OCD SS said:
Who are we actually talking about? When the talking heads discuss "prospect hoarding" it's usually with an eye towards driving their own content cycles and the short term benefit they derive from having big deals made. The thing is that the upper level guys Ben has kept off the table are now playing for the Red Sox. He "hoarded" Xander, Mookie, Swihart, maybe Vazquez and EdRo? Apparently teams called after JBJ in the winter and were told he wasn't available, so that definitely looks like a mark in his favor as opposed to the general, short-term consensus around here and the rest of the internet. I have no doubt they were willing to deal other players, like Owens, Johnson, Checchini, Marerro, Barnes or any other list of guys farther back who've fallen away. The thing is none of them really looked like the sort of top prospects that drive major deals. Any player that's too young to drive a deal because he hasn't "been exposed" is likely still seen to be risky enough that you can't get much for them anyway (So Margot wasn't going to headline a deal for Hammels - This is why you don't see prospect for prospect trades.) The rest of the industry in MLB is not that dumb.
The important thing for me is that the "day trader" approach is almost diametrically opposed to both player development (because you're making early calls on players with less information, and that increases your risk of getting burned) and an approach of "deep depth." Even the guys that we think might turn into impact talent have wound up making significant contributions to the team this year (and in year's past that have been more successful) and those minimum wage fixes allow you to plug holes while retaining the flexibility to make larger moves elsewhere (how well those resources are spent is a separate discussion).
You've mentioned some, but I'd add Webster, de la Rosa, Ranaudo. I'm not as sure as you on the willingness to deal Owens, Johnson, Checchini, etc. In any case, it's a lot of players that were given ML playing time. I agree that he kept (I'll discard "hoard") the best of the lot but, since I'm arguing he kept too many, that's not really a surprise. JBJ is an interesting case in that up until a few weeks ago, you could argue that he's Exhibit A as a top prospect whose valuation took a big hit at the ML level - so much so that any prospective return would probably be greatly diminished. I actually agree with keeping a JBJ at that point - his defense is useful - and you now won't get much in return. At least not as much as you might have previously.
To be clear, it'd be delusional to think Webster, etc. would drive a big deal and that's not my focus. It's a question of smaller scale where the prospect would bring a better player before his debut than he would after. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, I can't point to a specific trade proposal, but there was a market after poor performance so I have to believe there'd be a market while there's still an unknown in place.
Of course, I agree that the guys brought up at minimum wage allowed flexibility, but the poor results of Webster, etc. was actually a worst case scenario for those prospects as they didn't actually do much for the team on the field and their value took a hit. If you're confident in your evaluation, it would have been better to get what you could while you can. Successful day traders do exist, however, and I'm guessing DD's hiring is a reflection of a change in approach as another wave is coming and the wish want to maximize that return.
