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.
|
Post by jmei on Oct 18, 2013 12:24:25 GMT -5
Bailey cost $3.9m that offseason. Darvish cost $10m a year. It's not exactly easy to dig through the couch cushions and find $6m in change, and looking through their 2012 Opening Day roster, you don't exactly see a lot of moveable contracts unless they moved core guys like Lester or Ellsbury. You could see a scenario where they scrounge enough cash for Darvish (don't trade for Bailey and play Reddick in RF, don't sign Ross and platoon McDonald/Sweeney in LF, move Vincente Padilla, don't sign Shoppach and go cheaper with the backup C), but it would require real mental gymnastics to get there and it would have basically meant punting a number of positions. Plus, various members of the front office have subsequently confirmed that the Red Sox were up against an (admittedly self-imposed) salary ceiling that offseason and could not bid on Darvish or any other high-end free agent. Maybe that wasn't the only reason the front office didn't seem to pursue Darvish very much, but it certainly explains a large chunk of it.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 18, 2013 12:26:08 GMT -5
I'd rather see the Sox FO spend 60m on someone from the NPD league, with plenty of media and MLB scouting exposure than someone from the Cuban leagues with zippity zilcho exposure.
Not that either is a safe bet, or a guarantee of success. One does give a much better chance of success if properly scouted, after at least a year (hopefully) under intense scrutiny and watchful eyes of the team that gave out the 60mish contract to the NPB player for an idea of exactly how they will play up in an MLB situation and the Cuban player will always be a total crapshot until well after they sign.
Other than that? Strong pitching at the MLB level, strong pitching nearly ready to break through? I'd rather have Tanaka than a Dmitri Young look alike.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 18, 2013 12:57:58 GMT -5
you don't exactly see a lot of moveable contracts unless they moved core guys like Lester or Ellsbury. And Beckett, coming off a really nice year. Could have gotten a good to great haul from one of those three AND found money for Darvish. Like I said, they spent their pennies elsewhere (ahem, Nick Punto) and stood pat instead of acquiring a potential top of the rotation starter. The stand pat and clench buttocks strategy didn't work out too well, at least until the Dodgers came to the rescue. All I'm saying it, they had choices, they had options, and let's not pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Oct 18, 2013 13:14:16 GMT -5
hopefully the league isnt able to bail the yankees out of their 25 million/year mistake so they wont have the money for a high profile move like Tanaka
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 18, 2013 13:25:25 GMT -5
Andrew Bailey made only $3.9 mil in '12. They salary dumped Marco Scutaro's $6.7 mil. The budget was tight.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 18, 2013 13:38:04 GMT -5
All I'm saying it, they had choices, they had options, and let's not pretend otherwise. Right, but those options are only remotely appealing if you're using the power of hindsight. You're asking them to move one of their top-of-the-rotation pitchers (Beckett had a 4.1 fWAR 2011, Lester was at 3.5 fWAR) or the MVP runner-up to clear salary space for a relative unknown. At the time, pretty much noone advocated trading one of those guys, especially to turn around and spend the cash on Darvish. There were plenty of folks who wanted to sign Darvish (looking at you guidas), but that was under the mistaken impression that ownership was willing to exceed the luxury tax line. It's just factually inaccurate to pretend that the tight budget wasn't one of the major hurdles which prevented them from taking a good look at Darvish. And, to get back on topic, that's why the Sox non-pursuit of Darvish then doesn't necessarily mean they won't take a close look at Tanaka now, especially if the Sox scouts are as bullish on him as Ben Badler seems to be.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 18, 2013 14:23:57 GMT -5
The FO was also very shy even then of another Matsuzaka scenario, maybe another year away it may have subsided a bit. Sending away that amount of cash (60-80m) towards a potential even mid-top rotation pitcher that has the potential to even end up as another Matsuzaka bust IMO a better gamble than spending that amount on a bat that is (just throwing this out) is a sort of Middlebrooks at this moment and has potential power to everywhere, but we just don't know yet what will ever end up being.
Have long made a point of looking hard at established NPB pitchers when they arrive, especially the ones who come over with "trick" pitches like Iwakuma and do not require much to sign. Wuld be nice if the Sox could get back on board with NPB players (and fan base) like they did after Matsuzaka 1st arived, Okajima signed and now Uehara is here and hopefully becoming popular with his game ending high 5's around the field to Japanese nationals.
If the Sox could get some inside help on Japanese teams, or a working agreement like they used to have with a team.. They used to with 1 team that I forget the name of am thinking? Maybe swap some players with their consent, career MilB guys who are willing and work out agreements on premium guys if that is allowed? Advanced scouting reports? You have to know Seattle is doing something more there.
Anyway.. Rant over.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 18, 2013 14:35:40 GMT -5
A Japanese pitcher like Tanaka is a different story than a Cuban player. one is a free agent and the other gets posted. The posting fee has nothing to do with the "salary cap", only the players subsequent salary. Sox spend over 100M on Dice-K, but about 1/3 of that money went to the Japanese team. The Japanese player is actually hurt leverage wise by the posting process, at the same time teams are willing to shell out more money because some of it doesn't go towards luxury tax thresholds... well some teams are who care about that tax line.
A player can always go back and they would if the offer was incredibly low, but as long as the money is legit they'll end up taking it at the end in all likelihood. It may take till the 11th hour, but it will get done. If there was not posting process, the players would get more money and the teams would have to spend less.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 18, 2013 14:43:52 GMT -5
All I'm saying it, they had choices, they had options, and let's not pretend otherwise. Right, but those options are only remotely appealing if you're using the power of hindsight. You're asking them to move one of their top-of-the-rotation pitchers (Beckett had a 4.1 fWAR 2011, Lester was at 3.5 fWAR) or the MVP runner-up to clear salary space for a relative unknown. At the time, pretty much noone advocated trading one of those guys, especially to turn around and spend the cash on Darvish. Yeah, why would you ever sell high on an asset? Especially one like Ellsbury who you knew was ticketed for free agency in 2 years, or Beckett who was aging? It's crazy talk, no one would be okay with that, it's risky. And there was no risk in standing pat and hoping for the best, right? I was one of several who said that Darvish should be priority #1, but that ship sailed. Come off it already, just because you thought the Sox did the right thing at the time, doesn't mean it actually was the right thing. Some people are just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong. You're arguing against a straw man. No one said it wasn't a hurdle, just one that could easily be overcome to acquire a top starting pitcher at a discounted annual salary for just cash.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 18, 2013 14:58:46 GMT -5
They clearly had options whether it was to clear salary or just simply spend the cash and go over the "tax-line"... they are both options whether good ones or not.
Let's not pretend that if they got Darvish they'd clearly be in a better spot. If they get Darvish, there is a greater likelihood then not that they still have Beckett, A-Gon, and Crawford on their team which means they don't have Victorino or Napoli and they are still facing the likelihood of losing Elsbury either way. Oh yea and they still have no salary flexibility for the foreseeable future due to those huge contracts. So they have Darvish and a better team than they had in 2012, but a worse team than they have now. Awesome....
This is why looking back on hindsight and looking at one isolated transaction and not the domino effect those transactions have is just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 18, 2013 14:59:47 GMT -5
Obviously, if you think Darvish is good, you sign him to a contract in line with your expected value of his performance. The key question then becomes-- HOW GOOD IS HE? The Red Sox won't be pleading poverty like the small market teams, if they decide not to pursue Darvish it will be entirely because they do not think he is worth the money he will require and that that money is spent more efficiently on other players.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 18, 2013 15:01:50 GMT -5
They clearly had options whether it was to clear salary or just simply spend the cash and go over the "tax-line"... they are both options whether good ones or not. Let's not pretend that if they got Darvish they'd clearly be in a better spot. Agreed with both points. I'm not into alternate realities, just tried to get that first point through.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 18, 2013 15:07:31 GMT -5
There is probably no one here who goes down memory lane as much as I do, but hammering the team for a no sign over Darvish so many times? What good is that in so many posts?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 18, 2013 15:12:00 GMT -5
There is probably no one here who goes down memory lane as much as I do, but hammering the team for a no sign over Darvish so many times? What good is that in so many posts? The best part is that I think it's fairly clear that the team would be worse off had it signed Darvish when you take into consideration what would have followed in all likelihood.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 18, 2013 15:14:35 GMT -5
What good is that in so many posts? You got me, I thought one post would be plenty since my point was simple and, I thought, pretty obvious.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 18, 2013 16:57:33 GMT -5
Come off it already, just because you thought the Sox did the right thing at the time, doesn't mean it actually was the right thing. Some people are just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong. It's not about whether I thought they were right or wrong to pass on Darvish (for the record, at the time, none of us had any idea that the front office was going to operate on a tight budget-- as evidenced by my post that you dug up). It's about why they passed on Darvish. My argument is that it was more because they didn't have salary space than because they were scared off after going through the Daisuke experience. Even if you're right that they could have made room for him if they really wanted to, that would have represented a highly risky strategy that would have required the front office to put a pretty damn high grade on Darvish to make the effort worth it (i.e., without those financial constraints, they probably would have pursued Darvish harder). Those constraints aren't present now-- while the Red Sox do have, in theory, a more-than-full rotation already, two of those options are free agents after 2014, and there do not appear to be imminent financial constraints present. As such, I fully expect the front office to do its due diligence on Tanaka and make a competitive offer if they like him. Do you disagree with that? Do you think the Darvish odyssey means that this front office is unlikely to seriously evaluate or pursue Tanaka?
|
|
|
Post by ray9360 on Oct 23, 2013 8:31:40 GMT -5
Okay so here is what i think the 2014 rotation will look like (in order) Letster Buckholz Peavy Webster Ranaudo
2014 starting line up 1. Shane 2. Dustin 3. David 4. Mike 5. Nava 6.Jackey 7. Xander 8. Will 9. Ryan/ david ross
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 23, 2013 8:47:33 GMT -5
You're joking right? Or are you predicting an end of the year rotation? Ranaudo and Webster are not ready for the rotation. Also, if you are predicting a Lackey trade then where is that player because no chance a team that went to the WS trades Lackey for prospects. It makes no sense. Plus, where is Doubront and Dempster?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 23, 2013 8:56:22 GMT -5
Be nice, he's a new poster! And while it's a pretty unrealistic rotation and startling lineup, with no apparent free agent signings (even of Red Sox free agents like Saltalamacchia or Napoli), it's a reminder of how much depth there is in the system. They could add literally noone (and subtract two pretty good starting pitchers (and one mediocre one)) and still run out a respectable team.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 23, 2013 9:43:13 GMT -5
3 of the Red Sox six available starters are free agents after next year. Lester, Peavy and Dempster. As of now Lackey technically is but they'd exercise that option. They certainly could subtract up to 3 starters and run out a respectable team that has limited depth. I suppose one could argue Barnes and Workman would provide nice depth in AAA but I find it hard to believe they don't have Workman in the major league pen next year from the get go but maybe they want him to start.
I think considering how this past year went for the higher level arms (mixed results) they'll want to horde as many as possible in AAA for depth in the hopes that they progress more. They will use the veterans as a "bridge" to those guys.
The big question at this point is who of the 6 aren't in the rotation and the one who isn't what happens to him. Can you imagine a scenario where they trade more then one starter?
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 23, 2013 10:33:08 GMT -5
Can you imagine a scenario where they trade more then one starter? Of course. Anything else is failure of imagination. If the question is whether the Sox go into next season with fewer than 5 established major league starters (edit: MLB/NPB), it seems unlikely, rather that they'll go with 5(+) and work the young starters into the picture as injuries permit. On another team, I could easily see Workman, let's say, being penciled into the 5th starter slot, with pressure from the guys at AAA. Rubby De La Rosa remains a wild card after his first season post-TJ.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 23, 2013 11:53:50 GMT -5
Think myself RDLR is going to eventually be groomed got the pen if he isn't traded 1st. Webster could be an eventual SP, same with Workman. Just think they are going to have RDLR scrap the slider and go with just his change and FB and use him as a setup guy after another half season or so if he isn't moved as a large piece in a trade.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 23, 2013 12:18:24 GMT -5
A few questions for the board.
1. Could you see Lackey retiring befor going from 16 million to 500k? He's getting up there in age.
2. How high would you be willing to go on a Lester extension?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 23, 2013 12:23:08 GMT -5
?@sean_McAdam 13m Also worth noting: NESN alone is valued at $675 million, or just below what current owners paid for team, ballpark, network, etc.
If this is near accurate, combined with the $28+M TV bonus every team will get this off season from the MLB TV deal, there is NO reason the Red Sox should be outbid on Tanaka if they really want him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 23, 2013 13:06:46 GMT -5
?@sean_McAdam 13m Also worth noting: NESN alone is valued at $675 million, or just below what current owners paid for team, ballpark, network, etc. If this is near accurate, combined with the $28+M TV bonus every team will get this off season from the MLB TV deal, there is NO reason the Red Sox should be outbid on Tanaka if they really want him. The posting process is not one where there are multiple rounds of bidding. Each team can make one blind bid and the highest number gets to negotiate with the player on a contract. If the Red Sox want Tanaka, they'll figure out how much they think he's worth and try and translate that into how much they should bid for his rights (including some intelligence on how much other teams might bid). If they're interested, they'll bid what they think he's worth and no more-- to do otherwise is just bad business.
|
|
|