Impact of the sum total of Ben's off season moves regarding 2013 veterans

Stitch01 · Apr 17, 2014

Think you are overthinking a weak start and the sum impact is zero or close to it.

lexrageorge · Apr 17, 2014

Cafardo is both an idiot and a mouthpiece for Boring Ass, so anything he says about players wanting Drew back or Lester extended needs to be taken with a huge grain of ~~salt~~ cyanide.

Players come and go every year on just about every team; the Red Sox are no different in that regard. I'm sure if you asked guys like Pedroia and Ortiz, both of whom are committed to play for Boston for the next couple of years at least, if they would like Lester to be on the team next year, they would say yes. After all, the Lester we saw in 2013, especially during the post-season, obviously gives these guys a better a chance of a ring. Similarly, pending free agents such as Lester or Lackey probably do wonder what will happen next season.

But I have to believe come game time, the players are focused on the here and now, not where Lester will be playing next year. And, if the Sox are offering the right dough, players will still come.

I do expect that if the Sox fail to reach the playoffs this year (or do a 1-and-done routine), some lazy sports writers will complain how John Henry got cheap and let the nucleus of last year's championship team walk.

Stitch01 · Apr 17, 2014

TheoShmeo said:
That's quite possible.

I don't think it's that simple but I almost added that as a last line, so I hear you.

I just don't see how the sum total of the offseason moves were anything out of ordinary course. This isn't the Jacobs early 90's Bruins, nothing like cutting Lawyer Milloy happened this offseason. A couple of vets moved on. They gold watched Ortiz and reupped Napoli. They made a QO to Drew. Negotiations with Lester have been nothing but cordial.

There's just nothing here.

EDIT: Like Im sure they want Lester locked up, but I don't see how its weighing down on the team. It certainly doesn't seem to be effecting lester.

Running out Jonathan Herrera, Ryan Roberts, an injured Pedroia, two rookies, and a somewhat slow starting Ortiz seems like the crux of the problem.

mt8thsw9th · Apr 17, 2014

Aren't we beyond dead horse territory here? And is Cafardo ever thread-worthy with his "ideas"? Generally, concurring with him is a sign that what you are thinking may be the thoughts of someone like Nick Cafardo, and thus should be treated to a bit more introspection, and perhaps a Crying Game-esque cleansing.

Dogman · Apr 17, 2014

lexrageorge said:
Cafardo is both an idiot and a mouthpiece for Boring Ass, so anything he says about players wanting Drew back or Lester extended needs to be taken with a huge grain of ~~salt~~ cyanide.

Players come and go every year on just about every team; the Red Sox are no different in that regard. I'm sure if you asked guys like Pedroia and Ortiz, both of whom are committed to play for Boston for the next couple of years at least, if they would like Lester to be on the team next year, they would say yes. After all, the Lester we saw in 2013, especially during the post-season, obviously gives these guys a better a chance of a ring. Similarly, pending free agents such as Lester or Lackey probably do wonder what will happen next season.

But I have to believe come game time, the players are focused on the here and now, not where Lester will be playing next year. And, if the Sox are offering the right dough, players will still come.

I do expect that if the Sox fail to reach the playoffs this year (or do a 1-and-done routine), some lazy sports writers will complain how John Henry got cheap and let the nucleus of last year's championship team walk.

Regarding the bolded, Sox have a team option at the minimum given that Lackey was out for a year. I'd say it is 100% that Lackey doesn't reach FA.

Reverend · Apr 17, 2014

Well, if our fellow posters and local talk radio are to be believed:

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Also, F&M says that Cafardo has become "a master" at sidling up to the most unpopular or unhappy guy in the locker room, befriending him and then using him as his unnamed source. I'm not sure what to think about that, BTW. I'm still processing whether this is a masterful stroke on his part or a deficiency.

That seems like a good way to get some information, but a singularly good way to get potentially distorted views.

That the FO doesn't want to pay for Drew is a fact, so it doesn't require spinning into some weird narrative; they don't want to pay that much for a player who, if things start going well, they would want to be a back-up. Sure, things might not go well, but that's expensive insurance.

I don't think Ortiz was appeased, I think he was re-signed and problems were media created smoke to fill the 24 hours sports news cycle. Napoli wants to be here. Pedroia signed an amazing deal. The rumors that other players are leaking information because they are upset on Lester's behalf, if true, actually signals a very strong clubhouse to me so I'm not concerned, especially since Lester's saying and doing all the right things.

So what are we talking about? Salty and Ellsbury? I liked both players but we know why Ellsbury is gone and we know why Salty's gone.

The piece just reeks of pursuing a narrative of negativity for nattering nabobs in the wake of a disappointing start. Heck, even in the line where Cafardo quotes the player about Victorino he uses a "but" when it could and probably should have been a "because." He's reaching.

SouthernBoSox · Apr 17, 2014

The Boston Red Sox are slashing .226/.305/.328 with runners on base. That is basically 95% of their problems right now. They can't buy hits with runners on base. I refuse to believe that is remotely sustainable.

The defense has been bad, but it's been magnified because we can't score runs, and we can't score runs because we turn into a pumpkin when runners are on base.

Regression is going to happen, and when it happens they're gonna win a lot of games.

joe dokes · Apr 17, 2014

So what are we talking about? Salty and Ellsbury? I liked both players but we know why Ellsbury is gone and we know why Salty's gone.

That's what we're talking about. I think the why is almost certainly a direct result of the rocky start, which itself is a direct result of some unexpectedly bad hitting (which might be traceable in part to injury), but also some defensive slippage that is unlikely to completely disappear. Bogaerts is simply not as good a defensive SS as Drew was last year. But as with all the other stuff.....no shit. The hitting will get better; the pitching is at least good enough; the defense should be middle of the pack on the infield and will improve tremendously when Victorino comes back.

I also think that JBJ now looks like a rookie; not the overmatched rookie he was last April. To my eyeballs anyway -- even though I am fully cognizant of, and usually support, the "keep the assets" early-season philisophy -- he has made the Carp/JBJ choice a bit tougher. Especially if sizemore really isn;t any better than he's looked so far in CF.

As for the column that got this started, this is the best Cafardo can do....he can take the kernel of a possibly OK idea, but he filters it through a single anonymous player and Scott Boras, and you end up with "PAY LESTER AND DREW OR THERE'LL BE MUTINY AND SUCKAGE!"

When you step back and look at the points he raised and filter it through, I don't know, a rational brain, I think you end up where Reverand and lexrageorge and mt8 are.

Finally, its important to remember, the Sox aren't competing with the 2013 Sox. They're competing with the 2014 teams around them. I think they stack up just fine.

Plympton91 · Apr 17, 2014

To me the most questionable move was not beating the Marlins offer to Salty and signing AJP. I just can't see a 3 year contract to a 20 something catcher with power being a bad investment even if you're planning on trAding him in two years. Plus you have the intangible of continuity with the pitching staff and the rest of the team. And, with Napoli unsigned at the time, ultimately signed for only 2 years, and Salty's power you could move him to 1b at least part time to break in Vazquez, assuming he even develops as quickly as expected.

I could understand if they went out and got a guy like Hannnigan who was well regarded defensively and has decent OBP, but AJ is worse than Salty at everything except maybe throwing or hitting lefties. Just doesn't seem worth the disruption.

Drew would have been a luxury. One they could afford for sure. But managers generally and Farrell specifically seem vehemently opposed to platooning at SS. So it would have been hard to get enough of a read on either X or Middlebrooks. I assume they explored what WMB would bring back in trade and found it lacking in expected vAlue relative to resigning Drew.

I would have thought long and hard about matching the Yankee offer to Ellsbury. Probably the 7th year makes the risk too high for Boston's revenue stream whereas it's not for the Yanks. But that wasn't as much of a no brainer to me as it was to most other's here. Ellsbury is an elite player in a post steroids world. The Yankees will get a lot of value before he declines.

HurstSoGood · Apr 17, 2014

I believe Ben made solid decisions, numbers-wise. For example, I am no AJP fan, but I do like the contract itself. In a perfect season, AJ has a great year (by his own standards) and gives way to Vasquez next year. I still don't miss Drew, but I have no problem with the argument that if we had him, we could have used X at 3rd to mitigate the injury bugs. I have no issue with Papi's contract and, in a related story, I wonder if Ben chose to let Ellsbury go because A. JBJ and B. His mindset is on eventually replacing Papi's power/3-4 bat position, which will undoubtedly cost big bucks. After this season, we are gaining Dempster's $13M, (probably) Lackey's $15.9M (unless the option plays), AJP's $8.25M and Peavy's $14.5M. We also have $3.9M coming off the books after 2015 from the Punto deal. That is roughly $50M. It doesn't account for others like Ross ($3.1M) and Gomes ($5M).

As far as the veteran starting pitching goes, the Sox are going to have some holes to fill next season. Ben & Co. will decide how much they are willing (or not) to pay Lester, but I would be shocked if he gets Top 5 Pitcher's money AND a longer-term deal. In other words, he may get $20-22M/per and 6 or 7 years, just not from the Red Sox.

I want this team to win, but I suspect that this is not their year. I'm really most looking forward to seeing how the kids develop over the summer- and to see what they will do when rosters expand and they get the call.

radsoxfan · Apr 17, 2014

SouthernBoSox said:
The Boston Red Sox are slashing .226/.305/.328 with runners on base. That is basically 95% of their problems right now. They can't buy hits with runners on base. I refuse to believe that is remotely sustainable.

Unfortunately, they have a not-so-much-better .236/.320/.346 slash line overall as a team. That's obviously heavily influenced by the poor numbers with runners on base, but the point is that the team as a whole is not hitting.

It's only been two weeks, and there have been injuries and plenty of underperformance that is unlikely to continue. Overall I thought the offseason moves, given the alternatives, were the correct ones. But some regression on offense was to be expected. Let's just hope it's not this significant all season.

cannonball 1729 · Apr 17, 2014

SouthernBoSox said:
The Boston Red Sox are slashing .226/.305/.328 with runners on base.

And .192/.283/.288 with RISP.

Stitch01 · Apr 17, 2014

Why and how do you suspect it makes a difference?

wolfe_boston · Apr 17, 2014

The possibility of players being upset because the Sox let Ellsbury, Salty and Drew go is ridiculous. I've heard thousands of players say that they understand the game is a business. If they really want stability they should welcome back the reserve clause. The reality is that bringing back Drew will hinder the development of both WMB and Deven Marrero. Based on scouting reports Marrero is a plus defender while most metrics indicate Drew as being average. If WMB matches expectations, even with X at SS, the improved offense compared to Drew could make up for the loss in defense compared to last year. And who knows, maybe X will settle down at SS.

As for Lester, giving a long-term contract to a pitcher in his 30's is extremely risky. The Yankees, for example, have been burned repeatedly for doing so. When a power pitcher such as Lester loses a few HP on his fastball the transition to a finesse type pitcher is extremely difficult. The slack from losing Lester can be made up from Henry Owen and possibly from signing some 2nd tier pitchers to short-term contracts. In addition to Owen, they have several prospects with at least middle of the rotation upside.

In summary, I am in agreement with all the decisions of the FO except the extension with Ortiz. At his age there could be a sharp decline at anytime which means the Sox could be eating both 2015 and 2016. He is probably one good year from being a good candidate for the HOF, so that, along with maybe wanting to help the team win this year, should have been plenty of motivation to play well this year. I was quite offended when he said he wanted to do what was best for his family as he must have enough money already to provide for him and his 100 favorite family members for the next few hundred years.

Bone Chips · Apr 17, 2014

Everything was understandable, until Lester. That's the deal that has me scratching my head and hoping that there's more to the story than we are hearing. The Lester deal is the tipping point in my opinion. It takes things from rationale, good decision making to a team that is cheap and not player friendly. And to the question as to whether this has an impact on the field or not, I believe it does. When I'm not happy with my company or my team I don't feel as vested and my performance isn't as good. And as we saw last year, chemistry in baseball can be a powerful thing.

tims4wins · Apr 17, 2014

Bone Chips said:
Everything was understandable, until Lester. That's the deal that has me scratching my head and hoping that there's more to the story than we are hearing. The Lester deal is the tipping point in my opinion. It takes things from rationale, good decision making to a team that is cheap and not player friendly. And to the question as to whether this has an impact on the field or not, I believe it does. When I'm not happy with my company or my team I don't feel as vested and my performance isn't as good. And as we saw last year, chemistry in baseball can be a powerful thing.

How is giving a 6-7 year deal to a 30 year old "good decision making"? I can't fault the Sox at all for a four year offer.

Edit: oh and Lester will be 31 when next year starts. So you'd be talking about committing 6-7 years and $120-$150M for his ages 31-36 or 31-37 season.

JimD · Apr 17, 2014

Napoli is carrying the offense almost single-handedly right now. Sizemore and X are doing about as well as expected, but that's about it. Be it due to injury or suckage, the lack of the production that was expected from Ortiz, Pedroia, Nava, Carp and Middlebrooks is killing the offense thus far.

Bone Chips · Apr 17, 2014

tims4wins said:
How is giving a 6-7 year deal to a 30 year old "good decision making"? I can't fault the Sox at all for a four year offer.

Edit: oh and Lester will be 31 when next year starts. So you'd be talking about committing 6-7 years and $120-$150M for his ages 31-36 or 31-37 season.

Because that is the market for top of the rotation starters. He's a proven playoff pitcher, one of the best lefties in baseball, and he is willing to take less than market value. And he's also a horse and gives you a ton of innings. You've got to spend the money somewhere.

Reverend · Apr 17, 2014

TheoShmeo said:
Do the veterans look at how Ben goes about his business and have a reaction that will matter long term?

Who are these veterans?

Here is a link to the roster on BRef.

AJP - New guy.
Napoli - Got his deal
Pedey - Hometown discount
X-Man - Rookie
Herrera - New guy
Gomes - Does he want an extension? I dunno.
JBJ - Rookie
Nava - Just weird, but not a conventional "veteran"
Ortiz - Got his deal
Sizemore - New guy and special circumstances
Roberts - Really new guy
WMB - Young guy.
Carp - Whatever.
Ross - Classic veteran, but not long with team.

OK, I just realized I'm not going to do all the pitchers and I don't know the pitcher contracts as well anyway, but it seems like it would have to be a pitcher, right? But among those guys, how many of them have real standing to talk about how the team treats vets? And how many of them have earned any kind of real consideration as long time heavy hitters who should be rewarded outside of Lester anyway?

Now that I really look at it, Lester appears to be sui generis on this team in that regard. So on the one hand, a sample of one is not a trend, and on the other, if he gets his deal, then this is all nothing.

Stitch01 · Apr 17, 2014

Just seems far fetched to me that a negotiation with Lester that has remained cordial on both sides and pretty clearly hasn't effected Lester's pitching has contributed to a crappy start.

EDIT: Also curious why not extending Lester this year would have a detrimental effect while not extending Ellsbury last year wouldn't have a detrimental effect.

Savin Hillbilly · Apr 17, 2014

Bone Chips said:
Because that is the market for top of the rotation starters. He's a proven playoff pitcher, one of the best lefties in baseball, and he is willing to take less than market value. You've got to spend the money somewhere.

Actually, you don't.

And your first sentence assumes that the free agent market is a rational rather than a failed one. If teams that sign their top free agents to big contracts are consistently not getting their money's worth, then the proper answer to "you have to sign your veteran stars to big contracts because that's the market" is "If the Yankees jumped off a bridge would you jump off one too?" I'm not saying I know the answer to that hypothetical is "yes," but you have to account for that possibility; "because the market" isn't a good enough reason to do anything.

The team's strategy is clearly built around the assumption that they're transitioning to a young, mostly homegrown team over the next 2-3 years. I can easily imagine that there's some skepticism in the clubhouse about this, because it's human nature for elders to be skeptical of their juniors. But if the strategy is understood, it shouldn't be seen as simply cheap or "cold," even if it's seen as misguided. So it seems far-fetched that it would be causing serious morale problems. It's not like the organization is punting.

JimD · Apr 17, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
The rumlbings to me seem very normal of a team that just won the WS...priorities and attitudes can shift (we saw this in '05), and there's probably a lot of frustration that the team kept payroll flat and didn't re-up a lot of the veterans who were key to last year's success..especially when the replacements just aren't producing.

They let three regulars go - Ellsbury, Drew and Salty. That's it. The rotation is unchanged from last fall and the overall pitching staff is arguable improved. Ellsbury is a big loss, no doubt, but Bogaerts is likely to be a better overall player than Drew when offense is factored in (and quite possibly a lot better). I'd say that's an incredible example of stability in the current era.

Stitch01 · Apr 17, 2014

TheoShmeo said:
I agree with all of the individual decisions (including Ortiz) AND I respectfully believe it's not ridiculous that they be "upset." Whether that has any real impact is another story...and I don't know the answer to that. That's why I threw it out there for discussion, because I think it might matter but have my doubts.

But we've read and heard players lament that their front offices did not keeping winning teams together in the past. We've heard the 2013 team members talk about how close the team was, especially in light of the Marathon bombing and how it helped in October, and it's possible that these guys could look at Ben's course of conduct and not be entirely pleased. It's also possible that winning cures all and that any complaining about this or even discussion of it after the fact falls into the excuse making pile.

Honestly, I think it would be pretty ridiculous if the players were upset. Fortunately, I don't think they are.

EDIT: Ellsbury never really came across a clubhouse leader and pretty much everyone knew he was gone for all of last season. Didn't really effect play on the field.
Salty was benched during the World Series in favor of David Ross, who is still here.
I like Drew, but he did zero during the postseason and was on the team for all of one season.
Ortiz was extended and treated fairly
The team lobbied for the front office to resign Napoli and they came through with a multi-year offer
Lester and the team very amicably break off negotiations and say they'll revisit later and are still optimistic. Lester pitches very well so far.

I just really cant see how the sum of those moves put a cloud over the team? Even if I was a big chemistry causing winning guy, there's just not much there to go on.

Savin Hillbilly · Apr 17, 2014

JimD said:
They let three regulars go - Ellsbury, Drew and Salty. That's it. The rotation is unchanged from last fall and the overall pitching staff is arguable improved. Ellsbury is a big loss, no doubt, but Bogaerts is likely to be a better overall player than Drew when offense is factored in (and quite possibly a lot better). I'd say that's an incredible example of stability in the current era.

Well, to be fair, that's your starters at the three most important positions on the team--two of whom were above average-to-excellent on both sides of the ball. That's a lot.

DennyDoyle'sBoil · Apr 17, 2014

The story of last year's team being a cohesive band of bearded brothers plainly has something to it, but my general/cynical thought is that chemistry is more a reflection of how the team is doing than anything else. So, last year our chemistry was amazing and this year it stinks, when the real difference is really just the record. This is not to say that attitude and player happiness is irrelevant. I think they actually are relevant. The margin between good and bad teams isn't always as significant as we'd like to pretend. Put another way, even a not-so-good team wins 70 games, so every game is a battle and the margins are thin, and I think attitude can make a difference at the margins. But that is just to say that winning seems to beget winning and losing seems to beget losing, at least at the margins. It still pales in comparison to what really matters -- like starting pitching.

That said, I do think the AJP issue is an interesting one. What happens when you plunk a guy into the lineup that really seems antithetical to a fairly consistent and winning approach that's reasonably close to a team dogma? My instinct is the answer is it's really no big deal. It only becomes a big deal when you cumulate it with the fact that our line up is affected by significant injuries, our best players are slumping, we lost a 5 plus-win lead off guy, and we're integrating rookies at two major positions. If/when those or some of those other issues start to resolve, my hunch is the delta in approach between Salty and AJP will become virtually negligible.

tims4wins · Apr 17, 2014

Bone Chips said:
Because that is the market for top of the rotation starters. He's a proven playoff pitcher, one of the best lefties in baseball, and he is willing to take less than market value. And he's also a horse and gives you a ton of innings. You've got to spend the money somewhere.

How's it working out for the Yankees and Sabathia? Ages 28-30 his average ERA+ was 139 (137, 136, 143). Since his age 30 season with the 143 ERA+, he has gone 125, 85, and 60 so far this year. Obviously he's not a perfect comp but I'd like to avoid a similar situation.

pokey_reese · Apr 17, 2014

It's also worth noting that of the players that they let go, only one (Ellsbury) was a long-standing member of the team. I find it hard to believe that anyone is that hurt Drew is gone, considering the fact that he was here on a one year make-good contract anyhow. That was the whole point of the deal for both sides, so that he could show some value and get a bigger deal somewhere. Then he showed a little less than he thought, and now can't get anyone to pay what he wants. The Sox have no culpability for that, unless you want to fault them for the QO, which was the right thing to do for the team. That's not even getting into the roster issues he would have created this year, by forcing them to move a talented young player out of position (X), or potentially off the team (WMB).

Stitch01 · Apr 17, 2014

DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
The story of last year's team being a cohesive band of bearded brothers plainly has something to it, but my general/cynical thought is that chemistry is more a reflection of how the team is doing than anything else. So, last year our chemistry was amazing and this year it stinks, when the real difference is really just the record. This is not to say that attitude and player happiness is irrelevant. I think they actually are relevant. The margin between good and bad teams isn't always as significant as we'd like to pretend. Put another way, even a not-so-good team wins 70 games, so every game is a battle and the margins are thin, and I think attitude can make a difference at the margins. But that is just to say that winning seems to beget winning and losing seems to beget losing, at least at the margins. It still pales in comparison to what really matters -- like starting pitching.

That said, I do think the AJP issue is an interesting one. What happens when you plunk a guy into the lineup that really seems antithetical to a fairly consistent and winning approach that's reasonably close to a team dogma? My instinct is the answer is it's really no big deal. It only becomes a big deal when you cumulate it with the fact that our line up is affected by significant injuries, our best players are slumping, we lost a 5 plus-win lead off guy, and we're integrating rookies at two major positions. If/when those or some of those other issues start to resolve, my hunch is the delta in approach between Salty and AJP will become virtually negligible.

I find the AJP issue interesting to me as well, I think Rev asked about that at some point too. Ive been trying to think how to analyze whether it matters or is just annoying.

DennyDoyle'sBoil · Apr 17, 2014

pokey_reese said:
It's also worth noting that of the players that they let go, only one (Ellsbury) was a long-standing member of the team.

Salty was a seemingly well-liked guy and fairly woven into the fabric of the team -- plus, he had significant experience with the whole pitching staff. Changing catchers is not insignificant.

Lose Remerswaal · Apr 17, 2014

Remember Salty's last games in a Red Sox uniform? Those questionable decisions and defensive plays?

Two more of them last night, cost the Marlins the game. Made a bad decision (and bad throw) on a bunt, allowing runners to advance and the batter to reach base, then dropped a foul popup. The drop didn't cost them, but if he had just thrown out the batter instead of trying to get the lead guy, three runs are saved.

DennyDoyle'sBoil · Apr 17, 2014

Stitch01 said:
I find the AJP issue interesting to me as well, I think Rev asked about that at some point too. Ive been trying to think how to analyze whether it matters or is just annoying.

The issue sort of came up last night in the game thread, and I started to go through bref trying to get a sense of pitches per PA, average innings started by opposing starting pitcher, number of pitches thrown by opponents' bullpen, etc., and then simply decided that whatever I looked at would ultimately suffer from the problem that isolating the effect of seeing an extra .4 pitches or whatever in 425 out of 6400 team PAs was going to be fraught with noise and error. Unless the hypothesis is that somehow plunking an over-aggressive hitter into an otherwise patient lineup starts to get catchy in the locker room like cooties, I'm not sure how much there really is to say. I'm open minded, but resigned to the notion that AJP's effect on the team, once we start hitting the dog days of summer, will be judged just like everyone else -- his slash line, his defensive capabilities, etc.

Edit: For the record, not that it changes the point, but the .4 should have been .7 or .8. Salty saw 4.03 p/pa last year and AJP was at 3.27.

JimD · Apr 17, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
Well, to be fair, that's your starters at the three most important positions on the team--two of whom were above average-to-excellent on both sides of the ball. That's a lot.

Understood, but it's not as if they replaced those two above-average players with just anybody. X and JBJ are above-average themselves as prospects.

joe dokes · Apr 17, 2014

Stitch01 said:
I find the AJP issue interesting to me as well, I think Rev asked about that at some point too. Ive been trying to think how to analyze whether it matters or is just annoying.

I do as well. But if he was part of the lineup that they expect to be fielding, he's just an annoying anomaly.

Savin Hillbilly · Apr 17, 2014

DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Salty was a seemingly well-liked guy and fairly woven into the fabric of the team -- plus, he had significant experience with the whole pitching staff. Changing catchers is not insignificant.

And Salty spent three full seasons and a bit of another one with the team. While it's true that Ellsbury by contrast had six-plus seasons, he was out of action (and famously, out of circulation at times) for most of two of them. So it's not really like Ellsbury had spent that much more time in the Sox clubhouse. And he always came across as not the most gregarious guy in the room. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the players were tighter with Salty than with Ellsbury.

JimD · Apr 17, 2014

Interesting quote from Farrell in this column on MLB.com from last month:

One thing we've learned the past two decades is that championship clubs can't be built through free agency. Free agency can enhance and upgrade a roster, but it's virtually impossible to win without a core group of homegrown players.

So the Red Sox are turning shortstop over to top prospect Xander Bogaerts and giving another, Jackie Bradley Jr., a chance to win the center-field job. They've got two highly regarded catching prospects in Blake Swihart and Christian Vazquez, but signed veteran A.J. Pierzynski to a one-year deal to fill the gap until the youngsters are ready.

Is that too much change?

"We've gone through this exercise as a group internally," Farrell said. "We met last week, and we looked at what history has shown. Teams that win regularly -- how many players do they transition and bring in? You know what, it's roughly two a year. To maintain youth. To maintain talent. To continue that building over the long haul."

That assessment came after looking at baseball's five winningest organizations over the past 35 years. Some of them made big changes, others none at all. But the average was two.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/bos/red-sox-cardinals-make-change-a-constant?ymd=20140317&content_id=69498192

Reverend · Apr 17, 2014

Stitch01 said:
I find the AJP issue interesting to me as well, I think Rev asked about that at some point too. Ive been trying to think how to analyze whether it matters or is just annoying.

Yep--my concern is that OBP may have more value the more other OBP guys you have (link to Markov article). If so, then gaps in production have a cumulative or cascading effect that weaken the contributions of everyone else.

We assume certain gaps from time to time due to injuries and such. Gaps that occur by design, e.g. if you have a slot that will always have a low production guy no matter what, would exacerbate the loss.

Bone Chips · Apr 17, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
Actually, you don't.

You're right - the Red Sox don't have to spend the money on player salaries. Just like I don't have to spend my money on the most expensive tickets in all of baseball. The Sox have dropped to #4 in total payroll, soon to be #5. I am all for being smart with our money and I never want to revisit the days of Crawford, Beckett and Gonzalez. And I am all for reallocating some of our veteran player salaries into our farm system. That is an absolute must in the post steroid era. But I also want to have a bona-fide ace on our staff that can consistently give you 200 innings a year of 3.50 era pitching - from the left side no less. And he just so happens to be a home-grown, feel good story and a guy who wants to stay here for less than market value. When you have a narrow window to sign a guy like that and the best you come up with is apparently 4/$70 - then yes - I'd say that I'm a bit concerned the pendulum has swung a little too far in the other direction.

wolfe_boston · Apr 17, 2014

The question is which business model do you want to use. Would you rather be the Yankees, who now look like the team to beat in the AL East, especially with Matt Moore out, or the Red Sox?

Even with their poor infield and thin bullpen the Yankees starting pitching looks like one of the best. However, the Yankees have a weak farm system and gave up picks from signing their latest batch of free agents. They are well over the luxury tax threshold and by the time they burn off Sabathia, A-Rod and Taxiera they could be hitting speed bumps with Ellsbury and McCann. And who knows, maybe Tanaka will experience some arm problems. So unless the Yankees are willing at some time in the future to write-off 3-4 years to build a good farm system they will be paying huge amounts of luxury taxes for years and years to come. Their business model is to just spend what it takes to win now. They do actually have some limits as they passed on Cano and have not signed Drew even though he is a very good fit for them.

The Sox are coming off a championship season and have one of the top rated farm systems in all of baseball. Bringing back Ellsbury was out of the question but keeping Drew and Salty would have most likely made the 2014 team better but it would have been more expensive and could possibly make the 2015 team worse. I believe that by next year the Sox could be home grown and cost controlled at as many as five positions and three starting pitchers. With the cost savings they can, as they did before the 2013 season, sign as needed, some 2nd tier players for short-term contracts.

As a fan, it's not my money so spend away. But from a business perspective it's a no-brainer as to which strategy is the better choice.

JimD · Apr 17, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
Sure, yet at this point, neither has really done all that much. Would it surprise anyone if high paid veterans are not big fans of the young rookies looking to take their jobs?

I wouldn't dismiss Bradley's defensive contributions, but that's me. And those same veterans should cetainly appreciate X's significant contributions last October.

Savin Hillbilly · Apr 17, 2014

Bone Chips said:
You're right - the Red Sox don't have to spend the money on player salaries. Just like I don't have to spend my money on the most expensive tickets in all of baseball. The Sox have dropped to #4 in total payroll, soon to be #5. I am all for being smart with our money and I never want to revisit the days of Crawford, Beckett and Gonzalez. And I am all for reallocating some of our veteran player salaries into our farm system. That is an absolute must in the post steroid era. But I also want to have a bona-fide ace on our staff that can consistently give you 200 innings a year of 3.50 era pitching - from the left side no less. And he just so happens to be a home-grown, feel good story and a guy who wants to stay here for less than market value. When you have a narrow window to sign a guy like that and the best you come up with is apparently 4/$70 - then yes - I'd say that I'm a bit concerned the pendulum has swung a little too far in the other direction.

Just want to point out that even last year, Lester didn't give us 3.50 ERA pitching. He had a fine year, and he's still, on a good day, a very good pitcher, but "bona-fide ace" is a bit of a stretch even now--and it will likely become more of a stretch over a five- or six-year contract. Not saying that 4/$70, if that was their best offer, was anything close to realistic, just pointing out that people are responding to his great postseason run and early 2014 success by talking about him as if he were David Price or Cliff Lee. He's good, but not quite that good.

Harry Hooper · Apr 17, 2014

JimD said:
Interesting quote from Farrell in this column on MLB.com from last month:

"We've gone through this exercise as a group internally," Farrell said. "We met last week, and we looked at what history has shown. Teams that win regularly -- how many players do they transition and bring in? You know what, it's roughly two a year. To maintain youth. To maintain talent. To continue that building over the long haul."

On the one hand, this is eminently sensible. On the other hand, it's also a bit tautological depending on what "win regularly" entails. Since Charlie Finley's dream of 1-year contracts for all players was never realized, the amount of FA talent available is limited. So, a team that needs to turnover something like 4+ main players annually is highly unlikely to win regularly.

kieckeredinthehead · Apr 17, 2014

cannonball 1729 said:
And .192/.283/.288 with RISP.

This might be explained by really poor lineup construction (either on Cherington or Farrell's part): maybe the top half of the lineup is getting in scoring position, the bottom half is just terrible, and therefore the team as a whole has really bad numbers w/ RISP. But there's actually 0 correlation (r^2=0.03) currently between each player's overall batting average and their batting average with runners in scoring position. Pedroia, AJP and Bogaerts are a combined 3-38 with 2 walks w/ RISP.

mabrowndog · Apr 17, 2014

There's a lot of overreaction going on over the frustrations of a slow start, especially when juxtaposed with what happened in 2013 and with the fact that Dreamboat is off to a great start with the Yankees who are now leading the AL East. The overreactions are a surprise to no one -- except those doing the overreacting, and much of it is media-driven. They spawn an obsession to over-analyze things and make assumptions and projections based on a ridiculously small data set. As for Cafardo, others have spoken succinctly on why nothing he says or writes should ever be taken seriously or used as a comparative benchmark.

The Sox have had a rash of injuries early on, and they've had a rash of bad luck in terms of hitting with RISP. There have also been a few fielding gaffs that were only noticeable in the context of low-scoring close games, and most can be partially explained by circumstance (shitty weather, a rookie at SS still getting his sea legs, replacements at 3B & 1B, etc.). At the risk of co-opting an oft-despised Eric Van posting tactic, listed below in no particular order are the current AL East members' Runs Scored-Runs Allowed differentials (through this afternoon's Toronto loss to the Twins). WIthout peeking, can you match them with their respective teams?

56-57
45-53
61-57
54-54
54-59

NYY 9-6 (54-54)
TOR 8-7 (61-57)
BAL 7-7 (56-57)
TBR 7-8 (45-53)
BOS 6-9 (54-59)

There is literally nothing to see here. The team with the best run differential is not in first place. The team with the worst isn't in last place. The team that has scored and surrendered runs at an equal rate sits atop the throne temporarily. Meanwhile Boston is just 3 games out, with three extra losses based entirely on allowing an extra run every 3 games (what are the odds of that trend continuing??), and there's still an eternity left to be played in the season. If we were smart enough to have placed trust in the front office for wisely constructing a team that exceeded expectations in 2013 without sacrificing the future, we should be patient enough to realize that similar trust in the same front office will pay off down the line. It doesn't guarantee another trophy and parade, but this team isn't going to simply fade to black just because Scott Boras is bitching about his client still being on the sidelines.

Yelling At Clouds · Apr 17, 2014

Drew's and Ellsbury's replacements have the 2nd- and 3rd-best on-base percentages on the team at .391 and .354, respectively. Those two, at the moment, are not the problem.

Rovin Romine · Apr 17, 2014

I think people are missing the fact that the Sox want to call up prospects both this year and next. That means short term contracts in some cases to hold the fort while the prospects mature (or if they don't, to bridge the gap until the next offseason/FA class).

Yet not all FA's are infinitely flexible. The reason they got AJP on a one year deal was likely because he was the best catcher they could get on a one year deal (apart from tendering a 1yr 14mil QO for Salty that he may not have taken anyway).

Drew wasn't *really* needed as a bridge and obviously didn't accept a one year offer anyway.

I suspect the front office is "fair balling" (instead of lowballing) Lester in part because the farm is stocked with young pitching. There's no need to break the bank on Lester just yet.

There's not a lot of mystery here. The Sox haven't said so, but they're probably content to field a competitive team this year that quickly bridges into the younger players.

HriniakPosterChild · Apr 17, 2014

Rovin Romine said:
I suspect the front office is "fair balling" (instead of lowballing) Lester in part because the farm is stocked with young pitching. There's no need to break the bank on Lester just yet.

If you are saying that Lester is likely worth more to another MLB team than to the Red Sox, then 1) that's a bit sad for a fan to accept, and 2) you're probably right.

Impact of the sum total of Ben's off season moves regarding 2013 veterans

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Member

anti-SoSHal

Yukon Cornelius

for king and country

Member

Member

bubble burster

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Commissioner of Calvinball

Member

PN23's replacement

Member

Member

for king and country

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

loves the secret sauce

Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill

PN23's replacement

Member

Member

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill

Experiencing Furry Panic

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill

Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

for king and country

Member

Commissioner of Calvinball

Member

loves the secret sauce

Well-Known Member

Member

Ask me about total zone...or paint

Post-darwinian

Johnny Rico

Member