2015 Red Sox Trade Deadline Thread

[cp176]

There is plenty of good reason to believe that he could be a top of the rotation pitcher. He pitched like a #2 last year. It was a calculated risk which, unfortunately, looks really bad right now. But it was a good calculated risk to take.

 

Going back to something Bellhorn said, if Porcello had pitched well and we lost him in free agency, we would never hear the end of how we should have locked him up during ST. Just like we are with Lester.

 

Beckett is another example. People want to criticize the FO for re-signing him before free agency, then want to turn right around and critcize the FO for not re-signing Lester. You can't have it both ways.

 

IMO, locking up a player that you want back before he hits FA is always a good idea.

 

Nothing wrong with the concept of locking up a solid starter even though he would be middle of the rotation at best before they hit free agency. Porcello's contract was over the top though. i bet he is quite happy with it. He does not have a top of the rotation arm.

[sk7326]

There is plenty of good reason to believe that he could be a top of the rotation pitcher. He pitched like a #2 last year. It was a calculated risk which, unfortunately, looks really bad right now. But it was a good calculated risk to take.

 

Going back to something Bellhorn said, if Porcello had pitched well and we lost him in free agency, we would never hear the end of how we should have locked him up during ST. Just like we are with Lester.

 

Beckett is another example. People want to criticize the FO for re-signing him before free agency, then want to turn right around and critcize the FO for not re-signing Lester. You can't have it both ways.

 

IMO, locking up a player that you want back before he hits FA is always a good idea.

 

What is funny is if he were a UFA with his profile entering 2015 he probably would have gotten six years from somebody and triple figures.

[sk7326]

Shouldn't Ben be shown the door just for Porcello, Panda and Castillo?

 

If they were his calls maybe but only ownership knows that. If you had the Porcello trade in front of you, it's a fairly easy one to make. Interesting but exceedingly fungible expiring OF for another expiring. Whether the season is a talent, injury or coaching deficiency will be worth diagnosing also. (if i were guessing i'd go with door #3 there)

[a700hitter]

What is funny is if he were a UFA with his profile entering 2015 he probably would have gotten six years from somebody and triple figures.

And we would be laughing at that team.

[a700hitter]

Going back to something Bellhorn said, if Porcello had pitched well and we lost him in free agency, we would never hear the end of how we should have locked him up during ST. Just like we are with Lester.

 

Beckett is another example. People want to criticize the FO for re-signing him before free agency, then want to turn right around and critcize the FO for not re-signing Lester. You can't have it both ways.

 

I like to call this the "but if" defense which is really a weak argument, because it is based on projected consequences to hypothetical circumstances. In this case, the argument is "but if Porcello had been good and we hadn't signed him, you guys would be mad." That's a double or triple hypothetical. Hypothetically, if Porcello had been good. We can end the argument right there, because he hasn't been good so we can't get to the other hypothetical that the Red Sox didn't sign him after the good season. Also, I don't know how that is the only conclusion to be drawn if he had a good year. Why wouldn't we sign him? I thought he was the young arm that the FO coveted. Then after getting through two levels of hypotheticals -- one that hasn't happened and one that we don't know the answer to, we are left with the prediction/projection of the emotions of others based on an analogy to our reaction to the Lester situation. Well that is a bad analogy, because Lester is a much better pitcher than Porcello and he had been very successful in Boston. These arguments are silly and weak rationalizations of what was clearly and simply a very bad move by the organization.

[iortiz]

I like to call this the "but if" defense which is really a weak argument, because it is based on projected consequences to hypothetical circumstances. In this case, the argument is "but if Porcello had been good and we hadn't signed him, you guys would be mad." That's a double or triple hypothetical. Hypothetically, if Porcello had been good. We can end the argument right there, because he hasn't been good so we can't get to the other hypothetical that the Red Sox didn't sign him after the good season. Also, I don't know how that is the only conclusion to be drawn if he had a good year. Why wouldn't we sign him? I thought he was the young arm that the FO coveted. Then after getting through two levels of hypotheticals -- one that hasn't happened and one that we don't know the answer to, we are left with the prediction/projection of the emotions of others based on an analogy to our reaction to the Lester situation. Well that is a bad analogy, because Lester is a much better pitcher than Porcello and he had been very successful in Boston. These arguments are silly and weak rationalizations of what was clearly and simply a very bad move by the organization.

 

Not sure why is so difficult to accept that it was a bad move. He is a bad pitcher. It is what it is.

[reYoukilis]

Going back to something Bellhorn said, if Porcello had pitched well and we lost him in free agency, we would never hear the end of how we should have locked him up during ST. Just like we are with Lester.

But this is the red sox now. Because they didn't sign Lester right away, which I think they wish they could take back now, they try to learn their lesson by signing Porcello. Thats not a smart move looking at both players career stats, and the two rings, and that he did it with the red sox, and that he's not that old.

 

Every decision they make now seems to try and make up for the failures of the year before, instead of looking at things objectively. Just like destroying our pitching to get Panda and Hanley.

[iortiz]

Shouldn't Ben be shown the door just for Porcello, Panda and Castillo?

 

...and letting walk Lester and trading Lackey for garbage.

[cp176]

If they were his calls maybe but only ownership knows that. If you had the Porcello trade in front of you, it's a fairly easy one to make. Interesting but exceedingly fungible expiring OF for another expiring. Whether the season is a talent, injury or coaching deficiency will be worth diagnosing also. (if i were guessing i'd go with door #3 there)

 

The players simply being over rated and over hyped is as important a factor as anything else here. A combination of everything else factors in. Anyone who was behind the scenes and had a voice in the negotiations to make the off season moves that were made including signing players with huge question marks next to their names making them big gambles should also be held accountable. It is ok to be wrong - it is also ok to admit it.

[mvp 78]

IF Porcello pitched well.

 

IF Panda hit and fielded to career norms.

 

IF Hanley put effort into playing LF.

 

IF Pedroia didn't get his annual lingering injury.

 

IF Napoli hit like 2013.

 

IF Masterson returned to form.

 

IF Miley pitched like it was 5 years ago.

[a700hitter]

If the Queen had balls, she would be the King.

[Bellhorn04]

Alex Wilson is having a nice season too...

[Kimmi]

What is funny is if he were a UFA with his profile entering 2015 he probably would have gotten six years from somebody and triple figures.

 

There were some predictions that Porcello would get six years had he become a FA. Most believed he would get at least five. Being able to shorten the deal to 4 years at a slightly higher AAV was another plus, at the time of the signing.

[Kimmi]

I like to call this the "but if" defense which is really a weak argument, because it is based on projected consequences to hypothetical circumstances. In this case, the argument is "but if Porcello had been good and we hadn't signed him, you guys would be mad." That's a double or triple hypothetical. Hypothetically, if Porcello had been good. We can end the argument right there, because he hasn't been good so we can't get to the other hypothetical that the Red Sox didn't sign him after the good season. Also, I don't know how that is the only conclusion to be drawn if he had a good year. Why wouldn't we sign him? I thought he was the young arm that the FO coveted. Then after getting through two levels of hypotheticals -- one that hasn't happened and one that we don't know the answer to, we are left with the prediction/projection of the emotions of others based on an analogy to our reaction to the Lester situation. Well that is a bad analogy, because Lester is a much better pitcher than Porcello and he had been very successful in Boston. These arguments are silly and weak rationalizations of what was clearly and simply a very bad move by the organization.

 

When deciding whether to lock someone up before FA, the front office has to consider hypotheticals. They don't have the luxury of hindsight.

 

As far as the Sox not signing Porcello if he pitched well, I didn't say that that was the only conclusion. However, his contract would have been larger than what he got from the Sox, and with other teams bidding, that decreases the chances of the Sox re-signing him.

[a700hitter]

When deciding whether to lock someone up before FA, the front office has to consider hypotheticals. They don't have the luxury of hindsight.

 

As far as the Sox not signing Porcello if he pitched well, I didn't say that that was the only conclusion. However, his contract would have been larger than what he got from the Sox, and with other teams bidding, that decreases the chances of the Sox re-signing him.

They have to stop making bad decisions.

[SoxnCycles]

You can't get in-depth analysis like this just anywhere...

[Behindenemylines]

Have any of the decisions made on players this FO have made the last two seasons worked? If so they have to be below .200 on making good decisions.

[Bellhorn04]

Have any of the decisions made on players this FO have made the last two seasons worked? If so they have to be below .200 on making good decisions.

 

Probably just a shade over the Mendoza line.

[SoxnCycles]

Does not doing something count?

 

Not trading Bogaerts or Betts.

 

Trading Miller for Eduardo Rodriguez.

 

Other than that, I'm drawing a blank...

[sk7326]

Does not doing something count?

 

Not trading Bogaerts or Betts.

 

Trading Miller for Eduardo Rodriguez.

 

Other than that, I'm drawing a blank...

 

Iglesias for Peavy was not a good deal on paper - though entirely defensible by the "flags fly forever" perspective

 

The Lackey deal was probably the worst - not a "worst deal forever and ever and ever" ... but certainly did not turn a significant asset into commesurate return.

[Bellhorn04]

The Lackey deal was probably the worst - not a "worst deal forever and ever and ever" ... but certainly did not turn a significant asset into commesurate return.

 

To put it kindly.

[a700hitter]

To put it kindly.

to say we gave him away would be an understatement, because when you give something away you don't get 2 piles of stinking garbage that you can't dispose of. Edited August 5, 2015 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

to say we gave him away would be an understatement, because when you give something away you don't get 2 pile of stinking garbage that you can't dispose of.

 

By getting rid of Craig, St. Louis got a nice little salary dump out of the deal. Just a terrible transaction. Should have just asked for a prospect back.

[cp176]

Iglesias for Peavy was not a good deal on paper - though entirely defensible by the "flags fly forever" perspective

 

The Lackey deal was probably the worst - not a "worst deal forever and ever and ever" ... but certainly did not turn a significant asset into commesurate return.

 

 

Just a guess on my part but I am thinking that maybe Craig should be given at least a look right now as they fish around for a first baseman type guy for next year.

[a700hitter]

Just a guess on my part but I am thinking that maybe Craig should be given at least a look right now as they fish around for a first baseman type guy for next year.

 

I agree. He has no value in AAA.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree. He has no value in AAA.

 

Craig will remain in AAA unless he really catches fire. The reason being, they somehow got him off the 40-man roster and therefore his salary doesn't count for luxury tax purposes unless they put him back on it.

 

You can't make this s*** up.

[a700hitter]

Craig will remain in AAA unless he really catches fire. The reason being, they somehow got him off the 40-man roster and therefore his salary doesn't count for luxury tax purposes unless they put him back on it.

 

You can't make this s*** up.

Baseball is big business, but they have some ridiculous rules that affect their finances. They would be better off if they could re-establish some value for him. Economically, they would be better off trading most of his salary. That would save more than they would save on the luxury tax attributable to his salary.

[iortiz]

This team offensively is 11th and 13th in Runs and WOBA in all baseball. While I expected a bit more, it's fine. With an average pitching we could be at least fighting for a WC spot, a la Toronto Blue Jays.

 

Imagine Lackey, Lester, Shields, ERod and whoever else. This staff would have been above average and the offense probably would have been even better as well.

[sk7326]

This team offensively is 11th and 13th in Runs and WOBA in all baseball. While I expected a bit more, it's fine. With an average pitching we could be at least fighting for a WC spot, a la Toronto Blue Jays.

 

Imagine Lackey, Lester, Shields, ERod and whoever else. This staff would have been above average and the offense probably would have been even better as well.

 

a bit??? Toronto is the best offensive team in baseball!

[iortiz]

a bit??? Toronto is the best offensive team in baseball!

 

Yup, but you did not get it.