S5Dewey

The Lackey trade? That's ancient history. Give it up.

Yeah, it probably is. I prefer to think about it as its not being because we're wrong but rather that most people have accepted it and moved on. After all, "everyone IS entitled to their opinion....." Fair warning though... the next time Iggy's name is brought up you can expect me (and maybe Moon) to be right in the middle of the conversation!

What am I? Chopped liver? If it will make you feel better, "Boy, I wish we still had Iglesias." In fact, I DO think it set the organization back, if not 10, then 3-4 years. I do agree that it's been beaten to death. That's why in spite of my simmering feelings about it I never bring it up. I know that at this point I'm not going to convince anyone else and they're not going to convince me. However, when someone else brings it up I will rise to the bait. Hey, everyone has their weaknesses. Mine are good scotch, pretty blondes, and the Iglesias trade. Edit; Not necessarily in that order.

Saying 'Iglesias was clearly not identified as one of the top three or four best prospects and was made available' is a circular argument. Was he not identified as a ML player the reason he was made available, or was he made available because he was misidentifed? The FO made two mistakes. The first was misidentifying Iggy as a true ML SS and the second was misidentifying Middlebrooks as a keeper. Oh-for-two. If you choose to include Bogaerts (even though I see him as a slam-dunk) then they're 1-3 There are a few players whom even you and I could identify as players to hold onto. Mookie, Benintendi, Bogaerts, probably JBJ & Iggy if a GM truly believes in defense, and possibly Vazquez. Three CF'ers, a SS and a catcher. What do they all have in common? They all have the defensive skills to play 'up the middle'. These are the guys you keep because they have the skills to play anyplace and are harder to replace. You then juggle them as necessary to build a team - and at this point a low-cost team. After the juggling is done the remaining corner spots are filled with players within the organization with strong offensive skills or with FA's. The scouting was good. The Sox have been blessed with five or six guys who could be the future of the team. Every one of them whom they trade away weakens the team and/or costs money. That's why we're paying Sandoval $14M when we could be paying Iggy $2.7M to play 3B (and bust my chops about this if you wish. I didn't look those salaries up but they're close). Even if Sandoval had worked out trading Iggy would still be a bad idea.

I was completely with you until you until you talked about moving our best SS to 3B. We didn't. We moved our best hitting SS to 3B and traded our best defensive SS. That aside, this is the problem with putting too much stock in prospects. Too many of them wash out. I agree that when the trade was made we had Middlebrooks and Chiccini as "sure things" at 3B but when neither of them materialized we were stuck with what we had. That's why were I the GM I'd rely on scouting to identify the 3-4 cream of the crop prospects - the guys like Mookie and JBJ - and I'd make everyone else available in trades. Yes, those of us in "the brigade" are sometimes frustrated by what could have been, and when that happens we express our frustration. It's frustrating to see The Fat Man occupying a spot on the bench and sucking salary money that could better have been spent elsewhere when (IMO) it was foreseeable that trading Iggy was a mistake in the long term view. So we talk about it. As Moon said, there are good points on both sides of this discussion. Those who liked the trade are happy about it. Those of us who didn't are frustrated. And life goes on.

My post about doing away with scouts and going to computer-generated rosters was (I thought obviously) an exaggeration. Scouts will never be done away with. While computers measure performance after the fact, scouts often measure the players before the fact. I recently read something from someone within the Sox organization saying that they made "a dozen" calls to Andrew Miller before he signed with the Sox. They pursued him so vigorously because they saw a flaw in his delivery that they felt could be corrected. Had teams been relying solely on computer generated data Miller may very well be out of baseball by now. I wholly recognize that scouts have value. When it comes to fans, I think it's understood that most fans are parochial so, yes, fans often tend to exercise some hyperbole in evaluating their own players. Therefore what they say has to be taken with a grain of salt. However, some of us try to maintain a semblance of objectivity. As much as I like JBJ I thought Pillar would get the GG @ CF in spite of the fact that I only saw him play in a limited number of games. And even then I was wrong. I can't help but question voting for personal awards by writers, fans, or anyone else for the very reason you presented - how many times does one person actually SEE a player perform? And how many plays did that player make during those games that were seen? My guess is not many, so they rely on stats and the few games they've seen the nominees play in the 'eye test' to decide whom to vote for. Serious fans are no different - we rely on stats plus the eye test - and even then we don't agree. When voters in the BBWA or players and/or managers can't agree on who the best player is, how can we expect the fans to? As for me, I come here for (usually) respectful discussion from like-minded Sox fans. It's not about being right or being wrong. It's about garnering different points of view. When I agree with someone.... great. When I don't I fall back on something I was taught by my parents: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how much of a crackpot they are". :-)

Anyone who's been reading what I've posted here since I came to this forum knows that I'm not advocating completely for the "eye test". I'm all for a combination of stats and the eye test. My bigger problem is with those who use WAR as the be-all, end-all. It's not. There's room for both. When there's no longer a need for the eye test there will no longer be a need for scouts. Teams will simply collect data for every player, plug it all into a computer, and BINGO! - out pops comprehensive data which will always be correct.

I subscribe to the KISS principle. WAR has too many moving parts, and the more moving parts something has the more likely it is to break down. In this case, Fangraphs should be thanking ME for verifying what they've posted.

I hate WAR. I hate it even when it proves me right! LOL

Bogaerts had a WAR in 2016 of 3.7. So now take any of these proposed trades that we're seeing here and substitute Bogaerts name for Bradley's and see what the reaction would be. My guess is that there would be a huge outcry of "We're OVERPAYING!". "If we're giving up Bogaerts they're not getting [Player A] OR [Player B!]". My point here again (and again and again ) is that as fans we tend to put too much value on a player's offense and not enough on his defense.

With the caveat that one can hear anything.... It may not have been the disappointing season in 2006 that precipitated the Gonzo trade. The rumor that was abounding at the time was that Gonzo had trouble keeping those good hands off other player's wives. If so, that's probably not a good clubhouse influence.

Sometimes I think people post things like this just to get a rise out of me. JBJ is NOT just a step away from being an above average CF. He's one of the best CF'ers in baseball and a GG candidate. His downside - if you can call this a downside - is that his OPS has "only" been above .800 for the past two seasons. Unfortunately when we talk about a player what we are focusing on is their offense, and their defense is relegated to being of lesser value. That's why we think JBJ isn't as good as he really is and it's why Bogaerts isn't as good as we think he is. For me, I see JBJ and Bogaerts value to the team as being about equal. I realize that this happens because we're inundated with offensive stats that are easy to understand, but as serious baseball fans we should be able to look beyond that. We should be able to understand that even though defense isn't as quantifiable or as easy to understand there's (at least) as much value in defense as in offense and express ourselves accordingly.

Injured or not, when Iggy is making $2.1M and Sandoval is making $17.6M that's $15.5M that can be spent on pitching. As a point of reference, Andrew Miller made $9M last year.

Having been a Sox fan all my life it seems like I'd always waited for that other shoe to fall, for something dreadful to happen to ruin what would have been a great moment. That all changed in 2004. Very possibly the best phrase I've ever heard in my baseball life was Joe Casitigione saying, "Pokey Reese has it...". It's sometimes difficult to win, to get those last three outs or to make that last play that seals the win, and I knew inside that Reese was the guy whom I wanted to have the chance to make that play. Even now that phrase is locked away someplace between my ears and I hear Stiggy say it occasionally, and when I do the hair still stands up a bit on the back of my neck. "Pokey Reese has it...". Thanks for the memory, Moon.

Thank you. Maybe now we can put the "all flash and no substance" argument to bed once and for all.

First a couple of disclaimers. Disclaimer #1 - It goes against my grain to dis a player on my team but I'm willing to make an exception because I'm getting tired of the revisionist history involving Iggy. Disclaimer #2 - In spite of my disdain for defensive metrics I'm going to do what the stat geeks do when trying to make a point. I'm going to Baseball Reference and their stats. BR has a stat called Rdrs/yr, which is the number of runs above or below average a fielder was worth over 1200 innings (or approx. 135 games) Dojji was correct when he said that no shortstop in recent Red Sox history who has been a better than average defender at shortstop over multiple seasons but there was one who was exactly at average. Iglesias was exactly average over his three years in Boston @ 0 and in 2016 he was +10 for the Tigers. Bogaerts OTOH has had one year (2015) when he was exactly average. In 2014 he was -12 in 99 games at SS and in 2016 he was -9 in 157 games. In short, Bogaerts defense allowed 19 more runs that Iggy's did in 2016. According to BR Iglesias has a 2016 dWAR of 1.1 while Bogaerts had a dWAR of -0.1 If you want to say that Bogaert's offense more than makes up for the difference I'll go with that (without looking it up) but can we please put to bed the idea that Bogaerts is a better SS than Iggy? Either that, or can we agree that defensive metrics are so much bullcrap?

I didn't see moving Mookie from 2B to CF as being a "demotion". In fact, I saw it as a promotion, and since there's little to no future for a 2Bman in the Red Sox organization it was a promotion begging to be made. I recognize that there's a mindset that CF is the premier outfield position but IMO that doesn't hold true in Fenway park. We learned the value of having two CF'ers in Fenway with one in CF and one in RF during Victornio's stay here - or at least I hope we did. I see CF & RF as being equal on the defensive spectrum in Fenway with LF being the only OF demotion. Either Mookie saw it that way too or he, as you say, did what the team asked him to do and made the best of it. Either way, Mookie was the winner.

You know that post is going to be difficult to reconcile with your post about Papi being the MVP, don't you? Quote: "I know you disagree with me on this, but I think there is a difference between the most valuable player and the best player. I think that some players bring value to the team that can't be measured by stats or by WAR. And if you know anything about me, you know that I'm a big believer in stats and I'm a big fan of WAR." And just when I thought you were 'coming around', too.

We were typing at the same time. To your post I say YES!

It's not that simple. One can start at the top of the defensive spectrum and move players down in that spectrum with success but it doesn't work the other way. Moving XBO from SS to 3B should make for an improvement at 3B while moving Travis Shaw from 3B to SS would probably be a disaster in the making. Players can be moved from one position to another but the FO has to be smart about doing it. [see: Bill Belichick & the Patriots] Regarding the closer situation as it pertains to Chapman vs. Kimbrel now.... If I'm a GM I want guys on my team who will 'suck it up' and play for the good of the team Guys like Koji & A. Miller. Guys who could close but instead are willing to fill whatever role they are put into without grousing about it. Too many of these professional players have become such prima donnas that the tail is now wagging the dog. If Chapman refuses to come to Boston because he fears he wouldn't be the closer, or if Kimbrel doesn't want to play behind Chapman (or anyone else), I say, "Fine. Move on, then." If Chapman doesn't think he's good enough to unseat Kimbrel as the closer or he doesn't want that challenge, well, Chapman probably knows Chapman better than we do. It's the same with Kimbrel. If he doesn't think he can hold his position in the face of having Chapman on the team then he's probably right. And if either one of those guys has such a big ego that they're willing move on rather than be a part of a lights-out BP they're going to fail as the 8th inning guy anyway. Let's weed out the guys with the big egos and those who believe in themselves from those who don't and build a better team.

To take them one at a time, Leon vs. Vazquez: I've always been a big proponent of defense, especially up the middle, and IMO Vaz is currently a better catcher at blocking balls and throwing runners out than is Leon. I wouldn't pretend to get into the area of which pitchers like which catchers better because that's all speculation. Offensively I think that Leon has gone back to being the Leon of old, a catcher who will be around the Mendoza line, which I see as the floor for Vazquez. Hence, Vaz over Leon. Now Leon vs. Swihart: I see Swihart to improve to be at least as good defensively as Leon due to his athleticism, and I don't think many of us would disagree that Swihart may be the best hitter of the three. Hence, Swihart over Leon. And let me say that this isn't a knock on Leon as a catcher. I wouldn't be disappointed to see him be our catcher on opening day - as long as the other two remain in the system someplace. It's just that IMO going forward I'd rather take my chances with Vaz and Swi than either of them + Leon. In a nutshell, I think Leon is what he is and the other two will improve. But what do I know? I'm not overly a stats guy. I just try to blend stats with the eyeball test. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong. Fortunately what I think has no bearing on what DD does.

If I had to take a chance on any two of the three I'd be keeping Vaz & Swihart.

I don't see Sandoval as an adequate replacement at DH. I understand that we're trying to find a place for The Fat Man because of his salary but the guy has a career OPS of .790 with 13 HR's a year. That's respectable enough for a position player but doesn't cut it as a replacement for Papi (.931/27).

I'm still not sure but Farrell was blowing smoke when he said that. If not, Sandoval put on a lot of weight awfully quickly. But you're right, it's all up to Sandoval and how badly he wants it. I do think he's now been put on notice that if he wants his job he needs come come in several lbs lighter than last year.... and stay that way.

I can go along with the first two, even though I still don't think JBJ is going anyplace. But in order for us to carry him as a 5th OF his only real position would be as the platoon LF'er. IMO it would make more sense to keep Holt as a super-utility guy.