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.
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 3, 2019 0:50:45 GMT -5
I'm sorry but what are you talking about? He's at 3 bwar and on the injured list with a hamstring strain. Even if healthy how would he ever get to 6 bwar? It took him 97 games to get 3 bwar. Also where is the improved D at 2B? He's played 3B all year long and has been a negative defender, just like when he played second last year. He's having a very nice year, but he's not the player you think he is. Maybe in time, but not even close this year. Which is key because if he does reach that level, he won't be making a million dollars either. He’s 4 fWAR. That’s $35M in excess value. Yes, my mistake, I wrote 2b. His value at 3b by UZR/150 is positive, at 5.2. Sale still cost $30M AAV (actually, 33.5, accounting for the cost of signing Moncada and Sale’s annual salary), and will end up providing roughly $40-50M in excess value. Moncada has already topped that. If you think he’s done developing at 24, having watched Betts and especially Bogaerts, I don’t know what to tell you. 4-5 fWAR (or bWAR) next year and more in the future is a pretty high likelihood. And if he does that, his arb still won’t come remotely close to his value. He’s still going to provide between $15-25M in excess on the lower end...annually. Like I said, the Sale trade worked out because they won a WS, but in terms of long-term value it’s incredibly weighted towards Chicago. I use bwar and refuse to switch back and forth. Seems the main difference is D and who knows who is right. Yet I've heard how he was struggling and they did switch him. We'll see in time, they might get a season wrong but DRS is rather good with more data. I truly hate judging trades based on excess value. It just means more to certain teams. We can afford the biggest payroll in the game. Useful tool that certainly has its place, but I won't judge trades just on excess value. Nevermind adding in the posting fee, it's just a sunken cost like Castillo and Panda. Red Sox can afford those, it would cripple other teams. Hence why excess value means a lot less than war which right now is 15 plus vs 6 plus when we needed it the most. Timing has value, Sale dominating helping maybe the best Red Sox team ever means more than Moncada maybe becoming something down the road. Also for luxury tax purposes, which frankly is the one thing the Red Sox care about. Sale gave you 15 plus bwar for what 35 million total, the excess value of that is massive already. So by bwar he's got a ways to go to even catch Sale and he's going to start costing a lot more rather soon. You might not win excess value, but it's going to be rather close. Which is what happens if prospects take years and years to develop. Kopech is the one that could make this look really bad, unless Moncada does become truly elite. With that said I don't truly get your point on Betts and Bogaerts. Like Bogaerts best season was his second so far at 4.5 bwar and Betts had a 9.7 bwar MVP season in his third year. Betts would go on to do slightly better a few seasons later, Bogaerts is doing very well so far, let's see if he doesn't cave in the second half like he has a bunch of times before. My point being both players reached close to peak levels very early in their careers. Numbers bounced around a good amount on both players from peak years. So by bwar it's not close to a given he's going to be a 5-8 bwar player going forward. Nevermind Moncada is older in his third season than both Betts and Bogaerts. Maybe he does or maybe he maxed out at around 4 bwar because of strikeouts and his D. It is one of the big changes we've seen in the non steroid era, players peak years are earlier than we used to see when you look at players overall. The trade is a rare win win no matter what happens really going forward. Given a Championship, you'll never be able to argue against the trade. Just like the Beckett and Ramirez trade. Yet it's Kopech I worry about. You always had to give up something very good for Sale and we always knew Moncada was going to be good, it was just how good. Which clearly we are still debating. Yet Kopech could really make it look bad if he ever comes close to his potential and I just can't root against the guy. Yet as Keith Law said, maybe there's a reason no starter has every thrown as hard as he did.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 3, 2019 1:03:59 GMT -5
Two things: 1) after tonight, the sox look pretty dead in the water. Still have hope, but the whole year so far has screamed WS fatigue. If they get swept in the toilet they are pretty well done. At the same time, the good news is that for an old timer like me if the Yanks don't win the WS (and I don't think they will) its still a successful season! 2) which brings me to the trade portion of my post. Yes, maybe too soon (which shows my anxiety perhaps more than anything else) but the offseason is important. With all the swirl around Betts possibly on the block (Gammons, etc) and the report from 2017 that Mookie refused an 8/200 offer (thats 25 per), then my question (and I'm just curious) is who on this board would give mookie 10/300? If not would you trade him this winter (but for what?) or play out the string and see if you can get him for less? It seems to me this is going to be the main winter issue. Have at it, or not (I know: too soon). Mookie will get more than 10 years $300 million, and I have little doubt the Sox would offer at least that figure. The problem is he might demand 12 years $400 million or something like that. Are they willing to bend that far? I don't think the 8 year $200 million offer is really relevent. Mookie knew he was worth more than that and he proved that right in 2018. Anything is possible, but I don't expect the Red Sox to trade Mookie this winter. With $60 million coming off the books and a few tweaks there's no reason the Sox shouldn't have a legit shot in 2020. A lot of it depends upon if Sale rebounds. The Sox need him to be their ace again. They also need Eovaldi to contribute. My guess is if you see the Sox struggling along in 2020 like they did this year, then they'll entertain dealing Betts if they get the sense he won't re-sign come July next season. But if they're playing much better I expect to see Betts in RF. Maybe they deal JBJ, but the problem is they'd need to find another CF. They could always stop-gap with a guy like Jerome Dyson who's more of a #4 OF. They need to replace Porcello until Mata is ready. Those are the types of things I expect to see this winter. I think JD Martinez sticks around for one more year. I think 2020 is a go-for-it year. Isn't the problem Betts won't give them a number and keeps saying he's going to free agency? I love Betts, but 12 years 400 million is a crazy number for a player with so much of his value tied up in D. Heck it's crazy for any player given the biggest contracts given so far in Baseball. Per year doesn't bother me, but 12 years does. So it's certainly not crazy to think about trading him if you can get a massive haul for him. You have a ton of holes to fill and if they are really resetting that 60 million is like 20 million. With arbitration raises taking most of that. Like our owners kinda hold the keys to which way we go and I don't feel great about given how they have wanted to avoid the highest threshold like it's the plague for two years while paying low tax rates, which now max out next year.
|
|
|
Post by fdrnewdeal on Aug 3, 2019 7:26:07 GMT -5
All this talk about "winning" deals is likely very far out of alignment with how organizations evaluate trades.
When Boston traded Anderson Espinoza for Pomeranz they knew they were trading a teenager with an electric arm for a good pitcher, with injury history, but some flashes of excellent (number 2 starter). Boston needed an arm in the majors more immediately than San Diego did for a play off run. They pulled the trigger.
The logic that informed that trade for Boston didn't become better the moment Espinoza regrettably fell apart physically. Both Boston and San Diego were aware there was a chance of that happening. That risk was baked into both team's perceptions of Espinoza at the time. Boston was trading a very talented young pitcher with high risk, for a slightly less risky, less talented but already producing asset. The moment the ink was dry, there was no "winning" that trade. Both teams evaluated the risk and value of their assets and their present and long term needs and made a deal.
Ditto for Moncada - although thankfully he looks like he's putting it together. Boston knew full well they were trading a potential superstar. They traded him because they needed an elite SP more. And also because they had another prospect in the same position who mitigated the loss to a degree (Devers). There was also risk with Moncada related to his contact rates (still an issue to a degree) and his defense. The White Sox knew this too... that's probably why we had to thrown in a really talented SP, a raw but interesting OF and a lottery ticker reliever.
It's worked out well for both teams but again, that doesn't mean either team won or lost that trade.The though process is what matters. Not the ultimate results for each individual deal.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
|
Post by cdj on Aug 3, 2019 7:27:25 GMT -5
I just don’t understand how people on a prospects website keep complaining that DD didn’t go past the luxury tax threshold
We are trying to rebuild the system over here.
|
|
|
Post by fdrnewdeal on Aug 3, 2019 7:29:08 GMT -5
I'll add that I'd happily accept Boston losing every trade if every prospect the team trades has a healthy, long career in which they're able to tap into all of the potential they have.
Baseball would be more fun if Espinoza was dealing right now. Plus having watched the kid's career since he was 16, I'd imagine a lot of us wanted him to be successful.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 3, 2019 13:47:13 GMT -5
Trading for a BP help would have totally helped during our current slump!
/s
|
|
|
Post by oilcan73 on Aug 3, 2019 13:58:44 GMT -5
Too bad DD didn't make a trade for some bullpen help. They would have come in handy tonight after another stellar start from Sale. DD ought to be put on notice after his great off-season signings of Sale, Pearce and Eovaldi.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Aug 3, 2019 14:15:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I hope the complaining about the trade deadline can be put to rest now. We could have traded for peak Mariano and it wouldn't help us now.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 3, 2019 15:43:53 GMT -5
Too bad DD didn't make a trade for some bullpen help. They would have come in handy tonight after another stellar start from Sale. DD ought to be put on notice after his great off-season signings of Sale, Pearce and Eovaldi. I was all for Eovaldi. Not so much for Sale - which seemed too much like the Josh Beckett deal to me, esp with Sale's durability issues and Cole saying he wanted to test free agency.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 3, 2019 16:02:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I hope the complaining about the trade deadline can be put to rest now. We could have traded for peak Mariano and it wouldn't help us now. And taken a couple of other peeks as well ....😒
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 3, 2019 16:37:25 GMT -5
Too bad DD didn't make a trade for some bullpen help. They would have come in handy tonight after another stellar start from Sale. DD ought to be put on notice after his great off-season signings of Sale, Pearce and Eovaldi. Credit to Dombrowski for knowing the Red Sox were about to embark on a long losing streak that was going to kill their season. If you told me on July 29th that the Sox were going to take their loud start to the Yankees series at Fenway and completely flush the season down the toilet I wouldn't have believed it, but Dombrowski must have known.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 3, 2019 21:36:49 GMT -5
He’s 4 fWAR. That’s $35M in excess value. Yes, my mistake, I wrote 2b. His value at 3b by UZR/150 is positive, at 5.2. Sale still cost $30M AAV (actually, 33.5, accounting for the cost of signing Moncada and Sale’s annual salary), and will end up providing roughly $40-50M in excess value. Moncada has already topped that. If you think he’s done developing at 24, having watched Betts and especially Bogaerts, I don’t know what to tell you. 4-5 fWAR (or bWAR) next year and more in the future is a pretty high likelihood. And if he does that, his arb still won’t come remotely close to his value. He’s still going to provide between $15-25M in excess on the lower end...annually. Like I said, the Sale trade worked out because they won a WS, but in terms of long-term value it’s incredibly weighted towards Chicago. I use bwar and refuse to switch back and forth. Seems the main difference is D and who knows who is right. Yet I've heard how he was struggling and they did switch him. We'll see in time, they might get a season wrong but DRS is rather good with more data. I truly hate judging trades based on excess value. It just means more to certain teams. We can afford the biggest payroll in the game. Useful tool that certainly has its place, but I won't judge trades just on excess value. Nevermind adding in the posting fee, it's just a sunken cost like Castillo and Panda. Red Sox can afford those, it would cripple other teams. Hence why excess value means a lot less than war which right now is 15 plus vs 6 plus when we needed it the most. Timing has value, Sale dominating helping maybe the best Red Sox team ever means more than Moncada maybe becoming something down the road. Also for luxury tax purposes, which frankly is the one thing the Red Sox care about. Sale gave you 15 plus bwar for what 35 million total, the excess value of that is massive already. So by bwar he's got a ways to go to even catch Sale and he's going to start costing a lot more rather soon. You might not win excess value, but it's going to be rather close. Which is what happens if prospects take years and years to develop. Kopech is the one that could make this look really bad, unless Moncada does become truly elite. With that said I don't truly get your point on Betts and Bogaerts. Like Bogaerts best season was his second so far at 4.5 bwar and Betts had a 9.7 bwar MVP season in his third year. Betts would go on to do slightly better a few seasons later, Bogaerts is doing very well so far, let's see if he doesn't cave in the second half like he has a bunch of times before. My point being both players reached close to peak levels very early in their careers. Numbers bounced around a good amount on both players from peak years. So by bwar it's not close to a given he's going to be a 5-8 bwar player going forward. Nevermind Moncada is older in his third season than both Betts and Bogaerts. Maybe he does or maybe he maxed out at around 4 bwar because of strikeouts and his D. It is one of the big changes we've seen in the non steroid era, players peak years are earlier than we used to see when you look at players overall. The trade is a rare win win no matter what happens really going forward. Given a Championship, you'll never be able to argue against the trade. Just like the Beckett and Ramirez trade. Yet it's Kopech I worry about. You always had to give up something very good for Sale and we always knew Moncada was going to be good, it was just how good. Which clearly we are still debating. Yet Kopech could really make it look bad if he ever comes close to his potential and I just can't root against the guy. Yet as Keith Law said, maybe there's a reason no starter has every thrown as hard as he did. Lol, we’ve duscusssed WAR sources before at length; I like to use multiple sources but usually my quick-and-easy quotes are fg so whatever...I think it’s more important to use both for pitchers, but for position players the differences are smaller. I imagine you’re right re: DRS vs UZR. With regards to the trade, I’m not arguing against it tho. Kind of like Kimbrel (good acquisition, but with resources that could probably have been used more effectively in other ways), I think the outcome from RS end worked out. I’m pointing out that it’s not a “win” for the Sox as in, “they did better than Chicago.” Both teams got what they wanted; I’m sure the RS FO knew there was a very good chance they’d lose big on excess value, but they got their WS, and flags fly forever. I generally didn’t like the trade at the time in value/long-term thinking, but I did like the immediate impact and I get why they did it; I actually sort of agreed with that philosophy to an extent once they’d made the move. I’ll always be conflicted about that trade (similar to Beckett/Lowell for Hanley), because I think it hurt them long-term (and the Sale extension may continue to do so). But I’m definitely not saying it was a bad trade. It was a good trade, in that both sides have seen results consistent with their outlooks/hopes at the time (and fitting the state of their organizations’ competitiveness at the time as well). And vice-versa, it hurt both teams to an extent...Chicago lost an icon and the Sox lost a ton of low-cost future production. Of course, the best part from the Sox’s end was that they DID properly evaluate their internal talent and held onto Devers; they also saw issues with Moncada that continue to hold him back some. My preference moving forward is that the Sox continue to evaluate and deal from redundancy in this way (both ways, ie getting prospects back for players whose production is replaceable more cost-effectively either internally or via development of externally acquired talent). I will say, although I think DD is too weighted towards MLB over system concerns (the polar opposite of Cherington), he’s an excellent judge of major league talent (just as Cherington was/is an excellent judge of amateur/minor league talent/projection) it’s unfair to expect anyone to be perfect, and while Cherington deserves a lot of credit for the riches DD inherited, DD also deserves a great deal of credit for aggressively and intelligently managing those assets. I continue to have long-term concerns about this team/payroll, but I do think they’re in good shape for at least a couple more years, barring disaster (Mookie leaving, Sale continuing to pitch as he has this year, etc.). As a fan, they’re fun to watch, and that’s a huge thing.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 3, 2019 21:46:22 GMT -5
Sale worked out for the most part, but Moncada is headed for a 5-6 WAR season at under $1M salary, with 4 morecontrol years, including improved defense to where he’s an asset at 2b, and looking like a perennial 5-8 WAR player at just 24. The Sox didn’t “Win” that trade, they lost a massive amount in terms of $/value (Sale cost them $30M per season when you include the $60M in investment in signing Moncada, non of which they recouped through excess value). Sale has been good, but the scales for that trade are massively tipped to Chicago, without even mentioning Kopech/xBasabe telson, what you say is true. I mean, when they announced the Sale trade, I wasn't exactly shouting from the rooftops. I remember being very excited when the Red Sox signed Moncada (had expected him to go to MFYs), and figured at worst Kopech was a future closer. I felt the Red Sox were giving up a ton of value in the Sale deal. And if you go by WAR or who "won" the trade, it's ultimately going to be the ChiSox. But I don't think "winning" the war or using the WAR stat is a perfect way to measure a deal. It ignores a precious element - time. The Red Sox needed Chris Sale's 2017 and 2018 season to win the 2017 division and help them win the World Series in 2018. A Red Sox team in 2017 and 2018 is less likely to win the division/post-season without Chris Sale and with a struggling Moncada, which is what he was in 2017 and 2018, struggling. That time value exceeds (I think) the future value of what Moncada and Kopech bring, especially when you do factor in a Championship, and as they say, flags fly forever. So would I have done the trade had I been GM in Dec 2016? No, and I said as much on this site back then. I didn't hate it but I worried about how much they were giving up. But despite that I don't regret the deal at all. I doubt the Red Sox regret the deal. And I doubt the White Sox regret the deal. Which means this is the best kind of deal there is - a "win-win" type of deal where both teams get what they want. I don't think you necessarily have to "win" a trade - it's about making an impactful move WHEN you need to make it - at the time it's most valuable. Kind of like the Mike Boddicker acquisition from 1988 which helped deliver 2 division championship (he was impactful in that regard), but cost them the future of Brady Anderson and Curt Schilling (at least they were able to recoup the value of Schilling on the back end of his career! And that mattered!) No doubt the Orioles "WON" that trade (although the win would have been a lot larger had they not given up on Schilling), but the Red Sox got what they needed when they needed it. Same concept. Yeah, this is basically exactly what I was getting at. Simply, the Sox didn’t “win” as in, get the best of Chicago (“fleece” them). Chicago will end up getting a lot more value...but for both teams, they got exactly what they’d hoped.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
|
Post by cdj on Aug 3, 2019 22:38:49 GMT -5
We’ve discussed WAR at length here
But the Sox won the World Series. That was the goal when they got Sale. It was a success.
I’m glad Chicago is happy with what they got too. A rare win win.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 3, 2019 23:36:42 GMT -5
I agree and I was concerned as well. Even though he might have fell, it's not like he still wasn't a top 10 prospect and they included a top 30. If he became Robinson Cano with speed and Kopech hit then it's a questionable trade. I'm a defender of both Dombrowski and Cherington despite the fact they're stylistically different. I think both have a system that has mostly worked for them. Of course both have their warts if you look for them. Travis Shaw for Tyler Thornburg? Wade Miley for Carson Smith (probably a wash, but Carson was a complete bust). Ty Buttrey for Ian Kinsler? On top of that, I don't have faith in the Chris Sale contract and think the Red Sox should have actively shopped Price. I really wanted Patrick Corbin. But on the whole Pomeranz for Espinosa - Probably could have gotten more, but win. Kimbrel for Margot - win Sale for Basabe, Kopech, Moncada - win Extension for Xander - win Sticking with Devers - win Picking Vazquez over Leon and Swihart - win There's more, but back to Cherington. Reddick in 2008 crushed the ball in Lancaster and Greenville, but never walked. Lancaster was known as a launching pad that made some prospects look better than they were. He had a few flashes here and there, but the soxprospects.com scouting report even states: He's exactly the guy Dombrowski would sell which is why I think Dalbec will be gone. Reddick only had the career of basically JBJ. Are we arguing he didn't get enough based on his potential? When the Red Sox got Andrew Bailey he was turning 28 and had the following years: 1.84 1.47 3.24 his FIP was 2.86. They thought they got a closer for the future and had the peripherals. It was a loss because Bailey did nothing, but if he lived up to his hype it would have been a good trade. I don't believe for a minute he signed Pablo Sandoval. Maybe Hanley, but Pablo reeked of Lucchino. Had to sell panda merch. You keep talking about 2008 like that was Reddick's only good season, the guy made top 100 list pre-2010, PG had him at 57, Baseball America had him top 100, I think number 87. He had 1.9 bwar in half a season in the majors before he was traded. Perfect example of Ben not knowing when to sell high and when a player is truly good. The guys gone on to put up like another 23 bwar in his career, almost at 25 for his career. Bailey gave us negative and there were issues with his arm when we traded for him. It wasn't just bad luck, it was a known risk and Ben gambled. He also was rated 7th in our system before he graduated that year and would have been looked at even higher given his 1.9 bwar in 87 games. I'm arguing Ben had zero clue to actually tell talent and Reddick is just one of many examples. Like sure you can point to Thornburg, it was a bad deal by DD. Yet it's an outlier for him and Shaw has come back down and is currently -1.9 bwar, currently were like minus 6 bwar on that trade front, not 22 bwar. For example you keep comparing him to Bradley, but Bradley has 14 career bwar and 5.5 came in one year. Reddick was a much better player than Bradley. We traded away a guy that put up over 22 bwar and got back negative bwar. You keep trying to down play it, but that is like all-time bad stuff right there. Unless you have some proof Panda is on Ben, just like everything else. He started out good and just kept getting worse. He kept changing his ways and didn't have a long-term vision. He deserves more crap then he's really ever got from Boston because he did win a Championship he gets a pass. We praise him clearing salary, but he left us worse off by the time he left. I'm curious as to what you think the value of a 28 year old closer with very good peripherals is worth? When the Red Sox got Kimbrel, who was also 28, they gave up Margot who was MLB.com 23rd ranked prospect along with Javy Guerra, Carlos Asuaje, and Logan Allen. I am under selling Reddick. I didn't realize how good of a defender he was. When the A's traded him along with Rich Hill a's established major leaguers they got back Holmes, Montas and Cotton who were ranked as the No. 5, 8 and 13 prospects in the Dodgers system. The Red Sox lost that deal, badly, but the time of the deal still seems rather fair. Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't there a concern about Kimbrel having diminishing stuff when he was acquired? I understand Kimbrel had a better track record, but he also cost a lot more. As far as Sandoval, it's all conjecture. At the time I thought it reeked of Larry trying to sell merchandise. It's not like Larry hasn't sidestepped his GM before. He was the reason Bobby Valentine got hired instead of the guy Cherington wanted and he was responsible for the Lester debacle. Wasn't it also said in the over the monster book that Larry was the one who pushed for Crawford? A big reason also is that he was a saber guy who was Theo's assistant and Pablo just screamed disaster. It felt like a left turn to philosophy. Even if the prospects failed in the Nick Punto trade, it freed up space to acquire Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, David Ross, Koji Uehara, Ryan Dempster, Jonny Gomes and Stephen Drew and then went on to win a ring.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 4, 2019 9:33:56 GMT -5
You keep talking about 2008 like that was Reddick's only good season, the guy made top 100 list pre-2010, PG had him at 57, Baseball America had him top 100, I think number 87. He had 1.9 bwar in half a season in the majors before he was traded. Perfect example of Ben not knowing when to sell high and when a player is truly good. The guys gone on to put up like another 23 bwar in his career, almost at 25 for his career. Bailey gave us negative and there were issues with his arm when we traded for him. It wasn't just bad luck, it was a known risk and Ben gambled. He also was rated 7th in our system before he graduated that year and would have been looked at even higher given his 1.9 bwar in 87 games. I'm arguing Ben had zero clue to actually tell talent and Reddick is just one of many examples. Like sure you can point to Thornburg, it was a bad deal by DD. Yet it's an outlier for him and Shaw has come back down and is currently -1.9 bwar, currently were like minus 6 bwar on that trade front, not 22 bwar. For example you keep comparing him to Bradley, but Bradley has 14 career bwar and 5.5 came in one year. Reddick was a much better player than Bradley. We traded away a guy that put up over 22 bwar and got back negative bwar. You keep trying to down play it, but that is like all-time bad stuff right there. Unless you have some proof Panda is on Ben, just like everything else. He started out good and just kept getting worse. He kept changing his ways and didn't have a long-term vision. He deserves more crap then he's really ever got from Boston because he did win a Championship he gets a pass. We praise him clearing salary, but he left us worse off by the time he left. I'm curious as to what you think the value of a 28 year old closer with very good peripherals is worth? When the Red Sox got Kimbrel, who was also 28, they gave up Margot who was MLB.com 23rd ranked prospect along with Javy Guerra, Carlos Asuaje, and Logan Allen. I am under selling Reddick. I didn't realize how good of a defender he was. When the A's traded him along with Rich Hill a's established major leaguers they got back Holmes, Montas and Cotton who were ranked as the No. 5, 8 and 13 prospects in the Dodgers system. The Red Sox lost that deal, badly, but the time of the deal still seems rather fair. Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't there a concern about Kimbrel having diminishing stuff when he was acquired? I understand Kimbrel had a better track record, but he also cost a lot more. As far as Sandoval, it's all conjecture. At the time I thought it reeked of Larry trying to sell merchandise. It's not like Larry hasn't sidestepped his GM before. He was the reason Bobby Valentine got hired instead of the guy Cherington wanted and he was responsible for the Lester debacle. Wasn't it also said in the over the monster book that Larry was the one who pushed for Crawford? A big reason also is that he was a saber guy who was Theo's assistant and Pablo just screamed disaster. It felt like a left turn to philosophy. Even if the prospects failed in the Nick Punto trade, it freed up space to acquire Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, David Ross, Koji Uehara, Ryan Dempster, Jonny Gomes and Stephen Drew and then went on to win a ring. If you meant Seth Mnookin's book "Feeding the Monster" I don't think that would have talked about Lucchino and Crawford. I think the book was written around the beginning of 2007 or maybe it was after 2006 when Theo rejoined the club? I don't know if Larry was responsible for Crawford or if it was Theo. Or maybe it wasn't a direct "responsible". Maybe there was that "this club isn't sexy" enough meeting they went to that triggered them going all out for Gonzalez (Theo stole him back for the Cubs in a deal in which he stuck the Padres with Andrew Cashner) and Crawford and stop trying to build the team thru the farm system. Theo did sign Heyward for the Cubs so it can be murky as to what happened behind the scenes. No doubt Lucchino interfered, though, or else Theo wouldn't have left.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 4, 2019 10:32:52 GMT -5
You keep talking about 2008 like that was Reddick's only good season, the guy made top 100 list pre-2010, PG had him at 57, Baseball America had him top 100, I think number 87. He had 1.9 bwar in half a season in the majors before he was traded. Perfect example of Ben not knowing when to sell high and when a player is truly good. The guys gone on to put up like another 23 bwar in his career, almost at 25 for his career. Bailey gave us negative and there were issues with his arm when we traded for him. It wasn't just bad luck, it was a known risk and Ben gambled. He also was rated 7th in our system before he graduated that year and would have been looked at even higher given his 1.9 bwar in 87 games. I'm arguing Ben had zero clue to actually tell talent and Reddick is just one of many examples. Like sure you can point to Thornburg, it was a bad deal by DD. Yet it's an outlier for him and Shaw has come back down and is currently -1.9 bwar, currently were like minus 6 bwar on that trade front, not 22 bwar. For example you keep comparing him to Bradley, but Bradley has 14 career bwar and 5.5 came in one year. Reddick was a much better player than Bradley. We traded away a guy that put up over 22 bwar and got back negative bwar. You keep trying to down play it, but that is like all-time bad stuff right there. Unless you have some proof Panda is on Ben, just like everything else. He started out good and just kept getting worse. He kept changing his ways and didn't have a long-term vision. He deserves more crap then he's really ever got from Boston because he did win a Championship he gets a pass. We praise him clearing salary, but he left us worse off by the time he left. I'm curious as to what you think the value of a 28 year old closer with very good peripherals is worth? When the Red Sox got Kimbrel, who was also 28, they gave up Margot who was MLB.com 23rd ranked prospect along with Javy Guerra, Carlos Asuaje, and Logan Allen. I am under selling Reddick. I didn't realize how good of a defender he was. When the A's traded him along with Rich Hill a's established major leaguers they got back Holmes, Montas and Cotton who were ranked as the No. 5, 8 and 13 prospects in the Dodgers system. The Red Sox lost that deal, badly, but the time of the deal still seems rather fair. Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't there a concern about Kimbrel having diminishing stuff when he was acquired? I understand Kimbrel had a better track record, but he also cost a lot more. As far as Sandoval, it's all conjecture. At the time I thought it reeked of Larry trying to sell merchandise. It's not like Larry hasn't sidestepped his GM before. He was the reason Bobby Valentine got hired instead of the guy Cherington wanted and he was responsible for the Lester debacle. Wasn't it also said in the over the monster book that Larry was the one who pushed for Crawford? A big reason also is that he was a saber guy who was Theo's assistant and Pablo just screamed disaster. It felt like a left turn to philosophy. Even if the prospects failed in the Nick Punto trade, it freed up space to acquire Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, David Ross, Koji Uehara, Ryan Dempster, Jonny Gomes and Stephen Drew and then went on to win a ring. archive.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/12/29/in_andrew_bailey_red_sox_get_their_closer/You keep overlooking his health issues. Look at the list, it's what Ben is talking about right after trading for him. We think he'll be healthy and ready to go. From the moment we traded for him there was a big worry we were getting damaged goods and they were 100% right. There were no health issues with Kimbrel and yes he was on a completely different level than Bailey. There were no issues with Kimbrel and his stuff. There weren't a bunch of DL trips, surgeries, weight issues and rumors something was really wrong with him to end the year after missing time with a forearm issue to start the year. We also weren't trading unproven prospects like we did with Kimbrel. Reddick had already shown you he could be an above average regular in the majors, out producing Bailey 1.9 bwar to .6bwar in half a season before he was traded. Nevermind we added our 19th prospect and a pitcher to the deal also. The funny thing is everyone was so up in arms over the Kimbrel deal and right now unless Logan Allen really becomes a player the Reddick deal is the horrible trade by a mile. Margot never came close to his crazy high prospect ranking and the two other guys did almost nothing. Yes it cleared payroll and overall wasn't horrible. My point was to show how Ben wasn't very good at telling how prospects would turnout, something DD is very good at.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 4, 2019 10:59:07 GMT -5
I use bwar and refuse to switch back and forth. Seems the main difference is D and who knows who is right. Yet I've heard how he was struggling and they did switch him. We'll see in time, they might get a season wrong but DRS is rather good with more data. I truly hate judging trades based on excess value. It just means more to certain teams. We can afford the biggest payroll in the game. Useful tool that certainly has its place, but I won't judge trades just on excess value. Nevermind adding in the posting fee, it's just a sunken cost like Castillo and Panda. Red Sox can afford those, it would cripple other teams. Hence why excess value means a lot less than war which right now is 15 plus vs 6 plus when we needed it the most. Timing has value, Sale dominating helping maybe the best Red Sox team ever means more than Moncada maybe becoming something down the road. Also for luxury tax purposes, which frankly is the one thing the Red Sox care about. Sale gave you 15 plus bwar for what 35 million total, the excess value of that is massive already. So by bwar he's got a ways to go to even catch Sale and he's going to start costing a lot more rather soon. You might not win excess value, but it's going to be rather close. Which is what happens if prospects take years and years to develop. Kopech is the one that could make this look really bad, unless Moncada does become truly elite. With that said I don't truly get your point on Betts and Bogaerts. Like Bogaerts best season was his second so far at 4.5 bwar and Betts had a 9.7 bwar MVP season in his third year. Betts would go on to do slightly better a few seasons later, Bogaerts is doing very well so far, let's see if he doesn't cave in the second half like he has a bunch of times before. My point being both players reached close to peak levels very early in their careers. Numbers bounced around a good amount on both players from peak years. So by bwar it's not close to a given he's going to be a 5-8 bwar player going forward. Nevermind Moncada is older in his third season than both Betts and Bogaerts. Maybe he does or maybe he maxed out at around 4 bwar because of strikeouts and his D. It is one of the big changes we've seen in the non steroid era, players peak years are earlier than we used to see when you look at players overall. The trade is a rare win win no matter what happens really going forward. Given a Championship, you'll never be able to argue against the trade. Just like the Beckett and Ramirez trade. Yet it's Kopech I worry about. You always had to give up something very good for Sale and we always knew Moncada was going to be good, it was just how good. Which clearly we are still debating. Yet Kopech could really make it look bad if he ever comes close to his potential and I just can't root against the guy. Yet as Keith Law said, maybe there's a reason no starter has every thrown as hard as he did. Lol, we’ve duscusssed WAR sources before at length; I like to use multiple sources but usually my quick-and-easy quotes are fg so whatever...I think it’s more important to use both for pitchers, but for position players the differences are smaller. I imagine you’re right re: DRS vs UZR. With regards to the trade, I’m not arguing against it tho. Kind of like Kimbrel (good acquisition, but with resources that could probably have been used more effectively in other ways), I think the outcome from RS end worked out. I’m pointing out that it’s not a “win” for the Sox as in, “they did better than Chicago.” Both teams got what they wanted; I’m sure the RS FO knew there was a very good chance they’d lose big on excess value, but they got their WS, and flags fly forever. I generally didn’t like the trade at the time in value/long-term thinking, but I did like the immediate impact and I get why they did it; I actually sort of agreed with that philosophy to an extent once they’d made the move. I’ll always be conflicted about that trade (similar to Beckett/Lowell for Hanley), because I think it hurt them long-term (and the Sale extension may continue to do so). But I’m definitely not saying it was a bad trade. It was a good trade, in that both sides have seen results consistent with their outlooks/hopes at the time (and fitting the state of their organizations’ competitiveness at the time as well). And vice-versa, it hurt both teams to an extent...Chicago lost an icon and the Sox lost a ton of low-cost future production. Of course, the best part from the Sox’s end was that they DID properly evaluate their internal talent and held onto Devers; they also saw issues with Moncada that continue to hold him back some. My preference moving forward is that the Sox continue to evaluate and deal from redundancy in this way (both ways, ie getting prospects back for players whose production is replaceable more cost-effectively either internally or via development of externally acquired talent). I will say, although I think DD is too weighted towards MLB over system concerns (the polar opposite of Cherington), he’s an excellent judge of major league talent (just as Cherington was/is an excellent judge of amateur/minor league talent/projection) it’s unfair to expect anyone to be perfect, and while Cherington deserves a lot of credit for the riches DD inherited, DD also deserves a great deal of credit for aggressively and intelligently managing those assets. I continue to have long-term concerns about this team/payroll, but I do think they’re in good shape for at least a couple more years, barring disaster (Mookie leaving, Sale continuing to pitch as he has this year, etc.). As a fan, they’re fun to watch, and that’s a huge thing. DD went out and got the best reliever and starter when we had big needs. Those guys helped us win a championship and have maybe the best Red Sox team ever. Like people were all over Kimbrel, yet look at our bullpen without him now. Like enough said in my opinion. So by saying the resources could have been used better and talking about losing low cost production and it's not a win you just confuse me. I think it's rather easy to say we won both trades right now. You're turning Moncada into a 5-8 war player going forward to say otherwise and that hasn't happened. Like we can certainly debate things after that happens, yet let's not act like it has or is a given, that just isn't true. It's not crazy to think Sale bounces back next year, Moncada stays around a 3-4 bwar player and Kopech never comes close to the generational type pitcher we thought. In that case we could actually still win the bwar total and excess value could be rather close. Which frankly would be a huge win for us. That trade had a chance to be all-time bad, while that still exists the chances of it look very slim now.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 4, 2019 13:06:05 GMT -5
I think the only goal for teams like the sox, with the money resources they have, is to win the WS. Deciding who won a trade using WAR I do not believe is the correct measure. The key is timing. Do you really have a chance to win the series. If you do you have to take risk and go for it. The cubs LOST the WAR and trade of Chapman for Torres. No doubt! But, they won the series which is what they were after. It is a lot about the timing. The Kimbrel trade. You got what you needed to win the WS and you gave up Margot and Allen. You very seldom get something for nothing. Who do you want Margot JBJ or Benny playing OF for the sox? Allen now is with the Indians and has not made it to a big league roster 3 years later. Will he ever make and create positive WAR? I really do not know and most likely no one else does either. Dave decided that he needed a power lefty like Sale to have a chance with the rest of the roster to win the WS. Again you do not get something for nothing. Keep Moncada and kopech and no Sale do you win the series last year? Definitely not. The goal was to win the series. The sox did. With Pedy assumed to be the 2nd baseman the choice was Dever or Moncada. Dave made his pick and moved on. Devers appears to have a great future. Moncada is having an excellent year. Sale was in the majors winning and playing in the series and doing very well. Kopech is a prospect who MAY become a suspect if his arm does not come back. Again the goal is if you have a chance to win the series do you take the risk and go for it? You can not worry about WAR and value in the future. You may NEVER get back to this time and have a chance to win. Ask Dan Marino about getting back to the super bowl?
|
|
|