Chris Sale traded to Braves

[notin]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I guess I'll have to say this another million times.  In isolation, yes, I see the reasons for trading Sale and getting back a good prospect.  But I don't think we should look at moves like this in isolation.  When you look at the big picture that the Red Sox needed starting pitching and that the only other move was signing Giolito, a guy who got lit up for the last 2 months of 2023, that's when trading Sale looks just plain bizarre.

 

What looks bizarre to me wasn’t teasing Sale; he’d been a source of frustration for far too long.  And not replacing him with Giolito, unless weird interpretations of his medicals are in play.  Like they noticed issues with his elbow, figured it explained his struggles at the end of 20/3, but then ignored that it could take him out for 2024.  That’s weird IF that happened.

 

But I don’t get not replacing Giolito.  Even if his injury put Crawford into the rotation, it still left you 1) dangerously thin while 2) relying on Whitlock…

[Bellhorn04]

16 minutes ago, notin said:

My other option is to join those who rewrite medical science and diagnose pitchers they’ve never even met for conditions they don’t understand.

But I’m the one with consulted hindsight hypotheticals…

The first part is just more convoluted stuff.

There was no medical science involved in trading Sale.  He looked healthy at the end of 2023 and the doctors obviously pronounced him so or the trade wouldn't have happened.

Nobody knew if he would stay healthy in 2024, obviously. There was plenty of risk he would miss time, but that's the case with virtually every pitcher now.  His past injuries were a hodgepodge of the predictable and the strange, but as a whole there was no way to predict if any of them would reoccur. 

  

[Bellhorn04]

20 minutes ago, notin said:

What looks bizarre to me wasn’t teasing Sale; he’d been a source of frustration for far too long.  And not replacing him with Giolito, unless weird interpretations of his medicals are in play.  Like they noticed issues with his elbow, figured it explained his struggles at the end of 20/3, but then ignored that it could take him out for 2024.  That’s weird IF that happened.

 

But I don’t get not replacing Giolito.  Even if his injury put Crawford into the rotation, it still left you 1) dangerously thin while 2) relying on Whitlock…

So you think their moves with the rotation were an interesting mix of the smart and the bizarre...

[notin]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The first part is just more convoluted stuff.

There was no medical science involved in trading Sale.  He looked healthy at the end of 2023 and the doctors obviously pronounced him so or the trade wouldn't have happened.

Nobody knew if he would stay healthy in 2024, obviously. There was plenty of risk he would miss time, but that's the case with virtually every pitcher now.  His past injuries were a hodgepodge of the predictable and the strange, but as a whole there was no way to predict if any of them would reoccur. 

  

He looked fine in 2023? The year he missed two months for a bad shoulder?!? Your medical diagnosis boils down to “if you ignore the injuries, he’s pretty healthy.”

SOME of his injuries were strange.  Bike accident.  Yes.  Comebacker? Unlucky? Breaking a rib while pitching? Strange, and absolutely worrisome.  Elbow surgery and shoulder injury for a pitcher?  These are not strange for a pitcher.  And they can both be legitimate concerns…

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

He looked fine in 2023? The year he missed two months for a bad shoulder?!? Your medical diagnosis boils down to “if you ignore the injuries, he’s pretty healthy.”

Can you please try to read what I actually said?  Is it that difficult?  I said he looked healthy AT THE END OF 2023.

 

[notin]

10 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

So you think their moves with the rotation were an interesting mix of the smart and the bizarre...

I’m not quite up to “smart” for a team that gave up on Sale but planned to rely on Whitlock.  I go with “understandable until they quit.”  I really don’t get why nothing was done after Giolito went down…

[Bellhorn04]

There's one simple 2-part explanation for all of it-trading Sale/signing Giolito/not replacing Giolito.

1) The budget was tight and was prioritized over everything else.

2) They were punting anyway - it really didn't matter to them if they made the playoffs.  

[notin]

28 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Can you please try to read what I actually said?  Is it that difficult?  I said he looked healthy AT THE END OF 2023.

 

I read.  I just presented in a phrasing to emphasize that you were ignoring extremely recent injuries in favor of a small sample size.   I also contemplated saying “he looked healthy in between injuries” to make the same point.  Also “he went 40 innings without injuring himself.”

[Bellhorn04]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

I read.  I just presented in a phrasing to emphasize that you were ignoring extremely recent injuries in favor of a small sample size.   I also contemplated saying “he looked healthy in between injuries” to make the same point.  Also “he went 40 innings without injuring himself.”

But they also have these things called "doctors" who perform these things called "examinations" before trades are finalized. 

He was obviously healthy as far as anyone could reasonably determine.  The rest is just "yeah, but still, he gets injured a lot" no s*** Sherlock stuff.

 

[notin]

35 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

There's one simple 2-part explanation for all of it-trading Sale/signing Giolito/not replacing Giolito.

1) The budget was tight and was prioritized over everything else.

2) They were punting anyway - it really didn't matter to them if they made the playoffs.  

The budget makes ZERO sense.  The actual most likely scenario is they wanted to replace Sale and his horrible attendance record with a pitcher who shows up for work more often.  If you think the budget was the primary factor, why spend more money on Giolito than you paid for Sale?? And why ask for MLB-ready Grissom in return when taking a lesser minor leaguer would have reduced the $17mill payment to Atlanta?  

[notin]

21 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But they also have these things called "doctors" who perform these things called "examinations" before trades are finalized. 

He was obviously healthy as far as anyone could reasonably determine.  The rest is just "yeah, but still, he gets injured a lot" no s*** Sherlock stuff.

 

Those same doctors passed Giolito.  And not because they’re incompetent.  It turns out medical science is actual very tricky sometimes…

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I guess I'll have to say this another million times.  In isolation, yes, I see the reasons for trading Sale and getting back a good prospect.  But I don't think we should look at moves like this in isolation.  When you look at the big picture that the Red Sox needed starting pitching and that the only other move was signing Giolito, a guy who got lit up for the last 2 months of 2023, that's when trading Sale looks just plain bizarre.

 

I did not like the Gio signing, and his big plus was supposed to be durability and dependability on taking the ball every 5 days and going 5+ innings, almost every 5 days. The injury was totally unpredictable and unexpected, but that is the risk we took, and certainly 99.9% of anyone who knows anything about baseball would have expected Gio to start more games than Sale in 2024.

Had we spent the same or less AAV on Lugo ($15M x 3) Imanaga ($13.3M x 4) Wacha ($16M x 2) Manaea ($14M x 2) or even Flaherty ($14M x 1,) you would not be lumping the Sale trade in the same way.

The Gio signing was a seperate mistake than backfired, too. Together, the two moves killed our chances. I can see how linking them makes sense, because the "savings" from the Sale trade could be counted towards allowing Brez the budget space to sign a pitcher, but just because Brez swung and missed on Gio, doesn't mean the Sale trade made any less or more sense, at the time, IMO.

Ideally, we keep Sale and sign Lugo or Imanaga- two guys I was very high on, back then. (To be fair, I was also high on Monty and Gray.)

Brez messed that all up. We can hope Grissom salvages some of what we lost, and Gio gives us something special in 2025, but neither looks all that promising, right now. Brez did make several savy and good moves, over the winter. We have to hope he does more, and most of all, we need to have a better success rate on our biggest winter deals.

2020: Martin Perez D

2021: Richards F, Martin Perez D, Ottavini C+, Kike A  '21 and D  '22 & overall C+, Cordero/Wink C-, Renfroe A-, Scwarber A

2022: Story D-, Yoshida D+, Kike F, Wacha B+, Hill B-, Strahm A, Paxton F '22 & B- for '22 and C- overall

2023: Jansen A-, Martin A-, Turner A-, Kluber F, Duvall B+

This has been about a 50% success rate, with some of the successes being mixed or near a C+ value. We need to do better. If you look at just the biggest deals (10M+):

D- Story

D+ Yoshida (The two very biggest suck, so far.)

F (so far) Giolito

A- Jansen

D Kike I + Kike II

A- Martin

D Barnes extension (The $15-$40M are 40-60)

A- Turner

F Richards

F Kluber (The $10M-14M deals are 33%.)

6 of the top 9 are D or lower. Our top 3 are Ds or Fs.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, notin said:

The budget makes ZERO sense.  The actual most likely scenario is they wanted to replace Sale and his horrible attendance record with a pitcher who shows up for work more often.  If you think the budget was the primary factor, why spend more money on Giolito than you paid for Sale?? And why ask for MLB-ready Grissom in return when taking a lesser minor leaguer would have reduced the $17mill payment to Atlanta?  

They have been trying to walk a fine line, by spending as little as possible on rosters they think are as close to be competitive for a WC slot as they can get.

Of course, it hasn't been a total budget slash, except for maybe 2020, and even then they spent a little on Perez, Pillar and a few others.

The swing and misses on Story, Yoshida and Gio really gut-punched us.

[Bellhorn04]

5 hours ago, notin said:

The budget makes ZERO sense.  The actual most likely scenario is they wanted to replace Sale and his horrible attendance record with a pitcher who shows up for work more often.  If you think the budget was the primary factor, why spend more money on Giolito than you paid for Sale?? And why ask for MLB-ready Grissom in return when taking a lesser minor leaguer would have reduced the $17mill payment to Atlanta?  

If you think the budget was no factor, why not keep Sale and sign Giolito?

Sale + Giolito has to be either better or the same as just Giolito.  That's beyond dispute.

And if they need a second baseman that bad, there are other ways.  Grissom was a prospect, no more no less.

I have no idea why you would think  "replacing" Sale was necessary.  Talk about making ZERO sense.  This is starting pitchers we're talking about.  You've talked countless times about how a team needs a pile of starting pitchers to get through a season.   

"Adding to" Sale - yes, that would have made sense. 

 

 

 

[notin]

28 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

If you think the budget was no factor, why not keep Sale and sign Giolito?

Sale + Giolito has to be either better or the same as just Giolito.  That's beyond dispute.

And if they need a second baseman that bad, there are other ways.  Grissom was a prospect, no more no less.

I have no idea why you would think  "replacing" Sale was necessary.  Talk about making ZERO sense.  You've talked countless times about how a team needs a pile of starting pitchers to get through a season.   

"Adding to" Sale - yes, that would have made sense. 

 

 

 

I’ve explained in multiple times.  Just because you refuse to believe it first makes sense.  But what should I expect from someone who tells me the Sox spent $17mill to give Sale away plus $18mill to replace him, all so they could save $10mill?  Why not pay less to unload Sale (that offer existed and was refused, so you have no counter for it) and NOT sign Giolito and just not replace Sale at all? They did have five starting pitchers lined up at the time.

 

But I’ll try again.  Sale had no durability and couldn’t be relied on to pitch.  Even if he dazzled with his Steve Matz impression in 2023, HE WAS TURNING 35!! Not an age one expects a comeback.  And he looked good at the end of 2021 as well; how’d that pan out in 2022?

Normally, Giolito is of varying degrees of effective but he’s always had one skill prior to 2024 - he eats innings.  With an inexperienced staff including Bello, Whitlock and either Crawford or Houck, this was an invaluable skill.

You keep repeating the Sox needed pitching; have you ever considered maybe they didn’t agree with you? At least on what types of pitchers and how many?  
 

Replacing Sale makes no sense if you expect him to pitch.  But he hadn’t pitched in a while, despite your pretense that 40 consecutive injury-free innings meant he was cured.  Sale had become a reason for depth and a hindrance in acquiring it.  He was 35 and had pitched 150 innings in 4 years.  

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

If you think the budget was no factor, why not keep Sale and sign Giolito?

Sale + Giolito has to be either better or the same as just Giolito.  That's beyond dispute.

And if they need a second baseman that bad, there are other ways.  Grissom was a prospect, no more no less.

I have no idea why you would think  "replacing" Sale was necessary.  Talk about making ZERO sense.  This is starting pitchers we're talking about.  You've talked countless times about how a team needs a pile of starting pitchers to get through a season.   

"Adding to" Sale - yes, that would have made sense. 

 

 

 

He said not the "primary factor" not "no factor."

I do not think the budget would have allowed for Gio and Sale, unless we did not sign O'Neill and traded someone else- like Martin or Jansen. (Some reports were out that we were shopping Jansen.)

Maybe we should have tried  real hard to dump Yoshida, last winter. (Maybe Story?)

As it turned out, I know-I know, another scenario, we could have not trade for O'Neill, traded Martin and kept Sale and also signed Gio. That's pretty close to what we "saved" by trading Sale.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Sale's 2024 was unpredictable, because after half a decade, he finally had a healthy, great season.

Sale's 2024 was predictable, because just when it looked like his team could count on him, he got injured again.

If the Red Sox kept him, they probably make the postseason... and get bounced almost before the playoffs begin when their ace can't start Game 1. 

And the board would be full of Unrealistic 2025 threads speculating a rotation led by Chris Sale...

[jad]

I don't know if we should have kept Sale, but at least we didn't waste money on Betts or chasing around bums like Ohtani and Yamamoto.

[Bellhorn04]

15 hours ago, notin said:

But he hadn’t pitched in a while, despite your pretense that 40 consecutive injury-free innings meant he was cured.  

Ridiculous.  I've acknowledged the injury risk over and over.  It's hopeless trying to debate with someone who fails to understand your position or has no problem misrepresenting it and using straw men.

[notin]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Ridiculous.  I've acknowledged the injury risk over and over.  It's hopeless trying to debate with someone who fails to understand your position or has no problem misrepresenting it and using straw men.

We’ve both ancknowledged. the other’s points numerous times, or at least made the appearance of doing so.  Like how your entire argument is repeating over and over that he appeared healthy at the end of 2023.  As if that clinches everything and ignores

 

1. He still didn’t pitch injury-free in 2023

2. He hadn’t pitched a full season since 2019

3. He was not himself even in 2019

4. He was now 35 years old

And something about 150 innings, blah blah.

Ive acknowledged you thought he proved he was healthy.  I didn’t think it was enough proof.  And the notion that injury histories are meaningless I don’t agree with at all.

And the only conclusion I’ve been trying to point out it is was UNDERSTANDABLE to trade him necessary.   Yes, they needed pitching.  Sale was a reason they needed it over a four year stretch, not the solution to count on again.

I’m also not changing that part on hindsight.  Hindsight does tell me it was a horrible trade, but at the time it was understandable…

 

[moonslav59]

What baffles me about all this is that notin and Bell are two of my favorite posters, and I feel like I agree with both of them most of the time.

I don't understand why you two are always at each others' throats. 

How can I mostly agree with two posters who never agree with each other?

[Old Red]

56 minutes ago, notin said:

We’ve both ancknowledged. the other’s points numerous times, or at least made the appearance of doing so.  Like how your entire argument is repeating over and over that he appeared healthy at the end of 2023.  As if that clinches everything and ignores

 

1. He still didn’t pitch injury-free in 2023

2. He hadn’t pitched a full season since 2019

3. He was not himself even in 2019

4. He was now 35 years old

And something about 150 innings, blah blah.

Ive acknowledged you thought he proved he was healthy.  I didn’t think it was enough proof.  And the notion that injury histories are meaningless I don’t agree with at all.

And the only conclusion I’ve been trying to point out it is was UNDERSTANDABLE to trade him necessary.   Yes, they needed pitching.  Sale was a reason they needed it over a four year stretch, not the solution to count on again.

I’m also not changing that part on hindsight.  Hindsight does tell me it was a horrible trade, but at the time it was understandable…

 

Evidently Atlanta had enough proof that Sale was healthy, and they were right. Like I said when the trade was made that I thought Sale would stay healthy, and have a good year for Atlanta, which he did. All Sale needed was to get out of the bad Ju Ju in Boston. 

[notin]

24 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Evidently Atlanta had enough proof that Sale was healthy, and they were right. Like I said when the trade was made that I thought Sale would stay healthy, and have a good year for Atlanta, which he did. All Sale needed was to get out of the bad Ju Ju in Boston. 

So they were tampering?  Atlanta should have had no access to Sale’s medicals, and judging from the extension they gave him, weren’t entirely confident.  They gambled.  They won.

And it’s fine to admit that in hindsight.  It didn’t work out.

But to not understand why the Sox weren’t confident in Sale at bat point is another thing.  And 40 IP stretch with a 3.92 FIP didn’t change their mind, possibly because the season before they signed another aging pitcher winding down a great career who gave his old team a 3.88 FIP over 60 IP and then completely washed out in Boston.  I can’t blame the Sox for moving on, even if it didn’t work out…

[Old Red]

52 minutes ago, notin said:

So they were tampering?  Atlanta should have had no access to Sale’s medicals, and judging from the extension they gave him, weren’t entirely confident.  They gambled.  They won.

And it’s fine to admit that in hindsight.  It didn’t work out.

But to not understand why the Sox weren’t confident in Sale at bat point is another thing.  And 40 IP stretch with a 3.92 FIP didn’t change their mind, possibly because the season before they signed another aging pitcher winding down a great career who gave his old team a 3.88 FIP over 60 IP and then completely washed out in Boston.  I can’t blame the Sox for moving on, even if it didn’t work out…

NNN? WTF? Who said ANYTHING about Atlanta tampering, or getting any access to Sales medical? OMG! Sale was healthy enough for them from what they saw from from him at the end of the season, and it was as simple as that, so they slicked a rookie inexperienced Brez into paying $17M to boot. Tampering, and medicals? What a conspiracy theory that only You would come up with.🤭🙈

 

 

 

 

[Randy Red Sox]

On 10/1/2024 at 9:29 AM, notin said:

Sale’s frequent injuries were instrumental in the Sox  not making the postseason more than once.

 

He was a great pitcher early in Boston and again in 2024.  But from 2020-2023, he was a source of repeated frustration and dashed hopes…

and what would you call the guy we got back in the trade considering we also kicked in 17 million for Sale to win the CY Young with the Braves?

[notin]

29 minutes ago, Old Red said:

NNN? WTF? Who said ANYTHING about Atlanta tampering, or getting any access to Sales medical? OMG! Sale was healthy enough for them from what they saw from from him at the end of the season, and it was as simple as that, so they slicked a rookie inexperienced Brez into paying $17M to boot. Tampering, and medicals? What a conspiracy theory that only You would come up with.🤭🙈

 

 

 

 

It’s not my conspiracy theory; I’m not the one saying Atlanta “knew something.”  And I have my doubts Atlanta or any MLB team pronounces a player healthy based on small samples, especially with millions of dollars at stake.  At best, they saw enough to take a chance.  That’s not “knowing something.”

Why is it Sox fans refuse to believe other teams do reclaimation projects with pitchers?  It’s a strategy that’s been around for so long, Lou Gorman was doing it.  Yet for some reason, other teams don’t take these gambles apparently.  Even in a deal where Atlanta does every obvious move to protect themselves, somehow they “knew something” Boston didn’t.  And not that they were simply more willing to gamble on Sale..

[notin]

14 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

and what would you call the guy we got back in the trade considering we also kicked in 17 million for Sale to win the CY Young with the Braves?

A guy who deserves a chance? 

[Randy Red Sox]

46 minutes ago, notin said:

A guy who deserves a chance? 

he had a chance before he got hurt and stunk but he will get another chance.  probably 2 or 3

[Randy Red Sox]

48 minutes ago, notin said:

It’s not my conspiracy theory; I’m not the one saying Atlanta “knew something.”  And I have my doubts Atlanta or any MLB team pronounces a player healthy based on small samples, especially with millions of dollars at stake.  At best, they saw enough to take a chance.  That’s not “knowing something.”

Why is it Sox fans refuse to believe other teams do reclaimation projects with pitchers?  It’s a strategy that’s been around for so long, Lou Gorman was doing it.  Yet for some reason, other teams don’t take these gambles apparently.  Even in a deal where Atlanta does every obvious move to protect themselves, somehow they “knew something” Boston didn’t.  And not that they were simply more willing to gamble on Sale..

This trade was 100% solely about Henry telling Breslow to get off the Sale contract however he could. Anyone who thinks any different is not looking clearly

[Randy Red Sox]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

What baffles me about all this is that notin and Bell are two of my favorite posters, and I feel like I agree with both of them most of the time.

I don't understand why you two are always at each others' throats. 

How can I mostly agree with two posters who never agree with each other?

and here I thought that I was your favourite poster??  I am CRUSHED !!