Red Sox' relative strengths and weaknesses

[User Name]

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.

 

Buch's contract is an overpay, Price's contract is an overpay. In general, most players are overpaid relative to their value. It's the nature of the beast. Both moves are defensible though. Buch put up a 3.2 WAR last season in half a season. With the current going rate for a win, that's significant value Buch can add. If he could time his injury timetable better though, that would be great.

[Dojji]

If we feel every contract is an overpay, perhaps it's time to reindex our expectations. Revenue is up across the board, I believe at record levels, it really is not all that unreasonable for the players as a group to be claiming their share of this apparent prosperity.

 

It's the nature of salaries to go up in flush time, if that weren't happening I'm very sure players would be complaining to their agents, the MLBPA, or both..

Edited January 10, 2016 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

Hanley's offensive struggles may have been a direct result of the injury he suffered playing the outfield.

 

Manny played outfield his whole career, so he at least came to Boston with a lot of experience at the position.

 

The Sox were forced to keep putting Hanley in the outfield even after they saw how badly he was doing, because there was no other option. And they were paying him 22 million.

[a700hitter]

Hanley's offensive struggles may have been a direct result of the injury he suffered playing the outfield.

 

Manny played outfield his whole career, so he at least came to Boston with a lot of experience at the position.

 

The Sox were forced to keep putting Hanley in the outfield even after they saw how badly he was doing, because there was no other option. And they were paying him 22 million.

If you are going to pay a guy a ton of money and change his position, you had better be sure that he can play that position or have a fallback position. I really can't think of another free agency signing where the acquiring team moved the player from the infield to the outfield when the player hadn't played a single inning in the outfield.

[User Name]

If we feel every contract is an overpay, perhaps it's time to reindex our expectations. Revenue is up across the board, I believe at record levels, it really is not all that unreasonable for the players as a group to be claiming their share of this apparent prosperity.

 

It's the nature of salaries to go up in flush time, if that weren't happening I'm very sure players would be complaining to their agents, the MLBPA, or both..

 

Increasing revenue does not take away from the idiocy of the current MLB salary bubble. It will burst eventually.

[Dojji]

The increasing revenue is the salary bubble. Trying to pretend that revenue and salary are in any way unrelated is frankly silly. Ownership leaguewide has more money to play with than it ever has had before, in what crazy parallel dimension is it rational to believe salaries wouldn't go up in that environment? In what strange world is it somehow unfair or unreasonable for the players to claim their share of the revenue spike in the form of higher salaries?

 

As long as revenue remains this strong, this isn't a bubble at all, it's just the new economic norm at a time when baseball owners are themselves making even more money than they shower on the players.

 

Frankly the real crime in all this is that the rookie minimum is not keeping pace. The rookie minimum is only about 30% larger than it was 20 years ago. That's really not OK. IF you want to talk about revenue imbalance, there's the imbalance, and if you think top FA salaries are too high, look to the rookie minimum for a big part of the reason why things are so far out of balance.

 

Now if the money starts to go away and salaries keep going up? THEN you have a bubble. Not before.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Dojji

[User Name]

The increasing revenue is the salary bubble. Trying to pretend that revenue and salary are in any way unrelated is frankly silly. Ownership leaguewide has more money to play with than it ever has had before, in what crazy parallel dimension is it rational to believe salaries wouldn't go up in that environment? In what strange world is it somehow unfair or unreasonable for the players to claim their share of the revenue spike in the form of higher salaries?

 

As long as revenue remains this strong, this isn't a bubble at all, it's just the new economic norm at a time when baseball owners are themselves making even more money than they shower on the players.

 

Frankly the real crime in all this is that the rookie minimum is not keeping pace. The rookie minimum is only about 30% larger than it was 20 years ago. That's really not OK. IF you want to talk about revenue imbalance, there's the imbalance, and if you think top FA salaries are too high, look to the rookie minimum for a big part of the reason why things are so far out of balance.

 

Now if the money starts to go away and salaries keep going up? THEN you have a bubble. Not before.

 

First off, it wasn't that long ago when you were spouting the exact same point I'm trying to make here. Be consistent. Second, are you serious? You seem to forget that the real problem here is that these are thoroughly guaranteed contracts. That's the main problem with baseball economics and why I think the bubble will burst eventually in some shape or form. Agreed on the rookie points though.

[Dojji]

It's still not a bubble, the money right now is more than there to cover the cost of the increased salary At the most it's a potentially risky gamble that the money will always still be here, and a bubble will be created if the revenue does dip..

[User Name]

You're completely disregarding the risk/reward aspect of economics. It is not, has not been, and will not be, a zero-sum game.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

No, I'm not ignoring red flags. I have said many times that I did not agree with the contract. But seriously, those red flags were more for the back end of the contract, not the front end, and certainly not the first year. Pretty much everyone agreed that the Sox were a better team after they signed Pablo.

 

There is overwhelming historical evidence that giving a long term contract to a pitcher in his 30s is a bad move. But we can ignore that information and say that giving Price that huge contract was a good move anyway?

 

You can't have it both ways.

[Kimmi]

Buch's contract is an overpay, Price's contract is an overpay. In general, most players are overpaid relative to their value. It's the nature of the beast. Both moves are defensible though. Buch put up a 3.2 WAR last season in half a season. With the current going rate for a win, that's significant value Buch can add. If he could time his injury timetable better though, that would be great.

 

Of coures both moves are defensible. So was signing Pablo.

[Kimmi]

Hanley's offensive struggles may have been a direct result of the injury he suffered playing the outfield.

 

Manny played outfield his whole career, so he at least came to Boston with a lot of experience at the position.

 

The Sox were forced to keep putting Hanley in the outfield even after they saw how badly he was doing, because there was no other option. And they were paying him 22 million.

 

Injuries can happen to any player, regardless of how experienced he is in playing a position.

 

If Price suffers an injury this year, and then is never quite the same pitcher afterwards, the Sox will be forced to send him out there every 5th day because of his contract.

[Kimmi]

On the topic of salaries and payroll, it's interesting to note that the correlation between payroll and wins continues to drop. An interesting read from MacPherson:

 

That the correlation between wins and payroll continues to drop, however, will make it difficult for small-market owners to argue they cannot compete. The game is set up such that the best players don’t earn the most money, and the richest teams don’t get the best players. The correlation coefficient between payroll and wins — 1.0 represents perfect correlation, 0.0 no correlation whatsoever — was 0.47 in 2009, but it dropped to 0.3 in 2013 and 2014 and to a remarkable 0.21 in 2015.

 

Because teams get six years of control over homegrown players before they reach the free market, player paychecks reflect talent only to an extent. The most productive players in the game tend to be those acquired through the amateur draft or by trade, not those signed to bank-breaking contracts. By the time most players are eligible to sign the type of contracts that boggle the mind, their most productive years already are behind them.

 

Nothing excites a fan base more than signing a player such as Price. What really gives the Red Sox hope for the future, however, is the presence of budding young stars Mookie Betts and Xander Bogaerts and the pipeline of prospects who could follow them. In a way, if the Red Sox reach the playoffs next October, they’ll do so in spite of a $200-million payroll rather than because of it.

[Northern Star]

Injuries can happen to any player, regardless of how experienced he is in playing a position.

 

If Price suffers an injury this year, and then is never quite the same pitcher afterwards, the Sox will be forced to send him out there every 5th day because of his contract.

 

Are you seriously jinxing Price right now?

[Kimmi]

Are you seriously jinxing Price right now?

 

No, I'm not. Price is going to be a beast. No worries.

[User Name]

Of coures both moves are defensible. So was signing Pablo.

 

As a standalone move, yes. Doing so while also signing a superior 3B then moving him to the OF is not, by any objective measure.

[User Name]

No, I'm not ignoring red flags. I have said many times that I did not agree with the contract. But seriously, those red flags were more for the back end of the contract, not the front end, and certainly not the first year. Pretty much everyone agreed that the Sox were a better team after they signed Pablo.

 

There is overwhelming historical evidence that giving a long term contract to a pitcher in his 30s is a bad move. But we can ignore that information and say that giving Price that huge contract was a good move anyway?

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

What you're implying is fallacious. While signing pitchers over 30 usually spells disaster in the back end of the contract, the signing team usually gets at least a couple of elite/very good seasons in the front end of the contract. The fact is (and this is fact) Price has sustained elite performance over the better part of a decade, while Pablo had declined statistically for three years running and had his work ethic called into question. You are trying to compare paying Corvette money for a Corvette, and paying Corvette money for a Ford Fiesta. It's faulty logic.

[Dojji]

I agree with Kimmi. Coming to Fenway I can see a very good argument for Sandoval actually improving his performance. There were a few warning signs that he might not be an All-Star but none that he would decline to the degree that he did. And I say that as someone who utterly disliked the signing at the time.

[User Name]

You mean the fact that he's incredibly fat, had three straight years of declining performance, and had a terrible first half of 2014 weren't clear signs that it was a very real possibility that he may start sucking very soon?

 

May be a neon sign at AT&T park may have been a better warning?

[Northern Star]

You mean the fact that he's incredibly fat, had three straight years of declining performance, and had a terrible first half of 2014 weren't clear signs that it was a very real possibility that he may start sucking very soon?

 

May be a neon sign at AT&T park may have been a better warning?

 

bears repeating.

[Northern Star]

I need some of Kimmi's sunshine and PMA.

[Bellhorn04]

You mean the fact that he's incredibly fat, had three straight years of declining performance, and had a terrible first half of 2014 weren't clear signs that it was a very real possibility that he may start sucking very soon?

 

May be a neon sign at AT&T park may have been a better warning?

 

The only explanation I can see is that they did some cherry-picking on his 2014 numbers. Here are the monthly OPS splits:

 

Apr .564

May .865

June .750

July .799

Aug .859

Sept .550

Oct .888 (17 postseason games)

[User Name]

Don't forget the horrible platoon splits too (.837 OPS vs righties, .673 OPS vs lefties). It's Carl Crawford all over again, paying superstar money for a guy who's deeply flawed offensively.

[cp176]

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?

 

ok - here is how I see your logic here.

 

The two moves that we seem to be talking about are the signings of Sandoval last year and Price this year.

Since the Red Sox are flush with cash, in your estimation they needed a third baseman last year and they signed the best available in Sandoval. Since they are once again this year flush with cash, they realized that starting pitching was a priority, thus they signed the best available in Price.

You see virtually no difference in these two signings, because you feel that both were keeping in line with the team's philosophy at the moment.

Those of us who see a difference between these two moves, are allowing our feelings about whether or not we liked either signing to cloud the fact that they represent the same thing in keeping in line with orders from the top?

 

If that is your case, it is much to narrow a focus for me. If it supports your feeling good about Ben Cherington's tenure in Boston, that is fine.

 

The move to sign Sandoval would have made some sense at the time if they had gone out and gotten a real top of the rotation guy as well. They chose not to. Bad move at the time and extremely bad in hindsight. The way you see things - not much difference in the 2 moves. The way I see things - a huge difference particularly considering what they did not do. If that is my bias getting in the way of the facts as you see them, I am very biased.

[Elktonnick]

I agree with Kimmi. Coming to Fenway I can see a very good argument for Sandoval actually improving his performance. There were a few warning signs that he might not be an All-Star but none that he would decline to the degree that he did. And I say that as someone who utterly disliked the signing at the time.

 

Sandoval's defensive WAR (dWAR) shows that he has mostly played a bad 3rd base defensively since 2009 with one exception 2011 when his dWAR was 1.8. He had a negative dWAR in 09,12,13 and 15. His worst year defensively was in 09 when his dWAR was-1.2 not last year. In 2010 his dWAR was 0.1. Based on those numbers one really has to wonder why he was signed. Based on those numbers can anyone reasonably expect that he will play an adequate 3rd base defensively. If he returns to average chances are he will still show a negative defensive WAR.

[a700hitter]

I disagree that the bigger need after 2014 was offense. While our pitching was okay in 2014, it was only because we had Lester, Lackey, and Peavy in the first half of that season. The staff got completely dismantled at the trading deadline. Our starting pitching was decimated going into the off season after 2014. Pitching was the top priority and it was insufficiently addressed. We could have plopped Holt at 3B and pursued pitching. Instead, BC pursued and overpaid a human doughnut to play 3B. Then he signed another IFer for big bucks and played him out of position. His priorities were ridiculously misplaced.

[Spudboy]

Don't forget the horrible platoon splits too (.837 OPS vs righties, .673 OPS vs lefties). It's Carl Crawford all over again, paying superstar money for a guy who's deeply flawed offensively.

 

It's worse than Crawford. At least he still had speed and good defense.

[Elktonnick]

I disagree that the bigger need after 2014 was offense. While our pitching was okay in 2014, it was only because we had Lester, Lackey, and Peavy in the first half of that season. The staff got completely dismantled at the trading deadline. Our starting pitching was decimated going into the off season after 2014. Pitching was the top priority and it was insufficiently addressed. We could have plopped Holt at 3B and pursued pitching. Instead, BC pursued and overpaid a human doughnut to play 3B. Then he signed another IFer for big bucks and played him out of position. His priorities were ridiculously misplaced.

 

The only explanation for the Sandoval signing was that Cherrington was seduced by his playoff numbers. Only a wide eyed optimist could say he was anything but a very mediocre 3rd baseman especially when you look at his defensive numbers.

[cp176]

If he was instructed by ownership to make those moves, I am glad that we have a new GM. I would feel better about him if the decisions were his even though they were bad ones.

[mvp 78]

It's worse than Crawford. At least he still had speed and good defense.

 

Don't remember any good OF play from him while in Boston. I do remember him not going all out to catch a ball in the 9th inning of game 162 in 2011.