Anibal Sanchez Throws No-Hitter, Our GMs have stunk

by argo0 on Sep 6, 2006 10:34 PM EDT Comment 21 comments

Seeing a guy we traded away in the acquisition of a 5+ ERA pitcher throw a no-hitter made me take a look at how poorly our GMs (the plural in recognition of the brief non-Theo period) have done over the past year. Let's review the basic deals (I've omitted some of the peripheral players) --

The good:

Signing Gonzalez. This might be the team's best decision, as he provided stellar defense and more-than-expected offense.
Mirabelli for Loretta. No complaints here. We added an all-star second baseman for an every fifth day catcher who can't hit .190.
The draft. Sickels rates our haul as one of the best in the league.
Wells for Kotteras. At least they recognized when the season was lost and got a decent prospect for Wells.

The OK:

5. Marte for Renteria. Renteria has rebounded incredibly well, and arguably would have been much better in his second year with the team. Meanwhile, Marte is still a top prospect, so I figure this is a wash, but for the fact that we're paying millions of Renteria's salary.

The Bads:

Not re-signing Damon. I think he probably would have been wrapped up for 4 years, $40 million, but the team refused to guarantee a 4th year. We'll see what he offers in year four, but this year he would have more than earned that $10 million.
Lowell and Beckett for Sanchez and Ramirez. Admittedly Lowell has been a bright spot here, but while Beckett has pitched well at times, it's hard to argue with an ERA over 5. Ramirez already is a better lead-off batter than Crisp ever will be, and tonight Sanchez lowered his ERA to below 3. In other words, Florida ended up with at least as much talent, and is paying ~$13 million (guess, not actually looked up) less this year, with a bigger gap next year.
Bard and Meredith for Mirabelli. We gave up too early on a solid catcher (.321 BA) who needed more time to get used to Wake, and Meredith has an 0.79 ERA in 34+ innings.
Arroyo for Pena. Maybe Pena will be an awesome outfielder, and certainly Arroyo wouldn't have put up those numbers with Boston. But in a year we were losing starting pitchers all over the place, we gave away a solid #4-5 pitcher in exchange for a 4th outfielder. That Arroyo never pitched another inning after signing for a hometown discount adds insult to injury.

The ugly:

Crisp for Marte. We gave up one of the top prospects in baseball for a guy we might be dumping after a year. I think that says it all right there.
Signing Beckett to a 3 year, $30 million extension. EXCUSE ME??

So by my count, we've got 4 positives, one neutral, 4 bads, and 2 wretcheds. That adds up to a poor record in my book.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

regarding marte

something's fishy about him. there were rumblings about this when we got him, and this season seems to confirm it some of the worries. considering he was viewed as a top-tier prospect before this season, it was kinda odd that the braves traded him for renteria and cash. then, after owning his rights for a month and a half, the sox traded him for coco. considering his elite prospect status, it's weird that he got moved around two times in an off-season.

he spent this year in AAA, where he didn't impress too much (.261/.322/.451/.773 with only 15 home runs in 350+ at-bats) until July 28 when he was called up to the Indians. In 30 games and 96 at-bats since the call-up, he's batting a decidedly unimpressive .208/.262/.354/.616 with only two home runs.

i know he's only 23 years old and still has a lot of time to mature, but he's been in the minors since 2001 so he should be approaching maturity soon. i'm not saying he's not going to be good, i'm not even saying he's not going to be great. what i'm saying is that i think it's too early to proclaim the crisp trade bad before we a) know how coco handles the first (injury free) month or two of next year, assuming he gets to stay and b) know how marte finally pans out.

We've got TWO Jews on this team, Mel! -- Denis Leary

by SweSox on Sep 6, 2006 10:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i forgot to say...

i basically agree with you on the rest of your points. what especially irks me is the splendid performance of cla meredith. he's currently got a scoreless streak of something like 22-23 innings going. he's been absolutely stellar. what gets me about that trade is that we could have probably thrown in some other pitcher. like abe alvarez, who was kinda highly valued at the time.

2004 was a great year for team theo. 2005 was an OK year. 2006 was a poor year. let's hope they break this trend next year before we see a lester+papelbon+papi for bruce chen trade...

We've got TWO Jews on this team, Mel! -- Denis Leary

by SweSox on Sep 6, 2006 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: regarding marte

I didn't have a problem with dealing Marte. I had also heard things about him that were less positive.

My biggest problem with the FO is that they don't seem to have a coherent plan. First of all, the Sox can and does spend money. But they do it in a haphazard manner. Johnny Damon, a proven player who flourished in Boston (not every player does), is deemed unworthy of more than $10 million a year. Yet Josh Beckett, an unproven pitcher who is having an awful year while adjusting to Boston and the AL, gets a 3 year/$30 million extension even though the Sox have control over him for another year.

The FO's rationale for getting Pena was the lack of power bats in the organization. So what! Corner OFs with power and no glove are easy to find, especially for a big market club like the Bosox. All they cost is money.

The Sox claim they want to get younger and hold onto their future. They also talk about cost certainty all the time. But they trade HanRam, Sanchez, Bard, Meredith, etc. for older, more expensive players.

Can anyone tell me what the plan is?

Look, I know the Sox' farm system is fairly well-rated, and their draft was supposed to be very good this year. I don't get too excited about that stuff because far too many prospects don't pan out. Case in point: In 1996, Baseball America had Donnie Sadler rated ahead of Nomar and Trot.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 6, 2006 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: regarding marte

"My biggest problem with the FO is that they don't seem to have a coherent plan. First of all, the Sox can and does spend money. But they do it in a haphazard manner. Johnny Damon, a proven player who flourished in Boston (not every player does), is deemed unworthy of more than $10 million a year."

Yep. It was an insult, after handing renteria 10 mil a year, to offer the same to Damon. And what about renteria, why didn't they just stick with Cabrera, who was doing quite well?

I think you've touched upon a key -- they should stick with players who work, because not every player will work in Boston. The ones who do -- stick with them. A bird in the hand, so to speak. Look how New york has been burned by going for that bigger brighter thing on another team only to find that that bigger brighter thing wilts under the glare of Yankee stadium.

That's why I dislike all this talk of getting rid of Nixon, Loretta, etc. These guys play well in Boston. Someone else may look better on paper but until they've played in Boston, you have no idea how good they will be.

by BlowUp on Sep 7, 2006 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: regarding marte

Yep, Marte's stock is falling fast. He's still got youth on his side, but he's really stagnated for the second year in a row. Crisp is definitely the better player.

by forage on Sep 7, 2006 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Anibal Sanchez Throws No-Hitter

I agree. Theo and the FO has had two bad years back-to-back. The problem is, two of the four "positives"--Gonzo and Loretta--aren't under contract next year and might not be back. The "bads" and "uglys" will have long term impact.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 6, 2006 11:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

RE: GMs.

Okay. I can see some of these points. One I've gotta disagree with is Wily Mo for Bronson. Especially since he's come back down to Earth, it's gotta at least be a wash at this point. Wily Mo could easily hit .290 with 30 HRs and 95 RBIs in RF next year, with 10-12 assists, probably 10-12 errors as well, and 175 strikeouts. Say what you want about his patience at the plate, whether you think he'll improve or what. I think those are somewhat low/realistic projections for him. Either way, that's more useful than someone who proved his ceiling in the AL East was as a 4th starter innings-eater.

Also, on Damon. I miss him. I think he'd have changed our season to a degree had he been here. He can't pitch though, so there's only so much he could have done, that being said...it was widely reported that the Red Sox DID offer 4 yrs for 40 million. It was a disagreement about value at best, and a power/pissing match between Lucchino and the Baseball Operations department at worst.

Personally, I'm going to give the FO more credit on the Mirabelli for Bard/Meredith trade than most. In a baseball sense, it's horrible. But on a level of giving Wakefield more confidence (when he was healthy, that's part of what's made this look SO bad) and, honestly, responding to the clamoring of our fanbase (go back to that time. There were few who didn't want Bard drawn and quartered after every passed ball). So the FO tried to give confidence to one of the more dependable arms in our rotation and satisfy the fan base at the same time. San Diego made them overpay considerably, with the Yankees assisting them, actually. That's the reality. No one in the FO believed it was going to be an even trade baseball-wise.

And I'm going to look at some of the peripheral players. Willie Harris? Bad. Made some bad decisions on the basepaths and was almost useless at the plate. Dustan Mohr? Clearly a AAAA player. With those two, again, how many people were screaming for Kapler back as the 4th/5th OFer? Those same people now (well, at least a week ago) wanted him out. Not saying anyone here specifically was, but again. This is one of the downs in the ups and downs of having a particularly rabid fanbase. J.T. Snow, well. He apparently was done. But I liked the signing at the time, because he had a well-deserved reputation as a good first baseman in the field. Youkilis made him obsolete, so it's hard to call it a bad signing. More like hedging a bet that didn't need it.

Honestly, on the relievers, well, we didn't sign John Halama again. I figured personally that both would do okay.

The gift of hindsight...

by Allen Chace on Sep 6, 2006 11:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: RE: GMs.

Re: The gift of hindsight

I freely admit that I thought, e.g., the Damon decision was a good one at the time (I thought the Sox only guaranteed 3 years, $30 million, with the fourth year a team option, but I easily could be misremembering), but so what? I'm not paid over $1 million a year to make these decisions, the GM is -- the essence of his job is to forecast "hindsight."

The only time I'm inclined to let the GM off the hook is for unforseeable injuries (i.e., an injury where the player has no prior record of that type of injury). Pena and Crisp have been injured for parts of the year, but I haven't included those in my analysis.

by argo0 on Sep 6, 2006 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No hindsight here

I can honestly say I felt sick when the Sox let Damon walk, especially when he went to the Yanks. I hated the Pena and Bard trades at the time and still do. I cut the FO some slack on getting Coco because he was the best available CF after the Damon fiasco. Remember Jeremy Reed?

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 6, 2006 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No hindsight here

Oh man. Jeremy Reed....whatever happened to him? I think he was such a bad hitter, he got bounced back to Triple A? Looks like a Quad A guy to me...

by forage on Sep 7, 2006 2:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of GM moves...

That was a great no move on Theo's part. He was the best CF being offered at the time, and we didn't break the bank (or part with pitching) to get him. Instead, Theo swung deals to get the players that other teams wanted, and ended up with Crisp. Who I guarantee you will be better next season. If we don't run him out of town, of course...

by forage on Sep 7, 2006 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: RE: GMs.

I'm not sure his job is to forecast hindsight. All along they made it clear that they didn't push as hard on him because of years 3 and 4. They knew that at best Crisp would equal Johnny Damon this year, and he obviously hasn't. They gambled that Crisp will be the superior offensive player in years 3 and 4. I think they could still be right about that.

P.S. I wasn't trying to pick on you personally with the hindsight comment. We all do it. It's easier to look back on it and go, eh, mistakes. At the time, Han-Ram was a SS with a decent glove who had seemed to hit a wall at AAA, and Sanchez was regarded as our 4th best pitching prospect (After Lester, Papelbon, Hansen). They knew he'd be good, but figured with that relative wealth he'd be expendable for a guy with proven success at the ML level (if you consider the NL to be that, anyway). They turned out wrong. At the time, there were not a lot of people condeming the FO for that trade. Based on his success in Florida and on the big stage (admittedly, Beckett has gotten far too much mileage on this), he seemed like a great acquisition. Still could be. The contract extension is puzzling at best.

by Allen Chace on Sep 6, 2006 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree about Pena

I don't see him as a .290 hitter, more like .250-.260 with an OBP of .310-.320. Sure he has power, but he's a high risk/high reward player.

A 4th starter/innings eater is much more important than a 4th OF/DH, which is how I see Wily Mo.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 6, 2006 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I disagree about Pena

I tend to agree, but remember at the time of the trade, the Sox had what they thought were six starters: Schilling, Beckett, Wakefield, Clement, Wells, and Arroyo. It made sense to trade one of the starters away (though I think we all would have preferred if it was Clement or, in retrospect, Wells). No one could have predicted at the time that Clement and Wells would miss most of the season, that Beckett would have his worst year in the big leagues, or that Wake would miss a lot of time with an injury. Most of all, no one could have predicted that all of the above would happen simultaneously.

by RSNexile on Sep 7, 2006 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I disagree about Pena

I won't argue your point on Clement, but I sure as heck will on Wells. At the time of the trade, had Wells even pitched an inning of spring training? There were HUGE doubts about his knees all spring long. Part of the reason we didn't accede to his wishes and trade him then is because his battered knees left him with no trade value. And even though Schilling has held up well this year, remember how rough he had it last year, remember the questions about his health going into the season, and consider that he's 39. In other words, Wells was foreseeable, and if it hadn't been Clement it easily could've been Curt. Bottom line -- the odds of our rotation remaining mostly intact this year were always pretty low.

by argo0 on Sep 7, 2006 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I disagree about Pena

I hated the deal at the time, and still do. Pena is a project. I think even those who like his upside will admit that.

No one wanted Clement because he sucks and is overpaid. The Sox thought they'd have a deep staff and traded a pitcher in spring training, before they knew how their staff would pan out. That's stupid for a number of reasons, none of which are hindsight.

First, Boston had 3 huge question marks on their staff. David Wells, Curt Schilling, and Keith Foulke were all coming off significant injuries. At the time, I thought if 2 of the 3 were healthy all year the Sox would be in good shape. It turned out that only Schilling was healthy (until now).

The Red Sox also had a lot of older players on their pitching staff. Timlin, Seanez, Schilling, Wells, and Wakefield were all older than 36. Foulke and Hatchet Face are 33.

Finally, everyone knew by the end of last year that Matt Clement sucks. That's why no one wanted him. The Sox shopped him everywhere.

You don't pull the trigger on a trade like the Arroyo for Pena deal until you know how your pitching staff shapes up. That kind of deal is better made at the Trade Deadline.

I think, even if you like Pena, Theo should be criticized for banking on too many ifs. In my view, he can further be criticized for not getting anything more than a project player who can't be sent to the minors and has to learn on the job. You don't do that with a $120+ million payroll.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 7, 2006 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to take away from Sanchez, but...

...he threw his no hitter in the National league. against Arizona.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sanchez is a top prospect pitcher. He will be fantastic some day. But lets look at him for a sec. People don't make good contact off of him, but he also walks alot of people. He's just getting used to the strikezones here. His 2.89 ERA is from a small sample size, and would probably be in the mid 4s somewhere in the AL (which, incidentally, is where Lester sits right now) At the time of the trade, Lester was the better pitcher (Sickel awarded him his Double A Pitcher of the year). Sanchez also has had elbow trouble, being sidelined all of 2003 from TJ surgery. And, as a prospect, nobody knows who will be good and who will stink. Tons of top talent in the farm never pan out. And Beckett certainly had the credentials to make that trade look like a steal for us.

Hindsight is 20/20. Theo and any other GM would be foolhardy to not pull the gun on that trade. OTM hailed it as the trade of the century or something. So lets not play the "If I were the GM..." game, because in truth, we all suck.

by forage on Sep 7, 2006 2:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Not to take away from Sanchez, but...

And don't forget we now know that Lester pitched at least his last couple of starts with cancer. I'd bet that the cancer is at least partially to blame for his dropoff.

by RSNexile on Sep 7, 2006 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beckett

Betcha he's gonna be a better player next year! The thing about pitchers is, even the great ones have to adjust to pitching. He's still ridiculously young, and if you look at the NL as being some level of minor league slightly above Triple A (which it is!), then he's really just graduating to The Show right now. Would you guys be riding on a rookie pitcher with a 5xx ERA but who strikes out 7-8 guys / 9 innings? Be honest now, no you wouldn't. You would be really excited for him. Now, I don't agree with his pricetag (two with a team options at 7-8 mil might work), but you gotta figure, with the market, with the price of pitchers these days, when you have any opportunity to get a guy like him those years with that salary, you gotta do it.

Besides, if he's definitely better than Chan Ho Park, and we pay him less. Now THAT was a bust...

by forage on Sep 7, 2006 2:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Damon's contract

Seth Mnookin, in his excellent Feeding the Monster, sets out Damon's contract negotiations.

Click here for the top line on what went down, and buy yourself a copy of the book for more detail. The Sox would have gone to 4 years at $11m.

Damon doesn't deserve your sympathy in how these negotations went on. Not your hatred, but not your sympathy. Scott Boras deserves... oh, I don't know what. But it wouldn't be pleasant.

Actually, come to think of it, Boras represents Barry Zito, doesn't he? I wonder if the Damon negotiations will have an impact on the likelihood of the Sox landing the pitcher.

Mel Gibson, eat your heart out!

by britsoxfan on Sep 7, 2006 5:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Anibal Sanchez Throws No-Hitter, Our GMs have

This may be stating the obvious, but Boras is the cancer of baseball (I was trying to think of a better metaphor given the Lester situation but couldn't think of one). Very often the deal he has with those he represents is that he gets a % of their salary (not to say this is uncommon) so he looks for loopholes to go against his clients wishes if it means a bigger contract (Not only did he make up the 5 yr. $13 mill., he never gave the sox a chance to counter-offer the Yankees ACTUAL contract because he knew that they would have offered slightly under that and Damon would have taken the hometown discount so long as it wasn't too much lower. Not only that, NY has higher marketing potentional statitically and he gets a cut of that also. Damon said he felt unwanted by the Sox for not trying to match the Yankees offer when in reality Boras never gave them a fair chance. Infact, Sox did not find out about the Damon signing until the offical MLB press release the next day and were completely shocked.) Boras is notorious for making loopsided contracts through made-up or exaterated facts and simplying lying in general. He also gets draftees to sign him as an agent by promising them futures that sometimes he has no power to gaurentee and forces an automatic $1 mill. contract to the team that drafts the player screwing over small market teams who pass-up ideal draftees because they don't have the money to risk on a prospect which may have a 50% of not panning out. Infact, there are some GMs for small market teams that in general refuse to deal players who are represented by Boras.

Then again, this don't put Damon completely off the hook, he and all of baseball know Boras is a scumbag and he wanted to sign Boras as a agent to get a bigger contract he should have been prepared to watchout for sketchy moves and make sure his demands and interests are being held instead of just sitting in the back seat and letting Boras take full control of the process. It is possible to have Boras as an agent and remain loyal to the game and the fans, just look at Varitek, he has Boras as his agent for years and 2004 forced Boras to not talk with other temas "Scott Boras, Varitek's agent, had told other teams he would not discuss Varitek until negotiations with Boston had been exhausted because the catcher wants to return to the Red Sox." (EPSN article)

wow, this ended up a lot longer then I thought it would

by Realistic on Sep 7, 2006 10:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs