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.
Breaking News - Dombrowski out
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 16, 2019 13:58:44 GMT -5
Seems pretty clear to me. We should be looking for a GM with 20/20 hindsight. Maybe one with 20/50 vision then? I mean, Sale has had arm issues at some point every year in Boston. Last year he finished the season with a shoulder injury. Was it that hard to see this was a risk? Go back to the signing thread and you can see about a 50/50 split of concern there, kind of high for getting your ace under contract long-term. I remember my personal reaction to the news literally being one of excitement because I knew he had to pass a physical to sign and, coming off the injury last year, figured it'd mean a great year for him. This is the thing that gets me. I've always pushed back on the idea of Sale being injury prone just because of his frame or his delivery, for the most part I think "injury prone" is a myth and you can't really predict who's going to get hurt. HOWEVER, there is a world of difference between injury prone and currently hurt. However well the offseason was going for him, the last time that guy was on a mound, he was closing because he wasn't healthy enough to start. You don't get to cry "no one could have predicted" on a guy like that. The guy was hurt last year, he's hurt now, this was not unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 16, 2019 17:21:33 GMT -5
Seems pretty clear to me. We should be looking for a GM with 20/20 hindsight. Considering there were people who were questioning the Sale extension at the time, not really.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 16, 2019 17:26:32 GMT -5
You say that like he can turn water into wine, or even further that he did so in Detroit. www.masslive.com/redsox/2016/12/boston_red_sox_dave_dombrowski_5.htmlThat's really not what I'm trying to say. Yeah overall he has a very good track record on big trades. He's certainly not perfect. The point being he doesn't need top 100 elite prospects to make big trades and that DD does what the owner wants. I hate the narrative DD can do only one thing and he's now useless to the Red Sox because we have no elite prospects for him to trade. It doesn't match up with his career overall. It just focuses on the last few Detroit seasons and his first couple Red Sox seasons. While acting like his time with the Expos, Marlins and when he fully rebuilt Detroit never happened. He's spent the last two years rebuilding the system, not gutting it to the bone like in Detroit. I truly believe that is because of our owner and the marching orders he gave DD. He'll allow him to make trades, but he won't allow him to completely gut the system year in and year out either. DD does what the owner wants. Would Stroman have saved this season? What could the Red Sox offered, and would it have been worth it? Remember, you're paying a premium for in-division trading. What moves have really backfired on the Sox organization? While they would be useful assets, we're so far talking about a platoon player and an MLB regular. It seems he sold all the right guys for the right players. It was a fake deep system.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 16, 2019 19:58:11 GMT -5
Seems pretty clear to me. We should be looking for a GM with 20/20 hindsight. Considering there were people who were questioning the Sale extension at the time, not really. Interestingly, there are different people who question every move. Then, if they are right, we hear about it over and over but people are never incessant about when they were wrong. Throw enough against the wall and something is going to stick. Here's the bottom line though. Show me one poster, just one, who thought last spring that the Red Sox biggest weakness was going to be the starting rotation. That's the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 16, 2019 20:37:31 GMT -5
It was suggested at the beginning of spring training that the team would be progressing very slowly with their starters, that there were concerns about the 2018 usage and what that would mean for 2019. Some of us took that very seriously, wondering whether they could get passed those issues. It turns it they couldn't, that those concerns were justified. It wasn't one big cheering section, not at all.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 16, 2019 20:50:10 GMT -5
It was suggested at the beginning of spring training that the team would be progressing very slowly with their starters, that there were concerns about the 2018 usage and what that would mean for 2019. Some of us took that very seriously, wondering whether they could get passed those issues. It turns it they couldn't, that those concerns were justified. It wasn't one big cheering section, not at all. Those were concerns about April, not the disaster that unfolded over the season. Of the five starters, only ERod even came close to meeting or exceeding projections. Sale, Price, Eovaldi, Porcello. You are grasping at straws.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 16, 2019 20:55:19 GMT -5
Not even a little. I'm remembering what was said and how I took it.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 16, 2019 21:26:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dangermike on Sept 16, 2019 23:50:18 GMT -5
Not even a little. I'm remembering what was said and how I took it. - I don’t think this grasping at straws at all -We all knew about porcellos struggles and if you went back to game day threads in the last 2 years, that would be very easy to find. —Sale has had a pattern of fading performance at the end of seasons - last year was no different. -Also offering an extension to a pitcher like sale a year early is OBVIOUSLY a bad idea (especially after last season with the way his arm looked AND a pitcher who has been universally expected to have elbow issues eventually). You can argue that if we hadn’t given sale the extension, he could have played himself into a bigger contract- how big are we talking? More years? The AAV would only have fluctuated by 4-5 million at the most. -lastly his bullpen design is pretty unforgivable. Yes feltman and lakins and houck (kinda) didn’t perform as well as anticipated but you never plan on prospects making an impact -you wait until the prospect forces their way into the picture.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 17, 2019 1:18:58 GMT -5
Not even a little. I'm remembering what was said and how I took it. - I don’t think this grasping at straws at all -We all knew about porcellos struggles and if you went back to game day threads in the last 2 years, that would be very easy to find. —Sale has had a pattern of fading performance at the end of seasons - last year was no different. -Also offering an extension to a pitcher like sale a year early is OBVIOUSLY a bad idea (especially after last season with the way his arm looked AND a pitcher who has been universally expected to have elbow issues eventually). You can argue that if we hadn’t given sale the extension, he could have played himself into a bigger contract- how big are we talking? More years? The AAV would only have fluctuated by 4-5 million at the most. - lastly his bullpen design is pretty unforgivable. Yes feltman and lakins and houck (kinda) didn’t perform as well as anticipated but you never plan on prospects making an impact -you wait until the prospect forces their way into the picture. You thought their bullpen was bad this year? It may have been early but right now they have overall the 6th best WAR in all of baseball. Their starters were 14th yet you are complaining about the bullpen? If you want to look at ERA sox bullpen was 13 and starters were 20. I'm not sure the argument that you and oregon and phil are on, but the bullpen held up. I get for example Porcello has this every other year thing going on -- but this was his worst year by far. Who could've thought htat? Who would've thought it would be Sale's worst year by far? www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 17, 2019 6:56:33 GMT -5
Considering there were people who were questioning the Sale extension at the time, not really. Interestingly, there are different people who question every move. Then, if they are right, we hear about it over and over but people are never incessant about when they were wrong. Throw enough against the wall and something is going to stick. Here's the bottom line though. Show me one poster, just one, who thought last spring that the Red Sox biggest weakness was going to be the starting rotation. That's the big picture. There was a good amount of people who questioned the Sale extension. It's not like people who are right about signings, trades or b extensions don't beat their chests. I think owing less than 30 million against the luxury was fair value, but would have liked to have waited on the guy who breaks down every year. This is a lot different than if Xander got hurt. I doubt anyone questioning giving him an extension. The only weakness this rotation seemed to have going into the season was a lack of depth. Velazquez is the human white flag.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 17, 2019 8:01:39 GMT -5
Fun fact: Red Sox starters' FIP was 5th in the AL. Yankees were 10th.
By FIP, Sale and Price were very good this year, and of course Rodriguez had a borderline-breakout season (though has actually been worse by FIP than those other two). Beyond that, injuries and Porcello have hurt a lot - though not so much that they were worse than 5th in the AL!
Maybe there's some reason that FIP doesn't capture the weaknesses with these guys, but pending some fine-grained analysis, I'm going to blame the ERA-FIP difference on bad luck. (I think the criticisms of the lack of depth and the questionability of the Eovaldi signing are fair, though.)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 17, 2019 8:26:34 GMT -5
Interestingly, there are different people who question every move. Then, if they are right, we hear about it over and over but people are never incessant about when they were wrong. Throw enough against the wall and something is going to stick. Here's the bottom line though. Show me one poster, just one, who thought last spring that the Red Sox biggest weakness was going to be the starting rotation. That's the big picture. There was a good amount of people who questioned the Sale extension. It's not like people who are right about signings, trades or b extensions don't beat their chests. I think owing less than 30 million against the luxury was fair value, but would have liked to have waited on the guy who breaks down every year. This is a lot different than if Xander got hurt. I doubt anyone questioning giving him an extension. The only weakness this rotation seemed to have going into the season was a lack of depth. Velazquez is the human white flag. Here's the thing, part of the reason people didn't question it at the time, and part of the reason people didn't think Sale was hurt at the start of the season, was because most of us inferred that the Red Sox would not have signed that deal if they weren't very confident in his health. A lot of us were worried about Sale's health after the end of last season but were reassured by the contract itself that he must be fine. Now that you have a hurt pitcher and a fired GM... yeah, maybe the medicals on Sale weren't so clear-cut after all. Sometimes hindsight shows you the stuff that should have been obvious all along.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 17, 2019 8:53:01 GMT -5
There was a good amount of people who questioned the Sale extension. It's not like people who are right about signings, trades or b extensions don't beat their chests. I think owing less than 30 million against the luxury was fair value, but would have liked to have waited on the guy who breaks down every year. This is a lot different than if Xander got hurt. I doubt anyone questioning giving him an extension. The only weakness this rotation seemed to have going into the season was a lack of depth. Velazquez is the human white flag. Here's the thing, part of the reason people didn't question it at the time, and part of the reason people didn't think Sale was hurt at the start of the season, was because most of us inferred that the Red Sox would not have signed that deal if they weren't very confident in his health. A lot of us were worried about Sale's health after the end of last season but were reassured by the contract itself that he must be fine. Now that you have a hurt pitcher and a fired GM... yeah, maybe the medicals on Sale weren't so clear-cut after all. Sometimes hindsight shows you the stuff that should have been obvious all along. I don't think that's overly fair either considering last year was his shoulder and now it's his elbow. There's also the no-win scenario from April either where he either still got hurt after going through a super babied plan in which he barely threw in ST and and threw 85 in live games or he was, again, hurt. This time with a toe injury. I just think he's a super fragile and will continue to be so as he gets older.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 17, 2019 11:07:16 GMT -5
www.prospectdigest.com/2019/03/22/ranking-the-farm-systems-2019/Maybe I was slightly off and a few places thought the Mets were slightly better at one point. I frankly hate Fangraphs prospect rankings and the way they look at them, yet even they show we had better depth, yet their system favors higher rated guys. I mean that one guy we really couldn't match was just drafted and only would show up if sites did a mid-season update, because he was gone by the 2019 ranking updates after just being drafted. Doesn't really change the narrative though, Mets still had a rather crappy farm system and made big trades. You can't say we couldn't match the Stroman package as it as surprisingly rather small.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 17, 2019 11:10:39 GMT -5
The Mets wouldn't have been able to make that trade unless they took on Cano, which wasn't even a possibility for the Red Sox.
All the other trades they made were minor.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 17, 2019 11:19:55 GMT -5
Sure, on the one hand you have Baseball America (Mets 19th, Red Sox 29th, link appears dead), MLB, Fangraphs, and Keith Law (Subscription needed - Red Sox are 24th and Mets are 14th). But on the other, credit is due for digging into the google results long enough to find that Joseph Warner of Prospect Digest ranked the Red Sox ahead of the Mets. Kudos on the legwork. Yeah all of the ones I've seen except for Joseph Warner of Prospect Digest. You do this thing in a lot of arguments where you pick out one thing you dislike in one piece of evidence to rail against. You not liking the fangraphs money-allocation discussion that follows their rankings updates says literally nothing about the underlying point. Okay, and the Mariners weren't trading for better depth in lieu of higher-rated guys. The Red Sox couldn't match Kelenic, couldn't match Dunn, and couldn't take on Cano's contract. But other than that I don't see why they couldn't have taken on Diaz? What does "we had better depth" have to do with anything in this conversation. There was no cobbling together "depth" that was going to be as valuable as Kelenic. ... That isn't the argument that you think it was. He went from being the Mets #1 prospect to the Mariners #1 prospect, he's the entire reason the Mets were able to pull off this trade. Yes, he was gone in the trade you claim the Red Sox should've had the resources to match. I mean, clearly. Who was the Red Sox equivalent of Anthony Kay? He'd been outstanding at Binghamton with a 1.49 ERA and 70 Ks in 66 innings in his first full offseason after his 2017 TJS. Look, the Mets took a below average farm system and kinda gutted it. That was probably stupid. The Red Sox had a worse system and couldn't compete with the trades the Mets maybe shouldn't have made either. If your point was that the Red Sox could've matched those trades, I don't understand how. If your point is that the Red Sox should've gutted their system in a similar way to what the Mets did, I also disagree. The Kelenic/Dunn trade was pretty bad.
|
|
art
Veteran
Posts: 338
|
Post by art on Sept 17, 2019 11:32:22 GMT -5
Fun fact: Red Sox starters' FIP was 5th in the AL. Yankees were 10th.By FIP, Sale and Price were very good this year, and of course Rodriguez had a borderline-breakout season (though has actually been worse by FIP than those other two). Beyond that, injuries and Porcello have hurt a lot - though not so much that they were worse than 5th in the AL! Maybe there's some reason that FIP doesn't capture the weaknesses with these guys, but pending some fine-grained analysis, I'm going to blame the ERA-FIP difference on bad luck. (I think the criticisms of the lack of depth and the questionability of the Eovaldi signing are fair, though.) Maybe this goes to show that FIP isn't as great a measuring stick as some folks claim. Sale had great K numbers but gave up way more HRs than usual. This results in FIP numbers that don't reflect how poorly he pitched.
Someone posted Erod's FIP and ERA numbers as they progressed through the season on another thread. The FIP numbers were steady through the season while ERA steadily declined.The ERA decline matches my eye test regarding the quality of his performances.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 17, 2019 11:35:54 GMT -5
www.masslive.com/redsox/2016/12/boston_red_sox_dave_dombrowski_5.htmlThat's really not what I'm trying to say. Yeah overall he has a very good track record on big trades. He's certainly not perfect. The point being he doesn't need top 100 elite prospects to make big trades and that DD does what the owner wants. I hate the narrative DD can do only one thing and he's now useless to the Red Sox because we have no elite prospects for him to trade. It doesn't match up with his career overall. It just focuses on the last few Detroit seasons and his first couple Red Sox seasons. While acting like his time with the Expos, Marlins and when he fully rebuilt Detroit never happened. He's spent the last two years rebuilding the system, not gutting it to the bone like in Detroit. I truly believe that is because of our owner and the marching orders he gave DD. He'll allow him to make trades, but he won't allow him to completely gut the system year in and year out either. DD does what the owner wants. Would Stroman have saved this season? What could the Red Sox offered, and would it have been worth it? Remember, you're paying a premium for in-division trading. What moves have really backfired on the Sox organization? While they would be useful assets, we're so far talking about a platoon player and an MLB regular. It seems he sold all the right guys for the right players. It was a fake deep system. I'm not saying DD or the Red Sox should have made that trade. Just pointing out things DD could have done if his marching orders were to win now at the cost of our future. Instead of normal DD gets the best guy available, he got a cheap guy in Cashner for our payroll and in terms of prospect costs. Could he have saved our season? Who knows, not likely, but maybe. I mean Cashner was horrible start after start and if Stroman was lights out it would have been interesting. You then get him next year, really surprised they traded him for so little. DD knows talent and his ability to trade most guys at peak value and knowing who to trade is very impressive. People look at Margot who has gotten three years of basically full-time play and are like well this year he'd be a good platoon guy. Who knows what he would be in Boston with a lot less opportunities and playing time. His development would have been totally different and he likely spends a lot more time in the minors. I'd have to check the numbers, yet he also seems rather streaky like Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 17, 2019 12:13:07 GMT -5
Would Stroman have saved this season? What could the Red Sox offered, and would it have been worth it? Remember, you're paying a premium for in-division trading. What moves have really backfired on the Sox organization? While they would be useful assets, we're so far talking about a platoon player and an MLB regular. It seems he sold all the right guys for the right players. It was a fake deep system. I'm not saying DD or the Red Sox should have made that trade. Just pointing out things DD could have done if his marching orders were to win now at the cost of our future. Instead of normal DD gets the best guy available, he got a cheap guy in Cashner for our payroll and in terms of prospect costs. Could he have saved our season? Who knows, not likely, but maybe. I mean Cashner was horrible start after start and if Stroman was lights out it would have been interesting. You then get him next year, really surprised they traded him for so little. DD knows talent and his ability to trade most guys at peak value and knowing who to trade is very impressive. People look at Margot who has gotten three years of basically full-time play and are like well this year he'd be a good platoon guy. Who knows what he would be in Boston with a lot less opportunities and playing time. His development would have been totally different and he likely spends a lot more time in the minors. I'd have to check the numbers, yet he also seems rather streaky like Bradley. While Cashner was absolutely dreadful, Stroman has been mediocre. Maybe they win a few extra games, but with the Mets in 8 starts he's 2-2 with an 4.5 ERA and a 4.62 FIP. Maybe they could have nabbed him before the Mets, but you're also looking to add to a team struggling to make a Wild Card appearance and best-case, you're playing in a 1-game playoff and there's potential he still doesn't see a playoff inning. When you don't have highly ranked prospects, it's harder to make trades. Sure, you might be able to beat teams on offers by sheer volume of players, but that's a catastrophic approach. It also depends on how the offers stacks up. Would you rather this team's AAA roster or Vlad Jr? I'd take Vlad over the Red Sox AAA team. Then you also have to figure that a team like Toronto is going to be less inclined to deal within the division so your offer has to be that much better than the Mets to make it worth their while. I agree about Margot. Three years later after given every opportunity to start in SD and so far he's a platoon player at best.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 17, 2019 12:17:48 GMT -5
You know who would've matched up with Anthony Kay value-wise? Logan Allen. Maybe Shaun Anderson too, though I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 17, 2019 12:20:03 GMT -5
Sure, on the one hand you have Baseball America, MLB, Fangraphs, and Keith Law. But on the other, credit is due for digging into the google results long enough to find that Joseph Warner of Prospect Digest ranked the Red Sox ahead of the Mets. Kudos on the legwork. Yeah all of the ones I've seen except for Joseph Warner of Prospect Digest. You do this thing in a lot of arguments where you pick out one thing you dislike in one piece of evidence to rail against. You not liking the fangraphs money-allocation discussion that follows their rankings updates literally nothing about the underlying point. Okay, and the Mariners weren't trading for better depth in lieu of higher-rated guys. The Red Sox couldn't match Kelenic, couldn't match Dunn, and couldn't take on Cano's contract. But other than that I don't see why they couldn't have taken on Diaz? What does "we had better depth" have to do with anything in this conversation. There was no cobbling together "depth" that was going to be as valuable as Kelenic. ... That isn't the argument that you think it was. He went from being the Mets #1 prospect to the Mariners #1 prospect, he's the entire reason the Mets were able to pull off this trade. Yes, he was gone in the trade you claim the Red Sox should've had the resources to match. I mean, clearly. Who was the Red Sox equivalent of Anthony Kay? He'd been outstanding at Binghamton with a 1.49 ERA and 70 Ks in 66 innings in his first full offseason after his 2017 TJS. Look, the Mets took a below average farm system and kinda gutted it. That was probably stupid. The Red Sox had a worse system and couldn't compete with the trades the Mets maybe shouldn't have made either. If your point was that the Red Sox could've matched those trades, I don't understand how. If your point is that the Red Sox should've gutted their system in a similar way to what the Mets did, I also disagree. The Kelenic/Dunn trade was pretty bad. I almost said something, because I knew you were going to say something. I knew the Mets have had a horrible farm system for years. Every trade they made talked about the low ranking farm system. So I did a quick search for farm systems. First click Baseball America, not free and couldn't see it. The second link on the first page is what I posted. I didn't search for it, it's what I used to make my first post. It backed up what I thought so I went with. If all those do indeed say the Mets were slightly better OK I'll take your word for it and say I was wrong, but I didn't Google search for days trying to find that site after your post. I can screen shot my browser history and prove that. I should have looked at more sites it seems. I'm not saying the Red Sox should have done anything, just that they could have made moves. I'm not trying to harp on certain trades either, just in general. But yea I do think DD could have landed Stroman if he wanted too. Maybe that is wrong, but I don't see a package that can't be beat. Overall the Mets trades seem kinda crazy, yet they want to win. They are the perfect example of what people think DD was going to keep doing. If DD wanted to make big moves and was willing to trade guys like Chavis, Hernandez, Mata, Cassas, Dalbec, Groome and our younger high upside guys he could make a bunch of moves. It's a good thing he didn't go full on nuclear on the system, yet that doesn't mean he couldn't have.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 17, 2019 12:37:24 GMT -5
Long Live the Sale extension !! Will be interesting on how contract plays out, perhaps we should wait a couple of years. DD like to spend big money on shiny toys.....always was that way. Had a damn successful career as a GM. For me, the Eovaldi extension, while certainly affordable has more performance risk, hence more concern for me. Sale is a generational pitcher, that has to be considered with the risk of injury
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Sept 17, 2019 13:49:32 GMT -5
i don't think DD has some special talent id'ing skill. i think he just makes a lot of trades of minor league talent for established major league talent. Given the volatility of prospects, you're probably gonna come out ahead on a lot of these trades but at a long term cost; see Detroit.
I won't say he hasn't executed some heists, the Scherzer trade given what he was at the time was amazing; but with the Sox, we didn't really see that type of move. We saw the more typical 'obvious' DD trades of elite big name closer, elite big name starting pitcher, etc.
Also, because DD wins so many of these trades at least in the short term, people overlook some of the really bad ones. In Detroit, he traded for a criminal and really bad pitcher, Alfredo Simon, for Eugenio Suarez who's going to hit 50 home runs this year for the Reds and has been consistently great for them the last few years.
Why didn't DD's skill for knowing talent kick in here, both for the guy he gave up and the guy he acquired?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 17, 2019 14:27:08 GMT -5
Now, if that weren't the case, if I'm John Henry and DDo comes to me with the Sale extension, I say: It's a one year deal for $20M for 2020. Take the $5M of AAV value and spread it over the remaining years. Those years vest if Sale makes 28 starts in 2020 and doesn't end the season on the DL, or get replaced on a playoff roster.
Voila. You've protected yourself against injury problems and you've freed up $5M more to get under the tax limit in 2020. Meanwhile, if Sale can stay healthy in 2020, he gets the exact same deal. I think that not allowing someone as smart as Henry to talk to you and give you feedback is a lousy idea. You can bet that this one goes into the "we''ll never do that again" column.
|
|
|