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 acquire LHP Drew Pomeranz for RHP Anderson Espinoza
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 21, 2016 12:59:46 GMT -5
what's a better haul, a team's 3rd best prospect or their 4th and 5th together? Unless there's a HUGE talent drop-off after 3, 90% of the time, you'd rather give up the best of those players rather than multiple slightly less talented ones. Exactly. Especially when the top 5 are all top 50 prospects.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 21, 2016 13:50:44 GMT -5
Why don't you just say what you really think? You think all trades involving prospects are bad. The problem is trades are a huge part of baseball. The trades involving Ramirez, Sanchez, and Rizzo lead to 2 titles, so I find it funny you bring up those prospects when talking about how trades hurt teams long term. You know what has really hurt Sox lately? Bad free agent signings. Things like not signing Lester and then signing Sandoval. Or how about the Lackey trade, which was just horrible. No, what I don't believe in is free lunches. The Beckett/Lowell deal cost the Red Sox about 20 wins. Ramirez and Sanchez put up approximately 40 bWAR and cost the Marlins $39 million in salary prior to achieving free agency. Lowell and Beckett accrued 33 bWAR but cost $117 million in salary. I don't know what the $ per WAR rate was, but 20 WAR appears a reasonable and possibly conservative estimate. (And the number rises to 25 if we add the $26 million which would never have been paid to Julio Lugo if Ramirez hadn't been traded.) People act as if those twenty wins had no effect, but if not for those twenty lost wins , Red Sox likely would have won the division and maybe the World Series in 2008, might have made a longer run in 2009 and might well have made the playoffs in 2010 and maybe 2011. People would have viewed this deal differently if the Red Sox hadn't won the World Series. Plus they might have won the 2007 Series anyway. After all, they would still have made the playoffs, and they went 11-3 and averaged 8.5 runs in Beckett's 4 starts. But for the record, as I have written before, I am NOT opposed to trading prospects; I just think the Red Sox need a more sophisticated approach--it shouldn't be the move of first resort, especially for a young team. Young teams should concentrate on stockpiling young talent to create as long a window of contention as possible. The other thing I believe is that trading prospects is a market inefficiency. The return on prospects over time is generally about half the value of the prospects. The Red Sox need to find ways to work both sides of this instead of always being on the inefficient side.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 21, 2016 14:11:17 GMT -5
The return on prospects trades? over time is generally about half the value of the prospects traded? Where's the study that shows this? What's the p-value? Was there testing done for other variables? SSS, but DDo's trades would seem not to fit this study, whatever it is.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2016 14:18:32 GMT -5
Hey, I have a fan. Not a sock puppet either.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 21, 2016 14:31:49 GMT -5
Where's the study that shows this? What's the p-value? Was there testing done for other variables? SSS, but DDo's trades would seem not to fit this study, whatever it is. MLB has a website of historical trades. I went through the last fifteen years of trades. While I might have missed a couple, I think I looked at least 90% of the trades involving at least 5 WAR (the overwhelming majority of trades result in negligible WAR). I posted it some months ago, but I can re-post it this weekend. However a couple of things I found is that impact players with three or more years of control are virtually never traded, and teams trading veterans almost always ask for enough high quality prospects to ensure that they get at least one good player. Based on what I found I think the cost for Pomeranz is if anything slightly below market, and the market value of Julio Teheran would actually be much higher than many here think it should be (which is why I don't think he'll get traded).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 21, 2016 14:37:57 GMT -5
No, what I don't believe in is free lunches. The Beckett/Lowell deal cost the Red Sox about 20 wins. Ramirez and Sanchez put up approximately 40 bWAR and cost the Marlins $39 million in salary prior to achieving free agency. Lowell and Beckett accrued 33 bWAR but cost $117 million in salary. I don't know what the $ per WAR rate was, but 20 WAR appears a reasonable and possibly conservative estimate. (And the number rises to 25 if we add the $26 million which would never have been paid to Julio Lugo if Ramirez hadn't been traded.) People act as if those twenty wins had no effect, but if not for those twenty lost wins , Red Sox likely would have won the division and maybe the World Series in 2008, might have made a longer run in 2009 and might well have made the playoffs in 2010 and maybe 2011. People would have viewed this deal differently if the Red Sox hadn't won the World Series. Plus they might have won the 2007 Series anyway. After all, they would still have made the playoffs, and they went 11-3 and averaged 8.5 runs in Beckett's 4 starts. But for the record, as I have written before, I am NOT opposed to trading prospects; I'm opposed to trading prospects when you have a lot of young talent like the Red Sox do now. Young teams should concentrate on stockpiling young talent to create as long a window of contention as possible. The other thing I believe is that trading prospects is a market inefficiency. The return on prospects over time is generally about half the value of the prospects. The Red Sox need to find ways to work both sides of this instead of always being on the inefficient side. If your numbers are correct and the Ramirez /Beckett trade is really 40 to 33 war that's a great trade. It got us a title and it was very close in war department. If in hindsight you look back on this trade and think it was a mistake i don't know what to say . You just never want to trade prospects even if it means us not winning a title. Also how you get to 20 war is wrong in my opinion. By your numbers it was 7 war. Assuming that if we spent extra money on free agents that we would get 20-25 war is a bad way of looking at it . We could have signed a free agent like Sandoval and got negative wars. Why in the world would you not wanna trade prospects when team already has ton of young talent? That makes zero sense. So we should trade prospects when we don't have much young talent on Sox? You make Pomeranz trade so he can help your stud young core win before they reach free agency. Chances are you lose one of Bradley, Betts and/or Bogaerts before Espinoza makes a real impact in majors. Yes there is a market inefficiency in trading prospects for veteran players. If you wanna win a title you need to make those trades though. For a team like Sox a current war is worth more than a future war. If your losing them 40 to 33 and win a title that's a great trade. The fact you picked that trade blows my mind, that's a textbook win win trade and your trying to make it out to be a bad trade. You say we need to be on non losing side of trades, did you forget one of most lopsided trades in recent memory? Rodriguez for Miller. We could win that trade by 20 war if Rodriguez becomes the player I think he will.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 21, 2016 14:47:17 GMT -5
But for the record, as I have written before, I am NOT opposed to trading prospects; I just think the Red Sox need a more sophisticated approach--it shouldn't be the move of first resort, especially for a young team. Young teams should concentrate on stockpiling young talent to create as long a window of contention as possible. I think a good example of a good trade involving prospects is the Vogelbach for Montgomery trade. Notice that the Cubs have had a terrible bullpen all year and Theo is under pressure to trade for an Andrew Miller. The Cubs have been scuffling terribly of late and the hungry fanbase desperately wants a championship. Theo could've caved in and taken the DDo way of trading for a "proven closer" or something of that ilk. Obviously, the teams holding those "proven closers", like the Yankees, were slobbering at the idea of getting a Schwarber or Baez. Instead, Theo said f.u. and traded for a young and unestablished Montgomery with five years of control, giving up a future DH with no floor. This is what Theo said of the trade: “Sometimes with these bullpen pieces, it’s important to get them on the way there. Maybe [he] hasn’t fully arrived yet. I’m not saying he’s Andrew Miller -- very few are -- but we traded for Andrew Miller in Boston when I was there in November 2010, hoping he could put it together in the bullpen someday. And he did. That’s how some guys are. If you wait until they are fully established, the price tag is virtually impossible to acquire." By the way, if you want a good laugh at the expense of Yanks fans go to some of the Yanks blogs when the Montgomery trade happened. There were many comments like "I hope the Cubs blow it in the playoffs, because Theo tried to get too cute". EDIT: And I think dcsoxfan's comment as well as my response belongs more in the Kimbrel thread than on this one.
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Jul 21, 2016 14:47:38 GMT -5
Did the Red Sox Really Overpay for Drew Pomeranz? by Dave Cameron - July 19, 2016 www.fangraphs.com/blogs/did-the-red-sox-really-overpay-for-drew-pomeranz/depends on assumptions some of you will question, but: "To me, this looks like the Red Sox and Padres identified the prospect in Boston’s system that was worth something very close to what Pomeranz is worth, and settled on a reasonable swap that makes sense for both sides. This one doesn’t look like Dombrowski undervaluing prospects to me; Espinoza is fun to dream on, but when factoring his risks in, he’s probably not as valuable as his “#15 ovearll prospect” status makes him sound. He’s a good get for the Padres, who should be betting on upside, but this is the kind of prospect that the Red Sox could afford to move. And for Pomeranz, this looks like the right return for both sides." Well...4 "tremendous innings" way to go Dave! This guy is worse than Buchholz. At least in his last start he "only" allowed 3. We should beg Preller to at least get Logan Allen back as compensation for both trade heists. So therefore Anderson Espinoza is the worst pitcher in the minor leagues considering his stat line was 3IP 7H 4R 2BB 1K in his Fort Wayne debut?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 21, 2016 15:46:10 GMT -5
But for the record, as I have written before, I am NOT opposed to trading prospects; I just think the Red Sox need a more sophisticated approach--it shouldn't be the move of first resort, especially for a young team. Young teams should concentrate on stockpiling young talent to create as long a window of contention as possible. I think a good example of a good trade involving prospects is the Vogelbach for Montgomery trade. Notice that the Cubs have had a terrible bullpen all year and Theo is under pressure to trade for an Andrew Miller. The Cubs have been scuffling terribly of late and the hungry fanbase desperately wants a championship. Theo could've caved in and taken the DDo way of trading for a "proven closer" or something of that ilk. Obviously, the teams holding those "proven closers", like the Yankees, were slobbering at the idea of getting a Schwarber or Baez. Instead, Theo said f.u. and traded for a young and unestablished Montgomery with five years of control, giving up a future DH with no floor. This is what Theo said of the trade: “Sometimes with these bullpen pieces, it’s important to get them on the way there. Maybe [he] hasn’t fully arrived yet. I’m not saying he’s Andrew Miller -- very few are -- but we traded for Andrew Miller in Boston when I was there in November 2010, hoping he could put it together in the bullpen someday. And he did. That’s how some guys are. If you wait until they are fully established, the price tag is virtually impossible to acquire." By the way, if you want a good laugh at the expense of Yanks fans go to some of the Yanks blogs when the Montgomery trade happened. There were many comments like "I hope the Cubs blow it in the playoffs, because Theo tried to get too cute". EDIT: And I think dcsoxfan's comment as well as my response belongs more in the Kimbrel thread than on this one. This trade might look brilliant for Cubs or it might not. Bullpen arms are highly inconstant , hence why the proven year in year out guys cost a ton. Also watch out for Vogelbach his stats are highly impressive even if he's only a 1B/DH. He can hit for average, power and has great on base skills.
|
|
|
Post by jimedsright on Jul 21, 2016 16:19:09 GMT -5
No, what I don't believe in is free lunches. The Beckett/Lowell deal cost the Red Sox about 20 wins. Ramirez and Sanchez put up approximately 40 bWAR and cost the Marlins $39 million in salary prior to achieving free agency. Lowell and Beckett accrued 33 bWAR but cost $117 million in salary. I don't know what the $ per WAR rate was, but 20 WAR appears a reasonable and possibly conservative estimate. (And the number rises to 25 if we add the $26 million which would never have been paid to Julio Lugo if Ramirez hadn't been traded.) People act as if those twenty wins had no effect, but if not for those twenty lost wins , Red Sox likely would have won the division and maybe the World Series in 2008, might have made a longer run in 2009 and might well have made the playoffs in 2010 and maybe 2011. People would have viewed this deal differently if the Red Sox hadn't won the World Series. Plus they might have won the 2007 Series anyway. After all, they would still have made the playoffs, and they went 11-3 and averaged 8.5 runs in Beckett's 4 starts. But for the record, as I have written before, I am NOT opposed to trading prospects; I just think the Red Sox need a more sophisticated approach--it shouldn't be the move of first resort, especially for a young team. Young teams should concentrate on stockpiling young talent to create as long a window of contention as possible. The other thing I believe is that trading prospects is a market inefficiency. The return on prospects over time is generally about half the value of the prospects. The Red Sox need to find ways to work both sides of this instead of always being on the inefficient side.
|
|
|
Post by jimedsright on Jul 21, 2016 16:28:12 GMT -5
You make some excellent points, but isn't an added metric (hard to normalize) here time and those values at specific points in that timeline? First of all, simply using WAR to suppose wins is one thing, but to suppose hypothetical championships? I don't think even Keith Law would be that faithful. Second, do they actually still win in 2007 without the Beckett/Lowell trade? Pretty sure the answer is no--and they DID win that one, right? Winning in baseball is probably harder to assure than any other pro sport--and winning repetitively? Sure, the Yankees, Cards and Giants can recently attest...but it's still hard, even when you are the best team on paper. Do I like that the Sox came in last place three times in four years? No. But would I trade 3 playoff runs in that time for the one they did win? No, I wouldn't, sorry. We're avoiding the key imperative here, which is, if most things go as planned, have the Sox put themselves in a position to win this year (and secondarily, not gutted what the team will look like in 2 years)? The answer seems to be yes. It may not turn out that way, but...
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 21, 2016 16:32:06 GMT -5
Well...4 "tremendous innings" way to go Dave! This guy is worse than Buchholz. At least in his last start he "only" allowed 3. We should beg Preller to at least get Logan Allen back as compensation for both trade heists. So therefore Anderson Espinoza is the worst pitcher in the minor leagues considering his stat line was 3IP 7H 4R 2BB 1K in his Fort Wayne debut? Yes. Bust for bust.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 21, 2016 16:35:42 GMT -5
Gonzalez's contract helped move Crawford and Beckett, and the resultant salary space those moves opened allowed Cherington to sign the free agents that resulted in a 2013 World Series victory. Well said
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 21, 2016 17:43:08 GMT -5
I think Drew is was a good gamble that will pay off huge this year for Boston
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Jul 21, 2016 19:38:38 GMT -5
So therefore Anderson Espinoza is the worst pitcher in the minor leagues considering his stat line was 3IP 7H 4R 2BB 1K in his Fort Wayne debut? Yes. Bust for bust. Ah, I see. Win/win then? Or uhm....lose/lose rather.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 21, 2016 19:44:26 GMT -5
I think a good example of a good trade involving prospects is the Vogelbach for Montgomery trade. Notice that the Cubs have had a terrible bullpen all year and Theo is under pressure to trade for an Andrew Miller. The Cubs have been scuffling terribly of late and the hungry fanbase desperately wants a championship. Theo could've caved in and taken the DDo way of trading for a "proven closer" or something of that ilk. Obviously, the teams holding those "proven closers", like the Yankees, were slobbering at the idea of getting a Schwarber or Baez. Instead, Theo said f.u. and traded for a young and unestablished Montgomery with five years of control, giving up a future DH with no floor. This is what Theo said of the trade: “Sometimes with these bullpen pieces, it’s important to get them on the way there. Maybe [he] hasn’t fully arrived yet. I’m not saying he’s Andrew Miller -- very few are -- but we traded for Andrew Miller in Boston when I was there in November 2010, hoping he could put it together in the bullpen someday. And he did. That’s how some guys are. If you wait until they are fully established, the price tag is virtually impossible to acquire." By the way, if you want a good laugh at the expense of Yanks fans go to some of the Yanks blogs when the Montgomery trade happened. There were many comments like "I hope the Cubs blow it in the playoffs, because Theo tried to get too cute". EDIT: And I think dcsoxfan's comment as well as my response belongs more in the Kimbrel thread than on this one. This trade might look brilliant for Cubs or it might not. Bullpen arms are highly inconstant , hence why the proven year in year out guys cost a ton. Also watch out for Vogelbach his stats are highly impressive even if he's only a 1B/DH. He can hit for average, power and has great on base skills. Just to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Cubs should give up Schwarber for a "proven closer"? I mean, as far as proven closers go, Andrew Miller is one of the best, big market AL East proven. Should the Cubs trade Schwarber for Miller?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 21, 2016 21:46:24 GMT -5
This trade might look brilliant for Cubs or it might not. Bullpen arms are highly inconstant , hence why the proven year in year out guys cost a ton. Also watch out for Vogelbach his stats are highly impressive even if he's only a 1B/DH. He can hit for average, power and has great on base skills. Just to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Cubs should give up Schwarber for a "proven closer"? I mean, as far as proven closers go, Andrew Miller is one of the best, big market AL East proven. Should the Cubs trade Schwarber for Miller? I don't know enough about Cubs to say what they should do. My point was if their bullpen is terrible like you say getting Montgomery is very risky if that's their big move to improve pen. You seem to dislike DD moves and are praising Theo for filling a need on the cheap. DD tries to acquire best players at position of need with lowest risk . Sure DD traded an elite player to get Pomeranz but in DD eyes he was safest bet on starters market and I agree. If Cubs lose because their terrible bullpen cost them in playoffs I wonder how you will think about this trade. I also really like Vogelbach, his bat looks very impressive. Not like you got something for nothing. Also let's not act like Theo hasn't traded elite guys like Ramirez, Sanchez and Rizo in the past.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 21, 2016 21:54:34 GMT -5
Actually, Cherington and Hoyer traded Hanley and Sanchez - Not Theo.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 21, 2016 22:01:27 GMT -5
Just to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Cubs should give up Schwarber for a "proven closer"? I mean, as far as proven closers go, Andrew Miller is one of the best, big market AL East proven. Should the Cubs trade Schwarber for Miller? I don't know enough about Cubs to say what they should do. My point was if their bullpen is terrible like you say getting Montgomery is very risky if that's their big move to improve pen. You seem to dislike DD moves and are praising Theo for filling a need on the cheap. DD tries to acquire best players at position of need with lowest risk . Sure DD traded an elite player to get Pomeranz but in DD eyes he was safest bet on starters market and I agree. If Cubs lose because their terrible bullpen cost them in playoffs I wonder how you will think about this trade. I also really like Vogelbach, his bat looks very impressive. Not like you got something for nothing. Also let's not act like Theo hasn't traded elite guys like Ramirez, Sanchez and Rizo in the past. I mean, you seem to know enough about Vogelbach to have an opinion and you're suggesting that you'd rather trade for Miller than for Montgomery. It has been speculated that the Yanks are asking for Schwarber if the Cubs want Miller. I don't think you need to know enough about the Cubs to have an opinion on this one. As for your second point, I think the more comparable trade to a potential Miller-Schwarber swap would be the Kimbrel trade rather than the Pomeranz trade, which is the one I have a bigger issue with. But that conversation belongs to a different thread.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 21, 2016 22:48:02 GMT -5
You make some excellent points, but isn't an added metric (hard to normalize) here time and those values at specific points in that timeline? First of all, simply using WAR to suppose wins is one thing, but to suppose hypothetical championships? I don't think even Keith Law would be that faithful. Second, do they actually still win in 2007 without the Beckett/Lowell trade? Pretty sure the answer is no--and they DID win that one, right? Winning in baseball is probably harder to assure than any other pro sport--and winning repetitively? Sure, the Yankees, Cards and Giants can recently attest...but it's still hard, even when you are the best team on paper. Do I like that the Sox came in last place three times in four years? No. But would I trade 3 playoff runs in that time for the one they did win? No, I wouldn't, sorry. We're avoiding the key imperative here, which is, if most things go as planned, have the Sox put themselves in a position to win this year (and secondarily, not gutted what the team will look like in 2 years)? The answer seems to be yes. It may not turn out that way, but... One could also argue that with Hanley Ramirez and an extra $100 million, the Red Sox would probably have won the World Series in 2007 AND 2008. But the point isn't whether trades are good or bad; it's that even good trades come at a cost. The 2008 through 2010 Red Sox were unquestionably worse teams as a result of the Beckett deal. When the Beckett deal was made, it made sense because the 2005 Red Sox had a number of veterans and it wasn't clear they had enough young talent in the minors for another run (turns out they did, but it wasn't obvious). It made sense to risk wins in 2008 or 2009 for wins in 2006 or 2007. The 2016 Sox have a lot of young relatively controlled talent and enough additional talent in the farm to support a real extended run of excellence. They should be working o extend Betts and Bogaerts and holding on to that talent and not reducing their window of opportunity by panicked trading. Considering the age of the most important players and the state of the farm system, it doesn't make sense to start risking significant wins in 2019 or 2020.Let's not forget that for the cost of two elite prospects and a couple more solid ones, they have accrued the overwhelming total of 0.6 WAR through the first 100 games this year.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 21, 2016 22:54:23 GMT -5
You make some excellent points, but isn't an added metric (hard to normalize) here time and those values at specific points in that timeline? First of all, simply using WAR to suppose wins is one thing, but to suppose hypothetical championships? I don't think even Keith Law would be that faithful. Second, do they actually still win in 2007 without the Beckett/Lowell trade? Pretty sure the answer is no--and they DID win that one, right? Winning in baseball is probably harder to assure than any other pro sport--and winning repetitively? Sure, the Yankees, Cards and Giants can recently attest...but it's still hard, even when you are the best team on paper. Do I like that the Sox came in last place three times in four years? No. But would I trade 3 playoff runs in that time for the one they did win? No, I wouldn't, sorry. We're avoiding the key imperative here, which is, if most things go as planned, have the Sox put themselves in a position to win this year (and secondarily, not gutted what the team will look like in 2 years)? The answer seems to be yes. It may not turn out that way, but... One could also argue that with Hanley Ramirez and an extra $100 million, the Red Sox would probably have won the World Series in 2007 AND 2008.But the point isn't whether trades are good or bad; it's that even good trades come at a cost. The 2008 through 2010 Red Sox were unquestionably worse teams as a result of the Beckett deal. When the Beckett deal was made, it made sense because the 2005 Red Sox had a number of veterans and it wasn't clear they had enough young talent in the minors for another run (turns out they did, but it wasn't obvious). It made sense to risk wins in 2008 or 2009 for wins in 2006 or 2007. The 2016 have a lot of young relatively controlled talent and enough additional talent in the farm to support a real extended run of excellence. They should be working o extend Betts and Bogaerts and holding on to that talent and not reducing their window of opportunity by panicked trading. Considering the age of the most important players and the state of the farm system, it doesn't make sense to start risking significant wins in 2019 or 2020.Let's not forget that for the cost of two elite prospects and a couple more solid ones, they have accrued the overwhelming total of 0.6 WAR through the first 100 games this year. I'm not sure you'll get anybody to argue that the Red Sox win the World Series in 2007 without Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell instead of Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. The Red Sox won the division title by just 2 games over the Yankees. I have trouble believing that Josh Beckett, by himself, (forget Mike Lowell's career year) wasn't the difference between finishing in 1st place and finishing as the Wild Card. I doubt had the Sox signed AJ Burnett, they would have won the title. I don't buy that at all. Finishing in 1st mattered that season as the Sox got to play the decimated Angels in the 1st round instead of the superior Indians, and when the Sox did get to play the Indians (it could have easily been the Yankees assuming they beat up the Angels and the Sox weren't playing very well against the Yankees that year), they won in 7 games, taking the last two on the home with the HFA that Beckett and Lowell helped the Sox get. Game 5 was the major survival game and Beckett gutted out 7 innings in what was a tight game before the Sox blew the game away in the 7th and 8th innings. Somebody else starting might have gotten tattooed that game and there goes the season. As it was Beckett was the MVP of that Series. And the World Series MVP? Mike Lowell. I have no trouble saying that the trade might have hurt the Sox in 2008 as far as winning the Series goes. Both Beckett and Lowell were injured. The Sox had to turn to Mark Kotsay who stranded a ton of runners in the ALCS (as Youks moved to 3b) and Beckett was a shell of himself as he blew 3 leads in a pivotal Game 2 loss to the Rays, although he did gut out 6 innings with diminished stuff as the Sox tied the Rays with a Game 6 victory. But still, you're talking a definite 2007 World Series championship and perhaps costing themselves the 2008 Series versus theoretical 2007 and 2008 Championships. Don't know about you, but I'll take the real Championship that occurred in 2007 and deal with the what ifs from 2008 (if Lowell and Beckett had been completely healthy, I think the Sox would have repeated as Champions). The trade worked out well for the Sox for the first year or so (and gloriously I might add), while the trade worked out well for the Marlins for the duration although Hanley did frustrate them with his attitude as a young player (something I've seen no evidence of with the Red Sox). If the Pomeranz for Espinoza deal works out as well, I'll live with the deal, as much as I despised seeing Espinoza go.
|
|
|
Post by jimedsright on Jul 22, 2016 6:39:06 GMT -5
You make some excellent points, but isn't an added metric (hard to normalize) here time and those values at specific points in that timeline? First of all, simply using WAR to suppose wins is one thing, but to suppose hypothetical championships? I don't think even Keith Law would be that faithful. Second, do they actually still win in 2007 without the Beckett/Lowell trade? Pretty sure the answer is no--and they DID win that one, right? Winning in baseball is probably harder to assure than any other pro sport--and winning repetitively? Sure, the Yankees, Cards and Giants can recently attest...but it's still hard, even when you are the best team on paper. Do I like that the Sox came in last place three times in four years? No. But would I trade 3 playoff runs in that time for the one they did win? No, I wouldn't, sorry. We're avoiding the key imperative here, which is, if most things go as planned, have the Sox put themselves in a position to win this year (and secondarily, not gutted what the team will look like in 2 years)? The answer seems to be yes. It may not turn out that way, but... One could also argue that with Hanley Ramirez and an extra $100 million, the Red Sox would probably have won the World Series in 2007 AND 2008. But the point isn't whether trades are good or bad; it's that even good trades come at a cost. The 2008 through 2010 Red Sox were unquestionably worse teams as a result of the Beckett deal. When the Beckett deal was made, it made sense because the 2005 Red Sox had a number of veterans and it wasn't clear they had enough young talent in the minors for another run (turns out they did, but it wasn't obvious). It made sense to risk wins in 2008 or 2009 for wins in 2006 or 2007. The 2016 Sox have a lot of young relatively controlled talent and enough additional talent in the farm to support a real extended run of excellence. They should be working o extend Betts and Bogaerts and holding on to that talent and not reducing their window of opportunity by panicked trading. Considering the age of the most important players and the state of the farm system, it doesn't make sense to start risking significant wins in 2019 or 2020.Let's not forget that for the cost of two elite prospects and a couple more solid ones, they have accrued the overwhelming total of 0.6 WAR through the first 100 games this year. I don't think you can ever argue a probable World Series win unless that team actually played in it. Contention for, yes, but...well, see my above post. That's nearly as foolish as the conjecture that Espinoza will be striking out five in a row at the 2025 All Star Game and haunting Dombrowski to his grave. Oh yes, he's shaking in his bed at night just thinking about it... A large part of their success in 2008 AGAIN, was Lowell and Beckett (and their injuries a major reason they didn't win it all again). I'm sorry, did they spend $100M that year on those two guys? Where does that come from? There is absolutely nothing in this trade that says panic. Not one thing. The 4th and 5th spots in their rotation were absolutely eating them alive. On a team that, otherwise, absolutely can contend to win NOW. Do you debate that? If that young core is so precious, how does it not make sense to tie up a guy who peripherals pretty well and is only 27 for the next 2 full seasons? And frankly, who gives a damn about 2020 right now? 2020? Is this the Padres? You act as if they've gutted their entire system. Utter ruin by 2020, I tell you! Keith Law still ranks this system as Top 5, and well, that's good enough for me. Talk about panic... Some of you seem to think Dombrowski's some sort of compulsive gambler who also summons Lou Gorman's ghost on his Ouija board every night. Seems to me the man has both a brain and a plan. If, three years from now, he's traded away 7 more prospects (without replacing them), substantially worsened their system and not won anything for it, then fine, I'll start toward the lamppost myself. Until then...they've come in LAST PLACE two years in a row, gang. That's not good enough for you, me or Dave Dombrowski. This team probably was 3-4 pieces away from being a real contender. Assuming some health and things rationally projecting, they've now closed up most of those holes, and look to be in that Top-4 discussion, no? I think so. So, how's about getting a little excited (if not rationally hopeful) for what they can do with all that? Unless, of course, you want to wait till 2020...
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 22, 2016 7:20:25 GMT -5
When you argue the merits of a trade, I think you have to make the subtle distinction between 'was the trade worth it' and 'was it a good trade'? The Beckett trade was worth it based on one championship and that's a discussion-ender right there for most people. Was it a good trade? That's more debatable. I mean, IF, say Pablo Sandoval goes Aaron Boone and hits a walk-off HR in game 7 of the WS in 2018, would you say that was a good FA signing? I think most people would argue it still wasn't. And I don't mean to compare a walk-off HR with Beckett's 2007 postseason performance, but you get my point.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 22, 2016 8:27:26 GMT -5
I don't know enough about Cubs to say what they should do. My point was if their bullpen is terrible like you say getting Montgomery is very risky if that's their big move to improve pen. You seem to dislike DD moves and are praising Theo for filling a need on the cheap. DD tries to acquire best players at position of need with lowest risk . Sure DD traded an elite player to get Pomeranz but in DD eyes he was safest bet on starters market and I agree. If Cubs lose because their terrible bullpen cost them in playoffs I wonder how you will think about this trade. I also really like Vogelbach, his bat looks very impressive. Not like you got something for nothing. Also let's not act like Theo hasn't traded elite guys like Ramirez, Sanchez and Rizo in the past. I mean, you seem to know enough about Vogelbach to have an opinion and you're suggesting that you'd rather trade for Miller than for Montgomery. It has been speculated that the Yanks are asking for Schwarber if the Cubs want Miller. I don't think you need to know enough about the Cubs to have an opinion on this one. As for your second point, I think the more comparable trade to a potential Miller-Schwarber swap would be the Kimbrel trade rather than the Pomeranz trade, which is the one I have a bigger issue with. But that conversation belongs to a different thread. When did I ever suggest that I'd rather trade for Miller? You keep bringing up Miller I never once even brought up his name. I did some research on Vogelbach after trade and was shocked at how good his bat was. I did look at Cubs bullpen stats and I don't see a terrible pen like you said, but sometimes stats can be misleading so I assume you know what your talking about. My point was if the pen is really that bad you should be looking at getting more established Vets. Somehow you think that means Miller, but there are a ton of other guys out there that fit that profile. For example Chapman who is a rental should cost a lot less than Miller. As for Miller for Schwarber, I would only do it if you felt Miller was missing piece to winning title. Miller is about elite an reliever as there is in game right now, on pace for like a 3-3.5 war season and under control for 2 and 1/3 more seasons. He could give you about 8 Wars and a draft pick. I really disagree that anyone can give a good opinion on a trade like this. You really need to know a lot about Cubs team to make that call. I would also say that just because that's what Yankees ask for at first doesn't mean that's what it would really take. Cubs have a really good system and I'm sure they could put together a package not including Schwarber that could get them Miller.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 22, 2016 8:42:07 GMT -5
When you argue the merits of a trade, I think you have to make the subtle distinction between 'was the trade worth it' and 'was it a good trade'? The Beckett trade was worth it based on one championship and that's a discussion-ender right there for most people. Was it a good trade? That's more debatable. I mean, IF, say Pablo Sandoval goes Aaron Boone and hits a walk-off HR in game 7 of the WS in 2018, would you say that was a good FA signing? I think most people would argue it still wasn't. And I don't mean to compare a walk-off HR with Beckett's 2007 postseason performance, but you get my point. For that trade answer to both is clearly yes. Wars was 40 to 33, we got Vets to help us win now and won title. As for your Sandoval example that would be yes to worth it and no to good signing unless he comes back next year and starts being a good player.
|
|
|