SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox trade Iglesias, Wendelken, Rondon & Montas for Peavy
|
Post by dfwsox on Jul 31, 2013 19:39:11 GMT -5
Detroit also found itself in a desperate situation and the Sox were in position to take advantage. Fortunately CHW valued Garcia highly because the Sox were willing to give up anyone in heir system at CHW felt was similar value. Think top 7/8 prospects. It only takes one team, Det, to value hat you are trading Iglesias. That's why it's impossible to say if team A traded this package then we could've gotten it one with these guys. I agree with this. Values can be different with many teams on prospects. All of us didn't think much of Jacobs because the shine was off a bit, but he was obviously valued by chisox.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jul 31, 2013 20:49:32 GMT -5
I have to say personally I do not love the deal but I do not hate it either. I was looking forward to the Jose and Dustin double play combination next year. One problem I have is I think the current version of Peavy will be hard pressed to match the 3 starts Workman has had so far. But Workman to the pen might work out great for the Sox down the stretch. I have always liked Jake and he should fit in to Boston without any problems I just hope physically he is up to it because you can never question his effort. I do think that this is a huge endorsement from the Sox that Xander can and will be able to stick at shortstop. I think I would bring Will back up and have Xander stay down and work with Gary on his defense until September unless Gary tells them that he is ready now.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 31, 2013 20:56:43 GMT -5
Workman . . . will be hard pressed to match the 3 starts Workman has had so far
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 31, 2013 20:58:47 GMT -5
Yea I think Workman would have a hard time matching his last three starts too. I like him to though.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 31, 2013 22:35:40 GMT -5
They should really phase this in ( taking Workman out of the rotation ). Give each guy a day off over the next few weeks. Give Workman more starts until he messes up at least. In that way everyone is still stretched out in case of an injury and it should help the staff overall.
Go with the hot hand.
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Aug 1, 2013 1:47:35 GMT -5
That's already the plan...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 1, 2013 9:03:18 GMT -5
Rick Porcello has been dancing to this for 28 straight hours. The guy increases his K rate and cuts his walk rate every year, and gives up less than a homer per nine. His K/BB is up to 3.50. And it's not like a guy who consistently underperforms his FIP - he's a young pitcher who has improved at everything every year, and his ERA hasn't followed. Infield defense is a huge reason why.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 1, 2013 9:14:36 GMT -5
Rick Porcello has been dancing to this for 28 straight hours. The guy increases his K rate and cuts his walk rate every year, and gives up less than a homer per nine. His K/BB is up to 3.50. And it's not like a guy who consistently underperforms his FIP - he's a young pitcher who has improved at everything every year, and his ERA hasn't followed. Infield defense is a huge reason why. Seriusly, Percello is an extreme ground ball pitcher, and a very good one, but is saddled with two DHs playing defense behind him.
|
|
|
Post by TheCerebral1 on Aug 1, 2013 10:11:50 GMT -5
Rick Porcello has been dancing to this for 28 straight hours. The guy increases his K rate and cuts his walk rate every year, and gives up less than a homer per nine. His K/BB is up to 3.50. And it's not like a guy who consistently underperforms his FIP - he's a young pitcher who has improved at everything every year, and his ERA hasn't followed. Infield defense is a huge reason why. Porcello was rushed to the majors. Not everyone is going to become amazing in their 20-23 aged seasons. He's gotten better each and every season he's pitched. I'm surprised he's still a Tiger to be honest, but I cannot fault him as a pitcher. Their defense is attrocious.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 1, 2013 11:39:45 GMT -5
Agree on all counts. He's improved incrementally every season, which is obviously a good sign for someone so young. Even if the ERA hasn't dropped in line with his xFIP, I still think he can be a mid-3's ERA with an adequate infield defense. I thought a clever GM was going to offer up a mediocre closer type for him this offseason, but either that didn't happen, or the Tigers smartly declined.
|
|
|
Post by cba82 on Aug 2, 2013 7:13:04 GMT -5
Important stuff this: Jake Peavy is wearing his traditional #44. Does anyone know what number Jackie Bradley, Jr. will now wear when he's called back up? 10 is newly available, and 24 has been available for several years. I never thought 44 was a good fit for him, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 2, 2013 16:03:14 GMT -5
Important stuff this: Jake Peavy is wearing his traditional #44. Does anyone know what number Jackie Bradley, Jr. will now wear when he's called back up? 10 is newly available, and 24 has been available for several years. I never thought 44 was a good fit for him, anyway. He should wear #19 IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 4, 2013 13:18:39 GMT -5
Important stuff this: Jake Peavy is wearing his traditional #44. Does anyone know what number Jackie Bradley, Jr. will now wear when he's called back up? 10 is newly available, and 24 has been available for several years. I never thought 44 was a good fit for him, anyway. No longer has a number listed on the Red Sox 40-man: boston.redsox.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=bosUehara wears 19, which is his Pawtucket number.
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Aug 5, 2013 8:27:46 GMT -5
If/when Drew is gone, I'd like to see JBJ wear #7 for the next several years.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 5, 2013 12:17:43 GMT -5
If he liked 44 he could go to 33
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 5, 2013 16:58:46 GMT -5
If he liked 44 he could go to 33 Nah, don't see them issuing Tek's number too quickly. I'd say he gets Iglesias' vacated #10, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If I had to venture another guess, I'd guess #3 (a number that I think should be retired by the way - for Jimmie Foxx).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 18:51:03 GMT -5
I am really going to miss Iglesias and his defense, even if he doesn't hit much...
|
|
|
Post by tomhouse on Aug 7, 2013 5:12:26 GMT -5
SSS but Iglesias has a .158 OBP and .474 OPS since the trade.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 8, 2013 18:20:23 GMT -5
Apparently Iggy is (a) injured (toe injury while tagging out a base-stealear) and (b) now a Boras client.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 28, 2013 16:25:16 GMT -5
Xander is a shortstop for now. They didn't move Iggy because of Xander, they moved Iggy because they knew his value would never be higher and in return they got a number 3 starter who they figured would be ready to step up on the big stage. Sorry Felger, I don't trust Workman starting games 3 or 4 of the World Series just because of a string of 2-3 good starts. Scouting reports suggest that Xander will need to eventually move off of the position. Iggy and Xander are polar opposites when it comes to the SS position. That's completely and utterly wrong. If there's no X, Igelsias is the obvious SS of the future. You have five years of control of a 3 WAR SS with 4 or even 5 WAR upside. He'll be relatively dirt cheap. He's likely to outperform the combination of a re-signed Drew for three years, plus two years of Marrero or whomever they next develop, while costing a ton less. The main reason they traded for Peavy, and this comes straight from Tom Tippett, is that they "feared having Brandon Workman and Steven Wright as the number four and five starters in September." He was a depth acquisition, because they were unsure about Buchholz's return and feared that another injury to a SP could cost them the pennant. They had no illusions about Peavy being a number 3 starter, and he's obviously the fifth best starter on this team. I hated the trade at the time, and nothing that has happened subsequently has changed my mind. Jake Peavy started 10 games for the Sox and had a 0.05 Win Probability Added. To even put us in danger of losing home-field advantage, Brandon Workman would have had to put up -.50 worse, or -.045, which is -1.35 per 30 starts, which would rank 124th among 171 starting pitchers with 60 IP or more (and is equivalent to about a 4.50 ERA). To actually cost them the advantage, he'd have to have been -.095, which is being one of the dozen worst starters in baseball. Brandon Workman in his 3 starts actually had 0.18 WPA, or 1.80 per 30 starts, a rate that would place him tied for 28th. Adam Wainwright was 1.90. I can believe that Workman might come back to earth and be league-average or even a bit below over 10 more starts, but sucking? It wasn't going to happen. I chose WPA because it's measured in wins, and gives proper reduced weight to one or two bad outings. You could redo this analysis with any other metric and you'd reach the same conclusion, the conclusion I reached at the time of the trade: the difference between Jake Peavy and Brandon Workman ( which may not have even been positive) was very, very unlikely to change the team's win total. You need a big difference between two players over two months to add or subtract a win. So, the trade gained them nothing in the regular season, and all it did for the post-season was encourage them to not make the effort to get a better pitcher, Doubront, ready for the post-season rotation after what looks like a late-season dead-arm period. And having Workman in the MLB pen meant they never took a look at Allen Webster, who was lights-out in his last 8 Pawtucket starts, in that role.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 28, 2013 16:37:50 GMT -5
Xander is a shortstop for now. They didn't move Iggy because of Xander, they moved Iggy because they knew his value would never be higher and in return they got a number 3 starter who they figured would be ready to step up on the big stage. Sorry Felger, I don't trust Workman starting games 3 or 4 of the World Series just because of a string of 2-3 good starts. Scouting reports suggest that Xander will need to eventually move off of the position. Iggy and Xander are polar opposites when it comes to the SS position. That's completely and utterly wrong. If there's no X, Igelsias is the obvious SS of the future. You have five years of control of a 3 WAR SS with 4 or even 5 WAR upside. He'll be relatively dirt cheap. He's likely to outperform the combination of a re-signed Drew for three years, plus two years of Marrero or whomever they next develop, while costing a ton less. The main reason they traded for Peavy, and this comes straight from Tom Tippett, is that they "feared having Brandon Workman and Steven Wright as the number four and five starters in September." He was a depth acquisition, because they were unsure about Buchholz's return and feared that another injury to a SP could cost them the pennant. They had no illusions about Peavy being a number 3 starter, and he's obviously the fifth best starter on this team. I hated the trade at the time, and nothing that has happened subsequently has changed my mind. Jake Peavy started 10 games for the Sox and had a 0.05 Win Probability Added. To even put us in danger of losing home-field advantage, Brandon Workman would have had to put up -.50 worse, or -.045, which is -1.35 per 30 starts, which would rank 124th among 171 starting pitchers with 60 IP or more (and is equivalent to about a 4.50 ERA). To actually cost them the advantage, he'd have to have been -.095, which is being one of the dozen worst starters in baseball. Brandon Workman in his 3 starts actually had 0.18 WPA, or 1.80 per 30 starts, a rate that would place him tied for 28th. Adam Wainwright was 1.90. I can believe that Workman might come back to earth and be league-average or even a bit below over 10 more starts, but sucking? It wasn't going to happen. I chose WPA because it's measured in wins, and gives proper reduced weight to one or two bad outings. You could redo this analysis with any other metric and you'd reach the same conclusion, the conclusion I reached at the time of the trade: the difference between Jake Peavy and Brandon Workman ( which may not have even been positive) was very, very unlikely to change the team's win total. You need a big difference between two players over two months to add or subtract a win. So, the trade gained them nothing in the regular season, and all it did for the post-season was encourage them to not make the effort to get a better pitcher, Doubront, ready for the post-season rotation after what looks like a late-season dead-arm period. And having Workman in the MLB pen meant they never took a look at Allen Webster, who was lights-out in his last 8 Pawtucket starts, in that role. Jake Peavy regular season with Sox: 4-1 with a 4.04 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 45/19 K/BB, 64.2 IP. Jose Iglesias with the Tigers: .259/.306/.348/.654 On those numbers alone, I'd call the trade a wash. Heck, his overall postseason numbers were: .231/.286/.231/.516 which is equivalent to what Peavy has given you as a starter. I doubt the Red Sox believe in Xander as a SS. If WMB could hit, at all, I doubt we'd have seen the Xman this October. I wouldn't be surprised if the Red Sox keep Drew for another year or two and shop WMB around.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 28, 2013 17:02:56 GMT -5
I moved some posts from the QO thread here.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 29, 2013 1:38:23 GMT -5
I doubt the Red Sox believe in Xander as a SS. If WMB could hit, at all, I doubt we'd have seen the Xman this October. If you can explain to me why (Red Sox Director of Information Services) Tom Tippett would lie to me about that, while also giving me inside information about the rationale behind the Peavy trade (as a courtesy to a former colleague whose angry online rant about the trade was, he told me good-naturedly, noticed and tweeted about among the FO), then maybe you have a case. Repeat: according to the guy who is second after Bill James among the Red Sox sabermetric guys, the Red Sox believe so thoroughly in Xander at SS that they felt they could deal Iglesias in a trade, even though they hated to give him up, and they knew he was outstanding, plenty good enough to be our long-term starting SS. It seems to me that the error you're making starts with the notion that in trading Iglesias for Peavy we were "selling high" on a fringy player, and hence making a roughly equal value-for-value trade. Hence you call the trade a wash. But you can't evaluate the trade based just on this year, when we have one more year of Peavy and the Tigers have five more of Iglesias, during which he can be expected to improve his hitting. Five years from now, it's likely to look like an insanely bad trade, at least on paper. Now, it follows that if the Sox really thought Iglesias was going to be a good starting SS, then they knew they were overpaying hugely for Peavy, on paper. And this is true. It's important to understand that they consciously gave away much more than they thought they were getting. And that's because consciously giving too much up, on paper, is a luxury that teams with crazy depth can afford. The big previous example was trading four years of Jed Lowrie, another good MLB SS that they couldn't find a place for, and a decent pitching prospect, for three years of a setup reliever. Good starting SSs are way more valuable than even the best setup reliever, so on paper, by definition, that's a bad trade provided Lowrie doesn't crash and burn. And indeed, even if Melancon repeats his fabulous year with the Pirates, he'll have ended up being worth 3.5 WAR after the trade, and Jed Lowrie has already been worth 4.5 WAR over two years and has two years of control left. But if you have no place for Jed Lowrie's projected 9.0 of WAR and badly need 5.0 WAR of relief pitching (which is what Melancon might have been worth if he were as good as they thought), then that's a good trade. If you have no place for Jose Iglesias's (say) 15 future WAR but have a big, honking need for nearly 1 WAR of starting pitching to win a pennant (plus another 2-3 the year after), you can even make that trade. I told Tom that I had wanted Iglesias at SS and Bogaerts at 3B and probably Cecchini at 1B, because defense wins you championships. I expected him to tell me that there had been a big debate about that versus trading Iglesias and keeping Xander at SS, but he didn't. He acknowledged that my way of doing it was an option, and then told me how strongly the FO now felt that Xander can play SS. (He also surprised me by saying "don't forget about Middlebrooks" and reiterating that the FO still thought he would bounce back -- this was in early August when WMB was still struggling at Pawtucket). So, to reiterate: according to Tom, the Sox believed that Iglesias was a quality future option at SS, but they felt that Xander Bogaerts was their future SS. And that (and only that) made Iglesias expendable, and because they felt they needed to get the best available SP to guarantee an otherwise iffy pennant, they traded him. Now, after seeing X play SS myself, I no longer prefer my lineup with X at 3B; I completely agree with keeping him at SS. I think he'll be a solid defender there for quite a while, and eventually (as soon as a year from now, even) make nearly all the plays Drew is making now. My complaint is no longer that they should have kept Iglesias to play SS, it's simply that they gave him away, and to a rival elite team no less, for not just essentially nothing, but a relatively expensive nothing. Imagine if we still had Iglesias as a trading chip to get a studly corner OF bat. My sense is that they are still high enough on WMB to give him at least four more months. The likeliest outcome, based on his track record, is that he plays well enough to establish some decent trade value, and is dealt to make room for Cecchini either next winter or at the deadline. It's possible he has another bad year and they have to sell low on him, and it's also possible that he has another great year and creates the proverbial "problem you like to have." But they can afford to give him another shot at being a regular.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 29, 2013 3:26:33 GMT -5
There is no place for WMB in the probable outlook to me if Drew ends up accepting the Sox QO of 1Y and 14m. He would either take away AB from the better player in Bogaerts at 3b, or block Cecchini, the next 3b at Pawtucket who could even possibly get stuck at AA for another year and hinder his development another year.
Unloading him at low cost, like the team did with Reddick is the best situation.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 29, 2013 7:41:30 GMT -5
There is no place for WMB in the probable outlook to me if Drew ends up accepting the Sox QO of 1Y and 14m. He would either take away AB from the better player in Bogaerts at 3b, or block Cecchini, the next 3b at Pawtucket who could even possibly get stuck at AA for another year and hinder his development another year. Not true. You could play Xander every day and effectively platoon Drew with Middlebrooks by plaing Xander 3B/Drew SS versus righties and Middlebrooks 3B/Xander SS versus lefties. Middlebrooks could also get more reps at 2B and backup Pedroia. It wouldn't help his trade value much (although it might if he starts mashing lefties), but it would give the Red Sox lots of depth (wouldn't have to rely on Brock Holt or a similar player as the backup infielder),
|
|
|