Royal Rooters: Would you do the Gonzalez trade again? - Royal Rooters

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Would you do the Gonzalez trade again?
Evem in retrospect?

Poll: Would you do the Gonzalez trade again? (20 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you do the Gonzalez trade again?

  1. Hell yes, he's a perennial All-Star (16 votes [80.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 80.00%

  2. Yes, Kelly is over-hyped and Rizzo is now expendable (2 votes [10.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  3. No, we could've waited a year and had Pujols/Fielder for just money (1 votes [5.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.00%

  4. We should've kept Beltre/ kept Youk at 1st (1 votes [5.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.00%

  5. No, never give up prospects (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. MrNewEngland is a jerk (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 User is online  
BigSlick 

  • Praying to flop a monster
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 14,283
  • Joined: 16-April 06

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:17 PM

View PostManny, on 19 October 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

You were close to being right, but as usual I was right.


That's what she said.


(Is it possible that in all these years that's the first "That's what she said." post? If so, then you guys don't watch enough TV.

This post has been edited by BigSlick: 19 October 2011 - 03:18 PM

0

#22 User is online  
rominer 

  • Throwing a personal pity party, and everyone's invited.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 19,856
  • Joined: 11-November 04

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:18 PM

View PostManny, on 19 October 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

If you said they didn't win, I'd have let your comment pass. But no, you had to get semantically disabled (aka retarded) and say they weren't "close" to winning. They were very, very close to "winning", and as we all know fell just a nose hair short of making the playoffs.

You were close to being right, but as usual I was right. <---do you see what I did there?


I think you are wrong. You are saying that close plus close still equals close.

The Red Sox came close to making the playoffs. But they did not come close to winning the World Series, because to get close to that they first would have had to actually make the playoffs.

If it makes you feel better, though, then you can be right.

Everybody: MPS2 is right. Let that be a lesson to you all.
0

#23 User is offline  
CesarTovar 

  • Short Season A Lowell
  • Pip
  • Group: New Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 05-October 06

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:38 PM

View Postrominer, on 19 October 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

I think you are wrong. You are saying that close plus close still equals close.

The Red Sox came close to making the playoffs. But they did not come close to winning the World Series, because to get close to that they first would have had to actually make the playoffs.

If it makes you feel better, though, then you can be right.

Everybody: MPS2 is right. Let that be a lesson to you all.


This is like saying that the Kansas City Royals were the ninth most successful team this season, since they were the non-playoff team with the lowest investment.

Bottom line...Fielder (weight, attitude) and Pujols (age, mystique) had more long-term risk than Gonzalez, the man that the front office considered the perfect baseball player. They had one sure shot to get their man and they took it. I doubt they viewed Fielder and Pujols as substitutes.
0

#24 User is online  
BigSlick 

  • Praying to flop a monster
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 14,283
  • Joined: 16-April 06

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:40 PM

View Postrominer, on 19 October 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

Everybody: MPS2 is right. Let that be a lesson to you all.


When I read that it sounded in my head like Michael was saying it. Was that an "Office" reference as well?
0

#25 User is offline  
Wakefield 49 

  • AA Portland
  • PipPip
  • Group: Royal Rooters
  • Posts: 279
  • Joined: 18-August 06

Posted 19 October 2011 - 05:09 PM

The correct answer is a combo of 1 and 2. Kelly is overhyped, Rizzo becomes expendable, and Gonzalez is a perennial All-Star. This trade was a no brainer, then and now.
0

#26 User is offline  
The Ghost of Ned Martin 

  • The Truth and the Light.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 7,921
  • Joined: 06-January 04

Posted 19 October 2011 - 05:28 PM

As much as Gonzalez pissed me off with his end-of-year comments, I would do that deal again. The guy is a great hitter and despite his fall off in the second half, he will continue to be one of the top hitters in MLB for many years to come. As others have pointed out,there were no guarantees that he would have been available to the Red Sox via Free Agency and even if he was, it is far from certain that the Sox would have landed him.In a few years, maybe Kelly and Rizzo become the next Felix Hernandez and Adrian Gonzalez and I will feel differently. I doubt it though. This move was, as Wake49 points out above, a no brainer.Which may explain why the Boy Genius was able to get er done.
0

#27 User is offline  
SoxAroundTheWorld 

  • 25 Man Roster
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 1,586
  • Joined: 25-April 06

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:47 PM

I'm with the vast majority on this one. Gonzalez is in the house, and will be for years to come. I don't think he is in the top ten of people responsible for the collapse, but he's a clear contender for the top ten people responsible for the Sox' record at the end of August. They were, and are, better off with him. None of the above applies to Crawford in '11.
0

#28 User is offline  
Manny's PS2 

  • Bippity Boppity Boo
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 9,281
  • Joined: 03-February 04

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:14 AM

Also, dude had an injured shoulder. I hope that injury heals completely so we can see the average and the power. His stroke is suited for Fenway Park, just like my stroke is suited for_______________.
0

#29 User is offline  
JMDurron 

  • Season Ticket Holder
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 2,951
  • Joined: 06-July 04

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:42 AM

Even in hindsight, there were only a small subset of choices.

1) Trade for Adrian Gonzalez at 1B, Youk at 3B, Ortiz at DH.
2) Give Adrian Beltre an even more silly contract than the Rangers did. Keep Youk at 1B, Ortiz at DH. Sign Adrian Gonzalez as a FA after 2011.
3) Trade for Adrian Gonzalez at 1B, Give Adrian Beltre a crazy contract at 3B, trade Youk, Ortiz at DH.
4) #3, but trade Ortiz and put Youk at DH.
5) #2, Sign Fielder or Pujols instead of Gonzalez.

Even with Youk's injury, in hindsight, I think #1 was the best plan. David Ortiz was awesome offensively this season, and Adrian Gonzalez was excellent at the plate and quite solid in the field as well. Youk was the weak injury link here, but hit well when he was playing. His defense at 3B was shaky, but not "Edgar Renteria throwing to Kevin Millar" horrible.

As far as I can tell, scenarios 2-4 are all worse in some way, either in 2011 or beyond.

In scenario #2, you are severely overpaying for Beltre's decline years, and he's already showing signs of being injury-prone (hamstrings again, just like in 2010), which you can't expect to improve with time. You are also hoping that nobody else trades for/extends Gonzalez, when the Cubs were already sniffing around at the time. You are then ALSO hoping that Gonzalez picks Boston's offer over any of the others on the market, which is not a plan without significant risk. You are then also, again using 20/20 hindsight, forced to start Lars Anderson at 1B down the stretch due to Youk's injury. That is probably a slightly larger downgrade than from Youk to Lowrie/Aviles at 3B, who would have had to play at 3B anyway when Beltre was hurt earlier in the season. The defense would have been excellent when everyone was healthy.

In scenario #3, you are paying a ton of money to Beltre for a long time, plus prospects for Gonzalez, and you have no DH for 2012. The latter is true in scenario #1 as well, but this time the Beltre contract is somewhat restricting your budgetary flexibility. The wildcard here is what Youk might have fetched in a trade, which is potentially significant. Unless you apply 20/20 hindsight to Theo, though, he wouldn't have known to trade for starting pitching, so I'm not sure what Youk would have brought back beyond prospects that would not have helped in 2011, but might have helped later. Beltre also missed time due to injury. The defense would have been much better when everyone was healthy, though.

In scenario #4, again you are paying a ton of $ for Beltre, and prospects for Gonzalez, and the team has no DH down the stretch when Youk is hurt. So DH and 3B need injury replacements for part of the season. Ortiz has, presumably, less trade value than Youk at the start of the season, since his awesome 2011 hadn't happened yet. The upside is having a DH for 2012 and beyond, plus you have better defense. You lose Ortiz's 2011 production.

In scenario #5, you're trying to win a bidding war for one of Fielder (fatass), or Pujols (injury concerns) while still paying Beltre a ton of money. The 2011 injury concerns still apply, as would the good 2011 IF defense. We don't know if either player is interested in being a DH, although Pujols might be an upgrade at 1B over Youk. Pick your injury risk there. Being dependent on winning a FA bidding war strikes me as a risky plan at best, and stupid at worst.

I don't know, to me, scenario #1 is clearly the best way to go, even in hindsight.

This post has been edited by JMDurron: 20 October 2011 - 07:42 AM

0

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users