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.
How Strong is the System?
|
Post by joshv02 on May 29, 2014 14:42:57 GMT -5
Carp essentially made the league minimum last year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 29, 2014 14:46:04 GMT -5
As far as trades he's won? Peavy helped Boston win the '13 title, and Iglesias is out for '14, so that's a win for now at least.
I think Reddick for Bailey was easily defensible, but agree about Lowrie. The whole Melancon thing was probably Cherington's worst maneuvering as GM. Gave up a legit MLB shortstop for him at his peak value, then dumped him when his value was lowest. Buy high, sell low. I'm not nearly as negative on Cherington overall as you are, but it's pretty rare to see a GM get fleeced when trading for a player, and then fleeced again a year later when he trades the player he was fleeced to acquire. That's Bill Smith territory.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 29, 2014 14:48:16 GMT -5
As far as trades he's won? P eavy helped Boston win the '13 title, and Iglesias is out for '14, so that's a win for now at least. I think Reddick for Bailey was easily defensible, but agree about Lowrie. The whole Melancon thing was probably Cherington's worst maneuvering as GM. Gave up a legit MLB shortstop for him at his peak value, then dumped him when his value was lowest. Buy high, sell low. I'm not nearly as negative on Cherington overall as you are, but it's pretty rare to see a GM get fleeced when trading for a player, and then fleeced again a year later when he trades the player he was fleeced to acquire. That's Bill Smith territory. I submit that there is nothing Peavy did last year that Workman couldn't have done. Wasted assets. A gold glove OF who can play all three positions with pop whose offensive performance so far makes him look like Tony Gwynn compared to JBJ (small sample, but still) - all for a reliever who had a history of brittleness? OK, defend that.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 29, 2014 15:21:24 GMT -5
In 2013 and 2014 Josh Reddick has been a sub .700 ops outfielder. He has been a terrible hitter since the end of 2012. No matter how hard people try, sub .700 outfielders only can help a team if they play centerfield and are clones of Paul Blair and Devon White. BTW, White's and Blair's offensive numbers before the age of 30 are better then Reddick's.
If the Sox kept Reddick there would likely be no Victorino, which means Sox likely would not have won the pennant last year let alone the world series. The Sox were fortunate to let Reddick go. Trades have a trickle down effect. This is a rare case of addition by subtraction. Although Bailey delivered nothing, the trade necessitated Victorino, who was vital last year. BTW, Victorino, not Reddick, won the Gold Glove last year.
Wishing the Sox still had Reddick is wishing away the 2013 World Championship.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on May 29, 2014 15:25:58 GMT -5
As far as trades he's won? P eavy helped Boston win the '13 title, and Iglesias is out for '14, so that's a win for now at least. I think Reddick for Bailey was easily defensible, but agree about Lowrie. The whole Melancon thing was probably Cherington's worst maneuvering as GM. Gave up a legit MLB shortstop for him at his peak value, then dumped him when his value was lowest. Buy high, sell low. I'm not nearly as negative on Cherington overall as you are, but it's pretty rare to see a GM get fleeced when trading for a player, and then fleeced again a year later when he trades the player he was fleeced to acquire. That's Bill Smith territory. I submit that there is nothing Peavy did last year that Workman couldn't have done. Wasted assets. A gold glove OF who can play all three positions with pop whose offensive performance so far makes him look like Tony Gwynn compared to JBJ (small sample, but still) - all for a reliever who had a history of brittleness? OK, defend that. JBJ has struggled immensely so far and still has an OBP 18 points higher than Reddick's. Both are elite defenders, but JBJ plays a premium position.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 29, 2014 15:37:47 GMT -5
I submit that there is nothing Peavy did last year that Workman couldn't have done. Wasted assets. A gold glove OF who can play all three positions with pop whose offensive performance so far makes him look like Tony Gwynn compared to JBJ (small sample, but still) - all for a reliever who had a history of brittleness? OK, defend that. JBJ has struggled immensely so far and still has an OBP 18 points higher than Reddick's. Both are elite defenders, but JBJ plays a premium position. It was said that Reddick could play all three OF positions. He gets great jumps, has good speed and a better arm than Bradley, and a lower K rate. Even if they are essentially identical you don't trade that for a reliever with a demonstrated injury history. ADDED: Reddick WAR since trade: 7.2 Bailey WAR since the trade 0.0
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 29, 2014 15:41:29 GMT -5
In 2013 and 2014 Josh Reddick has been a sub .700 ops outfielder. He has been a terrible hitter since the end of 2012. No matter how hard people try, sub .700 outfielders only can help a team if they play centerfield and are clones of Paul Blair and Devon White. BTW, White's and Blair's offensive numbers before the age of 30 are better then Reddick's. If the Sox kept Reddick there would likely be no Victorino, which means Sox likely would not have won the pennant last year let alone the world series. The Sox were fortunate to let Reddick go. Trades have a trickle down effect. This is a rare case of addition by subtraction. Although Bailey delivered nothing, the trade necessitated Victorino, who was vital last year. BTW, Victorino, not Reddick, won the Gold Glove last year. Wishing the Sox still had Reddick is wishing away the 2013 World Championship. Who is to say you don't trade him in a larger package for better value, or platoon him? I'm just saying it was a lousy trade of an every day asset who was a plus defender with some pop.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on May 29, 2014 15:46:58 GMT -5
keep digging your hole, Guidas.
For someone that has been skeptical about many prospects (and often rightly so), I am surprised that you're still a REddick fan.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 29, 2014 16:24:20 GMT -5
I submit that there is nothing Peavy did last year that Workman couldn't have done. Wasted assets. A gold glove OF who can play all three positions with pop whose offensive performance so far makes him look like Tony Gwynn compared to JBJ (small sample, but still) - all for a reliever who had a history of brittleness? OK, defend that. JBJ has struggled immensely so far and still has an OBP 18 points higher than Reddick's. Both are elite defenders, but JBJ plays a premium position. C'mon man, Reddick has a 73 wRC+ while Bradley is at 61. You can't just ignore slugging percentage or park adjustments. After looking at a list of his trades, yeah, Cherington has yet to clearly win one and has decisively lost several (the trades for Melancon, Bailey, and Hanrahan). Iglesias/Peavy was a win-now move that was justifiable based on context, but one that's hard to call a clear win (Iglesias will pretty clearly produce more surplus value than Peavy did, but some of that goes out the window in a playoff race). Acquiring Badenhop seems like a pretty good trade so far, but it's a pretty minor move that was a no-brainer. Frankly, for a guy who has the reputation of a statistically-minded, process-oriented, even-keeled guy, a lot of Cherington's bad transactions were pretty short-sighted non-SABR-orthodox panic moves. He traded young, cost-controlled position players with upside for "established" closers in the wake of Papelbon signing with Philadelphia, which is pretty much a cardinal sin for the advanced stats crowd. Even worse might be dumping a cheap, team-controlled reliever (after a half-season of a bad ERA) for an expensive rental "proven closer."
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on May 29, 2014 23:37:12 GMT -5
JBJ has struggled immensely so far and still has an OBP 18 points higher than Reddick's. Both are elite defenders, but JBJ plays a premium position. C'mon man, Reddick has a 73 wRC+ while Bradley is at 61. You can't just ignore slugging percentage or park adjustments. Uh, so Reddick's 73 wRC+ makes him look like Tony Gwynn (career 132 wRC+) when he's compared to Jackie Bradley (64 wRC+)? I wasn't arguing that JBJ has been a superior, or even equivalent offensive performer to Reddick -- my bad if that wasn't clear, as I was just responding to the Gwynn comment, which I found a little ridiculous. But had I been trying to argue who was more of an offensive contributor, you know that I know better than to merely cite OBP. JBJ has struggled immensely so far and still has an OBP 18 points higher than Reddick's. Both are elite defenders, but JBJ plays a premium position. It was said that Reddick could play all three OF positions. He gets great jumps, has good speed and a better arm than Bradley, and a lower K rate. Even if they are essentially identical you don't trade that for a reliever with a demonstrated injury history. ADDED: Reddick WAR since trade: 7.2 Bailey WAR since the trade 0.0 Reddick is a fantastic right fielder, and while he's more than capable of playing a solid center field, I don't think there's a chance his defensive performance would be up to par with JBJ's there. As for the Bailey trade, I agree with you -- my response was completely focused on you exaggerating the offensive difference between Reddick and JBJ by invoking the "makes him look like Tony Gwynn" claim.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 30, 2014 9:17:49 GMT -5
JBJ has struggled immensely so far and still has an OBP 18 points higher than Reddick's. Both are elite defenders, but JBJ plays a premium position. C'mon man, Reddick has a 73 wRC+ while Bradley is at 61. You can't just ignore slugging percentage or park adjustments. After looking at a list of his trades, yeah, Cherington has yet to clearly win one and has decisively lost several (the trades for Melancon, Bailey, and Hanrahan). Iglesias/Peavy was a win-now move that was justifiable based on context, but one that's hard to call a clear win (Iglesias will pretty clearly produce more surplus value than Peavy did, but some of that goes out the window in a playoff race). Acquiring Badenhop seems like a pretty good trade so far, but it's a pretty minor move that was a no-brainer. Frankly, for a guy who has the reputation of a statistically-minded, process-oriented, even-keeled guy, a lot of Cherington's bad transactions were pretty short-sighted non-SABR-orthodox panic moves. He traded young, cost-controlled position players with upside for "established" closers in the wake of Papelbon signing with Philadelphia, which is pretty much a cardinal sin for the advanced stats crowd. Even worse might be dumping a cheap, team-controlled reliever (after a half-season of a bad ERA) for an expensive rental "proven closer." This - which is a big reason why my trust in Ben remains guarded.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on May 30, 2014 9:23:01 GMT -5
Iglesias/Peavy was a win-now move that was justifiable based on context, but one that's hard to call a clear win (Iglesias will pretty clearly produce more surplus value than Peavy did, but some of that goes out the window in a playoff race). This is one quibble I have with the SABR crowd (of which I consider myself amongst them); a trade shouldn't be evaluated based on total WAR. I prefer to look at a trade in a WAR/position/year standpoint. Obviously when trading multiple prospects for 1-2 seasons of an established veteran the veteran acquiring team is almost always going to "lose" based on total WAR. However, if you acquire a 4+ WIN pitcher (Price) for 1.5 seasons you get 6 total WAR. You'd probably have to give up 2 ML ready players with upside and a lottery ticket. Let's assume the lottery ticket busts, but the 2 ML ready players wind up league average or so (2 WAR each). You just gave up a total of 24 WAR (6 seasons of control each) for 6 WAR. According to many that was a huge loss. However, I like to look at it as getting more WAR/roster spot/season of control. The objective isn't to have a team of league average players, but rather to maximize WAR/position. The one caveat is that the buying team can't replace the 2 WAR players lost with 0 WAR. The trade needs to create excess value.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 30, 2014 10:24:50 GMT -5
Daren Willman ?@darenw 4m The #RedSox 2013 draft class is batting .322 this year... That's 35 points higher than the next closest #Cubs (.287) mlbfarm.com/draft.php?sort=1 … . . . . Dan S (Boston MA) Boston's strong farm system is a myth, right? Klaw (2:27 PM) Wrong. LOL, I wonder if Dan S posts here. . . . . Josh Norris ?@jnorris427 6h Slated starters (per site) for Pawtucket at Durham next week: De La Rosa, Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes. … Dayum. #RedSox
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 30, 2014 23:16:33 GMT -5
I motion that this thread title be changed to "How Strong is this System!!!"
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 31, 2014 1:30:23 GMT -5
I think you need to judge a GM by his ability to learn from mistakes.
I think Ben has done a terrific job with that especially in the bullpen. The Red Sox over the past few years have taken fliers on guys who threw hard but looked like they had eaten Koji Urehara. Now they have guys who don't throw as hard but are at least in shape and hence don't have arm problems.
Ben deserves credit for building a bullpen that was an unheralded part of their success last year and has kept them from sinking this year. A lot of those guys were Cherrington acquistions, Badenhop, Capuano, Uehara, and Breslow, that includes two trades won by the way. Even the guy's that were with the system, Miller and Tazawa, weren't big parts of the equation when Theo left.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 31, 2014 7:57:15 GMT -5
I think you need to judge a GM by his ability to learn from mistakes. I think Ben has done a terrific job with that especially in the bullpen. The Red Sox over the past few years have taken fliers on guys who threw hard but looked like they had eaten Koji Urehara. Now they have guys who don't throw as hard but are at least in shape and hence don't have arm problems. Ben deserves credit for building a bullpen that was an unheralded part of their success last year and has kept them from sinking this year. A lot of those guys were Cherrington acquistions, Badenhop, Capuano, Uehara, and Breslow, that includes two trades won by the way. Even the guy's that were with the system, Miller and Tazawa, weren't big parts of the equation when Theo left. I was about to say the same thing ... *all* of the trades listed as "bad" above were for relievers, mostly for what were considered flawed assets (Reddick can't really hit - sorry guidas - Lowrie was injury-prone, etc, although I disagreed with the Lowrie trade at the time and still do). Ben seems to have learned from that ... but saying, "he hasn't won any trade outside of the Punto Trade" is sorta the reverse of the old "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" joke. That's his only major trade, and it has already resulted in one World Series and set the Sox up for years of success. Back to the original title of this thread, gives me a chuckle almost every time that this sits right next to the one about BA ranking the Sox system #4 ... [edit to add totally unfounded speculation: at the time of the Lowrie trade, I wondered if it had anything to do with the "chicken and beer" stories ... I heard that there was one player the other Sox players blamed for the leaks, and that there was no way that player was going to be able to remain on the team. Always kind of wondered if that was Lowrie]
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,947
|
Post by jimoh on May 31, 2014 8:17:25 GMT -5
... Back to the original title of this thread, gives me a chuckle almost every time that this sits right next to the one about BA ranking the Sox system #4 ... … I read the first post of this thread and thought the Shaughnessy claim that the system is not strong because at this moment there is no one to help with our weaknesses was just like the people who see a snow storm and think it disproves global warming.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 31, 2014 8:36:30 GMT -5
... Back to the original title of this thread, gives me a chuckle almost every time that this sits right next to the one about BA ranking the Sox system #4 ... … I read the first post of this thread and thought the Shaughnessy claim that the system is not strong because at this moment there is no one to help with our weaknesses was just like the people who see a snow storm and think it disproves global warming. Sorry, can't resist... I'm pretty much guessing that if I see a snow storm, it'll disprove global warming.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 31, 2014 9:48:56 GMT -5
I'm fascinated by how the thread has developed. My original point was that the hype in the Sox farm system MAY be all smoke and mirrors. I really don't know but I don't like what has come through Boston from the minors over the past five years. That's a pretty fair stretch to assess the system, and I have been anxiously awaiting the newbies and have been very disappointed with Middlebrooks, Webster and Bradley. Can I also remind you that webster has thrown 30 major league innings? Given the stuff he has, it's pretty early to be bailing on him. I really think his worst case scenario is as a high leverage reliever. Guys that have even below average control who throw mid to high 90s with solid movement on their fastball, along with 2 above average off speed pitches, are fairly unlikely to wash out without some kind of injury issues. The reason that we haven't seen much more of our top pitching talent in the bigs is that we have a full rotation: until doubront went down and buchholz went back to being his 2008 self, there was nowhere to fit these guys in, but we do have 4 likely big league starters in our pawtucket rotation. That's pretty ridiculous, and I seriously doubt that you can find another organization with 4 quality arms in their AAA rotations
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on May 31, 2014 10:07:31 GMT -5
I think you need to judge a GM by his ability to learn from mistakes. I think Ben has done a terrific job with that especially in the bullpen. The Red Sox over the past few years have taken fliers on guys who threw hard but looked like they had eaten Koji Urehara. Now they have guys who don't throw as hard but are at least in shape and hence don't have arm problems. Ben deserves credit for building a bullpen that was an unheralded part of their success last year and has kept them from sinking this year. A lot of those guys were Cherrington acquistions, Badenhop, Capuano, Uehara, and Breslow, that includes two trades won by the way. Even the guy's that were with the system, Miller and Tazawa, weren't big parts of the equation when Theo left. I also give Cherrington high marks for both what he has done, and for the guts to do what he thinks is correct. Nob organization, except maybe the Cardinals, is going to bat 1.000 on trades and signings, but clearly Cherrington sees areas of need and areas that need bolstering and he tries to address them. If in March, I would have told you that Nava wouldn't be hitting his dogs weight on June 1st, who would have believed that. The bottom line is I think Cherrington has done a great job of anticipating needs and making moves to have as much organizational depth as possible so we are in a position to overcome adversity.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 31, 2014 10:37:22 GMT -5
Regarding a couple of CHB's points and points made here
First the reason the team didn't spend close to the luxury tax threshold over the winter was that they didn't know until spring training that they would have the Dempster money.
Second. I object to the notion that trades have to be won and lost. A good GMs try to match up their needs with the needs of their trading partner. The bad ones are always trying to make a deal that fleeces the other team. The Punto trade gave a team with unlimited resources three important players on a good team. The Red Sox were able to trade players who didn't fit well here, and spend the money on players who fit better. The trade helped both teams and given the situations of the teams at the time and I'd do it again if I were running either team.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 31, 2014 11:57:28 GMT -5
I motion that this thread title be changed to "How Strong is this System!!!" but if JBJ goes 0/4 tonight with 2 k's.....then the entire system will be overrated again
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 31, 2014 21:57:05 GMT -5
Right around now, ask the same question in regards to the system helping the Red Sox win.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jun 1, 2014 7:26:13 GMT -5
Right around now, ask the same question in regards to the system helping the Red Sox win. The timing is off. Gotta wait until a season low to question these things to get the desired panicked responses.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 1, 2014 9:32:31 GMT -5
I motion that this thread title be changed to "How Strong is this System!!!" but if JBJ goes 0/4 tonight with 2 k's.....then the entire system will be overrated again So then, greatest system ever? :-) Produces all-star baseball players who act like hockey players.
|
|
|