Sox Trade For Milwaukee 3B Caleb Durbin

[Hugh2]

6 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

We trade Nomar Garciaparra for Orlando Cabrera, who we lost to FA, but with the compensation pick we drafted Jed Lowrie, we trade Lowrie for Joel Hanrahan.  

So we essentially trade Nomar for Joel Hanrahan.....what a disgrace. 

Alternate comp. 

Nomar led to O Cabrera, led to Jacoby Ellsbury, led to Michael Kopech, led to Chris Sale, led to Vaughn Grissom, who led to Isaiah Jackson.

We have to closely follow Jackson this year to see if the Nomar trade was a good one. 

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

We trade Nomar Garciaparra for Orlando Cabrera, who we lost to FA, but with the compensation pick we drafted Jed Lowrie, we trade Lowrie for Joel Hanrahan.  

So we essentially trade Nomar for Joel Hanrahan.....what a disgrace. 

Manny Ramirez

For Jason Bay (FA Type A)

Comp Pick Brandon Workman

For Pivetta (QO)

Comp Pick Henry Godbout

 

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Does this count:

signed free agent Andrew Miller...

traded for Eduardo Rodriquez, signed as a free agent with Arizona... 

Comp pick: Roman Anthony

[Old Red]

31 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

We trade Nomar Garciaparra for Orlando Cabrera, who we lost to FA, but with the compensation pick we drafted Jed Lowrie, we trade Lowrie for Joel Hanrahan.  

So we essentially trade Nomar for Joel Hanrahan.....what a disgrace. 

Not the same thing. The Red Sox wanted O Cab, so it wasn’t a settle.

[Hugh2]

8 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Not the same thing. The Red Sox wanted O Cab, so it wasn’t a settle.

You realize I was being extremely sarcastic?  I like my $100 for $10 example better. 

[moonslav59]

52 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

We trade Nomar Garciaparra for Orlando Cabrera, who we lost to FA, but with the compensation pick we drafted Jed Lowrie, we trade Lowrie for Joel Hanrahan.  

So we essentially trade Nomar for Joel Hanrahan.....what a disgrace. 

Good analogy, but we also got Ellsbury for a comp pick for OCab.

The difference in this analogy is that we got nothing out of Harrison, while we did get real value out of Jake and Jed, before getting Holt & Hanrahan. (Plus, we got Kopech as a comp pick for Jake, and he was a major part of the Sale trade.)

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

Lets say I trade a $100 baseball card for a $1 dollar baseball card. 

I'd suggest it is more like someone paying $90 for my $100 card + throwing in a card that I believe should be worth $50.

Or, following Moon's (?) lead, it is most closely like asking 'would you prefer Devers, or Suarez + IKF + Durbin?  FFTD.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

You realize I was being extremely sarcastic?  I like my $100 for $10 example better. 

I realized the sarcasm right away.  The problem is that we have fans that think exactly like that.  We still have  a fan that hates it because they think it was a salary dump by a cheapskate owner.

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

It is most closely like asking 'would you prefer Devers, or Suarez + IKF + Durbin?  FFTD.

This is one way to look at it. If Gray and Contreras do not do well, one could come back to this in September and say, "I'd rather have Devers than Contreras and Gray."

[drewski6]

20 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I'd suggest it is more like someone paying $90 for my $100 card + throwing in a card that I believe should be worth $50.

Or, following Moon's (?) lead, it is most closely like asking 'would you prefer Devers, or Suarez + IKF + Durbin?  FFTD.

Devers, not even close.

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Devers, not even close.

It's closer than you think.

If Devers was a plus defender it would be better.

[mvp 78]

35 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

We still have  a fan that hates it because they think it was a salary dump by a cheapskate owner.

It was a salary dump. What else could you call that trade? 

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It was a salary dump. What else could you call that trade? 

No way they felt Harrison was going to equal Devers.

You are correct.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

No way they felt Harrison was going to equal Devers.

You are correct.

Quibble about the "cheapskate owner" aspect, but the deal was 100% a salary dump. If not, it was a HORRIBLE trade! Embarrassing! 

[drewski6]

19 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It's closer than you think.

If Devers was a plus defender it would be better.

In a "what would you prefer" question, I get to determine which I would prefer and its Devers and its not close.

It may be close for you, and I respect that, but I think the whole notion of chasing max efficiency is flawed.  

A strategy of maximum efficiency is overly simplistic.  A team of 4 WAR players making $2m each has a 2:1 WAR/$(millions) ratio.  But thats 104 WAR total on a $52m payroll.  This team loses to a 150WAR team with a 200m payroll.  A 10 WAR player making 30m is more valuable than a 3 WAR player making 1M, becaue that 10 WAR player is truly elite and a true difference maker.  But I dont even want to lean this heavily on WAR (which I also think is dumb).

I think baseball team building is more than just accumulating  WAR.  I think a big bat changes everything about this team more than just whatever WAR that player adds.  I think Suarez is a luxury, I think IKF is a bad fit (I dont want an noodlebat infield of Mayer, IKF, Durbin - so I dont think he adds a ton of insurance), and I think Durbin is a nice piece but there was a reason why he was option #8.

A bat worth going out and getting (like Devers) is different than an "i like this guy because hes solid and we didnt have to give up much" (Durbin).  This team just hasnt gone out and gotten a bat, an elite bat, and Id do it and Id certainly give up this package to do it.

[moonslav59]

15 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

In a "what would you prefer" question, I get to determine which I would prefer and its Devers and its not close.

It may be close for you, and I respect that, but I think the whole notion of chasing max efficiency is flawed.  
 

You are basing your choice on who you think is best and adds more value. In a sense, you think Devers maximizes efficiency.

I happen to think the 3 guys listed adds about the same value but in 2 different ways:

1. different positions

2. spreading the value added over 3 slots vs 1 slot.

[Duran Is The Man]

40 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It was a salary dump. What else could you call that trade? 

i call it buyer's remorse.

[drewski6]

26 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Quibble about the "cheapskate owner" aspect, but the deal was 100% a salary dump. If not, it was a HORRIBLE trade! Embarrassing! 

Also , lets not lose the context.  This was presented as "the problem".  Not "a problem" but the problem.  That one fan (Fred), on this forum, and maybe some others like him (me) - think that the devers trade was a salary dump.  Oh, the horror.

Meanwhile, weve blown the budget and are still predicted for third place and a first round exit.  We failed to land literally all of our top options (hitting).  We've just been willing to fall back  to option B, then C, then D, then E when it comes to hitting.  

Next year we'll hear "they made a big add last season in Suarez, how dare you ask for a big bat. You are greedy."  Meanwhile, I try to pick up the bill literally every time I go out.  The only time in my life Ive ever been called greedy is here.  My friends and fam would laugh their butts off if they heard that.  But here  multiples time, by multiple people - RS FANS ARE GREEDY (including me in the lot).  And its just more "be grateful for third place" . Sure we've spent the money.  But we're still a consensus 3rd place team. 

Well guess what? Im not grateful for this consensus third place team and Im not going to be gaslit into thinking that fan expectations or fan (baseball) literacy are the problem.  Im sick of people acting like this team has been succesfull in recent past.  You want greedy? Hop over to a celtics forum and watch them complain about the celtics.  Or hop over to a dodgers forum and watch them complain.  This team has been frustrating for a while. 

Im not sure the RS, as currently constructed, have a problem.  I think they probably do that we'll struggle to score all year and it will be our downfall, but Im open for a breakout internally or an external add or jsut flat being wrong and we end up making a deep run with a mediocre offense.  But Im not over here locked into a belief that we will stink.  I told Fred years ago - going on record about how you think this team will stink and repeating it ad nauseum is how you end up rooting against your team, and I wont fall into that trap.

Maybe we'll be better than where the power rankings and vegs odds place us, and Ill be happy if so.  But judging by where we stand right now, based on how we look today, it looks like Breslow spent a lot of money and prospects to turn a third place team into a third place team.

[Duran Is The Man]

6 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

........  But judging by where we stand right now, based on how we look today, it looks like Breslow spent a lot of money and prospects to turn a third place team into a third place team.

exactly.

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I think baseball team building is more than just accumulating  WAR. 

The only time that the Sox won a WS with a bottom 10 defense was in 2004 when they had an absolutely stacked offense. Even if they had Devers and Bregman on this roster, they weren't going to compete with the 2004 roster. This roster is built to be more dynamic and needs to play better defense. Having a backup IFer that can competently field every IF position is important when the starters include Story and Mayer on the left side (most likely). Adding a guy like Durbin who has a good approach at the plate is important when 6 of your projected '26 starters were over 24% k rate last season. 

I don't think it's about "accumulating WAR" either. It's about building a ballclub. That's something that things like PECOTA don't quantify very well. Good starting pitching. Good defense. Good at bats. At one point in our fandom, people wanted dirt dogs. Guess they don't anymore? They just care about homeruns and their fantasy stats. 

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The only time that the Sox won a WS with a bottom 10 defense was in 2004 when they had an absolutely stacked offense. Even if they had Devers and Bregman on this roster, they weren't going to compete with the 2004 roster. This roster is built to be more dynamic and needs to play better defense. Having a backup IFer that can competently field every IF position is important when the starters include Story and Mayer on the left side (most likely). Adding a guy like Durbin who has a good approach at the plate is important when 6 of your projected '26 starters were over 24% k rate last season. 

I don't think it's about "accumulating WAR" either. It's about building a ballclub. That's something that things like PECOTA don't quantify very well. Good starting pitching. Good defense. Good at bats. At one point in our fandom, people wanted dirt dogs. Guess they don't anymore? They just care about homeruns and their fantasy stats. 

As Breslow. said HR wins postseason games. I agree with what you are saying, and this way may turn out better than with Bregman, Alonso, or Raffy, and if it does Breslow will be applauded, but if it don’t he will be chastised for not having a better plan like getting a power bat, or two.

[drewski6]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The only time that the Sox won a WS with a bottom 10 defense was in 2004 when they had an absolutely stacked offense. Even if they had Devers and Bregman on this roster, they weren't going to compete with the 2004 roster. This roster is built to be more dynamic and needs to play better defense. Having a backup IFer that can competently field every IF position is important when the starters include Story and Mayer on the left side (most likely). Adding a guy like Durbin who has a good approach at the plate is important when 6 of your projected '26 starters were over 24% k rate last season. 

I don't think it's about "accumulating WAR" either. It's about building a ballclub. That's something that things like PECOTA don't quantify very well. Good starting pitching. Good defense. Good at bats. At one point in our fandom, people wanted dirt dogs. Guess they don't anymore? They just care about homeruns and their fantasy stats. 

I like dirt dogs, and I dont mind good defense. Pitchiing is great.  BUt I think having elite bats in the middle are critical.  This is why I wanted Schwarber.  Because if you have an elite bat ad DH, you can build your position players with a higher focus on D and grit.

Having Devers at DH makes the defense a lot better.  Because now you are way more free to deploy defense first players at key defensive positions wihtout worrying about balancing for offense. 

I think this is a good team with a fatal flaw.  Its not about fantasy stats, its about my own beliefs on hitting.  Trying to grind out an at-bat or not strike out is not a particularly confident approach.  I would rather have "pitch to me , I dare you" than I better choke up and not strike out.  I dont even need homeruns.  I just know that hot players arent trying to "not strike out" or "grind at-bats". They are looking to damage.

I love players who grind at-bats, take pitches, and dont strike out.  But only if they arent trying to. Only if its natural.  I prefer players that pick up spin early and dont strike out for that reason over players who let the ball get deep and avoid striking out that way.  I want talent not cheaters (cheating as in doing the little things like choke up, not talking about PEDs)

[notin]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

This is one way to look at it. If Gray and Contreras do not do well, one could come back to this in September and say, "I'd rather have Devers than Contreras and Gray."

It gets easier when you only out conditions on one side.  What if Devers doesn’t do well?

[drewski6]

Just now, notin said:

It gets easier when you only out conditions on one side.  What if Devers doesn’t do well?

Chalk it up to hindsight vision is undefeated.

[notin]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

 

I don't think it's about "accumulating WAR" either. It's about building a ballclub. That's something that things like PECOTA don't quantify very well. Good starting pitching. Good defense. Good at bats. At one point in our fandom, people wanted dirt dogs. Guess they don't anymore? They just care about homeruns and their fantasy stats. 

It’s not about “accumulating WAR” at this stage as it is about accumulating PROJECTED WAR.  If the Sox do things right, the actual WAR will take care of itself…

[mvp 78]

22 minutes ago, Old Red said:

As Breslow. said HR wins postseason games.

Why would you ever listen to what Breslow says? I thought this was covered already in the powerpoint?

[mvp 78]

15 minutes ago, notin said:

It’s not about “accumulating WAR” at this stage as it is about accumulating PROJECTED WAR.  If the Sox do things right, the actual WAR will take care of itself…

Projected bWAR or fWAR tho? 

 

[mvp 78]

24 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I like dirt dogs, and I dont mind good defense. Pitchiing is great.  BUt I think having elite bats in the middle are critical.  This is why I wanted Schwarber.  Because if you have an elite bat ad DH, you can build your position players with a higher focus on D and grit.

They weren't going to get Schwarber because they already had a LHB at DH, two in fact, three if you count Duran.

[FredLynn]

30 minutes ago, Old Red said:

As Breslow. said HR wins postseason games. I agree with what you are saying, and this way may turn out better than with Bregman, Alonso, or Raffy, and if it does Breslow will be applauded, but if it don’t he will be chastised for not having a better plan like getting a power bat, or two.

If it doesn't work out and we do not compete for a ring THIS YEAR Breslow can start looking for a job selling used cars.

[moonslav59]

16 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Why would you ever listen to what Breslow says? I thought this was covered already in the powerpoint?

Maybe he meant preventing Opponents' HRs.