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.
Evaluating the Front Office and Ownership
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 14:16:49 GMT -5
In addition to Devers being available in the Sale trade, Dombrowski also sent out Kopech rather than Groome for Sale, at a time when this site had Groome ranked #4 and Kopech ranked #5. Shouldn't the master prospect talent evaluator have known to hold onto Kopech instead?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 14:17:27 GMT -5
Key point here: Devers was not traded.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 19, 2022 14:19:00 GMT -5
Key point here: Devers was not traded. Key point here, it's not because Dave told them no
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 14:20:05 GMT -5
In addition to Devers being available in the Sale trade, Dombrowski also sent out Kopech rather than Groome for Sale, at a time when this site had Groome ranked #4 and Kopech ranked #5. Shouldn't the master prospect talent evaluator have known to hold onto Kopech instead? So it was a crap deal?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 14:24:59 GMT -5
In addition to Devers being available in the Sale trade, Dombrowski also sent out Kopech rather than Groome for Sale, at a time when this site had Groome ranked #4 and Kopech ranked #5. Shouldn't the master prospect talent evaluator have known to hold onto Kopech instead? So it was a crap deal? Okay, so on the completely different question of whether the Sale trade was good overall: I lean toward yes, but it's close.
As for the question we were actually discussing, which was whether Dombrowski is some sort of svengali of prospect value: he gave the White Sox the option of taking Devers, and he also gave them Kopech rather than Groome, so this trade does not support that theory.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2022 14:31:22 GMT -5
DD does an amazing job literally explaining the trade negotiations in impressive detail about Devers. Yet a Boston sport reporters opinion which goes against what the GM said proves what? DD is saying Devers came up as third piece, not that they offered him as the main piece. Saying the White Sox wanted Moncada or Benintendi just to start negotiations and Devers only came up as third piece. Sorry unless you have proof from someone that was involved in the discussions I'm going to believe DD, he was always a man of his word. Funny you should say that. Somebody else questioned Alex in the exact same manner, and this was my favorite tweet in response to it Sport writers get bits and pieces and report on them. Sometimes that's all we get and we have to try and determine the truth. Many debates on here about tweets just like his. Yet in thus rare case the GM walks you through the trade process in impressive detail. Yet you still want to believe a tweet? I have to ask, you think DD is lying? He chose to make the deal based on those players, not other players. Other reports say the Red Sox weren't trading Benintendi and the White Sox wanted him badly, which again goes against Spiers tweet. Yet that tweet is still being used like it's 100% right and proves your opinion right.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 19, 2022 14:33:12 GMT -5
Funny you should say that. Somebody else questioned Alex in the exact same manner, and this was my favorite tweet in response to it Sport writers get bits and pieces and report on them. Sometimes that's all we get and we have to try and determine the truth. Many debates on here about tweets just like his. Yet in thus rare case the GM walks you through the trade process in impressive detail. Yet you still want to believe a tweet? I have to ask, you think DD is lying? He chose to make the deal based on those players, not other players. Other reports say the Red Sox weren't trading Benintendi and the White Sox wanted him badly, which again goes against Spiers tweet. Yet that tweet is still being used like it's 100% right and proves your opinion right. Alex detailed it all in his book, I can't imagine he'd just flat out lie and risk his livelihood. On top of that, nobody every disputed him
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2022 14:33:58 GMT -5
In addition to Devers being available in the Sale trade, Dombrowski also sent out Kopech rather than Groome for Sale, at a time when this site had Groome ranked #4 and Kopech ranked #5. Shouldn't the master prospect talent evaluator have known to hold onto Kopech instead? Do you have one bit of evidence showing they would have taken Groome? You literally come off as making stuff up to make DD look bad because your boy Bloom has been horrible. DD record over decades is crazy good, are you really trying to deny that?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2022 14:36:08 GMT -5
Sport writers get bits and pieces and report on them. Sometimes that's all we get and we have to try and determine the truth. Many debates on here about tweets just like his. Yet in thus rare case the GM walks you through the trade process in impressive detail. Yet you still want to believe a tweet? I have to ask, you think DD is lying? He chose to make the deal based on those players, not other players. Other reports say the Red Sox weren't trading Benintendi and the White Sox wanted him badly, which again goes against Spiers tweet. Yet that tweet is still being used like it's 100% right and proves your opinion right. Alex detailed it all in his book, I can't imagine he'd just flat out lie and risk his livelihood. On top of that, nobody every disputed him Who said he was lying? That doesn't mean he's 100% correct either, just passing along what he heard. So do you think DD is lying?
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 19, 2022 14:42:04 GMT -5
Alex detailed it all in his book, I can't imagine he'd just flat out lie and risk his livelihood. On top of that, nobody every disputed him Who said he was lying? That doesn't mean he's 100% correct either, just passing along what he heard. So do you think DD is lying? Wouldn't rule out Dombrowski fudging the details to make himself look better.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 19, 2022 14:42:09 GMT -5
Funny you should say that. Somebody else questioned Alex in the exact same manner, and this was my favorite tweet in response to it Sport writers get bits and pieces and report on them. Sometimes that's all we get and we have to try and determine the truth. Many debates on here about tweets just like his. Yet in thus rare case the GM walks you through the trade process in impressive detail. Yet you still want to believe a tweet? I have to ask, you think DD is lying? He chose to make the deal based on those players, not other players. Other reports say the Red Sox weren't trading Benintendi and the White Sox wanted him badly, which again goes against Spiers tweet. Yet that tweet is still being used like it's 100% right and proves your opinion right. Bolded doesn't go against Speier's tweet at all actually. He specifically said they had the choice of any non-Benintendi headliner. So his tweet is in line with reports that they were not trading Benintendi. His tweet doesn't even disagree with anything Dombrowski says in that article so I don't get what the argument is here. Dombrowski himself said the deal started with Benintendi or Moncada, then it was Kopech, then they wanted Devers as the third piece and he said no there. He never says he would have refused to put Devers in if the White Sox asked for him instead of Moncada or even Kopech. That this gets held up as some great thing he did always bugs me. The story told is usually inaccurate, but even the version from his mouth isn't very impressive. It would have been a massive overpay to include Devers - even at the time. So great he didn't make a huge mistake?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 14:46:43 GMT -5
In addition to Devers being available in the Sale trade, Dombrowski also sent out Kopech rather than Groome for Sale, at a time when this site had Groome ranked #4 and Kopech ranked #5. Shouldn't the master prospect talent evaluator have known to hold onto Kopech instead? Do you have one bit of evidence showing they would have taken Groome? You literally come off as making stuff up to make DD look bad because your boy Bloom has been horrible. DD record over decades is crazy good, are you really trying to deny that? Ugh, this is so frustrating. I just said a couple comments up that I supported this trade. But you were making a specific claim that was false. You also haven't responded to the point that Dombrowski's account isn't even inconsistent with the Speier tweet; instead you're just digging in your heels on an unjustified claim that is contradicted by Speier, who is as reliable as they come. Additionally, I don't know if the White Sox would've taken Groome; I'm just pointing to an absence of evidence from this trade for your claim that Dombrowski has an exceeding talent for prospect evaluation. (Certainly he never added any significant prospect value to the system via trade, so there's more absence of evidence for the argument.)
Maybe Dombrowski is especially good in this department, maybe he isn't. But if you can't acknowledge the basic facts surrounding the trade then we can't even have that conversation. So I'm done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 14:47:11 GMT -5
Okay, so on the completely different question of whether the Sale trade was good overall: I lean toward yes, but it's close. As for the question we were actually discussing, which was whether Dombrowski is some sort of svengali of prospect value: he gave the White Sox the option of taking Devers, and he also gave them Kopech rather than Groome, so this trade does not support that theory.
I'm not sure he was a Svengali, but for a guy who has the reputation of being "Trader Dave" and is reviled here by some for "Gutting the Farm™" he sure was good/lucky at holding on to the best prospects and drafting and acquiring some very good American and Intl players that this site in particular favored in their rankings. We'll see how his 4 years - 2016-20119 - compare to Bloom's first four years in terms of drafts, international acquisitions and trades. He never got a Top 5 pick like Bloom, of course, but the team seems to have done fairly well under DD's regime, given where they picked and the talent available.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2022 14:53:37 GMT -5
Who said he was lying? That doesn't mean he's 100% correct either, just passing along what he heard. So do you think DD is lying? Wouldn't rule out Dombrowski fudging the details to make himself look better. Of course you wouldn't, it doesn't fit the narrative you want to tell. DD was the most straightforward GM I can ever remember. He said something, it was getting done. I miss him badly given Bloom.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 19, 2022 14:58:24 GMT -5
Wouldn't rule out Dombrowski fudging the details to make himself look better. Of course you wouldn't, it doesn't fit the narrative you want to tell. DD was the most straightforward GM I can ever remember. He said something, it was getting done. I miss him badly given Bloom. What narrative? I never even mentioned Bloom. I sent that Speier tweet because it literally touched on this exact subject, and @chrishatfield tweeted about it as well.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2022 15:00:45 GMT -5
Sport writers get bits and pieces and report on them. Sometimes that's all we get and we have to try and determine the truth. Many debates on here about tweets just like his. Yet in thus rare case the GM walks you through the trade process in impressive detail. Yet you still want to believe a tweet? I have to ask, you think DD is lying? He chose to make the deal based on those players, not other players. Other reports say the Red Sox weren't trading Benintendi and the White Sox wanted him badly, which again goes against Spiers tweet. Yet that tweet is still being used like it's 100% right and proves your opinion right. Bolded doesn't go against Speier's tweet at all actually. He specifically said they had the choice of any non-Benintendi headliner. So his tweet is in line with reports that they were not trading Benintendi. His tweet doesn't even disagree with anything Dombrowski says in that article so I don't get what the argument is here. Dombrowski himself said the deal started with Benintendi or Moncada, then it was Kopech, then they wanted Devers as the third piece and he said no there. He never says he would have refused to put Devers in if the White Sox asked for him instead of Moncada or even Kopech. That this gets held up as some great thing he did always bugs me. The story told is usually inaccurate, but even the version from his mouth isn't very impressive. It would have been a massive overpay to include Devers - even at the time. So great he didn't make a huge mistake? You can't be the third piece and the first piece. Nevermind he uses the word essentially, which basically means it wasn't everyone. Yet some how that turns into DD would have traded Devers. When DD made it clear what it took to even start negotiations and he was willing to make the deal under those terms. Massive overpay, go back and read the thread before that trade was made. People were offering up crazy crap, the actual trade looked like a good deal after that thread!
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 15:04:15 GMT -5
Okay, so on the completely different question of whether the Sale trade was good overall: I lean toward yes, but it's close. As for the question we were actually discussing, which was whether Dombrowski is some sort of svengali of prospect value: he gave the White Sox the option of taking Devers, and he also gave them Kopech rather than Groome, so this trade does not support that theory.
I'm not sure he was a Svengali, but for a guy who has the reputation of being "Trader Dave" and is reviled here by some for "Gutting the Farm™" he sure was good/lucky at holding on to the best prospects and drafting and acquiring some very good American and Intl players that this site in particular favored in their rankings. We'll see how his 4 years - 2016-20119 - compare to Bloom's first four years in terms of drafts, international acquisitions and trades. He never got a Top 5 pick like Bloom, of course, but the team seems to have done fairly well under DD's regime, given where they picked and the talent available. I think Dombrowski's IFA and draft signings were decent to good, pending how guys like Crawford and Casas ultimately pan out. The problem is that he lived on a one-way street: he never added prospects or good young talent from outside the system; he only sent them out. That approach will inevitably catch up with you in the end.
People say, for instance, Margot was very expendable. Well, okay if you think Kimbrel was worth it. But Margot has had a 9 WAR career through age 27 (covering a number of years in which the Red Sox have been conspicuously thin in the outfield). That's a solid major leaguer! And if it's no big deal to lose a talent like that, then why didn't Dombrowski ever add a talent like that?
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Dec 19, 2022 15:04:19 GMT -5
Who said he was lying? That doesn't mean he's 100% correct either, just passing along what he heard. So do you think DD is lying? Wouldn't rule out Dombrowski fudging the details to make himself look better. He actually makes himself look good by getting his teams into the World Series
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Dec 19, 2022 15:05:37 GMT -5
DD makes mistakes just like any other GM does. He has also taken numerous teams to the world series and has won the world series. He came to the sox with a nice core of position players but not enough pitching. He got pitching with trades and cash or else that core group would have brought the Red Sox nothing. It led to the best season of baseball I ever saw in 2018. My biggest complaint with DD when here was the Sale contract. I thought Sale was damaged goods at the time. But when they signed him I assumed the Red Sox who had all his medicals must have known something I did not. I don't know that Bloom will make the trades he might need to make for a team to win it all. A trade that would help roster construction at that point in time but wouldn't calculate if you would use some stat formula. I am willing to give Bloom the time to use his formula and see if it works for him. I do worry that the Red Sox ownership plan going forward might be to just make this expanded playoff and hope to catch lightning in a bottle to win it all at playoff time.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 19, 2022 15:09:37 GMT -5
If the goal is to build a consistent winner, wouldn't that mean this is the perfect time to sign a star player to a longer term deal? That way they'd be getting more surplus value in the next 2-3 years (when the homegrown cupboard is still relatively bare) and could afford the latter years of negative value on the contract (because more of that homegrown talent will have arrived). I don't think so
1) Empirically, WAR coming from 2.5 WAR and under guys are significantly cheaper than WAR coming from guys better than that. This is simple supply and demand - not every team can improve their team by signing a 2 WAR third baseman so there is less demand. If you can spend your entire budget on the underpriced guys, without wasting anybody's potential WAR on the bench or in the minors, then you might as well do that. The time to spend big on stars is when you have 2 WAR+ guys all over and can't improve your team without acquiring an all star. I suspect this is actually pretty central to the thinking right now
2) I don't really want the team trading future value for present value (typically at a lousy conversion rate) unless they're pushing for a top two seed. I don't see any path towards a top two seed being a likely outcome for the '23 club.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Dec 19, 2022 15:16:34 GMT -5
DD does an amazing job literally explaining the trade negotiations in impressive detail about Devers. Yet a Boston sport reporters opinion which goes against what the GM said proves what? DD is saying Devers came up as third piece, not that they offered him as the main piece. Saying the White Sox wanted Moncada or Benintendi just to start negotiations and Devers only came up as third piece. Sorry unless you have proof from someone that was involved in the discussions I'm going to believe DD, he was always a man of his word. I don't understand the issue here. What Speier says and Dombrowski says is exactly the same thing. It wasn't Devers or Moncada, it was Devers and Moncada, and DD said no. Good job by him, that would've made this a really bad trade instead of a solid trade. But for some reason you decided to question Speier's integrity and bitch at other posters.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 15:32:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure he was a Svengali, but for a guy who has the reputation of being "Trader Dave" and is reviled here by some for "Gutting the Farm™" he sure was good/lucky at holding on to the best prospects and drafting and acquiring some very good American and Intl players that this site in particular favored in their rankings. We'll see how his 4 years - 2016-20119 - compare to Bloom's first four years in terms of drafts, international acquisitions and trades. He never got a Top 5 pick like Bloom, of course, but the team seems to have done fairly well under DD's regime, given where they picked and the talent available. I think Dombrowski's IFA and draft signings were decent to good, pending how guys like Crawford and Casas ultimately pan out. The problem is that he lived on a one-way street: he never added prospects or good young talent from outside the system; he only sent them out. That approach will inevitably catch up with you in the end. People say, for instance, Margot was very expendable. Well, okay if you think Kimbrel was worth it. But Margot has had a 9 WAR career through age 27 (covering a number of years in which the Red Sox have been conspicuously thin in the outfield). That's a solid major leaguer! And if it's no big deal to lose a talent like that, then why didn't Dombrowski ever add a talent like that?
Because he had a great young core of MLB talent (Betts, Benintendi, Bradley, Bogaerts, Devers and Vazquez) that he was sure would continue to excel into their late 20s to early 30s until the new guys leveled up?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 15:44:08 GMT -5
If the goal is to build a consistent winner, wouldn't that mean this is the perfect time to sign a star player to a longer term deal? That way they'd be getting more surplus value in the next 2-3 years (when the homegrown cupboard is still relatively bare) and could afford the latter years of negative value on the contract (because more of that homegrown talent will have arrived). I don't think so
1) Empirically, WAR coming from 2.5 WAR and under guys are significantly cheaper than WAR coming from guys better than that. This is simple supply and demand - not every team can improve their team by signing a 2 WAR third baseman so there is less demand. If you can spend your entire budget on the underpriced guys, without wasting anybody's potential WAR on the bench or in the minors, then you might as well do that. The time to spend big on stars is when you have 2 WAR+ guys all over and can't improve your team without acquiring an all star. I suspect this is actually pretty central to the thinking right now
2) I don't really want the team trading future value for present value (typically at a lousy conversion rate) unless they're pushing for a top two seed. I don't see any path towards a top two seed being a likely outcome for the '23 club.
Fair enough on point two. On point one though... isn't having a bunch of 2 WAR+ guys all over exactly the situation the Red Sox are now in? E.g., they could add Segura at, let's say, $14 million for his projected 2.6 WAR, which is quite efficient - $5.4 million/WAR. But they already have Arroyo and Valdez who project for something like 1.2 WAR, per ZiPS. So they're actually only adding 1.4 WAR for $14 million - $10 million per WAR - by signing Segura, which doesn't look so efficient.
By contrast, if they had signed Correa for $30 million, they'd be getting 5.6 WAR (ZiPS projection), essentially the same $5.4 million/WAR as Segura in the abstract. But it would be 4.2 WAR more than what they already have on the roster (assuming Story is just fungible between SS and 2B), and by that metric they'd be paying $7.1 million per additional WAR, a much better rate than they'd get with Segura.
On the other hand, if they didn't have Arroyo/Valdez to offer respectable value at 2B and just had replacement level guys instead, Segura would be more efficient at that $5.4 million/WAR rate.
Does that make sense? There's probably a simpler way to say what I'm trying to say...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 19, 2022 16:35:15 GMT -5
Please move on from the DD and Devers vs. Moncada stuff. It is the nitpickiest of points to have a mostly semantic argument about. I have been here a long time and have not ever seen umassgrad concede a single point and it is a fool's errand to keep trying.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 19, 2022 17:24:55 GMT -5
Does that make sense? There's probably a simpler way to say what I'm trying to say...
Yes, I think we are basically looking at this the same. I have some nitpicks I will leave unsaid to spare everyone the tedium.
|
|
|