What is Jason Bay's worth?
by Randy Booth on Oct 2, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
in News
41 comments
We'll be having this conversation a lot once the offseason is here, but for now, we'll just have to guess what Jason Bay is likely to be seeking for a new contract:
Multiple industry sources expect that bidding for Bay – who is making $7.5 million this year – will reach at least four years at $14-15 million per year this offseason should the outfielder seek to maximize his worth on the open market. Indeed, some have suggested that he could exceed those estimates, both in years and dollars. Certainly, it could help the slugger’s cause that the number of interested teams is expected to be significant.
The Red Sox have already said, at the time that they tabled negotiations just after the All-Star break, that they expect to discuss an extension with Bay following the season, and so a return seems a legitimate possibility, especially given Bay’s often-stated enthusiasm for playing in Boston and his desire to return. Should he test the waters, however, a look at some teams that will have money coming off the books and a potential need for an outfielder who can serve as an impact bat reveals a potentially robust market:
While there a lot of people on this blog that would love to see Matt Holliday as a Red Sox next season, Bay isn't done in Boston yet. He could possibly make his return to the Red Sox just playing lights out in the postseason. Let's hope no matter where he goes, that "lights out in the postseason" comes true.
So your turn: how much, on a yearly basis, will Bay bring in with his new contract?
0 recs |
41 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think it also comes down to how many years he wants
If he wants a 4 year contract he should get around 13-15. If it is longer it will be less and shorter it will be more.
I personally think Bay is perfect for the Sox. He has proven he can hit in the AL East, unlike Holliday. He is a good teammate, unlike Holliday (mostly speculation I have heard). He is good on the basepaths, I mean he ran out that single last night.
The only flaw that can be said of Bay is his defense, but I think he is underrated at Fenway. With the Green monster and the foul wall so close to the line, there is not much room to help improve is UZR rating. Playing LF for the Sox is mostly experience and I think his defense will only get better. Just like this year’s defense was better then last years.
by drabidea on Oct 2, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I’d much rather have Bay than Holliday. Bay has shown that he can produce in the AL; Holliday was distinctly unimpressive in his 3 1/2 month tryout. And if Nancy Drew can get $15M/year, Bay ought to be able to command at least that much. If he’d sign for four years for 13-15, Theo should jump at it.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With defense factored in
there is a good argument that “Nancy” was worth more to the Sox than Bay this year (and last year, prorated)…by a fair bit.
by Buzzy on Oct 2, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drew is worth the $14 million he is paid.
He had an off-year in 2007, likely due to personal issues. Still, since coming to Boston, Drew has an .870 OPS. Over the past two seasons, Drew’s OPS is .911.
Since the beginning of the 2007 season, Bay has a .855 OPS. Bay has a .909 OPS over the last two years. Bay is the better HR hitter, but Drew is a more complete player.
Another factor to remember is the economy. When Drew signed his contract things were very different then they are now. A player like Bay may have been worth $13-$15 million in 2006/2007. Most teams are cutting payroll, and players like Bobby Abreu have signed for far less than they made prior to the economic downturn.
The only wild card in the—and every—FA negotiation are the MFY, who will overpay for players. This off-season might be different, as the MFY aren’t likely to be in the market for both Bay and Holliday. If the MFY aren’t trying to sign Bay, he’ll be lucky to make $13-$15 million. Thus, if Theo offers that much, Bay should jump at it.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 2, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is worth more
The past two years he has been worth about $19M.
No one else wants to say it but it is true. JD Drew > Jason Bay
by drabidea on Oct 2, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this.
We just need to get Randy and a few others to see it.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 3, 2009 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That may be what FanGraphs says, but I give Bay more credit for staying healthy
You can count on Bay to play 150 games. Drew has only played 140 games three times in his career and averages about 120. I’d rather have the guy who produces just a little less when they’re both in the lineup but actually plays 25% more games. There’s just too big a dropoff to the subs not to consider those extra 25% games as being supremely valuable.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WAR include the number of games played, so even with that
Drew (4.3) > Bay (3.5) Because defense (as it should) plays in favor of Nancy!
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
by radiohix on Oct 2, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but you're forgetting something important
Of course Drew’s WAR exceeds Bay’s. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s actually more valuable.
Think of this way: would you rather have a guy who gives you all-star caliber production and plays 150 games, or a guy who gives you slightly better overall production when he’s in the game but plays 120-130 games? If you’re smart, the answer depends on how many fewer games and how good your backup is. Remember, the objective is to win as many games as you can as a team. For that to happen, it’s not enough to field the best team you can in the aggregate over 162 games. You have to field a team that will be better than the other team on the field for as many of those 162 games as you can.
Bay needs his backup to fill in for him 10-15 times a year, so while you’re losing a lot when he has a day off, he doesn’t have a lot of days off. Drew, by contrast, is going to need his backup on average 40 times a year. Let’s be exceedingly generous and call it 30 times, which is a little less than his average since he joined the Sox and significantly less than his career average. You’re still going to need his backup to play 30 times a year.
So who’s the backup? The Sox’s fourth outfielder this year is Rocco Baldelli, who is a fair proxy for the kind of player the Sox typically have as their fourth outfielder. He’s a decent bench player, but he can’t play too often and you definitely don’t want him starting too often. The dropoff from either Drew or Bay to Baldelli is huge.
So here’s the question you need to ask yourself: does the slightly greater production from Drew relative to Bay over the 130 games both will play overcome the added value Bay brings to make his team a little better than the other team on the field over 20 additional games plus the dropoff from Drew to Baldelli over those 20 games? If you only care about WAR, you’ll say it does. If you think that slight aggregate differences in statistics between two players over a full season don’t translate to significant differences in individual games except insofar as one of those players is replaced by a far inferior player in three times as many games as the other, WAR isn’t a sufficient measure.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, let's try this more mathematically
Drew’s WAR is 4.3 in 136 games; Bay’s is 3.5 in 148. Let’s prorate those to 162 games:
Drew = 5.12
Bay = 3.83
That makes Drew even more valuable relative to Bay, right? Let’s assume those are reasonable values per 162 games for each next year.
But Bay will play 150 games, Drew will play (again, we’ll estimate generously based on his averages) 130. Prorating to those, we get these values:
Drew = 4.11
Bay = 3.55
Now let’s say for the sake of argument that Rocco Baldelli replaces Drew for the 32 games he’ll miss, and he also replaces Bay for the 12 games he’ll miss. What does Rocco’s WAR look like this year? It’s 0.1 in 61 games. Prorated to 162 games, we get this:
Rocco = 0.27
Since Rocco replaces Drew for 32 games, we add his value over those 32 games to Drew’s:
Drewdelli = 4.11 + 0.05 = 4.16
So Drew/Baldelli in right have a combined projected WAR of 4.16 for 2010.
And how about when we add Rocco’s 12 games to Bay’s value?
Baydelli = 3.55 + <0.01 = 3.55
Ok, so it seems Drew is still significantly more valuable than Bay. So maybe it’s just my frugal nature — if a guy can only play 3/4 of the games, I don’t want to pay him like a full-time player. I’d still rather have the guy who will play every day and dump the guy who misses 25% of the games — with the $15M per year Drew gets we could still get a good starting outfielder and improve depth on the bench or in the bullpen, or we could go get another top starter.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, this assumes Drew plays 130 games
I put the odds of that at about 50/50. And the fewer games he plays, the less his advantage over Bay.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your point
but that was not the point I was making. The point I was making was that in absolute terms during Bay’s tenure with the Sox Drew has been worth more. As Hix correctly points out, playing time is factored into his WAR. The point you are making may be of use moving forward if a discussion over future performance/contract is concerned (eg regressing expected service time for Drew by career expectation). Bottom line is that Drew HAS been worth his contract to date.
by Buzzy on Oct 2, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only if you assume that the algorithm by which WAR translates to salary is accurate
I’m not convinced it is. You can’t convince me that Albert Pujols is worth $37.8 million this year, even as great a season as he’s having. You can’t convince me that Derek Jeter is worth $33.3 million, even in New York’s hyperinflated market. You can’t convince me that Joe Mauer is worth $36 million in Minnesota. Brad Penny certainly isn’t worth $11.4 million, especially since we know for a certainty that his numbers would be far worse had he spent the entire season in the AL — which suggests that the algorithm inflates salaries for NL players in general. And how about Mariano Rivera? Last year, he was “worth” $14.2 million, and he pitched 70 innings. I’m sorry, but no pitcher is worth $200,000 an inning.
I realize that the idea is that WAR determines salary by the marginal cost of each win above replacement, but that doesn’t mean a player is actually worth that much. It means that WAR-determined salaries are inflated by bad contracts.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
all fangraph values seem a bit inflated, but in a relative sense the WAR algorithm makes sense. The point is not if X is worth 33 million, but is X worth more than Y. Drew has been worth more than Bay for the Sox. If you want to argue that point as opposed to the absolute amount-let’s do that since that is really the point.
by Buzzy on Oct 2, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But again, just because X is worth more than Y doesn't mean that X is worth $15M/year
I guess in the end, a player’s worth comes down to revenue. If a player generates sufficient revenue for his team to cover his salary, he’s worth his salary. But that means that a player who is less productive may actually be worth more, and it also means that a player’s worth depends on local market. I suspect that a player who plays 150 games is going to generate more revenue than a slightly more productive player who plays 130 games.
In any case, we don’t want Theo shelling out big bucks to injury prone players, and we applaud him when he doesn’t break the bank for players like Sabathia and Teixeira, who are both “worth” more than their salaries according to WAR. But even if Theo offered to pay them like WAR says they’re worth — which would actually make them even more expensive because doing so would increase the pool of marginal money — the Sox wouldn’t have enough money to field top players at other positions. If Theo had given Sabathia and Teixeira the money WAR says they’re worth, you could forget about the possibility of resigning Bay or giving Beckett an extension because there wouldn’t be enough money for either of them. And you could bet that Theo wouldn’t have agreed to eat Lugo’s, Smoltz’s, and Penny’s salaries either, but I think we can all agree dumping them was the right move.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was only responding
to your claim that Bay should get at least what Drew does. While I agree that Drew is fragile, I don’t see why this is true in the more global sense of what Drew has actually brought to the team. Factor in the economic difference now verses 07 and I guess that I just don’t agree. I like Bay, but his poor defense really brings his value down. I like him more than Holliday, but overall Holliday is likely the better player, even in the AL. I think the Boras angle will kill a Holliday discussion at the very least, so I am not arguing in favor of Holliday, but just saying that Holliday brings more to a baseball team.
by Buzzy on Oct 2, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the end, it's going to come down to two things
1) What offers he gets
2) Whether he’s willing to give the Sox a discount
Somebody is going to offer him $15M/year. If it’s not the Sox and he decides to cash in, he’s gone. And you know somebody will also offer Holliday at least $15M/year, and after these two guys, it’s a huge dropoff to the next best outfielder we could possibly get. That means that unless Bay is willing to give the Sox a discount, Theo’s going to have to offer somebody $15M/year to play left for us, or we’re going to be significantly downgraded at that position next year.
by RSNexile on Oct 2, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No so sure
it all depends on the Yankees. If the Yankees are not in the game, then no one other than the Sox will offer him 15 million I would think. It depends on what the Yankees do with Matsui and Damon, and on their claimed comittment to continue to reduce payroll. In this economy, no way he is going to get 15 million from the likes of St. Louis, etc. Look at Dunn and Abreu last year. Either way, I would like to have him back.
by Buzzy on Oct 2, 2009 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year was probably a result of collusion
And it just takes one team. If it’s not the Yankees, there are still a lot of teams that are going to make bids, and only one of them needs to offer the big bucks.
Look, I’d be thrilled if we can resign Bay for anywhere from $10-15M/year, and I think he’s worth a four year contract up to $60M. But if Holliday decides he really likes St. Louis, you’d better believe the MFY will offer at least that much to Bay, and if the MFY get Holliday, somebody else is going to make a big bid for Bay and we’ll need to make him a big offer or we’ll end up having our lineup get worse while the MFYs’ gets better. That’s just reality.
by RSNexile on Oct 3, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it.
it was and still is the economy. Nearly every team paired payroll, including the Yankees. And indications are this will happen again. My guess is that the Yankees will either resign Damon or go for Holliday (which is what I would do if I was in Cashman’s shoes). Then there is no one out there aside from the Sox that would give Bay a 15 million/4 year contract I would bet. My guess is 12/4 is what it will take to get him. Of course you are correct that all of this is fluid and depends on the external interest.
by Buzzy on Oct 3, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Abreu getting 1 year, $5M wasn't collusion?
Remember he got no interest, and he’s an average outfielder who is going to hit .300 with 15-20 HR, drive in 100 runs, and walk 8-10% of the time. If he’s a clubhouse cancer I can understand him getting no interest, but everyone says he’s great, and the Angels rave about how he’s helped make the other players more patient at the plate.
And what did Adam Dunn get? $8M/year for two years? For a guy who will give you 40 HR, 100 RBI, and walk 100-120 times every year? And he didn’t get any interest either?
Yeah, the economy had an effect on salaries last year, but you can’t convince me there was no collusion when guys like Abreu and Dunn couldn’t get better contracts than those.
by RSNexile on Oct 3, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Abreu is an "average" OF?
He has been poor defensively for a while. I also don’t think his low contract was evidence of collusion by the owners. Abreu was overpaid for years, the economy was bad, and few teams are throwing tons of money at players. Also, Abreu is 35-years old.
Abreu has a .370 wOBA this year. Johnny Damon’s wOBA is .375. Both players are the same age. Both are bad defensively. Damon will be lucky to get $8 million next year. What makes you think Abreu is worth more?
As for Dunn, he only has value as a DH. Why any NL team would pay him is beyond me. And, Dunn will make $12 million next year—which makes him way overpaid.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 3, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
way overpaid
in this economy, and that’s my point. There is absolutely no evidence there was collusion of any kind-that is a rather serious contention. It is obvious, however, that the economy has had and will have a huge effect. Recall that these owners are people with outside financial investments that have taken a huge hit. Thus it is not just losses on team revenue from the economy.
by Buzzy on Oct 3, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, "average"
His UZR/150 this year is -5.9, and it’s -6.2 for his career. That’s essentially average. And while it’s true that he was overpaid for years, the going rate for an outfielder with his credentials was well above $5M, even with the poor economy and his age. Do I think he’s worth a lot more? No. But I think most baseball players making eight figures aren’t worth their contracts. They get paid that much not because they’re worth it but because they can get it.
As for Dunn, it was just about a year ago that a bunch of people here were clamoring for the Sox to sign Dunn, and I remember taking a lot of heat for saying it wasn’t worth it to outbid the Nationals for him (though to be fair, that part might have been on another site). But if Milton Bradley can get 3 years/$30M and Raul Ibanez can get 3 years/$31.5M, there’s something wrong when Adam Dunn can’t get at least that much.
by RSNexile on Oct 3, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm...
I’m at least 75% sure that a UZR of 0 is average, not half a win less than that.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 3, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but half a win is outside of that, in my book.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 4, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this makes no sense
Dunn is a unique case where his value goes WAY up if he plays in the AL and does not field. His fielding is so bad that it almost eliminates his value. He is, even this year with his great hitting, a paltry 1.2 WAR player.
by Buzzy on Oct 3, 2009 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So no AL team wanted him?
That makes no sense.
by RSNexile on Oct 4, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh.
He has proven he can hit in the AL East, unlike Holliday.
I guess my MLBTR RSS feed was broken or something – when did Holliday get a decent number of PA’s against the AL East? Bay hasn’t had more than ~800 PAs in the AL East either, so I’d hold off on “proven.”
Bay has shown that he can produce in the AL; Holliday was distinctly unimpressive in his 3 1/2 month tryout.
Kinda funny when you play with a bad team in a HUGE park for roughly half a season – it pretty much ruins any sort of predictive value that the data had.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 3, 2009 2:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A huge park explains a decrease in power numbers
But it doesn’t explain a 4% drop relative to career numbers in line drives or a 5% increase relative to career numbers in infield flies. And sure, it was just 400 plate appearances, but his numbers regressed to the mean as soon as he returned to the NL.
Further, for his career, here are Holliday’s career splits against each of the teams in the AL East with their current pitching staffs (BA/SLG/OPS):
Boston: .339/.679/1.062, 56 ABs
MFY: .245/.347/.635
Toronto: .175/.200/.433, 40 ABs
Tampa: .232/.357/.685, 56 ABs
Baltimore: .239/.435/.798, 46 ABs
Again, small sample size, but lousy against three teams, mediocre against one, and dominant against the Sox. Overall, not too impressive. Contrast that to Bay, whose numbers are excellent against MFY pitchers (.333/.546/.950, 108 ABs), solid against Toronto (.242/.545/.907, 99 ABs), acceptable against Tampa (.214/.511/.809, 131 ABs — he just needs to cut down on the strikeouts), and mediocre at best against Baltimore (.229/.448/.770, 105 ABs). I’ll take Bay’s numbers over Hollidays.
Now consider that Holliday used to crush the ball to all fields (see his home runs from the past several seasons at HitTracker, which controls for things like atmospheric conditions) but now seems to cluster them in centerfield. There’s going to come a time, probably during the contract he’s going to sign this offseason, when he’s not going to be able to muscle the ball over the centerfield fence consistently anymore, so his power numbers are going to drop even more than they did when he left Colorado. Bay, on the other hand, doesn’t have a consistent trend of where he hits his homers. This year he’s pulling most of them; last year he spread them all over; in 2007 he hit almost all of his homers to left or right. There’s no apparent reason to think his lack of pattern will change.
Then add the runs created formula used by the folks at The Hardball Times, which incorporates park effects, and you’ll see that Holliday’s RC/game figure was 0.67 for his time in Oakland compared to 0.80 in St. Louis and 0.65 for his career in Colorado and it looks like he’s been lucky in St. Louis and showed what he’s really capable of in Oakland. Meanwhile, the same RC/game calculation for Bay since he joined the Sox is 0.76.
So yeah, I think Bay is a better hitter than Holliday, particularly in the AL East. So I’d rather give him a big contract — we already know he can hit for us — than take a risk on Holliday, who is likely to command a higher contract, produce a little less, and be unable to make up for his lesser production by being a better fielder. Let the MFY overpay for Holliday; we’re better off with Bay.
by RSNexile on Oct 3, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm.
Do you not believe in WAR? Because even in the AL Holliday was a higher WAR player than Bay. You do realize that, don’t you? You also realize that despite all of you claims regarding Holliday’s hitting in the AL, and the fact that it is a small sample, he really only had one bad month-April. After that his OPS, in the worst hitters park in the AL, was about 850. That is likely about 880 in Fenway. So assuming that Holliday does that only, he is a more valuable player than Bay, who was a minus fielder by UZR even in Pittsburgh.
Lastly, several studies have shown that the difference in performance for players that switch leagues is much less than you think. Many hitters that come from the NL hit just as well in the AL. Many hitters who transfer from the AL to the NL do no better. It is not like pitching splits.
by Buzzy on Oct 3, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To sign Bay to an extension there's other factors who should be taken into consideration
1. How much the FO value his outfield talent in the minors (i.e. Kalish and Reddick) and how far they think they are from making the big club roster? If they think that one of them could be ready by say…the ASB, they have leverage in the negotiation and they could sign a one year “rent” a la Abreu, some names come to mind: Dye, Damon or one of my favorite (Connor Jackson)
2. when you evaluate the production of a baseball player, you have to consider the run prevention as much as the run production and in that category holliday has a superior value to Bay. And one of the things that caught my attention in the recent Epstein interview is that the FO is very upset with the defensive performance of the team and I think that that will be the focus this year (I think the Sox will very likely discuss with Beltre agent this winter).
3. Of course the Sox may sign Bay to 15-17 millions for 5 years and DH him when guys like Kalish or Reddick become ready…but 15-17 mill for a DH is too much IMO
4. I hope that the Sox don’t enter a bidding war with the MFY to sign, they should (and I’m pretty sure they will) assign a value to him and if Cashman is willing to exceed it, let them have him.
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
by radiohix on Oct 2, 2009 3:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wanted to add that Bay has a 3.5 WAR which translate into 15.9 millions.
this is the most the Sox FO should give him IMO.
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
by radiohix on Oct 2, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with a down market and his poor defense
Bay should still get at least $15 million a year and a 5+ year contract. He’s a marquis offensive player and offense is rarely underrated. Teixeira didn’t get a dirt-cheap contract last year, despite the terrible economy, because everyone realized he was the best FA available. The situation with Bay / Holliday should be similar.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 2, 2009 5:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Teixiera, CC, and Burnett signed w/ the MFY
On two of the three, the MFY bid against themselves. The MFY are the one team that has always overpaid for players. But this year’s situation is different for a few reasons:
(1) The MFY want to cut payroll. What that means is anyone’s guess. But they have $166 million committed. Let’s take Cashman at his word and assume they want to keep their payroll around $185 million. The have a productive player in Nick Swisher at one corner OF position under contract for next year. This means the MFY will likely go after Holliday or Bay, not both (assuming they don’t bring Damon back at a pay cut).
(2) Teixeira got his money because multiple teams were after him. But the three most important were the Angels, Sox, and MFY.
(3) Assuming the MFY want to sign one player, they’d probably go after Holliday because he’s better. That leaves Bay, who doesn’t have Scott Boras as his agent, to negotiate with the Sox, Angels, Cards, and ? Unless the Angels really want to spend the money, the Sox should have little trouble setting their price. Bay will have far less leverage this year than Teixeira had last off-season.
Based on the above, I think it’s unlikely that the Sox will offer more than 4 years/$60 million (maybe an option year). It’s also likely they’ll offer less. In my opinion, the only thing that would change this scenario would be Holliday taking less money to stay in St. Louis, which seems unlikely for a Boras client.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 2, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Completly off topic
But I wanted to share that with you: Matt Forman of Baseball America about Red Sox 1st baseman prospect (and one of my favorite) Anthony Rizzo
He has a classic lefthanded swing, though he doesn’t always pull the ball. Rizzo prefers to work the center of the field and go pole-to-pole. He has power in his bat, though he doesn’t always try to muscle the ball. His barrel stays in the zone a long time, though that means his swing tends to get long at times. He’s a plus defender, and I even had some people tell me that he could play above-average first base in the bigs right now. Rizzo has good glovework and footwork around the bag. The biggest thing managers commented on was his body he did a great job of getting into shape after chemotherapy, and one manager said he’s shaped like an NFL tight end. If you’re asking me in the long run, I would take Rizzo over Lars Anderson, but that’s just a personal preference. The knock on him is that he really needs to turn on pitches better and drive the ball. He’s a solid all-around player.
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
by radiohix on Oct 2, 2009 5:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
