Building An Advantage

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,335
The gran facenda
Jonah Keri just posted an article on Grantland about how the Sox are using money, data and a couple of other things to gain an advantage over other teams. The areas he talks about are health, platoons, shifts and prospects. The article covers some of the things we have been talking about here. Very interesting read.
 
Health
 
 
In the same way that teams employ roving pitching, hitting, fielding, and baserunning coaches to help players focus on certain elements of their game, the Red Sox realized they could find specialists to deal with these soft-tissue concerns. Physical therapists craft regimens to help players avoid the kind of nagging injuries that can linger for far too long; when those injuries do occur, they can help players recover in weeks instead of months, or days instead of weeks. In essence, the Red Sox are using a physical therapist like a roving medical coach. This helped Ortiz last year, and the Sox hope it will help players like the oft-injured Grady Sizemore this year. In fact, if the Red Sox weren’t this confident in their health regimen, they probably wouldn’t have gone after a beleaguered player like Sizemore at all.
 
Platoons
 
 
The Red Sox couldn’t settle for simply having more money than the A’s and Rays; they needed to find a similar edge, needed to beat those teams at their own game. So they assembled an eventual World Series–winning roster with the kind of 1-to-25 depth that Billy Beane and Andrew Friedman harp on 365 days a year. While flashier signees like Shane Victorino and Koji Uehara garnered most of the attention in Boston last offseason, part-time players like Jonny Gomes and Mike Carp also came on board, giving Boston the kind of top-to-bottom strength on which Oakland and Tampa Bay rely. The Red Sox built a team around healthy superstars, but they also built a team capable of squeezing the most out of a talented but flawed player like Daniel Nava, who hit .322/.411/.484 against right-handed pitchers in 2013, but just .252/.311/.336 against lefties, making him an ideal candidate for a platoon with Gomes.
 
Shifts
 
 
Once again not wanting to cede the advantage to low-budget teams looking for an edge, the Red Sox shifted more than nearly every other club last year. They’ve also shown their commitment to teamwide defense in subtler ways. Earlier this week, I explored Boston’scommitment to its young talent. While going with Jackie Bradley Jr. as the Opening Day center fielder represents a commitment to giving a promising prospect a clean shot,2 it also illustrates Boston’s continued emphasis on defense. The Red Sox would surely have enjoyed acquiring Beltran’s bat, and they certainly could have afforded him, but a Beltran-Victorino outfield would have been far less effective than a Bradley-Victorino pairing. And like the Pirates, the Sox now care about that sort of thing.
 
Prospects
 
 
Bradley isn’t Boston’s only gifted youngster. Even though the Red Sox have enough money to fill every roster hole with a shiny new free agent, Cherington & Co. are giving the kids a chance this year. Pedroia and Ortiz can stay healthy and the veteran pitching staff can perform, but it won’t matter if the club’s three 25-and-under lineup regulars fail to deliver.
 
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,657
Mobile, AL
The commitment to trainers and the like in the article remind me of the same things that NBA writers were saying about the Phoenix Suns when they rejuvenated Grant Hill's career and got Shaq and his wonky back to put up quality seasons. Especially in light of the "team doctors suck" crisis/meme from the past, this is all good news.
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
Thanks for this Abs, a good read.
 
What's the sayng?  "Pay attention to the details and excellence will come."  This seems a wise way to use their financial might in way that contributes xx number of wins without having an impact on the LT threshold.  An advantage is an advantage, and it's wise to exploit all you can realize.
 
Reading this brought back watching Bill james on the Top 10 shows on MLB Network  He referenced "healthy time on the field" as a variable he uses now, and this article confirms it has gained greater significance on Yawkee Way.  I think it was the show on shortstops, where Bill detailed having his eyes opened to the impact of injuries on organizations not blessed with deep depth.  He spoke of the cost in dollars, but more significantly in the loss of young talent.
 
Wondering, if all teams were to implement a similar model, would the Sox still realize an advantage because of the strength of the medical community of Boston?
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
Staying under the luxury tax further exploits their advantage against most other teams while narrowing their competitive disadvantage compared to the Yankees if they attempt to bid against them in isolated situations.  Dempster's loss was a huge gain for the Sox if they need to add payroll again at the trade deadline to bolster any weaknesses to contend down the stretch. Transitioning to younger players with lower mileage than some of their declining veterans will further enhance any medical care advantage because the youngsters are mostly healthier and this will allow their PT and other medical personnel to focus on those players with the most precarious physical concerns. 
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,435
Billy Beane said in Moneyball that health (I think he was discussing pitcher health, specifically), was the next nut to crack.  That was 10 years ago.
 
I think Keri MAY be overestimating the quality and uniqueness of what the Sox are doing.  Pedey was hurt all year.  Ellsbury was badly injured during the WS.  Victorino was injured during the last couple of months.  Now, maybe the argument is that Pedroia and Ellsbury would've been unable to play but for the fine work of the Sox medical staff, but I need to see more evidence that this new training approach is working before I believe the Sox have developed something new and revolutionary.  Keep in mind that the Sox had pitcher health all figured out thanks to their shoulder strengthening program and then spent the past few years seeing Beckett, Lackey, Bard, Buchholz etc. get hurt. 
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
nattysez said:
Billy Beane said in Moneyball that health (I think he was discussing pitcher health, specifically), was the next nut to crack.  That was 10 years ago.
 
I think Keri MAY be overestimating the quality and uniqueness of what the Sox are doing.  Pedey was hurt all year.  Ellsbury was badly injured during the WS.  Victorino was injured during the last couple of months.  Now, maybe the argument is that Pedroia and Ellsbury would've been unable to play but for the fine work of the Sox medical staff, but I need to see more evidence that this new training approach is working before I believe the Sox have developed something new and revolutionary.  Keep in mind that the Sox had pitcher health all figured out thanks to their shoulder strengthening program and then spent the past few years seeing Beckett, Lackey, Bard, Buchholz etc. get hurt. 
 
I agree that it's too soon to tell. But I would point out that — with the exception of Buchholz — the pitching shoulders on the staff have held up well, no? 
 
Papelbon's questionable shoulder never went. Bard was lost to nerve damage that affected his feel for the ball, Lackey to an elbow ailment, Beckett to a variety of things. Even Buchholz's back/neck/shoulder issues are not the traditional catastrophic shoulder/rotator cuff injury. 
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,230
Way too early to reach conclusions about 2014, but I do wonder if last year's team performed at something like the 95th percentile of what might have been expected (how many of us saw predicted they'd be championship contenders, let alone winners?) while this year's team seems like it's headed to the other end of the spectrum so far.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Philip Jeff Frye said:
Way too early to reach conclusions about 2014, but I do wonder if last year's team performed at something like the 95th percentile of what might have been expected (how many of us saw predicted they'd be championship contenders, let alone winners?) while this year's team seems like it's headed to the other end of the spectrum so far.
 
So who's going to start the "JF on the Hot Seat" thread? And when?
 

LahoudOrBillyC

Indian name is Massages Ellsbury
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
4,073
Willamette Valley
Part of the Red Sox philosophy (as Henry has mentioned in several interviews in the last year) is that they are going to maintain a player development machine, and fill in with veterans to "bridge" if prospects are not ready.  This is what Theo wanted to do after 2009, but the press and public went apeshit and the owners basically forced him into win-now mode.  The owners allowed Cherington to "bridge" last year, and were likely as shocked as anyone that they won 97 games.   By the way, this overall philosophy is pretty much the same as the Cardinals (as stated by their owner and GM).
 
The "problem" with this approach, just like with any approach, is that sometimes it isn't going to work.  The veterans get hurt, the kids aren't ready yet.  But it is short-sighted to say that 2014 is evidence that they are headed in the wrong direction.  This ownership team, and this philosophy, are going nowhere.  If they win 75 games or 95 games, their approach to 2015 will not vary an inch.  They don't care what we think, and that is one of the secrets to their success.
 
They have won three World Series.  They might suck this year.  That's baseball.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
LahoudOrBillyC said:
Part of the Red Sox philosophy (as Henry has mentioned in several interviews in the last year) is that they are going to maintain a player development machine, and fill in with veterans to "bridge" if prospects are not ready.  This is what Theo wanted to do after 2009, but the press and public went apeshit and the owners basically forced him into win-now mode.  The owners allowed Cherington to "bridge" last year, and were likely as shocked as anyone that they won 97 games.   By the way, this overall philosophy is pretty much the same as the Cardinals (as stated by their owner and GM).
 
The "problem" with this approach, just like with any approach, is that sometimes it isn't going to work.  The veterans get hurt, the kids aren't ready yet.  But it is short-sighted to say that 2014 is evidence that they are headed in the wrong direction.  This ownership team, and this philosophy, are going nowhere.  If they win 75 games or 95 games, their approach to 2015 will not vary an inch.  They don't care what we think, and that is one of the secrets to their success.
 
They have won three World Series.  They might suck this year.  That's baseball.
 
I think that's a selective narrative.  Did the offseason of 2009-2010 really represent an attempt at a "Bridge," or was it just a complete misallocation of resources?  They signed Lackey, Cameron, and Jenks that offseason.  Those aren't exactly low profile signings, and none of them were the one-year contracts given to Drew.  Lackey's elbow was already so shredded that he agreed to a punitive penalty of one year at minimum wage if he had to have urgery.  Was it a smart allocation of payroll given the likelihood that he'd pitch hurt and not be as good as he was with LAAA and miss a full year or more?  It worked out for a championship in 2013, but from 2010 to 2013 they paid $50 million for probably a net negative value and shouldn't have been suprised by that outcome.   Was signing a 38 year old outfielder for 2 years and then allowing him to displace your young and talented CF a "bridge move" or was it a "bad move"?   Was it a surprise that Jenks' physical conditioning caused him to miss most of the 2 seasons they signed him for, at a premium price for a set up man?   They could have signed Matt Holliday to play LF, left Ellsbury in CF, and signed Scott Downs to bolster the bullpen that offseason for the same total investment.  Wouldn't that have been smarter?
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Holliday feels like the only major FA that the Sox could have and should have signed but didn't.  I th.ink Theo had already targetted Crawford, believing defense was going to be the difference maker in the two
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Plympton91 said:
 
They could have signed Matt Holliday to play LF, left Ellsbury in CF, and signed Scott Downs to bolster the bullpen that offseason for the same total investment.  Wouldn't that have been smarter?
 
Could they? Do we have transcripts of the conversations between the Sox FO and these players' agents? We like to talk around here as if every time a FA signs with somebody else, that means the Sox had no interest in him and didn't try to sign him. Which basically amounts to saying that every free agent, given the choice, would prefer to play here. Which seems almost comically parochial and arrogant.
 
Holliday is an evangelical Christian who grew up in Oklahoma. It seems entirely plausible that he would have seen St. Louis as a far more comfortable environment for him than Boston, to the point where it would have taken a significant overpay to tempt him to sign with us. Admittedly, I don't have any quotes from him or others in the know to back that theory up. Do you have any evidence that he gave Boston serious consideration, though?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Plympton91 said:
 
I think that's a selective narrative.  Did the offseason of 2009-2010 really represent an attempt at a "Bridge," or was it just a complete misallocation of resources?  They signed Lackey, Cameron, and Jenks that offseason.  Those aren't exactly low profile signings, and none of them were the one-year contracts given to Drew.  Lackey's elbow was already so shredded that he agreed to a punitive penalty of one year at minimum wage if he had to have urgery.  Was it a smart allocation of payroll given the likelihood that he'd pitch hurt and not be as good as he was with LAAA and miss a full year or more?  It worked out for a championship in 2013, but from 2010 to 2013 they paid $50 million for probably a net negative value and shouldn't have been suprised by that outcome.   Was signing a 38 year old outfielder for 2 years and then allowing him to displace your young and talented CF a "bridge move" or was it a "bad move"?   Was it a surprise that Jenks' physical conditioning caused him to miss most of the 2 seasons they signed him for, at a premium price for a set up man?   They could have signed Matt Holliday to play LF, left Ellsbury in CF, and signed Scott Downs to bolster the bullpen that offseason for the same total investment.  Wouldn't that have been smarter?
Things always seem smarter in hindsight. 
 
Besides, Beltre was the one that displaced the young and talented CF the first season Cameron was here.  
 
All the team knew about Lackey's elbow was that it was an injury risk, no that it was "already so shredded".  Jenks was a mistake, but hardly a payroll busting move for this team either.  Same with Cameron.  
 
I do believe what happened last year is that they simply hit on all of their veteran FA signings:  Drew, Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, Uehara, and arguably even Dempster to some extent.  Add in Ortiz's successful return from injury, a bounce back year from Lester, and the key contributions from the bullpen, and you had them achieving what was likely the 95th percentile outcome.  Then again, the same could be said for a lot of World Series winning teams in the past decade or so.  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Trotsky said:
Holliday feels like the only major FA that the Sox could have and should have signed but didn't.  I th.ink Theo had already targetted Crawford, believing defense was going to be the difference maker in the two
 
Arguably, they could have resigned Beltre, left Youkilis at 1B, and not made the trade for Gonzalez.  That also would have been a better decision, especially with knowledge of Gonzalez's shoulder issue.   Yes, we here on SOSH have the benefit of hindsight and carping from the sidelines, but I'm trying to frame this not in terms of "I would have done this differently" but rather in looking at the known risks and potential rewards that were available to the team at the time.
 
I keep bringing up Scott Downs as well, but Jaquin Benoit was another reliever that got a 4-year contract the year they gave Jenks 2 - years instead.
 
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Could they? Do we have transcripts of the conversations between the Sox FO and these players' agents? We like to talk around here as if every time a FA signs with somebody else, that means the Sox had no interest in him and didn't try to sign him. Which basically amounts to saying that every free agent, given the choice, would prefer to play here. Which seems almost comically parochial and arrogant.
 
Holliday is an evangelical Christian who grew up in Oklahoma. It seems entirely plausible that he would have seen St. Louis as a far more comfortable environment for him than Boston, to the point where it would have taken a significant overpay to tempt him to sign with us. Admittedly, I don't have any quotes from him or others in the know to back that theory up. Do you have any evidence that he gave Boston serious consideration, though?
 
That's fair.  But, the Beltre and Holliday cases show that large dollar contracts aren't guaranteed to be the kind of bust that Crawford was and Lackey looked to be prior to last year.  And, Downs and Benoit show that 4-year contracts to middle relievers aren't entirely bad ideas either, especially when your demonstrated alternative preference was to give 2 years to an out-of-shape guy coming off the worst season of his career.  Heck, the Godfather of Moneyball, Billy Beane, just gave out a 5 year contract to a middle reliever.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
There was discussion here, at the time, that Holliday was a good target, but there were never reports that they went after him very hard. In hindsight (along the lines of what Hillbilly writes), it's fair to suggest there must have been a reason -- perhaps that reason was they knew they couldn't get him.
 
Adrian vs. Adrian was the thread title debating between the corner guys (started by Eric Van, IIRC). I still don't know if there is a "right" answer on that one. If Beltre in Tex ends up with better stats than Gonzalez with Bos/LAD, I guess that will answer it in hindsight. But Gonzalez' deal was the right one to move to LA along with Crawford. Does that deal happen with Beltre?
 
 
Plympton91 said:
Was signing a 38 year old outfielder for 2 years and then allowing him to displace your young and talented CF a "bridge move" or was it a "bad move"?   Was it a surprise that Jenks' physical conditioning caused him to miss most of the 2 seasons they signed him for, at a premium price for a set up man?   
 

 
lexrageorge said:
I do believe what happened last year is that they simply hit on all of their veteran FA signings:  Drew, Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, Uehara, and arguably even Dempster to some extent.  
lexrageorge has it right. SOSH concluded that Cameron and Lackey were a "pitching and defense" offseason, but injuries (and maybe age) caught up to them. Victorino just played his first game this year. Napoli failed his physical (I assume Cameron passed his) but remained in the line-up all year. Dempster faded badly and has ended up giving the Sox a huge gift -- with an injury story as part of it.
 
That's luck -- bad luck in 2010, good luck in 2013.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Plympton91 said:
 
I think that's a selective narrative.  Did the offseason of 2009-2010 really represent an attempt at a "Bridge," or was it just a complete misallocation of resources?  They signed Lackey, Cameron, and Jenks that offseason.  Those aren't exactly low profile signings, and none of them were the one-year contracts given to Drew. 
 
I'm not sure what you are arguing about - the Lackey deal in particular fits right in with the idea of Theo being forced to sign big ticket names to 'win now', and there's nothing that says a 'bridge' contract with a veteran player like Cameron must be a one-year deal only.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
I think it unfair to go back over the last 5-10 years and critically judge particular signings/personnel moves vs. their currently espoused philosophy.  Overall strategies evolve over time, and what is important in the long run is not being perfect, but learning lessons from mistakes and then trying to incorporate those lessons into a revised long-term plan.  In the present, the Sox seem committed to the following:
 
Develop a strong farm system -- This has been part of the team's philosophy since Theo took over in November of 2002.  But it has a multitude of sub-strategies that include net gain of compensatory draft picks from the Free Agent process.  Paying over slot for hard to sign draftees (now harder to do under the new system).  Expand, upgrade scouting and instruction.  Stabilize farm system (purchase of Salem A+ farm club in 2008)  Recognizing of AA level as the critical step. (and using the AAA level as a taxi squad/finishing school.
The Sox have done all of this in the past 10 years, and while there's always room for improvement, I'd guess that their investment in time and money has been second to no other franchise in MLB.
 
Avoid making long-term commitments to players over 30.  A lapse into impulse buying left them stuck with Crawford through his mid 30s,  They coveted Adrian Gonzalez for years and by the time they got him they were paying for his prime, but getting his 30-36 years.  It should have hurt them long term.  So letting Ellsbury walk was a fore-gone conclusion and, if they stick to their philosophy then Lester is out the door as well, unless he takes a short-term deal at a very large AAV.
 
Depth 1-25 on the roster... and I would expand this to depth 1-30, or even 1-40.  In fact, one of the weaknesses of the 2014 Sox mlb roster composition is that they don't have any pitcher on the 25-man roster that has options.  Capuano, Badenhop and Mujica all add depth to the pitching staff, but at a cost of flexibility.  Workman, De La Rosa and Webster should all be a part of the mix when a starter like Doubront is in a funk, but Doubront has no options, and he can't be moved to the pen, because all 7 are out of options, as well.  Compare the age/options of the Sox pitching staff vs that of the St. Louis Cardinals.  The Red Sox have great flexibility in the long run, but they have next to none during the season.
 
But the big question is, assuming the Sox will continue to spend close to the luxury cap (currently $189 mil)  how will they spend their money?  Paul M., in another thread, observed that the Red Sox only have $14 million committed in payroll for the year 2016.  If they're not going to go after 30+ FAs, what do they do with that extra $160 mil? Will they offer Lester 2 years at $60 mil or trade prospects for the 24 year old G. Stanton and sign him to a 7 year deal?  And if their scouts really thought Tanaka was the real deal, why didn't they outbid the Yankees, since he was one of the very rare instances of a top pitcher available at the age of 25/26?  If the Sox are in contention in July, and Cliff Lee is still pitching well, do you take on the remaining $38 mil of his deal for less than a-year-and-a-half?   If you're going to swear off long-term deals for the 30+ free agents, then you have to be ready to pay a premium for the very few stars that are young and available, or those stars that are older but require only short-term commitments, even if you're paying well over the average cost per unit of WAR.
 

LahoudOrBillyC

Indian name is Massages Ellsbury
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
4,073
Willamette Valley
You misunderstood my mention of the "bridge".  Epstein mentioned the bridge after the 2009 season, saying that the team beleved in its system and did not want to sacrifice it for a quick payoff, but that sometimes the system was not yet ready and they needed to make shorter term investments to "bridge" to the prospects.  According to Epstein (in many interviews, including in the Shaughnessy/Francona book) the ownership pressured baseball ops to reverse this philosophy and make the signings/trades in the two offseasons (2009-10 and 2010-11) which cost them several of their best prospects and several draft picks.  Epstein said, "I fucked up by giving in to to it.  It was my fault."  So he did NOT implement the bridge that he wanted.  Henry, in several interviews this off-season, agrees that the Red Sox got away from the philosophy they put in place that led to the great 2007-08 teams and deliberately shifted course (shifted BACK) after 2012.  In other words, he and Theo agree 100% on what they did wrong, and also agree on how they needed to fix it.  (Though Theo left before this happened.)
 
Henry is an investor, and he knows that you need to find a winning philosophy and stick with it, even if some of your decisions end up being bad ones.  You can fret all you want about Matt Holiday, but Henry thinks of that the same way he thinks of his decision to, I don't know, sell all those soy beans back in 1989.  You are not going to be right in this game every time, but Henry's track record in business (he's a billionaire) and in baseball (three World Series) suggests that he is better at both than just about anyone else. 
 
The Cardinals and Rays are also owned by people who made a fortune as investors, and it shows.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
twothousandone said:
There was discussion here, at the time, that Holliday was a good target, but there were never reports that they went after him very hard. In hindsight (along the lines of what Hillbilly writes), it's fair to suggest there must have been a reason -- perhaps that reason was they knew they couldn't get him.
 
If I remember right, the argument was that Holliday's defense was so bad that it negated a lot of his offensive value, and that Cameron's defense in CF was so good that he would end up being worth more than Holliday overall at a lower price.  Abstracting from Holliday's interest in the Sox, it seemed to me that the Sox were focused on the value of their proprietary defensive metrics.  Given the inherent weaknesses that even the best of those systems will have, that argument seemed like being too cute for your own good by more than half.
 
Then again, as you and others have noted, the same philosophy worked out great in 2013 with Victorino winning a gold glove in RF.  
 
More generally, I still think that the problem from 2010-2012 was not that they gave out big contracts to players entering their 30s, it was that they gave out big contracts to the wrong players, who all had red flags (Lackey's elbow, Jenks' conditioning, Cameron's age and K rate making him a 'crater' candidate, Gonzalez's shoulder and personality, and Crawford's biggest asset--speed--being muted by Fenway's small LF, the Red Sox non-small-ball offensive philosophy, and his platoon split being a bad fit for the Sox lineup). 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Theo's biggest mistake was not deviating from "the plan," but it was publicly admitting to the concept of "bridge year."  What a blunder!  At that time, the Sox were experiencing a 36% drop in NESN ratings, and their GM is, in essence, advising the pink-hats that the coming season might be a good time to take a year off.  I'm sure Lucchino gave him a healthy dose-of-shit over that one... and deservedly so.  You can't sell "bridge years" to a fanbase that had just won 2 WS in the previous 5 years.  It's only playing in Wrigleyville because the team is in an 0-106 "slump," but I'm sure that's starting to get old now that they're mired in their 3rd bridge year.  A bridge too far?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The "bridge year" problem in a nutshell was that Theo gave the fans too much credit for intelligence. The idea of accepting a somewhat lower chance of success in one year for the sake of getting your ducks in a row for a long run of contention in succeeding years makes perfect sense (whether or not you think 2010 was a good time for that gambit), and all the blathering about it was dumb. But unfortunately a lot of people are dumb, and they buy tickets and write newspaper columns, so you have to tailor your public pronouncements accordingly.
 
As far as the big contracts thing, I don't think the lesson from 2010-12 was, or should be, that you never give out big contracts. The lesson should be that you set a very high bar for them in terms of player fit (both personality and talent-wise), the absence of red flags, and a shortage of promising homegrown alternatives. When it comes to big contracts, the motto should be taken from Bob Dylan: "When something's not right, it's wrong."
 

LahoudOrBillyC

Indian name is Massages Ellsbury
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
4,073
Willamette Valley
When Theo talked about the bridge year, he said that he believed that the team could still compete for the World Series title.  The media ripped him for this.
 
Of course, this is precisely what happened last year.  Were they lucky?  Of course they were lucky -- no team should expect to hit on that many bets.  This year they have been unlucky (so far).  Baseball.
 

LahoudOrBillyC

Indian name is Massages Ellsbury
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
4,073
Willamette Valley
Savin Hillbilly said:
The "bridge year" problem in a nutshell was that Theo gave the fans too much credit for intelligence.
 
Exactly.  And the fans are not getting any smarter.  Henry's recent comments seem to indicate that the third title has emboldened the ownership to forge ahead in the hope that they have earned some trust.  We shall see.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,038
Rudy Pemberton said:
That's fair as a comment. There's a middle ground, though. The idea that the Sox had the blueprint for success just because everything went right last year was never realistic IMO. Have they really prioritized defense and figured out how to keep players healthy?

Not trying to be a a dick-just acknowledging that just because things go good for awhile doesn't mean the organization is any smarter than they were when things were shitty
 
Alternatively, we might just be referring to everything going right last year because they won.
 
At a process level, everything did not go right--it just ended well. Uehara kicked ass, but that's because they went three closers deep to get to him. Lucky, definitely--but luck that wouldn't have occurred without the deep depth plan and their massive stockpiling of pitchers.
 
Pedroia was hurt all season and had a sub-par year at the plate. Ellsbury battled through injuries late in the season and in the playoffs despite being maligned for being injury prone and soft. Victorino was lost for awhile. Salty fell apart at the end. Bogaerts was nails on the expanded roster in the playoffs when WMD's bat went cold.
 
It seems to me there is at least as an equally compelling case that they succeeded precisely because the plan overcame the kind of problems that we can expect a team to face.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Reverend said:
 
Alternatively, we might just be referring to everything going right last year because they won.
 
At a process level, everything did not go right--it just ended well. Uehara kicked ass, but that's because they went three closers deep to get to him. Lucky, definitely--but luck that wouldn't have occurred without the deep depth plan and their massive stockpiling of pitchers.
 
Pedroia was hurt all season and had a sub-par year at the plate. Ellsbury battled through injuries late in the season and in the playoffs despite being maligned for being injury prone and soft. Victorino was lost for awhile. Salty fell apart at the end. Bogaerts was nails on the expanded roster in the playoffs when WMD's bat went cold.
 
It seems to me there is at least as an equally compelling case that they succeeded precisely because the plan overcame the kind of problems that we can expect a team to face.
And don't forget about Clay.  He was clearly the Ace, and arguably the best pitcher in the League for the first two months of the season.  Then he missed three months and clearly wasn't the same when he returned.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Savin Hillbilly said:
....
 
As far as the big contracts thing, I don't think the lesson from 2010-12 was, or should be, that you never give out big contracts. The lesson should be that you set a very high bar for them in terms of player fit (both personality and talent-wise), the absence of red flags, and a shortage of promising homegrown alternatives. When it comes to big contracts, the motto should be taken from Bob Dylan: "When something's not right, it's wrong."
In another thread (Bloomberg: John Henry & the making of a Red Sox dynasty), soxhop links to an article (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/196587-john-henry-and-the-making-of-a-red-sox-baseball-dynasty) that has the following John Henry quote:
 
“To me, the most important thing this study shows is that virtually all of the underpaid players are under 30 and virtually all the overpaid players are over 30,” says Henry. “Yet teams continue to extravagantly overpay for players above the age of 30.”
 
So "setting a very high bar" for free agents is essentially the same as not making competitive bids for 30+ free agents?  If the Red sox have a higher standard for valuation than the other teams bidding on the same player, then you're not going to be making a competitive bid.  And I suppose the team could always convince themselves that "this guy is special!," but if you look at the history of long-term deals for 30+ FA, how many players were really special?
 
If the Sox make a long-term, winning bid on a 30+ FA that is valued at the top of the market, then I cry "Bullshit!" on their stated philosophy.  And that may come to pass, if their philosophy is unworkable, but having won 3 WS in 10 years, I think they'll try to stick with their philosophy for a while.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Sometimes you do smart things and get a bad result.  Sometimes you do dumb things and get a good result.  These facts are incontrovertible.
 
But, consistently doing dumb things will lead to poor results more often than consistently doing smart things.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,038
WenZink said:
In another thread (Bloomberg: John Henry & the making of a Red Sox dynasty), soxhop links to an article (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/196587-john-henry-and-the-making-of-a-red-sox-baseball-dynasty) that has the following John Henry quote:
 
“To me, the most important thing this study shows is that virtually all of the underpaid players are under 30 and virtually all the overpaid players are over 30,” says Henry. “Yet teams continue to extravagantly overpay for players above the age of 30.”
 
So "setting a very high bar" for free agents is essentially the same as not making competitive bids for 30+ free agents?  If the Red sox have a higher standard for valuation than the other teams bidding on the same player, then you're not going to be making a competitive bid.  And I suppose the team could always convince themselves that "this guy is special!," but if you look at the history of long-term deals for 30+ FA, how many players were really special?
 
If the Sox make a long-term, winning bid on a 30+ FA that is valued at the top of the market, then I cry "Bullshit!" on their stated philosophy.  And that may come to pass, if their philosophy is unworkable, but having won 3 WS in 10 years, I think they'll try to stick with their philosophy for a while.
 
I think it's not so much "Is this guy special?" as much as it would be, "Is this guy the final piece to put together a couple winners and, even if it's an overpay, it won't hamstring the team from filling other needs in the future."
 
I don't think it makes sense to try to find a well defined dogma in a strategy based on pragmatics.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
WenZink said:
If the Red sox have a higher standard for valuation than the other teams bidding on the same player, then you're not going to be making a competitive bid. 
 
It doesn't necessarily have to be a higher standard for valuation, per se. More like a higher threshold for action. In other words, the Sox might have perfectly agreed with the Yankees in their assessment of the likely worth of Jacoby Ellsbury over the next seven years, but felt there were enough countervailing factors (e.g. the availability of JBJ) that they decided not to pull the trigger. (I'm not saying this is how it happened, of course, I'm just saying it could have worked that way.)
 
In other words, it could be a strategy of making very competitive bids, but being very selective about when you choose to do that.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Adrian Gonzalez was an example of the team's strategy actually working.  They felt they had a deep enough system that they could trade prospects for a premier player still thought to be in his prime.  We seem to forget that A-Gon did put up a 0.957 OPS in 2011.  
 
The problem wasn't Gonzalez' contract itself.  The problem was that his contract, combined with the long term deals to Crawford, Lackey, Beckett, and Dice-K put the team in a bind.  Too much money for too little production, and not enough flexibility to improve the team.  Fortunately, the Dodgers came along to relieve the team of the logjam.
 
And I still say Cameron wasn't example of the team straying from its philosophy.  It was only a 2 year deal; the Cameron contract did not really leave the team hamstrung.  It just didn't work out.   
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Reverend said:
 
I think it's not so much "Is this guy special?" as much as it would be, "Is this guy the final piece to put together a couple winners and, even if it's an overpay, it won't hamstring the team from filling other needs in the future."
 
I don't think it makes sense to try to find a well defined dogma in a strategy based on pragmatics.
 
:"Is this guy special?" and "Is this guy the final piece?' are basically the same thing to me.  If adding the "final piece" means giving a 31 year old pitcher a $150 mil/6 yr contract, then you're probably not as close to a WS lock as you think.  Because once you have paid for that final piece, your 2B might go down for the year, and now you have another spot to fill.
 
I gave the example earlier of the Red Sox justifying paying Cliff Lee close to $40 for the last 1.5 years of his contract.  IF, they feel they're just a top starter away, and IF Lee is still pitching near his peak, and IF they're pretty sure Lester is going to walk after the season, then you pull the trigger on a deal with Philly without making them eat any of the contract.  And if Lee ends up sucking or Koji loses it completely, then you're only hurt in the short-term.  OR if this winter, Sherzer and his agent can't get his price, then you offer a 1 or 2 year deal WAY above the AAV of any of the other offers.  Does $75 mil over 2 yrs have more appeal than 7 yrs/$180 mil?  $80 mil/ 2yrs?  There must be a meeting point somewhere that satisfies both parties.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
lexrageorge said:
Adrian Gonzalez was an example of the team's strategy actually working.  They felt they had a deep enough system that they could trade prospects for a premier player still thought to be in his prime.  We seem to forget that A-Gon did put up a 0.957 OPS in 2011.  
 
The problem wasn't Gonzalez' contract itself.  The problem was that his contract, combined with the long term deals to Crawford, Lackey, Beckett, and Dice-K put the team in a bind.  Too much money for too little production, and not enough flexibility to improve the team.  Fortunately, the Dodgers came along to relieve the team of the logjam.
 
And I still say Cameron wasn't example of the team straying from its philosophy.  It was only a 2 year deal; the Cameron contract did not really leave the team hamstrung.  It just didn't work out.   
 
The alternative would have been to re-sign Beltre and keep Youkilis at first, then sign Napoli for 2013 as the bridge to Rizzo, who appears to be major-league ready. In retrospect, and assuming they also follow the plan and don't sign Crawford and therefore don't need Gonzalez/Punto as collateral, that would have better fit the stated plan, and also would have turned out better. The Gonzalez trade wasn't a disaster, but it wasn't by far the optimal solution.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
The mistake in the 2010-2011 off-season wasn't acquiring Gonzalez, it was signing Crawford plain and simple.  He was a poor fit for the team at the time, even ignoring any "can't handle the pressure" psycho-babble, and far and away the most anti-Theo team-building philosophy signing that Theo ever made.
 
They widely outbid his next closest suitor, something they'd never done for any other player in the Theo era.  The bulk of his "value" was tied to his speed and defense, which was never going to be fully realized playing for the Red Sox.  His defensive range largely went to waste playing 81 games a year at Fenway.  They shoehorned him into the third spot in the order largely to justify his contract, but based on the roster they had, he never should have been hitting any higher than 6th.
 
If the team doesn't sign Crawford, I don't think they reach the point they got to on August 25, 2012.  At least not in terms of their payroll.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Red(s)HawksFan said:
The mistake in the 2010-2011 off-season wasn't acquiring Gonzalez, it was signing Crawford plain and simple.  ..
 
While Crawford makes no sense, the Gonzalez sign-and-trade can be judged a mistake; at least with the advantage of hindsight, and I highly doubt the Sox would make that type of move today.  Gonzalez would have been a FA after the 2011 season, so the Sox gave up Rizzo and Kelly just to get a year's jump on the rest of the league and keep the price down.  So it ended up the worst of both worlds, where they gave up both young prospects and 7 years of money to buy up Gonzo's years of age 29-36.  And while 2011 was indeed a great year to buy, very predictably, age and injuries have lessened Gonzalez' value.  Theo made a mistake that he often warned about... paying for a player's years of regression with the salary based on his performance in his prime.
 
Meanwhile, over in St. Louis, the Cards won it all in 2011, and then let Albert Pujols (arguably the #1 player in the history of the franchise) leave for Anaheim.  And it wasn't the end of the world, getting to game 7 in the 2012 NLCS, and game 6 of the 2013 WS.  (although if Tony Massarotti had a talk show in St. Louis, he'd be claiming that the Cardinals blew a shot at 3 WS Championships in a row because they were cheap.)
 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
WenZink said:
In another thread (Bloomberg: John Henry & the making of a Red Sox dynasty), soxhop links to an article (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/196587-john-henry-and-the-making-of-a-red-sox-baseball-dynasty) that has the following John Henry quote:
 
To me, the most important thing this study shows is that virtually all of the underpaid players are under 30 and virtually all the overpaid players are over 30, says Henry. Yet teams continue to extravagantly overpay for players above the age of 30.
 
So "setting a very high bar" for free agents is essentially the same as not making competitive bids for 30+ free agents?  If the Red sox have a higher standard for valuation than the other teams bidding on the same player, then you're not going to be making a competitive bid.  And I suppose the team could always convince themselves that "this guy is special!," but if you look at the history of long-term deals for 30+ FA, how many players were really special?
 
If the Sox make a long-term, winning bid on a 30+ FA that is valued at the top of the market, then I cry "Bullshit!" on their stated philosophy.  And that may come to pass, if their philosophy is unworkable, but having won 3 WS in 10 years, I think they'll try to stick with their philosophy for a while.
Was that the Philosophy that won 3 World Series though? Would this philosophy trade their top 2 prospects for Pedro or Beckett (and absorb Lowell's contract too) or would they now shy away from those types of deals because the Gonzalez deal almost bAckfired? Would this philosophy bid against itself for Manny Ramirez at 8 years for the second highest aav ever? Sign Keith Foulke or Johnny Damon to a 4 year deal? Trade for and extend a 35 year old Curt Schilling?

The current philosophy has won one World Series, not 3. And the key to that philosophy, IMHO, was the deep depth aspect. Yet, they cast that aside this season. Suppose Bradley does just as well as Ellsbury, who's this years Bradley? Suppose Bogaerts does just as well as Drew, who's this years BogAerts?
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
WenZink said:
 
While Crawford makes no sense, the Gonzalez sign-and-trade can be judged a mistake; at least with the advantage of hindsight, and I highly doubt the Sox would make that type of move today.  Gonzalez would have been a FA after the 2011 season, so the Sox gave up Rizzo and Kelly just to get a year's jump on the rest of the league and keep the price down.  So it ended up the worst of both worlds, where they gave up both young prospects and 7 years of money to buy up Gonzo's years of age 29-36.  And while 2011 was indeed a great year to buy, very predictably, age and injuries have lessened Gonzalez' value.  Theo made a mistake that he often warned about... paying for a player's years of regression with the salary based on his performance in his prime.
 
Meanwhile, over in St. Louis, the Cards won it all in 2011, and then let Albert Pujols (arguably the #1 player in the history of the franchise) leave for Anaheim.  And it wasn't the end of the world, getting to game 7 in the 2012 NLCS, and game 6 of the 2013 WS.  (although if Tony Massarotti had a talk show in St. Louis, he'd be claiming that the Cardinals blew a shot at 3 WS Championships in a row because they were cheap.)
 
 
Most people liked the trade for Agon if I remember correctly.   He had a great 1st half and then his power dropped off. I suspect he reinjured the shoulder in the HR Derby.  21 million a year looked like a bargain after the 2011 season.   The next 2 years Gonzalez did have a power drop off, and last year he mentioned the shoulder as a reason.  This year he has 6 HR's so maybe the shoulder problem is behind him.  I do remember one scout saying Rizzo was a young Agon, but he was not ready yet and with the Red Sox losing Beltre and after an awful 2010 they felt it necessary to add an impact bat.  
 
In any event, the Agon deal was not an awful deal.  Been paid 48 million and produced 14.8 bWAR and off to a start that could bring him back to 5+ WAR eliteness. Lost Rizzo but Rizzo is still a work in progress and Napoli has been pretty good.  Agon also made moving Crawford and Beckett possible
 
Crawford OTOH was an awful miscalculation, although unexpected injuries played a role there.   .
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
WenZink said:
 
While Crawford makes no sense, the Gonzalez sign-and-trade can be judged a mistake; at least with the advantage of hindsight, and I highly doubt the Sox would make that type of move today.  Gonzalez would have been a FA after the 2011 season, so the Sox gave up Rizzo and Kelly just to get a year's jump on the rest of the league and keep the price down.  So it ended up the worst of both worlds, where they gave up both young prospects and 7 years of money to buy up Gonzo's years of age 29-36.  And while 2011 was indeed a great year to buy, very predictably, age and injuries have lessened Gonzalez' value.  Theo made a mistake that he often warned about... paying for a player's years of regression with the salary based on his performance in his prime.
 
Gonzalez might have ultimately ended up being an overpay, but it would not have been nearly the disaster that the Crawford deal was and still is.  It might have been disappointing to not get the 5-6+ WAR player that he was in San Diego, but a 3-5 WAR player through the first five years or so would have been fine (and that's what I think he will be in that timeframe).  A slight overpay, even when talking about a 20M+ AAV, is something the Sox could absorb with their payroll.
 
I was always an advocate of waiting things out and signing Gonzalez as a free agent, but in light of what his would-be peers got in that off-season (Pujols and Fielder both getting $200M+), the savings in terms of years and dollars might have been worth the sacrifice of Kelly and Rizzo, particularly with the hindsight of knowing Kelly would flame out with injury.  I can't go along with considering that deal a mistake, even in hindsight.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Plympton91 said:
Was that the Philosophy that won 3 World Series though? Would this philosophy trade their top 2 prospects for Pedro or Beckett (and absorb Lowell's contract too) or would they now shy away from those types of deals because the Gonzalez deal almost bAckfired? Would this philosophy bid against itself for Manny Ramirez at 8 years for the second highest aav ever? Sign Keith Foulke or Johnny Damon to a 4 year deal? Trade for and extend a 35 year old Curt Schilling?

The current philosophy has won one World Series, not 3. And the key to that philosophy, IMHO, was the deep depth aspect. Yet, they cast that aside this season. Suppose Bradley does just as well as Ellsbury, who's this years Bradley? Suppose Bogaerts does just as well as Drew, who's this years BogAerts?
Sizemore, Victorino and JBJ were all expected to be depth at CF. If Bradley goes down, one of them could step in. But you disliked the Sizemore signing because of the opportunity cost. They had six major league caliber outfielders to start the year.

The depth seems deep enough to keep the team around .500 in the event of injuries to their third baseman, second baseman, closer and right fielder.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Plympton91 said:
 
More generally, I still think that the problem from 2010-2012 was not that they gave out big contracts to players entering their 30s, it was that they gave out big contracts to the wrong players, who all had red flags (Lackey's elbow, Jenks' conditioning, Cameron's age and K rate making him a 'crater' candidate, Gonzalez's shoulder and personality, and Crawford's biggest asset--speed--being muted by Fenway's small LF, the Red Sox non-small-ball offensive philosophy, and his platoon split being a bad fit for the Sox lineup). 
 
Every baseball player in his 30 is going to have some sort of "red flag" as you describe, whether it be injuries, conditioning, steroids, fielding, or just plain surliness.
 
Either that or he's going to get bazillion dollars.

This isn't very helpful.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,113
Santa Monica
Plympton91 said:
Was that the Philosophy that won 3 World Series though? Would this philosophy trade their top 2 prospects for Pedro or Beckett (and absorb Lowell's contract too) or would they now shy away from those types of deals because the Gonzalez deal almost bAckfired? Would this philosophy bid against itself for Manny Ramirez at 8 years for the second highest aav ever? Sign Keith Foulke or Johnny Damon to a 4 year deal? Trade for and extend a 35 year old Curt Schilling?

The current philosophy has won one World Series, not 3. And the key to that philosophy, IMHO, was the deep depth aspect. Yet, they cast that aside this season. Suppose Bradley does just as well as Ellsbury, who's this years Bradley? Suppose Bogaerts does just as well as Drew, who's this years BogAerts?
 The farm has more top rated AA and AAA talent then any other team in MLB. The Sox also have plenty of financial flexibility to add players at mid season.
 
'Deep Depth' philosophy in 2014? Well they have Brandon Workman, he pitched in high leverage situations in the playoffs and World Series last year. The Sox, correctly IMO, have placed him at AAA as a starter and he is probably our #6 starter at the moment. After him we have Webster, De La Rosa who have MLB experience. Drake Britton is a power lefty that is very capable of coming up for bullpen depth. Wilson and Hill also have MLB bullpen experience.  Capuano was a buy low candidate they picked up early in the spring, he's capable of being stretched out as a starter, but has been so dominant as a reliever that won't be happening (because they have deep depth in starters). Brock Holt added some punch to the line up when he was up for INF insurance. Roberts was picked up and stashed at AAA for depth.  Cecchini is a few months away from contributing at the ML level if needed.  Marrero and Betts could potentially help out in the INF after mid season.*  We have Lavarnaway, Butler, Vasquez at catcher that could step in at the ML level right now. Nava, Brentz, Hassan provide OF depth, none are capable of playing CF which is your main point of contention (although Victorino and Sizemore could). In addition they could use the plethora of talent in the system to acquire CF depth. I could see teams like San Diego, Houston, NY Mets, Philadelphia  spiraling out of contention early and offering CFs like Denorfia, Fowler, Young, Gwynn for young cost controlled B level prospects. Or we could use our plethora of top talent to acquire an even better CFer if necessary.
 
Our bench of Gomes, Ross, Carp, Herrera is more then solid.
 
Really can't disagree with you more.
 
 
 
*Reminder: at the beginning of last season neither X or JBJ had played a game above AA. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Plympton91 said:
Was that the Philosophy that won 3 World Series though? Would this philosophy trade their top 2 prospects for Pedro or Beckett (and absorb Lowell's contract too) or would they now shy away from those types of deals because the Gonzalez deal almost bAckfired? Would this philosophy bid against itself for Manny Ramirez at 8 years for the second highest aav ever? Sign Keith Foulke or Johnny Damon to a 4 year deal? Trade for and extend a 35 year old Curt Schilling?

The current philosophy has won one World Series, not 3. And the key to that philosophy, IMHO, was the deep depth aspect. Yet, they cast that aside this season. Suppose Bradley does just as well as Ellsbury, who's this years Bradley? Suppose Bogaerts does just as well as Drew, who's this years BogAerts?
 
1. I was unclear about the philosophy winning 3 world series.  What I intended to relay was that having won 3 world series in the last 10 years, the Sox management feels they now have the leeway to proceed with their (evolved) philosophy for the long-haul, without having to cave to fan/media pressure like they did 4 years ago.
 
2. They most certainly would make the Pedro trade, since they would be receiving Pedro's years 26-32 and fits entirely with their philosophy. Same with the Johnny Damon signing, since they'd be getting years 28-31.  Hanley and A.Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett also would be made, since they were getting a top pitcher in his prime and Lowell for only two years.  (but they would not have given him a new deal after 2007.)  Foulke at 3 years for years 31, 32, 33 would be fine.  The Schilling deal, even with the extension, is not that dissimilar from the Victorino deal, and the prospects traded (Lyon/Fossum/DeLa Rosa) were not considered top-shelf even at the time.
 
3. The Manny deal would not have been made.
 
4.  Regarding deep-depth, the Sox have payroll flexibility, since they have so little committed to salary in 2015 and beyond.  They could take on the back end of a big contract (Cliff Lee) because even if they edge past the cap this year, they'll be able to stay under it in future years.  Unlike the Yankees, Angels, Tigers.  They may also have expendable prospects for trade, depending upon how Bogaerts and Middlebrooks look by the tradeline.  If they're performing then the system is loaded with infielders (Cecchini, Betts, Marrero, Rijo) that may have their path to the big team blocked.  But if, say Bogaerts fails at short (and is seen only as a 3rd baseman) and/or if Middlebrooks reverts to his poor plate discipline, then they'll have to hold on to their middle infielders.  The Sox have incredible flexibility vs the other top contenders in the league. If Bradley, for some reason fails, and Sizemore has to be put down, they have enough to trade for a replacement and take on the last year or two of an older veteran's contract.  They have a trading partner in the Cubs, who have an abundance of outfield prospects, but a dearth of pitching prospects.  The Sox have deep-depth in their farm system, which means they not relying on any one single prospect to succeed -- there's safety in numbers.  Jackie Bradley is very important right now, but the future of the franchise does not rest on his success.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Sampo Gida said:
 
Most people liked the trade for Agon if I remember correctly.   He had a great 1st half and then his power dropped off. I suspect he reinjured the shoulder in the HR Derby.  21 million a year looked like a bargain after the 2011 season.   The next 2 years Gonzalez did have a power drop off, and last year he mentioned the shoulder as a reason.  This year he has 6 HR's so maybe the shoulder problem is behind him.  I do remember one scout saying Rizzo was a young Agon, but he was not ready yet and with the Red Sox losing Beltre and after an awful 2010 they felt it necessary to add an impact bat.  
 
In any event, the Agon deal was not an awful deal.  Been paid 48 million and produced 14.8 bWAR and off to a start that could bring him back to 5+ WAR eliteness. Lost Rizzo but Rizzo is still a work in progress and Napoli has been pretty good.  Agon also made moving Crawford and Beckett possible
 
Crawford OTOH was an awful miscalculation, although unexpected injuries played a role there.   .
 
My point was not to pass the final verdict on the Gonzalez trade and sign.  It's just that by today's Red Sox philosophy, the AGone deal would be considered a mistake, running counter to the philosophy that they now swear with which they're using to run the club.  No more long contracts for guys over 30.  Short, expensive deals for players in their 30's are okay, but 3 years or less, I presume.  They (Henry/Lucchino) swear up-and-down that they've learned their lesson and will remain resolute even in the face of uproar from fans and media.
 
I hope it works.  I hope that the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Tigers and Phillies suffer by continuing to go down the old road, and that we'll have a decade of Red Sox-Cardinals/Cubs World Series.  And I'm being a bit facetious because I'm not sure how this work in the details.  But I do suspect that players in their late 20s-early 30s will see huge increases in their salaries over the next decade, while the 35+ faded stars will see huge decreases. (In relative terms, if not in absolute dollar value.)  More teams have more money to lock up young talent, and the FA pool will become older and riskier.  And those teams that are the first to adjust will be the most successful.  Those teams slow to catch on will be paying the price for a long time (The Angels will be paying Albert Pujols $30 mill in 2021.)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
WenZink said:
 
My point was not to pass the final verdict on the Gonzalez trade and sign.  It's just that by today's Red Sox philosophy, the AGone deal would be considered a mistake, running counter to the philosophy that they now swear with which they're using to run the club.  No more long contracts for guys over 30.  Short, expensive deals for players in their 30's are okay, but 3 years or less, I presume.  They (Henry/Lucchino) swear up-and-down that they've learned their lesson and will remain resolute even in the face of uproar from fans and media.
 
I disagree that the A-Gon deal runs counter to their philosophy.  For one, he was 28 when he signed it.  Second, it was expensive but at a discount (years-wise) relative to the other free agent 1B with whom he would have been on the market had he not signed the extension when he did (arguably a "hometown" discount).  They were signing him from his age 29 season through age 36, which is the same age range covered by Pedroia's extension.  I really don't see where it was a big stray from philosophy, then or now.  Really, the only eye-popping aspect of the deal is the $21M AAV, but I could see them doing a similar deal for the right player even now.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,369
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
I disagree that the A-Gon deal runs counter to their philosophy.  For one, he was 28 when he signed it.  Second, it was expensive but at a discount (years-wise) relative to the other free agent 1B with whom he would have been on the market had he not signed the extension when he did (arguably a "hometown" discount).  They were signing him from his age 29 season through age 36, which is the same age range covered by Pedroia's extension.  I really don't see where it was a big stray from philosophy, then or now.  Really, the only eye-popping aspect of the deal is the $21M AAV, but I could see them doing a similar deal for the right player even now.
 
 
Paying big long-term $$$ for LF and 1B was a marked departure from their philosophy. It still boggles the mind, given the heavy Jamesian influence dwelling in the FO DNA.
 
 
When I hear that the Red Sox have added 3-4 more minor league teams a la Branch Rickey's minor league empire, and then bankrolled their own development league is some unconventional place like Africa, then I can readily believe in this strategic allocation of assets from signing any notable players over 30 into player development for long-term success. Otherwise, the seemingly profound but ultimately crap recent statements coming from the likes of Farrell and Henry* don't inspire a lot of confidence that they will mobilize the tremendous revenues coming in via jacked ticket prices, NESN, and so forth to maximum competitive impact on the field.
 
 
* "To me, the most important thing this study shows is that virtually all of the underpaid players are under 30 and virtually all the overpaid players are over 30."  --- Really now, let's pretend that the artificially low salaries via indentured servitude for younger major leaguers don't exist?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
Paying big long-term $$$ for LF and 1B was a marked departure from their philosophy. It still boggles the mind, given the heavy Jamesian influence dwelling in the FO DNA.
 
 
When I hear that the Red Sox have added 3-4 more minor league teams a la Branch Rickey's minor league empire, and then bankrolled their own development league is some unconventional place like Africa, then I can readily believe in this strategic allocation of assets from signing any notable players over 30 into player development for long-term success. Otherwise, the seemingly profound but ultimately crap recent statements coming from the likes of Farrell and Henry* don't inspire a lot of confidence that they will mobilize the tremendous revenues coming in via jacked ticket prices, NESN, and so forth to maximum competitive impact on the field.
 
 
* "To me, the most important thing this study shows is that virtually all of the underpaid players are under 30 and virtually all the overpaid players are over 30."  --- Really now, let's pretend that the artificially low salaries via indentured servitude for younger major leaguers don't exist?
 
Yeah, I howled at that one, too.  If I were a younger major league player or one of the minor leaguers forced to be on food stamps by MLB's indentured servitude I probably would have growled at it instead.
 
To the other responses to my post, I do not disagree at all that the Red Sox have very admirable depth in back of the rotation starters and middle relievers sitting at Pawtucket (so, if payroll is a problem, why sign Mujica instead of leaving Workman as the RH set up man or using Britton as your long reliever instead of Capuano?  Is pitching so much more important to have veteran depth than SS and CF?).  I also agree that Garin Cecchini is a great insurance policy for Will Middlebrooks, that organizationally they're strong at C, and that Jonathan Herrera and Brock Holt are great options as your backup infielder, as long as they're only playing 2 days a week or less.  I am really excited about Owens and Betts is quickly playing himself into viability if they god-forbid need a long-term sub for Pedroia at any time in the future.  Marrero is reportedly ready to play defensively in the majors, but his bat would probably be worse than Iglesias was for the Tigers last year.
 
They've already effectively made the decision that they don't want Sizemore playing CF anymore, and recent defensive metrics peg Victorino as no more than a short-term fill in as well.
 
So, I still don't see any starting depth at CF or SS at all. The point that they could trade from a position of strength to address a position of weakness is a good one, an so we'll just have to wait and see.  I think performance wise, they're looking adequate or better, with Bradley's defense more than enough to make up for any disappointment in his offensive production, and Bogaerts the reverse.  But injuries happen, and the Red Sox had a fairly easy way to insulate themselves from that but chose not to.  I guess it's easy to say sign the veterans and use the kids as insurance when it's not my money.  Hopefully the offensive breakout the past two days is the beginning of a more-championship-caliber brand of baseball in 2014. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Plympton91 said:
......
 
......  But injuries happen, and the Red Sox had a fairly easy way to insulate themselves from that but chose not to.  I guess it's easy to say sign the veterans and use the kids as insurance when it's not my money.  Hopefully the offensive breakout the past two days is the beginning of a more-championship-caliber brand of baseball in 2014. 
 I don't see how getting into a bidding war with the Yankees and Mariners over Ellsbury (who averaged only 113 games a season in his prime) should be considered "a fairly easy way to insulate themselves," ( from injury to CF).  Committing $154 mil seems kind of hard to me.  And they did offer Drew $14.1/1yr, which was "fairly easy,"  but committing to a multi-year deal was much harder, particularly since it would have made it impossible to gauge the MLB-worthiness of Middlebrooks (assuming Bogaerts went to third.)  So it would have cost not only the added money to Drew, it also would have been losing any potential value in Middlebrooks.  If WMB can be a 2.5 - 3.0 WAR player, at minimum salary, then that's another $15 million lost in opportunity cost.
 
No team can afford to have the depth you want at every position.  Not even the Yankees.  They're spending over $220 mil on payroll this year, and their backup first baseman is their starting 3rd baseman.  And their starting 1st baseman is recovering from wrist surgery and has a history of hamstring problems.  If the Yankees can't afford multiple contingencies at every position, then how can any other franchise do it.  Sizemore (either at CF or in RF with Victorino in CF) may not be the ideal solution to depth, but it's hardly a train-wreck.  And if the train does go off the rails, they have trade bait to address it.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
LahoudOrBillyC said:
Part of the Red Sox philosophy (as Henry has mentioned in several interviews in the last year) is that they are going to maintain a player development machine, and fill in with veterans to "bridge" if prospects are not ready.  This is what Theo wanted to do after 2009, but the press and public went apeshit and the owners basically forced him into win-now mode…..
 
….This ownership team, and this philosophy, are going nowhere.  If they win 75 games or 95 games, their approach to 2015 will not vary an inch.  They don't care what we think, and that is one of the secrets to their success.
 
 
 
 
Regarding the above, I have far less belief that the owners will stick to any particular "philosophy."  In my mind they have had several different "philosophies" during their tenure and have made some moves that seemed diametrically opposed to what seemed to be their baseball plan, such as the Lowell re-sign and Crawford and Valentine.  
 
I'm a bit confused by the one statement that "the press and the public" "forced" Theo into a "win-now mode," and the other that "they don't care what we think."  In fact, if the owners have ever been so wishy-washy that the press can "force" their GM to make stupid moves I'm not sure why you'd believe that going forward they wouldn't care.  (There is in fact some evidence that they do "care what we think," at least vis-a-vis NESN ratings, as Werner supposedly moaned to Francona about winning in a "more exciting" manner as the ratings dropped down in the 6's in 2010, right before the Crawford signing.)
 
Obviously they've had great success and have shown an ability to regroup and adapt, and I imagine we will continue to be pleasantly (and occasionally unpleasantly) surprised by these owners.  But I am dubious that the whole front office has suddenly turned into Bill Belichick.
 

LahoudOrBillyC

Indian name is Massages Ellsbury
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
4,073
Willamette Valley
snowmanny said:
 
I'm a bit confused by the one statement that "the press and the public" "forced" Theo into a "win-now mode," and the other that "they don't care what we think." 
 
What Epstein and Henry have said, and evidence backs this up, is that they screwed up terribly in 2009-2010 by caving in to the Monster (Theo's word choice) rather than keeping their eye on the long-term health of the organization.  Henry has said that he has learned from this, and the person running baseball ops is a player development guy.  Let me spell this out.  2009-2011 = cave-in to dumb fans.  2012-future = run our business properly and stop listening to ignorami.
 
Of course, this has nothing to do with payroll, which remains one of the highest in the game and will always be.  They know that there are still going to dumb fans who equate "not signing 32-year-old ex-All-Stars" with "going cheap."  The 2013 team had a huge payroll.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
LahoudOrBillyC said:
 
What Epstein and Henry have said, and evidence backs this up, is that they screwed up terribly in 2009-2010 by caving in to the Monster (Theo's word choice) rather than keeping their eye on the long-term health of the organization.  Henry has said that he has learned from this, and the person running baseball ops is a player development guy.  Let me spell this out.  2009-2011 = cave-in to dumb fans.  2012-future = run our business properly and stop listening to ignorami.
 
Of course, this has nothing to do with payroll, which remains one of the highest in the game and will always be.  They know that there are still going to dumb fans who equate "not signing 32-year-old ex-All-Stars" with "going cheap."  The 2013 team had a huge payroll.
 
I heard a lot of those complainers yesterday on XM radio in the aftermath of the Yankees fiasco.  It occurred to me that the Red Sox aren't really competing with the Yankees. Trying to match them dollar for dollar is a no win proposition.  In reality, they are competing against the best player development organizations like the Devil Rays and Cardinals. The Sox have a financial advantage not for bidding for the most expensive and best free agents available each year (with diminishing quality because of the trend of signing younger players for longer contracts to keep them with the organizations that developed them during their primes).  Their financial advantage is better utilized to sign and keep their own talent in this same way and to fill talent gaps not too far above market prices without overspending too wastefully and for too long.  The key is to not let sentiment for veterans blind the organization to the need to give younger talents a chance when they are ready.  Journeyman Nava (coming off his career year) was holding Bradley back until he started so poorly.   A good dose of patience is then needed until a fair chance to stick is given.  This is the strategy we need to hope they are following.