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.
Sale to BOS for Moncada, Kopech, Basabe, Diaz
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 7, 2016 16:46:40 GMT -5
If you don't consider Sale an ace than who do you consider an ace in the MLB? You mentioned Kershaw, Lester and Madbum earlier do you consider anyone else in the league an ace or is just those three guys? Arrietta Kluber and Mad Max for sure. I just can't call someone a true ace until they've actually pitched in the post season. Sale is a good SP don't get me wrong. Certainly not a complete waste like Price. But he is not close to any of those 6. Aces are supposed to be the rarest commodity in baseball. Chris Tillman is "an ace" not saying Tillman is better or anything nuts but honestly Sale is not an ace. He's on the next tier with Felix Strasburg Verlander etc...then a tier below that you have your David Price types such as Tillman. Those 6 you can at least rationalize trading a package headlined by Kopech and others. You never ever trade a future MVP like Moncada when you have it in your system. What would have happened if Boston traded Mookie or Angels traded Trout when they were in the minors? ....and what kind of metrics do you use to establish these tiers? Or are you more of a "just listen to my gut" kind of guy? There's not a lot of statistical support out there to suggest that Lester, Bumgarner, Kluber, and certainly Arrieta are any better than Sale. If your tiers are based on a gut feeling or even an eyeball test based on a handful of looks, we can probably stop this conversation right here.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 7, 2016 16:47:57 GMT -5
LOVE this trade
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 7, 2016 16:55:07 GMT -5
Arrietta Kluber and Mad Max for sure. I just can't call someone a true ace until they've actually pitched in the post season. Sale is a good SP don't get me wrong. Certainly not a complete waste like Price. But he is not close to any of those 6. Aces are supposed to be the rarest commodity in baseball. Chris Tillman is "an ace" not saying Tillman is better or anything nuts but honestly Sale is not an ace. He's on the next tier with Felix Strasburg Verlander etc...then a tier below that you have your David Price types such as Tillman. Those 6 you can at least rationalize trading a package headlined by Kopech and others. You never ever trade a future MVP like Moncada when you have it in your system. What would have happened if Boston traded Mookie or Angels traded Trout when they were in the minors? ....and what kind of metrics do you use to establish these tiers? Or are you more of a "just listen to my gut" kind of guy? There's not a lot of statistical support out there to suggest that Lester, Bumgarner, Kluber, and certainly Arrieta are any better than Sale. If your tiers are based on a gut feeling or even an eyeball test based on a handful of looks, we can probably stop this conversation right here. Easy. One pitcher out of the ones you named has trouble in September and October despite never making the post season. That's the difference. Sale could very well be David Price 2.0
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 7, 2016 16:59:14 GMT -5
If you don't consider Sale an ace than who do you consider an ace in the MLB? You mentioned Kershaw, Lester and Madbum earlier do you consider anyone else in the league an ace or is just those three guys? Arrietta Kluber and Mad Max for sure. I just can't call someone a true ace until they've actually pitched in the post season. Sale is a good SP don't get me wrong. Certainly not a complete waste like Price. But he is not close to any of those 6. Aces are supposed to be the rarest commodity in baseball. Chris Tillman is "an ace" not saying Tillman is better or anything nuts but honestly Sale is not an ace. He's on the next tier with Felix Strasburg Verlander etc...then a tier below that you have your David Price types such as Tillman. Those 6 you can at least rationalize trading a package headlined by Kopech and others. You never ever trade a future MVP like Moncada when you have it in your system. What would have happened if Boston traded Mookie or Angels traded Trout when they were in the minors? Of all starters with at least 800 innings pitched since the start of 2012, Sale is 2nd in FIP-, 3rd in ERA-, 4th in WAR, 7th in K%, 8th in BB%, and tied for 3rd in K/BB%. Looks like an ace to me, postseason experience or not.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 7, 2016 16:59:34 GMT -5
....and what kind of metrics do you use to establish these tiers? Or are you more of a "just listen to my gut" kind of guy? There's not a lot of statistical support out there to suggest that Lester, Bumgarner, Kluber, and certainly Arrieta are any better than Sale. If your tiers are based on a gut feeling or even an eyeball test based on a handful of looks, we can probably stop this conversation right here. Easy. One pitcher out of the ones you named has trouble in September and October despite never making the post season. That's the difference. Sale could very well be David Price 2.0 So by your criteria, is Lackey a better pitcher than Sale and Price?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 7, 2016 17:11:51 GMT -5
Although there are the seemingly inevitable unfortunate gratuitous "jokes" (Sale is a 'marginal' upgrade over the Red Sox 5th starter), @telson's analysis in its central point is correct. This team has essentially a 3-year window (with maybe a decent 4th), before it's barren, maybe for a long time (maybe like the Tigers are about to enter?). Now, I also don't think the problem is with the Sale trade, which more or less is fair. It's with the inane Kimbrel, Pomeranz, and Thornburg ones. Those are indefensible, and they have stripped bare the farm system so that in 3 years, there is literally nothing left to replace all those players who will have graduated to FA. And I really hate the facile, well you have 3 years of drafts to replenish; look, the same team (sans a lot of the brainpower) that did such a great job in building such a great farm (and which Dombrowski graciously h/t), also drafted Trey Ball (ouch that has really hurt them), Kolben Vitik, Chavis, Matt Barnes, etc. It's a chance game, and all one can hope to do is move the odds slightly in your favor, and then when you hit big, *don't squander it* And the new CBA makes it even harder for the Red Sox to take advantage of their financial muscle; face it, Moncada wasn't a credit to their international scouts, the Red Sox just were willing to pay the most for him - that's now illegal in the new CBA. Now if they make 3 straight World Series, you can argue it will have been worth it. But I don't remember feeling any less ill in 2014-2015, despite 2013. The Red Sox had a chance to have a sustainable 8-year run or so; Dombrowski has almost guaranteed that it's at most 4 There is no such thing as knowing about an 8-year run in advance. That is assuming, for example, that kids who are 18 and in low-A now will turn into huge parts of that run. Who knows? So it is far fairer to say they have a great chance at a top run for 3 years instead of a chance at a longer run. Further: Sale is just turning 28, as is Porcello. In terms of age, the window is bigger than 3 years. Health is always an issue -- but, again, would you rather have a few guys who have thrown 200+ innings in the bigs, or some kid who has just broken 50 for the first time? The Pomeranz trade might have been an overpay. But we can't know. If he wins 12 games this year and the Pads end up getting nothing? Then it was fine. I can't imagine how one can dislike the Thorburg trade -- guy has sick scouting reports, had a great year last year. They gave up very little (I know, I know... a possible strong utility man). I don't get the prospect hoarders: you play to win. They want to win this coming year, and they're lined up to have a great chance for a few years to come. In 2021, when everything across all boards is different, we can reconvene and ask where things stand. But looking at this coming season: would you rather have Sale every 5 days, or Moncada in AA or AAA? I don't actually watch minor league games, so I prefer the former. 2018 season I'll consider when 2017 season is over.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2016 17:12:18 GMT -5
Lumping Sale in with Kimberly is insane. You could argue that he's the #2 pitcher in baseball behind Kershaw. Also the core of this team is still very young. We have a ton of money coming off of the books as Bradley, Bogaerts, and Betts hit free agency too. We are still in a very good spot, albeit it is because Theo/BC drafted well and built an incredible farm. [ Br] Disagree with this. He's not even close to guys like Lester Kershaw and MadBum. If he's an ace then the Sox are screwed. Never pitched in the post season. Aces can lead their teams to the post season at least once in 4-5 years especially in a garbage division. Sure the royals caught lightning two years in a row. This was a great opportunity for a home grown roster before Dumb Dave showed up. Price is a massive bust. The question with Moncada isn't if he will win an MVP but how many times will he. Awful. All for a good but not great SP Sale is a much better pitcher than Lester and arguably significantly better than Bumgarner. He's pitched for a weak team, and that's the only reason he has no playoff experience. I don't like the trade for its long-term implications, but that statement is just completely out of touch with reality.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2016 17:14:55 GMT -5
Is anyone going to be surprised when Moncada has a higher WAR than Chris Sale in two years? If they don't win a World Series in the next three years, the ensuing years of absolutely awful baseball that will follow in the next decade will be all because of Dombrowski and these insane shortsighted trades. What happens next offseason when Dombrowski trades Groome, Devers and Raudes for the next Sale/Kimbrel type of player who is good but not really great? Moncada is going to be a five-win player in two years when he can't hit breaking stuff right now? Don't forget, his last three games he was 1 for 10 with six strikeouts in the AFL. He's going to start in AA this year and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make it to the majors this year until the September call-ups. I guess stranger things have happened but you can count me as one who would be surprised. Look at Javy Baez
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2016 17:32:33 GMT -5
Calling a three-and-a-half win upgrade a "marginal improvement" is stretching the bounds of language. Also, to clarify: I'm aware of their third-order record. That's a big part of why I argued against this trade. They could easily have gotten by making no big trade, just say, the Thornburg acquisition. I said "marginal upgrade" because adding a few wins to a theoretical 100-win team is unlikely to have a major effect on the season's outcome. Comparing Sale to Wright/Pomeranz/ERod, there's about a 3-3.5 win difference. That's 3%. *Sale* may be significantly better than the pitcher he replaced, but the overall *team* performance isn't really likely to be *that* much better. Despite thursty's typical mis-representation of my statement, the reality is that even if the Vegas odds are accurate, the Sox still have to pitch Price and Porcello and take down the Cubs. This isn't a "makes them a contender" move, it's a "makes them the favorite over being roughly even with Cleveland" move. In terms of the next decade, it heavily weights any chance of success all to the front, and overall probably (because of the financial flexibility afforded by prospects, even those who become "average") dramatically reduces their chances of winning multiple championships. It's Adrian Gonzalez, redux, right down to the depth problems in the infield.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 7, 2016 17:43:06 GMT -5
Moncada is going to be a five-win player in two years when he can't hit breaking stuff right now? Don't forget, his last three games he was 1 for 10 with six strikeouts in the AFL. He's going to start in AA this year and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make it to the majors this year until the September call-ups. I guess stranger things have happened but you can count me as one who would be surprised. Look at Javy Baez I don't really see Baez as being a great example as it pertains to Moncada as a player with high a K% who turned into a highly valuable player at the major league level. On offense Baez was solid enough for a young 2nd baseman, but a lot of Baez value is his defense. Moncada has never really been touted as a great glove, he has potential to turn into that but currently is a work in progress.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2016 17:53:01 GMT -5
Although there are the seemingly inevitable unfortunate gratuitous "jokes" (Sale is a 'marginal' upgrade over the Red Sox 5th starter), @telson's analysis in its central point is correct. This team has essentially a 3-year window (with maybe a decent 4th), before it's barren, maybe for a long time (maybe like the Tigers are about to enter?). Now, I also don't think the problem is with the Sale trade, which more or less is fair. It's with the inane Kimbrel, Pomeranz, and Thornburg ones. Those are indefensible, and they have stripped bare the farm system so that in 3 years, there is literally nothing left to replace all those players who will have graduated to FA. And I really hate the facile, well you have 3 years of drafts to replenish; look, the same team (sans a lot of the brainpower) that did such a great job in building such a great farm (and which Dombrowski graciously h/t), also drafted Trey Ball (ouch that has really hurt them), Kolben Vitik, Chavis, Matt Barnes, etc. It's a chance game, and all one can hope to do is move the odds slightly in your favor, and then when you hit big, *don't squander it* And the new CBA makes it even harder for the Red Sox to take advantage of their financial muscle; face it, Moncada wasn't a credit to their international scouts, the Red Sox just were willing to pay the most for him - that's now illegal in the new CBA. Now if they make 3 straight World Series, you can argue it will have been worth it. But I don't remember feeling any less ill in 2014-2015, despite 2013. The Red Sox had a chance to have a sustainable 8-year run or so; Dombrowski has almost guaranteed that it's at most 4 There is no such thing as knowing about an 8-year run in advance. That is assuming, for example, that kids who are 18 and in low-A now will turn into huge parts of that run. Who knows? So it is far fairer to say they have a great chance at a top run for 3 years instead of a chance at a longer run. Further: Sale is just turning 28, as is Porcello. In terms of age, the window is bigger than 3 years. Health is always an issue -- but, again, would you rather have a few guys who have thrown 200+ innings in the bigs, or some kid who has just broken 50 for the first time? The Pomeranz trade might have been an overpay. But we can't know. If he wins 12 games this year and the Pads end up getting nothing? Then it was fine. I can't imagine how one can dislike the Thorburg trade -- guy has sick scouting reports, had a great year last year. They gave up very little (I know, I know... a possible strong utility man). I don't get the prospect hoarders: you play to win. They want to win this coming year, and they're lined up to have a great chance for a few years to come. In 2021, when everything across all boards is different, we can reconvene and ask where things stand. But looking at this coming season: would you rather have Sale every 5 days, or Moncada in AA or AAA? I don't actually watch minor league games, so I prefer the former. 2018 season I'll consider when 2017 season is over. Porcello and Sale are FAs in 3 years. If you want more than a 3-year run, you need to pay them roughly $60M for 7-8 (maybe 9-10 by then) years to get more than 3 years. And, extend the young core for another $80-$100M AAV over 5-8 years, because they're going to be FAs too, that year or the next. Add Price, and that's $170-190M tied up for 5 years from 2020-2024. It's not happening. Best-case, they get some youth for a couple of starters and Devers and Groome reach their ceilings in four years. Then, hopefully Price is still passable, ERod gets a relatively low-cost extension as a 2, and they can re-sign either Porcello or Sale. JBJ and possibly Bogaerts are probably gone. All that said, with good health and a little luck (like, Devers pulls a Mookie 2014), they could win 110 games next year. Let's hope they don't do a 2001 Mariners. We all know how that went (and continued for the next decade).
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 7, 2016 18:01:20 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that Sale's contract is very team friendly. Not sure if this is even within the rules of the CBA but remembering back when A-Rod was going to redo his deal back when the Sox were very close to trading for him. What if the Sox came to Sale and said how about we pay you 20-25 million a year for the next three years and in return we get 2-3 years extra years to your contract. Just spit balling, probably would never happen but the thought certainly intrigues me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 7, 2016 18:10:57 GMT -5
Calling a three-and-a-half win upgrade a "marginal improvement" is stretching the bounds of language. Also, to clarify: I'm aware of their third-order record. That's a big part of why I argued against this trade. They could easily have gotten by making no big trade, just say, the Thornburg acquisition. I said "marginal upgrade" because adding a few wins to a theoretical 100-win team is unlikely to have a major effect on the season's outcome. Comparing Sale to Wright/Pomeranz/ERod, there's about a 3-3.5 win difference. That's 3%. *Sale* may be significantly better than the pitcher he replaced, but the overall *team* performance isn't really likely to be *that* much better. Despite thursty 's typical mis-representation of my statement, the reality is that even if the Vegas odds are accurate, the Sox still have to pitch Price and Porcello and take down the Cubs. This isn't a "makes them a contender" move, it's a "makes them the favorite over being roughly even with Cleveland" move. In terms of the next decade, it heavily weights any chance of success all to the front, and overall probably (because of the financial flexibility afforded by prospects, even those who become "average") dramatically reduces their chances of winning multiple championships. It's Adrian Gonzalez, redux, right down to the depth problems in the infield. It's not a theoretical 100-win team, though. It's a theoretical 89/90-win team which became a theoretical 93-win team. That's that sweet spot in the win curve where a few additional ("marginal") wins mean a lot. Doubling their World Series odds is not really something you can hand-wave away as being meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 7, 2016 18:12:58 GMT -5
Moncada is going to be a five-win player in two years when he can't hit breaking stuff right now? Don't forget, his last three games he was 1 for 10 with six strikeouts in the AFL. He's going to start in AA this year and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make it to the majors this year until the September call-ups. I guess stranger things have happened but you can count me as one who would be surprised. Look at Javy Baez The Javier Baez who put up a 94 wRC+ last year? He's a fine player, but if Moncada is Baez 2.0, this was a fine trade for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 7, 2016 18:24:53 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that Sale's contract is very team friendly. Not sure if this is even within the rules of the CBA but remembering back when A-Rod was going to redo his deal back when the Sox were very close to trading for him. What if the Sox came to Sale and said how about we pay you 20-25 million a year for the next three years and in return we get 2-3 years extra years to your contract. Just spit balling, probably would never happen but the thought certainly intrigues me. That wouldn't be revising his contract. He would just sign a new one that includes salary increases from 2017-19.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2016 18:25:23 GMT -5
Anyone who thinks the Red Sox overpayed for Chris Sale should check out what the Nats just gave up for Adam Eaton.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 7, 2016 18:38:22 GMT -5
Also, to clarify: I'm aware of their third-order record. That's a big part of why I argued against this trade. They could easily have gotten by making no big trade, just say, the Thornburg acquisition. I said "marginal upgrade" because adding a few wins to a theoretical 100-win team is unlikely to have a major effect on the season's outcome. Comparing Sale to Wright/Pomeranz/ERod, there's about a 3-3.5 win difference. That's 3%. *Sale* may be significantly better than the pitcher he replaced, but the overall *team* performance isn't really likely to be *that* much better. Despite thursty 's typical mis-representation of my statement, the reality is that even if the Vegas odds are accurate, the Sox still have to pitch Price and Porcello and take down the Cubs. This isn't a "makes them a contender" move, it's a "makes them the favorite over being roughly even with Cleveland" move. In terms of the next decade, it heavily weights any chance of success all to the front, and overall probably (because of the financial flexibility afforded by prospects, even those who become "average") dramatically reduces their chances of winning multiple championships. It's Adrian Gonzalez, redux, right down to the depth problems in the infield. It's not a theoretical 100-win team, though. It's a theoretical 89/90-win team which became a theoretical 93-win team. That's that sweet spot in the win curve where a few additional ("marginal") wins mean a lot. Doubling their World Series odds is not really something you can hand-wave away as being meaningless. World series odds are meaningless, so are projections, when it comes to high stakes gambling of trading away even one prospect with an immediate high ceiling, for someone who, in the best case, is a 3 WAR upgrade for three years. This trade reaks of a desperation to win in a way I've never seen the Red Sox or Dombrowski fall prey to. It's fine if the FO wants to bring in a marquee name at all costs, to boost revenue with Papi gone. I've been saying forever that was their painfully obvious goal. But let's not try to justify their desperation to make money with wacko World Series odds, concocted by bookies to lure sick gamblers. Look. Maybe they'll win big. Here's hoping they do. But if they don't get to the WS, or at least a big bump in season tickets or TV ratings to make up for the loss of Papi, and meanwhile, one of Yoan or Kopech hits 5 WAR this year or next, and with six years of control provides 30 WAR? Then the loss is unimaginably enormous. It's a 200 million dollar loss, if one of them hits their ceiling. Double that if they both do. And Dombrowski becomes F***ing Sh&&head Dumbrowski, and no one ever lets him live this down.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 7, 2016 18:38:39 GMT -5
Anyone who thinks the Red Sox overpayed for Chris Sale should check out what the Nats just gave up for Adam Eaton. An overpay is an overpay regardless. I would rather the Red Sox still had Moncada. Now you're looking at a C level prospect like Diaz (who the Sox just gave up) as the best possible return for Mega Bust Pomeranz. DD torched probably the best farm system in baseball and reduced it to the worst.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 7, 2016 18:42:38 GMT -5
Easy. One pitcher out of the ones you named has trouble in September and October despite never making the post season. That's the difference. Sale could very well be David Price 2.0 So by your criteria, is Lackey a better pitcher than Sale and Price? Be reasonable. Lackey is in his late 30s. He was also never considered a top end guy. To be clear I'm not saying Sale can't be a #1 starter but he's clearly behind Kershaw MadBum Max Lester Arrietta and Kluber. Those are the real aces in baseball. Big difference between an ACE and a #1. An ace is what I would give up something like Kopech Swihart and filler for. Maybe Basabe. But you do not under any circumstance trade a future MVP like a Moncada who could easily be the next Trout/ARod and six freaking years of control.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2016 18:43:16 GMT -5
The Javier Baez who put up a 94 wRC+ last year? He's a fine player, but if Moncada is Baez 2.0, this was a fine trade for the Red Sox. That's if you think Baez has no more offensive upside. He was a 3-WAR player last year, and exactly the type of swing-and-miss project who has a lot more room for improvement. He's still 3 years short of his prime. Moncada probably lacks the defensive value, but walks a lot more. My point is simply that a guy with huge tools who struggles at 21 isn't necessarily a lost cause, and can be an above-average regular very quickly. Maybe not the ideal parallel, but ARod struggled (as did Hanley, though it's tough to call 2K in 2PA a fair sample) in his debut as well.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2016 18:48:29 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that Sale's contract is very team friendly. Not sure if this is even within the rules of the CBA but remembering back when A-Rod was going to redo his deal back when the Sox were very close to trading for him. What if the Sox came to Sale and said how about we pay you 20-25 million a year for the next three years and in return we get 2-3 years extra years to your contract. Just spit balling, probably would never happen but the thought certainly intrigues me. That wouldn't be revising his contract. He would just sign a new one that includes salary increases from 2017-19. Exactly. And it also puts them over the lux tax limit, and increasing penalties. It also looks like Hanley's deal will vest, so it's possible that $40M comes off the books in 3 years, which should cover Sale's extension and a part-time 1b like Moreland.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 7, 2016 18:59:25 GMT -5
That wouldn't be revising his contract. He would just sign a new one that includes salary increases from 2017-19. Exactly. And it also puts them over the lux tax limit, and increasing penalties. It also looks like Hanley's deal will vest, so it's possible that $40M comes off the books in 3 years, which should cover Sale's extension and a part-time 1b like Moreland. I think they'd possibly be better off paying the luxury tax now to extend Sale another two years. If they don't want Hanleys option to vest then just don't play him as much. Its not that hard to get around it, I know he is potentially a good bat to take out of the lineup but I don't think it would hurt the team to sit him a few times a week to stay fresh and also get some other guys in the lineup some time at DH to rest a bit. I also think they could/should move buchholz to get a little bit of space from the luxury tax. The contract idea for Sale is a long shot but I'd be for it and I think the argument could be made that it could work for both sides.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 7, 2016 19:04:11 GMT -5
Also, to clarify: I'm aware of their third-order record. That's a big part of why I argued against this trade. They could easily have gotten by making no big trade, just say, the Thornburg acquisition. I said "marginal upgrade" because adding a few wins to a theoretical 100-win team is unlikely to have a major effect on the season's outcome. Comparing Sale to Wright/Pomeranz/ERod, there's about a 3-3.5 win difference. That's 3%. *Sale* may be significantly better than the pitcher he replaced, but the overall *team* performance isn't really likely to be *that* much better. Despite thursty 's typical mis-representation of my statement, the reality is that even if the Vegas odds are accurate, the Sox still have to pitch Price and Porcello and take down the Cubs. This isn't a "makes them a contender" move, it's a "makes them the favorite over being roughly even with Cleveland" move. In terms of the next decade, it heavily weights any chance of success all to the front, and overall probably (because of the financial flexibility afforded by prospects, even those who become "average") dramatically reduces their chances of winning multiple championships. It's Adrian Gonzalez, redux, right down to the depth problems in the infield. It's not a theoretical 100-win team, though. It's a theoretical 89/90-win team which became a theoretical 93-win team. That's that sweet spot in the win curve where a few additional ("marginal") wins mean a lot. Doubling their World Series odds is not really something you can hand-wave away as being meaningless. Eh, depending on if you look at a projection system or extrapolate last year's results with team that lost Papi but dramatically improved its 4-5 starters. Looking at the rest of the AL East, I don't see as it really improves their "playoff" odds much at all. Maybe it improves their chances IN the playoffs, but if they (probably) run into the Cubs, they're what, 50-50 instead of 40-60? As I've said before (and I think it was guidas who said it maybe best), I think it's a terrific short-term trade. They gave up a ton of ceiling but with moderate to high risk. It's done and, hey, go get 'em. My concern is much more with the long-term health of the franchise. This move dramatically shortens their window, unless (as you mention), they get something back for the now-superfluous Buchholz and/or Pomeranz, and Owens, Swihart, Johnson et al become viable regulars. Even then, there's an absolutely cavernous talent hole in the minors now. Barring a repeat 2011 draft, it's unlikely to be refilled in three years. We could just as easily see the 2008-2010 drafts. Dombrowski took a desperation approach, as deepjohn said, and now we'll see how the system rebounds.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 7, 2016 19:35:58 GMT -5
It's not a theoretical 100-win team, though. It's a theoretical 89/90-win team which became a theoretical 93-win team. That's that sweet spot in the win curve where a few additional ("marginal") wins mean a lot. Doubling their World Series odds is not really something you can hand-wave away as being meaningless. Eh, depending on if you look at a projection system or extrapolate last year's results with team that lost Papi but dramatically improved its 4-5 starters. Looking at the rest of the AL East, I don't see as it really improves their "playoff" odds much at all. Maybe it improves their chances IN the playoffs, but if they (probably) run into the Cubs, they're what, 50-50 instead of 40-60? As I've said before (and I think it was guidas who said it maybe best), I think it's a terrific short-term trade. They gave up a ton of ceiling but with moderate to high risk. It's done and, hey, go get 'em. My concern is much more with the long-term health of the franchise. This move dramatically shortens their window, unless (as you mention), they get something back for the now-superfluous Buchholz and/or Pomeranz, and Owens, Swihart, Johnson et al become viable regulars. Even then, there's an absolutely cavernous talent hole in the minors now. Barring a repeat 2011 draft, it's unlikely to be refilled in three years. We could just as easily see the 2008-2010 drafts. Dombrowski took a desperation approach, as deepjohn said, and now we'll see how the system rebounds. I don't see this move as a desperation move in the slightest. I will agree with what some have said that this was in a vacuum a great move and even in my mind a slam dunk. The Sox just got a top 5 pitcher in baseball to go along with the cy young winner and Price who I believe will rebound and be the pitcher the Sox paid him to be. There were 6 pitchers last year who pitched 220 innings and now three of them are on the Sox. Having three SPs like that will help the bullpen in the long run too. Trading for Sale has boosted this team a lot and was always going to cost a lot. On the other hand trading prospects is always risky and at the rate DD has traded them probably even foolish. When you throw in all of the other deals (Kimbrel, Pomeranz, Thornburg), this farm system now looks weak and may end up closing the window sooner than it was before. Only time will tell with these deals and it is a calculated risk DD is taking but I'm personally going to sit back and enjoy this possibly great team, on paper this Red Sox team is about as talented as any team we have seen in the last 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 7, 2016 19:40:14 GMT -5
So by your criteria, is Lackey a better pitcher than Sale and Price? Be reasonable. Good advice. I suggest you take it. You've done nothing but rant with no facts or no data. Nothing. Just hyperbole. But feel free to live in that fantasy world. And childish insults towards DD (i.e. name calling like Dumbrowski) make the poster look like the fool, not DD. It's great we can play armchair GM here. And one can question and discuss the moves made. But the inane insults and baseless rhetoric make people tune out, nit tune in. By the way, I'm happy to make an avatar bet that Moncada never wins an MVP.
|
|
|