Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Red Sox, David Ortiz Reach 2 Year Deal for $26 Million


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
152 replies to this topic

#1 bloodysox

  • 2642 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:41 PM

Just got a text from ESPN saying that a source told Gordon Edes that the Red Sox are near a 2 year extension with David Ortiz. Financial terms unknown.

Full text "ESPN SC MLB - Red Sox finalizing terms on 2-year deal with DH David Ortiz, source told ESPNBoston.com's Gordon Edes"

Edited by absintheofmalaise, 02 November 2012 - 07:35 PM.


#2 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:58 PM

Ortiz is believed to be seeking a total of $25 million. The Red Sox are in that neighborhood, but hope to sign him for a few million less, according to the source, who noted the monetary negotiations are not expected to get in the way of the deal's completion.
The Red Sox hope to announce the extension as soon as Friday, the first off day of the World Series. The league frowns upon teams announcing news on days of World Series games.
Ortiz's agent, Fern Cuza, spoke with the Red Sox on Monday, the source said, and representatives for the team -- including Ben Cherington and newly hired manager John Farrell  talked with Ortiz on Tuesday at Fenway Park.

http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8542106/david-ortiz-finalizing-deal-boston-red-sox-according-baseball-source

#3 Marbleheader


  • SoSH Member


  • 7087 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:21 PM

And good first step. As long as it's around 2/25 as reported. It's a bit of a problem move, but a happy Ortiz is important to the organization.

#4 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37830 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:29 PM

While I'm sure we all appreciate the FO being financially prudent, having this "hoping to sign him for a few million less" crap leaked to the press is unsettling. I mean, they already know how emotional and prideful Papi is. Why put a comment like that out there? If a source is feeling compelled to divulge that as background info, at least make it an off-the-record snippet.

What possible good can come of it? At worst, they come off as penny-pinching cheapskates while unnecessarily riling up a guy they want and need to take a positive vocal leadership role, not to mention produce offensively right out of the gate. I have no idea what the "at best" would be.

Edited by mabrowndog, 23 October 2012 - 01:30 PM.


#5 cornwalls@6

  • 205 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:43 PM

If they are truly in a multi-year re-building phase, which many us here think they are, I'm not sure what the logic is in greatly over-paying for him at this point. Why is his contentment/leadership role that important if he is likely not going to be here when the ballclub comes to fruition again? I can't imagine any scenario where the market would come close to offering him 2/25 million. More likely a one year deal, and if 2, maybe for half that total amount. If they're really committed to youth and high up-side/value external additions to the roster, this makes no sense.

#6 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9627 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

I can't imagine any scenario where the market would come close to offering him 2/25 million. More likely a one year deal, and if 2, maybe for half that total amount. If they're really committed to youth and high up-side/value external additions to the roster, this makes no sense.

While this is probably true, they probably figure that taking a hard stance with Ortiz would have horrible PR ramifications and throwing him a few extra million dollars to avoid that shitstorm is worth it. Getting a competent manager and fan favorite slugger locked up before November is a step in the right direction.

#7 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2738 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:50 PM

If they are truly in a multi-year re-building phase, which many us here think they are, I'm not sure what the logic is in greatly over-paying for him at this point. Why is his contentment/leadership role that important if he is likely not going to be here when the ballclub comes to fruition again? I can't imagine any scenario where the market would come close to offering him 2/25 million. More likely a one year deal, and if 2, maybe for half that total amount. If they're really committed to youth and high up-side/value external additions to the roster, this makes no sense.


I'm not sure I agree with this. He's clearly the best DH on the market, and I don't see a free agent next year that's a better DH either. All it takes is for one team to decide they want to upgrade at DH and we're in a bidding war and risk losing our best option to fill a hole. I don't see any option that's a free agent that would be better. While some might disagree, I think the main goal of the organization is to put the best team on the field they can in 2013. Long term interests need to be kept in mind, but Ortiz on a two year deal isn't that big of a risk.

Edited by gammoseditor, 23 October 2012 - 01:50 PM.


#8 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37830 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:52 PM

While this is probably true, they probably figure that taking a hard stance with Ortiz would have horrible PR ramifications and throwing him a few extra million dollars to avoid that shitstorm is worth it. Getting a competent manager and fan favorite slugger locked up before November is a step in the right direction.


Exactly. Which is why that "hoping to pay him a few million less than he wants" stuff is so mind-boggling.

#9 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4983 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:59 PM

If they are truly in a multi-year re-building phase, which many us here think they are, I'm not sure what the logic is in greatly over-paying for him at this point. Why is his contentment/leadership role that important if he is likely not going to be here when the ballclub comes to fruition again? I can't imagine any scenario where the market would come close to offering him 2/25 million. More likely a one year deal, and if 2, maybe for half that total amount. If they're really committed to youth and high up-side/value external additions to the roster, this makes no sense.

I'm not sure how an overpay to Ortiz is detrimental to any possible rebuilding at this point. He's not going to be blocking a young player who is going to give them similar or better value for less. And it's not as though this rebuilding phase requires them to strip the payroll down to nothing. They've still got the capabilities to push the payroll right up to the luxury tax threshold if they want. If there is a youth movement, payroll is even less of a concern for this team.

This isn't a case of locking up a building block. No matter what they pay him, he's likely going to gone when whatever youth movement they undergo comes to fruition. I see no long term harm in keeping him around for the short-term at a higher than market rate deal.

#10 cornwalls@6

  • 205 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:00 PM

Exactly. Which is why that "hoping to pay him a few million less than he wants" stuff is so mind-boggling.


Oh, I agree with this completely. If they're going to multi-year extend, and I don't think they should, then they need to just do it quickly, and with no bullshit. Leaking an attempt to low-ball him is just a public kick in the pills to Ortiz, and will likely start yet another mini-drama/shit-storm. Which the last thing friggn' thing this club, or it's fans, need at this point.

#11 Paradigm


  • juju all over his tits


  • 5899 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:06 PM

This is an excellent move, and a great use of money. Ortiz anchors the lineup and provides invaluable clubhouse leadership. This isn't a "reward" contract, it's a fair-value contract for expected performance. And if Boston is unexpectedly competitive in 2013, or competitive in 2014, I think he'll be a big reason why.

#12 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4734 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:09 PM

Exactly. Which is why that "hoping to pay him a few million less than he wants" stuff is so mind-boggling.


Given how the last few negotiations have gone, it would make sense that Ben is negotiating to assure that it's the last time they have to deal with fighting Ortiz in an off-season. If it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see an end result of something like 2/22 with risers and a mutual/vesting 1/12 option. That more or less assures Papi retires a Sox and isn't "disrespected", but the Sox also get their "savings".

#13 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16065 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:11 PM

About Ortiz, it's a formality that he will sign a two year deal worth 22-26 million dollars. The two sides still talking.


Dan Roche
https://twitter.com/RochieWBZ/status/260820275782885378
link to tweet
link to tweet

#14 bloodysox

  • 2642 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:16 PM

Dan Roche

https://twitter.com/RochieWBZ/status/260820275782885378
link to tweet
link to tweet

Either way I'm thrilled.

Worst case scenario, we give him a 2 year, 26 million dollar deal. We don't have to sign him for a long contract and we pay him a very reasonable salary, without breaking the bank.

#15 JimD

  • 4593 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:21 PM

Ortiz appears to be happy and is saying all the right things this fall. Whatever numbers they are haggling over haven't upset him, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the team is taking a hardline stance here - it could be as simple as agreeing to a lower guaranteed amount tied to incentives that will be easily achievable barring a major injury.

#16 sachilles


  • Rudy-in-training


  • 630 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:28 PM

Seems like it may be editorial license in the initial report. Of course they'd hope to sign him for less. Reports don't show any disconnect in the negotiations, I don't see this as being a huge insult to Ortiz.
As suggested above, easily achieved incentives linked to having a healthy player are likely to fill in the gap.

#17 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14245 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:35 PM

This will likely wind up as a poor/mediocre "value" due to health and performance issues, but for 2013 that's fairly irrelevant. He's here to be a name/face of the organization and satiate the fans, provide some clubhouse presence or whatever you want to call it, and so forth.

A wise signing. And even if he's a bust it's a short two years and the team has huge payroll flexibility.

#18 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:36 PM

Speier

Multiple sources familiar with the negotiations between David Ortiz and the Red Sox suggested that reports of a nearly finalized two-year deal between the sides were inaccurate. Specifically, a suggestion that a two-year deal for $22 million to $26 million represented a "formality" was characterized as "inaccurate," or at least, at this point, premature.



#19 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14245 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:38 PM

If there is an issue with the contract, then it's going to be length. Ortiz might be asking for 3. Heck, 2 might even be an issue -- though that'd be silly.

#20 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12082 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:02 PM

I was a big proponent of giving Papi a 2-year deal last winter, but that ship has sailed. Giving him a 2-year deal now, after paying extra for the flexibility of a 1-year deal in 2012, seems like the worst of all worlds.


What do the new rules require the Sox to give Ortiz if they want to collect a pick if he signs elsewhere? Is it just a qualifying offer, or would they also have to offer arbitration? A two-year deal obviously makes more sense if the cost to keep him for one year would be $16mm, which is what I figure he'd earn in arbitration.

#21 BoSox Rule

  • 1420 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:17 PM

Pretty sure there's only the qualifying offer of roughly $13.5 (top 125 salaries averaged) Arbitration is only for Super 2/3-5's.

#22 bohous

  • 1018 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:31 PM

If there is an issue with the contract, then it's going to be length. Ortiz might be asking for 3. Heck, 2 might even be an issue -- though that'd be silly.


I am trying to find a reference but I seem to recall he was asking for something closer to 2/$30m last season. I was surprised by the original report that they were "close" at 2/$25 since I assumed he would come in higher and continue to cite Crawford/Gonzo contracts as comps.

#23 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12082 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:52 PM

Pretty sure there's only the qualifying offer of roughly $13.5 (top 125 salaries averaged) Arbitration is only for Super 2/3-5's.


That's what I thought also.

This deal is being done to sell tickets. Which is not a problem, so long as it doesn't prevent the FO from making a deal down the road to improve the team.

#24 Carl Everetts Therapist


  • yossarian


  • PipPip
  • 1558 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:55 PM

After the last couple months though, they can't afford a hard fought out negotiation through the media. It's time to just sign him and get some good press (on top of the Farrell news). They have the money. Of course the contract needs to be semi-reasonable

#25 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 7707 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:56 PM

I might see if he would bite for something like a base pay of $13m for year one, and $8m for year two, with $500k escalators for each 25 games played.

#26 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10381 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:58 PM

Over the last 3 years, he's been worth about $14 million per year. Last year, he had his best season since 2007 and not far off from peak levels. It's not like having him DH blocks some other young player as well. Oh, they more than have the capacity financially. Bottom line is it's an excellent baseball move and probably an even better PR/clubhouse move.

#27 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 21999 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:04 PM

I was a big proponent of giving Papi a 2-year deal last winter, but that ship has sailed. Giving him a 2-year deal now, after paying extra for the flexibility of a 1-year deal in 2012, seems like the worst of all worlds.


The thing is, the team's entire landscape changed since last fall. Back then they were hoping to contend for a championship and had nearly every last penny under the luxury tax cap spoken for through the next few years. That clearly informed the decision to only offer him one year.

Things are different now and the payroll inflexibility issue has changed.

#28 BoSox Rule

  • 1420 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:07 PM

Over the last 3 years, he's been worth about $14 million per year. Last year, he had his best season since 2007 and not far off from peak levels.

He did miss half the year though. For the record I'm all for re-signing him for the other reason that he's not blocking anybody but the injury has to be taken into consideration with his age/body type.

#29 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16570 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

Are we sure this is such an overpay?

In 2012, Ortiz was 2nd on the Red Sox in oWAR and WAR (behind Pedroia) despite his biggest problem, the injuries. He led the team in almost every offensive category and despite the limited playing time led the team in walks and was second in HR. Despite his limited playing time fangraphs valued him at 3 wins and $13 million. In 2011 he was valued at 4.1 wins and $18.6 million.

He is getting older but like many many other threads around here I think some of you guys have never mentally adjusted to the fact that this ain't 2004 anymore. You seem to think that as a DH his hitting should be discounted to a rate where it's just another DH. In actuality, he would have led the league last year in both OBP and SLG if he had qualified. If you took 100 points off of his SLG and 30 off of his OBP he still would have been in the top 5 of each category.

Beyond that, even if he is only a $10 million player and they pay him $13, if that $3 million is the difference in "making the team better" then they have had much larger failures. And looking at the free agent bats, you have Josh Hamilton who is going to cost a ton more and you have who, Napoli can maybe get there but sounds like he is looking for decent money this time around too. Berkman I guess who has the same age issues and bigger injury issues and hasn't been as good lately. After that, who is even out there that projects to be a 3-4 WAR player? Cano obviously but the Yankees I'm sure will happily take his option. Stephen Drew could be but hasn't been that consistently. etc. (And also has an option).

Also, you know, even when rebuilding it's good to win some games and not be a miserable punchless team that everyone hates. They can't put that September product on the field for a full season. I just fail to see how this is a crippling move.

#30 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2738 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

The thing is, the team's entire landscape changed since last fall. Back then they were hoping to contend for a championship and had nearly every last penny under the luxury tax cap spoken for through the next few years. That clearly informed the decision to only offer him one year.

Things are different now and the payroll inflexibility issue has changed.


Really good point. If we were still paying Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett then a two year deal to Ortiz would limit our ability to improve the team going forward. Now, not so much.

#31 Toe Nash

  • 3019 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:30 PM

Just pay the man. If he plays 200 games between the two years he's probably at least close to worth it, and the fan sentiment / clubhouse presence is worth it. If Tek and Wake are going to be guys who stick around the team and show their faces at events, spring training, whatever, he needs to be right there with them. If you're building a youth movement there might be something to that. I wouldn't want to jeopardize that possibility by pissing him off over a few million dollars and having him end his career on Oakland or wherever.

#32 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23118 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:37 PM

I'm in the pay him what he wants camp. Last year I was against signing him to anything multi year because of fear of him breaking down and there just wasn't that kind of money to go around. Now with all the contracts gone, make Ortiz the highest paid hitter, hell give him more than Lackey's AAV, and make him happy.

#33 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 6067 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:32 PM

The man was in a boot not so long ago. I hope he has been able to stay in shape. A benched Papi is an unhappy Papi.

#34 koufax32


  • He'll cry if he wants to...


  • 3369 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:24 PM

Just speculation here but would Papi agree to a Drew or Lackey type injury clause? Perhaps Ben is trying for some type of escalator option based on games played? Either would be fiscally responsible moves to protect the team against lingering problems with Papi's achilles. I don't know what his response would be though.


#35 OnWisc

  • 1043 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:43 AM

I'd echo the sentiments here that given the team's current payroll structure and the limited length of the deal, a mild overpay isn't a problem. As long as the Ortiz situation is considered unique and that mindset doesn't bleed into any other negotiations, I think it's a non-issue.

I'd also be against any escalator clause for games played, or any Lackey type injury provision. I'd prefer to avoid any potential drama surrounding a banged-up Papi closing in on a games played threshold in the waning weeks of the season. I think you also have to question how effective Ortiz would be in year 3 if he's injured enough over the next two seasons for the injury clause to kick in. If we're targeting 2015 as the turnaround year, an ineffective Ortiz playing for the league minimum may not be something you want to deal with. And a resurgent Ortiz making 'only' the league minimum may not result in the most pleasant clubhouse situation either.

I'd keep it simple. Two year deal in the ranges being discussed. Papi's happy, there are no contingencies, and worst case scenario for the Sox just isn't that bad.

#36 Hairps

  • 1729 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:54 AM

I don't see the rush. I would prefer the FO just wait, make the $13.3MM qualifying offer, and let the process play itself out. 2/22 or 2/26 might be an OK outcome at the end of the day, but not sure I see the clear advantage of leading with that now, save a lot of pop psychology justification and PR drivel.

#37 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 6858 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:24 AM

Ortiz is interesting because he is not your prototypical old slugger. After he made mechanical adjustments to his swing following the 2009 season, and improved his plate approach, he's actually improved from 2010-2012 (if he wasn't injured for 40% of 2012 then it likely would have been his best season since 2007). Age and injuries are a concern, but I think two years is fair given that he has shown an ability to adjust with age and become a better, more mature hitter.

#38 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2738 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

If you let Ortiz go to free agency I think you run a big risk of the Rangers deciding they can replace Josh Hamilton's bat for a cheaper price on a shorter contract. Obviously they would still need to replace his glove. I think you go to two years now because it's not worth the risk losing him. He's the best DH free agent by far.

#39 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11426 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:41 AM

I don't see the rush. I would prefer the FO just wait, make the $13.3MM qualifying offer, and let the process play itself out. 2/22 or 2/26 might be an OK outcome at the end of the day, but not sure I see the clear advantage of leading with that now, save a lot of pop psychology justification and PR drivel.


Here's a hypothetical advantage that might or might not fall into the "PR drivel" category. The Sox, a few short years ago, were perhaps the most well-respected franchise in baseball. Players wanted to come play here, unless they were shrinking violets intimidated by the fan/media fishbowl. One would assume that this has taken a huge hit over the past 14 months.

Firing BV and hiring Farrell were steps in the right direction on this front. Another such step would be for the team to move proactively to lock up their respected veteran slugger for the probable remainder of his career. It's a relatively cheap way to say "we're back to being the kind of stable, well-run franchise that everybody wants to be associated with." If we're fighting with another club for the services of a Sanchez or a Jackson -- or, for that matter, a Cody Ross -- this might be a difference-maker.

#40 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10381 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:50 AM

I think it's pretty clear this gets done and announced Friday. It'd be pennywise and poundfoolish to dick around over $2 million per year. I think they need to re-tool but a complete overhaul and re-build is going to be tough and by going with Farrell I think they do want to be in the hunt but not at the expense of 2014 and beyond. If Ortiz had declined each year for 3 years and then they did this it would be a bad move. I do think you'll see Ortiz as driven as ever and a ticked off Papi is the best kind of Papi.

#41 someoneanywhere

  • 3155 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:51 AM

Here's a hypothetical advantage that might or might not fall into the "PR drivel" category. The Sox, a few short years ago, were perhaps the most well-respected franchise in baseball. Players wanted to come play here, unless they were shrinking violets intimidated by the fan/media fishbowl. One would assume that this has taken a huge hit over the past 14 months.

Firing BV and hiring Farrell were steps in the right direction on this front. Another such step would be for the team to move proactively to lock up their respected veteran slugger for the probable remainder of his career. It's a relatively cheap way to say "we're back to being the kind of stable, well-run franchise that everybody wants to be associated with." If we're fighting with another club for the services of a Sanchez or a Jackson -- or, for that matter, a Cody Ross -- this might be a difference-maker.


I couldn't agree with this more than I do, and I think it certainly is one of the lines of thought in the FO. In my view you can fix the credibility gap -- with players, with fans, with the industry -- far more quickly than the contention gap (although I also think a few shrewd moves, if they are on the table to be made, might produce a legitimate contender in 2013). If you qualify Ortiz or, worse, let him walk, you widen the gulf.

#42 Plympton91


  • loves a good bowl haircut


  • 6221 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:17 AM

If you let Ortiz go to free agency I think you run a big risk of the Rangers deciding they can replace Josh Hamilton's bat for a cheaper price on a shorter contract. Obviously they would still need to replace his glove. I think you go to two years now because it's not worth the risk losing him. He's the best DH free agent by far.


The Orioles might also be a landing spot for Ortiz; they struggled all year to have a competent DH, eventually trading for the ghost of Jim Thome.

#43 seantoo


  • Branch Rickey Jr.


  • 1213 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:39 AM

I'm not sure how an overpay to Ortiz is detrimental to any possible rebuilding at this point. He's not going to be blocking a young player who is going to give them similar or better value for less. And it's not as though this rebuilding phase requires them to strip the payroll down to nothing. They've still got the capabilities to push the payroll right up to the luxury tax threshold if they want. If there is a youth movement, payroll is even less of a concern for this team.

This isn't a case of locking up a building block. No matter what they pay him, he's likely going to gone when whatever youth movement they undergo comes to fruition. I see no long term harm in keeping him around for the short-term at a higher than market rate deal.


Isn't that mind set a part of what caused the team to be dismantled to begin with? Sentimental favorites have no place in this game if you want to win. That said it's not a long term commitment (you did point that out) so I have no major objection to it. I do hope they knock several million off of a 2 yr.-$25 million dollar commitment because he's getting old (37 ((Next month) & Dominican, I'm just saying) and having a full time DH limits the flexibility you have with your roster. When Ortiz is gone I'd like to see the spot be used to keep bench players fresh as well as resting the legs of starters. Lavarnway may suffer the most with Ortiz on the roster. I believe he'd get 200-300 additional at bats this season if Ortiz was not signed so he actually is taking at bats from a younger player. It is not likely we could win the whole thing in the next two years without big improvements from the starters and minor league pitchers breaking through (and who does that besides Doc Gooden?) unless the team lands a #1 or #2 starter. If you are on board with the preceding sentence than you have to question anything other than resigning Ortiz to a 1 year deal or at least not overpay for 2 years. This is in large part a PR move by the team and not necessarily a step in the right direction. I like Ortiz to but building a winning team has nothing to do with sentimental feelings.

#44 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28122 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:53 AM

Isn't that mind set a part of what caused the team to be dismantled to begin with? Sentimental favorites have no place in this game if you want to win.


Actually, I think the team is largely in the predicament they are in because they undervalued players they had and overvalued players they acquired. Potentially overpaying Papi is really no different than overpaying Mike Napoli, for example, at least with the guy you already have you have a good idea of his medical history, how he'll perform in the market, be in the clubhouse, etc. Sure he could get hurt or rapidly decline but that's true of every player.

#45 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 6858 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:56 AM

Couldn't this be both a PR and performance contract (which is normally called "good contract)? I understand the concerns with Ortiz' age, but he is not following a typical "old player skills" aging curve. I thought he was at the end of 2009, but he's made material adjustments that have proven to be effective. He is a different player than he was at his peak and has regressed some, but he still hits for power, still gets on base, and now strikes out a whole lot less. That seems like a hitter profile I want in the lineup, and one that deserves to get paid.

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 24 October 2012 - 10:57 AM.


#46 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10381 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:56 AM

Was Ortiz the best hitter last year on the team, and by a large margin? Yes. Does a DH preclude them from integrating youth? No. Lavarnmway will be the back-up catcher and primarily to face LHP so I don't see a large redundancy there, either. It does come down to starting pitching but I don't see Ortiz crowding out investments in a #3 starter and both now and over the next 2-3 years Lester and Buchholz hold the keys to getting back to the post-season.

#47 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383499 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:30 AM

Are we sure this is such an overpay?

In 2012, Ortiz was 2nd on the Red Sox in oWAR and WAR (behind Pedroia) despite his biggest problem, the injuries. He led the team in almost every offensive category and despite the limited playing time led the team in walks and was second in HR. Despite his limited playing time fangraphs valued him at 3 wins and $13 million. In 2011 he was valued at 4.1 wins and $18.6 million.

He is getting older but like many many other threads around here I think some of you guys have never mentally adjusted to the fact that this ain't 2004 anymore. You seem to think that as a DH his hitting should be discounted to a rate where it's just another DH. In actuality, he would have led the league last year in both OBP and SLG if he had qualified. If you took 100 points off of his SLG and 30 off of his OBP he still would have been in the top 5 of each category.

Beyond that, even if he is only a $10 million player and they pay him $13, if that $3 million is the difference in "making the team better" then they have had much larger failures. And looking at the free agent bats, you have Josh Hamilton who is going to cost a ton more and you have who, Napoli can maybe get there but sounds like he is looking for decent money this time around too. Berkman I guess who has the same age issues and bigger injury issues and hasn't been as good lately. After that, who is even out there that projects to be a 3-4 WAR player? Cano obviously but the Yankees I'm sure will happily take his option. Stephen Drew could be but hasn't been that consistently. etc. (And also has an option).

Also, you know, even when rebuilding it's good to win some games and not be a miserable punchless team that everyone hates. They can't put that September product on the field for a full season. I just fail to see how this is a crippling move.


Good post. I couldn't agree more. Some people are talking as if Ortiz just had a mediocre year and then got hurt. He proved that he's still one of the better offensive players in the league. The injury risk is certainly there, but show me another player who has the potential to give you similar production with less of an injury concern for less money.

#48 sachilles


  • Rudy-in-training


  • 630 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:39 AM

He also showed up play 2012 in far trimmer shape physically. He appeared to maintain it over the season. Provided he doesn't revert back to his larger self that is a step in the right direction. While certainly not a speed demon, he appeared noticeably better on the base paths.
While it is not guarantee that caused his improvement in 2012, it is at least promising for an aging player to make that type of change.

#49 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4734 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:45 AM

Was Ortiz the best hitter last year on the team, and by a large margin? Yes. Does a DH preclude them from integrating youth? No. Lavarnmway will be the back-up catcher and primarily to face LHP so I don't see a large redundancy there, either. It does come down to starting pitching but I don't see Ortiz crowding out investments in a #3 starter and both now and over the next 2-3 years Lester and Buchholz hold the keys to getting back to the post-season.


Don't forget - he was also the best DH out there (by the numbers) in about 60% a season... And would've been best by a long-shot if he wasn't injured. So he's the best player at the position in baseball, doesn't really affect long-term planning or budgets, and is a fan favorite. And a two-year contract isn't Lackey/Crawford/Mo Vaughn/ARod contract - it can be absorbed relatively easily and go off-books rather quickly, especially if it has performance risers.

Edited by zenter, 24 October 2012 - 11:46 AM.


#50 seantoo


  • Branch Rickey Jr.


  • 1213 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:44 PM

Actually, I think the team is largely in the predicament they are in because they undervalued players they had and overvalued players they acquired. Potentially overpaying Papi is really no different than overpaying Mike Napoli, for example, at least with the guy you already have you have a good idea of his medical history, how he'll perform in the market, be in the clubhouse, etc. Sure he could get hurt or rapidly decline but that's true of every player.


Rudy I agree with everything you say above (for example when we signed Crawford I thought we had a younger cheaper version in Ellsbury (very similar rate stats their first few years especially OBP) and thought the deal was wasteful but they were spending like sailors on shore leave and that power can be intoxicating too. But I don't agree that the "actually" your refer comparing our thoughts are necessarily exclusive of each other. In other words both thoughts can, and I believe do, still apply.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users