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

[Rdsxmbnt]

Doesn't seem logical to discount Beckett's extension, they wouldn't have given up all that talent for Beckett to hit the road 2 years later. Of course it looks better for Florida because Sanchez + Ramirez project out wins over the course of 12 combined seasons compared to 4 of Beckett + Lowell. Beckett alone could possibly tack another 20+ wins in the next 3 years. It's just really not that cut and dry considering Boston's financial position to Florida, etc.

[MANNYHOF24]

Boston lost the trade. Bummer. We still won a World Series.

 

Nobody lost the trade. It was worked out for both sides. Like I have said earlier in this thread, you can always find hitting in FA or trades but ace pitchers are much harder to find.

[BSN07]

I still say both sides made out. From a buisness end I guess the Marlins saved themselves som money for a few yr until they have to extend Hanley. And at he rate hes going, he will price himself out of FL soon unless they get a stadium or move.

[BoSox21]

Beckett and Lowell were indespensable parts to this year's championship. That, alone, makes them the winners of the trade IMO

[jacksonianmarch]

it was a win win. Boston got a championship and an ace for a long time.

 

The Marlins got probably the most dynamic position player in the game. If both were FAs right now, theyd both command 20 mil a yr salaries.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Doesn't seem logical to discount Beckett's extension' date=' they wouldn't have given up all that talent for Beckett to hit the road 2 years later.[/quote']

 

Except that they did--it took months to work out an extension for Beckett. The trade was for two years of Beckett and two years of Lowell.

 

Of course it looks better for Florida because Sanchez + Ramirez project out wins over the course of 12 combined seasons compared to 4 of Beckett + Lowell. Beckett alone could possibly tack another 20+ wins in the next 3 years.

 

But you can't count post-free agency eligible years added in a later extension as part of the trade. Boston paid free agent pricing for those years. Theo's decision to get Beckett to agree to an extension before free agent values escalated 30% last offseason and Beckett's value escalated maybe 50% this season looks pretty darn good right now--but that wasn't something that Boston received in the trade.

 

But yes, Sanchez and Ramirez each carried six pre-free agency years. That's why Florida wanted them.

 

FWIW, check the estimated salaries for Hanley Ramirez I postulated for 2010 and 2011. Superstars make big money in later arb years; the system projects he'll make $37.9 million those last two years. Unless Florida is on the verge of contending once again, you can bet that Ramirez will be gone for more prospects after one arb year, saving Florida over half of the estimated salary for a mere quarter of the estimated performance...and making Florida win by even more.

 

It's just really not that cut and dry considering Boston's financial position to Florida, etc

 

Rich teams are not obligated to be stupid teams. We shouldn't consider the model of the Yankees to be the requisite strategy for rich teams ; Boston can win trades, too.

 

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

 

Nobody lost the trade. It was worked out for both sides. Like I have said earlier in this thread, you can always find hitting in FA or trades but ace pitchers are much harder to find.

 

Yeah, that's the conventional wisdom. The thing is, AJ Burnett was considered roughly equivalent to Josh Beckett, and he did become available as a free agent, and he signed for not much more than Beckett did while Beckett was in the midst of his 5.01 ERA first season with Boston.

 

Ace starting pitchers are available through free agency. They cost money--but every defender of the trade keeps stating that Boston has money, so it's OK. I disagree; Boston's off-season trades should be made at market value.

 

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

 

Beckett and Lowell were indespensable parts to this year's championship. That, alone, makes them the winners of the trade IMO.

 

Indispensable? Boston could've realistically had AJ Burnett (signed instead of Beckett), Carlos Pena (retained because Youkilis was playing third base), Hanley Ramirez and an additional deadline pickup instead of Lowell, Beckett and Lugo (who would've been superfluous with Hanley Ramirez at shortstop). That would've been a better team than the 2007 Red Sox, largely because Lugo sucked at shortstop and Hanley Ramirez is now MVP-caliber at shortstop, but also because Carlos Pena hit better than Mike Lowell and AJ Burnett had a sub-4.00 ERA just like Josh Beckett.

 

I already gave very considerable credit to Boston for the roles Lowell and Beckett played this postseason. It's just not enough to realistically make the trade a "win."

 

Boston did get greater value in the first two years after the trade than Florida did. If that's the metric you choose--concentrating value into the near future--the trade worked. The challenge is that a strategy of giving away talent through such trades will eventually result in a team bereft of talent for a few years, and Red Sox Nation seemed unwilling to accept a winning, contending third-place season such as 2006, let alone a true rebuilding season.

 

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

 

it was a win win. Boston got a championship and an ace for a long time.

 

Boston got a pitcher for two years who posted a 5.01 ERA last year. Regarding the championship, a few other players helped, too, and the trade wasn't the only path to the 2007 World Series.

 

The Marlins got probably the most dynamic position player in the game. If both were FAs right now, theyd both command 20 mil a yr salaries.

 

Dunno, but I do know that Hanley Ramirez will make roughly MLB minimum next year while Josh Beckett makes $9.5 MM. Whatever their true salary values, Boston is paying $9 million more for their remaining star player...and they only have him because they cut a deal with his agent, else they'd have nothing and the Marlins could have all of the players they'd received in the trade.

[BSN07]

I may be mistaken but didn't the Sox Extend Beckett before the 06 regular season?

[TedWilliams101]

I'd much rather have had Beckett and Lowell the last 2 years, and keep them for the next 3+ years than keeping Hanley and signing AJ Burnett. Burnett is good, but he's not Beckett. Hanley is a great player, but I will take the combo of Beckett/Lowell over him. Maybe when Hanley becomes a FA we can entertain the idea of bringing him back to Boston.

 

But honestly, I think its a win win. We get the probable cy-young Beckett and WS MVP Lowell, both of whom were a big part of the championship. The Marlins got some good young prospects. We already have plenty of prospects, so its not like we needed to hold onto all of them. I would make that trade 100% of the time.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I may be mistaken but didn't the Sox Extend Beckett before the 06 regular season?

 

Per Cot's Contracts it was in July 2006.

 

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/boston-red-sox.html

[TedWilliams101]

Hawk, the sox FO was probably planning on giving Beckett a contract extension when they traded for him.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Hanley is a great player' date=' but I will take the combo of Beckett/Lowell over him.[/quote']

 

But it's Beckett + Lowell + salary...and it's three times as long of both Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez.

 

For 2007? Discounting salary? No contest. For 2006-2011? Counting salary? No contest...but in Florida's direction, not Boston's.

 

Hawk, the sox FO was probably planning on giving Beckett a contract extension when they traded for him.

 

I don't dispute that--but they hadn't agreed to it, and they were negotiating for free agency years. Those years of service can be acquired only at free agency rates.

[TedWilliams101]

Last time I checked, we have a huge payroll to work with. I'm pretty sure that this team doesn't really have to worry about money to that extent...

 

And part of the argument is our needs. The lineup wasn't really in need of a Hanley type of player. We now have Ellsbury to take that type of roll. I think its far more important to have a true Ace of the pitching staff, plus a good 3B, defensively and offensively, than a great SS. Our lineup really just needs a bit more pop. Hanley wouldn't really provide that. Again, I would LOVE to have him on this team, but with Ellsbury taking over in CF and likely becoming our leadoff hitter, he isn't as Necessary to this team as Beckett is.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Last time I checked' date=' we have a huge payroll to work with. I'm pretty sure that this team doesn't really have to worry about money to that extent...[/quote']

 

So why not just sign free agents and keep our young talent, too? :dunno:

[TedWilliams101]

Because Beckett was a far better option than any available FA pitching. And guess what, it turned out that Theo was right about that...

[TedWilliams101]

You're right about there being a money value, but because we can spend more money than everyone (but the Yankees), we have far more options. But again, I am a believer that great pitching is harder to come by and more important than great hitting. Anyways, coming into the 06 season, our lineup wasn't too bad. Its not like Hanley was the answer to the need for more pop... And we were in need of some top pitching.

[Jayhawk Bill]

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

[TedWilliams101]

AJ Burnett can stay on the Jays. I'll take Beckett over him every day of the week.

[a700hitter]

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

The return address on his postcard is the DL.

[Jayhawk Bill]

The return address on his postcard is the DL.

 

Only five fewer starts than Beckett this year...and he posted his second consecutive sub-4.00 ERA, whereas Beckett's ERA was over 5.00 last season.

[Jayhawk Bill]

AJ Burnett can stay on the Jays. I'll take Beckett over him every day of the week.

 

You'll take Beckett over Burnett AND Hanley Ramirez any day of the week?

[a700hitter]

Only five fewer starts than Beckett this year...and he posted his second consecutive sub-4.00 ERA' date=' whereas Beckett's ERA was over 5.00 last season.[/quote']...and we'd probably have lost 4 of those 5 games, easily 2 or 3 more than Beckett would have lost, putting the Red Sox in the Wild Card against Cleveland from which they would probably not emerge victorious in a 5 game series.

[rician blast]

Some of the analysis here is very interesting and really makes you see things differently than you might otherwise.

 

For example, one could be lured into being extremely pleased, perhaps ecstatic in some cases, that the Red Sox won the WS this year, with Beckett perhaps being THE post-season player of the year in MLB...as opposed to understanding that in the long run, based on stats, salaries, terms of contracts, players ages, etc. the Marlins may have somehow come out better in the trade.

 

Lucky for us we're being brought back down to earth.

[a700hitter]

Some of the analysis here is very interesting and really makes you see things differently than you might otherwise.

 

For example, one could be lured into being extremely pleased, perhaps ecstatic in some cases, that the Red Sox won the WS this year, with Beckett perhaps being THE post-season player of the year in MLB...as opposed to understanding that in the long run, based on stats, salaries, terms of contracts, players ages, etc. the Marlins may have somehow come out better in the trade.

 

Lucky for us we're being brought back down to earth.

Great post!

[Jayhawk Bill]

...and we'd probably have lost 4 of those 5 games' date=' easily 2 or 3 more than Beckett would have lost, putting the Red Sox in the Wild Card against Cleveland from which they would probably not emerge victorious in a 5 game series.[/quote']

 

You believe that Boston was a .200 team without its starting five?

 

Boston was 16-6 when pitchers other than its five top starters started games. That's a .727 record... .727 is just a little bit larger than .200.

 

Some of the analysis here is very interesting and really makes you see things differently than you might otherwise.

 

For example, one could be lured into being extremely pleased that the Red Sox won the WS this year, with Beckett perhaps being THE post-season player of the year in MLB...as opposed to understanding that in the long run, based on stats, salaries, terms of contracts, players ages, etc. the Marlins may have somehow come out better in the trade.

 

Lucky for us we're being brought back down to earth.

 

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.

[ORS]

I think the inclusion of performance at cost, $/Marginal Runs, has no place in this discussion. The trade doesn't occur if the teams are capable of absorbing equitable expense for performance, so in as much, if we are going to do it, we ought to at least make an adjustment for that.

 

Moving on from that, I think this is a win-win trade. Both got out of the trade what they were looking to get out of it. Trying to assign "winner" or "loser" status is irrelevant, IMO, because I'd bet my mortage that both teams do it again if offered.

 

For those that are gleefully rubbing it in 700's face that the kids he wanted to trade have performed, I don't get it. How is his idea to trade for Willis any different than getting Beckett?

[a700hitter]

You believe that Boston was a .200 team without its starting five?

 

Boston was 16-6 when pitchers other than its five top starters started games. That's a .727 record... .727 is just a little bit larger than .200.

Then we should trade the entire starting rotation...right?

[Rdsxmbnt]

If you don't count extensions as part of trades, then the Red Sox lost the Pedro Martinez trade?

 

The Red Sox traded for Pedro who was a FA to be, and shortly after signed him to a 6 year contract with an option for a 7th year.

 

Pedro

1998: 9.6 WARP

 

Total wins: 9.6

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Carl Pavano

1998: 2.7 WARP

1999: 2.0 WARP

2000: 3.7 WARP

2001: 0.1 WARP

2002: 0.2 WARP

 

Total Wins = 8.7

 

Tony Armas

2000: 3.2 WARP

2001: 5.1 WARP

2002: 3.8 WARP

2003: 1.3 WARP

2004: 1.1 WARP

 

Total Wins = 14.5

 

Total Wins for Expos = 23.2

Total Wins for Red Sox = 9.6

 

By your methods the Red Sox lost that one which obviously was not how that deal worked out since Pedro went on to have one of the greatest stretches of dominance by anyone in major league history.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I think the inclusion of performance at cost, $/Marginal Runs, has no place in this discussion. The trade doesn't occur if the teams are capable of absorbing equitable expense for performance, so in as much, if we are going to do it, we ought to at least make an adjustment for that.

 

Moving on from that, I think this is a win-win trade. Both got out of the trade what they were looking to get out of it. Trying to assign "winner" or "loser" status is irrelevant, IMO, because I'd bet my mortage that both teams do it again if offered.

 

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.

 

For those that are gleefully rubbing it in 700's face that the kids he wanted to trade have performed, I don't get it. How is his idea to trade for Willis any different than getting Beckett?

 

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.

[Gom]

I hate Scott Boras. Just felt like putting that out there.

[Jayhawk Bill]

If you don't count extensions as part of trades, then the Red Sox lost the Pedro Martinez trade?

 

The Red Sox traded for Pedro who was a FA to be, and shortly after signed him to a 6 year contract with an option for a 7th year.

 

Pedro

1998: 9.6 WARP

 

Total wins: 9.6

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Carl Pavano

1998: 2.7 WARP

1999: 2.0 WARP

2000: 3.7 WARP

2001: 0.1 WARP

2002: 0.2 WARP

 

Total Wins = 8.7

 

Tony Armas

2000: 3.2 WARP

2001: 5.1 WARP

2002: 3.8 WARP

2003: 1.3 WARP

2004: 1.1 WARP

 

Total Wins = 14.5

 

Total Wins for Expos = 23.2

Total Wins for Red Sox = 9.6

 

By your methods the Red Sox lost that one which obviously was not how that deal worked out since Pedro went on to have one of the greatest stretches of dominance by anyone in major league history.

 

Interesting. IIRC, Pavano wasn't a free agent until after 2004, and Armas wasn't until 2005. If the retention of Pedro Martinez a month later had been kinda automatic--with nothing special regarding salary--you might have a point.

 

But here's an article describing the contract Dan Duquette gave Pedro:

 

Greg Maddux's run as the player with the highest salary in baseball history ended yesterday after only four months. The new No. 1 is Pedro Martinez, who won the National League Cy Young award a month ago, then was traded by Montreal a week later, another player whose pay level was getting too rich for the Expos.

 

Martinez reached agreement with the Boston Red Sox yesterday on a six-year contract for $75 million. The average annual value of $12.5 million exceeds by $1 million the average of the five-year contract Maddux agreed to with the Atlanta Braves last Aug. 10.

 

The total value of the Martinez contract falls just short of the highest total of $80,662,000, which Frank Thomas agreed to for nine years with the Chicago White Sox. But as astronomical as the Martinez figures are generally, perhaps most remarkable is the salary he will have in 2004 if the Red Sox exercise their option for a seventh season.

 

It will be $17.5 million.

 

''And the guy doesn't even have a good jump shot,'' one baseball lawyer said, alluding to the similarity between Martinez's contract and those that have proliferated in the National Basketball Association.

 

However it is measured, it is a stunning deal for Martinez, a 26-year-old right-handed pitcher from the Dominican Republic, and it comes at a time of bizarre economics for baseball. On one hand, clubs are paying inflated salaries for free agents, like $35 million over five years for Wilson Alvarez by the expansion Tampa Bay Devil Rays; on the other, the Florida Marlins are dismantling their World Series championship team because they want to halve their payroll.

 

Martinez was not a free agent, but he could have been one after next season, and the Red Sox gambled when they traded a highly prized minor league pitcher for him. But the Red Sox were also intent on retaining Martinez as a way of signaling to their players and fans that they are serious about winning.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E7DC133CF932A25751C1A961958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/M/Martinez,%20Pedro

 

I agree: the trade was a loss. Pedro signed the richest contract of any MLB pitcher to that date, and the willingness to pay Pedro made the trade seem like a winner.