The Iggy-Peavy Trade Regurgitated

Status
Not open for further replies.

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
Plympton91 said:
That strategy seems like a good one to me. The resurgent offense is generating tradable assets in that realm. Are there any competitive teams that need offense and have excess starting pitching? The Mets?
 
It worth noting that the Red Sox traded away Jose Iglesis and while they didn't give him away for free, they sold low (I don't believe Peavy played a vital or indispensable role in winning the championship--the Red Sox would have won it without him).  Iglesis is the kind of trade chip that would bring back one of the Mets young pitchers or another young pitcher on another organization.  In retrospect, the Iglesis trade was not very prudent--the Red Sox traded a valuable asset for a declining one.  As others on this forum have pointed out, the majority of Cherington's deals haven't worked out, the Miller/E.Rodriguez trade is a notable (and important) exception.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
FanSinceBoggs said:
 
Iglesis is the kind of trade chip that would bring back one of the Mets young pitchers or another young pitcher on another organization. 
I disagree. Iglesias was playing well at the time but still wasn't thought of as a major chip. Farrell made it clear at the SaberSeminar that summer that they thought his good offensive numbers to that point were BABIP driven and that they were stoked to turn him into Peavy.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
Laser Show said:
Farrell made it clear at the SaberSeminar that summer that they thought his good offensive numbers to that point were BABIP driven and that they were stoked to turn him into Peavy.
 
This is exactly the point: the Red Sox have been making mistakes in player evaluation.  They should have seen more value in Iglesias.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
FanSinceBoggs said:
This is exactly the point: the Red Sox have been making mistakes in player evaluation.  They should have seen more value in Iglesias.
Except they weren't so much "seillng low" as paying what they understood to be a premium to acquire pitching for a mid-season run. It's the nature of the market that buyers have to pay a premium to sellers for pitching as they are competing against other buyers making a run; the premium reflects the value of the opportunity to win it all.

As such, we know that they valued, in a vacuum, Iglesias not at the level of Peavy but more than Peavy. But Peavey was the best option out there and would be good for a ton of innings, so they were willing to go for it even if, in a vacuum, it would be an "over-pay."
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,418
Not here
FanSinceBoggs said:
 
This is exactly the point: the Red Sox have been making mistakes in player evaluation.  They should have seen more value in Iglesias.
 
This is bullshit post hoc rationalization. At the time of the trade there was almost nobody who thought Iglesias would ever be a hitter. Today, I'm pretty sure there's still nobody who thinks he'll ever be a hitter. You're just pissed off that this season hasn't been going well, and are looking back at deals that worked out fine, and declaring them bad because you're clouded by what's happening now.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Also: Do they win in 2013 without that wooden Indian? I think not.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
Rasputin said:
 
This is bullshit post hoc rationalization. At the time of the trade there was almost nobody who thought Iglesias would ever be a hitter. Today, I'm pretty sure there's still nobody who thinks he'll ever be a hitter. You're just pissed off that this season hasn't been going well, and are looking back at deals that worked out fine, and declaring them bad because you're clouded by what's happening now.
 
There were a lot of people who thought it was a bad trade at the time it was made.  Many people thought Iglesias would hit enough to be a very valuable player.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
You are assuming the Sox would have won the series without Peavy and you simply can't do that. 
He was a solid pitcher for the Sox in 2013 and very well may have been the difference
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
FanSinceBoggs said:
 
There were a lot of people who thought it was a bad trade at the time it was made.  Many people thought Iglesias would hit enough to be a very valuable player.
 
He had a 143 wRC+ in the first half of 2013 with a .414 BABIP and an 18.7% line drive rate, which was not far from league average, so there was no reason to think his high BABIP was even remotely sustainable. There was nothing in his batted ball profile that suggested he could sustain that success and his minor league track record offered nothing to dissuade anyone of the notion that he was never going to be a good hitter. He went 58/.288 in the second half of that season.
 
So far this season he had an absurd April with a 170 wRC+ and a .410 BABIP followed by a 92/.323 in May and 81/.329 in June. That's probably much closer to what he actually is as a hitter. That's not to say that there's no value in a 10-20% below league average bat with consistent gold glove caliber defense, but he needs to be far better than that at the plate to be worth regretting given the results in 2013. You may want to discount Peavy's contributions to that run, but removing him from the equation completely changes the team that made that run. We have no idea if they would have seen the same results and given how many late comebacks and incredibly exciting games we got to enjoy, so I don't know why anyone would want to tinker with that to get Jose Iglesias back.
 
If they could trade a Jake Peavy analogue to get him back now, sure, I'd certainly do it, but I'm not touching that 2013 squad and no amount of BABIP driven success is going to change my mind.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,418
Not here
FanSinceBoggs said:
 
There were a lot of people who thought it was a bad trade at the time it was made.  Many people thought Iglesias would hit enough to be a very valuable player.
 
No there weren't, there were like three people, one of whom was Eric Van.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
Snodgrass and Byrdbrain:
 
I'm not sure if we know yet what Iglesias is as a player.  We know he contributes significantly to run prevention, and thus is an ideal player in this era of baseball, while his offensive upside is more of a mystery.
 
I think you would have a better argument if Peavy pitched really well for the Red Sox.  He was basically a league average pitcher for the Red Sox (ERA+ 102) and they could have gotten a league average contribution from another pitcher without giving up Iglesias.  I would need to go over the playoffs game-by-game to remind myself of what happened there, but I do remember that Peavy wasn't an essential component of the championship run in October.  My memory of this could be fading, however.  To be sure, if he was an essential contributor in October, the deal is more than worth it, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't.  I'll go over the playoffs game-by-game to see if I should change my opinion on that matter.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,418
Not here
FanSinceBoggs said:
Snodgrass and Byrdbrain:
 
I'm not sure if we know yet what Iglesias is as a player.  We know he contributes significantly to run prevention, and thus is an ideal player in this era of baseball, while his offensive upside is more of a mystery.
 
I think you would have a better argument if Peavy pitched really well for the Red Sox.  He was basically a league average pitcher for the Red Sox (ERA+ 102) and they could have gotten a league average contribution from another pitcher without giving up Iglesias.  I would need to go over the playoffs game-by-game to remind myself of what happened there, but I do remember that Peavy wasn't an essential component of the championship run in October.  My memory of this could be fading, however.  To be sure, if he was an essential contributor in October, the deal is more than worth it, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't.  I'll go over the playoffs game-by-game to see if I should change my opinion on that matter.
 
I think you're overstating how easy it would be to get a league average pitcher. With Buchholz out, the team desperately needed depth and the Rubby de la Rosa's and Allen Websters weren't ready for their shot. Who would you have gone to and, just as importantly, what would you have done if someone got hurt? The move was as much preventative as anything. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
FanSinceBoggs said:
Snodgrass and Byrdbrain:
 
I'm not sure if we know yet what Iglesias is as a player.  We know he contributes significantly to run prevention, and thus is an ideal player in this era of baseball, while his offensive upside is more of a mystery.
 
I think you would have a better argument if Peavy pitched really well for the Red Sox.  He was basically a league average pitcher for the Red Sox (ERA+ 102) and they could have gotten a league average contribution from another pitcher without giving up Iglesias.  I would need to go over the playoffs game-by-game to remind myself of what happened there, but I do remember that Peavy wasn't an essential component of the championship run in October.  My memory of this could be fading, however.  To be sure, if he was an essential contributor in October, the deal is more than worth it, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't.  I'll go over the playoffs game-by-game to see if I should change my opinion on that matter.
 
You are missing the point. Removing him from the 2013 team changes that run. I can't even begin to wrap my head around a Red Sox fan wanting to do anything to change what happened that season and, in particular, in those playoffs. Of the three titles we've all been so lucky to see, 2013 was by far the most enjoyable ride for me. 2004 is obviously more important, and the 2007 team was probably better than the 2013 team, but the actual ride of the 2013 season and playoffs was more fun than either of the previous two when you remove the ability to look at them in hindsight.
 
I suppose it might be an interesting theoretical exercise if they had given up, say, Mookie Betts or Xander Bogaerts to get Peavy, but they didn't. They gave up a shortstop who still hasn't given us any reason to think he's even a league average hitter, never mind a hugely valuable player overall.
 

Buffalo Head

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2001
6,864
San Diego, CA
If they don't trade Iglesias, he isn't out there to extend the seventh inning of Game 6. Fucking visionary, that Ben.
 

TheBenzingerGame

I.C.U.P.
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2006
3,645
Washington, DC
FanSinceBoggs said:
I would need to go over the playoffs game-by-game to remind myself of what happened there, but I do remember that Peavy wasn't an essential component of the championship run in October.  My memory of this could be fading, however.  To be sure, if he was an essential contributor in October, the deal is more than worth it, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't.  I'll go over the playoffs game-by-game to see if I should change my opinion on that matter.
 
Hi, I'm Jake Peavy. You may remember me from...
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
TheBenzingerGame said:
 
Peavy:  7.38 ERA in the 2013 postseason (3 starts)
 
Box Scores:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331008130
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331016106
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331026124
 
Peavy pitched well in game 4 against Tampa Bay.  He was a disaster against the Tigers, which could have cost the Red Sox the series.  Clearly, Farrell lost trust in Peavy and when it looked like Peavy was headed toward another disaster in the World Series, Farrell took him out after 4 innings.
 
What's so interesting is that the World Series never went 7 games (thank you, John Lackey).  If it did go 7, Peavy was getting that start.  So, in many ways, that start would have been the defining moment and deciding factor regarding the wisdom of the Iglesias/Peavy trade (at least in my opinion) and so we will never know.  I'll take an agnostic position on the Iglesias/Peavy trade.  I'm not going to call it a good trade for the Red Sox as Peavy was basically a league average pitcher for the Red Sox during the 2013 regular season, and he helped and hurt the Red Sox in the 2013 postseason.
 
If we take the trade out of context, it was a disaster of a trade for the Red Sox, since Iglesias has so much more value going forward.  Obviously, we can't look at the trade that way, and must place it in context.  When we do that, the trade looks eminently more prudent (and practical), but not a slam dunk in favor of the Red Sox (at least not for me).  Peavy didn't pitch well enough.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
FanSinceBoggs said:
 
Peavy:  7.38 ERA in the 2013 postseason (3 starts)
 
Box Scores:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331008130
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331016106
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331026124
 
Peavy pitched well in game 4 against Tampa Bay.  He was a disaster against the Tigers, which could have cost the Red Sox the series.  Clearly, Farrell lost trust in Peavy and when it looked like Peavy was headed toward another disaster in the World Series, Farrell took him out after 4 innings.
 
 
You might want to re-read that World Series box score.  Peavy wasn't taken out because he was "heading toward another disaster".  He was taken out because he came up to bat with a runner on third base, and Farrell used a pinch-hitter to get the runner home.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
The Peavy trade talk needs to end.
 
The
Red Sox
won
the 
World Series
 
At the least Peavy was an important part of the Sox getting there and there is no way you can assume they would have won it without him.
If they don't win the Series then the trade can be debated at this point there is no debate, it was a good trade.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,675
Maine
FanSinceBoggs said:
 
Peavy:  7.38 ERA in the 2013 postseason (3 starts)
 
Box Scores:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331008130
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331016106
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331026124
 
Peavy pitched well in game 4 against Tampa Bay.  He was a disaster against the Tigers, which could have cost the Red Sox the series.  Clearly, Farrell lost trust in Peavy and when it looked like Peavy was headed toward another disaster in the World Series, Farrell took him out after 4 innings.
 
What's so interesting is that the World Series never went 7 games (thank you, John Lackey).  If it did go 7, Peavy was getting that start.  So, in many ways, that start would have been the defining moment and deciding factor regarding the wisdom of the Iglesias/Peavy trade (at least in my opinion) and so we will never know.  I'll take an agnostic position on the Iglesias/Peavy trade.  I'm not going to call it a good trade for the Red Sox as Peavy was basically a league average pitcher for the Red Sox during the 2013 regular season, and he helped and hurt the Red Sox in the 2013 postseason.
 
If we take the trade out of context, it was a disaster of a trade for the Red Sox, since Iglesias has so much more value going forward.  Obviously, we can't look at the trade that way, and must place it in context.  When we do that, the trade looks eminently more prudent (and practical), but not a slam dunk in favor of the Red Sox (at least not for me).  Peavy didn't pitch well enough.
 
Fail to see how one start would have been the defining moment, particularly in a World Series Game 7 in which it is always all hands on deck and the hooks come quickly.  The only starting pitchers who ever pitch deep into a Game 7 are the ones that are pitching well.  All others tend to get hooked at the first sign of trouble, no matter who they are.  Take last year's Game 7.  The Giants' starter, Tim Hudson, went all of 1.2 innings, yanked when with two on and the score tied 2-2.  The Royals starter, Jeremy Guthrie, was similarly yanked with two on and one out in the 4th.  Any other game, and odds are both guys last longer, maybe get shelled and get chastised for not performing up to snuff.  But not a Game 7.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
FanSinceBoggs said:
 
Peavy:  7.38 ERA in the 2013 postseason (3 starts)
 
Box Scores:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331008130
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331016106
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?id=331026124
 
Peavy pitched well in game 4 against Tampa Bay.  He was a disaster against the Tigers, which could have cost the Red Sox the series.  Clearly, Farrell lost trust in Peavy and when it looked like Peavy was headed toward another disaster in the World Series, Farrell took him out after 4 innings.
 
What's so interesting is that the World Series never went 7 games (thank you, John Lackey).  If it did go 7, Peavy was getting that start.  So, in many ways, that start would have been the defining moment and deciding factor regarding the wisdom of the Iglesias/Peavy trade (at least in my opinion) and so we will never know.  I'll take an agnostic position on the Iglesias/Peavy trade.  I'm not going to call it a good trade for the Red Sox as Peavy was basically a league average pitcher for the Red Sox during the 2013 regular season, and he helped and hurt the Red Sox in the 2013 postseason.
 
If we take the trade out of context, it was a disaster of a trade for the Red Sox, since Iglesias has so much more value going forward.  Obviously, we can't look at the trade that way, and must place it in context.  When we do that, the trade looks eminently more prudent (and practical), but not a slam dunk in favor of the Red Sox (at least not for me).  Peavy didn't pitch well enough.
The Tigers game went to shit when Pedroia couldn't turn a simple double play. Peavy wasn't exactly dealing, but that game turns out much differently if Pedey doesn't botch that ball.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The Red Sox were 1/2 game up in the division on July 31st, 2013 with a crazy good and deep offense.
 
They gave up a guy whose ceiling is average regular who was in the midst of a crazy BABIP filled offensive season and played a position where the team had multiple other prospects including an elite prospect and a poor man's version of Iglesias. 
 
They got back a league average to slightly above average pitcher who had very little risk of being anything worse than a slightly below average starter.
 
Buchholz was out at the time and his return wasn't a certainty, so the rotation was Lester, Lackey, Dempster, Doubront.  Dempster kind of sucked and Doubront a) hadn't pitched more than 161 innings in a season and (b) we can reasonably infer now that they had some concerns about his make up and attitude.  So they needed insurance.  Buchholz, luckily, made it back (albeit not as the ace from earlier in the year) so they didn't need to fully cash in that insurance policy, but buying insurance made sense.
 
Having Peavy allowed the Sox to pitch Doubront out of the bullpen in the playoffs, where he was very effective.  It also may have helped them rest Doubront down the stretch (although arguably they had enough of a lead to do so anyways).
 
Iglesias missed all of last season, so they probably couldn't have traded him for more in the last two off seasons.
 
He is having a good season in 2015 but, again, the projection systems aren't really buying into his offense (peripherals are modestly better than in 2013, but that .354 BABIP still doesn't play with the rest of his components IMO)
 
The Red Sox have a younger and superior player at the position (You could argue he could play third base instead of signing Sandoval, and that has merit, but we also know that Xander wants to play short and was adversely affected by moving him off of SS last year so we need to weigh that to some extent I think)
 
The Red Sox won the division and won the 2013 World Series.
 
This was a very good trade both in process and result.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
It doesn't make sense to look back in hindsight, see that a traded player seems to be turning out well, and decide that it was therefore a bad trade.

Iglesias is still the Ayer the Sox traded: superlative defense, often injured, might be able to hit a little. I suppose we can now be a little more confident in his bat.

Peavy filled a key hole on a championship team, even if he sucked in the playoffs.

We don't know what the "keep Iglesias" alternative would have been. Running Webster out there to be crushed every 5 days? Trading someone else - and if so, who? And would keeping Iglesias around have meant no Xander in the 2013 postseason? If so, it might also have meant losing to the Tigers in round 2.
 

tomdeplonty

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 23, 2013
585
Eddie Jurak said:
It doesn't make sense to look back in hindsight, see that a traded player seems to be turning out well, and decide that it was therefore a bad trade.
 
This. Can anybody make the case that it was a bad trade in 2013 - that it was based on a clearly flawed assessment of the players' value, especially relative to the Sox' need at the time?
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Christ . . if Tony Mazz ever sees this thread we're going to be trolled for the next 15 years.
As Jimy Williams would say - "Xander is our shortstop."
And then something about frogs bumping their booty.
 
Not enough data on Iglesias yet to make a determination anyhow.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Byrdbrain said:
The Peavy trade talk needs to end.
 
The
Red Sox
won
the 
World Series
 
At the least Peavy was an important part of the Sox getting there and there is no way you can assume they would have won it without him.
If they don't win the Series then the trade can be debated at this point there is no debate, it was a good trade.
^^^^^^THIS

* Peavy solidified our rotation down the stretch.

* His presence in the rotation allowed us to use Doubrant in the bullpen.

* Doubrant was critical in us winning one ALCS game.

* Doubrant saved our asses in Game 4 of the WS in relief of Buchholz

* WE WON THE FREAKIN WORLD SERIES!!!
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think hindsight can be valuable at times because we don't have access to all information available at the time of the trade.  So, especially when trading prospects, etc. we have to use some hindsight to kind of see how good the team is at assessing future value.  But it's obviously not perfect.
 
However, I don't think that is applicable to this trade for the Red Sox, because this was clearly, even at the outset, a trade about moving talent from a position of excess to a position of need.  It is easy to argue in hindsight that Peavy wasn't necessary but this is where hindsight is useless.  Peavy didn't step up to be the guy, but others did.  Based on history, it could have been Peavy that stepped up and others didn't.  You can't know that ahead of time, you just acquire pieces that may step up.  Also, Peavy was necessary because he moved Doubront to the pen where Doubront really helped in the ALCS and WS, and Peavy also gave a good start in Game 4 of the ALDS, and going to a game 5 would have necessarily changed the dynamic of the ALCS and who knows how it would have turned out.  So in the end, calling Peavy "unnecessary" seems to be revisionist more than actual hindsight.
 
The place to complain about this trade in hindsight is on the South Side of Chicago, where Avisail Garcia has been fine but they probably needed a succession plan to Alexi Ramirez more than another OF.  But even then, Ramirez was pretty good in 13 and 14 and Garcia is still very young.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
I find it unlikely Iglesias is a career .300 hitter like he has shown this season; nothing in the minors or his scouting reports suggested that.  I suspect he will settle into a .280 slap hitter with 15-20 steals a year.  At shortstop nowadays that probably makes him average to slightly below for the position.  Coupled with his plus defense and he's likely a 2-3 win player per year.  A nice, solid guy to have around - an Adam Everett type or a poor man's Andrelton Simmons.
 
Bogaerts has shown that while he might not have Jose's flash with the glove, he's no slouch in that regard either, and his bat and frame suggest he should not be just a league average hitter but eventually a middle of the order power bat.  Bogaerts seems destined for a career like Jhonny Peralta - not tossing up web gems each night but playing very reliable defense at short, while also being a clear plus hitter at a historically weak offensive position.  Maybe people don't get jazzed up about a Jhonny Peralta comp, but he's been a 4-win player from 2011-2015.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Byrdbrain said:
The Peavy trade talk needs to end.
 
The
Red Sox
won
the 
World Series
 
At the least Peavy was an important part of the Sox getting there and there is no way you can assume they would have won it without him.
If they don't win the Series then the trade can be debated at this point there is no debate, it was a good trade.
Exactly. He did have a great start against Tampa that people overlook. It's as polarizing as the Kaberle trade when the Bruins won the cup and it shouldn't be.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,675
Maine
smastroyin said:
I think hindsight can be valuable at times because we don't have access to all information available at the time of the trade.  So, especially when trading prospects, etc. we have to use some hindsight to kind of see how good the team is at assessing future value.  But it's obviously not perfect.
 
Case in point, the Bagwell for Anderson trade.  I'd like to think had the internet, broader understanding of advanced statistics, and a site like this existed, the trade might have been panned at the time it was made.  But it certainly gets criticized in hindsight, and rightly so.  Quite clear in hindsight that the Red Sox grossly misunderstood Bagwell's value, in part because they over-emphasized the wrong stats (such as judging HR totals in a HR-supressing park/league environment).  Add in the fact that Anderson was here for all of a month and a half and the team was swept out of the ALCS, and the Sox didn't get much out of the deal.
 
Big contrast to the Iglesias/Peavy deal, in which we had a much better understanding of what Iglesias was/will be (not a borderline Hall of Famer) and they won the Series with Peavy. 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,235
Given the thread title, I'm reminded of the demise of Eric "Stumpy Joe"  Childs.
 
 
 
Do the Sons of John Wockenfuss still debate Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
I think Bagwell-for-Anderson was panned at the time, anyway.  As I recall, the typical reaction was "We gave up a top prospect for a middle reliever?  Why??"
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
HriniakPosterChild said:
What could they have done with a replacement level wooden Indian?
Remember that September they ran replacement level wooden Indians out every night trying to squeeze out enough replacement level starts to lock up a playoff spot that seemed a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the month?  They couldn't even shit out wooden nickels, much less serviceable starts.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
P'tucket said:
Remember that September they ran replacement level wooden Indians out every night trying to squeeze out enough replacement level starts to lock up a playoff spot that seemed a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the month?  They couldn't even shit out wooden nickels, much less serviceable starts.
The unprojectable wooden Indian?
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
The Doubront argument (Workman could be mentioned as well) doesn't do it for me.  The argument is not whether the Red Sox should have traded for a SP, but whether Cherington was fleeced by trading one of the best young defensive players in the game for a SP who wasn't performing at a high level for the White Sox in 2013 and clearly did not perform at a high level with the Red Sox in the regular season or postseason.
 
I don't know what other deals for SPs were on the table, and thus possible, but I have a hard time believing that the Red Sox couldn't have traded for a league average starter without giving up a player with Iglesias' upside.  The other possibility, of course, is that the Red Sox didn't internally believe they were giving up very much in trading Iglesias for a league average starter.  If that is the case, we are probably looking at a front office mistake in player evaluation.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
jscola85 said:
I find it unlikely Iglesias is a career .300 hitter like he has shown this season; nothing in the minors or his scouting reports suggested that.  I suspect he will settle into a .280 slap hitter with 15-20 steals a year.  At shortstop nowadays that probably makes him average to slightly below for the position.  Coupled with his plus defense and he's likely a 2-3 win player per year.  A nice, solid guy to have around - an Adam Everett type or a poor man's Andrelton Simmons.
Well - if he can retain average offensive performance, he's not so much a poor man's Andrelton Simmons, he's potentially a rich man's Andrelton Simmons. Simmons managed to post 4.5 WAR in 2013 with a 91 RC+. 
 
The question I have about Iglesias is why he isn't scoring better on his defensive metrics. His UZR this year is 3.8, only a 1.1 better than Xander at 2.7 (Simmons is at +9). Have the injuries caused him to lose a step in the field?
 
He's certainly a very different player than we expected him to be. I want to think that the offense is real and the defense will come back when he's more fully recovered, which would make him a borderline star. But it's just as likely to be the reverse, that the offense will regress and his defense will never be better than just good and he'll be an ok player. 
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
FanSinceBoggs said:
The Doubront argument (Workman could be mentioned as well) doesn't do it for me.  The argument is not whether the Red Sox should have traded for a SP, but whether Cherington was fleeced by trading one of the best young defensive players in the game for a SP who wasn't performing at a high level for the White Sox in 2013 and clearly did not perform at a high level with the Red Sox in the regular season or postseason.
 
I don't know what other deals for SPs were on the table, and thus possible, but I have a hard time believing that the Red Sox couldn't have traded for a league average starter without giving up a player with Iglesias' upside.  The other possibility, of course, is that the Red Sox didn't internally believe they were giving up very much in trading Iglesias for a league average starter.  If that is the case, we are probably looking at a front office mistake in player evaluation.
 
So, to fit your narrative, you feel that the Sox could have traded away something that amounts to replacement level talent or minor league fodder, for a league average/above average pitcher, at the trading deadline (when there is a premium)?  All they had to do was look harder, negotiate better, or not be so wrong about Iglesias?
 
I don't buy that.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
If you didn't like this deal, you will hate 98% of all trade deadline deals as a buyer.  Lets not pretend Iglesias is likely to be a perennial all-star or anything.  He's probably a marginal/OK regular.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
PrometheusWakefield said:
Well - if he can retain average offensive performance, he's not so much a poor man's Andrelton Simmons, he's potentially a rich man's Andrelton Simmons. Simmons managed to post 4.5 WAR in 2013 with a 91 RC+. 
 
The question I have about Iglesias is why he isn't scoring better on his defensive metrics. His UZR this year is 3.8, only a 1.1 better than Xander at 2.7 (Simmons is at +9). Have the injuries caused him to lose a step in the field?
 
He's certainly a very different player than we expected him to be. I want to think that the offense is real and the defense will come back when he's more fully recovered, which would make him a borderline star. But it's just as likely to be the reverse, that the offense will regress and his defense will never be better than just good and he'll be an ok player. 
 
I think the reality is (A) he's not the defender Simmons is and (B) I don't think Iglesias is going to be a league-average hitter.  I think he could be average for the shortstop position, which would be below average overall, just like Simmons posted with his 91 RC+.
 
On defense, it takes lots of time to normalize so I don't think I'd read heavily into it yet.  For his career Iglesias is at 12.1 UZR/150, which is pretty darn good.  Not quite Simmons at 21.1 UZR/150 but still in the "mortal human beings" category for shortstop defense.
 
EDIT - cleanup
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Stitch01 said:
If you didn't like this deal, you will hate 98% of all trade deadline deals as a buyer.  Lets not pretend Iglesias is likely to be a perennial all-star or anything.  He's probably a marginal/OK regular.
 
Exactly.  Look at what a 2 month rental of Andrew Miller got the Sox.  If E-Rod continues to be the star many are proclaiming, O's fans on their Message Board will be regurgitating that trade for years.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
There is no Rev said:
Also: Do they win in 2013 without that wooden Indian? I think not.
 
HriniakPosterChild said:
What could they have done with a replacement level wooden Indian?
 
P'tucket said:
Remember that September they ran replacement level wooden Indians out every night trying to squeeze out enough replacement level starts to lock up a playoff spot that seemed a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the month?  They couldn't even shit out wooden nickels, much less serviceable starts.
 
HomeRunBaker said:
The unprojectable wooden Indian?
 
I mean, I've been to India a few times. Indians prefer stone statuary to wood. And if we're talking about personality, it's a pretty expressive place. Has to be with one billion people. Not saying there aren't wooden Indians, just that it's unlikely that they're replacement-level. Stone Indians? Dime a dozen.
 
Also, this post-hoc thread is weird, especially since we're not acknowledging Peavy's post-trade value and positive contribution to the Giants in 2014. I mean, the guy offers rotations that Wakefield-like back-end stability they often lack.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
AB in DC said:
 
You might want to re-read that World Series box score.  Peavy wasn't taken out because he was "heading toward another disaster".  He was taken out because he came up to bat with a runner on third base, and Farrell used a pinch-hitter to get the runner home.
 
A distinction here is not necessary.  You don't take out a dominant starter in the 4th inning to get a run home.  Instead, the manager takes out the starter in the 4th inning if he has lost confidence in the starter's ability to shut down the offense.  Peavy had already given up 2 runs in 4 innings; Farrell assumed he would give up more and so he made the move.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,418
Not here
FanSinceBoggs said:
The Doubront argument (Workman could be mentioned as well) doesn't do it for me.  The argument is not whether the Red Sox should have traded for a SP, but whether Cherington was fleeced by trading one of the best young defensive players in the game for a SP who wasn't performing at a high level for the White Sox in 2013 and clearly did not perform at a high level with the Red Sox in the regular season or postseason.
 
I don't know what other deals for SPs were on the table, and thus possible, but I have a hard time believing that the Red Sox couldn't have traded for a league average starter without giving up a player with Iglesias' upside.  The other possibility, of course, is that the Red Sox didn't internally believe they were giving up very much in trading Iglesias for a league average starter.  If that is the case, we are probably looking at a front office mistake in player evaluation.
Iglesias didn't have an upside. That wasn't a mistake in player evaluation, that was the only conclusion you could come to with the available data.

The notion that the 117 games he's played since the trade are more reflective of his talent than the hundreds before the trade is ridiculous.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
joe dokes said:
Do the Sons of John Wockenfuss still debate Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz.
I'll bet they do. 9-0, 1.008 WHIP post trade, for a Tigers team that beat out Toronto by 2 games. I don't think it's a stretch to say Alexander was the difference between making the post-season and not. He then was the losing pitchers in games one and five against Minnesota - 1.667 WHIP and 10 earned runs in nine innings.

Is there another comparable trade worth considering? Prospect turns into a Hall of Famer, veteran makes a difference in one or just a few years? If the Expos make the playoffs in 1989, trading Randy Johnson to get Mark Langston is probably worth it.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
zenter said:
 
 
 
 
I mean, I've been to India a few times. Indians prefer stone statuary to wood. And if we're talking about personality, it's a pretty expressive place. Has to be with one billion people. Not saying there aren't wooden Indians, just that it's unlikely that they're replacement-level. Stone Indians? Dime a dozen.
 
Also, this post-hoc thread is weird, especially since we're not acknowledging Peavy's post-trade value and positive contribution to the Giants in 2014. I mean, the guy offers rotations that Wakefield-like back-end stability they often lack.
Other kind of Indian.
 
Rasputin said:
Iglesias didn't have an upside. That wasn't a mistake in player evaluation, that was the only conclusion you could come to with the available data.

The notion that the 117 games he's played since the trade are more reflective of his talent than the hundreds before the trade is ridiculous.
I'm not sure why the 63 games he hit well with the Red Sox don't count, and if you take his full 180 games since 2013 it's actually a pretty significant sample size at this point. He's a contact hitter who doesn't strike out very much and maintains a relatively high BABIP by keeping the ball on the ground and taking advantage of his speed. That's a combination that plenty of hitters have used to get to league-average offense.
 
If you're saying we should care more about what his offense looked like in 2012 or 2011, well, I don't really get why. His minor league sample size is not that much greater then his major league sample size and the latter is more recent. His steadily declining K% looks to me like a player learning how to hit. If he can maintain a 9.6 K%, or something close to it, he can be a quality offensive player.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
It's also worth noting that in the 2013 playoffs, Stephen Drew played out of his mind defensively while Iglesias made key errors in the field.   Had Iglesias still been around, he may have been out there making those errors for Boston, given that Drew stopped hitting and might have been replaced for that reason.
 
For those not paying attention, Peavy also had a very good second half last year for SF, and while there's a time, place, and league adjustment necessary, it isn't clear that in a universe where the Red Sox had been contenders in 2014, Peavy would have contributed to two stretch runs.  As it is, the trade is not just Iglesias for Peavy.   It is now Iglesias for one stretch run with Peavy and the potential of Hembree and Escobar.   While Hembree is pretty low ceiling and Escobar is probably headed for elbow surgery, there's still time for either of them to turn into something that also goes into the ledger when evaluating that trade.   Given that a WS title is already on the Red Sox side of that ledger and one pre-FA season for Iglesias was lost completely to an injury that could turn out to be chronic, I'd say it is way too early to pass judgment at all.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,235
There's some serious revisionist history going on with Peavy. He made 10 regular season starts at a time the Sox needed dependable starting pitching. 7 of the 10 were good or better;  2 were awful; one was meh. That sort of production was not freely available at the time. He also failed to finish the 6th inning only twice in those 10 starts.
 
 
I'm not sure why the 63 games he hit well with the Red Sox don't count, and if you take his full 180 games since 2013 it's actually a pretty significant sample size at this point.
 
 
Lets see how Iglesias does in a full season -- not just a full season worth of playing time spread out over 3 calendar years
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,418
Not here
PrometheusWakefield said:
Other kind of Indian.
 
I'm not sure why the 63 games he hit well with the Red Sox don't count, and if you take his full 180 games since 2013 it's actually a pretty significant sample size at this point. He's a contact hitter who doesn't strike out very much and maintains a relatively high BABIP by keeping the ball on the ground and taking advantage of his speed. That's a combination that plenty of hitters have used to get to league-average offense.
 
If you're saying we should care more about what his offense looked like in 2012 or 2011, well, I don't really get why. His minor league sample size is not that much greater then his major league sample size and the latter is more recent. His steadily declining K% looks to me like a player learning how to hit. If he can maintain a 9.6 K%, or something close to it, he can be a quality offensive player.
 
At no point did I even imply that the 63 games for the Sox in 2013 didn't count. I don't know why you'd go out of your way to misunderstand that, but whatever.
 
By my count, he has 311 minor league games which is rather a lot more than 180 and 180 isn't that much. You've seen a gazillion guys have a great season somewhere along the line that isn't replicated anywhere else in their career. Much like Iggy's 9.6 K rate isn't replicated anywhere else in his career.
 
The guy is having a good season, good for him. He's fun to watch play. And if he maxes out his talent, it will be fun watching him come in to replace Xander Bogaerts in All Star Games for the next ten years.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
twothousandone said:
I'll bet they do. 9-0, 1.008 WHIP post trade, for a Tigers team that beat out Toronto by 2 games. I don't think it's a stretch to say Alexander was the difference between making the post-season and not. He then was the losing pitchers in games one and five against Minnesota - 1.667 WHIP and 10 earned runs in nine innings.

Is there another comparable trade worth considering? Prospect turns into a Hall of Famer, veteran makes a difference in one or just a few years? If the Expos make the playoffs in 1989, trading Randy Johnson to get Mark Langston is probably worth it.
Heathcliff Slocumb wasn't great for Seattle in '97 and they had a large enough lead to likely win their division but they were doing so with Norm Charlton and his 7.00+ ERA and blown saves as part of their closer-by-committee.

Amazing we landed Varitek and Lowe for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.