Who's on Third? I don't know

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I do believe that the deal was defensible at the time and recoil from P91's assertion that anyone with this position is somehow defective. But Panda's (predictable, in retrospect) collapse as an effective MLB player leaves no doubt that the deal was a bad one, no matter how well Thornburg does. (IMO, of course.)
I agree that the collapse was predictable, and therefore I think if you want to blame anyone for this deal, it's probably John Henry. It seems highly unlikely to me that Dombrowski hasn't been eager to cut Panda loose from day one: not his signing, a roster-clogging PITA and a media distraction. But regardless of whose idea it was, the organization clearly made a decision last fall to give Panda one more shot at earning his contract. Once that decision was made, it really didn't make sense to keep Shaw around. I guess they could have used his last option and stashed him in Pawtucket, but I think the decision to cash him in to fill a hole on the ML roster was a defensible one. You can quibble about the return, but a 27-year-old corner infielder who just put up a catcher's batting line in his first full season does not have a ton of trade value. That's not what he looks like now, but it's what he looked like then.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,798
Henderson, NV
Again, please name all the other times a team has traded a starting position player and 3 prospects for a single middle reliever (from the National League, no less) and been praised for the move on SoSH? The answer is "Never."
Let's examine the bolded. Entering 2017, how many teams could Travis Shaw be considered a starter for?

Boston - and they chose to get rid of him because Pablo and depth and other needs
Atlanta - Adonis Garcia, 32 year old from Cuba, had pretty similar numbers to Shaw (his 2016 91 OPS+ vs. Shaw's 89)
Milwaukee - Had Hernan Perez and Jonathan Villar, amongst others, filling in there - Perez is more of a supersub and Villar was taking the full time 2B job
Pittsburgh - David Freese, 33 year old re-tread, who has somewhat better numbers to Shaw (his 2016 104 OPS+)

And that's it. Do you really think anyone other than Milwaukee was realistically going to make a deal? DD identified a need, found a trade partner and made the deal. There weren't many places Shaw was going to be able to go and get a shot to play regularly. And Atlanta and Pittsburgh weren't likely to deal anything significant for something similar to what they already had (even though Shaw is 5-6 years younger). This is a big chunk of the reason why there had to be the "and 3 prospects" part of the deal.


Let's get into the second part - 3 "prospects"

Mauricio Dubon - the #10 prospect at the end of 2016 per SoxProspects. A SS that is a "potential utility type at the big league level" (again, per SoxProspects). Oh, and guess who was just ahead of him at #9 on their list? Marco Hernandez.
Josh Pennington - SP unranked. 22 years old, pitched decently at short-season Lowell. Here was their summary - "Potential late-inning arm if things break right, but has a long way to go and a lot of risk due to previous Tommy John surgery. Because of prior arm trouble, delivery, build, and lack of a third pitch, doesn’t profile as a starter, although will likely be developed as one." So, in other words, a lottery ticket.
Yeison Coca - SS, 18 years old, got a $250K international bonus and hit 308/372/408 in the DSL. Another lottery ticket that's even further away.

So this notion that they gave away a ridiculous amount of assets for a "single middle reliever (from the National League, no less - why that really matters I have no idea)" is bull. They traded nothing of huge value for a guy that had the potential to help this club. And it hasn't worked out so far. As mentioned above, there's still a lot of years to make up the difference. But you just keep throwing out those unsubstantiated allegations that don't fit the actual framework of the deal.
 

KillerBs

New Member
Nov 16, 2006
900
I agree that the collapse was predictable, and therefore I think if you want to blame anyone for this deal, it's probably John Henry. It seems highly unlikely to me that Dombrowski hasn't been eager to cut Panda loose from day one: not his signing, a roster-clogging PITA and a media distraction. But regardless of whose idea it was, the organization clearly made a decision last fall to give Panda one more shot at earning his contract. Once that decision was made, it really didn't make sense to keep Shaw around. I guess they could have used his last option and stashed him in Pawtucket, but I think the decision to cash him in to fill a hole on the ML roster was a defensible one. You can quibble about the return, but a 27-year-old corner infielder who just put up a catcher's batting line in his first full season does not have a ton of trade value. That's not what he looks like now, but it's what he looked like then.
This is where I differ. I can buy a provisional decision that Panda was the 3b of 2017. I have much more difficulty with not being better prepared in the event that this plan did not work out. You can point to Holt, Hernandez, Rutledge etc. as fall back options, but that struck me ex ante as too thin a response to the possibility/likelihood of Panda failure. When you factor in the off season need/desire for a LHB 1b, the Shaw deal and subsequent Moreland signing seemed odd from the outset. Shaw and Moreland appeared coming into 2017 to have similar hitting projections but Shaw has the advantage of being able to play 3b too (and is cheaper on top of it). The alternative course of action was to stand pat, with Shaw at 1b and Panda at 3b, with the prime off season target a RHB 1b/3b to platoon with one or other as case may be.

The decision to upgrade the bullpen certainly made sense. The obvious option to dealing for Thornburg (or his ilk) was re-signing Koji. In sum, it looks like they decided on Moreland/Thornburg over Shaw/Koji despite the similar cost.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,595
Maine
This is where I differ. I can buy a provisional decision that Panda was the 3b of 2017. I have much more difficulty with not being better prepared in the event that this plan did not work out. You can point to Holt, Hernandez, Rutledge etc. as fall back options, but that struck me ex ante as too thin a response to the possibility/likelihood of Panda failure. When you factor in the off season need/desire for a LHB 1b, the Shaw deal and subsequent Moreland signing seemed odd from the outset. Shaw and Moreland appeared coming into 2017 to have similar hitting projections but Shaw has the advantage of being able to play 3b too (and is cheaper on top of it). The alternative course of action was to stand pat, with Shaw at 1b and Panda at 3b, with the prime off season target a RHB 1b/3b to platoon with one or other as case may be.

The decision to upgrade the bullpen certainly made sense. The obvious option to dealing for Thornburg (or his ilk) was re-signing Koji. In sum, it looks like they decided on Moreland/Thornburg over Shaw/Koji despite the similar cost.
Out of curiosity, do you have an example of a suitable RHH 1B/3B that was available had they gone this alternative route?

I think it's easy to argue, then and now, that the Holt/Hernandez/Rutledge safety net behind Sandoval wasn't the very best plan in the world. However, the biggest issue is that to upgrade over those guys would have required finding a willing participant at a reasonable price to be that upgrade.

In either case, it would seem that to fully satisfy detractors of the path they did take, it would require finding at least one player who is of starter or near-starter quality that was willing to sign on for a part time role. Those are damn hard to find without paying a disproportionate price. As has already been hit upon multiple times, most free agents (such as well beaten equine carcass Trevor Plouffe) aren't going to be chomping at the bit to sign where they might be relegated to the bench if there's an alternative landing spot where the path to a starting job is easier/faster.

Even trading for such a player might not be a pleasant option if the result is another Jay Payton type incident (considering his chirping last fall, Travis Shaw himself could have been a Jay Payton-esque malcontent).

While what they did this winter hasn't worked out well so far, I'm not sure that taking a different path would have surely had a better result.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
So you weren't joking.
Can't it be both? Xander is fine at SS and I'm not moving him off SS because people aren't robots, but if they were, I'd put the better defensive SS at SS and the other guy at 3rd. Of course the better defensive SS may be Xander anyway.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,548
I'd say Shaw looked substantially worse than his line by the end of last season; get him to two strikes and throw a fastball up and out of the zone and he was practically eager to K. That went on for 2+ months without any sign of him adjusting. There's a reason Aaron Hill started talking his starts; by the end of the year he looked a bit like Marrero with worse defense.

Despite that, I didn't like the trade, mostly cause Shaw had decent range and I didn't ever want to go back to Panda's version of "defense," but I understand why they made it. Relief ace valuation went through the roof last year, especially after Tito's postseason innovations, and we were down our 3 of our top relievers at the end of the year. They had to give Panda at least a shot to rebuild value, with Holt, Hernandez and Rutledge on hand to bridge to Devers if that didn't work, so it made sense to deal Shaw. Too bad it seems that was selling so low, even worse that our 3b and bullpen have been so plagued by injuries this year.
 

Curt S Loew

SoSH Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
6,463
Shantytown
Can't it be both? Xander is fine at SS and I'm not moving him off SS because people aren't robots, but if they were, I'd put the better defensive SS at SS and the other guy at 3rd. Of course the better defensive SS may be Xander anyway.
Thanks for clearing that up.
 

KillerBs

New Member
Nov 16, 2006
900
Out of curiosity, do you have an example of a suitable RHH 1B/3B that was available had they gone this alternative route?

I think it's easy to argue, then and now, that the Holt/Hernandez/Rutledge safety net behind Sandoval wasn't the very best plan in the world. However, the biggest issue is that to upgrade over those guys would have required finding a willing participant at a reasonable price to be that upgrade.

In either case, it would seem that to fully satisfy detractors of the path they did take, it would require finding at least one player who is of starter or near-starter quality that was willing to sign on for a part time role. Those are damn hard to find without paying a disproportionate price. As has already been hit upon multiple times, most free agents (such as well beaten equine carcass Trevor Plouffe) aren't going to be chomping at the bit to sign where they might be relegated to the bench if there's an alternative landing spot where the path to a starting job is easier/faster.

Even trading for such a player might not be a pleasant option if the result is another Jay Payton type incident (considering his chirping last fall, Travis Shaw himself could have been a Jay Payton-esque malcontent).

While what they did this winter hasn't worked out well so far, I'm not sure that taking a different path would have surely had a better result.
That is a fair point, these guys do not grow on trees. Danny Valencia? He was dealt in November for AA/AAA pitcher, which I do not know we had to spare.

Of course, the difficulty in finding decent available 1b/3b at low cost, who will accept a part time/platoon role, indicates how valuable a player Shaw was, even with the underwhelming post ASB numbers.

If they would have kept Shaw, they could have expanded the search to a RHB who could platoon at 1b but not at 3b too. Guys like Mark Reynolds and Steve Pearce (and now Sam Travis) make more sense in that scenario. That is, they traded away 3b depth which the team needed, either without prioritizing replacing it, or with no reasonable options to do so.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,415
Somewhere
I think it's pretty clear that the Sox dealt Shaw not from a position of surplus, but with the expectation that Thornburg would continue his stretch of dominance into this season. In that sense, they gravely miscalculated. Or they just fell on bum luck. Either way, it's pointless to speculate. But I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the Sox felt their internal options at 3B were any good.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,219
Portland
And to add to that - look at what the Indians bullpen did in the postseason. Having a completely dominant pen was a huge reason they got as far as they did. The Sox probably figured it was a small offensive downgrade at 3b in exchange for a completely lights out (and usually well rested because of projected innings from starters) 6th - 9th inning bullpen. If the rest of the team was hitting like last year, we're not talking about Shaw as much.

It just hasn't worked out as planned
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
And to add to that - look at what the Indians bullpen did in the postseason. Having a completely dominant pen was a huge reason they got as far as they did. The Sox probably figured it was a small offensive downgrade at 3b in exchange for a completely lights out (and usually well rested because of projected innings from starters) 6th - 9th inning bullpen. If the rest of the team was hitting like last year, we're not talking about Shaw as much.

It just hasn't worked out as planned
The only underperformance on offense other than the calvalcade of suck at 3B is Hanley (thanks Ben!). Everybody else is well within one standard deviation of performance over half a season.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,653
Olney mentioned that Gyorko might be available. He might not be a bad pick up
Doubt it. Gyorko's having a breakout year with three seasons left of an insanely team-friendly contract with the always-competitive Cardinals. He's why we signed Peralta.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,219
Portland
The only underperformance on offense other than the calvalcade of suck at 3B is Hanley (thanks Ben!). Everybody else is well within one standard deviation of performance over half a season.
They scored 878 runs last year. This year they have 350 and are almost halfway through the season. That's well more than an overall standard deviation.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
They scored 878 runs last year. This year they have 350 and are almost halfway through the season. That's well more than an overall standard deviation.
Loss of Ortiz, which is hardly unexpected, plus how bad Ramirez and Sandoval have been. Pretty simple. It's not "If everyone else was performing as expected, they'd be ok." It's that they replaced Ortiz with no-one, Ramirez is banged up again, and third base is a wasteland. A self-inflicted wasteland.

The only one you can reasonably give them a pass for is Ramirez. Reasonable to assume that DHing 2/3 of the time would help keep him healthy.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
They scored 878 runs last year. This year they have 350 and are almost halfway through the season. That's well more than an overall standard deviation.
Yeah, if everybody that was within a standard deviation averaged out to average, the 3B issues and Hanley wouldn't be such a problem. As you allude to, the issue is everyone is below expectations on offense. Run prevention has been saving the Sox so far.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,556
Springfield, VA
It's not just 3B and Hanley. Pedey is having the worst year of his career so far -- his SLG is 80 points below his career average, a much bigger drop than you'd expect for his age. And Mookie has taken a massive step back -- wRC+ now at 110, vs his first three years of 129, 119, 135.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Pedey had pretty terrible power years in 13 and 14 too. I wouldn't say it's entirely unexpected. He's at that age and has had multiple injuries.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,412
It's not just 3B and Hanley. Pedey is having the worst year of his career so far -- his SLG is 80 points below his career average, a much bigger drop than you'd expect for his age. And Mookie has taken a massive step back -- wRC+ now at 110, vs his first three years of 129, 119, 135.
Has Mookie really taken a massive step back? Through June, here are his slash lines and wRC stats from this year and last:
  • 2016: .287/.327/.501
  • 2017: .266/.343/.474
wRC (Apr, May, June):
  • 2016: 14, 23, 17
  • 2017: 13, 21, 13
wRC+ (Apr, May, June):
  • 2016: 96, 141, 106
  • 2017: 109, 122, 96
In other words, Mookie is largely the same player he was through this point last year. His 2016 EOY numbers were driven in large part by an insane July and August (wRC+ of 179 and 186). If anything, his rate stats suggests some underlying positive trends (full year stats included for 2016):
  • 2016: BB% - 6.7% | K% - 11.0% | ISO - .216 | BABIP - .322
  • 2017: BB% - 10.0% | K% - 8.2% | ISO = .208 | BABIP - .259
It's hard not to be encouraged by a higher walk rate and a lower k rate with an ISO that is inline with his career-best last year. If anything, his low BABIP (vs a career BABIP of .308) suggests that he's been particularly unlucky. If anything, his batted ball profile bears this out:
  • 2016: LD% - 19.3% | GB% - 41.4 % | FB% - 39.4 % | HR/FB - 13.2% | Pull% - 39.7% | Cent% - 35.1% | Oppo% - 25.2% | Soft% - 17.4% | Med% - 49.2% | Hard% - 33.4%
  • 2017: LD% - 17.6% | GB% - 40.4 % | FB% - 41.9 % | HR/FB - 10.7% | Pull% - 46.8% | Cent% - 36.3% | Oppo% - 16.9% | Soft% - 18.7% | Med% - 43.8% | Hard % - 37.5%
Relative to 2016, Mookie is pulling the ball at a much higher rate and consistently generating more hard contact (not necessarily unrelated things), though not in a way that is resulting in more home runs. I'm no expert but, considering his drop in BABIP, Mookie may be pulling the ball into the shift more and clearing the fence less.

At multiple points throughout the season, Mookie has seemed on the brink of a huge hot streak. If he can tweak his approach to go to the opposite field more often or if more of his hard hit balls carry into the stands, he could quickly become the monster he was last summer.

(And yes, this may not belong in a thread about 3B - feel free to move it elsewhere!)
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
7,251
His infield fly ball percentage is up to 15.2% from 12.3% last year. He's hitting more pop ups, which is contributing to that lower BABIP. He's also only at 8 Offensive runs above average this season while he finished at 40.7 last year.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
Has the loss of Ortiz really hurt them though? Moreland has a .361 OBP and a .476 SLG. While Ortiz was at .401 / .620 last year, I don't think that would have been a reasonable expectation for him in 2017. Ortiz had OPS of .872 in 2014 and .913 in 2015. Averaging those gets you to ~892. Moreland is at 837. So ~55 points of OPS. A downgrade for certain, but not monumental. But obviously 837 isn't close to Papi's 1.021 last year.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
It's not just 3B and Hanley. Pedey is having the worst year of his career so far -- his SLG is 80 points below his career average, a much bigger drop than you'd expect for his age. And Mookie has taken a massive step back -- wRC+ now at 110, vs his first three years of 129, 119, 135.
All well within the normal variation for half a season. And as noted below, Moreland is out producing all but 1 year of his career, making up for some of it. Leon and Vazquez are giving them far more than they had any right to expect as well. Bradley is up to an 850 OPS, which was not a given at all. Benintendi is clear runnerup to Aaron Judge for ROY, which also was in no way a given.

They knew they had a potential big drop in offense, that's why (or a consequence of) they invested in run prevention.

And a big part of that drop in offense was the decision to openly hand the starting 3B job to Grady Sandoval by trading Travis Shaw. The alternative to me, and not one I've seen here, is that they bought into the Bill James hype on Hernandez and planned on him being the clear fallback option. We will unfortunately never know if those optimistic projects were warranted. But that would make the trade less awful ex ante, and put it more into a double secret bad luck case.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
All well within the normal variation for half a season. And as noted below, Moreland is out producing all but 1 year of his career, making up for some of it. Leon and Vazquez are giving them far more than they had any right to expect as well. Bradley is up to an 850 OPS, which was not a given at all. Benintendi is clear runnerup to Aaron Judge for ROY, which also was in no way a given.

They knew they had a potential big drop in offense, that's why (or a consequence of) they invested in run prevention.

And a big part of that drop in offense was the decision to openly hand the starting 3B job to Grady Sandoval by trading Travis Shaw. The alternative to me, and not one I've seen here, is that they bought into the Bill James hype on Hernandez and planned on him being the clear fallback option. We will unfortunately never know if those optimistic projects were warranted. But that would make the trade less awful ex ante, and put it more into a double secret bad luck case.
They had Sandoval. And Hernandez. And Holt. And Rutledge. And a whole bunch of AAAA guys, including Matt Dominguez and Mike Olt. And Marrero. And now Lin.

Plan A failing was likely. Plan B, too - though Hernandez's injury is more than a little bad luck. But Plan C? D? E? I think that the failure of Plan A has been known for 18 months. But Holt's vertigo and the complete failure of all the AAAA guys has created the circumstances in which we mourn the loss of Travis Shaw.

If there's a reason to bash Dombrowski over the Thornburg trade it is including Dubon and not haggling that part of the ask down to Marrero. And for gambling on injury risk relievers in general. Missing Shaw is a red herring.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
They had Sandoval. And Hernandez. And Holt. And Rutledge. And a whole bunch of AAAA guys, including Matt Dominguez and Mike Olt. And Marrero. And now Lin.

Plan A failing was likely. Plan B, too - though Hernandez's injury is more than a little bad luck. But Plan C? D? E? I think that the failure of Plan A has been known for 18 months. But Holt's vertigo and the complete failure of all the AAAA guys has created the circumstances in which we mourn the loss of Travis Shaw.

If there's a reason to bash Dombrowski over the Thornburg trade it is including Dubon and not haggling that part of the ask down to Marrero. And for gambling on injury risk relievers in general. Missing Shaw is a red herring.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
8,945
Brookline
We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.
Shaw is gone. Forget him.

Hernandez, Holt and Rutledge aren't going to be playing any time soon. Sandoval has been justifiably disappeared.

Marrero can't hit major league breaking balls. (He can't hit minor league breaking balls either.)

It has to be Lin, unless and until the Sox make a trade for a 3B. I am looking forward to watching Lin play.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.
There was the 700 plate appearance run of AAA mediocrity that might have given some pause to reasonable evaluators who were also looking at his putrid last third of 2016.

I've never been employed by a baseball team, but I would think that what came before his 2 half seasons of success, and what came after those 2 half seasons might have played a role in their evaluations, rather than some "fundamental" ineptitude.
 

pantsparty

Member
SoSH Member
May 2, 2011
553
We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball
Did you predict somewhere here that Shaw would bounce back from his awful second half of last year?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.
Well that, and the fact that he was and is a poor defensive fit at 3b. I think that might have also factored in to the evaluation.

The idea the Red Sox thought Shaw was a capable 3b, offensively and defensively, is based on wishcasting and hindsight. The fact is he would have been, at best, plan D at 3b on the 2017 roster.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Did you predict somewhere here that Shaw would bounce back from his awful second half of last year?
Actually, he did. Within 40 min of the deal being announced Plympton was the first prominent dissenter, criticising every aspect of the deal which would come back to haunt us.

Wow. One good year in the NL with a noncontender and already 28. Yikes. Seems like competition for the 10th or 11th spots with Heath Hembree more than anything else.

I guess they've determined Travis Shaw is who he was in the second half of 2016. If Shaw bounces back at all, this is a huge overpay. And giving up Dubon as well? That's insanity.

And he's already halfway to TJ surgery apparently, with the PRP injection two years ago.

How many times are the Red Sox going to get hosed bringing in middle reliveres from the NL Central before they realize that the NL is really a AAAA league?

This has disaster written all over it. Dombrowski's questionable history of building bullpens doesn't inspire confidence.
The consensus of the announcement thread was positive and he was roundly skewered:
Couple things.
1.
Alex Speier ‏@alexspeier 42s43 seconds ago
Tyler Thornburg was an elite, elite reliever last year. RHP had huge K rates vs LHH (40.2%) while holding them to .130/.223/.190 line.

You can argue that we shouldn't take that as prediction of future performance, but to compare him to Hembree is insane. He's our 8th-inning guy, and he's dirt-cheap, and we have him for three years.

2. I think they determined that Travis Shaw is who he was all of 2016: a very streaky hitter with holes in his swing who would be a decent option for a corner infielder on a team that didn't have Sandoval, Holt, Moncada, and Devers all either under contract or on the way.

3. Dubon is Marco Hernandez is Brock Holt. He's worth more to a team that is bad enough to consider starting him at SS.
and so Plympton backed off a bit:

With the acquisition of Sale, this deal makes a lot more sense. The Red Sox are in a Go For It Now phase, and have opened up a 3 year window in which they should be the best team in the American League. None of the 3 players traded in this deal are at all important to that 3 year window, whereas having a relief ace is.

John Henry gets one last extended rodeo, and then cashes out.
But he never retracted his initial criticism of the deal. I think it's fair to say he's earned the right to say 'I told you so'.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Maybe when he admits he was wrong about Ellsbury.
But I wasn't. There still has yet to be a season in which the Red Sox wouldn't have had a starting spot Open, and any excess of the cost over production is easily absorbed by not signing Castillo and not trading for Craig, both of which are direct consequences of not signing Ellsbury.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,075
But I wasn't. There still has yet to be a season in which the Red Sox wouldn't have had a starting spot Open, and any excess of the cost over production is easily absorbed by not signing Castillo and not trading for Craig, both of which are direct consequences of not signing Ellsbury.
My god... I truly can't believe you won't let this go.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,291
Southwestern CT
But I wasn't. There still has yet to be a season in which the Red Sox wouldn't have had a starting spot Open, and any excess of the cost over production is easily absorbed by not signing Castillo and not trading for Craig, both of which are direct consequences of not signing Ellsbury.
If you can't admit that you were wrong about a player who became one of the worst free agent signings of all time, then you really are identifying yourself as someone who is not to be taken seriously.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I know it isn't my place to play thread police but are we really rehashing Ellsbury again?
I'm sick to death of talking about Shaw but at least that has some relevance to the subject.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I know it isn't my place to play thread police but are we really rehashing Ellsbury again?
I'm sick to death of talking about Shaw but at least that has some relevance to the subject.
Again. I am simply replying to the attack. If people want to stop talking about it, they're free not to. But if you broach it, I'm going to respond.

Ben Cherington could have made the point moot by reallocating $168 million productively. He spent it on Castillo, Sandoval, Ramirez, and Craig ( and $10 million on Masterson for good measure).
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,201
South of North
Actually, he did. Within 40 min of the deal being announced Plympton was the first prominent dissenter, criticising every aspect of the deal which would come back to haunt us.



The consensus of the announcement thread was positive and he was roundly skewered:


and so Plympton backed off a bit:



But he never retracted his initial criticism of the deal. I think it's fair to say he's earned the right to say 'I told you so'.
By this logic though, don't you have to chalk up some of Shaw's success to playing in the AAAA NL Central?
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,201
South of North
You're right. When was the last time a team from the NL Central ever did anything? o_O
Hey, I'm just trying to be logically consistent. I didn't say I agree with the argument!

Just to add some numbers, the Cubs are first in the NL Central currently in OBP, which ranks 14th in the majors (although TBF Cincy and STL are right after them above league average and MIL and PIT are just below league average).

In OPS+, Cincy is the only team above league average at 100 and PIT is the only team below 95 at 87.

On the pitching side, STL, CHI, and Pitt are all better than league average in FIP, MIL is below league average, and CIN is dead last.
 
Last edited:

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Hey, I'm just trying to be logically consistent. I didn't say I agree with the argument!
Pitchers in the National League face other pitchers or bench players serving as pinch hitters where AL pitchers face DH's. As a result of pitchers hitting in the 9th slot, the strategy of 8th place hitters changes significantly from how an 8th place hitter in the AL approaches an at bat.

All of this accrues to the benefit of NL pitchers and makes it easier for them to navigate lineups. Such as walk the 8th hitter to face the starting pitcher and get out of a 2nd inning jam more easily. This should be self evident. Sorry if it wasn't for some.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,219
Portland
I'll add another name to the list though unproven. I have no idea why the Giants haven't given him a chance yet given how awful their 3B production has been. If they don't have room for him, then maybe they would move him in the next week which would give the Sox a few weeks to try him out.

From Rotoworld
Jae-gyun Hwang plans to use the opt-out in his contract with the Giants if he's not called up to the majors by July 1. (It's unclear if the Giants intend to do so. Signed out of the KBO over the winter, the 29-year-old Hwang is batting .287/.331/.466 with six homers, 43 RBI, and five steals through 67 games with Triple-A Sacramento. He has mostly split time between first base and third base, though he has also made a pair of starts in left field. Given where the Giants stand right now, it's worth a shot to at least see what he can
 

pantsparty

Member
SoSH Member
May 2, 2011
553
Actually, he did. Within 40 min of the deal being announced Plympton was the first prominent dissenter, criticising every aspect of the deal which would come back to haunt us.
Fair enough, thanks!

I was more upset about giving up Dubon, and he's gone back to being a slap hitter so that shows what I know.