|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 22:47:50 GMT -5
Really? So if we traded Bogaerts for Aaron Harang you wouldn't say it was a fleecing? Taken totally out of context with a non-starter. Thanks for the effort. Okay, how about if we gave up Devers and Espinoza for Kimbrel. Would that be a fleecing? I just think you made a silly statement in an attempt to defend Dombrowski, that's all. Of course there are lopsided trades. Are you seriously arguing that there aren't? |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 22:44:56 GMT -5
I get that people are just going to keep saying things like this and ignore the point I'm about to make and others have made but: It's not about what they gave up. It's about what they got back. You're admitting as much yourself by saying it's an overpay. That means they could have used the exact same package and gotten something better (a starting pitcher, perhaps). So yes, it IS hurting them in the short term as well as the long term. I think i understand your point, but i still want to challenge you a little bit. When you infer we could have "gotten something better", You make two major assumptions. Assumption #1. You have made an assumption of the value of positional difference in judging a player's worth. Is a 3 war starter more valuable than Craig Kimbrel? Where you might say "absolutely!" I might say "it depends on how you judge value." If you judge value by how much a player contributes over the course of a 162 game season, then of course a solid starter is more valuable then even the greatest reliever! This however raises a problem that we saw manifest itself in Boston and Kansas City this past year: how many #3 starters can one team field before the value gained by adding another is nullified? In essence, How many Wade Miley's are you going to start? Does the rarity of an elite closer in any way make up for the commonality of a solid starter? If these questions are unanswerable, are they any less worth pondering? I'm not assuming anything. I'm looking at the current market of baseball economics and making an informed judgement. Feel free to describe a scenario, using specific numbers, in which Craig Kimbrel provides equal or more surplus value than the four prospects we gave up. Because I've already given my explanation of how it's not even close. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 22:38:29 GMT -5
Baseball trades aren't like baseball scores....you don't win or lose them (get fleeced...whatever you want to call it). They should be viewed only in the prism of short term v long term health of the club and the reason why you make the trade at that time Really? So if we traded Bogaerts for Aaron Harang you wouldn't say it was a fleecing? |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 22:29:21 GMT -5
For the "maybe no SPs were available!" people: Jeff Passan reported that Ross was discussed "heavily" in our talks with the Padres. Adding Tyson Ross to this deal, and adding nothing from the Red Sox, would make it a reasonably equitable trade. DD got fleeced. Period. And by a very suspect GM in Preller, no less. Does that specifically mean anything though? I am sure he was talked about but I am guessing Dombrowski didn't say no to having Ross added to the deal. I am guessing to get him you would have had to give up a top tier guy which I am thankful that did not occur. Passan's other point and to what jmei said is correct it seems like a massive overpay and just trading from surplus for any reason whatsoever. If it's a "massive overpay" then the Padres could have added something of value (Ross) and made it a more equitable deal. You're making my point. I'm not saying that was on the table, I'm saying DD should have demanded it, and if Preller said no then you walk away. You don't make a bad trade because you decided weeks ago that you're going to get a reliever through a trade. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 22:26:56 GMT -5
Which would be literally twice what Andrew Miller got. Anyone wanna argue he's twice as good as Miller?
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 22:21:58 GMT -5
For the "maybe no SPs were available!" people: Jeff Passan reported that Ross was discussed "heavily" in our talks with the Padres.
Adding Tyson Ross to this deal, and adding nothing from the Red Sox, would make it a reasonably equitable trade.
DD got fleeced. Period. And by a very suspect GM in Preller, no less.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 22:12:20 GMT -5
If you're one of these people who thinks WAR severely undervalues relievers, you might be able to argue that Kimbrel represents something in the neighborhood of 10-15m in surplus value. Margot alone is probably worth that.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 21:46:04 GMT -5
Yeah that's slowly becoming my rationalization as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 21:41:53 GMT -5
Looking at the pieces traded, if you change Allen with Owens and you'll have the Indians FO listening on a Carrasco trade IMO. Am I way off here? Blah, that would be terrible. I'm sorry but I cannot stand the idea of Carrasco costing that much on one quality season heading into his age 29 season. Do you think he's less valuable than Craig Kimbrel? Because the latter is owed twice as much over the next three years (including the option). |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 21:21:25 GMT -5
So we're also going to give a massive long term deal to a 30 year old pitcher. The hits just keep on coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 21:12:56 GMT -5
Red Sox baseball sucked to watch this year. Lets be honest: due to 2015 mediocrity, I think we all became fans of watching an outfielder put up a .750 OPS for the Portland Sea Dogs, and that's why a deal like this REALLY hurts. Did they overpay for Kimbrel? Probably. Will this move end up being a loss for the RS when weighing the cumulative career war of all players involved? Probably. Would watching Mookie Betts in October of 2016 beat waiting for the emergence of Manuel Margot in 2018? Absolutely. I get that people are just going to keep saying things like this and ignore the point I'm about to make and others have made but: It's not about what they gave up. It's about what they got back. You're admitting as much yourself by saying it's an overpay. That means they could have used the exact same package and gotten something better (a starting pitcher, perhaps). So yes, it IS hurting them in the short term as well as the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 21:06:17 GMT -5
Corey BrockVerified account @followthepadres Preller and #Padres think so highly of Guerra that AJP said he'll be given a chance to come into ST and win a job. More likely starts in AAA I think we've solved the mystery of which team said they would have started Moncada in the majors. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:55:52 GMT -5
Seriously, can we please stop with this "We're overrating our own guys!" bullshit. There are literally five million prospect rankers on the internet today and none of them are beholden to Red Sox for any reason. We know how guys are rated by objective sources and what value they have (roughly). Come up with a better argument or leave the thread. What? I'm assuming that's not directed at me. No I was using your (correct) point as a springboard for my point. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:36:50 GMT -5
Isn't Guerra projected as a preseason top 100 prospect? Seriously, can we please stop with this "We're overrating our own guys!" bullshit. There are literally five million prospect rankers on the internet today and none of them are beholden to Red Sox for any reason. We know how guys are rated by objective sources and what value they have (roughly). Come up with a better argument or leave the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:33:41 GMT -5
Forget Wren, I'm starting to think Amaro might have been involved on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:32:19 GMT -5
In what world is Guerra a major piece to a trade for a top starter? I realize this site has him number six but that is the product of a system that has virtually no real prospects in the upper minors. The single A to AA jump is huge and Guerra has only played in low A. Does anyone remember Derrick Gibson or Angel Beltre. Let's chill on Guerra he was never a major trade chip this offseason low A glove first short stops With limited ceilings don't carry that much weight Right. And he was the only prospect we gave away in this deal, right? Oh, wait... |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:29:51 GMT -5
I feel bad for the front office guys. I bet a lot of them are rethinking their decision to stay. That's just ridiculous. What do you think the chances of this deal being made with Ben as the GM would've been? |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:29:17 GMT -5
Can you imagine what they want for Sale or Gray? See you later top ten. The scarier thought is what DD would be willing to give up for them. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:25:37 GMT -5
Wonder how Hazen feels / what his communication with DD was like on this deal. I'm guessing it mostly involved making sure DD coffee stayed filled while he was on the phone with Preller. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:18:39 GMT -5
I happen to think we're selling high on all of these guys (with maybe the exception of Allen who I don't know much about). And it's still a horrible deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 20:14:05 GMT -5
I feel bad for the front office guys. I bet a lot of them are rethinking their decision to stay.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 19:54:11 GMT -5
I mean, couldn't we have at least gotten Chapman if we were gonna do this?
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 19:52:56 GMT -5
Oh. My. God. Well, DD was brought in to blow up the farm system. Buckle up. Not looking forward to it. Hope it's more than Kimbrel, otherwise I'll puke. I have no problem trading Guerra and Margot. They are guys many of us have identified as trade bait. I have a problem with trading them for a highly paid relief pitcher. That's insane. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 19:51:49 GMT -5
So much for all the Dombrowski apologists. Explain this one, folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 13, 2015 19:49:54 GMT -5
What the hell.
|
|
