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.
2016 Trade Deadline News and Discussion
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,814
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 25, 2016 15:29:07 GMT -5
haha , agreed. Think about it the Cubs just gave up more than the Red Sox did and that's for 3 months of Chapman. Mind blown Theo would do thisGotta love Theo's decisiveness. Those prospects might bust anyway, you take the known quantity any day. And Theo's track record in trades is excellent, so I trust him. And most of all, he's decisive. A known quantity that isn't very valuable is not worth 4 prospects.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 25, 2016 15:45:17 GMT -5
Gotta love Theo's decisiveness. Those prospects might bust anyway, you take the known quantity any day. And Theo's track record in trades is excellent, so I trust him. And most of all, he's decisive. A known quantity that isn't very valuable is not worth 4 prospects. I was being sarcastic.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 25, 2016 15:50:25 GMT -5
haha , agreed. Think about it the Cubs just gave up more than the Red Sox did and that's for 3 months of Chapman. Mind blown Theo would do this Theo was brought in to win a World Series, no matter the cost. He's well on his way. He traded two blocked prospects, a lotto ticket and a AAAA pitcher to fill a significant hole. Is it an overpay? Sure. Does it really matter if you get what you need? Not really.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,814
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 25, 2016 15:53:43 GMT -5
A known quantity that isn't very valuable is not worth 4 prospects. I was being sarcastic. Ugh, I couldn't be more disappointed in myself.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 25, 2016 15:56:29 GMT -5
“ evandrellich: Dave Dombrowski said Sox have received five new trade proposals today. So it’s busy.”
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2016 16:00:47 GMT -5
“ evandrellich : Dave Dombrowski said Sox have received five new trade proposals today. So it’s busy.” Hopefully he's getting the calls and not making them.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 25, 2016 16:02:49 GMT -5
“ evandrellich : Dave Dombrowski said Sox have received five new trade proposals today. So it’s busy.” A.J. Preller, please go away.. Five separate trade proposals? Now he's just getting greedy.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 25, 2016 16:11:33 GMT -5
“@peteabe: Dombrowski is open-minded, he said. But doesn’t feel the #RedSox *have* to do something.”
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 25, 2016 16:16:55 GMT -5
“@bradfo: Dombrowski said he received 5 trade proposals today he hadn’t gotten before today. But said wasn’t close on any trades” “@alexspeier: Dombrowski: ‘I’m not looking necessarily to do something significant…Can we be better? Sure. Will we be open-minded? Sure.’” “ evandrellich: Dave Dombrowski said Sox have received five new trade proposals today. So it’s busy.” “@peteabe: Dombrowski is open-minded, he said. But doesn’t feel the #RedSox *have* to do something.” “@bradfo: Dombrowski said teams haven’t loosened up on trade demands yet” “@timbritton: Dombrowski said a few times that the Red Sox are ”open-minded“ to trades, but not necessarily seeking out moves.” “@timbritton: Dombrowski said he’s received five trade proposals today alone. Doesn’t like any of them.” “ evandrellich: Dombrowski said prices have not come down in trade market. Declined to discuss Buchholz as specific trade candidate. Noted SP depth valuable” “@scottlauber: Dombrowski: Craig Kimbrel’s faster-than-expected timeline lessens the #RedSox’s need to acquire another reliever before the deadline.”
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2016 16:25:22 GMT -5
haha , agreed. Think about it the Cubs just gave up more than the Red Sox did and that's for 3 months of Chapman. Mind blown Theo would do this Theo was brought in to win a World Series, no matter the cost. He's well on his way. He traded two blocked prospects, a lotto ticket and a AAAA pitcher to fill a significant hole. Is it an overpay? Sure. Does it really matter if you get what you need? Not really. You have said what I have wanted to say. I'm a prospects guy. I like seeing young up and coming teams get built. I love it when the core is homegrown. Sometimes you get surplus young talent not good enough to dislodge or be much better than the young long-term talent playing currently. I think that's the case for the Cubs here, and I felt that was the case for the Sox in the Kimbrel deal. It is about winning the Series, not accumulating the most WAR in your system, not that you kill your future in a deal or trade the next Mike Trout for the next Tommy Layne because your bullpen needs an upgrade. Margot wasn't going to dislodge the killer Bs nor was he going to dislodge Moncada if he winds up in the OF. The rest of the package had serious question marks. I know everybody hated the "We gave up Margot and x, y, AND z for Kimbrel, but those talents were hardly irreplaceable. I get the argument about "opportunity costs" (and I don't buy that Margot was going to help fetch a young starting pitcher) that may or may not happen down the road, but the Sox needed serious bullpen help at that point, and given Kimbrel's track record of 1.64 ERA over 5 seasons and the fact that he is still young and under control for 3 years it made sense. It's too bad that the Kimbrel the Sox traded for isn't the Kimbrel we've seen. (just like it's a shame the David Price the Sox signed is not the guy we've been seeing). I was unhappy about the Pomeranz/Espinoza deal because to me it wasn't about value. It was about the fact that Espinoza is hardly blocked, is a talent that isn't easily replaced. Margot would have be on the bench down the road if the Sox kept him. With 5 rotation spots, Espinoza, if he developed as he very well could, would not be on the outside looking in for a rotation spot. This is why I balked at that deal. That and the fact that Pomeranz' track record of success is limited, so there's still uncertainty for the Red Sox (He's almost as much a gamble as Espinoza). Apply this to Theo's move. They are nice prospects but they're not necessarily going to be a lot better than Addison or Bryant or what they have in their OF. Chapman, as detestable as he can be, is a major upgrade to that bullpen as it drops Rondon to the 8th inning and gives the Cubs a great chance of locking down late leads in the post-season where late inning bullpen collapses can destroy a team. Theo (I'm sure Theo remembers 1986 well) is going for it this year. I applaud his move, if Chapman weren't so despicable, but that's a different issue. Unfortunately the Yankees made out like bandits in a despicable way, the way a pimp would I guess.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,685
|
Post by nomar on Jul 25, 2016 16:42:26 GMT -5
A day of much reiteration for good ol Dave.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 25, 2016 16:59:39 GMT -5
All I want is maybe one more bullpen piece. Like a Ziegler. The reason I want to hold on to the rest of our blue chips is because we can insert them on our team, This is what allows us to carry these lame ass contracts i.e. Sandoval, Hanley, Rusey. By subsidizing with Moncada,Benintendi,Devers,Kopech.
|
|
|
Post by mannofsteele on Jul 25, 2016 17:12:04 GMT -5
If Dombrowski can get something, really anything of merit for Clay, then he should move on. In the long run it will be better for Buchholz to try to clean up his play between now and next season rather than barely get innings with the Sox. I could see Pittsburgh taking a shot, if they are going to go all in. Who truly knows. Another arm of some sort would be my precedence.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2016 17:21:12 GMT -5
Sometimes you get surplus young talent not good enough to dislodge or be much better than the young long-term talent playing currently. I think that's the case for the Cubs here, and I felt that was the case for the Sox in the Kimbrel deal. It is about winning the Series, not accumulating the most WAR in your system, not that you kill your future in a deal or trade the next Mike Trout for the next Tommy Layne because your bullpen needs an upgrade. Margot wasn't going to dislodge the killer Bs nor was he going to dislodge Moncada if he winds up in the OF. The rest of the package had serious question marks. I know everybody hated the "We gave up Margot and x, y, AND z for Kimbrel, but those talents were hardly irreplaceable. I just can't think of the last situation where a prospect was legitimately "blocked" in the system. Betts was at his original position, but he moved to another one (and then another one) and has become a superstar there. Rizzo certainly didn't end up being "blocked" by Gonzalez. Cecchini didn't end up "blocked" by Middlebrooks. Jury is still out on Vazquez and Swihart, neither of whom are in the majors right now. Remember when we were worried about their having too many pitching prospects (the De La Rosa, Webster, Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Johnson group)? Or when we were going to have to choose between Kalish and Reddick? Or when Masterson was trade bait because he didn't have a rotation spot? The closest example to an actually blocked prospect I can think of was Iglesias, but even then, he's been hurt often enough that maybe he's best suited as a backup-type anyways. I continue to steadfastly believe that trading prospects for quarters on the dollar because they're "blocked" is a bad idea. It's an unfortunate reality that even supposedly can't-miss prospects and young players bust sometimes, whether due to injury or under-performance. And when they don't, chances are your major league team is doing well enough that you don't really care if you have a blocked prospect or two.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 25, 2016 17:53:30 GMT -5
Sometimes you get surplus young talent not good enough to dislodge or be much better than the young long-term talent playing currently. I think that's the case for the Cubs here, and I felt that was the case for the Sox in the Kimbrel deal. It is about winning the Series, not accumulating the most WAR in your system, not that you kill your future in a deal or trade the next Mike Trout for the next Tommy Layne because your bullpen needs an upgrade. Margot wasn't going to dislodge the killer Bs nor was he going to dislodge Moncada if he winds up in the OF. The rest of the package had serious question marks. I know everybody hated the "We gave up Margot and x, y, AND z for Kimbrel, but those talents were hardly irreplaceable. I just can't think of the last situation where a prospect was legitimately "blocked" in the system. Betts was at his original position, but he moved to another one (and then another one) and has become a superstar there. Rizzo certainly didn't end up being "blocked" by Gonzalez. Cecchini didn't end up "blocked" by Middlebrooks. Jury is still out on Vazquez and Swihart, neither of whom are in the majors right now. Remember when we were worried about their having too many pitching prospects (the De La Rosa, Webster, Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Johnson group)? Or when we were going to have to choose between Kalish and Reddick? Or when Masterson was trade bait because he didn't have a rotation spot? The closest example to an actually blocked prospect I can think of was Iglesias, but even then, he's been hurt often enough that maybe he's best suited as a backup-type anyways. I continue to steadfastly believe that trading prospects for quarters on the dollar because they're "blocked" is a bad idea. It's an unfortunate reality that even supposedly can't-miss prospects and young players bust sometimes, whether due to injury or under-performance. And when they don't, chances are your major league team is doing well enough that you don't really care if you have a blocked prospect or two. After sufficiently recovering from my disgust over the Pomeranz deal (which nonetheless has some merits), I'm going to expound on your point here, which I think is a terrific one. The benefit of "blocked" prospects is that they allow a team to trade the veterans blocking them. Those players have substantially more value in trade than young prospects do, and can be effectively used to replenish the minor league system. A well-constructed team can weather the struggles of a young player. A poorly-constructed one cannot. And that brings me to my bigger issue with Dombrowski's modus operandi. The Espinoza trade wasn't a bad one, in the sense that it appears to actually have been a marginal discount versus the market. BUT, the team should strive not to need to make those trades in the first place. Trading away a large proportion of a team's minor league depth is inherently problematic. It virtually guarantees increasing payroll, luxury taxation (in the case of big-market teams), and personnel/payroll inflexibility. It is a guaranteed downward slide to mediocrity, best exemplified by the Angels, Tigers, and Yankees (although NY may escape the worst of it if they sell off). I know someone will probably argue Pomeranz's three years of control, but that's just silly. His salary will escalate in that time, and he'll either get an expensive extension, or he'll leave via FA or trade. If the Sox are lucky, he'll have some trade value. But the reality is that they won't be inclined to trade him unless they have an internal backup (who they just traded to get him), or they're out of the running (entirely possible). Intelligent use of talent assets involves fully developing them and *then* trading them to get more assets, such that the talent supply at the MLB level never (or at least, rarely) forces a team into paying inflated prices. The Sox were probably a year or two away from that state of equilibrium, but Dombrowski has put them in a big hole with the Kimbrel and Pomeranz trades. The IFA restrictions after Guamairo et al are going to severely damage their pipeline, too. This franchise looks headed in the wrong direction again. They may very well make the playoffs, but when Ortiz leaves, this isn't a playoff team anymore. Then, it's back to wasting more money and making more ill-advised bandaid trades.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on Jul 25, 2016 18:40:58 GMT -5
Cubs are loaded with talent on the roster and in the minors. Torres is a lite bit overrated for my money, but that's besides the point he us highly regarded and very valuable. I love they used him and McKinney to headline a deal to get Chapman. They have a great roster this makes it only better and they have a shot to win. If one or more of the prospects become stars it is no big as long as the cubs win the ws or/and he signs a extention and they win with him down the line. I'd say we gave up about the same when it comes to Kimberl-Chapman trade.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on Jul 25, 2016 18:51:24 GMT -5
Like a good amount of people around here the Pomeranz trade is one I don't like. Like the player, not the trade to get him. From what the market is right now we may not have overpaid it seems. But may have pulled the trigger to soon. You meen to tell me devers, Espinosa, swihart, Owens, and something else couldn't get a star sp? Like sale? A guy who can make us a true ws contender.
I dont wanna give up any of the remaining big prospects we have left, mybe one not named moncada for a sp. I can only hope we could flip Pomeranz, in a deal for sale or a sp like him wether its in a deal were he helps headline it or a 3rd team is involved. Pomeranz scared me the other day he looked like he no fight in him and gave up to easy for my liking. We need a ace! And our next problem is gonna be replacing Papi.... but that is for another day
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 25, 2016 19:15:18 GMT -5
Apparently, the Mets are offering d'Arnaud for Lucroy. Would Swihart be similar value? Would you do that? I don't think I would. Swihart should be more valuable, but I'm pretty happy with Leon right now. Nope I like our catching right now. The funny thing is Brewers would most likely want a lot more than just Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2016 19:25:02 GMT -5
Sometimes you get surplus young talent not good enough to dislodge or be much better than the young long-term talent playing currently. I think that's the case for the Cubs here, and I felt that was the case for the Sox in the Kimbrel deal. It is about winning the Series, not accumulating the most WAR in your system, not that you kill your future in a deal or trade the next Mike Trout for the next Tommy Layne because your bullpen needs an upgrade. Margot wasn't going to dislodge the killer Bs nor was he going to dislodge Moncada if he winds up in the OF. The rest of the package had serious question marks. I know everybody hated the "We gave up Margot and x, y, AND z for Kimbrel, but those talents were hardly irreplaceable. I just can't think of the last situation where a prospect was legitimately "blocked" in the system. Betts was at his original position, but he moved to another one (and then another one) and has become a superstar there. Rizzo certainly didn't end up being "blocked" by Gonzalez. Cecchini didn't end up "blocked" by Middlebrooks. Jury is still out on Vazquez and Swihart, neither of whom are in the majors right now. Remember when we were worried about their having too many pitching prospects (the De La Rosa, Webster, Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Johnson group)? Or when we were going to have to choose between Kalish and Reddick? Or when Masterson was trade bait because he didn't have a rotation spot? The closest example to an actually blocked prospect I can think of was Iglesias, but even then, he's been hurt often enough that maybe he's best suited as a backup-type anyways. I continue to steadfastly believe that trading prospects for quarters on the dollar because they're "blocked" is a bad idea. It's an unfortunate reality that even supposedly can't-miss prospects and young players bust sometimes, whether due to injury or under-performance. And when they don't, chances are your major league team is doing well enough that you don't really care if you have a blocked prospect or two. I respectfully disagree on your point. Look, JBJ could have a career threatening injury tomorrow (perish the thought) and suddenly his position is wide open and oh, no wouldn't Margot look great in CF? You can make that argument on any position at any time, but the reality is that you can't just hoard prospects, try one out, see if it works, if it doesn't, try out another one, etc. Sooner or later, presented with an opportunity to improve your ballclub enough to have a better shot at winning (as marginal as the % are - nobody wants to be in the Wild Card game) the World Series, you sometimes have to make a concrete decision that the guy you are dealing is not better than what you already have or having him is at best a marginal upgrade in the future that is not more important than the upgrade to your ballclub that is needed now. In other words, Margot IS blocked. The Red Sox have four better options for the OF than him. But either way presented with the opportunity Dombrowski decided that JBJ IS his CF for the next several years. Margot in LF or RF wasn't a very realistic scenario. His bat profiles as a CF. His bat doesn't play as well in LF and it's not as promising as Benintendi's. The idea isn't too collect CF prospects. It's to shape your talent so it improves your ballclub. The object of a trade isn't to win the trade. It's to improve your club. Say you quantify the number you gave up as 8, and you only got a 6 in return, but that 6 was applied to a glaring need that needs to be addressed while the 8 you give up has virtually no chance of hurting your present and small chance of hurting your future, then why wouldn't you make the deal? You brought up Betts as an example of being blocked. Some guys can be converted to fill another position. It wasn't shocking that Betts was converted to the OF where there was a glaring need. Betts' bat was so dominant, the Sox were forced to find a spot for him and his athleticism allowed for it. Margot doesn't have Betts' rare bat, so it's a different scenario. The Red Sox had very few bats the caliber of Betts. That's why Betts really wasn't expendable and Margot's was. When you plan the future of your team, Betts was going to be on it, just like Bogaerts was, just like Benintendi and Moncada will be. I'm of the opinion that Devers should be, but I expect he will be dealt. At some point, you make a decision on what your team is going to look like over the next several years and you give it a real try. In that vein, I'm of the opinion that Swihart should get every opportunity to win the catching job at some point next year (once they re-acquaint him with catching). That would make Vazquez expendable, not that teams are jumping at the bit to get him. If the Sox determine that they need to deal either Swihart or Vazquez as part of a package to get a top notch pitcher, then they need to do that and not worry about, "What if we trade Swihart and Vazquez fails or what if we trade Vazquez and Swihart fails?" At some point they have to decide about who they're willing to go with and not have themselves a catching carousel. As far as your other examples go, Rizzo was traded because Gonzo was supposed to be the 1b for the next seven years. It wasn't Gonzo's ineffectiveness that scotched that plan, and there was no way they were going to get Gonzo without losing Rizzo. You might recall that Gonzo had a monster 2011 season. But his shoulder was never the same after that and we all know the rest. I don't ever remember being too worried about having too many pitchers. None of those pitchers you mentioned were considered top shelf pitchers in the way that Espinoza, Groome, and Kopech are. Back end starters are very expendable. Top of the rotation starters bust, too, of course, but unless you have more than five of these guys, there's room for them. It's not like having 5 guys who can play CF and you have room for all 5. This is why I complained about losing Espinoza, but not Margot. You had Espinoza pegged with a particular value based on historical values, etc, which is sensible, but that doesn't necessarily tell me about that particular player. I mean, if we always go by historical comparisons, then David Ortiz would have been jettisoned a long time ago, because players don't do what he does at age 40. Sometimes you develop an opinion on a particular player. I believe that Espinoza will be a top of the rotation type starter by time he's 23. He certainly could bust or be nothing, but I think from everything I've read, he'll get thru his issues and succeed, and that will be a certain talent that will be hard to replace from the Red Sox POV. Speedy CFs who can hit aren't that rare to find and replace. Great young pitching is much rarer to find. This is why I reacted to losing Espinoza vs losing Margot (who I like as a player in a Marquis Grissom sort of way). And all the 3b prospects you mentioned - well the Sox could have chosen who they thought their best bet was for 3b and perhaps gotten something of value for who they felt was expendable, but they sat on all of them and wound up with nothing of value. The Red Sox could have chosen between Kalish and Reddick but opted not to. Maybe they thought that their outfield of the future would be Reddick/Westmoreland/Kalish. I'll always be sad about what could have been with Westmoreland. I never was high on Reddick (I was wrong) because I thought he would always be a hacker and post low OBPs. Kalish was always athletic but always injured and never put up any numbers that made me drool. I guess what's open to interpretation is "pennies on the dollar". I don't think that the Sox sent a ton of major value to the Padres beyond Margot. Guerra has his question marks, Asuaje is either a 2nd division regular or a good utility man, and Allen is a lottery ticket (although I haven't read anything that indicates he's more than a potential back end starter), so while they have value, they're hardly irreplaceable (and there's no evidence these guys would have brought back a starting pitcher). If Kimbrel was what he was supposed to be, it would be worth it. His sub-par performance has made it more disappointing, although he could still revert to being a shutdown closer. We'll see, but I'm sure that's what Theo is thinking with the deal he made today.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2016 19:26:36 GMT -5
Like a good amount of people around here the Pomeranz trade is one I don't like. Like the player, not the trade to get him. From what the market is right now we may not have overpaid it seems. But may have pulled the trigger to soon. You meen to tell me devers, Espinosa, swihart, Owens, and something else couldn't get a star sp? Like sale? A guy who can make us a true ws contender. I dont wanna give up any of the remaining big prospects we have left, mybe one not named moncada for a sp. I can only hope we could flip Pomeranz, in a deal for sale or a sp like him wether its in a deal were he helps headline it or a 3rd team is involved. Pomeranz scared me the other day he looked like he no fight in him and gave up to easy for my liking. We need a ace! And our next problem is gonna be replacing Papi.... but that is for another day No, that won't get you Sale. You need to part with Moncada for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jul 25, 2016 20:20:37 GMT -5
Like a good amount of people around here the Pomeranz trade is one I don't like. Like the player, not the trade to get him. From what the market is right now we may not have overpaid it seems. But may have pulled the trigger to soon. You meen to tell me devers, Espinosa, swihart, Owens, and something else couldn't get a star sp? Like sale? A guy who can make us a true ws contender. I dont wanna give up any of the remaining big prospects we have left, mybe one not named moncada for a sp. I can only hope we could flip Pomeranz, in a deal for sale or a sp like him wether its in a deal were he helps headline it or a 3rd team is involved. Pomeranz scared me the other day he looked like he no fight in him and gave up to easy for my liking. We need a ace! And our next problem is gonna be replacing Papi.... but that is for another day No, that won't get you Sale. You need to part with Moncada for that to happen. I would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2016 20:27:27 GMT -5
No, that won't get you Sale. You need to part with Moncada for that to happen. I would disagree. Why? From what I read the Dodgers would part with Urias to get Sale and he's the best pitching prospect in the game. Moncada is the best prospect in the game (who's not a pitcher), and the Sox don't have a pitcher in Urias' class, so why wouldn't Moncada be the guy the White Sox require for Sale?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 25, 2016 20:35:26 GMT -5
I just can't think of the last situation where a prospect was legitimately "blocked" in the system. Betts was at his original position, but he moved to another one (and then another one) and has become a superstar there. Rizzo certainly didn't end up being "blocked" by Gonzalez. Cecchini didn't end up "blocked" by Middlebrooks. Jury is still out on Vazquez and Swihart, neither of whom are in the majors right now. Remember when we were worried about their having too many pitching prospects (the De La Rosa, Webster, Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Johnson group)? Or when we were going to have to choose between Kalish and Reddick? Or when Masterson was trade bait because he didn't have a rotation spot? The closest example to an actually blocked prospect I can think of was Iglesias, but even then, he's been hurt often enough that maybe he's best suited as a backup-type anyways. I continue to steadfastly believe that trading prospects for quarters on the dollar because they're "blocked" is a bad idea. It's an unfortunate reality that even supposedly can't-miss prospects and young players bust sometimes, whether due to injury or under-performance. And when they don't, chances are your major league team is doing well enough that you don't really care if you have a blocked prospect or two. I respectfully disagree on your point. Look, JBJ could have a career threatening injury tomorrow (perish the thought) and suddenly his position is wide open and oh, no wouldn't Margot look great in CF? You can make that argument on any position at any time, but the reality is that you can't just hoard prospects, try one out, see if it works, if it doesn't, try out another one, etc. Sooner or later, presented with an opportunity to improve your ballclub enough to have a better shot at winning (as marginal as the % are - nobody wants to be in the Wild Card game) the World Series, you sometimes have to make a concrete decision that the guy you are dealing is not better than what you already have or having him is at best a marginal upgrade in the future that is not more important than the upgrade to your ballclub that is needed now. In other words, Margot IS blocked. The Red Sox have four better options for the OF than him. But either way presented with the opportunity Dombrowski decided that JBJ IS his CF for the next several years. Margot in LF or RF wasn't a very realistic scenario. His bat profiles as a CF. His bat doesn't play as well in LF and it's not as promising as Benintendi's. The idea isn't too collect CF prospects. It's to shape your talent so it improves your ballclub. The object of a trade isn't to win the trade. It's to improve your club. Say you quantify the number you gave up as 8, and you only got a 6 in return, but that 6 was applied to a glaring need that needs to be addressed while the 8 you give up has virtually no chance of hurting your present and small chance of hurting your future, then why wouldn't you make the deal? You brought up Betts as an example of being blocked. Some guys can be converted to fill another position. It wasn't shocking that Betts was converted to the OF where there was a glaring need. Betts' bat was so dominant, the Sox were forced to find a spot for him and his athleticism allowed for it. Margot doesn't have Betts' rare bat, so it's a different scenario. The Red Sox had very few bats the caliber of Betts. That's why Betts really wasn't expendable and Margot's was. When you plan the future of your team, Betts was going to be on it, just like Bogaerts was, just like Benintendi and Moncada will be. I'm of the opinion that Devers should be, but I expect he will be dealt. At some point, you make a decision on what your team is going to look like over the next several years and you give it a real try. In that vein, I'm of the opinion that Swihart should get every opportunity to win the catching job at some point next year (once they re-acquaint him with catching). That would make Vazquez expendable, not that teams are jumping at the bit to get him. If the Sox determine that they need to deal either Swihart or Vazquez as part of a package to get a top notch pitcher, then they need to do that and not worry about, "What if we trade Swihart and Vazquez fails or what if we trade Vazquez and Swihart fails?" At some point they have to decide about who they're willing to go with and not have themselves a catching carousel. As far as your other examples go, Rizzo was traded because Gonzo was supposed to be the 1b for the next seven years. It wasn't Gonzo's ineffectiveness that scotched that plan, and there was no way they were going to get Gonzo without losing Rizzo. You might recall that Gonzo had a monster 2011 season. But his shoulder was never the same after that and we all know the rest. I don't ever remember being too worried about having too many pitchers. None of those pitchers you mentioned were considered top shelf pitchers in the way that Espinoza, Groome, and Kopech are. Back end starters are very expendable. Top of the rotation starters bust, too, of course, but unless you have more than five of these guys, there's room for them. It's not like having 5 guys who can play CF and you have room for all 5. This is why I complained about losing Espinoza, but not Margot. You had Espinoza pegged with a particular value based on historical values, etc, which is sensible, but that doesn't necessarily tell me about that particular player. I mean, if we always go by historical comparisons, then David Ortiz would have been jettisoned a long time ago, because players don't do what he does at age 40. Sometimes you develop an opinion on a particular player. I believe that Espinoza will be a top of the rotation type starter by time he's 23. He certainly could bust or be nothing, but I think from everything I've read, he'll get thru his issues and succeed, and that will be a certain talent that will be hard to replace from the Red Sox POV. Speedy CFs who can hit aren't that rare to find and replace. Great young pitching is much rarer to find. This is why I reacted to losing Espinoza vs losing Margot (who I like as a player in a Marquis Grissom sort of way). And all the 3b prospects you mentioned - well the Sox could have chosen who they thought their best bet was for 3b and perhaps gotten something of value for who they felt was expendable, but they sat on all of them and wound up with nothing of value. The Red Sox could have chosen between Kalish and Reddick but opted not to. Maybe they thought that their outfield of the future would be Reddick/Westmoreland/Kalish. I'll always be sad about what could have been with Westmoreland. I never was high on Reddick (I was wrong) because I thought he would always be a hacker and post low OBPs. Kalish was always athletic but always injured and never put up any numbers that made me drool. I guess what's open to interpretation is "pennies on the dollar". I don't think that the Sox sent a ton of major value to the Padres beyond Margot. Guerra has his question marks, Asuaje is either a 2nd division regular or a good utility man, and Allen is a lottery ticket (although I haven't read anything that indicates he's more than a potential back end starter), so while they have value, they're hardly irreplaceable (and there's no evidence these guys would have brought back a starting pitcher). If Kimbrel was what he was supposed to be, it would be worth it. His sub-par performance has made it more disappointing, although he could still revert to being a shutdown closer. We'll see, but I'm sure that's what Theo is thinking with the deal he made today. Ideally, it can be argued, the Sox go with what they have, keep Margot et al, and play out 2016. Once they have an idea that either Margot or Benintendi is a viable OF option, they could have theoretically traded JBJ to a team like the Mets for a huge haul of players. I'd actually have preferred they keep him and seasoned the young guys even more. But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. Meanwhile, assemble the bullpen from internal options (Barnes, Kelly, Light, Martin, Hembree, etc.) and let them take their lumps. Make Ziegler-style trades to supplement. And save the $ and minor league depth. Then, deal veterans from a position of strength after assessing internal talent. Get much more in return, and save money doing so. Replenish the pipeline, and let the system's own graduates fill the holes. The Red Sox are operating backwards. A *truly* good team is able to trade solid-performing veterans because they have equally viable internal options ready to take that spot. And by trading veterans for high-upside, relatively high-floor talent, a team can withstand a few prospect busts because they're producing their own star-quality players regularly.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 25, 2016 20:39:43 GMT -5
There's no way you're getting Sale without either Benintendi or Moncada. I don't care if you're offering the entire rest of the farm system.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 25, 2016 20:42:28 GMT -5
There's no way you're getting Sale without either Benintendi or Moncada. I don't care if you're offering the entire rest of the farm system. Given the going rates, you can argue it would take both to pry him away from Chicago.
|
|
|