Classy guy, but I'd have kept Smoltz in favor of him two weeks ago.

I don't give a rat's ass if he was throwing 97.

So now the Red Sox dump a pitcher after a bad month?

He'll go to the Cards and win 10 games.

Brad Penny shall always be a meathead.

I think it's come up here before--does he get placed on waivers before he's released, allowing a team to claim him? If so, would anyone think highly enough of him to take a chance, or would they just wait until he cleared waivers? Also, if he's released and then signed, what happens to his incentive clause?

Hate this move a lot. I think Penny was pretty clearly one of the five best starters on the team. I have a really hard time believing the team actually thinks Tazawa is a better pitcher right now. I can see the argument that Buchholz is better, but I think that's being pretty optimistic for Clay.

The Sox have now given away two quality mid rotation guys because they had flukey bad ERAs. Can we please stop dumping staters who manage a K/BB ratio over 2 pitching in the AL East?

So now the Red Sox dump a pitcher after a bad month?

"A" bad month?


The Sox have now given away two quality mid rotation guys because they had flukey bad ERAs. Can we please stop dumping staters who manage a K/BB ratio over 2 pitching in the AL East?

What quality mid rotation guys are you referring to? It couldn't be Penny and/or Smoltz since they were both ####### awful.

Of course, Penny is going to go to the NL and be good again, but he sucked for the Red Sox.

ERA over 130 innings doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

I think Penny would have helped in the bullpen in any event.

I doubt this is so much the Red Sox wanting to dump Penny as much him simply being the victim of a roster crunch. He had a very strong run of starts when the team needed it most (with Dice-K out and Wake on the DL), so he goes with my thanks.

Angels could use him. Wouldn't want to give anything useful in a trade for him, but I'm tired of watching Bell and O'Sullivan try to learn at the big league level.

I'm not crazy about this move to be honest. He's sucked recently but was pretty good for a month or so there when the team needed him and I'm not sure they had/have better options at #5 starter.

These "low risk" moves have really inflicted a lot of damage on Boston's playoff chances, not to mention blowing $10M.

He was tipping his pitches.

Interesting. My knee-jerk reaction was "great." But his FIP wasn't that bad -- on par with Burnett and Joba, among others -- and he had the biggest negative gap between his FIP and his ERA among qualified AL starters (per THT).

But even if Penny was partially a victim of the Sox' less-than-stellar defense, he was getting rocked lately.

Echoing Answer Guy though, who is the fallback option if any of the current rotation needs to miss a start? Everyone who has started a game for the Sox this year is either already in the rotation (Lester/Beckett/Wake/Buch/Tazawa), no longer with the organization (Smoltz/Penny/Masterson), or Dice K. Though I guess Paul Byrd is still with Pawtucket?

These "low risk" moves have really inflicted a lot of damage on Boston's playoff chances, not to mention blowing $10M.

My guess is that the team's payroll budget has gotten someone what less flexible recently. They haven't turned into the Marlins or anything but they largely stayed out of the big free-agent sweepstakes this year and I wonder if they're not planning on the same next year.

These "low risk" moves have really inflicted a lot of damage on Boston's playoff chances, not to mention blowing $10M.

Thats really the key that many neo-sabrists miss. Cost of players signed isn't just the dollar's but the opportunity. It's actually humourus because they grasp it the other way when teams break camp with the Russ Ortizes of the world and leave the Fransico Liriano's of the world in the minors.

I would have liked to keep him, but you don't do yourself any favors by keeping a guy who doesn't want to be around. Which is different than the Smoltz situation, the team just couldn't afford to keep him around anymore and if anyone else states that his FIP was good, I hope you get flees. He pitched like ####.

I'm with Mattbert. Penny had maybe seven starts left, and would likely not have been included on a playoff roster, if that becomes necessary. So, there are only three reasons you'd keep Penny around:

1) You think he'll pitch better than Tazawa over those seven starts. If you think they'll pitch about the same, you'd stick with Tazawa, because he actually will be a part of making the 2010, 2011, etc. teams better. The team seems to like him a lot, and he's pitched alright so far.

2) You think Penny would be more useful in the bullpen than whoever he'd be replacing. Well, he's not going to replace Paplebon, Delcarmen, Okajima, Bard, Ramirez, or Saito. So he could've taken Masterson's slot...until we acquired Wagner. I do worry that there is nobody in the bullpen, with this release, capable of eating a bunch of innings if a starting pitcher is ineffective or injured.

3) The roster expansion in a few days would allow the team to keep him as injury insurance. The Sox could've pitched Tazawa tonight, sent him down to Pawtucket until the 1st, then bring him back up when the roster expands. Then, you could have Penny (as the long guy) and Tazawa, and not have Tazawa miss a start.

Personally, I appreciate that Penny was durable (he didn't miss a start), seemed like a classy guy (never complained, seemed to put in the effort, and seems classy during this release), and gave us very solid starting pitching for a few months at a time when we needed it. He hasn't been effective in a while, though, and it's time to fish or cut bait with the guys we're going to use for the stretch run.

My guess is that the team's payroll budget has gotten someone what less flexible recently. They haven't turned into the Marlins or anything but they largely stayed out of the big free-agent sweepstakes this year and I wonder if they're not planning on the same next year.

The first sentence may be true, I have no way of knowing but I think the second one is incorrect. They were offering HUGE money to Teixeira, they just didn't get him. I do agree that they are likely to stay out of the FA market this coming off-season but I think that's more a function of the crappy class of free agents that seems to be out there.

I do worry that there is nobody in the bullpen, with this release, capable of eating a bunch of innings if a starting pitcher is ineffective or injured.

In 4 days, it won't matter -- they'll just use the expanded roster to patch those holes over.

ERA over 130 innings doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

I have confidence that Matsuzaka could do better. Penny has been consistently bad for long enough of a stretch that they have to question whether that's all he's capable of for the rest of 2009. I'd love to have seen him improve rather than implode, but I don't think they can afford to wait and see.

My guess is that the team's payroll budget has gotten someone what less flexible recently. They haven't turned into the Marlins or anything but they largely stayed out of the big free-agent sweepstakes this year and I wonder if they're not planning on the same next year.

They've largely stayed out of the big free-agent sweepstakes every year. Drew was the last big one, no? And reportedly he was being sought after by just one team. Matsuzaka was another, but having half the cost not subject to luxury tax was part of their calculation. Lugo? Was he ever in a big free-agent sweepstakes?

Any cost-conscious team is going to avoid the high-end free agent market, not because they can't afford it, but rather because of the winner's curse.

Thats really the key that many neo-sabrists miss. Cost of players signed isn't just the dollar's but the opportunity. It's actually humourus because they grasp it the other way when teams break camp with the Russ Ortizes of the world and leave the Fransico Liriano's of the world in the minors.

I've seen two arguments around here: (1) They should keep Penny because he's better than Buchholz. (2) They never should have signed Penny in the first place because they had better options in the minors, such as Buchholz. I'm not saying you're making both arguments, but rather that it appears there's dissatisfaction here with the Boston FO regarding Penny, but two arguments are using completely opposite logic.

I have no problems with Boston's front office.

They have proven themseleves to be a smarter than a bunch of part time psuedo analysts, myself included.

I was commenting on the "low cost flyer" comment. Which probably wasn't fair for me to bring back to neo-sabrists, since it was said in the Herald, however, the exact same point has been made here many times.

We as a group need to keep in mind cost is not just dollars but opportunity and the dollar cost of Penny and Smoltz was not signifigant from the perspective of the redsox budget, however,the 13 blown starts might very well keep them out of the playoffs.

Any cost-conscious team is going to avoid the high-end free agent market, not because they can't afford it, but rather because of the winner's curse.

But that doesn't really jibe with how the market works.

High-end signings tend to work out pretty well. Teams receive good value on the Manny Ramirez, ARod, Mike Mussina type contracts, b/c those guys are so good to begin with, tend to age better, and thus remain valuable, if not elite, players throughout the contract.

Where teams get burned is the mid-level overpays: Lugo, Pavano, etc. I'd much rather spend $20M on Texeira, than $10M each on two middling guys. You'll get a better return.

High-end signings tend to work out pretty well.

I'm not so sure that is correct... at least it's not as clear cut as you think. Vernon Wells, Mike Hampton, Barry Zito. Of course your arguement will be but those guys aren't elite... well some front offices certainly thought so.

And sure you'd rather have Tex than Pavano and Lugo... but what about Meche and Damon? It's just not clear to me, if your doing your player evlauation correctly what the right answer is. I would probably rather have 2 lesser players if I could sign them for 3 or 4 years rather than for 8, or whatever.

I'm not so sure that is correct... at least it's not as clear cut as you think. Vernon Wells, Mike Hampton, Barry Zito. Of course your arguement will be but those guys aren't elite... well some front offices certainly thought so.

Fair point. I'm probably biased by the Yankee experience.

I talked about this yesterday in the Yankee thread. The best FA strategy, for rich teams, is the most obvious: sign top-echelon guys in their 20s, like Sabathia and Teixeira. But the downside is contract lengths leading into their 30s, and I think that is the issue for the Red Sox.

As to the Boston payroll, maybe Henry has consciously geared down a little, but I still think Epsteain has the green light to go right up to the cap limit if he thinks it will help the team.

My guess is that the team's payroll budget has gotten someone what less flexible recently. They haven't turned into the Marlins or anything but they largely stayed out of the big free-agent sweepstakes this year and I wonder if they're not planning on the same next year.

I don't see it. The Red Sox have taken on quite a bit of payroll since the beginning of the season - more than anyone else is baseball, I'd bet. They're picking up the tab on Victor Martinez, Billy Wagner, and Alex Gonzalez, while they ate Julio Lugo's contract in exchange for a AAAA bat. The story of the Red Sox 2009 looks to me like a team that had money to spend in the offseason, but when they didn't get the big contracts they wanted, decided instead to spend during the season to improve the ballclub.

(we woulda been better off with Teixeira or CC...)

I don't have any numbers on it, but it's always seemed to me that the winner's curse is worse on middle class free agents than on the most expensive contracts. The Red Sox haven't avoided the winner's curse simply by not going after or not signing the very biggest free agents.

We as a group need to keep in mind cost is not just dollars but opportunity and the dollar cost of Penny and Smoltz was not signifigant from the perspective of the redsox budget, however,the 13 blown starts might very well keep them out of the playoffs.

The issue I have with this thinking is this assumes whoever pitched instead of Smoltz and Penny was going to do better. You imply this is a certainty - how do you know this? I do agree that opportunity cost needs to be weighed, but looking at anything in retrospect is very different than trying to forecast something.

Fair point. I'm probably biased by the Yankee experience.

I think if you defined it as actual elite players, people with consistant performance histories over a period of a few years, the results would probably match up with the idea that elite signings are worthwhile. It's paying elite money to non-elite players that tends to screw teams.

I don't see it. The Red Sox have taken on quite a bit of payroll since the beginning of the season - more than anyone else is baseball, I'd bet.

The White Sox say hi.

I don't have any numbers on it, but it's always seemed to me that the winner's curse is worse on middle class free agents than on the most expensive contracts.

The Winners Curse is, IMO, a bit of a myth. In theory, -everything- is subject to the winners curse, be it Mark Teixeira or the ticket to last night's game I scalped in Kenmore Square. Heck, even the sandwich I'm going to buy for lunch is subject to it, when you factor in price and time I have to wait on line. Different teams gain different values from a player (depending on if there's a hole in the roster, the expected increase in revenue associated with the expected improvement in W/L record that the player creates), and its both possible and likely that a team can both be the higher bidder and gain the most "value" from a free agent deal.

(we woulda been better off with Teixeira or CC...)

Was there any question we would have been better off with Teix or CC this year? That doesn't seem to be where the dispute on pursuing them exists. That they were better baseball players this year than Smoltz and Penny is not surprising (personally, I think Penny's performance was adequate, while Smoltz was truly the kind of true cost move MHS was referring to), nor does it truly answer whether the Red Sox erred in failing to pursue/land the big guys.

The Winners Curse is, IMO, a bit of a myth. In theory, -everything- is subject to the winners curse, be it Mark Teixeira or the ticket to last night's game I scalped in Kenmore Square.

The closer something is to a fungible commodity, the less subject it is to the Winners' Curse phenomenon.

#17--I think your #3 isn't/wasn't an option. If you send Tazawa down, he can't be recalled for 15 days unless (I think this is right) there is an injury that causes a DL assignment--in that case he could be brought back up to replace the DL'd player. Since no teams want to needlessly use the DL (especially so close to the 9/1 roster expansion date), sending Tazawa down didn't make much sense.

My guess is that Tazawa is replaced by Matsusaka in the rotation come September, and that Tazawa or Bowden are the long options once rosters expand. Assuming Wakefield is OK, there's no real place for Penny in that mix--his upside is below (I'd argue far below) the upside potential of any of Wakefield/Buchholz/Dice-K.

What will be interesting to see is how they wiggle guys in to be eligible for the postseason roster. Right now they have 4 guys on the DL, creating a bunch of "loophole spots," but one of those 4 is Dice-K, and since he's getting of the DL in September, he'll have to take one of those spots. Lowrie looks like he won't come off the DL before 9/1, so at this point I'm thinking there's no way he's on a postseason roster.

What will also be interesting is who the 4 starters are for the postseason (should we get there). I am guessing Wakefield, with health and effectiveness, would be the #3 starter, with Buchholz/Dice-K fighting it out for the #4 slot. But there is, I think, a very real possibility all 5 would be on the postseason roster, because Wakefield could very easily go as a long man out of the pen should anyone get shelled, especially now that we have a real starting C who can catch the knuckleball. I know a 12-pitcher setup for a 5 game series is seen in some circles as insane, but if you're going to have Dice-K and Buchholz start 2 of those 5 games, you need a long man in the bullpen, and as several have pointed out, adding Wagner pretty much means no one in the pen can go more than 2 innings.

The closer something is to a fungible commodity, the less subject it is to the Winners' Curse phenomenon.

It is also primarily a phenomena in auction bidding situations. When the seller just posts a price, and the buyer takes it or leaves it, winner's curse doesn't really apply.

The issue I have with this thinking is this assumes whoever pitched instead of Smoltz and Penny was going to do better. You imply this is a certainty - how do you know this? I do agree that opportunity cost needs to be weighed, but looking at anything in retrospect is very different than trying to forecast something.

I haven't looked at blown start rates for replacement level pitchers, but I'm going to bet it isn't what Smoltz and Penny's were.

I think if you defined it as actual elite players, people with consistant performance histories over a period of a few years, the results would probably match up with the idea that elite signings are worthwhile. It's paying elite money to non-elite players that tends to screw teams.

I would argue good players are worth having at every price point and that it just comes down to player evaluation, and execution of your teams long term stratgic vision. If you don't do either well it doesn't really matter how much you're spending you are going to end up with a very flawed ball club, with shrinking margins of error. Not to change the subject but:

One thing I think the Red Sox have been able to improve on over the last 5 years has expanding there margin of error a great deal, of course they punted a lot of it with Lugo, Smoltz and to a lesser extent Penny. I don't really want to go into it a lot but I think that is really the next piece of the Sabrmetric puzzle we need to get our arms around. It's the reason I didn't like the Mets comming into the year, of course the 98 Yankees wouldn't have had enough margin of error to weather that particular storm.

I'm not so sure that is correct... at least it's not as clear cut as you think. Vernon Wells, Mike Hampton, Barry Zito. Of course your arguement will be but those guys aren't elite... well some front offices certainly thought so.

Or, for that matter, Pedro Martinez in 2004, except that everyone knew that the Mets were paying for 4 years to get 2 good years (it turned out to be more like 1 1/3 good years).

Who could possibly have seen this coming?

Nice work, Beanster, wherever you are.

Hitler leaves Poland, making room for Stalin.

Penny would be like the 4th best starter for the Twins right now.

Penny would be like the 4th best starter for the Twins right now.

He'd be an ace on the Mets.

Penny would be like the best starter for the Mets right now.

Damnit.

I would certainly take him over Mitre.

Penny would be like the 4th best starter for the Twins right now.


More like 3rd. Baker, Pavano, Penny. Either way, I'd take him.

(edit) And the Twins might take him too:

The Twins are among the teams interested in Red Sox pitcher Brad Penny and would consider claiming him off release waivers instead of waiting for him to become a free agent, major league officials told the Star Tribune today.

High-end signings tend to work out pretty well. Teams receive good value on the Manny Ramirez, ARod, Mike Mussina type contracts, b/c those guys are so good to begin with, tend to age better, and thus remain valuable, if not elite, players throughout the contract.

Pedro Martinez with the Mets, Barry Zito, Carl Pavano, Albert Belle, yada yada yada. The "Manny Ramirez, ARod, Mike Mussina type contracts" are long-term contracts that worked. Many do, some don't, and it's not clear beforehand which ones will and which won't. It behooves the team to minimize the risk of the deal going sour, but one way to minimize the risk is not to make the deal in the first place.

Where teams get burned is the mid-level overpays: Lugo, Pavano, etc. I'd much rather spend $20M on Texeira, than $10M each on two middling guys. You'll get a better return.

But you can't spend $20M on Teixeira. You can spend $180M on Teixeira. I think there's no question that at least a half dozen teams, Boston included, would be thrilled to have Teixeira at $20M for this season. But they couldn't have this season unless they bought at least seven more. Maybe Teixeira is the right choice, but we won't know that for quite some time.

I'd still take Blackburn over Penny but it's close to a tie.