GreenSox

If those are the only 2 prospects we have of real merit, we won't be rolling. You'll need more, if for no other reason, to trade WHEN you are rolling (versus off of 72 wins)

In this case, it's enough. Although that .310 OPB, 25% K rate and lousy defense add to the fun

Mazara full season WAR: .5 Adam Engel 1/2 season WAR: .8

How about not trading for .6333 season avg. WAR player at all

IFF that's the reason they fired him. There's been some talk, but I haven't seen much objective and tangible evidence that this org. is very interested in analytics.

Low OBP and high K. 1.7 WAR over 3 years. Premium talent.

The Giants know how to accept a salary dump. Hold a seminar, Zaidi, and invite Rick Hahn.

Thank goodness.

Well-said In fact, I think the Sox would be in good shape with a couple of consistent #3/4s.

I thought it was funny. I didn't take it as a jab that "no one wants to play for the Sox"; rather as a jab on the FO always rushing out the news "we had the better offer"

A 72 win team trading two of its best prospects. Thus the Sox are what they are. Who plays 2nd? As for Keuchel, that would be okay. I just think there's as good a chance that he really declines as there is that he can deliver a solid 3-/4+ performance for 3 years. But even if he declines, it wouldn't put the org. in a straight jacket or anything.

Haniger is a 2 WAR player; Justin Dunn is essentially a prospect. like Dunning and Stiever. Vaughn should easily get Hanniger. But why trade a top prospect for an average player? Hard to see the value in this trade.

A lot of times when these guys have bad years, it's due to a loss of control; Porcello had the same walk rate last year that he usually has. That suggests command issues and/or declining stuff. Ks were way down. I would assume a skilled evaluator watching film could probably get a good idea of whether the problem is mechanics that can be fixed or just decline. Miley and Bailey aren't really bounce back guys - last year was as good as it gets for those 2. Can they keep it going?

That's a good question. Are the RedSox really interested in moving Benintendi. If the RedSox were interested and are as desperate to dump salary as advertised, I think they Sox could do it for a couple of 3rd tier guys IF they took all of Price's contract. But the Sox would rightfully want Boston to take 1/2 the contract, and that leaves it murky. A big issue with Price is that he's only pitched 1/2 a season (or less) 2 of the last 3 years.

Well that's my opinion; others might (and probably do) disagree. Their drafts haven't been terribly productive and they pass on international signings for the most part, except for an occasional targeted player (Robert,Abreu).

David Price should be a pure salary dump; no thinking team gives anything close to a good prospect for Price, even if the RedSox take back 1/2 his salary. In the same theme of declining pitchers, Archer and his 5+ ERA wouldn't surprise me either (and not at a 5+ ERA "price"). Trades will be tough - the Sox need all of their tier 1 prospects. And they really don't have 2nd tier prospects except for Stiever (whom I hope to heck they don't trade). That leaves a few veterans, which would be okay for a #4 type pitcher.

17.5 WAR for Danks; 16 WAR for McCarthy. In the first few years of their trade, Danks was better, and McCarthy was hurt so I guess it was good.

At what price? They would give 1 of Vaughn, Madrigal, Kopech or Robert plus 5 second tier prospects. Yea, I think it would be a negative. It's a premium price for good starting pitching. Use FAs. I remember another good one. Gavin Floyd But I will note that the 2 good ones did not involve the Sox trading away prospects.

Contreras - yes, you are correct on that. If forgot about that one. Excellent. Note however that it did not involve prospects. Freddy was a rent. Sox did nothing in 2004; arguably it belongs in the bad category, because while Reed turned out to be a dud, he was a top 15 prospect and there was an opportunity cost to dumping him for a rent, versus someone who could have been useful going forward.

Name them. Edit: Contreras was an excellent trade. Vazquez*, Danks, Peavy, Wells and Garcia were nothingballs. Ritchie and Jackson were bad. Liriano was a terrible trade. Samardjzija and Shields damaged the organization. I'm sure I've forgotten some. *Could be moved to the "Bad" category.

They haven't made a good trade for a starting pitcher since before the Kenny Williams era. A few have been pure disasters. They seem hell- bent on repeating the things that don't work, and not repeating the things that do. Just a couple of #4s would really help this staff.

Because you can have a hole in the lineup and still be okay; and our hole won't be on defense. You can't have a hole in the rotation. And yes it doesn't preclude a starter...but this org. has a history over the last 20 years of being a starter short when in contention (2005 obviously excepted) I really don't want the Sox to wed themselves to a flawed player like Ozuna; there may be someone they can grab in July on a salary dump. As for the pen, those names you listed: they all had career years last year. And none are of the stud variety to pull you out of jams. Just sayin...

I would prefer that the Sox use its resources on pitching. They can get by in RF with what they have. They cannot get by with this pitching staff or anything close to it. They need 2 starters and 2 relievers.

It sounded good, all the right buzzwords, the slight tone of condescension, but said nothing. i.e. the usual Hahn interview.

Yea, that's what they needed to do with Fulmer and his elite spin rate. Maybe they tried and gave up; regardless, they didn't fix it.