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.
Sale to BOS for Moncada, Kopech, Basabe, Diaz
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 11, 2016 0:35:33 GMT -5
For those that might not have seen Chris' tweet, an excellent behind the scenes look at how the Sale and Thornburg trades went down by Speier, of course: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/12/10/how-chris-sale-deal-came-about/y54iJcIAj4vtbDvRb8LLLP/story.htmlADD: My takeaways... Internal evaluations had the deal close which to me makes it likely that there's somewhat of a high skew present value type modification for wins. Sale's contract was a key factor. Before executing the Thornburg deal, DD called the WS to make sure none of the players going to Milwaukee would impact the Sale deal. While the trade was being formulated, DD had a staff group session in which the shorter term vs longer term philosophies were discussed. Group think. The announcement drew a loud applause from the group. Obviously the management group was pro trade. This process is not at all like the dictatorial ogre that some would have you believe is DD. While there may be posters who see it that way, the suggestion has been made a few times that there's probably a management team. From my experience, a dictatorial management style alienates workers and customers over time. You want buy-in from the people who will implement the decisions. That's much harder to get if everything comes shooting at you from out of the blue.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2016 1:29:02 GMT -5
There is no hyperbole here. James, this is an absolutely horrible trade, and you know it, made only to get under the salary cap. A responsible journalist, like yourself, should write about this with integrity. Don't. Feed. The. Mainstream Media. Wow! How is this trade helping them get under the salary cap, none of these prospects effected team payroll. Conspiracy theories really have no place on a baseball board. It allows (forces) them to trade Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 11, 2016 1:43:03 GMT -5
Wow! How is this trade helping them get under the salary cap, none of these prospects effected team payroll. Conspiracy theories really have no place on a baseball board. It allows (forces) them to trade Buchholz. Before the Sale trade they could have traded Buchholz. And they didn't need to pick up his option in the first place. Moreover, if staying under the tax threshold was a true concern, They could have kept Travis Shaw (league minimum player) instead of trading him for a higher paid pitcher and signing Moreland to a five million dollar contract.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 11, 2016 2:05:34 GMT -5
If you read the link about the trade (Speier), Shaw was the starting point for acquiring Thornburg. Dombrowski has this thing about power relievers. No Shaw no trade.
As for the Buchholz option, pitching is the coin of the realm. What do you think his price would be on the open market? If it's more than the cost of the option, it would make lousy business sense to cut him loose, right? Why shouldn't the Sox extract that marginal value for themselves, whether it's a trade or by using him?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2016 2:41:23 GMT -5
Wow! How is this trade helping them get under the salary cap, none of these prospects effected team payroll. Conspiracy theories really have no place on a baseball board. It allows (forces) them to trade Buchholz. We weren't over the cap with Buchholz though. Even with Clay and Sale were still under the luxury line. Take out Sales money and let's say non tender Abad and you'd have like 10 million for in season moves. Getting Sale was not a move to get or stay under luxury tax. I don't understand this line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by fan72 on Dec 11, 2016 5:25:26 GMT -5
Getting Sale was only about getting another top of the rotation starter. One of the consequences of the trade is it makes the rotation deeper and frees them to trade Clay.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 11, 2016 5:37:27 GMT -5
It allows (forces) them to trade Buchholz. We weren't over the cap with Buchholz though. Even with Clay and Sale were still under the luxury line. Take out Sales money and let's say non tender Abad and you'd have like 10 million for in season moves. Getting Sale was not a move to get or stay under luxury tax. I don't understand this line of thinking. The line of thinking is that it's an upgrade without bringing them over the cap. Other alternatives Grienke, for example, or a decent free agent doesn't accomplish both.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Dec 11, 2016 11:25:22 GMT -5
The most interesting part of Alex Speier's article about the Sale trade in the Boston Globe is the following paragraph:
“We did some analytical work on Sunday night for Monday, that if you look at the value of players, Chris Sale’s three years was not going to add up to [the value of having Moncada and Kopech under team contractual control for six big league seasons each],” said Dombrowski.
Explain why, if the analytics showed that even Moncada and Kopech for Sale was not a fair trade, adding Basabe and Diaz made it a trade for the front office and ownerhsip to celebrate?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 11, 2016 11:41:54 GMT -5
There is a bit more to it. Here's the next paragraph: I think that any reasonable evaluation would show the disparity in trade value if Moncada and Kopech pan out. If it was fairly close though, I don't see the other two as deterrents.
BUT what it has done is deplete the system further. I have no idea whether they factor that into that valuation.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 11, 2016 11:48:31 GMT -5
The most interesting part of Alex Speier's article about the Sale trade in the Boston Globe is the following paragraph: “We did some analytical work on Sunday night for Monday, that if you look at the value of players, Chris Sale’s three years was not going to add up to [the value of having Moncada and Kopech under team contractual control for six big league seasons each],” said Dombrowski. Explain why, if the analytics showed that even Moncada and Kopech for Sale was not a fair trade, adding Basabe and Diaz made it a trade for the front office and ownerhsip to celebrate? The next paragraph: The conclusion wasn’t black and white — it was a close call based on the team’s internal evaluations of the prospects, close enough that it shouldn’t deter conversation.. So they decided it was close. There's a point at which you say in a trade that's close enough when you have an asset you want to acquire. Including Devers was obviously not within the realm of close enough.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 11:51:49 GMT -5
The most interesting part of Alex Speier's article about the Sale trade in the Boston Globe is the following paragraph: “We did some analytical work on Sunday night for Monday, that if you look at the value of players, Chris Sale’s three years was not going to add up to [the value of having Moncada and Kopech under team contractual control for six big league seasons each],” said Dombrowski. Explain why, if the analytics showed that even Moncada and Kopech for Sale was not a fair trade, adding Basabe and Diaz made it a trade for the front office and ownerhsip to celebrate? Some deals aren't made to be won. Some deals are made for the sacrifice to be better immediately. There's a legit chance to win a world series now, something that was a question even a week ago. This is why they celebrated.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 11, 2016 12:07:05 GMT -5
I think the most revealing news from that article is that upon getting the initial Hahn call indicating that the WS were going to move Sale during the winter meetings - who was Dombrowski's first call to? Frank Wren
Dombrowski treats the "analytical work" like taking out the garbage - it's a chore, has to be done, but nothing to take seriously. "Go for it"
P.S. I bet the analytical guy (I'm presuming there's one left), if they clapped at all, it was a golf clap
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 11, 2016 12:53:49 GMT -5
The most interesting part of Alex Speier's article about the Sale trade in the Boston Globe is the following paragraph: “We did some analytical work on Sunday night for Monday, that if you look at the value of players, Chris Sale’s three years was not going to add up to [the value of having Moncada and Kopech under team contractual control for six big league seasons each],” said Dombrowski. Explain why, if the analytics showed that even Moncada and Kopech for Sale was not a fair trade, adding Basabe and Diaz made it a trade for the front office and ownerhsip to celebrate? That you have to give up more prospects because they have more risk. You realize they are still prospects and not yet MLB player's, right?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 11, 2016 12:57:11 GMT -5
I think the most revealing news from that article is that upon getting the initial Hahn call indicating that the WS were going to move Sale during the winter meetings - who was Dombrowski's first call to? Frank Wren Dombrowski treats the "analytical work" like taking out the garbage - it's a chore, has to be done, but nothing to take seriously. "Go for it" P.S. I bet the analytical guy (I'm presuming there's one left), if they clapped at all, it was a golf clap Read a bit closer. When the GM is working directly with the analytics guy to put the study together, I don't think he's just doing it as a chore. If it were a chore, he'd pass that off to whoever took over Hazen's duties.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 11, 2016 13:04:56 GMT -5
No, you read closer. He assigned a task to Zack Scott; that's "working directly to put the study together"? You're just making that up, it's not in the article.
Then by his own admission, he "ignored" (or overruled, or whatever euphemism you prefer) the results of the analysis that showed that Sale's value was less than that of Moncada and Kopech alone.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2016 14:00:09 GMT -5
You can have all the analysts you want, but if you don't listen to them, what's the point? This is the second trade where we know Dombrowski went against the recommendation of his analytics department. That's... not great.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2016 14:34:20 GMT -5
I mean, it comes down to two things what you look for in trades. To get potential surplus value or to immediately make your team better. Ideally you want both but usually you are giving up one in a deal depending which direction you're going in.
This is always going to separate analytics versus win now decisions.
There just isn't many Shelby Miller or Curt Schilling deals out there.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 11, 2016 15:02:45 GMT -5
You can have all the analysts you want, but if you don't listen to them, what's the point? This is the second trade where we know Dombrowski went against the recommendation of his analytics department. That's... not great. The article didn't state that his analytic team was against the trade. In fact, the way it read to me (and by the cheering in the room - it makes more sense) that the deal the analytic team said actually favored the prospects was the deal that DD declined. It was only after Hahn changed package that the deal became acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2016 15:11:49 GMT -5
It says that the analytics team prepared an analysis of Sale versus Moncada/Kopech, and that analysis concluded that Sale was less valuable than Moncada/Kopech. I don't know that it gets any clearer than that.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 11, 2016 15:26:47 GMT -5
Well, there is a way that Dombrowski could extract value from an analytics staff even if he ultimately makes yes/no decisions irrespective of the analysis.
Viz. to get a sense of how his trading partner and other competitors evaluate the respective packages. It would be extremely useful to know for instance that the White Sox would view Moncada/Kopech for Sale as a (significant) win; that way, when they "demand" Devers as well, you know it's a bluff (or at least not a deal breaker); I'm skeptical that this is how Dombrowski rolls, but he would be smart to do so.
Pure speculation, but I can't divorce myself from the idea that Dombrowski would have included Devers if he believed it was necessary to clinch the deal; and that the usual suspects would have come to the same conclusion and made the same tiresome arguments if he did; their "go for it" 'logic' dictates that (assuming logic comes into it at all)
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 11, 2016 15:38:04 GMT -5
The latter point is without a doubt true. And these are the same people saying now, "You can afford to give up Moncada because you held onto Devers!"
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Dec 11, 2016 15:39:52 GMT -5
It seems like from the way the article read to me that the internal evaluation on either Kopech or Moncada is that one or both of them they don't see reaching full potential.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 11, 2016 15:45:34 GMT -5
I mean, it really is amazing. I've never seen a player go up in so many people's estimation over the course of a week (where he didn't play a game) than Devers.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 11, 2016 16:02:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 11, 2016 16:41:11 GMT -5
So let's throw in two more pieces just for the hell of it. That's the Dombrowski Special.
|
|
|