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.
2021-2022 Non-Red Sox Offseason Thread
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 30, 2021 12:49:06 GMT -5
I don't understand why you wouldn't want Scherzer on a short-term deal. Over the past three seasons, he has the lowest FIP in baseball, 2.84. Only Cole (2.93), Morton (3.03), and Wheeler (3.05) are within .35 of him among qualified guys. Yes, age will catch up with him eventually, but he's baseball's best pitcher and they only have to commit three years to him. And this isn't about building a super team, it's about making the team good enough to compete in the short term. He doesn't even have compensation attached, there's no consequence, and it's impossible for me to argue that those other free agents a) are likely to be better for 2022-2024, or b) are likely to have excess value in 2025 and beyond. Completely agree!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 30, 2021 12:50:01 GMT -5
Exactly my feeling. Correa is a petulant, unrepentant brat, while Xander is one of the few true gentlemen in the game and not exactly chopped liver between the lines. I hope he retires as a lifelong Red Sox but I wouldn't mind moving him to 2B or 3B in the next year or two. Just to clarify something, Xander is my favorite Red Sox player and has been so since he came into the league. Possibly he was my favorite prospect of all time except for Keith Couch. I like him more than I liked Mookie, and I loved Mookie! I do not and I will never advocate getting rid of him. However, I think it's pretty clear the Sox infield has two holes: defense at 3B and everything at 2B. I really think Correa fits into that. He's not a replacement for Xander, he's a teammate. The proper perspective has been thrown down.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 12:51:58 GMT -5
As a fan of a team that has four rings in this century and at least three last-place finishes, I think I'm happier than the MFY fans who make the playoffs every year but haven't won a best-of-seven series in 12 years. My neighbor is a big LAD fan and he's been pretty frustrated during their recent stretch, with the small consolation of winning a fake ring in 2020. (Sorry Nacho, but a two-month regular season playing against only a fraction of the league is not a championship season.)
I, too, want to root for sustained excellence but I also see that no one has won back-to-back rings in >20 years, so the realist in me says that when you come as close as we did last year, you should do what you can to get through that window just once. If you manage that, you can look at what's left and try again but you can't win multiple championships without winning that first one.
If the tax is staying, good teams can stay good, but great teams will almost certainly need to have periods of decline. The 2018 Sox were built for “sustained” success: a great, young team with a homegrown core. But in a year or two, they decided they couldn’t afford a lot of midcareer stars. No tax, you might be looking at X/Devers/Mookie for a decade. If Corey Seager is getting $325 million, it is going to be almost impossible to keep a top team together for long. The 2018 Red Sox were absolutely not built for sustainable success. The fall would have been less dramatic if players like Pedroia had stayed on the field and productive, but that wasn't the case. The roster was full of contracts that would anchor the team down: Price, Pedroia, Sandoval, Ramirez, etc. The farm was also a barren wasteland, meaning there would be little to no cheap talent coming up to supplement the major league roster. Then there's the fact that 2018 happened on the backs of ridiculous seasons from guys like JD Martinez and Mookie Betts that they just weren't likely to repeat. 2019 was almost the same cast of characters, but an 84-78 finish. That window was already closing, but with 2019 it was basically shut for good. That team would only have been able to compete by many years of mecha Steve Cohen levels of spending or by rebuilding.
This was just another boom in a series of booms and busts for this team.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 30, 2021 13:45:34 GMT -5
If the tax is staying, good teams can stay good, but great teams will almost certainly need to have periods of decline. The 2018 Sox were built for “sustained” success: a great, young team with a homegrown core. But in a year or two, they decided they couldn’t afford a lot of midcareer stars. No tax, you might be looking at X/Devers/Mookie for a decade. If Corey Seager is getting $325 million, it is going to be almost impossible to keep a top team together for long. The 2018 Red Sox were absolutely not built for sustainable success. The fall would have been less dramatic if players like Pedroia had stayed on the field and productive, but that wasn't the case. The roster was full of contracts that would anchor the team down: Price, Pedroia, Sandoval, Ramirez, etc. The farm was also a barren wasteland, meaning there would be little to no cheap talent coming up to supplement the major league roster. Then there's the fact that 2018 happened on the backs of ridiculous seasons from guys like JD Martinez and Mookie Betts that they just weren't likely to repeat. 2019 was almost the same cast of characters, but an 84-78 finish. That window was already closing, but with 2019 it was basically shut for good. That team would only have been able to compete by many years of mecha Steve Cohen levels of spending or by rebuilding.
This was just another boom in a series of booms and busts for this team.
The Zombie ‘18 Sox were the reason they did what they did last year. X, Devers, JDM, Eovaldi, Barnes, CVaz… that is a huge proportion of their success.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 13:53:19 GMT -5
The 2018 Red Sox were absolutely not built for sustainable success. The fall would have been less dramatic if players like Pedroia had stayed on the field and productive, but that wasn't the case. The roster was full of contracts that would anchor the team down: Price, Pedroia, Sandoval, Ramirez, etc. The farm was also a barren wasteland, meaning there would be little to no cheap talent coming up to supplement the major league roster. Then there's the fact that 2018 happened on the backs of ridiculous seasons from guys like JD Martinez and Mookie Betts that they just weren't likely to repeat. 2019 was almost the same cast of characters, but an 84-78 finish. That window was already closing, but with 2019 it was basically shut for good. That team would only have been able to compete by many years of mecha Steve Cohen levels of spending or by rebuilding.
This was just another boom in a series of booms and busts for this team.
The Zombie ‘18 Sox were the reason they did what they did last year. X, Devers, JDM, Eovaldi, Barnes, CVaz… that is a huge proportion of their success. You can't ignore the farm and financial situation of the 2018-19 squad.
You also don't make the playoffs without players like Hernandez, Renfroe, Whitlock, etc. and the Sox wouldn't have been in a position to acquire them without the mini rebuild in 2020. After 2018, the only options for improving the team were spending big on FAs and living well over the LT threshold for many seasons. I much prefer having an above average farm that can provide affordable talent to the ML team, since it's not realistic to expect owners to ignore the LT threshold for years on end to prop up the rotting carcass of a good team.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 14:10:38 GMT -5
I don't understand why you wouldn't want Scherzer on a short-term deal. Over the past three seasons, he has the lowest FIP in baseball, 2.84. Only Cole (2.93), Morton (3.03), and Wheeler (3.05) are within .35 of him among qualified guys. Yes, age will catch up with him eventually, but he's baseball's best pitcher and they only have to commit three years to him. And this isn't about building a super team, it's about making the team good enough to compete in the short term. He doesn't even have compensation attached, there's no consequence, and it's impossible for me to argue that those other free agents a) are likely to be better for 2022-2024, or b) are likely to have excess value in 2025 and beyond. $43 million dollars per year just isn't a good value for someone like Scherzer. He put up 5.2 bWAR / 5.4 fWAR last year. If you assume a ballpark $6-8 million per WAR on the free agent market, $43 million dollars is on the high end of what you'd want to pay for that kind of production. Even if Scherzer stays healthy and keeps pitching at 2021 levels for the next three years, you're still only getting mediocre value out of that contract. In the likely event that he declines or gets injured, though, all of a sudden that's a contract that will hurt the team for the next few years.
I would much rather spread that cash over multiple FAs. If the Sox had few holes, it would be more valuable to concentrate that WAR in one roster slot; other FAs just wouldn't provide enough of a differential over their existing guys to move the needle enough. As it turns out, though, the Sox still have at least a rotation spot and a few bullpen spots open and could benefit from a solid middle infielder. I would much rather fill all of those holes than pay Scherzer. If everything's humming by August and you need someone elite to take you over the top, maybe consider a rental then.
Granted, if FSG wanted to channel Steve Cohen and just not care about money anymore, then sure, go get Scherzer and literally anyone else who isn't signing a several-year contract. That's not how baseball teams normally work, though. Usually a bad contract results in fewer dollars spent on FAs and a weaker team as a result.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 30, 2021 14:17:04 GMT -5
I don't understand why you wouldn't want Scherzer on a short-term deal. Over the past three seasons, he has the lowest FIP in baseball, 2.84. Only Cole (2.93), Morton (3.03), and Wheeler (3.05) are within .35 of him among qualified guys. Yes, age will catch up with him eventually, but he's baseball's best pitcher and they only have to commit three years to him. And this isn't about building a super team, it's about making the team good enough to compete in the short term. He doesn't even have compensation attached, there's no consequence, and it's impossible for me to argue that those other free agents a) are likely to be better for 2022-2024, or b) are likely to have excess value in 2025 and beyond. $43 million dollars per year just isn't a good value for someone like Scherzer. He put up 5.2 bWAR / 5.4 fWAR last year. If you assume a ballpark $6-8 million per WAR on the free agent market, $43 million dollars is on the high end of what you'd want to pay for that kind of production. Even if Scherzer stays healthy and keeps pitching at 2021 levels for the next three years, you're still only getting mediocre value out of that contract. In the likely event that he declines or gets injured, though, all of a sudden that's a contract that will hurt the team for the next few years.
I would much rather spread that cash over multiple FAs. If the Sox had few holes, it would be more valuable to concentrate that WAR in one roster slot; other FAs just wouldn't provide enough of a differential over their existing guys to move the needle enough. As it turns out, though, the Sox still have at least a rotation spot and a few bullpen spots open and could benefit from a solid middle infielder. I would much rather fill all of those holes than pay Scherzer. If everything's humming by August and you need someone elite to take you over the top, maybe consider a rental then.
Granted, if FSG wanted to channel Steve Cohen and just not care about money anymore, then sure, go get Scherzer and literally anyone else who isn't signing a several-year contract. That's not how baseball teams normally work, though. Usually a bad contract results in fewer dollars spent on FAs and a weaker team as a result.
$6-$8 million is an underestimate, isn't it?
This also reminds me of a point I just came across in a Kevin Goldstein chat: I also think there's a premium to be paid for the value that ace starters provide in the playoffs that goes beyond WAR.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 30, 2021 14:22:28 GMT -5
The Zombie ‘18 Sox were the reason they did what they did last year. X, Devers, JDM, Eovaldi, Barnes, CVaz… that is a huge proportion of their success. You can't ignore the farm and financial situation of the 2018-19 squad.
You also don't make the playoffs without players like Hernandez, Renfroe, Whitlock, etc. and the Sox wouldn't have been in a position to acquire them without the mini rebuild in 2020. After 2018, the only options for improving the team were spending big on FAs and living well over the LT threshold for many seasons. I much prefer having an above average farm that can provide affordable talent to the ML team, since it's not realistic to expect owners to ignore the LT threshold for years on end to prop up the rotting carcass of a good team.
Wow, that was succinct and well said.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 30, 2021 14:38:31 GMT -5
As a fan of a team that has four rings in this century and at least three last-place finishes, I think I'm happier than the MFY fans who make the playoffs every year but haven't won a best-of-seven series in 12 years. My neighbor is a big LAD fan and he's been pretty frustrated during their recent stretch, with the small consolation of winning a fake ring in 2020. (Sorry Nacho, but a two-month regular season playing against only a fraction of the league is not a championship season.)
I, too, want to root for sustained excellence but I also see that no one has won back-to-back rings in >20 years, so the realist in me says that when you come as close as we did last year, you should do what you can to get through that window just once. If you manage that, you can look at what's left and try again but you can't win multiple championships without winning that first one.
The reason why no one is winning back to back is exactly my point. The playoffs are a crap shoot. You need to sit at the table more often if you want to win rather than going all in to make your 50/50s into 60/40s. You're talking about small sample sizes here. The Red Sox are not going to win every WS they make for all eternity. Saying "scoreboard" basically ignores how much luck goes into WS wins. I would much rather stick to the Dodgers model. 9 straight playoff appearances, 3 WS appearances in the last five years, and they still have both a solid farm and a solid MLB roster. That is so much more fun as a fan than alternating between first place and last place, even when you have the ridiculous good fortune of converting 10 playoff appearances into 4 WS titles. The only Sox WS team that was clearly the best team in baseball over the course of the season was the 2018 team. The others were very good teams among a handful of other very good teams and happened to rise to the top. Only 4 of the last 20 WS (or 6, if you count ties for best record) were won by the team with the best overall record in the regular season. 7 were won by WC teams. When you consider that there are always two WC teams in the round of 8, it's more like a 3.5/20 win rate per WC slot, but that's still close to the win rate for the best overall team. Lesson: if you boom and bust, you will probably not win the WS during the boom and you will definitely bust regardless. The Sox are far from the only team following the boom and bust model. The Sox are just fortunate to have won so frequently recently. It definitely doesn't make it a better model for winning the WS than making the playoffs year after year. Dunno. If your argument is that the Sox won four championships but they didn't do it the "right way," I don't know what to tell you. People my age, who suffered for decades before finally tasting victory, might say "I'd rather be lucky than good." Would I like the Sox to emulate the LAD model? Well, whether I want them to or not, they're already doing it by poaching a TB executive onto a big-market team (and soon they'll have more of Chaim's TB boys reporting to Jersey Street, as the no-coattails period will be ending). But sure, I'd like to have a deep playoff run every year.
But I still believe that when you know you're close, you need to push the chips to the middle of the table to go from 60/40 to 65/35 -- which is exactly what LAD has done, e.g outbidding the world to sign Bauer; giving up assets at the trade deadline for Machado, Betts, Scherzer, Trea Turner; paying top dollar to keep Betts, Kershaw.
It's not like they have some secret formula for trading prospects for rentals or paying stars big money. Of course, they did a good job of amassing the assets that they flipped but the rest of that was straight cash, homie. [N.B. LAD's farm system is now ranked 13th by FG and falling, while BOS is at 9 and rising.] They've also had their share of luck, e.g. Justin Turner agreeing to hometown discounts.
Will I be as happy with Chaim's Sox in 5-10 years if they've won a lot of regular season games but never grabbed the brass ring, compared to the Theo, Cherry, and DD Sox who each won it all, with a very different group of players every time? Again, dunno, but I sure like the feeling of watching them spray each other with champagne, regardless of what happens the following season.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 30, 2021 14:51:35 GMT -5
The problem with spreading it around to other free agents is that there are zero guys signing three year deals who are going to add up to Scherzer's value. Like, maybe you'd prefer Semien plus a $18 million per year pitcher in the short term - I don't know that Semien is a better chance to hold his value in the short term than Scherzer, but let's say it is - that's fine in the short term, but then you're also paying Semien $25M in 2028. Scherzer allows them to flex their financial strength in a way that doesn't have a long-term consequence, something that no other free agents anywhere near that class can offer.
Also, inacandenza is correct, $6M is absolutely a low estimate on $/WAR, I'd have $7M as about the lower bound. But more importantly is the other bit, a single six-win player is worth more than six one-win players, because now you have thousands of other at-bats to try to pick up excess value. The trick about "wins over replacement player" is how good your general manager is at getting value out of "replacement player." If you've got a guy who can get Christian Arroyo and Garrett Whitlock essentially for free then you're in good shape, and it underscores why you don't pay a 1-win player the effective $/WAR cost.
------
As to this aside about how responsible the 2018 team was for the 2019-2020 swoon (collapse?) - I think both sides kind of are correct. Dombrowski really hollowed out the system depth to build that 2018 team to the point where it was going to be hard to reload internally, but it's also true that a lot of the pieces were in place to contend for a long time. The mistakes of the 2018-19 offseason compounded the lack of system depth and are really what necessitated the Betts trade and cause the 2020 team to be so awful. Fortunately, Eovaldi rebounded well after the 2019 stuff, and Sale looks to be healthy again. But it was a double whammy of giving up a lot of talent to get guys like Sale, Eovaldi, Pearce, Nunez, and THEN paying too much money for Sale, Eovaldi, Pearce, Nunez, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 30, 2021 14:55:51 GMT -5
N.B. Here are the top six MLB payrolls from 2021, per Spotrac:
LAD - $271.2m MFY - $205.7m NYM - $201.2m HOU - $194.4m PHI - $189.9m BOS - $189.5m
The LAD payroll was $65.5m more than the 2nd highest, MFY. The MFYs payroll was $64.7m more than the 15th highest, CHW.
Do I want BOS to be more like LAD? Hell, yeah! When the tax man's away, the Dodgers will pay!
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 14:58:42 GMT -5
$43 million dollars per year just isn't a good value for someone like Scherzer. He put up 5.2 bWAR / 5.4 fWAR last year. If you assume a ballpark $6-8 million per WAR on the free agent market, $43 million dollars is on the high end of what you'd want to pay for that kind of production. Even if Scherzer stays healthy and keeps pitching at 2021 levels for the next three years, you're still only getting mediocre value out of that contract. In the likely event that he declines or gets injured, though, all of a sudden that's a contract that will hurt the team for the next few years.
I would much rather spread that cash over multiple FAs. If the Sox had few holes, it would be more valuable to concentrate that WAR in one roster slot; other FAs just wouldn't provide enough of a differential over their existing guys to move the needle enough. As it turns out, though, the Sox still have at least a rotation spot and a few bullpen spots open and could benefit from a solid middle infielder. I would much rather fill all of those holes than pay Scherzer. If everything's humming by August and you need someone elite to take you over the top, maybe consider a rental then.
Granted, if FSG wanted to channel Steve Cohen and just not care about money anymore, then sure, go get Scherzer and literally anyone else who isn't signing a several-year contract. That's not how baseball teams normally work, though. Usually a bad contract results in fewer dollars spent on FAs and a weaker team as a result.
$6-$8 million is an underestimate, isn't it?
This also reminds me of a point I just came across in a Kevin Goldstein chat: I also think there's a premium to be paid for the value that ace starters provide in the playoffs that goes beyond WAR.
Re: $/WAR It depends how you look at it, I suppose - I'm seeing some numbers in the $4-6 million per WAR range and others at >$10 million. I had $6-8 million in my mind, I think from this article (although it gets closer to $9 million if you count the value of QOs). It's hard to find a system where that Scherzer contract looks like a good value, though.
I defintely agree that it's more valuable to have more WAR in one slot than spreading it around, but I also think that falls down a bit when signing that elite guy means having glaring holes in the rest of the roster you're no longer able/willing to fill. For the Sox, I feel there are good performance margins to be had even when signing league average FAs at these positions of need. A few good bullpen arms, a mid-rotation starter, and a solid defensive middle infielder would go a long way. Having a guy like Scherzer in the playoffs is amazing, especially when his arm isn't dead, but you also have to get there first, and without major exploitable weaknesses.
I also just can't help but see this deal in the context of Erod's deal. Erod's Steamer projection is 3.5 fWAR in 2022 compared to 5.1 fWAR for Scherzer. Is that 1.6 fWAR worth an additional $28 million AAV, especially when Scherzer's the one more at risk of decline? Yes I'd rather have Scherzer in the playoffs in a vacuum, but I'd take Erod if it meant also having an elite middle infielder and a high leverage bullpen arm. I admit a lot of these recent contracts have been monstrous and make Erod's deal look team-friendly, but still.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 30, 2021 15:01:59 GMT -5
Well you'll get no argument from me that letting Rodriguez go was a good idea; I also like him at 5/77 better than Scherzer at 3/bajillion. But we're talking about Scherzer in isolation.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Nov 30, 2021 15:12:35 GMT -5
$6-$8 million is an underestimate, isn't it? This also reminds me of a point I just came across in a Kevin Goldstein chat: I also think there's a premium to be paid for the value that ace starters provide in the playoffs that goes beyond WAR.
Re: $/WAR It depends how you look at it, I suppose - I'm seeing some numbers in the $4-6 million per WAR range and others at >$10 million. I had $6-8 million in my mind, I think from this article (although it gets closer to $9 million if you count the value of QOs). It's hard to find a system where that Scherzer contract looks like a good value, though. I defintely agree that it's more valuable to have more WAR in one slot than spreading it around, but I also think that falls down a bit when signing that elite guy means having glaring holes in the rest of the roster you're no longer able/willing to fill. For the Sox, I feel there are good performance margins to be had even when signing league average FAs at these positions of need. A few good bullpen arms, a mid-rotation starter, and a solid defensive middle infielder would go a long way. Having a guy like Scherzer in the playoffs is amazing, especially when his arm isn't dead, but you also have to get there first, and without major exploitable weaknesses. I also just can't help but see this deal in the context of Erod's deal. Erod's Steamer projection is 3.5 fWAR in 2022 compared to 5.1 fWAR for Scherzer. Is that 1.6 fWAR worth an additional $28 million AAV, especially when Scherzer's the one more at risk of decline? Yes I'd rather have Scherzer in the playoffs in a vacuum, but I'd take Erod if it meant also having an elite middle infielder and a high leverage bullpen arm. I admit a lot of these recent contracts have been monstrous and make Erod's deal look team-friendly, but still.
Essentially 4-6M per WAR is the "true cost" (i.e. the pure financial number) - salaries are roughly 5B and there are 1000 WAR available. But the inequity between cost-controlled talent and free agents is what makes there be a spread that pushes free agency WAR up to 8M. By saving per-WAR on cost-controlled talent, they are over-spending per-WAR on free agents relative to what I call the true cost per WAR. This was my point yesterday in a separate comment, I hope that the average salary in the new CBA rises because teams pay a lot closer to 8M per-WAR on cost-controlled talent rather than them spending more per-WAR on free agent talent. The magnitude of difference in cost-per-WAR by years of experience is disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 15:16:50 GMT -5
The reason why no one is winning back to back is exactly my point. The playoffs are a crap shoot. You need to sit at the table more often if you want to win rather than going all in to make your 50/50s into 60/40s. You're talking about small sample sizes here. The Red Sox are not going to win every WS they make for all eternity. Saying "scoreboard" basically ignores how much luck goes into WS wins. I would much rather stick to the Dodgers model. 9 straight playoff appearances, 3 WS appearances in the last five years, and they still have both a solid farm and a solid MLB roster. That is so much more fun as a fan than alternating between first place and last place, even when you have the ridiculous good fortune of converting 10 playoff appearances into 4 WS titles. The only Sox WS team that was clearly the best team in baseball over the course of the season was the 2018 team. The others were very good teams among a handful of other very good teams and happened to rise to the top. Only 4 of the last 20 WS (or 6, if you count ties for best record) were won by the team with the best overall record in the regular season. 7 were won by WC teams. When you consider that there are always two WC teams in the round of 8, it's more like a 3.5/20 win rate per WC slot, but that's still close to the win rate for the best overall team. Lesson: if you boom and bust, you will probably not win the WS during the boom and you will definitely bust regardless. The Sox are far from the only team following the boom and bust model. The Sox are just fortunate to have won so frequently recently. It definitely doesn't make it a better model for winning the WS than making the playoffs year after year. Dunno. If your argument is that the Sox won four championships but they didn't do it the "right way," I don't know what to tell you. People my age, who suffered for decades before finally tasting victory, might say "I'd rather be lucky than good." Would I like the Sox to emulate the LAD model? Well, whether I want them to or not, they're already doing it by poaching a TB executive onto a big-market team (and soon they'll have more of Chaim's TB boys reporting to Jersey Street, as the no-coattails period will be ending). But sure, I'd like to have a deep playoff run every year.
But I still believe that when you know you're close, you need to push the chips to the middle of the table to go from 60/40 to 65/35 -- which is exactly what LAD has done, e.g outbidding the world to sign Bauer; giving up assets at the trade deadline for Machado, Betts, Scherzer, Trea Turner; paying top dollar to keep Betts, Kershaw.
It's not like they have some secret formula for trading prospects for rentals or paying stars big money. Of course, they did a good job of amassing the assets that they flipped but the rest of that was straight cash, homie. [N.B. LAD's farm system is now ranked 13th by FG and falling, while BOS is at 9 and rising.] They've also had their share of luck, e.g. Justin Turner agreeing to hometown discounts.
Will I be as happy with Chaim's Sox in 5-10 years if they've won a lot of regular season games but never grabbed the brass ring, compared to the Theo, Cherry, and DD Sox who each won it all, with a very different group of players every time? Again, dunno, but I sure like the feeling of watching them spray each other with champagne, regardless of what happens the following season. I'm not saying we didn't do things the "right" way, just that we're fortunate to have won as many championships as we have recently given the teams we've fielded. My point is that winning four WS this century doesn't mean that booming and busting is the most efficient method for winning them; I'd argue it isn't and that what the Dodgers have done for the past decade or so is the better method in the long run.
I do agree the Dodgers have gotten some luck and they have developed and identified talent well, but the blueprint is very much there. They have not, to this point, made deals that will jeopardize their long term success. When they're giving up top prospects, it's because their farm is insanely deep and their major league roster is already robust. Those are the times when it makes sense to ball out on a guy like Scherzer. The Sox wouldn't have had a strong enough farm to buy him and Turner in the first place at the 2021 deadline, never mind buying them and having a solid farm left afterwards. Similarly, this Sox team has way more holes than that Dodgers squad had, meaning that balling out for one FA probably wouldn't be enough to put the team over the top.
There are certainly times where I'd agree with chasing the 65/35 instead of the 60/40, but when you are in a boom/bust cycle, half of the time your chances are 0%. I don't think it's worth sacrificing a seat at the table to have marginally better odds one year. I think it makes the most sense to increase those odds when you have enough depth to still keep the train rolling, and that's been the LA model.
---
TL;DR My basic point is right out of Moneyball. 162 games is usually enough for the strongest teams to rise to the top, so going all in to build a wrecking squad could well reward you with one of the best records in the majors. 5 or 7 games simply are not enough for the more talented team to reliably win. With that in mind, making the playoffs as often as possible is probably the best strategy, even if making them less often would give you better odds each time you do make it.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 15:29:56 GMT -5
The problem with spreading it around to other free agents is that there are zero guys signing three year deals who are going to add up to Scherzer's value. Like, maybe you'd prefer Semien plus a $18 million per year pitcher in the short term - I don't know that Semien is a better chance to hold his value in the short term than Scherzer, but let's say it is - that's fine in the short term, but then you're also paying Semien $25M in 2028. Scherzer allows them to flex their financial strength in a way that doesn't have a long-term consequence, something that no other free agents anywhere near that class can offer. Also, inacandenza is correct, $6M is absolutely a low estimate on $/WAR, I'd have $7M as about the lower bound. But more importantly is the other bit, a single six-win player is worth more than six one-win players, because now you have thousands of other at-bats to try to pick up excess value. The trick about "wins over replacement player" is how good your general manager is at getting value out of "replacement player." If you've got a guy who can get Christian Arroyo and Garrett Whitlock essentially for free then you're in good shape, and it underscores why you don't pay a 1-win player the effective $/WAR cost. ------ As to this aside about how responsible the 2018 team was for the 2019-2020 swoon (collapse?) - I think both sides kind of are correct. Dombrowski really hollowed out the system depth to build that 2018 team to the point where it was going to be hard to reload internally, but it's also true that a lot of the pieces were in place to contend for a long time. The mistakes of the 2018-19 offseason compounded the lack of system depth and are really what necessitated the Betts trade and cause the 2020 team to be so awful. Fortunately, Eovaldi rebounded well after the 2019 stuff, and Sale looks to be healthy again. But it was a double whammy of giving up a lot of talent to get guys like Sale, Eovaldi, Pearce, Nunez, and THEN paying too much money for Sale, Eovaldi, Pearce, Nunez, etc. That's a good point. I would argue that the risk of a decline from a 37 y/o whose season just ended with a dead arm is higher than the risk of a longer contract at lower AAV for a younger player (not Semien specifically btw - that deal worries me for Texas). Still, when so many players are getting silly money in FA, maybe this is just a sign of the times.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 30, 2021 16:11:02 GMT -5
Former Yankee Clint Frazier has signed on with the Cubs. The Rays are discussing Kiermaier and Wendle in trades. I'd like Wendle in Boston as a 2b but I don't see Tampa making a deal with the Sox unless they make it hurt a bit. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/11/rays-trade-rumors-joey-wendle-kevin-kiermaier-phillies.htmlAlso Robert Perez signed with the Pirates, replacing Jacob Stallings who was dealt to the Marlins. And the Cubs signed Yan Gomes so it's a matter of time before Wilson Contreras is traded.
|
|
|
Post by prospectlove on Nov 30, 2021 16:59:46 GMT -5
Anybody else slightly disappointed we didn't sign Baez?? I know he strikes out a lot. I also know he has serious power and I just feel he could have hit better in Fenway. Plus he would have protected us from losing Boogarts (which with Boras as an agent just could always happen). I like what Bloom has been able to do with Red Sox, especially how he's establishing real minor league depth with real impact minor leaguers. BUT I hope we don't turn into the team of mid range players without true stars. (and I realize we have Sale, JD, Boogarts, Devers) but I also worry JD will be gone along with Boogarts next year and Devers will want a high end contract after that. I'm clearly overreacting in concerns before the off season can even play out, just a small concern also (and again I like how Bloom has built the team also).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 30, 2021 17:30:42 GMT -5
Anybody else slightly disappointed we didn't sign Baez?? I know he strikes out a lot. I also know he has serious power and I just feel he could have hit better in Fenway. Plus he would have protected us from losing Boogarts (which with Boras as an agent just could always happen). I like what Bloom has been able to do with Red Sox, especially how he's establishing real minor league depth with real impact minor leaguers. BUT I hope we don't turn into the team of mid range players without true stars. (and I realize we have Sale, JD, Boogarts, Devers) but I also worry JD will be gone along with Boogarts next year and Devers will want a high end contract after that. I'm clearly overreacting in concerns before the off season can even play out, just a small concern also (and again I like how Bloom has built the team also). I view Baez as the sort of mid-level guy you dread. Happy they didn’t sign him. I prefer either cheap flyers or A+ guys like Scherzer. Expensive guys in the middle seem like the worst path. No Baez, no Semien etc.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 30, 2021 18:17:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 30, 2021 18:26:29 GMT -5
I know the Rays were unlikely to deal wendle to the sox but I would have been fine giving up something comparable for a solid 2nd baseman.
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Nov 30, 2021 18:26:40 GMT -5
That's the problem with the Ray's. The get better by adding Kluber and then shed salary by trading away a good player like Wendle. That strategy doesn't work if you're serious about a title.
They won't win anything until they move out of that park and probably out of that city.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 30, 2021 19:23:44 GMT -5
That's the problem with the Ray's. The get better by adding Kluber and then shed salary by trading away a good player like Wendle. That strategy doesn't work if you're serious about a title. They won't win anything until they move out of that park and probably out of that city. He's basically a 31-year-old utility infielder who figures to make $4 million and they are loaded with young infield talent (some of which they just invested $180 million in). Why should they keep him? Might as well use him to drop another ping pong ball into the prospect lottery.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 30, 2021 19:27:08 GMT -5
Rougned Odor staying in the division by signing with the Orioles ranks high on the worst news of the offseason
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 30, 2021 19:34:43 GMT -5
Rougned Odor staying in the division by signing with the Orioles ranks high on the worst news of the offseason Classic Orioles.
|
|
|