With baseball games being almost meaningless since July 31st last year, Opening day took forever to get here. This should be a great year to be a Red Sox fan.
I hope we sweep this team and outscore them by at least 15 runs in the series. Although I'm not a Philly fan, I'm pretty spiteful towards them, and RAJ will be deserving of every one of his 100+ losses.
I can't wait for all the people who already have different plans for 1B in 2016 (Craig, move HanRam there, move Sandoval there, etc.) to be disappointed.
I hope he signs the QO that he'll get. That would be perfect. But he probably wouldn't. Craig could only hope to recover enough to be almost as good as Napoli.
Yea I'm on this boat. My expectations are admittedly overinflated this year due to his off season surgery and his monster spring training so far, plus my personal bias, but I think he has been in general underrated.
Maybe a redo on his 2 year 16M per contract works for both sides.
Last Edit: Apr 3, 2015 11:01:57 GMT -5 by jrffam05
Yea it could turn into a game of musical chairs. Thing with him sticking in Baltimore though, is they are actually playing for the division, so he'd have to actually perform to stick. He could end up on the Phillies where him tanking wouldn't really matter, in which case Amaro might demand Chavis to get him back.
The reason it doesn't turn into musical chairs, though, is because the Rule 5 rules still apply to the player. Consider that, at this point, it's not like a team has all of camp to evaluate whether the player can stick on their roster. Even if you're a team like the Phillies, you're going to have to make room for the player on the 25-man roster, and even if that means you have a guy with options that it'd make sense to send down, he's then bumping a AAA guy out of a roster spot, and so forth.
Could happen that a team claims Garcia, but I'd guess that it's slightly more likely that he isn't claimed.
If a crumby team likes the player enough and there is a reasonable way to keep the player he would stick. If we picked up someone we really liked mid last year, would you really be that upset if we sold Badenhop to clear a roster spot? I get it, there is a lot of factors working against that situation, but I'd guess teams like the Phillies, Twins, or Diamondbacks could have a roster spot that they really don't care about, or is a trade candidate, and they wouldn't mind getting an evaluation period on a reliever throwing a hundo. Astro's sat through 40 innings of 5 ERA from Fields.
I would agree, it's unlikely because claiming a player would require a roster spot midseason timed with the waiver period of the player.
For my information, was Garcia projected as likely to go in the rule 5? I know Fields was.
An example, Cesar Cabral was drafted from the Sox by the Rays in the 2010 draft, placed on waivers in March and claimed by the Jays, placed on waivers again after the Jays couldn't work out a trade for him and re-claimed by the Rays two days later. He was sent back to the Sox a couple weeks later.
If he'd been offered back first, he'd just have been sent back before going to the Jays.
This is the question I was actually asking. I get all the rules for keeping the player or offering him back, but I was trying to figure out if placing the player on waivers was required. I recall players just being offered back before, but it seems that everyone is passing through waivers (and being claimed) now.
I imagine if the O's do put Garcia on waivers, several teams would be interested in claiming him, whether they then tried to sneak him through waivers later or not.
Yea it could turn into a game of musical chairs. Thing with him sticking in Baltimore though, is they are actually playing for the division, so he'd have to actually perform to stick. He could end up on the Phillies where him tanking wouldn't really matter, in which case Amaro might demand Chavis to get him back.
Sidebar, check out this gem from Oriz's minor league days. He hasn't aged much
Failing to make the postseason twice in a row would be more than just an embarrassment for the team and front office. It would also represent a financial hit. Without postseason games, revenue from tickets and suites figure to come in at least $50 million lower this year than they would for a playoff Yankee team—or a 15% decline in such revenue.
So the Yankees lose out on ~ 50M dollars a year when they don't make the playoffs. As much as Moncada might be a good value long term, he does nothing to the current equation. So if a fringe playoff team Yankees takes on 20M dollars of Hamels during the season and that pushes them into the playoffs, they'll end up with making more money, depending on how much they profit on that 50M, where as an investment in Moncada won't start paying dividends for around 2-3 years. In the Yankees case, their payroll will start clearing up by the time Moncada starts seeing MLB action, so they can start spending on the Stratsburgs of the world to keep their team relevant and their ticket prices high.
This is the reason why Yankees value current results more than future. We should tell Steinbrenner how stupid his team is next time we see him sailing by on his yacht.
Last Edit: Apr 2, 2015 13:32:49 GMT -5 by jrffam05
I mean, there is a lot of hindsight in this. Bonds ended up signing a deal that made him the highest paid player in the league, a deal that the Giants ownership at the time did not guarantee. If the Yankees knew the stats he'd put up over the next 11 season they would of fronted the money no problem. Think of the Pujolz or Cano deals as comps. 10 Year deals didn't exist back then, but it came down to teams not willing to guarantee a long term deal for one of the best players in the league. Afterwords it's easy to make a judgement, at the time not so much.
You could fault the Red Sox ownership for letting Clemens go too, or the 6 GM's who didn't draft Bonds when they could have. If Moncada busts, it won't be the Yankees who look like idiots.
I'm wondering, how do you know Lobaton wasn't discussed? I have no insight into how teams actually discuss trades, but I tend to think the Brad Pitt style of 30 second phone calls where they make they make the deal instantly isn't accurate. I lean more towards thinking that the front office discusses internally a very wide scope of possibilities throughout the year. We really don't know if the Sox preferred Leon over Lobaton at the same price. I'd imagine that the Nationals were not the only team the Red Sox talked to, that this wasn't the first time they talked to the Nationals about potential trades, and that during this discussion, Lobatone, Leon, and Butler were all discussed to some extent.
I don't think anyone is trying say that Lobaton was untouchable, I think they are saying that the price for Lobaton doesn't make sense while Leon was available for cash. Altering your equation earlier, the Sox probably thought
I thought we should have some sort of tribute to Vazquez's UCL, you were far too young. We will miss you.
I didn't create that highlight, but it's pretty cool that it came from a 55 game MLB sample size.
Anyways, I find it interesting about all the doubt that surrounds a pitcher who gets TJ, but there isn't much discussion on the effect it may have on Vazquez. As you can see in the above video his arm is a big part of his value.
I took some heat for saying that last time we had the 7th overall pick.
I know it's way too early but are you pining over any of the guys who went in the area of the 7th pick last year?
I'm not pining over the 7th pick 2 years ago. I just thought after Fraizer and Stewart went not signing our pick was an interesting theoretical option. I had Shipley as the best available but really I had no issue with the Ball pick and signing.
Last Edit: Apr 1, 2015 15:53:07 GMT -5 by jrffam05
According to MLB.com, Betts has the highest OPS this spring. Suck it Trout!
For what it's worth, that's among qualifying players, which is a little higher of a threshold in ST than it is in the regular season.
There are a couple guys who are just short of qualifying who are ahead of him. Bryant, for one, is actually light years ahead of even Mookie. 40 ABs, .425/.477/1.175 for a 1.652 OPS. Stupid numbers. BC alum Tony Sanchez is also a little ahead of him after 36 ABs. For reference, Mookie is at .467/.500/.867 thru 45 ABs.
I noticed Bryant's numbers after I posted. Another interesting one, Napoli is tied with Betts (before today) .433/.500/.867/1.367. Let the man sleep.
We have a lot of high upside hitters. If things come together this is going to be a very scary lineup.
We should find out soon about Jason Garcia from the Orioles pitching staff? If we get him back or not.
What is the policy on this again? I originally thought the player was just offered back for $25k, but it now seems like the player is put on waivers so every other team has a chance to add him before he simply goes back to his original team.
Assuming the O's don't either keep him or negotiate a trade with the Sox, what are the chances all other 28 teams pass?
He has to stay on a 25 man roster the entire year. He can't be DFA'd or Optioned, he could be traded but the other team also has to treat him as a rule 5 player. If he is waived, any team has the option to claim him, also with the same restrictions, and if he passes waivers he is offered back to the original team at half price. If I'm not mistaken.
Add: If he makes the full year on the 25 man roster he turns back into a normal player for the new team, so they can option him back to the minors, DFA, etc.
So there's the possibility he breaks camp with the O's, gets traded to another team some time after, and still comes back to the Sox in the end.
One more add: There is some restriction on how long he has to be on the active roster, I believe it is 90 days. So they can't just keep him on the DL the entire year either.
I take it as being related to Aiken too, could be pro or con. I say that because Aiken's draft stock probably isn't changing much without any bad news coming out about his surgery, while the rest of the landscape can shift dramatically over the next few weeks.
If we have Aiken by the end of day one, I can't imagine myself being upset, at least for now.
Kiley McDaniel: I would normally say no one can know that this early, but I actually have reliable information on this coming next week in the draft update.
Comment From Baseball Czar of Mass Who are the Red Sox gonna pick in the draft with pick # 7?
Obviously no info but something to look forward to when it comes out.
Is he being sarcastic here? I really can't tell. I'd venture a guess that any reliable information in early April on who a team would pick at #7 wouldn't be all that reliable, and this post was in the midst of a couple sarcastic answers.
I'm torn on Barnes. I'd like to see him given a chance as a starter this year. I'm not sure having him start in a bullpen role to fill Uehara's DL spot restricts him from doing that, but I am weary of messing with a young pitcher to start the season. His 16 K, 3 BB, and 0 HR in 12 IP is encouraging (insert typical small sample spring training disclaimer here). I'd be worried about him trying to change his pitching approach working out of the bullpen and having trouble adjusting back as a starter. I also think he has great upside as a back end reliever.
We weren't going to get a catcher with any serious upside, at least without giving up a lot in return. So to get a guy who is above average defensively for cash only is a great move. I honestly know nothing about this guy, and am only calling him above average based on the previous posts.
Susac was optioned. That doesn't mean he is available, but he would be a good backup option with some salvage value once swihart is ready and Vazquez is healthy.
Maybe if you view in terms of being a billionaire at a classic car auction instead of a normal person paying $10,000 more than a Honda Accord is worth, you might see the difference.
Sure, let's go with this example instead.. Two billionaires at a car auction want the same car. Do they keep bidding against each other endlessly until they have nothing left to bid, or at one point does one of them back out, because they don't think the car is worth it? It doesn't matter if it's the accord, the lambo, or Moncada, or if your a normal person or a billionaire, there will always be a breaking point.
Jr the car is a dumb analogy because is a commodity and yes it's true that every 2015 Jeep won't perform exactly the same, if they are driven and maintained the same they basically will because they are built to the same specs and major issues are covered under a warranty. It doesn't fit to a unique baseball player. It's an extreme reach at best.
Yes, it is a dumb analogy when you expand it outside of its purpose. The point was, if it's your money, would you willingly spend more on something than it's perceived value? You can calculate a present value for any commodity, option, contract, etc. there's obviously less variability in a car purchase than a baseball contract, with virtually no serious appreciation opportunity but you can still come up with a current value for its future performance. The Yankees came up with some value for Moncada, and refused to expand it past t25M, same goes for the car example.
The example was meant to be simplistic and relatable, nothing more. I didn't think id have to define each variable to use it as a talking point. Yes, the Yankees have more than 40k to spend, the analogy was suppose to be proportional to a normal persons budget. yes baseball players are in fact different from cars, I get this people. Buying a car is more relatable than signing a baseball player, to me at least. ... We're boiling the ocean to prove everything besides the intended point...
The Yankees did their due diligence, they scouted the guy 3 times recently and have been following him for years. They came up with their max number, (25m) and the Red Sox beat it by a third. Similar to what happened with Jon Lester and the cubs. Same player different value.
I mean if I used stocks and bonds would that be less criticized? I cannot for the life of me understand how that post brought out these tangents.