Well, that clears it up.Tzu-Wei Lin, obviously.
edit: That would take some serious balls but might make sense short term. I was joking though.
Well, that clears it up.Tzu-Wei Lin, obviously.
edit: That would take some serious balls but might make sense short term. I was joking though.
I agree that the collapse was predictable, and therefore I think if you want to blame anyone for this deal, it's probably John Henry. It seems highly unlikely to me that Dombrowski hasn't been eager to cut Panda loose from day one: not his signing, a roster-clogging PITA and a media distraction. But regardless of whose idea it was, the organization clearly made a decision last fall to give Panda one more shot at earning his contract. Once that decision was made, it really didn't make sense to keep Shaw around. I guess they could have used his last option and stashed him in Pawtucket, but I think the decision to cash him in to fill a hole on the ML roster was a defensible one. You can quibble about the return, but a 27-year-old corner infielder who just put up a catcher's batting line in his first full season does not have a ton of trade value. That's not what he looks like now, but it's what he looked like then.I do believe that the deal was defensible at the time and recoil from P91's assertion that anyone with this position is somehow defective. But Panda's (predictable, in retrospect) collapse as an effective MLB player leaves no doubt that the deal was a bad one, no matter how well Thornburg does. (IMO, of course.)
Let's examine the bolded. Entering 2017, how many teams could Travis Shaw be considered a starter for?Again, please name all the other times a team has traded a starting position player and 3 prospects for a single middle reliever (from the National League, no less) and been praised for the move on SoSH? The answer is "Never."
This is where I differ. I can buy a provisional decision that Panda was the 3b of 2017. I have much more difficulty with not being better prepared in the event that this plan did not work out. You can point to Holt, Hernandez, Rutledge etc. as fall back options, but that struck me ex ante as too thin a response to the possibility/likelihood of Panda failure. When you factor in the off season need/desire for a LHB 1b, the Shaw deal and subsequent Moreland signing seemed odd from the outset. Shaw and Moreland appeared coming into 2017 to have similar hitting projections but Shaw has the advantage of being able to play 3b too (and is cheaper on top of it). The alternative course of action was to stand pat, with Shaw at 1b and Panda at 3b, with the prime off season target a RHB 1b/3b to platoon with one or other as case may be.I agree that the collapse was predictable, and therefore I think if you want to blame anyone for this deal, it's probably John Henry. It seems highly unlikely to me that Dombrowski hasn't been eager to cut Panda loose from day one: not his signing, a roster-clogging PITA and a media distraction. But regardless of whose idea it was, the organization clearly made a decision last fall to give Panda one more shot at earning his contract. Once that decision was made, it really didn't make sense to keep Shaw around. I guess they could have used his last option and stashed him in Pawtucket, but I think the decision to cash him in to fill a hole on the ML roster was a defensible one. You can quibble about the return, but a 27-year-old corner infielder who just put up a catcher's batting line in his first full season does not have a ton of trade value. That's not what he looks like now, but it's what he looked like then.
I don't think you know what serious balls means but Lin has spend most of his career at SS while Bogaerts has more experience at 3b. Or you are just being punny.Well, that clears it up.
Out of curiosity, do you have an example of a suitable RHH 1B/3B that was available had they gone this alternative route?This is where I differ. I can buy a provisional decision that Panda was the 3b of 2017. I have much more difficulty with not being better prepared in the event that this plan did not work out. You can point to Holt, Hernandez, Rutledge etc. as fall back options, but that struck me ex ante as too thin a response to the possibility/likelihood of Panda failure. When you factor in the off season need/desire for a LHB 1b, the Shaw deal and subsequent Moreland signing seemed odd from the outset. Shaw and Moreland appeared coming into 2017 to have similar hitting projections but Shaw has the advantage of being able to play 3b too (and is cheaper on top of it). The alternative course of action was to stand pat, with Shaw at 1b and Panda at 3b, with the prime off season target a RHB 1b/3b to platoon with one or other as case may be.
The decision to upgrade the bullpen certainly made sense. The obvious option to dealing for Thornburg (or his ilk) was re-signing Koji. In sum, it looks like they decided on Moreland/Thornburg over Shaw/Koji despite the similar cost.
So you weren't joking.I don't think you know what serious balls means but Lin has spend most of his career at SS while Bogaerts has more experience at 3b. Or you are just being punny.
Can't it be both? Xander is fine at SS and I'm not moving him off SS because people aren't robots, but if they were, I'd put the better defensive SS at SS and the other guy at 3rd. Of course the better defensive SS may be Xander anyway.So you weren't joking.
Thanks for clearing that up.Can't it be both? Xander is fine at SS and I'm not moving him off SS because people aren't robots, but if they were, I'd put the better defensive SS at SS and the other guy at 3rd. Of course the better defensive SS may be Xander anyway.
That is a fair point, these guys do not grow on trees. Danny Valencia? He was dealt in November for AA/AAA pitcher, which I do not know we had to spare.Out of curiosity, do you have an example of a suitable RHH 1B/3B that was available had they gone this alternative route?
I think it's easy to argue, then and now, that the Holt/Hernandez/Rutledge safety net behind Sandoval wasn't the very best plan in the world. However, the biggest issue is that to upgrade over those guys would have required finding a willing participant at a reasonable price to be that upgrade.
In either case, it would seem that to fully satisfy detractors of the path they did take, it would require finding at least one player who is of starter or near-starter quality that was willing to sign on for a part time role. Those are damn hard to find without paying a disproportionate price. As has already been hit upon multiple times, most free agents (such as well beaten equine carcass Trevor Plouffe) aren't going to be chomping at the bit to sign where they might be relegated to the bench if there's an alternative landing spot where the path to a starting job is easier/faster.
Even trading for such a player might not be a pleasant option if the result is another Jay Payton type incident (considering his chirping last fall, Travis Shaw himself could have been a Jay Payton-esque malcontent).
While what they did this winter hasn't worked out well so far, I'm not sure that taking a different path would have surely had a better result.
The only underperformance on offense other than the calvalcade of suck at 3B is Hanley (thanks Ben!). Everybody else is well within one standard deviation of performance over half a season.And to add to that - look at what the Indians bullpen did in the postseason. Having a completely dominant pen was a huge reason they got as far as they did. The Sox probably figured it was a small offensive downgrade at 3b in exchange for a completely lights out (and usually well rested because of projected innings from starters) 6th - 9th inning bullpen. If the rest of the team was hitting like last year, we're not talking about Shaw as much.
It just hasn't worked out as planned
Doubt it. Gyorko's having a breakout year with three seasons left of an insanely team-friendly contract with the always-competitive Cardinals. He's why we signed Peralta.Olney mentioned that Gyorko might be available. He might not be a bad pick up
They scored 878 runs last year. This year they have 350 and are almost halfway through the season. That's well more than an overall standard deviation.The only underperformance on offense other than the calvalcade of suck at 3B is Hanley (thanks Ben!). Everybody else is well within one standard deviation of performance over half a season.
Loss of Ortiz, which is hardly unexpected, plus how bad Ramirez and Sandoval have been. Pretty simple. It's not "If everyone else was performing as expected, they'd be ok." It's that they replaced Ortiz with no-one, Ramirez is banged up again, and third base is a wasteland. A self-inflicted wasteland.They scored 878 runs last year. This year they have 350 and are almost halfway through the season. That's well more than an overall standard deviation.
Yeah, if everybody that was within a standard deviation averaged out to average, the 3B issues and Hanley wouldn't be such a problem. As you allude to, the issue is everyone is below expectations on offense. Run prevention has been saving the Sox so far.They scored 878 runs last year. This year they have 350 and are almost halfway through the season. That's well more than an overall standard deviation.
Has Mookie really taken a massive step back? Through June, here are his slash lines and wRC stats from this year and last:It's not just 3B and Hanley. Pedey is having the worst year of his career so far -- his SLG is 80 points below his career average, a much bigger drop than you'd expect for his age. And Mookie has taken a massive step back -- wRC+ now at 110, vs his first three years of 129, 119, 135.
Hopefully it's the start of some Lin-sanity.Lintriguing...
All well within the normal variation for half a season. And as noted below, Moreland is out producing all but 1 year of his career, making up for some of it. Leon and Vazquez are giving them far more than they had any right to expect as well. Bradley is up to an 850 OPS, which was not a given at all. Benintendi is clear runnerup to Aaron Judge for ROY, which also was in no way a given.It's not just 3B and Hanley. Pedey is having the worst year of his career so far -- his SLG is 80 points below his career average, a much bigger drop than you'd expect for his age. And Mookie has taken a massive step back -- wRC+ now at 110, vs his first three years of 129, 119, 135.
They had Sandoval. And Hernandez. And Holt. And Rutledge. And a whole bunch of AAAA guys, including Matt Dominguez and Mike Olt. And Marrero. And now Lin.All well within the normal variation for half a season. And as noted below, Moreland is out producing all but 1 year of his career, making up for some of it. Leon and Vazquez are giving them far more than they had any right to expect as well. Bradley is up to an 850 OPS, which was not a given at all. Benintendi is clear runnerup to Aaron Judge for ROY, which also was in no way a given.
They knew they had a potential big drop in offense, that's why (or a consequence of) they invested in run prevention.
And a big part of that drop in offense was the decision to openly hand the starting 3B job to Grady Sandoval by trading Travis Shaw. The alternative to me, and not one I've seen here, is that they bought into the Bill James hype on Hernandez and planned on him being the clear fallback option. We will unfortunately never know if those optimistic projects were warranted. But that would make the trade less awful ex ante, and put it more into a double secret bad luck case.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.They had Sandoval. And Hernandez. And Holt. And Rutledge. And a whole bunch of AAAA guys, including Matt Dominguez and Mike Olt. And Marrero. And now Lin.
Plan A failing was likely. Plan B, too - though Hernandez's injury is more than a little bad luck. But Plan C? D? E? I think that the failure of Plan A has been known for 18 months. But Holt's vertigo and the complete failure of all the AAAA guys has created the circumstances in which we mourn the loss of Travis Shaw.
If there's a reason to bash Dombrowski over the Thornburg trade it is including Dubon and not haggling that part of the ask down to Marrero. And for gambling on injury risk relievers in general. Missing Shaw is a red herring.
Shaw is gone. Forget him.We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.
There was the 700 plate appearance run of AAA mediocrity that might have given some pause to reasonable evaluators who were also looking at his putrid last third of 2016.We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.
Better than sitting on the bench gathering Lin-t. Showed good Lin-tensity starting the double play to kill the one Twin threat.Hopefully it's the start of some Lin-sanity.
Did you predict somewhere here that Shaw would bounce back from his awful second half of last year?We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball
Well that, and the fact that he was and is a poor defensive fit at 3b. I think that might have also factored in to the evaluation.We will just have to agree to disagree. Trading Shaw was a complete misevaluation of his true talent level. They weighted a Half year of bad struggles as way more important than the previous two half seasons of above average production. That's just fundamental misunderstanding of the normal ebbs and flows of baseball. Or, they overreacted to the Miller / Allen and Herrera/Davis model -- a situation they were in because they underbid on Miller in the first place.
Actually, he did. Within 40 min of the deal being announced Plympton was the first prominent dissenter, criticising every aspect of the deal which would come back to haunt us.Did you predict somewhere here that Shaw would bounce back from his awful second half of last year?
The consensus of the announcement thread was positive and he was roundly skewered:Wow. One good year in the NL with a noncontender and already 28. Yikes. Seems like competition for the 10th or 11th spots with Heath Hembree more than anything else.
I guess they've determined Travis Shaw is who he was in the second half of 2016. If Shaw bounces back at all, this is a huge overpay. And giving up Dubon as well? That's insanity.
And he's already halfway to TJ surgery apparently, with the PRP injection two years ago.
How many times are the Red Sox going to get hosed bringing in middle reliveres from the NL Central before they realize that the NL is really a AAAA league?
This has disaster written all over it. Dombrowski's questionable history of building bullpens doesn't inspire confidence.
and so Plympton backed off a bit:Couple things.
1.
Alex Speier @alexspeier 42s43 seconds ago
Tyler Thornburg was an elite, elite reliever last year. RHP had huge K rates vs LHH (40.2%) while holding them to .130/.223/.190 line.
You can argue that we shouldn't take that as prediction of future performance, but to compare him to Hembree is insane. He's our 8th-inning guy, and he's dirt-cheap, and we have him for three years.
2. I think they determined that Travis Shaw is who he was all of 2016: a very streaky hitter with holes in his swing who would be a decent option for a corner infielder on a team that didn't have Sandoval, Holt, Moncada, and Devers all either under contract or on the way.
3. Dubon is Marco Hernandez is Brock Holt. He's worth more to a team that is bad enough to consider starting him at SS.
But he never retracted his initial criticism of the deal. I think it's fair to say he's earned the right to say 'I told you so'.With the acquisition of Sale, this deal makes a lot more sense. The Red Sox are in a Go For It Now phase, and have opened up a 3 year window in which they should be the best team in the American League. None of the 3 players traded in this deal are at all important to that 3 year window, whereas having a relief ace is.
John Henry gets one last extended rodeo, and then cashes out.
But I wasn't. There still has yet to be a season in which the Red Sox wouldn't have had a starting spot Open, and any excess of the cost over production is easily absorbed by not signing Castillo and not trading for Craig, both of which are direct consequences of not signing Ellsbury.Maybe when he admits he was wrong about Ellsbury.
My god... I truly can't believe you won't let this go.But I wasn't. There still has yet to be a season in which the Red Sox wouldn't have had a starting spot Open, and any excess of the cost over production is easily absorbed by not signing Castillo and not trading for Craig, both of which are direct consequences of not signing Ellsbury.
If you can't admit that you were wrong about a player who became one of the worst free agent signings of all time, then you really are identifying yourself as someone who is not to be taken seriously.But I wasn't. There still has yet to be a season in which the Red Sox wouldn't have had a starting spot Open, and any excess of the cost over production is easily absorbed by not signing Castillo and not trading for Craig, both of which are direct consequences of not signing Ellsbury.
I'm, I am not the one who can't let it go. Note, that this was a reply to soneone else.My god... I truly can't believe you won't let this go.
Again. I am simply replying to the attack. If people want to stop talking about it, they're free not to. But if you broach it, I'm going to respond.I know it isn't my place to play thread police but are we really rehashing Ellsbury again?
I'm sick to death of talking about Shaw but at least that has some relevance to the subject.
By this logic though, don't you have to chalk up some of Shaw's success to playing in the AAAA NL Central?Actually, he did. Within 40 min of the deal being announced Plympton was the first prominent dissenter, criticising every aspect of the deal which would come back to haunt us.
The consensus of the announcement thread was positive and he was roundly skewered:
and so Plympton backed off a bit:
But he never retracted his initial criticism of the deal. I think it's fair to say he's earned the right to say 'I told you so'.
Hey, I'm just trying to be logically consistent. I didn't say I agree with the argument!You're right. When was the last time a team from the NL Central ever did anything?![]()
Pitchers in the National League face other pitchers or bench players serving as pinch hitters where AL pitchers face DH's. As a result of pitchers hitting in the 9th slot, the strategy of 8th place hitters changes significantly from how an 8th place hitter in the AL approaches an at bat.Hey, I'm just trying to be logically consistent. I didn't say I agree with the argument!
Fair enough, thanks!Actually, he did. Within 40 min of the deal being announced Plympton was the first prominent dissenter, criticising every aspect of the deal which would come back to haunt us.