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.
Red Sox GM Search & Other Front Office Moves
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2019 12:00:29 GMT -5
I sit here and read both sides of this debate and honestly I see both sides of it.
The post-season is a crapshoot. The team that wins is usually the team that is the hottest, quite simply, which doesn't necessarily mean the best.
I do think it's important to "go for it" sometimes even if you decrease the odds a little bit in the future if you feel your team is primed to win, but at the same time, "going for it" and making that Chapman/Torres deal, well the Cubs should thank their lucky stars that after Chapman blew Game 7, they were able to hang on to win that game with Mike Montgomery getting his first career save after CJ Edwards started to choke on that last out.
Frankly I hate those Chapman/Torres type deals and if I felt I had a team that was going to be knocking on the door for several years and the franchise has won the big one in fairly recent memory, I wouldn't make that kind of lopsided trade.
I mean, Theo had to know that was a horrendous value trade he made at the time he made it (unlike Lou Gorman who had no idea what he had traded for a middle reliever), but figured that given where the Cubs were in their history, he had to take that gamble.
I mean, there are years, where the team is just trying to make the playoffs, and you hope you get hot and rationalize that anything can happen, and there are years, when you're team is playing lights out, and everything just feels right.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there isn't a one size fits all kind of methodology for teams.
As a Red Sox fan I'd say, well, sooner or later if the Dodgers keep on knocking on the door, they should get in, and more likely than not I think that's true. If you have 8 solid chances in 10 years to win the Series, odds are decent comparatively that you'll wind up with one.
Of course if I were a Dodgers fan, I'd feel like, it's been 31 long years, I love Kirk Gibson and Orel Hershiser, but I'm sick of hearing about them because that means we've done nothing since (think of hearing Carlton Fisk's Game 6 blast for a Series they didn't even win for Red Sox fans), and I'd want the Dodgers to go all in, do whatever it takes to increase their odds.
And I know that sounds nuts to say for a team that already won 106 games, but hell the Yankees won 114 and it didn't stop them from dealing David Wells for Roger Clemens. I'd want my team to be all over Mookie Betts, even if it cost a Dustin May and Alex Verdugo.
At this point, that's what I'd feel if I were a Dodgers fan.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Oct 15, 2019 19:43:53 GMT -5
Sounds like some people here knew the Nationals were going to the WS, because "they went for it" and got the right mix of guys.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 16, 2019 11:37:53 GMT -5
The latest on the GM/POBO search by Rob Bradford: weei.radio.com/blogs/rob-bradford/idea-red-sox-going-internal-candidates-gaining-steamApparently, if I'm reading this article correctly - if the Sox couldn't get Theo Epstein, Mike Hazen, or Andrew Friedman, they'll go with what they have - which I interpret to mean that no current GM/POBO has any desire to leave their jobs and go to Boston, and that the Sox have determined there are no rising stars in the #2/assistant GM, etc. pool that is better than what they already have....so if I'm reading it correctly, perhaps Ed Romero Jr will be promoted or they'll do the quartet will do the job in tandem somehow? Either way it doesn't sound like there's even a hint of a whisper of an external candidate. Not overly surprised that there's a lack of interest from a current GM/POBO - I'm sure the track record of 4 GMS in 9 seasons is enough to dissuade somebody from taking a risk. I do think there are a lot of experienced GM/POBO possibilities next offseason as I think I've read that a lot of GMs/POBOs are on the hot seat for next season (like a Theo for example).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 16, 2019 12:09:34 GMT -5
Gene Tenace, for those who don't know the name was for at least a few seasons the best player on the Athletics. Anyone watching him through 1970s baseball eyes might have discounted the guy because of his avg. Ignore that. He was on base at a nearly .390 clip and he had power. From 1973 to 1979 he averaged 5 wins. He was unsung because he played in Oakland. Reds fans got a rude awakening that wasn't all that much of surprise to those he knew the team. If my numbers are right-- In 1972 when Gene Tenace destroyed my Reds he had 227 reg. season ab's with a slash line of .225/.307/.339/.646. They did turn over the catching duties to him from AUg 27th on-- he was pretty good he had 100 ab's and was the reg catcher. His slash numbers were .270/.381/.380/.761. Conversely his WS in 72 numbers were .348/.400/.913/1.313. The slugging of reg season was .380 when he turned into a regular and his postseason was .913. That's extreme and unexpected. Before 1972 he never even got more than 200 AB's. His best career OPS numbers for 400 AB's or more were .859 and .848. That W/S in 1972 his performance was definitely a surprise. He never even came close ever again for a reason looking at his reg seasons and other posts season series. Because it was a shock. Other than his post season World Series vs my Reds in 1972 he never hit above .235 in any post season series while his OPS tops was .677. He had that one super series vs my Reds - take away that and his post season slash numbers if I calculated right were -- .110/.325/.121/446. I was just back in the States in the early 70s, on the West coast and watching the As when I could. Tenace already had a season's worth of ABs after 4 years with the team. The patience was obvious, and the team even back then placed a value on that. His on-base % even then was 100 points over his BA which for his career was only .242. He'd hit 20 HRs so the power was starting to show. As I said, it wasn't all that surprising. His post season numbers were not exceptional, it's true. Despite the low average he still walked 30 times and hit a few home runs, that's over 4 different WS runs. That's just who he was.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 16, 2019 12:22:16 GMT -5
Well as long as you ignore all the Chapman types of trades that did not result in a championship, it looks so easy to win championships. First off how many Chapman type trades have been made? Deals that looked horrible the minute they were made? That wasn't even a Bagwell type deal. Like Theo had to know the minute he made that deal it had a big chance of being an all-time bad deal. Second we were just talking about Machado. A move I praised the Dodgers for making. The narrative that the Dodgers get a pass because of the Chapman trade is crazy. If you think that way you deserve to not win Championships. What could turn out to be the worst trade in Cubs history based on war, might also be there best trade ever.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 16, 2019 12:28:21 GMT -5
Sounds like some people here knew the Nationals were going to the WS, because "they went for it" and got the right mix of guys. Who said anything close to what you are saying? More like we pointed out it wasn't some huge upset that the Nationals won against the Dodgers. They have been on fire for over half the season and have very good talent. I also gave them credit for fixing their weakness in the bullpen by getting a Hudson. No one claimed to know anything, at the same time it isn't surprising either.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 16, 2019 13:01:20 GMT -5
That team got Kyle Hendricks for two months of Ryan Dempster, and also got Anthony Rizzo for Andrew Cashner. So no I don't think there's an argument that it was their best trade ever.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 16, 2019 13:11:10 GMT -5
Well as long as you ignore all the Chapman types of trades that did not result in a championship, it looks so easy to win championships. First off how many Chapman type trades have been made? Deals that looked horrible the minute they were made? That wasn't even a Bagwell type deal. Like Theo had to know the minute he made that deal it had a big chance of being an all-time bad deal. Second we were just talking about Machado. A move I praised the Dodgers for making. The narrative that the Dodgers get a pass because of the Chapman trade is crazy. If you think that way you deserve to not win Championships. What could turn out to be the worst trade in Cubs history based on war, might also be there best trade ever. There was still around an 80% chance the Cubs didn't win the WS after the Chapman trade! I don't care how much hindsight you use, you cannot ever know what is going to happen in the playoffs when you're making trades. It's like saying that spending $1 million on scratchoff lottery tickets is a good investment if you win $5 million. It NEVER was a good investment. It was lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 16, 2019 15:18:53 GMT -5
The latest on the GM/POBO search by Rob Bradford: weei.radio.com/blogs/rob-bradford/idea-red-sox-going-internal-candidates-gaining-steamApparently, if I'm reading this article correctly - if the Sox couldn't get Theo Epstein, Mike Hazen, or Andrew Friedman, they'll go with what they have - which I interpret to mean that no current GM/POBO has any desire to leave their jobs and go to Boston, and that the Sox have determined there are no rising stars in the #2/assistant GM, etc. pool that is better than what they already have....so if I'm reading it correctly, perhaps Ed Romero Jr will be promoted or they'll do the quartet will do the job in tandem somehow? Either way it doesn't sound like there's even a hint of a whisper of an external candidate. Not overly surprised that there's a lack of interest from a current GM/POBO - I'm sure the track record of 4 GMS in 9 seasons is enough to dissuade somebody from taking a risk. I do think there are a lot of experienced GM/POBO possibilities next offseason as I think I've read that a lot of GMs/POBOs are on the hot seat for next season (like a Theo for example). It's literally just speculation based on the lack of rumors linking anyone to the job other than the three names listed, which were all then taken off the table. I don't read this as reporting on what they've done or their actual mindset at all. Now, hard not to read the tea leaves and come to the same conclusion, but this strikes me as an article written because there's no news so analysis of the lack of news is what has to get written. Also, a plea to keep this on topic. The Cubs trades thing is beaten into the ground and I have no idea what the 1970s have to do with this.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 16, 2019 15:31:18 GMT -5
Boredom? I promise (mostly) to stay focused.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 16, 2019 16:30:32 GMT -5
First off how many Chapman type trades have been made? Deals that looked horrible the minute they were made? That wasn't even a Bagwell type deal. Like Theo had to know the minute he made that deal it had a big chance of being an all-time bad deal. Second we were just talking about Machado. A move I praised the Dodgers for making. The narrative that the Dodgers get a pass because of the Chapman trade is crazy. If you think that way you deserve to not win Championships. What could turn out to be the worst trade in Cubs history based on war, might also be there best trade ever. There was still around an 80% chance the Cubs didn't win the WS after the Chapman trade! I don't care how much hindsight you use, you cannot ever know what is going to happen in the playoffs when you're making trades. It's like saying that spending $1 million on scratchoff lottery tickets is a good investment if you win $5 million. It NEVER was a good investment. It was lucky. Who is claiming to know for certain what will happen? It's about improving your odds if it makes sense and it's made sense for the Dodgers for years. They should be focused on Championships not division titles and making moves based on that. I just don't get your example, spend a million and based on odds you get way less back. So yea wining 5 million is pure luck and never a good investment. Scratchies are 100% luck and it's all random. Acquiring Chapman, a player of his caliber increases your odds. Like it isn't luck if he pitches like he normally does. It's why Theo paid such a high price for him, he was by far the safest bet available. It's so hard to have these discussions with Red Sox and Boston fans in general. We are spoiled in a way that rarely happens. Go back to 2003 when Grady left in Pedro and who was it Boone who hit that HR. Then the utter joy of 2004. You need to win Championships when you can. I'd rather my team swing and miss than play it safe all the time. I say that because a bunch of bold trades are what helped form most of our Championship teams. It wasn't play it safe and keep all the young players. It was let's go get Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, and Sale. Let's trade Nomar to upgrade our D, let's dump half the team to reset payroll. I'd love the Dodgers farm system, but not to win seven straight division titles. So I could turn it into one or two Championships. I have to ask, after watching the Yankees for years you really think it's all just luck? Every since George stepped away that team won't make the crazy amount of bold moves they used too and they have won nothing. That isn't just bad luck in my book, they have flawed teams year after year. I know I bitch about our owner and I do wish he'd do somethings differently. Yet we are lucky to have an owner willing to make bold win now moves! Even if he talks about wanting to be like the Brewers, he'll change his mind in a few years. He always does.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 16, 2019 19:57:12 GMT -5
Are the Sox targeting the Astros assistant gm as head of out baseball operations?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 16, 2019 22:22:24 GMT -5
I know some will try to change the narrative here. But the narrative has always been at least for me -- the Dodgers goal is to win the World Series. I highly doubt management and the players overall are satisfied. Red Sox fans and other fans can be satisfied. We don't care much if they lose or win. The Dodgers have shown they have gone for it. Can't we agree that it hasn't been good enough regardless if it's been Kershaw or other? The problem in this discussion is that when people say that only championships matter, they are implying but not outright saying that only decisions that were correct using hindsight are good enough to win championships and have no answer for figuring out what those decisions should be when they don't have that benefit. So instead it's implied that the only way to try to win is to sign everyone for a billion dollars and trade all the prospects as if that's any more likely to work than a team that scores 3 runs in the bottom of the 8th inning to win a Wild Card game and then goes on to win the championship.If people can separate what has happened in the past from what is likely to happen in the future and judge them completely separately, then we can have a reasonable conversation. Otherwise, we just argue about how everyone should have used hindsight to win championships. In bold just isn't true. I don't want to make it seem like I'm posting angry etc - I'm not. We're just disagreeing-- but as I've said many times - the Sox have won 4 titles in 16 years. The Dodgers haven’t won one in 31. The sox have won more titles in last 20 more than anyone else I believe. The Sox haven’t spent "a billion dollars" in achieving this. Nor have they spent $500m or $400m or $300m. And imo when you have the pitching staff - you prevent the other guy from scoring the runs in bottom of the 8th. Or you have enough hitters that can extend the lineup or have the superstar(s) or a combo of both that can get the runs in the bottom of the 8th. Yes there is a lot of luck to it too- but your exaggeration above in bold - I can make a similar exaggerated statement and phrase it in such a way that "you" think so much comes down to luck that "you" think the Baltimore Orioles could have won the World Series this year if they were allowed to get in through the wildcard because it's just luck anyways. We were on the same sides on everything until the Sale signing - we want back and forth. Now we're on opposite sides on a lot. You could imply all you want about what is reasonable - but I think your interpretation of what is reasonable is wrong. For example what you posted below in bold. If you really think that then we are complete opposites- yet again. If you really think the Nats weren’t ‘going for it’ then we’re on 2 different planets for that definition and I don’t want to fight because I don't really give a damn about the Dodgers or Nats though overall in a mild way I prefer Nats win over Astros if Stros take down Yanks. I like your posts in general. "I'm not sure that the Nats get credit for going for it with Scherzer in the same year that they let Harper go for nothing."
I also got used to fenway’s sarcastic quips – used to bother me lot but not near as much / very little now except when he’s coming after me . But again I don’t want a fight - no for the Dodgers. I'm happy they continue to not win a championship. With the poster fenway -- simailr a lot like you now in that there is a stretch I agree with a lot - and then there is a stretch I disagree with a lot. But when he makes the below comment in bold and this is NOT one iota meant to be a bashing - imo it tells me how he thinks and imo it fits with that he’s fine with the Dodgers not winning it all and keep building through minor leagues without making a big deal: "I was more of a Cherington apologist at the time, but now that the dust from that era has settled a bit... yeah, those were some bad deals. Whatever pressure you're under, at some point you need to make a trade that isn't a disaster."
I realize Cherrington did win it all but the point is the fact he is posting 4 years later (and whther it was 4 years or 1 year it doesn't matter because it should've been much sooner in my opinion.) that “now that the dust has settled” – for me “the dust was settled” long ago. I am NOT slamming fenway just as I’m not slamming you but in summary if you don’t feel the Nats “went for it” then we’re going to argue in circles on this type of topic forever. And if fenway takes that long to stick up for Cherrington and I wanted him out out out – then we’re never going to agree on roster construction. That’s why I replied to him in one instance “I Know that’s how YOU would do it.” I didn’t like how Ben managed/ made decisions after 2013. And then I hear talks to bring Ben back from others? Damn imo a huge huge blunder that would be.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Oct 18, 2019 15:52:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 18, 2019 19:55:49 GMT -5
I sit here and read both sides of this debate and honestly I see both sides of it. The post-season is a crapshoot. The team that wins is usually the team that is the hottest, quite simply, which doesn't necessarily mean the best. I do think it's important to "go for it" sometimes even if you decrease the odds a little bit in the future if you feel your team is primed to win, but at the same time, "going for it" and making that Chapman/Torres deal, well the Cubs should thank their lucky stars that after Chapman blew Game 7, they were able to hang on to win that game with Mike Montgomery getting his first career save after CJ Edwards started to choke on that last out. Frankly I hate those Chapman/Torres type deals and if I felt I had a team that was going to be knocking on the door for several years and the franchise has won the big one in fairly recent memory, I wouldn't make that kind of lopsided trade. I mean, Theo had to know that was a horrendous value trade he made at the time he made it (unlike Lou Gorman who had no idea what he had traded for a middle reliever), but figured that given where the Cubs were in their history, he had to take that gamble. I mean, there are years, where the team is just trying to make the playoffs, and you hope you get hot and rationalize that anything can happen, and there are years, when you're team is playing lights out, and everything just feels right. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there isn't a one size fits all kind of methodology for teams. As a Red Sox fan I'd say, well, sooner or later if the Dodgers keep on knocking on the door, they should get in, and more likely than not I think that's true. If you have 8 solid chances in 10 years to win the Series, odds are decent comparatively that you'll wind up with one. Of course if I were a Dodgers fan, I'd feel like, it's been 31 long years, I love Kirk Gibson and Orel Hershiser, but I'm sick of hearing about them because that means we've done nothing since (think of hearing Carlton Fisk's Game 6 blast for a Series they didn't even win for Red Sox fans), and I'd want the Dodgers to go all in, do whatever it takes to increase their odds. And I know that sounds nuts to say for a team that already won 106 games, but hell the Yankees won 114 and it didn't stop them from dealing David Wells for Roger Clemens. I'd want my team to be all over Mookie Betts, even if it cost a Dustin May and Alex Verdugo. At this point, that's what I'd feel if I were a Dodgers fan. Well-put. At least the ‘90s Braves won a WS. This Dodgers iteration is becoming very reminiscent of those Braves teams, and it’s gotta be incredibly frustrating as a fan. FWIW, I’d hate it but love it too if I were a Dodgers fan and they did May-Verdugo for Mookie. I’d be infuriated at the long-term cost, but hells yeah I’d be super excited for 2020. Lol, I think your Theo/Sweet Lou assessment is dead-on, too. The Dodgers have a ton of young talent, a very good system, and guys like Lux breaking in, not to mention some payroll flexibility. They’re in better shape than the Sox were when the Sox traded for Sale. I think that makes it even **tougher** to choose...they need to break through, and you could argue May-Verdugo are both redundant to an extent (although maybe not with Ryu a FA). But after winning 106 and getting ousted in the NLDS...boy, they’ve gotta do *something*. Could be time for the Sox to sell high on Workman, at least...
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 19, 2019 10:36:35 GMT -5
I sit here and read both sides of this debate and honestly I see both sides of it. The post-season is a crapshoot. The team that wins is usually the team that is the hottest, quite simply, which doesn't necessarily mean the best. I do think it's important to "go for it" sometimes even if you decrease the odds a little bit in the future if you feel your team is primed to win, but at the same time, "going for it" and making that Chapman/Torres deal, well the Cubs should thank their lucky stars that after Chapman blew Game 7, they were able to hang on to win that game with Mike Montgomery getting his first career save after CJ Edwards started to choke on that last out. Frankly I hate those Chapman/Torres type deals and if I felt I had a team that was going to be knocking on the door for several years and the franchise has won the big one in fairly recent memory, I wouldn't make that kind of lopsided trade. I mean, Theo had to know that was a horrendous value trade he made at the time he made it (unlike Lou Gorman who had no idea what he had traded for a middle reliever), but figured that given where the Cubs were in their history, he had to take that gamble. I mean, there are years, where the team is just trying to make the playoffs, and you hope you get hot and rationalize that anything can happen, and there are years, when you're team is playing lights out, and everything just feels right. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there isn't a one size fits all kind of methodology for teams. As a Red Sox fan I'd say, well, sooner or later if the Dodgers keep on knocking on the door, they should get in, and more likely than not I think that's true. If you have 8 solid chances in 10 years to win the Series, odds are decent comparatively that you'll wind up with one. Of course if I were a Dodgers fan, I'd feel like, it's been 31 long years, I love Kirk Gibson and Orel Hershiser, but I'm sick of hearing about them because that means we've done nothing since (think of hearing Carlton Fisk's Game 6 blast for a Series they didn't even win for Red Sox fans), and I'd want the Dodgers to go all in, do whatever it takes to increase their odds. And I know that sounds nuts to say for a team that already won 106 games, but hell the Yankees won 114 and it didn't stop them from dealing David Wells for Roger Clemens. I'd want my team to be all over Mookie Betts, even if it cost a Dustin May and Alex Verdugo. At this point, that's what I'd feel if I were a Dodgers fan. Well-put. At least the ‘90s Braves won a WS. This Dodgers iteration is becoming very reminiscent of those Braves teams, and it’s gotta be incredibly frustrating as a fan. FWIW, I’d hate it but love it too if I were a Dodgers fan and they did May-Verdugo for Mookie. I’d be infuriated at the long-term cost, but hells yeah I’d be super excited for 2020. Lol, I think your Theo/Sweet Lou assessment is dead-on, too. The Dodgers have a ton of young talent, a very good system, and guys like Lux breaking in, not to mention some payroll flexibility. They’re in better shape than the Sox were when the Sox traded for Sale. I think that makes it even **tougher** to choose...they need to break through, and you could argue May-Verdugo are both redundant to an extent (although maybe not with Ryu a FA). But after winning 106 and getting ousted in the NLDS...boy, they’ve gotta do *something*. Could be time for the Sox to sell high on Workman, at least... Well that's the thing - it's not like the Dodgers weren't good enough. Adding Mookie doesn't have a lot of marginal utility for them since they're pretty likely to win their division again in a walk. They just need to perform in the playoffs. Of course Mookie would help with that a little, but he's only one player and there's so much randomness involved in the playoffs. In terms of their odds of winning the World Series, they'd gain more by adding a manager who knows how to use his bullpen in the playoffs than they would by adding Mookie Betts. And if the fear is "they're a great team and it would be a travesty to not win the World Series during this stretch," it would make a lot more sense to keep the window for winning open as long as possible, rather than pushing all the chips in on 2020. By contrast, why don't I see the Cubs mentioned more as a potential trade partner? They are in more of a one-piece-away situation than the Dodgers, and their window is probably closing anyway.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 19, 2019 13:23:30 GMT -5
86 years of not winning a championship should teach people something. Bottom line is it isn't easy, it takes a lot going right. Sox go from greatest season in club history to not making the playoffs with mostly the same team. They could go into next season with much of the same nucleus and if a few things go right be right there fighting for another title.
After reading many posts I have to agree with the guy who brings up the benefit of hindsight as something many use as a base for their posts. Bottom line is if those 3 guys, Price, Sale and Eovoldi, all pitch to their capabilities then the Sox likely win it all. If 2 out of 3 do then they are at least in the fight. What are the chances that the Sox get the same terrible production out of 90 million dollars worth of starting pitchers?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 19, 2019 15:14:49 GMT -5
Well-put. At least the ‘90s Braves won a WS. This Dodgers iteration is becoming very reminiscent of those Braves teams, and it’s gotta be incredibly frustrating as a fan. FWIW, I’d hate it but love it too if I were a Dodgers fan and they did May-Verdugo for Mookie. I’d be infuriated at the long-term cost, but hells yeah I’d be super excited for 2020. Lol, I think your Theo/Sweet Lou assessment is dead-on, too. The Dodgers have a ton of young talent, a very good system, and guys like Lux breaking in, not to mention some payroll flexibility. They’re in better shape than the Sox were when the Sox traded for Sale. I think that makes it even **tougher** to choose...they need to break through, and you could argue May-Verdugo are both redundant to an extent (although maybe not with Ryu a FA). But after winning 106 and getting ousted in the NLDS...boy, they’ve gotta do *something*. Could be time for the Sox to sell high on Workman, at least... Well that's the thing - it's not like the Dodgers weren't good enough. Adding Mookie doesn't have a lot of marginal utility for them since they're pretty likely to win their division again in a walk. They just need to perform in the playoffs. Of course Mookie would help with that a little, but he's only one player and there's so much randomness involved in the playoffs. In terms of their odds of winning the World Series, they'd gain more by adding a manager who knows how to use his bullpen in the playoffs than they would by adding Mookie Betts. And if the fear is "they're a great team and it would be a travesty to not win the World Series during this stretch," it would make a lot more sense to keep the window for winning open as long as possible, rather than pushing all the chips in on 2020. By contrast, why don't I see the Cubs mentioned more as a potential trade partner? They are in more of a one-piece-away situation than the Dodgers, and their window is probably closing anyway. Is it really the managers fault when his best bullpen guy is a .5 bwar guy?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 19, 2019 17:28:31 GMT -5
Well that's the thing - it's not like the Dodgers weren't good enough. Adding Mookie doesn't have a lot of marginal utility for them since they're pretty likely to win their division again in a walk. They just need to perform in the playoffs. Of course Mookie would help with that a little, but he's only one player and there's so much randomness involved in the playoffs. In terms of their odds of winning the World Series, they'd gain more by adding a manager who knows how to use his bullpen in the playoffs than they would by adding Mookie Betts. And if the fear is "they're a great team and it would be a travesty to not win the World Series during this stretch," it would make a lot more sense to keep the window for winning open as long as possible, rather than pushing all the chips in on 2020. By contrast, why don't I see the Cubs mentioned more as a potential trade partner? They are in more of a one-piece-away situation than the Dodgers, and their window is probably closing anyway. Sure I agree maybe Mookie doesn't help that much. But you can say that about any player and go with someone cheaper to try to justify any move. Even with starting pitching we see what happened to this very team who one year they were terrific and this year not very good. So you can justify not making any significant move and continue to point at the A's and Rays. IMO bottom-line is as much as we talk about "luck" -- games come down to a big defensive play or big pitch or a big hit. By helping "marginally" they may be the difference between winning it all and not. Mookie helped defensively last year in a huge way. Mookie can wreck a series not only hitting but walking with his base running too which big/slow guys don’t have the same value. Mookie extends your lineup in a significant manner. In other words, he is not easy to pitch to. Thus anyone that shot down his hitting in the playoffs is essentially doing the same “after-the-fact" analysis they accuse others of doing that point to things like "no playoff hitting success" for the Red Sox. Yes directly he hasn't- yet. But does he have a chance to put pressure on another pitcher and possibly assist indirectly in a pitcher making mistakes later in the lineup? Sure. Mookie at worst adds pressure to a pitcher. As for Mookie imo there is a good chance he will "at worst" "marginally" affect a playoff team he is on. Because another thing Mookie is doing is helping you get to the playoffs if need be, or helping you stay away from the 1 game playoff or helping you get home field advantage. OFC the Sox didn't make it-- but the point is-- depending on the team he is on-- he is a stud and is going to help your team in different ways. He is a great defender. A great baserunner. He takes walks so his OBP is good. He is a good hitter and he hits for power all wrapped up in one player. This player - this "marginal addition" if only produces "marginally" can be the difference between winning it all vs for an organization to say "wait till next year" as they hope for the players they didn't trade ultimately help them enough to eventually win it all.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 19, 2019 17:43:25 GMT -5
Well that's the thing - it's not like the Dodgers weren't good enough. Adding Mookie doesn't have a lot of marginal utility for them since they're pretty likely to win their division again in a walk. They just need to perform in the playoffs. Of course Mookie would help with that a little, but he's only one player and there's so much randomness involved in the playoffs. In terms of their odds of winning the World Series, they'd gain more by adding a manager who knows how to use his bullpen in the playoffs than they would by adding Mookie Betts. And if the fear is "they're a great team and it would be a travesty to not win the World Series during this stretch," it would make a lot more sense to keep the window for winning open as long as possible, rather than pushing all the chips in on 2020. By contrast, why don't I see the Cubs mentioned more as a potential trade partner? They are in more of a one-piece-away situation than the Dodgers, and their window is probably closing anyway. Sure I agree maybe Mookie doesn't help that much. But you can say that about any player and go with someone cheaper to try to justify any move. Even with starting pitching we see what happened to this very team who one year they were terrific and this year not very good. So you can justify not making any significant move and continue to point at the A's and Rays. IMO bottom-line is as much as we talk about "luck" -- games come down to a big defensive play or big pitch or a big hit. By helping "marginally" they may be the difference between winning it all and not. Mookie helped defensively last year in a huge way. Mookie can wreck a series not only hitting but walking with his base running too which big/slow guys don’t have the same value. Mookie extends your lineup in a significant manner. In other words, he is not easy to pitch to. Thus anyone that shot down his hitting in the playoffs is essentially doing the same “after-the-fact" analysis they accuse others of doing that point to things like "no playoff hitting success" for the Red Sox. Yes directly he hasn't- yet. But does he have a chance to put pressure on another pitcher and possibly assist indirectly in a pitcher making mistakes later in the lineup? Sure. Mookie at worst adds pressure to a pitcher. As for Mookie imo there is a good chance he will "at worst" "marginally" affect a playoff team he is on. Because another thing Mookie is doing is helping you get to the playoffs if need be, or helping you stay away from the 1 game playoff or helping you get home field advantage. OFC the Sox didn't make it-- but the point is-- depending on the team he is on-- he is a stud and is going to help your team in different ways. He is a great defender. A great baserunner. He takes walks so his OBP is good. He is a good hitter and he hits for power all wrapped up in one player. This player - this "marginal addition" if only produces "marginally" can be the difference between winning it all vs for an organization to say "wait till next year" as they hope for the players they didn't trade ultimately help them enough to eventually win it all. Agreed. David Ortiz was only one player. Yet he had a ton of impact on the post-seasons he played in. Yeah, anybody can be a star in the post-season and stars can be duds in the post-season, but a player like Mookie has the capability of impacting any post-season he plays in, like you said, whether it's on defense, running the bases, or with his offense. And a guy like that on top of the order drawing walks and getting on base in front of guys like Muncy and Bellinger, etc. is absolutely huge, in the regular season, and in the post-season. Plus eventually the Dodgers will have competition for the division. San Diego has a stacked farm system themselves and are positioning themselves as contenders in the not-so-distant future. Mookie would be a huge addition for the Dodgers - or even the Padres if they can keep him for more than a year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 20, 2019 8:27:54 GMT -5
Sure I agree maybe Mookie doesn't help that much. But you can say that about any player and go with someone cheaper to try to justify any move. Even with starting pitching we see what happened to this very team who one year they were terrific and this year not very good. So you can justify not making any significant move and continue to point at the A's and Rays. IMO bottom-line is as much as we talk about "luck" -- games come down to a big defensive play or big pitch or a big hit. By helping "marginally" they may be the difference between winning it all and not. Mookie helped defensively last year in a huge way. Mookie can wreck a series not only hitting but walking with his base running too which big/slow guys don’t have the same value. Mookie extends your lineup in a significant manner. In other words, he is not easy to pitch to. Thus anyone that shot down his hitting in the playoffs is essentially doing the same “after-the-fact" analysis they accuse others of doing that point to things like "no playoff hitting success" for the Red Sox. Yes directly he hasn't- yet. But does he have a chance to put pressure on another pitcher and possibly assist indirectly in a pitcher making mistakes later in the lineup? Sure. Mookie at worst adds pressure to a pitcher. As for Mookie imo there is a good chance he will "at worst" "marginally" affect a playoff team he is on. Because another thing Mookie is doing is helping you get to the playoffs if need be, or helping you stay away from the 1 game playoff or helping you get home field advantage. OFC the Sox didn't make it-- but the point is-- depending on the team he is on-- he is a stud and is going to help your team in different ways. He is a great defender. A great baserunner. He takes walks so his OBP is good. He is a good hitter and he hits for power all wrapped up in one player. This player - this "marginal addition" if only produces "marginally" can be the difference between winning it all vs for an organization to say "wait till next year" as they hope for the players they didn't trade ultimately help them enough to eventually win it all. Agreed. David Ortiz was only one player. Yet he had a ton of impact on the post-seasons he played in. Yeah, anybody can be a star in the post-season and stars can be duds in the post-season, but a player like Mookie has the capability of impacting any post-season he plays in, like you said, whether it's on defense, running the bases, or with his offense. And a guy like that on top of the order drawing walks and getting on base in front of guys like Muncy and Bellinger, etc. is absolutely huge, in the regular season, and in the post-season. Plus eventually the Dodgers will have competition for the division. San Diego has a stacked farm system themselves and are positioning themselves as contenders in the not-so-distant future. Mookie would be a huge addition for the Dodgers - or even the Padres if they can keep him for more than a year. And then there's the postseasons that people don't remember: Ortiz wRC+: 2003 - 63 2008 - 76 2009 - (negative) 77 2016 - 25 Just having a great clutch player on a team doesn't guarantee that he won't have a terrible postseason.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 20, 2019 9:19:14 GMT -5
Well that's the thing - it's not like the Dodgers weren't good enough. Adding Mookie doesn't have a lot of marginal utility for them since they're pretty likely to win their division again in a walk. They just need to perform in the playoffs. Of course Mookie would help with that a little, but he's only one player and there's so much randomness involved in the playoffs. In terms of their odds of winning the World Series, they'd gain more by adding a manager who knows how to use his bullpen in the playoffs than they would by adding Mookie Betts. And if the fear is "they're a great team and it would be a travesty to not win the World Series during this stretch," it would make a lot more sense to keep the window for winning open as long as possible, rather than pushing all the chips in on 2020. By contrast, why don't I see the Cubs mentioned more as a potential trade partner? They are in more of a one-piece-away situation than the Dodgers, and their window is probably closing anyway. Sure I agree maybe Mookie doesn't help that much. But you can say that about any player and go with someone cheaper to try to justify any move. Even with starting pitching we see what happened to this very team who one year they were terrific and this year not very good. So you can justify not making any significant move and continue to point at the A's and Rays. Well but what I'm saying is, if the Red Sox are going to trade Mookie, it should be to a team for whom he would have the most value. That would be a team that 1) is a marginally playoff-caliber team, where he'd be more likely to make the difference between getting to the playoffs and not; and 2) has incentives to go for it now at the expense of the long-term. The Dodgers don't really check either of those boxes. Other teams, like maybe the Cubs, Cardinals, Mets, or Phillies would make more sense.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 20, 2019 9:35:11 GMT -5
Agreed. David Ortiz was only one player. Yet he had a ton of impact on the post-seasons he played in. Yeah, anybody can be a star in the post-season and stars can be duds in the post-season, but a player like Mookie has the capability of impacting any post-season he plays in, like you said, whether it's on defense, running the bases, or with his offense. And a guy like that on top of the order drawing walks and getting on base in front of guys like Muncy and Bellinger, etc. is absolutely huge, in the regular season, and in the post-season. Plus eventually the Dodgers will have competition for the division. San Diego has a stacked farm system themselves and are positioning themselves as contenders in the not-so-distant future. Mookie would be a huge addition for the Dodgers - or even the Padres if they can keep him for more than a year. And then there's the postseasons that people don't remember: Ortiz wRC+: 2003 - 63 2008 - 76 2009 - (negative) 77 2016 - 25 Just having a great clutch player on a team doesn't guarantee that he won't have a terrible postseason. Your conclusion is right of course, but you made me curious to look this up... David Ortiz, regular season career: 140 wRC+ David Ortiz, postseason career: 144 wRC+ BUT: WPA per 100 PAs, regular season: 0.50 WPA per 100 PAs, postseason: 0.87 And his best postseasons were years the Sox won the World Series: 222 wRC+ in 2004, 203 in 2007, 214 in 2013. There's something to be said for being the driving force behind three world championships. I was wondering if his clutch postseason reputation was more myth than reality, the product of a few memorable moments, but I think it's fair to say that he earned that reputation.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 20, 2019 9:35:29 GMT -5
I am starting to genuinely wonder if, between the threat of trading Mookie, and dumping Dave Dombrowski 11 months after his team-building philosophy won a World Series for basically being Dave Dombrowski and adhering to his team-building philosophy, if ownership hasn’t poisoned the allure of the head of baseball operations position. I remember when very few people in the business wanted to work for Steinbrenner. It’s not quite that Bad, but it seems to have a taint right now, at least from the outside looking in.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 20, 2019 9:44:31 GMT -5
And then there's the postseasons that people don't remember: Ortiz wRC+: 2003 - 63 2008 - 76 2009 - (negative) 77 2016 - 25 Just having a great clutch player on a team doesn't guarantee that he won't have a terrible postseason. Your conclusion is right of course, but you made me curious to look this up... David Ortiz, regular season career: 140 wRC+ David Ortiz, postseason career: 144 wRC+ BUT: WPA per 100 PAs, regular season: 0.50 WPA per 100 PAs, postseason: 0.87 And his best postseasons were years the Sox won the World Series: 222 wRC+ in 2004, 203 in 2007, 214 in 2013. There's something to be said for being the driving force behind three world championships. I was wondering if his clutch postseason reputation was more myth than reality, the product of a few memorable moments, but I think it's fair to say that he earned that reputation. I completely agree. You're usually facing much better pitchers in the postseason and the ball doesn't travel as far because of the weather too. I was just pointing it out that one year of Mookie is no guarantee that he'd push the Dodgers over the top. That's not worth risking shrinking their window for IMO.
|
|
|