Scoot now (revived?) being traded to COL? in SoxProspects Discussion Forum

0 Points

Scoot now (revived?) being traded to COL?

Author	Comment
AielloSubmarine		#101	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 28 01/22/12 1:16 PM	I tend to give professional management the benefit of the doubt and I usually assume that they know more than I/we do about what kind of return was out there for the getting. It's pretty easy to say that they could have done better but maybe nobody was biting. And the bigger point about another shoe to fall is made more in reference to ownership's dedication to winning and not about the return on this particular trade. They obviously are setting up for something bigger.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#102	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 383 01/22/12 1:23 PM	AielloSubmarine wrote: I tend to give professional management the benefit of the doubt and I usually assume that they know more than I/we do about what kind of return was out there for the getting. It's pretty easy to say that they could have done better but maybe nobody was biting. And the bigger point about another shoe to fall is made more in reference to ownership's dedication to winning and not about the return on this particular trade. They obviously are setting up for something bigger. The deal is universally panned by the entire industry, and I can't think of the last time that happened to the Red Sox immediately after a trade. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but Cherington has misinterpreted the market a few times this offseason. I just don't see why the Red Sox didn't make their "next move" before trading the only internal competent shortstop for no return. What was the sense of urgency? If they feel confident the new money can land Pitcher X, why not lock that pitcher up and make sure before making this move? The Rockies were supposedly interested in Justin Turner, I think they could've waited another 24 hours on Scutaro. At this point, what are the Red Sox evaluating? They've had Oswalt's medicals for months, and they know the asking price. I don't understand the rush to move Scutaro, the return was nonexistent, and I refuse to believe no other team would take Scutaro for nothing.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
sarasoxer		#103	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 222 01/22/12 1:28 PM	AielloSubmarine wrote: I tend to give professional management the benefit of the doubt and I usually assume that they know more than I/we do about what kind of return was out there for the getting. It's pretty easy to say that they could have done better but maybe nobody was biting. And the bigger point about another shoe to fall is made more in reference to ownership's dedication to winning and not about the return on this particular trade. They obviously are setting up for something bigger. Exactly. A lot of negative responses here are, IMO, emotional/knee jerk. On a strictly talent for talent basis, the trade was not equal...and probably weakens us at an important position. But other factors, some of which we know and some we don't, are at play.Who knows, maybe Oswalt for example was way out of reach early on and became attainable only when his price dropped. Was that foreseeable? Maybe they tried to move Jenks, make a better deal with Papi, what other deals were being worked on that did not come to fruition etc., etc.....The situation is always fluid and certainly not totally predictable. I am confident that these guys want to win as much as we do.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#104	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 384 01/22/12 1:40 PM	sarasoxer wrote: AielloSubmarine wrote: I tend to give professional management the benefit of the doubt and I usually assume that they know more than I/we do about what kind of return was out there for the getting. It's pretty easy to say that they could have done better but maybe nobody was biting. And the bigger point about another shoe to fall is made more in reference to ownership's dedication to winning and not about the return on this particular trade. They obviously are setting up for something bigger. Exactly. A lot of negative responses here are, IMO, emotional/knee jerk. On a strictly talent for talent basis, the trade was not equal...and probably weakens us at an important position. But other factors, some of which we know and some we don't, are at play.Who knows, maybe Oswalt for example was way out of reach early on and became attainable only when his price dropped. Was that foreseeable? Maybe they tried to move Jenks, make a better deal with Papi, what other deals were being worked on that did not come to fruition etc., etc.....The situation is always fluid and certainly not totally predictable. I am confident that these guys want to win as much as we do. On the Papi front, once they offered arbitration they sealed their fate on what type of deal he'd accept. It's their fault. Now they have to essentially cut valuable players to fill other glaring weaknesses. Again, once they offered Ortiz arbitration, they sealed their fate. People keep pointing to the rest of the offense, saying that they'll remain elite...wouldn't this offense have remained elite without Ortiz and with Lavarnway or Carlos Pena (or any number of the cheap FA alternatives?). I don't get it, Ortiz wanted to come back and his market was limited. The only scenarios I see is ownership demanded the offer, baseball ops thought he'd be too prideful to accept it, or baseball ops thought it was a good investment...all of those situations are their fault. They knew their needs, they knew their budget, and they maxed it out on a relative luxury. Last Edited By: beasleyrockah 01/22/12 1:44 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jmei		#105	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1479 01/22/12 1:46 PM Forum Moderator	I think the argument of "our GMs are smart and competent and so this must have been the best move available" is fair, but the purpose of coming on an internet message board to discuss a transaction is to make our best evaluation of the transaction with the information available. Moreover, history has taught us that sometimes GMs and ownerships make really bad moves because they misevaluated a player or were more concerned about the bottom line than winning. So I think it's reasonable to critique this move with the information we know. Yes, you're right, I have little concrete idea what other teams might have offered for Scutaro was or what alternative moves they could have made in the past or what moves they intend to make before spring training. What I can tell you is that trades for players of Scutaro's caliber in the past few years have netted a much, much better return (see my post on page 5 of this thread) and the market should have set his value higher. I think that much is indisputable-- that this was a below-market return for a player of Scutaro's caliber. Now, that could be Cherington making the best out of a bad situation (ex: ownership is unwilling to go above luxury-tax this year, Oswalt is about to sign with another team, etc.) but that remains to be seen, given the lack of information we have so far. And the disconnect between the earlier offseason (picking up Scutaro's option, not trading Scutaro then, offering arbitration to Ortiz, trading Lowrie for a reliever) and this cost-cutting measure certainly indicates poor planning to me. Last Edited By: jmei 01/22/12 1:49 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
AielloSubmarine		#106	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 29 01/22/12 1:54 PM	Fair points by Beastly and jmei. I'm not trying to say that he couldn't have done better or done more or that I like the move. I just feel like there are other factors involved that we are not privy to and if we were offered all the information on it we would probably have a different outlook on it. All I'm saying is that we should wait and see what the roster is on opening day before we decide what kind of offseason Ben has had.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
qutennis5		#107	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 515 01/22/12 2:06 PM	This board has been unreadable the past couple of weeks sounding like spoiled rich kids who pout when their rich daddies don't give them the most expensive toys each year.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
80GradeMouth		#108	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 48 01/22/12 2:11 PM	It's said that when a team collapses at the end of the season, things are never the same. Not only is there extreme disappointment and anger in ending what should have been a championship season sitting on the sidelines, but also there is a tertiary effect. Those in charge blame the wrong people and let them go. Desperate decisions are made and players are misevaluated. All of a sudden you get a management team that convinces itself that Mike Aviles and Nick Punto are just as good as Marco Scuturo, and therefor they can trade Scuturo away for nothing without losing ground. This line of thinking is flawed in several ways. First off, having seen all three players play, and looking at their stat lines I see no evidence that Aviles and Punto are even close to as good as Scuturo either offensively or defensively. Secondly, even if this is close to being true, why can't you trade Scuturo for someone who might one day give help to your major league team? Even a high upside lottery ticket years away from the major would be a better return. The Yankees just received such a player, Jose Campos, as a throw-in. They really couldn't get such a player for Marco Scuturo? Are they just not scouting the complex leagues? In the long run Marco Scuturo is in his mid 30s and wasn't going to be part of the Red Sox beyond 2012 and thus trading him away for nothing doesn't impair the team's long-term future. I'm more worried about what it says about the types of moves to be made from this day forward. Things have clearly changed on Yawkey Way, and they may not have changed for the better. We maybe in for a long stretch of mediocrity, and head-shaking moves that lead us into an abyss currently occupied by the New York Mets.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#109	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 385 01/22/12 2:17 PM	qutennis5 wrote: This board has been unreadable the past couple of weeks sounding like spoiled rich kids who pout when their rich daddies don't give them the most expensive toys each year. Yeah, this board has really been lacking great comments like this. How about you add to the discussion rather than continue the shit talking? Some people are actually discussing this trade in reasonable terms, and comments like this certainly don't help the dialogue. I disagree with a number of people's opinions, on both sides, but you aren't exactly encouraging civil discussion when you equate confusion over a seemingly bad trade to a child crying for a toy. The fact is, very few people here are upset at a lack of "big ticket" free agent signings, and this one trade has very little to do with those non moves. EDIT: Sorry to call you out, it's just I've heard comments like this a lot lately and I don't think they are fair. There are extreme opinions on both sides, but most people are ok with trying to get under the tax. The problem I have, and I believe the problem most people have, is the way they've spent the limited funds they do have. I don't think they've made great value plays this offseason, and that isn't a really controversial opinion. Last Edited By: beasleyrockah 01/22/12 2:23 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jmei		#110	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1480 01/22/12 2:29 PM Forum Moderator	A solid majority of the criticism of this move isn't "why trade Scutaro just to save money" but rather "this team should have gotten a better return on a valuable player." It's not necessarily about the goals of the ownership/FO, but rather of their ability to read the market, evaluate prospects that they would acquire in any trade, and get the best return for one of this team's few tradeable assets. They failed on that front-- and it is very, very difficult to argue that they didn't. Rafael Furcal signed a two-year $14m contract this offseason with the Cardinals. Marco Scutaro is a comparable player (better on offensive, worse on defense, slightly less injury-prone, can play both SS and 2B) and would have been available for only one year at $6m. You can't possibly tell me that this FO couldn't have gotten more value for Scutaro than a 27-year old AAA sinkerballer with no upside who projects to be a back-of-the-bullpen/AAAA starter.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
sarasoxer		#111	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 223 01/22/12 2:42 PM	Beasley, you were beastly with that comment to qutennis5...and no need for the language either. We could all chill.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#112	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 386 01/22/12 2:49 PM	sarasoxer wrote: Beasley, you were beastly with that comment to qutennis5...and no need for the language either. We could all chill. One "s" word? I've seen mods use worse language. My apologies, the moral sensibilities of baseball fans are wide ranging, I tone down my usual demeanor to fit in here. I really wasn't doing it to be mean spirited, I've just seen similar comments a lot lately and it doesn't help this board at all. I guess you could say it's ironic because my comment didn't either, but I was actually trying to get those type of comments to stop. It's like calling in to sports radio, saying you don't like the conversation, and not attempting to change the subject or add anything of substance. In fact, I think comments like that make the situation much worse. Jmei's last post was dead on accurate, people have a problem with the value of the return, and comparing that to a spoiled child is just as argumentative as my comment. I think this board has consistently great discussion despite the occassional emotional overreactions (which are to be expected). Last Edited By: beasleyrockah 01/22/12 2:52 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jmei		#113	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1481 01/22/12 2:54 PM Forum Moderator	To analogize: this is like a spoiled kid complaining that his dad traded in their mid-level sedan for a pair of roller blades. Just bad value, regardless of whether you think it was a good idea to trade in the car in the first place.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
sarasoxer		#114	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 224 01/22/12 3:46 PM	If we sign Oswalt with the money we 'saved' with the Scuturo trade, would the trade detractors feel differently about fair value? Beasely, I was not offended by the "s" word. It just detracts, for me, from the impact and influence any poster's point might otherwise have.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Yirmiyahu		#115	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3893 01/22/12 3:53 PM Forum Moderator	sarasoxer wrote: If we sign Oswalt with the money we 'saved' with the Scuturo trade, would the trade detractors feel differently about fair value? No. I'd rather have Oswalt than Scutaro, but that's not the question anyone is debating. Would you rather have Oswalt+prospect or Oswalt+Mortensen? ADD: Looking through MLBtraderumors, it looks like the Sox never tried to shop Scutaro or solicit bids from multiple teams. Here's a timeline: 10/25 - Cherington says "We believe he'd be very coveted this offseason if he got onto the market" 10/30 - Sox pick up Scutaro's option 12/7 - Fair amount of interest in Marco Scutaro, but Sox not ready to committ to Jose Iglesias 12/14 - Jed Lowrie traded, speculation about Scutaro ends 1/20 - Scutaro/Rockies rumors begin to circulate 1/21 - trade completed It's not just that I think the return should've been significantly better, it's that it looks like they didn't do their due diligence. Last Edited By: Yirmiyahu 01/22/12 4:07 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
80GradeMouth		#116	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 49 01/22/12 3:54 PM	sarasoxer wrote: If we sign Oswalt with the money we 'saved' with the Scuturo trade, would the trade detractors feel differently about fair value? Beasely, I was not offended by the "s" word. It just detracts, for me, from the impact and influence any poster's point might otherwise have. NO!
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ji oh		#117	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 98 01/22/12 4:33 PM	qutennis5 wrote: This board has been unreadable the past couple of weeks sounding like spoiled rich kids who pout when their rich daddies don't give them the most expensive toys each year. This is my favorite post of 2012, and it makes a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Guidas		#118	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 2528 01/22/12 7:00 PM	jmei wrote: A solid majority of the criticism of this move isn't "why trade Scutaro just to save money" but rather "this team should have gotten a better return on a valuable player." It's not necessarily about the goals of the ownership/FO, but rather of their ability to read the market, evaluate prospects that they would acquire in any trade, and get the best return for one of this team's few tradeable assets. They failed on that front-- and it is very, very difficult to argue that they didn't. Rafael Furcal signed a two-year $14m contract this offseason with the Cardinals. Marco Scutaro is a comparable player (better on offensive, worse on defense, slightly less injury-prone, can play both SS and 2B) and would have been available for only one year at $6m. You can't possibly tell me that this FO couldn't have gotten more value for Scutaro than a 27-year old AAA sinkerballer with no upside who projects to be a back-of-the-bullpen/AAAA starter. This - and added to it, the financial situation/stealth cap was a known quantity for most of Dec (since the teams were privy to the negotiations and we had plenty of reports how much the front office people in many teams hated it) when several teams were looking for a SS/2nd baseman. This is just poor planning and execution, and I suspect it's been exacerbated by the situation generated by the arb offer to Ortiz.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
FenwayTheHardWay		#119	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 3399 01/22/12 7:01 PM Veteran Member	So what kind of player SHOULD the Sox have received for Scutaro? Can we get some examples of similar players who've been traded in recent years, and what the returns have been? "thats 4 dingers tonite for #rays off wakefield, who looks his age, only older" - Jon Heyman
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jmei		#120	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1483 01/22/12 7:07 PM Forum Moderator	FenwayTheHardWay wrote: So what kind of player SHOULD the Sox have received for Scutaro? Can we get some examples of similar players who've been traded in recent years, and what the returns have been? See: here and (to some extent) here.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

SoxProspects.com

SoxProspects Links

Scoot now (revived?) being traded to COL?