money ball

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

    money ball

    You're seen the movie and maybe read the book--it's about Billy Beane and the ability to find good players who are undervalued by other teams.  Billy is still with the Athletics and and thriving, in part thanks to three players who came there from the Sox--Coco Crisp in CF, Josh Reddick in RF, and Jed Lowrie at SS.  Right now the Athletics, whose salaries are maybe half of the Sox, have the 2d best record in the AL and a solid lead in the AL West. 

    My point, however, is that Ben C, with, granted, a lot bigger salary base, hasn't done half bad.  Last summer he dumped three expensive players and last winter acquired some less expensive but nevertheless capable players like Napoli, Drew, Victorino, Gomes, Dempster, Carp, Uehara, and Ross.  And two closers who are still on the DL, Hanrahan and Bailey.  But he also re-signed Ortiz and Pedroia and did not trade away Ellsbury, Salty, Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, etc. 

    This summer Ben C made a bold trade to get rid of a bonafide rookie of the year candidate and brilliant shortstop in order to bring in another veteran starter, Peavy.  While it is too early to comment on the long term effect, it is already obvious the short term effect for the Sox is positive.  Trading Iglesias allowed the Sox to bring Middlebrook and then Bogaerts to the big club, which tells me that all along the Sox had doubts about Iglesias because of his presumed weak hitting (especially against righty pitchers). 

    And let's not forget that for Ben C the stakes are higher than for Billy Beane because the Sox fans and owner expect and demand a winning team.  Putting a winning team on the field is what allowed the Sox to go 9 years of continuous sellouts (with appropriate caveats in 2012 and maybe 2011 and 2010).   

    In fact, I would argue this is a different kind of money ball in which success on the field actually does translate in to money from fans via attendance, TV ratings, etc. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: money ball

    Agreed.  I was thinking today how much this Sox team is built like the A's.  I have really enjoyed the A's the last few season because of their pitching and solid players that play TEAM baseball first.  The Sox followed suit...albeit with a bigger payroll...and it has paid HUGE dividends.  If you can't beat them....JOIN THEM!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: money ball

    not sure if this has any meaning but.....Billy Beane A's = 0 WS titles.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Javi60. Show Javi60's posts

    Re: money ball

    Notwithstanding painful Iglesias deal and not making more out of the July dateline, it is obvious that Ben has proved himself as an excellent GM... Respect and applause to him!

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

    Re: money ball

    Billy is still with the Athletics and and thriving, in part thanks to three players who came there from the Sox--Coco Crisp in CF, Josh Reddick in RF, and Jed Lowrie at SS.

    Brandon Moss is no chopped liver.

    Sox4ever

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: money ball

     

    Brad Pitt as Billy Beane: "There are rich teams and there are poor teams, then there's 50 feet of crap and then there's us."   LOL

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: money ball

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Billy is still with the Athletics and and thriving, in part thanks to three players who came there from the Sox--Coco Crisp in CF, Josh Reddick in RF, and Jed Lowrie at SS.

    Brandon Moss is no chopped liver.

    Sox4ever



    Brandon Moss is batting .255 with 27 homers and 77 RBIs.  Not bad for $2 million.  

     

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

    Re: money ball

    I've defended Iggy and been critical of the trade to the point where I'm SURE nobody wants to hear from me again, but since the OP is about Moneyball and included a reference to Iggy and the long term affect of that trade I guess I need to make (I hope) one more comment about it.

    Will someone PLEASE tell me what I'm missing here?

    We traded away a GG SS under team control for five years for short money in exchange for a respectable pitcher for 1 1/2 years .  I just don't see how that was a good trade.  Especially now, since his four wins are only half the lead we have in the division race.  The argument can solidly be made that we'd have won the AL East without Peavy, especially when the need at the time was for a reliever.  I understand that the FO wanted to make a move to prove to the team that they (the team) had the FO support but I think trading Iggy for ANYONE was an overreaction.

    Now I see multiple threads posted talking about what the Sox are going to look like NEXT year, and suddenly this "can't miss SS prospect" isn't included in the SS plans. Did those plans change in the past month, or did the FO always not see Bogarts as the SS of the future? 

    Am I the only one who sees that Iggy WASN'T blocking Bogarts - the only thing Iggy was "blocking" was the need to sign a FA SS for 2014?  Am I the only one who sees that now that we have to pay a FA SS we're going to have less money to sign people like Ellsbury, Salty and maybe Napoli?  ?  This team was SOLID and quite possible affordable for 2014 with the only major change needed being to slip Iggy into Drew's spot.  If they wanted to go cheaper yet they could have moved Middy to 1B and put Bogarts at 3B.  That could have given them enough money to sign Ells and Salty and we could have gone forward with a minimum of disruptions.

    People think I'm in love with Iggy.  I'm not.  I just think this trade has screwed up a pretty good 2014 team without appreciably helping the 2013 team.  I know this trade is a done deal and I have to live with it. I just wish there was someone else who could see what I'm seeing here and maybe questioning the validity of what happened. 

    Thanks for reading my (redundant) rant.  :-) 

     

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

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

    Re: money ball

    In response to S5's comment:

    I've defended Iggy and been critical of the trade to the point where I'm SURE nobody wants to hear from me again, but since the OP is about Moneyball and included a reference to Iggy and the long term affect of that trade I guess I need to make (I hope) one more comment about it.

    Will someone PLEASE tell me what I'm missing here?

    We traded away a GG SS under team control for five years for short money in exchange for a respectable pitcher for 1 1/2 years .  I just don't see how that was a good trade.  Especially now, since his four wins are only half the lead we have in the division race.  The argument can solidly be made that we'd have won the AL East without Peavy, especially when the need at the time was for a reliever.  I understand that the FO wanted to make a move to prove to the team that they (the team) had the FO support but I think trading Iggy for ANYONE was an overreaction.

    Now I see multiple threads posted talking about what the Sox are going to look like NEXT year, and suddenly this "can't miss SS prospect" isn't included in the SS plans. Did those plans change in the past month, or did the FO always not see Bogarts as the SS of the future? 

    Am I the only one who sees that Iggy WASN'T blocking Bogarts - the only thing Iggy was "blocking" was the need to sign a FA SS for 2014?  Am I the only one who sees that now that we have to pay a FA SS we're going to have less money to sign people like Ellsbury, Salty and maybe Napoli?  ?  This team was SOLID and quite possible affordable for 2014 with the only major change needed being to slip Iggy into Drew's spot.  If they wanted to go cheaper yet they could have moved Middy to 1B and put Bogarts at 3B.  That could have given them enough money to sign Ells and Salty and we could have gone forward with a minimum of disruptions.

    People think I'm in love with Iggy.  I'm not.  I just think this trade has screwed up a pretty good 2014 team without appreciably helping the 2013 team.  I know this trade is a done deal and I have to live with it. I just wish there was someone else who could see what I'm seeing here and maybe questioning the validity of what happened. 

    Thanks for reading my (redundant) rant.  :-) 

     

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.




    I was a huge Iggy fan. I wanted him as our FT SS last year, instead of Aviles. This year instead of Drew. And way into our future. But, I do not think Ben saw him in this light. Bogey was going to be the SS all along, and not our 3Bman as I envisioned.

    As for the trade? I've seen teams give up more for 2 month rentals like Peavy. We got him for 2 playoff cycles. He's better than many here want to admit. When it comes to playoff games, the first question asked is, "who's the starting pitcher tonight?" Peavy gives us a very very good starter for 2 games in a series, if needed. We will see the value this fall and perhaps next.

    I'm not saying I favored the deal, but I can see the logic. We gave up a player that (like it or not) was destined to be a utility IF'er on this team for a top quality starter through two playff cycles. I can see being against it, but I'm surprised you can't see the reasoning for making the deal. Teams give up the world for a good starter every deadline, and usually it's for a shorter term control than Peavy had.

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

    Re: money ball

    It is very hard to read this thread with a straight face.

    The A's are 5th from the bottom in team payroll , the Red Sox 4th from the top.

    The proper way to play moneyball, is not offereing Pedroia a contract that keeps him in Boston forever ( although , I don't disagree with this one bit...but the A's who play for the slum of baseball- Oakland....apparantly not a very big city {you could've fooled me}, would never have done it). The proper way to play moneyball would have been to dump Ortiz on his 32nd birthday, retain Iglesias and scoff at Peavy , say goodbye to Saltalmacchia now before he asks for big money , trdae Jon Lester for 3 prospects and let Napoli walk ( as he is sure to be looking for a raise.)

    Boston is not a small market, Henry is not a poor man , the Red Sox have no intention of mirroring Oakland's version of Moneyball. They will continue to spend and spend big. However, they may have figured out that you can build a competitive club without chasing every big name that hits free agency....and then again, maybe not. Stayed tuned , the next chapter of the John Henry drama series may reveal more glory, more disappointmnet or something in between. Only one thing is for sure- we are all hooked and will be following every twist and turn with great expectations...expectations that may turn sour , like a trade for Gonzalez or may be ridiculous;y positive, like signing Victorinio.

    You never , never know.

    And yes, the Oakland team is good, but they are sure to be a revolving door again next season, as the players that expect raises get kicked to the curb....."thanks but no thanks..."

    "Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket."- George Orwell

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

    Re: money ball

    In response to S5's comment:

    I've defended Iggy and been critical of the trade to the point where I'm SURE nobody wants to hear from me again, but since the OP is about Moneyball and included a reference to Iggy and the long term affect of that trade I guess I need to make (I hope) one more comment about it.

    Will someone PLEASE tell me what I'm missing here?

    We traded away a GG SS under team control for five years for short money in exchange for a respectable pitcher for 1 1/2 years .  I just don't see how that was a good trade.  Especially now, since his four wins are only half the lead we have in the division race.  The argument can solidly be made that we'd have won the AL East without Peavy, especially when the need at the time was for a reliever.  I understand that the FO wanted to make a move to prove to the team that they (the team) had the FO support but I think trading Iggy for ANYONE was an overreaction.

    Now I see multiple threads posted talking about what the Sox are going to look like NEXT year, and suddenly this "can't miss SS prospect" isn't included in the SS plans. Did those plans change in the past month, or did the FO always not see Bogarts as the SS of the future? 

    Am I the only one who sees that Iggy WASN'T blocking Bogarts - the only thing Iggy was "blocking" was the need to sign a FA SS for 2014?  Am I the only one who sees that now that we have to pay a FA SS we're going to have less money to sign people like Ellsbury, Salty and maybe Napoli?  ?  This team was SOLID and quite possible affordable for 2014 with the only major change needed being to slip Iggy into Drew's spot.  If they wanted to go cheaper yet they could have moved Middy to 1B and put Bogarts at 3B.  That could have given them enough money to sign Ells and Salty and we could have gone forward with a minimum of disruptions.

    People think I'm in love with Iggy.  I'm not.  I just think this trade has screwed up a pretty good 2014 team without appreciably helping the 2013 team.  I know this trade is a done deal and I have to live with it. I just wish there was someone else who could see what I'm seeing here and maybe questioning the validity of what happened. 

    Thanks for reading my (redundant) rant.  :-) 

     

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.




    When Iggy got traded there were still a lot of question marks about this team. They had already given us more than we dared to expect, but their status as a legitimate WS contender was still very much in doubt, and many of the questions were about the starting rotation. That was the priority. Lester was inconsistent, Dempster and Doubrant too, and we had no idea if Clay would even be back. The Sox did not appear to have a solidand dependable playoff staff.

    Since the trade, the team has gone on a tear and pretty much clinched the AL East, quickly pulling away from a Rays team whose starting pitching was very good. Peavy has been mostly excellent, and although he can't take the sole credit for the remarkable team play, the results  shouldn't be second-guessed. The team has simply played better and inspired a lot more confidence since the trade deadline for whatever reasons, so why even bother to look back? Enjoy!

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

    Re: money ball

    In response to S5's comment:

    I've defended Iggy and been critical of the trade to the point where I'm SURE nobody wants to hear from me again, but since the OP is about Moneyball and included a reference to Iggy and the long term affect of that trade I guess I need to make (I hope) one more comment about it.

    Will someone PLEASE tell me what I'm missing here?

    We traded away a GG SS under team control for five years for short money in exchange for a respectable pitcher for 1 1/2 years .  I just don't see how that was a good trade.  Especially now, since his four wins are only half the lead we have in the division race.  The argument can solidly be made that we'd have won the AL East without Peavy, especially when the need at the time was for a reliever.  I understand that the FO wanted to make a move to prove to the team that they (the team) had the FO support but I think trading Iggy for ANYONE was an overreaction.

    Now I see multiple threads posted talking about what the Sox are going to look like NEXT year, and suddenly this "can't miss SS prospect" isn't included in the SS plans. Did those plans change in the past month, or did the FO always not see Bogarts as the SS of the future? 

    Am I the only one who sees that Iggy WASN'T blocking Bogarts - the only thing Iggy was "blocking" was the need to sign a FA SS for 2014?  Am I the only one who sees that now that we have to pay a FA SS we're going to have less money to sign people like Ellsbury, Salty and maybe Napoli?  ?  This team was SOLID and quite possible affordable for 2014 with the only major change needed being to slip Iggy into Drew's spot.  If they wanted to go cheaper yet they could have moved Middy to 1B and put Bogarts at 3B.  That could have given them enough money to sign Ells and Salty and we could have gone forward with a minimum of disruptions.

    People think I'm in love with Iggy.  I'm not.  I just think this trade has screwed up a pretty good 2014 team without appreciably helping the 2013 team.  I know this trade is a done deal and I have to live with it. I just wish there was someone else who could see what I'm seeing here and maybe questioning the validity of what happened. 

    Thanks for reading my (redundant) rant.  :-) 

     

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.



    To say that the Sox still would have won the Division w/o the Iggy trade is something of a leap. Maybe they would have but it's not a given. It's not as simple as taking Peavy out and putting Workman in and saying everything else would have been he same.

    First, even though Workman has been up and down in the pen, he's still been an arm out there. So if he wasn't pitching, someone would have had to pick up his innings.

    Second, Workman was pitching well as a starter, but who knows if he would have hit a wall like Doubrant and other young pitchers do. And it's not whether or not he won the game, it's how deep in the games would have he gone if he hit the wall. The fact is, Peavy has gone deep into games, which has helped the bullpen. If Workman hit the wall and didn't go deep into games, there's a domino affect in regard to the bullpen. Maybe the Sox still would be in first place but a bullpen that is in more dissarray and burnt out.

    Third, the Sox pulled away in part because of great pitching and also because of hitting. And both Middlebrooks and Drew have played a big part in that and both were the key reason the Sox won some games. Since the trade:

    Middlebrooks: 116 PA, 18 R, 4 2B, 6 HR, 17 RBI, .308 BA, .371 OBP, .519 SLG, 890 OPS.
    Drew:            158 PA, 19 R, 12 2B, 5 HR, 24 RBI, .283/.361/.478/.839
    Iggy:             127 PA, 11 R, 6 2B, 2 HR, 10 RBI .288/.328/.390/.718

    So while Iggy has been OK at the plate, both Middlebrooks and Drew have been more productive at the plate, and Igg's defense isn't enough to make up for it. So if Iggy has stayed, the lineup wouldn't have been as strong at the bottom.

    It's not a simple as keeping everything the same and simply putting Workman in for Peavy.

    RIGHT NOW, the Sox are stronger with Peavy as the No. 4 starter as Dempster has been inconsistent and Doubrant has hit a wall. And the lineup is stronger with Middlebrooks and Drew on the left side rather than Drew/Iggy or Middlebrooks/Iggy.

     

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

    Re: money ball

    I'd say while the Peavy trade is far from a disaster, you have to believe the 9.5 game lead in the standings has more to do with Tampa Bay going for a nosedive than the Red Sox adding an extra arm to the rotation. I mean, aren't they something like 4W-4L in Peavy's starts? Couldn't they conceivably gone .500 with Workman starting?....I would say, with the production of the offense, it is no stretch to say they very well could have the same W-L record with Peavy as without.

    All that being said, the Peavy trade is still all about how deep this team goes in this year's playoffs. It hurts our future, but strengthens the now.

    Although not a big fan of this trade, I will admit it increase the chances of a championship this year.... by a small amount, but , it might be enough to get it done.I guess that's all that really counts in a results based business like pro sports.

    "Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket."- George Orwell

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

    Re: money ball

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    I'd say while the Peavy trade is far from a disaster, you have to believe the 9.5 game lead in the standings has more to do with Tampa Bay going for a nosedive than the Red Sox adding an extra arm to the rotation. I mean, aren't they something like 4W-4L in Peavy's starts? Couldn't they conceivably gone .500 with Workman starting?....I would say, with the production of the offense, it is no stretch to say they very well could have the same W-L record with Peavy as without.

    All that being said, the Peavy trade is still all about how deep this team goes in this year's playoffs. It hurts our future, but strengthens the now.

    Although not a big fan of this trade, I will admit it increase the chances of a championship this year.... by a small amount, but , it might be enough to get it done.I guess that's all that really counts in a results based business like pro sports.

    "Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket."- George Orwell



    The Rays have nosedived, but the Sox also are 17-4 in their past 21 games. So it's not like the Sox are backing in. The Sox have helped the Rays nose dive.

    And like I said, you can't simply replace Peavy's starts with Workman. You have look how Peavy going deep in games have helped the pen. And you have to look how much stronger the lineup has been with Middlebrooks and Drew the past two months and how that has helped the team pull away. Both have helped the team with games with their bats and make the lineup stronger than it would be with Iggy in one of their places.

    You're right in that the big thing that will determine the success of the trade will be how Peavy and the Sox do in the playoffs.

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

    Re: money ball


    I love it.  I wrote what I thought was pretty mild stuff and sort of defense of Ben C. 

    Zillagod caught my meaning, but rephrased it--he still said Ben C has done a good job given that he does have money to spend unlike Billy Beane.

    I hear you S5, but I didn't say Iglesias was blocking Bogaerts as much as he was blocking Middlebrooks, who, it turns out, was ready to come back and hit well.  Also, I honestly do not think the Sox see gold glove SS's the way you do, and they are willing to pay more for a Drew who can hit than an Iglesias who maybe can't.  Plus Drew's fielding has been good.  My prediction, which is worth zilch, is the Sox will keep Drew and move MBR and Bogaerts to the corners.  The point is, the chief value of almost every Red Sox regular is his bat, not his glove.  As for SS, the Sox won in 2007 with Lugo, for crying out loud. 

    Now I have one for you, S5.  Do you think Iglesias will stay at SS when Peralta returns?  Iggy is brilliant and a bargain, but he struggles (.130) hitting righties.  He might after all be a UIF. 

    Zillagod, I don't think we can be sure about hurting our future with Peavy for Iglesias if Iglesias was always going to be a UIF.  In any case, I think we have to see what happens before we make a judgment on the future. 

    And,as for the present, let's not forget that one of the tasks for the FO is to produce a winning team in order to get fans coming back to the games and watching them on TV, etc.  The team has played better without Iglesias than with him, not so much because of Peavy, but because of Middlebrooks and occasionally Bogaerts at 3B (or SS). 

     

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

    Re: money ball

    I think getting Peavy was needed because of the uncertainty of the Sox rotation.  He made it deeper and now that Buch it is playoff ready.  You won't see Dempster or Doubront any where near a start in the playoffs and that is a good thing.  Now Iggy was not going to be the SS of the future for the Sox,  Boegarts is because he can field and already hits better than Iggy ever will.  So as BC said we are dealing from an area of strength in the organization.  All trades are a crap shoot but this one was well thought out to help the team now, know the future at the position is bright.  The only reason I don't like the trade is that it helps Detroit right now too and they are going to be a playoff team that we could face.

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

    Re: money ball

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    You're seen the movie and maybe read the book--it's about Billy Beane and the ability to find good players who are undervalued by other teams.  Billy is still with the Athletics and and thriving, in part thanks to three players who came there from the Sox--Coco Crisp in CF, Josh Reddick in RF, and Jed Lowrie at SS.  Right now the Athletics, whose salaries are maybe half of the Sox, have the 2d best record in the AL and a solid lead in the AL West. 

    My point, however, is that Ben C, with, granted, a lot bigger salary base, hasn't done half bad.  Last summer he dumped three expensive players and last winter acquired some less expensive but nevertheless capable players like Napoli, Drew, Victorino, Gomes, Dempster, Carp, Uehara, and Ross.  And two closers who are still on the DL, Hanrahan and Bailey.  But he also re-signed Ortiz and Pedroia and did not trade away Ellsbury, Salty, Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, etc. 

    This summer Ben C made a bold trade to get rid of a bonafide rookie of the year candidate and brilliant shortstop in order to bring in another veteran starter, Peavy.  While it is too early to comment on the long term effect, it is already obvious the short term effect for the Sox is positive.  Trading Iglesias allowed the Sox to bring Middlebrook and then Bogaerts to the big club, which tells me that all along the Sox had doubts about Iglesias because of his presumed weak hitting (especially against righty pitchers). 

    And let's not forget that for Ben C the stakes are higher than for Billy Beane because the Sox fans and owner expect and demand a winning team.  Putting a winning team on the field is what allowed the Sox to go 9 years of continuous sellouts (with appropriate caveats in 2012 and maybe 2011 and 2010).   

    In fact, I would argue this is a different kind of money ball in which success on the field actually does translate in to money from fans via attendance, TV ratings, etc. 




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

    Re: money ball


    While he's not a favorite of mine, it was Lucchino who pulled off the mega trade/salary dump with the Dodgers, not Ben C

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

    Re: money ball

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


    I love it.  I wrote what I thought was pretty mild stuff and sort of defense of Ben C. 

    Zillagod caught my meaning, but rephrased it--he still said Ben C has done a good job given that he does have money to spend unlike Billy Beane.

    I hear you S5, but I didn't say Iglesias was blocking Bogaerts as much as he was blocking Middlebrooks, who, it turns out, was ready to come back and hit well.  Also, I honestly do not think the Sox see gold glove SS's the way you do, and they are willing to pay more for a Drew who can hit than an Iglesias who maybe can't.  Plus Drew's fielding has been good.  My prediction, which is worth zilch, is the Sox will keep Drew and move MBR and Bogaerts to the corners.  The point is, the chief value of almost every Red Sox regular is his bat, not his glove.  As for SS, the Sox won in 2007 with Lugo, for crying out loud. 

    Now I have one for you, S5.  Do you think Iglesias will stay at SS when Peralta returns?  Iggy is brilliant and a bargain, but he struggles (.130) hitting righties.  He might after all be a UIF. 

    Zillagod, I don't think we can be sure about hurting our future with Peavy for Iglesias if Iglesias was always going to be a UIF.  In any case, I think we have to see what happens before we make a judgment on the future. 

    And,as for the present, let's not forget that one of the tasks for the FO is to produce a winning team in order to get fans coming back to the games and watching them on TV, etc.  The team has played better without Iglesias than with him, not so much because of Peavy, but because of Middlebrooks and occasionally Bogaerts at 3B (or SS). 

     



    Aughhh.. I didn't want to get involved in this again, but since you asked me a question I feel obligated to answer it... and more.  :-)

    I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him stick at SS in Detroit, just as I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded again in the off season, and that's not a knock on Iggy.  Peralta's not your garden variety SS and it's hard to displace a SS with a .305 BA & .822 OPS.  Drew is .247/.760 and I'm happy with THAT!   But whatever happens I'll be very surprised if Iggy's not the opening day SS for someone in 2014.  [And BTW, I'm not nearly the guru at finding stats that some are, but I saw Baseball Reference having him listed as .303 vs. RHP & .322 vs. LHP.  Did I do something wrong?]

    Never, never did I suggest Iggy taking either Drew or Middlebrooks position in the IF.  I LIKE this IF the way it is.  I LIKE Drew's bat just as I like Middy's bat.  The role I saw for Iggy in 2013 was that of UIF and protection against injuries - and possibly the designated pinch runner although I DO now like Berry better.  Then in 2014 he'd do a good job of filling a spot we need filled - cheaply.

    Three points of yours that I ABSOLUTELY agree with though are that for whatever reason the Sox stopped seeing Iggy as the SS of the future, the Sox value offense much more than defense, and their job is to get the fannies in the seats to make money.  It was the opinion of the FO that the Red Sox could make more money with Peavy on the team as a pitcher this year than as Iggy at SS in the future.  That's why Iggy is no longer in Boston.  

    I just wish they'd aske me before they made the trade. :-)  

    And as to your original point of Ben doing a good job, I agree, and I didn't mean to hijack your thread.   

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: money ball

    In response to Mchampion's comment:

    I think getting Peavy was needed because of the uncertainty of the Sox rotation.  He made it deeper and now that Buch it is playoff ready.  You won't see Dempster or Doubront any where near a start in the playoffs and that is a good thing.  Now Iggy was not going to be the SS of the future for the Sox,  Boegarts is because he can field and already hits better than Iggy ever will.  So as BC said we are dealing from an area of strength in the organization.  All trades are a crap shoot but this one was well thought out to help the team now, know the future at the position is bright.  The only reason I don't like the trade is that it helps Detroit right now too and they are going to be a playoff team that we could face.




    Exactly and well said.  I get such a kick out of people that go crazy that we traded somebody that was the second best prospect at the position....and we have a veteran at that same position that was hitting in the clutch, hitting very well since coming back from injury earlier in the year.....and fielded his position EXTREMELY well!!  Iggy was expendable and we have a very solid pitcher that could be the difference maker on the way to a World Series!!  Think people!!

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

    Re: money ball

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    In response to Mchampion's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I think getting Peavy was needed because of the uncertainty of the Sox rotation.  He made it deeper and now that Buch it is playoff ready.  You won't see Dempster or Doubront any where near a start in the playoffs and that is a good thing.  Now Iggy was not going to be the SS of the future for the Sox,  Boegarts is because he can field and already hits better than Iggy ever will.  So as BC said we are dealing from an area of strength in the organization.  All trades are a crap shoot but this one was well thought out to help the team now, know the future at the position is bright.  The only reason I don't like the trade is that it helps Detroit right now too and they are going to be a playoff team that we could face.

     




    Exactly and well said.  I get such a kick out of people that go crazy that we traded somebody that was the second best prospect at the position....and we have a veteran at that same position that was hitting in the clutch, hitting very well since coming back from injury earlier in the year.....and fielded his position EXTREMELY well!!  Iggy was expendable and we have a very solid pitcher that could be the difference maker on the way to a World Series!!  Think people!!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree.  I like Iglesias and was against the trade.  Iglesias will provide more net value of the next five years.

    OTOH, straight value plays are only good for being a consistent winner.  I think that, if you're close enough, you might want to make a move.

    On the day of the trade, we were .5 games out of 1st.  If we didn't make a move, everyone would've complained.  And this is not a unique situation.  BA traded for 2 SPs.  The NYY traded for Soriano.  Detroit traded their best prospect for someone.  LAD traded for Nolasco.

    It's the cycle of life.  When you're in the hunt, you trade prospect for current year help.  When you're out, like last year, you trade away for players for prospects.

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

    Re: money ball

    I agree.  I like Iglesias and was against the trade.  Iglesias will provide more net value of the next five years.

     

    OTOH, straight value plays are only good for being a consistent winner.  I think that, if you're close enough, you might want to make a move.

    On the day of the trade, we were .5 games out of 1st.  If we didn't make a move, everyone would've complained.  And this is not a unique situation.  BA traded for 2 SPs.  The NYY traded for Soriano.  Detroit traded their best prospect for someone.  LAD traded for Nolasco.

    It's the cycle of life.  When you're in the hunt, you trade prospect for current year help.  When you're out, like last year, you trade away for players for prospects.

     

    Well said Joe.

    Again, I loved Iggy as our future SS, but I've seen teams trade more than Iggy for just a 2month rental of Peavy caliber. We got 2 playoff cycles worth of team control of Peavy.

    While I'd have found a way to make Iggy our FT SS of the future, for whatever reason, Ben did not and was not ever going to give him the job outright. Iggy was destined to be out utility IF'er, like it or not. In that light, and under those circumstances, the trade was brilliant.

     

    Sox4ever

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: money ball

    While Billy Beane did revolutionize the game with his way of evaluating baseball talent, there's a good part of Moneyball the book, and especially Moneyball the movie, that's disingenuous, starting namely with Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson.  There are no chapters of the book refering to these foundations of the team's success, nevermind much made of Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez.  In the movie, they don't even exist on the 2002 Oakland A's.  Granted, the Scott Hatteberg's and salvagable David Justice's and other blue light Moneyball specials probably turned a good team into into a playoff team.  However, the foundation of those teams had already been established, mostly through good drafting and player development.  

    These days, probably every team, to some extent, applies the Sabermetric and economic principles of Money Ball.  What Beane and the Rays' management do especially well is work the revenue sharing and draft/trade/free agency rules to maximum advantage in regenerating a new generation of impact baseball players.  Both organizations must also be doing something right in regard to player development.  I guess if you want to put this under the umbrella of "Moneyball" you can.

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

    Re: money ball

    Good discussion, everyone.  Better than the OP.

     

Share