The future at 3rd

[rodderick]

Seems to me like people here are characterizing the free agents the Yankees do sign as the only ones they were ever serious about, which would make it impossible for them to ever lose out on a player by default, using that logic. Somehow, I don't think that's accurate.
 
Oh, and Cliff Lee.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Seems to me like people here are characterizing the free agents the Yankees do sign as the only ones they were ever serious about, which would make it impossible for them to ever lose out on a player by default, using that logic. Somehow, I don't think that's accurate.

 
Can you say No True Scotsman? I thought you could.
 
I mean, obviously the Yankees have a lot of money, so they're going to have a better chance than the average team at winning any FA sweepstakes they enter. But they could easily be "serious" about a player, in the sense of making a legitimate effort to sign him, and lose out to a team that valued him even more, or lose out because the player preferred one of the other bidders for non-monetary reasons.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I have a question about Travis Shaw.  I know he has recent 3B experience, but he was moved to 1B.  Does he have the skills to be a passable 3B?  Or even a stopgap?  I'm not suggesting he be penciled in over Holt, WMB, Cecchini, et. al., but I could easily see Holt crashing back to earth, WMB remaining lost at the plate, and Cecchini stalling out to some extent.  Perhaps he could be a "break glass" option?  

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Moved a bunch of posts to here from the 2015 roster thread. I started with the Sandoval ones from just after the WS.

 

[soxhop411]

@marino_Pepen: FUENTE: Pablo Sandoval pudiera estar arribando a un acuerdo con #RedSox de 5 años y US$100 MM. #RedSoxNation #MLB

Translation: Source: Pablo Sandoval could be reaching an agreement with the Red Sox for 5/100.
https://twitter.com/Marino_Pepen/status/529720790988898304
 
 
https://twitter.com/Marino_Pepen
Looks likes he is a Spanish reporter for the Red Sox.
 
Was posted on sox prospects

 

[soxhop411]

I believe this is the same reporter who broke the Castillo signing

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Yikes. I hope that type of money doesn't cripple the budget for obtaining good starting pitchers.
 
And I hope Bogaerts develops into a passable SS, 'cause he ain't moving to 3B unless Sandoval becomes the full-time DH.

 

[soxhop411]

Yup... Broke the Castillo deal
 
Matt Huegel ‏@MattHuegelSP Aug 22
.@Marino_Pepen reporting that #RedSox are close to signing Cuban OF Rusney Castillo for around 6yrs/$72m. #RumorMill

 

[Harry Hooper]

Yikes. I hope that type of money doesn't cripple the budget for obtaining good starting pitchers.
 
And I hope Bogaerts develops into a passable SS, 'cause he ain't moving to 3B unless Sandoval becomes the full-time DH.

 
1B and DH will likely be open in the semi-near future.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

That would be a pre-2011 type of move, not a pre-2013 type of move. 
 
5 years for him would be one of those contracts that you look back on a few years later and say "What in the world were they thinking?"

 

[Harry Hooper]

That would be a pre-2011 type of move, not a pre-2013 type of move. 
 
5 years for him would be one of those contracts that you look back on a few years later and say "What in the world were they thinking?"

 
But he's under 30! Only FA that a desperate Ben could sell to JWH.

 

[Laser Show]

FWIW
 
https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/529757743864102912

 

[foulkehampshire]

Still hoping a Donaldson trade is explored. 

 

[moondog80]

100/5 for Sandoval sends waves of sticker shock through me, but last year Pence got 90/5 for his age 31-35 years. By that standard, 100/5 for Sandoval's 28-32 seems kinda reasonable.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I want Daniel Murphy.

 

[jimbobim]

I like getting aggressive. I already wanted Pablo and Speier's article today was a comforting read. I'd expect he'd be a nimble enough 1B in a couple years  or perhaps for right after Napoli's contract ends this year. 
 
Depending on what Headley is being offered by the Yankees and Hanley's questionability to even moving to third the depth at the position is very thin league wide. 
 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/11/03/pandas-aging-curve-what-does-history-say-about

 

[Rasputin]

Still hoping a Donaldson trade is explored. 

 
I still don't get the logic of why Donaldson would be remotely available or why trading away what it would take to get him would be better than signing Sandoval to a really big contract and having him be completely useless for half of it.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm OK with giving Sandoval 5 years.
I'm OK with giving Sandoval $20M/yr.
I'm not sure I'm OK with doing both in the same contract.
 
I.e., I could see 4/80 or 5/90, but not 5/100. That strikes me as a Carl Crawford, bidding-against-ourselves kind of deal. Maybe I'm just hopelessly behind the market.

 

[rodderick]

I like getting aggressive. I already wanted Pablo and Speier's article today was a comforting read. I'd expect he'd be a nimble enough 1B in a couple years  or perhaps for right after Napoli's contract ends this year. 
 
Depending on what Headley is being offered by the Yankees and Hanley's questionability to even moving to third the depth at the position is very thin league wide. 
 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/11/03/pandas-aging-curve-what-does-history-say-about

 
He'd almost certainly be physically fit to play 1B in the future. Whether or not you'd want to carry his bat at first is the question.

 

[67WasBest]

The report can't be accurate, they're still in the exclusive negotiating window for present clubs.  If they had a deal wouldn't tat be tampering?

 

[soxhop411]

The report can't be accurate, they're still in the exclusive negotiating window for present clubs.  If they had a deal wouldn't tat be tampering?

I thought FA started at 12:01 AM this morning?

 

[Laser Show]

I thought FA started at 12:01 AM this morning?

This is correct. Five days after the World Series.

 

[E5 Yaz]

With free agents eligible after midnight Monday to negotiate with all 30 clubs, will the Red Sox stay the course and steel themselves from entering the richest auctions, or will need trump restraint and the Sox return to their old free-spending ways?
 
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11817758/boston-red-sox-determine-how-spend

 

[67WasBest]

I thought FA started at 12:01 AM this morning?

Thanks, missed by a day

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Grant Brisbee at mccoveychronicles says 5/100 sounds too low. If that's an accurate indicator of Pablomania in the Bay, then I think--and hope--he'll stay put.

 

[williams_482]

Steamer projects Panda to be a 3.8 (so 3.5-4.0) win player next season. A typical player declines by roughly half a win (true talent) per season as they age, the price for a win in FA is roughly $7M, and is estimated to go up by roughly 5% per year. The details here can be debated (for example, Sandoval might have a sharper aging curve than most), but they are at least close enough to give us a ballpark estimate of what his market should look like. 
 
Four year deal: 11 (if current true talent is 3.5) - 13 (if current true talent is 4.0) WAR worth $82M (3.5 now) - $97M (4.0 now)
Five years: 12.5 - 15 WAR, $95M - $114M
Six years: 13.5 - 16.5 WAR, $104M - $128M
 
Again, these are ballpark estimates, but I feel they are a fairly useful baseline/sanity check. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

Does anyone here actually believe the Red Sox will bust through the top of their salary structure for Pablo Sandoval?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Steamer projects Panda to be a 3.8 (so 3.5-4.0) win player next season. A typical player declines by roughly half a win (true talent) per season as they age, the price for a win in FA is roughly $7M, and is estimated to go up by roughly 5% per year. The details here can be debated (for example, Sandoval might have a sharper aging curve than most), but they are at least close enough to give us a ballpark estimate of what his market should look like. 

 
I have two issues with this. First, $7M is a high-end estimate--Cameron at FG last March predicted it would still be around $6M this offseason. I guess we'll have to see how that plays out.
 
But second, I thought allowance for inflation was already implicit in $/WAR estimates, so that inflating the rate over the course of the contract would be double-dipping. Yes, the $/WAR figure will presumably go up over the next five years--but only for that year's free agents, not previous years'.
 
If Cameron is right about this year's $/WAR, and I'm right about the inflation thing, then the right dollar ranges for your value estimates would be...
 
Four years: 66-78
Five years: 75-90
Six years: 81-99
 
...which is a pretty major difference.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm OK with giving Sandoval 5 years.
I'm OK with giving Sandoval $20M/yr.
I'm not sure I'm OK with doing both in the same contract.
 
I.e., I could see 4/80 or 5/90, but not 5/100. That strikes me as a Carl Crawford, bidding-against-ourselves kind of deal. Maybe I'm just hopelessly behind the market.

 
I'm pretty sure he's not going to sign for less than 100/5. That might mean he's not signing with the Red Sox, but I'm pretty sure his market will bare out a contract of that size or more. I'd rather they sign Headley or trade for Donaldson, even if Donaldson costs Mookie, than sign Panda to that contract, but I don't think it's automatically a bad deal if this rumor pans out. He can, and probably will move to 1st base less than half way into his new deal, and that's certainly a possibility with the Sox with Napoli only being under control for one more season, and Papi being a candidate for retiring opening up the DH spot, as was pointed out above.
 
So while I wouldn't be celebrating this move, I wouldn't exactly be terrified by it, either. It would fit with the approach Cherington had in the 2012-2013 winter of jumping on someone the team likes early to free up time and resources to pursue tougher targets, even if the 5 years flies in the face of the 3 he kept throwing around that off season. Aggressive Ben is probably a good thing for the Red Sox given the market that exists right now.

 

[Rasputin]

Does anyone here actually believe the Red Sox will bust through the top of their salary structure for Pablo Sandoval?

 
Are you really sure that 5/100 is busting through the top of their salary structure?
 
I'm not.

 

[williams_482]

 
I have two issues with this. First, $7M is a high-end estimate--Cameron at FG last March predicted it would still be around $6M this offseason. I guess we'll have to see how that plays out.
 
But second, I thought allowance for inflation was already implicit in $/WAR estimates, so that inflating the rate over the course of the contract would be double-dipping. Yes, the $/WAR figure will presumably go up over the next five years--but only for that year's free agents, not previous years'.
 
If Cameron is right about this year's $/WAR, and I'm right about the inflation thing, then the right dollar ranges for your value estimates would be...
 
Four years: 66-78
Five years: 75-90
Six years: 81-99
 
...which is a pretty major difference.

Cameron appeared to me to be talking about last offseason with his $6M estimate, although I suppose he could have meant either one. FG found a median of $6M and an outlier driven average of $7M, while Matt Swartz and Lewie Pollis used slightly different methodologies to come up with $7.6M and $7M. I don't have a problem with using that lower end estimate, but given the other work which has been done I think $7M is a more reasonable estimate. 
 
As for the double-dipping comment, I am not sure if I understand your meaning. Are you saying that we shouldn't account for inflation when valuing longer term contracts, or do you think the 5% per year method is flawed? If the former, I strongly disagree, as the whole point of the exercise is to offer a fair price relative to the market value of an equivalent number of wins in any given season of the deal (understanding that these contracts are front loaded such that the first years will look like bargains and the back end looks awful). If you project player x to be worth an average of 3 WAR over the course of a long term deal but pay him 3 WAR player money for the current market environment, he will refuse because he knows his skills will be worth relatively more down the road and he would earn more going year to year and letting inflation do it's thing. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

 
Are you really sure that 5/100 is busting through the top of their salary structure?
 
I'm not.

 
Napoli and Ortiz are both expected to make $16M in 2015 (Cot's). Sandoval making $4M more than either for a contract matched in length by only Pedroia and Castillo, to me, would mark a significant change in current trends. I'm not of the belief that Sandoval is the baseline level player you want to establish for that sort of deal

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

As for the double-dipping comment, I am not sure if I understand your meaning. Are you saying that we shouldn't account for inflation when valuing longer term contracts, or do you think the 5% per year method is flawed? If the former, I strongly disagree, as the whole point of the exercise is to offer a fair price relative to the market value of an equivalent number of wins in any given season of the deal (understanding that these contracts are front loaded such that the first years will look like bargains and the back end looks awful). If you project player x to be worth an average of 3 WAR over the course of a long term deal but pay him 3 WAR player money for the current market environment, he will refuse because he knows his skills will be worth relatively more down the road and he would earn more going year to year and letting inflation do it's thing. 

 
I could be completely wrong and confused. But I thought $/WAR estimates at any given moment are estimates for the price of a win not in that particular year, but on that particular year's FA market. And the FA market covers deals of all lengths. Yes, that means that the longer the deal, the more the player's production at the end of that deal will be undervalued relative to production acquired in more recent deals. But that seems like a reasonable premium for the player to allow in return for the additional risk that the team takes on in making a long-term commitment.

 

[williams_482]

 
I could be completely wrong and confused. But I thought $/WAR estimates at any given moment are estimates for the price of a win not in that particular year, but on that particular year's FA market. And the FA market covers deals of all lengths. Yes, that means that the longer the deal, the more the player's production at the end of that deal will be undervalued relative to production acquired in more recent deals. But that seems like a reasonable premium for the player to allow in return for the additional risk that the team takes on in making a long-term commitment.

I believe $/WAR is an estimate of a particular year, based off of my reading of that FG article and the fact that Cameron routinely includes inflation when doing this sort of "back of the napkin" value estimate. If I am reading that article correctly, the NPV5% and NPV10% columns show the $/WAR value now which makes the contract worthwhile given 5% and 10% inflation. 
 
EDIT: I admit I am not 100% sure about this though. The distinction simply never occurred to me. 

 

[Rasputin]

 
Napoli and Ortiz are both expected to make $16M in 2015 (Cot's). Sandoval making $4M more than either for a contract matched in length by only Pedroia and Castillo, to me, would mark a significant change in current trends. I'm not of the belief that Sandoval is the baseline level player you want to establish for that sort of deal

 
It's less money per year than they gave Crawford or Gonzalez, fewer years than Pedrioa, and fewer years and substantially less total tollars and Crawford and Gonzalez.

 

[E5 Yaz]

 
It's less money per year than they gave Crawford or Gonzalez, fewer years than Pedrioa, and fewer years and substantially less total tollars and Crawford and Gonzalez.

 
Which completely ignores the stated position by management that The Punto Trade allowed them to fundamentally change the way they would do business. (Yes, I watched the 2013 World Series film last night.)
 
I know you want to be argumentative, but even if they do decide to spend $20M ayear on a player this offseason, for me that player shouldn't be Pablo Sandoval.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

If I am reading that article correctly, the NPV5% and NPV10% columns show the $/WAR value now which makes the contract worthwhile given 5% and 10% inflation. 

 
That's how I read it too.  So, for Cano, he projects 25.5 wins over the term of the contract.  At $240 million, that's $9.4 million per win.  But since it's a 10 year deal, he does a net present value calculation, assuming that today's dollars go further than tomorrow's dollars.
 
I'm not convinced about the second point.  But I think for purposes of the numbers that we typically throw around in here -- that is, the current value of the contract -- Cameron's data seems to show that the $5 million number for wins is long gone, and you only really get to $6 and $7 million numbers by using this methodology.  
 
I think what's most interesting about Cameron's data, at least in a discussion about guys like Sandoval and Headley, is to look at the high end.  The effect of the $3 million contracts for 1.3 win players like Kelly Johnson, which brings the average down, really isn't relevant for the discussion.  Look at his charts for every position player who got a FA deal or more than one year for more than $10 million AAV.  Virutally all of them, with the lone exception of Brian McCann, is costing more than $7 million a win, and often substantially more.  Cano (9.4), Ellsbury (8.1), Choo (8.7), Pence (10.1), McCann (6.3), Granderson (10.5), Peralta (7.7), Beltran (8.2), Napoli (8.2).
 
Like or not, that looks to be the market for the top guys.  So, unless there is something crazy that happens to his market, Panda is going to command about 8 to 8.5 million a win.  The trick, of course, is projecting wins.  I think 12.5 wins for the next 5 years is not crazy and that's $100 to $110 million.  If it makes us feel better to say that with a NPV discount of 5%, that's really only 7.4 million per win, or at a NPV discount of 10% that's really only 6.5 million per win, that's fine.  It's still a 5/105 contract, so that's what we need to brace ourselves for if we want to sign a top of the market position player.
 
I don't think the difference between $6 and $7 million (or whatever the spread is) really is where the trick of all this is.  The trick, to me, is coming up with a solid methodology for truly forecasting wins.  Nailing your projection and overpaying for each win is one way for a contract to bust, but the other is to miss badly on the projection.  Cameron has Pence as a bit of an outlier in his chart at $10 million a win, but it turns out he seems to have missed dramatically on correct win forecasting -- maybe the Giants had it all along. 

 

[Rasputin]

 
Which completely ignores the stated position by management that The Punto Trade allowed them to fundamentally change the way they would do business. (Yes, I watched the 2013 World Series film last night.)
 
I know you want to be argumentative, but even if they do decide to spend $20M ayear on a player this offseason, for me that player shouldn't be Pablo Sandoval.

I don't, and maybe it isn't, but five years isn't that long, and there are a lot more players getting $20M these days. I'm not overly thrilled with the idea of passing it to Sandoval either, but 3B was terrible last year, is the only non pitcher position that was terrible that we haven't already upgraded, I'd rather pay money than prospects, and we have both prospects in the system and an opening on the team if he can't play third much longer.

If things go well this off season, this team has a chance to be very good for a very long time, starting now.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Steamer projects Panda to be a 3.8 (so 3.5-4.0) win player next season. A typical player declines by roughly half a win (true talent) per season as they age, the price for a win in FA is roughly $7M, and is estimated to go up by roughly 5% per year. The details here can be debated (for example, Sandoval might have a sharper aging curve than most), but they are at least close enough to give us a ballpark estimate of what his market should look like. 
 
Four year deal: 11 (if current true talent is 3.5) - 13 (if current true talent is 4.0) WAR worth $82M (3.5 now) - $97M (4.0 now)
Five years: 12.5 - 15 WAR, $95M - $114M
Six years: 13.5 - 16.5 WAR, $104M - $128M
 
Again, these are ballpark estimates, but I feel they are a fairly useful baseline/sanity check. 

 
 

 
I have two issues with this. First, $7M is a high-end estimate--Cameron at FG last March predicted it would still be around $6M this offseason. I guess we'll have to see how that plays out.
 
But second, I thought allowance for inflation was already implicit in $/WAR estimates, so that inflating the rate over the course of the contract would be double-dipping. Yes, the $/WAR figure will presumably go up over the next five years--but only for that year's free agents, not previous years'.
 
If Cameron is right about this year's $/WAR, and I'm right about the inflation thing, then the right dollar ranges for your value estimates would be...
 
Four years: 66-78
Five years: 75-90
Six years: 81-99
 
...which is a pretty major difference.

 
I think there's another pretty major flaw in Williams' projection.  It assumes that Pablo will start declining in 2016 at age 29.  Why is it a given that he'll be worse at ages 29 and 30 than he will be at age 28?  If we're talking about a 32 year old turning 33 next year, the discount makes sense.  But he's too young to assume that he's already in decline.
 
If we assume that he'll start declining after age 30, just to pick a number that may or may not be accurate, his WAR estimate for the next 5 years could be more like 16-18.5.  At even $6m per win that's $96m-$111m.

 

[soxhop411]

Still hoping a Donaldson trade is explored. 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/oakland-a-s-adamant-about-keeping-josh-donaldson-will-listen-on-pitchers-110514
 
Do not get your hopes up
 

 
First things first: The Oakland Athletics do not plan to trade third baseman Josh Donaldson, according to major-league sources.
The A's would listen if teams inquired on pitchers such as right-hander Jeff Samardzija and lefty Scott Kazmir. However, they will not shop either and are adamant about keeping Donaldson, who is under club control for four more years, sources say.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Don't the numbers suggest he's already in decline? His SLG the past four years is 552, 447, 417, and 415. His OBP has gone from 357, 342, 341, to 327.

 
Those numbers need a bit of filtering, because offense has been declining MLB-wide. But even if you look at wRC+, he's been declining steadily over that period, though more slowly (after the first year) than the raw numbers imply: 149, 118, 116, 111.
 
So, yes: the record suggests he's already declining. The question is, can he be expected to temporarily turn that curve around, or will it continue (or accelerate)?

 

[rodderick]

Don't the numbers suggest he's already in decline? His SLG the past four years is 552, 447, 417, and 415. His OBP has gone from 357, 342, 341, to 327.

 

I was trying to find the reason for his decline in production, and so far I've got nothing really tangible. His BABIP has remained almost the exact same, his batted ball profile has remained remarkably consistent, aside from a 16% HR/FB ratio in 2011 (which is almost double his career norms). His contact% has improved a little, mainly his O-Contact%, while his swing% hasn't changed much. Sure, offense all around the league has gone down too, but his wRC+ still follows the same downward trend.
 
From the little I've gathered it seems he just isn't hitting the ball with as much authority as he once did. If that's indeed the case, I hope the issue is merely mechanical and fixable, because otherwise I don't want anything to do with that contract when he inevitably finds himself unable to handle 3rd anymore.

 

[williams_482]

 
 
 
I think there's another pretty major flaw in Williams' projection.  It assumes that Pablo will start declining in 2016 at age 29.  Why is it a given that he'll be worse at ages 29 and 30 than he will be at age 28?  If we're talking about a 32 year old turning 33 next year, the discount makes sense.  But he's too young to assume that he's already in decline.
 
If we assume that he'll start declining after age 30, just to pick a number that may or may not be accurate, his WAR estimate for the next 5 years could be more like 16-18.5.  At even $6m per win that's $96m-$111m.

I assume he will be worse because players typically are. Recent research suggests that players, post steroids, generally just get worse from the point when they become established regulars, and even the older more standard aging curves pegged the players peak at 26, 27, or 28. The idea that players remain at a constant "prime" level from ages 25-30 or whatever is a myth.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Those numbers need a bit of filtering, because offense has been declining MLB-wide. But even if you look at wRC+, he's been declining steadily over that period, though more slowly (after the first year) than the raw numbers imply: 149, 118, 116, 111.
 
So, yes: the record suggests he's already declining. The question is, can he be expected to temporarily turn that curve around, or will it continue (or accelerate)?

 
Right, he may already be in decline but he's young enough that he may be able to turn it around.  I don't know enough about him to say either way.  I'm assuming the FO did their homework.  My only general point was that I don't think a blanket statement that every FA will automatically start declining immediately is accurate, especially for guys who reach FA in their 20s.

 

[williams_482]

 
Right, he may already be in decline but he's young enough that he may be able to turn it around.  I don't know enough about him to say either way.  I'm assuming the FO did their homework.  My only general point was that I don't think a blanket statement that every FA will automatically start declining immediately is accurate, especially for guys who reach FA in their 20s.

The point is not to say that he absolutely 100% will, but that most players do and assuming a fairly normal amount of decline probably splits the difference between outliers (he might take longer to decline, or he might fall off a cliff) pretty well. Personally I see no reason to expect an overweight 28 yard old 3rd baseman to buck the trend and continue to be a 4ish win player without declining at all for the next couple years. He could, sure, but that doesn't make it likely.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

While the overall point that offense is declining is true, even if the's keeping pace with that trend, he's still declining as well, isn't he? I mean, if the league sees a 10% reduction in slugging next year, and Sandoval declines 10% as well...he's still declining.

 
Not really, not in a way that's meaningful to us. It's his performance relative to the league that matters, because that's the scoring environment that his contribution will occur in. If a lineup of 9 Pablo Sandovals would have scored 5 runs per game in 2012 and 4.5 in 2014, while league average scoring was 5 runs per game in 2012 and 4.0 in 2014, then his offensive value has really improved, because the 2014 Team of Sandovals will win more games. (This isn't what really happened, of course, but you get the idea.)

 

[glennhoffmania]

The point is not to say that he absolutely 100% will, but that most players do and assuming a fairly normal amount of decline probably splits the difference between outliers (he might take longer to decline, or he might fall off a cliff) pretty well. Personally I see no reason to expect an overweight 28 yard old 3rd baseman to buck the trend and continue to be a 4ish win player without declining at all for the next couple years. He could, sure, but that doesn't make it likely.

 
I understand what you're saying.  I'm just pointing out the other side of the argument.  And while his wRC+ has declined a little bit recently his bWAR and fWAR both increased from 2013 to 2014.  I don't like using WAR as the primary basis to value a player, but the discussion began with the calculation of his cost per win, so I'm just throwing that out there.  A lot of that is tied to defense, so another question is whether his defense would still be valuable even if his hitting starts to decline.
 
What stood out to me was that his BB rate fell 2% this year.  His other numbers were very similar to 2013.  I'm curious if there was a reason for his BB rate falling and if he could get it back above 8%.  If so, his OBP is very respectable.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

So let me get this straight: you think Mike Napoli will equal his best career season at age 33, that Pedroia will improve at age 31-32, and that none of the three starters entering their first full big-league season will fail to meet expectations. Oh, and that there won't be a serious injury somewhere in the mix.

One or two of those things might happen. Planning for them all to happen is crazy. And I'm not picking on you, because it seems to be conventional wisdom around here that the Sox should break the bank on two good-to-great free-agent SPs and hope that the offense magically fixes itself.

I'm bringing this up in the 3B thread because that seems like the easiest position to upgrade without seriously altering the club's long-term core. I would love to see them making a bold offer for Donaldson, but if that doesn't work (or if the price is ridiculous), overpaying for Headley or Panda is a very solid fallback option that would make next year's team a few wins better.

As long as Pedey doesn't mangle a hand yet again on opening day I think it's almost a given that he improves over last season's offensive numbers. Considering the amount of time Napoli was out plus the amount of time he played with an injured finger I think Napoli improves on last seasons numbers. He hit 17 HR's in 119 games last season.

As for the rest, it's almost impossible to know what Clay will bring to the table. He could pitch like a top 5 pitcher or a bottom tier #5 starter or anywhere in between. The young starters are all wild cards. No one knows what they will bring. For that matter how will Betts and Castillo do in their first full season, especially once the league adjusts to them. Lots of guys could be great or terrible next year.

 

[YTF]

To expand a bit on what Soxfan in Fla wrote, injuries are ALWAYS the wild card, but yes offensively speaking a healthy Pedroia and Napoli should be a boost. Betts should be worlds better than JBJ. Castillo or Cespedes more productive than Nava/Gomes. A healthy Victorino does what he does. Papi is Papi, Vasquez is certainly no worse than AJP and hopefully Bogaerts becomes the player we all thought he would be. There's a bit of hope and finger crossing in all of that but I don't want to place all of my free agent $$$ in Panda's basket. I think BC has to approach this season seeing Buchholz as no better than his #4 starter. John Henry has said on several occasions that the Sox are going to spend money this season. The hole at 3rd base can't be ignored, but I want the Sox to find a way to bring in an ace/#1 type and two #2 types to round out this staff. Or Perhaps Kelly comes into his own this year and an ace and VERY solid #2 is all you need. The team has available funds as well as a very good farm system to attract potential trade partners. It's a fact of life that every one of these "chips" do not have a role on this team nor will everyone of them shake out to be what they project to be. Someone upthread or in the 2015 Sox thread suggest that we move some before they become Michael Bowden, I agree.  Unfortunately I think the Lester ship has sailed and Scherzer has probably already turned down more than the Sox would be willing to offer. Is Cueto/Sheilds/Headley too much of a stretch? Is Sheilds/Latos/Headley enough?

 

[williams_482]

 
I understand what you're saying.  I'm just pointing out the other side of the argument.  And while his wRC+ has declined a little bit recently his bWAR and fWAR both increased from 2013 to 2014.  I don't like using WAR as the primary basis to value a player, but the discussion began with the calculation of his cost per win, so I'm just throwing that out there.  A lot of that is tied to defense, so another question is whether his defense would still be valuable even if his hitting starts to decline.
 
What stood out to me was that his BB rate fell 2% this year.  His other numbers were very similar to 2013.  I'm curious if there was a reason for his BB rate falling and if he could get it back above 8%.  If so, his OBP is very respectable.

You will notice that I used his 3.8 win Steamer projection for 2015 as a starting point, which is higher than any of the previous three years. They project a fairly substantial bounce back in walk rate and ISO coupled with a basically stagnant strikeout rate and BABiP.