Prospect Love: What is a World Series Championship Worth?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

In the Peavy minor league thread, Rovin Romine asked this question and I thought it was an interesting enough topic to spin out into its own thread.
 

And along those lines, is there a single prospect you don't trade retrospectively if it magically gets you a WS win?

 
My answer is no.  The whole point is to win that title, and if any one prospects can magically give the team one, then you have to pull the trigger, right?
 
Let's say the Sox had lost in six instead of won.  Do you go back and give up Bogearts to reverse the outcome?  If your answer is no, what if 2004 and 2007 hadn't happened?  Do you give him up then?  This thread is a bit similar to smas's Lester and Myers thread on the main board, but it's an interesting question.  At least, it's interesting to me.

 

[repole]

Depends on the organization, how frequently they're competitive, and just how good of a prospect the player is.
 
If you're a team that expects to consistently compete and regularly find yourself in the World Series, I'd find it tough to give up say, Bryce Harper, for one guaranteed championship when it significantly negatively impacts the next 6 (at least) years.

 

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

Depends on the organization, how frequently they're competitive, and just how good of a prospect the player is.
 
If you're a team that expects to consistently compete and regularly find yourself in the World Series, I'd find it tough to give up say, Bryce Harper, for one guaranteed championship when it significantly negatively impacts the next 6 (at least) years.

 
There are so few teams that actually find themselves in multiple World Series within 6ish years (and so much can go wrong each year) that it seems very difficult to ever make the determination, with any degree of certainty, that you're one of "those teams." One in the hand seems like a no-brainer, then.

 

[Stevie1der]

Somewhere there's an alternate universe where Hanley Ramirez doesn't break his ribs or Anibal Sanchez matches his game one performance in game five, and we're having an amusing bittersweet conversation about how getting Beckett/Lowell and winning it all in 2007 may have indirectly led to not winning it all in 2013.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I wonder how Texas Rangers fans would answer this question.  In 2010 they probably felt pretty good about winning one of the next four.  They've made the series twice and lost both times.
 
Being consistently competitive... being a playoff caliber team every year even, does not guarantee you a title.  Playing in the Fall Classic repeatedly doesn't even do that.  Yeah, if you play in the World Series three times, you have to like your odds of winning one of them, at least, but even organizations that look like they are in for five or six years of LCS and WS appearances don't usually pan out that way.

We're looking at a Red Sox team that most of us believe will be in the playoffs for most of, if not all of the next five or six years.  We're also coming off of a run where we saw just how quickly an organization that looks to be nearly an automatic contender for the foreseeable future can falter and even collapse.
 
It's an interesting place to be sitting with both hindsight and a ton of optimism to wade through when trying to come up with an answer.

 

[scottyno]

I wonder how Texas Rangers fans would answer this question.  In 2010 they probably felt pretty good about winning one of the next four.  They've made the series twice and lost both times.
 
Being consistently competitive... being a playoff caliber team every year even, does not guarantee you a title.  Playing in the Fall Classic repeatedly doesn't even do that.  Yeah, if you play in the World Series three times, you have to like your odds of winning one of them, at least, but even organizations that look like they are in for five or six years of LCS and WS appearances don't usually pan out that way.
We're looking at a Red Sox team that most of us believe will be in the playoffs for most of, if not all of the next five or six years.  We're also coming off of a run where we saw just how quickly an organization that looks to be nearly an automatic contender for the foreseeable future can falter and even collapse.
 
It's an interesting place to be sitting with both hindsight and a ton of optimism to wade through when trying to come up with an answer.

Tiger fans too, 3 years in a row at least in the ALCS, plus the 2006 WS when most expected them to win, I guarantee most of them would trade a top prospect for having won one of those or next year.  It's really fucking hard to win a title, despite the last 13 years of Boston sports.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

We sort of have this situation with the Celtics. Would fans trade the guarenteed title in 2008 to go back and get the #1 pick (or #2) and draft Durant?

I honestly don't / know how I would answer that.

 

[gammoseditor]

We sort of have this situation with the Celtics. Would fans trade the guarenteed title in 2008 to go back and get the #1 pick (or #2) and draft Durant?

I honestly don't / know how I would answer that.

 
I think basketball is different.  One guy can make that big of a difference.  Ted Williams is at worst one of the 5 best players of all time and he never won a title.  I think for baseball the answer is an easy yes.  It's probably still yes in basketball, but I'd at least think about it.  Baseball I think there's no question. 
 
I could buy an argument that you'd rather watch one of the best ever than win a title.  I'm not sure where I fall on that one.  But if you're motivation is to win titles, taking the one for any prospect is an easy yes.

 

[topps148]

Gil Santos (remember him?) used to say that you should always give up prospects for proven MLB players.  I always thought that was pretty much a reeking pile.  But the hypothetical  prospect/WS championship is a different bargain.
 
I accept that the goal is always winning the WS.  Anything else is losing.  Given how hard it is to even reach the WS with the multiple levels of playoffs, there can be no single prospect more important than the trophy (or is it cup, Mayor Tom? "Ground control to Mayor Tom, etc.").
 
On the other hand, as my personal preference, I'd have been much happier if the current RS aggregation had fallen a game short of the playoffs than if last year's crew had won it all.  A second year of BV might have converted me permanently to a curling fanatic.
 
I guess this means that my final answer is:
In 2013, empty the farm
In 2012, not one cent prospect for tribute a ring

 

[Eddie Jurak]

My answer is no. The whole point is to win that title, and if any one prospects can magically give the team one, then you have to pull the trigger, right?

Do you retroactively trade Ted Williams in 1938 for one WS title? My answer is no, even though he didn't win her.

 

[Orel Miraculous]

My answer is no.  The whole point is to win that title, and if any one prospects can magically give the team one, then you have to pull the trigger, right?
 

 
This is where I probably differ from a lot of people and it's why my answer is yes.  The whole point is not winning a title--at least not for me. 
 
I'm a big Celtics fan, and 2008 was great.  But you know what I loved even more?  2002.  I have never, ever had more fun as a basketball fan than in the 2001-2002 season.  I had been watching losing teams for years, and the whole I was dreaming about Pierce and Toine becoming the best 1-2 combo in the league, Tony Battie turning into a double-double player, Ron Mercer and Chauncey Billups finishing 1-2 in the ROY voting, and then when that didn't happen, Joe Forte and Kedrick Brown doing it a few years later.   None of those things came true, but the 2002 playoffs were validation of all that dreaming.  I'd been watching teams of rag tag veterans and unproven rookies for years and waiting for it to click, and then it finally did.  That team felt like family to me.  The 2008 team just wasn't the same.  It was a great team, I loved watching them, and I was overjoyed for Pierce, but winning the title with two stars who had just joined the team wasn't as meaningful as losing it with a group of players that I watched grow up.
 

Do you retroactively trade Ted Williams in 1938 for one WS title? My answer is no, even though he didn't win her.

 
Exactly.

 

[Mike F]

I felt the same way about Hanley Ramirez.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Well, Harper and Trout and similar guys aren't prospects so I think that kind of misses the point of the exercise. They are no different than any other proven player when hypothetically discussing if a trade betting a WS is worth it, really, even if they are generational guys.

 
Yeah, the point is about how we value that potential, not proven guys.  Xander is a year away from being off that list.  Maybe just a couple of months.  For now, he's prospect who got a chance to peak our interest, and peak it he did... but he's still more potential than reality.  He's also one of the top 2 or 3 prospects in the game, so he's a good litmus test for us, as we rarely have prospects as valuable as him to consider such a hypothetical with.

 

[JakeRae]

 
Yeah, the point is about how we value that potential, not proven guys.  Xander is a year away from being off that list.  Maybe just a couple of months.  For now, he's prospect who got a chance to peak our interest, and peak it he did... but he's still more potential than reality.  He's also one of the top 2 or 3 prospects in the game, so he's a good litmus test for us, as we rarely have prospects as valuable as him to consider such a hypothetical with.

 
I have issues with this idea of "more potential than reality" which treats reality as something that only begins when a player arrives in MLB. Bogaerts has a ton of potential, that is true. But, he also is already really good, and that is a reality. The fact that he doesn't have an extensive MLB track record proving that reality does not negate the fact that he does have a minor league track record proving it.
 
But, I also don't understand this hypothetical. It has no basis in the world of reality, where trades may increase probabilities of outcomes in marginal ways, but they can never guarantee a World Series championship. And, if they could, wouldn't that cheapen the championship to the point of having virtually no value? 
 
But, even without that, would I trade a player like Xander Bogaerts for a championship? No. I watch a lot of baseball and most of it involves the Red Sox. I'd rather watch Bogaerts play 900 games for Boston over the next 6 years than see the team win 11 games in an individual post season. Hell, I'd trade this championship, right now, if it would give me another season of watching Pedro, in his prime, pitching for Boston. The championship myopia around here lately is stunning. There is a lot more to sports, and particularly to baseball, than getting to have a parade at the end of the season.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

You play the game to win.
 
I loved watching the Red Sox all through my youth and into middle age.  But seeing them win the World Series in 2004 far outranked getting to see Carl Yastrzemski play for 23 years and seeing the Gold Dust Twins come out of the minor leagues, and seeing Luis Tiant with all his gyrations, and everything else I saw from 1967 through 2003.
 

Edit:

Feel free to enjoy your team with 10 years of Frankie Rodriguez and Brandon Moss and Brian Rose and Bobby Sprowl and Ted Cox and Mike Garman and Ken Brett and Phil Plantier and Jeff Suppan.  I'll take this team with Mike Napolia and Jake Peavy and John Lackey and David Ross and Stephen Drew and Shane Victorino and Koji Uehara.

 

[JakeRae]

You play the game to win.
 
I loved watching the Red Sox all through my youth and into middle age.  But seeing them win the World Series in 2004 far outranked getting to see Carl Yastrzemski play for 23 years and seeing the Gold Dust Twins come out of the minor leagues, and seeing Luis Tiant with all his gyrations, and everything else I saw from 1967 through 2003.
 
Edit:

Feel free to enjoy your team with 10 years of Frankie Rodriguez and Brandon Moss and Brian Rose and Bobby Sprowl and Ted Cox and Mike Garman and Ken Brett and Phil Plantier and Jeff Suppan.  I'll take this team with Mike Napolia and Jake Peavy and John Lackey and David Ross and Stephen Drew and Shane Victorino and Koji Uehara.

 
Assuming this is a response to my post, you are completely misconstruing my point. Obviously, you play the game to win. But, the basic premise that any trade suddenly becomes fine if the team wins a World Series that year (going back to the origins of this thread) is incredibly flawed. First, it rests on the idea that the absence of the trade would've necessarily prevented the World Series victory, which is logically fallacious. Second, it ignores the future impact.
 
Basically, trades should always be evaluated in the context of value to the team, but you can't trade players for championships. Such a system doesn't exist. I think Bogaerts is a great player and look forward to watching him for the next 6+ seasons. However, if the Angels offered Mike Trout for him, I would make that trade without a second thought. I'm also not opposed to the signing of free agents, which is where every player on your list excepting Jake Peavy came from.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
I have issues with this idea of "more potential than reality" which treats reality as something that only begins when a player arrives in MLB. Bogaerts has a ton of potential, that is true. But, he also is already really good, and that is a reality. The fact that he doesn't have an extensive MLB track record proving that reality does not negate the fact that he does have a minor league track record proving it.
 
But, I also don't understand this hypothetical. It has no basis in the world of reality, where trades may increase probabilities of outcomes in marginal ways, but they can never guarantee a World Series championship. And, if they could, wouldn't that cheapen the championship to the point of having virtually no value? 
 
But, even without that, would I trade a player like Xander Bogaerts for a championship? No. I watch a lot of baseball and most of it involves the Red Sox. I'd rather watch Bogaerts play 900 games for Boston over the next 6 years than see the team win 11 games in an individual post season. Hell, I'd trade this championship, right now, if it would give me another season of watching Pedro, in his prime, pitching for Boston. The championship myopia around here lately is stunning. There is a lot more to sports, and particularly to baseball, than getting to have a parade at the end of the season.

 
You are missing the point.  This is not meant to be a discussion of what realistic trades could guarantee a title.  None can.  It's meant to gauge what people value in watching baseball.  A title run implies more than just a parade.  It implies all the fun that goes with playing through a successful regular season and all the incredible moments that make up a successful post season run.  It's about the total package, not just getting to count another banner at Fenway.
 

 
Assuming this is a response to my post, you are completely misconstruing my point. Obviously, you play the game to win. But, the basic premise that any trade suddenly becomes fine if the team wins a World Series that year (going back to the origins of this thread) is incredibly flawed. First, it rests on the idea that the absence of the trade would've necessarily prevented the World Series victory, which is logically fallacious. Second, it ignores the future impact.
 
Basically, trades should always be evaluated in the context of value to the team, but you can't trade players for championships. Such a system doesn't exist. I think Bogaerts is a great player and look forward to watching him for the next 6+ seasons. However, if the Angels offered Mike Trout for him, I would make that trade without a second thought. I'm also not opposed to the signing of free agents, which is where every player on your list excepting Jake Peavy came from.

 
No one is arguing that any trade becomes okay if a team wins a title that year.  This is a question that is meant to get at what people value the most when watching the game.  Some people are coming down on the side of wanting to watch special players more than they want to see more championships.  That's absolutely valid.  Some are coming down on wanting championship runs more than any one individual special player.  That's also valid.
 
The fact that people are coming down all across the spectrum on this is exactly the point I'm trying to get at.  None of this is meant to spark a discussion of what realistic trades would have or would lead to guaranteed titles.  And none of this is meant to suggest that winning a title trumps any potential bad trade.  It's all about what we, as fans, value, when watching this sport.  There really aren't any wrong answers, and there are no real world answers to find.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Yes, I was replying to you.  Specifically to this:
 

 
But, even without that, would I trade a player like Xander Bogaerts for a championship? No. I watch a lot of baseball and most of it involves the Red Sox. I'd rather watch Bogaerts play 900 games for Boston over the next 6 years than see the team win 11 games in an individual post season. Hell, I'd trade this championship, right now, if it would give me another season of watching Pedro, in his prime, pitching for Boston. The championship myopia around here lately is stunning. There is a lot more to sports, and particularly to baseball, than getting to have a parade at the end of the season.

 
Which I construed to read you'd rather enjoy watching your favorite prospects (and Pedro, not a Sox prospect) than to trade them for a guaranteed championship.
 
I think 90% of us would trade Bogaerts and Swigart and Owens and any other prospect you can name right now for a guaranteed trophy in 2014.
 
I look forward to watching Bogaerts in a Sox uniform for many years.  But I'd give him and the others up immediately for more titles.

 

[Rovin Romine]

You know, there's an interesting sub question to this as well in terms of the argument about the quality of the teams you watch instead of the ultimate outcome.   Namely, do we prefer teams which come in on either end of the spectrum (sure winners or losers) or teams which have the possibility of winning during the regular season?  
 
Caveat that there is no sure thing, but to look at two examples, the 90s Braves always seemed a mortal lock on the post season, and never (except for 95) seemed destined to do anything but lose there.  It was amazing.  It was also kind of awful.  They had a solid core of easily ID'd amazing players Maddux, Smotz, Glavine, Chipper Jones, A. Jones, Justice.   On the other hand, take the Marlins - they won the WS twice as a recent expansion team, but have blown up the team seemingly every other season.  They have titles but no true continuity or fan base.  They've never won the NL East.  Their franchise leader for games played, runs scored, and hits?  Luis Castillo.   In fact, their whole franchise makes for twisty trivia night questions based on rough guesses of who might have done what when.  
 
I have to say that I've been very happy with the Red Sox experience. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Yeah, the easy answer is we want a team that has exciting home grown players who help build the identity of the team AND to win titles.  The Red Sox have managed to balance the two with both the 2007 and 2013 teams, and to a lesser extent with the 2004 team, so we are certainly lucky in that regard.  And JakeRae's point about Pedro is a good one.  The players we associate with the laundry don't need to be home grown.  David Ortiz is another great example of a guy you link entirely with Boston but who came up through the Twins' system.

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

Yes, I was replying to you.  Specifically to this:
 
 
Which I construed to read you'd rather enjoy watching your favorite prospects (and Pedro, not a Sox prospect) than to trade them for a guaranteed championship.
 
I think 90% of us would trade Bogaerts and Swigart and Owens and any other prospect you can name right now for a guaranteed trophy in 2014.
 
I look forward to watching Bogaerts in a Sox uniform for many years.  But I'd give him and the others up immediately for more titles.

This is such a bizarre hypothetical. Like, a lot of my enjoyment of sports comes from not knowing what's going to happen, so in whatever alternate universe where you can trade a prospect to immediately assure your team a title I am not sure I would be a sports fan.

 

[JakeRae]

This is such a bizarre hypothetical. Like, a lot of my enjoyment of sports comes from not knowing what's going to happen, so in whatever alternate universe where you can trade a prospect to immediately assure your team a title I am not sure I would be a sports fan.

 
This is a significant basis of my thought process in trying to participate in this thread.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Of course it's a hypothetical, but I drew it to demonstrate my goal for the team I root for, and that's not to keep my binkies on the field, but to utilize them in whatever way most likely results in championships.
 
Jake would rather watch Bogaerts play for the Sox for the next 5 years.
 
I'd rather he be traded for the part that wins the Sox another title in the next 5 years.

 

[Orel Miraculous]

You play the game to win.
 

 
Been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that my life is not different in any way shape or form today than it was on the morning of Game 6.*  Winning is great, but it's not why I'm a sports fan.  If the goal were simply seeing my team win, then I would spend all my energies on cheering for the US Track and Field team or something.
 
How far does "you play the game to win" go?  Let's move beyond the prospect discussion for a minute and address another hypothetical:  would you trade Pedroia and Ortiz this offseason for a guaranteed trophy next season?  Not only would I not want the team to do that deal, my Red Sox fandom would probably die if they did (even accounting for a 2014 title). I don't watch to win, I watch to be entertained by baseball players.  Winning makes the game more entertaining, but it is hardly the sole reason why I watch, and not even the most important.
 
 
*Edit:  actually, my life is different today than on the morning of Game 6.  I'm bummed that there's no baseball today.

 

[Ananti]

Would I trade a Red Sox world series for the 1938 Ted Williams? I wouldn't.
 I wouldn't because winning the World Series in 1943 would mean almost nothing to me, not that different from the 1903 World Series. But for a lot of Sox fans who lived and died and never saw a championship, I bet you their answer might be very different.
 
And then there is the strawman aspect of that argument. Ted was arguably the greatest hitter who ever lived.  No prospect is really comparable to that.

 

[JakeRae]

Of course it's a hypothetical, but I drew it to demonstrate my goal for the team I root for, and that's not to keep my binkies on the field, but to utilize them in whatever way most likely results in championships.
 
Jake would rather watch Bogaerts play for the Sox for the next 5 years.
 
I'd rather he be traded for the part that wins the Sox another title in the next 5 years.

 
Keep piling up that straw.

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

Of course it's a hypothetical, but I drew it to demonstrate my goal for the team I root for, and that's not to keep my binkies on the field, but to utilize them in whatever way most likely results in championships.
 
Jake would rather watch Bogaerts play for the Sox for the next 5 years.
 
I'd rather he be traded for the part that wins the Sox another title in the next 5 years.

It's a bit hard for me to imagine dealing X for a "part that wins the Sox another title," since I can't really imagine anything more valuable than a pre-arb solid fielding SS who's one of the best hitters in the league. I won't deny that I enjoy watching young players mature into stars, but it's also very hard for me to see the logic behind any hypothetical Bogaerts deal, unless you're getting an even more awesome passel of pre-arb talent that doesn't leave a gaping hole at SS (which I would be fine with). Dealing a guy like that in order to win a single championship is impossible in practice, because as we have seen time and again, tons of fluky shit can happen in the playoffs, and even a clearly superior team is not assured of winning. You have a better expected championship yield when you are consistently excellent, and I can't imagine a better means to that end than 6+ years of a pre-arb likely superstar.

Edit: in a nutshell, most of the reason why I like Bogaerts is precisely because of how much more likely he makes it that the Red Sox will win championships, and in the universe where the 100% championship guarantee you provide as an alternative exists I would not be a sports fan

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It's a bit hard for me to imagine dealing X for a "part that wins the Sox another title," since I can't really imagine anything more valuable than a pre-arb solid fielding SS who's one of the best hitters in the league. I won't deny that I enjoy watching young players mature into stars, but it's also very hard for me to see the logic behind any hypothetical Bogaerts deal, unless you're getting an even more awesome passel of pre-arb talent that doesn't leave a gaping hole at SS (which I would be fine with). Dealing a guy like that in order to win a single championship is impossible in practice, because as we have seen time and again, tons of fluky shit can happen in the playoffs, and even a clearly superior team is not assured of winning. You have a better expected championship yield when you are consistently excellent, and I can't imagine a better means to that end than 6+ years of a pre-arb likely superstar.

Edit: in a nutshell, most of the reason why I like Bogaerts is precisely because of how much more likely he makes it that the Red Sox will win championships, and in the universe where the 100% championship guarantee you provide as an alternative exists I would not be a sports fan

 
Again, I cannot state more clearly that this thread is not about realistic trades that would improve the chances of the Red Sox making or winning the World Series next year or in any subsequent year.  With or without Bogaerts involved...  If you can't get your head around discussing the proposed hypothetical, or you feel it brings no value to do so, that's fine.  Don't participate.  This discussion isn't going to be for everyone.  But complaining that there isn't a realistic way in which trading Bogaerts makes getting to or winning the World Series more likely is missing the point entirely.

 

[Wake's knuckle]

I guess the way I see it is this: no one player -- or even several players -- guarantees a championship. When you make a hypothetical trade, you don't know how things are going to turn out. The idea, then, is to maximize your probability of winning championships over many years. So.. when considering trading a prospect, the GM has to weigh the improvement of winning this year, versus the reduction of probability over future years. In certain situations, it is definitely favorable to trade a prospect for a veteran, particularly when dealing from a position of strength to plug a weakness.
 
That said... IF a prospect can guarantee a championship, unless you are talking about one of the very best players ever, you do it -- i.e. you have to consider that he may lead you to multiple championships over the next 6 years. As much as I love X, he's not that good. Trout probably is -- although we only know that now. Maybe when he was still in the minors and then failed a cameo in the majors, you might do it, as no one could realistically expected him to become the player he has at that point.

 

[Wake's knuckle]

I mean, even with Trout, do you see the Angels winning a championship between now and when he hits free agency? I don't... far to many sunk costs in bad contracts. Although.... trout + hamilton + pujols, anyone?

 

[judyb]

For those having trouble think of it like a "deal with the devil" type situation. There's no player coming back to improve the team elsewhere to lead to that win. It's just X disappears - traded, dies in a suspicious boating accident, was all of a sudden never born, whatever. But in return for that we a guaranteed another ring during his career span. If you say yes and a few years from now we win it, was that move worth it? If you say no and X turns into Ernie Banks but we never win another, was that worth it?

That doesn't help, why would you want a deal with the devil guaranteed championship? It's meaningless fiction.

 

[lambolt]

This is a really interesting thread that some people seem to be trying to force into something that it's not even though it seems quite clearly hypothetical, would you go back in time and trade prospect X if you knew it would win the Sox a World Series. My gut reaction was "of course" until someone posted about Ted Williams, and then I realised it's not at all cut and dried. There is value in getting to see an all time legend play over a long períod of time and I'm not sure it's as easy as it seems to reflexively say "we play to win". If we'd not won in 2004, I am not sure I would so easily be able to dismiss seeing Pedro for example with a "OK  you can go back in time and not get Pedro and instead you DO win in 2004". Watching Pedro pitch for several years feels as YOUR guy feels like an incredibly valuable and perhaps too easily taken for granted boon.
 
I had to experience this in person when I made my first trip to Fenway Park in 2004, I was a crazy big fan of Nomar, the way he played, the way he had his plate routine, I loved that guy, yet imagine how crushed I was that literally weeks before I arrived, he'd gone, and in a cloud of controversy that still feels like was never really explained fully. Of course, 2004 would have a wonderful ending, but those of you who get to go every week probably can't understand how crushed, crushed I was that months of excitement at coming to see the Red Sox FoR REAL would NOT include seeing Nomar at the plate. It became even more annoying when the trade was justified forever as "we would never have won the World Series had we not made the trade". Really? Because the history I experienced only had the trade happening, I missed the bus to the alternate universe where the trade didnt happen so I dont know what happened there. It still kind of bugs me that this is just bandied about like a proven fact. We don't know the team wouldn't have won the series had Nomar stayed, at least IMO, no matter how well OCab and eyechart contributed. Well, because 2004 was 2004 and it followed 1918 I can hardly say "yeah I'd go back and keep Nomar" for my own selfish reasons, and I'd only really been a part time Sox fan since 1986 so wasn't feeling the 86 years like you guys, but still, I can understand the appeal of following a group of players you identify with and enjoy watching, regardless of bottom line success.
 
As an extension of the question, I often wonder about the more realistic version of this being how bad do you accept the Sox being if you know it will keep them mounting a challenge every 2 or 3 years pretty  much throughout your life, compared to trying to get the "perfect roster" every season and using every dollar, every trade prospect. Indeed, how much value do you guys assign to a "home brewed" team in general, surely easier to stomach now given recent successes. For me, in theory at least, the appeal is high, keep the young uns, throw them in, accept some struggles and get to see some of them become lifelong achievers as Red Sox. Of course, it's rare that most of them pan out in reality.

 

[seantoo]

In the Peavy minor league thread, Rovin Romine asked this question and I thought it was an interesting enough topic to spin out into its own thread.
 
My answer is no.  The whole point is to win that title, and if any one prospects can magically give the team one, then you have to pull the trigger, right?
 
Let's say the Sox had lost in six instead of won.  Do you go back and give up Bogearts to reverse the outcome?  If your answer is no, what if 2004 and 2007 hadn't happened?  Do you give him up then?  This thread is a bit similar to smas's Lester and Myers thread on the main board, but it's an interesting question.  At least, it's interesting to me.

A very interesting question and yet at the same time I don't like it, mostly because I don't know how to answer it, but also because it is a hypothetical question that can clouds one judgment in the real world. There is no guarantee either way and there in lies the rub. Obviously there is no right or wrong answer but ones answer is but merely their own reflection of risk assessment. Others have brought up good points that should be factored into anyone's decision, how long has it been since you won, how good is the prospect were taking about, etc.

 

[DanoooME]

Flags fly forever.  It would be disappointing to lose a potential all-world talent like X, but it still comes down to winning.
 
Personally, I want to see my team be competitive every year.  They may not win every year, they may not even make the playoffs every year.  But at least they are making the attempt.  I never want to see another team like 2012 again.

 

[maxotaur]

If you're not following certain players and investing years of watching them then what's the point? I wouldn't give up a Pedrioa or Pedro for a guarantee of winning.

If nothing else means anything compared to the championship then wouldn't it be more logical to be a perennial "bandwagon" fan.

Of course I want them to win but I would prefer the joys and frustrations that come with having a team I care about. The joy is in the journey as they say.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

If you're not following certain players and investing years of watching them then what's the point? I wouldn't give up a Pedrioa or Pedro for a guarantee of winning.

If nothing else means anything compared to the championship then wouldn't it be more logical to be a perennial "bandwagon" fan.

Of course I want them to win but I would prefer the joys and frustrations that come with having a team I care about. The joy is in the journey as they say.

 
I see your point, but 178 games was plenty enough to become enraptured by Gomes, Victorino, Napoli and Uehara.

 

[HurstSoGood]

Part of the equation must include any joy in vesting time and energy in the minor league teams themselves, right? It seems that a number of folks on this board are Red Sox "Organizational" fans, from our Fenway crew all the way down through the developmental leagues. There is more info, chatter and attention here on Pawtucket, Portland, Salem, Greenville and Lowell than anywhere else (from a fans point of view) and, to me, that is invaluable to our community.  Many of us spend more time bringing our family and friends to these parks because of access and money. The prospects (and rehabbing regulars) we get to see make the experience of being a Sox fan better. 
 
The original question/hypothetical is definitely interesting, but as a general rule of thumb, having a strong farm system (and strong farm philosophy to go with it) is more attractive to me than the alternative. Obviously we like winning the World Series, but the fact remains we will never know what a trade will bring until year(s) later. Bagwell? Hanley? Schilling? Brady Anderson?  I just love being able to learn about and root for the kids to get the call up and make a positive difference. As others have mentioned, I believe there is a greater satisfaction that comes with winning with your home-grown talent (rather than mercenaries), so to speak.   
 
Edit: And to be fair, I was bummed out when Fred Lynn and Rooster were traded. They were not prospects, but they were ours.

 

[benhogan]

If you posed this question in 2003, I think the overwhelming response would have been YES deal the prospect. Now 10yrs and 3 WS later, I'd still pack Xander's bags in a split second. And next year I'd do the same with Garin or Blake or Henry Owens.
 
I've seen enough of our top prospects flame out over the last 35 years to know that a World Series in the hand is better then a prospect in the bush.

 

[maxotaur]

 
I see your point, but 178 games was plenty enough to become enraptured by Gomes, Victorino, Napoli and Uehara.

 

[maxotaur]

Leo - I see your point as well. But, I was not trying to discount those players. If anything they add to the mix. Personally I'm stoked upon seeing what Uehara does next year. Even if he has his historically down year following such. I love this guy. Be it only 178 games. Even if he founders (more then a bit) he is part of my, our, team.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

Leo - I see your point as well. But, I was not trying to discount those players. If anything they add to the mix. Personally I'm stoked upon seeing what Uehara does next year. Even if he has his historically down year following such. I love this guy. Be it only 178 games. Even if he founders (more then a bit) he is part of my, our, team.


Nothing beats homegrown guys. Pedroia is the heart of this team. And you're right. Those free agents didn't bring the magical formula of tireless work + looseness + camaraderie. They added it to what Pedroia already represented.

 

[Cowboyup15]

I think basketball is different. One guy can make that big of a difference. Ted Williams is at worst one of the 5 best players of all time and he never won a title. I think for baseball the answer is an easy yes. It's probably still yes in basketball, but I'd at least think about it. Baseball I think there's no question.

I could buy an argument that you'd rather watch one of the best ever than win a title. I'm not sure where I fall on that one. But if you're motivation is to win titles, taking the one for any prospect is an easy yes.

I see what you're saying but would you have traded Williams his rookie year for a title? Yaz? I don't think so. I have much more pride talking about ted Williams and Yaz the Redsox players than I would have about some title in the 40's or 60's. Historically good players define franchises and out live championships. Now obviously organizations don't know what production they're trading away with prospects but given the gift of hindsight what would your line be?

I would have to put that line beyond the top 50 players (ever to even considering trading them for a championship and even then I'd have to be in a cub sized drought to pull the trigger. would you trade frank thomas' career for a ring? Reggie jackson? even top 50ish players might be hard to trade. (These ranking are by war hate me as you will)

 

[Pedroia's Itchy Nose]

As others have mentioned this is a very difficult thought experiment as the mere knowledge of a "guaranteed championship" significantly detracts from the appeal of said championship. If I knew for absolute certain that the Red Sox would win the series next year, I'd be somewhat less interested in watching.
 
I do think that the marginal expected value of any given prospect before breaking in at the major league level is probably lower than the marginal expected value of the difference between a team at the start of the season and a guaranteed title. The WAR contributed by even elite players isn't really enough to cover the difference between a team's average result and a definite championship ... and the expected value of even the most highly touted prospect is going to be well below actual elite performance.
 
But if you are allowed the benefit of hindsight, there certainly are players that end up being more valuable than a championship. Pedro has been mentioned already, and I can say with a high degree of certainty that if not for Pedro I probably wouldn't be a Sox fan mainly because I wouldn't even be a baseball fan. When I was a small child living in Northern Virginia I idolized Cal Ripken Jr., but when we moved to Massachusetts I stopped playing baseball myself and lost interest in the sport. It wasn't until I randomly stumbled upon Pedro pitching for the Sox in the playoffs (the no hit relief appearance, to be specific) while channel surfing that I became a baseball fan again. I became a Sox fan in that moment because Pedro got me into baseball and I was living in MA. How could I not be a sox fan? Winning titles had nothing to do with it. In fact, at that time it sure seemed like I would be signing up for a lifetime of being tantalized and frustrated.
 
Another thing that others have addressed is the fact that not all titles are created equal. A title in '04 was worth far more than one in '05 would have been. The '07 win was sweet, but the '13 win was much much sweeter because it had been preceded by such a terrible year. So yeah my answer might well depend on the situation. Overall though it's a question that I'd rather not have to decide.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

When I answered this question for myself I included all the ups and downs of enjoying the season that led to that title.  For me, this hypothetical isn't just about hanging another banner.  It's about the ride we would take to get there.  It's a hypothetical, and even though I started the thread, I can't really tell people how they have to interpret it.  If asked to answer whether I'd trade Bogaerts for a prepackaged title without all the drama, I'd probably say no as well.  It's all in how you phrase the question,