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.
The Red Sox trade deadline deals were awful/awesome/meh
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 1, 2014 15:17:57 GMT -5
Injuries and information was not as well documented back then, but I have a friend who thought Rice may have had some sort of wrist injury and was never the same after. The big falloff was right after '79.. can anyone confirm? Keneck, in terms of his eyesight I think I recall him trying contacts and they didn't work out and then trying glasses and not working with those either at the very end, don't know other details.
I loved to watch him, and he did end up in the Orlando Cepeda echelon, but boy he began like Jimmy Foxx!
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Nov 1, 2014 22:31:01 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that I feel that the FO is operating under the assumption that his slowed bat-speed was due to a recoverable injury and with a proper off-season workout and ST that he should be able to readjust. I really doubt they're planning on anything for him other than a wait and see how he rebounds. See, I don't buy that at all. Maybe if he only had 1-2 years left at cheap money then maybe, but Craig is on the books for 3 more years with a 4th year buyout. Granted the money isn't that much, but having to pay 5.5, 9, 11 for a player that won't be producing does still hurt.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 2, 2014 11:52:13 GMT -5
I really doubt they're planning on anything for him other than a wait and see how he rebounds. See, I don't buy that at all. Maybe if he only had 1-2 years left at cheap money then maybe, but Craig is on the books for 3 more years with a 4th year buyout. Granted the money isn't that much, but having to pay 5.5, 9, 11 for a player that won't be producing does still hurt. How can they possibly pencil in a player to the lineup in 2016 when he hit worse than JBJ for us last year?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Nov 2, 2014 13:05:42 GMT -5
See, I don't buy that at all. Maybe if he only had 1-2 years left at cheap money then maybe, but Craig is on the books for 3 more years with a 4th year buyout. Granted the money isn't that much, but having to pay 5.5, 9, 11 for a player that won't be producing does still hurt. How can they possibly pencil in a player to the lineup in 2016 when he hit worse than JBJ for us last year? Because, as I stated, the Red Sox front office probably sees Craig's terrible year as part of a snowball effect that stemmed from a recoverable injury. This board is freaking out about Koji being signed for 2/18 because he sucking up 9 million of the 55 million dollar pool that the Red Sox have to play with. Craig will cost 5.5 this coming season, 9 million the year after and 11 million the year after that. Though its certainly not back-breaking, 11 million in dead money can still hurt the Red Sox chances of landing a premier player. It's not like they brought Wade Miller aboard. This is at least a 3 year commitment with a 4th year option that the Red Sox hold at 14 million. To put it further, he has no value on the defensive side of the ball and is not a fast runner. If Craig does not hit, he will be a complete sunk cost. I have to think the Sox did their due diligence here.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 15:33:59 GMT -5
I'm generally not a fan of the logic of "they're a smart team, they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't a good idea." It's entirely circular logic, and as much as I defend this front office at times, they're certainly capable of making dumb moves (see: Melancon-for-Hanrahan). Whatever the Red Sox front office may have thought about Craig at the time they made the deal, they're certainly capable of being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Nov 2, 2014 16:13:52 GMT -5
I'm generally not a fan of the logic of "they're a smart team, they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't a good idea." It's entirely circular logic, and as much as I defend this front office at times, they're certainly capable of making dumb moves (see: Melancon-for-Hanrahan). Whatever the Red Sox front office may have thought about Craig at the time they made the deal, they're certainly capable of being wrong. This might be revisionist history, but at the time of the trade, I don't think many people were that anti-Hanrahan. I mean, his FIP was pretty ugly in his last year in Pittsburgh, but he was a pretty successful pitcher during his time there. Melancon had a very ugly year and an equivalent FIP to Hanrahan at the time of the trade. He's flourished since he left, and he was good in Houston for two year prior, but I don't think anyone was that upset at that time. I do get your point. Acquiring Eric Gagne was terrible. Trading Arroyo for Will Mo Pena was disastrous. Still, I don't think they would acquire a player with 3 years left (one of which at 11 mil) just to roll the dice and see what happens. I do think they got him to potentially be Napoli's replacement after this coming season. If he doesn't rebound, he doesn't rebound, but I like to think that they reviewed him closely and thought he was a good rebound candidate.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 2, 2014 16:55:53 GMT -5
Brock Holt an the roster flexibility gained probably made the Hanrahan-Melancon trade close enough to a draw. The bigger issue (and along the same lines, the bigger mark against the whole "if the Red Sox did it then it's smart ideology) was the entire Red Sox tenure of Melancon. They bought high on him coming off a good year with the Astros, sending Lowrie plus Weiland who was a pretty reasonable prospect at the time (maybe the equivalent of Edwin Escobar, value-wise). Then they lost confidence on him after three weeks, sent him to Pawtucket. He pitched pretty ok after his recall, but never again got chances in high-leverage situations and also never getting the innings to make his stat line look palatable. With his value now at its nadir, they shipped him as part of the roster-cleansing pu-pu platter that brought Hanrahan and Holt, only to watch Melancon turn into a very good pitcher again. Certainly not the smoothest dealing by the Cherington regime.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 16:56:52 GMT -5
I'm generally not a fan of the logic of "they're a smart team, they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't a good idea." It's entirely circular logic, and as much as I defend this front office at times, they're certainly capable of making dumb moves (see: Melancon-for-Hanrahan). Whatever the Red Sox front office may have thought about Craig at the time they made the deal, they're certainly capable of being wrong. This might be revisionist history, but at the time of the trade, I don't think many people were that anti-Hanrahan. I mean, his FIP was pretty ugly in his last year in Pittsburgh, but he was a pretty successful pitcher during his time there. Melancon had a very ugly year and an equivalent FIP to Hanrahan at the time of the trade. He's flourished since he left, and he was good in Houston for two year prior, but I don't think anyone was that upset at that time. I do get your point. Acquiring Eric Gagne was terrible. Trading Arroyo for Will Mo Pena was disastrous. Still, I don't think they would acquire a player with 3 years left (one of which at 11 mil) just to roll the dice and see what happens. I do think they got him to potentially be Napoli's replacement after this coming season. If he doesn't rebound, he doesn't rebound, but I like to think that they reviewed him closely and thought he was a good rebound candidate. I was pretty upset about that one at the time.More importantly, when we're evaluating a trade, it really doesn't matter whether or not the Red Sox front office really liked the guy they got. It matters whether they should have liked him or not-- if their initial evaluation was correct. And that is TBD.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Nov 2, 2014 19:37:09 GMT -5
This might be revisionist history, but at the time of the trade, I don't think many people were that anti-Hanrahan. I mean, his FIP was pretty ugly in his last year in Pittsburgh, but he was a pretty successful pitcher during his time there. Melancon had a very ugly year and an equivalent FIP to Hanrahan at the time of the trade. He's flourished since he left, and he was good in Houston for two year prior, but I don't think anyone was that upset at that time. I do get your point. Acquiring Eric Gagne was terrible. Trading Arroyo for Will Mo Pena was disastrous. Still, I don't think they would acquire a player with 3 years left (one of which at 11 mil) just to roll the dice and see what happens. I do think they got him to potentially be Napoli's replacement after this coming season. If he doesn't rebound, he doesn't rebound, but I like to think that they reviewed him closely and thought he was a good rebound candidate. I was pretty upset about that one at the time.More importantly, when we're evaluating a trade, it really doesn't matter whether or not the Red Sox front office really liked the guy they got. It matters whether they should have liked him or not-- if their initial evaluation was correct. And that is TBD. Wow. Out of curiosity, do you have links on-hand ready to go or do you go digging? Really just curious, not being snarky. It still looks as though most people didn't feel strongly one way or the other. I still wouldn't complain too much about the trade considering the Sox still ended up with Brock Holt out of it. We won't know whether or not this trade was a success until the season starts, and even then we have to wait a few months to avoid small sample sizes. My only point is there 's a 3 year commitment to this guy and one year in which his contract could be prohibitive of signing another player. If Craig does not hit, he will be a complete waste of a roster spot. If you take away Craig's last season he's a 30 year old 1B/OF who is under control for 4 more seasons. 2011: .315/.362/.555/.917 2012: .307/.354/.522/.876 2013: .315/.373/.457/.830 (his WAR was actually slightly higher than in 2012) I mean that's quite a drop to .215/.279/.315/.594 I have to believe the Sox feel pretty good about Craig rebounding. I'm not saying Craig will, but I would think they did their due diligence on the guy based on what they also gave up to get him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 21:33:53 GMT -5
There's a pretty neat search function on these forums. I just searched my posts for "Hanrahan" and looked at the oldest few.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 3, 2014 13:32:35 GMT -5
I was pretty upset about that one at the time.More importantly, when we're evaluating a trade, it really doesn't matter whether or not the Red Sox front office really liked the guy they got. It matters whether they should have liked him or not-- if their initial evaluation was correct. And that is TBD. Wow. Out of curiosity, do you have links on-hand ready to go or do you go digging? Really just curious, not being snarky. It still looks as though most people didn't feel strongly one way or the other. I still wouldn't complain too much about the trade considering the Sox still ended up with Brock Holt out of it. We won't know whether or not this trade was a success until the season starts, and even then we have to wait a few months to avoid small sample sizes. My only point is there 's a 3 year commitment to this guy and one year in which his contract could be prohibitive of signing another player. If Craig does not hit, he will be a complete waste of a roster spot. If you take away Craig's last season he's a 30 year old 1B/OF who is under control for 4 more seasons. 2011: .315/.362/.555/.917 2012: .307/.354/.522/.876 2013: .315/.373/.457/.830 (his WAR was actually slightly higher than in 2012) I mean that's quite a drop to .215/.279/.315/.594 I have to believe the Sox feel pretty good about Craig rebounding. I'm not saying Craig will, but I would think they did their due diligence on the guy based on what they also gave up to get him. I mean the only thing we've established here is that Craig does have 3 years left on his contract and that he either might or might not rebound. Have you considered the possibility that taking Craig's contract was the only way they could acquire Kelly, the guy they really wanted and the guy the Cardinals were hesitant to give up?
|
|
Guidas
Veteran
Posts: 14,654
Member is Online
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 3, 2014 20:17:31 GMT -5
I'm generally not a fan of the logic of "they're a smart team, they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't a good idea." It's entirely circular logic, and as much as I defend this front office at times, they're certainly capable of making dumb moves (see: Melancon-for-Hanrahan). Whatever the Red Sox front office may have thought about Craig at the time they made the deal, they're certainly capable of being wrong. At least that one got you Holt, fwiw Better examples: See Lowrieand Weiland for Melacon. See Marwin Gonzales for Marco Duarte See Reddick, Head and Alacantra for Bailey and Sweeney See Doubront for PTBNL These are just the ones that come to mind under the recent regime.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 24, 2014 14:22:16 GMT -5
Pretty clear that BC now recognizes Cespedes and Craig are not the answers. Wish we had gotten some valuable chits rather than a new one year rental that we now have to get rid of before he burns up.
The organization philosophy veers so wildly it is troubling. We are so cash conscious with Lester that we jeopardize the signing, we crow about dumping salary because we have youth and prospects, signing short term guys like Gomes/Victorino/Napoli). Now we are back to doing the Yankee thing of spending $300 mil and off-season on the McCanns of the world (which we ridiculed last offseason).
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Nov 24, 2014 14:46:02 GMT -5
Pretty clear that BC now recognizes Cespedes and Craig are not the answers. Wish we had gotten some valuable chits rather than a new one year rental that we now have to get rid of before he burns up. The organization philosophy veers so wildly it is troubling. We are so cash conscious with Lester that we jeopardize the signing, we crow about dumping salary because we have youth and prospects, signing short term guys like Gomes/Victorino/Napoli). Now we are back to doing the Yankee thing of spending $300 mil and off-season on the McCanns of the world (which we ridiculed last offseason). If you've got it, flaunt it.www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/donnasummer/ifyougotitflauntit.html
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Dec 11, 2014 11:47:49 GMT -5
In regard to the Lester trade and the follow up trade; it seems like the final summation is:
Bosox gave up: 2 months of Lester and Gomes, Gabe Speier, Alex Wilson, cash, and some theoretical (but probably non-existent/immaterial) good-will from Lester, compensation pick if they did not trade Lester.
Bosox received: 2 months of Cespedes, a competitive balance pick, a full season of Porcello , maybe a minor leaguer coming back from Detroit, and a very good chance of getting a compensation pick for Porcello if he walks next year.
Have I missed something? Because at this point, I think this is on par with the best that we have seen from Billy Beane or anyone else. I don't see how this conclusion could be seen as anything except as excellent/brilliant.
An please, don't bring in the botched spring training negotiations. Yes, they set the stage for the trade, but the trade itself has to be evaluated on the merits of the trade and subsequent trades, not the lead-up.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 11, 2014 13:30:40 GMT -5
I'm cool with how the Lester deal turned out. Still hate the Lackey deal.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonstah on Dec 11, 2014 13:42:06 GMT -5
Lester trade was good, turned it into Porcello and we get a draft pick if he leaves. Lackey trade is too early to tell, I feel like we really sold low on him though. Drew for Kelly Johnson was good as we saved some money.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 11, 2014 13:47:09 GMT -5
I'm cool with how the Lester deal turned out. Still hate the Lackey deal. Seems like Miller and his control plus the Craig contract and it's possibilities at the time (and still today) aren't to bad for a elder statesman pitcher (who we did hear back then from Silva) that he asked to be traded ... So there is that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 12, 2014 13:27:33 GMT -5
In regard to the Lester trade and the follow up trade; it seems like the final summation is: Bosox gave up: 2 months of Lester and Gomes, Gabe Speier, Alex Wilson, cash, and some theoretical (but probably non-existent/immaterial) good-will from Lester. Bosox received: 2 months of Cespedes, a competitive balance pick, a full season of Porcello , maybe a minor leaguer coming back from Detroit, and a very good chance of getting a compensation pick for Porcello if he walks next year. Have I missed something? Because at this point, I think this is on par with the best that we have seen from Billy Beane or anyone else. I don't see how this conclusion could be seen as anything except as excellent/brilliant. An please, don't bring in the botched spring training negotiations. Yes, they set the stage for the trade, but the trade itself has to be evaluated on the merits of the trade and subsequent trades, not the lead-up. Not sure where you're getting the Detroit minor leaguer from, but that's not a thing. Should probably also include the QO draft pick they'd have gotten for Lester in the "going" group. That's essentially why they got the competitive balance pick.
|
|
|