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.
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 15, 2016 9:57:37 GMT -5
But I don't hold Moncada in the same esteem you do. I'm more aligned to those Speier comments in which those guys said "it's Beni and its not close.". I do think Sale will be about a 15 war guy over the next 3 years. I think his bottom was in 2015. Therefore for me the cost was more than reasonable for Sale.
I would feel slightly better about this deal if the front office had soured on Moncada for any of a number of reasons -- attitude, K rates, etc. -- that weren't based on an insufficient sample size from his late season callup. That being said, Moncada still has a value, and that value could be exchanged for other resources.
His teams have been huge disappointments - I'm not sure they play for much. It seems the last 4 years Sale's FIP is also tied into IP. So as you are willing to believe in Price - I believe Sale is around 15 WAR for 3 years. I think Price can help but now I think we need the lockdown number 1 post season ACE. Sale isn't assured of that but evidently neither Price nor Porcello isn't assured and that's for certain.
There's no doubt that Sale appears to be a better pitcher than Price. He's younger, for one, and produced an average of 4.9 WAR in the 3 seasons prior to being acquired. Price, in comparison, produced an average of 4.5 WAR in the 3 seasons prior to being acquired. But we have no idea how Sale will respond to Boston or to a playoff environment.
If you believe that Sale will produce 15 WAR over the next 3 years (which, to me, feels like the prevailing consensus), why would you agree to this deal? MLB.com shows Moncada as a top 10 hitting prospect and Kopech as a top 10 pitching prospect. According to this website (http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2016-updated-edition/), a top 10 hitting prospect and a top 10 pitching prospect together have an expected value of 30 WAR. Even if you hedge their estimates back by 40%, you've given up 18 WAR (not including Basabe and Diaz) for 15 WAR. And you're paying an additional $12 mil a year for the next 3 years for the privilege of doing so.
And as for starters - I look at how the Red Sox won their titles - it definitely came from at least one dominant starter with their 3 world series championships. The 2004 team had Schilling. No Schilling no championship. Pedro was at a point that he was struggling mightily vs the Yanks. We needed someone different. Maybe this is what either or both Porcello and Price need. A quirky but highly successful pitcher against our east foes.
Let's not forget that the 2004 team scored an average of 6.7 runs in their 11 postseason wins. They actually scored an average of 5.3 runs in their 3 postseason losses. That kind of run support is a difference-maker. If you gave the 2016 Red Sox postseason starters 6.7 runs of run support, the outcome would have been a lot different.
I think 2007 better supports your thesis of needing a dominant starter in the playoffs. Without Beckett, we don't get past Cleveland in the ALCS. Ironically, in 2007, young prospects named Pedroia and Ellsbury helped put us over the top. And, if memory serves, a young pitcher named Jon Lester won Game 4 of the World Series. Thankfully, Pedroia and Lester weren't shipped off to Minnesota for Johan Santana in the prior offseason. And Santana actually put up a total of 15.4 WAR over 2007, 2008 and 2009!
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 15, 2016 10:10:35 GMT -5
Sam Travis is coming off of a major injury, and hasn't hit for power in the minors. He's not legitimate depth for anything more than a short DL stint. He might be more, but he certainly doesn't project to be this year. Ponch's point is a good one: there were dramatically less costly ways to provide a similar level of improvement. He mentions a bat; ex: Justin Turner would've made signing Moreland unnecessary and projected for more than 2 WAR better than Panda. He would also have dramatically improved the CIF depth issue. Trade Buchholz, and the team is *well* under cap. And you lose only the 26th pick in the draft, which is worth less than Basabe. It's fine to be "low" on a prospect, but the reality is that Moncada's mean cost-controlled projection is roughly 15 WAR. Kopech's is probably around 10. By trading Moncada, the Sox are effectively paying Sale's salary PLUS $63M, for three years. The acquisition of Sale makes the Red Sox a better team in 2017, *maybe* 2018 (although that's arrival time for Kopech/Moncada, so that's highly debatable), and probably slightly worse in 2019. The Sox could've taken a different route and improved the team just as much without giving up what they did. The idea that a team needs a huge starter to win in the playoffs is a fallacy; it's observation bias because people remember outstanding performances. Nobody knows if Sale will even be good in the playoffs...if I recall, he's not that great down the stretch. Maybe he will be. It's still a gross overpay, because Dombrowski loves top-notch starters (and superstars in general). It's a personal bias that runs contrary to *TEAM* building. He has exactly as many WS wins as Cherington: one. That team was constructed on a Huizenga spending spree. And his last "great" team, in Detroit, had remarkably similar strengths/flaws as this Sox team does today. Hopefully, the bullpen is a little deeper. I still have tremendous concerns about this team's lack of quality depth. And that lack of depth is directly related to Sale. I really like your Justin Turner idea. For the cost of a 4 yr / $70 mil contract, we would have upgraded 3B AND hedged against any potential fragility in the infield since Turner could also play 1B or 2B. He would have also allowed us to send Moncada back to AA to work on his pitch recognition and situational awareness. The only potential drawback with Turner is that it might have made our lineup too right-handed. What do you think? In my response to soxjim above, I compared trading Moncada and Kopech for Sale in late 2016 to trading Pedroia and Lester for Santana in late 2006. I wonder who on this board who would have loved that trade at the time (maybe a certain UMass grad with a proclivity for confusing "your" and "you're").
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 15, 2016 10:21:36 GMT -5
I think 2007 better supports your thesis of needing a dominant starter in the playoffs. Without Beckett, we don't get past Cleveland in the ALCS. Ironically, in 2007, young prospects named Pedroia and Ellsbury helped put us over the top. And, if memory serves, a young pitcher named Jon Lester won Game 4 of the World Series. Thankfully, Pedroia and Lester weren't shipped off to Minnesota for Johan Santana in the prior offseason. And Santana actually put up a total of 15.4 WAR over 2007, 2008 and 2009! Beckett, by the way, might be an example that gives us hope for Price going forward. Beckett was yet another guy who struggled with the Boston indoctrination effect in 2006. He gave up 36 HR's that season. And we all know how 2007 played out for him. The counter to this is that Beckett had a prior track record of post-season success (as opposed to Price's playoff suckitude), and was substantially younger than Price.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 15, 2016 10:31:50 GMT -5
There is reason to think Turner took a hometown discount-- I wouldn't assume Boston could have signed him for 4/$70M.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 15, 2016 14:03:04 GMT -5
When Sam Travis is healthy he is certainly depth. He reminds me of Mark Grace, didn't have much power, but was just a great hitter. With the lineup we have we don't need him hitting 20 plus HRs. Get hits, get walks, keep the inning alive.
Like i've said many times I don't make the Sale trade. I would have most likely added a hitter. It's the Red Sox way and like you said saves our prospects. The difference is I think Sale makes this team a lot better than adding most hitters would. It helps balance the team. I also think people are selling Sale short. I'm expecting a huge year. He's getting away from that mess of a team they call the white Sox.
Projecting war totals over 6 years is really hard for guys with little to no major league experience. 25 war for both certainly seems reasonable, heck I hope your right.
How did the Sale trade kill our depth? I mean Moncada isn't ready, maybe half way through season. Kopech might have given you a bullpen arm at end of year but that's highly debatable. I think trading Shaw and Doubon killed our depth more than Sale trade for this year. By adding a Plouffe type player you could really solve most depth concerns.
How great DD truly is, that's going to be almost as fun going forward as watching this great young team. Either he just did God like work, made solid trades or traded away future stars.
I don't think our team is anything like Detroit's very good teams. We have great pitching depth both in rotation and bullpen. I will make an avatar bet that DD will win his second title in the next 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 15, 2016 14:20:37 GMT -5
Sam Travis is coming off of a major injury, and hasn't hit for power in the minors. He's not legitimate depth for anything more than a short DL stint. He might be more, but he certainly doesn't project to be this year. Ponch's point is a good one: there were dramatically less costly ways to provide a similar level of improvement. He mentions a bat; ex: Justin Turner would've made signing Moreland unnecessary and projected for more than 2 WAR better than Panda. He would also have dramatically improved the CIF depth issue. Trade Buchholz, and the team is *well* under cap. And you lose only the 26th pick in the draft, which is worth less than Basabe. It's fine to be "low" on a prospect, but the reality is that Moncada's mean cost-controlled projection is roughly 15 WAR. Kopech's is probably around 10. By trading Moncada, the Sox are effectively paying Sale's salary PLUS $63M, for three years. The acquisition of Sale makes the Red Sox a better team in 2017, *maybe* 2018 (although that's arrival time for Kopech/Moncada, so that's highly debatable), and probably slightly worse in 2019. The Sox could've taken a different route and improved the team just as much without giving up what they did. The idea that a team needs a huge starter to win in the playoffs is a fallacy; it's observation bias because people remember outstanding performances. Nobody knows if Sale will even be good in the playoffs...if I recall, he's not that great down the stretch. Maybe he will be. It's still a gross overpay, because Dombrowski loves top-notch starters (and superstars in general). It's a personal bias that runs contrary to *TEAM* building. He has exactly as many WS wins as Cherington: one. That team was constructed on a Huizenga spending spree. And his last "great" team, in Detroit, had remarkably similar strengths/flaws as this Sox team does today. Hopefully, the bullpen is a little deeper. I still have tremendous concerns about this team's lack of quality depth. And that lack of depth is directly related to Sale. I really like your Justin Turner idea. For the cost of a 4 yr / $70 mil contract, we would have upgraded 3B AND hedged against any potential fragility in the infield since Turner could also play 1B or 2B. He would have also allowed us to send Moncada back to AA to work on his pitch recognition and situational awareness. The only potential drawback with Turner is that it might have made our lineup too right-handed. What do you think? In my response to soxjim above, I compared trading Moncada and Kopech for Sale in late 2016 to trading Pedroia and Lester for Santana in late 2006. I wonder who on this board who would have loved that trade at the time (maybe a certain UMass grad with a proclivity for confusing "your" and "you're"). Don't put words in my mouth. I wouldn't have made the Sale trade. At the same time I'm not going to think Turner helps this team as much as Sale will.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 15, 2016 22:59:45 GMT -5
But I don't hold Moncada in the same esteem you do. I'm more aligned to those Speier comments in which those guys said "it's Beni and its not close.". I do think Sale will be about a 15 war guy over the next 3 years. I think his bottom was in 2015. Therefore for me the cost was more than reasonable for Sale.
I would feel slightly better about this deal if the front office had soured on Moncada for any of a number of reasons -- attitude, K rates, etc. -- that weren't based on an insufficient sample size from his late season callup. That being said, Moncada still has a value, and that value could be exchanged for other resources.
His teams have been huge disappointments - I'm not sure they play for much. It seems the last 4 years Sale's FIP is also tied into IP. So as you are willing to believe in Price - I believe Sale is around 15 WAR for 3 years. I think Price can help but now I think we need the lockdown number 1 post season ACE. Sale isn't assured of that but evidently neither Price nor Porcello isn't assured and that's for certain.
There's no doubt that Sale appears to be a better pitcher than Price. He's younger, for one, and produced an average of 4.9 WAR in the 3 seasons prior to being acquired. Price, in comparison, produced an average of 4.5 WAR in the 3 seasons prior to being acquired. But we have no idea how Sale will respond to Boston or to a playoff environment.
If you believe that Sale will produce 15 WAR over the next 3 years (which, to me, feels like the prevailing consensus), why would you agree to this deal? MLB.com shows Moncada as a top 10 hitting prospect and Kopech as a top 10 pitching prospect. According to this website (http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2016-updated-edition/), a top 10 hitting prospect and a top 10 pitching prospect together have an expected value of 30 WAR. Even if you hedge their estimates back by 40%, you've given up 18 WAR (not including Basabe and Diaz) for 15 WAR. And you're paying an additional $12 mil a year for the next 3 years for the privilege of doing so.
And as for starters - I look at how the Red Sox won their titles - it definitely came from at least one dominant starter with their 3 world series championships. The 2004 team had Schilling. No Schilling no championship. Pedro was at a point that he was struggling mightily vs the Yanks. We needed someone different. Maybe this is what either or both Porcello and Price need. A quirky but highly successful pitcher against our east foes.
Let's not forget that the 2004 team scored an average of 6.7 runs in their 11 postseason wins. They actually scored an average of 5.3 runs in their 3 postseason losses. That kind of run support is a difference-maker. If you gave the 2016 Red Sox postseason starters 6.7 runs of run support, the outcome would have been a lot different.
I think 2007 better supports your thesis of needing a dominant starter in the playoffs. Without Beckett, we don't get past Cleveland in the ALCS. Ironically, in 2007, young prospects named Pedroia and Ellsbury helped put us over the top. And, if memory serves, a young pitcher named Jon Lester won Game 4 of the World Series. Thankfully, Pedroia and Lester weren't shipped off to Minnesota for Johan Santana in the prior offseason. And Santana actually put up a total of 15.4 WAR over 2007, 2008 and 2009! Do you have a link as to why they said they soured on him? And what does "soured on him" mean vs "getting a good deal?" Maybe they just felt the ability to get Sale was just too tremendous to pas up. But anyhow, I'll reiterate again on this very website - I don't know if you had chance to listen- but it was the podcast in which Speier had mentioned a few of his fellow experts discussing who was better- the Beni group said it was Beni and not close. I just think you and others are either overrating perceived value vs actual performance or to put it differently not taking into account what a floor for a prospect really means.
This leads me to another point. You ask me why is Sale and 15 WAR "good enough?" Not only do I lean more towards what the Speier group said about Beni vs Moncada, I also recognize what the red sox gave up were prospects - and unknown quality. There is no way, no way no way you can get a healthy ACE on a trade and expect you aren't going to give up more WAR. Let's not forget what the prospects are here. And secondly, what makes the move so good is that now any of the starters can be traded. OFC highly doubtful Price or Porcello goes. But for example - we are much more open to trade ERod. If we lose him we still have 6 starters. And then your WAR numbers you cite might even be more meaningless because it was the trade in which we would move an ERod from strength. Not that I am advocating that - but get a super offer - we would be much more reluctant if we didn't have Sale.
And again you question about "Sale adaptability" just as you did before. You may say it is just one amongst other things but you draw that like a loaded gun. Yet you've told me before that despite the stats Price showing he was a poor performer in the playoffs, you said you'd bet on him. SO you od favor one stats over another. That's fine. But it's your personal preference, that's all.
My issue with that is that I am concerned that Price and Porcello may not be a bonafide number 1 starter int he playoffs and if the number 1 guy doesn't perform it may put even more pressure on the number 2 guy. I agree with you - maybe Sale isn't either. But if you look at the stats like I do, before the Sale trade, you wouldn't feel we have much of a chance ot becoming a championship contender. Unlike you who is willing "to bet on Price without Sale" in the post season, I am not.
And I think it would be wrong to do so. Just like I don't agree with your assertion that a number 1 playoff starter isn't necessary for the Red Sox. In 2004 Schilling was THAT guy. The blood sock and all. In 2007 Beckett. And 2013 Lester as the man while Lackey pitched in the playoffs like an ACE. And we know Lester and Lackey had a history. But tell me, how did Lester for example get a history? The Red Sox gave him the opportunity. Now we have a chance to see if Sale can push open the door pitching like the ACE playoff pitcher we've always had when we won. and then maybe his performance can provide a spark to either Price or Porcello or both come playoff time.
And as you cite the Red Sox great hitting of 2004 - I cite the Red Sox great pitching. Put Schilling on this past year's team - we win game 1. And we would have been playing game 1 in Fenway Park. Another valued reason for Sale.
*All in all the trade was solid. It opens up many doors. We need a stud number 1 type playoff pitcher and we'd love to be playing as many games as possible in Fenway park. And we gave away kids that are called "prospects" and have some very low floors vs Sale for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2016 0:12:19 GMT -5
Sam Travis is coming off of a major injury, and hasn't hit for power in the minors. He's not legitimate depth for anything more than a short DL stint. He might be more, but he certainly doesn't project to be this year. Ponch's point is a good one: there were dramatically less costly ways to provide a similar level of improvement. He mentions a bat; ex: Justin Turner would've made signing Moreland unnecessary and projected for more than 2 WAR better than Panda. He would also have dramatically improved the CIF depth issue. Trade Buchholz, and the team is *well* under cap. And you lose only the 26th pick in the draft, which is worth less than Basabe. It's fine to be "low" on a prospect, but the reality is that Moncada's mean cost-controlled projection is roughly 15 WAR. Kopech's is probably around 10. By trading Moncada, the Sox are effectively paying Sale's salary PLUS $63M, for three years. The acquisition of Sale makes the Red Sox a better team in 2017, *maybe* 2018 (although that's arrival time for Kopech/Moncada, so that's highly debatable), and probably slightly worse in 2019. The Sox could've taken a different route and improved the team just as much without giving up what they did. The idea that a team needs a huge starter to win in the playoffs is a fallacy; it's observation bias because people remember outstanding performances. Nobody knows if Sale will even be good in the playoffs...if I recall, he's not that great down the stretch. Maybe he will be. It's still a gross overpay, because Dombrowski loves top-notch starters (and superstars in general). It's a personal bias that runs contrary to *TEAM* building. He has exactly as many WS wins as Cherington: one. That team was constructed on a Huizenga spending spree. And his last "great" team, in Detroit, had remarkably similar strengths/flaws as this Sox team does today. Hopefully, the bullpen is a little deeper. I still have tremendous concerns about this team's lack of quality depth. And that lack of depth is directly related to Sale. I really like your Justin Turner idea. For the cost of a 4 yr / $70 mil contract, we would have upgraded 3B AND hedged against any potential fragility in the infield since Turner could also play 1B or 2B. He would have also allowed us to send Moncada back to AA to work on his pitch recognition and situational awareness. The only potential drawback with Turner is that it might have made our lineup too right-handed. What do you think? In my response to soxjim above, I compared trading Moncada and Kopech for Sale in late 2016 to trading Pedroia and Lester for Santana in late 2006. I wonder who on this board who would have loved that trade at the time (maybe a certain UMass grad with a proclivity for confusing "your" and "you're"). Yeah, probably too RH, but that's really only an issue if the platoon splits are significant at several spots. His approach would play reasonably well in Fenway, though. And I'd take his defense/production over Moreland. It's kind of the reverse of people worrying about SP handedness. It's an issue only if the players aren't that good to begin with. And the Lester/Pedroia for Santana comparo is very apropos, although they were Lester-caliber prospects than Moncada/Kopech. The point of my Turner idea is simply that there were other options with similar benefit and dramatically less cost, talent-(and future-) wise.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2016 1:31:24 GMT -5
There is reason to think Turner took a hometown discount-- I wouldn't assume Boston could have signed him for 4/$70M. Sure, that's reasonable. But if they'd offered 5/80, they could probably have signed him. And, in 2-3 years, when Devers is ready, they could still very likely trade him for a valuable return, because his AAV would be that of a 2 WAR player on a short deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2016 1:35:58 GMT -5
Do you have a link as to why they said they soured on him? And what does "soured on him" mean vs "getting a good deal?" Maybe they just felt the ability to get Sale was just too tremendous to pas up. But anyhow, I'll reiterate again on this very website - I don't know if you had chance to listen- but it was the podcast in which Speier had mentioned a few of his fellow experts discussing who was better- the Beni group said it was Beni and not close. I just think you and others are either overrating perceived value vs actual performance or to put it differently not taking into account what a floor for a prospect really means.
This leads me to another point. You ask me why is Sale and 15 WAR "good enough?" Not only do I lean more towards what the Speier group said about Beni vs Moncada, I also recognize what the red sox gave up were prospects - and unknown quality. There is no way, no way no way you can get a healthy ACE on a trade and expect you aren't going to give up more WAR. Let's not forget what the prospects are here. And secondly, what makes the move so good is that now any of the starters can be traded. OFC highly doubtful Price or Porcello goes. But for example - we are much more open to trade ERod. If we lose him we still have 6 starters. And then your WAR numbers you cite might even be more meaningless because it was the trade in which we would move an ERod from strength. Not that I am advocating that - but get a super offer - we would be much more reluctant if we didn't have Sale.
And again you question about "Sale adaptability" just as you did before. You may say it is just one amongst other things but you draw that like a loaded gun. Yet you've told me before that despite the stats Price showing he was a poor performer in the playoffs, you said you'd bet on him. SO you od favor one stats over another. That's fine. But it's your personal preference, that's all.
My issue with that is that I am concerned that Price and Porcello may not be a bonafide number 1 starter int he playoffs and if the number 1 guy doesn't perform it may put even more pressure on the number 2 guy. I agree with you - maybe Sale isn't either. But if you look at the stats like I do, before the Sale trade, you wouldn't feel we have much of a chance ot becoming a championship contender. Unlike you who is willing "to bet on Price without Sale" in the post season, I am not.
And I think it would be wrong to do so. Just like I don't agree with your assertion that a number 1 playoff starter isn't necessary for the Red Sox. In 2004 Schilling was THAT guy. The blood sock and all. In 2007 Beckett. And 2013 Lester as the man while Lackey pitched in the playoffs like an ACE. And we know Lester and Lackey had a history. But tell me, how did Lester for example get a history? The Red Sox gave him the opportunity. Now we have a chance to see if Sale can push open the door pitching like the ACE playoff pitcher we've always had when we won. and then maybe his performance can provide a spark to either Price or Porcello or both come playoff time.
And as you cite the Red Sox great hitting of 2004 - I cite the Red Sox great pitching. Put Schilling on this past year's team - we win game 1. And we would have been playing game 1 in Fenway Park. Another valued reason for Sale.
*All in all the trade was solid. It opens up many doors. We need a stud number 1 type playoff pitcher and we'd love to be playing as many games as possible in Fenway park. And we gave away kids that are called "prospects" and have some very low floors vs Sale for a reason.
camdendepot.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-to-tinstaapp-updating-mckinneys.html?m=1
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 16, 2016 1:50:26 GMT -5
When Sam Travis is healthy he is certainly depth. He reminds me of Mark Grace, didn't have much power, but was just a great hitter. With the lineup we have we don't need him hitting 20 plus HRs. Get hits, get walks, keep the inning alive. Like i've said many times I don't make the Sale trade. I would have most likely added a hitter. It's the Red Sox way and like you said saves our prospects. The difference is I think Sale makes this team a lot better than adding most hitters would. It helps balance the team. I also think people are selling Sale short. I'm expecting a huge year. He's getting away from that mess of a team they call the white Sox. Projecting war totals over 6 years is really hard for guys with little to no major league experience. 25 war for both certainly seems reasonable, heck I hope your right. How did the Sale trade kill our depth? I mean Moncada isn't ready, maybe half way through season. Kopech might have given you a bullpen arm at end of year but that's highly debatable. I think trading Shaw and Doubon killed our depth more than Sale trade for this year. By adding a Plouffe type player you could really solve most depth concerns. How great DD truly is, that's going to be almost as fun going forward as watching this great young team. Either he just did God like work, made solid trades or traded away future stars. I don't think our team is anything like Detroit's very good teams. We have great pitching depth both in rotation and bullpen. I will make an avatar bet that DD will win his second title in the next 3 years. Re: depth, you and I agree in terms of Moncada/Kopech. That's depth just as much as Travis is, with more upside. It also deepens their system if they decide mid-year to trade. Re: Shaw and Dubon, I'm less convinced that Dubon is needed this year, but as far as Shaw goes, that's the benefit of Turner. You're familiar with the "Death of TINSTAPP" blogpost, and "The Point of Pittsburg" data are fairly similar in terms of projection. So those are reasonable references for what a prospects 6-year value is. Yes, there's risk. But there's likewise risk in terms of Sale's performance/health. It seems to me like your thinking is "what's done is done, let's be optimistic." I get that and respect it. I know that you have a sense of prospect value, so I know I'm not arguing that with you (in terms of financials, team-building, etc.) I just think that you have an overly rosy view of the issues involved. That's OK...its not "wrong," just a difference in our opinions. Re: an avatar bet, I wouldn't do that because as I've said before, it's not like I think this move made them worse. I think it's a good short-term move. And I thought that, with the addition of an 8th-inning guy like Thornburg, they'd be better than last year anyway, because I believe in ERod and Benintendi especially, and in the quality of their starting staff in general. I just think that there were better short-term, and many (much) better long-term approaches.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 16, 2016 5:39:35 GMT -5
When Sam Travis is healthy he is certainly depth. He reminds me of Mark Grace, didn't have much power, but was just a great hitter. With the lineup we have we don't need him hitting 20 plus HRs. Get hits, get walks, keep the inning alive. Like i've said many times I don't make the Sale trade. I would have most likely added a hitter. It's the Red Sox way and like you said saves our prospects. The difference is I think Sale makes this team a lot better than adding most hitters would. It helps balance the team. I also think people are selling Sale short. I'm expecting a huge year. He's getting away from that mess of a team they call the white Sox. Projecting war totals over 6 years is really hard for guys with little to no major league experience. 25 war for both certainly seems reasonable, heck I hope your right. How did the Sale trade kill our depth? I mean Moncada isn't ready, maybe half way through season. Kopech might have given you a bullpen arm at end of year but that's highly debatable. I think trading Shaw and Doubon killed our depth more than Sale trade for this year. By adding a Plouffe type player you could really solve most depth concerns. How great DD truly is, that's going to be almost as fun going forward as watching this great young team. Either he just did God like work, made solid trades or traded away future stars. I don't think our team is anything like Detroit's very good teams. We have great pitching depth both in rotation and bullpen. I will make an avatar bet that DD will win his second title in the next 3 years. Re: depth, you and I agree in terms of Moncada/Kopech. That's depth just as much as Travis is, with more upside. It also deepens their system if they decide mid-year to trade. Re: Shaw and Dubon, I'm less convinced that Dubon is needed this year, but as far as Shaw goes, that's the benefit of Turner. You're familiar with the "Death of TINSTAPP" blogpost, and "The Point of Pittsburg" data are fairly similar in terms of projection. So those are reasonable references for what a prospects 6-year value is. Yes, there's risk. But there's likewise risk in terms of Sale's performance/health. It seems to me like your thinking is "what's done is done, let's be optimistic." I get that and respect it. I know that you have a sense of prospect value, so I know I'm not arguing that with you (in terms of financials, team-building, etc.) I just think that you have an overly rosy view of the issues involved. That's OK...its not "wrong," just a difference in our opinions. Re: an avatar bet, I wouldn't do that because as I've said before, it's not like I think this move made them worse. I think it's a good short-term move. And I thought that, with the addition of an 8th-inning guy like Thornburg, they'd be better than last year anyway, because I believe in ERod and Benintendi especially, and in the quality of their starting staff in general. I just think that there were better short-term, and many (much) better long-term approaches. I totally understand why people hate the trade. In my opinion we have no chance of winning trade on a straight value review. I'm thinking we got 15-20 war for the next 3 years for 25 war of future production. Now if we win a Championship I think that's a good trade. I'm not Deepjohn, so I don't think we just gave away 60 future war, but I do worry that 25 war could be closer to the floor than ceiling. If we just traded away 40-45 war and don't win a Championship this is going to be a very bad trade. On the other hand we could resign Sale and he could go onto have a HOF career. I get why people like Turner, he's had a great 3 year run. He just scares me to death. Three straight years of declining OPS+. Only one season of a 150 plus games and your getting his age 32-35 seasons. The other thing is that how big of an upgrade he is really depends on how Sandoval performs. The other thing is that people are wondering if Sandoval is a platoon guy and those questions seem to apply to Turner also. If we are getting a bat, we really need someone that hits lefties well. Which brings me to my next point. We have traded a lot of our future. We might only have Sale, Price and Porcello for the next two years if Price opts out. So why not add a bat. I get the benefits of being under Luxury tax, but let's go for it. Go offer EE a one year 30 million dollar deal and see if he bites. Heck offer him a Cespedes type deal, 3 years 75 million with a opt out after 1st year. If you can't get him I'd offer a very good one year deal to Bautista. Cubs last year brought back Fowler when they really didn't need him. One injury and he was a massive part of them winning a Championship.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2016 9:21:06 GMT -5
Signing Turner would have been a mistake. He's 32 and has a limited track record. Yes he's a good player, not saying otherwise but he wasn't worth giving up a big contract and a draft pick.
Chris Sale is most certainly more of an upgrade for this team than a middle of the order bat would be. Either either addition it should be a playoff team but the goal with a move like this is improving your WS odds not making the playoff odds. Having an arm of Sales caliber is more valuable to this team than an Edwin Encarnacion would be. Yea yea he has no playoff experience but signs point to Sale likely being a great playoff pitcher. He has that edge and Intensity. He won't be scared of the moment.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2016 9:25:47 GMT -5
Sam Travis most certainly is depth. In the vast majority of situations depth isn't a guarantee that's why its depth not the thing you are trying to add depth to. I'm not sure what people need Travis to be to show he's a depth option. Lack of power? How many home runs are you expecting from Moreland? Travis seeks like one of those guys who's never really appreciated but just always produces... he's not flashy and doesn't do one thing incredibly well but he's just solid... it actually seems to me like he's a better bet to slide in with little experience and give you something decent, which is all you'd be looking for.
I like the Moreland addition. It's easy to forget how much value a great glove at first base can add.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2016 9:36:54 GMT -5
Ponch... I appreciate your posts and did enjoy your breakdown of the Schilling, Pedro and Sale trades but I think your hindsight views on the other trades are clouding your analysis a bit.
In the Pedro trade the cost was "reasonable" because Pedro went on to be Pedro, but the two arms given up were big time prospects at the time. Prospects were a lot less analyzed and valued during that period but we still have up 2 of the top young arms in the game for a guy with one year left on his deal. Then they turned around and gave Pedro a huge contract extension. That would be like the Sox today giving up two AA pitching prospects with power arms who were ranked in the top 30 overall in the game with one of them more like top 15 for Sale, then signing him to a 6 year $200m extension.
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 16, 2016 20:57:19 GMT -5
Ponch... I appreciate your posts and did enjoy your breakdown of the Schilling, Pedro and Sale trades but I think your hindsight views on the other trades are clouding your analysis a bit. In the Pedro trade the cost was "reasonable" because Pedro went on to be Pedro, but the two arms given up were big time prospects at the time. Prospects were a lot less analyzed and valued during that period but we still have up 2 of the top young arms in the game for a guy with one year left on his deal. Then they turned around and gave Pedro a huge contract extension. That would be like the Sox today giving up two AA pitching prospects with power arms who were ranked in the top 30 overall in the game with one of them more like top 15 for Sale, then signing him to a 6 year $200m extension. Just to be clear, I hope that I'm completely wrong about the Sale trade. I hope that DD totally nailed it, as per his track record, and that Moncada turns out to be Wily Mo Pena and Kopech turns out to be Craig Hansen, or, alternatively, Moncada and Kopech both turn out to be really good, but Sale is outstanding and the true stopper and postseason ace that makes the difference (a la Schilling, Beckett, Lester, etc.). I'm also far from infallible, and probably as prone to hindsight bias as anyone. That being said, while I agree with your take on Pavano (who was comparable to Kopech, and at a more advanced level of the farm system), I have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of Armas. If you look at the following link (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2007/26983.html), you'll see that Pavano was the 17th ranked prospect in 1997, and the 5th ranked pitching prospect. Armas, on the other hand, doesn't even make the top 100 prospect list in 1997 or 1998. In 1997, he threw 115 innings of A / high A ball, a 1.2 WHIP, and a 7.7 K per 9 versus 3.2 BB per 9. So, the Red Sox did not give up two top 30 prospects in that trade, but, rather, only 1. So, the cost was very reasonable for a young, reigning Cy Young winner with breathtaking peripherals. And, with all due respect, it wasn't terribly hard to see that Pedro was a top-shelf talent at the time of the trade -- 1.90 ERA, 2.39 FIP, 0.93 WHIP, 11.4 K/9 versus 2.5 BB/9. As I've mentioned before, aside from worrying about the natural frictional adjustment to pitching in Boston, which has affected guys like Beckett, Porcello, Price, Kimbrel in their first years, the cumulative impact of his throwing motion and a rising FIP, my far biggest concern with the Sale trade was the foundational price paid -- the #1 prospect in baseball plus another top 30 guy in Kopech. By the way, it's worth checking out the aforementioned link and taking a look at the overall #1 prospects over the years. It's a cautionary tale (albeit one without a statistically-representative sample size). Moncada becoming a bust, while not impossible, would be the exception to the rule. 1990: Steve Avery (13.3 WAR for Atlanta) 1991: Todd Van Poppel (bust) 1992: Brien Taylor (bust) 1993: Chipper Jones 1994: Cliff Floyd 1995: Alex Rodriguez1996: Andruw Jones 1997: Andruw Jones1998: Ben Grieve (bust) 1999: J.D. Drew2000: Rick Ankiel (bust) 2001: Josh Hamilton 2002: Josh Beckett2003: Mark Teixeira 2004: Joe Mauer 2005: Joe Mauer2006: Delmon Young (bust) 2007: Daisuke Matsuzaka (9.2 WAR for Boston) 2008: Jay Bruce (16 WAR for Cincinnati in first 6 seasons)2009: Matt Wieters 2010: Jason Heyward 2011: Bryce Harper 2012: Bryce Harper2013: Jurickson Profar (likely bust) 2014: Byron Buxton (possible bust -- too early to say) 2015: Kris Bryant2016: Corey Seager (7.9 WAR in first 2 seasons)
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 17, 2016 0:43:49 GMT -5
Getting back to dombrowski. He was hired to get us back in the playoffs and hopefully bring us a championship or two.
Year 1 - he signs price. Fills a huge big league hole. . Great move. Year 1 - he trades for Kimbrell. Fills a huge big league hole. Consensus is he may have overpaid for a closer. Year 1 - he trades for smith, who people feared would be a tommy John victim sooner rather than later. And of course smith's ucl pops like an old violin string and he pitches no meaningful innings for us. Year 1 - he lucks into a break out year from porcello. Year 1 - he lucks into a bounce back year from Hanley. Year 1 - he lucks into panda going on the dl for the year and gets half a season of production from shaw. Year 1 - he lucks into a great first half from wright. Year 1 - he trades for zeigler after the smith debacle. Year 1 - he trades for Pomeranz, who is a tommy John victim in waiting and the consensus is he overpaid. Year 1 - he messes up swihart who eventually lands on the dl for the year. Year 1 - he lucks into benintendi's brilliance and reaps the benefit of a future stud,
End of year 1 - we make the playoffs. The youngsters, not named benintendi, are tight at the plate and price gets lit up like a pinball machine. We are three and done.
Year 2 - he trades for chris sale. Consensus is it is an all in situation and he might have overpaid a tad. Year 2 - he trades for thornburg. Another guy on the verge of being a tommy John victim. Concensus is another overpay, Year 2 - signs free agent Moreland. We all yawn!
If we win it all in November 2017, it will all be worth it.
Bottom line: dombrowski is what he is. A flawed GM. He is great at building pitching staffs and great at identifying bats that produce. But his old weaknesses are still there. He can not build a bullpen to save his life and right now our Achilles heel is our bullpen, just like what happened to him in Detroit. Experience and smarts can get you just so far. He is missing that X factor to get us over the top. And oh by the way, he ran off a ton of young über talented operations people who could have helped him get over his flaws and is now surrounded by yes men.
And you thought the 86 year drought was painful?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 17, 2016 7:28:17 GMT -5
Getting back to dombrowski. He was hired to get us back in the playoffs and hopefully bring us a championship or two. Year 1 - he signs price. Fills a huge big league hole. . Great move. Year 1 - he trades for Kimbrell. Fills a huge big league hole. Consensus is he may have overpaid for a closer. Year 1 - he trades for smith, who people feared would be a tommy John victim sooner rather than later. And of course smith's ucl pops like an old violin string and he pitches no meaningful innings for us. Year 1 - he lucks into a break out year from porcello. Year 1 - he lucks into a bounce back year from Hanley. Year 1 - he lucks into panda going on the dl for the year and gets half a season of production from shaw. Year 1 - he lucks into a great first half from wright. Year 1 - he trades for zeigler after the smith debacle. Year 1 - he trades for Pomeranz, who is a tommy John victim in waiting and the consensus is he overpaid. Year 1 - he messes up swihart who eventually lands on the dl for the year. Year 1 - he lucks into benintendi's brilliance and reaps the benefit of a future stud, End of year 1 - we make the playoffs. The youngsters, not named benintendi, are tight at the plate and price gets lit up like a pinball machine. We are three and done. Year 2 - he trades for chris sale. Consensus is it is an all in situation and he might have overpaid a tad. Year 2 - he trades for thornburg. Another guy on the verge of being a tommy John victim. Concensus is another overpay, Year 2 - signs free agent Moreland. We all yawn! If we win it all in November 2017, it will all be worth it. Bottom line: dombrowski is what he is. A flawed GM. He is great at building pitching staffs and great at identifying bats that produce. But his old weaknesses are still there. He can not build a bullpen to save his life and right now our Achilles heel is our bullpen, just like what happened to him in Detroit. Experience and smarts can get you just so far. He is missing that X factor to get us over the top. And oh by the way, he ran off a ton of young über talented operations people who could have helped him get over his flaws and is now surrounded by yes men. And you thought the 86 year drought was painful? Bravo. My observations are similar. Price, IMHO was a nice acquisition, but a HUGE overpay, which will (already has?) negatively affected payroll flexibility. The Ziegler trade was brilliant. Failing to re sign the guy reminds me of failing to resign Miller after the late season trade for ERod. Keeping Benintendi was wise. He reminds me of an athletic version of Schwarber (sp?). Plate discipline is off the charts for his amount of experience. Winning it all in 2017 will be quite the challenge. The bullpen, which was coming together at the end of the season this year is being remastered, why, I am at a loss to comprehend. The rotation added 200 quality innings has impressive depth and will presumably have few health issues. This, along with a bullpen that was getting it's mojo together at the end of 2016 had me very optimistic, until DD began his bullpen make over. As you point out, a November celebration makes it all worthwhile and my angst goes into the dust bin.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2016 9:11:53 GMT -5
On the whole, I think Dombrowski has done a pretty decent job of running the team since he took over, and to be fair, MUCH better than I was expecting. To this point, I'd give him a grade around a B-. There are several moves he's made that I love, a couple I really like, several that I'm not a fan of and two that I think were just terrible.
Here's the thing, you're going to find that (maybe not the letter grade) with EVERY GM. Also, you can look at pretty much every team that wins anything and credit half of it to the prior general manager. It's not often that you have someone in a position for so long that it's "just them." I won't go through and mention all the moves, but credit goes to Duquette and Theo for 2004 and 2007; Theo and Cherington for 2013. Dombroski hasn't won a champsionship yet, but credit for the division title goes to both he and Cherington. This isn't difficult to see.
I can go through and list out all the major moves Dombrowski has made since he got here and grade them, but I can't imagine anyone wants to read that. However, in a nutshell, I think it's a very good idea to trade prospects for elite talent, (Pedro, Sale, Beckett), specifically that which is young or cost-controlled. I think it's a good idea to give big money to elite Free Agents (David Price, Manny Ramirez, even Hanley Ramirez), but I think it's a bad idea to give "elite money" for "very good" talent (like Sandoval, Carl Crawford, etc).
I think it's generally a bad idea to trade high end prospect talent for relief pitchers, and generally even worse to do it when they're paid near the top of a market. I think it's a horrendously bad idea to trade for pitchers coming from the big ballparks of the West Coast, specifically the NL West. Of course there are exceptions to these (and any) rules - who wouldn't want Kershaw or Bumgarner - but in general, guys moving from SD, LA, SF, Oak or Seattle to the AL East don't transition well.
In summation, I think his free agent moves have all been very good (paying a lot for Price, paying a little for Young and Moreland); I don't like the Kimbrel deal; I hate the Pomeranz deal, I'm "ok" with the Thornburg deal, I love the Sale deal.
The thing that does bother me is this organization could easily be: Leon, Moreland, Pedroia, Swihart (yup, I'd move him to 3b since he played SS in HS and looks atheltic enough to handle it); Bogaerts, Benintendi; Bradley Jr; Betts; Ramirez; Young; Holt; Vazquez; Rutledge; Sale; Price; Porcello; Wright; Rodriguez; Thornburg; Uehara; Kelly; Smith; Barnes; Ross; Buchholz. Top 10: Margot; Devers; Espinoza (or Kopech, not sure which Chi would have taken); Groome; Guerra; Travis; Dalbec; Johnson; Hernandez; Chatham.
If that were the case, then I'd have given him an A+ and said I was totally wrong about his hiring.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2016 9:19:50 GMT -5
Getting back to dombrowski. He was hired to get us back in the playoffs and hopefully bring us a championship or two. Year 1 - he signs price. Fills a huge big league hole. . Great move. Year 1 - he trades for Kimbrell. Fills a huge big league hole. Consensus is he may have overpaid for a closer. Year 1 - he trades for smith, who people feared would be a tommy John victim sooner rather than later. And of course smith's ucl pops like an old violin string and he pitches no meaningful innings for us. Year 1 - he lucks into a break out year from porcello. Year 1 - he lucks into a bounce back year from Hanley. Year 1 - he lucks into panda going on the dl for the year and gets half a season of production from shaw. Year 1 - he lucks into a great first half from wright. Year 1 - he trades for zeigler after the smith debacle. Year 1 - he trades for Pomeranz, who is a tommy John victim in waiting and the consensus is he overpaid. Year 1 - he messes up swihart who eventually lands on the dl for the year. Year 1 - he lucks into benintendi's brilliance and reaps the benefit of a future stud, End of year 1 - we make the playoffs. The youngsters, not named benintendi, are tight at the plate and price gets lit up like a pinball machine. We are three and done. Year 2 - he trades for chris sale. Consensus is it is an all in situation and he might have overpaid a tad. Year 2 - he trades for thornburg. Another guy on the verge of being a tommy John victim. Concensus is another overpay, Year 2 - signs free agent Moreland. We all yawn! If we win it all in November 2017, it will all be worth it. Bottom line: dombrowski is what he is. A flawed GM. He is great at building pitching staffs and great at identifying bats that produce. But his old weaknesses are still there. He can not build a bullpen to save his life and right now our Achilles heel is our bullpen, just like what happened to him in Detroit. Experience and smarts can get you just so far. He is missing that X factor to get us over the top. And oh by the way, he ran off a ton of young über talented operations people who could have helped him get over his flaws and is now surrounded by yes men. And you thought the 86 year drought was painful? First, I don't agree that the bullpen is an issue. It's a strength, IMO. Second, why are you always on top of acquiring every big name rumored to be available if you're just going to criticize it? forum.soxprospects.com/post/239279^ that was your post when the rumors were much worse than what we eventually gave up.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2016 9:27:57 GMT -5
He didn't luck into Beni, he may not have drafted him but he identified him as a keeper and refused to trade him. That's not luck that's managing your assets.
He didn't luck into Hanley either. He chose not to dump him to just rid the team of him because he was a good bounce back candidate and oh yea he has a pretty nice track record of being able to smash when healthy.
How was the Smith trade a debacle? Getting rid of Miller and how he pitched last year was a net gain. And yes he did that in the big ball park of Seattle. Smith obviously didn't help last years team but he under control for multiple years so there is still plenty of time for that being a big win.
Saying he can't build a bullpen after last years bullpen was very good at the end of the year is a bit suspect. Why did they make it over this year? Because Koji is too old to rely on and Tazawa has been just ok and Ziegler wanted more money than they would play him. This years bullpen had the looks of a very good to great unit. People can hate on Kimbrel all they want but he was very good last year over all when used right. Thornburg was better than anyone we lost. Kelly looked like a weapon in his bullpen role. And they have Carson Smith coming back for the second half who could be their best reliever. The bullpen is looking nice.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2016 9:31:18 GMT -5
Ponch, I'm not going to quote your post for space sake and that's an interesting list for sure. Is Beni eligible for the BA list? If so, my guess is he's the actual number 1 for next year not Moncada... at least he should be.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2016 10:06:10 GMT -5
In summation, I think his free agent moves have all been very good (paying a lot for Price, paying a little for Young and Moreland); I don't like the Kimbrel deal; I hate the Pomeranz deal, I'm "ok" with the Thornburg deal, I love the Sale deal. The thing that does bother me is this organization could easily be: Leon, Moreland, Pedroia, Swihart (yup, I'd move him to 3b since he played SS in HS and looks atheltic enough to handle it); Bogaerts, Benintendi; Bradley Jr; Betts; Ramirez; Young; Holt; Vazquez; Rutledge; Sale; Price; Porcello; Wright; Rodriguez; Thornburg; Uehara; Kelly; Smith; Barnes; Ross; Buchholz. Top 10: Margot; Devers; Espinoza (or Kopech, not sure which Chi would have taken); Groome; Guerra; Travis; Dalbec; Johnson; Hernandez; Chatham. If that were the case, then I'd have given him an A+ and said I was totally wrong about his hiring. If that was our bullpen, this team would have likely not made the playoffs last year and it would be looking bleak this year. Margot would be in the system unable to help the major league team because he's blocked by 3 superior players. Or worse he's in the majors blocking Benintendi. Either way, you'd have to make a trade because keeping one for depth wouldn't be wise. And what would you be looking to add to your team? A top relief pitcher like Kimbrel, only now the price of those guys is a lot higher than it was when you originally made the trade because baseball has figured out that WAR and advances statistics suck at valuing relief pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 17, 2016 11:25:25 GMT -5
Ponch... I appreciate your posts and did enjoy your breakdown of the Schilling, Pedro and Sale trades but I think your hindsight views on the other trades are clouding your analysis a bit. In the Pedro trade the cost was "reasonable" because Pedro went on to be Pedro, but the two arms given up were big time prospects at the time. Prospects were a lot less analyzed and valued during that period but we still have up 2 of the top young arms in the game for a guy with one year left on his deal. Then they turned around and gave Pedro a huge contract extension. That would be like the Sox today giving up two AA pitching prospects with power arms who were ranked in the top 30 overall in the game with one of them more like top 15 for Sale, then signing him to a 6 year $200m extension. Just to be clear, I hope that I'm completely wrong about the Sale trade. I hope that DD totally nailed it, as per his track record, and that Moncada turns out to be Wily Mo Pena and Kopech turns out to be Craig Hansen, or, alternatively, Moncada and Kopech both turn out to be really good, but Sale is outstanding and the true stopper and postseason ace that makes the difference (a la Schilling, Beckett, Lester, etc.). I'm also far from infallible, and probably as prone to hindsight bias as anyone. That being said, while I agree with your take on Pavano (who was comparable to Kopech, and at a more advanced level of the farm system), I have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of Armas. If you look at the following link (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2007/26983.html), you'll see that Pavano was the 17th ranked prospect in 1997, and the 5th ranked pitching prospect. Armas, on the other hand, doesn't even make the top 100 prospect list in 1997 or 1998. In 1997, he threw 115 innings of A / high A ball, a 1.2 WHIP, and a 7.7 K per 9 versus 3.2 BB per 9. So, the Red Sox did not give up two top 30 prospects in that trade, but, rather, only 1. So, the cost was very reasonable for a young, reigning Cy Young winner with breathtaking peripherals. And, with all due respect, it wasn't terribly hard to see that Pedro was a top-shelf talent at the time of the trade -- 1.90 ERA, 2.39 FIP, 0.93 WHIP, 11.4 K/9 versus 2.5 BB/9. As I've mentioned before, aside from worrying about the natural frictional adjustment to pitching in Boston, which has affected guys like Beckett, Porcello, Price, Kimbrel in their first years, the cumulative impact of his throwing motion and a rising FIP, my far biggest concern with the Sale trade was the foundational price paid -- the #1 prospect in baseball plus another top 30 guy in Kopech. By the way, it's worth checking out the aforementioned link and taking a look at the overall #1 prospects over the years. It's a cautionary tale (albeit one without a statistically-representative sample size). Moncada becoming a bust, while not impossible, would be the exception to the rule.
1990: Steve Avery (13.3 WAR for Atlanta) 1991: Todd Van Poppel (bust) 1992: Brien Taylor (bust) 1993: Chipper Jones 1994: Cliff Floyd 1995: Alex Rodriguez1996: Andruw Jones 1997: Andruw Jones1998: Ben Grieve (bust) 1999: J.D. Drew2000: Rick Ankiel (bust) 2001: Josh Hamilton 2002: Josh Beckett2003: Mark Teixeira 2004: Joe Mauer 2005: Joe Mauer2006: Delmon Young (bust) 2007: Daisuke Matsuzaka (9.2 WAR for Boston) 2008: Jay Bruce (16 WAR for Cincinnati in first 6 seasons)2009: Matt Wieters 2010: Jason Heyward 2011: Bryce Harper 2012: Bryce Harper2013: Jurickson Profar (likely bust) 2014: Byron Buxton (possible bust -- too early to say) 2015: Kris Bryant2016: Corey Seager (7.9 WAR in first 2 seasons)But I'm not sure anyone suggested that Moncada would be a bust.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2016 13:31:09 GMT -5
That's a fair point about potentially not being in the playoffs last year without Kimbrel, RJP, I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with you, but I can see where you're coming from. However, last season Kimbrel had a 3.40ERA, a 1.094WHIP and a 2.77 k/bb ratio and I do think that with a combination of pitchers we did have could have still managed to have not lost 5 additional games (we ended up 6 games ahead of Detroit). Yes, he had a role in getting us to the playoffs, but I think there are other relievers that could have reasonably been expected to replicate those stats.
Also, I kind of get the feeling we could acquire David Robertson from Chicago for a considerably lesser cost than Margot, Guerra plus if we needed it for this year / and probably could have gotten him for the stretch run last year as well. We would also have the ability to go after a name like Chapman in Free Agency. I feel like Dombrowski paid in terms of prospects AND basically high dollars for a pitcher coming from the NL West to the AL East, which I think is a big misues of resources. Dombrowski has really never had success building a bullpen, so I don't like the idea of him paying in terms of BOTH prospects and dollars for one of the most inherently volatile positions in baseball.
Oddly, I kind of like the idea of having acquired Joe Kelly and Drew Pomeranz the relievers, it's just too bad that (respectively) Cherington and Dombrowski paid starter prices in prospects to acquire them.
|
|
|