|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 14, 2015 11:13:37 GMT -5
As stacked as the minors are, if they give up that first rounder we're looking at two years with little or no infusion of talent into the system. We can't sign IFAs for another year and a half. So while it appears that we don't need to trade the top end of the system now, needs will surely arise and when they do we won't have the pieces to get a deal done without dealing the elite guys. So when we deal Moncada or Devers or Espinoza for a rental, you can blame it on the fact that we rushed out and overpaid for a reliever in November. I agree on the first part in terms of not assuming a stacked farm system stays that way especially if we give up the #12. Unfortunately the rest I am not sure I see it that way. By all accounts Dombrowski was in significant talks with Chapman and significant talks with Gray and didn't pull the trigger. I am guessing the ask price on Chapman was Margot + and at that point do you want to lose that much talent for a one year rental? Hard to justify that in my opinion. On Gray I am sure Beane could have been persuaded but you are probably dealing multiple of the guys you listed last which Dombrowski wisely laid off I am guessing. Any scenario you are playing with fire in terms of needs arising and hard to lay out a scenario where there is 0 risk whatsoever of not having to trade top guys if dire needs arise. The three scenarios talked about the most all present risk where no one can vehemently say one thing is going to happen or if so playing general manager would be very easy. Let's look at those scenarios: 1) Hold onto everyone and make improvements via FA - You still have all of your prospects if buying your way out doesn't work however what if Guerra comes down offensively and winds up much more like a Marrero than anything else? What if Margot's contact rates drop and the Ks go up? You are looking at less valuable assets in which the value isn't there for what you could have gotten a year ago and you have to trade from the top anyways if you need to correct mistakes. 2) Trade for a starter and buy relievers - I think you lose some combination of what was dealt and you likely include a top tier guy. So you deplete some form of your farm system and go about trying to play mix and match with the bullpen. Which can fail and you give up a top piece at the deadline to get a quality reliever anyways where your backs are against the wall. Not an ideal scenario in my mind. 3) Trade for relievers and buy starting pitching - The scenario where we are at. He got one of the best relief pitchers in baseball and gave up more value than he likely should have and now you are looking at throwing out major money at a starting pitching where ownership in the past has not been a fan of that philosophy. You run the risk of having another Bailey-esque trade and you looking at dead money with a pitcher who is on the decline. I don't think any of those scenarios are great and that is why having to make improvements and significant ones at that are difficult. I don't have a crystal ball and if I did the answer would be easy. The hope and vision by the sounds is get the last few good years out of a closer before he hits FA where that market is entirely volatile and make a diligent FA decision which you get the best value in the end and hold onto your top tier prospects who can infuse the club in a few years at that. That is the hope and certainly one unfortunate turn leaves you in a bad situation but so do the other two.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 23:57:08 GMT -5
What makes me mad about this trade is that DD could have gotten a much better player for those prospects than Kimbrel. Don't get me wrong, he is easily one of the best relievers in baseball, but he is certainly not worth that. Also, it highlights the biggest mistake in philosophy during the John Henry era: basically every offseason the Red Sox get one of the top guys in the market. That strategy is wrong, as they are always buying high, getting lower than expected production and killing future roster flexibility, both in payroll space and prospects/trade chips. That has never been Dombrowski's line of thinking in terms of here are four players I am going to shop it around the league and see what I can get. His strategy is he knows the internal valuation on players and knows what he wants to go after and closes quickly. It is a stark difference in doing things and we will see how it works, hopefully better than the consensus around here.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 23:21:37 GMT -5
I'm more confident in my evaluations of the players traded/received in this trade than I am of my evaluation of Dombrowski as a GM. Fair enough but the guy you defended also hasn't changed from Detroit living in the Midwest. This is a pretty typical Dombrowski move where he latched onto what he wanted and he gave what he felt was appropriate value to get it. We will see how it shakes out. I am more in your camp in that this is a bad pay but there is a reason you and I are on a message board at 11:21 on a Friday as opposed to manning an office on Fenway. Hopefully that reason proves to be good.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 23:18:51 GMT -5
This is what frustrates me the most about the team and the moves it's made over the last few years. Their moves have been schizophrenic-- constantly reacting to the previous year's bogeyman. Last offseason, the hitting sucked, so they go out and sign the two best hitters on the market to the type of big free agent contract that they'd previously eschewed. This year, the pitching sucked, so they overpay for a reliever (making the kind of trade that the previous regime would have abhorred) and will almost certainly overpay a starting pitcher in free agency. It's the type of 360 degree flip-flopping that shows an utter lack of conviction and leadership from ownership. You adjust your philosophy on the margins, not abandon them altogether at the first sign of trouble. Are you saying it is ownership or a GM, I didn't think you were one of the Lucchino conspiracy guys. Either way if it is the GM aren't you going to flip directions under new leadership? This type of a move isn't out of the woodwork for a Dombrowski type of trade that would scream he is doing something out of his norm. He typically loves to draft power pitchers in Detroit, Boston has none MLB ready so he taps into his resources to get the guy he coveted the most and moved quickly.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 23:14:12 GMT -5
We're all judging this trade without the power of hindsight. Based on what I know right now, it looks like a bad trade that used a bad methodology. I remember you being a strong proponent of Dombrowski when he was hired weren't expecting this or something similar? Dombrowski was notorious in his trades from Detroit for not going around and getting the best value and I seem to recall you finding positives in that trade. He also won a fair amount of those deals in hindsight which you have to give him the benefit of the doubt in some way, shape or form. Absolutely he isn't like many of this board but I thought was a given when he signed on. He knows what he wants and he will get it if the value is right. To him the value was right and by the sounds of it, it was his main target. It is the same methodology he used in Detroit from the outside looking in.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 22:34:36 GMT -5
If it's a "massive overpay" then the Padres could have added something of value (Ross) and made it a more equitable deal. You're making my point. I'm not saying that was on the table, I'm saying DD should have demanded it, and if Preller said no then you walk away. You don't make a bad trade because you decided weeks ago that you're going to get a reliever through a trade. Under the old system sure, Dombrowski not so much. I am not in love with the deal trying to rationalize it in some way shape or form. However that is who Dombrowski is, he assigns values to players and quickly moves on them often times without feeling what he has. Not sure what thought would have been made for him to do something in Boston. Who knows what the inner workings of Fenway is currently but the guy at top valued Kimbrel more than the four we traded. Which is scary to think about and if that is the case that continues may want to find a new hobby of not following Sox Prospects IMO.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 22:30:48 GMT -5
To like this deal, you have to think some combination of the prospects they gave up were garbage and/or be willing to pay Kimbrel 3/$70m if he were a free agent right now. Not saying I like the deal but pretty clear the Red Sox valuation was Kimbrel>Margot/Guerra/Allen/Asuaje. I am sure that is more frightening than anything though and a sign of things to come (maybe not in this offseason).
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 22:25:44 GMT -5
For the "maybe no SPs were available!" people: Jeff Passan reported that Ross was discussed "heavily" in our talks with the Padres. Adding Tyson Ross to this deal, and adding nothing from the Red Sox, would make it a reasonably equitable trade. DD got fleeced. Period. And by a very suspect GM in Preller, no less. Does that specifically mean anything though? I am sure he was talked about but I am guessing Dombrowski didn't say no to having Ross added to the deal. I am guessing to get him you would have had to give up a top tier guy which I am thankful that did not occur. Passan's other point and to what jmei said is correct it seems like a massive overpay and just trading from surplus for any reason whatsoever. Anyway hope the rest of the moves come from FA and the top of the core remain otherwise the move gets worse and worse.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 22:17:35 GMT -5
(a) no, I don't (b) even if so, you hold on to the prospects; it's not like they're going to expire like sour milk I don't disagree on A but your point B is entirely false in my opinion. Not saying you trade every single prospect in fear of this but prospects can expire like sour milk. What if Margot doesn't progress from this year and value greatly diminishes? What if Guerra takes a step back with the back? Those questions can present and can have prospects spoil like sour milk and if that wasn't the case they wouldn't such commodity focused. I don't necessarily disagree with your point on the value surplus. I think they could have gotten more and Dombrowski's motive is not to look around for trades. That said I think to get a cheaper better player would have cost you more than what you gave up here. I think you would have had to give up Devers/Moncada/etc.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 21:54:41 GMT -5
I should have clarified that they just spend on Miller last offseason, trading him was the right move.
But alas as stated it was a different regime.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 21:52:12 GMT -5
I think you are. I am guessing Dombrowski tried hard on Chapman and the price was Margot plus another piece. At that point why trade it for a one year rental? If Margot plus guys A ball and below got you a top tier starter I am sure Dave would have been all over that. If we can survive this offseason without trading anyone else from the top 10, and we build a solid rotation, I guess I can deal with this trade. That is my rationalization. I don't like the deal if they go out and trade Moncada, AB, Espinoza, etc. to rebuild the rest of the team. It sucks especially when they could have held Miller last year but different regimes. Hopefully that is the narrative and we just splurge in FA but I guess we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 21:39:41 GMT -5
Looking at the pieces traded, if you change Allen with Owens and you'll have the Indians FO listening on a Carrasco trade IMO. Am I way off here? I think you are. I am guessing Dombrowski tried hard on Chapman and the price was Margot plus another piece. At that point why trade it for a one year rental? If Margot plus guys A ball and below got you a top tier starter I am sure Dave would have been all over that.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 21:24:42 GMT -5
So we're also going to give a massive long term deal to a 30 year old pitcher. The hits just keep on coming. Like it or not there was no outcome that was going to be 'great' for the majority of the board. They were going to have to trade more than what was rumored to get a Sonny Gray/Chris Sale/Jose Fernandez/etc. and give up the prize prospects. I don't love the deal as I think it is a misuse of assets but if it is the only trade they make and they sign the pitchers they need what else can you ask? It isn't our money and I would much rather sign a Price/Greinke than give up multiple top end pieces to get an ace. It just was never likely they stand pat and let 'variances' work their way out.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 21:18:58 GMT -5
If that is truly the case it makes sense and given the buzz around Chapman I am guessing he wanted to overpay to have someone locked up.
I am just weary of striking out in FA but with Dombrowski I am guessing that is unlikely.
Kimbrell, Price/Cueto/Greinke/O'Day wouldn't be bad for losing Margot/Guerra and Allen.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 20:03:53 GMT -5
Dave didn't trade Moncada, Espinosa, Devers, AB, or any of our young MLB players. Sure he didn't do that but if there is another trade where is the talent coming from? It is going to be one of those guys. Unless this was the big trade and he goes signs David Price, O'Day and calls it a day it doesn't seem like a great use of resources. I figured Margot and Guerra would be gone I just thought it would be at least a starter coming back.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 13, 2015 19:49:37 GMT -5
Woof
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 24, 2015 10:16:14 GMT -5
Tough situation to call. In the past, Boston would package 2-3 B+ (Boston media hyped) prospects, for an Ace and be done with it. But never have I seen 4-5 potential A (some A+) prospects (and so young) ready to break out (or not). I'm actually a bit worried. You have a new GM, wanting to make a splash and dozens of shiny new trading beads he just pulled from the stocking he was given for xmas. I agree with many of the previous posters, for now, I'd plug a few holes with some B level FA's, see how the rooks develop, both at the MLB and MilB levels. No need to rush into things when so much is unknown. I don't see Dombrowski coming into Boston and saying wow I have all of these minor leaguers what can I get for them. He is going to be systematic about it and evaluate/assign value to the prospect just like everyone does. If he feels he is winning a deal he is going to pull the trigger like any other GM would do. Is Dombrowski more aggressive than others? Maybe but he also hasn't lost a ton of deals he has been in on either. Everyone saying oh we have Devers/Moncada/Espinoza/Margot/Benintiendi/Kopech/etc. lets see how they develop and don't touch them. The problem is these would be the same people 2-3 years from now which if 50% of those kids pan out to be average or below you are stuck with no trade value and no value at the MLB level and be ripping on the front office. Dombrowski is very smart and his job isn't to hold onto all of the prospects to see what they can be (even though that is what much of this forum would love). He should determine what ways to improve the club and find the best value in doing so. If he feels one of the ways to do that is via our prospects (to a degree) I would agree with that approach. The odds of all of those guys I mentioned above panning out is not tremendous therefore it becomes a game of Russian roulette. Who do you hold onto and who do you use as trade chips? If it was an easy answer everyone on this board would be a baseball GM. Unfortunately it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 13, 2015 18:12:42 GMT -5
My goodness will the Cubs be fun to watch for the foreseeable future.
That lineup is scary good.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Sept 17, 2015 10:34:35 GMT -5
So who is the real JBJ? The one who was hot for one month or the one who has not hit for the better part of the entire rest of his time in the majors. So badly want him to hit but these atrocious slumps of 1-30ish with 15ish strikeouts are hard to overlook. More and more he seems like a platoon at best. Just can't count on him like you can Mookie. They need to make Mookie the CF and stop messing with a star. Even during his hot streak strikeouts were still an issue. Seems to me he is slow to adjust and now that pitchers are going high and outside he hasn't figured it out yet. I think we can all agree that 2014 wasn't a 'fluke' as he can't change his swing every time someone exposes a weakness. He is probably somewhere in the middle of his hot streak and woeful drought. But far from a 4.5 WAR floor guy.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Sept 14, 2015 11:25:49 GMT -5
A basketball gym rat is generally known as a kid who hangs out at the gym an awful lot. Someone who has practiced an extraordinary amount. I extended it to baseball. It is a complement in my opinion if it is applied to any race. It is someone who has spent an extraordinary time on a baseball field, refining his craft. I've applied it to 3 players in recent memory: Dustin Pedroia, Cechinni and the reigning high school hit champ of Ohio, Andrew Benintendi. I'm a proponent of Malcolm Gladwell's outlier theory. It's one of the many aspects of a player I examine. My approach is often misunderstood in that I never said I gave equal weight to things like intelligence as compared to speed or power, athleticism etc...but I do try to consider every detail of their personal attributes, experience, personal characteristics, what others say, what I see and what they actually do. I stand by every single word I've posted in this thread and have no problem moving on. And how do you know that Moncada hasn't practiced an extraordinary amount or as a kid who spent a ton of time in fields or roads in Cuba? I am guessing you don't, no one does.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 19, 2015 11:55:22 GMT -5
Speaking of Romero, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Tigers were one of the least active teams on the international market under Dombrowski. Anyone wanna take a shot at spinning that positively for me? That Illitch's fault too? And the Sox were pretty below average with Theo? DD seems like a smart guy and says oh wow they are stacked with international prospects, I think I want to speak with the guy running that show.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 12, 2015 10:26:12 GMT -5
What ever happened to Xander's power? Or his ability to draw walks? Or for that matter, Mookie's? I'm glad Xander is hitting for a good average, but. . . its his other skills that made him such a highly touted prospect. This is a good article on Bogaerts's power or declining power: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/correa-bogaerts-and-the-development-of-power/Will be curious if he can make the improvements he has made to re-tap the power potential and hold his contact rate. Or if the power will never come back and what we see is what we will get. Not that there is anything wrong with Xander now but as you alluded to far from what we all had hoped last year.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 9, 2015 22:28:05 GMT -5
Unless they plan on being much more aggressive with him next year I would be very surprised.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 6, 2015 9:17:19 GMT -5
Once you turn 22 as a tall lanky lefty, your control never improves any further. This is a valid point however the point still stands that Owens command has always been a problem. Yes we can point to Cliff Lee but that is a rarity.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 4, 2015 20:07:15 GMT -5
Owens didn't have great fastball command, but pitched wel through that. Certainly showed enough to keep him in the rotation injuries aside. Isn't the first part of your sentence not something that is particularly new? He has always had command issues, just a question of how consistent he can be in order to reach his ceiling.
|
|