Debunking the 3 year window myth -- the Red Sox in 2020

[sk7326]

I agree that a large part of the reason that Dombrowski did not make a trade was because there wasn't a trade to be made.

 

However, I do think that Henry is also pulling the reigns on Dombrowski's aggressiveness.

 

That seems to run counter to the new John Henry - I think it is a moot point ultimately. If Dombrowski came back to Henry with - say, Mike Trout for Groome, Devers and stuff ... then this question becomes more interesting.

 

After all, every deal Dombrowski has made has been totally reasonable - I did not agree with all of them (Kimbrel most so) ... but they were reasonable assessments.

[sk7326]

It helped having the 2nd overall pick in 2013 (Kris Bryant).

 

Maybe we can find the next Bryant with a 25th pick. Maybe not.

 

It helped for them to stink a couple of years in a row - but they also traded everything not nailed down until they had players they thought would be on the next great team. Sox will have the luxury of having good players under contract for a long time - which ones is up to them of course.

[moonslav59]

If all the seats were filled with quality players, we would not have finished DEAD FREAKIN' LAST three out of four years. All of you doomsdayers conveniently IGNORE that fact.

 

We don't "ignore it". We lived with the anguish along with the "pink glassess" of the future crowd.

 

We had some high quality players on those teams. We finished in last place in 2012 with a staff Ben is bashed for disassembling (rightfully so, I might add). We saw HRam and Porcello suck in 2015's last place finish and then win the Cy Young and bat very well in DD's 2016 season. Same talent- different results.

 

I know many of you felt we sucked those years. Kudos to you. The vast majority of baseball people did not expect those rosters to finish in last place 3 out of 4 years.

 

 

DD is one for one and has chance to go two for two. He's made bold moves.

 

He's oh for 1 in WS rings and far from being a favorite to win this year.

 

 

DD has filled the bus with true ace in Sale. DD was smart enough to keep Devers and trade away Moncada. Not both as requested by the White Sox.

 

I loved the Chris Freakin' Sale deal. I love our team right now. I think we'll have a good shot to win a ring in the next 3-4 years. This thread is about years 4-7 or so. Nobody id doubting how well DD built up for the 3-4 year window, except for maybe the Shaw deal.

 

 

Kimbrel will have good three years on the bus as it cruises. The one that got off the bus is in the body shop.

 

You mean Espi? That was the Pom trade. Margot is 15 for his last 35 with 2 HRs.

 

 

I'm good with DD driving the bus.

 

I'm okay with going for rings in a 3-4 year window. It's better than a 1-2 year window. However, I'm not in denial that the moves he has made won't affect our long term future adversely. The deals he made, IMO, will hurt us down the road. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Nobody knows anything for sure about 2020 and beyond, but our odds of being highly competitive beyond 2020 are less than if we still had Margot, Moncada (don't judge him too early), Kopech, Espi, Dubon and several more.

 

Maybe it won't be a cliff. I hope the hell not, but the system has made it much harder than before, and we haven't really do to well in replenishing the farm when we had picks in the mid 20's and better access to international FAs. It's not impossible to rebuild while winning, but to deny the extreme difficulty and pretend everything will likely be just fine or to just claim that Henry will just totally change his MO and suddenly become the next George Steinbrenner, to me, is more likely a greater mistake than those of us predicting a probable upcoming cliff.

[moonslav59]

There are sufficient finances - if there are not, it is by choice ... those guys under contract for their peak years also become potentially useful trade chips - and probably the actual best way to re-stock the farm if that becomes a real issue

 

Any big trade would likely have cost us Devers (with Nunez playing 3B to end the season).

 

I think DD kept Devers, because he is part of the 3 year window. He was an unblocked ML ready prospect, unlike most of the other prospects traded away.

[moonslav59]

I think that our best players being 25-28 and hitting FA at the same time is wherein much of the problem lies. There could be a lot of needs to fill in 3 years, without sufficient finances or farm players to fill them.

 

That being said, I do get the sense that the FO is now going to put more focus on the long term.

 

Agreed. In one sense everyone hitting free agency in such a short period hurts, but the fact that that period is 2-3 years away allows for a pretty consistent core group of everyday players that needs very little tinkering with until then. We might just go with a cheap 1B/DH to replace Moreland/Young/Nunez and count on Chavis, Brentz and/or Barfield to add any depth we might need over the next 2 1/2 to 3 years. We also have Hernandez coming back and possibly Swihart, Lin or Marrero progressing further.

 

The first big (within the window) tests will come, when we have to extend or replace in kind Pom, Kimbrel and Porcello.

[mvp 78]

The Shaw Trade would have me skeptical of any moves DD makes if I was a Owner. Not because Reliever got hurt, but we kept Sandoval and moved Shaw and Prospects. Not too good at evaluating with what we had that were home grown.

This team should win with what we have. If not, its on the Players.

One bad move = fired. So true!

[moonslav59]

My problem is not that Dombrowski made trades. It's the extent to which he traded away the farm, and my belief that he did not get sufficient value for some of the prospects traded.

 

I agree, but I will admit that the perceived "insufficient value" we have gotten back in trades are doing better than I expected.

 

I loved getting Kimbrel and expected him to be a top 3 closer for us for 3 years, but I thought we gave up too much for a high-priced RP'er. The closer market has exploded, so that aspect of my original assessment has changed, but I still agree that we gave too much.

 

The Pom-Espi trade has looked like a roller coaster. Pom's injury discovery and weak showing last year looked like we were fleeced. I probably viewed Espi much more highly than many here, and I hated the trade. It wasn't about me not liking Pom. I just thought Espi's super high upside held more value. I have never been against trading top prospects, in fact I probably suggest more trades than anyone here. Pom has done very well, and I cannot criticize DD for making that trade anymore. The jury is still out, but Pom has been a great get.

 

Carson Smith only involved Aro. No harm to the farm.

 

I didn't think we needed to include Dubon to get Thrinburg, and maybe we could have used him to get a useful piece at this deadline, or he might have ended up being a very capable replacement for a departing Bogey to free agency or a big trade away.

 

The Aaron Hill and Abad trades were minor.I loved the Ziegler trade. I liked the Nunez and A Reed trades.

 

One-by-one, these trades look very good, but that doesn't mean each and everyone should have been or needed to have been made. Some of us would have liked to have seen a more balanced approach. Some, like myself, would have preferred us trading our top prospects (and keeping one or two more) for a guy like Quintana and not 1 or two from Pom, Kimbrel, Thornburg and Ziegler, even though all those deals look pretty good at this moment in time. Qunitana might have extended the window to 4 years. He has a 2020 option at just $10.5M!

[moonslav59]

One bad move = fired. So true!

 

One bad trade, in hindsight, at this moment in time.

 

What about the Price signing?

 

Counting on Pablo?

 

Thinking Moreland could replace Papi?

 

His drafts and international signings are still too early to judge, but I will say, I'm happy with what we got with what picks we had.

[sk7326]

One bad trade, in hindsight, at this moment in time.

 

What about the Price signing?

 

Counting on Pablo?

 

Thinking Moreland could replace Papi?

 

His drafts and international signings are still too early to judge, but I will say, I'm happy with what we got with what picks we had.

 

Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury.

Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers

Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler)

 

The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.

[S5Dewey]

This may be "the new normal" in baseball, for a team to have a 3-4 year window followed by a 3-4 year period of rebuilding. If so, I can handle that. One of my most entertaining seasons was the last half of 2015, the last half of the downswing. After Lovello took over, watching Mookie, JBJ, et.al. play the game like they were enjoying it was pleasurable for me.

 

As I said, I can handle the rich years/lean years cycle. IMO it's far better than being continually mired in 3rd place year after year while the GM continues to play musical chairs with the talent, trying not to lose but also not being committed to winning it all. [Hear that, Ben?]

[moonslav59]

Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury.

I was fine with the signing, but he has come up short on expectations. I was worried about years 5-7 not 1-2.

 

Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers

Ummm, keep Shaw as an option at 3B and at 1B, in case Moreland slumped. Again, I was fine with that trade too, but if we are judging in hindsight, then it looks bad.

 

Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler)

I agree, but the results have not come through as planned. Again, I don't blame DD for expecting our offense to do better: I did too.

 

 

The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.

Agreed.

[a700hitter]

 

Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers

This rationalization doesn't hold water. If Pablo worked out, Devers would have been blocked.

[cp176]

That seems to run counter to the new John Henry - I think it is a moot point ultimately. If Dombrowski came back to Henry with - say, Mike Trout for Groome, Devers and stuff ... then this question becomes more interesting.

 

After all, every deal Dombrowski has made has been totally reasonable - I did not agree with all of them (Kimbrel most so) ... but they were reasonable assessments.

 

Absolutely!!!

[cp176]

Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury.

Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers

Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler)

 

The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.

 

Agree here too but I am really happy that we have Kimbrel. There is a lot of hind sighting and second guessing going on here with respect to the moves that DD has made all of which I have agreed with to some extent .(I just never felt good about trading Shaw) Speaking of hindsight, i wonder what type of discussion we would be having right now if Smith and Thornburg had remained healthy?

[Spudboy]

I also don't buy the idea of ownership giving Dombrowski some sort of blanket prohibition against trading prospects...after all of the talent we've dealt recently, I find it hard to believe that John Henry or anyone in the front office would draw the line at trading a Chavis or Mata if the right deal was there and it would maximize our chances of winning in the next 2-3 years. Looking around at the market, it seems far more likely that the "right deal" involving any of our top guys just wasn't there.

 

Of course you don't buy that "idea" because Henry is not on tape as having stated the policy or decision and Dombrowski himself, live, and on tape, said that he had been given NO SUCH INSTRUCTIONS.

 

That story line is fabrication that hand wringers and doomsayers espouse.

 

Again, one of the advantages of living in or proximal to Boston is that one call see and hear these policy decisions being said by the principals involved.

 

I am for more likely to take it at face value when the horses ass says it right into the camera ( on the Sox own network, no less ) than to swallow the tale of woe spewed by some fans on the web.

[bowman]

The Patriots rebuild every year... It's all about evaluating talent and getting the most out of them. Your goal always is a championship, but staying competitive and taking advantage of every thing you have control over is a must. With a good foundation sometimes it's more a matter of tweaking things than rebuilding. A total rebuild means someone really frigged up and your player evaluation went south. With that said, every team will hit a dry run but with the financial backing we have right now there is no excuse for not putting a competitive team on the field every year.

[a700hitter]

The Patriots rebuild every year... It's all about evaluating talent and getting the most out of them. Your goal always is a championship, but staying competitive and taking advantage of every thing you have control over is a must. With a good foundation sometimes it's more a matter of tweaking things than rebuilding. A total rebuild means someone really frigged up and your player evaluation went south. With that said, every team will hit a dry run but with the financial backing we have right now there is no excuse for not putting a competitive team on the field every year.

They must be approaching an abyss, not a cliff. LOL!

[bowman]

What team has made a trade for a player with more impact than Nunez has had for us. I know its a small sample, but this cat was a hell of a pick up. I have been all over DD for the Shaw deal, but I love this trade. With all the hype about Frazier, I'm glad we got him instead. With Ped out, this deal was huge. Hope he keeps hitting.

[Kimmi]

The Shaw Trade would have me skeptical of any moves DD makes if I was a Owner. Not because Reliever got hurt, but we kept Sandoval and moved Shaw and Prospects. Not too good at evaluating with what we had that were home grown.

This team should win with what we have. If not, its on the Players.

 

I agree that this team should win. Can't blame Dombrowski if they don't.

[Kimmi]

Everyone here thought we needed upgrade from Shaw last year. Look at his splits. It's always easy to look back after the fact.

 

WHO THE FREAK WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE? DEVERS OR SHAW? SHAW ARRIVED 4 MONTHS LATE, THAT'S ALL. Mistake was giving Pablass $95M contract. That certainly wasn't DD's fault.

 

We did need an upgrade from Shaw. I don't blame Dombrowski for moving on from him.

[Kimmi]

IF you are committed to not paying Betts - for instance - the time to trade him is with 1 or 2 full years of control left ... (like how the Orioles really should have dealt Machado before the deadline). Then you can get a legitimate haul - with some near big league ready stuff. But yeah it would be a step back.

 

There are luxury tax limits - but they are largely self-enforcing. Maybe 15% tax is tractable (and this is marginal tax of course) - and 30% is not. But that is ownership's call - too often this is discussed like this is an NFL cap - even if it is more punitive now than it was in the last CBA.

 

I do not blame ownership for wanting to pay less tax. But I also do not blame me for expecting a large revenue franchise to throw its weight around.

 

If the team is not in contention, I can understand moving a guy like Betts to replenish the farm. If the team is contending, as they should during this window, then IMO, it would not make any sense to move him.

 

I understand that the luxury tax limits are not hard caps. Ownership can spend as much as they want, but they have shown that they do have a self-enforced limit, which is somewhere near the luxury tax amount. And rightly so. By spending that amount, they are throwing their weight around.

 

Every fan has the right to expect them to spend more or to spend without limit if a need arises. I think it's an unreasonable expectation, but they have that right.

[Bellhorn04]

They must be approaching an abyss, not a cliff. LOL!

 

They're approaching the Tom Brady Retirement Canyon...how much longer can he play?

[Kimmi]

That seems to run counter to the new John Henry - I think it is a moot point ultimately. If Dombrowski came back to Henry with - say, Mike Trout for Groome, Devers and stuff ... then this question becomes more interesting.

 

After all, every deal Dombrowski has made has been totally reasonable - I did not agree with all of them (Kimbrel most so) ... but they were reasonable assessments.

 

There is rationale behind every move that Dombrowski made, I'll agree to that.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on Henry's change of heart regarding reeling in Dombrowski's aggressive trades.

[Kimmi]

My problem is not that Dombrowski made trades. It's the extent to which he traded away the farm, and my belief that he did not get sufficient value for some of the prospects traded.

 

I agree, but I will admit that the perceived "insufficient value" we have gotten back in trades are doing better than I expected.

 

Perhaps insufficient value is not the proper term. It's not that I thought these guys would stink, it's that I think we overpaid for them.

 

That said, you and I are pretty much on the same page with this, doomsdayers that we are.

[Kimmi]

Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury.

Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers

Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler)

 

The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.

 

I mostly agree with this post, but if I'm not mistaken, we overpaid the next highest bid by $30 mil.

[moonslav59]

There is rationale behind every move that Dombrowski made, I'll agree to that.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on Henry's change of heart regarding reeling in Dombrowski's aggressive trades.

 

Although I disagreed with Ben's signing of Pablo, there was a rationale behind improving the offense before 2015 and going for pitching with the big FA class of SP'ers before 2016.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

I highly doubt 2020 will be a rebuilding year because the Red Sox's will still have excellent position players, e.g., Devers, Chavis, Bradley, Betts, Benintendi. True, the starting staff is very much a question mark. But I suspect the Red Sox will pull off some kind of combination of: (1) signing a top free agent starter (while I have the Red Sox signing Hosmer, I don't have them investing resources in the likes of B.Harper or M.Machado or any other significant free agent). (2) There is a good chance the Red Sox will develop a very good starter (Groome, hopefully) along with some middle of the rotation types. When you combine (1) and (2), the Red Sox will have sufficient starting pitching to compete for a championship in 2020.

 

Jackie Bradley will be thirty years old in 2020, one of the older starting position players on the projected 2020 Red Sox roster. He will be a free agent after 2020. I wonder if the Red Sox already have his 2021 replacement in Cole Brannen.

 

I have no idea who replaces Bogaerts at SS in 2020, but since Bogaerts isn't all that great anyway (a below average glove, in particular), I don't see his loss as a major detriment for 2020 team.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Fan_since_Boggs

[moonslav59]

I highly doubt 2020 will be a rebuilding year because the Red Sox's will still have excellent position players, e.g., Devers, Chavis, Bradley, Betts, Benintendi. True, the starting staff is very much a question mark. But I suspect the Red Sox will pull off some kind of combination of: (1) signing a top free agent starter (while I have the Red Sox signing Hosmer, I don't have them investing resources in the likes of B.Harper or M.Machado or any other significant free agent). (2) There is a good chance the Red Sox will develop a very good starter (Groome, hopefully) along with some middle of the rotation types. When you combine (1) and (2), the Red Sox will have sufficient starting pitching to compete for a championship in 2020.

 

Jackie Bradley will be thirty years old in 2020, one of the older starting position players on the projected 2020 Red Sox roster. He will be a free agent after 2020. I wonder if the Red Sox already have his 2021 replacement in Cole Brannen.

 

I have no idea who replaces Bogaerts at SS in 2020, but since Bogaerts isn't all that great anyway (a below average glove, in particular), I don't see his loss as a major detriment for 2020 team.

 

The Sox can go over the limit by just under $20M and not incur extreme non monetary penalties. Even with the tax up pretty high by 2020 and 2021, if Henry gives the okay to spend big, we could possibly fill a big hole or two with successful FA signings AND successfully fill another hole or two with some maturing prospects that work out better than lower picks normally do.

 

It's not impossible.

 

We could be pretty good in 2020 and 2021, but IMO, it will be very difficult to remain highly competitive those years and probably 2022 as well. Those years are far away. It's hard to know anything for sure even about 2018 and 2019 let alone several years afterwards, but DD will have his work cut out for him come 2020.

 

[Hugh2]

If we assume best case scenario for every player then sure, there ain't no cliff. While I've been a "cliff" in the past, I think that is a very poor way of putting it. I think uncertainty may be more accurate. As in, there is more uncertainty who play 1B next year than RF, but that doesn't mean 1B will give us less production than 1B.....but I'd bet on it.

[notin]

The 3 year window was always a myth.

 

But you can't debunk it by naming free agents the Sox haven't signed or, in many cases, shouldn't sign.

 

Go back 3 years on plenty of teams and see how many starters were even in the organization 3 years ago. And how many were major leaguers.

 

Having a great farm creates these myths about the future, but the truth is the OVERWHELMING majority of prosepcts do not live up to the hype. However, many do live up to the job of making minimum wage or being adequate trade bait....