73 replies to this topic

[Foulkey Reese]

I don't necessarily agree with Donofrio here, but it's something interesting to think about at the very least. Theo is on record as saying that 2010 would be the last year this core would be able to go for it without some big changes, so I doubt this would ever happen. But if the right deal comes along for a stud position player I can see how this might be a wise move.

The perception of Beckett is that he’s a bona fide ace. A guy who has earned a mention among the game’s elite, and is in the midst of his prime. A guy who grabs the ball and gets it done, whether it takes guts or guile or his own good stuff. A guy who delivers every five days through the summer, then can single-handedly wins playoff series in the fall. And, at times, he has been all that.

But, by and large, the reality has been something else altogether.

He was downright brilliant a couple years back, and Duck Boats rolled through Boston’s crowded streets because of it. He posted a 3.27 earned run average. He ranked second in the American League’s Cy Young voting. He won 20 games during the regular season. Then he won four more – while allowing only four runs over 30 innings – in the playoffs.

In reality, however, Beckett’s 2007 stands as the exception among his seasons since 2003. And essentially among his career on the whole.

But there are plenty of people across baseball who haven’t yet. They see a 29-year-old who'll be a free agent next winter and perceive a pitcher in his prime. They see a sturdily built 6-foot, 4-inch right-hander and perceive a workhorse. They see the clutch performances of 2003, and 2007, and perceive him to be an automatic in the postseason. They see Josh Beckett and perceive him to be an ace worth paying a hefty price to acquire.

The reality, however, is something different. Cliff Lee is an ace. CC Sabathia is an ace. Beckett is not an ace.

http://davedonofrio....ng-the-ace.aspx

Edited by Foulkey Reese, 05 November 2009 - 01:56 PM.

[SaveBooFerriss]

Although the article states the Sox should try to turn Beckett into something better during the trade market this winter, the article fails to show how that would be accomplished.

It is hard to imagine that the Sox could make themselves better in 2010 by trading Beckett. If there was a way, I would certainly listen, but it seems like a doomed exercise.

Is there any reason to think the Sox are looking to take a step back in 2010?

[yecul]

1. What are their intentions for 2010?
2. What are their intentions for Beckett beyond that?

Those are the keys. If they are just going to patch things up (ie, cheap LF instead of Bay, stick it out with Lowell) and are not going to resign Beckett, then sure, go ahead and trade him. I like Beckett. I am a big fan and he is capable of performing at a high level -- if inconsistently -- but if 1 year of Beckett can be exchanged for multiple years of other key pieces then I will take that exchange even if it hurts them for that one year. It's ok if he's not an "ace".

Do you expect Buchholz to step up to the next level? Can you sign a FA or trade-and-sign for someone like Halladay (maybe a bad example, depending)? There are obviously many factors.

[The Filthy One]

Is there any reason to think the Sox are looking to take a step back in 2010?

I don't know about taking a step back (for instance, I can't see a way they trade Beckett this offseason), but you could certainly argue they'd be better off standing pat this offseason and overhauling the team after 2010, when Lowell, Martinez, Beckett, etc. are all up for new contracts. I think the team, as constructed now, could probably post another 92-95 win season. With some minor tweaks, they could be a bit better. I would think the FO might want to make one more push with this core, then see where they stand after 2010.

[Adirondack jack]

Felix Hernandez most similar pitcher is Chris Young. He isn't good, either!

I love how the author says Beckett only has a good season or two and then points to Cliff Lee. Barring some overpay from another team, that I am not anticipating, it seems the best route with Beckett is trying to extend him this winter.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I can see what the author is trying to say: Josh Beckett's reputation as a big game pitcher exceeds his actual performances and capabilities as a pitcher, and if the Sox can get someone to overpay based on reputation rather than reality, they should seriously consider making a trade.

However I think the author overstates his case. Yes, 2007 stands as an exception in Josh Beckett's career due to the high win total, low ERA combined with the dominant posts-season performance that year. However, what's left is actually nowhere near as bad as the author implies. Over the last two years after the 2007 season, Beckett is 29-16, 3.93 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 8.6 K/9, and 4.17 K/BB. That's a damn good pitcher. Perhaps not a Cy Young candidate, but a damn good pitcher nonetheless. And he's gone over 200 innings in 3 of his 4 Boston years (the one exception being 2008 when he hurt the oblique near the end of the year).

Now, it would help if he got his fat ass in better shape over this offseason; he's had enough tweaks and minor muscle pulls that I think his conditioning is not where it could be. Perhaps the incentive of pitching for a new contract will be the motivator for him doing so.

[BigMike]

QUOTE But there are plenty of people across baseball who haven’t yet. They see a 29-year-old who'll be a free agent next winter and perceive a pitcher in his prime. They see a sturdily built 6-foot, 4-inch right-hander and perceive a workhorse. They see the clutch performances of 2003, and 2007, and perceive him to be an automatic in the postseason. They see Josh Beckett and perceive him to be an ace worth paying a hefty price to acquire.

The reality, however, is something different. Cliff Lee is an ace. CC Sabathia is an ace. Beckett is not an ace.

Lee is having a Becket 07 type of postseason, but really what has Cliff Lee proven that Beckett hasn't?

I do give Sabathia credit for the absurd number of innings he has thrown, and his performance in Milwaukee last year was epic, but up until this postseason he has come up very small when the postseason started

Beckett is not Pedro or Clemens in their prime. He's not Tim Lincecum, but he has absolutely delivered in his role as staff ace the past 3 years.

How on earth do you make yourself better trading Beckett? Do you trade Beckett for Prospects, and then include those prospects plus others in a deal for Hernandez or Halladay?

[rembrat]

I could say that 2006 is the exception among his career and I'd be right too. Josh Beckett is a guy that has posted FIPs of: 3.69, 2.94, 3.59, 3.27, 5.12 (2006), 3.08, 3.24, 3.63 since 2002. He is a really good pitcher, not locking him up would be a mistake. And since he seems to fit the mold of what this FO likes in pitching (power fastball, power curve, high K's, low BB's - remember Henry had a hardon for AJB) I don't see him rocking anything other than a Red Sox uni for 4 to 5 years.

[amfox1]

Beckett is not Pedro or Clemens in their prime. He's not Tim Lincecum, but he has absolutely delivered in his role as staff ace the past 3 years.

How on earth do you make yourself better trading Beckett? Do you trade Beckett for Prospects, and then include those prospects plus others in a deal for Hernandez or Halladay?

While his heart and reputation are as an ace, Beckett has settled in as a #2 pitcher. Jon Lester is the clear ace of the Red Sox.

As to what you do with Beckett, you keep him for one more year. Even as a #2 pitcher, he is underpaid (or at a minimum fairly paid) at $12mm per year. If the Red Sox fall out of the race by the trade deadline, they can consider trading him for prospects or can offer him arb and take the two draft picks (assuming the same compensation system is still in effect).

I would not trade Beckett, nor would I trade Buchholz. The thought of trading Beckett for prospects to flip for another pitcher seems overly complicated and unlikely to obtain fair value. If I had to trade a starter for Hernandez, I would look to trade Matsuzaka. He will come cheaper ($9.3mm avg.), he has obvious interest for Mariners ownership and its Asian fans and is signed beyond 2010.

[5belongstoGeorge]

If I had to trade a starter for Hernandez, I would look to trade Matsuzaka. He will come cheaper ($9.3mm avg.), he has obvious interest for Mariners ownership and its Asian fans and is signed beyond 2010.

If the Mariners would do a deal of King Felix for Dice-K/++ I would start to believe in Santa again.

I can't imagine a scenario where the Sox would get equal or better value for Josh F. Beckett. As was said earlier, if anything, try to get an extension. Trading away an ace or even a #2 with post season benefits seems like a foolish idea for a Red Sox team that is annually expected to post a 90+win season. The Sox have historically kept such an abundance of pitching who needs Beckett?

I also concur with SJH's point that Beckett could use a little core training in the off season. If dude had been doing full planks in June and July we could have won it all in 2008.

Edited by 5belongstoGeorge, 03 November 2009 - 01:19 PM.

[ElcaballitoMVP]

If the Red Sox were to trade Beckett this offseason, wouldn't that likely mean they have no interest in signing him to an extension? Because either way, you're only getting one year out of Beckett, either in performance or in value coming back in a trade. Then the question is, do the 2010 Red Sox have a better or worse chance of getting to the playoffs by trading Beckett. I can't see any way this team, as currently constructed, can say they'd be better in 2010 without a guy who is, at worst, your #2 with the upside to have a dominating, Cy Young-type season.

Unless this team is getting multiple pieces to fix the team (like a C and SS, or LF and SS or an absolute stud at one of those positions) and then making a deal for a Roy Halladay to replace Beckett, then I just can't see it happening. It's certainly a possibility, but I think the Red Sox like having Josh Beckett and I think Josh Beckett likes having the Red Sox. Beckett has said on numerous occasions that he loves pitching in Boston, there's also no secret that John Henry has a special attachment to Beckett, so I can see a 3/4 year extension being hammered out before the Sox send him packing.

I just think removing Beckett, unless you get a ton in return (which is unlikely when you're only trading for 1 season of Beckett), is going to do more harm than good. And then what happens if you don't get a Roy Halladay or Felix Hernandez? Do you then overpay for John Lackey in years and dollars? I think the team is better off sticking with Beckett and hope he signs an extension at some point. I would certainly explore an extension before trading him.

[philly sox fan]

While his heart and reputation are as an ace, Beckett has settled in as a #2 pitcher. Jon Lester is the clear ace of the Red Sox.

As to what you do with Beckett, you keep him for one more year. Even as a #2 pitcher, he is underpaid (or at a minimum fairly paid) at $12mm per year. If the Red Sox fall out of the race by the trade deadline, they can consider trading him for prospects or can offer him arb and take the two draft picks (assuming the same compensation system is still in effect).

You seem to have pretty high standards for a #2 starter. By Fan Graphs WAR Beckett has ranked 15th, 13th, and 3rd the last 3 years.

I'm not one of those guys who says that there has to be 30 #1 starters or anything like that, but it seems pretty likely to me that Beckett is solidly in the 11th to 15th best starter in baseball range.

He may not be a mythical "ace" and Lester sure seems to have passed him, but I don't think that makes him a "settled" #2 starter in the grand scheme of things. He's better than Derek Lowe and AJ Burnett the big FA pitchers from last year and though it's more debatable I'd say better than Lackey too. Those are all 15-18M pitchers.

Fan Graphs has his value at ~23M the last couple of years. Even if you discount that 10-20% he is wildly underpaid at 12M and looking for a deserved up into the high teens.

It seems to me that Beckett has gone from overrated - he wasn't better than Sabathia in 2007 - to underrated by most Sox fans. Just because you don't contend for a Cy Young or you've been passed by another homegrown pitcher doesn't necessarily make you a #2 starter.

[BucketOBalls]

The author is correct in that Beckett is viewed as an ace pitcher, but has really been more of a #2 in his time in Boston. He's kinda like Mark Buehrle. A good pitcher who might give a great year once in a while. When he is on, he's very good, but he doesn't have the consistency one would expect of a true #1.

That said...I think he's at the high end for a #2 pitcher. I don't see any way you can trade him and help the team though. The only team that would want him would be a team that really wanted to go for it next year and had a decent possibility of extending him. The ones I can think of are the Mets and Cubs. Beckett and Lowell to the Mets for David Wright(? I can't see that happening, even if it does make some sense.

Not to mention that trading Beckett means the Sox start with either Matsuzaka or Buchholz as their second best starter...which is a bit scary. Matsuzaka is a roll of the dice(-k) and I'd like Buchholz replicate his performance last year after an offseaon before being 100% sure of him(that seems to be a problem alot of the time- guys seems to forget what they did).

[glennhoffmania]

If I had to trade a starter for Hernandez, I would look to trade Matsuzaka. He will come cheaper ($9.3mm avg.), he has obvious interest for Mariners ownership and its Asian fans and is signed beyond 2010.

He has a full no-trade.

And the author's comment about Cliff Lee was pretty ridiculous.

[amfox1]

He has a full no-trade.

And the author's comment about Cliff Lee was pretty ridiculous.

I understand that, but I believe (my opinion only) after the whole workout rehab that he would not reject going to a team like Seattle which is West Coast and has a Japanese ownership and following.

[amfox1]

You seem to have pretty high standards for a #2 starter. By Fan Graphs WAR Beckett has ranked 15th, 13th, and 3rd the last 3 years.

I'm not one of those guys who says that there has to be 30 #1 starters or anything like that, but it seems pretty likely to me that Beckett is solidly in the 11th to 15th best starter in baseball range.

He may not be a mythical "ace" and Lester sure seems to have passed him, but I don't think that makes him a "settled" #2 starter in the grand scheme of things. He's better than Derek Lowe and AJ Burnett the big FA pitchers from last year and though it's more debatable I'd say better than Lackey too. Those are all 15-18M pitchers.

Fan Graphs has his value at ~23M the last couple of years. Even if you discount that 10-20% he is wildly underpaid at 12M and looking for a deserved up into the high teens.

It seems to me that Beckett has gone from overrated - he wasn't better than Sabathia in 2007 - to underrated by most Sox fans. Just because you don't contend for a Cy Young or you've been passed by another homegrown pitcher doesn't necessarily make you a #2 starter.

Point taken. I certainly did not mean to imply that he was anything but at the top of the #2 starter class.

The player immediately above Beckett in 2009 WAR is Josh Johnson, who to me is an ace and the two players immediately below Beckett in 2009 WAR is Joel Piniero and Gavin Floyd, who to me are not aces.

I agree that Beckett will be looking for a contract close to Burnett's, and I do not see the Red Sox paying that kind of coin for Beckett's age 31-34 years.

[bosockboy]

Point taken. I certainly did not mean to imply that he was anything but at the top of the #2 starter class.

The player immediately above Beckett in 2009 WAR is Josh Johnson, who to me is an ace and the two players immediately below Beckett in 2009 WAR is Joel Piniero and Gavin Floyd, who to me are not aces.

I agree that Beckett will be looking for a contract close to Burnett's, and I do not see the Red Sox paying that kind of coin for Beckett's age 31-34 years.

Beckett's agent should be fired if he gets Burnett's deal. Beckett has carried 2 teams to a parade on his back...and whether his body of work is inconsistent or not, his agent should turn those two seasons into a pretty large haul. Someone will pay 5/100 at least.

[Buck Showalter]

Beckett's agent should be fired if he gets Burnett's deal. Beckett has carried 2 teams to a parade on his back...and whether his body of work is inconsistent or not, his agent should turn those two seasons into a pretty large haul. Someone will pay 5/100 at least.

Certainly the Yankees would.

I'm with BigMike...I don't envision many scenarios where trading Beckett makes the Red Sox better.

[HriniakPosterChild]

I understand that, but I believe (my opinion only) after the whole workout rehab that he would not reject going to a team like Seattle which is West Coast and has a Japanese ownership and following.

Maybe he won't reject it at the end of the day, but his agent (Boras) will make certain he doesn't accept it without lots of other goodies (for both of them) in the deal. Trading Matsuzaka is not going to be trading away the typical pre-FA pitcher.

[maufman]

Even if you want to trade Beckett, the stars are aligned against it. Lee, Halladay and Webb are all hitting the market next winter, and the Jays are openly shopping Halladay. How many teams have the money to sign a big-name pitcher to a long-term deal and are willing to part with serious talent to get that big-name pitcher a year sooner? Would any of them prefer Beckett to Halladay? Probably not. So the Sox would have to wait for Halladay to move, and there's no telling when that could happen-- it could be next week, but it could also be in February. After Halladay moves, who knows if there would be a market for Beckett? Even if trading Beckett makes sense in theory, in practice it's almost certain not to happen.

On the other hand, if at least two of the other front-line SPs (Lee, Halladay, Webb) aren't extended this winter, the upside of waiting another year for his payday will be less enticing to Beckett. (Webb is virtually certain not to get an extension.) In addition to those SPs, Joe Mauer and Carl Crawford are likely to be available, along with the usual collection of lesser lights. With so many high-profile targets, and with the clubs likely to be feeling the continuing pinch of recession, taking a discount to get his money now makes more sense for Beckett than it might under other circumstances.

Beckett's agent should be fired if he gets Burnett's deal. Beckett has carried 2 teams to a parade on his back...and whether his body of work is inconsistent or not, his agent should turn those two seasons into a pretty large haul. Someone will pay 5/100 at least.

Well, Burnett hit the free market, but I agree that Beckett won't accept less than Burnett got, so 5/82.5 is the floor for any possible extension. For their part, with so much talent hitting the market next winter, the FO won't give Beckett his money a year early unless they receive a substantial discount. Reasonable people can disagree what would constitute a "substantial discount," but $20mm AAV certainly wouldn't. Therefore 5/100 is the ceiling for any extension.

I expect the Sox to sign Beckett to a 5-year extension for $85-90mm, unless the FO knows something about worrysome about Beckett's health that we don't.

[PedroKsBambino]

While his heart and reputation are as an ace, Beckett has settled in as a #2 pitcher. Jon Lester is the clear ace of the Red Sox.

As to what you do with Beckett, you keep him for one more year. Even as a #2 pitcher, he is underpaid (or at a minimum fairly paid) at $12mm per year. If the Red Sox fall out of the race by the trade deadline, they can consider trading him for prospects or can offer him arb and take the two draft picks (assuming the same compensation system is still in effect).

I would not trade Beckett, nor would I trade Buchholz. The thought of trading Beckett for prospects to flip for another pitcher seems overly complicated and unlikely to obtain fair value. If I had to trade a starter for Hernandez, I would look to trade Matsuzaka. He will come cheaper ($9.3mm avg.), he has obvious interest for Mariners ownership and its Asian fans and is signed beyond 2010.

Putting aside the wholly unstated basis for the conclusion stated, a team can have the two best pitchers in baseball at a point in time; it can certainly have two of the top six or eight (and the Sox may have that right now). Thus, I don't think there's value (or, frankly, logic) in trying to rate a pitcher as a "number one" or "number two" pitcher based on the team they are on and thus, whether they are the best pitcher on the team. The idea that someone isn't 'an ace' (whatever that might mean) because they have a teammate who is is even better really adds little, right? I think the objective is to assess someone relative to other pitchers in the league, instead.

I am pretty sure the Red Sox will trade anyone on the roster for the right value. They will also, I believe, harm themselves slightly (or increase their risk profile) for 2010 for sufficient future benefit. I'd be surprised if anyone really disagreed with either of those premises, given what the team has done under this leadership group. I think everyone is always on the table with them, but they also will hold firm on price for what they consider to be premium assets.

What I do think is that it's unlikely they can get enough value for Beckett to make it worthwhile to deal him. And so, the discussion is 'what kind of deal would it take to trade Josh Beckett?' moreso than the abstract 'is he tradeable'

[amfox1]

Well, Burnett hit the free market, but I agree that Beckett won't accept less than Burnett got, so 5/82.5 is the floor for any possible extension. For their part, with so much talent hitting the market next winter, the FO won't give Beckett his money a year early unless they receive a substantial discount. Reasonable people can disagree what would constitute a "substantial discount," but $20mm AAV certainly wouldn't. Therefore 5/100 is the ceiling for any extension.

I expect the Sox to sign Beckett to a 5-year extension for $85-90mm, unless the FO knows something about worrysome about Beckett's health that we don't.

And this is why I would let him walk. I agree that Burnett is the best comp and that Beckett is better. But we all know that the Hankees overpaid for Burnett by a significant amount. Therefore, people saying that we should resign Beckett for a premium to Burnett (who signed at a premium to market) leaves the Red Sox in a position where, to sign Beckett, Beckett will either have to agree to a discount to "market" or the Red Sox will significantly overpay for a pitcher in his declining years. Therefore, I would take the draft picks and let him go pitch for someone else and I believe Theo and JWH will come to the same conclusion.

[smastroyin]

Beckett's biggest problem is that he is not Pedro Martinez, aka the best pitcher in baseball 7 out of the 10 years of his prime. He is more like, as philly said, in the 15-20 range. That's still damn good. The inclusion of Cliff Lee is a joke but I understand it's just to make the point that Lee and Sabathia are both playing in the World Series. Beckett will probably never have a year as good as Lee's 2008, that's true, but unless he is severely injured he's not likely to pitch himself out of the rotation like Lee did in 2007, for those with short memories. I'm not sure how two years, one of which wasn't all that much better than Beckett's, qualifies him as the ace that Beckett isn't.

The rest of the article makes some sense, the inclusion of "Cliff Lee is an ace and Josh Beckett is not" makes me question the guy's motives and methods. I mean, clearly something has changed with Lee over the last couple of years, and maybe you would project him a little better than Beckett going forward, but to make that statement today seems to be a "let me draw attention to myself" kind of thing.

[PedroKsBambino]

And this is why I would let him walk. I agree that Burnett is the best comp and that Beckett is better. But we all know that the Hankees overpaid for Burnett by a significant amount. Therefore, people saying that we should resign Beckett for a premium to Burnett (who signed at a premium to market) leaves the Red Sox in a position where, to sign Beckett, Beckett will either have to agree to a discount to "market" or the Red Sox will significantly overpay for a pitcher in his declining years. Therefore, I would take the draft picks and let him go pitch for someone else and I believe Theo and JWH will come to the same conclusion.

I agree that if you project Beckett to have 'declining years' then you don't offer that deal, agreed.

Whether that's the right projection expectation for Beckett given his skills, profile, and the history of similarly-sized and performance power pitchers is a different question...and I'm not sure the answer to it is "project decline" all that quickly.

[amfox1]

Putting aside the wholly unstated basis for the conclusion stated, a team can have the two best pitchers in baseball at a point in time; it can certainly have two of the top six or eight (and the Sox may have that right now). Thus, I don't think there's value (or, frankly, logic) in trying to rate a pitcher as a "number one" or "number two" pitcher based on the team they are on and thus, whether they are the best pitcher on the team. The idea that someone isn't 'an ace' (whatever that might mean) because they have a teammate who is is even better really adds little, right? I think the objective is to assess someone relative to other pitchers in the league, instead.

First, the statement is an opinion. Apologies if that was not clear to you.

Second, I was using #1 and #2 pitchers as pitching levels within the MLB, not as a comparative within the Red Sox starting pitching staff. Again, apologies if that was not clear to you.

Let's say for the sake of this discussion that there are 12-15 #1s, 20-25 #2s, 30-35 #3s, etc (don't quote me on the numbers, just on the concept). The point I was making is that Jon Lester is in the top tier of pitchers, no matter the definition. I also stated the opinion that Josh Beckett is in the second tier of pitchers, notwithstanding his reputation as an ace and big game pitcher. Philly's point was that Beckett was #15 in WAR this year for qualified starting pitchers and, using WAR for the last three years was an 11-15 overall starting pitcher. Therefore, Philly's conclusion was that, at #15, Beckett should constitute an ace. My response to Philly was that the pitcher above Beckett was an ace but the two pitchers below Beckett were not considered aces. Therefore, at best he was a borderline ace and in any event I did not view Beckett as anything other than the top of the second tier. Therefore, you can take that argument as semantics or substantive, your choice.

There is value in categorizing pitchers because of the fact that Beckett is a potential free agent at the end of 2010 and the Red Sox have a major strategic decision to make - that is, whether the team resigns him and, if so, under what terms. The team may not feel that 5/82.5 is an appropriate value for an age 31-35 pitcher, even if the same price was paid last offseason to a lesser pitcher (Burnett).

[philly sox fan]

I don't really read the Boston papers. Has Beckett's contract status come up much yet? I seem to recall fairly early into last winter there was more public discussion about Bay having just one year left on his deal. I'm probably just being premature and the public speculation will come as the hot stove season heats up.

But in the back of mind is the memory that Beckett was surprisingly quick to sign his last very team friendly deal. After taking another run at King Felix and perhaps Halladay, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Sox end up signing him this winter.

It's just another variable that will roll into what could be a really interesting off-season. I'm not sure I see Beckett in a significant decline mode either. He's produced 16.8 WAR in his 27-29 age seasons. I'm not sure there's huge risk trying to buy ages 31-34 for a player with that profile. Or, I guess, bigger risk than doing the other things that teams have to do to try to acquire and keep 5 WAR players.

Pure speculation on my part, but I think an extension is much more likely than a trade this winter (though perhaps not as likely as just letting it ride another year either).

Is it so hard to beleive that the team that went in on Matsuzaka for 6/100M would be willing to give Beckett 5/85M? Not to me anyway.

I hate making the some point over and over, but if not Beckett than on whom will the Sox pay all the money coming off their books after 2010?

[smastroyin]

I hate making the some point over and over, but if not Beckett than on whom will the Sox pay all the money coming off their books after 2010?

You can't count on guys making the FA market, but Halladay, Mauer will be FAs and Ramirez will be about to hit his first big payday. I think these are the sugarplums that Sox fans are dreaming of.

[koufax32]

It's been aluded to so far but not specifically mentioned...

Any type of scenario like this, barring a jaw dropping trade offer, would result in somewhat of a lateral move in next year's rotation, and a net loss in the organization as a whole from loss of prospects. There would simply be too many moving parts for this to work out. Besides, any trade chips need to be used this offseason to upgrade the lineup, not replace a known, high quality quantity. If anyone is expecting the afore mentioned jaw dropper, Tom Hicks isn't walking through that door.

[maufman]

And this is why I would let him walk. I agree that Burnett is the best comp and that Beckett is better. But we all know that the Hankees overpaid for Burnett by a significant amount. Therefore, people saying that we should resign Beckett for a premium to Burnett (who signed at a premium to market) leaves the Red Sox in a position where, to sign Beckett, Beckett will either have to agree to a discount to "market" or the Red Sox will significantly overpay for a pitcher in his declining years. Therefore, I would take the draft picks and let him go pitch for someone else and I believe Theo and JWH will come to the same conclusion.

I did a little back-of-the-napkin math and came to the conclusion that 5/90 would be a reasonable extension for Beckett.

Here's my methodology, which I freely concede is amateurish:

Go to Fangraphs, look at "value" for last three years.

To get a crude, Marcels-like projection, take (2009 value x 3) + (2008 value x 2) + (2007 value x 1), divide the sum by 6, then multiply the quotient by 0.75 to reflect a 25% discount for getting his money a year early. Beckett's "value" under this approach = 17.9.

Incidentally, Burnett's value last winter (using 2006-08 values) was almost identical to Beckett's now, but only because Burnett doesn't get the 25% haircut (because he was a free agent). That Burnett signed for $82.5mm over 5 years tends to validate my approach; the modest difference between my valuation and Burnett's actual contract can easily be explained by Burnett's injury history, including TJ surgery. Fwiw, the Sox don't have to give up a draft pick to re-sign Beckett, as the Yanks did to sign Burnett, though imo compensatory picks are immaterial when you're talking about these kinds of dollars.

In sum, I'd consider a 5/85 extension for Beckett a good deal, and 5/90 an acceptable one.

But in the back of mind is the memory that Beckett was surprisingly quick to sign his last very team friendly deal.

The Sox signed Beckett to an extension in mid-2006, when he was suffering through the worst season of his career. Even assuming the extension was below-market under the circumstances, I wouldn't infer that Beckett will give the Sox a discount again.

Edited by maufman, 03 November 2009 - 05:59 PM.

[amfox1]

I hate making the some point over and over, but if not Beckett than on whom will the Sox pay all the money coming off their books after 2010?

How about hitters?

Very preliminary 2011 roster:

Pitchers

Starters:
Lester (6.0 AAV) (2013+t)
Buchholz (min) (2014 control)
Matsuzaka (8.67 AAV) (2012)
??
??
(other internal possibilities: Beckett (2010 FA), Tazawa, Doubront, Fife, Kelly)

Bullpen:
Jon.Papelbon (arb) (2011 control)
Delcarmen (arb) (2012 control)
Okajima (arb) (2012 control)
R.Ramirez (arb) (2012 control)
Bard (pre-arb)
Richardson (pre-arb)
??
(other internal possibilities: Wilson, Weiland, Bowden)

Position players

CF - Ellsbury (arb) (2013 control)
2B - Pedroia (6.75 AAV) (2014+t)
DH - ??
LF - ??
RF - Drew (14.0 AAV) (2011)
1B - Youkilis (10.28 AAV) (2012+t)
3B - ??
SS - ??
C - ??
B/IF - Kotchman (arb) (2011 control)
B/MI - Lowrie (0.43 AAV) (2014 control)
B/C - ??
B/OF - ??
(other internal possibilities: V.Martinez (2010 FA), Reddick, Wagner/Exposito, Iglesias/Navarro, Kalish/Lin, Anderson)

[Paradigm]

I'd consider it. I don't know if I'd do it, but I'd certainly consider it. As the team stands now, I'm bearish going into the offseason and then into 2010. I think Jason Bay is going to get overpaid somewhere else and the Sox aren't going to match it. As a result, the Sox might be a team without any legitimate power threat in 2010 leaving a vacuum in the lineup.

Beckett is going to command a huge offseason contract and the Sox are unlikely to give it to him. They haven't given a free agent pitcher a big contract (Matsuzaka doesn't count) and Beckett will turn 31 right after he gets his contract. He'll probably get five years. Do you want to pay Josh Beckett $16 million a year when he's 36? So you have to weigh the year of value.

Also, the market will be smaller for Beckett. Only those teams in "win it now" mode next year will trade for him. Think teams like the Dodgers, Cubs, Braves, Phillies, Angels.

Prediction: no chance the Sox trade him in the offseason, but he could well be the most attractive piece on the mid-season trade market.

I hate making the some point over and over, but if not Beckett than on whom will the Sox pay all the money coming off their books after 2010?

Save it for 2011. Matt Cain.

Edited by Paradigm, 03 November 2009 - 06:14 PM.

[phragle]

This is stupid, and xFIP and IP prove it.

2006 4.70 204.7
2007 3.56 200.7
2008 3.35 174.3
2009 3.53 212.3

To put the xFIP into perspective, in 2007 he was 4th in the league between Santana and Sabathia, in '08 he was second to only Halladay, and in '09 he was 5th in between Verlander and Hernandez. He also led the league in FIP in 2007.

He's one of the the best in the league, an true ace.

[DieHardSoxFan1]

I think Jason Bay is going to get overpaid somewhere else and the Sox aren't going to match it. As a result, the Sox might be a team without any legitimate power threat in 2010 leaving a vacuum in the lineup.

Some guy named "Youkilis" slugged .550 last season and ranked 11th in MLB in OPS+. He's a pretty damn good hitter.

Beckett is going to command a huge offseason contract and the Sox are unlikely to give it to him. They haven't given a free agent pitcher a big contract (Matsuzaka doesn't count) and Beckett will turn 31 right after he gets his contract. He'll probably get five years. Do you want to pay Josh Beckett $16 million a year when he's 36? So you have to weigh the year of value.

I'm sorry, but why is everyone acting as if the Red Sox are the Kansas City Royals? Bay's too expensive so they won't re-sign him. Beckett's sensational but we can't afford to pay him $18 million in 2015, when (I believe) Clay Buchholz and Daniel Bard are the only players on the current ML roster still under contract. Better hope Stolmy puts it together and becomes a top 12 pitcher in the game.

Save it for 2011. Matt Cain.

Cain's FIPs by season:

2006: 3.96
2007: 3.78
2008: 3.91
2009: 3.89

Edit - As for trading Beckett, on what planet does that make the 2010 Red Sox a better team? Dice-K IMO is the only trade candidate in our starting rotation, and that's if Seattle is as infatuated with him as everyone thinks.

Edited by DieHardSoxFan1, 03 November 2009 - 06:40 PM.

[BigMike]

Beckett is going to command a huge offseason contract and the Sox are unlikely to give it to him. They haven't given a free agent pitcher a big contract (Matsuzaka doesn't count) and Beckett will turn 31 right after he gets his contract. He'll probably get five years. Do you want to pay Josh Beckett $16 million a year when he's 36? So you have to weigh the year of value.

Do I want to pay Beckett 16 million as a 36 year old? Maybe not, there certainly a measure of risk involved there.

Do I want to pay Beckett 16 million as a 31,32,33 year old. Almost certainly. Sure his arm could blow up, as it could for any other pitcher alive, but far more likely he'll throw up 3 more seasons around 200 IP, average 16-18 wins, and be a near elite level starter.

this team has the money to keep Beckett without it being a significant risk. And they will still have plenty of money available to go for a big bat (or really 2 of them) in 2010 if they want to

Prediction: no chance the Sox trade him in the offseason, but he could well be the most attractive piece on the mid-season trade market.

there is no chance they trade him in July unless the Sox are pretty much dead in the water for the season, and that is highly unlikely

[phragle]

Sox to meet with Beckett

“We’re just letting things die down a little bit,” Beckett said. Beckett is entering the last year of his contract with the Red Sox after having his option for the 2010 season vest thanks to making 28 starts in ‘09

“At the end of the year hopefully we’ll sit down and maybe have a talk with (Red Sox general manager) Theo (Epstein), me and my agent (Michael Moye) and see what they’re thinking about,” he had said. “I want to see where they’re going, if I’m even in their plans. If I’m not it was an awesome run. I really haven’t sat down and thought about it too much, but at the end of the year we will sit down and at least have a talk."

Hopefully this thread is a non-topic after the meeting.

[Eric Van]

This thread prompted me to compile an adjusted set of Support Neutral Lineup-Adjusted Value above Replacement totals for the last three years. I added two important custom adjustments to produce what I'll call SNEVAR (E for Everything): one for defense, using the numbers for true defensive value (park adjusted-UZR) I just calculated in that other thread, and one for competitive imbalance, using my adjusted standings for each year.

The first thing that's obvious is that when you are talking about pitching talent, you should be looking at two seasons and no more. Of the dozen most valuable pitchers over the last two years (weighted 4-5 a la Marcel), no less than five did very little in 2007 (Greinke, Lee, Jurrjens, Danks, Lester) and a sixth was middling (Lincecum). Of the 30 most valuable pitchers from 2007-8, you had Webb, Hudson, Matsuzaka, Sheets, Young and Marcum providing almost nothing this year and Peavey, Lowe, Shields, Kazmir, Hamels, Harang, and Meche all dropping way down in value.

You can see this yourself at FanGraphs or BP; just check out the leaderboards year after year and look at the volatility . Being excellent for one year may be a fluke; two shows real talent; three or more and you are adding other (highly valuable) attributes into the mix.

Some comments on four pitchers:

Cliff Lee. He's quite clearly, right now, one of the four or five best pitchers in baseball in terms of results (a further analysis to factor out luck is for another day). Halladay and Sabathia are the only guys that rank ahead of him in both of the last two seasons. Greinke's two year total beats him, and then it's either him or Lincecum. Some "joke," eh, boss?

John Lester. He's been only a borderline ace each of the last two seasons, not approaching the super-elite just mentioned (a group you would round out with Felix Hernandez and, if healthy, Johan Santana). And that's because he really rather sucked for his first six starts in 2008 and his first ten starts this year. Yes, there's a pretty good argument that he didn't become this stud until start #7 of 2008, and that the bad start to this season was the result of his big workload increase the previous one. And yes, if you toss those 16 starts out, he probably does rank with the aforementioned. But how many other guys could you make a similar argument for? Until he actually has the ace season, he's just an ace-in-waiting.

Josh Beckett. He has not ranked higher than 24th in SNEVAR in the last three seasons. He has been reasonably consistent, though, and over the last three seasons he ranks 17th weighted 3-4-5, 20th weighted 1-2-3. In my book that makes him a very good #2, with the stuff to pitch like a true ace for stretches of decent length, but too much inconsistency to establish himself as such.

Clay Buchholz. He was 40th in SNEVAR/GS last year (minimum 15 starts), which means he's already a #2 starter on a bad team or a #3 on a good one. So the view on him is correct. If he merely sustains that until he's a FA, you would trade him for:

3 years of Roy Halladay or Zach Greinke
4 years of Sabathia, Lincecum, King Felix, or Lee.

Which means that Greinke and Lincecum are the only star pitchers you would trade him for (since they are 3 and 4 years from FA respectively). Now, if the consensus was that #2 / #3 was his upside and that he's already reached it, you could absolutely justify making a trade where you would lose on total VORP or SNEVAR or PSWTSA* because you had acquired the guy you needed to start and win Games 1 and 5 of a playoff series. But I think we all agree that Clay has that upside, too. So if you trade his 25 SNEVAR for Roy Halladay's 9 or King Felix's 13 or 14 and Clay is a true ace for just 2 of his 5 remaining seasons, you are just unspeakably hosed. You probably lose if he has just one ace season. Personally, I don't want to gamble that Clay Buchholz is never going to advance from #2 / #3 to ace (a world of difference between that and gambling that some minor leaguer will never be an ace.)

*Pitching Stat With Totally Stupid Acronym

Here are the SNEVAR leaders, ranked with a 3-2-1 weighting for 2009-7.

SNEVAR Leaders

NAME	07	08	09	3-2-1
Roy Halladay	6.8	8.1	9.6	8.6
CC Sabathia	6.4	8.2	7.3	7.4
Zack Greinke	1.6	5.4	10.0	7.1
Johan Santana	6.7	7.9	5.8	6.6
Tim Lincecum	3.5	7.7	6.9	6.6
Felix Hernandez	5.3	6.1	7.3	6.6
Adam Wainwright	5.4	3.6	8.3	6.3
Dan Haren	6.7	6.2	6.1	6.2
Javier Vazquez	5.9	4.0	7.5	6.1
Cliff Lee	0.2	7.3	7.2	6.1
Mark Buehrle	6.3	5.5	6.0	5.9
Matt Cain	6.0	4.4	6.3	5.6
Jair Jurrjens	0.6	3.9	8.1	5.5
A.J. Burnett	4.4	5.7	5.5	5.4
Jake Peavy	9.8	6.5	2.9	5.3
John Danks	1.1	6.7	5.7	5.3
Jon Lester	1.0	5.6	6.4	5.2
Justin Verlander	5.0	3.4	6.4	5.2
Scott Baker	3.3	6.2	5.0	5.1
Josh Beckett	5.9	4.1	5.5	5.1
Wandy Rodriguez	4.3	2.9	6.8	5.1
Roy Oswalt	7.0	4.9	4.5	5.1
Jered Weaver	4.2	4.1	6.0	5.0
Derek Lowe	4.9	7.2	3.2	4.8
John Lackey	7.0	4.7	4.1	4.7
Andy Pettitte	5.5	4.0	5.0	4.7
Randy Wolf	1.8	4.2	6.0	4.7
Chad Billingsley	4.2	6.3	3.7	4.6
Bronson Arroyo	4.8	4.0	4.9	4.6
James Shields	7.3	5.1	3.3	4.6
Ubaldo Jimenez	1.5	4.2	5.6	4.5
Edwin Jackson	2.6	3.9	5.3	4.4
Jeremy Guthrie	5.2	5.5	3.3	4.4
John Lannan	0.9	4.7	5.3	4.4
Ted Lilly	4.3	3.8	4.7	4.3
Nick Blackburn	0.0	4.8	5.4	4.3
Matt Garza	2.1	4.6	4.8	4.3
Clayton Kershaw		2.9	6.5	4.2
Gavin Floyd	1.1	4.1	5.3	4.2
Chris Carpenter	-0.1	0.7	7.9	4.1
Cole Hamels	4.1	5.6	3.1	4.1
Scott Kazmir	7.0	4.6	2.6	4.0
Carlos Zambrano	4.5	4.2	3.5	3.9
Josh Johnson	-0.2	2.3	6.2	3.9
Paul Maholm	2.1	5.5	3.1	3.7
Joe Blanton	6.3	2.6	3.6	3.7
Jarrod Washburn	4.3	2.8	4.1	3.7
Rich Harden	1.0	6.6	2.4	3.6
Joe Saunders	1.8	5.6	2.8	3.5
Ryan Dempster	-0.3	5.9	3.1	3.5

[Eric Van]

This is stupid, and xFIP and IP prove it.

2006 4.70 204.7
2007 3.56 200.7
2008 3.35 174.3
2009 3.53 212.3

To put the xFIP into perspective, in 2007 he was 4th in the league between Santana and Sabathia, in '08 he was second to only Halladay, and in '09 he was 5th in between Verlander and Hernandez. He also led the league in FIP in 2007.

He's one of the the best in the league, an true ace.

Actually, this is the best darn argument I've ever seen that xFIP is the garbage stat I've always thought it was. While there is absolutely some luck involved in variations in HR/FB, the notion that it's all luck is really something you should only contemplate while wearing an aluminum foil hat.

[phragle]

Actually, this is the best darn argument I've ever seen that xFIP is the garbage stat I've always thought it was. While there is absolutely some luck involved in variations in HR/FB, the notion that it's all luck is really something you should only contemplate while wearing an aluminum foil hat.

FIP also suggests Beckett is an ace. As for the aluminum foil hat, I only wear that when I suggest Wandy Rodriguez and Scott Baker are as valuable as Josh Beckett. Have a nice day.

[PedroKsBambino]

First, the statement is an opinion. Apologies if that was not clear to you.

Second, I was using #1 and #2 pitchers as pitching levels within the MLB, not as a comparative within the Red Sox starting pitching staff. Again, apologies if that was not clear to you.

Let's say for the sake of this discussion that there are 12-15 #1s, 20-25 #2s, 30-35 #3s, etc (don't quote me on the numbers, just on the concept). The point I was making is that Jon Lester is in the top tier of pitchers, no matter the definition. I also stated the opinion that Josh Beckett is in the second tier of pitchers, notwithstanding his reputation as an ace and big game pitcher. Philly's point was that Beckett was #15 in WAR this year for qualified starting pitchers and, using WAR for the last three years was an 11-15 overall starting pitcher. Therefore, Philly's conclusion was that, at #15, Beckett should constitute an ace. My response to Philly was that the pitcher above Beckett was an ace but the two pitchers below Beckett were not considered aces. Therefore, at best he was a borderline ace and in any event I did not view Beckett as anything other than the top of the second tier. Therefore, you can take that argument as semantics or substantive, your choice.

There is value in categorizing pitchers because of the fact that Beckett is a potential free agent at the end of 2010 and the Red Sox have a major strategic decision to make - that is, whether the team resigns him and, if so, under what terms. The team may not feel that 5/82.5 is an appropriate value for an age 31-35 pitcher, even if the same price was paid last offseason to a lesser pitcher (Burnett).

Seems to me that there is value in assessing a player's contribution, their cost, and their possible replacements. Drawing arbitrary lines between Jon Lester and Josh Beckett accomplishes none of those things so far as I can see. I do not agree that there is some line that delineates an 'ace' and I am struggling to find your explanation of what it might be or how that arbitrary line has anything to do with the value of a player to a team outside of his overall contribution (which can be assessed vastly more accurately with things other than labels like 'ace' or 'number two starter')

[philly sox fan]

I did a little back-of-the-napkin math and came to the conclusion that 5/90 would be a reasonable extension for Beckett.

Here's my methodology, which I freely concede is amateurish:

Go to Fangraphs, look at "value" for last three years.

To get a crude, Marcels-like projection, take (2009 value x 3) + (2008 value x 2) + (2007 value x 1), divide the sum by 6, then multiply the quotient by 0.75 to reflect a 25% discount for getting his money a year early. Beckett's "value" under this approach = 17.9.

Incidentally, Burnett's value last winter (using 2006-08 values) was almost identical to Beckett's now, but only because Burnett doesn't get the 25% haircut (because he was a free agent). That Burnett signed for $82.5mm over 5 years tends to validate my approach; the modest difference between my valuation and Burnett's actual contract can easily be explained by Burnett's injury history, including TJ surgery. Fwiw, the Sox don't have to give up a draft pick to re-sign Beckett, as the Yanks did to sign Burnett, though imo compensatory picks are immaterial when you're talking about these kinds of dollars.

In sum, I'd consider a 5/85 extension for Beckett a good deal, and 5/90 an acceptable one.

"Amateurish" or not, that's pretty much the method and answer that most sabre oriented people are going to come up with. Whether you think Beckett is a "high #2" or a "low #1" and whatever your individual comfort with big contracts to pitchers entering their 30s, the value number is going to be darn close to 18M/yr and the length is going to be 4-6 years.

[OCD SS]

It's been aluded to so far but not specifically mentioned...

Any type of scenario like this, barring a jaw dropping trade offer, would result in somewhat of a lateral move in next year's rotation, and a net loss in the organization as a whole from loss of prospects. There would simply be too many moving parts for this to work out. Besides, any trade chips need to be used this offseason to upgrade the lineup, not replace a known, high quality quantity. If anyone is expecting the afore mentioned jaw dropper, Tom Hicks isn't walking through that door.

To add to this, I think it's important to note that while we often sit around and wonder what Theo is doing to fix the lineup, it seems like he's actually almost always out looking for more pitching (as this year when he reportedly might have helped get Adrian Gonzalez to Seattle to bring Felix Hernandez to Boston).

The Sox (like every team) have limited talent resources to draw on. Upgrading from Beckett to Halladay/ Hernandez/ whoever is going to severely limit any options for the line up.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The author is correct in that Beckett is viewed as an ace pitcher, but has really been more of a #2 in his time in Boston. He's kinda like Mark Buehrle. A good pitcher who might give a great year once in a while. When he is on, he's very good, but he doesn't have the consistency one would expect of a true #1.

That said...I think he's at the high end for a #2 pitcher. I don't see any way you can trade him and help the team though. The only team that would want him would be a team that really wanted to go for it next year and had a decent possibility of extending him. The ones I can think of are the Mets and Cubs. Beckett and Lowell to the Mets for David Wright(? I can't see that happening, even if it does make some sense.

Not to mention that trading Beckett means the Sox start with either Matsuzaka or Buchholz as their second best starter...which is a bit scary. Matsuzaka is a roll of the dice(-k) and I'd like Buchholz replicate his performance last year after an offseaon before being 100% sure of him(that seems to be a problem alot of the time- guys seems to forget what they did).

Ugh, no just stop the madness.

Josh Beckett is an ace. He's a #1 on most teams in the league, and one of the best pitchers in the game. The reason that folks here have the luxury of thinking that he's a #2 is only because we have been fortunate enough to see a home-grown Jon Lester develop into one of the best pitchers in the game as well.

If the Sox sign him to an extension of 4-5 years it may be a "JD Drew" type of contract that provides the team with fair value while providing fans something to whinge about ("Beckett's being paid like a number 1 pitcher but Lester's the real number 1!!!11!!!!"). But even if Beckett gets a contract of Sabathia's magnitude that wouldn't be Carlos-Silva-level-stupid.

Think about it -- there are probably 7 teams in the AL who would not automatically consider Beckett their ace if he pitched there:
BOS - Lester
NYY - Sabathia
TOR - Halladay
DET - Verlander
CWS - Buhrle
KCR - Greinke
SEA - Hernandez

That means half the teams in the league would anoint him their #1 guy tabula rasa, and the names listed above are a likely a toss-up with Beckett (except for Halladay, who has been a phenomenon). I say this for two reasons -- 1) pitchers in the AL East have it tougher than their fellows in the Central and West so Beckett might well have had somewhat better numbers in another division; and 2) depending on who is having a down year-to-year variation (think Verlander), Beckett could easily have a better season than any of them.

Give the man his money, at least if you want to stay competitive with the NYYs. There's no reason for Boston to do otherwise, as far as I can see.

[EP Sox Fan]

Ugh, no just stop the madness.

Josh Beckett is an ace. He's a #1 on most teams in the league, and one of the best pitchers in the game. The reason that folks here have the luxury of thinking that he's a #2 is only because we have been fortunate enough to see a home-grown Jon Lester develop into one of the best pitchers in the game as well.

If the Sox sign him to an extension of 4-5 years it may be a "JD Drew" type of contract that provides the team with fair value while providing fans something to whinge about ("Beckett's being paid like a number 1 pitcher but Lester's the real number 1!!!11!!!!"). But even if Beckett gets a contract of Sabathia's magnitude that wouldn't be Carlos-Silva-level-stupid.

Think about it -- there are probably 7 teams in the AL who would not automatically consider Beckett their ace if he pitched there:
BOS - Lester
NYY - Sabathia
TOR - Halladay
DET - Verlander
CWS - Buhrle
KCR - Greinke
SEA - Hernandez

That means half the teams in the league would anoint him their #1 guy tabula rasa, and the names listed above are a likely a toss-up with Beckett (except for Halladay, who has been a phenomenon). I say this for two reasons -- 1) pitchers in the AL East have it tougher than their fellows in the Central and West so Beckett might well have had somewhat better numbers in another division; and 2) depending on who is having a down year-to-year variation (think Verlander), Beckett could easily have a better season than any of them.

Give the man his money, at least if you want to stay competitive with the NYYs. There's no reason for Boston to do otherwise, as far as I can see.

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I think there's a difference between a team's number 1 starter and a so-called ace. Just because a pitcher is a team's number one does not ipso facto make him an ace. Take Mark Buhrle for example, while he may be a number one, I don't think he's an ace (and yes, I'm well aware that he's thrown two no hitters over the last couple of seasons). Thus, I am not sure that I agree with your premise, i.e. Beckett is an ace because he would be a No. 1 on half the teams in MLB.

All of this begs the question: "what is an ace?" I would be curious to know is someone like Bill James has set out an objective, statistically driven methodology to define what constitutes an "ace." Perhaps a combination of stats like FIP, K/9, OPS against, K/BB. Then again, I suppose if there was such a magic formula, teams like the Giants wouldn't be handing out $126 million for Barry Zito.

[pokey_reese]

Regardless of where you come down in the semantic argument of "ace" versus "number 2 starter," and whether or not you think that the Sox should extend Beckett for x-years at y-dollars, the initial question is should he be traded, and I am pretty sure that we all think that the answer is 'no,' barring some ridiculous offer that would get an opposing GM fired. I mean, sure, if the Dodgers want to give us Kershaw, or the Braves want to give us Heyward, then you pull the trigger. but since we are talking about market value in terms of money for his next contract, then I think that we can talk about market value in terms of trade chips, and if you look at the Cliff Lee deal, then I think that there is no way that you trade Beckett.

Halladay couldn't bring in an offer good enough to move the Toronto FO with two years left on his contract, and Cliff Lee couldn't get any of the Phillies' top 4 prospects with one year left as the reigning Cy Young Award winner. I wouldn't take the package that Cleveland got for Lee, would you guys? Teams are really not looking to give up great young cost-controlled players for older stars looking for extensions/new contracts, they just aren't, especially not in the offseason. The only team that I can see really wanting Beckett desperately next season are the Mets, and I don't see a deal being made there, though I liked the earlier suggestion where we get Wright. Seriously though, the value doesn't seem to make sense to trade him, if Theo & Co. think that he will be good enough to justify 5/100, then give him the extension, otherwise take the picks. My guess is that a deal gets done, and he stays in Boston.

[OhBabyDontOrtizMe]

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I think there's a difference between a team's number 1 starter and a so-called ace. Just because a pitcher is a team's number one does not ipso facto make him an ace. Take Mark Buhrle for example, while he may be a number one, I don't think he's an ace (and yes, I'm well aware that he's thrown two no hitters over the last couple of seasons). Thus, I am not sure that I agree with your premise, i.e. Beckett is an ace because he would be a No. 1 on half the teams in MLB.

I'll echo this, with the caveat that I think an Ace should be the number 1 starter on a playoff team. Is the guy good enough that he brings you into any series with at least an even chance to win game 1? I mean, Matt Clement can start a series, but he isn't an Ace, and we all kinda' knew in '05 that he put us at a disadvantage going into the post season being lined up as our number 1. For my money, I'll say there are only 8-10 aces in the league at any given time that I'd be comfortable with. I mean, Halladay would be formidable to face in game 1, but I think we'd have just as good a chance to pull it out with Beckett/Santana/Felix as the other team would. So that's what I consider an Ace.

The same logic follows for a #2: if you lost game 1, is your guy good enough to take on all challengers after the average playoff team has burned their best starter to go up 1-0 in the series?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I think there's a difference between a team's number 1 starter and a so-called ace. Just because a pitcher is a team's number one does not ipso facto make him an ace. Take Mark Buhrle for example, while he may be a number one, I don't think he's an ace (and yes, I'm well aware that he's thrown two no hitters over the last couple of seasons). Thus, I am not sure that I agree with your premise, i.e. Beckett is an ace because he would be a No. 1 on half the teams in MLB.

All of this begs the question: "what is an ace?" I would be curious to know is someone like Bill James has set out an objective, statistically driven methodology to define what constitutes an "ace." Perhaps a combination of stats like FIP, K/9, OPS against, K/BB. Then again, I suppose if there was such a magic formula, teams like the Giants wouldn't be handing out $126 million for Barry Zito.

It is nitpicking.

If you want to talk about baseline statistics, please realize that they can only possibly have relevance within the context of their circumstances. The NL is different from the AL, and the AL East is another animal entirely. But to say that Beckett is one of the top 10-15 pitchers in baseball means that he is, ipso facto, an ace. Maybe not MLB's trump card of aces, like Maddux on those mid-nineties Braves teams, or when Pedro was PEDRO! But still an ace.

And I for one am extremely happy to see Theo attempt to situate the Sox similarly to those mid-nineties Braves teams with three "aces" to be prioritized. I don't care if the lead role of "Maddux" is played by a pre-arb kid or a $20M free agent. Or even if nobody on the Sox is THE dominant pitcher of your fantasy baseball league. Having three or more aces is called an embarrassment of riches, and I'm not talking about Beckett's paycheck here.

It's also the only way to consistently compete with the NYY's.

Yet to hear folks talk about it, God forbid the Sox sign Beckett to an $20M annual deal for 4 years, he maintains his AL average of 116 ERA+ and 29 GS/year, and he becomes the #3 option after Lester and Buchholz during that period. That's an $80M+ value, plus you also get the ginsu knives! Which is nice, because you won't ever need to sharpen them when it's time to skewer him on WEEI.

[twothousandone]

. . . the initial question is should he be traded, and I am pretty sure that we all think that the answer is 'no,' barring some ridiculous offer that would get an opposing GM fired.

That's always the case when answering the trade question. And, thinking back to what this board said might be a fair offer for Halladay, I don't see the Sox accepting that offer from anyone.

Does Matt Kemp and Chad Billingsley do it? Maybe, but I don't see how that helps the Dodgers, unless they have a triple A CF who projects as an All-star. And if they are willing to make the trade, you have to wonder about Billingsley.

Carlos Zambrano and Ryan Theriot? That doesn't make the Sox better.

[Paradigm]

Regardless of where you come down in the semantic argument of "ace" versus "number 2 starter," and whether or not you think that the Sox should extend Beckett for x-years at y-dollars, the initial question is should he be traded, and I am pretty sure that we all think that the answer is 'no,' barring some ridiculous offer that would get an opposing GM fired. I mean, sure, if the Dodgers want to give us Kershaw, or the Braves want to give us Heyward, then you pull the trigger. but since we are talking about market value in terms of money for his next contract, then I think that we can talk about market value in terms of trade chips, and if you look at the Cliff Lee deal, then I think that there is no way that you trade Beckett.

Halladay couldn't bring in an offer good enough to move the Toronto FO with two years left on his contract, and Cliff Lee couldn't get any of the Phillies' top 4 prospects with one year left as the reigning Cy Young Award winner. I wouldn't take the package that Cleveland got for Lee, would you guys? Teams are really not looking to give up great young cost-controlled players for older stars looking for extensions/new contracts, they just aren't, especially not in the offseason. The only team that I can see really wanting Beckett desperately next season are the Mets, and I don't see a deal being made there, though I liked the earlier suggestion where we get Wright. Seriously though, the value doesn't seem to make sense to trade him, if Theo & Co. think that he will be good enough to justify 5/100, then give him the extension, otherwise take the picks. My guess is that a deal gets done, and he stays in Boston.

Excellent post. The trades you cite aren't great parallels, mainly because Toronto and Cleveland needed to shed payroll and the Sox don't, but you're right: we would never take the Cliff Lee return for Josh Beckett, and if the Blue Jays wouldn't move Halladay for what everyone has reported to be a few very decent offers, then we're unlikely to get better than that for one year of Beckett.

I think they should consider trading Beckett. Determine his value and if someone offers you more than your determination, take it. Buy for a dollar, sell for two. But I'd imagine the most likely scenario is that they try to work out an extension up until he's a free agent. I doubt he gets traded unless it's July and the Sox are out of it.

[ElcaballitoMVP]

That's always the case when answering the trade question. And, thinking back to what this board said might be a fair offer for Halladay, I don't see the Sox accepting that offer from anyone.

Does Matt Kemp and Chad Billingsley do it? Maybe, but I don't see how that helps the Dodgers, unless they have a triple A CF who projects as an All-star. And if they are willing to make the trade, you have to wonder about Billingsley.

Carlos Zambrano and Ryan Theriot? That doesn't make the Sox better.

I was just thinking that the Dodgers could offer a package around Billingsley. But for only one year of Beckett, I can't see them giving up a Matt Kemp too. I'd say maybe a Billingsley, Loney, Belisario for Beckett deal could have some degree of interest on both sides. But I only consider this deal if the Sox believe Billingsley is going to live up to his potential; or was his 2nd half collapse a sign of trouble ahead? That is the biggest hurdle, IMO, to a deal around Billingsley. How the Red Sox FO views him is key. Loney gives you an option at 1B, with Youk to 3B and Belisario had some impressive numbers out of the bullpen. It gives the team a couple of players who will be under team control for a few years to come, with the ability to add depth to the corner IF situation and bullpen, while giving you more trade options down the line.

Kershaw would certainly be nice, but I see no reason for the Dodgers to consider dealing him.

I'm on record as saying not to trade Beckett, but if the Dodgers sent an offer of Billingsley, Loney and Belisario for him, I would have to consider it.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Contending teams in big markets with money don't trade top of the rotation staters in the off-season. I can think of some deals that would be intriguing (Reyes? Beltran?) but those are really fantasy deals that don't make sense in reality (a team that would want Beckett wouldn't give up key pieces to their team. a contending team like the Sox wouldn't trade Beckett for prospects, etc, etc.) The Sox should extend Beckett, and sign Holliday or Bay, and acquire another starter (I'd love Lackey, but that seems unrealistic. Trade for Josh Johnson? Or sign a Rich Harden, Ben Sheets). It's really hard to see how a trade of Beckett would really make much sense for both parties.