Jump to content


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

Photo

Edes: Sox want Swisher if they can't get Hamilton


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

#1 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:35 PM

The Boston Red Sox are one of four teams interested in signing free-agent outfielder/first baseman Nick Swisher, according to a baseball source. The Red Sox look at Swisher as a fallback plan if they are unable to lure Josh Hamilton.

Along with the Red Sox, the San Francisco Giants, New York Yankees and the Cleveland Indians have all reportedly expressed interested in the 32-year-old.

Privately, the Red Sox have said they won’t go beyond a three-year deal for Hamilton, and Monday a baseball source it was “doubtful” that Hamilton will get fewer than four years in a new deal. The Texas Rangers are still considered the favorites to re-sign Hamilton, the 2010 American League MVP.

The switch-hitting Swisher would appear to be a more plausible alternative for the Sox, although to date he reportedly is seeking a five- or six-year deal. ESPN Insider's Jim Bowden reported that the Indians hope they can sign him for four years and $48-50 million, though it appears the market could reach $60 million or more.

http://espn.go.com/b...rest-in-swisher

Edited by SoxScout, 11 December 2012 - 03:35 PM.


#2 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 24752 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:43 PM

Okay, if this is accurate (and who the hell knows anymore) then, seriously, WTF is going on with Ellsbury? They're going to sign Gomes, Napoli, Victorino and Swisher/Hamilton ... and keep Ellsbury?

Is there a deal already on the table that gets pulled the minute they were to get either Swisher or Hamilton?

#3 IpswichSox

  • 1780 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:58 PM

It's also totally obvious now that the FO has little confidence in Kalish. What happens if Kalish does stay healthy and is effective in AAA (presumably Kalish is not on the MLB roster to be the fifth outfielder)? Where do they play Kalish on the Red Sox? Victorino isn't going to be on the bench at $13 million a year, is he? What's Kalish's future with this team? It doesn't seem bright or clear, at least to me.

Edited by IpswichSox, 11 December 2012 - 03:58 PM.


#4 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20465 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:02 PM

Not that I'd be surprised by an Ellsbury trade if the team landed either Hamilton or Swisher, but they could certainly keep him as well if they were so inclined. An outfield of Victorino (LF) Ellsbury (CF) Hamilton (RF) would be good to very good offensively while being arguably the best defensive outfield in the majors. Gomes becomes a 4th outfielder, back up DH and maybe picks up a 1st baseman's mitt here and there, and still picks up a bunch of starts against left handed pitching and the team looks pretty solid.

That said, if they end up with Swisher rather than Hamilton and trade Ellsbury a starting outfield of Gomes, Victorino and Swisher would be quite underwhelming defensively.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 11 December 2012 - 04:03 PM.


#5 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383228 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:07 PM

I really don't understand the love for Swisher. He's a decent hitter and a terrible fielder. He'd be a nightmare in RF in Fenway. If 3/39 is an overpay for Victorino, would people really be happy about 4/60 for Swisher? This seems like it would be an inefficient use of resources.

#6 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6913 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

I really don't understand the love for Swisher. He's a decent hitter and a terrible fielder. He'd be a nightmare in RF in Fenway. If 3/39 is an overpay for Victorino, would people really be happy about 4/60 for Swisher? This seems like it would be an inefficient use of resources.


I suspect Swisher would play LF.

#7 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 7566 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

It's also totally obvious now that the FO has little confidence in Kalish. What happens if Kalish does stay healthy and is effective in AAA (presumably Kalish is not on the MLB roster to be the fifth outfielder)? Where do they play Kalish on the Red Sox? Victorino isn't going to be on the bench at $13 million a year, is he? What's Kalish's future with this team? It doesn't seem bright or clear, at least to me.


Pre-arb players who are good have tons of value. If we totally block Kalish and, aided by his new cybernetic shoulder, he hits 25 homers in the first half in Pawtucket, we have a couple of pretty decent options:

A) If the Indians are still interested in Victorino, to whom they reportedly offered more than we did, we deal him to the Tribe for the most useful piece they'll send our way.
B) Deal Kalish to the Mariners for young pitching. They have pitching and they want outfielders.

It's unlikely that he's going to be good enough to make this a problem, though. We'd all be delighted if he did.

Back to the topic of the thread, I really hope they don't sign Swisher, for the reasons Glennhoffmania describes. I predict SF signs him to play LF, and probably lives to regret it.

#8 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10041 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:11 PM

There could also be another explanation here - depending on who the baseball source is. If its an agent for one of the OFers on the market, this helps in pushing teams that may be close on either Swisher or Hamilton to pull the trigger. Or it simply drives the price up for the likes of the Yankees if they are truly in on him.

#9 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 22783 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:16 PM

I really don't understand the love for Swisher. He's a decent hitter and a terrible fielder. He'd be a nightmare in RF in Fenway. If 3/39 is an overpay for Victorino, would people really be happy about 4/60 for Swisher? This seems like it would be an inefficient use of resources.


My love for him is his OBA and his batting eye something that has been missing from the lineup.

#10 Yaz4Ever


  • sucking on the government teat


  • 8106 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:18 PM

Not that I'd be surprised by an Ellsbury trade if the team landed either Hamilton or Swisher, but they could certainly keep him as well if they were so inclined. An outfield of Victorino (LF) Ellsbury (CF) Hamilton (RF) would be good to very good offensively while being arguably the best defensive outfield in the majors. Gomes becomes a 4th outfielder, back up DH and maybe picks up a 1st baseman's mitt here and there, and still picks up a bunch of starts against left handed pitching and the team looks pretty solid.

That said, if they end up with Swisher rather than Hamilton and trade Ellsbury a starting outfield of Gomes, Victorino and Swisher would be quite underwhelming defensively.


I would love that OF and Gomes would be an excellent 4th OF, bat off the bench, back up DH jack-of-all-trades kind of guy. Having him pick up a 1B mitt and work there would certainly increase his value. We'd be paying a ton for such a guy, but it would be a luxury to have him there.

#11 Yaz4Ever


  • sucking on the government teat


  • 8106 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:19 PM

My love for him is his OBA and his batting eye something that has been missing from the lineup.


I also love his enthusiasm. Say what you want about chemistry, he'd certainly bring some of the 2004 clubhouse feel back to Fenway. Could be worse things than that.

#12 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383228 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:20 PM

My love for him is his OBA and his batting eye something that has been missing from the lineup.


Let's assume that the current OF is Kalish/Gomes-Ellsbury-Victorino. Swisher would presumably replace the Kalish/Gomes platoon unless Ellsbury is traded. Is the marginal upgrade to Swisher worth 4/60?

#13 941827

  • 3330 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:24 PM

Back to the topic of the thread, I really hope they don't sign Swisher, for the reasons Glennhoffmania describes. I predict SF signs him to play LF, and probably lives to regret it.


I would be very surprised to see SF commit that kind of money to Swisher. They are going to have to go to arbitration with Posey (or sign him long-term) and have quite a bit of money already wrapped up in Pagan, Scutaro and their starting pitchers. They've got Blanco to play LF if worst comes to worst and likely will see if anyone interesting is on the post-ST scrapheap if they want to replace Blanco.

#14 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20465 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:25 PM

I really don't understand the love for Swisher. He's a decent hitter and a terrible fielder. He'd be a nightmare in RF in Fenway. If 3/39 is an overpay for Victorino, would people really be happy about 4/60 for Swisher? This seems like it would be an inefficient use of resources.


This has been discussed before, but Swisher is not a terrible defender. It's easy to hate on him because of the pinstripes, and I'll grant you that he does not look smooth out there, but in eight full seasons he's only posted one negative UZR/150 or UZR and his total UZR in the outfield for his career is 17.2. dWAR (defensive component of rWAR from baseball-reference) has him slightly worse with most seasons coming just shy of 0.0 with a total dWAR of -7.1 over 8 full seasons plus -0,6 of that coming in 20 games in his first cup of coffee back in 2004. He's certainly not a good defender, but he's also not terrible. Making an adjustment for moving from Yankee Stadium to Fenway, he'd probably end up being consistently below average but not horrible. At least, there's really not much evidence to suggest he'd be horrible. That said, him and Gomes on the corners at the same time with Victorino in center (where he's merely a tough above average defensively) would be tough to watch. But in isolation, Swisher isn't terrible.

Offensively, he's better than decent by a good margin. In the AL last year he ranked 2nd among right fielders in wOBA and 4th in wRC+. He's well above average at his position and is arguably one of the best right field bats in the American League.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 11 December 2012 - 04:28 PM.


#15 NHbeau


  • hates latinos/bay staters


  • 578 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

Let's assume that the current OF is Kalish/Gomes-Ellsbury-Victorino. Swisher would presumably replace the Kalish/Gomes platoon unless Ellsbury is traded. Is the marginal upgrade to Swisher worth 4/60?


I'm not a huge fan of Swisher, but calling him a marginal upgrade over a Kalish/Gomes platoon seems a bit silly. Swisher is pretty far from a fungible player.

#16 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383228 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

I'm not a huge fan of Swisher, but calling him a marginal upgrade over a Kalish/Gomes platoon seems a bit silly. Swisher is pretty far from a fungible player.


I'm not saying he's only a slight upgrade. I'm asking if the incremental difference is worth $60m.

#17 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 22783 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

Yea that was pretty nuts. The only year he didn't put up a fWAR of 3.0 or better was his age 24 season and the season he spent having a dick of a manager hounding him. He would be worth the money, Victorino won't be. Also, did I mention he walks a lot? Let's go after that again.

#18 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14237 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:32 PM

The mission for this offseason is to build a relevant club for 2013 without doing harm beyond the 2-3 year window.

That's it. They have a ton of money to spend. Blowing some of it doesn't hamper the farm's development. The worst crime that will be committed is blocking a prospect for a year or so.

Swisher at 3 years helps them "contend" right now and he's not here beyond the 3 years it'd take to get him. If he needs 4 then he's not an option. So, yeah, if you can put him in LF to diminish the defensive shortcomings, then allt he better.

For me, the key to this process will be to keep an opening for JBJ next year. I am assuming he'll be in the mix by then. I imagine they are planning around their projected development dates. Ellsbury is the big question mark for 2013. It'd be a shame to value 2013 "relevancy" over the 2015 squad which will hopefully begin the new era. Moving him should net good assets for that club (or in that club's window at least).

#19 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:38 PM

If we sign Hamilton or Swisher we will lose our 2nd round pick and roughly $1M in draft pool allocations.

#20 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20465 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:46 PM

For me, the biggest argument I can come up with for not signing Swisher or Hamilton, beyond the years they are seeking, is the loss of a second round draft pick and the slot money that goes along with it. It's easy to dismiss the value of a second round draft pick, but in reality it's going to account for both the 50th pick in the draft (currently) and somewhere near $1,000,000.00 in slot money that can be redistributed to later picks if they draft someone safe in that spot or used to sign someone who will command that kind of money.

With the new CBA, that has quite a bit of value and I can understand some hesitancy on the part of Cherington. The Red Sox will, presumably, not be in such an advantageous position in the draft again any time soon, so perhaps the better long term play is to not sign either of the two and to focus the resources they save on bringing in a little more talent to the farm system next June.

Edit: SoxScout beat me to the point about the slot money.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 11 December 2012 - 04:47 PM.


#21 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14237 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:47 PM

I should have said do as little harm. Maintaining interest and all the associated revenue in the short term is likely worth some future sacrifices.

This assumes these rumors are true.

This is just what I see. I would approach things differently and not be in on Swisher or Hamilton.

Edited by yecul, 11 December 2012 - 04:48 PM.


#22 foulkehampshire


  • hillbilly suburbanite


  • 3075 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:49 PM

I like the versatility/insurance Swisher would provide. However, I only like this if 2 things happen:

1) Ellbury remains on the team.
2) Swisher plays the bulk of his time at LF.

#23 YTF

  • 3542 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:08 PM

As soon as Hamilton signs, Swisher's price is likely to go up.

#24 YTF

  • 3542 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:22 PM

I like the versatility/insurance Swisher would provide. However, I only like this if 2 things happen:

1) Ellbury remains on the team.
2) Swisher plays the bulk of his time at LF.


Just as a "What if".........What do you (you as in all of you) think about an outfield of Swisher, Victorino and Cody Ross/Gomes should Ellsbury get moved? I think we all feel he's going at some point and many of us expect sooner rather than later if either Hamilton or Swisher sign with the Sox. The Sox also HAVE to get another outfielder should Ellsbury go OR if neither free agent signs here. In that case would Victorino, Ellsbury and Ross/Gomes be so bad? Either scenario would have Gomes getting the majority of his PT in LF with Swisher and Victorino moving from left to right.

#25 Yaz4Ever


  • sucking on the government teat


  • 8106 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:24 PM

YTF - not crazy about that outfield scenario, but it depends on what we got back for Ellsbury. I'm pretty much writing this year off anyhow, so if it helps us long-term, I might be able to deal with it.

#26 foulkehampshire


  • hillbilly suburbanite


  • 3075 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:24 PM

Just as a "What if".........What do you (you as in all of you) think about an outfield of Swisher, Victorino and Cody Ross/Gomes should Ellsbury get moved? I think we all feel he's going at some point and many of us expect sooner rather than later if either Hamilton or Swisher sign with the Sox. The Sox also HAVE to get another outfielder should Ellsbury go OR if neither free agent signs here. In that case would Victorino, Ellsbury and Ross/Gomes be so bad? Either scenario would have Gomes getting the majority of his PT in LF with Swisher and Victorino moving from left to right.


Whats the point of having Cody Ross and Gomes on the same team? Seems awfully redundant.

#27 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 4977 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:28 PM

His average baseball reference WAR the last 3 years is 2.8. Over the past 4 years? 2.5. Fielding is the discrepancy. These clubs have their own defensive values in a black box that we are not privy too. He's good offensively - that's not disputed. But 15m a season for a 32 year old corner outfielder seems excessive. What do other defensive analysts say about him?

#28 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 12727 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:31 PM

How many different guys played outfield last year for the Sox? Maybe the FO is just hedging bets on that and/or trades i.e. stockpiling. There will obviously be some shifting and adjusting going on before April 1.

#29 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

What do other defensive analysts say about him?


Fans scouting report: http://www.tangotige...p?prim_fld_cd=9

Tabata, Jose 46
Snider, Travis 45
Swisher, Nick 44
Ross, Cody 41
Pence, Hunter 40
Cuddyer, Michael 40

Swisher has a large advantage in catching and also footwork over Ross according to these ratings. Similar in other categories.

Edited by SoxScout, 11 December 2012 - 05:39 PM.


#30 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 4977 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

Fans scouting report: http://www.tangotige...p?prim_fld_cd=9

Tabata, Jose 46
Snider, Travis 45
Swisher, Nick 44
Ross, Cody 41
Pence, Hunter 40
Cuddyer, Michael 40

Swisher has a large advantage in catching and also footwork over Ross according to these ratings. Similar in other categories.


Thanks for the link - it looks like he is the 39th "best" left fielder out of the 47 ranked. So yes, he may be better than Ross but Ross is 40th out of 47. Still, thanks for the link.

#31 geoduck no quahog


  • SoSH Member


  • 5433 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:45 PM

I don't see how trading Ellsbury benefits the Red Sox. They will get a short return because of his contract status - which then needs to be compared to (say) $10M for 1 last year of his service (plus the comps for losing him to FA). Ellsbury is the CF for 2013.

Victorino is the RF for 2013.

So that leaves replacing Cody Ross with (a) Cody Ross or (b) Nick Swisher or ( c ) Gomes/Kalish in LF.

Option (a) = 3 x $9M
Option (b) = 3 x $15M
Option ( c ) = sunk costs

I choose door (b)

#32 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:49 PM

(plus the comps for losing him to FA)


which will be 1 pick in the 35-40 range.

#33 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20465 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:52 PM

which will be 1 pick in the 35-40 range.


Well, one pick in that range plus the slot money that goes with it. Presumably a little more than $1,000,000.00.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 11 December 2012 - 05:52 PM.


#34 ToeKneeArmAss


  • Paul Byrd's pitching coach


  • 2245 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:24 PM

I just want to see them preserve salary flexibility for 2014 and 2015. The Punto trade was a Houdini act that freed them from some scary shackles. Would seem nonsensical to eat up all that new-found flexibility this off-season with 3 and 4 year deals and get right back into that pickle.

Unless I'm reading Cot's incorrectly, other than Lackey and Lester, no meaningful salaries are coming off the books anytime soon. And (IMO at least) the 2013 holes at SP and SS are more important to address now than the work that's left to do in the OF.

I guess I've talked myself into taking a pass on both Hamilton and Nicky Swish.

#35 YTF

  • 3542 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:25 PM

Whats the point of having Cody Ross and Gomes on the same team? Seems awfully redundant.


Yes and no. In each scenario I presented the Sox need an everyday right fielder. Hell even NOW they need an everyday right fielder and it ain't gonna be Gomes. Now Ross may or may not be up to the task of playing everyday but I think is a better bet to be more productive with increased playing time than Gomes and could be spelled a couple of times a week with either Victorino or Swisher when Gomes is in the lineup.

#36 redsoxstiff


  • hip-tossed Yogi in a bar fight


  • 6657 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:30 PM

If in fact .the FO has formulated a hard and fast rule of no offers beyond three years ,,,Imvho they have taken one stupid error and by going tatally opposite ,commiting an equally stupid rationale...

#37 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11320 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:35 PM

Yes and no. In each scenario I presented the Sox need an everyday right fielder. Hell even NOW they need an everyday right fielder and it ain't gonna be Gomes.


Unless and until Ellsbury is traded, the everyday right fielder is Victorino.

We could certainly add Ross as the everyday RF if Ellsbury is traded and VIctorino moved to CF, but Gomes-Victorino-Ross would be a pretty big step down from Gomes-Ellsbury-VIctorino.

At this point, it makes no sense to add an OF that isn't a LHH or true switch-hitter, because the two FA OF's we've already acquired hit RHP poorly, and if we acquire another OF it probably means we're trading the only LHH OF we already had.

#38 Kramerica Industries

  • 736 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:41 PM

If in fact .the FO has formulated a hard and fast rule of no offers beyond three years ,,,Imvho they have taken one stupid error and by going tatally opposite ,commiting an equally stupid rationale...


Why? Its a weak free agent market. Are you really comfortable giving more than 3 years to anyone that is/was out there??

Now if they make this a hard and fast rule to never offer more than 3 years to anyone at anytime then yeah its a "stupid rationale".

Over spend on years on the "perfect player" during the right off-seaon to put you over the top...that is not now. Hold the line at 3 years.

#39 YTF

  • 3542 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:45 PM

Unless and until Ellsbury is traded, the everyday right fielder is Victorino.

We could certainly add Ross as the everyday RF if Ellsbury is traded and VIctorino moved to CF, but Gomes-Victorino-Ross would be a pretty big step down from Gomes-Ellsbury-VIctorino.

At this point, it makes no sense to add an OF that isn't a LHH or true switch-hitter, because the two FA OF's we've already acquired hit RHP poorly, and if we acquire another OF it probably means we're trading the only LHH OF we already had.


I stand corrected about the NOW part of my response. They NOW need a starting left fielder but still holds true for the other scenarios I presented.

#40 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11994 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:02 PM

The FO obviously thinks Victorino's glove can carry his bat in RF. Regardless of what happens to Ellsbury in 2013, the Sox aren't planning to make Victorino a $13mm bench player if JBJ is ready for prime time by mid-2014. Therefore, I'm less convinced than others are that Victorino's signing pre-sages an Ellsbury trade.

I don't think the Sox are going to get materially more for Ellsbury in trade now than the 2014 sandwich pick they'll presumably get when he signs elsewhere. They should, however, be able to get a comparable asset that will make an impact sooner than that pick. That's not nothing, but I wouldn't give up what Ellsbury brings to the table in 2013 solely for that acceleration of value.

If Ellsbury and Victorino represent two-thirds of the 2013 starting OF, and if the FO feels they can throw 4/60 at someone who isn't worth that kind of coin, I'd rather sign Edwin Jackson and live with Nava/Gomes in LF than sign Swisher and live with Morales in the rotation.

If Swisher will sign for a lot less than Jackson, or if Ellsbury is a much more valuable trade chit than I think, then of course that changes things.


#41 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:17 PM

Not that I'd be surprised by an Ellsbury trade if the team landed either Hamilton or Swisher, but they could certainly keep him as well if they were so inclined. An outfield of Victorino (LF) Ellsbury (CF) Hamilton (RF) would be good to very good offensively while being arguably the best defensive outfield in the majors. Gomes becomes a 4th outfielder, back up DH and maybe picks up a 1st baseman's mitt here and there, and still picks up a bunch of starts against left handed pitching and the team looks pretty solid.


That would also push our total real dollar payroll up to a roughly projected $160m, before even going out and grabbing whatever starting pitcher option many believe is in our immediate future regardless. Granted, Swisher will cost less, but how much so? Both Hunter and Victorino got $13m/per. BJ Upton got $15m/per, ect. Gotta figure Swisher is realistically getting more then that, especially if we are talking shorter years.

I guess you could look at it as a 1 year/shot deal, with him moving to center the following season, but that still leaves signing Victorino as a starting LF here looking awfully Carl Crawford'y. Not to mention, you then have to question why sign both him and Gomes in that scenario? Just seems like an excessive waste of resources, which could/would be better utilized in the search for pitching.

Barring an angle in play that's simply impossible for us to see atm, none of this is really adding up all that well on the surface, imo. Leaving me feeling less then confident in Ben's overall ability to construct a well rounded roster, while not doing much to help erase the memory of his self proclaimed support behind the Crawford signing either for that matter.

#42 BosRedSox5


  • Stuart Smalley devotee


  • 1258 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:45 PM

Does the Napoli situation shed some light on the team's interest in Swisher?

#43 lexrageorge

  • 3019 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:53 PM

That would also push our total real dollar payroll up to a roughly projected $160m, before even going out and grabbing whatever starting pitcher option many believe is in our immediate future regardless. Granted, Swisher will cost less, but how much so? Both Hunter and Victorino got $13m/per. BJ Upton got $15m/per, ect. Gotta figure Swisher is realistically getting more then that, especially if we are talking shorter years.

I guess you could look at it as a 1 year/shot deal, with him moving to center the following season, but that still leaves signing Victorino as a starting LF here looking awfully Carl Crawford'y. Not to mention, you then have to question why sign both him and Gomes in that scenario? Just seems like an excessive waste of resources, which could/would be better utilized in the search for pitching.

Barring an angle in play that's simply impossible for us to see atm, none of this is really adding up all that well on the surface, imo. Leaving me feeling less then confident in Ben's overall ability to construct a well rounded roster, while not doing much to help erase the memory of his self proclaimed support behind the Crawford signing either for that matter.


Victorino is slotted to be in RF. Maybe that would change if Hamilton was signed; then again, perhaps Hamilton plays LF.

But you do need to realize that Victorino is a far better fielder than anyone who manned the OF in Fenway last season, Crawford included. And Victorino's career OBP is a not insignificant 0.010 higher than Crawford's.

#44 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20465 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

If Ellsbury and Victorino represent two-thirds of the 2013 starting OF, and if the FO feels they can throw 4/60 at someone who isn't worth that kind of coin, I'd rather sign Edwin Jackson and live with Nava/Gomes in LF than sign Swisher and live with Morales in the rotation.


I think I'd have to agree. If the choice is one of these two or a pitcher, go with the pitcher.

Barring an angle in play that's simply impossible for us to see atm, none of this is really adding up all that well on the surface, imo. Leaving me feeling less then confident in Ben's overall ability to construct a well rounded roster, while not doing much to help erase the memory of his self proclaimed support behind the Crawford signing either for that matter.


I disagree. I think what Cherington is showing is a balance between cobbling together a competitive roster now and preserving the farm/future. The team is clearly determined to hold onto their best prospects to give them a chance to finish developing and to see which ones are actually going to pan out. Doing that and finding a way to compete in 2013 is a difficult task and I think he's doing a decent job of it. Right now, the roster breaks down like this with fWAR and rWAR.

Ross (1.5/0.8), Napoli (2.0/1.4), Pedroia (4.5/4.7), Iglesias (0.3/0.2), Middlebrooks (2.1/1.1), Gomes (2.1/1.6), Ellsbury (1.5/0.8), Victorino (3.3/1.1), Ortiz (3.0/2.9)
Lavarnway (-1.3/-1.8), Kalish (-1.5/-0.8), Nava (1.1/0.3), Ciriaco (0.9/1.1)

Lineup fWAR/rWAR19.5/13.4


Lester (3.3/0.4), Buchholz (1.9/0.8), Lackey (N/A), Doubront (2.1/0.0), Morales (0.7/0.5)
Bailey (N/A), Uehara (0.9/1.5), Tazawa (1.3/1.7), Melancon (0.0/-0.6), Miller (0.7/0.7), Aceves (0.4/-1.1), Breslow (0.8/0.4)

Pitching fWAR/rWAR12.1/4.3

Totals:
fWAR 31.6
bWAR 17.7

So, taking last year's numbers without any context, we have a pretty shitty baseline to start with. But let's look at some of the things that contribute to those numbers. First, Napoli was dealing with an ankle injury that lingered all year after being hurt in the 2011 World Series. If he's healthier this season and puts up a more typical season we can probably add anywhere from .5 to .9 to his total. Let's split the difference and add .7

Pedroia, likewise, was banged up last year. He's usually a 5 to 6 win player at baseball-reference and similar at fangraphs. Conservatively, we can probably add 1 WAR to his totals. Middlebrooks compiled his totals over just under 300 PAs so we can probably double his numbers and Lester is almost always a 4 win pitcher at both sites, but there was a discrepancy last year with him at 3.3 on fangraphs and 0.4 at b-r. We're looking at at least a 4 WAR improvement at b-r if he gets back to even 2011 levels, but only a jump of about 0.4 at fangraphs. We'll split the difference and bump him up by 2.

John Lackey is where it gets really tricky. He isn't likely to get back to the 5 and 6 fWAR and 4 to 6 rWAR pitcher he was in LA, but he'll probably be better than the 1.5 he provided in 2011 when his elbow was shredded for most of the year. A 3 WAR season doesn't seem all that crazy to hope for. Then we have Bailey who was dominant in Oakland before breaking his thumb here. fWAR had him at 4.3 over his three seasons in Oakland and rWAR had him at 6.2. Splitting the difference has him at 5.1 or so over 3 years which breaks down to 1.7 per season so we'll go with that as a rough estimate and then regress it for coming out of Oakland and into Fenway. 1.4 seems fair.

Making these adjustments we're looking at adding 8.1 to the totals above before we even consider what to expect from Ellsbury. I doubt anyone here expects another 2011, but he's clearly better than his 2012. Would anyone be shocked by 4 wins above replacement? That would be roughly a 3 win improvement.

So now we're at 11.1 WAR added to the totals above which gives us 42.7 fWAR and 28.8 rWAR. This is a down and dirty rough estimate and yes it's just guesswork, but I don't think anything I'm assuming here is unfair. If my guesses are near correct, the current roster is right in line with what the Rays and Yankees are expecting for fWAR (before the Youk signing) which I broke down in this thread yesterday.

As a quick glance at where the teams stand, it seems like fWAR thinks they're all in similar shape with rWAR thinking the Sox are a little behind the other two. I haven't done this for the Jays yet, but I imagine they'll fall in somewhere in this range as well and there's a lot of off season left, so I probably won't do a proper spread sheet for the whole division until February or so, when the rosters are closer to set. At that point I can lay all the teams out with their totals from last year to see how the current roster stack up without my assumptions about improvements or regressions from last season.

That said, if the Sox add either an outfielder like Hamilton or Swisher or a pitcher like Jackson or Sanchez, their totals will go up accordingly. Judging by the paltry WAR numbers coming out of this year's rotation from last season, I think I'd like to see a pitcher more than another outfielder.

#45 DanoooME


  • SoSH Member


  • 6215 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

And just in case anyone had any bright ideas about Choo, he was just dealt to the Reds in a 3 way.

#46 dylanmarsh

  • 4662 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:02 PM

And just in case anyone had any bright ideas about Choo, he was just dealt to the Reds in a 3 way.


This deal just frees up more money if the Indians are truly serious about going after Swisher.

#47 EP Sox Fan

  • 1268 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

Well Choo getting dealt crystalizes the outside the club choices to Hamilton and Swisher. IMO it will take something like a 4 year $100 million deal to land Hamilton. Fangraphs has Swisher's value at $19 million last season. While my limited posting ability leaves me unable to imbed the link to the article, Dave Cameron at Fangraphs estimated his value at something like 5 year $90 million or 6 year $100 million. That article was in August and I'm not so sure he could get that on the market right now. That being said, overpaying a bit for Hamilton on a 4 year deal is more palatable than Swisher at that kind of money. Even if his health takes a nose dive in the last year or two of his contract, you can always DH him. I'm starting to warm to a Hamilton deal at that price.

#48 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6637 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:42 PM

Good god, I hope this is just someone floating something to bump up Swisher's price.

It's not that Swisher isn't a good ballplayer - he may be better than any other OF on the team right now.

But under this new CBA, it seems that high round draft picks are immensely and incredibly valuable just for the slot money they provide. Given all the money that is sloshing around the system and the scarity of players on which the money can be spent, seems to me that a franchise is going to have to have a ongoing supply of cost controlled players if they want to be successful - i.e., the most successful franchises will be the ones that can consistently develop draft picks or figure out how to salvage talent that other teams have given up trying. Throwing away a 2nd round pick for anyone when the Sox aren't realistically in contention to win a WS for the nexst couple fo years seems foolish to me.

As a short aside, seems like these rules are tailor made for Dan Duquette.

#49 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27975 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:51 PM

Passing on signing good players because you will miss out on one draft pick seems like an overreaction to me, given that there's a good chance the guy the Sox miss out on drafting never amounts to anything. I get that you don't want to make a habit of it, but if you can get Swisher on a fair 3-4 year deal, you can flip Ellsbury for a prospect that makes up for the "lost" draft pick, right?

#50 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6913 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:54 PM

Passing on signing good players because you will miss out on one draft pick seems like an overreaction to me, given that there's a good chance the guy the Sox miss out on drafting never amounts to anything. I get that you don't want to make a habit of it, but if you can get Swisher on a fair 3-4 year deal, you can flip Ellsbury for a prospect that makes up for the "lost" draft pick, right?


Agreed....however I think the landing spots for Ellsbury are running thin.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users