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.
2014 Wild Card Game gameday thread
|
Post by kman22 on Oct 3, 2014 7:35:43 GMT -5
It seems to come down to sour grapes that Pittsburg didn't trade us our favorite prospects for Lackey or Lester. As much as I would have enjoyed more prospects to follow (not to mention the extra losses that no Lester and Cespedes could have racked up), this applies the same to Price and Samardzija as well. As a matter of fact, those two were probably better options, because of the extra year of control. The win-now mode would have stretched into next season as well.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 3, 2014 10:09:01 GMT -5
I'm of the belief that the Pirates did have some of our favorite prospects on the table, and the Red Sox elected to go for ML talent back, a move I agree with. The Pirates really didn't have comparable ML talent that was expendable like St Louis or Oakland. That part I am OK with. I'm going to try to clarify my points for a second time. First off let me say that I think the Pirates did a phenomenal job building a young core of players and a deep talented farm system. Here is my problem, in my opinion, for them to win with that payroll a lot of it has to do with the remainingyears they have McCutchen, which includes but is(was) not limited to 2014. My problem is when they were a few projected wins short of the division title, this was the divisions July activity. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/08/july-trade-recap-nl-central-3.htmlIn my eyes, they were not playing to win in 2014, which makes them undeserving to win in 2014 and a team without my support. Actually a team I was rooting against as I did not like their passive strategy and would of liked to see them use a more aggressive strategy, in which case they would of had my full support, and would of been the team I was following the most throughout the post season. I think I can have this view, without suggesting a "Go for it" strategy, mortgaging the future for today's success. If there was sour grapes anywhere, it was that they didn't make a single move. But let's play a little devil's advocate. I'll be a sport and argue the points that are being shoved down my throat.I am a prospect loving Red Sox fan, who roots for farm system rankings over major league success. Naturally, I see the Pirates system as a target for ransacking. I go to the MLB prospect top 20 page for the Pirates, and suggest they should trade their top 4 prospects, Glasnow, Tailon, Bell, and Meadows for Lester, Lackey, Napoli (with half of his 2015 salary), and Miller. For the Pirates, they look through their crystal ball and say, "well originally we weren't going to trade for any players, because we know Bumgarner will throw a gem on 10/1, but with these players we will win the division" If after this happens, the Pirates go on to win the division and the WS title, and go into 2015 with Lackey and Napoli (who had half his salary paid by Red Sox), along with maintaining their core of McCutchen, Marte, Harrison, Walker, Mercer, Polanco, and Cole, they would be in position to make some other offseason upgrades and compete in 2015 and into 2018. In that situation, would the Pirates "Go for it" strategy that I have been advocating for be worth it? Since I have been saying that the Pirates should trade all their prospects away for months now, I think it would have worked out well. Bell and Meadows would have a tough time breaking into the Pirate's outfield. To say this in a less sarcastic way, if the Pirates were to trade away their prospects and win the title this year, would that be more valuable than maintaining their farm system and a series of wild card berth's? I understand that question is semi loaded, as trading away your prospects doesn't guarantee a WS title.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 3, 2014 11:13:27 GMT -5
If they'd traded for, say, Burke Badenhop, would that have been enough to flip your allegiances?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 3, 2014 11:22:20 GMT -5
If they'd traded for, say, Burke Badenhop, would that have been enough to flip your allegiances? Burke Badenhop or bust.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 3, 2014 11:43:11 GMT -5
If they'd traded for, say, Burke Badenhop, would that have been enough to flip your allegiances? I see we are operating on opposite ends of the theoretical spectrum. Badenhop I guess would of been some effort, so you got me there. I think they needed 1B or SP help, SS at the time also but Mercer worked out pretty darn well. Now answer my theoretical question, if they traded away all their prospects but won the title, would it be worth it?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 3, 2014 11:56:18 GMT -5
Now answer my theoretical question, if they traded away all their prospects but won the title, would it be worth it? Of course, but you can't guarantee that. They could have increased their chances of winning the championship from roughly 6% to 12%. If you have a closing window of opportunity, yes, do that. But if you're like the Pirates and have spent two decades trying to rebuild, you can't blow it all on a small chance of increasing your odds one year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 3, 2014 12:02:06 GMT -5
That's a question that can be only answered with the power of hindsight, though. The question they faced at the time is: do we trade prospects for veterans in a way that increases their percent chance of winning the title this year, but lowers it in future years? Without getting too specific, I think it's reasonable for a small-market franchise to answer that question in the negative. Remember, any time you trade prospects for veterans, you're trading future value for present value, and that's true even if you trade for a guy a level below the Price/Lesters of the world. I tend to think you can't be too dogmatic about these things-- sometimes it does make sense to stand pat, and sometimes it doesn't, but it's hard to know until you get the intimate details. And without those details, I can't bash a GM too much about moves he didn't make.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 3, 2014 12:18:58 GMT -5
So I agree to play your game but you refuse to play mine?
Look I agree with everything you're are saying. If you check my record on these forums (time and effort I would never expect or recommend you to spend) I would say in most cases I am against trading future talent for short term gains. I never suggested their strategy was indefensible, I just think it was the wrong move, or too passive of a choice. I defended them saying that I don't think the Pirates had the ML talent to get Lester or Lackey. I also said I wasn't aware of what was on the table. The way I see it, they didn't add talent when they had a legitimate shot at the division title, and even without knowing what was available I think that was a mistake.
The Red Sox are a team I think made great decisions this year, they stayed short term in their contracts and developed their talent instead of trading it away. They were, rightfully so in my opinion, predicted to win the AL East. Even in hindsight I think they were the best team at the start of the year. With all that, they finished last in the division. That is the reason why, I think when you get a shot to win the division you have to make the effort, or A effort, because even the right moves don't work out all the time.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 3, 2014 12:23:12 GMT -5
It's fine that you think it's the wrong move. It might well have been the wrong move. It's just not something that would make me root against a team, is all I've been saying.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 3, 2014 12:56:14 GMT -5
The discussion there seemed to be that I wanted the Pirates to "go for it", not about what team I was rooting for. I just wanted to address that I felt I was being misrepresented. If it about what team I am rooting for, I'm ready to move on after this post.
I'm going to watch the playoffs, and I'm going to root for one team over another in every situation, makes the game more entertaining to me. I always think about what are the right and wrong moves a team should make, even the Yankees, I applaud the good ones and scowl at the the bad ones. I'm not paid to do it, nor am I an industry leading source, and in most cases I'm probably wrong, but I have fun doing it. I like underdog stories and aggressive moves instead of the other way around. What players a team has and the moves the front office makes are the main deciders in who I like over others. I guess maybe I should be rooting for the teams with the purdier uniforms next time.
Pirates decided to stand pat at the deadline with a team that probably wasn't good enough to win the division. That to me is not playing to win, and if they were not playing to win I don't think they really deserved winning. I also don't think it was the right baseball decision. I would have loved to been pulling for them like I have in the past but I just can't get there.
KC is my team in the AL now and Giants in NL if board is really interested in who I am rooting for. Guess I'll take heat for that in the Division series forums.
Really I don't think this is what people were trying to get at, but hopefully I clarified my earlier comments.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 4, 2014 11:42:18 GMT -5
The discussion there seemed to be that I wanted the Pirates to "go for it", not about what team I was rooting for. I just wanted to address that I felt I was being misrepresented. If it about what team I am rooting for, I'm ready to move on after this post. I'm going to watch the playoffs, and I'm going to root for one team over another in every situation, makes the game more entertaining to me. I always think about what are the right and wrong moves a team should make, even the Yankees, I applaud the good ones and scowl at the the bad ones. I'm not paid to do it, nor am I an industry leading source, and in most cases I'm probably wrong, but I have fun doing it. I like underdog stories and aggressive moves instead of the other way around. What players a team has and the moves the front office makes are the main deciders in who I like over others. I guess maybe I should be rooting for the teams with the purdier uniforms next time. Pirates decided to stand pat at the deadline with a team that probably wasn't good enough to win the division. That to me is not playing to win, and if they were not playing to win I don't think they really deserved winning. I also don't think it was the right baseball decision. I would have loved to been pulling for them like I have in the past but I just can't get there. KC is my team in the AL now and Giants in NL if board is really interested in who I am rooting for. Guess I'll take heat for that in the Division series forums. Really I don't think this is what people were trying to get at, but hopefully I clarified my earlier comments. Good lord, you're mad that the Pirates weren't "playing to win" and you're going to support the Dayton Moore/Ned Yost fail parade?
|
|
|