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 20, 2019 10:22:47 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. Well if we're using David Ortiz as an example here, well let's see. In 2003, he struggled in the ALDS and was 0-15, yet had a huge impact on the series as Keith Fouke was attest to. It was Ortiz's 2 out 2 run double in the last of the 8th in Game 4 that saved the Red Sox' bacon, and he did provide the Sox with a huge insurance run in the 8th inning of Game 7 ALCS that should have allowed the Red Sox to win, but for Grady Little. In 2008 he was injured but still contributed a key HR to allow the Sox to save their season in that crazy Game 5 ALCS comeback against Tampa. In 2009, in 3 games he didn't do much at all. Granted. Not exactly Papi's greatest season. Still trying to get his swing back. In 2016....well let's say he and the team were worn out emotionally from all of those farewell tours. He was done by time September ended. You can also say he was only 2-21 in the 2013 ALDS, too, but I do recall one of his hits kind of mattering. Of course, when I'm providing these examples, you know where splitting hairs over ridiculously small sample sizes. Fact of the matter is you can't guarantee anything, but you do what you can do to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible without killing your future chances. It's best to have as many chances as possible, but at the same time the truth of the matter is you can't predict injuries in the future and you get down performances and the wins that were wins the previous year find ways to be losses the next, so when you really think you have a team that has a real shot you try to go for it - but as mindful of the future as possible.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 20, 2019 11:17:12 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. Well if we're using David Ortiz as an example here, well let's see. In 2003, he struggled in the ALDS and was 0-15, yet had a huge impact on the series as Keith Fouke was attest to. It was Ortiz's 2 out 2 run double in the last of the 8th in Game 4 that saved the Red Sox' bacon, and he did provide the Sox with a huge insurance run in the 8th inning of Game 7 ALCS that should have allowed the Red Sox to win, but for Grady Little. In 2008 he was injured but still contributed a key HR to allow the Sox to save their season in that crazy Game 5 ALCS comeback against Tampa. In 2009, in 3 games he didn't do much at all. Granted. Not exactly Papi's greatest season. Still trying to get his swing back. In 2016....well let's say he and the team were worn out emotionally from all of those farewell tours. He was done by time September ended. You can also say he was only 2-21 in the 2013 ALDS, too, but I do recall one of his hits kind of mattering. Of course, when I'm providing these examples, you know where splitting hairs over ridiculously small sample sizes. Fact of the matter is you can't guarantee anything, but you do what you can do to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible without killing your future chances. It's best to have as many chances as possible, but at the same time the truth of the matter is you can't predict injuries in the future and you get down performances and the wins that were wins the previous year find ways to be losses the next, so when you really think you have a team that has a real shot you try to go for it - but as mindful of the future as possible. Yeah, I mean...this is why I dislike big deadline deals so much, in that the return likely has very, very little effect short-term but with the performance/cost ratios of prospects breaking in, can have huge consequences downstream. At the same time, there are times that outstanding teams have definitive holes, and occasionally, you’ve gotta take a shot. Ideally (like the Kimbrel trade), you trade from redundancy, and (unlike the Kimbrel trade), try not to include too much/“throw-in” guys who are a ways away. I’d contend that the best “go-for-it” moves are 1) true superstar signings/trades (with multiple years of control), guys who are extremely rare to develop yourself, to augment very good teams into “great” territory, and 2) low-cost often “character” moves that augment depth of particularly key postseason aspects: defensive, baserunning, or (starting, with the option to use in relief) pitching. For the most part, I think teams are best served by building their TEAM, and then “going for it” should be very specific, high-value (eg performance to cost ratio) moves designed to address “needs” (like Kinsler, when they had a huge 2b black hole; or Sale, to fill a front-rotation hole), rather than “wants.” It IS a crapshoot, and I think the mistake a lot of “go-for-it” moves make is to add “wants”, guys who add middling value over what a team already has (like Ellsbury was for NY), rather than identifying true holes and filling them with star players (for regulars and SP especially...eg, Corbin, when Harper represented only a moderate upgrade—“want”—versus the OFs they had), or key important postseason roles (Dave Roberts at minimal cost as a character/PR/5th OF). It’s why I argued so vociferously against adding a bigtime RP this past deadline...they didn’t “need” a RP (the ‘pen wasn’t BAD, just had a rough stretch), and to truly *upgrade* with an elite guy, the cost was prohibitive. I think a lot of people get wrapped up in the importance of pieces...and forget that the puzzle is supposed to show a picture. No matter how great a player is, as somebody noted, they’re WAY more important to *reaching* the postseason that winning in it. The best moves are ones that elevate a solid-good team to immediate contender (adding a 6-7 WAR superstar to an 85-88 win team to fill a replacement level hole), not necessarily a Mookie-to-Dodgers uberteam construction move (though, Mookie-to-SD might be a move that takes a young team on the verge to instant contender). I give the Nats a ton of credit for Corbin, because he filled an empty spot (figure, a 1-1.5 win guy *hopefully* filled it otherwise), and cost them a lot less than Harper, an arguably (at this point) inferior player who represented a much smaller upgrade. THAT was a good “go-for-it” gamble...helping both in the regular season and, by virtue of the importance of SP in the postseason, there as well.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 20, 2019 11:44:12 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. 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. Any time you trade for a superstar it's at the expense of long-term, isn't it? Secondly, the Dodgers haven't won in 31 years, there is definitely an incentive. Shouldn't a box also be "Haven't won in a very, very long time yet have a deep farm system that can get a superstar while still being a beast for the future?" There are impact players of Rendon, Cole and Bum coming out. Strass might come out. And Mookie might come available. Assume he is just for talking point-- some teams are going to improve themselves and get some of these guys. The Dodgers don't have assurances that they are going to win it all - no one does-- but two of the last 3 years - they got beaten in 7 games in World Series and the 5th game vs the Nats in 10 innings. All they needed in these instances is a "marginal" improvement to either win or just to move on. What difference does it make they don't have "more need" than the "Mets?" They have "enough" of a flaw(s) to "have a need." A "marginal" improvement is all they might need. Why can't the Dodgers get Mookie in 2020 for example and still be a beast in 2021 and going forward even if they don't sign him? Is trading Mookie one year that much of "a farm killer?"
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 20, 2019 12:29:00 GMT -5
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. Any time you trade for a superstar it's at the expense of long-term, isn't it? Secondly, the Dodgers haven't won in 31 years, there is definitely an incentive. Shouldn't a box also be "Haven't won in a very, very long time yet have a deep farm system that can get a superstar while still being a beast for the future?" There are impact players of Rendon, Cole and Bum coming out. Strass might come out. And Mookie might come available. Assume he is just for talking point-- some teams are going to improve themselves and get some of these guys. The Dodgers don't have assurances that they are going to win it all - no one does-- but two of the last 3 years - they got beaten in 7 games in World Series and the 5th game vs the Nats in 10 innings. All they needed in these instances is a "marginal" improvement to either win or just to move on. What difference does it make they don't have "more need" than the "Mets?" They have "enough" of a flaw(s) to "have a need." A "marginal" improvement is all they might need. Why can't the Dodgers get Mookie in 2020 for example and still be a beast in 2021 and going forward even if they don't sign him? Is trading Mookie one year that much of "a farm killer?" Re: the Dodgers, Ryu is a FA. He’s unlikely to be this good moving forward, but replacing 3-4 WAR in the rotation is difficult. Idk if they re-sign him, but agreed, they do need to do some tinkering. Even say, putting May and Urías in the rotation means they’re going to need (quality) relief help. So yeah, they’re not guaranteed anything. But they have a fair amount of wiggle room. I agree with you that the Dodgers are in a somewhat rare position, similar to but better than the Sox when they acquired Sale. They have sufficient redundancy at a few spots (Seager and Lux at SS, tho Lux prob goes to 2b; rotation depth; OF depth, C possibly) that they could theoretically move a couple young guys without *really* hurting themselves. And they certainly have the $ to go after Cole or Rendon (I wouldn’t put Bumgarner remotely into the “impact” class anymore, but he might actually be a relative bargain if he truly does elevate his postseason game). The issue with a Mookie acquisition is that it’s only one year...and they didn’t get where they are by making short-term moves. They’d have to think a similar big-time move for a FA (potentially Strasburg as you note; both he and Rendon would weaken their most recent competition, too)...because of long-term cost...would be less palatable than a talent-costly one year *genuine* “go for it.” I don’t think that’s beyond the realm of reason, but it’s certainly counter to Friedman’s gestalt approach.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Oct 20, 2019 14:34:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimmydugan on Oct 21, 2019 13:10:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 23, 2019 10:30:29 GMT -5
It's fun to read between the lines of this diplomatically-phrased response:
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Oct 24, 2019 12:00:51 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Oct 24, 2019 12:17:56 GMT -5
Wow
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2019 12:54:15 GMT -5
Uh..oh...despite the quirky (to be kind) things he says, he does have a creative brilliant mind. That's some brain drain right there. At one point they had Tom Tippett and he left a long time ago, and now Bill James. I just hope that some brilliant young minds are there helping the Sox out. I loved reading Bill James' baseball abstracts as a kid. They really opened my eyes up. He would ask a lot of questions and then systematically try to answer them, often in an interesting and (at times humurous) well written way.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 24, 2019 12:57:16 GMT -5
In his own words though...doesn't sound like he had a meaningful role in the past few seasons:
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 24, 2019 13:07:02 GMT -5
Just came to say that.
My guess is the Gang of Four is going through some kind of inventory of the whole operation, and they probably looked at the James relationship, realized they weren't getting anything from him anymore, and had a chat with him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2019 13:19:20 GMT -5
Just came to say that. My guess is the Gang of Four is going through some kind of inventory of the whole operation, and they probably looked at the James relationship, realized they weren't getting anything from him anymore, and had a chat with him. I guess that's one way to look at it and that could have coincided with his strange remarks about the players not being the game that occurred about 5 seconds after they won the World Series although the timeline probably pre-dates that remark. The question I have is: is it they weren't getting much out of him? Or perhaps they weren't utilizing him as much by choice? I don't know that the Sox have been as on the cutting edge of analytics as others (Astros, Dodgers, Yankees for example) as I think they've been trying to catch up in that area. I'm hoping they didn't let their constant search for knowledge decay to the point where he wasn't utilized when he could have been. Like I said James has a very questioning mind, such as "this is conventional wisdom, but is it so? Let's investigate." He's not a number cruncher the way others are but he's very conceptual and that creativity is something that I think could be missed.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 24, 2019 13:33:46 GMT -5
The question I have is: is it they weren't getting much out of him? Or perhaps they weren't utilizing him as much by choice? I don't know that the Sox have been as on the cutting edge of analytics as others (Astros, Dodgers, Yankees for example) as I think they've been trying to catch up in that area. I'm hoping they didn't let their constant search for knowledge decay to the point where he wasn't utilized when he could have been. I don't think Bill James is particularly on the cutting edge of analytics anymore if we're being honest.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2019 13:41:57 GMT -5
The question I have is: is it they weren't getting much out of him? Or perhaps they weren't utilizing him as much by choice? I don't know that the Sox have been as on the cutting edge of analytics as others (Astros, Dodgers, Yankees for example) as I think they've been trying to catch up in that area. I'm hoping they didn't let their constant search for knowledge decay to the point where he wasn't utilized when he could have been. I don't think Bill James is particularly on the cutting edge of analytics anymore if we're being honest. Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't ask the questions that need answering. The quote that he said about falling out of step with the organization was interesting. I wonder in what way he meant that.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Oct 24, 2019 14:04:13 GMT -5
I don't think Bill James is particularly on the cutting edge of analytics anymore if we're being honest. Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't ask the questions that need answering. The quote that he said about falling out of step with the organization was interesting. I wonder in what way he meant that. I didn't take it as inherently negative. Saying "the game passed him by" may be underselling how smart he is but as things evolve and change it can be hard to adjust your mindset to maximize the value you provide to a team. It seems like from all reports they came to an amicable decision and he left. Just seems like one of those things to me.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Oct 24, 2019 14:42:43 GMT -5
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Oct 24, 2019 15:15:54 GMT -5
Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't ask the questions that need answering. The quote that he said about falling out of step with the organization was interesting. I wonder in what way he meant that. I didn't take it as inherently negative. Saying "the game passed him by" may be underselling how smart he is but as things evolve and change it can be hard to adjust your mindset to maximize the value you provide to a team. It seems like from all reports they came to an amicable decision and he left. Just seems like one of those things to me. He was a pioneer and a rebel. His thinking helped change the game in a way the jet engine transformed international travel, even as we become seriously concerned how this travel deteriorates the environment. I’m not sure he likes how the game is trending from when he began his inquiries decades ago. In the face of this, and the team’s latest course correction, age 70 seems like a good time to step back. Many thanks, Bill.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2019 15:16:23 GMT -5
So Ed Romero Jr. it is....lol
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Oct 24, 2019 15:18:32 GMT -5
So Ed Romero Jr. it is....lol Excellent choice.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2019 15:23:59 GMT -5
I didn't take it as inherently negative. Saying "the game passed him by" may be underselling how smart he is but as things evolve and change it can be hard to adjust your mindset to maximize the value you provide to a team. It seems like from all reports they came to an amicable decision and he left. Just seems like one of those things to me. He was a pioneer and a rebel. His thinking helped change the game in a way the jet engine transformed international travel, even as we become seriously concerned how this travel deteriorates the environment. I’m not sure he likes how the game is trending from when he began his inquiries decades ago. In the face of this, and the team’s latest course correction, age 70 seems like a good time to step back. Many thanks, Bill. I'd agree with this. Bill James kind of grew up into adulthood in the 1960s and I remember him comparing 1960s baseball to baseball of the 1970s and 1980s and he mentioned that baseball of the 1960s was stagnant, a case of waiting to see when the mistake by the pitchers would be and how many men on when the HR would be hit. In the 1960s that was just about the only way to score. Batting averages were down and it was difficult to string hits together. Even though he grew up with that, he preferred baseball of the 1970s and 1980s. While he didn't recommend all of that baserunning and didn't care for artificial turf he liked the game it created. He liked the variable styles of scoring runs that existed in those decades. Now baseball again has become HR derby where offense consists of draw walks and smack HRs (all at a much higher rate than the pitching era 1960s). I can imagine he's not too crazy about that. Honestly, I agree. I think baseball had a better style in the 1970s and 1980s - a lot more diversity in offensive attacks. Now I think it's pretty much the same for each team. It's become defensive shifts to limit hits and guys drawing walks and striking out a lot in their efforts to smash HRs with these ridiculous baseballs.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Oct 24, 2019 18:32:44 GMT -5
FWIW:
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Oct 24, 2019 19:14:53 GMT -5
and there have been a few other people tweeting about it. obviously taking this with a grain of salt for now, but i think that Bloom would be as great a hire as we could hope for.
|
|
orion09
Veteran
Posts: 1,220
Member is Online
|
Post by orion09 on Oct 24, 2019 19:28:51 GMT -5
and this guy tweeted too a few hours before; obviously taking this with a grain of salt, but i think that Bloom would be as great a hire as we could hope for. Agreed, that’s just about the best case scenario. Very excited if true.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 24, 2019 19:53:42 GMT -5
He was a pioneer and a rebel. His thinking helped change the game in a way the jet engine transformed international travel, even as we become seriously concerned how this travel deteriorates the environment. I’m not sure he likes how the game is trending from when he began his inquiries decades ago. In the face of this, and the team’s latest course correction, age 70 seems like a good time to step back. Many thanks, Bill. I'd agree with this. Bill James kind of grew up into adulthood in the 1960s and I remember him comparing 1960s baseball to baseball of the 1970s and 1980s and he mentioned that baseball of the 1960s was stagnant, a case of waiting to see when the mistake by the pitchers would be and how many men on when the HR would be hit. In the 1960s that was just about the only way to score. Batting averages were down and it was difficult to string hits together. Even though he grew up with that, he preferred baseball of the 1970s and 1980s. While he didn't recommend all of that baserunning and didn't care for artificial turf he liked the game it created. He liked the variable styles of scoring runs that existed in those decades. Now baseball again has become HR derby where offense consists of draw walks and smack HRs (all at a much higher rate than the pitching era 1960s). I can imagine he's not too crazy about that. Honestly, I agree. I think baseball had a better style in the 1970s and 1980s - a lot more diversity in offensive attacks. Now I think it's pretty much the same for each team. It's become defensive shifts to limit hits and guys drawing walks and striking out a lot in their efforts to smash HRs with these ridiculous baseballs. 1969 was the first year of what would become known as "The Bob Gibson Rule" which followed "The Year of the Pitcher", 1968. They lowered the mound and the game and stats dramatically changed.
|
|
|