|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 17, 2015 14:19:34 GMT -5
I challenge you to find a general manager of another team, whose team is in contention, that makes trades to fit the criteria you just laid out. Because if you're limiting transactions to players who won't help the team within a year and who aren't DFA types then you aren't going to find many deals at all with teams who are trying to compete.
EDIT: Having said that, doesn't Brock Holt meet the standards you laid out when they acquired him?
|
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 14:23:41 GMT -5
This is untrue. Rodriguez was placed on the 40 man roster. Most players are placed on the 40 man roster with the idea that they will help the major league club in 2014. It doesn't mean it was a bad trade, but this was an example of a player that they thought could help them one year out.
Because that's not going to be the result of such trades in most years. Most of the time when you basically trade major league talent in one year for different major league talent the next, as they did in the Punto trade it's going to result in you being in last place again. You can't expect to hit on 6 of 7 new acquisitions every year.
I think they could have traded him for someone who had a better chance of starting or even becoming an ace but was much further away from the majors yes. Most major league aces are not guys like Strassburg who were projected to be aces from the day they stepped foot in the pro ranks. Most are players who are performance wise are muddling through until they experience a sharp upturn in their value.
Because no farm system is really stacked. Prospects are a risky business and quite often don't perform as expected. You need as many as humanly possible to make up for that. Not just premium prospects either. Sometimes it's the projectable kids in A ball who turn out to be your best players down the road. No major league team should ever sit back and say that they have "enough" prospects, and if they Red Sox did that, that was a major mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 14:30:58 GMT -5
I challenge you to find a general manager of another team, whose team is in contention, that makes trades to fit the criteria you just laid out. Because if you're limiting transactions to players who won't help the team within a year and who aren't DFA types then you aren't going to find many deals at all with teams who are trying to compete. EDIT: Having said that, doesn't Brock Holt meet the standards you laid out when they acquired him? The White Sox. When they traded Peavy they acquired two pitchers who were projectable but risky and far from the majors. The Rangers in 2007 traded Eric Gagne for Engel Beltre who wasn't even in full season ball at the time they acquired him, but had huge tools you could dream on. Holt was in AAA and on the 40 man roster when he was acquired so no he would not fit the criteria. Raw players far from the majors with huge upside are out there and the Red Sox could have easily acquired many of them but have chosen not to. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2015 14:34:08 GMT -5
I see this all the time on this board, i.e. the sophistry of "how can Ben be expected to know the future?" Of course it's expressed crassly, but how exactly are you to judge a GM? By how well they know the Basic Agreement? The intricacies of waiver regulations? By that standard, every decision by every GM is inscrutable. How could Amaro know that signing Ryan Howard for 130m was a bad idea? Can he be expected to know the future? Please. Player evaluation is the currency of being a GM; that entails being able to predict the future performance of player(s). Yeah, it's hard. But that is the job, all of this jejune sophistication notwithstanding. When everyone agrees with a GM's moves and calls them good moves, they were probably good moves at the time they were made. Everyone called the Howard extension ridiculous when it was made. That's the difference. You can criticize Ben for the pitching (which is actually pretty good). But no one could have seen the hitting become a disaster. No one mentioned it here or in any baseball article. How can you hold him to a standard that he should be better than anyone on the planet at predicting the future? |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2015 14:38:39 GMT -5
Eduardo Rodriguez was placed on the 40 man after the season, not when they traded for him. They may have hoped he would contribute this year, but he had to be put on it or be lost in the rule 5 draft. Since he was a highly regarded pitcher who pitched lights out after the trade, it was a no-brainer to put him on the 40 man, whether he contributed this year or 2 years from now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 17, 2015 14:39:14 GMT -5
Players are put on the 40 so they aren't lost to the Rule 5 draft, not necessarily because they are close to the majors. Ed-ro and Holt were absolutely not thought to be close to being ready when they were acquired, and no amount of goal-post moving will change that.
But, if you can lay out crazy specific criteria then I will do the same. Neither the'07 Rangers nor the '12 White Sox were thought to be in contention so they don't fit my criteria for what you should have been looking for. Teams that are thought to be in contention the next year don't make trades that you are suggesting that frequently.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 14:42:25 GMT -5
That's rich. Give me a break. Cecchini has never had power and he's always been a question mark on defense. So, the guy's entire value has always been predicated on him being the second coming of Wade Boggs. Cecchini was, even at the time, EXACTLY the kind of prospect that you trade - Because even if the stars aligned perfectly for him, he was still going to be a flawed major leaguer. This isn't a question of winning popularity contests. It's a question of opportunity cost. Oh stop. He didn't have to be the next coming of Boggs; he could have been the next coming of Daniel Nava with sub-par defense at third and that would have been great. I think you are focusing too much on the hyperbole and missing his point. How many Daniel Nava's with sub-par defense go on to become major league regulars for five years? Without looking it's almost none. Attempting to comp a player to a major league player with a highly unusual background is faulty. A hit only 3B without elite bat speed has a tough road to hoe to one day become a major league player. Doesn't mean it can't happen, it's just that the odds are against it. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 14:47:25 GMT -5
Not true. Most players at risk for being selected in the Rule 5 draft are close to the majors which is why a team might select them in the first place.
You can call it goal post moving all you want but players put on the 40 man roster are considered close to the majors. Call it goal post moving all you want, but no amount of fanboyism is going to make you right.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 17, 2015 14:49:42 GMT -5
The Red Sox haven't made many trades of veterans period, so the fact that they have not done so for lower-minors talent is not really that strong of an argument. Not a trade, but committing $63m to Yoan Moncada rather than spending it on the major league roster seems like pretty strong evidence of long-term thinking. But that's in acquiring amateur talent which is completely different. Acquiring amateur free agent talent has no effect on the rest of the organization because you aren't choosing it over other talent. You can bet that if a player like Moncada required veteran talent to acquire, they never would have made such a deal. Eh, spending $63m on Moncada carries with it an opportunity cost just like acquiring Cespedes (rather than prospects) for Lester did. They could easily have spent that $63m upgrading this year's major league roster instead. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 17, 2015 14:52:11 GMT -5
Attempting to comp a player to a major league player with a highly unusual background is faulty. A hit only 3B without elite bat speed has a tough road to hoe to one day become a major league player. Doesn't mean it can't happen, it's just that the odds are against it. Eh, Matt Carpenter, Luis Valbuena, Davis Freese come to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 14:53:02 GMT -5
But that's in acquiring amateur talent which is completely different. Acquiring amateur free agent talent has no effect on the rest of the organization because you aren't choosing it over other talent. You can bet that if a player like Moncada required veteran talent to acquire, they never would have made such a deal. Eh, spending $63m on Moncada carries with it an opportunity cost just like acquiring Cespedes (rather than prospects) for Lester did. They could easily have spent that $63m upgrading this year's major league roster instead. Not true. The two come from different buckets. The $63M if not spent on Moncada would have sat in a bank somewhere. The Red Sox have enough money to spend that they cannot spend it all without getting diminishing returns from that cash. |
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Jun 17, 2015 14:57:50 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me to see [RDLR] become useful setup men down the line. You mean after his 10-year career as a starter? Reddick was in the same mode that most of the Sox hitters do. swing hard and try to pull the outside pitch. since he has gone to Oakland he has magically learned to hit the ball the other way. The result is he is now a 300 hitter and can't be pitched to inside or outside. the Red Sox have to get a better hitting approach. I watched so many of the teams they played just hit the outside pitch to the opposite field for a hit or a sacrifice fly while the Sox were pitched away and trying to pull and grounding into the inevitable DP. How many times do you have to be pounded over the head to figure this out. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 15:00:06 GMT -5
Attempting to comp a player to a major league player with a highly unusual background is faulty. A hit only 3B without elite bat speed has a tough road to hoe to one day become a major league player. Doesn't mean it can't happen, it's just that the odds are against it. Eh, Matt Carpenter, Luis Valbuena, Davis Freese come to mind. None of those three players were "hit tool" only poor fielding 3B without elite bat speed. Carpenter and Valbuena played in the middle infield in the majors and are much better fielders than Checchini. Freese hit for a lot of power both in the San Diego system and the Cardinals system. Nice try there though. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2015 15:01:29 GMT -5
Not true. Most players at risk for being selected in the Rule 5 draft are close to the majors which is why a team might select them in the first place. You can call it goal post moving all you want but players put on the 40 man roster are considered close to the majors. Call it goal post moving all you want, but no amount of fanboyism is going to make you right. It's not true that the Red Sox traded for Eduardo Rodriguez and then immediately put him on the 40 man. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2015 15:02:01 GMT -5
Eh, Matt Carpenter, Luis Valbuena, Davis Freese come to mind. None of those three players were "hit tool" only poor fielding 3B without elite bat speed. Carpenter and Valbuena played in the middle infield in the majors and are much better fielders than Checchini. Freese hit for a lot of power both in the San Diego system and the Cardinals system. Nice try there though. Spell Cecchini right once in your life. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 15:14:12 GMT -5
None of those three players were "hit tool" only poor fielding 3B without elite bat speed. Carpenter and Valbuena played in the middle infield in the majors and are much better fielders than Checchini. Freese hit for a lot of power both in the San Diego system and the Cardinals system. Nice try there though. Spell Cecchini right once in your life. Tell you what...you spend your time coming up with just one coherent argument and I will try to spell better deal? Or do we really need to return to the classic "Allen Craig is no good because he isn't". And besides...since you blocked me...what do you care? Why are you even responding? |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 15:17:35 GMT -5
Not true. Most players at risk for being selected in the Rule 5 draft are close to the majors which is why a team might select them in the first place. You can call it goal post moving all you want but players put on the 40 man roster are considered close to the majors. Call it goal post moving all you want, but no amount of fanboyism is going to make you right. It's not true that the Red Sox traded for Eduardo Rodriguez and then immediately put him on the 40 man. But I didn't say that did I? Seriously...just keep blocking me like you said you would. You have nothing valuable to contribute. |
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 17, 2015 15:20:05 GMT -5
Not true. Most players at risk for being selected in the Rule 5 draft are close to the majors which is why a team might select them in the first place. You can call it goal post moving all you want but players put on the 40 man roster are considered close to the majors. Call it goal post moving all you want, but no amount of fanboyism is going to make you right. And just because you say it's wrong doesn't mean it is. Michael Ynoa comes to mind as an example when he was added to the 40 man roster of the Athletics but then optioned to single A the next year. As for the Red Sox, just off the top of my head: Felix Doubront, Oscar Tejeda, Drake Britton, and Stolmy Pimentel are all examples of players added to the 40 man roster way before they were major league ready...and that's just within the last few years and only in the Sox organization. So no, you're flat out wrong. And I assume when you tried to deflect my question by using the term "fanboyism" (How old are you, by the way?), that means you weren't able to find a few teams that regularly stays in contention and also trade for players who fit into your narrow set of parameters? |
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871 
|
Post by danr on Jun 17, 2015 15:26:16 GMT -5
Chill...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2015 15:28:56 GMT -5
This is untrue. Rodriguez was placed on the 40 man roster. Most players are placed on the 40 man roster with the idea that they will help the major league club in 2014. It doesn't mean it was a bad trade, but this was an example of a player that they thought could help them one year out. Yes, you did say it. When they acquired Eduardo Rodriguez, they did not place him on the 40 man until November, after he went on a tear for the last month of the season and changed his outlook a lot. This is a ridiculous argument anyway. Plenty of teams would have drafted him in the Rule 5 even if he wasn't ready for the majors. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2015 15:31:46 GMT -5
Spell Cecchini right once in your life. Tell you what...you spend your time coming up with just one coherent argument and I will try to spell better deal? Or do we really need to return to the classic "Allen Craig is no good because he isn't". And besides...since you blocked me...what do you care? Why are you even responding? Because you're a good troll and I can't resist. |
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 17, 2015 15:33:12 GMT -5
It's a pretty good thread you started. Lots of ideas. I just speed read through the pissing contests and try not to get wet. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 15:45:08 GMT -5
This is untrue. Rodriguez was placed on the 40 man roster. Most players are placed on the 40 man roster with the idea that they will help the major league club in 2014. It doesn't mean it was a bad trade, but this was an example of a player that they thought could help them one year out. Yes, you did say it. When they acquired Eduardo Rodriguez, they did not place him on the 40 man until November, after he went on a tear for the last month of the season and changed his outlook a lot. This is a ridiculous argument anyway. Plenty of teams would have drafted him in the Rule 5 even if he wasn't ready for the majors. No I didn't say it. I said that he was placed on the 40 man roster I didn't say immediately.....that you think I am a troll is rich coming a guy who posts much more than I do. Tell you what...you have never posted anything worth reading so why don't I just block you...problem solved. You can go and troll someone else's thread. |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 17, 2015 15:51:57 GMT -5
No I didn't say it. I said that he was placed on the 40 man roster I didn't say immediately..... So you are in favor of acquiring players who are never, ever going to be placed on the 40 man roster? I see... |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 15:53:42 GMT -5
Not true. Most players at risk for being selected in the Rule 5 draft are close to the majors which is why a team might select them in the first place. You can call it goal post moving all you want but players put on the 40 man roster are considered close to the majors. Call it goal post moving all you want, but no amount of fanboyism is going to make you right. And just because you say it's wrong doesn't mean it is. Michael Ynoa comes to mind as an example when he was added to the 40 man roster of the Athletics but then optioned to single A the next year. As for the Red Sox, just off the top of my head: Felix Doubront, Oscar Tejeda, Drake Britton, and Stolmy Pimentel are all examples of players added to the 40 man roster way before they were major league ready...and that's just within the last few years and only in the Sox organization. So no, you're flat out wrong. And I assume when you tried to deflect my question by using the term "fanboyism" (How old are you, by the way?), that means you weren't able to find a few teams that regularly stays in contention and also trade for players who fit into your narrow set of parameters? Those are very rare situations. Most players placed on the 40 man are close to the majors. So no I am right and you are wrong flat out wrong. You asked me for situations where players far from the majors were acquired by major league teams I gave you two. You claimed that a player who had finished the season previous to being acquired in AAA wasn't close to the majors. How much closer to the majors can a player be? Further you claimed that a player who subsequently DID play in the majors the following season wasn't close to the majors. Instead of just admitting that you engaged in unnecessary personal attacks. The only explanation that I can see for claiming that a player in AAA isn't close to the majors is fanboyism. You are unable to criticize your favorite team or it's front office. Good luck with your pink hat...but you are blocked too. |
|
