a year or two if he's as shrewd as we hope.

    I think this team is in a bad position going forward, but as this is MLB with insane levels of parity not seen I other sports, that can change quickly.

    But really, for 2020, this team won 84 games last year with one good starter and a ramshackle bullpen. A lot of teams with no significant injuries won less.

    I think they have a base, assuming a few key people stay healthy. And can be competitive in this year with the right moves. I’d prefer not dealing Betts, but I don’t think it’s a necessarily a white flag, either...

  15. #3210
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    I think this team is in a bad position going forward, but as this is MLB with insane levels of parity not seen I other sports, that can change quickly.

    But really, for 2020, this team won 84 games last year with one good starter and a ramshackle bullpen. A lot of teams with no significant injuries won less.

    I think they have a base, assuming a few key people stay healthy. And can be competitive in this year with the right moves. I’d prefer not dealing Betts, but I don’t think it’s a necessarily a white flag, either...
    I love our offense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •