"This too shall pass" ---- righting the ship for 2016

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
The desired parity is working.  

Like that was the goal. The goal of MLB, now as always, is to rob their employees of the market value of their labor. Parity was always an excuse.
 
Here's another way to look at it. In 2002, the Red Sox spent 63% of their revenues on player salaries. If they were to do that in 2016, that would put them somewhere in the vicinity of a $250m payroll, or counting the 2016 luxury tax penalty, around $235m. That's about what I expect to see next year.
 
We fans are forking more and more money over to this team and an ever greater percentage of that money is getting banked by the front office rather than being spent on the on-field product. And as loyal fans of the team we should be pissed about that.

 

[WenZink]

Like that was the goal. The goal of MLB, now as always, is to rob their employees of the market value of their labor. Parity was always an excuse.
 
Here's another way to look at it. In 2002, the Red Sox spent 63% of their revenues on player salaries. If they were to do that in 2016, that would put them somewhere in the vicinity of a $250m payroll, or counting the 2016 luxury tax penalty, around $235m. That's about what I expect to see next year.
 
We fans are forking more and more money over to this team and an ever greater percentage of that money is getting banked by the front office rather than being spent on the on-field product. And as loyal fans of the team we should be pissed about that.

 
Not many fans have a problem with how much money the Sox are spending.. just how they spent it last winter/spring.
 
But i applaud the Sox for going for broke on the international market the last two years... Castillo, Moncada, as well as Espinoza, and other young talent.  I'd rather they use their revenues on that kind of spending, than giving a 30 year old pitcher a 7 year contract.  The reason they can trade for a starting pitcher is because of the $$ they spent on Castillo and Moncada.  Much better way to spend money, IMO.

 

[MikeM]

They do match up well with the Padres, but I'm not sure I'd even do Sandoval or Hanley for Kemp straight up.  That was a horrendous trade for the Padres, and I'm sure they would do anything to move him.  He may be the 2nd worst OF defender in baseball, and he's been fesh at the plate - sort of like our guy.

 
Outside an absolutely horrendous May dragging down his overall #'s Kemp is still showing the ability to hit at a high level though. 
 
Plus his contract is less with LA already kicking in some money. I'd probably swap either straight up for him just on the principle that Kemp would then be an easier overall piece to re-flip while likely taking less of a financial loss in the process. If Kemp keeps up his current rate in the second half you'd find somebody willing to take a $15m/per flyer on his bat this winter. It would take a lot more then $3m/per to move Hanley or Panda. 

 

[MikeM]

 
Price is surely the prize, for all the reasons you enumerated.  But he's going to cost in the neighborhood of $200 mil over 7 years (AAV 28.5).  He's having a great walk year, he's shown he can pitch well without adjustment time to a new team, and his 7+ iP per start will certainly lessen the task of rebuilding and maintaining a servicebable bullpen.  But he "only" has a career ERA+ of 126, and that's likely to sharply decline in the last years of his contract.  Not to mention, adding $28+ mil to the Sox payroll will have them into the 50% luxury tax bracket in a couple of years.  
 
I say the Sox don't go for it.

 
You are low balling the inflation rate factor imo. Which unlike Ben's projections surrounding Porcello, actually seems a pretty good bet to exist on a guy projected to be the top fish in free agency.
 
The people calling for Price should probably be doing so with an understanding that he's getting more then Max did last winter. 

 

[jscola85]

Stating the obvious - Boston doesn't operate in a vacuum. 
 
The Yankees will grab Price or Cueto or someone. The Blue Jays will grab a high-Priced equivalent. Boston's pitching staff will need to compete with the rest of the AL East - all of which have a good chance to improve, particularly with all the pitching available. Boston starts from a weaker position, so in order to compete - they have to grab more pitching than anyone else. Can they do that?
 
Barring injury, the Yankees will start 2016 with a solid 8th/9th inning bullpen (on paper anyway). But as many have stated, a bullpen can blow up in the blink of an eye. Unless you're the Royals, bullpens improve with improved starters - another reason the Red Sox will need a solid 3/5ths of a rotation that can provide quality innings. Detroit did this and was fatally injured by a terrible bulllpen, but was that poor design or poor luck? I don't know.
 
For position players, the Red Sox need to look ahead and figure get a blue-chip corner infielder. Ortiz will retire (let's say in 2017) and HR will become full-time DH. That means either Sandoval moves to first (my guess) or they integrate a power-hitting 1B into the lineup. Shaw would be great if he's not a mirage, but no one here is betting on that. Conversely, Shaw's current performance may mean he brings something in value as part of a package traded for pitching in 2016.
 
I could see the team having a lot of discussions with the Padres this winter, a team that has a high-priced closer with the highest WHIP of his career (in SD no less), a decent 1B entering arbitration, and a bunch of pitching (their best starter is also arb eligible). Matt Kemp is making $20M/year for forever and could be part of a comprehensive trade returning one of the Sox cheap outfielders.
 
In short, I can't see the team standing pat on positional players even though starters are what's needed. Either the Red Sox spend a lot of money this off season or they trade some of the youngsters. What's the alternative?

 
Do the Jays really have the payroll flexibility to sign a Price-level starter in the offseason?  The CAD has weakened significantly, which usually hurts their financial flexibility, and between Tulo, Martin, Bautista, Encarnacion, Romero, and Dickey (assuming they pick up the option at $12M), they have $85M committed to just six players, with guys like Donaldson and Cecil due hefty raises in arbitration.  Even if they elected to decline Dickey's option, it doesn't feel like they have a ton of wiggle room to add a $25M+/yr contract onto that payroll without blowing past their typical ~$125M budget.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Not many fans have a problem with how much money the Sox are spending.. just how they spent it last winter/spring.
 
But i applaud the Sox for going for broke on the international market the last two years... Castillo, Moncada, as well as Espinoza, and other young talent.  I'd rather they use their revenues on that kind of spending, than giving a 30 year old pitcher a 7 year contract.  The reason they can trade for a starting pitcher is because of the $$ they spent on Castillo and Moncada.  Much better way to spend money, IMO.

 
Not so minor nitpick, but they signed all of those guys in the same international signing period, which starts and ends in July. This is an important distinction because they are now prohibited from spending like that again for two years. Several teams seem to see the benefit in piling a ton of money into one signing period and being restricted to 300k offers for two years after that, as the Red Sox were not the only ones to employ this strategy, but that might be partly to do with the belief that an international draft is coming, so the current system may only be here to be exploited for a short time anyway. Even still, the Red Sox won't be making a splash like that again for a while, so similarly to domestic free agency, it's all about picking the right players to spend that money on.
 
Edit: The penalties vary based on how far over the pool a team goes, but the Sox blew well past their limit and are in the harshest penalty bracket.
 
http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/viva-el-birdos-knowledge-nest/2014/7/2/5864451/mlb-a-primer-on-international-amateur-free-agency

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
Do the Jays really have the payroll flexibility to sign a Price-level starter in the offseason?  The CAD has weakened significantly, which usually hurts their financial flexibility, and between Tulo, Martin, Bautista, Encarnacion, Romero, and Dickey (assuming they pick up the option at $12M), they have $85M committed to just six players, with guys like Donaldson and Cecil due hefty raises in arbitration.  Even if they elected to decline Dickey's option, it doesn't feel like they have a ton of wiggle room to add a $25M+/yr contract onto that payroll without blowing past their typical ~$125M budget.

 
Despite the weakness of the dollar (something that will probably continue until the price of oil recovers), the Jays ownership - Rogers Communication - makes money hand over fist. So, if they wanted to then - yes - they could afford a Price.
 
One of the stumbling blocks in the past has been a generic "No Contracts > 5 years" policy - believed to have been imposed by Paul Beeston - the soon-to-be ex-president of the club. Who knows if his successor will feel the same way.

 

[Saints Rest]

Changing the subject a little bit, one of the places that I think the Sox might look to pursue is the "Intangibles Clubhouse Guy" (TM).  The Kevin Millar, Jonny Gomes type.  

Note what Curt Schilling said at the Sabermetric Seminar:

 
 
Asked about team chemistry, Schill spoke at length about the importance of hidden clubhouse leaders, who may not be stars, but provided the day-to-day spirit of the team in every winning clubhouse he was a part of. Folks like Doug Mirabelli, Gabe Kapler and Todd Stottlemyre were mentioned, as well as 2004 Red Sox sparkplug Orlando Cabrera. Schill surfaced a moment down the stretch where Manny was “going through a phase” and asked out of a game. O-Cab went over to where Ramirez was changing at his locker in the trainer’s area, and when Manny said his leg was bothering him, Cabrera replied along the lines of “B******. You’re messing with my playoff paychecks now. You’re playing, and if your name isn’t on the card in 30 minutes, we’re going to have a fight.” Manny played, the Sox won that night and the rest is history.

 
Looking ahead to the 2016 lineup, as sketched out by a couple posters above and elsewhere on the main board:
OF = JBJ, Rusney, and Betts -- three youngsters, none of whom are likely to be that sort of "hidden clubhouse leader"
IF = Panda, X, Pedey, Hanley -- another youngster (X) and three vets.  Maybe in Year 2, Panda could be that guy, but I'm not sure that that sort of guy typically is one with an $18m salary.  Pedroia is probably more of the not-hidden, vocal leader, probably the de-facto captain.  
DH = Papi.  He's a lot of things, but I don't think he's a candidate for hidden anything.
C = Swihart/Vaz/Hanigan.  -- two more youngsters.  If Hanigan sticks around, he's probably the best bet for this role.
Bench = Holt, Shaw, PTBNL -- Shaw is another youngster (assuming he makes it).  Holt maybe?  So that really leaves the PTBNL.  I have no idea how one even could know something like this.  Probably impossible for the casual fan, but perhaps there is enough player-to-player chatter to pick up on who are the types of guys who can fill this role.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

Like that was the goal. The goal of MLB, now as always, is to rob their employees of the market value of their labor. Parity was always an excuse.
 
Here's another way to look at it. In 2002, the Red Sox spent 63% of their revenues on player salaries. If they were to do that in 2016, that would put them somewhere in the vicinity of a $250m payroll, or counting the 2016 luxury tax penalty, around $235m. That's about what I expect to see next year.
 
We fans are forking more and more money over to this team and an ever greater percentage of that money is getting banked by the front office rather than being spent on the on-field product. And as loyal fans of the team we should be pissed about that.

 
180 million seems like plenty of money to field a team - it's how it is spent. By the way, owners of companies, like owners of teams have the right to spend and keep whatever they want - they are the owners. 

 

[WenZink]

 
Not so minor nitpick, but they signed all of those guys in the same international signing period, which starts and ends in July. This is an important distinction because they are now prohibited from spending like that again for two years. Several teams seem to see the benefit in piling a ton of money into one signing period and being restricted to 300k offers for two years after that, as the Red Sox were not the only ones to employ this strategy, but that might be partly to do with the belief that an international draft is coming, so the current system may only be here to be exploited for a short time anyway. Even still, the Red Sox won't be making a splash like that again for a while, so similarly to domestic free agency, it's all about picking the right players to spend that money on.
 
Edit: The penalties vary based on how far over the pool a team goes, but the Sox blew well past their limit and are in the harshest penalty bracket.
 
http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/viva-el-birdos-knowledge-nest/2014/7/2/5864451/mlb-a-primer-on-international-amateur-free-agency

 
They did incur huge penalties, as did the Yankees, but they determined that it still provided a better risk/reward than going after the premium FA in an open market.  Not to mention that loophole is closing.  But the FA market for the very top players is almost always a losing proposition over the length of the contract.  It's okay for teams that want to win it all, just once.  But not for teams that have the goal of being perennial contenders.  Now the Sox are in danger of finishing near the bottom of the league two consecutive years, but it may just be an extreme consequence of investing so much in the future.  Changing their philosophy, in mid-stream, and shelling out big-time for Price in Free Agency, could turn out to be incurring the worst consequences of both strategies.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
They did incur huge penalties, as did the Yankees, but they determined that it still provided a better risk/reward than going after the premium FA in an open market.  Not to mention that loophole is closing.  But the FA market for the very top players is almost always a losing proposition over the length of the contract.  It's okay for teams that want to win it all, just once.  But not for teams that have the goal of being perennial contenders.  Now the Sox are in danger of finishing near the bottom of the league two consecutive years, but it may just be an extreme consequence of investing so much in the future.  Changing their philosophy, in mid-stream, and shelling out big-time for Price in Free Agency, could turn out to be incurring the worst consequences of both strategies.

 
How does shelling out for Price incur the worst consequences of the "investing so much in the future" strategy? I could see making this argument about, for instance, gutting the prospect cache to trade for 30-ish superstars on big contracts, but how does signing a big-ticket FA interfere with the long-term, win-with-the-kids strategy? It might do that if we had any young players close to FA and signing Price would prevent us from extending or bidding for them. But we don't. Unless I'm missing something, there is literally not a single important homegrown player who will be a free agent before 2020. Obviously a Price contract would extend beyond that, but that's a lot of time to manage other commitments to ensure they don't prevent us from keeping the guys who matter. 

 

[MikeM]

 
 But the FA market for the very top players is almost always a losing proposition over the length of the contract.  It's okay for teams that want to win it all, just once.  But not for teams that have the goal of being perennial contenders.  Now the Sox are in danger of finishing near the bottom of the league two consecutive years, but it may just be an extreme consequence of investing so much in the future.  Changing their philosophy, in mid-stream, and shelling out big-time for Price in Free Agency, could turn out to be incurring the worst consequences of both strategies.

 
While free agency as a whole is always going to be one big losing proposition, this commonly presented notion that spending on elite starting pitching in free agency is the devil (as opposed to say signing the Pablo Sandavols of the world for $100m) really needs an extensive 10 year update already. Preferably one that goes beyond always pointing to the CC Sabathia contract, which wasn't even signed in free agency, as it's poster child of evil.  
 
I mean by putting ourselves mostly on the default sideline the last decade plus, who really was the last true albatross that strategy avoided..Barry Zito? Heck, going in to this year it looked to me like pretty much everybody who didn't sign CJ Wilson over the last 5 years had done ok for themselves thus far, and even he's not wasting roster space or anything atm. None of which is to suggest that signing David Price for $225m+ won't end up as a disaster mind you. A lot of what gets stated as risk vs reward "facts" when speculating the matter just strikes me as ....outdated i guess.
 
When Theo was the one to sign Lester this past winter it got me speculating that he was making his own hindsight reevaluation a year ahead of Ben, while essentially trying to snag his own guy now before the inflation rate really kicked into high gear. It should be interesting to see how this winter plays out on that front imo.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

 
How does shelling out for Price incur the worst consequences of the "investing so much in the future" strategy? I could see making this argument about, for instance, gutting the prospect cache to trade for 30-ish superstars on big contracts, but how does signing a big-ticket FA interfere with the long-term, win-with-the-kids strategy? It might do that if we had any young players close to FA and signing Price would prevent us from extending or bidding for them. But we don't. Unless I'm missing something, there is literally not a single important homegrown player who will be a free agent before 2020. Obviously a Price contract would extend beyond that, but that's a lot of time to manage other commitments to ensure they don't prevent us from keeping the guys who matter. 

I'm definitely interested to see how inflation will affect the FA pitching crop this offseason.  There's a glut of hi-end guys available and there seems to be too many big spending teams that might not want to drop money on them.
I can easily envision Texas, both Chicagos, both LA's, SF and even NY, and DC staying out of the top tier market with their payrolls already very high priced pitching and positinal players on their staffs.  I think Price and Cueto will land somewhere around $27 per, Zimmerman around $25 and the rest of them around $23... assuming the Dodgers just keep their focus on Greinke, of course.  Out of the group I'd prefer the Sox to go after Price- his entire career has been in the AL, and most of it in the East.  Overpaying on a 7 year contract, I can see them getting value out of the first 4 years and then having some less than great seasons to finish is okay... the group of young players need an ace over the next 3 seasons and trading one of them for another team's ace weakens the core of the positional players that will be at their primes over the next 4-5 years.  They definitely need to simply just ADD this offseason... not subtract... add... subtract... add.   Payroll be damned- the next 3 years is the time to blow it open- especially with Ortiz on his last season or two

 

[absintheofmalaise]

 
Fangraphs has Boston dead last in all of MLB in both fWAR and FIP 
 
 
edit: And that's with Koji.

There's a reason for that.

 

[AB in DC]

Well, yes, but FIP is a rate stat while fWAR is a counting stat. 
 
/pedant

 

[WenZink]

I'm definitely interested to see how inflation will affect the FA pitching crop this offseason.  There's a glut of hi-end guys available and there seems to be too many big spending teams that might not want to drop money on them.
I can easily envision Texas, both Chicagos, both LA's, SF and even NY, and DC staying out of the top tier market with their payrolls already very high priced pitching and positinal players on their staffs.  I think Price and Cueto will land somewhere around $27 per, Zimmerman around $25 and the rest of them around $23... assuming the Dodgers just keep their focus on Greinke, of course.  Out of the group I'd prefer the Sox to go after Price- his entire career has been in the AL, and most of it in the East.  Overpaying on a 7 year contract, I can see them getting value out of the first 4 years and then having some less than great seasons to finish is okay... the group of young players need an ace over the next 3 seasons and trading one of them for another team's ace weakens the core of the positional players that will be at their primes over the next 4-5 years.  They definitely need to simply just ADD this offseason... not subtract... add... subtract... add.   Payroll be damned- the next 3 years is the time to blow it open- especially with Ortiz on his last season or two

 
David Price came up in late 2008, and has been active for just about 7 years.  His first full year was a learning process, but then he became one of the best.  His total WAR over those 7 years is around 30 (on both b-ref and fangraphs).  If Price had been paid $28 mil per year, over the last 7, you'd be close to break even in terms of WAR/dollar. Even if the cost of WAR in the FA market increases with inflation, it's hard to expect that Price will be anywhere near break even.
 
For about half the cost of what Price will demand, the Sox locked up Castillo and Moncada.  (And assume the penalties for going over the IFA signings equal roughly to the cost of Price to the luxury tax.)  
 
The Sox spend the money on Castillo, Moncada and others to give them depth on the team and the organization.  It also allows them to make a trade for a starting pitcher, who a) is still in his prime and b) still has some years of club control.

 

[Toe Nash]

Changing the subject a little bit, one of the places that I think the Sox might look to pursue is the "Intangibles Clubhouse Guy" (TM).  The Kevin Millar, Jonny Gomes type.  
Note what Curt Schilling said at the Sabermetric Seminar:

So they have Pedroia and Papi, who are clearly experienced vocal leaders, but they now need a "hidden" leader?

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Not sure where this fits, but an interesting chart: 
 

@spotrac 9 MLB teams are allocating <10% of their 2015 payroll to Starting Pitching. Those teams are averaging just 56 wins.

 
That includes the Sox:

 

[WenZink]

 
While free agency as a whole is always going to be one big losing proposition, this commonly presented notion that spending on elite starting pitching in free agency is the devil (as opposed to say signing the Pablo Sandavols of the world for $100m) really needs an extensive 10 year update already. Preferably one that goes beyond always pointing to the CC Sabathia contract, which wasn't even signed in free agency, as it's poster child of evil.  
 
I mean by putting ourselves mostly on the default sideline the last decade plus, who really was the last true albatross that strategy avoided..Barry Zito? Heck, going in to this year it looked to me like pretty much everybody who didn't sign CJ Wilson over the last 5 years had done ok for themselves thus far, and even he's not wasting roster space or anything atm. None of which is to suggest that signing David Price for $225m+ won't end up as a disaster mind you. A lot of what gets stated as risk vs reward "facts" when speculating the matter just strikes me as ....outdated i guess.
 
When Theo was the one to sign Lester this past winter it got me speculating that he was making his own hindsight reevaluation a year ahead of Ben, while essentially trying to snag his own guy now before the inflation rate really kicked into high gear. It should be interesting to see how this winter plays out on that front imo.

 
Giving long-term contracts to 30+ pitchers is almost always going to be a losing proposition, in terms of dollars/WAR.   Sometimes, a team will take a short-term view and pay a premium to maximize their perceived window.  In the case of Theo and the Cubs, they probably reasoned it was time to overspend for Lester, because 107 years without a WS championship was long enough.  If the Red Sox had a marginal playof team that just needed an ace to make them a prime contender then betting the farm on Price might be a good risk.  But they have a 40 year old closer with not much else in the pen and have to sort out the Hanley/Panda situations first.  It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Price averages 7 IP/start, which is great, but not when you have to turn it over to an incredibly weak pen.  So if you spend $28/year on Price,you also better be prepared to spend as much on the pen.  And you've then doubled your commitment.
 
The Sox have already spent a ton of money on IFA, and paid the penalties.  Why incur lux-tax penalties to take a flier on David Price, who may be on the downside when by the time they're ready to have their championship window.

 

[Plympton91]

Or you could do something creative in the pen like trade Manuel Margot for Brandon Finnegan, and a package of second tier prospects for Luke Hochevar (who they should have signed last offseason with the $10 million they paid for Masterson).

 

[DanoooME]

The Sox have already spent a ton of money on IFA, and paid the penalties.  Why incur lux-tax penalties to take a flier on David Price, who may be on the downside when by the time they're ready to have their championship window.

 
Because his downside is probably better than 75% of pitchers' actual value and/or upside?

 

[shaggydog2000]

Not sure where this fits, but an interesting chart: 
 
 
That includes the Sox:

 
 
I don't know how they're getting those numbers, because they have starting pitchers accounting for about 17 mil, and according to Cot's the Sox are paying Porcello and Buchholz over 12 mil each.  Add in Miley at 3 something, and you've getting close to 30 mil with all of the cheap starters added in.  They're somewhere over 15% from what I can tell. In fact if you add up all of the columns, the Sox are somehow only spending 55% or so of their payroll on position players and pitchers.  I don't know where the rest of the money is supposed to be going.  

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
How does shelling out for Price incur the worst consequences of the "investing so much in the future" strategy?

Right, it's the opposite. You get as much cheap talent as you can from young players or retreads so that you can "overspend" (aka pay market value) for a few stars without bankrupting the team. 
 

 
180 million seems like plenty of money to field a team - it's how it is spent. By the way, owners of companies, like owners of teams have the right to spend and keep whatever they want - they are the owners. 

And the loyal consumers of products have the right to complain when companies prioritize high profit margins over improving the quality of the product. 
 
And my complaint here is less about 2014-2015 offseason, when the team did spend although not wisely, and more about the presumption that people seem to have here that the team cannot or even should not spend this offseason. Our failure to acquire a front of the rotation starter in 2015 had cascading impacts - on the bullpen, on other starters, on the team's willingness to acquire new talent at the deadline. Ultimately it cost the GM his job, and deservedly so. 
 
It's been two years now since the Red Sox last played a meaningful game in August, September or October. Our team revenues are only a little bit short of the Dodgers. We should be spending like the Dodgers. 
 
As for the bullpen, I agree it's a priority that deserves a lot of attention, but I don't agree that it necessarily deserves a lot of resources. Spending more money on relievers is no guarantee of success. Being smart about identifying smart plays in the bullpen is more important than spending a bunch of resources in that area. 

 

[WenZink]

Or you could do something creative in the pen like trade Manuel Margot for Brandon Finnegan, and a package of second tier prospects for Luke Hochevar (who they should have signed last offseason with the $10 million they paid for Masterson).

 
Not that it justifies the Masterson contract, but t's actually not that easy to obtain a FA reliever that is close to a "sure thing" for $10 million.  They'll take a lot less per year, of course, but want a multi-year commitment.
 
Here's a link to the 2015 salarties of relievers.  I didn't inspect them all that closely (so I might have missed a lot), but, without the benefit of hindsight, what reliable relievers could they have locked up for a $10 million total outlay?  To build a pen you have to a) spend a ton on a stud b) develop your own bullpen arms and have them stocked at your AAA and AA affiliates or c) sign 3 or 4  Matt Albers types and hope that they have a rebound year -- as well as hope you can determine who to keep and who to cut by the end of ST.
 
http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/rankings/cap-hit/relief-pitcher/
 
As for your suggestion of Margot for Finnegan -- that's a high price to pay unless you determine a Finnegan-type is the missing piece to big time success.
 
If the Sox aren't willing to give a 4 year deal ot a Miller or Robertson, they've got to come up with a plan to start grooming relievers in the lower minors, rather than holding on to dwindling hopes that they still can become MLB starters.  Otherwise the success of a season depends upon the Ogandos and Albers and Mujicas having rebound years.  Ugh.

 

[WenZink]

Right, it's the opposite. You get as much cheap talent as you can from young players or retreads so that you can "overspend" (aka pay market value) for a few stars without bankrupting the team. 
 
And the loyal consumers of products have the right to complain when companies prioritize high profit margins over improving the quality of the product. 
 
And my complaint here is less about 2014-2015 offseason, when the team did spend although not wisely, and more about the presumption that people seem to have here that the team cannot or even should not spend this offseason. Our failure to acquire a front of the rotation starter in 2015 had cascading impacts - on the bullpen, on other starters, on the team's willingness to acquire new talent at the deadline. Ultimately it cost the GM his job, and deservedly so. 
 
It's been two years now since the Red Sox last played a meaningful game in August, September or October. Our team revenues are only a little bit short of the Dodgers. We should be spending like the Dodgers. 
 
As for the bullpen, I agree it's a priority that deserves a lot of attention, but I don't agree that it necessarily deserves a lot of resources. Spending more money on relievers is no guarantee of success. Being smart about identifying smart plays in the bullpen is more important than spending a bunch of resources in that area. 

The "loyal consumers" have no right to compalin about the Sox spending level.  The Sox spend a ton of money in many areas.  Consumers do have a right to complain about the product, but not the spending level.
 
Before hard slot numbers were put into the Amateur Draft, the Sox spent way over the "suggested" slot numbers.  That's why you have the 2011 draft class of Betts, JBJ, Swihart, Owens, Barnes and Shaw on team right now.  They blew past the IFA limits last year, and signed a slew of talent.  They signed Castillo.  What they don't want to do is spend money on 30+ pitching FA's, because that is absolutely the most inefficient way to spend money.  There are limits to any budget, and whatever the budget, I want to get the most bang for the buck.
 
One of the reasons to stock your farm system is that you can then have a surplus at a position and trade cost-controlled position players/prospects for cost-controlled pitchers, or vice versa.

 

[WenZink]

...[snip]...

 
As for the bullpen, I agree it's a priority that deserves a lot of attention, but I don't agree that it necessarily deserves a lot of resources. Spending more money on relievers is no guarantee of success. Being smart about identifying smart plays in the bullpen is more important than spending a bunch of resources in that area. 

 
Most of those Dodger pitchers in the link, came up within their system.  Nicasio was a lottery ticket they took a chance on from Colorado.  Peralta's ERA is over 5.00 in a pitcher's park.  Howell was signed 3 years ago, and was  gamble signing at the time.  I think the point stands that the most reliable way is to build most of a bullen from your system, THEN complement it with a stud, and take a flyer or two on guys having rebound years.

 

[Saints Rest]

So they have Pedroia and Papi, who are clearly experienced vocal leaders, but they now need a "hidden" leader?

I wasn't the one who coined the phrase -- that was Schilling via JimboSox.  Schilling identified a few different players, none of whom would be yor prototypical "leaders."  We've heard in the past that guys like Millar and Gomes were also able to bring a camaraderie to the club that couldn't come from the nominal leaders.  It just seems to me (and it seems to me that way because ML ballplayers have said it) that over the course of the marathon of 162 games, you need those guys who can provide the clubhouse chemistry that sometimes can't come from either the stars or the young'uns.  

 

[Toe Nash]

 
 
I don't know how they're getting those numbers, because they have starting pitchers accounting for about 17 mil, and according to Cot's the Sox are paying Porcello and Buchholz over 12 mil each.  Add in Miley at 3 something, and you've getting close to 30 mil with all of the cheap starters added in.  They're somewhere over 15% from what I can tell. In fact if you add up all of the columns, the Sox are somehow only spending 55% or so of their payroll on position players and pitchers.  I don't know where the rest of the money is supposed to be going.  

I think it doesn't include players on the DL. Which is stupid.

 

[shaggydog2000]

I think it doesn't include players on the DL. Which is stupid.

 
But then they must have removed them from the numerator but not the denominator, which is even dumber.  

 

[Toe Nash]

 
But then they must have removed them from the numerator but not the denominator, which is even dumber.  

Haha, indeed. I tweeted at them, so maybe they'll correct it.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

One of the reasons to stock your farm system is that you can then have a surplus at a position and trade cost-controlled position players/prospects for cost-controlled pitchers, or vice versa.

 
The problem with this logic is that the teams that own cost-controlled pitchers know this better than anybody, so the talent price tag for elite cost-controlled pitchers is going to be astronomical; hence the quote from Gammo or Edes or whoever it was saying that the Sox could get Gray for basically all four of our best prospects.
 
So either way, we're going to pay too much. The question is what kind of too much: money or talent? The Sox organization has a lot of both, so it has the luxury of strategic flexibility about this. But the ultimate lesson is that the only way to avoid overpaying for pitching is to grow at least some of it yourself.

 

[WenZink]

 
The problem with this logic is that the teams that own cost-controlled pitchers know this better than anybody, so the talent price tag for elite cost-controlled pitchers is going to be astronomical; hence the quote from Gammo or Edes or whoever it was saying that the Sox could get Gray for basically all four of our best prospects.
 
So either way, we're going to pay too much. The question is what kind of too much: money or talent? The Sox organization has a lot of both, so it has the luxury of strategic flexibility about this. But the ultimate lesson is that the only way to avoid overpaying for pitching is to grow at least some of it yourself.

 
The problem with "elite cost controlled pitchers" is that there are very few pitchers that you are sure are "elite" while they still have many years left that are cost controlled.  So, a pitcher like Sonny Gray is a rare commodity.  Fangraphs listed the top 50 players in "trade value," and had Betts at #11 and Gray at #15.  Even if we assume that fangraphs is correct, and they are roughly equivalent, Beane would probably not trade Gray for Betts, even up.  But throw in Owens and he might do it.  Add Marrero, to the package and I'd bet Beane would, since he'd trade a $1.00 to get back $1.10, and plan on trading that $1.10 to make back $1.20.  Is that too much, at least compared to giving a David Price, at 30, $200 million?
 
But while elite, cost-controlled pitchers are a scarcity, there is a lot of movement of talented young pitchers and pitching prospects that move freely.  In another thread, I've already praised Dipoto for getting Santiago and Skaggs for basically Mark Trumbo, Andrew Heaney for the last year of Howie Kendricks' contract, and Nick Tropeano for Hank Conger.  Not bad.  And the Cardinals traded the last year of Heyward for Shelby Miller.  So young "promising." (but not elite) cost controlled pitchers get moved all the time.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Someone needs to explain to me why any team would trade away an elite cost-controlled "anything" unless they received substantially more than he was worth.
 
OK, maybe you trade an elite cost-controlled 2nd baseman for an elite cost-controlled 3rd baseman if the needs match up, but no one has an over-abundance of elite cost-controlled pitching they're looking to swap out.
 
The only good way to get a Sonny Gray is to grow one.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Someone needs to explain to me why any team would trade away an elite cost-controlled "anything" unless they received substantially more than he was worth.
 
OK, maybe you trade an elite cost-controlled 2nd baseman for an elite cost-controlled 3rd baseman if the needs match up, but no one has an over-abundance of elite cost-controlled pitching they're looking to swap out.
 
The only good way to get a Sonny Gray is to grow one.

 
Or get lucky. I still wonder if Shelby Miller was on the table for Lackey. 

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
The problem with "elite cost controlled pitchers" is that there are very few pitchers that you are sure are "elite" while they still have many years left that are cost controlled.  So, a pitcher like Sonny Gray is a rare commodity.  Fangraphs listed the top 50 players in "trade value," and had Betts at #11 and Gray at #15.  Even if we assume that fangraphs is correct, and they are roughly equivalent, Beane would probably not trade Gray for Betts, even up.  But throw in Owens and he might do it.  Add Marrero, to the package and I'd bet Beane would, since he'd trade a $1.00 to get back $1.10, and plan on trading that $1.10 to make back $1.20.  Is that too much, at least compared to giving a David Price, at 30, $200 million?
 
But while elite, cost-controlled pitchers are a scarcity, there is a lot of movement of talented young pitchers and pitching prospects that move freely.  In another thread, I've already praised Dipoto for getting Santiago and Skaggs for basically Mark Trumbo, Andrew Heaney for the last year of Howie Kendricks' contract, and Nick Tropeano for Hank Conger.  Not bad.  And the Cardinals traded the last year of Heyward for Shelby Miller.  So young "promising." (but not elite) cost controlled pitchers get moved all the time.

And remember last year when the Red Sox got Rick Porcello for Yoenis Cespedes?

Yes, it is too much to trade Betts+ for Gtay. Not when the alternative is to spend money on Price or the like. I'm open to a prospect package for Gray but not Betts, not Boegarts and not Edro.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
But while elite, cost-controlled pitchers are a scarcity, there is a lot of movement of talented young pitchers and pitching prospects that move freely.  In another thread, I've already praised Dipoto for getting Santiago and Skaggs for basically Mark Trumbo, Andrew Heaney for the last year of Howie Kendricks' contract, and Nick Tropeano for Hank Conger.  Not bad.  And the Cardinals traded the last year of Heyward for Shelby Miller.  So young "promising." (but not elite) cost controlled pitchers get moved all the time.

 
But you've totally moved the goalposts here. The Sox have talented young pitchers: EdRo, Owens, Kelly--hell, even Porcello (less then two years older than Tropeano) almost qualifies. And like the Sox' talented young pitchers, the ones the Angels dealt for are having very mixed-bag results. None of them has emerged as anything resembling a dominant ML starter, which is what the Sox need one or two of. So what are you suggesting--that the Sox trade prospects for more Kellys? Not sure I see the point of that.

 

[nothumb]

 
But you've totally moved the goalposts here. The Sox have talented young pitchers: EdRo, Owens, Kelly--hell, even Porcello (less then two years older than Tropeano) almost qualifies. And like the Sox' talented young pitchers, the ones the Angels dealt for are having very mixed-bag results. None of them has emerged as anything resembling a dominant ML starter, which is what the Sox need one or two of. So what are you suggesting--that the Sox trade prospects for more Kellys? Not sure I see the point of that.

 
I think part of the idea is that Dombrowski is more likely to bet on the right unproven prospects than Cherington or Baird. That's historically his track record and part of the reason for my optimism about him coming in at this particular moment.

 

[Pilgrim]

If someone like Gray or Carrasco gets traded, its going to be for a slate of mostly prospects, not a guy like Mookie Betts.  I don't think that is wishcasting from a Red Sox fan's perspective. The only way such a trade makes sense is if a GM is betting on their own ability to find 3-4 players in someone else's system that are eventually going to outweigh their own players value, and that means trading for prospects.  There isn't really any point in two shitty teams exchanging established players of similar value.
 
Whether either the Indians or As have any interest in that is the question.

 

[Rasputin]

If someone like Gray or Carrasco gets traded, its going to be for a slate of mostly prospects, not a guy like Mookie Betts.  I don't think that is wishcasting from a Red Sox fan's perspective. The only way such a trade makes sense is if a GM is betting on their own ability to find 3-4 players in someone else's system that are eventually going to outweigh their own players value, and that means trading for prospects.  There isn't really any point in two shitty teams exchanging established players of similar value.
 
Whether either the Indians or As have any interest in that is the question.

 
I think the As likely would, but I don't think I'd want to pay the price they're going to ask. If they want to take redundant pieces, I'm okay with that, but I think they're going to want our headliners, an for someone like Gray, that's not really unreasonable. I don't want to give up Devers, Moncada, or Espinoza when we can get an ace with just cash.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If someone like Gray or Carrasco gets traded, its going to be for a slate of mostly prospects, not a guy like Mookie Betts.  I don't think that is wishcasting from a Red Sox fan's perspective. The only way such a trade makes sense is if a GM is betting on their own ability to find 3-4 players in someone else's system that are eventually going to outweigh their own players value, and that means trading for prospects.  There isn't really any point in two shitty teams exchanging established players of similar value.
 
Whether either the Indians or As have any interest in that is the question.

 
There's also an element of sacrificing the now for the potentially distant future in doing that.  Gray, for example, is still a year away from arbitration and four full seasons away from free agency.  Trading him this winter for prospects that might not be MLB ready for a year or two at minimum would be Billy Beane raising the white flag on 2016 and 2017, at least in the eyes of his fans.  Not really something he can afford to do.
 
Even if they are truly rebuilding, I can't see him doing something like that.  Gray is still going to be dirt cheap through those two seasons, so if 2018 is some kind of target date for the "next great A's team", Gray at age 28 could be a key part of it.  And if he's too expensive, he can still be flipped then for a damn good package.  The notion that he is even a remote possibility for the 2016 Red Sox is absurd.

 

[ehaz]

 
I think the As likely would, but I don't think I'd want to pay the price they're going to ask. If they want to take redundant pieces, I'm okay with that, but I think they're going to want our headliners, an for someone like Gray, that's not really unreasonable. I don't want to give up Devers, Moncada, or Espinoza when we can get an ace with just cash.

 
As talented as they are, guys like Devers, Moncada, Benintendi, and Espinoza haven't had a single plate appearance at even AA while Gray is a cost-controlled, top 5 SP in baseball with an ERA+ approaching 200 this season.  Would you really hangup if Beane calls and asks for something along the lines of Moncada/Margot/Espinoza/Johnson?

 

[Rasputin]

 
As talented as they are, guys like Devers, Moncada, Benintendi, and Espinoza haven't had a single plate appearance at even AA while Gray is a cost-controlled, top 5 SP in baseball with an ERA+ approaching 200 this season.  Would you really hangup if Beane calls and asks for something along the lines of Moncada/Margot/Espinoza/Johnson?

 
I wouldn't even consider that deal unless all the top free agent pitchers are already off the market.
 
I'm pretty sure that we're going to get next year what we thought we were going to get this year, a rotation that is decent but not great that, when combined with a great offense is going to be enough to keep us in competition at least until the trade deadline.
 
I think Devers and Moncada are the best bets for us to find a middle of the lineup stud to stir the drink for the better part of a decade. I think Eduardo Rodriguez and Not Alvaro Espinoza are the best bets for us to get an ace to keep that drink refilled until closing time in 2030.
 
I think developing your own studs is gigantically better than trading for them.

 

[Fireball Fred]

It's actually very hard, or at least very expensive, to get a top-of-the-line starting pitcher for cash. Every team needs five starters, and there are a lot of big-money teams these days. Even when it was pretty much just the Sox and Yanks, the Sox traded for Martinez and Schilling. Also, there just aren't that many aces out there - the proof of this, I think, is that people keep mentioning Samardzija, who apart from being impossible to spell is a 30+ innings-eating #3 at best. ERod's untouchable because he could well be what's most needed, but I'd at least consider trading anyone else.

 

[MikeM]

 
Giving long-term contracts to 30+ pitchers is almost always going to be a losing proposition, in terms of dollars/WAR.   Sometimes, a team will take a short-term view and pay a premium to maximize their perceived window.  In the case of Theo and the Cubs, they probably reasoned it was time to overspend for Lester, because 107 years without a WS championship was long enough.  If the Red Sox had a marginal playof team that just needed an ace to make them a prime contender then betting the farm on Price might be a good risk.  But they have a 40 year old closer with not much else in the pen and have to sort out the Hanley/Panda situations first.  It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Price averages 7 IP/start, which is great, but not when you have to turn it over to an incredibly weak pen.  So if you spend $28/year on Price,you also better be prepared to spend as much on the pen.  And you've then doubled your commitment.
 
The Sox have already spent a ton of money on IFA, and paid the penalties.  Why incur lux-tax penalties to take a flier on David Price, who may be on the downside when by the time they're ready to have their championship window.

 
In comparison to what though, paying the premium on mid-tier free agents? Eating the last 3 years of a $20m/per contract that offered less upfront value instead the last 2 on a $30m/per one that gave you more? Flushing a lump sum of money away from the get-go on Craig? Because beyond the attempt to paint our spending on IFA as *the* alternative there, that is hardly the only money being spent around it. 
 
Plus is that statement based on recent data, or something that was mostly determined back in 2004 and has simply been glossed over as common fact ever since? I guess that's the real question i'm left asking. Because i was among those that bought pretty heavily into the avoid expensive top tier pitchers like the plague concept back then, with the expectation that today i'd be looking back at a minefield of terrible contracts that got handed out over such a lengthy time frame.
 
Yet what actually happened as a whole since Barry Zito doesn't seem to support an "almost always" claim there though. The fall off a cliff albatross around every post-30 corner fear looks to have been fairly over-hyped as well.
 
Personally, i'm not sold we should using a hypothetical dollars/War formula as some absolute measue to dictate what we could/should expect to spend on frontline starting pitching in reality money terms either. Since the actual workings of the market is ultimately more complicated then that value can reliably account for (hello Ben overpaying on Porcello). This is also where i believe you might be selling Theo a little short in labeling it a pure just win now move. 

 

[jscola85]

I don't think people fully appreciate how highly-prized Moncada, Devers and Espinoza would be for a rival GM.  Any one of them would be plenty to be the centerpiece for anyone not named "Trout" or "Harper".  Combine them with Owens or EdRod and someone like Javier Guerra likely nets you that #1 starter you're looking for.  It's probably not Gray, because with 4+ years of team control, I have no earthly idea why Beane would trade him.  The As have a bad record but are not a bad team - their run differential suggests they should be more like a 65-win team and not a 55-win team right now.  Their core (Gray, Vogt, Reddick, Lawrie, Semien) is all locked up for multiple years on cheap contracts.  That doesn't scream to me a team looking to completely tear it down.  With Zobrist and Kazmir gone, they also picked up a bunch of interesting prospects who could help later in 2016 like Manaea and Brooks or be flipped for more immediate help.  Lastly have basically zero payroll commitments for next year.  Not that they will ever be big spenders, but with only Butler and Crisp earning anything material, they could certainly go out and fill 2-3 holes via free agency or taking on a contract.  They've had $83M and $88M payrolls to start 2014 and 2015, respectively, and only ~$45-50M committed between existing salaries plus arbitration-eligible players like Reddick and Lawrie.

 

[WenZink]

 
In comparison to what though, paying the premium on mid-tier free agents? Eating the last 3 years of a $20m/per contract that offered less upfront value instead the last 2 on a $30m/per one that gave you more? Flushing a lump sum of money away from the get-go on Craig? Because beyond the attempt to paint our spending on IFA as *the* alternative there, that is hardly the only money being spent around it. 
 
Plus is that statement based on recent data, or something that was mostly determined back in 2004 and has simply been glossed over as common fact ever since? I guess that's the real question i'm left asking. Because i was among those that bought pretty heavily into the avoid expensive top tier pitchers like the plague concept back then, with the expectation that today i'd be looking back at a minefield of terrible contracts that got handed out over such a lengthy time frame.
 
Yet what actually happened as a whole since Barry Zito doesn't seem to support an "almost always" claim there though. The fall off a cliff albatross around every post-30 corner fear looks to have been fairly over-hyped as well.
 
Personally, i'm not sold we should using a hypothetical dollars/War formula as some absolute measue to dictate what we could/should expect to spend on frontline starting pitching in reality money terms either. Since the actual workings of the market is ultimately more complicated then that value can reliably account for (hello Ben overpaying on Porcello). This is also where i believe you might be selling Theo a little short in labeling it a pure just win now move. 

 
Nothing has changed since 2004 in evaluating long-term contracts given to 30+ pitchers.  You're paying for their performance in their 20s,, even though their performance in their 30s will not be as good.  And those pitchers that have better careers in their 30s aren't the ones that get the big FA contracts.  And if we don't use $$/WAR ratios to evaluate the return then what do we use?
 
The Red Sox are not a good team, right now, and they have little payroll flexibility in the immediate future.  All of their high-salaried players are nearly impossible to move without either taking a massive hit on contract subsidies or taking back equally large contracts for disappointing players.  Their best power hitter will be 40 in November, they have a question mark at 1st base, they have a 40 year old closer, and outside of Tazawa, they have 5 spots to fill in the bullpen.  Outside of the players we've seen this season, the most advanced prospect they have is 20 year old Manuel Margot, who is 2 years away, at best.  Their rotation consists of a slew of "maybes" and "could bes."  Adding a David Price, at something approaching $200 mil/7 yrs does not make them a contender on paper.  Even if Price has a 6 WAR season in 2016, the Sox still project to be also-rans., To drastically change the outlook for 2016, the Sox would have to add so much salary, that their payroll would far exceed $200 million, and that is not going to happen.
 
There is no reason to pay the price for Price, and have his potentially best seasons wasted on a team that is not in contention.  That's why I prefer them to explore trades like Betts+ or prospects for a Sonny Gray, because Gray would still be at the peak of his career when the Sox rebound in a couple of years. (I would add that I consider Devers the most untouchable prospect, since there is so little power in the Sox system.)
 
And I 'll add the caveat that "it's baseball and anything can happen," but if there is a massive turnaround in early 2016 by Porcello, Kelly, etc.,  then you can always go the rent-a-player route in mid season.

 

[Plympton91]

The reason you can't use straight dollar per WAT values is because there are only 25 spots on the active roster and 40 spots that you can protect from losing something for nothing. Having 8 starting pitchers that will give you 1 WAR for minimum salary doesn't matter. Since there are only 5 slots in a rotation, you're only getting 5 WAR. Plus, it's obvious that WAR isn't additive, so if you stop at a linear relationship between $/WAR and actual team wins you'll miss badly.

I disagree completely that the Red Sox as projected to open 2016 are not a good team. They are an elite offense going forward. As snastroyin pointed out earlier this week, had Koji not gone down they could easily be now 16-8 over their past 24 games and 3 games from the second wild card right now, without Pedroia or Buchholtz.

They need an ace starter and 2 ace relievers. I previously listed very plausible ways to get those 2 relievers without spending much available payroll, which you completely ignored. I think they're going to trade for rather than sign an ace as well using the treasure trove of offensive prospects at Greenville. My guess is that Dombrowski will look at Devers and feel like if he can't find a replacement for him in the next couple drafts or international signing periods, then he's not doing his job. Ditto Margot at AA.

 

[WenZink]

I don't think people fully appreciate how highly-prized Moncada, Devers and Espinoza would be for a rival GM.  Any one of them would be plenty to be the centerpiece for anyone not named "Trout" or "Harper".  Combine them with Owens or EdRod and someone like Javier Guerra likely nets you that #1 starter you're looking for.  It's probably not Gray, because with 4+ years of team control, I have no earthly idea why Beane would trade him.  The As have a bad record but are not a bad team - their run differential suggests they should be more like a 65-win team and not a 55-win team right now.  Their core (Gray, Vogt, Reddick, Lawrie, Semien) is all locked up for multiple years on cheap contracts.  That doesn't scream to me a team looking to completely tear it down.  With Zobrist and Kazmir gone, they also picked up a bunch of interesting prospects who could help later in 2016 like Manaea and Brooks or be flipped for more immediate help.  Lastly have basically zero payroll commitments for next year.  Not that they will ever be big spenders, but with only Butler and Crisp earning anything material, they could certainly go out and fill 2-3 holes via free agency or taking on a contract.  They've had $83M and $88M payrolls to start 2014 and 2015, respectively, and only ~$45-50M committed between existing salaries plus arbitration-eligible players like Reddick and Lawrie.

 
I believe you are absolutely wrong on the bolded part of your statement.  4 years ago, the Red Sox traded 3 of their top ten prospects (including 2 of their top 4) to get the last year of Adrian Gonzalez' cost-controlled contract.  They then had to turn around and  give Gonzo a 7yr/$154 million contract to keep him.  Last winter the Angels got top 35 prospect Andrew Heaney from the Dogers in return for the last year of Howie Kendricks' contract.  The Jays just sent highly-touted pitching prospect, Daniel Norris to rent David Price for 2 months.  The aforementioned Angels got #12 rated prospect (BA) Tyler Skaggs AND 25 year old Hector Santiago for Mark Freakin' Trumbo.
 
So the value of a cost-controlled pitcher, like Sonny Gray, who is 25, not eligible for arb until 2017 and not eligible for FA until 2020, and who leads the league in ERA is going to be a lot higher than a trio of kids, the oldest of which is 20.  (And I'll grant that Moncada is a special case, since he's already been bought and paid for.)
 
8 years ago, I remember the hand-wring when the Sox included (then) 17 year old Engel Beltre as a throw-in to Texas for the Eric Gagne trade.  Beltre was in his fist season in the GGL, and, that winter, Beltre was ranked as a top 60's prospect by Baseball America -- at 18!!  Whoop-dee-doo.

 

[WenZink]

The reason you can't use straight dollar per WAT values is because there are only 25 spots on the active roster and 40 spots that you can protect from losing something for nothing. Having 8 starting pitchers that will give you 1 WAR for minimum salary doesn't matter. Since there are only 5 slots in a rotation, you're only getting 5 WAR. Plus, it's obvious that WAR isn't additive, so if you stop at a linear relationship between $/WAR and actual team wins you'll miss badly.

I disagree completely that the Red Sox as projected to open 2016 are not a good team. They are an elite offense going forward. As snastroyin pointed out earlier this week, had Koji not gone down they could easily be now 16-8 over their past 24 games and 3 games from the second wild card right now, without Pedroia or Buchholtz.

They need an ace starter and 2 ace relievers. I previously listed very plausible ways to get those 2 relievers without spending much available payroll, which you completely ignored. I think they're going to trade for rather than sign an ace as well using the treasure trove of offensive prospects at Greenville. My guess is that Dombrowski will look at Devers and feel like if he can't find a replacement for him in the next couple drafts or international signing periods, then he's not doing his job. Ditto Margot at AA.

 
We are in complete agreement.  I stated that for the Sox to be a legitimate contender for 2016, they'd have to expand their payroll to well over $200 million.  Given that their payroll commitments are already $170 - $175 million in 2016*, adding "an ace starter and 2 ace relievers" is going to put their payroll at well over $200 million."
 
Again, that's not going to happen.
 
*Alex Speier on 2016 Sox payroll commitments: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/29/speier/loaG8jT7lwWCAPIsNIYKoK/story.html

 

[jscola85]

 
I believe you are absolutely wrong on the bolded part of your statement.  4 years ago, the Red Sox traded 3 of their top ten prospects (including 2 of their top 4) to get the last year of Adrian Gonzalez' cost-controlled contract.  They then had to turn around and  give Gonzo a 7yr/$154 million contract to keep him.  Last winter the Angels got top 35 prospect Andrew Heaney from the Dogers in return for the last year of Howie Kendricks' contract.  The Jays just sent highly-touted pitching prospect, Daniel Norris to rent David Price for 2 months.  The aforementioned Angels got #12 rated prospect (BA) Tyler Skaggs AND 25 year old Hector Santiago for Mark Freakin' Trumbo.
 
So the value of a cost-controlled pitcher, like Sonny Gray, who is 25, not eligible for arb until 2017 and not eligible for FA until 2020, and who leads the league in ERA is going to be a lot higher than a trio of kids, the oldest of which is 20.  (And I'll grant that Moncada is a special case, since he's already been bought and paid for.)
 
8 years ago, I remember the hand-wring when the Sox included (then) 17 year old Engel Beltre as a throw-in to Texas for the Eric Gagne trade.  Beltre was in his fist season in the GGL, and, that winter, Beltre was ranked as a top 60's prospect by Baseball America -- at 18!!  Whoop-dee-doo.

 
Except the prospects traded in the Gonzo deal were/are not nearly as highly touted as Moncada and Devers, and by year end likely Benintendi/Espinoza as well.  Kelly was rated in the 25-50 range, Rizzo in the ~75 range (and coming off cancer treatment) and Fuentes was unranked (though with a 1st round pedigree).  Moncada and Devers are consensus top-20 prospects, which is a whole different ballgame.  I can't think many/any trades that have required a team to give up 2 top-20 prospects.
 
Trading a top-20 guy, a guy like Owens/EdRod who would rate in the top 25-50 like Owens/EdRod and another top-100 guy in Guerra is a significantly better offer than Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes.  Yes, high prices have been paid for a guy like David Price - by a team trying to "go for it" and willing to overpay for the incremental value the next few months Price could provide.  The Sox would not be trading from that position, but more closely to when the As last traded a young, controllable ace in Gio Gonzalez.
 
Gio was a 25 year old power lefty pitcher coming off a 4+ WAR season with multiple years of team control ahead of him.  He was traded for a back-end starter in Milone, a fringe T100 prospect (AJ Cole), a top-75ish prospect in Derek Norris, and a top-50ish prospect in Brad Peacock.  The As got no "stud" prospects in return, but an ample supply of solid depth for their system.  So offering a top-15 prospect (Moncada), an MLB-ready top-50ish pitcher (EdRod/Owens), a top-100 SS (Guerra) and maybe one other piece is certainly at least compelling an offer once you adjust for the fact that Gray is better than Gonzo was in 2012.

As another comp, Alex Wood was just traded with 4 years of team control ahead of him WITH a top prospect in Jose Peraza (as well as Jim Johnson) and in return the Braves got a 30 year old infield prospect and a mediocre prospect in Zach Bird.  Wood doesn't have the name recognition of Sony Gray, but his career FIP is basically identical to Gray's.