[bombdiggz]

So the term "bridge" which Theo used earlier this offseason has been discussed ad nauseum in the media. It has often being linked to some sort of rebuilding process. More often it has been linked to the Sox not spending much this offseason. It has been discussed in various threads on this board, but I think the concept deserves it's own thread.

Let's look at his first use of the term:
“We talked about this a lot at the end of the year, that we’re kind of in a bridge period,’’ he said. “We still think that if we push some of the right buttons, we can be competitive at the very highest levels for the next two years. But we don’t want to compromise too much of the future for that competitiveness during the bridge period, but we all don’t want to sacrifice our competitiveness during the bridge just for the future. So we’re just trying to balance both those issues.’’
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...rom_the_bridge/

Certainly doesn't seem to indicate any interest in the Halladay sweepstakes.

More from Lucchino:
If I can say a word about the word “bridge,” what we’re talking about is a bridge to young players that will be available. That means we’ve got to find other ways to be competitive in the next couple of years. And that can mean trades, that can mean free agents. What we don’t have a is a set of reinforcements at Triple A ready to jump in to the big league team next year, in 2010. We have some that we’re already planning for in 2011, 2012 more likely. So the word could have been “alternatives” — we’re looking for alternatives to the influx of young players.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/ba...ino-on-dc-1211/

With the busy day we have had here in Boston, signing both Lackey and Cameron, I think we can say it isn't about money. What it looks like to me is that Theo wants to have players on the roster that are good bets to produce, but more important can move with relative ease. Hermida, Kotchman, Cameron on a short term deal, and even Scutaro with his ability to play other positions are examples. So when a prospect is ready to contribute (Kalish, Westmoreland, Iglesias) they don't have to eat contracts to open up space and they can be on in on players they covet when they become available via trade.

I love what Beltre adds to this team for 2010, but I don't think he fits into this philosophy. Signing him would essentially nix Kotchman from any chance of reestablishing himself as the player he showed himself to be in 2007 which would certainly be very valuable. It would block Lars Anderson if he was to reestablish himself or any other minor leaguer (though we don't really have much of those at the corners). More importantly it would diminish the value of a big bat, at least one that can also play the field, I'm thinking Adrian Gonzalez. You don't want to DH Youk, Beltre, or Gonzalez. Though, if you were to land a Fielder or Cabrera they would make nice DHs. Nevertheless locking down the corners for the next four years, doesn't seem to jive with the "bridge" idea, like the other moves this offseason do. Thoughts?

Edit: Seems more like a Nick Johnson or depending on how much they like Kotchman, maybe Garko.

This post has been edited by bombdiggz: 14 December 2009 - 10:39 PM

[MoGator71]

I love what Beltre adds to this team for 2010, but I don't think he fits into this philosophy. Signing him would essentially nix Kotchman from any chance of reestablishing himself as the player he showed himself to be in 2007 which would certainly be very valuable. It would block Lars Anderson if he was to reestablish himself or any other minor leaguer (though we don't really have much of those at the corners). More importantly it would diminish the value of a big bat, at least one that can also play the field, I'm thinking Adrian Gonzalez. You don't want to DH Youk, Beltre, or Gonzalez. Though, if you were to land a Fielder or Cabrera they would make nice DHs. Nevertheless locking down the corners for the next four years, doesn't seem to jive with the "bridge" idea, like the other moves this offseason do. Thoughts?

Not disagreeing with the picture you're painting with these quotes re: the "bridge" but regarding Beltre in particular I think the opposite is true. With the apparentl Cameron signing they'll have a couple of OF's (Drew and Cameron) on boards for short time while they wait for the OF's in the system to develop. But with Beltre they're really not blocking anybody. They can't sign a Nick Johnson as a "bridge" and move Youk over because there's no hot 3B prospect on the horizon; they need to address 3B long-term, whether by signing Beltre, trading for Kouzmanoff (or Young I suppose, depending on how tight money gets in TX), or moving Youk over and living with his likely decline while bringing in a 1B. The "bridge" to Lars is I imagine Ortiz, if Lars rebounds that is.

If they do end up signing Beltre (or trading for a long-term corner IF solution) I think you'll be able to point to that decision as being in line with the bridge idea. Rather than break the bank for one of the FA LF's they probably figure they can get by with Cameron as a bridge to their OF prospects.

[The Boomer]

Not disagreeing with the picture you're painting with these quotes re: the "bridge" but regarding Beltre in particular I think the opposite is true. With the apparentl Cameron signing they'll have a couple of OF's (Drew and Cameron) on boards for short time while they wait for the OF's in the system to develop. But with Beltre they're really not blocking anybody. They can't sign a Nick Johnson as a "bridge" and move Youk over because there's no hot 3B prospect on the horizon; they need to address 3B long-term, whether by signing Beltre, trading for Kouzmanoff (or Young I suppose, depending on how tight money gets in TX), or moving Youk over and living with his likely decline while bringing in a 1B. The "bridge" to Lars is I imagine Ortiz, if Lars rebounds that is.

If they do end up signing Beltre (or trading for a long-term corner IF solution) I think you'll be able to point to that decision as being in line with the bridge idea. Rather than break the bank for one of the FA LF's they probably figure they can get by with Cameron as a bridge to their OF prospects.

I already speculated that they wouldn't overpay for Bay, Holiday or Beltre. If they had maintained a rough status quo, all their gambles (e.g. Hermida and Kotchman particularly) would need to come through to make the playoffs. Now with Cameron and Lackey added, they are improved again (with Scutaro already on board as a significant upgrade). As I've opined before, these are reasonable gambles to take particularly compared to wasting resources in terms of too high a salary and too many years for Bay or Holiday and Beltre. In another 3 years or so, they will only end up attempting another Renteria/Lugo/Lowell financially subsidized dump trade of Bay, Holiday or Beltre. This is a huge waste of resources. Taking on arbitration eligible pieces (e.g. Hermida and Kotchman) from smaller market teams is a more cost effective means to keep the team from getting too old (arbitration eligibles are generally entering their primes) and wasting resources on projectibly past their primes free agents or sentimental hometown favorites (e.g. Tek and Lowell). This is why, as I advocated in the Lowell trade thread, they should be looking at more complementary pieces (e.g. Doumit) who won't tumble Theo's "bridge". By maintaining such financial flexibility (with Lugo, Lowell and Beckett coming off the books at season's end), they can better compete next winter when the class of free agents is expected to be better. Theo seems adamant about consistently pursuing his philosophy, so it seems more likely that he will look for reasonably priced platoon partners for Hermida and Kotchman. This means that he will demonstrate patience in permitting Buchholz, Bard, Westmoreland, Kelly, Tazawa, Kalish, Andersen, Rizzo, etc. to mature. Before Lackey and Cameron were added, it didn't look probable that the Sox would compete with the Yankees in 2010 but were probably good enough for anywhere from 85 to 95 wins depending on how well Theo's gambles pay off. However, after a single season, a combination of graduated prospects, younger veterans already with the team or acquired in the same fashion as Hermida and Kotchman who are still improving and free agents who represent better investments in terms of age and commitment will take them to the next level.

Expensive free agents signed for too long would only block the prospect pipeline rather than more easy to replace players who will bridge to it. If, Boras creates a bidding war for Beltre that would require them to sign him for too much money for too long, Garko or perhaps Loretta are likely to be more cost effective alternatives. If the Sox believe that both Andersen and Rizzo (he looked good when I saw him in person last season in the minors) are ticketed for Boston in the foreseeable future, it might make sense to switch Youkilis to 3B now. Furthermore, while not comparable (yet) to Beltre defensively at 3B, Lowrie might be slotted there in the foreseeable future unless he is destined to be a super sub.

[Jneen]

I think it's simply a refinement of the "rebuilding year" concept - no more and no less.

Perhaps with the distinction being that "bridge building" does not mean trading away your future.

[zenter]

I think it's simply a refinement of the "rebuilding year" concept - no more and no less.

Perhaps with the distinction being that "bridge building" does not mean trading away your future.

Perhaps bridge was something JWH, LL, and Theo discussed in terms of increased expenditures, the same way the bailout and stimulus were "a bridge" to sustain the economy to avoid having it fall into a Depression (I'm talking about intent here, not politics). That could mean that he's planning to bring payroll levels back down by 2012, which I posited here as one of three possible "meanings" for the 2010 offseason so far.

[bombdiggz]

Perhaps bridge was something JWH, LL, and Theo discussed in terms of increased expenditures, the same way the bailout and stimulus were "a bridge" to sustain the economy to avoid having it fall into a Depression (I'm talking about intent here, not politics). That could mean that he's planning to bring payroll levels back down by 2012, which I posited here as one of three possible "meanings" for the 2010 offseason so far.

After having a day to think about this, I think you are spot on. And despite my OP, I now think Beltre would be perfect final stroke to this offseason. I always liked the idea of the Sox signing Beltre for the right price, but after the Sox allotted 25 M to 2010 last night, I wasn't sure it would happen.

In the past the ownership group has expressed that their soft cap would be the luxury tax threshold. And I think that is a sound business and competitive decesion. Why pay a $1.20 for every $1 of service you are purchasing, especially when that $.20 goes back into other teams pockets. You are not only not getting what you paid for, but you are also subsidizing your competition. But it is a soft cap, they have gone over it before and most likely will again.

Using a combination of Philly's figures for payroll this year and Zenter's calculations of what is coming off the books after 2010, what is the Sox situation going forward with a Beltre signing? We are at 174M right now, if we ditch Lowell and Texas pays 3M, we move Kotchman's 3ish M and sign Beltre for around 10 M we are looking at about 178 M for 2010. Looking forward there is about 58 M coming off the books after next year, a substantial portion in dead weight (Lugo, Lowell, and Tek), potentially dead weight (Ortiz), and players you are going to want to look into resigning (Martinez, Beckett) If you allot 40 M (which is very generous) to either resigning those players or acquiring replacements of similar ilk that leaves at least 18 M (The luxury tax rises from 170 to 178 in 2011) to sign a DH and create some space under the threshold. That is easily doable.

It does seem like that bridge that was talked about was an influx of cash to keep a very good team one that could realistically win the WS without sacrificing the future.I don't see this team trading for Adrian G. right now, you are sacrificing way too much of the future if you have to give up Buchholz in any deal. Wait half a season to a season, let Buch establish himself and accrue service time, wait for some of the other prospects to develop, and let a situation arise where a club is looking to deal a slugger. I don't think Miggy or Adrian Gonzalez is going anywhere right now except for a king's ransom. However, if Detroit isn't competitive or with Gonzalez a year away from free agency, SD can get a package that blows away two draft picks those things could change.

Edit: I neglected to mention the flexibility going forward. With the Lackey signing you are bound to have at least two ace caliber pitchers in your rotation. Buchholz has a shot at making it three. That gives them options with Beckett and allows the Sox to pay Beckett what they value him at. They can be legitimate players in the Mauer sweepstakes if they so desire and play the let a type A go, sign a type A game if they so desire. They have all their trade chips. I like where this bridge leads.

This post has been edited by bombdiggz: 15 December 2009 - 10:22 PM

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Here is how I took Theo's comments. Every year you go into the off-season with weak spots on your team. Some years the solutions are available (Foulke and Schilling) and you do what you can do get them. Other years they are not. Sometimes it takes discipline to make the decision not to try to solve the problem by overpaying and hurting yourself down the road.

Hypothetically, let's say that the Red Sox only big need in the off-season was to sign a power hitting left fielder. And let us say that the Red Sox do not like the power hitting left fielder on the market--they think he will command vastly more money than he is worth. Signing that person will help your team this year but hurt your team's future by hamstringing your flexibility. If the goal of your team is to win as many World Series as possible, you will in fact be best served by not signing that power hitting left fielder.

How often to you hear that some general manager has permission to raise the budget this year, that he is free to sign a big name free agent or two. What often happens in this case is that the GM misses out on the best players but feels that he *must* spend the money he has, since he has permission to, and signs some albatross that ends up hurting the team.

The Red Sox last year wanted to sign Teixeira, who would have helped the team immensely. When they did not sign him, they instead signed ... no one. Their payroll went down substantially, and there were some that criticized them for that, that said that JWH was broke, trying to sell the team, whatever. In fact, they just decided that there were no good places to spend their money.

[biollante]

I hope they find some relief pitchers on the bridge.

Usually, the only guy I see every time on the bridge is the zealot handing out pamphlets on being saved.

I do worry that the Sox are now focused on putting a team out there that will always come in second. Lackey is a big move but I am not convinced it is the right one. So, I am just another fickle fan. With Lackey, the rotation should be secure. Defense should be ok. Now bats and relief pitching.
Bridge = rebuilding. However, the Sox may also use this term to try not to get soaked when negotiating. I will wait until Spring when the sun is shining and everyone looks fresh and new.

[The Boomer]

I hope they find some relief pitchers on the bridge.

Usually, the only guy I see every time on the bridge is the zealot handing out pamphlets on being saved.

I do worry that the Sox are now focused on putting a team out there that will always come in second. Lackey is a big move but I am not convinced it is the right one. So, I am just another fickle fan. With Lackey, the rotation should be secure. Defense should be ok. Now bats and relief pitching.
Bridge = rebuilding. However, the Sox may also use this term to try not to get soaked when negotiating. I will wait until Spring when the sun is shining and everyone looks fresh and new.

I just needed to repeat my cross-post here for you pessimists.

Rasheed Wallace says hi. We hate those A'Holes when they are on other teams but love them in Boston. It reminds me of the supposedly true story of Lyndon Johnson's reply when asked why he didn't fire J. Edgar Hoover during his bad old days of civil liberties abuses in his 4th decade as Director of the FBI. Lyndon replied that he would rather having him piss out of his tent than in his tent.

We sure are getting spoiled. If Lackey is your fourth best starter, what's the problem? It means that Lester is solidified as the true ace, that Beckett is turning it up a notch in his walk year, that Buchholz is taking the next step toward maturity (as a newlywed with a hot wife) and that Theo made the right call not trading him away. If anyone can name a better 4th starter, even fleetingly, in the entire history of the Red Sox, please do so.

It's a strategic market rate contract and, considering the motivations that caused the just concluded trades of Halliday and Lee, the free agent pool of top free agent starters next winter just got smaller (Halliday will be locked up and Lee wants Sabathia money). Lackey is the rough (though slightly younger) equivalent of Burnett (though Burnett throws harder). Unless Beckett has a 2007 flashback this coming season (something we can hope that both Hermida and Kotchman experience too), the value of the extension he should be offered is clearly established. Being slightly younger, you might extend him for 6 years at the Lackey price. If he reverts (improves) to the level of co-ace with Lester, his value increases if he isn't extended before the season. However, that will be a mirage because, as he continues to age, he is more likely still in the Lackey/Burnett group of almost (but not quite) aces. It will be interesting to see if, before the season starts, Beckett can be signed for something like 6 more years at about $100 million. If the security of a 5 or 6 year extension comparable to Lackey and Burnett won't satisfy Beckett, this will be his last year here. That isn't even a hometown discount. The Sox just clearly established the baseline for Beckett's value while securing their third/fourth starter (Lackey) for the four years starting in 2011 (by which time I expect Lester and Buchholz to be clearly established as the #1 and #2 starters).

Matsuzaka seems primed for a comeback. If he does, next season will essentially give the Sox their best starting 5 ever assuming everyone remains healthy (something that you can't count on). Even so, unless Tazawa and Kelly get dealt (something less likely to happen if Beckett isn't extended before this season starts), a 2011 rotation of Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Matsuzaka and Tazawa (Kelly) ought to be almost as good on paper.

If Beckett walks, you will have one free agent (Lackey), one premium international signing (Matsuzaka) and three homegrown starters (with Tazawa or Kelly at the other end of that bridge). In 2011 and 2012, Youks, Pedroia and Ellsbury should be joined by more homegrown infielders from among Lowrie, Andersen, Iglesias and Rizzo. Kalish and Westmoreland should be able to replace aging Cameron and Drew and push Ellsbury over to LF unless he improves defensively in centerfield. If everything goes right (which predictably it won't), Theo will only need to trade surplus prospects to get needed complementary players. Perhaps he will need to splurge for a good future catcher (probably not named Mauer though we can dream of this).

Finally, because you lamented about the bullpen, my observation is that this is the easiest area to shore up over time, particularly because you have Bard already gaining experience as the future closer in waiting to anchor the bullpen. Theo will find replacements for other bullpen roles in the free agent market or by converting not quite good enough starters (Bowden?) to different roles. To start this season, I don't see any huge urgency to replace the limited contributions of recently departed Saito and Wagner with everybody else (particularly anticipating a healthy Delcarman) at the top of the bullpen depth chart back for another season.

[redsahx]

How often to you hear that some general manager has permission to raise the budget this year, that he is free to sign a big name free agent or two. What often happens in this case is that the GM misses out on the best players but feels that he *must* spend the money he has, since he has permission to, and signs some albatross that ends up hurting the team.

The Red Sox last year wanted to sign Teixeira, who would have helped the team immensely. When they did not sign him, they instead signed ... no one. Their payroll went down substantially, and there were some that criticized them for that, that said that JWH was broke, trying to sell the team, whatever. In fact, they just decided that there were no good places to spend their money.

Exactly. I'm not sure why the baseball media in this town (guys who are PAID to follow baseball closely every day) pretend they can't figure this stuff out. Likely they are just being cynical for the sake of selling papers or getting ratings on the radio, but this front office strategy and logic isn't that hard to understand. The Sox have no desire to go through "rebuilding" or "bridge" years just for the heck of it. They will always do what they can to make sure the team has a shot at the playoffs. Just because the Sox "have the money" now however, doesn't mean they should spend it on whatever is available, when there is likely better shopping ahead.

Paying a Jason Bay or Matt Holliday like they are top tier superstars isn't a smart move. Taking low risk fliers on supposed scrap guys isn't a cheap way out either. This was the strategy that netted us David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, Kevin Millar and Mike Timlin back in 2003.

[zenter]

Bridge = rebuilding. However, the Sox may also use this term to try not to get soaked when negotiating. I will wait until Spring when the sun is shining and everyone looks fresh and new.

The facts say otherwise, unless you have a new definition for the word "rebuilding". With salaries projected to exceed luxury tax, nothing about this offseason says the Sox are dismantling and starting over (the traditional meaning of rebuilding). If we remember Theo's "development machine" language, 2010 (and 2011) are bridging the gap between periods of ml prospects becoming ML-ers. This seems to be using a more literal definition of "bridge" - finding quality personnel to fill gaps until the young guys are ready to take over, and by means of the only levers he has available - $$ and trade.

[JimD]

Exactly. I'm not sure why the baseball media in this town (guys who are PAID to follow baseball closely every day) pretend they can't figure this stuff out. Likely they are just being cynical for the sake of selling papers or getting ratings on the radio, but this front office strategy and logic isn't that hard to understand.

It isn't that hard to understand, and guys like Shaughnessy aren't dumb. It’s just that they would rather try to pump up the clicks and ratings by spinning a narrative that gets certain impressionable segments of the fanbase all worked up. You could see where Shank was trying to go with this over the past week – he wanted to make the ‘bridge’ comment shorthand for ‘greedy owners pocketing the fan’s money’ just as he and his MSM brethren once made ‘bullpen by committee’ code for ‘stupid brainchild of smarty-pants GM who never played the game’. Thankfully, Theo pulled the rug out from under him with the Lackey signing.

This post has been edited by JimD: 16 December 2009 - 12:22 PM

[Eric Van]

It strikes me that the "bridge" is actually a year or two of increased payroll because:

A) You are in a fallow period in terms of producing MLB talent from the machine because of the switch from college to HS kids in 2006 and 2007.

B) Circumstances are making it desirable to overlap some big contracts, e.g. last year of Lowell and first of Beltre or whoever else replaces him, possibly last year of Beckett and first year of Lackey.

[NomarsFool]

Unfortunately, it seems like a really poor choice of words - unless they were doing it to really try and help their negotiating positiong with free agents - which seems unlikely.

The impression they gave, is that the Red Sox have some fantastic stars at A-AA, and they need to basically try and muddle through until those stars at A-AA are ready for the majors. This would be an incredibly stupid strategy for two reasons:

1) We all know that "stars" at A-AA rarely, if ever, actually pan out.

2) The team already has a great nucleus of in their prime young talent (Youks, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, VMart, Papelbon) and others that are still very productive, but might not be in a few years (Drew, Beckett, etc.) It would be really dumb to waste the next few years of this good group, just in the hope that a new group of young talent will hit the majors in 2-3 years.

I think what they meant was, they need to "overspend" a bit in the next two years to try and fill some gaps, but that they don't want to do that with long term contracts. Also, they don't want to trade away alot of prospects. Both of those strategies seem to make perfect sense.

Personally, I'm a bit surprised by the Lackey signing, as that doesn't seem to quite fit in with the strategy, but maybe they are really looking ahead with concern that Beckett leaves soon, and Dice K doesn't really ever amount to what they thought he would be when they signed him.

[zenter]

It strikes me that the "bridge" is actually a year or two of increased payroll because:

A) You are in a fallow period in terms of producing MLB talent from the machine because of the switch from college to HS kids in 2006 and 2007.

B) Circumstances are making it desirable to overlap some big contracts, e.g. last year of Lowell and first of Beltre or whoever else replaces him, possibly last year of Beckett and first year of Lackey.

Which is exactly what I suggested above here and here. Also, JWH more or less confirms this reading here.

This post has been edited by zenter: 17 December 2009 - 10:14 AM