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.
Sox Problems Scouting Professional FAs?
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
|
Post by cdj on Jun 7, 2014 22:57:10 GMT -5
And are you considering Iglesias and Tazawa bad signings? Because one is a damn fine SS who we were able to move for a legitimate piece for our WS run, and the other is a damn good 8th inning guy.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 7, 2014 23:29:00 GMT -5
It's not just the international players they are gun shy about. They refuse to sign any player who would cost them a first round pick. I mean Michael Chavis might turn out to be pretty good, but I think most sox fans woul prefer to have Nelson Cruz patrolling LF.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
|
Post by cdj on Jun 7, 2014 23:58:41 GMT -5
No, the guy was an aging, broken down, performance-enhancer abusing .260 hitter the past 3 years who is a butcher in the field.
Again, Monday morning quarterbacking. Would it be nice using hindsight? Sure, but even then you have to admit that this run he is on now is pretty improbable.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
|
Post by cdj on Jun 7, 2014 23:59:51 GMT -5
I have no doubts that the team would splurge on the right guy that fits the organizations values in a player if he becomes available.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 8, 2014 4:49:28 GMT -5
Damn Red Sox should have known Cruz was going to suddenly be literally 3 times as good as he's been for the past 5 years. Clearly the Orioles pro scouts saw this coming which is why they signed him to a 1 year deal for 8 mill.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 8, 2014 7:09:13 GMT -5
This topic has popped up quite a bit lately, mostly because it's difficult to ignore the success of guys like Tanaka, Puig, Abreu, Cespedes, etc. My take on it is that, despite him helping us win a World Series, the Red Sox got burned pretty badly in the Dice-K deal and have been gun shy in the professional free agent market ever since. The Dice-K signing was seven years ago though. The Sox need to get over that debacle and take the plunge again. Ownership saved a ton of money in the Nick Punto trade. If their goal is to hoard profit they should just be straight up with fans and quit stringing us all along so that we don't get our hopes up when the next big Cuban defector is declared a free agent or the next big Japanese player is posted. The year after the Punto trade, the ownership spent close to $80m in combined 2013 salary on Dempster, Victorino, Drew, Hanrahan, Gomes, Napoli, Uehara, and Peavy. They did so despite the fact that their own internal metrics projected that the team they'd assembled would win something like 85 games and was far from a lock to be a playoff contender, while a sizable proportion of fans and writers were pushing for a full rebuild that entailed eschewing the free agent market for a few seasons and letting the cheap kids play. They spent right up to the luxury tax limit again this year, including signing Stephen Drew mid-season for a good chunk of change, when they could have stayed pat and pocketed that extra cash. Again: it's not about ownership being unwilling to spend. They've consistently run one of the highest payrolls in the league, including being the only non-Yankee team to have paid the luxury tax multiple times (they've done so six times, while the Angels, Tigers, and Dodgers have each done so once). Instead, it's a question of how ownership wants to spend. Long-term contracts inevitably include dead years towards the end of the contract where you're paying a huge amount of money for an aging player who is no longer worth his salary. Having a few deals like that on your payroll eats up a huge portion of your available funds and makes it difficult to have the flexibility to add new players. This is what happened prior to 2012-- the team needed improvement, but there wasn't payroll space to add free agents, to the point where they traded Marco Scutaro for next to nothing in order to free up money to sign Cody Ross and traded a bunch of top prospects for two cheap late-innings relievers rather than adding to their bullpen through free agency. Flexibility is a tangible benefit, by the way. Having a good amount of cash roll off the roster every season in the form of expiring contracts (rather than having it locked up in a few expensive LT contracts) means you always have the ability to pounce on the right free agent or trade-and-extend player. Remember, the front office has always said it's willing to sign a long-term deal or pay the luxury tax for the right player. Just because they haven't so far doesn't mean that they never will, it just means that the right player hasn't come up yet (recall that the big-money players recently have mostly been flawed guys like Hamilton or Greinke or high-risk veteran IFAs). Maybe that guy is Jon Lester or James Shields or Carlos Gonzalez or Stanton or Heyward, and maybe it's Carbonell or Menda. We'll see, but you need payroll flexibility to add those guys, and their current free agency model ensures exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 8, 2014 8:07:41 GMT -5
And are you considering Iglesias and Tazawa bad signings? Because one is a damn fine SS who we were able to move for a legitimate piece for our WS run, and the other is a damn good 8th inning guy. Not at all. In fact if you read the initial posts they are acknowledged as successes.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 8, 2014 8:16:40 GMT -5
Inherent in the question is this - the Sox have been very good in identifying prospects, and above average in identifying free agent talent under this ownership group. Very often some of these international pros represent EXACTLY what the Sox value - players pre or near peak ability who are available to any takers and do not require surrendering talent or prospects. Sox also have a better scouting system than most, so there are strengths to be maximized (more extensive scouting, deep pockets). After reading that book I am just curious if there is something in their process that has kept them from identifying the value/ability in these players.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jun 8, 2014 8:43:41 GMT -5
Inherent in the question is this - the Sox have been very good in identifying prospects, and above average in identifying free agent talent under this ownership group. Very often some of these international pros represent EXACTLY what the Sox value - players pre or near peak ability who are available to any takers and do not require surrendering talent or prospects. Sox also have a better scouting system than most, so there are strengths to be maximized (more extensive scouting, deep pockets). After reading that book I am just curious if there is something in their process that has kept them from identifying the value/ability in these players. They are extremely risk averse now. The Sox value flexibility over upside. The consequence of that is they will miss on big IFAs because the risk is too high. I think it's actually by design, which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jun 8, 2014 8:45:21 GMT -5
Guidas, not very complex. Scouting is not the problem, but the issue is their spending policies and concept of value and unwillingness to get in bidding wars as dictated by the "market" Don't buy the "flexibility argument", which is a rationale for their policy and a smoke screen that many buy into. JH is correct about the irrationality of markets, but if they want to compete then they may have to play. By the way, this market works in favors of the workers (players) and of course the big money teams ( Red Sox?)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 8, 2014 9:04:05 GMT -5
Don't buy the "flexibility argument", which is a rationale for their policy and a smoke screen that many buy into. What could it possibly be a smokescreen for? You can disagree with the strategy, but I don't think it's fair to imply that the ownership/front office has nefarious motives for pursuing it. They genuinely believe that the best way to build a winning team is by focusing on developing from within, avoiding albatross contracts, and using free agency to supplement the core with above-average veterans at positions of need.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 8, 2014 9:54:42 GMT -5
Building from within to a degree is smart and essential, but no team in this era can win it all - or even get to the playoffs - with just home grown talent. The Sox mgmt group has cited the Cardinals as one team they like to use as a model - a team that wins a lot and picks down low in drafts like the Sox. They also have a well above average international scouting operation. The Cardinals did walk away from Pujols but they also bought Matt Holliday at Scott Boras years and dollars, so they aren not completely risk averse. their payroll is also well below the Sox.
Then again, most of the players I referenced were not that expensive or involved prohibitive long term deals, and some were outright steals, which also fits with the Sox operational philosophy.
Abreu: 4 years, $68M Aoki: 2 years, $2.5M + bonuses bring it to $4M, 2014 option $1.9M Cespedes: 4 years, $36M Iwakuma: 1 year, $1.5M with $3.5M in bonuses based on games/innings. Subsequently extended for 2 years, $14M + 2015 option of 1 yr, $7M Puig: 7 years, $42M with opportunity to opt for arb after year 3 of MLB service time.
I don't see a deal there that is cost or year prohibitive.
Darvish under the old posting system remains a bargain against the luxury tax at 6 years, $56M. Remember the $52M posting fee could come from any revenue source, and is something that can be depreciated in a variety of ways against whatever part(s) of the business (TV money, seat revenue, concessions, parkings, advertising, MLB rev payments, etc) and written off all at once or expensed out over 6 years.
Tanaka is the only player here who is receiving top dollar, and looks like a solid #1/2 starter. He is also only 25, but compared to him Darvish and Iwakuma are similar and much and vastly cheaper, respectively.
And remember - I wasn't attacking the front office as much as asking, with this player group (professional intl free agents) is there something about their scouting process with THESE types of players that is yielding substandard outcomes compared to their other player acquisition methods (prospects and MLB free agents) which have, in the mean, been very good?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 8, 2014 10:22:26 GMT -5
Any team could have picked up Bautista or Encarnacion or C. Davis for cheap, too-- do the Red Sox have a problem scouting post-prospect sluggers? Again, we're right back to "the Red Sox need to scout BETTER," which is not much of a discussion. For every cheap Aoki or Iwakuma, there's also any of these guys, most of whom turned out to be busts. By the way, phrasing it in the form of a question is a neat rhetorical device, but it doesn't make your opinion any less clear. You are absolutely criticizing the front office, in a way that I think is not entirely reasonable. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jun 8, 2014 11:04:41 GMT -5
Any team could have picked up Bautista or Encarnacion or C. Davis for cheap, too-- do the Red Sox have a problem scouting post-prospect sluggers? To be fair, the Blue Jays seem to be particularly good at fostering an approach that emphasizes power. Bautista wasn't BAUTISTA until the Jays changed his approach. Just like Duncan had a way of reclaiming junk pitchers, the Jays are good at straightening out power hitters. I'm having trouble thinking of a reclamation project that the Red Sox were successful in over the last ten years. They had some guys return to previous form after injury/down years or thrive when plucked from pitcher's parks but I cannot recall them making a player better. I might be overlooking someone but I could point to about a half dozen failures.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 8, 2014 11:14:28 GMT -5
Of course, David Ortiz was a little over ten years ago. More recent examples include Andrew Miller and Jarrod Saltalamacchia. You might also count guys like Carp, Uehara, and maybe even Drew/Napoli/Beltre.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jun 8, 2014 11:17:41 GMT -5
Any team could have picked up Bautista or Encarnacion or C. Davis for cheap, too-- do the Red Sox have a problem scouting post-prospect sluggers? Again, we're right back to "the Red Sox need to scout BETTER," which is not much of a discussion. For every cheap Aoki or Iwakuma, there's also any of these guys, most of whom turned out to be busts. By the way, phrasing it in the form of a question is a neat rhetorical device, but it doesn't make your opinion any less clear. You are absolutely criticizing the front office, in a way that I think is not entirely reasonable. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. Again, defending the FO with faulty arguments. Since any team could have picked them up, you would want us to believe the Sox did not make a mistake; they were as off base as the others. You will not let any info falsify your belief in the intent wisdom of management. Bet you blame unions for a companies problems like the auto industry.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jun 8, 2014 11:21:36 GMT -5
Of course, David Ortiz was a little over ten years ago. More recent examples include Andrew Miller and Jarrod Saltalamacchia. You might also count guys like Carp, Uehara, and maybe even Drew/Napoli/Beltre. I would not count Drew, Napoli, or Beltre. Jury is out on Carp, though he never really got much of an opportunity in Seattle. Uehara was very good before Boston, and they seemed to think less of him initially by giving everyone else a chance to close first. Miller is a maybe, though middle relief is probably the most abundant and easy thing to reclaim. Salty worked out so well that they let him walk for $21MM, laugh.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 8, 2014 11:36:09 GMT -5
Uehara was very good before Boston, and they seemed to think less of him initially by giving everyone else a chance to close first. Are we criticizing the FO for letting John Farrell make decisions now? Because that's something I could get behind...
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jun 8, 2014 11:40:14 GMT -5
Uehara was very good before Boston, and they seemed to think less of him initially by giving everyone else a chance to close first. Are we criticizing the FO for letting John Farrell make decisions now? Because that's something I could get behind... You're naive if you think Farrell makes decisions by himself. The FO told Farrell not to use Uehara as the closer because they were worried about injuries if he pitched back to back days.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 8, 2014 11:41:56 GMT -5
You're naive if you think Farrell makes decisions by himself. The FO told Farrell not to use Uehara as the closer because they were worried about injuries if he pitched back to back days. You don't have anything to back that statement up, do you?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 8, 2014 11:42:22 GMT -5
Any team could have picked up Bautista or Encarnacion or C. Davis for cheap, too-- do the Red Sox have a problem scouting post-prospect sluggers? Again, we're right back to "the Red Sox need to scout BETTER," which is not much of a discussion. For every cheap Aoki or Iwakuma, there's also any of these guys, most of whom turned out to be busts. By the way, phrasing it in the form of a question is a neat rhetorical device, but it doesn't make your opinion any less clear. You are absolutely criticizing the front office, in a way that I think is not entirely reasonable. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. Again, defending the FO with faulty arguments. Since any team could have picked them up, you would want us to believe the Sox did not make a mistake; they were as off base as the others. You will not let any info falsify your belief in the intent wisdom of management. Bet you blame unions for a companies problems like the auto industry. It's not that the front office didn't make a mistake. It's that scouting and team-building is really hard, and we can't expect a front office to be perfect. There are fair things to criticize the front office for, like the awful trades for Bailey and Melancon and Hanrahan. Criticizing the front office not not signing every breakout player, on the other hand, is just using the advantage of hindsight to make unreasonable demands. This is not a question of favoring management over labor, by the way. I think players are underpaid and owners use every advantage they can to maximize their own take, including colluding to keep salaries/bonuses low, soliciting public stadium funding, and manipulating service time. But this is essentially a question of assigning credit/blame to middle managers, and has next to nothing to do with labor economics.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jun 8, 2014 12:08:20 GMT -5
You're naive if you think Farrell makes decisions by himself. The FO told Farrell not to use Uehara as the closer because they were worried about injuries if he pitched back to back days. You don't have anything to back that statement up, do you? I remember Remy and Orsillo talking about it early last season. Not going to waste a bunch of time looking for definitive proof but here is an article that hints at it: "Cherington said that the Sox investigated signing Uehara as a free agent after 2010, but had “concerns” about his elbow. The team was more comfortable two years later after Uehara had established more of a track record, but nonetheless handles him with care. Uehara has appeared in three consecutive games only once this season. He has pitched in back-to-back games only once since the All-Star break. And Farrell said that Uehara has warmed up only three times this season without getting into a game." msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/koji-uehara-unlikely-rise-to-boston-red-sox-closer-john-farrell-craig-breslow-junichi-tazawa-andrew-bailey-090513
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 8, 2014 12:34:55 GMT -5
Any team could have picked up Bautista or Encarnacion or C. Davis for cheap, too-- do the Red Sox have a problem scouting post-prospect sluggers? Again, we're right back to "the Red Sox need to scout BETTER," which is not much of a discussion. For every cheap Aoki or Iwakuma, there's also any of these guys, most of whom turned out to be busts. By the way, phrasing it in the form of a question is a neat rhetorical device, but it doesn't make your opinion any less clear. You are absolutely criticizing the front office, in a way that I think is not entirely reasonable. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. Questioning process isn't an attack, it's an appeal for adjustment. But yes, based on their results, I believe their process in a acquiring international professional free agents to this point has been deeply flawed, especially when held up against their performance of MLB free agent and amateur prospect acquisition. Make no mistake, this is a great organization, and obviously not everyone hits every time with every move (even Billy Beane). But this is one component of player acquisition that appears to have lagged behind the others. I believe this and I wondered if anyone else believed it, too. It will be a growing area of both opportunity and peril in the coming years, especially with the Japanese players and the posting system being changed, but also as more Cuban players free themselves from that country's oppressive ways. I am just wondering if their process paradigm is this area needs some re-thinking by the organization.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 8, 2014 12:56:14 GMT -5
They are extremely risk averse now. The Sox value flexibility over upside. The consequence of that is they will miss on big IFAs because the risk is too high. I think it's actually by design, which is a shame. Particularly in trade situations, a totally craven fear of looking bad has - not just now but traditionally - permeated the front office. Prospects like Lars Andersen and Michael Bowden are held onto literally until they're worth nothing to other organizations rather than risk the possibility the player might bounce back up in value. It still burns my biscuits that Arizona offered us Miguel Montero for Bowden and Theo was too afraid to pull the trigger - and that was when we really needed a catcher too. Teams in general can be prone to over-valuing their prospects industry-wide, though Oakland and Atlanta seem to be pretty good at trading some of their drooled-over talent to their ultimate benefit. We had the Lars Anderson conversation when Middlebrooks and Lavarnway exploded in AA. I remember stating something to the effect "this organization has to decide right now whether Middlebrooks is David Wright or Brandon Inge because his value may never be higher, and if he's Inge trade him now in a package for max value." Ditto with Lavarnway. (and to be clear, I hadnt seen Middlebrooks live so had no idea in my mind what he was, either). It can be one of the toughest decisions for an organization to make because, along with the data and daily observations, it is difficult for them not to have some "dreaming on potential" confirmation bias like we do with prospects - on some levels probably even more because they drafted these guys and see them day-to-day. There's also fear of trading away the next Jeff Bagwell etc. Jobs are lost that way.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 8, 2014 13:25:58 GMT -5
But yes, based on their results, I believe their process in a acquiring international professional free agents to this point has been deeply flawed, especially when held up against their performance of MLB free agent and amateur prospect acquisition. Make no mistake, this is a great organization, and obviously not everyone hits every time with every move (even Billy Beane). But this is one component of player acquisition that appears to have lagged behind the others. I believe this and I wondered if anyone else believed it, too. It will be a growing area of both opportunity and peril in the coming years, especially with the Japanese players and the posting system being changed, but also as more Cuban players free themselves from that country's oppressive ways. I am just wondering if their process paradigm is this area needs some re-thinking by the organization. So, let me ask you. What is your solution to this so-called flaw? Is it just to start bidding more aggressively for Cuban and Japanese talent? How much money would you offer Carbonell?
|
|
|