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. WhoWantsTeixeiraDessert Posted: November 16, 2011 at 09:59 PM (#3995123)
Why would Buehrle expect/accept less than the 14m per year he made in his last contract, given his career numbers and durability?
   2. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM (#3995128)
Buehrle's 32, and his best seasons came in the years before he signed his most recent contract. I figured the projected decline is balanced out by inflation.
   3. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM (#3995134)
I've been warming to the idea of signing Jackson if he can be had for 3 or 4 years at $10-12M. He's consistently one of the hardest throwers in the league, you'd be buying his age 28-30 or 31 seasons, and he's got a tremendous record of good health (31 starts or more five years running). A good bet to be a better than league average innings eater, with some chance for something more.

Wilson looks like he'll be really good and having good pitchers is good, though I too worry he'll be overpriced. But if the price is closer to Burnett/Lackey than Hampton/Zito the Sox should jump.

Vazquez I would stay away from. I don't think his stuff plays in the AL anymore, especially not the East. His career ERA+ in the AL is 99 and he's now 35 with a less fast fastball.

Buehrle would make me nervous pitching half his games in Fenway. Opponents could load up on righties and send BP fastball after BP fastball over and off the Monster. He's been successful for years throwing 86, but what happens when that drops to 84? At some point, his #### stops working.
   4. The District Attorney Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:14 PM (#3995141)
Harden, Colon, or Wang
My friend has this DVD.
   5. vortex of dissipation Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:16 PM (#3995145)
So, I’m finding at least by this method that Sabathia’s contract was close to a fair deal, just slightly weighted toward CC – as indeed are all things in this world, due to normal gravitation.


This is a great line. Kudos.
   6. vortex of dissipation Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:18 PM (#3995147)
They might be interested in risky choices like Harden, Colon, or Wang


I'm pretty sure that Wang re-signed with Washington.
   7. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:26 PM (#3995156)
I'm pretty sure that Wang re-signed with Washington.
Totally missed that. Thanks for the correction.

I should have mentioned Bedard as a more expensive risk the team could take. I'm guessing he's going to want real money, and that doesn't look like a good bet to me. But if it's one year with an option, I'd be interested.

And, of course, there's always Pedro. Don't forget Pedro!
   8. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:34 PM (#3995164)
If the Sox go just the free agent route, my preference right now is that they spend something like $12M on Beltran or $7M on Willingham for DH/RF.
I think Ortiz will probably end up accepting arbitration. He's a guy who's really going to get screwed by his Type A status. His market is already limited to the 13 other AL teams, most of whom are already locked into a DH or have a comparable cheaper option. This leaves teams like Seattle, Baltimore or Minnesota, who I just don't see giving up a pick and a two or three year deal for a 36 year old DH. Which all works out just dandy for the Sox, who would get an elite DH for a one year ~$13M commitment.
   9. Nasty Nate Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:51 PM (#3995181)
Speaking of SP, Jon Lester has a clause in his contract that the Red Sox lose their 2014 team option if he gets a top-2 finish in the CY Young voting in any year. So should be rooting for him to be at best the 3rd best pitcher in the league in the next two years?
   10. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: November 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM (#3995183)
Speaking of SP, Jon Lester has a clause in his contract that the Red Sox lose their 2014 team option if he gets a top-2 finish in the CY Young voting in any year.
That only comes into effect if he's traded, so root away. From Cot's:
2014 club option is voided if Lester is traded and has finished first or second in Cy Young vote any season from 2009 to 2013
   11. Nasty Nate Posted: November 16, 2011 at 11:01 PM (#3995194)
Woo hoo!
   12. Nasty Nate Posted: November 16, 2011 at 11:09 PM (#3995201)
I honestly want the Red Sox to trade Beckett this offseason.
   13. OCD SS Posted: November 17, 2011 at 02:57 AM (#3995337)
#8: Paxton, until the new CBA is signed, all assumptions of compensation should probably be put on hold.
   14. cardsfanboy Posted: November 17, 2011 at 03:54 AM (#3995376)
How is Buerhle not an ace? projections doesn't mean anything if they don't match up to the previous facts..

over the last three years (minimum 480 ip) Buehrle ranks 16 in war, 26 in era+, 15th in innings pitched, 18th in games started, etc... basically based upon results he's about 15-25th best starting pitcher in the game over the past 3 seasons... what is the deifninition of ace that wouldn't include him in the discussion? fip?

at worse he's a upper number two, but realistically speaking he's a top 20 pitcher, how does that not make him an ace? esoteric projections based upon numbers that he has consistently beaten over the years?
   15. Nasty Nate Posted: November 17, 2011 at 04:15 AM (#3995390)
How is Buerhle not an ace?....

over the last three years (minimum 480 ip)


I don't think most people would use cumulative multi-year stats to determine "ace-ness." He is very consistent and very healthy, but people generally think of an ace as being top 20 within a single season, not over a longer time. The innings minimum excludes people like CJ Wilson, Wainwright, and Josh Johnson - all of whom most people would think of more of an ace than Buerhle.
   16. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 17, 2011 at 04:40 AM (#3995401)
Buehrle is one of the 30 best pitchers in baseball. I've never been much of s fan of the idea that there must be 30 aces in baseball at all times - to me an ace is a guy among the Cy Young contenders for next season, and Buehrle isn't that.
   17. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: November 17, 2011 at 05:04 AM (#3995415)
Buehrle is one of the 30 best pitchers in baseball. I've never been much of s fan of the idea that there must be 30 aces in baseball at all times - to me an ace is a guy among the Cy Young contenders for next season, and Buehrle isn't that.


I've always ascribed to the notion, that aces should be as rare as in a pack of cards, so 1/13. 30 teams, 5 rotation spots each equals 150 pitchers. Divide by 13, gives you ~11.5. Rounded down, because I'm an asshole. So 11.
   18. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 17, 2011 at 03:38 PM (#3995550)
I'd like to see both Harden and Bedard, i mean between 2 Canadian injury prone pitchers we could get 180 innings... right?
   19. Dan Posted: November 17, 2011 at 05:21 PM (#3995641)
I'd like to see both Harden and Bedard, i mean between 2 Canadian injury prone pitchers we could get 180 innings... right?


Can we keep Harden cryogenically frozen and unthaw him when Bedard goes on the DL?
   20. WhoWantsTeixeiraDessert Posted: November 18, 2011 at 06:30 PM (#3996621)
Whatever the speed gun says, the results say Buehrle should get at least 4/60, if Wilson is getting 6/120, that's a steal.
   21. Guapo Posted: November 18, 2011 at 06:38 PM (#3996631)
My friend has this DVD


Primey
   22. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: November 18, 2011 at 06:50 PM (#3996641)
[21] seconded
   23. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 30, 2011 at 03:28 PM (#4003510)
So, there are a couple of rumors of the Cubs putting Garza on the block, and I thought it would be interesting to project Garza and compare him to his expected contract.

+5 RAA + 22 Rep = +27 RAR, 2/25

Garza made $6M in arb, so in his next two arbitration years he projects to make about $18M. In a pure $$/win sense, trading for Garza is trading for ~$7M in expected surplus value over two seasons. It seems to me that there's added value in a young pitcher whom you wouldn't have to commit to for more than two seasons, and who might be interested in signing a long-term deal after one season if his FIP improvement from 2011 is real. Even so, Garza's not actually that great a catch, and the Cubs won't be giving up one of their only trustworthy starting pitchers without getting good prospects in return. I don't know if I really see a match here.

(I am really down on Will Middlebrooks, so I do feel that if the Cubs were interested in a Middlebrooks+ package, go for it.)
   24. Danny Posted: November 30, 2011 at 05:17 PM (#4003599)
Vazquez I would stay away from. I don't think his stuff plays in the AL anymore, especially not the East. His career ERA+ in the AL is 99 and he's now 35 with a less fast fastball.

Vazquez's FB velocity returned to its usual ~91 MPH for the last 4 months of 2011. His average FB was below 90 MPH in 11 of his first 12 starts, but just once in his final 20 starts. With his velocity back at ~91 MPH, Vazquez basically returned to his 2009 form: 20 GS, 130 IP, 107 H, 12 HR, 22 BB, 121 K, 2.35 ERA.
   25. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 05, 2011 at 05:21 PM (#4007208)
Per the aggregators at MLB Trade Rumors, the Sox are interested in Hiroki Kuroda, and Kuroda is asking for $12-13M on a short-term deal. That's just about right where I have Kuroda valued at, and on a one or two-year deal it seems pretty fair.

+4 RAA + 20 Rep = +24 RAR, 1/12 or 2/22
   26. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 05, 2011 at 05:29 PM (#4007218)
The starter market is all sorts of weird right now. Buehrle seems like he's gone from undervalued to overvalued fairly rapidly. Given the reported level of interest (Heyman says 14 teams are in on him and no, Boras isn't his agent) it looks like a 4 year deal is going to be necessary. Wilson doesn't seem to be gaining any traction at all. I wonder if there might be a way to sneak in on him and get him at a price a bit more tolerable than some of the initial projections had.
   27. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:04 PM (#4008011)
The Pete Abe story today suggests that Bard would like to try starting pitching again and that the Sox have "told reliever Alfredo Aceves to prepare himself to start next season."

Another rumor on the internet is the Sox trying to trade for Andrew Bailey.
   28. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:14 PM (#4008014)
I'm not a huge fan of Bard as starter but I see the arguments and I won't quibble. What frightens me is that if both he and Aceves are moving to the rotation...holy crap is that bullpen full of suck. Let's assume they land Bailey (who I love);

Bailey
Albers
Wheeler
Morales
Doubront
Remmerswal
Schiraldi

I mean, that just looks like a lot of frustrating nights. Am I missing someone? Jenks I guess but really, we're counting on a guy with two bad years in a row who is having back surgery this week?
   29. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:20 PM (#4008019)
I mean, that just looks like a lot of frustrating nights. Am I missing someone?


They could trade for Bailey AND sign a FA relief pitcher.
   30. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:22 PM (#4008021)
Even then I'm not enthused. I felt like WITH Bard and Papelbon they needed a reliever.
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:32 PM (#4008026)
....a 56-year old knuckleballing reliever?
   32. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:36 PM (#4008028)
....a 56-year old knuckleballing reliever?


I know one person who would endorse that plan. I bet he would say that he knows where the Sox can get a Hall of Fame DH on the cheap while they are at it too!
   33. Dan Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:39 PM (#4008030)
According to Tom Caron's Twitter, Bard has been told to prepare for a starter's workload in the spring. Obviously they're not committing to making him a starter, but it looks like they'll at least try it out in ST (unless they're unable to acquire a closer, maybe).
   34. Textbook Editor Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:41 PM (#4008034)
If Bard and Aceves join the rotation, I'm guessing they'd also retain Wakefield on a cheap 1-year deal to be the long man out of the pen/fill the Aceves role to some extent.

I do wonder if all the talk of closers being converted to starters (it isn't just the Red Sox) isn't a bit of saber-rattling to keep the general price of the FA starters down, since none of them are truly "ace" starters.

They could, of course, always trade for Bailey *and* sign a guy like Madson. You could probably get Madson for (at worst, given what Bell signed for) 3/$30 or 3/$33, and if Bard doesn't work out as a starter (but Aceves does), then you've got quite a strong bullpen at your disposal.
   35. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:07 PM (#4008066)
I think it was two offseasons ago when they told us that Dustin Pedroia would be shifting over to shortstop, and last offseason that after trading for Adrian Gonzalez they were only looking at "complementary" bench bats.

I'm not saying that the Sox aren't preparing to make both of their best relievers into starters, I'm saying that we shouldn't presume just because they're telling us this that it's the team's plan. It's the team's backup plan, if they don't get the starter(s) they want.

Obviously if the Sox do convert both Aceves and Bard, they would have a lot of money left over to purchase free agent relievers. Madson's the best out there, but there are quite a few guys with either good stuff or good results who could probably be had on cheapish deals - Juan Cruz, Octavio Dotel, Frank Francisco, Latroy Hawkins, Brad Lidge, Javier Lopez, Darren Oliver, Joel Peralta, Chad Qualls, Francisco Rodriguez, George Sherrill, Koji Uehara, Joel Zumaya. I wouldn't trust any of those guys as an ace reliever, but I bet you could piece together a decent set-up corps by mixing in a couple of them with Morales and Albers, and it probably wouldn't cost much more than $10M combined. (So, in response to Jose, I don't see this year's reliever market as a terrible place to have to shop, and even if the club didn't convert any of their relievers to starting, they'd need to be adding one guy from the FA relief market.)

A really good pitching coach could definitely build a bullpen out of mid-level castoffs like those guys. How is Bobby Valentine's history with bullpens?

If the Sox do look to convert both Aceves and Bard, they should think of de-converting Weiland and Wilson as bullpen options. I think Weiland could be a very good MLB reliever, and what I saw last year did not suggest he had the stuff for the rotation.
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:21 PM (#4008082)
Even if they acquire one or none of Madson/Bailey/K-Rod and they move Bard and/or Aceves to the rotation, I would be fine with them just getting cheapish reliever options and then just throw it at the wall and see what sticks. I am much more concerned with the rotation. Who knows, maybe Junichi Tazawa comes out of nowhere and gives you 60 innings at 2.00 ERA as your closer?

If the Sox do look to convert both Aceves and Bard, they should think of de-converting Weiland and Wilson as bullpen options.


I am blanking - who is Wilson? you don't mean CJ do you?
   37. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:31 PM (#4008101)
I'm not saying that the Sox aren't preparing to make both of their best relievers into starters, I'm saying that we shouldn't presume just because they're telling us this that it's the team's plan. It's the team's backup plan, if they don't get the starter(s) they want.

Obviously if the Sox do convert both Aceves and Bard, they would have a lot of money left over to purchase free agent relievers.
Not unless they want to take a big luxury tax hit. Per Alex Speier, the Sox are only about $8M shy of the CBT if they re-sign Ortiz for $12.5M AAV. I think they'll end up having to go over it by at least a little, but with the increased penalties in the new CBA, I don't see them making a long term $12M+ AAV deal for a starter. Bard and Aceves to the rotation, Madson for Heath Bell money and a trade for Bailey (projected $3.5M) would put them about $4.5M over. Maybe a couple extra mil for starting pitcher depth, but there's not room for much else unless they actually do trade Youkilis.
   38. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:35 PM (#4008111)
I am blanking - who is Wilson? you don't mean CJ do you?


Alex. Seems like a guy who will probably have a chance to help the club in some capacity this year.
   39. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:36 PM (#4008112)
Bard and Aceves to the rotation, Madson for Heath Bell money and a trade for Bailey (projected $3.5M) would put them about $4.5M over. Maybe a couple extra mil for starting pitcher depth, but there's not room for much else unless they actually do trade Youkilis.


...or trade Beckett
   40. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:39 PM (#4008115)
Bard and Aceves to the rotation, Madson for Heath Bell money and a trade for Bailey (projected $3.5M) would put them about $4.5M over.
Well, that's $13M for relievers. That's a lot of money to spend on relievers. That's what I meant.

EDIT: And, yeah, I'm presuming the Sox will go over the luxury tax threshold. I really don't see John Henry cutting payroll after two seasons out of the playoffs.
   41. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:43 PM (#4008121)
I am blanking - who is Wilson? you don't mean CJ do you?
Alex Wilson and Kyle Weiland were both closers in college, and both are fastball pitchers who have good-not-great minor league resumes as starters. The word seems to be that they can both sit in the mid-90s if they only have to throw one inning, and neither of them has a three-pitch arsenal that they can use in the majors. If the Sox are going to be going thin in the bullpen, they should consider returning both of these guys to relief pitching, where they're both probably ticketed eventually anyway.
   42. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:46 PM (#4008127)
Even if they acquire one or none of Madson/Bailey/K-Rod and they move Bard and/or Aceves to the rotation, I would be fine with them just getting cheapish reliever options and then just throw it at the wall and see what sticks.
It would be really funny if Ben Cherington staked his first year as GM on a "bullpen-by-committee." I mean, there's a case for doing it, given the personnel and the market, but it would be amusing is all I'm saying.
   43. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:04 PM (#4008149)
It would be really funny if Ben Cherington staked his first year as GM on a "bullpen-by-committee." I mean, there's a case for doing it, given the personnel and the market, but it would be amusing is all I'm saying.


That's kind of what I was thinking - not necessarily closer-by-committee (every team uses "bullpen-by-committee") - but go into the season without worrying if someone was anointed holy roman closer beforehand. It worked fine in 2003 despite conventional wisdom otherwise.
   44. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:10 PM (#4008159)
It worked fine in 2003 despite conventional wisdom otherwise.
Hmm? It worked fine because the Red Sox traded their starting third baseman for a conventional closer, and then traded prospects for a second closer at the deadline. The Red Sox traded for Kim at the end of May. In April and May, the Red Sox bullpen had an ERA of ~5.40. The bullpen that Theo built in the offseason was terrible, and was only salvaged by the acquisition of good pitchers in trade over the course of the summer.

Certainly, a "closer-by-committee" of good pitchers could have worked just fine, but that isn't what Theo built, and his bullpen was a total failure. (To his credit, he fixed it within a couple months.) The problem with "closer-by-committee" is that you have to cycle through Chad Fox and Ramiro Mendoza and Brandon Lyon pitching high-leverage innigns they have no business covering for a good club, before you determine that Mike Timlin is your best option. Unless most of the pitchers you get for the committee are actually good, or unless your pitching coach and manager make the right calls very early on, you're going to be in trouble.
   45. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:26 PM (#4008171)
The problem with "closer-by-committee" is that you have to cycle through Chad Fox and Ramiro Mendoza and Brandon Lyon pitching high-leverage innigns they have no business covering for a good club, before you determine that Mike Timlin is your best option.


Or you cycle directly to the right guy like Papelbon in 2006 or Farnsworth in 2011 etc. In 2003 everything went wrong/unlucky with the undefined closer situation at the beginning of the year .... and they still got themselves a few millimeters from the world series while deploying a bullpen that was lights-out in the playoffs.
   46. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:32 PM (#4008179)
Or you cycle directly to the right guy like Papelbon in 2006 or Farnsworth in 2011 etc.
Yup. That's what happens when it works, and when you acquire the right personnel. In 2003 Theo acquired the wrong personnel, Grady deployed them poorly, and it didn't work.

"Closer-by-committee" is good in direct proportion to the quality of the pitchers you bring in and the quality of their deployment. In 2003, Theo brought in two good pitchers (Embree and Timlin) and four bad pitchers (Fox, Mendoza, Lyon, and Howry), and Grady tried to close with Fox and Mendoza and Lyon for most of the first two months. That's why the bullpen sucked so hard for two months.
   47. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:39 PM (#4008190)
Yup. That's what happens when it works, and when you acquire the right personnel. In 2003 Theo acquired the wrong personnel, and it didn't work.


He also brought in Kim and Williamson. So even if it doesn't work at first, you can get new guys. Now, maybe I should have said "Things overall - and things in the bullpen by playoff-time - worked out well for the Sox w/o a pre-season closer in 2003" instead of simplifying it.
   48. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#4008203)
In 2003, Theo brought in two good pitchers (Embree and Timlin) and four bad pitchers (Fox, Mendoza, Lyon, and Howry), and Grady tried to close with Fox and Mendoza and Lyon for most of the first two months. That's why the bullpen sucked so hard for two months.
Other than Mendoza (who was done) those are actually some pretty good pickups, the Sox just got them at the wrong time/didn't stick with them long enough/couldn't figure out how to get good pitching out of them. Howry would average ~70 IP of 150 ERA+ ball the next four years, Fox was lights out for the Marlins down the stretch, and Lyon still had three 2+ rWAR seasons left in him.

EDIT: I had completely forgotten that Mendoza had pitched and pitched well for the '04 team, putting up a 3.52 ERA in 30.2 innings. Granted, it was with a 3.82 K/9 and 85.9 FB, so the writing was on the wall.
   49. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#4008226)
The Red Sox bullpen cost them several games in April and May. Theo did a good job fixing things, but those games could have mattered, and could have cost them the season if the Mariners had just been a little bit better.
   50. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2011 at 09:52 PM (#4009552)
MLBTR cites an Edes twitter that the Sox are looking at both John Danks and Gavin Floyd. I had Danks logged in my brain as a bit of a DIPS fluke (my vague memory of the "trade Jose Lopez for John Danks" discussion of a few years ago), and I had Gavin Floyd logged in my brain as not being a good pitcher. Both are wrong.

Danks is simply a good pitcher by any measure, and his down year in 2011 was in significant part a DIPS fluke (.313 BABIP vs .290 career). With Floyd, you'd be gambling a bit on FIP, which he's underperformed for three years running, but Floyd's durability and GB tendencies have made him a solidly above average SP over the last few years regardless.

Both should be major bargains next year. Floyd is signed for $7M, and Danks projects to make about $7M in arbitration. Danks will be a free agent after 2012, and Floyd has a team option for $9.5M. I have them projected as $15M pitchers.

+8 RAA + 23 Rep = +31 RAA, $15M - Danks
+8 RAA + 23 Rep = +31 RAA, $15M - Floyd

To distinguish them, Danks projects almost exactly the same by FIP and RA (+30 / +31) while Floyd projects better by FIP than by RA (+33 / +28).

What would you trade for a one-year, $8M projected bargain? Is anyone in our farm system worth $8M? I like this rumor and want Cherington to follow through on it.
   51. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 07, 2011 at 11:30 PM (#4009672)
What would you trade for a one-year, $8M projected bargain? Is anyone in our farm system worth $8M? I like this rumor and want Cherington to follow through on it.
When you put it that way, Reddick would seem like way too much. Fangraphs valued him at $8.7M last season; not sure what his projections look like, but he wouldn't even need a 2 win 2012 to be more valuable and still have four years of team control left. Presumably the Sox recognize how valuable cheap, ready-to-go major leaguers are; if other teams don't, they should just hold on to them. Nothing wrong with keeping Reddick and Kalish -- I think their odds of needing a center fielder in two years are about 50-50.
   52. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2011 at 11:32 PM (#4009674)
Oh, yeah, when I said "farm system" I didn't mean to include Kalish or Reddick. I think of them as members of the MLB roster, though that's not entirely the case with Kalish.
   53. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 14, 2011 at 01:49 AM (#4015838)
There have been a few mentions of the Sox being in on Joe Saunders, who got non-tendered last night. Here's Saunders:

-8 RAA +23 Rep = +15 RAR, $7M

There's a not insignificant gap between FIP and RA with Saunders - projecting by RA would get him closer to $8-9M, and by FIP you're looking at $5-6M. He's been durable the last few years.

Joe Saunders would probably have saved the Red Sox playoff hopes in 2011, so there's that. He's the sort of guy where I might start to worry about differences in league and division quality, but if Freddy Garcia can put up a 125 ERA+ in the AL East, can't Saunders manage a 95?
   54. Dan Posted: December 14, 2011 at 02:38 AM (#4015864)
Joe Saunders would probably have saved the Red Sox playoff hopes in 2011, so there's that. He's the sort of guy where I might start to worry about differences in league and division quality, but if Freddy Garcia can put up a 125 ERA+ in the AL East, can't Saunders manage a 95?


I wouldn't want to bet one of the 5 rotation spots on it. And I imagine it'll take a guaranteed spot in the rotation to sign him.
   55. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 14, 2011 at 02:44 AM (#4015869)
I wouldn't either, but it depends on the state of the Sox' resources. If they pull another 2011 and go big for Darvish and Madson in the next week, then, sure, no Saunders for me. But if they're telling the truth about avoiding the luxury tax, then they're going to need a durable, below-average arm to slot into the rotation, and Saunders fits the bill.

Put it this way - I'd rather have my 4-5-6 starters be Bard, Saunders, and Doubront than Bard, Doubront, and Miller/Wakefield/Weiland, and I think it's worth several million to make it happen. I'd rather have Danks or Floyd, but only if the cost in talent isn't extortionary. I'd rather spend money on Edwin Jackson or Yu Darvish, but if the Sox are being honest this time, really, not gonna spend the money, not just posturing, really, then Saunders is a not-unattractive option.
   56. tfbg9 Posted: December 14, 2011 at 03:21 AM (#4015886)
I could live with going into 2012 with the guy as the #4...checks splits
   57. tfbg9 Posted: December 14, 2011 at 03:29 AM (#4015894)
Wow, rightys give him fits. Still he'd be a solid signing. Team needs competent innings from SP's.
And he's a lefty. A durable lefty starter is a valuable player.

...I broke my font.
   58. Textbook Editor Posted: December 14, 2011 at 04:13 AM (#4015920)
FWIW, only 14 of Garcia's 26 starts were against AL East teams last year. You could probably "hide" a guy like Saunders from too much AL East exposure if you were really fearful of that.
   59. Textbook Editor Posted: December 14, 2011 at 04:14 AM (#4015921)
Sorry. Fixed?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7315 seconds
60 querie(s) executed