Article: BREAKING: Rafael Devers Traded To San Francisco Giants

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I criticized them heavily the last few years too.  But they have done some spending lately.  Crochet, Bregman, Buehler, extensions for kids, even the extension for Cora.

I'm calling it right now - this trade will be a big win for the Sox and a big loss for the Giants.

While I agree, this does look a lot like the smoke and mirrors philosophy we've seen in the past few years. Sign Story> wow we're spending again> let Bogey walk. Sign Yoshida> Yipee, we're spending again> let several key player walk, and now, sign Bregman> Triple WOW!> then trade an even higher paid guy.

It's going to come down to what we spend this winter and how, and that is, once again, all about wait until next year.

I'll say it again, "How Soon Is Now?" (The Smiths)

I'll add, "The Waiting is the hardest part." (Tom Petty)

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

While I agree, this does look a lot like the smoke and mirrors philosophy we've seen in the past few years. Sign Story> wow we're spending again> let Bogey walk. Sign Yoshida> Yipee, we're spending again> let several key player walk, and now, sign Bregman> Triple WOW!> then trade an even higher paid guy.

Crochet extension

Bello extension

Rafaela extension

Campbell extension

Cora extension

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

That "philosophy" lasted about 5 minutes, unless you believe the Sox were just playing PR with their free agent offers to Lester. 

It just shows an organization that often doesn't seem to know what it is doing and makes hasty decisions after bad decisions.

Sign Crawford.

Trade Crawford. (bad contract per JH!) 

Trade Lester due to age. 

Sign older Price.

Don't extend Mookie.

Extend Sale and Eovaldi instead. 

Trade Mookie. (can't afford the extension!)

Xander leaves. (fan backlash)

Extend Devers. (because of backlash?)

Trade Sale. (wins CY after)

Offer 700M to eventual DH Soto. (legit?)

Trade Devers (underwater contract for a DH!)

There just doesn't seem to be a clear strategy here. It's all very confusing and not well thought out. 

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Crochet extension

Bello extension

Rafaela extension

Campbell extension

Cora extension

1 out of 5 good moves ain't bad. Also, the Campbell extension isn't a lot of money. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

It just shows an organization that often doesn't seem to know what it is doing and makes hasty decisions after bad decisions.

Sign Crawford.

Trade Crawford. (bad contract per JH!) 

Trade Lester due to age. 

Sign older Price.

Don't extend Mookie.

Extend Sale and Eovaldi instead. 

Trade Mookie. (can't afford the extension!)

Xander leaves. (fan backlash)

Extend Devers. (because of backlash?)

Trade Sale. (wins CY after)

Offer 700M to eventual DH Soto. (legit?)

Trade Devers (underwater contract for a DH!)

There just doesn't seem to be a clear strategy here. It's all very confusing and not well thought out. 

Yes, it's been quite a hodgepodge.

The only guy whose moves were consistently easy to understand was Dombrowski.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Sure it happens, it just feels like it's happening to the Sox at a very high percentage right now. To me, I kinda expect the FA success rate to be 50%. Sox are at the losing end of things over the past few years. When factoring in things like the Sale trade, Breslow's tenure hasn't exactly been a slam dunk either. There's a good reason to remain skeptical and not be all in on their analytics only approach. 

With Bloom, our FA success rate was way below 50%, although that can be expected when your highest offers are $10M/1.

When you look at the largest FA deals in MLB history, I think the success rate is under 50%, but there is debate about how to define success. Did the 2018 ring make the Price deal a success, is just one example.

Breslow's biggest deals:

Bregman: looks good despite the injury. Right away, he blows Bloom out of the water, but then again, I doubt Bloom was ever given the green light of a $40M AAV, even for one year deals.

Crochet trade: looks like a winner.

Crochet extension: see above.

Sale trade: made some sense, at the time, but turned into a complete disaster.

I see 3 for 4 on the real big deals. Now, the next tier:

$39M/2 Gio with a chance to vest for a 3rd year: Bad, so far with a slight glimmer of hope we get some value out of him, like we never got from Kluber, Richards & Co.

$21M + buyout for Buehler: Looks plain ugly, right now.

$18M/2 Sandoval: TBD

$11M/1 Chapman: win, so far

We might be lucky to be at 50% on this tier.

Maybe a 3rd tier?

Hendriks: Yuch-A-Doodle-Doo!

O'Neill trade: win

Wilson is only a $2M deal, so maybe tier 4: a win, so far.

Call it 50-50 on tier 3?

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

None of the extensions have looked good so far, including Cora's. The Giants are psyched about this trade as they are unable to lure big time FA hitters to their team and this was a way to get a bat into their lineup. I don't think they are worried about the last 3-4 years of that contract. Posey may not be GM by then. They've only had 1 playoff appearance in the last 8 years. They are hoping to reverse that trend. We'll see how Posey's old school style works in comparison to Breslow's. 

The Crochet extension does not look good?

While I agree with your positions on Bello & Rafaela's deals being too much and too long for players in their years of service range, both are doing well, now. Maybe it's still an overpay, to you, no matter how well they do, for that reason, but I wouldn't say the Bello and Rafaela extensions "don't look good."

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, it's been quite a hodgepodge.

The only guy whose moves were consistently easy to understand was Dombrowski.

I wasn't a fan of all his moves, but at least there was a coherent philosophy. 

[mvp 78]

Just now, moonslav59 said:

The Crochet extension does not look good?

Read my posts after that one. 

[notin]

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, it's been quite a hodgepodge.

The only guy whose moves were consistently easy to understand was Dombrowski.

He was also given more financial leeway than the others, and might be getting judged on different criteria. 
 

Bloom is credited with a bust for Story, who certainly came to Boston on the heels of a successful career before being derailed by injuries. .  Is Dombrowski’s signing of Price really any better? It’s basically the same narrative…

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It just shows an organization that often doesn't seem to know what it is doing and makes hasty decisions after bad decisions.

Sign Crawford.

Trade Crawford. (bad contract per JH!) 

Trade Lester due to age. 

Sign older Price.

Don't extend Mookie.

Extend Sale and Eovaldi instead. 

Trade Mookie. (can't afford the extension!)

Xander leaves. (fan backlash)

Extend Devers. (because of backlash?)

Trade Sale. (wins CY after)

Offer 700M to eventual DH Soto. (legit?)

Trade Devers (underwater contract for a DH!)

There just doesn't seem to be a clear strategy here. It's all very confusing and not well thought out. 

Pretty much sums it all up, from the major deal aspect. One could add Story. Yoshi, Crochet and Bregman to the list, but this list was about just the major failures, except the Bogey one looks fine, now.

One could also add the AGon deal and then dump. The Lackey deal and then dump, too.

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

He was also given more financial leeway than the others, and might be getting judged on different criteria. 
 

Bloom is credited with a bust for Story, who certainly came to Boston on the heels of a successful career before being derailed by injuries. .  Is Dombrowski’s signing of Price really any better? It’s basically the same narrative…

Price helped win a ring, for some that counts a lot...and I'm in that group.

Dombrowski's primary job was to win a ring IMHO.  He got it done. 

 

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Read my posts after that one. 

I did, too late, though.

I get your points about the Bello & Rafaela extensions. They were hasty and overpays for their service time positions. I don't disagree, but right now, Bello is earning $6M and Rafaela is earning $2.2M. I can't say the extensions "don't look good."

[notin]

14 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It just shows an organization that often doesn't seem to know what it is doing and makes hasty decisions after bad decisions.

Sign Crawford.

Trade Crawford. (bad contract per JH!) 

Trade Lester due to age. 

Sign older Price.

Don't extend Mookie.

Extend Sale and Eovaldi instead. 

Trade Mookie. (can't afford the extension!)

Xander leaves. (fan backlash)

Extend Devers. (because of backlash?)

Trade Sale. (wins CY after)

Offer 700M to eventual DH Soto. (legit?)

Trade Devers (underwater contract for a DH!)

There just doesn't seem to be a clear strategy here. It's all very confusing and not well thought out. 

Mostly because this laundry list of questionable moves and hypotheses isnt related to actual strategy.
 

I mean, are there really questions about why Sale was traded? I mean questions with foundations unrelated to hindsight…

 

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

Mostly because this laundry list of questionable moves and hypotheses isnt related to actual strategy.
 

I mean, are there really questions about why Sale was traded? I mean questions with foundations unrelated to hindsight…

 

Yes, there were questions about trading Sale right from the start.  I went back and checked the thread.  All the real old schoolers here hated it.  My first post expressed approval because I thought it meant big starter acquisitions were on the way.  But I was questioning it within a few days.  It's all there in the Talksox archives. 

[moonslav59]

Just looked, again: Bogey is down to .617. He's 18th in fWAR among SSs at +0.9. His apparent improvement on Defense has kept him above water. 

DRS: -5 SDP/ -50 BOS

OAA: -1 SDP/-28 BOS

His value page on fangraphs:

$48M last year w BOS

$37M first year w SDP

$16M last year

$6M this year, so far (projects to maybe $13-14M)

[drewski6]

8 minutes ago, notin said:

Mostly because this laundry list of questionable moves and hypotheses isnt related to actual strategy.
 

I mean, are there really questions about why Sale was traded? I mean questions with foundations unrelated to hindsight…

 

Yes

[dgalehouse]

Folks are trying to build the narrative that the Sale trade was a good deal that somehow just didn't work out. That is not how I see it, or how I saw it at the time. It was a very bad trade from the get-go.  You don't trade a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, who is just getting healthy again, for some jabroni utility infielder. Then throw in 17 million to boot. Not a good idea. And the results should not be all that surprising. 

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, there were questions about trading Sale right from the start.  I went back and checked the thread.  All the real old schoolers here hated it.  My first post expressed approval because I thought it meant big starter acquisitions were on the way.  But I was questioning it within a few days.  It's all there in the Talksox archives. 

Of course there were questions and several posters who hated or questioned the idea of trading pitching.

Those questions were "foundational," so I disagree with notin on that point, but Sale's record of injury and even of production, when he did pitch from 2019-2023 made the decision, at least reasonable, at the time. We ended up signing a guy with a much better track record of taking the ball every 5th day.

I was not a fan of the Gio signing, but I was confident, he'd pitch more than Sale. Not only was I wrong there, but Sale pitched like the old Sale, and Grissom stunk up the place. BTW, 2B had been our weakest position since Pedey left. That part of the deal had merit, too. It just backfired just not as as badly as the Sale-Gio swap out.

Hey, how about Story + cash and Duran or Abreu for Sale, now?

[notin]

3 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Folks are trying to build the narrative that the Sale trade was a good deal that somehow just didn't work out. That is not how I see it, or how I saw it at the time. It was a very bad trade from the get-go.  You don't trade a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, who is just getting healthy again, for some jabroni utility infielder. Then throw in 17 million to boot. Not a good idea. And the results should not be all that surprising. 

There were 3 people who opposed it from the start.  Counting you.

But Sale was 35 years old - same as as Price - and coming off four missed seasons.  Plenty of Hall of Fame caliber pitchers have been in that position before and none have bounced back like Sale did.  I can’t pretend I saw that coming and I don’t blame Breslow for not seeing it either…

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, dgalehouse said:

Folks are trying to build the narrative that the Sale trade was a good deal that somehow just didn't work out. That is not how I see it, or how I saw it at the time. It was a very bad trade from the get-go.  You don't trade a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, who is just getting healthy again, for some jabroni utility infielder. Then throw in 17 million to boot. Not a good idea. And the results should not be all that surprising. 

"Reasonable" at the time, not "good." 

Hey, the posters who hated the deal, at the time, got it right. Those of us who felt the deal was reasonable or "good," at the time, got it wrong. I was one who thought it was worth a shot. I had given up hope on Sale, and it turned out I was as wrong as wrong can possibly be.

That does not change the fact that Sale's return to glory was far from a sure bet. Grissom's complete implosion was far from a sure bet. The Gio injury and failure was far from a known thing. The confluences of 3 spectacular failures helped you guys look like geniuses. Hats off to you, and I don't mean  that facetiously. You got it dead right. I got it wrong.

That doesn't mean I have to agree that the deal did not make some sense, at the time. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to rewrite history and justify the trade by saying it was a good one. It wasn't. It just made some reasonable sense, at the time.

 

[mvp 78]

28 minutes ago, notin said:

He was also given more financial leeway than the others, and might be getting judged on different criteria. 

I don't believe he had more leeway than Ben. I believe DD had more leeway than Bloom or Breslow. What has changed? 

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I don't believe he had more leeway than Ben. I believe DD had more leeway than Bloom or Breslow. What has changed? 

Ben did spend a lot, but he also dumped salary DD never really did.

The AGon, Crawford Beckett salary dump trade to the Dodgers was perhaps the biggest dump in MLB history, if indexed for inflation. Ben's spending immediately afterwards was somewhat muted and diffused over several mid level contracts, like Vic, Napoli S Drew and Dempster.

I think  DD had more leeway, but some felt Ben chose not to spend wildly on big deals and was too resistant to trading top prospects.

[notin]

26 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I don't believe he had more leeway than Ben. I believe DD had more leeway than Bloom or Breslow. What has changed? 

Didnt Ben once have to trade Marco Scutaro in order to afford Cody Ross?  That’s a level of economic constraint DD didnt have…

[jdc69]

1 hour ago, notin said:

When did they say they didn’t want Devers’ contract?  They did say his contract came with certain obligations he refused to live up to, but that’s a very different thing altogether…

I read somewhere they didn't want that contract as soon as they signed it. They did it to appease the fans. Any way you slice it though, why does the same management that went after Soto, cut Devers? Was Soto going to do anything and everything Breslow/Cora says? Is Soto some beacon of team play and sportsmanship? Maybe it WAS just pretend as vjsmoke said. I mean why not just go after Alonso? Solves all problems without shaking up an already decent roster.

[mvp 78]

55 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Ben did spend a lot, but he also dumped salary DD never really did.

The AGon, Crawford Beckett salary dump trade to the Dodgers was perhaps the biggest dump in MLB history, if indexed for inflation. Ben's spending immediately afterwards was somewhat muted and diffused over several mid level contracts, like Vic, Napoli S Drew and Dempster.

I think  DD had more leeway, but some felt Ben chose not to spend wildly on big deals and was too resistant to trading top prospects.

Ben had the salary dump for a lot of reasons that we've gone over. It wasn't simply to cut salary, but because that team actually had internal issues. The 2011 team fell off at year end. There was the chicken and beer media driven nonsense. They tarred and feathered Tito on the way out of town. They brought in Valentine as muscle and kept most of the same players. The players basically crapped all over that idea and didn't perform very well (notably AGon). Sox wanted to get out from under Crawford's salary (JH inexplicably showed up on the radio and declared that he never wanted to sign that contract in the first place). They decided to attach Beckett to the deal with AGon (squeaky wheel) and CC (bad contract) only because it's the only way to get rid of CC and actually get value back (what little actually came back). 

Filling up a roster with mid level talent and making a playoff push actually counts as spending! It worked too! 

[mvp 78]

40 minutes ago, jdc69 said:

I read somewhere they didn't want that contract as soon as they signed it. They did it to appease the fans. Any way you slice it though, why does the same management that went after Soto, cut Devers? Was Soto going to do anything and everything Breslow/Cora says? Is Soto some beacon of team play and sportsmanship? Maybe it WAS just pretend as vjsmoke said. I mean why not just go after Alonso? Solves all problems without shaking up an already decent roster.

JH will always say "it's the CBO's decision" and then just fire the CBO when things don't work every 4 years. The next CBO can just say "I don't like that contract because I didn't negotiate it." 

[notin]

40 minutes ago, jdc69 said:

I read somewhere they didn't want that contract as soon as they signed it. They did it to appease the fans. Any way you slice it though, why does the same management that went after Soto, cut Devers? Was Soto going to do anything and everything Breslow/Cora says? Is Soto some beacon of team play and sportsmanship? Maybe it WAS just pretend as vjsmoke said. I mean why not just go after Alonso? Solves all problems without shaking up an already decent roster.

Soto was a rarity - one of the best active hitters reaching free agency at age 25.  I think interest was genuine but there were too many wealthy suitors.  And reportedly Cohen was NOT going to be overbid.  I don’t fault them there.  As for Alonso, he only solved problems once Casas got hurt.  The Sox still had faith in Triston and weren’t out to replace him.  If they were, Devers probably gets asked to play 1b in March…

[mvp 78]

53 minutes ago, notin said:

Didnt Ben once have to trade Marco Scutaro in order to afford Cody Ross?  That’s a level of economic constraint DD didnt have…

It was one year (2012) to get under the luxury tax. He didn't have to deal with that every year.

[cp176]

1 hour ago, notin said:

There were 3 people who opposed it from the start.  Counting you.

But Sale was 35 years old - same as as Price - and coming off four missed seasons.  Plenty of Hall of Fame caliber pitchers have been in that position before and none have bounced back like Sale did.  I can’t pretend I saw that coming and I don’t blame Breslow for not seeing it either…

I’m not sure if I’m one your 3 but I absolutely hated seeing Sale leave as well as Dombrowski.  Chris Sale continues to be the kind of player that every team needs on their roster.  His injuries never affected what I thought of him.  We are forturnant that we another gritty top of the rotation guy to replace him.