Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Red Sox - May Have Signed Renteria

Boston Red Sox - Are really close to signing SS Edgar Renteria to a 4-year contract worth between $40 and $44 million.

Whatever happened to getting a player for a discount coming off an off year?

I’m hearing this is about done, so I’ll take a chance on a really late hour on the slowest traffic day of the week and jump the gun a bit.  I fully expect Renteria to bounce back, not to 2003 levels, but at least the 350/430 range.  And that’s not so bad since he’s a fine defensive shortstop - not the pretend good like Derek Jeter or flashy inconsistent St. Rey good but actual good good.  $11 million may be pushing it if he doesn’t bounce back, but the Red Sox are going full bore to try to eke out a few years out of a not-so-young nucleus, so it makes sense to be a little inefficient in this situation. 

Renteria, Edgar - 2005 ZiPS Projection (28, not 29)
————————————————————————————-
AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG
————————————————————————————-
598 94 194 47 1 12 85 53 63 22 .324 .381 .467

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 12, 2004 at 07:37 AM | 111 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. DCW3 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:04 AM (#1014682)
Juan Valdez! Check out that ZiPS!

I know that's in Fenway, but that's still higher than I'd expect.
   2. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:04 AM (#1014683)
I really hope not. This would ruin the good work Theo did signing Mantei and Wells to relatively inexpensive incentive-based contracts...
   3. dreamydave Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:09 AM (#1014687)
again, look at those projections! if he does that well, maybe he'll be worth this deal, but even then, i don't get it. this money could definitely be used more efficiently elsewhere. i favor the stopgap ss, so long as it isn't barry larkin. jose valentin anyone...he should be coming realllly cheap for 1 year
   4. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:15 AM (#1014697)
Yeah, there's no way Renteria does that.
That projection has Renteria putting up a .348 H/BIP. Last year he was pretty bad despite putting up a .317 H/BIP. He did hit .348 on BIP's in 2003, but in 2002 he had a .325.

Basically, he'd have to hit .324/.381/.467 to justify this kind of contract.

I'd be shocked if he hit better than .300/.356/.443.

For 10M/y, you need more than a .799 OPS...
   5. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:21 AM (#1014704)
Geez, so is or is not this signing taking place? I thought Boston denied there was anything close to a deal.
   6. DCW3 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:24 AM (#1014707)
That ZiPS would be a 115 OPS+ last year in Fenway.

As another data point, Marcel projects him for a 109 OPS+, which for Renteria in Fenway would probably look something like .318/.373/.453. So I guess it's not that hard to believe.
   7. AJM Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:31 AM (#1014714)
Geez, so is or is not this signing taking place? I thought Boston denied there was anything close to a deal.

From rotoworld.

Despite reports this afternoon that a deal was nearly done, the Red Sox and Edgar Renteria never even opened negotiations until this evening, according to ESPN's Peter Gammons.
Boston GM Theo Epstein is saying the same thing. Gammons indicated that the Red Sox would sign Renteria for $38 million over four years as long as it left them enough money to finalize deals with Pedro Martinez and Jason Varitek. It could become clear tomorrow exactly what is going happen with the Red Sox.
   8. Phil Coorey. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:34 AM (#1014717)
Apparently Pedro has been offered 3 years at 38-40 and now wants another million. ########## petey, just sign the ###### dotted line.

from rotoworld

Pedro Martinez still wants another $1 million per year beyond the $38 million-$40 million deal the Red Sox have on the table.
The Red Sox guaranteed Martinez a third year on Friday, so a little money shouldn't stand in the way of a contract. Ideally, the Red Sox could get a deal finalized soon. If the Cardinals decide they're out of it with Edgar Renteria, they likely will make Martinez an offer. Dec. 12 - 2:11 am et
Source: Boston Herald
   9. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:36 AM (#1014719)
I tend to disagree with the every-contract-is-too-expensive Primer refrain, but this does seem strange, especially for the Red Sox. That is a lot of money for Renteria. 2003 seems to have been his only season remotely worth this much money.

mgl, does you mysterious, we-can't-be-told which MLB team allow you to give us Renteria's UZR numbers? Because maybe the Red Sox have some defensive numbers on Renteria that justify this.
   10. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:36 AM (#1014720)
does you mysterious

of course that should be "your." Duh.
   11. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:45 AM (#1014726)
This is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE contract. Epstein is the one GM I HAVEN'T ripped this offseason, but unfortunately that trend will have to end.

FOUR YEARS of big money for a 30 year old SS? C'mon. They can't possibly have already given up on Hanley have they?

The rumour i've heard is Hanley and Arroyo for Hudson. If that happens, I'd cream my pants, but the head says unless a long-term deal is done with Hudson, the Sox will have lost overal.

Renteria + 1 year of Hudson is probably not better than 6 years of Hanley, probably 3 years of Arroyo, and what, 400 gabillion dollars?
   12. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:48 AM (#1014728)
Oh, did I mention Epstein will be coughing up his 1st round draft pick with this terrible contract?
   13. Phil Coorey. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:51 AM (#1014729)
If we keep Hudson long term sarcastic, I'd be happy with this trade. Otherwise, I don't really like it, that much at all.


All off season we have talked about Hanley in 2006, and now it is off the table, weird.
   14. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:19 AM (#1014751)
FOUR YEARS of big money for a 30 year old SS?

Err, he's not 30.

And goddammit, just give Pedro 3/$42 or whatever. He's worth it.
   15. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:20 AM (#1014752)
"Err, he's not 30."

Great, he must be older than 30.

F!@#$
   16. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:22 AM (#1014753)
Oh, and I'm not sure this signing is anywhere near official yet.
   17. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:23 AM (#1014755)
Great, he must be older than 30.

F!@#$


You're probably just messing with me, but he's 29.
   18. Phil Coorey. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:27 AM (#1014756)
Oh, and I'm not sure this signing is anywhere near official yet.

I posted that somewhere before, that it was not official. Can't remember where, the source was from rotoworld.

Apparently they only got together yesterday, which is pretty ####### quick to nut out a deal.

Guess we'll wait and see
   19. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:28 AM (#1014758)
"You're probably just messing with me, but he's 29. "

Lovely. So he "might" degenerate one year slower.

Fan-#######-tastic.
   20. Phil Coorey. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:28 AM (#1014757)
A potential three-player deal between the Red Sox and Padres could be expanded to include Byung-Hyun Kim.
Including Kim would even up the salaries of Dave Roberts and Jay Payton, with the Red Sox probably paying the rest of what's left of Kim's deal. Ramon Vazquez is also rumored to be going to Boston. Dec. 12 - 3:20 am et


Interesting....
   21. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:47 AM (#1014761)
I just checked on stats of Renteria and Payton.

Payton blew nuts last year, but has a career 770 OPS. Decent player.

Renteria is a good player. But not a 10 million a year player. NO way no how.
   22. yb125 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:47 AM (#1014762)
Hmm Kim to the padres.... a rotation of Kim, Eaton, Peavy, Lawerance, and Woody would be nice, but they also might move one of the young guys for a CF.
   23. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:48 AM (#1014763)
If you think Kim can start, than you need a reality check.

Not a shot against you, but Byun Hyun Kim as a starter, to quote the great Jon Stewart... BLOWS.
   24. yb125 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:52 AM (#1014765)
Payton numbers are helped by his time in Coolers field, but should hit better in Fenway then Petco. Is there any chance the Jays trade Wells?
   25. yb125 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:02 AM (#1014768)
"Not a shot against you, but Byun Hyun Kim as a starter, to quote the great Jon Stewart... BLOWS."
Well I never got to watch him start much partly cause he hasn't started much, but his number in his 15 starts in the last few season don't "blow" and without and with a trade likely to happen I'd guess the padres give him a shot in the rotation.
   26. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:04 AM (#1014769)
The rumour i've heard is Hanley and Arroyo for Hudson. If that happens, I'd cream my pants, but the head says unless a long-term deal is done with Hudson, the Sox will have lost overal.

I'm not sure Hudson is that good a bet to be much better than Arroyo next year. Tim Hudson's DIPS was 3.60 this year and Arroyo's was 3.88. Arroyo's two previous years, adjusting for league and competition, were a little better so he's a good bet to at least remain in the 3.80-3.90 range. He's cheap for a couple more years as a super-2 and hasn't had the health problems that Hudson has struggled with the last couple seasons. If Arroyo is given his 35 starts and not yanked in and out of the rotation, he's a decent bet for 200 innings of high-3's ERA. He also doesn't allow as many BIPs as Hudson so he won't be hurt as much by the Sox defense. He's also a flyball pitcher, so the poor fielding quality of the sox infield is less likely to adversely effect him.

The next year of Hudson for the next 3 years of Arroyo would be a steal for Beane in terms of straight-up value, and I'd guess that the money would come close to a wash. If he gets a highly coveted SS prospect he can flip or plug into 2B, all the better.

I really don't think the sox make that deal.

BTW, the deal would only be for the next year of Hudson. I don't think you can ascribe more value to a trade because of an extension signed after the trade was finalized. Presumably the team could have signed the player for the same price off of the free market at the cost of a draft pick. Oakland wouldn't be trading Hudson if he were willing to sign a substantially below-market extension.
   27. Phil Coorey. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:08 AM (#1014771)
I really don't think the sox make that deal.

You could be right, looks like Hudson is off to the Dodgers, from rotoworld;

It's expected to be announced Sunday that the Dodgers will acquire Tim Hudson from Oakland in exchange for Edwin Jackson and Antonio Perez.
   28. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:31 AM (#1014778)
Hmm Kim to the padres.... a rotation of Kim, Eaton, Peavy, Lawerance, and Woody would be nice, but they also might move one of the young guys for a CF.

Roberts could play CF. Bpro has him as at least average there.

He had a .274 EQA for the dodgers last year as well. That's pretty good for a CF.

If you think Kim can start, than you need a reality check.

Not a shot against you, but Byun Hyun Kim as a starter, to quote the great Jon Stewart... BLOWS.


A 3.77 ERA in 15 starts. Egad, what a horrible pitcher. Whatever in the world should we do with such a horrible pitcher? I know, I will gouge my eyes out with a ball point pen rather than watch such a horrible, horrible pitcher. Why won't anyone think of the children?


Or, you know, more seriously... Kim averaged about 7 WARP3/year for his age 22-24 seasons. The other pitchers who have done that currently in baseball?

Pedro? nope, 5.3
Santana? Nope, 3.9
Prior? Nope, 6.3 (2 years)
Hudson? Nope, 6.4 (2 years)
Mulder? Nope, 6.3
Mussina? Nope, 6.3
Jeff Weaver? Nope, 6.0

Zito -- 7.4
Pettitte -- 7.6 (2 years)
Oswalt -- 7.7 (2 years)
Clemens -- 9.3

That's a pretty elite class that Kim is in. He lost this year to injury, and for some inexplicable reason people can't separate his performance from the fact that he's 1) short 2) weird, and 3) he flipped off a bunch of ass holes who were boing him for Embree's blown save.

Wherever he ends up next year, I have little doubt that he will perform very well, in whatever roll he's in. Kim is an enormously talented pitcher and if he were 6'4" and white I doubt he ever would have been traded
   29. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:33 AM (#1014781)
Um, are you aware of the problems Kim had this year? He's lost velocity, and he got knocked around in AAA. It's not a good idea to stake any hopes on him.
   30. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:35 AM (#1014784)
"Kim is an enormously talented pitcher and if he were 6'4" and white I doubt he ever would have been traded "

Buddy, I AM Asian. You're preaching to the choir.
   31. Robert S. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:44 AM (#1014786)
Renteria UZRs:

2000 - +8
2001 - -1
2002 - +6
2003 - +9
2004 - +12
   32. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:47 AM (#1014787)
I really don't think the sox make that deal.

You could be right, looks like Hudson is off to the Dodgers, from rotoworld;

It's expected to be announced Sunday that the Dodgers will acquire Tim Hudson from Oakland in exchange for Edwin Jackson and Antonio Perez.


Edwin Jackson? He was pretty wretched this year in AAA. He went down with back and forearm problems this season. Scouting reports say his delivery isn't max effort, but how many 21 year-olds get back injuries from a non max-effort delivery?

Anyway, depending on the forearm injury the DL time may not be a warning sign. Sometimes forearm stiffness problems can be indicative of elbow problems, though. (Bobby Howry in 2003 was first diagnosed with forearm stiffness and spasms, and eventually he had elbow surgery, though I don't think it was actually TJ)... Jackson could be their new closer/relief ace this year, though, as apparently his biggest problem is endurance.

BA says this about him:
Jackson's pure stuff is still unquestioned. When he was 100 percent, he pitched at 93-97 mph with his fastball and showed a nasty slider. He developed so rapidly a year ago that he's still learning how to pitch. He gets into trouble when his fastball and slider flatten out and he leaves them up in the zone.

I really like Antonio Perez. He's been kicking around for a while, but a .296/.379/.511, even in the PCL, is pretty good for a 24 year-old 2Bman. He could probably start in Oakland this year and they wouldn't be worse off for it.

One note, though -- for some reason BA includes the "feel" that pitchers have for pitching, meaning pitch selection and location, from what I can tell. some teams draft for "pitchability" which I take to mean not what a pitcher has, but what he can do with it. Why would this matter at the major league level? It's one thing to have a good idea for how to use your stuff to fool A-ball hitters or college players, but why would it matter at the big league level where you have a staff dedicated to studying video to determine the optimal pitch selection for each hitter a pitcher would face? Basically, why on earth would you let a pitcher choose which pitch to throw when, when you can pick someone else solely for his ability to do this and have him work with all of the pitchers to develop plans?

(This is why I don't think catcher's ERA will ever be a meaningful stat -- pitchers probably don't change their preparation routine or their plan for a given lineup based on who is catching. If the starting catcher normally had input then he'd have input for the planning session. If not, then not.)...
   33. yb125 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:49 AM (#1014789)
"Roberts could play CF. Bpro has him as at least average there."

He he can but unless they see him as The Leadoff Guy I doubt they keep him there. KT and Boch sometimes seem to get lost in the idea of the "ideal" player at a postion of need, and CF looks to be one right now.

As long as Kim is better then the post Valdez 5th starters them he'll be worth Payton or Vazquez.
   34. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:53 AM (#1014791)
Renteria UZRs:

2000 - +8
2001 - -1
2002 - +6
2003 - +9
2004 - +12

Those numbers are pretty good. I just don't think they justify the big $$$
   35. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: December 12, 2004 at 10:55 AM (#1014792)
If Kim were 6'4" and white maybe he wouldn;t have blow so many crucial saves.
   36. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 11:12 AM (#1014793)
Um, are you aware of the problems Kim had this year? He's lost velocity, and he got knocked around in AAA. It's not a good idea to stake any hopes on him.

Such things are common with the injury he sustained this year. Sox brass has been pretty quiet about it, but it sounds like a shoulder problem stemming from a problem in his offseason workout routine. He had to shut everything down and start over, and he spent most of the season trying to build up arm strength in AAA. He wasn't "injured" anymore, but he was weak. He was approaching his prior velocity by the end of the season, FWIW. Before you go and firesale him, though, see if you can find someone who averaged 7 WARP3 over their age 22-24 seasons, missed a year due to injury, and didn't still end up a very effective pitcher after that. I don't think you'll find one, at least not one who had his age 24 season in the last 20 years. Welcome to the age of modern medicine.

Buddy, I AM Asian. You're preaching to the choir.

Didn't mean to imply that you were being racist. There were two "hot topics" in Boston after the 2003 ALCS, though -- 1) fire grady and 2) trade Kim. At the same time that people were ecstatic over the possibility of signing Foulke (7.1 WARP3 avg over the previous 3 years) they couldn't wait to run Kim out the door, and were furious when the sox didn't nontender him. I'm convinced that the boston fan base as a whole, perhaps subliminally, had a racial bias against Kim. Otherwise, I don't see how they could have wanted him out of town.

Of course, part of the problem could be the sports media (presumably being racist) in choosing how to spin stories. For some reason, though, Kim got a lot of flak that shouldn't have gone his way over his performances and game outcomes. IIRC, he got blamed for a game the sox lost to the yankees when he induced a double-play ball in the bottom of the 9th with 1 out in a tie game in yankee stadium and Todd Walker failed to make an out because, somehow, he stepped on his glove when trying to make the play. After seeing that, and having the talking heads blame Kim for "blowing a game" that was so egregiously blown by someone else that I can't see any reason other than racism for it.

Here's the game.
   37. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 11:19 AM (#1014795)
Maybe he was injured, maybe he wasn't. He's definitely nowhere near a sure thing to bounce back at this point.
   38. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 11:24 AM (#1014797)
If Kim were 6'4" and white maybe he wouldn;t have blow so many crucial saves.

Yeah. Kim dragged a team with a 4.83 bullpen ERA kicking and screaming into the playoffs, what a non-clutch player... or something.

If you think Kim has a problem with big situations you're an idiot. He threw something around 60 pitches in game 4 and then Brenley brought him back in game 5 the next night. Those blown saves weren't a "Kim problem" they were a "Brenley problem," unless you think Joe Nathan and Jason Insringhausen are now unable to get saves in crucial situations, of course.
   39. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 11:38 AM (#1014804)
Maybe he was injured, maybe he wasn't. He's definitely nowhere near a sure thing to bounce back at this point.

He definitely was injured -- he was placed on the DL. He was ineffective when he returned due to weakness, then optioned down to regain armstrength. If he is fully healthy, he's probably a better bet next year than any 26 year-old not named Johan Santana.

Rather, he's as good a bet next year as Pedro and Nomar were in 2002. He's coming off a season lost to injury. If he'd been ineffective without an underlying injury there'd be a much greater cause for concern. If he returns healthy, he's probably at least a 6 WARP3 reliever, and possibly an 8 WARP3 reliever (he was his last full season in relief, in 2002).

FWIW, also, in 2003 he was 20 Runs above replacement in 7 starts for ARI, which in 35 starts would translate to 100 PRAR, about 10 WARP3. Santana was 110 PRAR this year. RJ was 117. A healthy Kim is going to be a very pleasant surprise for whoever ends up with him this year. I hope the sox keep him, but I'm not sure that's possible given the general animosity of the Boston fanbase towards the guy.
   40. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 11:58 AM (#1014819)
"they couldn't wait to run Kim out the door, and were furious when the sox didn't nontender him. I'm convinced that the boston fan base as a whole, perhaps subliminally, had a racial bias against Kim. Otherwise, I don't see how they could have wanted him out of town. "

I thought he was great in 2003, but it didn't help that he was an a-hole.

You think Boston fans would run a guy with a "good image" like Ichiro out of town? I don't think so.

I'm still waiting for the "charismatic Asian star" to come along. You know, the Asian David Ortiz. Ichiro is too "disciplined" and can seem distant (but he does have a good overall image), Big Matsui is too blue collar to be charming, and Kazuo isn't good enough to be liked.
   41. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 12:54 PM (#1014838)
I thought he was great in 2003, but it didn't help that he was an a-hole.

You think Boston fans would run a guy with a "good image" like Ichiro out of town? I don't think so.


I thought the media blamed him for game events that were not his doing. The public accepted the media's story and booed him when he was introduced at his first home playoff game after he had gotten the team into the playoffs. His reaction wasn't ideal, but Joe Fan wanted Kim out of town before he flipped off the crowd. The "bird-flipping" gave the talking heads an excuse to push that agenda, though they were complaining about Kim as he was resurrecting the bullpen as well. That was the worst treatment I'd ever seen a key player on a championship caliber team receive and as best as I could tell there was no motivation behind it other than racism.
   42. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 02:56 PM (#1014871)
I'm still waiting for one of you to complain about the Red Sox buying players, you hypocrites.
   43. Mikαεl Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:23 PM (#1014883)
Larry,

I know you're funnin', but it's actually an interesting situation.

The Red Sox' moves thus far suggest they're going to not only maintain last year's team record payroll - which was generally reported as a one-year spike - but they'll be going over the luxury tax again, somewhere in the $140M range.

And that changes how you evaluate moves like the Renteria signing. If Theo's got something like $40-50M to spend, and only a few roster spots to fill, it makes sense to overpay a bit for very good players like Pedro, Renteria and Varitek. I'm not sure what level of overpaying becomes acceptable given that arithmetic - I'm doubtful about Varitek's contract demands being justifiable, and I'm not so sure about Renteria either.
   44. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:24 PM (#1014884)
"I'm still waiting for one of you to complain about the Red Sox buying players, you hypocrites. "

We've done nothing BUT complain about how Renteria isn't worth the money and we'd rather see us develop a home-grown talent like Hanley.
   45. Mikαεl Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:32 PM (#1014886)
SAMS -

I don't think this signing - if/when it happens - is such a problem for Hanley. Ramirez is a year away, so it's not a 2005 issue.

So long as the Renteria contract is a good one, and Hanley looks to be ready some time in 2006, that'll simply give the Red Sox two valuable shortstops, who can share time, play some at other positions, or be traded. More good players than you need is a good thing, not a bad one.
   46. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:34 PM (#1014889)
I'm still waiting for one of you to complain about the Red Sox buying players, you hypocrites.

I'll have you know that I don't complain about the Yankees buying players. If they have the resources to do so, then they should use them.

But using them on Jaret Wright and Tony Womack...still funny stuff.
   47. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:34 PM (#1014890)
Renteria's not 29, either. It leaked about a year before Betemit that Renteria had also lied about his age and that he was actually born in 1976, not 1975.

Wait, don't they usually lie to make themselves younger?
   48. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:36 PM (#1014892)
I'll have you know that I don't complain about the Yankees buying players. If they have the resources to do so, then they should use them.

Then you're not a hypocrite, are you? And therefore I wasn't addressing you.
   49. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:37 PM (#1014894)
Then you're not a hypocrite, are you? And therefore I wasn't addressing you.

Thought you were just making a blanket statement about Red Sox fans.
   50. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:38 PM (#1014896)
Renteria signed as an amateur free agent on February 14, 1992. He was only 15 then (born 08/17/76). Major league rules require that players be at least 16 to sign professional contracts.

A similar thing happened with Adrian Beltre, IIRC.
   51. Mikαεl Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:38 PM (#1014897)
Wait, don't they usually lie to make themselves younger?

Not if they're 15, ridiculously good, and don't want to have to wait another year to get that signing bonus.

That's a nice bit of news on Renteria. One year younger makes 4/40 that little bit more sensible.
   52. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:39 PM (#1014898)

Wait, don't they usually lie to make themselves younger?


Usually, but I would guess Renteria wanted to sign a conract so he bluffed his age so that he could sign it a year early
   53. Mikαεl Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:41 PM (#1014899)
We're here for ya, GJ.

Any other questions you need answered in triplicate?
   54. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:41 PM (#1014901)
So wait, why did Renteria want to lie about his age?
   55. JMM Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:45 PM (#1014907)
I'm still waiting for the "charismatic Asian star" to come along. You know, the Asian David Ortiz. Ichiro is too "disciplined" and can seem distant (but he does have a good overall image), Big Matsui is too blue collar to be charming, and Kazuo isn't good enough to be liked.

Johnny Damon? Too bi-racial (note that I'm accusing you of anything)? Too Jesus?
   56. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:46 PM (#1014909)
Thought you were just making a blanket statement about Red Sox fans.

Actually, I wasn't even adressing Red Sox fans. Rather, we're seeing the Red Sox doing exactly what the Yankees did in the late 90's and early 00's, but we're not seeing the same outrage from fans as we did then.
   57. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:48 PM (#1014912)
Any other questions you need answered in triplicate?

I would ask why I'm so pathetic, but we got that taken care of in the Lounge, so I think I'm set.
   58. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:50 PM (#1014916)
That's perhaps because one could make the argument that the Red Sox are doing what they're doing only to keep up with New York. But I never protested much when the Yankees spent hundreds of millions of dollars; just when they spent the money poorly.
   59. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:51 PM (#1014917)
"Johnny Damon? Too bi-racial (note that I'm accusing you of anything)? Too Jesus? "

Wait... I just thought of something.

Johnny Damon officially owns Theo Epstein, because he is THE KING OF THE JEWS!

SO in otherwords, too Jewish to be an Asian superstar.
   60. Mister High Standards Posted: December 12, 2004 at 04:31 PM (#1014963)
this money could definitely be used more efficiently elsewhere.

I'm starting to think this isn't true... money is a black hole this offseason. There is nothing efficient.
   61. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#1014967)
That's perhaps because one could make the argument that the Red Sox are doing what they're doing only to keep up with New York.

Yes, if they're an idiot.
   62. RP Posted: December 12, 2004 at 04:48 PM (#1014977)
Jeez Larry...a little on edge, are we?
   63. Cabbage Posted: December 12, 2004 at 06:15 PM (#1015048)
Basically, why on earth would you let a pitcher choose which pitch to throw when, when you can pick someone else solely for his ability to do this and have him work with all of the pitchers to develop plans?

Wasn't "feel" what everyone called it when Maddux took an 88MPH fastball and a nice changeup and turned it into 4 Cy Youngs? Isn't this why Greinke has such potential? I'm going to give some weight to what the BA guys are saying.
   64. Baldrick Posted: December 12, 2004 at 06:35 PM (#1015075)
But why male models?
   65. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: December 12, 2004 at 06:38 PM (#1015081)
Wait, don't they usually lie to make themselves younger?

It's a time honored tradition, dating back to the 19th century to say your older to get something you want, be it cheap beer or a baseball contract.

My soon to be biographical subject, Tacks Latimer did the same thing.

BTW, I thought the Sox were looking at an inexpensive stopgap to fill the 6 hole until Hanley Ramirez was available.
   66. Evil Tom Posted: December 12, 2004 at 06:52 PM (#1015094)
And that changes how you evaluate moves like the Renteria signing. If Theo's got something like $40-50M to spend, and only a few roster spots to fill, it makes sense to overpay a bit for very good players like Pedro, Renteria and Varitek. I'm not sure what level of overpaying becomes acceptable given that arithmetic - I'm doubtful about Varitek's contract demands being justifiable, and I'm not so sure about Renteria either.


The length of the contracts is as important as the average salary. You don't want to get stuck with 8 year deals @$15 mil+ a year where a star player regresses to just being average after 2 years.

Maybe this deal along with the ones for Pedro, Tek and Wells is overpaying for old or at least aging players but why not play for this year instead of building for the future? The Red Sox are certainly in the Win Now portion of the success cycle. There's a better chance of repeating with ER @ SS instead of going with Pokey or Larkin or any of the other 1-2 year guys people have talked about. Maybe these deals mean the team will stink in 2008 but I'd rather take that risk than come up short this year because we want to have room for a prospect in 2006.
   67. greenback Posted: December 12, 2004 at 07:03 PM (#1015108)
Renteria had also lied about his age and that he was actually born in 1976, not 1975.

That's been "the word" for three or four years now. It's strange that Renteria hasn't come out and made it official.
   68. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: December 12, 2004 at 07:13 PM (#1015124)
Definitely. Renteria can't hold Bellhorns' jockstrap. No way a bum like Renteria comes anywhere close to matching Bellhorn. The numbers say it all.

So you're comfortable with a projection that has Renteria hitting .350 on balls in play?

Wasn't "feel" what everyone called it when Maddux took an 88MPH fastball and a nice changeup and turned it into 4 Cy Youngs? Isn't this why Greinke has such potential? I'm going to give some weight to what the BA guys are saying.

I thought Maddux had great control, a great changeup, and Mazzone ... Anyway, my point is that teams can and should pay someone to do nothing but game hitters. Rather, if you were the managing partner of a law firm, would you let the first year associates decide your case strategy? A front office should be a concentrator of baseball knowledge, and should have dozens of members more knowledgeable than anyone on the field. If pitchers do choose when to throw which pitches, btw, and they don't game every hitter with an expert and a box full of tape on each hitter, then that's a huge inefficiency to be exploited.
   69. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 07:47 PM (#1015143)
I'm certainly more than comfortable with a projection that predicts Renteria puts up an .850 OPS.

Why? He's only topped .850 once (2003). And he's cleared .770 only one other time (.803 in 2002). I'm not sure that expecting that big a boast from Fenway is reasonable.
   70. Rough Carrigan Posted: December 12, 2004 at 07:56 PM (#1015154)
I think that one of the problems that Kim had was that the one line descriptions of him by the jackasses at ESPN and on the local boston stations all seemed to include some claim that he can't get the yankees out. It was infuriating. The fact that Brenly hung him out to dry was never mentioned. The fact that he went back to Stade Fasciste in 2002 with the snakes and saved a game there never got mentioned. The casual fans got spoonfed a false description of the guy and he never spoke to the press so that he could dispel it. I also blame Grady Gump. He could have done something to defuse the situation but was such a pathetically overmatched fool that it was lucky he didn't crap his pants in the dugout. Asking him to think was like asking a 3 year old to do differential equations homework for you.
   71. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:07 PM (#1015164)
Larry, I don't want you to take offense by this but is everything OK? You have been acting rather irritably and misanthropically lately.

I have my moments.
   72. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:23 PM (#1015176)
No need for namecalling. The data do not support the projection that an .850 OPS is something to be "comfortable with." He's topped .770 *twice* in his career, a career that's spanned over 5000 plate appearances. An .800 OPS is reasonable, .850 is not. That's a significant difference, and if you don't believe so than why pay any attention to projections at all?
   73. Fridas Boss Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:37 PM (#1015195)
"...and be inserted into a lineup of mashers without the option of pitching around him to get to a pitcher."

Right, and the lineup he's coming from was filled with a bucnh of stiffs....
   74. Ooley Posted: December 12, 2004 at 08:48 PM (#1015212)
Sounds like St. Louis is returning the favor by upping the Pedro bidding.
   75. robinred Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:05 PM (#1015236)
Fridas Boss,

Valid point, but recall that Renteria often hit ahead of Matheny last year. However he was also ahead of Sanders, a decent hitter, much of the time, and I don't really agree with kevin that being in this lineup will necessarily help ER (although Fenway and the AL should) but the context is different. A lot of people got on TLR's case about leading off Womack (although the Cardinals' record shut a lot of that off by July) but Renteria has said several times he doesn't like leading off, and of course he will not have to in Boston.

I agree that it is too many years and too much money, but if you look at the Red Sox overall situation and current personnel, I think it is a good move. They can worry about Hanley Ramirez when he shows he's ready. I thought it possible that Epstein might use the title to back off and re-tool--the "grace period" theory--but instead he's pushing for more, as is DePodesta in LA.

Having added Wells, I think the Red Sox should consider letting Martinez go to StL and getting Clement or Perez. Obviously, those guys are not quite as good as Martinez, even now, but Wells/Schilling/Martinez is a little too much age/durability concern in one rotation, in spite of their collective pitching talent.

For the Cardinals, with TLR you are always playing for right now. I think they should get Valentin and Martinez and go for it all one more time.

As far as Mahnken's comment, the Red Sox and Yankees--and many of their fans--have just been two sides of the same coin in many ways for awhile. People are just saying it more now. At the moment, the Red Sox are being run more intelligently, obviously. But a lot of the rest of it is the same.
   76. Jon T. Posted: December 12, 2004 at 09:32 PM (#1015315)
From a quick glance at Renteria's baseball-reference page it looks like he has averaged right around an .800 ops the last 3 seasons, his age 25-27 seasons. This in a ballpark which reduces offense by about 3-4%. Going to a ballpark that increases offense around 5% for his age 28 season, the projection of an .850 ops looks to be accurate.
   77. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 12, 2004 at 11:23 PM (#1015589)
Although I dislike the way the Sox and Yanks can buy up talent with their huge payrolls I don't feel that I or anyone else should complain that they're doing it. To say that those two teams shouldn't use their financial resources to aid in building good teams is to me like saying that Oakland shouldn't use their great ability to draft and develop prospects to build good teams, or the Braves shouldn't have Leo Mazzone around to turn mediocre pitchers into good ones. Like the Sox/Yanks they're using the resources they have on hand, in this case it's good drafting/development or a great pitching coach instead of money.
   78. Vance Law Revue Posted: December 12, 2004 at 11:46 PM (#1015634)
If he'd been ineffective without an underlying injury there'd be a much greater cause for concern.

Right. So what exactly was his injury? And why do we think it is better? Kim was only put on the DL because he couldn't pitch anymore, and he was only activated because they would have had to release him otherwise. There was no injury, there was no cure, and he has no future.
   79. greenback Posted: December 13, 2004 at 12:24 AM (#1015692)
still, he's in his prime years so you can expect him to chalk up something close to a career high or even beat his career high.

Renteria probably won't match his 2003 season, especially if his back problems recur. Renteria's tendency to shoot the ball to RF doesn't seem to fit Fenway very well.

I think all the talk about payrolls and budgets is regurgitated nonsense, but I really didn't want the Cards to throw big money on Edgar Renteria. There are a lot better ways to invest $10 million per season.
   80. Sparkles Peterson Posted: December 13, 2004 at 12:27 AM (#1015699)
I really like Antonio Perez. He's been kicking around for a while, but a .296/.379/.511, even in the PCL, is pretty good for a 24 year-old 2Bman.

You're forgetting that there is a bigger issue than league effects in play, specifically the park effects at Las Vegas. Perez's MLE last year per Prospectus was .233, which would have put Perez in the running as the worst regular 2B in the big leagues last year.
   81. Sam M. Posted: December 13, 2004 at 01:48 AM (#1015887)
Compared to the Red Sox they are.

No. The Cardinals' pitchers are a bunch of stiffs compared to the Red Sox.

Put it this way: if you flipped the pitching staffs, the Cardinals' hitters would have looked pretty damned imposing facing Morris, Williams, et al., and the Sox hitters would have had a tougher time against Schilling, Pedro & company.

You were right in seeing the Sox would kill 'em early in Game 1, kevin. Don't forget the fundamental reason for that, though: the massive inability of the Cardinal pitchers to miss the Sox bats. Pitching was the difference.
   82. Rough Carrigan Posted: December 13, 2004 at 01:54 AM (#1015905)
ZTigerX. On top of that, there are other teams with similar resources. I don't know what Mariner revenues were in 2004, but I thought I saw an article by Forbes Magazine that said Red Sox and Mariner revenues were essentially the same in 2003.

So, what were their payrolls? In 2004, the Mariners had a $79 million payroll IIRC what I read at U.S.S. Mariner and they've announced an intended payroll of $99 million in 2005. The Sox spent around $130 million in 2004 and will spend more than that in 2005. The Mariners don't have nearly the same commitment to winning that the Sox have. I'd love to know the figures for the Cubs, Angels and Dodgers.
   83. Sam M. Posted: December 13, 2004 at 02:17 AM (#1015959)
Just trying to keep you on your toes there, kevin.
   84. Johnny Two Screens Posted: December 13, 2004 at 04:46 AM (#1016197)
I see no problem with overpaying for a SS. Yanks have won with an overpaid SS since 2000.
   85. Darren Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:02 AM (#1016218)
Well, "won" is a bit strong.
   86. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:02 AM (#1016219)
According to the SF Chronicle, the Giants are planning on letting AJ Pierzynski go, either in a trade or nontender. They don't want to pay him what he might make in arbitration.

Rather than overpay for Varitek, wouldn't it make sense for the Sox to target AJ in a trade? He's got his flaws (low walk rate) and can be a pain in the ass sometimes. But his arbitration price tag wouldn't be astronomical. Platoon him with Mirabelli, and Boston has a decent catching solution. The platoon might even rival Varitek's production in 2005 and doesn't subject them to the risks of signing a 33 year-old catcher to a 4 or 5 year deal.

Boston doesn't need an All Star catcher, just competent defense and league-average offense. Pierzynski/Mirabelli gives them that and allows them to use Varitek's money on retaining Martinez and/or bringing in Renteria.

What do the Red Sox fans out there think?
   87. Darren Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:06 AM (#1016226)
I don't think Boston will go with a strict platoon--it would have made all kinds of sense with Mirabelli, but they stayed away from it then. I think they're convinced that Wakefield needs his own catcher.

Varitek's had two of his best three years under this system, so maybe there's something to it.
   88. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:09 AM (#1016238)
Well Pierzynski has had some success against lefties, so it wouldn't have to be a strict platoon (although Mirabelli's split against southpaws would make it awful tempting). But what do you think of the idea of dealing for AJ and passing on Varitek?
   89. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:16 AM (#1016250)
I've said all along the Sox should ignore Varitek.
   90. Johnny Two Screens Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:32 AM (#1016286)
Well, "won" is a bit strong.

I don't think so. They ahve been the most succesful franchise over that time period.
   91. Johnny Two Screens Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:34 AM (#1016294)
In fact, it is pretty hard to argue any other side.
   92. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:38 AM (#1016305)
Well, it could depend on how you define success.
   93. Johnny Two Screens Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:44 AM (#1016316)
Exactly, how do you?

If success is WS, then the following teams have won WS since Jeter signed his deal

NYY
AZ
ANA
FLA
BOS

Now, I believe Diamondbacks are the only one of those teams to even win their division. The Yankees have won their division every one of those years.

The only other team that can make that claim is Atlanta, they won 0 pennants since the Jeter deal. The Yankees won 3 in that time frame. Their is a 7 way tie for 2nd place, with 1.

I believe the Yankees also have the best regular season winning percentage.

Now, I am sure someone else wins the Beane count or some such nonsense.
   94. Johnny Two Screens Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:46 AM (#1016321)
I am basing my info on the fact that Jeter was not overpaid in 1999, and has been overpaid since.
   95. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:54 AM (#1016340)
Most people would probably consider me anti-Yankee, but to say that New York's been unsuccessful in 2000-4 is an exagerration, to say the least.
   96. Sparkles Peterson Posted: December 13, 2004 at 06:16 AM (#1016392)
Most people would probably consider me anti-Yankee, but to say that New York's been unsuccessful in 2000-4 is an exagerration, to say the least.

Someone tell that to Steinbrenner before he ups the payroll over $200 million.
   97. Johnny Two Screens Posted: December 13, 2004 at 06:29 AM (#1016412)
I think the 00-04 run will be a hell of a lot more successful that the 05-09 run.
   98. Sparkles Peterson Posted: December 13, 2004 at 07:33 AM (#1016573)
Hijack!

Ding dong, Matheny's gone!

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/6D216C15D5DE05BD86256F69001E0194?OpenDocument&Headline=Cardinals+still+in+running+for+Renteria

Thank god there are GMs who overvalue Matheny's defense even more than Jocketty.
   99. Sparkles Peterson Posted: December 13, 2004 at 07:35 AM (#1016585)
Sorry, here is the link. Forgot the Post-Dispatch hired an 8 year old to program their website on his dad's old Texas Instruments calculator.
   100. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: December 13, 2004 at 11:06 PM (#1017969)
Seems to me pursuing Pierzynski would be worth it to the Sox, even if it's just to convince Tek to be a little reasonable. And if he won't be, AJ is a lot better than other options floating around.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets.

For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out!

Baseball Autograph Signings
Baseball Card Supplies
Baseball Memorabilia
Baseball Collectibles
Baseball Equipment
Baseball Protective Gear

Page rendered in 0.6224 seconds
64 querie(s) executed