1019 replies to this topic

[OttoC]

I was under the impression that next year's free agent class was supposed to be better than this year's; yet, the Red Sox have already managed to tie up a good bit of the salaries they jettisoned in 2012. I think the rebuilding of the Red Sox is going to be a slow process and I'll be surprised if they are in legitimate contention before 2016.

[Savin Hillbilly]

2-3. I've stated it multiple times over the winter, and i'll state it again here. Outside a collective group of people's need/desire to have the Sox prioritize small market/build from within values above all else, which is then fitted around every move we make in the name of presenting such as the existing reality in play, there's essentially zero supporting evidence (beyond vague and always generalized comments on the matter) of that actually be the bottom line case with this ownership here.

Of course the following could be referred to as "vague and generalized comments," but I think the burden is on you to show why we shouldn't take them at face value.


ESPNBoston, Nov. 5:

“...this offseason we’re going to do the best we can to improve the team, address the holes we have without putting up too many artificial barriers to the young players we believe in the most. ”

Projo, Dec. 6:

“We’ve been trying to add to the team without trying to take away from the team and keeping our core young talent in place,” Cherington said.

CSNNE, Dec. 1:

"our primary focus is to build the best team we can for 2013 and one that doesn’t in any way get in the way of a great team for a long time."

Why does Ben keep saying stuff like this if he doesn't mean it? What's his angle?

[Hokie Sox]

1. It's arguably not even a better roster then we went into last season with, and for almost the same amount of money being spent, for the most part it's really only *potentially* an upgrade over last season's shit show at that imo. With quite a bit there banking on a lot better to best case scenarios playing themselves out.

Of course it's "arguably not even a better roster." We're the Boston Red Sox and we field a contender every season. Go back and look at the "baseball experts" predictions and SOSH predictions going into last season (which we all readily admit was worst case scenario). Predictions by fans, for the most part, are always a best case scenario.

2-3. I've stated it multiple times over the winter, and i'll state it again here. Outside a collective group of people's need/desire to have the Sox prioritize small market/build from within values above all else, which is then fitted around every move we make in the name of presenting such as the existing reality in play, there's essentially zero supporting evidence (beyond vague and always generalized comments on the matter) of that actually be the bottom line case with this ownership here.

It's the conveniently overlooked/cornerstone flaw in latest "short term money doesn't matter" Master Plan Theory, and why the surface logic being presented in such has and will continue to be altered on a never ending basis. As at the end of the day, and unless you truly believe that waving the white flag on improving our situation under these multi-year contracts is ultimately an acceptable option for this ownership in the event they crash and burn in year 1, then the presented notion that fairly expensive 3 year commitments "don't matter" is just short sighted optimism at it's best. Of course they potentially matter, especially once you start making the jump from dreaming in the hypothetical to making surrounding reality based choices. It's one thing to take a conservative approach with the years given out in year 1 of a retool, mainly in relationship to a few guys they might not have been all that sold on as long term solutions to begin with. It's quite another to go all in on that concept to point you are willing to accept short term defeat if/when some or none of that pans out for you this season, and they remain the most glaring areas to improve upon going forward from there.

This is an oversimplification to say the least. I agree with you that there is no precedent suggesting this will work, however, you're claim implies that the opposite is true: Spending a lot of $ yields rings.. which it doesn't. Moreover, you're completely ignoring other possible reasons for this strategy. i.e. in a sport where "star players" are demanding more high risk/high reward contracts (for the organization), how do we go about constructing a team to maximize the potential for success. This is why the Sox were one of the first teams to employ this incentive-laden deal theory. They are hedging their bets against injury and under-performance.

4. Drew brought our projected payroll up to what, roughly $160m? What kind of flexibility remains there is yet to been seen.

What proof of flexibility do you want? The strategy remains targeting cost-controlled grinders instead of expensive free-swingers.

On the whole, we are fielding an awful expensive team for something you wouldn't ideally want to bet the house on breaking .500 baseball. The fact we are paying out a combined $22.5m+ in 2013 on the 2012 Victorino/Drew combo sticks out like a sore "money well flushed" thumb, and the projected lineup already needed help before potentially having a Napoli-less hole shot through it, with the readily available/alternative option of plugging in Swisher getting more doubtful by the day. If cause for concern on that latter is indeed warranted, it needs to be resolved sooner rather then latter imo. I do really like how the bullpen is shaping up though, and the decision to play it relatively safe in signing Dempster is growing on me.

Could any of that (again, as a whole) really gone down differently? Hard to say given the reliable information on actual opportunities made available to us. I do however believe that when all is said and done, you'll be able to mix and match signings across the league to form a better and more cost efficient team then what Ben assembled for us here.

O really? How would you propose doing this given this year's free agent class? I believe even after the Swisher/LaRoche signings, the Red Sox signings will look significantly better- with the exception of the Victorino signing.

I'm also not a big fan on the "trying to be overly cute" perception i got out of the Victorino signing, which is making me question just how much of Bad Theo we should be expecting out of Ben in regards to his approach towards free agency.

Again- oversimplifying.

Granted, ST is still a long ways off, and 1 big trade nobody sees on the horizon atm has the potential to change much of the above. I'm certainly not dismissing that possibility at this point either.

One big trade? At the expense of what? Bogaerts and mortgaging the future? No thanks.

Edited by Hokie Sox, 18 December 2012 - 08:49 AM.

[someoneanywhere]

It's not just Ben. All one has to do is spend a morning in the WEEI archives listening to Lucky and Ben, on multiple occasions in their radio interviews, saying they were going to take this route, and justifying the route. It's really not about collective needs or desires of members of this board, or something so artificial as some people contacting a Master Plan Theory and the retrofitting a Drew or a Naploi contract into it.

It's really just about listening.

I appreciate contrarian stances. I encourage them for a living. But they have to be honest ones. You may not like this or that move. You may not like the direction the club has taken. But to suggest that people here have created some kind of board-based reality different from the strategy as its been laid out on numerous occasions by FO leadership is simply stubbornness, not contrarianism. Go and read and listen to every interview that Ben and Larry have given since late August. They have done -- whether or not you agree with the plan or with any individual signing -- exactly what they have been saying they were going to do.

[Rudy Pemberton]

They are clearly avoiding long term deals, and deals for high AAV's, and not trading prospects.. The why is what is open to interpretation. They could be waiting for 2015 for the influx of home grown talent (at that point, perhaps they are suddenly more active on top tier talent), might just have been negative on this years market, or they could be prepping the team for a sale.

[4 6 3 DP]

Isn't the real issue that we have a $160 million dollar team for the next couple seasons that doesn't really seem to be that good? And the flexibility remaining looks like maybe one more legitimate player (for a full season) and some room to take on a few million in season if necessary?

Understood that they can't punt the next two years and that this year's FA class was poor. But I think it's reasonable to question the approach given they no longer have significant payroll room until 2015, and they don't seem to have a very strong team.

[lexrageorge]

1. It's arguably not even a better roster then we went into last season with, and for almost the same amount of money being spent, for the most part it's really only *potentially* an upgrade over last season's shit show at that imo. With quite a bit there banking on a lot better to best case scenarios playing themselves out.

Comparing this roster to the roster at the start of last season is a bit of a red herring. Gonzo and Beckett are gone, and if we assume the 2013 Beckett will be the 2011 Odd Year Beckett, then they will not have directly replaced either player. However, assuming Napoli is finally brought on board (a reasonably safe assumption), then the team will have replaced a reasonable percentage of their production once you add in Dempster. I didn't mention either Crawford or Punto for obvious reasons.

As for comparing to the roster at the end of last season, it's a huge upgrade. Napoli >> Gomez. Gomes/Ellsbury/Victorino >>>>>> Ross + cast of clowns. The 2011 Drew >>>> 2012 Avlies. WMB >> Ciriaco. Maybe one of these comparisons ends up falling short. But I have trouble believing anyone that claims this roster is no better than the one from last September.

There are certainly holes and concerns. The team is counting on some fortune to smile on their pitching staff: Lester bouncing back, Lackey recovering from TJ surgery, Duobront building on his 2012 performance, Buchholz being healthy and effective. None of these are guaranteed, and while they have some guys in their pen that could step in, I'm not sure we want to see Morales and Aviles both pitching 150+ innings as starters either. There is an argument to be made that the team could have invested the financial resources that give you such heartburn into the pitching staff, but Greinke was never coming here, and I can't blame Cherington from staying away from big $$$ and time commitments to Anibel Sanchez, or for refusing to clear out the farm system for RA Dickey.

The big lineup concern remains, IMO, the health of David Ortiz. But there's really little that can be done, and I'm not sure anyone can blame Cherington for locking up Papi for 2 more years and hoping for the best when it comes to his achilles tendon.

2-3. I've stated it multiple times over the winter, and i'll state it again here. Outside a collective group of people's need/desire to have the Sox prioritize small market/build from within values above all else, which is then fitted around every move we make in the name of presenting such as the existing reality in play, there's essentially zero supporting evidence (beyond vague and always generalized comments on the matter) of that actually be the bottom line case with this ownership here.

The supporting evidence is that the Sox have yet to forfeit their 2nd round draft pick, and have yet to trade their top prospects for a washed up veteran reliever. As well as the not-so vague and generalized comments quoted above.

It's the conveniently overlooked/cornerstone flaw in latest "short term money doesn't matter" Master Plan Theory, and why the surface logic being presented in such has and will continue to be altered on a never ending basis. As at the end of the day, and unless you truly believe that waving the white flag on improving our situation under these multi-year contracts is ultimately an acceptable option for this ownership in the event they crash and burn in year 1, then the presented notion that fairly expensive 3 year commitments "don't matter" is just short sighted optimism at it's best. Of course they potentially matter, especially once you start making the jump from dreaming in the hypothetical to making surrounding reality based choices. It's one thing to take a conservative approach with the years given out in year 1 of a retool, mainly in relationship to a few guys they might not have been all that sold on as long term solutions to begin with. It's quite another to go all in on that concept to point you are willing to accept short term defeat if/when some or none of that pans out for you this season, and they remain the most glaring areas to improve upon going forward from there.


4. Drew brought our projected payroll up to what, roughly $160m? What kind of flexibility remains there is yet to been seen.

First, the $160M assumes that all the arbitration eligible players will get the max award, which is unlikely to be the case. The team has been consistent about avoid arbitration altogether and coming to agreement before the hearings start, so chances are there will be a few million shaved off from this number.

Second, with the big name free agents off the market, there's not a whole lot of use of flexibility going forward. While I sincerely doubt there's any blockbuster trade for a big-time player in the works, if such did come to fruition, the team could probably find a way to move somebody (likely Ellsbury) to accomodate whatever salary they need to take on. But my guess is that there's no such blockbuster coming for reasons that have nothing to do with the space remaining on the 2012 payroll.

The flexibility will be there next two offseasons. Drew is here on a 1 year deal, which by definition affords them maximum flexibility. If you look at Speier's estimates, they'll have at least $34M to spend next offseason, and that's counting the full value of Lester's option (reasonable assumption it gets picked up). And, again, that's with a very conservative accounting of the arbitration awards, a group which has no big names on it going into 2014.

If the team finishes below 0.500, that's clearly a disappointment. But it doesn't matter at all whether they spend $25M or $169M to get there. But the latter number is more likely to get them into playoff contention, which would be a victory given the shape of the roster going into this offseason. Let's put it this way, had they brought back the same exact roster they had on October 1st, they would have been lucky to win 60 games. The $30-40M they would have saved by doing that would be an empty consolation prize to most of us here.

Edited by lexrageorge, 18 December 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat]

Isn't the real issue that we have a $160 million dollar team for the next couple seasons that doesn't really seem to be that good? And the flexibility remaining looks like maybe one more legitimate player (for a full season) and some room to take on a few million in season if necessary?

Understood that they can't punt the next two years and that this year's FA class was poor. But I think it's reasonable to question the approach given they no longer have significant payroll room until 2015, and they don't seem to have a very strong team.

Except we don't have $160 million committed for 2014. Drew is on a one year deal. Ellsbury likely will be gone. Lester has a club option for 2014 and could be gone. Uehara is on a one year deal. Salty is unlikely to be around. Bottom line, yes, there is significant money committed to 2014, but there will be more room for moves next offseason. The $160 million is a 2013 number.

[ShaneTrot]

Thanks to DanoooMe for pointing me in the right direction:
Roster

Damn that roster is depressing, its hard to believe less than 10 years ago, we had top 10 talents in the game on the pitching staff and in the field. Is anyone of those players a legit star but Ortiz? I am very down on Lester, Pedroia, Buchholz, and Ellsbury. What are the chances that Ellsbury and Pedroia play ~162 games? They are brittle.

[JimBoSox9]

I think that's unfair to Pedroia

Year-Games Played-OPS
2007-139-823
2008-157-869
2009-154-819
2010-75-860
2011-159-861
2012-141-797

that's 3 outstanding years (08,09,11), 2 pretty darn good years (2007,2012), and one year lost to injury (10). 140 games is in no way a 'bad' outcome for an everyday up-the-middle player. Yes, he can get a bit banged up and playing through that compounds his natural streakiness, but you look up at the end of the year and the GP and stats look pretty good. 140 games of an 800 OPS from 2Bman only looks negative because his upside is MVP-level. A guy like Ells who has 1 excellent season ever, I can understand, but Pedroia's production in 5 out of his 6 years is pretty damn consistent.

[Savin Hillbilly]

What are the chances that Ellsbury and Pedroia play ~162 games? They are brittle.

(Apologies in advance if my sarcasm meter is malfunctioning.)

First of all, a total of eight guys have played 162 games over the past four years--an average of two per year. That's a completely ridiculous standard, with or without a tilde in front of it.

Pedroia ranks fourth in starts, third in defensive innings and fourth in PA among all ML second basemen over the six years he's been a full-time player. If that's brittle, I want more of it.

As for Ellsbury...."brittle," to me, implies the kind of player who is constantly sprouting pulls and strains for no particular reason. Brittle is not being susceptible to serious injury when 200-pound human beings collide with your ribcage at top speed or deposit their full weight on one of your joints. I can understand feeling some uncertainty about Ellsbury's performance going forward, because he hasn't had a chance to establish a solid baseline (though we have a pretty good idea of his ceiling and floor). But calling him "brittle" seems neither accurate nor fair.

[LeoCarrillo]

Speier estimates we've currently got $34M to spend for '14. I like Ben's approach this offseason, but I think it's true too that he might've kept a few more dollars to spend next year (Victorino at $13M? Gomes at $5M?)

I've been kinda beating the "save enough money for Ellsbury" drum lately, but it does surprise me how quickly the Ells ship has sailed in these forums. Two years ago, everyone was pulling their hair out that we'd lose Ells because we were burning money on Crawford. Now, after the Punto deal, the idea of a 5-year, $100M kinda signing makes folks wretch. Sox are a fat-wallet team. In a perfect world, we're the A's plus two or three big-money free agents.

(Just not four or five huge, lengthy deals at a time, which put us into a dead end the past two seasons.)

Point being, we're gonna get a lot cheaper in '15, '16 and beyond. I'd like to save enough cash to be able to strike as early as next offseason on a big FA who can play with the kids through, say, 2018. Good offseason, but please put away the checkbook, Ben.

Edited by LeoCarrillo, 18 December 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Cellar-Door]

Speier estimates we've currently got $34M to spend for '14. I like Ben's approach this offseason, but I think it's true too that he might've kept a few more dollars to spend next year (Victorino at $13M? Gomes at $5M?)

I've been kinda beating the "save enough money for Ellsbury" drum lately, but it does surprise me how quickly the Ells ship has sailed in these forums. Two years ago, everyone was pulling their hair out that we'd lose Ells because we were burning money on Crawford. Now, after the Punto deal, the idea of a 5-year, $100M kinda signing makes folks wretch. Sox are a fat-wallet team. In a perfect world, we're the A's plus two or three big-money free agents.

(Just not four or five huge, lengthy deals at a time, which put us into a dead end the past two seasons.)

Point being, we're gonna get a lot cheaper in '15, '16 and beyond. I'd like to save enough cash to be able to strike as early as next offseason on a big FA who can play with the kids through, say, 2018. Good offseason, but please put away the checkbook, Ben.

I think the reason people aren't looking at an Ells deal is part an aversion to long term big money deals, and part a reluctance to pay for one year. If Ellsbury plays somewhere near his 2011 numbers this year people will want to re-sign him. However his 2011 looks like a fluke to me, his ISO was more than twice what it was in his other 2 full seasons (and his last two partial seasons), his HR/FB was between 2 and 3 times higher. Add in how slowly he seems to heal from injuries (fluke or not, he has taken far longer than projected to return from his major injuries).and he seems like an extremely risky long term signing.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Isn't the real issue that we have a $160 million dollar team for the next couple seasons that doesn't really seem to be that good? And the flexibility remaining looks like maybe one more legitimate player (for a full season) and some room to take on a few million in season if necessary?

Understood that they can't punt the next two years and that this year's FA class was poor. But I think it's reasonable to question the approach given they no longer have significant payroll room until 2015, and they don't seem to have a very strong team.

It's certainly reasonable to question the moves they've made, but I don't think the approach should be criticized much. It's a difference between theory and practice. They really had two paths in front of them. 1. Sell the farm to add a couple of young stars to the roster, then fill in the rest with major league average players. 2. Bet on the farm filling into the roster with a couple of young stars and some cheap major league talent in the next few years, and fill in holes on a year to year basis with major league average players. Considering how poorly free agency went for them recently and how highly touted some of the upper tier prospects are, I think it would be tough to argue with them choosing option 2. How they implement option 2, however is certainly worth picking apart. I'm on board with the approach and I think this has mostly been a good off season, but that doesn't mean I don't have individual moves I'm not thrilled with.

I've talked myself into not hating the Vitctorino signing, but I still don't like it all that much. I'm also not excited in the slightest about Jonny Gomes and consider him fairly fungible. I get why they paid so much to lock him up as early as they did, but he's fungible. Dempster is a good signing at 2 years, but no where near a great one. He'll probably be a decent back end of the rotation type, which has value, but isn't exciting. I can certainly see an argument for Marcum over him if Marcum could be had on a 2 or 3 year deal. So I get questioning the roster. It's full of question marks. I just don't get questioning the overall approach. They've been clear about what they want to do and why they want to do it. There is a group of young players on the horizon they can use to create a new foundation worth building on. A foundation that could fuel another long run of success with a mix of young home grown players and free agent talent.

And that's the key. The team has decided that 2015 or so is when they can really start putting that plan to work. They should have an idea of what Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, Webster, DLR, Brentz, Middlebrooks, Kalish, Lavarnway, Doubront, Tazawa and Iglesias are going to be (if anything) by then and can start plugging in spots on the roster around what's panned out. Granted, all of them could flame out by then. That's the risk in this approach, but I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a few major league regulars, if not a star or two out of that bunch. Add them to Pedroia and Buchholz, and you have a new core to work with. Maybe Lester is extended, maybe not. Either way, they'll have money to spend in 2015, and a bunch more in 2016 to build the roster out of what the farm produces and the two or three name brand players still here from today's roster.

In short, the plan is to start building a real contender around 2015. In the short term, they could have fielded a roster of kids who weren't going to win 75 games or they could have filled in the roster with a group that might actually make the playoffs in either of the next two years to bridge the gap between this team and the "next great Red Sox team," as Ben has put it. They chose to spend money and bridge that gap and I think they've done a solid job of it overall. Maybe this approach doesn't work out, but I'd much rather see them go down this road than the one where they trade away their best prospects for two young stars then fill in the gaps with... well, a lot of the same players they signed anyway.

[lexrageorge]

Speier estimates we've currently got $34M to spend for '14. I like Ben's approach this offseason, but I think it's true too that he might've kept a few more dollars to spend next year (Victorino at $13M? Gomes at $5M?)

I've been kinda beating the "save enough money for Ellsbury" drum lately, but it does surprise me how quickly the Ells ship has sailed in these forums. Two years ago, everyone was pulling their hair out that we'd lose Ells because we were burning money on Crawford. Now, after the Punto deal, the idea of a 5-year, $100M kinda signing makes folks wretch. Sox are a fat-wallet team. In a perfect world, we're the A's plus two or three big-money free agents.

(Just not four or five huge, lengthy deals at a time, which put us into a dead end the past two seasons.)

Point being, we're gonna get a lot cheaper in '15, '16 and beyond. I'd like to save enough cash to be able to strike as early as next offseason on a big FA who can play with the kids through, say, 2018. Good offseason, but please put away the checkbook, Ben.

The $34M does conservatively assume that we will offer arbitration to all the eligible players and that they would be awarded the maximum likely value. And there really is a lot that can happen between now and one year from now in terms of trades, etc. So I don't think the 2013-14 offseason budget is a concern at this point in time.

The Ellsbury situation is being dictated by the fact that for 2 of the last 3 seasons his production has been nil. Granted, most of that was due to injury, but he still struggled mightily when he came back last year. It's really too early to say what will happen to him next season; even if he has an MVP year in 2013, his return the following season is still not out of the question. But it's not something the team can just bank on at this point. He may very well have a good, not great year, which gets followed by his agent asking for 5/$125M, which gets followed by his becoming a Dodger.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Speier estimates we've currently got $34M to spend for '14. I like Ben's approach this offseason, but I think it's true too that he might've kept a few more dollars to spend next year (Victorino at $13M? Gomes at $5M?)

I've been kinda beating the "save enough money for Ellsbury" drum lately, but it does surprise me how quickly the Ells ship has sailed in these forums. Two years ago, everyone was pulling their hair out that we'd lose Ells because we were burning money on Crawford. Now, after the Punto deal, the idea of a 5-year, $100M kinda signing makes folks wretch. Sox are a fat-wallet team. In a perfect world, we're the A's plus two or three big-money free agents.

(Just not four or five huge, lengthy deals at a time, which put us into a dead end the past two seasons.)

Point being, we're gonna get a lot cheaper in '15, '16 and beyond. I'd like to save enough cash to be able to strike as early as next offseason on a big FA who can play with the kids through, say, 2018. Good offseason, but please put away the checkbook, Ben.

To spend on who next year? Take a look at the FA list after next season:

http://www.mlbtrader...ree-agents.html

I'm not seeing a great crop, nor one that would particularly interest the Sox outside of a handful of SPs. Wainwright if he's not locked up. Lincecum if he bounces back. Maybe Haren if he bounces back. Then it's a 39 year old Carpenter and a 37 year old Halladay if his option doesn't vest. I'm not seeing many more guys that they would be interested assuming the kids mature. On top of that, I see no reason to think they would have a problem crossing the threshold for one year if need be for the right guy (who doesn't appear to be there anyway).

[4 6 3 DP]

I guess I am just disappointed that this team right now is within 15-20M of max payroll, and on paper, doesn't look very good. While I understand they need to sell tickets, and can't punt a season, it seems to me that 3 year overpays for decent players does nothing but make you mediocre until 2015, with the hope that kids develop.

I can't say I know the better route, but only the Dempster signing to me fits the type of deal I would have expected. The Victorino deal to me is inexplicable unless Ellsbury gets moved and they didn't like any other CF options for this year or next.

[bombdiggz]

To spend on who next year? Take a look at the FA list after next season:

http://www.mlbtrader...ree-agents.html

I'm not seeing a great crop, nor one that would particularly interest the Sox outside of a handful of SPs. Wainwright if he's not locked up. Lincecum if he bounces back. Maybe Haren if he bounces back. Then it's a 39 year old Carpenter and a 37 year old Halladay if his option doesn't vest. I'm not seeing many more guys that they would be interested assuming the kids mature. On top of that, I see no reason to think they would have a problem crossing the threshold for one year if need be for the right guy (who doesn't appear to be there anyway).

No, that isn't a great crop at all. It actually seems to support the Victorino signing a bit. Whether Ells bounces back or not, he is going to be a hot commodity on the free agent market. Add to that, there being a couple of interesting names in the corner OF spots, and the Sox can approach that situation with a lot of flexibility.

[lexrageorge]

I guess I am just disappointed that this team right now is within 15-20M of max payroll, and on paper, doesn't look very good. While I understand they need to sell tickets, and can't punt a season, it seems to me that 3 year overpays for decent players does nothing but make you mediocre until 2015, with the hope that kids develop.

I can't say I know the better route, but only the Dempster signing to me fits the type of deal I would have expected. The Victorino deal to me is inexplicable unless Ellsbury gets moved and they didn't like any other CF options for this year or next.

They got Victorino initially to play RF; he's probably a better RF than any of the guys playing RF for the team last season. He's had one down year, but otherwise would be a marked improvement offensively over anyone in last season's OF outside of Cody Ross, who wasn't coming back anyway.

Outside of Hamilton, there were no superstars to be had, but there were some pretty good players who for various reasons were under the radar going into this season. They reconstructed their lineup with a bunch of average to above average hitters, 3 of whom were one or 2 years removed from 0.800+ OPS seasons (no different than Ellsbury in that regards).

Again, there's no difference to us as fans whether the team spends $160M or $100M on this season's team.

[someoneanywhere]

I guess I am just disappointed that this team right now is within 15-20M of max payroll, and on paper, doesn't look very good. While I understand they need to sell tickets, and can't punt a season, it seems to me that 3 year overpays for decent players does nothing but make you mediocre until 2015, with the hope that kids develop.

I can't say I know the better route, but only the Dempster signing to me fits the type of deal I would have expected. The Victorino deal to me is inexplicable unless Ellsbury gets moved and they didn't like any other CF options for this year or next.

I wouldn't argue the point that other clubs look better on paper. But I would argue this: no one in the division is runaway better, not even Toronto. Really, in my view, and I'm just spitballing it, there is about a 4-5 game separation. They're close enough to compete, and, if things break more their way and less the way of the Bad Guys, they can contend. I don't think anyone will confuse this bunch with the paper powerhouses of the 2010 and 2011 off seasons, but they are going to be in the midst of things, and playing without the pressure of expectations.

[bosockboy]

I think the view of this roster would be much different if we had a true #1 ace fronting the staff. I'm not that worried about the lineup and feel it will be a top ten offense.

If Lester and Buchholz perform well the team will be very competitive. The fate of the 2013 team largely rides on how well they do.

[Rasputin]

If Lester and Buchholz perform well the team will be very competitive. The fate of the 2013 team largely rides on how well they do.

And Ellsbury. If he turns in something vaguely resembling 2011 this is going to be a very potent offense.

The bullpen looks to be pretty damn good.

This has the potential to be one of those teams casual fans look at and wonder how they win all the games they win.

[The Boomer]

Isn't the real issue that we have a $160 million dollar team for the next couple seasons that doesn't really seem to be that good? And the flexibility remaining looks like maybe one more legitimate player (for a full season) and some room to take on a few million in season if necessary?

Understood that they can't punt the next two years and that this year's FA class was poor. But I think it's reasonable to question the approach given they no longer have significant payroll room until 2015, and they don't seem to have a very strong team.

I agree with this. However, what was the alternative? Sanchez, Hamilton, etc. would have broken the bank, would have been more wastefully expensive and limited their long term flexibility. A Tampa Bay or Miami (what's with those Florida teams?) style rebuild presumably wouldn't work now in Boston either. At least with this emerging strategy, you have a chance to buy more projectible prospects by eating the digestible balance of a Napoli salary by offloading such veterans in trades to contenders to accelerate the rebuilding project one transaction at a time once it is apparent that the Sox are out of contention in upcoming seasons. It is the likely cost for the Sox to get the younger bluechip talent they covet but that is difficult to obtain. In 2014, you might send a disappointing or declining Napoli to a covetous contender while paying as much of the overpaid balance owed on his contract as it takes to obtain more young studs in return. This seems to be their strategy to deal with the limitations of the new collective bargaining agreements that will allow them to spend for such bluechippers one way (paying for expiring veteran contracts after the players are gone) but not another (exceeding the de facto slot caps to sign both drafted and international amateurs). Though amateurs are individually less expensive, it might actually be less risky to pay significantly more for these same prospects after they have some minor league track record than when they are completely unproven amateurs.

[Rasputin]

Isn't the real issue that we have a $160 million dollar team for the next couple seasons that doesn't really seem to be that good? And the flexibility remaining looks like maybe one more legitimate player (for a full season) and some room to take on a few million in season if necessary?

Understood that they can't punt the next two years and that this year's FA class was poor. But I think it's reasonable to question the approach given they no longer have significant payroll room until 2015, and they don't seem to have a very strong team.

No, I think the real issue is that people had unrealistic expectations.

The Sox have done precisely what they should have done, sign good but not great players to deals that aren't long term while not trading prospects and not giving up draft picks.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I guess I am just disappointed that this team right now is within 15-20M of max payroll, and on paper, doesn't look very good. While I understand they need to sell tickets, and can't punt a season, it seems to me that 3 year overpays for decent players does nothing but make you mediocre until 2015, with the hope that kids develop.

I think it might be presumptuous to think that max payroll = luxury tax threshold. They squeaked under the threshold in 2012 thanks to the Punto trade, so their tax penalty has been reset. They might be inclined to go over for the right players in the right situation.

But at this point, it appears they're done adding payroll. All the roster holes have been plugged for better or worse. If they move Saltalamacchia and maybe a reliever or two (since the pen appears crowded with un-optionable pitchers) sometime between now and the end of spring training that gives them a fair cushion should they feel the need or have the opportunity to upgrade the roster during the season. And if they have no reason to upgrade (i.e. they're not in contention), they've got plenty of moveable parts that can cut the payroll some more. I don't think they are in any danger of facing a salary crunch like they did last winter any time soon.

[MikeM]

Of course the following could be referred to as "vague and generalized comments," but I think the burden is on you to show why we shouldn't take them at face value.


ESPNBoston, Nov. 5:



Projo, Dec. 6:



CSNNE, Dec. 1:

[/b]

Why does Ben keep saying stuff like this if he doesn't mean it? What's his angle?

Is this part where i should go on to quote Henry/Lucky/Ben's comments about how the goal here is to win the World Series? But seriously, why even stop there with counter quotes? There's a whole laundry list of similar vague and generalized comments (which again, i'm maintaining they are) you can dig up over the past decade, stretching back to the $100m player development machine speech, that can be presented to support your stance here. Point there being that in the end, the substance is usually found in the doing, not the saying.

The angle there is the same as it's always been. Of course they are going to pay surface tribute to the concept, as if/when possible and under the most ideal of circumstances, it's a pretty damn solid approach. How often that desired concept is actually going to match up with the surrounding reality in play, and be a realistic option when it comes time to potentially make the hardlined/less-then-ideal decisions usually required out of it on a long term basis has been, is now, and will always remain the core problem in actually keeping to that.

They have done -- whether or not you agree with the plan or with any individual signing -- exactly what they have been saying they were going to do.

The have done exactly what they said they were going to do, which translated into going out go fielding a $160m payroll. No surprise there, but again, i'm also the guy that was sitting here over a month ago predicting we would indeed be spending a substantial amount of money on free agency this winter. My stance or presented interpretation on the reality here hasn't changed. For those of you preaching that everything we've seen this winter is/was all part of the master plan theory now, how many of you were sitting around proposing 3 year bridge contracts as being the ideal approach we could/should expect to see taken, much less had a 3/$39m Victorino signing being a potential part of that? Anybody? Now there's a reminder link i'd be interested in reading, with all due respect given to those who actually did.

That this team wasn't all in on Hamilton or Greinke, in an offseason where there's not a whole lot of 4 year+ contracts being handed out to begin with no less, is hardly the supporting proof here people are attempting to pass it off as imo. Neither is the fact we've yet to surrender our second round pick, giving the varying reports that we've had a legitimate interest in potentially signing guys that would do just that.

I may be taking the contrarian stance here now, but where you see me as being stubborn, i see the willingness to actually project the possibility of failure (or at least partial failure) in my analysis. The stubbornness i do personally see is in all the best case scenario banking involved in many of these "everything is going great, you people complaining are just whining" counter debates popping up all over the board atm, with little regard being given to how any of what we do now could/would indeed realistically impact any one of the varying scenarios we could see play itself out next season in the process. That people are already all but pushing any possibility we'd want to actually keep Ellsbury out the door in that process is just the icing on a piece of cake i'm currently taking a pass on too, btw.

This is an oversimplification to say the least. I agree with you that there is no precedent suggesting this will work, however, you're claim implies that the opposite is true: Spending a lot of $ yields rings.. which it doesn't. Moreover, you're completely ignoring other possible reasons for this strategy. i.e. in a sport where "star players" are demanding more high risk/high reward contracts (for the organization), how do we go about constructing a team to maximize the potential for success. This is why the Sox were one of the first teams to employ this incentive-laden deal theory. They are hedging their bets against injury and under-performance.

The only oversimplification i see here is in the presented notion that there is currently some line being drawn in the sand, where this "strategy" has to boil down to an either/or scenario of small market building from within, or going all in on every desirable free agent player that presents itself. When time and time again, this very ownership in question has proven that not to be the case.

But hey, if people really want to keep pounding away on the short term upside that we didn't trade away any prospects in the process of handing out these Victorino type contracts, have at it. Again and as a previously stated though, unless you truly believe that this ownership will go on to wave the white flag in the potential face of accepting short term failure, don't be shocked if the tradeoff being made now just plays out to open that possibility door (on prospect trading) a little wider latter.

Edited by MikeM, 18 December 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Rasputin]

Also, a point in regards to the luxury tax.

According to this, the Punto trade enabled the Sox to get under the tax threshhold for 2012 which resets their tax rate at 17.5% rather than 40%.

Which is to say, I don't think the luxury tax threshhold is as hard a cap going forward as it has been in the last year or so.

[The Gray Eagle]

Taken from Joe Posnanski's blog:

Here are a few fun salary numbers for the lucky 30-somethings in the year 2016:
-- 32-year-old Zack Greinke: $26 million
-- 36-year-old Ryan Howard: $25 million
-- 36-year-old Albert Pujols: $25 million
-- 35-year-old Josh Hamilton: $25 million
-- 35-year-old CC Sabathia: $25 million
-- 32-year-old Prince Fielder: $24 million
-- 33-year-old Joe Mauer: $23 million
-- 36-year-old Mark Teixeira: $22.5 million
-- 32-year-old Cole Hamels: $22.5 million
-- 33-year-old Jose Reyes: $22 million
-- 31-year-old Matt Kemp: $21.5 million
-- 37-year-old Jayson Werth: $21 million
-- 34-year-old Carl Crawford: $20.75 million
-- 40-year-old Alex Rodriguez: $20 million
-- 34-year-old Adrian Gonzalez: $20 million
-- 33-year-old David Wright: $20 million
-- 32-year-old Joey Votto: $20 million
-- 31-year-old Troy Tulowitzki: $20 million
-- 31-year-old Matt Cain: $20 million

No doubt some of these guys will still be stars then, but I also have little doubt that quite a few of them will be albatross contracts by 2016. And even the good ones will probably be in decline from where they are now.

Every team had their reasons for giving out those contracts or trading for them, and most are gambling that they'll get enough production before 2016 that it won't matter so much if they overpay for that year. And there are worse contracts out there, for sure. But on the other hand, I'm glad that there are no longer any Red Sox players on that list, because of the ages those players will be when they are making that money.

Edited by The Gray Eagle, 18 December 2012 - 06:56 PM.

[In my lifetime]

Also, a point in regards to the luxury tax.

According to this, the Punto trade enabled the Sox to get under the tax threshhold for 2012 which resets their tax rate at 17.5% rather than 40%.

Which is to say, I don't think the luxury tax threshhold is as hard a cap going forward as it has been in the last year or so.

That is correct. However, they would also lose part of the revenue sharing refund (25% in 2013). No one seems to know that exact figure. In addition, it makes little sense to start ramping up the luxury tax in 2013, when it is doubtful the difference in getting to the WS will be made by putting them over the top.

Now that could very well change if in the midst of the year, if the RS develop into a team that has WS aspirations. In that case, the roster and payroll they have assembled will allow them to spend extra $ (getting them over the threshold) in an acquisition, perhaps another team's dump of salary.

It seems to me that the Front Office's approach is smart and gives them the flexibility they need, not only this year but in the next few years.

Edited by In my lifetime, 18 December 2012 - 07:02 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I may be taking the contrarian stance here now, but where you see me as being stubborn, i see the willingness to actually project the possibility of failure (or at least partial failure) in my analysis. The stubbornness i do personally see is in all the best case scenario banking involved in many of these "everything is going great, you people complaining are just whining" counter debates popping up all over the board atm, with little regard being given to how any of what we do now could/would indeed realistically impact any one of the varying scenarios we could see play itself out next season in the process. That people are already all but pushing any possibility we'd want to actually keep Ellsbury out the door in that process is just the icing on a piece of cake i'm currently taking a pass on too, btw.

I think you're missing (or ignoring) all the qualifiers that go with the positive posts. Most people who are framing this off season in a positive light are absolutely acknowledging the possibility that this roster fails to win 80 games. I've yet to see anyone post that they think this team is a serious contender for the division without a best (or near best) case scenario playing out. I don't even see people saying they think the Sox are a strong contender for the playoffs.

What people are doing is acknowledging the shitty position the team put itself in and the circumstances these moves were made in. The team is betting on their farm system. That has been made abundantly clear. That process is going to take two or three years to really start paying dividends. Even the most prospect crazy posters have to acknowledge that 2 years is the most optimistic time frame even worth talking about. Given that, what would you have done differently? You can certainly make arguments against any of the signings in isolation. Maybe Swisher was a better target than Napoli, extra year and lost draft pick/value included. Maybe Marcum was a better target at three years than Dempster at two. Maybe they should have outbid the Giants on Pagan instead of going after Victorino. Maybe they should have worked a trade for Andrus instead of signing Drew. But I don't see a strong argument against their approach to this off season, given the decision to bet on the farm.

They clearly targeted bounce back candidates who are grinders at the plate (worst is 3.77 p/pa in Victorino) on short contracts with the long term goal of creating a new, young, cost controlled core of players to build around with free agency and trades in or after 2015. I'm not sure how much better they could have done in filling out the roster with that plan in mind. That doesn't mean I (or anyone else) think the team isn't capable of failing spectacularly in 2013 or 2014. If things go well, they could sneak into the playoffs, if things go badly, they could be drafting really early in two or three straight drafts. They're taking a risk. Everyone seems to understand that.

[In my lifetime]

Taken from Joe Posnanski's blog:

Here are a few fun salary numbers for the lucky 30-somethings in the year 2016:
-- 35-year-old CC Sabathia: $25 million
-- 36-year-old Mark Teixeira: $22.5 million
-- 40-year-old Alex Rodriguez: $20 million

No doubt some of these guys will still be stars then, but I also have little doubt that quite a few of them will be albatross contracts by 2016. And even the good ones will probably be in decline from where they are now.

It also shows why despite the Yankees talking about getting under the luxury tax, that it may be impossible to do so and remain competitive. They need another 37 players and in 2016 they will already have just over 100M to spend (ARod's AAV is 27.5). The next 3 years it will be even more difficult to accomplish this unless they can find a partner for a Punto type deal.

[Jordu]

They are clearly avoiding long term deals, and deals for high AAV's, and not trading prospects.. The why is what is open to interpretation. They could be waiting for 2015 for the influx of home grown talent (at that point, perhaps they are suddenly more active on top tier talent), might just have been negative on this years market, or they could be prepping the team for a sale.

Or they could believe that adding a few experienced free agents around the core is a smart way to get into the post-season -- and maybe get hot -- while keeping the potential to keep improving the team over the next 2 to 3 years.

[kieckeredinthehead]

The team has essentially taken it's worst players and replaced them with major league average or better players. Plus, this is interesting...

Ross: 4.25
Napoli: 4.43
Pedroia: 3.97
Drew: 4.25
Middlebrooks: 3.88
Gomes: 4.13
Ellsbury: 3.89
Victorino: 3.77
Ortiz: 3.91

That number is P/PA. Every Red Sox regular had a number in 2012 that was better than Justin Smoak at 47th in the AL. This is a team of absolute grinders at the plate and pitchers are going to hate this lineup. New additions Ross, Drew and Napoli would slot into the top 10 in the AL and Gomes would have been tied with Cody Ross at 13 if he had enough PAs to qualify. Pedroia, Ellsbury and Middlebrooks all had numbers better than number 38 Matt Wieters.

Edit: Added more context.

Red Sox were second in the AL in highest P/PA last season but had the fifth lowest OBP. It really doesn't matter if you're seeing more pitches if the last pitch you see turns into an out.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Red Sox were second in the AL in highest P/PA last season but had the fifth lowest OBP. It really doesn't matter if you're seeing more pitches if the last pitch you see turns into an out.

This. Give me a first pitch hit over a 6 pitch out any day. Isn't pitches / out a better way of looking at this than pitches / plate appearance? I mean, Nick Punto saw a lot of pitches per at bat but I don't think it was an exhausting experience for the pitcher.

[lexrageorge]

For those who don't like the P/PA numbers, I took the OBP averaged over the past 2 seasons for the main lineup hitters, and we get the following:

Ross: 0.324
Napoli: 0.379
Pedroia: 0.368
Drew: 0.313
Middlebrooks: 0.325 (2012 only)
Gomes: 0.349
Ellsbury: 0.355
Victorino: 0.333
Ortiz: 0.405

If we assumed equal plate appearances for the above 9, that's a 0.350 OBP. Obviously, that won't happen, but it's not a stretch to think their team OBP should be significantly higher than their 0.315 of last season.

[LeoCarrillo]

To spend on who next year? Take a look at the FA list after next season:

http://www.mlbtrader...ree-agents.html

I'm not seeing a great crop, nor one that would particularly interest the Sox outside of a handful of SPs. Wainwright if he's not locked up. Lincecum if he bounces back. Maybe Haren if he bounces back. Then it's a 39 year old Carpenter and a 37 year old Halladay if his option doesn't vest. I'm not seeing many more guys that they would be interested assuming the kids mature. On top of that, I see no reason to think they would have a problem crossing the threshold for one year if need be for the right guy (who doesn't appear to be there anyway).

You're right. It's not a loaded batch. Not a lot of 20M guys, if any. Beyond the pitchers you mentioned, a few intriguing names out there, especially if you start thinking creatively between 1B/DH/C/OF, which appear to be our most likely needs now and down the road. (Obviously much more "now" if Napoli goes to two years ... or zero years.)

Brian McCann (30), C/1B/DH post-Papi
Kendrys Morales (30), 1B/DH post-Papi
Mike Morse (32), OF
David Murphy (32), OF
Shin-Soo Choo (31), OF

Edited by LeoCarrillo, 18 December 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[ponch73]

If I could encapsulate the concerns of the naysayers a different way, what would it take for you to show Cherington the door? I'll offer my take in the hopes that it serves as one of the greatest reverse jinxes of all time ...

1. Bailey and Melancon pitch very poorly in 2013 (a la Gagne and Justin Thomas) as does Uehara
2. Victorino and Drew combine for less than 2-3 WAR In 2013
3. Lester pitches as poorly in 2013 as he did at home in 2012
4. Dempster does not meaningfully improve over Beckett's 2012 performance and Lackey does not meaningfully improve over Dice-K's 2012 performance
4. More public examples of clubhouse discord emerge under Farrell
5. None of Boegarts, Bradley, Barnes, de la Rosa and Webster contribute meaningfully to 2014 or 2015
6. Napoli is either a complete butcher at first base or an MVP candidate for another MLB team in 2013
7. Ortiz never fully recovers from Achilles injury and ages very ungracefully
8. Youkilis posts a 875 OPS or better

Edited by ponch73, 18 December 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Red Sox were second in the AL in highest P/PA last season but had the fifth lowest OBP. It really doesn't matter if you're seeing more pitches if the last pitch you see turns into an out.

OK, let's look add their projected OBP and then compare that to AL league average OBP at each position and where the projection would have ranked last year.

Ross: 4.25/.321 (.311/5th)
Napoli: 4.43/.350 (.336/5th*)
Pedroia: 3.97/.367 (.311/3rd)
Drew: 4.25/.325 (.306/7th)
Middlebrooks: 3.88/.316 (.320/8th**)
Gomes: 4.13/.337 (.322/7th***)
Ellsbury: 3.89/.346 (.328/7th)
Victorino: 3.77/.338 (.325/5th)
Ortiz: 3.91/.386 (.350/2nd)

*Napoli is right behind Swisher who is listed at the position with only 35 games played there
**Middlerbrooks' projection would have had him tied with Seager last year.
***The left field list includes Trout at only 47 games and Hamilton at 66 ahead of Gomes

That looks like a safely above average offense as far as OBP is concerned. No one is arguing they're going to be the best offense in the league, though, so I would argue that the sentiment regarding the lineup is supported by the data we have. They'll be good, not great. Certainly good enough if Lester and Buchholz pitch like we hope they will and the bullpen is what we think it will be.

[bosockboy]

Something to consider is how they prepare for King Felix being available in 24 months. Keeping everything short term allows them to make one giant FA expenditure. Lots of money off the books in 2 years and Felix might be who they want to lead a staff of youngsters like Barnes, Webster, DLR, etc....

I'd be pretty shocked if he took an extension when there is Fort Knox awaiting and he's already been paid pretty well.

[MikeM]

I think you're missing (or ignoring) all the qualifiers that go with the positive posts. Most people who are framing this off season in a positive light are absolutely acknowledging the possibility that this roster fails to win 80 games. I've yet to see anyone post that they think this team is a serious contender for the division without a best (or near best) case scenario playing out. I don't even see people saying they think the Sox are a strong contender for the playoffs.

You are generalizing what i stated there into a shifted debate over projected wins and loses in 2013, which again completely serves to gloss over the core problem i have with the counter analysis commonly being presented. Regardless of what we went out and did this offseason, i don't believe any of us truly thought the end result was going to play out to be legitimate World Series contending product by winter's end.

Again, my problem here is with this notion that any multi-year commitments handed out this winter (especially in Victorino's case) "don't matter", or in no way could/would potentially impact/hinder a various outcome future and the pursuit in attempting to improve the team going forward from wherever that road may lead us. With it then being stretched out to the point of claiming a "closing the door on the possibility we find ourselves trading off prospects latter" win, which given the recent track record of the players in question we are banking on to provide those sufficient bandaids to glaring problems, is overly optimistic and shorted sighted analysis at it's finest. So again, if you feel confident that the Sox will ultimately fold their hand if need be in event some or none of this 2013 approach pans out, more power to you. Personally, i just can't envision the scenario where that actually happens. If there's one thing this ownership has proven you can absolutely bank on, it's the fact that sitting around and doing nothing to try and improve on a potentially dire situation simply isn't an option for them The possibility of which is something *your* projected analysis of the presented plan in place all but demands at it's core.

Ya know, the most ironic part in this on going debate for me here is that in end, i'm ultimately on your side. That i am just not choosing to ignore the realities and potential consequences involved in handing out both pricy and risky multi year commitments on middling players here, in the good name of putting an optimistic spin on everything in the here and now, seems to be the real issue you are having in what's being stated imo. Contracts like Victorino are never a good overall approach, it's likely not going to effectively bridge us to that utopia future you desire imo, and it's probably the single best way to increase the overall chance we see a potentially cornered/hungry lion doing something latter which you'd ideally prefer it didn't do.

In short, be careful what you are actually wishing for here.

Edited by MikeM, 18 December 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Where in anything that I've posted do you see me advocating a position where "doing nothing to try and improve a dire situation" would be a good thing? I was OK with punting the 2013 season to protect the farm, but that doesn't mean I was advocating doing nothing. What I was advocating was protecting the farm. That they've taken an approach that both protects the farm and gives them a reasonable chance at being in the hunt for a wild card spot is a bonus. But nothing that position is demands the team do nothing to fix this current situation or a future one in which these moves don't pan out.

To respond to an earlier challenge you made, no, no one predicted Victorino at 3/39 specifically, but demanding that be so in order for someone to claim they are both happy with the path Cherington took and that they saw this coming is unfair. Anyone who advocated for protecting the farm and staying away from long term commitments at big dollars has solid standing, IMO.

And I still don't see any examples of your claim that people are banking on a best case scenario. I, and others that are looking at the last two months positively understand and accept the risks involved with the decisions the front office has made. In short, you're arguing with a man made of straw.

[sackamano]

Just don't understand all the fuss and hate about Victorino at 3/39. Former All-star, Gold Glover who had a down season in 2012.

If he'd put up an OPs of .847 like he did just one year ago, he'd be in line for Upton, Bourn and Swisher money. He's not blocking anyone, especially if Ellsbury doesn't return in 2014. The guy plays all out, all the time.

IMO, it's just as likely the Sox got a bargain as it is he'll be a bust. I'd bet he'll be a fan favorite for the length of his deal with the Sox.

He doesn't hit righties? His career OBP vs RHP is higher than Cody Ross's overall OBP in 2012.

The 2012 season is not the only season on his resume, so just simply projecting him to repeat 2012 is a bad prediction.

Edited by sackamano, 18 December 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[OttoC]

Just don't understand all the fuss and hate about Victorino at 3/39. Former All-star, Gold Glover who had a down season in 2012.

If he'd put up an OPs of .847 like he did just one year ago, he'd be in line for Upton, Bourn and Swisher money. He's not blocking anyone, especially if Ellsbury doesn't return in 2014. The guy plays all out, all the time.
...

He is already 32 and 2011 was far and away his career year with an OPS 43 points higher than his next best season (which was the only other season he had an OPS over .800). Forgive me for not being excited, especially as he is signed through 2015.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Yeah, pointing to 2011 isn't really fair. I don't think it would be overly optimistic to hope for a near .800 OPS, but he's probably more likely to come in around .750. If he's providing strong defense in right or left, that's passable.

[Rasputin]

He is already 32 and 2011 was far and away his career year with an OPS 43 points higher than his next best season (which was the only other season he had an OPS over .800). Forgive me for not being excited, especially as he is signed through 2015.

If it came to that, he'd be a pretty good, but expensive, fourth outfielder.

[MikeM]

*double post*

Edited by MikeM, 19 December 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[MikeM]

To respond to an earlier challenge you made, no, no one predicted Victorino at 3/39 specifically, but demanding that be so in order for someone to claim they are both happy with the path Cherington took and that they saw this coming is unfair. Anyone who advocated for protecting the farm and staying away from long term commitments at big dollars has solid standing, IMO.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Victorino, although serious bonus points to anybody that did have him. Just show me the pre-existing supporting logic there that was claiming expensive 3 year contracts on middling players like him, coming off down years, as their presented idea of "staying away from long term commitments at big dollars".

In short, you're arguing with a man made of straw.

There's no strawman here. However, I am apparently arguing with somebody who absolutely refuses to even entertain the possibility that in the process of handing out expensive and fairly risky bandaid contracts to middling players, you potentially are just left doing more harm then good (and outside the immediate picture being painted) in that pursuit here to protect the farm.

We could keep going round and round here, but if you are really that dead set on savoring the short term gratification involved in these moves, again...more power to you. Once you start digging those financial holes they tend to start adding up fairly quick though, and the flexibility to take a purely cash approach to making the necessary adjustments naturally decreases. It may not be upon us right now, but that cornered lion scenario isn't as far fetched at this point as you seem to believe it to be imo.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It doesn't necessarily have to be Victorino, although serious bonus points to anybody that did have him. Just show me the pre-existing supporting logic there that was claiming expensive 3 year contracts on middling players like him, coming off down years, as their presented idea of "staying away from long term commitments at big dollars".

Why does it have to be that specific, though? Why does it matter if anyone nailed it that closely? What difference does it make? This reeks of ad hominem, as though a valid argument against your opinion can only come from someone who meets your criteria. Plenty of people saw that the front office was likely to protect the farm and stay away from long term contracts. That no one guessed the exact approach is irrelevant.

I also disagree that they've signed all middling players, but I doubt we'll find any common ground there.

There's no strawman here. However, I am apparently arguing with somebody who absolutely refuses to even entertain the possibility that in the process of handing out expensive and fairly risky bandaid contracts to middling players, you potentially are just left doing more harm then good (and outside the immediate picture being painted) in that pursuit here to protect the farm.

We could keep going round and round here, but if you are really that dead set on savoring the short term gratification involved in these moves, again...more power to you. Once you start digging those financial holes they tend to start adding up fairly quick though, and the flexibility to take a purely cash approach to making the necessary adjustments naturally decreases. It may not be upon us right now, but that cornered lion scenario isn't as far fetched at this point as you seem to believe it to be imo.

I literally acknowledged the risks in the very same post you are responding to, and here you are yet again claiming that I refuse to do so. Seriously... the two sentences you cut out before what you responded to with these paragraphs was me acknowledging the risks. Again. For the... I've lost count of how many times I've done it. You're clearly not arguing with me, so you must be arguing with a strawman. Have fun. I'm done wasting time with someone who insists on making up arguments and trying to pin them on people so he has someone to argue with.

[Savin Hillbilly]

We could keep going round and round here, but if you are really that dead set on savoring the short term gratification involved in these moves, again...more power to you.

By what Escherian logic can you take an approach explicitly geared to building a long-term contender based around players most of whom aren't in the majors yet, and some of whom may not be for another 2-3 years, and accuse those who approve of that approach of "savoring the short term gratification"?

Once you start digging those financial holes they tend to start adding up fairly quick though, and the flexibility to take a purely cash approach to making the necessary adjustments naturally decreases. It may not be upon us right now, but that cornered lion scenario isn't as far fetched at this point as you seem to believe it to be imo.

Both BBref and Cots agree that the Sox' current contract commitments will go down about $28M next winter and another $40M the winter after that. In what universe does that not translate to financial holes disappearing pretty quickly, and flexibility to take a purely cash approach increasing rapidly?

[nvalvo]

It doesn't necessarily have to be Victorino, although serious bonus points to anybody that did have him. Just show me the pre-existing supporting logic there that was claiming expensive 3 year contracts on middling players like him, coming off down years, as their presented idea of "staying away from long term commitments at big dollars".

I would submit that people earlier in this thread were arguing for expensive 2-year deals to Cody Ross or Torii Hunter, or picking up via trade the last two years of Michael Cuddyer's deal. Most people were placing a premium on signing players through 2014, while Ben's cutoff appears to be 2015. That isn't so different, in the scheme of things.

So no, nobody saw Victorino at 3/39, but a lot of people saw Ross at 2/25.