Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Toby Posted: October 28, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#2227334)
Posted as Theo October 28, 2006

I think we should re-sign Timlin for one year for $2.8M plus incentives. Are you with me?
   2. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: October 28, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#2227338)
Here is a link to Jim Albright's NPB pitcher projection model.

It appears to be a few years old and I don't know if the projections have been posted elsewhere.
   3. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:24 PM (#2227351)
Using Albright's conversion #s, I get Kuroda as translating to:

04: 147 IP, 201 H, 21 HR, 31 BB, 122 K
05: 212 IP, 197 H, 21 HR, 45 BB, 146 K
06: 190 IP, ??? H, 14 HR, 23 BB, 127 K

Igawa:

04: 200 IP, 204 H, 18 HR, 62 BB, 158 K
05: 172 IP, 214 H, 28 HR, 64 BB, 128 K
06: 200 IP, 187 H, 21 HR, 49 BB, 163 K

Matz:

04: 146 IP, 135 H, 09 HR, 45 BB, 112 K
05: 215 IP, 185 H, 16 HR, 53 BB, 200 K
06: 186 IP, 148 H, 16 HR, 36 BB, 177 K

Kuroda will be 32 while Kuroda and Matsuzaka will be 27 in 07. Kuroda and Igawa had a lousy year each in the last three. Kuroda led the league with a 1.86 ERA in 06, but he's at the age where Japanese pitchers (IIRC) start to disintegrate.
   4. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:26 PM (#2227352)
There's a thread on baseball-fever where jim albright translates Matsuzaka's numbers himself. Looks like a legit #1ish starter. Too bad I saw that after making my stupid chart.
   5. Toby Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2227356)
I would really rather the Sox stick to their guns about not giving out long-term deals to starting pitchers. I don't want them giving anyone a five-year deal, or even a four-year deal. If that keeps them from getting a Zito, so be it.

As a separate matter, one that applies to all players rather than just pitchers: At this point of this self-styled "$100M player development machine" regime, we are entitled to expect that, come 2009 or 2010, we will have reached the point where we can fill all, or virtually all, of our player needs from within. If we can't, our "$100M player development machine" will have failed, and we will need to try something else.

So I say we not panic. I'm fine with this rotation:

Schilling
Beckett
Wakefield
Papelbon
kids? Clement? (please please please, for many reasons) Lester? Tavarez?

If we realize in spring training we need another starter, we get another starter. If we realize in June we need another starter, we get another starter. That said, I would not at all mind bringing in a Duquette special reclamation project on the cheap.

As far as the bullpen, here we do need some help, but the market is really thin. I wish we had signed BJ Ryan last year, but then I have wished that all along.

Bottom line: I'm afraid of this front office when it comes to pitching, so I want to wait and wait and wait as much as I can, hoping that young pitchers or reclamation projects emerge before we make nay more foolish long-term commitments.
   6. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#2227360)
Clement?

The last news I heard was he was most likely out for '07, 12-18 months. Even if he is out for six months, he doesn't start pitching until April.
   7. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:38 PM (#2227362)
As a separate matter, one that applies to all players rather than just pitchers: At this point of this self-styled "$100M player development machine" regime, we are entitled to expect that, come 2009 or 2010, we will have reached the point where we can fill all, or virtually all, of our player needs from within. If we can't, our "$100M player development machine" will have failed, and we will need to try something else.

So I say we not panic. I'm fine with this rotation:


If we're expecting to be able to fill nearly all our holes from within by 08 and 09, then now is the time to spend big time. The Sox have the money and, under this assumption, they will not need to spend much in the coming years. Use it to make the team great now. Trade for a good pitcher and in return take on a terrible contract. Blow the bank on Matz.


Bottom line: I'm afraid of this front office when it comes to pitching, so I want to wait and wait and wait as much as I can, hoping that young pitchers or reclamation projects emerge before we make nay more foolish long-term commitments.


Well, whether you like em or not, these are the guys who are going to be picking the pitchers we sign. Reclamation projects seem like what's gone worst for them in pitching. The only big money pitchers they've gotten are Schilling and Foulke, both of which I thought were great choices.
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#2227366)
Clement's done for the year. Lester is almost certainly done for hte year - at the very least, any comeback from them needs to be considered a bonus, not a part of the depth. Taverez is actually a mildly interesting option. Not crazy.

In the rotation, I could two 40-year-olds , a kid coming off a shoulder injury whose career high in innings is ~140, and a guy who topped 200 IP for the first time, but was really rather bad. I think that running that rotaiton out there in 2007 is basically conceding the division, probably the playoffs. They need another starter, badly.

I think Clemens may be the best chance for good pitcher who doesn't cost 19 gabillion dollars. We won't be in on Matsuzaka, and Zito will cost the aforesaid gabillions. It'll be interesting to see how it develops. I don't have any brilliant ideas. Given that, I'd rahter see them put gabillons of dollars into the best pitching they can buy. If the Sox have actual brilliant ideas, bully for them, but I'll approach it with skepticism if they don't get one of the top pitchers.
   9. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:46 PM (#2227367)
He posted while I was writing. I agree iwth everything Darren said. (Which is nice, we've been disagreeing like crazy for months now, it seems. Good stuff.)
   10. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 28, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2227372)
At this point of this self-styled "$100M player development machine" regime, we are entitled to expect that, come 2009 or 2010, we will have reached the point where we can fill all, or virtually all, of our player needs from within.
Outside of Branch Rickey and whoever was running hte Yankees in the 50s, I don't think any front office has been in a position to expect such a return from their farm - certainly not since the institution of the draft. I think it would take serious fanboy glasses to characterize the Sox draft/development system as anything more than solidly above average, and that's not going to get us a pipeline of crazy talent - just some good players every couple years. That'd be great, but it'd hardly obviate the need to spend money.
   11. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 08:15 PM (#2227382)
Agreeing with me AND saying the Sox should get Clemens? You are pretty so hard...

Not to disagree too much but I think Clemens will cost the aforementioned 19 gabillion dollars. His salary was $22 mil last year and he was awesome. Plus I think he really liked the half season off. If he comes back, I'd think it'd be in that capacity. Love to be wrong, though.
   12. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 08:27 PM (#2227384)
I'm very comfortable with Wakefield, BTW. He's in his prime as a knuckleballer, and he's generally been very healthy and consistent. I see last year as a blip.

Hey, why did the Sox turn down Suppan's option again? They could have at least traded him! I guess hindsight's a funny thing, but they sure did seem to overreact to a bad couple months.
   13. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#2227387)
How do people feel about Garcia? Seems like a real horse who for some reason has fallen out of favor. Under Philly's theory that durability is often underated, he might make a nice pickup. Especially considering our otherwise fragile rotation. Of course, I thought Clement was pretty durable...
   14. Kyle S Posted: October 28, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#2227399)
Hey Darren, thanks for the link. I'm going to be blogging about some other guys who might come over next week, as well as doing some projections for everyone I feature. A simple 3/2/1 projection of Matsuzaka using albright's translated IP projections has him at a 2.70 CERA - he looks legit!
   15. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 28, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#2227400)
Wakefield had back problems. Hard for me to be confident in >150 IP given that and his age.

Garcia's interesting, I agree. In fact, geez, take a look at these numbers - it's a Neyerriffic anonymous pitcher comparison!
IP     ERA+       IP     ERA+        
239    138        214    125
224     96        229    169
201     98        231    129
210    121        213    105
228    115        228    116
216    103        221    116 
The pitcher on the right is younger, and was better a while ago, but they really haven't been much different for a few years. That's Garcia and Zito, of course. And I really doubt that Garcia will require those gabillions.

The thing with Clemens and money is that, yes, certainly he'll be expensive, but there's no way he's signing a >1 year contract. Even at his price, he's not going to require a total commitment in the same range as the Zitos.
   16. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2227410)
No gabillions for Garcia, just talent. He's signed for 1 yr/$10 mil and the rumor is that the White Sox want to deal him or Buehrle to make room for McCarthy (dumb plan IMHO). If they're just looking to dump him, I'd get on that. And the Zito comp came up in my mind as well. Zito's sure got the edge, but not by $70 mil.

I also hope the Tigers' management feels the same way about Bonderman as the fans. He gets better and strong every year and he's still only 24. There's not much I wouldn't trade for him.

On the relievers, is there any chance that the Astros nontender Lidge? I can't believe it, but he had a tough year, is getting expensive, and they have capable replacements in place. They'll probably trade him, but what would they want back?
   17. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2227411)
FIP for the past 3 years:

Garcia   Zito
~3.75    4.57
4.05     4.37
4.66     4.94 


Obviously not the end-all be-all, but something to consider for guys who you're going to move from one park to another.
   18. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2227412)
And by park, I mean defense. Duh.
   19. 1k5v3L Posted: October 28, 2006 at 10:02 PM (#2227413)
On the relievers, is there any chance that the Astros nontender Lidge? I can't believe it, but he had a tough year, is getting expensive, and they have capable replacements in place. They'll probably trade him, but what would they want back?


Adam Stern.

The bigger question is, who can the Red Sox trade without hurting their 2006 chances too badly?

The reality is, the Red Sox don't have that much talent to spare in trades...
   20. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: October 28, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#2227417)
The bigger question is, who can the Red Sox trade without hurting their 2006 chances too badly?

Everyone.
   21. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 10:16 PM (#2227420)
The real question is, what does Levski contribute here?
   22. Darren Posted: October 28, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#2227421)
Hey, has anyone seen these great Diamondbacks blogs:

http://www.azsnakepit.com/
http://www.randomfandom.blogspot.com/

Really great place for Diamondback fans to hang out and talk about their team. Just thought it might be interesting to some here.
   23. 1k5v3L Posted: October 28, 2006 at 10:55 PM (#2227428)
That's a good one, Bivens. Maybe the qualifier should be, "Which player on the Red Sox is badly desired by the Astros AND can be traded, without hurting the Red Sox chances in 06?"

The real question is, what does Levski contribute here?


Reality.

***

Fwiw, I know the guys who run those blogs. Cool guys.
   24. Toby Posted: October 29, 2006 at 12:21 AM (#2227441)
Let me explain my comment about filling player needs from within.

MLB has 30 teams, and employs 30 teams' worth of players, virtually all of whom were developed by a team. Ergo, if there were no free agency, a team that is "average" at developing talent over time should be able to play .500 ball every year, satisfying all of its needs from within. Satisfying all your needs from within is not hard; it's merely average. (Granted, you will occasionally have to make trades to even out imbalances, like having three great designated hitters but no shortstops.)

Now, we do have free agency, so we keep players in-house for only 7 years, then lose them to the open market. But we have a payroll advantage over almost every team, and a significant payroll advantage over many teams. On balance, we should be able to keep the players we develop that are any good, even during their free agency years. And by doing that, we should be solidly above .500 every year, on average.

And all of that is assuming we are merely an "average" operation at developing talent. The regime we have claims it will be a player development machine. By 2009, this regime will have been around for what, 7 years? That's a full rookie-to-free-agent cycle, and that should also be enough time to have filled the pipeline in an above-average fashion. At that point, the minors should be spitting out quality players at a high rate. If that's not happening, we sharpen the pitchforks.

Anyway, that's my thinking.

Also, I think we should tank 2007 and work towards 2008. I mean, we did finish in third place, and we did get outscored. We're really not that good.
   25. OlePerfesser Posted: October 29, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2227550)
Lefthanders. Lefties, lefties, lefties.

Southpaws! We need southpaws!

This team cannot call itself a contender in '07 until and unless it brings a quality lefthanded starter and one or two quality lefthanded relievers on board. In this division, and especially against the MFY, a portsider-free rotation and 'pen is UN-AC-CEPTABLE. Do I make myself redundantly clear?

Which brings us to Zito. I admit I've had an irrational obsession with him since I watched him beat us from a front row seat at Fenway in '02. Guy's an artist. Crafty? He didn't invent crafty, but he's advanced the art.

Will he be expensive? Gabillions might be an underestimate. But I'm OK with that. John Henry's got it to burn. I want Zito to be our #1 FA target this off-season.
   26. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 29, 2006 at 03:32 PM (#2227557)
Barring those guys, Kuroda and Igawa look like interesting imports as well (Kyle S has a nice blog entry about each). Other than that, I would certainly be interested in obtaining Freddy Garcia or Buehrle, if they are, as rumored, available on the cheap. Both are workhorses who are consistenly good.

BIG HOOYAH for Igawa-san
   27. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 29, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#2227559)
Btw, big HOOYAH for Buehrle too
   28. Kanst Posted: October 29, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2227571)
Toby that does make some sense, if you look at most teams they have all put out an above average player at almost every position. Without free agency this would be the Yankees starting lineup:
C-Posada
1B-Nick Johnson
2B-Cano
SS-Jeter
3B-Mike Lowell
LF-Soriano
CF-Melky Cabrera
RF-Juan Rivera
DH-Marcus Thames

That is a decent lineup and the Yankees haven't been particularly good at developing talent. Any team could do it but it takes so much patience from the fanbase that it is unlikely. Rookies have growing pains and a team of young guys will have some bumps along the way. A team has to be patient to be able to implement a team of all homegrown players. To do it you really have to completely avoid free agency or else you lose the draft picks and you have to give your talent time to develop instead of trading it.

I have a hard time buying into the Red Sox player development ideas. If they were so interested in developing form withing they wouldnt have traded Anibal Sanches and Hanley Ramirez away.
   29. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 29, 2006 at 06:28 PM (#2227629)
As you can see from Kanst's list, though, some positions get filled well and some don't. Melky Cabrera can't field CF, that would be horrid. He didn't list pitching because, well, that wouldn't be pretty. There's not an even distribution of talent across positions. There's also not an even distribution of talent across years - a year ago, Lowell wasn't a solution, three years ago no Nick Johnson, and so on. You can make a good team after-the-fact, but not necessarily before-the-fact. Every major league team has multiple problems which they need to solve from outside. This is a structural fact based on the draft system and the distribution of talent even in a good system.

Further, I think that "filling holes" should be a good secondary goal of a farm system, at most. A player development system should be in the job of exploiting what philly calls the real market inefficiency: cheap superstars. It doesn't matter what position they play or hole they fill - they make your team a contender if you've got reasonable resources and competent management. The Sox should not be expecting the farm to fill holes around an existing core, they should be hoping that the farm produces the core, around which they'll fill holes, both from within and without.
   30. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 29, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#2227630)
The regime we have claims it will be a player development machine.
I don't see any particular reason to believe them. I think the Sox have the resources to be a solid development team, but they're not revolutionaries, they're not rebuilding the old models and creating something new and awesome. Cheap b-school rhetoric aside, the Sox are just doing what everyone else does - drafting and development. As long as they have tens of millions of dollars ot do it with, they'll be ok, but the "machine" talk, IMO, should be put to bed.
   31. Sam M. Posted: October 29, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2227633)
OK, guys. Since this is the current fodder on the Mets' thread, I thought you might want to chew on it, too. This is from gothambaseball (so take it with a BIG grain of salt, but hey -- that's true of all hot stove stuff, right???):

Source out of Boston had this to say...

"Mets are very mum on their plans, but Boston isn't that dramatic...they are saying (in organiational meetings") that they believe Aaron Heilman is available and (the Red Sox) want him to be their closer next year."


Which raises three questions:

1) Do you believe the Sox really want Heilman?
2) Would you want Heilman as your closer (or at all)?
3) What would you give up to get him?
   32. 1k5v3L Posted: October 29, 2006 at 06:59 PM (#2227636)
1. Sure, why not
2. In a bizarro world, sure, why not
3. Keith Foulke
   33. Sam M. Posted: October 29, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#2227639)
You don't count, Levski.
   34. The Artist Posted: October 29, 2006 at 07:15 PM (#2227641)
It bugs me as a Giants fan, but Schmidt might make sense for the Sox - although he's likely going to go home to Seattle, he would probably command 4 years rather than 5 - which may be worth something. He's also a power guy, so I'd say his odds of success in the AL East are better than most.
   35. Sam M. Posted: October 29, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2227653)
Something like Gabbard and cash.

Guess that's not going to happen, then.

Gabbard? He of the 1-7, 5.23 ERA at Pawtucket? The 48/26 K/W ratio in 51.2 IP? The Mets have plenty of options for the New Orleans rotation already. Heilman's not anything special, but they might as well keep him if that would be the return.
   36. RobertMachemer Posted: October 29, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2227690)
This team cannot call itself a contender in '07 until and unless it brings a quality lefthanded starter and one or two quality lefthanded relievers on board. In this division, and especially against the MFY, a portsider-free rotation and 'pen is UN-AC-CEPTABLE.
Um, why exactly?

The 2004 Red Sox team had exactly ONE start by a lefty all season (Abe Alvarez). It had two mediocre lefty relievers, one with insignificant splits (Embree, 4.13 ERA) and one with good splits (Mike Myers, 4.20 ERA).

The 2003 team gave innings to sub-mediocre starter Casey Fossum (5.47 ERA), mediocre reliever Alan Embree (4.25 ERA), and sub-mediocre reliever Scott Sauerbeck (6.48 ERA).

The 2002 team, nearly as good by record and better by Pythagoras, gave starts to Fossum (who pitched well) and Oliver (who pitched so-so), and featured a dominant Embree in the pen.

Anyway, the idea that there's only one way to win games in the East seems needlessly dogmatic to me. There are lots of ways to win games, most of which (I think) start with the idea of having good players, regardless of their handedness.
   37. Mister High Standards Posted: October 29, 2006 at 09:29 PM (#2227696)
I actually think the Sox are one of the Favs for Matsuzaka.
1) Great relationship with Boras
2) Desire to play the internation market in the past
3) Despire to expand fanbase globaly.
4) Need, and payroll space.

What do we have for indicators that they won't be in contention for him?
   38. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: October 29, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#2227724)
You think the Sox will spend close to $30 million just to negoatiate with him?

RE, Heilman, I don't think the Red Sox are a good match. The players the Mets would be interseted in (like some of their young pitchers, Pedroia, or Ellsbury) are far too valuable to trade for him, and the Mets would have no interest in someone like Lowell who probably has value to another team.
   39. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 29, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#2227732)
Being power guys sure helped Clement and Beckett, didn't it?

If I'm an AL team, I'm just not signing an NL pitcher, period. Not unless it's someone who's been so good in the NL that there's no mistake about it, like Clemens or maybe Carpenter. But Beckett looked almost as good as Carpenter.

I know that the NL team won the WS, but that was because the Tigers have an NL-quality offense. The way they played that series, Pawtucket or Tidewater coult have beaten them.
   40. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: October 29, 2006 at 10:49 PM (#2227735)
But Beckett looked almost as good as Carpenter.


Vaux, you're crazy if you think that. Carpenter surpassed Beckett's career high in IP as a Marlin every year he's been a Cardinal. His worst year, ERA+ wise, was about equal to Beckett's average as a Marlin, and the last two years he's easily surpassed Beckett's career high.
   41. Swedish Chef Posted: October 29, 2006 at 11:01 PM (#2227739)
What do we have for indicators that they won't be in contention for him?

They are too smart to win the posting fee auction. They know all about the Winners Curse and will be too timid against teams that can't valuate players (or those who can but don't care).
   42. Raskolnikov Posted: October 29, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#2227742)
If I'm an AL team, I'm just not signing an NL pitcher, period. Not unless it's someone who's been so good in the NL that there's no mistake about it, like Clemens or maybe Carpenter.

Okay... you're determined to cut off ~1/2 of the potential supply of pitchers. Not sure that's so wise.
   43. Darren Posted: October 29, 2006 at 11:20 PM (#2227745)
I think the Sox have coveted Heilman for a while. He was one of the names in the first round of Manny trades (back in aught 03 or so). I'd like them to get him and make him a prominent part of the pen or maybe even rotation (don't really know how his arsenal matches up there).

I wouldn't want them to give up a top prospect for him, though, so I just don't know if there's much of a match. Maybe a combination of (Ellsbury or Buccholz)+junky guy for Heilman+ good prospect? Then there's always Manny. Mets sure do need a corner OF more than ever.
   44. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: October 29, 2006 at 11:21 PM (#2227746)
Comment #44 makes a good point. A silent auction is quite different from an auction in which the price is bidded up sequentially. In a silent auction, you don't have any information about what other people's opinions are, so (if there's a large enough number of bidders) the winner is virtually guaranteed to be someone with a grossly inaccurate view of what the item is worth.
   45. DCW3 Posted: October 29, 2006 at 11:28 PM (#2227748)
That's a good one, Bivens. Maybe the qualifier should be, "Which player on the Red Sox is badly desired by the Astros AND can be traded, without hurting the Red Sox chances in 06?"

I think Joe's point was that the Red Sox could trade every player on their roster right now, get nothing in return, and it still wouldn't make a whit of difference to their chances in 2006.
   46. Sam M. Posted: October 29, 2006 at 11:34 PM (#2227749)
Then there's always Manny. Mets sure do need a corner OF more than ever.

And what, pray tell, does "Manny" have to do with acquiring a corner OFer?

There is no way the Mets could put Manny Ramirez in left field with Shawn Green in right field. Carlos Beltran would have an open and shut OSHA case, for one thing. And the pitchers would revolt and eventually go on strike.

Oh, and they couldn't win a damn thing, either, with such an OF defense. If that counts at all.
   47. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: October 29, 2006 at 11:56 PM (#2227753)
I think Joe's point was that the Red Sox could trade every player on their roster right now, get nothing in return, and it still wouldn't make a whit of difference to their chances in 2006.

Hello!
   48. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 30, 2006 at 12:12 AM (#2227755)
They are too smart to win the posting fee auction. They know all about the Winners Curse and will be too timid against teams that can't valuate players (or those who can but don't care).[/quote}I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying that no one should ever bid on things? Isn't it perfectly reasonable that in certain cases, one might correctly offer the largest bid for something? The Winners Curse is not categorically true.

I really hope the Sox win the bid on Matsuzaka. I think MHS is wrong, and the Sox aren't even in the running, but I sure as hell hope he's right. That guy is some kinda exciting. (As to why I think this, I think that if the Sox were seriously in the running for Matsuzaka, their interest would have leaked by now. But I can hope that maybe they're playing it close and not telling anyone, cause they can negotiate after Seibu posts him.)
   49. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 30, 2006 at 12:14 AM (#2227756)
D'oh. let's try that again:
They are too smart to win the posting fee auction. They know all about the Winners Curse and will be too timid against teams that can't valuate players (or those who can but don't care).
I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying that no one should ever bid on things? Isn't it perfectly reasonable that in certain cases, one might correctly offer the largest bid for something? The Winners Curse is not categorically true.

I really hope the Sox win the bid on Matsuzaka. I think MHS is wrong, and the Sox aren't even in the running, but I sure as hell hope he's right. That guy is some kinda exciting. (As to why I think this, I think that if the Sox were seriously in the running for Matsuzaka, their interest would have leaked by now. But I can hope that maybe they're playing it close and not telling anyone, cause they can negotiate after Seibu posts him.)

sorry...
   50. robinred Posted: October 30, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#2227758)
They are too smart to win the posting fee auction. They know all about the Winners Curse and will be too timid against teams that can't valuate players (or those who can but don't care).

I have no idea what you mean


I agree with MCoA here. The buzz on Matsuzaka--and not just from Scott Boras--is that he is one of the 10-15 best pitchers in the world. He will be extermely expensive, but he also could be a difference-maker on the field and a marketing bonanza.
   51. Swedish Chef Posted: October 30, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#2227759)
I'm just saying that Matsuzaka is a hot item, and that it is unlikely that a team that cares deeply about value for money will prevail in the bidding.

I guess it is possible that either
a) everone is sensible
or
b) John Henry says "do what it takes to get him"
and the Red Sox has a chance.

But judging from recent history it's not this front office kind of signing.
   52. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 30, 2006 at 12:55 AM (#2227761)
But judging from recent history it's not this front office kind of signing.
I basically agree here. I just don't think it has anything to do with being "smart", necessarily. I reacted to "smart" - I tend to think it's more likely dumb than smart to not bid competitively for Matsuzaka, and I definitely think that knowing what a "winners curse" is has very, very little to do with being smart.
   53. Darren Posted: October 30, 2006 at 02:12 AM (#2227777)
I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying that no one should ever bid on things? Isn't it perfectly reasonable that in certain cases, one might correctly offer the largest bid for something?

He's not saying that the winner of a silent auction could never be right. He's saying that chances are some will overvalue a player, some will undervalue him, some will be about right. The ones that overvalue the player will win, and he doesn't think the Red Sox will overvalue him.

It's hard for me to say what I want the Red Sox to bid, because the money will only partly affect the rest of the player acquisition budget AFAICT. I hope they bid high but not high enough to prevent them from getting a good SS and a couple good relievers.

And what, pray tell, does "Manny" have to do with acquiring a corner OFer?

There is no way the Mets could put Manny Ramirez in left field with Shawn Green in right field. Carlos Beltran would have an open and shut OSHA case, for one thing. And the pitchers would revolt and eventually go on strike.


Hey, that's your problem. I'm looking at Wily Mo Pena and Manny Ramirez in the same outfield. Ahhhhhh!!!!
   54. OlePerfesser Posted: October 30, 2006 at 02:42 AM (#2227787)
Anyway, the idea that there's only one way to win games in the East seems needlessly dogmatic to me. There are lots of ways to win games, most of which (I think) start with the idea of having good players, regardless of their handedness.

Dogmatic? Moi?

If this were like '04 and we were starting the season with Lowe, Pedro, Schilling, Wake, and Arroyo as our all-righty rotation, I'd be OK with it. But we did have Embree and Myers for situational work then, IIRC.

And in '07, we play 19 regular-season games and hopefully some post-season games against a rival with 3 lefty-hitting OFs, a lefty-hitting 1B/DH, and 2B. Some lefties are mandatory. And yeah, if they're gonna be mediocre, I'd rather have stellar righties. But I don't want the lefties to be medicocre.
   55. Darren Posted: October 30, 2006 at 02:48 AM (#2227795)
Then why do you want Zito? I'd be much more worried about him than I would be about Mussina (of course there's no guarantee we can get him). If I'm worried about the AL East factor (and I think that's at least somewhat legitimate) then I go after guys who have thrived in a similar environments. Mussina certainly fits that bill. Big Freddy does too, sort of, by pitching in a HR park. The lefty-righty thing doesn't concern me as much. (also, I love parenthesis.)
   56. zfan Posted: October 30, 2006 at 03:35 AM (#2227806)
The Winner's Curse only applies if the asset being auctioned has some underlying "true" value. Matsuzaka could actually have much different values to different teams, not only based on how much they need a good pitcher, but more in terms of marketing dollars. If there's any reason for the Cubs to spend more than the Yankees, it's probably that the Yankees already have a broadcasting network set up in Japan, whereas the Cubs (and the Trib's cable station) could generate substantial new dollars by imitating it. Just because the winning team pays way more than the second-best bid does not necessarily mean that they "overvalued" him.
   57. OlePerfesser Posted: October 30, 2006 at 04:04 AM (#2227813)
Then why do you want Zito?

Even ignoring handedness, I'd bet on the 29-YO pitcher over the 38-YO pitcher to be better going forward.

Also, Mr. Zito's incredible durability and extremely low variance are attractive. Plus, he's dreamy and plays guitar and could jam with Theo.

The Winner's Curse only applies if the asset being auctioned has some underlying "true" value.

It's true that the experimental (and some real-world) evidence on over-bidding comes from common-value auctions, but it's not unusual to argue that the same tendencies that lead to overbidding might be present in private-value auctions. To "prove" over-bidding usually requires hard evidence about value, however, so the focus in empirical research on it is in common-value situations.

In any case, the Sox FO has established (with Pedro, Damon, and perhaps others) that they're pretty good at establishing what they think a guy is worth to them, and then not exceeding that figure. In Matsuzaka's case, teams will likely differ widely in how much they think his performance will translate, and in their estimates of his durability going forward. There's likely to be a lot of uncertainty on both scores.
   58. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 30, 2006 at 06:16 AM (#2227863)
Igawa is smart. Matsuzaka is obvious.
   59. Kyle S Posted: October 30, 2006 at 05:18 PM (#2228049)
My article on Akinori Iwamura is up today. One word summary: beware. Not a guy the Sox will be looking at, I guess; check back later this week for a couple guys who they'll be more interested in (you can probably guess at least one of them :)
   60. Raskolnikov Posted: October 30, 2006 at 05:30 PM (#2228060)
My article on Akinori Iwamura is up today. One word summary: beware. Not a guy the Sox will be looking at, I guess; check back later this week for a couple guys who they'll be more interested in (you can probably guess at least one of them :)


Nice article, Kyle.

I didn't realize that Iwamura could play 2B. That would completely change his profile. I doubt that he would hit enough as a 3Bman, but if he can handle 2B (and I've noticed that most Japan League players are excellent fielders), he would be an asset to many clubs.
   61. bibigon Posted: October 30, 2006 at 05:32 PM (#2228064)
1) Do you believe the Sox really want Heilman?
2) Would you want Heilman as your closer (or at all)?
3) What would you give up to get him?


1. Yes, I think the Red Sox want Heilman.
2. Yes, I'd give Heilman the closer's job.
3. Not nearly enough for the Mets to part with him.

The Red Sox and Mets just don't match up well.
   62. Raskolnikov Posted: October 30, 2006 at 05:39 PM (#2228070)
A follow-up question to Sam's that I'm curious about:

1) Do you believe the Sox really want Heilman?
2) Would you want Heilman as your closer (or at all)?
3) What would you give up to get him?

4) Is Duaner Sanchez equally valuable in your eyes?
   63. Kyle S Posted: October 30, 2006 at 05:39 PM (#2228072)
The Red Sox and Mets just don't match up well.


Well said. nothing to see here, folks... move along...
   64. Mister High Standards Posted: October 30, 2006 at 05:50 PM (#2228078)
The Red Sox and Mets just don't match up well.


Mets fans and Sox fans don't match up well. The teams I'm not so sure about. Then again Met's fans (and to a lesser exetent redsox fans) don't match up well withanyone.
   65. bibigon Posted: October 30, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#2228080)
4) Is Duaner Sanchez equally valuable in your eyes?


I would rather have Keith Foulke or Manny Delcarmen break 2007 as Red Sox closers than Duaner Sanchez, so that would a "no."
   66. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 30, 2006 at 11:42 PM (#2228325)
Goes in the "duh" column, but news nonetheless: Sox pick up Wakefield's option for 2007.

So, to sum up a few of the discussion threads here, some possibilities for hte Sox rotation:

-spend tons of money on Matsuzaka
-spend tons of money on Zito
-spend slightly smaller tons of money on Clemens
-trade (what?) for Garcia
-punt 2007
-use brilliant mastery of Econ 101 jargon to build great rotation full of great pitchers who are cheap

I fully support every option on the list but "punt".

I'm also interested in the opinions on Li'l Papi. I acknowledge that the most important factor, by far, is his health, which we don't and can't know. But if we try to bracket that as best we can, treat it as a probability, what do y'all think the Sox should do with him? I don't cotton the idea of having to acquire two starting pitchers this offseason, and I think that Papelbon's stuff (new splitter) is qualitatively better than it was when he struggled in the rotaiton in '05, but I'm also scared of Foulke/Delcarmen/Timlin covering the 7th-9th innings, and I don't see a lot of good non-Papelbon options there, either.
   67. Darren Posted: October 31, 2006 at 12:16 AM (#2228364)
IFF we bracket the health issues somehow, here's what I see for Papi. He just took so well to closing that it is hard for me to move him out of that role. Add to that his track record of never having over 150 IP in a season, and I think you keep him at closer.

That said, all indications are that he'll be in the rotation for health reasons. That's fine too and who knows, maybe it's a blessing in disguise.

And who will be helping him with that transition? Rob Bradford has a nice writeup on Farrell.
   68. Darren Posted: October 31, 2006 at 12:20 AM (#2228373)
I should also add that Kyle S.'s blog has a picture of him shirtless in the about section. Use that information as you see fit.
   69. Kyle S Posted: October 31, 2006 at 12:28 AM (#2228385)
In my defense,
a) It's in black and white
b) My back is turned toward the camera
c) I'm holding my infant daughter
d) it's a peaceful, reflective, poignant moment as we both contemplate the vasty deep before us
e) etc etc

but really, yeah, I should be ashamed.
   70. Darren Posted: October 31, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#2228390)
it's a nice pic, actually.
   71. Darren Posted: October 31, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#2228392)
and that ocean does look vasty
   72. karlmagnus Posted: October 31, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2228436)
MCA, one of my problems with Theo is that in his "slightly more of a genius than Einstein" mode he's liable to blow the "duh" decisions. So I breathe a sigh of relief, although I hope Wake's inserted in his contact a provision that Timlin doesn't get to relieve any start of 7+ innings where Wake leaves with the lead!
   73. chris p Posted: October 31, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#2228452)
but I'm also scared of Foulke/Delcarmen/Timlin covering the 7th-9th innings, and I don't see a lot of good non-Papelbon options there, either.

i bet you could find a closer in japan. any japanese relief pitchers coming over this year?
   74. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 31, 2006 at 02:22 PM (#2228645)
IFF we bracket the health issues somehow, here's what I see for Papi. He just took so well to closing that it is hard for me to move him out of that role. Add to that his track record of never having over 150 IP in a season, and I think you keep him at closer.
I have to admit to some irrational exuberance on Li'l Papi. (Even post shoulder-pops-out, which is just crazy of me.)

But I think that it's not so much that he took to closing, as that he improved significantly over the last year. He could always throw his fastball for strikes and get swings and misses, but he only in May-June developed a secondary pitch (the splitter) that he could both get over for strikes and induce swings and misses with. He now has one plus and one at least above average major league pitch, and the history of starters working off a fastball and splitter is pretty good. I think that (if healthy), Papelbon will be a well above average starting pitcher.
   75. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 31, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#2228665)
I didn't realize that Iwamura could play 2B. That would completely change his profile. I doubt that he would hit enough as a 3Bman, but if he can handle 2B (and I've noticed that most Japan League players are excellent fielders), he would be an asset to many clubs.

Like how Kazuo Matsui is an excellent fielder?

P.S. That would be my assessment for Iwamura as well.

Ok, I'm joking, but yeah, most of the guys that have come over are pretty decent fielders. Nakamura who I thought was mediocre at best in Japan was the DEFENSIVE REPLACEMENT for the Dodgers the short time he was here.

i bet you could find a closer in japan. any japanese relief pitchers coming over this year?

There's the good Ishii. AND HE'S A LEFTY.

I REALLY hope Igawa is on our team. He has THE BEST STORIES EVER.
   76. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 31, 2006 at 03:04 PM (#2228671)
I'm also scared of Foulke/Delcarmen/Timlin covering the 7th-9th innings, and I don't see a lot of good non-Papelbon options there, either.

Pickings are slim. Perhaps Byung-Hyun Kim again? ;>)
   77. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 31, 2006 at 03:28 PM (#2228705)
Pickings are slim. Perhaps Byung-Hyun Kim again? ;>)
A fascinating and unique take on the situation. But now, I wonder, when will Captain Supporter offer his contribution to this conversation?
   78. Kyle S Posted: October 31, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#2228720)
hey fellas - today's entry on Kaz Saitoh is up. Sadly, he probably won't be posted until next year, but he's pretty freakin' good. Check the video and his stats if you don't believe me.

K
   79. Darren Posted: November 01, 2006 at 05:26 AM (#2229382)
Two interesting things WRT to finding pitching:

Clemens and Pettitte both considering retirement. Maybe Roger would like to show Andy around Boston for a year first.

Temple has posted Elias rankings over at SOSH. Some pitchers of interest who aren't ranked A (and therefore don't COST a draft pick: Padilla, Dotel, Meche, Lilly, Wolfe, Armas.

Red Sox:
Alex Cora, X
Alex Gonzalez, B
Gabe Kapler, X
Mark Loretta, A
Doug Mirabelli, X
Trot Nixon, B
   80. 1k5v3L Posted: November 01, 2006 at 06:03 AM (#2229404)
Temple has posted Elias rankings over at SOSH. Some pitchers of interest who aren't ranked A (and therefore don't COST a draft pick:


Two questions:

1. What is the compensation for type A and type B free agents under the new CBA?

2. How in the world did Brian Jordan end up on the DBacks, and why is he still in baseball?
   81. Dan Posted: November 01, 2006 at 08:10 AM (#2229442)
Kevin Millar, 1B A
Frank Thomas, DH B


Uh, what?
   82. Xander Posted: November 01, 2006 at 09:03 AM (#2229451)
Ironically, under the new system you will be rooting for players like Mark Loretta and Alex Gonzalez to retain B-status. That's because under the new CBA, a B-status player will earn a supplemental pick for the team losing him, but wont cost a pick for the team signing him. So a team that would have been wary of signing Alex Gonzalez had he been an A-status player now has nothing to be concerned about; yet the Sox will still net a pick. On the flip side, no team would dare concede a first round pick for Mark Loretta; who somehow earned A-status. So the Sox can't offer him arbitration, because if they do and he accepts, in effect blocking Pedroia, TempleuSox will be blowing up Fenway and there will be no baseball in Beantown next year.
   83. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 01, 2006 at 03:04 PM (#2229522)
Ted Lilly should be signed so he never pitches against the Red Sox again.
   84. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 01, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2229524)
P.S. I like Wada on the Softbank Hawks myself
   85. Kyle S Posted: November 01, 2006 at 03:20 PM (#2229531)
Jordan should be on the Braves, not the d-backs. He should also have retired 3 seasons ago.
   86. Darren Posted: November 02, 2006 at 03:26 AM (#2230026)
The weird one on the Elias rankings is Gagne. He's pitched like 5 innings in the past 2 years and he's got an A rating. I guess they assume he'll be healthy?

Hey, Mr. Shirtless, when can we see the #1 Japanese import preview?
   87. Darren Posted: November 02, 2006 at 03:29 AM (#2230028)
Ah, I see it's there.

Here's a question I have on Matsuzuka: why is there talk of him getting 4/40? Matsui was the best and most popular hitter in Japan (IIRC) and he got 3/21, and there was no posting fee involved. Why should a team have to fork out a posting fee of $30 mil then pay him way more than Matsui got.

I think the winning team would be well within their rights to offer him 3/25, noting that it's the largest deal ever given to a new player coming over from Japan. If he refuses, fine, he goes back to Japan. Selig could not possibly say that it wasn't a good faith offer.
   88. Kyle S Posted: November 02, 2006 at 03:47 AM (#2230037)
i think because he's worth it, and because he'll get way more than 4/40 if he stays with seibu another year (unless saitoh gets posted next year and makes them both get less)

who are the FA sp's going to be in a year? a bunch of crap, right? he'll get way more than 4/40 then.
   89. Swedish Chef Posted: November 02, 2006 at 03:52 AM (#2230039)
I think the winning team would be well within their rights to offer him 3/25, noting that it's the largest deal ever given to a new player coming over from Japan. If he refuses, fine, he goes back to Japan.

I don't think you select Boras as an agent if you intend to be steamrolled by a cheap team. Worst case scenario for him is he stays in Japan for a year and tries again as a free agent. Now that I think of it, maybe he (and Boras) really isn't that interested in getting a deal done this season and leaving the posting fee in other hands.

In that case, Boras might ask for an absurd contract, even by his standards.
   90. Darren Posted: November 02, 2006 at 04:12 AM (#2230044)
Of course you select Boras because you want to get a big contract. But that doesn't mean the team has to give you one. On the other Boras point, I don't think you agree to be posted unless you want to make a deal this year.

And yes, he could just go back to Japan, where he's reportedly earning very little and put himself at risk for another year of 140 pitch-games. That's his option, but it doesn't really change what he should be offered during the posting process. Matsui, as a hitter, seemed like a much surer bet and was acquired/signed for far less. There's no precedent for this kind of contract.

The more I think about it, the more I think the risk is just too great to pay a 30 mil posting fee then sign him for 4/40.
   91. Swedish Chef Posted: November 02, 2006 at 10:04 AM (#2230121)
He earned 330 million yen this year, up from 250 million 2005. That's not "very little".

On the other hand, Matsuzaka is pretty keen to play in the major leagues. But I'm sure he sees the value in having a fallback position so he can't be forced to accept peanuts.

And of course Boras will communicate to the clubs what Matsuzaka wants before the posting starts.

The more I think about it, the more I think the risk is just too great to pay a 30 mil posting fee then sign him for 4/40.

That's true, I can't see a scenario where you get him without paying a lot of money.
   92. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2006 at 01:24 PM (#2230141)
I think the winning team would be well within their rights to offer him 3/25, noting that it's the largest deal ever given to a new player coming over from Japan. If he refuses, fine, he goes back to Japan. Selig could not possibly say that it wasn't a good faith offer.
That sounds like a bad idea to me.

1) Instead of signing Matsuzaka, the best pitcher on the market, you don't sign him
2) You piss off all of NPB, and make the teams and players less likely to negotiate with you in the future
3) You also piss off Scott Boras, who happens to represent a few baseball players
4) Beside angering these important people and groups, you show them that you cannot be trusted to follow through on commitments

I mean, do you really think that 3/25 is a good faith offer? It's an offer designed to break the agent and player, designed to ignore their stated wishes and use all available structural power to bend them to what you want. Most important, it would be perceived as such by everyone involved. I think that having the "right" to do something is a very minor concern here.
   93. Frisco Cali Posted: November 02, 2006 at 01:38 PM (#2230142)
Well, Matsuzaka could accept the deal, then intentionally suck, thereby showing the Sox who is really in charge.

Even though the team would be within their right to offer such a deal, why would this be a good competitive move?
   94. Darren Posted: November 03, 2006 at 12:09 AM (#2230519)
Matt,

You're assuming a lot of things. You're assuming that Matsuzaka is the pitcher on the market, that other NPB teams and players will be offended, that said players and teams will put that offense above money, same assumptions about Boras.

On your point 4, how are you not following through on committments? You're offering him the richest contract of any newcomer from Japan. Combined, you're paying something like 3/50 (with a ton upfront) for his services. That's commensurate with pitchers who have long track records of success in the Majors. You think trying to figure out if Beckett or Burnett will be able to pitch in the AL? That's nothing. This guy is a huge risk and he's going to cost as much as if he were not a huge risk.

It's an offer designed to break the agent and player, designed to ignore their stated wishes and use all available structural power to bend them to what you want.

Oh baloney. Their stated wishes? What if they stated their wishes were a 10 year/$150 mil offer? Should a team then not bid on them unless they're willing to pay that much? Why should Boras get to dictate the terms of this transaction? Boras and his client have something to lose here by not making a deal, just as the team does. They say they should get 4/40, I (if I were the team) would say they should get 3/25. Maybe they come down or maybe I go up or maybe a little of both. But I'm not bidding with the assumption that I have to offer whatever they command.
   95. Darren Posted: November 03, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2230521)
He earned 330 million yen this year, up from 250 million 2005. That's not "very little".

It is compared to 3/$25 mil.
   96. Kyle S Posted: November 03, 2006 at 12:24 AM (#2230535)
weirdness - 330 million yen isn't even 3 million bucks. bob horner got about 2 million from yakult back in 1987. have japanese salaries just not inflated at all, or was the exchange rate very different back then?
   97. Darren Posted: November 03, 2006 at 12:31 AM (#2230540)
I thought that I read that Matz's team was very cheap. I know a lot of the other guys like Petagine were making a bunch more than that.
   98. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 03, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#2230578)
Luis Gonzalez, 1B A

There's so many things wrong with that that I don't know where to begin.
   99. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: November 05, 2006 at 11:58 PM (#2232000)
Per Carfado, Sox interested in Iwawura
(page 4).
   100. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: November 08, 2006 at 03:56 AM (#2233295)
Sox declined Foulke's option. Probably not a surprise but it should be interesting to see if Foulke picks up his $3.75 mil option. I assume he would since I doubt a pitcher with a line the past two years of a under 100 IP and an ERA over 5 would draw more than that on the FA market, but who knows?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.9477 seconds
60 querie(s) executed