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.

   1. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4057846)
I've been pointlessly fighting the "code" function for twenty minutes. I must be doing something wrong, but sometimes an added space registers and sometimes in doesn't. With no live preview, it'd take too long to fix in the first place, but even when I fix it it doesn't get fixed. So that's the format you get. Sorry.
   2. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: February 10, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4058389)
This will be an interesting year, since by the end we'll probably know whether Middlebrooks or Kalish are capable of playing in Boston. With the Red Sox seemingly in cash-strapped mode, knowing whether they can cheaply replace Sweeney/Ross with Kalish or work Middlebrooks in with an increasingly fragile Youkilis at 3B will be useful. My guess is that neither will do particularly well (when's Kalish due back? June?), but could maybe be part of a deal for something shiny later.

It's nice to see guys with some power potential in the Red Sox system, but I wish there was more even remotely interesting pitching.
   3. Dan Posted: February 10, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4058469)
How can you possibly rank Lavarnway as low as 9th in this system? Even 4th seems low.
   4. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: February 11, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4058770)
If you throw in Jonathon Mayo, who has Swihart at 11, Barnes at 12, and Brentz at 2, the picture gets even cloudier. I think what we're seeing is that the Sox have a lot of guys with a wide range of outcomes and different analysts (and the scouts and sources they talk to) are seeing different things in them.
   5. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4058791)
What the hell is that Mayo list? It looks like it was prepared a year ago, but they do have 2011 stats.

1) Middlebrooks (ok...)
2) Brentz (huh?)
3) Ranaudo (ok...)
4) Doubront (well, maybe...)
5) Iglesias (wait, what?)
6) Anderson (srsly?)
7) Britton (ok, you're just screwing with me now)
8) Pimentel (really, this isn't a year-old list?)
9) Tejeda (come on, this list is a year old)
10) Vitek (maybe it's a programming error of some sort?)

The player comments were clearly composed after the 2011 season, which is just odd. I mean, I'm not a scout nor have I scouted any of these players, and I guess maybe Mayo could be right and the actual 2011 seasons of most all these players should be massively discounted, and the breakout prospects of 2011 (Bogaerts, Lavarnway, Jacobs) should be treated as flukes. But that's a frickin' weird list.

EDIT: No, the player comments for Britton, Pimentel, Tejeda, and Vitek are clearly vintage 2010. Weirdly the comments on WMB, Brentz, Ranaudo, and Doubront clearly reference 2011. More weirdly, the Iglesias comment was composed after his disastrous 2011 as well. What is that list?
   6. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: February 11, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4058859)
How can you possibly rank Lavarnway as low as 9th in this system? Even 4th seems low.


I think there are two issues. One is I think Lavarnway's upside is somewhat limited and two there are still questions about whether he can stay behind the plate. The guys who Callis has in front of him all have a chance to become stars. It is probably unlikely, but it is possible. Lavarnway could very realistically wind up as a Kelly Shoppach type which is good but nothing special. I think he's more likely to succeed than many of the players ahead of him but he's less likely to become a perennial all star also.
   7. Barnaby Jones Posted: February 11, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4058992)
What is that list?


That's last year's list; look at the URL. If you change the "2011" to "2012" you will go to this year's list.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2012/#list=bos
   8. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: February 12, 2012 at 02:50 AM (#4059181)
Oops, sorry for the bad link there, Barnaby Jones has this year's list. It is hard to figure the list I did link to though -- in some ways it seems like last year's list with player comments recapping the season they had -- except there's no way he had Middlebrooks number one heading into 2011. Oddly enough, Brentz is second on both of them, Ranaduo only moved down two places, and Vitek moved UP two spots.
   9. OCD SS Posted: February 12, 2012 at 09:33 AM (#4059210)
Mayo's list is pretty strange. I get the feeling he either really likes players in the high minors (or guys who at least went to college), or that he doesn't put a ton of work into his lists. Does anyone else have a read on him as a prospect/ miLB analyst? My gut says that MLB.com doesn't really invest a ton in prospect coverage, so it's the latter...
   10. Barnaby Jones Posted: February 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4059259)
My understanding is that Mayo makes his lists almost exclusively from polling scouts and then plugging their rankings into a formuula; or at least that's how he used to do his top 100s. Might be more of his personal opinion in the top 20s.
   11. Pingu Posted: February 12, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4059468)
There’s so much talent in the low minors now that, just with normal luck and normal development, next year really should be a good year for the minors. Which would be nice.


While I generally agree with this, it also seems like we said this exact same thing last year.

I'm pretty pessimistic overall because I dont really see a sure fire major leaguer in the system at all. The Kalish injury hurts (yes I realize he's not a prospect). I used to be optimistic on Ranaudo.

Basically, it seems like a bunch of these guys could turn into MLB regulars, or none of em could. I wouldnt be betting on any of em, and I certainly dont see any stars. Admittedly I dont follow other organizations farm systems too closely, but if the upside for a farm system is that you have a couple of major league regulars, it sure seems like 18th is being generous.
   12. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: February 13, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4060206)
Kevin Goldstein came out with his Top 101 today and four Sox prospects made the list.

32 Xander Bogaerts
46 Brandon Jacobs
55 Will Middlebrooks
98 Ryan Lavarnway

Middlebrooks and Lavarnway are about where everyone else has them, but Bogaerts and especially Jacobs are much higher than elsewhere.

A few highlights from the chat:
Xander Cage (Ask Vin Diesel): You think Xander Bogaerts could be top 10 by seasons end?

Kevin Goldstein: He COULD be. That does not mean I'm saying he will be.
Nater1177 (levittown pa): Brandon Jacobs as a top 50 guy is higher than I would have expected. What have you heard/seen that has him so highly regarded?

Kevin Goldstein: Fantastic combination of performance and tools.
Brian (Chicago): Are there guys that missed the list with 80 tools?

Kevin Goldstein: Plenty of 80 runners. Some put an 80 of Jose Iglesias' glove.
Nater1177 (Levittown Pa): Speaking of Iglesias..did he garner any consideration near the bottom of list based on the stellar glove and 'youngest in AAA' standing?

Kevin Goldstein: He did not.
Bill Simmons (Grantland Office): I haven't seen the Red Sox farm system this bad in a long time. Tell me something good to cheer me up!

Kevin Goldstein: I think their system is quite good actually, especially in terms of depth.
   13. Mattbert Posted: February 21, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4065538)
Baseball America's Top 100 is out.

51. Will Middlebrooks
58. Xander Bogaerts
72. Blake Swihart

Also includes this Yogi-esque gem on former Sox farmhand Casey Kelly:
No longer young for his age, his stuff is fine, but it's time for him to produce.
   14. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: February 21, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4065548)
EDIT: D'oh! Covered in another thread.
   15. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: February 21, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4065558)
EDIT: D'oh! Was responding to #14.
   16. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 21, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4065563)
Carpenter looks like solid non-zero compensation. His upside is relief ace, but he's 25 and his first shot at relief didn't go swimmingly. Hopefully the Red Sox can take a raw arm and make a great reliever out of him, but either way adding a pitcher who could be a front-line MLB contributor is better compensation than I was expecting.

EDIT: Seems like talking about Carpenter at the ST minor league thread is perfectly reasonable, main board thread or no.
   17. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: February 21, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4065569)
Looking at Carpenter's numbers I see Matt Albers. If he can give that kind of season for us I'll be OK with it.

I assume that he has options.
   18. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 21, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4065574)
Carpenter's only been a professional since 2008, so he has either two or three options remaining.
   19. Mattbert Posted: February 24, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4067919)
Sickels has his Top 120 for 2012 list available now. Six Sox make the cut.

30. Xander Bogaerts
74. Matt Barnes
78. Will Middlebrooks
89. Brandon Jacobs
97. Ryan Lavarnway
114. Garin Cecchini

Interesting that Jacobs is ranked above Lavarnway and Cecchini here, whereas he was below them on Sickels' team-specific list.
   20. Darren Posted: February 25, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4068857)
What is it about Alex Hassan that makes him so widely ignorable? He put up a .400+ OBP last year with lots o' doubles and a very good K rate at AA. He's got to be a better bet to be a decent Major Leaguer than a bunch of these guys.
   21. Darren Posted: February 25, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4068860)
Also, Bogartes is pretty exciting, but it's recently dawned on me that this sort of pick is a no-lose situation for the picker. You pick him with the explanation that he's got great tools and a chance to be really great. Then when he doesn't put it together you can very easily explain that 'oh well, he had great tools, but they're always a crap shoot at that age.'

Meanwhile, if you pic a guy at AA who's playing well, and he doesn't work out, you have a harder time explaining.
   22. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: February 26, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4068978)
From SoxProspects on Hassan:

Scouting Report: Average-to-better contact projection. Sits back on breaking pitches well, but will need to work on catching up with high-velocity fastballs on inner third. Above-average approach and strike zone management skills. Brings a plan to the plate. Grinds out at-bats. Average power projection. Tends to hit with too much upper body and produce a lot of topspin. Improvement with lower half swing mechanics can push projection to solid-average. Learning how to muscle up when he gets his pitch. Fringe-average speed. On the slow side tracking balls in left field with about average range. Plus arm and solid accuracy to the bases.


Doesn't sound that good.
   23. Dan Posted: February 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4068982)
Doesn't sound that good.


Kind of sounds like a right-handed David Murphy to me, with more walks and thus a better OBP. Not a bad player, can be quite useful as a 4th OF and a fill-in for a few months, especially on a team with corner OFs who miss quite a bit of time or who struggle against LHP (looking at you, Crawford).
   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 27, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4070012)
CAIRO projects Hassan to hit 340/390. That's quite good for a 24-year-old fringe prospect, if he can field a position.

A right-handed David Murphy is also known as a Matt Murton. Being able to be the strong side rather than the weak side of a platoon can be the difference between a career in MLB and one in NPB. Murton couldn't throw either and was limited entirely to LF, while Hassan apparently has the arm to play right. If you're going to carve out a career as a right-handed OF backup, though, you really should be able to play center.

Or start hitting more - Hassan's projection is good enough that just one step forward could make him a solid MLB contributor.
   25. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4079562)
I had missed this previously, but Goldstein has his Red Sox Top 11 prospects out. It's probably the list that corresponds best to my feelings about the system:

Five-Star Prospects
1. Xander Bogaerts, SS
Four-Star Prospects
2. Brandon Jacobs, OF
3. Will Middlebrooks, 3B
4. Ryan Lavarnway, C/DH
Three-Star Prospects
5. Blake Swihart, C
6. Bryce Brentz, OF
7. Matt Barnes, RHP
8. Garin Cecchini, 3B
9. Anthony Ranaudo, RHP
10. Jose Iglesias, SS
11. Sean Coyle, 2B

As you can see from the (not paywalled) comment on Bogaerts, Goldstein rates Bogaerts' power as plus-plus, which is the first I've seen of that particular description of our top prospect. Is this a common evaluation of Bogaerts, or a more idiosyncratic Goldstein call? Either way, it's the sort of thing you love to see. He does say that Bogaerts' swing verges on being an uppercut and he's going to struggle with Ks and BA moving up the ladder. So, he's a Red Sox hitting prospect.

Goldstein also rates the Red Sox system 12th, saying:
Far from loaded when it comes to future stars, but still one of the deepest systems around with prospects at every level that bear watching.
Law, ranking the Sox 18th, said that the system was thin at the upper levels but had a lot of talent at the lower levels. With these system-wide rankings, I think middle-of-the-pack is middle-of-the-pack, and we should take Law and Goldstein to be in general agreement about the state of the system. Law's relative pessimism about the upper levels of the system is more in line with my feelings, Alex Hassan notwithstanding. (And I tend to agree with Law's relative optimism about the lower levels.)
   26. Darren Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:43 AM (#4079571)
I like the placement of Jacobs. I think he's the one to watch this year for sure. He really improved his contact and BB numbers in the second half, IIRC.
   27. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4079573)
Can I propose a nickname for Bogaerts?

"The Zeppo"
   28. Mattbert Posted: March 13, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4079846)
As you can see from the (not paywalled) comment on Bogaerts, Goldstein rates Bogaerts' power as plus-plus, which is the first I've seen of that particular description of our top prospect. Is this a common evaluation of Bogaerts, or a more idiosyncratic Goldstein call?

BA described Bogaerts as having "jaw-dropping, precocious power." I don't know if that's better or worse than "plus-plus" but it sounds pretty good.
   29. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: March 13, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4079898)
Brandon Jacobs is the guy who turned down an Auburn football scholarship, right?
   30. Darren Posted: March 15, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4081646)
Yes, that's the guy. He thought it would be too confusing if he made it into the NFL one day.
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: March 15, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4081659)
How do you pronounce Xander Bogaerts' first name?

Also, how do you pronounce his last name?
   32. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: March 15, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4081695)
First name is Zander, last name I'm pronouncing Bo-garts but I don't know if I'm right.
   33. Mattbert Posted: March 15, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4081835)
Apparently the Sox now have a young man named Aaron Kurcz in the minor league system. He has been revealed as the PTBNL in the Theo saga.

Looks like the quintessential live A-ball arm to me.
   34. Mattbert Posted: March 15, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4081859)
Naturally, our man Alex Speier has a scouting report on Kurcz up already.
   35. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: March 15, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4081861)
Sox screwed the pooch on this one. No reason to let Theo negotiate with the Cubs until AFTER compensation was agreed upon.
   36. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: March 15, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4081870)
Sox screwed the pooch on this one. No reason to let Theo negotiate with the Cubs until AFTER compensation was agreed upon.


The fans, for some reason, want an arm and a leg for Theo. An MLB-ready reliever AND a live arm ready for AA? I don't see how any executive is worth more than that. There was only a year left on his contract. It's not like he had 10 years left and left. He helped build a good organization, and trained his replacement, after all. The return seems reasonable to me.
   37. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: March 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM (#4081894)
It's not do much that I want an arm and a leg but a GM is pretty important. I don't think the Sox should have gotten Garza but this is the package they got with no leverage. I think they could have done better if they'd played this right.

It's kind of like the Scutaro deal, its not so much that the value is far above what they got but it seems like they got the least they could have reasonably gotten.
   38. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: March 16, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4081952)
It's kind of like the Scutaro deal, its not so much that the value is far above what they got but it seems like they got the least they could have reasonably gotten.


Well, if you're armchair GM, what's more than they could have reasonably gotten? I think it's easy as a fan to look at trades in isolation and say "good" or "bad." If Mike Aviles + Nick Punto can be reasonably expected (and I emphasize reasonably) to replace the production of Scutaro + Lowrie, then how could they have gotten more? Punto is cheap and so is Aviles, and they were both free agents.

I guess what it boils down to for me is this: what kind of trade for Scutaro or return for Theo would have made sense? I can imagine all kinds of fanboyish things, but when it comes down to it, I think we're starting to see that many teams are pretty correctly valuing their own talent and the talent of other teams. It probably means that trades end up being pretty fair for both sides and ultimately--because they're so fair--pretty pointless.

Anyway, I've noticed that I've become something of a Sox apologist around here. It must be an overreaction to all of the pants pissing, or something. In any case, I really want to be educated about this. Why was the return so bad on both of those deals, and what could we have expected back?
   39. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4083001)
Cool article (by Alex Speier, of course) on new Red Sox signing Simon Mercedes:
In its own right, the Red Sox’ agreement pending MLB’s background investigation with right-hander Simon Mercedes to a signing bonus of $800,000 (first reported by Ben Badler of Baseball America and confirmed by a major league source) is noteworthy because it represents the addition of a high-ceiling power arm into the Sox system.

Mercedes has what one evaluator called an “XXL power frame” at 6-foot-4 and 220 pounds. He features an above-average fastball that registers in the low- to mid-90s as well as what the evaluator called an above-average curveball. He will enter the Sox system as a starter, though for him to remain there, it will require some development of his repertoire. At the least, however, he has the makings of a power arm out of the bullpen.

...

However, it is noteworthy for other reasons as well that underscore that the Sox’ approach to the international amateur market has changed with the change from former VP of International Scouting Craig Shipley to new director of international scouting Eddie Romero.

Simply put, Shipley never would have signed Mercedes. He refused to sign players who lied about their documentation. Mercedes appears to have done just that, as Badler reported that he changed from being a 16-year-old named Jeffrey Tapia to an 18-year-old (with a listed birth date of Feb. 27, 1992) by his current appellation of Simon Mercedes. He agreed to a deal with the Giants for a $400,000 signing bonus in early 2011, but the Major League Baseball background investigation into Mercedes resulted in a one-year declaration of his ineligibility to sign by MLB, according to Badler.
It's hard to believe that someone named "Simon Mercedes" would change his name. What a fabulous name for a power pitcher.

I'd forgotten about the dismissal of Shipley. The Red Sox int'l system has been unproductive for nearly a decade. Hopefully Romero will get a few solid hits right from the start. (Speier mentions that the Sox lost out on Carlos Martinez - BA #27 this offseason - because of Shipley's inflexibility on false documentation.)
   40. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: March 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4083009)
Well, if you're armchair GM, what's more than they could have reasonably gotten?


More than Carpenter/Kurcz, less than Garza? :-)

Seriously what bothers is the how more than the what. What I always liked about Theo is that there seemed to be a process to everything. In this case (and Scutaro) is that the process isn't obvious to me. The foresight and planning that to me we're lynchpins of the Theo Epstein era are not evident in the way the Theo negotiation played out or the handling of Scutaro.

Maybe I'm missing something though.
   41. Chip Posted: March 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4083021)
Seriously what bothers is the how more than the what. What I always liked about Theo is that there seemed to be a process to everything. In this case (and Scutaro) is that the process isn't obvious to me. The foresight and planning that to me we're lynchpins of the Theo Epstein era are not evident in the way the Theo negotiation played out or the handling of Scutaro.

Maybe I'm missing something though.


Or maybe Cherington isn't leaking his process to select reporters.
   42. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: March 17, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4083066)
Maybe, but with Theo I felt like I could discern the plan. In the case of Scuraro and the Epstein negotiations I feel like I can't determine quite wha the plan was.

Dont get me wrong, I think much of what the Sox have done this winter has reflected a plan, in some cases it's a plan I don't agree with, but in those two cases it seemed like the Sox were acting by the seat of their pants.
   43. Dan Posted: March 17, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4083071)
I thought the plan for Scutaro was obvious: the Sox felt they could do better defensively + offensively by spotting Punto and Aviles than by playing Scutaro everyday at SS, and were able to dump $6M in salary in the process. Where's the confusion?

Aviles is basically the player Scutaro was before he established himself as an every day SS in Toronto at the age of 33. A right-handed utility guy who's had some stretches as a regular at different infield positions but is viewed as a stretch defensively at SS and not a good enough bat to be an everyday 2B/3B. That's exactly the player Scutaro was before his SS defense in Toronto was off the charts and he took over the position full-time in 2009. So the Red Sox have a similar player who is both younger and cheaper, meanwhile the older version of the player had recent injury issues that especially left him with a weak throwing arm for a shortstop. So the team dumped the expensive guy on the only team that was willing to pay the full contract. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
   44. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: March 17, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4083098)
It's the way they got there. If you believe in Aviles why pick up the option?
   45. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: March 17, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4083166)
If you believe in Aviles why pick up the option?
Because they would have had to pay a $1.5M buyout. This way they get a cheap sinkerballer who might be useful and pay nothing.
   46. Pingu Posted: March 17, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4083223)
Anyone else want to see Lavarnway get first nod come April 1st???
   47. Nasty Nate Posted: March 19, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4084341)
If you believe in Aviles why pick up the option?


Because they would have had to pay a $1.5M buyout. This way they get a cheap sinkerballer who might be useful and pay nothing.


I'm not talking about people on this board, but I have a feeling that the Scutaro situation would have caused less fan backlash if they simply didn't pick up the option ... which would be stupid because it would have been worse for the team.
   48. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 19, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4084352)
It's the weird shift in plan that got to me. There were no indications from the front office that Marco Scutaro wouldn't be the starting shortstop - Cherington has said explicitly that was the plan - and no indications anyone saw Aviles or Punto as a regular SS. The Sox had Aviles and Scutaro on the squad last year, and Scutaro was the full-time SS, Aviles the utility man.

Why did they change their minds? It's a strange thing.

It's also hard for me to believe that 1/6 for Scutaro is anything other than a very good deal. Scutaro's an average MLB player, so he's underpaid by several million on a short-term deal. If the Sox had planned to shop Scutaro from the beginning of the offseason, rather than waiting until most rosters were set, they should have done quite a bit better than Mortensen.
   49. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: March 19, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4084399)
If the Sox had planned to shop Scutaro from the beginning of the offseason, rather than waiting until most rosters were set, they should have done quite a bit better than Mortensen.


It's not clear to me that they weren't shopping Scutaro from the beginning of the offseason - we know about as much of "the plan" as the FO wants to know or leaks out. There's just so much that goes on behind the scenes that we will never know about. Usually in order to have a decent bargaining position, you have to have a convincing case that you could just walk away from negotiations at any time and be fine. It's possible that they shopped Scutaro the whole off-season, and held out as long as they could for the best deal they could get. I'm not sure that was actually the case here, but it's consistent with a FO that was always interested in trading Scutaro but trying to maintain a strong bargaining position.
   50. Pingu Posted: March 20, 2012 at 12:27 AM (#4084869)
All this talk about Scutaro being the starting SS is ridiculous. He cant play SS. He's a 2B. Credit the front office for realizing this and move on.
   51. Dan Posted: March 20, 2012 at 01:20 AM (#4084890)
All this talk about Scutaro being the starting SS is ridiculous. He cant play SS. He's a 2B. Credit the front office for realizing this and move on.


Agreed.
   52. Nasty Nate Posted: March 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM (#4085008)
re #50, #51, I think that goes a little too far in the other direction and seems a bit revisionist. After all, he was their starting SS in the past 2 years, so claiming that the thought of him being SS is "ridiculous" is exaggerating. He was the starting SS on the last miserable day of '11, so the team at that point was willing to have him there. Maybe that was all Francona (and/or Theo), but the truth is somewhere in between "Not A Shortstop" and MCoA's appraisal of him as very valuable at 1/6 for 2012.

Or maybe the Sox just suffer from a weird case of Puntomania...
   53. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: March 20, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4085200)
MCoA's appraisal of him as very valuable at 1/6 for 2012
That may be the number on Scutaro's paycheck this year, but he would have cost the Sox a little over $9M with the 40% tax on his $7.67M CBT salary. $9M for a 36 year old SS who might not be an SS (and who has nowhere else to play if he can't hack it) would have been a risky move without much upside.
   54. Nasty Nate Posted: March 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4085213)
That may be the number on Scutaro's paycheck this year, but he would have cost the Sox a little over $9M with the 40% tax on his $7.67M CBT salary.


But why single out Scutaro's salary as the one causing the luxury tax hit?
   55. Darren Posted: March 20, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4085217)
Put me in the Nasty's camp. They didn't think he was terrible, but they didn't him as their SS for 2012. So they picked up the option to see what they could get in a trade, figuring at worst they could give him away. Then they got the "at worst" option. They've got a combination of players who they feel (and the numbers appear to agree) will ably replace him.

Edit: Too bad we didn't wait until the Phillies were overrun by locusts.
   56. Textbook Editor Posted: March 20, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4085267)
Edit: Too bad we didn't wait until the Phillies were overrun by locusts.


Sure, but the cupboard's pretty bare there; not sure they'd have gotten anything much better than they did.
   57. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: March 20, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4085286)
But why single out Scutaro's salary as the one causing the luxury tax hit?
It's an issue of marginal cost. Keeping Scutaro would have cost them $9M more than not keeping him did.
   58. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: March 20, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4085289)
Sure, but the cupboard's pretty bare there; not sure they'd have gotten anything much better than they did.


We could have gotten Halladay!
   59. Nasty Nate Posted: March 20, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4085315)
It's an issue of marginal cost. Keeping Scutaro would have cost them $9M more than not keeping him did.


... unless they traded Beckett or someone else. But I see what you mean.
   60. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: March 20, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4085324)
... unless they traded Beckett or someone else. But I see what you mean.
You're right, it could have been anyone else. The Sox are paying a high enough luxury tax these days that it probably makes sense to think about all roster moves this way, i.e. keeping Ortiz actually cost $20.4M.
   61. Nasty Nate Posted: March 20, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4085338)
don't do that with Lackey or Crawford or else I might puke

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3805 seconds
41 querie(s) executed