209 replies to this topic

[Rudy Pemberton]

I don't get the idea that one move isn't going to prevent another. If Dempster gets 14M and the Napoli deal goes through; that's that's 55M on those two, Victorino, Ross, Gomes, and Uehara. It's adding up.

[JakeRae]

14M is now "moderate dollars"? Dempster is 36, with a career ERA+ of 99, pitching nearly his entire career in the NL. I guess I just don't get it, is he going to be a part of the next contending Sox team? Either go for it, or give the starts to de la Rosa or someone similar. I can't figure out what this team is trying to do, win 80 games?

Yes, it is. $14 million is what a slightly better than average player now gets in FA.

[gammoseditor]

I don't get the idea that one move isn't going to prevent another. If Dempster gets 14M and the Napoli deal goes through; that's that's 55M on those two, Victorino, Ross, Gomes, and Uehara. It's adding up.

From the start of last year they've gotten rid of Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Kevin Youkilis, Bobby Jenks and Cody Ross. If they give Dempster 14M they're still under the cap by at least 25M.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I get that, but at what point do we acknowledge that mid level moves for 13-14 million dollar, average player is what this team is getting, and that competing for upper echelon talent just isn't in the plans?

[JakeRae]

I get that, but at what point do we acknowledge that mid level moves for 13-14 million dollar, average player is what this team is getting, and that competing for upper echelon talent just isn't in the plans?

I'd argue that we are signing above average players at that price. I'd also argue that there was exactly one upper echelon FA this offseason and he is already a Dodger. I'm not sure how a team goes about competing for talent that simply doesn't exist.

[gammoseditor]

I get that, but at what point do we acknowledge that mid level moves for 13-14 million dollar, average player is what this team is getting, and that competing for upper echelon talent just isn't in the plans?

I think the problem is the lack of upper echelon talent in the free agent class. There were reports they called about Joe Mauer, and that they offered Ellsbury for Cliff Lee. But the biggest mistake they can make is signing or trading for a player that's being paid like a star for a really long time but isn't playing like one.

[Rasputin]

I get that, but at what point do we acknowledge that mid level moves for 13-14 million dollar, average player is what this team is getting, and that competing for upper echelon talent just isn't in the plans?

It's been the obvious strategy since the Punto trade.

A lot of talent at AA, potential MVP caliber players at the major league level, fill in the holes with good but not great players, and hope Ortiz stays fairly healthy, and that Ellsbury and Lester perform well.

Don't commit to huge long term contracts. Don't block the AA talent. Don't get anyone you can't get rid of.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Fair points, which I guess gets back to people foaming at the mouth about how much money the Sox had to play with, and how, if you aren't willing to sign long term deals or trade your beat prospects, you're kind of limited in what kind of talent you can acquire. I mean, I think the Sox have made some nice complementary moves....I'm just not sure what its complementing. Marcum makes more sense than Dempster, to me, but maybe they're banking on Farrell reviving the starters they already have. Hell, they probably have to think that as its really the only hope.

[Rasputin]

Fair points, which I guess gets back to people foaming at the mouth about how much money the Sox had to play with, and how, if you aren't willing to sign long term deals or trade your beat prospects, you're kind of limited in what kind of talent you can acquire. I mean, I think the Sox have made some nice complementary moves....I'm just not sure what its complementing.

Ellsbury, Lester, Ortiz, a very good bullpen. Those guys.

[JakeRae]

Ellsbury, Lester, Ortiz, a very good bullpen. Those guys.

There's a guy called Pedroia that is a little pissed you don't think he's worth mentioning.

The plan is clearly to put a bunch of slightly above average players in the lineup around Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Ortiz and hope the pitching plays to its talent level. If they have reasonable health and the pitching returns to form, this is a playoff team. If not, there isn't anything they could've done this offseason to make this a playoff team anyway.

[Rasputin]

There's a guy called Pedroia that is a little pissed you don't think he's worth mentioning.

Short people who are taller than me piss me off.

[E5 Yaz]

Short people who are taller than me piss me off.

Don't let Peter Dinklage hear you say that. He'll chop your head off.

[Rasputin]

Don't let Peter Dinklage hear you say that. He'll chop your head off.

Short people who are shorter than I am and who can still kick the shit out of me are among the finest people in the galaxy.

[The Gray Eagle]

I'm hoping this was leaked by the Sox to goad the White Sox into trading Floyd for Salty. "Wow, the Red Sox are moving for Dempster, if they sign him they won't have room for Floyd, so if we want Salty, we'd better call them right now before it's too late!"

Probably wishful thinking on my part. Dempster is a pretty solid pitcher but he's old and has had most of his success in the NL. He could easily be washed up by 2015. I sure hope we don't owe him $13 million that season.

[someoneanywhere]

If everything breaks perfectly, the 2015 rotation would look like Buchholz, De La Rosa, Doubront, Barnes, Lackey/Webster with Workman and Ranaudo waiting in the wings. Everything won't break perfectly, and it's a safe bet that one of the starters at that point is from outside of the organization, but there is plenty of starting talent to fill out a projected in-house rotation.

I also really don't see Anibal Sanchez as a potential ace. I think he's pretty much reached his ceiling and buying now is just hoping he can maintain it. I'd rather bet on Dempster holding onto his for the next 2 years than Sanchez doing it for 4 or 5. There seems to be a tendency to lose track of the fact that age matters a lot less for starters than it does for position players and risk tied to contract length is much greater. A 2-year deal for a 36 year old pitcher is a much safer contract than a 5 year deal for a 28 year old, recent performance being equal.

You've been around here long enough to know that you are never -- ever -- to write a sentence including the word break, let alone the words perfectly break, when posting in a thread about the Red Sox rotation in general, or the potential signing of a 36-year-old SP who probably needs the NL more than the Sox need him at $13-$14 mill per, in particular.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 13 December 2012 - 08:25 AM.

[maufman]

Fair points, which I guess gets back to people foaming at the mouth about how much money the Sox had to play with, and how, if you aren't willing to sign long term deals or trade your beat prospects, you're kind of limited in what kind of talent you can acquire. I mean, I think the Sox have made some nice complementary moves....I'm just not sure what its complementing. Marcum makes more sense than Dempster, to me, but maybe they're banking on Farrell reviving the starters they already have. Hell, they probably have to think that as its really the only hope.

I'm usually more enamored of youth than the vast majority of SoSH. It's one reason I think signing Swisher would be a disaster.

In the case of Marcum vs. Dempster, however, I'm uncharacteristically on the other side of the fence.

Marcum:
2010 -- 195 IP, 3.62 SIERA
2011 -- 201 IP, 3.91 SIERA
2012 -- 124 IP, 4.02 SIERA

Dempster:
2010 -- 215 IP, 3.73 SIERA
2011 -- 202 IP, 3.79 SIERA
2012 -- 173 IP, 3.77 SIERA

Which of those guys looks like the greater risk to fall off a cliff performance-wise?

Marcum's problem appears to be his LD rate -- it has gone from 18.3%, to 20.0%, to 23.1%. If Farrell and his staff think they can solve that, or if they're convinced its an aberration, then maybe Marcum is the better choice. Otherwise, I strongly prefer Dempster, assuming years/dollars are about the same.

[RedOctober3829]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal
Sources: Dempster, #RedSox close.

[Corsi]

Hoping for something like 2/$28M.

[Dewy4PrezII]

If he signs does Dempster become the Napkin part II? He's clearly not a sexy signing but in a pinch he'll do?

Edited by Dewy4PrezII, 13 December 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Hoping for something like 2/$28M.

Or the original deal with a <$10M vesting option year tacked on. Either would work for me.

[knucklecup]

This could be the move that sways me from agreeing with what Cherington has done this offseason to believing he doesn't have any plan at all.

Not looking forward to seeing the contract details.

Unbelievable.

[SoxFanPJ]

It strikes me as an odd strategy to overpay for multiple years for so many middling free agents.

Individually each deal may be defensible but in the aggregate it seems like concentrating that money on a better player or simply refraining from spending much this off-season and seeing what players may become available as salary dumps mid season may be better strategies.

[Corsi]

You guys are babies, IMO. The guy has proven his health and if he can post a 4.00-4.50 ERA in the AL East, while making 30+ starts, it's worth the money.

Given the choice between ~2/$28M for Dempster and 6/$90 for Anibal, I think the decision is pretty easy.

Dempster's peripherals are all trending in the right direction, as well.

[someoneanywhere]

It strikes me as an odd strategy to overpay for multiple years for so many middling free agents.

Individually each deal may be defensible but in the aggregate it seems like concentrating that money on a better player or simply refraining from spending much this off-season and seeing what players may become available as salary dumps mid season may be better strategies.

Well, shoot, they do actually need to field a team in 2013. They need to do that -- they have actual, real holes, with no one to man them -- and run a competitive business at the same time. I agree that we're not looking at standings-busting talent here. But Victorino had offers. Napoli had suitors. Dempster has interested parties. Let's not get carried away with the overpay talk.

[Savin Hillbilly]

This could be the move that sways me from agreeing with what Cherington has done this offseason to believing he doesn't have any plan at all.

Why? This move is a reiteration of the same strategy that's been implicit in all the offseason moves so far: Assemble a set of pretty-good veterans at moderate cost on no more than three-year deals, with an emphasis on positive personalities, to set up an orderly three-year transition to the team of mostly homegrown kids that should be fully in place by 2016.

I mean, you may not like the plan, but clearly he's got one. It would be signing Sanchez for 5/80 or whatever he's looking for, or trading prospects for an ace, that would indicate a lack of a plan, if anything.

I'm starting to think SoSH should add a tagline to its logo, "Having a cow about the acquisition of perfectly respectable players since 2000."

[Laser Show]

Well, shoot, they do actually need to field a team in 2013. They need to do that -- they have actual, real holes, with no one to man them -- and run a competitive business at the same time. I agree that we're not looking at standings-busting talent here. But Victorino had offers. Napoli had suitors. Dempster has interested parties. Let's not get carried away with the overpay talk.

I agree. The Red Sox should field a competitive team next year now. If things go right, they could contend for the WS. If not, that's ok. These are short term deals not affecting the impact talent in the system.

I hate giving Ryan Dempster 14 million (assuming that's what it is) as much as the next guy, but I don't see how you can argue that there's no plan here. Especially when the plan lines up exactly with what many SoSHers wanted to see this offseason.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The problem with the plan is that the '16 team won't have Ellsbury, Lester, or Ortiz on it; and guys like Pedroia will be in decline. The entire plan hinges on the talent in the system being great; I'm not sure if it's a plan or a hope. If Bogaerts, Barnes, etc. are closer to complementary players than they are core guys, then what? That being said, not really sure what the alternative was, and perhaps they'll be more active in the high-end free agent market in the years ahead.

[Jed Zeppelin]

You guys are babies, IMO. The guy has proven his health and if he can post a 4.00-4.50 ERA in the AL East, while making 30+ starts, it's worth the money.

Given the choice between ~2/$28M for Dempster and 6/$90 for Anibal, I think the decision is pretty easy.

Dempster's peripherals are all trending in the right direction, as well.

I know he has more or less been a rock, but I worry about his reliance on the slider. He's thrown the fifth-most in baseball since 2009. Fangraphs has posted a few articles recently on pitcher injuries and the slider, and there were many discussions about it here because of how often Bard was using the pitch. It's not inevitable like Lackey's elbow, but it is a tad concerning that he dipped below 200 innings last season with an arm injury. I guess I can stomach two years if I have to root for the guy.

[lexrageorge]

The problem with the plan is that the '16 team won't have Ellsbury, Lester, or Ortiz on it; and guys like Pedroia will be in decline. The entire plan hinges on the talent in the system being great; I'm not sure if it's a plan or a hope. If Bogaerts, Barnes, etc. are closer to complementary players than they are core guys, then what? That being said, not really sure what the alternative was, and perhaps they'll be more active in the high-end free agent market in the years ahead.

A lot can happen between now and 2016. New free agents hit the market, trades get made, draft picks turn into prospects, and new prospects emerge, etc. The team hasn't really finished this offseason (Salty is guaranteed to be traded at some point), and so there's no way to judge whether the team has properly positioned itself for 2016. All we can say is that the team in 2016 will look a lot different than today's team.

What they did do was to avoid trading away their own prospects for middling players that don't fit, and avoided giving up draft picks on free agents that may not fit their needs.

[Corsi]

it is a tad concerning that he dipped below 200 innings last season with an arm injury.

He went on the DL with a latissimus dorsi injury, which I wouldn't really qualify as an arm injury.

[Trlicek's Whip]

I'm usually more enamored of youth than the vast majority of SoSH. It's one reason I think signing Swisher would be a disaster.

In the case of Marcum vs. Dempster, however, I'm uncharacteristically on the other side of the fence.

Marcum:
2010 -- 195 IP, 3.62 SIERA
2011 -- 201 IP, 3.91 SIERA
2012 -- 124 IP, 4.02 SIERA

Dempster:
2010 -- 215 IP, 3.73 SIERA
2011 -- 202 IP, 3.79 SIERA
2012 -- 173 IP, 3.77 SIERA

Which of those guys looks like the greater risk to fall off a cliff performance-wise?

Marcum's problem appears to be his LD rate -- it has gone from 18.3%, to 20.0%, to 23.1%. If Farrell and his staff think they can solve that, or if they're convinced its an aberration, then maybe Marcum is the better choice. Otherwise, I strongly prefer Dempster, assuming years/dollars are about the same.

Marcum's IP totals also reflect his health. He had TJ surgery in 2009 and spent two months on the shelf with right elbow tightness in 2012. He's aces when he's healthy but averaging 150 IP and a DL-stint per season we're probably overpaying Marcum for actual performance as much as Dempster, even if Marcum's better.

Dempster's age vs. Marcum's mileage and lower IP/year averages makes opting for Marcum less of a slam-dunk. Dempster is less risk-averse.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 13 December 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[someoneanywhere]

The problem with the plan is that the '16 team won't have Ellsbury, Lester, or Ortiz on it; and guys like Pedroia will be in decline. The entire plan hinges on the talent in the system being great; I'm not sure if it's a plan or a hope. If Bogaerts, Barnes, etc. are closer to complementary players than they are core guys, then what? That being said, not really sure what the alternative was, and perhaps they'll be more active in the high-end free agent market in the years ahead.

This is fair. But one way or another you are going to take a risk. They've chosen to live with the risk of getting younger, and all that entails, rather than the risk of older, expensive teams built on huge free-agent contracts. (A lot of people, it seems to me, are easily blinded looking at the dollars shelled out to these "old" dudes this offseason. The irony is that these established guys making huge money are in reality "the bridge." Most people take that term to mean "unpleasant time while we take some licks and play young guys." It now means "competitive time wear we pay huge dollars to old guys so that we can get study young guys ready to play."

It's a plan based on hope, but not only on hope. They have moved at the same time to beef up their scouting and development, and they are -- as we see -- doing everything they can to protect the resources they need to draft and develop young core talent. They also have a track record, at least with positional guys: the core they have know is largely homegrown, and you may as well consider Ortiz homegrown for what he cost them.

Start hanging with us in the Minor League forum, Rudy. That's where the next action is.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 13 December 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[MartyBarrettMVP]

Alex Speier ‏@alexspeier
#redsox, Dempster believed to be working on framework of two-year deal. http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/21246851/report-sox-close-deal-dempster …

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

A lot can happen between now and 2016. New free agents hit the market, trades get made, draft picks turn into prospects, and new prospects emerge, etc. The team hasn't really finished this offseason (Salty is guaranteed to be traded at some point), and so there's no way to judge whether the team has properly positioned itself for 2016. All we can say is that the team in 2016 will look a lot different than today's team.

What they did do was to avoid trading away their own prospects for middling players that don't fit, and avoided giving up draft picks on free agents that may not fit their needs.

Can this post please be pinned at the top of each new transaction thread?

I would also add those looking for an articulation of "the plan" will never get it. Organizations do not typically share their core strategies with the public and at least this iteration of the Red Sox FO isn't trying to sell the concept of a "$100mm player development machine".

Regarding Dempster, they need a starter and he has been a fairly durable and effective pitcher over the past five seasons. While he may not have huge upside, the downside with him is that he costs only money. He isn't really blocking the development of any of the kids and if he manages to pitch to his recent performance level, the Sox may not have to dredge up the remains of guys like Aaron Cook etc to round out their rotation.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 13 December 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[bosockboy]

Alex Speier &rlm;@alexspeier
#redsox, Dempster believed to be working on framework of two-year deal. http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/21246851/report-sox-close-deal-dempster …

Fantastic. Dempster at 2 is a no brainer. Beyond that I think you look at Jackson and Lohse.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

No Lohse. He costs a pick.

(null)

[czar]

I have no clue what the people who have whined all season want Cherington to do.

I guess the only rational issue with all these moves is if you believe the Sox (as constructed on November 1st) were one or two uber-elite talents away from being a World Series team. Then you mortgage the farm to go out and get Upton and Hamilton or something. If you truly believe this, then you may see this offseason as a misuse of resources.

But the prevailing theory has been "eh, the Sox could be competitive in 2013, but I'm not holding my breath." If that's the case, I don't understand how people can possibly find fault with short-term, non-burdensome contracts for above-average but not elite role players. The only downside is you are tying up that money in 2-3 short-term guys instead of one long-term "elite" talent, but I thought the Crawford/Beckett/Gonzalez contract showed that paying 8 years for elite FA talent is a suboptimal strategy. The other alternative is to not spend the money, but the current financial system doesn't "reward" teams for only spending $80 instead of $120m by handing them an extra $40m in 3 years. It's not like a giant savings account where the less you spend today, the more you can spend in 5 years.

In addition, each Ryan Dempster (or Napoli or Victorino) you sign means you don't have to trade Bogarts or Bradley for a guy like Shields who might "waste" his Boston tenure pitching for a team that is (in the eyes of most of SoSH) at best "moderately competitive" over the next couple of years. By the time you are ready to compete, whoop, there goes Shields and now you are down young core talent.

A lot of this is whining for the sake of whining and it's obnoxious.

Edited by czar, 13 December 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Another angle here, is that if you are breaking in new players, you want to do so on a team that is at least competent, and has strong leadership (both in the clubhouse and on the field, and in the front office). It's a lot easier to break in a few guys at a time, in a good culture, than to throw them to the wolves.

I guess I'm coming around. Ultimately, the near term future of this team will depend on how good Lester, Ellsbury, Buchholz, etc. are. If those guys are good, the team could certainly surprise. Replacing the back end of the roster, which was awful, with average big league players isn't sexy, but maybe it is the right move.

-back on the bandwagon-

[OCD SS]

I have no clue what the people who have whined all season want Cherington to do.

It's the holiday season. The answer is ponies.

Another angle here, is that if you are breaking in new players, you want to do so on a team that is at least competent, and has strong leadership (both in the clubhouse and on the field, and in the front office). It's a lot easier to break in a few guys at a time, in a good culture, than to throw them to the wolves.

I guess I'm coming around. Ultimately, the near term future of this team will depend on how good Lester, Ellsbury, Buchholz, etc. are. If those guys are good, the team could certainly surprise. Replacing the back end of the roster, which was awful, with average big league players isn't sexy, but maybe it is the right move.

-back on the bandwagon-

This is what I've come around to as well. It's a little frustrating, since we're probably looking at a similar off-season next year, with a similarly uninspiring crop of FA's. Right now trades are less of an option since the Sox's trade chips don't seem as inviting, but that might change with the new season. I think it's at least heartening that the team is trying to be competitive, and sensible that they realize they don't have to throw crap-loads of money at FA's to compete.

[bosockboy]

They also will have all their options available come July. If they are winning they will have plenty of cash to absorb mid season reinforcements; if they are out of it they can look to sell off certain pieces.

Offseason plan is certainly flexibility. The Victorino deal alone seems to have been made with the idea that it allows them to move Ellsbury at any time if the right deal comes along.

[Rasputin]

The Sox need to have someone who can pitch major league games so Buchholz, Lackey, and de la Rosa don't have to be counted on to make the whole season.

Dempster can do that.

The Sox may be losing Lester after 2014, Lackey after 2015, and Buchholz after 2016. They have to have a plan (with many options) for that transition now.

Dempster isn't part of that.

[knucklecup]

Why? This move is a reiteration of the same strategy that's been implicit in all the offseason moves so far: Assemble a set of pretty-good veterans at moderate cost on no more than three-year deals, with an emphasis on positive personalities, to set up an orderly three-year transition to the team of mostly homegrown kids that should be fully in place by 2016.

I mean, you may not like the plan, but clearly he's got one. It would be signing Sanchez for 5/80 or whatever he's looking for, or trading prospects for an ace, that would indicate a lack of a plan, if anything.

I'm starting to think SoSH should add a tagline to its logo, "Having a cow about the acquisition of perfectly respectable players since 2000."

The plan I agree with. This particular player I disagree with.

Marcum, Jackson, etc can be signed for less money and the same length and are better pitchers.

Edit: I'll withhold judgement until the contract details are announce. One year I'm okay with. Two years at the right price I'm okay with (but then again, what's the difference between 2/26 and 2/28?) but anything more I am against.

Edited by knucklecup, 13 December 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The plan I agree with. This particular player I disagree with.

Marcum, Jackson, etc can be signed for less money and the same length and are better pitchers.

Edit: I'll withhold judgement until the contract details are announce. One year I'm okay with. Two years at the right price I'm okay with (but then again, what's the difference between 2/26 and 2/28?) but anything more I am against.

Here's the thing...we don't know that they can be had for less money and/or the same length. Perhaps Marcum is holding the line at a minimum of 3 years. Maybe Jackson is holding the line at $17M per. We don't know. And we won't know until the off-season is over and all these guys have contracts. At that point, maybe we can play the "they could have had Pitcher X for Y dollars and Z years instead of the guy they signed" game.

I'm not overwhelmed at the prospect of Ryan Dempster either, but if it turns out that he's the best they can get for the dollars and years they want to spend, so be it. The make or break pitchers in terms of making the playoffs or not in 2013 are already on the roster in Lester and Buchholz. There's no one available that can be counted on to be a bigger difference maker than they can be, so it makes no sense to act like they're blowing a chance to get one by signing the likes of Dempster.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I guess I'm coming around. Ultimately, the near term future of this team will depend on how good Lester, Ellsbury, Buchholz, etc. are. If those guys are good, the team could certainly surprise. Replacing the back end of the roster, which was awful, with average big league players isn't sexy, but maybe it is the right move.

-back on the bandwagon-

Yeah, it may or may not work out, but it's a clear and understandable approach given where the roster was on November 1st. I mean, they have currently replaced Loney (-0.1 fWAR/-0.3 rWAR) with Napoli (2,0/1.4), Cody Ross (2.4/1.6) with Victorino (3.3/2.4), Sweeny (0.7/0.5) with Gomes (2.1/1.6), Salty (2.0/1.1) with David Ross (1.5/0.8), Matsuzaka (-0.1/-1.5) with Dempster (3.3/3.6) and Rich Hill (0.5/0.7) with Uehara (0.9/1.5).

Conservatively, they improving by 7.7 fWAR and 8.7 rWAR. That's assuming that Napoli and Victorino don't bounce back. Looking solely at the free agent additions so far, that's not a bad month of work.

Edit: Thanks for the corrections on Victorino and Dempster

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 13 December 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[Corsi]

Obvious reason for bias here, but nice to see nonetheless.

Left-hander Rich Hill, who played with free agent Ryan Dempster with the Cubs from 2005-08, suggested that the right-hander would make an extremely strong addition in Boston if he and the Red Sox.
"Dempster would be a GREAT addition to that clubhouse," Hill wrote in a text. "One of the best teammates I have played with!"

"No doubt that he would do extremely well in the East," wrote Hill. "I look at how guys bounce back from outings that did not go so well and he does a great job of that. He has only gotten better as time has gone on. Also, playing in a city like Boston brings everyone's game to their peak level. There is no question his stuff will play!"

http://www.weei.com/...at-addition-sox

[Div School Sox Fan]

Victorino (3.3/1.1)

This seems to keep coming up. Shane Victorino had 1.1 rWAR last year for the Dodgers. His full season WAR was was 2.4.

Not that this matters, exactly, but it's like the fourth time i've seen Victorino's 2012 WAR listed at 1.1, and it wasn't 1.1, and I'm a bored nerd. So that's my justification for the post.

EDIT: Likewise, Ryan Dempster had 0.3 rWAR for the Rangers, 3.6 overall. The WAR table at Fangraphs displays combined season results, while the WAR table at B-Ref breaks the numbers up by team-season.

Edited by Div School Sox Fan, 13 December 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

EDIT: Likewise, Ryan Dempster had 0.3 rWAR for the Rangers, 3.6 overall. The WAR table at Fangraphs displays combined season results, while the WAR table at B-Ref breaks the numbers up by team-season.

This is the mistake I made. Thanks.

[curly2]

The Sox need to have someone who can pitch major league games so Buchholz, Lackey, and de la Rosa don't have to be counted on to make the whole season.

Dempster can do that.

The Sox may be losing Lester after 2014, Lackey after 2015, and Buchholz after 2016. They have to have a plan (with many options) for that transition now.

Dempster isn't part of that.

I know you said MAY be losing those guys,and that's the key point. If Farrell does indeed "fix" Lester to some degree this year, then there's a good shot they work out a long-term deal instead of exercising his 2014 option. Same goes for Buchholz, depending on how he does leading up to 2015.

Some people (not you, Ras) are talking like Lester and Buchholz are automatically gone when their deals are up.

Plus, I know you don't draft for need, but the Sox have their highest pick in 20 years, and there may be a pitcher at the No. 7 spot who climbs rapidly to the majors. Or perhaps there's a pitcher in Japan or Korea who will be in the 2015 Boston rotation.

I don't love Dempster and do NOT want the deal to be more than two years, but the thought the Red Sox have to fill the 2015 rotation in December 2012 is wrong.

[czar]

Yeah, it may or may not work out, but it's a clear and understandable approach given where the roster was on November 1st. I mean, they have currently replaced Loney (-0.1 fWAR/-0.3 rWAR) with Napoli (2,0/1.4), Cody Ross (2.4/1.6) with Victorino (3.3/2.4), Sweeny (0.7/0.5) with Gomes (2.1/1.6), Salty (2.0/1.1) with David Ross (1.5/0.8), Matsuzaka (-0.1/-1.5) with Dempster (3.3/3.6) and Rich Hill (0.5/0.7) with Uehara (0.9/1.5).

Conservatively, they improving by 7.7 fWAR and 8.7 rWAR. That's assuming that Napoli and Victorino don't bounce back. Looking solely at the free agent additions so far, that's not a bad month of work.

Edit: Thanks for the corrections on Victorino and Dempster

You have to normalize those by games played since WAR is an aggregate stat. Without looking at the numbers, Hill, Ross, and Sweeney played less than their corresponding replacements.

They are probably closer to 3-4 fWAR/150 (just guesstimating), not 7-8.

[Corsi]

Meanwhile, an industry source told theHerald today that Dempster is “open to two years” after initially seeking a three-year contract.

http://www.bostonher...ged-on-pitcher/