moonslav59

We should have kept Beltre and traded Youk right before the sudden and steep decline.

I know BorA$$ is not an idiot, but what is this "posture" doing to add bidders? Is he waking teams up to the idea that maybe the price is lower than some teams might have originally thought, and maybe JD can be had for less money than previously believed, if you promise him an OF position over a DH one?

It's not about the semantics. Demand, posture, floater, whatever you call it, the point remains the same.... How is saying JD prefers to play a position he's always played added any incentive for any team that already knows he plays OF to now make a bid after not previously making one? I'm asking for the reason you think this ploy or whatever you want to call it adds bidders.

I said does it "factor into judging" not equal or outweigh. Plus, JBJ costs much less than Beltre. My point is losing Beltre might not have been as bad as it looked, if you factor in everything. BTW, we grabbed JBJ with the 40th pick, so sure we could have taken him earlier with the pick we got (Owens) for losing VMart, but would that have then made losing him more palpable? I'm just asking, do you not factor in any of this future considerations that were related to the choice when you judge a decision made in the past?' Yes, I agree, Beltre>> JBJ + Swihart.

Again, how does adding a further demand increase bidders? What am I missing?

Of course you do, but he had no or few bidders before he made a further demand. My question is, how does the demand add bidders? What team is out there that needs an OF'er and can afford him, it's not like they suddenly find out JD can play OF and wants to play OF not DH, and say, "Oh, let's now join the bidding!" The only reason a team might join in, is if they find out Boston's offer (or the top offer) is lower than they expected AND within their budget limits. I doubt the OF demand or preference matters at all to anyone except Boston. The risk is they lose their top bidder or only bidder (Boston).

Why would any other team suddenly get more interested in JD, because he says he wants to play OF not DH? Unless he's saying he'll play for less, making demands should lessen the bidders not grow them.

soxprospects.com... Mexican Pacific League Hector Velazquez's Navojoa squad came into the playoffs as the number three seed in the 3 vs 4 matchup. Velazquez started game two of the series on Tuesday, throwing 5 1/3 scoreless innings while allowing 3 hits and 2 walks while striking out 3. He also earned the win, while Navojoa won the series 4-1 advancing to the semi-finals.

When we got Miley, I bought into some of the hype based on his away splits with AZ.

Smith did have a lot of games where he came close to or touched a 95 mph average, and his 2015 was mostly within 93-95. Maybe I'm reading the charts wrong... http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=13172&position=P&pitch=SI&data=pi

Seems weird that with just one apparent team bidding, the player/agent would make a further demand to try and get more bidders. I'm thinking it will lessen the chances of another team joining the bidding, unless an NL team thinks they might steal JD away from the Sox by offering less money but a FT OF job.

Directly, no. A question: do you think us getting JBJ and Swihart as comp picks for losing Beltre should be factored into judging that decision? (I know it is different. I'm just curious.)

I agree, but wouldn't it help to know what that next highest bid is or might be? Afterall, we are pinching pennies even with big signings,

You are right, but it does appear Seattle got a good return for Miley after Miley had a very bad season. I do think Miranda is probably better than his recent numbers.

If Carson Smith ends up blowing away Miley's WAR numbers, but Miranda out WARs Smith, I guess one could view the trade as close to a push, but it would make me wonder why we got so little for Miley after having a better season than he had the year Seattle traded him.

If $125M is the top offer, and the player is highly disappointed, then he could try for a 1 year mega deal to try to increase value, but at JD's age, and the fact that it might be hard to top 2017, unless he gets 700 PAs, he'll just have to "suck it up" and settle for a measly $125M. JD may shed a tear, but I won't. I wouldn't be surprised, if the Sox have offered $120M/5 with the stipulation that they be given a chance to up another higher offer. $125m/5 might be a safer offer, so as not to antagonize JD or BorA$$, but why go higher right away, when you might be the only guy in town?

This is what makes it hard for me to say exactly how much I'd agree to pay JD to get him. I'm okay with maybe $135M/5, but not if no other bidder is over $120M/5. The trick is, how does DD know the best "other offer", or even if there even is another serious offer. One downside of having your agent start the talks with a $210M/7 number is that some teams may not even make a bid at all.

I respect this method of judging a trade, and one could argue that had the Sox kept Miley, we might have gotten Miranda for him, but this should not be the only way to judge a trade. Surely, another method, such as looking at just Smith/Elias vs Miley only has merit.

I think looking at the various ways of judging a trade in totality is probably best, but going by just how the players did after the trade during just the years of team control at the time of the trade makes for some pretty eye-opening viewpoints. Here's a couple examples: Trade 1 12/14/11: The Sox traded Jed Lowrie and Kyle Weiland for Mark Melancon. Mark did not do all that well for us, but he was under team control through 2015. He was traded to Pittsburgh as part of the deal for Hanrahan & Holt, but judging just the first trade looks like this... 2012: $521K/ -0.2 w BOS 2013: $521K/ 2.5 WAR w PIT 2014: $2.6M/ 2.2 WAR w PIT 2015: $5.4M/ 1.6 WAR w PIT Jed Lowrie 2012: $1.2M/ 2.5 WAR w HOU 2013: $2.4M/ 3.5 WAR w HOU 2014: $5.3M/ 2.0 WAR w HOU Kyle Weiland: 2012: $482K/ -0.2 WAR w HOU Total for Melancon's 4 years: $9.4M/ 6.1 WAR Total for JL & KW's 4 years: $9.4M/ 7.8 WAR The trade looked bad for the Sox, at the time, and after Hanrahan gut hurt, it looked even worse, but looking at it in this fashion, it does not look so bad, especially when many figure RP'ers are shafted by WAR numbers. Trade 2: 11/24/05: The Sox traded Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell. THE Sox won a ring, in large part to the great playoff pitching by Beckett and very good production from Beckett & Lowell all season long in 2007. Here are the numbers for only the original team control years: Ramirez: 2006: $327K/ 4.4 WAR 2007: $404K/ 5.2 WAR 2008: $439K/ 7.5 WAR (HRam signed an extension during the 2008 season but had one more arb year remaining) 2009: $5.5M/ 7.1 WAR Sanchez: 2006: $381K/ 1.9 WAR (30 IP) 2007: $381K/ 0.0 WAR (5 IP) 2008: $390K/ 0.3 WAR (52 IP) 2009: $400K/ 0.7 WAR (86 IP) 2010: $1.3M/ 3.9 WAR 2011: $3.7M/ 3.5 WAR 2012: $8.0M/ 3.4 WAR (2 teams) Beckett: 2006: $481K/ 1.0 WAR 2007: $6M (part of extension)/ 5.7 WAR Lowell: (Was considered a salary dump.) 2006: $9M/ 2.5 WAR 2007: $9M/ 4.5 WAR Marlin Totals: $21.2M/ 37.9 WAR Sox Totals: $24.5M/13.7M This method sure makes this deal look lopsided, while most Sox fans view it as a win-win.

I believe they had more than 1 year of control of Miley, so technically, if you just judge the players traded, you should count Miley's performance in all original control years before and after the second trade. Both ways of judging have their flaws and perks.

I totally get your point, but if I thought I could make $130M/5, I'd kick the tires before "settling" on $125M.

True, but that was not really the trade. I can see both arguments. It's like those who complain about us not keeping Beltre, and not counting the comp picks we got for him (JBJ & Swihart). How about our trade for Melancon? The fact that we traded him later, before he got really good may or may not change how we view that original trade.

Depends. I'd give up 2 years of Pablo for one year of anyone.

I disagree. I feel they already had serious doubts about his defense before the small sample size. It's not like they were the only people in baseball thinking Swihart was not great defensively. Sure, the need in LF steered them to teach Swihart OF before maybe 1B, but I don't think it was desperate. (I think they tried to trade for someone, Beltran maybe?, but it didn't work, so they got stuck with plan B.

We should win that trade, barring further injury to Smith.