Packing LaRoche for salary relief?

[TheFutureIsNear]

Would it make sense to package LaRoche with expendable young guys like Avi, Beck, Webb/Putnam? I know those guys don't have a ton of value or anything, but taking on 1 year of LaRoche would be a lot more palatable if you're getting a cheap bullpen arm for 6 years or if a team wants to gamble on Avi's potential.

 

Make sense to anyone else? I can see the Brewers being 1 team that would be interested.

[BaconOnAStick]

They tried to get rid of LaRoche and couldn't.

[LDF]

Would it make sense to package LaRoche with expendable young guys like Avi, Beck, Webb/Putnam? I know those guys don't have a ton of value or anything, but taking on 1 year of LaRoche would be a lot more palatable if you're getting a cheap bullpen arm for 6 years or if a team wants to gamble on Avi's potential.

 

Make sense to anyone else? I can see the Brewers being 1 team that would be interested.

 

most definitely and i would go to the pirates with hat in hand to see what else would they need to make this work.

 

why the pirates, for all in looks like, they need a 1b, and no matter what, he can play defense. they was to make a run to the playoff and add a prospect pitcher and / or prospect reliever to sweeten the pie....

 

i thought it could get done.

[BlackSox13]

They tried to get rid of LaRoche and couldn't.

This. ^

 

Nobody is going to trade for a defensive 1B with no power and will make 13M next off season. Not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.

[LDF]

This. ^

 

Nobody is going to trade for a defensive 1B with no power and will make 13M next off season. Not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.

 

and you make a great point. but since i been using the pirates,

 

1. they the pirates need a stop gap at 1 b for one yr, until their prize prospect is ready to step in.

2. laroche will solidify the 1b position that has been lacking a good defensive 1b for yrs,

3. he still hit 12 hrs with the sox and if anything, will prob put up better numbers without that b/s stress on him.

 

this can go with balt and the brewers excuse as well.

 

but this is me and my opinion.

[Kyyle23]

just because one team said they didnt want Laroche doesnt mean its completely over and he is untradeable forevs. teams swap bad contracts, sometimes players move on

[cabiness42]

Holy f*** I thought this topic had finally died off.

 

NOBODY IS TRADING FOR LAROCHE!!!

[Balta1701]

and you make a great point. but since i been using the pirates,

 

1. they the pirates need a stop gap at 1 b for one yr, until their prize prospect is ready to step in.

2. laroche will solidify the 1b position that has been lacking a good defensive 1b for yrs,

3. he still hit 12 hrs with the sox and if anything, will prob put up better numbers without that b/s stress on him.

 

this can go with balt and the brewers excuse as well.

 

but this is me and my opinion.

The Pirates aren't going to take on $12 million, or even $5 million, unless you give them a really good reason to do so. None of the guys listed in this thread (Avi, Beck, Putnam, Webb) are even a decent reason. Basically, ask yourself, would you pay $5 million for any of those guys if LaRoche started off next season like he finished last season and was cut by the end of May?

 

If you want the Pirates to take on a guy who was worthless last year and take money on in the process, you have to give them something worth that money. If you want them to take on $5 million, you have to give them a prospect they'd pay $5 million for. If you want them to take on $12 million, you have to give them a prospect they'd pay $12 million for.

[LDF]

just because one team said they didnt want Laroche doesnt mean its completely over and he is untradeable forevs. teams swap bad contracts, sometimes players move on

 

i would be really honest here and remember i have been advocating a trade with laroche and prospects / players to sweeten the deal.

 

but do i really think that will happen??? nah.

[LDF]

The Pirates aren't going to take on $12 million, or even $5 million, unless you give them a really good reason to do so. None of the guys listed in this thread (Avi, Beck, Putnam, Webb) are even a decent reason. Basically, ask yourself, would you pay $5 million for any of those guys if LaRoche started off next season like he finished last season and was cut by the end of May?

 

If you want the Pirates to take on a guy who was worthless last year and take money on in the process, you have to give them something worth that money. If you want them to take on $5 million, you have to give them a prospect they'd pay $5 million for. If you want them to take on $12 million, you have to give them a prospect they'd pay $12 million for.

 

and i agree with you. but ref the bold. i never posted the list of players you are mentioning. someone else posted that. but you are right, the sox will need to sweeten the deal. only the 2 teams will know what that cost is.

[Julius]

Holy f*** I thought this topic had finally died off.

 

NOBODY IS TRADING FOR LAROCHE!!!

 

To paraphrase the LaRoche commercial from April "I'll see you in July....at the trade deadline"

 

At best, he gets traded in July for a $1M to line JR's wallet. Until then, NOBODY IS TRADING FOR LADUNN!!!!!

 

[TheFutureIsNear]

They tried to get rid of LaRoche and couldn't.

 

I don't think they tried packaging LaRoche + for nothing. And I'm not even expecting the full salary to be taken on. LaRoche, $5M, and Avi for an A level reliever isn't feasible? I know Avi wasn't good last year but he's 24 and was a top prospect not that long ago.

[JRL]

I don't think they tried packaging LaRoche + for nothing. And I'm not even expecting the full salary to be taken on. LaRoche, $5M, and Avi for an A level reliever isn't feasible? I know Avi wasn't good last year but he's 24 and was a top prospect not that long ago.

 

I have a feeling that Avi has almost no trade value. Don't claim to know what GMs are thinking, but don't see why he would at this point. Kind of like Viciedo last year. Packaging him with LaRoche obv will only serve to lessen that.

 

Also, Mark Reynolds got 1 yr/2.5 Mil from Colorado. He would seem to be a reasonable comp for LaRoche except that Reynolds can actually play multiple positions and is younger. My point is that if we assume Laroche would get about 1 yr/2.5 Mil if he were a free agent, we'd need to eat about 9.5-10 mil of his salary to trade him. At that point, its probably just more worthwhile to keep him and pray for a bounceback, even if its highly unlikely

[Chisoxfn]

Holy f*** I thought this topic had finally died off.

 

NOBODY IS TRADING FOR LAROCHE!!!

I doubt the Sox have given up on this notion. That said, I think they are better served seeing how he feels heading into spring training. Any dollar savings will be minimal (after we throw in the cash). Exception is if we have targeted another expensive 1 year guy somewhere else that we think might be a better fit to our puzzle. Problem for problem swap.

[Chisoxfn]

i would be really honest here and remember i have been advocating a trade with laroche and prospects / players to sweeten the deal.

 

but do i really think that will happen??? nah.

This org can't afford to dump prospects purely to get out of a contract, imo. We are talking one year too. Absolutely under no circumstances should they do that.

[Chisoxfn]

I have a feeling that Avi has almost no trade value. Don't claim to know what GMs are thinking, but don't see why he would at this point. Kind of like Viciedo last year. Packaging him with LaRoche obv will only serve to lessen that.

 

Also, Mark Reynolds got 1 yr/2.5 Mil from Colorado. He would seem to be a reasonable comp for LaRoche except that Reynolds can actually play multiple positions and is younger. My point is that if we assume Laroche would get about 1 yr/2.5 Mil if he were a free agent, we'd need to eat about 9.5-10 mil of his salary to trade him. At that point, its probably just more worthwhile to keep him and pray for a bounceback, even if its highly unlikely

Great post and I agree fully. I also think odds of bounce back are pretty great. I firmly believe his performance was severely impacted by injury. We also have a deeper bench and can better leverage him (i.e., sit him against all lefties). Oh and historically speaking, he's been an OBP guy (and provides a power left handed bat), both of which I'd consider needs.

 

I personally love our team more with Laroche here vs. gone (cause I realistically see him being a productive player for us). You add in an impact OF bat and now the Sox can better play match-ups, keep guys fresh, and be better prepared to fill in for injury. In theory, we should be in a position that to maximize players ability at success.

[JRL]

I don't think they tried packaging LaRoche + for nothing. And I'm not even expecting the full salary to be taken on. LaRoche, $5M, and Avi for an A level reliever isn't feasible? I know Avi wasn't good last year but he's 24 and was a top prospect not that long ago.

 

A few more things:

 

1. For an "A level reliever"? I think even if Avi did have any trade value, that's a bit much given what "A level relievers" like O'Day went for in free agency, and what Kimbrel just commanded in a trade, its obvious that an Avi and Laroche package is nowhere close to what it'd take to get "A level reliever".

 

2. The notion that Avi was once a "top prospect" is kind of figment of us Sox fans' imagination. He was ranked the #74 prospect by Baseball America prior to 2013. That was the only prospect rating service that ever had him in Top 100. He was ranked 1 time, by only 1 scouting service, and he was ranked toward the bottom, where the guys are still statistically much more likely to fail than succeed. And this was before he the proceeded to put up substandard numbers as a major leaguer, and when he was 2-3 yr younger than he currently is. So, its not like he was some Miguel Sano type or even a Tim Anderson level guy back then, and now whatever value he did have at that, you would have to think its almost completely disappeared, no?

[JRL]

Great post and I agree fully. I also think odds of bounce back are pretty great. I firmly believe his performance was severely impacted by injury. We also have a deeper bench and can better leverage him (i.e., sit him against all lefties). Oh and historically speaking, he's been an OBP guy (and provides a power left handed bat), both of which I'd consider needs.

 

I personally love our team more with Laroche here vs. gone (cause I realistically see him being a productive player for us). You add in an impact OF bat and now the Sox can better play match-ups, keep guys fresh, and be better prepared to fill in for injury. In theory, we should be in a position that to maximize players ability at success.

 

I have to disagree on how likely a Laroche bounceback is though. I think theres some small chance, and once your paying him $10 mil to go away, doesn't pay not to eat 2 mil extra and hold out for that small chance that he does rebound, and if not just DFA him.

 

But, Laroche is 36. A decline due to age completely makes sense. We're not in the steroid era anymore where players all of a sudden "magically" maintain their primes through their late 30s and even in to their 40s. Especially since I don't remember seeing anything about any injury that you refer to as heavily contributing to his awful performance, certainly nothing terribly significant.

 

I agree that if LaRoche is here he should NEVER be playing vs lefties, but the problem was Trayce would have been his natural platoon partner and he's gone (not that I mind trading him, as long as we're not done yet after acquiring Frazier).

[shysocks]

I have to disagree on how likely a Laroche bounceback is though. I think theres some small chance, and once your paying him $10 mil to go away, doesn't pay not to eat 2 mil extra and hold out for that small chance that he does rebound, and if not just DFA him.

 

But, Laroche is 36. A decline due to age completely makes sense. We're not in the steroid era anymore where players all of a sudden "magically" maintain their primes through their late 30s and even in to their 40s. Especially since I don't remember seeing anything about any injury that you refer to as heavily contributing to his awful performance, certainly nothing terribly significant.

 

I agree that if LaRoche is here he should NEVER be playing vs lefties, but the problem was Trayce would have been his natural platoon partner and he's gone (not that I mind trading him, as long as we're not done yet after acquiring Frazier).

Welcome to Soxtalk!

 

The LaRoche injury stuff is from the very end of this blog post, which was written right around the time he really started to go into the tank. I believe injury played some role in his bad season, but with reports coming out of the Sox trying so hard to dump him on the Pirates, maybe the role isn't as large as I once thought.

[TheFutureIsNear]

A few more things:

 

1. For an "A level reliever"? I think even if Avi did have any trade value, that's a bit much given what "A level relievers" like O'Day went for in free agency, and what Kimbrel just commanded in a trade, its obvious that an Avi and Laroche package is nowhere close to what it'd take to get "A level reliever".

 

2. The notion that Avi was once a "top prospect" is kind of figment of us Sox fans' imagination. He was ranked the #74 prospect by Baseball America prior to 2013. That was the only prospect rating service that ever had him in Top 100. He was ranked 1 time, by only 1 scouting service, and he was ranked toward the bottom, where the guys are still statistically much more likely to fail than succeed. And this was before he the proceeded to put up substandard numbers as a major leaguer, and when he was 2-3 yr younger than he currently is. So, its not like he was some Miguel Sano type or even a Tim Anderson level guy back then, and now whatever value he did have at that, you would have to think its almost completely disappeared, no?

 

A level as in some 20 year old kid not in a teams top 30 prospects.

 

And I think you're being a bit overdramatic about Avi personally. There have been older players given chance after chance based on their tools. Avi has a hit tool and raw power that will be given a chance. If you banish every 24 year for not succeeding like you seem to want to do you'd miss out on a lot of good players.

[LDF]

This org can't afford to dump prospects purely to get out of a contract, imo. We are talking one year too. Absolutely under no circumstances should they do that.

 

you do make a good point and that i prob what many will think. i will say this, it all depends on the pkg, the prospects added and if the trade makes sense.

[Chisoxfn]

I have to disagree on how likely a Laroche bounceback is though. I think theres some small chance, and once your paying him $10 mil to go away, doesn't pay not to eat 2 mil extra and hold out for that small chance that he does rebound, and if not just DFA him.

 

But, Laroche is 36. A decline due to age completely makes sense. We're not in the steroid era anymore where players all of a sudden "magically" maintain their primes through their late 30s and even in to their 40s. Especially since I don't remember seeing anything about any injury that you refer to as heavily contributing to his awful performance, certainly nothing terribly significant.

 

I agree that if LaRoche is here he should NEVER be playing vs lefties, but the problem was Trayce would have been his natural platoon partner and he's gone (not that I mind trading him, as long as we're not done yet after acquiring Frazier).

Well I think if we add an outfielder, it means Avi improves due to playing more vs. lefties, LaRoche improves due to not playing lefties and bottom line, LaRoche had hand issues that hampered him last year. So while I agree with age regression, I buy into a part of his drop off being more injury related. I expect the LaRoche we see next year is closer to the LaRoche of old vs. the LaRoche of last year (meaning we'll see some age regression but given how far he fell last year, I largely drive more of that to injury regression and than just being burried). A clean slate to start the season will be huge (along with help).

[Chisoxfn]

Welcome to Soxtalk!

 

The LaRoche injury stuff is from the very end of this blog post, which was written right around the time he really started to go into the tank. I believe injury played some role in his bad season, but with reports coming out of the Sox trying so hard to dump him on the Pirates, maybe the role isn't as large as I once thought.

I think it is more that the Sox aren't as happy with LaRoche's fit and they don't want a backup 1B (plus they are trying their best to be as creative with payroll as possible). So in their eyes, they have better uses for the roster spot and resources (if they could have saved 4-5M). Realistically, I think the most they could save is $2M and at that point, I think LaRoche is worth given a shot to.

[elrockinMT]

just because one team said they didnt want Laroche doesnt mean its completely over and he is untradeable forevs. teams swap bad contracts, sometimes players move on

 

 

If we keep Laroche and he bounces back in 2016 then this contract won't look so bad. I do believe he still might be traded and probably back to the NL, but if not it still might work out for the Sox

[Lillian]

I've posted this elsewhere, but if La Roche can play well enough to be serviceable, he adds two positives:

1) He provides a back up, good defensive first baseman, in case of an injury to Abreu, and to spell him from time to time.

2) He could also be a left handed bat, who could pinch hit, especially in late inning match ups.

 

As long as he is no longer needed as a middle of the order hitter, his left handed bat provides a little more balance to the lineup.

He has to bat in the bottom 3RD of the order, behind Eaton, Cabrera, Abreu, Frazier, Upton/Cespedes, and Lawrie.