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.
Red Sox GM Search & Other Front Office Moves
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 23, 2019 15:35:10 GMT -5
And Chapman blew the save in game 7 of the World Series. Big success or just complete and total luck? You do not get to use hindsight when making trades and no team is ever going to give up a Torres like prospect for any rental reliever again. It would be like trading Mookie in 2013 for two months of Craig Kimbrel.
Except it's not even like that because Mookie wasn't nearly as highly regarded as Torres at the time.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 23, 2019 15:38:41 GMT -5
Jose Quintana has been worth 5.0 bWAR for the Cubs, compared to Eloy Jimenez being worth 1.3 bWAR for the White Sox. Aroldis Chapman was worth 1.3 bWAR for the Cubs, and Gleyber Torres has been worth 7.1 bWAR for the Yankees. Torres is 16 days younger than Jimenez. Torres was closer to the majors than Jimenez, and Quintna was under contract for longer than Chapman. Ethical issues with Chapman aside, there's no way that trading nearly-ready Torres for two months of Chapman was less bad than trading two-years-away Jimenez for 2.5 years of Quintana. It's really not close. Both Torres and Jimenez were in high A when traded, Eloy actually made AA after the trade, Torres not till the following year. So I wouldn't say Torres was closer when the trade was made. Eloy was rated a lot higher than Torres when traded #8 and #14 by Baseball America and mlb.com, Torres #24. They also included their #2 prospect to get Quintana and two other guys. Yet what really stands out is the timing and performance. Chapman was like the best reliever in the game or very close to it and they had a great team. It made sense to go for it and get that Championship. Quintana trade was made when they were 5.5 games back and he wasn't pitching well and he's never really been what they truly wanted. You can look at this based on war, but I just don't think that tells the full story. What made Quintana so valuable was a 5 bwar pitching at his salary, but the 2 bwar version they got and the worst part is the writing was already on the wall when they made that deal. Isn't that an argument in favor of the Quintana trade? They acquired him and he pitched well in 2017 and they won the division in no small part because of the stability he brought to the rotation. And that's on top of the fact that they weren't just acquiring him for 2017 - he was under contract for the two years beyond that as well, with the option for 2020. There's a strong argument to be made that Quintana made a bigger difference getting the Cubs to the 2017 postseason than Chapman did in getting to the 2016 season. From there, it had quite a bit to do with people who aren't them. And Quintana was a key part in the playoffs in 2017. he was very good in beating the Nats in Game 3 of the NLDS, helped settle things down in that wild Game 5, and pitched well again in Game 1 against the Dodgers. Then he got lit up in Game 5 of that series, of course. Putting all that aside, I'm actually inclined to agree that Jimenez (and Cease) was too steep a cost there. I'm not arguing it's a good trade, I'm just saying it's a less bad one. The value in Quintana's 2.5 years is just so, so much greater than a half-season of Chapman.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 23, 2019 15:40:09 GMT -5
The problem is Theo could've acquired Chapman for a lot less than Torres only months earlier. I find it hard to believe he didn't anticipate the Cubs would be contenders that year, so the only reason he could've passed on topping a very light return by the Yankees is due to the circumstances around Chapman's off field behavior. The fact that he no longer cared about those circumstances months later and was willing to pay a lot more for even less team control is what makes this a bad deal. The Cubs could've had Chapman for longer and for less during the offseason. There's no argument that the Cubs wouldn't have still won the WS if they originally acquired him from the Reds instead of waiting for the Yankees to acquire him first to be the team who took the initial PR hit. The price for waiting was the difference between guys like Rookie Davis, Eric Jagielo, Tony Renda, and Caleb Cotham vs Gleyber Torres (and McKinney, Warren, and Rashard Crawford).
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 23, 2019 15:43:38 GMT -5
And Chapman blew the save in game 7 of the World Series. Big success or just complete and total luck? You do not get to use hindsight when making trades and no team is ever going to give up a Torres like prospect for any rental reliever again. It would be like trading Mookie in 2013 for two months of Craig Kimbrel. Except it's not even like that because Mookie wasn't nearly as highly regarded as Torres at the time. Chapman had an ERA under 2 that whole postseason and was gassed to that point. Chapman was a HUGE reason why they ever made it to a game 7. Nice cherry pick though.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 23, 2019 17:14:26 GMT -5
Both Torres and Jimenez were in high A when traded, Eloy actually made AA after the trade, Torres not till the following year. So I wouldn't say Torres was closer when the trade was made. Eloy was rated a lot higher than Torres when traded #8 and #14 by Baseball America and mlb.com, Torres #24. They also included their #2 prospect to get Quintana and two other guys. Yet what really stands out is the timing and performance. Chapman was like the best reliever in the game or very close to it and they had a great team. It made sense to go for it and get that Championship. Quintana trade was made when they were 5.5 games back and he wasn't pitching well and he's never really been what they truly wanted. You can look at this based on war, but I just don't think that tells the full story. What made Quintana so valuable was a 5 bwar pitching at his salary, but the 2 bwar version they got and the worst part is the writing was already on the wall when they made that deal. Isn't that an argument in favor of the Quintana trade? They acquired him and he pitched well in 2017 and they won the division in no small part because of the stability he brought to the rotation. And that's on top of the fact that they weren't just acquiring him for 2017 - he was under contract for the two years beyond that as well, with the option for 2020. There's a strong argument to be made that Quintana made a bigger difference getting the Cubs to the 2017 postseason than Chapman did in getting to the 2016 season. From there, it had quite a bit to do with people who aren't them. And Quintana was a key part in the playoffs in 2017. he was very good in beating the Nats in Game 3 of the NLDS, helped settle things down in that wild Game 5, and pitched well again in Game 1 against the Dodgers. Then he got lit up in Game 5 of that series, of course. Putting all that aside, I'm actually inclined to agree that Jimenez (and Cease) was too steep a cost there. I'm not arguing it's a good trade, I'm just saying it's a less bad one. The value in Quintana's 2.5 years is just so, so much greater than a half-season of Chapman. They are both horrible trades. From a war point of view the Chapman one is worse. It's just when do you want your team going all in? In 2016 they fixed there biggest issue with an elite player, for me it made sense. The trade was horrible, but that's when I'd do it. Elite team and you haven't won a Championship is a long time. In 2017 it wasn't the same team, frankly it reminds me of the Red Sox this year. Yet Theo traded even more for Quintana, Cease was already a top 100 for certain places like Baseball America. I don't like big all in moves on flawed teams just to make the post season. I hate it even more a year after you already did a huge move. To top it off a guy never seen as elite, already was showing signs of decline. 5 bwar with what he made, means you got 3 bwar of excess value in 2.5 years. I would have wanted a more elite guy and someone that was pitching better. Like it's not just the bad trade, it's he paid that price for a guy who wasn't pitching well. He gambled it was just a stretch of bad luck and not the start of a decline it was. I support the Dodgers trading a really good prospect to get Machado and go for it last year. They had a great team. I also think the Yankees have been stupid for years not getting the pitching they need to finally create a complete team. The Astros with that team getting the pitching they need, even with the risk Verlander and Grienke brought. Getting Cole when they needed pitching .
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Sept 23, 2019 19:54:27 GMT -5
Heyman on a radio station in Chicago named Hoyer and Sawdeye as two of the people at the top of Red Sox search list. The Chicago radio thought Hoyer would stay put.Abraham pointed to the announced restructuring as evidence the Sox would stay inside for the head of baseball operations.
No one knows.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 23, 2019 22:19:34 GMT -5
And Chapman blew the save in game 7 of the World Series. Big success or just complete and total luck? You do not get to use hindsight when making trades and no team is ever going to give up a Torres like prospect for any rental reliever again. It would be like trading Mookie in 2013 for two months of Craig Kimbrel. Except it's not even like that because Mookie wasn't nearly as highly regarded as Torres at the time. Chapman had an ERA under 2 that whole postseason and was gassed to that point. Chapman was a HUGE reason why they ever made it to a game 7. Nice cherry pick though. It's cherry picking to say that blowing a save in game 7 of the World Series isn't what you traded 6 years of control of a future All Star for? Your argument is that it worked out so it was a good trade. Well it's total f'ing luck that it worked out when he blew a save in game 7 of the World Series.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 23, 2019 22:32:19 GMT -5
Chapman had an ERA under 2 that whole postseason and was gassed to that point. Chapman was a HUGE reason why they ever made it to a game 7. Nice cherry pick though. It's cherry picking to say that blowing a save in game 7 of the World Series isn't what you traded 6 years of control of a future All Star for? Your argument is that it worked out so it was a good trade. Well it's total f'ing luck that it worked out when he blew a save in game 7 of the World Series. Nothing was lucky about Chapman's absolute dominance save for one performance in that postseason. It's cherry picking for using that one performance against him when he carried that bullpen to that Game 7. He was the bullpen that year. My argument was for a trade that freaking worked, not that it was a great trade. It did. It was a justifiable trade for that reason alone. Chapman was huge for that run. Arguing against it and calling it luck is pure ignorance. Sometimes you have to pay a lot to win it all. Other times you can be efficient and still win it all. Ideally you don't want to trade your best prospect for a run, but after 108 years, ya I'd be sick of it too and put it on the table to taste victory.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 23, 2019 22:34:35 GMT -5
If Chapman was on our team I would have trouble rooting for the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 23, 2019 22:35:24 GMT -5
They just as easily could have traded it all and never won. I do not judge trades on hindsight. I judge them on what was possible and likely at the time the trade was made. Just like the Red Sox would have lost the trade if they traded Mookie and JBJ for Matt Garza in 2013 even though they would have won the WS. Please just let me have my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 23, 2019 22:48:43 GMT -5
I never said it was ever a good trade either. Putting words into my mouth. I said the Quintana trade is worse.
It is worse when you consider now that the Khechul's of the world are going for 1 year at 13 million per year. You know, the same kind of quality pitcher Quintana is, only they gave up a stud plus way more to get that, instead of just paying money for it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 24, 2019 0:32:35 GMT -5
If Chapman was on our team I would have trouble rooting for the Sox. I call crap on this too Salami. I rooted for the Patriots just as hard when Antonio Brown was acused of rape (when he was here), knowing full well he could be a rapist and be playing football on the Patriots. He was here after the rape accusations too (even though the Patriots didn't know about it reportedly). You can seperate the two things. You can still dislike Chapman and still root for the Sox if he was here. Maybe some people could seperate their fandom and stop rooting, but I have a hard time seeing a lot of people doing it.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by gerry on Sept 24, 2019 2:03:21 GMT -5
If Chapman was on our team I would have trouble rooting for the Sox. I call crap on this too Salami. I rooted for the Patriots just as hard when Antonio Brown was acused of rape (when he was here), knowing full well he could be a rapist and be playing football on the Patriots. He was here after the rape accusations too (even though the Patriots didn't know about it reportedly). You can seperate the two things. You can still dislike Chapman and still root for the Sox if he was here. Maybe some people could seperate their fandom and stop rooting, but I have a hard time seeing a lot of people doing it. Emphatically agree with Salami on this, and am convinced it’s a serious issue. As humans our moral compasses are far too easily misdirected by simple things like magnets, and the magnetic personalities of grifters. I am not preaching goodie two shoes here. But sports figures are not just public persons. They are role models to kids and teens (who are in the procees of learning what ethics and morals are, and their importance to a healthy world). As kids we trust these role models, and their actions should reflect that trust. We don’t wear sports gear with names like Pedroia, Ortiz, Betts, Bogaerts because they cheat, lie, or otherwise disgrace the uniform or the city. Just the opposite. Even as young kids we all knew that guys like the Babe and Ted and Mantle were rough hewn, but we also knew they were “stand-up” guys who were good to kids. To this point ALL sports leagues, all teams and most players emphasize this. Behaviors like cheating, bullying, assault, kneecapping, lying, being a ball hog, whatever, are taught and re-taught to players as unacceptable norms, and it is reinforced by players in even the most dysfunctional clubhouses. We were all, hopefully, taught by our coaches at every level from T-Ball on up. That’s why the exceptions are called aberrations. Our moral compasses direct us to not enjoy bullying, assault, cheating, etc. I admit to enjoying Brown’s amazing talent, and was attracted by his unique charism. Bad guys can be real charmers. At the same time, I was uneasy he was playing for my team, and when the facts of his continuing aberrant behaviour emerged, I was happy they cut him. Also, I am sooo glad Machado is out of the AL because watching him ruins the game for me. Either we support certain norms of behaviour, and demand everyone plays by the accepted rules (see drug testing or Pete Rose) or we allow, even encourage that even playing field to deteriorate and fall apart. And that would be awful.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 24, 2019 5:57:51 GMT -5
Isn't that an argument in favor of the Quintana trade? They acquired him and he pitched well in 2017 and they won the division in no small part because of the stability he brought to the rotation. And that's on top of the fact that they weren't just acquiring him for 2017 - he was under contract for the two years beyond that as well, with the option for 2020. There's a strong argument to be made that Quintana made a bigger difference getting the Cubs to the 2017 postseason than Chapman did in getting to the 2016 season. From there, it had quite a bit to do with people who aren't them. And Quintana was a key part in the playoffs in 2017. he was very good in beating the Nats in Game 3 of the NLDS, helped settle things down in that wild Game 5, and pitched well again in Game 1 against the Dodgers. Then he got lit up in Game 5 of that series, of course. Putting all that aside, I'm actually inclined to agree that Jimenez (and Cease) was too steep a cost there. I'm not arguing it's a good trade, I'm just saying it's a less bad one. The value in Quintana's 2.5 years is just so, so much greater than a half-season of Chapman. I also think the Yankees have been stupid for years not getting the pitching they need to finally create a complete team. It's such a great point and why the trades that didn't happen are just as bad as the ones that did happen at times. The Yankees could have gotten Cole. They balked. Instead of paying that extra at the time, they paid the price and now their biggest foe in the postseason in the Astros have him. Meanwhile Clint Frazier might be out of options soon enough and if the Yankees don't win this year, they might have wasted a huge part of what they've been building for years here. The Yankees might not be better than this year. They'll have more chances I'm sure the next 2 years, but geeze. Pull the trigger like the Cubs did, or you could never cash in. Funny I say that with the Yankees GM that has a name of Cashman.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 24, 2019 6:07:29 GMT -5
They just as easily could have traded it all and never won. I do not judge trades on hindsight. I judge them on what was possible and likely at the time the trade was made. Just like the Red Sox would have lost the trade if they traded Mookie and JBJ for Matt Garza in 2013 even though they would have won the WS. Please just let me have my opinion. Of course you are judging this trade using hindsight because of how good Torres is, if he was a bust the trade would be different. Your whole no team will ever make a trade like that again is 100% using hindsight. Your Matt Garza example is 100% using hindsight. You can have whatever opinion you want, just don't tell us your not using hindsight. It's the only way you can judge trades. I do have to say you're about the only person who thinks the Cubs win without Chapman. He completely changed that bullpen and they used him a ton.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 24, 2019 6:27:25 GMT -5
We seem to be going down rat holes here. I thought that this was a post to discuss hiring a gm for the sox. Discussing WAR on Torres and Quintana does not seem to be the topic. The sox have to find the best person to address their needs. What are their specific needs? Build the club back up to being competitive for the WS. They seem to have 3 basic problems. First making a solid effort to sign Mookie or not. Balancing Mookie money against the salaries they already have and being competitive. Managing the salary structure in total without paying penalties. Finding starting pitching/ pitching in general.
Who is that person? Don't know. But that person does not have anything to do with a trade that Theo made years ago. That trade can be used as an example for what you want or don't want. But, not going into detail on WAR.
The new person is going to have to have big ones to handle the Mookie situation and figure out who to keep and who to trade and balance whatever the money situation is. Cause the goal is always the same. Being competitive enough each year to have a chance to win the series.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 24, 2019 7:48:01 GMT -5
We seem to be going down rat holes here. I thought that this was a post to discuss hiring a gm for the sox. Discussing WAR on Torres and Quintana does not seem to be the topic. The sox have to find the best person to address their needs. What are their specific needs? Build the club back up to being competitive for the WS. They seem to have 3 basic problems. First making a solid effort to sign Mookie or not. Balancing Mookie money against the salaries they already have and being competitive. Managing the salary structure in total without paying penalties. Finding starting pitching/ pitching in general. Who is that person? Don't know. But that person does not have anything to do with a trade that Theo made years ago. That trade can be used as an example for what you want or don't want. But, not going into detail on WAR. The new person is going to have to have big ones to handle the Mookie situation and figure out who to keep and who to trade and balance whatever the money situation is. Cause the goal is always the same. Being competitive enough each year to have a chance to win the series. I guess Jed Hoyer or Amiel Sawdaye are the most likeliest candidates to become the next GM. It seems like they're trying to keep it all in the family this time. At first I didn't take Buster Olney's article too seriously, but the more I think about it, the more I think he has a point. I suppose there are a number of highly qualified candidates that would want no part of the Red Sox GM/POBO job, because if you even win a World Series, you could be dumped 5 minutes later if you get the perfect storm of whatever could go wrong goes wrong. That's another reason why I think the job stays in the family (and by family I mean the Theo family tree). I don't think the job will appeal as much to outsiders (Chaim Bloom for example). The Theo stuff was a tangent to the belief that it will be somebody off of the Theo family tree (or even Theo himself perhaps?) and the change in philosophy of what Theo had in Boston to what he did in Chicago. I guess Theo is being discussed for what he did in Chicago because of the thought that whoever they hire might have similar philosophies and take similar chances in Boston, although at this point I'd think the situation would be different - I mean there's no 108 year or 86 year drought hanging over anybody's head anymore. No reason not to try to build a team that has a great shot virtually every year (without overemphasizing one year over another) instead of the up-down roller coaster pattern the Red Sox have had this decade. And regarding the talk of Theo as candidate I'd be fine if he came back, as I think he would be a different POBO here than he has been in Chicago - as I think he'd learn from his mistakes if he does get fired, but I'd also be alright if the Sox went to somebody else instead, something I never would have thought I'd hear myself say 8 years ago when I was really upset when he left (again). I think Theo was kind of a trailblazer in the modern GM evolution, but hardly the only and final solution to GM. The one thing I liked about the Theo era was the stabilization of the Red Sox. You could count on them year in and year out to win around 95 games. The question would simply be "Is this the year?". Now the Sox might win 108 one year and 84 the next. They might win 69, jump to 97 and a championship, and then fall back to 71. That inconsistency reminds me of a point Ben Cherington made in Alex Speier's book about how when the Red Sox exceed expectations there can be forces around the players which propel them forward and when things go wrong for the Red Sox, those same type of forces around the players can propel them backwards and lead to performances a lot worse than expected. I'm trying to paraphrase and probably doing a bad job of it, but Cherington was trying to explain the weird up/down shifts in performances with the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 24, 2019 8:14:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 24, 2019 8:22:45 GMT -5
They just as easily could have traded it all and never won. I do not judge trades on hindsight. I judge them on what was possible and likely at the time the trade was made. Just like the Red Sox would have lost the trade if they traded Mookie and JBJ for Matt Garza in 2013 even though they would have won the WS. Please just let me have my opinion. Of course you are judging this trade using hindsight because of how good Torres is, if he was a bust the trade would be different. Your whole no team will ever make a trade like that again is 100% using hindsight. Your Matt Garza example is 100% using hindsight. You can have whatever opinion you want, just don't tell us your not using hindsight. It's the only way you can judge trades. I do have to say you're about the only person who thinks the Cubs win without Chapman. He completely changed that bullpen and they used him a ton. Everyone knew Torres was going to be a stud when the trade was made.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 24, 2019 8:39:00 GMT -5
Let's please stick to a discussion of the Red Sox GM search and front office moves. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 24, 2019 8:45:54 GMT -5
I asked the question regarding Eddie Bane and I'll ask again re: Hughes? Should we be concerned that two well respected scouts have left the organization? I mean wouldn't you want your organization to be a place where highly respected scouts with excellent reputations would want to work and stay?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 24, 2019 8:58:33 GMT -5
I don't want to be ageist here, but isn't Hughes about 80? He has a great reputation, but I don't think this is a brain drain situation. Wouldn't be surprised if it's something as simple as him personally liking Hazen and he wants to work with him in a semi-retired advisor role.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 24, 2019 9:07:44 GMT -5
And is Jaymie Bane related to Eddie Bane? Perhaps that explains his departure.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 24, 2019 9:12:17 GMT -5
And is Jaymie Bane related to Eddie Bane? Perhaps that explains his departure. Yup - Jaymie is Eddie's son.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 24, 2019 9:18:39 GMT -5
Jaymie Bane is Eddie's son, yes. He was a major league scout, like Hughes.
Interestingly, he'd been with the org since 2007. Was a pro scout from 07-13, then promoted to MLB scout in 2014. (of note, they hired Eddie in 2012). But yeah, when his dad was let go, I wouldn't expect him to have stuck around.
For context, they have 10 MLB scouts in the media guide.
|
|
|