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.
Evaluating Ben Cherington
|
Post by MLBDreams on Dec 11, 2012 19:34:53 GMT -5
What Ben did for last week movements is not good enough to move up the Red Sox from the dweller. It's same starter staffs that got them into last place and won't improve if Ben cannot find the new starter for #3 Spot. We don't know whether John Lackey would regain as old form from the Angels or same lousy pitcher for the Red Sox.
Ben need to bidding for higher figures than other teams for same pitcher they liked (ie: Dempster). He rejected them due to low bid in comparing to KC & Seattle's offerings (he rejected them, too). The Yankees GM able to resign their veteran/new players for 1 yr contracts but not from us for 1-2 yrs contracts.
So far, BC doesn't impress me at all with his movements unless he come up with Hamilton or Swisher and good starter pitcher for #3 spot. That will get them out of the dweller.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 13, 2012 14:37:20 GMT -5
If you told me the upside of getting rid of Beckett and Crawford's $6 mill "overpayment" each year was overpaying Dempster, Victorino and Napoli by $3 mil per year, I'd have chosen the former. The fact that these are short term overpayments (though Dempster will be equal to Beckett's deal) doesn't help, unless you tell us what the gameplan is in 2015 offseason when those deals end. (Perhaps that is the strategy, because the 2014 FA market also stinks).
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 13, 2012 14:41:47 GMT -5
Not to mention, people give certain stats all this credibility that have no basis of being correct. WAR is one of the most overused and useless statistics in baseball. Saying the Jon Lester of 2010 would have only improved the 2012 Red Sox by 2 wins is ridiculous on so many levels, yet that's what WAR will tell you. Is that my opinion? Absolutely, but there is no way to test that player A swapped with player B would affect a teams win total by a certain amount, yet that's what people buy into with WAR. Then look at a different WAR calculation. It's a 4.5 win difference using the version of WAR on baseball-reference. Or don't look at WAR at all because it's a completely baseless unproven statistic that many have decided to buy into as some sort of measuring stick for how many wins someone can add to your roster. The statistically revolution, has brought a lot of valuable things to the table, however, like anything else there's downside. I get it, it's easier for people to make arguments and feel they are proven in fact by putting numbers into it, because those are absolutes and people like absolutes. At least most people dont put any stock into the dollar value of WAR anymore or they'd think Mike Trout should have been paid 45M last year..
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Dec 13, 2012 14:45:28 GMT -5
For the price the Angels have paid to secure 5 years of Jash Hamilton, Ben Cheington has bassically acquired; 3 years of Mike Napoli, 3 years of Shane Victorino, 2 years of Johny Gomes, 2 years of David Ross, and 1 year of Koji Uehra.
I think he is doing all right.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Dec 13, 2012 14:50:48 GMT -5
People's misunderstandings of a statistic and its applications doesn't make the statistic useless.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 13, 2012 15:00:02 GMT -5
People's misunderstandings of a statistic and its applications doesn't make the statistic useless. Very true, it's probably just very poorly named in all reality. If someone wants to use it as a measuring stick of some sort to compare a players value in a given year, that's fine; just don't say that stat is telling us how many wins a player added to a team vs another. It just makes no sense. And that's exactly what a bunch "experts" and other people do with the stat. And perhaps it's ignorant of me to say that. Maybe there's some true basis of reality in the statistic that I dont understand. Something that's been tested. Maybe some alternate universe where someone was able to play out the scenarios and figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2012 15:01:26 GMT -5
If you told me the upside of getting rid of Beckett and Crawford's $6 mill "overpayment" each year was overpaying Dempster, Victorino and Napoli by $3 mil per year, I'd have chosen the former. The fact that these are short term overpayments (though Dempster will be equal to Beckett's deal) doesn't help, unless you tell us what the gameplan is in 2015 offseason when those deals end. (Perhaps that is the strategy, because the 2014 FA market also stinks). 2010-12 stats for each player, contract in parentheses: Dempster: 590.2 IP, 4.04 ERA, 3.87 FIP (two years, $13.25m, age 36-37) Beckett: 491 IP, 4.25 ERA, 4.03 FIP (two years, $17m, age 33-34) Victorino: 433 G, .264/.334/.432, .335 wOBA, 92 SB (three years, $13m. age 32-34) Crawford: 346 G, .283/.324/.456, .338 wOBA, 70 SB (five years, $21.5m, age 31-35) Napoli: 361 G, .261/.355/.520, .377 wOBA (three years, $13m, age 31-33) Gonzalez: 478 G, .312/.382/.507, .378 wOBA (six years, $22m, age 31-36)
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 13, 2012 15:34:28 GMT -5
One quibble, you need to add-in Gomes, particularly that Napoli's stats are part time (and primarily one year). We can debate the relative value of these guys, and I think the earlier mix is preferable. But the bigger question is vision.
(A) If their goal was to be competitive while Bogaerts/WMB/JBJ come into their own, they could have done that with the then-existing mix, for about the same payroll.
(B) If their goal is to go young from 2013 growing to a good core around Bogaerts, Bradley in 2015-2018, then they have to trade Jacoby and should have done the Lester/Myers trade. And although it would be unpopular, pocket the money so that when a posting fee comes up, you have reserved for it.
(C) another option was to trade Bogaerts/JBJ etc for a known quantity like the Beckett/Hanley trade.
(D) One last option is to use the free cash to do a reverse Punto trade, and take a bad contract in return for a good prospect. Take Vernon Wells for a top prospect, or the like.
Instead, it seems Ben is hoping to ride out 2013-14 with these guys, but to show that the Sox aren't going cheap, they paid for talent that is still lesser than the ones they jettisoned. And instead of $5 mil deals like Cody Ross, they tied themselves to bigger overpays.
It seems like a lack of a coherent plan as to how to spend their gains. A decision trying to appease lots of constituents.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 13, 2012 15:39:28 GMT -5
If their goal was to be competitive while Bogaerts/WMB/JBJ come into their own, they could have done that with the then-existing mix, for about the same payroll. Not really because 1) Crawford and Gonzalez are signed for longer than Napoli and Victorion and 2) that trade netted two promising young pitchers in Webster and Rubby de la Rosa.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 13, 2012 15:45:46 GMT -5
Risking it all on his eye for minor league talent development and evaluation, b/c next years free agent pool is worse than this years pool.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2012 16:24:44 GMT -5
Crawford/Beckett/Gonzalez cost $61m per year, whereas Napoli/Victorino/Dempster cost $40m. I'm not including Gomes because the Red Sox would probably have signed him anyways this offseason considering that Crawford will probably miss the first month or two of the season coming off TJ surgery, plus a platoon would make sense anyways. But even if you add him in, it's a $15m-a-year difference, plus the Gonzalez and Crawford contracts extend three and two years longer than their replacements. Saving $15-20m a year isn't chump change.
It's unclear whether the Myers-for-Lester deal was ever really on the table for Cherington to take. If it was, I admittedly think he probably should have taken it. But chances are, Dayton Moore preferred Shields and the Rays would have been able to offer a package better than Boston's with the inclusion of Davis.
With Victorino's signing, there is a decent chance that Ellsbury will be traded. Teams weren't going to seriously inquire on him until the unusually-deep FA CF market dried up anyways, so we'll see what Ben can get Seattle or Texas to offer over the coming months. Nonetheless, it's hard to get a firm grasp of what Ellsbury is worth to other teams, and I'm willing to bet it just isn't very much given his schizophrenic record the past three years.
More importantly, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, "tanking" makes no sense for a high-payroll team in Major League Baseball. This plan is not mutually-exclusive with the one that Cherington has pursued so far this offseason.
I'm willing to concede that the new guys are probably a little worse than the old guys, but as I pointed above, the difference is much smaller than you think and the new guys are being paid much, much less and for fewer years.
The Red Sox are a plausible Wild Card contender in 2013 if some of their existing veterans bounce back from poor performance/injury, but their payroll is flexible and the farm system has potential impact players a year or two away. None of the free agent signings blocks an MLB-ready impact prospect, none resulted in the loss of a draft pick, and there is plenty of salary space left over. His strategy is basically to wait for "the next great Red Sox core" to develop while signing some short-term stopgaps that (a) fans can hope on, (b) will create a positive clubhouse atmosphere, and (c) won't clog up payroll in the medium- to long-run.
The way I see it, you can fairly criticize him for a few reasons: (a) For not being very creative and/or not being involved in the Myers and Bauer trades: to date, he has solely limited himself to mid-tier FA signings while other teams have made big-impact trades. But, like I said above, Lester and Ellsbury are both coming off down seasons, and it's hard to say whether other GMs value them as much as we'd like them to. Moreover, Cherington may or may not have been involved in these talks and just had his proposals shot down. The Red Sox have taken the predictable and boring route over exciting and imaginative, but since we don't know the extent to which he tried to get involved in trade talks or the extent to which those GMs valued Lester/Ellsbury, I think this is mostly Monday Morning Quarterback, wishcasting-type criticism.
(b) For slightly overpaying on all the deals-- the Red Sox probably could have held out a little longer to see whether each FA signing would have signed for $1-2m AAV less than they did. It risks losing a FA here or there, but saves you maybe $5m a year, which does matter, but only a little. So fair criticism, but you probably shouldn't be very vehement.
(c) For putting too much faith in the farm system: this is one I've only started recently hearing, but might be valid. This strategy is predicated off the idea that the impact prospects continue to develop, stay healthy, and become building blocks down the road. If they don't, we'll all regret not selling high on them and dealing them for more sure-thing players. Seeing as this is a prospect website, we're all pretty optimistic about these guys, but if they don't develop as planned, the Red Sox may not be a serious title contender for another decade.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 13, 2012 16:39:35 GMT -5
(c) For putting too much faith in the farm system: this is one I've only started recently hearing, but might be valid. This strategy is predicated off the idea that the impact prospects continue to develop, stay healthy, and become building blocks down the road. If they don't, we'll all regret not selling high on them and dealing them for more sure-thing players. Seeing as this is a prospect website, we're all pretty optimistic about these guys, but if they don't develop as planned, the Red Sox may not be a serious title contender for another decade. This. BC-LL would be the one to know, since it's "his" farm system now, but I'm yet to see someone rate this as a high impact farm system by a noted industry analyst. And if you're putting all your eggs in this basket, it should be one hell of a basket.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 13, 2012 16:46:22 GMT -5
We traded Gonzalez, Crawford, Beckett, Punto, etc for a chance to rebuild the terrible mess of a clubhouse we had for the past two seasons.
The savings were just a bonus. Do people really think it was an option to go into this year with basically the same team as last year's terrible team along with the one that put together that epic class?
BC is creating a team that can hopefully compete for the players for 2013 and 2014 seasons to placate the impatient fans in Boston...while the very good prospects we have develop.
I don't understand why the fans care if we overpay for these guys? Is there some kind of unwritten rule that says we can ONLY spend between $50M-$80M for an 80+ win team?
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 13, 2012 16:47:08 GMT -5
Can someone explain this desire to tank the 2013 season to me? Why is being a true-talent 75-win team so much better than being a true-talent 85-win team with a decent shot of making the playoffs if things break right? What does "going young" really mean? (c) The argument goes that if you "let the young guys play," you can trade Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia for prospects. Well, they just might trade them anyways and the signings of guys like Ross and Victorino has only made those trades more likely. I won't speculate on the state of Myers-for-Lester talks given the lack of concrete information we have available. you mentioned above, so i went back to your original post. This is the only indefensible angle in my opinion, if they're turning down deals that would help 2-3 years from now in hopes of being mildly competitive in the short term. Myers-Lester, would be an example of that if it were more than a theoretical and/or if information surfaced that if it were ever more concrete. 3 years from now the "new core" would be in place, Lester may be gone, and you've now forgone the additional talent that could have potentially been acquired. Again, it's more theoretical than anything, based on "suspect" reporting....
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2012 16:51:51 GMT -5
I agree with you-- if Dayton Moore calls up Cherington and says "we'll give you Myers for Lester" and Cherington flatly rejects it without pursuing it any further, then that was a stupid thing to do (assuming that the Red Sox internal scouts have a similar opinion of Myers as BA/the national media/us). I'm just not terribly confident that this scenario occurred or that even if it did, that Cherington could have finished the deal given Tampa Bay's willingness to include Shields, who Moore probably preferred.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 13, 2012 16:52:31 GMT -5
Well, its a question of what else you could do with the extra $50 mil per year. For example, would LA, now up against the cap, want to trade Vernon Wells to us with their top prospect (Cowart?) to clear his salary? Wells may not give you Gomes' production the next two years, but perhaps he is Andreu Jones and you have another piece for the 2015 forward core.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2012 16:56:42 GMT -5
Well, its a question of what else you could do with the extra $50 mil per year. For example, would LA, now up against the cap, want to trade Vernon Wells to us with their top prospect (Cowart?) to clear his salary? Wells may not give you Gomes' production the next two years, but perhaps he is Andreu Jones and you have another piece for the 2015 forward core. This falls into the "MMQB/wishcasting" category. Yes, it'd be great, but I don't have enough information on how GMs value their players to be confident that such a scenario was available but Cherington decided not to pursue it.
|
|
|
Post by jcn92 on Dec 13, 2012 17:19:35 GMT -5
(B) If their goal is to go young from 2013 growing to a good core around Bogaerts, Bradley in 2015-2018, then they have to trade Jacoby and should have done the Lester/Myers trade. I don't think it's fair to criticize Cherington unless there is clear evidence that Myers was offered for Lester straight up. Shields has been the better pitcher over the last two years. I would think that if the Red Sox were going to trade for Myers with Lester being the centerpiece they would have to give up more than the Rays gave up because Shields is coming off a better season than Lester. If they were to trade for Myers I would believe that they would have to include at least one of the players who would be a role player in the 2015-2018 range you mention. If this was the case than I am glad that Cherington didn't trade a starting pitcher and other prospects who could be starting in the future for a corner outfielder, a position where the Sox already have a lot of depth/contractual obligations for the next 2-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 13, 2012 17:24:34 GMT -5
We have all been guilty of over-valuing certain prospects in the past. I remember how excited this group (me included) was when Lars Anderson had his breakout year and we talked about him being hands off in trades the way we now talk about Xander (and to be clear, I do not think Xander will =Lars). Even though it was a bad deal for the MLB talent in retrospect, how many of us howled when they traded Engle Beltre in 2007, or Chih-Hsien Chiang in 2011. And yet neither of these guys will ever likely be thet player they looked to be at the time of the trade. It was a case of knowing your guys and working the hype. Deciding who is "real" vs. just potential is probably one of the hardest evaluations for any organization not in Atlanta, Oakland and Tampa, apparently. The question remains how many projected impact prospects do the Sox really have right now at, say, High A and above, and what is their real value vs. the immediate MLB or MLB-ready return you could get for them now as opposed to waiting 2-3 years? Can they be replaced in the time that you would get 2-3 years or more of a controlable MLB player who is average or better? Are too many of these guys being overvalued by the front office to the point where it's holding the Sox back from being a playoff contender - especially knowing that as recently as August 2011, this was the best team in baseball (at least by wins)?
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Dec 13, 2012 20:13:24 GMT -5
One thing that just struck me about all these free agents signings that the Red Sox have made is that they are all moveable. If the Red Sox aren't contending at mid-season this year or next year they will easily be able to move guys like Dempster, Ross, Napoli, Gomes and get some good prospects for them. I think this is a part that is being over looked. I believe BC when he says he is committed to building through the farm system and acquiring good veterans on short term deals gives them long term flexibility and trade commodities if they fall out of the race.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,645
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 13, 2012 20:24:18 GMT -5
(B) If their goal is to go young from 2013 growing to a good core around Bogaerts, Bradley in 2015-2018, then they have to trade Jacoby and should have done the Lester/Myers trade. And although it would be unpopular, pocket the money so that when a posting fee comes up, you have reserved for it. guys, but to show that the Sox aren't going cheap, they paid for talent that is still lesser than the ones they jettisoned. And instead of $5 mil deals like Cody Ross, they tied themselves to bigger overpays. It seems like a lack of a coherent plan as to how to spend their gains. A decision trying to appease lots of constituents. I think Option B is about where I come in. From what I've read Myers was offered for Brett Anderson and the deal was turned down by Oakland. He was offered 1-for-1 for Shields and turned down and he was offered 1-for-1 for Lester. If that is indeed the case, I feel the Sox were foolish for not making the deal. We'll never know if Cincinnati valued Ellsbury as high as Choo, but you have to wonder. They'll be playing Choo out of position in CF which is Ellbury's natural position. Yes, Choo's OBP trumped Ellsbury's by a ton, but Ellsbury is capable of hitting 30 homers in a season and being a much more dynamic player than he was last year and he still has his blazing speed. The point of this is that I can't help but wonder if the Sox could have gotten themselves wedged into the Cincy - Arizona deal instead of Cleveland and walked away with Trevor Bauer. If the Sox had accomplished these two things, it would certainly decrease the Sox' chance of winning in 2013, but with Bauer's electric arm (yes, I know he has attitude issues and command issues - but man, what an arm) and Myers' cleanup bat, the Sox could have added two major pieces to their minor league arsenal. The Sox are waiting to get to 2014 when all of these great prospects are supposed to burst forth from the system, but like a lot of others here, I LIKE this system, but I don't LOVE it. I believe Bogaerts will be great. I have hope that Barnes, Webster, and De La Rosa can be at least middle of the rotation starters. I have little doubt that Bradley can be a good CF and leadoff man. I'm intrigued by Owens. I even think Brentz might improve more than others think he will, but beyond that - there's so little impact - unless Swihart or Cecchini have a total breakout season. But honestly this system needs help. Beyond Bogaerts, it lacks a middle-of-the-order bat. And maybe De La Rosa can become an ace, but I look at Bauers and Myers, and wow - this organization could have used them. Not only that, the Sox didn't go all out for Jorge Soler last year who could also be a major power bat. These are guys that could have been in the system knocking on the door in 2014. Instead the Sox are trying to appease the fans by doing these late era Lou Gorman moves, signing a bunch of vets to overprice contracts who already have seen their best days The best of these potential signings is Napoli, a guy who has injury issues. Their other signings include a guy who cannot hit righties who's playing a corner OF spot, a DH who can't hit righties who'll be starting in LF, a guy who has had questionable numbers facing AL teams during his career, a backup catcher, and a righty setup pitcher with good numbers in limited innings. So this leaves the Sox as a team vulnerable to RH pitching with a starting staff that lacks a true stopper, a questionable bullpen situation and an offense that has some serious weak spots in it. To me, this is about a 75 - 85 win team. And with these signings, they'll be around for two more years as these are not one year deals, and I wouldn't expect them to be better in future years. I will say that given the circumstances, Ben did the right thing not sacrificing prospects and the #2 pick (I wouldn't have signed Hamilton for 5 years $125 million either.) But instead we're left with a mediocre team for the next few years and a minor league core that looks decent but definitely could have used supplementation. And with that not necessarily happening, that core could be 75 - 85 win talent, as well. I would have traded now to improve the future, if that was an option.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2012 20:41:35 GMT -5
They're not spending your money, so who cares how much they spent as long as they still have the salary space to sign impact players if any become available?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 13, 2012 21:08:24 GMT -5
Well then don't get on them for not spending. Its not your money.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 13, 2012 21:37:56 GMT -5
They're not spending your money, so who cares how much they spent as long as they still have the salary space to sign impact players if any become available? But......who? With the industry awash in cash, fewer teams are going to be inclined to dump bad contracts, and really, there are a lot fewer "bad contracts" out there worth taking on (Mauer is 99.9% likely to finish his career in his home state). Nobody in free agency this year or next, it appears, based on people's reluctance to sign players to "bad contracts" which is a definition of almost every free agent deal ever signed when it's signed ("a year too long" or "a few million too much"). So I guess the question, is your expectation that the modus operandi of BC-LL going forward will be internal development + mid-level complementary free agents? If so, this is a team that won't sniff $189M unless they become inconceivably good at player development. Interested in your thoughts on this jmei....
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2012 22:12:06 GMT -5
My expectation is that the FO will continue to pay big for the right free agents but will no longer extend $15-20m+ AAV, five-six year deals to flawed free agents (read: Greinke and Hamilton). I think the Crawford, Lackey, and Beckett contracts were particularly jarring in that the ownership really set a hard salary limit in 2012 and it had a tremendously adverse effect on the product on the field. It's tough to field a competitive roster when you have $50m+ of salary tied up in injured or replacement-level players.
It's true that fewer elite players are reaching free agent when they're still at their peak, but those opportunities will still exist and the Red Sox want to position themselves to take advantage when they arise (for instance, I don't think it's inconceivable that they extend Ellsbury if he has a good 2013). Moreover, there are still tons of avenues for spending up to the luxury tax limit-- extending your young players (Middlebrooks, Doubront, another deal for Pedroia and Lester, etc.), trade-and-extend contracts for elite talent (guys like Gallardo or B. Anderson may be traded in the next year or so), and signing mid-tier free agents at positions of need. Don't discount that last point-- the ability to fill a big hole in your ML roster with the best or second-best FA available is a neat trick, as a deep team with few weaknesses wins games as much as "elite" talent does.
Also, look at the salary landscape-- the teams spending loads of cash now (Dodgers, Angels, Yankees) all have aging superstars that will continue to soak up a significant proportion of their salary space three or four years from now. Talk all you want about the new era of TV money, but the teams really spending the $$$ continue to be the big market teams. A 10-year deal here and there doesn't mean the Reds, Rockies, or Rays can really hang with the big boys. The Red Sox have positioned themselves to be in a position to throw their financial weight around both in the short-term and in the long-term.
|
|
|