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.
Evaluating the Front Office and Ownership
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 24, 2023 22:09:00 GMT -5
I'm talking Red Sox and I'm not using hindsight. The amount of prospects he could have gotten is crazy, he had the exact type of pieces that net you very good to great returns. The Red Sox have tons of money, nothing is more valuable in Baseball than cheap young players. Either to help your team or trade. What precedent are you using in your assumption that they could have gotten a "crazy" prospect return? The price of rentals, even rental stars, has fallen pretty drastically. I'm also wondering where he's getting 15 percent as the RS chances of making the post-season as of the trade deadline. According to FG, they had a 28.2 percent chance on 8-1, a 33.1 percent chance on 8-2 (deadline day), and a 24.8 percent chance on Aug. 3. It's unclear to me whether those were the odds at the start of each day's play or after each day's play. But they're all way over 15 percent. I hate what they did (and didn't do) at last year's deadline but I can't support anything in his post. My thought is they may have gotten a prospect in the 80 to 100 range for Eo or JDM, maybe for both if they had heavily subsidized. But they weren't going to get a "crazy" prospect return, which is what he claimed. And neither Eo and JDM is a guy who gets you "very good to great returns." The Nats had that guy. His name is Juan Soto.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 24, 2023 22:27:03 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
I don't know if the bolded is true or not. You'd have to look at every trade deadline in history to know. But I don't think they had to go into "full selloff mode." Moving Eo would have saved > $6M. That, along with the CVaz trade and not acquiring the useless Tommy Pham, would have gotten them close to the LTT or under it.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jan 24, 2023 23:05:46 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
I don't know if the bolded is true or not. You'd have to look at every trade deadline in history to know. But I don't think they had to go into "full selloff mode." Moving Eo would have saved > $6M. That, along with the CVaz trade and not acquiring the useless Tommy Pham, would have gotten them close to the LTT or under it. Not only were the Sox "right there" in terms of the Wild Card they expected that big additions in the form of Sale, Story and Paxton were coming. Further Bogaerts went into a bad slump at the worst possible time. And why assume there were better offers for Betts? Is there any evidence for that at all?
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 24, 2023 23:18:19 GMT -5
I don't know if the bolded is true or not. You'd have to look at every trade deadline in history to know. But I don't think they had to go into "full selloff mode." Moving Eo would have saved > $6M. That, along with the CVaz trade and not acquiring the useless Tommy Pham, would have gotten them close to the LTT or under it. Not only were the Sox "right there" in terms of the Wild Card they expected that big additions in the form of Sale, Story and Paxton were coming. Further Bogaerts went into a bad slump at the worst possible time. And why assume there were better offers for Betts? Is there any evidence for that at all? Was that true with Sale and Paxton? I checked Sale's game logs and they confirm that he got his digit smushed on July 17 against the MFYs. I thought that at that point it was understood that he'd be out for quite a while. And I thought they signed Paxton with the understanding that he probably wouldn't contribute much, if anything, in 2022. But if they really did have reason to think one or both of those guys would be back, that supports my comment that they should have at least moved Eo to get under the LTT. That would have been basically a stand-pat, hedge-their-bets type of move. They could have gotten under the LTT with the expectation that Eo would be replaced by Sale/Paxton. I'm confused by your mention of Betts. I've never killed Bloom for the return they got. Downs was a top 50 or so prospect. Like a lot of prospects, he didn't materialize. BB talent is super hard to project. Maybe you were commenting on something somebody else said about the Betts trade? It's late. And I'm tired and extremely pissed that the Celtics lost, so maybe my focus isn't all there.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jan 25, 2023 0:10:33 GMT -5
Not only were the Sox "right there" in terms of the Wild Card they expected that big additions in the form of Sale, Story and Paxton were coming. Further Bogaerts went into a bad slump at the worst possible time. And why assume there were better offers for Betts? Is there any evidence for that at all? Was that true with Sale and Paxton? I checked Sale's game logs and they confirm that he got his digit smushed on July 17 against the MFYs. I thought that at that point it was understood that he'd be out for quite a while. And I thought they signed Paxton with the understanding that he probably wouldn't contribute much, if anything, in 2022. But if they really did have reason to think one or both of those guys would be back, that supports my comment that they should have at least moved Eo to get under the LTT. That would have been basically a stand-pat, hedge-their-bets type of move. They could have gotten under the LTT with the expectation that Eo would be replaced by Sale/Paxton. I'm confused by your mention of Betts. I've never killed Bloom for the return they got. Downs was a top 50 or so prospect. Like a lot of prospects, he didn't materialize. BB talent is super hard to project. Maybe you were commenting on something somebody else said about the Betts trade? It's late. And I'm tired and extremely pissed that the Celtics lost, so maybe my focus isn't all there. Yes the Betts comment was lumped in from previous discussion and not based on anything you said. I don't worry about the Celtics. I've given up on them. The team lacks toughness. That isn't a quality that comes with time. It's an intangible and they just don't have it. There's a lot of talent in the NBA and after a hot start the Celtics look like just another team.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 25, 2023 9:17:21 GMT -5
I'm talking Red Sox and I'm not using hindsight. The amount of prospects he could have gotten is crazy, he had the exact type of pieces that net you very good to great returns. The Red Sox have tons of money, nothing is more valuable in Baseball than cheap young players. Either to help your team or trade. What precedent are you using in your assumption that they could have gotten a "crazy" prospect return? The price of rentals, even rental stars, has fallen pretty drastically. What precedent are you using to say we wouldn't? This is the Betts crap before we traded him and the long list of posters saying we couldn't get hardly anything for him. People saying you couldn't even get a Verdugo nevermind a bunch more. Teams will always pay for true difference makers. You would have gotten a bunch for Bogaerts and if you had a true fire sale the overall package would have been crazy.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 25, 2023 9:23:49 GMT -5
What precedent are you using in your assumption that they could have gotten a "crazy" prospect return? The price of rentals, even rental stars, has fallen pretty drastically. I'm also wondering where he's getting 15 percent as the RS chances of making the post-season as of the trade deadline. According to FG, they had a 28.2 percent chance on 8-1, a 33.1 percent chance on 8-2 (deadline day), and a 24.8 percent chance on Aug. 3. It's unclear to me whether those were the odds at the start of each day's play or after each day's play. But they're all way over 15 percent. I hate what they did (and didn't do) at last year's deadline but I can't support anything in his post. My thought is they may have gotten a prospect in the 80 to 100 range for Eo or JDM, maybe for both if they had heavily subsidized. But they weren't going to get a "crazy" prospect return, which is what he claimed. And neither Eo and JDM is a guy who gets you "very good to great returns." The Nats had that guy. His name is Juan Soto. Because that's the historical number per Baseball Refrence. Based on the long history of Baseball only 15% of the team in the Red Sox position made the post season. Fangraphs is a totally different projection system, same system they use to project wins and we know how off those can be. Even if you prefer Fangraphs, the 15% historical number is 100% legit.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 25, 2023 9:27:05 GMT -5
What precedent are you using in your assumption that they could have gotten a "crazy" prospect return? The price of rentals, even rental stars, has fallen pretty drastically.What precedent are you using to say we wouldn't? This is the Betts crap before we traded him and the long list of posters saying we couldn't get hardly anything for him. People saying you couldn't even get a Verdugo nevermind a bunch more. Teams will always pay for true difference makers. You would have gotten a bunch for Bogaerts and if you had a true fire sale the overall package would have been crazy. The precedent he points to in his post is that the price of trading for rentals has fallen off in the past few years which in my opinion I agree with him. What rental player has received a "crazy" haul at the deadline the past few years? I can't think of one. Sure they'd have gotten an interesting prospect or two for X, I doubt they'd have gotten anything of note for Eovaldi or JD though. They were never going to trade X though, which if you want to take issue with that I get it. Heck I do too since in my opinion they were never all that serious about re-signing him. As for JD, I'd have traded JD for a bag of balls if someone wanted to take his full contract which yes would have gotten them under the LT. For Eovaldi I'd probably have taken whatever they could for him too but that ones a little harder to say.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 25, 2023 10:16:05 GMT -5
What precedent are you using in your assumption that they could have gotten a "crazy" prospect return? The price of rentals, even rental stars, has fallen pretty drastically. What precedent are you using to say we wouldn't? This is the Betts crap before we traded him and the long list of posters saying we couldn't get hardly anything for him. People saying you couldn't even get a Verdugo nevermind a bunch more. Teams will always pay for true difference makers. You would have gotten a bunch for Bogaerts and if you had a true fire sale the overall package would have been crazy. Here are a couple: " July 30: Giants acquire 3B/OF Kris Bryant from Cubs for OF Alexander Canario and RHP Caleb Kilian
After watching the rival Dodgers pick up Max Scherzer and Trea Turner from the Nationals, the Giants made a blockbuster trade of their own for Bryant, a four-time All-Star and former MVP. Eligible for free agency after 2021, the 29-year-old could help the Giants in a number of areas after showing increased versatility with the Cubs this season. The Giants are currently missing both starting corner infielders, third baseman Evan Longoria and first baseman Brandon Belt. To get Bryant, San Francisco sent its Nos. 9 (Canario) and 30 (Kilian) prospects, according to MLB Pipeline, to Chicago." " July 30: Mets acquire SS Javier Báez, RHP Trevor Williams and cash from Cubs for OF Pete Crow-Armstrong
After picking up Francisco Lindor in the offseason, the Mets are bringing in a fellow Gold Glove shortstop in Báez, Lindor's good friend and an impending free agent after 2021. Báez will likely fill in at shortstop until Lindor is ready to return from a strained oblique, then shift over to second base, where he has nearly 300 games of experience. The deal costs the Mets Crow-Armstrong, the 19th overall pick in the 2020 MLB Draft and their No. 5 prospect per MLB Pipeline. The 19-year-old outfielder is recovering from right shoulder surgery for a GLAD (glenoid labral articular disruption) lesion." " July 30: White Sox acquire RHP Craig Kimbrel from Cubs for 2B Nick Madrigal and RHP Codi Heuer
After acquiring Ryan Tepera from the Cubs earlier this week, the White Sox went back to their crosstown rivals for more bullpen help and came away with a much bigger piece in Kimbrel. The Sox now have arguably the best bullpen duo in the game in Kimbrel and Liam Hendriks, who signed with the club in the offseason, and Kimbrel’s $16 million club option means he could be back in 2022 as well. Madrigal was the fourth overall pick in the 2018 MLB Draft and a former top prospect, but he wasn’t going to contribute to the White Sox roster the rest of this season after suffering a torn hamstring in June. Heuer, 25, gives the Cubs a reliever with four years of control remaining after 2021." You could even include the Schwarber trade as an example. Those trades resulted in good prospects coming back, but none of them got "crazy" returns by any means. Teams just aren't going all in for rentals anymore, that's just reality whether you choose to accept it or not. The only true exception lately was the Scherzer/Turner trade but that was not one but two superstars going to a team that had the prospect depth to spend up and, even then, it wasn't an unreal haul.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 26, 2023 7:20:56 GMT -5
What precedent are you using to say we wouldn't? This is the Betts crap before we traded him and the long list of posters saying we couldn't get hardly anything for him. People saying you couldn't even get a Verdugo nevermind a bunch more. Teams will always pay for true difference makers. You would have gotten a bunch for Bogaerts and if you had a true fire sale the overall package would have been crazy. Here are a couple: " July 30: Giants acquire 3B/OF Kris Bryant from Cubs for OF Alexander Canario and RHP Caleb Kilian
After watching the rival Dodgers pick up Max Scherzer and Trea Turner from the Nationals, the Giants made a blockbuster trade of their own for Bryant, a four-time All-Star and former MVP. Eligible for free agency after 2021, the 29-year-old could help the Giants in a number of areas after showing increased versatility with the Cubs this season. The Giants are currently missing both starting corner infielders, third baseman Evan Longoria and first baseman Brandon Belt. To get Bryant, San Francisco sent its Nos. 9 (Canario) and 30 (Kilian) prospects, according to MLB Pipeline, to Chicago." " July 30: Mets acquire SS Javier Báez, RHP Trevor Williams and cash from Cubs for OF Pete Crow-Armstrong
After picking up Francisco Lindor in the offseason, the Mets are bringing in a fellow Gold Glove shortstop in Báez, Lindor's good friend and an impending free agent after 2021. Báez will likely fill in at shortstop until Lindor is ready to return from a strained oblique, then shift over to second base, where he has nearly 300 games of experience. The deal costs the Mets Crow-Armstrong, the 19th overall pick in the 2020 MLB Draft and their No. 5 prospect per MLB Pipeline. The 19-year-old outfielder is recovering from right shoulder surgery for a GLAD (glenoid labral articular disruption) lesion." " July 30: White Sox acquire RHP Craig Kimbrel from Cubs for 2B Nick Madrigal and RHP Codi Heuer
After acquiring Ryan Tepera from the Cubs earlier this week, the White Sox went back to their crosstown rivals for more bullpen help and came away with a much bigger piece in Kimbrel. The Sox now have arguably the best bullpen duo in the game in Kimbrel and Liam Hendriks, who signed with the club in the offseason, and Kimbrel’s $16 million club option means he could be back in 2022 as well. Madrigal was the fourth overall pick in the 2018 MLB Draft and a former top prospect, but he wasn’t going to contribute to the White Sox roster the rest of this season after suffering a torn hamstring in June. Heuer, 25, gives the Cubs a reliever with four years of control remaining after 2021." You could even include the Schwarber trade as an example. Those trades resulted in good prospects coming back, but none of them got "crazy" returns by any means. Teams just aren't going all in for rentals anymore, that's just reality whether you choose to accept it or not. The only true exception lately was the Scherzer/Turner trade but that was not one but two superstars going to a team that had the prospect depth to spend up and, even then, it wasn't an unreal haul. Honest question are you serious? You believe those are good comps for Bogaerts that was about 4 bwar at deadline, 5 straight top 17 MVP finishes, two straight SS awards with 3 of the last four. Bryant 2.2 bwar at deadline, Baez 2.7, Kimbrel 2.5 and Schwarber 1.8. The best comp that is still crazy off value wise is Baez. Crow-Armstrong is the Cubs #1 prospect and #30 overall per MLB.COM. Also per MLB.COM the 2022 trade deadline had more top 100 prospects traded than any deadline since 2017. Like I said this is the pre trading Betts crap, that you won't get hardly anything for him. The same reason he got a massive contract from a team that didn't even really need him, is the same reason you'd get a big return for him. He was a truly elite player.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 26, 2023 8:10:26 GMT -5
Here are a couple: " July 30: Giants acquire 3B/OF Kris Bryant from Cubs for OF Alexander Canario and RHP Caleb Kilian
After watching the rival Dodgers pick up Max Scherzer and Trea Turner from the Nationals, the Giants made a blockbuster trade of their own for Bryant, a four-time All-Star and former MVP. Eligible for free agency after 2021, the 29-year-old could help the Giants in a number of areas after showing increased versatility with the Cubs this season. The Giants are currently missing both starting corner infielders, third baseman Evan Longoria and first baseman Brandon Belt. To get Bryant, San Francisco sent its Nos. 9 (Canario) and 30 (Kilian) prospects, according to MLB Pipeline, to Chicago." " July 30: Mets acquire SS Javier Báez, RHP Trevor Williams and cash from Cubs for OF Pete Crow-Armstrong
After picking up Francisco Lindor in the offseason, the Mets are bringing in a fellow Gold Glove shortstop in Báez, Lindor's good friend and an impending free agent after 2021. Báez will likely fill in at shortstop until Lindor is ready to return from a strained oblique, then shift over to second base, where he has nearly 300 games of experience. The deal costs the Mets Crow-Armstrong, the 19th overall pick in the 2020 MLB Draft and their No. 5 prospect per MLB Pipeline. The 19-year-old outfielder is recovering from right shoulder surgery for a GLAD (glenoid labral articular disruption) lesion." " July 30: White Sox acquire RHP Craig Kimbrel from Cubs for 2B Nick Madrigal and RHP Codi Heuer
After acquiring Ryan Tepera from the Cubs earlier this week, the White Sox went back to their crosstown rivals for more bullpen help and came away with a much bigger piece in Kimbrel. The Sox now have arguably the best bullpen duo in the game in Kimbrel and Liam Hendriks, who signed with the club in the offseason, and Kimbrel’s $16 million club option means he could be back in 2022 as well. Madrigal was the fourth overall pick in the 2018 MLB Draft and a former top prospect, but he wasn’t going to contribute to the White Sox roster the rest of this season after suffering a torn hamstring in June. Heuer, 25, gives the Cubs a reliever with four years of control remaining after 2021." You could even include the Schwarber trade as an example. Those trades resulted in good prospects coming back, but none of them got "crazy" returns by any means. Teams just aren't going all in for rentals anymore, that's just reality whether you choose to accept it or not. The only true exception lately was the Scherzer/Turner trade but that was not one but two superstars going to a team that had the prospect depth to spend up and, even then, it wasn't an unreal haul. Honest question are you serious? You believe those are good comps for Bogaerts that was about 4 bwar at deadline, 5 straight top 17 MVP finishes, two straight SS awards with 3 of the last four. Bryant 2.2 bwar at deadline, Baez 2.7, Kimbrel 2.5 and Schwarber 1.8. The best comp that is still crazy off value wise is Baez. Crow-Armstrong is the Cubs #1 prospect and #30 overall per MLB.COM. Also per MLB.COM the 2022 trade deadline had more top 100 prospects traded than any deadline since 2017. Like I said this is the pre trading Betts crap, that you won't get hardly anything for him. The same reason he got a massive contract from a team that didn't even really need him, is the same reason you'd get a big return for him. He was a truly elite player. Top 17 MVP finishes talk about cherry picking lol Yes I was serious and yes they’re fine comps, they don’t need to be 1 for 1 identical players as Bogaerts to prove that rentals typically get returns that would appear to be lesser than their actual value as players. That extremely context-needy stat you threw out there doesn’t mean that the market loosened, it just means Juan Soto was available. That’s it. But, whatever. Like a mod once said, despite all of the evidence ever provided to you in the contrary you’ve never wavered off of an opinion ever, so you can live in your little fantasy land, I’ve already been stretched about as thin with engagement with you as any sane human can take.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 26, 2023 8:27:00 GMT -5
Xander wasn't going to be traded. He had a NTC and the Red Sox were very open in saying they wanted to re-sign him. He wasn't going anywhere, so he doesn't even belong in this conversation.
It was Eo and/or JDM and neither was bringing anything "crazy." The onus was on you to present evidence to back up your argument. Instead, you tried to turn it around by insisting that someone else present evidence to the contrary, which thegoodthebadthesox did.
At least give an inch and acknowledge that you overstated your point. The rest of us do it now and then. It hasn't killed any of us.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 26, 2023 9:22:53 GMT -5
Here are a couple: " July 30: Giants acquire 3B/OF Kris Bryant from Cubs for OF Alexander Canario and RHP Caleb Kilian
After watching the rival Dodgers pick up Max Scherzer and Trea Turner from the Nationals, the Giants made a blockbuster trade of their own for Bryant, a four-time All-Star and former MVP. Eligible for free agency after 2021, the 29-year-old could help the Giants in a number of areas after showing increased versatility with the Cubs this season. The Giants are currently missing both starting corner infielders, third baseman Evan Longoria and first baseman Brandon Belt. To get Bryant, San Francisco sent its Nos. 9 (Canario) and 30 (Kilian) prospects, according to MLB Pipeline, to Chicago." " July 30: Mets acquire SS Javier Báez, RHP Trevor Williams and cash from Cubs for OF Pete Crow-Armstrong
After picking up Francisco Lindor in the offseason, the Mets are bringing in a fellow Gold Glove shortstop in Báez, Lindor's good friend and an impending free agent after 2021. Báez will likely fill in at shortstop until Lindor is ready to return from a strained oblique, then shift over to second base, where he has nearly 300 games of experience. The deal costs the Mets Crow-Armstrong, the 19th overall pick in the 2020 MLB Draft and their No. 5 prospect per MLB Pipeline. The 19-year-old outfielder is recovering from right shoulder surgery for a GLAD (glenoid labral articular disruption) lesion." " July 30: White Sox acquire RHP Craig Kimbrel from Cubs for 2B Nick Madrigal and RHP Codi Heuer
After acquiring Ryan Tepera from the Cubs earlier this week, the White Sox went back to their crosstown rivals for more bullpen help and came away with a much bigger piece in Kimbrel. The Sox now have arguably the best bullpen duo in the game in Kimbrel and Liam Hendriks, who signed with the club in the offseason, and Kimbrel’s $16 million club option means he could be back in 2022 as well. Madrigal was the fourth overall pick in the 2018 MLB Draft and a former top prospect, but he wasn’t going to contribute to the White Sox roster the rest of this season after suffering a torn hamstring in June. Heuer, 25, gives the Cubs a reliever with four years of control remaining after 2021." You could even include the Schwarber trade as an example. Those trades resulted in good prospects coming back, but none of them got "crazy" returns by any means. Teams just aren't going all in for rentals anymore, that's just reality whether you choose to accept it or not. The only true exception lately was the Scherzer/Turner trade but that was not one but two superstars going to a team that had the prospect depth to spend up and, even then, it wasn't an unreal haul. Honest question are you serious? You believe those are good comps for Bogaerts that was about 4 bwar at deadline, 5 straight top 17 MVP finishes, two straight SS awards with 3 of the last four. Bryant 2.2 bwar at deadline, Baez 2.7, Kimbrel 2.5 and Schwarber 1.8. The best comp that is still crazy off value wise is Baez. Crow-Armstrong is the Cubs #1 prospect and #30 overall per MLB.COM. Also per MLB.COM the 2022 trade deadline had more top 100 prospects traded than any deadline since 2017. Like I said this is the pre trading Betts crap, that you won't get hardly anything for him. The same reason he got a massive contract from a team that didn't even really need him, is the same reason you'd get a big return for him. He was a truly elite player. This was completely driven by the Castillo and Soto deals which neither were rentals so this doesn't really add anything to your argument they could have gotten a "haul" with a firesale. For Xandy I bet they could have gotten a prospect in the 50-100 range perhaps slightly higher but they weren't getting back some sort of top 25 can't miss prospect for a rental.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 26, 2023 11:27:21 GMT -5
Honest question are you serious? You believe those are good comps for Bogaerts that was about 4 bwar at deadline, 5 straight top 17 MVP finishes, two straight SS awards with 3 of the last four. Bryant 2.2 bwar at deadline, Baez 2.7, Kimbrel 2.5 and Schwarber 1.8. The best comp that is still crazy off value wise is Baez. Crow-Armstrong is the Cubs #1 prospect and #30 overall per MLB.COM. Also per MLB.COM the 2022 trade deadline had more top 100 prospects traded than any deadline since 2017. Like I said this is the pre trading Betts crap, that you won't get hardly anything for him. The same reason he got a massive contract from a team that didn't even really need him, is the same reason you'd get a big return for him. He was a truly elite player. This was completely driven by the Castillo and Soto deals which neither were rentals so this doesn't really add anything to your argument they could have gotten a "haul" with a firesale. For Xandy I bet they could have gotten a prospect in the 50-100 range perhaps slightly higher but they weren't getting back some sort of top 25 can't miss prospect for a rental. The Mets' trade of PCA also comes with a big asterisk because of Steve Cohen. He has "GFIN" stamped on his forehead.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 26, 2023 11:34:58 GMT -5
This was completely driven by the Castillo and Soto deals which neither were rentals so this doesn't really add anything to your argument they could have gotten a "haul" with a firesale. For Xandy I bet they could have gotten a prospect in the 50-100 range perhaps slightly higher but they weren't getting back some sort of top 25 can't miss prospect for a rental. The Mets' trade of PCA also comes with a big asterisk because of Steve Cohen. He has "GFIN" stamped on his forehead. Also worth noting he was the Mets 7th ranked prospect (per FG, 5th per MLB) at the time of the trade, not a top 30 prospect in baseball. He had only played in 6 pro games at that point and had just undergone season ending shoulder surgery.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 26, 2023 11:36:34 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
I don't know if the bolded is true or not. You'd have to look at every trade deadline in history to know. But I don't think they had to go into "full selloff mode." Moving Eo would have saved > $6M. That, along with the CVaz trade and not acquiring the useless Tommy Pham, would have gotten them close to the LTT or under it. This is an excellent point. The Red Sox reportedly had five offers for Eovaldi. One of them had to have been pretty decent. Then you stay under the cap and collect a better pick for Bogaerts leaving. Instead we now have to stay under the cap this year and it hurt the team’s flexibility for 2023. Even assuming there was nothing for JDM, that puts the Red Sox in a much better position. The Red Sox were not ”right there” in competing. Sale was out for the year and they had a ton of injuries. Selling was the obvious move and they didn’t do it for some reason. Instead they barely went over the cap for a pathetic shot at what would’ve been an early playoff exit at best.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 26, 2023 11:40:34 GMT -5
I don't know if the bolded is true or not. You'd have to look at every trade deadline in history to know. But I don't think they had to go into "full selloff mode." Moving Eo would have saved > $6M. That, along with the CVaz trade and not acquiring the useless Tommy Pham, would have gotten them close to the LTT or under it. This is an excellent point. The Red Sox reportedly had five offers for Eovaldi. One of them had to have been pretty decent. Then you stay under the cap and collect a better pick for Bogaerts leaving. Instead we now have to stay under the cap this year and it hurt the team’s flexibility for 2023. Even assuming there was nothing for JDM, that puts the Red Sox in a much better position. The Red Sox were not ”right there” in competing. Sale was out for the year and they had a ton of injuries. Selling was the obvious move and they didn’t do it for some reason. Instead they barely went over the cap for a pathetic shot at what would’ve been an early playoff exit at best. Sale wasn't out for the season at the time, he broke his wrist rehabbing in August.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 26, 2023 11:43:56 GMT -5
This is an excellent point. The Red Sox reportedly had five offers for Eovaldi. One of them had to have been pretty decent. Then you stay under the cap and collect a better pick for Bogaerts leaving. Instead we now have to stay under the cap this year and it hurt the team’s flexibility for 2023. Even assuming there was nothing for JDM, that puts the Red Sox in a much better position. The Red Sox were not ”right there” in competing. Sale was out for the year and they had a ton of injuries. Selling was the obvious move and they didn’t do it for some reason. Instead they barely went over the cap for a pathetic shot at what would’ve been an early playoff exit at best. Sale wasn't out for the season at the time, he broke his wrist rehabbing in August. He wasn’t out for the season but he was out until mid-late September at best even before that.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 26, 2023 11:48:04 GMT -5
I think the Sox were in a terrible position to actually trade Eovaldi and JD from a negotiating standpoint. Because of their position in the Wild Card race, if Eovaldi and JD were likely to be good contributors down the stretch, they were the type of players the Sox would be looking to add. Shopping them for prospects is potentially telling prospective buyers that the Red Sox don't believe they can be difference makers on the bubble, lessening their value. The only way to avoid that would be to just openly give up - maybe some here would have been okay with that, but I don't think the organization is willing to go that far.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 26, 2023 11:53:36 GMT -5
I don't know if the bolded is true or not. You'd have to look at every trade deadline in history to know. But I don't think they had to go into "full selloff mode." Moving Eo would have saved > $6M. That, along with the CVaz trade and not acquiring the useless Tommy Pham, would have gotten them close to the LTT or under it. This is an excellent point. The Red Sox reportedly had five offers for Eovaldi. One of them had to have been pretty decent. Then you stay under the cap and collect a better pick for Bogaerts leaving. Instead we now have to stay under the cap this year and it hurt the team’s flexibility for 2023. Even assuming there was nothing for JDM, that puts the Red Sox in a much better position. The Red Sox were not ”right there” in competing. Sale was out for the year and they had a ton of injuries. Selling was the obvious move and they didn’t do it for some reason. Instead they barely went over the cap for a pathetic shot at what would’ve been an early playoff exit at best. Not trading Eovaldi wasn’t the problem. Not getting under the tax was. They were barely over it. There’s no excuse not getting under with the team they had. They could have done so and not changed their odds in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 26, 2023 11:59:48 GMT -5
I don't know if the bolded is true or not. You'd have to look at every trade deadline in history to know. But I don't think they had to go into "full selloff mode." Moving Eo would have saved > $6M. That, along with the CVaz trade and not acquiring the useless Tommy Pham, would have gotten them close to the LTT or under it. This is an excellent point. The Red Sox reportedly had five offers for Eovaldi. One of them had to have been pretty decent. Then you stay under the cap and collect a better pick for Bogaerts leaving. Instead we now have to stay under the cap this year and it hurt the team’s flexibility for 2023. Even assuming there was nothing for JDM, that puts the Red Sox in a much better position. The Red Sox were not ”right there” in competing. Sale was out for the year and they had a ton of injuries. Selling was the obvious move and they didn’t do it for some reason. Instead they barely went over the cap for a pathetic shot at what would’ve been an early playoff exit at best. Eh, I don't know about this part. He was hurt June 8th, didn't pitch again until July 15th. In three starts after coming back he pitched 4.1 innings 3ER, 2.2 9ER, and 6 4ER for an ERA of 11.08 in July and if memory serves me right his velocity was down during his July starts. I can imagine a team in the playoff race would have offered the proverbial lotto ticket with the hope Eovaldi regained his form but I have a hard time seeing them getting back anything of note for a rental in Eovaldi who was a wildcard himself. If you want to make the argument they should have dealt him and/or JD to get under the LT, I can understand and in hindsight it's easy now to say they should have. I just don't believe they got any fairly decent offers they could have pointed at as a trade to help build. Most likely the trade would have been clearly a salary dump to a team that whether some on here agree or not was still feasibly in the playoff race based off their standings.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jan 26, 2023 12:32:13 GMT -5
It might be interesting to go back and review what people were saying at the 2022 trade deadline. As I recall most people here felt the team should buy not sell and blasted Bloom for not adding enough. That attitude was probably driven by sports media coverage and agents working behind the scenes. In 2022 I know I posted here the Sox were toast and had no chance at all at even making the playoffs let alone the WS and I wished they would sell big time and use the rest of the season to give major playing time to younger players. And we know what happened. The Sox damn near made it to the WS. Actually lead the Astros 2-1 and should have won game 1. It's "funny" to me that Bloom was the genius of the world in 2021 and one year later after a completely snake bit season he's a complete idiot because he didn't take hypothetical deals rather than the deals we know about. Or that he is condemned that high ceiling prospects he traded for haven't become useful pieces. How many highly touted MLB prospects end up as stars? I doubt it's even 5%.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 26, 2023 12:33:52 GMT -5
This is an excellent point. The Red Sox reportedly had five offers for Eovaldi. One of them had to have been pretty decent. Then you stay under the cap and collect a better pick for Bogaerts leaving. Instead we now have to stay under the cap this year and it hurt the team’s flexibility for 2023. Even assuming there was nothing for JDM, that puts the Red Sox in a much better position. The Red Sox were not ”right there” in competing. Sale was out for the year and they had a ton of injuries. Selling was the obvious move and they didn’t do it for some reason. Instead they barely went over the cap for a pathetic shot at what would’ve been an early playoff exit at best. Not trading Eovaldi wasn’t the problem. Not getting under the tax was. They were barely over it. There’s no excuse not getting under with the team they had. They could have done so and not changed their odds in the slightest. Technically it wasn’t the problem but in practice it was. They had offers on the table for Eovaldi and it doesn’t sound like they had any good offers for JDM. If you think they could’ve just gave away JDM and got under the cap, maybe that’s true, and that still would’ve been better than what they did, but in my view the team wasn’t competitive and they should’ve prioritized prospect haul.
|
|
|
Post by lonborgski on Jan 26, 2023 12:51:35 GMT -5
I'm also wondering where he's getting 15 percent as the RS chances of making the post-season as of the trade deadline. According to FG, they had a 28.2 percent chance on 8-1, a 33.1 percent chance on 8-2 (deadline day), and a 24.8 percent chance on Aug. 3. It's unclear to me whether those were the odds at the start of each day's play or after each day's play. But they're all way over 15 percent. I hate what they did (and didn't do) at last year's deadline but I can't support anything in his post. My thought is they may have gotten a prospect in the 80 to 100 range for Eo or JDM, maybe for both if they had heavily subsidized. But they weren't going to get a "crazy" prospect return, which is what he claimed. And neither Eo and JDM is a guy who gets you "very good to great returns." The Nats had that guy. His name is Juan Soto. Because that's the historical number per Baseball Refrence. Based on the long history of Baseball only 15% of the team in the Red Sox position made the post season. Fangraphs is a totally different projection system, same system they use to project wins and we know how off those can be. Even if you prefer Fangraphs, the 15% historical number is 100% legit. Whether it was 15%, 24.8%, 28.2%, or 33.1%, Bloom and ownership should have had alternative plans that did one or the other of the following: 1) increase those odds to at least, say, 50%, by adding talent (and McGuire in place of CVaz might count; Tommy Pham, not so much); or, 2) if they were not able to increase their odds to the target percentage they set at a cost they determined to be acceptable, then they should have taken the necessary steps to get under the cap. Them doing neither is what's so frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 26, 2023 12:53:38 GMT -5
Because that's the historical number per Baseball Refrence. Based on the long history of Baseball only 15% of the team in the Red Sox position made the post season. Fangraphs is a totally different projection system, same system they use to project wins and we know how off those can be. Even if you prefer Fangraphs, the 15% historical number is 100% legit. Whether it was 15%, 24.8%, 28.2%, or 33.1%, Bloom and ownership should have had alternative plans that did one or the other of the following: 1) increase those odds to at least, say, 50%, by adding talent (and McGuire in place of CVaz might count; Tommy Pham, not so much); or, 2) if they were not able to increase their odds to the target percentage they set at a cost they determined to be acceptable, then they should have taken the necessary steps to get under the cap. Them doing neither is what's so frustrating. They could've added Juan Soto AND Luis Castillo and their odds still wouldn't have been 50%. I get that number isn't the end-all-be-all of the point you're trying to make, but you're also grossly oversimplifying the decision.
|
|
|