131 replies to this topic

[seantoo]

But who else are we sure to get that "ceratin offensive profile" from? The FO has clearly identified that with Ross, who along with being a very good Fenway hitter is also a strong career hitter against lefties and capable of playing all three OF spots (including center in a pinch) for us. Overpaying Ross in money but not years to be the 4th OF and platoon with someone like Choo is exactly what the new found financial flexibility should be used on. That is how they can leverage their financial superiority into being competitive year in and year out without the long term albatross contracts they just got out from underneath.

You do realize that the premium you pay for star players is precisely because they are easier to predict you know what you are getting, it's that next tier or two of players that are much harder to predict and getting the right one at the right time is the difference between the better GM's. It's not that easy. Crawford is that next tier(2nd) but was paid like an elite player, that's a mistake. That does not mean the Sox should exempt themselves from using their financial clout to locking up the right elite players, in fact that angle is very important and SHOULD in fact be exploited as well.. Remember it's precisely because we had A. Gonzalez locked up long term is what allowed us to escape other mistakes, yet far to many here see it as all one and the same, ie, long term deals bad. Long term deals are riskier but when you want to land elite talent that is the going rate.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Well, I'm not part of one of the smartest organizations in sports, so it's not really my job to know; but teams like the A's and Rays seem able to find these kinds of guys, why can't the Sox? It doesnt have to be just major league free agents, they could make a trade, trade for a blocked minor leaguer, etc. Fact is there will be plenty of guys who perform like Ross next year, shouldn't a really advanced sabermetrically inclined organization find at least one? Giving Ross 3 years, $27M seems like buying high to me, something SOSH would insult the pirates or orioles of old for doing, and I hope the Sox don't do it. I like Ross, he's a nice player who can hit lefties but he's not the kind of plate this team should be committing significant resources to.

Holy shit. This is one of the best cop-outs I've ever seen.

"There's plenty of players who can match Cody Ross' production."
"Here is a list of players. Feel free to go through their history and tell me...who can match Cody Ross' production."
"Pssh....well...dude, it's not MY job to tell you who can match Cody Ross' production! Call the Sox and ask them!"

Wouldn't it be better to just say "I'm too lazy to stand by my statement" or "I may have been incorrect"?

To add something (IE: not much) I'd love to see Ross back in a Sox jersey. He fit in well with the clubhouse, he was a fantastic left handed bat, and he has a swing tailored to Fenway. His last name is also my first name so, ya know, I could make up for the missed opportunity and buy his jersey this year.

[Rudy Pemberton]

My point is simply this...why not take a chance on another guy like they did with Ross last year, instead of giving Ross a huge raise which they'll likely regret? Giving him $3M last year was a good idea. Giving him a multi-year deal at a lot more than that, after he had a year well in line with his career norms, is not.

Would you have given Ross a 3 year, $20M+ deal last year? I'm guessing not, since many were opposed to even signing him at all. So why do it now? He's a replaceable talent, and no one will dispute that you can find similar type players in lots of places, for cheap.Smart teams win by getting solid one year deals from guys like Ross (Ryan Ludwick is a similar case); teams lose by giving these guys long term deals.

As far as whom this player could be? It could be Kalish, or someone else under control, or a FA or trade acquisition. Not sure. I think you have to think bigger than just looking at available MLB FA OF. That I can't pick a guy out now doesn't mean they don't exist, and hell, it's not like Ross is a sure bet to have a great season.

[Ed Hillel]

He fit in well with the clubhouse, he was a fantastic left handed bat, and he has a swing tailored to Fenway. His last name is also my first name so, ya know, I could make up for the missed opportunity and buy his jersey this year.

Well, three out of four ain't bad (I'm assuming you got your name right).

[Savin Hillbilly]

You asked..."Which of those guys is a better than even bet to match Cody Ross' likely offensive production in a Red Sox uniform in 2013, and likely to be available for $3M or less? You said there were "lots." Can you name one?"

Fair enough--although I doubt we'll actually get Gomes on a one-year deal for $3M after the season he just had. Remember, Ross was coming off a down year, which is why his market was depressed. $3M was a solid deal even if all we had gotten was a repeat of his 2011.

But fine, let's say we could get Gomes for $3M; that still doesn't necessarily make him a better investment than Ross. The A's were able to get 2.1 fWAR out of Gomes in 2012 by avoiding the negative value of his defense almost entirely--he made just 28 outfield starts, and the majority of his playing time came at DH. The Sox won't have that option.

Gomes' career UZR/150 is -13.2. Even if we straight platoon him so that he only makes about 50 starts, that's almost a half win's worth of negative value. 50 starts plus some pinch-hitting opportunities would equal about 250 PA. If he hits as well as he did this past year, he'll be good for about 12 offensive runs in that amount of opportunity. Subtract 4 runs for the bad fielding, you've got 8 runs. Add about 7 replacement runs and -2.5 positional runs, you get a total of 12.5 runs, or 1.3 fWAR, worth maybe $6M.

Ross is a more or less average fielder by the numbers; let's say he's a -3 UZR/150 guy just to make things simple. He has a career .391 wOBA vs. LHP--essentially identical to Gomes (.385). So we should be able to pencil him in for about the same 12 offensive runs, but just 1 negative fielding run. So he's worth about a third of a win more than Gomes, or 1.6 fWAR = $7.2M.

In that sense, yes, Gomes is better value for dollar than Ross if we can get him for $5M or less, but there are two additional things to think about. One is, of course, that we have a lot of payroll flexibility at the moment, and can afford to pay a little extra for better performance.

The other is about what happens if you modify the straight platoon and give the RHH extra starts. In a straight-platoon scenario, we're asking one of our LHH corner OF's (most likely Nava or Kalish) to take two-thirds of the starts. Unless we assume that that player would be worth at least 2.6 fWAR in 110 starts' worth of work, the Sox will be getting less value per unit playing time from the LHH side of the platoon than the RHH side (increase that to 3.2 fWAR for Ross). So it might be possible to get more overall value by increasing the RHH's share of the starts.

Since Ross and Gomes have similarly mediocre vs.-RHP batting splits, there's no difference there; but because Ross is a significantly better defensive player than Gomes, every additional start given to the RHH side of the platoon is more valuable with Ross than with Gomes. This is especially significant in light of Ross' affinity for Fenway and the likelihood, which many of us have mentioned in this and other threads, that he might be a better play than a hypothetical platoon mate vs. some RHP at home.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 05 November 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[twothousandone]

If we forget the $3M and say, "likely to be available for less than Cody Ross will cost," can you name one?

Victorino, Pagan, Upton, Young seem to be possible comparables.

Swisher, Hamilton, Hunter, probably Ludwick look to be at the top of the heap. Once they go, I'm not sure there is enough league-wide demand for Victorino, Pagan, Young, Upton, Ross, Gomes to all get three years or more (will Hunter??) and more than five million/year.

I think the challenge for the Sox is "do we target one guy, and pay up to get him, or do we wait and take whomever is left?" If there is enough demand, then the latter strategy may require taking Ankiel, or Ibanez.

[seantoo]

The realistic scenario for next year is that Lester, Buchholz and Lackey, the anchors of the rotation, will be no better than they have been for the last year. Nor will they project to be any healthier. This means that even thinking about signing Ross for more than one year is beside the point. This is to say that if you think Ross is the solution, then you don't understand the problem.

Ross aside (and I lean in your direction on that) I'm sorry for going off on a tangent but felt compeled to for your realistic scenario regarding our anchors. Lackey will be hard to project other than to say to expect improvement from his 2011 should be expected. What kind of improvement? Well that's wide open for speculation. But he'll be healthier than last season seeing that he missed the whole year.
Why is repeating a bad year by their own standards (career #'s) realistic? I'm not dismissing last year as it has brought their respective career #'s down.Regression to the mean should be expected, that is realistic and should be expected by all unless there is compelling reason/s presented why anyone should believe otherwise.

[TheYellowDart5]

Victorino, Pagan, Upton, Young seem to be possible comparables.

Swisher, Hamilton, Hunter, probably Ludwick look to be at the top of the heap. Once they go, I'm not sure there is enough league-wide demand for Victorino, Pagan, Young, Upton, Ross, Gomes to all get three years or more (will Hunter??) and more than five million/year.

I think the challenge for the Sox is "do we target one guy, and pay up to get him, or do we wait and take whomever is left?" If there is enough demand, then the latter strategy may require taking Ankiel, or Ibanez.

There isn't a chance on earth either Upton or Pagan settle for a one-year deal. Upton will find some team enamored with his tools to give him a multi-year commitment. Pagan put up a 121 OPS+ in center field for the defending world champions. That'll easily land him a multi-year deal.

Victorino can likely find a team willing to bet on his past, and regardless, his offense and defense have slid dramatically (and he's injury prone to boot). And please don't tell me that Delmon Young is a serious option. He's a butcher in the field and below replacement level at the plate. I wouldn't even offer him a guaranteed contract for the league minimum.

[Edelpeddle]

Hunter and Cabrera are better corner outfielders than Ross, it's a matter of their contract demands. Over the last three years:

Hunter - .285/.351/.448, .350 wOBA, +8.5 Fld, 11.6 WAR
Cabrera - .303/.348/.450, .344 wOBA, -21.1 Fld, 7.7 WAR
Ross - .260/.324/.434, .330 wOBA, -0.3 Fld, 5.7 WAR

Ludwick would be practically interchangeable with Ross.

Ludwick - .253/.326/.433, .331 wOBA, -5.9 Fld, 5.1 WAR

I think some people are overvaluing Ross because he looked good compared to the backup/minor league outfielders we had making up the rest of the outfield most of the year.

Edited by Edelpeddle, 05 November 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[mabrowndog]

I think some people are overvaluing Ross because he looked good compared to the backup/minor league outfielders we had making up the rest of the outfield most of the year.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Plus he was an outgoing guy and (by all accounts) a positive clubhouse presence on a festering, directionless corpse of a ball club. It's only natural that would tend to obscure a certain amount of warts in many fans' eyes.

[scotian1]

Don't forget that earlier, Tori Hunter expressed some thought that the Red Sox would be a possibility for him as he would like to play with Ortiz. If that is true, maybe that deal is doable.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Hunter and Cabrera are better corner outfielders than Ross, it's a matter of their contract demands.

For the umpteenth time, Hunter's 2012 numbers (and thus, his three-year numbers) were seriously skewed by an unsustainable BABIP spike. His ISO and contact numbers continue to decline. The likelihood that we would be seriously disappointed by his offensive performance in a Sox uniform next year is very, very high. He's probably still a better defensive player than Ross, though, and if we're looking for a right fielder, particularly, he might be a viable alternative. But I seriously doubt we can get him for less than Ross on an AAV basis, though he should be willing to go shorter in years.

Cabrera makes me nervous. How do you decide what to pay him? How much of the past two years is PEDs? Up until 2011 he was a significantly worse hitter than Ross.

Ludwick is an interesting idea. I don't think he'd be as good a fit for Fenway as Ross, since I gather he's a whole-park kind of hitter. But like Hunter, he might accept a shorter deal, since he's a bit older. One major advantage he has over Ross: he has essentially no platoon split (career slight reverse, 2012 modest normal), so you wouldn't have to plan around finding a platoon partner for him.

OTOH, he's coming off his best season in years, so he's not going to be a Ross 2012-type bargain. And he's probably not as good a fielder as Ross at this point.

[Ted Cox 4 president]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Plus he was an outgoing guy and (by all accounts) a positive clubhouse presence on a festering, directionless corpse of a ball club. It's only natural that would tend to obscure a certain amount of warts in many fans' eyes.

And he did have a few memorable moments.

[Rasputin]

I'm half inclined to just go with Brentz and Kalish and be done with it.

[redsoxstiff]

Having had Cody for a year gives him a leg up in his bracket...The devil you know...

However he isn't a central cog in the juggernaught ben is creating... Sign him and move on...

[ToeKneeArmAss]

I know nothing about Angel Pagan beyond what we saw im the WS - and I loved that. What's the thinking about taking a run at him?

[Edelpeddle]

For the umpteenth time, Hunter's 2012 numbers (and thus, his three-year numbers) were seriously skewed by an unsustainable BABIP spike. His ISO and contact numbers continue to decline. The likelihood that we would be seriously disappointed by his offensive performance in a Sox uniform next year is very, very high. He's probably still a better defensive player than Ross, though, and if we're looking for a right fielder, particularly, he might be a viable alternative. But I seriously doubt we can get him for less than Ross on an AAV basis, though he should be willing to go shorter in years.

Cabrera makes me nervous. How do you decide what to pay him? How much of the past two years is PEDs? Up until 2011 he was a significantly worse hitter than Ross.

Ludwick is an interesting idea. I don't think he'd be as good a fit for Fenway as Ross, since I gather he's a whole-park kind of hitter. But like Hunter, he might accept a shorter deal, since he's a bit older. One major advantage he has over Ross: he has essentially no platoon split (career slight reverse, 2012 modest normal), so you wouldn't have to plan around finding a platoon partner for him.

OTOH, he's coming off his best season in years, so he's not going to be a Ross 2012-type bargain. And he's probably not as good a fielder as Ross at this point.

I might agree with you if it was at all close. But the reality is that any sample size you look at is going to make Hunter look like the vastly superior player. And who's to say the 2012 Cody Ross shows up next year? That was a career year for him.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I might agree with you if it was at all close. But the reality is that any sample size you look at is going to make Hunter look like the vastly superior player.

Really? Here's their wOBA comp chart from Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs...=8&players=1760

Where's the vast superiority? I don't see it. What I see, overall, is reasonable parity. This is confirmed by their career wOBAs: .345 for Hunter, .338 for Ross.

Hunter was the better player of the two in his prime because he was, in a typical year, a slightly better hitter and a significantly better defender. He has also been more consistent, where Ross' performance has tended to swing between very good and mediocre. But there was never a "vast" difference between them as hitters, and there's no longer that big a difference on defense, either.

[Edelpeddle]

Really? Here's their wOBA comp chart from Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs...=8&players=1760

Where's the vast superiority? I don't see it. What I see, overall, is reasonable parity. This is confirmed by their career wOBAs: .345 for Hunter, .338 for Ross.

Hunter was the better player of the two in his prime because he was, in a typical year, a slightly better hitter and a significantly better defender. He has also been more consistent, where Ross' performance has tended to swing between very good and mediocre. But there was never a "vast" difference between them as hitters, and there's no longer that big a difference on defense, either.

Woah, where did I say Hunter was the vastly superior hitter? According to wOBA Hunter looks like the better hitter outside of that 66 game season in 2007 when Ross had a .371 BABIP and a 23.1% HR/FB rate. But my comment that Hunter was the vastly superior player had just as much to do with is defense. Hunter has a 12.8 UZR in RF compared Ross who owns a 2.9 UZR in RF.

Edit: Not to mention, those wOBA stats aren't park adjusted. I wouldn't be surprised Hunter also had a career year offensively if you took him out of one of the most pitcher friendly parks in baseball and put him in one of the most hitter friendly parks.

Edited by Edelpeddle, 05 November 2012 - 06:53 PM.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Well, three out of four ain't bad (I'm assuming you got your name right).

*sigh* Geez. I mean righty.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Woah, where did I say Hunter was the vastly superior hitter? According to wOBA Hunter looks like the better hitter outside of that 66 game season in 2007 when Ross had a .371 BABIP and a 23.1% HR/FB rate. But my comment that Hunter was the vastly superior player had just as much to do with is defense. Hunter has a 12.8 UZR in RF compared Ross who owns a 2.9 UZR in RF.

It's probably more meaningful to compare their UZR/150s: 6.7 to 1.6. OK, so Hunter is worth half a win more per year on defense than Ross. I don't know if that's enough to make him a "vastly" better player, but it's a legit advantage.

Edit: Not to mention, those wOBA stats aren't park adjusted. I wouldn't be surprised Hunter also had a career year offensively if you took him out of one of the most pitcher friendly parks in baseball and put him in one of the most hitter friendly parks.

True, the wOBA stats aren't park-adjusted, but wRC+ stats are. Here are Hunter's and Ross's wRC+ figures by age, starting at age 25 (Ross's first semi-full season) and ending at age 31 (the year Ross just had). I'm going to give them to you as pairs of numbers without telling you which is which, except that the order is consistent (i.e. the same guy is first in each pair). You tell me which is Hunter. No peeking.

85, 100
169, 122
106, 95
105, 106
96, 108
105, 113
113, 116

One thing about Ross that gets a little buried in all the discussion of his great Fenway fit is that last year was the first year in his ML career that he called a reliably good hitter's park home. (Sun Life Park swung wildly in its ESPN hitters'-park ranking in Ross' years there--26, 10, 20, 4--while AT&T went from bad (22) to worst (30) in Ross' two years there.) Ross spent the first six years of his career compiling respectable offensive numbers in poor hitters' parks, and the wRC+ numbers reflect that.

[Edelpeddle]

It's probably more meaningful to compare their UZR/150s: 6.7 to 1.6. OK, so Hunter is worth half a win more per year on defense than Ross. I don't know if that's enough to make him a "vastly" better player, but it's a legit advantage.



True, the wOBA stats aren't park-adjusted, but wRC+ stats are. Here are Hunter's and Ross's wRC+ figures by age, starting at age 25 (Ross's first semi-full season) and ending at age 31 (the year Ross just had). I'm going to give them to you as pairs of numbers without telling you which is which, except that the order is consistent (i.e. the same guy is first in each pair). You tell me which is Hunter. No peeking.

85, 100
169, 122
106, 95
105, 106
96, 108
105, 113
113, 116

One thing about Ross that gets a little buried in all the discussion of his great Fenway fit is that last year was the first year in his ML career that he called a reliably good hitter's park home. (Sun Life Park swung wildly in its ESPN hitters'-park ranking in Ross' years there--26, 10, 20, 4--while AT&T went from bad (22) to worst (30) in Ross' two years there.) Ross spent the first six years of his career compiling respectable offensive numbers in poor hitters' parks, and the wRC+ numbers reflect that.

I'm baffled. Why are we comparing 2006 Cody Ross to 2001 Torii Hunter when discussing who would be the better free agent in 2012/2013?

[TheYellowDart5]

Meanwhile, some actual news, courtesy Buster Olney:

In Cody Ross's talks with the Red Sox, his side was looking for something in the 3-year, $25 million range.

https://twitter.com/...662210368483328

[Rovin Romine]

In Cody Ross's talks with the Red Sox, his side was looking for something in the 3-year, $25 million range.

Um. While I loved Ross's contributions and while he may help us in 2013, by 2014 and 2015, there's a very real chance he'd be a $7 million platoon half in a corner outfield position. Isn't that the kind of contract we need to avoid?

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm baffled. Why are we comparing 2006 Cody Ross to 2001 Torii Hunter when discussing who would be the better free agent in 2012/2013?

You said, and I quote: "any sample size you look at is going to make Hunter look like the vastly superior player." I was trying (and failing) to zoom out far enough to find a time-frame in which this statement would make sense.

In other news, I agree that 3/25 is too much. The AAV would be OK for a two-year deal, but if we're going to go three, the total needs to come down at least $3M, preferably a bit more.

[bosockboy]

2/16 or 3/20 has to be the absolute ceiling of what you offer Ross.

[redsoxstiff]

ASSuming that Cody will test the market...the numbers are the numbers...Can a team with a quarter billion scuti sign him ...shuah...

If the FO has taken a cut back severely stance...Cut the damn ticket prices too...I.e, Cody's numbers won't indent the search for a number 1 pitcher and a beeg time middle of the lineup knuckle dragger...IF the sox are to contend...

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Um. While I loved Ross's contributions and while he may help us in 2013, by 2014 and 2015, there's a very real chance he'd be a $7 million platoon half in a corner outfield position. Isn't that the kind of contract we need to avoid?

No, the team needs to avoid locking up players long term who either aren't likely to maintain their value over that span or are volatile enough that you can't be reasonably certain that they'd maintain their value from year to year during that span.

Short term deals for slight over pays won't cripple a team like the Sox.

[maufman]

What's the deadline to extend a qualifying offer to Ross?

I would have dismissed the idea as crazy a few days ago, but if the options are signing Ross for 3 years or throwing something like 2/18 at Torii Hunter, slapping the golden handcuffs on Ross is at least worth considering.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

What's the deadline to extend a qualifying offer to Ross?

Deadline for that was last Friday. Red Sox only made one qualifying offer, and that was to David Ortiz.

[maufman]

Deadline for that was last Friday. Red Sox only made one qualifying offer, and that was to David Ortiz.

Thanks. Didn't realize the QO deadline was so much earlier than the old arb deadline.

Probably wasn't a good idea anyway, but it does look like we're going to overpay one way or the other to fill an OF spot.

[Corsi]

Olney:

Friends of Cody Ross believe BOS is in the lead in his neg. on 3-year deal. But sources say there haven't been new talks in last few days.

https://twitter.com/...514593337368576