Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    What would you make him? The #2?

    I don't make someone a #2 starter based on 2/3rds of a season.

    Sox4ever



    RESPONSE: Why not? Masterson is having a great year! Would you argue that Clay Buchholz should not have been the Sox top starter this season, based on 2/3 of his season? After all, what did Buchholz do last year? http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/28855/clay-buchholz

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     How is Justin Masterson (traded in the Victor Martinez deal) doing in Cleveland, these days?

     

         The Sox better think twice before they part with top prospects, for a mercenary like Cliff Lee. My hope is that they pass.

    We essentially traded Masterson for VMart, Barnes and Owens.

    I would not trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now, so I am missing your point.

    Sox4ever

          That was not the original trade. That's just how things worked when, when the Sox decided to let V-Mart go. Masterson has won 12 games, and pitched 150 innings for Cleveland, thus far this season: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8194

    Pat, 

    I'll give you that Masterson is doing well this year and I respect that your a fan of Masterson, but has been nothing but beyond extremely mediocre three out of the past four year with about a horrible 1.50+WHIP, plus an ERA of about 4.50 in those years, so what's all the love for Masterson about. Sure two years ago he looked like he was finally putting it all together then he comes up with a stinker like last year. He may be doing well this year, but who is to say that will continue given his checkered past history. 

    You want to give kudos to Masterson for being a good pitcher so far this year but you fail to address the obvious fact that he's been nothing short of mediocre all but one season so far in his career up until this season. 

    Hetch

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

    Pat, 

    I'll give you that Masterson is doing well this year and I respect that your a fan of Masterson, but has been nothing but beyond extremely mediocre three out of the past four year with about a horrible 1.50+WHIP, plus an ERA of about 4.50 in those years, so what's all the love for Masterson about. Sure two years ago he looked like he was finally putting it all together then he comes up with a stinker like last year. He may be doing well this year, but who is to say that will continue given his checkered past history. 

    You want to give kudos to Masterson for being a good pitcher so far this year but you fail to address the obvious fact that he's been nothing short of mediocre all but one season so far in his career up until this season. 

    Hetch



         I'm not "a fan of Masterson", as he's no longer with the Sox.

         Can't the same be said about Clay Buchholz? In fact, it's arguable that Masterson has had the better career, thus far.

         I'm just pointing out the short-sightedness of parting with young prospects for stop-gap veteran help. If a team makes this sort of trade, it had better lead to winning a championship.

         Remember the Nomar trade, in 2004? The Sox sacrificed offense in order to get better defensively at that position, with Orlando Cabrera...and added a very good defensive first-baseman, in Doug Mientkiewicz. How did that trade turn out? Just pointing out the value of having a good defensive SS, and team. This is why I have concerns about trading Iggy. Ever since the Sox mistakenly let Cabrera go following that championship 2004 season, the club has been a mess at the SS position. The Cabrera trade is discussed below:

    July 31, 2004: Red Sox receive shortstop Orlando Cabrera from Expos, first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz from Twins while sending shortstop Nomar Garciaparra and outfielder Matt Murton to the Cubs.

    There was a time when Garciaparra was an icon in Boston, lifting the team on his back at times en route to a couple of batting titles and several postseason appearances. But by the summer of 2004, Garciaparra's range was limited by an Achilles injury and his contract was a couple of months from expiring. General manager Theo Epstein made one of the boldest moves in team history, dealing Garciaparra in a four-team swap that brought the team two players known mostly for their defense in Cabrera and Mientkiewicz.

    The trade turned out to be just what the Red Sox needed for the stretch run in 2004. Cabrera energized the clubhouse, gave the lineup a lift and cemented the defense in the middle of the infield. Mientkiewicz lived up to his role as a defensive stopper who could replace Kevin Millar in the late innings. Though Cabrera and Mientkiewicz both departed by the time the '05 season started, their impact in club history is permanent. For a reminder, look at the '04 championship flag.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

         Her's another example of a lopsided trade deadline deal involving prospects, in which the Red Sox were the beneficiaries:

     

    July 31, 1997: Red Sox receive catcher Jason Varitek, right-hander Derek Lowe from Mariners for right-hander Heathcliff Slocumb.

    When you consider Varitek went on to become one of the most respected leaders in Red Sox history and Lowe came through with several big moments in the postseason, it's hard to imagine general manager Dan Duquette was able to pull this deal off. But at the time, Lowe and Varitek were just prospects, and Slocumb was the veteran closer the Mariners needed.

    This goes down as one of the most lopsided trades in history. Varitek went on to spend his entire Major League career in a Red Sox uniform, helping the club to a pair of World Series championships. Lowe was around for the first World Series parade in 2004, but he had several solid seasons in Boston, some as a reliever and others as a starter.

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

     

     

    What would you make him? The #2?

    I don't make someone a #2 starter based on 2/3rds of a season.

    Sox4ever

     

     



    RESPONSE: Why not? Masterson is having a great year! Would you argue that Clay Buchholz should not have been the Sox top starter this season, based on 2/3 of his season? After all, what did Buchholz do last year? http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/28855/clay-buchholz

     

     

     



    Buch has a longer history of doing better than Masterson. It's not just about 2/3rds of a season and the previous year, although that combined sample size is significant enough to help determine one's slot.

    Yes, 2/3rds of a season does count and does help move someone up or down, but when you start at the bottom, it won't bring you up to #2.

    The other point is about looking at the other 5 guys. Did Lester light the world on fire from 2012 to today? Doubront? Lackey? Dempster? Masterson?

    No. The answer is they all had flaws, so in the context of the Sox rotation, I'd have put Buch 1 or 2 right now, if healthy.

    The final point is this: Lackey, Doubront and Buch are all having an equal or better 2013 than Masterson, so even if you use your narrow sample size, at best Masterson might be our number 4.

    The 2012 - 2013 combined numbers show this (out of 167 MLB starters with 110 IP+):

    ERA-

    15) Lackey 77

    30) Peavy  86

    35) Buch    86

    45) Demp  88

    96) Doub  101

    105) Lester  108

    111) Masterson 110

     

    WHIP

    14) Peavy  1.11

    36) Lackey 1.19

    53) Buch     1.23

    87) Demp   1.30

    101) Masterson 1.33

    119) Lester  1.36

    134) Doub    1.41

     

    I've never said Masterson would not be a plus on this team. I am just saying two things:

    1) Masterson has not been a clearly better starter than our other top 5 starters.

    2) I would not trade Owens and Barnes for Masterson straight up right now, so I would not take back the Masterson trade.

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

     

     

     

    Pat, 

    I'll give you that Masterson is doing well this year and I respect that your a fan of Masterson, but has been nothing but beyond extremely mediocre three out of the past four year with about a horrible 1.50+WHIP, plus an ERA of about 4.50 in those years, so what's all the love for Masterson about. Sure two years ago he looked like he was finally putting it all together then he comes up with a stinker like last year. He may be doing well this year, but who is to say that will continue given his checkered past history. 

    You want to give kudos to Masterson for being a good pitcher so far this year but you fail to address the obvious fact that he's been nothing short of mediocre all but one season so far in his career up until this season. 

    Hetch

     

     



         I'm not "a fan of Masterson", as he's no longer with the Sox.

     

     

         Can't the same be said about Clay Buchholz? In fact, it's arguable that Masterson has had the better career, thus far.

         I'm just pointing out the short-sightedness of parting with young prospects for stop-gap veteran help. If a team makes this sort of trade, it had better lead to winning a championship.

         Remember the Nomar trade, in 2004? The Sox sacrificed offense in order to get better defensively at that position, with Orlando Cabrera...and added a very good defensive first-baseman, in Doug Mientkiewicz. How did that trade turn out? Just pointing out the value of having a good defensive SS, and team. This is why I have concerns about trading Iggy. Ever since the Sox mistakenly let Cabrera go following that championship 2004 season, the club has been a mess at the SS position. The Cabrera trade is discussed below:

    July 31, 2004: Red Sox receive shortstop Orlando Cabrera from Expos, first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz from Twins while sending shortstop Nomar Garciaparra and outfielder Matt Murton to the Cubs.

    There was a time when Garciaparra was an icon in Boston, lifting the team on his back at times en route to a couple of batting titles and several postseason appearances. But by the summer of 2004, Garciaparra's range was limited by an Achilles injury and his contract was a couple of months from expiring. General manager Theo Epstein made one of the boldest moves in team history, dealing Garciaparra in a four-team swap that brought the team two players known mostly for their defense in Cabrera and Mientkiewicz.

    The trade turned out to be just what the Red Sox needed for the stretch run in 2004. Cabrera energized the clubhouse, gave the lineup a lift and cemented the defense in the middle of the infield. Mientkiewicz lived up to his role as a defensive stopper who could replace Kevin Millar in the late innings. Though Cabrera and Mientkiewicz both departed by the time the '05 season started, their impact in club history is permanent. For a reminder, look at the '04 championship flag.

     

     

     

     




    The Sox didnt win the year when they traded Hanley for Beckett. They won the next year after they acquired Dice-K, Oki, Drew, started Pedey, paps FT as the closer, and what Ellsbury did at the end of the year for them..

     

    So, no, they might not win this year. But the move was a good move regardless, for their situation.

    Id rather have a average to above average SS with a 900OPS than a GG SS with a 600+ OPS...Apparently the Sox would too.

    Thats not putting Iggy down, its just preference and what kind of players the team is made up of. Boston cant hide his bat as good as Detroit can. Now, If this was 2004 and we had Papi/Manny and everyone else Id say Ok. Same with 2007. This team doesnt have a bunch of mashers anymore. One player has 20 HR (Papi).

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

     Can't the same be said about Clay Buchholz? In fact, it's arguable that Masterson has had the better career, thus far.

    Absurd claim. 

    Career:

    Buch  721 IP 55-32  3.66 (120 ERA+) WHIP 1.302

    Mast  970 IP 51-60  4.05 (100 ERA+) WHIP 1.356

     

    Out of 109 SP'ers in MLB with 400+ IP since 2010:

    ERA-

    7) Buchholz      75

    73) Masterson 104

    WHIP:

    39)  Buchholz    1.23

    80)  Masterson 1.36

     

         I'm just pointing out the short-sightedness of parting with young prospects for stop-gap veteran help. If a team makes this sort of trade, it had better lead to winning a championship.

         Remember the Nomar trade, in 2004? The Sox sacrificed offense in order to get better defensively at that position, with Orlando Cabrera...and added a very good defensive first-baseman, in Doug Mientkiewicz. How did that trade turn out? Just pointing out the value of having a good defensive SS, and team. This is why I have concerns about trading Iggy. Ever since the Sox mistakenly let Cabrera go following that championship 2004 season, the club has been a mess at the SS position. 

    I loved the Cabrera trade from the first minute I heard of it. I was in a distinct minority at the time, however, the rumors were that Orlando was hitting on other player's wives, and that is why he has been a journeyman SS almost his entire career, despite his excellent fielding and decent offense.

    I am not against trading prospects for established players, of as in the Slocumb trade, trading an established player for prospects. I do not like the idea of trading away Iggy. I am a huge fan of superior SS defense and think it is a big piece in being a winning team. I am not thrilled by Bogaerts projected ML defense at SS. I had hoped he'd be our 3Bman for years to come side by side with Iggy.

    I think Ben might have been influenced by the Iggy attitude issue in AAA this year and the swift rise of Cecchini and the potential for a logjam at 3B by 2015 had Boggy been moved to 3B, so Iggy could play SS. The fact that Peavy is under team control through 2014, I think, was the balance tipper for Ben. It's an understandable position given Buchholz's health concerns and our position to win a ring this year. Drew was not going to net anything in trade, and I believe Ben felt Iggy's stock was high, and that the net loss at SS between Iggy and Drew plus the net loss at 3B between Iggy and whoever was not as great as the net gain of Peavy.

    If Buch comes back strong, and everyone else stays healthy, the maybe the Peavy "upgrade" is not much of a plus at all, but my guess is that between now and playoff time, someone will get hurt or struggle or just needs some time off to stay strong through the playoffs.

    I can understand why this trade was made. I do not feel like it was good for our prolonged future. I do not think I would have made this deal, even if I knew Buch was out for the whole season.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    The Sox didnt win the year when they traded Hanley for Beckett. They won the next year after they acquired Dice-K, Oki, Drew, started Pedey, paps FT as the closer, and what Ellsbury did at the end of the year for them..

    The 2014 year of team control for Peavy is the big redeeming factor in this trade.

     

    So, no, they might not win this year. But the move was a good move regardless, for their situation.

    Agreed, just like the VMart deal. In hindsight, we didn't win a ring with VMart, but we needed a middle order bat and help at the catching position. The comp picks we got after VMart bolted more than made up for the loss of Masterson.

     

    Id rather have a average to above average SS with a 900OPS than a GG SS with a 600+ OPS...Apparently the Sox would too.

    I can't disagree, but the choice goes beyond this simple comparison. We could have had both, so it is not either or per se. Boggy could have played 3B.

    Also, it may take years for Boggy to reach a .900 MLB OPS.

    AAA  .864

    AA     .922

    A       .834

    Minor .869 in 1547 PAs

    And, saying Iggy is a .600 OPS SS going forward might be a bit harsh in light of his recent plate approach adjustments.

    MLB  317 PAs  .690

    AAA  916 PAs  .588

    AA     236 PAs  .672

     

    Thats not putting Iggy down, its just preference and what kind of players the team is made up of. Boston cant hide his bat as good as Detroit can. Now, If this was 2004 and we had Papi/Manny and everyone else Id say Ok. Same with 2007. This team doesnt have a bunch of mashers anymore. One player has 20 HR (Papi).

    Making Boggy the future SS has now opened a hole at 3B. Now, we have to "hide" a hitter like Holt or Snyder or Middlebrooks, or we have to rush Cecchini to the bigs next year, or sign a FA 3Bman this winter.

    Also, I am not so sure Detroit is going to be able to continue to hide 2-3 "holes" with the 1-2 Miggy/Fielder punch. Miggy is having hip issues, and the Sox of 2004 had a deep line-up as well as the big 1-2.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

         I'm just pointing out the short-sightedness of parting with young prospects for stop-gap veteran help. If a team makes this sort of trade, it had better lead to winning a championship.

         Remember the Nomar trade, in 2004? The Sox sacrificed offense in order to get better defensively at that position, with Orlando Cabrera...and added a very good defensive first-baseman, in Doug Mientkiewicz. How did that trade turn out? Just pointing out the value of having a good defensive SS, and team. This is why I have concerns about trading Iggy. Ever since the Sox mistakenly let Cabrera go following that championship 2004 season, the club has been a mess at the SS position. The Cabrera trade is discussed below:

    July 31, 2004: Red Sox receive shortstop Orlando Cabrera from Expos, first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz from Twins while sending shortstop Nomar Garciaparra and outfielder Matt Murton to the Cubs.

    There was a time when Garciaparra was an icon in Boston, lifting the team on his back at times en route to a couple of batting titles and several postseason appearances. But by the summer of 2004, Garciaparra's range was limited by an Achilles injury and his contract was a couple of months from expiring. General manager Theo Epstein made one of the boldest moves in team history, dealing Garciaparra in a four-team swap that brought the team two players known mostly for their defense in Cabrera and Mientkiewicz.

    The trade turned out to be just what the Red Sox needed for the stretch run in 2004. Cabrera energized the clubhouse, gave the lineup a lift and cemented the defense in the middle of the infield. Mientkiewicz lived up to his role as a defensive stopper who could replace Kevin Millar in the late innings. Though Cabrera and Mientkiewicz both departed by the time the '05 season started, their impact in club history is permanent. For a reminder, look at the '04 championship flag. 



    Let's not forget, of course, that prior to the 2004 season we obtained Schilling for prospects.  So there you have a shining example of a veteran acquisition helping you to the promised land.

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    I'm not saying Peavy is as good as Curt Schilling, but I remember that trade was made for a 37 year old SP who had started 24 games in 2003. We traded highly regarded Casey Fossum along with Brandon Lyon and Jorge de la Rosa - soxprospect.com's #1 rated prospect in NOVember of 2003.

    There's no question Schill made the difference in 2004. There is a question on whether Peavy can bring us a ring or not. Time will tell.

    Sox4ever.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    Id rather have a average to above average SS with a 900OPS than a GG SS with a 600+ OPS...Apparently the Sox would too.

    What if this happens?

    Boggy does a fair job on defense at SS over the length of Iggy's team control, but puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .800

    2015: .830

    2016: .860

    2017: .900

    We struggle for 4 years to find a capable 3Bman or have to eat up a big chunk of our budget to sign one.

    Iggy plays tremendous defense at SS for 4 years and puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .650

    2015: .675

    2016: .700

    2017: .725

    Is it still a slam dunk gain?

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    The Sox didnt win the year when they traded Hanley for Beckett. They won the next year after they acquired Dice-K, Oki, Drew, started Pedey, paps FT as the closer, and what Ellsbury did at the end of the year for them..

    The 2014 year of team control for Peavy is the big redeeming factor in this trade.

     

    So, no, they might not win this year. But the move was a good move regardless, for their situation.

    Agreed, just like the VMart deal. In hindsight, we didn't win a ring with VMart, but we needed a middle order bat and help at the catching position. The comp picks we got after VMart bolted more than made up for the loss of Masterson.

     

    Id rather have a average to above average SS with a 900OPS than a GG SS with a 600+ OPS...Apparently the Sox would too.

    I can't disagree, but the choice goes beyond this simple comparison. We could have had both, so it is not either or per se. Boggy could have played 3B.

    Also, it may take years for Boggy to reach a .900 MLB OPS.

    AAA  .864

    AA     .922

    A       .834

    Minor .869 in 1547 PAs

    And, saying Iggy is a .600 OPS SS going forward might be a bit harsh in light of his recent plate approach adjustments.

    MLB  317 PAs  .690

    AAA  916 PAs  .588

    AA     236 PAs  .672

     

    Thats not putting Iggy down, its just preference and what kind of players the team is made up of. Boston cant hide his bat as good as Detroit can. Now, If this was 2004 and we had Papi/Manny and everyone else Id say Ok. Same with 2007. This team doesnt have a bunch of mashers anymore. One player has 20 HR (Papi).

    Making Boggy the future SS has now opened a hole at 3B. Now, we have to "hide" a hitter like Holt or Snyder or Middlebrooks, or we have to rush Cecchini to the bigs next year, or sign a FA 3Bman this winter.

    Also, I am not so sure Detroit is going to be able to continue to hide 2-3 "holes" with the 1-2 Miggy/Fielder punch. Miggy is having hip issues, and the Sox of 2004 had a deep line-up as well as the big 1-2.

    Sox4ever

    we could also have bothe Bogey and cecchini on the left side which would be much better than if Iggy were there. Sure, we sacrifice some defense, but the offense will more than make up for it.
    It sounds like Holt/Snyder are temporary this year, so they only have to "hide" them for a short time. Although I think Holts bat is better than Iggys is.
    Maybe they do get a stop gap 3b for next year. I dont know what Bens thinking or plan is. I do know Ben has faith in the kids coming up within the next year as hes stated. Enough so that he made this move. Since he started in scouting/development, played the game himself, has made more "good" moves then "bad", and has a firm grasp on whats going on, I will have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

    Cecchini is ready for AAA now. besides the SLG being a little lower, his BA and OBP are still great. at 133AB 22BB 29K, the kids got serious pitch recognition and discipline. I truly believe he could win a spot out of ST next year. I dont think they will let him do that, but he probably could. he will be 23 in April, which is about the time a lot of kids are ready. 23-25.

    Middy, to me, is still a question mark. he still needs to work on things, but I havent given up on him yet. Bogey could get the call before Middy, which hes earned.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE] 

     

    The Peavy trade might have long-term implications as well.  We also acquired 26-year-old RHP Brayan Villarreal, who is wild, but was an effective reliever last year, and can throw 97 MPH.  Also, assuming Peavy stays healthy and plays out his contract, he too will likely be a type A free agent.

    Also, devil's advocate, and because it's topical - we don't win the division (before the advent of the wildcard) in 1988 or 1990 without Boddicker.  He went a combined 24 - 11 those years.  If we win a WS either of those years, you might see the trade a little differently.  And in retrospect, and in light of recent events, it's hard not to put an asterisk by any accomplishments for a team led by Canseco and McGwire. 

     



         True about Boddicker. He did help the Sox win in those years. But, he was awful in the play-offs, and his acquisition didn't lead to the Sox winning a championship. So, was the deal worth it?

     

         You may also recall the Sox being desperate in 1990 for bullpen help. So, they traded away hot prospect Jeff Bagwell for a veteran reliever named Larry Andersen. Now...the Sox probably wouldn't have won the AL East without Andersen. But...did that make that trade worthwhile?  http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/midseason_trades/larry_andersen_red_sox.html?state=stop 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I actually do think the Schilling trade was a good one - Schilling went on to be a special player, but his breakout year was '92, a year we finished 23 games out of first place.  Other than '95, when we won the division but were swept in the ALDS, he would have been exactly what he was in Philly - a great pitcher wasted on a terrible team.  Boddicker twice was the difference between making the playoffs and not.  Early Schilling likely wouldn't have made a difference either way.

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Id rather have a average to above average SS with a 900OPS than a GG SS with a 600+ OPS...Apparently the Sox would too.

    What if this happens?

    Boggy does a fair job on defense at SS over the length of Iggy's team control, but puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .800

    2015: .830

    2016: .860

    2017: .900

    We struggle for 4 years to find a capable 3Bman or have to eat up a big chunk of our budget to sign one.

    Iggy plays tremendous defense at SS for 4 years and puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .650

    2015: .675

    2016: .700

    2017: .725

    Is it still a slam dunk gain?

    Sox4ever



    Sounds to me like it's time to dust off those Jeter vs. Belanger WAR comparisons. Smile

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Id rather have a average to above average SS with a 900OPS than a GG SS with a 600+ OPS...Apparently the Sox would too.

    What if this happens?

    Boggy does a fair job on defense at SS over the length of Iggy's team control, but puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .800

    2015: .830

    2016: .860

    2017: .900

    We struggle for 4 years to find a capable 3Bman or have to eat up a big chunk of our budget to sign one.

    Iggy plays tremendous defense at SS for 4 years and puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .650

    2015: .675

    2016: .700

    2017: .725

    Is it still a slam dunk gain?

    Sox4ever



    It is hard to guage what Iggy's true offensive level will be because he has been at one extreme or the other.  His batting average is not the concern for me, but rather his OPS, and more specifically, his OBP.

    We don't need Iggy to be a power threat, but his ISO is .079, which isn't just bad, it's awful. 

    I read in a tweet that in his last 18 games with the Sox, his slash line was .167/.167/.167 .  He was 11 for 66 with ZERO extra base hits and ZERO walks.

    Granted, that's a SSS.   But I also read, for some perspective, that in this century, no Red Sox player has gone 18 games without an extra base hit or a walk. 

    It's not very likely that Iggy will be that bad offensively.  But the FO pays people big bucks to analyze these things, and they apparently think that despite his brilliant defense, his offense makes him expendable.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    We don't need Iggy to be a power threat, but his ISO is .079, which isn't just bad, it's awful. 

    I read in a tweet that in his last 18 games with the Sox, his slash line was .167/.167/.167 .  He was 11 for 66 with ZERO extra base hits and ZERO walks.

    Granted, that's a SSS.   But I also read, for some perspective, that in this century, no Red Sox player has gone 18 games without an extra base hit or a walk. 

    It's not very likely that Iggy will be that bad offensively.  But the FO pays people big bucks to analyze these things, and they apparently think that despite his brilliant defense, his offense makes him expendable.



         Even if Iggy hit only .240, he would have been a better option at SS than were the $10mil./yr. man, a/k/a Edgar "Fingers of Stone" Renteria, or the $9mil./yr. man, a/k/a Julio Lugo.  

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

     

     

    We don't need Iggy to be a power threat, but his ISO is .079, which isn't just bad, it's awful. 

    I read in a tweet that in his last 18 games with the Sox, his slash line was .167/.167/.167 .  He was 11 for 66 with ZERO extra base hits and ZERO walks.

    Granted, that's a SSS.   But I also read, for some perspective, that in this century, no Red Sox player has gone 18 games without an extra base hit or a walk. 

    It's not very likely that Iggy will be that bad offensively.  But the FO pays people big bucks to analyze these things, and they apparently think that despite his brilliant defense, his offense makes him expendable.

     

     



         Even if Iggy hit only .240, he would have been a better option at SS than were the $10mil./yr. man, a/k/a Edgar "Fingers of Stone" Renteria, or the $9mil./yr. man, a/k/a Julio Lugo.  

     

     

     



    But he wouldn't be any better than guys like Pokey Reese ($1 million) and Alex Gonzalez ($3 million) who were also defensive whiz kids brought in for peanuts. 

     

    The point is, Detroit needed defense a little, but really needed insurance in case Peralta is suspended. If not for the suspension ... the trade wouldn't have happened because there really isn't too much trade demand for a guy like that. 

    He is going to be a backup in Detroit, which is about what he is ... a really awesome utilitiy infielder/super sub.

    This isn't a win now move, it's just a move. Jetisoning De La Rosa and Bogaerts for Lee would have been a "win now" move, because you'd be taking the top off of your farm system for a hyper expensive ace who is 34.

    Trading either one of them for Garza would have been worse, because he was just a rental and really jujst a front of the rotation guy, not a real lights out ace. 

    This is not the case with Peavy. They didn't trade away anything close to a premium prospect, and merely dealt a decent JAG with great defense and soft bat for a front of the rotation starter who is 32 and could be under their control for the next two seasons after this, and really only has a couple injuries as black marks.   

    The idea of *never* trading prospects is something I don't get. All prospects don't work out, you evaluate them and do what you want. Part of the great thing about having one of the five best farms in baseball is that you CAN make this move without hurting yourself.

    The folks on Yawkee obvisouly saw enough of Iggy to know his value was probably at its peak. 

    In another year or two, after he is a .230-.240 hitter with zero pop, he won't be worth a bag of baseballs, let alone Peavy. 

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    I think it's funny how it seems that most people either Over value or undervalue our prospects.  When I say I don't want to trade Owens Barnes and Webster for player X I'm well aware that 1 of those guys very well may go bust and one may end up just ok in the pen but the third might end up being a very good cost controlled #3 #2 starter.  Prospects are high probability lottery tickets...and can be very boom or bust.  It's so easy to look back in hindsight and say "should of traded this guy for that guy" or " we should of held onto Masterson"  

    In the end if you hold onto all your chips your going to have a lot of players gone bust who you could have traded for top notch talent......but your also going to have a lot of very talented all star type players cost controlled for years to come.  And when you are the BOSTON RED SOX.....you have the payroll to build around those guys.

    Ben C. held onto his chips, he has a build for the future strategy and he's taken a team from the basement to first place and applaud him for that. 

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    For what it's worth I overvalue prospects and I'm well aware of it....but that's also because I don't exactly overall each individual player rather I believe in the total outcome of weeding through the busts to find the future stars. 

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    We don't need Iggy to be a power threat, but his ISO is .079, which isn't just bad, it's awful. 

    I read in a tweet that in his last 18 games with the Sox, his slash line was .167/.167/.167 .  He was 11 for 66 with ZERO extra base hits and ZERO walks.

    Granted, that's a SSS.   But I also read, for some perspective, that in this century, no Red Sox player has gone 18 games without an extra base hit or a walk. 

    It's not very likely that Iggy will be that bad offensively.  But the FO pays people big bucks to analyze these things, and they apparently think that despite his brilliant defense, his offense makes him expendable.

     



         Even if Iggy hit only .240, he would have been a better option at SS than were the $10mil./yr. man, a/k/a Edgar "Fingers of Stone" Renteria, or the $9mil./yr. man, a/k/a Julio Lugo.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Renteria actually cost us about $20M for the one year.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:



         Even if Iggy hit only .240, he would have been a better option at SS than were the $10mil./yr. man, a/k/a Edgar "Fingers of Stone" Renteria, or the $9mil./yr. man, a/k/a Julio Lugo.  



    Renteria actually cost us about $20M for the one year.

    [/QUOTE]

         Now that I think about it, that's true! The Sox had to eat some of his salary, when they traded him to Atlanta...after his one year, 30 errors season in Boston. 

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Id rather have a average to above average SS with a 900OPS than a GG SS with a 600+ OPS...Apparently the Sox would too.

    What if this happens?

    Boggy does a fair job on defense at SS over the length of Iggy's team control, but puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .800

    2015: .830

    2016: .860

    2017: .900

    We struggle for 4 years to find a capable 3Bman or have to eat up a big chunk of our budget to sign one.

    Iggy plays tremendous defense at SS for 4 years and puts up these OPS numbers:

    2014: .650

    2015: .675

    2016: .700

    2017: .725

    Is it still a slam dunk gain?

    Sox4ever

     




    Yup...because Im betting that Bogeys bat will make a much bigger difference regardless. He will have a bunch of 2b and HR. Maybe the OBP or SLG goes a little south during an adjustment time, but his bat will still make a difference more than Iggys glove. if 800 is your low for him thats still about 100 points higher on Iggys best year and Bogeys worst, and almost 200 on both guys best years. That, and Iggy is a singles GB hitter with a very low LD%.

     

    Sorry Moon, but a bat like Bogey will be more valuable than Iggys glove. Bogeys glove wont be as good (I can see 10-15 E's) but the bat will be so far superior that it wont matter. Thats why I prefer a more well rounded player. IMHO, Iggy will be lucky once his numbers normalize, to be a .700OPS hitter. His OPB will have to be mid 300's because his SLG will be in the 300's.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'm not saying Peavy is as good as Curt Schilling, but I remember that trade was made for a 37 year old SP who had started 24 games in 2003. We traded highly regarded Casey Fossum along with Brandon Lyon and Jorge de la Rosa - soxprospect.com's #1 rated prospect in NOVember of 2003.

    There's no question Schill made the difference in 2004. There is a question on whether Peavy can bring us a ring or not. Time will tell.

    Sox4ever.



         Though Peavy is younger than Schill was when he was acquired by Boston, he is no where near on the same level. Peavy has been injury prone, and has never won anything, other than an NL Cy Young Award in 2007. Schilling had earned the reputation of being a big game pitcher when the Sox acquired him. Peavy has been horrible in his limited post-season appearances.

         He kind of reminds me of Javier Vasquez, who the Yankees spent a ton of money on, years ago. Like Vasquez, Peavy has ability...but, does he have the bulldog like drive of a champion? I think not. Hope I'm wrong.  

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

         Even if Iggy hit only .240, he would have been a better option at SS than were the $10mil./yr. man, a/k/a Edgar "Fingers of Stone" Renteria, or the $9mil./yr. man, a/k/a Julio Lugo.  

     

     



    Renteria actually cost us about $20M for the one year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

         Now that I think about it, that's true! The Sox had to eat some of his salary, when they traded him to Atlanta...after his one year, 30 errors season in Boston. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Edgar renteria had a bad year here. He was an AS SS. Thats why he got paid what he did.

    Hes a career .286BA .343OBP .398SLG .741OPS MLB SS usually 10-15HR a year 30's- 40's in 2b a year (high of 47) 70's in RBI in his prime years (high of 100). Had the most errors of his career here.

    Boston was clearly his worst year because he was too ,low key of a guy to play here. he was obviously not comfortable.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm not saying Peavy is as good as Curt Schilling, but I remember that trade was made for a 37 year old SP who had started 24 games in 2003. We traded highly regarded Casey Fossum along with Brandon Lyon and Jorge de la Rosa - soxprospect.com's #1 rated prospect in NOVember of 2003.

    There's no question Schill made the difference in 2004. There is a question on whether Peavy can bring us a ring or not. Time will tell.

    Sox4ever.

     



         Though Peavy is younger than Schill was when he was acquired by Boston, he is no where near on the same level. Peavy has been injury prone, and has never won anything, other than an NL Cy Young Award in 2007. Schilling had earned the reputation of being a big game pitcher when the Sox acquired him. Peavy has been horrible in his limited post-season appearances.

     

         He kind of reminds me of Javier Vasquez, who the Yankees spent a ton of money on, years ago. Like Vasquez, Peavy has ability...but, does he have the bulldog like drive of a champion? I think not. Hope I'm wrong.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You should go back to the Pats forum.....

     

Share