Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

  1. 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:

     

     

     

    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.  

     

     




    From all reports from, players, managers, coaches and GM's, he has that drive and competetiveness you speak of. Just because hes been on some bad teams who either didnt make the PO, or did, but were obviously not going to go far doesnt mean he doesnt have the drive. I think coming to an invironment like this for the 1st time in his career will be good for him.

     

    I dont consider him a savior, not sure anyone does. Hes a solid front of the rotation arm that is good insurance for the final run to a pennant and a playoff run. Comparing him to Vasquez or schilling is useless.

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    Why do I continue to post on this topic when the trade is a done deal??  Oh well....

    It's like Moon said in an earlier post, it's not like it was an "either/or" thing.  Bogart's bat doesn't go away just because he gets moved to 3B.  We could have had Iggy's glove AND Bogart's bat - along with Bogarts being a converted SS.  It's also been proven that a player is what he is, and I still see Iggy as a ~.250 hitter who's now coming back to where he's going to be.  Pretty obviously his .500+ BA streak wasn't going to last.  But now his "coming back to earth" is being used as justification for saying that he can't hit.  It's a AVERAGE, folks.  An average of the highs and lows. 

    At the risk of looking down the road, right now I see this team as going into ST in 2014 with no SS & no 3B.  In addition to that... who's going to catch?  And what about Ellsbury?  Can we sign him?  If not we have the very real possibility of heading into 2014 with no left side of the IF, no CF, and no catcher from this team.  Can that POSSIBLY be a good idea for the future???  Team chemistry, anyone?  Solid up the middle, anyone? 

    IMO this business of "win it NOW and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow, is why the Sox went 84 years without a WS win.  I once knew a person who said, "It's a funny thing about people.   When they find something that doesn't work, they do the same thing only HARDER."  That's what the Sox have done with this trade - the same thing, only harder.

    Grrrrrrr.

    "Over and out", on this topic, I hope.  :-) 

     

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

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    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%.

    Again, it's not a simple Boggy vs Iggy issue. Boggy could and probably should be our future 3Bman, so it could have been Iggy-Boggy instead of Boggy-???. The complete rating of this trade will depend on how well our 3Bman does over the next 4 years or so and at what cost it took to fill that position if we have to go outside the system to fill it plus how well Boggy actually does.

    I am not saying Boggy at 100-200 points higher in OPS than Iggy is not a net plus. 100 may be a net plus and 200 certainly is, but I still think Boggy makes more sense at 3B (or maybe eventually 1B if Cecchini pans out).

     

    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.

    Even if Iggy has 25 errors a season, he makes way more plays than the average MLB SS. We have seen that so far this year.

    Again, why have so many posters determined what Iggy will top out at on offense, when he is only 23 years old?

    I realize his numbers this year are based on a lot of luck, and is not sustainable over the long run, but his plate approach clearzly improved. His K% declined from near 21% in 2012 to under 13% this year.  His bunting ability became a clear weapon. 

    My guess is Boggy might start off as a below average fielding SS and imrpove into an average one. I fail to see how this is called "well- rounded". Boggy should be a much better hitter than Iggy, worse on the basepaths, and worse in the field. I agree, when compared one on one to Iggy, he is likely to be a net plus, and maybe we are just arguing semantics on "well rounded" vs "overall better", but my main point is that Boggy's only spot on this team is not SS.

    We have the worst 3B numbers in MLB right now. We have no clear 1Bman for 2014. Napoli and Drew bolt after this year. We have 3 slots open next year- all of which Boggy could play. I'm a huge Cecchini supporter from way back, but we cannot pencil him in at 3B or 1B next year on the big club.

    Perhaps our big difference in opinion is whether a SS with an OPS of .659-.750 can be a net plus to a team if he is the best fielding SS in MLB. If you can see him as a net plus, not in comparison to Boggy, but as compared to other MLB SSs, then his value to this team could have been realized along side Boggy, as long as Boggy moved to 3B or perhaps 1B down the road.




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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to southpaw777's comment:



    From all reports from, players, managers, coaches and GM's, he has that drive and competetiveness you speak of. Just because hes been on some bad teams who either didnt make the PO, or did, but were obviously not going to go far doesnt mean he doesnt have the drive. I think coming to an invironment like this for the 1st time in his career will be good for him.

    I dont consider him a savior, not sure anyone does. Hes a solid front of the rotation arm that is good insurance for the final run to a pennant and a playoff run. Comparing him to Vasquez or schilling is useless.



         Time will tell. As far as Vasquez goes, I didn't necessarily compare Peavy with him...I just said that Peavy reminds me of him. Like Peavy, Vasquez was at one time thought to be a top of the rotation stud...that the only thing holding him back was having to pitch for some bad teams. But, like Peavy, Vasquez turned out to be nothing more than a .500 pitcher...3rd or 4th starter type.

         You say that you don't consider Peavy to be a savior. Still, much is expected of him. Unless Clay Buchholz returns to form, Peavy is expected to step up in a big way, and assume the mantle as the team's #2 starter. If he can't do that, than the Sox will  have little chance of winning the AL East. Furthermore, the trade that they made to get him should be considered a failure.   

     

     
  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:

    [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.

    Iagree, and that is why I said "peavy is not as good as Schilling", but certainly Schillings age, previous year's injury, and high mileage made the deal a big gamble.

    Schill was #2 in Cy Young in 2001 and 2002. He had a great post season record. He was way better than Peavy over his career before coming to Boston at age 37.

    Peavy is a Cy Young winner. He has led the league in ERA twice (last in 2007). He is 32. His career WHIP is a decent 1.177, and has been under that over the last 2 seasons. Since 2004, his ERA has been under 3.50 six out of 10 seasons, and under 4.30 in 8 of 10 seasons. He has been lit up in his 2 post season starts, but the sample size is small (9.2 IP). He was pretty tough in the clutch as the 2005 and 2006 seasons wound down and the Padrzes made the playoffs.

    2005:

    Last 11 starts: 80 IP  19 ER (0-3 ER in all of those 11 starts).

    2006:

    Last 13 starts: 86 IP 25 ER (0-3 ER in 11 of those 13 starts).

     

    Other than those 2 seasons, Peavy has really not had many clutch chances.

     

         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.  

    Hard to know with all the injuries he's had, but your points are well-taken.

    I hope he has that "drive". Curt was about 29-30, when he first started dominating. He missed time due to injury at ages 27. 28, 29, and 32.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to S5's comment:

    Why do I continue to post on this topic when the trade is a done deal??  Oh well....

    It's like Moon said in an earlier post, it's not like it was an "either/or" thing.  Bogart's bat doesn't go away just because he gets moved to 3B.  We could have had Iggy's glove AND Bogart's bat - along with Bogarts being a converted SS.  It's also been proven that a player is what he is, and I still see Iggy as a ~.250 hitter who's now coming back to where he's going to be.  Pretty obviously his .500+ BA streak wasn't going to last.  But now his "coming back to earth" is being used as justification for saying that he can't hit.  It's a AVERAGE, folks.  An average of the highs and lows. 

    At the risk of looking down the road, right now I see this team as going into ST in 2014 with no SS & no 3B.  In addition to that... who's going to catch?  And what about Ellsbury?  Can we sign him?  If not we have the very real possibility of heading into 2014 with no left side of the IF, no CF, and no catcher from this team.  Can that POSSIBLY be a good idea for the future???  Team chemistry, anyone?  Solid up the middle, anyone? 

    IMO this business of "win it NOW and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow, is why the Sox went 84 years without a WS win.  I once knew a person who said, "It's a funny thing about people.   When they find something that doesn't work, they do the same thing only HARDER."  That's what the Sox have done with this trade - the same thing, only harder.

    Grrrrrrr.

    "Over and out", on this topic, I hope.  :-) 

     

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



    Reading what Theo said after leaving Boston says a lot. He said we got away from the philosophy they had started with.

    I hope this doesn't turn into another example of that, but at first glance, it does to me. The Dodger trade started a new trend, but ever since then, we have gone back to being more geared towards the here and now than the longterm outlook.

    Iggy may or may not turn out to be what many of us felt he was or could be. Peavy may or may not make much of a difference in the 1.3 years he will be here, but the fact remains, we traded many years of team control for just 1.3 years. We did the same with the Hanrahan deal. Our winter FA signings were not geared towards 2014, 2015 and beyond. I understand the bridge philosophy, and in many ways, that was a good plan, in light of buying time for determining which prospects were going to make it or not, but to me, the Dodger trade awakened a new hope in me for this team's prolonged future, but that trend has been slowed if not reversed.

    I'm not complaining. Ben built a team that can win this year. I didn't think it was very possible, unless so many things went right at the same time, but it has happened. I get the point about not knowing if we will be this close for years to come, so you have to grab at the chance when it comes along. I'm glad we did not trade Boggy, Cecchini, Owens or other top 12 prospects, but I'm saddened by the loss of a great fielding SS who was under team control for 4 more years at age 23. Posters trying to mimimize Iggy's value and acting like it was a lock that he'd never approach a .700 OPS in the near future, or that having a .700 OPS is necessary to be an overall plus value at the SS position, are, to me, missing a big part of this game of baseball- defense up the middle- particularly at the SS position.

    Even without Iggy, I will be looking and hoping for a great fielding SS making his way to our team. Boggy should be looked at as out future 3Bman and possibly 1Bman down the road. I do not think he is even an average fielding ML SS right now. That lessens his value, when it didn't have to be that way. My guess is that if we had worked him hard at 3B starting last year (as I suggested then) or even this year, he'd already be an average fielding 3Bman by now with the chance to become a plus on defense very soon at 3B. I recognize the positional value of having a great hitting SS. It's easier to find a hitting 3Bman than a SS to replace Boggy bat at whatever position he does not play (this is assuming he hits very well in MLB), but to me, it made more sense to have an Iggy/Boggy leftside IF next year and beyond, than opening up an new hole while worsening our defense at the same time.

     
  7. 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 southpaw777's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    From all reports from, players, managers, coaches and GM's, he has that drive and competetiveness you speak of. Just because hes been on some bad teams who either didnt make the PO, or did, but were obviously not going to go far doesnt mean he doesnt have the drive. I think coming to an invironment like this for the 1st time in his career will be good for him.

     

    I dont consider him a savior, not sure anyone does. Hes a solid front of the rotation arm that is good insurance for the final run to a pennant and a playoff run. Comparing him to Vasquez or schilling is useless.

     



         Time will tell. As far as Vasquez goes, I didn't necessarily compare Peavy with him...I just said that Peavy reminds me of him. Like Peavy, Vasquez was at one time thought to be a top of the rotation stud...that the only thing holding him back was having to pitch for some bad teams. But, like Peavy, Vasquez turned out to be nothing more than a .500 pitcher...3rd or 4th starter type.

     

         You say that you don't consider Peavy to be a savior. Still, much is expected of him. Unless Clay Buchholz returns to form, Peavy is expected to step up in a big way, and assume the mantle as the team's #2 starter. If he can't do that, than the Sox will  have little chance of winning the AL East. Furthermore, the trade that they made to get him should be considered a failure.   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I know the bottom line is all about winning the ring, but we will never have any way of knowing if keeping Iggy over Peavy would have won us a ring either. Just like we'll never know if we would have won with HanRam and Sanchez (plus extra money to spend), instead of Beckett and Lowell. Just like we'll never know, if we'd have won with Masterson instead of VMart, Owens and Barnes.

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I hope this doesn't turn into another example of that, but at first glance, it does to me. The Dodger trade started a new trend, but ever since then, we have gone back to being more geared towards the here and now than the longterm outlook.



    I disagree with that. What Ben did this offseason was geared mostly toward the long term outlook. He gave up no prospects or draft picks, and did not sign any free agents to long term, financially handcuffing contracts. At the same time, he put together a team than had a good chance of being competitive.

    What he has done with the Peavy deal is more of the same. He made a move that should help the team's chances this year, but he did not mortgage the future, by any means. This was not a "win now at all costs" move.

    Honestly, I didn't see this move coming. I figured the most Ben would do was make a couple of tweaks, and I would have been fine with that. Like you, I did not want to sacrifice the future to add a piece that might win us a championship. IMO, trading Iggy does not sacrifice the future outlook of this team.  It was a good, balanced move. It helps the team's short term outlook while leaving the long term outlook intact.

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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.

     

    Iagree, and that is why I said "peavy is not as good as Schilling", but certainly Schillings age, previous year's injury, and high mileage made the deal a big gamble.

    Schill was #2 in Cy Young in 2001 and 2002. He had a great post season record. He was way better than Peavy over his career before coming to Boston at age 37.

    Peavy is a Cy Young winner. He has led the league in ERA twice (last in 2007). He is 32. His career WHIP is a decent 1.177, and has been under that over the last 2 seasons. Since 2004, his ERA has been under 3.50 six out of 10 seasons, and under 4.30 in 8 of 10 seasons. He has been lit up in his 2 post season starts, but the sample size is small (9.2 IP). He was pretty tough in the clutch as the 2005 and 2006 seasons wound down and the Padrzes made the playoffs.

    2005:

    Last 11 starts: 80 IP  19 ER (0-3 ER in all of those 11 starts).

    2006:

    Last 13 starts: 86 IP 25 ER (0-3 ER in 11 of those 13 starts).

     

    Other than those 2 seasons, Peavy has really not had many clutch chances.

     

         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.  

    Hard to know with all the injuries he's had, but your points are well-taken.

    I hope he has that "drive". Curt was about 29-30, when he first started dominating. He missed time due to injury at ages 27. 28, 29, and 32.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

     

    It's odd hearing people question Peavy's 'drive.' 

    I wonder if anyone here who is commenting has ever watched the guy pitch. He is really busy and emotional on the mound, and has a kind of swagger. The guy just wants to win. 

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I hope this doesn't turn into another example of that, but at first glance, it does to me. The Dodger trade started a new trend, but ever since then, we have gone back to being more geared towards the here and now than the longterm outlook.

     



    I disagree with that... 

     



    RESPONSE: I don't see this trade as being an indication of the Sox trying to be like the Yankees again...and spend their way to oblivion. Frankly, I was more concerned about the long term deal that they gave to Dustin Pedroia. But, Pedroia is the Red Sox version of Derek Jeter...a team leader. So, I can understand the rationale of opening up the purse strings for him.

     

         But hopefully, it will end there. The way to go is the Tampa Bay/Oakland A's way. Build through the arm system, and avoid handing out those ridiculous, long term, guaranteed mega-deals. Ask the Angels how they feel about owing the 33 year old Albert Pujols $180mil. guaranteed, over the next 6 years. Ask the Yankees how they feel about the huge contracts that the team gave to Teixera, Sabathia, and A-Rod. Ask the Phillies how that Papelbon deal is working out for them?

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to S5's comment:

     

     

     

    Why do I continue to post on this topic when the trade is a done deal??  Oh well....

    It's like Moon said in an earlier post, it's not like it was an "either/or" thing.  Bogart's bat doesn't go away just because he gets moved to 3B.  We could have had Iggy's glove AND Bogart's bat - along with Bogarts being a converted SS.  It's also been proven that a player is what he is, and I still see Iggy as a ~.250 hitter who's now coming back to where he's going to be.  Pretty obviously his .500+ BA streak wasn't going to last.  But now his "coming back to earth" is being used as justification for saying that he can't hit.  It's a AVERAGE, folks.  An average of the highs and lows. 

    At the risk of looking down the road, right now I see this team as going into ST in 2014 with no SS & no 3B.  In addition to that... who's going to catch?  And what about Ellsbury?  Can we sign him?  If not we have the very real possibility of heading into 2014 with no left side of the IF, no CF, and no catcher from this team.  Can that POSSIBLY be a good idea for the future???  Team chemistry, anyone?  Solid up the middle, anyone? 

    IMO this business of "win it NOW and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow, is why the Sox went 84 years without a WS win.  I once knew a person who said, "It's a funny thing about people.   When they find something that doesn't work, they do the same thing only HARDER."  That's what the Sox have done with this trade - the same thing, only harder.

    Grrrrrrr.

    "Over and out", on this topic, I hope.  :-) 

     

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

     

     

     

     



    Reading what Theo said after leaving Boston says a lot. He said we got away from the philosophy they had started with.

    I hope this doesn't turn into another example of that, but at first glance, it does to me. The Dodger trade started a new trend, but ever since then, we have gone back to being more geared towards the here and now than the longterm outlook.

    Iggy may or may not turn out to be what many of us felt he was or could be. Peavy may or may not make much of a difference in the 1.3 years he will be here, but the fact remains, we traded many years of team control for just 1.3 years. We did the same with the Hanrahan deal. Our winter FA signings were not geared towards 2014, 2015 and beyond. I understand the bridge philosophy, and in many ways, that was a good plan, in light of buying time for determining which prospects were going to make it or not, but to me, the Dodger trade awakened a new hope in me for this team's prolonged future, but that trend has been slowed if not reversed.

    I'm not complaining. Ben built a team that can win this year. I didn't think it was very possible, unless so many things went right at the same time, but it has happened. I get the point about not knowing if we will be this close for years to come, so you have to grab at the chance when it comes along. I'm glad we did not trade Boggy, Cecchini, Owens or other top 12 prospects, but I'm saddened by the loss of a great fielding SS who was under team control for 4 more years at age 23. Posters trying to mimimize Iggy's value and acting like it was a lock that he'd never approach a .700 OPS in the near future, or that having a .700 OPS is necessary to be an overall plus value at the SS position, are, to me, missing a big part of this game of baseball- defense up the middle- particularly at the SS position.

    Even without Iggy, I will be looking and hoping for a great fielding SS making his way to our team. Boggy should be looked at as out future 3Bman and possibly 1Bman down the road. I do not think he is even an average fielding ML SS right now. That lessens his value, when it didn't have to be that way. My guess is that if we had worked him hard at 3B starting last year (as I suggested then) or even this year, he'd already be an average fielding 3Bman by now with the chance to become a plus on defense very soon at 3B. I recognize the positional value of having a great hitting SS. It's easier to find a hitting 3Bman than a SS to replace Boggy bat at whatever position he does not play (this is assuming he hits very well in MLB), but to me, it made more sense to have an Iggy/Boggy leftside IF next year and beyond, than opening up an new hole while worsening our defense at the same time.

     




    because we trade Iggy now the whole philosophy is changed?? talk about being overly dramatic...Just because the professionals dont share your opinion, like this past off season, doesnt mean they have changed any bit of their philosophy. Iggy wasnt thier whole future. Just because YOU see Bogey as a 3b doesnt mean the professional scouts do. Sorry Moon, but this just sounds like you being upset they got rid of Iggy and are blowing things out of proportion, like this past off season when the team didnt do what you thought they should..

     

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I hope this doesn't turn into another example of that, but at first glance, it does to me. The Dodger trade started a new trend, but ever since then, we have gone back to being more geared towards the here and now than the longterm outlook.

     



    I disagree with that. What Ben did this offseason was geared mostly toward the long term outlook. He gave up no prospects or draft picks, and did not sign any free agents to long term, financially handcuffing contracts. At the same time, he put together a team than had a good chance of being competitive.

     

    What he has done with the Peavy deal is more of the same. He made a move that should help the team's chances this year, but he did not mortgage the future, by any means. This was not a "win now at all costs" move.

    Honestly, I didn't see this move coming. I figured the most Ben would do was make a couple of tweaks, and I would have been fine with that. Like you, I did not want to sacrifice the future to add a piece that might win us a championship. IMO, trading Iggy does not sacrifice the future outlook of this team.  It was a good, balanced move. It helps the team's short term outlook while leaving the long term outlook intact.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ben has been able to walk the fine line of taking care of the here and now without sacrificing the future brilliantly IMHO. But Moon would call that playing it half way. Apparently an hes all or none type guy. Either fully rebuilld or fully go for it. Unfortunately in baseball you have to balance the two in order to have success now AND in the future..

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    The Dodger trade started a new trend, but ever since then, we have gone back to being more geared towards the here and now than the longterm outlook.

     



    I disagree with that... 

     

    I'm not saying every signing or trade has been bad, but I can't see how anyone can disagree that since the Dodger trade, we have not done anything to Build the extended future.

    Since the Dodger trade, the only trade or signing made that possibly improves 2015 is the Victorino signing, and he will be far past prime by then and the Carp trade. 

    The Hanrahan deal was for 1 year of control.

    The Napoli and Drew were one year "bridge" signings.

    Dempster, Ross and Gomes were two year "bridge and gap" players.

    The Peavy signing gives us 1.3 years of Peavy for 4.3 of Iggy and takes up budget space next year. 

    None of these guys are under team control in 2016, except Carp.

     

    I know we have not technically dealt away any top prospects, and I understand that this is a big plus for our future, but I don't call not trading away top prospects improving our future. It's keeping the future the same.

    What Ben did this offseason was geared mostly toward the long term outlook. He gave up no prospects or draft picks, and did not sign any free agents to long term, financially handcuffing contracts. At the same time, he put together a team than had a good chance of being competitive.

    Not trading someone does not equate to proactively building the future. 

    Yes, he did not bind us up in any longterm deals. He did not trade top kids. He also did not acquire one player that rates to be a big plus in 2015 or beyond. I fail to see how tha is "geared towards the longterm outlook".

    Again, I am not complaining. I was this past winter, since I felt Ben was trying to play it both ways, but did neither in the process. We are highly competitive right now. I did not think we would be. That is a direct result of Ben's winter of the hear and now building without upsetting or taking away from the longtern future, but that should not be confused with making moves "geared towards" the future.

    Remember, I said since the Dodger trade. To me, the Dodger trade was all about the future. It netted us some top prospects while freeing up the money to make signings like we did this winter. zIt had freed up money way into the future as well. I hope Ben does better this winter and think he will.

     

     

    What he has done with the Peavy deal is more of the same. He made a move that should help the team's chances this year, but he did not mortgage the future, by any means. This was not a "win now at all costs" move.

    By "any means"? Iggy had 4.3 years of team control and proved he was the best MLb defensive SS. Iggy was a top 3 prospect about a year ago and is still just 23 years old. It was certainly a future for now deal (now including 2014 and a possible comp pick).

     

    Honestly, I didn't see this move coming. I figured the most Ben would do was make a couple of tweaks, and I would have been fine with that. Like you, I did not want to sacrifice the future to add a piece that might win us a championship. IMO, trading Iggy does not sacrifice the future outlook of this team.  It was a good, balanced move. It helps the team's short term outlook while leaving the long term outlook intact.

    Iggy was our future SS. We may disagree on the amount of sacrifice it was or projects to be, but it clearly gave up some of our longer term future for a shorter term.

    I had visions of this:

    2014: SS Iggy  3B Boggy  1B Carp/Nava/Papi

    2015: SS Iggy  3B Boggy-Cecchini  1B Carp-Boggy-Nava 

    2016: SS Iggy  3B Cecchini  1B Boggy  DH Carp

    2017: SS Iggy  3B Cecchini  1b Boggy

     

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    because we trade Iggy now the whole philosophy is changed??

    No, the philosophy actually began to change right after the Dodger & Met's deals. Nothing was done to improve our longterm outlook in a proactive way. Not doing something does not equate to improving our outlook. Trading 4.3 years of Iggy for 1.3 years of Peavy is not strengthening our longterm outlook one bit. The contract of peavy will resptrict future spending as well.

    I have never said "the whole philosophy changed" and never meant to imply it either. I have said that I am not complaining about Ben. He deserves a chance. I said that last winter as well. I am happy we are highly competitive, but I'm not fooling myself into thinking trading away Iggy for a high priced short term player does not in any way effect our longterm future. It does.

    We may disagree on how much it might effect our longterm future, but unless you think Iggy is completely useless or close to it, I don't get the argument here.

     

    talk about being overly dramatic...Just because the professionals dont share your opinion, like this past off season, doesnt mean they have changed any bit of their philosophy. Iggy wasnt thier whole future. Just because YOU see Bogey as a 3b doesnt mean the professional scouts do.

    Actually, I got the position of wanting Boggy at 3B by reading scouting reports. When scouts mention playing another position as a possibility, it usually means he is not great or projecting to be great at the position he is in. 

    Soxprospects.com

    Solid-average range, but losing footspeed as he gets bigger.   Needs to slow the game down defensively and resist the feeling to rush plays. Inconsistent with footwork and staying down on the ball.  Choppy at times with his movements and reactions .Improvements in the field and physical development should allow Bogaerts to stick at shortstop for the outset of his big league career. If he needs to move off the position, has the tools to play either third base or left field 

    Baseballprospectnation:

    Can handle SS right now. Good athlete and he moves well at the position. Has solid-average range to both sides and a high level of effort. Good hands and good first-step reactions. Range at SS is likely unsustainable given how body projects. Potential to be solid-average defender at 3B with good glove work and a plus arm

    Baseballamerica:

    ...\but his defense has improved to the point where he could spend the early part of his career at shortstop rather than having to move to third base immediately, although as he fills out his 6-foot-3 frame it might not be long before he outgrows the position. Wherever he plays, his bat has the potential to make him a star.

    Scoutingbook.com:

    ...some awkwardness in the field, especially with his footwork (he's young). There's really not anything to worry about here, though, other than the possibility he may bump Middlebrooks to first base one of these years.

    xThe fact is, I have not read one scouting report by "professional" that has not hinted at Boggy eventually moving to 3B.

     

    Sorry Moon, but this just sounds like you being upset they got rid of Iggy and are blowing things out of proportion, like this past off season when the team didnt do what you thought they should.. 

    No need to be sorry. I am not really that upset at this deal. I've kind of swung both ways for a while. I want to win a ring this year, and this deal should help, even with the loss of SS and 3b defense. It may even help us next year. Too much pitching can never be a bad thing. We could even deal a pitcher and hardly notice as long as health is in our corner and guys like Workman, Britton and othersw continue to shine.

    Everyone knows I have been a big Iggy supporter and wanted him as our Ft starter since April 2012. Of course, a big part of me is saddened by the loss of my vision of having a tremendous fielding SS for 4 more years. That has been one of my biggest focus points since I came to know and play this great game. I think I have the right to mourn the loss of one of the best defensive SS's I have ever seen. (He even made plays at 3B I have never seen.)

    I like Peavy. I actually thought he'd cost more than Iggy and 3 low prospects. I was surprised we made this move, because I thought Peavy would have cost more. I am happy we have Peavy, but sad we lost Iggy. I see this move as a win now and 2014 at the expense of losing something in the longterm. I have said many times, if Sox management does not believe in Iggy or the philosophy of great fileding SSs trump great hitting ones, then we shoudl trade him. I said that last April. I said that last winter. I said that when we signed Drew. I said that when we started Iggy at AAA. I said that when we sent Iggy back to AAA. I get why he was traded. If Ben was going to start Boggy at SS next year anyways, and Iggy was going to be the utaility IF'er, then this was a fantastic trade.

    Yipee!

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects

    Ben has been able to walk the fine line of taking care of the here and now without sacrificing the future brilliantly IMHO. But Moon would call that playing it half way. Apparently an hes all or none type guy. Either fully rebuilld or fully go for it. Unfortunately in baseball you have to balance the two in order to have success now AND in the future..

    Totally wrong take on my position.

    I have admitted numerous times that I was wrong about Ben's building a team that could strongly compete this year. That is why I said he played it "half way". I was wrong. OK? At least I admit it. Not many here ver do.

    I am still surprised that we are playing so well in light of the fact that Ben's winter moves have not really been the main reason we are winning! Only Uehara and Carp are clear big impact players acquired this winter. Napoli, Dempster and Victorino have done OK, but at their costs, nobody can really argue they are huge parts of our success.

    I have never advocated "all or none" philosophies. In fact, my winter suggestions were about both. I wanted to try and get at least one player to fill one of our biggest two priority needs: big RH'd middle order bat or top of rotatio SP that is under team control for more than 2 years. That is a move based on "here and now" and "longterm outlook" and clearly not "all or none". I admit, several of my suggested moves look like dud right now, but most were geared towards signing or trading for players that were relatively young, under team control for 3+ years, an impact player now, and not going past prime by the last year of their control.

    Other than the Carp and Victorino deals, nothing was done to improve 2015. I get that nothing harsh was done to harm our future starting with 2015 either, except for maybe Iggy. 

    I do not equate not trading prospects as building a future. It is keeping status quo on the future front NOT improving it. Yes, counting the Dodger deal, and I have said this often, ben has done a wonderful job balancing the now with teh future. Just because I am not sticking my head in teh sand by saying things like "the Peavy trade in no way sacrifices the future", does not mean I am a radical extremist.

    Sox4ever

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share