Dombrowski: SP likely from FA. Which should we sign?
- Thread starter nvalvo
- Start date
The Red Sox aren't going to sign two pitchers to huge contracts that will pay them well into their thirties. It would be a dumb thing to do and it's a pretty dumb thing to suggest.
Taking that kind of risk on one contract when it's the one thing standing between you and contention is one thing. Taking it twice just for kicks is another.
On the other hand, neither Price or Greinke is going to be 'The Man' for the Dodgers, Cubs or Giants, to name three teams that are reportedly in on this year's market. Not sure if that matters to Greinke but I can see it being a consideration for Price, contract dollars being equal. Plus Price does have history with Dombrowski for whatever that's worth.
The problem is, there's no way to tell which option is the "right pitcher" until after the contract has been signed. David Price's shoulder could look like 2006 Matt Clement's, in two years time, and that kind of risk goes for every single option available.
Was John Lackey the right pitcher to sign after 2009, or should it have been Aroldis Chapman?
Was Daisuke Matsuzaka the right pitcher to sign after 2006, or should it have been AJ Burnett then?
The Sox won a World Series with each of those high-profile free agent signings, but neither one turned out to be "the right pitcher" to sign.
Given the risks, I think as long as the Sox get one from among Price, Cueto, Zimmermann, or Grienke the team will likely be better next season than they were last year.
I voted for Zimmerman, based on a combination of age, relative cost, and health. He's been a horse the last 5 years, will give you the 200 innings you need at the front of the rotation, and should be a lot cheaper than Price/Greinke. I am really nervous about Cueto getting fatter and happier when he signs a big deal and would much prefer Zimmerman.
I know you have to do due diligence on everyone's medical reports, and any pitcher except a knuckleballer could blow out his elbow on his next pitch, but if it's Cueto, they need to be really, REALLY thorough checking out his elbow.
There was a lot of smoke about his elbow being bad, and it's hard to picture a pitcher as good as Cueto having as many stinkers as he did after the trade and being healthy. (Yes, I know his last game was a dazzling shutout in the World Series).
I doubt he'd take a Lackey clause in any contract, but it wouldn't hurt to try.
There was a lot of smoke about his elbow being bad, and it's hard to picture a pitcher as good as Cueto having as many stinkers as he did after the trade and being healthy. (Yes, I know his last game was a dazzling shutout in the World Series).
I doubt he'd take a Lackey clause in any contract, but it wouldn't hurt to try.
Has anyone come up with a list of teams that are likely to pursue one or more of The Five? (Greinke, Price, Cueto, Zimmermann, Iwakuma) Wondering what the competition looks like. Only thing that comes off the top of my head is:
- Dodgers
- Cubs
- Red Sox
- Blue Jays?
- Dodgers
- Cubs
- Red Sox
- Blue Jays?
I would think the list of teams in on Iwakuma is longer and somewhat different, given that his contract will be shorter and somewhat different.
Don't know if Sportrac is correct (they don't seem to factor in the 40-man and other obligations)
In order of "cap space" (most to least)
Cubs
Blue Jays
Giants
Red Sox
Dodgers
with the top 3 having substantially more than the bottom 2
In order of "cap space" (most to least)
Cubs
Blue Jays
Giants
Red Sox
Dodgers
with the top 3 having substantially more than the bottom 2
Certainly brilliant analysis. Regardless, I'm going to stick to my belief that ignoring their potential involvement is stupid.
If/when all things don't end up being equal here you ultimately have to put a rough # value on that though.
Cueto might end up costing an addition $25m and one guaranteed year on the back end of his contract more then what it takes to secure Zimmerman. Is the 12th pick and a slight preference towards Cueto worth that?
Agree with some of the others here that the Cubs' positioning as a prime time player on yet another $150m pitcher is being a little overblown. SF strikes me as the biggest threat outside LA in that regard, given the reports last winter of being heavily in on Lester (there was talk they offered him 7 years i believe?) and the year they ended up having.
There's generally little belief out there that the Blue Jays will be in on anyone big ticket. We're talking Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Yankees and Red Sox as main players. So someone is likely not finding a seat when the music stops on the four big guys.
We are in the midst of a philosophy wave in terms of bullpen and starter usage across baseball. Teams are seeing the value of a dominant back end that extends past the closer -- as highlighted, obviously, by the Royals. The Red Sox get Kimbrel, which moves Koji to the eighth and (hopefully) a rejuvenated Tazawa to the seventh. The need to push the starters past the first two trips through a batting order decreases with pens such as these. There will always be times through the rotation where starters going three times through completely ... but the NEED to have them do so dissipates when the pen is strengthened.
And that's the value of adding a Kimbrel to the variables the Red Sox are looking at going into the market for a starter. He's not just a "60 inning pitcher." He's a that PLUS what it means for increased value for Koji and Tazawa PLUS the ability of the starters to push through that second and third times through the lineup.
The Red Sox need a No. 1 -- but a No. 1 is not what it meant even five years ago. A top of the rotation starter who can go through the batting order 3 to 3.5 times and consistently get to or through the seventh is the priority -- a combination of innings pitched and late in the start effectiveness. That makes someone such as Zimmermann as "valuable" as someone as Price. What you're paying for, essentially, is the number of times they can get you effectively into the seventh. The contract value, therefore, is in those who can do that without costing the top-shelf contract.
The Red Sox thought they were getting that with Porcello, and it's still possible that whatever he found after returning from the DL is what allows him to become that sort of pitcher. But if you're looking at the Big Five free agents, Zimmermann has the best combination of both types of "value" -- cost and effectiveness. Price, who is likely to get $30M-$40M more than Zimmermann, becomes an overpay in this market, if you build the sort of bullpen that renders the final innings moot for a starter.
And that's the value of adding a Kimbrel to the variables the Red Sox are looking at going into the market for a starter. He's not just a "60 inning pitcher." He's a that PLUS what it means for increased value for Koji and Tazawa PLUS the ability of the starters to push through that second and third times through the lineup.
The Red Sox need a No. 1 -- but a No. 1 is not what it meant even five years ago. A top of the rotation starter who can go through the batting order 3 to 3.5 times and consistently get to or through the seventh is the priority -- a combination of innings pitched and late in the start effectiveness. That makes someone such as Zimmermann as "valuable" as someone as Price. What you're paying for, essentially, is the number of times they can get you effectively into the seventh. The contract value, therefore, is in those who can do that without costing the top-shelf contract.
The Red Sox thought they were getting that with Porcello, and it's still possible that whatever he found after returning from the DL is what allows him to become that sort of pitcher. But if you're looking at the Big Five free agents, Zimmermann has the best combination of both types of "value" -- cost and effectiveness. Price, who is likely to get $30M-$40M more than Zimmermann, becomes an overpay in this market, if you build the sort of bullpen that renders the final innings moot for a starter.
I've heard several "experts" mention St. Louis as someone to watch, especially after losing Lynn.
The more I look at all of them, the less I like any of them. Price will cost too much. Cueto carries too much injury/underperformance risk. Greinke is 32 and has had elbow issues in the past. Zimmermann's velocity dipped this year. Iwakuma is likely to be the best bargain of the bunch, but it's hard to swallow giving up a pick for him. Gallardo and Samardzija aren't even intriguing. Chen might be, but if there's one thing we don't need more of, it's pretty-good lefties.
I guess it boils down to this: I think any of Price, Cueto, Greinke, Zimmermann or maybe even Iwakuma could be the best option, depending on terms. And the terms are going to depend on timing and other dominoes falling. So it's really hard to say. None of those five jump out as obviously preferable in a way that isn't dependent on what kind of deal we could sign them to, but I guess all things being equal, and contract terms aside, the pitcher on that list that I think would be the best fit for the Sox' needs is Greinke. So I voted for him.
I guess it boils down to this: I think any of Price, Cueto, Greinke, Zimmermann or maybe even Iwakuma could be the best option, depending on terms. And the terms are going to depend on timing and other dominoes falling. So it's really hard to say. None of those five jump out as obviously preferable in a way that isn't dependent on what kind of deal we could sign them to, but I guess all things being equal, and contract terms aside, the pitcher on that list that I think would be the best fit for the Sox' needs is Greinke. So I voted for him.
You and I have debated this on and off over the last two or three seasons. We agree to disagree. You may be right but I think otherwise. Cherington may not have taken this on but I'm not so sure DD is that squimish.
I gave an example from 2004 season. Pedro & Curt ($29.7) had huge contracts for their time which in today's dollars equate to roughly $44-45 million. The contracts for Cueto & Zimmermann would expire when they reach 34 which is not "well into their thirties". If you look at Price getting 7/$210 then we are looking at a contract that takes him to 36 - 37 which may be a tad more risky
The problem is Porcello's contract. As I was most adamantly informed his contract is for 4/$82.5. Porcello's contract like Manny's in 2004 makes it difficult to remain under the LT limitations. However, I'm not confident this is a limitation the team is tied to if a return to the playoffs or potentially a world series can be achieved simply by spending a little extra.
Having a rotation of Cueto, Zimmermann, Buchholz, Porcello and Rodriguez (Feels like an Ace) would give Boston one of the top rotations in baseball. Adding Kimbrel to the pen provides a great deal of stability there. The position players are pretty well set. Ready, set, go.
There was a good article written in 2013, based on Nate Silver's foundation of work at BP, about the value of a draft pick under the new system: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/6/25/4457048/2013-mlb-draft-how-valuable-are-draft-picks
The short answer is, in 2013 there was no reason to give up a #8-15 draft pick unless the team can pick up an extra 2-3 wins per season by signing the free agent.
The author estimates the value of such a Tier 4 pick to be worth an approximate average of $25.76MM in 2013 dollars. Therefore, assuming your figures end up being the actual difference in contracts between Cueto and Zimmermann, and assuming they pitch exactly the same over the course of their contracts, with Cueto due an extra $25MM and one year over Zimmermann, there's the very slightest of edge to signing Cueto + the #12 pick ($0.76M).
However, the author doesn't entertain the notion of playing over-slot bonuses, nor does the article correct for salary inflation over the last two seasons, but looks strictly at marginal value of what player is chosen with the lost pick. I'd say that, based on how often the Sox draft team has leveraged over-slot bonuses to obtain quality talent in the later draft rounds, and that the player development team has not been dismantled by DDski, it seems to me there's a sizable strategic edge to signing Cueto and keeping the pick, in addition to it being basically a wash in value at your estimated contract values.
But, of course, nothing's a sure thing when it comes to pitching.
That's a pretty meaningless analogy, though. Pedro was entering the last year of his contract when they acquired Schilling, and Schilling's extension guaranteed him for just the next three years. That's completely not comparable to the kind of simultaneous long-term commitment you're suggesting. A much better analogy would be the paired 5-year contracts the Sox gave to Lackey and Beckett in 2010, which didn't work out all that well.
Thank you. Your example is just about perfect. It reflects that Boston is not unaccustomed to spending heavily for pitching if they believe they can give the team what it is looking for. I agree it did not turn out as Boston was hoping which is not to say this one would turn out the same. The major problem I see is the current salaries Boston carries. Porcello, Panda & Hanley put far more fiscal strain on the team than the 2010 roster.
This is, in fact, the problem. The team has better information than we do what with actually being able to talk to the various candidates, seeing their medicals and all that, but yeah, it's imperfect information. You make the best decision and you go with it.
As do I, but I am not worried about next year. I want to own this division for the next decade. If we get the right guy, we have the talent to make that happen. If it blows up in our faces, it's going to be much, much harder.
This notion has come up a lot in the past few days - the idea that we, as fans, simply can not be privy to the all powerful knowledge at managements' fingertips. Allow me to push back on that a bit. The total amount of data and collective knowledge of baseball fans adds up to quite a lot. When it comes to trades, free agent deals, prospects... the collective response tends to be close to correct. There is enough measurement and process error in baseball that it's always going to be impossible to predict with 100% certainty future performance. At the same time, how much better are major league teams at making decisions, in total, than the entirety of baseball journalism and fandom? The collective reaction to the Kimbrel deal seems to be a bit of an overpay by Boston, but ultimately for a piece that they really needed and for a redundant cost. A lot of people were scratching their heads over the Hanley+Panda+Porcello deals last year, and yet Cherington, with all the extra information available to him, made those deals. The Donaldson deal looked like a terrible deal at the time for Beane, and it turned out to be a pretty terrible deal.
Are there teams who consistently make deals that fans/journalists deride but turn out to be smart decisions?
I'd have to say the only organization that seems to be able to do this is the A's. Agree, Beane blew the Donaldson deal but over the course of his tenure Beane has proven us and the journalists wrong time and time again.
No, we don't agree to disagree. Your position is not a reasonable one.
In 2004, Pedro was in the last year of a deal and everyone knew he was likely to end up elsewhere. If I remember Schilling's contract, it only went through 2007. YOU CANNOT COMPARE SIGNING TWO GUYS FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS EACH TO TWO GUYS SIGNED FOR FIVE YEARS COMBINED.
That's not a comparison that is worth anything. It is not a comparison that will give you any information. It is not honest. It is not useful. You should stop doing it. There's a massive difference between committing less than fifty million and committing at least three hundred million. This is not a subtle difference. This is a big honking go to the doctor if your boner lasts four hours or you may never be able to use your dick again difference.
No, the problem is giving huge contracts to guys who are going to be well into their thirties by the time the contract is done. And yes, 34 is well into their thirties. It is, in fact, halfway through their thirties. Even if we had no other pitchers signed to contracts at all, signing two older guys to big long term contracts would be a bad idea.
There's a decent chance that one of Cueto or Zimmerman, plus the guys we have, is going to give us a rotation in the top 10 in baseball, which will be combined with a lineup that is in the top five and a bullpen that's in the top 10. That's a very good all around team that can kick the shit out of anyone.
Look, most of the time, signing pitchers to those contracts doesn't work out over the long haul. The only reason it makes sense for the Sox is that this ace is now the only thing standing between us and being one of the best teams in baseball over the first half of the contract. In addition, we have guys in house who can also perform at a high level. Porcello will almost certainly be better. We might get good Buchholz for a half a season. Rodriguez looks like he could develop into an ace and if he does, he takes over the ace role just as the imported ace is declining.
I just said the front office had imperfect information, and you just characterize that as "the all powerful knowledge at managment's fingertips" so why the hell would I allow you anything?
That's not the right question. The right question is whether baseball management makes better deals than those outside management would. We can't get the data for that for obvious reasons.
Also, you can't deny that management has access to more data. They get to talk to these people. They get to have doctors look at the medical reports of these people. For that matter, they have a better idea of what their budget is. There is no way that management is not in a better position to make decisions. They don't have all the information possible and even if they did, they can't predict the future so not every deal is going to work out, but they have more information than we do.
I never said they didn't have more data. Why would I ever argue that? How could I? I'm questioning if there's any evidence that the extra data helps them make better decisions. Remember how much extra data the team had to work with on Carl Crawford? And those super useful medical records of Clement? And Hanrahan? And Bailey? I'll ask again since you missed it the first time: which teams consistently make moves that don't make sense to fans/journalists but turn out to benefit the team?
You turned, "it's imperfect information" into "the all powerful knowledge at managements' fingertips" which pretty much makes you omnipotent in the area of making things try to say things they don't say, so I say you just go for it and see what happens.
So when I told you that was the wrong question, you thought that meant I didn't see the question? That's odd.
Of course there's evidence the extra data helps them make better decisions. Mike Napoli. Nobody knew that he had a bum hip. He took a physical that revealed the condition and the two sides renegotiated for a much smaller contract which is inarguably a better decision when you're talking about a guy whose hip could go boom at any moment.
The fact that deals don't always work out doesn't mean the extra data isn't helpful, it just means that even with the extra data, they have...wait for it...imperfect information.
By the way, you question about teams consistently making moves that don't make sense but work out is not one that can answer whether the extra data helps teams make decisions, it answers the question of whether some teams make better decisions than others which would certainly be true even if the teams didn't have any more information than you and I do.
That did work out well for the Red Sox - by closely examining his medical records they got to pay Napoli $45m over three years rather than the originally agreed upon $39m.
Yeah that 6 million extra for the ring certainly wasn't worth it. They made the right move it was very risk averse
The Yankees may not go after any of the major free agents, says Joel Sherman. You can never really count them out though.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/14/the-5-most-aggressive-mlb-teams-in-feverish-offseason/
http://nypost.com/2015/11/14/the-5-most-aggressive-mlb-teams-in-feverish-offseason/
Okay, palms up, I can't argue with this.
I not sure one of Cueto or Zimmermann is enough but I have way too much faith/hope/desire that there is within the organization the talent that is needed.There are moments when I just want to leave things as they are in the rotation and watch Rodriguez mature into the ace I think he will be. Porcello and Kelly each show us moments of "Ace" like capabilities for small stretches. Miley will eat inns. And, if Buchholz can stay healthy for 25 games and pitch like he did in 2013 there could be enough there. Maybe adding Sipp and Chapman to the pen would be enough.
Greinke is on the record as saying he went to the Dodgers because they gave him the most money. If Boston offers him the most money, he comes here. Having Baird and Bannister in the fold helps their cause too.
You want to add Sipp and Chapman even though we already added Kimbrel, and learned that the Reds were asking for more for Chapman than we paid for Kimbrel?
That's not realistic.
We're not spending what it would take to get Chapman.
We should be in on the conversations for all the decent or better free agent set up guys and if a good deal is to be had, we should make it.
We shouldn't spend a ton of money and should probably avoid spending any real prospects on the bullpen because what we have is pretty good to go into the season with and we knows it will change during the season regardless.
We need to get an ace. We need RHH of who can start if need be and I have no idea who that is.
And that's about it. The rest is really up to the players to perform better than they did last year.
We may want to trade our excess starter whoever that is, but waiting for an injury in spring is a valid option.
I remember reading and loving that quote, and I think it's a reason to expect that Greinke might do fine in Boston. He's not full of BS. We like that.
So this means BOS is out?
Re the bolded: I don't get how this applies to Price, as he pitched most of his career with TB which is an AL east team...
I think all it means is that Price will have lots of options in the NL, and pitching in the NL might be more desirable for him. Even though he had success in the AL East, he might have even more pitching in the NL.
I think whichever team offers him the most money is going to be what's more desirable for him.
Anything less than Price and we'll be relying on internal options to be our ace. Go hard or go home.
I know people hate this argument around here, but for Price especially I'd give him an opt out after 3 years. If all else is equal in the Sox contract vs. other teams, that adds value to the player. More importantly, it could save us from paying for decline years for half of the contract. If Greinke is a 6 year deal, I think you're more likely getting 2 good years and 4 decline years. With Price that's more likely 4 and 3. in a 7 year deal. Put the opt out after year 3, and let him walk.
I know people hate this argument around here, but for Price especially I'd give him an opt out after 3 years. If all else is equal in the Sox contract vs. other teams, that adds value to the player. More importantly, it could save us from paying for decline years for half of the contract. If Greinke is a 6 year deal, I think you're more likely getting 2 good years and 4 decline years. With Price that's more likely 4 and 3. in a 7 year deal. Put the opt out after year 3, and let him walk.
The thing about Kimbrel is that there's almost literally no surer option available to do that job. Assurance of improvement, that low variability of possible future outcomes, might be really valuable for JWH and DD at this point, for obvious reasons.
Cherington was very good but rather unlucky; regardless, his moves seem ipso facto cutesy after the last couple years. They're after sure bets now.
I recognize this is a tautological argument because everyone wants to sign players sure to produce, but maybe that's the clearest break from the old philosophy. If reducing risk and acquiring consistently very good major leaguers with very few question marks is some sort of primary mission for 2016, that actually narrows the field of targets pretty significantly. That would explain interest in Alex Gordon.
In my eyes, the only sure performance bets in the FA pitching class are Price and Greinke, his makeup issues notwithstanding. And there's a good chance neither of those guys want to sign here.
I think there are more big trades coming.
Cherington was very good but rather unlucky; regardless, his moves seem ipso facto cutesy after the last couple years. They're after sure bets now.
I recognize this is a tautological argument because everyone wants to sign players sure to produce, but maybe that's the clearest break from the old philosophy. If reducing risk and acquiring consistently very good major leaguers with very few question marks is some sort of primary mission for 2016, that actually narrows the field of targets pretty significantly. That would explain interest in Alex Gordon.
In my eyes, the only sure performance bets in the FA pitching class are Price and Greinke, his makeup issues notwithstanding. And there's a good chance neither of those guys want to sign here.
I think there are more big trades coming.
Last edited:
"Sure bet" is Kimbrel's default worst case scenario during his upcoming prime years of production. If he maintains his past performance while under Sox control for the next 3 years, we are talking about a budding HOF level closer.
It requires that you buy into Heyward's D being as valuable as the metrics suggest, but there's definitely a logic to putting the money into the 25 year old hitter instead of the 29 year old pitcher.