Rick Porcello Wins the Cy Young Award

[sk7326]

Lol, I was trying to think of two different players doing it (as it looks like Porcello and Betts likely will), so I missed the obvious. Nice catch.

 

In 1995 Mo Vaughn won the MVP and Tim Wakefield finished 3rd in the Cy Young

(obviously one of the worst MVP selections in history - although it made me happy)

[moonslav59]

Gonzalez has continued to be a good player. He was not the anchor bat the Nation was looking for - and his end in SD portended. The shoulder injury sapped a lot of that - and as it turned out, a lot of his OBP was driven by being the only good hitter in a terrible lineup in SD. But he is still above average.

 

I agree, but he still did not perform as expected for the Dodgers.

 

It was a great trade by Ben.

 

Napoli actually had a much better WAR than AGon in 2013 (3.9 to 2.9).

From 2013 to 2016, the 1B team WAR has been this:

 

BOS 11.9

LAD 10.5

 

When you figure in the savings we got financially, which allowed us to sign other players, I still maintain it may have been the best Sox trade in my lifetime.

 

[sk7326]

I agree, but he still did not perform as expected for the Dodgers.

 

It was a great trade by Ben.

 

Napoli actually had a much better WAR than AGon in 2013 (3.9 to 2.9).

From 2013 to 2016, the 1B team WAR has been this:

 

BOS 11.9

LAD 10.5

 

When you figure in the savings we got financially, which allowed us to sign other players, I still maintain it may have been the best Sox trade in my lifetime.

 

 

The idea that is freed up money is a bit of a red herring - imagining a salary cap which does not really exist. After all they ended up spending less to replace them. That it was a better trade than Slocumb for Lowe and Varitek (to name one) is a bit much.

[moonslav59]

The idea that is freed up money is a bit of a red herring - imagining a salary cap which does not really exist. After all they ended up spending less to replace them. That it was a better trade than Slocumb for Lowe and Varitek (to name one) is a bit much.

 

You may choose to believe the budget is limitless, but plenty of evidence goes against your theory.

 

We're still saving money on that deal.

 

We were able to sign Napoli, Vic, Dempster and pay for Uehara. One could argue we wasted the money on Castillo and Pablo, but the fact is, we gained money that was spent elsewhere (good and bad).

 

The Pedro trade and the VTek-Lowe trades were great, and that's why I said the Dodger trade "may" have been the best, but I think Napoli and Vic had as much to do with us winning as Lowe and VTek, but that's debatable.

 

The loss of all that salary has been a gift that just keeps giving. The Dodgers still owe AGon $43M over the next two years. Crawford is still owed over $21M for next year. Imagine if we still had him!

 

Becket earned $34M the next two years after the trade.

 

Yeah, we paid the Dodgers alomst $4M a year for 3 years. In total, the deal saved us about $265M. Surely, we would not have signed all the players we did after that trade had we been saddled with those contracts.

[Jack Flap]

Big Dick Rick needs to show Kate Upton why we call him that

 

Well, she's obviously not impressed by his performance on the field, so how is he going to......nevermind.

[mvp 78]

If the greatest trade in your lifetime is simply cleaning up Theo's mess with a salary dump, then Theo can't possibly be the greatest GM of all time.

[moonslav59]

If the greatest trade in your lifetime is simply cleaning up Theo's mess with a salary dump, then Theo can't possibly be the greatest GM of all time.

 

I never said Theo was.

[moonslav59]

If the greatest trade in your lifetime is simply cleaning up Theo's mess with a salary dump, then Theo can't possibly be the greatest GM of all time.

 

One could argue we pissed away the $265M saved by signing Dempster, Castillo, Pablo, Napoli (the second time) and paying Craig's contract.

 

One could also argue we spent it on Napoli (the first time), Vic, Moncada's bonus, Uehara's contract and extension and HanRam and/or Porcello's extension.

 

Take a little from each list and the trade was a great one.

[mvp 78]

I never said Theo was.

 

I never said you did.

[moonslav59]

I never said you did.

 

I never said you said I did.

 

Nah, nah!

 

[Bellhorn04]

I agree, but he still did not perform as expected for the Dodgers.

 

It was a great trade by Ben.

 

Napoli actually had a much better WAR than AGon in 2013 (3.9 to 2.9).

From 2013 to 2016, the 1B team WAR has been this:

 

BOS 11.9

LAD 10.5

 

When you figure in the savings we got financially, which allowed us to sign other players, I still maintain it may have been the best Sox trade in my lifetime.

 

 

I know you and I have been down this road before, but in my opinion, the trade with the Dodgers was the greatest Sox salary dump of all time. I don't think it should even be compared to the D-Lowe/Varitek trade or the Pedro trade where we obtained talent rather than salary relief. I think they're entirely different species of transactions. We also have to keep in mind that one of the primary reasons the Dodgers trade was such a big deal is the incredibly inflated salaries that baseball has now.

[Jack Flap]

While Webster and De La Rosa were busts in Boston, they did get us Miley (2.5 WAR in 2015), who got us Smith and Elias, who may yet make an impact for us at some point (in Smith's case, perhaps a very significant one given the focus on bullpen strength currently). The money was obviously the driving factor, but it's not like we got nothing out of the affair talent-wise.

[Jack Flap]

I don't know if you can top the Pedro trade, though.

[moonslav59]

I know you and I have been down this road before, but in my opinion, the trade with the Dodgers was the greatest Sox salary dump of all time. I don't think it should even be compared to the D-Lowe/Varitek trade or the Pedro trade where we obtained talent rather than salary relief. I think they're entirely different species of transactions. We also have to keep in mind that one of the primary reasons the Dodgers trade was such a big deal is the incredibly inflated salaries that baseball has now.

 

There's no doubt that trade opened the window for us to sign players that led to a ring and have helped build the team we have right now as well as into the future.

 

We also trade DLR & Webster for Miley who morphed into CSmith, so we do still have a player to show for the trade... certainly not a Pedro or VTek, but still...

[sk7326]

You may choose to believe the budget is limitless, but plenty of evidence goes against your theory.

 

We're still saving money on that deal.

 

We were able to sign Napoli, Vic, Dempster and pay for Uehara. One could argue we wasted the money on Castillo and Pablo, but the fact is, we gained money that was spent elsewhere (good and bad).

 

The Pedro trade and the VTek-Lowe trades were great, and that's why I said the Dodger trade "may" have been the best, but I think Napoli and Vic had as much to do with us winning as Lowe and VTek, but that's debatable.

 

The loss of all that salary has been a gift that just keeps giving. The Dodgers still owe AGon $43M over the next two years. Crawford is still owed over $21M for next year. Imagine if we still had him!

 

Becket earned $34M the next two years after the trade.

 

Yeah, we paid the Dodgers alomst $4M a year for 3 years. In total, the deal saved us about $265M. Surely, we would not have signed all the players we did after that trade had we been saddled with those contracts.

 

I never said the budget is limitless. I did say that the Red Sox can always increase the budget for the right reasons - there is no practical move which is actually unaffordable i.e. preventing the store from being open. The budget is a matter of how much the owners want to put into their toy. The team is a mint.

[Bellhorn04]

There's no doubt that trade opened the window for us to sign players that led to a ring and have helped build the team we have right now as well as into the future.

 

We also trade DLR & Webster for Miley who morphed into CSmith, so we do still have a player to show for the trade... certainly not a Pedro or VTek, but still...

 

OK lets talk WAR here. Pedro had a bWAR of 53.8 in his 7 years with the Sox.

 

How much of an upgrade in WAR did we get from the Dodgers trade, factoring in the loss of AGon's WAR?

[mvp 78]

OK lets talk WAR here. Pedro had a bWAR of 53.8 in his 7 years with the Sox.

 

How much of an upgrade in WAR did we get from the Dodgers trade, factoring in the loss of AGon's WAR?

 

AGon - 11.7 WAR through 2016

Josh Becket - 1.1 WAR

Carl Crawford - 5 WAR

Punto - 2.3 WAR

 

James Loney - -0.2 WAR

Rubby with Sox - 0.3 WAR

Webster with Sox - -0.2 WAR

Wade Miley (Rubby and Webster trade) - 2.7 WAR

Carson Smith (Miley trade) - 0.0 WAR

[moonslav59]

OK lets talk WAR here. Pedro had a bWAR of 53.8 in his 7 years with the Sox.

 

How much of an upgrade in WAR did we get from the Dodgers trade, factoring in the loss of AGon's WAR?

 

Well, if you let me select the player to reach $265M, I could maybe reach a 53.8 WAR before all is said and done.

 

I won't argue against the Pedro trade being the best. He's the reason I said the trade "may be" not "is" the best Sox trade in my lifetime.

 

Also, for those who count rings, we got one with Pedro and one with the players acquired after the AGon trade, but we still could get more.

 

WAR

 

6.3 Victorino (2013-2015) $39M

5.2 Porcello (2016) $20M

6.2M Uehara (2013-2016)$27M

3.9 Napoli (2013)$5M +$3M bonus

3.4 Drew (2013) $9.5M

1.1 Young (2016) $6.5M

 

This is only $120M that brought us $26.1 WAR. If Porcello keeps racking up 5+ WAR seasons, we could add 15 WAR there for another $60M.

 

I realize I cherry-picked the very best WAR per dollar players, and I did not subtract AGon's 11.0 WAR (2013-2016), so by WAR, the Pedro deal might look better, but what about this?

 

51.9 WAR Pedro (1998-2004 with Boston)

-23.8 Carl Pavano

-6.9 Tony Armas Jr.

21.2 Total

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

Well, if you let me select the player to reach $265M, I could maybe reach a 53.8 WAR before all is said and done.

 

I won't argue against the Pedro trade being the best. He's the reason I said the trade "may be" not "is" the best Sox trade in my lifetime.

 

Also, for those who count rings, we got one with Pedro and one with the players acquired after the AGon trade, but we still could get more.

 

WAR

 

6.3 Victorino (2013-2015) $39M

5.2 Porcello (2016) $20M

6.2M Uehara (2013-2016)$27M

3.9 Napoli (2013)$5M +$3M bonus

3.4 Drew (2013) $9.5M

1.1 Young (2016) $6.5M

 

This is only $120M that brought us $26.1 WAR. If Porcello keeps racking up 5+ WAR seasons, we could add 15 WAR there for another $60M.

 

I realize I cherry-picked the very best WAR per dollar players, and I did not subtract AGon's 11.0 WAR (2013-2016), so by WAR, the Pedro deal might look better, but what about this?

 

51.9 WAR Pedro (1998-2004 with Boston)

-23.8 Carl Pavano

-6.9 Tony Armas Jr.

21.2 Total

 

I could easily argue that the money we used for Porcello was money that we saved from letting Lester go, so we should really be comparing Lester and Porcello.

 

Then there are the bad contracts for Pablo, Castillo, and to a lesser extent Hanley, which add up to the same 265 million that we saved on the Dodgers trade.

 

The problem with advocating the greatness of this trade is that you can't analyze the benefits of it in any logical fashion. You have to 'follow the money', but the money went in many directions, some good and some bad.

[Bellhorn04]

When you get right down to it, the big tangible benefits of the Dodgers trade were unloading the contracts of Crawford (about $105 million worth) and Beckett (about $35 million worth). So we gained about $140 million. But since then we forked out $167 million to Pablo and Castillo for nothing. So the negative of Pablo/Castillo actually exceeds the positive of the Dodgers trade. That's why I don't get all that excited about the greatness of the Dodgers trade.

[Eddy Ballgame]

OK lets talk WAR here. Pedro had a bWAR of 53.8 in his 7 years with the Sox.

 

How much of an upgrade in WAR did we get from the Dodgers trade, factoring in the loss of AGon's WAR?

 

I think you can throw "WAR" out the window with this trade. The Sox got rid of 3 guys with big contracts who didn't want to be here. The Dodgers did the Sox a huge favor.

 

People always talk about "losing" Agon, but they were supposedly going to try trade him that off-season regardless. The guy didn't want to be here. If it weren't for for Beckett & Crawford, they obviously would've received more talent in return, but getting rid of those guys at a minimal cost was well worth it.

 

Beckett was definitely not coming back, even if it meant releasing him.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Eddy Ballgame

[Spudboy]

When you get right down to it, the big tangible benefits of the Dodgers trade were unloading the contracts of Crawford (about $105 million worth) and Beckett (about $35 million worth). So we gained about $140 million. But since then we forked out $167 million to Pablo and Castillo for nothing. So the negative of Pablo/Castillo actually exceeds the positive of the Dodgers trade. That's why I don't get all that excited about the greatness of the Dodgers trade.

 

I'm with you Bell.

 

Maybe the wide spread disdain for Crawford and the relief that it brought so many hand wringers had something to do with it!

[moonslav59]

I could easily argue that the money we used for Porcello was money that we saved from letting Lester go, so we should really be comparing Lester and Porcello.

 

Then there are the bad contracts for Pablo, Castillo, and to a lesser extent Hanley, which add up to the same 265 million that we saved on the Dodgers trade.

 

The problem with advocating the greatness of this trade is that you can't analyze the benefits of it in any logical fashion. You have to 'follow the money', but the money went in many directions, some good and some bad.

 

I get that aspect and I said so myself. One could make a list of our worst signings and claim it was a break even trade.

 

We won a ring because of the trade. I'm certain of that.

 

[moonslav59]

I'm with you Bell.

 

Maybe the wide spread disdain for Crawford and the relief that it brought so many hand wringers had something to do with it!

 

Well, would you liked to have had CC and Beckett on our roster all those years?

 

CC still has a year to go!

 

YUCK!

 

Look, I realize the benefits are hard to quantify, but it doesn't take a genius to know we were able to add several good players along with the bad with the money saved.

 

Our budget has never been limitless.

[sk7326]

I think the trade was fine ...

 

I always point out the 2013 title came because of (in no particular order)

 

A. A totally out of nowhere year by Victorino (and for that matter Mike Carp, which allowed the Sox to operate a credible LF platoon)

B. Our good players finally being healthy

C. A remarkable (but not exactly out of nowhere) season by Uehara.

 

There is not a ton which the trade directly contributed to otherwise.

[Spudboy]

Well, would you liked to have had CC and Beckett on our roster all those years?

 

CC still has a year to go!

 

YUCK!

 

Look, I realize the benefits are hard to quantify, but it doesn't take a genius to know we were able to add several good players along with the bad with the money saved.

 

Our budget has never been limitless.

 

Are you preaching to the Choir?

 

I am happy about that trade, overall.

[moonslav59]

I think the trade was fine ...

 

I always point out the 2013 title came because of (in no particular order)

 

A. A totally out of nowhere year by Victorino (and for that matter Mike Carp, which allowed the Sox to operate a credible LF platoon)

B. Our good players finally being healthy

C. A remarkable (but not exactly out of nowhere) season by Uehara.

 

There is not a ton which the trade directly contributed to otherwise.

 

With AGon, CC and Beckett on the 2013 roster, it is not highly likely we'd signed Vic or Napoli.

[Eddy Ballgame]

With AGon, CC and Beckett on the 2013 roster, it is not highly likely we'd signed Vic or Napoli.

 

When Ben publicly stated, "The first thing we needed to do was change the culture of the clubhouse," you could argue that those 3 guys were the biggest problems. Dodgers trade or not, at least 2 of them would've been gone that off-season.

[Bellhorn04]

I get that aspect and I said so myself. One could make a list of our worst signings and claim it was a break even trade.

 

We won a ring because of the trade. I'm certain of that.

 

 

The trade certainly contributed to the ring. Claiming the long term benefits of the trade is the dicey part - especially since we finished last in 2014 and 2015, and guys like Napoli, Victorino and Drew were only good for one year.

[sk7326]

With AGon, CC and Beckett on the 2013 roster, it is not highly likely we'd signed Vic or Napoli.

 

For a combined $18M ... without the trade the roster spots would not have been there - although the money under Henry's sofa cushions probably would have been.