Hot Stove 2013-2014

[Palodios]

Yeah, and i still believe so, which is why i didn't say i thought he was a good acquisition. I was providing my rationale as for why they let go of the other two. Let's stick to what i'm actually saying.

 

As for CJ Wilson: His K/9 has declined, while his BB/9, WHIP have increased, and WAR has declined from his Texas days. Considering he's now pitching half his games in a much more forgiving stadium, do you not think his ERA and IP would have also significantly suffered had he stayed in Rangers Ballpark for around half his starts?

 

By all means, there are risks. But there are always risks when signing pitchers after 30. They pitch in friendly ballparks, their control/power is diminishing, or there are injury concerns, or anxiety issues. The number of guys you can look at and say "This guy will anchor our staff for years to come" are so incredibly rare that there is a point where you simply cannot play armchair GM with most starters.

 

Lackey is the perfect example. So many of the sharpest posters on here basically hated the move from the beginning. I can't remember who exactly, but for some reason ORS is one that sticks out to me. They looked at stats and trends, and it seemed like he would decline quickly. And for a while, they were very right. But after his 2013 season where he won 4 postseason games, the general opinion on him has changed drastically. Albeit, the TJS certainly helped.

[User Name]

Because of what you posted above, Lackey is the opposite of a good example. His peripherals and stuff had been diminishing for a couple of seasons, and those who criticized the signing because of it were right, since there was an underlying injury to blame for these problems. Lackey provided very little in his first two years, and even with last year's surge, it's very difficult to call the contract a success so far.

[Palodios]

Because of what you posted above, Lackey is the opposite of a good example. His peripherals and stuff had been diminishing for a couple of seasons, and those who criticized the signing because of it were right, since there was an underlying injury to blame for these problems. Lackey provided very little in his first two years, and even with last year's surge, it's very difficult to call the contract a success so far.

 

As I said, those posters were very right. But the point is that signing that "perfect pitcher" is pretty much impossible, and Lackey certainly wasn't one either. You just have to hope that your team's scouts and doctors know better than the rest of us, and if a pitcher turns it around for one crucial season, sometimes that's good enough for most of us.

[User Name]

As I said, those posters were very right. But the point is that signing that "perfect pitcher" is pretty much impossible, and Lackey certainly wasn't one either. You just have to hope that your team's scouts and doctors know better than the rest of us.

 

....but that was kind of my initial point in the Texas post. They saw the warning signs with both Hamilton and Wilson, and were right in both cases, even though Hamilton is a position player and not a pitcher.

 

They came pretty close to signing the "perfect pitcher" with Darvish however.

[Palodios]

They came pretty close to signing the "perfect pitcher" with Darvish however.

 

There was the big risk to see how he adjusted to the major leagues. It is the same thing as signing a top pitcher from Oakland or the NL West, except to a much bigger extreme. Dice-k was a big failure, and they paid a boatload of cash for Darvish. They must have scouted him well, and fortunately for Darvish , his father didn't let him participate in the crazy high school tournaments in Japan that blow out young arms early.

[seabeachfred]

Because of what you posted above, Lackey is the opposite of a good example. His peripherals and stuff had been diminishing for a couple of seasons, and those who criticized the signing because of it were right, since there was an underlying injury to blame for these problems. Lackey provided very little in his first two years, and even with last year's surge, it's very difficult to call the contract a success so far.

 

Lackey helped the Red Sox win a World Series this season and his post-season performance was outstanding. Anytime a player comes to the Sox and helps them go all the way that acquisition is a success. Besides, John had some of the poorest run support for most of the regular season. If he had gotten some of the run production that Dempster or Buchholz got he most likely would have won six or seven more games. True, his first two years were disappointing but he helped us go all the way in 2013 and that evens the score in my opinion because the bottom line is winning---AND HE PLAYED A BIG PART IN OUR WS TITLE.

[redsoxrules]

Perralta Seeking four-year $56MM to five-year, $75MM range . Good luck!

[User Name]

Lackey helped the Red Sox win a World Series this season and his post-season performance was outstanding. Anytime a player comes to the Sox and helps them go all the way that acquisition is a success. Besides, John had some of the poorest run support for most of the regular season. If he had gotten some of the run production that Dempster or Buchholz got he most likely would have won six or seven more games. True, his first two years were disappointing but he helped us go all the way in 2013 and that evens the score in my opinion because the bottom line is winning---AND HE PLAYED A BIG PART IN OUR WS TITLE.

 

What does that have to do with the discussion Palodios and i were having? You're always talking about how i'm always arguing for the sake of arguing, but taking a part of a different discussion out of context is an example of exactly that. My point wasn't that Lackey didn't contribute to the title (he obviously did) my point is that the Sox made a mistake at the time of the signing, since many suspected he had elbow issues and he was headed to TJS (Gammons mentioned this way before the signing) and they were right. It cost him essentially three years in which he gave the Red Sox little to no value. This is a fact.

[seabeachfred]

What does that have to do with the discussion Palodios and i were having? You're always talking about how i'm always arguing for the sake of arguing, but taking a part of a different discussion out of context is an example of exactly that. My point wasn't that Lackey didn't contribute to the title (he obviously did) my point is that the Sox made a mistake at the time of the signing, since many suspected he had elbow issues and he was headed to TJS (Gammons mentioned this way before the signing) and they were right. It cost him essentially three years in which he gave the Red Sox little to no value. This is a fact.

 

Au contraire user. Your point was that the Lackey signing was a mistake....you never once alluded to the fact that he helped the Red Sox win a World Series this year until you answered my post (he obviously did). Also there was not one point I raised in my missive that was in any way inaccurate. That was also a fact. When a player helps dramatically to get his team into a World Series and then win it, it then becomes a successful signing. You never hear the Yankees bitching about the signing of Teixeira and CC even though they seem on their way down with the former down for the past couple of years. It is most likely why you don't hear Red Sox fans moaning about losing a solid player like Hanley Ramirez and a good pitcher like Anabel Sanchez even though they have had some pretty good years apiece since we traded them. You don't hear complaints because getting Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell won us a World Series in 2007. That was my point.

[User Name]

Au contraire user. Your point was that the Lackey signing was a mistake....you never once alluded to the fact that he helped the Red Sox win a World Series this year until you answered my post (he obviously did). Also there was not one point I raised in my missive that was in any way inaccurate. That was also a fact. When a player helps dramatically to get his team into a World Series and then win it, it then becomes a successful signing. You never hear the Yankees bitching about the signing of Teixeira and CC even though they seem on their way down with the former down for the past couple of years. It is most likely why you don't hear Red Sox fans moaning about losing a solid player like Hanley Ramirez and a good pitcher like Anabel Sanchez even though they have had some pretty good years apiece since we traded them. You don't hear complaints because getting Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell won us a World Series in 2007. That was my point.

 

Fred, did you read the context of the discussion? Go back and read all of it before you comment. Also, WS help or no WS help, the contract has mostly been a failure for the Red Sox. Why do you have to be completely illogical about everything?

[User Name]

Lackey's tenure with the Red Sox: 4 years @ 16.5 million per or 66 million paid so far for....

 

564.1 IP (141 per season) of 4.67 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, 91 ERA+ baseball.

 

The fact that he helped win a WS doesn't erase any of those other numbers. He's essentially been a worse value than Dempster, even with all of 2013 included.

 

The numbers speak for themselves.

[Palodios]

Lackey's tenure with the Red Sox: 4 years @ 16.5 million per or 66 million paid so far for....

 

564.1 IP (141 per season) of 4.67 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, 91 ERA+ baseball.

 

The fact that he helped win a WS doesn't erase any of those other numbers. He's essentially been a worse value than Dempster, even with all of 2013 included.

 

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

In 2010, I always argued strongly that Lackey's campaign was extremely underrated. The ERA was a bit high at 4.40, but 215 IP and 21 QS was extremely valuable, especially in a year when the team's 7th inning reliever was Scott Atchison, and the offseason was the best in the league and good enough to get him some support. Fangraphs says he was worth 4 wins and 16 million. Maybe not quite, but I'd argue he gets a pass for that year --especially considering the uneven first/second half year splits

 

2011 was an epic disaster for everyone, Lackey included.

 

2012 was a lost year for Lackey because of TJS. But it unlocked the low cost 6th year option, and the team knew about the TJS early enough in 2011 that they could have replaced his production in the offseason. Instead they went with Aaron Cook and Padilla. The Red Sox built in flexibility to the contract because they were concerned about his elbow. I just don't think you can say the contract is bad for something that the team's medical team knew about, and factored into their long term plans as a contingency.

 

In 2013, he was the most reliable arm in a rotation that eventually won a World Series. In April, 2.61 ERA, May 3.06, June 3.03, July, 3.67, August, 3.09, September 4.98, October 2.77. The only time he pitched poorly was when it didn't matter.

[User Name]

So what's your point Pal?

[Bellhorn04]

According to FanGraphs Lackey has given $38.9 million value to the Sox so far. Big if, but if he can give them 2 more years of $15 million value that would be $69 million value on a cost of $83 million.

[redsoxrules]

Doesn't lackey only have 1 year left?

[Bellhorn04]

Doesn't lackey only have 1 year left?

 

It's 2 counting the team option for 2015 at minimum salary - because of the TJ surgery - the contract had a clause about this.

[User Name]

According to FanGraphs Lackey has given $38.9 million value to the Sox so far. Big if, but if he can give them 2 more years of $15 million value that would be $69 million value on a cost of $83 million.

 

There's also the fact that, as i have mentioned before several times, Fangraphs' dollar formula is extremely lenient, and generally inflates dollar numbers.

[Bellhorn04]

There's also the fact that, as i have mentioned before several times, Fangraphs' dollar formula is extremely lenient, and generally inflates dollar numbers.

 

That's your opinion, and I don't really disagree with it, but what other dollar formulas are out there that are better?

[User Name]

That's your opinion, and I don't really disagree with it, but what other dollar formulas are out there that are better?

 

The fact that there aren't any that are better doesn't mean we can't use this one with the understanding that it's not perfect, me thinks.

[Palodios]

So what's your point Pal?

 

Lackey has pitched 3 years, and has one s*****, one good, and one excellent season. I argue that Lackey's contract should no longer considered bad.

 

There's also the fact that, as i have mentioned before several times, Fangraphs' dollar formula is extremely lenient, and generally inflates dollar numbers.

 

In 2013, fangraphs say that Lackey was worth 15.9 million. I would argue that this season was worth significantly more than that.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Palodios

[User Name]

Lackey has pitched 3 years, and has one s*****, one good, and one excellent season. I argue that Lackey's contract should no longer considered bad.

 

You seem to conveniently forget that he missed an entire year in which the Sox still paid him 16.5 million. Do we not count it because it doesn't suit your argument?

 

Lackey would need to pitch at least two above average seasons for the contract to break even, and two excellent seasons for the contract to even be considered decent.

 

 

In 2013, fangraphs say that Lackey was worth 15.9 million. I would argue that this season was worth significantly more than that.

 

I'd argue that his 2013 is worth more, but his 2010/11 are worth less. It evens out.

[Palodios]

You seem to conveniently forget that he missed an entire year in which the Sox still paid him 16.5 million. Do we not count it because it doesn't suit your argument?

 

As I mentioned in the previous post, his 2012 season essentially cost the Red Sox league minimum, and by opting for TJS mid-2011, it gave the Red Sox adequate time to replace his production. Elbow surgery was something that the Red Sox had known about and prepared for when signing him to that contract.

 

If the Red Sox get 4 good years out of a 5 year contract, that's stellar.

[User Name]

As I mentioned in the previous post, his 2012 season essentially cost the Red Sox league minimum, and by opting for TJS mid-2011, it gave the Red Sox adequate time to replace his production. Elbow surgery was something that the Red Sox had known about and prepared for when signing him to that contract.

 

No it didn't. It cost the Sox 16.5 million dollars. You can't simply make that assumption since he hasn't thrown a single pitch in the option year. He could miss all of it, or suck. That's not how it works.

[Palodios]

No it didn't. It cost the Sox 16.5 million dollars. You can't simply make that assumption since he hasn't thrown a single pitch in the option year. He could miss all of it, or suck. That's not how it works.

 

We can't make a judgement on 2015 until 2015 is over. You're assuming it'll suck. I'm not.

[User Name]

We can't make a judgement on 2015 until 2015 is over. You're assuming it'll suck. I'm not.

 

Where did i make that assumption? Are you reading what i'm posting? I said right now, it's a bad contract, but with two above average seasons, it breaks even, and two excellent ones, it becomes a decent or even good one. How did you turn that into me expecting he will suck?

[Palodios]

Where did i make that assumption? Are you reading what i'm posting? I said right now, it's a bad contract, but with two above average seasons, it breaks even, and two excellent ones, it becomes a decent or even good one. How did you turn that into me expecting he will suck?

 

You view the contract as unsuccessful so far, and with your heavy emphasis on a trend of decline, that seems to be your position.

[seabeachfred]

Fred, did you read the context of the discussion? Go back and read all of it before you comment. Also, WS help or no WS help, the contract has mostly been a failure for the Red Sox. Why do you have to be completely illogical about everything?

 

I read it and also read Pal's piece which opened my eyes more. His 2010 season wasn't bad at all and coupled with his 2013 the contract now shapes up as a good one. Winning a WS changes everything, but again we'll just have to once again agree to disagree, just like that ridiculous suggestion that we sign Beltran and try him at first base. Did you even think that one out clearly or perhaps were you overcoming a hangover. That was a real gem!!!!

Edited November 23, 2013 by seabeachfred

[User Name]

I read it and also read Pal's piece which opened my eyes more. His 2010 season wasn't bad at all and coupled with his 2013 the contract now shapes up as a good one. Winning a WS changes everything, but again we'll just have to once again agree to disagree, just like that ridiculous suggestion that we sign Beltran and try him at first base. Did you even thing that one out clearly or perhaps overcoming a hangover. That was a real gem!!!!

 

It was, because unlike most of your "gems" if there's a lack of other options, that would actually make sense. Lesser athletes have made the conversion to 1B. Suggesting Beltran couldn't is borderline retarded. However, look again at the "lack of better options part" which you keep conveniently ignoring. Please stop.

 

Also, by your logic, the Barry Zito contract is a good one. Now there's a REAL GEM!!!!11!!!

[User Name]

You view the contract as unsuccessful so far, and with your heavy emphasis on a trend of decline, that seems to be your position.

 

No. I view the contract as unsuccessful so far with the possibility of going either way depending on what happens in the last two years.

[Bellhorn04]

McCann is reportedly about to sign with the Yankees.