User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.0870 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
| ||||||||
|
|
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsInterviewing For POBO
(25 - 3:59pm, Nov 22) Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Over and Out (82 - 9:39am, Oct 16) Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...) RIP Tim Wakefield (44 - 8:59am, Oct 09) Last: Rough Carrigan We're Gonna Need A Bigger Boat (83 - 7:44am, Sep 19) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Halfwayish to Something (81 - 12:02pm, Aug 21) Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Three Trades (17 - 3:46pm, Jul 28) Last: Darren Where We Headed? (34 - 5:09pm, Jul 17) Last: villageidiom Feeling A Draft (22 - 11:27pm, Jul 10) Last: Darren The Case for Doing Nothing (30 - 2:44pm, Jul 10) Last: Darren The First Third (25 - 4:12pm, Jun 27) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Lining Up The Minors (72 - 4:28pm, Jun 26) Last: villageidiom That Was a Week (63 - 7:31pm, Jun 25) Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...) The Only Game In Town (except the Celtics, but I don't care about the Celtics. No you shut up) (87 - 11:27am, May 26) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Yoshida In The Spotlight (49 - 2:09pm, May 12) Last: Darren Reality Check After Series Six (79 - 9:29pm, May 04) Last: villageidiom Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
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.
Maybe someone like Adrian Gonzalez?
Always been my impression that around here people bring up the 'every other year' thing with tongue pretty firmly in cheek.
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.
My joy of not having Beckett on the team outweighs chagrin of missing out on one last odd-numbered year from him.
Cliff Lee? Roy Halladay?
Is he going to be more than $20M per season better?
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.
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.
That's fair.
Hey, there's something to be said for not wanting. (-:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They haven't punted 13 or 14. This was there only chance to make this move, given the Dodgers' unusual situation.
These are all concerns, but I think these concerns were there before the trade not caused by it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
.321/.382/.513 with GG defense. That guy sucked.
I sense a bref bet.
I'll bet the combined WAR of the Dodger three in 2013 exceeds the 3 you mentioned.
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?
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?
In general I agree with this, but this deal was so good I think they had to accept and I am glad they did.
[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....
Dodgers, Rangers, White Sox and A's say "saaaaaluuute!"
Astros say, "Dude, this guy broke."
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.
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.
The purging has to start with the medical staff-the injury level here was inexcusable, even if yes injuries in general are a crapshoot.
This is very nitpicky, but I don't think mid-rotation is considered the "upside" for de la Rosa and Webster.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
bobby isn't going anywhere i suspect
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
This trade may well improve results in 2015-18, but requires some very good management in the interim, of which I am NOT confident.
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.
Alone? I think it's a Brent Lillibridge/Zach Stewart type deal.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main