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.
8/5-8/7 Red Sox @ Dodgers Series Thread
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,674
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 8, 2016 17:35:43 GMT -5
I bet Jeff Samardzija would have around a 5.00 ERA for Boston. I only wanted him if he was going to take a short term deal to re-establish value. I would never want to give him $90 million. The Red Sox were never going to sign two free agent starting pitchers given that they actually traded Miley because they thought they had too many. And how long would it have taken to discover how good Wright was? Not only do I agree but there's another factor in a Boston Samardzija signing. Not only are you taking on a bigger risk with a pitcher who has a mediocre track record, but you are also punting your first round draft pick, which is absolutely huge. I'll take the money spent on Price plus the draft pick which turned out to be Jason Groome than punting the draft pick and spending on a mediocrity like the Shark. Now if you want to say the Sox would have been better served giving Cueto the contract the Giants gave him rather than the Red Sox, then fine, but I don't remember there being a lot of support for that idea at the time. Like I said, I like Cueto and had the Sox not wasted the money on Sandoval (that's not a second guess), they would have had it for Cueto, but that wasn't meant to be. Too bad. If they did that Anderson Espinoza would still be a highly regarded pitching prospect for the Red Sox, one of three front line starting pitching prospects who could be available if the money on down the line for Cueto and Price wound up needing to be balanced out.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,674
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 8, 2016 17:46:24 GMT -5
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. The object isn't the best WAR/$. It's about the most wins, especially for a big market team. And yes I do think that Price and Sandoval are two very fundamentally different players. Price's performance and intangibles (work ethic, etc) indicate a guy who would be much more likely to maintain his performance which was on a much higher level. Are you honestly telling me that Sandoval and Price are contemporaries when comparing performances? Price has been a consistent Cy Young candidate. Sandoval has been a middling 3b who has lived off some big moments in the post-season and had his best season around age 25 before his weight issues caught up to him. I'm sorry I don't see them as equals. I'll take the risk with Price any day over Sandoval. Having the best WAR/$ team would work out very well for us being that we have one of the highest payroll teams. The point is that there are better investments out there. Being a big market team does not mean you have unlimited resources, and big contracts to top tier players often leads to negative investments. It's all to easy to find historically an "Ace" who had the performance and intangibles that would justify a large contract who suddenly one day just didn't have it anymore. Top of my head: Holladay, Lee, Oswalt, Sabathia, Santana, Cain, and we might be adding king Felix to that list soon. My theory is if the team consistently made decisions based on value and long term outlook, after the start up phase we would always field a competitive team with a positive long term outlook. Sandoval, Price, and Kimbrel were decisions focused on the short term, and all will probably effect the team negatively at some point of their contracts. I agree that having the best WAR/$ team would work out very well for the Red Sox, but theoretically let's say that lead to 93 wins in the East and say the Yankees (we know Toronto and Baltimore wouldn't have a bigger payroll than the Sox) won 94 and the division but with a lower WAR/$ team, is that really a worse thing for NY? Especially if the Sox got bounced out of a 1 game playoff? You mentioned Halladay in that list along with Oswalt and Lee. Those guys lasted a good deal into their 30s still pretty effective, so they would have been alright. Santana was injured and never the same, and Cain never really was an ace. It's a risk. The odds are it will work out against you. The odds are somebody will try it and it will work out alright. If you're in a position of need and there's no way to realistically improve your team without raiding your prospects then you hope to be one of those team that had it work out right. There's a lot of good opinions on both sides of this issue. I think one unifying thing that both sides can agree on is the importance of developing your own starting pitching - and that the Red Sox really need to do this. This underscores my aggravation with the Anderson Espinoza/Drew Pomeranz deal, but that's a debate that's already been had and will be had for some time to come. Here's hoping that Groome is what we think he can be, that Kopech can harness his control to be a front line starter, and not a closer, and that the Sox can develop some more young pitching talent (Pennington, maybe). It's important. When I was young I remember the Sox having a pitching vacuum between Tiant and Lee aging and Eckersley struggling with addiction and the kids coming up. Eventually between Hurst, Ojeda, Tudor, Nipper, Boyd, and Clemens the Red Sox found quality and quantity (as opposed to disappointments like Mike Brown, Steve Crawford, and Chuck Rainey), some of which they were able to hold onto. They need to do more of that now.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Aug 8, 2016 18:23:59 GMT -5
David Price was clearly the best pitcher available last year and there wasn't a person who was going to predict this season's struggles (which btw could be fluky). On a staff, where Clay Buchholz would have been your #1 pitcher entering the season, if you couldn't spend the money on him in this last offseason, you may as well never enter the free agent market. Also, to think that you could get as good or better performance in any other combination of other free agents, completely ignores that there are 29 other teams possibly vying for that same resource(s). This was a needed signing....short term planning will always carry more weight to organizational decision making Not so "clear". I thought Grienke was the best pitcher available, with Cueto and Price in a tie for second best available. And yes, I had (and still have) concerns about Price's performance to date, and into the future. Since leaving Tampa Bay, Price has had incredible run support which has bolstered his perceived value, IMO. Finding fault with the coaching staff for Price's shortcomings in a Red Sox uniform, is to overlook the fact that Price is an established veteran. Pitchers with his track record are supposed to work at and find/correct their own faults. I've yet to see the mental fortitude of a Clemens, Martinez or Schilling in Price's make up. I hope this changes, but as of now, David Price would be my third starter in a post season series. If your team is going to commit extensive resources for top talent, it would behoove them to study his mental make up. I would have preferred Greinke or Cueto to Price from what I have seen from each over the years.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 8, 2016 19:47:11 GMT -5
So your argument is that a "star level player" is more likely to maintain his past star level performance than a mid-level player is to maintain his past mid-level performance? Why is that the case? Haven't we seen tons of mid-level guys keep being mid-level? By the same token, haven't we also seen that most star level guys drop off at a certain point? Intuitively it makes sense. The most talented players are more likely to be "star level" players and when they decline they usually decline to being mid-level players. If a mid-level player declines, he's more likely to decline into being a replacement level player. It doesn't mean that superstars don't suddenly lose it and mid-level players can't maintain themselves for a long time, but if there's going to be decline it's more likely going to render a mid-level player useless before it does to a star level player. But that ignores the differences in contract. A star player making 300 million dollars over ten years, but only plays at the level a 45 million dollar player is far more damaging in the short and long term, than a player who signs a 45 million dollar contract and performs at the level of a 5 million dollar player.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2016 20:50:08 GMT -5
We really needed one pitcher. We signed the best one available. There's not much more to talk about, unless you didn't agree with that at the time. Not one person said "I think that was way too much money to give Price" when he signed. The ONLY argument was between people who thought that the player opt-out was good for the team or not.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,674
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 8, 2016 20:54:42 GMT -5
Intuitively it makes sense. The most talented players are more likely to be "star level" players and when they decline they usually decline to being mid-level players. If a mid-level player declines, he's more likely to decline into being a replacement level player. It doesn't mean that superstars don't suddenly lose it and mid-level players can't maintain themselves for a long time, but if there's going to be decline it's more likely going to render a mid-level player useless before it does to a star level player. But that ignores the differences in contract. A star player making 300 million dollars over ten years, but only plays at the level a 45 million dollar player is far more damaging in the short and long term, than a player who signs a 45 million dollar contract and performs at the level of a 5 million dollar player. I think I understand what you're saying, but what you wrote sounds kind of extreme. I mean if you spend $300 million on a 10 year deal and only get $45 million of value, that means you made a really, really horrendous judgment or the player got a career ending injury or something like that. I mean that's a 15% ROI. That's really extreme. Let's face it - you're usually not going to get 100% ROI on those types of deals. Or necessarily anything close, but I think you'll get better performance. Look at the Manny Ramirez deal. At the time that contract was enormous. The Pedro Martinez contract was enormous. Both had a ton of risk to them at the time. They could have busted, but they both were cornerstones in what was the foundation of a strong Red Sox team. Do you regret the Sox taking the risk and spending big $ on those two players? The kind of talent you're talking about can still bust you. Look at the 2013 Red Sox. That is the best example in my opinion of getting strong seasons from second tier talent, but the problem is that second tier talent busted in 2014 and 2015, and there were still some reasonably expensive contracts that were getting little production. These days, even second tier talent is walking away with 5 year deals at $20 million/year if they're reasonably young enough. The kind of talent you're talking about that submits to these lesser year deals are those who are veterans up in age. And veterans up in age to that point inherently carry a lot of risk (injury and end of career type performances) that you get very little out of them and are still paying reasonably big annual $ albeit over a shorter term.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2016 20:58:23 GMT -5
For the record, I expect Price to bounce back fully and not drop off. And also for the record, I don't think you can assume that because Lester is so far working out for the Cubs, that he'd be the same pitcher in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 9, 2016 3:52:11 GMT -5
I bet Jeff Samardzija would have around a 5.00 ERA for Boston. I only wanted him if he was going to take a short term deal to re-establish value. I would never want to give him $90 million. The Red Sox were never going to sign two free agent starting pitchers given that they actually traded Miley because they thought they had too many. And how long would it have taken to discover how good Wright was? Not only do I agree but there's another factor in a Boston Samardzija signing. Not only are you taking on a bigger risk with a pitcher who has a mediocre track record, but you are also punting your first round draft pick, which is absolutely huge. I'll take the money spent on Price plus the draft pick which turned out to be Jason Groome than punting the draft pick and spending on a mediocrity like the Shark. Now if you want to say the Sox would have been better served giving Cueto the contract the Giants gave him rather than the Red Sox, then fine, but I don't remember there being a lot of support for that idea at the time. Like I said, I like Cueto and had the Sox not wasted the money on Sandoval (that's not a second guess), they would have had it for Cueto, but that wasn't meant to be. Too bad. If they did that Anderson Espinoza would still be a highly regarded pitching prospect for the Red Sox, one of three front line starting pitching prospects who could be available if the money on down the line for Cueto and Price wound up needing to be balanced out. I'm on record saying I wanted Cueto over Price, but I understand why they choose Price. Cueto has injury concerns and Price was about as risk free a pitcher we've seen in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 9, 2016 10:12:17 GMT -5
For the record, I expect Price to bounce back fully and not drop off. And also for the record, I don't think you can assume that because Lester is so far working out for the Cubs, that he'd be the same pitcher in Boston. For Price, along with the bad defense, he had three or four pitches that could've easily (and should have been) strike threes that were called balls to set up two of the multiple run-scoring sequences. I agree in part with the Lester point. In the NL the pitchers get three virtually guaranteed outs a start, and if there are already two outs they can pitch around the #8 hitter with impunity if it suits the situation (i.e. runners in scoring position).
|
|
|