SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Oct 7, 2023 7:55:15 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the WAR that went out the door so I can see if it was costly or reasonable. I mean is Pearce for Espinal a loss in WAR, because if it is, then how meaningful is that stat in evaluating the Red Sox circumstances? I get the point about taking on Kimbrel's money and sending the prospects, but let's be real world here. They gave up Margot who is basically a 4th OF, Logan Allen who was at best a depth starter who gets pounded in the majors and lands back in the minors, a converted reliever who did the same and a utility man that didnt stick. But that's too much. Think of all the trades they could have made that they didnt for these amazing prospects. I'm sure they could have got Cy Young award winners or batting champs or maybe even a major league utility player. I think the opportunities lost over the loss of the prospects wasnt as huge as some anticipated. Then look at what Kimbrel was prior to the Sox acquiring him. He was merely the best closer in the game over the previous 5 years, dominant with Atlanta. As it was, Kimbrel hurt his thumb in 2016 and wasnt as good, was healthy and dominant in 2017, and then began to decline in 2018. Closer was also a position of need in 2016 as Uehara had aged out. So if I had a chance to get a premier closer for a future 4th OF and three fringe highly fungible players I do that deal in a heartbeat. Did the bwar stat kill the Sox on that deal? For the talk of lowering the payroll, what did that get the Sox? They lowered it, became irrelevant, grew the farm system well because they drafted much higher and never traded anybody, yet are woefully short in the pitching department and still will be left to have to spend huge money and/or trade from the farm to get front line starting pitching because for all the strides the system has made, front line pitching wont be coming from the farm any time soon if it does at all, which ironically was he situation Dombrowski walked into, so here we are again back at this point in the cycle. Again, we’re talking opportunity cost here. The opportunity cost of the prospects (they WERE valuable back then and could have netted you a different good player, it doesn’t matter if they turned out to be bench guys) and the opportunity cost of the money. They paid Craig Kimbrel $37 million for one and a half elite years, one and a half shaky years, and two lousy sets of playoff appearances. You really think there wasn’t a better way to use that prospect capital and all that money? It’s not a move that’s keeping me up at night, but it’s not some big win - it’s the definition of inefficient. Frankly, the Sale deal approaches that territory too for me, though I’m still probably pulling the trigger on it even in hindsight. But Moncada and/or Margot would have been pretty valuable in the 2019 run that never was and 2021 - they’re too easily dismissed around here.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Oct 7, 2023 9:50:41 GMT -5
Is this some form of Monday morning quarterbacking/kicking someone on the way out the door, or were there actual concerns about 37 year old Kluber’s shoulder - because it’s a quite relevant distinction. It feels like there should be more follow up on this from the Boston media people insofar as you can learn about someone’s health record, because I don’t know if this is on Bloom or if it’s a front office person exaggerating after the fact. More backstabbing. I wonder if any of the potential GMs are reading this stuff ? Meanwhile not a peep from Bloom other than one classy statement. This could work out well by accident as the odds increase the Sox will have to hire another looking for a chance young analytics-sabermetrics guy which is in my opinion the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 7, 2023 11:14:14 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the WAR that went out the door so I can see if it was costly or reasonable. I mean is Pearce for Espinal a loss in WAR, because if it is, then how meaningful is that stat in evaluating the Red Sox circumstances? I get the point about taking on Kimbrel's money and sending the prospects, but let's be real world here. They gave up Margot who is basically a 4th OF, Logan Allen who was at best a depth starter who gets pounded in the majors and lands back in the minors, a converted reliever who did the same and a utility man that didnt stick. But that's too much. Think of all the trades they could have made that they didnt for these amazing prospects. I'm sure they could have got Cy Young award winners or batting champs or maybe even a major league utility player. I think the opportunities lost over the loss of the prospects wasnt as huge as some anticipated. Then look at what Kimbrel was prior to the Sox acquiring him. He was merely the best closer in the game over the previous 5 years, dominant with Atlanta. As it was, Kimbrel hurt his thumb in 2016 and wasnt as good, was healthy and dominant in 2017, and then began to decline in 2018. Closer was also a position of need in 2016 as Uehara had aged out. So if I had a chance to get a premier closer for a future 4th OF and three fringe highly fungible players I do that deal in a heartbeat. Did the bwar stat kill the Sox on that deal? For the talk of lowering the payroll, what did that get the Sox? They lowered it, became irrelevant, grew the farm system well because they drafted much higher and never traded anybody, yet are woefully short in the pitching department and still will be left to have to spend huge money and/or trade from the farm to get front line starting pitching because for all the strides the system has made, front line pitching wont be coming from the farm any time soon if it does at all, which ironically was he situation Dombrowski walked into, so here we are again back at this point in the cycle. Again, we’re talking opportunity cost here. The opportunity cost of the prospects (they WERE valuable back then and could have netted you a different good player, it doesn’t matter if they turned out to be bench guys) and the opportunity cost of the money. They paid Craig Kimbrel $37 million for one and a half elite years, one and a half shaky years, and two lousy sets of playoff appearances. You really think there wasn’t a better way to use that prospect capital and all that money? It’s not a move that’s keeping me up at night, but it’s not some big win - it’s the definition of inefficient. Frankly, the Sale deal approaches that territory too for me, though I’m still probably pulling the trigger on it even in hindsight. But Moncada and/or Margot would have been pretty valuable in the 2019 run that never was and 2021 - they’re too easily dismissed around here. That's where we disagree. I don't think the opportunity cost for those other prospects were as high as you feel they were. We will never know for sure. Maybe one of them could have been an Aldo for Schwarber deal but who knows? And if it were would it have mattered. Perhaps Moncada and Margot might have helped in 2019. I don't think either would have moved the needle in 2021. Moncada had a good offensive year in 2019 but would have had to play 2b where he was a liability. But the pitching would likely still have been problematic, so then would I trade a division title and a World Championship team to maybe be a wild card in 19? I'd rather take a real championship and a real division title than a theoretical would card possibility and who is to say the Sox would have won in 19 had they never made the Sale deal? We can make projections of what could have been, and what should have been, but all we truly got is what actually happened. I was hesitant when the Sale deal happened but in retrospect I'm glad it did and wouldnt undo it. The extension is a different story, although I'd be lying if I said I was against it at the time as I figured there was a plan to give Mookie Mike Trout money and while I knew surgery was in Sales immediate future I didnt think he'd come back and get hurt every time the wind blows.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 7, 2023 12:19:03 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the WAR that went out the door so I can see if it was costly or reasonable. I mean is Pearce for Espinal a loss in WAR, because if it is, then how meaningful is that stat in evaluating the Red Sox circumstances? I get the point about taking on Kimbrel's money and sending the prospects, but let's be real world here. They gave up Margot who is basically a 4th OF, Logan Allen who was at best a depth starter who gets pounded in the majors and lands back in the minors, a converted reliever who did the same and a utility man that didnt stick. But that's too much. Think of all the trades they could have made that they didnt for these amazing prospects. I'm sure they could have got Cy Young award winners or batting champs or maybe even a major league utility player. I think the opportunities lost over the loss of the prospects wasnt as huge as some anticipated. Then look at what Kimbrel was prior to the Sox acquiring him. He was merely the best closer in the game over the previous 5 years, dominant with Atlanta. As it was, Kimbrel hurt his thumb in 2016 and wasnt as good, was healthy and dominant in 2017, and then began to decline in 2018. Closer was also a position of need in 2016 as Uehara had aged out. So if I had a chance to get a premier closer for a future 4th OF and three fringe highly fungible players I do that deal in a heartbeat. Did the bwar stat kill the Sox on that deal? For the talk of lowering the payroll, what did that get the Sox? They lowered it, became irrelevant, grew the farm system well because they drafted much higher and never traded anybody, yet are woefully short in the pitching department and still will be left to have to spend huge money and/or trade from the farm to get front line starting pitching because for all the strides the system has made, front line pitching wont be coming from the farm any time soon if it does at all, which ironically was he situation Dombrowski walked into, so here we are again back at this point in the cycle. The pro-Kimbrel trade argument is that he maybe made the difference to them winning the division in 2017; without him they're a wild card instead. In 2018 his main contribution was to nearly but not quite totally blow a magical season.
But in 2020-22 Margot put up 4.5 WAR in just under 1000 PAs. He would have clearly made the team better in those years.
Meanwhile, Moncada had a 4 WAR season in 2021 and Kopech added another 1.7. Could they have put the Red Sox over the hump in their 2021 postseason run?
So Dombrowski took value from the future to make the team better in the (then) present. This is a well-known strategy called "going for it now." You are welcome to argue that it worked. What I don't understand is why Dombrowski's supporters insist on having their cake and eating it too: they want to say he made a bunch of good prospects-for-MLBers trades and paid no price in doing so. Feel free to just take the W - he GFINed and it worked! No need to spin a story about how he magically did it for free.
(Then there is the other side of his approach: he traded away prospects, but he also failed to add a single real prospect in any trade, despite the looming hole in the farm system that was coming down the pike. If Bloom gets such grief for not selling off when the team was 2 games out of a wild card spot in 2022 and 2023, why does Dombrowski get a pass for not selling off when they were 3 games out in 2019 and the farm system was in much more dire shape?)
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 7, 2023 13:03:32 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the WAR that went out the door so I can see if it was costly or reasonable. I mean is Pearce for Espinal a loss in WAR, because if it is, then how meaningful is that stat in evaluating the Red Sox circumstances? I get the point about taking on Kimbrel's money and sending the prospects, but let's be real world here. They gave up Margot who is basically a 4th OF, Logan Allen who was at best a depth starter who gets pounded in the majors and lands back in the minors, a converted reliever who did the same and a utility man that didnt stick. But that's too much. Think of all the trades they could have made that they didnt for these amazing prospects. I'm sure they could have got Cy Young award winners or batting champs or maybe even a major league utility player. I think the opportunities lost over the loss of the prospects wasnt as huge as some anticipated. Then look at what Kimbrel was prior to the Sox acquiring him. He was merely the best closer in the game over the previous 5 years, dominant with Atlanta. As it was, Kimbrel hurt his thumb in 2016 and wasnt as good, was healthy and dominant in 2017, and then began to decline in 2018. Closer was also a position of need in 2016 as Uehara had aged out. So if I had a chance to get a premier closer for a future 4th OF and three fringe highly fungible players I do that deal in a heartbeat. Did the bwar stat kill the Sox on that deal? For the talk of lowering the payroll, what did that get the Sox? They lowered it, became irrelevant, grew the farm system well because they drafted much higher and never traded anybody, yet are woefully short in the pitching department and still will be left to have to spend huge money and/or trade from the farm to get front line starting pitching because for all the strides the system has made, front line pitching wont be coming from the farm any time soon if it does at all, which ironically was he situation Dombrowski walked into, so here we are again back at this point in the cycle. The pro-Kimbrel trade argument is that he maybe made the difference to them winning the division in 2017; without him they're a wild card instead. In 2018 his main contribution was to nearly but not quite totally blow a magical season. But in 2020-22 Margot put up 4.5 WAR in just under 1000 PAs. He would have clearly made the team better in those years. Meanwhile, Moncada had a 4 WAR season in 2021 and Kopech added another 1.7. Could they have put the Red Sox over the hump in their 2021 postseason run?
So Dombrowski took value from the future to make the team better in the (then) present. This is a well-known strategy called "going for it now." You are welcome to argue that it worked. What I don't understand is why Dombrowski's supporters insist on having their cake and eating it too: they want to say he made a bunch of good prospects-for-MLBers trades and paid no price in doing so. Feel free to just take the W - he GFINed and it worked! No need to spin a story about how he magically did it for free. (Then there is the other side of his approach: he traded away prospects, but he also failed to add a single real prospect in any trade, despite the looming hole in the farm system that was coming down the pike. If Bloom gets such grief for not selling off when the team was 2 games out of a wild card spot in 2022 and 2023, why does Dombrowski get a pass for not selling off when they were 3 games out in 2019 and the farm system was in much more dire shape?)
Nothing is for free, but the cost was worth it. I think what they added for 2017 and 18 was more timely and impactful than what was subsequently subtracted, which I felt was easier to replace. Cant win anything without front line starting pitching - see the 2022 and 2023 Sox as examples. Moncada would have had to be a 2b to help the club but he wasn't a good 2b, he was a 3b and he wasnt going to push Devers off of 3b, so perhaps his WAR wouldnt have been as good as a defensive liability at 2b. The bottom line is that the Sox had two 3b and chose Devers over Moncada. Margot in 2021 likely meant no Kiké Hernandez. I'm no Kiké fan, but he was damn good in the 2nd half and especially in the postseason, so I certainly dont go around thinking if only we had Margot instead of Hernandez in 21 we would have gotten past Houston and Atlanta. I think timing plays a big part on these trades that gets left out of the equation. The Red Sox were flat out serious contenders when they made these moves to get them over the hump. In 2021 they were overachievers that barely made it and got some Kiké Hernandez heroics on the postseason. I certainly dont think the guys they dealt away would have moved the needle much in 19 and 21 and certainly not in the past 2 years or 2020. In 2019 at the deadline I think the Sox were in the wild card race and then fell apart after the deadline, similar to this year if I'm not mistaken. I remember the marginal move of getting an ineffective Cashner. I cant tell you what Dombrowski's plans were for 2020 as we'll never know. Maybe he had grand plans for offseason 2019-20 and selling off on 19 would have harmed that, who knows? Maybe those grand plans helped get him fired although I suspect what really got him fired was not collaborating with Romero, BO, and Ferreira, but again we dont know. I mean if his plan was to trade Mookie 2019 would have been the time to do so. Maybe his plan was to offer him huge money and keep the core of 2018 completely intact. We will never know. I think he didnt trade guys away for prospects in 2019 because his plans were to gear back up in 20, but that's just speculation on my part. It's quite possible he didnt care about going over the tax line and ownership did and that friction helped contributed to his quick demise.
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 785
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Oct 7, 2023 14:00:53 GMT -5
I don’t really understand why there has to be a DD/Bloom dichotomy for so many. They both made good and bad decisions, and whether you personally prefer the style of one over the other shouldn’t get in the way of objective analysis of the moves they made
Dombrowski made a series of moves that led to a monstrous 2018 team that was good enough to knock off two of the best teams I’ve ever seen in the late-teens Dodgers and Astros. The moves he made had obvious long-term consequences, and those consequences were exacerbated by his style of paying what it takes to get his guy instead of pivoting to a better-value alternative. Things went belly up probably sooner than expected. All of these things can be true, just like it can all be true that Bloom did a lot of things well, had good reason to operate with caution given the state of the team, and ended up building three last-place teams in four years because he wasn’t willing to pay the price to bring the team up a level in sort order.
It’s hard to avoid putting any blame on Dombrowski for the team being ~25 wins a season worse in the three years after they won the World Series, which includes a year he was in charge. He left the core of those teams behind, and the big contract he stuck his neck out for has been a huge anchor for that entire period and beyond. It’s also hard to avoid putting any blame on Bloom for them not looking any better five years later.
The 2022 team is a great example: Rich Hill and Michael Wacha were insufficient rotation additions. The Travis Shaw and JBJ experiments were major busts that left two huge holes in the lineup in positions with a high offensive bar. Bloom deserves some blame for the final decisions he made. But that team was never going to go far with the contributions they got from JD, Eovaldi, and Sale. When that’s what you’re getting out of your highest paid players, you end up relying on your role players to make up way more value than you can reasonably expect, especially if none of them are young players on deflated salaries.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 7, 2023 14:38:21 GMT -5
I don’t really understand why there has to be a DD/Bloom dichotomy for so many. They both made good and bad decisions, and whether you personally prefer the style of one over the other shouldn’t get in the way of objective analysis of the moves they made Dombrowski made a series of moves that led to a monstrous 2018 team that was good enough to knock off two of the best teams I’ve ever seen in the late-teens Dodgers and Astros. The moves he made had obvious long-term consequences, and those consequences were exacerbated by his style of paying what it takes to get his guy instead of pivoting to a better-value alternative. Things went belly up probably sooner than expected. All of these things can be true, just like it can all be true that Bloom did a lot of things well, had good reason to operate with caution given the state of the team, and ended up building three last-place teams in four years because he wasn’t willing to pay the price to bring the team up a level in sort order. It’s hard to avoid putting any blame on Dombrowski for the team being ~25 wins a season worse in the three years after they won the World Series, which includes a year he was in charge. He left the core of those teams behind, and the big contract he stuck his neck out for has been a huge anchor for that entire period and beyond. It’s also hard to avoid putting any blame on Bloom for them not looking any better five years later. The 2022 team is a great example: Rich Hill and Michael Wacha were insufficient rotation additions. The Travis Shaw and JBJ experiments were major busts that left two huge holes in the lineup in positions with a high offensive bar. Bloom deserves some blame for the final decisions he made. But that team was never going to go far with the contributions they got from JD, Eovaldi, and Sale. When that’s what you’re getting out of your highest paid players, you end up relying on your role players to make up way more value than you can reasonably expect, especially if none of them are young players on deflated salaries. Fair assessment. I don't necessarily agree with the better value alternative approach because sometimes the better value alternative appproach isn't really available and sometimes you get what you pay for which is less than what was needed. But yeah, I think everything else you wrote is very fair. Dombrowski wasn't without fault. I get why he signed Sale but when making a move like that you have to feel confident that he'd bounce back from surgery which hasn't really happened and of course when you sign a guy about to head for surgery like that you're taking on dead money at that point. And it's not like Bloom didn't do good things. I liked the Vazquez for Valdez/Abreu deal from the get-go. Whitlock was a good pickup and he got good results from taking a chance on Renfroe and the Aldo for Schwarber was a slam dunk and yeah, the system is in good shape on the offensive side of the ball. But I think one of the things that has harmed Dombrowski and Bloom is dealing with a deficit from the lack of developing starting pitching through the minors. Dombrowski had to spend a ton of money on a free agent pitcher. Top prospects had to be sacrificed to obtain a top notch starter. Even on the closer side. Dombrowski had to trade for an established closer and Bloom had to sign one because in between there was a lot of instability as none of these key pitching roles were filled from within the organization beyond the graduation of Bello. When in a situation like that whoever is in charge has to go out and spend prospects and/or money. That's really the root of the issue that brought on problems. I'm old enough to remember a time when the Sox used to grow their own starters, which is one reason I wouldn't be anxious to part with Bello. Maybe it was rare that the Sox developed Lester and Buchholz and Papelbon, but the great thing about that is that there was one less top of the rotation to have to get, one less closer to have to cycle through. I know there's the TINSNAAPP argument, but that just doesn't wash with what is needed. I'm not sure how they go about it, whether it's better drafting or better development within the system or both, but if they're able to figure out that piece better, then maybe there's less need to risk big bucks on a pitcher or even a closer to a lesser degree, as it's easier to obtain a hitter and feel like you'll get better value with less injury risk involved. I know I'm morphing from the Bloom vs Dombrowski debate but I think underlying all of that was what do you do when you desperately need top a solid 1 and 2 starter and you don't have much in the system other than hybrid pitchers who can be a #4/5 or a setup man/multi-inning reliever? Bloom showed you can't sit there and cycle through more hybrids and expect to be there with the top teams in the league and Dombrowski showed that you have to spend more than you'd want to for a David Price (who thankfully saved his best pitching for when it absolutely mattered the most) or trade for a Chris Sale on a reasonable contract and hope you don't give up too much.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 8, 2023 8:22:39 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats did some sort of survey on various things Red Sox. The response to the question about the Bloom firing surprised me: More pro-Bloom sentiment than I would have expected.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Oct 8, 2023 8:26:27 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats did some sort of survey on various things Red Sox. The response to the question about the Bloom firing surprised me: More pro-Bloom sentiment than I would have expected.
Hasn't RedSoxStats generally been pro-Bloom? People who follow him are probably pre-disposed to a pro Bloom or at least pro Bloom style team building philosophy. Small surveys of self selected people are not necessarily representative of the larger fandom.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 8, 2023 9:00:48 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats did some sort of survey on various things Red Sox. The response to the question about the Bloom firing surprised me: More pro-Bloom sentiment than I would have expected.
Hasn't RedSoxStats generally been pro-Bloom? People who follow him are probably pre-disposed to a pro Bloom or at least pro Bloom style team building philosophy. Small surveys of self selected people are not necessarily representative of the larger fandom. Exactly, they're not the stereotypical WEEI talkshow caller. They're more the statistically inclined analytical number crunching type. 58% support is kind of luke warm.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 8, 2023 9:13:09 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats did some sort of survey on various things Red Sox. The response to the question about the Bloom firing surprised me: More pro-Bloom sentiment than I would have expected.
It is a stats account.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 8, 2023 13:59:49 GMT -5
I'm totally not getting the chatter against the Kimbrel trade. And I'm someone who thinks D-Dom committed a fireable offense with the Sale contract.
But let's stick to the Kimbrel trade. It was clear after the 2015 season that the Red Sox had an ascending core of young players as good or better than any in their history. But there was a problem. The 2015 closer, Koji Uehara, was 40 years old and was able to pitch in only 40 games.
To fill that hole, D-Dom traded for Craig Kimbrel, whose past few years were as dominant as any closer in history. K- rates: 41.5, 50.2, 36, 38.9, 36.4; WHIP: 1.04, .65, .88, .91, 1.05; ERA-plus: 183, 399, 311, 223, 145. Those are bad-ass numbers, my friends.
Here are Marianaro Rivera's best years in those three categories: K-rate of 30.6, WHIP of .665, ERA-plus of 316.
Contrary to what some on here are saying, Kimbrel gave the Red Sox three years of superb closing until, of course, the 2018 PS when he gave me multiple heart attacks.
Those who want to carp about the players D-Dom gave up should look at the SP.com top 20 prospects for October 2015. Here are some of those he did not give up for Kimbrel: Devers, E-Rod, Beni, Espinoza, Moncada, Kopech. He also held onto three other young guys who had lost their prospect status, but had not yet established themselves as ML contributors: JBJ, Matt Barnes and Christian Vazquez.
Each of the prospects and former prosects I've listed contributed significantly to the 2016-to-2018 Red Sox run, either by playing for us or as a trade piece for another player.
Now take a look at the list of closers who were FA's (https://www.espn.com/mlb/freeagents/_/year/2015/position/rp) in the winter of 2015-2016. (I believe someone suggested D-Dom could have signed a closer, instead of giving up the young pieces he sent to the Padres.) Who would you prefer off that list?
A lot of the D-Dom criticism seems to come down to: "Yeah, he went from worst to first in his first year, won three straight division titles and had the Greatest Team in Red Sox History. I just don't like the way he did it." I don't get it.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 8, 2023 14:18:52 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the WAR that went out the door so I can see if it was costly or reasonable. I mean is Pearce for Espinal a loss in WAR, because if it is, then how meaningful is that stat in evaluating the Red Sox circumstances? I get the point about taking on Kimbrel's money and sending the prospects, but let's be real world here. They gave up Margot who is basically a 4th OF, Logan Allen who was at best a depth starter who gets pounded in the majors and lands back in the minors, a converted reliever who did the same and a utility man that didnt stick. But that's too much. Think of all the trades they could have made that they didnt for these amazing prospects. I'm sure they could have got Cy Young award winners or batting champs or maybe even a major league utility player. I think the opportunities lost over the loss of the prospects wasnt as huge as some anticipated. Then look at what Kimbrel was prior to the Sox acquiring him. He was merely the best closer in the game over the previous 5 years, dominant with Atlanta. As it was, Kimbrel hurt his thumb in 2016 and wasnt as good, was healthy and dominant in 2017, and then began to decline in 2018. Closer was also a position of need in 2016 as Uehara had aged out. So if I had a chance to get a premier closer for a future 4th OF and three fringe highly fungible players I do that deal in a heartbeat. Did the bwar stat kill the Sox on that deal? For the talk of lowering the payroll, what did that get the Sox? They lowered it, became irrelevant, grew the farm system well because they drafted much higher and never traded anybody, yet are woefully short in the pitching department and still will be left to have to spend huge money and/or trade from the farm to get front line starting pitching because for all the strides the system has made, front line pitching wont be coming from the farm any time soon if it does at all, which ironically was he situation Dombrowski walked into, so here we are again back at this point in the cycle. Again, we’re talking opportunity cost here. The opportunity cost of the prospects (they WERE valuable back then and could have netted you a different good player, it doesn’t matter if they turned out to be bench guys) and the opportunity cost of the money. They paid Craig Kimbrel $37 million for one and a half elite years, one and a half shaky years, and two lousy sets of playoff appearances. You really think there wasn’t a better way to use that prospect capital and all that money? It’s not a move that’s keeping me up at night, but it’s not some big win - it’s the definition of inefficient. Frankly, the Sale deal approaches that territory too for me, though I’m still probably pulling the trigger on it even in hindsight. But Moncada and/or Margot would have been pretty valuable in the 2019 run that never was and 2021 - they’re too easily dismissed around here. To prove this point, you'd first have to know what the Red Sox could have gotten for any combination of the players given up for Kimbrel if D-Dom had not put them in the Kimbrel trade. We don't know that. But we can apply our knowledge and come up with an opinion. What combination of the players D-Dom traded for CK do you think would have been reasonable? And what do you think they could have gotten if they had held onto the others? Do you think, for instance, he should have gotten the Kimbrel trade done without including Logan Allen? And if he had, what could he have fetched from another team for Logan Allen?
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 785
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Oct 9, 2023 9:22:03 GMT -5
Again, we’re talking opportunity cost here. The opportunity cost of the prospects (they WERE valuable back then and could have netted you a different good player, it doesn’t matter if they turned out to be bench guys) and the opportunity cost of the money. They paid Craig Kimbrel $37 million for one and a half elite years, one and a half shaky years, and two lousy sets of playoff appearances. You really think there wasn’t a better way to use that prospect capital and all that money? It’s not a move that’s keeping me up at night, but it’s not some big win - it’s the definition of inefficient. Frankly, the Sale deal approaches that territory too for me, though I’m still probably pulling the trigger on it even in hindsight. But Moncada and/or Margot would have been pretty valuable in the 2019 run that never was and 2021 - they’re too easily dismissed around here. To prove this point, you'd first have to know what the Red Sox could have gotten for any combination of the players given up for Kimbrel if D-Dom had not put them in the Kimbrel trade. We don't know that. But we can apply our knowledge and come up with an opinion. What combination of the players D-Dom traded for CK do you think would have been reasonable? And what do you think they could have gotten if they had held onto the others? Do you think, for instance, he should have gotten the Kimbrel trade done without including Logan Allen? And if he had, what could he have fetched from another team for Logan Allen? Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Oct 9, 2023 9:36:30 GMT -5
But there should be some reward/credit on DDs end for trading guys that were in fact overhyped right?
Either way I don’t get the DD talk it was never him vs bloom, I think he gets brought up a lot because bloom supporters for some reason can’t accept criticism of Bloom
There is always a “yeah but” for bloom
Again the fact is each one of our last 4 gms had huge problems They had to address when they came on board, and bloom or his supporters decided to use it as an excuse for a tenure.
I mean BC took over an awful pirates team with a farm ranked 15-18 the same exact time bloom took us over, with way less budget to work with.
4 years later they are still ranked ahead of us in farm rankings and won two less games than us….?? Isn’t that an indictment in itself of Bloom’s tenure?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 9, 2023 11:41:01 GMT -5
To prove this point, you'd first have to know what the Red Sox could have gotten for any combination of the players given up for Kimbrel if D-Dom had not put them in the Kimbrel trade. We don't know that. But we can apply our knowledge and come up with an opinion. What combination of the players D-Dom traded for CK do you think would have been reasonable? And what do you think they could have gotten if they had held onto the others? Do you think, for instance, he should have gotten the Kimbrel trade done without including Logan Allen? And if he had, what could he have fetched from another team for Logan Allen? Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it. Why would Margot for Kimbrel have been an iffy trade? Margot had basically had a mid .700 OPS in the minors prior to be traded. He was a decent prospect but he wasnt going to hit well enough to man a corner outfield spot regularly. He had to have made it as a CF and in Dec 2015 the Sox had a young JBJ under contract for another 5 seasons. In Dec of 2015 Craig Kimbrel had a HOF resume going as he was the premier closer in baseball through that time. Closer was a position of need for a team that was expected to contend based on the strong 2nd half they had in 2015 and the addition of David Price to the rotation. Why wouldnt you trade a guy who wasnt going to push JBJ out of a job, nor hit well enough to man a corner OF spot, or even guaranteed to become more than a 4th outfielder when A much needed lockdown closer like Kimbrel was needed? Now Kimbrel only had 1 lockdown season in 2017 with the Sox and was merely pretty good the rest of the time except for the scary 2018 post season. Margot wound up a 4th OF and would probably have been that for the Sox as well. Sure he would have had value, but I'd take a top tier closer over a 4th OF. You might not, but I would. The others werent enough that I would not make the deal.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 9, 2023 11:48:50 GMT -5
Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it. Why would Margot for Kimbrel have been an iffy trade? Margot had basically had a mid .700 OPS in the minors prior to be traded. He was a decent prospect but he wasnt going to hit well enough to man a corner outfield spot regularly. He had to have made it as a CF and in Dec 2015 the Sox had a young JBJ under contract for another 5 seasons. In Dec of 2015 Craig Kimbrel had a HOF resume going as he was the premier closer in baseball through that time. Closer was a position of need for a team that was expected to contend based on the strong 2nd half they had in 2015 and the addition of David Price to the rotation. Why wouldnt you trade a guy who wasnt going to push JBJ out of a job, nor hit well enough to man a corner OF spot, or even guaranteed to become more than a 4th outfielder when A much needed lockdown closer like Kimbrel was needed?
Now Kimbrel only had 1 lockdown season in 2017 with the Sox and was merely pretty good the rest of the time except for the scary 2018 post season.Margot wound up a 4th OF and would probably have been that for the Sox as well. Sure he would have had value, but I'd take a top tier closer over a 4th OF. You might not, but I would. The others werent enough that I would not make the deal. Well that's just the thing - and why trading real prospects for relievers drives me nuts. Relievers are so unreliable. I've posted many times the performance of big-money FA relievers has been very spotty.
And you are selling Margot way short. I remember the debates over whether he or Devers was the better prospect. At the time he was traded soxprospects ranked him fourth in an extremely deep system, one spot above Andrew Benintendi. And here is their last scouting report, applicable at the time he was traded:
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 785
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Oct 9, 2023 12:57:41 GMT -5
Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it. Why would Margot for Kimbrel have been an iffy trade? Margot had basically had a mid .700 OPS in the minors prior to be traded. He was a decent prospect but he wasnt going to hit well enough to man a corner outfield spot regularly. He had to have made it as a CF and in Dec 2015 the Sox had a young JBJ under contract for another 5 seasons. In Dec of 2015 Craig Kimbrel had a HOF resume going as he was the premier closer in baseball through that time. Closer was a position of need for a team that was expected to contend based on the strong 2nd half they had in 2015 and the addition of David Price to the rotation. Why wouldnt you trade a guy who wasnt going to push JBJ out of a job, nor hit well enough to man a corner OF spot, or even guaranteed to become more than a 4th outfielder when A much needed lockdown closer like Kimbrel was needed? Now Kimbrel only had 1 lockdown season in 2017 with the Sox and was merely pretty good the rest of the time except for the scary 2018 post season. Margot wound up a 4th OF and would probably have been that for the Sox as well. Sure he would have had value, but I'd take a top tier closer over a 4th OF. You might not, but I would. The others werent enough that I would not make the deal. This is a perfectly good justification for making the trade anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that it was poor value. Again, Manuel Margot was not a trivial piece. He was basically Rafaela with slightly better plate discipline as a prospect. If Rafaela turns into what Manuel Margot turned into, it would be a good outcome for him. He had the upside to hit well enough in a corner if his offensive game came together, but it didn't matter that there was risk in his offensive profile because he was an elite defensive center fielder. He's been worth a tick over 2.5 WAR/600 PAs--he has been an above-average starting center fielder.
Nobody should be saying it was a mistake to trade Manuel Margot. Like you said, he was blocked and knocking on the door, which meant he was excellent trade bait. It was a mistake to trade him for a Proven Elite Closer, because Proven Elite Closers tend to not be much better than Proven Good Closers or Unproven Closers With Elite Stuff. Like, would replacing Kimbrel with Jeremy Jeffress or Cody Allen or Mark Melancon or whatever decent closer from that era you prefer make those Red Sox teams appreciably worse? I'm not so sure.
Again, the criticism of Dombrowski's decision-making isn't that he didn't acquire impact players or build a good team, he obviously did that and we all were lucky enough to witness it. It's just that he gave up a looooot of long-term value for short-term improvements. It worked, and you can argue if that justifies the potential downsides (I happen to think it does). You really can't argue the existence of those downsides, though. The team started feeling them immediately after, when the 2019 team badly needed pitching and they had nothing left in the system to trade for it. That never really improved, and the team ran out of control of the genuinely elite players that the 2018 team was built around, ending up with a lot of aging, overpaid, injury-prone veterans. And the pieces he acquired ended up having minimal long-term trade value, so they couldn't flip them for anything of note once it became clear that the team was no longer a viable contender.
It's the exact opposite of what Bloom got wrong. When you refuse to overpay on principle, you end up not making any impact moves that substantially adjust the course of the organization, leaving you mired in mediocrity. When you are willing to give up whatever it takes to get your primary target, you end up running out of resources to plug leaks that spring up down the line or take advantage of market opportunities, leaving you on a descent into mediocrity. The cure for this is elite player development, which is more scientific than it's ever been. The other problem with DD's tenure was that they didn't stay up-to-date with player development techniques. That's probably down to Frank Wren and Tony La Russa being his top advisors instead of people who were familiar with cutting-edge organizational management.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Oct 9, 2023 13:46:35 GMT -5
To prove this point, you'd first have to know what the Red Sox could have gotten for any combination of the players given up for Kimbrel if D-Dom had not put them in the Kimbrel trade. We don't know that. But we can apply our knowledge and come up with an opinion. What combination of the players D-Dom traded for CK do you think would have been reasonable? And what do you think they could have gotten if they had held onto the others? Do you think, for instance, he should have gotten the Kimbrel trade done without including Logan Allen? And if he had, what could he have fetched from another team for Logan Allen? Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it. I guess if you go by how a trade looked at the time to a prospects-conscious subset of fans, you could argue that Aldo for Schwarber was irresponsible. At the time of the Kimbrel trade people were worried that the real talent that was lost was Logan Allen (who has blossomed into a AAAA swingman) and Javy Guerra (who is actually now a more accomplished AAAA pitcher than Allen).
That's not how I look at trades. With the benefit of hindsight, I see what actually happened to the team in the year(s) after the trade (depending how much control the player's contract offered), how much impact the acquired player made in that time, and how much impact the traded players made in the time that they were on the contracts that were traded.
By that measure, Kimbrel for Margot was hardly iffy. Kimbrel's three years with the Sox were borderline historic, as @tears has pointed out. Yes, he gave us some white-knuckle rides in the '18 playoffs (there was speculation about pitch-tipping) but he always (somehow) got the 27th out. Meanwhile Margot completed his sixth MLB season in 2022 and has a career 90 wRC+ with a nice glove and a bat that can't be platooned. He's basically Verdugo -- a very hyped OF prospect who never quite reached his potential -- with a worse bat and better glove. I would not wish for a do-over in that trade.
Ultimately, Margot was way less than what the Padres were hoping for (indeed, they moved him for a much lesser RP than Kimbrel), as were the three other guys in that trade, while Kimbrel was everything the Sox could've dreamed, despite staggering through the '18 playoffs like a drunk Charlie Chaplin through a construction site... he still made it out the other side tho...
EDIT: Okay, Kimbrel walked too many in 2016 and '18. But I'll take 108/119 saves and his insane K numbers over those three years. He was at least as good as Papelbon's best three-year stretch.
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 785
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Oct 9, 2023 14:29:39 GMT -5
Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it. I guess if you go by how a trade looked at the time to a prospects-conscious subset of fans, you could argue that Aldo for Schwarber was irresponsible. At the time of the Kimbrel trade people were worried that the real talent that was lost was Logan Allen (who has blossomed into a AAAA swingman) and Javy Guerra (who is actually now a more accomplished AAAA pitcher than Allen).
That's not how I look at trades. With the benefit of hindsight, I see what actually happened to the team in the year(s) after the trade (depending how much control the player's contract offered), how much impact the acquired player made in that time, and how much impact the traded players made in the time that they were on the contracts that were traded.
By that measure, Kimbrel for Margot was hardly iffy. Kimbrel's three years with the Sox were borderline historic, as @tears has pointed out, and yes, he gave us some white-knuckle rides in the '18 playoffs (there was speculation about pitch-tipping) but he always (somehow) got the 27th out. Meanwhile Margot completed his sixth MLB season in 2022 and has a career 90 wRC+ with a nice glove and a bat that can't be platooned. He's basically Verdugo -- a very hyped OF prospect who never quite reached his potential -- with a worse bat and better glove. I would not wish for a do-over in that trade.
Ultimately, Margot was way less than what the Padres were hoping for (indeed, they moved him for a much lesser RP than Kimbrel), as were the three other guys in that trade, while Kimbrel was everything the Sox could've dreamed, despite staggering through the '18 playoffs like a drunk Charlie Chaplin through a construction site... he still made it out the other side.
I don't care about hindsight-based analysis. The analysis I care about is whether or not a trade was the best use of assets given the context of the trade. Hindsight analysis doesn't add anything for anyone who knows how to type "www.baseball-reference.com" into an address bar. In fact, through the power of that skill, I can demonstrate (Edit: and it appears that you did as well) that Craig Kimbrel's run was not historic, as Jonathan Papelbon and Koji Uehara both had better years for the Red Sox than his best, while his other two years were good but hardly remarkable.
Regardless, Margot was not way less than they were hoping for. He was a starting-caliber center fielder who played elite defense, which is what they expected. He was traded to the Rays for a reliever coming off a much better season than the one Kimbrel had just had when the Sox traded for him, which was also a bad trade. Margot's trade value would naturally be reduced at that point because he had three years of arbitration eligibility rather than three years at the league minimum and three years of arbitration eligibility remaining for team control. The value calculus is pretty straightforward, Kimbrel provided ~6 WAR for $37m over 3 years while Margot provided ~11 WAR for $12m over six years.
This is what I imagine Incandenza is talking about with people wanting to pretend that Dombrowski didn't give up anything in his trades. Manuel Margot, Mauricio Dubon, and Santiago Espinal would have been incredibly useful for the 2021-2023 Red Sox! Those are good players who have, in sum, outplayed the players they were traded for by a significant margin! They're all on teams that are much better than the Red Sox in no small part because they have those guys for cheap, instead of having to fill those roles with expensive FA acquisitions. The fact that going all-in worked doesn't change the fact that they went all-in, which has long-term consequences.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Oct 9, 2023 14:31:14 GMT -5
When I knocked Dombrowski for his lack of creativity, some of you seemed confused by what I even meant. After reading all these replies, I'm beginning to understand: you simply refuse to engage in any counterfactual reasoning. They won with Kimbrel, thus Kimbrel was a good pickup, end of story. Logan Allen never panned out, so it wasn't a problem that they threw him in as the fourth piece of a deal. What if they could have traded Logan Allen for something else back when he had a lot of value? Well who knows what they could have gotten for him, so it's not worth talking about.
But I want to assure all of you: the Bloominati do not possess a time machine capable of undoing the Steve Pearce trade and accidentally erasing the 2018 championship from existence. Conversations about Dombrowski can be more nuanced than "He won, didn't he?"
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 9, 2023 14:52:07 GMT -5
To prove this point, you'd first have to know what the Red Sox could have gotten for any combination of the players given up for Kimbrel if D-Dom had not put them in the Kimbrel trade. We don't know that. But we can apply our knowledge and come up with an opinion. What combination of the players D-Dom traded for CK do you think would have been reasonable? And what do you think they could have gotten if they had held onto the others? Do you think, for instance, he should have gotten the Kimbrel trade done without including Logan Allen? And if he had, what could he have fetched from another team for Logan Allen? Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it. Now I understand what you're saying. You're pointing out that D-Dom's talent evaluation acumen was so sharp that he sold high on three guys who have since combined for 10.5 WAR in eight years. I'm kidding. But only half kidding. Don't we all wish that BC had identified Henry Owens, Anthony Renaudo, Allen Webster and Lars Anderson as overvalued assets and moved them for something useful? And shouldn't we be thankful that D-Dom identified the right assets to move to fill a glaring need on a GFIN team? Again, put the list of prospects he didn't trade next to the list of those he did trade and tell me which one you like more. As I noted in a previous post, he didn't lose much future production in all his prospect trades combined. If you produce the success he did and the two best players you gave up were Yoan Moncada and Manny Margot, I'm Ok with that. What should he have done for a closer going into the 2016 season when that position was a must-fill need on a team that was ready for a big run? Take a look at that winter's free agent RP and tell me who he should have signed.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Oct 9, 2023 15:15:26 GMT -5
I guess if you go by how a trade looked at the time to a prospects-conscious subset of fans, you could argue that Aldo for Schwarber was irresponsible. At the time of the Kimbrel trade people were worried that the real talent that was lost was Logan Allen (who has blossomed into a AAAA swingman) and Javy Guerra (who is actually now a more accomplished AAAA pitcher than Allen).
That's not how I look at trades. With the benefit of hindsight, I see what actually happened to the team in the year(s) after the trade (depending how much control the player's contract offered), how much impact the acquired player made in that time, and how much impact the traded players made in the time that they were on the contracts that were traded.
By that measure, Kimbrel for Margot was hardly iffy. Kimbrel's three years with the Sox were borderline historic, as @tears has pointed out, and yes, he gave us some white-knuckle rides in the '18 playoffs (there was speculation about pitch-tipping) but he always (somehow) got the 27th out. Meanwhile Margot completed his sixth MLB season in 2022 and has a career 90 wRC+ with a nice glove and a bat that can't be platooned. He's basically Verdugo -- a very hyped OF prospect who never quite reached his potential -- with a worse bat and better glove. I would not wish for a do-over in that trade.
Ultimately, Margot was way less than what the Padres were hoping for (indeed, they moved him for a much lesser RP than Kimbrel), as were the three other guys in that trade, while Kimbrel was everything the Sox could've dreamed, despite staggering through the '18 playoffs like a drunk Charlie Chaplin through a construction site... he still made it out the other side.
I don't care about hindsight-based analysis. The analysis I care about is whether or not a trade was the best use of assets given the context of the trade. Hindsight analysis doesn't add anything for anyone who knows how to type "www.baseball-reference.com" into an address bar. In fact, through the power of that skill, I can demonstrate (Edit: and it appears that you did as well) that Craig Kimbrel's run was not historic, as Jonathan Papelbon and Koji Uehara both had better years for the Red Sox than his best, while his other two years were good but hardly remarkable.
Regardless, Margot was not way less than they were hoping for. He was a starting-caliber center fielder who played elite defense, which is what they expected. He was traded to the Rays for a reliever coming off a much better season than the one Kimbrel had just had when the Sox traded for him, which was also a bad trade. Margot's trade value would naturally be reduced at that point because he had three years of arbitration eligibility rather than three years at the league minimum and three years of arbitration eligibility remaining for team control. The value calculus is pretty straightforward, Kimbrel provided ~6 WAR for $37m over 3 years while Margot provided ~11 WAR for $12m over six years.
This is what I imagine Incandenza is talking about with people wanting to pretend that Dombrowski didn't give up anything in his trades. Manuel Margot, Mauricio Dubon, and Santiago Espinal would have been incredibly useful for the 2021-2023 Red Sox! Those are good players who have, in sum, outplayed the players they were traded for by a significant margin! They're all on teams that are much better than the Red Sox in no small part because they have those guys for cheap, instead of having to fill those roles with expensive FA acquisitions. The fact that going all-in worked doesn't change the fact that they went all-in, which has long-term consequences.
Agree to disagree. Especially about assessing how trades actually work out in real life. Part of the GM's job is to predict how the assets he's acquiring and giving up will perform moving forward. You can actually see if they're right by waiting a few years and seeing how those players actually performed. You can also play alternate-universe games where you guess how the teams would've done without the trades. It's a results-based business and results actually happen. Imagineering what might have happened without a trade is not worth arguing for me (especially when the real results are flags and ring ceremonies). You wind up saying things like "Margot, Dubon, and Espinal would've been useful for the 2021-23 Red Sox." Okay (putting aside the fact that those three guys are cherry-picked from three completely different trades), who do they replace on those 2021-23 Sox rosters and the rosters that came before those years while you were hoarding them? And what do you do about the deals that brought those other players in? And what are you going to do with the extra money you saved... go out and get the top-shelf closer that you still need? Very quickly it's a big illogical morass, which is my least favorite kind of morass. Seriously, the biggest question is why do you care so much about two utility guys and a glove-first OF? There's only so many spaces at the bottom of a batting order. Did we also hang onto Javy Guerra and turn him into a AAAA RP in your scenario? And Logan Allen, he of the 1.66 career WHIP (I bet he was cheap though)? Who did we drop off the Worcester -- oh, sorry, the Pawtucket roster to hang onto those guys? And who did they displace in BOS from 2019-23? It's so, so silly to me.
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 785
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Oct 9, 2023 15:20:36 GMT -5
Kimbrel for Margot straight up is already an iffy trade. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a good prospect Margot was. He was a top 25ish prospect in baseball when he was traded. And then you add on a guy who was bubbling under (or sneaking into) top 100 lists at the time in Guerra, a promising high school pitcher who also ended up in that range in Allen, and a guy who had MLB upside in Asuaje, it’s hard to say that they didn’t give up a lot. That’s a package for a star. If Bloom traded Rafaela/Yorke/Perales/Bonaci for Josh Hader, I don’t think anyone on this board would’ve been very happy about it. Now I understand what you're saying. You're pointing out that D-Dom's talent evaluation acumen was so sharp that he sold high on three guys who have since combined for 10.5 WAR in eight years. I'm kidding. But only half kidding. Don't we all wish that BC had identified Henry Owens, Anthony Renaudo, Allen Webster and Lars Anderson as overvalued assets and moved them for something useful? And shouldn't we be thankful that D-Dom identified the right assets to move to fill a glaring need on a GFIN team? Again, put the list of prospects he didn't trade next to the list of those he did trade and tell me which one you like more. As I noted in a previous post, he didn't lose much future production in all his prospect trades combined. If you produce the success he did and the two best players you gave up were Yoan Moncada and Manny Margot, I'm Ok with that. What should he have done for a closer going into the 2016 season when that position was a must-fill need on a team that was ready for a big run? Take a look at that winter's free agent RP and tell me who he should have signed. Give it to Koji for another year and try again next offseason, probably. Kimbrel wasn't actually any better than Koji was in 2016 anyway. I don't think downgrading from Kimbrel to Mark Melancon or Greg Holland would significantly outweigh whatever separate addition they could've made using the package they gave up for Kimbrel. And I'd probably still rather pay what it took to sign Chapman or Jansen that offseason than the prospect package it took for Kimbrel, who was still on a large contract.
Margot and Moncada provided more WAR than Sale and Kimbrel under their team control years. I know you don't care much about salary considerations, but it kinda matters that Sale and Kimbrel have been paid a lot more money than Moncada and Margot over that time period even if they don't give out a trophy for the $/WAR World Series.
Regardless, as fenwaydouble said in stronger terms, the argument isn't "DD made terrible trades." It's "DD prioritized getting his guy rather than maximizing his assets, which had negative long-term consequences that could've been mitigated with more creative management."
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Oct 9, 2023 15:43:32 GMT -5
When I knocked Dombrowski for his lack of creativity, some of you seemed confused by what I even meant. After reading all these replies, I'm beginning to understand: you simply refuse to engage in any counterfactual reasoning. They won with Kimbrel, thus Kimbrel was a good pickup, end of story. Logan Allen never panned out, so it wasn't a problem that they threw him in as the fourth piece of a deal. What if they could have traded Logan Allen for something else back when he had a lot of value? Well who knows what they could have gotten for him, so it's not worth talking about. But I want to assure all of you: the Bloominati do not possess a time machine capable of undoing the Steve Pearce trade and accidentally erasing the 2018 championship from existence. Conversations about Dombrowski can be more nuanced than "He won, didn't he?" This is exactly the difference between DD and Chaim. DD targeted who he wanted and made the trades/deals happen. When Preller said "throw in that 18-yo southpaw too," DD blinked. CB would've let that trade die on the vine over Allen and then what? We waste the breakout years by Betts, Bogaerts and Bradley with a bullpen by committee that frittered away the division titles every year? Or maybe there was another top-shelf closer available in a trade that would've only cost Margot, Asuaje, and Guerra but not Allen? Who was that closer, exactly? This is more fantasy than counterfactual to me. !n 2019, Preller packaged Allen and a couple other prospects for a top-20 bust named Taylor Trammell. Dang it, if we had just held onto Allen, maybe we could've packaged him for Trammell! Wait, this is fun!
|
|
|