[Rudy Pemberton]

Lowell was substantially better at Fenway last year, but was kind of all over the place in his time here

OPS (Home / Road)
2006: 763 / 866
2007: 993 / 767
2008: 766 / 823
2009: 932 / 713

Just an interesting thing to look at; the idea that he was a Fenway hitter and a liability offensively on the road is really based on 2009. Had he come back, who knows how these #s would have looked?

[Drek717]

Lowell was substantially better at Fenway last year, but was kind of all over the place in his time here

OPS (Home / Road)
2006: 763 / 866
2007: 993 / 767
2008: 766 / 823
2009: 932 / 713

Just an interesting thing to look at; the idea that he was a Fenway hitter and a liability offensively on the road is really based on 2009. Had he come back, who knows how these #s would have looked?

I think those numbers are more indicative of Lowell being pretty replaceable. His best offensive season was thanks to a massive home/road split. His other years where solid but an .800-.810 OPS corner infielder shouldn't be too hard to replace.

In a direct comparison of '09 to '10 lineups Lowell's big split does matter pretty heavily though, because in reality that split was a huge factor in why we had an anemic road offense. It can and likely will be improved upon, and therefore at least half the time we are likely to be a better offense than '09 even without another big bat being added to the team.

This post has been edited by Drek717: 17 December 2009 - 07:58 PM

[bombdiggz]

Can we split out the lineup construction thoughts? Seems like that is not a random Sox topic and could be a topic worthy of significant discussion.

[Eric Van]

Lowell was substantially better at Fenway last year, but was kind of all over the place in his time here

OPS (Home / Road)
2006: 763 / 866
2007: 993 / 767
2008: 766 / 823
2009: 932 / 713

Just an interesting thing to look at; the idea that he was a Fenway hitter and a liability offensively on the road is really based on 2009. Had he come back, who knows how these #s would have looked?

That almost looks to me like a guy who has two different regimens for dealing with the travel (or the distractions of the road), neither of which he likes, so every year he goes back to the other one.

(That's a half-serious suggestion. The other half is just throwing some meat to those who still like to tease (mock?) me about Varitek's sleep patterns, something I have no problem with, since I was right.)

[SoxFanSince57]

SSS warning: Seems to me this winter the Sox brass have decided to avoid "prolonged" FA negotiations and instead they have decided to make their offer (Bay and Holliday and probably Lackey) and ask the agent if there is a basis for a deal at that price and those years. If the answer is yes (Lackey/Cameron/Scutaro) then the negotiations begin and remain short. If the answer is "no or does not look good" the Sox walk away from the table immediately; no groveling and no teeth nashing.

Is this the lesson learned from the Teixeira/Boras fiasco? Stop with the lapdog, "you will love the city and its people" and you are "special for us" bullshit and over the top ego stoking and approach these negotiations as clear cut business and ball club fit transactions. ("We want you in Boston and here is how you fit/will be used. Here is what we are prepared to pay. Are you interested? Period!) If it is I think it is a great show of negotiating maturity.

No executive wants to go through the angst, emotional turmoil and professional embarrassment of either the Teixeira or Pedro shit-shows of the past.

This post has been edited by SoxFanSince57: 19 December 2009 - 10:25 AM

[Al Zarilla]

SSS warning: Seems to me this winter the Sox brass have decided to avoid "prolonged" FA negotiations and instead they have decided to make their offer (Bay and Holliday and probably Lackey) and ask the agent if there is a basis for a deal at that price and those years. If the answer is yes (Lackey/Cameron/Scutaro) then the negotiations begin and remain short. If the answer is "no or does not look good" the Sox walk away from the table immediately; no groveling and no teeth nashing.

Is this the lesson learned from the Teixeira/Boras fiasco? Stop with the lapdog, "you will love the city and its people" and you are "special for us" bullshit and over the top ego stoking and approach these negotiations as clear cut business and ball club fit transactions. ("We want you in Boston and here is how you fit/will be used. Here is what we are prepared to pay. Are you interested? Period!) If it is I think it is a great show of negotiating maturity.

No executive wants to go through the angst, emotional turmoil and professional embarrassment of either the Teixeira or Pedro shit-shows of the past.

That might just be a damn good conclusion based on what we're seeing so far.

- Take it or leave it.

- I've got better things to do than to dance with you, Boras, until everyone else has gone home.

- Bird in the hand.

- Pound sand, Boras.

[Eric Van]

SSS warning: Seems to me this winter the Sox brass have decided to avoid "prolonged" FA negotiations and instead they have decided to make their offer (Bay and Holliday and probably Lackey) and ask the agent if there is a basis for a deal at that price and those years. If the answer is yes (Lackey/Cameron/Scutaro) then the negotiations begin and remain short. If the answer is "no or does not look good" the Sox walk away from the table immediately; no groveling and no teeth nashing.

Is this the lesson learned from the Teixeira/Boras fiasco? Stop with the lapdog, "you will love the city and its people" and you are "special for us" bullshit and over the top ego stoking and approach these negotiations as clear cut business and ball club fit transactions. ("We want you in Boston and here is how you fit/will be used. Here is what we are prepared to pay. Are you interested? Period!) If it is I think it is a great show of negotiating maturity.

No executive wants to go through the angst, emotional turmoil and professional embarrassment of either the Teixeira or Pedro shit-shows of the past.

I think there's some truth in this in that I'm sure it was a great relief to carry out the negotiations as you describe rather than Boras-style.

But I'm sure they expected to have the Holliday negotiations drag on, as Boras played the Sox against the Cards and tried to get a 3rd team involved. What happened is that Lackey approached them and they sat down and fired up Excel and quickly saw that if they took the money Holliday had turned down and gave it to Lackey and signed Cameron, the total ROI would be much better.

And I expect they will play the stupid waiting game with Boras and Beltre. The only other reported interested teams are the A's -- who want him cheaper than we do -- and the Mariners, who are almost certainly bluffing in an effort to make sure we pay a decent price.

[bosockboy]

I think there's some truth in this in that I'm sure it was a great relief to carry out the negotiations as you describe rather than Boras-style.

But I'm sure they expected to have the Holliday negotiations drag on, as Boras played the Sox against the Cards and tried to get a 3rd team involved. What happened is that Lackey approached them and they sat down and fired up Excel and quickly saw that if they took the money Holliday had turned down and gave it to Lackey and signed Cameron, the total ROI would be much better.

And I expect they will play the stupid waiting game with Boras and Beltre. The only other reported interested teams are the A's -- who want him cheaper than we do -- and the Mariners, who are almost certainly bluffing in an effort to make sure we pay a decent price.

I think the Giants and Angels could be considered involved....the Angels for no more than spending their money somewhere, and Beltre's preferred coast.

This post has been edited by bosockboy: 19 December 2009 - 03:06 PM

[SoxFanSince57]

I am also finding it interesting the number of GMs who are really focusing on 'run prevention' as a key to club performance. The increased focus on defense, pitching and speed/athleticism is sweeping the landscape this winter.

It is not that OBP is taking a back seat per se, but high OBP guys like Damon, Matsui, Bay and Nick Johnson aren't going to "earn" a super premium for that skill since they are all getting slower/older/poorer on defense. The valuation of defense vs OBP is changing.

This post has been edited by SoxFanSince57: 19 December 2009 - 03:01 PM

[sachilles]

I am also finding it interesting the number of GMs who are really focusing on 'run prevention' as a key to club performance. The increased focus on defense, pitching and speed/athleticism is sweeping the landscape this winter.

I'm not sure how one would quantify it, but I would think strong defense would be easier to consistently maintain in comparison to offense. I certainly welcome the increased emphasis towards defense, but I think strong offense tends to put more bodies in seats around the league.

[Montana Fan]

In the last two weeks the Sox have signed an established replacement for Buchholz an established replacement for Lowrie and an established replacement for Ellsbury. With the latter two the replacements are a bridge to Iglesias and Kalish while Lackey is a 5 year contact replacement for the German. Methinks Theo has something cooking in the crockpot.

[redsoxstiff]

Methinks Theo has something cooking in the crockpot.

I am more inclined to see a pressure cooker...

[Montana Fan]

Except that Lackey was signed to replace the combination of Tim Wakefield, Michael Bowden, and Junichi Tazawa, over whom he represents a titanic upgrade worth every penny of the contract. Signing him to replace Buchholz means paying $16.5M instead of $0.5M to get the exact same performance*, and makes no sense at all.

Mike Cameron was signed to replace Jeremy Hermida as the replacement for Jason Bay, again a titanic upgrade worth every penny (and in fact, a minimal downgrade from Bay). Signing him to replace Ellsbury instead doesn't make any sense, either.

I'm not saying I'm right but it seems as if Buchholz and Ellsbury are very expendable right now. With a top three of Lester, Beckett & Lackey plus Wake & Dice-K and Tazawa & Bowden, Buchholz is expendable. With an outfield of Cameron, Hermida and Drew plus say Mark Derosa, Ellsbury is expendable.

Buchholz and Ellsbury both have good value right now and could be a solid centerpiece of a deal that would bring back a top hitter. Don't get me wrong, I like them both but think that Theo would like to bring in an elite hitter. IMO, Buchholz and Ellsbury are very available.

[bombdiggz]

Buchholz is expendable...Ellsbury is expendable.

That my friend is ridiculous. Neither Clay, nor Ellsbury are anywhere close to expendable. They are extremely valuable commodities both to the Red Sox and other clubs. In the rotation you mention, the Sox only have one more year of control of Beckett and three of Dice, why would a pitcher with five years of control and enormous potential be expendable. The Red Sox did not sign Lackey in order to trade Buchholz, they signed Lackey to both set the market for Beckett and more importantly leverage against him leaving if he did not want to sign an extension in line with what they value him at. The Red Sox are in the position to sign a top free agent like Lackey because of the contributions of young cost controlled pitchers like Lester and Buchholz, not in spite of them. The Sox are pushing up against, if not over the CBT (the soft cap), trading Buchholz and Ellsbury for a bat and signing Mark DeRosa to only look for their replacements in the near future is not a formula for success.

I like Bats, Big bats. Hell, I'd love another in the middle of the lineup, but not at that cost.

This post has been edited by bombdiggz: 21 December 2009 - 12:01 AM

[Buzzkill Pauley]

That my friend is ridiculous. Neither Clay, nor Ellsbury are anywhere close to expendable. They are extremely valuable commodities both to the Red Sox and other clubs. In the rotation you mention, the Sox only have one more year of control of Beckett and three of Dice, why would a pitcher with five years of control and enormous potential be expendable. The Red Sox did not sign Lackey in order to trade Buchholz, they signed Lackey to both set the market for Beckett and more importantly leverage against him leaving if he did not want to sign an extension in line with what they value him at. The Red Sox are in the position to sign a top free agent like Lackey because of the contributions of young cost controlled pitchers like Lester and Buchholz, not in spite of them. The Sox are pushing up against, if not over the CBT (the soft cap), trading Buchholz and Ellsbury for a bat and signing Mark DeRosa to only look for their replacements in the near future is not a formula for success.

I like Bats, Big bats. Hell, I'd love another in the middle of the lineup, but not at that cost.

By my math -- and hopefully Philly will update again once the arb-eligible players' contracts start getting signed -- the Sox are $1M or so from hitting the $170M CBT tax threshold. I think we don't see any more big moves until mid-season or until Theo finds a way to get some contracts off the books.

Ellsbury and Clay are not only not expendable, they're critical to the team's ability to eat bad guaranteed contracts in an effort to stay competitive.

[Buckner's Boots]

All right, let's lay aside our personal hatred for the guy, and that hatred apparently being shared by fielding metrics: Jonny Gomes was nontendered by the Reds. Is he a match for the Red Sox? I tend not to think so because Cameron is out there right now, but if there is a trade involving Ellsbury, Gomes is a possible target to be a platoon partner with Hermida, one would think.

[bombdiggz]

All right, let's lay aside our personal hatred for the guy, and that hatred apparently being shared by fielding metrics: Jonny Gomes was nontendered by the Reds. Is he a match for the Red Sox? I tend not to think so because Cameron is out there right now, but if there is a trade involving Ellsbury, Gomes is a possible target to be a platoon partner with Hermida, one would think.

I posted this same thing when I saw he was non tendered and saw that he mashed LHP. I then proceeded to edit my post when I saw just how ridiculously bad his UZR was, -22.3 UZR/150 career. No matter how much you doubt the precision of fielding metrics, this guy is a disaster. Unless you are bringing him in to platoon with Ortiz, I just don't see a match with the Sox emphasis on run prevention.

This post has been edited by bombdiggz: 21 December 2009 - 12:28 PM

[sachilles]

Youk has been a pretty good team player, flipping back and forth between 1st and 3rd. At some point he's going to have to make decision in his own best interest.

Does he have more value on the open market as a specialized 1st baseman, a specialized 3rd basemen? Or does he have more value splitting time(and conceivably not being as good at each)?
I get the feeling that the front office takes his versatility for granted, and I fear that might bite them in the ass later.

[snowmanny]

I am wondering if there are in fact prospects who cannot be traded because of side deals or handshake agreements made upon the player's signing. We heard this a bit back around the Santana trade talks with Kalish - that he only signed with the Red Sox with a promise he wouldn't be traded. We've heard this a lot with Westmoreland. I wonder if anything was promised to Tazawa.

Obviously, we are going to hear Westmoreland's name thrown out there in trade rumors a lot over the next few months, so I'm especially interested in whether the Sox would actually make these promises, and if so, any guesses as to what the parameters of such a promise might be.

[Todd Benzinger]

Why didn't the FO outbid the Rays for Ryan Shealy on a minor league deal?

He has a +15/UZR 150! Yeah he's had an inconsistent bat, but his WOBA was .400 last year in the majors and minors. He really deserves consistent PT. Not that BOS would give him that... but neither will TB.

Given the question marks at 1B/3B, he'd have made a nice guy to stash in Paw... he might even have made the club out of ST depending on injuries etc.