Worst current Red Sox contract

Which contract is the worst on the team?

  • Pablo Sandoval - 5yrs/95

    Votes: 221 59.1%
  • Hanley Ramirez - 4yrs/88

    Votes: 25 6.7%
  • Rick Porcello - 2016-2019 4 yrs/82.5

    Votes: 61 16.3%
  • Allen Craig - 2013/2017 31mil + 1 option yr

    Votes: 132 35.3%
  • Rusney Castillo - 7yrs 72.5 mill

    Votes: 70 18.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 16 4.3%

  • Total voters
    374

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
dynomite said:
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.
 
 
Ok, so there is one random guy throwing something at the wall.
 
I mean c'mon though. With both the Sox and Yankees going into an offseason with a need at 3B, and the possibility existing that somebody goes over the top of them, do you really think it doesn't leak early that Beane is taking offers on Donaldson?
 
If this was actually the case, it likely would have gotten as much media play as Hamels. 
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Thought I'd waste some time and check in on the 2013 All Star Class (hitters only).
 
There were 44 members, 5 are retired. My goal was to show how shitty some good hitters can get over 2 years. I was surprised how wrong I was.
 
11 have OPS+ 100 or under today. All but 3 have a negative WAR. In order of suckitude:
 
Allen Craig
Everth Cabrera
Carlos Gonzales
Robinson Cano
Yadier Molina
Carlos Beltran
Ben Zobrist
David Ortiz
Salvadore Perez
Joe Mauer
Jean Segura
 
All the rest remain better than average. Those still OPS+'ng over 140 (lowest to highest) are:
 
Freddie Freeman 143
Joey Votto 147
Jose Bautista 148
Matt Carpenter 151
Jason Kipnis 153 (3.3 WAR)
Mike Trout 162
Prince Fielder 164
Miguel Cabrera 174
Nelson Cruz 184
Paul Goldschmidt 206 (3.8 WAR)
Bryce Harper 219 (4.4 WAR)
 
This proves nothing (except the Red Sox have 2 of the worst declines and Robinson Cano should make us feel better), but I put time into it so I'm posting. I still think this thread is for shit.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
dynomite said:
I don't mean to sound snarky or rude, but calling Buster Olney "one random guy" is pretty funny.
But you don't think if he was actually "available" that the package would have been stronger than what they actually got? NYY and BOS just off the top of my head would be two teams who would be heavily involved in bidding. Because really the package that BB got was pretty crappy for a player like Donaldson
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Rudy Pemberton said:
I said Porcello was one of the highest paid pitchers in the league- how many will make more than him when that contract kicks in? I know, I know....lots of pitchers are making that kind of money now....except, they really aren't.

Given what he makes, it would be nice if he were pitching better. Can't we all agree on that?
You are still missing the point.
 

fineyoungarm

tweets about his subwoofer!
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2011
9,187
New Orleans, LA
Red(s)HawksFan said:
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.
I like this question a lot. I think it is because serious Red Sox fans want it all - best team, for modest money (unlike the Yankees) especially with a couple of steals (so we can gloat), best kids coming out of AAA,  smartest and cleverest GM, craftiest field manager, who is also a great leader of men. The whole nine yards.  Although we'll settle for world championships. 
 
As for contracts, I've never gotten over Danny Cater although that dodges the question. However, at least the book is closed on him and we know that, at age 75, he is never going to hammer the left field wall.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
Rudy Pemberton said:
I said Porcello was one of the highest paid pitchers in the league- how many will make more than him when that contract kicks in? I know, I know....lots of pitchers are making that kind of money now....except, they really aren't.
 
Well, a number of the FA starting pitchers who sign deals this offseason will get paid more than Porcello's 4/$82.5 that will be kicking in along with them. Zimmerman, Cueto, Price, Greinke (if he opts out), likely Fister, conceivably even guys like Ian Kennedy (if he settles in) or Yovani Gallardo who aren't especially good, but have been the best SP on some decent teams. Some of them, a lot more. And he'll tumble down that list. 
 
What's Bud Norris going to get? Mike Pelfrey? I'd say that tier of pitcher gets less in FA than Porcello's extension, but not so much less as you might expect. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
curly2 said:
 
I think they could have done it with:
 
1. Middlebrooks: A good reclamation projecct for Beane
2. Cecchini: Still had value at the end of last season. Seems like an A's type of player, and would have been insurance if WMB bombed.
 
3. Owens: Don't worry, I wasn't going to suggest a Donaldson deal without a top prospect.
4. Marrero OR Margot: Either an MLB-ready defensive shortstop or a high-ceiling guy for the future.
 
As for how the dominoes fall, Donaldson provides the third base option that Sandoval did AND the right-handed power that Hanley did, so you don't need to sign either guy. They could have planned an outfield of Mookie in center, Castillo in right and Victorino/Nava/Craig in left.
 
People are way underestimating Brett Lawrie.  The comparison with Middlebrooks (much better plate discipline and more consistent minor league track record) or Cecchini (defense and power is night and day) is just nonexistent.  Beane took Lowrie because there was a reasonable expectation that he would be as good as Donaldson this year, that's not a reasonable expectation for Middlebrooks or Cecchini.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Skip said:
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. 
Panda's attitude? I've only heard good things about him as a person and a teammate. Care to elaborate?
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,591
NY
Snodgrass'Muff said:
You are still missing the point.
He really isn't. He's simply saying that Porcello makes a lot of money and he's looked pretty shitty overall in year one. How much other guys sign for next year or the year after doesn't negate the point that Porcello so far doesn't look like he was worth his extension.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,591
NY
nvalvo said:
 
Well, a number of the FA starting pitchers who sign deals this offseason will get paid more than Porcello's 4/$82.5 that will be kicking in along with them. Zimmerman, Cueto, Price, Greinke (if he opts out), likely Fister, conceivably even guys like Ian Kennedy (if he settles in) or Yovani Gallardo who aren't especially good, but have been the best SP on some decent teams. Some of them, a lot more. And he'll tumble down that list. 
 
What's Bud Norris going to get? Mike Pelfrey? I'd say that tier of pitcher gets less in FA than Porcello's extension, but not so much less as you might expect. 
Zimmermann, Cueto, Price, and Greinke are among the best in baseball and will be free agents. Porcello was neither of those two things. Greinke already does make more than him and the other three guys should make more than him. I'll be very surprised if Gallardo and Kennedy get Porcello money.

The best thing about Porcello's deal was that it's only four additional years while he's still young. But it's really hard to see right now how it was a bargain.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
glennhoffmania said:
Zimmermann, Cueto, Price, and Greinke are among the best in baseball and will be free agents. Porcello was neither of those two things. Greinke already does make more than him and the other three guys should make more than him. I'll be very surprised if Gallardo and Kennedy get Porcello money.

The best thing about Porcello's deal was that it's only four additional years while he's still young. But it's really hard to see right now how it was a bargain.
It was a gamble. What if we didn't sign him and he pitched really well this season. I would think he gets more than he got when he signed in the offseason
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
glennhoffmania said:
He really isn't. He's simply saying that Porcello makes a lot of money and he's looked pretty shitty overall in year one. How much other guys sign for next year or the year after doesn't negate the point that Porcello so far doesn't look like he was worth his extension.
 
This year Porcello's xFIP places him 39th among starting pitchers.  Not at all great so far, but the 39th-highest pitchers' annual salary this year is $11,500,000 -- marginally less than Porcello is making.  He's doing just about what he's paid to do this year, even if he never gets any better.
 
By the time Porcello's contract is over, 50th-rank pitchers will be making over $15,000,000 per year, assuming present trends continue.  Is Porcello going to be a significantly worse pitcher in every year going forward, than in his first dozen games here?  
 
You can say you don't like the contract; that's fine.  It may not be a great contract.  But for it to be as disastrous as you seem to think, Porcello would have to be one of the worst pitchers in the league every year until 2019. If he's just average, that's OK, because in a few years his salary will be more or less an average salary.  All he'll have to do to be worth his 21,000,000 is be a mediocre pitcher.  Any more than that is gravy.  If Porcello's arm doesn't fall off, then the contract will work out just fine.
 
That's why owners are signing players for long extensions now.  Because baseball salaries are exploding so fast that a top-ten salary today will be a mid-level salary in a few years.  Even if you're signing a player who is only a little better than average, you'll come out ahead at the end of the contract.  In general, people who can afford to buy a baseball team understand trivial economics.  
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,591
NY
Iayork, I don't think it's a disaster. My view on it actually hasn't changed since the day it was signed. At that time I said it's not a terrible deal but I doubt it'll end up being at all a bargain for the team. The post you quoted was simply me trying to interpret what Rudy was saying.

The deal isn't terrible because of the length. And yes, in five years when we account for salary inflation he won't be very expensive relatively speaking. But if he performs over the next two years like he's performing right now it'll be hard to see how this is such a team friendly deal in the short term. Disastrous? No. But some people around here thought Ben got a steal when it was signed. That clearly hasn't been the case so far. Of course, he could improve significantly during the term of the deal and turn it into a very valuable contract for the team.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I'm ok with the Porcello deal in the sense that they had to lock someone up to stabilize things.  The Zimmerman, Cueto, free agent crop will be a shit ton more per year and for at least two years more (maybe even 7 or 8 total year deals).
 
The high home run and fly ball rate is the concern for me before the weather has really heated up. He has been a 51% ground ball guy over his career, so I'm hoping the current 43% ticks back up.  He'll never be a big WAR guy because of the low K rate, but the inning chewing will help.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
glennhoffmania said:
Iayork, I don't think it's a disaster. My view on it actually hasn't changed since the day it was signed. At that time I said it's not a terrible deal but I doubt it'll end up being at all a bargain for the team. The post you quoted was simply me trying to interpret what Rudy was saying.

The deal isn't terrible because of the length. And yes, in five years when we account for salary inflation he won't be very expensive relatively speaking. But if he performs over the next two years like he's performing right now it'll be hard to see how this is such a team friendly deal in the short term. Disastrous? No. But some people around here thought Ben got a steal when it was signed. That clearly hasn't been the case so far. Of course, he could improve significantly during the term of the deal and turn it into a very valuable contract for the team.
 
Who is saying it is a team friendly deal?  They overpaid in average annual salary to get a contract that ended before he turned 31.  That's what everybody and their brother was saying the Red Sox should do all winter.  Then they do it, and everybody focuses on the AAV instead of the term.  Porcello had a poor start; it happens.  Robby Cano has an OPS below 650; maybe he's all washed up too.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
iayork said:
That's why owners are signing players for long extensions now.  Because baseball salaries are exploding so fast that a top-ten salary today will be a mid-level salary in a few years.  Even if you're signing a player who is only a little better than average, you'll come out ahead at the end of the contract.  In general, people who can afford to buy a baseball team understand trivial economics.  
 
Is it all baseball contracts that are exploding so fast, or is it the top couple of cream of the crop free agents getting signed every winter that are going on to essentially skew the totals in your proposed league wide trend? 
 
Nobody is doubting that the top 1 or 2 legitimate front line starting pitchers that hit the market are going to get their money. Or that the buy in rate to play at that table seems to be escalating at a notably high rate. Heck, for all the talk that goes on every winter over starting pitcher options we'd like if wasn't for that deal breaking extra year or 2, the inflation factor accounts for why pretty much every top end starting pitcher signed in free agency over the last half decade (not named CJ Wilson) got a favorable mention as a potential trade target in this past winter's mega thread. 
 
Now if people were using this proposed trend to make the argument on why going after select top of the food chain targets might not be the biggest evil in the room anymore, i'd personally follow this line of thought more. But taking a look at the 5 year trend outside what those guys are getting every winter, i'm failing to see how *that* trend applies to a notion that we should reasonably expect the Rick Porcellos of the world to be regularly commanding $20m/per deals any winter now. At least when it's not Ben, and his current willingness to pay record setting value rates on a guy's age, signing these contracts. The same definitive inflation rate just doesn't seem to be there without that "best option up for grabs" working in their favor. 
 
Did we really pay more for shorter years, or simply go all in on the long shot bet that ends up giving away a free 1-2 years on the back end of a contract the 5th best FA starter was realistically going to pull out of next year's market?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Plympton91 said:
 
People are way underestimating Brett Lawrie.  The comparison with Middlebrooks (much better plate discipline and more consistent minor league track record) or Cecchini (defense and power is night and day) is just nonexistent.  Beane took Lowrie because there was a reasonable expectation that he would be as good as Donaldson this year, that's not a reasonable expectation for Middlebrooks or Cecchini.
QFT. Unless you think the Sox should have offered Bogaerts, they weren't going to land Donaldson, because they didn't have a cost-controlled, established major leaguer like Lawrie to offer.
 

Skip

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
233
Ireland
Tyrone Biggums said:
Panda's attitude? I've only heard good things about him as a person and a teammate. Care to elaborate?
I live in Ireland, last thing I'm bringing is insider info on Panda as a person!
 
I'm just going off what I see on the diamond. How he conducts himself and his general body language out there so far. He doesn't strike me as a guy desperate to win as he bobbles another ground ball. Maybe I'm being harsh though. 
 
We face a lot of average rightys this week though so I actually like his chances of maybe having a good week and shutting some of us doubters up for a while. 
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
iayork said:
 
This year Porcello's xFIP places him 39th among starting pitchers.  Not at all great so far, but the 39th-highest pitchers' annual salary this year is $11,500,000 -- marginally less than Porcello is making.  He's doing just about what he's paid to do this year, even if he never gets any better.
 
By the time Porcello's contract is over, 50th-rank pitchers will be making over $15,000,000 per year, assuming present trends continue.  Is Porcello going to be a significantly worse pitcher in every year going forward, than in his first dozen games here?  
 
You can say you don't like the contract; that's fine.  It may not be a great contract.  But for it to be as disastrous as you seem to think, Porcello would have to be one of the worst pitchers in the league every year until 2019. If he's just average, that's OK, because in a few years his salary will be more or less an average salary.  All he'll have to do to be worth his 21,000,000 is be a mediocre pitcher.  Any more than that is gravy.  If Porcello's arm doesn't fall off, then the contract will work out just fine.
 
That's why owners are signing players for long extensions now.  Because baseball salaries are exploding so fast that a top-ten salary today will be a mid-level salary in a few years.  Even if you're signing a player who is only a little better than average, you'll come out ahead at the end of the contract.  In general, people who can afford to buy a baseball team understand trivial economics.  
small quibble, but didn't they say this about housing in 2007?
 
Baseball salaries are not linear and will not continue to go up in this straight line, at some point there will be a pull back due to some unforeseen event.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,467
Somewhere
benhogan said:
Baseball salaries are not linear and will not continue to go up in this straight line, at some point there will be a pull back due to some unforeseen event.
 
Pull back in rate of increase. Even as the economy collapsed, MLB outlays kept increasing.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
TheoShmeo said:
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?
His 2012 line was a substantial drop from his 2010 and 2011 seasons, which isn't unusual for cubans in their defection year.  Jose Abreu saw a ~.300 OPS drop for example.  Yasmani Tomas, at similar ages as Castillo, saw a similar defection year drop.  It makes sense as I'm sure it is a stressful time and frequently results in some form of punitive playing time reduction if the player is unsuccessful on a prior attempt.  This happened to Castillo, as he was kept off the 2013 World Baseball Classic team specifically for trying to defect.
 
Also, the $72.5M total value is a bit of a misnomer as one of those seven years is the 2014 season.  The talent exodus at the 2014 deadline allowed for the Sox to add Castillo and effectively hide $10.36M of his total salary into the 2014 financials, making him cheaper for the remaining six.  If you write off that first year as a zero liability cost of doing business Castillo's effective contract is 6 years, $62M.
 
I do feel like Castillo's signing was a bit of a knee jerk reaction from just losing out on Abreu for similar money.  Abreu's pedigree and timing of ML transition was better than Castillo's yet the Sox pulled back for about the same deal they ended up giving Castillo.  Then Abreu blew up big in 2014 while the Sox offense fell apart and Napoli was in and out of the lineup at 1B, 3B was a black hole, etc..
 
Worst contract on the team right now?  Maybe, but then I think we're all going to love Hanley's tenure here and Sandoval, other than being awful against LHP and having some fielding issues following getting clocked in the knee real good, is meeting or exceeding my expectations.  Porcello is a hedge on what the pitching market will look like this winter, maybe Cherington is right, maybe he's full of shit.  We'll find out this winter.
 
I really do think it's Koji.  Giving that second year just makes no sense to me.  Father time catches up with us all and last year he looked to be well on Koji's trail.  Why not a one year deal?  It's shorter money, but if it keeps Koji locked in as the closer through 2016 it could have very negative results on the team.  That, Porcello, and extending Miley also raise questions about why Cherington is always paying at or close to market value when he has exclusive rights to a player. 
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
Drek717 said:
 
I really do think it's Koji.  Giving that second year just makes no sense to me.  Father time catches up with us all and last year he looked to be well on Koji's trail.  Why not a one year deal?  It's shorter money, but if it keeps Koji locked in as the closer through 2016 it could have very negative results on the team.  That, Porcello, and extending Miley also raise questions about why Cherington is always paying at or close to market value when he has exclusive rights to a player. 
Wow, the second year of Koji for $9MM makes it the worst contract on the team?  
 
How do you feel about the $9.5MM we wrote for Masterson or the Mujica deal?
 
Even with an 87mph fastball and pitching 3 straight days Koji is worlds more effective then those two.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
benhogan said:
Wow, the second year of Koji for $9MM makes it the worst contract on the team?  
 
How do you feel about the $9.5MM we wrote for Masterson or the Mujica deal?
 
Even with an 87mph fastball and pitching 3 straight days Koji is worlds more effective then those two.
 
I don't think it's so much the money that is the concern as the unnecessary commitment to a 41 year old pitcher.  If he's toast by the end of this year, they're still locked into bringing him back in 2016 (they're unlikely to simply eat the $9M without giving him a shot to rebound).  Mujica is a fair comparison even though he made half the money...he was disappointing in 2014, but he was here at the start of the year and they gave him 4-5 weeks on the roster before finally pulling the plug.  Koji probably gets a longer leash than that based on his history alone, let alone the financial commitment.  I can see where that could potentially be detrimental.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Rudy Pemberton said:
If you don't think Koji is worth 2 years, why even sign him for one? Think of it this way....if you can get him for 1 year, what is the cost? Maybe $12M or something? If he has a good season, what do you do for the next year? GIve him another 1 year, $12M deal? The only way the one year deal is better than 2 is if he completely falls apart...and if you think that's a reasonable outcome (and one easily could), than I'm not sure why you even bring him back.
 
I can buy the "if he's not worth two, why sign for one" if he were a 30 year old.  Not for a 40 year old though.  I mean, was there a huge concern that some team was going to sign him to multiple years last winter?  The worst that might have happened if they stuck to one year only and simply outbid everyone is they have him for one year at a potentially above market rate...in a year where they're already committing to blow by the luxury tax cap.
 
If he's good in 2015, you can approach it the same way in 2016.  As a 41 year old, he's still not going to command multi-year deals elsewhere so it's again only a matter of outbidding other teams.  If he's good, fine.  If not (in either season), it's only money and they can Mujica him.
 
I'd take 2 years of good to okay Koji at $25M total by going year to year over the chance of being stuck paying $18M total for two years of okay to useless Koji.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Rudy Pemberton said:
They offered him the QO, though...once they did that they were kind of stuck giving him a two year deal unless they wanted to give him a huge one-year salary.
 
They didn't offer the QO.  They signed him before that was even necessary (signed 10/30/14, QO deadline was 11/3/14).
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
benhogan said:
Wow, the second year of Koji for $9MM makes it the worst contract on the team?  
 
How do you feel about the $9.5MM we wrote for Masterson or the Mujica deal?
 
Even with an 87mph fastball and pitching 3 straight days Koji is worlds more effective then those two.
Masterson is a one year deal, the money is already spent, if they don't trust him to produce he can be released.
 
I think Mujica is a worthwhile comp, but he made half the money and as a result was quickly moved out of a high leverage role.
 
Imagine someone with Mujica's inconsistency making $9.5M and as the entrenched closer for the last several years, a player favorite, and a fan favorite.  If Koji is toast by the end of this season, which given how many times he's taken the mound already this season and clearly just not had it is a real possibility, how many games will he need to lose before he's taken out of the close and late equation?  It'll be more than anyone else would get, and that $9.5M owed in 2016 will be part of why.
 
In fact, I'm worried about him turning into a pumpkin by mid-season this year and the club being unwilling to pull him from the closer role in large part because of that 2016 commitment.  His BB/9 is up to 2.8 versus a consistent 1.1 each of the last two years and a sub-1 for several seasons before that.  His K/9 is down by 1.3 from last year, 2.3 from 2013.  As a result of those two factors he's gone from a >10 K/BB guy to a 3.5 K/BB guy.  That was/is Koji's calling card.  No free bases and a splitter that can be unhittable even when you know it's coming.  Both traits have been inconsistent this year and given how he broke down last season as the innings piled up there isn't much reason to hope he'll trend up instead of down.
 
I don't care about how much of John Henry's money someone costs.  i care about how likely they are to cost the team wins based on their contract.  Hanley, Pablo, and Rusney might cost wins in the abstract "what they could have done otherwise" sense, but even if all three are worth far less than their contracts I'd bet on all three being league average or better players for the duration of their respective deals.  Koji could be toast by the end of this season and still would almost assuredly continue to see high leverage work until it has directly hurt the club in terms of multiple blown saves.
 
He's the equivalent of buying an expensive Italian motorcycle for a pro athlete.  A very expensive way to acquire a pretty significant risk.  The money isn't the real problem, it just highlights it, the real problem is when you crash into the wall and have reconstructive knee surgery, or in this case blow three games in a week during the middle of a pennant/wild card race.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,370
Not sure I understand how it isn't Sandoval. 
 
This could easily be a Joe Mauer contract if his body doesn't hold up and he's stuck with middling power at 1B. I have no issue with Hanley at DH when Ortiz retires; Hanley is a premium bat and further, it was worth the gamble to see if he'd hold up in left. 
 
But Sandoval could be James Loney or Mauer at first pretty easily - .280, 11-15 HR..blocking the ability to bring in a legitimate bat there and forcing them to find power at a defense-first position. 
 
I know the idea of needing power at 1B is an antiquated notion to a degree, but finding plus offensive talent is getting harder and harder in baseball, and I think there is a lost opportunity cost to not having DH or 1B available should you find the bat without the glove. Hanley to me is worth that opportunity cost. Sandoval isn't. Which means if he doesn't play 3B for 4 years of that contract I think its an atrocious signing at that money. 
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
I don't care about how much of John Henry's money someone costs.  i care about how likely they are to cost the team wins based on their contract.  Hanley, Pablo, and Rusney might cost wins in the abstract "what they could have done otherwise" sense, but even if all three are worth far less than their contracts I'd bet on all three being league average or better players for the duration of their respective deals.  Koji could be toast by the end of this season and still would almost assuredly continue to see high leverage work until it has directly hurt the club in terms of multiple blown saves.
 
No one cares what happens to John Henry's money. We care about value because we understand that there is an implicit dollar amount that is the theoretical limit of what the Red Sox can spend building a baseball team. Because there is a limit on the amount the Red Sox can spend, we want them to extract the most possible value for each one of those dollars, so that the team is good. If the team spends a lot of money on average players, that's money that isn't going to buying good players. If the team signs those players to long term deals, then that's money that isn't going to good players for a long time.
 
This is not a tricky or complicated concept. No one cares about value because they are heirs to the Henry fortune or are worried about the possibility of Henry going without champagne for a day or two. We care about value because it directly impacts the ability to field a quality team. Tying up average players into big money, long year deals means that the team is not spending money wisely, which means that the team wins fewer games while spending the same amount of money than they otherwise could have won while spending that money.
 
If those three players are worth far less than their contract but still turn in replacement level contracts, then those contracts will have been an unmitigated disaster.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
So many here assume a Teixiera-like decline in Sandoval's offense, but it's only based on "gut feel" (and his waist line). Pretty disappointing.
 
Of course, anyone whose "body deteriorates" is a candidate for a bad contract. Still, Napoli's body deteriorated in Texas and the Red Sox seem to have gotten some pretty good performance. Fielder's enormous body "deteriorated" last year and now he's leading the league in offense. There's simply too much speculation that because the guy is fat he's going to let himself go, lose flexibility, slow down his swing and boot balls in the field - which is something that could just as easily happen to Brett Gardiner.
 
Some guys are fat. Babe Ruth was fat. David Ortiz was fat. I've been fat. A lot of rushes to judgment on the Red Sox' current fat guy.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
geoduck no quahog said:
So many here assume a Teixiera-like decline in Sandoval's offense, but it's only based on "gut feel" (and his waist line). Pretty disappointing.
 
Of course, anyone whose "body deteriorates" is a candidate for a bad contract. Still, Napoli's body deteriorated in Texas and the Red Sox seem to have gotten some pretty good performance. Fielder's enormous body "deteriorated" last year and now he's leading the league in offense. There's simply too much speculation that because the guy is fat he's going to let himself go, lose flexibility, slow down his swing and boot balls in the field - which is something that could just as easily happen to Brett Gardiner.
 
Some guys are fat. Babe Ruth was fat. David Ortiz was fat. I've been fat. A lot of rushes to judgment on the Red Sox' current fat guy.
But as we've discussed in other threads, Sandoval's career trajectory looks like a typical player 2-3 years his senior. If Sandoval were 30 or 31 years old, everyone would have hated that contract. His fitness issues are one reason to worry that his peculiar career arc is something other than a statistical aberration.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,370
Actually, I was assuming his offense stayed fairly constant. 
 
4 of the last 5 years OPS - .732, .789, .758, .739 and the outlier 2011 at .909
 
As a 3B 13th, 7th, 8th the last three years at the position.
 
As a 1B he'd have been 18th, 15th, 13th I believe. Not sure I want to give that a 5 year contract of any time.
 
The only aspect fat has to do with is if he can play that position. His current output to me makes him an anchor at 1B and limits them going forward. If he plays 4 years of 3B on this deal, it will likely be a decent not great contract that covers them at a fairly shallow position in MLB. His bat simply isn't what I want at 1B especially given my worry Hanley will need to DH.  
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Rudy Pemberton said:
Sandoval's SLG has already declined many years in a row, though. It's not just his body; it's his approach. He swings at a higher % of pitches than almost any player on the league and history shows that those players just do not age well. Even if he was thin I think folks would be concerned about him going forward.
Do you have a citation for this? Bill James found that it was guys with old players' skills (slow / unathletic, low BA, high walk rate / power) that aged poorly, not necessarily low walk rate.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Jnai said:
 
No one cares what happens to John Henry's money. We care about value because we understand that there is an implicit dollar amount that is the theoretical limit of what the Red Sox can spend building a baseball team. Because there is a limit on the amount the Red Sox can spend, we want them to extract the most possible value for each one of those dollars, so that the team is good. If the team spends a lot of money on average players, that's money that isn't going to buying good players. If the team signs those players to long term deals, then that's money that isn't going to good players for a long time.
 
This is not a tricky or complicated concept. No one cares about value because they are heirs to the Henry fortune or are worried about the possibility of Henry going without champagne for a day or two. We care about value because it directly impacts the ability to field a quality team. Tying up average players into big money, long year deals means that the team is not spending money wisely, which means that the team wins fewer games while spending the same amount of money than they otherwise could have won while spending that money.
 
If those three players are worth far less than their contract but still turn in replacement level contracts, then those contracts will have been an unmitigated disaster.
Yup, which is why I can't understand how people wanted to debate the cost for Moncada so much, a few months back. Who cares?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
chrisfont9 said:
Yup, which is why I can't understand how people wanted to debate the cost for Moncada so much, a few months back. Who cares?
 
You don't think $60 million has an opportunity cost?  I mean, they can also blow through the draft limits and pay fines and lose draft picks, in the same way they blew through the international limits and decided not to have what are effectively first round picks in the international sphere for two years.  They can pay $30 million in major league luxury tax instead of $30 million in luxury tax on one player years away from producing.
 
I don't think it was a bad signing, and it's certainly too early to know anything about how it will play out right now, but don't pretend there were not other uses for that money besides a bet on a 19 year old from Cuba.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Drek717 said:
 Sandoval, other than being awful against LHP and having some fielding issues following getting clocked in the knee real good, is meeting or exceeding my expectations.  
 
It's too bad we don't get to ignore his awfulness vs LHP and his fielding.  Sandoval has a .244/.310/.356/.666 overall line, with a .298 wOBA and an 87 wRC+. His D has been bad and he has a negative WAR. I mean, hard to see his start as anything other than terrible.  I expect him to improve, but the question is how much better will he get?  What we have seen so far is really bad.
 
 
 

Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
 
Thanks for that. I missed this article, but this is anecdotally along the lines of what I suspected.  The Red Sox seemed to be excited about Pablo's chronological age, and that might have pushed them to be OK giving him a 5 year deal.  But heavy guys, especially those expected to play defense, put a lot of wear and tear on their bodies.  
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Devizier said:
Those curves are essentially meaningless without error bars.
It's also clearly not showing what it says it's showing. There is no way the y axis is year-on-year change in runs produced, or both type of players would peak at age 21.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Devizier said:
Those curves are essentially meaningless without error bars.
 
The Pablo fangraphs article doesn't get into the details (I guess the chart is from an article awhile ago), but if they looked at enough players, I wouldn't expect the error bars to be very big.  Aside from a minor blip at age 30 for heavy players, the curves look pretty smooth.
 
Sounds like it was a simple BMI-type measurement that would have been easy to do on a large number of players. Though of course BMI is problematic in its own right, if the sample is big enough it's still probably useful. 
 
I'm not sure what the cut-off was for "heavy", but I'm sure Pablo qualifies. I'd be curious if the data could be stratified out even further, and if they found significantly overweight players decline even faster. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The other thing that worries me is that Pablo has been a good bad ball hitter for most of his career and that's a skill that can evaporate very quickly if his eyes start degrading. Add that to the heavy guy aging curve and it's not hard to envision a steep and sudden decline for him. I'm holding out hope that we'll get three or four good years out of him first, though.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
I voted for Craig.
 
In my mind, for a contract to qualify as truly bad then it has to meet the following criteria
1. multi year term
2. significant dollars - where it impacts other player acquisition decisions
3. the players performance is significantly below that of what is expected - given the contract.
 
 
The obvious possible candidates are Craig, Masterson, Porcello, Pablo and Hanley
 
- Masterson qualifies for (arguably 2) and certainly 3 - but not 1 - so that rules him out
- Porcello qualifies for 1 and 2 -  but using two months of data to prove 3 is a fools errand - and he hasn't been terrible.
- Panda qualifies for 1 and 2 -  as for 3 see Porcello
- Hanley qualifies for 1 and 2 -  and - aside from his fielding inadequacies (which will disappear when moved to 1B or DH down the road) - he's value for the money - so that rules him out.
 
Which brings us to ..
 
- Craig qualifies for 1, 2 and certainly 3 -  we have a winner
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Except Craig does not really qualify on your #2:  his contract is not counting towards the luxury tax, and it's not clear that the dollars are preventing the Sox from looking at alternatives.  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
lexrageorge said:
Except Craig does not really qualify on your #2:  his contract is not counting towards the luxury tax, and it's not clear that the dollars are preventing the Sox from looking at alternatives.  
 
 
This attitude is pollyanna-ish.  Unless John Henry has a printing press in the basement of Fenway Park, that $21 million owed in the next two years is coming out of some budget, and I doubt it's John Henry's profits (this is not a criticism of the owner).  Part of it should come out of whatever year-end bonuses would be paid to the GM and his scouts that recommended acquiring Craig; not sure that's a material portion of the liability though.   There's no such thing as a free lunch. 
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
Plympton91 said:
 
 
This attitude is pollyanna-ish.  Unless John Henry has a printing press in the basement of Fenway Park, that $21 million owed in the next two years is coming out of some budget, and I doubt it's John Henry's profits (this is not a criticism of the owner). 
He does, though. He has an insanely lucrative monopoly on top-level baseball in New England.

I don't imagine the Red Sox/NESN/FSG are set up to make much profit. They bought the club, stadium, and most of NESN for $700 million back in 2001 and they could *easily* get $2 billion today if they were to sell. Imagine the bottles Henry and Werner popped on the yacht when news of the Dodgers bids came through...

300% appreciation in 15 years is a healthy rate of return (insane understatement) on the asset, even if they're not making much profit. I imagine they are making plenty, though. It's a WAG, but I'd estimate the team's revenues at $400-500m. (The league as a whole earned $8b. I'm guessing they're in one of the more lucrative markets in terms of ticket and advertising rates, plus they own their RSN.)

Payroll is around $200m. I'm sure they have other major expenses (taxes, operations, ballpark maintenance...). But there should be plenty left over for a more than acceptable profit on a $700m investment.

I'd love to hear if people have better numbers.

(Edit: Forbes said revenues of $272m back in 2011 with an operating loss of $1m. Not clear what that includes. Further edit: Bloomberg has an excellent chart that squares well with my estimates. http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html)

Now, I'm sure Henry and his partners aren't interested in taking an annual loss, but the only play that makes sense is to invest in the value of the underlying asset. Henry quibbling over multiyear $25m bets on injured sluggers (when you consider the potential upside in a power-scarce league) doesn't make sense in that light.

(And Craig's hitting a bit in AAA.)
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
nvalvo said:
He does, though. He has an insanely lucrative monopoly on top-level baseball in New England.
I don't imagine the Red Sox/NESN/FSG are set up to make much profit. They bought the club, stadium, and most of NESN for $700 million back in 2001 and they could *easily* get $2 billion today if they were to sell. Imagine the bottles Henry and Werner popped on the yacht when news of the Dodgers bids came through...
300% appreciation in 15 years is a healthy rate of return (insane understatement) on the asset, even if they're not making much profit. I imagine they are making plenty, though. It's a WAG, but I'd estimate the team's revenues at $400-500m. (The league as a whole earned $8b. I'm guessing they're in one of the more lucrative markets in terms of ticket and advertising rates, plus they own their RSN.)
Payroll is around $200m. I'm sure they have other major expenses (taxes, operations, ballpark maintenance...). But there should be plenty left over for a more than acceptable profit on a $700m investment.
I'd love to hear if people have better numbers.
(Edit: Forbes said revenues of $272m back in 2011. Not clear what that includes. )
Now, I'm sure Henry and his partners aren't interested in taking an annual loss, but the only play that makes sense is to invest in the value of the underlying asset. Henry quibbling over multiyear $25m bets on injured sluggers (when you consider the potential upside in a power-scarce league) doesn't make sense in that light.
(And Craig's hitting a bit in AAA.)
Well, given this estimate/scenario there are no, and will be no bad contracts in that they won't cripple the team's ability to sign or acquire players.

That being said , while I believe Craig's to be the worst at this time I really do think Sandoval's has the potential to be the worst. Even at the time of the signing it seemed (in my mind anyways) to be an overpay. If your performance diminishes from slightly above average to way below average AND you're being paid like a well above average player for a long time then that is the very definition of a bad contract.

But he's not there yet - and, given his age, the decline shouldn't be precipitous.

Late thought - given Henry's comments regarding the possible modification of the team's core offensive philosophy perhaps Sandoval represents the first meaningful move in that direction. I suppose the same might have been said of Cespedes.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Well, given this estimate/scenario there are no, and will be no bad contracts in that they won't cripple the team's ability to sign or acquire players.
 
 
Well, no. It means when the ownership says the payroll budget is the CBT threshold give or take a few million, we should take them at their word. Somebody like Craig, who doesn't count against that number, might as well not exist for our purposes. They can afford it. 
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Plympton91 said:
 
 
This attitude is pollyanna-ish.  Unless John Henry has a printing press in the basement of Fenway Park, that $21 million owed in the next two years is coming out of some budget, and I doubt it's John Henry's profits (this is not a criticism of the owner).  Part of it should come out of whatever year-end bonuses would be paid to the GM and his scouts that recommended acquiring Craig; not sure that's a material portion of the liability though.   There's no such thing as a free lunch. 
Please show us an example of a player that the Sox passed up on because they are paying Craig's salary.