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.
Tyler Thornburg (6/15 edit: out for 2017 season)
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 15, 2017 17:14:39 GMT -5
My thoughts, as I expressed on Twitter first, but without the character limit:
1) They gave up too much for Thornburg. Not enough that it'd ruin the franchise or anything, as I don't think any of those players were ones I wasn't willing to give up, but more value than they should have needed to give up to get the player. I'd even have been more ok with a 3 for 1 involving any 3 of the players.
2) 95% (not necessarily on this forum, where I think it's far less) of the people who pan the trade will do so for the unfair reason of Shaw now hitting great at a position where the Sox ABSOLUTELY could have used him, combined with Thornburg getting hurt (or at least having an injury nobody knew about). There's a reason to pan the trade. It's not that.
TL;DR version: there is a reason to hate this trade, but unfortunately, most people have a different reason I think is illogical.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 15, 2017 17:26:31 GMT -5
I was not happy with the trade because I liked Shaw, as some may recall because of numerous posts of mine over time supporting him. I also was a little concerned that the trade left the Sox too exposed at 3B. However, I also saw the potential value to the Sox because they were getting a better RP than any they had except Kimbrel. If Thornburg had not gotten hurt, he would have helped the Sox a lot, and he may do so in the future. This is mostly a case of bad luck, even though I agree they overpaid.
|
|
|
Post by bnich on Jun 15, 2017 17:29:12 GMT -5
My thoughts, as I expressed on Twitter first, but without the character limit: 1) They gave up too much for Thornburg. Not enough that it'd ruin the franchise or anything, as I don't think any of those players were ones I wasn't willing to give up, but more value than they should have needed to give up to get the player. I'd even have been more ok with a 3 for 1 involving any 3 of the players. 2) 95% (not necessarily on this forum, where I think it's far less) of the people who pan the trade will do so for the unfair reason of Shaw now hitting great at a position where the Sox ABSOLUTELY could have used him, combined with Thornburg getting hurt (or at least having an injury nobody knew about). There's a reason to pan the trade. It's not that. TL;DR version: there is a reason to hate this trade, but unfortunately, most people have a different reason I think is illogical. As we discussed on twitter, I completely agree with you here.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 15, 2017 17:50:53 GMT -5
I think it's being forgotten by some how horrendously bad Travis Shaw was last season. He was bad enough to lose his job in September and bad enough to not even being an option for 3b when Moncada struggled when he was rushed. It was Brock Holt who wound up at 3b last October.
He had to play really bad to wind up with the numbers he wound up with last season, especially after that hot start over the first couple of months when it looked like he was blossoming.
If he hadn't played like crap the last three months even Dombrowski wouldn't have traded him for Thornburg. He would have kept him at 3b until Devers was ready.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Jun 15, 2017 18:14:14 GMT -5
It was an overpay, but not because Shaw was traded. It was because Dubon and the other young shortstop were included with Shaw. The other factors about Shaw (manager support, rapport, and confidence here) notwithstanding in the trade argument
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 15, 2017 19:18:45 GMT -5
Shaw put up bWAR 2.2 last season. Under what definition is that "horrendously bad"? This is for a player making MLB min. The going free agent rate is 5-6M per WAR. While the desire for a contending team might be to have above average players, getting WAR 2 from min salary guys lets you spend on better free agents. Unfortunately, when that money is spent on deadwood(s) then life sucks. Don't blame it on Shaw.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jun 15, 2017 19:37:17 GMT -5
No worries, Dombrowski guts farms but he NEVER loses trades.
Sarcasm aside, given the state of our major league squad and how thin of a system the Sox now have... I don't feel very confident or comfortable with the management of this org on any level. Tons of young talent at the MLB level, but also some significant holes, little payroll flexibility, and no depth to trade from in the minors.
Cherington made two horrible signings in Sandoval and Hanley, but I still think he got the short end of the stick and is probably a better man for a long term job.
It's not all doom and gloom by any means, but it's scary being in win now mode without having the best team, compounded by having a lackluster farm.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 15, 2017 19:51:47 GMT -5
I think it's being forgotten by some how horrendously bad Travis Shaw was last season. He was bad enough to lose his job in September and bad enough to not even being an option for 3b when Moncada struggled when he was rushed. It was Brock Holt who wound up at 3b last October. He had to play really bad to wind up with the numbers he wound up with last season, especially after that hot start over the first couple of months when it looked like he was blossoming. If he hadn't played like crap the last three months even Dombrowski wouldn't have traded him for Thornburg. He would have kept him at 3b until Devers was ready. Why are you emphasizing the three months he played poorly while waving away the three months he played really well?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 15, 2017 21:13:26 GMT -5
I think it's being forgotten by some how horrendously bad Travis Shaw was last season. He was bad enough to lose his job in September and bad enough to not even being an option for 3b when Moncada struggled when he was rushed. It was Brock Holt who wound up at 3b last October. He had to play really bad to wind up with the numbers he wound up with last season, especially after that hot start over the first couple of months when it looked like he was blossoming. If he hadn't played like crap the last three months even Dombrowski wouldn't have traded him for Thornburg. He would have kept him at 3b until Devers was ready. Why are you emphasizing the three months he played poorly while waving away the three months he played really well? I'm emphasizing it for two reasons. One, because in totality it was a lousy season, and two, his finish left the position in a state of flux. If he had stunk earlier in the season and played better afterward 3b wouldn't have been an issue come playoff time. It's not how you start, but rather how you finish. He was useless after June and mediocre in totality.
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Jun 15, 2017 21:45:45 GMT -5
The Travis shaw trade continues to hurt worse and worse. Thornburg needs surgery. I'm sick of trading great talent for broken pitchers (Pomeranz, Smith, Thornburg, Bailey, just to name a few. Still think Kimbrel was grossly overpaid for.)
Dombrowski has no idea how to build a bullpen. Great bullpens usually consist of failed starters, minor-league signings, free agents, and flame throwers from AAA.
"Yeah I was looking for relief pitchers. Tyler who? His ERA was what last year? Sounds good is he healthy? That settles it! Name the prospects and they're yours." -DD
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Jun 15, 2017 22:28:36 GMT -5
It's OK, maybe Carson Smith will pitch this season.
Also, this is nothing that can't be remedied by trading Devers for Anthony Swarzak.
This franchise is going to burn to the ground under Dombrowski. Just the absolute worst.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 15, 2017 22:35:28 GMT -5
1. The Red Sox bullpen has been really good.
2. Trading for Tyler Thornburg was probably a good idea.
3. Trading Travis Show as the headlining piece for Thornburg was a good get.
4. Including another player who would be in the current top 10 and two more who'd be in the top 40 was really, really, truly bad. That's just too much.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 15, 2017 22:37:49 GMT -5
I'm just hoping Thornburg comes back in 2018 and becomes Thornburg again.
If all deals was made to work in the first year of the deal, then the John Lackey free agent signing and the Josh Beckett trade would of been considered disasters around here.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 16, 2017 6:08:58 GMT -5
Why are you emphasizing the three months he played poorly while waving away the three months he played really well? I'm emphasizing it for two reasons. One, because in totality it was a lousy season, and two, his finish left the position in a state of flux. If he had stunk earlier in the season and played better afterward 3b wouldn't have been an issue come playoff time. It's not how you start, but rather how you finish. He was useless after June and mediocre in totality. He had a 2.2 bWAR. That's a fine season. He also was very good defensively.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 16, 2017 6:11:26 GMT -5
My issue with Thornburg is not so much that Travis Shaw was an overpay, but that it left the team bereft of competition at third base. By trading Shaw and Moncada, the Red Sox resigned themselves to Sandoval at third base. Having Sandoval as your only option at third base was dumb at the moment it occurred.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 16, 2017 7:18:49 GMT -5
My issue with Thornburg is not so much that Travis Shaw was an overpay, but that it left the team bereft of competition at third base. By trading Shaw and Moncada, the Red Sox resigned themselves to Sandoval at third base. Having Sandoval as your only option at third base was dumb at the moment it occurred. I don't agree with this. They had Sandoval, then Holt, then Hernandez. The fact that they ended up on option four really stinks, but it was a position of depth that that they traded for a position of need. This isn't like that time when they had Bronson Arroyo as the sixth starter but no depth behind him and traded him for a toolsy outfielder who hit the bejeezus out of the ball the few times that he made contact.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 16, 2017 7:49:00 GMT -5
I'm emphasizing it for two reasons. One, because in totality it was a lousy season, and two, his finish left the position in a state of flux. If he had stunk earlier in the season and played better afterward 3b wouldn't have been an issue come playoff time. It's not how you start, but rather how you finish. He was useless after June and mediocre in totality. He had a 2.2 bWAR. That's a fine season. He also was very good defensively. Did you think that 3b was an issue by the end of the year or did you think, Shaw is having a fine year? Nothing here to see? By the end of the year he was playing at a replacement level and got replaced. Farrell didn't look around and say he's got a 2.2 bWAR - let's keep playing him. His bWAR was probably 3.5 - 4 before he played bad enough afterwards. jmei asked me why I discount his first few months. I don't discount it as much as I would say flip it around. Say Shaw stunk the first couple of months and lost his job and/or the Red Sox look around and find no better option, and say he spent August and September mashing like he did in April and May, then 3b would not have been a question mark heading into the end of the season. Also, the sense would be that Shaw figured something out and would be penciled in as the 3b for 2017 and I don't mean in a "tentative" way. If he would have raked those last two months after a lousy start, I doubt he's the headliner in a Thornburg deal. Look at the way he played at the end of 2015 - he raked. He went into 2016 as a guy the Red Sox needed to make room for. At the end of 2016 he was a guy that was very expendable. And for a guy having the year Thornburg had, I, too, would have gladly dealt him for Thornburg. I wasn't thrilled about losing Dubon, but I could live with it. I was fine with Pennington, but for me, losing Coca tips it. It's like the Red Sox should have thrown in Sam Travis, too, so they could furnish Milwaukee with a future infield of Shaw at 3b, Coca at SS, Dubon at 2b, and Sam Travis at 1b. Maybe in Dombrowski's next deal he can accomplish this!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 16, 2017 8:16:52 GMT -5
One thought: you don't have to think Shaw stinks to be ok with trading him for Thornburg.
I think Shaw is going to have a nice MLB career. However, I do have questions whether he has the right personality for the role in which I think he fits best long-term (which I'll admit he's outperforming right now), as a 1B/3B/LF bench bat.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 16, 2017 8:31:40 GMT -5
My issue with Thornburg is not so much that Travis Shaw was an overpay, but that it left the team bereft of competition at third base. By trading Shaw and Moncada, the Red Sox resigned themselves to Sandoval at third base. Having Sandoval as your only option at third base was dumb at the moment it occurred. I don't agree with this. They had Sandoval, then Holt, then Hernandez. The fact that they ended up on option four really stinks, but it was a position of depth that that they traded for a position of need. This isn't like that time when they had Bronson Arroyo as the sixth starter but no depth behind him and traded him for a toolsy outfielder who hit the bejeezus out of the ball the few times that he made contact. Except that Sandoval had not been a competent MLB starter in two years and had not played in nearly a year. Holt has been a fine bench player, but has struggled as a full time player and his weakest defensive position according to advanced metrics is third base. Hernandez as you note was the third option, and he has not been seen as an MLB regular. They had players who were listed as third baseman on the depth chart, but none of them were particularly appealing as first division starters. Instead of bringing in additional players to compete for the job, they decreased the numbers of options.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 16, 2017 8:34:15 GMT -5
He had a 2.2 bWAR. That's a fine season. He also was very good defensively. Did you think that 3b was an issue by the end of the year or did you think, Shaw is having a fine year? Nothing here to see? By the end of the year he was playing at a replacement level and got replaced. Farrell didn't look around and say he's got a 2.2 bWAR - let's keep playing him. His bWAR was probably 3.5 - 4 before he played bad enough afterwards. jmei asked me why I discount his first few months. I don't discount it as much as I would say flip it around. Say Shaw stunk the first couple of months and lost his job and/or the Red Sox look around and find no better option, and say he spent August and September mashing like he did in April and May, then 3b would not have been a question mark heading into the end of the season. Also, the sense would be that Shaw figured something out and would be penciled in as the 3b for 2017 and I don't mean in a "tentative" way. If he would have raked those last two months after a lousy start, I doubt he's the headliner in a Thornburg deal. Look at the way he played at the end of 2015 - he raked. He went into 2016 as a guy the Red Sox needed to make room for. At the end of 2016 he was a guy that was very expendable. And for a guy having the year Thornburg had, I, too, would have gladly dealt him for Thornburg. I wasn't thrilled about losing Dubon, but I could live with it. I was fine with Pennington, but for me, losing Coca tips it. It's like the Red Sox should have thrown in Sam Travis, too, so they could furnish Milwaukee with a future infield of Shaw at 3b, Coca at SS, Dubon at 2b, and Sam Travis at 1b. Maybe in Dombrowski's next deal he can accomplish this! My point was that in totality he did not have a lousy season. Was it a great season? no. Was it an ideal season? No. But it was fine for who he was.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 16, 2017 8:41:14 GMT -5
I don't agree with this. They had Sandoval, then Holt, then Hernandez. The fact that they ended up on option four really stinks, but it was a position of depth that that they traded for a position of need. This isn't like that time when they had Bronson Arroyo as the sixth starter but no depth behind him and traded him for a toolsy outfielder who hit the bejeezus out of the ball the few times that he made contact. Except that Sandoval had not been a competent MLB starter in two years and had not played in nearly a year. Holt has been a fine bench player, but has struggled as a full time player and his weakest defensive position according to advanced metrics is third base. Hernandez as you note was the third option, and he has not been seen as an MLB regular. They had players who were listed as third baseman on the depth chart, but none of them were particularly appealing as first division starters. Instead of bringing in additional players to compete for the job, they decreased the numbers of options. Even if you think Sandoval stinks as a plan A, Shaw was behind Holt and Hernandez was right behind them. You trade from depth to upgrade a need, and it took a lot of bad luck to end up with a month of Deven Marrero playing third. If there's a reliever you want then trading one of four options sitting at third base to get him is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2017 9:38:54 GMT -5
Except that Sandoval had not been a competent MLB starter in two years and had not played in nearly a year. Holt has been a fine bench player, but has struggled as a full time player and his weakest defensive position according to advanced metrics is third base. Hernandez as you note was the third option, and he has not been seen as an MLB regular. They had players who were listed as third baseman on the depth chart, but none of them were particularly appealing as first division starters. Instead of bringing in additional players to compete for the job, they decreased the numbers of options. Even if you think Sandoval stinks as a plan A, Shaw was behind Holt and Hernandez was right behind them. You trade from depth to upgrade a need, and it took a lot of bad luck to end up with a month of Deven Marrero playing third. If there's a reliever you want then trading one of four options sitting at third base to get him is the way to go. I disagree that Shaw was (or should have been viewed as) the third best option entering the season. There's a pretty strong argument to be made that he was the best of their third base options entering the offseason. For instance, here are preseason projections from Steamer (with WAR prorated per 600 PAs): Travis Shaw: 93 wRC+, 1.3 WAR Pablo Sandoval: 97 wRC+, 1.1 WAR Brock Holt: 88 wRC+, 1.3 WAR Marco Hernandez: 85 wRC+, 1.0 WAR Here are the ZiPS preseason projections: Travis Shaw: .316 wOBA, 1.9 WAR Pablo Sandoval: .308 wOBA, 0.5 WAR Brock Holt: .313 wOBA, 1.2 WAR Marco Hernandez: .289 wOBA, -0.4 WAR Even if you thought Holt was a little better than Shaw, 3B is Holt's weakest defensive position and, with their lack of a true fourth outfielder and with Pedroia's injury history, Holt would almost certainly also be needed elsewhere. Between that, Sandoval's obvious question marks and Hernandez's lack of track record, there's a pretty good argument to be made (and one that I and others made at the time) that they should have kept all four going into the season.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2017 9:49:06 GMT -5
He had a 2.2 bWAR. That's a fine season. He also was very good defensively. Did you think that 3b was an issue by the end of the year or did you think, Shaw is having a fine year? Nothing here to see? By the end of the year he was playing at a replacement level and got replaced. Farrell didn't look around and say he's got a 2.2 bWAR - let's keep playing him. His bWAR was probably 3.5 - 4 before he played bad enough afterwards. jmei asked me why I discount his first few months. I don't discount it as much as I would say flip it around. Say Shaw stunk the first couple of months and lost his job and/or the Red Sox look around and find no better option, and say he spent August and September mashing like he did in April and May, then 3b would not have been a question mark heading into the end of the season. Also, the sense would be that Shaw figured something out and would be penciled in as the 3b for 2017 and I don't mean in a "tentative" way. If he would have raked those last two months after a lousy start, I doubt he's the headliner in a Thornburg deal. Look at the way he played at the end of 2015 - he raked. He went into 2016 as a guy the Red Sox needed to make room for. At the end of 2016 he was a guy that was very expendable. And for a guy having the year Thornburg had, I, too, would have gladly dealt him for Thornburg. I wasn't thrilled about losing Dubon, but I could live with it. I was fine with Pennington, but for me, losing Coca tips it. It's like the Red Sox should have thrown in Sam Travis, too, so they could furnish Milwaukee with a future infield of Shaw at 3b, Coca at SS, Dubon at 2b, and Sam Travis at 1b. Maybe in Dombrowski's next deal he can accomplish this! The lingering memory in your (and likely Dombrowski's) mind going into the offseason was Shaw playing poorly. But that just seems like recency bias to me, and I remain unconvinced that it was appropriate to weigh his second half so much more heavily than his first half.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 16, 2017 10:09:59 GMT -5
Even if you thought Holt was a little better than Shaw, 3B is Holt's weakest defensive position and, with their lack of a true fourth outfielder and with Pedroia's injury history, Holt would almost certainly also be needed elsewhere. Between that, Sandoval's obvious question marks and Hernandez's lack of track record, there's a pretty good argument to be made (and one that I and others made at the time) that they should have kept all four going into the season.I mean, my argument isn't that they should've been willing to trade Shaw for anyone. The key to the trade was that it was reasonable to expect Thornburg to be good, with a chance that he'd be very good - a better possibility to be Kimbrel's eventual replacement than anyone currently in the organization. He had a 2.83 FIP and a 34.2% K rate last season. With Smith's status uncertain, the belief that the upgrade from Barnes/Kelly to Thornburg was worth the difference between Shaw and the other third base options. That assumption, reasonable at the time, has 100% gone as poorly as possible. Shaw has been good, third base has been a disaster for Boston, and Thornburg had a career-altering injury. That worst-case scenario is always possible, especially with relievers, and that's why I didn't like all of the extra pieces in the trade. This isn't a case of "you don't say no to Craig Kimbrel because of Carlos Asuaje" and that trade gradually getting built up with too many pieces because Kimbrel was that kind of talent. A GM should be comfortable saying no to a Tyler Thornburg deal when the Brewers want another top-10 prospect and two top-40's on top of the average-ish third baseman headlining the deal. This is a particularly bad case of Dombrowski's reputation for zeroing in on a player and letting the other team dictate the price.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 16, 2017 10:11:36 GMT -5
Well, let's start by pointing out that Shaw's 2016 wasn't a season of halves. Shaw stopped hitting sometime in mid-May. Arbitrary endpoints? Probably, but no less arbitrary than using halves, so let's call it what it was. From May 18 through Oct. 1, Shaw was a .205/.265/.356 hitter. He lost his job to Moncada and then Holt. Good chance he might have won it back in spring training? You bet, and in hindsight he would've. But this brings me to my next point.
It's not necessarily recency bias to weigh more recent history ahead of past history in this situation. This wasn't a player with a years-long track record of hitting in the majors. You could also call a young player hitting well in his first 3.5 months in the league then performing below replacement level for the next 4.5 the league figuring him out and him being unable to make adjustments to the adjustments. It happens all the time. It's also possible they evaluated Shaw the person as someone who wasn't going to make those adjustments too. We've heard his comments about when he lost his job, and it seems pretty clear he was clueless that he hadn't been holding up his end of the deal for months.
And I'm sorry for repeating this, but you have to give value to get value. Shaw was a 2.2 bWAR player last year. Well, Thornburg was a 2.5 bWAR player. You're not getting Thornburg for Williams Jerez.
At any rate, while I was ok with it at the time, the more I'm thinking this really could've been Shaw plus one player. Kind of hoping this isn't me letting hindsight affect things, but I think I may have been too stuck at the time in my personal projection of Shaw as a likely bench player to evaluate the performance he had in the majors, and letting confirmation bias lead me to give too much weight to his struggles.
By the way, for whatever it's worth, Marco Hernandez (.292/.324/.428 in 427 PA) was a better AAA hitter than Shaw (.256/.319/.395 in 668 PA). Even when Shaw was better there in 2014, he hit .262/.321/.431 in 346 PA. Hernandez was a much better plan C (and plan B utility guy if Holt won the job) than a lot of people realize he was.
|
|
|