Phillies sign Papelbon

[iortiz]

For Rivera, who has a history of consistency, and no physical issues. If 50/4 is not overpaying for a reliever, then Lackey and Crawford aren't overpaid either.

 

Hey, let's offer Bell 30/2, since 15 is the ceiling.

 

You are twisting the things.

 

If you think that Papelbon can be compared with Lackey, good luck.

[jacksonianmarch]

Not that instance. When the Yankees extended an offer' date=' Boras was holding out for more money and the Yankees pulled the offer back and went with Gardner in LF, forcing Damon to sign with the Tigers.[/quote']

 

I was talking about the time the Yanks signed him.

[Elktonnick]

I think you're reading too much into this. We all knew Papelbon was going to set the market for closers. He did. He didnt want to give the sox a chance to match because he was waiting for a market setting contract. If he got what he wanted' date=' he wasnt going to go back to the sox and ask them to match it. If the sox offered him that contract out of the getgo, then he's still in a sox uniform[/quote']

 

Given the market, I don't see the Sox ever going 4 years for Paps. The Sox FO and I believe Cherington himself may have said that relievers are at best a crap shoot. I get the sense that the Sox have made a strrategic and phiolosophical readjustment. Lackey and Dice-K and some of the other contractual missteps have caused them to break with past practice. A year or two ago if Paps were a FA at this age and after his last year, they may have given him what he wanted. But things have changed. I think that's what is being played out.

[User Name]

I was talking about the time the Yanks signed him.

 

I wasn't.

[User Name]

You are twisting the things.

 

If you think that Papelbon can be compared with Lackey, good luck.

 

The contracts can be compared.

 

An example of twisting things is turning a history of examples of relievers flaming out into "he's a relief ace, he can't fail".

[jung]

Thank you Elk. This Pap "negotiation" was analogous to a chess game where your opponent has 3 moves to checkmate but does not necessarily have to make those 3 moves in a particular order. The result is the same.....checkmate.

[FredLynn]

They will field a competitive team. Judging the team by how it looks in November is foolish.

 

But in the end, winning cures everything so if the team they assemble makes a strong run next year most of the complaining will stop,

 

You still have your chronic bitchers who won't stop complaining no matter how the team does. The type of guy who complains about a team not winning 100 games after they won the WS. Those come with the territory.

 

With luck the FO will realize that this is not going to be anything but a bridge year. And thats fine with me. Its not going to happen overnight folks. There is just too much deadwood on this team for it to be competitive this year IMO.

As for the chronic complaining: ignore it. Its ubiquitous. No one is going to change it.

[jacksonianmarch]

The contracts can be compared.

 

An example of twisting things is turning a history of examples of relievers flaming out into "he's a relief ace, he can't fail".

 

The thing about Papelbon, though, is that in his 6 yrs with the sox, he was both durable and dominant. He's 30, so he isnt over the hill yet and he did it in your environment. I think it all depends on what the sox end up getting. If they sign Madson to a 3 yr contract at big money then they are just idiots. If they stay true to the "crap shoot" idea, then they stuck to their guns. But if they get a guy who is inferior on a big money contract that is slightly cheaper and shorter than Paps deal, then they are idiots

[iortiz]

The contracts can be compared.

 

An example of twisting things is turning a history of examples of relievers flaming out into "he's a relief ace, he can't fail".

 

No, You can not compare them. Lackey was a solid pitcher before coming to Boston and was paid as an Ace. Pap is an ace and wil be paid as an ace.

 

Again, you are mixing oranges with apples.

[User Name]

The thing about Papelbon' date=' though, is that in his 6 yrs with the sox, he was both durable and dominant. He's 30, so he isnt over the hill yet and he did it in your environment. I think it all depends on what the sox end up getting. If they sign Madson to a 3 yr contract at big money then they are just idiots. If they stay true to the "crap shoot" idea, then they stuck to their guns. But if they get a guy who is inferior on a big money contract that is slightly cheaper and shorter than Paps deal, then they are idiots[/quote']

 

Not in 2010, and the shoulder issues are documented. On the rest of your post, i completely agree. If they go for a couple of guys who want to rebuild their value on one-year contracts, then this is really the adoption of a new strategy. And i agree with it. They can't continue to absorb bad contracts.

[jacksonianmarch]

No' date=' You can not compare them. Lackey was a solid pitcher before coming to Boston and was paid as an Ace. Pap is an ace and wil be paid as an ace. [/quote']

 

Lackey had some elbow issues coming in that they knew about and he pitched in the AL West, an inferior division. He's shown that the tougher competition lights him up and the injury has now knocked him out. Papelbon has been durable and dominant in this environment. You need to remember that. You know what you have in Paps. You have no idea how these other FA's will handle the bright lights

[User Name]

No, You can not compare them. Lackey was a solid pitcher before coming to Boston and was paid as an Ace. Pap is an ace and wil be paid as an ace.

 

Again, you are mixing oranges with apples.

 

I'm not comparing the players, i'm comparing the contracts. Do you know what the expression means?

[User Name]

Lackey had some elbow issues coming in that they knew about and he pitched in the AL West' date=' an inferior division. He's shown that the tougher competition lights him up and the injury has now knocked him out. Papelbon has been durable and dominant in this environment. You need to remember that. You know what you have in Paps. You have no idea how these other FA's will handle the bright lights[/quote']

 

I don't buy this. I will bet money that at the end of 2010 you, as a Yankee fan, were pronouncing Papelbon as "done" but have conveniently changed your tune.

[iortiz]

The thing about Papelbon' date=' though, is that in his 6 yrs with the sox, he was both durable and dominant. He's 30, so he isnt over the hill yet and he did it in your environment. I think it all depends on what the sox end up getting. If they sign Madson to a 3 yr contract at big money then they are just idiots. If they stay true to the "crap shoot" idea, then they stuck to their guns. But if they get a guy who is inferior on a big money contract that is slightly cheaper and shorter than Paps deal, then they are idiots[/quote']

 

Exactly.

 

They better be consistant.

[jacksonianmarch]

Not in 2010' date=' and the shoulder issues are documented. On the rest of your post, i completely agree. If they go for a couple of guys who want to rebuild their value on one-year contracts, then this is really the adoption of a new strategy. And i agree with it. They can't continue to absorb bad contracts.[/quote']

 

He had the subluxation of his shoulder, which was scary. But for the past 6 yrs, he had at least 59 appearances per season, which is impressive for a reliever.

[User Name]

He had the subluxation of his shoulder' date=' which was scary. But for the past 6 yrs, he had at least 59 appearances per season, which is impressive for a reliever.[/quote']

 

Yet has never pitched 70 innings.

[jacksonianmarch]

I don't buy this. I will bet money that at the end of 2010 you' date=' as a Yankee fan, were pronouncing Papelbon as "done" but have conveniently changed your tune.[/quote']

 

I didnt think he was done, but I thought that he was no longer in the Rivera conversation. Everyone tried to compare the two, but there really is no comparison with anyone. Rivera has been dominant since 1996, which is impressive.

[iortiz]

Lackey had some elbow issues coming in that they knew about and he pitched in the AL West' date=' an inferior division. He's shown that the tougher competition lights him up and the injury has now knocked him out. Papelbon has been durable and dominant in this environment. You need to remember that. You know what you have in Paps. You have no idea how these other FA's will handle the bright lights[/quote']

 

I couldnt put it better.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yet has never pitched 70 innings.

 

Rivera hasnt done that since 2008, and most relievers who continually run past 70IP end up with some health issues. If you have a real setup man, then you can try and rest your closer. For the last 2 yrs anyway, you've had Bard around so Paps hasnt been needed for too many 1+IP saves, which is really where your closer will start to rack up innings

[Elktonnick]

The thing about Papelbon' date=' though, is that in his 6 yrs with the sox, he was both durable and dominant. He's 30, so he isnt over the hill yet and he did it in your environment. I think it all depends on what the sox end up getting. If they sign Madson to a 3 yr contract at big money then they are just idiots. If they stay true to the "crap shoot" idea, then they stuck to their guns. But if they get a guy who is inferior on a big money contract that is slightly cheaper and shorter than Paps deal, then they are idiots[/quote']

 

Absolutely! we can only read the tea leave until something actually happens. But from watching what they are doing (or not doing) and listening to what they say. They aren't acting or making decisions the same way as in years past. I look for a short-term deal to backfill in case Bard isn't successful as a closer. If they sign Madson for what the Phillies were going to sign him then I'll be disappointed.

[User Name]

Rivera hasnt done that since 2008' date=' and most relievers who continually run past 70IP end up with some health issues. If you have a real setup man, then you can try and rest your closer. For the last 2 yrs anyway, you've had Bard around so Paps hasnt been needed for too many 1+IP saves, which is really where your closer will start to rack up innings[/quote']

 

Several teams with good setup men have closers that have pitched 70+ ip in the last couple years:

 

Axford, Marmol, Valverde, Wilson and Bell in the past couple years as recent examples.

[iortiz]

I'm not comparing the players' date=' i'm comparing the contracts. Do you know what the expression means?[/quote']

 

I'm not sure if this is an expression.

 

You always match contracts with the players. There is no other way to see it. Otherwise is pointless like your point.

[User Name]

I couldnt put it better.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Because you don't quite understand the difference in comparing player to player and comparing contract parameters, at least in this situation.

[User Name]

I'm not sure if this is an expression.

 

You always match contracts with the players. There is no other way to see it. Otherwise is pointless like your point.

 

How is it pointless? A bad contract to n SP, a RP, and a LF are all bad contracts no matter what position they play. It's all about the parameters of the contract.

[jacksonianmarch]

Absolutely! we can only read the tea leave until something actually happens. But from watching what they are doing (or not doing) and listening to what they say. They aren't acting or making decisions the same way as in years past. I look for a short-term deal to backfill in case Bard isn't successful as a closer. If they sign Madson for what the Phillies were going to sign him then I'll be disappointed.

 

I think they need to sign a closer type regardless. If they just fill in for the middle of the pen and then Bard flops, then the season is over out the gate. If they bring in a guy like Nathan on a value recoup deal then they can have Nathan handle half and Bard handle the other half of the save situations. That gets Bard eased in and in 2013, possibly has him close full time. If Bard mucks up in his opportunities then they can just move Nathan into the closers role and Bard back to setup role.

[Palodios]

Okay, someone here convince me. What exactly is so great about Papelbon? Throw out some stats, something, that says he's anywhere remotely as good as he was in 2008. Its one thing if he still performed to that level... but I just don't see him deserving the largest closer contract contract ever.

[jacksonianmarch]

How is it pointless? A bad contract to n SP' date=' a RP, and a LF are all bad contracts no matter what position they play. It's all about the parameters of the contract.[/quote']

 

I dont think the Lackey and Papelbon contracts are similar, to be honest with you. The only similarity is that both were the best pitchers in their roles available on the FA market. Like I said before, Lackey came from an inferior division and had such significant elbow concerns that he allowed the sox to negotiate a trigger clause to play for league minimum in year 6. Papelbon is coming off one of his best seasons, is younger than Lackey was, is currently signed to a shorter term deal (4 yrs guaranteed), and is coming from a superior offensive division.

[Palodios]

I think they need to sign a closer type regardless. If they just fill in for the middle of the pen and then Bard flops' date=' then the season is over out the gate. If they bring in a guy like Nathan on a value recoup deal then they can have Nathan handle half and Bard handle the other half of the save situations. That gets Bard eased in and in 2013, possibly has him close full time. If Bard mucks up in his opportunities then they can just move Nathan into the closers role and Bard back to setup role.[/quote']

 

So you agree with me on Nathan? I think that would be a great move on an undervalued guy who actually has the potential to be BETTER than Papelbon, despite his age.

[iortiz]

Because you don't quite understand the difference in comparing player to player and comparing contract parameters' date=' at least in this situation.[/quote']

 

I meant since the language barrier, not the context of the issue.

 

I perfectly know who is Lackey and who is Papelbon and their levels in their positions in order to know that one was overpaid and the other was not. Seems like you are who don't get it, at least in this situation.

[User Name]

I dont think the Lackey and Papelbon contracts are similar' date=' to be honest with you. The only similarity is that both were the best pitchers in their roles available on the FA market. Like I said before, Lackey came from an inferior division and had such significant elbow concerns that he allowed the sox to negotiate a trigger clause to play for league minimum in year 6. Papelbon is coming off one of his best seasons, is younger than Lackey was, is currently signed to a shorter term deal (4 yrs guaranteed), and is coming from a superior offensive division.[/quote']

 

Both guys who are making more money than they should as their actual positions (Lackey a #2 starter making #1 money and Papelbon a closer making starter money) signed to long-term contracts who have prior health/consistency issues.

 

By the way, a quick search on "Papelbon" with your user name reveals several thread where you advocate for letting go of Papelbon if Jenks pitched well because he had been "declining for three straight years".

 

Why the change of heart?