A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[Northern Star]

If it were up to me, I'd keep all 3 catchers and give Swihart some more playing time at other positions.

 

Bryce Harper can catch, right?

[Kimmi]

and yet that analysis ignores the very important factor of opportunity cost.

 

Yes, he can be replaced, in theory, Now compare the time, cost and prospects it will take to replace him, with the weighted risk of that 10 year deal.

 

Unless the opportunity costs of keeping a player involve blocking a talented cost-controlled replacement you already have in house, or includes a large expected haul of prospects for moving him, honestly I'm inclined to believe that it's frequently better to bet on the bird in the hand.

 

Well this is why we need a farm system.

 

But even without that, I would disagree.

[Kimmi]

Bryce Harper can catch, right?

 

Are we signing Harper? I hope not.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think James expressed himself very well, and I don't think he meant it to come out as callously as it did. Certainly, the players are the game, and certainly, you want to put a good product on the field to keep fan interest.

 

That said, I still think his overall point stands.

 

Take Mookie, for instance. If it's going to take a 10 year deal to re-sign him, I'm letting him walk. He can be replaced. Not necessarily by a single player, but with the money it would take to keep him, the Sox can certainly replace his production. And, I'm guessing that the fans would be just as happy if the team continued to be a playoff contender.

 

I certainly don't disagree with your point about Mookie. You're just talking about making a sound economic decision. There's a vast difference between that and what James actually said, which was that 'there are no players who are underpaid' and 'they're all replaceable'.

 

Apparently some of this stemmed from him getting tired of hearing about players making several million a year being referred to as underpaid.

 

I know that when I say some player is underpaid, I mean in relation to other players, not to the general public. I think that's what most people mean when they say that.

 

Suggesting that all the players could retire and be replaced and it wouldn't make any difference, that's just stupid. I don't understand why he would even go there.

[Dojji]

Well this is why we need a farm system.

 

And do we have one? Who's in the pipeline? Factor the fact that we have no one who could even directly replace 50% of Betts' value into those opportunity costs, because if we let him go, with no in house replacement within a reasonable 5 year window, we're going to have to pay something to someone for an outside replacement, and that likely in the teeth of a buyers' market. The cost-benefit analysis breaks down pretty quickly at that point.

[Dojji]

BTW Kimmi, I thought you liked prospects and keeping the farm system stocked. Weird. Perhaps I was mistaken.

 

Because as recent history proves, nothing depletes the farm quite like the need to fill holes in the roster. Under the circumstances I think reality-based analysis makes it clear that NOT creating those holes for petty or transient reasons is probably a smarter decision in terms of keeping your player development pipeline stocked, then refusing to meet the market to resign your own players and demanding that the pipeline constantly replace those players through promotion or trade.

 

I mean you do you, I know you've got the Bill James thing going and it seems to be working for you. and at the end of the day we are both rooting for the same team and all, but I can't help but think that James isn't seeing the entire picture because he's looking at baseball like an analyst rather than a businessman. If you don't factor in the business side of things you are going to miss stuff. I feel that both you and Mr. James are missing some critical factors in why certain contracts are signed.

 

Case in point: If you really want to build the best staff you can have, recruit well, train well, and keep your professionals happy. It's really not unlike any other business in that respect. Even a bad signing protects the farm better than a nonsigning does (as David Price proves), and not exposing your pipeline is usually a critical part of building your reserves towards future championships.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Dojji

[sk7326]

No, they aren't. But there are also plenty of guys who have the talent who shrink in the moment or flashes in the pan that fall by the wayside. Think about it. If Kimbrel blew out his elbow in ST, who closes? Barnes probably? And has he proven he can lock down the 9th? Would he have been any good? It helps to have an experienced hammer at the end of the pen. There are plenty of guys with a middle relief track record and stuff galore who just shrink as a closer. A certain 6'8" current Yankee comes to mind

 

Eovaldi locked down the 12th, 13th, the 14th, the 15th, the 16th, the 17th - those all were pretty big deals

[sk7326]

If I knew anything about economic theory, I might have a better response for you.

 

(baseball players do not participate in a free market)

[dgalehouse]

Bill James is still a moneyball devotee. And a bit of a whacko . No doubt that baseball salaries have gotten out of hand . We all know that . We should also know that it is very difficult to maintain a playoff caliber team without being a big spender. And the big spenders are still turning a nice profit. The small market , small time Charlies sing the blues.

[Dojji]

I for one am fine with players claiming their share of the massive revenue boom that is sweeping MLB in the last few years. It's not like this salary inflation is coming out of ticket prices. The owners have already been taking in this money for years and pocketing the difference while the players' salaries slowly catch up

[Kimmi]

I certainly don't disagree with your point about Mookie. You're just talking about making a sound economic decision. There's a vast difference between that and what James actually said, which was that 'there are no players who are underpaid' and 'they're all replaceable'.

 

Apparently some of this stemmed from him getting tired of hearing about players making several million a year being referred to as underpaid.

 

I know that when I say some player is underpaid, I mean in relation to other players, not to the general public. I think that's what most people mean when they say that.

 

Suggesting that all the players could retire and be replaced and it wouldn't make any difference, that's just stupid. I don't understand why he would even go there.

 

Fair enough. I don't really disagree with what you're saying.

 

As I said, I don't think James meant for his tweets to sound as callous as they did.

 

He probably regrets saying what he said.

[Kimmi]

And do we have one? Who's in the pipeline? Factor the fact that we have no one who could even directly replace 50% of Betts' value into those opportunity costs, because if we let him go, with no in house replacement within a reasonable 5 year window, we're going to have to pay something to someone for an outside replacement, and that likely in the teeth of a buyers' market. The cost-benefit analysis breaks down pretty quickly at that point.

 

No we don't have anyone in the pipeline.

 

I'm a bargain shopper. I'm signing the under the radar, 2nd tier types of guys instead of giving an insane contract to the super stars.

[Kimmi]

BTW Kimmi, I thought you liked prospects and keeping the farm system stocked. Weird. Perhaps I was mistaken.

 

Because as recent history proves, nothing depletes the farm quite like the need to fill holes in the roster. Under the circumstances I think reality-based analysis makes it clear that NOT creating those holes for petty or transient reasons is probably a smarter decision in terms of keeping your player development pipeline stocked, then refusing to meet the market to resign your own players and demanding that the pipeline constantly replace those players through promotion or trade.

 

I mean you do you, I know you've got the Bill James thing going and it seems to be working for you. and at the end of the day we are both rooting for the same team and all, but I can't help but think that James isn't seeing the entire picture because he's looking at baseball like an analyst rather than a businessman. If you don't factor in the business side of things you are going to miss stuff. I feel that both you and Mr. James are missing some critical factors in why certain contracts are signed.

 

Case in point: If you really want to build the best staff you can have, recruit well, train well, and keep your professionals happy. It's really not unlike any other business in that respect. Even a bad signing protects the farm better than a nonsigning does (as David Price proves), and not exposing your pipeline is usually a critical part of building your reserves towards future championships.

 

Well I always felt like where we went wrong before is with Lucchino sticking his nose into baseball ops, and trying to make a splash for business purposes.

 

Let the baseball ops people take care of the baseball decisions.

 

And yes, I'm all about the farm system.

[Dojji]

No we don't have anyone in the pipeline.

 

I'm a bargain shopper. I'm signing the under the radar, 2nd tier types of guys instead of giving an insane contract to the super stars.

 

So in other words, you're the New York Mets. Good to know.

[moonslav59]

Are the Sox going to be in on Kikuchi?

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/11/red-sox-rumors-jdm-bogaerts-kikuchi-payroll-farm.html

 

He would have a much lower AVV than others,

 

[lasitter]

Both of those are actually better than Swihart's current season line, .229/.285/.613

 

Everyone knows that Vazquez and Leon aren't here for their bats. The fact that Swihart is, and didn't hit better than those two normally would, speaks volumes.

 

 

 

How many chances does this guy need? He's had more playing time than most prospect catchers get before "getting it." At a certain point you have to make the most of your opportunities. At a certain point you're not a prospect anymore. He's done. Move on.

 

If Swihart has already been on the roster, and has at least a fair bat at that position, why would we keep him before and not now?

 

I just don't see him as a throw-away piece in a trade.

 

What is our other (cheaper?) option at catcher? Does he handle a stick better? Playing catcher is not like being a utility infielder or outfielder. It is a very specific skill set. What are we going to do when one of them gets a concussion or breaks something? Considering that we're already allocating a roster spot for this, I just don't see it as that big of a deal. We're just talking about whether to continue an aspect of the roster that produced a ring ...

[lasitter]

If it were up to me, I'd keep all 3 catchers and give Swihart some more playing time at other positions.

 

What could it hurt? We're really not spending that much at the position. Mid-season? If he helps out as part of a more important trade then you'd still have him for that. There's always a demand for catching talent because the position is so hard on the body.

[lasitter]

No we don't have anyone in the pipeline.

 

I'm a bargain shopper. I'm signing the under the radar, 2nd tier types of guys instead of giving an insane contract to the super stars.

 

I'm in favor of bargains that have a pathway forward in player development.

 

While there are all sorts of salary caps and luxury taxes, expenditures in player development are an area not subject similar limitations.

 

Every year, there are a certain number of games (5-10?) lost to an absence of situational awareness. What if we were to focus on the opportunity these represented in the form of player training and development? What if, at every minor league level, we had coaches that developed skills in base running and stealing? What if we had coaches that taught nothing other than how to lay down a bunt or defend against a bunt? Specialists that could drill players in certain defensive situations? What would it be worth to never throw the ball into the dugout? To never miss a cutoff man?

 

This is of course already being done, but not nearly intensively as might be possible. And in terms of player salaries, it could be incredibly cheap in terms of bidding for players with better WAR / other stats.

 

Of course this is easier said than done -- but if you have JH money, why not leverage that advantage?

[Dojji]

Lower AAV because of higher risk. I'm not completely out on Kikuchi, but IMHO just about the last thing this team needs is a lefthanded starting pitcher.

 

Now tell me that the team is in on Dallas Keuchel, which is what I first read that as, and I'd be all over it. If you want a starter on the FA market that you could get on a medium-length contract (3-4 years) it seems to me that Keuchel's a likely candidate. Signing Keuchel to stretch out the middle of the rotation would actually make a lot of sense if we can't bring Eovaldi back, and would put us in a great position to deal with Porcello's potential departure in the next couple seasons..

Edited November 10, 2018 by Dojji

[Dojji]

If Swihart has already been on the roster, and has at least a fair bat at that position, why would we keep him before and not now?

 

Because we had no reason to get rid of him. Now he's out of options, so we kinda do. Even with his lackluster offensive performance the market for catching is so starved that I doubt he clears waivers. So it's trade him for very little or cut him for nothing. Or have him cling into that 25th spot in the roster despite not really being necessary to the team in any way.

 

What is our other (cheaper?) option at catcher?

 

Plenty of AAAA options to play emergency backup, I imagine we'll sign one.

 

Does he handle a stick better?

 

Better than what? What Swihart actually hits or this illusion that Swihart is going to magically become JT Realmuto any second now?

 

Playing catcher is not like being a utility infielder or outfielder. It is a very specific skill set. What are we going to do when one of them gets a concussion or breaks something? Considering that we're already allocating a roster spot for this, I just don't see it as that big of a deal. We're just talking about whether to continue an aspect of the roster that produced a ring ...

 

This is not a sufficient reason to keep a 3rd catcher on a roster, never has been, never will be.

[Dojji]

Well I always felt like where we went wrong before is with Lucchino sticking his nose into baseball ops, and trying to make a splash for business purposes.

 

Let the baseball ops people take care of the baseball decisions.

 

And yes, I'm all about the farm system.

 

There's a difference between marketing decisions and real business decisions. What Lucchino did was a marketing decision, not a business decision. Marketing people might think they're businessmen, businessmen know better.

 

The purpose of marketing is to extend the reach of business. Marketing promotes and enables business, not the other way around. If that gets flipped around and business starts catering to the needs of marketing, disaster is always on the horizon because at its heart marketing is fundamentally faith-based rather than rational, and that's no way to survive in a cutthroat market.

[moonslav59]

If Swihart has already been on the roster, and has at least a fair bat at that position, why would we keep him before and not now?

 

I just don't see him as a throw-away piece in a trade.

 

What is our other (cheaper?) option at catcher? Does he handle a stick better? Playing catcher is not like being a utility infielder or outfielder. It is a very specific skill set. What are we going to do when one of them gets a concussion or breaks something? Considering that we're already allocating a roster spot for this, I just don't see it as that big of a deal. We're just talking about whether to continue an aspect of the roster that produced a ring ...

 

They might keep 3 catchers again, but if Pedey returns and we sign Pearce. I just don't see Swihart as our 1Bman vs LHPs.

[Bellhorn04]

There's a difference between marketing decisions and real business decisions. What Lucchino did was a marketing decision, not a business decision. Marketing people might think they're businessmen, businessmen know better.

 

The purpose of marketing is to extend the reach of business. Marketing promotes and enables business, not the other way around. If that gets flipped around and business starts catering to the needs of marketing, disaster is always on the horizon because at its heart marketing is fundamentally faith-based rather than rational, and that's no way to survive in a cutthroat market.

 

Lucchino was not purely a marketing guy.

 

He became kind of a convenient target to blame for signings like Crawford and Sandoval, it seems, even though we have no real evidence that this was the case.

 

Show me something, anything that supports this.

[notin]

Lucchino was not purely a marketing guy.

 

He became kind of a convenient target to blame for signings like Crawford and Sandoval, it seems, even though we have no real evidence that this was the case.

 

Show me something, anything that supports this.

 

Everyone liked to state Lucchino was not a baseball guy and knew nothing about the sport. But he certainly spent a huge chunk of his adult life around baseball front offices employed by MLB franchises (who did hire him for some reason besides being the front office scapegoat). Most likely he knew more about the sport than any of us, but a lot of people don't want to admit that for some reason...

[S5Dewey]

Everyone liked to state Lucchino was not a baseball guy and knew nothing about the sport. But he certainly spent a huge chunk of his adult life around baseball front offices employed by MLB franchises (who did hire him for some reason besides being the front office scapegoat). Most likely he knew more about the sport than any of us, but a lot of people don't want to admit that for some reason...

 

I would hope that he knew more about baseball than any of us just from hanging around baseball people, but in all actuality that sets the bar pretty low. Most of us are long on opinions but short on real baseball knowledge. If you doubt that try talking to someone who's played at a high level for a while.

 

Everyone within a successful business brings different things to the table. IMO Lucchini's strength was in marketing - creating revenue. Now he's going to use that strength by moving the PawSox to Worcester. I predict the team will be financially successful there under Larry's direction.

 

Or it could just be that he naturally appears to have an abrasive personality.

[moonslav59]

Lucchino was not purely a marketing guy.

 

He became kind of a convenient target to blame for signings like Crawford and Sandoval, it seems, even though we have no real evidence that this was the case.

 

Show me something, anything that supports this.

 

While not pure evidence I think this article speaks the truth.

 

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/15/roche-red-sox-jumped-the-shark-with-lackey-crawford-signings/

 

Here's a quote from a link provided in the article.

While he wouldn’t comment too specifically on Lackey, he did admit that he regretted feeling pressured to make a move when the move he hoped for didn’t work out.

 

“Some of the offseasons that we had were more offseasons of convenience — giving in to the need to be good next year,” Epstein explained, while bringing up the infamous “bridge year” talk from a few years back.

 

Theo seemed like he was fine with having "bridge years," (or maybe "mini-cliffs"- my words), but Lucchino didn't want lost marketing opportunities, and so seemingly pushed for big splash signings. Lackey, Crawford, Pablo...

 

I recall he was also given much of the credit for the Schilling trade, too.

[notin]

I would hope that he knew more about baseball than any of us just from hanging around baseball people, but in all actuality that sets the bar pretty low. Most of us are long on opinions but short on real baseball knowledge. If you doubt that try talking to someone who's played at a high level for a while.

 

Everyone within a successful business brings different things to the table. IMO Lucchini's strength was in marketing - creating revenue. Now he's going to use that strength by moving the PawSox to Worcester. I predict the team will be financially successful there under Larry's direction.

 

Or it could just be that he naturally appears to have an abrasive personality.

 

Exactly, yet everyone likes to dump bad moves on the guy and blame him for meddling in baseball operations like a Scooby Doo villain.

 

I’m fairly certain most people have mischaraterized the guy...

[notin]

While not pure evidence I think this article speaks the truth.

 

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/15/roche-red-sox-jumped-the-shark-with-lackey-crawford-signings/

 

Here's a quote from a link provided in the article.

While he wouldn’t comment too specifically on Lackey, he did admit that he regretted feeling pressured to make a move when the move he hoped for didn’t work out.

 

“Some of the offseasons that we had were more offseasons of convenience — giving in to the need to be good next year,” Epstein explained, while bringing up the infamous “bridge year” talk from a few years back.

 

Theo seemed like he was fine with having "bridge years," (or maybe "mini-cliffs"- my words), but Lucchino didn't want lost marketing opportunities, and so seemingly pushed for big splash signings. Lackey, Crawford, Pablo...

 

I recall he was also given much of the credit for the Schilling trade, too.

 

The “bridge year” quote was way too often misinterpreted. Fans screamed like Epstein was taking a year off from the MLB club to wait on the development of the minor leaguers, despite that very off-season Epstein signed John Lackey to the biggest contract the organization ever gave to a pitcher.

 

Epstein was referring to a change in their approach to minor league drafting, going from lower ceiling/ higher success rate college players to higher ceiling high school players, and went on to discuss the long term impact on the farm. I believe this was the offseason of drafting Jason Place, a high ceiling high schooler who flopped...

[Bellhorn04]

While not pure evidence I think this article speaks the truth.

 

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/15/roche-red-sox-jumped-the-shark-with-lackey-crawford-signings/

 

Here's a quote from a link provided in the article.

While he wouldn’t comment too specifically on Lackey, he did admit that he regretted feeling pressured to make a move when the move he hoped for didn’t work out.

 

“Some of the offseasons that we had were more offseasons of convenience — giving in to the need to be good next year,” Epstein explained, while bringing up the infamous “bridge year” talk from a few years back.

 

Theo seemed like he was fine with having "bridge years," (or maybe "mini-cliffs"- my words), but Lucchino didn't want lost marketing opportunities, and so seemingly pushed for big splash signings. Lackey, Crawford, Pablo...

 

I recall he was also given much of the credit for the Schilling trade, too.

 

Sure, there's some truth in this. But I can't believe the truth is as simple as Lucchino being this dummy who somehow forced everyone else into these ill-advised moves.

[moonslav59]

Sure, there's some truth in this. But I can't believe the truth is as simple as Lucchino being this dummy who somehow forced everyone else into these ill-advised moves.

 

I think he pushed this...

 

Hey, Theo, we have the money, we want to keep fans interested, keep us good through your so-called "bridge year(s) by signing someone big.

 

Maybe, Theo got to choose who the big signing was, but he was pushed into doing something big for the fans and the marketing.

 

Not sure, if that applied to Ben & Pablo/