86 replies to this topic

[Bowlerman9]

It appears that the Sox will end up at about $185M this season. Assuming Jenks and Matsuzaka are off the books, that's $14.67M of AAV off the books, which brings it down to $170.33M. Then there are the guys whose future we aren't sure about, Youkilis ($10.31M), Ellsbury ($8.05M), Ortiz ($14.58M). If the Sox retain none of them, they get their 2013 commitment down to $137.39M.

Why wouldnt we bring back Ellsbury?

[aron7awol]

Why wouldnt we bring back Ellsbury?

Doh, I got a year ahead of myself there. Thanks, I'll fix it.

[In my lifetime]

Way late and 2,5 million short!

Edited by In my lifetime, 13 February 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[Bowlerman9]

There is no way the Red Sox are going to split the difference on this deal. I am sure in their minds, that when you add the luxury tax to the figure they are not thrilled with spending 12.65 never mind 16.5 + luxury tax penalties of either deal.

I think the only possible outcomes are:
1. They win and spend the 12.65
2. Last minute settlement at 2 years at lower AAV #. 2/20 or 2/21
3. Or if Ortiz wins, they cut him and are responsible for 30 days of his salary. I just don't see the RS paying Ortiz 16.5 + ~8 in luxury tax

And what do you think Ortiz will make on the open market? Not a chance he gets 16. If the RS cut him he will be lucky if he gets 12. Now, of course, cutting a long time, face of the franchise player makes the RS look bad. But I would bet looking bad is something they are willing to do to save 24 million.

You realize they settled at the mid-point about 6 hours ago.

[aron7awol]

There is no way the Red Sox are going to split the difference on this deal. I am sure in their minds, that when you add the luxury tax to the figure they are not thrilled with spending 12.65 never mind 16.5 + luxury tax penalties of either deal.

You might want to check the news or read the later posts in this thread...it already happened.

[Manramsclan]

Never said they did. I'm just not excited at all about WMB or Lavarnway. Neither is likely to be league-average in The Show, unless Lavarnway sticks as a catcher.

emphasis mine
In which case if he does, and he hits even close to his mL numbers he will be an All-Star.

I agree with you that being overly optimistic about these guys is our MO around here and in nearly all cases is not wise. There is, however, much reason for optimism here, particularly with these two guys.

These cost-controlled young talents with upside are much more preferable than bringing back the Tek's and Drew's and to a lesser extent Ortiz and Youk for way more money in their decline phase.

This is the same as the "bridge" to 2007 from 2004. If the Sox don't count on Pedrioa, Ellsbury, and Lester to contribute to that team they don't win the World Series. Additionally, if they don't win that WS, that is all they lose. If they go out and sign Soriano to play second base, the franchise is much worse off.

Of course, you understand that this is not what I think you are advocating maufman, but I think you get my point. There is inherent risk in handing over the keys to the youngsters but it is mostly in the short-term. It is much less risky than say, handing $140 Million to a "proven ML talent" like Carl Crawford.

[Plympton91]

Many of us, unfortunately, feel we can't get excited about any of the Sox' prospects in the high minors without crossing the line between optimism and self-deception.

Remember when it was O.k. to let Roger Clemens go to Toronto because Jeff Suppan, Carl Pavano, and Brian Rose were going to become synonymous with Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz?

This is the same as the "bridge" to 2007 from 2004. If the Sox don't count on Pedrioa, Ellsbury, and Lester to contribute to that team they don't win the World Series. Additionally, if they don't win that WS, that is all they lose. If they go out and sign Soriano to play second base, the franchise is much worse off.

Pedroia replaced Mark Loretta's corpse; Ellsbury and Lester really didn't replace anyone at all. Ellsbury and Crisp basically split duties as the 3rd and 4th outfielder in Ellsbury's first full year. Lester "replaced" whoever would have been the 5th starter. Those are all excellent ways to break in a rookie. Replacing your 5th place hitter with a rookie is a vastly different proposition, particularly in a season in which you also plan to break in a SS whose offensive output is best described as, "He hits pretty well for a pitcher."

Edited by Plympton91, 13 February 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[maufman]

There is inherent risk in handing over the keys to the youngsters but it is mostly in the short-term. It is much less risky than say, handing $140 Million to a "proven ML talent" like Carl Crawford.

Absolutely. My lament is that the Crawford and Lackey deals are going to keep us from (over)paying for an elite FA to fill any holes anytime soon. That means the FO's "throw crap at the wall and see what sticks" approach to filling gaps is likely to be replicated next winter. Some of those gap-fillers may do better than expected (e.g., Saltalamacchia last year), but new gaps will emerge -- they always do.

[aron7awol]

Absolutely. My lament is that the Crawford and Lackey deals are going to keep us from (over)paying for an elite FA to fill any holes anytime soon. That means the FO's "throw crap at the wall and see what sticks" approach to filling gaps is likely to be replicated next winter. Some of those gap-fillers may do better than expected (e.g., Saltalamacchia last year), but new gaps will emerge -- they always do.

This stuff is off-topic, we should move this to another thread...

Elite FAs like Crawford and Gonzalez*? I realize Gonzalez was traded for, not signed in free agency, but his extension is essentially a FA deal in the context of cost. The Sox can only carry so many $20M+ players while staying under the luxury tax threshold. You may not have liked the Crawford signing when it happened, but even those who were most down on Crawford had to think he'd be worth around $15M. Paying $20M for $15M of production isn't terrible nor crippling; it's pretty much the FA status quo. As for Lackey, he's getting paid like a 3.5 WAR guy. Even if you saw his declining peripherals and were down on him, you still had to think he would be around a 2-3 WAR guy. Obviously the early return on these two guys has been bad, but did anyone really see it coming? The Sox were obviously somewhat concerned about the possibility of an elbow injury, but they did at least put the Tommy John option year in there to hedge the risk.

The real question is, who would you rather have had them throw money at these last couple of offseasons instead?

Really, as bad as these deals are looking at the moment, they aren't preventing the signing of an elite FA next offseason. There's still $20M to play with next season if they decide to lose Ortiz and Youkilis.

Edited by aron7awol, 13 February 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Pedroia replaced Mark Loretta's corpse; Ellsbury and Lester really didn't replace anyone at all. Ellsbury and Crisp basically split duties as the 3rd and 4th outfielder in Ellsbury's first full year. Lester "replaced" whoever would have been the 5th starter. Those are all excellent ways to break in a rookie. Replacing your 5th place hitter with a rookie is a vastly different proposition, particularly in a season in which you also plan to break in a SS whose offensive output is best described as, "He hits pretty well for a pitcher."

But there's no reason to think that the Sox will be replacing the #5 hitter with a rookie.

If the Sox actually let Ortiz go after 2012, why not imagine the Sox 2013 lineup as:

1 = CF - Ellsbury
2 = LF - Crawford
3 = 2B - Pedroia
4 = 1B - Gonzalez
5 = DH - Youkilis

Heck, I think it extremely likely that BobbyV puts Crawford back into the 2-hole next season, and bats Ortiz 6th.

[maufman]

Really, as bad as these deals are looking at the moment, they aren't preventing the signing of an elite FA next offseason. There's still $20M to play with next season if they decide to lose Ortiz and Youkilis.

Youk would have to decline a lot for the Sox not to pick up his 2013 option, but his injury woes make it unlikely that another team would give up much to control Youk in that option year. Therefore, I think he's likely to be on the Sox in 2013, either as a DH (if WMB is ready) or 3B (if he isn't).

Swerving back on topic, perhaps one reason the FO seemed uninterested in a 2-year deal with Ortiz was because they expect Youk to be their DH in 2013 (or at least want to keep open that possibility).

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The real question is, who would you rather have had them throw money at these last couple of offseasons instead?

Please. There's no question that the Sox should have dropped Crawford's money on Holliday rather than splitting it up between Lackey and Cameron. There wasn't then, and there isn't now.

[Drek717]

Youk would have to decline a lot for the Sox not to pick up his 2013 option, but his injury woes make it unlikely that another team would give up much to control Youk in that option year. Therefore, I think he's likely to be on the Sox in 2013, either as a DH (if WMB is ready) or 3B (if he isn't).

Or he's rotating between 3B and DH with Middlebrooks and Lavarnway respectively, while Lavarnway also works at C. Assuming Middlebrooks and Lavarnway each have reasonably good years at AAA that seems like the best path forward for 2013, and it leaves absolutely zero room for Ortiz.

[bosockboy]

Please. There's no question that the Sox should have dropped Crawford's money on Holliday rather than splitting it up between Lackey and Cameron. There wasn't then, and there isn't now.

Holliday got 7/119.....so we would've had to top that. Not sure he was the answer either at that price.

[Plympton91]

Please. There's no question that the Sox should have dropped Crawford's money on Holliday rather than splitting it up between Lackey and Cameron. There wasn't then, and there isn't now.

EXACTLY. The Sox could have offered 7/133, blown the Cards out of the water, gotten the RH hitter they needed to balance the lineup, and spent $1 million less per year for one less year than Crawford. Not hindsight at all. Many, many people were saying exactly this that offseason.

I'm pretty sure the reason they came out differently is because of their confidence in the accuracy of their defensive metrics, which showed Cameron so superior to Holliday that it warranted such "outside the box" thinking. But I've still yet to see a defensive statistic in baseball that is better than plus/minus ratings in hockey. Defense is a team concept, not an individual one.

Heck, I think it extremely likely that BobbyV puts Crawford back into the 2-hole next season, and bats Ortiz 6th.

Just because they may pretend that having a guy with an OBP of .340 or so (his career, stripping off the first year when he wasn't ready for the bigs; 2 of his past 4 seasons have been below .320) at the top of the lineup is a good thing, doesn't mean it is.

Edited by Plympton91, 14 February 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[ngruz25]

Never said they did. I'm just not excited at all about WMB or Lavarnway. Neither is likely to be league-average in The Show, unless Lavarnway sticks as a catcher.

I think you either don't think highly enough of Lavarnway or think too highly of league average DH's. I think there's a really, really good chance that Lavarnway turns into a Josh Willingham-type hitter, which is basically what a league-average starting DH was last season. He's waaaaay ahead of Willingham's career path, who hit worse than Lavarnway as a high-A first baseman than Lavarnway did as a AA/AAA catcher last season, if that makes a difference.

Maybe it's the "likely" part that you're hung up on, but you could say it's not "likely" that any prospect turns into anything of major league worth, and you're probably correct. But that's not very fun.

[maufman]

I think you either don't think highly enough of Lavarnway or think too highly of league average DH's. I think there's a really, really good chance that Lavarnway turns into a Josh Willingham-type hitter, which is basically what a league-average starting DH was last season. He's waaaaay ahead of Willingham's career path, who hit worse than Lavarnway as a high-A first baseman than Lavarnway did as a AA/AAA catcher last season, if that makes a difference.

Maybe it's the "likely" part that you're hung up on, but you could say it's not "likely" that any prospect turns into anything of major league worth, and you're probably correct. But that's not very fun.

Xander Bogaerts has a real chance to be a star sometime later this decade. Sure, it's more likely that he'll be nothing, but it will be "fun" watching him try to realize that potential over the next few years.

The Sox are going to be in a pickle a year from now unless one of two flawed AAA prospects takes a big step forward this season. That makes watching those two a lot less "fun" than it would be if the Sox had a viable Plan B.

[twothousandone]

That means the FO's "throw crap at the wall and see what sticks" approach to filling gaps is likely to be replicated next winter.

I'd view the strategy as playing the odds after doing the hard work evaluating players and controlling the downside. Sort of like Jeremy Giambi and David Ortiz in 2003. Giambi didn't work out, Ortiz paid off in spades. Mueller that year also made Hillenbrand an option at 1B or DH, thus Millar was also in the 4-man mix at DH/1B.

Some of those gap-fillers may do better than expected (e.g., Saltalamacchia last year), but new gaps will emerge -- they always do.

I never viewed Saltalamacchia as "crap," he was a low-priced option, and that price seemed to be clearly less than his "floor" indicated. With a position of need, if the floor is acceptable, and the price is less than it should be, I think you make that move just about every time.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Holliday got 7/119.....so we would've had to top that. Not sure he was the answer either at that price.

Considering that the Sox have dropped 8/157.5 on LF since 2009, I would say topping that offer would have been just fine.

Especially when the Sox got -0.1 WAR (bb-ref) out of the first two years of that commitment, while Holliday has been worth 9.3 to StL.

Every time I think about it, I tell myself that Holliday must have told Theo outright that he didn't want to play for Boston. Because otherwise there's no justification for making so bad a mistake.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Gammons claimed the Sox did make an offer to Holliday (it was a gammons specialty, a casual mention years later). Don't recall the terms, but believe it was ~4 years.

[bosockboy]

We offered him 5/80....he said no and then we gave it to Lackey.

[SMU_Sox]

Please. There's no question that the Sox should have dropped Crawford's money on Holliday rather than splitting it up between Lackey and Cameron. There wasn't then, and there isn't now.

Holliday would be 30 to start the 2010 season. Signing a 30 year old outfielder for 7/119+ isn't a slam dunk. He also struggled in the AL. Now granted he did play for OAK, but his numbers in 90+ games for OAK were a .368 wOBA (worst since his rookie year), and wRC+ of 125 which was his worst since his second year in the league. Sure he looks great now in his year 30 and 31 years but how good is he going to be in his last 3 or 4 years in this contract?

Considering that the Sox have dropped 8/157.5 on LF since 2009, I would say topping that offer would have been just fine.

Especially when the Sox got -0.1 WAR (bb-ref) out of the first two years of that commitment, while Holliday has been worth 9.3 to StL.

Every time I think about it, I tell myself that Holliday must have told Theo outright that he didn't want to play for Boston. Because otherwise there's no justification for making so bad a mistake.

How about 7/119+ for a guy's 30-37 years? You make this sound like an open and shut case when it isn't. There aren't just three parts here.

[SMU_Sox]

Quick note: I realize 90 games is a terrible sample size to judge from here. I'm not saying Holliday WOULD have continued under-performing in the AL. I am saying that his familiarity with NL pitchers was/is a plus.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Holliday would be 30 to start the 2010 season. Signing a 30 year old outfielder for 7/119+ isn't a slam dunk. He also struggled in the AL. Now granted he did play for OAK, but his numbers in 90+ games for OAK were a .368 wOBA (worst since his rookie year), and wRC+ of 125 which was his worst since his second year in the league. Sure he looks great now in his year 30 and 31 years but how good is he going to be in his last 3 or 4 years in this contract?



How about 7/119+ for a guy's 30-37 years? You make this sound like an open and shut case when it isn't. There aren't just three parts here.

That .368 wOBA from his half-season of "struggling" is still .025 better than the career wOBA for the LF currently earning $23MM more from the Sox.

No, of course there's lots of moving parts. However, the best, and therefore most key, part during during the 2009 offseason was Holliday. Not getting him as a free agent was a tremendous blunder by the Sox FO, even if he would have been somewhat older at the tail end of the deal.

The reason for that, of course, is because he could replace Ortiz as a DH -- as a middle-of-the-order bat -- when his legs couldn't play the field any longer.

[gammoseditor]

That .368 wOBA from his half-season of "struggling" is still .025 better than the career wOBA for the LF currently earning $23MM more from the Sox.

No, of course there's lots of moving parts. However, the best, and therefore most key, part during during the 2009 offseason was Holliday. Not getting him as a free agent was a tremendous blunder by the Sox FO, even if he would have been somewhat older at the tail end of the deal.

The reason for that, of course, is because he could replace Ortiz as a DH -- as a middle-of-the-order bat -- when his legs couldn't play the field any longer.

You're declaring this as fact, but at the time there was a lot of concern over how well Holliday would hit outside of Coors, with his road numbers being quoted often and even more concern with a transition to the AL East. There was also no way of knowing how big of a disaster Lackey, Cameron, and Crawford would be. Even knowing all of this, if you had signed Holliday you would still need to replace a ton of league average innings Lackey gave us in 2010 without any budget to do it, and hope Holliday keeps producing because you're paying him for five more years through his age 37 season. Hindsight I agree it would have been a good move, but acting like it was a no brainer at the time and any idiot should have known what to do is a bit of a stretch.

[SMU_Sox]

That .368 wOBA from his half-season of "struggling" is still .025 better than the career wOBA for the LF currently earning $23MM more from the Sox.

No, of course there's lots of moving parts. However, the best, and therefore most key, part during during the 2009 offseason was Holliday. Not getting him as a free agent was a tremendous blunder by the Sox FO, even if he would have been somewhat older at the tail end of the deal.

The reason for that, of course, is because he could replace Ortiz as a DH -- as a middle-of-the-order bat -- when his legs couldn't play the field any longer.

So he is a 17m+ a year DH at the end of the contract? Assuming he would replace Ortiz after 2012 that means he would DH for four years at 17m a year. That's not exactly a wise financial move for the club. Furthermore penciling him in as a DH there/then limits our options with Youk going forward.

Just because he is currently producing better than another guy the Sox should not have signed (and I was in the anti-Crawford crowd) doesn't by default mean he is the best answer. Choice A is better than choice B in a vacuum. That does not mean choice A is the optimal solution compared to all other possible scenarios. Looking at Crawford's career wOBA is misguided.
1) Why would you even look at Crawford's early years at the plate in evaluating him in 2010? He came up to the majors very early. His 2009 wOBA was .367 and his 2010 wOBA was .368.
2) Why would you solely compare Crawford's wOBA to Holliday's? Crawford was a better defender, and base-runner than Holliday. I eschew fWAR but if we're looking at overall value Holliday's is more linked to his bat than Crawford's.
3) 23m more over seven years is only 3m per year more. Crawford was also one year younger at the start of the contract. Considering that was supposed to be one more prime year of production the Sox got that's significant.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

So he is a 17m+ a year DH at the end of the contract? Assuming he would replace Ortiz after 2012 that means he would DH for four years at 17m a year. That's not exactly a wise financial move for the club. Furthermore penciling him in as a DH there/then limits our options with Youk going forward.

Just because he is currently producing better than another guy the Sox should not have signed (and I was in the anti-Crawford crowd) doesn't by default mean he is the best answer. Choice A is better than choice B in a vacuum. That does not mean choice A is the optimal solution compared to all other possible scenarios. Looking at Crawford's career wOBA is misguided.
1) Why would you even look at Crawford's early years at the plate in evaluating him in 2010? He came up to the majors very early. His 2009 wOBA was .367 and his 2010 wOBA was .368.
2) Why would you solely compare Crawford's wOBA to Holliday's? Crawford was a better defender, and base-runner than Holliday. I eschew fWAR but if we're looking at overall value Holliday's is more linked to his bat than Crawford's.
3) 23m more over seven years is only 3m per year more. Crawford was also one year younger at the start of the contract. Considering that was supposed to be one more prime year of production the Sox got that's significant.

1) Because Crawford's early years represent his "struggles" and should be included in a comparison to Holliday's "struggles" in Oakland.
2) Because the Sox needed to replace a middle-of-the-order bat after Bay left. A batting line seemed the most relevant. And you used it.
3) Holliday was only 8 months older than Crawford when each was a free agent. Both were actually 30 during their first year under contract, so I consider that fairly insignificant.

The more this offseason goes on, the more hopeful I am about LL holding Cherington accountable -- even if he is a pompous, insufferable jerk.

[gammoseditor]

1) Because Crawford's early years represent his "struggles" and should be included in a comparison to Holliday's "struggles" in Oakland.
2) Because the Sox needed to replace a middle-of-the-order bat after Bay left. A batting line seemed the most relevant. And you used it.
3) Holliday was only 8 months older than Crawford when each was a free agent. Both were actually 30 during their first year under contract, so I consider that fairly insignificant.

The more this offseason goes on, the more hopeful I am about LL holding Cherington accountable -- even if he is a pompous, insufferable jerk.

Do you really think the problem with the 2010 or 2011 Red Sox was the middle of the order? Were you not concerned at all with Holliday leaving Coors field and transitioning to the AL East?

The way I remember it, the 2010 team was really good until the entire team got hurt. The 2011 team was the best team in baseball until the rotation completely fell apart. I don't see how Matt Holliday solves any of those problems, even with a crystal ball prior to the 2010 offseason.

[Sprowl]

Do you really think the problem with the 2010 or 2011 Red Sox was the middle of the order? Were you not concerned at all with Holliday leaving Coors field and transitioning to the AL East?

The way I remember it, the 2010 team was really good until the entire team got hurt. The 2011 team was the best team in baseball until the rotation completely fell apart. I don't see how Matt Holliday solves any of those problems, even with a crystal ball prior to the 2010 offseason.

Yeah, the Red Sox didn't need to overspend to fill left field. If ever there is a position to fill with a platoon of power-hitting outfielders that are mediocre and priced accordingly, it is Boston's left field. They did need to maintain the payroll flexibility to bid on Darvish and to absorb other team's big contract mistakes in return for talent upgrades at more critical positions.

I'm hoping that the wholesale turnover in medical and training staff will make some difference, because physical breakdowns killed both 2010 and 2011.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Do you really think the problem with the 2010 or 2011 Red Sox was the middle of the order? Were you not concerned at all with Holliday leaving Coors field and transitioning to the AL East?

The way I remember it, the 2010 team was really good until the entire team got hurt. The 2011 team was the best team in baseball until the rotation completely fell apart. I don't see how Matt Holliday solves any of those problems, even with a crystal ball prior to the 2010 offseason.

Actually, yes. Once Youkilis went down in 2010, the middle of the order became a problem because the productive hitters from the bottom-half of the order were moved up, while the bottom of the order stunk.

And no, I wasn't concerned at all about any Coors field effect. The majority of the other 81 games the Rockies played were in some of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball, and Holliday's hit charts were sufficiently Fenway-friendly that I believed he would be a very effective hitter for average, walks, and power.

Lastly, Matt Holliday helps solve the pitching problems by virtue of his money not being paid John Lackey. That would leave a replacement-level hole to fill, of course, and wouldn't make up for Beckett's awful 2010. But the question was asked who was worth picking up instead of Lackey and Crawford, so I answered it.

[gammoseditor]

Actually, yes. Once Youkilis went down in 2010, the middle of the order became a problem because the productive hitters from the bottom-half of the order were moved up, while the bottom of the order stunk.

And no, I wasn't concerned at all about any Coors field effect. The majority of the other 81 games the Rockies played were in some of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball, and Holliday's hit charts were sufficiently Fenway-friendly that I believed he would be a very effective hitter for average, walks, and power.

Lastly, Matt Holliday helps solve the pitching problems by virtue of his money not being paid John Lackey. That would leave a replacement-level hole to fill, of course, and wouldn't make up for Beckett's awful 2010. But the question was asked who was worth picking up instead of Lackey and Crawford, so I answered it.

And the standard you are creating is for the team to be able to replace a middle of the order bat with another middle of the order bat after an injury. Teams with the injuries the Red Sox had in 2010 don't win world series titles. They don't even make the playoffs.

As far as Lackey, no one could have known he was going to be this bad, but going back to his 2010 season, he wasn't awful. He was just about league average. He was hated here because expectations were higher than that, and then he was awful in 2011, but if you remove him for the 2010 team that doesn't change the fact that you need to replace 215 innings of league average pitching. (99 ERA+)

[SMU_Sox]

1) Because Crawford's early years represent his "struggles" and should be included in a comparison to Holliday's "struggles" in Oakland.
2) Because the Sox needed to replace a middle-of-the-order bat after Bay left. A batting line seemed the most relevant. And you used it.
3) Holliday was only 8 months older than Crawford when each was a free agent. Both were actually 30 during their first year under contract, so I consider that fairly insignificant.

The more this offseason goes on, the more hopeful I am about LL holding Cherington accountable -- even if he is a pompous, insufferable jerk.

Re: 1) Apples and oranges. How is it all logical to compare Crawford's struggles as a 20 and 21 year old in the MLB to Holliday's "struggles" (for him, struggling is relative to past average performance) at age 29 in the AL? It isn't. Crawford's lack of production at the plate as a youngster shouldn't be compared to Holliday's lack of production as a 29 year old making a transition from a hitting friendly NL park to a hitter's nightmare AL park. There were plenty of questions at the time if Holliday could hit away from Coors. His career home wOBA is .432, his away wOBA is .364. Let's go forward and adjust them more for parks. His wRC+ home is 161, his wRC away is 117. Most of that is from his career in COL. But going into that free agency period you were looking at a guy who had extreme home road splits and didn't hit nearly as well outside of Coors field. He had a good 3-4 months with the Cardinals that season when he was back in the NL but he was still a question mark. Many of us and members of the media questioned his ability to sustain the success he had earlier in his career hitting in the NL West at Coors field 50% of the time. My beef with your analysis is that you said there is no question. I’m saying there was at the very least a reasonable doubt and probably enough risk associated with Holliday to let the Sox pass. I do not regret not signing him for more than 7/119. Again, I also did not agree with the Crawford contract.

Re: 2) I mentioned Holliday's batting statistics because his value is largely tied to his bat. Setting aside durability (or replacement in the fWAR calculations) 90%+ of Hollidays fWAR is directly from his bat in most years. Crawford's value tied to his bat is roughly 50-60%. Batting is MUCH more relevant to Holliday than it is for Crawford when looking at their value.
They had Ortiz, JD Drew (who was a good bat then), Youkilis, Pedroia, V-Mart and added Beltre (granted he wasn’t a sure thing). Those key bats along with Ellsbury, Cameron, Lowrie/Scutaro, provided a formidable line-up. They did not need to replace Bay’s bat with a costly FA. That line-up had enough fire power.

Re: 3) Not worth furthering. 8 months is both considerable and insignificant. It wasn’t the crux of my argument anyway.

Edited by johnlimberakis, 14 February 2012 - 04:49 PM.

[Plympton91]

They did not need to replace Bay’s bat with a costly FA. That line-up had enough fire power.

But they did. They spent about $10 million a year for 2 years on Mike Cameron, who, when signed, was a righthanded hitter who they were expecting to contribute at the back end of the middle of the order. So, by signing Holliday instead, they not only save the money they are spending on Crawford, they also save the money they wasted on Cameron. The wasteland of production from Cameron and the terrible season by Crawford are aberrations and can't really be foreseen by management, but I agree with Buzzkill that given the expected production of those two relative to Holliday and the relative costs of the contracts, it's almost impossible to make an argument against Holliday without resorting to defensive metrics. And, I'll reiterate, even the most advanced defensive metrics still suck.

Edited by Plympton91, 15 February 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[EddieYost]

But they did. They spent about $10 million a year for 2 years on Mike Cameron, who, when signed, was a righthanded hitter who they were expecting to contribute at the back end of the middle of the order. So, by signing Holliday instead, they not only save the money they are spending on Crawford, they also save the money they wasted on Cameron. The wasteland of production from Cameron and the terrible season by Crawford are aberrations and can't really be foreseen by management, but I agree with Buzzkill that given the expected production of those two relative to Holliday and the relative costs of the contracts, it's almost impossible to make an argument against Holliday without resorting to defensive metrics. And, I'll reiterate, even the most advanced defensive metrics still suck.

Geez...Cameron. I had started to forget about how horrible that turned out. I remember when they signed him it was wow this guy is AWESOME defensively and sneaky good hitting. Lots of power, sees a lot of pitches and all that. Then he sucked.

[C4CRVT]

Geez...Cameron. I had started to forget about how horrible that turned out. I remember when they signed him it was wow this guy is AWESOME defensively and sneaky good hitting. Lots of power, sees a lot of pitches and all that. Then he sucked.

Saying that Cameron "sucked" while technically true isn't really the whole truth. I seem to recall that he got hurt early in the season and never really recovered. There was no reason to believe at the time that he was signed that he was going to get hurt. He had been durable (140 games/ year) for the previous 4 years. I remember comments at the beginning of the year like "wow, he's in great shape..." and so on.

[SMU_Sox]

But they did. They spent about $10 million a year for 2 years on Mike Cameron, who, when signed, was a righthanded hitter who they were expecting to contribute at the back end of the middle of the order. So, by signing Holliday instead, they not only save the money they are spending on Crawford, they also save the money they wasted on Cameron.

A few things:

Cameron was a CF and Ellsbury was shifted to LF.

This whole discussion reeks from the arrogance of hindsight. We got terrible results so far from Crawford and Cameron didn't pan out. Meanwhile Holliday looks great so far in St. Louis. Is this a normal expected outcome? No. Granted, Cameron was a bigger risk with his age than Crawford, but the Sox were incredibly unlucky with both results (so far). Meanwhile Holliday had risk too but has obviously not under-performed at all. It would be a mistake to assume that what has happened was somehow predictable.

I still don't get why/how the Sox "needed" to replace Bay's level of production at the plate in the 2009 off-season. While it would have been nice to have a great bat in LF the Sox already had a solid line-up. But the Sox can't replace every hole they have with the best bat FA. I don't see how they "need" to replace Bay's bat in LF or at all. Need implies something imperative. It was not imperative that they replace Bay's bat in LF in the 2010 off-season. If you say they needed it then you better prove it.

The wasteland of production from Cameron and the terrible season by Crawford are aberrations and can't really be foreseen by management, but I agree with Buzzkill that given the expected production of those two relative to Holliday and the relative costs of the contracts, it's almost impossible to make an argument against Holliday without resorting to defensive metrics. And, I'll reiterate, even the most advanced defensive metrics still suck.

Do you have access to the Sox defensive metrics? How do you know they suck? It's not like Theo and Ben were jumping on fangraphs to check the UZR/150 before offering those guys contracts.

[tims4wins]

Papi may truly be a case of being in the "best shape of his life"

Nice article by Gordo

Ortiz, who says his weight is down to around 250 pounds, carries a business card-sized list of foods he cannot eat on his diet, which he started, he said, for reasons that had nothing to do with baseball. His cholesterol had risen to dangerously high levels. "Over 300," he said.
Ortiz said the results have been almost immediately noticeable.
"I feel great," he said. "I can feel the difference when I swing the bat, and when I work out, I don't get as tired."