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.
Mookie Betts traded as part of a three-team deal
|
Post by gk2186 on Feb 13, 2020 9:20:42 GMT -5
I'm not defending Dombrowski as i always felt like he gave up one piece too many but he did get Boyd from Toronto for Price and Fulmer from the Mets for Cespedes at the 2015 trade dead line. I cant speak on if he actually knew what he was looking for or if they were just popular names he had heard at the time
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Feb 13, 2020 9:38:02 GMT -5
I may be Wong, but I think a significant part of the outcome of the trade will depend on how they handle Connor. His profile, while fairly promising, has a lot of Blake Swihart in it, and we all know how the Sox screwed the pooch on handling him. It seems to me the club is really going to have to thread the needle on his development to make him into a useful player.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 13, 2020 9:48:07 GMT -5
"Dombrowski always wins trades" is a myth that came in 2018 when basically all the people he traded weren't playing well: Moncada and Margot had poor years and Kopech got hurt. At the very least, just about all the teams he traded with are happy with the outcome as well. It's impossible to argue that, in the two biggest deals (Sale and Kimbrel) that the acquiring teams didn't get what they wanted. He was very good at filling a specific hole with the right player, even if it meant trading more than the right value for that player. There's really no evidence at all that he was the right guy to evaluate the value trade-off in one where he was selling. Just out of curiosity, for his entire career, what trades would you say he either lost or worked out for both sides? The Max Scherzer trade ended up being brilliant. I could be missing something because I truthfully only cared about his tenure in Boston. I'll go through his Red Sox history: Losses: -The Brewers traded Tyler Thronburg and got baseball players, so they obviously won that trade. All due respect to Thornburg, whose injuries weren't his fault. But four-for-one for a reliever was a bad idea and it worked out about as poorly as possible. -Jamie Callahan, Stephen Nogosek, and Gerson Bautista was too much to give up for two months of Addison Reed. Would've been fine with any two of them. -Ty Buttrey and Williams Jerez for Ian Kinsler probably slides between here and "both sides happy." Kinsler wasn't quite good but he was an upgrade over Nunez. For a variety of reasons it seemed like Buttrey needed a change of scenery, so good on him for stepping up with the Angels. It was probably the right trade at the time and the right player at the time but it's hard to say it worked. On the other hand, maybe they don't win without Kinsler's replacement-level play being such an upgrade. I'll defend the sensibility of this trade but won't say that they won it, if that makes sense. Both sides happy: -Red Sox got Craig Kimbrel; Padres got three years from Manuel Margot, two solid, one quite mediocre. They then flipped Margot to a team everyone thinks is brilliant for Emilio Pagan (5th in baseball in K%, 3rd in K-BB%), and Logan Driscoll (would rank about 15-18th in Sox system); They also flipped Logan Allen for Taylor Trammell, currently ranked 2nd in a stacked system; Guerra didn't pan out as a shortstop, but is basically an interesting hard-throwing lottery ticket on the mound; Carlos Asuaje, the #4 pick in the deal, was a solid piece on the 2017 team but not any good in 2018 before bouncing around. Trammell, Pagan, and Driscoll right now for a player they would have lost years ago? The Padres are thrilled with the continued return on this trade. Calling this a wash is probably generous to the Red Sox. Including Allen felt like too much at the time, and in hindsight it proved to be a mistake that tipped the balance. -Red Sox got Chris Sale; The White Sox have Yoan Moncada (8.1 career bWAR through age-24 season); Michael Kopech is a top 25 prospect in baseball; Luis Alexander Basabe was added to the 40-man roster, he'd probably around 20th in the Red Sox system, maybe higher (I'd have him ahead of Marcus Wilson, who is the most comparable player here); I can't tell if Victor Diaz is in baseball any longer. The White Sox are obviously very happy with that return for a player who got expensive before they could contend. -Giants are happy to get Shaun Anderson for two months of Eduardo Nunez; Gregory Santos had a good ERA in A-ball last year but lower K numbers than you'd expect - surprisingly good control, though. Not sure he's a Top 40 prospect currently -Jalen Beeks is arguably better than Nathan Eovaldi already, and Eovaldi would not still be on the Rays. Red Sox are obviously happy with that trade, but it worked out like the Rays wanted -Jays didn't need Steve Pearce anymore - Santiago Espinal will probably be useful, and they weren't getting more than that for two months of a part-time 1B Obvious win: Drew Pomeranz for Anderson Espinoza, aka the one we all hated at the time. I can keep digging into the secondary trades if you want. The pattern is clear - Dombrowski got the players he needed at the time, but the teams trading with him did very well too. So, when going the other way - when, instead of needing to identify a specific need, you need to identify the best possible value - is Dombrowski the guy you want doing that? Nothing in that record says that to me.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 13, 2020 10:05:49 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, for his entire career, what trades would you say he either lost or worked out for both sides? The Max Scherzer trade ended up being brilliant. I could be missing something because I truthfully only cared about his tenure in Boston. I'll go through his Red Sox history: Losses: -The Brewers traded Tyler Thronburg and got baseball players, so they obviously won that trade. All due respect to Thornburg, whose injuries weren't his fault. But four-for-one for a reliever was a bad idea and it worked out about as poorly as possible. -Jamie Callahan, Stephen Nogosek, and Gerson Bautista was too much to give up for two months of Addison Reed -Ty Buttrey and Williams Jerez for Ian Kinsler probably slides between here and "both sides happy." Kinsler wasn't quite good but he was an upgrade over Nunez. For a variety of reasons it seemed like Buttrey needed a change of scenery, so good on him for stepping up with the Angels. It was probably the right trade at the time but it's hard to say it worked. Both sides happy: -Red Sox got Craig Kimbrel; Padres got three years from Manuel Margot, two solid, one quite mediocre. They then flipped Margot to a team everyone thinks is brilliant for Emilio Pagan (5th in baseball in K%, 3rd in K-BB%), and Logan Driscoll (would rank about 15-18th in Sox system); They also flipped Logan Allen for Taylor Trammell, currently ranked 2nd in a stacked system; Guerra didn't pan out as a shortstop, but is basically an interesting hard-throwing lottery ticket on the mound; Carlos Asuaje, the #4 pick in the deal, was a solid piece on the 2017 team but not any good in 2018 before bouncing around. Trammell, Pagan, and Driscoll right now for a player they would have lost years ago? The Padres are thrilled with the continued return on this trade. Calling this a wash is probably generous to the Red Sox. Including Allen felt like too much at the time, and in hindsight it proved to be a mistake that tipped the balance. -Red Sox got Chris Sale; The White Sox have Yoan Moncada (8.1 career bWAR through age-24 season); Michael Kopech is a top 25 prospect in baseball; Luis Alexander Basabe was added to the 40-man roster, he'd probably around 20th in the Red Sox system, maybe higher (I'd have him ahead of Marcus Wilson, who is the most comparable player here); I can't tell if Victor Diaz is in baseball any longer. The White Sox are obviously very happy with that return for a player who got expensive before they could contend. -Giants are happy to get Shaun Anderson for two months of Eduardo Nunez; Gregory Santos had a good ERA in A-ball last year but lower K numbers than you'd expect - surprisingly good control, though. Not sure he's a Top 40 prospect currently -Jalen Beeks is arguably better than Nathan Eovaldi already, and Eovaldi would not still be on the Rays. Red Sox are obviously happy with that trade, but it worked out like the Rays wanted -Jays didn't need Steve Pearce anymore - Santiago Espinal will probably be useful, and they weren't getting more than that for two months of a part-time 1B Obvious win: Drew Pomeranz for Anderson Espinoza, aka the one we all hated at the time. I can keep digging into the secondary trades if you want. The pattern is clear - Dombrowski got the players he needed at the time, but the teams trading with him did very well too. So, when going the other way - when, instead of needing to identify a specific need, you need to identify the best possible value - is Dombrowski the guy you want doing that? Nothing in that record says that to me. The thornburg trade was a loss and the Buttrey deal I hated at the time. I really loathed the Espinosa trade, but it worked. I don't know if the Kimbrel trade is both sides are happy. Kimbrel was an effective closer on a championship team. Margot hasn't been very good other than some outstanding defense. Now, they might have flipped him and got some good value back for him, but until he can at least slash over a .700 OPS I'm rather down on him. He has a career line of .248/.301/.394/.695 OPS+ 87. He's just not the hitter we hoped he'd be. I do recognize his outstanding defense helps establish his value. I loved Beeks, but was torn on Eovaldi because of the year he was having. He had a good year in 2018 with a 3.60 FIP (overall) and a 3.81 ERA. Not to mention his brilliance in October. You could chalk 2019 to injury, but that's what you get with him. The trade worked beautifully, the extension/re-signing, not so much. There's no real upside to Beeks. He's a fringe starter/long reliever who had a 4.41 FIP and 1.486 WHIP. The 89/40 k/BB in 104.1 IP is concerning. If Beeks is better it's going to be because of health. Steve Pearce you're right on. It was a throwaway for Toronto so any value was fine. Kopech, favorite prospect in the system at the time. Still, injury and his ability to throw strikes consistently are a concern. I think he'll make it, but he's no sure thing. He's also coming back from TJ (which doesn't mean all that much these days). But, they just need Kopech and/or Moncada to live up their star potential to not feel like they missed value in their trade. Moncada's BABIP last year makes his breakout seem more like a mirage. Yeah, forgot about Nunez. Not having Nunez would have been a win on its own.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 13, 2020 10:11:58 GMT -5
The question isn't whether the Red Sox would've been just as happy not making the move. The Padres are happy with the Kimbrel trade, because they got averagish production for three years and they are still realizing benefits from it. Pagan, Driscoll, and Trammell are on the Padres right now directly because of that trade. If Margot never slugs .300 again the Padres already got what they wanted out of it - what he does in the future doesn't change value from their perspective. That's the whole point of both sides being happy. They didn't need Kimbrel anymore and wanted out from under him and are still, four years later, reaping new benefits.
And, for what it's worth, the Rays trading Pagan and Driscoll for Margot throws a whole bucket of cold water on the "actually Margot isn't good" argument. The Rays, who I think everyone agrees are pretty good at talent evaluation, just traded a very strong haul for him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 13, 2020 10:46:05 GMT -5
On the potential deadline deal, it's easy to say he should've made the trade with the benefit of hindsight, but they were a half game out of a playoff spot. A half game!
It's easy to characterize it now as a winning streak affecting his thinking, but it's also the situation they were in.
For reference, on 7/31/2004, the Red Sox were a game out of the wild card. Should they have punted then?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 13, 2020 10:51:17 GMT -5
All by his lonesome, Pagan was quite a get for Margot. Outstanding season in 2019, so he was probably going to be a little rich for Tampa Bay's blood as 2021 is his first arb year. They know when to sell high and the fact they wanted Margot... that does mean we should all pay attention
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 13, 2020 12:00:50 GMT -5
On the potential deadline deal, it's easy to say he should've made the trade with the benefit of hindsight, but they were a half game out of a playoff spot. A half game! It's easy to characterize it now as a winning streak affecting his thinking, but it's also the situation they were in. For reference, on 7/31/2004, the Red Sox were a game out of the wild card. Should they have punted then? The 2004 team was better on paper and they made moves to improve the roster. The rules were also different as the WC team got a 5 game series instead of a 1-game play-in.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 13, 2020 12:07:43 GMT -5
On the potential deadline deal, it's easy to say he should've made the trade with the benefit of hindsight, but they were a half game out of a playoff spot. A half game! It's easy to characterize it now as a winning streak affecting his thinking, but it's also the situation they were in. For reference, on 7/31/2004, the Red Sox were a game out of the wild card. Should they have punted then? The 2004 team was better on paper and they made moves to improve the roster. The rules were also different as the WC team got a 5 game series instead of a 1-game play-in. Chris’s point remains impossible to deny: if the Sox traded their best player for prospects when they were 1/2 game out in the year they were defending the title, it would have had many of us burning down Fenway. It would have been the most extraordinary surrender I can think of in sports history.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 13, 2020 12:20:49 GMT -5
The 2004 team was better on paper and they made moves to improve the roster. The rules were also different as the WC team got a 5 game series instead of a 1-game play-in. Chris’s point remains impossible to deny: if the Sox traded their best player for prospects when they were 1/2 game out in the year they were defending the title, it would have had many of us burning down Fenway. It would have been the most extraordinary surrender I can think of in sports history. The feeling around town was this team, if they made the playoffs, weren't going to do anything. They were trying to sneak into the playoffs in an expanded format and didn't even have a clear answer as to who should be their 1. Their bullpen was blowing games and they were just feasting on garbage for a month before facing the above average teams again. They were also still out of it despite this run, which, for every winning streak comes a losing streak and vice versa. They had Eovaldi who was out for almost the entire season and Porcello was historically bad. Chris Sale wasn't having a great season and was breaking down despite the slow start. Then Price missed time with injuries. The bullpen woes were a bit overblown, but they led the field by a considerable margin on the blown saves category. 2004 was a different situation. Also, am I wrong in thinking Manny was not a free agent? They did trade away Nomar that year who had 1 1/2 years left. So, they actually did do exactly this. Edit: which again, if you had any faith in this team you buy parts to improve the roster. I'm more mad at the stagnation than not selling. Either try or don't.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 13, 2020 12:29:07 GMT -5
All by his lonesome, Pagan was quite a get for Margot. Outstanding season in 2019, so he was probably going to be a little rich for Tampa Bay's blood as 2021 is his first arb year. They know when to sell high and the fact they wanted Margot... that does mean we should all pay attention I'm curious to see if he develops. It's a great get for SD. There's no denying that. TB has turned careers around before.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 13, 2020 13:57:17 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, for his entire career, what trades would you say he either lost or worked out for both sides? The Max Scherzer trade ended up being brilliant. I could be missing something because I truthfully only cared about his tenure in Boston. I'll go through his Red Sox history: Losses: -The Brewers traded Tyler Thronburg and got baseball players, so they obviously won that trade. All due respect to Thornburg, whose injuries weren't his fault. But four-for-one for a reliever was a bad idea and it worked out about as poorly as possible. -Jamie Callahan, Stephen Nogosek, and Gerson Bautista was too much to give up for two months of Addison Reed. Would've been fine with any two of them. -Ty Buttrey and Williams Jerez for Ian Kinsler probably slides between here and "both sides happy." Kinsler wasn't quite good but he was an upgrade over Nunez. For a variety of reasons it seemed like Buttrey needed a change of scenery, so good on him for stepping up with the Angels. It was probably the right trade at the time and the right player at the time but it's hard to say it worked. On the other hand, maybe they don't win without Kinsler's replacement-level play being such an upgrade. I'll defend the sensibility of this trade but won't say that they won it, if that makes sense. Both sides happy: -Red Sox got Craig Kimbrel; Padres got three years from Manuel Margot, two solid, one quite mediocre. They then flipped Margot to a team everyone thinks is brilliant for Emilio Pagan (5th in baseball in K%, 3rd in K-BB%), and Logan Driscoll (would rank about 15-18th in Sox system); They also flipped Logan Allen for Taylor Trammell, currently ranked 2nd in a stacked system; Guerra didn't pan out as a shortstop, but is basically an interesting hard-throwing lottery ticket on the mound; Carlos Asuaje, the #4 pick in the deal, was a solid piece on the 2017 team but not any good in 2018 before bouncing around. Trammell, Pagan, and Driscoll right now for a player they would have lost years ago? The Padres are thrilled with the continued return on this trade. Calling this a wash is probably generous to the Red Sox. Including Allen felt like too much at the time, and in hindsight it proved to be a mistake that tipped the balance. -Red Sox got Chris Sale; The White Sox have Yoan Moncada (8.1 career bWAR through age-24 season); Michael Kopech is a top 25 prospect in baseball; Luis Alexander Basabe was added to the 40-man roster, he'd probably around 20th in the Red Sox system, maybe higher (I'd have him ahead of Marcus Wilson, who is the most comparable player here); I can't tell if Victor Diaz is in baseball any longer. The White Sox are obviously very happy with that return for a player who got expensive before they could contend. -Giants are happy to get Shaun Anderson for two months of Eduardo Nunez; Gregory Santos had a good ERA in A-ball last year but lower K numbers than you'd expect - surprisingly good control, though. Not sure he's a Top 40 prospect currently -Jalen Beeks is arguably better than Nathan Eovaldi already, and Eovaldi would not still be on the Rays. Red Sox are obviously happy with that trade, but it worked out like the Rays wanted -Jays didn't need Steve Pearce anymore - Santiago Espinal will probably be useful, and they weren't getting more than that for two months of a part-time 1B Obvious win: Drew Pomeranz for Anderson Espinoza, aka the one we all hated at the time. I can keep digging into the secondary trades if you want. The pattern is clear - Dombrowski got the players he needed at the time, but the teams trading with him did very well too. So, when going the other way - when, instead of needing to identify a specific need, you need to identify the best possible value - is Dombrowski the guy you want doing that? Nothing in that record says that to me. Are we really calling the Reed trade a loss? Currently it .6 bwar vs. -.8 bwar. We don't have the room in our bullpen to be giving those guys innings to develop like crappy teams can. I want my GM making trades like that if we are chasing a Championship. Heck Callahan was the guy I didn't want to trade and he was granted free agency already. I also don't see how a trade that helped us win a Championship, can be a loss unless you gave up a boat load and Buttrey hasn't even come close to being that guy yet. He'd have to become Kimbrel for that to happen. I really don't get the DD bashing and yeah that's what is happening here. We worshipped the ground Theo stands on, but he traded Rizzo. Bloated our payroll with tons of bad contracts. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 13, 2020 14:13:01 GMT -5
If you consider "other teams were happy with the trades too" to be Dombrowski bashing then I don't know what to tell you. I'd do the Kinsler trade too, 100 % of the time. Between the fact that I said that I liked the move at the time and that I could consider it a wash, and that you think my post is bashing Dombrowski in general, I honestly even wonder if you read what I wrote. The Kinsler trade ended up being better for the Angels and that's fine. I don't think I'd have done the Espinoza/Pomeranz trade and that obviously worked out quite well. Those things tend to even out. What's clear is that from a "can he get the specific guy he needs" standpoint, Dombrowski was great. From a "can he accrue value overall" the record is more mixed.
Sometimes great GMs like Epstein make bad moves, and sometimes there are guys who are the right GM for a situation (Dombrowski in 2015) who are the wrong GM for a different situation (Dombrowski in 2020). Both are going to the Hall of Fame.
|
|
soxin8
Veteran
Posts: 618
Member is Online
|
Post by soxin8 on Feb 13, 2020 14:29:09 GMT -5
On the potential deadline deal, it's easy to say he should've made the trade with the benefit of hindsight, but they were a half game out of a playoff spot. A half game! It's easy to characterize it now as a winning streak affecting his thinking, but it's also the situation they were in. For reference, on 7/31/2004, the Red Sox were a game out of the wild card. Should they have punted then? Yeah, we could have got Lux, May, Ruiz and Verdugo and DD still would not have been able to appear in public. It would have been an historic surrender, worse than the White Sox in 97. bleacherreport.com/articles/778106-mlb-trade-deadline-14-years-later-white-sox-white-flag-trade-still-smartsEven if the eight game losing streak happened before July 31, it would have been a tough sell. I remember being pretty optimistic after the July 25-27 games against NY when the Sox outscored them 38-13 before losing the Sale Sunday night game.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 13, 2020 15:48:21 GMT -5
If you consider "other teams were happy with the trades too" to be Dombrowski bashing then I don't know what to tell you. I'd do the Kinsler trade too, 100 % of the time. Between the fact that I said that I liked the move at the time and that I could consider it a wash, and that you think my post is bashing Dombrowski in general, I honestly even wonder if you read what I wrote. The Kinsler trade ended up being better for the Angels and that's fine. I don't think I'd have done the Espinoza/Pomeranz trade and that obviously worked out quite well. Those things tend to even out. What's clear is that from a "can he get the specific guy he needs" standpoint, Dombrowski was great. From a "can he accrue value overall" the record is more mixed. Sometimes great GMs like Epstein make bad moves, and sometimes there are guys who are the right GM for a situation (Dombrowski in 2015) who are the wrong GM for a different situation (Dombrowski in 2020). Both are going to the Hall of Fame. You're being too kind on the Buttrey trade. In 44 innings at Pawtucket Buttrey had a 2.25 ERA, 66 strikeouts and only 14 walks. He was already a back-end reliever prior to the trade but the Red Sox didn't give him a chance. But the main issue was that the Angels ate some of Kinsler's contract in order to get a larger trade return - this was to allow the Red Sox to remain under the tax threshold, but the Red Sox still failed to remain under the tax, presumably due to accounting errors. It's mistakes like this one that lead to DD's firing.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Feb 13, 2020 15:51:27 GMT -5
The 2004 team was better on paper and they made moves to improve the roster. The rules were also different as the WC team got a 5 game series instead of a 1-game play-in. Chris’s point remains impossible to deny: if the Sox traded their best player for prospects when they were 1/2 game out in the year they were defending the title, it would have had many of us burning down Fenway. It would have been the most extraordinary surrender I can think of in sports history. Super overstated. If they pointed out that we were not beating teams with winning records, and that the playoffs are actually filled only with teams with winning records and made clear that Betts was not signing, as they did this winter — the result with the fans would have been similar — but actually probably less frustrated because they would have almost certainly extracted a very good SP along with Verdugo and Downs and maybe even another player without attaching Price. They could have dealt Price at the same point in time to a different team for more prospects if they were going to eat half his deal. Bottom line is they could have enabled teams to compete for two Championships with Betts and 4 with Price, and we wouldn’t have gotten into the Red Sox “have to” get under the luxury tax talk that pushed the trade value down. It was an absolute no-brainer to trade them by the deadline last year.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Feb 13, 2020 15:54:27 GMT -5
The 2004 team was better on paper and they made moves to improve the roster. The rules were also different as the WC team got a 5 game series instead of a 1-game play-in. Chris’s point remains impossible to deny: if the Sox traded their best player for prospects when they were 1/2 game out in the year they were defending the title, it would have had many of us burning down Fenway. It would have been the most extraordinary surrender I can think of in sports history. This point also makes it sound like the only time to have traded was the eve of the deadline. A week or two before that, it was obvious to do a deal or two, and they should have been done actually before they went on that brief run. It was an opportunity to turn over the roster before that and not risk an injury to the player(s) they would deal or risk a run that would make the fans “believe” in a team that had no chance to win — because again — they were not very good, and their record against good teams showed that.
|
|
soxin8
Veteran
Posts: 618
Member is Online
|
Post by soxin8 on Feb 13, 2020 16:02:22 GMT -5
The tough thing about selling at the deadline is that you are telling the players "We don't believe in you" and I imagine that is tough on the remaining players and coaches.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Feb 13, 2020 16:06:16 GMT -5
The tough thing about selling at the deadline is that you are telling the players "We don't believe in you" and I imagine that is tough on the remaining players and coaches. Generally speaking, this is true. But when you have pitching with as many injury issues as we had — you really are just saying that this is not a year where the health of our pitching staff is allowing us to complete. Let’s get more pieces to support you for the future. And everyone knew Betts wouldn’t sign an extension, so dealing him was going to happen anyway. Players understand the business.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 13, 2020 16:11:27 GMT -5
The tough thing about selling at the deadline is that you are telling the players "We don't believe in you" and I imagine that is tough on the remaining players and coaches. Generally speaking, this is true. But when you have pitching with as many injury issues as we had — you really are just saying that this is not a year where the health of our pitching staff is allowing us to complete. Let’s get more pieces to support you for the future. And everyone knew Betts wouldn’t sign an extension, so dealing him was going to happen anyway. Players understand the business. So do you also think that the Nationals were dumb to not trade Rendon on July 31st when they were a half game out of the wildcard? There is absolutely zero evidence that the Red Sox could have gotten way more for Mookie at the trade deadline so this discussion is completely pointless.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 13, 2020 17:49:48 GMT -5
If you consider "other teams were happy with the trades too" to be Dombrowski bashing then I don't know what to tell you. I'd do the Kinsler trade too, 100 % of the time. Between the fact that I said that I liked the move at the time and that I could consider it a wash, and that you think my post is bashing Dombrowski in general, I honestly even wonder if you read what I wrote. The Kinsler trade ended up being better for the Angels and that's fine. I don't think I'd have done the Espinoza/Pomeranz trade and that obviously worked out quite well. Those things tend to even out. What's clear is that from a "can he get the specific guy he needs" standpoint, Dombrowski was great. From a "can he accrue value overall" the record is more mixed. Sometimes great GMs like Epstein make bad moves, and sometimes there are guys who are the right GM for a situation (Dombrowski in 2015) who are the wrong GM for a different situation (Dombrowski in 2020). Both are going to the Hall of Fame. James to prove DD doesn't always wins trades you concluded his record in Boston was basically three trades he lost, only one he won and the rest both sides are happy. Also I wasn't just talking about this exact post either. Yet one of your loses is a trade we won war wise, the other helped us win a championship. What about the Marrero trade for Taylor? The Ziegler trade? It's not a myth he wins more trades than he doesn't. I've seen multiple articles that detail his every trade that prove just that fact. Also most people would call a trade when both sides are happy a win-win trade. I certainly count the Sale trade, Kimbrel trade, Eovaldi trade, Pearce trade, Nunez trade, and Kinsler trades as wins for us. Those guys all helped us win a Championship. Just like I count the Chapman trade a win for Theo when war wise it might be one of the worst in Baseball History. DD wasn't perfect, but he did exactly what he was hired to do. He got us a Championship and the best team I've ever seen in my 30 plus years of watching the Red Sox. Every little thing Bloom does is gold, yet we seem to forget the good small signings and trades DD made.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 13, 2020 17:59:56 GMT -5
Many of the trades that DD was "good at" had to be made precisely because he didn't anticipate needing the depth when he could have gotten it for free or next to nothing.
They've had so many below replacement level players who played way too many games because of a lack of other options.
It's hard to say that he got fleeced on any trade or even lost a lot of them, but he gave up way too much over way too short of a time and that's why he's no longer around.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 13, 2020 18:00:37 GMT -5
Ooh, Marreeo for Taylor was good for sure. I usually mention that one, good catch.
I think you might be misinterpreting "both sides won" as being a non-positive outcome, which isn't the intention at all. I am thrilled about the Chris Sale trade, and am happy the White Sox are happy. You're reading a lot into my post that wasn't there.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 13, 2020 18:22:04 GMT -5
Chris’s point remains impossible to deny: if the Sox traded their best player for prospects when they were 1/2 game out in the year they were defending the title, it would have had many of us burning down Fenway. It would have been the most extraordinary surrender I can think of in sports history. This point also makes it sound like the only time to have traded was the eve of the deadline. A week or two before that, it was obvious to do a deal or two, and they should have been done actually before they went on that brief run. It was an opportunity to turn over the roster before that and not risk an injury to the player(s) they would deal or risk a run that would make the fans “believe” in a team that had no chance to win — because again — they were not very good, and their record against good teams showed that. The reason we're talking about a specific point in time is because this report talks about a specific point in time. Trades take a long time to get done. There are weeks, if not months, of negotiations of varying intensity. This isn't fantasy baseball where you call your friend, offer your spare shortstop for their spare outfielder, and the trade gets done in five minutes. There were negotiations ongoing, then the Sox pulled within a half game of a playoff spot. It's reasonable at that point to say, y'know what? We're going to hold on to Betts. And for those making this point, there is value to making the playoffs and not winning the world series. Some here are acting like if you're not the overwhelming favorite you should blow it up.
|
|
|
Post by Ryanod1 on Feb 13, 2020 19:28:16 GMT -5
Damn that swing is violent. I do like at least through the first few pitches that he's pretty even in the box. He seems to do a good job of consistently keeping his weight back to generate power through the swing. That he does for the most part. However, i'm not a big fan of his timing device (pull back, tap, and back forward). It almost seems like this is an extra unnecessary step. I would bet that if he shortens his final stride after the tap it will increase bat speed, and increase contact. His swing is so violent in an uppercut path that over striding will have him under the ball. Its not like every scout hasen't worked every inch of this out, but still. Regardless he is very interesting. Its cool as hell seeing these athletic non proto guys play catcher.
|
|
|