Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. dave h Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4218641)
It sounds like Upton is going to require a lot of talent in return. What the Sox need is someone who would mostly require money, although it seems like that player is becoming rarer and rarer.
   202. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4218642)
What the Sox need is someone who would mostly require money...


Maybe someone like Adrian Gonzalez?
   203. PJ Martinez Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4218644)
Why do so many people put stock in this 'every other year' ######## for Beckett, but no one has taken note that they shipped him off a month before 2013.

Always been my impression that around here people bring up the 'every other year' thing with tongue pretty firmly in cheek.
   204. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4218646)
From 2010 though this year there have been 65 player seasons of 100 games with 80% of them at first. Gonzalez's 114 OPS+ is the exact median in 33rd place. Go back 3 more years and he's tied with Paul Konerko for 81st place out of 145. If he's having a shitty season, then half of the firstbasemen do as well.


As of right now, Mauro Gomez is putting up a 116 OPS+ in 2012. If you're happy with a 114 from Gonzalez, you should be just as happy because the Sox were able to trade a redundant asset for significant financial gains, without losing any real production on the field.
   205. Nasty Nate Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4218647)
Why do so many people put stock in this 'every other year' ######## for Beckett, but no one has taken note that they shipped him off a month before 2013.


My joy of not having Beckett on the team outweighs chagrin of missing out on one last odd-numbered year from him.
   206. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4218648)
You'll forgive me if I expect Adrian Gonzalez to be dramatically better than Mauro Gomez going forward.
   207. Sonic Youk Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4218649)
201-

Cliff Lee? Roy Halladay?
   208. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4218657)
You'll forgive me if I expect Adrian Gonzalez to be dramatically better than Mauro Gomez going forward.


Is he going to be more than $20M per season better?
   209. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4218659)
As of right now, Mauro Gomez is putting up a 116 OPS+ in 2012.

In 46 PAs. .406 BABIP, 4.3% walk rate, 23.9% K rate, .155 ISO. Gomez is not the answer.

You'll forgive me if I expect Adrian Gonzalez to be dramatically better than Mauro Gomez going forward.

But think about how much cheaper he will be! After all, that now appears to be all that matters to the Red Sox.

Is he going to be more than $20M per season better?

Well, ZIPs projects Gomez to put up a .294 wOBA going forward. So, yes.
   210. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4218661)
Is he going to be more than $20M per season better?
Gomez doesn't look like much of a player to me. He's riding a .400 BABIP, doesn't want, plays indifferent at best defense. I don't think that the Sox should be looking at Gomez as anything more than a bench bat for the future.

Gonzalez projects to 4-5 WAR, Gomez to be generous I'd put around 1 WAR, I'd probably guess he's pure replacement level fodder. For a club like the Sox with money to burn, they'd be willing to pay $20M for a 3-4 win upgrade.

Dumping Gonzalez' contract in order to play 27-year-old AAA sluggers at first is not a plan. But discussing this trade as if it were an Adrian Gonzalez contract dump is just weird. Gonzalez is a high-value player on the solid contract that the Dodgers wanted, and the Dodgers had to take on tons of negative value in the Crawford and Beckett contracts, plus give up some prospects, in order to get the rights to Gonzalez. It's the latter bit in that sentence that makes the trade work.
   211. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4218666)
That is, you've made a perfectly cogent case for leaving Iglesias in AAA. I have no real quibble with that argument. But since he has been called up, he should be playing.

That's fair.
   212. SoSH U at work Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4218669)
He's riding a .400 BABIP, doesn't want, plays indifferent at best defense.


Hey, there's something to be said for not wanting. (-:
   213. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4218692)
But think about how much cheaper he will be! After all, that now appears to be all that matters to the Red Sox.


Yes, because the Red Sox are going to pocket all of the savings and keep Mauro Gomez as the starting 1B next season. And keep Aaron Cook in the rotation. And Scott Podsednik in LF.
   214. dave h Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4218697)
I don't think ownership is going to pocket all the savings, but I think the payroll will be cut next year. I don't see how they could bring payroll back up. I'm not very good at this, but from Cot's it looks like they have about $80 mil on the books for next year, counting arb players. They have a lot of holes but there just aren't enough high priced free agents to fill them and bring salary back up. I know the hope is to explore the trade market, but even if they trade for Upton and extend him it won't cost that much. (I also don't get the big deal with Upton. Am I not accounting enough for age?)
   215. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4218700)
if the following has been stated my apologies but management dumping players who were disliked by the fans also buys management some time. beckett and to some extent crawford were not favorites of the bosox fans unless i am mistaken

gonzalez was the grease to making this trade happen it would appear. management wanted the two pieces of seeming deadweight gone and had to ante up adrian to make it happen.
   216. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4218701)
And Scott Podsednik in LF.

You folks need to quit hating on Mr. Posednik - he's hitting .370 for the Red Sox. Heck, now that Boston has all that money, he could even be re-signed.
   217. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4218707)
Yes, because the Red Sox are going to pocket all of the savings and keep Mauro Gomez as the starting 1B next season. And keep Aaron Cook in the rotation. And Scott Podsednik in LF.

I sincerely doubt that. But I was responding to a post that started propping up Mauro Gomez as a viable alternative to Gonzalez because he is cheap.

Anyway, I find the whole freeing up money thing to be a total misdirect in evaluating the trade. The Sox should play for championships and trading Adrian Gonzalez puts them much further away from accomplishing that goal. The Sox will be hard pressed to sign acquire a player of his caliber again without giving up significant talent of their own. This notion that giving Cherington money to play with in this free market is a good thing seems naively saccharin to me.
   218. Darren Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4218713)
What if we signed this guy for the OF next year:

2009: 4.7 bWAR
2010: 5.3 bWAR
2011: 3.0 bWAR
2012: 5.5 bWAR

And he'll only be 30 going into FA. Bad news, though, he may remind you of someone else.
   219. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4218714)
Since I'm bored and everyone is thinking about their own version on some level, here's Dan's 2013 Offseason Plan™:

C Salty/Lavarnway
1B Nick Swisher - (hopefully at something like 4/$56M, willing to go to 5 years or a slightly higher AAV for 4 years)
2B Pedroia
SS Iglesias/Bogaerts/TBA - Think about giving Iglesias a few months to see if he can hit an empty .270 or so, if not, see if Bogaerts is ready to go in June or so
3B Middlebrooks
LF Kalish
CF Ellsbury
RF Upton or possibly Hamilton, either can make sense depending on the relative prices (prospects in Upton's case, cash in Hamilton's case)
DH Ortiz (Re-sign for something like 2 years/$25M with a vesting option for a 3rd year based on PA)

Bench:
Lavarnway/Salty
Ciriaco
Sands
Lin or other generic 5th OFer who can backup CF and run a little

Rotation:
Lester
Buchholz
Haren - I'm guessing the Angels might rather commit to Greinke over Haren, could be wrong
Lackey
Doubront

Bullpen:
Mortensen
Miller
Morales
Melancon - (maybe, still not really sold on him but he's had some good stretches. I certainly wouldn't write him into the 7th/8th innings in close games until he shows some more consistent ability to get people out)
Aceves
Tazawa
Bailey
   220. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4218716)
The Sox should play for championships and trading Adrian Gonzalez puts them much further away from accomplishing that goal.
The key question is exactly how close to that goal were they before the trade. With Adrian Gonzalez, but also with $40M tied up in Beckett and Crawford, the Red Sox had exceptionally little payroll space for 2013, and not that much for 2014. The Sox should play for championships, but it's not clear to me that their roster as of August 20th was going to be a good bet to play for a championship in 2013 or 2014. If that's the case, then creating this new problem - how can we spend all this money and compete? - is better than the problem that the Sox had before - how can we compete with this roster and very little money?

The Red Sox made a clear decision, after 2011, to return the same roster and seek redemption. This failed about as comprehensively as a plan can fail. I think they made the right call not to return the same roster in 2013 (and mostly the same roster in 2014) to seek the championship then.

You're absolutely right both that this deal shouldn't be evaluated in pure $$/win terms, and that spending this new money won't be easy. The thing that I think you're missing is the baseline - was this likely to be a contending team in 2013 and 2014 as constructed, and how easy would it be to improve this club with the resources that ownership would provide them relative to the salary cap?
   221. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4218717)
I also like the idea of a relatively short money contract for BJ Upton. Proposal: BJ Upton 2013 = Johnny Damon 2002.
   222. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4218718)

Anyway, I find the whole freeing up money thing to be a total misdirect in evaluating the trade. The Sox should play for championships and trading Adrian Gonzalez puts them much further away from accomplishing that goal. The Sox will be hard pressed to sign acquire a player of his caliber again without giving up significant talent of their own. This notion that giving Cherington money to play with in this free market is a good thing seems naively saccharin to me.


The trade itself is a sign that Cherington (and the rest of the front office) is smarter than they have looked since last offseason. Of course there's no guarantee that they'll make the right moves with the newfound financial flexibility, but they at least have the opportunity to do so. WIthout making this trade, they were fundamentally locked into bringing back this roster with new window dressing for a third straight year after it proved woefully inadequate to compete. Now they have a chance at building something better. Maybe they'll bungle up the opportunity, but this trade was still the right direction to take this franchise.

Edit: MCoA did a better job of explaining most of my point in post 220.
   223. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4218719)
Well, ZIPs projects Gomez to put up a .294 wOBA going forward.


To be clear, that's the in-season ZiPS tool, which doesn't "know" that he spent the year hitting .310/.371/.589 at AAA, with the highest full-season walk rate and lowest full-season K rate of his career.
   224. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4218721)
I also like the idea of a relatively short money contract for BJ Upton. Proposal: BJ Upton 2013 = Johnny Damon 2002.


I don't really see BJ as a great fit. I think they need a bigger bat for RF than he's likely to provide. Shin Soo Choo would be a very good target. Or brother Justin. Or Hamilton if the money is right, though contract length would be more of a concern to me than the AAV for Hamilton.

For first base, besides signing Swisher, I think going after Morneau would work out quite well. His overall line is down this year, but it's entirely due to him cratering against LHP this year (he's never really hit LHP especially well but this year he's been a total zero). Against RHP he's bounced back to the numbers he was producing before the concussion issues. You could platoon him with Sands or even Mauro Gomez to minimize the impact of his platoon splits.
   225. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4218723)
The Sox should play for championships, but it's not clear to me that their roster as of August 20th was going to be a good bet to play for a championship in 2013 or 2014.

If this is true, why not hold onto Beckett and Crawford, or at least Crawford, and see if they can regain some of their value next year? If you are punting in 13 and 14, then there is no need to sell low right now. I can see an argument for Beckett, since that guy is probably a huge clubhouses issue. But Crawford hasn't been there for very long and has been hurt the whole time. Maybe if they had waited, they wouldn't have had to get rid of one of their best players just to move these guys.

If that's the case, then creating this new problem - how can we spend all this money and compete? - is better than the problem that the Sox had before - how can we compete with this roster and very little money?

But now a massive portion of that money is going to have to go to replacing Adrian Gonzalez, who will only be 33 when 2015 comes around. Unless you really believe he is starting to Mark Teixeria, I don't see how removing him from the team helps for the next competitive Sox team. Getting rid of sunk costs is one thing, getting rid of your first or second best player who is 30 and signed to a very good contract, is not going to help the 2015 team.

And I think that when an organization is pining to get rid of guys they signed two years ago to long term contracts, there could be a serious problem in the way that organization is making evaluations. This of course raises the question of whether the same organization that gave these guys 350 million dollars a couple years ago is really better off with money to throw around.

The thing that I think you're missing is the baseline - was this likely to be a contending team in 2013 and 2014 as constructed, and how easy would it be to improve this club with the resources that ownership would provide them relative to the salary cap?

They sold low on three ballplayers that used to comprise a large share of the team's core. That doesn't seem like a great way to improve the club or maximize resources.
   226. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4218724)
If this is true, why not hold onto Beckett and Crawford, or at least Crawford, and see if they can regain some of their value next year? If you are punting in 13 and 14, then there is no need to sell low right now.
1) Because you're not punting in 2013 and 2014. You're taking a shot with new talent. The Sox were in a position where competing was going to be very hard, and now they're in a position where it's not as hard.

2) "Selling low" should apply to the return, not to the theorized value of the asset sold. The Red Sox may have sold at the theoretical low point of Crawford's and Beckett's value, but the Dodgers paid for Beckett and Crawford as if their value was at a mid-point. I don't think they're selling low at all. The Dodgers are taking on both Crawford's and Beckett's contracts and sending along prospects. "Selling low" would be selling at the saber-approved price, which would have involved the Red Sox sending $15-20M per year to the Dodgers. The Red Sox sold these contracts as if they were relatively fair deals, which is not a "low" evaluation.
   227. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4218725)
The one thing the Red Sox need to avoid is signing Cody Ross to some kind of stupid extension that would pay him like a full-time starter. He's only hitting .255/.315/.433 against RHP (97 wRC+). And he's only hitting .233/.305/.393 on the road (84 wRC+). He hammers lefties, and he hits well at Fenway. He is a platoon player. If he wants to come back on something like a 2 year deal for $8M or so, then fine. But paying him like a full-time RFer would be a massive mistake.
   228. Nasty Nate Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4218728)
If this is true, why not hold onto Beckett and Crawford, or at least Crawford, and see if they can regain some of their value next year? If you are punting in 13 and 14, then there is no need to sell low right now. I can see an argument for Beckett, since that guy is probably a huge clubhouses issue. But Crawford hasn't been there for very long and has been hurt the whole time. Maybe if they had waited, they wouldn't have had to get rid of one of their best players just to move these guys.


They haven't punted 13 or 14. This was there only chance to make this move, given the Dodgers' unusual situation.

And I think that when an organization is pining to get rid of guys they signed two years ago to long term contracts, there could be a serious problem in the way that organization is making evaluations. This of course raises the question of whether the same organization that gave these guys 350 million dollars a couple years ago is really better off with money to throw around.


These are all concerns, but I think these concerns were there before the trade not caused by it.
   229. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4218729)
But now a massive portion of that money is going to have to go to replacing Adrian Gonzalez, who will only be 33 when 2015 comes around.
Not massive. Gonzalez projected to 4-5 WAR next year. The Sox just freed up $60M in spending money.
   230. Darren Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4218733)
The midrange options are all interesting:


Bourn 30, who I referenced above: 4.7 / 5.3 / 3.0 / 5.5
Pagan 31, 3.8 / 5.1 / 1.0 / 2.9
Choo 30, 5.2 / 5.6 / 1.5 / 3.4
Victorino 32, 3.5 / 2.8 / 5.2 / 1.6

That's pretty encouraging. These all look like 3-win players. Any guesses on what each of these guys get?

Then there's BJ:

Upton 28, 0.8 / 1.0 / 2.8 / 1.0

Yuck.

   231. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4218734)
CP - see the blog post. Based on the numbers, Crawford and Beckett over overpaid by a combined ~$100M. I don't think it's likely that they would have bounced back so much that their contracts would have become moveable at those rates.

Basically, the Red Sox could bet on either (a) the failed roster of the 2011-2012 Red Sox to regain their form or (b) the front office to do a better job building a team than they did with the 2011-2012 clubs. I may be too close to this, having watched this club play terrible baseball for 130 games this season, but I have a lot of trouble seeing betting on their return to form being likely.
   232. Darren Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4218735)
Alternatively, there's just not much out there at 1b. I think you'd have to hope Gomez/Loney/??? make some sort of leap forward, take a flyer on trading for someone like Kendry Morales, or fire Valentine and take another run with Youk.
   233. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4218736)
Upton 28, 0.8 / 1.0 / 2.8 / 1.0
DRS hates him. I think he looks pretty good, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's more a positioning issue than anything. UZR likes him a lot more (2.4 / 4.1 / 4.0 / 1.8 fWAR).
   234. Darren Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4218738)
What's the consensus on how many wins Crawford/Beckett/AGonz will provide in 2013? I'd say, optimistically, it'd be 3/3/4.5, so maybe 10.5 overall? I think the Sox could probably, for a bit less money and shorter commitments, get three 3-win players to replace them (although 1b is confounding me).
   235. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4218740)
Dumber-than-Marcels say about 1.5 / 2.5 / 4.5.
   236. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4218741)
1) Because you're not punting in 2013 and 2014. You're taking a shot with new talent. The Sox were in a position where competing was going to be very hard, and now they're in a position where it's not as hard.

What new talent? This isn't a vacuum. They can't go back in time and sign Joey Votto. Signing Hamilton and Swisher is just going to put them in the exact same boat as they were before.

"Selling low" would be selling at the saber-approved price, which would have involved the Red Sox sending $15-20M per year to the Dodgers. The Red Sox sold these contracts as if they were relatively fair deals, which is not a "low" evaluation.

You traded Adrian Gonzalez to get rid of them! And you got a couple of pitching prospects with mid-rotation upside, a 4th OFer and minor league fodder. Gonzalez was on one of the best value contracts signed post-arbitration in all of baseball. It's really hard to look at those prospects and say that was a good return unless you factor in the other guys as a huge drag on Gonzalez's trade value.

In two years, the Sox went from giving Crawford 200 million to taking less talent back to get rid of him, that sure looks like selling low to me and certainly not as if the contract was a fair deal.

I could make the same argument for Beckett except I doubt his value would have ever come back up and the circumstances surrounding him basically forced their hand. What a douche.

Not massive. Gonzalez projected to 4-5 WAR next year. The Sox just freed up $60M in spending money.

Replacing Gonzalez is going to eat up a massive chunk of that. Whether it is spending money on Hamilton or Choo or Greinke (two of whom I suspect would prefer to avoid Boston because of their personal issues) or in talent for a guy like Upton.

They haven't punted 13 or 14. This was there only chance to make this move, given the Dodgers' unusual situation.

But to not punt in 2013 means breaking the bank this offseason. The Red Sox as currently constructed are not a playoff team in the AL East in 2013 without some incredible good fortune. And I'm hardly the first to point out that there aren't any franchise players on the market, which means they will be breaking the bank to pay the exact kind of good but not great (or great but injury prone in Hamilton's case) talent that got them here in the first place.
   237. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4218742)
Based on the numbers, Crawford and Beckett over overpaid by a combined ~$100M. I don't think it's likely that they would have bounced back so much that their contracts would have become moveable at those rates.

All contracts are moveable. It's just how a team chooses to move them. Maybe Crawford could have bounced back to the point where the Red Sox weren't dumping one of their best players to get rid of him.

   238. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4218744)
HW, Crawford wasn't disliked by the fans here. There were smatterings of boos from imbeciles, but most fans were quiet. His injuries were understood, and his disappointing performance was a reasonable outcome because of them. When he started to hit a little last month, fans supported him.
   239. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4218746)
But now a massive portion of that money is going to have to go to replacing Adrian Gonzalez, who will only be 33 when 2015 comes around. Unless you really believe he is starting to Mark Teixeria, I don't see how removing him from the team helps for the next competitive Sox team. Getting rid of sunk costs is one thing, getting rid of your first or second best player who is 30 and signed to a very good contract, is not going to help the 2015 team.


Gonzalez was on one of the best value contracts signed post-arbitration in all of baseball.


If Gonzalez is on a "very good contract" and "one of the best value contracts", how did he make it all the way to the Dodgers on waivers, curiously?
   240. Dale Sams Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4218747)
This failed about as comprehensively as a plan can fail. I think they made the right call not to return the same roster in 2013 (and mostly the same roster in 2014) to seek the championship then.


But *how* did they fail? I vote massive FO mistakes, bad luck and injuries.

Let me try this analogy:

I give a guy 3 increments of 50,000 to buy me three cars. He gets me a perfect car, one that goes fast as hell but breaks down and one that can't even get out of the damn driveway. I fire this guy and hire a new guy to 'take my cheaper collection and improve what I have". He fails utterly, he guts my collection for shitty less valuable pieces....so the answer is to sell my top three guys, and this is the kicker..*give the money to the second guy*??

I say fire the second guy, hire a third guy and keep working with my top three cars.


err...maybe this dumb analogy works better if we talk stocks and trying to make a top ten portfolio.
   241. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4218748)
Just to confirm where you're going with the analogy, did the "perfect car" come with a disappearing walk rate and cratering home run rate?
   242. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4218749)
If Gonzalez is on a "very good contract", how did he make it all the way to the Dodgers on waivers, curiously?

Lots of players make it through waivers. And many of those teams likely couldn't just make way in the budget for a new 20 million dollar a year player.

Are you arguing Gonzalez's contract isn't good now? 21 million for a guy who been worth approximately 3 wins so far this year (will probably finish at about 4) and 5-6 for the last three for his early 30s is still a pretty good deal. Look at the Teixeria, Fielder, Votto, and Pujols contracts for what it takes to lock up a big time hitter at a corner position. The Gonzalez deal is an outright steal compared to those.

If you want to argue it isn't a good contract, I'm certainly open to the concept, I just don't see it myself.
   243. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4218750)
Gonzalez isn't on a bad contract, but the way people are talking it's like he's on an Evan Longoria deal or something. He's basically making his fair market rate. He is not on "one of the best value contracts in baseball"; he is not on "a steal of a contract". He is being paid retail value.

And it really wouldn't surprise me if Gonzalez went back to walking and being more patient at the plate in LA either, but he wasn't hitting that way with the Red Sox. I don't know whether it was the league transition or the expectations of the new contract or the intense scrutiny of the Boston market or not having access to his mom's home cooking while on home stands or simply a result of the shoulder injuries, but for some unknown reason, the Boston version of Gonzalez was no longer a patient power hitter like he had been in San Diego. If he can get back to the patient approach and taking walks and waiting on pitches to drive, he can probably become a 6-7 WAR player again and turn the contract into a good value. But if he continues to play like he has been over the past 2 years (absent the insane BABIP he had in 2011), he's not any kind of bargain.
   244. Sonic Youk Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4218754)
Are you arguing Gonzalez's contract isn't good now? 21 million for a guy who been worth approximately 3 wins so far this year (will probably finish at about 4) and 5-6 for the last three for his early 30s is still a pretty good deal. Look at the Teixeria, Fielder, Votto, and Pujols contracts for what it takes to lock up a big time hitter at a corner position. The Gonzalez deal is an outright steal compared to those.


This isn't the point. There are some people here who think hes turning into a pumpkin. I'm not one of them, but even if you think hes a great player on a fair contract, this deal still makes sense when he's attached to another 40 million of non-contributors,

Put it this way: Even in a weak free agent class, the Red Sox could spend their money incredibly foolishly- say, Greinke, Swisher and Hamilton*- and I would probably expect them to get more value in 2013 than they would from the trio they just traded. Thats how bad I think the Beckett and Crawford contracts are.

*obviously I really hope they don't try this.
   245. Dan Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4218757)
Gonzalez was hitting over 20 home runs per year on the road as a Padre. Take him out of Petco while still hitting that way, even in Chavez Ravine that's 35-40 homers per season. If he can hit for that power again and get back to 80-90 walks a year, then his contract goes from fair deal to a bargain. But even if that happens (and I hope it does, I like Gonzalez and wish him well), the Red Sox still made a good trade for their 2013 team and beyond.
   246. Dale Sams Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4218759)
But if he continues to play like he has been over the past 2 years


.321/.382/.513 with GG defense. That guy sucked.
   247. Dale Sams Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4218760)
Greinke, Swisher and Hamilton*- and I would probably expect them to get more value in 2013 than they would from the trio they just traded. Thats how bad I think the Beckett and Crawford contracts are.


I sense a bref bet.

I'll bet the combined WAR of the Dodger three in 2013 exceeds the 3 you mentioned.
   248. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4218761)
He is not on "one of the best value contracts in baseball"; he is not on "a steal of a contract".

I agree, fortunately that's not what I said! You even quoted me making the distinction that it is one of the best post-arbitration contracts out there.

And it really wouldn't surprise me if Gonzalez went back to walking and being more patient at the plate in LA either, but he wasn't hitting that way with the Red Sox.

Yeah, but there is reason to believe his shoulder was hurting. He started hitting after getting some time off during the break. Giving up on a guy in the first year of his contract because of a slow three months is rushing to judgment.

I'm not one of them, but even if you think hes a great player on a fair contract, this deal still makes sense when he's attached to another 40 million of non-contributors,

That's exactly what I disagree with. When a team has the goal to make the playoffs and win the World Series, it makes no sense to trade a star player on a good contract just to unload salary. Stars with good contracts are pretty rare unless the team develops them and locks em up early. And stars with good contracts are pretty valuable no matter the situation. They burned one of their most valuable assets on a salary dump, I don't see how that's a good move.

Even in a weak free agent class, the Red Sox could spend their money incredibly foolishly- say, Greinke, Swisher and Hamilton*- and I would probably expect them to get more value in 2013 than they would from the trio they just traded. Thats how bad I think the Beckett and Crawford contracts are.

Well, lets put it another way. How are they going to spend wisely and get more value in 2013?
   249. Mattbert Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:03 PM (#4218762)
DRS hates him. I think he looks pretty good, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's more a positioning issue than anything. UZR likes him a lot more (2.4 / 4.1 / 4.0 / 1.8 fWAR).

Having watched Bossman on several occasions since moving to St. Pete, I would be a lot more inclined to believe the UZR numbers. To my eyes, he's a very good defensive outfielder.

That said, signing a Rays outfielder in his late 20s with a bad walk rate whose value depends in large part on his speed and defense...what could possibly go wrong?
   250. Nasty Nate Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4218765)
There are always opportunities to use money to acquire talent. A list of players who will be FA's this offseason is not an exclusive list of options for the Sox.

That's exactly what I disagree with. When a team has the goal to make the playoffs and win the World Series, it makes no sense to trade a star player on a good contract just to unload salary.


In general I agree with this, but this deal was so good I think they had to accept and I am glad they did.
   251. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4218770)
Some people will never come to Jesus re: the dumping of Beckett's and Crawford's contracts. I'm admittedly giddy about them leaving. I liked Crawford, but his injuries made him a luxury the team couldn't afford. And now, the burden has been lifted.
   252. Mattbert Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4218771)
Does anyone's Offseason Plan include firing pretty much the entire coaching staff? Because that's where I'd start.
   253. nick swisher hygiene Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4218774)
arguments that the Gonzo contract ITSELF is any significant part of the problem strike me as crazy talk/wishful thinking. the question is whether the negative of losing reasonably-priced irreplacable top level talent is balanced by getting rid of Crawford's contract and Beckett's contract & attitude; and the answer pretty clearly is \"#### yes!"

[edit: so I'm with CP, but like the trade for the Sox considerably more than he does]

I mean, "sign premium guys long-term in their late 20s and let other teams pick up those deals at full price after said guys turn 30" is, you know, basically always gonna be a good idea. I'd even jokingly call it the new market inefficiency if I expected anybody to ever be able to get away with a heist like this again....



   254. Dale Sams Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4218782)
"We'll find a way with the money" people...are forgetting that ALL of baseball is much richer now. The Nats don't have to let Strasberg walk. The Tigers just signed Fielder. Philadelphia is rich now as are the Rangers. Just because the Sox act like ass-clowns, cry poor and trade away everyday players for relievers and are charitable enough to upgrade the White Sox for nothing...doesn't mean everyone else will.

Dodgers, Rangers, White Sox and A's say "saaaaaluuute!"

Astros say, "Dude, this guy broke."
   255. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:56 PM (#4218791)
the question is whether the negative of losing reasonably-priced irreplacable top level talent is balanced by getting rid of Crawford's contract and Beckett's contract & attitude


If that's the question, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about Gonzalez' money as "freed up." He's going to have to be replaced and it's probably going to cost what you would have paid him to do that. So in rough terms, they've got an extra $27M/year to spend over the next five years on improving the team after they replace A-Gon's production. Unless you think they're going to replace A-Gon's production really efficiently, and I'm not getting the impression that anyone thinks that.
   256. Dale Sams Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4218806)
obviously the answer is to let Papi play 1B and sign Manny to DH.
   257. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4218818)

Does anyone's Offseason Plan include firing pretty much the entire coaching staff? Because that's where I'd start.


I'm hoping they do.

Been a fun weekend though, sort of came out of nowhere much like the Gonzalez trade did a few years ago.
   258. John DiFool2 Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:37 PM (#4218821)
Does anyone's Offseason Plan include firing pretty much the entire coaching staff? Because that's where I'd start.


The purging has to start with the medical staff-the injury level here was inexcusable, even if yes injuries in general are a crapshoot.
   259. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4218824)
And you got a couple of pitching prospects with mid-rotation upside

This is very nitpicky, but I don't think mid-rotation is considered the "upside" for de la Rosa and Webster.
   260. nick swisher hygiene Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4218837)
the question is whether the negative of losing reasonably-priced irreplacable top level talent is balanced by getting rid of Crawford's contract and Beckett's contract & attitude


If that's the question, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about Gonzalez' money as "freed up." He's going to have to be replaced and it's probably going to cost what you would have paid him to do that.


yup, agreed--& I never said anything about "freed up" (though you may be addressing the thread in general)
   261. Textbook Editor Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4218859)
get three 3-win players to replace them (although 1b is confounding me).


I know a GM between Baltimore and NY who has a 1B he'd love to move. Might even eat some $ to do it. Interested? What if to get Halladay on his short-term deal we said we'd take Howard? Because I would almost guarantee you Amaro comes a-callin' in the off-season.

obviously the answer is to let Papi play 1B and sign Manny to DH.


I realize I might be considered insane, but I'm in the camp that things Papi could play ~40 games a season at 1B and play them reasonably well. I guess the team's reluctance is they think he'll explode if he plays 1B other than the ~9 games a year in interleague play... and I suppose they know more about him than I do. But he's not a disaster at 1B. I'd be fine with him getting more games at 1B in 2013.


   262. Nasty Nate Posted: August 26, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4218860)
Napoli at 1B/DH? Is it likely that freeing him from the burdens of catching would help his offense?
   263. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: August 26, 2012 at 11:46 PM (#4218878)
Are short years/high AAV deals generally a non-starter for players? Offer Napoli 2/35 (or something crazy). For this team, in this spot, on this market, overpaying to 'reload' without getting into a long-term commitment seems like an excellent use of the freed up cash, especially since there's nobody you'd really want to commit to long-term.
   264. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 27, 2012 at 12:44 AM (#4218898)
Are short years/high AAV deals generally a non-starter for players? Offer Napoli 2/35 (or something crazy).

You don't see a lot of deals like that. Napoli is 30, and probably should look at his next contract as his last sure-thing opportunity to maximize his income. 5 years for $65M probably has a lot more appeal - MLB contracts are guaranteed money. The longer term, higher total value deal seems to almost always be what players are looking for.
   265. Honkie Kong Posted: August 27, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4218919)
Bourn is getting a monster deal. Earlier, the almost sure shot guess was that the Nationals were going to pony up.
And then the Phillies joined the race...
And now the Red Sox too ( assuming Ellsbury is gone ).

Boras is rubbing his hands in glee.
   266. Textbook Editor Posted: August 27, 2012 at 02:06 AM (#4218922)
Bourn is getting a monster deal. Earlier, the almost sure shot guess was that the Nationals were going to pony up.
And then the Phillies joined the race...
And now the Red Sox too ( assuming Ellsbury is gone ).

Boras is rubbing his hands in glee.


I'll go all Ray here: I am 100% certain that the Red Sox will not sign Michael Bourn.

100% certain.
   267. Dan Posted: August 27, 2012 at 03:21 AM (#4218931)
Gotta agree with TE. Bourn is not a fit on the Red Sox at all. They have Ellsbury for 2013 (or longer if they extend him) and then JBJ in the pipeline.
   268. Dan Posted: August 27, 2012 at 04:30 AM (#4218938)
Beckett with a surprisingly classy, rational, and grounded take on the trade:

"We were very talented. We should've played better," Beckett said. "That's what I told Ben Cherington. I don't think he wants to trade away everybody. I just think we made it impossible for him not to do that by not playing well and I'm as big a part of that as anybody. I know that that's not what they wanted to do. They wanted Adrian to stay and they wanted me to stay. They wanted Nick to stay and they wanted Carl to stay. But we just didn't do our jobs."

   269. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: August 27, 2012 at 06:05 AM (#4218943)
Does anyone's Offseason Plan include firing pretty much the entire coaching staff? Because that's where I'd start.


Oh definitely, but it can't seem like "it was because the players revolted", because this justifies further player mutinies. Bobby V and the entire staff should be fired because they were incompetent, but it can't seem like "it was because the players complained", because then it becomes a Chelsea situation, where the old guard can complain to the owner about a head coach, and then the inmates run the asylum.

they should handle the firings like the Cuban missile crisis - the missiles from Turkey were eventually removed months later because they were obsolete and were scheduled to be replaced anyway, not because the US had capitulated to the Russians
   270. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 27, 2012 at 06:45 AM (#4218950)
chef

bobby isn't going anywhere i suspect
   271. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: August 27, 2012 at 06:57 AM (#4218952)
Bobby is a F!@#ing joke of a manager, I was hoping he was going to come in and clean up the clubhouse, he's not done that, and it's become a giant clusterfrak where the players now don't even bother showing up for the funeral of a team LEGEND, and instead goes to bowl with the resident assclown.

Between the funeral no-show, the beer and fried chicken, Francona's departure, the clubhouse is dysfunctional beyond belief. Hopefully Beckett's departuer will help, but Lackey is still there. I'm shocked he's during his rehab period he hasn't stormed the Senkoku islands and planted a flag of Texas on it.

Obviously I was not a huge fan of Varitek during his aging player years, but I'm going to misplace my hope on him cleaning up the clubhosue if Varitek becomes manager - if Lackey or anybody complains and acts like a douche, he'll punch them out wearing 2 WS rings.
   272. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 27, 2012 at 07:38 AM (#4218959)
That is an impressive statement from Beckett. That's good, I guess. Hope the other guys around feel that way.

I definitely think the house-cleaning from the Red Sox shouldn't be finished. Despite Beckett's taking of responsibility, some of the massive underperformance of the Sox pitchers should be blamed on coaching and management. Along with all the other odd stuff about Bobby V. If the Sox come into next season with a coaching staff of Valentine and Valentine's cronies, I guess it'll be better than the random collection of pouting fourteen-year-olds they had this year, but it won't be a cause for optimism.
   273. Chip Posted: August 27, 2012 at 08:01 AM (#4218966)
The one thing the Red Sox need to avoid is signing Cody Ross to some kind of stupid extension that would pay him like a full-time starter. He's only hitting .255/.315/.433 against RHP (97 wRC+). And he's only hitting .233/.305/.393 on the road (84 wRC+). He hammers lefties, and he hits well at Fenway. He is a platoon player. If he wants to come back on something like a 2 year deal for $8M or so, then fine. But paying him like a full-time RFer would be a massive mistake.


Remember when he was supposed to be the shortside platoon partner in right for Sweeney and occasionally in left for Crawford? But then Crawford wasn't ready because he had his surgery way too late in the offseason and Ross had to play left almost every day. And Ellsbury got hurt. And then Sweeney got hurt. And then Crawford hurt his elbow while rehabbing his wrist. And then Sweeney got hurt some more. Lots and lots of planned OF lefty PAs disappeared, and Ross had to replace many of them since he was the only thing approximating an MLB regular remaining on the roster.
   274. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 27, 2012 at 08:18 AM (#4218977)
The one thing the Red Sox need to avoid is signing Cody Ross to some kind of stupid extension that would pay him like a full-time starter. He's only hitting .255/.315/.433 against RHP (97 wRC+). And he's only hitting .233/.305/.393 on the road (84 wRC+). He hammers lefties, and he hits well at Fenway. He is a platoon player.
Guys who happen to hit extremely well at Fenway are good signings, not bad ones. Ross for his career has a 730/940 R/L platoon split, which is bigger than normal. I'm normally skeptical of small sample splits like this, but the platoon split is for his career, and Ross is such a dead pull flyball hitter that his Fenway numbers make sense. You could spot him in 110-120 games and maximize his value by playing him as much as possible in Fenway and against lefties. That'd be a solid $6M signing.

You said 2/8, I'd say I'd be fine with 2/12 or 3/15. I guess we're not that far apart.
   275. Darren Posted: August 27, 2012 at 08:38 AM (#4218984)
Not sure that the site could handle another thread on this trade, but Silverman at the Herald has this Anatomy of a Megadeal up. According to him, the deal was set in motion by LA's interest in Beckett. Then then asked for AGonz and was told he was unavailable. Then they offered to take on Lackey's contract--nope. Then they offered to take on CC's.

So the conventional wisdom that AGonz was the price for getting rid of the other 2 may not be correct. They seem to have wanted Beckett in his own right.
   276. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 27, 2012 at 08:41 AM (#4218986)
matt (and others)

are you guys considering how much fenway has exploded this season for the red sox hitters (and in the opposite direction for pitchers of course)? the sox have scored 132 more runs at home than on the road. that seems extreme save by old coors standards
   277. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 27, 2012 at 08:45 AM (#4218988)
Ok, then he was the price for getting rid of Crawford. The Crawford contract was the bigger negative. It was crushing, IMO. And now...it's gone.
   278. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: August 27, 2012 at 08:46 AM (#4218989)
Then then asked for AGonz and was told he was unavailable. Then they offered to take on Lackey's contract--nope. Then they offered to take on CC's.


In a perfect World, I would have prefered Beckett and Lackey go to the Dodgers, with CC and A-Gon staying, and us getting 1 live arm back with some roster filler
   279. karlmagnus Posted: August 27, 2012 at 08:52 AM (#4218992)
I agree with that. If they had just got rid of Beckett and kept Crawford and A-Gon they'd have freed up some short-term $$, which was the need (and they could have freed up some more by not re-signing Ortiz.) That would have been much more likely to lead to good results in 2013-14; the present mess is ASKING for some lousy FA signings in the offseason.

This trade may well improve results in 2015-18, but requires some very good management in the interim, of which I am NOT confident.
   280. Darren Posted: August 27, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4218995)
They were going to do that Karl, but they needed all the money they could get to prop up JWH's hedge fund.
   281. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 27, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4219000)
are you guys considering how much fenway has exploded this season for the red sox hitters (and in the opposite direction for pitchers of course)?
I haven't looked into it specifically, but that seems like a relatively normal up season for a significant hitters park. Fenway sees higher run scoring by 5-10% in a typical season, so a 12% bump will happen occasionally. 2007 was another up season for Fenway. I doubt there's anything to it beyond random variation.
   282. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 27, 2012 at 09:20 AM (#4219003)
Then then asked for AGonz and was told he was unavailable. Then they offered to take on Lackey's contract--nope. Then they offered to take on CC's.
There's a really interesting question here. Is the trade that happened a better deal for the Sox than the waiver deal of Beckett for a sub-Rubby prospect that could have happened? I can see both sides very easily.

Crawford has significant bounce-back potential, even a reduced Gonzalez is a championship player, and dumping Beckett's contract would give the Sox maybe $20M to play with for 2013. How would the anti-trade contingent have felt about that as an alternative?

The numbers on the Crawford contract are unimaginably bad - I have him worth about 3/18 or 1/8 right now. If the numbers are right, then the trade is pretty hard to critique. If you don't project Crawford giving full weight to back-to-back 0 WAR seasons, obviously the numbers come out quite differently. Plus, the trade-that-happened has the upside of overhauling a clubhouse that has to be blamed for several of club's marginal losses over the last two years.

In either case, optimism for 2013 would hinge on how well the front office spent that money, and on whether they rain cleansing fire on the coaching staff.
   283. Darren Posted: August 27, 2012 at 09:36 AM (#4219009)
What sort of haul do you think you get back for Beckett?
   284. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: August 27, 2012 at 09:40 AM (#4219016)
What sort of haul do you think you get back for Beckett?


Alone? I think it's a Brent Lillibridge/Zach Stewart type deal.
   285. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 27, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4219017)
Clearly the Dodgers wanted him, so I was thinking maybe Jerry Sands, or some B-/C+ kind of prospect.
   286. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: August 27, 2012 at 09:55 AM (#4219026)
I'm not looking closely at the numbers here but wouldn't dumping both lackey and Crawford have been preferable to the deal that occurred? They clear space for pitching both roster and salary-wise and hold onto a superstar and a potential crawford rebound.
   287. Darren Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:00 AM (#4219030)
I assumed that the article was just poorly worded and that Carl was simply substituted for Lackey, not that there was any chance of putting them both in there.
   288. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:01 AM (#4219032)
I meant dumping lackey and beckett
   289. Darren Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4219040)
I think MC lays out the case against that. By projection, Crawford's overpaid by $80 mil or so. Cut that in half it's $40 mil. Lackey's set to make only $32 mil more altogether.
   290. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM (#4219041)
matt

well i don't have the sense that anyone besides the denizens of bbtf have made any such adjustment. the perception seems to be that the offense is fine and the pitching is a disaster when in fact the offense is very average and being propped up by aging guys who could stop hitting pretty soon while the pitching is better than folks think.

   291. Darren Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4219043)
Heck, Lackey v.2010 was worth 1.5 WAR. I'll take that for $11 mil/year.
   292. Dale Sams Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4219045)
Reasons Sox did so poorly:

Underperforming
Injuries
Bad FO/management
As I said before the season started, the league has got better. I said that a record of 22-8 against the Tigers, Angels and Yankees was unsustainable and there is almost no wiggle room to make that up except against the Rays who played over *their* heads against the Sox. And this was before the Sox decided to actively upgrade the A's and White Sox.

They have no chance in 2013.
   293. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4219046)
the perception seems to be that the offense is fine and the pitching is a disaster when in fact the offense is very average and being propped up by aging guys who could stop hitting pretty soon while the pitching is better than folks think.
The pitching has been propped up mostly by middle relievers having great seasons. The Red Sox starting staff have ERA+ of 99, 93, 89, 85, and 85. Plus 93 from Aaron Cook as a fill-in. The Red Sox starting rotation has been a complete disaster, and is the primary reason the Sox are out of contention right now. (And I spent a bunch of time in the post below talking about what I think the causes of pitcher underperformance may have been.)
   294. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4219049)
As I said before the season started, the league has got better. I said that a record of 22-8 against the Tigers, Angels and Yankees was unsustainable and there is almost no wiggle room to make that up except against the Rays who played over *their* heads against the Sox. And this was before the Sox decided to actively upgrade the A's and White Sox.

They have no chance in 2013.
Then it was a good idea to blow up the roster and start building for the future. This follows in the most obvious fashion. You can't both hate the trade and think the Sox need to rebuild. You need to be reasonably optimistic about the August 15th roster in order to hate the trade.
   295. Dale Sams Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4219058)
Then it was a good idea to blow up the roster and start building for the future


Yesterday I came around from "Worst idea ever" to almost a coin flip vs the lottery tickets that are Carl and Beckett + the lottery ticket of cleaning out the FO.

I always prefer the Devil You Know and would have gone with the lottery tickets. Which is why I'm opposed to trading Ellsbury for Andrus. I'd rather sign Ells for "Anything less than 20 mill" and go with his lottery ticket of being Dom Dimaggio vs Andrus being a solid, dependable 105 OPS+ SS.
   296. Nasty Nate Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4219059)
Then it was a good idea to blow up the roster and start building for the future. This follows in the most obvious fashion. You can't both hate the trade and think the Sox need to rebuild. You need to be reasonably optimistic about the August 15th roster in order to hate the trade.


Exactly. If subtracting A-Gone puts them so far out of contention for 2013 that they have no chance even though we don't even know what their roster will be for 2013, then they already were out of contention for 2013 so why gripe about losing something they never had?
   297. karlmagnus Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4219062)
Talking of lottery tickets, do we know why Loney's had such a bad year? On past numbers, he ought to be mildly useful, though I know LA writers didn't like him in '09-10, when I was following LA because of Manny. He's only 28, so it can't be "his swing has slowed and can't catch up to the fastball any more."
   298. Darren Posted: August 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4219066)
I agree, karl, that he might turn out to be decent. He's generally been slightly below average but has always been treated like a complete bust because he was SO highly touted. (A recent Fangraphs article stated that he had been replacement level for the past 5 years.) I'd like him to get a good shot in what's left of this year with an eye toward giving him a shot next year.
   299. dave h Posted: August 27, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4219146)
How hamstrung were they really before this trade? Matsuzaka's 10 mil coming off the books, 6 mil to Jencks. A lot of that cancelled by arb raises? Ortiz presumably will be on this team next year with about the same salary. Why not just do the Beckett trade, since everyone would also view that as cleaning house?

I guess it just comes down to me not believing the calculations of value for Gonzalez. There is a scarcity here that is not correctly accounted for. I am also not as down on future performance - I don't see why we shouldn't expect him to be a 5+ win player in the future.
   300. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: August 27, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4219189)
I guess it just comes down to me not believing the calculations of value for Gonzalez. There is a scarcity here that is not correctly accounted for. I am also not as down on future performance - I don't see why we shouldn't expect him to be a 5+ win player in the future.


I think most people think the Gonzalez contract was fair and wasn't really the problem. I think your evaluation is pretty good, and Gonzalez will be great going forward. It's the existence of Crawford's contract that made this deal happen - I don't think the Red Sox were ever willing to just dump Gonzalez.
Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6496 seconds
60 querie(s) executed