712 replies to this topic

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Not to mention the signing of Teixeira would allow this team to deal Lars for a catcher, should they decide to do that.

This should never be mentioned again, unless you are implying Theo is getting Joe Mauer.

And Teixeira is not a generational hitter. Youkilis matched his production at 1B this year, and Berkman habitually does so. Pujols is better with the bat, and a gifted glove-man as well. No, a generational hitter is A-Rod or Bonds. Teixeira, while very good, is simply not in that league. He will not be worth the money paid him, or the commitment in years signing him will require, because so many big-money teams could stand a HoVG 1B.

Free agent hitters the Sox should target ahead of Teixeira include Casey Blake, Rocco Baldelli, and probably Adam Everett.

[Bowlerman9]

Free agent hitters the Sox should target ahead of Teixeira include Casey Blake, Rocco Baldelli, and probably Adam Everett.

So the Sox would be better off with a 120M payroll and Adam Everett than a 150M payroll and Mark Teixeira? Because honestly, without signing Teixeira or Sabathia (or a ton of Schilling like non-producers) we may have a tough time wisely spending 150M.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

So the Sox would be better off with a 120M payroll and Adam Everett than a 150M payroll and Mark Teixeira? Because honestly, without signing Teixeira or Sabathia (or a ton of Schilling like non-producers) we may have a tough time wisely spending 150M.

Quite possibly, as Everett's the most capable defensive MI utility player out there -- Hudson will probably be looking to start. I don't want to see Cora outside the 1B coach's box next year, but what happens if Pedroia or Lowrie are the ones that go down? Call up Diaz or Navarro?

So maybe that extra $30M could be used to ink Youks, Dusty, Lester, and Bay to some team-friendly contracts. Or to sign Burnett and Sheets. I wouldn't look askance at a rotation of Beckett/Burnett/Lester/Sheets/DiceK. Or maybe a little of both. Or to not raise ticket prices.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Quite possibly, as Everett's the most capable defensive MI utility player out there -- Hudson will probably be looking to start. I don't want to see Cora outside the 1B coach's box next year, but what happens if Pedroia or Lowrie are the ones that go down? Call up Diaz or Navarro?

So maybe that extra $30M could be used to ink Youks, Dusty, Lester, and Bay to some team-friendly contracts. Or to sign Burnett and Sheets. I wouldn't look askance at a rotation of Beckett/Burnett/Lester/Sheets/DiceK. Or maybe a little of both. Or to not raise ticket prices.

First, if you think ticket prices are in any way, shape or form tied to the payrool, you are misguided. They will raise ticket prices as long as they keep selling out every game. And while they very well may have to overpay for Teix, the DEFINITELY will overpay for Sheets and/or Burnett. Teix @ $20-@22M offers a much better chance of return on the dollar than two injury prone SPs at likely $32-$34M combined.

Second, seriously? Your plan for 2009 is to sign Adam Everett? The way to get over the hump is by signing a career OPS+ 69 SS so that we can improve our backup MI defense? This is honestly what you are advocating? You don't see any bigger issues at hand given our roster?

Edited by Papelbon's Poutine, 26 October 2008 - 10:11 PM.

[jtn46]

First, if you think ticket prices are in any way, shape or form tied to the payrool, you are misguided. They will raise ticket prices as long as they keep selling out every game.

Second, seriously? Your plan for 2009 is to sign Adam Everett? The way to get over the hump is by signing a career OPS+ 69 SS so that we can improve our backup MI defense? This is honestly what you are advocating?

The Red Sox would be playing right now if they were more healthy. They lost in the postseason because Ortiz's wrist, Beckett's oblique and Lowell's hip, among other things, compromised the team. Yeah, getting younger would help bring injuries down, but you don't guarantee anything like that. IOW, all they need to get over the hump is to have better luck with injuries.

Dropping $150 million to add Teixeira helps a little with that, I guess, he's certainly more durable than Lowell, but he's not invincible. He'll get hurt.

The sensible thing to do is to figure out where the Red Sox are genuinely weak. They need to improve themselves at catcher. The CF situation is probably tolerable, but just barely. As much as we can be happy with our front 3 starters, it seems to me you could spend that money that everyone wants to spend on Teixeira adding an arm that's an improvement over Wakefield/Buchholz. I think the end of the year bullpen was pretty good, but you can never have enough good pitching in the bullpen. Aren't all of these things higher priorities than improving our corner IF's? Teixeira's a nice player, but he's not so nice that you start trading off good players just for the right to pay him $150 million.

[Quintanariffic]

First, if you think ticket prices are in any way, shape or form tied to the payrool, you are misguided. They will raise ticket prices as long as they keep selling out every game.

Second, seriously? Your plan for 2009 is to sign Adam Everett? The way to get over the hump is by signing a career OPS+ 69 SS so that we can improve our backup MI defense? This is honestly what you are advocating?

Come on. That's half-assed argumentativeness just for the sake of being so. Who said Everett was "the answer" for anything other than back up MI defense? I think Buzzkill is simply saying that standing pat is a better alternative to spending 8/$160+ on a really good, but far from generational hitter. I'd much, much rather sign Casey Blake if the Sox have any concern about Lowell, as he seems an identical twin production wise at this point in his career and can likely be had for about $6-8MM/yr. on a much shorter contract that will provide the flexibility the Sox desire. Even better, why not sign a guy who is used to being a part time player like Greg Norton? He's put up OBPs of .374, .358, and .373 respectively the last three years while getting 200-300 ABs per season. He has over 200 games at 1B and another 76 in the OF while switch hitting (though he is more of a RHP killer at this stage of his career). That helps you fill a hole at 3B, 1B, DH or OF. Sign Baldelli as your 4th OF and deal Crisp and Bowden for a long-term answer at C and call it an off-season. Now please don't go and tell me how silly I am for stating that Norton and Baldelli are as good as Tex, b/c they obviously are not. The point is that you can effectively fill areas of known or potential need on for much shorter money and with MUCH more flexibility going forward than by blowing a load on Teixeira. Hell, I'd rather spend big money on one of the FA pitchers available.

As for the concerns about the Sox offense, I am skeptical of the following happening:

1) Lugo and his vortex of suck getting any ABs next year
2) Lowrie playing for 5 months with a broken wrist
3) Papi incurring a serious wrist injury
4) Drew getting another serious back injury (isn't he having surgery?)
5) Ellsbury sucking as bad as he did this year after his wrist got hurt

Someone asked what other priorities should be. I'd say deepening and improving the bullpen should be one of them, as the corpse of Mike Timlin, BBrdsma, and Lopez don't represent much in the way of competition.

[RedOctober3829]

The Red Sox would be playing right now if they were more healthy. They lost in the postseason because Ortiz's wrist, Beckett's oblique and Lowell's hip, among other things, compromised the team. Yeah, getting younger would help bring injuries down, but you don't guarantee anything like that. IOW, all they need to get over the hump is to have better luck with injuries.

Dropping $150 million to add Teixeira helps a little with that, I guess, he's certainly more durable than Lowell, but he's not invincible. He'll get hurt.

The sensible thing to do is to figure out where the Red Sox are genuinely weak. They need to improve themselves at catcher. The CF situation is probably tolerable, but just barely. As much as we can be happy with our front 3 starters, it seems to me you could spend that money that everyone wants to spend on Teixeira adding an arm that's an improvement over Wakefield/Buchholz. I think the end of the year bullpen was pretty good, but you can never have enough good pitching in the bullpen. Aren't all of these things higher priorities than improving our corner IF's? Teixeira's a nice player, but he's not so nice that you start trading off good players just for the right to pay him $150 million.

Adding Teixeira would improve the team at 1B and would also improve David Ortiz. Having him either in front of or behind Teixeira would force pitchers to pitch Ortiz differently. A lineup of Ellsbury/Crisp, Pedroia, Teixeira, Ortiz, Youkilis, Bay, Drew, Catcher, and Lowrie would be the best in the American League. You have to find ways to improve your ballclub and there isn't a better way to improve the lineup than a switch-hitter who hits for average, power, and plays above-average defense.

Did you see the offense at the end of the season? They went for stretches having so much trouble scoring runs and your solution is to hope for better luck with injuries? A bullpen option is not costly, so signing Teixeira wouldn't have an effect on that. There just aren't many options to choose from at catcher so unless you trade for a Russell Martin or Jarrod Saltalamacchia-type(and you could use Lowell in any discussions) you won't be making a huge upgrade on both sides of the plate in this instance. Do you want to add a Derek Lowe/Ben Sheets or do you want to sign a low-risk, high-reward option for the 4th/5th starter? Theo's track record is to go for the low-risk signings for the back of the rotation or to use a young arm such as Buchholz to fill that role. To me, the glaring power hole in the middle of the lineup is a big part why the offense went through stretches not being able to score runs. They had so many squanders down the stretch in big games. While not Manny Ramirez, adding Mark Teixeira would provide more protection for Ortiz while lengthening the lineup even more and let players such as Youkilis, Bay and Drew slide down the order.

[rembrat]

You know, there are these funny things called "statistics" (sometimes "data" or even "facts") that can be looked at to answer questions like these. For instance, in a case like this, you might look at these "facts" and discover that there has never been an MLB season where he didn't hit better as a 3B than a 1B.

2008 - 135 PA
2007 - 53 PA
2006 - 54 PA
2005 - 65 PA
2004 - 238 PA

And there has never been a MLB season where Youkilis has gotten more than 240 PA at 3B. And the last time he got all of those reps at 3B he had a full head of hair. You might want to reread my original question.

[Quintanariffic]

I know this is better off in another thread, but where exactly are they going to improve? Papelbon, Delcarmen, Masterson, Okajima, and Lopez are all but guaranteed spots in the bullpen. Sure, adding depth is a priority and extremely important, but as the team is presently constructed, they've really only got one open slot in the bullpen.

That assumes Masterson can't beat out Buchholz or someone else for the #4 or 5 starter spot. I don't think anyone is going to bet big money that Buchholz will be ready to start 30 games in the bigs next year, so unless they sign an FA pitcher, Masterson is your guy. And if they do sign an FA pitcher, that would tend to lessen the chances they'll drop $160MM+ on Teixeira.

[mclusky]

As for the concerns about the Sox offense, I am skeptical of the following happening:

1) Lugo and his vortex of suck getting any ABs next year
2) Lowrie playing for 5 months with a broken wrist
3) Papi incurring a serious wrist injury
4) Drew getting another serious back injury (isn't he having surgery?)
5) Ellsbury sucking as bad as he did this year after his wrist got hurt

People always make this argument for standing pat, and it's always flawed. For all the positive turnarounds you are counting on to happen, there are bad things that are also going to happen. No one knows what they are, but they are going to happen. Youkilis or Pedroia or both will fall back from their career years; the bench bats will not produce as much as Casey/Cora/Crisp did; Jason Bay will pull a hamstring running out a ground ball.

I remember the same arguments being made last year when Miguel Cabrera was on the trade market. That the Red Sox, though they returned the same lineup from 2007, would be much improved in 2008 because Manny and Drew and Lugo would all bounce back from off-years, and Pedroia and Youkilis would improve. Well all those arguments were correct, and all those things did happen. But the people making those arguments did not consider that negative outcomes are also possible -- that Varitek would collapse and Ortiz and Lowell would get hurt and that Ellsbury wasn't (yet?) as good as we thought. And so the Red Sox stood pat, scored a few fewer runs, narrowly lost the division race, and lost a 7-game ALCS.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

People always make this argument for standing pat, and it's always flawed. For all the positive turnarounds you are counting on to happen, there are bad things that are also going to happen. No one knows what they are, but they are going to happen. Youkilis or Pedroia or both will fall back from their career years; the bench bats will not produce as much as Casey/Cora/Crisp did; Jason Bay will pull a hamstring running out a ground ball.

I remember the same arguments being made last year when Miguel Cabrera was on the trade market. That the Red Sox, though they returned the same lineup from 2007, would be much improved in 2008 because Manny and Drew and Lugo would all bounce back from off-years, and Pedroia and Youkilis would improve. Well all those arguments were correct, and all those things did happen. But the people making those arguments did not consider that negative outcomes are also possible -- that Varitek would collapse and Ortiz and Lowell would get hurt and that Ellsbury wasn't (yet?) as good as we thought. And so the Red Sox stood pat, scored a few fewer runs, narrowly lost the division race, and lost a 7-game ALCS.

You do know that the Sox scored the most runs in the regular season of all the AL playoff teams, right? The offense in general wasn't the problem, although the injuries to Lowell and Ortiz didn't help -- they'd be at worst 2-2 with the Phils tonight if Beckett wasn't hurt. The only positional free agent I have any interest in as a starter is Furcal...but I wouldn't mind giving Baldelli a chance to prove whether he can still play CF. But in both those cases, it's because there's young depth that can be stashed on the bench, yet is good enough to start.

No, it's starting pitching where the higher risk of injury occurs. So that's where I think the money should be spent, on relatively young high-upside guys like Burnett (who will cost a ton) and Sheets (who won't, because of flopping at the finish line this year). With so many good position players so affordable over the next year or two (Paps, Lester, Pedroia, Youkilis, Bay, Lowrie) the "surplus" can be better allocated to building a ridiculously deep staff.

And yes, that means several of the kids could be dangled for a live catcher -- just not Lars or Jedi.

[mclusky]

You do know that the Sox scored the most runs in the regular season of all the AL playoff teams, right? The offense in general wasn't the problem, although the injuries to Lowell and Ortiz didn't help -- they'd be at worst 2-2 with the Phils tonight if Beckett wasn't hurt. The only positional free agent I have any interest in as a starter is Furcal...but I wouldn't mind giving Baldelli a chance to prove whether he can still play CF. But in both those cases, it's because there's young depth that can be stashed on the bench, yet is good enough to start.

No, it's starting pitching where the higher risk of injury occurs. So that's where I think the money should be spent, on relatively young high-upside guys like Burnett (who will cost a ton) and Sheets (who won't, because of flopping at the finish line this year). With so many good position players so affordable over the next year or two (Paps, Lester, Pedroia, Youkilis, Bay, Lowrie) the "surplus" can be better allocated to building a ridiculously deep staff.

And yes, that means several of the kids could be dangled for a live catcher -- just not Lars or Jedi.

You may have missed the point of my post, which is probably my fault. My point was not that they need more offense, necessarily. The point was that they should not look to their "bad luck" this year as a reason to overlook an opportunity to add more offense, or make improvements of any kind.

I don't see how you can be strongly for or against signing Teixeira without knowing the alternative possibilities for improving the team, but I don't think the Red Sox should count on "avoiding unlucky injuries/unexpected poor performances" as a means to that end.

[Eric Van]

2008 - 135 PA
2007 - 53 PA
2006 - 54 PA
2005 - 65 PA
2004 - 238 PA

And there has never been a MLB season where Youkilis has gotten more than 240 PA at 3B. And the last time he got all of those reps at 3B he had a full head of hair. You might want to reread my original question.

That's the thing, since 2006 (not counting the postseason), he has only played at 3B in 65 games, that's 452 innings. Basically that's nothing. Or not enough of a viewing that would make me feel comfortable in him handling 3B for a full year and it not hurting his offense. What was one of the biggest complaints about Youkilis prior to this season? The dreaded second half slide. So, what, one year of awesomeness has totally erased this from our minds?

Except that the "dreaded second half slide" only happened his first full year as a regular.

In 2007, he hit .358 / .432 / .570 through May 29, .234 / .351 / .347 from May 30 to August 22, .287 / .415 / .494 from August 24 to season's end and .388 / .475 / .755 in the post-season. That pattern makes no sense at all as a fatigue effect -- May 30 is way too soon for fatigue to be a factor, and even it if were, there is nothing in the season to explain why he hit as well after late August as he did before May 30. It just appears as if he got messed up mechanically for most of the middle of the season.

And again, there is simply no phenomenon of some positions (other than C) being more inherently physically taxing than others and causing decline in offensive numbers in players who have the skill to play them. Guys do sometimes improve their numbers when switched off of positions that they couldn't handle defensively. This may be caused by nothing more complicated than spending less time working on fielding, and thus more time working on hitting.

While Youkilis's sample sizes at 3B are small, the fact that he is a career .292 / .383 / .471 (1622 PA) hitter as a 1B and .298 / .396 / .505 (545 PA) as a 3B, and has hit better as a 3B than 1B every season he has split between the two positions, can lead to a very reliable conclusion that his hitting does not currently suffer as a 3B. And per the nature of baseball, there is no reason to think that would change given more playing time there.

[Quintanariffic]

So let me get this straight -- you admit that starting pitchers have the highest risk of injury, so to offset this, you want to go out and spend a truckload of money on Burnett and Sheets, two guys with well-documented injury histories. Not quite sure I understand this.

So let me get this straight, you admit that starting pitchers have the highest risk of injury, so instead of trying to offset this, you advocate spending a two truckloads of money on a guy who doesn't necessarily play a position of need instead of deepening the most important, and fragile, position on the field? Not quite sure I understand this.

[smastroyin]

So let me get this straight, you admit that starting pitchers have the highest risk of injury, so instead of trying to offset this, you advocate spending a two truckloads of money on a guy who doesn't necessarily play a position of need instead of deepening the most important, and fragile, position on the field? Not quite sure I understand this.

Well, here's the question. With the status quo, or maybe adding a back of the rotation type, will the Sox make the playoffs? And compare that to the odds if they add more of these guys? And then, in the playoffs, what are the increased chances?

Personally I think people are panicking over the pitching because of one bad week which happened to be in the ALCS. If I had to guess, I would assume you are one of the guys who thinks that Dice-K's true talent is reflected more by his xFIP than his actual results, that you might think Lester cannot repeat, that Buchholz cannot improve, and you want Wakefield gone. I suppose I could look this up but if you are advocating trying to sign Burnett and Sheets I have to assume all of this is true. You may also think that Beckett will be the 2008 Beckett every year.

Now, I'm not really advocating signing Tex necessarily. I just don't see a level of desperation with the pitching staff that you have to run out and buy two fragile $40+ MM arms.

[Quintanariffic]

You may have missed the point of my post, which is probably my fault. My point was not that they need more offense, necessarily. The point was that they should not look to their "bad luck" this year as a reason to overlook an opportunity to add more offense, or make improvements of any kind.

I don't see how you can be strongly for or against signing Teixeira without knowing the alternative possibilities for improving the team, but I don't think the Red Sox should count on "avoiding unlucky injuries/unexpected poor performances" as a means to that end.

I know you weren't responding to me, but I think I'm partly responsible for the whole "stand pat" thread of conversation. I should have been more clear from the beginning - the alternative to not signing Teixeira isn't just standing pat of course. Among the range of possible health outcomes for next year, you have to consider upside and downside. That said, even noting that this team has older players in key positions, I think it's inarguable that the Sox had an unusually bad spate of injuries this year. Just a regression to the mean, rather than to some unrealistic prediction of an injury-free season, is likely to produce a net positive for 2009. And a lot of their plans really have to be based on what their medical staff is telling them about the condition of Papi, Lowell and Drew (though admittedly there isn't enough time to fully evaluate before many of the major FAs will be either gone or deep in discussions with other teams).

As I mentioned above, I would much rather they explore the likes of Baldelli, Blake and Norton to build real depth at potential areas of need for relatively short money while using Crisp and the ml system for a needed upgrade at C. And that shouldn't be overlooked - it would be folly to head into 2009 w/o a realistic plan to replace at least 50% of Tek's ABs. To the extent that they somehow find themselves w/o a solution for that issue, the "need" at the corners becomes more pressing. I just don't think that dropping the GDP of a small country on a very good but far from generational player like Tex should be Plan A or B. Of course he has to be on their radar screen - that's just being prudent - but in the end I suspect they'll go in another direction for a variety of reasons mentioned in this thread.

[Quintanariffic]

Well, here's the question. With the status quo, or maybe adding a back of the rotation type, will the Sox make the playoffs? And compare that to the odds if they add more of these guys? And then, in the playoffs, what are the increased chances?

Personally I think people are panicking over the pitching because of one bad week which happened to be in the ALCS. If I had to guess, I would assume you are one of the guys who thinks that Dice-K's true talent is reflected more by his xFIP than his actual results, that you might think Lester cannot repeat, that Buchholz cannot improve, and you want Wakefield gone. I suppose I could look this up but if you are advocating trying to sign Burnett and Sheets I have to assume all of this is true. You may also think that Beckett will be the 2008 Beckett every year.

Now, I'm not really advocating signing Tex necessarily. I just don't see a level of desperation with the pitching staff that you have to run out and buy two fragile $40+ MM arms.

I think you should leave the mind reading stuff to the Tarot card shop down the street from me. In order:

1) I think Dice-K will always be maddeningly frustrating who nibbles a little too much to be an ace in the post-season while winning 15-18 games per year.

2) I think Lester can not only repeat, but can and will be a top 5 starter in the AL if not all of baseball for some time to come.

3) I think Buchholz can improve, but I wouldn't go into 2009 counting on him to make 30 starts at better than replacement level.

4) I want Wakefield here, but I don't want him starting in the post-season.

5) I'm not advocating trying to sign Burnett and Shields, though I wouldn't be averse to one of them and I believe a playoff quality starter would be helpful, even if not one of them.

6) I think that Beckett will be a mix of 2007 and 2008, but realize that a violent sneeze or an innocuous side session can be the difference between dominance and being tateriffic in October.

Point is, I don't thiink any position, bar catcher, is desperately in need of an upgrade. If I had to rank the need for an upgrade in order of need, it would be:

1) C


2) Rotation
3) Bullpen (if Masterson is starting)
4) Corner IF

[ookami7m]

I'm a little surprised by the guarantees that Lars Anderson is the messiah coming to save the Sox offense in 2011. Lars looks like the real deal, but I don't think that should preclude the Sox from going after Tex. A lot of things can happen between now and 2011 or whenever the FO decides that Lars is ready.

Its been gone over ad nauseum so far, but Lowell and Ortiz are both carrying large question marks on their health and productivity coming forward. Youks is able to play either 1B or 3B just fine. That leaves DH and 1B to fill (obviously the two easier positions to find someone for). If Lowell and Ortiz both come back great, then there's no issues, but if either one isn't up to snuff - then we're back on the Sean Casey boat. Lars Anderson isn't going to help this year, or probably next.

If the Sox take Tex and Lowell and Ortiz are both 100% - well that's a good problem to have. But basing a decision on the best FA offensive talent this year because they could be, and Lars should be ready in 2 years doesn't make sense to me. Besides if Lars is on schedule Papi's contract is up by then, Lowell's is up as well. There will be places to play. The talk of not trading Lars unless we're getting Joe Mauer is just silly.

[Bowlerman9]

Point is, I don't thiink any position, bar catcher, is desperately in need of an upgrade. If I had to rank the need for an upgrade in order of need, it would be:

1) C
2) Rotation
3) Bullpen (if Masterson is starting)
4) Corner IF

I dont disagree with this, but how would you allocate $50-60M over these 4?

1) There are no Mike Piazza or IRod's in their prime available. I would love to sign a stud catcher, but the truth is that unless we resign Tek, which IMO would be a huge waste of money, filling the catcher is going to cost around 300K in cash and something more significant in prospects.

2) Sabathia will cost 20M+, but anything short of Sabathia will cost less. I think its safe to say that signing 1 pitcher will cost roughly 15M (whether it be Burnett, Sheets, Lowe, etc) and signing 2 pitchers will cost roughly 28-30M.

3) We already have Paps, Oki, and MDC, and I think everyone agrees we arent signing KRod or Fuentes, so even if we sign 2-3 arms, this isnt going to cost us more than 10M, tops.

4) That leaves corner IF. Lets say the Sox spend:

Catcher: 4M. Sign a vet for 3.5M (Barajas, Zaun), acquire a young stud for 500K (Salty, Clement, Martin).
Rotation: 15M. Sign a vet for 15M not named Sabathia. Try to sign a second but the terms just arent favorable enough to pull the trigger.
Bullpen: 8M. Sign a decent arm for 4M and two wildcards for 2M each.

Thats 27M, and leaves the team ~23M to play with. Wouldnt signing Sabathia or Teixeira be a great use of this money? Sure, they can sign Tek for 8M and a second SP for 15M, but when you boil it down, wouldnt you rather have Sabathia or Teix over Tek and a 2nd SP?

[Quintanariffic]

I'm a little surprised by the guarantees that Lars Anderson is the messiah coming to save the Sox offense in 2011. Lars looks like the real deal, but I don't think that should preclude the Sox from going after Tex. A lot of things can happen between now and 2011 or whenever the FO decides that Lars is ready.

Its been gone over ad nauseum so far, but Lowell and Ortiz are both carrying large question marks on their health and productivity coming forward. Youks is able to play either 1B or 3B just fine. That leaves DH and 1B to fill (obviously the two easier positions to find someone for). If Lowell and Ortiz both come back great, then there's no issues, but if either one isn't up to snuff - then we're back on the Sean Casey boat. Lars Anderson isn't going to help this year, or probably next.

If the Sox take Tex and Lowell and Ortiz are both 100% - well that's a good problem to have. But basing a decision on the best FA offensive talent this year because they could be, and Lars should be ready in 2 years doesn't make sense to me. Besides if Lars is on schedule Papi's contract is up by then, Lowell's is up as well. There will be places to play. The talk of not trading Lars unless we're getting Joe Mauer is just silly.

Once you can any post in this thread or elsewhere on SOSH advocating that the only/primary reason not to sign Tex is the possible emergence of Lars, then maybe your post will be worth paying attention to.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Once you can any post in this thread or elsewhere on SOSH advocating that the only/primary reason not to sign Tex is the possible emergence of Lars, then maybe your post will be worth paying attention to.

Please, let's go easy on the 'tude. You yourself seem to have been the most ardent supporter of the "Tex will block Lars" argument, although to your credit you do cite price as another concern:

Link

It makes absolutely no sense to sign Tex. None. He would represent a modest upgrade, if at all, to the current incumbent, yet at 5x the price. And he would also block the Red Sox best power prospect in a generation in Lars Anderson. The FA season isn't some sort of X-Mas shopping list where you want to pick up cute baubles b/c they're "nice". You use FA to fill real needs, and corner IF is clearly not one of them, at least not for the 8 years and $150MM it's actually going to take instead of dumb ass Cafardo's NYYfans-esque speculation.

If I ran the Sox I would make every effort possible to sign Teixeira, despite the cost and the presence of Anderson in the system. Teixeira is an elite player in the prime of his career, and these are the types of players that are both the best purchases of free agency and the kinds of players teams with a lot of money like the Sox can benefit from the most. He provides power, which not only is sadly lacking in the system aside from Anderson but may well be a problem area for the Sox going froward given Papi's increasing age and a lack of other options on the big club.

As for Anderson, he is a nice prospect but there's likely a 95% chance he never has a career that comes come to matching Teixeira's. When you pay for a Teixeira you pay a lot for the certainty of said production. Anderson is a lottery ticket; an appealing one to be sure, but I'd rather invest in the current sure thing. Or you groom Anderson to replace Papi in 3 years. I would not pass on the bidding for Teixeira under any circumstances; he is too good to ignore. He is a fantastic player and the Sox would benefit from him immensely given Papi's age and Lowell's injuries and age.

[Quintanariffic]

If I'm looking to defend against injuries to my starting staff, I don't go out and sign Ben Sheets. Derek Lowe or someone that can remain healthy like him? That's another story.

But the Sheets/Burnett or bust meme is yours and yours alone. I'm advocating finding more starting pitching, but I don't think it necessarily has to come in the form of those two. In fact, I'd agree that Lowe is far more preferable and lower risk for any number of reasons.

[sfip]

I dont disagree with this, but how would you allocate $50-60M over these 4?

1) There are no Mike Piazza or IRod's in their prime available. I would love to sign a stud catcher, but the truth is that unless we resign Tek, which IMO would be a huge waste of money, filling the catcher is going to cost around 300K in cash and something more significant in prospects.

There's also the possibility they'll have to take an unwanted contract of another player to make such a trade.

Edited by sfip, 27 October 2008 - 09:59 AM.

[Quintanariffic]

Please, let's go easy on the 'tude. You yourself seem to have been the most ardent supporter of the "Tex will block Lars" argument, although to your credit you do cite price as another concern:

Link

SJH -

Sure I've mentioned him, but as you point out, it's like 3rd or 4th on the list. Even then, you sort of contradict yourself in the balance of your post:

He provides power, which not only is sadly lacking in the system aside from Anderson but may well be a problem area for the Sox going froward given Papi's increasing age and a lack of other options on the big club.

As for Anderson, he is a nice prospect but there's likely a 95% chance he never has a career that comes come to matching Teixeira's. When you pay for a Teixeira you pay a lot for the certainty of said production. Anderson is a lottery ticket; an appealing one to be sure, but I'd rather invest in the current sure thing. Or you groom Anderson to replace Papi in 3 years. I would not pass on the bidding for Teixeira under any circumstances; he is too good to ignore. He is a fantastic player and the Sox would benefit from him immensely given Papi's age and Lowell's injuries and age.

So, as you yourself admit, you can't make these decisions in a vacuum without considering what may be in the pipeline. Either the system matters or it doesn't. You're saying that Anderson is a lottery tocket who should essentially be ignored, yet in the next breath you say that we need to sign Tex b/c power is lacking in our system. Putting aside the fact that Reddick is arguably a power prospect, you can't have it both ways - you either have to consider what's within the system as a factor (though surely not the #1 factor) or you don't. I'm saying that Anderson, who is an extraordinary prospect the likes of which we've rarely these in some time around here, deserves to be on the list of factors, though certainly not #1.

Edited by Quintanariffic, 27 October 2008 - 10:03 AM.

[Bowlerman9]

There's also the possibility they'll have to take an unwanted contract of another player to make such a trade.

Of course, but its also possible the Sox save a few mill by trading Lowell and/or Lugo and not having to eat 100% of their contract. Its hard to quantify either situation until we have something specific we are looking at. We may need to spend $15M of that available $50M to acquire a catcher and Andruw Jones, but we may also have $55M to spend if someone will take half of Lugo's contract.

Either way, its definitely something to keep in mind in these discussions.

[yecul]

This is not a Thome-Howard situation where Lars is ready and they'd be blocking him by inking a guy long term.

However, note what happened in that situation. Philly traded him almost immediately to open up the door for their new young stuf.

For 'Lars is blocked' to be a legitimate issue I need to see a compelling argument about his future in the game, his timeline, and how they would be prevented from opening a spot for him.

The problem with bringing on Teixeira is Youkilis. You do not want to replace Youkilis, you want to replace Lowell. If Youks cannot play 3B for a full season or does not want to then that is an issue. Based on the evidence and quotes available I don't think that's the case.

The team can either spen da bunch of money to maintain the status quo or spend a bunch of money to get second tier players or they can spend a bunch of money to get top talent.

I guess you can make an argument that less is more but I probably won't buy into it.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

SJH -

Sure I've mentioned him, but as you point out, it's like 3rd or 4th on the list. Even then, you sort of contradict yourself in the balance of your post:
So, as you yourself admit, you can't make these decisions in a vacuum without considering what may be in the pipeline. Either the system matters or it doesn't. You're saying that Anderson is a lottery tocket who should essentially be ignored, yet in the next breath you say that we need to sign Tex b/c power is lacking in our system. Putting aside the fact that Reddick is arguably a power prospect, you can't have it both ways - you either have to consider what's within the system as a factor (though surely not the #1 factor) or you don't. I'm saying that Anderson, who is an extraordinary prospect the likes of which we've rarely these in some time around here, deserves to be on the list of factors, though certainly not #1.

Of course you cannot make decisions in a vacuum, but at the same time if I ran the Sox I would not be passing up a chance at going after Teixeira merely because Anderson is in the system. Lars has all of 41 games above the launching pad that is Lancaster; while he looks like a very good prospect I would like to see how he does in a full season in a much tougher hitting environment like Portland before making too much of a judgment on him.

Anderson is on the list of factors; on that we agree. But given where he is in his development cycle and the inherent uncertainty of prospects, I'd put his presence way, way down on the list of factors to consider when deciding to go after Teixeira. Teixeira is a superstar in the prime of his career; I'd certainly hope the Sox go all in in trying to sign him.

[lurker42]

If I'm looking to defend against injuries to my starting staff, I don't go out and sign Ben Sheets. Derek Lowe or someone that can remain healthy like him? That's another story.

Sheets (or Burnett, or whoever) would help defend against injuries in the rotation. Even if he's likely to get hurt, the extra arm increases depth. Assuming you'd like to avoid reaching any deeper in the minors than Buchholz or Bowden, a free agent signing of any sort lets you choose the best/healthiest 5 guys out of 8 instead of the best out of 7.

Signing Sheets/Burnett allows the Sox to start with Buchholz and Bowden in the minors, and Masterson in the bullpen. Without the signing one of those guys has to start in the rotation, and you already have one less effective arm to fall back on.

Now I'm not arguing Sheets or Burnett would be a safer move than Lowe or someone else with a clean injury history, or even that they'll be worth the money they'll command. But the best way to avoid having a sucky pitcher in the rotation is to stockpile as many pitchers as possible who don't suck.

[Rudy Pemberton]

When folks are talking about all the money the Sox have to spend, are they thinking about the increased salary that guys like Youkilis, Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, etc. are going to soon command? I mean, it's one thing to give Angels 1Bman whose name I can't spell $20M a year but how does that affect the team's ability / interest to give Youkilis $10M a year? Ultimately, the Sox really need to improve SS, C, and CF and two of those are likely to improve themselves internally. There are some concerns with Lowell but I would expect the best way to alleviate those is to sign a player capable of giving the team 300-400 AB's (maybe you have that guy in Bailey or Carter, I don't know). I would guess that those who want to replace Lowell now are the ones who didn't want him back anyways. In a similar vein there are concerns about Beckett, but replacing him with Sabathia probably isn't terribly realistic. These massive long term deals just don't seem to be the way this club operates.

[Quintanariffic]

I dont disagree with this, but how would you allocate $50-60M over these 4?

Can you clarify where the $50-60MM figure came from? Not being a dick, just wondering what makes that "the number". Even if it is the amount of money they have to spend this year, I think we first have to realize that that $50-60MM will likely take a haircut whether they sign a big name FA or not. Reports indicate that the Sox are interested, as they should be, in tying up the likes of Papelbon, Pedroia and Youkilis for a few years. That's going to cost a chunk of change. You have to also consider the expensive extensions that will be required for Bay and Beckett in the next two years. In short, a lot of that money is alrady, or will soon be, spoken for.

1) There are no Mike Piazza or IRod's in their prime available. I would love to sign a stud catcher, but the truth is that unless we resign Tek, which IMO would be a huge waste of money, filling the catcher is going to cost around 300K in cash and something more significant in prospects.

Absolutely. No disagreement here.

2) Sabathia will cost 20M+, but anything short of Sabathia will cost less. I think its safe to say that signing 1 pitcher will cost roughly 15M (whether it be Burnett, Sheets, Lowe, etc) and signing 2 pitchers will cost roughly 28-30M.

I'd prefer to spend the money on Lowe and call it a day on expensive FAs.

3) We already have Paps, Oki, and MDC, and I think everyone agrees we arent signing KRod or Fuentes, so even if we sign 2-3 arms, this isnt going to cost us more than 10M, tops.

I guess this assumes Masterson is in the rotation, which I'm also OK with, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to go to war with Paps, Oki and MDC being the only three reliable arms in the pen. Don't disagree that KRod and Fuentes are to be avoided though.

4) That leaves corner IF. Lets say the Sox spend:

Catcher: 4M. Sign a vet for 3.5M (Barajas, Zaun), acquire a young stud for 500K (Salty, Clement, Martin).
Rotation: 15M. Sign a vet for 15M not named Sabathia. Try to sign a second but the terms just arent favorable enough to pull the trigger.
Bullpen: 8M. Sign a decent arm for 4M and two wildcards for 2M each.

Thats 27M, and leaves the team ~23M to play with. Wouldnt signing Sabathia or Teixeira be a great use of this money? Sure, they can sign Tek for 8M and a second SP for 15M, but when you boil it down, wouldnt you rather have Sabathia or Teix over Tek and a 2nd SP?

I guess this is where we disagree. I'd rather John Henry make another $20MM this year than commit to putting the Red Sox on the hook for an additional $150-170MM for the following 7 years for Tex.

[Bowlerman9]

When folks are talking about all the money the Sox have to spend, are they thinking about the increased salary that guys like Youkilis, Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, etc. are going to soon command?

Well I can only speak for myself, but I am. I keep a payroll sheet for all future years for as long as we have guaranteed contracts. Maybe others make less informed opinions, I dont know.

[Bowlerman9]

Can you clarify where the $50-60MM figure came from? Not being a dick, just wondering what makes that "the number". Even if it is the amount of money they have to spend this year, I think we first have to realize that that $50-60MM will likely take a haircut whether they sign a big name FA or not. Reports indicate that the Sox are interested, as they should be, in tying up the likes of Papelbon, Pedroia and Youkilis for a few years. That's going to cost a chunk of change. You have to also consider the expensive extensions that will be required for Bay and Beckett in the next two years. In short, a lot of that money is alrady, or will soon be, spoken for.

I have a spreadsheet showing all guaranteed money, plus I put in estimates for what I expect to happen with regards to "obvious" things. When you add in 4M for Wakefield and potential arb awards/settlements with Papelbon, MDC (I assume he is a Super-2), Youkilis, and anyone else I cant remember (I am at work and cant look at my sheet right now), we have roughly 99M in payroll commitments for 2009. We have significantly less than that going forward. If we keep our 2008 payroll of 150M, I think we should have about 50M to spend. Given we went to the ALCS and probably made a nice chunk of money, I think a 155M-160M payroll is possible, though not necessary.

I guess this is where we disagree. I'd rather John Henry make another $20MM this year than commit to putting the Red Sox on the hook for an additional $150-170MM for the following 7 years for Tex.

At least now I see where you are coming from. I think we view the situation the same, just have a difference of opinion of the outcome.

[yecul]

It's amusing that one can argue that the Sox shouldn't waste money while at the same time suggesting they should pick up Lowe.

[grantb]

You do know that the Sox scored the most runs in the regular season of all the AL playoff teams, right? The offense in general wasn't the problem, although the injuries to Lowell and Ortiz didn't help

Great, awesome. They scored a lot of aggregate runs. Let's look a little closer though.
Disclaimer {I put all the runs scored and win data in manually. I seem to have missed a single win, which should not affect the data too much}
The Red Sox scored and average of 5.2 runs a game. They scored more than 7 runs 33 times, ~20%, and won 27 of those games, ~80%. They scored less than 3 runs 34 times, ~20%, and won 7 of those games, ~20%. They scored from 3 to 7 runs, inclusive, 95 times, ~60%, and won 60 of those games, ~65%.
I would like to make the argument that if the Red Sox were able to score 2 extra runs in 5 or more games where they had not already scored more than 7 runs, they would have won enough extra games to have won the division. I believe Teixeira can make that difference, even over a 'fully recovered' Lowell starting on day one.
I'll post a regression later once I run it on SAS.

[Quintanariffic]

It's amusing that one can argue that the Sox shouldn't waste money while at the same time suggesting they should pick up Lowe.

It is equally amusing that one is unable to distinguish between what is likely to be a $160-200MM contract vs. a $50MM contract for a position where depth is always illusory.

[Quintanariffic]

I would like to make the argument that if the Red Sox were able to score 2 extra runs in 5 or more games where they had not already scored more than 7 runs, they would have won enough extra games to have won the division. I believe Teixeira can make that difference, even over a 'fully recovered' Lowell starting on day one.

And what difference would winning the division have made? I think it's pretty clear from the evidence to date in the Wild Card era that the divisional crown, at least as the playoffs are presently constructed, is meaningless. All that matters is getting into the tournament.

Edited by Quintanariffic, 27 October 2008 - 11:25 AM.

[yecul]

That's a fair point. You know, they could even resign Alex Cora for $20M and would still be spending less.

This idea of passing on Teixeira is looking smarter and smarter.

And here I thought that putting a talented team on the field with the idea of winning games and having success was the real goal of baseball. Silly me.

Derek Lowe for $50 Million.

Derek Lowe.

Well, good luck with that. You're free to your... thought?

[Quintanariffic]

It's mine and mine alone? Here's the original quote from Buzzkill Pauley:

My B. I wouldn't go out and spend big money on either of those guys, but that doesn't mean that quality starting pitching isn't more of a priority than the most expensive contract ever given out to a 1B.

[Quintanariffic]

This is not a Thome-Howard situation where Lars is ready and they'd be blocking him by inking a guy long term.

However, note what happened in that situation. Philly traded him almost immediately to open up the door for their new young stuf.

When the Phillies signed Thome, it was a six year deal and Howard was a 23 year old coming off of an impressive season in the SAL and FSL. To bring Teixeira here, it will take at least 8 years, with the young 1B in the wings being all of 20 and coming off of an even more impressive season in the EL. So the comparison doesn't quite fit, b/c it's easier to trade a guy with three years left on his deal (in the midst of an economic expansion) than one with six years or so (in the midst of what will likely be one of the deeper recessions we've seen in decades), especially when the young player in question is about a year closer to the major leagues. The broader point of not allowing yourself to be paralyzed for fear of blocking your young stud prospects is clearly valid. But Thome/Tex and Howard/Lars isn't exactly apples to apples either.

[trekfan55]

And what difference would winning the division have made? I think it's pretty clear from the evidence to date in the Wild Card era that the divisional crown, at least as the playoffs are presently constructed, is meaningless. All that matters is getting into the tournament.

Not to highjack this thread that much, but homefield advantage is desirable in the playoffs. Also, in terms of matchups, the Sox would have faced the White Sox in the ALDS and assuming they won (big assumption but I'll make it anyway) face the winner of the Angels-Rays ALDS (no assumptions there). So yeah, the playoffs would have been very different if the Sox win the division.

Go back to 2005, if the Sox win one more game that year, any game, they get to face the Angels while the White Sox face the Yankees. They also probably set their rotation better so that Schilling was available before a Game 4 that was never played.

Getting into the tournament is almost all that matters. Getting there in a good position makes a hell of a difference too.

[ookami7m]

I see Anderson as Papi's successor right now.

Then in reference to trading Lars for a C.

This should never be mentioned again, unless you are implying Theo is getting Joe Mauer.

Those are the two posts that spurred my original - SJH did a better job defending my point while I was working than I can do further, but there is definitely some Lars Anderson ballwashing going on. He's still got to prove himself at AAA or the Majors.

[Quintanariffic]

Not to highjack this thread that much, but homefield advantage is desirable in the playoffs. Also, in terms of matchups, the Sox would have faced the White Sox in the ALDS and assuming they won (big assumption but I'll make it anyway) face the winner of the Angels-Rays ALDS (no assumptions there). So yeah, the playoffs would have been very different if the Sox win the division.

Would the outcome have been any different though? The Sox were 2-2 in St. Pete and 1-2 at home vs. the Rays. It's not like missing that extra home game was clearly a deciding factor.

Go back to 2005, if the Sox win one more game that year, any game, they get to face the Angels while the White Sox face the Yankees. They also probably set their rotation better so that Schilling was available before a Game 4 that was never played.

Getting into the tournament is almost all that matters. Getting there in a good position makes a hell of a difference too.

There's a lot of speculation in that.

What we know is that in the Wild Card era, 4 of the 14 champions (including 2008) were Wild Card teams. Even if you assume every team has an equal chance, 2 out of 8 playoff teams are WC, meaning that you would predict they would win the WS 25% of the time. Wild Card teams have exceeded that figure (4/14 = 28.6%). So at leas thus far, there is no statistical evidence that home field advantage by being a divisional winner gives you a leg up in winning the whole enchilada. To me, that's preferable to a bunch of "what ifs" about a 2005 team that was gassed in so many ways.

[grantb]

Would the outcome have been any different though? The Sox were 2-2 in St. Pete and 1-2 at home vs. the Rays. It's not like missing that extra home game was clearly a deciding factor.

You're really glossing over the more important point; the White Sox were not as good a team as the Angels by any stretch of the imagination. You could argue that the White Sox were in better form for the playoffs because they had to contend for their division crown longer than the Angels, but the Angels were still the vastly superior team. The Rays definitely had a better chance of losing to the Angels in the division series than they did losing to the White Sox. Yes, if if if, but winning the division is not meaningless.

[SoxFanSince57]

I can appreciate that some do not want to pay through the nose for Teixeira. But, as I see it, there is very little on the horizon that the Sox can do to dramatically improve the club offensively without the acquisition of Teixeira. IMO, everything about his offensive approach and stats smacks of someone the FO would give their left nut for.

If the team passes on Teixeira then the burden of proof shifts over to folks like Quintanarriffic to explain how the Sox will improve the ball club by adding pitching. IMO, it would be monumentally stupid not to re-sign Wake. That being said, the team will rely on Buchholz/Masterson or it needs to acquire an additional SP who will be a difference maker. Or perhaps the team can acquire a top catcher, but of course that would cost the team at least one of its pitching prospects. Thus far, it sounds like Quintanaraffic believes that the team should get Lowe and improve its bench and it is ready for the 2009 WS. IMO, that approach will not bring us to the promise land. (I am not intentionally being a dick here. I just don't get how some believe that plugging Lowe/Sheets into the rotation will be sufficient to enable the Sox overtake the Rays and stay competitive with a re-tooled MFY.)