Red Sox, Jonathan Papelbon reportedly reach deal in principle
by SoxDevil on Jan 19, 2010 3:16 PM EST
in News
Email
PrintAccording to WEEI's Rob Bradford, the Red Sox and Jonathan Papelbon might have reached an agreement in principle for $9.35 meeellion dollars. Link.
Reaching an agreement with Papelbon an avoiding arbitration was one of the Red Sox biggest challenges this offseason. Papelbon has never been shy about discussing his salary goals, and this one-year deal makes him the highest paid reliever in history with only four years of service time. As for the Red Sox, it's no bargain but they're getting their money's worth in one of the best relievers in the league. Time will tell if Boston will pony up even bigger bucks to do a multi-year deal with the fireballer, but at least we'll be able to enjoy another year of dominating performances from Papelbon.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As for the Red Sox, it’s no bargain but they’re getting their money’s worth in one of the best relievers in the league.
Papelbon’s value in dollars the last four years:
06: $12mm
07: $9.1mm
08: $13.5mm
09: $8.8mm
If he reaches the Fans projection of 72 IP of 2.61 FIP he will represent $10.1mm of value.
Its a pretty good deal, but as you say, no bargain.
Agreed
Although I am not going to be happy about next years deal.
as long as it's fair value for a one-year commitment
then I’m okay with it.
You always pay a premium for a shorter commitment. The advantage is it gives the club the opportunity to find a cheaper long-term alternative (i.e. Daniel Bard).
This deal seems pretty fair for both sides.
Not bad
for one of the best closers in the game – although if you go by WAR a top closer is only a run or so better than a decent reliever so…..
Huh?
That seems wrong. To say nothing of the difference between closers and relievers being nil, a top closer (Broxton) vs. a good reliever (Kiko Calero, say) is about 1.5 wins, which is about 15 runs.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 19, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
I'm a believer in advanced stats
But I also believe that there’s a psychological element in play when it comes to closers. I believe having a dominant guy come in is useful in some unmeasurable way towards reducing the other team’s momentum. If you’re a batter with a guy in scoring position and two outs, you can’t tell me you’d have Bard right now than Papelbon even if, statistically, Bard is very likely to convert the save with 2 runs of room. Is Papelbon worth $9 M more? Well, if it was my money, no. But the Sox have the scratch.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
Correction
… If you’re a manager/GM with a guy in scoring position…
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
"Time will tell if Boston will pony up even bigger bucks to do a multi-year deal with the fireballer"
My $9.35 million is on “No”
But I’ve been wrong a lot of late.
USG
I can't see TE giving a closer a long term deal at the value Papelbon is looking for
Unless he completely reverts back to 2007 form, and regains total control of his splitter. Throwing 26 fastballs in a row just isn’t going to cut it.
I know lots of fans love him and want to keep him long term, because they see the stability a guy like Rivera can provide a team as a closer, but Paps is no Mo. We have 2 years to get Bard ready, and you never know if someone else in the farm is going to step up into that role.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 19, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
This year you will see Bard pitching in many more "pressure" situations later in the game...
At least that would make sense to me if they are indeed going to groom him to replace Paps.
You will indeed.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Sox have a goal to make Bard the closer in 2011.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 19, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
I doubt that Theo would do so anyway
Paps is clearly a big part of the 2010 plan. So this deal is perfect and fair for that. But with Bard waiting in the wings and sooo much cheaper, there is simply no way that I can see Theo giving Papelbon a multi-year unless Bard gets hurt or totally regresses. And even then – the Red Sox don’t seem keen on spending big commitment money on relievers, even closers.
Theyve expressed a reluctance to do so in the past
but they also made comments when they signed Foulke (for instance) that the top 5-10 relievers in the league they view as elite. They see those guys as a premium asset and eminently more projectable and predictable than the rest of the relievers. As they said when they signed Foulke, they dont mind paying for the premium guys.
Now, that still leaves the questions of whether a) Pap will still prove TOO espensive for a premium reliever; and b) whether we still view Pap as a premium reliever after 2010 (considering his downward trending components.
Its really too early to say what they will do next year. There is certainly a possibility they can throw enough money at him next year above what he would get in arb to talk him into a 2 or 3 year deal with incentives/opt outs and/or options.
Ive said it many times, too, but we can’t discount the possibility that Pap is all talk and idiot posturing. He could very well decide he doesnt want to leave the only team he’s ever known for a few extra mill when push comes to shove.
Should be interesting.
Pap definitely had a better second half in 2009
And he’s apparently going back to his old mechanics instead of the ones he had at the beginning of the year. So hopefully he can regain some of his old magic. He threw a ton of pitches last year, and his walk numbers jumped.
But is he still a Top 3 closer? Top 5? Top 10? If he’s still Top 5 in the game you can probably make a case for him still being “Elite”. But that may also inflate his price. Personally, I have no problem using Pap for 2 more years as long as he’s effective and then just taking the picks. Give Bard as much time as possible to develop before making him follow Paps.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 19, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
I just got scared
It finally popped in my head that with Arbitration getting so costly, and the assumption that we won’t sign him long term. Next years arbitration will be even higher. Then in 2012 he will be a free agent?
Will we offer him arbitration and get draft picks when he signs somewhere else? I have a hard time believing that we will with the money growing exponentially. That is my biggest concern with this whole thing.
12 million next year
And then maybe 3/45 or 4/60 the year after. He’ll want to get paid like Mo.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 19, 2010 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
And it will TOTALLY be the Yankees who pay him like that, by the way.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 19, 2010 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
either them or the Mets
It seems like a Omar thing to do.
Am I wrong in thinking that the Sox won’t offer arbitration??
Probably, yes.
Though they may well trade him. But they’ll absolutely offer him arbitration every year.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 19, 2010 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
A trade is easier said than done
especially if he’s making 10 mil. How many teams are willing to take on that type of salary in a closer… answer is Mets, yanks… and they will just wait it out until he becomes a FA rather than fork over prospects. I think he’s ours for 2 more years, then its Bard.
"Is everyone in my life freakin' bananas?" - Tony Soprano
Currently paying their closers $10 million+:
Twins
Indians
Phillies
Mets
Yankees
Reds
There are teams out there that will pay big money to relievers.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 19, 2010 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
I'll eat my shoe if the Yankees sign Papelbon to a Rivera-like contract.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Jan 19, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
I'll remember that.
Two years from now you can tell all of us whether shoe tastes like crow or not.
"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.
Weren't you the guy who was so adamant that the Yanks were going to sign
Holliday and Lackey?
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Jan 19, 2010 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
Guilty as charged.
I can tell you that few things are better than the taste of Crow in the morning…
"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.
Papelbon, like a cheap woman as far as I am concerned
Use em up for all they are worth, and let em walk once you are done never thinking anything of it.
Trade Beckett !!!
Congrats
the single worst comment i’ve seen on OTM, by a large margin.
Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway
Why pay for the cow
When you can get the saves for free? – Is that the idea?
"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.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole "Value" statistic.
For any guy to pitch one inning every 2-3 games to have a “value” of over $10 mil – WTF?
I’m looking at some of the stats on fangraphs and can semi-understand all the math and what-not, but I don’t see why a SP and CP have equal value per wins.
Disregarding today’s inflated salaries, I think it’s outrageous that even of the best closers in the game makes more than most starting pitchers.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
If a starter and closer contribute the same number of wins, why should they have different dollar values?
"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
I understand that. But if 2 guys are worth the same value over replacement, then they should be paid about the same amount.
If anything, I think relievers should get a little more per win over replacement because most of their innings are higher leverage than those of starters.
"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
They don't
Think of value over replacement in a WAR calculation as credit for playing time.
This is where relievers get hurt the most. The bolded part is the assumption I dont totally agree with:
Nearly every starting pitcher in baseball could be a useful relief pitcher. Very few relief pitchers could be useful starting pitchers. The distribution of pitching talent is skewed very heavily towards the rotation, and because of this and the extra skills required to pitch 5+ innings per start, we use different replacement levels for starting and relieving in order to capture the additional value added by starting pitchers above and beyond simple run prevention.
What are those replacement levels? Perhaps it’s easiest to understand them in relation to a single game. If we assume that a team has a league average offense, a league average defense, and a league average bullpen, and that they are playing a league average opponent, we would expect them to win any single game started by a replacement level starter 38% of the time.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitcher-win-values-explained-part-three
Read the article at that link for more.
The replacement level is different, but the scale of wins over that level is the same. Meaning that if two pitchers pitched to the same FIP and same IP, but one was a starter and one a reliever, the starter would be valued higher according to FG’s because it is more difficult to be a starting pitcher. This makes sense, however, I think the true relief aces should be given more of a bonus. They do include a leverage index, however, certain players (like Paps or Mo) provide even greater value, in my opinion. Especially in the playoffs, when each run is marginally even more important.
"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
I agree its an issue and that the elite relief pitchers are undervalued in WAR
If for no other reason than from a scarcity of resources viewpoint.
Including leverage in WAR calculations is very troublesome, though. Its a complex issue that’s been discussed over there quite a bit.
Yup.
Though this is probably only true for teams in the playoff hunt. For a team like the Pirates or Royals, paying a premium for an elite relief arm is probably a mistake; there are most likely cheaper ways to get from 70 to 75 wins. But for the Sox, a relief ace is essential (especially in the playoffs).
"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
"but I don’t see why a SP and CP have equal value per wins."
Wins are a factor of FIP and innings pitched, so a starter gets credit for all the extra innings. It’s just that Papelbon is a REALLY good reliever.
USG
and "wins" is a very misleading name to call it
because there’s already a stat called “wins” which is essentially meaningless, even more so for relievers.
Whoops. Reply fail.
Also, what starting pitchers are we talking about? Because it’s not easy to find a decent SP for under $10 million. Brad Penny went for 7.5 million this offseason, and it’s just not that hard to find replacements of that level. It’s almost impossible, though, to find that sort of value in the bullpen. For big-market clubs spending big money, their teams are pretty well filled out, and it gets more and more expensive to increase value at a position as you get better and better at it. For instance, it’s much cheaper to improve at 1B if you’re playing Lyle Overbay than Kevin Youkilis.
You look at the $10 million, and consider where it could be better spent. Where else can you improve by 2-3 wins for that money? That’s about the difference between Cameron and Holliday, and Holliday would need 7 years!
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 20, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe I just got caught up on the wrong definition
I’m looking at Values for SP and RP now at fangraphs.
Maybe I was thinking too literal about the Value in Dollars and actual salaries. Papelbon is making close to his value over the past few years, whereas the best pitcher (CC Sabathia according to WAR) is making about $7 mil less than his value.
Maybe it’s just the fact that (taking away stats and just looking at logic) that someone who is rarely “used” gets paid more than most everyday players. Just conisder me a cynic to today’s sports’ salaries.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
well generally long term contracts are different
they’re usually designed so that the player is worth more than he’s paid for the first few years, but they usually decline by the end of the contract- one year contracts tend to be closer in value to what the player is worth.
Of course, yes, fangraphs values should only be taken with several grains of salt. They’re good for comparing players to other players in the same context, but not necessarily what their contracts will be.
Starting pitchers generally make much more than relievers. There are maybe 5 or 10 relievers that approach that $10M mark. There are a lot of very mediocre starters that have been paid that much (Carlos Silva, Jeff Suppan, Vicente Padilla, Jason Schmidt) The best reliever of all time (Mariano) makes less than John Lackey or AJ Burnett.
Your logic is 100% correct that relievers are not as valuable as starters and it is pretty accurately reflected by FG’s win values stats as well as player salaries.
"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
Reliver value
Casual fans tend to overvalue relievers, especially closers. Not to say they are not vital to success, but just nowhere as valuable, relatively speaking, as a quality starter. We see the closers a few times a week and see the good ones sealing games and pumping fists and pointing to the sky and forget about the good starting piching that make the dramatic save possible
I like it
I’m very pleased and content with all of this. The Sox get to keep a top closer on a short-term basis, and I never worry about the Sox’ money, especially on a one year deal. I’m also very OK with Paps using the CBA arbitration process in the manner he chooses and with his desire to maximize his earnings. Does this bother anybody? Not me.
+1
Agreed.
If Paps is overpaid (which I do not think he is), it is only by a little bit without the risk of a long-term deal.
"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
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
