Sox starting pitching thread

[moonslav59]

Great trade with the Dodgers, but then Ben C. turned around and signed Hanley, Sandoval, and Castillo--3 brutal contracts that will haunt Cherrington forever and will likely undermine his chances of becoming a GM again.

 

Actually, soon after the trade he signed Victorino, Napoli (the first time), Dempster and Drew (the first time).

 

He also traded for Uehara.

[notin]

Ben didn't resign Lester and didn't go after Scherzer who was not generating as much interest as he should have. We should have gotten both of them. And Nelson Cruz. That was a tough offseason for me. But we got Sandoval and Ramirez instead. Ugh.

 

Scherzer wasn't an easy sign, especially when you see how far Washinton was clearly willing to go...

[Bellhorn04]

Scherzer wasn't an easy sign, especially when you see how far Washinton was clearly willing to go...

 

He probably would have been an easy sign for what we gave Price don't you think?

 

Scherzer's deal with the Nats equates to $190-195 million in present dollars because of the deferred money.

[moonslav59]

He probably would have been an easy sign for what we gave Price don't you think?

 

Scherzer's deal with the Nats equates to $190-195 million in present dollars because of the deferred money.

 

We ended up wasting $95M on Pablo and $80M on HRam. That's just about what Scherzer got. Spreading his money out would have helped our luxury tax budget.

[notin]

He probably would have been an easy sign for what we gave Price don't you think?

 

Scherzer's deal with the Nats equates to $190-195 million in present dollars because of the deferred money.

 

It’s easy to say who was better in hindsight, but was it so obvious at the time which of the two would be the smarter sign?

[Dojji]

It’s easy to say who was better in hindsight, but was it so obvious at the time which of the two would be the smarter sign?

 

No, but there was nothing wrong with Scherzer either. If we signed him in 2015 we wouldn't have had to overpay for Price in 2016

 

There's a thing called opportunity costs. It weighs the risks and costs involved in making a move with the costs and risks of NOT making a move. The cost of NOT making a move for Lester or Scherzer was desperation in the following season after the lack of good pitching torpedoed the team and sent them to the basement. That enabled Price's agent to skin us alive.

 

Yes bad contracts can have terrible consequences, but NOT acting can also have consequences. This is business 101 stuff here. This is a thing I'd expect Cherington to realize, but if he did realize it he couldn't get ownership to give him the freedom to act on it, and that's just as bad.

 

If we spend the resources we need to in order stay competitive in the first place, we DON'T have to do what DD did upon entering Red Sox management, and have to empty the magazines buying talent in a buyers' market in order to repair the neglect to the rotation caused by our penny pinching ownership and a feckless prior GM.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Dojji

[notin]

No, but there was nothing wrong with Scherzer either. If we signed him in 2015 we wouldn't have had to overpay for Price in 2016

 

There's a thing called opportunity costs. It weighs the risks and costs involved in making a move with the costs and risks of NOT making a move. The cost of NOT making a move for Lester or Scherzer was desperation in the following season after the lack of good pitching torpedoed the team and sent them to the basement. That enabled Price's agent to skin us alive.

 

Yes bad contracts can have terrible consequences, but NOT acting can also have consequences. This is business 101 stuff here. This is a thing I'd expect Cherington to realize, but if he did realize it he couldn't get ownership to give him the freedom to act on it, and that's just as bad.

O

If we spend the resources we need to in order stay competitive in the first place, we DON'T have to do what DD did upon entering Red Sox management, and have to empty the magazines buying talent in a buyers' market in order to repair the neglect to the rotation caused by our penny pinching ownership and a feckless prior GM.

 

Or maybe the idea with Cherington was to avoid those 7 year deals for starting pitchers. Those contracts always have a few years of over-priced, payroll-strangling ineffectiveness at the end, especially for pitchers 30 and over.

Avoiding those years is a good thing.

 

My personal thoughts are - never trade for a closer and never sign an ace. Closers typically require shorter contracts for lower mileage arms and are less likely to flame out. But if you look at what it takes to trade for one, it’s practically the same package as a frontline starter. (For instance, Chapman, Miller, Giles).

 

And signing an ace type pitcher is a guarantee of bad years at the end; the only question becomes how many good years you get upfront, if any...

[kenmeister]

It’s easy to say who was better in hindsight, but was it so obvious at the time which of the two would be the smarter sign?

 

We only got Price an offseason later. At the time, when we badly needed an ace, we didn't get Lester or Scherzer. And I couldn't believe there wasn't this huge surge from every team to try to go get Scherzer.

[TylerD]

We only got Price an offseason later. At the time, when we badly needed an ace, we didn't get Lester or Scherzer. And I couldn't believe there wasn't this huge surge from every team to try to go get Scherzer.

 

It's fun to imagine what our rotation would like if Scherzer was pitching for us. I always enjoy watching him play. Guy is a gem and always consistent. Even a bad game for him is still getting through 6 innings, and giving up no more than 4 runs. Gives Washington a chance to win every single time he plays. With that said Price looked pretty damn decent last night. Lets hope that continues.

[moonslav59]

We only got Price an offseason later. At the time, when we badly needed an ace, we didn't get Lester or Scherzer. And I couldn't believe there wasn't this huge surge from every team to try to go get Scherzer.

 

When Scherzer was available we needed hitting and pitching. I think Ben looked at the bigger FA SP'er class in the following year with Price, Cueto and others, and decided to go for hitting that year with the idea that he;d sign an ace the next year. The GM switch didn't change that plan as DD signed Price.

[kenmeister]

When Scherzer was available we needed hitting and pitching. I think Ben looked at the bigger FA SP'er class in the following year with Price, Cueto and others, and decided to go for hitting that year with the idea that he;d sign an ace the next year. The GM switch didn't change that plan as DD signed Price.

 

Like I said, Nelson and Scherzer were both available and not getting a ton of attention. It was a weird offseason.

[Bellhorn04]

And signing an ace type pitcher is a guarantee of bad years at the end; the only question becomes how many good years you get upfront, if any...

 

Lester and Scherzer may be showing it doesn't always work that way.

[Dojji]

Or maybe the idea with Cherington was to avoid those 7 year deals for starting pitchers.

 

And we saw the opportunity costs of running a business this way -- we didn't meet the market for top starting pitchers, resulting in us not HAVING top starting pitchers and living in a yellow submarine for 2 years straight.

 

If you want to be a top team, you have to compete with other top teams for top talent. The negative consequences of the last few years of these contracts is part of the cost of doing business in major league baseball, especially as a big market team. If you can't face the idea of having the occasional bit of lost money on your payroll you have no business running a large market team

[notin]

And we saw the opportunity costs of running a business this way -- we didn't meet the market for top starting pitchers, resulting in us not HAVING top starting pitchers and living in a yellow submarine for 2 years straight.

 

If you want to be a top team, you have to compete with other top teams for top talent. The negative consequences of the last few years of these contracts is part of the cost of doing business in major league baseball, especially as a big market team. If you can't face the idea of having the occasional bit of lost money on your payroll you have no business running a large market team

 

Right now, we have two pitchers one would consider "ace" caliber, at least at their time of acquisition.

 

One was traded for ad is living up to the hype and beyond. The other was acquired via free agency and, while pitching well at the moment, is only in year 3 of a 7 year deal and most of us are hoping and praying he accidentally opts out. It's easy to say now "If Ben had gone after Scherzer...". But it's not like Scherzer's future health and performance were known at the time, either. It's also easy to say now that Scherzer ould have been so much cheaper. Do you remember the market reaction after that deal was signed? It was far out of line from what was expected.

 

Really, look at all of the best pitchers the Sox have had in the last 20 years. Most of them were acquired via trade, which mitigated the length of their stay and probably the cost in many cases. This seems to always be the way to go. In fact, some times these pitchers are young enough to be extended and still mitigate the window of ineffectiveness at the end.

 

My biggest issue with Ben was his failure to trade away a few prospects. He could have acquired a few shorter term arms to sit a top this rotation had he been willing to do so, especially given how overvalued prospects were in trades at the time, especially A-ball prospects..

[notin]

Lester and Scherzer may be showing it doesn't always work that way.

 

Scherzer still has 3 years left, for which he will be paid $126mill, including the deferred money.

 

Lester has two years left, for which he will be $57mill. And arguably his 2017 season wasn't worth the $27mill salary. His 2017 was very similar to what the Sox are getting from Price now...

[Bellhorn04]

One was traded for ad is living up to the hype and beyond. The other was acquired via free agency and, while pitching well at the moment, is only in year 3 of a 7 year deal and most of us are hoping and praying he accidentally opts out. It's easy to say now "If Ben had gone after Scherzer...". But it's not like Scherzer's future health and performance were known at the time, either. It's also easy to say now that Scherzer ould have been so much cheaper. Do you remember the market reaction after that deal was signed? It was far out of line from what was expected.

 

It's not my recollection that it was far out of line.

 

I believe Scherzer had turned down a 6 year/144 million extension from the Tigers at the start of the year and there was some surprise about that, but he thought he could get more.

 

Prior to signing for his 7 year/195 million deal (using the present value thing), Lester had signed for 6/155.

[notin]

It's not my recollection that it was far out of line.

 

I believe Scherzer had turned down a 6 year/144 million extension from the Tigers at the start of the year and there was some surprise about that, but he thought he could get more.

 

Prior to signing for his 7 year/195 million deal (using the present value thing), Lester had signed for 6/155.

 

And not using the present value thing, Scherzer's deal was for $210mill, which was the number that caused a lot of market noise.

 

While Washington probably saved some value by deferring money (Fangraphs estimated it was closer to $131mill than $195mill), the future of that market was not as known, either. But I'm not going to argue economics with an accountant. Washington probably did well with their financing. The real issue was the $30mill AAV they placed on starting pitching, which was a previously unbroken barrier...

[moonslav59]

Right now, we have two pitchers one would consider "ace" caliber, at least at their time of acquisition.

 

One was traded for ad is living up to the hype and beyond. The other was acquired via free agency and, while pitching well at the moment, is only in year 3 of a 7 year deal and most of us are hoping and praying he accidentally opts out. It's easy to say now "If Ben had gone after Scherzer...". But it's not like Scherzer's future health and performance were known at the time, either. It's also easy to say now that Scherzer ould have been so much cheaper. Do you remember the market reaction after that deal was signed? It was far out of line from what was expected.

 

Really, look at all of the best pitchers the Sox have had in the last 20 years. Most of them were acquired via trade, which mitigated the length of their stay and probably the cost in many cases. This seems to always be the way to go. In fact, some times these pitchers are young enough to be extended and still mitigate the window of ineffectiveness at the end.

 

My biggest issue with Ben was his failure to trade away a few prospects. He could have acquired a few shorter term arms to sit a top this rotation had he been willing to do so, especially given how overvalued prospects were in trades at the time, especially A-ball prospects..

 

I'm fairly certain Ben would have traded some prospects the next year, but he was gone by then.

 

I wonder, if he knew his job was on the line, he might have made an earlier trade (or two).

 

I think he expected his team to do well enough to not get canned. The last place finish was a surprise to many- not just Ben.

[Dojji]

Right now, we have two pitchers one would consider "ace" caliber, at least at their time of acquisition.

 

One was traded for ad is living up to the hype and beyond. The other was acquired via free agency and, while pitching well at the moment, is only in year 3 of a 7 year deal and most of us are hoping and praying he accidentally opts out. It's easy to say now "If Ben had gone after Scherzer...". But it's not like Scherzer's future health and performance were known at the time, either. It's also easy to say now that Scherzer ould have been so much cheaper. Do you remember the market reaction after that deal was signed? It was far out of line from what was expected.

 

Really, look at all of the best pitchers the Sox have had in the last 20 years. Most of them were acquired via trade, which mitigated the length of their stay and probably the cost in many cases. This seems to always be the way to go. In fact, some times these pitchers are young enough to be extended and still mitigate the window of ineffectiveness at the end.

 

My biggest issue with Ben was his failure to trade away a few prospects. He could have acquired a few shorter term arms to sit a top this rotation had he been willing to do so, especially given how overvalued prospects were in trades at the time, especially A-ball prospects..

 

Free agency is a crapshoot. That is also a part of the cost of doing business. That doesn't mean you ignore it entirely.

[notin]

Free agency is a crapshoot. That is also a part of the cost of doing business. That doesn't mean you ignore it entirely.

 

It's an optional part of doing business. There are plenty of teams that minimize their involvement and still have stretches of success...

[Dojji]

No it is not optional. If you aren't doing everything you can to win more games, you are selling your team short and risking winding up out on your can like Cherington if the team struggles.

[notin]

No it is not optional. If you aren't doing everything you can to win more games, you are selling your team short and risking winding up out on your can like Cherington if the team struggles.

 

When it comes to 6 or 7 year deals, it absolute is optional. Or at least mitigable.

 

The plan of “doing everything” to win now can and often does have long term negative effects. As fans we have the luxury of saying “who cares? Deal with the future when it gets here.” But a GM had better not have that same attitude.

 

Let’s play the hypothetical but also realistic game where Cherington’s long term plan starts working. He deals prospects to fill gaps, and the Sox remain competitive for several more years. But the upfront price was 2014 and 2015 as they happened.

 

The alternate reality is Dombrowski runs the team exactly as he has and has the same successes. But come, say, 2020 and 2021, the farm has run dry and the heavy contracts are too burdensome. He cannot afford to and fails to keep his young core and has no one to replace them. In these two seasons, the Sox are not competitive and out of the race before the ASB.

 

Which scenario do you prefer?

[Dojji]

Assuming a relatively endless supply of nameless good talent, it's optional.

 

If you only have the choice between the talents actually on the market, you have the choice to be endlessly beaten up and your lunch money stolen by the teams who are willing to deal with the wasted years at the end of these contracts, or competing in that market, or to compete in that market.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

It's an optional part of doing business. There are plenty of teams that minimize their involvement and still have stretches of success...

 

If it's good enough for Theo, it's good enough for me. He's the best or right up there, so why not use him as a model (says me).

[notin]

If it's good enough for Theo, it's good enough for me. He's the best or right up there, so why not use him as a model (says me).

 

Theo was also an outstanding drafter capable of providing sufficient minimum wage talent to offset his overpriced players. Not every GM is. Dombrowski certainly wasn’t in Detroit...

[Spudboy]

While I wish the Sox had more success drafting and developing pitchers, I am glad that they can and do participate in all possible methods to acquire talent.

 

Being a big market team sure helps.

 

I have no problem with that.

[Dojji]

While I wish the Sox had more success drafting and developing pitchers, I am glad that they can and do participate in all possible methods to acquire talent.

 

Being a big market team sure helps.

 

I have no problem with that.

 

I might add, "while I wish the Sox had more success drafting and developing pitchers, the object of the game is still to win, and a general manager who isn't prepared to exhaust all options in the pursuit of victory is not someone I want in charge of a large market team with an extensive recent history of competing at a high level."

 

Cherington might have been excellent as the GM of a team that could take a few losing seasons philosophically and wait patiently for the peak years he was trying to build up to. That doesn't exactly describe the Boston Red Sox however

[moonslav59]

Cherington might have been excellent as the GM of a team that could take a few losing seasons philosophically and wait patiently for the peak years he was trying to build up to. That doesn't exactly describe the Boston Red Sox however

 

That wasn't really his plan.

 

We were supposed to be pretty good - not ring seasons but not last place either.

 

Pablo was a horrible signing, but nobody expected THAT horrible.

 

HRam and Porcello had decent to great seasons the year after Ben was left. Flip those two seasons, and Ben gets another season to prove his 5 year plan was a good one.

 

Ben certainly deserves some of the blame, but so many players under performed it was sick.

[notin]

I might add, "while I wish the Sox had more success drafting and developing pitchers, the object of the game is still to win, and a general manager who isn't prepared to exhaust all options in the pursuit of victory is not someone I want in charge of a large market team with an extensive recent history of competing at a high level."

 

Cherington might have been excellent as the GM of a team that could take a few losing seasons philosophically and wait patiently for the peak years he was trying to build up to. That doesn't exactly describe the Boston Red Sox however

 

And I assume you will continue to sing those same large market praises if, in a few seasons, the Red Sox turn into what the Tigers are now...

[a700hitter]

And I assume you will continue to sing those same large market praises if, in a few seasons, the Red Sox turn into what the Tigers are now...

"Large market praises"... what does that mean?