Dealing top Prospects

This team committed to a long term rebuild with youth with it's moves this offseason. If they were going to make that type of move for a veteran, it would have been much smarter to pursue one of the top FA's this winter when the cost would have been $$ rather than prospects. Outside an unlikely deal for Stanton, I'd be stunned if they dealt either JBJ or Bogey. Realistically, I'm expecting a mid-year sell off again that opens spots for Xander, Bradley, and possibly others in Boston, while continuing to supplement the prospect pool. This is a development year.....

To give up top prospects, after resisting offers this off-season would, indeed, be foolhardy, regardless of the situation at the deadline.

But I question some of your reasons. Who would replace Ellsbury after his one good season in the last three if Bradley's traded? Isn't 't that why Cherington signed Victorino?
While he doesn't have Ellsbury 's skillset, he's capable of holding the fort in CF until the next prospect comes along. It could be Margot orDe La Cruz, or someone else. Victorino is signed for three years.

Agree we got little for Lowrie, Reddick and Head, as these were bad trades, but[u[/u]Michael Bowden? C'mon.

[/u]Michael Bowden? C'mon.[/quote]

Michael Bowden had a 2.95 ERA in 36.2 frames with the Cubs. And the Sox got Byrd in return, who did nothing and was eventually DFA and released.
www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bowdemi01.shtml

If bradley is traded (i REALLY hope he isnt) and victorino is in center, that would leave a hole in right field. in that case you could go outside the organization or internally, such as kalish, brentz, nava, linares, hazelbaker, de la cruz, hassan, or jacobs. if bradley is traded (again, i hope he isnt) there are too many good internal options than to go outside the organization.

bradley is very good defensively, good bat, excellent plate discipline, and above-average speed. hopefully he is the center fielder of the future is NOT TRADED.

one more thing: is ellsbury 100% gone after next season or traded sometime during? there seems to be no news of any kind of extension. i guess the price is too high for a player that gets hurt alot. but then again, he is unfortunate- he collided with beltre in 2010 and brignac fell on him in 2012. you just never know- he may begin to stay healthy. what scares me is that granderson will be a free agent after next season too. i wouldn't be surprised to see ellsbury in pinstripes in 2014. i hope he is loyal enough not to got to ny

Also, if I remember correctly, Bowden was DFAed before the trade for Byrd was completed. That is to say, if he wasn't traded for Byrd, he would have been exposed to waivers and any team could have claimed him. So basically the Red Sox gave the Cubs first waiver priority on Bowden in return for desperately-needed outfield depth (and I think the Cubs picked up most of Byrd's contract, as well). Even in hindsight, it's really, really hard to criticize the front office for making that trade.

Another thing to bear in mind; The Sox had to make room for Tazawa who was out of options. Bowden had run his course with this organization and would have been DFAd. The trade for Byrd made sense at the time since the team was desperate for outfielders because of injury.

I can 't recall too many complaining about Bowden's departure at the time of the trade, so I can 't see the Monday AM quarterbacking this time.

No one should ever use the word Untouchable or say someone should never be traded. It wasn't ever suggested that they'd trade top prospects for a 3 month rental. It's clear they are not going to do that this year. Trade top prospects that is. May trade from further down but even that seems like a low probability.

Byrd was worse than replacement level, which we knew before acquiring him, which made the acquisition ridiculous at any cost. There are dozens of retreads & minor league veterans who could have outperformed him.

In the new baseball economics, top cost-controlled talent is extremely valuable and (as a rule) should only be traded for other top cost-controlled talent. Expensive talent and mediocrity can be acquired through free agency or other means. I'm sure there are reasonable exceptions.

Did we know that? He had a truly atrocious start to 2012 (3/43, no XBH), but Byrd averaged 2.8 fWAR per 600 PAs from 2009-2011 with good durability and both solid hitting and fielding numbers. He put up 2.1 fWAR in 482 PAs in 2011 on the back of a decent .276/.324/.395/.719 line and league-average CF defense. Moreover, he had hit .308/.346/.419 through late May 2011 before an Aceves fastball hit him and literally broke his face, and though he struggled when he returned that season, there was plenty of reason to think he'd bounce back with a full offseason's recovery. That certainly doesn't look like a sub-replacement level player to me.

It was also April, and there aren't a lot of minor league veterans floating around at the start of the season, and certainly none who (a) had Byrd's track record of good performance, (b) were in-shape and ready to play, and (c) would have been as cheap to acquire.

Remember, the Byrd trade was basically Theo and Ben doing each other a solid and giving each other first priority on two players who would have been put on waivers anyways. Bowden was DFAed six days before the trade went official, which meant that if he wasn't included in the deal, the Red Sox would have had to put him on waivers the next day and lost him anyways. Plus, the Cubs picked up almost all of Byrd's salary (the Red Sox were only on the hook for the veteran's minimum), so the only asset the Red Sox lost was a PTBNL (turned out to be Hunter Cervenka-- AKA minor league roster filler).

Hindsight is 20/20, and a lot of players just fall off a cliff, especially at Byrd's age (he was 34 when acquired). But picking up a player who had been productive the year before basically for free so that Cody Ross wouldn't have to be the full-time starter in center and so that Nate Spears and Mike Aviles aren't your only backup outfielders is not a move you can really criticize.

Point to jmei (sorry, elguapo)

Just because a deal doesn't work out, doesn't mean it was a bad decision at the time. Crap happens. It's all about the risks and managing downside. You're talking about Michael Bowden. Just because Byrd sucked here doesn't mean the team was any worse off or it wasn't a guy worth taking a flyer on considering the situation. Remember they would have had to put someone out there and even if they couldn't have done much worse (in hindsight), they probably wouldn't have been much better either.

I remember an interview with Theo back in 05 or 06 that said something like <paraphrasing "If you get into late July and you think you have a legitimate chance at the Word Series if you are just a player or two away, you make that deal every time, even if it costs you some prospects you're really high on."

Doubtful that happens this year, but: It would be intriguing if, say, come July 29th, the top six or seven position players and four of the five starters all are having above average or career years and the Sox find themselves 3 or more games up in the AL East. Ben thinks he needs one more player - a closer, a left fielder, etc. - to really make a run - but that player would cost you one of Bradley, Bogaerts or Barnes. My sense is it would have to be an All Star with more than a couple months of control to get them to deal Xander but one of the other two could go in that scenario (esp with the recent lack of success and ownership wanting a team they could market into 2014 as being "Back").

Even though I don't think this Sox team is very good, I also am not all that excited about any of the other AL East teams. So, it is entirely possible the Sox will contend, but only with a slightly better than average record. That would not be a good reason to trade two of the most promising players to come out of the system in years, and who well could be key to longer term Sox dominance.