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.
2016 Trade Deadline News and Discussion
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 26, 2016 21:28:03 GMT -5
Ideally, it can be argued, the Sox go with what they have, keep Margot et al, and play out 2016. Once they have an idea that either Margot or Benintendi is a viable OF option, they could have theoretically traded JBJ to a team like the Mets for a huge haul of players. I'd actually have preferred they keep him and seasoned the young guys even more. But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. Meanwhile, assemble the bullpen from internal options (Barnes, Kelly, Light, Martin, Hembree, etc.) and let them take their lumps. Make Ziegler-style trades to supplement. And save the $ and minor league depth. Then, deal veterans from a position of strength after assessing internal talent. Get much more in return, and save money doing so. Replenish the pipeline, and let the system's own graduates fill the holes. The Red Sox are operating backwards. A *truly* good team is able to trade solid-performing veterans because they have equally viable internal options ready to take that spot. And by trading veterans for high-upside, relatively high-floor talent, a team can withstand a few prospect busts because they're producing their own star-quality players regularly. Glad your not GM as you would produce zero winning seasons. We have had this discussion before and it was clearly pointed out that no team has won with your formula. Your formula doesn't work in Boston were fans demand you should compete most years. I think you should become a Tampa fan because that's basically what your saying. How good has Tampa done with your formula? The Yankees did pretty well with it in the 90s, before switching to what I guess is "your" formula and going downhill. The Giants and Cardinals have had some luck with it too. The Mets and A's of the '80s, too, for that matter. Pretty much every baseball team with long-term success. I know you don't really get what I'm saying, because you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the English language to begin with. But I'll simply say that your interpretation is a gross mischaracterization and shows either refusal or total inability to see anything other than black and white. But keep fighting that straw man, you'll land a punch someday.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 26, 2016 21:43:03 GMT -5
Glad your not GM as you would produce zero winning seasons. We have had this discussion before and it was clearly pointed out that no team has won with your formula. Your formula doesn't work in Boston were fans demand you should compete most years. I think you should become a Tampa fan because that's basically what your saying. How good has Tampa done with your formula? In theory that style of team building makes sense and would consistently provide excess value - in many ways it's comparable to how the Patriots operate by trading veteran players and relying on younger less established players once the veteran has lost a step. But first you need a year-in-year-out successful team and a Coach/GM with unlimited control and complete job security. Perhaps Dombrowski would like to do this, but if he did it now then he would be fired before the team ever became good enough. It's basically exactly what the Patriots do, with the obvious league differences. And it's what Epstein did early in Boston and then, when given carte blanche by Ricketts, in Chicago. He could trade Torres because he had Russell, although he also has Baez. I think Dombrowski was one year of patience (avoiding the Kimbrel trade and simply signing O'Day or similar, with a couple other 'pen fliers; not trading for Pomeranz) from being there. With their current top-5, they still have an outside chance, but they need a little luck in FA with placeholders, and in the IFA market when they're allowed back in next year. They have the home-grown core, and they have the $ to spend on FA. They just need the pipeline to keep producing, which it can't if DD trades any more away.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 26, 2016 22:08:56 GMT -5
Ideally, it can be argued, the Sox go with what they have, keep Margot et al, and play out 2016. Once they have an idea that either Margot or Benintendi is a viable OF option, they could have theoretically traded JBJ to a team like the Mets for a huge haul of players. I'd actually have preferred they keep him and seasoned the young guys even more. But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. Meanwhile, assemble the bullpen from internal options (Barnes, Kelly, Light, Martin, Hembree, etc.) and let them take their lumps. Make Ziegler-style trades to supplement. And save the $ and minor league depth. Then, deal veterans from a position of strength after assessing internal talent. Get much more in return, and save money doing so. Replenish the pipeline, and let the system's own graduates fill the holes. The Red Sox are operating backwards. A *truly* good team is able to trade solid-performing veterans because they have equally viable internal options ready to take that spot. And by trading veterans for high-upside, relatively high-floor talent, a team can withstand a few prospect busts because they're producing their own star-quality players regularly. Glad your not GM as you would produce zero winning seasons. We have had this discussion before and it was clearly pointed out that no team has won with your formula. Your formula doesn't work in Boston were fans demand you should compete most years. I think you should become a Tampa fan because that's basically what your saying. How good has Tampa done with your formula? The Orioles did it for two decades trading players like Ken Holtzman and Dave McNally while they still had value and acquiring key contributors like Ken Singleton, Mike Torrez, Tippy Martinez, Rick Dempsey and Scott McGregor. Those teams dominated baseball for those two decades. The Red Sox have the kind of player development to emulate that level of success, but they don't have the patience.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2016 22:10:00 GMT -5
MarinersPR @marinerspr 5m5 minutes ago #Mariners have acquired RHP Drew Storen and cash considerations from Toronto in exchange for RHP Joaquin Benoit.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 26, 2016 23:06:59 GMT -5
It's the silly season of trading but the bottom line is for all the talk of Sale, etc., it really doesn't matter if the Red Sox don't perform like they should.
The Red Sox landed one of the best pitchers in baseball during the offseason, but you wouldn't know it judging by the mediocrity that David Price has been. He's capable of pitching much better but he hasn't.
The Red Sox landed one of the best closers over the past five years whether you agree with the price they paid or not. However Craig Kimbrel hasn't performed like he's capable of.
The Red Sox just traded one of the most exciting pitching prospects with the highest ceiling they've had in a long, long time for a guy who was the ace of the Padres and an all-star.
They snagged an underrated relief pitcher in Ziegler and added Hill for depth.
All these moves, but when they're down a run and need a sac fly or a big hit, they've failed. When their pitchers need to clamp down to hold a tie or a lead, they've failed.
We can talk Chris Sale all we want, but the bottom line is if this team doesn't play up to its capabilities it won't matter. They won't go far. I can't put my finger on what's wrong with this team beyond the obvious "their pitching stinks" answer.
It shouldn't stink. Price, Wright, Pomeranz, Porcello, E-Rod should make for a strong rotation.
A bullpen headed by Kimbrel, Ziegler, and Tazawa should be reasonably effective.
The lineup who can some days seemingly score runs at will should be able to get a key run late in a game when they need it, yet they really don't do that too often. The 2013 team they're not.
I have no desire to see the Red Sox tear down the rest of their farm system just so they can say they made a big trade. Would Sale help? Of course, but the price wouldn't be worth it. I'd love to see Benintendi in LF by season's end, Moncada on the roster come September and at 3b in the short-term and Devers at 3b down the road with Moncada moving to whatever position he's needed at.
The only moves I'd really want Dombrowski to make are small moves to help the bullpen (he doesn't need to acquire a closer from another team - a decent middle man would be helpful, preferably a LH one). A LH hitting pinchhitter who can play LF and 1b would be useful, too.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2016 23:07:37 GMT -5
Glad your not GM as you would produce zero winning seasons. We have had this discussion before and it was clearly pointed out that no team has won with your formula. Your formula doesn't work in Boston were fans demand you should compete most years. I think you should become a Tampa fan because that's basically what your saying. How good has Tampa done with your formula? The Yankees did pretty well with it in the 90s, before switching to what I guess is "your" formula and going downhill. The Giants and Cardinals have had some luck with it too. The Mets and A's of the '80s, too, for that matter. Pretty much every baseball team with long-term success. I know you don't really get what I'm saying, because you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the English language to begin with. But I'll simply say that your interpretation is a gross mischaracterization and shows either refusal or total inability to see anything other than black and white. But keep fighting that straw man, you'll land a punch someday. The 90s Yankees were build just like the 2016 Red Sox. Your best example just proves my point. Those teams were built off a great foundation of young players, a ton of free agents and a massive amount of trades for veterans . The exact type of trades you keep saying will kill this team long term. In no way were those teams trading a ton of young experienced players for prospects like you think we should. Unless you think McDowell, Wetteland, Cone, Giradi, Raines, Martinez, Stanley, Knoblauch, and Clemens just to name a few were prospects. They traded one half of the package it took to get Pedro for Mike Stanley. So what do I have a hard time understanding? Your problem is that what you think happend is not what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 26, 2016 23:27:16 GMT -5
The Yankees did pretty well with it in the 90s, before switching to what I guess is "your" formula and going downhill. The Giants and Cardinals have had some luck with it too. The Mets and A's of the '80s, too, for that matter. Pretty much every baseball team with long-term success. I know you don't really get what I'm saying, because you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the English language to begin with. But I'll simply say that your interpretation is a gross mischaracterization and shows either refusal or total inability to see anything other than black and white. But keep fighting that straw man, you'll land a punch someday. The 90s Yankees were build just like the 2016 Red Sox. Your best example just proves my point. Those teams were built off a great foundation of young players, a ton of free agents and a massive amount of trades for veterans . The exact type of trades you keep saying will kill this team long term. In no way were those teams trading a ton of young experienced players for prospects like you think we should. Unless you think McDowell, Wetteland, Cone, Giradi, Raines, Martinez, Stanley, Knoblauch, and Clemens just to name a few were prospects. They traded one half of the package it took to get Pedro for Mike Stanley. So what do I have a hard time understanding? Your problem is that what you think happend is not what really happened. The 90s free agency was very different from what it is now, with all the new competitive balance rules. You don't see elite players hit free agency in their primes anymore. You have to build through the farm and use free agency to smooth out the rough edges. And if you want to be competitive every year, you cannot trade prospects just because they don't help you win now. This is especially true for the current Red Sox who are only going to get better as the core grows into their prime plus are ready to inject two more elite prospects to their core.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2016 0:06:45 GMT -5
The 90s Yankees were build just like the 2016 Red Sox. Your best example just proves my point. Those teams were built off a great foundation of young players, a ton of free agents and a massive amount of trades for veterans . The exact type of trades you keep saying will kill this team long term. In no way were those teams trading a ton of young experienced players for prospects like you think we should. Unless you think McDowell, Wetteland, Cone, Giradi, Raines, Martinez, Stanley, Knoblauch, and Clemens just to name a few were prospects. They traded one half of the package it took to get Pedro for Mike Stanley. So what do I have a hard time understanding? Your problem is that what you think happend is not what really happened. The 90s free agency was very different from what it is now, with all the new competitive balance rules. You don't see elite players hit free agency in their primes anymore. You have to build through the farm and use free agency to smooth out the rough edges. And if you want to be competitive every year, you cannot trade prospects just because they don't help you win now. This is especially true for the current Red Sox who are only going to get better as the core grows into their prime plus are ready to inject two more elite prospects to their core. I agree the farm system is the key to continued success for a long period of time, but making trades is a big part of why you need a good farm system. Trades can be a much more effective way of filling needs than free agency. The key to making trades is not trading away elite players. That's why you won't find me wanting to trade away Moncada or Benintendi. It's also why I didn't mind the Kimbrel trade even though we did overpay. As I never saw Margot as a future all star core piece player and we really needed an upgrade in bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 27, 2016 0:06:58 GMT -5
The Red Sox have the kind of player development to emulate that level of success, but they don't have the patience. Exactly, what pitchers have we developed? Please, don't compare our system to those O's.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 27, 2016 1:39:46 GMT -5
The Yankees did pretty well with it in the 90s, before switching to what I guess is "your" formula and going downhill. The Giants and Cardinals have had some luck with it too. The Mets and A's of the '80s, too, for that matter. Pretty much every baseball team with long-term success. I know you don't really get what I'm saying, because you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the English language to begin with. But I'll simply say that your interpretation is a gross mischaracterization and shows either refusal or total inability to see anything other than black and white. But keep fighting that straw man, you'll land a punch someday. The 90s Yankees were build just like the 2016 Red Sox. Your best example just proves my point. Those teams were built off a great foundation of young players, a ton of free agents and a massive amount of trades for veterans . The exact type of trades you keep saying will kill this team long term. In no way were those teams trading a ton of young experienced players for prospects like you think we should. Unless you think McDowell, Wetteland, Cone, Giradi, Raines, Martinez, Stanley, Knoblauch, and Clemens just to name a few were prospects. They traded one half of the package it took to get Pedro for Mike Stanley. So what do I have a hard time understanding? Your problem is that what you think happend is not what really happened. The '94-'98 Yankees were built as I'm describing: young core supplemented with free agents, and intelligently orchestrated trades where internal options were available. And you make my point exactly: by trading Armas Jr for the pennant run, the Yankees began a run of win-now overpays that led to the depletion of what had been an outstanding farm system, resulting in increased dependence on free agents, and escalating costs of their core, without internally developed options. That directly led to an extended slow decline (staved off with massive payrolls), starting in '99-'00. Throughout the mid-90s, NY maintained one of the best farm systems in baseball. Their MLB decline coincides pretty closely with the decline of the farm system. The funny thing is, you initially said that no team ever had taken that approach, and then focused on the latter days of a team that tried it, had some success, and fell prey to the win-now mentality. I was pretty clear in my initial comment that I'm not opposed to trading prospects as a matter of course. Rather, I'm opposed to trading *too many* prospects, especially high-quality ones for moderate returns. I'll never be a fan of the Kimbrel trade, but I've come to terms with it. Same with Pomeranz. If that's the end of it, it's not ideal, but it's not yet a problem. My opinion is that in both cases there were options with slightly less current-day appeal, but substantially more long-term value. Now, people are talking about even more trading. I think it's foolish. Trade the top three and a couple of other guys for Sale? To me, that's a problem. It limits the window of success to three years, and almost guarantees a collapse after. Same thing that happened in '11-'12 to the Sox, because of the hole in the minor league system from '08-'10. They won with remnants and some great FA pickups in '13, but it was an aberration in the '09-'15 general decline trend. Any Red Sox fan with a remote grasp of history knows that those aberrational WS wins aren't easy to come by. Maybe you haven't been watching long enough, but I can guarantee you, they're *extreme* outliers. And example of the strategy I'm advocating was NY developing Rivera, allowing them to let Wetteland go as a FA, and get 2 first-round picks under the old CBA. Under tge current CBA, it's much more sensible to trade a player like that. But the concept is generally the same. The Sox are in position to do that sort of thing with Shaw and maybe even Hanley once Devers and Moncada are ready (provided they're still in the organization). NY did it in developing Bernie Williams. He was "blocked" by Tartabull and R. Kelly, and almost traded for Larry Walker. NY might have done better to trade either of their two incumbents a little earlier and insert Williams, but the idea was the same: replace a passable, or even solid, encumbent with an excellent homegrown player, before a "hole" develops. It's really not a difficult concept. I don't understand your obsession with all-or-nothing interpretation. At no point did I say that they should develop players just to trade them away and create holes by doing so. The Sox aren't Tampa Bay, they have the financial resources to keep their best players. What I'm advocating is developing players so that incumbents can be traded without an immediate severe drop-off, and with reasonable expectation of future improvement (to the point of representing a substantial upgrade). That means preserving a fair stockpile of high-end minor-league talent. If anything, the Ziegler acquisition should illustrate that there are plenty-viable (and more effective) alternatives to selling off your best young players to gain only marginal, temporary, improvement.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 27, 2016 1:49:26 GMT -5
The 90s free agency was very different from what it is now, with all the new competitive balance rules. You don't see elite players hit free agency in their primes anymore. You have to build through the farm and use free agency to smooth out the rough edges. And if you want to be competitive every year, you cannot trade prospects just because they don't help you win now. This is especially true for the current Red Sox who are only going to get better as the core grows into their prime plus are ready to inject two more elite prospects to their core. I agree the farm system is the key to continued success for a long period of time, but making trades is a big part of why you need a good farm system. Trades can be a much more effective way of filling needs than free agency. The key to making trades is not trading away elite players. That's why you won't find me wanting to trade away Moncada or Benintendi. It's also why I didn't mind the Kimbrel trade even though we did overpay. As I never saw Margot as a future all star core piece player and we really needed an upgrade in bullpen. So basically, here, you're agreeing with my concern about trading away too many elite prospects. You're arguing against a concept you agree with, because you disagree about the player (Margot). But was Espinoza elite? You seem to be contradicting yourself if you think so. My original post was about not trading high-end prospects, but rather developing them so that the team can trade "average" incumbents and replace them with high-end prospects. Why? Because average incumbents have similar, if not more value in trade, but less long-term value.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 27, 2016 2:06:23 GMT -5
The Yankees did pretty well with it in the 90s, before switching to what I guess is "your" formula and going downhill. The Giants and Cardinals have had some luck with it too. The Mets and A's of the '80s, too, for that matter. Pretty much every baseball team with long-term success. I know you don't really get what I'm saying, because you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the English language to begin with. But I'll simply say that your interpretation is a gross mischaracterization and shows either refusal or total inability to see anything other than black and white. But keep fighting that straw man, you'll land a punch someday. The 90s Yankees were build just like the 2016 Red Sox. Your best example just proves my point. Those teams were built off a great foundation of young players, a ton of free agents and a massive amount of trades for veterans . The exact type of trades you keep saying will kill this team long term. In no way were those teams trading a ton of young experienced players for prospects like you think we should. Unless you think McDowell, Wetteland, Cone, Giradi, Raines, Martinez, Stanley, Knoblauch, and Clemens just to name a few were prospects. They traded one half of the package it took to get Pedro for Mike Stanley. So what do I have a hard time understanding? Your problem is that what you think happend is not what really happened. FWIW, the equivalent back then of trading for prospects was letting a guy go via FA, and getting comp A or B returns. That's what NY did, and then simply signed more FAs. The CBA meant they still came out pick-positive. The CBA and dynamics have changed, but the concept is the same. It also made signing FAs back then an ideal method of generating minor-league talent, provided they were high-end guys. In the current market, third or fourth-year cost controlled players are roughly equivalent in value (two first-round picks) to comp A guys, maybe a little more. Actually, most players with semi-reasonable salary and over a year of control return something in that neighborhood. And by virtue of that, young but experienced players can be traded for higher-quality veterans with bigger salaries/fewer years of control, too.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 27, 2016 5:54:35 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 2m2 minutes ago Talked to multiple MLB execs who say same thing: Sale trade 'highly unlikely' unless White Sox absolutely blown away This has convinced me they're going to trade him now.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 27, 2016 7:07:50 GMT -5
The 90s free agency was very different from what it is now, with all the new competitive balance rules. You don't see elite players hit free agency in their primes anymore. You have to build through the farm and use free agency to smooth out the rough edges. And if you want to be competitive every year, you cannot trade prospects just because they don't help you win now. This is especially true for the current Red Sox who are only going to get better as the core grows into their prime plus are ready to inject two more elite prospects to their core. I agree the farm system is the key to continued success for a long period of time, but making trades is a big part of why you need a good farm system. Trades can be a much more effective way of filling needs than free agency. The key to making trades is not trading away elite players. That's why you won't find me wanting to trade away Moncada or Benintendi. It's also why I didn't mind the Kimbrel trade even though we did overpay. As I never saw Margot as a future all star core piece player and we really needed an upgrade in bullpen. What exactly is an elite player, though? A 5 WAR player? A 3 WAR player? Is Espinoza one of them? We also disagree on Margot. I think many people forget that he displayed one of the elite contact skills in the minors. How many plate appearances did he go without a swing and a miss? Like 40? You add elite defense in CF and you get a pretty good prospect.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Jul 27, 2016 10:31:34 GMT -5
It's the silly season of trading but the bottom line is for all the talk of Sale, etc., it really doesn't matter if the Red Sox don't perform like they should. The Red Sox landed one of the best pitchers in baseball during the offseason, but you wouldn't know it judging by the mediocrity that David Price has been. He's capable of pitching much better but he hasn't. The Red Sox landed one of the best closers over the past five years whether you agree with the price they paid or not. However Craig Kimbrel hasn't performed like he's capable of. The Red Sox just traded one of the most exciting pitching prospects with the highest ceiling they've had in a long, long time for a guy who was the ace of the Padres and an all-star. They snagged an underrated relief pitcher in Ziegler and added Hill for depth. All these moves, but when they're down a run and need a sac fly or a big hit, they've failed. When their pitchers need to clamp down to hold a tie or a lead, they've failed. We can talk Chris Sale all we want, but the bottom line is if this team doesn't play up to its capabilities it won't matter. They won't go far. I can't put my finger on what's wrong with this team beyond the obvious "their pitching stinks" answer. It shouldn't stink. Price, Wright, Pomeranz, Porcello, E-Rod should make for a strong rotation. A bullpen headed by Kimbrel, Ziegler, and Tazawa should be reasonably effective. The lineup who can some days seemingly score runs at will should be able to get a key run late in a game when they need it, yet they really don't do that too often. The 2013 team they're not. I have no desire to see the Red Sox tear down the rest of their farm system just so they can say they made a big trade. Would Sale help? Of course, but the price wouldn't be worth it. I'd love to see Benintendi in LF by season's end, Moncada on the roster come September and at 3b in the short-term and Devers at 3b down the road with Moncada moving to whatever position he's needed at. The only moves I'd really want Dombrowski to make are small moves to help the bullpen (he doesn't need to acquire a closer from another team - a decent middle man would be helpful, preferably a LH one). A LH hitting pinchhitter who can play LF and 1b would be useful, too. Couldn't agree much more with this post. Assuming Beni comes up and is even close to what he seems to be IMO all the pieces are in place for this team. Would you trade our roster for the Oriels or Blue Jays? Doubt anyone in baseball would YET the Oriels out perform us and have for years now. It's not as easy to just say JF is not a good Manager, however he has proven with ample opportunity that he just doesn't win. IMO this team plays better for Lovello. That is the move I would make personally.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2016 11:06:54 GMT -5
The 90s Yankees were build just like the 2016 Red Sox. Your best example just proves my point. Those teams were built off a great foundation of young players, a ton of free agents and a massive amount of trades for veterans . The exact type of trades you keep saying will kill this team long term. In no way were those teams trading a ton of young experienced players for prospects like you think we should. Unless you think McDowell, Wetteland, Cone, Giradi, Raines, Martinez, Stanley, Knoblauch, and Clemens just to name a few were prospects. They traded one half of the package it took to get Pedro for Mike Stanley. So what do I have a hard time understanding? Your problem is that what you think happend is not what really happened. The '94-'98 Yankees were built as I'm describing: young core supplemented with free agents, and intelligently orchestrated trades where internal options were available. And you make my point exactly: by trading Armas Jr for the pennant run, the Yankees began a run of win-now overpays that led to the depletion of what had been an outstanding farm system, resulting in increased dependence on free agents, and escalating costs of their core, without internally developed options. That directly led to an extended slow decline (staved off with massive payrolls), starting in '99-'00. Throughout the mid-90s, NY maintained one of the best farm systems in baseball. Their MLB decline coincides pretty closely with the decline of the farm system. The funny thing is, you initially said that no team ever had taken that approach, and then focused on the latter days of a team that tried it, had some success, and fell prey to the win-now mentality. I was pretty clear in my initial comment that I'm not opposed to trading prospects as a matter of course. Rather, I'm opposed to trading *too many* prospects, especially high-quality ones for moderate returns. I'll never be a fan of the Kimbrel trade, but I've come to terms with it. Same with Pomeranz. If that's the end of it, it's not ideal, but it's not yet a problem. My opinion is that in both cases there were options with slightly less current-day appeal, but substantially more long-term value. Now, people are talking about even more trading. I think it's foolish. Trade the top three and a couple of other guys for Sale? To me, that's a problem. It limits the window of success to three years, and almost guarantees a collapse after. Same thing that happened in '11-'12 to the Sox, because of the hole in the minor league system from '08-'10. They won with remnants and some great FA pickups in '13, but it was an aberration in the '09-'15 general decline trend. Any Red Sox fan with a remote grasp of history knows that those aberrational WS wins aren't easy to come by. Maybe you haven't been watching long enough, but I can guarantee you, they're *extreme* outliers. And example of the strategy I'm advocating was NY developing Rivera, allowing them to let Wetteland go as a FA, and get 2 first-round picks under the old CBA. Under tge current CBA, it's much more sensible to trade a player like that. But the concept is generally the same. The Sox are in position to do that sort of thing with Shaw and maybe even Hanley once Devers and Moncada are ready (provided they're still in the organization). NY did it in developing Bernie Williams. He was "blocked" by Tartabull and R. Kelly, and almost traded for Larry Walker. NY might have done better to trade either of their two incumbents a little earlier and insert Williams, but the idea was the same: replace a passable, or even solid, encumbent with an excellent homegrown player, before a "hole" develops. It's really not a difficult concept. I don't understand your obsession with all-or-nothing interpretation. At no point did I say that they should develop players just to trade them away and create holes by doing so. The Sox aren't Tampa Bay, they have the financial resources to keep their best players. What I'm advocating is developing players so that incumbents can be traded without an immediate severe drop-off, and with reasonable expectation of future improvement (to the point of representing a substantial upgrade). That means preserving a fair stockpile of high-end minor-league talent. If anything, the Ziegler acquisition should illustrate that there are plenty-viable (and more effective) alternatives to selling off your best young players to gain only marginal, temporary, improvement. My issues was when you said this "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects. and The Red Sox are operating backwards. A *truly* good team is able to trade solid-performing veterans because they have equally viable internal options ready to take that spot. And by trading veterans for high-upside, relatively high-floor talent, a team can withstand a few prospect busts because they're producing their own star-quality players regularly. " The Yankees of the 90s did not do this, show me a ton of trades like you describe? Now your changing your story to include letting free agents goes, acting like that is the same as trading guys, it is not. You didn't say let expensive veterans go and replace them with young talent, while getting a comp pick, like you are now saying! The majority of the veterans trades I mention came in the 94-98 time frame you are talking about, go look it up. The Yankees kept making trade for veterans like the ones you say we derail this team and all it did for them was get them titles. "The funny thing is, you initially said that no team ever had taken that approach, and then focused on the latter days of a team that tried it, had some success, and fell prey to the win-now mentality. " Show me when they took your approach??? Teams that are trying to compete like we are, do not take your approach, it's that simple. Players like Bradley that you mentioned would be resigned by the Yankees. Big difference in the value of someone like Bradley and a closer like Wetteland who is the really the only example you have given. Again you said ""But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." The Yankees did not do that! They traded for veterans to help them win! The Yankees sucked in early 90's but developed a great farm system, they then used that system to go to 6 world series, winning 4 of them in 96, 98, 99 and 2000. While losing in 2001 and 2003. If DD depletes our system so we can go to 6 world series and win 4 of them I think he has done his job. They had a great 10 year run, how long of a run do you want? If you had said we need to maintain our farm system I would have had no problem with that, it's your idea on how you think we need to maintain our farm system that I have a problem with. The " "But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." Teams that are trying to win a title don't keep making trades like that, they trade for veterans to help them win. Rebuilding teams or teams like Tampa make trades like that.
|
|
|
Post by barney27 on Jul 27, 2016 11:29:57 GMT -5
I would agree with maintaining the farm system. The sox have a young core group that will be around for a while. sox have always had a shortage of pitching prospects who have been successful in the bigs. Maybe the best trade would be to get hickey the pitching coach from the rays. give them Farrell and willis Would you trade devers or moncada to the rays for archer or moore, maybe cobb or snell.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2016 11:30:24 GMT -5
I agree the farm system is the key to continued success for a long period of time, but making trades is a big part of why you need a good farm system. Trades can be a much more effective way of filling needs than free agency. The key to making trades is not trading away elite players. That's why you won't find me wanting to trade away Moncada or Benintendi. It's also why I didn't mind the Kimbrel trade even though we did overpay. As I never saw Margot as a future all star core piece player and we really needed an upgrade in bullpen. So basically, here, you're agreeing with my concern about trading away too many elite prospects. You're arguing against a concept you agree with, because you disagree about the player (Margot). But was Espinoza elite? You seem to be contradicting yourself if you think so. My original post was about not trading high-end prospects, but rather developing them so that the team can trade "average" incumbents and replace them with high-end prospects. Why? Because average incumbents have similar, if not more value in trade, but less long-term value. No. I don't agree with this ""But the idea is not to trade prospects, who are grossly undervalued based on recent trades, and instead established MLBers *for* prospects." I've never once said we don't need to maintain a good farm system. I just think it's crazy every time we make a trade you act like our future is gone. Teams make trades and prospects flame out more than they become stars. Even after our trades we still have a top 5 farm system. In your post that I replied to you talked about trading Bradley, that's your idea of "average"? While talking about Margot replacing him, which is crazy because that's a big drop off in my book. I would have no problem trading Shaw and replacing him with Moncada or Devers when they are ready. But here's the thing, I wouldn't trade Shaw for prospects, I would trade him for something that would help us win now, a veteran player. Espinoza was an elite prospect, but is like 3 years away and was in no way dominating like you would expect a prospect of his level to. I wouldn't want to trade many players like that, but can understand why DD made that trade as he thinks Pomeranz can help us win now. How am I contradicting myself? Because I don't hate the trade? I also don't love the trade, that is not like the Kimbrel trade were the best player traded was a 2nd division starter in my eyes. The funny thing is people on here still hate the Kimbrel trade with passion, but most are OK with Pomeranz trade. It's funny because the Pomeranz trade is the one that could really come back to bite us.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2016 11:49:52 GMT -5
I agree the farm system is the key to continued success for a long period of time, but making trades is a big part of why you need a good farm system. Trades can be a much more effective way of filling needs than free agency. The key to making trades is not trading away elite players. That's why you won't find me wanting to trade away Moncada or Benintendi. It's also why I didn't mind the Kimbrel trade even though we did overpay. As I never saw Margot as a future all star core piece player and we really needed an upgrade in bullpen. What exactly is an elite player, though? A 5 WAR player? A 3 WAR player? Is Espinoza one of them? We also disagree on Margot. I think many people forget that he displayed one of the elite contact skills in the minors. How many plate appearances did he go without a swing and a miss? Like 40? You add elite defense in CF and you get a pretty good prospect. I would say a player that has a high chance of being close to a 5 WAR player. But I would add that a players level in minors means a ton, as guys like Moncada and Benintendi that are just about major league ready are far more elite than players like Devers and Espinoza in my eyes. Even if all the players have similar ceilings, a lot can happen before Devers and Espinoza are close to being major league ready. I think Margot is a good prospect, but I don't see him as an elite one.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 27, 2016 11:53:44 GMT -5
Sean McAdam @sean_McAdam 5m5 minutes ago Industry source: Red Sox trade conversations mostly centered around adding bullpen help and back-end starters to improve rotation depth.
|
|
pd
Rookie
Posts: 239
|
Post by pd on Jul 27, 2016 12:11:16 GMT -5
It's the silly season of trading but the bottom line is for all the talk of Sale, etc., it really doesn't matter if the Red Sox don't perform like they should. The Red Sox landed one of the best pitchers in baseball during the offseason, but you wouldn't know it judging by the mediocrity that David Price has been. He's capable of pitching much better but he hasn't. The Red Sox landed one of the best closers over the past five years whether you agree with the price they paid or not. However Craig Kimbrel hasn't performed like he's capable of. The Red Sox just traded one of the most exciting pitching prospects with the highest ceiling they've had in a long, long time for a guy who was the ace of the Padres and an all-star. They snagged an underrated relief pitcher in Ziegler and added Hill for depth. All these moves, but when they're down a run and need a sac fly or a big hit, they've failed. When their pitchers need to clamp down to hold a tie or a lead, they've failed. We can talk Chris Sale all we want, but the bottom line is if this team doesn't play up to its capabilities it won't matter. They won't go far. I can't put my finger on what's wrong with this team beyond the obvious "their pitching stinks" answer. It shouldn't stink. Price, Wright, Pomeranz, Porcello, E-Rod should make for a strong rotation. A bullpen headed by Kimbrel, Ziegler, and Tazawa should be reasonably effective. The lineup who can some days seemingly score runs at will should be able to get a key run late in a game when they need it, yet they really don't do that too often. The 2013 team they're not. I have no desire to see the Red Sox tear down the rest of their farm system just so they can say they made a big trade. Would Sale help? Of course, but the price wouldn't be worth it. I'd love to see Benintendi in LF by season's end, Moncada on the roster come September and at 3b in the short-term and Devers at 3b down the road with Moncada moving to whatever position he's needed at. The only moves I'd really want Dombrowski to make are small moves to help the bullpen (he doesn't need to acquire a closer from another team - a decent middle man would be helpful, preferably a LH one). A LH hitting pinchhitter who can play LF and 1b would be useful, too. Exactly. The moves have been reasonable, it's on the players to start performing.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 27, 2016 12:13:40 GMT -5
Exactly, what pitchers have we developed? Please, don't compare our system to those O's. If a team is unable to develop pitching through its farm system, there are three ways of acquiring it: 1. Free agency: this of course has the drawback that the team must make a long term commitment to a pitcher who has already thrown a lot of professional pitches. 2. Trading prospects; this has the drawback that teams trading for prospects will usually only do so if they receive a sufficient number of good prospects to make it probable that at least some of the prospects succeed. In general, teams appear to only trade for prospects when the expected return in future wins is about double the expected value of present wins given up. I think this borne out in the cost of recent trades. 3. Trading established cost-controlled players: this will yield the best return. For example, a JBJ for Noah Syndergaard trade would be consistent with the market value of each. Similarly if the Red Sox were to offer him to Nats, the return would start with something like Giolito and Robles. It is hard to build a sustained winning team when trading two future wins for each present win or trading younger players for older ones. I'm not advocating never trading prospects; I'm suggesting trying to take advantage if the current prosperity of young talent to acquire pitching via the third, more efficient, method of acquisition in order to achieve a sustained level of success.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 27, 2016 12:19:00 GMT -5
“@jaysonst: Teams talking to Phillies about Jeremy Hellickson say they want ”one of your top 5 prospects“ - or they’ll keep him & take the draft pick”
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 27, 2016 12:21:14 GMT -5
“@jaysonst: Teams talking to Phillies about Jeremy Hellickson say they want ”one of your top 5 prospects“ - or they’ll keep him & take the draft pick” This is where we get in trouble. Not all top 5s created equally. Our #5 (take your pick of the big 5), would be #1 or no worse than #2 in a number of systems.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 27, 2016 12:31:57 GMT -5
“@jaysonst: Teams talking to Phillies about Jeremy Hellickson say they want ”one of your top 5 prospects“ - or they’ll keep him & take the draft pick” Good. Jeremy Hellickson is awful, I hoped all along DD would stay the heck away there.
|
|
|