101 replies to this topic

[SoxScout]

It does not sound as if he is going to take a long-term approach toward plowing it back into the on-field product. The team will have to turn to free agency to solve some of its problems. Poor free agent decisions helped lead to this stage of its plight.

Henry said one employee, Bill James, a senior adviser to the team, is going to start playing a more important role in the process.

In explaining why, he also gave a vote of confidence to Cherington.

“No, none of us are satisfied with the vetting process and it’s something we have been discussing this year consistently,” he wrote in part in an email that came as a reply to specific questions. “One of (the) biggest issues we’ve had is that Bill James was a great resource for us but fell out of favor over the last few years for reasons I really don’t understand. We’ve gotten him more involved recently in the central process and that will help greatly.

“He’s the father, so to speak, of baseball analysis and a brilliant iconoclast who looks at things differently from everyone else. But Ben is the right person to make the final decisions for the club.”

“Next year is going to be about one thing: winning the AL East in 2013 and setting the stage for the next few years,” he said. “We used to be satisfied with making the playoffs, but with the addition of a second wild card forcing a one-game playoff, we need to set a goal now annually to win the division.

“Given where we are right now, it’s a tall order to win the division next year. But we have to do everything we can to contend without repeating errors of the past — something we are determined to avoid. We strayed from our core philosophy over the past few years and have paid a terrible price for that.”

Asked about how patient he is and whether he buys into the concept of having to weather one or two of the “bridge years” ex-general manager Theo Epstein used to speak of, Henry answered this way.

“Personally I don’t believe in bridge years, because you cannot accurately predict the performance of minor league players that well,” he said. “That being said, you have to have a strong system. You need strong evaluators. We’ve let too many young prospects go and have also paid a price for that.

“I feel personally responsible for not protecting the farm system over the past few years. I knew better.”

http://www.bostonher...leid=1061157571

This is basically the best Red Sox related story in 365 days.

Edited by SoxScout, 03 September 2012 - 04:36 AM.

[amh03]

That is a good article.

I wonder why James "fell out of favor". Was he recommending players that did poorly? Or did they lose interest in sabermetrics too?

I feel as if they also departed from factoring in the Boston climate when considering who they brought here. I'm not sure they really considered that with Gonzolez or even possibly Crawford. As good as each of them have been in the past, and as much as they could have theoretically added to a team, I really believe they never grew accostomed to the oddness that is Boston.

Anyway, interesting article...will be interesting to see what happens going forward. Thanks for posting about it!

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

I hope some of Henry's riff is about selling seats next season. The damn-the-torpedos-division-title-or-bust stuff, if that's the driving force behind decision-making this off-season, could easily put the team back into the same hole they miraculously dug themselves out of this year.

[someoneanywhere]

If John Henry is in Seatlle, it's not to show support. I'd be stunned if Valentine is on the team charter home.

I think there has been some chatter on the board already about the trimming away of saberanalysts over the past few years. As well, I hope by protecting the farm he means not just holding and developing prospects -- some of whom, incidentally, they will lose if JWH wants to contend in 2013. I hope he means a near massive investment in scouting and evaluation and instruction. Expensive as that is and will be, it is still much cheaper than the FA model they just abandoned.

Let's get this thing turned around, JWH. Start by letting your general manager manage generally.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 03 September 2012 - 08:01 AM.

[Pumpsie]

You had to know that when Theo and Ben signed Carl Crawford to a monster deal that Bill James was nowhere near that decision.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The first part about doing everything they can to win the division in 2013 sounds a lot like saying what people want to hear. What resonates with me, and what I really hope is true, is the talk about not repeating the errors of the past and about focusing on the farm system. The farm is stacked right now. As stacked as it's been in a long time. If they enter the season without shipping any prospects out, it's possible they could be a top five system in some rankings.

Let the farm fill in some spots on the roster over the next year or so. Then look at what the team still needs and address those needs through trades and free agency. The free agent crop this year is pretty thin... especially at positions the Sox might be looking to fill. If they have a protected pick, Edwin Jackson might be worth exploring, but other than that I don't see anyone who is likely to be worth a long term investment. 2014 at least has a few names worth pursuing.

If they're lucky, 2014 will see Bogaerts and Bradley on the field as starters with Barnes breaking into the rotation. That makes fielding a playoff caliber team a lot more likely. They could target guys like Morneau or Shoo, or might even be able to look toward extending Ellsbury if he's not insisting on 6+ years (probably a tall order). 2013 should be about transitioning to 2014 with short term free agent contracts to fill in the gaps and maybe looking to trade for a guy they would target after the 2013 season anyway if the price is right.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 03 September 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[Plympton91]

That is fantastic news; and while I haven't been jumping on the "Larry Lucchino is Satan" bandwagon, all along during the selling of this ownership team in 2002, it was "Larry, the old-time baseball guy" and "John Henry, the innovative hedge fund manager who understands how to use statistics." The announcement that Bill James (and hopefully some newly hired assistants) will have more of a role, may also signify that John Henry is getting re-engaged, which is also a great thing. As Sox Scout said, this is the best Red Sox related story since the trade FOR Adrian Gonzalez.

[absintheofmalaise]

You had to know that when Theo and Ben signed Carl Crawford to a monster deal that Bill James was nowhere near that decision.

During his talk at the Saber Seminar this year, Tom Tippett said that James was against the Crawford signing.

[Van Everyman]

I agree that it also doesn't seem to auger terribly well for Bobby that he's announcing the new long range plan as he's headed out with the GM to meet the team in Seattle. But I read the 2013 stuff as less about spin and more about saying that getting a Wild Card isn't a good enough return on his investment with the new playoff format.

The real question is: do they have the horses to really reset this organization? Or are they simply hoping they can recapture the magic? Are too many of the guys either with Theo in Chicago now or frozen out of the organization altogether? And the biggest question of all: is Ben the guy to do this?

[mabrowndog]

I'll echo the receptive views of others. I also hope JWH becomes a more fervent and omnipresent voice on the state of the team. Leadership comes from the top down, and it's been nonexistent the past 12+ months.

Of course, we'll also have to endure all the talk show idiots, and the fans with sub-70 IQs who call in, as they paint this as another sign that John Henry is "off the rails" and "out of touch" while they once again loudly decry statistical concepts they're unwilling to embrace or incapable of comprehending.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

That is a good article.

I wonder why James "fell out of favor". Was he recommending players that did poorly? Or did they lose interest in sabermetrics too?

Maybe giving $36 million to Julio Lugo had something to do with it.

Also, James just wrote a non-baseball book (on popular crime, it's quite good actually). It's reasonable to think his attention wasn't fully on baseball when he was researching and writing that.

[Buffalo Head]

Seriously, I'd like to know who the behind-the-scenes idiot was that pushed for Lugo back in '07. Hopefully that person doesn't have any input anymore.

[Paul M]

They've gotten away from commanding and protecting the strike-zone and basically the things they did as well as anyone for a long time.

Get back to their knitting and you won't see such terrible road offense. They strayed from pretty basic saber ideals and it doesn't take Bill James to know you don't win without valuing ABs.

[Steve Dillard]

You had to know that when Theo and Ben signed Carl Crawford to a monster deal that Bill James was nowhere near that decision.

http://www.necn.com/...360&feedID=3352

Before the Red Sox gave Carl Crawford a seven-year, $142 million deal, they made sure to do their homework.

The club had special assistant Allard Baird trail Crawford over the second half of the 2010 season, hoping to gain some insight. While Baird was providing more traditional scouting reports, the Sox also had consultant Bill James, the preeminent sabermatrician, provide some detailed statistical analysis.

Recognizing that a long-term deal would be necessary to land Crawford, the Red Sox wanted to know what James could uncover about how well players who base their games on speed age as they get into their mid-30s.

"Nothing is 100%, of course; all groups of players have washouts," James wrote. "Speed players age better, as a group, than any other group of players except what could be called the Adrian Gonzalez/David Ortiz/Ted Williams/Jim Thome group -- the guys who are such tremendous hitters that even when they're not the same, they're plenty good enough.

"If you hit like those guys do, you're not forced out of the game until your speed reaches a very, very low level, like '1' on a 10-point scale. If you don't hit THAT much, like normal human beings don't, then you're forced out of the game when your speed reached '4' or '5'. The question of 'How fast does the player run?' is very closely related to the question of 'How long is his leash?' "

[Rasputin]

In regards to winning the division in 2013, it's not even hard to see how it could happen.

There's a lot to be done between now and then and it sure as shit isn't guaranteed but they now have the payroll flexibility to take on some short term contracts for useful players.

[PedroKsBambino]

They've gotten away from commanding and protecting the strike-zone and basically the things they did as well as anyone for a long time.

Get back to their knitting and you won't see such terrible road offense. They strayed from pretty basic saber ideals and it doesn't take Bill James to know you don't win without valuing ABs.

Agreed; one has to wonder if part of what went wrong in the late-stage Theo era was moving too far from sabermetrics (or at least 'objective analysis') and too far towards scouting or less-exact defensive metrics (perhaps this would fit with the Crawford signing) and assumptions about replacement value (which could explain the Lackey signing to a degree).

Good to move back.

[snowmanny]

Seriously, I'd like to know who the behind-the-scenes idiot was that pushed for Lugo back in '07. Hopefully that person doesn't have any input anymore.

What if that person used similar analytical thinking to be one of the few to advocate, say, Adrian Beltre? Twice?

The thinking that led to the Lugo contract -which ended up as an annoyance - made more sense to me than the still unexplained process that led to the Crawford contract, which was an undisciplined indulgent disaster.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

What if that person used similar analytical thinking to be one of the few to advocate, say, Adrian Beltre? Twice?

The thinking that led to the Lugo contract -which ended up as an annoyance - made more sense to me than the still unexplained process that led to the Crawford contract, which was an undisciplined indulgent disaster.

There was no thinking that justified the Lugo contract. None. It was widely seen as a ridiculous overpay at the time and that proved to be correct in the fullness of time. He brought zero defensive value to the table at a key position and his offense never materialized, and he proved to be injury prone as well. On the heels of spending $40 million on Renteria, to sign Lugo was a colossal miscalculation.

If I owner a baseball team and that's what I got for my $36 million, I'd fire whoever recommended the player to me too. Scouts get fired all the time for stuff like this.

They certainly didn't entirely whiff that offseason: despite the injuries JD Drew was likely worth his contract in the long run.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Agreed; one has to wonder if part of what went wrong in the late-stage Theo era was moving too far from sabermetrics (or at least 'objective analysis') and too far towards scouting or less-exact defensive metrics (perhaps this would fit with the Crawford signing) and assumptions about replacement value (which could explain the Lackey signing to a degree).

Good to move back.

I noted Allard Baird's name prominently featured in the above piece, it's fair to wonder if he gained influence in the FO at the expense of James or other analysts.

James isn't the only well-known analyst who worked for the team: Voros McCracken did as well. I believe Voros left due to needing a higher salary than the Sox would provide (IIRC over at BTF he said he was only getting paid 35K a year or so and it simply wasn't enough for him to live on).

[bob burda]

In regard to Bill James and Crawford: the fact that James was asked to assess Crawford's likely long term value as a speed player (a thing he's talked about since the days of the Abstracts) does not mean he was close to the overall decision or supported it. James remarks from the Abstracts regarding speed players might have required some updating - so they got that. It does not mean that he was consulted on the over all wisdom of the signing, or if he was, that he was "near it" with his support - or that they were even listening to him about the overall issue.

The way I look at this, once the media asks him something about the Crawford signing, then James (who worked for the team) would know enough to say something positive about it, even if his real feeling was "this is a ridiculous overpay, and the best you can say about it is that the already poor value of the contract won't decline that much from year to year, so it could be worse."

Lastly, on the organization's commitment to having players maintain control of the strike zone - there was a pre-game interview with Bobby V where he was asked about the team not walking and he said something like "we just don't have that style of hitter." At the time, and particularly now, this just seems like the wrong answer (and I was surprised not to see it referenced earlier on the board..or maybe it was and I missed it). In contrast to Tito who talked about having a "keep the line moving" mentality on this issue, Bobby V is sitting there while guys like Pedroia and Gonzales are walking a fraction of the amount they have before (Gonzales over 100 once, Pedroia I think as much as 80 times - you could include Sweeney a little there also, and only Papi continued the same). Yes, some new guys like Middlebrooks and Aviles are "not that style," but if you hire a manager who simply accepts some of his players losing their prior control of the strike zone, that's a problem. I know there is evidence they were still seeing a lot of pitches, but you still need to make opposing pitchers pay with added baserunners.

[YTF]

So am I the only one that reads Henry's words and wonders if Larry Luchino's role with the team changes in any way? Are they ready to sink or swim with the decisions that Ben will be making or will he have to look over his shoulder and wait for Uncle Larry's nod of approval. Is the organisation truly saying "In Ben we trust."?

Edited by YTF, 03 September 2012 - 01:31 PM.

[reggiecleveland]

In regards to winning the division in 2013, it's not even hard to see how it could happen.

There's a lot to be done between now and then and it sure as shit isn't guaranteed but they now have the payroll flexibility to take on some short term contracts for useful players.

I would personally feel better if you thought they were screwed.

[dcmissle]

So am I the only one that reads Henry's words and wonders if Larry Luchino's role with the team changes in any way? Are they ready to sink or swim with the decisions that Ben will be making or will he have to look over his shoulder and wait for Uncle Larry's nod of approval. Is the organisation truly saying "In Ben we trust."?

You are not alone if this snippet means anything: "But Ben is the right person to make the final decisions for the club."

I suspect Ben's power short term will never be greater than it is right now in the wake of the miracle.

And if I were Ben, I would push it right now on the issue who manages this team next year. I'd lay down a simple marker -- I get the guy I want, or we part company over philosophical differences. I would not sleep again in this bed made by Larry, or it will likely turn into a coffin.

[Green Monster]

Isnt Henry in a way confirming what Theo referred to as "Feeding the Monster"?.....departure from their core principles (Sabermetrics) in favor of short term media splash.

[Rasputin]

I would personally feel better if you thought they were screwed.

If the Sox don't make some significant acquisitions they are completely and totally fucking screwed.

That good enough for now?

[Rough Carrigan]

In regard to Bill James and Crawford: the fact that James was asked to assess Crawford's likely long term value as a speed player (a thing he's talked about since the days of the Abstracts) does not mean he was close to the overall decision or supported it. James remarks from the Abstracts regarding speed players might have required some updating - so they got that. It does not mean that he was consulted on the over all wisdom of the signing, or if he was, that he was "near it" with his support - or that they were even listening to him about the overall issue.

The way I look at this, once the media asks him something about the Crawford signing, then James (who worked for the team) would know enough to say something positive about it, even if his real feeling was "this is a ridiculous overpay, and the best you can say about it is that the already poor value of the contract won't decline that much from year to year, so it could be worse."

Lastly, on the organization's commitment to having players maintain control of the strike zone - there was a pre-game interview with Bobby V where he was asked about the team not walking and he said something like "we just don't have that style of hitter." At the time, and particularly now, this just seems like the wrong answer (and I was surprised not to see it referenced earlier on the board..or maybe it was and I missed it). In contrast to Tito who talked about having a "keep the line moving" mentality on this issue, Bobby V is sitting there while guys like Pedroia and Gonzales are walking a fraction of the amount they have before (Gonzales over 100 once, Pedroia I think as much as 80 times - you could include Sweeney a little there also, and only Papi continued the same). Yes, some new guys like Middlebrooks and Aviles are "not that style," but if you hire a manager who simply accepts some of his players losing their prior control of the strike zone, that's a problem. I know there is evidence they were still seeing a lot of pitches, but you still need to make opposing pitchers pay with added baserunners.

Amen to this.
Baseball history shows us that managers can affect this. When Joe McCarthy became the Red Sox manager before the 1948 season, he put an emphasis on taking walks. Et Voila! Catcher Birdie Tebbetts started walking more. Second baseman Bobby Doerr started walking more. Shortstop Junior Stephens walked more. Third baseman Johnny Pesky started walking more. Left fielder Ted Williams didn't need to hear this particular message. Centerfielder Dom DiMaggio started walking more.

A manager can have a positive effect even on the same players with presumably the same batting eye. To have your players actually get worse in this respect is not just a caprice of fate. It's a failure on the part of the manager.

I think a contributing factor in the decrease of walk rates is that this team has often been behind early in games. Teams seem to abandon discipline more easily when they're behind 5-1 in the 2nd inning. They should try not to because getting the chain offense going is the best way to score multiple runs. But human nature is what it is and players often feel extra pressure to try to make something happen in those situations. I would guess that this is a significant part of Pedroia's decreased walk rate.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 03 September 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

This is basically the best Red Sox related story in 365 days.

Am I the only person who is worried about this? I mean I grew up on Bill James, and his analysis has inspired a certain amount of awe, but there is a huge difference between trying to point out things that no one else saw - particularly twenty years ago, when no one was thinking sabermetrically - and, you know, actually constructing a roster and what not.

The biggest thing that I worry about is how Bill is going to incorporate traditional scouting assessments into his valuation. While I don't really have anything concrete to base this on, it seems that the Sox really lost something when they started relying on their "state of the art" proprietary metrics.

[Rasputin]

Am I the only person who is worried about this? I mean I grew up on Bill James, and his analysis has inspired a certain amount of awe, but there is a huge difference between trying to point out things that no one else saw - particularly twenty years ago, when no one was thinking sabermetrically - and, you know, actually constructing a roster and what not.

The biggest thing that I worry about is how Bill is going to incorporate traditional scouting assessments into his valuation. While I don't really have anything concrete to base this on, it seems that the Sox really lost something when they started relying on their "state of the art" proprietary metrics.

I wouldn't think James is going to incorporate traditional scouting assessments. I think they're just going to stop ignoring him.

[Rough Carrigan]

Am I the only person who is worried about this? I mean I grew up on Bill James, and his analysis has inspired a certain amount of awe, but there is a huge difference between trying to point out things that no one else saw - particularly twenty years ago, when no one was thinking sabermetrically - and, you know, actually constructing a roster and what not.

The biggest thing that I worry about is how Bill is going to incorporate traditional scouting assessments into his valuation. While I don't really have anything concrete to base this on, it seems that the Sox really lost something when they started relying on their "state of the art" proprietary metrics.

Why do you believe that anything much changed in how baseball ops worked? They were using both scouting and sabremetrics when they built the 2004 and 2007 teams.

[ToeKneeArmAss]

I would personally feel better if you thought they were screwed.

The question isn't whether they can contend next year. The question is whether they can contend without decimating the restocked farm system.

[smastroyin]

The question isn't whether they can contend next year. The question is whether they can contend without decimating the restocked farm system.

I think they can. The issue is to get the underperformers performing. Lester, Ellsbury, Buchholz, Pedroia. Get them to All-star level and that's a solid core. Leave them at current levels and probably you aren't going to contend anyway.

For the record I'm not trying to re-start the whole "true talent level" debate, just saying. There's no point blowing up the farm to add talent if these four aren't going to perform, but you can contend pretty quickly if they do, without adding big megastars. So I just don't see a reason to really get stupid.

(also, I know Buchholz has been better the last couple months and Pedroia has still been a good but not great player this year)

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Why do you believe that anything much changed in how baseball ops worked? They were using both scouting and sabremetrics when they built the 2004 and 2007 teams.

I don't know for sure but it always seemed to me that the Red Sox spent so much time and money developing their "advance" defensivre metrics that they started to rely really heavily on those results. And if the metrics based on play-by-play analysis are the bottom line evaluation tool, seems like traditional scounting observations isn't going to make a great deal of the input into player evaluation.

[yecul]

The question isn't whether they can contend next year. The question is whether they can contend without decimating the restocked farm system.

Gutting the system and throwing out a few mega deals would help the roster. I think you'd have to go all in for 2013 if you want to contend. I don't think you wind up catching the teams ahead or the teams coming up, but at least you could satiate the masses who see 100 win teams anywhere they look.

That seems like a pretty poor approach. The wildcard is whether Henry will write a blank check. Go way above the luxury tax mark. Hand out some massive deals. Be willing to take massive deals on in trade and dump some down the road. If he's up for that, then I think you can make it happen with less pain to the future or the farm system.

Really this all comes back to what you think the team is capable of. There's a distinct crowd that sees this year as a 100 win team that hit some bad luck. They are likely to go for it or think that some small moves or non-harmful ones will get that 100 win team right back on the field. I disagree with those people. "Let's get the band back together" isn't something I think of when I think 2012 Red Sox, but mileage will vary.

[Rasputin]

I think you'd have to go all in for 2013 if you want to contend.

I don't think that's remotely true.

I think it is reasonable to expect Lester and Pedroia to perform closer to their career norms. I think it's reasonable to think Buchholz will be much more like the 3.something ERA pitcher we've seen for much of this season and not the give-up-at-least-five-runs-a-game pitcher we had for his first six starts.

I think it is reasonable to think that Ortiz will be back and performing at a fairly high level.

The big gamble, in my opinion, is Ellsbury. His 2011 self could team with Papi and Pedroia to be a pretty hellacious core of a lineup but it's not reasonable to expect him to be anything like the one best season he has ever had. If you win that gamble, you don't have to bring in any other superstar caliber players.

Even if you stick Iglesias at short you can put together a decent lineup based on Papi, Pedroia, and Ellsbury. Obviously there are positions to be filled but they don't need to be filled with potential MVP candidates. If you assume Middlebrooks hits seventh, Salty eighth, and Iglesias ninth, you need to find two outfielders and a first baseman who between them can hit first, fifth, and sixth, and if we're getting 2011 Ellsbury in the two slot, I'm not going to sweat it too much if the guy hitting fifth is not as good as your prototypical fifth hitter.

You could go into the season with a rotation of Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, and de la Rosa and stand a pretty good chance of it being a positive. Lester and Buchholz at their best are potential Cy Young winners which would mean Lackey and Doubront could be significant assets just by being league average and de la Rosa would just have to not suck.

I'd much rather bring in someone else--Buerhle was mentioned and I like that idea--so you don't have to rely on de la Rosa. I suppose there's a chance you'd end up having to move someone to make room for de la Rosa eventually but...yeah I don't have to finish that sentence, do I?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Really this all comes back to what you think the team is capable of. There's a distinct crowd that sees this year as a 100 win team that hit some bad luck. They are likely to go for it or think that some small moves or non-harmful ones will get that 100 win team right back on the field. I disagree with those people. "Let's get the band back together" isn't something I think of when I think 2012 Red Sox, but mileage will vary.

I have a hard time imagining anyone holding on to the idea that the current roster is set to be a 100 win talent team next year. A big part of the 100 win talent argument rested on having Gonzalez in the offense and Beckett not being toast. Both of those variables are no longer part of the calculus. Add to that the fact that Crawford did not come back and resemble the guy he was in Tampa, the fact that the bullpen is down to Bailey and Tazawa as the only truly reliable looking arms (and the jury is still out on Tazawa), Youk being gone and toast, SS likely being given to Iglesias to start 2013, the fact that Ellsbury has not come back from his injury and proven he can still hit for power (yet) and you have a lot of ground to cover to even get close to where this team appeared to be to some of us back in March.

I think this team can be a contender for a wild card spot in 2013 if a bunch breaks right and they find some solid stop gaps. They could even be one with minimal outside help if some of the young players currently on the periphery can take a step or two forward. But that's the difference between a potential 80 win team and a 90 win team. Not 80 and 100.

[yecul]

1B is something of an issue at the moment. Fixable, but an open question. Catcher performed pretty well this year, so the "this guy should play better" thing does go both ways. Not to mention Ross. Even if he's back does he destroy LHP in a similar fashion? Etc.

The big issue with the 2013 is sunshine take is that it depends on a number of guys performing better, few performing worse, and health being much improved.

How much is Lester expected to return to career norms? 95%? 70%? 50%? How much variation is there? Where's the breaking point between him being a difference maker, him being an asset, and him remaining a disappointment? I expect him to perform better as well, but there are a lot of scenarios that leave him as just another starter rather than a top guy.

Uncertainty. Lots of it. Investing in that environment seems dicey to me. That's why I say you need to go big if you are serious about 100 wins in 2013. Lots and lots of hedging.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Uncertainty. Lots of it. Investing in that environment seems dicey to me. That's why I say you need to go big if you are serious about 100 wins in 2013. Lots and lots of hedging.

I agree there is lot's of uncertainty. This year's team came up short of just about everyone's expectations and was gutted because of it. That gutting resulted in a stacked farm system, though, so I think the smart play is to give it a chance to fill in some holes by the time 2014 starts, then look outside the organization to fill the rest.

I know Henry said he wants to win the division next year, but I really do think it was just paying lip service to the masses. If he really is serious about getting back to the principles that made them a great franchise, then they need to be patient in 2013 and look to be more aggressive in 2014. If you have Bradley, Bogaerts and Barnes breaking camp with the ML club in march of '14, getting to the top of the division suddenly doesn't look quite so long a shot.

Going all in for 2013 would mean dealing out a lot of prospects. If they do that, they could be right back in 2012's mess in 2015 or 2016.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 03 September 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[SoxFanPJ]

Henry's comments are interesting and may provide some insight into the path the Front Office is going to follow.

We get the general "return to core principles" talk, the Red Sox way of doing things, but then we get two specific goals, (1) Contend for AL East title in 2013 and (2) Protect Farm System.

Aiming for the division title instead of the wild card has to be the goal for any team with playoff aspirations, the WC system is just to dependent on random luck. This however means that any team you assemble has to project to be much better than simply good enough to contend for a WC.

Protecting the farm system not only means that you don't trade away players like Rizzo or Kelly very often, but also that you don't sacrifice high draft picks through the compensation system by signing free agents. The new FA/Draft system seems like it will make it more important for teams to not sacrifice draft picks and pay free agent prices for players because of the cost to your draft pool. The better option is to look for lower tier free agents that will not require compensation, or to look for free agents who where players traded during the previous season and who would not net their team compensation.

It strikes me that there are two different kinds of mistakes that the Red Sox have made recently. The first type is the obvious big money free agent contract to players who have already peaked and who may not be good fits personality wise for the market.

The other type of mistake is the Adrian Gonzalez trade. Potentially giving up to much value for too short a period of control. The Red Sox would have been better off looking to get Gonzalez in free agency and keep their three prospects. The new draft system only makes this choice stronger as it will be harder for consistently good teams to replenish their systems quickly.

It also may mean that post-peak veterans who sign shorter lower value free agent deals are a less risky option. Now this doesn't mean dumpster diving, but players like Beltran last off-season or like Torii Hunter this off-season.

It also means I think you need to re-invest in players like Ross who can perform in Boston, even if you end up paying a 5-10% over value deal to keep them.

I the plan of attack for the off-season should be something like this:

• Fire Bobby V and close quickly on a new Manager
• Plow money into Baseball Information Services. Hire more sabermetricians
• Plow money into scouting. Increase scouting staff, but also create a Red Sox Scouting University. Develop a training and development plan to recruit and train new scouts.
• Hit trade/free agent market. Look to unload redundant arbitration eligible relievers, re-sign Ortiz/Ross, and make trades for any young/expensive players that come up to augment core.

I don't think simply a resurgence of Bill James influence is the cure all, I think given the limitations of International free agent and draft spending, that a lot more money needs to be re-allocated to both sabermetrics and scouting to try to get more bang for your buck in IFA and the draft.

[Rudy Pemberton]

If you have Bradley, Bogaerts and Barnes breaking camp with the ML club in march of '14, getting to the top of the division suddenly doesn't look quite so long a shot.

That assumes they play like Ellsbury, Hanley Ramirez, and Lester; for example. There are lots of teams that have prospects as good as those guys who just don't make it. Not that I would trade those guys or not give them a chance, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if they are complementary players to start, and not expected to immediately be the core of a really good team.

[mikeford]

They certainly didn't entirely whiff that offseason: despite the injuries JD Drew was likely worth his contract in the long run.

The contract paid for itself after his grand slam against the Indians.



As far as winning the division in 2013... we'd probably need to find some starting pitching somewhere and probably a pitching coach who didn't get fired by the Kansas Royals and probably a manager who's claim to fame came from his days in Japan. Hard to see it, IMO. Still, a step in the right direction is promising.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

That assumes they play like Ellsbury, Hanley Ramirez, and Lester; for example. There are lots of teams that have prospects as good as those guys who just don't make it. Not that I would trade those guys or not give them a chance, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if they are complementary players to start, and not expected to immediately be the core of a really good team.

I didn't suggest they would perform like Ellsbury, Hanley and Lester, and I didn't suggest they would be the core of the team. I said break camp with the major league roster. The core of the team in 2014 would still be Pedroia, Middlebrooks, Buchholz, Lester, Bailey and hopefully Papi and maybe even Ross, Salty and/or Lavarnway. If Bogaerts, Bradley and Barnes are on the major league roster to start 2014, they will most assuredly be complimentary players that year. The team would transition to a core built on those three a few years down the road, but contending for a 2014 division title does not require them to be all stars out of the gate.

[Rasputin]

Uncertainty. Lots of it. Investing in that environment seems dicey to me. That's why I say you need to go big if you are serious about 100 wins in 2013. Lots and lots of hedging.

Aiming for 100 wins is not something any remotely competent franchise should ever do. You get 100 wins by putting together 95 win team and getting a little lucky.

Unless this team does some very unexpected things, the Ellsbury gamble alone is too big to make this a 95 win team that can get a little lucky.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I guess it's just a unique situation where most of the core of the organization, going forward, is in the minors, and thus their performance is pretty variable.

Right now; the players the Sox have under contract or have rights to, for next year:

SP: Lester, Lackey, Buchholz, Doubront
RP: Bailey (arb), Bard (arb), Breslow (arb), Aceves (arb), Miller (arb), Morales (arb), Hill (arb), Mortensen, Tazawa (arb)
IF: Pedroia, Iglesis, Middlebrooks, Aviles (arb), Ciriaco
OF: Ellsbury (arb), Sweeney (arb), Kalish, Nava
C: Salty (arb), Lavarnway

Go to arb with all those guys and you'd still be looking at a payroll ~80MM, so you've got at least 40MM to spend to get back to 09 levels, and 95MM to get up to 12 levels.

Lot of cash, but man, there isn't a lot of talent on next year's roster.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 03 September 2012 - 08:35 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Lot of cash, but man, there isn't a lot of talent on next year's roster.

There's not much on the free agent market, either. At least, not in areas the Sox have needs. So spending a lot of money this off season seems like a bad idea, which is why I'm advocating patience. The one name that pops out as maybe being worth investing in is Edwin Jackson.

The hope is that Bogaerts and Bradley play well enough in the minors next year to crack the roster by September and that Barnes is ready for a shot in the rotation by the start of 2014. If you're lucky enough for all that to pan out, you look to spend the money saved this season with the Punto trade to start filling in the remaining areas of need next off season, not this one. First base will still probably be a hole that needs filling at that point. They will likely need a starter or two. The bullpen is always in need of revamping. They'll need at least one outfielder, maybe two.

Maybe you look to extend Ellsbury if he has a monster 2013 and Boras can be talked down to 5 years. But if not, you need to trade for or sign an outfielder to compliment Bradley and whomever shakes out of the Kalish/Brentz/Linares/Sands group. If they all bust, you need to address two outfield spots and at this point a lot of money is likely being spent.

So I'm really hoping Henry is dedicated to protecting the farm and not over extending their financial resources for some big names. If he is, 2013 is going to be a lot of fun to make guesses about, because they could be an awful team again, or they could sneak into the playoffs. A lot could go right or wrong and the margin for error in those guesses is going to be huge.

[Rudy Pemberton]

What are reasonable expectations of next year's payroll, and how do they get there? Any quick fixes, acquiring other team's high priced players they no longer want, will require assuming undesirable contracts (which is the mess they just got out of), and moving prospects. At this point, they'll have to overpay what FA's they want due to the present situation. If they don't add significant payroll and keep ticket prices high, they'll be killed by the media and fans (and likely be a lousy team, too). I don't know, the situation is pretty fascinating and they've got tons of flexibility, but next year looks like it could be just as ugly as this; with very little homegrown talent ready to step in, especially where it's most needed, on the mound. Guess it gives us something to talk about this off-season.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It's definitely going to be an interesting off season, but I don't think the team is as devoid of farm hands ready to step in for 2013 as you suggest. The rotation next year should be Lester, Buchholz, Lackey and a combination of Doubront, Moralez and De La Rosa. If they sign Edwin Jackson, that's a pretty strong rotation. If they don't, it's still decent and could even see Webster get a shot later in the year. The bullpen will be Bailey, Tazawa, Miller, Aceves, Hill, Bard and a bunch of fungible guys. So the pitching looks decent to good depending on what they end up doing.

The offense will have Middlebrooks (3B), Pedroia (2B), Salty ©, Lavarnway (1b/C) and Ellsbury (CF) definitely coming back. Give Ortiz (DH) 2 years, offer Ross (LF) 2 or 3 and you have the makings of a solid but not dominant lineup. Then you hope Kalish (RF) takes a step forward or that Brentz is ready for a shot later in the year if Kalish doesn't, Iglesias' (SS) glove is good enough to offset his bat and that you can fill in the bench with high minors talent and free agent signings (Sands, De Jesus, Aviles, Ciriaco, Gomez and/or free agents). Hell, maybe even take a flier on Loney for a year or see if you can pry Morneau away on the cheap a year before he hits free agency.

That team could certainly play like shit and win 80 or less games, but it could also play well and snag a wild card spot. I think you take that chance. And I think bringing Ortiz back and signing a pitcher like Jackson is enough to convince the fan base that they're really trying to win the division.

There are ways to field a competitive team in 2013 without raiding the farm or taking on a ton of bad contracts. There's risk in every approach, so what I outlined above could certainly fail to produce a playoff team. But long term, hedging your bets in 2013 makes the most sense, IMO.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 03 September 2012 - 09:16 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The FA market looks pretty strong in terms of pitchers, and I think it's a mistake to bring back most of the same rotation or expect to break in De la rosa there. I'd focus on "pillow contracts" (ideally 1 yr deal with options) for guys like Haren, Marcum, McCarthy, Floyd, A.Sanchez who may have something to prove; and invest in the pen with arms like Balfour, Soriano, Rodney, Broxton, Putz potentially available (and break in DLR there). They'll probably have to trade for 1B / OF help (as discussed). Any intriguing int'l options likely this year?

(getting back to Bill James, can he help the team identify useful players that can help? Obviously you don't want to pay for Fernando Rodney, you want to find the next version of him. The Rays seem to be great at finding these kinds of players. How do they do it?)

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 03 September 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm pretty sure the days of signings like Cespedes and Chapman are over, as there is now a pool of money teams cannot exceed with international signings. That doesn't mean there won't be talent from Cuba willing to come over anymore, but it could lead to younger players defecting, who won't be major league ready right away, in the hope that they can get to their first free agent contract in their 20's. As for the rest of the international pool, that probably won't change much as most of those players are really young when signed anyway.

The Japanese system is unchanged, but there aren't any big names that could be posted for 2013 that I'm aware of.

I agree they should explore short term contracts where they feel they need more depth. And I'm not at all opposed to 1 and 2 year deals for guys like you list above. I was just pointing out that there is the potential for a competitive major league team in 2013 mostly within the organization right now. If they can land a Haren type with a couple of the bullpen arms you named, it would only strengthen the club. I just don't want to see long term contracts for guys like those.

And as I suggested earlier, I'd like to see them explore the possibility of acquiring Edwin Jackson. 4 years at 12-13 per might be able to get it done. They can hedge their bets in 2013 without simply standing pat, but they have a pretty solid base to build from.

[Vermonter At Large]

Am I the only one who was a little bit disappointed while reading that James quote regarding, "speed players aging better ...?" In my view, that sort of generalization is representative of some of the problems with the current Sox iteration - too much focus on individual player skill evaluation with no regard for the role of that player in the overall team run-scoring dynamic. Speed players may (or may not) age well, but Crawford's (overinflated) value was very much linked to his power which is both what separates him from the "speed player" paradigm and which makes his correlation to that factoid by James a bit tenuous.

I also think that someone majorly screwed the proverbial pooch on the Gonzo signing, again really misanalyzing his ability to provide long ball power in Fenway. What I think Gonzo turned out to be was/is a very Boggs-like exploitation hitter whose approach to hitting is so adaptable as to nearly transcend the notion of situational hitting (I know this is a complex thought, but what I mean is that their success was very much bore-sighted on the individual confrontation with the pitcher resulting in almost an anti-clutchiness in a strange way).

At any rate, the Sox somehow ended up with an exceptionally left-handed lineup in a right-handed ballpark and found themselves unable to win at home. No rocket science is required to analyze the myopia that led to that ...

[geoduck no quahog]

The speed thing makes a lot of sense to me in the post-steroid/post-amphetamine era. You can't teach speed, so an athlete that comes pre-equipped with that type of body AND can hit a major league pitch is probably a better long-term bet than the average post-PED ball player who can maintain hand-eye coordination but whose body begins to slow down no matter what he does.

I'm not saying it's an excessively dramatic distinction, and there are guys like Dunn, Ortiz, Pujols (and many, many others) that prove otherwise - but on an overall and large sample size, I can understand how speed translates into a safer long term bet - all other things being generally equal.

(There will always be exceptions to any rule. Crawford's injuries fall into the "shit-happens" category...Ellsbury's injuries were freak. I'm sure there are many fast guys who also succomb to age-related injuries)