It was really easy to follow a few ex-Red Sox and their performance this weekend. Koji for 2/$18 or Miller for 4/$40?
Following Former Red Sox: 2015
- Thread starter Lose Remerswaal
- Start date
Plympton91 said:
What did Koji do over the weekend that had anything to do with his contract evaluation? He didn't even get into a game, because the Sox offense couldn't get a lead.
And the Sox were after Miller, but didn't value him as high for 4 years committed. Are you sure that Miller's performance will be as high in 2018 or are you just excited over his 2 saves this weekend? Are you suggesting that's how the Red Sox should value players?
WenZink said:
No, he's suggesting that 4/40 might not've been so much of a reach for a guy that has a recent history of being terrific and has put up a line this season of 13.1IP, 3H, 0R, 6BB, and 26K, especially in contrast to the cost of a 40+ year old Koji.
There's more reason to believe Miller will be just as good three years from now then suddenly and inexplicably fall off a cliff in his early 30s.
Miller has had one great year, 2014. Before that, his BB/9 was too high to be considered worthy of his contract, in the Red Sox opinion, at least. And the Red Sox were in the best position to evaluate and project Miller. They assisted him in his transition to elite status. I'd trust their evaluation process, and two outstanding saves over a weekend series is not going to change my opinion. Should it?Adrian's Dome said:
WenZink said:
The sample size is greater than just 2014.
And if you're going to boil everything down to "welp, the Sox didn't do it, and I trust them," then fuck discussion altogether, am I right? I'll gladly keep watching Breslow and Mujica.
If you think the sample size of Miller's "elite status" is greater than 2014, please educate me. Even in 2013, before he broke his foot, his BB/9 was 5 and his WHIP was b.37. A lot of K's, but hardly elite, IMO.Adrian's Dome said:
And sorry that you have to resort to insults with "welp." Personally, i think its great for baseball to have all sorts of fans, even those that feel that Miller's 2 great saves over one weekend, upgrades his evaluation as well as the contract assessment. Not the way I'd want a GM to evaluate, or the way I'd do it, but perfectly okay for some fans.
WenZink said:
And I'm sorry that anyone that disagrees with your take is boiled down to a casual who is just going off Miller's performance over a weekend (by the way, that's not what Plympton meant. He was just stating it was easier to see in those two instances.) He's been nothing short of dominant since the full-time move to the bullpen, and there's no reason to believe it's a fluke.
If you can provide any sample of evidence that Miller will revert back to what he was before he became redefined as a full-time reliever, then by all means.
Plympton91 said:
One month into each contract and you're already declaring winners. You all know better than this. My goodness.
Plympton's entry was ALL about the weekend. He posted, "It was really easy to follow a few ex-Red Sox and their performance this weekend.." And although Miller has always been hard to hit, his BB/9 was too high, (before 2014) to justify him being a closer at the kind of contract he was offered.Adrian's Dome said:
The Sox helped him make the adjustment in his delivery in order to improve his control, and that made them the most knowledgeable in projecting his future, IMO. The Orioles would be a close second. Both teams didn't value Miller as high as the Yankees.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
He's not declaring winners. He's asking a question. Why don't you stick to answering what he's actually writing?
I'd say Miller 4/$40 in a heartbeat and don't entirely get why you're all so hellbent on pretending it isn't obvious.
@ToeNash, he also said the Sox were in it until the very end, and that NYY just made a better offer. So really, we don't know either way, and the question can remain comfortably in the abstract, where the OP left it.
WenZink said:
Yeah, that's what he posted, but in no way did he imply that the weekend sample was all that was needed to focus on. You're also operating under the assumption that the Sox had more inside information on Miller than the opposition and that they didn't value him as highly, and you know neither of those as fact.
Lastly, given the performance of the Sox bullpen to this point (they've already began shaking things up,) perhaps they should've valued him a bit higher.
Well you completely confound me.Adrian's Dome said:
1. Plympton didn't imply anything AT ALL. He only mentioned the weekend games, and then posted salaries, with an inflated number for Miller.
2. Of course the Sox had more inside information. He was on the team for almost 4 years. They converted him to a reliever. They adjusted his delivery.
3. Of course the Sox didn't value him as highly as the Yankees. They didn't match the deal. That is fact. Miller, himself, has said that the Sox made a good offer, but the Yankees' offer was better. That is how I know it is fact. Straight from the horse's mouth.
WenZink said:
1. Try comprehension. It's fun.
2 & 3. Again, you do not know these as facts.
Miller signed the offer the Yankees gave him. That's a fact. Everything else, especially statements regarding how teams value potential acquisitions, are bullshit assumptions.
Adrian's Dome said:
I don't post here often. Are you the board troll and have I just been baited? If so, jokes on me.
1. There is no implication in the words posted by Plympton. Maybe you have a wild imagination, but that's another issue altogether.
2. You must be disputing the facts that a) Miller was on the Sox for almost 4 years, b) The Sox converted him to reliever and c)They adjusted his delivery. Those are facts, which you don't seem able to either acknowledge or comprehend.
3. Miller told MLB.com "I knew the Red Sox better than anybody. They were in it. I know it's hard to keep straight what it was, but they mad a heck of a run at it. It' just that I had a a better offer here, and it's a better fit, I thought." http://nesn.com/2015/03/andrew-miller-boston-red-sox-made-an-impressive-offer-in-free-agency/
Are you serious? The implication by Plympton was that, perhaps, the Miller contract wasn't so crazy as outlined by many SoSHers, especially in contrast to Koji's deal. How is that difficult to understand?
Secondly, everything in your second point is irrelevant to the contract negotiations (of which you know nothing about.) Yes, he was on the Red Sox for four years and they converted him to a reliever. This does not mean they had more inside information on him than any other club involved in the negotiations, which you implied as a fact. You also stated as fact the Sox didn't value him as highly, which you also have no earthly clue about.
Lastly, that statement is likely nothing more than Miller staying neutral. Hey, Andrew, why didn't you go back to Boston? "Well, they made a good offer and were in it to the end, but I thought this was a good fit."
Secondly, everything in your second point is irrelevant to the contract negotiations (of which you know nothing about.) Yes, he was on the Red Sox for four years and they converted him to a reliever. This does not mean they had more inside information on him than any other club involved in the negotiations, which you implied as a fact. You also stated as fact the Sox didn't value him as highly, which you also have no earthly clue about.
Lastly, that statement is likely nothing more than Miller staying neutral. Hey, Andrew, why didn't you go back to Boston? "Well, they made a good offer and were in it to the end, but I thought this was a good fit."
Koji vs Miller is a false comparison because it was never about signing one or the other. Koji was signed before Miller was available to be negotiated with.
They could have had both if they wanted. The fact that they made him an offer at all demonstrates that they had interest in bringing him back. Simply put, they weren't interested in bringing him in to be the closer and therefore weren't willing to pay "closer" money for him. The Yankees were, so done deal.
This whole thing is a P91 special. He pines over "the one that got away" and can't get over it no matter what is said. Last year it was Ellsbury. This year, apparently, it is Miller. It's boring.
They could have had both if they wanted. The fact that they made him an offer at all demonstrates that they had interest in bringing him back. Simply put, they weren't interested in bringing him in to be the closer and therefore weren't willing to pay "closer" money for him. The Yankees were, so done deal.
This whole thing is a P91 special. He pines over "the one that got away" and can't get over it no matter what is said. Last year it was Ellsbury. This year, apparently, it is Miller. It's boring.
Adrian's Dome said:
You're insane.
The fact that the Sox worked with Miller for almost 4 years, gave them the edge on evaluating the extent and duration of his success going forward. I never implied it gave them an inside on negotiatons. it only gave them the best insight for evaluation.
And Miller said the Yankees made a better offer, and yet you don't accept that, yet you see implications where they don't exist.
Right. They had the best insights yet deemed him not worth it in comparison. That's exactly what happened.
Can you also tell me the exact circumstances behind every other trade and signing? I bet you can.
Can you also tell me the exact circumstances behind every other trade and signing? I bet you can.
Adrian's Dome said:
I think that's exactly what happened. The same thing that happened with Melancon, who Ben overpaid for and then dumped prematurely, and Bailey, who they overpaid for, and Hanrahan, who they didn't do due diligence on his health, and Mujica, who they inexplicably gave a multiyear contract off a terrible second half in 2013, and Breslow, who they inexplicably brought back despite having at least 3 better minimum salaried options. They misevaluated a relief pitcher, relative to other options available. I mean, other than Uehara, have they made a good trade or signing of a relief pitcher in Ben's tenure? The first acquisition of Breslow was Theo, right? And even then, he wasn't demonstrably better than Albers over that timeframe. Maybe they should have an Asst. GM who inherits the responsibility for constructing a bullpen, and let Ben do the rest.
And tonight they're back in their all-too-familiar position under Ben Cherington of last place in the AL East.
Adrian's Dome said:
I think you've finally got it. The Red Sox used their insights, and valued Miller less than the Yankees. The Yankees offered more money than the Red Sox, and THAT is why Miller wears pinstripes. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
And I can't give you the exact circumstances behind every other trade and signing, because they're not always as clear as a player going to free agency, after having been with the Sox for almost 4 years. You're pretty imaginative at arriving at all these hidden implications.
Plympton91 said:
This post is hilarious! You literally have me in stitches. And yes, you are right, outside of the 2013 World Championship, Ben hasn't done a thing. And outside of signing Koji Uehara (who had the greatest year of any Red Sox pitcher, ever) Ben hasn't had any major successes.
And I love how after just one month into Miller's 4 year contract, you've already figured out the ending. Meanwhile, most of us poor "laymen" will have to wait a couple of years to evaluate the Andrew Miller contract.
Again, I don't come to this site often. Are you the board humorist? Or am I just lost and stuck in one of those "reactionary" game threads that I try to stay clear of? Whatever the case may be, thanks for the laughs!
WenZink said:
Wait, I thought you said just a few posts above that transactions should be evaluated based on information available at the time, and not ex-post after we know the outcome? Are you changing your mind?
And, I agree with your main point that the Red Sox have access to far more information than message board posters. Thus, it is reasonable to assume they'll be "right" far more often as well.
As for Ben winning a world series in 2013, that's nice, but the Red Sox set their own standard for success. It is one I agree with. They said their goal is to make the playoffs in 6 or 7 out of every 10 years, because winning the post-season tournament championship (it's no longer the world series to me) is basically a random 1 in 8 chance once you get past the gimmicky one-game playoff that is essentially a coin flip. That's 60% to 70% playoff success as a benchmark set by the ownership. Ben is looking like he'll be 1 for 4. 25%.
Dear sir,WenZink said:
If you see no implication in the post about Koji and Miller's contracts you should
1. Never take the SAT Verbal, because you will fail it
2. Become an actuary or something else that focuses on numbers
Re: Koji and Miller's contracts: let's keep in mind that long contracts ALWAYS look better in their first year. If you are comparing two signings, one for 2 yrs and one for 4 years, it is almost a tautology that in year one, the four year player will look better. Because the reason that player got a four year contract is that he is a better player. The main way the 2 year contract would look better is four years down the road when you look at the decline phase of both pitchers.
Also, Andrew Miller is not a starter. Though he doesn't have a sprained shoulder or a broken finger, so that's good. Can he catch?
crystalline said:
Dear Junior,
Plympton's original quote was, "It was really easy to follow a few ex-Red Sox and their performance this weekend. Koji for 2/$18 or Miller for 4/$40?" Please note the inclusion of the words, "This weekend." This clearly a reactionary post to watching the Sox drop 3 games to the Yankees, and having Miller have two impressive saves. He then goes on to give Koji's contract numbers with the Sox, and the reported offer that the Astros made to Miller. And to further confuse the situation, it was never an either/or decision with Koji and Miller, since the Sox signed Koji early, and then a month later were pursuing Miller, but didn't value him as highly as other teams. How you can imply anything out of that is astounding, and I would suggest you work in an environment where you have little interaction with other people.
Plympton's frustration is understandable, but his reactionary comment is better suited for a game thread.
And thanks for the career advice, Junior, but you're 40 years too late. I scored 747 on my SAT verbal years ago, and have made my living as a technical writer.
Plympton91 said:
1. I don't believe I ever said that transactions should be "evaluated on information available at the time." In the thread "Evaluating Ben" I didn't respond to, what I considered, a frivolous post, about trade evaluations. I evaluate baseball ops on the success/failure of long term plans and whether they stick to that plan or vary too often. The decision to not give long-term contracts to pitchers > 30 is entirely debatable and should be monitored to see if it succeed/fails over time.
2. The Sox do have more information, and not only has to do with judging Miller's long-term effectiveness, but also their appraisal of prospects in their system. If they think they have 2 or 3 candidates in their system that have a high probability of providing 70% of Miller's value, for 1/20th the price, then they've made a correct decision.
3, I think the Sox stated goal "to make the playoffs in 6 or 7 out of every 10 years," is from a decade ago (I may be incorrect, but I remember this from Henry around 2005). The playing field has changed, since then, with most teams in MLB awash with cash from their Regional TV agreements. Even teams like KC are able to make a run at the playoffs in selected season(s). Also, the CBT has been restructured so that the penalty for repeat offenders has forced even the most prosperous teams to accept "bridge" years. Personally, I liked the way the Sox treated the 2012 and 2014 seasons. Rather than keep some silly illusion alive ("We're only 6 games out of the 2nd wild card spot! Tickets still available!"), they've gotten the most from their expiring assets and not worried about finishing 3rd, 4th or Last. Would it really make any difference if the Sox had held on to Lester, Lackey and Miller last year, and finished 4th? Really? Don't you prefer that they got something for those players, and STILL were able to make a run at Lester and Miller? (And I understand Lackey was a different situation, but I realize, that on this site, it's a "sin" to like Lackey, so no one talks about it.)
WenZink said:
Last diversion in the thread about following former Red Sox, but you are right that the problem less "finishing last" and more missing the playoffs repeatedly, increasingly often doing so in a way such that it's clear you're going to miss the playoffs as early as Flag Day, and then having the "kids to the rescue" play so poorly that they can't keep you out of the cellar despite starting from 3rd place, 2/3rds of the way through the season.
Plympton91 said:
You're overstating the case. In both 2012 and 2014, the Sox were hovering around the .500 mark at the trade deadline. In both instances, if they'd won 2/3 the rest of the way, they would have been in contention for a wild card spot. Unlikely, but it's been done before by teams with less talent. And it's the kind of exercise that "lesser" franchises engage in order to pump up ticket sales and TV ratings. The Red Sox haven't done that. They've taken the long-term view, and that is what i appreciate.
You also don't address the point that the competitive playing field has changed over the last 10 years. Even "poor" teams like Tampa Bay and KC can bide their time, stockpile prospects, and then make a run at the playoffs for a year or two or three. There are 30 teams, and just about everyone can position themselves to be competitive for at least a window of 2-4 years. If you try to be competitive, almost every year, as John Henry stated 10 years ago, even if you're a big market team, you might end up making a World Series every 10 years and winning a World's Championship every 20 or so. That's not good enough for fans (and owners) of a team that's won 3 championships in the last 11 years.
To me, it's apparent the Sox are trying to assemble a core that will give them a 4-5 year window at being a top contender for championships. They have Swihart, Bogaerts and Betts up the middle, supplanted by Castillo, and, eventually, Moncada at 2B. It's a roll of the dice, given the unpredictability of even the top prospects, but that's a core of cost-controlled talent that any other MLB team would love to have. What impresses me is that they have a plan and enough is already there for me to see it developing. If it fails, they'll have to start over again, but I prefer it over aimlessly scrambling to assemble a team that just aspires to make the playoffs. I like plans. As Boris Badenov once responded to Natasha's question, "Boris do you have plan?" And he replied with, "Boris always have plan. Don't always work, but I always got one."
The Red Sox always got plan.
Rudy Pemberton said:
I'd disagree with what I interpret as the "gist" of your post. Certainly Red Sox ownership/management has to make short-term adjustments (Sandoval signing, when WMB busts) in order to field a marketable team. But there a few unique aspects that make me think the Sox will let the "master plan" play out. 1) John Henry's former career as a hedge-fund manager, and how that long-term view permeates down through the organization. 2) Breaking the curse, and then winning twice more during his ownership affords the Sox more time (from most fans) to let things play out. 3) The Sox can suck and still make money in the short-term. 4) I assume that Henry is going to remain owner for a long time and is not looking to pump up results for a quick sale or to court favor with politicians for help with a new stadium.
I could be wrong, but I think John Henry is a very involved owner in long-term planning. Flushed with early success in 2004 and 2007, he was relatively hands off, but after the 2011/2012 disasters and the August 2012, sell off, the Sox have gone three off-seasons without giving out any contracts longer than 4 years (with the exception of Pedroia's team-friendly extension.) That's a long period of restraint for a team with a lot of money in it's pockets. I know it frustrates the hell out of Plympton, but it impresses the hell out of me.
The Red Sox are often accused by CHB as thinking they're the "smartest guys in the room," but I'm impressed that they aspire to that. J Henry may come off as a weird guy, but his ego is huge, I suspect, and I wouldn't be surprise that, someday, he wants his gravestone to have the epitaph, "Here lies the smartest guy in the room."
Cody Ross released by the A's. Remember when they had all those Ex-Sox on the team last year? Just Coco and Josh Reddick are left
Jays send Jonathan Diaz to the minors
Jays send Jonathan Diaz to the minors
Ruby De La Rosa strikes out seven in seven shut out innings for a D Back win over the Padres.
Will Bud Black be the next one fired?
Will Bud Black be the next one fired?
Of all the guys traded, RDLR was the one I thought might be something if we gave him a chance. Admittedly, I wasn't sure if that would be as a starter or in the pen, but he's a guy who seemed to ooze potential. It'll be interesting too watch the beginning of his career play out.
Alex Hassan DFA again.
https://twitter.com/RobertMurrayBBE/status/596717656348237824
7th time since November he has been DFA by my count.
https://twitter.com/RobertMurrayBBE/status/596717656348237824
7th time since November he has been DFA by my count.
John Lackey pitched 7.2 innings to beat the Cubs last night. He allowed 1 ER with 5 H, 1 BB and 10 K's to lower his ERA to 3.20 on the season. Lackey has had 10 home starts since going to St. Louis and has a home ERA of 1.97.
Pretty good deal this year for just the league minimum of $500,000. Still no extension worked out, so I guess Lackey is shooting for one more big contract.
Lackey for Kelly seemed like a pretty good deal last summer, And while I still think Joe K will be a good pitcher, in some way or another, the cost of Allen Craig may sour the deal. After paying Craig the balance of the $5.5 mil for 2015, the Sox are on the hook for another $20 mil gtd for 2016-17, with a $1 M buyout for 2018. I don't know how the Sox give Craig enough chances to show he's still worth anywhere near that kind of money. Especially with Victorino coming back next week, and Castillo close to being called up.
Pretty good deal this year for just the league minimum of $500,000. Still no extension worked out, so I guess Lackey is shooting for one more big contract.
Lackey for Kelly seemed like a pretty good deal last summer, And while I still think Joe K will be a good pitcher, in some way or another, the cost of Allen Craig may sour the deal. After paying Craig the balance of the $5.5 mil for 2015, the Sox are on the hook for another $20 mil gtd for 2016-17, with a $1 M buyout for 2018. I don't know how the Sox give Craig enough chances to show he's still worth anywhere near that kind of money. Especially with Victorino coming back next week, and Castillo close to being called up.
WenZink said:
He'll be 37 and has been at least league average since his 2012 surgery. It may be a big contract, or he may have to year-to-year it, but he's likely far from done. Especially if he stays in the NL.
Rovin Romine said:
Derek Lowe got 4yrs/$60 million from the Braves, the year he turned 36. Of course, that was a terrible contract for the Braves and I can't recall any other deals for 35+ pitchers since.. I think Lackey is a better option than Lowe was, especially if you think his reconditioned elbow has given him added years of effectiveness. If Lackey has a good year, he might get a 3 yrs/$40 mil, or maybe 2 yrs/$30 mil with a club option and buyout. That will buy a lot of oats. If he holds up, he'd be a good addition to a young staff that may have more talent, but less consistency.
Sometimes I like to think about how the Red Sox could have traded Jon Lester for Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi. Thought this was a somewhat good place to put this as we keep up with Lester.
Of course, the Sox miss out on a WS if he is traded.
Of course, the Sox miss out on a WS if he is traded.
I always thought RDLR would have been a nice eighth or ninth inning guy. A perfect replacement for Uehara.luckysox said:
