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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 15, 2015 9:10:54 GMT -5
Ok, so it wouldn't even make sense because it would still count the same towards the CBT regardless if the majority of the money is in the first few years as opposed to spread out evenly?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2015 9:13:13 GMT -5
Ok, so it wouldn't even make sense because it would still count the same towards the CBT regardless if the majority of the money is in the first few years as opposed to spread out evenly? I guess it's possible that a player might take less overall if you gave him more up front. Money is worth more now than it will be 6 years from now. But I doubt it would mean much, other than possibly having him choose your team over another which wasn't offering that because the total dollar amount is an ego thing. There are also teams who backload deals for cash flow reasons or because they expect to trade them during the contract to a richer team.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 15, 2015 9:26:50 GMT -5
My intuition is that contracts are more likely to be backloaded because teams care more about the time value of money than players do (at a certain level, for players/agents, it's more about the bragging rights that come with a bigger reported number than about the net present value of the deal-- this is also why you see guys like Scherzer who are willing to take significant deferred money).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 15, 2015 9:31:47 GMT -5
Genuinely asking your opinion: Do you see him being worth his deal more so than Price? He hasn't proven he can be more than a 7 K/9 guy in the AL, has a longer injury history, and I think pitching in the NL made him a bigger star than he truly is. He's probably a guy who can come in and post a .375 SIERA for us, but will get paid like he's much more than that. I don't see him bringing much or any excess value in the early stages of his deal, and he definitely won't at the end. Price would be safer, but I prefer not to give out a huge deal to a pitcher this year. I haven't thought about it too much, but my initial thoughts are that I wouldn't read too much into a 56.1 IP sample, the difference between the AL and the NL is often exaggerated, strikeouts aren't everything, and Cueto is one of the few guys in the league who is likely to have a true-talent BABIP/stranding runners (because of his pickoff move) skill. I'd prefer Price, but he's going to cost more, and I could see a point at which it makes more sense to sign Cueto instead.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2015 9:38:21 GMT -5
Genuinely asking your opinion: Do you see him being worth his deal more so than Price? He hasn't proven he can be more than a 7 K/9 guy in the AL, has a longer injury history, and I think pitching in the NL made him a bigger star than he truly is. He's probably a guy who can come in and post a .375 SIERA for us, but will get paid like he's much more than that. I don't see him bringing much or any excess value in the early stages of his deal, and he definitely won't at the end. Price would be safer, but I prefer not to give out a huge deal to a pitcher this year. I haven't thought about it too much, but my initial thoughts are that I wouldn't read too much into a 56.1 IP sample, the difference between the AL and the NL is often exaggerated, strikeouts aren't everything, and Cueto is one of the few guys in the league who is likely to have a true-talent BABIP/stranding runners (because of his pickoff move) skill. I'd prefer Price, but he's going to cost more, and I could see a point at which it makes more sense to sign Cueto instead. Given how quickly a lot of pitchers around age 30 fall apart, it's hard not to.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 15, 2015 9:51:55 GMT -5
Here is a short synopsis of the link for those who don't want to make the jump: Yes, he has sucked for the last three starts, but after conducting a superficial analysis, the author cannot see anything patently obvious that would explain the very small sample of bad pitching, so it's bad luck. The whole article comes across as pretty glib and self-agrandizing more then definitive. I am not positioning myself against the idea of "luck," but in this case, it seems like "bad luck" is simply a default answer because the author cannot find any other cause for Cueto's poor three game stretch. Maybe I'm just grumpy and need another cup of coffee, but I don't think the link really speaks to Cueto's future performance, only that there is nothing glaringly obvious that jumps out from the last three starts (except the end results, of course).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2015 9:59:11 GMT -5
Here is a short synopsis of the link for those who don't want to make the jump: Yes, he has sucked for the last three starts, but after conducting a superficial analysis, the author cannot see anything patently obvious that would explain the very small sample of bad pitching, so it's bad luck. The whole article comes across as pretty glib and self-agrandizing more then definitive. I am not positioning myself against the idea of "luck," but in this case, it seems like "bad luck" is simply a default answer because the author cannot find any other cause for Cueto's poor three game stretch. Maybe I'm just grumpy and need another cup of coffee, but I don't think the link really speaks to Cueto's future performance, only that there is nothing glaringly obvious that jumps out from the last three starts (except the end results, of course). We do the same thing around here with Tazawa, except it's "he's worn out", despite the fact that it's just about impossible to figure that out from stats. His velocity is the same. His control and command have fallen apart, but is that fatigue or something else?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Sept 15, 2015 10:04:28 GMT -5
I wasn't really talking about his sample with the Royals too much, I'm just comparatively saying Price has proven himself in this division.
Cueto struck out pitchers more than 50% of the time, he's not a ground ball guy. I'm just not convinced he's a god for or risk to take.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 15, 2015 10:06:18 GMT -5
Ok, so it wouldn't even make sense because it would still count the same towards the CBT regardless if the majority of the money is in the first few years as opposed to spread out evenly? I guess it's possible that a player might take less overall if you gave him more up front. Money is worth more now than it will be 6 years from now. But I doubt it would mean much, other than possibly having him choose your team over another which wasn't offering that because the total dollar amount is an ego thing. There are also teams who backload deals for cash flow reasons or because they expect to trade them during the contract to a richer team. So is this because teams are under the assumption that players won't play for less money towards the end of the deal, even though they are getting all of the money they signed up for? Basically an ego thing?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 15, 2015 10:07:17 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just grumpy and need another cup of coffee, but I don't think the link really speaks to Cueto's future performance, only that there is nothing glaringly obvious that jumps out from the last three starts (except the end results, of course). You're dismissing that conclusion like it's meaningless, but I think it tells us a fair bit. If, after a fairly detailed analysis (I think it's equally glib to dismiss it as superficial; is there anything you think Sullivan didn't look at that he should have?), we can't point to anything a pitcher is doing differently, then yeah, the most likely explanation in my mind is that it's bad luck. No, I can't say that with 100% certainty, but ruling out other explanations like decreased velocity or significantly diminished command certainly tells us something.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2015 10:35:54 GMT -5
I guess it's possible that a player might take less overall if you gave him more up front. Money is worth more now than it will be 6 years from now. But I doubt it would mean much, other than possibly having him choose your team over another which wasn't offering that because the total dollar amount is an ego thing. There are also teams who backload deals for cash flow reasons or because they expect to trade them during the contract to a richer team. So is this because teams are under the assumption that players won't play for less money towards the end of the deal, even though they are getting all of the money they signed up for? Basically an ego thing? No, I don't think that at all. I haven't seen a player hold out with a valid contract and haven't seen examples of that where they're paying peanuts well past expected retirement age like they were doing in hockey until they closed that loophole. The league would have to step in and end that if it happened because it makes a mockery of the CBA.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 15, 2015 11:22:11 GMT -5
So why don't teams just do that then? Pay a ton of the money up front and that way when the player starts to decline. you're not paying him 20 mil a year for mediocre play.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 15, 2015 11:24:24 GMT -5
So why don't teams just do that then? Pay a ton of the money up front and that way when the player starts to decline. you're not paying him 20 mil a year for mediocre play. Because that would make no difference. If you give a player a five-year deal worth $100M, it doesn't matter if you give him $80M in the first year - he's still counting against the CBT for $20M AAV. The part that counts is what he's counting against the CBT for, not what he's actually getting paid. MLB teams make enough that a few million shouldn't be a problem. Allen Craig clearing waivers, for example, means that he just costs the Red Sox money, but not money against the CBT, while he's not on the 40-man. Sure, there may be some teams for whom paying less in a player's declining years would be extremely beneficial, but those are also not the teams with the financial muscle to pay a premium up front for that.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 15, 2015 11:27:55 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just grumpy and need another cup of coffee, but I don't think the link really speaks to Cueto's future performance, only that there is nothing glaringly obvious that jumps out from the last three starts (except the end results, of course). You're dismissing that conclusion like it's meaningless, but I think it tells us a fair bit. If, after a fairly detailed analysis (I think it's equally glib to dismiss it as superficial; is there anything you think Sullivan didn't look at that he should have?), we can't point to anything a pitcher is doing differently, then yeah, the most likely explanation in my mind is that it's bad luck. No, I can't say that with 100% certainty, but ruling out other explanations like decreased velocity or significantly diminished command certainly tells us something. I think you made my point. Sullivan IS saying with 100% certainty that it is bad luck, and it may well be. But his sureness about the bad luck conclusion is, if not misplaced, a little arrogant. I cannot read his mind, but this article reads like Sullivan wanted the conclusion to be "bad luck," and did everything in his power to reach that conclusion. Sullivan sort-of showed that Cueto doesn't have any markers of gross injury, that there is nothing glaringly wrong, and I clearly acknowledged that. But his only proof of this is the heat map. Maybe I am not smart enough to see that the heat map is conclusive evidence that backs up Sullivan's point, but the inclusion of the heat map seems like a rhetorical tool, a shiny complicated graphic without enough detail to actually support his argument. Sullivan really bases his bad luck conclusion on one point, that hitters have been getting hits on balls out of the strike zone at a very high rate, an unsustainable rate. Sullivan also brings up the fact that Cueto hasn't had a bad three game streak like this since 2009, that he has been facing a better quality of hitter during his 3 game streak, that he may be missing the NL and the ability to strike out pitchers on a regular basis, but then Sullivan states, not proves, that these points don't matter. Again, maybe they don't matter, but the way Sullivan brings up points and dismisses them out of hand is, in fact, superficial, and that is a nice way of putting it. So what about those points? I would say, hmmm, won't Cueto be facing a better quality hitter in the playoffs than during the regular season? Won't the AL portion of the playoffs have a DH and not the Pitcher hitting? Maybe his pitches outside of the zone are actually more hittable, but the, yes, superficial nature of the analysis misses this fact? I am not taking exception to the potential role of bad luck to explain his performance, just the sureness of his conclusion while not examining such things as actual velocity and movement data for his pitches, pitch sequencing, and the actual current performance of the hitters he is facing. The role of luck in explaining player performance is a basic sabermetric tenet that I accept, and if you look at my past posts, it is clear I accept that premise. You, JMEI, have set the bar pretty darn high on this board for what constitutes valid analysis and conclusion. I suggest that Sullivan's article does not meet that standard. I would say that if an author used the same rigor as Sullivan used in reaching a conclusion that you did not like, you would be ripping that article to shreds. But since Sullivan came up with a conclusion that you like, one that is a basic Saber talking point (luck matters, but is not predictive), you are ignoring the problems with his methodology.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 15, 2015 11:28:09 GMT -5
Ok thanks. That's what i was trying to understand. I get what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 15, 2015 12:10:22 GMT -5
You're dismissing that conclusion like it's meaningless, but I think it tells us a fair bit. If, after a fairly detailed analysis (I think it's equally glib to dismiss it as superficial; is there anything you think Sullivan didn't look at that he should have?), we can't point to anything a pitcher is doing differently, then yeah, the most likely explanation in my mind is that it's bad luck. No, I can't say that with 100% certainty, but ruling out other explanations like decreased velocity or significantly diminished command certainly tells us something. I think you made my point. Sullivan IS saying with 100% certainty that it is bad luck, and it may well be. But his sureness about the bad luck conclusion is, if not misplaced, then a little arrogant. I cannot read his mind, but this article reads like Sullivan wanted the conclusion to be "bad luck," and did everything in his power to reach that conclusion. Sullivan sort-of showed that Cueto doesn't have any markers of gross injury, that there is nothing glaringly wrong, and I clearly acknowledged that. But his only proof of this is the heat map. Maybe I am not smart enough to see that the heat map is conclusive evidence that backs up Sullivan's point, but the inclusion of the heat map seems like a rhetorical tool, a shiny complicated graphic without enough detail to actually support his argument. Sullivan really bases his bad luck conclusion on one point, that hitters have been getting hits on balls out of the strike zone at a very high rate, an unsustainable rate. Sullivan also brings up the fact that Cueto hasn't had a bad three game streak like this since 2009, that he has been facing a better quality of hitter during his 3 game streak, that he may be missing the NL and the ability to strike out pitchers on a regular basis, but then Sullivan states, not proves, that these points don't matter. Again, maybe they don't matter, but the way Sullivan brings up points and dismisses them out of hand is, in fact, superficial, and that is a nice way of putting it. So what about those points? I would say, hmmm, won't Cueto be facing a better quality hitter in the playoffs than during the regular season? Won't the AL portion of the playoffs have a DH and not the Pitcher hitting? Maybe his pitches outside of the zone are actually more hittable, but the, yes, superficial nature of the analysis misses this fact? I am not taking exception to the potential role of bad luck to explain his performance, just the sureness of his conclusion while not examining such things as actual velocity and movement data for his pitches, pitch sequencing, and the actual current performance of the hitters he is facing. The role of luck in explaining player performance is a basic sabermetric tenet that I accept, and if you look at my past posts, it is clear I accept that premise. You, JMEI, have set the bar pretty darn high on this board for what constitutes valid analysis and conclusion. I suggest that Sullivan's article does not meet that standard. I would say that if an author used the same rigor as Sullivan used in reaching a conclusion that you did not like, you would be ripping that article to shreds. But since Sullivan came up with a conclusion that you like, one that is a basic Saber talking point (luck matters, but is not predictive), you are ignoring the problems with his methodology. I don't see where Sullivan says, with 100% certainty, that it is bad luck. Here is his conclusion: He explicitly discusses most the factors you mention above (tougher competition, etc.), and there's plenty of hedging language ("seems," "There's no single one thing," "ought"). I think you're reading more certainty than the author means to convey. That analysis is certainly not conclusive (and I'll concede the point that it could be more rigorous), but it doesn't pretend to be.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2015 12:11:10 GMT -5
So why don't teams just do that then? Pay a ton of the money up front and that way when the player starts to decline. you're not paying him 20 mil a year for mediocre play. Because that would make no difference. If you give a player a five-year deal worth $100M, it doesn't matter if you give him $80M in the first year - he's still counting against the CBT for $20M AAV. The part that counts is what he's counting against the CBT for, not what he's actually getting paid. MLB teams make enough that a few million shouldn't be a problem. Allen Craig clearing waivers, for example, means that he just costs the Red Sox money, but not money against the CBT, while he's not on the 40-man. Sure, there may be some teams for whom paying less in a player's declining years would be extremely beneficial, but those are also not the teams with the financial muscle to pay a premium up front for that. I think we're talking about a scenario something like this: 32 year old gets a 10 year $250 million contract, $240 million of it paid through age 38. Player retires at age 38, team only has $25 million per year counted against LT even though it should be $40 million. That's just an extreme example. They used to do that in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Sept 15, 2015 12:33:34 GMT -5
I think you made my point. Sullivan IS saying with 100% certainty that it is bad luck, and it may well be. But his sureness about the bad luck conclusion is, if not misplaced, then a little arrogant. I cannot read his mind, but this article reads like Sullivan wanted the conclusion to be "bad luck," and did everything in his power to reach that conclusion. Sullivan sort-of showed that Cueto doesn't have any markers of gross injury, that there is nothing glaringly wrong, and I clearly acknowledged that. But his only proof of this is the heat map. Maybe I am not smart enough to see that the heat map is conclusive evidence that backs up Sullivan's point, but the inclusion of the heat map seems like a rhetorical tool, a shiny complicated graphic without enough detail to actually support his argument. Sullivan really bases his bad luck conclusion on one point, that hitters have been getting hits on balls out of the strike zone at a very high rate, an unsustainable rate. Sullivan also brings up the fact that Cueto hasn't had a bad three game streak like this since 2009, that he has been facing a better quality of hitter during his 3 game streak, that he may be missing the NL and the ability to strike out pitchers on a regular basis, but then Sullivan states, not proves, that these points don't matter. Again, maybe they don't matter, but the way Sullivan brings up points and dismisses them out of hand is, in fact, superficial, and that is a nice way of putting it. So what about those points? I would say, hmmm, won't Cueto be facing a better quality hitter in the playoffs than during the regular season? Won't the AL portion of the playoffs have a DH and not the Pitcher hitting? Maybe his pitches outside of the zone are actually more hittable, but the, yes, superficial nature of the analysis misses this fact? I am not taking exception to the potential role of bad luck to explain his performance, just the sureness of his conclusion while not examining such things as actual velocity and movement data for his pitches, pitch sequencing, and the actual current performance of the hitters he is facing. The role of luck in explaining player performance is a basic sabermetric tenet that I accept, and if you look at my past posts, it is clear I accept that premise. You, JMEI, have set the bar pretty darn high on this board for what constitutes valid analysis and conclusion. I suggest that Sullivan's article does not meet that standard. I would say that if an author used the same rigor as Sullivan used in reaching a conclusion that you did not like, you would be ripping that article to shreds. But since Sullivan came up with a conclusion that you like, one that is a basic Saber talking point (luck matters, but is not predictive), you are ignoring the problems with his methodology. I don't see where Sullivan says, with 100% certainty, that it is bad luck. Here is his conclusion: He explicitly discusses most the factors you mention above (tougher competition, etc.), and there's plenty of hedging language ("seems," "There's no single one thing," "ought"). I think you're reading more certainty than the author means to convey. That analysis is certainly not conclusive (and I'll concede the point that it could be more rigorous), but it doesn't pretend to be. One minor point: The Sullivan piece was written on 9/2 and Cueto has since posted two more awful starts, making the string now 5 in a row. He lasted 3 innings against arguably the worst offense in baseball. It's all small sample stuff and maybe connected to being unlucky, but at the same time, it's even more unlucky for a guy who probably wants to show 30 teams he's a capable starter no matter who he's facing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 15, 2015 13:06:32 GMT -5
Because that would make no difference. If you give a player a five-year deal worth $100M, it doesn't matter if you give him $80M in the first year - he's still counting against the CBT for $20M AAV. The part that counts is what he's counting against the CBT for, not what he's actually getting paid. MLB teams make enough that a few million shouldn't be a problem. Allen Craig clearing waivers, for example, means that he just costs the Red Sox money, but not money against the CBT, while he's not on the 40-man. Sure, there may be some teams for whom paying less in a player's declining years would be extremely beneficial, but those are also not the teams with the financial muscle to pay a premium up front for that. I think we're talking about a scenario something like this: 32 year old gets a 10 year $250 million contract, $240 million of it paid through age 38. Player retires at age 38, team only has $25 million per year counted against LT even though it should be $40 million. That's just an extreme example. They used to do that in the NHL. My guess is MLB would call shenanigans on that. Also, my guess is the Dodgers are the only team that has the financial means to gig a contract to that degree.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 16, 2015 19:18:07 GMT -5
I sure hope that this team is still built around Pedroia. With all the youth he is exactly what we need.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,680
|
Post by gerry on Sept 16, 2015 19:39:38 GMT -5
Amen to that. Trade talk reminds me of various comments to dump Papi ovrr the years because "he is done!!!". Right. These kids, all 12 of them, have MUCH to learn from the captain who should be Captain.
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Sept 17, 2015 8:06:21 GMT -5
Because that would make no difference. If you give a player a five-year deal worth $100M, it doesn't matter if you give him $80M in the first year - he's still counting against the CBT for $20M AAV. The part that counts is what he's counting against the CBT for, not what he's actually getting paid. MLB teams make enough that a few million shouldn't be a problem. Allen Craig clearing waivers, for example, means that he just costs the Red Sox money, but not money against the CBT, while he's not on the 40-man. Sure, there may be some teams for whom paying less in a player's declining years would be extremely beneficial, but those are also not the teams with the financial muscle to pay a premium up front for that. I think we're talking about a scenario something like this: 32 year old gets a 10 year $250 million contract, $240 million of it paid through age 38. Player retires at age 38, team only has $25 million per year counted against LT even though it should be $40 million. That's just an extreme example. They used to do that in the NHL. How would that help the club? Yes the club is only charged $25M against the LT in years 1 through 6 but in years 7 through 10 they will have $25M charged against the LT for a player who isn't playing anymore. This is like a NFL contract. Plus, the reason clubs don't do this is because a 10 yr/$250M contract that pays $240M in the first 6 years is MORE EXPENSIVE than a 10 yr/$250M contract that pays evenly. However, if you are asking whether it makes more sense to have - assuming in each case the time value of money makes the total contract worth approximately the same - (i) a front-loaded contract for less total amount; (ii) an evenly paid contract; or (iii) a back-loaded contract for greater total amount, well that would depend on a lot of other factors about which we don't have any information, like cash flow, the context of the payroll as a whole, investment rates, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 17, 2015 8:48:11 GMT -5
I think we're talking about a scenario something like this: 32 year old gets a 10 year $250 million contract, $240 million of it paid through age 38. Player retires at age 38, team only has $25 million per year counted against LT even though it should be $40 million. That's just an extreme example. They used to do that in the NHL. How would that help the club? Ye s the club is only charged $25M against the LT in years 1 through 6 but in years 7 through 10 they will have $25M charged against the LT for a player who isn't playing anymore. This is like a NFL contract. Plus, the reason clubs don't do this is because a 10 yr/$250M contract that pays $240M in the first 6 years is MORE EXPENSIVE than a 10 yr/$250M contract that pays evenly. However, if you are asking whether it makes more sense to have - assuming in each case the time value of money makes the total contract worth approximately the same - (i) a front-loaded contract for less total amount; (ii) an evenly paid contract; or (iii) a back-loaded contract for greater total amount, well that would depend on a lot of other factors about which we don't have any information, like cash flow, the context of the payroll as a whole, investment rates, etc. Are you sure about that? If a player retires, you're not paying them. Dempster's contract didn't count for LT calculations when he left money on the table and retired. That second point isn't true if a team is near or over the LT.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 18, 2015 5:21:56 GMT -5
While I understand the need and desire to have power arms in the bullpen, I think that Darren O'Day would be an excellent addition both as a disruptive force and a good leader.
|
|
|
Post by dillard on Sept 18, 2015 13:09:11 GMT -5
How many prospects on the top 20 list will the Red Sox have to give up to rebuild the bullpen and rotation? Given that DD won't be able to fix the Sox just through free agency, he will have to trade 3-4 of these guys -- plus one of JBJ/Betts, one of Vasquez/Swihart, one of Miley/Owens. If he's really intent on competing next year.
|
|
|