Trades before the deadline?

[Orange Juiced]

Jacobs was fairly well regarded before hitting a wall (figuratively, not literally). He could still amount to something, which is what Chicago is hoping. Of course, he's exactly the kind of guy you need to be willing to trade to acquire the help you need. Thornton isn't as good as he once was, but for a late-inning lefty (maybe a LOOGY), he's still solid. I mean, this year, which has been his worst since 2007, here are his numbers:

 

3.86 era, 115 era+, 1.25 whip, 6.8 k/9

 

Here's what lefties are hitting against him: .173/.232/.385/.617

 

Dude is pretty solid still and just what the doctor ordered for this bullpen. Nice trade by Cherington.

[Dojji]

I can see what the GM is thinking with this deal, and at this stage of things that's all I ask.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Jacobs wasnt on the 40 man and would have been lost in the Rule 5 draft this offseason anyway.

 

Very very good move by Ben. Love this move.

[Dojji]

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?

 

I dunno about him, but I would. We're talking about a 22 year old in A ball who isn't really hitting all that well. Just getting there is in the air with him.

[SoxSport]

Just the deal they had to make. Good lefty BP guy for a minor prospect who would have been lost anyways.

[italstallianion]

I believe he has the power and speed to be a 20/20 guy, but I'm not sure if he has the contact to get 20/20 off of major league pitching. So I'd be at least partially surprised if he stuck around in the majors long enough to get 20/20 in a season.

[a700hitter]

I believe he has the power and speed to be a 20/20 guy, but I'm not sure if he has the contact to get 20/20 off of major league pitching. So I'd be at least partially surprised if he stuck around in the majors long enough to get 20/20 in a season.

I don't think Jacobs is just a junk prospect. He got some good press for his skills a couple of years ago. I remember when we got Larry Anderson (a much better reliever than Thornton) everyone said that we got him for a guy that we had no use for-- Bagwell. There were two young guys ahead 0f him on the depth chart at 3B. Boggs was only 32 and we had young Naehring and Cooper all ahead of Bagwell who had no future with the Red Sox. How did that turn out? This could be one of those deals. The high profile prospects are not the guys tht always make it big. Look at this dollar store reject Nava. No one would have given $2 for the guy and he has been outstanding. I am not opposed to swapping prospects for immediate help, but if all we are going to get in return is an aging reliever that isn't that great, we should only be dumping a busted or aging prospect-- Snyder or someone like that. If you are going to trade guys who are young with some potential (package a couple of them together with 1 top guy), they should be angling to get an impact player-- not a 4th option out of the pen. Edited July 13, 2013 by a700hitter

[jung]

It is a shame that Miller went down as that is what got the Sox angling after a lefty. I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell the Sox do this if it were not Miller that got injured. But Miller did go down and I am not at all convinced that the Sox had enough left from the left side in that pen. So, I just look at it as having been put in a very tough spot with no really super answers. It will be easy for us to pick this one apart but to me this is one of those deals where the FO is stuck looking at a reduced field of candidates trying to make a deal that can be done.

[a700hitter]

It is a shame that Miller went down as that is what got the Sox angling after a lefty. I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell the Sox do this if it were not Miller that got injured. But Miller did go down and I am not at all convinced that the Sox had enough left from the left side in that pen. So, I just look at it as having been put in a very tough spot with no really super answers. It will be easy for us to pick this one apart but to me this is one of those deals where the FO is stuck looking at a reduced field of candidates trying to make a deal that can be done.

Yes, they were stuck and they needed the extra left handed arm, but I am not going to pretend that this was some great maneuver or trade. We will not know that for some time. Jacob still wears the tag of "potential". Brandon Snyder does not.

[Standing Room]

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?

 

Since you didn't get the hint - yes. Anyone with half a brain would be surprised. He can't hit advanced A pitching and he's not even a top 20 prospect in our system. This is yet another example of your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to prospects.

[a700hitter]

Jacobs is 22. He had just been promoted to AA. He has hit well throughout the lower minors. He has speed and a little pop in his bat. We have no idea what he will become.

[User Name]

Have you noticed the repeated mention of the fact that he was almost certain to be lost on the Rule V draft? Had they gotten nothing for him, you'd probably be complaining about that too.

[Palodios]

It may not have been a great move, but I'd argue it was the right move. How often do we see the Red Sox suddenly lose a player and have a need, and they swoop in, get a solid replacement, and avoid trading top shelf prospects or mlb talent?

[SoxFanForsyth]

I don't think Jacobs is just a junk prospect. He got some good press for his skills a couple of years ago. I remember when we got Larry Anderson (a much better reliever than Thornton) everyone said that we got him for a guy that we had no use for-- Bagwell. There were two young guys ahead 0f him on the depth chart at 3B. Boggs was only 32 and we had young Naehring and Cooper all ahead of Bagwell who had no future with the Red Sox. How did that turn out? This could be one of those deals. The high profile prospects are not the guys tht always make it big. Look at this dollar store reject Nava. No one would have given $2 for the guy and he has been outstanding. I am not opposed to swapping prospects for immediate help, but if all we are going to get in return is an aging reliever that isn't that great, we should only be dumping a busted or aging prospect-- Snyder or someone like that. If you are going to trade guys who are young with some potential (package a couple of them together with 1 top guy), they should be angling to get an impact player-- not a 4th option out of the pen.

 

The Sox weren't going to add him to the 40 man. He was going to get lost in the rule 5 during the offseason.

 

The Sox addressed a need for a pitcher who pumps 95-97 from the left side. He's not as good as Miller, but Miller was absolutely electric at times.

 

It was a very good deal from the Red Sox perspective.

 

By the way, I love how you constantly say that prospects rarely pan out and that we should bear no hopes on them, and then as soon as we trade one that wasnt even a top 20 prospect in our entire system to fill a need, it's not a good deal because of his potential.

[a700hitter]

Have you noticed the repeated mention of the fact that he was almost certain to be lost on the Rule V draft? Had they gotten nothing for him, you'd probably be complaining about that too.

Do you think that some team was going to keep him on their MLB roster for an entire year in 2014? I don't think there was any chance of that, so they would have to give him back.

[Standing Room]

By the way, I love how you constantly say that prospects rarely pan out and that we should bear no hopes on them, and then as soon as we trade one that wasnt even a top 20 prospect in our entire system to fill a need, it's not a good deal because of his potential.

 

This sums it up rather nicely.

[User Name]

Have you seen the OF situation of the Astros, Cubs and Marlins?

[a700hitter]

It may not have been a great move, but I'd argue it was the right move. How often do we see the Red Sox suddenly lose a player and have a need, and they swoop in, get a solid replacement, and avoid trading top shelf prospects or mlb talent?

The Sox needed an extra arm without question. Thornton should fill the bill.

[a700hitter]

Have you seen the OF situation of the Astros, Cubs and Marlins?

If he is good enough to hold down a MLB roster spot next season on some team, we probably should have given him a spot on the 40 man roster. He is not going to be on anyone's MLB roster next season.

[Standing Room]

Have you seen the OF situation of the Astros, Cubs and Marlins?

 

Or the Mets for that matter. There's about a 95% chance Jacobs will never be a productive major league player, he can't hit Advanced A pitching and his defense is just atrocious. And on top of that, there's probably a 33% chance we would have lost him to the Rule 5 draft had we not traded him. It speaks volumes that there's one Red Sox fan who's agreeing with jackso on this.

[Standing Room]

To clarify, there's probably about a 33% chance a team would have taken Jacobs in the Rule 5 draft and kept him. There's a close to 100% chance a team would have taken him.

[italstallianion]

Just for the record every once in a while Jacko sprinkles in an opinion that isn't completely retarded. (This obviously isn't one of those times)

[a700hitter]

The Sox weren't going to add him to the 40 man. He was going to get lost in the rule 5 during the offseason.

 

The Sox addressed a need for a pitcher who pumps 95-97 from the left side. He's not as good as Miller, but Miller was absolutely electric at times.

 

It was a very good deal from the Red Sox perspective.

 

By the way, I love how you constantly say that prospects rarely pan out and that we should bear no hopes on them, and then as soon as we trade one that wasnt even a top 20 prospect in our entire system to fill a need, it's not a good deal because of his potential.

I am just pointing out the parallels to the Bagwell trade are there. No one blinked when we traded him for a bullpen arm. Jacobs could be pumping gas in a couple of years, because most prospects don't make it. Or he could be starting in someone's OF. We just don't know. The Sox needed a bullpen arm. Cherries got one. It is the right move for this roster, but I am not going to pretend that I know how this will work out in the end. I am fine with this deal. We need a bullpen pitcher now. I'll also be fine if we move a big prospect to get a big stick. Others will squawk about that, but the big prospects are not the ones that always make it. Guy like Jacobs make it too. In 5 years, when I am saying that we need to make a trade, people may be telling me that I am short-sighted using the Jacobs deal as an example of past short sightedness. LOL!! I am fully aware that he may be a good MLB player some day, and I still would have made the move for Thornton. You seem not to want to acknowledge the fact that Jacobs has potential. He's far from a busted prospect or a dud.

[Standing Room]

For the posters who are less knowledgeable about prospects, here's a write up from Alex Speier.

 

In his first 43 games, through May 27, Jacobs was hitting .195/.270/.371 with five homers, 14 walks and 49 strikeouts in 178 plate appearances. The performance was sufficiently dismal that Jacobs — for whom a bump in numbers was expected given that a) he was repeating at Salem; was older and more mature; and c) was healthy — was named the Biggest Disappointment in the Red Sox system in Baseball America’s midyear survey.

 

However, he did heat up starting in late-May, hitting .311/.413/.541 with six homers over his next 39 games, and finally, after more than a year and a half in Salem (where he hit .249/.327/.422), getting promoted to Double-A Portland on Thursday. He went 2-for-3 with a double in his Portland debut, and on the year, owns a combined .246/.334/.444 line with 11 homers and 10 steals in 83 games.

 

There was progress in his season (both in terms of the frequency of his extra-base hits and his walk rate), but it was of an incremental sort compared to 2012 rather than a breakthrough. As such, it was unlikely that, unless he dominated in Double-A, he was going to get added to the 40-man roster for the purpose of protection from the Rule 5 draft this winter. Given their past (and evidently current) interest, there’s a good chance the White Sox would have snapped up Jacobs based on his tools, if another team didn’t do so first.

 

Jacobs, in short, has all the talent in the world — one Sox official noted this spring that, were one to line up Jacobs next to Jackie Bradley Jr., the tools comparison would tilt drastically towards Jacobs — but given the fact that his gifts haven’t translated to performance except in one spectacular year (2011 in Single-A Greenville), he represents a lottery ticket. There is jackpot potential, but the likelihood of hitting that number is in considerable question based on his career trajectory to date.

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/07/12/what-the-red-sox-gave-up-in-outfielder-brandon-jacobs/

[italstallianion]

To your point a700 I understand that these kind of trades always have downsides. And the downside, or risk, is the potential that Jacobs becomes something. Then again, one can argue that he could become something somewhere else that he probably couldn't here, given the fact that he's blocked. Obviously if Thornton doesn't do well and Jacobs does, one can look back on this trade, although they'd still have to consider the roster constraints (OF depth and Rule V concerns) to properly judge the move in hindsight.

 

Just because a move doesn't work out, doesn't mean it wasn't a logically sound move at the time or that we can fault the management for making it.

[a700hitter]

To clarify, there's probably about a 33% chance a team would have taken Jacobs in the Rule 5 draft and kept him. There's a close to 100% chance a team would have taken him.

If he is good enough to have a 33% chance of sticking on an MLB roster next season, he probably should have been put on the 40 man roster at the end of this year, because we a few guys on the 40 man who would not stick on any roster. Also, if he is good enough to stick on some team's 25 man MLB roster, maybe we should have done better than Thornton.

[italstallianion]

If he is good enough to have a 33% chance of sticking on an MLB roster next season, he probably should have been put on the 40 man roster at the end of this year, because we a few guys on the 40 man who would not stick on any roster. Also, if he is good enough to stick on some team's 25 man MLB roster, maybe we should have done better than Thornton.

 

I think SR's 33% has more to do with the absolutely s***** OF's that a few major league teams have more than it does Jacob's abilities.

[a700hitter]

To your point a700 I understand that these kind of trades always have downsides. And the downside, or risk, is the potential that Jacobs becomes something. Then again, one can argue that he could become something somewhere else that he probably couldn't here, given the fact that he's blocked. Obviously if Thornton doesn't do well and Jacobs does, one can look back on this trade, although they'd still have to consider the roster constraints (OF depth and Rule V concerns) to properly judge the move in hindsight.

 

Just because a move doesn't work out, doesn't mean it wasn't a logically sound move at the time or that we can fault the management for making it.

I didn't say that it wasn't logically sound. I said that I would have made the trade. We just can't discount this kid as giing away zero. Bagwell was also blocked, probably more so than Jacobs.

[User Name]

Sticking on another team's roster may not necessarily be a reflection of his talent, but rather extreme suckitude on the receiving team's end. The Cubs would have spent almost all of 2013 with Ryan Sweeney on their 25 man roster had he not gotten injured. Food for thought.

[italstallianion]

I didn't say that it wasn't logically sound. I said that I would have made the trade. We just can't discount this kid as giing away zero. Bagwell was also blocked, probably more so than Jacobs.

 

I wasn't trying to imply anything from your argument. My point was that if the trade doesn't work out, and Thornton blows up and Jacobs becomes an All Star, we can't simply dismiss the logic behind the trade given the lack of present production, OF depth, and rule 5 concerns. A bad trade and an even/good trade that didn't work out aren't the same.