The decisions on Pedro proved to be pretty much a wash. David Wells and Matt Clement landed them a couple pretty good seasons in 2005, while Pedro had a very good season. Then they turned to suck, and Pedro got hurt.

My point here is not to rehash the Pedro saga - on which I was obviously wrong in my projections

Oh you were wrong alright! Big-time wrong! Wrong City, USA! :)

You can't go making this argument and then say "I don't want to have this argument" (twice). You're having it! First, the Pedro decision, in and of itself, was a pretty good one. They let go of a guy who had serious health concerns and that guy ended up getting hurt for a full season. Whatever way you look at it (before, after, etc), it looks good.

The problem is that the people that they chose to replace Pedro didn't turn out very well. This, and not the Pedro choice, is where you have to ding them for the mistake. They could have let Pedro go and signed some of the good pitchers on the market (Byrd, Millwood, etc) but they didn't do that.

How does all this relate to Lowell? I think it's an unfair comparison because there's no free agents like Millwood and Byrd out there.

The reason people aren't giving examples of where to spend the Lowell savings is because we have no idea what talent costs and what's available.

I don't think Mikael and bibigon are saying that efficiency doesn't matter, they're saying that signing Lowell is efficient enough.

If Lowell was a two run upgrade over Chris Carter (for the record I think Carter is pretty much worthless at this point but maybe he's Brian Daubach in a couple years) nobody would be saying "screw efficiency, let's field the best team and sign Mikey!@!@"

So there is some threshold where signing Lowell is just too inefficient.

If you guys need an alternative to signing Lowell, how about: trade Bowden or Masterson for Johnson, get the Lowell draft picks, sign Hiroki Kuroda for 3/$40 and buy a couple extra signability picks next summer.

If Theo can say sure and have all those dominoes fall immediately in place, you guys would definitely rather have that, right?

I'd rather trade Crisp for Johnson. Doesn't Oakland need a good defensive CF?

If you guys need an alternative to signing Lowell, how about: trade Bowden or Masterson for Johnson, get the Lowell draft picks, sign Hiroki Kuroda for 3/$40 and buy a couple extra signability picks next summer.

Bowden and Masterson are guaranteed #1 starters though! Seriously, Johnson may be a diamond in the rough but he's not worth a B+/A- prospect.

I think the Red Sox should look into trading say Crisp for Dan Johnson for the Hinske role even if they do sign Lowell or ARod for third.

Bowden and Masterson are guaranteed #1 starters though! Seriously, Johnson may be a diamond in the rough but he's not worth a B+/A- prospect.

I like Bowden and Masterson (especially Masterson), but I don't think either is a B+ prospect even. But that might just be a matter of using different scales, rather than a substantive difference in prospect evaluation. (I have Buchholz as an A-, and Ellsbury as a B+ for instance.)

Not sure what scale you're using but Sickels had Bowden as a B+ before 2007. I can't imagine it dropped. Not sure about where Masterson would be. Maybe B+ is too high given his health/poor end of the season.

The way to build a team on $130-150M is to start from an efficient core of superstars on big contracts (Papi, Beckett kinda guys) and young players on cost-controlled contracts (there's a lot now), and then fill in the gaps by using your really big wallet. This last step is a necessary inefficiency, and it's the way you manage variance and add an extra win or two to the core.

I don't question that. I'm questioning whether they need to sign this one guy at whatever he demands, or find another alternative for something more sensible. And my sticking point isn't money, it's time.

I recognize that, in a sense, it still is about money; I'm essentially saying they shouldn't pay him four years' salary if they get 1-2 years of suck at the end. But it's about the roster as well. If he stinks or is hurt in year 3, they can't get rid of him for year 4. They'd have to find a replacement (which they'd have to do anyway if they sign him for fewer years), plus take up a roster spot with what's left of Lowell.

In any given year they're going to have dead weight on the roster (see Lugo, Julio and Gagne, Eric. But a good deal of that is unexpected dead weight, like Lugo being so much worse than his career numbers. It would be wise for the team to plan to have some unknown portion of the roster merely taking up space.

But the roster can afford only so much dead weight. If they're going to have unexpected dead weight in any given year, they should plan for it by trying to avoid situations when they should expect to have dead weight. I think it's reasonable to expect Lowell will be dead weight in 2010. Of his ten age-33 comps at B-R, five have careers that didn't (or won't) make it to age 37. That puts the median projection for Lowell in 2010 to be somewhere below replacement level.

If Lowell can't be had for just 3 guaranteed years, I think they should shift Youkilis to 3rd and find someone else to take 1B for the short term. (1Bmen with one year left on their contracts include Delgado, Thome, Sexson, (cough)Nomar, and Aurilia.)

Not sure what scale you're using but Sickels had Bowden as a B+ before 2007. I can't imagine it dropped. Not sure about where Masterson would be. Maybe B+ is too high given his health/poor end of the season.

You don't think Bowden's grade dropped? Bowden ran into some actual difficulty for the first time in his minor league career - the drop in K rate is troublesome to me. K rate isn't everything, but especially at the minors, it's pretty damn important. He went from a prospect with no blemishes, to some blemishes. I bet Sickels docks him accordingly. Still a good prospect of course.

Hiroki Kuroda does not do it for me. I don't think he'll be better than avg. at the MLB level. That's just me though.

I like Justin Masterson (kind of irrationally, a la Brandon Moss). I think he can be that power-sinker multi-inning bullpen workhorse for years to come. Young Mike Timlin!

Btw, if we offer Lowell a 3 year deal, what teams would give him a 4 year deal? Don't they know like we do that he'll look bad in 4 years?

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Angels and Yankees and possibly Dodgers offer Lowell 4 or 5 years, among others. Those are just off the top of my head. The Giants lost Feliz, Lowell is in prime Sabean age, so maybe add them to the list. Basically any and every team we've heard discussed in the ARod sweepstakes (other than someone like the Mets or Cubs who were looking at ARod outside of a third baseman) could realistically offer Lowell 4 or even 5 years. This will likely be Lowell's last big payday, and I would be absolutely shocked if 3 years got him signed. And I don't really want to see the immobile 2011 version of Mike Lowell standing at third base, OPSing .700, and pulling down 14-15 million dollars from the Red Sox.

And I don't really want to see the immobile 2011 version of Mike Lowell standing at third base, OPSing .700, and pulling down 14-15 million dollars

Here's the thing: why would any OTHER team want this? it doesn't make any sense

Btw, if we offer Lowell a 3 year deal, what teams would give him a 4 year deal? Don't they know like we do that he'll look bad in 4 years?

You tell me... Why did the Mets offer Pedro four guaranteed when anything beyond two was a stretch? Why did the Yankees go so far with Damon? How on earth did Soriano merit **eight** years? Don't the Cubs know that he'll be mediocre after five? And Zito? He'd be a risk on a three year deal, let alone **seven**. It doesn't make sense.

All it takes is for a single team to be blinded by the moment. Lowell had a great season, and I don't imagine that the other 29 teams will all suddenly come to their senses when they've been handing out so many foolish contracts for so long.

Besides, refer back to the beginning of this thread. Darren believes that "Lowell’s really blossomed as a hitter with the Red Sox." If a thinking fan can reach that conclusion, blithely ignoring the .337 BABIP (when his BB rate, K rate, and power stats are all steady), then I'm sure there's a few GMs out there who will feel likewise. For that matter, Darren might be calling it correctly. Lowell's worth a lot more if the 40 point jump in his batting average is for real.

I see the Sox as having basically three options to fill the 3b/1b hole, barring something really unlikely (trading the farm again to Florida for Cabrera, signing AROD, or trading for Dunn, who has a no trade til 6/15/08 as a result of having his option picked up).

1. Bite the bullet, accept some inefficiency, and sign Lowell.

2. Aquire a pre-arb, ready-now, good-upside corner infielder. Naturally, there aren't a lot of these guys floating around and the cost would be high, so it makes sense to target someone who is blocked or whose organization is unreasonably down on him. Laroche is definitely someone to target -- LA's got Nomar tied up for another year at $8.5M, Loney's established himself at first, Colletti's got a veteran fetish, and there've been connected to AROD and Lowell. I just don't see him opening next year in the their organization. Another guy who I haven't seen mentioned is Brandon Wood. I think this is more than just wishful thinking; Izturis and Figgins are both ahead of him on the depth chart and the Angels have never been fond of TTO guys -- they never could figure out how to use Dallas McPhearson, even before the injuries. They're also rumored to be in on AROD and Lowell.

3. Repeat the 2003 spaghetti-on-the-wall experiment. They've already got a couple guys on hand in Moss and Carter who ensure first base will at least be above replacement level. What they'd need to do next is aquire as much risk as possible. A guy with, say, a 75% chance of being league average, but with a 1% chance of playing like a star (let's call him Dan Johnson) isn't nearly as valuable to the Sox a guy with a 50% chance of providing no value, but a 25% chance of being a championship level player (let's call him Nick Johsnon). They key with aquiring risk like this is that you have multiple options. When Jeremy Giambi and Shea Hillenbrand aren't the answer, you've still got Bill Mueller and David Ortiz. I really don't get the love for Dan Johnson. He's a 249/344/420 hitter in more than 1200 MLB PAs and his 907 minor league OPS isn't that impressive for a guy who's always been old for his level. Nick Johnson, when healthy, is one of the best first basemen in the game and a team with the resourses to fix mistakes like the Red Sox should take the long shot at the big prize every time. Unfortunately, NJ's the only guy I can think of who fits into this category this year. Carlos Pena and Casey Kotchman were in it last year. A failed prospect like Joel Guzman or Choi might be worth a flyer, but only as a 2nd or 3rd option.

I predict the Sox will keep negotiations ongoing with Lowell, try like hell to make number 2 happen, and go with number three if the price gets too high on Lowell.

Wakfield and Tavarez got their options picked up

re: Bowden/Masterson - its not like that trade is actually been offered. If that is wildly overpaying then it probably wouldn't take one of them to get the deal done. Although at the end of the day, the two Lowell compensation picks are worth more than either one of them

Laroche is definitely someone to target -- LA's got Nomar tied up for another year at $8.5M, Loney's established himself at first, Colletti's got a veteran fetish, and there've been connected to AROD and Lowell.[emphasis added]

No interest in bringing back the former icon?

try like hell to make number 2 happen

Wakfield and Tavarez got their options picked up


YAY to the former. meh to the latter.

According to the article linked in this Newsblog post, Lowell is looking for 4/56. So yeah, I'd say let him walk and take the 2 draft picks.

I think whoever signs Lowell is going to be in for a nasty surprise. He's old, his offensive value was bumped big-time by a giant BA spike last year, he's at the age where his defense is about to go through the floor, and a few years ago he was carrion. He's been "indispensible" in Boston for what, two months, if that? Maybe one month. Maybe two weeks. The hangover would be brief. If he hadn't won the Series MVP would anyone be throwing around anything more than 8-10 million per? Sox fans should be happy - they got a career year out of a player they picked up as a throw-in and it helped drive them to a championship. Re-signing him now for anywhere near some of the numbers I'm seeing in this thread would be insane, and I mean that literally. But I hope you do!

Edit: To clarify, that he's likely to be worth 8-10M per. Not what he's actually going to receive, which I'm sure is going to be way more than he "should".

According to the article linked in this Newsblog post, Lowell is looking for 4/56. So yeah, I'd say let him walk and take the 2 draft picks.

Beckett in his prime,2 great years pf Lowell and a couple of picks makes me happy for the trade that I hated a year ago. Gotta love baseball

Who predicted that Lowell would almost certainly be making more in 2008 than Josh Beckett would?

If he hadn't won the Series MVP would anyone be throwing around anything more than 8-10 million per?

I don't think the World Series MVP has much, if anything at all to do with what he's going to get.

Okay this has nothing to do with Mike Lowell, but Manny Ramirez is on the Tonight Show. This is the most unlikely event of the young offseason for me.

I don't think the World Series MVP has much, if anything at all to do with what he's going to get.

I would disagree, particularly when it comes to the offers being thrown around in this thread. Not that those are real actual contract offers coming from the Red Sox front office desperate to keep the 2007 WS champions together, but ...

These two moves mean that Schilling won't be back and the rotation next year will be Beckett/Matsuzaka/Wakefield/Lester/Buchholz. The Sox aren't re-upping Wake to be an extra starter -- he ####### and moaned the couple of years they tried to used him as a swing man. He'll be in the rotation. And Tavarez isn't being signed for his bullpen prowess. They want him as a backup starter and one year at $3.85M isn't a bad insurance policy, especially with 40% of your rotation on restricted innings.

Unless the Sox use one of Lester or Buchholz in a blockbuster, Schilling's pitched his last game in a Boston uniform.

Just because I think he's blossomed doesn't mean I think he'll hit .320 every year. He might hover around 290-300 though.

You don't think Bowden's grade dropped? Bowden ran into some actual difficulty for the first time in his minor league career - the drop in K rate is troublesome to me. K rate isn't everything, but especially at the minors, it's pretty damn important. He went from a prospect with no blemishes, to some blemishes. I bet Sickels docks him accordingly. Still a good prospect of course.

Bowden pitched really well at high-A and was ~the youngest guy in AA. I agree that K rate is important but I think that had a lot to do with level. I doubt he'll drop.

Nicksmith, i agree they picked up tavarez as a back up, but they picked up Wakefield because he is an unbelievable steal at $4 million, with an excellent shot to give you 150+ league-average innings. It doesn't matter what wakefield thought about being a swingman three years agon (he can always retire), the Sox would have been foolish not to pick it up. Schilling is still in the fold.

I too think Schilling comes back. If he's available on a 1 year, $13 mil deal, they're crazy not to get him.

Aquire a pre-arb, ready-now, good-upside corner infielder.

For what? This presumption that the Dodgers don't realize how valuable Andy LaRoche is seems badly misplaced. He might not start for them next year, but that doesn't mean they're jumping all over themselves to give him away for a C prospect. Obviously, if such a player is available cheap, that's great, but it'd also be great... to have a pony!

Repeat the 2003 spaghetti-on-the-wall experiment. They've already got a couple guys on hand in Moss and Carter who ensure first base will at least be above replacement level.

"At least above replacement level" is a little short of what I'm looking for. In 2003, all of Shea Hillenbrand, David Ortiz, Jeremy Giambi, Kevin Millar, and Bill Mueller had established themselves as average players at their positions - Millar well above average. I would love to repeat 2003, I have absolutely no problem with it. It's just that you're proposing repeating 2003 with Julio Zuleta and Andy Abad. That's a massive, massive downgrade. Dan Johnson is ok, but he's the only one. That means going in with Johnson and Youkilis, a significant defensive downgrade and a significant increase in risk, without any backup other than hope. Hope is not a backup first baseman.

Dan Johnson's projection, I should note, is driven greatly by big years as a AAA repeater at Sacramento in 2005 and 2006. MLEs, are, as Tango has said, not actually statistically viable. I like them, and I particularly like them for players on normal development paths - 23-year-olds taking their first shot at AAA - for whom issues of selective sampling are low. 25- and 26-year-old AAA repeaters, those numbers I have trouble taking as equivalent. Beyond that, you've got a 764 OPS heavily weighted by a pretty good year three years ago. If Johnson is one of the pieces of spaghetti you fling at the wall, preferably more at the Hillenbrand end of the spaghetti spectrum, that's cool. If he's the only major league hitter in the bunch, that's really problematic for me.

So, again, if Lowell wants 4/56, I bet 4/50 would do it, and that'd be great.

I agree with Dave and Darren on Schilling. I'm honestly confused as to the delay. (The SoSHy fanboy in me says they're waiting on Lincecum! Woo!)

We've got bigger problems, MC. Granadillo is a minor league FA!

I would disagree, particularly when it comes to the offers being thrown around in this thread. Not that those are real actual contract offers coming from the Red Sox front office desperate to keep the 2007 WS champions together, but ...

These numbers are a response to:

1. A perceived belief, rightly or wrongly, that the dropoff from Lowell to the 2nd best option is just massive.

2. The amount of money floating around baseball these days.

3. That the Yankees will be involved.

They are not, at least on my part, based on any sort of belief that Lowell has "figured it out."

I bet 4/50

I'd rather hand him 45/3. I don't want to get tied down for that 4th year, and I'm sure his agnet will think he can get 5 mil in that 4th year from soembody else.

Wok,

After you sign him to 3/45, a 4/50 contract would mean getting a 4th year for 5 mil. When you factor in interest, it'd be even cheaper. (Which is sort of what you say there.) Why not give him the extra year, then if you get to year 4, you owe him 1/12. You can eat up to 7 mil and still be as well off as your were after 3/45.

Also, according to http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7401470 , the Yanks are rumored to be planning to offer 5/70 to Lowell. That's too rich, right?

Also, according to http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7401470 , the Yanks are rumored to be planning to offer 5/70 to Lowell. That's too rich, right?

5/70 for Lowell, but they won't pay ARod? The Yankees confuse me.

That creates a really tough situation. 5/70 is pushing my efficiency limits, but I still don't see non-pony options out there. I'd probably be inclined to match the offer, but I could understand if the Red Sox chose not to, and I would put some faith in Theo's ability to uncover cheap talent notably better than that uncovered in this thread. (On the other hand, we all pretty much identified Giambi, Papi, Millar, and Mueller in 2003. Those were just good ballplayers available for cheap. So, well, not that much faith in Theo.)

5/70 is a bit past my belch point personally.

That creates a really tough situation. 5/70 is pushing my efficiency limits, but I still don't see non-pony options out there.

First, ARod's out there and you were just pointing out how smart it would be to sign him. That makes him a non-pony option, right? (I'm not even sure I agree with you on the Yankee WRT Lowell/ARod. Is Lowell at 5/70 a bigger overpay than ARod at 10/300? I know it's not an efficiency contest, but they can use those extra bucks elsewhere.)

Second, this is a case where we wouldn' t be able to see the non-ponies. They could really only be picked up by trade. So there could well be a good, fair deal for LaRoche or Atkins or someone out there to be had.

5/70 sounds like too much to me.

5/70 for Lowell, but they won't pay ARod? The Yankees confuse me.

Almost makes you think there're bluffing, or prince Hal and Stammering Hank are tag-teaming Cashman to spend whatever it takes to aquire "winners" and "men of good character on and off the ballfield" whatever. Interesting stuff.

I kind of wanted to bask in the glory of another WS for a week, but I guess this is all too intruiging.

I'd give Lowell 4/56 in the blink of an eye. Schill for 1 year at 13-14 is just fine too. They've earned it, and are worth it.

By all means, keep basking! Worst case scenario out of all this is that Yankees downgrade 3B a bunch from last year and the Red Sox do the same.

OK.

/baskbaskbaskbask...

Is Lowell at 5/70 a bigger overpay than ARod at 10/300?

It may or may not be, but the way I look at it, even if you're overpaying ARod, odds are he's going to be a positive producer in your lineup even at the end of the deal. Perhaps (or even probably, depending on inflation of contracts over that time) he'll be massively overpaid, but at least he's a good bet to be providing positive production, whereas a Mike Lowell at 14 million dollars is likely to be below average, and hurting your lineup significantly as a starter by the end of a longer contract. I'd rather sign a player that's going to help the team win for his entire contract than one who is going to be a net negative while still making millions, even if it's "more of an overpay." I'm not sure how much sense this post will make, because I'm running on about 4 hours of sleep and I've been up since 5 AM, but hopefully the point is at least somewhat cogent.

I agree with Dan. Seems probable that Lowell will be a strong contributor for two more years. His projection for the third year will likely look like Casey Blake (i.e. a competent player for a non-contender). It goes downhill from there. I'd offer him 3/70 before I would offer him 5/70. The same goes for the difference between 3/45 (rich, but acceptable) and 4/50 (also too long). These are guaranteed contracts, so you can't save money by releasing him in spring training.

Neither do I see any guarantee that ARod will be mashing the ball when he is 41. I'd perhaps be comfortable giving him eight years, but ten seems too long. The money is about right, however. Run a +11.0 WARP through Nate Silver's market estimates and you get an annual salary in excess of $44M. Wouldn't mind offering him $200M/6yrs if I thought there were no decent alternatives.

What assumptions are necessary to justify a $300M/10yr contract to ARod?

For starters, you need to expect him to be a lineup-worthy player for that long. Even if you were willing to pay $300M for the first eight years of the deal and write off the last two, you would be better off writing it as an eight year guarantee (at nearly $300M) with a couple team options at the end. It is VERY hard to look at a 31 year old player and project another ten years of success. Still, if you use his 2007 production (+11 WARP) as a baseline and discount said production by 12% annually, you end up with a projected +3.1 WARP in 2017. Something like Biggio's 2004: .281/.337/.469?

Value these ten years according to Nate Silver's 2007-MORP calculation: $1.2M*WARP^1.5+$.38M, and you arrive at a "total value" of $180M over the next ten years. Sound about right? Ah, but that's assuming the pay scale stands still. If it increases by 11% annually, in step with the increase in MLB gross revenues over the last 15 years, then that increases to $286M! Finally, structure the payments on a level-salary basis (rather than front-loaded as we expect the production will be), and you come up with just over $30M/year for the next decade.

To justify a $70M/5yr deal for Lowell, you need only assume a 6.5 baseline WARP (BP rates his 2007 as a +7.0 WARP) with his performance declining at 15% annually, salaries increasing at 11% annually, and with a level-salary structure. By 2012, however, he projects to only a +2.9 WARP -- without even the benefit of being able to watch him rewrite the record book. Thus I would prefer to see a $60M/4yr offer. Send e-mail if you are interested in seeing the scratchwork...

Even if you were willing to pay $300M for the first eight years of the deal and write off the last two, you would be better off writing it as an eight year guarantee (at nearly $300M) with a couple team options at the end.

Very nice writeup but I'm curious about the above. Why do you think this is preferable? I think it's only better if you can realize substantial savings by not guaranteeing the final two years. And if you realize substantial savings, ARod's a lot less likely to accept.

Say, for example, you offer 8/280 with some option years. ARod might take that over 10/300 because he still gets almost all his money but in less time. But what are you saving as a team? You've saved $20 mil but there's the interest on the extra 40 mil that you're paying out in the first 8 years. Just as a WAG, you save something like 10 mil but lose 2 years of ARod. Granted, they're not likely to be great years, but is n't it a pretty good bet that he'll be worth 2/10 at ages 39/40, especially if he's breaking records?

Say, for example, you offer 8/280 with some option years.

Okay, I admit to a cop-out. I had thought of suggesting specific terms, but (as you point out) couldn't quite figure out any that worked. Maybe something like $250M/8yrs with a pair of $30M options and a $10M buyout? Thus ARod would be guaranteed of $260M/8yrs and have a chance at $310M/10yrs if he remains productive. Contracts are reported on both an annualized and total value basis -- not sure which is seen to offer the player greater "re$pect"...

A "too long" deal gives you extra salary room up front (since you amortize the payments over a longer period of time), but it ends up being a significant millstone at the back end of the deal when you have a minimally productive player taking up a spot in the starting lineup (and an inordinate share of the budget). That might not be a problem if you are Tampa Bay, but it doesn't play well on a contender. My impression is that most teams are reluctant to pay their problems to go away, though the Yankees don't seem to have a problem with this.

Also, the longer deal pushes the contract farther out along the risk/reward continuum. Even if the pricing is appropriate for the expected value of the contract, the cumulative risk of a career-ending injury or decline is much greater on a ten-year deal than on an eight-year deal. If the probability of "permanent attrition" beginning in any given year is uniformly distributed, then the "cumulative wasted value" increases quadratically with the length of the contract. Thus a 10-year deal represents 50% greater risk than an 8-year deal. (Furthermore, you can make a decent argument that the probability of "permanent attrition" increases with age, making the longer deal even a greater risk than the above comparison describes.)

And yes, there is some value in having a player on the verge of breaking records. I would guess this is particularly significant to non-contending teams with a popular player -- give the fans SOME reason to come to the ballpark. I'm not sure how to work this into the analysis, however, and the answer may be very different for different clubs. The Red Sox, for example, would likely care less about ARod's records than about his on-field contribution since most of their fan base hates his guts.

FWIW,

Johnson's ZIPS are posted: .267 .369 .462. That's pretty nice for a guy who's had vision problems recently. Maybe the Coco/Johnson trade idea would be a good one. Of course, if the Dodgers are looking for a CF, we could always get LaRoche for Crisp. :)

I love the though of having Mike Lowell at 3rd for the Red Sox, but at 5/70...well, I'd love to have a Benz rather than a Kia too. But I still bought the Kia.

The Star Tribune says the Twins want Coco

Does Coco + Masterson for Scott Baker make sense?

Lowell at 5/70? You've got to be kidding. I hope they work out a rich, three-year deal. $45-48 mil.

P.S. If the Yankees actually put that five year deal before him, the only reason could be that would be one heck of an F-U to A-Rod.

Can we get a general offseason BS thread?

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071106&content_id=2294391&vkey=news_mlb&fext;=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Sox considering a 6 man rotation.

I think in general this is a pretty bad idea.

If the Yankees take a big enough step back this offseason that the Sox are huge favorites to make the playoffs on April 1st then I might be in favor of it. If Lester takes a big step forward and there's not much difference between the #2 and #6 starters (right now there's a HUGE gap), and they're all healthy, then I might be in favor of it. Otherwise I think it's really bad

Sox considering a 6 man rotation.

I think in general this is a pretty bad idea.

I agree with you that it's a pretty bad idea, but I'm not so sure they're really considering it. You begin with six starters, you usually end up with five active ones, often four. I tend to take this more as the Red Sox being nice to Tim Wakefield than a plan that we can expect to see in action.

Does Coco + Masterson for Scott Baker make sense?

is baker any good? i think masterson could be a pretty good major leaguer.

Will Caroll mentioned Adrian Beltre is being shopped. It looks like he has 2/28 left on his deal.

Wouldn't surprise me if the Mariners just want to free up the money and the Sox would get more from the Lowell picks than Beltre costs.

I don't think there's any debate that Beltre at 2/28 is waaaaay better than whatever Lowell gets.

Why would they trade Beltre? They have enough money and he's earning his. They don't have some hotshot 3B behind him either.

Does Coco + Masterson for Scott Baker make sense?

I think I'd open with Crisp for Baker straight up. He's had decent enough results in limited time, but his stuff is not that impressive. Sort of like a right-handed Kason Gabbard to my eyes. I don't think the Twins are going to be too keen on shopping more starting pitchers, though. Silva is probably gone and possibly Santana as well. That leaves them with Bonser, Garza, Baker, Slowey, and (maybe) Liriano. They are likely to be reluctant to part with Guerrier or Neshak too, I would imagine.

Bottom line is Baker and Crisp are both worth a lot more to the Twins than the Red Sox, which is problematic from a trade standpoint. I expect they'll have a difficult time finding a match with MLB-level talent on both sides of the deal. If the Sox take back prospects in return, that could work, but I don't know who that would be. Minnesota has some pitchers with decent minor league periphs (e.g. Nick Blackburn, Brian Duensing, Anthony Swarzak). Anyone know much about those guys and if they'd be acceptable as the centerpiece of a Crisp deal?

This from the Globe website says...

Sources familiar with the Lowell negotiations indicated to the Globe's Nick Cafardo that Lowell -- who officially filed for free agency Tuesday -- would need a third year guaranteed, and if he gets it, he's likely to take a hometown discount.

Sources familiar with the Lowell negotiations indicated to the Globe's Nick Cafardo that Lowell -- who officially filed for free agency Tuesday -- would need a third year guaranteed, and if he gets it, he's likely to take a hometown discount.

"Would need a third year guaranteed"??

Wow. If that's really the case, this should be done by Sunday or so.

EDIT: should note that this might also be the Initial Leak of the Amazing Contract. Schilling went from 8-10 to 10-14 over the course of an hour and a half. I'll guess that next comes the vesting fourth year option, then the no-trade, then the press conference announcing a 5 year, 75 million contract.

Following up on vi, Newsday reports that a three-year contract with Lowell is "inevitable", and the Yankees are looking to the trade market for a 3B in response:

ORLANDO, Fla. - Mike Lowell's return to the Red Sox appears inevitable, and Yankees general manager Brian Cashman is resigned to the fact that Alex Rodriguez's replacement will have to come via the trade market.

Lowell, the 2007 World Series Most Valuable Player, could re-sign with the Red Sox before Tuesday, when free agents can begin negotiating with other clubs.
...
The two sides had differed in number of years on the contract, but it's believed they've found common ground there. Lowell likely will sign a deal that guarantees him three years.

Very good news, long as it holds.

I like that the Red Sox seem to be getting these Lowell and Schilling deals done quickly so they can really focus the rest of the off-season on making pony deals.

What are pony deals?