do you still like the trade?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to VeniceSox's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    I did not like this trade when it happened. I don't like it now. I am sure I will like it even less in the future. A trade deadline, panic move. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     



    So for all of you who didnt like the trade, what was your plan to address the pitching need this team had?  What is funny is I have asked this same question a few times now and no one has the answer.


    Ok. Here's my answer.  This season was a bridge season to begin with, one to take us to next year, and I'd have treated it that way.  As I said in an above post, I'd have seen this season go down the tubes before I'd have traded any of our top 6 prospects.  (I'm including Iggy in that six although I no longer see him as a prospect) 

    I'd have shopped some of our 2nd line prospects for whatever we could get for pitching and if it worked, it worked.  And if it didn't, it didn't and that's ok. 

    Instead we got all tied up in the great 1st half this team had, traded the SS of the future for a #3 pitcher, and decided to worry about next year when it gets here.  A Hell of a way to run a railroad.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    I did not like the trade at the time, but think it was understandable, especially in light of the fact that management probably viewed Iggy as a utility-late inning defensive player going forward.

    The years of team control trade off was negative, and my bias towards wanting fantastic  defense at SS are the main two reasons against the deal, to me, but Peavy is better than many trade haters want to admit. Look at the 2012-2013 combined numbers in WHIP, ERA-, and other stats, and you'll find Peavy in the top 30 or so in most categories. Although I viewed Iggy as much more than a utility IF'er, that's basically what we gave up for Peavy. If Iggy was here next year, I think we'd have seen Boggy at SS, Middy at 3B and Iggy as the utility guy. Like it or not.

    Sox4ever

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to VeniceSox's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

     

    I did not like this trade when it happened. I don't like it now. I am sure I will like it even less in the future. A trade deadline, panic move. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     

     



    So for all of you who didnt like the trade, what was your plan to address the pitching need this team had?  What is funny is I have asked this same question a few times now and no one has the answer.

     

     


    Ok. Here's my answer.  This season was a bridge season to begin with, one to take us to next year, and I'd have treated it that way.  As I said in an above post, I'd have seen this season go down the tubes before I'd have traded any of our top 6 prospects.  (I'm including Iggy in that six although I no longer see him as a prospect) 

     

    I'd have shopped some of our 2nd line prospects for whatever we could get for pitching and if it worked, it worked.  And if it didn't, it didn't and that's ok. 

    Instead we got all tied up in the great 1st half this team had, traded the SS of the future for a #3 pitcher, and decided to worry about next year when it gets here.  A Hell of a way to run a railroad.



    Wow, you really overstated that last part. The Sox had the best record in the AL after four months and there is no dominating team in the AL this year. So the Sox would have been foolish to simply ignore this season and simply say, we're focusing on next year. Who knows what can happen next year. Look at the Nationals.

    It doesn't mean you blow up the future for a win-now attitude, and the Sox didn't do that. It's a balancing act. The Sox obviously weren't wedded to Iggy at SS so he really wan't their SS of the future, so they traded him for pitching. You call Peavy a No. 3 pitcher, but so what? He could be a heck of a No. 3 or even a No. 4 pitcher. Sometimes too much is put on numbering pitchers.

    I've always had mix feelings about the trade. Iggy showed me enough this year to consider he might have enough at the plate to go with his defense. And while moving Bogaerts to 3B and Middlebrooks to 1B was a possibility, maybe the Sox saw things that made them believe that wasn't the best option.

    If Middlebrooks really is back and is the 3B of the future with Bogaerts at SS, then Iggy was expendable. Sure Iggy could be the next Ozzie or Vizquel, but he also could be the next Quionnes (sp?).

    Personally I think the way the Sox have run this year has been a great way to run a railroad. They balanced the short term with the long term, keeping all the players they valued. It may end up being a bad decision to trade Iggy, but in the end, the Sox didn't value Iggy as much as many fans.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In the short-term I liked the trade and still do, and it seems to be helping both teams...three of Peavy's four starts have been very good, while Iggy continues to hit for Detroit.

    I do have reservations about the long-term impact, because if Iglesias can pair even modest offensive output with his incredible defense, he will be a very good player for a long time and we'll have many years to regret losing him; however, with Drew/Middlebrooks/Bogaerts on the left side of the infield this year and some combination of Middlebrooks/Bogaerts/Cecchini/Marrero likely in the long-term, I think the loss of Iggy is a risk we could afford to take to plug a hole in our pitching staff. If Peavy is extended or we get a draft pick for him after 2014 that could change the equation also.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mchampion. Show Mchampion's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    We have strength at the SS position and we needed a pitcher to replace Buch.   Pitching is the name of the game in this league without it you go nowhere even if you somehow make the playoffs.  So yes this trade had to be made.  The only thing that doesn't sit well with me is it helping the Tigers.  We could be facing the tigers in the playoffs down the road.  Yes I like the trade.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    I think a lot of people against this trade are more upset that the Sox traded a young player for one who has already committed the cardinal sin of turning 30.   There is a fascination with having a young team with dynasty potential that is nothing more than a pipe dream.  How many teams made of young players have ever won anything?

    Also, fans seem to have an unrealistic view of why trades are made.  The overwhelming majority seem to think they are for discarding unwanted players.  For example, there was a thread about trading the underperforming Lester this coming off-season a while back, I suggested that Lackey would have more trade appeal, since he is doing better and his contract is extremely favorable.  While some agreed, others pointed out Lackey should not be moved because he is the team’s best pitcher this year.  Huh?  Fans have been screaming to move Lackey since his first year here, and suddenly now he is a keeper?  Exactly who would have taken him before?  Oh that’s right.  No one cared what he went for, as long as he went.

    I like Iglesias, but I think the fascination with his defense is a bit hypocritical as well.  I am willing to bet not one person on this board who is suddenly fascinated with shortstop defense realizes that the Sox have already traded the top two MLB career leaders in UZR/150 for shortstops with a minimum of 2,000 innings.  (Granted, UZR only goes back to 2002.  Like UZR or not, it takes way more into account that any “eye test” its critics advocate instead.)  TOP TWO!!!  Not only were neither of these players missed, many fans were happy to see one of them go, because he could not hit.  Granted, Nick Punto’s best defensive days were behind him by the time he got to Boston, but he has managed to have the career he has had because of his defensive play.  And I have NEVER seen a single post about how this team should have kept Adam Everett.  In fact, I have never seen anyone clamoring for a defensive-oriented shortstop such as Cesar Izturis, who is available every off-season, and with good reason.  (He cannot hit.)  But NOW that the Sox have traded away youth – suddenly we are all about defense.

    Are the Sox a better team now? I think so.  And I think long term their record will bear this out.  Right now, their slide is related to the performances of Napoli, Dempster, and some bullpen.  These are NOT problems Iglesias was going to fix.  Peavy?  There is a greater chance he will have an impact is a couple of these areas.  If the Sox kept Iglesias, he would be on the bench in favor of the white hot bats of Drew and Middlebrooks, where he would be helping fix nothing.  And his future is undetermined anyway, as the Sox still have THREE young left-side infielders (not counting Drew) either on their roster or among their top prospects.  If Cecchini does indeed pan out, moving Iglesias also helped towards clearing that logjam as well.

    The Sox did NEED another starting pitcher.  Buchholz is still out and quality starts from Dempster are seen about as often as Halley’s Comet.  Just because you did not think the Sox planned to contend this year is no reason to run up the white flag on a first place team, and hope that the kids from the farm could give you the same innings Peavy has, and will going forward.  Exactly which outing from Webster gave you that confidence?  How have the recent outings from Workman made you think he was going to keep this team afloat?   If these and the other options floundered, would you happily watch this team sink out of playoff contention, knowing that we at least retained  shortstop whose future might make him the next Brendan Ryan?  Didn’t we all enjoy the collapse of 2011, knowing full well that by watching Kyle Wieland get torched like a car in a Detroit victory celebration, at least we did not trade away any more youth on an actual MLB pitcher who could go 6 innings once in a while?  Remember how comforting that was?  Oh, that’s right.  That month was unbelievably frustrating.

    Iglesias certainly had his skillset, but he was certainly not irreplaceable.  And he could have played in Boston for 6 more years and never been on another first place team.  There is a limit to what kind of players you hold on to when you have a chance to win, and Iglesias is simply not good enough to be one of those players.  Age is not enough of a reason to justify this.  (And after last year’s .118 showing, I seem to recall A LOT of fans citing he would never be a major league starter.   Everyone says they like his defense “even if he hits .250.”   OK, but what if he hits .150?  Still think his defense is worth it?  Nick Punto and his .200 await your answer.  (Interestingly, Iglesias has a UZR/150 of 13.4 through 380 innings at SS this year.  Nick Punto has a 15.5 UZR/150 in 218 innings.)

    And Brendan Ryan is a likely DFA candidate this off-season if you still are heavily into SS defense.  In case you are wondering, he is #3 on the career UZR/150 rankings (2,000 innings min.)…

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to notin's comment:

    I think a lot of people against this trade are more upset that the Sox traded a young player for one who has already committed the cardinal sin of turning 30.   There is a fascination with having a young team with dynasty potential that is nothing more than a pipe dream.  How many teams made of young players have ever won anything?

    Also, fans seem to have an unrealistic view of why trades are made.  The overwhelming majority seem to think they are for discarding unwanted players.  For example, there was a thread about trading the underperforming Lester this coming off-season a while back, I suggested that Lackey would have more trade appeal, since he is doing better and his contract is extremely favorable.  While some agreed, others pointed out Lackey should not be moved because he is the team’s best pitcher this year.  Huh?  Fans have been screaming to move Lackey since his first year here, and suddenly now he is a keeper?  Exactly who would have taken him before?  Oh that’s right.  No one cared what he went for, as long as he went.

    I like Iglesias, but I think the fascination with his defense is a bit hypocritical as well.  I am willing to bet not one person on this board who is suddenly fascinated with shortstop defense realizes that the Sox have already traded the top two MLB career leaders in UZR/150 for shortstops with a minimum of 2,000 innings.  (Granted, UZR only goes back to 2002.  Like UZR or not, it takes way more into account that any “eye test” its critics advocate instead.)  TOP TWO!!!  Not only were neither of these players missed, many fans were happy to see one of them go, because he could not hit.  Granted, Nick Punto’s best defensive days were behind him by the time he got to Boston, but he has managed to have the career he has had because of his defensive play.  And I have NEVER seen a single post about how this team should have kept Adam Everett.  In fact, I have never seen anyone clamoring for a defensive-oriented shortstop such as Cesar Izturis, who is available every off-season, and with good reason.  (He cannot hit.)  But NOW that the Sox have traded away youth – suddenly we are all about defense.

    Are the Sox a better team now? I think so.  And I think long term their record will bear this out.  Right now, their slide is related to the performances of Napoli, Dempster, and some bullpen.  These are NOT problems Iglesias was going to fix.  Peavy?  There is a greater chance he will have an impact is a couple of these areas.  If the Sox kept Iglesias, he would be on the bench in favor of the white hot bats of Drew and Middlebrooks, where he would be helping fix nothing.  And his future is undetermined anyway, as the Sox still have THREE young left-side infielders (not counting Drew) either on their roster or among their top prospects.  If Cecchini does indeed pan out, moving Iglesias also helped towards clearing that logjam as well.

    The Sox did NEED another starting pitcher.  Buchholz is still out and quality starts from Dempster are seen about as often as Halley’s Comet.  Just because you did not think the Sox planned to contend this year is no reason to run up the white flag on a first place team, and hope that the kids from the farm could give you the same innings Peavy has, and will going forward.  Exactly which outing from Webster gave you that confidence?  How have the recent outings from Workman made you think he was going to keep this team afloat?   If these and the other options floundered, would you happily watch this team sink out of playoff contention, knowing that we at least retained  shortstop whose future might make him the next Brendan Ryan?  Didn’t we all enjoy the collapse of 2011, knowing full well that by watching Kyle Wieland get torched like a car in a Detroit victory celebration, at least we did not trade away any more youth on an actual MLB pitcher who could go 6 innings once in a while?  Remember how comforting that was?  Oh, that’s right.  That month was unbelievably frustrating.

    Iglesias certainly had his skillset, but he was certainly not irreplaceable.  And he could have played in Boston for 6 more years and never been on another first place team.  There is a limit to what kind of players you hold on to when you have a chance to win, and Iglesias is simply not good enough to be one of those players.  Age is not enough of a reason to justify this.  (And after last year’s .118 showing, I seem to recall A LOT of fans citing he would never be a major league starter.   Everyone says they like his defense “even if he hits .250.”   OK, but what if he hits .150?  Still think his defense is worth it?  Nick Punto and his .200 await your answer.  (Interestingly, Iglesias has a UZR/150 of 13.4 through 380 innings at SS this year.  Nick Punto has a 15.5 UZR/150 in 218 innings.)

    And Brendan Ryan is a likely DFA candidate this off-season if you still are heavily into SS defense.  In case you are wondering, he is #3 on the career UZR/150 rankings (2,000 innings min.)…

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein



    Excellent post, notin.

    I have been a big fan of great SS defense since I can't rmember when, but the Iggy trade was certainly understandable. I believe it will prove to be a plus until the end of 2014, and the next 4 years is unknown. The fact that we have Boggy, Marrero and others may make the loss of Iggy a nonfactor.

    I will say, I wouldn't mind us signing Brandon Ryan to play SS, move Boggy to 3B, and Middy to 1B. The "saved money" could get us Ellsbury and McCann or Ellsbury/Salty and another piece somewhere.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to notin's comment:

    I think a lot of people against this trade are more upset that the Sox traded a young player for one who has already committed the cardinal sin of turning 30.   There is a fascination with having a young team with dynasty potential that is nothing more than a pipe dream.  How many teams made of young players have ever won anything?

    Also, fans seem to have an unrealistic view of why trades are made.  The overwhelming majority seem to think they are for discarding unwanted players.  For example, there was a thread about trading the underperforming Lester this coming off-season a while back, I suggested that Lackey would have more trade appeal, since he is doing better and his contract is extremely favorable.  While some agreed, others pointed out Lackey should not be moved because he is the team’s best pitcher this year.  Huh?  Fans have been screaming to move Lackey since his first year here, and suddenly now he is a keeper?  Exactly who would have taken him before?  Oh that’s right.  No one cared what he went for, as long as he went.

    I like Iglesias, but I think the fascination with his defense is a bit hypocritical as well.  I am willing to bet not one person on this board who is suddenly fascinated with shortstop defense realizes that the Sox have already traded the top two MLB career leaders in UZR/150 for shortstops with a minimum of 2,000 innings.  (Granted, UZR only goes back to 2002.  Like UZR or not, it takes way more into account that any “eye test” its critics advocate instead.)  TOP TWO!!!  Not only were neither of these players missed, many fans were happy to see one of them go, because he could not hit.  Granted, Nick Punto’s best defensive days were behind him by the time he got to Boston, but he has managed to have the career he has had because of his defensive play.  And I have NEVER seen a single post about how this team should have kept Adam Everett.  In fact, I have never seen anyone clamoring for a defensive-oriented shortstop such as Cesar Izturis, who is available every off-season, and with good reason.  (He cannot hit.)  But NOW that the Sox have traded away youth – suddenly we are all about defense.

    Are the Sox a better team now? I think so.  And I think long term their record will bear this out.  Right now, their slide is related to the performances of Napoli, Dempster, and some bullpen.  These are NOT problems Iglesias was going to fix.  Peavy?  There is a greater chance he will have an impact is a couple of these areas.  If the Sox kept Iglesias, he would be on the bench in favor of the white hot bats of Drew and Middlebrooks, where he would be helping fix nothing.  And his future is undetermined anyway, as the Sox still have THREE young left-side infielders (not counting Drew) either on their roster or among their top prospects.  If Cecchini does indeed pan out, moving Iglesias also helped towards clearing that logjam as well.

    The Sox did NEED another starting pitcher.  Buchholz is still out and quality starts from Dempster are seen about as often as Halley’s Comet.  Just because you did not think the Sox planned to contend this year is no reason to run up the white flag on a first place team, and hope that the kids from the farm could give you the same innings Peavy has, and will going forward.  Exactly which outing from Webster gave you that confidence?  How have the recent outings from Workman made you think he was going to keep this team afloat?   If these and the other options floundered, would you happily watch this team sink out of playoff contention, knowing that we at least retained  shortstop whose future might make him the next Brendan Ryan?  Didn’t we all enjoy the collapse of 2011, knowing full well that by watching Kyle Wieland get torched like a car in a Detroit victory celebration, at least we did not trade away any more youth on an actual MLB pitcher who could go 6 innings once in a while?  Remember how comforting that was?  Oh, that’s right.  That month was unbelievably frustrating.

    Iglesias certainly had his skillset, but he was certainly not irreplaceable.  And he could have played in Boston for 6 more years and never been on another first place team.  There is a limit to what kind of players you hold on to when you have a chance to win, and Iglesias is simply not good enough to be one of those players.  Age is not enough of a reason to justify this.  (And after last year’s .118 showing, I seem to recall A LOT of fans citing he would never be a major league starter.   Everyone says they like his defense “even if he hits .250.”   OK, but what if he hits .150?  Still think his defense is worth it?  Nick Punto and his .200 await your answer.  (Interestingly, Iglesias has a UZR/150 of 13.4 through 380 innings at SS this year.  Nick Punto has a 15.5 UZR/150 in 218 innings.)

    And Brendan Ryan is a likely DFA candidate this off-season if you still are heavily into SS defense.  In case you are wondering, he is #3 on the career UZR/150 rankings (2,000 innings min.)…

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein



    Wow; compelling stuff

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    nothing against Peavy but i didnt like the trade then and dont like it now...i see where ben was in need of an arm after clay's malingering but iggy couldve been the man for a decade or so as our ss....loved his glove and the bat was a wicked surprise...

    As always - 100% correct!

     
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    I think a lot of people against this trade are more upset that the Sox traded a young player for one who has already committed the cardinal sin of turning 30.   There is a fascination with having a young team with dynasty potential that is nothing more than a pipe dream.  How many teams made of young players have ever won anything?

    Also, fans seem to have an unrealistic view of why trades are made.  The overwhelming majority seem to think they are for discarding unwanted players.  For example, there was a thread about trading the underperforming Lester this coming off-season a while back, I suggested that Lackey would have more trade appeal, since he is doing better and his contract is extremely favorable.  While some agreed, others pointed out Lackey should not be moved because he is the team’s best pitcher this year.  Huh?  Fans have been screaming to move Lackey since his first year here, and suddenly now he is a keeper?  Exactly who would have taken him before?  Oh that’s right.  No one cared what he went for, as long as he went.

    I like Iglesias, but I think the fascination with his defense is a bit hypocritical as well.  I am willing to bet not one person on this board who is suddenly fascinated with shortstop defense realizes that the Sox have already traded the top two MLB career leaders in UZR/150 for shortstops with a minimum of 2,000 innings.  (Granted, UZR only goes back to 2002.  Like UZR or not, it takes way more into account that any “eye test” its critics advocate instead.)  TOP TWO!!!  Not only were neither of these players missed, many fans were happy to see one of them go, because he could not hit.  Granted, Nick Punto’s best defensive days were behind him by the time he got to Boston, but he has managed to have the career he has had because of his defensive play.  And I have NEVER seen a single post about how this team should have kept Adam Everett.  In fact, I have never seen anyone clamoring for a defensive-oriented shortstop such as Cesar Izturis, who is available every off-season, and with good reason.  (He cannot hit.)  But NOW that the Sox have traded away youth – suddenly we are all about defense.

    Are the Sox a better team now? I think so.  And I think long term their record will bear this out.  Right now, their slide is related to the performances of Napoli, Dempster, and some bullpen.  These are NOT problems Iglesias was going to fix.  Peavy?  There is a greater chance he will have an impact is a couple of these areas.  If the Sox kept Iglesias, he would be on the bench in favor of the white hot bats of Drew and Middlebrooks, where he would be helping fix nothing.  And his future is undetermined anyway, as the Sox still have THREE young left-side infielders (not counting Drew) either on their roster or among their top prospects.  If Cecchini does indeed pan out, moving Iglesias also helped towards clearing that logjam as well.

    The Sox did NEED another starting pitcher.  Buchholz is still out and quality starts from Dempster are seen about as often as Halley’s Comet.  Just because you did not think the Sox planned to contend this year is no reason to run up the white flag on a first place team, and hope that the kids from the farm could give you the same innings Peavy has, and will going forward.  Exactly which outing from Webster gave you that confidence?  How have the recent outings from Workman made you think he was going to keep this team afloat?   If these and the other options floundered, would you happily watch this team sink out of playoff contention, knowing that we at least retained  shortstop whose future might make him the next Brendan Ryan?  Didn’t we all enjoy the collapse of 2011, knowing full well that by watching Kyle Wieland get torched like a car in a Detroit victory celebration, at least we did not trade away any more youth on an actual MLB pitcher who could go 6 innings once in a while?  Remember how comforting that was?  Oh, that’s right.  That month was unbelievably frustrating.

    Iglesias certainly had his skillset, but he was certainly not irreplaceable.  And he could have played in Boston for 6 more years and never been on another first place team.  There is a limit to what kind of players you hold on to when you have a chance to win, and Iglesias is simply not good enough to be one of those players.  Age is not enough of a reason to justify this.  (And after last year’s .118 showing, I seem to recall A LOT of fans citing he would never be a major league starter.   Everyone says they like his defense “even if he hits .250.”   OK, but what if he hits .150?  Still think his defense is worth it?  Nick Punto and his .200 await your answer.  (Interestingly, Iglesias has a UZR/150 of 13.4 through 380 innings at SS this year.  Nick Punto has a 15.5 UZR/150 in 218 innings.)

    And Brendan Ryan is a likely DFA candidate this off-season if you still are heavily into SS defense.  In case you are wondering, he is #3 on the career UZR/150 rankings (2,000 innings min.)…

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     

     



    Excellent post, notin.

    I have been a big fan of great SS defense since I can't rmember when, but the Iggy trade was certainly understandable. I believe it will prove to be a plus until the end of 2014, and the next 4 years is unknown. The fact that we have Boggy, Marrero and others may make the loss of Iggy a nonfactor.

    I will say, I wouldn't mind us signing Brandon Ryan to play SS, move Boggy to 3B, and Middy to 1B. The "saved money" could get us Ellsbury and McCann or Ellsbury/Salty and another piece somewhere.




    I like SS defense too, and have been a pretty big advocate for Iglesias, but he was certainly in a position for depth and I would have preferred not gambling this season on Workman and Webster.

     

    It's not like we don't still have Marrero, Cecchini, Bogaerts and Middlebrooks (who seems to have found some sort of plate discipline now - who knew?) and only 2 left side spots for them.  And we still might get a draft pick for Peavy...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to notin's comment:

    And Brendan Ryan is a likely DFA candidate this off-season if you still are heavily into SS defense.  In case you are wondering, he is #3 on the career UZR/150 rankings (2,000 innings min.)…

    To be precise, 31-year-old Brendan Ryan will be a free agent at end of the current season (with six years of MLB service):

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ah4PW47PiAi-dHdUUk5FMjA1c0ctbzlpbGdOUVV1eUE&output=html

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    Red Sox are 1-3 in games Peavy has started.

    You can say he pitched well enough to win with runsupport, but the bottom line is, in the 3 losses he pitched 5 innings, 6 innings and 5 2/3 innings.

    This tells me what I already knew. We traded a promising young player for an average pitcher , who is basically a 6 inning pitcher. Considering the bullpen woes, do you really want to turn a lead over to this crew for 4 innings any more than you have to?

    "Here we are trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why.- Kurt Vonnegut



    Sorry dude, it doesn't get any sillier than this.  He allowed 2 and 1 run in two of his losses.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to notin's comment:

    I think a lot of people against this trade are more upset that the Sox traded a young player for one who has already committed the cardinal sin of turning 30.   There is a fascination with having a young team with dynasty potential that is nothing more than a pipe dream.  How many teams made of young players have ever won anything?

    Also, fans seem to have an unrealistic view of why trades are made.  The overwhelming majority seem to think they are for discarding unwanted players.  For example, there was a thread about trading the underperforming Lester this coming off-season a while back, I suggested that Lackey would have more trade appeal, since he is doing better and his contract is extremely favorable.  While some agreed, others pointed out Lackey should not be moved because he is the team’s best pitcher this year.  Huh?  Fans have been screaming to move Lackey since his first year here, and suddenly now he is a keeper?  Exactly who would have taken him before?  Oh that’s right.  No one cared what he went for, as long as he went.

    I like Iglesias, but I think the fascination with his defense is a bit hypocritical as well.  I am willing to bet not one person on this board who is suddenly fascinated with shortstop defense realizes that the Sox have already traded the top two MLB career leaders in UZR/150 for shortstops with a minimum of 2,000 innings.  (Granted, UZR only goes back to 2002.  Like UZR or not, it takes way more into account that any “eye test” its critics advocate instead.)  TOP TWO!!!  Not only were neither of these players missed, many fans were happy to see one of them go, because he could not hit.  Granted, Nick Punto’s best defensive days were behind him by the time he got to Boston, but he has managed to have the career he has had because of his defensive play.  And I have NEVER seen a single post about how this team should have kept Adam Everett.  In fact, I have never seen anyone clamoring for a defensive-oriented shortstop such as Cesar Izturis, who is available every off-season, and with good reason.  (He cannot hit.)  But NOW that the Sox have traded away youth – suddenly we are all about defense.

    Are the Sox a better team now? I think so.  And I think long term their record will bear this out.  Right now, their slide is related to the performances of Napoli, Dempster, and some bullpen.  These are NOT problems Iglesias was going to fix.  Peavy?  There is a greater chance he will have an impact is a couple of these areas.  If the Sox kept Iglesias, he would be on the bench in favor of the white hot bats of Drew and Middlebrooks, where he would be helping fix nothing.  And his future is undetermined anyway, as the Sox still have THREE young left-side infielders (not counting Drew) either on their roster or among their top prospects.  If Cecchini does indeed pan out, moving Iglesias also helped towards clearing that logjam as well.

    The Sox did NEED another starting pitcher.  Buchholz is still out and quality starts from Dempster are seen about as often as Halley’s Comet.  Just because you did not think the Sox planned to contend this year is no reason to run up the white flag on a first place team, and hope that the kids from the farm could give you the same innings Peavy has, and will going forward.  Exactly which outing from Webster gave you that confidence?  How have the recent outings from Workman made you think he was going to keep this team afloat?   If these and the other options floundered, would you happily watch this team sink out of playoff contention, knowing that we at least retained  shortstop whose future might make him the next Brendan Ryan?  Didn’t we all enjoy the collapse of 2011, knowing full well that by watching Kyle Wieland get torched like a car in a Detroit victory celebration, at least we did not trade away any more youth on an actual MLB pitcher who could go 6 innings once in a while?  Remember how comforting that was?  Oh, that’s right.  That month was unbelievably frustrating.

    Iglesias certainly had his skillset, but he was certainly not irreplaceable.  And he could have played in Boston for 6 more years and never been on another first place team.  There is a limit to what kind of players you hold on to when you have a chance to win, and Iglesias is simply not good enough to be one of those players.  Age is not enough of a reason to justify this.  (And after last year’s .118 showing, I seem to recall A LOT of fans citing he would never be a major league starter.   Everyone says they like his defense “even if he hits .250.”   OK, but what if he hits .150?  Still think his defense is worth it?  Nick Punto and his .200 await your answer.  (Interestingly, Iglesias has a UZR/150 of 13.4 through 380 innings at SS this year.  Nick Punto has a 15.5 UZR/150 in 218 innings.)

    And Brendan Ryan is a likely DFA candidate this off-season if you still are heavily into SS defense.  In case you are wondering, he is #3 on the career UZR/150 rankings (2,000 innings min.)…

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein




    Very nice post, Notin.  As usual, well thought out and articulated.


    At the risk of putting myself in the company of one of the 2-3 most respected posters on the board, I think Moon and I are very close together on our thoughts about Iggy.  We're both defense first guys who believe that a solid SS is a real asset on a team.  And if he's young and cost-controlled, so much the better.

    Keeping my dislike for this trade in the context of the timing of it, when the trade was made we had a platoon at 3B of Holt & Snyder, neither of whom was the answer, and with Drew signed through this year only, our entire left side of the IF was vacant going into next year, along with 1B.

    The book on XBo seems to be that he's not as good defensively as Iggy but is a better bat.  There's even been some speculation that SS may not be his best position because of his defensive deficiencies.  So I could see him taking his bat to 3B, moving Middy to 1B and having a cost controlled IF for several years.  That's nice in itself, but it also could free up (and this is where Moon and I part company), money to sign Ellsbury, or failing that, a SP. 

    I'll admit that the resurgence of Middlebrooks has made the trade a bit more palatable for me but at the same time our 2014 options at SS are either an unproven one or signing one through FA, and singing one through FA is going to cost money that could better be spent in other ways.

    For me it wasn't ALL about Iggy's defense.  A lot of my dislike for the trade also stems from the economic side of it and how the trade affected the future of the team both talent-wise and economically.

    It's a done deal and I'm coming to terms with it. The proof in this trade is going to come in 2015 and beyond, after Peavy is done here.  If Iggy is a GG SS hitting ~.250+ it could look like Bagwell/Anderson redux, but if he's not ... it'll look better.  Especially if Peavy gets us into the PS. 

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from chipvan. Show chipvan's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    I was not crazy about this trade and I love Peavy. I just don't think they have the offense to win this year. They beat up on mediocre pitching. Who on this team will give a quality at bat against a quality pitcher with the game on the line? Pedroia, Ortiz, and maybe Ellsbury. After that, I don't have confidence in any of them. Remember Rodney striking out Napoli to end a game a few weeks ago? The 2-0 pitch was too far inside and Napoli swung and missed. He ended up looking silly on a 3-2 change up to end the game. I think Iglesias is capable of being a multi gold glove winner while batting .250. I also envisioned an infield of Middlebrooks (1b), Pedroia, Iglesias, and Bogaerts for next year and so on. The only thing I liked about the trade is having Peavy for next year. By then they may have the all around team to go somewhere or trade Peavy at the deadline for a future prospect.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to chipvan's comment:

    I was not crazy about this trade and I love Peavy. I just don't think they have the offense to win this year. They beat up on mediocre pitching. Who on this team will give a quality at bat against a quality pitcher with the game on the line? Pedroia, Ortiz, and maybe Ellsbury. After that, I don't have confidence in any of them. Remember Rodney striking out Napoli to end a game a few weeks ago? The 2-0 pitch was too far inside and Napoli swung and missed. He ended up looking silly on a 3-2 change up to end the game. I think Iglesias is capable of being a multi gold glove winner while batting .250. I also envisioned an infield of Middlebrooks (1b), Pedroia, Iglesias, and Bogaerts for next year and so on. The only thing I liked about the trade is having Peavy for next year. By then they may have the all around team to go somewhere or trade Peavy at the deadline for a future prospect.



    Do you trust other teams' offenses to hit great pitching? Detroit has two guys and one that struggles against RHPs as much as Napoli this year. The Rangers? The Rays? The A's?

    Granted, some of these other teams have better pitching, but the strngth of our offense is balance top to bottom, and vs RHPs. If we can stay away from the Rays (Moore and Price) in the playoffs, I think we match up well with the rest.

    I'd say Detroit is the favorite, so let's look at which line-up is more balanced...

    OBP/SLG by batting slot:

           BOS       DET

    1 356/426  334/413

    2 343/414  352/462

    3 368/401  430/635

    4 378/569  344/435

    5 348/401  343/405

    6 352/465  341/391

    7 333/455  329/419

    8 323/414  302/378

    9 311/384  329/392

     

    We lead in 11 of 18 categories (6 of 9 on the more important OBP).

                       BOS       DET

    vs RHPs  356/457  348/438

    vs LHPs  329/399  343/437  

    The Tigers are more balanced, but if we face them, they have all righty starters.

                     BOS          DET

    Home     351/464  362/452

    Away      343/414  331/424 

    Pretty even here but...

    BOS has scored 317 runs in 63 Away games & 332/66 home. (15 differential)

    DET has scored 300 runs in 60 Away games & 336/63 home. (36 differential)

    I won't get into strength of schedule, but the numbers could easily be adjusted in Boston's favor.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    A trade is supposed to help both teams. RS needed pitching for the stretch and this trade did 2 things, added a quality arm to the rotation but also kept Workman in the pen where RS have been hit w/ a ton of injuries so it helped club in 2 ways. Detroit lost its starting SS and adding Iggy might end up being the missing peice they've needed, Detroit was never known for its defense and w/ Iggy @ SS vs Peralta [Nomar trade RS fans?] they are a much better defensive team than before the trade, while the offense w/ Miggy and Fielder w/ help hide Iggy's shortcomings on offense.

    While many here point to Iggy's offense this year I'm still not sold that he can hit at this level, the number of infield hits this yr is not sustainable. This trade will depend on how Iggy's bat developes, if he becomes a consistent hitter 260-280 then the RS lost an all star SS and this was a bad trade. If Iggy goes back to his career norm and hits 220-230 w/ no power than RS made the right move getting a quality starter who can help them not only down the stretch but next yr as well.

    Also lets not forget RS might have an all star SS coming, which also made this trade easier for Ben to pull the trigger.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from chetgnat. Show chetgnat's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    Yes. Peavy is solid and consistent and the staff needed that boost. If Bucholz can come back for the playoffs then the team has a legit shot at winning a series.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    If you haven't read Notin on this, do so.  Great stuff.  Simply stated, the hitting and pitching both improve with this trade. I hated losing a brilliant glove, but this makes sense.  As notin also points out, the Sox are knee deep in good ss's,and Iglesias could have ended up as UIF.

    I also agrwe with royf19 that we can't fully evaluate this until the end of the 2014 season.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    The thing that everybody assumes is that Iglesias will always be a weak hitter, or that he will never be a consistent hitter.

    But, sometimes numbers lie. Carl Crawford was a terrific hitter for TB, couldn't get it going in Boston. Carlton Fisk batted .229 his last season in AA, and only .263 his only season in AAA ...YET BATTED OVER .275 FOR 11 MLB SEASONS.

    Can anyone be 100% certain that Iglesias ( even though he PROJECTS as a weak bat) will be a weak bat for his entire career?...Should he get hot at the right time ( like he did here) he could be a difference maker in postseason. Remember NYM 1986 shortstop Rafael Santana?.....he was strictly a defensive player, batted only .218 during the reg, season of 1986.....batted .250 in the World Series. Omar Vizquel , generally known as mainly a glove man, has a lifetime BA of .272...GO FIGURE.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    The thing that everybody assumes is that Iglesias will always be a weak hitter, or that he will never be a consistent hitter.

    But, sometimes numbers lie. Carl Crawford was a terrific hitter for TB, couldn't get it going in Boston. Carlton Fisk batted .229 his last season in AA, and only .263 his only season in AAA ...YET BATTED OVER .275 FOR 11 MLB SEASONS.

    Can anyone be 100% certain that Iglesias ( even though he PROJECTS as a weak bat) will be a weak bat for his entire career?...Should he get hot at the right time ( like he did here) he could be a difference maker in postseason. Remember NYM 1986 shortstop Rafael Santana?.....he was strictly a defensive player, batted only .218 during the reg, season of 1986.....batted .250 in the World Series. Omar Vizquel , generally known as mainly a glove man, has a lifetime BA of .272...GO FIGURE.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells


    Entirely possible, I agree, but the FO had to make a judgment call and did.  We shall see.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    The thing that everybody assumes is that Iglesias will always be a weak hitter, or that he will never be a consistent hitter.

    But, sometimes numbers lie. Carl Crawford was a terrific hitter for TB, couldn't get it going in Boston. Carlton Fisk batted .229 his last season in AA, and only .263 his only season in AAA ...YET BATTED OVER .275 FOR 11 MLB SEASONS.

    Can anyone be 100% certain that Iglesias ( even though he PROJECTS as a weak bat) will be a weak bat for his entire career?...Should he get hot at the right time ( like he did here) he could be a difference maker in postseason. Remember NYM 1986 shortstop Rafael Santana?.....he was strictly a defensive player, batted only .218 during the reg, season of 1986.....batted .250 in the World Series. Omar Vizquel , generally known as mainly a glove man, has a lifetime BA of .272...GO FIGURE.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells



    Fair enough, I was always an advocate of the advancement of Iggy's bat.  But this is a two way street, people shouldn't assume Bogaerts won't get better on defense as well.  He is the anti Iggy, a guy who was rushed for his bat while his glove is still developing.  Yes he may never be that much better than he is now but can we really assume that? I think it's just as fair to assume he has the ability to improve with the leather as Iggy does with the wood.

    Also, Middlebrooks is the guy has replaced Iggy (now at least0 and while he may not be the defensive wizard Iggy was, Iggy's defense at third was not as good at SS and WMB can play the hot corner on a good level and his bat has really come around in his return to Boston.  So we really are a better team now, and may be in the future as well. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?


    Another assumption.....that we are a better team now ....and will be in the future.

    I don't dispute that the latter may be true, I don't see the former being true. The Red Sox have lost 3 of the 4 games Peavy has started , they had a pretty good record while Iglesias was in the lineup. He was part of a team effort that elevated the Red Sox to first place. No one can deny that Iglesias fine overall play was not a factor in the team's great run through the middle part of the season.

    I still stand pat on what I believe in. Never trade away young talent for old. This lesson should have been learned when Cecil Cooper was traded to Milwaukee, should have been learned when Lester and Ellsbury were not traded to Minnesota for Johan Santana and should have been learned when Bagwell was traded away for some clown relief pitcher. Duquette set the stage for 2004 by trading Heathcliff Slocumb for two prospects that became pivotal players for years in Boston (Lowe and Varitek)...Slocumb, he kind of fizzled....score one for us, be smart, always bet on the young talent, you will be right more often than wrong. If Bogaerts is worth it, move him to 3rd, Middlebrooks converts to 1stbase ( rememeber Youkilis?) and we have a top notch homegrown infield of Middlebrooks, Pedroia, Iglasias and Bogaerts...anyone have a problem with that?

    I admittedly am not that found of Peavy. I could be wrong. I just don't see this guy as a difference maker. I know the state of pitching in MLB is pretty sad, but we are not talking about a shutdown starter....as I stated earlier, although I don't directly blame him, the Red Sox have only won 1 of Peavy's 4 starts. This guy was brought here for now, not for the future...they must win now or this trade is a total waste.

    The media painted Peavy as some great saviour, but really this is a big, big gamble. He has never pitched in a big market, he is a hothead, and his best year was 6 seasons ago. He is 32 on the 2nd to last year of a contract , he rarely gets past the 6th inning. He wil continue to tax a tired, weakened bullpen...frankly he was not the answer....this was a trade just for the sake of saying "at least we didn't sit on our hands and do nothing." I really don't think the team is any better for this trade, it's pretty much a wash for now and a hinderance for the future.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:


    Another assumption.....that we are a better team now ....and will be in the future.

    I don't dispute that the latter may be true, I don't see the former being true. The Red Sox have lost 3 of the 4 games Peavy has started , they had a pretty good record while Iglesias was in the lineup. He was part of a team effort that elevated the Red Sox to first place. No one can deny that Iglesias fine overall play was not a factor in the team's great run through the middle part of the season.

    I still stand pat on what I believe in. Never trade away young talent for old. This lesson should have been learned when Cecil Cooper was traded to Milwaukee, should have been learned when Lester and Ellsbury were not traded to Minnesota for Johan Santana and should have been learned when Bagwell was traded away for some clown relief pitcher. Duquette set the stage for 2004 by trading Heathcliff Slocumb for two prospects that became pivotal players for years in Boston (Lowe and Varitek)...Slocumb, he kind of fizzled....score one for us, be smart, always bet on the young talent, you will be right more often than wrong. If Bogaerts is worth it, move him to 3rd, Middlebrooks converts to 1stbase ( rememeber Youkilis?) and we have a top notch homegrown infield of Middlebrooks, Pedroia, Iglasias and Bogaerts...anyone have a problem with that?

    I admittedly am not that found of Peavy. I could be wrong. I just don't see this guy as a difference maker. I know the state of pitching in MLB is pretty sad, but we are not talking about a shutdown starter....as I stated earlier, although I don't directly blame him, the Red Sox have only won 1 of Peavy's 4 starts. This guy was brought here for now, not for the future...they must win now or this trade is a total waste.

    The media painted Peavy as some great saviour, but really this is a big, big gamble. He has never pitched in a big market, he is a hothead, and his best year was 6 seasons ago. He is 32 on the 2nd to last year of a contract , he rarely gets past the 6th inning. He wil continue to tax a tired, weakened bullpen...frankly he was not the answer....this was a trade just for the sake of saying "at least we didn't sit on our hands and do nothing." I really don't think the team is any better for this trade, it's pretty much a wash for now and a hinderance for the future.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells



    "Never" trade young talent for old?  How did the Curt Schilling trade work out for the Sox?  

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    Never trade younger players for older?

     

     

    NEVER?

     

    So are you saying thar the Sox should not have traded Pavano and Armas for Pedro?   Or Fossum and de la Rosa for. Schilling?   Or the untried Henri Stanley for journeyman Dave Roberts?

     

    There are no absolutes...

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: do you still like the trade?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

     

     

     


    Another assumption.....that we are a better team now ....and will be in the future.

    I don't dispute that the latter may be true, I don't see the former being true. The Red Sox have lost 3 of the 4 games Peavy has started , they had a pretty good record while Iglesias was in the lineup. He was part of a team effort that elevated the Red Sox to first place. No one can deny that Iglesias fine overall play was not a factor in the team's great run through the middle part of the season.

    I still stand pat on what I believe in. Never trade away young talent for old. This lesson should have been learned when Cecil Cooper was traded to Milwaukee, should have been learned when Lester and Ellsbury were not traded to Minnesota for Johan Santana and should have been learned when Bagwell was traded away for some clown relief pitcher. Duquette set the stage for 2004 by trading Heathcliff Slocumb for two prospects that became pivotal players for years in Boston (Lowe and Varitek)...Slocumb, he kind of fizzled....score one for us, be smart, always bet on the young talent, you will be right more often than wrong. If Bogaerts is worth it, move him to 3rd, Middlebrooks converts to 1stbase ( rememeber Youkilis?) and we have a top notch homegrown infield of Middlebrooks, Pedroia, Iglasias and Bogaerts...anyone have a problem with that?

    I admittedly am not that found of Peavy. I could be wrong. I just don't see this guy as a difference maker. I know the state of pitching in MLB is pretty sad, but we are not talking about a shutdown starter....as I stated earlier, although I don't directly blame him, the Red Sox have only won 1 of Peavy's 4 starts. This guy was brought here for now, not for the future...they must win now or this trade is a total waste.

    The media painted Peavy as some great saviour, but really this is a big, big gamble. He has never pitched in a big market, he is a hothead, and his best year was 6 seasons ago. He is 32 on the 2nd to last year of a contract , he rarely gets past the 6th inning. He wil continue to tax a tired, weakened bullpen...frankly he was not the answer....this was a trade just for the sake of saying "at least we didn't sit on our hands and do nothing." I really don't think the team is any better for this trade, it's pretty much a wash for now and a hinderance for the future.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     

     



    "Never" trade young talent for old?  How did the Curt Schilling trade work out for the Sox?  

     

     

     



    That, And werent Beckett and Lowell Huge parts of us winning our 2nd WS?

    Also, Peavy had allowed 2 runs or less in 3 of those 4 starts Zill referred to, so Its a bit silly to site W-L and suggest hes just mediocre because the team couldnt score any runs.



     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share