Worst current Red Sox contract

[OCD SS]

As an aside, I think the habit of attaching an "untouchable" label on any prospect who shows even a modicum of success in the minors is kinda dumb. I get prospect love. I'm guilty of it myself at times, but they all aren't going to turn into stars or even average major leaguers.

 
Maybe, the flipside of the coin is the "why can't we get guys like that" lament.
 
In knowing what you have in prospects you get a lot more value from the player overall. Donaldson isn't going to not go to FA, but the Sox's young players (Betts/ Bogarts/ Swihart) could all potentially sign pre-arb FA deals that will further increase their value overall. These are up the middle talents where the potential performance just isn't available on the FA market. With hindsight over 55 games it looks bad, but during the FA I think it looked a lot more deffensible to spend $ on Pablo, who's a year younger than Donaldson, and keep the kids.

 

[lexrageorge]

I don't get the hate on the Ortiz contract.  He's as likely to rebound as anyone, if not more so.  And his payroll number is not hurting the team either this year or next.  
 
It's hard to vote on this, simply because it's way too early to pick a bad contract.  JD Drew's contract didn't look so hot his first year, and Lackey's contract looked many times worse during his first 3 seasons.  Hanley's contract looked great in April when he hit 10 HR's; hasn't looked so good since, but that's true team wide.  
 
Craig's contract was inherited; it was the price to get Joe Kelly, who may yet turn out to be OK.  And Craig's contract is no longer an issue.  
 
If I had to vote, I'd vote Castillo.  He was unproven and raw despite being 27.  Also, I'm not particularly fond of the Sandoval/Ramirez combination; I would have preferred one or the other, but not both.  But that's more of a roster construction issue than an issue with either contract.  

 

[brs3]

I hope someone revives this thread after Castillo's contract ends so we can see which of them were worth their money. I remain confident that Allen Craig will be the biggest disappointment per dollars spent. I get that he's not on the 40 man and that he wasn't even signed to the deal by the Sox, but he's owed money that the Red Sox won't find someone else to pay. I define worst contract by figuring out how useful the player currently is and will be for the rest of the contract. Craig shows the least amount of hope. 
 
How anyone is surprised by Sandoval is a surprise in itself. He has declined every season since 2011. 
 
edit: Maybe in 5 years I'll say Sandoval is the worst contract, but I'm going to hold out hope the 28 year old isn't on the wrong side of success yet.

 

[chrisfont9]

The Donaldson love isn't hindsight, everyone here wondered why the Sox didn't make that deal the moment it happened.  Of course, there were two other deals that also made everyone jealous: Brandon McCarthy, who is out for the season, and Jason Heyward (251/298/388, FA after this year) for Shelby Miller (1.89 ERA, three more years of club control).  They don't all work out like John Donaldson.

Agreed, it was worrisome at the time that we went with "Panda over Donaldson" and of course is even worse with 55 games' worth of hindsight, but I will admit to not hating the Sandoval deal when it happened. There is still time for him to play his way into that contract being no worse than a modest overpay along the lines of the cost of doing business. But it looks terrible now because of the numbers, as well as the fact that his "veteran leadership" attributes are barely relevant to a dead team like the Sox.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I voted Porcello because while I agree with other posters upthread that he could accrue more WAR than Castillo/Ramirez in LF/a dead Panda or Papi, simply via throwing a ton of innings of mediocre baseball, it seems very likely that we get four years of completely average MLB starting pitching for premium dollars. 
 
This is a guy with 1100+ innings of 96 ERA+ pitching under his belt. 
 
Sure, a lot of those were at a young age, but that also means he's got a ton of mileage on his arm for a guy his age. And his age 20 season is the second best season he's had. 
 
His and Miley's extensions, before they'd even pitched in Fenway, continue to be mind-boggling (even if Miley is on relatively short money). 

 

[mauf]

I hate MMQBing, especially based on limited samples. Sandoval and Craig were the only two deals where I had reservations from the outset, so those are my two picks. (I actually voted only for Sandoval, because I didn't see that I could vote for 2 until after I submitted my vote.)
 
That said, I'm really concerned about Porcello -- he doesn't look anything like the GB pitcher we thought we were getting. I'm not going to push the panic button after two months, but it's not hard to imagine his overpay over the next 4 years exceeding the entire amount owed to Craig.
 
We haven't seen enough of Castillo to pass judgment, and Hanley looked fine at the dish before he slammed into that wall. (His defense is another matter, but that's a short term problem -- he won't be in the OF again next season.)

 

[reggiecleveland]

The type of spending shown in the poll is reminiscent of 80s Yankee teams.
 
There is Hidecki Irabu, Danny Tratabull feeling there.
 
Sandoval seemed the best bet to have low value, a nonwalk guy, whose bat plays well at defensive spot, but is only worth the cash if he is able to perform in the field and hit at recent levels. He could only be worth the contract in a best case world.  

 

[The X Man Cometh]

I hate MMQBing, especially based on limited samples. Sandoval and Craig were the only two deals where I had reservations from the outset, so those are my two picks. (I actually voted only for Sandoval, because I didn't see that I could vote for 2 until after I submitted my vote.)
 
That said, I'm really concerned about Porcello -- he doesn't look anything like the GB pitcher we thought we were getting. I'm not going to push the panic button after two months, but it's not hard to imagine his overpay over the next 4 years exceeding the entire amount owed to Craig.
 
We haven't seen enough of Castillo to pass judgment, and Hanley looked fine at the dish before he slammed into that wall. (His defense is another matter, but that's a short term problem -- he won't be in the OF again next season.)

 
Yeah, I'm having a hard time slamming the Ramirez deal here. Between 3B, LF, 1B, DH... it seems like a safe assumption that they could find somewhere to play him. And his bat is that good, as we saw before he hurt his shoulder. Yeah, in hindsight it might not work out, but at the time, and without knowing anything about the guy's personality, it seemed like a reasonable move to make. Bring in a guy who is a below average fielder at 3B but an elite bat, and move him to another spot when the time comes/when Ortiz retires.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

From a Fangraphs chat yesterday re: Hanley:
 
Jeff Sullivan: I’m unconvinced he’s back close to 100% — I checked yesterday, and since his shoulder injury his average batted-ball velocity has gone down 11 miles per hour. Ramirez insists he’s ok, but at the very least, he might’ve ended up with an altered path, which is preventing him from consistently mashing.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I think it's Rusney and that it's not even close.  The Sox paid $70 mm for a 27 year-old player who:
 
- after the 2012 season had a grand total of 73 at bats in Cuba
 
- hit .274 with 6 HRs in 2012, his last full season in Cuba, in which he had only 234 ABs
 
- Did not play at all in 2013
 
- Had two monster seasons in Cuba, at ages 22-23
 
Stats:
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=castil000rus
 
How do you give that much coin to a minor leaguer (effectively) who had been either injured or on the beach for over two years, and in the last season in which did played put up rather pedestrian numbers?
 
The sad thing about this conversation is that you could make very solid cases for, in my view, second place for Sandoval and Porcello.  And let's not forget Koji who was pretty terrible toward the end of last season, and will be paid $18 mm in his first two years in his 40s.  Maybe the age part is not a huge thing because he doesn't rely on power but signing a guy for that kind of money off of a down year seems odd to me.
 
PS: Yes, we can have this discussion after 55 games.  The question is not:  "What the worst contract is after the benefit of seeing the whole season?"  It's: "What looks worst right now, based on the inputs you have as of now?"  The need some have to avoid discussing any judgments -- including judgments with caveats based on limited data -- in light of, horrors, a small sample size, is oppressive.  We get it, things could change.  I would LOVE to be wrong about Castillo.  I would love to see him become an all star and for whoever saw him to be right for having projected his success based on this 2011 and 2012 seasons, and the raw ability he showed thereafter, if not the numbers he put up.  But my problem is less the crappy numbers he's putting up now than the decision making process, and what the Sox ignored, surrounding their signing in the first place.    

 

[derekson]

The worst Red Sox contract is the extension they needlessly gave to Ben Cherington this spring. He had built 2 last place teams in 3 years, and this year's team is another dud so far. And the contracts on this list all came from Cherington. What exactly was the rush to lock him up?

 

[lexrageorge]

The worst Red Sox contract is the extension they needlessly gave to Ben Cherington this spring. He had built 2 last place teams in 3 years, and this year's team is another dud so far. And the contracts on this list all came from Cherington. What exactly was the rush to lock him up?

Disqualified for 3 reasons:
 
1.) You cannot quote the "2 last place teams in 3 years" without also acknowledging the World Series title.  
 
2.) Rotating GM's every 3 years is hardly a strategy for success.  
 
3.) Cherington's contract does not affect luxury tax or payroll flexibility. 

 

[chrisfont9]

Donaldson was kind of a late bloomer, first good season at 27. Is it possible he commanded less in possible trades because of that?

No, because he's not eligible to be a free agent until 2019, when he's 34. So pairing his next few years of arbitration with his production, I'd think he's especially valuable. He was worth 15 wins (BRef) over the previous two seasons, so you'd have to be pretty hung up on pedigree to not value him.

 

[EricFeczko]

I'm not sure if by worst the poll is asking for the dumbest contract (in one's own opinion), or the contract that will provide the least value. I voted "other" for Justin Masterson's contract.

The other contracts listed are too difficult to assess right now. To me, I can't really rate them based on the past 55 games compared to the last couple of years. Sandoval or Craig come closest to being the worst of the five, though Craig was packaged with a potential late bloomer in Joe Kelly, and Sandoval was still projected to provide some value at 3B (e.g. ~2-3 WAR/yr as an estimate).

Masterson's contract made no sense to me when it was a rumor. Masterson's fastball velocity dropped 3 MPH in 2014, his walk rate jumped two percent, and his line drive rate jumped 3 percent. They then signed him for 9.5 million, which could've been spent elsewhere. Not surprisingly, Masterson has continued to decline, dropping down to 88 MPH.

What a stupid contract.

EDIT: Part of what is throwing off my interpretation of the poll question is the title immediately above it: "Poll: which contract are you least happy about".

 

[Skip]

Sandoval for me. His attitude, approach, everything is wrong. Unless he changes his mentality I don't see him getting much success. Could Hanley really be any worse defensively at 3rd?
 
Firmly believe its only a matter of time till Rusney starts raking. 

 

[radsoxfan]

I think it's Rusney and that it's not even close.     

 
 
I have a tough time picking Castillo just because we know so little about him. Obviously the scouts saw something, there really has been so little sample in the US, and he has had to deal with such a major transition, I don't know what to think.  You may very well be right, and clearly the FO hasn't earned a ton of rope recently, but I don't know how to really pick him yet.
 
I also would not pick Masterson, Victorino, or Napoli based on the question as I interpret it.  Who has been the most useless or who has hurt the team most? Who has the least chance to rebound? What contract was the dumbest?  They could be candidates for some of those questions perhaps.  But not worst contract.
 
I think Pablo is the easy choice if you already didn't like the contract coming into the year.  55 games isn't a lot, and we know he is streaky, but its not looking good.  He was youngish for a FA when he signed, but big guys put a lot of tread on those tires faster than most I think, and 5 years at that money looks like a really bad idea.
 
The harder pick is the 2nd one to me.  Porcello certainly looks like an overpay at this point, but he is young and supposedly healthy.  I could see him giving around 15M in value a year, so even if he doesn't live up to the contract, I think its unlikely to be a total wash (I hope).  Just potentially excessive.
 
Hanley is a tough call as a man without a position.  If he starts hitting again, he might not be worth 22M/season as a DH, but again, he's just an overpay (by 5M/year?) rather than a total wash.
 
Craig is a decent choice, obviously there is a real a chance his 31M is a complete loss.  He has been better in Pawtucket I guess, but he was so bad the last couple years, hard to have any confidence in him. I suppose the luxury tax avoidance is nice, though I still think the team has some budget and the overall money lost matters. 
 
If forced to choose two… I'd pick Pando for sure, and I guess…. Craig?  I suppose you can make an argument Porcello and Hanley are at least worth 15M/season on 4 year deals right now, and thats not as bad as flushing 31M down the toilet if you have little to no faith in Craig. I reserve the right to slide Castillo in there if he hasn't shown anything by the end of the season. 
 
 
What a sad discussion huh?  Not a great 9 months for the FO. 

 

[radsoxfan]

 
 
Craig's contract was inherited; it was the price to get Joe Kelly, who may yet turn out to be OK.  
 

 
 
Not to hijack the thread, but this gets perpetually said, and I'm not sure why people think this is true.  
 
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-allen-craig-trade-possibility-crowded-outfield-030815
 

 
 
They asked repeatedly about Craig, and Cardinals GM John Mozeliak did not relent on him until the final 48 hours before the Lackey trade, sources said.

 
 
I suppose you can come up with a scenario where the Cardinals refused to trade Kelly, and the Red Sox kept asking about Craig because they knew he stunk, but they thought they could swallow his contract as a way to get Kelly. But if Rosenthal is right, the more likely scenario seems to me that they actually wanted Craig on that contract as part of the deal and felt it was value added. Is there something out there to contradict this? 
 
It doesn't change anything about Craig's current contract as it relates to this question of course. But it's worth noting if people want to keep saying the reason we have Craig is because we wanted Kelly so badly. 

 

[lexrageorge]

I view the question as the contract the Sox are most likely to regret.  Which means a combination of $$ and years remaining.
 
Victorino is on short money from here on out; the signing worked out wonderfully for the team in 2013, so I cannot see how anyone could regret the contract.  Same goes for Napoli.  Masterson may have been a mistake from a roster point of view, but his contract is not really a problem, as it's a one year deal, and the $$$ are not hampering this team at all.  

 

[Drek717]

Don't really have much of a problem with any of those deals.  I guess Porcello because it's very good/bordering on great starter money given to the guy before he pitched a single game for the club, but in the end I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's worth the money and the short years is very beneficial to the club.
 
Sandoval is what he is and is still in his prime.  Up until he took a fastball off the knee that I'd bet most of us expected to result in a DL stint when we first saw it he was doing pretty well.  He's struggling against LHP, sure, but he's streaky and it's a small sample.  I'd like to see Farrell continue to rest him at every opportunity against LHP to help the knee recoup, but I think he's a hot streak away from being back on track and the defense will improve as the knee does.
 
Hanley is a bat.  He's sucked in LF.  Is what it is.  LF is a placeholder job for him until DH and/or 1B open up.  It sucks that his shoulder got jacked up, until then he looked poised for a big year.  I think given a little more time to get his swing back after the shoulder injury and he'll be a force in the lineup once again.  Over the course of the deal I have little worry about him providing an impact in the lineup.
 
Craig was a lottery ticket, one that still has a chance to pay off and is now off the luxury tax hit.  I didn't like Lackey for Kelly and Craig, but now that it's done there are worse ways to spend ~$21M of untaxed money if you're the Boston Red Sox.
 
Castillo hasn't been up in the majors nearly long enough to even make a judgement, he was an exciting player in a brief stint last year, again in ST, and was doing well in AAA despite some injuries.  A little acclimation and a bit more distance from those injuries and then maybe we'll have a better idea what we have.
 
Still too early for me to get worked up over any of these deals.  Committing to Uehara for two more years worries me more than any of these, as Koji is clearly now in decline.  Some nights he comes in and simply doesn't have it.  Some nights he's good, but he still doesn't really look like 2013/first half of 2014 Koji at any point now.  Having another 1.5 seasons of him as the closer could mean more blown saves than we've been used to or can really afford.

 

[MikeM]

In one form or another, I pretty much hated every one of the contracts listed other then Hanley. But i was also among the small minority that was calling for his move to 1st even then, and still maintain the expectation/hope that he'll have a more successful transition there next year then we are seeing this year in LF. As far as which one i view as being the worst:
 
- Craig's contract is bad, but not big enough to warrant that level of concern.
 
- I'd classify the decision to overpay Porcello more as unnecessarily stupid then flat out terrible, although it probably clinched Ben MLB's Most Likely To Outbid Himself GM title. Bonus points given over the rest because even at worst, i can't realistically envision a non-injury scenario going forward where we'd ideally want to to go in another direction, but essentially can't/won't because Porcello's contract is defaulting him a rotation spot on this team. So there's that i guess. 
 
For me, that leaves it as kind of a tie between Panda and Castillo. Panda because it basically spit in the face of one of the core principles i believe Moneyball got completely right all those years ago, in that sometimes it's better to essentially do nothing (and keep the door open) then hand out mega contracts that have Day 1 Disaster written all over them. Castillo for the reasons TheoShmeo summed up better then i would have. 
 
If Moncada has a disappointing first season in the low minors, he'll certainly be worthy of serious consideration in this thread too/imo. 

 

[Rasputin]

If Moncada has a disappointing first season in the low minors, he'll certainly be worthy of serious consideration in this thread too/imo. 

 
This is insanity. 
 
I mean, the whole thread is embarrassing, but the notion that a 20 year old kid on a contract that is chump change relative to major league deals is going to be a bad signing if he doesn't have a good season at Low A Greenville is just over the top insane.
 
What the hell has happened around here? Has everyone lost every shred of perspective?

 

[MikeM]

 
This is insanity. 
 
I mean, the whole thread is embarrassing, but the notion that a 20 year old kid on a contract that is chump change relative to major league deals is going to be a bad signing if he doesn't have a good season at Low A Greenville is just over the top insane.
 
What the hell has happened around here? Has everyone lost every shred of perspective?

 
Funny how $30m, much less the $60m total, never tends to be viewed as "chump change" any time we speculate taking the back end risk on a front line starting pitcher contract. In my defense though, i never got the memo that my perspective was supposed to follow Ben in his own jump off the cliff and into an overvaluing youth abyss. 
 
Call me crazy but if you are going to drop that much coin on a Moncada...it comes with some pretty hefty expectations. If he spends the year struggling to hit Low A pitching, i'm going to be left feeling very disappointed. 

 

[threecy]

I don't get the hate on the Ortiz contract.  He's as likely to rebound as anyone, if not more so.

I won't disagree with the first statement, but I do disagree with the second.  Ortiz will be 40 in November.  There are only a handful of hitters who have so much as put up one elite season at this age.  Every slump at this juncture could be the proverbial cliff at the end of his career.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Funny how $30m, much less the $60m total, never tends to be viewed as "chump change" any time we speculate taking the back end risk on a front line starting pitcher contract. In my defense though, i never got the memo that my perspective was supposed to follow Ben in his own jump off the cliff and into an overvaluing youth abyss. 
 
Call me crazy but if you are going to drop that much coin on a Moncada...it comes with some pretty hefty expectations. If he spends the year struggling to hit Low A pitching, i'm going to be left feeling very disappointed. 

Ras is right, particularly in the case of Moncada. He's 20 and in low A ball. Signing bonus or not, he's at least three years away from realistically making the big leagues. A little bit struggle at low A ball shouldn't really be a blip on our radar, especially for a young immigrant adjusting to a new culture as well as pro ball. If he's not contribuing to the big league team in 3-4 years, then let the disappointment commence.

Serious question...why do we as fans give two shits about what the team spends? Particularly if it is money that has zero effect on the luxury tax when luxury tax implications are apparently the only financial inhibition this ownership has demonstrated in a dozen years in charge. Is the money spent on Moncada going to inhibit the team in any way (yes, the international bonus pool is shut off for a while, but if we're handwringing over Moncada, we'd be doing the same over the next guy too).

Correct me if I'm wrong also in saying that Moncada was being pursued by other teams. Let's not portray his deal as Ben carelessly throwing money at a kid for no reason. If he didn't, someone else would have. The "overvaluing youth" thing is not just a Ben thing. It's something of a league thing.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I guess I'm a Polyanna... I'm still confident that all these guys will come around.  FWIW,  I think Masterson and Craig won't... but Craig off the LT and Jedi on a one year keeps them off this list IMO.
I think Panda is still injured and he'll get on a hot streak and end up playing + defense with an OPS above .800.
Hanley is rough in the field, but I do think he'll end up at 1st and his defensive "skills" will play much better there rather than chasing tailing rockets all over the field.
Rusney has shown he can hit ML pitching (albeit in a SSS at the end of last season).  He'll end up full time in RF next season.
Porcello has had some great outings and I think he'll start to show consistency ( I could go Full Eric-Van here and make him look way better than he has with some nice edits on some outings).

 

[phenweigh]

I'm not sure if by worst the poll is asking for the dumbest contract (in one's own opinion), or the contract that will provide the least value. I voted "other" for Justin Masterson's contract.

The other contracts listed are too difficult to assess right now. To me, I can't really rate them based on the past 55 games compared to the last couple of years. Sandoval or Craig come closest to being the worst of the five, though Craig was packaged with a potential late bloomer in Joe Kelly, and Sandoval was still projected to provide some value at 3B (e.g. ~2-3 WAR/yr as an estimate).

Masterson's contract made no sense to me when it was a rumor. Masterson's fastball velocity dropped 3 MPH in 2014, his walk rate jumped two percent, and his line drive rate jumped 3 percent. They then signed him for 9.5 million, which could've been spent elsewhere. Not surprisingly, Masterson has continued to decline, dropping down to 88 MPH.

What a stupid contract.

EDIT: Part of what is throwing off my interpretation of the poll question is the title immediately above it: "Poll: which contract are you least happy about".

 
I'm in line with this line of thinking.  I tend to take an optimistic-fanboy judgment on the players, and I loved Masterson when he started his career with the Sox.  Yet I thought his signing made no sense.  Sure, it's just a one-year contract, but Justin seems like the only guy who's probability of contributing something positive in the future is near zero.

 

[iayork]

All these deals are chump change...Masterson, Craig, Castillo, Porcello, etc. for every single deal you hear the "it's only money!" mantra- until you add them all up and it is the whole damn payroll. When you are consistently overpaying every player (Pedroia and Tazawa look like the only good veteran deals) on the roster, you end up on situations like the one the Sox are in. And those questioning those decisions are the crazy ones? In Ben we trust, I guess.

Everyone questioning the size of the most recent contracts: I'd like to know what your comparison for "appropriate contract levels" is.  The salary landscape for baseball has changed spectacularly, and continues to change spectacularly.  If you are basing your judgement on contracts from just three or four years ago, you are hopelessly obsolete.
 
Salary charts for pitchers:

Spoiler

Salary charts for batters:

Spoiler

I think you will see what we call a "trend" in those charts.
 
Similarly, if you look at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/mlb/salaries/ and run some averages, you will find that the average salary in 2015 is 30% higher than in 2010.  Again, that's a 30% increase in salaries in five years. An 80 million dollar salary today is the equivalent of a 60 million salary five years ago.  
 
You may not like it, you may feel it's the devil's work and the ruination of the sport and for gosh sakes Martha can you believe these new-fangled otty-mobiles, but please let's try to deal with reality.  

 

[Devizier]

Craig gets my vote, as he appears finished as a major leaguer. All the other guys have plenty of time and talent to turn it around.

 

[radsoxfan]

Serious question...why do we as fans give two shits about what the team spends?

It seems fairly straightforward to me. The team obviously has some kind of budget, and if you have 100+M tied up in suck costs, near sunk costs, and significantly overpaid players, that's money that can't be used on players that would be more useful.

Until we find out that the Red Sox FO has decided to put no ceiling on the payroll whatsoever, of course this stuff matters.

 

[nvalvo]

Everyone questioning the size of the most recent contracts: I'd like to know what your comparison for "appropriate contract levels" is.  The salary landscape for baseball has changed spectacularly, and continues to change spectacularly.  If you are basing your judgement on contracts from just three or four years ago, you are hopelessly obsolete. (Snip)
 
 

Thank you.

People in here are acting like Porcello has an ace's contract when the actual aces are getting commitments 2-2.5 larger.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Everyone questioning the size of the most recent contracts: I'd like to know what your comparison for "appropriate contract levels" is.  The salary landscape for baseball has changed spectacularly, and continues to change spectacularly.  If you are basing your judgement on contracts from just three or four years ago, you are hopelessly obsolete.  

 
This is a fair point, and I think the answer depends a lot on the willingness of the FO (and ultimately, ownership) to cut bait on and/or subsidize the shopping of these contracts at some point. It's not the amount of money, so much as the length of the commitment, that I'm uneasy about with the Sandoval and Porcello contracts. The AAVs in both cases really aren't a ton of money any more, but they should still buy above-average performance, which neither guy has given us so far. Obviously it's way too early to assume that either guy can't turn that around. I'm a bit more optimistic about Porcello in this regard than Sandoval, because (1) Porcello hasn't changed leagues and (2) he should have one more good payday coming if he performs well, while Pablo probably doesn't, so his only incentives at this point will have to be internal.

 

[twibnotes]

 
Does anyone think the Sox could've gotten Donaldson without including Mookie or Swihart? What would a reasonable cost for Donaldson have been and how does that affect all the other dominoes?
 
55 games...

 
Even if Billy Beane was seeking more high level prospects, the Red Sox have a deep enough farm system to have figured something out.  Maybe you involve a third team.  
 
Being GM of the Sox is one of the biggest jobs in sports.  Finding a way to get Donaldson instead of dumping a big contract on Panda is the kind of creative deal-making we should expect from a Red Sox GM.

 

[twibnotes]

Serious question...why do we as fans give two shits about what the team spends? Particularly if it is money that has zero effect on the luxury tax when luxury tax implications are apparently the only financial inhibition this ownership has demonstrated in a dozen years in charge. Is the money spent on Moncada going to inhibit the team in any way (yes, the international bonus pool is shut off for a while, but if we're handwringing over Moncada, we'd be doing the same over the next guy too).

 
Just one man's perspective...I get bummed out for three reasons:
 
1) I think when the team throws around money relatively carelessly, it is not just money that is wasted.  You see less innovation, less creativity.  The best thinking often comes from being constrained and forced to look at things a different way.  If Ben is making a lot of bad investments, it is likely indicative of larger problems with scouting, player evaluation, the team's saber practices, etc - or just a weakness in the GM's ability to balance these inputs.
 
2) I enjoy watching younger players develop and grow with the team.  I also enjoy watching guys like Bill Mueller exceed expectations.  As a fan, I find it far less fulfilling to watch guys who are being paid for what they did instead of what they are doing.
 
3) I'll admit it - I like to have some moral high ground over the Yankees.  My dream Sox team would be Cardinals-like - not a cheap team, but not a team that one can argue "bought" anything

 

[ivanvamp]

Donaldson vs. Panda, offseason before the 2015 season…..
 
Donaldson
- 29 in 2015
- 2014 stats:  .255/.342/.456/.798, 126 ops+
- You'd have to give up at least one, maybe two, elite prospects to acquire him.
- Only signed through 2015, and the extension, if he plays well, will cost well north of $20m per season.
 
Panda
- 28 in 2015
- 2014 stats:  .279/.324/.415/.739, 113 ops+
- You only have to give up money to acquire him.
 
Is Donaldson better?  Yes.  Is he so much better (sitting there making the decision before this season began) that he's worth giving up one or two elite prospects for, knowing that you only had him for one year under contract (and we all know that doesn't guarantee him an extension)?
 
I think it's the essence of MMQB-ing to say the Sox should obviously have traded for Donaldson instead of simply signing Panda.

 

[Rasputin]

 
Funny how $30m, much less the $60m total, never tends to be viewed as "chump change" any time we speculate taking the back end risk on a front line starting pitcher contract. In my defense though, i never got the memo that my perspective was supposed to follow Ben in his own jump off the cliff and into an overvaluing youth abyss. 
 
Call me crazy but if you are going to drop that much coin on a Moncada...it comes with some pretty hefty expectations. If he spends the year struggling to hit Low A pitching, i'm going to be left feeling very disappointed. 

It's funny how the thirty million is never viewed as chump change when it's not the whole value of the contract? I'm shocked.

I'll be disappointed if he struggles too, but individual emotional responses don't make something a bad contract.

 

[radsoxfan]

Donaldson vs. Panda, offseason before the 2015 season..
 
Donaldson
- 29 in 2015
- 2014 stats:  .255/.342/.456/.798, 126 ops+
- You'd have to give up at least one, maybe two, elite prospects to acquire him.
- Only signed through 2015, and the extension, if he plays well, will cost well north of $20m per season.

Baseball reference has Donaldson as eligible for FA in 2019 (though I thought I heard 2018 somewhere else).

Regardless, that's a major factor in his value. Your post reads like he would have been a 1 year rental, which is not true.

I have no idea what Beane wanted and what it would had taken to get Donaldson so I find it hard to get very far in this argument. I can only assume Cherington at least touched base about him, but maybe there was no realistic way to make a trade (I wouldn't have traded Mookie for example).

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

Matt Duffy OPS+ 104
Middlebrooks OPS+ 96
Sandoval OPS+ 85
 
But I'm not worried about Sandoval, I think he will be worth his contract (relatively speaking). 
 
I voted for Castillo and other, i.e., Masterson.  Sandoval and Hanley are established players who will put up solid offensive numbers (at least), and Sandoval plays a nice 3b.  Craig is showing signs of life in AAA, makes me wonder if the Red Sox should deal Napoli, move Hanley to 1b, and promote Craig for LF.  The Red Sox could have waited on Porcello and perhaps signed him for a lesser amount, but he should perform fairly well.  I just don't know what Castillo is, he seems like a big risk to me.  He is not exactly 22 years old and yet we are expecting him to develop, grow, and mature as a major league player.  I think his ceiling is rather low, not worth the risk or the sizeable investment.  Signing the humble Christian missionary--so humble he turned down a 3 year 45 million dollar contract extension from the Indians--was a blatent error in judgment and an absolute waste of resources.  I never bought into the argument that Masterson's velocity decline was due to a knee injury, since his knee had improved and yet he was still awful with the Cardinals.  Masterson always had a terrible delivery, where he extends and whips his arm around, and I naturally assumed that his decline in velocity was due to a arm/shoulder issue that probably won't go away.    

 

[Rasputin]

All these deals are chump change...Masterson, Craig, Castillo, Porcello, etc. for every single deal you hear the "it's only money!" mantra- until you add them all up and it is the whole damn payroll. When you are consistently overpaying every player (Pedroia and Tazawa look like the only good veteran deals) on the roster, you end up on situations like the one the Sox are in. And those questioning those decisions are the crazy ones? In Ben we trust, I guess.

Now you're just making shit up. Who called the Porcello and Castillo deals chump change? The Masterson deal is chump change. The a Craig deal isn't really all that much money in terms of Red Sox payroll.

The Sox aren't consistently overpaying every player. They certainly aren't overpaying Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, or Eduardo v Rodriguez.

It's way too really to be calling these bad deals. It's easy too early to be classifying them as overpays. There's a very good chance that Porcello, Castillo, and Ramirez are going to be underpaid by these deals.

The situation the Sox are in is a good one. You aren't crazy for questioning Ben--lord knows I've done it too--but you're being remarkably short sighted and oblivious when you chalk up multi year deals as overpays two months in. Some of these guys are going to end up being underpaid not over the life of their contract, but this year.

 

[ivanvamp]

Baseball reference has Donaldson as eligible for FA in 2019 (though I thought I heard 2018 somewhere else).

Regardless, that's a major factor in his value. Your post reads like he would have been a 1 year rental, which is not true.

I have no idea what Beane wanted and what it would had taken to get Donaldson so I find it hard to get very far in this argument. I can only assume Cherington at least touched base about him, but maybe there was no realistic way to make a trade (I wouldn't have traded Mookie for example).

 
Yep good catch.  I totally misread Donaldson's contract.  
 
So yeah, now you're talking about Donaldson under control through 2018 versus Panda under the same length.  Donaldson is a year older, and would cost probably a lot in prospects.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

All these deals are chump change...Masterson, Craig, Castillo, Porcello, etc. for every single deal you hear the "it's only money!" mantra- until you add them all up and it is the whole damn payroll. When you are consistently overpaying every player (Pedroia and Tazawa look like the only good veteran deals) on the roster, you end up on situations like the one the Sox are in. And those questioning those decisions are the crazy ones? In Ben we trust, I guess.

The bolded is why I think Moncada (and Craig, for that matter) should never now be considered among the worst current contracts on the team.

Not only aren't these two players taking up precious space on the 25-man roster that should be afforded to players able to contribute better, but their monies aren't limiting the Sox in any respect as to the MLB luxury tax either.

Moncada may turn out to be a bad contract. And Craig's is definitely a terrible contract, don't get me wrong. But the Sox making them the best paid players in the Carolina and International Leagues doesn't limit the Boston Red Sox's options in any real way going forward. Not now that Craig's off the MLB payroll, at least. Even though the thought of so much cash circling the drain is infuriating.

 

[soxhop411]

 
Even if Billy Beane was seeking more high level prospects, the Red Sox have a deep enough farm system to have figured something out.  Maybe you involve a third team.  
 
Being GM of the Sox is one of the biggest jobs in sports.  Finding a way to get Donaldson instead of dumping a big contract on Panda is the kind of creative deal-making we should expect from a Red Sox GM.

Do we really think that BC didn't touch base with BB about Donaldson? The media crusified BB after the Donaldson trade. For all we know he was dead set on acquiring the players he got from the Blue Jays

 

[iayork]

I understand contracts are getting higher, but if Porcello is one of the top 20 highest paid pitchers, it would be nice if he performed like one. Just because salaries have gone up doesn't mean these are good deals- none of these guys are particularly close to providing value close to what they are being paid. To have one of the highest payrolls and worst records shows something is off.

He's not one of the 20 highest-paid pitchers.
 
You can look this stuff up, you know.

 

[MikeM]

Do we really think that BC didn't touch base with BB about Donaldson? The media crusified BB after the Donaldson trade. For all we know he was dead set on acquiring the players he got from the Blue Jays

 
As tempting as it may be given the timing and rather questionable 9 months of decision making on the table, i do believe you have to give Ben a pass on this one. 
 
Expecting a GM to keep tabs on what every other GM is thinking at all times, about every individual player no less, doesn't really fly past it's theory imo. I personally didn't see anybody having the A's down as trading Donaldson this winter. Heck, with the need at the time even a whispered pre-rumor of it would have likely generated a monster thread here. 
 
So yeah, i'd chalk that up as Billy seeing something he liked, and being dead set on acquiring the players he got from the Jays. 

 

[nvalvo]

I understand contracts are getting higher, but if Porcello is one of the top 20 highest paid pitchers, it would be nice if he performed like one. Just because salaries have gone up doesn't mean these are good deals- none of these guys are particularly close to providing value close to what they are being paid. To have one of the highest payrolls and worst records shows something is off.

He's only one of the top 20 highest paid pitchers because a) he traded years for AAV and b) he's the most recent pitching contract.

Edit: or maybe he isn't.

 

[glennhoffmania]

He's not one of the 20 highest-paid pitchers.
 
You can look this stuff up, you know.

He absolutely is. His salary is the 16th highest for pitchers in MLB history. Everyone understands that the length of the deal matters too. But in terms of payroll and AAV for luxury tax purposes for the next four years he's one of the highest paid pitchers in baseball.

 

[soxhop411]

 
As tempting as it may be given the timing and rather questionable 9 months of decision making on the table, i do believe you have to give Ben a pass on this one. 
 
Expecting a GM to keep tabs on what every other GM is thinking at all times, about every individual player no less, doesn't really fly past it's theory imo. I personally didn't see anybody having the A's down as trading Donaldson this winter. Heck, with the need at the time even a whispered pre-rumor of it would have likely generated a monster thread here. 
 
So yeah, i'd chalk that up as Billy seeing something he liked, and being dead set on acquiring the players he got from the Jays. 

Exactly my point. And even if the sox didn't have a need don't you think BB could have gotten a much better package if he had an "open bidding"

 

[iayork]

He absolutely is. His salary is the 16th highest for pitchers in MLB history. Everyone understands that the length of the deal matters too. But in terms of payroll and AAV for luxury tax purposes for the next four years he's one of the highest paid pitchers in baseball.

 
Meh.  I'm wrong; as of now his 2016- and on salary is in the top 20.  I'll bet that in 2016, it won't be  As of this year, he's about 30th; I'll bet that by this time next year, he'll still be about 30th.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I understand contracts are getting higher, but if Porcello is one of the top 20 highest paid pitchers, it would be nice if he performed like one. Just because salaries have gone up doesn't mean these are good deals- none of these guys are particularly close to providing value close to what they are being paid. To have one of the highest payrolls and worst records shows something is off.

 
 

He's not one of the 20 highest-paid pitchers.
 
You can look this stuff up, you know.

 
Plus, the point you made that Rudy missed, spectacularly, was that as the landscape changes, comparing pitchers dollar for dollar when they weren't signed in the same off season is folly. 20 million today isn't what it was 3, 4 or 5 years ago, so saying "If Porcello is one of the top 20 pitchers, it'd be nice if he performed like one" is tossing that evolving market out the window for the sake of an easy complaint.

 

[kazuneko]

 
 
Re Donaldson: at first when I hear people suggest that he could have been had for something less than the Red Sox "untouchable" prospects, it makes me think some of you are on drugs (you very well may be anyway; and more power to you), but then I remember that Donaldson and Beane have argued more than once and Beane may have just wanted him gone. At the very least, the Sox would have had to match the Lawrie+ price that Beane ended up getting from the Jays.
 
As an aside, I think the habit of attaching an "untouchable" label on any prospect who shows even a modicum of success in the minors is kinda dumb. I get prospect love. I'm guilty of it myself at times, but they all aren't going to turn into stars or even average major leaguers.

This. I don't care what Beane might have asked in return for Donaldson. MVP candidates at your position of biggest need that are cost controlled until 2019 are worth giving up your best prospects for. Donaldson isn't a pitcher in his mid-30s on an expensive contract - he's a young stud in his prime.  I love Mookie, but if BC refused to include Mookie (and/or Swihart) in a potential trade for Donaldson then he overvalues prospects. 

 

[dynomite]

What the hell has happened around here? Has everyone lost every shred of perspective?

I certainly agree that I've been surprised by the level of anger on here and in my subjective experience talking to others and listening to talk radio. It's hard to believe that the Sox are only 19 months removed from a World Series championship. For my part, when I sat in Section 15 and got misty eyed during Game 6 in '13 I promised myself I would try to refrain from criticizing the Red Sox for at least 5 years and ideally 10, and am doing my best to hold up my end of the bargain.

Still, I think I understand the frustration to a degree. Since 2009 the Red Sox have only made the playoffs once. If they miss the playoffs this season, it will be the fewest playoff appearances in a 5-year stretch since the early 1990s. I do not agree with those who want to fire everyone on the team, but they certainly have witnessed a lot of bad baseball and bad contracts in this decade.

Expecting a GM to keep tabs on what every other GM is thinking at all times, about every individual player no less, doesn't really fly past it's theory imo. I personally didn't see anybody having the A's down as trading Donaldson this winter. Heck, with the need at the time even a whispered pre-rumor of it would have likely generated a monster thread here.

Well, this is simply not accurate. From October 1st last year:

In this morning’s Insider-only blog, ESPN’s Buster Olney writes that he feels a Josh Donaldson trade is likely for the Athletics this offseason. Billy Beane has shown a willingness to trade players at their peak value, Olney writes (citing the Gio Gonzalez and Trevor Cahill trades, among others), and Donaldson’s salary will begin to rise quickly now that he’s hit arbitration. Olney looks at the rest of Oakland’s roster and notes that no other trade candidate has value as high as Donaldson’s, so while Jeff Samardzija would be an attractive chip, Donaldson could help Beane usher in his next roster reconstruction.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/al-notes-donaldson-tomas-red-sox-cabrera-smoak.html

It was clear to most people inside baseball that -- after their 2nd half collapse and losing Lester to free agency -- Oakland was going to blow that roster up and rebuild.

---

Finally, to answer the question posed, in the spirit of upholding my "no criticizing for 5-10 years" pledge, I will say this:

I would like to hear Cherington explain the thinking behind paying Justin Masterson $9.5 million and slotting him in the rotation. Putting aside the money, I would be interested to hear why the front office thought that Masterson would be an upgrade over their AAA pitchers (Wright, Hot Rod, etc.) headed into the season.