Red Sox/MLB 2025 Hot Stove - Mets land Juan Soto on 15-year, $765M deal
- Thread starter smithformeragent
- Start date
ON3M4N
Ignores/60 = Elite
Teel struggled defensively this past season (though scouting think he'll clean that up). He blew through the lower levels offensively but struggled a bit in AAA. I still think he's going to be an everyday guy that has a good average and hits 15-20 homers while being a locker room leader. He's basically the least risky piece that CHI got. Montgomery is a wild card. I think many had him as a top 5 pick before his injury. There's questions around his contact and ability to remain as a switch hitter in pro ball. Of the pieces going to CHI, he has the biggest "boom" potential.
Chrochet gives you a 25yr old top of the rotation guy with 2yrs left of arbitration.
ON3M4N
Ignores/60 = Elite
I'd be shocked if Teel doesn't become an everyday catcher that helps a team offensively and defensively. He also has the make-up to be a very good locker room guy and leader. Teel gives me a Varitek vibe
Chevalier du Clavier
Écrivain de ferrage
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,799
- 3,701
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
No, almost no prospect is. But their mere potential has increidble value and I think the Sox wasted that value.
Smitty93
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2012
- 8,446
- 9,663
I'm not a fan of arguments like this. It's the same mindset that's used to review all of Dombrowski's prospects and say how none of the prospects he moved turned out to be great. The point isn't that these prospects should be untouchable, it's how they're being utilized as assets. Maybe Ken Rosenthal is right and every Red Sox prospect is overrated and other teams are aware of that, so we overestimate the value of these packages.
But here's how I tend to view things. If you trade something that's been valued at $10 for something that's valued at $5, it shouldn't become a good deal because five years later what you traded is only worth $1. You still lost out on $5 of value on the original trade and that $5 of value could have gotten you something else.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Smitty93
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2012
- 8,446
- 9,663
Yeah, poor word choice on my part. Wasn't intending to call you out. It's just a topic, or maybe rather a perspective, that I feel strongly about.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
So back to the question?
How good are Teel and Montgomery? I've never seen either play.
Speier has dumped water on Casas for Castillo, it’s a dumb rumor that never made any sense
Thats the Bruin fan in us
crochet’s potential - LH #1 pitcher- has even more value than both of them. A left handed ace is the most valuable thing in the sport
They are quite good. I’m not sold on Teel defensively (he can control the run game pretty well but the other stuff like framing/game calling is still a little rough from what I recall…he’s a smart kid who works hard though those things could very well improve) but he should be able to hit well for the position. Montgomery broke his ankle or leg and didn’t play a game in pro ball last year but he was highly regarded pre-injury. Hit tool concerns but he has real power. Will probably end up in RF imo
DKH
Worst Poster/Awful Takes
- Feb 27, 2002
- 77,043
- 58,360
They gotta be at $225 M or whatever it is ~ I know they got Duran & Houck up but they gotta to be spending to max - I admit I would not be Cohen & LA
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
When you give up potential like Teel it should be for some who has established their value. But again, there are times when this deal makes total sense. Right now it does not. They're just cheap and needed to do something "big."
1. The Mets were going to blow any offer for Soto out of the water to get him. Nobody should be shocked by that.
2. Once Soto was gone, the Yankees were definitely going to use that money to go after a top of the rotation guy. Either Fried or Burnes. They weren't going to be outbid again and gave Fried a "generous" offer. Again, nobody should be shocked by that.
3. Boston needs a legit, top of the rotation guy. The only sure thing out there is Burnes. Should they have gone all out with an offer to land him? Yes. Did they? Who knows. My sense is that they kicked the tires on him and they either balked at his asking price ($35+mil/yr) or they learned that Burnes was dead set on going west to someone like the Giants. He'll probably sign with the Giants for less money than he would with Boston, and once that deal becomes public, I'm sure this board will lose its mind over it and the cheapskate comments will start flying....
4. So now they are left with trading for Crochet (who has massive upside, with some risk), or settle/overpay for guys like Flaherty (who has always been inconsistent) and Buehler (who's got just as much risk as Crochet, without as much upside). Neither of which are #1 rotation guys on a good team.
I agree with your comment about the period of contention being 2-3 years away, IF things fall right with Boston's prospects. All the more reason to trade for a potential ace, who is 25yrs old and hasn't hit his peak yet either....Also, they still have the option to add Burnes/Flaherty/Buehler if they want to.
and for the record, YES I do think Boston overpaid by adding Montgomery.
Last edited:
He already has established a lot of his value, there’s just more in there if he can get up to 180 innings. We now he’s already really, really good against major leaguers
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
I'm sorry, but one single season as a starter where he wasn't allowed to throw more than 4 innings in the second half of the season is not established in anyway.
Is it the 4 inning cap at the end of last season the thing that's bothering you? If it is, it shouldn't.
The White Sox had literally NOTHING to play for, and they weren't going to risk their most valuable trade asset for no reason whatsoever...
The Brewers did the EXACT same thing with Corbin Burnes, early in his career.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
I've shared my thoughts on this extensively, but no, that's not "the thing." It's everything.
Mr Cartmenez
Registered User
I wasn't trying to suggest that. No way do I believe that they are close to 90 wins, maybe not even 85. This will continue as long as they are fielding such a below average / bad defensive group.
I just think that 90 wins is their goal. It keeps them in the hunt for October and once there, some may argue that it'a a crapshoot anyway, right? Probably because the models like it and it's cost effective.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
I think this is absolutely right. The goal is to build an 85-win team knowing that a) bad breaks will mean a last place finish and a high draft pick, b) good breaks will mean 95 wins and competing for the division with a WIld Card guaranteed and c) normal breaks will mean they are "in it" until the end.
The days of striving to build a 100-game winner are long over. They were once driven by a single goal of winning titles by building the best team in baseball. Now they want to buy scratch tickets.
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 30,556
- 42,005
I hate how my reaction to this trade has me agreeing with people I usually don't like and disagreeing with people I usually do like
Chevalier du Clavier
Écrivain de ferrage
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,799
- 3,701
