Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
, which they used to plug holes as SS, catcher, and LF, and RP.
Yes and no. Getting 8.3 WAR from 4 spots on the 25-man could be better than getting 10.9 WAR from 7 spots, or it could be worse. It depends on how your front office would fill those 3 extra spots.
Or you could say they did that with Youk, Dice-K, Ross and Jenks.
My imaginary/future beef with the FO is if Ells does well this year and the FO doesn't offer 5/100 near the trade deadline
he's not taking 5/100. He and Boras are going on the market. Besides, that will free up money for closers
Is this a real debate?
Some people were overly attached to Adrian Gonzalez.
Still don't buy it. If Webster/DLR don't pan out then it's hard for me to see it as a good deal. Getting the salary relief wasn't necessary particularly since the sox needed to use that relief to fill a bunch of new holes created by the trade.
I think the trade doesn't really help the 2013 club but Webster looks damned good to me and if he and DLR pan out this is a winner trade. But to me that's where the win will come, not in 2013.
Somehow I completely missed that the Red Sox acquired Ryan Dempster
Because that's not the point. The trade was a 'gift' in that it bailed them out of some huge financial obligations and added some prospects to the organization, creating a situation where they were flush with resources. The trade on its face could never be a win in and of itself, because they gave away quality major leaguers and did not receive any in return.
This is stupid. By that logic, if the Red Sox traded a bag of baseballs for Vernon Wells and Alfonso Soriano, that trade would be a win, because they got major league talent for "nothing".
Optimism really needs to be tempered.
Yes. With the dump trade/FA reinvestment the Red Sox have freed long term financial resources and made themselves respectable in the short-term, but they have decidedly not set themselves up for long-term success. They still need to develop/acquire the core of the next great Red Sox team.
Yeah, that's why the dump trade had me excited: I figured they were going to use the money freed up to rebuild, and I was fine with that. Using $60 million of it to sign the Napoli/Victorino/Dempster/Ross/etc class in a push for .500 was not what I had in mind.
Crawford is probably the one most people are most intrigued about going forward, but I see him as an easy prediction: if he's healthy, he'll play well. (Granted the hard part is predicting whether he'll be healthy, so I don't really mean predicting him is easy but that the path to a good performance from him is clear.)
Adrian Gonzalez is actually the one I'm more intrigued by, because I think he's been in serious decline since his first season in Boston but the decline that year was masked by a crazy high BABIP fluke. He's lost a chunk of HR and BB since his peak.
They still need to develop/acquire the core of the next great Red Sox team.
I think this is the polar opposite of conventional wisdom. Most people think Crawford is done. He's already injured again.
Rizzo already projects as a similar player just two years later for league minimum salary. That trade is clearly a disaster, rather than the laughable steal by the Red Sox that all of the non Red Sox fans on BTF declared it to be at the time.
The difference is this is a losing team with a $150M payroll, not a $70M payroll. For $150M, you'd like to have at least a few elite talents locked up long term.
Cmon, it's too early for that kind of certainty. And evaluating that trade only starting now ignores the 2011 season - in which Gonazlez provided way more value than the pieces sent to SD.
He's not back on the field now. He's going to miss Opening Day. They're hoping he'll be back some time in April, but we'll see. Citing a107 OPS+ over all of 125 PA as data that he's back to normal is also pretty silly, especially given that it came on the strength of a .200 ISO, which is something absolutely no one expects Crawford to do over a significant sample.
Teams that win 74 pythagorean games don't typically make the playoffs the next year, and I'd be surprised if this were such a team. It's not a young team. And as Darren's numbers above show, the new players improve over the replacements by 2-3 wins. Okay, Ellsbury/Lester/Bucholz should improve, but a lot would have to go right for this team to make the playoffs.
There is a bit of a category error here, however. Darren was not comparing 2012 performance of traded players to 2013 projections for new players. The new players improve over the 2013 projections for the traded players by a little bit.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (10 members)
Page rendered in 0.6799 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed