Considering he has elite defensive skills, has outperformed expectations at the plate, and is only 25, I think it's a little bit early to conclude he won't be an All Star in the future.Stitch01 said:
The Iggy-Peavy Trade Regurgitated
- Thread starter FanSinceBoggs
- Start date
- Status
My issue is that I dont think the K-rate is that sustainable and I dont think his BABIP is sustainable even with the high ground ball percentage given he doesnt make much hard contact (hes in the bottom two among SS's in LD rate and hard contact). So he can approach league average offense if everything is breaking right, but its unlikely to do so in the long-run.PrometheusWakefield said:
I think he can be a nice cost controlled 2, maybe 3 win player, while he's in defensive prime. That's more valuable than I thought he'd be at the time of the trade (and probably more valuable than the Sox thought), but given the context of the trade doesnt come close to swinging it into the loss column even in hindsight
threecy said:
You don't have to conclude he isn't going to be an All Star in the future, that's the default position. You start there. And if he becomes an All Star by outperforming his expectations, you by definition don't think he's that good. Either the expectations will rise to meet his performance or his performance will fall to meet the expectations (or, I suppose, something in the middle) which one do you think is more likely?
PrometheusWakefield said:
It's not the sample size is too small to tell us anything, It's that it's fueled by two bursts of unsustainably high BABIP's without a high line drive rate to help explain it.
threecy said:
He's yet to demonstrate that it's worth betting on him being a league average (or anywhere near it) bat going forward. What we do have is evidence that his major league track record has outperformed what you would expect from his batted ball profile. In other words, he's very likely a less capable hitter than he's shown so far. I broke his major league numbers to date down here, if you are interested.
He's also missed an entire year with injury. A point against him IMO. It probably won't recur again, but if the argument is that we should have kept Iglesias than one can't ignore his lost 2014 season.
Let us also keep in mind that when he got to Detroit he put up a 78 OPS+ for them in 2013, so in that regard that was a huge dropoff from his Boston numbers that year. So Detroit got a guy who hit worse when he got there than previous, and who then promptly missed a whole year with injury. Jury's out from their POV as well.
Let us also keep in mind that when he got to Detroit he put up a 78 OPS+ for them in 2013, so in that regard that was a huge dropoff from his Boston numbers that year. So Detroit got a guy who hit worse when he got there than previous, and who then promptly missed a whole year with injury. Jury's out from their POV as well.
...while injured...Farrell (in 2014 on NESN): "There were some games where we had to get him off his feet because he felt some pain and some soreness there. But to see what’s come out now with the report, I feel sorry for the kid. He’s an exciting player."Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I know this is a little cheeky, but this is exactly where I land. Hindsight is not, repeat NOT, improving this trade for DET.Buffalo Head said:
Also, it's not like we didn't know who Bogaerts was by then.
FanSinceBoggs said:
"Dominant starter"? That's your measuring stick?
On this planet, almost every MLB starting pitcher is well between a guy the manager "lost trust in" / "was headed toward another disaster" and "a dominant starter". And lifting any of them for a PH in the 5th inning of a crucial World Series game, trailing 2-0, with a good opportunity to cut the deficit in half, is an entirely reasonable decision with as strong a bullpen the Sox had.
PrometheusWakefield said:
... Other kind? I think Goans still qualify as Indian. Not sure their statuary is stone or wood, if that's what you mean.
I think there are two questions, and we're taking them on together instead of individually.
1) Is Iggy playing beyond his talent or was his talent incorrectly measured?
We don't know - time will tell. Traditional stats say one thing, peripherals say another. Maybe he's an anomaly. Maybe we're not correctly quantifying defense. Too much unknown.
2) Was he undervalued at trade time?
This one is hard to argue given what was known then and what we've seen since. Peavy offered about as much (more?) marginal value as Iggy could have on this team. With X already making waves and Pedey as 2B-for-life, there weren't exactly a lot of spots for an athletic-but-low-power middle IFer.
The problem with threads that only looks at one player versus another is how easy it is to ignore reasonable expectations about team trajectory at the time.
Rasputin said:
Looking at the numbers this year... Iglesias has shown outstanding contact ability that extends beyond not striking out. Per Fangraphs, his 4.2% swinging strike rate in 2015 ranks 7th in the majors among all qualifiers, a tick ahead of our own contact-making phenom Mookie Betts (who is 9th).His Z-Contact% of 96.1% is 4th among all qualifiers, and his O-Contact% of 83.9% is 6th among all qualifiers. This makes his K-rate of 9.6% (5th among all qualified hitters) look to be more than just a fluke.
Now the question becomes, has he always been innately capable of putting a baseball bat on a baseball very consistently? His K-rates haven't always been low, but the plate discipline contact numbers have. 5.5%, 6.0% SwStr rates in 2012 and 2013, 96.2% and 91.5% Z-contact rates, 76.1% and 78.6% O-contact rates. O-contact is the big leap but in the other plate discipline categories, he has always ranked highly.
What this whole discussion reminded me of is a quote I remember from Pedey back when Iggy was with the big club, embedded in some puff piece about Pedroia coaching up Iglesias to hit better:
Perhaps in hindsight, Iglesias always had a stellar tool - hand eye coordination - and what we are seeing is the actualization of that ability as a guy who puts everything in play.
At the time of the deal, we had Drew (at the end of his deal) and Iglesias performing well enough at the ML level and Bogaerts killing it at AAA -- thus an apparent immediate and longer term surplus at SS. We also had WMB who was still thought of as the future at 3b. The options were multiple and included making Bogaerts into a 3b.
To my mind the decision hinged primarily on the team's assessment of whether Bogaerts was indeed the SS of the future or alternatively was the 3b of the future. This was a critical decision for the future of the franchise and if they get it wrong they deserve to be subject to some criticism about failure to properly assess players coming thru the org, especially re defensive capabilities to play a position which one would think would be easier to assess. If the team thought XB could hack it at short, then it made sense to move Iglesias. You can quibble about or celebrate the return, but I think that's largely beside the point.
Based on this year's performance, it appears they got it right. Xander does look like he can hack it at SS. Hence it looks like it made sense not to think of him as a future 3b who would eventually supplant Middlebrooks leaving SS available for Iglesias.
To my mind the decision hinged primarily on the team's assessment of whether Bogaerts was indeed the SS of the future or alternatively was the 3b of the future. This was a critical decision for the future of the franchise and if they get it wrong they deserve to be subject to some criticism about failure to properly assess players coming thru the org, especially re defensive capabilities to play a position which one would think would be easier to assess. If the team thought XB could hack it at short, then it made sense to move Iglesias. You can quibble about or celebrate the return, but I think that's largely beside the point.
Based on this year's performance, it appears they got it right. Xander does look like he can hack it at SS. Hence it looks like it made sense not to think of him as a future 3b who would eventually supplant Middlebrooks leaving SS available for Iglesias.
KillerBs said:
Yes. The Tigers needed a ML SS to replace Peralta. They were offering a possible league average starter in Peavy, which was something the Sox looked like they might need. The Sox dealt from depth to address a need.
FWIW, it's interesting to look at the AAA options that year, both as an alternative to Peavy, and as possible trade bait for another team who might have a SP available. Brock Holt looks quite unexceptional - especially compared to that other 25 year old, Hassan.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/team.cgi?id=d8a895e6
Perhaps in hindsight, Iglesias always had a stellar tool - hand eye coordination - and what we are seeing is the actualization of that ability as a guy who puts everything in play.
And I think that gets lost in this discussion. The scouting reports on his offense, from the time he was signed on up, mentioned his quick hands and the hand-eye coordination that was evident in his defense. To say that he's outperforming expectations is to base your expectations solely on numbers - something that gets done a lot around here with young players (Visit the "Bogaerts Bat" thread from about a month ago). One of the problems with that is that he was promoted aggressively due to his glove. The statistics we have available are those along a steep learning curve. The only age-appropriate level he saw along the way was his 13 games in Lowell as a 20 year old. How predictive can his hitting stats be while he's still learning to hit in a constant state of adjustment? But, even if you base those projections solely on stats, he'd already exceeded Adam Everett's offensive output, who's been his most frequent comp that I've seen over the last 5 years. The highest OPS+ he ever achieved was 80. So, your floor has to be as a 2-3 win player through his prime. Simmons is probably his best active comp - he's been a 3-4 win player. And that's if he never translates any of the raw skills scouts identified.
An example of one of those scouting reports, from soxprospects.com:
[SIZE=8pt]Scouting Report[/SIZE]: Elite defensive skills highlighted by extremely fluid hands and soft glove. Excellent instincts and anticipation produces his well above-average range. Will get to balls that most, if not all, will not. Plus, accurate arm. Adept at throwing on the move and has outstanding body control. Future perennial Gold Glove shortstop. Grades as an "80" defensively. Can also play second and third base more than adequately. Major-league ready in the field. Plus bat speed accented by quick wrists. Low maintenance, compact swing. Little lower body in swing mechanics. Pulls ball hard, but struggles driving the ball the other way. Minimal power projection. Can evolve into a solid-average hitter for batting average and show doubles power as he matures. Small frame with not much more room to pack on muscle. Extremely impatient approach. Making strides and improving with understanding of his strike zone, but inexperienced professionally and very age advanced. Neglects to cover outer third of plate with eyes. Struggles staying back against breaking balls. Must improve with handling of off-speed stuff to hit consistently at big-league level. Above-average speed. Projects as #9 hitter in first division team's lineup, with ceiling of #2 hitter as he approaches his late-20s. Due to advanced defensive skills will most likely learn to hit at the major-league level and slowly ramp into becoming more proficient at the plate over the course of big-league career.
As to whether or not it was a good trade...I like Iggy and was/am more bullish on his value than a lot of other people on here. The Red Sox won the World Series.
Rudy Pemberton said:
There is something strangely asymmetrical when we juxtapose both trades.
(1) Lackey was a total bargain in his final contract year (league minimum salary); Peavy was not.
(2) The Red Sox took on another team's headache (Craig) in the Lackey trade; the Red Sox didn't surrender a sunk cost in the Peavy trade.
(3) It looks like Iglesias is a better player than Joe Kelly.
(4) The Cardinals will probably get a compensation pick for Lackey; the Red Sox received two B prospects for Peavy.
Peavy was worse in 2014 than 2013 (for the Red Sox) and so they couldn't trade him for anything except a couple of B prospects. I don't want to discount the possibility that Hembree and Escobar might still develop into something, you never know with prospects, but we are still talking about second tier prospects and so the odds aren't good.
FanSinceBoggs said:
So Farrell "assumed that he would give up more" runs, but chose to wait until Peavy got out of a bases loaded, no out, jam in the 4th to make a pitching change. A change which, according to you, had nothing to do with getting Xander in from 3rd with one out in a 2-0 game?
That's really what you're going with?
Serious question:Snodgrass'Muff said:
I seem to remember Ichiro had a high BABIP and a low LD%, and that was sustainable because he was a fast slap hitter. Is that right?
Iggy doesn't get the lefty benefit of being a few feet closer to the plate. But might he be able to play an Ichiro-style infield hitting game?
The trade is fairly easy to defend even in hindsight and very easy to defend even without that but that's a different argument vs. whether Farrell had faith in Peavy in that game. If Peavy was pitching well he wasn't getting pinch hit for in the 4th inning period. The decision had a lot more to do with a very shaky Peavy than that one potential run sitting out there that early in the game. Peavy mostly stunk in the playoffs but they had to get there first and hard to argue his role in that.BUConvict said:
With the exception of game 4 against the Rays, I can't find any definitive evidence that Peavy was necessary to the Red Sox successful championship run in 2013. If they never traded for him, they still win the division (unless you want to argue that 2 months of Peavy was responsible for a 5.5 game spread). He didn't help the Red Sox in the ALCS at all (the Red Sox won the ALCS notwithstanding Peavy's pathetic game 4 performance, a game the Red Sox lost). And he didn't pitch more than 4 innings in the World Series when John Farrell took him out of the game, a game that the Red Sox went on to lose anyway.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if the Red Sox don't win game 4 against the Rays, maybe they lose game 5 as well and never move on. If that is the case, the trade was more than worth it. While I'm willing to concede that point, I still can't find any evidence that Peavy was necessary beyond game 4 against the Rays.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if the Red Sox don't win game 4 against the Rays, maybe they lose game 5 as well and never move on. If that is the case, the trade was more than worth it. While I'm willing to concede that point, I still can't find any evidence that Peavy was necessary beyond game 4 against the Rays.
Let's start with who you are replacing him with for the 124 innings he pitched during the regular season? Then continue on to the ramifications to the bullpen etc etc.
Honestly, to me, I view it like this:
The best insurance policy is one that you never have to cash in.
Peavy was a hedge against a pitching collapse 2011, where just -one- more pitcher might have made the difference between entering the playoffs and staying home. At the time they had to balance having an extra starting pitcher on hand in case someone got hurt... what did they -have- as an insurance policy?
The best insurance policy is one that you never have to cash in.
Peavy was a hedge against a pitching collapse 2011, where just -one- more pitcher might have made the difference between entering the playoffs and staying home. At the time they had to balance having an extra starting pitcher on hand in case someone got hurt... what did they -have- as an insurance policy?
Yeah, seriously. It's not as simple as "well, I didn't see one 8 inning 0 run performance in the playoffs" (exaggeration), therefore he didn't help at all.
Or let's play this game:
All I can see from the 2004 run was that Dave Roberts had no at-bats in the World Series! None! He didn't help win the division. He did nothing in the ALDS. He had one stolen base in the ALCS that was maybe worthy of some praise ...
Or let's play this game:
All I can see from the 2004 run was that Dave Roberts had no at-bats in the World Series! None! He didn't help win the division. He did nothing in the ALDS. He had one stolen base in the ALCS that was maybe worthy of some praise ...
It simply is not that simple. There can't be "definitive evidence" of a timeline that didn't occur. Just one not-implausible example --- If not-Peavy is shitty 7 of 10 starts (instead of Actual Peavy being not-shitty 7 of 10 starts), who knows what that does to the bullpen in a macro sense (how much more gassed are they for the playoffs), or in the sense of affecting even the very next game.
You have the benefit of hindsight. When the deal was made, the Sox were a half game behind in the standings.
The front office had no clue that they'd win the division by 5.5 on July 30, but they knew that even a small upgrade might make the difference- especially when the margins for the playoffs and the division were so thin at the time of the deal.
You can't assume they run away with it at the deadline. You have to look at what the front office saw on that day- and on that day it was a tight race.
The front office had no clue that they'd win the division by 5.5 on July 30, but they knew that even a small upgrade might make the difference- especially when the margins for the playoffs and the division were so thin at the time of the deal.
You can't assume they run away with it at the deadline. You have to look at what the front office saw on that day- and on that day it was a tight race.
I'm annoyed at how much Peavy's game 4 performance against Tampa is being discounted in this discussion. That game is getting rolled up into an overall narrative of 'he sucked in the playoffs' because of what followed. But it doesn't work that way. You win series one at at time, and if the Sox hadn't advanced, none of that other stuff would have happened and we'd be having lengthy conversations about how this team hasn't won a postseason series in seven years.
Game 4 included a random assortment of TB pitchers shutting out the Sox through 6, in a venue was generally regarded as borderline-cursed for the Red Sox, with a pissed-off, practically-unbeatable-in-second-half David Price ready to pitch a potential game 5 back in Boston. Winning THAT GAME, RIGHT THEN is exactly what you make a deadline deal for.
Game 4 included a random assortment of TB pitchers shutting out the Sox through 6, in a venue was generally regarded as borderline-cursed for the Red Sox, with a pissed-off, practically-unbeatable-in-second-half David Price ready to pitch a potential game 5 back in Boston. Winning THAT GAME, RIGHT THEN is exactly what you make a deadline deal for.
I agree that Peavy's performance on its own wasn't a game changer but how about Game 4 of the WS? There were two games that post-season where Doubrant was critical to us winning. Even if we go with one.....that fact that he was critical, and we did win, and we won the WS.....isn't that enough?FanSinceBoggs said:
The front office decided that Iggy was blocking Bogaerts, and they were probably right, which in addition should be enough.
That said, I sure do love me some Iggy P*rn. Every play he makes is like watching Nureyev do his thing.
Bogaerts doesn't have any of Iggy's genius defensive skills, but the current overall package, with power still to come, fielding competence clearly in evidence, and the hit tool rounding into Jetershape, is tantalizing.
Did the Red Sox sell low on Iggy? Any GFIN move stands that risk. They went for it then, and it paid off big time in the short term. Almost any trade stands up to that scrutiny. It wasn't Andrew Miller's fault that the Orioles' GFIN move didn't pay off in 2015.
That said, I sure do love me some Iggy P*rn. Every play he makes is like watching Nureyev do his thing.
Bogaerts doesn't have any of Iggy's genius defensive skills, but the current overall package, with power still to come, fielding competence clearly in evidence, and the hit tool rounding into Jetershape, is tantalizing.
Did the Red Sox sell low on Iggy? Any GFIN move stands that risk. They went for it then, and it paid off big time in the short term. Almost any trade stands up to that scrutiny. It wasn't Andrew Miller's fault that the Orioles' GFIN move didn't pay off in 2015.
m0ckduck said:
Although, if the Rays were going with Price, I think that would be Price on short rest, whereas the Red Sox would have countered with a fully rested Lester in Fenway Park. Thus, advantage goes to the Red Sox for game 5.
While Peavy got the job done in game 4 of the division series, we aren't talking about a dominant or epic SP performance. The Red Sox took him out early, apparently the Red Sox didn't trust Peavy after a certain amount of pitches.
Peavy 5.2 IP, 5 H, 0 BB, 3 K, 0 ER
This is good, but it isn't Josh Beckett or one of those other epic SP performances in a big spot.
Beckett 8 IP, 5 H, 1 BB, 11 K, 1 ER (Game 5 2007 ALCS with the Indians up 3 games to 1. Beckett essentially carried the team on his back and back to Fenway Park for games 6 and 7).
Beckett 9 IP, 5 H, 2 BB, 9 K, 0 ER (Game 6 2003 World Series against Yankees -- clinching game).
The avowed Iggy lovers will surely disagree, but at the time, most of us looked at getting a useful starting pitcher as selling high on Iglesias. He had a career minor league slash line of .267/.314/.324 in over 1600 PAs. He'd been disappointing in his limited major league time prior to 2013 (89 PA, .413 OPS). He was on his last option year. The end was near for him given that and the on coming of Bogaerts (with Marrero also in the system as a strong defensive SS with questionable bat). That he was able to slash .330/.376/.409 in his 63 Red Sox games in 2013 was borderline miraculous thanks to his unsustainable .376 BABIP (which was over .400 when he was really hot in April-June). His July line of .205/.247/.217 in 89 PA seemed to portend he was crashing back to earth.Sprowl said:
I think the Sox got out on Iglesias at the best possible time in terms of getting something useful out of him. If he stays and continues to plummet offensively and deal with his shin splint problem (that Farrell has acknowledged they were aware of), he might have been in line for a DFA/non-tender in November 2013. And even if they hold on to him, he misses 2014 with the shin splints, which would have done nothing to change how 2014 went down and also wouldn't have prevented the team from signing Sandoval and penciling in Bogaerts at SS for 2015. At best, he's in competition for the job in the spring...assuming they didn't release him or trade him for nothing.
FanSinceBoggs said:
No, but it's exactly what you want for a #4 starter.
And the 2013 bullpen was much more reliable than this year's, so getting only 17 outs vs 21-24 is not a big deal.
Ichiro sustained a BABIP of ~.367 or so for 10 seasons between 2001 and 2010.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Why is it impossible that Iggy could do the same?
http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=1101&playerid2=&playerid3=&position=OF&page=7&type=full
Based on Iggy's stress fx issues, I'm very happy with that trade. Stress fractures are typically a recurring issue.
Again, because there wasnt an epic Josh Beckett performance, all other contributions from the day of the trade to the World Series is meaningless?
Not only did the Red Sox have Bogaerts, it was rumored at the time of the trade that the Red Sox were higher on Marrero than Iglesias. That evaluation looks wrong a few years later.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I think he has more trade value now than in 2013. Today, I think the Tigers could get something more valuable than an older league average starter for Iglesias. If that is the case, it would suggest that the Red Sox sold low, not at peak value.
FanSinceBoggs said:
He's more valuable now because the Tigers made him their starting shortstop. My contention is he never would have gotten that chance had he stayed in the Red Sox organization after July 31, 2013. I'd go so far as to say he may not have still been in the Red Sox organization come July 8, 2015.
Considering he missed all of 2014 due to injury, an injury he had when he was with the Red Sox so no arguing that it might not have happened, I don't think the Red Sox would have entered the 2015 season with him penciled in at SS and Bogaerts at 3B. They likely still would have pursued Pablo Sandoval to play 3B and Bogaerts would have still been their incumbent SS. At best, he might have been given the inside line on the utility infielder's spot, but considering Holt's presence, Iglesias might not have even gotten that shot. He might well have been DFA or traded for a bag of balls at any point between the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2015.
crystalline said:
Ichiro, in his prime, could hit a routine groundball to shortstop and still beat the throw to first. That's the kind of skill that can sustain a .367 BABIP. Does Iglesias have that? (Does anyone?)
HillysLastWalk said:
The difference in valuation and preference could have been as simple as Marrero being a year younger and far cheaper with more control. Once his original contract was up after 2013, Iglesias' salary was going to be $1M+ and he would be out of options. Meanwhile, Marrero was a recent first round draftee (2012), in double-A, not on the 40-man roster, and thus had anywhere from 7 to 11 years of team control remaining: up to 3 more minor league years before Rule V eligible, then up to 3 years of options to shuttle back and forth plus 5-6 years of major league control depending on service time accrued during the option years.
Certainly makes sense that a re-building team like the Astros preferred a highly regarded prospect 2-3 years away from the big leagues to a guy at the end of his minor league options and due a seven figure annual salary.
That's somewhat revisionary. Maybe no one predicted he'd hit .300 and maybe he never will, but plenty of people had an indication he'd hit .270 or so and many thought it would be likely he'd at least top out at .250 with his insane glove. He always had plus bat speed (don't take my word for it, look up his profile on SoxProspects) and they had a VERY aggressive promotion schedule with him through the minors due to his high salary and unbelievably plus fielding. Basically, any time he started to hit they promoted him so he never had a solid season's worth of a good batting line. I'd be happy to link to data for that but I can't find game by game stats at the minor league level for past seasons. That said, I saw him in two different years in Pawtucket and no one could deny he'd made major strides in pitch recognition leading to his increasing average (and BABIP).jscola85 said:
One major knock on him at the time was that he was doing the AAA sulk when he came up, hit, then was demoted again, leading to people questioning his attitude and a nasty slump dragging down his stats. The big question was whether or not his speed was the cause of his insane BABIP or whether or not it was luck. But declaring that it's universally acknowledged that he would be a poor hitter is as false as declaring no one can argue we wouldn't have won the world series without Peavy. Actually, that's really the only argument for this whole topic -- did Peavy really rescue us that year (as we really did need starting pitching pretty badly) and what was the evaluation of Iglesias going forward?
There are a bunch of things going on here that have very little to do with how good you predict Iglesias to be or how good he actually is.
1) Flags fly forever/GFIN: If you're trading at the deadline you typically don't get fair value, but fair value as summarized by WAR or whatever else doesn't really account for the value you place on deep playoff runs/WS victories. You're going to get fleeced a little, but that's what happens when you realize you're a true contender. Does Seattle feel better about Slocumb for Varitek/Lowe if they win that year? At least a little bit.
2) Present vs future value. Peavy helped the Red Sox immediately, Iglesias was a backup MI who helped significantly less in the short term. This is related to (1) but a WS win in 2013 is better than one in 2016 or so, especially if you're not losing the trade so badly that making it really hurts your odds of the latter.
3) Risk vs potential: If you think Peavy and Iglesias are of equal likely worth, you pick Peavy if you're the 2013 Red Sox. Iglesias breaking out is worth less than the relative assurance of good performance by Peavy, especially given the health concerns of Buchholz, questions about Doubront's reliability, etc. Meanwhile, if you're the Phillies and you're on the crummy part of the win curve, you take your chances with the lottery ticket.
4) Dealing from a position of organizational strength: You can never have enough pitching; meanwhile, the team had a steady contributor in Drew, a stud prospect in X, and another future lottery ticket in Marrero. With X looking much better at SS defensively, Iglesias is expendable. Cecchini looked much better in the minors on that point and they weren't 100% down on WMB either. This looks a little worse in retrospect just because the lack of organizational development at 3b necessitated an expensive FA in Sandoval.
1) Flags fly forever/GFIN: If you're trading at the deadline you typically don't get fair value, but fair value as summarized by WAR or whatever else doesn't really account for the value you place on deep playoff runs/WS victories. You're going to get fleeced a little, but that's what happens when you realize you're a true contender. Does Seattle feel better about Slocumb for Varitek/Lowe if they win that year? At least a little bit.
2) Present vs future value. Peavy helped the Red Sox immediately, Iglesias was a backup MI who helped significantly less in the short term. This is related to (1) but a WS win in 2013 is better than one in 2016 or so, especially if you're not losing the trade so badly that making it really hurts your odds of the latter.
3) Risk vs potential: If you think Peavy and Iglesias are of equal likely worth, you pick Peavy if you're the 2013 Red Sox. Iglesias breaking out is worth less than the relative assurance of good performance by Peavy, especially given the health concerns of Buchholz, questions about Doubront's reliability, etc. Meanwhile, if you're the Phillies and you're on the crummy part of the win curve, you take your chances with the lottery ticket.
4) Dealing from a position of organizational strength: You can never have enough pitching; meanwhile, the team had a steady contributor in Drew, a stud prospect in X, and another future lottery ticket in Marrero. With X looking much better at SS defensively, Iglesias is expendable. Cecchini looked much better in the minors on that point and they weren't 100% down on WMB either. This looks a little worse in retrospect just because the lack of organizational development at 3b necessitated an expensive FA in Sandoval.
Montas was part of this trade as well.
http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/white-sox-prospect-frankie-montas-lights-radar-gun-futures-game
http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/white-sox-prospect-frankie-montas-lights-radar-gun-futures-game
One really needs to look at trades such as these from the lens at the time. The Sox needed a starting pitcher; noone knew how long Buchholz was going to be out for. Noone really knew exactly what to expect from Lester (he had a June slump that season). Replacing a prospect such as Iglesias would be far easier than finding a league average starting pitcher, which is exactly what the Sox needed at the time.
Whether the Sox valued Marrero more highly than either Iglesias or Bogaerts is irrelevant when judging this trade. What is relevant is that the FO felt they had ample replacements in the system for Iglesias; on that front, they were absolutely correct. Peavy was an insurance policy, and it was one that actually worked. He was far better than Gagne, but we don't seem to have a problem giving the Sox a pass on that trade (and rightfully so; the bullpen needed some help at that point in time in 2007).
The comparison with the Lackey trade is not entirely relevant either. The Sox could have had prospects for Lackey; instead, they decided to take their chances on a young starting pitcher with promising "stuff" and a lottery ticket coming back from major injury. And we still need to wait a couple of seasons before we can truly judge that trade.
Whether the Sox valued Marrero more highly than either Iglesias or Bogaerts is irrelevant when judging this trade. What is relevant is that the FO felt they had ample replacements in the system for Iglesias; on that front, they were absolutely correct. Peavy was an insurance policy, and it was one that actually worked. He was far better than Gagne, but we don't seem to have a problem giving the Sox a pass on that trade (and rightfully so; the bullpen needed some help at that point in time in 2007).
The comparison with the Lackey trade is not entirely relevant either. The Sox could have had prospects for Lackey; instead, they decided to take their chances on a young starting pitcher with promising "stuff" and a lottery ticket coming back from major injury. And we still need to wait a couple of seasons before we can truly judge that trade.
I don't think people are giving anyone a pass for the Gagne trade.
The Gagne trade was bad and a failure in pitching talent evaluation. It looks OK in retrospect because Gabbard and Engel Beltre didn't pan out and David Murphy stuck in the majors but didn't light the world on fire. But anytime you trade assets for a pitcher as poor as Gagne you are making a bad decision.
The Gagne trade was bad and a failure in pitching talent evaluation. It looks OK in retrospect because Gabbard and Engel Beltre didn't pan out and David Murphy stuck in the majors but didn't light the world on fire. But anytime you trade assets for a pitcher as poor as Gagne you are making a bad decision.
crystalline said:
I agree. That no one bemoans the Gagne deal even though it was a bad one is because a) they won the Series and b) none of the players traded away became anything of note (or were "one that got away" types).
With the Peavy deal, you have a guy who actually pitched well for the team (as opposed to Gagne), and while you have (a), it's still too early judge (b). Yes, Iglesias is having another BABIP fueled offensive season and made the All Star team. But it's not like there's a gaping hole on the Red Sox roster that only he could fill. In other words, they don't miss him. There's little to no reason to regret that trade at this point.
Gagne wasn't poor prior to the trade (2.16 ERA; 16 of 17 save attempts season to date with the Rangers). His numbers were trending downward (K/9, WHIP), but it wasn't like they were picking up a washed up pitcher. That said, he proceeded to douse himself in gasoline and light a match as soon as he put on a Red Sox uniform and quickly became a washed up pitcher. Perhaps he stopped juicing (which the Red Sox were allegedly aware of).crystalline said:
- Status