|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 4, 2015 11:13:53 GMT -5
RE: Jimenez,
1) Bianchi is on the DL.
2) As some have mentioned, he's probably on the team for a week, until Victorino is ready. Victorino is supposedly starting a rehab assignment on the 8th with an eye to return on May 11. The idea is probably that you can DFA him at that time and if you lose him, whatever.
3) Hanigan was moved to the 60 to fit him on the 40-man. No need to DFA Spruill yet.
4) Hinojosa reportedly packed his stuff up last night, so he's going down to make room on the 25-man.
5) You do this with Jimenez instead of calling up, say, a Cecchini in that you don't have to play him at all. If he never sees the field for the Red Sox in his week with the club, then fine.
It's basically a neutral, "whatever" move.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbuttons on May 4, 2015 11:58:51 GMT -5
We need to give up on Victorino already.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on May 4, 2015 13:24:21 GMT -5
We need to give up on Victorino already. Basically. You don't even have to believe that he'll never provide value again. It's just that our best starting RF option, far and away, is trapped in AAA. Brock Holt is cool and all, but at the end of the day, he's not going to be much of a plus hitter.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on May 4, 2015 13:29:40 GMT -5
Trading Miller was a good move. NOT signing him was stupid. The Red Sox had a lot of sweat equity in Miller. They gave him 1.4M when he probably would have had to sign a minor league contract with some other team. The worked long and hard with his mechanics and his confidence. They mutually agreed to focus on Miller's role coming out of the bullpen. The patience paid off and Miller has swagger and has harnessed his considerable talent. They the Red Sox let a division rival outbid them. Ridiculous. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs? The Yankees get to benefit from the "sunk costs" AND the sweat equity put in by the Red Sox coaching staff? You say potatoe, I say potato.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on May 4, 2015 13:33:08 GMT -5
It was built on the cheap and with plenty of question marks. The only "worse" bullpen in this division is North of the border.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 4, 2015 14:57:44 GMT -5
? The Yankees get to benefit from the "sunk costs" AND the sweat equity put in by the Red Sox coaching staff? You say potatoe, I say potato. The point is that whether or not what you're saying is true, that shouldn't affect the club's valuation of him when he becomes a free agent. He should be valued based on what he provides to the team over the life of the contract he is going to sign, not based on what they've already put into that asset.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 4, 2015 15:15:45 GMT -5
? The Yankees get to benefit from the "sunk costs" AND the sweat equity put in by the Red Sox coaching staff? You say potatoe, I say potato. Imagine you bounced around jobs through your early/mid twenties but one employer sees potential in you, decides to give you responsibility and invest time in you, and you become a very valuable employee. Now someone else comes along and offers you a huge raise which your employer can't/chooses not to match. Chances are you feel really bad about leaving....but you still leave, right? If the sunk cost wasn't worth the payout, then your employer should have never spent the time training you. This is why inexperienced/untrained employees make very low wages, because the investment is high and there is a good chance the employee won't stick around. So essentially baseball simulating real life is how i see it.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 4, 2015 15:30:24 GMT -5
Well, they thought Koji for 2 years at the same AAV was a better investment than Miller, who is 11 years younger. That deal in a vacuum to me was a lapse in executive judgement, but if you're rolling the dice on $9M a year for an , it's more puzzling putting it next to the Miller deal. I get the part about relievers being up and down, but Miller is in his prime years. But IF you're going to blow $9M a year on an elite reliever I believe they picked the wrong guy. I say this loving what Koji has done for this team (and desperately hoping he continues to do so).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 4, 2015 15:33:11 GMT -5
Well, they thought Koji for 2 years at the same AAV was a better investment than Miller, who is 11 years younger. That deal in a vacuum to me was a lapse in executive judgement, but if you're rolling the dice on $9M a year for an , it's more puzzling putting it next to the Miller deal. I get the part about relievers being up and down, but Miller is in his prime years. But IF you're going to blow $9M a year on an elite reliever I believe they picked the wrong guy. I say this loving what Koji has done for this team (and desperately hoping he continues to do so). You can't ignore the years though. Let's not pretend 2/18 is exactly the same as 4/36. You're acting like it's literally the same contract.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 4, 2015 16:11:57 GMT -5
I thought I was pretty clear, but in case I wasn't it's a relatively bad gamble in both deals but if I'm going to make it I go the extra two years and get the younger lefty who throws gas and has a knee buckling breaking pitch over 2yrs with the 40 year old guy with the knee buckling breaking pitch.
ADDED: I AM all for gambling 4.5% of your annual salary on a closer if you think he's an impact pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on May 4, 2015 16:33:35 GMT -5
Yes, let's pretend that the 40 year old Uehara didn't as a 38 year old throw 74 innings of 1 run ball in 2013, while giving up just 3 more walks than Miller already gave this year.
You can question why not having both, as Miller did get away. But resigning Uehara is an absolute slamdunk.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 4, 2015 16:53:17 GMT -5
It's a microscopic sample and all (6.1 IP for Uehara, 13.1 IP for Miller), but in 2015: Uehara: 15.63 K/9, 0.00 BB/9, 2.84 ERA, 1.70 FIP, 0.72 xFIP, 0.37 SIERA Miller: 15.53 K/9, 4.05 BB/9, 0.00 ERA, 1.48 FIP, 2.19 xFIP, 1.71 SIERA Since Miller's 2012 breakout year, Uehara has been better than Miller in just about every metric, and going forward, they're projected pretty similarly (2.54 ERA/2.79 FIP for Uehara, 2.41 ERA, 2.51 FIP for Miller) despite the heavy aging curve the projections apply to Uehara. The problem with this team isn't having Uehara instead of Andrew Miller. Hell, it isn't even having Edward Mujica instead of Andrew Miller.
|
|