notin

So you'll be more impressed with him when he dominates people who've been drinking?

Highlight reel plays are fun to watch, but don't win titles. How many rings does Omar Vizquel wear? And it's not like Vizquel spent his career on bad teams. I challenge anyone to find a lineup in the history of baseball deeper and scarier than the 2000 Guardians. I'll take the WS ring. As good as Iglesias is, (and he is good, he just isn't as freakishly special as many seem to think) he guarantees nothing in the way of ever winning a title. The Sox rolled Hall of Famers out in LF for a half a century and never won a title with them...

I know fans have liked to cling to "we didn't need Peavy." But bear in mind, the Sox were NOT in first place at the time of that deal, and had a rotation featuring both Workman and Doubront. That wasn't sustainable. How have those guys looked since? Acquiring Peavy pushed Workman back into the pen, strengthening it as well. And it pushed Doubront back into the pen for the post-season.

Who doesn't? But bear in mind, he also gave up lesser prospects for half a season of David Price when he as in Detroit. Really, the SP market was thin and someone had to be acquired. The Sox needed SP help. I was OK giving up Espinoza, but I didn't like Pomeranz and figured him to be the major leaguer most likely to collapse in the second half. He didn't completely collapse, but he wasn't impressive.

It was more recent than the Iglesias trade. Is the amount of time ago it occurred a reason to "give it up"?

Set it bsck 3 or 4 years? From what? They won a World Series in 2013. If your argument is that the Sox wouldn't have been a last place team with Iglesias, then there is fallout from that, too. For starters, they wouldn't have had the chance to draft Benintendi. The Lackey trade was far worse. At a time to restock and instead they saddle themselves with an immovable bad contract in Craig. (Rumors that Lackey would retire were unsubstantiated and based on misinterpretations of an article by Ken Rosenthal, who said it was Lackey's only leverage, not his plan.)

Let's not also forget at that time Stephen Drew was not only relevant, but also very good. Coupled with Bogaerts, they aapparently liked their shortstop situation not only at the time, butalso going forward. One could argue they traded a ffuture piece for a ring, hardly an uncommon practice. But really they liked Bogaerts as an all-around player better than Iglesias. Bogaerts was never really in play for the future at third. He tried it and reportedly was very uncomfortable. The decision to force him there to accommodate another equally unaccomplished player wasn't going to happen. It's not the same as moving Betts to the outfield to accommodate a former MVP knocking on the door to Cooperstown. At some point in the future, Bogaerts may have to move to third. That won't be an indictment of trading Iglesias, either, but more likely just a player aging out of a premium defensive position. And Sandoval, disappointing as he has been, may not be the direct fallout here many believe. Free agents are not only acquired to fill gaps, but also as PR - a message to the fans and ticket buyers that the team is willing to spend to win. Certainly every GM is aware of the high risk and rate of failure associated with these types of contracts. But they are also aware that big name players, like reigning World Series MVP, can generate a lot of interest after a bad season. The Sox were clearly going to make big moves, so unless Iglesias could have kept them out of the cellar in 2014 (not likely as I believe that was the season he missed), the Sox were going to spend. If not on Sandoval, possibly on someone equally disastrous....

I think Swihart can close the gap, but not bridge it. If I traded any catcher, it would be Leon, who is basically Christian Vazquez with BABIP luck. While it is a sell high opportunity, I do have my doubts about exactly how high. If I know he was getting by on unsustainable numbers, certainly every GM and their uncles do as well. But we all know how this will play out. The Sox will keep all three and put Swihart (the only one with any options left) in Pawtucket. At some point, there may be a roster crunch, but that won't be dealt with until it becomes an issue. And if, say Leon, is batting .180 in mid-May, then the solution has presented itself...

Not about pitching differently. But because he is facing overall weaker hitters, he gets through each inning on average with fewer pitches. Check out WHIP for most pitchers in the majors and minors, and typically they have better numbers in the minors (except for sinker ball pitchers, who usually do worse). Fewer baserunners is a big part of fewer pitches...

But the solution they keep leaping back to was never going to happen. Whether or not Iglesias' defense is superior to Bogaerts is immaterial in that he clearly was never going to supplant him. Ever. And that doesn't mean anyone is ignoring defense. It does mean they prefer the better overall player. The Sox could sign Raja Davis this off-season based on his defense being superior to Benintendi, who made a defensive lapse that was instrumental in a post-season loss, but they aren't going to. Because Benintendi is (very likely) a better overall player than Davis..

That's essentially what teams do. At the time, Iglesias was clearly not identified as one of the top three or four best prospects and was made available. That they misidentified Middlebrooks as a better prospect is all part of the risk anyone takes in any job that involves predicting the future. The Red Sox even had to bring a third team in to make this work. Middlebrooks filled a clear need for the White Sox, unlike Iglesias. But the Red Sox were still very high on him for some reason that was clearly unrelated to reading my numerous posts about him on BDC While you make it sound easy, but identifying what prospects will work out and what ones won't is extremely complicated and, in many cases, dependant on luck. In this case, the Sox gambled not only on Middlebrooks but also on Bogaerts, and it at least worked out in one case out of two. It could have been worse.

Minor league IP really isn't the same as major league IP. As a generalization, hitters have worse discipline and take fewer pitches, draw fewer walks and, well, get fewer hits. This is why many of them are still in the minors. Sure there are some legitimate hitters on the rise, but there are also many AAAA players who peak there. While not completely useless or disregarded, I also don't think they can be straight up compared to MLB IP one to one...

Which leads to two other points. While a good defender, Iglesias was not some freakish generational talent at shortstop. He's no Andrelton Simmons, and players like him do exist and come along quite frequently. Zack Cozart is a free agent right now. Nick Ahmed is a brilliant defender as well. And there are others. And really, if you want the proper hindsight argument, Iglesias should have stayed at third. Bogaerts is and was clearly more comfortable at short, and Iglesias was probably the best defensive third baseman I have ever seen on the Sox. Oh, and that whole "we did win a World Series" argument. Iglesias is a good player, but hardly worth three years of debate about whether or not he should have been dealt, especially after it all worked out so well. The guy the Sox should not have dealt was Anthony Rizzo, but for some reason the obsession remains with Iglesias. ..

I hated it. Not so much for giving up Espinoza, but for getting a pitcher with a shaky career already over his career high in IP...

So if the Sox moved Bogaerts to third, which isn't going to happen, who plays short? Internal options are guys like Marrero and Hernandez. Are they upgrades over Sandoval or Shaw or Holt?

Well, we know what Wheeler was. TJ surgery has also shown to have a very high rate of recurrence, usually with 600 IP. Wheeler has already had two and is starting to look like Jarrod Parker. He's probably best avoided unless the price is dirt cheap. I don't see Sale as an option. The Sox seem more llikely to go with the six starters they have and upgrade the bullpen with Holland and/or Hudson or ? Really not sure how many arms they can realistically add, ad they have Kimbrel, Kelly, Barnes, one displaced starter (barring injury), Hembree, Ross, Abad and Elias. One or two of those guys has to go...

Rasmus sucks. Why get a DH who can't hit? He wasn't released for being "too awesome" Brandon Moss vs RHP. Young vs LHP And this from a guy who hates platoons..

THe idea that scouting would disappear is a slippery sope argument. Not to mention, "eye test" from scouts and "eye test" from fans are two entirely different things. Don't take it personal. That encompasses all of us. But as a fan, you tens to watch one team and see one shortstop, centerfielder, etc. play 150 or so times. You see other shortstops, centerfielders, etc. play 6 to 18 times tops. That sample size makes for a poor evaluation, especially since the eye test inevitably turns into comparasion or worse yet, superlative. I bet somewhere on this board, possibly from you, but also others, I can find someone referencing Jackie Bradley as the "best centerfielder in the "AL, or possibly "in MLB." How much time did these people spend watching Kevin Pillar or Kevin Kiermaier? Have they ever even seen Ender Inciarte or AJ Pollock? And yet somehow, this is the conclusion. Heck I live in Cubs Country and people out here think Dexter Fowler is an elite defensive player based on the eye test. And I am quoting the evidence here "I don't care what the metrics say. I watched every Cub game and saw him make more great plays than any other center fielder~" And THAT is supposed to validate it?

And the "eye test " has a tendency to turn into the "reputation test" very quickly. ..

A car has more moving parts than a tricycle but I bet you don't commute on the latter. The problem with "eye test" defense is you only see a small sample from the other players and too often it turns into "I saw that guy make an error. " Well that and it's almost 100% subjective...

Are you really trying to compare the health histories of a catcher/outfielder who hurt his ankle and missed a few months with a pitcher who has had multiple surgeries on his pitching arm and hasn't pitched since 2014?

Maybe but at least both of them have actually played in the last couple seasons. With Wheeler, you not only get standard prospect question marks, but also legitimate health concerns.

Why bother with Zack Wheeler? He's missed 2 full seasons and wasn't exactly Sandy Koufax when he could pitch. Sure he might live up to his potential he had four years ago, but he also might spend the rest of his career bouncing from DL to active roster. If the Sox do try to acquire this human lottery ticket, hopefully they're smart enough to not use legitimate trade chips that could otherwise be dealt for a pitcher whose actually thrown a pitch since 2014....

Really? No credit for Uehara? No credit for Napoli? Cherington signed about one quarter of that roster prior to the season and won a World Series a mere FOURTEEN MONTHS after the Great Reset Button Trade with th he Dodgers...

Agree. Vazquez is Jose Molina 2.0. Not sure why so many are convinced he is some sort of generational talent as a defensive catcher. He's a good defender and not much of a hitter, which is the job requirements as a standard MLB backup catcher. In that capacity he does fill a need for the 2017 Red Sox, but too many people find it necessary to claim he is something he isn't. ..