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.
Red Sox, Pierzynski nearing 1-year/$8.25mm deal
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2013 22:20:06 GMT -5
People are analyzing the "what would it have taken to get Hanigan?" question all wrong. What went on between the Diamondbacks and Rays is completely beside the point; the Reds don't give a flying freak whether the Diamondbacks got David Price and Evan Longoria for Hanigan, or a pair of their used cleats. They wanted a good prospect, and they got Holmberg. If the Sox wanted to be the high bidders here, it meant offering the Reds more than Holmberg. Period. Heath Bell has no more to do with it than Heath Ledger or Alexander Graham Bell would, even if they were both alive. The most comparable player to Holmberg in the Red Sox system is Brandon Workman. Workman probably isn't as good a prospect as Holmberg because Holmberg is a lefty and has a better chance to start with four average pitches. So you are probably talking about adding a second lower level prospect like Sean Coyle. Pierzynski costs you money, is lower risk, but lower potential reward. Hanigan costs you prospects, but he could very easily be as bad as he was last year. I don't think it's clear cut, but I can certainly understand why the Sox would take the low risk option that only cost them money. Both very good points. You're right that Hanigan is much more of a coin flip when compared to Pierzynski, and the Red Sox likely preferred Pierzynski's reliability. That's probably the right decision since they're firmly in the range of playoff contention and so a high ceiling is less important than a high floor. I mostly just lost it at first when I saw how little Tampa Bay was giving up-- seems like that front office has a way of getting other teams to make dumb trades, and it hurts seeing a division rival get a cheap upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 3, 2013 22:23:08 GMT -5
I agree that there should be a mild presumption of competence amongst major league front offices, but they make plenty of mistakes, too. There was really no one who thought Saltalamacchia would get so little or RE: Salty, fwiw, Heyman's prediction article said: Agent: 3 years, $29M. GM: 3 years, $27.5M. Me [Heyman]: 3 years, $30M. So yes, he did sign for less than many thought. Wonder if he took a bit of a discount to play near home. Salty's last two teams, who presumably knew him best, both have deep pockets and needed a catcher and are far more than mildly competent in mgmt - and neither was particularly keen on signing him. Why do you think that was? Isn't it just possible that he's not that good a player? Or does that violate the cardinal rule that the blogosphere is never wrong?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 3, 2013 22:32:45 GMT -5
RE: Salty, fwiw, Heyman's prediction article said: Agent: 3 years, $29M. GM: 3 years, $27.5M. Me [Heyman]: 3 years, $30M. So yes, he did sign for less than many thought. Wonder if he took a bit of a discount to play near home. Salty's last two teams, who presumably knew him best, both have deep pockets and needed a catcher and are far more than mildly competent in mgmt - and neither was particularly keen on signing him. Why do you think that was? Isn't it just possible that he's not that good a player? Or does that violate the cardinal rule that the blogosphere is never wrong? I think there's reason to believe that, as hard as he is reported to work at pitch-calling, he's nothing special at it. That's an important chunk of value that only his old teams are really sure about, and is otherwise notoriously difficult to assess. (Another team can look at what pitches were called in various situations, but they can't separate the catcher's pitch-calling quality from the quality of the scouting reports he was given to work with. Only his own team can do that.)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2013 22:41:41 GMT -5
RE: Salty, fwiw, Heyman's prediction article said: Agent: 3 years, $29M. GM: 3 years, $27.5M. Me [Heyman]: 3 years, $30M. So yes, he did sign for less than many thought. Wonder if he took a bit of a discount to play near home. Salty's last two teams, who presumably knew him best, both have deep pockets and needed a catcher and are far more than mildly competent in mgmt - and neither was particularly keen on signing him. Why do you think that was? Isn't it just possible that he's not that good a player? Or does that violate the cardinal rule that the blogosphere is never wrong? Make the argument, then-- why isn't Saltalamacchia as good as the publicly-available metrics make him seem? And, FWIW, the Red Sox did offer Saltalamacchia a two-year deal, presumably at a similar AAV. I'd also be happy to hear an argument for why that third year is a deal-breaker. Yeah, Swihart's a pretty good prospect, but a 31-year-old Saltalamacchia making $7m is far from untradable, and betting on linear player development is generally a pretty risky endeavor. EDIT: the pitch-calling stuff might have a whiff of truth to it given the pretty big disparities in cERA between Saltalamacchia and Ross (a stat I usually ignore, but I guess we're grasping at anything we can find here). But everyone in that clubhouse and front office has raved about Saltalamacchia's game-calling all year, which would be quite odd if the FO really thought he stunk at it.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 3, 2013 22:51:02 GMT -5
...I mean, $7 million for a decent starting catcher would have covered them for this year, 2015 if Vazquez wasn't ready for full-time duty and 2016 if he still wasn't ready... Don't look now but they're stacking up quickly. Butler will see time this year, I'll lay money down on that. And the idea that it will take Vazquez two more full years to clear AAA, with Swihart a non-factor during that time, doesn't hold much projectable water. The Sox have options in the minors. They've decided to play that hand, and I'm happy. This is a prospect site, and why I hang around. Speier mentioned that a left-handed catcher looked to be in order. That left a lot of the fingers pointing at Pierzynski. It's what made the most sense given the team's strong emphasis on flexibility and depth. They're moving in that direction again. I don't think they're done either.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 3, 2013 23:07:22 GMT -5
The Rays are probably in playoff contention too, if they weren't they would have just handed the reins to Lobaton and hoped for the best as opposed to making this deal. It's more that they don't have the catching prospects the Red Sox have. Justin O'Connor has been awful and Nick Cuifo is 18 years old. Given their obvious budgetary constraints and the state of catching today, the Rays really had to take to take the risk that Hanigan can be an every day catcher even though it cost them a prospect to do so. But even if Hanigan doesn't turn out, they can always ship him off because he's being paid like a backup and his defensive skills will always be in demand.
The Rays need to buy time for Cuifo and in a perfect world Hanigan will do that for them allowing them to slide Cuifo into the starting role for the 2018 season. The Red Sox just need to buy time for a player who will be in AAA this year.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 3, 2013 23:26:59 GMT -5
It's pretty clear that Salty isn't thought of as highly in the industry as the publicly available metrics think he should be. I think the reason for this is often aluded to in game threads. He looks very unnatural back there. His footwork looks clunky and we've seen he doesn't have the most accurate or strongest arm. He's certainly improved, but there's certainly a risk that even by the end of next year, you can't have him catch 120 games a year.
Yes Salty has plus power, but we all know that he's not playing every day at any position but catcher. If he is no longer an acceptable every day catcher, then yes that third year is untradable. Besides, it's generally unwise to sign a player to a contract where you don't project him to play much at the end of that contract. Players always seem to decline earlier than you think.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 3, 2013 23:34:14 GMT -5
No. You actually gained one today. That's all that matters to me this offseason. Love this deal, stick to the plan BC. There are only 13 QO free agents Carlos Beltran, Cardinals Robinson Cano, Yankees Shin-Soo Choo, Reds Nelson Cruz, Rangers Stephen Drew, Red Sox Jacoby Ellsbury, Red Sox Curtis Granderson, Yankees Ubaldo Jimenez, Indians Hiroki Kuroda, Yankees Brian McCann, Braves Kendrys Morales, Mariners Mike Napoli, Red Sox Ervin Santana, Royals
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 4, 2013 9:06:23 GMT -5
I agree that there should be a mild presumption of competence amongst major league front offices, but they make plenty of mistakes, too. There was really no one who thought Saltalamacchia would get so little or that Hanigan wasn't worth a look at this price (pending the identity of the PTBNL, at least), on this forum or really anywhere else in the baseball blogosphere. Why do you think we were all so far off in our projections? RE: Salty, fwiw, Heyman's prediction article said: Agent: 3 years, $29M. GM: 3 years, $27.5M. Me [Heyman]: 3 years, $30M. So yes, he did sign for less than many thought. Wonder if he took a bit of a discount to play near home. I think the presumption should be stronger than mild, but certainly it is only a prior - not a stopping point in the analysis (and I'm glad you didn't take me to mean that), but merely a rebuttable prior. I think C is a very difficult position to predict contracts only b/c we can't (even semi) accurately predict real-life WAR there. For other positions, that is less true, and people outside the game have a better idea. I find it very unlikely that he took $10mm less money to play near home. Rather, I think it more likely that Heyman talked to an N of one, and that N didn't bid. For Salty, I mentioned this elsewhere, but there are multiple valid comparisons offensively and the real question is his defense. Contracts in baseball are about predicting future production, and teams use multiple methods – a method is to compare similar players. One comparison is John Buck, who entered free agency at a similar age (after 29 vs. after 28) with a similar 3 yr weighted OPS+ (105 vs 107 albeit in fewer PAs), and a similar reputation on defense (bad, though he allowed many fewer SBs by having fewer attempts). He signed for 3/17 three years ago, which, with inflation of 5%, pegs directly to 3/21. I expected more than that – 3/24 or so – but in that ballpark. (Clearly, I'm not that good at this, or I'd do it for a living, so don't take that to mean that I think I know better.) The Red Sox clearly did not expect 3/30, or they’d have been tempted to offer a QO. If a player signs for 3/21 without a QO, then clearly they would have (assuming rationality) accepted the QO at 1/14, as we should assume a QO knocks off something like $5mm from the expected contract. So, I think the Red Sox understood his market pretty well. If we assume that – and that seems right – then MLB general managers simply don’t like him. As for Hanigan, the Pittsburgh Pirates would prefer to deal cash to get Chris Stewart – with the career 59 OPS+ - then to give up what the Rays did to get Hanigan. Certainly, they could be wrong – but there are plenty of teams that simply are not that interested in him. For example, the Orioles have a career minor leaguer as their backup catcher; the Blue Jays don’t have a backup C, unless you count Josh Thole; etc. Many teams valued crappy players as better alternatives as a backup. Now, it could be that they are all wrong – teams are often wrong, of course. How many folks passed on Jose Bautista, freely available without the ability to choose? But, being part of the herd (when the herd is composed of ‘experts’) isn’t irrational, even if wrong.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 4, 2013 9:28:05 GMT -5
Salty's last two teams, who presumably knew him best, both have deep pockets and needed a catcher and are far more than mildly competent in mgmt - and neither was particularly keen on signing him. Why do you think that was? Isn't it just possible that he's not that good a player? Or does that violate the cardinal rule that the blogosphere is never wrong? Make the argument, then-- why isn't Saltalamacchia as good as the publicly-available metrics make him seem? EDIT: the pitch-calling stuff might have a whiff of truth to it given the pretty big disparities in cERA between Saltalamacchia and Ross (a stat I usually ignore, but I guess we're grasping at anything we can find here). But everyone in that clubhouse and front office has raved about Saltalamacchia's game-calling all year, which would be quite odd if the FO really thought he stunk at it. Why are you incapable of making the argument? You have at least as much evidence in front of you as I do. But I think your edit is as far as you'll go, so I have a few theories to fit the facts, and facts to take into consideration: A. Offense - Salty had a good year at the plate in 2013, but teams consider this a career year and not a new plateau B. The Sox brought in David Ross to play "more than the typical backup" in 2013, plans that were derailed by injury, possibly because they did not rate Salty that highly. Salty was eventually benched in favor of Ross in the World Series, suggesting that Salty was not even the best catcher on his own team, just the younger one who played the strong side of a platoon. C. Favorable quotes from teammates in the media can be (though not always) equivalent to your mom telling you how handsome you look D. We know his throwing isn't great E. Publicly available catching fielding/receiving/game calling metrics are of uncertain quality, and internal team metrics may not rate Salty favorably. You mention cERA which you ignore, and rather than making an argument using it, my contention is that it's better to treat them all with extreme caution. Reputation, though not statistical, may be a more accurate gauge than publicly available metrics, and I don't think Salty's reputation is that great.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 4, 2013 9:34:01 GMT -5
You're right that Hanigan is much more of a coin flip when compared to Pierzynski, and the Red Sox likely preferred Pierzynski's reliability. That's probably the right decision since they're firmly in the range of playoff contention and so a high ceiling is less important than a high floor. I think this is even more a general statement on Ben Cherington's philosophy. IMO, he looks at downside risk MUCH more than fans do and probably more than most other GMs. I think most people are conditioned to look at upside reward first, then factor in downside risk, whereas Cherington does it in the other direction I think. Every move he makes is a lot more understandable if you factor in a very strong aversion to downside risk. Trading Jed Lowrie for Mark Melancon makes a little more sense if you heavily weight the downside risk of Jed Lowrie's missing significant time for injuries and the difficulty of having a good backup shortstop (even then, I'm not arguing for that trade, just saying it puts it in a little different light). Cherington never wants a black hole in the lineup or on the mound. It's not an inconsiderate risk that Hanigan could be a real detriment to the lineup, and I think that's almost disqualifying to BC. Pierzynski has very little downside risk … it's there because of his age, for sure, but it's not very high a risk. He's very likely to be average. To Cherington, that's awesome. Not to get off topic, but with that in mind, I think we're likely to see two moves: one to shore up the outfield risk of JBJ being not quite ready and/or injuries to Victorino, and some kind of mitigation for the risk at the corner infield positions. Right now, that latter point seems like it'd be the focus; it's got to be giving Ben ulcers. Either of those areas could involve a major move if one is available, but they could also simply involve a solid short-term option that will give better-than-average production if called upon. Sometimes you can't force major moves without weakening one area too much and adding too much downside risk.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 4, 2013 9:41:05 GMT -5
It's a fair question to ask. If you are willing to do 2/18 then why not 3/21 with a younger catcher? If Swithart is your reasoning then that's just foolhardy. I like the kid well enough but he still has to be considered a long shot at this point. Maybe not compared to other catching prospects with his experience but all prospects are long shots until they get close. He hasn't played an inning in the upper minors and plays a position that is more difficult and takes longer to develop at. Then it still takes most of them a couple years once in the majors to be reliable. On top of it, there are very few reliable catchers in the game.
The odds of Swithart actually being a viable major league starter are probably less then 50% and the chances of that happening by 2016 are even less then that.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 4, 2013 10:10:59 GMT -5
There are a couple things we don't know about these catcher deals, If Salty took less salary to be close to home and avoid a state income tax, and who the PTBNL is in the Tampa trade, but if we ignore those unknowns I would say of the three catcher deals yesterday ours was the worst. Not that the AJ signing is is bad or won't work, I just view the other two deals as more favorable actions. It was reported that the Sox has a 2 year deal out to Salty, how far off could they of been to get that third year? I would have assumed they offered 2Y 18-20M if I didn't know better. Going by Fangraphs wOBA he was a better offensive player than Pedroia, Ellsbury, Gomes, and Drew in 2013. He may have been a below average defensive catcher, but the way some people make it sound he is as bad at catching as Miggy is playing third, which just isn't true. To make a very broad statement, our pitching staff was pretty darn good overall last year, and Salty caught 121 of those games, if his game calling/pitch framing is that bad we didn't really feel it. Salty on a 7M AAV is a bargin IMO.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 4, 2013 10:12:40 GMT -5
Maybe the reasoning in Vazquez? Maybe they really think he'll be good enough at the plate and they LOVE his defense. And if Swihart pans out as best case scenario, all the better. They'll have two solid to great catchers.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 4, 2013 11:00:35 GMT -5
I think C is a very difficult position to predict contracts only b/c we can't (even semi) accurately predict real-life WAR there. For other positions, that is less true, and people outside the game have a better idea. I find it very unlikely that he took $10mm less money to play near home. Rather, I think it more likely that Heyman talked to an N of one, and that N didn't bid. For Salty, I mentioned this elsewhere, but there are multiple valid comparisons offensively and the real question is his defense. Contracts in baseball are about predicting future production, and teams use multiple methods – a method is to compare similar players. One comparison is John Buck, who entered free agency at a similar age (after 29 vs. after 28) with a similar 3 yr weighted OPS+ (105 vs 107 albeit in fewer PAs), and a similar reputation on defense (bad, though he allowed many fewer SBs by having fewer attempts). He signed for 3/17 three years ago, which, with inflation of 5%, pegs directly to 3/21. I expected more than that – 3/24 or so – but in that ballpark. (Clearly, I'm not that good at this, or I'd do it for a living, so don't take that to mean that I think I know better.) The Red Sox clearly did not expect 3/30, or they’d have been tempted to offer a QO. If a player signs for 3/21 without a QO, then clearly they would have (assuming rationality) accepted the QO at 1/14, as we should assume a QO knocks off something like $5mm from the expected contract. So, I think the Red Sox understood his market pretty well. If we assume that – and that seems right – then MLB general managers simply don’t like him. You're right that it has to be his defense, because his offense seems reasonably easy to project and he hasn't had any injury or off-the-field problems. The John Buck comparison is an great find, because they really were very similar players. That said, with the report that the Red Sox offered Saltalamacchia two years and $18m, this is looking like a situation where either: (a) Saltalamacchia was genuinely upset at the Red Sox for benching him during the World Series and not trying hard enough to re-sign him (remember that angsty interview?) and wasn't going to come back to Boston unless they really really overpaid; (b) he really wanted to go back to Florida (the most unlikely of these theories, I think); or (c) his agent (Jim Munsey, who only represents a very small handful of MLB players) just seriously messed up (FWIW, Munsey is probably best known for this embarrassing episode)).
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 4, 2013 11:07:37 GMT -5
I think it's a very important distinction that it wasn't $18M guaranteed - The article also throws cold water on the idea that there was anything other than contract terms preventing Salty from resigning.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 4, 2013 11:08:58 GMT -5
Ah, good point, my eyes just sort of glossed over that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 4, 2013 11:43:52 GMT -5
I can't buy the idea that people are throwing out there that Salty is easily tradeable for $7 million in the 3rd year. If that were the case, I'd think there would be more teams lining up and willing to offer 3 years.
Plus there's the whole Farrell sticking with vets for way too long thing, like starting Drew over Iglesias and Xander even when Drew was in one of his 1 for 44 slumps and facing a lefty starter. Maybe they want Ross around to teach Vazquez because he's an incredible teacher. There are so many things that we don't know about and never will.
But given that Farrell was so stubborn all year with his loyalty to certain players, it's pretty telling that he benched Salty in the World Series. Farrell kept trotting Gomes out there against right handed pitching also.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 4, 2013 11:58:08 GMT -5
I think it depends more on the situation, mainly what players there already are in the organization and where they are in their development. In some cases the organization has taken on more risk where it's warranted.
Taking the Saltalamachia deal as an example, the Red Sox traded a couple of halfway decent prospects for a guy who at one point had the yips and installed him as the every day catcher. That's a huge risk in my opinion and one that many in the media questioned early in 2011. Yet, it was a risk the Red Sox had to take due to their lack of organizational depth at catcher and a paltry overpriced market for veteran free agent backstops.
I think this risk turned out very well and was the right move to make versus the lower risk option of signing a veteran free agent like Russell Martin as the Yankees did. From 2011-2013 the Red Sox got seven WAR from Saltalamachia for less than $8M while the Yanks got 5.5 WAR from Martin and Stewart and paid nearly $18M for the privilege.
The Red Sox with Vazquez and Swihart are now in a position where they don't have to take a risk on an unproven backstop and hope that he can play every day for a few years. The Rays, who's best catching prospect is an 18 year old kid, really have to take on that kind of risk.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Dec 6, 2013 15:04:34 GMT -5
Now that this has shaken out, it's really hard to convince me that we shouldn't have offered a QO to Salty.
pros: roster flexibility, Salty's upside as a still-young catcher OR draft pick OR getting him on a below market deal due to cost of draft pick to other teams cons: potential overpay on 1-year deal, inability to pursue other options
upshot: we get no draft-pick, and we get an aging catcher who will put more stress on our other options (Ross, Lavarnway). At least we still have a platoon and there is significant defensive upside in Pierzinski. Maybe he can teach us how to better control opposing run games (though I doubt it).
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Dec 6, 2013 15:54:28 GMT -5
Pierzynski Pro: We got a guy who projects as an identical player for 2014 for $6 million less.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2013 16:01:06 GMT -5
Now that this has shaken out, it's really hard to convince me that we shouldn't have offered a QO to Salty. ... cons: potential overpay on 1-year deal, inability to pursue other options I think this is pretty clearly what it came down to, honestly. They thought he might accept and saw no reason to take the chance when they were probably getting two supp picks anyway. Hypothetical: would you rather have Saltalamacchia or Pierzynski and Mujica? I'm not saying they wouldn't have signed Mujica (hence why I label it as a hypothetical rather than what actually happened), but there is something of a chance that they aren't willing to sign a reliever like that if they're paying the catcher another $5.75M. If you're only bringing him back on a one-year deal, what does age have to do with it? And by the way, Miami's pick is protected - it's likely they would have given him the same contract if the cost was a second-round pick. I'm not necessarily saying that it was absolutely the right call to not offer Saltalamacchia the QO. I just think that it depends on whether you think he's going to accept, because I see the problem with paying him $14M. ------ Also, let's all practice the spelling, or it's going to be a long season. To remember, I break it down as follows: Pier Zyn Ski Two of those are words. Just remember "zyn" in the middle and you're fine.
|
|
|