Trades before the deadline?

[italstallianion]

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

 

Thank you. I was going to make that point but I responded to his other point and didn't think of this until after my lunch break.

[Dojji]

Agreed. Intuitively, offense feels more important, but they're balanced.

[User Name]

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.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the reason this discussion is even taking place.

[User Name]

I will gladly relinquish my stance when someone shows me a team that has won a game without scoring a run.

[italstallianion]

I will gladly relinquish my stance when someone shows me a team that has won a game without scoring a run.

 

And I'll gladly relinquish my stance when someone shows me a team that has lost a game without giving up a run. Or if getting you to relinquish your stance would have any effect on my stance.

 

You keep repeating that point, and while I think that point is right, I don't think that point refutes my and SR's stance.

 

There's clearly something simple that one of us is missing and it doesn't look like either of us can explain it to the other one. I don't think we're arguing opposite sides of an issue.

[italstallianion]

I feel like we should make a poll thread for this and move the related posts to that topic.

[Standing Room]

And I'll gladly relinquish my stance when someone shows me a team that has lost a game without giving up a run. Or if getting you to relinquish your stance would have any effect on my stance.

 

Yeah, it's just arguing in circles. Every argument for scoring runs is countered by an equal argument for preventing runs in a real world scenario where a team doesn't have the option of only doing one or the other. And every argument for preventing runs is countered by an equal argument for scoring runs.

[italstallianion]

I agree, that's why inevitably the argument ends at them being equal. The same place it started.

[User Name]

No it doesn't. Again, you simply cannot win a ballgame without scoring at least one run. The other team can score 20 against you, and if you score 21, you win. Because of that, one can conclude that preventing and scoring are on near equal grounds in terms of importance, but because you can't win without outscoring your opponent, scoring is inherently more important than preventing.

[a700hitter]

I am going to change gears from this fascinating "chicken and egg" debate. This team looks to have the inside line on the Division title. In the last 17 years, we have won only one division championship. It's a pretty rare occurrence for us. Hopefully, Cherries is burning up the phone lines to bolster the team's chances to finish with the best record to get home field advantage. He needs to tailor the team to be a team that can be successful in the post season.

 

I am not hearing or reading any rumors that seem credibly sourced. I guess the rumor mill will heat up after that ASG.

[italstallianion]

No it doesn't. Again, you simply cannot win a ballgame without scoring at least one run. The other team can score 20 against you, and if you score 21, you win. Because of that, one can conclude that preventing and scoring are on near equal grounds in terms of importance, but because you can't win without outscoring your opponent, scoring is inherently more important than preventing.

 

 

Well have fun believing what you believe. I'm sure you will. I just don't see it, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. In my opinion everything you say can (and has been) reversed, therefore I can't follow your logic without reversing back to where we started.

 

See you next argument....

[Behindenemylines]

Good pitching beats good hitting every time. As far as the above debate goes good teams have a balanced approach to the question. They have the ability to score runs and at the same time prevent them.

[Spitball]

I knew it. Matt Thornton to Sox for Brandon Jacobs. It is not great but not bad.

[italstallianion]

I'm ok with it. Brandon Jacobs was the 18th best prospect in the system at the beginning of the year according to Soxprospects and currently came in at 36th. I liked our OF depth in the minors so I think Jacobs was expendable, and Matt Thornton has been a consistently reliable reliever. To have him along with Breslow/Uehara/Tazawa should really help our bullpen. I think we can still use another reliever but this at least solves our big need.

[Standing Room]

Thornton's trending the wrong way and he's really struggled against righties this year to the tune of a .368 wOBA. But we acquired him for basically nothing, we would have lost Brandon Jacobs in the Rule 5 draft. And the White Sox are even paying for some of his salary.

[italstallianion]

That's a huge benefit to us since we had a lot of players that were in rule 5 jeopardy.

 

Here's the SP write up on Jacobs.

 

Prior to signing with the Red Sox, Jacobs was a football commit to Auburn who focused his future on football rather than baseball. Initially raw upon entering the organization, but has shown strong baseball acumen and ability to incorporate adjustments. Ideal power hitter's frame. Body has been evolving into that of a baseball player's. Fluid swing with plus bat speed via strong hands and lower body torque. Swing is on the long side and can hit out on his front foot too much against breaking balls. High power ceiling. Plus-to-better power potential. Has put a lot of time into developing an approach and learning to be selective at the plate. Shows the knack for getting the barrel on the ball. Strong plate coverage. Fringe-average pitch recognition. Will be tested against advanced secondary offerings. Has trouble turning on balls and likes pitches out and over the plate. High offensive ceiling. Average arm that has been improving as weight drops in his chest and shoulders. Below-average defensive outfielder. Currently struggles reading balls off the bat and tends to freeze on contact, but improvement should come with experience. Solid-average speed and range. Projects as a left fielder during his career. Offense will need to carry him at higher levels, as defensive versatility is limited.

[Meh]

I knew it. Matt Thornton to Sox for Brandon Jacobs. It is not great but not bad.

 

Thats a really good deal for the Red Sox and I don't hate it for the White Sox either. They were going to let him walk for nothing so might as well grab something. I used to and still do to some extent, like Jacobs as a prospect. Thornton will help the Sox and they gave up someone they weren't going to use. Good deal!

[italstallianion]

A lot of places I'm reading are saying that it's a pretty fair deal. I believe Thornton has a $6M option for next year as well. Not sure what money is being exchanged in the deal though.

[a700hitter]

He's older and not as good as Breslow.

[italstallianion]

He's more of a power lefty. I think he'll fit Miller's spot nicely.

[jacksonianmarch]

This is a smart deal, although saying you didn't give up much isn't exactly accurate. Thornton is a power lefty who could fill Miller's shoes. SR is right in that he's been trending badly, but he's on a s*** club and it's still a few weeks away from the deadline. If he comes over and lights the world aflame, then you're happy. If he blows, you have time to get another guy before the deadline. I don't exactly think you have up nothing, though. Jacobs was a football player playing baseball. He started to get out of a stalled career path this yr and he has a rare combo of power and speed. He wouldn't have gone in the Rule V since he needs more MiLB grooming, but he has the potential to be a good player one day. The sox didn't have the luxury to wait. The White Sox do

[italstallianion]

He was a prospect we could part with though and not lose sleep over it. I'm not saying he wouldn't otherwise contribute, but this deal makes sense for both sides in my opinion.

[italstallianion]

He has about $2.5M on the remainder of the year, a $6M option for next year and a $1M buyout, and we received $750K from the White Sox in the deal.

[Standing Room]

Jacobs hasn't been a relevant prospect for a couple of years now. He's probably not one of our top 20 prospects, Sox Prospects has one of the more updated lists and they have him ranked 36th. We essentially gave up nothing.

[jacksonianmarch]

You gave up a player you could part with, I wouldn't say nothing. Would you be at all surprised if he has a 20-20 season in the bigs? I wouldn't. I also don't think he profiles as a star, either. It works for both sides

[Standing Room]

You gave up a player you could part with, I wouldn't say nothing. Would you be at all surprised if he has a 20-20 season in the bigs? I wouldn't. I also don't think he profiles as a star, either. It works for both sides

 

This is why it's difficult to take you seriously. Prior to the Red Sox trading him, he was a nobody. A 22 year old who's hit .249/.327/.422 in Single A. The Red Sox trade him and suddenly he has realistic potential of becoming a 20/20 hitter.

[jung]

Farrell sounded like he is going to keep Wright around for at least one more stint. Would be great if he could stick. I really wish Farrell would bring somebody else to get out of a jam and then bring to start a clean inning.

 

I think getting Thornton was a really good deal for us. I don't think BC is done either.

 

One thing that should make it worthwhile to bring guys to drive to the finish line is that this Sox team is not disadvantaged in parks that are the opposite of Fenway. They can play anywhere and the way Lackey has pitched, if we can get Buch back we really have very good starting pitching bordering on outrageous starting pitching.

[BSN07]

This looks like a fair deal for both sides. Thornton was a guy I was interested in and Jacobs is the kind of middling prospect with upside that I won't lose much sleep over. Unless of course he blossoms in Chicago haha but to be fair the Sox have good OF depth in the minors and he was a little ways down the list.

[jacksonianmarch]

SR, I asked you a question. Would you be at all surprised if down the road, Jacobs had a 20-20 season in the majors?

[BSN07]

Jacobs isn't nothing. He is a decent prospect that has the tool set to be capable of a 20-20 season if he puts it all together. The Sox are fortunate enough to have a number of OF's in front of him and could take the chance of trading him. He probably is much further up the depth chart with the switch of color of his Sox.