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 and Matt Barnes Sign Two-Year Extension
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 13, 2021 14:28:01 GMT -5
For context, he basically signed for barely more than Blake Treinen did, plus a club option.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 13, 2021 14:32:55 GMT -5
Born in Connecticut went to Connecticut and has spent his whole career in Boston. Guess he'd rather forgo free agency and the shot at more money for the comfort of being a place he knows he enjoys.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 13, 2021 15:17:27 GMT -5
Born in Connecticut went to Connecticut and has spent his whole career in Boston. Guess he'd rather forgo free agency and the shot at more money for the comfort of being a place he knows he enjoys. And I think this is the salient point. Plus he is OK with signing when his performance is at his peak. Maybe he waits for FA and gets more, maybe he turns into old Matt Barnes and doesn't. This is what he apparently wants, so i am happy for him. The stuff about this being Chaim's genius is strictly Bloom homerism. He appears to know what he is doing, i concur, but running this franchise on the cheap like Tampa isn't necessary and it isn't good for the health of the league. It doesn't irritate me to have players get paid, they are the ones doing the work. Being a team friendly deal might have benefits, but should not be a criteria to signing players.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 13, 2021 15:20:52 GMT -5
Born in Connecticut went to Connecticut and has spent his whole career in Boston. Guess he'd rather forgo free agency and the shot at more money for the comfort of being a place he knows he enjoys. And I think this is the salient point. Plus he is OK with signing when his performance is at his peak. Maybe he waits for FA and gets more, maybe he turns into old Matt Barnes and doesn't. This is what he apparently wants, so i am happy for him. The stuff about this being Chaim's genius is strictly Bloom homerism. He appears to know what he is doing, i concur, but running this franchise on the cheap like Tampa isn't necessary and it isn't good for the health of the league. It doesn't irritate me to have players get paid, they are the ones doing the work. Being a team friendly deal might have benefits, but should not be a criteria to signing players. How can you possibly assert that he's running the franchise like Tampa, though, until we see what he does with the extensions for Devers and Bogaerts? Trading Betts was an unfortunate necessity due to the financial situation the previous regime left him with, and extending Barnes to a team friendly deal isn't "operating like the Rays", it's just being smart.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 13, 2021 15:39:12 GMT -5
And I think this is the salient point. Plus he is OK with signing when his performance is at his peak. Maybe he waits for FA and gets more, maybe he turns into old Matt Barnes and doesn't. This is what he apparently wants, so i am happy for him. The stuff about this being Chaim's genius is strictly Bloom homerism. He appears to know what he is doing, i concur, but running this franchise on the cheap like Tampa isn't necessary and it isn't good for the health of the league. It doesn't irritate me to have players get paid, they are the ones doing the work. Being a team friendly deal might have benefits, but should not be a criteria to signing players. How can you possibly assert that he's running the franchise like Tampa, though, until we see what he does with the extensions for Devers and Bogaerts? Trading Betts was an unfortunate necessity due to the financial situation the previous regime left him with, and extending Barnes to a team friendly deal isn't "operating like the Rays", it's just being smart. I agree with bolded. The Sox, as a franchise, have a fiduciary responsibility to labor peace (being a wealthy team) to not run their franchise on the cheap. If / When Chaim spends some big money, we can tell if that is part of his mgt style. I hope it is. Here is the thing, I am still evaluating Bloom as a Red Sox fan. I like him, think he is smart and has a good sense of what it means to be the Red Sox GM, but i don't feel the need to continually laud him when nothing of consequence has been accomplished yet. I certainly not going to give him credit for a move that was likely more Barnes decision than him. That is going to run counter to a lot of people around here, but that isn't my concern.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 13, 2021 15:45:00 GMT -5
How can you possibly assert that he's running the franchise like Tampa, though, until we see what he does with the extensions for Devers and Bogaerts? Trading Betts was an unfortunate necessity due to the financial situation the previous regime left him with, and extending Barnes to a team friendly deal isn't "operating like the Rays", it's just being smart. I agree with bolded. The Sox, as a franchise, have a fiduciary responsibility to labor peace (being a wealthy team) to not run their franchise on the cheap. If / When Chaim spends some big money, we can tell if that is part of his mgt style. I hope it is. Here is the thing, I am still evaluating Bloom as a Red Sox fan. I like him, think he is smart and has a good sense of what it means to be the Red Sox GM, but i don't feel the need to continually laud him when nothing of consequence has been accomplished yet. I certainly not going to give him credit for a move that was likely more Barnes decision than him. That is going to run counter to a lot of people around here, but that isn't my concern. I agree with you I'm not sure bloom deserves much if any credit for barnes taking what appears to be a team friendly deal. I'll give him some credit for not dealing barnes last year at the deadline though. His value wouldn't have been as high as it is now but he probably could have gotten some decent prospects back. Instead they kept him he's pitching like an all star and will be in Boston hopefully as a key cog in the bullpen for 2 more years.
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Jul 13, 2021 16:20:56 GMT -5
Sweet baby jesus, I had not seen this news. This is certainly a very good deal for the team.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jul 13, 2021 16:44:39 GMT -5
Seems like a fairly team-friendly deal considering he was just a few months from free agency, is in the prime of his career, and is coming off a dominant year, no? Thats what I’m thinking too. Makes sense for him to sign an extension if he really likes Boston and wants to be here anyway. Signing now after half a good season is in the books is a good injury hedge from him. He is originally from Connecticut so maybe that’s part of it. Agreed. Not everyone is looking for top dollar! If i were a player, my considerations would be: 1. Organization and how i was treated - job security 2. Family - where they are proximity and do they like it there 3. Geographic - (how do players constantly play in 100+ temp in AZ or 95 percent humidity in Atlanta or rain in Boston)..... I would rain and 100+ over humidity, but that is just me... 4. Money - as a financial advisor if you can not live on $10 to $15 million let alone $50 or $300 million..... (Mookie will never live long enough to spend $300 million let alone $365...... it was not the money.... I love Barnes making the commitment, making where he wanted to stay a priority, and getting it done money withstanding
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 13, 2021 19:25:03 GMT -5
How can you possibly assert that he's running the franchise like Tampa, though, until we see what he does with the extensions for Devers and Bogaerts? Trading Betts was an unfortunate necessity due to the financial situation the previous regime left him with, and extending Barnes to a team friendly deal isn't "operating like the Rays", it's just being smart. I agree with bolded. The Sox, as a franchise, have a fiduciary responsibility to labor peace (being a wealthy team) to not run their franchise on the cheap. If / When Chaim spends some big money, we can tell if that is part of his mgt style. I hope it is. Here is the thing, I am still evaluating Bloom as a Red Sox fan. I like him, think he is smart and has a good sense of what it means to be the Red Sox GM, but i don't feel the need to continually laud him when nothing of consequence has been accomplished yet. I certainly not going to give him credit for a move that was likely more Barnes decision than him. That is going to run counter to a lot of people around here, but that isn't my concern. I think I get what you're saying. But the Red Sox organization, in fact, does not have a fiduciary responsibility - to anyone, or anything. Maybe you could argue an ethical or a social obligation.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jul 13, 2021 23:06:08 GMT -5
Agreed, there's no fiduciary responsibility. I think it just comes down to there would be a revolt from the fanbase, media, players union, whoever if they didn't spend to their capability.
Additionally, regarding the original comment, teams are not solely optimizing the "cost per WAR" equation, even Tampa. The most efficient team from a cost per WAR would almost certainly never be the team with the most wins (or on an expected basis, the most WAR). A team with 80-90 wins on a payroll of 50-60M is likely the most efficient team.
I think teams are optimizing two functions: - Most WAR out of the 7-9 players that cost 10M+ per year - Best cost-per-WAR on the surrounding cast of players
What makes the Red Sox the Red Sox is that they get to play more in the first category. Bloom has yet to show he can succeed there (which is where Cherington failed), but I feel optimistic in what he'll do.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jul 14, 2021 0:36:10 GMT -5
Love this thread and the Barnes signing!!!
Statistically Barnes could quietly go down as the best reliever in Sox history. Just absolutely love it on so many levels. I could go on and on but I think you guys have covered it pretty well.
Thank you M Barnes!!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 15, 2021 21:07:06 GMT -5
Love this thread and the Barnes signing!!! Statistically Barnes could quietly go down as the best reliever in Sox history. Just absolutely love it on so many levels. I could go on and on but I think you guys have covered it pretty well. Thank you M Barnes!! Ehhhhhh, I don't know about that. Even just in recent history, I'd take Papelbon's numbers during his Red Sox tenure over Barnes' in a heartbeat. And that's assuming we're factoring in longevity (i.e., no Uehara). Barnes would have to pitch like he is this year for almost the life of the extension before I'd even consider him as being better.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jul 15, 2021 21:39:58 GMT -5
1) Papelbon 2) Radatz 3) Stanley 4) Koji 5) Kimbrel
Barnes' ceiling is #4 unless he plays forever IMO
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jul 16, 2021 8:17:08 GMT -5
Love this thread and the Barnes signing!!! Statistically Barnes could quietly go down as the best reliever in Sox history. Just absolutely love it on so many levels. I could go on and on but I think you guys have covered it pretty well. Thank you M Barnes!! A little bit of overly excited hyperbole I would say. Should have said "quietly go down as one of the better relievers in Sox history." I think based on his career numbers never being dominant til this season it is easy to overlook what he has brought to the table, at least for me anyways. Thus the "quietly", as he has been very reliable. I hope he can maintain his new level for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 16, 2021 8:52:49 GMT -5
Yeah that's probably fair. Especially since the number of RP who stay in any org for that long is quite slim. He could easily get to no. 2 on the list if he pitches like he has in 2020-21 through the end of the extension.
By the way, Bob Stanley's line is great. He was incredibly effective but didn't strike anyone out - 693 in 1707 IP! Even in his prime from 77-85 he only had 483 in 1291 innings.
Radatz was indeed a monster... for three seasons basically.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 16, 2021 9:13:13 GMT -5
Yeah that's probably fair. Especially since the number of RP who stay in any org for that long is quite slim. He could easily get to no. 2 on the list if he pitches like he has in 2020-21 through the end of the extension. By the way, Bob Stanley's line is great. He was incredibly effective but didn't strike anyone out - 693 in 1707 IP! Even in his prime from 77-85 he only had 483 in 1291 innings. Radatz was indeed a monster... for three seasons basically. Bob Stanley: great bowling ball sinker. Vultured a lot of wins by letting the game get tied and then the big offense pulled out the win. Would do anything for the team, start, close, long. Also the only guy I ever saw accidentally say in a post-game interview that he had thrown a spitball to some guy. Of October 1986 we shall not speak.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jul 16, 2021 9:50:15 GMT -5
Yeah that's probably fair. Especially since the number of RP who stay in any org for that long is quite slim. He could easily get to no. 2 on the list if he pitches like he has in 2020-21 through the end of the extension. By the way, Bob Stanley's line is great. He was incredibly effective but didn't strike anyone out - 693 in 1707 IP! Even in his prime from 77-85 he only had 483 in 1291 innings. Radatz was indeed a monster... for three seasons basically. Sox wore Radatz out...Back then it 'seemed' he was pitching every other game and 2-3 innings at a time. He was striking out way more than a batter an inning in a bygone, protect the plate era...early 60s. Goodness knows what his strikeout rate would have been in this free swinging day. He had that signature, exultant throwing up of his arms after closing yet another game. Back then he was one of the few joyful reasons to watch the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 16, 2021 10:42:55 GMT -5
In 1964 Radatz pitched in 79 of the team's 162 games and had 157 IP so, yeah, he was basically throwing every other game and averaging just a hair under 2 IP per appearance. Go figure, he was never quite the same pitcher.
Every time someone on Twitter is like BOB GIBSON AND NOLAN RYAN DIDN'T NEED TO BE BABIED LIKE TODAY'S PITCHERS DO I'm going to start using examples like Radatz if I ever decide not to just keep ignoring them.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,020
|
Post by cdj on Jul 16, 2021 12:22:45 GMT -5
I think I have a Dick Radatz autograph somewhere. Way before my time but what a legend
Hitters probably didn’t see a lot of 6’6 230 back then. The Monster.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Aug 25, 2021 9:39:36 GMT -5
Does anyone think that Barnes signed this at the time team friendly deal, because he had an idea this downturn might be coming soon with the crackdown on the sticky stuff?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 25, 2021 9:55:58 GMT -5
I think I have a Dick Radatz autograph somewhere. Way before my time but what a legend Hitters probably didn’t see a lot of 6’6 230 back then. The Monster. Well, he was the reason to watch the Sox back then. He Was a Monster too. I saw him at Fenway and had this fantasy to stand in against him (in full body armor). He had the unique celebration of thrusting his arms skyward after closing out a game. He and Ryne Duren were the fireball relievers of that era. I often wondered what Radatz' velo was...He was basically a one pitch pitcher...adopting a weak slider to very occasionally give a different look. Edit: Sorry ...saw this was off topic...
|
|
|
Post by cto94 on Aug 25, 2021 10:18:05 GMT -5
Does anyone think that Barnes signed this at the time team friendly deal, because he had an idea this downturn might be coming soon with the crackdown on the sticky stuff? Well the sticky stuff crackdown came a while back - he was pitching fine until the start of August basically (on 8/4 his ERA was at 2.25). Only thing that kind of stands out is a noticeable tick down in velocity on his fastball this month (averaging 96+ every month before this - down to 95.7 so far in August). I doubt that alone explains why he's been so bad recently, but I'm guessing fatigue = slight velo drop + worse command. Throw in a little bad luck and you get a brutal couple of weeks. Good reminder of why you can't really build a good bullpen out of one good guy, cast offs, and young guys on strict pitch count/innings limits...
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Aug 25, 2021 10:20:12 GMT -5
This contract really isn’t even that crazy. Barnes might need a DL stint to get right, and I don’t think he’s a closer long term, but he could get back to being a late inning reliever easily. I don’t think Cora is doing him any favors by making him storm Normandy unprepared lately.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 25, 2021 11:07:32 GMT -5
Just my two cents, yet this is Barnes. Every year he has a bad stretch and he's bounced back from them every time. Yet it's a bigger problem when he's the closer versus a set up guy.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Aug 25, 2021 11:14:41 GMT -5
Does anyone think that Barnes signed this at the time team friendly deal, because he had an idea this downturn might be coming soon with the crackdown on the sticky stuff? I can buy a story that goes something like this:
Rough 2020 season 2021 walk year coming up Start using sticky stuff Turn into approximately the best reliever in baseball Sticky stuff goes away Have two rough outings Confidence craters Rush to the contract signing table
|
|
|