Right, wOBA isn't meant to be read like batting average. .320 is about league average. Castillo would need to be at least that high and probably significantly higher to be worth adding back onto the CBT calculation given how tight they are already.
The offseason heading into 2018
- Thread starter Devizier
- Start date
If we take these projections at face value that's 155 HR from the starting 9. Add 35 (like the last two years) from the bench and you've got 190 which is okay, but not awful. I think Moreland will hit more as a full time starter, and would be thrilled with Devers being what ZIPs thinks he'll be. Likewise, I'd be pretty happy with Bogaerts matching those projections. Benintendi's line shows no real growth, which I think is a little pessimistic. I think he might be close to maxed out for power, but he can certainly improve elsewhere.
If they can replace Hanley with Martinez and replace one of the bench bats with Hanley (or trade him), that total probably rises by 10-15 which I think would be enough.
They were really down on Pedey wRC+95 and especially Vazquez 74 too. Pedey I can see because of injuries possibly sapping his speed and taking away doubles, and age related decline, but Vazquez hitting worse than Leon is kind of puzzling to me.
That all comes down to how much stock you put into 2017 being a new baseline for him. That 74 is basically cutting the difference between 2016 and 2017, which makes some sense. And he did have a .348 BABIP last year.
The cap hit is what's killing his chances of getting back to The Show. Perhaps one (highly unlikely but amusing) path out of Castillo's unique form of purgatory would be for Castillo to sign a multi-year extension with ALL of the added years at league minimum (thus significantly dropping the annual average cap hit). If I'm Castillo's agent, I'm gonna at least float the "outside-the-box" idea.
I was thinking last night that it would be quite the curve ball to see the Sox move a short years with CY upside Porcello in this market as opposed to signing JDM, and join everybody else in what is seemingly a calculated/widespead scamper to get/stay under the LT. Given as it stands now we look to be the only team out there committing to 2018 LT hit.
This is so wacky it’s brilliant and would almost work.
A 50-year extension worth $545,000 per year (suspending the notion that he league minimum will continue to raise) would add $27.25M to his contract of $35.5M. He’d then have an AAV of 1.18M, which he’s probably playable at, but a team would essentially be committing another $27M to him.
I suppose if there’s some handshake agreement for Rusney to quit baseball and forfeit his contract after 2020 (which wouldn’t be binding and the union would never go for), it could get him back into the league.
Rusney’s going to end up making $72 million for playing extremely low-stakes baseball, but I still feel sorta bad for him.
Last edited:
This would almost certainly get nixed by the league. The latest CBA gives the league the right to intervene in any deal they feel is designed to circumvent the rules. The phrasing is intentionally vague so as to give the commissioner free reign to decide what is and isn't crossing the line.
Pedroia has been cleared to start running.
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2018/01/dustin_pedroia_cleared_to_run.html#incart_river_index
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2018/01/dustin_pedroia_cleared_to_run.html#incart_river_index
Jeff Passan (Yahoo Sports) and Ben Lindbergh and Jeff Sullivan (Fangraphs) talking about baseball’s broken economic system—and “the unending hunger of really rich people to get richer”—on Effectively Wild is worth a listen.
Full thing here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/effectively-wild-a-fangraphs-baseball-podcast/id545919715?mt=2#episodeGuid=http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=273399
Couple pull quotes:
“There’s a large segment of our society that believes that owners and people who run businesses should be the ones who get the spoils ... Why do you think there was this grand reverence for the idea that our president was some sort of incredible businessman? I think the deification of the businessman is a big part of this. It goes back to the idea of the ‘greedy player’ ... and for one reason or another it gets played up that there’s this problem and that these people don’t deserve what they are getting. It’s really unfortunate because the players are the heart of baseball.”
and later
“I think [it’s] partially because you have a class of fans out there who will buy this notion of austerity being something that is laudable. [Like] the notion that Brian Cashman suddenly became a great general manager when he stopped spending money, as if spending money is some sort of sin.”
Full thing here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/effectively-wild-a-fangraphs-baseball-podcast/id545919715?mt=2#episodeGuid=http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=273399
Couple pull quotes:
“There’s a large segment of our society that believes that owners and people who run businesses should be the ones who get the spoils ... Why do you think there was this grand reverence for the idea that our president was some sort of incredible businessman? I think the deification of the businessman is a big part of this. It goes back to the idea of the ‘greedy player’ ... and for one reason or another it gets played up that there’s this problem and that these people don’t deserve what they are getting. It’s really unfortunate because the players are the heart of baseball.”
and later
“I think [it’s] partially because you have a class of fans out there who will buy this notion of austerity being something that is laudable. [Like] the notion that Brian Cashman suddenly became a great general manager when he stopped spending money, as if spending money is some sort of sin.”
Last edited:
I've always thought it interesting that a "great contract" and "terrible contract" is always by default looked at from the perspective of ownership. I think the explanation is simpler though; Sox fans will be happy if JDM signs for 80/4 not because they want John Henry to keep make more money, but because that deal would allow the Sox to spend more money on other players.
I guess my question is why there should be reverence for spending money? I am assuming most of the owners made enough money to buy a baseball team by making wise decisions and not foolishly wasting their money. Given that free agent seems like a lot of times a waste of money, why would owners be ok spending their money there? Why would any owner want to give a guy like Martinez seven years and 210 million, when those type of contracts at JDM age generally tend not to go well. Hanley Ramirez, Matt Kemp, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Pablo Sandoval are just a few of the recent contracts that seem to encourage owners to slow down on spending money. It would seem to make sense to develop some system where players get paid more in their prime.
I was with you right to this point.
The purpose of capitalism is to maximize the return to investors. Offering a good product at a good price and realizing adjacent revenue streams are good business... and good Baseball.
The players get what they negotiate.
We all do.
But unlike the majority of us, they are in system where they do not have a free market. Players may be in their prime well before free agency. In fact, almost all of them are. And during that period they can't negotiate freely. Having a system where the players in their prime were free to negotiate would be a more "fair" system. It would also lessen the advantage of teams who draft well and put teams that don't have as much money at a disadvantage, which is why it is less likely to happen.
Charlie Finley proposed that every player become a free agent every year: http://www.sfgate.com/giants/shea/article/Charlie-Finley-former-A-s-owner-and-this-6738590.php
This isn't that difficult to figure out. Fans are fans of the "club", which is 100% of property of ownership. So from the fans' perspective their interest and the ownership's are mostly aligned together. Yes, the owernship also wants to make money aside from winning, which the fans don't really care about. But they are mostly aligned because the fans want to the team to be run efficiently so their team has the best chance to have more talent and therefore more likely to win. So fans see players who try to get as much money as possible from the team as "greedy players" who are actively preventing the team they pull for from reaching the fans' goal.
Sport journalists can view it from a neutral 3rd party perspective so when it comes to contact negotiations they don't have a rooting interest in either side, so they are puzzled when it seems the fans tend to side with management in contract negotiations, and come up with ridiculous explanations such as the "myth of the great businessmen".
Fans often hate the ownership precisely because management spending money on large contracts the fans see as idiotic. In those cases they obviously aren't siding with the owner because they like him or think he's a great businessman, the side with him because they have an emotional investment in seeing his club win. They have no emotional investment in seeing the player make more money.
Sport journalists can view it from a neutral 3rd party perspective so when it comes to contact negotiations they don't have a rooting interest in either side, so they are puzzled when it seems the fans tend to side with management in contract negotiations, and come up with ridiculous explanations such as the "myth of the great businessmen".
Fans often hate the ownership precisely because management spending money on large contracts the fans see as idiotic. In those cases they obviously aren't siding with the owner because they like him or think he's a great businessman, the side with him because they have an emotional investment in seeing his club win. They have no emotional investment in seeing the player make more money.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/clubhouse_insider/2018/01/eduardo_nunez_works_out_for_red_sox_in_dominican_republic
https://www.fanragsports.com/inside-baseball-mlb-notes-agentless-benintendi-draws-frenzy/
"Doctors have declared Eduardo Nunez’s right knee to be back to full health, and he recently worked out for the Red Sox in the Dominican Republic."
The Mets, "...Red Sox, Jays, Yankees, Giants, Brewers, Braves and Royals also have shown varying amounts of interest in Nunez"
I would love it if the Sox can retain Nunez at a reasonable price. I was initially afraid he would get a 3-year offer at 9-11M AAV to start for some team, but with the way the market has been, it seems possible he'll get just 2 years and somewhere between 6-8M AAV (Howie Kendrick just got 2 x 3.5M). If I had to guess, Nunez would probably accept an offer from the Sox if it is at least close to the top offer he receives. He seemed to love it here last year, the Sox are a contender, and he'd be able to start at 2B for the beginning of the year (pending Pedroia situation).
I realize most people would like Marco Hernandez to get time at 2B, but my philosophy is: Would you rather have Marco Hernandez? Or would you rather have Marco Hernandez & Eduardo Nunez? Depth is key and guys constantly get hurt, so I'd prefer to start with Nunez and have Hernandez stashed in AAA with Lin. Nunez also brings SB ability off the bench.
From a clubhouse perspective, he seemed to bring a lot of energy and even had some clashes with the Yankees. Keeping him and Moreland would give the 2018 clubhouse a feeling of "unfinished business" from last year's team. Of course, the "clubhouse presence" part of his value isn't measurable, but it does seem real.
https://www.fanragsports.com/inside-baseball-mlb-notes-agentless-benintendi-draws-frenzy/
"Doctors have declared Eduardo Nunez’s right knee to be back to full health, and he recently worked out for the Red Sox in the Dominican Republic."
The Mets, "...Red Sox, Jays, Yankees, Giants, Brewers, Braves and Royals also have shown varying amounts of interest in Nunez"
I would love it if the Sox can retain Nunez at a reasonable price. I was initially afraid he would get a 3-year offer at 9-11M AAV to start for some team, but with the way the market has been, it seems possible he'll get just 2 years and somewhere between 6-8M AAV (Howie Kendrick just got 2 x 3.5M). If I had to guess, Nunez would probably accept an offer from the Sox if it is at least close to the top offer he receives. He seemed to love it here last year, the Sox are a contender, and he'd be able to start at 2B for the beginning of the year (pending Pedroia situation).
I realize most people would like Marco Hernandez to get time at 2B, but my philosophy is: Would you rather have Marco Hernandez? Or would you rather have Marco Hernandez & Eduardo Nunez? Depth is key and guys constantly get hurt, so I'd prefer to start with Nunez and have Hernandez stashed in AAA with Lin. Nunez also brings SB ability off the bench.
From a clubhouse perspective, he seemed to bring a lot of energy and even had some clashes with the Yankees. Keeping him and Moreland would give the 2018 clubhouse a feeling of "unfinished business" from last year's team. Of course, the "clubhouse presence" part of his value isn't measurable, but it does seem real.
"Doctors have declared Eduardo Nunez’s right knee to be back to full health, and he recently worked out for the Red Sox in the Dominican Republic."
=====================================================
Has it ever been revealed what the issue was(is)? I follow things pretty closely, but don't recall seeing a diagnosis other than "doesn't need surgery". I mean the guy was carried off the field the last two times he tried to play. Must not have been too insignificant of an injury.
=====================================================
Has it ever been revealed what the issue was(is)? I follow things pretty closely, but don't recall seeing a diagnosis other than "doesn't need surgery". I mean the guy was carried off the field the last two times he tried to play. Must not have been too insignificant of an injury.
https://amp.mlb.com/265050858-david-ortiz-pedro-martinez-to-aid-red-sox.amp.html
If not posted elsewhere, read and ponder.
If not posted elsewhere, read and ponder.
The purpose of capitalism is to allocate scarce resources to their highest and best use as a function of economic agents acting in their own self interest within a system of competitive labor, product, and capital markets that serve to reveal prices. Competitive markets are defined as those that have free entry and exit (baseball fails this test miserably), large number of buyers and sellers (baseball fails miserably), homogenous goods (nope), and no constraints on information flows (baseball fails miserably).
Baseball isn’t free market capitalism. Baseball is an oligopoly within which owners and players divide rents conferred on them by the Political System.
Well a) that your definition of Capitalism was entirely incorrect.
But more importantly, b) that the idea that baseball players "get what they negotiate for", just like "we all do" is overly simplistic in approach and very wrong in it's meaning and intent. Baseball players don't participate in the same labor system as most of the rest of us, and the argument that their market will fairly and logically allocate wealth between labor and capital and therefore we should root for the owners to keep their money is coming from a wrong set of assumptions.
Oh, so you think Trump's making America great again all by himself? Of course capitalism exists!
If only we could have real communism with the right people in charge! Then we’d all be equally rich and totally free!
Ehhh. I’d rather John Henry hire a tech firm to build automated bot versions of Sale and Betts and play them every day. Why pay any of these guys, really?
Or we could look at successful models and recognize Norway’s success is tied to progressive social values and wealthy people paying taxes, not that other thing
Dombrowski looked at the pale stars, and at the moon, now sloping behind the western hills that enclosed the valley. 'This is an offseason as long as years', he said. 'How long will spring training tarry?'
'February is not far off', said John Henry, who had now climbed up beside him. 'But February will not help us, I fear.'
'Yet February is ever the hope of SoSH', said Dombrowski.
'February is not far off', said John Henry, who had now climbed up beside him. 'But February will not help us, I fear.'
'Yet February is ever the hope of SoSH', said Dombrowski.
Or, you know, oil.Or we could look at successful models and recognize Norway’s success is tied to progressive social values and wealthy people paying taxes, not that other thing
Fair enough. I yield and won't make a counter argument and thus hopefully forestall countless virtual grundle punches!
Or you could look at Sweden when at some point in the 1970s, the top tax rate was 90%.Or we could look at successful models and recognize Norway’s success is tied to progressive social values and wealthy people paying taxes, not that other thing
Which is primarily own by the state in order to ensure that the profits and benefits from said Oil are distributed fairly. For some odd reason the Norwegian government/people were not comfortable with everything being privatized.
What if we could convince Joey Votto to waive his NTC that he's said on multiple occasions he's never waiving?
EDIT: Actually, I see that Paul Goldschmidt has two years left so I think he's the next in line?
Paul Goldschmidt is one of the reasons I dont think the Diamondbacks sign JD Martinez. I think Goldschmidt has more of a chance to be good into his later 30s, and I would hope he could be one of those guys that really turns into a franchise icon and makes the HoF. The Dbacks don't really have "that guy" considering their WS heroes were from other franchises, so I kind of hope they pony up for him when he hits FA, and that he has a long successful career.
Do you think we can get him for Chavis and Ockimey, or do you think they would want Groome too?
Do you think we can get him for Chavis and Ockimey, or do you think they would want Groome too?
We currently are due to field a .750'ish OPS firstbaseman on a $200m+ and highest payroll in the game team.
It'll be Freddie Freeman from the moment it's clear early in-season that Atlanta is tanking, of course.
Speaking of Jose Bautista (in the JDM thread), I would be into throwing $2-3 million at him as a bench guy/10th man. Crasnick just reported that his agent says he’s ready to play all four corners or DH, FWIW.
He looked pretty unable to catch up to fastballs or sliders last year, so he’s likely done. But he supposedly does have a legendary work ethic, and at minimal cost or dependency, it’s not unthinkable he’d sneak in one more bounceback year to try to win a ring.
He looked pretty unable to catch up to fastballs or sliders last year, so he’s likely done. But he supposedly does have a legendary work ethic, and at minimal cost or dependency, it’s not unthinkable he’d sneak in one more bounceback year to try to win a ring.
No. Just no. The guy is most likely cooked and has a rep as a world class whiner. Seems like a bad combination to take a couple million dollar flier on. I think I'd rather see them give Brentz a real shot as the 4th OF and/or Swihart as a utilty player than flush a couple million dollars and have to push them off the roster.
Pedro Martinez: "I've always been loyal to the Red Sox."
It only such was 100% true:
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/luis-severino-pedro-martinez-improvements-mentor-yankees-red-sox-series/xc7kfzaqwck01xodnr695voyn
Also, it seems like a bad bet that Bautista will provide more value than Hanley this year. So if the Sox cut Hanley to sign Bautista, that would be pretty blatantly driven by trying to avoid the 2019 vesting, and even if there wouldn't be any grounds for union pushback there, it would smell pretty bad. Cutting Hanley to sign JDM is fine, because it clearly makes the team better. This, not so much.
Great point. I wasn't considering that Hanley would be the consequence of signing Bautista, primarily because chawson mentioned Bautista as potentially playing up to four defensive positions plus DH, which doesn't really read as a Hanley replacement so much as augmenting.
But just for kicks, if one replaces the other, Hanley in 2017 vs Bautista in 2017...
133 games, .242/.320/.429/.750, 95 OPS+, 23 HR
157 games, .203/.308/.366/.674, 76 OPS+, 23 HR
Hanley did it with a bum shoulder that required surgery after the season, so there's reason to hope he can rebound to be better with a healthier shoulder. Meanwhile Bautista is 3 years older coming off a worse season despite being (relatively) healthy. I'll take my chances with Hanley at $22M versus Bautista for $24-25M (his salary plus Hanley's if he's cut).
Agree. To be clear, this scenario presumed a JDM signing and corresponding Hanley move. I'd think Bautista would more accept a bench role on a contender than Hanley at this point, but he's not someone I'm about to proselytize for and I'd also like to see Swihart and Brentz.
Sorry, I missed the bench guy/10th man part from chawson's post. But signing Bautista looks to me like a bad idea in that scenario as well, for the reasons already mentioned.