Red Sox' relative strengths and weaknesses

[a700hitter]

And that is good to see.

 

I will be keeping an eye on Farrell's use of the sac bunt this season. I have given him somewhat of a pass the past two seasons because our offense was nonexistent at times, and I think Farrell was doing anything he could to score a run.

 

Keep an eye on how Farrell's teams run the bases too. His teams in Toronto and Boston run recklessly.

[User Name]

I would always prefer pitching over offense too. I understand that you would have preferred Ben signed a starting pitcher last season rather than signing Sandoval. I would have too. But that's not the point.

 

Once the FO decided last season, that they were going to focus on offense rather than on pitching, Ben did the same thing in terms of signing Pablo that Dombrowski did in terms of signing Price.

 

You might not agree with his strategy of prioritizing offense over pitching (I don't either), but the signing of Pablo and Price are same, aside from people disliking/disagreeing with one and liking/agreeing with the other.

 

That is a terrible comparison, because of the clearly trend of regression Pablo Sandoval had shown over the last three years.

 

Quick comparison:

 

Price: 161, 156, 172 ERA+

 

Panda: 123, 116, 111 OPS+

 

There's just no justifiable way to compare the two signings. Sandoval was young. That's about it.

[Spudboy]

If you don't hate Hanley and are certainly not irrational about him, that last paragraph doesn't do a very good job of showing that.

 

This makes no sense as nowhere did I say that I despise the Twat nor have I been irrational. I do not believe that Hanley is a good fit for my team. Other than that, I have repeated what I have read.

 

Obviously this must have been one of Ben's best moves.

[Kimmi]

That is a terrible comparison, because of the clearly trend of regression Pablo Sandoval had shown over the last three years.

 

Quick comparison:

 

Price: 161, 156, 172 ERA+

 

Panda: 123, 116, 111 OPS+

 

There's just no justifiable way to compare the two signings. Sandoval was young. That's about it.

 

I am not trying to say that Sandoval is in the same class as Price as far as caliber of player. Price is a much better player, but his contract is also much larger. My point is that both players were the best available free agents at their respective positions, and both were signed to contracts that are too large.

 

I don't see the logic in criticizing Ben for getting the best available free agent to fill a need, but praising Dombrowski for getting the best available free agent to fill a need.

[User Name]

I am not trying to say that Sandoval is in the same class as Price as far as caliber of player. Price is a much better player, but his contract is also much larger. My point is that both players were the best available free agents at their respective positions, and both were signed to contracts that are too large.

 

I don't see the logic in criticizing Ben for getting the best available free agent to fill a need, but praising Dombrowski for getting the best available free agent to fill a need.

 

The problem is that it's very debatable that Sandoval was the best available 3B, as Headley and Hanley were both older, but did not have such clear regression trends.

[Kimmi]

The problem is that it's very debatable that Sandoval was the best available 3B, as Headley and Hanley were both older, but did not have such clear regression trends.

 

One could also argue that Greinke was the best available pitcher.

 

Either way, I still think the perception of one being a good contract/signing and one being a bad contract/signing is based more on people agreeing/disagreeing with the move than anything else.

[User Name]

One could also argue that Greinke was the best available pitcher.

 

Either way, I still think the perception of one being a good contract/signing and one being a bad contract/signing is based more on people agreeing/disagreeing with the move than anything else.

 

Getting either/or would have been great either way. There are no regression trends on either, no weight problems, no questions about work ethic. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Objectively, the Sandoval signing was terrible because it was easy to foresee him being a bust. If either Price or Greinke don't at least break even on the ROI department, most people will be surprised. You are trying to defend something that can't be defended here.

[Bellhorn04]

I am not trying to say that Sandoval is in the same class as Price as far as caliber of player. Price is a much better player, but his contract is also much larger. My point is that both players were the best available free agents at their respective positions, and both were signed to contracts that are too large.

 

I don't see the logic in criticizing Ben for getting the best available free agent to fill a need, but praising Dombrowski for getting the best available free agent to fill a need.

 

Needless to say, a lot of the criticism about Panda and Hanley didn't come until after the fact of the bad results. That's just the nature of fans.

 

Excluding, of course, User Name and any others who hated the Panda signing right away.

[cp176]

I am not trying to say that Sandoval is in the same class as Price as far as caliber of player. Price is a much better player, but his contract is also much larger. My point is that both players were the best available free agents at their respective positions, and both were signed to contracts that are too large.

 

I don't see the logic in criticizing Ben for getting the best available free agent to fill a need, but praising Dombrowski for getting the best available free agent to fill a need.

 

I understand what you are saying here and I always applaud loyalty. This really has very little to do with the General Managers. We did need a third baseman last year and Ben sure as hell helped to get us one. We needed a top of the rotation pitcher more. Ben's attempt to fill the greatest need that any number of teams face was to sign Porcello, Miley, and Masterson. I like the Price signing more. Although I really do value loyalty, your back door attempt to find a way to praise Ben seems silly to me . It is done. I hope Ben's attempt to solve our third base conundrum works out well for us. Remember now how many times we all thought that another deal had to get done. When Buchholz broke out the t shirts I guess I figured it was a lost cause. It might even have been when Kelly told us that he would win the Cy Young. Oh well - maybe this year.

[Kimmi]

Getting either/or would have been great either way. There are no regression trends on either, no weight problems, no questions about work ethic. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Objectively, the Sandoval signing was terrible because it was easy to foresee him being a bust. If either Price or Greinke don't at least break even on the ROI department, most people will be surprised. You are trying to defend something that can't be defended here.

 

No, it was not easy to foresee Sandoval being a bust, at least not in the first part of his contract. Dude was 28 when he signed his contract. It was reasonable to expect a mild dropoff, which would still be an improvement over what we had the previous year. It was not reasonable to expect anywhere near the disaster that we saw.

 

Was Pablo more of a risk to be a bust than Price in the early part of the contracts? Absolutely. But again, Pablo's contract is not nearly large as Price's.

 

Also, I will say again that I am not a fan of Pablo's contract. I would have preferred Headley myself. However, the aggregrate offensive runs above average provided by the 3B in 2014 was -27.4. Their defense was -5.3 runs. Clearly, we needed an upgrade at that position, particularly offensively, which Pablo should have provided. The FO signed the best (or one of the best) free agents to fill that hole. Isn't that what fans are always clamoring for?

[Kimmi]

Also, who cares how much the Sox paid for Pablo? It's not our money. Just give us the best player possible at that position, no matter the cost. We don't care how much Henry spends. He's a billionaire.

 

How many times have we heard that argument when it comes to signing Price?

 

Why is Henry's money a concern for Pablo, but not for Price?

[mvp 78]

But why sign TWO 3bs?!?!? It was a boneheaded move imo.

[Kimmi]

I understand what you are saying here and I always applaud loyalty. This really has very little to do with the General Managers. We did need a third baseman last year and Ben sure as hell helped to get us one. We needed a top of the rotation pitcher more. Ben's attempt to fill the greatest need that any number of teams face was to sign Porcello, Miley, and Masterson. I like the Price signing more. Although I really do value loyalty, your back door attempt to find a way to praise Ben seems silly to me . It is done. I hope Ben's attempt to solve our third base conundrum works out well for us. Remember now how many times we all thought that another deal had to get done. When Buchholz broke out the t shirts I guess I figured it was a lost cause. It might even have been when Kelly told us that he would win the Cy Young. Oh well - maybe this year.

 

It has nothing to do with General Managers, actually. It's about having a double standard based on whether one agrees with a move or disagrees. Agreeing with a move does not make it right, and disagreeing with a move does not make it wrong.

 

This is also not about whether we needed a 3B more or a pitcher more. I agree with you that we needed a SP more. However, last offseason, the direction the FO decided to take, right or wrong, was to build the team around offense.

 

What is the difference between signing the best available 3B to a large contract to fill a need and signing the best available SP to a large contract to fill a need? Especially if you don't care how much money Henry spends since it's not your money?

[Bellhorn04]

Also, who cares how much the Sox paid for Pablo? It's not our money. Just give us the best player possible at that position, no matter the cost. We don't care how much Henry spends. He's a billionaire.

 

How many times have we heard that argument when it comes to signing Price?

 

Why is Henry's money a concern for Pablo, but not for Price?

 

The major argument I would try to make is that Price is a true elite player, with a total fWAR over his 2 most recent seasons of 12.5, whereas Sandoval's total fWAR over his 2 most recent seasons was only 5.1.

[User Name]

No, it was not easy to foresee Sandoval being a bust, at least not in the first part of his contract. Dude was 28 when he signed his contract. It was reasonable to expect a mild dropoff, which would still be an improvement over what we had the previous year. It was not reasonable to expect anywhere near the disaster that we saw.

 

Was Pablo more of a risk to be a bust than Price in the early part of the contracts? Absolutely. But again, Pablo's contract is not nearly large as Price's.

 

Also, I will say again that I am not a fan of Pablo's contract. I would have preferred Headley myself. However, the aggregrate offensive runs above average provided by the 3B in 2014 was -27.4. Their defense was -5.3 runs. Clearly, we needed an upgrade at that position, particularly offensively, which Pablo should have provided. The FO signed the best (or one of the best) free agents to fill that hole. Isn't that what fans are always clamoring for?

 

That's a terrible argument. As previously stated, Sandoval's offense had declined for three straight years, he was coming off a terrible start the prior season, the Giants had publicly declared their dissapointment with his inability to control his weight. The fact that he was 28 does not matter. You're kidding yourself by saying it wasn't easy to foresee Sandoval being a bust. You're contradicting yourself by saying it wasn't easy to see him being a bust but a mild dropoff could be expected in the same breath, as he was coming a 3 WAR season that was fueled by defense and positional value. There were better options without all of the question marks.Hanging your hat on the size of Price's contracts is also not an honest take on the issue. Panda's a middling player who regressed into absolute suck being paid All-Star money. Price is a bonafied top-10 SP.

 

You need to have the ability to be objective here. Sandoval's signing was terrible before they signed it, when they signed it, and in hindsight.

[User Name]

But why sign TWO 3bs?!?!? It was a boneheaded move imo.

 

And move the better one to LF, when he has never played the OF.

[User Name]

It has nothing to do with General Managers, actually. It's about having a double standard based on whether one agrees with a move or disagrees. Agreeing with a move does not make it right, and disagreeing with a move does not make it wrong.

 

This is also not about whether we needed a 3B more or a pitcher more. I agree with you that we needed a SP more. However, last offseason, the direction the FO decided to take, right or wrong, was to build the team around offense.

 

What is the difference between signing the best available 3B to a large contract to fill a need and signing the best available SP to a large contract to fill a need? Especially if you don't care how much money Henry spends since it's not your money?

 

But he wasn't the 3B available. That's the problem.

[Kimmi]

Needless to say, a lot of the criticism about Panda and Hanley didn't come until after the fact of the bad results. That's just the nature of fans.

 

Excluding, of course, User Name and any others who hated the Panda signing right away.

 

Of course. I didn't like the contract either, but I can understand the rationale behind it.

[User Name]

The rationale was terrible. You could make a case for it if they had one of Hanley/Panda, but not both.

[Kimmi]

The major argument I would try to make is that Price is a true elite player, with a total fWAR over his 2 most recent seasons of 12.5, whereas Sandoval's total fWAR over his 2 most recent seasons was only 5.1.

 

And Price is getting paid as a true elite player.

 

Again, I'm not trying to say that Pablo is in the same category at Price.

[Kimmi]

But why sign TWO 3bs?!?!? It was a boneheaded move imo.

 

They didn't sign two 3B. They signed a LF and a 3B.

[User Name]

Hanley had not played an inning of OF in his MLB career. They signed a 3B and a SS/3B.

[Bellhorn04]

The problem is that it's very debatable that Sandoval was the best available 3B, as Headley and Hanley were both older, but did not have such clear regression trends.

 

FWIW, Headley pretty much sucked last year too, just not as much as Panda did.

[Kimmi]

That's a terrible argument. As previously stated, Sandoval's offense had declined for three straight years, he was coming off a terrible start the prior season, the Giants had publicly declared their dissapointment with his inability to control his weight. The fact that he was 28 does not matter. You're kidding yourself by saying it wasn't easy to foresee Sandoval being a bust. You're contradicting yourself by saying it wasn't easy to see him being a bust but a mild dropoff could be expected in the same breath, as he was coming a 3 WAR season that was fueled by defense and positional value. There were better options without all of the question marks.Hanging your hat on the size of Price's contracts is also not an honest take on the issue. Panda's a middling player who regressed into absolute suck being paid All-Star money. Price is a bonafied top-10 SP.

 

You need to have the ability to be objective here. Sandoval's signing was terrible before they signed it, when they signed it, and in hindsight.

 

There is a difference between being a bust and having typical decline. If Sandoval showed typical decline, you could still expect him to be a 2.5 WAR player. You might also expect his offense to improve, moving from SF to Boston. He would still not be worth the contract, but that isn't the point.

 

Personally, I believe I am being objective. I can understand the reasoning behind signing a player even if I disagree with the signing. I don't think most people can do that.

[Kimmi]

But he wasn't the 3B available. That's the problem.

 

That's a matter of opinion, as is who is better between Price and Greinke.

 

Even if he wasn't the best available, he was one of the best and not that far off from Headley. The point still stands.

[Bellhorn04]

The idea of putting Hanley in left is hard to defend, given the results. It was a gamble that failed in a big way.

[Kimmi]

The idea of putting Hanley in left is hard to defend, given the results. It was a gamble that failed in a big way.

 

Hindisight. No one expected him to become a Gold Glover, but it is reasonable to think that an athlete would improve some going from one of the hardest positions to play to one of the easiest positions. Even if there was no defensive improvement, Hanley should have been a 3 WAR player.

 

The surprise with Hanley was his terrible offense. He was not signed to be a defensive player. He was signed to provide right handed offense. If Manny could patrol LF well enough not to be an overall liability, Hanley should have been able to do so as well.

[Kimmi]

Another example of a double standard in judging contracts:

 

Many believe it was stupid and an overpay to pick up Clay's option at $13 mil for ONE year, yet Price's $217 mil is not an overpay?

 

That is just insane thinking.

 

Talk about lack of objectivity.

[User Name]

FWIW, Headley pretty much sucked last year too, just not as much as Panda did.

 

But the Jays got Donaldson for peanuts, and the main reason Hanley and his much better offensive track record got that nasty shoulder injury was unfamiliarity with the OF.

[User Name]

There is a difference between being a bust and having typical decline. If Sandoval showed typical decline, you could still expect him to be a 2.5 WAR player. You might also expect his offense to improve, moving from SF to Boston. He would still not be worth the contract, but that isn't the point.

 

Personally, I believe I am being objective. I can understand the reasoning behind signing a player even if I disagree with the signing. I don't think most people can do that.

 

I would agree if they had ONE of Hanley/Sandoval, not both. Also, you watch a lot of baseball, but you're conveniently ignoring the long history of very overweight guys and sudden decline. You are ignoring all of the red flags (and there are plenty of them) in order to defend your position. That's not very objective.