Re: Any day now
posted at 9/10/2013 12:46 AM EDT
In response to S5's comment:
In response to notin's comment:
At some point, a team does have to stop worrying only about the future. The Sox had a good team in the present, and they made it a better team in the present by giving up a small piece of the future.
The Sox had some [prospecs who they figured were key to the future, and some who were ancillary. Iglesias was not Bogaerts or Cecchini or a more integral piece, and really, he should not have been.
I agree that at some point a team does have to stop worrying ONLY about the future, but I also think there is a time to worry about that future, and that time was 2013. Most of US (at least) had resigned ourselves to this being a bridge year to 2014, the year when Iggy, Bogarts, etc would be a part of the big team. Instead, when the team started to win they forgot about 2014 and decided to try to win it NOW and traded away their SS for a starting pitcher for THIS year. IMO one of the reasons the Red Sox went 84 years without a WS championship is because they occasionally did exactly what the team did this year - they traded away someone who would have helped them immensely in the future. See: Bagwell/Anderson
How you can say that he wasn't an integral piece is beyond me. He's better defensively than either Bogarts or Chcchini, and you're falling into the trap of saying we couldn't have had all three. We could. It's just that when we were up to our ___ in alligators some of us forgot that our main objective was to drain the swamp, or in this case set the team up for a long run in the future.
I can say he was not considered an integral part of the future because our prospect-stingy FO traded him away. I thought that was beyond obvious. These are the same people who don't sign free agents to protect draft picks. Who was the last marquis prospect they dealt? Reddick and Lowrie? Is THAT the bar for top prospects now? The bigger question is - how can you say Iglesias WAS an integral part of the future? What were you basing that on, besides your personal plan for how to run this team?
Can we PLEASE stop comparing Iglesias to Bagwell? 1. Bagwell had a borderline Cooperstown career, which Iglesias was not going to have, no matter how many times you mention Ozzie Smith. Iglesias has a ceiling of Omar Vizquel, but he also has a floor or Cesar Izturis. He is extermly likely to fall somewhere in between, in the Land of Those Who Maybe Get One HOF Ballot Appearance. Oh, and 2) while Bagwell was certainly more of a franchise player than Iglesias, at the very least he should be proof that you cannot simply sit back and wait for a champion. How many years has did he sit in Houston, waiting for one winning chance? If Bagwell aone was not a ticket to the Promised Land, why is Iglesias? And 3), that deal was 23 years ago. Iglesias was like 7 months old when it happened. It has been a while. No need to pretend it was yesterday. And certainly no need to pretend it happens very often. Carl Pavano was once a big part of the Sox future, too. How come no one ever brings that up? (And before you go making some crazy "You aren't comparing Peavy to Pedro!!" comment, you have to guarantee Iglesias can even last in MLB as long as Pavano, who is still technically active.)
And blaming 86 years of frustration on any type of trade demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the history of the game. And the Red Sox. You named one trade in 1990, and then went on blame 1918 to 1990 on it? Really? Can't even name one trade to cover the first 72 years of that frustration? Babe Ruth would be nice, but we all know he was not traded for a reason that falls within your argument.
Just because YOU were satisfied waiting does not mean everyone was. Certainly not the people making the decisions. I know it is hard to believe, but maybe, just maybe the FO and all their scouts and baseball personnel know a little bit more about Iglesias than you do, and they had a very good reason to make him available. And maybe those same people understand that you can build for the future forever and never get a winner. It's not as easy as saying "wait for Prospects A, B and C in 2014 or 2015." A lot of times those plans fail, and more often than not, fail miserably. If it was that easy, everyone would do it.
Oh, and Iglesias profiles to be the same type of hitter as Alexi Casilla. That name was NOT chosen at random, and possibly one known by the FO. So unless he makes serious improvements at the plate, his offense is an illusion. If he stops hitting, the fascination with him will wain. We traded away the best defensive SS of the milennium in Adam Everett.. No one cared. We traded away Nick Punto, who was among the best defensive SS. Fans rejoiced. In fact, almost no one liked Iglesias last year when he was hitting .118 (except me).
I mean, if Iglesias was such an important part of the rebuilding process, why did Detroit have to get involved in this deal at all? Why weren't the White Sox interested? It's not like 32yo Alexei Ramirez is the future at SS for them, which is why they were trying to move him all July long...