283 replies to this topic

[Savin Hillbilly]

Jackson strikes me as a boring, low upside option. Odds are he can give you 200 innings at a 4.50 ERA, and be a guy you won't want starting a playoff game if you make it that far.

How many playoff teams in the last 3-4 years have been able to get through a series while starting only pitchers you'd rather have than Jackson, I wonder? I bet it's a very short list.

Obviously value there, especially on a 1-2 year deal, but e strikes me as back end guy more than anything. There has to be a reason why he's been on every team in the league.

A good part of the reason is that he's been involved in deadline deals two out of the last three years, in both cases as the key piece for the "buying" team. He rewarded both transactions with solid performance down the stretch, and one of the two teams made the playoffs (and won the WS).

[YTF]

Jackson strikes me as a boring, low upside option. Odds are he can give you 200 innings at a 4.50 ERA, and be a guy you won't want starting a playoff game if you make it that far. Obviously value there, especially on a 1-2 year deal, but e strikes me as back end guy more than anything. There has to be a reason why he's been on every team in the league.

Sure he's gonna be a back end guy, don't 'ya need those? Especially given what the back end of the Sox rotation has looked like the past few seasons? The best rotations in baseball are usually solid 1-5. I've no prob with boring or a #4 or #5 guy who will start 31-33 games per at 180-200 innings. As for the ERA, not terrible the past 5 seasons....... 2012 WSH 4.03, 2011 CWS/STL 3.79, 2010 CWS/ARZ 4.47, 2009 DET 3.62, 2008 TB 4.42 I'm not advocating he get rewarded like an ace or #2 guy, though the market may have a say in that.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Well, if Jackson is the team's #3, I don't expect them to go anywhere, so I wouldn't bother. He's a solid 4-5 on a good staff, but I think the Sox need to aim higher at this point. I question Jackson's ability to get through deep AL lineups. Although I'd take him over Dempster.

[YTF]

Part of the point I was trying to make in my original post is that IF 2013 Lester/Lackey/Buchholz is substantially greater than 2012 Lester/Beckett/Buchholz, then adding Jackson and Floyd at the back end of the rotation vs Doubrant/Morales/Matsuzaka/Aceves/Millar/Cook/ etc.......... may not be a bad way to go. Now the first part of this equation is unknown, but that's the case going into any season.

[nvalvo]

Well, if Jackson is the team's #3, I don't expect them to go anywhere, so I wouldn't bother. He's a solid 4-5 on a good staff, but I think the Sox need to aim higher at this point. I question Jackson's ability to get through deep AL lineups. Although I'd take him over Dempster.

What about signing him to be the team's number 3 starter, not going anywhere, and dealing him to a contender at the deadline as one of our high-minors SP prospects comes up? He's gotten solid returns over the years.

Basically, I'm thinking of this as a way of turning cash into prospects.

edit: added link.

Edited by nvalvo, 09 December 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Sure he's gonna be a back end guy, don't 'ya need those?

You do, but I think "back end guy" is a little unfair to Jackson. Out of 166 qualifying pitchers over the past four years, Jackson ranks 71st in ERA, 60th in FIP and 56th in xFIP. That places him right astride the border between the 2nd and 3rd quintiles. In other words, he's a #2 for bad team, and a #3 for a good team. If he's your #4, you have either a seriously kickass staff, or at least a nice deep one. And he's #13 out of those 166 in fWAR, which testifies to his durability and reliability.

I don't disagree that we'd rather add an elite pitcher than a guy like Jackson, but if that's not an option, it's still worth adding Jackson.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Fair enough, I'll buy that...and I really like the idea of adding Floyd and Jackson, which gives the Sox a pretty deep rotation. Replacing the Cook / Matsuzaka innings with those two would likely be worth a lot, and that still leaves enough room for Swisher (or even Hamilton) then suddenly I think you've got a potential contender.

[MikeM]

I don't disagree that we'd rather add an elite pitcher than a guy like Jackson, but if that's not an option, it's still worth adding Jackson.

I don't necessarily disagree either that as the best of the mid-level bunch (imo), Jackson isn't at least worth the look. But it still potentially boils down there to the same general problem i had with the Victorino signing.

Whether it's this winter, this upcoming mid-season, next winter, ecttt, we already know that we both ideally want a better option, and are willing to spend or take on a contract like Cliff Lee to make that better option happen. In this particular instance, it's also not like we are talking about bringing in Jackson to be some final piece of a legitimate 90 win team puzzle, or don't already have various potential mid/low level options to cycle through in house.

For all this emerging talk about money not mattering in the "3 year short term", handing out substantially sized bandaid contracts is not answer here imo. Go big, go potential bargain/situational value, or go home. Last winter was the time to go that second route on Jackson, and if something similar to that can be done again (2 years tops), great. My money is currently on Boras not coming up completely empty there on the multi-year front a second winter in a row though.

[MHead81]

My money is currently on Boras not coming up completely empty there on the multi-year front a second winter in a row though.

My money is, given that Jackson fired Boras and jumped to Legacy this past summer.

[MikeM]

I wasn't aware of that .

Regardless, it wasn't really the Boras factor i was shooting at there. Jackson already did the 1 year/hope to establish a better contract for himself thing last winter. Barring some headstrong mindset in play where he's simply willing to bet on himself being capable of bigger and better things, i believe this go round he more or less settles, with a 3-4 year contract being out there for him.

[YTF]

You do, but I think "back end guy" is a little unfair to Jackson. Out of 166 qualifying pitchers over the past four years, Jackson ranks 71st in ERA, 60th in FIP and 56th in xFIP. That places him right astride the border between the 2nd and 3rd quintiles. In other words, he's a #2 for bad team, and a #3 for a good team. If he's your #4, you have either a seriously kickass staff, or at least a nice deep one. And he's #13 out of those 166 in fWAR, which testifies to his durability and reliability.

I don't disagree that we'd rather add an elite pitcher than a guy like Jackson, but if that's not an option, it's still worth adding Jackson.

Agreed, this is what I'm saying and have been all about his durability and reliabilty. Honestly I'm not one of those guys that get too bent on where guys slot in the rotation numberwise. It doesn't always work out that aces faces aces, #2 guys face # 2 guys and so on. Just as a point of reference in my response to Rudy's post I call him a back end guy because that is how rudy sees him and because likely Lester, Buchholz and Lackey would be slotted 1-3. It would be great to have guys like Floyd and Jackson as your "back end" when they match up vs the other teams "back end" guys and guys like that allow you a better chance vs the other team #1 or #2 starters than say a Cook, Miller or Matsuzaka if they happen to match up

[maufman]

Any updated guesses on what Sanchez and Jackson are going to get, now that Greinke and McCarthy have defined the market above and below them?

Maybe the Sox feel they need someone less risky than McCarthy to fill out their rotation (there's presumably some risk that McCarthy will have lingering issues from that liner to the head), but the 2/16 deal he signed with the D-Backs looks like the steal of the winter so far.

[Rasputin]

I don't necessarily disagree either that as the best of the mid-level bunch (imo), Jackson isn't at least worth the look. But it still potentially boils down there to the same general problem i had with the Victorino signing.

Whether it's this winter, this upcoming mid-season, next winter, ecttt, we already know that we both ideally want a better option, and are willing to spend or take on a contract like Cliff Lee to make that better option happen. In this particular instance, it's also not like we are talking about bringing in Jackson to be some final piece of a legitimate 90 win team puzzle, or don't already have various potential mid/low level options to cycle through in house.

For all this emerging talk about money not mattering in the "3 year short term", handing out substantially sized bandaid contracts is not answer here imo. Go big, go potential bargain/situational value, or go home. Last winter was the time to go that second route on Jackson, and if something similar to that can be done again (2 years tops), great. My money is currently on Boras not coming up completely empty there on the multi-year front a second winter in a row though.

Going big or going home would be a horrible strategy leading to either long term commitments to expensive players who probably aren't worth it, or a dearth of talent.

Aiming to be a middling team sucks as a long term goal but as a short term goal it has a lot going for it. Middling teams make the playoffs every single year. Now that there are two wild cards, it's even more likely. The Orioles and the Rangers won 93 games and the wild card spots last year. If the Sox add Jackson or Floyd or both, there's no reason why the Sox can't win the wild card. Maybe they won't. Maybe they've got less than a 10% chance to win it, but winning it has value and pissing away a chance to win it because you want to go big or go home is just silly.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Any updated guesses on what Sanchez and Jackson are going to get, now that Greinke and McCarthy have defined the market above and below them?

The gap between those two deals is so huge that it's really hard to figure where to place the other two between them. I mean, if you give Sanchez 4/65, say, it seems wrong in both directions. He's not that much better than McCarthy, but he's not that much worse than Greinke, either.

[Edelpeddle]

Any updated guesses on what Sanchez and Jackson are going to get, now that Greinke and McCarthy have defined the market above and below them?

Maybe the Sox feel they need someone less risky than McCarthy to fill out their rotation (there's presumably some risk that McCarthy will have lingering issues from that liner to the head), but the 2/16 deal he signed with the D-Backs looks like the steal of the winter so far.

I wouldn't consider the McCarthy deal a steal considering he's pitched more than 111 innings once in his seven year career. He was also a league average pitcher before going to Oakland where he's enjoyed a 2.74 ERA pitching at home over the last two seasons.

[knucklecup]

I see "Mark Buehrle money" as an example of what Jackson and Sanchez could get.

I don't think they're worth 4/$60 but I would give one of them - I'd prefer Jackson - 3/$39 and be okay with it.

[RedOctober3829]

I'd take Sanchez at 4/$60 but I think he'll go higher than that.

[Edelpeddle]

I see "Mark Buehrle money" as an example of what Jackson and Sanchez could get.

I don't think they're worth 4/$60 but I would give one of them - I'd prefer Jackson - 3/$39 and be okay with it.

You're prefer Jackson at the same money? Over the last two seasons, Sanchez has pitched more innings, struck out more batters, walked less batters and had a better ERA, FIP, xFIP, SIERA and WAR.

[knucklecup]

5/$75 then?

I understand this is an inflated market but that seems excessive to me.

[knucklecup]

You're prefer Jackson at the same money? Over the last two seasons, Sanchez has pitched more innings, struck out more batters, walked less batters and had a better ERA, FIP, xFIP, SIERA and WAR.

I think Jackson will go for for less and I don't think he's any worse. I like that he's had a full season in the AL.

Considering the contracts these two players will receive, I would prefer Jackson to Sanchez.

[Sprowl]

I didn't like the notion of the Red Sox pursuing Edwin Jackson last year because his fastball is just too hittable -- plenty of velocity, but zero deception. He is better suited to be the mainstay of the rotation of a second-division team.

Which means he's perfect for the 2013 Red Sox.

[Wingack]

Why is Shaun Marcum totally being ignored? He could be signed for not nearly as much as Anibal Sanchez and arguably be the Red Sox best starter.

[mfried]

Why is Shaun Marcum totally being ignored? He could be signed for not nearly as much as Anibal Sanchez and arguably be the Red Sox best starter.

If he stays healthy Marcum is a consistent innings-eater with ordinary stuff and good command. I rank him well behind Lester and Buchholz - basically a very decent no. 4.

[Wingack]

If he stays healthy Marcum is a consistent innings-eater with ordinary stuff and good command. I rank him well behind Lester and Buchholz - basically a very decent no. 4.

Shaun Marcum Career ERA+: 112
Anibal Sanchez Career ERA+: 110
Clay Buchholz Career ERA+: 113
Jon Lester Career ERA+: 119

It is all pretty close. I just think Marcum is a good value and seems to be being overlooked by a lot of clubs.

[YTF]

Shaun Marcum Career ERA+: 112
Anibal Sanchez Career ERA+: 110
Clay Buchholz Career ERA+: 113
Jon Lester Career ERA+: 119

It is all pretty close. I just think Marcum is a good value and seems to be being overlooked by a lot of clubs.

Could be a good value now, but I'm guessing he may wait to see what Sanchez signs for and maybe to a lesser extent Jackson as well. IF the Sox have any interest they may want to see if they can do a deal before the others sign.

[maufman]

I didn't like the notion of the Red Sox pursuing Edwin Jackson last year because his fastball is just too hittable -- plenty of velocity, but zero deception. He is better suited to be the mainstay of the rotation of a second-division team.

Which means he's perfect for the 2013 Red Sox.

According to Fangraphs, only Cole Hamels had a higher SwStrk% than Edwin Jackson in 2012. Jackson's SwStrk% has been higher than Sanchez's in three of the past four seasons (the exception being Sanchez's anomalous 2011 season, where he K'd a batter an inning). I would be interested why you think Jackson's stuff isn't going to trick hitters, because the numbers suggest otherwise.

I mean, I'm not in love with Jackson, and he's not quite as good as Sanchez, but I would strongly prefer Jackson at 4/55 to Sanchez at 6/90.

Agree with Wingack that Marcum might be the best deal of the three. In his rant about the Myers trade, Rany Jazayerli suggested that Marcum could be had for about the same 2/22 that the Royals are going to pay James Shields. Marcum's numbers are trending the wrong way, so there's a good reason he's cheaper than Sanchez and Jackson, but with a deeper class of free agent SPs likely to hit the market a year from now, there's something to be said for patching the hole in the rotation with a short-term commitment -- especially if it's unlikely to cost you more than a game or two in 2013.

[MartyBarrettMVP]

From Rosenthal:

https://twitter.com/...917624140808192

Source: #RedSox, Dempster in serious discussions. No deal yet; still possible he could sign elsewhere.

Edit: Broken out

Edited by MartyBarrettMVP, 12 December 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[mabrowndog]

The radio silence on EJax is over. And if accurate, now we know why the Sox weren't players:

@Ken_Rosenthal
Rival execs with two different teams have mentioned in recent days that the #Padres are strongly pursuing free-agent RHP Edwin Jackson…

@Ken_Rosenthal
However, the market for Jackson is strong, sources say. #Padres may bow out if he gets 4-5 years and $12M-$13M per season.

And per Rotoworld:

The Rangers, Brewers, Angels and Indians are also known to have interest in Jackson, though Texas and Milwaukee prefer him on a short-term deal.

Edited by mabrowndog, 14 December 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[Hairps]

Just a chart of caution on Marcum, as he's come up a few times now (including in my own brain) as a potential good value signing:



http://www.fangraphs...tion=P&pitch=FA

Now, I have no way of knowing whether or not he will present a good value, or if teams are overlooking him, as I have no information as to what is being bid or asked for him, compared to the other FA pitching options. My intuitive sense of things, though, is that whenever he does sign, his contract will reflect the market's pricing in the risk/reward of a guy with historically good peripherals, who is coming off of two seasons in the NL where he most recently missed more than two months with an elbow injury, and after returning from said injury, experienced a noticeable drop in velocity.

EDIT: Added direct link to fangraphs' Marcum velocity chart.

Edited by Hairps, 14 December 2012 - 10:07 AM.

[mabrowndog]

Time to change the thread title...

ESPN @ESPNHeadlines
RHP Anibal Sanchez returning to Tigers with 5-year $80M deal es.pn/VFhAnL

Edited by mabrowndog, 14 December 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[bosockboy]

Long term I wonder if the Sox monitor the Adam Wainwright situation and go heavy on him next winter if the Cards can't extend him.....

[Edelpeddle]

Time to change the thread title...

ESPN @ESPNHeadlines
RHP Anibal Sanchez returning to Tigers with 5-year $80M deal es.pn/VFhAnL

If this happened to Cherington, fans would be all over him as it being a sign of his ineptitude. But Golden Boy gets a pass.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If this happened to Cherington, fans would be all over him as it being a sign of his ineptitude. But Golden Boy gets a pass.

What exactly is "Golden Boy" supposed to have done? Unbeknownst to anyone, Sanchez gave the Tigers the opportunity to match the best offer and they did so. Theo got played, but what could he have done differently? Strikes me as the Teixeira thing all over again. He could have topped the Tigers, but to what end? Paying an extra $10-15-20M above the initial offer? Personally, I'd cut Cherington or anyone else the same slack in that situation.

[Edelpeddle]

What exactly is "Golden Boy" supposed to have done? Unbeknownst to anyone, Sanchez gave the Tigers the opportunity to match the best offer and they did so. Theo got played, but what could he have done differently? Strikes me as the Teixeira thing all over again. He could have topped the Tigers, but to what end? Paying an extra $10-15-20M above the initial offer? Personally, I'd cut Cherington or anyone else the same slack in that situation.

That's my point. Every time a GM doesn't make a move, it doesn't mean they're somehow inept as much of the Boston fanbase seems to think about Cherington. I hear complaining every time we sign a player who isn't Hamilton or Greinke or another team makes a trade that Cherington wasn't somehow involved in.