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.
2014 Non-Red Sox MLB thread
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 24, 2014 14:31:13 GMT -5
Really wish Beane would have signed here so they could have won... 4 world series in the past decade? 5? What is the marginal addition that Beane would have brought? It's pretty clearly stated in the article. No, sorry - that is a reason for John Henry to do so. He'd have made however many more millions of dollars. But, why do I care - I don't think Morris makes any argument regarding more WS or playoff victories or what (other than profit)? Do you think that Beane would have been more successful with a higher payroll? Frankly, I think that is weird - why wouldn't other higher payroll teams have similarly thought that? It is just such a simplistic, obvious answer.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2014 15:19:10 GMT -5
It's pretty clearly stated in the article. No, sorry - that is a reason for John Henry to do so. He'd have made however many more millions of dollars. But, why do I care - I don't think Morris makes any argument regarding more WS or playoff victories or what (other than profit)? Do you think that Beane would have been more successful with a higher payroll? Frankly, I think that is weird - why wouldn't other higher payroll teams have similarly thought that? It is just such a simplistic, obvious answer. I don't know. They didn't think of valuing OBP and defense before 2000 now, did they? But John Henry did and in 2002 and tried to buy Beane's services then. Conditions have changed in Beane's life now, and my original point - back when Theo left - was to revisit that. I would do it again, even with Cherrington in the chair. Why settle for a #3 starter if you can get Felix Hernandez? One thing I am sure about, if Beane was GM the Sox would be getting max value for Lester by July 31, because it is clear they won't be re-signing him.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 24, 2014 19:58:20 GMT -5
Hey look, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight quantifies what I've been saying for a couple years about Billy Beane: fivethirtyeight.com/features/billion-dollar-billy-beane/Hopefully, now that it's stats driven, JH will read it an make him an offer he can't refuse. All this young talent in the pipeline and a changing landscape in free agency - this would be the perfect time to bring Beane in. Do it NOW! I'm a big believer in both Billy Beane and 538, but there are a couple really serious flaws in this analysis: 1. The first one is glaring. According to 538's analysis the Los Angeles Angels are the second most efficient organization in baseball. Imagine that, the two best run teams in baseball are in the same division. Does that sound right to anyone? The author is assuming that the cost of a win is the same in all six of divisions and providing solid evidence that it isn't. 2. This analysis, like virtually all baseball analysis, assumes that revenue is essentially static -- i.e. that GM's have a static pot of money to run their clubs (like in fantasy baseball) and that pot is independent of how they run their clubs. I think a lot of the Red Sox payroll decisions are driven by revenue rather than winning. Or more accurately, I think the Red Sox frequently overpay a player in order to instill confidence in the fanbase (which results in increased revenue which they mostly invest back into the team). Indeed, I don't think the Red Sox get anywhere near the credit they deserve for (a) their ability to make money in a market that's not as big as most people think or (b) their willingness to re-invest the money. I think the some of the extra money the Red Sox pay per win is actually money they spend to make money rather than win efficiently. Let me supply two examples: a. Dustin Pedroia: For most of the posters on this sight, Dustin Pedroia's contract is kind of "meh". It's a mild overpay for a beloved player whose fielding value will likely make it reasonable. However for a larger number of advertisers and luxury box holders, it is a commitment to winning -- the Red Sox have locked up their best player. The Red Sox could have found a more efficient way of manning second base, but it might have hurt their revenue stream. b. Trading veterans for prospects: The Red Sox seldom trade a veteran in his prime for prospects (Adrian Gonzalez is really the only one in the last decade). However, this is one of the best ways of acquiring talent. Contrary to popular opinion prospects -- or at least Red Sox prospects -- are significantly undervalued. Don't believe me? Let's examine the record: During the 2013 season the Red Sox gave up 5 years of Jose Iglesias for a little more than one year of Jake Peavy. So far Peavy has a WAR of less than 1.0 with Boston. I'll take the over on Iglesias the next four years. Before the 2012 season the Red Sox traded Josh Reddick et al for Andrew Bailey. Reddick put up 5.0 WAR his first year in Oakland -- far more than the Sox got out of Bailey. Before the 2011 season the Red Sox traded six years of Anthony Rizzo, Casey Kelly and Rey Fuentes for one year of Adrian Gonzalez. Gonzalez was worth 6.9 WAR in 2011. Rizzo alone has already surpassed that, and the Cubs have 3 1/2 more years of control. During the 2009 season the Red Sox traded Justin Masterson for a year and a half of Victor Martinez. Martinez was worth 4.9 WAR with Boston; Masterson has been worth double that. Before the 2006 season the Red Sox traded Andy Marte for Coco Crisp. That one was a bust, but Marte never played a game in the Sox system so it doesn't change the point about Sox prospects. Before the 2006 season the Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for two years of Josh Beckett and two years of Mike Lowell. They were terrific; they put up about 17 combined WAR between them and led the Sox to a title. However Ramirez and Sanchez were worth more than twice that. The Red Sox could probably win more games per dollar (and probably more games overall) if they would occasionally trade veterans for prospects. They probably would be more efficient and win more games if they traded prospects for veterans less frequently. They are probably also aware of this. They do what they do because they are trying to balance winning with maintaining a revenue stream sufficient to enable them to keep winning. And a lot of the extra money is really an investment in increased revenue.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 24, 2014 21:29:57 GMT -5
The 538 article, at best, should be treated as a facile, superficial thought exercise. Its methodology has major flaws-- for instance, attributing the success of an entire franchise to one person, an oversimplified payroll/win regression, arbitrary endpoints (it randomly excludes his first three years in Oakland, when he went 226-260), ignores postseason success, etc.
No doubt, Beane is one of the best GMs in the league, and he was way ahead of the curve on a lot of stuff. But this effervescent fanboying is getting a little cloying.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2014 21:47:53 GMT -5
Wait, you mean he's really not Brad Pitt!?! OK, now I'm crushed.
Cloying aside, I think Beane's the best GM in baseball. I'd love to give him the Sox' big payroll and a lot of talent to see if that's really true. I always felt almost the same about Gene Michael, believing he knew talent, and perhaps more important, when to let it walk or give it away. Even after Michael fell out of favor with Steinbrenner and the Yankees marginalized Michael, he kept him on the payroll and would not let him interview with the Red Sox despite repeated requests. And before you ask, I know that last bit first hand.
Anyway, what's wrong with wanting the best guy at the helm, especially in such a finite business as baseball? We all want Mike Trout or King Felix or Bryce Harper or Giancarlo Stanton - why not want the guy who has proven he's among the very best - if not the best - at putting a team and a system together?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jul 24, 2014 22:17:13 GMT -5
The difference between GMs is not as big as Felix Hernandez and a 3rd starter or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 24, 2014 22:31:14 GMT -5
Well, if you're excluding Ruben Amaro, I'd agree.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 24, 2014 23:26:37 GMT -5
Well, if you're excluding Ruben Amaro, I'd agree. So, you're a Kevin Towers fan?
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 0:08:02 GMT -5
Wait, you mean he's really not Brad Pitt!?! OK, now I'm crushed. Cloying aside, I think Beane's the best GM in baseball. I'd love to give him the Sox' big payroll and a lot of talent to see if that's really true. I always felt almost the same about Gene Michael, believing he knew talent, and perhaps more important, when to let it walk or give it away. Even after Michael fell out of favor with Steinbrenner and the Yankees marginalized Michael, he kept him on the payroll and would not let him interview with the Red Sox despite repeated requests. And before you ask, I know that last bit first hand. Anyway, what's wrong with wanting the best guy at the helm, especially in such a finite business as baseball? We all want Mike Trout or King Felix or Bryce Harper or Giancarlo Stanton - why not want the guy who has proven he's among the very best - if not the best - at putting a team and a system together? I think Billy Beane is a good GM, too. But . . . 1. I couldn't resist pointing out that the results of the analysis you linked to might actually have been more indicative of the differing cost per win in each of baseball's six divisions than of Billy Beane's ability. 2. According to the linked analysis, the Red Sox FO has outperformed -- in terms of wins/dollar -- ALL of the other teams in the AL East (including the Tampa Bay overRAYteds); they're pretty good 3. Different organizations have different strengths. The Red Sox' strengths are, I think, making money (which they in fact pour back into the team, so that their ability to create revenue is a major component of their fielding a winning team) and their ability to scout amateur talent. Oakland (like Tampa Bay) excels at finding undervalued assets in other organizations. It isn't necessarily true that Beane would excel in that environment (although I think he would). 4. I think the Red Sox are in a particularly difficult situation. The need to compete year in and year out with the Yankees (and their willingness to go toe-to-toe each year with the far better resourced Yankees is, I think, a major component of their popularity) is not ideal for a team whose strength is identifying and developing amateur talent. 5. To support my position, I did a quick look at the top 100 draft picks in the 2002-7 drafts (John Henry's first five drafts). I limited it to the first 100 picks, because there is a fair amount of luck associated with finding players in the lower rounds. I was really surprised by the results: In 2002, 14 of the first 100 picks have achieved 10+ WAR in their career, and 10 have achieved more than 20 WAR. The Red Sox first pick was Jon Lester (55), one of three 10+ WAR picks left and arguably the best (Brian McCann and Curtis Granderson were also available). In 2003, 12 of the first 100 picks have achieved 10+ WAR, 4 have achieved 20+ WAR. The Red Sox drafted 17th (and three other times) and ended up with a 10 WAR guy (David Murphy). By the time they drafted only one 20+ WAR player (Adam Jones) was still left. In 2004, 13 of the first 100 picks have achieved 10+ WAR, and 4 achieved 20+ WAR. The Red Sox had one pick (65) and drafted Dustin Pedroia. 'nuf said. The 2005 draft was really strong; there were 13 10+ WAR players, 7 of which surpassed 20 WAR. The Red Sox drafted Jacoby Ellsbury at 23 (20+) and Clay Buchholz (10+); Ellsbury has achieved more WAR than anyone drafted after him (in the top 100). 2006 draft has had only seven players players achieve 10+ WAR and 4 achieve 20+ WAR; the highest remaining player available when the Red Sox drafted was Justin Masterson. In 4 of 5 drafts, the Red Sox drafted the best player available (in 2006, it took them three tries). That is incredible. I would argue that the Red Sox' primary strength as an organization is their ability to identify talented amateurs. However, having the ability to identify talented players that others have missed is not conducive to getting top value when trading them (Red Sox prospects are underrated and undervalued). Unfortunately the Red Sox are under pressure to win now (trade prospects for veterans). I'm not sure Billy Beane could fix that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2014 17:46:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 21:26:43 GMT -5
Jeff Pini ?@jeffpini 16m Reports: Former #RedSox Catcher A.J. Pierzynski on His Way to St. Louis: ow.ly/zBpXA NESN will be dropping co-broadcasting of the Dennis and Callahan show after the season. Speculation is that it's not coincidental. I'm also not so sure Speier won't change employers. When Law stated he would no longer do anything with WEEI, he was asked if that included Speier. He went out of his way to complement Speier but said yes it does. Speier has too mach class for that kind of association. Like a priest being a bouncer in a cat house.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2014 21:40:36 GMT -5
The difference between the radio side (boorish and unprofessional) and the .com side could not be more vast. Not just Speier, but Chris Price and Paul Flannery are (were) some of the best in the business.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 21:48:37 GMT -5
The difference between the radio side (boorish and unprofessional) and the .com side could not be more vast. Not just Speier, but Chris Price and Paul Flannery are (were) some of the best in the business. Yes but the .com side is going to find it more difficult to have guests, especially in their podcasts. I doubt if people like Callis would appear anytime soon. It's station policy not the other specific people that's the real issue here. The shock joc and the station manager need to be gone. . . . WOW, Heyman has a sense of humor: Jon Heyman ?@jonheymancbs 1h aj pierzynski close to signing with cards, reports @dgoold. presumably just making sure clubhouse cell coverage is solid
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 25, 2014 22:51:52 GMT -5
Seattle's TV broadcasters are very boring, about the dullest I have yet heard.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 23:46:52 GMT -5
Puig with three triples and a double. Good grief....
Dodgers have 5 triples including three in one inning. I looked but Kemp wasn't traded to the Giants.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 26, 2014 8:52:46 GMT -5
Capuano getting the start for the Yankees today. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 26, 2014 11:56:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 26, 2014 16:38:03 GMT -5
Yes, just what we needed, right now it's too easy for player to get voted into the Hall of Fame. Wait, what?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 27, 2014 6:09:07 GMT -5
Free givaway at Coors. Oops....
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 28, 2014 3:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 11:38:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Jul 30, 2014 11:38:38 GMT -5
He seriously he cant get Boston out of his head.
via NESN.Com
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 30, 2014 12:25:54 GMT -5
He seriously he cant get Boston out of his head. via NESN.Com Actually Carl, we were all worried we would be stuck with you for 7 years!
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 30, 2014 12:34:10 GMT -5
He needs to let it go, but so do the people who keep freaking interviewing him. What is he gonna say? "Hey, you know I really changed my mind, it was awesome and I really fit in there and the fans loved me and I played some great baseball." You can't ask Carl to let it go without letting it go that he can't let it go. Or something.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 12:43:35 GMT -5
He needs to let it go, but so do the people who keep freaking interviewing him. What is he gonna say? "Hey, you know I really changed my mind, it was awesome and I really fit in there and the fans loved me and I played some great baseball." You can't ask Carl to let it go without letting it go that he can't let it go. Or something. If you read the article I posted, it sounds like he was asked about the Dodgers significantly shaking up the roster and he brought up the Red Sox.
|
|
|