Revisiting The Peavy/Iggy Trade

PrometheusWakefield

Nasty, brutish, and short
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
8,815
Boston, MA
The Red Sox are one of the few teams in baseball with six starters for five spots: Jon Lester,John LackeyJake PeavyClay BuchholzFelix Doubront and Ryan Dempster. There has been speculation that once Tanaka, Ubaldo Jimenez, Matt Garza and Ervin Santana are off the market, the Sox will look to flip one of their spare starters for a young player, maybe someone who can play the left side of the infield. Lackey and Peavy have been mentioned as the most likely to relocate.
 
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
Apr 3, 2001
40,400
Mtigawi
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
 
At the time of the trade Lester and Buccholz were major question marks and they felt it necessary to shore up the staff, atleast that's what Ben's public position has been.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,710
Maine
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
 
Considering the author says "maybe" and he (whoever he is, you don't link to the source) is clearly opining, I don't think it's an official admission of anything.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,396,756
NY
Plus they clearly sold high on Iglesias, and maybe they don't consider him to be a long-term solution.  I also took it to mean someone more like a utility player as opposed to someone who would replace either X or Middlebrooks.
 

ThePieholeOfDavidWells

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2008
62
Los Angeles, CA
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
Or this is a negotiating ploy to strengthen their position with respect to Drew. There's been plenty of press lately about how the Mets expect Drew to re-sign with the Sox, so this report is probably related to that.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
The Red Sox are one of the few teams in baseball with six starters for five spots: Jon Lester,John LackeyJake PeavyClay BuchholzFelix Doubront and Ryan Dempster. There has been speculation that once Tanaka, Ubaldo Jimenez, Matt Garza and Ervin Santana are off the market, the Sox will look to flip one of their spare starters for a young player, maybe someone who can play the left side of the infield. Lackey and Peavy have been mentioned as the most likely to relocate.
 
 
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,610
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
 
Ignoring for a moment the fact that what you've quoted is likely the output of some reporter throwing s*** against the wall and nothing more - why would any rational observer think that trading for Jake Peavy was a mistake?  He provided solid production down the stretch at a time when the team was trying to capture a divsion title and avoid the play-in game, and his presence in the rotation eliminated any need to rush back Clay Buchholz.  He had the one good start against the Rays in the ALDS before faltering but who knows what the team would have gotten from a weary Doubront had the trade never happened.  Nor is flipping him for a left-side infielder necessarily any admission of a mistake, especially If they can move him for a more useful piece than Iglesias was for this particular team.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,521
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
 
Honest question: are you 100% confident that the Red Sox would have won the World Series had the trade not been made (hint: the answer is "no.")?   Because even if the answer is "No, but I am 95% sure", then the trade wasn't a mistake.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,167
Maybe you wouldn't go back in time and un-do the deal, but would you swap Peavy for Iglesias right now?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
moondog80 said:
Maybe you wouldn't go back in time and un-do the deal, but would you swap Peavy for Iglesias right now?
 
Wait, I just read the question again. Are you asking if I would trade Peavy for Iglesias right now, or trade Iglesias for Peavy right now?
 
Assuming some hypothetical version of the current reality where the Sox don't currently have six starters, and do have Iglesias, I would absolutely make that trade. Iglesias isn't going to be more than a utility guy for us, what with Bogaerts and all, and Peavy is an improvement over Dempster.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,612
Row 14
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
 
Not really.  I think there were a ton of questions about Iglesias's bat sticking.  If they get help on the left side of the infield it will probably be at 3B.
 
My guess is Dempster is the odd man out as well.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,223
Charlottesville, Virginia
Rasputin said:
 
Wait, I just read the question again. Are you asking if I would trade Peavy for Iglesias right now, or trade Iglesias for Peavy right now?
 
Assuming some hypothetical version of the current reality where the Sox don't currently have six starters, and do have Iglesias, I would absolutely make that trade. Iglesias isn't going to be more than a utility guy for us, what with Bogaerts and all, and Peavy is an improvement over Dempster.
 
 
If they had retained Iglesias, we might never have confirmed that Bogaerts is on the cusp of the stardom many have predicted for him because both Middlebrooks and Iggy would have remained ahead of X on the infield depth chart.  They might have never made the post season without Peavy shoring up their then shaky rotation.  It is likely that we wouldn't be looking back at the world champion Red Sox with just Iggy still on the roster rather than Bogaerts and Peavy.  They definitely sold high on Iggy unless he ends up surprising everyone to hit more like Omar Vizquel or Ozzie Smith for more than a couple of months in the majors.  In the end, there is a better chance that Iglesias will have a career more like Alex Cora, Pokey Reese or Donnie Sadler than those rare Hall of Fame shortstops.  If Peavy is traded at some point, they might end up with something in return that ultimately exceeds what Iglesias will do.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,167
To be clear, I was asking of the Red Sox traded Peavy for Iglesais today, in 2014, would that be a good deal?  I think it would (even if it just means flipping Iglesias somewhere else).  But I would not go back in time and erase the deal.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,206
drleather2001 said:
 
Honest question: are you 100% confident that
the Red Sox would have won the World Series had the trade not been made (hint: the answer is "no.")?   Because even if the answer is "No, but I am 95% sure", then the trade wasn't a mistake.
Really? Because I am not 100% sure the 2007 Red Sox would have won the WS without Eric Gagne because of the Butterfly Effect but I'm pretty sure the FO wishes they hadn't made
that trade.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
The Boomer said:
 
 
If they had retained Iglesias, we might never have confirmed that Bogaerts is on the cusp of the stardom many have predicted for him because both Middlebrooks and Iggy would have remained ahead of X on the infield depth chart.  They might have never made the post season without Peavy shoring up their then shaky rotation.  It is likely that we wouldn't be looking back at the world champion Red Sox with just Iggy still on the roster rather than Bogaerts and Peavy.  They definitely sold high on Iggy unless he ends up surprising everyone to hit more like Omar Vizquel or Ozzie Smith for more than a couple of months in the majors.  In the end, there is a better chance that Iglesias will have a career more like Alex Cora, Pokey Reese or Donnie Sadler than those rare Hall of Fame shortstops.  If Peavy is traded at some point, they might end up with something in return that ultimately exceeds what Iglesias will do.
 
Even if Bogaerts hadn't made the majors at all in 2013, he'd have had an impressive resume at Pawtucket that would have him hammering at the door.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
snowmanny said:
Really? Because I am not 100% sure the 2007 Red Sox would have won the WS without Eric Gagne because of the Butterfly Effect but I'm pretty sure the FO wishes they hadn't made
that trade.
 
You just compared Jake Peavy to Eric Gagne. That's kinda twisted.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,710
Maine
The Boomer said:
 
 
If they had retained Iglesias, we might never have confirmed that Bogaerts is on the cusp of the stardom many have predicted for him because both Middlebrooks and Iggy would have remained ahead of X on the infield depth chart.
 
With the way Iglesias was crashing back to earth after that BABIP-fueled hot streak (221/257/232 over his last 101 PA in a Sox uniform), I think it's very possible we'd have seen Bogaerts up and competing for playing time and a post-season roster spot in September.  If anyone's late season role would have been negatively effected by Iglesias staying in Boston, it probably would have been Middlebrooks in that it may have been Iglesias and Bogaerts on the post-season roster instead of Middlebrooks and Bogaerts.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,153
If Iglesias is not on Detroit then maybe Peralta or whomever would have been playing short would have cleanly fielded Ellsbury's ground ball....  :colbert:  
 
Peavy was disappointing in his short time with the Sox. I don't think he's toast, but when the trade was made it was trumpeted as getting 1.5 years of Peavy. I think we all expected that 1.5 years to be better than league average. And for him for go more than 3-4 innings in his postseason starts. If he is a league average 5th starter this year and goes without compensation the year after, its likely not going to be a good trade
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,612
Row 14
Disappointing? Peavy gave us 4 QS (and just missed a 5th) in August when our SP was extremely thin.  He seemed to burn out a little in September but gave us a great start in Tampa closing out the series.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,375
New York, NY
Rasputin said:
 
You just compared Jake Peavy to Eric Gagne. That's kinda twisted.
 
It wasn't really a comparison of the players. It was an illustration of the ridiculousness of the logic in judging a trade based on whether the counterfactual of not making the trade would guarantee the same result. I mean, the logic really doesn't stop at terrible in-season trades. We can't be 100% certain that the Red Sox would've won a single World Series in our lifetimes if they hadn't traded Jeff Bagwell. We can never be 100% certain of any counterfactual scenario.
 
Moving on to evaluating the Peavy/Iglesias trade, I thought at the time that it was a reasonable trade even though we probably "lost" on an absolute value front. I still largely think that is true because I'm not terribly high on Iglesias ability to ever hit well enough to be an average or better MLB player. And, losing a below average player isn't something to lose sleep over, even if they would've been a valuable utility guy. I'd have to think pretty hard about swapping Peavy for Iglesias right now. Is the upgrade of Iglesias over Herrera worth the downgrade from Peavy to Dempster plus Dempster's trade value? 
 
And, speaking of that, we should probably wait till the end of the offseason before passing a revisionist judgment of the trade. If a heavily subsidized Dempster can bring back a significant prospect haul from a pitching and cash starved organization that is trying to compete, that could completely change our perspectives on this trade. A strong season from Peavy would also create the possibility of him receiving and rejecting a QO and netting the Sox a 1st round pick as an additional benefit of the trade. If they dump Dempster's contract and bringing back Drew would mean Iglesias would've needed to be traded this offseason anyway, so then the real debate would just be whether they got enough back for Iglesias, not if they should've kept him.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Nasty, brutish, and short
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
8,815
Boston, MA
drleather2001 said:
 
Honest question: are you 100% confident that the Red Sox would have won the World Series had the trade not been made (hint: the answer is "no.")?   Because even if the answer is "No, but I am 95% sure", then the trade wasn't a mistake.
The only flicker of doubt is the thought of what Doubront did in the bullpen.  But I'm not giving that doubt 5%.
 
edit: Oh and what Carlos Cleaver said about Jose Iglesias' defensive mistakes in the ALCS.  But what a weird reason for a trade to be good - because the guy he replaced was great in the pen and because the guy we traded sucked against us!
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
So this is basically an official admission that the Iglesias trade was a mistake, no?
 
 
This is from Rev's post summarizing the 2013 Saber Seminar
 
 

Reverend said:
 
He pretty clearly thinks they kicked ass in the Iggy trade. He said that they rode a two month hot streak into getting an important piece in a pitcher they wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. And he actually used language like that; again, he was very candid--surprisingly so. There was a follow up question about whether he thought that the hot streak was not indicative of Iggy's real talent and he literally chortled and said, "Um... yeah." The room erupted with laughter at his reaction. He was like, look, the guy was a .230 hitter and basically mocked the .460 he put up for awhile in the bigs as indicative of real change in ability and thinks it's awesome they got Peavy. He was really remarkably candid in the whole thing--makes me think of how much is left on the table in press conferences with the stupid questions. He's obviously not Belichick in his dealings with the press, but seeing what he was willing to say and what great explanations he gave when asked good baseball question really show how bad the press conferences are. Speier and BMac were there taking furious notes.
 
 
 
  It's pretty clear the organization didn't think highly of Iggy.  IMO, they would do that trade in a heartbeat today.  
 

LostinNJ

lurker
Jul 19, 2005
428
It would be a mistake to trade Dempster (or any starting pitcher) now. They need to be able to fill unforeseen needs later on. I hope they spend time asking "What if?" Like, "What if two of the five starters get hurt in spring training?" Or, "What if one of the starting nine gets seriously hurt?" Having a pretty valuable spare part is a big plus in circumstances like that. Not to mention that the market for Dempster's services will almost certainly improve in March/April as other teams develop ghastly holes in their rotations. Be patient. Wait for the right time. The readiness is all.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
LostinNJ said:
It would be a mistake to trade Dempster (or any starting pitcher) now. They need to be able to fill unforeseen needs later on. I hope they spend time asking "What if?" Like, "What if two of the five starters get hurt in spring training?" Or, "What if one of the starting nine gets seriously hurt?" Having a pretty valuable spare part is a big plus in circumstances like that. Not to mention that the market for Dempster's services will almost certainly improve in March/April as other teams develop ghastly holes in their rotations. Be patient. Wait for the right time. The readiness is all.
 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there's an urgent need to trade Dempster. Also, I think the injury to our own pitchers concern is ameliorated a lot by the not royal flush sitting there at Pawtucket.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,951
Park Slope, Brooklyn
TomRicardo said:
Disappointing? Peavy gave us 4 QS (and just missed a 5th) in August when our SP was extremely thin.  He seemed to burn out a little in September but gave us a great start in Tampa closing out the series.
Not only that but his dominant start against the Dodgers was absolutely a catalyst for their strong stretch run. IIRC they had just put together a mini-streak but the west coast gauntlet was being framed as the true measure of the team. Peavy was in top form and gave the team a very solid emotional lift from which, it seemed, they never really descended. In my mind, that trip—kicked off by that start—was a turning point.  
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,375
New York, NY
catomatic said:
Not only that but his dominant start against the Dodgers was absolutely a catalyst for their strong stretch run. IIRC they had just put together a mini-streak but the west coast gauntlet was being framed as the true measure of the team. Peavy was in top form and gave the team a very solid emotional lift from which, it seemed, they never really descended. In my mind, that trip—kicked off by that start—was a turning point.  
 
How was there a turning point last season given that there was never really a point where they struggled? They were incredibly steady as a .600 team from beginning to end with about as little performance variance as a baseball team can possibly be expected to have.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,167
JakeRae said:
 
How was there a turning point last season given that there was never really a point where they struggled? They were incredibly steady as a .600 team from beginning to end with about as little performance variance as a baseball team can possibly be expected to have.
 
May 15: 
"In some ways the hot start was unfortunate. This team is still a work in progress and Ben needs to take the long view and not overreact in a misguided push for the playoffs."
 
June 9:
"Clay's pretty fundamentally tied to the team's success at this point. If he goes down for significant time, it could be a nosedive."
 
June 24:
"If, as many expected before the season, the Sox would be out of contention by now I would agree on sending Webster to the mound, but as it is, they need every win possible, especially vs a suddenly surging Blue Jays."
 
July 8:
"The case for Victorino negativity is that neither his great start with the glove nor mediocre start with the bat are sustainable."
 
"The bullpen is back on the crisis list. Andrew Miller's beard is amongst the Gettysburg casualties. Hanrahan's elbow shredded long ago. Bailey's forearm misfires games from now. Koji is 37 in Rivera years. Alex Wilson is 14 in Koji years. Craig Breslow is coming up for tenure in Pitchology, which means he'll never publish again. Junichi Tazawa has already been through John Tommy once, and Alfred Aceves is back in the bullpen. Can Ben Cherington bring himself to trust de la Rosa, de la Torre and de la Webster? Or will he screw up the reliever exchange again?"
 
July 15:
"Your No. 3 is huge. Often going when it's 1-1 and/or going in Game 7. Or perhaps Game 1 of an ALCS. I'm not thrilled about any of Lester, Dempster or Doubie in those spots right now."
 
July 20:
"The Rays are one game out in the loss column." "There's a decent chance we're in second place later this week."
 
 
Going back through the season's archives is incredibly satisfying. Cherington says they're using internal options for bullpen help, hours before acquiring Thornton. Buchholz was compared unfavorably to a hockey player starting from the first skipped start back in May all the way through inning #1 of his World Series appearance. Admittedly, it was harder to find panicked posts than I expected, which is a good thing.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,375
New York, NY
 
May 15: 
"In some ways the hot start was unfortunate. This team is still a work in progress and Ben needs to take the long view and not overreact in a misguided push for the playoffs."
 
June 9:
"Clay's pretty fundamentally tied to the team's success at this point. If he goes down for significant time, it could be a nosedive."
 
June 24:
"If, as many expected before the season, the Sox would be out of contention by now I would agree on sending Webster to the mound, but as it is, they need every win possible, especially vs a suddenly surging Blue Jays."
 
July 8:
"The case for Victorino negativity is that neither his great start with the glove nor mediocre start with the bat are sustainable."
 
"The bullpen is back on the crisis list. Andrew Miller's beard is amongst the Gettysburg casualties. Hanrahan's elbow shredded long ago. Bailey's forearm misfires games from now. Koji is 37 in Rivera years. Alex Wilson is 14 in Koji years. Craig Breslow is coming up for tenure in Pitchology, which means he'll never publish again. Junichi Tazawa has already been through John Tommy once, and Alfred Aceves is back in the bullpen. Can Ben Cherington bring himself to trust de la Rosa, de la Torre and de la Webster? Or will he screw up the reliever exchange again?"
 
July 15:
"Your No. 3 is huge. Often going when it's 1-1 and/or going in Game 7. Or perhaps Game 1 of an ALCS. I'm not thrilled about any of Lester, Dempster or Doubie in those spots right now."
 
July 20:
"The Rays are one game out in the loss column." "There's a decent chance we're in second place later this week."
 
 
Going back through the season's archives is incredibly satisfying. Cherington says they're using internal options for bullpen help, hours before acquiring Thornton. Buchholz was compared unfavorably to a hockey player starting from the first skipped start back in May all the way through inning #1 of his World Series appearance. Admittedly, it was harder to find panicked posts than I expected, which is a good thing.

But, with the possible exception of May 15, at none of those points was the team actually struggling. A turning point requires there be a turn. In this case, the only turn happened over the off-season.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,610
Calling Peavy's gem against the Dodgers a turning point is probably overstating things, but it's frustrating to see how some folks appear to be retroactively dismissing his contributions to the team.  Do we really need to keep bringing up the spectre of September 2011 to get people to appreciate the value of a solid number 4 or 5 starter?  If Theo had been able to find a guy with Peavy's skills at the 2011 deadline, that team would have made the playoffs comfortably and likely been challenging the Yankees for the division lead.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I don't really know how anyone could look back on the Iggy-Peavy deal now and say it was a bad move by Boston.  Would I undo the trade today if Detroit offered Iggy for Peavy now?  Maybe, so long as Iggy would play the utility IF/defensive specialist role.  
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
drleather2001 said:
 
Honest question: are you 100% confident that the Red Sox would have won the World Series had the trade not been made (hint: the answer is "no.")?   Because even if the answer is "No, but I am 95% sure", then the trade wasn't a mistake.
Coudn't that same question be asked in either direction? It proves nothing.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,521
seantoo said:
Coudn't that same question be asked in either direction? It proves nothing.
 
 
I don't follow.  What the Tigers think about the trade is completely irrelevant.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,536
snowmanny said:
Really? Because I am not 100% sure the 2007 Red Sox would have won the WS without Eric Gagne because of the Butterfly Effect but I'm pretty sure the FO wishes they hadn't made
that trade.
Sure, but unlike Gagne both Peavy and Bogaerts were big parts of the playoffs.  Peavy in that he lengthened the pitching depth and put Doubront in the bullpen as a killer multi-inning lefty against the Cards, on top of a strong start against Tampa Bay, and Bogaerts did far more offensively in big situations than we could have ever expected from Iglesias.
 
There are tangible production losses by not making the deal.
 
Anyhow, Iglesias would make a real good MI for this club, but there is no other job for him unless Bogaerts fails to produce by epic margins and neither Middlebrooks or Cecchini can man 3B long term.  Iglesias wouldn't be happy with that role, would likely grouse about it, and his overall value package isn't really worth the issues involved.
 
More importantly, I think the upgrade from Dempster to Peavy is pretty valuable for 2014, and the fact that should Peavy stay healthy and produce up to career norms he'd be a shoe in for a comp. pick next winter trump the long term value we'd gain from Iglesias, given that Marrero could fill a similar role within a year or so and Drew is still out there as a potential acquisition for the short term.
 
I also think a sixth SP could see pretty significant use throughout the year.  Are we sure that Clay is going to be ready for the start of the season?  that Doubie will show up in shape this spring?  That both Dempster and Peavy will be healthy?  Etc. etc..  If there is no log jam going into the first few weeks of the season then I'd bet we'll almost never see a log jam throughout the whole course of the year.  The Sox have AAA options they could turn to instead, but if the market doesn't offer up worthwhile return for Dempster that AAA depth can be stashed and hold arb. clocks back a bit longer just as well as not.  The Sox are in the driver's seat on this and there are still more buyers than sellers when it comes to quality SP innings.  They'll either go into the year with great depth or they'll get something worthwhile back in return.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,475
Trading Peavy in the offseason (assuming that even happens) doesn't make the trade a mistake.  The team's needs at the time of the trade and now are different.  
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Peavy significantly helped a tiring rotation make it to the playoffs where they eventually won the World Series.(It just so happen to coincide with the Rays imploding down the stretch on the west coast but that was a best case scenario) If he pitches above average this year which I would say is highly probable I would still view it as gravy. The mission in that deal was trade from an area of prospect/organizational strength to bolster the 2013 team immediately in it's quest to compete for a World Series. Mission Accomplished. 
 
The Sox could shop Peavy anytime before July if they want to add to the team in a similar 2013 way and they feel comfortable with their pitching depth. Sure the prospect return may not be of Inglesias' caliber because he doesn't have the extra year of control but to label this trade a loss is to lose sight of the role Peavy played in winning what in the end is the ultimate goal of a baseball organization = Winning the World Series. 
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
moondog80 said:
To be clear, I was asking of the Red Sox traded Peavy for Iglesais today, in 2014, would that be a good deal?  I think it would (even if it just means flipping Iglesias somewhere else).  But I would not go back in time and erase the deal.
 
Of course it would be, but it's apples and oranges -- a big part of the rental period on Peavy has passed, and teams that want veteran pitching help have more options now than they did in July.
 
If the Sox are intent on moving Peavy, I think they can probably find someone to eat his salary. If they're serious about re-signing Drew (which I doubt), that could be critical. Alternatively, they could flip him for a veteran who more clearly fits a need, but I'm not sure what that would be -- any gain would seemingly be offset by the weakness created at the back end of the rotation.
 
Perhaps Peavy could be a key piece in a larger deal, but I'll be shocked if they swing a deal for an interesting young player where Peavy is the most valuable asset they give up.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
25,070
Southwestern CT
I realize that there is still an irrational obsession with Iggy around here, and I sense that this is one of the factors driving this discussion.  But I'm still perplexed.
  • Peavy provided rotation depth at a critical time
  • With Drew at SS and WMB/Xander at Pawtucket, there was a surplus of talent on the left side of the infield
  • Peavy was a solid contributor post-trade
  • The play of Drew and WMB was strong down the stretch
  • The emergency of Xander is something that would not have happened without moving Iggy
Oh, and the Sox won a World Series.
 
I don't care if they give Peavy away for a bag of balls now.  That trade was a no-brainer.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
TomRicardo said:
 
Not really.  I think there were a ton of questions about Iglesias's bat sticking.  If they get help on the left side of the infield it will probably be at 3B.
 
My guess is Dempster is the odd man out as well.
 
Yeah, I'm not seeing this as an indictment of the Peavy trade more than an indictment of Dempster (and to a lesser degree, Doubront). Given that many teams would prefer not to spend money on Dempster's contract, it may end up that Peavy or Doubront as the odd one out. Part of Peavy's trade value is, well, his on-the-field value.
 
In other words, you trade Peavy because he's 1) easier to move than Dempster, 2) provides some salary relief, 3) may actually net a somewhat meaningful return. Neither Dempster nor Doubront fulfill all three of these.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
the presence of Peavy also allowed both Doubront or Dempster to go to the pen.  One of them has to start if Peavy is not here.
 
If Doubront had stayed in the rotation, then you would have missed some key contributions from him out of the pen:
 
Specifically, he kept the Tigers off the board for 1.1 innings before David Ortiz's grand slam in Game 2 of the ALCS.
He pitched 2 clean innings in relief of Peavy in Game 3 of the World Series.  Obviously the Sox eventually lost this on the Salty-WMB misplay, but the score went from 2-0 Cardinals to 2-2 during his time on the mound.
And, he pitched 2.2 innings in relief of the dead armed Buchholz in Game 4 of the World Series, and the only run he gave up was the inherited runner he gave to Breslow.
 
Maybe Thronton or Morales could have pulled those off, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.  
 
If Dempster were in the rotation, I don't know that the Red Sox win game 4 of the ALDS, and then you have a game 5 against Price.
 
As well, I would not be surprised if Dempster's World Series start in this scenario is worse than Peavy's, result wise (4 IP, 2 R isn't great, but the latter season Dempster is not a lock for this performance)
 
So, it is more than just the butterfly effect stuff, it is that Peavy helped round out the Red Sox pitching staff and had tangible benefits both during the season and in the post-season.  Now, you could argue that maybe the Sox could have traded for a better target, but I'm not sure who that target would have been.
 

Papi's fan

Banned
Sep 19, 2005
255
Texas
The winning puzzle included Peavy and not Iglesias.  It was clear to me at the time that the Sox gained momentum and I believe confidence they never lost after that West Coast trip. Peavy's acquisition and performance provided Farrell the opportunity to be flexible with the pitching staff through the end of the World Series.  Doubront didn't want to relieve until he was assigned to the pen and as noted previously he came up big.  The Doubront move alone should pay dividends in player support of Farrell for some time despite his 1 game strategy hiccup against the Tigers.  Igelsias' error contributed to the Red Sox advancement to the WS, so you take the confidence in 2013 results and just figure Ben and company will turn the Peavy/Dempster issue to their advantage. 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,850
Not brought over from the Stove therad.... but whatever Peavy's ultimate fate, he made five really good starts in August when the team really needed them.  And at the time Iggy was surplus.
 
At the same time, he was busting a gut to hit 91 on the black.  I think he needs to take a page from the Lackey book and work on his non-arm body parts. He's 32. He looked done by the end of the year.  If everything remains the same, I am not convinced that he'll be better than Demspter.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
6,531
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
joe dokes said:
Not brought over from the Stove therad.... but whatever Peavy's ultimate fate, he made five really good starts in August when the team really needed them.  And at the time Iggy was surplus.
 
At the same time, he was busting a gut to hit 91 on the black.  I think he needs to take a page from the Lackey book and work on his non-arm body parts. He's 32. He looked done by the end of the year.  If everything remains the same, I am not convinced that he'll be better than Demspter.
The Red Sox tweaked Peavy's mechanics, lowering his arm slot so he could get extra movement on his fastball. Afer that, he struggled with command, and that was the main driving factor behind his poor performances. I think you're overstating how "done" he looked at the end of last season.
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril.
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
7,443
New York City
Not that it was a factor in the trade, but looking ahead FWIW I think the Sox could pretty much own this guy on annual "1-year team options" via the QO. I think he'll be right in that tweener spot -- No. 3ish pitcher on a contender -- where his FA market could crater with the cost of a first-round pick.

So, as long as Sox are willing to pay him $14M on one-year deals, he could be useful while we wait on Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens et al.
 

BCsMightyJoeYoung

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,164
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
LeoCarrillo said:
Not that it was a factor in the trade, but looking ahead FWIW I think the Sox could pretty much own this guy on annual "1-year team options" via the QO. I think he'll be right in that tweener spot -- No. 3ish pitcher on a contender -- where his FA market could crater with the cost of a first-round pick.

So, as long as Sox are willing to pay him $14M on one-year deals, he could be useful while we wait on Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens et al.
 
The problem with "waiting on Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens etc" is that these guys have to get experience in MLB. And that's not going to happen with the likes of Peavy and Dempster ahead of them. Maybe the FO is looking at breaking in one of them in 2015 when both Peavy and Dempster (and potentially Lester) are gone.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
 
The problem with "waiting on Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens etc" is that these guys have to get experience in MLB. And that's not going to happen with the likes of Peavy and Dempster ahead of them. Maybe the FO is looking at breaking in one of them in 2015 when both Peavy and Dempster (and potentially Lester) are gone.
 
If you think that the Red Sox won't use Ranaudo, Barnes or Owens in 2014, then you are way more optimistic about the Boston rotation's health and lack of suckitude than I am. None of those guys has dominated so hard in the minors that they couldn't benefit from a little more seasoning. Owens has pitched all of 30 innings above A ball, and Barnes and Ranaudo have about 35 innings above AA between them.
 
I was sad to see an exciting player like Iglesias go, but even if it wasn't a great deal, Boston got a good player in return and won the WS, so it's hard to be too upset about it. Iglesias doesn't have much of a role on team with Bogaerts, and it seems like maybe his mindset isn't well-suited to a back-up role. 
 
Dec 13, 2013
390
Gave us a few good starts in August. We ultimately earned HFA. That could have been the difference between winning the ALCS and losing it.
 
No regrets.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,389
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I actually think this wasn't a "big" trade from any perspective, even though it's seen as a "major" trade for the eventual WS victor.  Success may have 1000 fathers, but in this context Peavy's paternity suit is weak.  
 
Take a look at Peavy's game logs: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=peavyja01&t=p&year=
 
He was good in Au.g (6 starts), meh in Sept. (4 starts).  In the post season he gave us 5 good innings against the Rays, imploded in 3 against Detroit, and gave us a mediocre 4 against St. Louis.  
 
He may have pushed Doubront/Workman back into the pen, but there's no overwhelming evidence he was a better option than either of them (meaning, if we traded for Peavy and stuck him in the pen, the outcomes may well have been the same).  
 
So we got some rotation insurance/depth, but it's not like Peavy was driving the car (apart from a couple of excellent starts in Aug.) 
 
Peavy's future value to us isn't outstanding. 
 
***
Iggy's lost value to us wasn't great (for 2013) - he later hit the wall with Detroit and became a mediocre hitting excellent defensive player.  It's fairly safe to say that the Drew/WMB/X combo gave us more value than Iggy would have.  
 
Iggy's future value is speculative.  Right now Iggy isn't good enough to start for the Sox at 2b/3b/SS, given Pedroia, WMB, X.  Granted, he'd be great defensive depth.  He'd also be immediately pushed out of that depth if we resigned Drew and wanted to spell X between SS and 3B.  
 
***
 
Sure, in alternate universes, we do the trade, Lester gets hit by a come backer, and Peavy somehow carries us to victory.  
Or we don't do the trade, our pitching staff is fine, but Drew gets a freak injury, and Iggy stays hot through the end of the WS.  
Or we don't do the trade and the pitching staff gets the yips and we miss the playoffs.  
Whatever.
 
I feel the same ambivalence about each player's future prospects - maybe Iggy will tweak his swing, maybe Peavy will tweak (or retweak) his arm slot.  
 
Regardless, I'm 100% fine with the trade, no matter what happens to these guys in 2014.   
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
3,956
smastroyin said:
the presence of Peavy also allowed both Doubront or Dempster to go to the pen.  One of them has to start if Peavy is not here.
 
If Doubront had stayed in the rotation, then you would have missed some key contributions from him out of the pen:.
 
Plus having Peavy may have been a huge help to Doubront physically. After pitching very well from the middle of May through August, it looked like Doubront hit a wall in September, with back-to-back, 3.2-inning bad outings on Sept. 1 and 6. After that, he pitched just 8.1 innings from Sept 6. through Oct. 13.
 
That period of rest was made possible by having Peavy in the rotation, so not only did the Sox not have to start Doubront in the postseason, they had him very well-rested.