The future at 3rd

[Corsi]

Jim Bowden ‏@JimBowden_ESPN  23s23 seconds ago
Alex Anthopoulos made it clear in our interview with him that they have not made an offer to Sandoval & don’t plan to in next 24 hours XM 89

 

[KillerBs]

It is impossible to know what the hell is going on, but I am getting worried that the Sox off-season strategy is to appear to be aggressive in signing FAs, as opposed to actually being so.

 

[rodderick]

It is impossible to know what the hell is going on, but I am getting worried that the Sox off-season strategy is to appear to be aggressive in signing FAs, as opposed to actually being so.

 
What incentive would they have to do that? Do you think the media/fanbase at large will take "welp, we tried!" for an answer after last year? The team has holes, they have money, there are players available to plug those holes. There's absolutely no reason for them not to be aggressive, so I don't know why you'd believe that.

 

[KillerBs]

Well there is lots of mutual happy talk about being aggressive and respect etc. but for now, the hard facts seem to be a relative low ball opening offer to Lester and according to the agent, no offer at all to Sandoval. That said, I readily acknowledge we know a tiny fraction of the reality of what is going on and my worrying could be utterly misplaced.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

This happens every hot stove, but we conveniently forget the next hot stove.  You cannot believe this stuff.  There aren't really many real reporters anymore.  There are just guys who take phone calls and report what someone with an agenda wants them to report.  It's all negotiation.  You can read the reports and get a sense of general chronology -- who is meeting with whom and when.  Sometimes, when one of the very small handful of true reporters gives a number, you can view it as in the general vicinity of numbers that at least one side has mentioned.  But other than that, it's just all bullshit.  A tweet that says someone was made an offer, or not made an offer, or that a club is interested or not interested, is borderline worthless, unless there is a direct attribution to a major player.  And even then, it's still almost always ambiguous.  The fact that Anthoploulos says they didn't make an offer is good, hard information with direct attribution, so on the hierarchy of tweets, I would regard that one as a modest step up from useless.  But, again, what does it really mean?  It doesn't mean they aren't going to.  It doesn't mean they aren't interested.  It doesn't mean they haven't talked numbers.  And it certainly does not mean that Pablo won't be a Blue Jay.  Trying to walk a tightrope among multiple inconsistent tweets is not a great use of mental energy -- one could be right, both could be wrong, or something in between.  

 

[Laser Show]

I think this would make more sense if it wasn't his agent on the "no offer" end

Woops, that's my bad. Completely missed the source on that.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Well there is lots of mutual happy talk about being aggressive and respect etc. but for now, the hard facts seem to be a relative low ball opening offer to Lester and according to the agent, no offer at all to Sandoval. That said, I readily acknowledge we know a tiny fraction of the reality of what is going on and my worrying could be utterly misplaced.

 
It's still November. Relax.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

This happens every hot stove, but we conveniently forget the next hot stove.  You cannot believe this stuff.  There aren't really many real reporters anymore.  There are just guys who take phone calls and report what someone with an agenda wants them to report.  It's all negotiation.  You can read the reports and get a sense of general chronology -- who is meeting with whom and when.  Sometimes, when one of the very small handful of true reporters gives a number, you can view it as in the general vicinity of numbers that at least one side has mentioned.  But other than that, it's just all bullshit.  A tweet that says someone was made an offer, or not made an offer, or that a club is interested or not interested, is borderline worthless, unless there is a direct attribution to a major player.  And even then, it's still almost always ambiguous.  The fact that Anthoploulos says they didn't make an offer is good, hard information with direct attribution, so on the hierarchy of tweets, I would regard that one as a modest step up from useless.  But, again, what does it really mean?  It doesn't mean they aren't going to.  It doesn't mean they aren't interested.  It doesn't mean they haven't talked numbers.  And it certainly does not mean that Pablo won't be a Blue Jay.  Trying to walk a tightrope among multiple inconsistent tweets is not a great use of mental energy -- one could be right, both could be wrong, or something in between.  

 
You basically nullified each and every post in this, the Lester and rumor threads with this paragraph.  Or, to paraphrase Rip's William Goldman sig, "nobody knows jack shit".  Well done. 

 

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

I would translate it as something like:  Pablo's people confirm the Red Sox made a satisfactory offer.  Now they wait for other interested persons.

 
 

Still no offer
“@GordonEdes: Despite a report to contrary, Michael Sandoval, Pablo's brother and one of his agents, said Sox have yet to make offer”

 
 

This shit is starting to get really damn annoying.

 
does Pablo Sandoval even have a brother?

 

[Darnell's Son]

 
 
 
 
 
does Pablo Sandoval even have a brother?

Yes.

 
 
Sandoval's parents run a mechanical-engineering firm in Valencia, Venezuela.[2] His older brother, Michael, played in the Minnesota Twins' organization from 1999 through 2004 and, after a year of independent ball in 2009, played for San Jose in 2010

 

[gaelgirl]

Sandoval's Camp would be great.

"Today's demonstration on plate discipline has been cancelled and we'll all be meeting for churros and ice cream."

 

 
Well, the man does love himself some ice cream:
 

 
(RELAX EVERYONE, IT'S FROM A FEW YEARS AGO!)
 
I am not sure how interested the Red Sox appear. He left without an offer and he still doesn't have one a day and a half later, and now he's taking meetings with other teams. So, it could be due diligence, but it could also be trying to see what else is out there and if anyone can better the Giants' offer. It seems the Giants are the only team who have, in fact, made Sandoval an offer (maybe even multiple offers by this point). 
 
Also, it should be noted that Sandoval came into 2014 focused on better plate discipline. After a really terrible start, he went back to what felt more natural. It has its negatives, but it's also incredibly effective for him. And he walks more than you'd think. 

 

[chrisfont9]

I am not sure how interested the Red Sox appear. He left without an offer and he still doesn't have one a day and a half later, and now he's taking meetings with other teams. So, it could be due diligence, but it could also be trying to see what else is out there and if anyone can better the Giants' offer. It seems the Giants are the only team who have, in fact, made Sandoval an offer (maybe even multiple offers by this point). 

First, who says the Giants have made him an offer? The thing from Tuesday was based on a tweet that did NOT say the Giants had made him an offer. Pure BS. Also, you consider the team hosting him for two days straight "due diligence"? Or are you saying they were interested before but after what they heard they're no longer that interested? I mean, maybe. But my hunch is that they knew all about him beforehand, spent two days trying to sell him on the idea of Boston while talking contract parameters, and are working on submitting a formal offer. I could be wrong, but if I am, so are about 90% of the actual reporters following this.

 

[gaelgirl]

Giants GM Brian Sabean publicly confirmed they made Pablo Sandoval an offer over two weeks ago. That was in the post-World Series press conference. So, one could reason that that offer has been negotiated to include different numbers and years, but it's still a confirmed offer. Henry Schulman's report today, along with assistant GM Bobby Evans' radio interview, indicate that the Giants are still actively involved in signing Sandoval. Schulman reported Pablo's agent has asked the Giants for their final, best offer. There is no confirmation how many offers have passed between them in the last two weeks. But there's at least one CONFIRMED offer out there and one more coming/submitted from the Giants. Sabean and Evans could be lying, but that seems doubtful as Pablo's agents haven't refuted any of those reports. So before calling anything I say pure BS, know what you're talking about. 
 
I am considering Pablo Sandoval and his agents fielding calls and meetings from the Blue Jays, Padres and unnamed others as due diligence. Actually, the Red Sox fits into that, too. See who's interested and how interested. Due diligence. 
 
I find it odd that the Red Sox do not have an offer out to Sandoval yet. I realize contracts are difficult, but there have been nearly two full working days since he was in Boston. Evans said today his feeling is that Pablo wants to get this done very quickly, before Thanksgiving at the latest. It's not like these contracts are all drawn up from scratch, so preparing a formal offer should be able to get done within that time frame, especially on a target that isn't interested in waiting around. So, yes, I think the Red Sox are waiting for something. Maybe it's the Giants' final offer, maybe it's to see what the Blue Jays, Padres and others are doing. Maybe it's because the Red Sox aren't so hot on Sandoval after hearing from him about what he wants and expects. 
 
It stands to reason that Sandoval came to Boston to familiarize himself with and be sold on the team and the city, but also so the executives could meet with him and determine the depth of their own interest. They know all about Pablo's stats and reputation, but there's no indication they've ever met with him before. You don't give someone a job without having an interview, no matter what that job is. Sandoval's publicly stated that he doesn't think he has to worry about his weight/conditioning until he's in his 30s. That's a question they might like to ask him personally to see if that perspective has changed or will change. It isn't totally outside the realm of possibility that the Red Sox have cooled on Sandoval. It's also not outside the realm of possibility that they're just really slow at making offers. 

 

[Corsi]

Cafardo:
Among Red Sox, Giants and Padres - little separation on money being offered to Sandoval - in that 5-year, $90-95m range. Jays wavering.


https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/535657240704077825

https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/535657240704077825

link to tweet

 

[mloyko54]

Nick Cafardo @nickcafardo

Among Red Sox, Giants and Padres - little separation on money being offered to Sandoval - in that 5-year, $90-95m range. Jays wavering..
 
Quite frankly I don't buy anything Cafardo says and there is no way I'm believing the Padres are going to pay 1 player 20 million dollars per year.

 

[MakMan44]

Wavering as in thinking about giving him a stupid deal?

 

[soxhop411]

I would be fine offering him that deal

 

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

 
Nick Cafardo @nickcafardo

Among Red Sox, Giants and Padres - little separation on money being offered to Sandoval - in that 5-year, $90-95m range. Jays wavering..
 
Quite frankly I don't buy anything Cafardo says and there is no way I'm believing the Padres are going to pay 1 player 20 million dollars per year.

 

 
yeah I seriously doubt Cafardo has any inside info on offers outside of Boston, or in Boston for that matter.
 
Is getting to 100m the magic number for Sandoval? (that's 100 million dollars, not pounds...though a man can dream).

 

[mloyko54]

I would be fine offering him that deal

 
I would be fine with it too. I still think the Red Sox offer 5 for 100 with vesting option. And knowing they have to beat out SF I'd be shocked if they had the lower bid. I think that's part of the reason they are delaying or keeping their offer very hush. Waiting to flush the Giants out 

 

[RedOctober3829]

If the money is similar, he's going back to SF. Boston would have to do 6/108 or something like that to get it done.

 

[soxhop411]

Panda will sign by Monday

 

[Madmartigan]

There has to be better ways to spend 100mm. I really don't get the appeal of signing an overweight, 2-3 WAR player at 20mm per.

 

[E5 Yaz]

There has to be better ways to spend 100mm. I really don't get the appeal of signing an overweight, 2-3 WAR player at 20mm per.

 
I'd like to say that you could find the answer buried somewhere in the previous 20 pages, but ...

 

[Rasputin]

I think it boils down to this.

The in house options suck.

The team can be very competitive very soon.

A big part of making the team competitive soon is turning third base from a black hole of suck to a productive position.

He's a good clubhouse guy.

There are enough young guys who look to contribute soon to ameliorate the impact the overpay has on the payroll.

First base and DH are opening up soon.

They think he can be more than a 2-3 WAR player in Fenway Park.

They really want a good defender at third with Bogaerts at short.

I have qualms. In particular, I am worried what would happen if Sandoval and Lester both go belly up and none of the young pitchers turn out to be more than just okay.

If Owens and Rodriguez are anchoring the top of the rotation three years from now, I don't think we'll care that much of Lester is just meh, but if Lester is just meh and still the best we've got, and Sandoval is meh and we're paying 45 million for league average, well, we might be a little bit fucked

 

[Apisith]

Would a Middlebrooks and Cecchini platoon be league average?

If we can't find a good 3B this year then we can spend the money elsewhere. I'm more worried about our rotation now than our lineup. If we have to spent to get Lester, BMc and a pitcher for Cespedes then we could still live with a platoon at third. Xander is the SS by default, Pedroia and Napoli are guaranteed starters. The outfield situation is pretty good. We have a lot of options but not much certainty, which isn't a bad thing. You can pencil in Rusney and Mookie as 2 of the outfielders, and the last one is a free for all between the rest.

I'm not sure there's a 3B out there that will be worth the money that someone will stump up. It's a position of need but not a desperate need. A platoon would likely get us league average, IMO. That's of course assuming neither of the two break through to become starters. That would be the upside, which is pretty huge.

 

[Apisith]

I don't want one bad year with prospects to give way to a team filled with FAs. We have to get a bunch of kids through anyway for our long term future, just because one had a really rough year doesn't mean the others are going to start off the same too.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Would a Middlebrooks and Cecchini platoon be league average?

Even assuming it would, can a team with a four-man bench carry a guy whose only function is as the weak half of a 3B platoon?

 

[joe dokes]

Would a Middlebrooks and Cecchini platoon be league average?

 

 
No one here knows the answer to that. 
 
The team's view is either: 1) No it won't; or 2)this is our chance to be better than league average at 3B, so we're going to give it a shot.
 

I am not sure how interested the Red Sox appear. He left without an offer and he still doesn't have one a day and a half later
 

 
I think we need to be careful getting stuck on the word "offer." Is saying to Sandoval's people: "We're good for 5 years, more if they are options or incentive-based; and we're willing to talk about 20M AAV" an "offer"?  And Sandoval's people say, "Thanks. We like it here. That's a range we can definitely talk about. We have other teams to talk to. We'll get back to you."
 
Is that scenario an "offer"?  Nick C. might say it is. Rosenthal might say it isn't. gammons might say something else.  The MLB front office might say it isn't.  Sandoval's agent might leak that it is for one reason; the Sox FO might leak that it is for another.
 
There is simply no way in hell that he was here for as long as he was here, and got on a plane without a solid idea of what the Sox were willing to pay him and for how long. Getting hung up on whether there was an "offer" is like arguing whether so-and-so is an "elite" left fielder.

 

[phenweigh]

I have qualms. In particular, I am worried what would happen if Sandoval and Lester both go belly up and none of the young pitchers turn out to be more than just okay.

If Owens and Rodriguez are anchoring the top of the rotation three years from now, I don't think we'll care that much of Lester is just meh, but if Lester is just meh and still the best we've got, and Sandoval is meh and we're paying 45 million for league average, well, we might be a little bit fucked

I think we'd be more than a little fucked if Lester is meh and the best we've got, even if Sandoval were to be very good.  In other words, I don't think the uncertainty of the starting pitchers should factor into the Sandoval offer.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Giants GM Brian Sabean publicly confirmed they made Pablo Sandoval an offer over two weeks ago. That was in the post-World Series press conference. So, one could reason that that offer has been negotiated to include different numbers and years, but it's still a confirmed offer. Henry Schulman's report today, along with assistant GM Bobby Evans' radio interview, indicate that the Giants are still actively involved in signing Sandoval. Schulman reported Pablo's agent has asked the Giants for their final, best offer. There is no confirmation how many offers have passed between them in the last two weeks. But there's at least one CONFIRMED offer out there and one more coming/submitted from the Giants. Sabean and Evans could be lying, but that seems doubtful as Pablo's agents haven't refuted any of those reports. So before calling anything I say pure BS, know what you're talking about. 
 

 
 
If that is true, that looks like an indication that the Sox have indeed already made an offer.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I don't want one bad year with prospects to give way to a team filled with FAs. We have to get a bunch of kids through anyway for our long term future, just because one had a really rough year doesn't mean the others are going to start off the same too.

On the same token would you give up a possible shot at contending to test that theory out? Remember the whole point of last year was to go with the prospects because WMB was going to rebound and Boegarts was Tulo Jr.

 

[chrisfont9]

If Owens and Rodriguez are anchoring the top of the rotation three years from now, I don't think we'll care that much of Lester is just meh, but if Lester is just meh and still the best we've got, and Sandoval is meh and we're paying 45 million for league average, well, we might be a little bit fucked

The 45 million only matters if it means they have no financial flexibility to make moves, but it's hard to see that happening. Your hypothetical involves a lot of guys in their pre-arb or arb years. Lester's contract will (as far as we know) be completely offset by the end of Napoli's and Victorino's. If you're building from within, a couple deals like this aren't likely to have any effect whatsoever on your ability to construct a roster going forward. Only if their development program is a complete failure and the team has to just start buying and trading for big contracts could you maybe end up regretting the financial impact of these two contracts. 
 
If it doesn't affect the cap situation, then it's just someone else's money, so it's fine with me.
 
Edit: no thank you autocorrect

 

[mauf]

The 45 million only matters if it means they have no financial flexibility to make moves, but it's hard to see that happening. Your hypothetical involves a lot of guys in their pre-arb or arb years. Lester's contract will (as far as we know) be completely offset by the end of Napoli's and Victorino's. If you're building from within, a couple deals like this aren't likely to have any effect whatsoever on your ability to construct a roster going forward. Only if their development program is a complete failure and the team has to just start buying and trading for big contracts could you maybe end up regretting the financial impact of these two contracts. 
 
If it doesn't affect the cap situation, then it's just someone else's money, so it's fine with me.
 
Edit: no thank you autocorrect

Aside from the NY and LA teams, I don't think you can point to a contender that has a quarter of their payroll tied up in bad long-term contracts.

Not every prospect is going to pan out -- in fact, most of them won't. The Sox will need to sign free agents to fill future holes, just as they're likely to do this winter at 3B and in the starting rotation. And just as they would be constrained this winter if they still had Crawford, they'll be constrained in future years if the deals they sign now turn out badly.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

The Sox need some of their young guys to be good.  Most weren't this year and the team sucked, even with Lester and Lackey pitching very well. 
 
And FA can't fix every hole.  We're not the Yankees.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Aside from the NY and LA teams, I don't think you can point to a contender that has a quarter of their payroll tied up in bad long-term contracts.

 
The team that just won the World Series spent more than 25% of their (large, big market) payroll on Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum, two players who have several more years to go on their contracts and who combined for -0.8 WAR.
 
So, you have to go back three weeks to refute your claim.  I do not think this is very uncommon -- most teams have albatross contracts on their books including successful teams.  The key -- always -- is to get as much value as possible out of pre-arb or pre-FA contracts so that the high-risk FAs are players that put you over the top rather than the players you need to actually survive.  It's not easy.

 

[diehard24]

I think it boils down to this.

The in house options suck.

The team can be very competitive very soon.

A big part of making the team competitive soon is turning third base from a black hole of suck to a productive position.

He's a good clubhouse guy.

There are enough young guys who look to contribute soon to ameliorate the impact the overpay has on the payroll.

First base and DH are opening up soon.

They think he can be more than a 2-3 WAR player in Fenway Park.

They really want a good defender at third with Bogaerts at short.

I have qualms. In particular, I am worried what would happen if Sandoval and Lester both go belly up and none of the young pitchers turn out to be more than just okay.

If Owens and Rodriguez are anchoring the top of the rotation three years from now, I don't think we'll care that much of Lester is just meh, but if Lester is just meh and still the best we've got, and Sandoval is meh and we're paying 45 million for league average, well, we might be a little bit fucked

 
Very well said. I do think the hedge on younger players is key, a necessary risk. If they can't get useful contributors out of the current system, if not a couple all-stars, then they've failed with a more costly investment of a different kind.

 

[chrisfont9]

Aside from the NY and LA teams, I don't think you can point to a contender that has a quarter of their payroll tied up in bad long-term contracts.

Not every prospect is going to pan out -- in fact, most of them won't. The Sox will need to sign free agents to fill future holes, just as they're likely to do this winter at 3B and in the starting rotation. And just as they would be constrained this winter if they still had Crawford, they'll be constrained in future years if the deals they sign now turn out badly.

The math:
 
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/teams-future-salary-obligations.html
 
Sox' future salary commitments ranks with the small market teams, and a large percentage of that is coming off the books in 2015. So you can concoct a hypothetical where they go crazy and sign a whole bunch of veterans, but the reality is that they have tons of cash, no tendency to blow through it beyond the two contracts we've been talking about, and a minor league system that's the envy of baseball. Is it impossible for say a 6-yr Lester deal to become a problem someday? Nope. Is it worth worrying about? Nope.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

On the same token would you give up a possible shot at contending to test that theory out? Remember the whole point of last year was to go with the prospects because WMB was going to rebound and Boegarts was Tulo Jr.

 
This might be an appropriate time to point out that Tulowitzki, as a 21-year-old rookie, had an OPS+ of 53.

 

[mauf]

 
The team that just won the World Series spent more than 25% of their (large, big market) payroll on Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum, two players who have several more years to go on their contracts and who combined for -0.8 WAR.
 
So, you have to go back three weeks to refute your claim.  I do not think this is very uncommon -- most teams have albatross contracts on their books including successful teams.  The key -- always -- is to get as much value as possible out of pre-arb or pre-FA contracts so that the high-risk FAs are players that put you over the top rather than the players you need to actually survive.  It's not easy.

 
My point wasn't that a team can't win despite injuries to or poor performances from key players -- that obviously isn't true. My point was that a team with real financial constraints can't expect to compete when it has 25% of its payroll sunk in bad contracts before the season starts.
 
The Giants signed Lincecum last winter, and Cain wasn't bad in 2013 (though he probably wasn't worth his contract). Neither of those contracts looked like an albatross before the season. The Giants simply got unexpectedly good performances elsewhere to offset bad performances by a couple guys who they expected to be big contributors. That happens all the time.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

I don't understand the difference.  If the Giants had decided to literally throw that money off the Golden Gate Bridge, the team would have been no worse off. 
 
If the Red Sox put 25% of their payroll into Lester and Sandoval, and two years from now they are literally worthless, just playing chess in Harvard Square all day, can the Red Sox still win the 2017 World Series?  Obviously, yes, they can.  We know this, and the Giants are one example of dozens I could cite.  You just need underpaid or young stars or solid players everywhere else.
 
You work to avoid this eventuality, just like the Giants did not want Cain and Lincecum to be worthless.  But nothing is fatal.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
This might be an appropriate time to point out that Tulowitzki, as a 21-year-old rookie, had an OPS+ of 53.

I'm aware of that but there was a difference. Colorado wasn't expected to win anytime soon. The Red Sox are 12 months removed from winning it all. They did the bridge year on the left side last year and ended up backtracking in May when WMB was terrible. Going with Holt and Cecchini and WMB at 3rd isn't the best way for a contender to spend resources in my opinion.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
My point wasn't that a team can't win despite injuries to or poor performances from key players -- that obviously isn't true. My point was that a team with real financial constraints can't expect to compete when it has 25% of its payroll sunk in bad contracts before the season starts.
 
The Giants signed Lincecum last winter, and Cain wasn't bad in 2013 (though he probably wasn't worth his contract). Neither of those contracts looked like an albatross before the season. The Giants simply got unexpectedly good performances elsewhere to offset bad performances by a couple guys who they expected to be big contributors. That happens all the time.

The five teams with the worst financial outlook based on present and long term commitments were, in order, the Angels, Dodgers, Giants, Tigers and Reds. All playoff teams.
 
Edit: I think the bigger point to make here isn't merely that the Sox could handle these contracts if the players go bad. It's that you have to spend the big money sometimes to get players. The supply of guys who can perform at the level the Sox seek (above average, reasonably reliable, some versatility) is very limited. Get as many solid guys as you can from the pre-arb or arb files, but when those options run out, spend on free agents. You can't expect to win without ever taking any financial risk. As the numbers show, the Sox have no existing risks beyond Rusney and Petey. Lester is an OK risk because of his consistency and health, but still a risk. Panda is an OK risk because of his defense and leadership, but still a risk.
 
The part where we fret about them ever taking any financial risks is not for me. The teams that win are mostly taking risks. I'm not advocating going as far as the Tigers or Angels, two mostly horrible rosters. But you can't do nothing.

 

[moondog80]

You can spend very inefficiently and still have a good team. Obviously, you need to have players that over-perform their contracts for that to happen.

 
 
Moreover, you pretty much can't both spend big and spend efficiently.  Big spending means long-term deals, and they aren't all going to work out, whether that means dipping into the free agent pool (Angels) or re-signing your own guys (Giants).  The only way to avoid long term dead weight is to be the Rays.  Any deal the Sox make this year -- Lester, Scherzer, Hanley, Pablo, Headley - is going to carry a pretty decent risk of being money thrown away in 2017 or 2018.  So what should they do?   Stick to 3 year deals and spend 30 mil on Billy Butler? 

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Put it a different way.  According to most analysts the going rate for a Free Agent is $8M per win.  It might be higher this off-season, we shall see.  A 0-WAR team will win about 47 games.  Assuming you are shooting for 92 wins and contention, a shrewd front office (with a little luck on availability) could put such a team together for $360M per year.  Good luck.
 
If the Red Sox sign Lester, Sandoval, Shields, trade for Upton, trade for Hamels, and every one of those players "earns their contract" -- meaning they provide $8M per win every single year without exception -- the Red Sox will still be unable to compete without massive contributions from pre-arb and pre-FA players.  It is impossible without $360M per year.
 
If you want to compete for $180M you are saying you want to pay $4M per win, which analysts have shown is IMPOSSIBLE if you are relying on the market.   You need massive contributions from inexpensive players, and then you need a few decent free agents to fill in the inevitable player development gaps.   The fewer FAs you need the better, because you are buying wins that you can not afford very often.  The Red Sox are currently in a place where they need FAs, and they hope they have the young players to make the math work.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

This article from a year ago says $7M per win.
 
This article from May says "Therefore, by plugging these estimates in, I calculate that the costs of free agents in the 2014 season will be about $7.6 million per fWAR and $7.7 million per rWAR."  There are others that are lower or higher. 
 
Perhaps I should have said $7.5M per win.  Still, its not a tenable strategy to build he core of your team, and really never has been.

 

[moondog80]

 
You got a link for that? That number strikes me as very high compared to most figures I've sen used. 

 
 
I've seen lower numbers (like 3 mil per win or so) too but those were weighted down by the incredible cost efficiency of players before they hit FA.  

 

[rembrat]

If the money is similar, he's going back to SF. Boston would have to do 6/108 or something like that to get it done.

 
Usually this is the case but are we sure? He could simply be looking for a change of scenery. Isn't there a little tension between him and the Giant organization? I could be mistaken but it sure doesn't feel like there is a lot of love there.

 

[67WasBest]

 
Usually this is the case but are we sure? He could simply be looking for a change of scenery. Isn't there a little tension between him and the Giant organization? I could be mistaken but it sure doesn't feel like there is a lot of love there.

It's the respect thing that is so big a deal for professional atheletes, but even moreso for Latino pros  Sandoval watched the Giants extend one key piece after the other, including giving Pence his deal.  Then the Giants start the bidding with him at $40M.  It's been reported he felt disrespected by that offer and if there is any bad blood, that is the root..

 

[TOleary25]

 
Usually this is the case but are we sure? He could simply be looking for a change of scenery. Isn't there a little tension between him and the Giant organization? I could be mistaken but it sure doesn't feel like there is a lot of love there.

 
If Dennis O'Donnell is to be believed there's definitely tension:
 
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/11/19/pablo-sandoval-kung-fu-panda-will-not-return-to-san-francisco-giants-boston-red-sox-toronto-blue-jays-gameday/
 

 
The Giants offered Pablo the same contract given to Hunter Pence, five years at $90 million.  Sandoval wanted that deal last Spring when Giants were justifiably suspicious about Pablo’s physical condition. But when that offer came after the World Series, Sandoval countered by asking for a seven year deal.

 

 
So what happened with the Giants? I’m told they were never his first choice, which is why he asked for seven years — a request the Giants were highly unlikely to accommodate. If the Giants want to get back in the race, they will have to up the ante, which team officials are considering.

 
O'Donnell's reported 5 year, $90m contract is in line with what Cafardo reported last night. If Pablo's that dead set on San Francisco I feel like he would've already re-signed.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm aware of that but there was a difference. Colorado wasn't expected to win anytime soon. The Red Sox are 12 months removed from winning it all. They did the bridge year on the left side last year and ended up backtracking in May when WMB was terrible. Going with Holt and Cecchini and WMB at 3rd isn't the best way for a contender to spend resources in my opinion.

 
I'm not sure I understand your answer. The post I was responding to was saying (or appeared to be saying) "a strategy of relying mostly on homegrown talent is a loser, because look what happened this year with WMB and Bogaerts." (You left out, but could have included, JBJ.) And I was just pointing out that Xander in fact had a better season at the same age than the guy you held up as an example of what was supposed to have happened, but didn't.
 
And the point of pointing that out (in case it wasn't clear) is that a homegrown strategy is necessarily and by definition a long-term strategy, and if you judge that strategy by how your prospects do as 21-year-old rookies, you will be tempted to bail on it prematurely. The problem this year was not Xander Bogaerts. It may have been, to some degree, WMB, but it was mostly Clay Buchholz and A.J. Pierzynski and Shane Victorino and Jonny Gomes and Daniel Nava and Jake Peavy (and yes, Dustin Pedroia). If our veterans had been what we had reason to expect them to be, our rookies' struggles would have been easily absorbed.