The Beckett Deal Revisited (or is it The Ramirez Deal?)

[ORS]

How much of an acceptance of lost value should we place on our trades, ORS?

 

I understand the concept of "win-win," which could be explained through concentration of value: Boston got more talent in 2006-2007, while Florida got more talent if 2008-2011 were considered. Still, Boston lost value: if we overlook that, we're failing to assess our trades objectively.

They certainly lost value, but at what cost? Has the value lost and assigned to Beckett resulted in avoidance of expense to fill in the gaps where the farm isn't producing? It's only been a year, but the answer is a pretty clear "No" with the big offseason last year. They got all three big FAs they targeted, rightly or wrongly, last year. That value starts to carry weight only when it is preventing future moves, IMO. We haven't seen that yet, so that's why I don't think it's particularly relevant to this consideration.

[Rdsxmbnt]

But if you look at that trade rationally it wasn't by any means a loss, it was one of the best trades in Red Sox history. The Red Sox traded for Pedro with the intent of signing him to a big contract and anchoring the rotation for the forseeable future. Same exact thing with Beckett, the Red Sox traded two highly prized prospects for him, with the intent that this guy is going to anchor our rotation for the next 5 or so years which is exactly what they ended up accomplishing.

[Jayhawk Bill]

They certainly lost value' date=' but at what cost? Has the value lost and assigned to Beckett resulted in avoidance of expense to fill in the gaps where the farm isn't producing? It's only been a year, but the answer is a pretty clear "No" with the big offseason last year. They got all three big FAs they targeted, rightly or wrongly, last year. That value starts to carry weight only when it is preventing future moves, IMO. We haven't seen that yet, so that's why I don't think it's particularly relevant to this consideration.[/quote']

 

But the salary expense HAS prevented moves.

 

You're discounting all the moves that were never made because salary was already at the CBT threshold. They never made the press; they were never options because salary was already too high. That's why I include salary in the calculus as well as talent: ignoring that ignores the extra talent that those dollars could bring.

 

*****************************************************************

 

But if you look at that trade rationally it wasn't by any means a loss, it was one of the best trades in Red Sox history. The Red Sox traded for Pedro with the intent of signing him to a big contract and anchoring the rotation for the forseeable future.

 

Would you say that if Pedro had refused the extension? The extension that was the richest contract ever offered an MLB pitcher to that date?

 

The extension was separate from the trade. You're combining the two.

 

Same exact thing with Beckett, the Red Sox traded two highly prized prospects for him, with the intent that this guy is going to anchor our rotation for the next 5 or so years which is exactly what they ended up accomplishing.

 

I agree: same exact thing. The contract extension is still separate from the trade.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Would you say that if Pedro had refused the extension? The extension that was the richest contract ever offered an MLB pitcher to that date?

 

The extension was separate from the trade. You're combining the two.

 

What if Hanley continues to disappoint in the minors and never becomes a superstar?

 

That's a risk you take when you make a trade, as is a player refusing an extension. They are risks associated with a trade, IMO not seperate.

 

What if Pedro refuses the extension? Expos win it.

What if Pedro accepts the extension? Red Sox win, he did, and they won.

[Jayhawk Bill]

What if Hanley continues to disappoint in the minors and never becomes a superstar?

 

That's a risk you take when you make a trade, as is a player refusing an extension. They are risks associated with a trade, IMO not seperate.

 

What if Pedro refuses the extension? Expos win it.

What if Pedro accepts the extension? Red Sox win, he did, and they won.

 

Well, the performance of the players involved in a trade should, IMO, be considered distinct from the performance of the GM following the trade.

 

The Expos won the trade; Boston made an excellent potential free agent signing when they inked Pedro to a then-record deal.

 

***

 

Back on topic, it took less to sign Beckett than it did to sign Pedro. Same concept applies. Had Hanley disappointed, it would have gone differently; had Lowell continued to struggle or Sanchez not struggled in 2007, fewer would disagree with my position.

 

It's still a trade of contracts of limited duration and differing salaries. Those periods of obligation and dollars matter, as does performance.

[TedWilliams101]

Hawk, the thing you are missing is that teams general trade to improve an ASPECT of a team. In our case, it was pitching. Tell me, how does Hanley make our pitching better?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Hawk' date=' the thing you are missing is that teams general trade to improve an ASPECT of a team. In our case, it was pitching. Tell me, how does Hanley make our pitching better?[/quote']

 

I understand what you're saying, and in other circumstances it holds greater importance. Certainly, for example, if Boston trades either Crisp or Ellsbury, they retain an excellent center fielder.

 

But Boston had surrendered Renteria in order to get Crisp via Marte. How did getting either Beckett or Lowell address our perennial problem at shortstop that persisted through 2007? :dunno:

[a700hitter]

How much of an acceptance of lost value should we place on our trades, ORS?

 

I understand the concept of "win-win," which could be explained through concentration of value: Boston got more talent in 2006-2007, while Florida got more talent if 2008-2011 were considered. Still, Boston lost value: if we overlook that, we're failing to assess our trades objectively.

 

 

 

ORS, I think that 700's entry into this thread was an assertion that AJ Burnett's address was the DL, implying that I was stupid to mention him as equivalent value to Josh Beckett. If 700 were to choose his attacks more carefully, he might not be made to look so stupid himself when the facts regarding Burnett's and Beckett's two-year ERAs are posted.

 

Willis? Dunno. Don't care. My point is that the trade for Lowell and Beckett resulted in a long-term loss of talent for Boston.

God you are a nasty prick. Now that's an attack. Saying that Burnett's address is the DL is not an attack. Drop the venom from your posts, take the chip off your patheitic little weanie shoulder, and we can have some adult discourse.

[TedWilliams101]

I understand what you're saying, and in other circumstances it holds greater importance. Certainly, for example, if Boston trades either Crisp or Ellsbury, they retain an excellent center fielder.

 

But Boston had surrendered Renteria in order to get Crisp via Marte. How did getting either Beckett or Lowell address our perennial problem at shortstop that persisted through 2007? :dunno:

 

I think our SS probably should have stopped at Renteria or Gonzo. I liked Gonzo at SS. To tell you the truth, I believed in Coco. I'd really like to know just how much his wrist injury in 06 effected his swing and confidence.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I think our SS probably should have stopped at Renteria or Gonzo. I liked Gonzo at SS. To tell you the truth' date=' I believed in Coco. I'd really like to know just how much his wrist injury in 06 effected his swing and confidence.[/quote']

 

In retrospect, it seems that Renteria might've been injured in 2005 and that Tito asked him to/made him play through it because there were few options and because the race was so close.

 

Alex Gonzalez was great at plays within his zone, but he was terrible at positioning himself for various hitters or for ranging outside his zone. I regarded him as an average fielder and a substandard batter; I wasn't sorry to see him leave.

 

Regarding Coco, his career batting line is .280/.329/.409. His second-half split this year was .272/.340/.377--I think that he's over his injury, and that his second-half stats reflect his ability fairly well.

 

[/tangent]

[CrespoBlows]

God you are a nasty prick. Now that's an attack. Saying that Burnett's address is the DL is not an attack. Drop the venom from your posts' date=' take the chip off your patheitic little weanie shoulder, and we can have some adult discourse.[/quote']

 

 

That's kind of ironic.

[rician blast]

We SHOULD be extremely pleased that Boston won the World Series in 2007. We shouldn't begin to believe that every trade we made leading up to the World Series was a winning trade just because we won the World Series, though.

 

Let me be a little more clear here.

 

I'm sure much of the analysis being presented here is the same type of analysis that is being done in FO's across MLB. What I think is missing from the analysis is the issue of, for lack of a better term, "sacrifice"...acceptance that you may be giving up greater value...based on some critieria...in the future for what gives you a better chance to win now or soon.

 

While you'll not often hear a FO acknowledge that they may be giving up greater future talent for a shot to win now, that is exactly what happens in reality. So I guess my point is that the Sox FO may very well do similar analysis to what I've seen in this thread and ultimately determine that the trade works out better, in later years, for the Marlins based upon certain criteria. Yet the bottom line is that the Red Sox accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish by winning the '07 WS and still having their ace pitcher in the fold. That being said, I'd "sacrifice" the value that included Hanley et al in exchange for those acquired players who were absolutely integral to the 2007 WS title any day.

 

It's not even close.

 

One other thought...if some MLB sabermetrician approached the Sox FO and showed them an analysis that indicated the Marlins likely got the best of the trade I'm guessing the Sox FO would chuckle and tell him to get lost...as they polish their WS rings.

[Jayhawk Bill]

One other thought...if some MLB sabermetrician approached the Sox FO and showed them an analysis that indicated the Marlins likely got the best of the trade I'm guessing the Sox FO would chuckle and tell him to get lost...as they polish their WS rings.

 

Last things first. My suspicion is that they wouldn't reveal their internal metrics, but that they already know that they lost the trade. I bet that they had no idea that Hanley Ramirez would become an MVP-level talent the very next year, and that they'd have undone the trade in a heartbeat had they known that.

 

Let me be a little more clear here.

 

I'm sure much of the analysis being presented here is the same type of analysis that is being done in FO's across MLB.

 

Yes, it is. It would be more accurate if I included discount rates for future salary obligations and considered tax ramifications, but what I'm showing you is what better Front Offices almost certainly do when considering player trades.

 

What I think is missing from the analysis is the issue of, for lack of a better term, "sacrifice"...acceptance that you may be giving up greater value...based on some critieria...in the future for what gives you a better chance to win now or soon.

 

While you'll not often hear a FO acknowledge that they may be giving up greater future talent for a shot to win now, that is exactly what happens in reality.

 

It definitely happens. Most MLB teams don't have the resources to compete every year, and they should be working on 4-6 year cycles to bring their talent to a maximum and reach the postseason. The Twins and, especially, the Florida Marlins have done this well.

 

If you look back I've posted that the trade could be defended through "concentration of talent." That's what I'm getting at--we're not disagreeing there.

 

So I guess my point is that the Sox FO may very well do similar analysis to what I've seen in this thread and ultimately determine that the trade works out better, in later years, for the Marlins based upon certain criteria. Yet the bottom line is that the Red Sox accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish by winning the '07 WS and still having their ace pitcher in the fold. That being said, I'd "sacrifice" the value that included Hanley et al in exchange for those acquired players who were absolutely integral to the 2007 WS title any day.

 

It's not even close.

 

And here's where we disagree.

 

What years are you willing to concede to the Yankees as a Red Sox fan? 2008? 2008 and 2009?

 

See, the Red Sox are one of the few teams whose strategy is to contend every year. Some years, such as 2006, go less well than anticipated. But the goal every year is to contend for the AL East and the Wild Card. Look at all of the veteran players brought in for bit roles in 2006--had the organization been rebuilding, minor league players would have gotten all of that playing time.

 

Boston aims to contend every year. Giving away low-priced, durable talent isn't a hallmark of this FO: despite inheriting a farm system almost bereft of talent, it looks as if Youkilis, Papelbon, Pedroia, Ellsbury and Lester will all be playing big roles for the 2008 Red Sox. That's essential for such a strategy: the core of a successful perennial contender is almost always players in their primes, and players' primes usually come before their free agency.

 

Boston gave away more talent than it received in the trade under discussion, and it accepted a much higher annual salary obligation in doing so. For a team that wants to contend perennially, that's not a win.

 

Even if the 2007 World Championship Trophy makes it clear that the results weren't catastrophic by any stretch (as I alluded in my first post in this thread), the trade still wasn't a win.

[MANNYHOF24]

No free agent talent? AJ Burnett says "Hi."

 

So you massively over pay for Burnett instead of getting a better pitcher in Beckett for much less money. Seriously this trade was good for Boston.

[riverside sluggers]

Beckett the Cy Young contender carried the pitching staff throughout the season, and then was just f***ing nasty in the days of October. He is owed just $20 million over 2 years (extension should come next offseason) and might I remind that he is still 27 years old. How often does premier pitching come available? Lowell while yes has reached his peak, was clearly the MVP of the 2007 Red Sox. When Manny went down he admirably filled the #4 hole during September when the Yankees were making things interesting

 

Hanley was a big loss but whose to say he wont ever become a Red Sox? Anyways, ask any GM if they would pull off a deal that would give them a pitcher that could be ace of any staff... the trigger would be pulled

 

Long term loss of talent for Boston? lol, oh yes the Sox and the minor league teams will be thrown back into the dark ages

[Jayhawk Bill]

So you massively over pay for Burnett instead of getting a better pitcher in Beckett for much less money. Seriously this trade was good for Boston.

 

Josh Beckett's contract extension was for an AAV of $10 million a year. AJ Burnett's contract was for an AAV of $11 million a year. Now let's check VORP:

 

Beckett:

 

2006 19.9

2007 58.6

 

Total 78.5

 

Burnett

 

2006 25.3

2007 37.5

 

Total 62.8

 

Certainly Beckett was better--sixteen runs better over two years. But Burnett came, essentially, for free (nothing but a draft pick), whereas Beckett came at a price of four prospects including cost-controlled superstar Hanley Ramirez. Burnett has been an excellent pitcher for two years, better than Beckett in 2006.

 

"Massively overpay?" "Much less money?" Hyperbole. For a few more dollars, Boston could've had a pitcher almost as good without surrendering a young HOF candidate.

 

Beckett the Cy Young contender carried the pitching staff throughout the season, and then was just f***ing nasty in the days of October. He is owed just $20 million over 2 years (extension should come next offseason) and might I remind that he is still 27 years old. How often does premier pitching come available? Lowell while yes has reached his peak, was clearly the MVP of the 2007 Red Sox. When Manny went down he admirably filled the #4 hole during September when the Yankees were making things interesting

 

Hanley was a big loss but whose to say he wont ever become a Red Sox? Anyways, ask any GM if they would pull off a deal that would give them a pitcher that could be ace of any staff... the trigger would be pulled

 

You're counting not only the extension to Beckett's contract but also the chance of signing Hanley Ramirez as a free agent. Neither was part of the trade--and Boston's chance of getting Hanley Ramirez back someday is very, very slim.

 

But regarding the last point, "Anyways, ask any GM if they would pull off a deal that would give them a pitcher that could be ace of any staff... the trigger would be pulled," we both know that it's a cost-benefit issue. One great pitcher without a remaining ballclub is useless: look at Johan Santana this year or, my favorite, Steve Carlton 1972.

 

Look at the discussion here regarding a potential trade for Johan Santana--what is one year of the probable best pitcher in MLB worth? The future of both Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz? No way.

 

Long term loss of talent for Boston? lol, oh yes the Sox and the minor league teams will be thrown back into the dark ages.

 

Thank goodness that our supply of minor league talent is limitless. :thumbdown

 

And thank goodness that Julio Lugo was such an effective shortstop at such low cost--upon reflection, I guess that I can see why nobody misses Hanley Ramirez.

[Varitek33]

Hanley has been ridiculous but I think the Sox have a better record with Beckett than they would with Hanley right now. The pitching in the NL is generally worse as well so I'd be curious to see how Hanley would do in the AL. Could have a bit of a Renteria/Drew effect

 

 

That is a serious factor when considering who got the better end of the deal.

[MANNYHOF24]

A.J. Burnet is not almost as good as Josh Beckett. Maybe they have similar stuff, but Beckett has put it together and is much more reliable than Burnett. The Red Sox DO NOT WIN THE WORLD SERIES without Josh Beckett period.

[MANNYHOF24]

But regarding the last point, "Anyways, ask any GM if they would pull off a deal that would give them a pitcher that could be ace of any staff... the trigger would be pulled," we both know that it's a cost-benefit issue. One great pitcher without a remaining ballclub is useless: look at Johan Santana this year or, my favorite, Steve Carlton 1972.

 

But that is exactly the point. The Sox did it because they have the money to put a supporting cast around Beckett. A damn good one I might add. You take the Ace 10/10. The Sox can buy hitting, true Ace pitchers come around once in a while.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Josh Beckett's contract extension was for an AAV of $10 million a year. AJ Burnett's contract was for an AAV of $11 million a year. Now let's check VORP:

 

Beckett:

 

2006 19.9

2007 58.6

 

Total 78.5

 

Burnett

 

2006 25.3

2007 37.5

 

Total 62.8

 

Certainly Beckett was better--sixteen runs better over two years. But Burnett came, essentially, for free (nothing but a draft pick), whereas Beckett came at a price of four prospects including cost-controlled superstar Hanley Ramirez. Burnett has been an excellent pitcher for two years, better than Beckett in 2006.

 

"Massively overpay?" "Much less money?" Hyperbole. For a few more dollars, Boston could've had a pitcher almost as good without surrendering a young HOF candidate.

 

I did notice you wandered away from WARP for this one, any reason?

 

What it does show me is that in two years of AJ Burnett has been slightly better than one season of 07' Josh Beckett, and considering the fact that Josh Beckett just pitched in 4 postseason games, won all of them to the tune of a 1.20 ERA, I'm guessing that completely shifts the balance towards Beckett. That's not even including his 06' season, which despite his struggles was still worth 5.4 wins over a replacement pitcher.

 

 

You're counting not only the extension to Beckett's contract but also the chance of signing Hanley Ramirez as a free agent. Neither was part of the trade--and Boston's chance of getting Hanley Ramirez back someday is very, very slim.

 

But regarding the last point, "Anyways, ask any GM if they would pull off a deal that would give them a pitcher that could be ace of any staff... the trigger would be pulled," we both know that it's a cost-benefit issue. One great pitcher without a remaining ballclub is useless: look at Johan Santana this year or, my favorite, Steve Carlton 1972.

 

Look at the discussion here regarding a potential trade for Johan Santana--what is one year of the probable best pitcher in MLB worth? The future of both Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz? No way.

What is 6-7 years of Johan Santana worth?

 

I'm not advocating trading both Jacoby and Buchholz, but if you can ink Santana to a big extension (much like they did with Pedro) then you have arguably the best RHP and LHP anchoring your rotation for the next 5 years. But of course given your views on trades, it is nearly impossible to trade for a FA to be and actually 'win' the trade.

 

How about refrasing the question to sound like this: Ask any GM of a big-market team with a top 5 offense in baseball and the prospects to get a deal done for an ace (as in a legit top 5-10 pitcher in baseball) and they are probaly going to pull the trigger.

[riverside sluggers]

Lets check the # of times Beckett & Burnett have visited the DL the last 2 seasons. Beckett once visited the DL this past season and that resulted in him missing 2 starts because of an avulsion. If he ends up winning the Cy Young (which he should), are we going to still hear inane arguments about how this trade will bring down the Red Sox in terms of talent. This season truely showed that to win, you need solid pitching. If Beckett wasnt acquired, the 2006 rotation wouldve liked this

 

Curt Schilling (missed 2 weeks in August/September)

David Wells (injured off/on throughout season)

Matt Clement (season ending DL in June, last time pitched)

Bronson Arroyo

Tim Wakefield (out for 2 months)

 

Despite Beckett having a shaky first season in the AL, he remained a rock for last year's rotation. A rock in a sense that he was the only Sox starter to make all of his starts (33). Now I can only look forward to next year's rotation of

 

Beckett

Matsuzaka (should have a bounce back year)

Schilling

Lester

Wakefield (Buchholz down in Pawtucket as solid insurance)

 

After the 2005 season came to a halt, the Sox were looking at a questionable starting staff. Schilling had an injury-marred season that saw him experience with closing, Wells had a good year but getting older with weaky knees, Arroyo a serviceable 4th/5th starter, and Clement had an all-star 1st half but faltered all the way to a disastrous ALDS start.

[Jayhawk Bill]

If Beckett wasnt acquired, the 2006 rotation wouldve liked this

 

Curt Schilling (missed 2 weeks in August/September)

David Wells (injured off/on throughout season)

Matt Clement (season ending DL in June, last time pitched)

Bronson Arroyo

Tim Wakefield (out for 2 months)

 

Despite Beckett having a shaky first season in the AL, he remained a rock for last year's rotation. A rock in a sense that he was the only Sox starter to make all of his starts (33).

 

I hadn't considered the Bronson Arroyo angle. Arroyo was probably the fourth-best starting pitcher in the NL in 2006. If you consider the absence of the Beckett trade to erase the Arroyo trade, you're looking at adding an 8.9 WARP1 season to Boston's pitching in exchange for the loss of Wily Mo Pena...and there's still more than enough money left over to sign AJ Burnett. Wells, Clement, Sanchez and Lester share one spot; the others are Schilling, Arroyo, Wakefield and Burnett.

 

OK, the 2006 Red Sox were an 86-win team. Losing Beckett, Lowell, Wily Mo Pena and Alex Gonzalez costs about 15 wins. Adding Burnett, Arroyo, Sanchez, Hanley Ramirez, and Jeff Bailey adds about 31 wins. (Mohr or Murphy or whomever playing RF/CF at zero WARP1 for zero extra wins.) The Boston Red Sox go 102-60 in 2006, making the ALDS.

 

Removing Arroyo and leaving Wily Mo Pena still gives Boston around 96 wins.

 

Last year Lowell and Beckett were roughly comparable to Ramirez and Sanchez. If the salary dollars that went to Lowell and Beckett go instead to Burnett, Boston's washout 2006 becomes, potentially, a World Series year.

 

Now I can only look forward to next year's rotation of

 

Beckett

Matsuzaka (should have a bounce back year)

Schilling

Lester

Wakefield (Buchholz down in Pawtucket as solid insurance)

 

Should be great! Of course, if Beckett hadn't extended with Boston he'd be a free agent now, so we could instead be looking at

 

Beckett

Burnett

Matsuzaka

Schilling

Wakefield

 

(Lester and Buchholz and Sanchez down in AAA)

 

and Hanley Ramirez at shortstop.

 

The Red Sox DO NOT WIN THE WORLD SERIES without Josh Beckett period.

 

That's an opinion. As an aside, the Red Sox scored 34 runs in Josh Beckett's four postseason starts this year, including 10 and 7 in his two ALCS wins: it's possible that a different pitcher might've somehow eked out a win in those games.

 

The Red Sox do not win the 2006 World Series without Hanley Ramirez. Period. That's a fact.

 

With him, they might well have contended for one more year this decade.

 

*****************************************************************

 

I did notice you wandered away from WARP for this one, any reason?

 

The ability to call up one screen, change one number from 2007 to 2006 and call up the other, plus run-denomination. It's quicker with two starting pitchers to use VORP, whereas you've got to use WARP once defense is a major factor. Lowell would look worse and Hanley Ramirez would look better if defense weren't considered.

 

Checking WARP1, though, the difference would be greater, because the DT cards give a little more credit for Beckett's extra IP each year and because WARP1 counts Beckett's very solid hitting in 2006 (even in tiny samples, .429/.429/.857 counts a bit in one's favor). It's single-digit runs each year, but it adds up to over a win across two years.

 

Good catch; thanks for raising the point.

 

*****************************************************************

 

My purpose in bumping this thread was to point out that trades need to be evaluated over several criteria:

 

1) Talent gained over replacement level;

 

2) Years (or months) and postseasons through which that talent would be available; and

 

3) Payroll impact.

 

If one discounts the extra years that Florida will get from the players it received, or if one adds contract extensions purchased at free agency value to the value received via trade, and especially if one disregards the talent that could be acquired if payrolls were lessened, then trading prospects for veterans usually looks good. Once those factors are considered, it usually looks bad.

 

What is 6-7 years of Johan Santana worth?

 

I'm not advocating trading both Jacoby and Buchholz, but if you can ink Santana to a big extension (much like they did with Pedro) then you have arguably the best RHP and LHP anchoring your rotation for the next 5 years. But of course given your views on trades, it is nearly impossible to trade for a FA to be and actually 'win' the trade.

 

If one can negotiate in advance with a player, as Boston did with Curt Schilling, then it's still possible to reach a fair deal. Barring that, one is left hoping that the player will extend, and more and more players are avoiding extensions because the free agent market has become so lucrative. Trading away top prospects for a single year of service is a crap shoot; success in extending Beckett when his value was lowest in mid-2006 doesn't offset the initial risk accepted in making the trade for just a couple of obligated service years.

[Rdsxmbnt]

However you can't really pencil Hanley and Sanchez's production into the 2006 Red Sox because there was a very good chance that neither even got called up to the majors. Hanley in 2005 in AA had a .720 OPS, there was a chance he repeats AA for a while, or starts in AAA. But the chances of him being in the majors, putting up a 7.5 WARP were basically slim to none since he probaly wouldn't have even had the chance. Same with Sanchez who was going to start the season in AAA.

 

EDIT: Arroyo too was probaly a large product of pitching in the NL, I don't think he could be counted on for anything more than a 5.0 WARP for 06'.

[Jayhawk Bill]

However you can't really pencil Hanley and Sanchez's production into the 2006 Red Sox... EDIT: Arroyo too...I don't think he could be counted on

 

 

If one is not allowed to use actual historical performance marks as reasonable proxies for what might've been, it becomes difficult to discuss any comparison of any trade after the fact.

 

Hey, I think that Hanley Ramirez would've done way better batting leadoff with Youkilis, Ortiz and Manny batting behind him, playing at home in Fenway Park instead of some atrocious pitcher-friendly mosquito breeding ground. Of course, unlike my previous analysis, it's speculation without benchmark...but that seems to be better accepted than actual statistics around here sometimes.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Of course' date=' unlike my previous analysis, it's speculation without benchmark...but that seems to be better accepted than actual statistics around here sometimes.[/quote']

 

No that's not true, but give me one example during this owner groups tenure where a position player or SP was given a starting spot directly from AA.

 

I'm going to make a guess that there has never been one, which leads me to believe Hanley and Anabeil would have spent potentially significant portions (if not all of) 2006 in the minors.

 

It's more than fine to use actual performance for past comparisons. However things do not happen in a vacuum, meaning that there is definetly an adjustment from the NL, there is a difference in FO tendencies and it's not as cut and dry as subtracting and adding WARP numbers to determine if a team would have made the playoffs with a specific group of players comparitively to another.

[Ray10]

All I know is that I'm happy with the Beckett deal gave us the best pitcher I have seen in awhile on our starting staff and a WS MVP in 3rd basemen Mike Lowell.

[Jayhawk Bill]

No that's not true...

 

Sure it is--I'm criticizing my own statement regarding "lineup protection." Check the context of the quote you removed.

 

...but give me one example during this owner groups tenure where a position player or SP was given a starting spot directly from AA.

 

Abe Alvarez, 2004.

 

I'm going to make a guess that there has never been one, which leads me to believe Hanley and Anabeil would have spent potentially significant portions (if not all of) 2006 in the minors.

 

Sanchez did spend a big chunk of 2006 in MiLB: his fairly considerable value for Florida was earned in just a fraction of the season.

 

Hanley Ramirez had been brought up for his "cup of coffee" in late 2005. He got little playing time because Boston was trying to earn an ALDS slot in a battle that lasted until the last game of the regular season, but he was brought up for a reason: the FO were tiring of Renteria and were thinking of trading him away.

 

It's more than fine to use actual performance for past comparisons. However things do not happen in a vacuum, meaning that there is definetly an adjustment from the NL, there is a difference in FO tendencies and it's not as cut and dry as subtracting and adding WARP numbers to determine if a team would have made the playoffs with a specific group of players comparitively to another.

 

Perhaps. My detractors here are attesting that there is absolutely no way that Boston would ever have won anything without Beckett and Lowell. No support. No analysis. No consideration of alternatives. Certainly no consideration for 2008-2011 or the potential alternative talent available for Beckett and Lowell's salaries.

 

I kinda think that my analysis is a little more rigorous. Adding and subtracting WARP at least puts one in the right area for projecting wins and losses.

 

If you want to consider actual league factors and actual park factors, go right ahead: but they're not going to change anything by orders of magnitude, and Dolphin Stadium depressed hitting by a whopping five percent 2005-2007, so that would be a big factor increasing Hanley Ramirez's potential value elsewhere.

 

All I know is that I'm happy with the Beckett deal gave us the best pitcher I have seen in awhile on our starting staff and a WS MVP in 3rd basemen Mike Lowell.

 

:thumbsup:

 

There's plenty of cause to be happy.

 

The trade concentrated value in the year 2007. If that's the sole metric one chooses as critical, hey, support Theo if things get bad in the next four years. :dunno:

[Rdsxmbnt]

Sanchez did spend a big chunk of 2006 in MiLB: his fairly considerable value for Florida was earned in just a fraction of the season.

 

Hanley Ramirez had been brought up for his "cup of coffee" in late 2005. He got little playing time because Boston was trying to earn an ALDS slot in a battle that lasted until the last game of the regular season, but he was brought up for a reason: the FO were tiring of Renteria and were thinking of trading him away.

 

Yes Sanchez spent a large portion of 2006 in AA and considering the benchmark for for SP jumping for AA to MLB is one spot start from Abe Alvarez, it would seem Sanchez was destined for AAA and at a bare minimum was probaly looking at 8-10 less starts in the majors, and even then the chances of him matching anywhere near his NL production in the AL is probaly slim.

 

Similar with Hanley, if the FO was seriously considering giving him any consideration to start 2006 as the starting SS, I think he would have gotten more than 2 AB. Again consider the bench mark during this FO's tenure, where ZERO position players have ever been given a starting a spot directly from ST out of AA. Given the FO's tendencies for calling up prospects, his .720 OPS in AA probaly meant he was staying in AA for at least the start of 2006, and probaly called up to AAA mid-season and gotten his cup of coffee in the majors towards the end of the year much like Youkillis, Pedroia, and Ellsbury have all done.

 

Point is you have to consider how this organization deals with young players, and the fact that it is quite different from the Marlins. I think there is reasonable doubt that Hanley and Sanchez in 2006 do not provide nearly the value they provided the Marlins in 2006, and I've stated my reasons for that. I'm of the opinion that given the way things were constructed for 2006 AND the injuries that occurred that we were not going to win the World Series that year.

 

This whole Beckett and Lowell trade IMO was a very good move. Someone could easily point out that Beckett was the ALCS MVP and Lowell was the World Series MVP while Hanley played for a last place team and what would be the counter for that?

 

But it extends past that, and this trade will reap the benefits of having Josh Beckett and possibly Mike Lowell for long past the "two obligated years." Josh Beckett's extension is so cheap compared to the 100+ mil he could get on the open market because the Red Sox had exclusive negotiation rights and Josh Beckett wanted to be on this team because he knew what came with being a Red Sox and liked it. That is a benefit of the trade. If Josh Beckett stays with the Marlins and becomes a FA, there is zero chance he signs a 3yr 30 mil deal on the open market, no chance.

 

Same with Lowell, IF he signs a deal worth 3/39 or something in that area, that is in large accounts a home-town discount given the year he just had. He could probaly get a 4 or 5 year deal with more money per year, and he may very well. However if he does sign that deal then this trade enables you to get 5 years of production from Mike Lowell and the reason he signed that cheaper deal was because he experienced being on the Red Sox and was willing to take a paycut to continue it. We've harped back and forth about extensions being parts of trades, and you are of the opinion that they are completely seperate. However from what I can see this organization thinks quite a bit deeper than that when making deals.

[MANNYHOF24]

 

Abe Alvarez, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

That was a spot start, in a double header. The FO didnt give him a starting role. Nice try though.

[Jayhawk Bill]

 

Abe Alvarez, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

That was a spot start, in a double header. The FO didnt give him a starting role. Nice try though.

 

A spot start is, by definition, a starting role. :harhar:

 

FWIW, note the emoticon with the original answer.

 

Yes Sanchez spent a large portion of 2006 in AA and considering the benchmark for for SP jumping for AA to MLB is one spot start from Abe Alvarez, it would seem Sanchez was destined for AAA and at a bare minimum was probaly looking at 8-10 less starts in the majors, and even then the chances of him matching anywhere near his NL production in the AL is probaly slim.

 

Similar with Hanley, if the FO was seriously considering giving him any consideration to start 2006 as the starting SS, I think he would have gotten more than 2 AB. Again consider the bench mark during this FO's tenure, where ZERO position players have ever been given a starting a spot directly from ST out of AA. Given the FO's tendencies for calling up prospects, his .720 OPS in AA probaly meant he was staying in AA for at least the start of 2006, and probaly called up to AAA mid-season and gotten his cup of coffee in the majors towards the end of the year much like Youkillis, Pedroia, and Ellsbury have all done.

 

Point is you have to consider how this organization deals with young players, and the fact that it is quite different from the Marlins. I think there is reasonable doubt that Hanley and Sanchez in 2006 do not provide nearly the value they provided the Marlins in 2006, and I've stated my reasons for that.

 

How many ROY-eligible AAA players have been given starting roles by this FO, if starting is defined as

 

1) Starting at least 10% of the team's games (16 games, rounding) as a starting pitcher or

2) Ranking first at one's position in games started as a position player?

 

2003: none

2004: none

2005: none

2006: none

2007: Dustin Pedroia

 

No pitcher from MiLB has started more than 15 games for Boston these last five years, AFAIK. That 15-game starter was Jon Lester, 2006, called up as a stopgap in a season that featured 14 different Red Sox starting pitchers and allowed to keep pitching for a while when, after a rough no-decision first start (3 ER in 4.1 IP) he reeled off seven consecutive outstanding starts. He posted a 7.75 ERA in his last seven starts, probably due to weakness from his cancer.

 

Excepting relief pitchers and bench players, Dustin Pedroia and, maybe, Jon Lester are the only two Red Sox players allowed to play as regular starters their rookie seasons. Five years--fourteen positions each year--seventy chances for rookies--only one or two rookies were played regularly.

 

Neither one was a AA player. Of course, it's such a small sample that the point is moot. It's not that Boston doesn't give AA players starting roles: it's that Boston doesn't give rookies starting roles. Even closer Jonathan Papelbon only got that role because he'd proven himself in 2005 (after a mere four starts and three relief opportunities in AAA) and because the established closer, Keith Foulke, was stinking up the joint for the second consecutive year.

 

The point is that Boston has regularly traded away its best rookies for years in return for high-priced veterans. If your point is that we can't criticize the FO for trading away the ROY because with Boston he'd be used, at best, as a bench player, I'd answer that perhaps the refusal to play rookies is an element of the mindset that I'm criticizing.

 

I'm of the opinion that given the way things were constructed for 2006 AND the injuries that occurred that we were not going to win the World Series that year.

 

The biggest part of how things were constructed was the Lowell-and-Beckett for Hanley Ramirez-and-Sanchez trade.

 

Injuries? Yeah, they were an issue. Sure could've used Anibal Sanchez as another starting pitcher and a healthy Hanley Ramirez at shortstop.

 

Someone could easily point out that Beckett was the ALCS MVP and Lowell was the World Series MVP while Hanley played for a last place team and what would be the counter for that?

 

Perhaps asking if you blame Hanley's MVP-caliber play for the fact that his team couldn't compete? Check 2007 payrolls (source USA Today):

 

    New York Mets        	$115,231,663
   Philadelphia Phillies	$89,428,213
   Atlanta Braves        	$87,290,833
   Washington Nationals	$37,347,500
   Florida Marlins        	$30,507,000

 

Now check final standings:

 

89-73 Philadelphia Phillies

88-74 New York Mets

84-78 Atlanta Braves

73-89 Washington Nationals

71-91 Florida Marlins

 

I applaud Josh Beckett's ability to win four games with only 34 runs in support of his efforts. I applaud Mike Lowell's getting six hits in the World Series sweep when his regular-season efforts suggested that he might only have gotten five and when an average MLB player might only have gotten four. I think, though, that average MLB players might've done OK and that Boston might still have won the Postseason without either Lowell or Beckett.

 

But it extends past that, and this trade will reap the benefits of having Josh Beckett and possibly Mike Lowell for long past the "two obligated years." Josh Beckett's extension is so cheap compared to the 100+ mil he could get on the open market because the Red Sox had exclusive negotiation rights and Josh Beckett wanted to be on this team because he knew what came with being a Red Sox and liked it. That is a benefit of the trade. If Josh Beckett stays with the Marlins and becomes a FA, there is zero chance he signs a 3yr 30 mil deal on the open market, no chance.

 

How much is the benefit of "sole negotiating rights" worth in an environment where every player knows what every other player is making and where one's performance for the employer is known so precisely? You're citing $30 million vs. $100 million--do you really believe that sole negotiating rights yield a 70% discount?

 

I'd suggest that there's probably no evidence of any such effect. I've been looking for a study that captured such an effect for years, and I haven't found one. Josh Beckett was struggling in July 2006 when he signed his extension, and the price for free agent pitching was 30% less than it would become just four months later. I think that Theo and the FO locked in Beckett to a great deal when his value was the lowest it had been since, maybe, his 6-7 4.10 ERA rookie year. Beckett thought it a good idea to extend at that moment--maybe he knew something about his health that we didn't and still don't. But I see the great deal from signing Beckett as being good timing, not a huge hometown discount.

 

But if you know of any comprehensive study regarding the comparative value of free agent contracts and non-free agent contracts for players beyond their arb years, I'd be eager to see it--goodness knows that I read less than half of what's written on these things.

 

We've harped back and forth about extensions being parts of trades, and you are of the opinion that they are completely seperate. However from what I can see this organization thinks quite a bit deeper than that when making deals.

 

I wouldn't call speculation that the FO disagrees with me as evidence that they're "deeper thinkers." Of course, YMMV.

 

FWIW, though, a trade is an exchange of contracts and contract rights--anything beyond that isn't included. If the FO gets negotiation rights such as they did with Schilling, it's different; certainly it's possible that there are other discussions and handshake deals to which we're not privy. As a rule, though, expecting hometown discounts shouldn't be considered part of trades...unless there's evidence I'm not aware of that you could cite.