Register now to remove this ad

Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 687

Thread: Debunking the 3 year window myth -- the Red Sox in 2020

  1. #31
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    7,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    I agree that a large part of the reason that Dombrowski did not make a trade was because there wasn't a trade to be made.

    However, I do think that Henry is also pulling the reigns on Dombrowski's aggressiveness.
    That seems to run counter to the new John Henry - I think it is a moot point ultimately. If Dombrowski came back to Henry with - say, Mike Trout for Groome, Devers and stuff ... then this question becomes more interesting.

    After all, every deal Dombrowski has made has been totally reasonable - I did not agree with all of them (Kimbrel most so) ... but they were reasonable assessments.

  2. #32
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    7,352
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    It helped having the 2nd overall pick in 2013 (Kris Bryant).

    Maybe we can find the next Bryant with a 25th pick. Maybe not.
    It helped for them to stink a couple of years in a row - but they also traded everything not nailed down until they had players they thought would be on the next great team. Sox will have the luxury of having good players under contract for a long time - which ones is up to them of course.

  3. #33
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    If all the seats were filled with quality players, we would not have finished DEAD FREAKIN' LAST three out of four years. All of you doomsdayers conveniently IGNORE that fact.

    We don't "ignore it". We lived with the anguish along with the "pink glassess" of the future crowd.

    We had some high quality players on those teams. We finished in last place in 2012 with a staff Ben is bashed for disassembling (rightfully so, I might add). We saw HRam and Porcello suck in 2015's last place finish and then win the Cy Young and bat very well in DD's 2016 season. Same talent- different results.

    I know many of you felt we sucked those years. Kudos to you. The vast majority of baseball people did not expect those rosters to finish in last place 3 out of 4 years.



    DD is one for one and has chance to go two for two. He's made bold moves.

    He's oh for 1 in WS rings and far from being a favorite to win this year.


    DD has filled the bus with true ace in Sale. DD was smart enough to keep Devers and trade away Moncada. Not both as requested by the White Sox.

    I loved the Chris Freakin' Sale deal. I love our team right now. I think we'll have a good shot to win a ring in the next 3-4 years. This thread is about years 4-7 or so. Nobody id doubting how well DD built up for the 3-4 year window, except for maybe the Shaw deal.


    Kimbrel will have good three years on the bus as it cruises. The one that got off the bus is in the body shop.

    You mean Espi? That was the Pom trade. Margot is 15 for his last 35 with 2 HRs.


    I'm good with DD driving the bus.

    I'm okay with going for rings in a 3-4 year window. It's better than a 1-2 year window. However, I'm not in denial that the moves he has made won't affect our long term future adversely. The deals he made, IMO, will hurt us down the road. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

    Nobody knows anything for sure about 2020 and beyond, but our odds of being highly competitive beyond 2020 are less than if we still had Margot, Moncada (don't judge him too early), Kopech, Espi, Dubon and several more.

    Maybe it won't be a cliff. I hope the hell not, but the system has made it much harder than before, and we haven't really do to well in replenishing the farm when we had picks in the mid 20's and better access to international FAs. It's not impossible to rebuild while winning, but to deny the extreme difficulty and pretend everything will likely be just fine or to just claim that Henry will just totally change his MO and suddenly become the next George Steinbrenner, to me, is more likely a greater mistake than those of us predicting a probable upcoming cliff.

  4. #34
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    There are sufficient finances - if there are not, it is by choice ... those guys under contract for their peak years also become potentially useful trade chips - and probably the actual best way to re-stock the farm if that becomes a real issue
    Any big trade would likely have cost us Devers (with Nunez playing 3B to end the season).

    I think DD kept Devers, because he is part of the 3 year window. He was an unblocked ML ready prospect, unlike most of the other prospects traded away.

  5. #35
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    I think that our best players being 25-28 and hitting FA at the same time is wherein much of the problem lies. There could be a lot of needs to fill in 3 years, without sufficient finances or farm players to fill them.

    That being said, I do get the sense that the FO is now going to put more focus on the long term.
    Agreed. In one sense everyone hitting free agency in such a short period hurts, but the fact that that period is 2-3 years away allows for a pretty consistent core group of everyday players that needs very little tinkering with until then. We might just go with a cheap 1B/DH to replace Moreland/Young/Nunez and count on Chavis, Brentz and/or Barfield to add any depth we might need over the next 2 1/2 to 3 years. We also have Hernandez coming back and possibly Swihart, Lin or Marrero progressing further.

    The first big (within the window) tests will come, when we have to extend or replace in kind Pom, Kimbrel and Porcello.

  6. #36
    TalkSox Ascended Master mvp 78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    65,916
    Quote Originally Posted by OH FOY! View Post
    The Shaw Trade would have me skeptical of any moves DD makes if I was a Owner. Not because Reliever got hurt, but we kept Sandoval and moved Shaw and Prospects. Not too good at evaluating with what we had that were home grown.
    This team should win with what we have. If not, its on the Players.
    One bad move = fired. So true!
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    ( I won't say the "C word.")

  7. #37
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    My problem is not that Dombrowski made trades. It's the extent to which he traded away the farm, and my belief that he did not get sufficient value for some of the prospects traded.

    I agree, but I will admit that the perceived "insufficient value" we have gotten back in trades are doing better than I expected.

    I loved getting Kimbrel and expected him to be a top 3 closer for us for 3 years, but I thought we gave up too much for a high-priced RP'er. The closer market has exploded, so that aspect of my original assessment has changed, but I still agree that we gave too much.

    The Pom-Espi trade has looked like a roller coaster. Pom's injury discovery and weak showing last year looked like we were fleeced. I probably viewed Espi much more highly than many here, and I hated the trade. It wasn't about me not liking Pom. I just thought Espi's super high upside held more value. I have never been against trading top prospects, in fact I probably suggest more trades than anyone here. Pom has done very well, and I cannot criticize DD for making that trade anymore. The jury is still out, but Pom has been a great get.

    Carson Smith only involved Aro. No harm to the farm.

    I didn't think we needed to include Dubon to get Thrinburg, and maybe we could have used him to get a useful piece at this deadline, or he might have ended up being a very capable replacement for a departing Bogey to free agency or a big trade away.

    The Aaron Hill and Abad trades were minor.I loved the Ziegler trade. I liked the Nunez and A Reed trades.

    One-by-one, these trades look very good, but that doesn't mean each and everyone should have been or needed to have been made. Some of us would have liked to have seen a more balanced approach. Some, like myself, would have preferred us trading our top prospects (and keeping one or two more) for a guy like Quintana and not 1 or two from Pom, Kimbrel, Thornburg and Ziegler, even though all those deals look pretty good at this moment in time. Qunitana might have extended the window to 4 years. He has a 2020 option at just $10.5M!

  8. #38
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mvp 78 View Post
    One bad move = fired. So true!
    One bad trade, in hindsight, at this moment in time.

    What about the Price signing?

    Counting on Pablo?

    Thinking Moreland could replace Papi?

    His drafts and international signings are still too early to judge, but I will say, I'm happy with what we got with what picks we had.

  9. #39
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    7,352
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    One bad trade, in hindsight, at this moment in time.

    What about the Price signing?

    Counting on Pablo?

    Thinking Moreland could replace Papi?

    His drafts and international signings are still too early to judge, but I will say, I'm happy with what we got with what picks we had.
    Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury.
    Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers
    Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler)

    The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.

  10. #40
    Legend S5Dewey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    ME
    Posts
    6,975
    This may be "the new normal" in baseball, for a team to have a 3-4 year window followed by a 3-4 year period of rebuilding. If so, I can handle that. One of my most entertaining seasons was the last half of 2015, the last half of the downswing. After Lovello took over, watching Mookie, JBJ, et.al. play the game like they were enjoying it was pleasurable for me.

    As I said, I can handle the rich years/lean years cycle. IMO it's far better than being continually mired in 3rd place year after year while the GM continues to play musical chairs with the talent, trying not to lose but also not being committed to winning it all. [Hear that, Ben?]
    It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
    -Vin Scully

  11. #41
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury.
    I was fine with the signing, but he has come up short on expectations. I was worried about years 5-7 not 1-2.

    Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers
    Ummm, keep Shaw as an option at 3B and at 1B, in case Moreland slumped. Again, I was fine with that trade too, but if we are judging in hindsight, then it looks bad.

    Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler)
    I agree, but the results have not come through as planned. Again, I don't blame DD for expecting our offense to do better: I did too.


    The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.
    Agreed.

  12. #42
    King of TalkSox a700hitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    69,727
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post

    Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers
    This rationalization doesn't hold water. If Pablo worked out, Devers would have been blocked.
    The King of TalkSox has Spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    Chaim, you are in the big leagues now. Drawing 10,000 fans a game is not going to cut it, and people don’t buy tickets to Fenway to talk about the Farm

    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    "Relief pitchers are a crapshoot." No, the truth is "Crapshoot pitchers are relievers."

  13. #43
    Deity
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    10,488
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    That seems to run counter to the new John Henry - I think it is a moot point ultimately. If Dombrowski came back to Henry with - say, Mike Trout for Groome, Devers and stuff ... then this question becomes more interesting.

    After all, every deal Dombrowski has made has been totally reasonable - I did not agree with all of them (Kimbrel most so) ... but they were reasonable assessments.
    Absolutely!!!

  14. #44
    Deity
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    10,488
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury.
    Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers
    Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler)

    The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.
    Agree here too but I am really happy that we have Kimbrel. There is a lot of hind sighting and second guessing going on here with respect to the moves that DD has made all of which I have agreed with to some extent .(I just never felt good about trading Shaw) Speaking of hindsight, i wonder what type of discussion we would be having right now if Smith and Thornburg had remained healthy?

  15. #45
    Resident Old Fart Spudboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    24,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flap View Post
    I also don't buy the idea of ownership giving Dombrowski some sort of blanket prohibition against trading prospects...after all of the talent we've dealt recently, I find it hard to believe that John Henry or anyone in the front office would draw the line at trading a Chavis or Mata if the right deal was there and it would maximize our chances of winning in the next 2-3 years. Looking around at the market, it seems far more likely that the "right deal" involving any of our top guys just wasn't there.
    Of course you don't buy that "idea" because Henry is not on tape as having stated the policy or decision and Dombrowski himself, live, and on tape, said that he had been given NO SUCH INSTRUCTIONS.

    That story line is fabrication that hand wringers and doomsayers espouse.

    Again, one of the advantages of living in or proximal to Boston is that one call see and hear these policy decisions being said by the principals involved.

    I am for more likely to take it at face value when the horses ass says it right into the camera ( on the Sox own network, no less ) than to swallow the tale of woe spewed by some fans on the web.
    "Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.


    "It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •