478 replies to this topic

[MikeM]

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time one of these reclamation starters worked out for the Sox?

As opposed to what, our success in taking the alternate route of going out and investing a chunk of money on a "proven" Free Agent? Because as a whole, Theo was ultimately pretty thorough in his failures lol.

In all fairness to Ben though, you kinda have to wipe that slate clean this winter. Plus it only takes one, and right now (and at least for the next couple of years) the potential upside of hitting on one of those is more important then ever.

Edited by MikeM, 12 January 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[TOleary25]

Fair point. I wasn't trying to compare Theo's signings but rather point out the "bad luck" he had with these reclamation starters. David Wells is the only one that comes to mind in recent history but he wasn't really a reclamation, just old.

Edited by TOleary25, 12 January 2012 - 04:12 PM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

On the other hand not many people were thrilled about Bill Mueller Jeremy Giambi Kevin Millar and some guy named Ortiz. I know on the other end of the spectrum but bargin shopping can work

[untilthebombs]

Did the Red Sox release Millwood or did he opt out?

Cause I'd argue they actually hit on him, he just didn't justify a 40-man spot at the time.

[Towney007]

So long as he's not on a major league deal, I'm OK with it. Just a higher strikeout version of Cook and Silva basically.... was just messing around on fangraphs and their comparables might as well have been drawn with tracing paper.

[wine111]

Think about that statement for a minute. Cook is THAT bad when his signing makes RSN pine for John Lackey.

On the other hand, if he stays healthy Padilla is a very respectable #5 and at worst case a substancial upgrade over the Atchinson/Bowden/Albers of the world.

Adding a potential clubhouse cancer like Padilla seems to be a move the Red Sox would have been better off avoiding. I also don't like his HR rates
before he went to Los Angeles (where Dodger Stadium is one of the best pitcher's parks in baseball). Is this like signing Carlos Zambrano without the
talent? Even in the N.L. West, (which also has pitcher's parks at Petco Park and AT&T Park), and facing one pitcher for every nine hitters, he still
couldn't keep his ERA under 4.00.

The plan seems to feel like let's just get through this year and then add Zack Greinke and Ranaudo to the rotation for 2013. Just keep in mind that the
Yankees are playing the same waiting game for next year's free agent class and will probably add the two best free agent arms next year. We will not
win a head to head clash with the Yankees on a pitcher that they want. If the Phillies don't sign Hamels, he will be in pinstripes. The 15.5 million option
on Dan Haren for 2013 will almost certainly be picked up by the Angels, taking him off the market. And don't rule out Greinke avoiding the big market
clubs and opting to resign with Milwaukee. His battle with social anxiety disorder http://www.jsonline..../116683129.html does not make
him the best candidate for high pressure markets. I respect what he has accomplished to this point. He has the talent to help the Sox, but it would be
a big risk.

I think Matt Cain would be the second Yankee signing from the 2013 free agent class (after Hamels), especially if the Yankees fail to make the
playoffs in 2012 (I expected the Yankees to have added at least Edwin Jackson by now). I think Jackson will still be a Yankee before the season
starts, which should stabilize their rotation enough for another post season spot for them. With a healthy A Rod, they will hit their way in,
especially if Jesus Montero starts realizing his significant potential. The worst thing for the Red Sox is the Yankees failing to make the 2012 post
season, which would open the Yankee wallets for the 2013 free agent class.

That would leave us with James Shields, Shaun Marcum or Francisco Liriano as our most realistic options. I like Shields, but the 2009 and 2010
regression seasons are cause for concern. Marcum has been solid, but really wore down at the end of 2011
http://www.cbssports...66/shaun-marcum, and had missed all of 2009 due to injury (huge injury risk). Liriano has been erratic since missing
all of 2007 with an arm problem. I do not like the strategy of waiting until the 2013 free agent class to sign pitchers we "might" be able to sign.

I think we will regret not signing Yu Darvish when we had the chance. I would have been much happier if we signed Darvish while declining to sign
Ortiz to save on payroll. I would have been fine with Lavarnway as our DH to get a quality arm like Darvish. Then we would have just needed to
add Ranaudo (or another free agent filler) as our # 5 with no worries about the 2013 free agent class. You rebuild your rotation by adding legitimate
starters, not by weakening your bullpen by converting relievers into starters. Bailey and Melancon are good bullpen acquisitions, but the Sox could
lose three arms from last year's bullpen (Papelbon, Bard and Aceves) if this contrived plan of putting both Aceves and Bard in the rotation becomes
reality. Cook or Padilla need to seize one of those last two starting spots in 2012 (preferably a better SP acquired before spring training of this year)
to prevent the loss of two quality bullpen arms to their questionable futures as starters.

Edited by wine111, 13 January 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Towney007]

I really don't see Ranaudo anywhere near the majors until at least 2014 if not later. I think he still probably starts out in A-ball next year and assuming everything goes *really well*, he might end up in Portland at the end of the year. Maybe in 2014 he gets some spot starts here and there, but I don't see him as being a guy in the rotation then, either. Declining K/9 rate wasn't anything to get super happy about either. While I'd agree that the Red Sox will play around next year with a better pitcher, I don't see them as waiting around for Ranaudo.

Padilla would be fine on a minor league deal. There's really nothing wrong with him on that, but my point would be that he's not really better than Silva or Cook at this point. He strikes out more batters, but walks more as well. His numbers are just all over the charts with the exception of his innings pitched - and I just don't think he'll ever throw 180 IP ever again. His personality also kind of bothers me in a clubhouse that's going to have to really address some issues this year. If it's a minor league flier, then great. If its a major league signing - it's a bad one when you've got some other more appealing options out there for the same price.

[TOleary25]

Source: #RedSox still showing interest in Gavin Floyd. #WhiteSox

https://twitter.com/#!/jonmorosi/statuses/159688719371218944

Floyd is someone I really like at the back end of the rotation, but how can we afford the $7 mil contract if we can't afford Oswalt at $8 mil?

[Towney007]

Of the trade candidates, he seems like the best option. But like you TO, I'm skeptical with the money owed. Option year next year essentially takes Dice-K's spot though. Who knows. I like it, and if the Sox ownership takes off the reigns, I like him as the best option on the trade market, but yeah - I'm skeptical.

[untilthebombs]

https://twitter.com/...688719371218944

Floyd is someone I really like at the back end of the rotation, but how can we afford the $7 mil contract if we can't afford Oswalt at $8 mil?

Floyd's AAV is just $3.875MM ($15.5MM/4 years).

Despite the moves made (and not made), I don't believe the org has really suggested that they don't want to spend money, so much as they don't want to spend money that will prevent them from resetting the luxury tax, likely next year. Floyd is one way to do that. If his 2013 option is exercised, from a cash flow perspective, the org would shell out $16.5MM over the next two years, but he'll have an AAV of just that $3.875MM this year, and $5MM next year.

[TOleary25]

Floyd's AAV is just $3.875MM ($15.5MM/4 years).

Ahh...you're right. I stupidly was only looking at this years salary. This definitely makes sense that they would be interested now, but I wonder what it would take to get him.

[Sampo Gida]

Floyd's AAV is just $3.875MM ($15.5MM/4 years).

Despite the moves made (and not made), I don't believe the org has really suggested that they don't want to spend money, so much as they don't want to spend money that will prevent them from resetting the luxury tax, likely next year. Floyd is one way to do that. If his 2013 option is exercised, from a cash flow perspective, the org would shell out $16.5MM over the next two years, but he'll have an AAV of just that $3.875MM this year, and $5MM next year.

I am pretty sure the AAV for luxury tax purposes is calculated based on present and future guaranteed salaries. So he makes 7 million in 2012 and thats his AAV. The option is not guaranteed and not considered unless it is picked up.

edit: Also, according to a Gammons report the Red Sox have said they will be over the luxury tax threshold. If so, it won't be reset next year. Of course, they could get under it by trading someone, but if thats their priority, they probably wont be adding to the payroll.

Edited by Sampo Gida, 19 January 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[TOleary25]

"Average Annual Value” shall be calculated as follows: the sum of (a) the Base Salary in each Guaranteed Year plus (b) any portion of a Signing Bonus (or any other payment that this Article deems to be a Signing Bonus) attributed to a Guaranteed Year in accordance with Section E(3) below plus c) any deferred compensation or annuity compensation costs attributed to a Guaranteed Year in accordance with Section E(6) below shall be divided by the number of Guaranteed Years.

It is calculated using the entire contract therefore the AAV is the same throughout the contract. Club options aren't included in AAV so if they are picked up I believe they are treated as a one year deal, but i'm not positive.

I think untilthebombs was referring to next year as the 2013 season. After 2012, the Sox have Ortiz, Jenks, Scutaro, and Dice-k off the books so there is a chance they can come under the luxury tax threshold.

Edited by TOleary25, 19 January 2012 - 09:22 AM.

[untilthebombs]

It is calculated using the entire contract therefore the AAV is the same throughout the contract. Club options aren't included in AAV so if they are picked up I believe they are treated as a one year deal, but i'm not positive.

I think untilthebombs was referring to next year as the 2013 season. After 2012, the Sox have Ortiz, Jenks, Scutaro, and Dice-k off the books so there is a chance they can come under the luxury tax threshold.

Per a rundown on Brotherly Glove, a Phillies blog, you're (we're) correct on the regular contract years, but for club options:

Contract options work a bit differently. A club option, where a salary becomes guaranteed only if the team decides to exercise it, is not included in the average annual value calculation. If the Phillies had a player signed to a 3-year deal for $30 million, with a fourth-year club option worth $12 million, the average annual value calculation would only use the 3/$30.

[untilthebombs]

If that's correct, then Floyd's luxury tax impact would remain at $3.875MM for both 2012 and 2013.

I'm struggling a bit with why a team couldn't sign a player to a five year contract at $1MM per year and a team option for a 6th year at $50MM, resulting in an AAV for all 6 years of $1M. I think it's safe to say no player would actually accept a contract structured this way, because the team could just as well not exercise the option.

Player and vesting options work how I had mistakenly calculated Floyd's 2013. The option year and dollars are included in the equation:

Had it been a player option, meaning the money becomes guaranteed if the player decides to exercise it, the AAV includes the option year. In that case, the salary to be included for the luxury tax calculation is $10.5 mil ($42 mil/4 yrs). Mutual options, where either the club or player can guarantee the money, are treated like player options and are therefore included in the AAV calculation.

Vesting options, where the money becomes guaranteed if certain milestones are set, are treated like club options and are excluded from the AAV calculation. If the option includes a buyout amount, and the option is declined, the buyout amount is treated as the equivalent of an isolated one-year deal.

http://www.brotherly...the-luxury-tax/

[TOleary25]

Makes sense that only player options are included in AAV since it is guaranteed money to the player while team options are not.

I'm struggling a bit with why a team couldn't sign a player to a five year contract at $1MM per year and a team option for a 6th year at $50MM, resulting in an AAV for all 6 years of $1M. I think it's safe to say no player would actually accept a contract structured this way, because the team could just as well not exercise the option.

The article you linked said that club options don't have an impact on AAV so this scenario would only work as a player option. I was thinking about this the other day in regards to Ortiz. What if we offered a 2 year, $24 million dollar deal with a $5 mil player option for the 3rd year? In this deal, Papi gets his extra year and his AAV is only $9.67 mil for the Sox. If Papi is still performing at a high level at the end of the contract he can simply decline the option.

I remember AAV becoming somewhat of a problem with the NHL pretty recently. Players were signing 15 year deals that were extremely front heavy. Players would be making a crazy amount the first 3 or 4 years, and then a small amount the rest of the contract. Players like this because they got all their money right away and then retire when those low money years kick in and teams liked it because it lowered the AAV so there was room on the cap.

Per a rundown on Brotherly Glove, a Phillies blog, you're (we're) correct on the regular contract years, but for club options:

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I read it as the AAV is only calculated on the guaranteed deals (with player options and mutual options being considered guaranteed). Then, when a team picks up an option it is basically a one year contract since it was not guaranteed before that point. In this case, Floyd would cost $3.87mil this year and $9.5 mil (the price of the option) the next.

Edited by TOleary25, 19 January 2012 - 11:52 AM.

[untilthebombs]

Makes sense that only player options are included in AAV since it is guaranteed money to the player while team options are not.



The article you linked said that club options don't have an impact on AAV so this scenario would only work as a player option. I was thinking about this the other day in regards to Ortiz. What if we offered a 2 year, $24 million dollar deal with a $5 mil player option for the 3rd year? In this deal, Papi gets his extra year and his AAV is only $9.67 mil for the Sox. If Papi is still performing at a high level at the end of the contract he can simply decline the option.

I remember AAV becoming somewhat of a problem with the NHL pretty recently. Players were signing 15 year deals that were extremely front heavy. Players would be making a crazy amount the first 3 or 4 years, and then a small amount the rest of the contract. Players like this because they got all their money right away and then retire when those low money years kick in and teams liked it because it lowered the AAV so there was room on the cap.



Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I read it as the AAV is only calculated on the guaranteed deals (with player options and mutual options being considered guaranteed). Then, when a team picks up an option it is basically a one year contract since it was not guaranteed before that point. In this case, Floyd would cost $3.87mil this year and $9.5 mil (the price of the option) the next.

Don't know for sure if it's right, but a post up on Over The Monster indicates that the AAV of the team option year is calculated how I first though, but then suggested otherwise based on my interpretation of Brotherly Glove's piece.

2) Average Annual Value --

Floyd's long-term deal also makes his impact on the Sox' tax figure low, with his average annual value coming in just under $4 million. This would bump up to $5 million if the Sox were to use his option, but it still helps keep the figure down in 2013 if they should choose to use it, and that's probably when the Sox really expect to get underneath the cap.

OTM basically calculates the team option in the way that BG describes player options to be calculated: adding the additional year, dollars, and dividing.

[Sampo Gida]

Hmm, seems it is more complicated than I thought.

FWIW here the link to the CBA.

http://mlbplayers.ml...cba_english.pdf

[MikeM]

I think untilthebombs was referring to next year as the 2013 season. After 2012, the Sox have Ortiz, Jenks, Scutaro, and Dice-k off the books so there is a chance they can come under the luxury tax threshold.

Of course, at that point a reset there only matters in the event the Sox project themselves to be out there spending $189m+ on player payroll in 2014 and beyond. Not. Gonna. Happen

It's been projected from the start (and continuely ignored quite a bit imo) that we were to be a sneeze away for going over the cap this winter btw, barring a complete removal of Ortiz from the equation. As it stands now, and with a $10m'ish estimate on the total benifits hit, my math has us going a few million over even in the event we were to win every current/non-settled arby case.

[SpruceTrap]

We're STILL in contact with Oswalt - https://twitter.com/#!/MikeSilvermanBB/status/160451709548769281

What if we traded Aviles, acquired Teahen and added a $2 million player option on the back end of Beckett's current deal? That would give us an extra $5.4 million in room under the luxury tax.

[untilthebombs]

They aren't actually user the luxury tax at this point. It's not likely the tax or the cash flow that's preventin the acquisition of an Oswalt. It's believing he isn't worth the current cost, whatever it may be.

[SpruceTrap]

They aren't actually user the luxury tax at this point. It's not likely the tax or the cash flow that's preventin the acquisition of an Oswalt. It's believing he isn't worth the current cost, whatever it may be.

They aren't actually user the luxury tax at this point. It's not likely the tax or the cash flow that's preventin the acquisition of an Oswalt. It's believing he isn't worth the current cost, whatever it may be.

I disagree, I think the fact that they were trying to move Scutaro proves that they like Oswalt. I do agree that it's not the luxury tax that's the reason the Red Sox can't afford Oswalt right now though. I think it's more the bottom line. The owners lost $1.1 million on the team last year before their 80% share in NESN made up for it.

[untilthebombs]

I disagree, I think the fact that they were trying to move Scutaro proves that they like Oswalt. I do agree that it's not the luxury tax that's the reason the Red Sox can't afford Oswalt right now though. I think it's more the bottom line. The owners lost $1.1 million on the team last year before their 80% share in NESN made up for it.

If they were trying to move Scutaro. The deal was declared dead all of 20 mins after it was reported, which is questionable.

I'd have to see financial statements before putting any weight in that $1.1MM, which I'm not sure matters, since as you acknowledge, NESN made up for it. The success of the team fuels the success of NESN, so at least as long as both the team and NESN are under the same ownership, we can't break them apart.

But back to the $1.1MM loss, it's likely largely a paper loss, driven by depreciation, amortization. Legitimate expenses, but the cash was spent ages ago. And when were talking about payroll, it's the cash flow that matters, not the profit & loss.

[walkoffblast]

Based on how I read the CBA I think option years are treated like extensions so Floyd's AAV in 2013 would be 5 mil. The article linked is a good one but it does have at least one error that is addressed in the comments, that being buyouts are treated like signing bonuses and then if they aren't used you have the option to subtract them out the year they would have been used or retroactively get luxury tax money back you paid because of them. This has some implications with Scutaro that I can't quite figure out. The main issue is how was his option classified? He had both a club and player option plus the buyout. Assuming it was treated like a 2/12.5 for AAV purposes, if we trade him do we still get to subtract the 1.5 this year? My best guess is yes and that is a big reason why we picked up his option.

I can understand the Red Sox waiting. If they can't afford an 8-10 mil AAV caliber pitcher right now then why not try some lottery tickets and then get one at the prorated cost they can afford later into the season if they still think it is a need.

Edited by walkoffblast, 21 January 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[Towney007]

If they were trying to move Scutaro. The deal was declared dead all of 20 mins after it was reported, which is questionable.

I'm not wild about moving Scooter, but who knows - an Aviles/Punto platoon might work..

Edited by Towney007, 21 January 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[ivanvamp]

From (http://rotoworld.com...3191/roy-oswalt):

"Danny Knobler of CBS Sports reports that Roy Oswalt turned down an opportunity to play for the Tigers.

Detroit was "very interested" in Oswalt, according to Knobler, and even had ace Justin Verlander place a recruiting call to the 34-year-old right-hander. But Oswalt simply didn't want to play there. The Red Sox remain the front-runner and could feasibly wrap up an agreement by the end of this week. Oswalt registered a 3.69 ERA and 1.34 WHIP in 23 starts last season for the Phillies."

[TOleary25]

From Bowden:

Red Sox have made offers for Edwin Jackson and are presently in discussions with him and prefer him over Roy Oswalt according to source

https://twitter.com/#!/JimBowdenESPNxm/status/162264174678917123

Wonder if it's a one year deal like Rosenthal suggested Jackson might accept the other day.

[Towney007]

Looks like Reds are going to sign Jeff Francis to a minor league deal according to Ken Rosenthal and Oswalt wants to pitch in Texas or St. Louis. If the Sox really do want Jackson or Floyd, they're gonna have to shit or get off the pot.

[untilthebombs]

Always possible they aren't actually on the pot, I guess.

[Stanley Steamer]

Looks like Reds are going to sign Jeff Francis to a minor league deal according to Ken Rosenthal and Oswalt wants to pitch in Texas or St. Louis. If the Sox really do want Jackson or Floyd, they're gonna have to shit or get off the pot.

I think it's safe to say that the Sox want each of the pitchers in a vacuum, but are willing to leave things be if it's not on their terms. It sounds sensible that Oswalt may not want to pitch a year in Boston. Jackson may be desirable on a one year contract up to maybe $8-10M, or something like 3/21. Floyd is probably the best of the bunch, but the cost in prospects sounds prohibitive. It only makes sense to keep listening, but I wouldn't be surprised if none are on the team next year.

[ivanvamp]

Edwin Jackson career vs. AL East (minus Boston):

vs NYY: 67.1 ip, 72 h, 40 er, 34 bb, 44 k, 5.35 era, 1.57 whip
vs Bal: 47.1 ip, 38 h, 19 er, 18 bb, 40 k, 3.61 era, 1.18 whip
vs Tor: 85.0 ip, 79 h, 41 er, 24 bb, 66 k, 4.34 era, 1.21 whip
vs TB: 32.0 ip, 21 h, 8 er, 13 bb, 26 k, 2.25 era, 1.06 whip

TOT: 231.2 ip, 210 h, 108 er, 89 bb, 176 k, 4.19 era, 1.29 whip

Those aren't exactly eye-popping numbers, but against the best division in baseball, those really aren't too bad.

I just don't know what to make of the idea of signing Jackson. He has some talent, he's 28, and can be really good (such as in 2009, when he had a 3.62 era, 126 era+). And his stats against our AL East opponents aren't too bad, really (last year's average AL starters' ERA against all opponents was 4.23). But I just don't know that he's the kind of guy you want to commit large dollars to.

[wine111]

Unfortunately, I think this is the sign that all starting pitching trade talks have broken down and the Red Sox want to be able to say they at least made an
offer to sign starting pitching help. I would bet the announcement came out this way because the Red Sox made their final and best offer to both pitchers
and were turned down. Otherwise, I think they would have announced they had signed one or the other or kept it quiet until they signed one to discourage
other clubs from upping the bidding price on these pitchers.

Edited by wine111, 26 January 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[TOleary25]

In his baseball video blog, Buster Olney talks about Boston's pursuit of pitching depth and says new GM Ben Cherington has taken a measured approach. He says the Sox have a one-year offer out to Roy Oswalt for "about $5 million" and "seem to be in the same position with Edwin Jackson."

http://proxy.espn.go...fered-oswalt-5m

This matches Speier's article that they only want to spend around 5 mil after the Ross signing. These offers basically say "Hey we can't afford you but were gonna send you an offer just in case". If we signed either for $8 mil that would cost the team $4.2 mil more (with the 40% luxury tax hit). I hate the idea of saving $4 mil when Oswalt/Jackson are probably 1-2 wins better than Cook/Padilla/etc.

[wine111]

http://proxy.espn.go...fered-oswalt-5m

This matches Speier's article that they only want to spend around 5 mil after the Ross signing. These offers basically say "Hey we can't afford you but were gonna send you an offer just in case". If we signed either for $8 mil that would cost the team $4.2 mil more (with the 40% luxury tax hit). I hate the idea of saving $4 mil when Oswalt/Jackson are probably 1-2 wins better than Cook/Padilla/etc.

I have to say that the signings of Ortiz and Ross cost us the chance to get an important upgrade in starting pitching. We did not have to offer Ortiz a contract
at all and Ross is by no means a significant difference maker. I would have let Lavarnway DH and played McDonald and Sweeney in a platoon in RF. Now we
get the same lame approach to the # 4 and # 5 spots that have mostly failed us for the last five years with the added risk of weakening our bullpen. Now we
have to hope Daiske rides to the rescue. Not a great fallback option after serious arm issues and so many pitches on that arm both in games and throwing
on the side.

[untilthebombs]

I have to say that the signings of Ortiz and Ross cost us the chance to get an important upgrade in starting pitching. We did not have to offer Ortiz a contract
at all and Ross is by no means a significant difference maker. I would have let Lavarnway DH and played McDonald and Sweeney in a platoon in RF. Now we
get the same lame approach to the # 4 and # 5 spots that have mostly failed us for the last five years with the added risk of weakening our bullpen. Now we
have to hope Daiske rides to the rescue. Not a great fallback option after serious arm issues and so many pitches on that arm both in games and throwing
on the side.

Ortiz/Ross/Scrapheap Pitcher
Lavarnway/McDonald/Oswalt,Jackson

That's a lateral move at best, particularly as a result of counting on Lavarnway to produce like Ortiz.

Practically speaking, yes they did have to make Ortiz an offer. As a Type-A free agent worth his salary, they couldn't risk letting him go without receiving a comp pick.

[Towney007]

Cherington is smoking crack if he thinks he's getting either Oswalt or Jackson at a little over half of their already incomprehensibly lowered asking price to come to a less-than-ideal situation for both. We won't land either at that price.

[wine111]

Ortiz/Ross/Scrapheap Pitcher
Lavarnway/McDonald/Oswalt,Jackson

That's a lateral move at best, particularly as a result of counting on Lavarnway to produce like Ortiz.

Practically speaking, yes they did have to make Ortiz an offer. As a Type-A free agent worth his salary, they couldn't risk letting him go without receiving a comp pick.

I would not risk throwing away a season for a lottery ticket of a compensation pick. They really did not have to sign Ortiz.
They really do need to upgrade their starting pitching without weakening their bullpen.

A solid number 4 is worth more than just another scrapheap pitcher + a declining Ortiz and Ross combined, He adds
wins, saves the bullpen by throwing innings and gives the Red Sox a viable fourth starter in the post season (that last
point may be the most important since the Red Sox will likely be at a disadvantage at the #1 spot in the rotation
against a playoff quality team).

Beckett has been a quality post season ace in the past, but has become far too fragile and inconsistent to be reliable.
Neither Lester nor C.B. has my confidence to beat another team's ace in post season play. We have a dire need for
a real #4 combined with a need to keep Bard and Aceves in the bullpen to keep it strong and deep against strong
A.L. East lineups. Ortiz is due for a noticeable decline.

Edited by wine111, 26 January 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[untilthebombs]

I would not risk throwing away a season for a lottery ticket of a compensation pick. They really did not have to sign Ortiz.
They really do need to upgrade their starting pitching without weakening their bullpen.

A solid number 4 is worth more than just another scrapheap pitcher + a declining Ortiz and Ross combined, He adds
wins, saves the bullpen by throwing innings and gives the Red Sox a viable fourth starter in the post season (that last
point may be the most important since the Red Sox will likely be at a disadvantage at the #1 spot in the rotation
against a playoff quality team).

Beckett has been a quality post season ace in the past, but has become far too fragile and inconsistent to be reliable.
Neither Lester nor C.B. has my confidence to beat another team's ace in post season play. We have a dire need for
a real #4 combined with a need to keep Bard and Aceves in the bullpen to keep it strong and deep against strong
A.L. East lineups. Ortiz is due for a noticeable decline.

Ortiz has been worth 6.8 wins above replacement per fWAR over the last two years.

That puts him in the company of Colby Lewis, Rick Porcello, Ervin Santana, and Max Scherzer along with a host of other 3/4 pitchers.

To say that such a pitcher alone is worth more than Ortiz, Ross, a scrapheap pitcher, and comp pick, is just not true.

Edited by untilthebombs, 26 January 2012 - 06:56 PM.

[wine111]

Ortiz has been worth 6.8 wins above replacement per fWAR over the last two years.

That puts him in the company of Colby Lewis, Rick Porcello, Ervin Santana, and Max Scherzer along with a host of other 3/4 pitchers.

To say that such a pitcher alone is worth more than Ortz, Ross, and comp pick, is just not true.

Please don't overvalue statistical elements over how a baseball team functions as an integrated whole. The importance
of having a complete pitching staff is crucial. An aging Ortiz, a likely part timer in Ross and a # 4 and # 5 who will
likely hemorrage runs while not pitching sufficient innings instead of having a legitimate # 4, does significant damage to
the hopes of the Red Sox getting to the post season.

Sending either Aceves or Bard to the starting rotation weakens the bullpen too much without a guaranteed boost to the
starting rotation. The Cooks, Padillas of the world are the hallmarks of a failed offseason that should have been focused
on legitimate starting pitchers from day one.

[untilthebombs]

Please don't overvalue statistical elements over how a baseball team functions as an integrated whole. The importance
of having a complete pitching staff is crucial. An aging Ortiz, a likely part timer in Ross and a # 4 and # 5 who will
likely hemorrage runs while not pitching sufficient innings instead of having a legitimate # 4, does significant damage to
the hopes of the Red Sox getting to the post season.

Sending either Aceves or Bard to the starting rotation weakens the bullpen too much without a guaranteed boost to the
starting rotation. The Cooks, Padillas of the world are the hallmarks of a failed offseason that should have been focused
on legitimate starting pitchers from day one.

Production is production. I'm not getting down to the decimals, just presenting the case why what you suggested is clearly a lateral move at best.

[wine111]

Production is production. I'm not getting down to the decimals, just presenting the case why what you suggested is clearly a lateral move at best.

Saying production is production ignores the fact that the Red Sox have plenty of offense and are
weak in the number 4 and 5 spots in the rotation. It also ignores the fact that the Yankees and Rays
have superior starting pitching quality and depth and that these offseason acquisitions do
nothing to change that. A quality #4 starter could have made us a legitimate threat to win the
division by shoring up that crucial weakness.

We have finished behind the Rays for three of the last four years because we lacked quality
starting pitching in the number 4 and 5 spots in the starting rotation. We are repeating
the same mistake this year.

How about if you play GM and call the Angels and offer a trade of David Ortiz for Ervin Santana.
That would be a very short conversation. WAR is a nice conversation piece but it does nothing
to address the true value of a baseball team as a whole.

The Red Sox need a quality starting pitcher and they failed to acquire one. The signings of Ortiz
and Ross directly adversely affected that pursuit as the Red Sox directly stated that they were
looking to remain under the luxury tax this year. If they had just signed Yu Darvish (6 years
at $56 million with the posting fee not counted towards the luxury tax if I'm not mistaken) and
avoided Ortiz and Ross entirely, they would have a potential ace, Lavarnway at DH and
Sweeney and McDonald platooning in RF. I would have posted $60 million to insure that I got
the negotiating rights to Darvish. A much better team with the quality starting arms to compete
on even terms with the Yankees, Rays, Angels and Rangers.

The 2012 WAR for Darvish and Lavarnway (we won't know about Lavarnway now if he gets stuck
in the minors) would have had an excellent chance of exceeding Ortiz, Ross, Cook and Padilla.
This could easily be a struggling year for the aging Ortiz. I find it frustrating to ignore a strong
young arm like Darvish for spare parts Ross, Padilla, Cook and a soon to be spare part Ortiz.
Can you calculate the amount of WAR the Red Sox will lose over the next six years by not having
Darvish in our starting rotation? Ortiz and the three spare parts will be long gone long before that.
And the Red Sox will still need quality starting pitching and have to pay through the nose for it.

Edited by wine111, 27 January 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[untilthebombs]

Saying production is production ignores the fact that the Red Sox have plenty of offense and are
weak in the number 4 and 5 spots in the rotation. It also ignores the fact that the Yankees and Rays
have superior starting pitching quality and depth and that these offseason acquisitions do
nothing to change that. A quality #4 starter could have made us a legitimate threat to win the
division by shoring up that crucial weakness.

We have finished behind the Rays for three of the last four years because we lacked quality
starting pitching in the number 4 and 5 starting spots in the starting rotation. We are repeating
the same mistake this year.

Production is production. In the scenario you provided, the gain in production from such a 4th/5th starter does not offset the loss in production from the other resources. Case closed.

How about if you play GM and call the Angels and offer a trade of David Ortiz for Ervin Santana.
That would be a very short conversation. WAR is a nice conversation piece but it does nothing
to address the true value of a baseball team as a whole.

Yeah...that's not what I suggested.

The Red Sox need a quality starting pitcher and they failed to acquire one. The signings of Ortiz
and Ross directly adversely affected that pursuit as the Red Sox directly stated that they were
looking to remain under the luxury tax this year. If they had just signed Yu Darvish (6 years
at $56 million with the posting fee not counted towards the luxury tax if I'm not mistaken) and
avoided Ortiz and Ross entirely, they would have a potential ace, Lavarnway at DH and
Sweeney and McDonald platooning in RF. I would have posted $60 million to insure that I got
the negotiating rights to Darvish. A much better team with the quality starting arms to compete
on even terms with the Yankees, Rays, Angels and Rangers.

The 2012 WAR for Darvish and Lavarnway (we won't know about Lavarnway now if he gets stuck
in the minors) would have had an excellent chance of exceeding Ortiz, Ross, Cook and Padilla.
This could easily be a struggling year for the aging Ortiz. I find it frustrating to ignore a strong
young arm like Darvish for spare parts Ross, Padilla, Cook and a soon to be spare part Ortiz.
Can you calculate the amount of WAR the Red Sox will lose over the next six years by not having
Darvish in our starting rotation? Ortiz and the three spare parts will be long gone long before that.
And the Red Sox will still need quality starting pitching and have to pay through the nose for it.

The problem here is that you're assuming that the luxury tax and the org's budget are one in the same. That's not the case. They're already projected to go over the tax. It's becoming more clear that it's in fact that internal budget that's the current restriction, not the luxury tax threshold.

[Towney007]

I'm not the kinda guy to tell ya I told ya so... buuut.... I told ya so. Per Gordo Edes - Oswalt is a Cardinal.

[Sampo Gida]

Why spend that money for a SP'er anyways. Selig saying now that expanded playoffs likely to start in 2012 and not 2013, so Red Sox only need to target 90W for a playoff spot (which explains a lot about this offseason).

http://www.denverpos...ies/ci_19836823

The cost of making the playoffs is up to 20 million less than it was (5 wins) which may be one reason there is so much support for it among owners.

[Towney007]

Well and aside from that...

The Tigers and Rangers have gone into each of the last two seasons with major holes in their rotations and made deep playoff runs by acquiring the guys they actually wanted at the trade deadline. Yeah I know - AL East, yadda yadda, but it's not like the Yankees and Rays don't have questions either. I see no point in grabbing Floyd if you don't have any kind of leverage. I'd just head into the season with what they have. Maybe see if there's another low-cost starter out there, nab him and call it an offseason.

[wine111]

Production is production. In the scenario you provided, the gain in production from such a 4th/5th starter does not offset the loss in production from the other resources. Case closed.




Yeah...that's not what I suggested.




The problem here is that you're assuming that the luxury tax and the org's budget are one in the same. That's not the case. They're already projected to go over the tax. It's becoming more clear that it's in fact that internal budget that's the current restriction, not the luxury tax threshold.

Production is production. In the scenario you provided, the gain in production from such a 4th/5th starter does not offset the loss in production from the other resources. Case closed.




Yeah...that's not what I suggested.




The problem here is that you're assuming that the luxury tax and the org's budget are one in the same. That's not the case. They're already projected to go over the tax. It's becoming more clear that it's in fact that internal budget that's the current restriction, not the luxury tax threshold.

We will have to agree to disagree. WAR is not the basis of my argument. The team's strategic need for a quality 4th starter is a more important priority for
this team than the signings of Ortiz, Ross, Cook and Padilla are. That is my argument. You want to disagree, fine. It is very possible that only Ortiz and Ross
make the team out of the four. The Red Sox blew the offseason the moment they offered Ortiz arbitration and financially hamstrung themselves from getting
a quality arm. Aceves or Bard leaving the bullpen is a bad idea as we will need a strong bullpen to have any chance to get to the playoffs. And with what
happened this offseason, those playoff chances look mighty slim.

Edited by wine111, 28 January 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Looks like the Sox are open to taking the risk of having both Bard and Aceves in the rotation this year. Should be a fun ride!

[Cellar-Door]

Contract details on a bunch of the new signings, very heavy on the incentives for the pitchers Padilla and Silva's based on starts Aaron Cook's are based on games (so they may be looking at him mostly in the bullpen) Also interesting Silva's optout date is earlier than anyone else at 4/15. Jesse Carlson's also allows him to sign with a Japanese team on certain dates if not on the roster.

http://browniepoints...-contract-info/

[bosox0192]

According to the Mainichi Daily News, Red Sox pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka threw a bullpen session off a mound for the first time since undergoing Tommy John surgery last June.

Speier speculates that it's looking like Dice-K will be ready to pitch at some point in 2012.

http://www.weei.com/...ka-throws-mound

[TOleary25]

I didn't catch Gammons on NESN but supposedly he was saying that he had a conversation with Boras about Jackson and he has several offers but is most likely to sign a one year deal. Gammons also said that he has a "feeling" about Jackson landing with the Sox.

The Sox are going to have to come up from that 6 mil mark to sign him most likely. I've mentioned this about Ortiz, but why don't the Sox construct a contract similar to the one they gave Beltre ($9 mil for 1 year with a 5 mil player option)? Jackson gets the money he wants on a one year deal and the Sox drop his AAV to a number they are comfortable with. The option will almost surely be declined and Jackson will be a free agent again looking to cash in.

Edited by TOleary25, 01 February 2012 - 09:16 AM.