Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dana White Announces Koscheck vs. Hendricks for UFC on FOX

Who Needs Jason Bay Anyway?

Essentially bringing closure to a subject already considered by many to be a moot point; Jason Bay has reached a four-year pact with the New York Mets, officially ending any chance that he may return as the Red Sox's left-fielder. The deal, reportedly worth $66 million, is just a slight upgrade from the offer made by Boston earlier this off season.

While recent rumors suggested that the Red Sox may have been in the process of considering an expansion of their available budget in relation to this off season, obviously Bay's agreement with the Mets ends any potential to that situation.

Is Jason Bay's departure truly that devastating to the Red Sox; or is his appeal more or less a product of having so few other options this off season?

How intelligent was it for Boston to go out and acquire John Lackey, Mike Cameron, and Marco Scutaro via free-agency -- essentially pricing themselves out of the running for Bay -- considering their still apparent need for a power-hitter?

Star-divide

Some fans may choose to focus on the departure of Jason Bay -- rather than the additions made in other areas -- when grading management's progress this off season. However, if you step back and look at the complete roster in comparison to that of last year's team, it's difficult to anticipate the loss of Bay as 'devastating.'

Defensive Upgrade - Mike Cameron

Mike Cameron was added at a fraction of the cost that Bay would have commanded. While Bay is certainly a better offensive option, Cameron can be considered a better overall value for many reasons. For instance, since 2002 Mike Cameron has been worth +29.6 wins (using WAR), which is about the same as the likes of David Ortiz and Aramis Ramirez. Cameron has posted a WAR of +4 or higher in three of the last four seasons when compared to Bay, and has a significantly higher UZR/150 rating over the same period of time. It is not a stretch to assume that Cameron's defensive upgrade from Bay should more than make up for the decrease in offensive numbers that he represents. All of the aforementioned comparisons become that much more relevant when the two players' contracts are brought into the discussion.

Spending Wisely - John Lackey

It's no secret that Josh Beckett may be in his final season as a member of the Boston Red Sox. Signing Lackey, a similar pitcher to Beckett in many regards, is a wise way to guarantee that Boston still features a potent 1-2 punch at the front end of their rotation for years to come (in the event that Beckett is not resigned). This gives Boston much more room for error when negotiations with Beckett and his representatives inevitably begin this season. Not only did Boston assure themselves one of the best rotations in baseball entering 2010, but they did so in a financially responsible way by still adding Cameron as a viable replacement for Bay. Why not solidify the starting rotation for years to come if you can replace Bay with an equally effective Cameron?

Cameron/Lackey/Scutaro > Bay

As stated above, Mike Cameron's defense helps alleviate some of the offensive downgrade that losing Bay represents. Couple that with Lackey's impact on the rotation and Scutaro's impact on the lineup -- it's safe to say that the current projected lineup is a significant upgrade from last year's club in general. Cameron's defensive upgrade from Bay and Scutaro's offensive upgrade from last year's shortstop merry-go-round gives Boston a better look overall.

 

There's no doubt that Jason Bay was a great player during his short-lived tenure in Boston, but all of the factors listed above were more than likely heavily considered when the Red Sox decided that Bay was just slightly out of their budget limitations. It's foolish to think that Boston couldn't come up with the extra money to land Bay if they truly felt it necessary.

Given the newly-cemented situation in Boston's outfield; how do you, the fans, feel regarding Bay's departure now?

 

Poll
How do you feel regarding Bay's departure now, all things considered?
Feel comfortable with how the budget has been used.
442 votes
Still concerned with the overall roster.
580 votes

1022 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 260 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

extremely concerned.

if Ortiz doesn’t have a MONSTER year, we could be in BIG trouble.

~SHaFF!~

by SHaFF87 on Dec 30, 2009 8:19 AM EST reply actions  

Nonsense

as I have shown, the offense will be close to what it was last year. Scutaro+a full year of VMart +Cameron are within 15 runs of production of Bay. You forget that last year’s offense was more run productive than any Sox team since 05. The 07 team was the best Sox team of the last 30 years not because of offense. It was the combination of decent offense and superior run prevention. This year’s team should save way more runs than they lose on offense. The defense alone should be significanly improved by the addtitions of Cameron and the loss of Lowell and Bay. Furthermore, last year we had 1/2 a year of Wake, 1/2 a year of a learning Buchholz and almost no Dice-K. This year we likely have a full year of our 4/5 pitchers plus Lackey. Simply much better.

We were the best team in the AL in the first half of last year. Our second half was totally marred by our pitching woes. OUr team ERA went up by nearly one point. Even so, we were much closer to the Yankees than you realize. By pythag we were within 3 wins, and by WAR we were within 4 wins. And these 2 metrics are based on performance, not based on projected performance. If you look at the Yankees last year, they has one major injury (Wang) and otherwise had nothing but near peak performance and overperformance by nearly the entire offense (and defense). Many of these guys were 35 +. The odds of this happening again are very low. Meaning if you even ran the 09 season over the odds are it is much closer. Going forward the Sox have improved their team more than the Yankees at this stage.

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2009 8:38 AM EST up reply actions  

this is assuming...

scutaro and cameron actually play like we need them to. I just have a feeling they won’t offensively. Hopefully they do, ya never know until the season starts, so we’ll just have to see.

~SHaFF!~

by SHaFF87 on Dec 30, 2009 8:42 AM EST up reply actions  

so we’ll just have to see

always true. That’s why it is interesting….

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't know how much you can count on a 37 year old

any 37 year old, no matter how well they’ve aged.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 30, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

any reason you have that feeling?

I don’t think stressing about the roster based on a gut instinct is really a good idea.

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Short leash

I know he’s not going to have a half a season to perform like he did this year.

by JaySo on Dec 30, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions  

dont think he needs a monster year. If he plays solid i think the team will be fine. Its time for others to step up. Youk and V-Mart are the ones who need to have monster years in my opinion, and i think they will

by cnubsbl16 on Dec 30, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions  

agreed

if VMart just does his career averages he’ll be a gigantic leap upward over having Varitek at C. And hopefully his up-tick in the second-half last year continues.

And Youk should be reaching his peak years for his career. He could be ready for a ‘monster year’.

I don’t know if Papi can continue to hit like he did post-June 1 last year. But I’m pretty confident he will not slump as horribly as he did pre-June 1 last year! So overall he should give us decent production for a DH.

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Ortiz needs protection in the order

I think the Sox need a bat, but I think this situation shows is how spoiled the Sox were with Manny in the line up, or took for granted the 3 and 4 spot from 2003-2008, (PEDs or no PEDs) As much as Manny drove everyone up the wall, his OPS is hugely missed. Bay was fine, but he didn’t have Manny’s patience. (anyway this isn’t a “bring back Manny” post, Manny had to go, and he isn’t the same terror at the plate as he once was)

  Ortiz has to be in better shape, and get back to hitting inside breaking balls, which was always his weakness in his scouting report, and disappeared for a couple years until it resurfaced again last year.

by superferret on Dec 30, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

hmmm.... based on the current lineup .... Drew?

would be best hitter behind Ortiz. After him you would have Cameron, Kotchman/Lowell, Scutaro. Everyone else hits in front of Papi.

Unfortunately, that’s Lefty-Lefty. If we do still have Lowell, he might make more sense to put behind Papi. Or Cameron. Drew’s superior wOBA dictates getting him getting closer to the front of the order than those guys though.

Protection is generally an overrated concept of course. But the lefty-righty mix is useful.

At any rate, there still may be moves made that will totally change things by the time the season starts.

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Drew should bat ahead of Ortiz

Ellsbury
Pedroia
VMart
Youk
Drew
Lowell
Ortiz
Cameron
Scutaro

by Gnick on Dec 30, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

No argument from me

Though I know that Francona likes to have Drew’s high OBP (and high pitch count) near the bottom of the order. The theory there is that it helps breakup having a low pitch count inning for the pitcher. That competes with the theory that your best hitters should get more at-bats, period.

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you're probably right

In that Tito will bat Ortiz ahead of Drew, and I’m prepared to be very angry about it over the course of the entire season.

by Gnick on Dec 31, 2009 12:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Protection is overrated

It’s not the absence of Manny that hurt Ortiz, it’s age and injuries

by brogshan on Dec 31, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions  

+1

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 31, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions  

that makes sense

though he might be willing to budge on that if Scutaro keeps seeing pitches like he did last year, as he’d be providing those skills from the bottom of the order

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Papi should have the opportunity to get back the three hole.

His second-half .866 OPS was third best, after Drew (.998!) and Youk (.933), better than Martinez’s (.863). If his bat speed is good coming out of the gate, I could see him sliding back into the third hole.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Jan 1, 2010 11:11 PM EST up reply actions  

good point

Tito has frequently made it clear he likes Papi at #3.

The slump was clearly a bizarre anomaly and it doesn’t seem unreasonable that his post-slump numbers are a more ‘real’ measure of his play last year.

Age HAS to be catching up with him though. Something like .850-ish doesn’t seem like an un-realistic expectation.

by mmmmm on Jan 1, 2010 11:53 PM EST up reply actions  

i really expect a much better Papi this year

maybe not as good as in the second half, but he will be in better shape start spring training, cause he also knows if he fucks it up like last season the Red Sox wont be so patient with him and if he cant produce this might be his last major league season.

by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 2, 2010 4:04 AM EST up reply actions  

2010 may indeed be a "building" year!

BTW, the Sox never won any playoff titles with Bay, so maybe he was not the magic ingredient to replace Manny.

by NG on Dec 30, 2009 8:37 AM EST reply actions  

Team hasnt been the same since we lost Manny. I want him back

by cnubsbl16 on Dec 30, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't want Manny back...

2010 Manny isn’t the 2004 Manny. I would like a player that had Manny’s stats, and his plate discipline, but Manny has left the building. I think what Sox fans realize how Manny was more like Milton Bradley, but his behavior and stats were even more extreme.

Anyway, I am guessing Manny will end up with the Indians, either traded this year, or signed with them to end his career with them and go to the HOF as an Indian.

by superferret on Dec 30, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions  

in that reality

we would have missed him for 50 games last year and then he would have posted some of the less impressive numbers of his career when he was there (which are still good but not worth what he’s getting paid). is that really what you want?

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions  

"Spending Wisely - John Lackey"

I was skimming, read the above, and assumed this was one of E-Coli’s satirical posts. I started giggling at that one.

Alas…you were serious.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 30, 2009 8:56 AM EST reply actions  

We now return to our regularly scheduled program

Spending Wisely with John Lackey

Lackey: "Welcome back folks. Now in the first half of the show, I showed you how to save money by using elbow grease to fire up your hibachi, how to pinch pennies by dumpster diving, and how to drill an oil well in your backyard.

But now it’s time for us to put our good ol’ fashioned Texas savings into action. These principles are illustrated, quite literally, in my new book John Lackey’s 5-Step Pop-up Guide to Financial Security. And what better way to apply these principles than running our own baseball team? So let’s pretend we’re the general manager of, to pick a team completely at random, the Boston Red Sox.

Step 1: The first thing to do is identify your long-term needs: what will you need most five, ten years from now? For the Red Sox, that need is clearly pitchers from Texas – with Mike Timlin gone and Josh Beckett headed for big money in free agency, they clearly need a discount Texan. That he becomes the highest-paid player on the team just shows your skill in leveraging value elsewhere!

Step 2: The next step is to identify your medium-term needs. This could be “playoff caliber pitchers” and big-game hitters.

Step 3: The third step is to identify your short-term needs. Examples are improved defense, doubly-redundant players, and career-season-having shortstops.

Step 4: Now that you’ve identified your needs, you have to identify your actualization process. First, simply create a workflow chart itemizing strategies you can take immediately to work towards those needs, and follow-up actions you can engage in to build off those strategies. Then, draft a complete cost-benefit analysis of those actions, including followthrough and ramifications; be sure to use GAAP, and compare those econometric findings to similar empirical studies. Submit the whole memo in triplicate, c.c.’ing the whole project team, with an accompanying PowerPoint presentation. Easy!

Step 5: Tear up everything you created in Step 4, set up the scraps on a large dart-board, including some random names (Hermida, Lugo, Byrd) that didn’t come up and throw darts at the board. Acquire the players you hit. Keep throwing until every roster slot is filled.

It’s an amazingly succcessful strategy, as Theo Epstein will demonstrate when he wins the World Series this year!

"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 Dec 30, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions  

That's better.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 30, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not sure Lackey and Beckett are similar pitchers

Beckett’s K-rates are much better. Since neither is a GB pitcher, their K-rates are important. As I’ve said before, I think Lackey improves the rotation in the short-run. But I don’t like the contract and I’m not sure how well he’ll hold up over five years.

As for Bay, although he is a very good offensive player, I like the Cameron signing because the Sox’ defense was a problem last year. However, if the Sox plan to play Ellsbury in CF and Cameron in LF, I think they might have been better off with Bay or Holliday. Cameron’s value is in CF, where he is a big upgrade over Ells. If the Sox are serious about improving their run-prevention, they have to go with the better glove in a premium defensive position. Putting Cameron in CF and Ells in LF means that the Sox have upgraded their defense in two positions. If Cameron is in LF, they’ve only improved defensively at one position—and probably would have been better off signing Holliday, a defensive upgrade over Bay (or keeping Bay for the offense).

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2009 9:09 AM EST reply actions  

agreed about Cameron in CF

Putting Ells in LF makes Ells a more valuable player (same offense, better defense). It also provides a significant defensive upgrade at both positions. Leaving Ells in CF means you only get a defensive boost at LF – where arguably there is less room for an upgrade, given the nature of Fenway, so you are wasting a lot of Cameron’s defensive value.

I think most of us agree that over the long haul, Beckett is going to be at least a slightly better pitcher than Lackey from this point. But it is pretty clear they are at least comparable. The thing is, you still have to sign Beckett. If they lose Beckett next year and didn’t have at least some sort of comparable replacement, then they would be totally hosed. Lackey’s price was the going rate for that level of pitcher. And having him provides additional leverage with Beckett next year.

Any contract over 3 years makes me nervous. But that’s the market. There is no way you are going to get that quality of pitcher without signing a 5 year deal and Burnett set the price last year. If they had traded for Halladay they still would have had to sign him to a big contract in addition to giving up prospects. If they had traded for Lee – he too will need to be signed so you’d be looking at signing both him AND Beckett next year – plus they would have had to give up somebody. So I don’t see where the other options might have been (unless we think they should have gotten Javier Vasquez from the Braves like the MFY did). And at least for Lackey’s style/quality of pitcher (big, physical power pitcher with a history of success) there is some precedent for that style of pitcher being able to pitch very effectively well into their 30s. Yes, the overall averages don’t look promising, but if you just focus on similar pitchers, its a little more reassuring.

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

at this point the only argument for ells in CF is

that he’s the “future” CF and we have to let him figure it out. I say that he is trade bait and a great year of LF could make him look good next offseason. I bet by then one of our OF prospects will look a lot better.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I felt fine about Bay's departure as soon as the team signed Cameron.

 I’d rather that Holliday signed the 5yr/82 million contract the Sox offered, but that wasn’t going to happen. All in all I believe the team has improved.

by brogshan on Dec 30, 2009 11:06 AM EST reply actions  

Med reports say Lowell will be improved so that's an upgrade from '09.

SS upgrade from ’09.
C upgrade from ’09.
LF downgrade from ’09.
CF upgrade from ’09.

  1. SP upgrade from ’09.
  2. SP upgrade from ’09.
  3. SP upgrade from ’09.
    Occasional use #6 SP upgrade from ’09.

’10 looks pretty good to me as it stands right now.

by dsharp on Dec 30, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm hoping they won't need to.

If they can find a way to sign Beltre.

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions  

they cant afford him

and they have good internal options.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Who?

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 30, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

i keep saying lowrie should be the 3B

and if he doesn’t work out, then kotchman at first is fine

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions  

ugh.

does that mean that we should never let him play again? he’s really talented, let him start the year as the 3B, if he gets hurt, then do the kotchman idea. lowrie at third is clearly the best idea, because if healthy he will be better than kotchman most likely and it doesn’t require moving youk to third, which would lower his value.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Lowrie’s bat projected to be slightly above average for a SS, not so much at 3B. I feel like the Kotchman is a better bet to perform well offensively.

by Gnick on Dec 31, 2009 12:06 AM EST up reply actions  

he's not really injury prone

he’s had one injury that the FO did not allow to heal properly, so it recurred. If he can prove he’s healthy in ST (and really prove it) then I think he’d be a great solution. But it really is tough to go into ST with that many question marks

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Don't need to

with Lowrie, Tek, and Kotchman as backups.

by drabidea on Dec 30, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

120-140 games from Lowell would be great.

If he’s health enough to play, great!

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Jan 1, 2010 11:15 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think so..

Lowell injury is in some ways more wrist related than thumb related. His hitting may be drastically effected by the injury, and he may have to take some time to get some decent numbers.

by superferret on Dec 30, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I meant the hip injury

but the thumb surgery went well and he should be healed in 6-8 weeks in time for spring.

by dsharp on Dec 30, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions  

they still could

sign Beltre, but only if it’s a 2 year deal at 6mil per.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 2:29 AM EST up reply actions  

I could see them going a third year

because he’s still young enough and likely to produce value for the duration.

I just don’t think they’ll pay the per year salary that Boras’ wants.

$6 M per year sounds about right to me. If you go the extra year, you maybe can front load the first year or two to 7 to provide incentive to sign.

Ultimately, we’ll see what the market gives him.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Don't care at all about Jason Bay

I got real tired of seeing him helpless against sliders. Cameron is probably overall an upgrade over him, and we would have had to overpay for bay and lock ourselves up long term.

i am saddened by the turn of events for bay though. he really overestimated the market for himself. He rejected the sox offer thinking that he would get at least 5/80, but ended up taking an almost identical offer from a team that is not winning anytime soon, and has a wicked pitchers park. also, now we know that this talk from his agent about how they have more attractive offers on the table than the sox offer was BS. they had one other offer, and it was barely more appealing. its kinda sad, but we’re better without him.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 1:14 PM EST reply actions  

With the vesting option

The Mets are pretty much giving Bay 5 years/$80 million.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

hmmm...

i guess if it really is that easy for it to vest, than yeah. i guess he’d rather play longer in a horrible place then slightly shorter in a great place.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions  

4 years/$66 million with a $14 million option for a 5th year. It’s a guaranteed option based on PA.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 2, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it's actually

4 years/$63 million with a $17 million vesting option or a $3 million buyout if it doesn’t vest. Which is in effect practically the same thing

by wolf9309 on Jan 2, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Not according to Cot's

It’s listed as 4/66.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 2, 2010 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

right but it's not officially announced

so the numbers are all based off of hearsay. The most recent reports were that it’s 4/$63 with a $17 million vesting option or a $3 million buyout- but in that report, he’s still guaranteed $66 mill, and has an $80 million maximum, its not really a difference either way except for when he gets which paychecks.

by wolf9309 on Jan 2, 2010 6:57 PM EST up reply actions  

at least the most recent I've seen

I try to know everything, but can’t quite pull it off

by wolf9309 on Jan 2, 2010 6:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Bay was going for years

I think all agents are going to say they have better offers when trying to get their clients more money/years. The biggest problem was a market didn’t develop. I’ve got to say I am very surprised more teams weren’t bidding, but once the Sox moved on it removed all incentive to increase the monetary amount of Bay’s contract offers.

by brogshan on Dec 30, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

i don't get why the yankees weren't in on him.

if im not mistaken they are owned and run by billionaires. does another 15 million really make much of a difference? its pretty obvious that they could easily sign anyone, i mean anyone they wanted and still be fine financially. If they had signed bay to DH and Holliday to play LF, it would push them up to like 240 mil in payroll, and another 40 million to a billionaire really is quite meaningless. i don’t get why they are being conservative, but i am glad they are. of course, they could still be in on holliday.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions  

...they are owned and run by billionaires

There are several teams (including the Red Sox) who’s owners are far richer then the Steinbrenners. The Yankees have a great revenue stream and are not hesitant to take an operating loss to gain a World Series Ring. It looks like the Sox are afraid of triggering the extra luxury tax another year over the limit will cause. That looks to be the prime motive for most of the Sox’s off season moves this winter.

by RobertG on Dec 30, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Because Cashman understands diminished returns

The Yankees already have enough good players that adding Bay won’t really change them. They’ll most likely be a 95+ win team next year. Bay makes them a 96+ win team. Just because they have boat loads of money doesn’t mean they have to keep spending it unwisely.

by brogshan on Dec 31, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Steinbrenners aren't billionaires....

The key is the Yankees have great revenue streams from licensing, YES, gate receipts, etc. They pretty much use all their revenue to cover annual overhead, which sadly most baseball teams do.

Baseball is a business of very tight net profit margins. It is not much different from other labor intensive businesses.

When the Yankees flourished, is when Steinbrenner was forced to leave them alone, except the checkbook.

Also, the luxury tax was waived, if I remember correctly, if the team is building a new stadium. Now that Coors Field East has been built, the luxury tax is back, and the MFY have a huge amount of debt..

by superferret on Dec 31, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Steinbrenner'e are billionaires.

The MFY were valued by Forbes at $1.5 billion.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Jan 2, 2010 12:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Steinbrenner's aren't billionaires...

Look at the Value/Debt figure for the MFY. Baseball teams needs a huge amount of commercial paper to keep the paychecks printed, the light bills to be paid, and to patch them over after gate receipts and ad revenue comes in. The MFY are carrying a high debt load.

If the Steinbrenners sold the MFY, tomorrow, they aren’t going to get $1.5 billion. Much of the Forbes valuation is market share, which is pretty difficult to qualified for valuation of a team that is on the market.

by superferret on Jan 3, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Mets not winning anytime soon?

They are fairly talented…just need more starting pitching and not be plagued with injury like they were in 2009.

by upCHUCK on Dec 30, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions  

mets aren't winning anytime soon.

yeah they’ve got some talent, and they’ll be better this year. but they probably won’t make the playoffs for the reason you said: they need more pitching. They have an aging santana and a really good closer, and then… kelvim escobar. the phillies are far superior, especially now that they have halladay, who i would take a thousand times over cliff lee.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't be negative towards Bay

like others just think he’s done too much good here.

by JaySo on Dec 30, 2009 3:17 PM EST reply actions  

Agreed

Not even just here. Think of all those years where he was the only good player for the Pirates. That must have sucked.

by drabidea on Dec 30, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Just one question, does Scutaro/Cameron/V-Mart = Bay/SS platoon/Varitek and half V-Mart? Bay didn’t play three positions.

This offense is going to be weak, Scutaro won’t put up the numbers he put up in the first half of last year, V-Mart isn’t a very good defensive catcher, and Cameron can’t hit for average and barely steals anymore.

Quit missing out on players because you want to save 5 mil. over 4 years, Theo. This is Boston, not Tampa Bay. And you might as well keep Lowell for 2010, you’re gonna pay him anyways. Beltre blows, I’d rather have Lowell with half a hip and a floppy thumb. Especially if signing Beltre means Boston pays Lowell to play elsewhere and puts the team over the luxury tax.

Who needs Jason Bay anyway? BOSTON DOES.

by Doc Souce on Dec 30, 2009 3:51 PM EST reply actions  

If Boston were still in the race

Bay doesn’t sign for 5/80 with the Mets, he signs for more. Boston can’t both be in play and have its 4/60 offer as a reality, plain and simple.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 30, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Completely wrong.

You lost when you suggested we platoon Varitek and half V-Mart.

You further went into the hole with ‘V-Mart isn’t a very good defensive catcher’ – please back that up with some facts.

V-Mart’s been a perfectly fine everyday catcher for some of the best pitching staffs in baseball, including two Cy Young award winners. For some reason folks here in Boston have this notion that because V-Mart is a great hitting catcher he must have some sort of defensive short-comings. Well if he does, folks need to point them out instead of just assuming that is the case. The numbers don’t back that up. And please don’t throw caught-stealing percentages at me. Those are not a very important measure of a catcher’s defensive value, especially on a team like the Red Sox who have a pitching philosophy of basically ignoring base runners.

Of note – even as an everyday catcher, V-Mart has not shown any tendency to drop off in the second half either.

His offensive value over the average catcher is enormous and the fact that we are starting the season with him at that spot is a huge improvement over where we spent half the season last year.

Scutaro may not put up the same numbers as last year, but he’ll almost certainly provide significant overall improvement in both offense and defense over what we got out of SS last year.

Bay is a very fine hitter, but his defense was a significant detriment.

Cameron will probably continue to get on base at his typical just-slightly-below-league average OBP of .340 or so and hit 20-25 HRs. He’s been very consistent the last 4 years. His slugging may go up in Fenway because he’s such a pull hitter and that wall will love him. So offensively he won’t be stellar, but he won’t hurt us. He’ll be a positive contributor. His defense, though, will be huge improvement over what we had last year. By putting Ellsbury in LF and Cameron in CF, the combo will literally make a ton of outs that were not made last year with Bay in LF and Ells in CF. I could care less if Cameron never steals another base.

And you obviously know nothing about Beltre. Oh heck, why do I bother?

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

What?! “You lost when you suggested we platoon Varitek and half V-Mart.”

You missed the point. Don’t talk down to me if you can’t even get what I am speaking about. Everyone is sitting here like Scutaro/Cameron/V-Mart will produce more than Bay. Well, OF COURSE, Bay didn’t play three positions last season. My question is will this year’s Scutaro/Cameron/V-Mart produce more than last year’s Bay/SS platoon/HALF A SEASON OF V-MART and Varitek? That answer is no.

Beltre is a joke. Good fielder, joke batter. He had one good season behind the plate and has failed the rest of his career.

by Doc Souce on Dec 30, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions  

i agree w most of your post

but think you’re wrong about beltre. he’s a much better hitter than you think – look at how he hit away from Safeco – something like a .850 OPS, with pretty good defense. However it seems like the Sox are willing to overpay for him

by halflink123 on Dec 30, 2009 8:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Thank you for clarifying your first question.

My question is will this year’s Scutaro/Cameron/V-Mart produce more than last year’s Bay/SS platoon/HALF A SEASON OF V-MART and Varitek?

Actually, offensively it should be reasonably close. And more importantly, it will do a much, much better job at run prevention. When you net out both offensive and defensive production, then its easy. The Scutaro/Cam/V-Mart package is a much better package.

I’m still waiting for you to backup the assertion that ‘V-Mart isn’t a very good defensive catcher."

And on what basis could you possibly assert that Beltre is a ‘joke’? Did you even look at his numbers? They are posted up and down in these various threads. If he’s a ‘joke’ of a batter, with a career .826 OPS on the road, then you have pretty high standards ….

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions  

The problem with Bay and his contract demands

His stats are going to drop especially in the 3rd and 4th year. His defense is already a liability. In some ways, he is going much like Johnny Damon’s time with the Yankees. An average to good player not worth his contract…

I think the Sox offered Bay a pretty nice deal. They offered him this deal in the Summer, and he and his agent turned it down, and they didn’t budge. As much as the Sox needed Bay’s bat, they don’t need a heavy laden contract that they would have to eat if Bay’s stats faltered. I think the Sox in the long run, made the right decision, even though there are questions on the 2010 season in OPS, and big demands for the starting rotation and the bullpen to take more of a burden..

by superferret on Dec 30, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

to finish mmmmm's thought,

Beltre is WAY better than lowell. he’s one of the best defenders in the league, hits pretty well away from SAFECO and has good power. lowell is horrible defensively, doesn’t really hit well anywhere and is especially sucky on the road, can’t run at all, is really old, really expensive…. the sox have been trying to get rid of him since the end of 2008 for a reason.

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Wrong!

Boston doesn’t need Bay. If anything Bay needed Boston. Sure Bay posted career numbers in HRs and RBI, but he slumped badly in June and July, struckout a ton, was a below average defender and ONLY hit .267. They can get that from Camereon and he will IMPROVE the defense. Also Bay steals less than Cameron, from 2007-2009 Bay stole 27 Bases, while from the same time frame Cameron stole 42 bases.

As for Beltre, you are smoking crack if you think he sucks. Sure he isn’t worth going over the Luxury tax for. But if they could get him for a 1-2 yr deal for no more than 6 mil per I would do it in a heartbeat.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 2:44 AM EST up reply actions  

Well I personally think that Scutaro will have more production than Gonzo and V-Mart playing catcher all year will increase our production. I like Beltre if we can get him at a good price, mainly for his defense.

by JaySo on Dec 30, 2009 4:30 PM EST reply actions  

Don't discount Beltre's offense.

He’s had the misfortune of playing at Dodger Stadium and SafeCo Park – two of the WORST hitter’s parks.

Look instead at his road stats for his career :

       Total Home Road
PA 6877 3308 3569
AB 6285 3297 3272
HR 24 21 26 (adjusted for 162 game season)
BA .270 .253 .287
OBP .325 .311 .338
SLG .453 .416 .488
OPS .779 .727 .826

So he’s a significantly better hitter than his raw numbers would suggest. Offensively he would NOT be a drop-off from what Lowell has given us these last few years. Arguably, Lowell’s numbers already have benefited greatly from Fenway and if you compare his road numbers to Beltre’s, to remove park effects, Beltre looks like an upgrade. And defensively he’s a huge upgrade over what Lowell provided last year.

Unfortunately I doubt we will be able to pay for him, based on what Boras seems to be asking.

by mmmmm on Dec 30, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions  

oh,

you did finish your beltre thought

by revived0103 on Dec 30, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Yea I think the 10 mil is a bit much for his BA and OBP. Unfortunately, Boras is a big numbers guy and know’s this info and will try to milk the Sox for every penny.

by JaySo on Dec 30, 2009 5:35 PM EST reply actions  

Sox offense.

Sox will be 6 – 7 games behind the NYY by the all-star break. Most likely due to losses to NYY. Sox need to score at least 5 runs in games the pitching holds opponents to 4 or less. They lost too many games last year where they were not able to score runs in games the pitchers held teams to 4 or less.

by Al B. on Dec 30, 2009 7:13 PM EST reply actions  

Hahaha

So the key to the Sox having a good season is scoring more runs than they give up?

Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.

by CasanovaWong on Dec 30, 2009 7:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Great analysis AL.

by JaySo on Dec 30, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Yup.

Can’t argue with THAT logic.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 8:32 AM EST up reply actions  

You guys need a big bat or two

I thought I saw the writing on the wall after the Manny trade – this club became a weaker offensive ball club, and surprisingly the trend has been to put even less of an emphasis on offense. After Manny left, anyone notice how Ortiz’ numbers dipped? It’s at least a plausible hypothesis that without that protection in the lineup, Ortiz reverted to the sort of player he was with the Twins. Now, a 34 year old DH with a sub .800 OPS may not be bad in any other division, but when you’re playing against the Yankees, that ain’t gonna cut it. And I’m not a Yankee fan.

I think the Red Sox will sorely miss Bay. I thought the Red Sox would go after a big hitter, i.e. Holliday, but surprisingly that hasn’t been the case. Isn’t that funny? I thought the Red Sox needed to UPGRADE from Bay, and they went out and got Cameron? If the brass is trying to nickle and dime itself to a championship, it ain’t going to happen.

The Lackey signing was good; the Scutaro signing not so much, IMO. It’s a great world for baseball players when a guy like Scutaro can make that kind of money.

by halflink123 on Dec 30, 2009 8:39 PM EST reply actions  

boy are you uninformed about baseball.

did you notice that in the year and a half since Manny left the team actually scored more runs than in the year and a half before that? Baseball is about scoring more than the other team. The 07 Sox scored 80 fewer runs than the 03 team. They were a much better team.

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions  

I'll try to break this down so that even Red Sox fans like you can understand it:

Manny Ramirez career OPS: 1.002

Jason Bay career OPS: .895

Maybe to Red Sox fans like you, 1.002 is a smaller number than .895, but not to most people more than 3 years old.

Team run totals will fluctuate from year to year, even with the almost the same personnel. Case in point the 2008, 2009 Chicago Cubs.

Don’t call me uninformed, you uninformed jackass.

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 8:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Huh?

I don’t think anyone was making an argument that Jason Bay has been a better hitter than Manny over his career. However, Bay was as productive with the Sox in 2008-2009 as Manny was in 2007-2008:

Manny – .881 OPS (2007) .926 OPS (2008)
Bay – .897 OPS (2008) .921 OPS (2009)

I think Buzzy’s point was that the 2009 Sox were a significantly better offensive team than the 2007 Sox, yet the ‘07 Sox team won the WS. The 2009 team was better offensively at every position except DH (Papi had a monster year) and 3B (Lowell’s best year in Boston). At 2B, they were even: Pedroia had an .823 OPS in 2007 and an .819 OPS last year.

The 2007 team was better despite scoring fewer runs because they gave up far fewer runs. Run-prevention is just as important as run-scoring. The Sox allowed 79 fewer runs in 2007 than they did in 2009. Buzzy used the example of the 2003 Sox, by far the best offensive Sox team since 1950. In 2003, 7 players finished with 19+ HR and .800+ OPS. Still, the 2009 Red Sox were better. Why? Because they allowed far fewer runs.

Many fans and sportswriters are obsessed with run-scoring. They look at offense to predict how well a team will do. If you focus only on the offense, you lose sight of what Theo has done this off-season. The Lackey and Cameron signings were geared toward run-prevention. Cameron is also a pretty good offensive player. Marco Scutaro isn’t a bad defender and he is a pretty big offensive upgrade over Nick Green/Alex Gonzalez.

If Cameron is in CF (not counting 3B because the situation there isn’t settled), the Sox should be well above average at LF, CF, RF, 2B, 1B (both Youk and Kotchman are very good defenders), and they should be about average at SS. Even if Youk plays 3B, he should be a pretty significant upgrade over the 2009 version of Mike Lowell. By UZR150, Cameron was the 3rd best defensive CF in baseball last year. Drew was tops among RF, and Pedroia was the #3 defensive 2B. Put Beltre, the top defensive 3B in the game, on the team and the Sox may field the best defensive team in baseball. Add to that an improved rotation that should be one of the best in the game and a good pen, and the Sox should more than offset the loss of Jason Bay.

By focusing only on offense, I think you’re missing the point. The moves the Sox have made this year have improved the team. They should still be one of the top offensive teams in the AL—and they have improved their pitching and defense.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 31, 2009 9:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Is it the holidays that leads to the superlong posts?

Some of us check OTM while supposedly working. We need quick, ignorant kneejerk news blurb type posts, not well-reasoned statistical arguments.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 31, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions  

Sorry

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 31, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions  

The apology

was all I wanted. Remember, don’t think before you post.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 31, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions  

And if you do think...

…keep it to yourself.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions  

I strongly disagree

Well if no one knows what his point was, I guess that tells you something about his post.

BTW Cameron is crap. If you don’t believe me now, you will after watching this guy play. I hope for your sake he’ll prove me wrong, but I doubt it. Overrated defensively and a below average hitter. 37 years old.

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Theo disagrees as well.

Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.

by CasanovaWong on Dec 31, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions  

I've watched him for years.

My eyes tell me you are wrong.

And all the numbers say you are wrong. He is definitely NOT overrated defensively. He’s easily one of the top 5 defensive CFs in the game. UZR150 rates him 3rd. And offensively, he is basically right at average for OBP – with above average SLG. Ergo – he’s actually, measurably an above average hitter.

Just what, pray tell, have you provided to back up your assertions?

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I watched him too

He’s all hype, and he can’t hit. He strikes out a ton, he’s old, he hits .220, don’t say i didn’t warn you when you see this next year:

NYM 140 493 76 114 30 1 30 76 57 143 22 6 .231 .319 .479 .798

or maybe even this

CWS 141 396 53 83 16 5 8 43 37 101 27 11 .210 .285 .336 .621

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions  

When he put up that line for the White Sox our president was Bill Clinton, people were freaking out about Y2K, Zima was our beer of choice, Segways were popular, and people were dismissing the internet as a fad.

by Gnick on Dec 31, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

And producing much better than he did at 25.

by Gnick on Dec 31, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions  

cherry pick much? Here are some more fruity bits:

Fact: His career strikeout rate (159/162g) is virtually IDENTICAL to Bay’s (157/162).

Fact: The last 4 years straight he has hit between 21 and 25 HRs. In fact in the last 6 years he’s only hit less than 21 once, in 2004, when he hit 12 in only 76 games – which maps to 20+ for a full season.

Fact: His career OPS is .342 and has been rock steady around that for the last 5 years. That is basically league average (slightly above actually).

Fact: His career SLG is .448 and has been HIGHER than that for all but one of the last 6 years. Significantly higher than league average.

Fact: His career numbers include many seasons playing in SafeCo and NY, San Diego and Milwaukee – suck parks for a hitter. His road OBP is .346 and his road SLG is .467. And this guy is designed for Fenway.

Fact: In 2009 the AL league-average CF put up OPS of .329 and SLG of .403.

So whether you are comparing to all positions or his own position, there is no support for you claim that Cameron is a below average hitter. He is significantly above average.

He’s a much better, more consistent hitter than in his youth. You keep throwing Batting Average out there. I don’t think you realize just what poor measure that is of a hitter. At any rate, if you must look at it, while his career BA is ‘only’ .250 overall, once you escape the bad home parks he’s been in, its a respectable .257 on the road. In Fenway, he’ll probably hit right around .255-.265. But really, I could care less about Batting Average.

Cameron is not Jason Bay. He’s not going to put up a .900+ OPS. But he’ll almost certainly be solid offensively, giving us something around .790-.810 which will be well above league average for a CF (.732 in 2009).

And defensively, he’ll be a huge, huge upgrade – especially since Ellsbury will be an upgrade over in LF.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

+1.

Plus, it’s not Cameron vs. Bay, it’s Cameron + Lackey vs. Bay plus some garbage-heap $5 million gamble as our 5th or 6th starter.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Jan 1, 2010 11:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Overrated?

Cameron is crap and is overrated defensively? Seriously Halflink, besides your disdain for Cameron what are u basing this on? Pls let us all know

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Hmm

I’m an uninformed jackass. Good one. The issue is not Manny as a career player, it is Manny as an oft-out of the lineup (for the Sox) 35+ year old player. It is simply a fact that the Sox score more in 08 per game after Manny left than before, and score more in 09 than in 06, 07 or 08 with Manny. Sure Manny is a good offensive player, but there are 8 other guys that hit. The best Manny=Oritz combined year was 06, a year that the Sox had their worse offense of the decade and missed the playoffs. Further, it is not the offense but the team total net offense-runs prevented that matters. Now go finish your on-line GED program, moron.

by Buzzy on Dec 31, 2009 9:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Haha

Will you be in my class? I don’t want you cheating off of me.

OK so this makes sense to you:
Premise 1: Trade a better offensive player for an inferior offensive player,
Premise 2: Team scores more runs after the trade than before.

Then, Premise 1 caused Premise 2? Wow, just wow.

Online GED? Maybe you need this instead:

http://www.fastq.com/~jbpratt/education/links/preactonline.html

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Actually...it's the same premise, Mr. GED.

Hopefully they don’t ask you to define “”http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise" target="new">premise" on your exam.

You seem to have a problem grasping the point. That being Manny was one player of 9 in the batting order. And one of 9 in the field. Basically, he is one factor in a myriad of factors that lead to wins and losses.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions  

HTML FAIL

PREMISE

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions  

You use "law".

We use “logic”. I guess that’s the problem.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Slick, do you honestly think that anyone here is arguing that less offense is better?

Shake your head. Seriously. Push your chair back from your desk and shake your head.

People here are debating the balances of offense AND defense, and comparing it to the amount of money spent and the length of time contractually obligated to pay it. And then seeing how that fits into the whole of the team.

We all want players who knock in 120 runs a season. We also want someone who can do it for the full length of the contract and can maybe snag a fly ball or two.

I grasp your point just fine. It’s just wrong, is all.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions  

are you so stupid that you don't

know that defense matters, and that Bay’s is horrible and that Cameron’s is good? Do you know what WAR is, and how it shows that Cameron was clearly more valuable than Bay last year? Do you understand that it is NET runs that metter in baseball? No one is arguing that Bay is not a better hitter than Cameron. However, as you can read in my fanpost, projections show that the loss in offense is nearly accounted for by the gain in offense from SS and C. The gain in defense is approximately 40 runs. You do the math, genius.

by Buzzy on Dec 31, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions  

now we're finally getting somewhere, maybe

Do you understand WAR? My bet is no. No one on here even understands UZR (I sure as hell don’t), they just parrot back numbers couched as reasoning or rationale and make stuff up to get their reasoning in line with theo’s.

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

hmm

hey moron the correlation coefficient between WAR and W-L is 0.82. Yeah, that means it is “made up.” Last year Sox total WAR+replacement level (42)=94. Total team wins=95. Coincidence? Now…what were you saying?

by Buzzy on Dec 31, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions  

As for Bay Cameron

Bays defense is underrated
Camerons is overrated

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

right

that is why no team but the Mets even offered him a contract outside of the team he played for in 09. Perhaps in your world Omar Minaya runs a good ship. Maybe the “made up” numbers that all GMs are using (that also show your reasoning to be completely wrong) got in the way.

by Buzzy on Dec 31, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

arrogant and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

And..I said “online” program. How could I be in your class? Maybe you need reading comprehension classes too.

by Buzzy on Dec 31, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Ortiz reverted BEFORE Manny left

He was bad for the half season before, and in fact has picked it up later in the year in both 2008 and 2009. So that would seem to completely disprove the theory that Manny’s disappearance effected Papi in any way.

As for the rest of your…post…You’ve done a hell of a job completely ignoring anything other than offense. So I’m going to do a hell of a job completely ignoring the rest of your post.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 30, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions  

we could probably get hanley

and he’d promptly break both his legs.

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

The Curse of Nomah

Two World Championships and chronic shortstop issues. ;)

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

I'll take the World Championships

I don’t care if our next SS bursts into flame due to Spontaneous Human Combustion

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Mark Loretta hit

.335 /.391/.495 before he came here, and JT Snow mashed at a .327/.429/.529 clip, how’d that go for us?

Scutaro does not have a 4.3 WAR, he HAD a 4.3 WAR. I would be shocked if he even sniffed 3 this season.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 31, 2009 1:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Mark Loretta had 3 straight good years and suffered a sudden decline in 2005 before coming here.

JT Snow, similarly, started inexplicably pounding the ball into the ground.

The argument against Scutaro is “1-year-wonder”, not “Good player randomly ending up sucking”

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 4:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Guh?

I’m saying (for once) that Scutaro isn’t a one year wonder, but that his outlier season is nothing close to what can be expected. Loretta had a .698, .791 and .818 before exploding to the .886 which was a clear outlier, while Snow had a .750, .704 and .806 before the .958. We certainly didn’t get production close to the outlier then, and this is pretty similar.

I think it’s ridiculous to assume Scutaro will come anywhere near his outlier season.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 31, 2009 9:02 AM EST up reply actions  

Yea that makes sense

You’re cherry picking a 1/2 season when they hit together for what, 3 or 4 years?

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 8:28 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes, it does.

You claim that Manny leaving was cause for Ortiz’ struggles.

Except that Ortiz’ struggles started before Manny left.

And got better AFTER Manny left.

Correlation does not mean causation, but a lack of correlation absolutely denies causation.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Why not nickle and dime ourselves to a championship. The Marlins did, twice.

by JaySo on Dec 30, 2009 9:06 PM EST reply actions  

No if you recall,

The Marlins first championship they overpaid to get and then had to have a firesale after they won. The second was mostly the result of incredibly good timing in some guys coming up from the minors most notably Miguel Cabrera.

With the Yankees on their game you can’t scrimp, that is my point – look where it’s got you – you lost Teixiera, you lost Manny, you lost Bay, you didn’t get A-Rod when you could’ve; 1 or 2 of these gaffes is OK but if the brass starts making a habit of it, that can’t be good.

by halflink123 on Dec 31, 2009 8:30 AM EST up reply actions  

kinda missing my point tho, just because you overspend doesn’t automatically put you into contention. The Detroit Tigers of 2009 are clear examples of that, until this past year you could make the same argument with the Yanks.

by JaySo on Dec 31, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

and they (Yanks) didn’t really blow anyone out of the water during the playoffs, they looked beatable.

by JaySo on Dec 31, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

They call that ball fair and the

game is indisputably not affected whatsoever.

Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.

by CasanovaWong on Jan 1, 2010 5:28 AM EST up reply actions  

The real interesting question is not whether we miss Jason Bay its if the Red Sox really spend their money wisely.

The majority of the regular posters here thought Bay was barely (if at all) worth the 4Y/60M contract the Sox offered, the 5Y/80M he seems to get from the Mets (with the 5th year being an easy to reach option year) is very clearly a bad deal and I’m happy the Sox dont pay him that kind of money. I’m actually very suprised Omar gave him that bad a deal. The Mets cant even hide Bay at DH and have a much bigger LF than the Sox. So the Sox definetly dont need Bay especially with that contract.

But did the Sox really spend that money wisely? If we just look at 2010 are the Red Sox a better Team with a) Lackey/Lowell or with b) Beltre and a pitcher in the 6-8M 1year contract range? Add to that the fact that Beltre would only receive a 3year deal, i think at max 3Y/30M, prolly closer to 24M. So the Sox might have been a better team in 2010 with option b) and would also have more longterm financial flexibility. Whats your take on that?

by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 31, 2009 1:58 AM EST reply actions  

Yes they did!

Signing Lackey probably gave the Red Sox the best 1-2-3 punch in baseball. Add in the fact the Sox get a full season from a healthy Dice K and either Buch or Wakefield at the end of the rotation. Plus they added Cameron and Scutaro who improves the defense ten fold. And if they could add Beltre for 2 years on the cheap they really would have spent their money wisely.

By not resigning Bay and even without a Beltre signing the Sox improved the OF and IF defense and starting pitching. If they signed Bay they would be in the same boat defensively and who is to say Bay would hit another 30+ hr or driven another 110+ RBI? How do we know he wasn’t playing for a contract year? Plus I really don’t see Bay putting up 09 numbers 4 years in a row.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Our friend from Germany isn't saying they should've signed Bay.

He’s saying that Lackey’s money would’ve been better spent elsewhere, and I can’t help but agree. Does it give us a fantastic rotation 1-5? Yes. But for 18 million dollars, we could’ve had a top-of-the-line corner outfielder in Matt Holliday, for instance, with less risk of him disappearing later in his contract than Lackey, who’s had some injury issues and, like Beckett, hasn’t been “that guy” for a few years now.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 5:00 AM EST up reply actions  

well, putting aside Holliday's intrinsic value vs Lackey's

by securing Lackey, they strategically hedge against Beckett’s free agency next year AND they potentially make Buchholz available as a trading chip.

They don’t get those things with Holliday.

Plus, they DID make the same offer to get Holliday -but Boras wanted more. He is asking (last I heard) for 5 x $20 M for Holliday.

Do you think THAT is what they should have spent on Holliday? Not to mention they would still be waiting on it since Boras loves to string things out. That would possibly have delayed making other moves.

The more I think about it, the more i think the Lackey signing was the right move.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions  

They hedge against Beckett's FA by getting a slightly worse pitcher than Beckett

Who is slightly older
For about the same money as Beckett will ask for.
Color me unenthused.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

THIS

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 31, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

If the Yanks can manage CC and Burnett money.

I think the Sox can manage Burnett money twice. With all the money coming off after this year, what’s to stop the Sox from duplicating Lackey’s contract with Beckett. The way Josh has been up and down for Boston I think he’d most likely take that, especially if he has a year like last year.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions  

with all the improved defense behind him

Beckett will probably have a good year and expect big $$ ….

Sigh, you win games, you lose players (or money) …

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Beckett's kind of interesting.

He has an odd/even year trend that’s kind of fun to watch. I’m of course in no way planning on Beckett having a horrible year because 2010 ends in an even number, I’m just throwing it out to think on.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions  

But your counter option (to signing Lackey) above was to sign Holliday

Not a slightly better pitcher who is slightly younger.

And as I said – Theo agreed – his first offer was to get Holliday and only turned to Lackey when he couldn’t get Holliday for the price he was willing to pay. Once Holliday was not available at 5 at 82.5M, then Theo moved on. And I think that at that point the Lackey/Cameron signings were the right choice.

So my question remains – how much would you have paid for Holliday? Keep in mind also that getting Holliday would have meant keeping Ellsbury in CF so factor that in.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions  

One of them.

That’s why I said “for instance”. The point of that post was not to suggest a different plan of attack, but to say that there were others.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Fair enough

So can we agree that

a) We could NOT have had Holliday for 18 M (because we were turned down) and therefore
b) it is NOT an example of a wiser, alternative expenditure?

Perhaps you could list some of the others so we could examine them?

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

No

We can agree on A) when Holliday signs. It seems entirely likely you’re right, but we’ll see.
And when we can agree on A), we can agree on B).

Now, as for others, I said my favorite idea below of Beltre, Duchscherer, and probably a good reliever or just luxury tax space to let us make moves later in the season.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

We can Agree on A)

The reports out of the cardinals camp is they offered him 8years at 100mil plus. How true that is we don’t know. But we do know he will sign for more than 5/82.5

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, Beltre and Duch

would have been good. I think you would have had to do more though. That would have left us with an outfield of Hermida + Ells + Drew.

Not liking that.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

i dont think ben is questioning the Cameron signing

the general question is whether the 16.5 M for Lackey could have spend elsewhere giving us less risk and in the same time even more WAR next year

by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 31, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh God no.

I LOVE the Cameron signing. I’d been calling for the Cameron signing since the end of the season. I’m surprised it happened—I thought the Sox would go all-out for Holliday or something—but getting Cameron is my favorite move so far.

But he’s not included in the 5/82.5, so it’s not worth mentioning.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Okay, I can see that

So that would mean

pickup Scutaro
pickup Cameron
pickup Beltre
pickup Duch

results in:

OF : Ells + Cam + Drew
IF: Beltre + Scutaro + Ped + Youk
C: VMart
DH: Papi

Starters: Lester, Beckett, Dice-K, Buch, Duch + Wake

Not bad. How did Duch fly under the radar though? No one was talking about him.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

They were early on.

But I think everyone forgot after the Winter Meetings.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions  

No clue.

I’d always been talking about “Duch, Harden, Sheets, and Bedard”

And then that kept getting slimmed down.

Now only Sheets is left, and he wants big money.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Ben

I was calling for the same thing at the end of the season. I felt all long signing Cameron and Beltre was a better move than signing Bay. I also (although I no everyone disagress with me) trying to trade for A. Gonzo would prove to be too costly in terms of prospect and what we would have to give up.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Okay this answers my question above

I think the Lackey move is made thinking that it might enable the A-Gon trade (creates tradeable Buchholz) – which would have negated the need for Beltre.

Now, the A-Gon trade hasn’t happened yet, so the Sox continue to look at Beltre as an option.

Beltre v A-Gon sort of becomes the real question.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Bletre v A-Gon

ATM I feel the asking price for A-Gon is way too high. We are talking Buch, Kelly, Westmoreland and possibly Ellsbury.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

The asking price for Beltre.

Doesn’t seem doable either right now.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

This is true

But how many teams are really interested in paying Beltre 9-10mil per year? I definitely see his asking price coming down. Or he will end up like J. Damon.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah his actual realistic value is

Whatever the A’s will play. Chances are he would prefer to play for a contending team than to play for the A’s, so I’d assume that Theo would wait until the A’s make an official offer and then, if he considers it worthwhile, matching it.

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions  

16.5 M for Lackey

This is the problem a lot of fans have …. I think once the season starts and everyone sees how Lackey improves our pitching staff more fans will be ok with the signing.

But even like Ben stated a Beltre + Duch would have been better spent. There is no way to know if Duch would be better than Lackey because he was cheaper. There really isn’t anyway to tell. If we had gotten Lackey for Wolf type money everyone would be on board. Or maybe fans would feel that was still too much. shrugs

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh, I'd love Lackey at a wolf level.

And as a fan, I’m looking at this as “Well damn, we’ve got the most ridiculous rotation I’ve ever seen! Next year is gonna be great!”

But more rationally, I have to look down the line and say “In 5 years, how much **** it this gonna get us in?”

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

5/8.25

Is the real problem here … the Lackey signing is a good move, but a lot of Red Sox fans feel we over spent for him. But I don’t see it that way. Lackey is good enough to be a #1 starter on any team. Maybe we paid too much for him maybe we didn’t only time will tell.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

That's not all it was spent on.

5/82.5 for the “best” rotation in the AL, a framework for a Beckett contract, and insurance in case Beckett leaves anyway.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions  

That's pretty intangible right there.

Having the best rotation in the AL is one #3 better than having what we would have had otherwise.
A framework for a Beckett contract would’ve been the AJ contract.
And I’ve covered insurance below. That’s expensive insurance.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Then substitute #2 for #3.

The point is you’re paying a lot of money for a guy who could end up really mediocre down the line. I like having Lackey at 16 million now. I don’t like having Lackey at 16 million in 2013.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

How could you have pulled that off?

Lackey would probably not have signed a one-year deal.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not saying you can.

I’m just saying the latter bad outweighs the earlier good for me. It’s not like we’re UNDERPAYING for Lackey right now.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

plus the option to trade Buchholz

as I figured out above, if they set about with the goal of getting A-Gon as their ‘corner infield’ solution, then Beltre would not be choice #1. They must have thought Buchholz +prospects would be enough to get A-Gon. They needed to get a starter who could free up the risk to the rotation of moving Buchholz. Duch would have been too much of a gamble (especially after what happened with Smolz/Penney). So Lackey fits for that goal.

The problem now is, A-Gon still isn’t here. So they now look back at Beltre and say, “Hmmm…. should we get him anyway?”.

Or do they hold court and go after A-Gon in the summer?

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

The Sox are not the type of team to make a Lackey move

To allow them to make another move trading Buchholz without first ensuring that the deal is ABSOLUTELY available.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed!

This is why I STILL feel Beltre is the next piece of the puzzle. Let’s face it Theo is no dummie and neither is Hoyer. He knows are farm system like the back of his hand.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Well it seemed like the contingency plan

was always to get Beltre -but then Lowell had to go and fail his damn physical, locking up $3M dollars of precious CBT room …

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Signing Lackey most likely means we eliminate the option of bringing beckett back.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Jan 2, 2010 12:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Sorry I disagree
He’s saying that Lackey’s money would’ve been better spent elsewhere, and I can’t help but agree. Does it give us a fantastic rotation 1-5? Yes. But for 18 million dollars, we could’ve had a top-of-the-line corner outfielder in Matt Holliday, for instance, with less risk of him disappearing later in his contract than Lackey, who’s had some injury issues and, like Beckett, hasn’t been "that guy" for a few years now.

Ben, We weren’t get Holliday, if I recall correctly Bay had already rejected Bostons offer and Boras rejected the Sox offer of 5/90 so they turned their attention to Lackey and Cameron. I agree Lackey maynot last longer than 3 seasons, but the Sox did protect themselves incase he breaks down. If he breaks down in any of the seasons his contract calls for him to play for the league minimum. Pls someone correct me if I am wrong. But that is the going rate for top of the rotation starters these days, He got the same contract Burnett received last season.

All I am saying for what was available to the Red Sox on the FA market. I fully believe the Red Sox spent the money wisely. They improved too much for them not to have spent wisely. Sure we all wanted a power hitter like Bay and Holliday, but at what cost? Is Bay a good fit with the Mets? Is Holliday really worth 100mil and would Sox fans really be happy with that move? These are the things we have to look at as fans of our teams.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Holliday was only one possible example. The point was that $5/82.5 could be spent better elsewhere.

Beltre + Duchscherer + A legitimate reliever instead of the Bonser garbage we’re working with would probably be my choice. But I’m not really thinking hard about that right now.

Burnett, for his part, was an overpay. I think matching the Yankees overpay was a bad idea.

You say the Red Sox improved “too much” for it not to be a good move, but how much did they really improve? What’s the difference between Wakefield and Lackey? What’s the difference between Duch and Lackey? How about Lackey right now and Lackey in 4 years? I fully expect us to look at Lackey in 4 years’ time as we look at Lowell today.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

The difference between Wakefield and Lackey, aside from intrinsics,

is where they are inserted in the rotation. Yes, the starter matchups only align once in a while, but they do lineup more often than not, at least within a slot or two. Lackey will be inserted into the #3. That means Dice-K and Buch, instead of being our #3 and #4, slide down to #4 & #5. That means they are usually going to face garbage pitchers on a lot of squads. Cheap wins count in the standings.

So sliding Lackey into the rotation at 3 isn’t just about how much more intrinsic value he has over Wakefield. It also provides competitive value in slots 4 & 5.

At least, that’s the theory. :-)

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

If that's the argument, then just put Wake in at #3.

Hell, it almost makes sense! He’s got a tendency to either pitch perfect, or shut down. If he pitches perfect, we win, if he doesn’t we lose.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Wake at #3

Is a horrible idea, Wake hasn’t been a #3 starter in years.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Of course not, based on the idea of ERA, dominance, etc.

I’m just rejecting the idea that there’s a ton of value in having a “#1, #2, #3” starter in particular as compared to having “good starters”. Up ‘till the playoffs, the order you pitch your guys in is downright inconsequential, and if it’s about matchups, then we may as well pitch Wake 3rd based on the idea that we’re likely to get a bunch of #1-type performances and a bunch of #7-type performances out of Wakefield. Put the #1s to good use while at least wasting their #3 starts against #7 starts.

Not that any of that is important.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Heh

his point isn’t that Wake is a “#3”. Its that by inserting him there, you can match DiceK and Buch against the opposing #4 & 5. Lose one, win two.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions  

the matchup argument is in reality not existent

because teams have different off days, dl stints, skiping your number 5 cause of an offday and stuff like that. So in reality our number #1 pitches against any number 1-5 quite randomly over the course of a whole season

by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 31, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd always thought that

but when I’ve manually looked at the schedule in the past, its always at least favored matching up. That’s anecdotal and not conclusive. However it makes ‘intuitive’ sense because the rotations start out lined up and then get reset after the all-star break. So while they’ll get jumbled and shifted over time, just having a couple of cycles at each of those two spots should favor the matchups lining up a little more often than not.

I.E. it should favor a #3 guy pitching just slighly more often to a #3 guy than to a #5 guy.

Of course, the wash is that when the #5 guy misses the other team’s #5 guy, he may get their #1.

But then as a team you may get it immediately back with your #1 guy.

AAGH – hurts brain …. someone needs to do a study!!!!!

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually, here's a fun fact:

Last year, any given team’s opening day starter faced opposing number 1’s about 20% of the time. More often, they faced pitchers who weren’t even in the original rotation—about 30% of the time.

Interestingly enough, Brad Penny faced opposing #1’s about 33% of the time. Guy wasn’t very good, but man, talk about not catching a break.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 2, 2010 6:13 AM EST up reply actions  

interesting

didn’t it also seem like Buchholz kept facing guys like Sabathia and Halladay all the time, too?

by mmmmm on Jan 2, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

true

though who you’re pitching against really only matters for WINZ. Buch did pretty awesome during that great long stretch

by wolf9309 on Jan 2, 2010 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I wasnt arguing Bay vs Lackey

I clearly said Bays contract with the Mets is a bad one.

My point is:
Right now the Sox have Lackey SP and Lowell 3B and its still unlikely they get Beltre, so how would a scenario play out where the sox would have signed Beltre for lets say somewhere around 3/30 or maybe less and a SP for the remaining 6-8M Lackey costs more a year than Beltre.

The Goal for (almost) every organization should be to add the most wins to their Team within their budget, preferably without damaging the future at all, in most FA signings nowadays without damaging the future the least possible way. If that goal is achieved you could say the Red Sox spend their money wisely. So the question should be did the Red Sox achieve that goal or at least came relativly close to it.

Scenario A: Lackey/SP (16.5 M) + Lowell/3B (Money is irrelevant cause we have to eat almost all of it anyway)
Fangraphs Projection: Lackey 3.9 WAR + Lowell 1.7 WAR = 5.6 WAR total out of 1SP and 3B

Scenario B: Beltre/3B (9M lets just assume a 3/27 contract) + FA SP (7.5M)
Fangraphs Projection: 4.1 WAR + X WAR = Y WAR
So if you manage to find a SP that can give you atleast 1.5 WAR for 7.5M than you in theory have a better team and that shouldn be a problem. The great advantage might not be the 0.5-1 WAR you might have more next season, but you only have Beltre for 3 years and that FA pitcher likely for 1-2 years so you lowered the financial risk. Its extremly unlikely that Lackey will perform his salary in years 4 and 5 (maybe even year 3).

Of course you can argue that projections, you can see Lackey better, Beltre weaker etc pp. I just dont think handing 5 Year contracts to 31 year old pitchers with injury history and already declining peripherals can be called “spending wisely” when you pay full or maybe even slightly above market value.

by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 31, 2009 5:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Bay vs Lackey
So if you manage to find a SP that can give you atleast 1.5 WAR for 7.5M than you in theory have a better team and that shouldn be a problem. The great advantage might not be the 0.5-1 WAR you might have more next season, but you only have Beltre for 3 years and that FA pitcher likely for 1-2 years so you lowered the financial risk. Its extremly unlikely that Lackey will perform his salary in years 4 and 5 (maybe even year 3).

German Red sox fan,
First off, sorry if my reply came off as if I was saying you were comparing Bay to Lackey. I was just trying to use Bay as an example of what the Sox did with the money by not signing Bay. Again by not signing Bay the Sox improved the SP, OF D and IF D.

Who would be or would have been the SP to give you 1.5 War for 7.5m? Harden was the first pitcher to sign and he signed with Texas, Wolf got almost 10mil a year. Penny signed for 7.5mil but the Sox tried that experiment. The remaining FA pitchers are asking for far more than they are worth. Ben Sheets wants 12M, Pinerio wants to be paid and Garland and Padilla both want 8mil or more. Besides Harden and Wolf none of the FA pitchers would have produce 1.5 War for 7.5m, but as you can see none of the above were willing to sign for 7.5mil 1 year deals.

So again if you ask me if the Sox spent the money wisely I would have to say yes. And like I said before there is still a possibility the Sox could land Beltre if he comes down on his demands.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes he did

And I really like Duchscherer, but who is to say he is fully recovered from last years arm problems? That goes for Escobar and Ben Sheets. We tried that experiement last year and it didn’t work out too well. I am not sure the FO wants to try it in back to back seasons. Just my guess

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

The difference between Duch and Penny/Smoltz

Is that Duch is neither old, nor was he bad in his most recent performances. And since the A’s got Duch for, what, 2.5 million if he has a bad year and doesn’t reach his incentives, it’s a pretty great bargain.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I see your point

Duch is definitely a great bargain.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I think Theo had trouble spelling Mientkiewicz

And since then has refused to sign hard-to-spell players.

Buchholz is ][ this close to getting non-tendered.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Who is still in the hunt for beltre?

i only hear Boras demands but besides the Red Sox is there even a team interested?

by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 31, 2009 5:02 AM EST up reply actions  

Athletics

But as soon as his price drops to anywhere we’d likely be interested, in come the Cardinals and Tigers, or so I hear.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 5:05 AM EST up reply actions  

Unfortunately, that may be true.

I’d be willing to go to 3 x $6 for him, but I can’t see the ’Sox paying much more than that.

by mmmmm on Dec 31, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Aramis Ramirez

Is a free agent next year if he declines his option. Even if he doesn’t, I’m content with Lowrie/Lowell for this year and exploring the market for a better 1b/3b next offseason. Who knows, Hoyer might actually give in on the Adrian trade.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions  

A-Ram would be an interesting option.

But if he declines a $15mm option, how much is he gonna want in FA?

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Possibly.

I just know he won’t opt out if he thinks he can’t get more. So that sets 16 million as his absolute base. You’ll get quality, but I’m not sure Beltre wouldn’t be the better value.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions  

He could

But like Ben stated how much does he want? And he is 32, so how many years do u give a 32 yr old 3B? We tried that with Lowell and his last 2 years havent been what the FO expected.

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Though as Sean O would be happy to point out.

2007 was a big outlier for Lowell. We kinda should have expected it. ARam is a constant producer, though he may end up at 1st which would seriously hurt his value.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Despite all the crap it goes through

Chicago does a pretty good job of putting out a quality product. Last year was unfortunate, but it wasn’t really a great fault of management.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions  

The team is okay.

The city’s pretty horrible though. I should know.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Ha

Well, I can’t claim to know Chicago well. I’ve only ever seen O’Hare.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions  

lol

Maybe u need to make his type of money to find it :)

by cthunder on Dec 31, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions  

i guess i shouldnt

but Bay is also such a bad fit. 5 years for a bad fielding LF, in a big stadium without the possibility to let hin DH? And then he is allready overpaid in the first years of that 5 year contract? OH BOY

by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 31, 2009 5:05 AM EST up reply actions  

This is the guy who signed Oliver Perez to a 3-year, 27 million dollar deal 10 months ago.

After a season where he walked 100 batters in under 200 innings. After having 3 years with injury troubles. While only posting a reasonable 4.22 ERA.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 31, 2009 5:10 AM EST up reply actions  

$9m for a LAIMer really isn't that bad

especially for a big-market club, even with the pathetic walk rates. Now, I don’t want him, but still.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 31, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions  

sox should still look to add adrian gonzalez

by sfoakbay on Jan 3, 2010 5:51 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Jddrew_small
OTM Fantasy Baseball-post 2

Recent FanPosts

School-of-adventure_print_small
Carl Crawford's offensive woes.
Small
Pedroia vs Cano
I_want_to_believe_small
Dwight Evans = Hall of Famer
School-of-adventure_print_small
What might have been continued: 2010-2011 offseason
Small
The Red Sox and the luxury tax
Silence_small
Alfredo Aceves and Red Sox agree at $1.2 million
Danny_and_shuttle_small
Matt Garza Is Fair Compensation For Theo Epstein
School-of-adventure_print_small
What might have been: A revisionist look to the 2009-2010 offseason.
School-of-adventure_print_small
Dustin Moseley
Old-patriots-logo_small
Free Agent SPs Not Named Oswalt, Jackson

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Twitter_eb_2_small Marc Normandin

Authors

Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small lone1c

Jddrew_small gizmosandy

Pedoria1_small Mattsullivan

Baghead-1_small Matthew Kory

Photo__2__small BrendanOToole

Cee_small Cee Angi