Projecting the 2015 Sox: Do We Love Ben's Work As Much as Steamer Does?

[Savin Hillbilly]

Steamer projects the current 40-man, minus Webster and Rubby and plus Miley, for 42.4 WAR. Add a token 2.0 WAR for Castillo (who isn't projected) and you get 44.4.
 
That figure would have made us the second-best team in the AL last year, trailing only the Angels, and the fourth-best team in MLB.
 
This is without adding an "ace", and in fact the highest WAR projection on the pitching staff is Porcello's 3.1. The team projects for 13.2 pitching WAR, slightly below average in 2014--we would have ranked 17th, just behind the White Sox and just ahead of the Cardinals. But the position-player WAR projection of 31.2 (including that 2.0 figure for Castillo) would have tied the Dodgers for the best in baseball.
 
Projections and $2 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks, of course. What does SoSH think? Are we really this good? Would acquiring another frontline starter push us to the head of the class?

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

We need Buchholz and Masterson insurance.  Their up and down performances even when factored into Steamer projections mean that the Sox could get very little from one or both of them.  Right now Hamels and Shields appear to be the best options, but potentially guys like Fister or Ross could do the trick.  The issue would be as always what would any of these pitchers cost in terms dollars and/or prospects?  Too many good SP's would simply require moving Kelly to the BP so I do not think adding another pitcher would warrant debate over the "too much pitching" canard.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

I remember that before last year Steamer had the Red Sox with one of the highest WAR projections in baseball, maybe even 1st, don't remember for sure.  so, as you rightly say, none of this is anything like a certainty--more like a best case scenario, perhaps.  But I think the Red Sox are putting themselves in a position to be quite competitive, assuming things go something like expected.  The lineup has potential to be impressive: Betts, Pedroia, Ortiz, Hanley, Sandoval, Napoli, Castillo, X, Vazquez.  If everything shakes out right, there are no easy outs 1-8 (plus, even Vazquez can put together a tough AB as we saw last year).  The bench would allow them give guys a day off without taking a huge hit, or stack in another lefty or 2 if need be (I'm assuming Victorino, Nava, Holt, lefty catcher, but obviously none of this is certain).
 
On the pitching side, I like what they've done the last few days.  They didn't put together a panic package for Hamels.  Instead, they got 3 guys who all have potential (with varying degrees of probabilty) to be solid.  I especially like Porcello.  Miley is intriguing.  Masterson has upside, though of course could wash out, but acceptable risk there and there are backup options (Barnes, Wright, maybe Owens, Johnson, Rodriguez).  I'd be ok with them starting the season with these guys plus Buchholz and Kelly, though it seems quite possible that they'll upgrade.  Perhaps most impressively, they got these 3 new starters without giving up any top prospects.  Rubby, Webster, Cespedes, Wilson, Speier do not hurt--very acceptable price to pay to fill out a staff with major holes.  (I'm assuming the 3rd guy in the Miley deal won't be Margot or someone like that). 
 
Bullpen seems like a place to make a move or 2, and there are still guys to deal.  Coyle had been rumored as a piece for Bastardo.  Perhaps he (Coyle) is used for a different reliever now that Bastardo has moved.  I there are still some FAs out there too (Romo)?
 
Assuming they strengthen the bullpen without making another Hanrahan-esque kind of deal (and I am confident that Cherington has gotten that out of his system), I think things are looking good.  Adding another starter could be interesting too, though i'm not convinced it's absolutely necessary.  I can see the case for doing it, though (e.g. for adding Hamels if the price is not outrageous).

 

[grimshaw]

I think they were projected in the top 3 as well last year, but they had a miserable back end of the rotation, a worn out pen, shitty defense, slow, station to station base running, combined with not much power.  They have replaced the innings from Lester and Lackey(quality still in debate) added power, improved starting defense, and now have Betts and Castillo as quick base runners.  The bench is deep with positional flexibility and an army of reinforcements in the high minors.
 
I love this team, and think they are an ace reliever before the season starts and an impact deadline starter away.  I don't think they need to start the season tinkering any more with the rotation but it would be nice.
 
My biggest questions are Masterson continuing his awfulness, bad Buchholz, and Ueh's collapse.  They have the depth to cover weaknesses for sure.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm a pretty big fan of Ben's work so far overall. He's brought the floor way up while adding a couple of bats who they can build around over the long term in Sandoval and Ramirez. This feels like a great middle ground between GFIN and punting on what is probably the very end of the David Ortiz window. He's got one, maybe two more years left and the team should be competitive for both of them, even if they don't acquire an ace. I wouldn't be surprised if we've seen the last big move before spring training, but I also wouldn't be surprised if we haven't. Cherington has done a magnificent job of taking the pressure off early in the winter meaning they can sit back and wait for an opportunity to pounce on. If nothing they like becomes available, they take a team that is capable of winning the division with some good luck into spring training.
 
Yes, this team could miss the playoffs, but the flexibility they have on the roster mixed with the depth in the minors means they can react to severe under performance in a number of ways. This team is in an incredible position half way through December considering where they were at the beginning of November. Cherington has been bold, but disciplined and while I'm not doing back flips over every move individually, the collective changes are overwhelmingly positive. This is a much better team than it was a few weeks ago and I just don't see how anyone could be down on the progress that's been made.
 
This will be an interesting question to re-ask in February. In fact, while I'm not a huge fan of polls, I think a poll now and a poll just before Spring Training would be interesting to compare. Maybe something like "How do you feel about the roster going into the 2015 season?" with answers being fairly simple like "Very Positive, Positive, Meh, Negative, Very Negative" or something. I'd start a new thread for it, but I wouldn't want to draw attention away from this one, which should generate some interesting discussion.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I thought the primary point of shelling out $200M for 3B and LF upgrades (on top of the Castillo splurge) was to lift the floor up substantially to better ensure competitiveness.  You spend that kind of coin, you should get better, in projections and in reality. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Sure, but doing it without having to give up an of the top prospects means that on top of bringing up the floor of the 25 man roster, you're going into the season with one of the best safety nets in the game in case of injuries of unexpected collapse.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

I thought the primary point of shelling out $200M for 3B and LF upgrades (on top of the Castillo splurge) was to lift the floor up substantially to better ensure competitiveness.  You spend that kind of coin, you should get better, in projections and in reality. 

 
Both the Ramirez and Sandoval deals are for short years and the Castillo signing while a gamble on an unproven defector, won't hamstring the team either in terms of AAV.  $200MM looks like a big number until you put it into context.  Signing Lester for 7/180 (with a vesting option) puts your $200MM figure into a different context, I would think.

 

[ConigsCorner]

Cherington acquired Castillo, Sandoval, Ramirez, Miley, Porcello, & Masterson, and held onto Boegarts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, JBJ, Margot, Devers, Marrero, Chavis, Cecchini, Kelly, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Barnes, Ranaudo, & Ball.  I think he's done a terrific job and that there are more moves to come.
 
If it takes Kelly, Owens, Marrero, & Devers to get Hamels, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.....prospects are suspects until they're not.  I remember when people were bummed when Ted Cox, Mike Paxton, and Bo Diaz were traded for Eckersley.

 

[JimD]

We need Buchholz and Masterson insurance.  Their up and down performances even when factored into Steamer projections mean that the Sox could get very little from one or both of them.  Right now Hamels and Shields appear to be the best options, but potentially guys like Fister or Ross could do the trick.  The issue would be as always what would any of these pitchers cost in terms dollars and/or prospects?  Too many good SP's would simply require moving Kelly to the BP so I do not think adding another pitcher would warrant debate over the "too much pitching" canard.

 
They are in an ideal position now to go into the season and see how these two perform and buy that insurance only if it's truly needed.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Interesting speculations in that chart:
 
Swihart with 192 at bats
Middlebrooks still on the team
Victorino 420 at bats in RF (Betts = 105) with a 2.1 WAR
Castillo (as stated by SM) with a -0.2 WAR and Betts with 210 at bats in CF
JBJ on the team
 
No pitcher > 200 innings (Porcello at 188)
 
Edit: And even with Castillo's projection, Steamer speculates Red Sox at 42.9 and #1 in baseball...and 1 win behind the leaders (LAD, NAT, SEA, STL)

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

Cherington acquired Castillo, Sandoval, Ramirez, Miley, Porcello, & Masterson, and held onto Boegarts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, JBJ, Margot, Devers, Marrero, Chavis, Cecchini, Kelly, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Barnes, Ranaudo, & Ball.  I think he's done a terrific job and that there are more moves to come.
 
If it takes Kelly, Owens, Marrero, & Devers to get Hamels, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.....prospects are suspects until they're not.  I remember when people were bummed when Ted Cox, Mike Paxton, and Bo Diaz were traded for Eckersley.

this is really a big deal to me, as other have noted--that Cherington has made significant improvements while holding on to the most valuable prospects.  Their farm system was deep coming into the offseason and is still incredibly deep.  In fact, it's deep enough that they can still make some more important moves (even perhaps one for Hamels) without depleting the system. Moreover, the fact that Cherington went out and got 3 starters (or 2 plus one possible) before dealing with the Phillies is great bc it makes it much harder (impossible, I hope) for the Phillies to bargain as if the Red Sox are desperate.  They don't have to be desperate now.  If a Hamels deal looks good, great. If Amaro is insisting on the moon, let it go

 

[grimshaw]

Run prevention is really going to be improved with a full season of Vazquez and I just read that Miley (3) and Porcello (7) allowed 10 steals between them, both in the top 20.
 
Fister (0) and Zimmermann (2) are also on the market if they end up upgrading.

 

[theapportioner]

On offense, they've clearly improved and significantly reduced the risk for below-average performance. They can withstand a couple injuries/performance collapses. No more overreliance on rookies and people like AJP.
 
On defense, I think they have improved? A full season of Vasquez helps, as does Sandoval, but Hanley in LF, Castillo are still somewhat unknown variables, and X could still be pretty bad at SS.
 
On pitching, I think they've clearly worsened. Optimistically, we have a team of 2-3 level starters, but they could all easily be 4-5 level starters, with Buchholz and Masterson being significant performance risks. Lester, and Lackey in the last couple of years, could be counted on as reliable 2-3 level starters with ace-level moments, and I don't think we have that currently.

 

[Drek717]

Cherington acquired Castillo, Sandoval, Ramirez, Miley, Porcello, & Masterson, and held onto Boegarts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, JBJ, Margot, Devers, Marrero, Chavis, Cecchini, Kelly, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Barnes, Ranaudo, & Ball.  I think he's done a terrific job and that there are more moves to come.
 
If it takes Kelly, Owens, Marrero, & Devers to get Hamels, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.....prospects are suspects until they're not.  I remember when people were bummed when Ted Cox, Mike Paxton, and Bo Diaz were traded for Eckersley.

Hamels still costs >$22M a year, is still on the wrong side of 30, will still require the 5th year option to be picked up (if not improved upon), and still has a dubious track record in interleague play.
 
Just because the Sox didn't have to empty the farm to shore up the rotation doesn't mean they should rush right out and do just that for Hamels.  If they really felt they needed someone like that to be competitive I'm sure they would have given Lester a bigger offer than 6/$135M.

 

[lxt]

It's possible that Masterson was added to hold down a spot until either Owens, Rodriguez or Johnson are ready.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I like the offense quite a bit for reasons I stated in the offense thread. The rotation could use another guy, but unless it's a top flight starter, it's not likely to make a difference.

I am, however concerned about the bullpen.

We have some talent, but the pen doesn't seem to be very deep. As constructed, I think we may be too reliant on Koji and Taz, as has been the case a bit too frequently these past two seasons.

CL: Uehara
SU: Tazawa
SU: Mujica
RP: Layne
RP: Workman
RP: Barnes? Kelly?
RP: Wright?

I'm not sure Layne is the LHP we need, and another 7-8th inning guy like Romo would be nice.

 

[Comebacker to Foulke]

Masterson's worth a shot, IMHO. But we've had Wade Miller, Penny, Smoltz, Cook...now Masterson. Hell, eventually one of these "bounceback flyers" on a starter is going to pay off big time*.  Maybe Farrell/Nieves can coax something worthwhile out of him.
Steamer has Masterson with a 4.07 FIP 7/4 BB//K per 9. Streamer didn't watch how meatbally Justin's offerings looked last year however. Even RHB's devoured his stuff to a .332 wOBA.
 
*I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody.

 

[lxt]

I like the offense quite a bit for reasons I stated in the offense thread. The rotation could use another guy, but unless it's a top flight starter, it's not likely to make a difference.

I am, however concerned about the bullpen.

We have some talent, but the pen doesn't seem to be very deep. As constructed, I think we may be too reliant on Koji and Taz, as has been the case a bit too frequently these past two seasons.

CL: Uehara
SU: Tazawa
SU: Mujica
RP: Layne
RP: Workman
RP: Barnes? Kelly?
RP: Wright?

I'm not sure Layne is the LHP we need, and another 7-8th inning guy like Romo would be nice.

Instead of trading for Hamels it may be worth more to the team to try and trade for Chapman and Davis to strengthen the pen. This would provide coverage for the rotation as it stands today and would ensure a greater chance of holding a lead in the later part of the game. It would also rest Uehara and free up Kelly for the 5th spot in the rotation. It may actually take some pressure off the offense and allow them to take better AB late in the game. It will like cost a little more than Hamels and take some of the flexibility away from the lineup as others have mentioned was a plus but it may be a better move (IMHO).

 

[chrisfont9]

Not sure how much this adds, but responding to the title, I appreciate Ben for his discipline and vision. He's stuck the team's collective neck out a bit on the Panda deal, a bit less on Hanley, and was willing to go a bit further on Lester... but all that aside, he's been pretty savvy about making impact moves without succumbing to the easy temptation of just backing up the money truck for name players. This, combined with the ability to make trades thanks to the minor league system, is a format for sustainable competition and occasional excellence.
 
I look around and don't see too many teams with a better approach. Theo and Jed? Spending like mad. They have a foundation of young players and made some strong deals in his tenure, but as with their time in Boston they're doing all the right things except reigning himself in when he gets extra-excited about a free agent. 
 
Friedman/Zaidi made some nice deals, digging out from the excesses of the Coletti Administration. I like their approach. Cardinals always seem to play it smart. Within the division I'd say Anthopoulos and Duquette are both capable of making very shrewd moves. I have no respect for the Yankees' collective approach, and the Rays are a question mark going forward.
 
Anyway, without prattling on about vague impressions of every front office, Ben seems like a guy with a plan that he's sticking to. He has the benefit of Theo's ups and downs with Lucchino et al, to the point where I think they're more careful to stay on the same page. It'll never be perfect but I feel great about the next several years, thanks largely to Ben's approach.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Just updating this to reflect the WMB/Hanigan trade, assuming it goes through. Steamer projects 2.1 WAR for Hanigan and 0.2 for Middlebrooks--so on paper, we've added almost 2 wins with this deal. In reality, Hanigan probably won't rack up the 98 games and 385 PA Steamer is expecting, but even at half of that PT, we've added about a projected win to the roster.

 

[bellowthecat]

I do love seeing what the projections systems have for people year to year.  It will be interesting to see how ZiPS and PECOTA feel about the Sox as well.
 
I'd like to note that Steamer projects Hanley as a SS, inflating his projected WAR.  He's a good hitter, no doubt, but that's worth a lot less in LF than it is at SS.  Even if he has been a crappy defender at SS, he's unlikely to be such a plus in LF that it evens out his defensive value in switch.
 
Personally I find Steamer do be somewhat useful for looking at an individual player's line, but not so much for adding up WAR or projecting team wins.  It doesn't really parse out total PAs to players properly and I find that while a player's line might end up being close to the projection, the actual WAR is different because the real world environment isn't close enough to what they use as a baseline.  I think projections are used best as depth charts; good for seeing where your team is strong or weak.  Also useful for guys with short track records and results that don't match the peripherals.
 
That said, I remember how happy I was when PECOTA had the Sox on top of the AL East for the 2013 season.  My homeristic brain now tells me that PECOTA is infallible (unless they don't list the Sox as top dogs again this year).

 

[lxt]

Not to rain on Savin's posting and the assessment that comes from it but there something lacking in the WAR statistic. There has to be something more insightful in a player’s contribution than WAR.
 
Is there a better value than WAR? It's basically a measurement of how well a player would do compared to a AAA replacement or a bench player (Considered AAAA). Now I know its a stat that tries to provide an overall picture of a players ability but against a AAA player, unless that player is Trout, does not seem a fair comparison (See Bradley, Bogaerts, RDLR, Webster from last year). I don't have a number to associate with players who make the transition from AAA to full-time contributor but it seems the % would be relatively small. Would not a better stat be Wins Above Replacement of a League Average Player for the Position?
 
Edit: This may require it's own thread and not be the appropriate place for this discussion.
 
 
 
 

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Not to rain on Savin's posting and the assessment that comes from it but there something lacking in the WAR statistic. There has to be something more insightful in a player’s contribution than WAR.
 
Is there a better value than WAR? It's basically a measurement of how well a player would do compared to a AAA replacement or a bench player (Considered AAAA). Now I know its a stat that tries to provide an overall picture of a players ability but against a AAA player, unless that player is Trout, does not seem a fair comparison (See Bradley, Bogaerts, RDLR, Webster from last year). I don't have a number to associate with players who make the transition from AAA to full-time contributor but it seems the % would be relatively small. Would not a better stat be Wins Above Replacement of a League Average Player for the Position?
 
Edit: This may require it's own thread and not be the appropriate place for this discussion.
 
 
 
 

 
Mean WAR for a starting position player or pitcher is about 2.0. If you don't like WAR, just subtract 2 from it. 

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

WAR "works" in that it is calibrated to team performance. A team with a WAR of 0 will win about 47 games, a WAR of 32 will win about 79 games, etc. I say "about" because there are a million ways a team could have good or bad luck, or distribute their value efficiently, etc. But in general, a team whose players accumulate a lot of WAR will win more than a team whose players accumulate less.

 

[jasvlm]

Instead of trading for Hamels it may be worth more to the team to try and trade for Chapman and Davis to strengthen the pen. This would provide coverage for the rotation as it stands today and would ensure a greater chance of holding a lead in the later part of the game. It would also rest Uehara and free up Kelly for the 5th spot in the rotation. It may actually take some pressure off the offense and allow them to take better AB late in the game. It will like cost a little more than Hamels and take some of the flexibility away from the lineup as others have mentioned was a plus but it may be a better move (IMHO).

This.  I think the Sox would be best served focusing their asset search (OFers mainly) in trying to match up with someone willing to (or interested in moving payroll) trade a pen stud.  Wade Davis and Chapman are both excellent targets with 2 years each of control left.  That might mean a higher cost, but I'd rather get a great pen arm for 2 years than pay 5 for Shields at a higher AAV or trade assets to get Hamels and pay him 22 mil/season for 5 more.  

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

lxt, WAR is designed to be a fairly general look at a player's overall value. It has it's weaknesses and one of them is what you bring up here in that it can be a bit difficult to grasp what the mythical "replacement level player" really is. If you are just looking to have a quick glance at relatively accurate values for players you can compare across positions, it's not terrible. If you want to get at something more specific, breaking it down into it's component parts and focusing on the specific point of comparison you are interested in is recommended. For example, rather than looking at WAR or even offensive WAR for a player when comparing offense, look at wRAA or maybe wRC+ (if you are using fangraphs instead of, say, baseball-reference). There used to be a thread pinned in this forum that had some great links and discussion but it seems to be gone. I can't find it right now. Fangraphs has a few great articles that break down WAR. You can start here if you want to learn more.

 

[jimbobim]

Another great contribution from fangraphs 
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-are-built/
 
Although the Yankees and Red Sox don’t necessarily stand out in terms of the number of free agent contracts, they certainly stand out in committed money, each with well over $100 million committed to free agent signings in 2015. The $/WAR column isn’t a perfect method of “evaluating” how each organization’s free agent contracts have panned out because there’s still a lot of noise, but it’s a decent gauge.
One team who really stuck out to me were the Red Sox, who really don’t have an ugly free agent contract on the books this year despite having $120 million committed. Their average free agent will earn $11 million this year, third-most in the MLB, but they all project to earn it. David Ortiz ($16M), Junichi Tazawa ($2.5M), Shane Victorino ($13M), Koji Uehara ($9M), Mike Napoli ($16M), Rusney Castillo($11M), Hanley Ramirez ($20M), Pablo Sandoval ($18M) and Justin Masterson ($9.5M) are all projected to be worth what they’ll earn, if you assume somewhere around $7M/WAR. Add it all up and Boston is paying their 11 free agents a respectable $6.2 million per projected win in 2015. The Yankees are in a similar situation, at $7.6 million per projected win, which is higher than league average, but still not terrible.
On the other end of the spectrum is Philadelphia, who, thanks to Jonathan Papelbon, Cliff Lee and Miguel Gonzalez, are paying their eight free agents nearly $15 million per projected win, easily the highest in the MLB.
 
The charts are interesting for war calculations and assumptions. 

 

[EricFeczko]

I remember that before last year Steamer had the Red Sox with one of the highest WAR projections in baseball, maybe even 1st, don't remember for sure.  so, as you rightly say, none of this is anything like a certainty--more like a best case scenario, perhaps.

I recall the same. However, a big difference was in the distribution of value across the different player-types: relievers,starters, and position players. If I recall correctly, the majority of our projected WAR last year came from the bullpen.  The distribution of projected WAR this year comes primarily from position players, and from hitting more so than fielding.
 
Overall I like the moves, though for different reasons than Steamer; Its probably better to have good hitters and starters than it is to have a good bullpen.

 

[lxt]

lxt, WAR is designed to be a fairly general look at a player's overall value. It has it's weaknesses and one of them is what you bring up here in that it can be a bit difficult to grasp what the mythical "replacement level player" really is. If you are just looking to have a quick glance at relatively accurate values for players you can compare across positions, it's not terrible. If you want to get at something more specific, breaking it down into it's component parts and focusing on the specific point of comparison you are interested in is recommended. For example, rather than looking at WAR or even offensive WAR for a player when comparing offense, look at wRAA or maybe wRC+ (if you are using fangraphs instead of, say, baseball-reference). There used to be a thread pinned in this forum that had some great links and discussion but it seems to be gone. I can't find it right now. Fangraphs has a few great articles that break down WAR. You can start here if you want to learn more.

Snodgrass, thanks. The link is helpful
 
Edit: I guess when I see dollars being associated with it then I find it a tad difficult to depend on it. Throughout the many forums I've seen posters put a value on WAR which seems a dangerous precedence. It reminds me of the old "Game Winning Hits" stat that agents were using to put value on their clients. I understand its value at providing an overall value of a player but when its used to decide salary then a breakout of the WAR is required. Players like Hanley get high ratings due to offense but can actually be a determent defensively.
 
I just find it wanting a bit when dollars are tied to it.
 
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/misconceptions_of_war/

 

[lxt]

 
Mean WAR for a starting position player or pitcher is about 2.0. If you don't like WAR, just subtract 2 from it. 

Yeah, that sounds about right for a quick comparison ... thanks.
 
Edit: WAR = (Batting Runs + Base Running Runs + Fielding Runs + Positional Adjustment + League Adjustment - Average Runs) / (Runs Per Win) ... Average Runs would represent your subtraction of 2 ... Runs Per Win seems to vary between 8 and 10 depending on who's article you read.

 

[JimD]

Another great contribution from fangraphs 
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-are-built/
 
Although the Yankees and Red Sox don’t necessarily stand out in terms of the number of free agent contracts, they certainly stand out in committed money, each with well over $100 million committed to free agent signings in 2015. The $/WAR column isn’t a perfect method of “evaluating” how each organization’s free agent contracts have panned out because there’s still a lot of noise, but it’s a decent gauge.
One team who really stuck out to me were the Red Sox, who really don’t have an ugly free agent contract on the books this year despite having $120 million committed. Their average free agent will earn $11 million this year, third-most in the MLB, but they all project to earn it. David Ortiz ($16M), Junichi Tazawa ($2.5M), Shane Victorino ($13M), Koji Uehara ($9M), Mike Napoli ($16M), Rusney Castillo($11M), Hanley Ramirez ($20M), Pablo Sandoval ($18M) and Justin Masterson ($9.5M) are all projected to be worth what they’ll earn, if you assume somewhere around $7M/WAR. Add it all up and Boston is paying their 11 free agents a respectable $6.2 million per projected win in 2015. The Yankees are in a similar situation, at $7.6 million per projected win, which is higher than league average, but still not terrible.
On the other end of the spectrum is Philadelphia, who, thanks to Jonathan Papelbon, Cliff Lee and Miguel Gonzalez, are paying their eight free agents nearly $15 million per projected win, easily the highest in the MLB.
 
The charts are interesting for war calculations and assumptions. 

 
I hope their optimism about Victorino, Masterson and (to a certian extent) Uehara bears out - I personally don't expect much from Vic, I'm not sure what to expect from Masterson and I'm crossing my fingers on Koji.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Question: how many assets would you have the Red Sox trade for Craig Kimbrel? For the right price, the Braves would almost certainly make him available...and if the Sox need bullpen help, is there anyone else in the league you'd rather get?

 

[lxt]

There are three FA available - Francisco Rodriguez, Rafael Soriano and Casey Janssen.   All three have closing experience are between 33 - 35 and still have "stuff left in the tank". All would cost nothing but money which the Sox can afford. Adding one or two of these guys for a year or two would be a better deal than packaging up players to sell to Atlanta.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I'd love to get Janssen on a cheap, incentive-laden deal.  But I'd expect other teams to be willing to shell out more guaranteed money on each of these guys than Boston.

 

[mwonow]

I'd love to get Janssen on a cheap, incentive-laden deal.  But I'd expect other teams to be willing to shell out more guaranteed money on each of these guys than Boston.

Ditto - the TO fans I know were mystified by management's decision not to bring him back

 

[The Boomer]

Another great contribution from fangraphs 
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-are-built/
 
Although the Yankees and Red Sox don’t necessarily stand out in terms of the number of free agent contracts, they certainly stand out in committed money, each with well over $100 million committed to free agent signings in 2015. The $/WAR column isn’t a perfect method of “evaluating” how each organization’s free agent contracts have panned out because there’s still a lot of noise, but it’s a decent gauge.
One team who really stuck out to me were the Red Sox, who really don’t have an ugly free agent contract on the books this year despite having $120 million committed. Their average free agent will earn $11 million this year, third-most in the MLB, but they all project to earn it. David Ortiz ($16M), Junichi Tazawa ($2.5M), Shane Victorino ($13M), Koji Uehara ($9M), Mike Napoli ($16M), Rusney Castillo($11M), Hanley Ramirez ($20M), Pablo Sandoval ($18M) and Justin Masterson ($9.5M) are all projected to be worth what they’ll earn, if you assume somewhere around $7M/WAR. Add it all up and Boston is paying their 11 free agents a respectable $6.2 million per projected win in 2015. The Yankees are in a similar situation, at $7.6 million per projected win, which is higher than league average, but still not terrible.
On the other end of the spectrum is Philadelphia, who, thanks to Jonathan Papelbon, Cliff Lee and Miguel Gonzalez, are paying their eight free agents nearly $15 million per projected win, easily the highest in the MLB.
 
The charts are interesting for war calculations and assumptions. 

 

Another great contribution from fangraphs 
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-are-built/
 
Although the Yankees and Red Sox don’t necessarily stand out in terms of the number of free agent contracts, they certainly stand out in committed money, each with well over $100 million committed to free agent signings in 2015. The $/WAR column isn’t a perfect method of “evaluating” how each organization’s free agent contracts have panned out because there’s still a lot of noise, but it’s a decent gauge.
One team who really stuck out to me were the Red Sox, who really don’t have an ugly free agent contract on the books this year despite having $120 million committed. Their average free agent will earn $11 million this year, third-most in the MLB, but they all project to earn it. David Ortiz ($16M), Junichi Tazawa ($2.5M), Shane Victorino ($13M), Koji Uehara ($9M), Mike Napoli ($16M), Rusney Castillo($11M), Hanley Ramirez ($20M), Pablo Sandoval ($18M) and Justin Masterson ($9.5M) are all projected to be worth what they’ll earn, if you assume somewhere around $7M/WAR. Add it all up and Boston is paying their 11 free agents a respectable $6.2 million per projected win in 2015. The Yankees are in a similar situation, at $7.6 million per projected win, which is higher than league average, but still not terrible.
On the other end of the spectrum is Philadelphia, who, thanks to Jonathan Papelbon, Cliff Lee and Miguel Gonzalez, are paying their eight free agents nearly $15 million per projected win, easily the highest in the MLB.
 
The charts are interesting for war calculations and assumptions. 

 
Alex Speier explained the thinking behind this winter's roster reconstruction in his 2015 debut with the Globe:
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/02/right-balance-player-ages-give-red-sox-better-chance/wxIzBMtUzsxDH3crb7saqK/story.html