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.
5/10 years from now...Re: Dodgers trade
|
Post by mredsox89 on Sept 3, 2012 18:07:26 GMT -5
Taking a long term look at the organization, mainly in regards to the blockbuster trade with the Dodgers, what would make that trade a "success" 5 and 10 years from now?
5 years is roughly what the prime expectancy was remaining on the Gonzalez and Crawford deals, and roughly what we need to determine what the prospects coming back really provide the big club.
So would 1 WS title and many other decent contending years be enough? This is a franchise changing trade, taking a team that clearly had enough talent to win, and blowing a lot of it up. 5 years from now, there will barely be any remaining members of the original 2012 team, so what makes it a good/bad deal in your eyes for the future?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2012 7:49:47 GMT -5
World Series titles would probably be the worst possible way to judge this. This is a deal where the team is taking a step backwards in order to take several steps forward. It's a good deal in that regard. It'll still be a good deal in that regard even if the Red Sox totally screw up the whole taking steps forward bit.
Ultimately, I think this trade will be judged less on what the team does in the next five years and more on what the individual players do, especially the young arms that the Red Sox received. If either one of those guys can be a reliable #3 making the league minimum (or working on a team-friendly extension, more likely), it's really hard to see how the Red Sox lose this trade, even if Crawford and Gonzo play at the absolute top of their range for the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 4, 2012 8:53:30 GMT -5
What is your premis? The Glory Days of Gonzo and Crawford. We did nothing but win. Division and League Titles. A couple of World Series titles. Please. Last year and this year sucked. The worse September collapse in the History of Baseball! That's on the 2011 team. How did we follow it up? An even more in-different team. It was like a marriage that went off of the tracks. It wasn't going to get better. Was just time to get divorced and move on. You said; "Taking a team that clearly had enough talent to win, and blowing it up." That's just purely comical. What did you blow up? A team that can't win.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2012 16:11:03 GMT -5
What is your premis? The Glory Days of Gonzo and Crawford. We did nothing but win. Division and League Titles. A couple of World Series titles. Please. Last year and this year sucked. The worse September collapse in the History of Baseball! That's on the 2011 team. How did we follow it up? An even more in-different team. It was like a marriage that went off of the tracks. It wasn't going to get better. Was just time to get divorced and move on. You said; "Taking a team that clearly had enough talent to win, and blowing it up." That's just purely comical. What did you blow up? A team that can't win.Put a pin in this, it'll be interesting when Crawford/Gonzo/Beckett combine for 10 WAR with the Dodgers next year.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Sept 4, 2012 16:34:01 GMT -5
"Put a pin in this, it'll be interesting when Crawford/Gonzo/Beckett combine for 10 WAR with the Dodgers next year. "
Which according to Fangraphs' WAR value calculator would only be worth 45 million dollars on the Free Agent market. While the Dodgers are still on the hook for an additional 17 million (3 wins).
Even if Gonzalez plays like he can and should. And if Beckett returns to being a useful starting pitcher and Crawford can return to being an All-star this deal would still be a slam dunk success for the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Sept 4, 2012 17:14:05 GMT -5
Would they have done it in Boston? I actually think when he's back, CC will at least hover around his career averages, but I'm not sure he would have in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2012 17:21:24 GMT -5
"Put a pin in this, it'll be interesting when Crawford/Gonzo/Beckett combine for 10 WAR with the Dodgers next year. " Which according to Fangraphs' WAR value calculator would only be worth 45 million dollars on the Free Agent market. While the Dodgers are still on the hook for an additional 17 million (3 wins). Even if Gonzalez plays like he can and should. And if Beckett returns to being a useful starting pitcher and Crawford can return to being an All-star this deal would still be a slam dunk success for the Sox. I'm not commenting on the wisdom of the trade, just the idea that the Red Sox couldn't have possibly won with those players on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2012 17:37:07 GMT -5
Would they have done it in Boston? I actually think when he's back, CC will at least hover around his career averages, but I'm not sure he would have in Boston. I don't see any argument that Gonzo/Crawford couldn't perform and/or win in Boston that doesn't boil down to "Lisa, I want to buy your rock".
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Sept 4, 2012 23:15:39 GMT -5
In my opinion, the trade is already a success. The Red Sox sought to get out from under some of their worst contracts so they could rebuild. They did that. In fact, I'd even call it a great success. You just don't have the opportunity to dump $200m+ of payroll at once - that never happens. The Sox could screw up every deal for the next five years, but this one trade would still be an excellent move.
The Dodgers, not us, are the ones who should be gauging the 'success' of this trade by the on-field results. They shelled out major money to win right now, so they'd better win.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 5, 2012 7:51:31 GMT -5
What is your premis? The Glory Days of Gonzo and Crawford. We did nothing but win. Division and League Titles. A couple of World Series titles. Please. Last year and this year sucked. The worse September collapse in the History of Baseball! That's on the 2011 team. How did we follow it up? An even more in-different team. It was like a marriage that went off of the tracks. It wasn't going to get better. Was just time to get divorced and move on. You said; "Taking a team that clearly had enough talent to win, and blowing it up." That's just purely comical. What did you blow up? A team that can't win.Put a pin in this, it'll be interesting when Crawford/Gonzo/Beckett combine for 10 WAR with the Dodgers next year. The bet will be whether the 2013 and 2014 Sox win more games than the 2011 and 2012 Sox. I'll take the 2013 and 2014 teams without even knowing who the heck is on the team. Stopping this year on the Friday gonzo was pulled from the lineup we were 59-66. So, that's 149-138 over two year. A winning pct of .519 Need to average 85 wins. Deal??
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 5, 2012 9:19:32 GMT -5
The bet will be whether the 2013 and 2014 Sox win more games than the 2011 and 2012 Sox. I'll take the 2013 and 2014 teams without even knowing who the heck is on the team. Stopping this year on the Friday gonzo was pulled from the lineup we were 59-66. So, that's 149-138 over two year. A winning pct of .519 Need to average 85 wins. Deal?? My whole point is that judging the merits of individual players by the performance of a whole team is a ridiculous concept, so no, I'm not making any bets based on that.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 5, 2012 14:50:56 GMT -5
This trade cannot be judged based alone on the players who changed uniforms. Otherwise, the Dodgers win hands down in 5-10 years, unless Rubby and Webster win a few Cy Youngs..
The value for the Sox in yr 5 - 10 will be in the decisions it makes with the 250 million windfall, which, hopefully, will be spent with the future in mind rather than instant gratification.
|
|
|
Post by sdsoxfan on Sept 5, 2012 15:47:34 GMT -5
At the beginning of 2011, after adding Gonzalez and Crawford to a strong and successful core, the Sox and many pundits believed that they were the best team in baseball and would come close to wining 100+ games and win one or more WS over a 5 year term. The 2011 team played that way May through August before unraveling last September.
The success of this trade for the fans (owners have already won because they were looking at eating a significant portion of Beckett and CC's remaining salary) is that the team uses the $250m of saved money to restock the team to consistently challenge for championships.
Winning an average of 85-90 games will not make us the winner in this trade. Given the resources and revenue generated by the Sox, getting to slightly better than the average team is not good enough. Cherington needs to use prospects, trades and a couple of low risk free agents to rebuilt a championship caliber team similar to what we had from 2003-2008. That is the opportunity that this trade creates. The freedom to rebuld a strong, new core. Doesn't have to happen over next two years, but here's to hoping that Cherington can get a number of qualtiy players who play at a championship level and enjoy playing in Boston.
Let's start with a new coach that can build mutual respect and trust with the players.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,518
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 5, 2012 17:38:29 GMT -5
The trade was an all-out victory. The Red Sox gave themselves a chance.
If you had fastforwarded into the future with the team as it was, the Sox weren't going to make any significant additions with the payroll bogged down.
The Sox weren't going to get $20 million/year of value from Carl Crawford and they weren't going to get $16 million/year value from Josh Beckett.
They were getting decent value from Gonzo, but who knows if that would be the case three years from now? His HR power had been declining. Say he eventually settled into being a singles hitter (with 15 HR/year) down the road who best asset was dumping singles off the wall, and eventually becoming very double play prone? Is that worth $22 million/year? No. Not saying for sure that this is Gonzo circa 2015, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. His HR output had been disappointing as had his sudden aversion to taking an occasional walk.
All these factors tell me that it would have been very difficult to improve the team going forward.
Does this trade mean that the Sox will become superpowers again? No, especially if Lucchino interferes in baseball ops. But at least the Sox will have a chance.
The Sox have plenty of money to spend now to improve the team, but I don't know that immediate improvements are out there without getting into the same problems as before (throwing money at Cliff Lee or Joe Mauer).
The Sox could very well be bad again next year, and medioce in 2014 but improving.
It's not the worst thing in the world if that's how it plays out. The Sox have a decent farm system, but they're not ready to make in immediate impact in 2013 and some of these guys might need some time to get their footing.
I can see a young OF of Bogaerts, Bradley, and Brentz by 2015. I can see Marrero and possibly Shaw joining the infield by mid-decade. I can see Webster, Workman and Barnes joining Buchholz in the rotation by 2015 - and the hope is that De La Rosa uses his talent to be in the rotation, although that's not a certainty.
Somewhere down the line Ben will need to make good short-term signings (bargains) and make trades that bring in high priced talent but doesn't decimate the farm system. It can be done, but it won't be easy.
The important thing is if the Sox are going to lose in 2013, it's better to lose with young players on the way up than veterans on the way down which is exactly how the 2012 Red Sox were losing.
This trade gives them that chance. It was by far the best day of this wretched season.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Sept 5, 2012 17:41:29 GMT -5
The Dodgers wanted to keep Lee and kept him. How much better is he than the other 2 pitchers we got?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 5, 2012 17:49:38 GMT -5
The Dodgers wanted to keep Lee and kept him. How much better is he than the other 2 pitchers we got? Not much better, possibly not any better. Lee had a lot of hype when drafted, but he hasn't developed into a super-prospect by any means.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 5, 2012 18:27:17 GMT -5
The trade is already a success. Period. If Webster and Rubby never throw a pitch for us.
What the Red Sox do with this opportunity, whether they can turn things around, if they can do it without taking a step back, is an entirely separate question and I think there are sensible arguments on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Sept 5, 2012 20:05:29 GMT -5
This trade cannot be judged based alone on the players who changed uniforms. Otherwise, the Dodgers win hands down in 5-10 years, unless Rubby and Webster win a few Cy Youngs.. The value for the Sox in yr 5 - 10 will be in the decisions it makes with the 250 million windfall, which, hopefully, will be spent with the future in mind rather than instant gratification. This. Although in 6 months we'll have a lot better idea of where this thing is headed....
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Sept 6, 2012 9:23:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 6, 2012 9:47:42 GMT -5
The Dodgers wanted to keep Lee and kept him. How much better is he than the other 2 pitchers we got? Not much better, possibly not any better. Lee had a lot of hype when drafted, but he hasn't developed into a super-prospect by any means. In the eyes of many, Webster was a better prospect than Lee at this point. Tangent that has nothing to do with the above posts - this is what kills me about the media clinging to the BA Handbook ratings all season long. The BA rankings, for example, have Ranaudo rated ahead of Matt Barnes, Jackie Bradley, and everyone in the system currently other than Bogaerts and Swihart. Yet the media will still call him the system's #4 prospect. Drives me nuts. And I use the Sox idea because I know that's one everyone will get - I'm not making a self-interested "why don't they use our rankings?" argument. Works for every team.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 25, 2022 7:38:03 GMT -5
Well, happy 10 year anniversary!
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 25, 2022 9:47:30 GMT -5
World Series titles would probably be the worst possible way to judge this. This is a deal where the team is taking a step backwards in order to take several steps forward. It's a good deal in that regard. It'll still be a good deal in that regard even if the Red Sox totally screw up the whole taking steps forward bit. Ultimately, I think this trade will be judged less on what the team does in the next five years and more on what the individual players do, especially the young arms that the Red Sox received. If either one of those guys can be a reliable #3 making the league minimum (or working on a team-friendly extension, more likely), it's really hard to see how the Red Sox lose this trade, even if Crawford and Gonzo play at the absolute top of their range for the next few years. Aw, good old fenwaythehardway...
Don't think the bolded part of this comment aged well, though. It really didn't matter much what the prospects did (though it would have been nice if they'd turned out). What mattered was getting out from under those contracts. Which they immediately parlayed into some great FA signings in 2013 and a WS title and then the Pablo and Hanley signings which were not so great.
Maybe there's a lesson here for how to look at the Betts/Price trade?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 25, 2022 11:21:31 GMT -5
World Series titles would probably be the worst possible way to judge this. This is a deal where the team is taking a step backwards in order to take several steps forward. It's a good deal in that regard. It'll still be a good deal in that regard even if the Red Sox totally screw up the whole taking steps forward bit. Ultimately, I think this trade will be judged less on what the team does in the next five years and more on what the individual players do, especially the young arms that the Red Sox received. If either one of those guys can be a reliable #3 making the league minimum (or working on a team-friendly extension, more likely), it's really hard to see how the Red Sox lose this trade, even if Crawford and Gonzo play at the absolute top of their range for the next few years. Aw, good old fenwaythehardway...
Don't think the bolded part of this comment aged well, though. It really didn't matter much what the prospects did (though it would have been nice if they'd turned out). What mattered was getting out from under those contracts. Which they immediately parlayed into some great FA signings in 2013 and a WS title and then the Pablo and Hanley signings which were not so great.
Maybe there's a lesson here for how to look at the Betts/Price trade?
In 2030 Mookie will be 37 and be paid 30-35M (depending on how you count), and he'll have two more years at that rate. Andrew McCutcheon, who had four top-5 MVP finishes ages 25-28, has hit .243 .312 .395 .707 this year at age 35, with 62 games at DH.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 25, 2022 12:44:15 GMT -5
Two World Series Titles. Though, I’d have a hard time drawing a line straight from this trade to the second title.
|
|
|