Re: Sox Should Not Trade Prospects
posted at 8/2/2013 9:14 PM EDT
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