I've got to vent for a minute and feel free to disagree. But I am really getting sick of reading about the Sox "thrifty offseason." Keri is far from the only one but his is the column at hand. This insinuation that the Sox are slashing payroll or going on the cheap is simply wrong. From the looks of things their payroll is going to be roughly the same as it was last year and in the end they will be second or third in payroll in baseball. It's not like they've turned into the Royals here. The simple fact is that they spent a boatload of money the last couple of off-seasons and didn't have money to spend.

And bravo to Keri for pulling a Shaughnessy and getting a Liverpool reference in the piece (35 million on a colossal bust). Do sportswriters not grasp that the people who own sports teams actually have other businesses? Given that Henry bought LFC and within a few weeks committed to about $400 million to Crawford and Gonzalez suggests to me that LFC isn't holding the Sox back as does the $170 million payroll.

If the Sox cut payroll $30-40 million, then by all means, they deserve criticism. That does not appear to be happening. The problem is not that they are not spending money, it's that they have a shitload of money spent poorly (Lackey, Matsuzaka, Crawford).

End of rant.

Unrelated to that I have two observations;

1. Yaz looks confused in that picture

2. Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

2. Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

Cause life was frickin hard back them. Depression, WW2, physical labor, etc.

This insinuation that the Sox are slashing payroll or going on the cheap is simply wrong. From the looks of things their payroll is going to be roughly the same as it was last year and in the end they will be second or third in payroll in baseball. It's not like they've turned into the Royals here. The simple fact is that they spent a boatload of money the last couple of off-seasons and didn't have money to spend.

Largely concur. But, there have been some strange pennywise, pound foolish moves.

Depleting your infield depth (Scutaro) and failing to sign a reliable 4th SP (Kuroda, Oswalt - so far) who would be available on a one-year deal, seems silly.

You've got a $100,000 Mercedes. Don't put retread bias-ply tires on it.

[1] I think part of the problem is that because of The Worst Collapse Ever (*takes a second to bask in that glorious moment*), last year's team is perceived as being a lot worse than it was. As a result, since all the Rangers, Angels and Tigers are making splashy moves SURELY the Red Sox must do the same to have a hope of competing.

Also, it's weird that so many people considered the off-season to be over already over - even before Prince signed. On this site, Snapper popped into multiple threads to critique the Sox roster/moves as if it was opening day. Coincidentally it was just a few days after the Yankees made their moves, which I guess to some people means that the off-season is over. ((edit - see post #2 here))

Keri at one point begrudgingly acknowledges the projection system that has the Sox in the 90's for wins, but couples that with the dreaded "question mark" cliche as a way to hand-wave away the objectively high level of talent on the team. Also, for an article whining about the lack of off-season splashes by the team, he only mentions Valentine/Cherington once in passing, as if changing your GM and entire coaching staff doesn't count as shaking things up after an under-achieving year.

The Red Sox, by individual talent, were ridiculously good last year. They were extremely bad at turning individual performances into wins, performing at their worst when it mattered the most (choking), but I don't think we should expect them to choke again next year. In that case, returning most of that club means they'll project easily to be competing for the playoffs. (So, in short, basically what NJ said minus the schadenfreude.)

The news of the last week (the Red Sox have no mandate to stay under the salary cap, they offered contracts to Jackson and Oswalt) suggests they plan to add one more starter, and that for whatever reason they didn't like Scutaro and do like Aviles/Punto.

The other issue, here, is that the Red Sox are behaving as if baseball will have a de facto salary cap in 2013. (As are the Yankees.) According to reports from various local reporters, the Sox have been avoiding "big splashes" on the market, in the form of deals longer than a year, because they expect to be effectively forced to remain under the luxury tax threshold from 2013 to 2016.

I guess everyone would rather have them sign Yet Another Free Agent Bust, because seeing the likes of Crawford, Matsuzaka, or Lugo crash and burn is much more entertaining (and leads to more page hits and/or bought newspapers) than seeing the likes of Clayton Mortensen or Vicente Padilla quietly wash out of the league.

Let's keep calling the Carl Crawford contract signing a bust after only one year, because eventually that'll make it a true statement.

& let's also ignore that Dice-K was good-to-great for 3 of the 5 years he was under contract.

& let's pretend that the Rent-a-Lugo SS cavalcade never, ever, ever happened.

2. Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

Smoking. Tobacco use ages people, though I don't know if chew is as bad as smoke.
Look at your classmates, the ones that smoke consistently look older than those that don't.

I think part of the problem is that because of The Worst Collapse Ever (*takes a second to bask in that glorious moment*), last year's team is perceived as being a lot worse than it was.

The same thing is probably true for the Braves, and both Boston and Atlanta should still be reasonable postseason contenders for 2012.

Too bad Cot's doesn't have a regularly updated salary projection. All Baseball Prospectus' taking it over seemed to do is slightly increase loading times. Where are the Sox after the Scutaro dump--$172m?

Agree that the article is pointlessly alarmist. Don't most reasonable projections have the Sox winning at least 90 games? Since when is that punting a season?

For a team with three contracts that turned to shite last season the Sox are a damned good team. Settle down, Jonah. When you're headed for 90+ wins when 50m worth of your 170-180m payroll might get you a couple of wins, you're doing just fine. This is one reason, though, that 20m a year on Crawford made less than excellent sense. At some point, you are putting too few eggs in too few baskets. Even if the Red Sox thought there was a very good chance Crawford was going to be a 4 win player for the forseeable future, if was hard to imagine they were going to do better than break even on his contract, and it meant they had five contracts taking up half their payroll. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but at some point you can get top heavy enough that it kills your flexibility when things go wrong, a couple of injuries severely handicaps you, and you have very little upside, since the biggest contracts rarely give you a better than break even result.

Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

David Strathairn was about 38 when he played 35-year-old Eddie Cicotte in Eight Men Out. They don't look much like each other because someone about age 50 would look more like Cicotte. Audiences wouldn't believe a guy who looked that old would be a ballplayer. (Robert Redford notwithstanding.)

The only thing I enjoy more than reading posts from frustrated Sox fans is seeing Yankee fans get their pantyhose in a wad over some percieved failing!
Bring back Zim and Billy Martin and life would be evem more fun.

Let's keep calling the Carl Crawford contract signing a bust after only one year, because eventually that'll make it a true statement.

I keep telling you, Red Sox fans have ironclad proof of the following projection for Carl Crawford's career. (recently adjusted downward because of the wrist injury)

age and OPS+ (projected future years in bold)
20 77
21 81
22 105
23 111
24 113
25 117
26 89
27 116
28 135
29 85
30 60
31 40
32 20
33 0
34 -100
35 -100

The main thesis of TFA seemed to be that the Scutaro trade was unnecessary and cheap, like snapper says in #2. I think the way they reshuffled the bullpen was at least cost effective, and they didn't have to give up a king's ransom to do it (unless you're in love with Lowrie), but I really don't understand the Scutaro trade. If they follow it up with Ross for $3m and Oswalt for $6m, that means they started with $3m... why not just skip Ross, sign Oswalt, and eat the extra $3m? That's about 2% of your payroll.

The other issue, here, is that the Red Sox are behaving as if baseball will have a de facto salary cap in 2013. (As are the Yankees.)

The Yankee talk has been about getting under the $189M threshhold in 2014, to re-set the luxury tax rate, not about anything in 2013.

I'm pretty sure Bobby V is the biggest upgrade any team could ever make.

I'm pretty sure Bobby V is the biggest upgrade any team could ever make.

Bobby V absolutely agrees with this.

That Carl Crawford contract was really unfortunate.

That Carl Crawford contract was really unfortunate.

Hey, are you intrigued by the Alfonso Soriano contract? Want a chance to experience it for your team, only without the homerun power?

Jokes aside, I have some optimism that Carl will have some good years, and agree w/ post #8 about it being too soon for a final verdict on the contract.

The main thesis of TFA seemed to be that the Scutaro trade was unnecessary and cheap, like snapper says in #2. I think the way they reshuffled the bullpen was at least cost effective, and they didn't have to give up a king's ransom to do it (unless you're in love with Lowrie), but I really don't understand the Scutaro trade. If they follow it up with Ross for $3m and Oswalt for $6m, that means they started with $3m... why not just skip Ross, sign Oswalt, and eat the extra $3m? That's about 2% of your payroll.

Because Ross is a bigger upgrade platooning with Sweeney and filling in during Crawford's injury than the downgrade made from Scutaro to Aviles? ANd because you save $3M right there?

Scutaro's arm is not strong enough to play SS regularly anymore anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point. There's a reason the only team willing to pay his salary was looking at him to play second base.

Crispix, is this:

age and OPS+
29 85
30 112
31 112
32 112
33 112
34 112
35 112

worth $20 million a year? Or is the alternate projection more along the lines of:


age and OPS+
29 85
30 135
31 135
32 135
33 135
34 135
35 135?

21- That is a very fair response to the point of the article. If you think Aviles/Punto + Ross/Sweeney > Scutaro + Sweeney, then the trade is eminently reasonable. I just think the money aspect should be considered a drop in the bucket for the management, and even less important for the fans. When it becomes the focus of the conversation, I think it obscures the on-field debate.

I'm disappointed Jonah didn't mention the luxury tax and revenue sharing arguments as to why a team would be below "the cap" that have been brought here ad nauseam.

Look at your classmates, the ones that smoke consistently look older cooler than those that don't.

FTFY

I notice the progeria more in players from the early history of baseball. "He was PLAYING at that time...oh, wait, he was 30!?.."

age and OPS+
29 85
30 112
31 112
32 112
33 112
34 112
35 112

I'm not Crispix but I'll answer. What is frightening about last year's performance is not so much the way the bat collapsed, but the way everything collapsed. If he had played elite defense and still run aggressively and effectively on the bases he could have salvaged some value. The way his entire game fell apart it is easy to think that there is something meaningfully wrong beyond a bad year.

I liked the signing when they made it in no small part because of the weak outfield FA market this year. Right now it looks a hell of a lot worse.

& let's also ignore that Dice-K was good-to-great for 3 of the 5 years he was under contract.

How low must standards be for this statement to be even remotely true?

His one "great" year he only threw 167 innings, and in only two of the five years did he even pitch enough to qualify for the ERA title

During the last 5 years he's had ERAs of 4.40, 4.69, 5.30 and 5.76.

He's not right between the ears, he's afraid of re-pulling a muscle, and he's a complete mess at the plate. I wonder how many times he'll hear "You know...that weird stance of yours.." this year.

And I like how a great deal of sportswriters, and fans, think that all Hanley has to do is crawl into a Boston uni, and he'll magiclly transform into a 140 OPS+ guy who never dogs it and is a wonderful teammate.

I wonder if they'll try and bring Dice-K back? I mean, he's not ancient.

I'm not Crispix but I'll answer. What is frightening about last year's performance is not so much the way the bat collapsed, but the way everything collapsed. If he had played elite defense and still run aggressively and effectively on the bases he could have salvaged some value. The way his entire game fell apart it is easy to think that there is something meaningfully wrong beyond a bad year.

With all due respect, that didn't answer my question. I'm honestly curious what people like Crispix and Essex expect to happen over the next six years. It sounds like you're more on the John DiFool/Ray side of the the argument.

Izzy Alcantara martial arts lessons

hahahahahaha

With all due respect, that didn't answer my question. I'm honestly curious what people like Crispix and Essex expect to happen over the next six years. It sounds like you're more on the John DiFool/Ray side of the the argument.

Fair enough, I think the "135" projection is as close to a "no chance" as possible. I think somewhere in the 100-105 range over the life of the deal starting at 110-115 and trending downward. Based on what I saw last year I'm expecting a more severe drop in the out years than I originally anticipated.

30 - 115
31 - 115
32 - 110
33 - 105
34 - 85
35 - no comment

He looked like an aging player last year. All the reasons that's a crappy way to do "analysis" are noted and obviously I did no calculations here, just pulled numbers out of whatever body part is most amusing to you. As a practical matter I doubt the next six years will progress so cleanly and there is likely to be a 120 in there somewhere and a lesser year in there somewhere but that's a rough guess at a trend.

The concern I have is that I am skeptical that the non-OPS+ parts of his game looked SO bad last year. In 2009 he had a 116 OPS+ that was good for 3.0 WAR. I would bet that the age 30/31 seasons that I predicted similarly in OPS+ will in fact be 2.0-2.5 WAR (which of course would be a boon to the Red Sox relative to last year).

Too bad Cot's doesn't have a regularly updated salary projection. All Baseball Prospectus' taking it over seemed to do is slightly increase loading times. Where are the Sox after the Scutaro dump--$172m?

They still seem pretty prompt to me and he's not there now. They've got the Sox at $144 which doesn't include Ortiz (tbat was arb? thought that was an option) and you've got arb awards to Aceves, Bard and Bailey coming. Call it about $20 M. Oops, I take that back, Ross doesn't seem to be in the table so add another $3 M to that. Has the Ross deal not been finalized yet?

Barring hyperinflation I don't think there is any way for the Red Sox to get value for money on the Crawford contract. I think he can still be a positive contributor though (with a suitable mental write down of the contract).

Walt -

The Ross deal hasn't been finalized. The Sox have a logjam on their 40-man, and they're waiting to announce the deal in order to search for solutions other than cutting a player.

Also, Bard's signed for $1.6M, and bailey for 3.9M.

Barring hyperinflation I don't think there is any way for the Red Sox to get value for money on the Crawford contract. I think he can still be a positive contributor though (with a suitable mental write down of the contract).

Amazing how fragile our projections are in baseball.

Just one year ago, he's getting paid and projected like a 5 WAR players, and now the fans of his team would be happy to get 2 WAR p.a. out of him.

The Rays might have their best offense in franchise history.

I realize that's a low bar but there's little to fear from the Rays offense. Pena 2012 might be better than Kotchman 2012 (the projections are closer that you might like) but he's not gonna replace Kotchman 2011. Scott is projected to the same OPS+ Damon put up last year. Jennings full-time should be an upgrade over last year's LF but his 102 OPS+ ZiPS is not anything to get excited about. Meanwhile their C offense looks terrible. A full season from Longoria will obviously help a lot.

Anyway, offensively this team seems average at DH, 1B, SS, LF, CF and RF (maybe a bit above), above average at 2B and 3B and below average at C. The bench looks pretty blah but Zobrist and Rodriguez give them heaps of flexibility to mix and match per usual so that should work out.

Last year they had a 105 OPS+ (5th) but were 8th in scoring. I'm not seeing a good reason to expect them to beat the OPS+ substantially but the scoring should be more in line with the OPS+.

The Sox have a logjam on their 40-man, and they're waiting to announce the deal in order to search for solutions other than cutting a player.

They could just cut Mortensen. He'd probably pass through waivers.

I typically enjoy Keri's work but this article and certainly the Tigers/Fielder article are less than impressive

To act surprised by Boras' actions, as if this approach is new or clever, demonstrates a lack of real world awareness.

On Crawford:

Looking at his component stats quickly, the "collapse" seems to come down to one thing -- he lost his plate discipline. His K-rate went up substantially (14% to 19%) ... while his IP% stayed the same ... which means his already not-good walk rate went to crap too.

So ... either he was trying too hard to fulfill the contract and kept swinging at balls ... or the bat speed is toast and he's had to start his swing earlier. Or random fluctuation or some 4th explanation.

Anyway, if I remember what Uncle Dan has said, changes in K-rates and BB-rates are significant in fairly small sample sizes. The Carl Crawford we know can't survive with a 19% K-rate so either he needs to shift to more of a TTO style (unlikely, he's not that powerful) or he's got to find the fountain of youth.

Or be the next Juan Pierre, that's not a bad gig.

Looking at his component stats quickly, the "collapse" seems to come down to one thing -- he lost his plate discipline.

Well, his fielding and baserunning also went to pot.

2. Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

People spent more time outdoors then, the sun ages you.

2. Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

The Cold War was stressful.

2. Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

Haven't you noticed the world seems to move faster now? Subjectively, a year in the 50s felt like about a year-and-three-quarters of one of our current years.

The Ross deal hasn't been finalized. The Sox have a logjam on their 40-man, and they're waiting to announce the deal in order to search for solutions other than cutting a player.

Scott Atchison appears to be the odd man out.

I also think it has to do with the quality of the photograpic and video capturing equipment. Plus it doesn't help that even the 19 year old is wearing what looks to us like an outdated suit and tie with a buzz cut or dress and weird hairdo.

Put a young Mickey Mantle in cargo shorts and a polo shirt and he'll look young.

You’re inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age? A half minute before that you were stepping into high school, and an unhooked brassiere was as close as you ever hoped to get to Paradise. Only a fifth of a second before that you were a small kid with a ten-week summer vacation that lasted a hundred thousand years and still ended too soon.

Joseph Heller, Catch-22.

The Crawford signing was supposed to have an extra bonus- - removing a great player from the Tampa lineup.

Plus it doesn't help that even the 19 year old is wearing what looks to us like an outdated suit and tie with a buzz cut or dress and weird hairdo.

To me a suit on a young guy often makes him look even younger. Of course, nothing makes 19 year-olds look young like being almost twice as old as they are.

Looking at his component stats quickly, the "collapse" seems to come down to one thing -- he lost his plate discipline.

Well, his fielding and baserunning also went to pot.

I still think there's something wrong with his eyes. It'd explain the higher K rate, lower walk rate, and increased difficulty in tracking fly balls.

I still think there's something wrong with his eyes. It'd explain the higher K rate, lower walk rate, and increased difficulty in tracking fly balls.

Is this House? Put him on antibiotic eye drops, stat!

Why do people in the 50s and 60s always look like they are about 45 years old even when they are 25?

We live low stress lives today. Incidentally, today people in the US Northeast appear to be prematurely aged compared to people from the Midwest or West Coast.