Revisiting The Peavy/Iggy Trade

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
  [tablegrid= Red Sox SS and 3B performance down the stretch ]Player August OPS PA September OPS PA Drew 867 108 859 91 WMB 880 69 746 89 XB 708 16 673 34 Iglesias 713 94 551 54 [/tablegrid]
 
You can argue that the downgrade to Iglesias would not have made a big difference - after all the Sox had a 5 game cushion against both Tampa and Detroit, the teams they actually faced.  I also realize there is a defensive component but I don't think the numbers or observation really carry that Iglesias would make up these differences (other than compared to Xander's very small sample) with the glove.  YMMV.  Anyway, there seems to be a pretty good chance they would have lost home field to the A's, and then would have had to play Detroit in the LDS and then who knows what happens after that.  
 
This is in addition to whatever value Peavy brought.  Maybe you could have traded WMB for someone equivalent, but those deals didn't look to be out there, and Detroit needed a SS, not a 3B.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
25,081
Southwestern CT
reggiecleveland said:
 
This nails it. Over the holidays I read few books about Ted Williams, one was The Summer of 49 and it seemed between the wars(the big one and Korea) the Sox were a favorite most years, but fell short after being so close. All of us in our lifetimes have seen gut wrenching defeats. 2011 and 2012 were awful, and I was at least a bit worried with Tito and theo leaving and terrible moves like signing Crawford, hiring Bobby V, we were in for a dark age. The way this championship washed all that away into the "3 titles in the Ortiz era" narrative, publically and interanally should not be downplayed. I am happy 60 years from now Sosx fans will not be reading weepy retrospectives about how they almost won, or the collapse of 2004-07 would be dynasty, because I am pretty sure CHB was saving quotes from tito for just such a book.
 
This will be my last post on this subject.
 
I lived through '75, '78, '86 and '03.  All the years of frustration were bad, but those years in particular were simply soul-crushing.  The three WS wins we've had since then gave us (as fans) the greatest gift I could imagine - the ability to keep things in perspective.
 
Unfortunately, they also seem to have given us a false sense of entitlement.  Because the idea that we would take a World Series win so lightly that we would undo a deadline deal because of what we lost even through we ended up winning the World Series is simply not something I'm able to comprehend.
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,275
Pioneer Valley
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
I was and still am one of the biggest Iggy fanboys and trading him for Peavy last year was a no-brainer. Peavy is a solid starting pitcher who's controlled for another year. Iggy would be great to have as a util IF but that's all his value would've been on the Sox this year. Who wouldn't trade a utility guy for an established starter?
I guess it's been explained many times, but I still haven't been convinced that the combination of Iggy at SS and Bogaerts at 3rd isn't a great option, IF Iggy turns out to hit anywhere near league average for a SS. (If the team had a better player than Middlebrooks for 3B, the question wouldn't enter my mind.) This question is in addition to the issue of Peavy's value last year and going forward, because there are so many variables in that question that they make the head spin.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
The idea that one of the prospects would have produced at the same level of Peavy in the midst of a pennant race is just looking through completely rose colored glasses. Also league average pitching at that time of the year is a very valuable commidity.
 
Finally this argument seems to boil down to causation/correlation. I happen to firmly believe that Peavy was a cause for the Sox maintaining their pole position in the regular season even if his presence might have diminished to correlation(merely being in the rotation and an option) for the team winning the crap shoot that is the playoffs . It's a World Series win. Enjoy it and I think the odds are long Jose will significantly out perform our left side of the infield over his career to outweigh X and whatever league average option plays third and the ring Peavy helped to win.  
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,610
seantoo said:
Peavy's contributions are greatly exagerated here in this thread, he was average with the Sox during the regular season (ERA+-101) and terrible in the playoffs (3 starts, 12.67 IP &  7.11 ERA). Other pitchers such as Doubront (or Workman or insert your favorite pitching prospect here) very likely would have done better.
 
That stats line is laughably inadequate for illustrating Jake Peavy's performance in the 2013 playoffs.  One really good start, one really bad start and one average start.  Context also does matter - Peavy giving the Sox 5 2/3 of one-run pitching in game 4 of a five-game series in which their opponent would start David Price in a winner-take-all final game was incredibly valuable, while his Detroit meltdown occured when the Sox were up 2-1 in a seven-game series.  To use the famous quotation, you are using these statistics for support rather than illumination. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
joe dokes said:
 Other pitchers such as Doubront (or Workman or insert your favorite pitching prospect here) very likely would have done better
 
Very Likely? Bullshit.
 
August happened. Workman was in the process of saving the bullpen. Demspter's coach was turning into a pumpkin, Doubront was terrible in September and his October relief work was zero indication of his ability to start.  Which pitching prospect would you like me to insert? (Seriously?) Webster? They gave him a shot and he failed. Wright? His one MLB start was a disaster.
 
If Peavy was, as you say, a lottery ticket, then the Sox won, but took the upfront cash (7 of 10 good or better starts down the stretch;) over the annuity. And I think any competent financial advisor would tell you to do the same.
 
There's also making the decision the club actually faced. At the time, the choice they faced wasn't whether or not to trade Iggy for Peavy, the big picture decision was were they going to trade for starting pitching or relief pitching. They decided that 1) given how you have to overpay even more for relief pitching than starting pitching at the trade deadline and reliever performance is really volatile year to year and, 2) because they figured based on the personnel they had, they could shuffle things to work out the problems in the pen especially if they had another reliable starter, that they should go for another starter.
 
So in retrospect, the FO/Coaching Staff should be getting full credit for absolutely nailing this call.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,167
lexrageorge said:
The detractors of this trade are too quick to dismiss Peavy's August starts and his Game 4 start against the Rays.  Yes, it's possible that the Sox could have still won the World Series without those contributions, but we'll never really know that.  However, we can say that his contributions were at least positive; winning Game 4 of the ALDS is not "nothing".  Saying another pitcher on the staff would have done the same is akin to saying the Sox would have won the ALCS without Victorino's salami or the WS without Shane's bases clearing double.  
 
While the WAR provided by Iglesias vs. Peavy is still an unknown, we should all agree that a World Series victory has immense value to a franchise that goes above and beyond the WAR calculation over a period of 10 years.  I've yet to really encounter anyone that truly regrets the Hanley for Beckett trade, for example  
 
If Peavy is flipped for a position player that provides a positive contribution in 2014, that's actually a good thing.  As noted, Iglesias value to the team long term is questionable at best.  A defensive whiz with league average hitting has value, but it's not Jeff Bagwell value unless that he's Ozzie Smith.  And Iglesias is not yet Ozzie, and may never be.  
 
Philip Jeff Frye said:
Was there this much angst back in the day about the trade of Hanley Ramirez?  The players (Ramirez/Beckett vs. Iglesias/Peavy) in that deal were of higher caliber, of course, and we got additional unexpected value out of Mike Lowell (but also lost out on Anibal Sanchez), but Hanley has gone on to have a career far in excess of anything Iglesias is likely to achieve.
 
If we're going to second guess trades that contributed to World Series titles, I'd start there, not with last year's deal.
 
I think the Beckett trade is worth revisiting because we're not forced to speculate about Iggy's value into the future. We can estimate how much value Boston got from Beckett and Lowell - combined, they provided 33.1 bWAR to the Red Sox. In their first six years, Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez provided 42 WAR to their teams. Objectively, the Red Sox lost value on the trade. But they won a World Series. Anybody arguing the Peavy trade was a mistake should be willing to concede the same about the Beckett trade. 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
9,280
NH
InsideTheParker said:
I guess it's been explained many times, but I still haven't been convinced that the combination of Iggy at SS and Bogaerts at 3rd isn't a great option, IF Iggy turns out to hit anywhere near league average for a SS. (If the team had a better player than Middlebrooks for 3B, the question wouldn't enter my mind.) This question is in addition to the issue of Peavy's value last year and going forward, because there are so many variables in that question that they make the head spin.
 
I agree completely that a left side of Iggy and X would have been a great option but is it better than a X, Middlebrooks left side though? Middlebrooks may have had issues last year but after his demotion he performed much better. He offers a decent glove and 25+ HR power add that to X's potential and that's one hell of a SS, 3B combo.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
6,910
seantoo said:
Peavy's contributions are greatly exagerated here in this thread, he was average with the Sox during the regular season (ERA+-101) and terrible in the playoffs (3 starts, 12.67 IP &  7.11 ERA). Other pitchers such as Doubront (or Workman or insert your favorite pitching prospect here) very likely would have done better.
This is the Dubront who had an ERA+ in 2013 of 94 and the Workman who had an ERA+ of 83, right?  And these guys both had ERAs in of almost 5.00 after the All Star break, so its not like they were improving as the season went on.
 
Talk about unprovable conjecture!
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,610
kieckeredinthehead said:
 
 
I think the Beckett trade is worth revisiting because we're not forced to speculate about Iggy's value into the future. We can estimate how much value Boston got from Beckett and Lowell - combined, they provided 33.1 bWAR to the Red Sox. In their first six years, Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez provided 42 WAR to their teams. Objectively, the Red Sox lost value on the trade. But they won a World Series. Anybody arguing the Peavy trade was a mistake should be willing to concede the same about the Beckett trade. 
 
I've never regretted that the Sox made that trade, even after Hanley turned out to be a superstar for a few years.  When it counted, Beckett and Lowell were worth it. 
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
JakeRae said:
 
Its not flawed logic, it's a thought exercise.

The Red Sox WON THE WORLD SERIES with Peavy contributing a greater-than-marginal amount in the process. You would risk undoing that. I would not.

My 95% bit does not apply to me, because my preferred outcome (a World Series victory with Peavy) is a 100% certainty. You are the one trying to argue, after the fact, that they would have won without Peavy. They MIGHT have, but I am saying I would not care to find out. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that they would have, and you can't. This is not a Gagne situation where his contributions are easily isolated and largely negative. Peavy contributed meaningful, largely quality, innings both before and during the playoffs.
 
So your own rules don't apply to you becuase they won the WS? By that logic a WS justifies all. That is flawed logic, teams often win despite several players injured or underperforming or not being good enough. You argued that even if someone was 95% certain that they were still wrong. Nice of you to frame the debate so you could not lose it, Captain Kirk would be proud of you.
 
Now you've modified your stance to 'you would not care to find out', which is different then your original stance and again framing the debate so you cannot lose even though you can't actually verify it either way. My opinion was the same after the trade because I do believe Iglesias will be at least a league average hitting SS whose a defensive whiz. Nearly everyone here agreed he'd be at least a borderline All-Star if he ever reached that level but doubted he would be. 
 
They won the WS despite Peavy as his 3 playoff starts and 12+ IP with a 7.11 ERA beg to differ against your claims, his 60 IP with a ERA+ of 101 finishing the year stinks of mediocrity. Doubront and Workman among others should have bettered those marks. I was not [SIZE=12pt]admantly [/SIZE]against making a trade for a pitcher, Buchholz status somewhat forced the teams hand, however I would have moved some combination of Middlebrooks and or pitching prospects instead. Perhaps the Sox attempted that route and it was not what the other side wanted. At some point you have to weigh what you have with what you got and decide if it's worth it afterall. I believe that Middlebrooks is worth more to many teams than he is the Sox. He does not work the count nor is he a high contact batter, which is decisively not what the Sox are about, Iglesias does not work the count however he is a contact hitter. Middlebrooks power therefore becomes more valuable to other teams, and Iglesias defensive first value at a premium defensive position is where the new moneyball is at.
 
I can't keep this up, everyone is spinning their wheels and gaining no ground, a perfect example of an exercise in futility.
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
 

JakeRae said:
Why does .320 seem like a reasonable BABIP projection for Iglesias? Iglesias has a AAA career BABIP of .277 over 916 PA. His MLB BABIP currently sits at .326 for his 465 PA career. If we create a back of the napkin BABIP for him between AAA and MLB over the last 3 years, it's  right around .293. (I cheated a bit to save myself some time, so I might be off by a point or two, which really doesn't matter.)
 
Iglesias makes weak contact and hits few line drives. Both of these are significant elements of BABIP skill. His shortcomings in those categories likely balances out his advantages from hitting very few fly balls and being fast. The only real reason for potential optimism I can see as to his having improved his inherent BABIP skill last year would be if his bunting really just started last year, since he appeared, both statistically and observationally, to be quite good at it. I don't know where to get minor league bunting stats, so I can't answer if this is true, but if it is, some of his improvement could be real, but that's more of a cause to be optimistic that he can produce a .300 BABIP in MLB than .320.
 
Steamer and Oliver tend to agree with my assessment. Steamer, pessimistically, pegs him for a .289 BABIP and a .257/.303/.341 line. Oliver, slightly more optimistically, projects a .304 BABIP and a .261/.311/.341 line. With elite defense, those lines would give you an average MLB shortstop. That's about what can be expected from Iglesias. (His projections are worse than that, but they do not credit him with elite defense and that is almost certainly an artifact of his time at 3B, where UZR did not like him, and whatever amount of regression they throw into projecting his shortstop defense given his lack of track record. However, we have the benefit of having scouting data that confirms the SSS UZR data for him at short and all of that says that he's, at the very least, one of the best defensive shortstops in baseball.)
This is my last response in this thread, then I've moving on. BABIP means more with larger samples. The 2 most recent and largest samples where he competed at the same level I allready provided. His BABIP in those instances is .299 (Pawtucket in 2012)  and .356 (MLB in 2013). Average that out and and subtract some to be conservative, never mind he improved his bunting as you stated and is a groundball hitter with speed (yes those players typically exceed the .300 BABIP benchmark and .320 is conservative. He was pushed through the minors very quickly (reaching Pawtucket at 21 years old ) and despite that he hit .257/.307 in 1209 PA, he hit 266/318/306 in 2012 w/ Pawtucket but the monthly breakdown shows more than the overall picture does. He was a young (472 PA against older pitchers, 10 PA against younger pitchers) batter with erractic numbers month to month and rarely struck out putting the ball in play. Many here said he would never hit .250 in MLB well in 424 at bats including the good the bad and the ugly he's hit 274/325/354 when other SS have hit 256/309/376 yet this player with only 1200 MILB PA who turned 24 less than a week ago is not going to improve despite Baseball America ranking him as high as #52 prospect in the game.
        Again I'm not claiming he'll hit 300 even though he did better than that last season. I meant to post Steamer .644 OPS and Oliver's projection for Iglesias but forgot to then someone in response posted them claiming they kinda suported his view, which blows my mind. Two people see the same projected #'s and claim that the projections support their side. I'm spinnig my wheels here and not gaining any traction. The other side sees what they want, which when a player changes their uniform is the norm I suppose.
PS:
Interestingly enough Oliver does 5 year projections including WAR. http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/is-will-middlebrooks-already-irrelevant/ WAR is Total 9.7/5 years =1.94, IglesiasTotal is 10.1/5 years = 2.02 which supports my premise but not enough to claim outright victory. Afterall trading Middlebrooks for pitching is what I wanted to do at that time, not Inglesias.
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
smastroyin said:
 
That particular post is a response to the entire thread.  To the idea that somehow if the Red Sox now trade Peavy for a SS/3B it "proves" the initial deal was wrong.  
 
The value of the trade, and the discussion you are having, I put into other posts very clearly, and also discussed at length at the time.  And I will continue to talk past you because you are the one person who is the most to the "OMG Iglesias is awesome nothing they could have done would make me believe they should have traded him" types.  You don't think you are, but you are, and we have discussed this all through the summer.  You wanted Drew traded to clear room for Iglesias and maybe gather more prospects.  You (and others) thought the Red Sox had too little of a chance of competing to make marginal upgrades to the 2013 team (at the possible expense of the future) worth it.  I hope in the end you actually enjoyed the World Series win, but this point of view is much too far from my own for me to have a much more reasonable conversation than this about it.  
It's simply not true that I did not think the team could not win nor did I not want to trade any prospects. Not true at all. And I wanted to trade some of the excess on the left side be it Drew or Middlebrooks. You have the wrong guy.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
seantoo said:
 
 


Its not flawed logic, it's a thought exercise.

The Red Sox WON THE WORLD SERIES with Peavy contributing a greater-than-marginal amount in the process. You would risk undoing that. I would not.

My 95% bit does not apply to me, because my preferred outcome (a World Series victory with Peavy) is a 100% certainty. You are the one trying to argue, after the fact, that they would have won without Peavy. They MIGHT have, but I am saying I would not care to find out. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that they would have, and you can't. This is not a Gagne situation where his contributions are easily isolated and largely negative. Peavy contributed meaningful, largely quality, innings both before and during the playoffs.
 
So your own rules don't apply to you becuase they won the WS? By that logic a WS justifies all. That is flawed logic, teams often win despite several players injured or underperforming or not being good enough. You argued that even if someone was 95% certain that they were still wrong. Nice of you to frame the debate so you could not lose it, Captain Kirk would be proud of you.
 
Now you've modified your stance to 'you would not care to find out', which is different then your original stance and again framing the debate so you cannot lose even though you can't actually verify it either way. My opinion was the same after the trade because I do believe Iglesias will be at least a league average hitting SS whose a defensive whiz. Nearly everyone here agreed he'd be at least a borderline All-Star if he ever reached that level but doubted he would be. 
 
They won the WS despite Peavy as his 3 playoff starts and 12+ IP with a 7.11 ERA beg to differ against your claims, his 60 IP with a ERA+ of 101 finishing the year stinks of mediocrity. Doubront and Workman among others should have bettered those marks. I was not [SIZE=12pt]admantly [/SIZE]against making a trade for a pitcher, Buchholz status somewhat forced the teams hand, however I would have moved some combination of Middlebrooks and or pitching prospects instead. Perhaps the Sox attempted that route and it was not what the other side wanted. At some point you have to weigh what you have with what you got and decide if it's worth it afterall. I believe that Middlebrooks is worth more to many teams than he is the Sox. He does not work the count nor is he a high contact batter, which is decisively not what the Sox are about, Iglesias does not work the count however he is a contact hitter. Middlebrooks power therefore becomes more valuable to other teams, and Iglesias defensive first value at a premium defensive position is where the new moneyball is at.
 
I can't keep this up, everyone is spinning their wheels and gaining no ground, a perfect example of an exercise in futility.
 


 
seantoo said:
 
This is my last response in this thread, then I've moving on. BABIP means more with larger samples. The 2 most recent and largest samples where he competed at the same level I allready provided. His BABIP in those instances is .299 (Pawtucket in 2012)  and .356 (MLB in 2013). Average that out and and subtract some to be conservative, never mind he improved his bunting as you stated and is a groundball hitter with speed (yes those players typically exceed the .300 BABIP benchmark and .320 is conservative. He was pushed through the minors very quickly (reaching Pawtucket at 21 years old ) and despite that he hit .257/.307 in 1209 PA, he hit 266/318/306 in 2012 w/ Pawtucket but the monthly breakdown shows more than the overall picture does. He was a young (472 PA against older pitchers, 10 PA against younger pitchers) batter with erractic numbers month to month and rarely struck out putting the ball in play. Many here said he would never hit .250 in MLB well in 424 at bats including the good the bad and the ugly he's hit 274/325/354 when other SS have hit 256/309/376 yet this player with only 1200 MILB PA who turned 24 less than a week ago is not going to improve despite Baseball America ranking him as high as #52 prospect in the game.

        Again I'm not claiming he'll hit 300 even though he did better than that last season. I meant to post Steamer .644 OPS and Oliver's projection for Iglesias but forgot to then someone in response posted them claiming they kinda suported his view, which blows my mind. Two people see the same projected #'s and claim that the projections support their side. I'm spinnig my wheels here and not gaining any traction. The other side sees what they want, which when a player changes their uniform is the norm I suppose.
PS:
Interestingly enough Oliver does 5 year projections including WAR. http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/is-will-middlebrooks-already-irrelevant/ WAR is Total 9.7/5 years =1.94, IglesiasTotal is 10.1/5 years = 2.02 which supports my premise but not enough to claim outright victory. Afterall trading Middlebrooks for pitching is what I wanted to do at that time, not Inglesias.

 
 
seantoo said:
It's simply not true that I did not think the team could not win nor did I not want to trade any prospects. Not true at all. And I wanted to trade some of the excess on the left side be it Drew or Middlebrooks. You have the wrong guy.
 
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I mean I think we've probably expired all of the conversation here, but since I was involved in many:
 
1)  I think this trade is a win even if Jose Iglesias has Hanley Ramirez's career and Jake Peavy destroys his pitching hand crushing a bottle tomorrow.
2)  The reasons I think this are as follows:
     a)  The Red Sox were competing for the World Series and took an opportunity to make a deal that they thought would improve the team.
     b)  At the time of the trade, I thought Peavy would help the team more than Iglesias for the remainder of 2013, given the presence of Drew, WMB, and Xander
     c)  At the time of the trade, I thought Peavy would be a valuable addition for the actual playoffs, whereas Iglesias would be a liability.
     d)  At the time of the trade, dealing Iglesias futures seemed to be a reasonable way to improve the team in the present.  What this means is if you counter that by the rest of my reasoning the Red Sox should have traded Xander and JBJ for say, Jose Veras, ok fine, but I'm not saying just make any deal that improves the team in the present, there is an assumption of a bit of reason.
     e)  In hindsight, it turns out I was right about Peavy being more valuable in the 2013 regular season.
     f)  Though Peavy was terrible and Drew didn't hit in the ALCS and WS, Peavy's presence allowed for some key innings out of the pen from Doubront, and Drew played better defense than Iglesias in the playoffs.  As well, I'm not sure they get through the ALDS without Peavy's start, and that's worth a ton on its own.  
     g)  The goal of playing a season is to win the World Series.  If you don't value the playoffs so much, hey that's cool, they also won the division, and both by record and playoff won the American League.  That's pretty good.  That's a successful season.  So if you apply hindsight now, to say "hey Peavy might not be so valuable going forward because xyz" I literally don't give a shit.  If we are applying hindsight then we have all of the information we need.  The Red Sox had the best season of any team in baseball.
 
3)  As I state above, no matter what the Red Sox do in the off-season of 2013/14, it means absolutely nothing in reference to their strategy at the end of July in 2013.  So frankly, while I know it was a throwaway line, the premise of this thread is ridiculous..  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,805
You know, it just dawned on me that PW never re entered this thread, which wasn't a thread until a dope split it out.

I think a lot of people need to reset their sarc meters.
 

xjack

Futbol Crazed
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2000
5,173
New York
Without Iglesias's errors in games 2 and 6 of the ALCS, the Sox might not have made it to the World Series. So, yes, I still like the trade.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
15,520
South Jersey
seantoo said:
 
 
They won the WS despite Peavy as his 3 playoff starts and 12+ IP with a 7.11 ERA beg to differ against your claims, his 60 IP with a ERA+ of 101 finishing the year stinks of mediocrity. Doubront and Workman among others should have bettered those marks. I was not [SIZE=12pt]admantly [/SIZE]against making a trade for a pitcher, Buchholz status somewhat forced the teams hand, however I would have moved some combination of Middlebrooks and or pitching prospects instead. Perhaps the Sox attempted that route and it was not what the other side wanted. At some point you have to weigh what you have with what you got and decide if it's worth it afterall. I believe that Middlebrooks is worth more to many teams than he is the Sox. He does not work the count nor is he a high contact batter, which is decisively not what the Sox are about, Iglesias does not work the count however he is a contact hitter. Middlebrooks power therefore becomes more valuable to other teams, and Iglesias defensive first value at a premium defensive position is where the new moneyball is at.
 
I can't keep this up, everyone is spinning their wheels and gaining no ground, a perfect example of an exercise in futility.
 
Ah, how quickly people forget the collapse of 2011, when the staff collapsed to the following numbers in September:
 
803 OPS (next worst was 715 in April)
5.84 ERA (next worst was 4.25 in April)
1.531 WHIP (next worst was 1.352 in May)
1.92 K/BB (next worst was 2.02 in April)
 
The starters in September had the following ERAs (as starters, a couple had relief appearances too): 6.30 (4 GS), 15.64 (2 GS), 9.25 (3 GS), 5.25 (3 GS), 5.40 (6 GS), 5.48 (4 GS), 9.13 (5 GS).  Even if you threw out Lackey gutting out the arm injury (the 9.13), that's still an awful bunch of starting pitching, right?  I don't think you even appreciate the value of mediocrity.  If everyone isn't a star, they have no value to you.  That's fantasy baseball thinking.
 
I won't get into Peavy's playoff performance, since Smas has covered that just fine.
 
You're the one spinning wheels because you can't see the value this trade did provide regardless of who has tried to explain it to you in different ways (which seems to be almost everyone else).
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
smastroyin said:
 
That particular post is a response to the entire thread.  To the idea that somehow if the Red Sox now trade Peavy for a SS/3B it "proves" the initial deal was wrong.  
 
The value of the trade, and the discussion you are having, I put into other posts very clearly, and also discussed at length at the time.  And I will continue to talk past you because you are the one person who is the most to the "OMG Iglesias is awesome nothing they could have done would make me believe they should have traded him" types.  You don't think you are, but you are, and we have discussed this all through the summer.  You wanted Drew traded to clear room for Iglesias and maybe gather more prospects.  You (and others) thought the Red Sox had too little of a chance of competing to make marginal upgrades to the 2013 team (at the possible expense of the future) worth it.  I hope in the end you actually enjoyed the World Series win, but this point of view is much too far from my own for me to have a much more reasonable conversation than this about it.  
Just for the record, I never agreed with the initial post on this thread, trading Peavy would not be an admission of anything. Danoome, I've not heard one convincing argument. I've heard of lot of 'might haves', 'may haves', and talk of physchlogical lifts or the kind of arguements that people here are supposed to be beyond. Perhaps the most cogent points have been made by Rovin Romine (first post page 2) who sees both sides and does not care either way. 
 

PrometheusWakefield

Nasty, brutish, and short
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
8,815
Boston, MA
smastroyin said:
Let's look at an order of events for a hypothetical analogy.
 
I have an idea, so I sell my Honus Wagner baseball card to seed my small business.
My small business takes off.
In the meantime, two of the Honus Wagner baseball cards in the world are lost in a fire, elevating the price of the one that I sold to twice its value.
 
Does that mean it was a mistake for me to sell the card? 
 
People are seriously underrating the value of winning a World Series, I guess this is the product of having won three in the last 10 years.  Even if the Peavy trade didn't add a single bit of value, you would have to ask whether at the time it could be expected to add value.  You don't get to say 6 months later "oh well now they are trading Peavy, clearly that was a mistake."
I totally agree with this and I think ex ante the trade was the right move - that is, if I pretend i don't know that Lester was going to go on a run of dominance, that Buchholz would contribute, etc etc.  But looking at a trade after the fact is always interesting as well and from that perspective I lean against.  
 
Although yes, I'm still totally stoked they won the Series and I'm much happier about that than I am sad that I wont get to see Iglesias play regularly for the Sox over the next decade.  But, I'm still a little sad about that.  
 

BCsMightyJoeYoung

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,164
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
What I don't understand about this thread is why people are trying to evaluate it's merits on the performances of the players post-trade. You can't know that Peavy is going to be great or mediocre or lousy. All you know is that they needed a SP and he projected to be a pretty good pitcher and the guy they gave up projected to be a borderline major league regular. Coupled with the depth at the position - Drew, X, Igesias and Marrero  it seems to have been an obvious move.
 
Whether Peavy sucked or not should not be part of the conversation. The conversation should be the projected future worth of Iglesias vs. the projected future worth of Peavy - at the time of the trade.
 

Papi's fan

Banned
Sep 19, 2005
255
Texas
B, some people cannot refrain from crying over spilled milk or in this case a WS Championship.  Part of the cost of winning in 2014 was the cost of one Jose Iglesias.  Reality is a rigid concept.  I choose to embrace it.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,463
seantoo said:
The last 4 years, or since he's been in the AL, from age 29 on his ERA+ is  93, 88, 126 and 101. His IP during this period has been 107,111, 219 & 144 and his SO per year are: 93, 95, 194 & 121. Which of these seasons does not belong with the others? It's obviously the year you think is a reasonable expectation going foward even though he's another year older. That is unreasonable wishful thinking. Realistically speaking more of the same from last year is what should be expected for 2014, afterall it is the second best of the last 4 years and he's 33 years old which is an age where a very slight decline can be expected especially from a pitcher. 2012 was more than likely his last hurrah!
 
 I think going with a four year sample with a starting pitcher seems pretty reasonable.  However that is discounting a major injury cutting off year 1 of the sample, and year 2 being his recovery.
 
In 2010 he had a horrific start (April May) then followed that up with a great June before hurting himself the first July start.  I don't know that that really feels like a 93 ERA+ year without an asterisk.
 
In 2011 he missed the first six weeks or so because of the injury, pitched a shutout in his second start back, and then had an up and down season that totaled up to more down than up.  However seasons significantly shortened due to recovery from a major mid season surgery the prior year don't really seem to be as logically predecitive, especially when there are two full years after that to base projections on.
 
So I don't think 2010 and 2011 are a simple and accurate predictive sample.  He dominated in 2012 and was average in 2013.
 
But even 2013 is a deeper story.  He was great through his first 9 starts, then pitched twice while hurt (dumb bulldog mentality and not healthy incompetence) and was shut down for six weeks.  After coming back he had a good August and a bad September.  I'm not sure how much the injury or change of scenery/catchers/coaching might have impacted the latter, but I'm also not convinced it is a large enough sample (nor is the good August) to be predictive.
 
His 2010 injury seems to be a freak one without any major long term implications.  His velocity has certainly trended down since 2007, but stabilized and both of the last two years have been higher than his strong 2011 season.  And he has a long resume of knowing how to pitch.
 
I think health remains his wild card, as he has had a variety of minor muscle injuries and often attempted to pitch through them.  At his age you would expect those to increase in probability and frequency and duration, and that is my worry.
 
But I think his expected effectiveness when healthy would certainly be in line with his 2011 season more than the other three you cited (or even 2009 when he missed time related to an ankle injury running the bases).  As a healthy pitcher he still has a long track record of pitching well, something that his weak September seems to have clouded around here.
 
Maybe I am being too casual about his injury issues, and they are probable enough for 2014 to not consider his expected healthy performance at all.  But I think taking an average of his last four years to predict 2014 is not necessarily more accurate than looking at how he has performed in that time frame when he was what we would consider fully healthy.
 
And as a result, I think if he is healthy in 2014 we would reasonably expect a 2011-like performance, and if not, it will depend on the severity of his injury or injuries, and not his competence as an effective pitcher at age 32.
 
Edit: Also running the same four year statistical analysis on Lackey's last four years without injury (and pitching with injury and following injury) context would lead you to throw out the one outlier of the last four and decide he is likely to be a similar conclusion.  But nobody is really doing that, and most think that 2013 is the real John Lackey when healthy and he will be a useful pitcher this season.  I think Peavy deserves a similar expectation if able to stay healthy.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,612
Row 14
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
I'm surprised at the $1.65M considering Iglesias had no leverage at all and his salary last season was less than $600K.
 
Ummm they paid him the least amount possible (80% of what he made the year before).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,716
Maine
TomRicardo said:
 
Ummm they paid him the least amount possible (80% of what he made the year before).
 
Well, apparently I'm misunderstanding how salary is determined because 80% of 600K would result in a salary less than league minimum, not a $1M raise.
 
But if "salary" always includes a pro-rated portion of the signing bonus ($6M of the total $8.25M contract), then I suppose he did get 80% of last year's "salary".
 

Lose Remerswaal

Leaves after the 8th inning
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,275
Pioneer Valley
Well, I find these comments from Farrell very enlightening, for the most part. They help me to understand the trade. But I was surprised to hear the favorable comparison between Marrero and Iglesias. As least in the games I have seen him in, Marrero hasn't demonstrated half the range of  (healthy) Iglesias.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,805
Was it smart of Farrell to say that out loud? I wonder if the Red Sox disclosed that they were managing the shins at the time of the trade? Can the Tigers come back looking for compensation now?
 

SaveBooFerriss

twenty foreskins
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2001
6,179
Robin' it
Plympton91 said:
Was it smart of Farrell to say that out loud? I wonder if the Red Sox disclosed that they were managing the shins at the time of the trade? Can the Tigers come back looking for compensation now?
 
First off, there is no reason to think that the Tigers did not know about the shin issue at the time of the trade.  Also, he played the rest of the season and the playoffs for the Tigers.  There has to be some reasonable limitations period on seeking compension.  If Peavy comes up lame this Spring, I can't see the Red Sox seeking compensation.  
 

Detts

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,446
Greenville, SC
Plympton91 said:
Was it smart of Farrell to say that out loud? I wonder if the Red Sox disclosed that they were managing the shins at the time of the trade? Can the Tigers come back looking for compensation now?
 
He said they were 'aware' and 'had to monitor'.  He didn't say 'Yah, we figured he wouldn't make it into next year'.
 
He was healthy enough to play in the WS.  
 
Nothing to see here.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,610
Plympton91 said:
Was it smart of Farrell to say that out loud? I wonder if the Red Sox disclosed that they were managing the shins at the time of the trade? Can the Tigers come back looking for compensation now?
 
Moneyball touched on this in the chapter about the trading deadline.  It's up to the acquiring team to do their due dilligence, which I assume includes requesting medical records.  Besides, wouldn't Iglesias himself have been aware of this himself?  It's his body. 
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
I think the Tigers must have known.  It wasn't like Iglesias was quiet about it:
 
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140316&content_id=69468642&notebook_id=69468858&vkey=notebook_det&c_id=det
 


You definitely feel bad for him, but at the same time, going through what I went through this offseason [with surgery], sometimes it's nice to get a definitive answer and closure. I know he was grinding last year and didn't really know what was going on, why he couldn't get over his injury or what exactly was happening
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
InsideTheParker said:
Well, I find these comments from Farrell very enlightening, for the most part. They help me to understand the trade.
 
The Red Sox did not trade Jose Iglesias because of bum shins.
 
They traded him for exactly two reasons:
 
1. They needed another pitcher.
 
2. Drew and Bogaerts are both better players.
 
That's it.
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,275
Pioneer Valley
Adrian's Dome said:
 
The Red Sox did not trade Jose Iglesias because of bum shins.
 
They traded him for exactly two reasons:
 
1. They needed another pitcher.
 
2. Drew and Bogaerts are both better players.
 
That's it.
For the umpteenth time, I agree that Bogaerts is a much better player, with the potential to be a great SS or 3B. I have no love for Middlebrooks' defense at third. They let Drew go.
 
As for the argument, "They won the World Series!" that's a winner, and you got me there. I was thinking four or five years ahead, and the Red Sox did what they thought they needed to do to win right then. And it worked.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,162
The wrong side of the bridge....
InsideTheParker said:
For the umpteenth time, I agree that Bogaerts is a much better player, with the potential to be a great SS or 3B. I have no love for Middlebrooks' defense at third. They let Drew go.
 
As for the argument, "They won the World Series!" that's a winner, and you got me there. I was thinking four or five years ahead, and the Red Sox did what they thought they needed to do to win right then. And it worked.
 
I think part of the reason why they were comfortable doing it even in the four-to-five-years-ahead view is that they have Marrero, who looks like he might turn out to be a poor man's Iglesias, and maybe even kind of a prosperous working class man's Iglesias.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,038
Adrian's Dome said:
 
The Red Sox did not trade Jose Iglesias because of bum shins.
 
They traded him for exactly two reasons:
 
1. They needed another pitcher.
 
2. Drew and Bogaerts are both better players.
 
That's it.
 
I don't think one can say with any certainty that the shins did not play a part in them dealing him.  Points 1 and 2 were certainly reasons, and the shins may have been the third.  In the who to trade debate, it may very well have been that Drew was considered to have a better chance of staying healthy for the stretch than Iglesias given the chronic nature of his problem. While he was able to stay on the field for the duration, except for a hand injury that kept him out a few games, it may not have been something that could have been predicted with any certainty.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,577
HillysLastWalk said:
 
 
I had chonic shin splits (bilateral) when I first began running many yaes ago. It's a very difficult condition to work through; every step feels like nails driven through your legs.
 
I honestly don't know how Iggy could stay on the field most of the season, and clearly the Tiggers knew, or would have if they asked him or Ben. They just needed a SS and took the chance it was a short term issue. Now it doesn't seem so.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
At the Sabermetrics, Scouting and the Science of Baseball Conference where all answers are revealed, one baseball analytics exec, Keith Woolner of the Indians I believe, explained that teams totally take into account the differential knowledge between teams of a player's medicals when considering a trade or a free agent acquisition. Specifically, he said that if considering a player, you can look at his medical records and at best bring him in for an MRI, but you don't get to see how often he swung by the trainer's room for this and that. He also stated that this is often a big reason to prefer your own guy over another team's guy if it's close--you have more information on your guy whereas there are necessarily question marks in the medical of other guys.
 
So we do know for a fact that teams consider this stuff in significant depth while contemplating trades and such.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Reverend said:
So we do know for a fact that teams consider this stuff in significant depth while contemplating trades and such.
 
A lot of trades/acquisitions are "pending physical". I'm wondering if there's any data on how revealing or open players tend to be for these, as I assume the team doctors are paid to be thorough. Basically, if the Tigers' doc asked Iglesias, "Do you have chronic pain anywhere?", what is the likely player's response pre-trade?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,097
Hingham, MA
Detts said:
 
He said they were 'aware' and 'had to monitor'.  He didn't say 'Yah, we figured he wouldn't make it into next year'.
 
He was healthy enough to play in the WS.  
 
Nothing to see here.
Healthy enough to play in the...what?
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,882
Alexandria, VA
 
Did you not see the science news about the observations confirming the multiverse?
My understanding is that if anything, confirming the expanding universe (which is what happened) makes the multiverse hypotheses less likely, it doesn't confirm them.

I'm more than willing to be shown otherwise, but that's my initial understanding.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,777
La Mancha.
SumnerH said:
My understanding is that if anything, confirming the expanding universe (which is what happened) makes the multiverse hypotheses less likely, it doesn't confirm them.

I'm more than willing to be shown otherwise, but that's my initial understanding.
 
Methinks your multiverse-detector is malfunctioning.  
 

Todd Benzinger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2001
4,400
So Ill
Well played, Dbn!
 
On the other hand, I think SummerH (in addition to missing the irony) is incorrect. I am no astrophysicist, but accord to pop science reports, for instance in Nat Geo, the recent findings tend to support (but do not confirm) the multiverse theory.
 
Still, in this universe, the Sox won the series, and the Peavy acquisition was savvy at the time, and clearly the Sox FO had concluded that Iggy would not ultimately hit enough to be a valuable everyday SS.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
The multiverse inflation does not really "prove" the multiple universe theory (aka that every decision in the history of time spawns a new universe) associated with e.g. Schrodinger's Cat.
 

Papi's fan

Banned
Sep 19, 2005
255
Texas
I thought I was in tune with The universe yesterday until a redneck in a white Chevy pickup truck blasted my Porsche at a 90 degree angle leaving me sitting atop an embankment. After sleeping on it I'm sure I'm living in one universe and he's living in another.