The Plan and the Payroll
The Red Sox luxury tax payroll currently stands at about $130M. When you add in projected arbitration awards for Ortiz, Ellsbury, Saltalamacchia, Bard, Bailey, and the bench players, that leaves the Red Sox with little to no room remaining under the luxury tax threshold. As I’ve argued, the Red Sox offseason should be understood as a specifically structured and cleverly executed plan. They bolstered the rotation by emptying the bullpen, and then they filled the bullpen by trading MLB-ready semi-prospects for young, cheap relievers. This accomplished two goals. First, it enabled the club from to avoid the free agent market, thus making the roster younger and preventing another winner’s curse contract. Second, it kept the club’s payroll under or almost under the luxury tax threshold. It’s possible that Cherington still has another big acquisition coming up, and owners are planning to pay a bit of tax, but it’s growing more and more likely that Henry and co imposed a strict spending limit on Cherington.
A couple years ago I’d probably have been annoyed about a turn of events like this. But the 2009 and 2010 offseasons have left me wondering, a little bit, to what degree it’s a good thing to have a ton of money that you have to spend. Having John Lackey on the roster wasn’t just a waste of money – he actively made the club worse. The out-years in the Crawford contract are a big problem even if you think he’s going to suck less next year. At some point, the club can’t keep adding more payroll in the out years, and at some point you have to wonder if giving a GM too much money to spend limits his effectiveness.
Whatever you think of the Sox offseason plan, there’s no question it was creative. For a fan, that’s pretty fun. I don’t want to just sing the praises of creativity here – in generally, give me lots more money and give you creativity and I’ll come out ahead – but it’s certainly been enjoyable to watch the Sox treat the offseason as a complex problem requiring a complex solution. Throwing money at a problem is usually a good way to solve a problem, but it’s not terribly fun to watch. I don’t know if my doubts about “just throw some money at it”, as articulated in the paragraph above come from a fully reasoned place. I know I’m annoyed that this club is coming off two 3rd place finishes, I know I’m annoyed about Lackey and Crawford, and I know I’m appreciating the offseason plan aesthetically regardless of whether a bigger budget could have resulted in more wins in 2012. But I’ll close with Andere Richtingen’s line from his latest Gonfalon Cubs blog. It appears that I’m fine with this.
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. villageidiom Posted: January 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4034732)I'm still dubious that McDonald will be the platoon partner for Sweeney. I'd like to see a 4th OF who could be an everyday player if Sweeney flops or if one of the other two OFs gets hurt. I really thought Andruw Jones would have been a perfect fit.
The other question is how he'll handle the big market. I'll be curious to read about Sweeney among the Nightengales of the world.
I am sorry, but this is insane. Big contracts, like everything in baseball, are hit and miss. And certainly the Sox have had their fair share of misses recently. But if you don't, or can't spin that wheel, you don't get the AGons, the Mannys, the Becketts back in return for those misses. And without the ability to get guys like that, the Sox would be a much worse team.
Isn't it a very high likelihood that at least one doesn't cut it as a SP? And a decent liklihood that neither does?
This is an insanely high risk move, to me. Try it with one guy to fill the 5th spot? Sure decent gamble. But two spots? Crazy.
And I don't even see the 6th-8th SP depth on this team if Bard and Aceves fail.
I'm pretty shocked they haven't offered Kuroda 1/12-14. I hope it means the Yankees can get him cheap.
I will say that I would prefer that they keep Aceves in the pen, where he has pitched much better and appears to have a great ability to pitch multiple innings with little rest in between.
I actually added a response to MCoA noting that Bowden would probably be part of the mix unless he falls apart in Ft. Myers but something wonky happened. I'll be shocked if he's not there Opening Day.
This is a huge concern. I think the Sox are counting on Felix Doubront and/or Junichi Tazawa to be those guys plus they've added Aaron Cook. Nothing certain there of course. I also think there is still one more move coming, maybe Kuroda, maybe Saunders, maybe Oswalt but someone to fill in some of this. I think when they break camp Aceves is going to be a reliever/starter in waiting.
I always used to think this when the Yankees would run out someone like Tony Clark (or when Boston did the same). Sure, a high payroll team with above average talent at other positions can afford to carry a guy like that, but why the hell should they?
I totally agree that the Sox starting pitching plan is risky. I should note, though, that the club's #6 starter is Felix Doubront, whom ZiPS projects to a cromulent 92 ERA+. They have backup if one fails. The Sox are banking heavily on Bard making the conversion - I don't know if they're right, but I think it's pretty clear at this point that they're confident.
... or JD Drew, or Beltre, or Lowell.
Edit: I mean I hated the Lackey signing at the time, and the Mike Cameron signing. And if they had followed my plan of going hard after Holliday that year, they don't need to sign Crawford (who's signing I was okay with, but not ecstatic about). But that to me, indicates not that they should stop spending, but that they need to improve their player evaluation.
Maybe I'm nitpicking. The Crawford signing looks scary now, but at the time wasn't he the kind of star player who warrants a big, long-term deal? He had put up elite numbers in the previous 3 seasons per WAR, was young for a free agent (28, I think) and had the kind of skills that age well. If anything, AGon was a pricier and seemingly riskier pick-up at the time.
6-8 starters are, by definition, not good. Doubront projects to be an above average #6-7. So does Balcolm Miller and I suspect so does Silva (maybe?). A full recovery from Tazawa would make him a great #6 or 7. Dice-K is expected back midseason as well, right?
And if we're converting relievers to starters, let's do Bowden. Tell him to lose the slider and go back to what worked early on.
IIRC, he was negotiating with the Angels, who thought they were close to getting him for 6/108 or so. Then the Sox lost out on Werth and decided to back up a Brinks truck at Crawford's door. I remember the 7/140 deal being more like something that, if you looked at it just the right way, was justifiable. I don't recall a general perception that he was a top superstar who would require a 7/140-like deal (there was much written to the contrary, in fact. On this very blog, MCOA had some calculations that showed his value as considerably lower than that).
The issue was spending though, and not specifically FA signings.
Sure it is. The issue is whether GM's should be given money to spend. I love Ellsbury, and he had a terrific season last year. But his record is rather mixed and he's a Boras client. If they sign jim to 100m extension, ther could easily be a lot of money flushed down the toilet there. The Sox can survive that though.If the Twins try it (see Mauer, Joe), and it backfires, they are basically toast.
They got Backett because the Marlins were looking to dump payroll. They extended him at basically market rate. Yes a year early... which was widely criticised when he struggled that year. How the hell does he NOT fit into the discussion.
I guess you could look at it strictly that way. I think they may make some more subtle distinctions than that, and those interest me, so I guess we're just looking at different things.
Almost every team is a different situation, though. When they signed Lackey, he was the best starter on the market. It seemed like an overpay but ok at the time, and it's turned out terrible now. So far this year this year though, it looks like Bard, Aceves, Cook, Silva, and maybe someone else will compete for the 4 and 5 spots. If they get Kuroda or Oswalt (or even Jackson), then I'd say this is a very good rotation, with nice depth. Unfortunately, if Cook wins a rotation spot, the starter depth provided by Bard and Aceves goes away as both return (presumably) to the bullpen. Aceves seems useful as a longman/spot starter, so maybe he can continue in that in-between role. A lot depends on the health of the rotation, but that's pretty much the case with every team. How many teams project to have average 6-8 starters? Most of the time even the best teams are lucky to have average #4 starters.
Of course, if you're the Yankees, then even your guys who project to be terrible will end up pitching like #2s.
I think where the higher payroll creates problems is with expectations. Obviously it is not impossible for the Sox/Yankees to integrate young players but they are somewhat limited in terms of how patient they can be. Just think back to the way much of the fanbase/media in Boston lost their mind over "bridge year." The idea that the $170 million Red Sox would potentially not be a 95 win team caused people to freak out.
Doesn't mean they can't do it of course but even among us look how concerned we are about the Sox staff. I imagine there are quite a few teams that would dearly love "Beckett/Lester/Buchholz/???/???" as their rotation.
When people talk about $5M/win, or whatever, that's purely based on FA contracts. The overal number is something closer to $2M/win.
Question - my recollection, from when Padilla was in Philly, was that he was known as (1) a huge jerkwad and (2) an alcoholic. Was this actually the case then, and is it still now?
EDIT: also, snapper's right that the $$/win figures are built from free agent contracts only. You can see Dave Cameron's "explaining win values" series at Fangraphs for a fuller description.
Definitely has a real history with alcoholism and head-hunting. Don't know his current "status".
There is a weird amount of information on Padilla here. Seems like kind of a quiet, intense dude. I could see he and Aceves becoming best friends or trying to kill each other or both.
Rotation: Lester, Beckett, Buchholz
Bullpen: Bailey, Melancon, Morales, Albers(probably)
Starter grab-bag: Aceves, Bard, Cook, Padilla, Silva, Tazawa, Doubront, Miller, Germano, Wilson
Reliever grab-bag: Atchison, Bowden(maybe a starter/?), Jenks
That is a lot of uncertainty going into the Spring. Maybe one or two of these guys will be capable of a decent starting performance, but mostly it looks like a big collection of 5-7 starters. I don't know what kind of opt-out clauses any of these guys might have, but it is a fair amount of depth. Which is good, because there aren't many interesting pitchers in the Pawtucket rotation.
Is there a plan here?
I think they could use a bit more depth in the rotation, but the plan is pretty simple. It all depends on Daniel Bard making the conversion to the rotation, but the Sox are pretty clearly committed to that. If it works, it's a significant and free upgrade. If it doesn't work, that's bad.
My question is, why would a team with a $150M+ payroll embark on such an insanely risky plan?
You're relying on not one, but two SP who have zero professional success as SP, in an offseason where veteran SPs have been cheap. Given Buchholz's health, that seems insane to me.
Plus, they've acquired no OF depth.
Why is a wealthy team following such a high beta plan?
Not saying they're going to go after them, but Oswalt and Jackson are still available.
And if they did, that would change my opinion of their offseason substantially.
The Sox are behaving like a club that has reason to believe these particular conversions will work. I can't evaluate that belief because I lack the relevant data and expertise. I'm not saying I like the plan - I don't know - but I think that's what the plan is, and I think it's based on information we don't have.
I do think they should get another mlb-quality SP, though I doubt they'll spend more than a couple million.
EDIT: also, the Sox have been obviously short a 4th OF from the beginning of the offseason. They're going to add another bat to the bench.
Pitching is hard to come by, especially quality depth. And it really doesn't help the Sox that they have $25M of pitching recovering from TJS. How many teams would go into ST with quality 4 &5 starters set after losing 2 of their top 5 pitchers to Tommy John?
If this frees up money for a competent pitcher I'm on board. If this is just for the sake of getting Mortensen I'm going to be borrow some of Phil Coorey's curse words for the evening.
I am open to someone telling me that Mortensen is worth getting our hands on.
14th on last year's A's list ain't great and the stats suck, but if he actually can be a 4/5 starter it's better than paying Scutaro's $1.5M buyout and getting nothing. But the odds aren't that great and the upside's not that high.
The only thing that matters about him is that he has options.
The case for the trade, as I see it, is that by WAR, Little Nicky Punto is a perfectly cromulent platoon shortstop, a basically average player. So the Sox could trade Scutaro and dump salary without losing much on offense and defense. I'm really skeptical of that.
Of course, it also matters what they do with this money - whether they get Oswalt or Jackson or Floyd, and how good he turns out to be.
My feeling as a fan and season ticket holder is that the Sox should be at or close to the luxury tax number. I don't feel like they have an obligation to exceed that number. I would like them too but I won't ##### about them staying a shade under it. We all have our thresholds, that's mine.
As for Mortensen he reminds me of Kyle Snyder. Former first round pick who just based on that alone probably has some talent so worth a look but not likely to be anything more than a mop up man who maybe helps you win a 13 inning game somewhere along the line.
Why though? I'm fine with that if it was the trade, but it isn't. They could/should have gotten more for Scutaro.
I don't know if that is true. Assuming that money is an issue here obviously the Sox are not interested in anyone with meaningful service time and I would be skeptical that Scutaro is a particularly prized trade piece. He probably SHOULD have a bit more trade value but I think Darren was right in the other thread when he noted that Scutaro looked to be slowing some in the field last year which may scare some teams off.
If you were a GM of another team how much risk/reward would you give up for a guy like Scutaro? Think about it in Red Sox terms, would you give up Lars Anderson for him? Would you give up Drake Britton?
Aaron Hill (with John McDonald) - Kelly Johnson
Tony Graffanino - Chip Ambres
Freddy Sanchez - Tim Alderson
Ray Durham - Steve Hammond and Darren Ford
Yunel Escobar - Alex Gonzalez
Luis Castillo - Drew Butera and Dustin Martin
Tony Graffanino (again) - Jorge de la Rosa
Not really sure if this says anything, mid-season deals are a different animal. Sanchez and Graffanino are the players that most closely resemble Scutaro in my mind and they are probably the best and worst returns on the list (well, Durham).
I'll say I agree that the Sox probably could have done better than Mortensen but I don't think they could have done so much better as to make it worth worrying about.
Look, if they don't use this money well then it's a terrible deal, no question about it. If they can get a Floyd or an Oswalt then I think it's a very good move.
Having a hard payroll limit and no flexibility to deal with David Ortiz - that's the sort of situation a smart team should force on themselves.
Also, this is the dumber-than-Marcel projection for Scutaro:
+3 Bat +1 Run +19 rep +6 Pos -1 Def = +28 RAR, 1/14
His $6M option is an underpayment of nearly $8M. Giving him away for nothing is a crap trade.
Of course it is, no one is arguing that it isn't. If it's a necessary move to land Oswalt or Gavin Floyd then it makes sense.
I have the Sox vaguely in the low 90s, 90-94 wins. Shifting to Aviles/Punto at short and a better 4th starter makes the numbers a bit harder to figure.
This. A million times this. This is a bad trade, assuming that they do end up with Oswalt or Floyd. Yes, you trade Anderson or Britton for Scutaro a million times over.
Matt Reynolds or Charlie Blackmon would have been reasonable returns for both teams. If the Sox wanted a flier instead, Edwar Cabrera, Christian Friedrich, or Rosell Herrera would have been more appropriate than Mortensen.
How many 3 win seasons by 36 year old shortstops are there in major league history? Is Marco Scutaro really the guy to join that club? I think there's a lot of downside here people aren't considering.
In order for this trade to be a good one, you have to believe not only (1) that Scutaro is significantly worse than his projection and (2) that every other team in baseball also thinks that Scutaro is significantly worse than his projection, but also (3) that Little Nicky Punto projects as a cromulent everyday shortstop, at least as the strong side of a platoon.
I guess you could also believe that the Sox have a secret plan to get a good shortstop for free.
That's a hell of a swing over one year of Marco Scutaro.
2. Doesn't it seem unwise to act on an offseason plan that "required" a particular free agent to sign with them, until that free agent is closer to signing with them? (E.g. I suppose they could have traded Youkilis early last offseason to make room for Cliff Lee.)
I think you presume too much.
Now, of course, this doesn't make the trade a good one. One of the difficulties is that Scutaro, despite playing SS for Boston, is not marketable as a SS. His (B-R) dWAR over the last 4 years has been +2, +1, 0, -1, the last point being aided somewhat by reduced playing time. He's 36 this year, coming off a year with injury. While we think of him as a SS, and he would've played SS for Boston, he's not returning SS value in trade any more. That said, he didn't get 2B value in return, either, and that's the problem.
I don't think this offseason required the acquisition of Oswalt, nor the trading of Scutaro. I do think, however, that the reaction to this trade is much like the reaction to Damon signing with Yankees, before the Crisp trade. And that's Jose's point: it's hard to judge the offseason in the middle of it. You'd already judged it, built a narrative around it, and perceived the majority of it to be over.
And if the Sox knew the trade market was this inefficient, that giving away Scutaro for nothing was the best way to cut salary, and they knew that they'd need to have money for an Oswalt/Jackson/Floyd, then they shouldn't have offered arbitration to Ortiz.
The way around this critique, as I outlined in #59, is to argue that Little Nicky Punto is actually a good shortstop and the Sox have cost themselves very little in giving away Scutaro.
EDIT: Or, as I say in #64, that the Sox have a secret plan to acquire a good shortstop. That would also be good evidence, against my contention, that the Sox have had a plan all along.
Based on the payroll limit and the news so far, I think it's more likely the Sox are going with Punto and spending the money left over on a starter.
(a) that the offseason cannot be judged fairly at this time. Six years ago tomorrow, it looked like Boston's "plan" for CF was a platoon of Willie Harris and Gabe Kapler, that that was their fallback plan if they didn't sign Damon. Yet the vast majority of innings played in CF in 2006 belonged to two players who, at this time in 2006, were not on the roster.
(b) that an inefficient trade now does not mean there was a time when a more efficient trade was more likely. With potential suitors for Scutaro having had more options at their disposal early in the offseason, it was arguably less likely to find a more efficient trade earlier.
(c) neither (a) nor (b) is a necessary condition to state that this was a crap trade.
Right, but what other options are out there? There's not a shortstop left on the free agent market who's better than the guys they have now. Is there really a trade to be made for a cost-effective shortstop who's better than the guys they have? I don't think that the Aviles/Punto combination is really all that bad, but I don't see where they can get better. This is a difference relative to 2006 when it was known that Crisp was likely to be available in the right deal and that the Sox would probably try to trade for him if they didn't re-sign Damon.
I guess Emilio Bonifacio might be an option. It depends on whether you think he's any better defensively than Aviles is. He's a very similar player to Aviles as far as I can tell. He had a good year last year offensively, but the numbers seem to indicate that the guy isn't much of a fielder. I haven't seen enough of him to have an opinion. Anyone else who is noticeably better than the guys the Sox have is unlikely to be available (which might actually be telling us that these guys aren't that bad).
They're really creating a fascinating rotation of has-beens in Pawtucket, although at least they're a little more interesting than Brandon Duckworth, Matt Fox, and Tony Pena.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main