Jump to content

Bullpen Moves


Rey21

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Closing is Taylor's floor. #1 or #2 is his ceiling, and I would be looking for more of that level of return. 

For sure, more so just getting the convo started, I'd shoot for the moon for him but would definitely move on if they're getting 2-3 top 100 guys 

But Clase going down helps with the other guys too which is good 

Edited by Rey21
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rey21 said:

Clase going down sure makes Grant Taylor a little more enticing... If they're able to get a couple top 100 guys I'm doing it in a heartbeat IMO  

I definitely would take the hitter equivalent of Taylor .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the 2024 deadline deals, the only closer moved who brought back significance was Tanner Scott, when combined with Brian Hoeing, brought back a couple of MLB ready pitching prospects, and a couple of meh bats. Any other closers of note only really brought back pairs of arms. 

Tracking every 2024 Trade Deadline deal

If the Sox wanted to move Taylor, I would think they'd get better offers in the off-season, as Taylor is really just a leverage arm, at this point, and has TOR starter ceiling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Closing is Taylor's floor. #1 or #2 is his ceiling, and I would be looking for more of that level of return. 

I'm so insanely hesitant to trade Taylor because of this.

  • Like 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Looking at the 2024 deadline deals, the only closer moved who brought back significance was Tanner Scott, when combined with Brian Hoeing, brought back a couple of MLB ready pitching prospects, and a couple of meh bats. Any other closers of note only really brought back pairs of arms. 

Tracking every 2024 Trade Deadline deal

If the Sox wanted to move Taylor, I would think they'd get better offers in the off-season, as Taylor is really just a leverage arm, at this point, and has TOR starter ceiling. 

Tanner Scott was a rental though

The teams who need a closer or late bullpen help are the ones with the most intriguing top prospects (Phillies, Tigers, Dodgers), even with Taylor's untapped potential I'm cool with moving on if it nets bats, I have faith in Bannister to build up a bullpen and a rotation 

Edited by Rey21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rey21 said:

Tanner Scott was a rental though

The teams who need a closer or late bullpen help are the ones with the most intriguing top prospects (Phillies, Tigers, Dodgers), even with Taylor's untapped potential I'm cool with moving on if it nets bats, I have faith in Bannister to build up a bullpen and a rotation 

Sure, but Taylor has a much higher ceiling than a closer. IF you were looking to move Taylor for "bats", a 2024 Crochet workload next season as a starter probably presents him as a TOR starter. I don't think he brings back that level of return as a leverage arm (he's not even a proven closer, yet really) at the TDL. I'm betting the interest Getz is getting right now is from GMs offering leverage arm returns for a TOR starter with oodles of cheap control. 

Edited by WestEddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Quin said:

I'm so insanely hesitant to trade Taylor because of this.

Yeah but it's well settled that the Sox generally suck at player development. So if the FO believes they can't make him a TOR SP (and others believe they can as evidenced by the demand) then you still should move him if you are getting a haul of good position players (2 Top 100) because 1) getting good position players is rare these days and 2) even if he becomes a great SP elsewhere its unlikely he would have become one here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SoCalChiSox said:

Yeah but it's well settled that the Sox generally suck at player development. So if the FO believes they can't make him a TOR SP (and others believe they can as evidenced by the demand) then you still should move him if you are getting a haul of good position players (2 Top 100) because 1) getting good position players is rare these days and 2) even if he becomes a great SP elsewhere its unlikely he would have become one here.

But this is like, the one thing they are good at.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Quin said:

But this is like, the one thing they are good at.

Again, if the feeling is that his extension doesn't fit his body that has been floated out there is true, the Sox don't see Taylor as a starter long term, no matter what they are saying publicly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Sure, but Taylor has a much higher ceiling than a closer. IF you were looking to move Taylor for "bats", a 2024 Crochet workload next season as a starter probably presents him as a TOR starter. I don't think he brings back that level of return as a leverage arm (he's not even a proven closer, yet really) at the TDL. I'm betting the interest Getz is getting right now is from GMs offering leverage arm returns for a TOR starter with oodles of cheap control. 

He does. But he’s a guy that throws 102, so he has a floor of spectator. The way the Sox haven’t been able to draft and develop offense, I would think getting a hitter his level would be a nice get. Certainly it would take something really good, and I agree teams are probably not going to offer what you or I think is equal value but offensive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rey21 said:

Clase going down sure makes Grant Taylor a little more enticing... If they're able to get a couple top 100 guys I'm doing it in a heartbeat IMO  

Taylor hasn't proven anything except that he throws hard. You'd selling low. I don't get the fascination with moving him. 

He barely pitched in college. They're being careful with his usage. We have no idea if he might become a starter but he's a baby in his MLB time now . It's not like he was a big top 100 name. He's still a project . You'd be trading all his upside for a downside price. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

He does. But he’s a guy that throws 102, so he has a floor of spectator. The way the Sox haven’t been able to draft and develop offense, I would think getting a hitter his level would be a nice get. Certainly it would take something really good, and I agree teams are probably not going to offer what you or I think is equal value but offensive.

I fully doubt that anyone is willing to pay full closer price for Taylor, considering he is completely unproven at any level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I fully doubt that anyone is willing to pay full closer price for Taylor, considering he is completely unproven at any level.

I agree, but as Hawk once said, everyone except Michael Jordan is available if the price is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I agree, but as Hawk once said, everyone except Michael Jordan is available if the price is right.

That's my feeling.  This rebuild has no sacred cows.  Honestly, I think teams are sniffing around him because they think they can get Grant Taylor for less than it would cost to get say a Duran from Minny.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Taylor hasn't proven anything except that he throws hard. You'd selling low. I don't get the fascination with moving him. 

He barely pitched in college. They're being careful with his usage. We have no idea if he might become a starter but he's a baby in his MLB time now . It's not like he was a big top 100 name. He's still a project . You'd be trading all his upside for a downside price. 

And that's why teams want him - he's got a ton of upside and wouldn't cost much right now. You'd only trade him if some team was willing to meet you close to halfway on his current value vs. potential value, and no one is going to do that because it'd make his lower potential outcomes way too expensive to obtain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, almagest said:

And that's why teams want him - he's got a ton of upside and wouldn't cost much right now. You'd only trade him if some team was willing to meet you close to halfway on his current value vs. potential value, and no one is going to do that because it'd make his lower potential outcomes way too expensive to obtain.

And that's not going to happen was my point. 

Have at it if you like thinking there are fantasy offers out there.

Very few trades have gone down so far and the typical returns are pitchers. The market is setting up to be much like last year. 

 

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I agree, but as Hawk once said, everyone except Michael Jordan is available if the price is right.

And we have the one owner whose track record would even dispute that "except Michael Jordan" part, if it were happening in the 2020's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...