369 replies to this topic

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

What's the organizational philosophy though? They sign no glove mashers like Gomes and Napoli and then decide defense matters with Victorino? Intangibles matter, yet they are in on Yunel? They just seem to be all over the place, interested in anyone and everyone. It's not necessarily a bad thing and being flexible is good, but their moves are making it really difficult to see the plan- unless the plan is be competitive without signing any one big money, long term deal. But 13M contracts add up and this offseason reminds me of the Orioles of old.

Look, their organizational philosophy is proprietary. They may communicate certain things to the media/fan-base but they have no upside in sharing what their strategy is with a broader audience. Based on what we know, they are interested in signing players that fill needs to shorter (less than three year) contracts and not surrendering draft picks. Beyond that, all of it is speculation.

Escobar makes sense because they have a need at his position and a division rival who is interested in acquiring him. But if you are looking for them to unveil their grand plan to everyone, I suspect your frustration will only increase as time goes on.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Maybe the focus on good defense at positions higher on the defensive spectrum while focusing on picking up some pop for the lineup in more typically offensive positions like LF and 1B? There doesn't have to be one single, solitary thread that the entire roster is built around. If value is the word of the day, value can mean a lot of things. This team needed a lot of help coming into the winter meetings, have made a few moves and still have a lot of off season and a lot of money left.

I'm also on the side that doesn't like this deal in a vacuum, but we should wait and see what else the team is trying to do before condemning this as an outright bad move.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Fair enough, although your argument with everything seems to be "we don't know what they know" which absolves the Red Sox of any accountability for the moves they make. I'm just looking for consistency and a clear plan, the actions of the past few years suggest that none exists. I think they are making it up as they go, although I hope I'm wrong. But Victorino at 13M, no matter who signed him or what their other offseason moves are, strikes me as a lousy deal.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 04 December 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[bosockboy]

I don't hate it as much as most, but would have preferred a slight overpay with Torii Hunter to keep it at two years. 2/28 for Hunter over 3/39 for Victorino.

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Fair enough, although your argument with everything seems to be "we don't know what they know" which absolves the Red Sox of any accountability for the moves they make. I'm just looking for consistency and a clear plan, the actions of the past few years suggest that none exists. I think they are making it up as they go, although I hope I'm wrong.

This is an important point - I would argue that the Red Sox FO has far more information than most people on this board will ever have about the MLB talent market. You and others may disagree.

However I never said nor do I feel that it absolves them from accountability. IMHO, it does, on the other hand, make it difficult to legitimately criticize transactions in isolation without making many assumptions.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 04 December 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[Manramsclan]

I don't hate it as much as most, but would have preferred a slight overpay with Torii Hunter to keep it at two years. 2/28 for Hunter over 3/39 for Victorino.

I really, really love Torii Hunter, but the difference between giving a deal to a 37 year old OF versus a 32 year old OF in terms of risk is enormous.

Somebody up thread compared the Victorino to the Mike Cameron signing, and he was 37 when the Sox signed him.

The odds that a 37 year old falls of a cliff is a lot higher than a 32 year old.

[knucklecup]

Whether you love this deal (and offseason) or hate it (thus far), the general consensus is that we have been overpaying for players. The Marco Scutaro deal got me thinking.

The Giants committed $20 million, $40 million, and $18 million over the next four years to Scutaro, Angel Pagan, and Jeremy Affeldt. Over the next three years, the Red Sox have committed $88 million total - $10 million dollars more than San Fran - to Mike Napoli, Shane Victorino, and Johnny Gomes.

For similar money, who would you prefer?

Edited by knucklecup, 04 December 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[mabrowndog]

Frankly, the B.J. Upton contract (5/$75M for a guy with a .298 OBP and a 109 OPS+ last year) pretty much plowed under the valuation landscape for mediocre free agents. It's really that simple.

Top-level talent is going to come at a high premium this winter, but that doesn't mean mediocrity comes cheap.

Edited by mabrowndog, 05 December 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[mabrowndog]

What's the organizational philosophy though? They sign no glove mashers like Gomes and Napoli and then decide defense matters with Victorino? Intangibles matter, yet they are in on Yunel? They just seem to be all over the place, interested in anyone and everyone. It's not necessarily a bad thing and being flexible is good, but their moves are making it really difficult to see the plan- unless the plan is be competitive without signing any one big money, long term deal. But 13M contracts add up and this offseason reminds me of the Orioles of old.

Regarding the moves they've made- what's the rush to get Victorino under contract? Is it impossible to find corner outfielders who can give you that kind of production? I'm no Ross fan but him at 7 per strikes me as a better deal than Victorino at twice that. Or just wait- save the cash and see who is left standing a month from now. I just don't understand this deal, and yea, I'd have preferred Swisher who is a much better player than Victorino.

I'm sure you realize (or at least I hope you do) that the two least important defensive positions on the diamond are 1B and LF. Paying for offense at those positions at the expense of defense is hardly a novel approach. Neither is sacrificing some offense to ensure RF is manned by someone with speed, range, and a cannon arm who gets great reads and takes proper routes.

As for the "wait a month and see what's out there" approach, why don't you ask the Louisiana Tech football team how well that worked out for them over the weekend. They passed on a bowl invitation, thinking they'd be asked to play in a different game against a better opponent for more money. But it never came, so now the Bulldogs and their 9-3 record will be sitting at home playing with their peckers. You really don't want to be left without a chair when the music stops.

[RedOctober3829]

Frankly, the B.J. Upton contract (5/$75M for a guy with a .298 OBP and a 109 OPS+ last year) pretty much plowed under the valuation landscape for mediocre free agents. It's really that simple.

Top-level talent is going to come at a high premium this winter, but that doesn't mean mediocrity comes cheap.

Your last sentence has been my whole point in this argument. If they have a shit ton of money to spend, what's the best way to spend it? If you're prepared to overpay, why not go the extra distance for the premium talent like a Josh Hamilton? You can still do the same thing you are doing to Napoli and Victorino and overpay in AAV if you don't want to commit to extra years. If it's true that Hamilton will get a 3 or 4 year contract, then I'll be very disappointed that they didn't go that route.

[JakeRae]

Whether you love this deal (and offseason) or hate it (thus far), the general consensus is that we have been overpaying for players. The Marco Scutaro deal got me thinking.

The Giants committed $20 million, $40 million, and $18 million over the next four years to Scutaro, Angel Pagan, and Jeremy Affeldt. Over the next three years, the Red Sox have committed $88 million total - $10 million dollars more than San Fran - to Mike Napoli, Shane Victorino, and Johnny Gomes.

For similar money, who would you prefer?

For the Red Sox, the players they signed. Why would the Red Sox be interested in an aging 2B on a 3-year deal?

[knucklecup]

For the Red Sox, the players they signed. Why would the Red Sox be interested in an aging 2B on a 3-year deal?

The musical chairs comment. Well said. I thought patient teams would end up with the scraps like Ryan Ludwick for one year and $5 million. Instead, he's closing in on a two year commitment for $14 million dollars.

The point being that other teams are spending comparable dollar amounts to players I believe are less talented than the ones the Red Sox already have locked up.

If you're not in favor of these moves, at least present a rational argument as to why that is.

[DieHardSoxFan1]

I'm sure you realize (or at least I hope you do) that the two least important defensive positions on the diamond are 1B and LF. Paying for offense at those positions at the expense of defense is hardly a novel approach. Neither is sacrificing some offense to ensure RF is manned by someone with speed, range, and a cannon arm who gets great reads and takes proper routes.

Who signed that guy?

[Manramsclan]

Your last sentence has been my whole point in this argument. If they have a shit ton of money to spend, what's the best way to spend it? If you're prepared to overpay, why not go the extra distance for the premium talent like a Josh Hamilton? You can still do the same thing you are doing to Napoli and Victorino and overpay in AAV if you don't want to commit to extra years. If it's true that Hamilton will get a 3 or 4 year contract, then I'll be very disappointed that they didn't go that route.

With the amount of money they have left under the tax limit, if Hamilton is looking at a three or four year deal, I expect that the Sox will indeed be going that route as well. This deal certainly does not preclude them from that market.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Fair enough, although your argument with everything seems to be "we don't know what they know" which absolves the Red Sox of any accountability for the moves they make. I'm just looking for consistency and a clear plan, the actions of the past few years suggest that none exists. I think they are making it up as they go, although I hope I'm wrong. But Victorino at 13M, no matter who signed him or what their other offseason moves are, strikes me as a lousy deal.

No one is absolving them of anything. Some of us are just suggesting a little patience before marching on Fenway with torches and pitchforks. It's early December. There are more moves coming. Let's at least get a look at the whole plan before deciding that Ben has no idea what he's doing.

You say the last few years demonstrate that the FO has no plan. Well, this is the first off season Ben has had the opportunity to really shape the roster, so how is Theo's club and the year in between where there was no room under the cap all that relevant in evaluating what Ben wants to do or is trying to do now?

[Edelpeddle]

Maybe the focus on good defense at positions higher on the defensive spectrum while focusing on picking up some pop for the lineup in more typically offensive positions like LF and 1B? There doesn't have to be one single, solitary thread that the entire roster is built around. If value is the word of the day, value can mean a lot of things. This team needed a lot of help coming into the winter meetings, have made a few moves and still have a lot of off season and a lot of money left.

I'm also on the side that doesn't like this deal in a vacuum, but we should wait and see what else the team is trying to do before condemning this as an outright bad move.

Exactly. Seems reasonable that we'd be willing to sacrifice some defense for offense at the last important defensive positions. Simply going after the best defensive players at every position isn't a very balanced approach. Look how it's turned out for the Mariners.

[941827]

The Giants committed $20 million, $40 million, and $18 million over the next four years to Scutaro, Angel Pagan, and Jeremy Affeldt. Over the next three years, the Red Sox have committed $88 million total - $10 million dollars more than San Fran - to Mike Napoli, Shane Victorino, and Johnny Gomes.

For similar money, who would you prefer?

The Giants spent their money to sign one of their best relievers and clubhouse guys, their starting second baseman, and their starting CF. The Red Sox spent their money to sign two guys who need platoon partners, no guys who play an up-the-middle position (unless you're expecting Victorino to replace a traded Ellsbury), and only one guy who is likely to start every day (and he's likely to be below-average defensively wherever he starts).

The Giants have won 2 WS in 3 years, are likely to win their division again unless the Punto trade players turn it on for the Dodgers, and are planning on a TOTAL payroll of $140mm. The Red Sox are already at $140mm, and they haven't signed all their non-arb eligible youngsters yet likely to wind up north of that number with little hope of contending.

There's little question who is spending their money better.

Edited by 941827, 05 December 2012 - 02:01 AM.

[Edelpeddle]

The Red Sox are already at $140mm, and they haven't signed all their non-arb eligible youngsters yet.

You're off by about $23 million too much.

[Cellar-Door]

I think the idea that every signing needs to fall into a category... like oh Gomes means defense doesn't matter.... Victorino means defense is important is exceptionally stupid thinking. Different skills are needed on a baseball team, 9 great glove guys who can't hit won't win any more than 9 mashers who can't field or run. The only set in stone organizational strategies should be "does this player make us better going forward" A team can have a mediocre fielding 1B who can hit and still think D is important, just as you can get a lefty masher to be a super-sub and hide him in LF somewhat. Players who are excellent hitters of RHP and LHP who are also elite fielders are pretty rare, no team is going to get 9 of them, so you need to make some compromises.

[941827]

You're off by about $23 million too much.

That's what I get for repeating something I read on Twitter without double-checking.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

No one is absolving them of anything. Some of us are just suggesting a little patience before marching on Fenway with torches and pitchforks. It's early December. There are more moves coming. Let's at least get a look at the whole plan before deciding that Ben has no idea what he's doing.

You say the last few years demonstrate that the FO has no plan. Well, this is the first off season Ben has had the opportunity to really shape the roster, so how is Theo's club and the year in between where there was no room under the cap all that relevant in evaluating what Ben wants to do or is trying to do now?

I've been very much against the reactionary tone taken by some here over the past year and a half to Bens moves. I know they haven't all worked out the best but I have never thought he had the flexibility to do much and was getting a bum rap, so to speak. I thought and still do think, that many give too much credit to Theo when he was new on the job and likely had just as much oversight by LL. I thought going into this offseason that Ben would prove his worth and the FO as a whole would prove to be smart again. Before today I was temperant and trustful.

All that being said, this deal pushed me over the edge , at least at first anyway. But the more I thought about it and the more I read the reacts, I've changed my view. I still don't like it and probably won't unless they move Ellsbury. But contrary to many here I think it actually proves that they DO have a plan. I give them enough credit tha they didn't walk into the meetings and get swept up in Victorino and got lost in a bidding war. He was a target and whether it cost what they thought or a bit more, they planned this. I think we need to let all the dominoes fall before lighting our torches. It certainly seems an overpay but if they make some more moves- and really, they have even more flexibility now - they could really remake this team into an actual contender without mortgaging the future.

I'm going back to being patient. If it falls through I may be the guy flipping a zippo to light those torches, but for now I'm going to sit back and see what they have up their sleeves. It can't be worse than last year.

[YTF]

I don't hate it as much as most, but would have preferred a slight overpay with Torii Hunter to keep it at two years. 2/28 for Hunter over 3/39 for Victorino.

That's all fine and well, but the player has to want to come here. Hunter's been off the market for a couple of weeks and for good reason. He got a pretty good contract with a team that just went to the World Series. A team that arguably could be better next season and seriously contend for the championship again. Not likely to happen with the Sox in 2013.

[OCD SS]

Tori Hunter can't play CF anymore. Signing Victorino allows for positional flexibility and the option to move Ellsbury without rushing JBJ.

[knucklecup]

The Giants spent their money to sign one of their best relievers and clubhouse guys, their starting second baseman, and their starting CF. The Red Sox spent their money to sign two guys who need platoon partners, no guys who play an up-the-middle position (unless you're expecting Victorino to replace a traded Ellsbury), and only one guy who is likely to start every day (and he's likely to be below-average defensively wherever he starts).

The Giants have won 2 WS in 3 years, are likely to win their division again unless the Punto trade players turn it on for the Dodgers, and are planning on a TOTAL payroll of $140mm. The Red Sox are already at $140mm, and they haven't signed all their non-arb eligible youngsters yet likely to wind up north of that number with little hope of contending.

There's little question who is spending their money better.

This is an incredibly flawed argument.

Put the Red Sox in the NL West and the results of the last few seasons would be different. That's not to say San Fran wouldn't have had a great October in two seasons because there is a lot of chance/luck involved in that. I'm simply stating its not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

Also, instead of looking at it with the negative tone you've chosen, I choose to look at SF's offseason as paying too much money to an average - if that - middle infielder through his age 39 season, a reliever whose production could be replaced by Craig Breslow, and an outfielder who isn't as good as other FA options.

[Lose Remerswaal]

That's what I get for repeating something I read on Twitter without double-checking.

Silly 941, don't you know you can only trust facts from Wikipedia?

[Gash Prex]

Tori Hunter can't play CF anymore. Signing Victorino allows for positional flexibility and the option to move Ellsbury without rushing JBJ.

Not only does this allow them to move Ellsbury, but allows them a viable major league option next year if he walks and signs a mega deal somewhere else (and give them leverage in negotiations).

Its certainly not a an exciting deal, and maybe a slight overpay (hard to say that 3x32 versus 3x39 is worth all this negativity though), but he fills a number of different roles. Competent right fielder, back center fielder, center fielder if you trade Ells or he walks - and doesn't require a huge commitment of years or money.

Seems to me the organizational philosophy is find high character, good to average major leaguers on short deals to allow them to be competitive this year and next, but also allows them to turn those positions over to the kids in the next few years without eating big contracts. Seems to me there will always be a use for somebody like Victorino/Ross/Gomes/Napoli.

[someoneanywhere]

Look, their organizational philosophy is proprietary. They may communicate certain things to the media/fan-base but they have no upside in sharing what their strategy is with a broader audience. Based on what we know, they are interested in signing players that fill needs to shorter (less than three year) contracts and not surrendering draft picks. Beyond that, all of it is speculation.

Escobar makes sense because they have a need at his position and a division rival who is interested in acquiring him. But if you are looking for them to unveil their grand plan to everyone, I suspect your frustration will only increase as time goes on.

I would amend that only slightly, while agreeing with all of it. What we also see in public is that a certain kind of player is worth their money: all three of these guys are dirt dogs, grinders, balls-out baggers. They seem to me to be willing to pay premium for that quality.

I take that to mean two things. First, no matter how competitive they are over the next few years, what they want is to instill in the younger players coming up just this kind of attitude. It is an abrupt adjustment at the big league level on a number of fronts, but an underrated one is going to the post everyday, to win. In their development, these guys hear (but hopefully don't internalize) an opposite message: that refining individual skills is more important than game results. They get to the show to discover that winning comes first, and sometimes (Ellsbury being a case in point, if Tito's constant adminishments are recalled) have trouble with that.

Two: and something so far as I have seen no one has much mentioned. These signings are a damning if silent criticism of last year's Sox club. To my reading, it appears that the FO thought last year's club was soft, entitled, unprofessional. Some of that, of course, can be inferred by the trade, but not much is being said now, and certainly nothing is being said in opposition to the line that came out soon after Valentine's dismissal, that the players liked one another, got along, and came to the park everyday to play together. Ross even mentioned in one of his interviews that Ben told him the Sox would be seeking guys who payed the game right -- that everyone knew the guys in the game with a reputation for bailing or for selfishness. So this clubhouse culture thing might be more serious than any of us has really grasped.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 05 December 2012 - 08:42 AM.

[Yo La Tengo]

Not only does this allow them to move Ellsbury, but allows them a viable major league option next year if he walks and signs a mega deal somewhere else (and give them leverage in negotiations).

Its certainly not a an exciting deal, and maybe a slight overpay (hard to say that 3x32 versus 3x39 is worth all this negativity though), but he fills a number of different roles. Competent right fielder, back center fielder, center fielder if you trade Ells or he walks - and doesn't require a huge commitment of years or money.

I think these thoughts are right on target. For the naysayers, looking at next year's CF free agents, and forecasting their respective costs, who would you rather have in CF if Ellsbury leaves?

Coco Crisp (34) - $7.5MM club option with a $1MM buyout
Rajai Davis (33)
Jacoby Ellsbury (30)
Carlos Gomez (28)
Curtis Granderson (33)
Franklin Gutierrez (31) - $7.5MM club option with a $500K buyout
Tony Gwynn Jr. (31)
Chris Young (30) - $11MM club option with a $1.5MM buyout

The Sox have filled a need at what appears to be market price over 3 years, while not giving up prospects or draft picks and have protected themselves if/when Ellsbury tests the market. Not overwhelmingly exciting but hardly worth freaking out over.

[lexrageorge]

I wasn't thrilled with this at first, but the overpay amount is not nearly as much as it seems once you realize that he was going to get at least $11M/yr on the open market, and that seems to be the going rate for hitters that rate slightly above league average.

For those criticizing the Sox for having "no plan", that is just wrong. The Sox do have a plan, and that is to rebuild their lineup. They are limited by the fact that most of the available free agents are the Shane Victorino's and Mike Napoli's, but they are getting the upper echelon of the "mid-tier" group. None of these are exciting moves, but the boring moves are also essential to building a contender, and there is still are more than 2 months to go until Spring Training. Victorino and Napoli didn't cost the team other than money, and that's one resource they have right now (and still have). We keep forgetting that if the team did nothing, we would be looking at a starting outfield of Nava/Ellsbury/Kalish, with Ryan Sweeney and Scott Podsednick coming off the bench. I think we can agree that Gomes/Ellsbury/Victorino, with Nava and Kalish waiting in the wings or used in platoon situations, is a much better constructed outfield roster, and certainly better than the cast of clowns manning the OF last season.

Finally, I don't know where folks are getting the idea that Victorino is a terrible defensive outfielder. All the metrics have him as better than average.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Based on this logic, why debate about any trade or signing?

Because usually it's not debate - as this thread (and often you) demonstrates. It's a stalled parade of drive-by "WORST TRADE EVER" posts and vomiticons that spiral down "Ben/FO/Sox have learned nothing" conjecture or "this team has no direction" guy-in-the-car call-in instant analysis faster than the second coming of Godwin's Law.

It's five days into December and the roster isn't remotely close to being set. But the Victorino trade is the final nail in the coffin - until the next Sox transaction that Twitters, that is.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Sure. When I see the word "butcher" used to describe a defensive player, I think Gomes level defense. Gomes is absolutely a butcher in the field. Swisher, on the other hand has UZR's of 0.8, 8.2 and 2.7 with dWAR's of -0.8, -1.4 and -0.4 in the last three years in right field. At worst, he's a slightly below average defender.

Maybe we're arguing semantics here, but I don't think "butcher" is a fair description of him.

Agreed. Swisher's not a Gold Glover but isn't Gomesian either. I think my other bias is living in NYC and my Yankees hatred/schadenfreude, so I love seeing the cherry-pickings of some of the egregious gaffes he made in RF at the Toilet and his Swisher Face after he makes these errors/misplays.

[Trlicek's Whip]

SoSH hyperbole my eye. Anyone who considers this anything but disappointing either has some rockstar level rose colored glasses or a rockstar level prescribing physician. I understand that flexibility itself has a monetary value.

[Edited] Let me add that if this creates enough flexibility for a Myers trade or something along those lines then this deal becomes slightly more palatable.

You mean, you thought about it just a little bit longer than a nanosecond, and upon reflection thought that maybe it's not the most cripplingly bad FA signing in franchise history anymore?

This should be pinned in all Hot Stove threads as an example of how to unjerk one's knee.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 05 December 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[Plympton91]

Moving on from that, I'll say that I am not a huge fan of this deal as I view it as a modest overpay, but I am willing to accept that overpay based on the value of Victorino's defensive versatility. I think I am starting to see Cherington's plan for the offseason take form. He is looking to build a team with redundant moving parts at the MLB level to provide greater insulation from injury risk. If the starting outfield is Gomes/LHH, Ellsbury, and Victorino and Ellsbury gets hurt, the organization has the flexibility to call up or trade for either a CF or a RF. If you replace Victorino with Ross or Swisher, you need a CF. Similarly, in the infield, Napoli provides insurance against a C injury, allowing them to find a stop gap 1B instead of hunting for a catcher, which we know from past experience are incredibly hard to find midseason. In the absence of elite talent, of which there is none on the position player front this offseason, I like the idea of building a versatile roster. This also retains flexibility going forward. If Bradley takes a step back and Brentz takes a leap forward, we could be looking at Brentz replacing Ellsbury by taking over RF with Victorino shifting back to CF in a year. If Lavarnway flops, Napoli can be moved behind the plate and the team can try to add a 1B bat instead of fixing catcher. There is real value in this sort of flexibility even if it is rather difficult to quantify.

That is a good point. But, this is the most optimistic thing I've read in the thread so far:

It should be mentioned that Victorino was nursing a wrist injury throughout the season last year, which is why his ISO was so low. If that is healed he should bounce back closer to career norms and he should easily earn his contract.

A concrete reason for the massive dropoff in performance last season that gives hope of a rebound to the upper 700s. As a centerfielder that would even be above average. I retract my most strident negative statements, pending confirmation that last season was an injury-plagued abberation and not the beginning of a decline phase or if, yet again, the Red Sox medical staff gave a clean bill of health to a player with a chronic injury.

[Trlicek's Whip]

A concrete reason for the massive dropoff in performance last season that gives hope of a rebound to the upper 700s. As a centerfielder that would even be above average. I retract my most strident negative statements, pending confirmation that last season was an injury-plagued abberation and not the beginning of a decline phase or if, yet again, the Red Sox medical staff gave a clean bill of health to a player with a chronic injury.

I also mentioned the left wrist upthread - then couldn't find any documentation of a DL-stint. Which is why I think most people miss it unless they were members of the Shane Victorino Fan Club or regrettably had them in a rotisserie league in 2012 - he was never officially DL'd for the left wrist soreness.

According to Rotoworld updates on Victorino he sat out from 9/21 - 9/24 to rest the wrist - during a three-game weekend series at CIN plus a scheduled day off on Monday 9/24. When he returned to the lineup on 9/25, he played the remaining nine games of the season.

He's never said anywhere that I can find that the wrist affected him, nor for how long it may have done so during the season. His splits by month etc. don't reveal any consistent data on either side of the September benching as to how it may have affected him.

[Drek717]

To me the Victorino contract really boils down to how many games he starts in CF versus RF. If he's 2/3rds or better in CF he's solid value who will give us a solid across the board, frequently healthy starter to lean on. If he spends a lot of time in RF he won't hit well enough to earn his pay unless he gives us a repeat of 2011. So his value is pretty heavily tied to the futures of Ellsbury (trade him now, let him walk after 2013, either way Victorino's value goes up once he leaves) and Bradley (will he be ready for 2014? If so Victorino's value could turf completely if Ells doesn't get traded).

[seantoo]

That's what I get for repeating something I read on Twitter without double-checking.

You also assumed that competing in our division is the same as competing in others, a huge mistake.

[Harry Hooper]

To me the Victorino contract really boils down to how many games he starts in CF versus RF. If he's 2/3rds or better in CF he's solid value who will give us a solid across the board, frequently healthy starter to lean on. If he spends a lot of time in RF he won't hit well enough to earn his pay unless he gives us a repeat of 2011. So his value is pretty heavily tied to the futures of Ellsbury (trade him now, let him walk after 2013, either way Victorino's value goes up once he leaves) and Bradley (will he be ready for 2014? If so Victorino's value could turf completely if Ells doesn't get traded).

Well, there is value in purchasing and having insurance, even if it turns out you never have to file a claim.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

Untreated wrist injury you say? What could possibly go wrong!?

Looking at his monthly splits, there is no obvious acute injury phase. Relative to career norms he was crappy in April, normal in May, crappy in June, normal in July, crappy in August, and a little below average in September (which appears to be the only time he sat out a few games due to the wrist). If the the entire sub-par season can be written off as attributable to a nagging wrist injury, which he apparently hasn't done anything to address, that doesn't instill a lot of confidence that it's going to magically heal itself over the off season.

Maybe the physical will void this whole thing. One can dream!

[SoxScout]

Why are people so obsessed with where offense comes from? If Victointo place CF it'll be cool but RF we're fucked?

The average RF in the AL hit .264/.325/.428, for the Tigers it was .235 /.285/.357. It's not like every RF in baseball is a great defender, walking 85 times, and hitting 35 homers.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Of course, the wild card in the Victorino RF vs. CF question is Ellsbury. If we hang onto him and he comes within a country mile of repeating his 2011, then he'll be giving us RF offense from CF, which will make it more sustainable to get CF offense from RF. What happens in 2014 is another question. But I think, as others have suggested, that part of the attraction of Victorino to the Sox is that he will be useful regardless of whether Bradley or Brentz is ready first. If they're both ready by Opening Day 2014, well, that's a good problem to have.

[Bosoxen]

Your last sentence has been my whole point in this argument. If they have a shit ton of money to spend, what's the best way to spend it? If you're prepared to overpay, why not go the extra distance for the premium talent like a Josh Hamilton? You can still do the same thing you are doing to Napoli and Victorino and overpay in AAV if you don't want to commit to extra years. If it's true that Hamilton will get a 3 or 4 year contract, then I'll be very disappointed that they didn't go that route.

Would you be willing to top 4 years at $100 million for Hamilton? Because that's what's being rumored as the potential deal for him to return to the Rangers.

As the second day of the winter meetings got rolling, a late-morning tweet said the Rangers were “progressing” on a deal for Josh Hamilton. Within an hour, major league sources were discussing a four-year offer of more than $100 million.

http://rangersblog.d...kes-sense.html/

I don't know about you but if his agent came to me with that question, I'd thank him for playing and quickly walk away.

Perhaps the news of that rumored deal was the impetus for the decision to go ahead and ink Victorino (though we'll probably never know). The size of that rumored contract certainly does, however, make the Victorino contract feel a bit more palatable - as much as I disliked it upon hearing about it.

[Drek717]

Well, there is value in purchasing and having insurance, even if it turns out you never have to file a claim.

Sure, but the importance of insurance is why many corporations are moving to self insured risk management models, and in baseball terms the Red Sox could build those solutions pretty cheaply at the mL level, not pay market premiums for ML level stop gaps.

There are a lot of layers to how Victorino might be worth more than he looks to offer on the surface but until another shoe drops here we're all left to simply speculate.

Why are people so obsessed with where offense comes from? If Victointo place CF it'll be cool but RF we're fucked?

The average RF in the AL hit .264/.325/.428, for the Tigers it was .235 /.285/.357. It's not like every RF in baseball is a great defender, walking 85 times, and hitting 35 homers.

Because you need the ability to put up runs and the corner OF positions are comparatively low on the defensive priority list, making them easier places to live with inferior defense in exchange for better offense.

That isn't entirely true for the Red Sox, given Fenway's unique RF dimensions, so it likely factored in to the Victorino deal some, but the fact remains that this club likely wins more games in 2013 with Hamilton or Swisher in RF than Victorino in RF.

[941827]

You also assumed that competing in our division is the same as competing in others, a huge mistake.

You may want to take a gander at the payrolls of the successful teams in the AL East the past few years. A huge mistake would be continuing to use the "we have to spend to win" excuse. There are two wild-card spots. The Yankees are dropping their payroll to $189mm in 2014. The first- or second-place team in the AL East had a payroll of under $80mm the past three years. A team spending its money wisely should be able to compete at the payroll the Giants are going to have. I'm all for the Sox spending every penny they can on the team, but claiming that you can't compete in the AL East without spending is demonstrably false.

Edited by 941827, 05 December 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[NickEsasky]

Why are people so obsessed with where offense comes from? If Victointo place CF it'll be cool but RF we're fucked?

The average RF in the AL hit .264/.325/.428, for the Tigers it was .235 /.285/.357. It's not like every RF in baseball is a great defender, walking 85 times, and hitting 35 homers.

Well when we may be getting the equivalent of a pitcher's offensive numbers from our SS, no real idea we get from Ellsbury (if he isn't traded), and a guy in LF who only really hits lefties well, and a second year player coming off a broken wrist, the offense has to come from somewhere.

[SoxScout]

That isn't entirely true for the Red Sox, given Fenway's unique RF dimensions, so it likely factored in to the Victorino deal some, but the fact remains that this club likely wins more games in 2013 with Hamilton or Swisher in RF than Victorino in RF.

From listening to John Farrell on the radio yesterday I'd say "some" is a massive understatement. I have a feeling Ells is being traded, but I wouldn't be surprised if they felt Victorino was a better overall player for the Red Sox than Swisher.

Winning more games with better players isn't really rocket science, but we'd also spend a ton more money, lose a top 40 pick, and lose $1M of our draft pool in a freak-occurrence year when we can add star power to our system.

Well when we may be getting the equivalent of a pitcher's offensive numbers from our SS, no real idea we get from Ellsbury (if he isn't traded), and a guy in LF who only really hits lefties well, and a second year player coming off a broken wrist, the offense has to come from somewhere.

Good thing it's December 5th and we have have some massive trade chits and $40M or so left to play with.

Edited by SoxScout, 05 December 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Jed Zeppelin]

I also mentioned the left wrist upthread - then couldn't find any documentation of a DL-stint. Which is why I think most people miss it unless they were members of the Shane Victorino Fan Club or regrettably had them in a rotisserie league in 2012 - he was never officially DL'd for the left wrist soreness.

According to Rotoworld updates on Victorino he sat out from 9/21 - 9/24 to rest the wrist - during a three-game weekend series at CIN plus a scheduled day off on Monday 9/24. When he returned to the lineup on 9/25, he played the remaining nine games of the season.

He's never said anywhere that I can find that the wrist affected him, nor for how long it may have done so during the season. His splits by month etc. don't reveal any consistent data on either side of the September benching as to how it may have affected him.

In June, there was some talk about Victorino's FA status and how it may have been affecting his play:

Most players in their free-agent season won’t admit the prospect of looking for a new job is weighing on their mind, but Shane Victorino will. Before Wednesday's 6-5 loss to the Dodgers on Wednesday, the Phillies' centerfielder said he’d heard comments that the pressures that go along with a pending job search may be affecting him on the field.

“I can’t say they’re not. ... I also can’t say they are," Victorino said. "Is there a little something in the back of my mind, yeah. You want to have your best year.”

Manuel thought enough of it that he sat Victorino down to "clear his head" after discussing the contract issue with him. I don't put a lot of stock in this kind of thing; I'm just trying to piece together some more potential evidence to explain the down year. Basically, there are a lot of factors that maybe possibly perhaps could have contributed, but we won't know until he suits up in 2013.

We don't know how serious the wrist was or how much it affected him; we don't know how much his contract status affected him; we don't know how early he became aware that he was trade-bait; and we don't know how the move to LA affected him on top of everything else. He could easily be declining, but there's at least a >0% chance that it was more of a fluke down year.

[Bdanahy14]

Okay.. after sleeping on it,,,,

1) My immediate reaction was - WTF!! The guy had a 710 OPS last year, he is a no power, declining OBP, wrong side of the bell curve, can't hit righties. This was, on the surface, the type of player I wanted to avoid moving forward...

2) That said - a 3 year contract doesn't hamstring us and he is is an above average defender. In fact, he posted a 3.3 WAR last year, despite a horrid slash line of .255/.321/.383.

3) The reality is the Free Agent marketplace is the issue as much as anything. One of the the aftereffects of the Steroid Era is that teams are still giving players who don't deserve them long term, big money deals. I think as we continue to see more busts, the marketplace will correct itself - but until then... guys who are better than Shane get 4+ years and lots of money.

3) This fits with a longer, player development vision. Bring in a serviceable OFer to help transition till the young guys develop. between Jackie Bradley Jr, Bryce Brentz, and Xander Bogarts (if he moves to the OF) - there are internal options. Worst case we have Kalish.

4) There is a chance he bounces back a bit as last year was an outlier. Could it be the first year of a decline - of course... but that is not definitive either.The year before he produced 5.5WAR. I don't think we see that, but maybe high 3's, low 4's?

5) They seem to be going after really high character guys, hard workers, etc. Trying to erase the negative attitude in the clubhouse and build an environment that is healthy for their talent development. There is definite value in that. Not 3/39M ... but value non the less

6) This move requires no compensation. We don't need to give up any prospects. We don't need to give up any draft slots. We just need to pay the man his money.. and money is something we have lots of.

7) He hasn't played a ton of ball. Less than 7 years worth of at-bats. He isn't a 32 year old that broke in at 21 and has beaten up his body. Pedey only has 480 less at-bats. That may slow down any decline as an outfielder / base runner.

8) Wonder if there is another chip falling with Ellsbury being moved. Or maybe we are going to attempt to field a starting 9 with all catchers and OF's


Anyway... I don't hate it as much as I did when rumors first broke. But I don't love it either. I am in the camp of "let's let them finish out their game plan and build the complete roster, then evaluate"

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

Okay.. after sleeping on it,,,,


7) He hasn't played a ton of ball. Less than 7 years worth of at-bats. He isn't a 32 year old that broke in at 21 and has beaten up his body. Pedey only has 480 less at-bats. That may slow down any decline as an outfielder / base runner.

He's been playing professional baseball pretty much full time since he was 18 years old. What difference does it make that it took him until age 25 to stick at the major league level?

[Paradigm]

If Cleveland offered him 4/44 coming off of his terrible season, and if other teams were in at this price, Victorino should be easily tradable next year at 2/26 if that's what we need to do.

You can't expect him to have a worse season in 2013 than he did in 2012, so if, at worst, he maintains his level of performance, you should be able to deal him.

If this were a four-year deal I'd be livid. You can survive a three-year deal.

[Corsi]

Jen Royle:

Source: Ben Cherington wanted nothing to do with Nick Swisher. He highly preferred Victorino

https://twitter.com/...380194800013312