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.
4/15-4/18 Red Sox vs. Blue Jays Series Thread
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 15:06:04 GMT -5
Overly complicated. There's only one if involved here. If Kimbrel helps the Red Sox make the off-season this year, it was a great trade no matter what the future holds. Would you trade 2007 for Hanley's career ? I wouldn't."Someone won the lottery once, so that proves it's a good investment". There's this notion that the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series the day they traded for Beckett/etc which is incredibly frustrating to me. That's not the way the world works. The Red Sox didn't win the World Series because they made the Beckett trade. They won it because of hundreds of decisions relating to dozens of players and because of a complex sequences of events that no one could possibly have foreseen prior to that. The Red Sox made a bad trade, got a good outcome (one year), and people have been using it to justify bad trades ever since. They don't win the title without Beckett. He was a monster and was as good as any Ace could have been. That was a great trade!
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 15:08:07 GMT -5
My functional definition of dominance has always been SO > IP > (H + BB). If a guy is doing that, he's probably not learning much at that level. After 3 starts, Neo is 16, 15, 13. Dominance, but not serious dominance. If he steps it up at all, he may be in A+ before he gets to 50 IP. BTW, it's something neither Hernandez nor Gooden ever did in their careers (except for 2 Felix starts in low-A after failing to do it in A-). Urias did it last year in his 13 AA starts. Vince Velasquez was close when he was 22 in AA: 45, 33, (20 + 13) If the Astros were listening to you, maybe they wouldn't have traded him for Giles. Shameless plug: shows how good our deal for Kimbrel was! [ADD: apologies did not want to hijack YAT).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 15:11:23 GMT -5
This, this, and exactly this. Couldn't have put it better myself. Overly complicated. There's only one if involved here. If Kimbrel helps the Red Sox make the off-season this year, it was a great trade no matter what the future holds. Would you trade 2007 for Hanley's career ? I wouldn't. I'm a big fan of Kimbrel, but that's an interesting way of looking at the trade. I would say Kimbrel trade is great if he plays a major part in winning us a title. Other then that it's going to come down to his performance verus the players we gave up for him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 15:14:30 GMT -5
You think the Pirates regret that trade? That was a win win trade if there ever was one. No, I just think Holt is not a great case in support of your argument in any way. Ummm OK. Holt was never an elite prospect, but yet provides the team with very good depth. Not sure how that's not a good example.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 19, 2016 15:41:08 GMT -5
My functional definition of dominance has always been SO > IP > (H + BB). If a guy is doing that, he's probably not learning much at that level. After 3 starts, Neo is 16, 15, 13. Dominance, but not serious dominance. If he steps it up at all, he may be in A+ before he gets to 50 IP. BTW, it's something neither Hernandez nor Gooden ever did in their careers (except for 2 Felix starts in low-A after failing to do it in A-). Urias did it last year in his 13 AA starts. Vince Velasquez was close when he was 22 in AA: 45, 33, (20 + 13) If the Astros were listening to you, maybe they wouldn't have traded him for Giles. Shameless plug: shows how good our deal for Kimbrel was!1) There's a higher standard for dominance for closers. 2) No one debates Kimbrel was dominant, the point is that despite that it's not a good trade unless DDo knows something about those prospects that we don't, and even then if that was the highest value he could get in return for them.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 15:53:16 GMT -5
Even moving beyond the suspect example (if the Red Sox thought Castillo was average, he'd be in the majors, and if any other team did, they'd trade for him), the worst-case scenario is that the Red Sox trade their blocked players for upgrades elsewhere down the line (think Iglesias for Peavy, though that one didn't work out so well) or use them as depth (think Holt or Shaw). Not if they want above average production. So other teams not wanting a 10 plus million a year player signed long-term proves your point? Pay 75% of Castillo salary and you would have 5-10 teams that would want him. I get that prospects are depth. I just would prefer we trade them for more elite players like Kimbrel then players like Peavy. I know thats not looking great at the moment, but I think Kimbrel will be fine. Holt and Shaw are perfect examples why trading some top prospects won't gut the system. They were never close to elite level guys and had very little trade value, yet they are playing a huge role on this team. I don't think you really appreciate what "average" means. Literally by definition, half the teams in the league are getting below-average production at any given position. Yes, teams want above-average players (they all want future Hall of Famers, too!). But, for a large chunk of them, "average" would be a step up over what they're getting now. I don't understand your point about Holt and Shaw. You admit that they're playing a huge role for this team, yet you're the one arguing that we should trade guys like that willy-nilly because big market teams don't need average players, they need above-average players, oh and those guys are blocked in Boston anyways. That attitude is one of the factors which led to the 2012-15 bottoming out. They traded guys like Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, Iglesias, etc. for win-now pieces because they were non-elite prospects and/or were "blocked" in the system. The absence of guys like that, who would have been in their prime years during that period, meant the Red Sox had to try and win with free agents alone (and, in 2014, prospects that weren't ready yet), which is really hard to do even for a big-market team.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 15:57:36 GMT -5
No, they offered him the most money (and it sounded like O'Day was prepared to accept), but the offer was conditional on another move not going through and they pulled their offer when the Kimbrel trade went down (see this Gammons article). It makes for just about the cleanest counterfactual you could find. OK that's very telling. They could have had O'Day, but thought Kimbrel was so much better they were willing to deal a big package of prospects. Honest question for you (and any other Kimbrel trade defender): in your mind, how much better does Kimbrel have to be than O'Day for it to have been worth giving up that prospect package?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 19, 2016 16:15:44 GMT -5
They don't win the title without Beckett. He was a monster and was as good as any Ace could have been. That was a great trade! Agreed, it was the extension that was bad.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 19, 2016 16:31:58 GMT -5
If the Red Sox had an unlimited budget, they could have signed Upton or Cespedes and cut or trade them when Benintendi is ready. If they were concerned about chemistry, Alex Gordon and Jason Heyward were also available, but it sounded like there was no attempt made to pursue those guys. Every team has budgetary constraints, and every dollar spent has an opportunity cost. Other than Cespedes, who was in Boston and seemed (I could be wrong) not to like it here, those other guys require the Sox to forfeit the 12th pick of the draft. Maybe that's why they weren't signed to play LF. I think the Sox feel that Benintendi can move up the ladder really fast and be in Boston by early next season. I think the Sox honestly thought that Castillo was going to be the LF but Dombrowski must have been horrified by what he saw in spring training and the Sox are going with a platoon of Holt/Young, not unlike what they did with Nava/Gomes. This is what I don't get. He didn't look "horrible" in the spring as far as I could tell. He's probably miscast in LF and profiles better in CF where he is ave or slightly above ave, but Holt sure doesn't profile as a left fielder, either. I really thought they'd give Castillo 100-150 at bats before making a decision like this (shows what I know). So far he's doing very well in AAA, and perhaps he can play his way back to Boston. More likely he'll get traded for 50 cents on the dollar. Regardless, it seems the way he's been handled has been curious at best.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 16:36:37 GMT -5
OK that's very telling. They could have had O'Day, but thought Kimbrel was so much better they were willing to deal a big package of prospects. Honest question for you (and any other Kimbrel trade defender): in your mind, how much better does Kimbrel have to be than O'Day for it to have been worth giving up that prospect package? It could be as little as one strikeout that with bases loaded that helps win us a title. I also don't think it's fair to just assume you can compare a set up guy with a closer. Maybe O'Day pitches as well in a closer role, maybe he doesn't. I think that's big with Koji and his age. Sox wanted a proven closer.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 17:02:18 GMT -5
Honest question for you (and any other Kimbrel trade defender): in your mind, how much better does Kimbrel have to be than O'Day for it to have been worth giving up that prospect package? It could be as little as one strikeout that with bases loaded that helps win us a title. I also don't think it's fair to just assume you can compare a set up guy with a closer. Maybe O'Day pitches as well in a closer role, maybe he doesn't. I think that's big with Koji and his age. Sox wanted a proven closer. It's not a retroactive (looking backwards) question, it's a prospective (looking forwards) question. You (presumably) think the Kimbrel trade is worth it because he's better enough than O'Day to justify the prospect package the Red Sox gave up. If each was the Red Sox closer in 2016 and beyond, how much better do you think Kimbrel is than O'Day? Ideally, you'd provide a projected ERA for each (incorporating whatever "proven closer" bonus you think Kimbrel gets). Innings pitched for a reliever is more on a manager than a player, but if you think Kimbrel is likely to stay healthier or be capable of taking on more of a workload than O'Day, feel free to give a projected innings-pitched number as well.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 19, 2016 17:05:11 GMT -5
They don't win the title without Beckett. He was a monster and was as good as any Ace could have been. That was a great trade! This is wrongheaded thinking for reasons that have already been explained and should be obvious anyway, but even if we go with this logic, Beckett's great pitching in that postseason didn't actually matter that much. The Red Sox scored 4, 10, 7, and 13 runs in the games that Beckett started. They could have won with a far lesser starting pitcher. So going purely by results-based thinking, they never needed Becket in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 17:11:15 GMT -5
OK that's very telling. They could have had O'Day, but thought Kimbrel was so much better they were willing to deal a big package of prospects. Honest question for you (and any other Kimbrel trade defender): in your mind, how much better does Kimbrel have to be than O'Day for it to have been worth giving up that prospect package? I look at it as the Sox got Kimbrel for a discount because the consensus numbers on Margot were far too high at the time (physically maxed out, and can't hit RHP), and they wanted to deal him while he still had a high perceived value. Not sure but possibly the same goes for Guerra (temporary power surge, too many popups and Ks). Logan and Asuaje had low ceilings and high bust rates. None of these guys ever plays an inning for the Red Sox. So I think you do the trade even if O'Day were just as good as Kimbrel. The trade costs nothing. But more directly, O'Day would need to be a different kind of pitcher, one who Ks more batters and misses more bats. He's just not an elite pitcher like Kimbrel, by that measure of eliteness. Here, again, you also want to trade for Kimbrel before the Padres realize the elite pitcher they have, and how much they could get for him, after seeing, for example, the inferior Giles go to the Astros for Velasquez +++. I think the Red Sox would have been happy to sign O'Day, too, because, well, it's only money which they have plenty of, but I wonder if O'Day may not have wanted to come to a bullpen where he could not even be setup man.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Apr 19, 2016 17:14:33 GMT -5
Honest question for you (and any other Kimbrel trade defender): in your mind, how much better does Kimbrel have to be than O'Day for it to have been worth giving up that prospect package? I look at it as the Sox got Kimbrel for a discount because the consensus numbers on Margot were far too high at the time (physically maxed out, and can't hit RHP), and they wanted to deal him while he still had a high perceived value. Not sure but possibly the same goes for Guerra (temporary power surge, too many popups and Ks). Logan and Asuaje had low ceilings and high bust rates. None of these guys ever plays an inning for the Red Sox. So I think you do the trade even if O'Day were just as good as Kimbrel. The trade costs nothing. But more directly, O'Day would need to be a different kind of pitcher, one who Ks more batters and misses more bats. He's just not an elite pitcher like Kimbrel, by that measure of eliteness. Here, again, you also want to trade for Kimbrel before the Padres realize the elite pitcher they have, and how much they could get for him, after seeing, for example, the inferior Giles go to the Astros for Velasquez +++. I think the Red Sox would have been happy to sign O'Day, too, because, well, it's only money which they have plenty of, but I wonder if O'Day may not have wanted to come to a bullpen where he could not even be setup man. You can be a fan of the trade, but saying it "cost nothing" is downright silly.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 17:25:40 GMT -5
It could be as little as one strikeout that with bases loaded that helps win us a title. I also don't think it's fair to just assume you can compare a set up guy with a closer. Maybe O'Day pitches as well in a closer role, maybe he doesn't. I think that's big with Koji and his age. Sox wanted a proven closer. It's not a retroactive (looking backwards) question, it's a prospective (looking forwards) question. You (presumably) think the Kimbrel trade is worth it because he's better enough than O'Day to justify the prospect package the Red Sox gave up. If each was the Red Sox closer in 2016 and beyond, how much better do you think Kimbrel is than O'Day? Ideally, you'd provide a projected ERA for each (incorporating whatever "proven closer" bonus you think Kimbrel gets). Innings pitched for a reliever is more on a manager than a player, but if you think Kimbrel is likely to stay healthier or be capable of taking on more of a workload than O'Day, feel free to give a projected innings-pitched number as well. Ah, I see what you're asking, and the flaw here, to my mind, is that the public consensus numbers are sort of best-guess for all the data we have, but could be a lot better given a set of data that applies specifically to the big-market Red Sox. For example, NPV5% is $6M/WAR across all teams, but for wins 91-93 for the Red Sox (assuming that 93 wins makes the playoff) it might be $20M/WAR for those last two wins, and the elite reliever, in theory, plays a much bigger role. (I'm not going to do the math right now, but you get the idea.) Similarly (as you've pointed out a couple of times), wins in the playoffs and the WS are incrementally very valuable and the elite reliever, in theory, plays a much bigger role. So you don't need to worry about how much better Kimbrel is than O'Day. You just need to worry about if he is better at all. K%-BB% and Z-Contact% say he is quite a bit better, when converting to kwERA. And if he is, then he's well worth the trade (where the costs of even future wins spread across six years, discounted, seems quite small).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 17:27:14 GMT -5
Honest question for you (and any other Kimbrel trade defender): in your mind, how much better does Kimbrel have to be than O'Day for it to have been worth giving up that prospect package? I look at it as the Sox got Kimbrel for a discount because the consensus numbers on Margot were far too high at the time ( physically maxed out, and can't hit RHP), and they wanted to deal him while he still had a high perceived value. Not sure but possibly the same goes for Guerra (temporary power surge, too many popups and Ks). Logan and Asuaje had low ceilings and high bust rates. None of these guys ever plays an inning for the Red Sox. So I think you do the trade even if O'Day were just as good as Kimbrel. The trade costs nothing.But more directly, O'Day would need to be a different kind of pitcher, one who Ks more batters and misses more bats. He's just not an elite pitcher like Kimbrel, by that measure of eliteness. Here, again, you also want to trade for Kimbrel before the Padres realize the elite pitcher they have, and how much they could get for him, after seeing, for example, the inferior Giles go to the Astros for Velasquez +++. I think the Red Sox would have been happy to sign O'Day, too, because, well, it's only money which they have plenty of, but I wonder if O'Day may not have wanted to come to a bullpen where he could not even be setup man.This is what I mean by bad faith. You are straight-up making stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 17:29:53 GMT -5
I look at it as the Sox got Kimbrel for a discount because the consensus numbers on Margot were far too high at the time (physically maxed out, and can't hit RHP), and they wanted to deal him while he still had a high perceived value. Not sure but possibly the same goes for Guerra (temporary power surge, too many popups and Ks). Logan and Asuaje had low ceilings and high bust rates. None of these guys ever plays an inning for the Red Sox. So I think you do the trade even if O'Day were just as good as Kimbrel. The trade costs nothing. But more directly, O'Day would need to be a different kind of pitcher, one who Ks more batters and misses more bats. He's just not an elite pitcher like Kimbrel, by that measure of eliteness. Here, again, you also want to trade for Kimbrel before the Padres realize the elite pitcher they have, and how much they could get for him, after seeing, for example, the inferior Giles go to the Astros for Velasquez +++. I think the Red Sox would have been happy to sign O'Day, too, because, well, it's only money which they have plenty of, but I wonder if O'Day may not have wanted to come to a bullpen where he could not even be setup man. You can be a fan of the trade, but saying it "cost nothing" is downright silly. I understand. The point is will any of these guys ever play well enough to play for the Red Sox. If not, the trade costs nothing (other than opportunity cost, arguably).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 17:32:38 GMT -5
Not if they want above average production. So other teams not wanting a 10 plus million a year player signed long-term proves your point? Pay 75% of Castillo salary and you would have 5-10 teams that would want him. I get that prospects are depth. I just would prefer we trade them for more elite players like Kimbrel then players like Peavy. I know thats not looking great at the moment, but I think Kimbrel will be fine. Holt and Shaw are perfect examples why trading some top prospects won't gut the system. They were never close to elite level guys and had very little trade value, yet they are playing a huge role on this team. I don't think you really appreciate what "average" means. Literally by definition, half the teams in the league are getting below-average production at any given position. Yes, teams want above-average players (they all want future Hall of Famers, too!). But, for a large chunk of them, "average" would be a step up over what they're getting now. I don't understand your point about Holt and Shaw. You admit that they're playing a huge role for this team, yet you're the one arguing that we should trade guys like that willy-nilly because big market teams don't need average players, they need above-average players, oh and those guys are blocked in Boston anyways. That attitude is one of the factors which led to the 2012-15 bottoming out. They traded guys like Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, Iglesias, etc. for win-now pieces because they were non-elite prospects and/or were "blocked" in the system. The absence of guys like that, who would have been in their prime years during that period, meant the Red Sox had to try and win with free agents alone (and, in 2014, prospects that weren't ready yet), which is really hard to do even for a big-market team. So with Boston's resources I don't think the above average across the board theory is wrong. I didn't say a team of superstars. This is just like when we debated Wade Miley and what type of pitcher he was. For you he was a #3 based on stats and your right. But for me on a team like Boston that wants to win a title, he's a #5. Just cause a bunch of teams tank, don't spend money and run out crappy teams that drag down the overall numbers, doesn't mean Boston should settle for a league average #5. No never said we should trade guys like Shaw and Holt. Why would you, before reaching majors and doing well they had almost no value. That's why trading Margot and Guerra made so much sense. They were both very highly valued, yet far from sure thing prospects. You can make a good argument that we sold high on both guys. Not saying that's right, just that you can debate it. I don't want to trade prospects Willy nilly, I'm just not afraid to trade them if the big league club has a need. You need to be smart about it. If you look at players I would trade for they are elite level guys. As to Holt and Shaw I currently see both as above average players, so not sure what your point is there. If they drop off I bet Dave makes a trade for an upgrade, or brings back Castillo. The 2012-2015 bottom out??? We did win a title, most teams would love to Bottom out like that. There was a lot more problems with those teams then we traded away some prospects. Now the list of guys you mention Rizzo, Masterson, Reddick, Lowrie, Iglesias, etc, we missed them because they all went on to have many above average or better seasons. I look at that list and see a bunch of above average players, not average or worse players.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Apr 19, 2016 17:51:22 GMT -5
I look at it as the Sox got Kimbrel for a discount because the consensus numbers on Margot were far too high at the time ( physically maxed out, and can't hit RHP), and they wanted to deal him while he still had a high perceived value. Not sure but possibly the same goes for Guerra (temporary power surge, too many popups and Ks). Logan and Asuaje had low ceilings and high bust rates. None of these guys ever plays an inning for the Red Sox. So I think you do the trade even if O'Day were just as good as Kimbrel. The trade costs nothing.But more directly, O'Day would need to be a different kind of pitcher, one who Ks more batters and misses more bats. He's just not an elite pitcher like Kimbrel, by that measure of eliteness. Here, again, you also want to trade for Kimbrel before the Padres realize the elite pitcher they have, and how much they could get for him, after seeing, for example, the inferior Giles go to the Astros for Velasquez +++. I think the Red Sox would have been happy to sign O'Day, too, because, well, it's only money which they have plenty of, but I wonder if O'Day may not have wanted to come to a bullpen where he could not even be setup man.This is what I mean by bad faith. You are straight-up making stuff up. That's why I said, "I think." I'm not saying "I know," or that anyone knows, since it's not public knowledge what the Red Sox would or would not have been happy to do. But O'Day would not be setup man and I think he'd be fifth behind a bullpen constructed of Tazawa, Koji, Smith and Kimbrel. Tazawa has been elite this year so far, measured by kwERA. (ADD: I already responded to the critique of the "trade costs nothing" above (other than opportunity cost, arguably). And this from Speier about Margot: Though young, he’s close to maxed out physically, limiting his future projection, but his overall skill set suggests an excellent likelihood of at least an average starting center fielder in the bottom-third of the order. Though Margot has moved quickly, and he’s a major league defensive center fielder now, he could benefit from a lengthier apprenticeship in Triple A as he adjusts to pitchers attacking him with more advanced mixes. He’s also lost time to injuries in each of his pro seasons. Margot is a good player – an excellent bet to be a starting center fielder – who is held in high regard throughout the industry, but with Mookie Betts, Jackie Bradley Jr., Andrew Benintendi, and possibly (in the future) Yoan Moncada ahead of him as future center field options, there was a wide expectation that Margot would be used as a trade chip, particularly given that he’ll have to be added to the 40-man roster this offseason. www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/13/closer-look-prospects-red-sox-traded-away/622IxpiHRfp21cQ3jE5g9N/story.html
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 18:01:28 GMT -5
It could be as little as one strikeout that with bases loaded that helps win us a title. I also don't think it's fair to just assume you can compare a set up guy with a closer. Maybe O'Day pitches as well in a closer role, maybe he doesn't. I think that's big with Koji and his age. Sox wanted a proven closer. It's not a retroactive (looking backwards) question, it's a prospective (looking forwards) question. You (presumably) think the Kimbrel trade is worth it because he's better enough than O'Day to justify the prospect package the Red Sox gave up. If each was the Red Sox closer in 2016 and beyond, how much better do you think Kimbrel is than O'Day? Ideally, you'd provide a projected ERA for each (incorporating whatever "proven closer" bonus you think Kimbrel gets). Innings pitched for a reliever is more on a manager than a player, but if you think Kimbrel is likely to stay healthier or be capable of taking on more of a workload than O'Day, feel free to give a projected innings-pitched number as well. Ummm it was forward looking, Kimbrel gets strikeout that O'Day doesn't to win us title in the next three years. Was meant as a joke. Kimbrel is a lot younger and a proven closer. I'm not going to try and project stats. I will say this that I have to think Dave thought Kimbrel would give you any extra 1 war per year on average.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 18:08:12 GMT -5
They don't win the title without Beckett. He was a monster and was as good as any Ace could have been. That was a great trade! This is wrongheaded thinking for reasons that have already been explained and should be obvious anyway, but even if we go with this logic, Beckett's great pitching in that postseason didn't actually matter that much. The Red Sox scored 4, 10, 7, and 13 runs in the games that Beckett started. They could have won with a far lesser starting pitcher. So going purely by results-based thinking, they never needed Becket in the first place. Yea because Beckett didn't help get them to postseason either right? Was runner up in CY Young that year if I remember right. You should try some of my wrongheaded thinking. Trying to downplay Beckett's impact on that team is crazy talk.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 19, 2016 18:16:20 GMT -5
This is wrongheaded thinking for reasons that have already been explained and should be obvious anyway, but even if we go with this logic, Beckett's great pitching in that postseason didn't actually matter that much. The Red Sox scored 4, 10, 7, and 13 runs in the games that Beckett started. They could have won with a far lesser starting pitcher. So going purely by results-based thinking, they never needed Becket in the first place. Yea because Beckett didn't help get them to postseason either right? Was runner up in CY Young that year if I remember right. You should try some of my wrongheaded thinking. Trying to downplay Beckett's impact on that team is crazy talk. He was worth about six wins that year, and the Red Sox finished two in front of the Yankees for the division and six ahead in the wild card race. Now, losing six wins does make their playoff slot more tenuous. However, we can probably assume that, if they hadn't gotten Beckett, they would have gotten someone at least halfway decent in his place, maybe a two win pitcher. BUT they'd also have Hanley Ramirez instead of Julio Lugo at shortstop, which is something like a five win gain. So without the Hanley trade, you're probably looking at a 98 to 100 win team that year. Now, I think this whole exercise is silly anyway, but again, if we really are going with the idea that the Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell, and the 2007 World Series Championship, that case is far from airtight. And hell, if they'd held on to Sanchez, they don't collapse in 2011 and none of the garbage we've been dealing with for the past five years ever happens. But again, you really can't play this game. The lost a trade, they won a World Series. The two aren't inextricably linked.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 19, 2016 18:20:22 GMT -5
Yea because Beckett didn't help get them to postseason either right? Was runner up in CY Young that year if I remember right. You should try some of my wrongheaded thinking. Trying to downplay Beckett's impact on that team is crazy talk. He was worth about six wins that year, and the Red Sox finished two in front of the Yankees for the division and six ahead in the wild card race, so unless you assume that the Red Sox would have acquired either no one or a negative WAR starter instead of Beckett, yeah, they really didn't need him that year. Haha talk about wrongheaded thinking with a bunch of backhanded math added in.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 19, 2016 18:25:41 GMT -5
Read the edited post.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 19, 2016 18:46:28 GMT -5
So with Boston's resources I don't think the above average across the board theory is wrong. I didn't say a team of superstars. This is just like when we debated Wade Miley and what type of pitcher he was. For you he was a #3 based on stats and your right. But for me on a team like Boston that wants to win a title, he's a #5. Just cause a bunch of teams tank, don't spend money and run out crappy teams that drag down the overall numbers, doesn't mean Boston should settle for a league average #5. No never said we should trade guys like Shaw and Holt. Why would you, before reaching majors and doing well they had almost no value. That's why trading Margot and Guerra made so much sense. They were both very highly valued, yet far from sure thing prospects. You can make a good argument that we sold high on both guys. Not saying that's right, just that you can debate it. I don't want to trade prospects Willy nilly, I'm just not afraid to trade them if the big league club has a need. You need to be smart about it. If you look at players I would trade for they are elite level guys. As to Holt and Shaw I currently see both as above average players, so not sure what your point is there. If they drop off I bet Dave makes a trade for an upgrade, or brings back Castillo. The 2012-2015 bottom out??? We did win a title, most teams would love to Bottom out like that. There was a lot more problems with those teams then we traded away some prospects. Now the list of guys you mention Rizzo, Masterson, Reddick, Lowrie, Iglesias, etc, we missed them because they all went on to have many above average or better seasons. I look at that list and see a bunch of above average players, not average or worse players. It doesn't matter what teams should strive for, it matters what they actually run out there, and it is categorically untrue that contenders uniformly have above-average players. For instance, the 2015 Royals got below-average production (defined as below two fWAR on a consolidated basis) at five of their nine position-player spots (C, 2B, SS, RF, DH), and just about every playoff team has at least a couple below-average positions. At the time that the Red Sox traded Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie and Iglesias, they were all generally regarded as low-ceiling players who projected to be averagish starters at best (look at their SoxProspects profiles on the ex-players page, for example). The rationale provided for all of those trades was "well, they're expendable because they're not going to be stars and they're blocked anyways." That's the same rationale you're using. The thing about prospects is that they sometimes outperform expectations, and it's bad logic to think that that prospects have zero value to you just because you think they have low ceilings and/or because there are better prospects/players in the organization.
|
|
|