Perrotto on BoSox and Rangers

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 5, 2008 12:36 PM CST Comment 54 comments

John Perrotto has this note in his BP column today:

The Indians would consider trading catcher Kelly Shoppach for a young pitcher who is capable of closing, which makes the Red Sox a logical trade partner; they would likely part with Masterson, who could also be dealt to the Rangers for catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia.

Saltalamacchia for Masterson was something there was some talk off last summer, although this item isn't clear on whether Perrotto is suggesting that those discussions have occurred between the teams, if he's talking about players that each team has an interest in, or is just speculating.

However, it is worth thinking about and talking about, I guess...would you be on board with a straight-up Salty for Masterson deal?

0 recs | Comment 54 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No

I still think Salty could bring more than Masterson.

A bunch of midgets with no arms could pitch better than us. -iorange555

by boomer1 on Nov 5, 2008 12:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If that’s Saltalamacchia’s top-out market right now I’d play him in AAA and try again later.

It’s not the echelon of pitching that will really make a difference.

Go Strangers.

by hightowersmith on Nov 5, 2008 12:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Concur

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought catchers were supposed to have great trade value

Masterson looks like a middle reliever to me – funky delivery and 2 pitches, both in the 80’s. If all you can get for Salty is this kind of guy, I think LSB needs to refrain from the “catchers have great trade value” mantra.

I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.

by tricer on Nov 5, 2008 12:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i know we have discussed this previously

but i am pretty sure masterson’s fastball is in the low to mid 90’s when he works out of the bullpen.

by clark on Nov 5, 2008 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

95

is what he was touching in the playoffs. no idea how accurate those radars are

At this rate, he’ll be throwing 107-110 by 2012

by trident on Nov 5, 2008 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

re: If all you can get for Salty is this kind of guy, I think LSB needs to refrain from the "catchers have great trade value" mantra."

Of course.

One incident definitely shatters the theory.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the theory itself

was based upon a couple of isolated incidents.

I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.

by tricer on Nov 5, 2008 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I follow your train of thought

You say isolated incidents spurred this premise. Let’s think about this in a vacuum then:

Obviously, not all players, nor positions are created equal. What would probably be the hardest position to play? And, as a follow up, wouldn’t the positions that are the hardest to play be the most valuable? And as a follow up to that, wouldn’t those positions that are the hardest to play, and consequently develop, be the most valuable?

Disclaimer: I can see how what I just wrote can easily be discerned as highly sarcastic. And, obviously, I am no stranger to sarcasm. That said, I think we know each other after a couple of years well enough to know that I respect your opinion, and am not mocking you.

Questions/suppositions are sincere.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In your argument in a vacuum, shouldn’t we consider that catchers play a lot less games than any other position? Making them the least valuable position players? Unless a team have a surplus at a position, it makes some sense for them to keep the guy that will play 150 games, rather than trade him for a guy that will play 120.

And following your line of questioning in the first paragraph, you seem to imply that catching is the most difficult, thus the most valuable commodity in baseball. I think it is pretty clear that pitching is the thing to have.

I’m not saying that I don’t value catching talent, but I don’t think it is the gold standard for trade. I think there are a lot of teams that wouldn’t reallocate assets to shore up a need at catcher.

I guess one way to continue the discussion would be to ask you this: if Texas had nothing on the roster at catcher, but otherwise the same team and farm system, which of our players/prospects would you trade to bring in Salty? how bout for Teagarden?

I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.

by tricer on Nov 5, 2008 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously, pitching is the foremost currency of the game

I thought about being more specific, but was trying for conciseness. After pitching, though it’s catchers and shortstops.

To think that having a surplus of any one of those 3 wouldn’t be extremely valuable trade ammunition to me seems really counter intuitive.

To answer your question: It depends. If the only piece of the puzzle we are missing is catcher, I’d give up a hell of a lot to get TT. Probably Beltre and Neil Ramirez, or Kiker and Borbon and a B-, something along those lines. Salts I think is an enigma right now. Don’t know. It is kind of hard to answer that question, b/c everybody varies on how high they are on a particular prospect.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

by Brian Thomas on Nov 6, 2008 8:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From the Keith Law chat:

"Shane (Boston): If the Dodgers were to offer Russell Martin to the Red Sox, what would it take? And would you do it?

Keith Law: I’d deal Buchholz for him. And I still really, really like Buchholz. I think the scarcity at the position makes Martin’s value more than Buchholz’."

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=23438

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

by Brian Thomas on Nov 6, 2008 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No,

I don’t think that he’s going to be anything special as a starter and if we trade Salty for a reliever then that guy better bring some heat…

by Kinslerhomer on Nov 5, 2008 12:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

TT for Buchholz

I know it’s been talked to death but if I’m JD I would see what more you would have to add to get that deal done. After that I would see what it would take to get Miller from the Marlins.

A bunch of midgets with no arms could pitch better than us. -iorange555

by boomer1 on Nov 5, 2008 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I concur

Love what Teagarden showed in limited time last year, but he’s at that age where he won’t really be improving much, didn’t blow anyone away in the minors, and has an injury history. That said, he’s still my favorite of the 4-but if that’s what needs to happen to obtain Buchholz, I hope the trigger is pulled.

by Conjunction on Nov 5, 2008 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

isn't shoppach

closer in comparison to Laird than Salty? I would certainly trade Laird for Masterson.

by clark on Nov 5, 2008 12:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

okay, went ahead and answered it for myself

taking only offense into consideration:

2008:
Laird: 276/329/398
Shoppach: 261/347/517

Career:
Laird: 255/306/383
Shoppach: 252/323/470

So it appears Shoppach might be above Laird, but when factoring everything into the equation, he is much closer to Laird in terms of value than Salty, correct? Both players are 28 and will be 29 for most or all of next season.

by clark on Nov 5, 2008 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

for some reason

I still think Laird will end up with the Yankees. I don’t know if it will be part of a larger deal that includes someone like Blalock or Byrd, or just Laird. The teams just match up well. Their primary area of depth is in their bullpen, and the Rangers desparately need some young bullpen talent to make their rotation more effective.

by clark on Nov 5, 2008 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

shouldn't it be

Rangers desparately need some young rotation talent to make their bullpen more effective.

Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.

by RangerMad on Nov 5, 2008 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

truthfully

i think the rangers have enough talent in their system right now to have a solid rotation. I think that by the end of this next season Hurley, Harrison, Holland, and Hunter will all have solidified their presense there (if they get the opportunity). Add guys like BMac, Feldman, and any young pitcher we acquire in a trade to that mix as well.

But their bullpen makes me nervous. I like the core of Frankie, Benoit, Wilson, and…blanking right now…the kid from the Angels. But we don’t have a lot of solid late inning guys coming through the system. Perhaps Diamond, perhaps Feliz. Jones, Laughter, and maybe Young could be in the mix. but overall, we are pretty thin there.

by clark on Nov 5, 2008 1:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

X

Mad Dog

Steal Home R.I.P. 9/10/08

by LAMuscleFag on Nov 5, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think with the Yankees

maybe Laird, Millwood, and Byrd for Phil Hughes and Mark Melancon. I really think Melancon will a really good reliever and Hughes a decent starter

by CRUSHDAVIS on Nov 5, 2008 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hughes a decent starter

I’m pretty sure Brian Cashman disagrees with you.

Go Strangers.

by hightowersmith on Nov 5, 2008 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd bet you that Laird makes up that offensive difference

with his defensive ability.

I don’t think Shoppach is known for his defense, IIRC. Does anyone have his Dewan + / – relative to Laird’s?

I’m interested in discussing Laird + Boscan for Masterson. Would that be reasonable?

"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst

by Chase Irwin on Nov 5, 2008 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From what I heard

I thought Shoppach was always supposed to be a very good reciever. Supposedly the CLE pitchers “really like throwing to him”.

A Lonestar in California

Just say no to Scott Olsen.

by lonestarJon on Nov 5, 2008 7:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What about that proposal though

wouldn’t Boscan profile as a similar pitcher to Masterson down the line, plus a ML-ready catcher in Laird who has 1 year + option if i’m not mistaken at reasonable rates. Plus, they could afford to resign him if he plays well. Just makes sense to me.

by Chase Irwin on Nov 5, 2008 7:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I'd do it and not blink

I think that would be an outstanding return for Laird – although I have been hearing a lot of good things about Boscan lately.

A Lonestar in California

Just say no to Scott Olsen.

by lonestarJon on Nov 5, 2008 7:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's going to take more than Laird to land Masterson

Boscan seems fair value to me.

Then put together a bigger package for Nolasco, Cain, Buchholz, whoever.

by Chase Irwin on Nov 5, 2008 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know

If Masterson is worth investing a high promise player to get. OTOH, I’m not totally on board with Salty being a high promise player. His bat, somewhat promising, especially from the left side. However, he’s the first catcher I’ve seen since the Ernie Lombardi days who slides, falls down and can’t throw when a ball gets past him. Don’t know if that’s lack of coordination, insufficient training at the position, or just rushing the bit (trying to hard and going off balance). To this point, Salty’s potential is immensely greater than his observable skills.

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

by Ed Coffin on Nov 5, 2008 12:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Shhhhhhh!

I would much rather

shoot for a pitcher like Andrew Miller in return for Salty, and I believe that to be a reasonable deal.

the problem with our glut of catchers is that Laird is so damn unsexy that no team appears to want him, or at least they want our other guys much more. Every rumor that involves Laird also involves our other guys.

by clark on Nov 5, 2008 12:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Martin

There are also some rumblings that LA might make Martin available (which seems incredible to me) and that Boston would be all over that. Seems like a less than ideal time to be trying to deal catchers, hoping for the best.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Nov 5, 2008 1:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i thought i read today

that a dodgers exec called bs on that. besides, who replaces him? The name thrown out was Varitek, but that makes no sense.

by clark on Nov 5, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I don’t buy it, but I’ve seen it multiple times so it’s worth keeping in mind I suppose.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Nov 5, 2008 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would they?

by Conjunction on Nov 5, 2008 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

to refrain from winning?

by bushe on Nov 5, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably not.

At least not straight up. That is pretty tough, though. He seems to have the upside of a #3 starter or so, but he has some control issues that might make him better suited for the bullpen. He also does a lot better against righties than lefties. I just don’t think Bowden or Masterson alone is quite enough to justify giving up Salty. Maybe I am overvaluing him, though.

by Stephen Rushin on Nov 5, 2008 2:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yes. In a heart beat.

Doesn’t make me right, of course, but I think I’m lower on Salty (and our need for Salty) and higher on Masterson (and our need for Masterson) than are most here.

by philkid3 on Nov 5, 2008 2:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That said. . .

. . . I wouldn’t want them to jump on the first offer made. Find out if anyone feels like valuing Salty more than the Sox are.

by philkid3 on Nov 5, 2008 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Only if it's Masterson and on OF prospect

But straight up 1-1? Nah…

A Lonestar in California

Just say no to Scott Olsen.

by lonestarJon on Nov 5, 2008 4:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

HELL no.

I won’t trade a significant piece – and Salty is most definitely significant in many regards – straight up for a reliever that isn’t a sure-thing future closer or dominant setup man.

Save the big trade bait for starters only, unless we’re blown away with a position player

"Calmer than you are... "

by Walter Sobchak on Nov 5, 2008 5:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Masterson is a starter

He just relieved for Boston this year because they needed help in the pen.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 5, 2008 5:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Boston

should sign K-Rod, keep Masterson in the 8th inning role, and move Papelbon into the rotation..

by tyd3311 on Nov 5, 2008 6:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or don't sign K-Rod.

Or sign him, keep all three in the pen. and shut games down after the 6th inning.

by philkid3 on Nov 5, 2008 7:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dirty.

by tyd3311 on Nov 5, 2008 7:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he is a two pitch pitcher w/ a funky delivery

those guys usually turn out to be relievers.

I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.

by tricer on Nov 5, 2008 8:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

excuse me...

I meant to say a top flight starter or starting prospect. I don’t know much about he or Bowden, but if there’s a discussion as to which one’s better, and Bowden’s not too enticing, why would I do Masterson? Buchholz or bust with that team, unless they want to discuss a scrub of ours for one of those two.

"Calmer than you are... "

by Walter Sobchak on Nov 6, 2008 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think we'd be trading...

…salts at a low value point. my question is, will his value improve with time next year?

we have to make room here at some point or everyone’s value will decline. you can’t have laird splitting time with salty behind the plate, max in AAA, taytea in AA(or switched) and have them increase in ability and value. we have to, at some point, bite the bullet and pull the trigger on one of them… even if it’s just one and not three. the trouble is salty, and to a small extent max, have a slightly diminished value right now and you’d hate to sell low. just like teagarden’s value couldn’t be higher after what he did the last month of the season, but you’d hate to sell if he turns out to be that good. i think you have to move salty and laird. IMHO i don’t know if salty will ever reach a satisfactory value for us to feel we are getting an incredible return for him… and laird’s contract and age in comparison to teagarden or max make him a lot less appealing. spin laird and salty for quality, note: not star, arms and you’ve added more chances to hit on a couple of the many up and comers we’ve got in the system.

"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...

by ivysafety39 on Nov 5, 2008 5:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Catchers

If one of them will bring back a legit top of the rotation prospect or young starter I don’t care which one gets dealt. I will accept a drop at the catcher position if it nets a big gain in pitching. For instance the drop off from TT to Max or Salty is not as much as the increase from a #4/5 starter to a #1/2 starter.

But if all we can get back in this trade market is a average prospect then you hold on to the one with the most upside

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Nov 5, 2008 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but when trading..

…for a prospect, even one in AA or AAA, can you really expect him to be a #1… 2/3 yeah, but a 1… thats someone wanting to deal us a top 5 OF prospect but asking for dutch in return… i’m pretty sure the answer would involved telling the other GM to go fornicate themselves… you don’t deal away 1’s… a 2 maybe, but there’d have to be serious reservations about him and the prospect would have to be more than solid. young proven pitching value far outweighs young proven fielding prospects. especially at the high end of the talent spectrum.

"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...

by ivysafety39 on Nov 5, 2008 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs