SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2013 Offseason Red Sox thread
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 2, 2013 0:02:04 GMT -5
Too much money for Nathan. Not saying it's crazy. Just wouldn't spend our resources there. The guy turned down $9 mil already if I remember correctly. Even if we have to go to Tazawa and/or Workman I'm ok with that. Major savings and we can bob and weave later if necessary. Someone will want to dump salary at mid year.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 2, 2013 0:03:38 GMT -5
Koji was the 4TH CLOSER this year. Paying for bullpen is not smart. In fact if there is something that hasn't work for Cherrington was trading for "established" closers.
This teams has enough pitching depth that bullpen is not a problem to me. Maybe you bring a buy low RH veteran to complement Workman and Tazawa but thats a luxury.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 2, 2013 0:03:42 GMT -5
If Bailey bounces back use him as the titular closer to pitch I the classic three run 9th inning lead situations and use Koji as the relief ace in high leverage late inning situations. Don't throw big dollars at Nathan. I think they non tender Bailey.
|
|
|
Post by nationinthesouth on Nov 2, 2013 0:12:03 GMT -5
Too much money for Nathan. Not saying it's crazy. Just wouldn't spend our resources there. The guy turned down $9 mil already if I remember correctly. Even if we have to go to Tazawa and/or Workman I'm ok with that. Major savings and we can bob and weave later if necessary. Someone will want to dump salary at mid year. Not 100% sold on Nathan, and in general I agree. Somebody will want to dump salary mid year, but if we need a late inning arm mid season we will have to overpay in terms of prospects and potentially be in the same years/money situation going forward and minus prospects. Reportedly it was the term more than the money, he wanted 2 years so 2 years at 10-12 per could do it.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 2, 2013 1:03:45 GMT -5
Koji was the 4TH CLOSER this year. Paying for bullpen is not smart. In fact if there is something that hasn't work for Cherrington was trading for "established" closers. This teams has enough pitching depth that bullpen is not a problem to me. Maybe you bring a buy low RH veteran to complement Workman and Tazawa but thats a luxury. Memorize what this guy has to say, people. We have an easy one-case extrapolation to use as a model for this line of thinking. The "stars" out of the bullpen last year were the low rent guys. The big money? It ended up evaporating, out for the year in the form of Bailey and Harahan. Relief pitching is the most fungible quantity in all of baseball. Stock up on decent arms and shuffle through them until you find a combo that works. Forget the idea of paying exorbitant amounts for 60-70 innings of work, at most. That's a fools game, something the Sox had to relearn, once again, last year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2013 1:12:45 GMT -5
I'm not playing premium prices for the "proven closer" label. For the price of one Joe Nathan (Fangraphs crowdsourcing projects two years, $20m), you could pick up two or three Edward Mujicas or Jesse Crains or Matt Belisles or Ryan Madsons. Bailey (likely to be non-tendered) and Hanrahan are two other guys who might sign for cheap, make-good contracts in Boston.
There are also far more guys with closer experience on the market than actual closing roles open. The top guys like Nathan and Balfour are going to get a lot of attention, but the second-tier guys like Benoit or Wilson might lose the game of musical chairs, in which case I'm happy to slightly overpay (say, two years and $10m) on a shorter deal to get them.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 2, 2013 1:19:21 GMT -5
FWIW, paying for a "proven closer" was one of the things that put the 2004 team over the top from 2003. Having the young equivalent of a "proven closer" was huge in 2007. Having a guy that was pitching like a "proven closer" this year was probably even more important.
Point of this is that there is more than one way to get the shutdown guy at the end of the game that a team needs to succeed in the playoffs (there's a famous study that was done by one of the name stat guys, I want to say Silver, that said three things correlated most with playoff success, and the closer was one). So to me, it's not a hard-and-fast "I'm not paying for a closer." It's "I'm not paying for a closer just to pay for a closer." It needs to be the right one. I think all of us knew that shelling out money for, say, Papelbon was a terrible idea, and that decision is killing Philly right now. As for someone like Nathan, is he Papelbon, or is he Foulke?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 2, 2013 5:18:26 GMT -5
FWIW, paying for a "proven closer" was one of the things that put the 2004 team over the top from 2003. Having the young equivalent of a "proven closer" was huge in 2007. Having a guy that was pitching like a "proven closer" this year was probably even more important. Point of this is that there is more than one way to get the shutdown guy at the end of the game that a team needs to succeed in the playoffs ( there's a famous study that was done by one of the name stat guys, I want to say Silver, that said three things correlated most with playoff success, and the closer was one). So to me, it's not a hard-and-fast "I'm not paying for a closer." It's "I'm not paying for a closer just to pay for a closer." It needs to be the right one. I think all of us knew that shelling out money for, say, Papelbon was a terrible idea, and that decision is killing Philly right now. As for someone like Nathan, is he Papelbon, or is he Foulke? That was Baseball Prospectus's "Secret Sauce," which they later decided wasn't a strong enough predictor to rely on. The three components were pitching staff K rate, their version of bullpen WPA (lineup-adjusted), to which closer quality was almost always the key contributor, and some team defensive metric, perhaps Park Adjusted Defensive Efficiency. I think they were on the right track and should have simply dug deeper to see what might be underlying each factor. I said elsewhere that we shop for a guy who is underrated, as Koji was, and simply pass on adding a guy on an MLB contract if we can't find a guy like that, in which case Workman fills that role. And of course you sign as many guys to split deals as you can, starting with Bailey and Hanrahan, and see how they do for Pawtucket. BTW, if there's no trade of a prospect, it seems very likely that either Britton or Workman will have to make the big league roster once everyone is healthy. Alex Castellanos (1 option left) Ryan Kalish (1) Ryan Lavarnway (1) Rubby De La Rosa (2) Allen Webster (2) Alex Wilson (2) Steven Wright (2) Dan Butler (2) Alex Hassan (2) Brock Holt (2) Christian Vazquez (2) Anthony Ranaudo (3) Bryce Brentz (3) Garrin Cecchini (3) That's 14 guys on option, leaving 1 more spot. I don't see Holt getting DFA'd, since it's always very useful to have a replacement level MI with an option left, nor do I see them DFA'ing Kalish, since the Cubs would certainly claim him, and he's too big a talent to jettison.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 2, 2013 10:04:21 GMT -5
I think its a bad idea to walk away from Bailey... Not in a "sky is falling" sort of way, but he's a good pitcher when healthy and on a one year deal he's worth a shot.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 2, 2013 10:18:26 GMT -5
I think its a bad idea to walk away from Bailey... Not in a "sky is falling" sort of way, but he's a good pitcher when healthy and on a one year deal he's worth a shot. Issue with Bailey, is that his surgery wasn't until July even, meaning that an optimistic outlook on him has him pitching at best 2 months and he made 3.9m last year with his final year of arbitration approaching. Can't really cut him, so he's going to be making the same amount, assuming the team doesn't give him a 100-200k raise to avoid arbitration and any fight for 2 months where he is going to struggle at the end of the season anyway. Why not try to just sign Hanrahan, who had surgery in May and is already a FA and would probably sign free and clear for that, be ready to start throwing a full 2-3 months sooner and healthy? Might eve be able to get him to sign a low value (3-5m 1y deal) with a team option on a 2nd year.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 2, 2013 10:24:48 GMT -5
I think its a bad idea to walk away from Bailey... Not in a "sky is falling" sort of way, but he's a good pitcher when healthy and on a one year deal he's worth a shot. For all the chatter about Ellsbury and whether he has a good taste about Boston, from 2013, or a bad one, from 2012, Bailey is a guy who might actually feel he owes the team something. I agree, get him back on a reasonable contract if he's good with that, and make him one of the crowd in spring training. He's still relatively young, he's been very effective in the past, and he may be in the future also. He might be willing to go along with the idea just to prove that the injury history is no longer an issue. Add: NY has re-signed Jeter for another year. Given what happens in the A-Rod appeal, I could easily see him sliding over to third. If so, getting Drew on a 2-3 year deal at a slight overpay would make a lot of sense for them... So, what is their draft position next year??
|
|
|
Post by nebraska4sox on Nov 2, 2013 10:30:15 GMT -5
When Bailey was healthy this year he was great. The problem is that he has shown a great penchant for getting injured and its always major arm injuries. I think its hard to sign a guy who wont pitch until July or August at best
|
|
|
Post by h11233 on Nov 2, 2013 11:22:52 GMT -5
The idea that you need proven superstar hitters to succeed in the playoffs is pretty silly and empirically false. I mean, just look at the list of World Series MVPs-- the number of role player types like David Freese or Edgar Renteria or Mike Lowell or David Eckstein far outnumber true elite hitters. We've seen teams with multiple elite hitters, frontline power pitchers, great defense, elite bullpen, etc. etc. all fall in the postseason, because any seven games series is mostly a crapshoot and there's not one skill that plays up more in the playoffs. You do not need power hitters, or an ace, or anything else, and thinking that the only way to succeed is to acquire one of those archetypes only means you're going to overpay for one and make the organization weaker. A front office should simply be trying to build a team that projects to win the most regular season games and the division. And it turns out that one of the best ways to do so is with depth rather than loading up on premium stars and having to play a bunch of replacement-level guys. As for McCann/Saltalamacchia/other, I'm agnostic-- it will all depend on the cost. But McCann is undoubtedly a better player than Saltalamacchia, and it's only because Saltalamacchia will come cheaper that he might be the best option. Amen. Papi was arguably the WORST hitter in the ALCS. Xander out performed him. To say that he was the only one hitting and carried this team is revisionist history.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 2, 2013 11:37:24 GMT -5
I think its a bad idea to walk away from Bailey... Not in a "sky is falling" sort of way, but he's a good pitcher when healthy and on a one year deal he's worth a shot. For all the chatter about Ellsbury and whether he has a good taste about Boston, from 2013, or a bad one, from 2012, Bailey is a guy who might actually feel he owes the team something. I agree, get him back on a reasonable contract if he's good with that, and make him one of the crowd in spring training. He's still relatively young, he's been very effective in the past, and he may be in the future also. He might be willing to go along with the idea just to prove that the injury history is no longer an issue. Add: NY has re-signed Jeter for another year. Given what happens in the A-Rod appeal, I could easily see him sliding over to third. If so, getting Drew on a 2-3 year deal at a slight overpay would make a lot of sense for them... So, what is their draft position next year?? 18th as recall Norm. I'd gladly trade drew's glove and NY paying Drew 12m+AAV over 3-4 years for that pick in the up and coming deep draft.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 2, 2013 11:40:51 GMT -5
When Bailey was healthy this year he was great. The problem is that he has shown a great penchant for getting injured and its always major arm injuries. I think its hard to sign a guy who wont pitch until July or August at best That is my thinking as posted above. He (Bailey) would have to give Boston at least an affordable team option for 2015 as well if they were going to just give him free money for 2014. It makes -0- sense otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2013 11:51:10 GMT -5
FWIW, paying for a "proven closer" was one of the things that put the 2004 team over the top from 2003. Having the young equivalent of a "proven closer" was huge in 2007. Having a guy that was pitching like a "proven closer" this year was probably even more important. Point of this is that there is more than one way to get the shutdown guy at the end of the game that a team needs to succeed in the playoffs (there's a famous study that was done by one of the name stat guys, I want to say Silver, that said three things correlated most with playoff success, and the closer was one). So to me, it's not a hard-and-fast "I'm not paying for a closer." It's "I'm not paying for a closer just to pay for a closer." It needs to be the right one. I think all of us knew that shelling out money for, say, Papelbon was a terrible idea, and that decision is killing Philly right now. As for someone like Nathan, is he Papelbon, or is he Foulke? Signing a guy who has saved 30+ games the previous year is not the best way to build a strong bullpen, and your examples show that elite closers can emerge from converted pitching prospects or under-the-radar acquisitions, while established closers can also flame out due to injuries (Foulke in '05). The Red Sox are in a position where they just need good relievers, and there are plenty of good relievers that will give you 80% of Joe Nathan for 20% of the cost. This free agent class has plenty of buy-low guys, whether due to injury (Jesse Crain, Ryan Madson, Joel Hanrahan, Andrew Bailey, Octavio Dotel) or memorable but small sample size implosions (Edward Mujica, Jose Valverde) or anonymity (Matt Belisle, Joe Smith, Tim Stauffer). Obviously, those guys come with more risk than a guy like Nathan who has a FIP under 3 in eight out of the last nine years (though signing a 39-year-old closer with a lot of mileage on his arm isn't risk-free either), but you can pick up two or three of them for the same AAV as Nathan, and the Red Sox have enough depth that they can afford for one or two to flame out. I do think that the Red Sox have enough payroll space to afford one of the premium guys if they want to splurge there, but I think that money is more efficiently used elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2013 11:59:10 GMT -5
BTW, if there's no trade of a prospect, it seems very likely that either Britton or Workman will have to make the big league roster once everyone is healthy. Alex Castellanos (1 option left) Ryan Kalish (1) Ryan Lavarnway (1) Rubby De La Rosa (2) Allen Webster (2) Alex Wilson (2) Steven Wright (2) Dan Butler (2) Alex Hassan (2) Brock Holt (2) Christian Vazquez (2) Anthony Ranaudo (3) Bryce Brentz (3) Garrin Cecchini (3) That's 14 guys on option, leaving 1 more spot. I don't see Holt getting DFA'd, since it's always very useful to have a replacement level MI with an option left, nor do I see them DFA'ing Kalish, since the Cubs would certainly claim him, and he's too big a talent to jettison. I think there's no chance that both Butler and Lavarnway remain on the 40-man unless one of them starts on the 25-man roster (meaning they don't re-sign Saltalamacchia and don't sign a FA replacement). Having five catchers on the 40-man is one too many. Given Butler's defensive abilities, Lavarnway looks like the odd man out.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 2, 2013 12:15:38 GMT -5
For all the chatter about Ellsbury and whether he has a good taste about Boston, from 2013, or a bad one, from 2012, Bailey is a guy who might actually feel he owes the team something. I agree, get him back on a reasonable contract if he's good with that, and make him one of the crowd in spring training. He's still relatively young, he's been very effective in the past, and he may be in the future also. He might be willing to go along with the idea just to prove that the injury history is no longer an issue. Add: NY has re-signed Jeter for another year. Given what happens in the A-Rod appeal, I could easily see him sliding over to third. If so, getting Drew on a 2-3 year deal at a slight overpay would make a lot of sense for them... So, what is their draft position next year?? 18th as recall Norm. I'd gladly trade drew's glove and NY paying Drew 12m+AAV over 3-4 years for that pick in the up and coming deep draft. You don't get *their* pick anymore; their pick evaporates and you get a pick at the end of the first round.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 2, 2013 12:21:52 GMT -5
BTW, if there's no trade of a prospect, it seems very likely that either Britton or Workman will have to make the big league roster once everyone is healthy. Alex Castellanos (1 option left) Ryan Kalish (1) Ryan Lavarnway (1) Rubby De La Rosa (2) Allen Webster (2) Alex Wilson (2) Steven Wright (2) Dan Butler (2) Alex Hassan (2) Brock Holt (2) Christian Vazquez (2) Anthony Ranaudo (3) Bryce Brentz (3) Garrin Cecchini (3) That's 14 guys on option, leaving 1 more spot. I don't see Holt getting DFA'd, since it's always very useful to have a replacement level MI with an option left, nor do I see them DFA'ing Kalish, since the Cubs would certainly claim him, and he's too big a talent to jettison. I think there's no chance that both Butler and Lavarnway remain on the 40-man unless one of them starts on the 25-man roster (meaning they don't re-sign Saltalamacchia and don't sign a FA replacement). Having five catchers on the 40-man is one too many. Given Butler's defensive abilities, Lavarnway looks like the odd man out. Well considering they had 5 catchers on the 40-man all year this year, I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that there are four guys for three spots in Ross, Lavarnway, Butler, and Vazquez now that the latter has moved up to Pawtucket. There's absolutely no way the club goes into the season with Ross/Lavarnway as the MLB catching tandem, so they're going to have to move one of those four.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 2, 2013 12:34:08 GMT -5
Pretty sure Norm understands that as well. What he intended am sure, is that NY is one of those teams that desperately needs to rebuild it's farm system and the LAST thing it needs is to lose the highest pick it has had in over a decade for yet another far side of 30 player to add to it's already stuffed roster of likewise players.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2013 12:42:12 GMT -5
Well considering they had 5 catchers on the 40-man all year this year, I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that there are four guys for three spots in Ross, Lavarnway, Butler, and Vazquez now that the latter has moved up to Pawtucket. There's absolutely no way the club goes into the season with Ross/Lavarnway as the MLB catching tandem, so they're going to have to move one of those four. I think to answer this question you have to ask yourself "if Ross were to get injured and the Red Sox needed a defense-first catcher for a couple of weeks, is Vazquez ready to fill that role". If the answer is 'Yes' - then why keep Butler?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 2, 2013 12:44:43 GMT -5
18th as recall Norm. I'd gladly trade drew's glove and NY paying Drew 12m+AAV over 3-4 years for that pick in the up and coming deep draft. You don't get *their* pick anymore; their pick evaporates and you get a pick at the end of the first round. The position of the draft pick still informs where you end up in the supplemental round, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 2, 2013 12:52:18 GMT -5
You don't get *their* pick anymore; their pick evaporates and you get a pick at the end of the first round. The position of the draft pick still informs where you end up in the supplemental round, I believe. Is that how it works? I thought the supplemental round went on player numbers/advanced metric stats. Somebody here might look it up. Might later on myself.
|
|
|
Post by rodson on Nov 2, 2013 13:08:08 GMT -5
Offseason priorities would be to bring Ells and Napoli back at acceptable deals. The limits for Ells should be around USD 100m for 6 years and Napoli only 2 years at arounf USD 30m.
Back up plan would be to let them walk and collect the picks from them signing elsewhere and engage with Angels (it has already been reported their interest to move these pieces for pitching) for a trade of Trumbo (1b power hitting right handed much younger, affordable and with less injury concern) and Bourjos (4th outfielder and insurance for JBJ at CF) from the excess starting pitching the Sox have (could be Peavy which has west coast ties or Buch plus another young pitching such as Webster).
Any toughts anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 2, 2013 13:16:40 GMT -5
The position of the draft pick still informs where you end up in the supplemental round, I believe. Is that how it works? I thought the supplemental round went on player numbers/advanced metric stats. Somebody here might look it up. Might later on myself. It's available right here, on the SoxProspects wiki.
|
|
|