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 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Darren Posted: December 04, 2010 at 04:46 PM (#3702397)
Gonzalez is a big slugging first basemen just like Adam Dunn. He's got a little less power but a better average and defense. So if Dunn got 4/56, then Gonzalez should get 5/70. Done and done. and Dunn.

Cross posted from the main thread:

Home/Road for his career:

263/360/440
303/376/568


And he should take all of his negotiating advice from Roy Halladay.




(Also, I think the $5.5 mil salary is sort of irrelevant now. They're going to renegotiate and Gonzalez has most of the power. The only thing on the Sox side is that Gonzalez may want the security coming off a shoulder injury.)
   2. robinred Posted: December 04, 2010 at 04:55 PM (#3702402)
then Gonzalez should get 5/70


Unlikely. I think he will get somewhere between this and what Teixeira got.
   3. Darren Posted: December 04, 2010 at 04:57 PM (#3702403)
That's a big range. And I was joking.
   4. robinred Posted: December 04, 2010 at 05:15 PM (#3702422)
And I was joking
.

Fair enough. Usually you are deadly serious about all tings Red Sox and money-related.
   5. Darren Posted: December 04, 2010 at 05:22 PM (#3702433)
Yes, that's me. Always serious.
   6. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 04, 2010 at 05:42 PM (#3702458)
One final reflection – I think the Red Sox plan to cut payroll for 2011.  With Gonzalez at only $5.5M, they’re saving nearly $10M compared to Beltre’s likely contract.  Say that the club also makes a big splash to acquire one of Werth or Crawford, and then they pick up a pair of bullpen arms.  After those moves, the Sox payroll would look to end up more in the $150-160M range, a significant drop from last year.
The actual payroll might be lower, but if Gonzalez signs an extension his luxury tax number is going to be the AAV of that deal, I would guess $18-22M. I think the Sox place more emphasis on that calculation of payroll, since avoiding the tax is a bigger deal for them than cash flow (they didn't have any problem cutting Seibu a $51M check before spending $143M on the '07 team). And a minor note, Gonzo's 2011 salary jumped to $6.3M when he hit various incentives.
   7. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 04, 2010 at 06:00 PM (#3702476)
If we let Beltre walk, we get two first round picks anyway
   8. jmurph Posted: December 04, 2010 at 06:58 PM (#3702525)
I don't want to be a pessimist on this exciting day, but I think it's fair to not be too pumped about Kevin Youkilis: full-time first baseman. Do people think this means no Scutaro trade, to keep around for depth (thinking Lowrie as full-time SS, and cover for 3rd)?

I can't decide what this means for Papelbon. Less likely to deal him this off-season, since the payroll will go down?
   9. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: December 04, 2010 at 07:04 PM (#3702530)
Between Youkilis and Lowrie, I think Scutaro is necessary and hope they bring him back. Lowrie is being paid like a backup anyway.

There's still room for Crawford or Werth here, but they're in a much better position now if they can't get that done. And I don't see an Upton trade now given that the club won't want to completely empty the farm.
   10. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 04, 2010 at 07:52 PM (#3702574)
Yes, I'm guessing Kelly/Iglesias/Rizzo is most likely about what we're looking at. I think we're also not far from the Jayson Werth Era, sadly. This absolutely means no Scutaro trade (which never made sense to me anyway).

So who are we rooting for Beltre to sign with now? The Sox already have the 19th pick + a sandwich pick from Detroit for Martinez... what are the scenarios wrt getting picks for Beltre and giving them for Werth?
   11. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 04, 2010 at 07:53 PM (#3702575)
Two fanboy readings of the Gonzalez deal (technically still pending).

1) Crossposting from the other thread, check out the ten flyball outs Gonzalez made last year that would be homers in Fenway: SoSH post of hit chart.

2) Kevin Youkilis might be a good third baseman. He was a reasonable third baseman as a young man, he has a good arm, and he's been perfectly competent there in recent years. In something like 90 games at third between 2008 and 2009, he put up a +3 UZR and a +10 TZ. If Youkilis is actually above average at third, as the numbers suggest, he's could be one of the best players in all of baseball. Moving Youkilis to third might be one of the hidden benefits of this trade.
   12. Mo Vaughn Down The Road Posted: December 04, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3702609)
Crossposting from the other thread, check out the ten flyball outs Gonzalez made last year that would be homers in Fenway


I count 11. 10 to left and 1 to right.

Of course, it's hard to know how many of those long flies would turn out to be homers turned to singles and doubles.
   13. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 04, 2010 at 08:34 PM (#3702621)
Yes, I'm guessing Kelly/Iglesias/Rizzo is most likely about what we're looking at.
The reports are getting pretty consistent that it's Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes/PTBNL, and the player to be named is, according to Gammons, not a name prospect. I don't know what Gammons means, and I'm still expecting the package to be better than that. If it isn't, well, I'm even happier about the trade than I was before.
   14. Textbook Editor Posted: December 04, 2010 at 08:35 PM (#3702622)
I think Papelbon still could be dealt, but I'm not sure what we'd want for him/what need we'd be looking to fill as a result of trading him. And in any trade, we'd likely be eating some money, so I'm not sure it makes sense unless Papelbon's part of a larger trade.

I would have thought eating a bunch of salary and trading him for Bell made some sense, in that you wind up (with Bell's salary + salary eaten on Papelbon) probably shelling out around the $15 million they offered Rivera when all is said and done, while upgrading pretty nicely.
   15. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 04, 2010 at 08:38 PM (#3702627)
I would have thought eating a bunch of salary and trading him for Bell made some sense
For the Padres? The Padres just traded away their best player. They're clearly not attempting to compete in 2011. What would they want with a pitcher who's a free agent after 2011?
   16. Textbook Editor Posted: December 04, 2010 at 08:40 PM (#3702629)
ESPN reporting in their rumors section that Bell *will* be dealt... Arb-eligible with a $4 mil salary in 2010... Why not send Papelbon + prospect + $7 million to the Padres for Bell? Even with a raise to Bell to, say, $7 million for 2011 you'd still wind up paying $14 million for the position for 2011, likely about $3 million higher than if you keep Papelbon, but arguably with the potential to get better production.

Papelbon would probably bounce back a bit with a move to the NL, and that park would help him as well... It really makes all the sense in the world to move Papelbon and try to get Bell.
   17. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 04, 2010 at 08:48 PM (#3702643)
Why not send Papelbon + prospect + $7 million to the Padres for Bell?
Why send Papelbon at all? The Padres are trading away their $7M closer with one year left of team control. What would they want with a $5M closer with one year left of team control?

i'd love to trade for Bell. I assume, though, if the Sox were going to do that, they'd have done it last night. In any case, Papelbon makes no sense whatsoever as part of the trade.

EDIT: I guess one could theorize a three-team deal in which a third club took on part of Papelbon's contract and maybe shipped a prospect to San Diego. But in that case, why wouldn't the third club just deal with San Diego directly?
   18. robinred Posted: December 04, 2010 at 09:05 PM (#3702672)
Yes, that's me. Always serious.


When it comes to the Red Sox payroll? Absolutely.
   19. Textbook Editor Posted: December 04, 2010 at 09:08 PM (#3702679)
They could pocket some of the money and try to re-direct Papelbon somewhere else.

OK, I admit it. I'm desperate to trade Papelbon. If the non-tender rumors are true, I suspect the Red Sox wouldn't mind doing it either.
   20. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 04, 2010 at 09:15 PM (#3702694)
OK, I admit it. I'm desperate to trade Papelbon.

Agree, I feel the same way... but they're right [ed.: 'they' referring to everyone else in the thread]. Papelbon for Bell makes no sense no matter how you slice it. Given what appears to be the Padres' plans going forward, Papelbon makes zero sense for them. Might as well include another prospect or two in the Gonzalez deal and add Bell outright. Which doesn't make a ton of sense for Boston in terms of resource allocation.

The reports are getting pretty consistent that it's Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes/PTBNL

This is now what I'm hearing/seeing as well (I had basically just woken up when posted previous comment), and I cannot believe how cheap that is. I mean, we've been saying all along that these 'mega-deals' always turn out to be poorer prospect-wise than the BBTF contingent expects (Santana, Teixeira the second time, Lee twice, Victor Martinez, etc), so I expected this one to be somewhat disappointing for the Pads, but I figured that meant they wouldn't get Bard or Kalish. But for Kelly to be the only A-list guy in the package, and for it to include no major-league ready players, seems crazy to me. But what the hell, I love the Red Sox, so I can just smirk and say "send it"!
   21. jmurph Posted: December 04, 2010 at 10:14 PM (#3702765)
OK, I admit it. I'm desperate to trade Papelbon.


I'm not desperate to trade him, but I do think it might make sense. Can they get a decent set-up guy and middle infield depth, or a catching prospect, or two decent set up guys? That said, this is kind of an all-in year with this current group, so keeping him is probably the best bet.
   22. Mattbert Posted: December 04, 2010 at 11:08 PM (#3702818)
I like Rizzo a lot, so I think the Pads did okay here given they are only offering one year of Gonzalez. I think it's arguable that this package is better than they would've gotten from most other teams because most other teams would not be considered to have an excellent chance* of extending Gonzalez as part of the deal (* = combination of financial resources and Gonzalez purportedly being amenable to playing most of the rest of his career in Boston).

If the prospects going to SD appear underwhelming, this is something to keep in mind. Other potential trading partners may not have been able to be as confident about extending Gonzalez and would therefore have scaled back their offers accordingly.
   23. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 04, 2010 at 11:26 PM (#3702837)
I like Rizzo a lot too, way more than Kelly. I think he'll wind up being a pretty good ballplayer. I'm bummed to lose him, but his ceiling is Adrian Gonzalez-level production for cheap, and the Red Sox just got Adrian Gonzalez and they have money to spend. Now they just have to pay him, which will be a big deal. They're gonna pay the man a lot of money for a lot of years. Mark Teixeira was at pretty much exactly the same point in his career when he signed his 8/$180 contract, and I don't think Gonzalez will get too much less than that, either in dollars or years. I think statsy Red Sox fans will be a little less excited when Gonzalez is actually starts being paid what he's worth, but it should still be awesome to have a great hitter in the lineup for a few years to come.

I'm also a little concerned about the toll playing 3B might take on Youkilis. It's a more demanding position, and Youk will need to spend lots more time working on his fielding than hitting, plus he'll be 32. Not hugely concerned, because I'm really still really excited about Gonzalez, but it's a tough switch to make at that age.

Also, what's the Red Sox budget like right now? If they wind up giving Gonzalez $20M a year, can they even afford Crawford or Werth? Seems like they're paying a lot for a pretty crappy pitching staff right now, and it doesn't seem like anybody except Buchholz is significantly underpaid on that team.
   24. Mattbert Posted: December 04, 2010 at 11:33 PM (#3702844)
I think Gonzalez will get a bit less for three reasons: (1) slightly different market now than when Tex signed, (2) Gonzalez ain't a free agent, and (3) the only team that can pay him more than Boston is the Yankees, and they've already got Tex.
   25. Darren Posted: December 04, 2010 at 11:40 PM (#3702851)
My guess is 6/105.5 (includes his 5.5 for next year + 20 mil/year), with the Red Sox making these points to him:

--You're not Teixeira or Cabrera, but we all agree your well above Dunn.
--We think you'll be better outside Petco, but no one can say that for sure.
--If we wanted to outbid everyone else, we could just wait a year and not give up all these good players, which leads into:
--How's your shoulder feel? We're willing to bet $100 mil on it being better. What are you willing to gamble on it?
   26. Darren Posted: December 04, 2010 at 11:41 PM (#3702855)
The other question is, if you're Theo and you can't strike a deal, do you still make the trade? You get a year of Gonzalez supercheap and 2 draft picks.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 04, 2010 at 11:47 PM (#3702860)
My guess is 6/105.5 (includes his 5.5 for next year + 20 mil/year), with the Red Sox making these points to him:

I think he goes FA if that's their best offer. He could probably have gotten 5/100 from SD.
   28. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 04, 2010 at 11:56 PM (#3702865)
I think he goes FA if that's their best offer. He could probably have gotten 5/100 from SD.


I agree. He's not getting paid $5M this year if they agree to a new deal. They'll restructure his contract to give him more than that, plus another 6-7 years probably around $20-25M per. The way the Red Sox have been going after AG for years, they're gonna have to pay up.
   29. Mattbert Posted: December 05, 2010 at 12:10 AM (#3702876)
I think he'll get something like 6/110-115. Who besides the Red Sox is going to sign him to that kind of deal next winter? Texas, maybe, assuming they don't sign Lee. Seattle, if Smoak doesn't develop and they cut bait on him after just the one year. I think that's about it.
   30. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 05, 2010 at 12:28 AM (#3702884)
I think he'll get better than 5/100, but I don't see him getting Teixeira money. Tex was able to parlay several suitors off each other for a period of months; Gonzalez has 48 hours to negotiate with one team. And if he doesn't sign now, he's taking on a not insignificant amount of risk that he'll never sniff that kind of money again -- just ask Juan Gonzalez.
   31. Mattbert Posted: December 05, 2010 at 12:33 AM (#3702890)
Tex was able to parlay several suitors off each other for a period of months

Including the two richest teams in baseball, plus the Angels. Nice work if you can get it.
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 05, 2010 at 12:41 AM (#3702896)
Who besides the Red Sox is going to sign him to that kind of deal next winter?

At 6/110? About 20 teams. If he's that cheap, the Yankees will sign him to replace Posada at DH. The Cardinals might let Pujols go and sign Gonzalez.

Ryan Howard got 5/125 and is much, much worse.
   33. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 05, 2010 at 12:43 AM (#3702897)
Ryan Howard got 5/125 and is much, much worse.
Not in the eyes of the people writing him the checks though. I bet they believe he's every bit the player Gonzalez is and more.
   34. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 05, 2010 at 12:45 AM (#3702900)
Ryan Howard got 5/125 and is much, much worse.
That's a terrible, horrible contract. I mean, Mike Hampton and Barry Zito both got $100M, so Cliff Lee by extension should get $250M.

Free agents seem to be priced around $4M per win above replacement. That puts Gonzalez' fair market value somewhat under $20M per season.
   35. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 05, 2010 at 01:41 AM (#3702949)
Free agents seem to be priced around $4M per win above replacement. That puts Gonzalez' fair market value somewhat under $20M per season.


When it comes to free agents, it never really seems like the Red Sox get particularly good deals. They seem willing to pay a premium for security. Once they decide on their guy, they just pay the market rate or maybe even slightly more. I don't think they really got great deals on Drew, Scutaro or Lackey. Certainly not on Cameron. They did wind up getting a great year out of Beltre, but coming off of his terrible 2009, $10M actually seemed pretty generous. The Red Sox always pay a little more than "fair market value" (if such a thing can really be determined) because they can afford to spend, and they can't afford not to get their guy if they want to remain highly competitive.
   36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 05, 2010 at 01:51 AM (#3702956)
Free agents seem to be priced around $4M per win above replacement. That puts Gonzalez' fair market value somewhat under $20M per season.

Looks like closer to $5M so far this year, and Gonzalez was 7.0 and 6.3 WAR the last two years.
   37. karlmagnus Posted: December 05, 2010 at 02:29 AM (#3702987)
ellsbury, that's why I've been down on the Sox' FA activities over the last few years. If you're going to pay up, much better to do so for truly elite quality, and not for the Lackeys and Lugos of this world. A-Gon looks to me like the requisite quality, so I'd favor pushing the limits a bit to sign him. Say 6-125 as an extension for this year's 1/6.3.

I'd still like Crawford as well -- unique albeit not AAA. Werth on the other hand looks to me to fall into the Sox' grey area in which they overpay for mediocrity plus. The correct use of money is to acquire excellence, not to overpay for the ordinary.
   38. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 05, 2010 at 02:40 AM (#3702994)
I don't see all that much separation between what Gonzalez is going to get and what Teixeira got. The shoulder could be a question, and the lack of competing offers could come into play, but I think snapper's right in [32]. I don't see any way Gonzalez gets fewer than 6 years on top of 2011, and more likely 7. I'll go out on a limb and go with 7/145 from 2012-18, and I think that is more likely than not slightly conservative.
   39. OCD SS Posted: December 05, 2010 at 03:01 AM (#3703004)
Apparently AGon wants something in the neighborhood of Ryan Howard money. If the Sox can get him for fewer years than Teixeira got, even if it's for a bit more money, I think this is a no-brainer... I'll say 6/$132M.
   40. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 05, 2010 at 04:04 AM (#3703029)
I'd still like Crawford as well -- unique albeit not AAA. Werth on the other hand looks to me to fall into the Sox' grey area in which they overpay for mediocrity plus. The correct use of money is to acquire excellence, not to overpay for the ordinary.
I think I'm with KM on this one. The reason to target Werth now would be to offset the lefties in the lineup, while signing Crawford would give you five. But it's really only for one year you'd be dealing with the lefty glut, at which point you could re-balance the lineup. You could also platoon for two of Ellsbury/Drew/Ortiz with lefties on the mound.

Another reason I've seen to go after Werth is that he can slide over to RF in a year when Drew leaves. One, this wastes Werth's talents for 20-25% of his contract. Two, it wastes the talents of Kalish/Reddick, who will probably be manning an OF slot in 2012 and would presumably be moved to left when Werth slides over. The Sox need a left fielder, a job for which Werth is over-qualified. They don't need a right fielder in the short term and in the long term can probably get 80% of Werth's production for 5% of the cost. Now maybe Kalish and Reddick both fail to develop or are needed in center, but we know there's a short and long term need in left and a solution like Crawford doesn't hit the free agent market very often. He's precisely the type of player the Sox should flex their financial muscles to sign.
   41. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 05, 2010 at 04:14 AM (#3703032)
ellsbury, that's why I've been down on the Sox' FA activities over the last few years. If you're going to pay up, much better to do so for truly elite quality, and not for the Lackeys and Lugos of this world. A-Gon looks to me like the requisite quality, so I'd favor pushing the limits a bit to sign him. Say 6-125 as an extension for this year's 1/6.3.


Oh, I think it'll take more than that. 6/125 is a no brainer - you obviously sign him for that. I would guess it's something more like the 7/145 mentioned in #38. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like 7/160, either.

I like Crawford better than Werth as well, but I think he'll also be more expensive, and those salaries add up. I don't know how big a deal this is, but adding both Gonzalez and Crawford does start making the Red Sox awfully left-handed.

EDIT: Or everything PCR said, amplified.
   42. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 05, 2010 at 05:00 AM (#3703051)
I'm coming around to the Sox needing an OF this offseason after having looked at the guys who are likely available next year. It looks to me like the options next offseason, if they don't get Crawford or Werth this year, come down to overpay Drew or overpay someone worse than any of Drew/Werth/Crawford.

I don't like Werth at ALL, and his potential for cliff-level decline scares me. I wish they'd get Crawford instead, but it's true that that would really screw up this year's team vis a vis batting handedness and lineup construction (try to put a rational-looking lineup together with Gonzalez/Pedroia/Scutaro(/Lowrie)/Youkilis/Crawford/Ellsbury/Drew/Ortiz as the starters - it's a nightmare), though that should admittedly be low on their list of concerns. I'm no longer really worried about the youngsters; assuming that's the group of position players they go into 2011 with, next offseason they'll have to replace Scutaro, Cameron, Drew, and Ortiz, and assuming Lowrie develops as we hope he will, those holes are all filled easily and naturally from within - yet more reason that extending Gonzalez and signing one of the big two OFs this offseason makes too much sense not to do.

Basically, I see Werth as Lackey redux. Having been an early and vocal opponent of that signing, I don't know how much stridency I can muster against getting Werth... it just seems like a fait accompli already, a signing that I already know I will hate soon and regret later. But the long-term approach, despite my objections, is sound - if he's the best guy you're going to be able to get in the next 3 years at a position of need within 1 year, you pay to get him, and let the chips fall where they may, as much as internet fanboys like me might dislike it.

And agree with PCR of course - 6/125 is a done deal.
   43. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 05, 2010 at 05:24 AM (#3703060)
Heyman tweets:
that crawford is a lefty hitter, and ortiz, drew and a-gone are lefties, will not discourage the #redsox from pursuing carl
Interesting and just what I'd like to hear. I do wonder if it's just to gain leverage with Werth though. At the least, you'll end up with a better deal if you have options than if you only have one plan and everyone knows it.
   44. Dan Posted: December 05, 2010 at 05:59 AM (#3703070)
Another reason I've seen to go after Werth is that he can slide over to RF in a year when Drew leaves. One, this wastes Werth's talents for 20-25% of his contract. Two, it wastes the talents of Kalish/Reddick, who will probably be manning an OF slot in 2012 and would presumably be moved to left when Werth slides over. The Sox need a left fielder, a job for which Werth is over-qualified. They don't need a right fielder in the short term and in the long term can probably get 80% of Werth's production for 5% of the cost. Now maybe Kalish and Reddick both fail to develop or are needed in center, but we know there's a short and long term need in left and a solution like Crawford doesn't hit the free agent market very often. He's precisely the type of player the Sox should flex their financial muscles to sign.


How is playing Werth in LF a waste of his talent but playing Crawford, a guy who is probably at least a +5 CF, in left field isn't a waste of talent? This argument makes no sense at all. Werth is a far better fit for this team, especially with Gonzalez on board as another LHH. I don't think people have really looked at Crawford's splits. His career line vs. LHP is .270/.315/.382 for an OPS of 697. Even during his career year last year he hit .256/.312/.384 for an OPS of .696. He is awful against left-handed pitching. In addition to his big splits, he refuses to hit leadoff. He refuses to play CF. I don't see how this is a player worth drooling over. The last thing this lineup needs is another player who can be completely neutralized by bringing in mediocre LOOGYs.
   45. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 05, 2010 at 06:16 AM (#3703078)
Yeah, but Werth sucks. What would you do?
   46. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 05, 2010 at 06:26 AM (#3703086)
Jason Werth doesn't seem like a guy who will age well.
   47. Dan Posted: December 05, 2010 at 07:47 AM (#3703099)
Yeah, but Werth sucks. What would you do?


I would sign Werth because he's a very good player with a very well-rounded game who is athletic enough that I'm not too concerned about him aging poorly. He destroys left-handed pitching, which is something this team needs with Victor and Beltre both departing, but he's also a solid hitter against RHP. I'd also value his versatility in being able to provide average or better defense in all 3 OF spots, rather than Crawford who throws a tantrum if he's asked to play anywhere besides LF. That means the team would have more options in creating a lineup in 2012 after Drew departs, and also means that the team is more flexible in case of injuries to Drew and/or Ellsbury.
   48. Darren Posted: December 05, 2010 at 10:17 PM (#3703395)
I'm too lazy to track it down, but in all of these talks, what is meant by 6-year deal and 8-year deal? Do those numbers include 2011 or represent an extension beyond 2011?
   49. Mattbert Posted: December 05, 2010 at 10:34 PM (#3703411)
FWIW, when I say 6-year deal I mean that it would start in 2011.
   50. Chip Posted: December 05, 2010 at 10:46 PM (#3703422)
MLB.com says Werth and Boras close to a deal with the Nats.
   51. karlmagnus Posted: December 05, 2010 at 10:51 PM (#3703426)
Isn't Dunn a better hitter? Nats not the brightest sparks, but if they take Werth off the market, it's a money wasting temptation removed from Theo/Larry.
   52. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 05, 2010 at 10:51 PM (#3703427)
I figured 6 or 7 on top of 2011. Snapper & I seem to be way above what the rest of you guys are expecting. Naturally I think you're all wrong and we're right. Looks like AG agreed with us and Theo was on your side.

EDIT: MLBTR via Rosenthal/Heyman via Twitter says Werth gets 7 years from the Nats. BIG-TIME bullet dodged for the Sox if so.
   53. Mattbert Posted: December 05, 2010 at 10:58 PM (#3703433)
And the Nats just ruined Christmas. Way to go, jerks.

Werth signs for 7/$126M.
   54. Dan Posted: December 06, 2010 at 12:47 AM (#3703459)
Seriously, Theo & co., just pay the man. With Werth off the market, this has to happen. In a world where Jayson Werth gets 7 years, you have to just give him Teixeira money. That is the cost of getting elite players. Deal with it.
   55. Mattbert Posted: December 06, 2010 at 12:59 AM (#3703473)
I wonder what AZ wants for Upton.

Beltre and Crawford are going to ask for silly money too now, you'd think...
   56. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 06, 2010 at 01:00 AM (#3703474)
Nats not the brightest sparks, but if they take Werth off the market, it's a money wasting temptation removed from Theo/Larry.


Although it certainly increases the price for Crawford. I can't say it makes me happy.
   57. Textbook Editor Posted: December 06, 2010 at 02:03 AM (#3703555)
Theo would have been an idiot to give Werth 7/$126. But of course this just means Crawford will start at 8/$160 and the bidding will go from there. Oy. I would MUCH rather have Gonzalez at 8/$160 or even 8/$180 instead of Crawford.

If this Gonzalez deal doesn't get done, I'm going to be pretty disappointed, because it probably means we go and sign Beltre to at least a 5-year deal.

What a clusterf@ck day.
   58. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: December 06, 2010 at 02:32 AM (#3703594)
I think it's going to take 6 years + 2 option years. 6/150 with 20m for year 7 and 8 options.
   59. Pingu Posted: December 06, 2010 at 10:37 PM (#3704276)
Where is everyone today? Off celebrating? Out shopping for your AGon jerseys?

Well anyways, thanks be due to the baseball gods for keeping Werth away from Theo, I have to assume Theo wouldnt have thought once about 7/126. I was concerned about the prospect of signing him to a 5 yr deal.

Now in retrospect, it looks even worse letting Martinez walk. That would have been a scary lineup, even with Ellsbury/Kalish/Cameron/etc making up 2/3 of the OF.

I'm still waiting to see the details of the contract, especially the luxury tax hit in 2011. How much $$ is left to spend on bullpen/C/OF?
   60. Jittery McFrog Posted: December 06, 2010 at 10:50 PM (#3704296)
I'm still waiting to see the details of the contract, especially the luxury tax hit in 2011.


Wait, would the higher average annual salary of the extension affect this year's luxury tax, or only after the extension begins?
   61. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: December 06, 2010 at 10:59 PM (#3704310)
Now in retrospect, it looks even worse letting Martinez walk. That would have been a scary lineup, even with Ellsbury/Kalish/Cameron/etc making up 2/3 of the OF.


I agree it doesn't look great at this point, with Werth signed and Crawford likely wanting a 7/160 of his own, but it is still early. The winter meetings haven't even happened yet. Even if this current group of players is final (which I highly doubt) this doesn't look too bad:

LF Ellsbury
2B Pedroia
1B Gonzalez
3B Youkilis
DH Ortiz
RF Drew
SS Lowrie/Scutaro
CF Cameron/Kalish
C Salty/Varitek
   62. villageidiom Posted: December 06, 2010 at 11:06 PM (#3704318)
If this Gonzalez deal doesn't get done, I'm going to be pretty disappointed, because it probably means we go and sign Beltre to at least a 5-year deal.
I'm confident they have agreed on an extension, but won't announce it until after opening day to avoid luxury tax implications for 2011. I thought I'd seen estimates somewhere that the tax impact would be around $6m otherwise. An extra $6 million to spend on the 2011 bullpen would be nice.

One of the interesting things about the Werth deal is that, as pointed out above and elsewhere, this might affect the contract Crawford can get. More interesting is that, once the ledger of absurd contracts include Werth and Crawford, it becomes more of a market thing than an outlier. Why is that interesting? Because the (trade) value of Ellsbury and Kalish will skyrocket. If the marginal cost per win above replacement among outfielders goes up, it's becomes much more valuable to have above-replacement talent at rock-bottom prices than it was previously.

I put "trade" in parentheses because the Ellsbury and Kalish contracts are valuable not just in trade, but in value to the Red Sox. Maybe it means they're less likely, instead of more likely, to trade these players away because it will cost much more to replace them. I'm not sure where it ends up, but this kind of stuff I always find fascinating.
   63. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2010 at 11:12 PM (#3704324)
Just having fun:

vs righties:

Pedroia 2b
Drew Rf
Youkilis 3B
Gonazlez 1B
Ortiz DH
Manny LF
Scutaro SS
Saltalamacchia (did I get it right?) C
Ellsbury CF

vs lefties:

Ellsbury LF
Pedroia 2B
Youkilis 3B
Gonzalez 1B
Manny DH
Lowrie SS
Cameron CF
Drew RF
Varitek C
   64. Pingu Posted: December 07, 2010 at 12:35 AM (#3704413)
Was that a Manny sighting? Are our memories that short?
   65. Pingu Posted: December 07, 2010 at 12:38 AM (#3704418)
I agree it doesn't look great at this point, with Werth signed and Crawford likely wanting a 7/160 of his own, but it is still early. The winter meetings haven't even happened yet. Even if this current group of players is final (which I highly doubt) this doesn't look too bad:


Agree, its not too bad. But on paper its not better than last season (offensively or defensively IMO). That may be ok with some bounce-back from the pitching staff and improvement in the pen, but I still really hope they're not done.
   66. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: December 07, 2010 at 12:51 AM (#3704429)
1) Crossposting from the other thread, check out the ten flyball outs Gonzalez made last year that would be homers in Fenway: SoSH post of hit chart.

None of them would have hit the wall?
   67. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: December 07, 2010 at 04:03 AM (#3704553)
What’s an Adrian Gonzalez Worth?
7/154 in closed negotiations, apparently.
   68. Dan Posted: December 07, 2010 at 04:14 AM (#3704560)
I hope they're not done as well, but who else is there to target besides Crawford? I'm guessing that Werth's insane deal will probably push Crawford's deal to levels beyond what the Red Sox will be willing to spend after just signing Gonzalez to a $150+M extension. Willingham would make an interesting stopgap in LF I suppose, but isn't he horrible on defense? Doesn't really seem like a Theo Red Sox kind of player.

Is Upton still an option at all? It just really seems like this team needs a strong righty bat, and no others come to mind.
   69. Chip Posted: December 07, 2010 at 04:25 AM (#3704564)
Heard Magglio Ordonez's name as a right-handed bat possibility floated by one of the talking heads on MLB TV today. Also Jermaine Dye.
   70. OCD SS Posted: December 07, 2010 at 04:50 AM (#3704576)
I think teams are going to be well served by Crawford not making a decision until after Cliff Lee signs; saner heads may prevail. If he needs to get the most money of any OFer this year, he may have to take it from the Orioles, I don't see the Sox, Rangers, or Angels letting Rizzo singlehandedly dictate the OF market (although it looks like we are experiencing real salary inflation).

As long as AGon's deal isn't announced the Sox can still afford to add a huge contract this year. I'd absolutely love to see Upton brought in, but I think the only way Towers trades him is if he can pull of the baseball equivalent of raping a coma patient.
   71. villageidiom Posted: December 07, 2010 at 06:27 AM (#3704611)
They're not done, but they could be done on offense. Link.
Asked to name his priorities at this point after trading for Adrian Gonzalez, he said: "Bullpen, bullpen, maybe integrate a right-handed bat into the mix if we can find the right one. ... I feel like if we brought back the same (outfield) group, we'd be OK."

"I think here is a possibility of us doing something in the outfield, it might be a more complementary-type move. If we don’t find something that makes sense, we are comfortable with the group that we have."

Epstein said he is fine with the lineup as it is and doesn't believe it is too left-handed provided they have right-handed options on the bench. An outfield move, he said, would be "more complementary" at this stage.

...

Epstein said he expected to acquire at least two relievers via trade or free agency. Based on the chatter today, Brian Fuentes, Ron Mahay and Koji Uehara are possible targets.

...

Epstein said the non-tender market had some interesting names. Russell Martin?

...

He did not rule out Adrian Beltre, saying anything was possible however unlikely it was. But he said Kevin Youkilis was told to get ready to play third base and there are no plans to play him in left field.
The latest ODDIBE on the Orioles has Smoltz and Hoffman as Uehara's top comps. Intriguing.
   72. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 07, 2010 at 06:51 AM (#3704618)
Werth got $18M per for 7 years; if getting Crawford's going to take $22M per for 8 years, the Sox should pass. Willingham's not a bad option, but maybe Matt Diaz could do 90% of the job without prospects or a salary determined by arbitration. Whomever it is, there will be plenty of ABs for a decent hitting righty to draw away from Drew/Ellsbury/Ortiz.
   73. Pingu Posted: December 07, 2010 at 02:30 PM (#3704679)
Are any of those OF "complimentary" players expected to be significantly better than Cameron, Kalish, Reddick, McDonald, Nava? I'll pass. I'd rather go into the season w/ Kalish on the 25 man.


Epstein said he expected to acquire at least two relievers via trade or free agency. Based on the chatter today, Brian Fuentes, Ron Mahay and Koji Uehara are possible targets.


Well good that he wants 2, but those werent exactly the names I would have expected the Red Sox to be after. And can we all stop fantasizing about the Red Sox being able to build a bullpen "on the cheap". If they are done w/ FAs, they have some money to burn. Bring in Soriano on closer money for 3 years, use the expected Beltre/Martinez kitty to pay for hiim this year and Papelbon's salary off the books to pay for him next.

I also still hope they pursue a catcher thru trade (Napoli). I dont think going into the season with an offense and defense that is worse than last year would be, as MCoA put it, a successful offseason.
   74. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 07, 2010 at 03:02 PM (#3704694)
I can't imagine Soriano coming to Boston until much later in the off-season. I assume he would seek (and likely find) a closer job somewhere.

Willingham and Ordonez on a one year deal appeal to me. Ordonez especially because he is "free."
   75. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 07, 2010 at 05:43 PM (#3704848)
You guys think a Willingham or Ordonez could be the 25th guy on this roster? I'm assuming it has to be a Billy Hall guy (wouldn't mind Hall himself) who can play multiple positions. The starting 3B being the backup 1B helps a bit, but don't you still need someone who can play somewhere in the infield?

Varitek
Saltalamacchia
Gonzalez
Pedroia
Scutaro
Lowrie
Youkilis
Drew
Ellsbury
Cameron
[left fielder]
Ortiz

Assuming 12 pitchers, that leaves one spot, and I don't think it could be manned by someone as limited defensively as Willingham or Ordonez. Or by a 'complementary' outfield move does he mean filling that starting LF spot with someone crappy? I guess that would make sense, Jeremy Hermida worked out so well after all...
   76. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2010 at 05:54 PM (#3704856)
Assuming 12 pitchers, that leaves one spot, and I don't think it could be manned by someone as limited defensively as Willingham or Ordonez.
Why? As long as one of Ellsbury or Cameron is healthy, the Sox don't need a CF. And if both Ellsbury and Cameron are out, the Sox need a left fielder and a center fielder. Further, this player may be getting significant PA at DH as a platoon partner for Papi, and so his glove doesn't matter at all part of the time.

I guess I'd say that if there's a player out there as good as Ordonez or Willingham, but with his talents more evenly distributed between offense and defense, I'd be perfectly fine with bringing him in instead of them. Do you have a proposal?

I agree that it'd be useful to have a multi-positional backup, but I think it's more important to get the best possible outfielder because that player will likely take 400-500 PA this season.
   77. Nasty Nate Posted: December 07, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3704861)
You guys think a Willingham or Ordonez could be the 25th guy on this roster? I'm assuming it has to be a Billy Hall guy (wouldn't mind Hall himself) who can play multiple positions. The starting 3B being the backup 1B helps a bit, but don't you still need someone who can play somewhere in the infield?


why not Ordonez/Willingham and Kalish as your 24 & 25. Lowrie and Scutaro can play all over the infield. If you need another IF, you can send Kalish down and bring up a no-name MI from Pawtucket. If you need another short-term OF because of injury, you can call up Nava or Reddick. If Kalish is rotting on the bench, you can play him in Pawtucket and have Nava/Reddick as the 5th OF.
   78. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 07, 2010 at 05:58 PM (#3704867)
Having now looked at the actual Ordonez/Sox thread, I think I did misunderstand the 'complementary' comment I was responding to there. There are two positions in question here.

Agree that the best possible (preferably RHB) outfielder is needed for the [left fielder] spot. I was referring to the last roster spot AFTER that, who I think pretty clearly needs to be able to play at least one infield position - right now it looks like there are only five guys (plus Ortiz, if you count him) covering the four infield spots.


EDIT:
Lowrie and Scutaro can play all over the infield

Right now only one of them can because the other one's starting at short. That makes Lowrie the backup at 1B, 2B, 3B, and SS, and Ortiz the only guy behind him on the depth chart. So if Tito has to replace two infielders in a game, he's ######.
   79. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 07, 2010 at 07:01 PM (#3704932)
Willingham signed with the Rockies.
   80. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 07, 2010 at 07:21 PM (#3704950)
So if Tito has to replace two infielders in a game, he's ######.


Not to nitpick but if Tito has to replace two infielders in a game, isn't he kinda ###### regardless? The only way the Sox are screwed there is if the two infielders are among 2nd, short and 3rd. If Gonzo gets hurt we can throw Ortiz (or Saltalamacchia) at 1st base. Even if Youk and Scutaro goes down I think I'd deal with three innings of "Mike Cameron - 3rd baseman" and call up Yamaico Navarro the next day.

Hopefully two guys getting hurt in the same game won't be a problem that is frequent enough to be worth spending time worrying about it. I think we kind of used up a bit of injury quota last year dammit.
   81. villageidiom Posted: December 07, 2010 at 07:53 PM (#3704996)
Not to nitpick but if Tito has to replace two infielders in a game, isn't he kinda ###### regardless?
Yes, because he'll have three catchers on the roster, in case two get injured in the same game.
   82. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2010 at 08:15 PM (#3705029)
Varitek
Saltalamacchia
Gonzalez
Pedroia
Scutaro
Lowrie
Youkilis
Drew
Ellsbury
Cameron
[left fielder]
Ortiz

Assuming 12 pitchers, that leaves one spot, and I don't think it could be manned by someone as limited defensively as Willingham or Ordonez. Or by a 'complementary' outfield move does he mean filling that starting LF spot with someone crappy? I guess that would make sense, Jeremy Hermida worked out so well after all...
The [left fielder] slot is the one that people expect Willingham/Ordonez to fill.

Then you'd get another bench player for the 13th position player. That guy could be multi-positional. A four-corners player would be what I figure the Sox would want, ideally.
   83. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 07, 2010 at 09:10 PM (#3705106)
Call me crazy, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that you carry more than one reserve infielder on your roster.

Looks like Wigginton is Mr. 25. Not bad, but not good. I'd still have preferred Hall. See what he signs for, I guess.
   84. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 07, 2010 at 09:33 PM (#3705134)
Never mind about that last part. Stupid.
   85. Nasty Nate Posted: December 07, 2010 at 09:38 PM (#3705140)
Call me crazy, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that you carry more than one reserve infielder on your roster.


Your'e probably right. Although I could envision the Sox going with just one for certain patches.
   86. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2010 at 10:41 PM (#3705191)
Call me crazy, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that you carry more than one reserve infielder on your roster.
See post #82. The Red Sox have a 25th man spot which will likely be taken by someone who's capable of playing 1B. That's not relevant to the Ordonez/Beltran/Willingham/Manny/Whatever LF scenarios.

Since I didn't say it explicitly: the roster list you put together has eleven named players on it. The Sox need, on top of that, a left fielder and a bench bat, preferably one who can play four corners. So, I think the debate we've been having since post 75 has been based on the idea that there's a tradeoff between acquiring a good hitting LF, and having a four corners style bench bat. There isn't one, we can and should have both.
   87. Cat Named Manny Posted: December 07, 2010 at 10:54 PM (#3705205)
I dont think going into the season with an offense and defense that is worse than last year would be, as MCoA put it, a successful offseason.


I agree with this quote in the abstract, but I don't think it has any bearing on the 2011 Red Sox, unless your contention is that replacing Victor Martinez with full seasons from Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia, replacing Adrian Beltre with Adrian Gonzalez, and replacing Darnell McDonald and Daniel Nava with Jacoby Ellsbury and Mike Cameron qualifies as downgrading both the offense and defense.
   88. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:02 PM (#3705210)
I agree with this quote in the abstract, but I don't think it has any bearing on the 2011 Red Sox, unless your contention is that replacing Victor Martinez with full seasons from Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia, replacing Adrian Beltre with Adrian Gonzalez, and replacing Darnell McDonald and Daniel Nava with Jacoby Ellsbury and Mike Cameron qualifies as downgrading both the offense and defense.
Do those upgrades amount to six wins? The Sox won 89 last year, and my general baseline for a successful offseason is a projection of 95 wins. The Sox don't need to merely improve from last year, they need to improve by six wins.

Replacing Beltre with Gonzalez, in this context, is not an upgrade. Neither Beltre nor Gonzalez projects to do better than Beltre 2010. And Buchholz had a fluky great year, he'll come back to earth. They're sacrificing about two wins at catcher. My back of the envelope numbers have these moves overall as more like a 2-4 win upgrade from 2010 than a 6-win upgrade.
   89. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:19 PM (#3705227)
I have the Sox as losing about 800-900 PA from their regulars compared to their usual injury numbers from 2006-2009. Given that the replacements were above replacement but below average, and that the players lost were between average and star-level, that comes out to about five wins lost to injury.

Then you have the 1.5-2 win downgrade at catcher, and maybe a 1-2 win downgrade from Beltre's awesome season to a projected All-Star season by Gonzalez. (Beltre was really, really great last year.) The pitching doesn't project to improve much - they were abnormally healthy in the rotation, and underperformances balanced out overperformances reasonably well. The bullpen should improve, in theory, but bullpens are hard to project. The regular roster is mostly in their decline phase years, so that costs a little. Hopefully it will be balanced out by a good new LF. That's why I've got the club only around 91-93 wins right now, even with a couple complementary additions.
   90. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:22 PM (#3705231)
Do those upgrades amount to six wins? The Sox won 89 last year, and my general baseline for a successful offseason is a projection of 95 wins. The Sox don't need to merely improve from last year, they need to improve by six wins.

Replacing Beltre with Gonzalez, in this context, is not an upgrade. Neither Beltre nor Gonzalez projects to do better than Beltre 2010. And Buchholz had a fluky great year, he'll come back to earth. They're sacrificing about two wins at catcher. My back of the envelope numbers have these moves overall as more like a 2-4 win upgrade from 2010 than a 6-win upgrade.


I don't disagree especially strongly but I'm more confident than you for a few reasons.

1. I think Beckett + Buchholz in the aggregate will be the same as it was in 2010. I think the sum will be greater than the parts because I think going (roughly) from "Great start/crummy start" to "good start/good start" is better over the course of a season.

2. I expect the bullpen to be improved though this has not happened yet. Because of the leverage of that role I think an improved bullpen is more than a straight "10 runs=1 win" improvement. By way of example a Jonathan Papelbon who improves by 6 or 7 runs probably gets the Sox 2-3 more wins because he isn't blowing saves.

3. Simiilar to item 1, I think having a strong lineup 1-9 will create a benefit. The Sox had long periods last year where they had sizable portions of the lineup staffed by AAA hitters. I think a more consistency throughout a lineup is beneficial. Put another way, and maybe I'm 100% wrong on this, I think two lineups with identical .775 OPS but one which has 9 guys at a .775 OPS and one that has 6 .875 guys and 3 .575 guys the consistent lineup will score more runs.
   91. Nasty Nate Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:25 PM (#3705235)
I would guess that way less teams project for 95 wins than actually win 95 games. I think there's a logical mistake in comparing prior actual wins w/ following year projected wins, although I'm not sure how to explain it.
   92. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:26 PM (#3705237)
maybe a 1-2 win downgrade from Beltre's awesome season to a projected All-Star season by Gonzalez


Where you gettin' this Matt? Your numbers are usually spot on but BBRef WAR has Beltre = Gonzalez (actually AGon a shade better) in 2010 and Gonzalez was better in 2009 than 2010. Given his age I think it's fair to think that Gonzalez made a "leap" in 2009 and that represents more his true talent level.

Am I missing something that you are seeing (quite likely).
   93. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:28 PM (#3705239)
re [86], we agree. You made explicit the same thing that I also failed to adequately express. I was responding more to [80] which seemed to imply something different. You and I have been re-stating the same concept while somehow failing to realize that we're agreeing, I think. There are two positions remaining to be filled on the offensive side: a starting-caliber right-handed hitting corner outfielder, and another guy, also right-handed, preferably capable of playing multiple corner spots and ideally bringing something to the table at the plate. All he really has to do is be better than Eric Patterson at being Eric Patterson.

I like Bill Hall for the latter role, although he might command too much in FA to justify paying for a reserve (although I haven't heard his name mentioned much this offseason). Jorge Cantu could work, I guess. Willingham would be a great fit for the former, but I still don't understand why his name has even come up; as far as I can tell he's got another year of arb and is slotted in as the starting LF for Washington. He's also really good. I've heard Matt Diaz a bunch, but would hope for someone better than that. Not sure what else is out there. Reed Johnson, Scott Hairston, Austin Kearns, Xavier Nady, Marcus Thames, none of these guys seem good enough. That sort of does leave Manny and Magglio Ordonez among free agents, unless you go rummaging around in other teams' non-tenders. I used to think Travis Buck was going to be good a long time ago. Maybe I should have left this post at the hypothetical, actually digging around for names has gotten me depressed.
   94. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:34 PM (#3705247)
Where you gettin' this Matt? Your numbers are usually spot on but BBRef WAR has Beltre = Gonzalez (actually AGon a shade better) in 2010 and Gonzalez was better in 2009 than 2010. Given his age I think it's fair to think that Gonzalez made a "leap" in 2009 and that represents more his true talent level.

Am I missing something that you are seeing (quite likely).
Two things - fangraphs WAR likes Beltre's 2010 more than CHONE does, and regression to the mean. Gonzalez doesn't project to be as good as he was the last two years, because the projections include his less-good 2008 and a regression to the mean factor.
   95. Cat Named Manny Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:42 PM (#3705258)
Earlier this offseason, I looked at the injuries to Youkilis, Pedroia, Martinez, Varitek and Buchholz, which were the ones that occurred within one month of each other and pretty much destroyed the season. All but Buchholz's were fluke -- Pedroia, Martinez and Varitek all breaking bones at the plate and Youkilis incurring a thumb injury a hand specialist said he'd never seen before. Even Buchholz's was sustained while running the bases in an interleague game, so it wasn't exactly normal either. Taking the actual WAR those players finished with and prorating that rate over the time they missed, then subtracting the actual value the Sox received from their replacements (or, in Martinez/Varitek's case, subtracting further the below-replacement production the Sox received from Bard/Brown/et al.), I came up with six wins. Note that doesn't factor at all the injuries to Ellsbury, Cameron, Beckett or Matsuzaka.

I think if you have the Sox at 91-93, and I have them at 94-96 (and I'm going about this a lot less scientifically than you are), then three wins isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. As Jose notes, it's more likely that Gonzalez will be as valuable in 2011 as Beltre was in 2010 (take away points for an adjustment period and stronger pitching, add them for the insanity that is being a lefty going from Petco to Fenway), which erases two of the three-win difference between us. If I'm slightly more optimistic on Saltalamacchia or Lowrie than you, does that make up the other win? Does signing Soriano do it?

At this point, this early in the offseason, I think your actual projection calls for more optimism than the conclusions you're drawing from it.
   96. Nasty Nate Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:43 PM (#3705262)
I'll try to expand on #91. If your'e projection before last season had the Sox at a mean 92 wins, they only have to improve 3 projected wins by offseason changes to be get to 95 projected wins for 2011. I think.
   97. Nasty Nate Posted: December 08, 2010 at 12:39 AM (#3705299)
Or to put it another way, I think those that make team-win projections do not start with the prior year's win total and add/subtract based on the off-season's transactions' gains and losses.
   98. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 08, 2010 at 01:44 PM (#3705510)
Or to put it another way, I think those that make team-win projections do not start with the prior year's win total and add/subtract based on the off-season's transactions' gains and losses.
Obviously what I'm doing isn't a good projection. A good projection would require a lot of work.

What I'm doing is trying to quantify, in a rough way, how many games a reasonably healthy 2010 Sox would have won (I think about 94 games), and how much the players remaining from that team project to retain or improve on their performances, and how much effect offseason roster changes project to have. It's messy, and it's got big error bars, not least because I probably made errors.

However, I don't know how to evaluate an offseason without attempting to project team wins for the following season. I've always taken a 95-win projection as the Sox goal - because they always say it's their goal - and the Sox almost always match that goal during hte offseason. So far, this year, I don't think they're there yet, and I don't think the "complementary pieces" offseason plan would get them there.

EDIT: I do think what I'm doing is better than starting with the 2010 projections, because then you'd have to account for 2010 performance and two years of regression to the mean. They'd both be messy, but I think this is a little less messy.
   99. Nasty Nate Posted: December 08, 2010 at 04:28 PM (#3705604)
I've always taken a 95-win projection as the Sox goal - because they always say it's their goal


I may be mistaken, but isn't their stated goal to win 95 games, not to have a 95-win projection before the season?

I'm pretty sure that most projection systems only end up with one or two teams at the most that are projected for 95 or more wins.
   100. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 08, 2010 at 04:32 PM (#3705610)
I may be mistaken, but isn't their stated goal to win 95 games, not to have a 95-win projection before the season?


I think it's fair to say that the Sox are building a team that "projects" to win 95 games in part because they figure a few games either way is a playoff team. A few games up from 92 is a definite playoff team while a few games down is 2010.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8698 seconds
41 querie(s) executed