b) thinking of the pitching FA market, do we really think Beckett is a worse bet than Edwin Jackson, Anibal Sanchez, Dan Haren, Kyle Lohse? Can we get those guys for less than $12 per? Doesn't Beckett have a higher upside than any of those except maybe Haren?

2 of Beckett's last 3 years has been terrible, the good year was marked by a career low BABIP- 40 points below his career average,
his K rate is way down (though it did go down to this level once before in his career and he bounced back).

FWIW 3 of the 4 have more WAR over the past 3 years than Beckett, and Lohse is pretty close...

anyway, my guess is that at least 2 of those 4 are going to seriously disappoint their new teams... Beckett likely has good years left (and bad ones)

Of course, if they hadn't made the deal, they already had 5 starters under contract for 2013 (Kershaw, Billingsley, Lilly, Capuano, Harang). I'm not sure Beckett's all that much of an upgrade on the last two,

2010 and 2012 Beckett is clearly NOT an upgrade.

(c) Would you prefer Michael Bourn or Crawford at 5/$90M?

neither, if I had to choose, I guess Crawford

ya, the thing that bothers me most about this deal is shipping de la rosa. i can live with all else. i mean, look at the roster we had before the trade.

somebody upthread mentioned something i said elsewhere. the dodgers have a big enough market that they can spend like the yanks and sox, they just never have. now they have to learn to exploit that opportunity.

The Dodgers traded a couple of good-ish pitching prospects for Adrian Gonzalez and Josh Beckett. They won.

+1. About as succinct as description of what happened as you can get.

-- MWE

So obviously the theory here is that one should entirely ignore the money involved. Why? (I get that that is one perspective to look at the trade from, one useful perspective, but it seems like it can't be the bottom line.)

Even if they do... So what? They'll cost nearly $60 million combined. Obviously any time you can get 11 WAR out of three players it's a good thing due to scarcity, but that's basically FA market rate for 11 WAR. If the Red Sox can replace 9 of that WAR at market rates and still have 3 solid prospects and a minimum salary UIF out of the deal they still come out ahead.

If the Red Sox can replace 9 of the 11 WAR at market rates (with only three players) then they are still winning two fewer games. At a certain point wins matter more for good teams. If a team wants to maximize production at a position then they need to draft and develop incredibly well or overpay on the free market. There is no championship based on the value teams get from positions.

I am really interested to see what the Red Sox do at 1B next year. I can't imagine they'll go with Mauro Gomez, and I don't see anything really appealing on the FA market (maybe Carlos Pena?). That leaves the trade front. Maybe they go for Brandon Belt? That makes a lot of sense. Do they go for a 1B a team doesn't want to pay for anymore (Michael Young? Justin Morneau? Ryan Howard?) Would they go for a guy like Billy Butler (Allard Baird connection!) and look the other way on his defense? What 1B might be available in a trade this winter?

So obviously the theory here is that one should entirely ignore the money involved. Why?

perhaps the new owners don't care?

I am really interested to see what the Red Sox do at 1B next year. I can't imagine they'll go with Mauro Gomez,

If I were them I'd give up on Lavarnway as a C and shove him out there...
I'd also have Sands ahead of Gomez on the depth chart

What 1B might be available in a trade this winter?

Corey Hart? Victor Martinez?

This assumes little to no opportunity cost. Even if you think that the free agent market will be weak this offseason - and accounting for loss of picks and not having these players available to LAD this year - this is a huge overpay. The Dodgers not making this deal hardly would preclude them from making other ones, now or in the future.

Put another way, there's overpaying and then there's *this*.

(Mind you - I'm not giving LA bonus points for picking up famous guys, which is part of what this seems to be about.)

I am really interested to see what the Red Sox do at 1B next year. I can't imagine they'll go with Mauro Gomez, and I don't see anything really appealing on the FA market (maybe Carlos Pena?). That leaves the trade front. Maybe they go for Brandon Belt? That makes a lot of sense. Do they go for a 1B a team doesn't want to pay for anymore (Michael Young? Justin Morneau? Ryan Howard?) Would they go for a guy like Billy Butler (Allard Baird connection!) and look the other way on his defense? What 1B might be available in a trade this winter?

I would expect a Nick Swisher signing (he's a free agent and I don't see the Yankees re-signing him with Granderson and Cano also needing contract extensions) or a trade for someone like Morneau. Morneau platooning with someone like Gomez or Sands is actually a good bet to out-hit what Adrian Gonzalez would have provided at the position, though it would also include a bit of a defensive downgrade. Morneau this season against RHP: .309/.375/.574 (150 sOPS+). Morneau would probably also see a boost in his numbers going from Target Field to Fenway Park. His home/road sOPS+ splits for 2012: 101/139. Almost all of that difference comes in HR rate, as he has only 5 homers at home compared to 12 on the road.

Any vet, a Carlos Pena, a Nick Swisher is an utter waste of money since the Sox can't win. If you think Swisher can still be effective in 2015, then by all means, but 5 mill so Carlos Pena can be one of the weakest 1B in the league is just Boston giving money to Lugo, Jenks, Cameron...

Ha, you're writing off 2013 and 2014? Ha

They laughed in May when i said the Sox would end up below .500. They laughed last September too.

You think the Red Sox have some magical ability to turn cash into championships when this regime has shown nothing but incompetence? You don't win awards for losing bad contracts. Sox ALREADY HAD TONS OF CASH. You've watched this clownshow for the last 12 months, a sudden influx of cash and a "Pwomise to be weawwy weawwy gooood." is going to turn it around? ha indeed.

But we can do a bref bet.

Thanks for reading, guys. My editor tells me it was got more hits than any ESPN thing I've ever written and was the most-read MLB thing on ESPN.com yesterday, including non-Insider stuff.

You've watched this clownshow for the last 12 months, a sudden influx of cash and a "Pwomise to be weawwy weawwy gooood." is going to turn it around?

It may or may not turn it around - I am curious on what the 2013 roster will look like. I'm not necessarily confident that it will look great, but I'm not going to moan and groan about the 2013 roster until I actually know what it is.

But here's a question for you: you've also watched this clownshow for the last 12 months, AND YOU ARE MAD THAT THEY BLEW IT UP? WHAT!?! You are mad that they didn't preserve this wretchedness! What?

But you're not a good player because you make the majors early, you make the majors early (in general) because you're a good player. Good players are more likely to "age well" (by which we primarily mean remain productive) and good players are more likely to make the majors early. But the Rays deciding to promote Crawford at age 20 didn't (in any obvious way) make him a better player.

Crawford's early promotion is probably more the result of the 2002 Rays sucking (55-106) and the 2002 Rays playing Jason Tyner in LF at the start of the year (was this the Bobblehead year?), then an aging unproductive Vaughn, then a couple guys sitting around on the bench. Crawford making the majors at 20 tells us the same thing about him as Kranepool making the majors at 17-18 tells us about him -- nothing really. This must be doubly true now that he's got 6000 PA. (2*0 is still 0 :-)

Sorry, that one's been bugging me for a while. But the most you can conclude from a player making the majors early is that somebody in that organization thinks that player is gonna be good. And even that is stretching things a bit when you have a context like the 2002 Rays where probably the most you can conclude is that somebody decided he was their best option at the time. Now if the guy comes up at 19-20 with huge prospect buzz that might tell you something -- mainly that a lot of people think he's gonna be pretty good which is more reliable. I'm sure there was some buzz about Crawford at the time but I don't recall anything like a Starlin Castro much less a Griffey level of buzz.

OK, let me rephrase. Crawford was above replacement level at Age 20, and a league average player at Age 21. Doesn't that qualify him as a "good player" in your parlance, and therefore likely to age well. Whether there was "buzz" about him or not, and I don't remember either, isn't the more important thing how he actually played?

AND YOU ARE MAD THAT THEY BLEW IT UP? WHAT!?!

They blew up the Globe? Diabolical! NESN FTW!

I've said elsewhere, within the constraints of their implied budget...it's a coin-flip as to whether it was a good idea or to keep Crawford and Beckett as lottery tickets. I'm not moaning and groaning, I'm telling you what will happen and what would be a really really bad idea. Signing Carlos Pena would be a bad idea. Can Swisher stay relevent? If not, let Mauro Gomez 105 OPS+ it until the troops get here.

Signing Carlos Pena would be a bad idea.

I am in agreement 100% with this.

Grushenko, consider two players, both 30 years old, both very consistent 3-5 WAR outfielders. The first guy established that level of production at age 21, the second guy at age 25. Do you think the first guy is likely to age better? That's what you seem to be arguing. I don't know if there's any evidence for that.

Does this deal screw the As? Or move them to Portland?

I cannot see the Giants giving up their San Jose rights if the Dodgers are running a $190M payroll.

I think MLB (other than cheapskate NL owners) would love Giants / Dodgers to become Yankees/Red Sox (or even Mets/Phillies 2010 or Rangers*/Angels) but I don't see how can do it with the As around. SD/Arizona/Colorado are non-starters as well.

The Giants, BTW have a 25 year partnership with CSN/comcast - they simply get something like 30-33% of the revenue. (source). I have no idea if this is a good or bad deal for the Giants.


*Rangers don't actually have a significantly higher payroll than the Giants in 2012.

Does this deal screw the As? Or move them to Portland?

All the cool kids are moving to Virginia Beach.

more hits than any ESPN thing I've ever written

How many other Red Sox articles have you written?

first guy established that level of production at age 21

Well, he's obviously lying about his age then.

You don't win awards for losing bad contracts.

You obviously missed last year's big "Alex Anthopoulos is Executive of the Year!" threads.

I don't understand why Dale is continually ranting about the Sox signing Carlos Peña. Who the hell thinks the Sox would sign him anyway? Dude is putting up his 2nd terrible year out of the last 3, with the only good year coming in the NL Central with half his games in Wrigley.

I don't understand why Dale is continually ranting about the Sox signing Carlos Peña. Who the hell thinks the Sox would sign him anyway?

Who would buy high on Nick Punto? Who would sign that paradigm of health Bobby Jenks? Pena is exactly the type of upside project the Sox would blow money on.