Trades before the deadline?

[italstallianion]

I wouldn't say anyone is untouchable, as I'm someone that would field offers for anyone, and I do think Iglesias success at the dish (and his pornographically smooth defense) combined with Cecchini make Bogaerts at least tradeable given the right return. That said it would take a lot to be "the right return"

[Orange Juiced]

I wouldn't say anyone is untouchable, as I'm someone that would field offers for anyone, and I do think Iglesias success at the dish (and his pornographically smooth defense) combined with Cecchini make Bogaerts at least tradeable given the right return. That said it would take a lot to be "the right return"

 

Yes, the right return would be a fortune. Cishek is a name that's been mentioned. He's solid, but not a must-have. Stanton is a monster, and he's a guy I would consider. But I wouldn't give up Bogaerts, Cecchini, Webster, and more, all for Stanton. Bogaerts has 30+ homer potential from the SS position. Stanton has 45 homer potential from a corner OF spot. Both hugely valuable, but the SS production is more rare, and thus more valuable. So no way would I throw in all that extra stuff as well.

[Palodios]

I imagine that this is how this went...

 

"Watching Jose Iglesias take infield practice is like baseball porn" -- Keith Law

"Jose Iglesias is now my favorite player" -- Ital.

[italstallianion]

I imagine that this is how this went...

 

"Watching Jose Iglesias take infield practice is like baseball porn" -- Keith Law

"Jose Iglesias is now my favorite player" -- Ital.

 

 

hahahahaha nice

[MJantomaso]

I like Cecil from Toronto. Think they would be willing to give him up?

[Palodios]

Cecil has been crazy lucky this year. Low BABIP, high strand rate, and a 5ish ERA in the 4 years prior to this one. Definitely not a guy you want to overpay to get through the division.

[Standing Room]

I still really like the idea of adding Brian Wilson as a free agent. He wouldn't cost any prospects.

[italstallianion]

Low risk medium/high reward.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I wouldn't say anyone is untouchable, as I'm someone that would field offers for anyone, and I do think Iglesias success at the dish (and his pornographically smooth defense) combined with Cecchini make Bogaerts at least tradeable given the right return. That said it would take a lot to be "the right return"

 

Turns my stomach to think about trading Bogaerts. Even if it's for Stanton (which I certainly pull the trigger on), I just keep thinking about having the next HanRam at SS for years to come, and that's crazy exciting. By the way, he (Bogaerts) went yard again yesterday.

[jung]

If XB does keep getting bigger, do we think he ends up at 3rd with Iggy at SS?

[User Name]

That should be the alignment anyways imo.

[SoxFanForsyth]

That should be the alignment anyways imo.

 

Part of me is gunshy about putting too much reliance on Iglesias (a la Middlebrooks). But, looking at his peripherals, his K% and BB% indicate that he can pretty easily be a .265/.325/.360 hitter, which is plenty good enough with his glove. League average SS this year are hitting .249/.300/.361 in the AL, so he would actually be very slightly above league average offensively.

[italstallianion]

It'd be interesting what to do with Iglesias/Bogaerts/Cecchini/Middlebrooks but if they can all hit then there are definitely places on the field for the young talent. I think that preventing runs on defense is just as good as scoring runs yourself so Iglesias would have to be at SS, and he can have the job if he hits above the Mendoza line imo. I'm not sure who'd be the best fielding 3B between Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Cecchini, but I imagine if they can hit then one can play 1B, DH, or even be a platoon bench player. Add in JBJ and Ranaudo/Barnes/Webster/De La Rosa and we can have a lot of cheap young pieces.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I feel like I've said this a thousand times, but it bears repeating. Garin Cecchini is going to be your 2015 Red Sox first baseman.

[Standing Room]

If XB does keep getting bigger, do we think he ends up at 3rd with Iggy at SS?

 

Bogaerts is pretty athletic, I could see him at third or even in left field.

[User Name]

It'd be interesting what to do with Iglesias/Bogaerts/Cecchini/Middlebrooks but if they can all hit then there are definitely places on the field for the young talent. I think that preventing runs on defense is just as good as scoring runs yourself so Iglesias would have to be at SS, and he can have the job if he hits above the Mendoza line imo. I'm not sure who'd be the best fielding 3B between Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Cecchini, but I imagine if they can hit then one can play 1B, DH, or even be a platoon bench player. Add in JBJ and Ranaudo/Barnes/Webster/De La Rosa and we can have a lot of cheap young pieces.

 

Close, but not accurate. You can't win a 0-0 ballgame. You need to score to be able to win.

[italstallianion]

Close, but not accurate. You can't win a 0-0 ballgame. You need to score to be able to win.

 

You can't win a 1-1 game either, so if you score a run and give up a run on defense it's still tied.

[Standing Room]

Preventing a run and scoring a run are just as valuable. You can't win a 0-0 ballgame, but you can lose a 0-1 ballgame.

[italstallianion]

Although I did hear that you win 100% of games in which you score more runs than your opponent.

[User Name]

Preventing a run and scoring a run are just as valuable. You can't win a 0-0 ballgame, but you can lose a 0-1 ballgame.

 

This is faulty logic. They are close in value, but because you can't win without scoring a run, it's impossible for prevention and scoring to have the same overall worth. Again, you can't win without scoring at least one run.

[italstallianion]

I don't think our points are exact opposites.

 

My point in "preventing a run = scoring a run" is that if you have a defensive minded SS that prevents a run but doesn't score a run, it's 0-0. If you have an offensive minded SS that scores a run but doesn't have the defensive ability to prevent a run, it's 1-1. And my point in that is if Jose Iglesias has the silky smooth run preventing defense, then his bat becomes less of a liability and he's worth his spot in the lineup.

[italstallianion]

This is faulty logic. They are close in value, but because you can't win without scoring a run, it's impossible for prevention and scoring to have the same overall worth. Again, you can't win without scoring at least one run.

 

 

But by that logic you can lose games by giving up runs and you can't lose games by preventing runs. Therefore if you take Standing Room's point and subtract value from giving up runs, and combine it with your point about adding value from scoring runs, they cancel each other out and we're right back to square 1.

[Standing Room]

This is faulty logic. They are close in value, but because you can't win without scoring a run, it's impossible for prevention and scoring to have the same overall worth. Again, you can't win without scoring at least one run.

 

Alright, in your hypothetical world were games are 0-0 and you only have the option of scoring a run or preventing a run, scoring a run is more important. In the real world, scoring and preventing runs are just as important.

[Bellhorn04]

I think User Name is right when he says that scoring a run has slightly more value than preventing a run. The idea is to take a lead and then protect it. The team that scores first wins a surprisingly high percentage of games. The team that scores very few runs and gives up very few runs is going to be in a lot of tight games and extra-inning games and their pitching staff is going to get worn down as a result.

[italstallianion]

More worn down than the pitching staff that has to turn to the bullpen in the 5th inning because the starter gave up too many runs?

[Standing Room]

I think User Name is right when he says that scoring a run has slightly more value than preventing a run. The idea is to take a lead and then protect it. The team that scores first wins a surprisingly high percentage of games. The team that scores very few runs and gives up very few runs is going to be in a lot of tight games and extra-inning games and their pitching staff is going to get worn down as a result.

 

By this logic, preventing the other team from scoring first is just as important.

[Dojji]

This is faulty logic. They are close in value, but because you can't win without scoring a run, it's impossible for prevention and scoring to have the same overall worth. Again, you can't win without scoring at least one run.

But by the same token, one defense-first player at a key position like shortstop means more to run prevention than one hitter at the 9 spot in a lineup means to run scoring. I'd say that cancels out.

 

Besides, this is silly because Iglesias is hitting.

[Bellhorn04]

By this logic, preventing the other team from scoring first is just as important.

 

I get what you're saying, believe me. This is just a theoretical debate and I don't think anybody can be proven wrong or right.

 

But to me, intuitively, the objective of baseball is to get a lead and then keep it. Score early, then prevent.

 

If in the hypothetical world a manager had Derek Jeter and Mark Belanger on his team, how would he use them? I think the majority of managers would play Jeter for the first 6-7 innings of a game and Belanger for the last 2-3 innings.

[Dojji]

That's fine, if you have one of the best offensive shortstops in the history of baseball and a guaranteed hall of famer.

 

But what do you do if you have, say, Stephen Drew and Jose Iglesias, and Iglesias is hitting

[Orange Juiced]

That's fine, if you have one of the best offensive shortstops in the history of baseball and a guaranteed hall of famer.

 

But what do you do if you have, say, Stephen Drew and Jose Iglesias, and Iglesias is hitting

 

If Iglesias is hitting, it's a no-brainer. He plays. If he isn't hitting, then it becomes a more difficult question.