Plympy's Ellsbury's Gone B*tch-a-thon - Post away!

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,651
Deep inside Muppet Labs
EvilEmpire said:
Yeah, I saw it. It said "reportedly" and likely was from ownership or management. Nothing I've seen has confirmed it since. It could be true. Or it could be damage-control PR released right after Ellsbury signed with the Yankees. Given the other speculation floating around (that no offer was made), how does anyone know for sure?
 
Edes is pretty reliable, not in anyone's pocket, and has played things straight over the course of his career. If it were Cafardo reporting this, I'd be inclined to be skeptical. With Edes, I'm not.
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,309
Washington
Edes is pretty reliable, not in anyone's pocket, and has played things straight over the course of his career. If it were Cafardo reporting this, I'd be inclined to be skeptical. With Edes, I'm not.
I agree, but the way he caveated it in his tweet made it sound like he couldn't/wouldn't be able to confirm it one way or another. Even great reporters are limited to the information they have available.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
61,829
Oregon
EvilEmpire said:
I agree, but the way he caveated it in his tweet made it sound like he couldn't/wouldn't be able to confirm it one way or another. Even great reporters are limited to the information they have available.
 
Exactly. Therefore, Gammons' statement of no offer is no more credible than Edes' statement of two offers.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,676
NY
Also Gammons' source is an unnamed player who most likely was not privy to the discussions between Ben and Scott.
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,309
Washington
Exactly. Therefore, Gammons' statement of no offer is no more credible than Edes' statement of two offers.
Of course. We don't know exactly what happened and are unlikely to find out.

The main point is that the Sox seem to have a very rational process for cost/benefit. If during that process they assessed they would get more value out of JBJ/SV, a draft pick, and more money available for other positions, a low-ball offer to Ellsbury makes sense. If Ellsbury had provided a home-town discount big enough, the value might have tipped the other way and he'd still be with the team. All the rumors regarding Lester make it sound like a similar process is taking place.

At least that seems plausible from an outside perspective. But who really knows?
 

KenTremendous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2006
525
Partridge, KS
E5 Yaz said:
 
Exactly. Therefore, Gammons' statement of no offer is no more credible than Edes' statement of two offers.
The truth is, they're probably both right. In my insane business's version of free agent negotiations, if you know you're dealing with a person who wants to maximize the money and has a tough agent, you might float a low opening bid, sometimes even unofficially, in order to get some information about their headspace. The Sox might've said, casually, how about 6/100? At which point Ellsbury's camp came back with: How about 10/225? At which point the Sox knew that they were really looking for, say, 8/175 or something, which meant the Sox wouldn't be long-term bidders, and so decided to move on.
 
Thus, "we made an offer" and "they never made an offer" could both be argued, depending on who wants the PR spin.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
glennhoffmania said:
Does anyone seriously believe that they didn't even offer him a contract besides Michael Kay?  Or that they topped out at around 70m?  Sometimes you have to use some judgment when you read a report or hear a rumor.
Agreed re no offer.  That is indeed hard to believe...not that I was suggesting that I did believe it.
 
As to the need for judgment regarding what the Sox might have offered, I'm not sure why your judgment tells you to believe that $100 or $120 mm is a number the Sox likely offered.  As Evil Empire observed, if the Sox actually offered Lester something in the $70 mm range (which seems plausible), that, along with their end point numbers with Pedroia and Napoli, make it very easy to believe that they started with Ellsbury in the $70-80 mm area.  Not that all of these deals are equivalent but a pattern of sorts does emerge.
 
It's also believable that the Sox offered on the low side, the Yankees made a blow away offer, and that was that. 
 
.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Toe Nash said:
Also, who was that outfielder who would have signed here to have a reserve role when the team already had Nava, Gomes, Victorino and Bradley (and Carp)? Sounds like p91 wanted to go with JBJ but also sign a backup who was really good in case JBJ wasn't ready, or go back in time to develop more than one top outfield prospect who can play center.
 
Off the top of my head, Craig Gentry would have been a nice option and he moved teams last offseason. But he took the A's sending Michael Choice to Texas, who's a pretty good prospect. Would you have traded one of the Sox' top 10 prospects for Gentry, if that were even possible?
No, I wanted them to acquire a starter and let Bradley ride the shuttle again, in order to have him available as major league ready depth. Then next year he slips into Gomes slot and in 2016 he replaces SV.

If Bradley tries to steal second tonight and Jeter falls on his shoulder and he misses 10 weeks, the outfield defense is completely screwed.

Looking back, The only such starter available was Ellsbury. But, I get it. The SoSH consensus is that they won in 2013 so punting in 2014 is great too. Probably the same people who think the Celtics had a good year this year. Yeah, losing!
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,465
Plympton91 said:
No, I wanted them to acquire a starter and let Bradley ride the shuttle again, in order to have him available as major league ready depth. Then next year he slips into Gomes slot and in 2016 he replaces SV.

If Bradley tries to steal second tonight and Jeter falls on his shoulder and he misses 10 weeks, the outfield defense is completely screwed.

Looking back, The only such starter available was Ellsbury. But, I get it. The SoSH consensus is that they won in 2013 so punting in 2014 is great too. Probably the same people who think the Celtics had a good year this year. Yeah, losing!
 
They should send the guy they think can be the starter to AAA so he can be depth? And he shouldn't start til 2016? There aren't too many players from whom good things are expected that are held back until they're 26.
 
If the bolded is a mantra that helps you sleep at night, keep repeating it. Meanwhile, here in Realityland, Ellsbury was likely gone no matter how they did in 2013. Given what they have consistenly thought of JBJ, Ellsbury at FA prices was not part of their plan after 2013. If you want to call that "punting" go ahead. And I will continue to call Elle MacPherson "Mrs. Dokes."
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
7,985
Panama
Plympton91 said:
No, I wanted them to acquire a starter and let Bradley ride the shuttle again, in order to have him available as major league ready depth. Then next year he slips into Gomes slot and in 2016 he replaces SV.

If Bradley tries to steal second tonight and Jeter falls on his shoulder and he misses 10 weeks, the outfield defense is completely screwed.

Looking back, The only such starter available was Ellsbury. But, I get it. The SoSH consensus is that they won in 2013 so punting in 2014 is great too. Probably the same people who think the Celtics had a good year this year. Yeah, losing!
 
As to the bolded, while I, and many people may agree on the principle, Ellsbury was not available given the Yankees offer.  Let's think back to Teixeira, or to any other player the Yankees and Sox wanted.  No way do the Sox outbid the Yankees for Ellsbury's services.  That's it.
 
As to your plan for Bradley, it's really not viable.  Bradley may have spent 2014 (or at least started it) in AAA and it was a possibility when Sizemore was signed and there was an OF roster clutter.  At that point he represented deep depth, plus had the options.  But Shane's injury allowed him to start in the bog leagues.  Once Shane is back, he and Bradley should form a solid CF-RF that will probably help the pitching staff.  But back to your point, this plan does not make sense for a player like him at 26.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
17,321
Plympton91 said:
No, I wanted them to acquire a starter and let Bradley ride the shuttle again, in order to have him available as major league ready depth. Then next year he slips into Gomes slot and in 2016 he replaces SV.

If Bradley tries to steal second tonight and Jeter falls on his shoulder and he misses 10 weeks, the outfield defense is completely screwed.

Looking back, The only such starter available was Ellsbury. But, I get it. The SoSH consensus is that they won in 2013 so punting in 2014 is great too. Probably the same people who think the Celtics had a good year this year. Yeah, losing!
 
Methinks you are going to be doing a lot of these kinds of posts in the next few years.  The current brass has seemingly taken on a NFL mentality to roster building, including making the luxury tax cap more like a hard cap than probably any of us would care for.  Basically they are saying, we would rather lose a player one year early rather than one (or more) years too late; we want to build through the draft (and international signings); right player, right price; and we are going to use FA to fill in holes, not to build the core.  Sound familiar?  It's basically what Belichek and Ozzie Newsome say every day.
 
So here is what we know.

(1)  They have an aversion to long-term contracts, particularly for players in their 30s.
(2)  They are going to value financial flexibility.
(3)  They are going to try to incorporate 1-2 rookies a year.
(4)  They apparently don't have an issue with losing players who won't take a discount.
 
 As I have mentioned in other threads, this philosophy should let the team be competitive for the playoffs every year.  The problem, however, is that each season could have one or two players going through growing pains while a "go for it now" team (like if the Sox had resigned Ellsbury) would have been demonstrably stronger for that season.  However, by doing what the Sox seem to be doing, it minimizes the bad contracts ("dead money") and limits the amount of dead years that might occur if you string together too many bad contracts.
 
I am interested to see how this plays out.  But it's going to involve many more examples not resigning their own players and many more threads such as this one.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
trekfan55 said:
 
As to the bolded, while I, and many people may agree on the principle, Ellsbury was not available given the Yankees offer.  Let's think back to Teixeira, or to any other player the Yankees and Sox wanted.  No way do the Sox outbid the Yankees for Ellsbury's services.  That's it.
 
As to your plan for Bradley, it's really not viable.  Bradley may have spent 2014 (or at least started it) in AAA and it was a possibility when Sizemore was signed and there was an OF roster clutter.  At that point he represented deep depth, plus had the options.  But Shane's injury allowed him to start in the bog leagues.  Once Shane is back, he and Bradley should form a solid CF-RF that will probably help the pitching staff.  But back to your point, this plan does not make sense for a player like him at 26.
 
That was exactly the plan the Red Sox executed at the end of spring training naming Sizemore the starter in CF and sending Bradley to AAA; it was only changed when Victorino broke down and needed to go on the DL.  The problem is that Sizemore couldn't hold the job, and so now we're back to square 1.  Let's hope that neither Bradley nor Victorino has to go on the DL long term, or that's the bed they've chosen to lie in.
 

KillerBs

lurker
Nov 16, 2006
812
My concern is not so much with the Ellsbury decision in isolation, but with what appears to be an organizational decision not to seriously compete to re-sign our best players when they hit FA in their late 20s/early 30s. I fear the team is moving towards a de facto refusal to sign FA (including especially our own) in the absence of a significant hometown discount.
 
Ellsbury is the most obvious example, and the Lester contract negotiations seem to fit the pattern too. Unless I am mistaken, we havent been significant players for the very the top level of FA for years. Pedroia and Buchholz are signed on a signficant hometown discounts. Papi is a partial exception I suppose, but the last 2 have been short deals, and before that, if I have it right, Ortiz left money on the table.
 
As others have pointed out, if you are not prepared to "overpay" periodically for the best players in the FA market, then you have effectively shut yourself out of that market.
 
The end result of this threatens to be a team built on homegrown 20 somethings before they hit FA, vets who are prepared to leave significant money on the table and B/C level FAs to fill the gaps. Yes, it is a strategy which won a WS for us in 2013, and it might do so again. It is an approach that certainly has its benefits for the owners. But as a fan, it has equally obvious drawbacks, including the shittiness of watching Ellsbury play CF (or Lester pitching) for the Yankees, and the sinking feeling that one ought not to get too attached to the likes of Xander Bogaerts given that if this approach holds he will be playing SS for the Yankees (or some other team willing to "over pay" him) in 6-7 years.      
 

jtn46

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
8,217
Norwalk, CT
-The Sox went through this exact situation when Ellsbury replaced Damon and they made the right call there.
-Bradley has earned his shot.
-Sizemore was added as the stopgap in case Bradley wasn't ready.
-7/$160m is what Ells took, but if the Sox topped that, the Yankees would have likely bid more.

I don't see a problem. A big corner OF bat is needed, but the Sox have a loaded system, so they have the pieces to acquire a player like that should one become available.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
7,332
Santa Monica
jtn46 said:
-The Sox went through this exact situation when Ellsbury replaced Damon and they made the right call there.
-Bradley has earned his shot.
-Sizemore was added as the stopgap in case Bradley wasn't ready.
-7/$160m is what Ells took, but if the Sox topped that, the Yankees would have likely bid more.

I don't see a problem. A big corner OF bat is needed, but the Sox have a loaded system, so they have the pieces to acquire a player like that should one become available.
 Ellsbury was a late season call up in 2007, Damon left after 2005 season.
 
Coco Crisp replaced Damon
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
jtn46 said:
-The Sox went through this exact situation when Ellsbury replaced Damon and they made the right call there.
-Bradley has earned his shot.
-Sizemore was added as the stopgap in case Bradley wasn't ready.
-7/$160m is what Ells took, but if the Sox topped that, the Yankees would have likely bid more.

I don't see a problem. A big corner OF bat is needed, but the Sox have a loaded system, so they have the pieces to acquire a player like that should one become available.
Ellsbury didn't replace Damon. When Damon left they traded for Coco Crisp. When Ellsbury came along they had him play as a often-used 4th outfielder for a year, despite his contributions in the postseason after his call up similar to Bogaerts, before they traded Crisp after Ellsbury had a full season of success in the majors.

I agree a big corner outfield bat is needed. Do you see this team trading 3 top 5 prospects and then paying 10 years, $300 million for Stanton? Me neither.
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
trekfan55 said:
 
As to the bolded, while I, and many people may agree on the principle, Ellsbury was not available given the Yankees offer.  Let's think back to Teixeira, or to any other player the Yankees and Sox wanted.  No way do the Sox outbid the Yankees for Ellsbury's services.  That's it.
 
As to your plan for Bradley, it's really not viable.  Bradley may have spent 2014 (or at least started it) in AAA and it was a possibility when Sizemore was signed and there was an OF roster clutter.  At that point he represented deep depth, plus had the options.  But Shane's injury allowed him to start in the bog leagues.  Once Shane is back, he and Bradley should form a solid CF-RF that will probably help the pitching staff.  But back to your point, this plan does not make sense for a player like him at 26.
 We've apparently decided to ignore away this reality.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,465
KillerBs said:
My concern is not so much with the Ellsbury decision in isolation, but with what appears to be an organizational decision not to seriously compete to re-sign our best players when they hit FA in their late 20s/early 30s. I fear the team is moving towards a de facto refusal to sign FA (including especially our own) in the absence of a significant hometown discount.
 
Ellsbury is the most obvious example, and the Lester contract negotiations seem to fit the pattern too. Unless I am mistaken, we havent been significant players for the very the top level of FA for years. Pedroia and Buchholz are signed on a signficant hometown discounts. Papi is a partial exception I suppose, but the last 2 have been short deals, and before that, if I have it right, Ortiz left money on the table.
 
As others have pointed out, if you are not prepared to "overpay" periodically for the best players in the FA market, then you have effectively shut yourself out of that market.
 
The end result of this threatens to be a team built on homegrown 20 somethings before they hit FA, vets who are prepared to leave significant money on the table and B/C level FAs to fill the gaps. Yes, it is a strategy which won a WS for us in 2013, and it might do so again. It is an approach that certainly has its benefits for the owners. But as a fan, it has equally obvious drawbacks, including the shittiness of watching Ellsbury play CF (or Lester pitching) for the Yankees, and the sinking feeling that one ought not to get too attached to the likes of Xander Bogaerts given that if this approach holds he will be playing SS for the Yankees (or some other team willing to "over pay" him) in 6-7 years.      
 
So how do we know that they "wont overpay periodically?" We don't. They didn't for Ellsbury because they think they have a nearly ready in-house replacement.
 
 
I think the people that run the team are not so hidebound and stupid that they will "shut themselves out" of anything that they see as a need, or fail to respond to market conditions as appropriate. Saying 'we aren't the Yankees" is not the same as saying "we are Oakland." And are you really worried about where Bogaerts is playing in 2022? Maybe in 2022 he's Nomar c. 2004.
 
The comparisons to how Belichick, et al run the Patriots are certainly very facile. But ultimately they are about on par with saying that Moneyball is about walks, or that Billy Beane thinks scouts are useless.
 

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,586
Missoula, MT
Plympton91 said:
Ellsbury didn't replace Damon. When Damon left they traded for Coco Crisp. When Ellsbury came along they had him play as a often-used 4th outfielder for a year, despite his contributions in the postseason after his call up similar to Bogaerts, before they traded Crisp after Ellsbury had a full season of success in the majors.

I agree a big corner outfield bat is needed. Do you see this team trading 3 top 5 prospects and then paying 10 years, $300 million for Stanton? Me neither.
 
And Sizemore was signed to be this years Coco Crisp so that JBJ could ease into the CF role full-time.  The problem wasn't that Vic got hurt, its that he hasn't played well the first 3 weeks.  But, can you point me to anyone that has? Let's wait and see what happens when the weather warms. 
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
27,459
AZ
Plympton91 said:
Looking back, The only such starter available was Ellsbury. But, I get it. The SoSH consensus is that they won in 2013 so punting in 2014 is great too. Probably the same people who think the Celtics had a good year this year. Yeah, losing!
 
One thing I'm unclear about -- are you advocating going over the luxury tax limit or do you accept the Red Sox' seeming desire to use it as their outside limit?
 
Because I'm having a bit of trouble understanding where the money comes from to sign Ellsbury and for the team to stay under the cap, unless you're willing to live with not having Napoli.  Signing Ellsbury would have meant no Napoli.  They simply did not have $38 million to spend on those two players.  I suppose it's theoretically possible that if they had known about Dempster, they could have found a way to sign Ellsbury and Napoli, but I doubt it.  Even with Dempster doing the solid he did for the team, they only should have about $8 to $9 million under the cap.  They brought in Peavy to try to win immediately, but this had a significant cost for 2014 salary.  
 
So, what are we talking about here?   Well, even if they didn't sign Napoli, they would have had some money after paying Ells they could have used to try to make up for his absence.   Is Ells plus a bit of cash worth more WAR over the next two years than Mike Napoli?  Yes.  But not enough to live with years 3-7 at $22 million per for Ellsbury.  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
 
One thing I'm unclear about -- are you advocating going over the luxury tax limit or do you accept the Red Sox' seeming desire to use it as their outside limit?
 
Because I'm having a bit of trouble understanding where the money comes from to sign Ellsbury and for the team to stay under the cap, unless you're willing to live with not having Napoli.  Signing Ellsbury would have meant no Napoli.  They simply did not have $38 million to spend on those two players.  I suppose it's theoretically possible that if they had known about Dempster, they could have found a way to sign Ellsbury and Napoli, but I doubt it.  Even with Dempster doing the solid he did for the team, they only should have about $8 to $9 million under the cap.  They brought in Peavy to try to win immediately, but this had a significant cost for 2014 salary.  
 
So, what are we talking about here?   Well, even if they didn't sign Napoli, they would have had some money after paying Ells they could have used to try to make up for his absence.   Is Ells plus a bit of cash worth more WAR over the next two years than Mike Napoli?  Yes.  But not enough to live with years 3-7 at $22 million per for Ellsbury.  
That's a good point. I guess I hadn't realized how close to the cap they are despite all the salary they dropped in the past couple seasons.

I don't think it's fair to expect them to go over the cap routinely, but they have gone over once in a while. As you say, Peavy is a big chunk and he'd be gone after this season, as would the 5 million for Gomes, potentially getting them back under. Dempster was never an efficient use of payroll space, if it was scarce. Also, Pierzynski is wildly overpaid relative to better options like Hannigan and Navarro. And they could have dispensed with Badenhop and Capuano and gone with Workman, Wilson, or Britton at the minimum to save a bit more.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Rudy Pemberton said:
I'm not ready to say Sizemore is cooked. A few weeks ago, he was hitting really well. Now he's not. But, he's had some bad luck on balls in play and suddenly he's useless? Now, I don't think he's the guy he was or going to be a full time CF but he could still be a useful part. Give him some more time.
I think the Red Sox agree and that's why Nava was sent down instead of Grady being DFA'd.
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,064
Plympton91 said:
......

I agree a big corner outfield bat is needed. Do you see this team trading 3 top 5 prospects and then paying 10 years, $300 million for Stanton? Me neither.
I could see the Sox doing that.  Not $300 million, but something closer to $25 AAV since they'd be able to leverage 2015 and 2016 as an arbitration years.  So, yes I could see them trading Betts, Cecchini/Marrero and Owens for Stanton this summer/fall and then signing him to an 8-10 year contract with a $25 mil AAV.  The difference vs resigning Ellsbury is that they'd be buying up Stanton's years from age 25-34, instead of Ellsbury's years from age 30-37.
 
Of course before they could even contemplate that they'd have to have a good assurance that Bogaerts is the real deal, that Bradley is going to be at least adequate as a MLB player and that Middlebrooks has stopped chasing sliders off the lower, outside corner -- otherwise they'll need to hold on to some of their prospects.  They'll also have to have some assurance that at least one of De La Rosa, Webster or Ranaudo are going to become an MLB starter before letting go of Owens.
 
The Red Sox have tremendous flexibility with only Pedroia signed after 2015, because they've resisted the temptation to resign middle-aged (in baseball years) players like Ellsbury, who only averaged 113 games in his 6 full years (age 24-29) with the team.  They would gladly sacrifice a portion of that flexibility to sign a 24/25 year old if he projects to be a top 5 offensive player in his prime.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
Plympton91 said:
No, I wanted them to acquire a starter and let Bradley ride the shuttle again, in order to have him available as major league ready depth. Then next year he slips into Gomes slot and in 2016 he replaces SV.

If Bradley tries to steal second tonight and Jeter falls on his shoulder and he misses 10 weeks, the outfield defense is completely screwed.

Looking back, The only such starter available was Ellsbury. But, I get it. The SoSH consensus is that they won in 2013 so punting in 2014 is great too. Probably the same people who think the Celtics had a good year this year. Yeah, losing!
Thank you for this.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
7,985
Panama
Plympton91 said:
 
That was exactly the plan the Red Sox executed at the end of spring training naming Sizemore the starter in CF and sending Bradley to AAA; it was only changed when Victorino broke down and needed to go on the DL.  The problem is that Sizemore couldn't hold the job, and so now we're back to square 1.  Let's hope that neither Bradley nor Victorino has to go on the DL long term, or that's the bed they've chosen to lie in.
 
 
No.
 
They signed Sizemore as part "lottery ticket" part "prove that you can play" contract.  When he made it through Spring Training in one piece they had a glut in the OF.  At that point the Sox, like a smart organization, did not jettison any players but sent down the one with options (it was doubtful that Nava would have cleared the optional assigment waivers at that point) and then see how things developed.  It would not be the first time the Sox (or some other team, except we don't closely follow other teams) sent down a player solely based on the fact that they can so as to retain as many players and options as possible.
 
No other move was needed then, except that JBJ has proven to be their best (and maybe only) option for CF at least in terms of defense.
 
Sending Bradley down at the end of Spring Training does not mean he would have stayed down, and even less, that in 2015 he would take Gomes's place.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,779
La Mancha.
KillerBs said:
My concern is not so much with the Ellsbury decision in isolation, but with what appears to be an organizational decision not to seriously compete to re-sign our best players when they hit FA in their late 20s/early 30s. I fear the team is moving towards a de facto refusal to sign FA (including especially our own) in the absence of a significant hometown discount.
 
Ellsbury is the most obvious example, and the Lester contract negotiations seem to fit the pattern too. Unless I am mistaken, we havent been significant players for the very the top level of FA for years. Pedroia and Buchholz are signed on a signficant hometown discounts. Papi is a partial exception I suppose, but the last 2 have been short deals, and before that, if I have it right, Ortiz left money on the table.
 
As others have pointed out, if you are not prepared to "overpay" periodically for the best players in the FA market, then you have effectively shut yourself out of that market.
 
The end result of this threatens to be a team built on homegrown 20 somethings before they hit FA, vets who are prepared to leave significant money on the table and B/C level FAs to fill the gaps. Yes, it is a strategy which won a WS for us in 2013, and it might do so again. It is an approach that certainly has its benefits for the owners. But as a fan, it has equally obvious drawbacks, including the shittiness of watching Ellsbury play CF (or Lester pitching) for the Yankees, and the sinking feeling that one ought not to get too attached to the likes of Xander Bogaerts given that if this approach holds he will be playing SS for the Yankees (or some other team willing to "over pay" him) in 6-7 years.      
 
I think that is actually a good way to run the organization, to a point. They identify the home-grown players that they want to lock up long term and buy out the remaining years of their contracts. They did this with Pedroia and Youkilis, amongst others. It seems they also wanted to do this with players such as Paplebon and probably Ellsbury, but those two preferred to go to FA. I don't think they should never bid for star FAs on the open market, but keeping a cool head and sticking to the long-term fiscally-responsible plan seems to be the intended M.O., and I'm cool with that.
 

Paul M

Dope
Dope
Mar 2, 2000
10,386
Falls Church, VA
This discussion reminded me of a recent chart that showed salary committments out for the next 7 years.
 
2014: 151, .9% change from 2013
2015:   75  -51%
2016:   14   -82%
 
NYY are at $159 for 2016.
 
Maybe this is its own topic or too far off to get a lot of traction now, but how will they spend $150 million? Now, the above is not a great barometer of the actual liquidity they have, but it's an interesting topic. Also, they averaged over $170 from 2010-2012 and didn't even make the playoffs once. Still, I have to think over the next 3-5 years the average won't be lower than $150.
 
They've left themselves with unprecedented room.