277 replies to this topic

[PrometheusWakefield]

I don't like the general rhetoric of how important they have decided getting under the cap is, and where this caution was when Theo was going after Carl Crawford.

That is exactly how I feel about this offseason.

At both the Crawford signing and the Lackey signing, my thought was: well, this seems like a ridiculous overpay for medium level talent. The team must be generating such massive revenues that they have come to realize that the only thing that matters is protecting their brand quality regardless of expense and therefore can go about signing whoever they want.

Of course, I didn't know at the time that those moves would end up not just an overpay but catastrophically terrible deals. But now, every move that has been made by this front office is a reminder not only that we got utterly hosed in those deals, but that there was in fact no master plan or logic behind them at all, and actually what happened is that Theo Epstein fucked up royally and then abandoned the franchise just before he had to deal with the consequences of his recklessness. We're at the point where we can't keep a decent major league shortstop signed at a perfectly reasonable contract because of the money we are wasting in those positions, while facing the very real possibility of having replacement level players starting the season at SS, LF and RF, with very little promise at the high minors. And it's happening while between the awful finish to last year and the Patriots Super Bowl birth the brand is at it's lowest point since pre-2004.

Every move that Ben has made this offseason is really a condemnation of the last 3 years of Theo Epstein mismanagement of the franchise. It's frustrating to watch and I think it's fundamentally changed the way I view Epstein and this front office.

[E5 Yaz]

That is exactly how I feel about this offseason.

At both the Crawford signing and the Lackey signing, my thought was: well, this seems like a ridiculous overpay for medium level talent. The team must be generating such massive revenues that they have come to realize that the only thing that matters is protecting their brand quality regardless of expense and therefore can go about signing whoever they want.

Of course, I didn't know at the time that those moves would end up not just an overpay but catastrophically terrible deals. But now, every move that has been made by this front office is a reminder not only that we got utterly hosed in those deals, but that there was in fact no master plan or logic behind them at all, and actually what happened is that Theo Epstein fucked up royally and then abandoned the franchise just before he had to deal with the consequences of his recklessness. We're at the point where we can't keep a decent major league shortstop signed at a perfectly reasonable contract because of the money we are wasting in those positions, while facing the very real possibility of having replacement level players starting the season at SS, LF and RF, with very little promise at the high minors. And it's happening while between the awful finish to last year and the Patriots Super Bowl birth the brand is at it's lowest point since pre-2004.

Every move that Ben has made this offseason is really a condemnation of the last 3 years of Theo Epstein mismanagement of the franchise. It's frustrating to watch and I think it's fundamentally changed the way I view Epstein and this front office.

Yup, once again we learn that Epstein was given blank checks by ownership and was allowed to do whatever he wanted with them.

There's enough "blame" to go around, folks. Ownership doesn't get a pass here

[Rudy Pemberton]

Isn't it quite possible, even likely, that ownership is holding the line on payroll b/c of the lack of success related to recent spending?

Red Sox payroll over the past three years: $122M, $168M, $164M.

0 playoff wins in that team, haven;t even made the playoffs the past two years despite ~40% increase in payroll?

If you were John Henry, why would you authorize more spending? It sucks on some levels, but had the team made the playoffs, I'm sure there'd be more money around.

Ultimately, whether it's "the worst offseason ever" really won't become evident until October.

[E5 Yaz]

Isn't it quite possible, even likely, that ownership is holding the line on payroll b/c of the lack of success related to recent spending?

Of course, and that probably likely. But that doesn't mean they didn't approve the recent spending sprees

[Plympton91]

Every move that Ben has made this offseason is really a condemnation of the last 3 years of Theo Epstein mismanagement of the franchise. It's frustrating to watch and I think it's fundamentally changed the way I view Epstein and this front office.

I posted this in the Scutaro Thread, but cross-posting here on Sprowl's suggestion and because it fits with where this discussion is going.

I think you have to ask yourself how much they knew about the likelihood of the drastic changes in the revenue sharing formula that were introduced in the new CBA. It seems like the ability to basically avoid revenue sharing entirely by staying under the cap substantially changes the calculus. If they didn't foresee those changes, then perhaps they figured they'd just increasingly be paying and extra $5 million for being over the cap by $10-15 million each year. However. with the changes, you're now paying your entire revenue sharing bill in addition to the tax.

Given those changes, you'd have to have an owner with the ego of George Steinbrenner and the type of wealth that allowed him to almost literally light money on fire for the purpose of watching it burn. Therefore, I have no problem classifying these changes as a de facto salary cap and bear no ill will toward ownership for trying to get below it, and stay below it.

The only caveat to that acceptace is that I'm not sure to what extent a failure to foresee those changes is a failure of the upper management team of the Red Sox. If those changes were forseen, then the Crawford signing looks even worse than many already think it does. If they were not forseen, why weren't they? The failure to do so could certaintly be used to question whether the continued expansion of FSG, such as the purchase of the English soccer team, distracted them from the early discussions of the likely path of labor negotiations.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Sure, they approved them, under the recommendations of a GM who presumably suggested they would provide value to the organization. After a lot of misses in the past few years, I don't think it's out of line for ownership to take a step back and reassess if throwing money at a problem is the way to fix it.

[cannonball 1729]

I don't like the general rhetoric of how important they have decided getting under the cap is, and where this caution was when Theo was going after Carl Crawford.

It didn't exist because the new CBA didn't exist. The new penalties for going over the cap are absolutely draconian. It's been estimated that it would cost the Sox about $22 million to go over the cap this year (plus 42% of however much they exceed the cap).

The only caveat to that acceptace is that I'm not sure to what extent a failure to foresee those changes is a failure of the upper management team of the Red Sox. If those changes were forseen, then the Crawford signing looks even worse than many already think it does. If they were not forseen, why weren't they? The failure to do so could certaintly be used to question whether the continued expansion of FSG, such as the purchase of the English soccer team, distracted them from the early discussions of the likely path of labor negotiations.

That may be fair. On the other hand, if they thought the cap would come in a few million dollars more (rather than staying at the 2011 levels), ownership would have had reason to think they wouldn't be in this mess.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

On the other hand, if they thought the cap would come in a few million dollars more (rather than staying at the 2011 levels), ownership would have had reason to think they wouldn't be in this mess.

This is a huge point that I think is being ignored. The CBT threshold has risen by $7-8M a year since it's inception, yet it now will hold steady, seemingly in 3 year blocks. If the Sox forecasted a bump to $186M or so - as well as not expecting Lackey and Dice K to be out with TJ surgery - it's tough to lay too much blame on them for being near the limit and still needing significant parts. By all means, the LAckey and Crawford deals seem terrible in hindsight (and certainly were questionable from day one), but given a block of circumstances that I think is fair to call unforseen (Lackey and Dice K's elbows; the limit not rising; the new penalties; even Ortiz bouncing back to being a $12M+ salary again), I have trouble criticizing them as severely as some here have.

[JakeRae]

This is a huge point that I think is being ignored. The CBT threshold has risen by $7-8M a year since it's inception, yet it now will hold steady, seemingly in 3 year blocks. If the Sox forecasted a bump to $186M or so - as well as not expecting Lackey and Dice K to be out with TJ surgery - it's tough to lay too much blame on them for being near the limit and still needing significant parts. By all means, the LAckey and Crawford deals seem terrible in hindsight (and certainly were questionable from day one), but given a block of circumstances that I think is fair to call unforseen (Lackey and Dice K's elbows; the limit not rising; the new penalties; even Ortiz bouncing back to being a $12M+ salary again), I have trouble criticizing them as severely as some here have.

This post does a good job of covering the issues. The Red Sox have hit a perfect storm of CBT issues that have led to the current issues. It is frustrating to see the organization hamstrung by their payroll situation this offseason, and some of that is clearly a result of poor planning and poor contracts, but an awful lot is the result of unforeseen and unpredictable circumstances.

[smastroyin]

I'm not ignoring anything, for the record. John Henry is a billionaire hedge fund manager. To suggest that they were completely taken by surprise by the CBA changes means:

1) He actually doesn't know how to manage risk.
2) He didn't pay attention at what I assume were the multiple owner's meetings where they discussed these things.
3) He has decided that the best way to run a business in baseball is to be reactionary instead of proactive.

I doubt that the changes to the CBT came up at the last minute at the negotiating table. It had to have been discussed. If it wasn't then I am depressed that the Red Sox who generate the second or third most revenue in the game were left out of it although I could just turn my brain off and curse Selig or something, which does have appeal.

Where this all comes together is this. The Crawford and Gonzo signings happened last year. Most of the money committed to this roster has been placed since the end of the 09 season. If they were living with the ends of long contracts then I could buy the "well the CBA was a game changer" argument. But we are just at the beginning of a lot of these contracts, and I just can't buy that they were sitting there this time last year saying "you know, 22 teams look like they are all for a higher CBT, but I'm willing to bet a whole shitton of money that our argument will hold sway." It just doesn't make sense. You could argue that Henry made his fortune by swiftly responding to the market and that's what he is doing here, except by committing to all of those contracts he essentially signed up for having hardly any room to maneuver. The two off-seasons just don't jibe in any way that points to "oh the CBA is screwing us" unless you want to argue that they were completely unprepared for that possibility which seems more like a reason to project blame than push it aside.

As a final point, the fact the MLB is being fucking moronic and saying "well the CBT hasn't worked and in fact it created less parity, we just need to amp it up to make it work." So that sucks for the Red Sox, and I think it is depressing for baseball in general and reflective of the attitude of small market owners who are just trying to increase the value of their own brand and really don't care all that much about parity. That's a much larger topic but would contribute to my feeling that this off season is the worst.

All of that said, I don't think pushing blame around is all that productive or relevant to the topic of whether this off-season sucks.

In terms of it sucking, no matter what the reasons are for the change, the change itself is what sucks. I guess it would suck even more if Henry came out and said "I made Ben trade Marco Scutaro because I lost a bet with Steinbrenner" or "Those guys sucked it up in September and now I'm going to punish them by driving this team into the ground" or some-such. But within reason, the actual fact that they are more concerned with money than talent right now is more important to how people feel than the underlying cause.

A completely separate point. This off-season also sucks because I just don't think there is a lot to look forward to until they start playing. The guys who were here were here for the collapse and people are thinking about that. If Adrian Gonzalez were a completely new face I think that people would be less apt to think this off-season sucked. Even though he would be the same guy taking the field, there is that connection to the end of the 2011 season. And all of the new faces are just pretty bland. Even the prospects most likely to contribute are not really exciting. I like Kalish but he is an all-around player who isn't going to look like a star to most people even if he is playing like one (and it's something of a longshot that he will be that good due to both health and the whole thing where no prospects are sure things). WMB gets some people excited but the excitement is of the "well here is a guy with whom we might be able to replace half of Ortiz's $12 million of production for 1/20 the cost" I mean I guess some people think he might become a star and hopefully he will blow away AAA and get more people to think that. Right now, I can't get there.

Plymp, good post but please please don't bring people down the path where they think the CBT is part of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is based on your earnings and CBT is based on how much you spend. As you know there are many different inputs to these two very distinct outputs. Yes, at the end of the day, they both go against the bottom line, but they are much different mechanisms.

[smastroyin]

One of the most important jobs of upper management is to manage risk, and we are sitting here looking the other way when they seemed to have screwed every pooch in the neighborhood on that one? I mean I'm not interested in the blame per se - the blame game doesn't change any of the situation - but I'm stunned that people seem to think "oh shit happens" is a good excuse for people running a $700 million enterprise.

[Plympton91]

Plymp, good post but please please don't bring people down the path where they think the CBT is part of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is based on your earnings and CBT is based on how much you spend. As you know there are many different inputs to these two very distinct outputs. Yes, at the end of the day, they both go against the bottom line, but they are much different mechanisms.

But they are linked now, aren't they? If you are under the threshold for the CBT then you get a rebate on your revenue sharing. So, if you're under the CBT Threshold, you pay no tax and you get a 25% rebate of your revenue sharing. If you're $10 million over the threshold, you not only pay $4 million in tax but also lose the 25% rebate of your revenue sharing. And every year that you remain under the threshold, the rebate goes up -- if you stay under 2 years in a row, you get a 50% rebate on revenue sharing.

Face it, there is now a salary cap in baseball. On the other hand, I agree with everything you wrote about the extent to which this seemed to come as a complete shock to the ownership group. They better hope no more of these big contracts go belly up, or they're looking straight at the second division for about 3 or 4 more years.

[cannonball 1729]

I'm not ignoring anything, for the record. John Henry is a billionaire hedge fund manager. To suggest that they were completely taken by surprise by the CBA changes means:

1) He actually doesn't know how to manage risk.
2) He didn't pay attention at what I assume were the multiple owner's meetings where they discussed these things.
3) He has decided that the best way to run a business in baseball is to be reactionary instead of proactive.

Doesn't "completely taken by surprise" seriously overstate the disarray that the Sox are in? They ditched Scutaro because they felt like they could get decent enough production out of two budget replacements that they could go ahead and rededicate his money to a #4 starter and/or a better right fielder. As great as it would be if the Sox could keep all of Scutaro, Oswalt, and Ross, the difference between Marco and Aviles/Punto isn't going to be nearly as great as the outcry on this board would have you believe. Next year, Matsuzaka and Jenks (and Oswalt, if he signs) come off the books and they'll have at least $22 million below the cap to play with. It sucks that we now have to root for a team that actually has hard budget constraints, but we're not exactly in Oakland A's territory here.

Plymp, good post but please please don't bring people down the path where they think the CBT is part of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is based on your earnings and CBT is based on how much you spend. As you know there are many different inputs to these two very distinct outputs. Yes, at the end of the day, they both go against the bottom line, but they are much different mechanisms.

As Plympton noted, this isn't true anymore. If the Sox are over the cap, they lose a lot of revenue sharing money.

[OCD SS]

Face it, there is now a salary cap in baseball...

I keep hearing about this new interpretation of the rules as a salary cap. Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?

Teams already have to pay into revenue sharing, what we're talking about is getting money back in the form of a rebate, down the road. If there is more incentive to get under the cap it's because ownership has decided to prioritize revenues (in the form of a rebate) over spending what they feel they need to to put the best team on the field, even if it means a CBT payment of ~$5M. In the Sox case this means jettisoning a valuable starting SS in order to add an OFer and stating pitcher.

Basically what Selig has done is waive enough money in the faces of the large market owners that it will actually change their spending behavior, but as it is constructed they are choosing to make more money, rather than having a draconian system foisted onto them. For all the talk of expecting changes to the CBA, is there any reason half of them would've expected to see their revenue sharing payments go down? Now that that's the case the Sox are willing to contort their roster to start collecting a rebate even if it costs them wins this season.

I don't have a problem with teams maximizing profits or making tough choices with revenues as a guide, but let's not pretend this is anything other a conscious choice made by the H/W/L.

[The Boomer]

I keep hearing about this new interpretation of the rules as a salary cap. Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?

Close to it. HWL aren't like Tom Yawkey who heavily invested his own personal fortune in a futile attempt to compete with the Yankees for roughly half of the 20th Century. Younger and better reserves for less money isn't irresponsible penny pinching. It's smart and good business. The howl when they traded greedy Nomar (who didn't accept what in hindsight turned out to be a more than fair contract offer from management) faded quickly 8 years ago. Scutaro and Lowrie were no Nomars and the howlers are back again. One reason this management team won those 2 championships within these last 8 years was that they weren't afraid to make unpopular moves or waste money when it was the right thing to do. This kind of criticism tells me that they are successfully getting back on track. The more we learn about the "luxury tax threshold", the more obvious it is to everyone that it's a salary cap in all but name. 2011 was a blessing in disguise. The best team that money could buy played up to its potential only for the 4 middle months of last season rather than the full 6 months. Wastefully overspending is the historical hubris of this franchise. It's much more satisfying competing with and occasionally surpassing (in the postseason) the Yankees by outsmarting them rather than futilely trying to overspend with them.

[ponch73]

For my own edification, I went over to ESPN.com to look at 2011 batting stats by position for the Red Sox and the AL. Doing so tempered my perspective about this offseason, Ben's first as GM.

• The 2011 Red Sox led the AL in OBP, SLG, OPS, runs and RBI. They ranked 3rd in HR. It's hard to do any better than that. Their 1B, 2B, CF and DH were offensive studs. Hopefully, the Sox reap the benefits of being an additional year removed from injury for the first three and the benefits of contract year motivation redux from the latter.

• Overall, the only split in which the batting badly underperformed was with the bases loaded as they ranked 8th in the AL in OBP, 11th in SLG and 11th in OPS. Interestingly enough, only the Yankees had more AB with the bases loaded than the Red Sox in 2011, and the Yankees had an OPS over 300 points higher. Not sure what factor best explains this (randomness, unrepresentative sample size, poor preparation or focus, subpar situational awareness/coaching, lack of mental toughness, etc.) The seven worst offenders in terms of bases loading hitting (with at least 10 AB's) were Drew, Varitek, Youkilis, McDonald, Lowrie, Reddick and Scutaro. It's a fun coincidence to note that at least 5 of those 7 guys aren't returning to the team in 2012.

• The 2011 Red Sox ranked in the top 5 in the AL in OPS for all positions (including DH) EXCEPT two: RF and SS. Notice that LF is astonishingly not on that dubious list.

• In RF, they ranked 13th in OPS. At SS, they ranked a more respectable 6th. With the recent offseason moves, the Sox have gotten cheaper and younger (and hopefully healthier) at both positions. As others on this board have previously mentioned, it stands to reason that the 2012 cast at those positions will at least be able to approximate the performance of their 2011 counterparts offensively and defensively. 2012 RF batting stats should be better than the .299/.353/.652 put up by Drew & company. And 2012 Red Sox SS batting stats should be considered in the context of a 2011 AL average contribution from SS of .320/.376/.696. Finally, while there has been a mini-uproar on this board about the Scutaro transaction, I, for one, will be intrigued to see how his balky shoulder and apparent disdain for his third base coach's signals play out at a mile high altitude.

• In LF, the Sox ranked 7th in OBP, 3rd in SLG and 5th in OPS with a .304/.419/.723 line in 2011. While those numbers were enhanced by Reddick's hot streak over 55 AB's, it could stand to reason that Crawford's .700 OPS might improve with a healthier wrist, as a permanent fixture in the 7th slot of the batting order and under a manager more inclined to rest him against left-handed starters.

• At 3B, the Sox ranked 1st in OBP, 4th in SLG and 2nd in OPS with a .362/.449/.812 line in 2011. Would it stand to reason that a healthier Youkilis nearing the end of his contract returns to the offensive form of prior years?

Edited by ponch73, 24 January 2012 - 03:04 AM.

[OCD SS]

Close to it. HWL aren't like Tom Yawkey who heavily invested his own personal fortune in a futile attempt to compete with the Yankees for roughly half of the 20th Century.

You're completely missing my point; not nuts in the fact that the team has found a way to be more profitable, nuts in the sense that the discussion revolves around MLB and Bud doing something to the Sox via the new CBA.

I don't expect H/W/L to start throwing more and more money at the problem, but that the discussion has to some degree absolved them of choosing to make more money in favor of the team being surprised at a new and draconian implementation of the CBT in the new CBA is horseshit. They always paid into revenue sharing and almost certainly expected to continue to pay into it under the new CBA. If the Sox FO had charted a long term plan that started back in the 2010 offseason they probabaly would be looking at roughly the same assumptions regarding the CBT limit and revenue. What has changed is that Bud turned his stick into a carrot.

Younger and better reserves for less money isn't irresponsible penny pinching. It's smart and good business. The howl when they traded greedy Nomar (who didn't accept what in hindsight turned out to be a more than fair contract offer from management) faded quickly 8 years ago. Scutaro and Lowrie were no Nomars and the howlers are back again. One reason this management team won those 2 championships within these last 8 years was that they weren't afraid to make unpopular moves or waste money when it was the right thing to do.

I haven't actually seen a single suggestion that the Sox traded Scutaro because they thought it was the best baseball decision. I'm always willing to entertain such an idea (in Scutaro's case that would be his injury history and probably fading defense at SS, and the FO's assessment that he was likely to miss even more time or provide compromised play in the upcoming season), but in this case this is a 1 year deal at a reasonable rate for what he's done in the past. If you're going to argue that the Scutaro trade was a good baseball move you're going to have to show that Punto/ Avilles is somehow an upgrade or at least a lateral move.

This kind of criticism tells me that they are successfully getting back on track. The more we learn about the "luxury tax threshold", the more obvious it is to everyone that it's a salary cap in all but name.

It is not a cap in any way shape or form. There is a difference between being forced to alter one's approach to follow the rules and choosing to alter on'e approach to meet optional buisness incentives. Choosing not to ignore those incentives and not recieve the money is not a tax.

2011 was a blessing in disguise. The best team that money could buy played up to its potential only for the 4 middle months of last season rather than the full 6 months. Wastefully overspending is the historical hubris of this franchise. It's much more satisfying competing with and occasionally surpassing (in the postseason) the Yankees by outsmarting them rather than futilely trying to overspend with them.

Well at least H/W/L will be able to point out to Hank and Hal that they ran a much more profitable business.

For the record (and a point to the thread title), what I find so disappointing in this offseason is precisely that it it looks like they will not be outsmarting anyone anytime soon. The plan appears haphazard and all over the place. Perhaps the FO will pull it all together, but I'm still pretty skeptical.

Edited by OCD SS, 24 January 2012 - 07:30 AM.

[YTF]

OK, worst offseason ever? No, in fact as the pieces start to fall into shape I honestly don't think it's all that bad given the moves that have been made to this point under the self imposed budget. None of the big splashes that we've become accustomed to in years past, but lets face it many of those haven't worked out as hoped and perhaps it is time to go in a new direction. Papelbon's gone, that was happening anyway. He's been replaced by Andrew Bailey at a much cheaper cost. Is he Pap? No but should be able to effectively close out games and came to the Sox along with Sweeny for a chips that didn't have a huge impact on the farm system. They moved Lowrie to Houston for Malencon. Lowie was expendable and redundant. Malencon hopefully helps shore up the pen and fills that spot they were hoping Jenks would fill last season. Drew's gone and it looks like a Sweeny and Ross platoon in right. Both these guys will get semi regular at bats while hopfully playing in situations best suited for each to contribute. There is some power potential there and if both excell as part timers playing in the best circumstances for them as individuals would it be unreasonable to think they could combine for 20+ HR and 80RBI? Would that be considered a a great inprovement for that slot? At Catcher.....well it looks as though the Tek era is over (we all wanted that right?) Salty improved through the season last year at the plate and behind it. Shoppach gives the Sox a veteran catcher who hit's lefties well, has some pop in his bat for cheap and will allow the Sox to either move Lavarnway if the deal's right or allow him to develop some more and see exactly where/if he fits into the organization's plans. Crawford HAS to be better this season doesn't he? Lackey's on the shelf and the Sox have brought in a bunch of reclaimation projects and Padilla to try to fill his and Matsuzaka's slots.These aren't the upgrades that most hoped for to the starting rotation, but IF (big if) Beckett, Lester and Buchholz can give what we would expect from them perhaps the bottom of the rotation can be filled out from the players mentioned and one more addition, which leads us to the biggest hits that Ben and Co have taken so far. Punto in and now Scuttaro out. If this results in either Roy Oswalt or Gavin Floyd making their way into the Boston rotation isn't it worth it? Yes you have the combo of Aviles and Punto at short and yes the Sox might have to free up a little more $$$ (depending on who you listen to) to get both Ross and another starter in under the tax, but I think that can be resolved and a little more salary gets dumped somewhere if that's what they feel they need to do. The off season hasn't been the sexiest in franchise history, but I certainly don't see it as the worst.

Edited by YTF, 24 January 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[pk1627]

Frankly, the worst off-season of the new ownership era was after 2004 but we were all too exultant to notice. Significant hits in the starting rotation (Schill, Pedro and DLowe) with Theo picking up Wells and Clement. The big splash was Rent, and I remember LaRussa warning that the Boston fan base had to be patient with him (we weren't).

Still the core of the team was strong (as it is now) and the team tied for the division title, swept in the playoffs in the Clement/Wells starts. I like the SP of this year's team better.

[The Boomer]

OCD:

I don't see their thrifty approach as solely motivated by a short term mission of maximizing profit though this is a dividend ownership wants. With a 40% luxury tax and no revenue sharing rebate foreseeable in the near future, their ability to later competitively acquire or bid for less risky and better players when they need to bolster the team's core won't be compromised. If the Yankees with big ticket contracts coming off their books soon won't pay this penalty, they can pretty much outbid anyone (which they can do anyway even when adding in their LT). Going cheap for role players,their bench and the last few pitchers isn't a disaster with their core intact. Not replacing Youks, Papi, Beckett and other depreciating players in the next few seasons because they can't afford the penalty will be much more detrimental to the franchise. Passing on an aging injury risk pitcher like Oswalt as the # 5 starter, except on their terms, and dumping an expensive contract for an age 37 shortstop like Scutaro had baseball (not just financial) goals with the comparable, younger and cheaper Aviles on the roster. Likewise, Padilla and company can foreseeably outperform the 2011 versions of Lackey and Dice-K for much less. The marginal improvement if Oswalt is healthy for what they will pay him might simply not be worth it from a baseball (not just a financial) perspective. Their long term motivation justifies the kinds of moves they made this winter.

[smastroyin]

Doesn't "completely taken by surprise" seriously overstate the disarray that the Sox are in? They ditched Scutaro because they felt like they could get decent enough production out of two budget replacements that they could go ahead and rededicate his money to a #4 starter and/or a better right fielder. As great as it would be if the Sox could keep all of Scutaro, Oswalt, and Ross, the difference between Marco and Aviles/Punto isn't going to be nearly as great as the outcry on this board would have you believe. Next year, Matsuzaka and Jenks (and Oswalt, if he signs) come off the books and they'll have at least $22 million below the cap to play with. It sucks that we now have to root for a team that actually has hard budget constraints, but we're not exactly in Oakland A's territory here.

Two things.

First, are we talking about this off-season or the entire future of the franchise? I was talking about the former but if the discussion is about the latter I am happy to go there. I realize they are somewhat interconnected as they need to break the "over CBT" cycle at least once to reset a bunch of clocks. But my long-term concerns are much different than saying that an off-season of talking about frugality because of rules changes really really sucks.

Second, I don't think completely taken by surprise is really an exaggeration. Here's the thing. Carl Crawford was terrible last year. Really really bad. Worse than the LF brigade of 2010 which was pretty bad. And it still took an epic slow start and epic bad finish for them to miss the playoffs by one game. Point being, he was a luxury item at the time of his signing and I think we all knew it then and the season proved that he was. So why commit 13% (it should decline as CBT increases) of the CBT figure for the foreseeable future to one guy that you don't need? I mean, in the long run the Lackey contract I think is going to be worse in terms of value but at least you could argue that they needed a starter. They didn't really need a LF other than a warm body. That leaves me in one of two places.

- they have had a change of heart about spending.
- they were surprised by how onerous the CBT changes were.

There are a lot of good reasons for them to have a change of heart and I actually think that is the reason. FSG may not be making as much money as they hoped. Falling short of the playoffs two years in a row makes them want to re-assess. etc. But you guys are talking about reason two, and reason two, to me, has no excuses attached. If there was any reasonable chance that these changes would happen, there is no way you can justify the Crawford deal no matter how much your GM wants him. I could say similar things about Gonzalez. One or the other you could probably justify even in light of the cap situation. Both seems reckless unless they had no idea this stuff was coming down the pipe, or thought there was no chance they would be voted in. To be sure, I'm surprised the players agreed to this deal, on it's surface, it is worse than what caused the strike in 94. But I'm a dude on a message board. These are the guys who are running the team. They did a bad job if they were surprised by this. You can argue back and forth but if you think that the change we have seen is due to the CBA, then at the end of the day, this is what the leadership of the team is there for and they blew it. That doesn't mean the Red Sox are screwed forever or that it is indicative of larger problems down the road or anything like that. It does mean that if we are evaluating what has gone on the last couple of seasons, then we have to say that on this issue they did a bad job. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess at the end of the day I am interested in the blame game, if only because "shit happens" is a much more accurate description of the collapse than systematic problems which go on in every clubhouse but only get highlighted when teams lose. But because of the collapse these guys allowed their best players, field manager, and general manager (though more tacitly in Theo's case) to shoulder a bunch of blame while not taking any for themselves (other than implying that they shouldn't have listened to Theo as much). So, you know what, I do think it's important that we understand they failed at their jobs as well. It was a team effort just like 2004 and 2007 were. This doesn't mean Henry is incompetent or Lucchino is evil or whatever other easy to dismiss argument can be constructed out of my criticism.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

Back in 2003, the sox made a series of moves signing castoffs named Millar, Ortiz, Mueller etc. isn't this offseason a return to that model? People seem to be forgetting that what made Theo the "Boy Genius" was taking players that he saw evidence of better than average return and turning them into regulars and later stars..... Maybe the same can be said of Ross, Punto and Sweeney down the road.

Maybe this team is finnally returning to the model that started the run to a championship and getting away from what hamstrung them (chasing big names and hot commodities at high prices).

People are complaining about the penny pinching, but isn't the penny pinching, diamond in the rough way the way this team and Theo earned the ability to make big trades (Schilling, Gonzales) and isn't the way people are calling for...Spending on FA's the way Theo slipped up (Crawford, Lackey)????

Lets wait to see what the final product is, before we deem this Offseaon and Ben Cherington failures.

[twothousandone]

the discussion revolves around MLB and Bud doing something to the Sox via the new CBA.

I can't imagine this only impacts the Red Sox. Others have to wonder what they'll do, if not this year, next year if they have increasing arb awards and perhaps no one rolling off. texas and the Angels come to mind, but I haven't gotten to the numbers yet.

If this change makes it more likely that Toronto (in addition to Tampa) contend and even make the post-season, along with the extra wild card, I'd say if achieves an added measure o fthe parity the league has probably been looking for. It may even be close to neurtal for the players, as more contenders may mean more willingness of second division teams to pay up for slightly above average veterans. If Roy Oswalt ends up in Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Seattle, etc. ate the $8 million he supposedly wants, I think it can be chalked up to the CBA -- without the changes, he'd likely be on the Red Sox, no?

[The Boomer]

Back in 2003, the sox made a series of moves signing castoffs named Millar, Ortiz, Mueller etc. isn't this offseason a return to that model? People seem to be forgetting that what made Theo the "Boy Genius" was taking players that he saw evidence of better than average return and turning them into regulars and later stars..... Maybe the same can be said of Ross, Punto and Sweeney down the road.

Maybe this team is finnally returning to the model that started the run to a championship and getting away from what hamstrung them (chasing big names and hot commodities at high prices).

People are complaining about the penny pinching, but isn't the penny pinching, diamond in the rough way the way this team and Theo earned the ability to make big trades (Schilling, Gonzales) and isn't the way people are calling for...Spending on FA's the way Theo slipped up (Crawford, Lackey)????

Lets wait to see what the final product is, before we deem this Offseaon and Ben Cherington failures.

Call it Moneyball 2.0. The market inefficiency not then (but probably now) tapped out was those high OBP guys (e.g Mueller and Ortiz) who Billy Beane coveted. With many teams already on that bandwagon, that market is no longer efficient. Sox management is smart enough not to publicize what they now covet but we can reasonably speculate about those trends. It seems like late 20's and early to mid 30's players who were once regulars but, while still in their primes slotted to be role players, can be productive as decent "comeback" players in Boston for their relatively good prices. Sweeney, Ross, Aviles and Shoppach fit this description. Since pitching is so unpredictable, relatively young pitchers (e.g. Bailey, Melancon and Morales) under team control for a few years are cost efficient too, particularly if you don't need to trade much more than utility players to acquire them that way. The Cardinals acquisition of Lance Berkman last winter seems to be the paradigm for this strategy. We might need to wait for somebody to write Moneyball 2.0 about Cherington but I doubt that, until then, they will reveal their trade secrets.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

The last few years the steals of the FA market have been the late signs, the guys whose price had slipped due to lack of market.

Berkman is a good example, as was Vlad for Texas and Abreu (the first season) for the angels. Even the MFY got in on the trend of thrift shopping with Garcia and Colon last spring.

Low risk, low cost moves counting on bounce back and catching lightning in a bottle is the new market equivlancy of high OBP as high OBP is far from the secret it had been.

Thats not saying Cherington is picking the right signs, its saying maybe there is a plan to this offseason. An Offseason that has appeared to be more about chaos, luxury tax ceilings and damage control of fried chicken and budweiser, than about flashy moves.

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 24 January 2012 - 01:29 PM.

[twothousandone]

It looks to me as though a trade of Igelsias and Jenks, at the trade deadline, will reduce the payroll calculation by $2.7 million. In return for a PTBNL, would San Diego do that? Houston? Seattle? MFYs?

I suppose the league would have something to say about it, but paying 1/3 of Jenks salary in order to get Iglesias might be acceptable for someone.

Move Albers and Miller in July, and the team can save $1 million on the season. Their replacements from the minors will cost roughly $500,000. It's a tough way to manage a roster, but I think the Sox can find a way to get several million of the payroll during the season.

Low risk, low cost moves counting on bounce back and catching lightning in a bottle is the new market equivlancy of high OBP as high OBP is far from the secret it had been.

If Ross doesn't play well, I think it becomes a high risk move. Florida waived him, right?

[sketz]

The last few years the steals of the FA market have been the late signs, the guys whose price had slipped due to lack of market.

Berkman is a good example, as was Vlad for Texas and Abreu (the first season) for the angels. Even the MFY got in on the trend of thrift shopping with Garcia and Colon last spring.

Low risk, low cost moves counting on bounce back and catching lightning in a bottle is the new market equivlancy of high OBP as high OBP is far from the secret it had been.

Thats not saying Cherington is picking the right signs, its saying maybe there is a plan to this offseason. An Offseason that has appeared to be more about chaos, luxury tax ceilings and damage control of fried chicken and budweiser, than about flashy moves.

I really hope you're right, because from 3,000 miles away it just looks like mass confusion. At this point in the offseason, I don't really care what the plan is - I just want to believe that they have one and are executing it rather than completely making it up from day to day.

[Rudy Pemberton]

It looks to me as though a trade of Igelsias and Jenks, at the trade deadline, will reduce the payroll calculation by $2.7 million. In return for a PTBNL, would San Diego do that? Houston? Seattle? MFYs?

Why does anyone think a trade of Iglesias is likely? They've traded Lowrie and Scutaro, why would they trade their SS of the future too?

[YTF]

Why does anyone think a trade of Iglesias is likely? They've traded Lowrie and Scutaro, why would they trade their SS of the future too?

Since trading Nomar this team's short stop of the future has never actually been part of the organization. Just saying.

[Bernard Gilkey baby]

Back in 2003, the sox made a series of moves signing castoffs named Millar, Ortiz, Mueller etc. isn't this offseason a return to that model? People seem to be forgetting that what made Theo the "Boy Genius" was taking players that he saw evidence of better than average return and turning them into regulars and later stars..... Maybe the same can be said of Ross, Punto and Sweeney down the road.

Maybe this team is finnally returning to the model that started the run to a championship and getting away from what hamstrung them (chasing big names and hot commodities at high prices).

People are complaining about the penny pinching, but isn't the penny pinching, diamond in the rough way the way this team and Theo earned the ability to make big trades (Schilling, Gonzales) and isn't the way people are calling for...Spending on FA's the way Theo slipped up (Crawford, Lackey)????

Lets wait to see what the final product is, before we deem this Offseaon and Ben Cherington failures.

I am with you on this. Over the last decade, the smaller moves that complement the bigger core talent been a huge part of the Sox success. I like it when Sox get creative. It makes for a better product, a more interesting team, and an overall more exciting franchise to root for. As a fan, I don't just root for the laundry. Never have, never will.

The team's losing the interest of fans. The ratings are down. And we're in a vacuum here, yeah but people cared about September collapse and there was outrage about chicken and beer but they weren't throwing themselves off the Tobin bridge like they used to threaten, not after a couple world series wins and a drab couple seasons with a dearth of fun personalities.

Let's go back to 2003. Let's go back to being the rich team irritated at the previous GM for hurting payroll flexibility, perhaps energized by some new spare parts and a new manager. I liked that verison of us.

[BucketOBalls]

It is not a cap in any way shape or form. There is a difference between being forced to alter one's approach to follow the rules and choosing to alter on'e approach to meet optional buisness incentives. Choosing not to ignore those incentives and not recieve the money is not a tax.

If MLB is giving rebates on revenue sharing...that money has to come from somewhere, right? So they must have increased revenue sharing to compensate. Presumably the rebate moves it back in line with previous levels. But if you don't get it...it is effecitvly a tax, since teams pay more in revenue sharing(possibly balanced by the rebate, but teams over the cap don't get that). Stupid design really. What they should have done is reduce the rebate by the amount over the cap. As of now, it's optimal to be either be under the cap, or just go WAAAAY over it.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

If MLB is giving rebates on revenue sharing...that money has to come from somewhere, right? So they must have increased revenue sharing to compensate. Presumably the rebate moves it back in line with previous levels. But if you don't get it...it is effecitvly a tax, since teams pay more in revenue sharing(possibly balanced by the rebate, but teams over the cap don't get that). Stupid design really. What they should have done is reduce the rebate by the amount over the cap. As of now, it's optimal to be either be under the cap, or just go WAAAAY over it.

I think this is something we don't know. It's also completely possible that the Revenue Sharing pool is decreased when teams get a rebate. In fact, the more I think of it, this is something the Red Sox might have even asked for. John Henry has been complaining about the Revenue Sharing system for years.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Why does anyone think a trade of Iglesias is likely? They've traded Lowrie and Scutaro, why would they trade their SS of the future too?

But no one's suggesting the Sox trade Bogaerts away....

[twothousandone]

Why does anyone think a trade of Iglesias is likely? They've traded Lowrie and Scutaro, why would they trade their SS of the future too?

I suggested it only in the realm of payroll management -- he counts $2 million against tax, which right now seems to be hurting. Move him, and that hit is reduced. If someone else values him highly enough to take on Jenks, that moves to guys off. If someone will take jenks at the deadline along with Bowden? That seems preferrable, but it would not reduce payroll as much.

[The Boomer]

Call it Moneyball 2.0. The market inefficiency not then (but probably now) tapped out was those high OBP guys (e.g Mueller and Ortiz) who Billy Beane coveted. With many teams already on that bandwagon, that market is no longer efficient. Sox management is smart enough not to publicize what they now covet but we can reasonably speculate about those trends. It seems like late 20's and early to mid 30's players who were once regulars but, while still in their primes slotted to be role players, can be productive as decent "comeback" players in Boston for their relatively good prices. Sweeney, Ross, Aviles and Shoppach fit this description. Since pitching is so unpredictable, relatively young pitchers (e.g. Bailey, Melancon and Morales) under team control for a few years are cost efficient too, particularly if you don't need to trade much more than utility players to acquire them that way. The Cardinals acquisition of Lance Berkman last winter seems to be the paradigm for this strategy. We might need to wait for somebody to write Moneyball 2.0 about Cherington but I doubt that, until then, they will reveal their trade secrets.

I don't see any mention of the Prince Fielder 9 years at more than $23 million per season deal just concluded by the Tigers. This makes me wonder if they have an arbitration eligible young starter or reliever that they will now be willing to trade to save money. Phil Coke? Colin Ballester? A 20's something pitcher with projectible upside seems more in line with the team's offseason strategy.

[BucketOBalls]

I think this is something we don't know. It's also completely possible that the Revenue Sharing pool is decreased when teams get a rebate. In fact, the more I think of it, this is something the Red Sox might have even asked for. John Henry has been complaining about the Revenue Sharing system for years.

Honestly, this whole thing is a little confusing. The Sox and Luxury tax thread links to this which says

Beginning in the 2013 season, teams on this list can get back a percentage of what they pay in revenue sharing (referred to as a "rebate"). In 2013, those teams would get 25 percent of their money back. In 2014, those teams would get 50 percent of their money back. In 2015, those teams would get 75 percent of their money back, all the way up until 2016, when they would basically get a free pass.

Which sounds like it would actually eliminate revenue sharing eventually. So you basically get a hard cap, but no revenue sharing. Overall, that seems like it would hurt parity.

Unlike other sports, I han't heard any mention of an injury exception(in most other sports long term injuries get taken off the cap); which is actually kind of odd given how common it is for guys to miss large parts of a year(TJ anyone?). Lackey fails to contribute again!

Edited by BucketOBalls, 24 January 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[cannonball 1729]

Second, I don't think completely taken by surprise is really an exaggeration. Here's the thing. Carl Crawford was terrible last year. Really really bad. Worse than the LF brigade of 2010 which was pretty bad. And it still took an epic slow start and epic bad finish for them to miss the playoffs by one game. Point being, he was a luxury item at the time of his signing and I think we all knew it then and the season proved that he was.

The last sentence doesn't follow from the other ones. Production is production, whether it comes from the pitcher or the left fielder. The fact that they overcame Crawford's bad season doesn't mean anything other than the fact that they had enough good players to overcome a massive underperformance by one of them. That's a plus. If Crawford had been his usual self, the Sox would have made the playoffs, which, ostensibly, is the point of putting a roster together.

If you want to fault the ownership for not seeing that Crawford would fall off a cliff, we can have that conversation, but I think that's been discussed ad nauseum.

So why commit 13% (it should decline as CBT increases) of the CBT figure for the foreseeable future to one guy that you don't need? I mean, in the long run the Lackey contract I think is going to be worse in terms of value but at least you could argue that they needed a starter. They didn't really need a LF other than a warm body. That leaves me in one of two places.

I really don't understand this "they don't need a LF" mentality. Why not? Why is left field a luxury position any more than third or fourth starter is? Which positions are considered luxuries, anyway?

I could say similar things about Gonzalez.

This I disagree with strongly. You have to get talent on the field, and he's one of the best first basemen in the game. He's the sort of guy where you make concessions elsewhere in the field to get him in the lineup. The Sox don't get points for frugality - the talent has be on the team somewhere, and I'm not really sure how the Sox could rededicate the money given to him to make themselves a better team.

I guess I'm just not understanding how the Sox really hamstrung themselves. They have enough money to sign a decent RF, a good enough SS tandem, and a 4-starter on a short contract. In future years, they'll have more money to play with once Matsuzaka comes of the books, and they won't have many holes. If they haven't done anything that really causes a problem for the team, what are we "blaming" them for, exactly? Their management of the cap doesn't have to be efficient or pretty as long as it produces a good team. John Henry may not have read the tea leaves well enough put the Sox in perfect position, but if they're in good enough position that they should be a formidable team for the next several years, what's the difference?

I think this is something we don't know. It's also completely possible that the Revenue Sharing pool is decreased when teams get a rebate. In fact, the more I think of it, this is something the Red Sox might have even asked for. John Henry has been complaining about the Revenue Sharing system for years.

Fifteen (actually, fourteen until the A's get a new stadium) teams no longer receive any revenue sharing monies. They're the teams with the largest markets: the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, Red Sox, Rangers, Braves, Nationals, Blue Jays, Astros, and Giants (and A's if they get a new stadium in San Jose) . That's where the extra money is coming from for these rebates.

I keep hearing about this new interpretation of the rules as a salary cap. Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?

Teams already have to pay into revenue sharing, what we're talking about is getting money back in the form of a rebate, down the road. If there is more incentive to get under the cap it's because ownership has decided to prioritize revenues (in the form of a rebate) over spending what they feel they need to to put the best team on the field, even if it means a CBT payment of ~$5M. In the Sox case this means jettisoning a valuable starting SS in order to add an OFer and stating pitcher.

Actually, unless the formulas for who contributes how much have changed, the Sox now get back less in revenue sharing (actually, none) than before, so MLB is actually taking more money from them initially and then offering some of it back eventually. Still doesn't change that it's an economic decision by HWL, but it does put the decision in a different light. The bottom line, though, is that the marginal cost of going one dollar over the cap is about $20 million, which is huge.

Edited by cannonball 1729, 25 January 2012 - 02:27 AM.

[Plympton91]

Actually, unless the formulas for who contributes how much have changed, the Sox now get back less in revenue sharing (actually, none) than before, so MLB is actually taking more money from them initially and then offering some of it back eventually. Still doesn't change that it's an economic decision by HWL, but it does put the decision in a different light. The bottom line, though, is that the marginal cost of going one dollar over the cap is about $20 million, which is huge.

I was coming back to make this point, which I think two people have now made. What these rules do is create a massive marginal tax rate on teams that used to just go over the cap by a little bit, while being a significantly lesser burden on the one team that is routinely tens of millions of dollars over the cap. The rules thus uniquely benefit the both the Yankees and the upper-middle market teams that spend in the $120 to $150 million range. The Yankees are just paying a 55% luxury tax instead of 40%, so they are only marginally more disincented to restrain their quest to have an all-star in each of the 25 man roster spots. Meanwhile, the Red Sox would pay a 200% luxury tax rate if they were $10 million over the cap, instead of 25% as in the past. So the Yankees aren't hurt much at all, and those upper-middle market teams benefit by having the Red Sox and the one or two other teams that usually flirt with the threshold become content to be less competitive with the Yankees.

Combining the new de facto salary cap that applies to everyone except the Yankees with the advent of the coin-flip play-in game that is almost guaranteed to hurt the 2nd place team in the AL East more often than any other team in baseball (Actually, I'd be more in favor of a coin flip than actually playing the gimmick play-in TV event. The chance of winning is about equal, and you don't burn your pitching staff to get the victory), I think this would qualify as one of the worst offseasons in Red Sox history before even accounting for any disappointment with the moves they actually made.

Edited by Plympton91, 24 January 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[twothousandone]

The Yankees are just paying a 55% luxury tax instead of 40%, so they are only marginally more disincented to restrain their quest to have an all-star in each of the 25 man roster spots. Meanwhile, the Red Sox would pay a 200% luxury tax rate if they were $10 million over the cap, instead of 25% as in the past.

The Sox have a lower payroll the MFYs, but a higher tax rate? Am I reading that right?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The Sox have a lower payroll the MFYs, but a higher tax rate? Am I reading that right?

No, of course it's not that simple -- he's assuming the NYYs would always be paying the tax anyway and never be receiving the rebate of their revenue sharing pay-in, but the Sox wouldn't do so, and therefore would always gain that rebate.

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, but it does show the increased disincentive teams may have to stay under the CBT threshold, rather than exceed it only slightly.

[dynomite]

Considering the financial and roster limitations, I understand a number of the moves that have been made this off-season (especially when looking forward to the jaw-dropping FA class of the 2012 off-season) primarily because the 2012 Red Sox were already a fairly complete team.

Indeed, this allowed the Sox tinker at the margins over the last few months, acquiring some young bullpen help, a few AAAA SP, and some low-level positional role players. Ortiz was arguably the biggest decision of the off-season. With Youkilis's body likely unable to handle 3B full-time and Middlebrooks headed to the majors in short order, I wanted to let Ortiz walk and keep the DH spot unoccupied. Overall, though, I think it's easy to miss the forest for the trees here.

As far as the lineup, any team that suits up Ellsbury/Pedroia/Gonzo/Youkilis/Ortiz as their 1-5 will score plenty of runs.

As far as the rotation, Lester/Beckett/Buchholz remains an impressive Top 3. The obvious flaw remains end of the rotation stability, where the Sox have to mix-and-match to find strong 4th and 5th starters out of Bard/Aceves/Miller/Dice-K/Maine/Padilla/Silva.

I suppose what I'm saying is this: you don't have to be a wild-eyed fanboy to feel cautiously optimistic about the 2012 Red Sox.

[snowmanny]

Right, but you don't have to be a pessimist to see that this whole thing could easily fall apart due to the fact that those pitchers you named pitched 191, 193, 82, 73, 114, 65, 37, 0, 9 and 0 innings of major league ball last year, and the team apparently has limited resources to fix this on the fly.

(In other words the ten starters you named pitched 764 IP combined in 2011. Saying they are going to "mix and match" and find 1000+ effective innings from that group sounds more optimistic than realistic to me.)

The 2002 season was done in almost solely by their inability to find a fifth starter who could give them a fifty-fifty chance of winning. This looks a lot like that to me, possibly worse. (Edit: that team had two of the top three finishers in Cy Young voting and finished second in runs scored, but Frank Castillo went 6-15 with an ERA over 5.00).

Edited by snowmanny, 28 January 2012 - 03:47 AM.

[Toe Nash]

The 2002 season was done in almost solely by their inability to find a fifth starter who could give them a fifty-fifty chance of winning. This looks a lot like that to me, possibly worse. (Edit: that team had two of the top three finishers in Cy Young voting and finished second in runs scored, but Frank Castillo went 6-15 with an ERA over 5.00).

And there are a few seasons in recent times where teams, even the Red Sox, have found a fifth (and fourth) starter off the scrap heap who has performed well enough to get them to the playoffs. Pointing out one time when they failed to do so doesn't prove much.

Not to mention that 2002 team had a pythag of 100-62 (same as NYY) which they underperformed by 7 games (Thanks Grady!).

[Clears Cleaver]

Nothing like trading away a 2+ WAR player for nothing just so you can later trade prospects away for a #4 starter when your goal is to reduce payroll in the next two years. Brilliant.

I am not a fan of Oswalt, but I was OK with a one year deal for him. He strikes me as someone who needs to stay in the NL. But not geting him really makes the Scutaro deal look worse.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Not to mention that 2002 team had a pythag of 100-62 (same as NYY) which they underperformed by 7 games (Thanks Grady!).

The 2002 Sox had the starters to make the postseason, but they also had a manager who waited until the last week of July to insert Wakefield (2.39 ERA as starter) and Fossum (3.65) into the rotation.

Let's see, 2002 offered...

• Player's manager who didn't want to offend proven veterans? check
• Sucking hole of sucky suck for offense at multiple positions? check
• Unwillingness to have trusted bullpen arms start the games? check
• A terrible, unlucky, W-L record by the back end of the bullpen? check

Sounds like a good way to underperform expectations. And then, in the following offseason, what did the Sox do?

• Converted quality arms from the back end of the pen to starting pitchers? check
• Acquired relievers who didn't seem as good as the ones lost or converted? check
• Signed bargain-bin players to try to fill the sucking hole of sucky suck? check
• Replaced the General Manager? check
• Replaced the Manager? not check

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

I could give two shits about 2002 or even the comparison... The fact is the Starting pitching depth that has been built up for 2012 is a good bet, to

A. Not be affective enough for Major League Baseball
B. Not be healthy enough to matter
C. Be too old to be anything other than Brandon Duckworth at pawtucket
D. possibly too inexperienced to complete a season in the rotation (Bard, Tazawa, Doubront) or at the very least not stretched out

I mean 3/4 of the depth signed is on there way down and out of baseball entirely. Now maybe they catch lightning in a bottle with a guy here or there like the Yankees did with Colon, but at least Colon was a former top of the line pitcher, who had flashes of quality as recently as the year before. Most of the guys Cherington has signed never were that good even in their primes. It's crazy to go into the season depending on this kind of stuff for 40% of the rotation.

Either you put both Aceves and Bard in the rotation and severly weaken the bullpen or you trade/sign a guy who was at least passable in the major leagues last season.

That doesn't even go into the fact that Beckett is getting older with a lot of miles on his arm, Lester had periods of injury last season, and Bucholz is coming off a broken back.

The hardest commodity to acquire during the season is quality starting pitching.... look at September 2011, how does the depth of

Padilla/Cook/Silva/Germano/Tazawa/Miller/Doubront look any better than last year's depth of: Duckworth/Armas/Millwood/Miller/Doubront/Wakefield etc.

It looks like the same kind of crap, only coming off injury, out of baseball, or terribly inneffective

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 28 January 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[The Boomer]

All of the above might be true in a worst case scenario. If it's that bad, they're in trouble. It never is. So is your solution to acquire everybody who you like better? Sign Kuroda, Oswalt and Jackson? Trade for Floyd or Gio Gonzalez? Every acquisition is a gamble and I understand why they preferred lottery tickets hoping for small prizes rather than go over budget acquiring more risk or decimating the farm system for more affordable pitchers in their prime. Pitching is so inherently risky from year to year that, as Lackey and Dice-K proved, it's a mistake to waste money at the end of a starting rotation.

[OttoC]

2011 AL starters vs. relievers (where an "s" in a column header refers to starting pitching, "r" to relief pitching, "t" to team)

Team  Wt   Lt   Ws   Ls   Wr   Lr	W%t	W%s	W%r
_______________________________________________________
NYA   97   65   71   45   26   20   .599   .612   .565
TBA   91   71   67   56   24   15   .562   .545   .615
BOS   90   72   64   50   26   22   .556   .561   .542
TOR   81   81   51   61   30   20   .500   .455   .600
BAL   69   83   46   72   23   21   .454   .390   .523
DET   95   67   72   47   23   20   .586   .605   .535
CLE   80   82   53   61   27   21   .494   .465   .563
CHA   79   83   58   61   21   22   .488   .487   .488
KCR   71   91   45   65   26   26   .438   .409   .500
MIN   63   99   46   71   17   28   .389   .393   .378
TEX   96   66   74   40   22   26   .593   .649   .458
LAA   86   76   62   50   24   26   .531   .554   .480
OAK   74   88   59   63   15   25   .457   .484   .375
SEA   67   95   49   75   18   20   .414   .395   .474
						  
AL-E  428  372  299  284  129   98  .535   .513   .568
AL-C  388  422  274  305  114  117  .479   .473   .494
AL-W  323  325  244  228   79   97  .498   .517   .449

One way to look at this is that if a team has three good, healthy starters, who can win 30 games over .500 collectively, then all that is needed is for the other 8-9 pitchers to pitch .500 ball to start being competitive in the division. Even a couple of dominant starters could do.

[Savin Hillbilly]

So is your solution to acquire everybody who you like better? Sign Kuroda, Oswalt and Jackson?

How do you get "everybody" out of what CET wrote? You're turning a reasonable complaint (they should have acquired at least one good starting pitcher) into a silly one (they should have acquired every good SP out there) so you can dismiss it.

I would bet ten thousand of Mitt Romney's dollars that if you could get Ben Cherington alone and get him drunk, he would tell you that yes, they needed to pick up a quality SP this winter, and no, they didn't do it, and yes, that's going to make it harder to win this year. (That's assuming, of course, that the team we're looking at is the team that goes to Florida.)

But just because you need to do something doesn't always mean it can be done. Obviously they are trying to exercise some fiscal discipline and this may have tied Cherington's hands to some degree. But it's also simply possible that the pitchers out there preferred to pitch somewhere else. You can match offers, but you can't match situations.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 28 January 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[The Boomer]

How do you get "everybody" out of what CET wrote? You're turning a reasonable complaint (they should have acquired at least one good starting pitcher) into a silly one (they should have acquired every good SP out there) so you can dismiss it.

I would bet ten thousand of Mitt Romney's dollars that if you could get Ben Cherington alone and get him drunk, he would tell you that yes, they needed to pick up a quality SP this winter, and no, they didn't do it, and yes, that's going to make it harder to win this year. (That's assuming, of course, that the team we're looking at is the team that goes to Florida.)

But just because you need to do something doesn't always mean it can be done. Obviously they are trying to exercise some fiscal discipline and this may have tied Cherington's hands to some degree. But it's also simply possible that the pitchers out there preferred to pitch somewhere else. You can match offers, but you can't match situations.

I agree with most of this. The point is that they simply didn't need to have any of these pitchers but if they can figure out a way to improve at a reasonable cost, there is no doubt that Cherington would do it whether or not he is drunk at the time. That's one skill set for a good GM: improve your team without wastefully sacrificing too much. Another is making lemonade out of lemons. That's more difficult but, if it works, much more satisfying and rewarding. In the long run, though, it is most important to scout, sign and develop quality talent. Wasting money trying to compete or in reaction to your competition (particularly the Yankees) is a mistake.