Finding value in 2014 Signings/Trades etc.

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,779
yecul said:
Actually I think it's just fanboyism under the guise of analysis. He's upset a guy he likes is gone. Laundry only takes you so far.

The departure of ellsbury always struck me as a certainty. By all accounts Boston had strong competitive numbers but the Yankee offer was not going to be topped.

Boston is in good standing this headband going forward. They are off a hugely successful championship run founded on strong player evaluation and sticking to their plan.

They could have thrown more money at ellsbury to make it happen. They could have retained salty or at least given him a qo. But they didn't. Havent they earned at least a tiny bit of rope here?
 
They certainly do deserve some rope, and I have hope that they'll turn that rope into a lasso soon enough.  However, as has been discussed elsewhere, it is difficult to improve on 2013 in a value conscious way because they got reasonable production from everywhere and were either relatively healthy or had historic luck in replacing injured players.  Moreover, the remaining available free agents also have warts and will be overpriced as well, making them unlikely targets for the Boston Red Rays.  We (They?) also, I think, are significantly overrating the prospects not named Bogaerts, Cecchini, and Owens, and so I don't have a large hope that they will be able to make an impact trade (since I don't think they should/would trade any one of those 3). Finally, the outfield depth, particularly in CF, seems inadequate to me and so "overpaying" Ellsbury seemed consistent with the "deep depth" philosophy of the organization, leaving Bradley as a high-quality option for an injury at any of the 3 outfield positions rather than relying on Bradley to replicate Ellsbury's value and then finding a high-quality backup who will agree to be a backup.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,475
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
 
They certainly do deserve some rope, and I have hope that they'll turn that rope into a lasso soon enough.  However, as has been discussed elsewhere, it is difficult to improve on 2013 in a value conscious way because they got reasonable production from everywhere and were either relatively healthy or had historic luck in replacing injured players.  Moreover, the remaining available free agents also have warts and will be overpriced as well, making them unlikely targets for the Boston Red Rays.  We (They?) also, I think, are significantly overrating the prospects not named Bogaerts, Cecchini, and Owens, and so I don't have a large hope that they will be able to make an impact trade (since I don't think they should/would trade any one of those 3). Finally, the outfield depth, particularly in CF, seems inadequate to me and so "overpaying" Ellsbury seemed consistent with the "deep depth" philosophy of the organization, leaving Bradley as a high-quality option for an injury at any of the 3 outfield positions rather than relying on Bradley to replicate Ellsbury's value and then finding a high-quality backup who will agree to be a backup.
 
Just. Stop. Trolling.
 

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,555
Missoula, MT
Plympton91 said:
 
They certainly do deserve some rope, and I have hope that they'll turn that rope into a lasso soon enough.  However, as has been discussed elsewhere, it is difficult to improve on 2013 in a value conscious way because they got reasonable production from everywhere and were either relatively healthy or had historic luck in replacing injured players.  Moreover, the remaining available free agents also have warts and will be overpriced as well, making them unlikely targets for the Boston Red Rays.  We (They?) also, I think, are significantly overrating the prospects not named Bogaerts, Cecchini, and Owens, and so I don't have a large hope that they will be able to make an impact trade (since I don't think they should/would trade any one of those 3). Finally, the outfield depth, particularly in CF, seems inadequate to me and so "overpaying" Ellsbury seemed consistent with the "deep depth" philosophy of the organization, leaving Bradley as a high-quality option for an injury at any of the 3 outfield positions rather than relying on Bradley to replicate Ellsbury's value and then finding a high-quality backup who will agree to be a backup.
 
Can you explain any plan to improve on the value plan from 2013? I mean, It is very clear that the team isn't changing any of their methods of measuring value with their signings.
 
Further, the team doesn't need to improve on it's internal philosophy from 2013 because it's a proven winner.  All they need to do replicate it. The AJP and Mujica signings are mirror images of that philosophy by their signing amounts and their 2013 production so it appears that the Sox also feel they don't need to improve on that philosophy.  You are past whip cream and onto the butter stage with your trolling spoon.  Take a breather.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,779
Dogman2 said:
 
Can you explain any plan to improve on the value plan from 2013? I mean, It is very clear that the team isn't changing any of their methods of measuring value with their signings.
 
Further, the team doesn't need to improve on it's internal philosophy from 2013 because it's a proven winner.  All they need to do replicate it. The AJP and Mujica signings are mirror images of that philosophy by their signing amounts and their 2013 production so it appears that the Sox also feel they don't need to improve on that philosophy.  You are past whip cream and onto the butter stage with your trolling spoon.  Take a breather.
 
If you think that any of my multi-line posts in this thread have been trolling, then I don't think you people actually understand what trolling is.
 
Look at what they did last offseason: Napoli, Gomes, and Victorino all came in to fill roster spots that had been filled for a significant portion of the previous season by replacement level talent or worse.
 
In that vein, I agree with you that the Mujica signing is exactly the type of signing that they made last year.  They got a short-term contract on a good and consistent but not great veteran, and he will be taking the roster spot of, essentially, Bailey/Hanrahan.  Thus, if he gives them an average performance, they make out great.
 
I disagree that the AJP signing is analogous, because AJP 2014 is unlikely to improve at all on Salty 2013.  Now, perhaps Salty 2014 was unlikely to improve on Salty 2013, but at least there would have been the reasonable chance that he was on the upswing of his career, even after you adjust for the high BABIp and correspondingly low HR/FB.  The wild card on that signing, and where they deserve rope, is that they must have a proprietary system of catcher defense that has Salty as a significant negative influence and AJP as a significant positive influence.
 
So, abstracting from the value of the proprietary system of catcher defense, it looks like they've likely gotten worse at 2 batting order slots, perhaps significantly at 1.  Where can they improve by similar amounts to get back to even?  Other teams are improving.  Yes, they were the champions, but they were not the 1998 Yankees with their 22 game lead over the wild card and 114 wins to come down from and still win again in 1999.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,475
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
 
If you think that any of my multi-line posts in this thread have been trolling, then I don't think you people actually understand what trolling is.
 
I think we do. We know it well. If you knock off the silly and familiar rhetoric you sprinkle onto your posts your points would be fine.
 
 
So, abstracting from the value of the proprietary system of catcher defense, it looks like they've likely gotten worse at 2 batting order slots, perhaps significantly at 1.  Where can they improve by similar amounts to get back to even?  Other teams are improving.  Yes, they were the champions, but they were not the 1998 Yankees with their 22 game lead over the wild card and 114 wins to come down from and still win again in 1999.
 
As has already been repeatedly pointed out to you....it's very, very early in the offseason. There will be other moves coming, of that we're all in agreement.
 

cannonball 1729

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
2,543
The Sticks
 
Plympton91 said:
 
So, abstracting from the value of the proprietary system of catcher defense, it looks like they've likely gotten worse at 2 batting order slots, perhaps significantly at 1.  Where can they improve by similar amounts to get back to even?  Other teams are improving.  Yes, they were the champions, but they were not the 1998 Yankees with their 22 game lead over the wild card and 114 wins to come down from and still win again in 1999.
 
Third base.  And perhaps left field.
 
Besides, the question isn't, "How do they improve in 2014?"  It's "How do they improve in 2014 and beyond?"  Viewing all signings through the lens of what happens in 2014 misses the fact that the Sox have to field a team in 2015 as well.
 

LostinNJ

lurker
Jul 19, 2005
428
Regarding Ellsbury, they had to decide whether to stick with the philosophy that won a championship in 2013, or stick with the team that won. They stuck with the philosophy.
 

Stan Papi Was Framed

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
2,847
LostinNJ said:
Regarding Ellsbury, they had to decide whether to stick with the philosophy that won a championship in 2013, or stick with the team that won. They stuck with the philosophy.
well said--and I hope they continue to stick with this philosophy.  Of course, as pointed out by others, that certainly does not mean standing pat for the rest of the offseason (not that they've stood pat to date either...)
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
13,789
<null>
Plympton91 said:
 
If you think that any of my multi-line posts in this thread have been trolling, then I don't think you people actually understand what trolling is.
 
Look at what they did last offseason: Napoli, Gomes, and Victorino all came in to fill roster spots that had been filled for a significant portion of the previous season by replacement level talent or worse.
 
In that vein, I agree with you that the Mujica signing is exactly the type of signing that they made last year.  They got a short-term contract on a good and consistent but not great veteran, and he will be taking the roster spot of, essentially, Bailey/Hanrahan.  Thus, if he gives them an average performance, they make out great.
 
I disagree that the AJP signing is analogous, because AJP 2014 is unlikely to improve at all on Salty 2013.  Now, perhaps Salty 2014 was unlikely to improve on Salty 2013, but at least there would have been the reasonable chance that he was on the upswing of his career, even after you adjust for the high BABIp and correspondingly low HR/FB.  The wild card on that signing, and where they deserve rope, is that they must have a proprietary system of catcher defense that has Salty as a significant negative influence and AJP as a significant positive influence.
 
So, abstracting from the value of the proprietary system of catcher defense, it looks like they've likely gotten worse at 2 batting order slots, perhaps significantly at 1.  Where can they improve by similar amounts to get back to even?  Other teams are improving.  Yes, they were the champions, but they were not the 1998 Yankees with their 22 game lead over the wild card and 114 wins to come down from and still win again in 1999.
 
By most measures I've seen, AJP actually has horrible catcher defense (i.e., "framing"). Ross is mediocre to quite good and Salty was slightly worse.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,610
[SIZE=10pt]Your position in this thread and others appears to be that no amount of backsliding from the 2013 performance can be allowed.  The Red Sox front office almost certainly does not share this view – Theo Epstein, Billy Beane and others have previously identified 95 wins as a benchmark to target each season and it is likely that Ben Cherington uses this goal as well.  The 2013 Red Sox won 97 games in actuality and they underperformed their Pythag projections by 2 to 3 wins, so that’s a cushion of 2 to 5 wins right there.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]More importantly, as Cannonball notes, the team needs to be focused on building a roster that will maximize its winning potential over multiple years, not just 2014.  There are various moves that could improve the short-term outlook for the team but would likely hamstring roster construction down the road.  It is crucial to try and compete now while also keeping some powder dry for future battles.  It is a very different player market now, one where fewer elite players are making it to free agency and where it is crucial to have access to a pool of prospects to both hopefully grow your own stars and also have assets available to trade with other teams.  Trying to outbid New York for players like Ellsbury and McCann is not only foolhardy, it’s also unnecessary.  The Yankees give out bags of cash like Halloween candy to free agents because money is pretty much their only weapon thanks to their mediocre farm system.  Brian Cashman would probably give his left nut to have Cherington’s combination of money and prospects to play with.  Various posters fret about the lack of prospects in the system at  the corner OF spots, 1B, etc., but if the Sox continue to focus on developing premium minor-league players, Ben will be very likely be able to deal his surplus prospects to fill those needs.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]From one Sox fan to another, you really should relax and enjoy these times.  Our team is the defending World Series champion and the folks in charge are pretty smart.  Sure, it’s possible that Ellsbury and McCann go on to have some really good years and drive us crazy 19 times a year, but I trust Ben and his lieutenants to have a solid plan to keep the Olde Towne Team in the hunt no matter what happens in the Bronx or the rest of the league.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Jim [/SIZE]
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
JimD said:
[SIZE=10pt]Your position in this thread and others appears to be that no amount of backsliding from the 2013 performance can be allowed.  The Red Sox front office almost certainly does not share this view – Theo Epstein, Billy Beane and others have previously identified 95 wins as a benchmark to target each season and it is likely that Ben Cherington uses this goal as well.  The 2013 Red Sox won 97 games in actuality and they underperformed their Pythag projections by 2 to 3 wins, so that’s a cushion of 2 to 5 wins right there.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]More importantly, as Cannonball notes, the team needs to be focused on building a roster that will maximize its winning potential over multiple years, not just 2014.  There are various moves that could improve the short-term outlook for the team but would likely hamstring roster construction down the road.  It is crucial to try and compete now while also keeping some powder dry for future battles.  It is a very different player market now, one where fewer elite players are making it to free agency and where it is crucial to have access to a pool of prospects to both hopefully grow your own stars and also have assets available to trade with other teams.  Trying to outbid New York for players like Ellsbury and McCann is not only foolhardy, it’s also unnecessary.  The Yankees give out bags of cash like Halloween candy to free agents because money is pretty much their only weapon thanks to their mediocre farm system.  Brian Cashman would probably give his left nut to have Cherington’s combination of money and prospects to play with.  Various posters fret about the lack of prospects in the system at  the corner OF spots, 1B, etc., but if the Sox continue to focus on developing premium minor-league players, Ben will be very likely be able to deal his surplus prospects to fill those needs.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]From one Sox fan to another, you really should relax and enjoy these times.  Our team is the defending World Series champion and the folks in charge are pretty smart.  Sure, it’s possible that Ellsbury and McCann go on to have some really good years and drive us crazy 19 times a year, but I trust Ben and his lieutenants to have a solid plan to keep the Olde Towne Team in the hunt no matter what happens in the Bronx or the rest of the league.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Jim [/SIZE]
 
Very well said.  I think its hard to lose Ellsbury and have a likely better team in 2014 than in 2013, but I don't think that'e the bench mark for a successful offseason and I certainly think trying to be Yankees-lite is a fools errand.
 

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,555
Missoula, MT
 
If you think that any of my multi-line posts in this thread have been trolling, then I don't think you people actually understand what trolling is.
 
 
Your reputation precedes you.  But, given your reasoned response, I'll retract my trolling quip and discuss this.
 
Look at what they did last offseason: Napoli, Gomes, and Victorino all came in to fill roster spots that had been filled for a significant portion of the previous season by replacement level talent or worse.
 
 
Yep, this happened.  What also happened here was that all 3 have been known to be character guys and productive in their careers so it was very reasonable to have assumed they would outproduce whom they replaced. I think we all liked the short term contracts. I know that there are reports of character problems with AJP and that he may not fit in the clubhouse but, personally, I'll take Ortiz's word here.  He loves him and that's enough for me to trust that one year of AJP isn't going to sink the chemistry balance.
 
In that vein, I agree with you that the Mujica signing is exactly the type of signing that they made last year.  They got a short-term contract on a good and consistent but not great veteran, and he will be taking the roster spot of, essentially, Bailey/Hanrahan.  Thus, if he gives them an average performance, they make out great.
 
 
100% agree.
I disagree that the AJP signing is analogous, because AJP 2014 is unlikely to improve at all on Salty 2013.  Now, perhaps Salty 2014 was unlikely to improve on Salty 2013, but at least there would have been the reasonable chance that he was on the upswing of his career, even after you adjust for the high BABIp and correspondingly low HR/FB.  The wild card on that signing, and where they deserve rope, is that they must have a proprietary system of catcher defense that has Salty as a significant negative influence and AJP as a significant positive influence.
 
 
Again, this is a fair assessment.  Where I disagree with you is the bolded.  When normalizing for BABIP, I think we would absolutely see Salty revert to his career averages for OBP and SLG.  AJP had a slightly below league average BABIP of .272 so it's very likely that he produces at a similar rate in 2014 as he did in 2013 while it is not all that likely that Salty does the same. Moreover, AJP threw out runners at a 33% clip in 2013.  That alone is most likely worth half a win over Salty.  AJP's contract for 1 season is better than Salty's 3 year deal in that the Sox are not tied to a player who most likely will never produce the way his did offensively in 2013 and they have a replacement in the system who is slated to see a full season in AAA in 2014. 
So, abstracting from the value of the proprietary system of catcher defense, it looks like they've likely gotten worse at 2 batting order slots, perhaps significantly at 1.  Where can they improve by similar amounts to get back to even?  Other teams are improving.  Yes, they were the champions, but they were not the 1998 Yankees with their 22 game lead over the wild card and 114 wins to come down from and still win again in 1999.
 
Again, the team hasn't gotten worse at catcher.  The team has likely gotten better for at least 2014 without being tied to a player that is likely to get worse over 3 years.  Additionally, having a young catcher who will likely be ready in 2015 to assume the full time role at a fraction of Salty's cost fits the core value philosophy.

 
I'd agree that they have gotten worse at CF.  However, that was a foregone conclusion the moment the Sox extended the QO. The Sox, based on their value philosophy, didn't value ages 35-37 at 22 million and it certainly looks like the other 31 teams didn't either. Frankly, I'm shocked you do. After getting out of their long term albatrosses and having immediate success, why would you want the team to abandon that current successful value formula just because you like a certain player? Tell me, would you have paid Jacoby 7/150+?
 
The 1998 Yankee example isn't comparable here. Different years, teams and era. Let's stick to the present.
 

BosRedSox5

what's an original thought?
Sep 6, 2006
1,471
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Dogman2 said:
Again, the team hasn't gotten worse at catcher.  The team has likely gotten better for at least 2014 without being tied to a player that is likely to get worse over 3 years.  Additionally, having a young catcher who will likely be ready in 2015 to assume the full time role at a fraction of Salty's cost fits the core value philosophy.
I would argue with that. They've almost certainly gotten worse at catcher. Salty had a 2.9 WAR (BB-ref) last season and he seems to be improving as a hitter. Last season Ross was at a .7 and AJ at a 1.6. If they're splitting time it's hard to imagine they'll make up for Salty's loss.
 

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,555
Missoula, MT
BosRedSox5 said:
I would argue with that. They've almost certainly gotten worse at catcher. Salty had a 2.9 WAR (BB-ref) last season and he seems to be improving as a hitter. Last season Ross was at a .7 and AJ at a 1.6. If they're splitting time it's hard to imagine they'll make up for Salty's loss.
 
If you normalize Salty's absurdly high BABIP for 2014, his production and WAR * isn't going to be close to his 2013 level. From a Sox perspective, it sure looks like they feel that was the case because 1. BABIP tends to normalize year to year and thus he wouldn't be nearly as productive/valuable in 2014 and 2. not extending a QO as reward for his 2013 so that other teams wouldn't be scared off by losing a pick. 
 
*WAR is insanely flawed and a poor measurement of value.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Tanaka represents a lot of value. I'd probably be willing to go to 140 million or so including the 20 million fee.(young and has better control and stuff than Dice K) Obviously it raises the price on Lester, but he's going to need a significant payday after the season begins anyway. 
 
They still will eventually need a big bat to try and make up for Papi's presence which is remarkably still very potent. Tanaka would enable some creativity with those starting pitching prospects if better bats then Kemp become available on the market. 
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Two thoughts:

1. It was not possible to keep together the 2013 team, or add pieces to fully offset the value of the departing pieces, and also keep the 2014 payroll under the CBT threshold. You can hate on H/W/L if you wish for refusing to pay the tax, but any fair evaluation of the FO's work this offseason must take that constraint as a given.

2. Even if it were possible to start 2014 with the same roster we had at the end of 2013, we would be unlikely to replicate the success of 2013. We would probably get better production from 3B, and maybe the rotation would be better (with a full season of Peavy, more innings from Buchholz, and improvement from Doubront offsetting regression from Lackey), but it's almost certain that these gains would be more than offset by regression, age-related decline, and more normal injury luck up and down the lineup. This regressed state should be the baseline for evaluating offseason transactions. For example, it's unlikely that X will contribute as much with his bat and glove in 2014 as Stephen Drew did in 2013, but the 2014 version of Drew probably won't do that either, so you can't blame the FO's failure to re-sign Drew (assuming that comes to pass) for the club's failure to replicate its 2013 production at SS.

Putting these two ideas together, the Sox aren't going to enter 2014 with the 99-win team they had on paper (BP third order wins) in 2013. If you're going to pillory the FO for failing to do that, you might as well berate them for not walking on water and curing cancer while you're at it.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,778
Somewhere
Well, one fun thing might be to do a decision-tree retrospective at the end of the season: the WARs of the players the Red Sox signed versus those that they could have signed.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,137
The wrong side of the bridge....
Devizier said:
Well, one fun thing might be to do a decision-tree retrospective at the end of the season: the WARs of the players the Red Sox signed versus those that they could have signed.
 
The tricky part of this is that "could have signed" implies that they had a realistic chance at signing that player, when in reality his attitude could have been anywhere from "my first choice" to "well, maybe if none of my top choices work out" to "no effing way! How about Japan?". And that's something it seems to me that we will rarely know for sure and will sometimes have no clue about.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,779
Dogman2 said:
 
 
I'd agree that they have gotten worse at CF.  However, that was a foregone conclusion the moment the Sox extended the QO. The Sox, based on their value philosophy, didn't value ages 35-37 at 22 million and it certainly looks like the other 31 teams didn't either. Frankly, I'm shocked you do. After getting out of their long term albatrosses and having immediate success, why would you want the team to abandon that current successful value formula just because you like a certain player? Tell me, would you have paid Jacoby 7/150+?

 
 
Since you don't like WAR, give me the objective metric of value and payment for that value you want me to use in order to construct a value that I'd pay for Ellsbury over the next 7 years. 
 
I would note that when you agree to an equal annual installment payment over 7 years of (roughly) $22 million, that does not mean you are valuing year 7 at $22 million.  You are smoothing a payment based on expected contributions over the whole of the 7 years, and then applying a discount rate for being able to defer part of the payment until the end of the contract.   So, ultimately, you want to calculate the net present value of the contract (which benefits the employer by being backloaded), divide that by whatever metric you want to use to measure the net present value of his production (which benefits the employer from being front loaded), and then see if the unit cost of that production is the right value.
 
You don't like WAR, but lets start there.  Last year his WAR was 5-point-something.  Assume his WAR over the next 7 years is: 5.5, 5.5, 5, 4, 3 ,2 ,1; right now $/WAR is about $5.5 million, let's say that increases by $100k per year due to salary inflation.  That method of paying in nominal terms exactly what the player was worth in WAR in each individual year gets you to $148.55 million, or average $/WAR of 5.71.   Now let's do the Yankee contract, with the discount rates. If you apply a discount rate of 3 percent per year, then the contract the Yankees gave Ellsbury is worth $139.52 and they are getting 24.44 likewise discounted WAR, or an average discounted $/WAR of 5.71.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
Dogman2 said:
 
Further, the team doesn't need to improve on it's internal philosophy from 2013 because it's a proven winner.  
That's kind of a sample size of one, isn't it? This is the same franchise that variously, over the past decade, has opted for "value" similar to the way it did in 2013, with guys named Giambi, Smoltz, Aviles, Cameron, McDonald, Drew (Stephen), Punto, Sweeney, Lugo, Bailey, Melancon, etc.
 
Also with guys named Ortiz, Martinez (Victor), Martinez (Ramon), Beltre, Belhorn, Drew (J.D.), Ross, Bay, Scutaro, etc. It worked in 2013, in victories and in likeability, but it isn't a sure thing. (But that makes it more than one data point!)
 
 
Plympton91 said:
So, abstracting from the value of the proprietary system of catcher defense, it looks like they've likely gotten worse at 2 batting order slots, perhaps significantly at 1.  
 
Maybe the team, on paper, doesn't look like a 95-win contender for 2014. That's not different than 2013. And I now like the bullpen more than I did a year ago, and the offseason isn't finished. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Plympton91 said:
 
Since you don't like WAR, give me the objective metric of value and payment for that value you want me to use in order to construct a value that I'd pay for Ellsbury over the next 7 years. 
 
I would note that when you agree to an equal annual installment payment over 7 years of (roughly) $22 million, that does not mean you are valuing year 7 at $22 million.  You are smoothing a payment based on expected contributions over the whole of the 7 years, and then applying a discount rate for being able to defer part of the payment until the end of the contract.   So, ultimately, you want to calculate the net present value of the contract (which benefits the employer by being backloaded), divide that by whatever metric you want to use to measure the net present value of his production (which benefits the employer from being front loaded), and then see if the unit cost of that production is the right value.
 
You don't like WAR, but lets start there.  Last year his WAR was 5-point-something.  Assume his WAR over the next 7 years is: 5.5, 5.5, 5, 4, 3 ,2 ,1; right now $/WAR is about $5.5 million, let's say that increases by $100k per year due to salary inflation.  That method of paying in nominal terms exactly what the player was worth in WAR in each individual year gets you to $148.55 million, or average $/WAR of 5.71.   Now let's do the Yankee contract, with the discount rates. If you apply a discount rate of 3 percent per year, then the contract the Yankees gave Ellsbury is worth $139.52 and they are getting 24.44 likewise discounted WAR, or an average discounted $/WAR of 5.71.
 
This is the post that SJH and Dogman2 were suggesting you should have made in the first place.
 
Addendum: 5% is the increase to $/WAR per year usually bandied about. And there's an interesting article in MLB Forum suggesting $/WAR may be greater than $5.5m FWIW.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,137
The wrong side of the bridge....
Dogman2 said:
 

The Sox, based on their value philosophy, didn't value ages 35-37 at 22 million and it certainly looks like the other 31 teams didn't either.

 
 
Neither did the Yankees. They're only paying for ages 30-36. There's an option for age 37, and the buyout for it is factored into that $22M/year figure.
 
--Your obedient humble servant,
The Broken Record
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
cannonball 1729 said:
 
Comparing to 2013, probably not.  Sox shortstops OPSed .771 for about a 111 OPS+.  It helps when your backup shortstop is blessed by the BABIP gods.
 
Not to mention, they got some really excellent defense.  If they tread water at short in 2014, I'll be really happy.
 
As to the larger point, while I can understand wanting the Sox to not take any steps back, but it's not realistic, especially with the approach they've taken to building their roster over the last year or so.  They target players who have had their value drop a bit where there are reasons to hope for a bounce back.  Victorino and Drew bounced back last year and then some.  They value depth on the roster.  Having Bailey, Hanrahan, Uehara, Tazawa and Miller seemed almost excessive.  Gomes, Ellsbury, Victorino, and Nava in the outfield kept the team from trotting out replacement level players when Victorino got banged up.  Middlebrooks, Holt, Snyder, Iglesias, Drew, Pedroia, Napoli and Carp in the infield gave them similar protection.  Even the starting rotation had a ton of depth.
 
Much like last year, they started the winter with a signing that isn't terribly exciting, but provides them with a quality major league player who will very likely be average or maybe even a bit better for his position.  Much like last year, the off season is still very young and it's far too early to make any assumptions about what their plan for the next few months really is beyond "value buys" and to put together a deep roster.
 
Ben is going to protect his draft picks, install redundancies, and he probably won't pull the trigger on one of the sexier names that's out there.  They may be able to upgrade at third base, but I'm thinking we're more likely to see Middlebrooks given a shot at nailing down the job.  Left field is interesting with Choo out there, but I just can't see them parting with a draft pick to drop 5 years and 90-110 million on him.  If they can talk him down to 70-75 or so, it becomes much easier to swallow the loss of a pick and the slot money that goes with it, but I can't see Choo settling for that unless he is swayed by the title, the "great clubhouse" narrative or for some reason his market just isn't what we all expect it to be.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
cannonball 1729 said:
 
Comparing to 2013, probably not.  Sox shortstops OPSed .771 for about a 111 OPS+.  It helps when your backup shortstop is blessed by the BABIP gods.
 
I don't really count Iggy because the club has said quite clearly that they think it's an aberration. I will also grant you that Bogaerts hit .250/.320/.364/.684 in the regular 2013 season in 50 PAs. But he also hit .296/.412/.481/.893 in 34 PAs in the post season. Both are small sample but the latter is against better pitching and, even if not part of the definition of leverage, higher pressure.
 
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
Not to mention, they got some really excellent defense.  If they tread water at short in 2014, I'll be really happy.
 
As to the larger point, while I can understand wanting the Sox to not take any steps back, but it's not realistic, especially with the approach they've taken to building their roster over the last year or so.  They target players who have had their value drop a bit where there are reasons to hope for a bounce back.  Victorino and Drew bounced back last year and then some.  They value depth on the roster.  Having Bailey, Hanrahan, Uehara, Tazawa and Miller seemed almost excessive.  Gomes, Ellsbury, Victorino, and Nava in the outfield kept the team from trotting out replacement level players when Victorino got banged up.*  Middlebrooks, Holt, Snyder, Iglesias, Drew, Pedroia, Napoli and Carp in the infield gave them similar protection.  Even the starting rotation had a ton of depth.
 
Much like last year, they started the winter with a signing that isn't terribly exciting, but provides them with a quality major league player who will very likely be average or maybe even a bit better for his position.  Much like last year, the off season is still very young and it's far too early to make any assumptions about what their plan for the next few months really is beyond "value buys" and to put together a deep roster.
 
Ben is going to protect his draft picks, install redundancies, and he probably won't pull the trigger on one of the sexier names that's out there.  They may be able to upgrade at third base, but I'm thinking we're more likely to see Middlebrooks given a shot at nailing down the job.  Left field is interesting with Choo out there, but I just can't see them parting with a draft pick to drop 5 years and 90-110 million on him.  If they can talk him down to 70-75 or so, it becomes much easier to swallow the loss of a pick and the slot money that goes with it, but I can't see Choo settling for that unless he is swayed by the title, the "great clubhouse" narrative or for some reason his market just isn't what we all expect it to be.
 
I think this is all on point. They have a plan, even if it annoys us fans at times. It annoyed us last year too.
 
*I can't even speak coherently about the fact that people don't realize how many games Nava entered in right field. They have a brilliant rotating platoon across positions that is awesome.
 

cannonball 1729

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
2,543
The Sticks
Reverend said:
 
I don't really count Iggy because the club has said quite clearly that they think it's an aberration. I will also grant you that Bogaerts hit .250/.320/.364/.684 in the regular 2013 season in 50 PAs. But he also hit .296/.412/.481/.893 in 34 PAs in the post season. Both are small sample but the latter is against better pitching and, even if not part of the definition of leverage, higher pressure.
 
 
I think we're answering different questions.  You're contending that the SS situation will be better in 2014 than it was at the end of the 2013 season.  I agree.   Plympton's trying to figure out how the 2014 team can replicate the number of wins from 2013; if that's the comparison, you have to include the backup shortstop hitting over his head in 2013 because those wins have to be replaced somehow this year.  
 

Mike F

Mayor of Fort Myers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
2,068
You also have to account for the starting SS
hitting under his head.