Gone but not forgotten - Dombrowski's Dealings.

Thetoddwalker

New Member
May 11, 2011
445
New Orleans, LA
Except... I do kind of think this. To be clear, I don't think he's stupid. I think he identifies players he wants and doesn't really care that much about the value proposition involved in getting them. Because of this he does consistently overpay -- regardless of whether the moves work out or not, he consistently gives up more than the market expects. That's not an accident or a brainfart, it's a strategy. And it's why people always describe him as "decisive" and "aggressive."

I think there are two separate valid concerns about this strategy, by the way, and I apologize if I've brought this up elsewhere. One is that it's just basically the wrong strategy -- that the playoffs are a crapshoot, so once you're a team that's likely to make the playoffs (let's say, an 88-win team), overpaying in future assets to continue to marginally improve your chances is a sucker bet. The other, though, is maybe more interesting: If you care less about the value proposition than you do about getting Your Guy, then it adds a ton of pressure on you to be right about picking Your Guy. And Dombrowski's record on that so far is decidedly mixed (although Kimbrel's resurgence this year helps his case a lot).
If he keeps having successful trades, doesn't that prove that DD knows exactly what he's giving up? Yes, the Tigers swam in mediocrity his last few years, but I doubt there is even one trade that he or Tiger fans regret now. It's pretty remarkable to look at his trade history in Detroit.

This game is a crapshoot, but hoarding mediocre prospects will not change this teams future.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Except... I do kind of think this. To be clear, I don't think he's stupid. I think he identifies players he wants and doesn't really care that much about the value proposition involved in getting them. Because of this he does consistently overpay -- regardless of whether the moves work out or not, he consistently gives up more than the market expects. That's not an accident or a brainfart, it's a strategy. And it's why people always describe him as "decisive" and "aggressive."

I think there are two separate valid concerns about this strategy, by the way, and I apologize if I've brought this up elsewhere. One is that it's just basically the wrong strategy -- that the playoffs are a crapshoot, so once you're a team that's likely to make the playoffs (let's say, an 88-win team), overpaying in future assets to continue to marginally improve your chances is a sucker bet. The other, though, is maybe more interesting: If you care less about the value proposition than you do about getting Your Guy, then it adds a ton of pressure on you to be right about picking Your Guy. And Dombrowski's record on that so far is decidedly mixed (although Kimbrel's resurgence this year helps his case a lot).

What does "give up more than the market expects" mean? Obviously, the "market" emptied its bowels over giving up Espinoza. Is that the gauge of the "market's expectation"? Words like "value proposition" are nice for the poker table. But with, for example, an 18 year old single A pitcher, assigning a "value" is a lot trickier. For every John Smoltz (and even he was 20 and in AA when traded) that gets traded for a Doyle Alexander, there are probably a dozen Casey Kellys. From the Sox perspective, isn;t that part of the value that gets assigned to a prospect?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Except... I do kind of think this. To be clear, I don't think he's stupid. I think he identifies players he wants and doesn't really care that much about the value proposition involved in getting them. Because of this he does consistently overpay -- regardless of whether the moves work out or not, he consistently gives up more than the market expects. That's not an accident or a brainfart, it's a strategy. And it's why people always describe him as "decisive" and "aggressive."

I think there are two separate valid concerns about this strategy, by the way, and I apologize if I've brought this up elsewhere. One is that it's just basically the wrong strategy -- that the playoffs are a crapshoot, so once you're a team that's likely to make the playoffs (let's say, an 88-win team), overpaying in future assets to continue to marginally improve your chances is a sucker bet. The other, though, is maybe more interesting: If you care less about the value proposition than you do about getting Your Guy, then it adds a ton of pressure on you to be right about picking Your Guy. And Dombrowski's record on that so far is decidedly mixed (although Kimbrel's resurgence this year helps his case a lot).
This is only true if 1) everyone has the same chance of winning in the playoffs (they don't) and 2) all marginal upgrades are the same (they're not).

I feel like "the playoffs are a crapshoot" is a crutch far too many people lean on in order to complain about moves and decisions they don't like. Team composition is a huge part in determining the likelihood of winning or loosing in any individual matchup, or even over the course of a season. Add Chris Sale to last year's team in the playoffs and we may have been hanging another banner in April. Remove Craig Kimbrel from last year's regular season team, and I would bet the farm (no pun intended) that they don't win the division.

The playoffs are a crapshoot only to a point, so marginal upgrades may well be the difference between going home early and hoisting a trophy amidst a beer shower.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
If he keeps having successful trades, doesn't that prove that DD knows exactly what he's giving up? Yes, the Tigers swam in mediocrity his last few years, but I doubt there is even one trade that he or Tiger fans regret now. It's pretty remarkable to look at his trade history in Detroit.

This game is a crapshoot, but hoarding mediocre prospects will not change this teams future.
The doug fister trade was terrible. They did get robbie ray, who was a long shot at the time. Of course ray then got traded for Shane green. I would think tigers fans regret at least one of those two

Edit: after looking up doug fister to see just how bad his recent years have been, was surprised to see his career WAR as 19.5. Quite the gap between him and bucholz
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
This is only true if 1) everyone has the same chance of winning in the playoffs (they don't) and 2) all marginal upgrades are the same (they're not).

I feel like "the playoffs are a crapshoot" is a crutch far too many people lean on in order to complain about moves and decisions they don't like. Team composition is a huge part in determining the likelihood of winning or loosing in any individual matchup, or even over the course of a season. Add Chris Sale to last year's team in the playoffs and we may have been hanging another banner in April. Remove Craig Kimbrel from last year's regular season team, and I would bet the farm (no pun intended) that they don't win the division.
OTOH, remove Pedroia, Ellsbury and Youkilis from the 2007 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Remove Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester and Buchholz from the 2013 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Would any of those players have still been in the Sox system in those years if Dombrowski had been in charge in 2005-07?

Yes, obviously, we would have gotten some major league value in return for those guys, so maybe we would have won just as many championships, but in different years. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit of a fallacy to justify aggressive dealing by saying "so and so could have won us a championship in X year." The answer is always "yes, and the prospects we traded for so and so could have won us a championship in Y year." Value is value.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
OTOH, remove Pedroia, Ellsbury and Youkilis from the 2007 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Remove Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester and Buchholz from the 2013 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Would any of those players have still been in the Sox system in those years if Dombrowski had been in charge in 2005-07?

Yes, obviously, we would have gotten some major league value in return for those guys, so maybe we would have won just as many championships, but in different years. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit of a fallacy to justify aggressive dealing by saying "so and so could have won us a championship in X year." The answer is always "yes, and the prospects we traded for so and so could have won us a championship in Y year." Value is value.
My point wasn't to take one side of those trades or another, it was that using "the playoffs are a crapshoot" as a justification for taking one side or the other is lazy and doesn't really hold up.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
OTOH, remove Pedroia, Ellsbury and Youkilis from the 2007 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Remove Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester and Buchholz from the 2013 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Would any of those players have still been in the Sox system in those years if Dombrowski had been in charge in 2005-07?
The fact that he didn't trade any of Bradley, Betts, Bogaerts and Benintendi suggests that the answer isn't as likely to be "no" as you're suggesting.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,586
Panama
OTOH, remove Pedroia, Ellsbury and Youkilis from the 2007 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Remove Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester and Buchholz from the 2013 team, and that banner probably doesn't get hung. Would any of those players have still been in the Sox system in those years if Dombrowski had been in charge in 2005-07?

Yes, obviously, we would have gotten some major league value in return for those guys, so maybe we would have won just as many championships, but in different years. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit of a fallacy to justify aggressive dealing by saying "so and so could have won us a championship in X year." The answer is always "yes, and the prospects we traded for so and so could have won us a championship in Y year." Value is value.
This is not really fair. Just because the Sox had Pedroia, Ellsbury and Youkilis in 2007 we cannot assume that DD would have traded them away. And in any case, the 2007 team won because of a major trade of their top prospect (Hanley + others) for Beckett and the throw-in in that trade was the WS MVP.

When the team needed another front line starter he traded the top prospect for Sale (sounds familiar?). And yes, add Sale to the 2016 team and it goes further (no way to guarantee they win but much more than a crap shoot).
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
This is not really fair. Just because the Sox had Pedroia, Ellsbury and Youkilis in 2007 we cannot assume that DD would have traded them away.
Note that I said "if Dombrowski had been in charge in 2005-07". All three of those guys were prospects, not established major leaguers, for at least one of those years (Pedroia for two, and Ellsbury for all three). I'm not suggesting DD would have dealt those guys as young cost-controlled MLers.

The fact that he didn't trade any of Bradley, Betts, Bogaerts and Benintendi suggests that the answer isn't as likely to be "no" as you're suggesting.
See above. The only one of those four that's relevant to my point is Benintendi, since DD was not GM when any of Bradley, Betts or Bogaerts were still prospects. 2011-13 would be the relevant years to comp there.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Except... I do kind of think this. To be clear, I don't think he's stupid. I think he identifies players he wants and doesn't really care that much about the value proposition involved in getting them. Because of this he does consistently overpay ...
When you're targeting top-of-the-game talents like Miguel Cabrera and Chris Sale, I'm not sure how you judge "overpay." I agree with you to some extent; DD is seeking specific guys. He's actually NOT just seeking to marginally upgrade his roster in some maximize overall value kind of way. He's looking for very specific upgrades, to specific positions, with specific guys.

I guess you can criticize that approach. It's not how i would go about rebuilding the Twins, for example. But Kimbrel is showing you this year why DD wanted him (as opposed to, say, a guy like Sam Dyson) as his closer for this team, now. And we know that he wanted Sale not only because he's Chris Sale, but he's 3 years of cost-controlled Chris Sale, which fit well with the team's present needs and financial objectives/limits.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,586
Panama
Note that I said "if Dombrowski had been in charge in 2005-07". All three of those guys were prospects, not established major leaguers, for at least one of those years (Pedroia for two, and Ellsbury for all three). I'm not suggesting DD would have dealt those guys as young cost-controlled MLers.


See above. The only one of those four that's relevant to my point is Benintendi, since DD was not GM when any of Bradley, Betts or Bogaerts were still prospects. 2011-13 would be the relevant years to comp there.
Well it depends on needs. It's not that DD trades prospects just for the sake of trading propspects. He looks for needs and is not afraid of paying up. And it's also interesting that the players coming back are not usually rentals or one year players. Kimbrel has one more year left (3 years total) though not cheap. Sale has 2 more years at a very good price.

And speaking of 2007, need I repeat that that management (made briefly during Theo's absence) dealt a prospct that was on the verge of making an impact plus two others to fulfill a need (Beckkett). And if you take Beckett out of the 2007 do they win that WS?
 
Last edited:

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Well it depends on needs. It's not that DD trades prospects just for the sake of trading propspects. He looks for needs and is not afraid of paying up. And it's also interesting that the players coming back are not usually rentals or one year players. Kimbrel has one more year left (3 years total) though not cheap. Sale has 2 more years at a very good price.

And speaking of 2007, need I repeat that that management (made briefly during Theo's absence) dealt a prospct that was on the verge of making an impact plus two others to fulfill a need (Beckkett). And if you take Beckett out of the 2007 do they win that WS?
And Mike Lowell, what I'd give to have him right now.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,586
Panama
And Mike Lowell, what I'd give to have him right now.
Yeah, I made that point earlier. But as a highjack, hte WS MVP meant the Sox offered him a contract (he actually turned down one more year from the Phillies) and he simply could not play anymore. Seeing him thrown out at 1st from the OF was sad indeed. (Or seeing him ground out and have the 1st Baseman catch the ball before he even came into the camera range).
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Yeah, I made that point earlier. But as a highjack, hte WS MVP meant the Sox offered him a contract (he actually turned down one more year from the Phillies) and he simply could not play anymore. Seeing him thrown out at 1st from the OF was sad indeed. (Or seeing him ground out and have the 1st Baseman catch the ball before he even came into the camera range).
I was thinking in his prime with time travel "right now". But I know what you mean. He didn't exactly age well on the field.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I was thinking in his prime with time travel "right now". But I know what you mean. He didn't exactly age well on the field.
Lowell came back and was very good in 2008 until he suffered what ended up being a career ending injury to his hip. But that injury was not any more foreseeable than average. I don't think that's a contract that can be criticized except by hindsight.

Same with the Sale trade really. If the win the World Series a couple times in the next 3 years, good deal. If they don't make the playoffs in the next 3 years, it would be ok to say the deal backfired, but that doesn't mean it was a bad deal ex ante. It just will not have worked out the way we wanted.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Figured I'd update the bigger names.

Moncada is now .282/.387/.432 with 75 k's in 234 at bats. Slight regression from his 30% k rate last year. Errors aren't everything, but he has 10 (all at 2B).

Kopech' last three starts. 13ip 13bb 11er. Still holding his own in AA but trending towards the Tyler Glasnow profile.

Dubon is now .286/.345/.365 with a .079 ISO repeating AA. It was .199 last year.

Anderson Espinoza - just started playing catch.

Manuel Margot - wRC+ 84.

Luis "the better" Basabe - wRC+ 79

These guys are all very young for their levels and I would love to have all these guys still in the system - but so far they have all taken big steps backwards. Meanwhile, Chris Sale and Craig Kimbrel . . .
 
Last edited:

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Moncada keeping a .387 OBP while whiffing in 1/3 of his plate appearances is pretty spectacular. Suggests to me that maybe he's a little too patient.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Moncada keeping a .387 OBP while whiffing in 1/3 of his plate appearances is pretty spectacular. Suggests to me that maybe he's a little too patient.

Or, like Mark Bellhorn (the first guy to pop into my head), he has little choice because he has trouble making contact.
 

BigChara33

New Member
May 2, 2017
79
How about the Travis Shaw trade... Could end up being one of the worst trades in the last 15 years. Travis Shaw could be the NL MVP. Given away for Half a Fenway Frank.

DD doesn't make that move and this team has 55+ wins at the ASB? Maybe 60?
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
How about the Travis Shaw trade... Could end up being one of the worst trades in the last 15 years. Travis Shaw could be the NL MVP. Given away for Half a Fenway Frank.

DD doesn't make that move and this team has 55+ wins at the ASB? Maybe 60?
With all due respect, you're smoking crack. Maybe you weren't watching Shaw last year after May.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
With all due respect, you're smoking crack. Maybe you weren't watching Shaw last year after May.
To be fair, Shaw didn't have the worst OPS in 2016 among MLB 3Bmen with more than 400 PAs. He was 24th of 26. His future half-season of greatness was obvious.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
To be fair, Shaw didn't have the worst OPS in 2016 among MLB 3Bmen with more than 400 PAs. He was 24th of 26. His future half-season of greatness was obvious.
Yeah - his 2nd half RC+ (59 over 175 PAs) was so much higher than Panda's 2nd half 2015 RC+ (58 over 192 PAs) that it was obvious what should have been done.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Yeah - his 2nd half RC+ (59 over 175 PAs) was so much higher than Panda's 2nd half 2015 RC+ (58 over 192 PAs) that it was obvious what should have been done.
To say nothing of that kid in Portland who plays third base... Deevars... Dievers... Dayvers? Something like that. I'm sure he didn't play into the calculus at all.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
Shaws HR/FB% is ridiculous too. I wonder how much of his success is due simply to that.
The same phenomenon occurred during his hot start here last year. All the same red flags are there plus a few more.

His GB% is way up but his HR/FB% is way, way up. His BABIP is well above anything he's sustained over a long period of time, his out of zone contact rate is up significantly and I don't think he's the next Vlad Guerrero so I doubt he'll keep getting away with that, his ISO has jumped 100 points from previous ML career norms which were a jump from mL career norms.

The biggest change from his pitch value stats is that while he's still a good fastball hitter he's no longer incapable of hitting breaking balls. Maybe a product of the new ball some have cited as having a big impact this year. Other than that it's hard to see how Shaw's first half could have realistically been predicted, so revisiting the trade is rather pointless. Yes, its yet another time we've been screwed trading for a reliever, but then playoff competitor teams are going to find themselves in situations like this in the search for marginal improvements.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Carlos Asuaje is back in the Majors and is hitting .302/.339/.377 in 57 PA. 3bb/15k and a BAbip of .421. He put up a .250/.369/.373 line in the hitter friendly PCL.

Jose Almonte is now at 94.0 IP in A+ with 116k/47bb. Hitters are slashing .251/.356/.362 on a .351 BAbip. K rate of 27.5% and a BB rate of 11.1%.

Espinoza still hasn't pitched.

Margot is slashing .277/.333/.404 since his return 12 games ago (52 PA).

Logan Allen has been promoted to A+. He is at 81.0 Ip, 96k/32bb. Hitters slashing .205/.295/.287 on a .296 BAbip. K rate of 28.5%, BB rate of 9.5%.

Kopech continues to struggle of late. Now at 78.1ip, 101k/53bb. Hitters slashing .204/.336/.310 on a .298 BAbip. K rate of 30.3%, BB rate of 15.9%.

Dubon was promoted to AAA despite hitting .193/.292/.211 in his last 66 AA PA. He has hit .233/.281/.350 in 64 AA PA. His season line is now .268/.328/.351. Over his last 130 PA, .214/.287/.292.

Moncada has bounced back from a terrible stretch to post a .318/.422/.518 line on a .404 BAbip in his last 102 PA. 16bb/25k.


Everyone else has been terrible all year and isn't worth mentioning.

Nick Longhi can be added to the list too but he recently hit the 7 day DL again. In his 22 PA for the Reds AA team, he hit .316/.409/.526 and over his last 95 PA, he's hitting .326/.383/.581 with 10 doubles and 4 HRs. He had 40 doubles, 3 triples and 2 HRs last year in 535 PA. Some of those doubles have turned into HRs this year, with 16 doubles and 7 HRs in 274 PA. His ISO atm is a career high .144.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
The same phenomenon occurred during his hot start here last year. All the same red flags are there plus a few more.

His GB% is way up but his HR/FB% is way, way up. His BABIP is well above anything he's sustained over a long period of time, his out of zone contact rate is up significantly and I don't think he's the next Vlad Guerrero so I doubt he'll keep getting away with that, his ISO has jumped 100 points from previous ML career norms which were a jump from mL career norms.

The biggest change from his pitch value stats is that while he's still a good fastball hitter he's no longer incapable of hitting breaking balls. Maybe a product of the new ball some have cited as having a big impact this year. Other than that it's hard to see how Shaw's first half could have realistically been predicted, so revisiting the trade is rather pointless. Yes, its yet another time we've been screwed trading for a reliever, but then playoff competitor teams are going to find themselves in situations like this in the search for marginal improvements.
The question is not whether Travis Shaw could reasonably have been expected to become an All-Star, the question is whether Travis Shaw could reasonably have been expected to play ok defense and put up a .310/.420 line at the plate. Because that's more valuable than all but the most elite relievers. This was a bad trade because it was an everyday position player for a middle reliever with a minimal record of success and a questionable elbow history. What happened after the ink dried has no bearing on that assessment.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
The question is not whether Travis Shaw could reasonably have been expected to become an All-Star, the question is whether Travis Shaw could reasonably have been expected to play ok defense and put up a .310/.420 line at the plate. Because that's more valuable than all but the most elite relievers. This was a bad trade because it was an everyday position player for a middle reliever with a minimal record of success and a questionable elbow history. What happened after the ink dried has no bearing on that assessment.
Except there was no reason to feel confident he could put up those numbers at the plate since he didn't do it last year and the second half he put up .259/.360. He was a non-prospect who had put up a decent start and then appeared to be what we always thought he was, sub replacement level. Labeling him an everyday player is misleading since he wasn't an everyday player. He's had a nice half season so far and Thornburg had his injury, but that was in no way a bad trade to make, no matter how much you keep beating the drum about Shaw and the other career minor league fodder they tossed in.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
This is his third good half season out of four half seasons in the major leagues. Baseball is an incredibly random game. Wade Boggs once bit .256 for an entire season sandwiched between two in which he hit .320.

More on Shaw's level, Brian Daubach had a similar bipolar rookie year to Shaw (without the extra quality 250 PA the previous year) and then was productive for 2 or 3 more.

And regardless of the projection for Shaw's offense, he was capable defensively and that provided a baseline of value that only wishcasting could have provided on Panda.
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
The Sox had capable defensive 3B that can't hit in Holt, Hernandez and Marrero. If you thought they weren't going to give Panda another shot, with the money they owed him, you were kidding yourself.

He was expendable. That may prove to have been a bad decision in the long run, but it was the right one to make at the time. Acting like there was something predictive in Shaw being able to scrape together half seasons of hitting is hindsight and trolling. This wasn't exactly Bagwell for Anderson. People should probably settle down a bit.
 
Last edited:

Y Kant Jody Reed

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
37
For the 1990 Red Sox, Larry Andersen put up an ERA+ of 338 across 15 appearances during a pennant race. 1.3 bWar in 22 innings! (They won the division by 2 games.)

The 88-win Sox then got mauled by the 103-win As in the ALCS, and, after a WS appearance in '86 and a division title in '88, wouldn't make the playoffs again until after Boggs's departure and Clemens's decline. Perhaps the most important factor when leveraging future value for current production is simply knowing how good your team actually is.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
The question is not whether Travis Shaw could reasonably have been expected to become an All-Star, the question is whether Travis Shaw could reasonably have been expected to play ok defense and put up a .310/.420 line at the plate. Because that's more valuable than all but the most elite relievers. This was a bad trade because it was an everyday position player for a middle reliever with a minimal record of success and a questionable elbow history. What happened after the ink dried has no bearing on that assessment.
How many .730 OPS position players can you play at 3B in a given game and get that value out of them?

A .730 OPS is basically Brock Holt, and despite 3B being one of Holt's weakest positions (at least by my visual assessment) he's still substantially better there than Shaw had been in his Red Sox career.

Pablo Sandoval was unmovable sunk cost with a realistic potential of giving a roughly .730 OPS with defense likely in the ballpark of what Shaw had provided to date.

Marco Hernandez also looked like a reasonable bet to give a roughly similar OPS, and also with better defense than Shaw.

Even Josh Rutledge looked like a roughly analogous piece to fill the 3B hole.

Meanwhile in a world prior to Joe Kelly - elite setup man and Matt Barnes/Heath Hembree mid-relief dynamic duo acquiring Tyler Thornburg appeared to offer a very valuable upgrade to a bullpen that was one man deep (Kimbrel). I don't think anyone would disagree that Shaw represented more theoretical raw value than Thornburg, even based on his weak overall 2016 performance, but that was seen as unusable value given how fungible the 3B mix for Boston was, while Thornburg v. his alternative appeared at the time to be a pretty meaningful and usable difference in value.

I'm not one to go to bat for this or any past (or probably future) Sox FO when they trade position players and/or prospects for relief help. I didn't like the Gagne trade. I didn't like the Bailey or Melancon trades at all. I didn't like the Kelly/Craig deal and I'm including that because I said the day it was made the only value we'd ever see from it was when they finally moved Kelly to the bullpen. I hated when they revisited the trade the Brandon Lyon/Suppan deal to include Freddy Sanchez. I was ambivalent towards the Melancon for Hanrahan trade because it was our broken reliever for your not (yet) broken but more expensive reliever, and the Carson Smith for Wade Miley deal worked because after watching Miley for a whole season it was pretty damn clear the horseshoe was just about to drop out of his ass any day now. I didn't like the Kimbrel trade either, though acknowledged then and now that it's a hell of a lot smarter to overpay for a workhorse elite reliever with a long track record than someone with a smaller sample and dubious health.

But I don't think anyone in the Red Sox FOs for any of those deals would claim they thought they were getting even 1:1 total value. They were all made by a team believing it was gearing up for a title run and/or filling a far bigger hole and as a result willing to overpay to make it happen. They were all bad deals in terms of total value but where viewed (almost always incorrectly) as a slight overpay to get a need piece. I have a hard time thinking any FO would move away from that rationalization. Look at what the Cubs paid for a rental on Chapman last year. A veritable king's ransom but they finally won a WS and Chapman was a big part of it. When it works you're a genius, no matter the price. When it fails you're roasted for years to come. That's the life of every decision maker for every MLB franchise.
 
Look at what the Cubs paid for a rental on Chapman last year. A veritable king's ransom but they finally won a WS and Chapman was a big part of it. When it works you're a genius, no matter the price. When it fails you're roasted for years to come. That's the life of every decision maker for every MLB franchise.
FWIW, Chapman pitched 15.1 meaningful innings for the Cubs last year, since they were all but guaranteed a playoff spot before his arrival. He finished with a postseason ERA of 3.45 with 4 saves and 3 blown saves. His WPA was 0.17. I think describing him as "a big part" is generous. The Cubs were fractionally better with him in the team, as it turned out, than they'd have been without him and he wasn't far away from being the guy who blew the whole thing entirely. You could reasonably make the argument that Adam Warren alone has actually been more valuable for the Yankees this year than Chapman was for the Cubs, but even if you think that's ridiculous the price paid may prove to be extremely steep.

I raise this point not to pick on one off-hand line in a perfectly reasonable post, but to point out that Theo was extremely fortunate that this trade will be thought of as a success (at least by some) because the Cubs won. The strategy of over-paying for relievers, like overpaying for anything else, is more likely to lead to failure than glory. We shouldn't be deceived by the glory happening immediately and the failure happening in the future into thinking that isn't the case.
 

Flunky

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2009
1,918
CT
This was a bad trade because it was an everyday position player for a middle reliever with a minimal record of success and a questionable elbow history.
I thought Thornburg has TOS. What's this elbow talk? It was completely unforeseen...
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,586
Panama
FWIW, Chapman pitched 15.1 meaningful innings for the Cubs last year, since they were all but guaranteed a playoff spot before his arrival. He finished with a postseason ERA of 3.45 with 4 saves and 3 blown saves. His WPA was 0.17. I think describing him as "a big part" is generous. The Cubs were fractionally better with him in the team, as it turned out, than they'd have been without him and he wasn't far away from being the guy who blew the whole thing entirely. You could reasonably make the argument that Adam Warren alone has actually been more valuable for the Yankees this year than Chapman was for the Cubs, but even if you think that's ridiculous the price paid may prove to be extremely steep.

I raise this point not to pick on one off-hand line in a perfectly reasonable post, but to point out that Theo was extremely fortunate that this trade will be thought of as a success (at least by some) because the Cubs won. The strategy of over-paying for relievers, like overpaying for anything else, is more likely to lead to failure than glory. We shouldn't be deceived by the glory happening immediately and the failure happening in the future into thinking that isn't the case.
While I agree that the Cubs paid far too much for Chapman as a rental (at least the Indians got to keep Miller two more years) it looked like at the end of the playoffs Joe Maddon trusted no one else. There is no excuse for the amount of picthes he thew in Game 6 of the WS, which might have helped his poor showing in Game 7 where he almost blew it for good.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Moncada 0-2 with a walk last night

Edit: last night was his 2017 MLB debut for those who missed that he was called up. I wasn't just posting his random MiLB box score for a single game

Edit 2: no strikeouts though!
 
Last edited:

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Asuaje is playing well and everyday in the 2 hole. .329/.375/.451 in 89 at bats.

Considering his minor league numbers are .287/.368/.441, this could be close to who he is and with above average defense. So far he has been the best player in the deal for the Padres.
 
Last edited:

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Asuaje is playing well and everyday in the 2 hole. .329/.375/.451 in 89 at bats.

Considering his minor league numbers are .287/.368/.441, this could be close to who he is and with above average defense. So far he has been the best player in the deal for the Padres.
And he was supposed to be the least valuable chip traded. Funny how these things work out sometimes.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Easy to forget that Manuel Margot is still just 22 years old and younger than Ben10. He's been extremely hot over the last 4, lifting his season line to .279/.321/.420. He's 10 for his last 16 including a HR in the last 2. Kid is going to be really good.

edit: Nick Longhi was transferred to the 60 day DL.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Also, Mauricio Dubon has been on fire his last 15 games, 73 PA. .368/.403/.647 with 7 doubles, 4 HRs, 3bb/13k.

Luis Alexander Basabe has been slightly better of late too, hitting .280/.341/.453 in his last 83 PA. 6bb/17k.