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.
6/30 Gameday Thread: Sale on Sea Dogs; A Debut for the Woo
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jul 1, 2022 13:13:28 GMT -5
I do agree that the actual discount rate is skewed due to job security, but I was thinking about the discount rate being more about the risk margin as opposed to the interest rates.
For example let's say a trade had an expected WAR of 10 for each side with one being focused on current MLB help and the other being future prospects. While the expected values might be the same the standard deviation around that expectation gets wider as you go further out in time. I personally would want to be pricing for that increasing risk over time.
As such, I think that math should say that the prospects need to generate more WAR than the MLB help for the trade to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 1, 2022 13:21:26 GMT -5
If you're not discounting future WAR then all trades should look bad. 1 WAR in 2022 should not be given the same amount of weight as 1 WAR in 2017. With that said, I think the trades are still close to neutral. The team got substantially better on an expected WAR basis heading in 2016/17/18 and while we did give up value to get that, on a discounted basis I think the trades are still fair in both directions. Similarly, the 25M in 2018 argument doesn't do much for me since I'd have to imagine that the cost-per-expected-WAR for those two players was significantly in our favor compared to someone on the open market at 8M-per-WAR.It's not that they could have gotten as much value as Kimbrel and Sale through free agency; it's that you have to add $25 million/year to the ledger, along with cost-controlled-for-many-years Margot, Kopech, and Moncada, as what they gave up to get those guys.
The one point where I'd disagree with eric's way of making the calculation, though, is that I think there's value in concentrated WAR value. The Red Sox got 13+ fWAR from Sale in 2017-2018. Moncada+Kopech may or may not ever be able to match that, but if they combine for, say, 20 WAR over 4 seasons that's not necessarily "better" than Sale's 13 WAR in two seasons. It's an extension of the logic for why one 4-win player is better than two 2-win players; "packing" more value into a smaller number of player-seasons allows opportunities to improve the team elsewhere on the roster/in the flow of time.
(For what it's worth, I'd make a distinction between the two trades. Sale legitimately made the team significantly better, and though the prospect cost turned out to be super high, I would say it was worth it, though it's close for me. Kimbrel, on the other hand, nearly blew the 2018 season for us. He was useful in 2017 but had negative value down the stretch and in the playoffs in 2018. What's more, at $12 million, they really could have found comparable value on the free agent market; the prospect cost was totally superfluous.)
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 1, 2022 23:12:42 GMT -5
If you're not discounting future WAR then all trades should look bad. 1 WAR in 2022 should not be given the same amount of weight as 1 WAR in 2017. With that said, I think the trades are still close to neutral. The team got substantially better on an expected WAR basis heading in 2016/17/18 and while we did give up value to get that, on a discounted basis I think the trades are still fair in both directions. Similarly, the 25M in 2018 argument doesn't do much for me since I'd have to imagine that the cost-per-expected-WAR for those two players was significantly in our favor compared to someone on the open market at 8M-per-WAR.It's not that they could have gotten as much value as Kimbrel and Sale through free agency; it's that you have to add $25 million/year to the ledger, along with cost-controlled-for-many-years Margot, Kopech, and Moncada, as what they gave up to get those guys.
The one point where I'd disagree with eric's way of making the calculation, though, is that I think there's value in concentrated WAR value. The Red Sox got 13+ fWAR from Sale in 2017-2018. Moncada+Kopech may or may not ever be able to match that, but if they combine for, say, 20 WAR over 4 seasons that's not necessarily "better" than Sale's 13 WAR in two seasons. It's an extension of the logic for why one 4-win player is better than two 2-win players; "packing" more value into a smaller number of player-seasons allows opportunities to improve the team elsewhere on the roster/in the flow of time.
(For what it's worth, I'd make a distinction between the two trades. Sale legitimately made the team significantly better, and though the prospect cost turned out to be super high, I would say it was worth it, though it's close for me. Kimbrel, on the other hand, nearly blew the 2018 season for us. He was unreal in 2017 but had negative value down the stretch and in the playoffs in 2018. What's more, at $12 million, they really could have found comparable value on the free agent market; the prospect cost was totally superfluous.)
Fixed your typo.
But also, while Kimbrel was obviously shaky in the 2018 playoffs (I think he was tipping), he never blew a save and I think that's a testament to AC, who stuck with him, gambling and winning by the skin of his teeth every time until the final WS game, when it was clear that Sale was not only the guy for the job but he had shown that he was running on fumes as a starter.
But your larger point is the same as mine: At some point, you have to give up some future WAR in the form of prospects in order to stack a single juggernaut team with multiple mega-WAR guys. It's really one of the main reasons you develop prospects in the first place and the main reason that people like Ian, Chris, and Mike rank prospects.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 2, 2022 2:37:44 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I think anyone who thinks we lost or had a neutral Sale trade is more of a stats fan than a Red Sox fan. Shame on you people, you've lost sight of what's important.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 2, 2022 8:22:52 GMT -5
It's not that they could have gotten as much value as Kimbrel and Sale through free agency; it's that you have to add $25 million/year to the ledger, along with cost-controlled-for-many-years Margot, Kopech, and Moncada, as what they gave up to get those guys.
The one point where I'd disagree with eric's way of making the calculation, though, is that I think there's value in concentrated WAR value. The Red Sox got 13+ fWAR from Sale in 2017-2018. Moncada+Kopech may or may not ever be able to match that, but if they combine for, say, 20 WAR over 4 seasons that's not necessarily "better" than Sale's 13 WAR in two seasons. It's an extension of the logic for why one 4-win player is better than two 2-win players; "packing" more value into a smaller number of player-seasons allows opportunities to improve the team elsewhere on the roster/in the flow of time.
(For what it's worth, I'd make a distinction between the two trades. Sale legitimately made the team significantly better, and though the prospect cost turned out to be super high, I would say it was worth it, though it's close for me. Kimbrel, on the other hand, nearly blew the 2018 season for us. He was unreal in 2017 but had negative value down the stretch and in the playoffs in 2018. What's more, at $12 million, they really could have found comparable value on the free agent market; the prospect cost was totally superfluous.)
Fixed your typo.
But also, while Kimbrel was obviously shaky in the 2018 playoffs (I think he was tipping), he never blew a save and I think that's a testament to AC, who stuck with him, gambling and winning by the skin of his teeth every time until the final WS game, when it was clear that Sale was not only the guy for the job but he had shown that he was running on fumes as a starter.
But your larger point is the same as mine: At some point, you have to give up some future WAR in the form of prospects in order to stack a single juggernaut team with multiple mega-WAR guys. It's really one of the main reasons you develop prospects in the first place and the main reason that people like Ian, Chris, and Mike rank prospects.
Well, no, I don't really agree with that. I don't think the goal should ever to be a single juggernaut; it should be to build a sustainable winner. That follows from the fact that baseball is so unpredictable - you can try to build a juggernaut and easily fall flat, and then the playoffs are still a crapshoot anyway. Of course sometimes it makes sense to trade prospects for established players - no one denies that - but not as a "push all the chips in for one season" move. I'm sorry but I think anyone who thinks we lost or had a neutral Sale trade is more of a stats fan than a Red Sox fan. Shame on you people, you've lost sight of what's important. This is a bit insulting. A person can disagree with you on the merits of a trade without it being shameful. Talk about losing perspective...
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2022 9:10:25 GMT -5
Fixed your typo. But also, while Kimbrel was obviously shaky in the 2018 playoffs (I think he was tipping), he never blew a save and I think that's a testament to AC, who stuck with him, gambling and winning by the skin of his teeth every time until the final WS game, when it was clear that Sale was not only the guy for the job but he had shown that he was running on fumes as a starter. But your larger point is the same as mine: At some point, you have to give up some future WAR in the form of prospects in order to stack a single juggernaut team with multiple mega-WAR guys. It's really one of the main reasons you develop prospects in the first place and the main reason that people like Ian, Chris, and Mike rank prospects.
Well, no, I don't really agree with that. I don't think the goal should ever to be a single juggernaut; it should be to build a sustainable winner. That follows from the fact that baseball is so unpredictable - you can try to build a juggernaut and easily fall flat, and then the playoffs are still a crapshoot anyway. Of course sometimes it makes sense to trade prospects for established players - no one denies that - but not as a "push all the chips in for one season" move. I'm sorry but I think anyone who thinks we lost or had a neutral Sale trade is more of a stats fan than a Red Sox fan. Shame on you people, you've lost sight of what's important. This is a bit insulting. A person can disagree with you on the merits of a trade without it being shameful. Talk about losing perspective... I think what's missing in all of this math is what I call "The T Factor" and that's timing. So say you do give up more value. That assumes the chances of winning in that future when the value given up is being accumulated is equal to the chances of winning when you receive the value in a deal and that's really not always true. Yes, the goal is to have a legit shot at winning each year, but the reality is that the chance of winning each year is not equal. In 2017 and 2018 the Sox were in go for in mode. As it turned out in 2019 and 2020 they really weren't. I thought that value wise the Sale deal was a neutral one, but during the time they made they absolutely needed him. And another thing I find interesting is thought of, well if they hadn't spend the money on say Kimbrel, they would have found a comparable closer in free agency and succeeded. Maybe they would have. Maybe they wouldn't have. Not all free agency works out. So at the end of the day you're left with reality. Chris Sale improved the team immensely in 2017 and 2018 along with Kimbrel, and that's probably the reason they won a tight race with the Yankees that year. In 2018 they won by a greater margin, greater than their performances, although who knows if they spring away without Sale being the best pitcher in the game during the first half? Maybe they don't develop their confidence/swag without that. All I know is they won the Series, losing Margot and Moncada and even Kopech were hardly killers. Yes, all three could help the Sox now, but I don't think other than Kopech they're difference makers, and even with Kopech, he has constantly battled injuries and at this point he still hasn't really had a full season where you say, he's a Cy Young candidate, although I concede that could still happen, even this year. But I'll still take the flag that flies forever with reasonable deals. I mean this isn't a Bagwell for Andersen deal where they got lucky and won anyways.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jul 2, 2022 9:13:37 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I think anyone who thinks we lost or had a neutral Sale trade is more of a stats fan than a Red Sox fan. Shame on you people, you've lost sight of what's important. In my opinion the Sox not only lost the Sale trade it isn't even arguable. It is arguable that Moncada and Kopech have not been close to their ceilings. Moncada had what looked like a breakout year in 2019 but it's starting to look like a career year he won't duplicate and Kopech remains more of an intriguing arm than a proven commodity. The thing with Sale is he has cost the Sox a ton of money over a long period of time and he's been worn down and mediocre late in years or out with injuries. It's not that Moncada and Kopech have turned out to be more valuable than Sale. I think that's a wash. It's Sale's money and the thought the Kopech and Moncada chips could have been better played.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 2, 2022 9:32:42 GMT -5
Well, no, I don't really agree with that. I don't think the goal should ever to be a single juggernaut; it should be to build a sustainable winner. That follows from the fact that baseball is so unpredictable - you can try to build a juggernaut and easily fall flat, and then the playoffs are still a crapshoot anyway. Of course sometimes it makes sense to trade prospects for established players - no one denies that - but not as a "push all the chips in for one season" move. This is a bit insulting. A person can disagree with you on the merits of a trade without it being shameful. Talk about losing perspective... I think what's missing in all of this math is what I call "The T Factor" and that's timing. So say you do give up more value. That assumes the chances of winning in that future when the value given up is being accumulated is equal to the chances of winning when you receive the value in a deal and that's really not always true. Yes, the goal is to have a legit shot at winning each year, but the reality is that the chance of winning each year is not equal. In 2017 and 2018 the Sox were in go for in mode. As it turned out in 2019 and 2020 they really weren't. I thought that value wise the Sale deal was a neutral one, but during the time they made they absolutely needed him. And another thing I find interesting is thought of, well if they hadn't spend the money on say Kimbrel, they would have found a comparable closer in free agency and succeeded. Maybe they would have. Maybe they wouldn't have. Not all free agency works out. So at the end of the day you're left with reality. Chris Sale improved the team immensely in 2017 and 2018 along with Kimbrel, and that's probably the reason they won a tight race with the Yankees that year. In 2018 they won by a greater margin, greater than their performances, although who knows if they spring away without Sale being the best pitcher in the game during the first half? Maybe they don't develop their confidence/swag without that. All I know is they won the Series, losing Margot and Moncada and even Kopech were hardly killers. Yes, all three could help the Sox now, but I don't think other than Kopech they're difference makers, and even with Kopech, he has constantly battled injuries and at this point he still hasn't really had a full season where you say, he's a Cy Young candidate, although I concede that could still happen, even this year. But I'll still take the flag that flies forever with reasonable deals. I mean this isn't a Bagwell for Andersen deal where they got lucky and won anyways. I agree with most of this. In fact, I think everyone would agree with the point about timing; it's the logic behind deadlines deals - you trade Ramirez for Schwarber because you have a chance at winning now, even if Ramirez is worth more in some hypothetical future WAR sense than Schwarber is worth in two months on the Red Sox.
You (and patford) lose me with the minimization of Moncada, though. How is he not a difference maker? He's been injured this year but was a 4.9 WAR/150 player from 2019-2021.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2022 10:35:18 GMT -5
I think what's missing in all of this math is what I call "The T Factor" and that's timing. So say you do give up more value. That assumes the chances of winning in that future when the value given up is being accumulated is equal to the chances of winning when you receive the value in a deal and that's really not always true. Yes, the goal is to have a legit shot at winning each year, but the reality is that the chance of winning each year is not equal. In 2017 and 2018 the Sox were in go for in mode. As it turned out in 2019 and 2020 they really weren't. I thought that value wise the Sale deal was a neutral one, but during the time they made they absolutely needed him. And another thing I find interesting is thought of, well if they hadn't spend the money on say Kimbrel, they would have found a comparable closer in free agency and succeeded. Maybe they would have. Maybe they wouldn't have. Not all free agency works out. So at the end of the day you're left with reality. Chris Sale improved the team immensely in 2017 and 2018 along with Kimbrel, and that's probably the reason they won a tight race with the Yankees that year. In 2018 they won by a greater margin, greater than their performances, although who knows if they spring away without Sale being the best pitcher in the game during the first half? Maybe they don't develop their confidence/swag without that. All I know is they won the Series, losing Margot and Moncada and even Kopech were hardly killers. Yes, all three could help the Sox now, but I don't think other than Kopech they're difference makers, and even with Kopech, he has constantly battled injuries and at this point he still hasn't really had a full season where you say, he's a Cy Young candidate, although I concede that could still happen, even this year. But I'll still take the flag that flies forever with reasonable deals. I mean this isn't a Bagwell for Andersen deal where they got lucky and won anyways. I agree with most of this. In fact, I think everyone would agree with the point about timing; it's the logic behind deadlines deals - you trade Ramirez for Schwarber because you have a chance at winning now, even if Ramirez is worth more in some hypothetical future WAR sense than Schwarber is worth in two months on the Red Sox.
You (and patford) lose me with the minimization of Moncada, though. How is he not a difference maker? He's been injured this year but was a 4.9 WAR/150 player from 2019-2021.
With Moncada he's a good ballplayer but he might have already peaked. I also dont know if he can be viable at 2b or outfield as he has been playing 3b for the White Sox. And as you know 3b is not exactly an area of weakness for Boston. You could make the argument that Devers simply could have moved to 1b if Moncada couldnt really hack 2b or the OF, which have been positions of instability for the Red Sox, but I'm not certain that would have been best. Honestly, I thought Moncada had superstar ceiling but except for 2019 he has never really reached it. Good player but expendable for prime Chris Sale, the ace pitcher, the most valuable commodity in baseball, at 2 years of a reasonable contract at the time the Sox are looking at breaking thru to win the Series. I honestly thought it was a fair deal for both sides and when the Red Sox made the deal I leaned against it because I have a tendency to lean toward the prospects, but I did understand that it was a reasonable move to make.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 2, 2022 13:50:31 GMT -5
If you're evaluating the Sale trade, you can't really factor in the extension. At that point, you're talking about a separate decision/transaction.
I'd also put out there that a trade doesn't need to have a winner and a loser. Seeing a lot of posts here assuming that to be the case. Santiago Espinal is on his way to being an All-Star, and he's got as much fWAR this year as Steve Pearce did post-trade in 2018 (regular season at least). Did the Red Sox "lose" that trade?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2022 17:25:45 GMT -5
If you're evaluating the Sale trade, you can't really factor in the extension. At that point, you're talking about a separate decision/transaction. I'd also put out there that a trade doesn't need to have a winner and a loser. Seeing a lot of posts here assuming that to be the case. Santiago Espinal is on his way to being an All-Star, and he's got as much fWAR this year as Steve Pearce did post-trade in 2018 (regular season at least). Did the Red Sox "lose" that trade? Great example that illustrates the point I was trying to make. Pearce was exactly what they needed WHEN they needed it. They'll "lose" on the WAR comparisons between Pearce and Espinal over time, but I certainly don't care.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 3, 2022 2:38:01 GMT -5
Sale was a major factor in a World Series. Case closed for the Red Sox. As far as the White Sox are concerned this looks like a trade that benefited both sides.
How many WAR is a World Series worth ? Get real people. The stats people should be playing fantasy baseball not watching the real thing, they're not likely getting any enjoyment out of it.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 3, 2022 10:13:42 GMT -5
Sale was a major factor in a World Series. Case closed for the Red Sox. As far as the White Sox are concerned this looks like a trade that benefited both sides. How many WAR is a World Series worth ? Get real people. The stats people should be playing fantasy baseball not watching the real thing, they're not likely getting any enjoyment out of it. Your insistence on being insulting about this continues to be weird. Are you arguing with a phantom in your own head or something? It can't take that much empathy to see that people can enjoy the game even if they don't agree with your personal evaluation of a trade.
Anyway, people like to say "they won a WS; ergo, all decisions prior to that outcome are justified." That's not a crazy position to take, I guess, but it's also not at all obvious to me either. And it's not the sort of logic we tend to apply in other domains.
"I drove home drunk, but no one got hurt so I made the right decision."
"I put all my savings into lotto tickets, but then I won the lottery so my investment strategy was very smart."
"Eduardo Nunez got more than 500 PAs with the Red Sox in 2018 and then he got a big hit in the postseason, therefore it was good for Eduardo Nunez to have a key role on the team."
These are things that worked out well, due to contingent factors, but simply looking at the outcome as the only way to judge the original decision would be a very narrow - to the point of fallacy - way of evaluating the decision. It's great that trading for Sale helped them win a WS, but 1) they might well have won a WS without that trade, and 2) any number of contingent events (like Kimbrel sucking just slightly more) could have led to them not winning the WS. In which case, would you say that it was a bad trade? But why should that evaluation depend on random unrelated circumstances (like Kimbrel's performance)?
Or to look at it from another angle... the Red Sox signed David Price to a $185 million contract and got basically 3 decent seasons out of him. He's still an albatross on their payroll to this day. But he definitely helped the team in the 2018 postseason. Does that justify the deal? Maybe it does! But if you disagree with that, and say that it was not a good signing for the Red Sox, does that really make you "not a real fan" who doesn't actually enjoy baseball? It would be absurd to say that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 3, 2022 10:56:15 GMT -5
If the Red Sox traded Xander and Mookie to the Phillies for Cliff Lee (which is what Amaro demanded) and still won the 2013 World Series, would that have been a good trade? At some point it is not.
Winning a World Series does not mean that every decision made to assemble the final roster was a good one.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jul 3, 2022 11:12:58 GMT -5
Anyway, people like to say "they won a WS; ergo, all decisions prior to that outcome are justified." That's not a crazy position to take, I guess, but it's also not at all obvious to me either. And it's not the sort of logic we tend to apply in other domains. If you're going to point at the scoreboard to evaluate a move, I recommend pointing at whichever scoreboard says you're winning. As Red Sox fans, that means we should be saying Count The Ringzzzz a bunch.
If you're going to stubbornly insist on evaluating process, I'll just note that Santiago Espinal piling up major league WAR was not really a reasonable thing to expect at the time of the trade.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 3, 2022 11:35:26 GMT -5
Anyway, people like to say "they won a WS; ergo, all decisions prior to that outcome are justified." That's not a crazy position to take, I guess, but it's also not at all obvious to me either. And it's not the sort of logic we tend to apply in other domains. If you're going to point at the scoreboard to evaluate a move, I recommend pointing at whichever scoreboard says you're winning. As Red Sox fans, that means we should be saying Count The Ringzzzz a bunch.
If you're going to stubbornly insist on evaluating process, I'll just note that Santiago Espinal piling up major league WAR was not really a reasonable thing to expect at the time of the trade.
Facetiousness noted. But actually, another problem with this logic is that it can be turned around for any year the team didn't win a WS. "Banners fly forever; and the Red Sox might have had a banner in 2021 if they had Moncada + Kopech on the roster, ergo it was a bad trade." Sure, a 2021 WS victory wouldn't be guaranteed in that scenario, but it wasn't guaranteed they wouldn't have won in 2018 without Sale either. It's essentially the same logic.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 3, 2022 11:36:42 GMT -5
"They won the World Series, ergo everything they did was justified" is a bad take. So is "the other team got 3 fWAR more so the Red Sox made a bad trade."
Nuance, people. Nuance.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 3, 2022 11:48:08 GMT -5
I hate re-litigating trades years later, but let's not re-write history either - there were only two pitchers with a negative WPA in the 2018 World Series: Sale and Brasier. The Sox won in five games, it's a major stretch to act like Sale was required to win *that series* - the journey to get there can be a different argument.
If the most simple results based traditional stats are your jam, the only Red Sox pitcher that gave up more ER than Sale that series was E-Rod, who gave up one more run but pitched 1.1 more innings. Sale gave 5 innings in two appearances, giving up 3 ER (with a strong 10k-2bb to be fair). In terms of championship importance, Joe Kelly was much better than Sale during that series, so maybe we should celebrate the Lackey trade instead, and forget all about Allen Craig. We could do the Lester trade too, since Cespedes was flipped for Porcello and Porcello was also better than Sale in the WS. Of course, it's baseball, so things aren't as simple as pointing to banners - it's a team sport with major luck involved. Maybe the 08 team would've won a title with Hanley and some other players making the money assigned to Beckett and Lowell, who knows?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 3, 2022 20:32:15 GMT -5
I hate re-litigating trades years later, but let's not re-write history either - there were only two pitchers with a negative WPA in the 2018 World Series: Sale and Brasier. The Sox won in five games, it's a major stretch to act like Sale was required to win *that series* - the journey to get there can be a different argument. If the most simple results based traditional stats are your jam, the only Red Sox pitcher that gave up more ER than Sale that series was E-Rod, who gave up one more run but pitched 1.1 more innings. Sale gave 5 innings in two appearances, giving up 3 ER (with a strong 10k-2bb to be fair). In terms of championship importance, Joe Kelly was much better than Sale during that series, so maybe we should celebrate the Lackey trade instead, and forget all about Allen Craig. We could do the Lester trade too, since Cespedes was flipped for Porcello and Porcello was also better than Sale in the WS. Of course, it's baseball, so things aren't as simple as pointing to banners - it's a team sport with major luck involved. Maybe the 08 team would've won a title with Hanley and some other players making the money assigned to Beckett and Lowell, who knows? But now you're getting into theoretical unknowable titles versus titles that actually occurred in reality. Sale only pitched two games in the Series, one start in which he had no impact either way and one dominating indelible closing act with a comfortable 4 run lead, but that wasn't his main impact. If say his performance during 2017 was a difference maker in the division race. I'd say his first half 2018 performance was a difference maker as well. The Yankees played well over .600 ball in that first half but couldn't catch the Sox because Sale was a virtual victory every time out and he manhandled the Yankees in particular. He even pitched well in his Game 1 ALDS start and gave them a needed 8th inning of 3 up 3 down in relief during the ALDS clincher. As things have turned out I have no issue with the deal. Chris is right in that winning a Series doesn't automatically make a trade great, although I do give greater leeway....I mean I think of Eduardo Nunez and the first thought that comes to mind isnt that he was a poor fielding 2b who was below average offensively, but rather that PH 3 run HR that iced Game 1, the do or die play he made in noisy Yankee Stadium with help from Pearce and the spark he brought them when acquired in 2017 before he got hurt which impacted the rest of his career, along with the gritty hustle he showed in Game 3 of the Series. Winning leaves those as indelible marks, rather than his sub par WAR, so yes he wasn't good but I'll remember him fondly anyways. Besides I can't say that I miss Shawn Anderson anyways. Then again trading Jeff Bagwell for Larry Andersen and then winning the Series doesn't make for a great trade either. That said, the Chapman for Torres trade wasn't good but do Cubs fans regret the deal? Probably not, despite getting hosed valuewise. And again it's not about WAR given up vs WAR received necessarily either. That's what is so fun about trades. You can sit there evaluating them and reevaluating them forever.
|
|
|