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. Hugh Jorgan Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:56 AM (#3384655)
Milton Bradley. Not sure if he’d fit into their corporate attitude.

If they sign this turd, then after 40 years I will give up being a fan.

They've got some cash to blow as pointed out in the other posted articles, I think they'll make a strong effort and go after Holliday.
   2. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:18 AM (#3384659)
If they sign this turd, then after 40 years I will give up being a fan.
Julio Lugo, Derek Lowe, Wil Cordero...

We've all rooted for wife-beaters before, and we'll do so again. It isn't pretty, but it's sports fandom.
   3. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:28 AM (#3384662)
Darren's probably right here. I want to see them go after Matt Holliday, and if the Yankees get him for less than $20M per, I will be annoyed. But the Yanks have more money, which has to make them the favorites to get the best player on the market.

And after Holliday, Bay isn't the sort of guy the Red Sox usually target for a multi-year deal. (The bumps in walks and strikeouts and the diminishing batting average and defense aren't what I like in the 30+ corner player.) And then you're looking at finding a job-sharing partner for Hermida.

Then you go after an upside arm (Harden/Bedard), another depth arm or two, a reliever, and you've got your $135M payroll just like last year. That would be one boring damn offseason, but I think we should probably resign ourselves to it and start getting worked up about which 3rd tier FAs the Red Sox should acquire to fill these part-time jobs. It's still a reasonable playoff team, even if they don't make a free agent splash.
   4. Darren Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:33 AM (#3384664)
I always find MCOA's phrasings entertaining. For example, suggesting that "we should... start getting worked up about which 3rd tier FAs the Red Sox should acquire to fill these part-time jobs."
   5. Darren Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:42 AM (#3384667)
I want to see them go after Matt Holliday, and if the Yankees get him for less than $20M per, I will be annoyed.


What do you think Boston's breaking point is on Holliday? I'm guessing it's around 6/110. I guess I could see them doing 5/100 or so as well. You have to believe the Yankees or Mets will go a bit higher than that.
   6. Textbook Editor Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:46 AM (#3384669)
What I'd like to see is the Red Sox use their money advantage not in the FA market, but in the trade-and-extend market. But that's me.

I'd also like them to think out of the box. For example, why not trade for Ryan Zimmerman and make Lowell and expensive DH caddy for Ortiz? This is fanboy wishing, yes, but it's that sort of thing I really hope happens this offseason.

We should absolutely make sure the price for Holliday is $20 million + for the Yankees when they sign him. I really do think there's something to the AL numbers for him, even considering he played in Oakland... This ain't Manny Ramirez circa 2000 we're talking about here, and I'm more than fine on passing on him.

Finally, why not Figgins as a 3B/SS partner with Lowell/Lowrie. Between the 2 positions, he surely could find his way into the lineup most days, and starting in 2011 he'd have the 3B job full-time... I'm fine with this being the SS solution if it comes to it.
   7. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 11, 2009 at 07:53 AM (#3384717)
Bedard is coming off labrum surgery. I don't think the Red Sox would get much of anything out of him.
   8. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 11, 2009 at 08:34 AM (#3384718)
I'd also like them to think out of the box. For example, why not trade for Ryan Zimmerman and make Lowell and expensive DH caddy for Ortiz? This is fanboy wishing, yes, but it's that sort of thing I really hope happens this offseason.

Well, if you really hope it will happen....

Holliday was heating up for the Athletics, posting a .900ish OPS for them after one bad month. I don't think there's much reason to think he's only an NL player although I agree he's not a Manny circa 2000 type hitter.
   9. Dan Posted: November 11, 2009 at 09:18 AM (#3384720)
Holliday is certainly not the power bat that Manny was/is, but he's a far better fielder and baserunner than Manny ever was. He's the type of all-around player that I'd like to see the Sox break the bank for.
   10. OCD SS Posted: November 11, 2009 at 12:35 PM (#3384733)
What do you think Boston's breaking point is on Holliday? I'm guessing it's around 6/110. I guess I could see them doing 5/100 or so as well. You have to believe the Yankees or Mets will go a bit higher than that.


If they had the money to give Teixeira $170 M over 7 years they should be able to set Mr. Holliday up with something in the $140-50M range over 6 yrs.
   11. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 11, 2009 at 01:07 PM (#3384741)
If they had the money to give Teixeira $170 M over 7 years they should be able to set Mr. Holliday up with something in the $140-50M range over 6 yrs.


That assumes they view Holliday as highly or close to it as they regarded Teixeira which I think would be an incorrect assumption.
   12. toratoratora Posted: November 11, 2009 at 01:13 PM (#3384744)
I'll take Beltre and Cameron over Holliday. Help out the defense. Help out the pitching staff. Then try and do something about the gaping wound that is SS.
Does anyone have any projections for Diaz arriving in the bigs?
   13. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 11, 2009 at 01:39 PM (#3384754)
Does anyone have any projections for Diaz arriving in the bigs?


Being traded to the Pirates like he was in July should help him on that front, the .512 OPS at AAA not so much. If you meant Iglesias I think the consensus is a couple of years at the earliest.
   14. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:12 PM (#3384777)
That assumes they view Holliday as highly or close to it as they regarded Teixeira which I think would be an incorrect assumption.
We'll see. By the numbers, even zeroing out Holliday's defensive advantage, Holliday has been a notably better player than Teixeira the last several years. It's a bit hard for me to see these Sox not being swayed by that.

I do like the Cameron idea. I can imagine Cameron accepting a 2/3 job where he plays every outfield position. That would be pretty cool - a good RH bat with a still high-quality glove, playing lots of LF and some CF/RF, shuttling out the LHBs who normally play those spots. With Figgins, acquiring him would mean guaranteeing him a full-time job, which would mean giving up on Jed Lowrie. It's hard to see the Sox doing that. And with Beltre, it would mean shuffling Lowell off into retirement, which seems likewise unlikely. Beltre and Figgins are both good players, though, so maybe the Sox could work something out with trades or whatever.
   15. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:20 PM (#3384781)
There's no way I go seven years on Holliday. He's a star, but not a superstar, and I'm just not interested in experimenting with having him on the team when he's 37 years old. If he had come on the market two years ago, maybe then, but now, when he's already thirty? Not a chance. He's not that good. Once his skills starts to erode, he stops being a player you want on your team more quickly than you'd want. Pass pass pass pass.

playing lots of LF and some CF/RF

What's the point of signing a premium glove and stashing him in Fenway's LF? I just don't see it. The Red Sox' resources aren't well-aligned for signing a defense-first center fielder, unless they want to move Drew to LF.
   16. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:25 PM (#3384788)
What's the point of signing a premium glove and stashing him in Fenway's LF? I just don't see it. The Red Sox' resources aren't well-aligned for signing a defense-first center fielder, unless they want to move Drew to LF.
Ellsbury put up huge defensive numbers in LF when he was there. I actually think a good defensive player can save quite a few runs in LF. Proper positioning puts the left fielder in a very shallow field, which enables him to prevent a good number of hits, and if the guy also has the speed to cover the gaps and prevent liners from getting to the wall, he can make a real difference there.

I'm skeptical that a good defensive LF is worth all that much less in Fenway than elsewhere. Once you position yourself in a short field, you have a reasonably similar area of ground to cover. Also, Cameron's not a premium glove anymore, just a good one.
   17. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:27 PM (#3384793)
And, Voxter, I trust you're making a scouting evaluation on Holliday, rather than a numbers-driven one? Becuase Holliday's numbers are uniformly excellent, clearly better than Teixeira's. Or perhaps you didn't want Teixeira? Can you explain - especially if this is not a numbers-based call, what is your evaluation and your evidence?

(I'm perfectly open to all forms of baseball analysis, but I'm just looking for clarification here.)
   18. Marcel Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:32 PM (#3384798)
I do like the Cameron idea. I can imagine Cameron accepting a 2/3 job where he plays every outfield position. That would be pretty cool - a good RH bat with a still high-quality glove, playing lots of LF and some CF/RF, shuttling out the LHBs who normally play those spots.


Cameron supposedly won't consider returning to the Mets because he wants to play CF, so I don't think he'll be coming to the Sox either unless they intend to move Ellsbury.
   19. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:38 PM (#3384800)
I think the Yanks are going to sign Holliday.
   20. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:43 PM (#3384806)
I didn't want Teixeira, either. Huge contracts to guys who aren't superstars and are going to be in their late-30s at the end of those contracts tend to turn into millstones. It's one of the first lessons I learned when my interest in baseball was revived about ten years ago, and it's one of the ones that still holds true.

Here's what it comes down to with Holliday:

1. His very best offensive season was an OPS+ of 151, built mostly off a batting average of .340. In his late 20s so far, he has generally been a guy you can rely on to put up an OPS+ 10-15 points lower than that -- a significant reduction -- based on the fact that he isn't a "true" .340 hitter in the same sense that Ichiro is, or someone like Nomar used to be. In short, he's a very good, but not great, hitter.

2. I give very little credit to defensive statistics, which I find to be improving but still extremely weak in most regards. A combination of bare-eye evaluation and what seems to be a consensus among non-statistical evaluations of his defense seems to indicate that he's roughly average out there, which is nothing to get excited about.

3. He's a reasonably good baserunner, but nothing spectacular, and he doesn't possess blinding speed to indicate that his athleticism far outstrips his baserunning performance (which dived this year, by the way, with a drop in raw steals and a significant drop in success rate).

4. He'll be 30 years old next season, so what your paying for is unlikely to be his prime, but instead his decline. I realize that every player is different, etc, etc, but I see no reason to expect Holliday to buck this trend.

This all bundles up into a very good but not great player. When his skills begin to erode, he doesn't have that far to go before he's little more than useful -- and if you have to pay him $20 million / year to put up OPS+ in the range of 110 instead of 135, play middling-to-bad defense, and run the bases poorly, which I suspect is likely long before the contract is up, then I pass, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. You can't profitably stash him at DH, you can't trade him, you just have to play him and pay $20 million for the privilige. No thanks.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:52 PM (#3384814)
You can't profitably stash him at DH, you can't trade him, you just have to play him and pay $20 million for the privilige. No thanks.

Why should a team like Boston worry about paying $20M for an average LF in 6 years? The $20M is not going to stop them from making any other moves (it's only the equivalent to $15M today if revenue goes up 5% p.a., $11M if it goes up 10% p.a.).

Paying Ortiz $12.5M to be a well below average player (averagish hitter at DH) didn't stop them from making the playoffs this year, and it won't stop them from spending this offseason. If Holliday is putting up a 110 OPS+ in LF in 2015, so what?
   22. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:02 PM (#3384819)
Wasting roster slots on purpose is not a way to win baseball games.
   23. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:24 PM (#3384841)
Voxter, what "big" free agents from the last five or so years would you want the Red Sox to have signed? That's not snark, but it seems like you have a really high threshold for signing guys to long-term contracts, and since the Manny's of the world don't come along very often, that would seem to be putting a lot of pressure on a team to develop players and have their Hermida-type gambles work out.
   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:52 PM (#3384883)
Wasting roster slots on purpose is not a way to win baseball games.

It's not a waste if Holliday puts up 5,5,4,4,3 WAR and then is a 2 WAR player the last 2 years. If they pay him 140/7 they've bought 25 WAR at $5.6M per WAR which is perfectly acceptable for the Red Sox on a FA.

It's just part of the cost of putting 4-5 WAR of concentrated value on the field over the next 2-4 years and winning some pennants.

You can even front-load the contract if you prefer the optics of only paying him $15M in years 6-7.
   25. caprules Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:58 PM (#3384889)
It will be interesting to see the interest in Cameron and what his goals are. He's never played in a WS. He may be willing to make a sacrifice for the Red Sox that he wouldn't make for the Mets.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:04 PM (#3384894)
It will be interesting to see the interest in Cameron and what his goals are. He's never played in a WS. He may be willing to make a sacrifice for the Red Sox that he wouldn't make for the Mets.

Cameron apparently rejected the Mets overtures b/c he wants to play CF exclusively.

Do you think the Red Sox will mess with Ellsbury's development to accomodate that?
   27. caprules Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:18 PM (#3384906)
I should have specified what I meant by sacrifice. If a theoretical offer is made to Cameron to play LF for Boston, he may consider that more attractive than playing CF for the Mets.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:21 PM (#3384914)
I should have specified what I meant by sacrifice. If a theoretical offer is made to Cameron to play LF for Boston, he may consider that more attractive than playing CF for the Mets.

Perhaps. But it seems like CF is the sticking point for him.
   29. villageidiom Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:23 PM (#3384918)
What's the point of signing a premium glove and stashing him in Fenway's LF? I just don't see it.
If your home field is Fenway and you have an outfielder with poor defense, LF is where you'll put him because his limitations are minimized there vs. CF or RF. But "minimized" isn't minimal; it's still a big deal. They can't afford much more than any other team to get a poor defender.

Now, if they get someone with really good range in LF, they won't need a SS. OK, maybe on the road...
   30. Jon T. Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:32 PM (#3384927)
If they got Cameron and Beltre (making Lowell the backup and Lowell/Ortiz the platoon DH) they could probably live with ok defense (Lowrie) at SS. That probably wouldn't cost too much and they could go after Lackey as well
   31. tfbg9 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3385142)
Ellsbury would be an insanely good defensive LF'er.

I want the Sox to get Figgo. He's one of my favorite ballplayers.
   32. tfbg9 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 06:48 PM (#3385148)
I'm not a Matt Holliday fan either. They do need a 30 HR guy badly, however.
   33. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 11, 2009 at 06:57 PM (#3385162)
I want the Sox to get Figgo. He's one of my favorite ballplayers.

There's a guy who is going to get too much money and too many years, IMO. I'd steer clear of him myself.
   34. tfbg9 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 07:03 PM (#3385174)
For the last 3 years, M. Byrd slugs ~.515 at TEX, ~.410 away.


There's a guy who is going to get too much money and too many years, IMO.


I'd pay him 50 for 4. He's a good bet I think.
   35. tfbg9 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 07:13 PM (#3385191)
And has this ownership ever gone for a contract like Holliday will get? Ever? I don't recall one.
Anybody else?
   36. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 11, 2009 at 07:15 PM (#3385193)
They made an offer to Teixeira of equivalent size.
   37. tfbg9 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3385283)
36-but that's it right? They'll do the pre-arb lock up, but not the 30 year old 7 year 150 million deals.

The MFY's are gonna sign Damon, Lackey and Holliday. They'll let Shemp go, unless he'll take a 1 year deal.
   38. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: November 11, 2009 at 08:17 PM (#3385298)
36-but that's it right? They'll do the pre-arb lock up, but not the 30 year old 7 year 150 million deals.

Well, there hasn't always been a matchup of a very good FA who plays the position that the Red Sox have an obvious hole at. Even with Teix last year they had Youkilis at 1B, who wound up putting up a similar season.
   39. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 11, 2009 at 08:40 PM (#3385337)
I'd pay him 50 for 4. He's a good bet I think.

Only if you believe those nutty Fangraphs salary estimates. Yeah, he was great last year, but he slugged .318 (.318!) in 2008. His 2007 was also a nice season, but expecting him to hit .330 again is foolish, IMO. Unless this year's walk rate sticks, his main value is in his positional flexibility.

I'm okay with the Red Sox signing him in general, but $12.5M for the next four years just seems like a bad idea. Maybe I'll be wrong, but he just seems like the type who will get a Juan Pierre Contract followed by the Juan Pierre Regret.
   40. John DiFool2 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 09:01 PM (#3385375)
If your home field is Fenway and you have an outfielder with poor defense, LF is where you'll put him because his limitations are minimized there vs. CF or RF. But "minimized" isn't minimal; it's still a big deal. They can't afford much more than any other team to get a poor defender.


It's exactly that kind of thinking which has led to the Sox having some huge home-field advantages (read: road field disadvantages) over the past several years. I'd love for them to not put "Fenway Fit" so high on their priority meter, and sign a good-fielding LFer like Holliday. Tho for other reasons (his bat isn't great great and likely to decline from here on out), I'm not too crazy about him.
   41. Mister High Standards Posted: November 11, 2009 at 09:18 PM (#3385414)
Hermida


I think there is a non-zero chance the RedSox non-tender him if they can't sign him to a nice efficient contract.

I expect the RedSox will resign Jason Bay to play leftfield and lock up Martinez and Becket to deals as well as sign some guys that piss us all off.
   42. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 11, 2009 at 09:25 PM (#3385428)
And has this ownership ever gone for a contract like Holliday will get? Ever? I don't recall one.
Anybody else?


They spent $100 million on Matsuzaka, that's pretty comparable and I think they legitimately went to the mat on Teixeira. When else have they operated on the cheap which seems to be the tone (maybe I'm misreading the threads on this). Since this group took control I can't remember feeling like they lost out on someone just because they weren't willing to pay what they could. Yeah, some high profile money guys went away (Pedro, Manny, Lowe, Damon) but I think you can look back at those moments in time and without much effort give evidence as to why they acted the way they did.
   43. tfbg9 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM (#3385508)
Yeah I forgot about Dice. But that's not really an expample. Dice was, what, 27-28 his first year with the Sox?

If Figgo OBP's .350 he's totally worth the money I guessed would get him.
   44. Marcel Posted: November 11, 2009 at 10:37 PM (#3385545)
If they got Cameron and Beltre (making Lowell the backup and Lowell/Ortiz the platoon DH) they could probably live with ok defense (Lowrie) at SS. That probably wouldn't cost too much and they could go after Lackey as well

I think the only way they go after Lackey is if they can't get Beckett signed to an extension. Lackey's arm issues the last couple of years are kind of scary.
   45. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 11, 2009 at 11:25 PM (#3385611)
If Figgo OBP's .350 he's totally worth the money I guessed would get him.

Well, I disagree. If his OBP is around .350, his OPS isn't much north of .700 - so unless you think he's like a +20 defender at 3rd or something, I don't see it at all. He's just not the profile of someone I want signed for their age 32-35 seasons. This isn't a Damon situation where he might add a bit of power, IMO.
   46. Darren Posted: November 11, 2009 at 11:54 PM (#3385647)
When else have they operated on the cheap which seems to be the tone (maybe I'm misreading the threads on this).


Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not calling them cheap, per se. I'm just pointing out that they tend to value depth more than getting a superstar. Dice was an exception but I assume it was because they were desperate. I agree that they were legitimately going hard after Tex, but they got outbid because they weren't willing to go as high as others were. And that's what I see happening this year. They'll go as high as they think is reasonable but I'm betting a NY team will go higher. (This tactic has its strengths too, of course. It prevents you from signing Pedro to a 4-year $60 mil deal, etc).

By the way, although I think that the Red Sox pretty much agree with Voxter on long-term deals, I don't think there can be much dispute over whether Holliday is an elite talent. Over the past 3 years, he is 2nd to Manny in OPS+ among OFs with more than 1,000 PA. I believe he's also in the top 5 for WAR for all position players during that period. He is, as the expression goes, a franchise player.
   47. tfbg9 Posted: November 12, 2009 at 01:01 AM (#3385715)
so unless you think he's like a +20 defender at 3rd or something,


I think he's a good bet to be around +12 at 3rd, and his versitality and baserunning make him well worth that money
if he OBP's at .350. The big jump in the BB rate actually scares me a little--GM Sr,. syndrome.

But basically, I just like the way he plays. Its not all that rational, but neither is it totally crazy, like you're
suggesting. Figgins for 4 at 12 per or so is a decent signing. He catches the ball and scores runs, and you can stick him
anywhere in a pinch. I like players like that.

But they're not going to sign him.
   48. Bad Fish Posted: November 12, 2009 at 02:45 AM (#3385787)
Chone can and will play a bunch of different positions as long he is slotted in the line-up, and he works the pitch, both of these seems valued by this management group.
   49. rr Posted: November 12, 2009 at 02:54 AM (#3385791)
Dice was an exception but I assume it was because they were desperate.


The fact posting fees don't count against the cap/tax may have helped, too. That's why people "forget" about him.

I don't see Boston signing Figgins. I think he will stay with the Angels.
   50. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 03:08 AM (#3385801)
Dice was an exception but I assume it was because they were desperate.


And because he was in his mid-twenties, not early thirties.

I am, as I think the Red Sox are, extremely conservative when it comes to contracts as long as 6 or 7 seasons. To blithely assume that revenues will continue to increase, that John Henry will remain the owner of the team, and that a player who is leaving his prime will still be useful in seven years, is an error. Since I don't really credit WAR as anything other than a junky toy, and OPS+ is a blunt tool (that, admittedly, I used myself), and Holliday lacks the good speed or difficult defensive position that would indicate to me that he can experience a deterioration in his skills without becoming a problem, he is not a player I would consider signing to a contract that long, unless he was a shocking bargain. He's already at the far left end of the defensive spectrum. There's nowhere for him to go other than DH if he loses a step or three. His power is decent but not really exceptional. I agree that Matt Holliday is a very good player today; he's likely to be a good player next year, and the year after. At which point, he'll be 32 years old, and probably have five years left on his contract. He starts losing those steps and a bit of that contact, and very suddenly he's not a particularly good player at all. That's all but guaranteed to happen before his next contract is up.

The Red Sox do have a lot of money. They are not, however, the Yankees. A few bad contracts can actually get them in trouble, especially in a division that will probably continue to get more competitive, not less, with the Rays and Orioles primed to rise toward the top.

I supported the JD Drew contract; JD Drew is, in many respects, a very similar player to Matt Holliday -- but he could be had relatively cheaply and, more significantly, for only five seasons, because of his alleged "attitude" problems. He was also a better fielder and had two seasons as good as Holliday's best, without the aid of Coors field. If Holliday was available for 5/90 or even 5/100, I'd go for that. Going seven years on him is a mistake. Going seven years on any position player over thirty who is not a totally outstanding superstar who can experience significant erosion of skills and still be a very good player is always a mistake. You do get the occasional outlier like a Mike Cameron, but betting on that sort of thing is asking for failure. What is it they say? "Plan for the worst, hope for the best." Signing Matt Holliday for seven seasons this offseason will be hoping for the best and nothing more.
   51. Sean Forman Posted: November 12, 2009 at 08:14 PM (#3386335)
Signing Matt Holliday for seven seasons this offseason will be hoping for the best and nothing more.


I agree with everything you wrote, but I'm not sure there are ways to spend the money that will be as likely to yield as many wins over exactly the next seven years as signing Holliday. If the Sox could sign and then use four $12m over 2 years players then I would probably agree with your sentiment, but the opportunities to play players is very limited, 6000 PA's, 1400 innings.

Obviously, if Troy Tulowitzki or Hanley Ramirez were on the market, the Sox would be breaking the bank for them, but they aren't, so the question is what set of moves is going to make the biggest difference over the next N years with a large discount given to future events.

Plowing $20m/year into signing bonuses might yield a superstar player, or might not.
   52. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3386403)
I supported the JD Drew contract; JD Drew is, in many respects, a very similar player to Matt Holliday -- but he could be had relatively cheaply and, more significantly, for only five seasons, because of his alleged "attitude" problems.


The Drew deal was seen as an overreach when it was signed, and because of injury concerns, not attitude. But I agree with the rest.
   53. Richard Gadsden Posted: November 13, 2009 at 01:41 PM (#3386788)
They place an extremely high priority on reaching 95-ish wins and very little importance on winning the division.


That's also why they operate with such a deep bench - if you sign a superstar for $20m and he gets injured, it can completely ruin your season; if you sign two players for $10m each and you know that one of them will be on the bench anyway, then having one on the IL and the other playing works out OK.

I think Theo is deliberately trying to (a) win 95 games and (b) reduce the variance from season to season in the win total. If you cut down the SD massively, then you don't win 100 games very often, but you don't win 90 and miss the playoffs either.

This is, incidentally, the opposite of the strategy that should be adopted by a small-budget GM; on a small budget, you should go for as much variance as you can.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 13, 2009 at 01:55 PM (#3386793)
That's also why they operate with such a deep bench - if you sign a superstar for $20m and he gets injured, it can completely ruin your season; if you sign two players for $10m each and you know that one of them will be on the bench anyway, then having one on the IL and the other playing works out OK.

Except you're severely underutilizing your resources when they're both healthy. If the superstar is a 5 WAR player and the $10M guys are 2.5 WAR players, you are not getting to all of your WAR value in the second scenario. If the catastrophic injury doesn't happen, which is 90% of the time, and the starter gets 600 PAs and the backup 150 PAs, the 5 WAR with a 0 WAR backup will generate ~5 WAR, the 2.5 WAR starter with a 2.5 WAR backup will generate 3.1 WAR.

Playing time is as much of a scarce resource in creating on-field value as money; probably much more scarce for a team like the Red Sox.

The situation is better if your 2.5 backup can play multiple positions, so he's picking up the 150 PAs from 1B and DH, or RF and LF. But the team would still be better off with the superstar, unless the backup gets a full season of PAs replacing 0 WAR guys. In which case, you don't have any injury protection, b/c if the 2.5 WAR is forced into full-time duty, he leaves a full 600 PAs for lesser reserves.
   55. tfbg9 Posted: November 13, 2009 at 07:34 PM (#3387264)
If the catastrophic injury doesn't happen, which is 90% of the time


Or in the NYY's case, seemingly about 99% of the time. How do they do that? It's crazy...
   56. Darren Posted: November 14, 2009 at 03:49 PM (#3387650)
Do you take on Dontrelle's $12 mil to get Granderson for 3/$24 mil.? I say YES!

Also, there's this rumor that the Royals might deal DeJesus. He'd fit the Red Sox style quite well.
   57. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: November 14, 2009 at 04:29 PM (#3387661)
Do you take on Dontrelle's $12 mil to get Granderson for 3/$24 mil.? I say YES!

Eh; you'd probably have to take on more than that. Where would you draw the line--Robertson's $10m? Bonderman's $12m? Maggs' $18m?
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 14, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3387682)
If the catastrophic injury doesn't happen, which is 90% of the time

Or in the NYY's case, seemingly about 99% of the time. How do they do that? It's crazy...


I don't know. But, I guess there must be a reason Gene Monahan has kept the the head trainer job since 1973.
   59. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: November 14, 2009 at 05:37 PM (#3387694)
Hey, how torn up is Mark Prior? Could he be a cheap long-term rehab? Say, 1 million for 2 years?
   60. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: November 14, 2009 at 05:58 PM (#3387702)
Hey, how torn up is Mark Prior? Could he be a cheap long-term rehab? Say, 1 million for 2 years?
Prior must be pretty closed to cooked, he hasn't thrown a pitch in anger since 2006.
   61. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 14, 2009 at 06:33 PM (#3387716)
He was reported to have thrown one out of sheer effervescence on Christmas Day, 2007, though.
   62. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: November 14, 2009 at 06:37 PM (#3387720)
I'd be perfectly happy if the Red Sox paid the entirety of Bonderman's and Ordonez' contracts to get Granderson. Let Detroit keep Willis. Bonderman can be the 2010 Wade Miller/Matt Clement/Pedro Astacio/Brad Penny/etc. reclamation project/7th starter and Maggs can play a little OF and DH. Great idea. Granderson is badass.
   63. Nasty Nate Posted: November 19, 2009 at 05:33 PM (#3391254)
SI's Heyman is reporting Sox offered Bay something like 4 years @ $15m per year, but it was turned down.
   64. Darren Posted: December 10, 2009 at 01:29 AM (#3408695)
Looks like the Sox could have had Granderson for something like Reddick/Bowden/H. Jones, with no albatross contract attached.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4805 seconds
38 querie(s) executed