Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......
posted at 11/13/2013 12:33 AM EST
In response to S5's comment:
In response to notin's comment:
It was a good move because the Red Sox won the World Series. All claims that they could have won it without Peavy are unprovable, especially when you consider the trickle-down effect in the pitching staff. Sure, Workman or Doubront could have taken his starts, but who took over for them in relief roles? Those crickets I hear when this part of the question gets asked?
There's a reason you get crickets when that's asked, and it's because most of us don't want to get into unprovables. MAYBE RDLR and Thornton and Britton and Morales would have been able to hold down the fort in relief.... and maybe they wouldn't. So why get into it? What happened is what happened and it worked out for the Sox.
A better move would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight up for Peavy. Iglesias defense makes for a much brighter future, because at least part of his game is not in question. (The Tigers did not need Middlebrooks but they also did not need to be in the deal. The White Sox have not had a 3B since Joe Crede retired, and don’t have one anywhere on the horizon, either.)
That in itself is interesting, and something I hadn't thought of. I now have to wonder why DID the Tigers get involved in the trade. When you put it that way it appears the Sox may have been somewhat fleeced in this trade.
IMHO this trade worked out well for the Sox for 2013 and if that's what matters to anyone - then it is. And don't get me wrong. I like it too.
Unfortunately losing him has produced a problem for 2014 and beyond of who's going to play SS. The FO decided that Iggy wasn't a part of the future so they traded him and now they don't have a suitable replacement. Which, I guess, was my argument against the trade all along.
It's a matter of perspective. Which is better?:
Short term pain for long term gain...or..
Short term gain and long term pain?
If you make the surrender for short term, you're argument is a lot stronger if you make it worthwhile.
Was it worthwhile giving up Hanley Ramirez?
Was it worthwhile giving up Justin Masterson?
Was it worthwhile giving up Anthony Rizzo?
Or Freddy Sanchez?
The Sox will survive. And I would not say they "fleeced" the Sox. We got a pitcher and a trophy. They gave up their #2 prospect (who plays a position they STILL need) in order to get a SS who might be the next Brendan Ryan, a great defender but history has shown he can be acquired for a ot less than anyone's #2 prospect. I am a little hesitant to say they "fleeced" anyone.
AS for whop plays SS, there are two obvious possibilities.
1. Bogaerts. He is already here.
2. Drew. It is possible Farrell told Cherington he wants Drew around because he thinks he can win with him. And clearly he can. Not sure if Cherington heeds Farrell's roster input. All I do know is he does not email softy for any, despite his insistence that Cherington does. Either way, if someone felt either player was the future, it certainly did not bode well for Iglesias' future in Boston...