A Realistic View of 2023: Part II

[Dipre]

Not necessarily. Than a lunchpail middle reliever? Sure. Than a late inning guy that can possibly get you multiple innings? It's not so clear cut.

 

But in general, can we agree than an SP and a position player is more valuable than a reliever, regardless of closer status?

[Dipre]

I do, too, but by how much, and don't they adjust, already?

 

That's why the formula assigns a lesser value to relievers by design, and I agree. But I've always sinned of undervaluing RP I guess.

[notin]

Right. But the highest-paid closer makes about 50% of the highest paid starter - strictly in AAV, that is. So there's about a 50% adjustment for leverage LOL.

 

And they’re teammates!!

[Bellhorn04]

But in general, can we agree than an SP and a position player is more valuable than a reliever, regardless of closer status?

 

In general, yes. But I think there's a reason the top closers make $15-20 mill.

[Bellhorn04]

And they’re teammates!!

 

Thanks to Mr. Cohen, yes.

[Dipre]

In general, yes. But I think there's a reason the top closers make $15-20 mill.

 

Top SP and position players are hitting 35-40 mil. I think that's fair.

[Maxbialystock]

Top SP and position players are hitting 35-40 mil. I think that's fair.

 

I don't. But nobody agrees with me.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't. But nobody agrees with me.

 

We just mean fair on a proportionate basis.

[moonslav59]

That's why the formula assigns a lesser value to relievers by design, and I agree. But I've always sinned of undervaluing RP I guess.

 

I don't disagree, but when I look closely, I'm not so sure their formula is off by too much.

 

SP'ers are very important when they give 150+ IP, and although late innings are often higher leverage and of more importance, often times early inning situations are very important, too.

 

So many later inning games are more or elss out of reach, too.

 

No doubt, traditional closers are used almost exclusively in very high leverage situations, and just about every IP is of high value, but it usually is 40-55 innings like that.

 

I think SP'ers might pitch 100 innings of low to mid leverage situations, by they also have plenty of high leverage situations where a game can be won or lost early.

 

It's hard to know just how far they are off in their WAR calculations. It seems like closers do get short-changed, while maybe the rest of RP'ers seem pretty close to accurate, so I guess I am mostly agreeing with you.

[Hugh2]

Starting pitchers are more valuable than relievers. But the gap has shrunk substantially over the decades. Here's a good read.

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-shrinking-starting-pitcher-workload-prospect-edition/

[notin]

That's why the formula assigns a lesser value to relievers by design, and I agree. But I've always sinned of undervaluing RP I guess.

 

Not by design so much as by application. As the roles of relievers expand, they will be valued more. And not by just Fangraphs…

[Dipre]

Not by design so much as by application. As the roles of relievers expand, they will be valued more. And not by just Fangraphs…

 

But that's absolutely the point, and why it is by design, as stated by the guy who updated the formula.

[dannycater]

I think the 2023 Sox are exactly what their record says right now. We're on pace to win 84 games. It almost seems like that's what Henry and Bloom were shooting for.

 

well, mediocrity and expectations of mediocrity are now a new twist in Sox philosophy...I guess when we won in 2018, that was just too much money spent. Sorry, they learned their lesson, stop paying, stop competing.

[dannycater]

Realistic view? Last place officially in the AL East. Wonderful.

[mvp 78]

Realistic view? Last place officially in the AL East. Wonderful.

 

Wow!

[Dipre]

Wow!

 

I mean, he's not wrong.

[Hugh2]

well, mediocrity and expectations of mediocrity are now a new twist in Sox philosophy...I guess when we won in 2018, that was just too much money spent. Sorry, they learned their lesson, stop paying, stop competing.

 

since 2018

 

2019 Nationals win world series. Sox outspend them by $86 million

2020 Dodgers win world series. They outspent the Sox, who had the FOURTH highest payroll in baseball

2021 Braves win world series. SOx outspent them by $35 million and were SIXTH overall in payroll.

2022 Astros win world series. Sox outspent them by $28 million and again were WITH overall in payroll.

 

I say this over and over and over and over again and I will continue to beat this drum. The Sox problem is NOT payroll, it's not and never has been. They pay, they've been paying and they will pay into the foreseeable future.

 

How well they have spent that money, and who they have chosen to pay are easily up for debate, but spending money IS NOT their problem.

[Bellhorn04]

since 2018

 

2019 Nationals win world series. Sox outspend them by $86 million

2020 Dodgers win world series. They outspent the Sox, who had the FOURTH highest payroll in baseball

2021 Braves win world series. SOx outspent them by $35 million and were SIXTH overall in payroll.

2022 Astros win world series. Sox outspent them by $28 million and again were WITH overall in payroll.

 

I say this over and over and over and over again and I will continue to beat this drum. The Sox problem is NOT payroll, it's not and never has been. They pay, they've been paying and they will pay into the foreseeable future.

 

How well they have spent that money, and who they have chosen to pay are easily up for debate, but spending money IS NOT their problem.

 

In general I don't disagree with that. But it's peculiar that they're 16 million under the tax threshold this year (per Cot's Contracts at least) and middle of the pack in total payroll this year.

[Hugh2]

In general I don't disagree with that. But it's peculiar that they're 16 million under the tax threshold this year (per Cot's Contracts at least) and middle of the pack in total payroll this year.

 

One year isn't a trend, They're resetting. I'll be concerned if they're 15th in payroll next year.

 

Also, I don't find that particularly peculiar. I don't think someone sits around a board room and says OMG were $16 million under how do we spend 15 million more? Also, if they signed Verlander over Kluber they'd be sitting over and somewhere around 6th-8th in payroll. How much better would they be? Without a doubt they would be better but how many more wins? 1 maybe. Verlander is better than Kluber but he's been a shadow of his former self to date as well.

 

I don't think you should spend the money just for the sake of spending money. I have a lot of issues with how the Sox have spent their money the last several years but I have no problem with them sitting further under than they're used to because they didn't deem any FA out there worth it.

Edited June 1, 2023 by A Red Sox fan named Hugh

[Dipre]

since 2018

 

2019 Nationals win world series. Sox outspend them by $86 million

2020 Dodgers win world series. They outspent the Sox, who had the FOURTH highest payroll in baseball

2021 Braves win world series. SOx outspent them by $35 million and were SIXTH overall in payroll.

2022 Astros win world series. Sox outspent them by $28 million and again were WITH overall in payroll.

 

I say this over and over and over and over again and I will continue to beat this drum. The Sox problem is NOT payroll, it's not and never has been. They pay, they've been paying and they will pay into the foreseeable future.

 

How well they have spent that money, and who they have chosen to pay are easily up for debate, but spending money IS NOT their problem.

 

I agree with this post.

[Bellhorn04]

One year isn't a trend, They're resetting. I'll be concerned if they're 15th in payroll next year.

 

Except they had already reset in 2020 and 2021, and 2023 would have only been the second year over the threshold.

[Hugh2]

Except they had already reset in 2020 and 2021, and 2023 would have only been the second year over the threshold.

 

Still harsher penalties in year two, and how worth it is it if you're not that good. Also, they could be setting themselves up to go over next year. Better free agency class, and you can reasonably project the big league club to be in a better place as well. You want to time going over if you're going to stay over for 3 years, and starting that clock on a s***** team makes no sense.

[Old Red]

Alfaro exercising option to become FA.

[Dipre]

But for how long can you keep sacrificing the on field product to avoid paying penalties? You're losing money either way with interest in the team waning when it sucks.

[Dipre]

Alfaro exercising option to become FA.

 

Man that sucks. Dude was money for my team, Dominican Winter League and Caribbean Series Champion Tigres del Licey.

[Bellhorn04]

But for how long can you keep sacrificing the on field product to avoid paying penalties? You're losing money either way with interest in the team waning when it sucks.

 

Exactly. And we know the fan base was pretty damn restless coming into this season.

[Hugh2]

But for how long can you keep sacrificing the on field product to avoid paying penalties? You're losing money either way with interest in the team waning when it sucks.

 

Well, they literally were just over the cap last year so it's not like they've been sitting under the cap. I don't think they're avoiding penalties, they're just avoiding year 2 and year 3 penalties when they can. Year 2 might be easier to stomach when the onfield product is good but if the onfield product sucks it doesn't make sense to just handcuff yourself even more to make the decisions to turn the team around.

 

Like I said before, I'll be concerned if they stay under next year too. You should reasonably expect more production from a Bello/Whitlock/Casas/Yoshida/Duran/Devers core next year, and if Sale looks like a healthy pitcher again and the likes of Mayer/Rafaela/Yorke knocking on the door it makes more sense to start that 3 year clock next year.

 

Lets say the Sox need to go out and get the best pitcher on the market (for argument's sake, some will say they will never do that). What did that look like this year? Verlander or DeGrome? we are likely still in last place. Next year it's signing Ohtani. FOr arguments, sake lets say that's realistic. What team is better? 2023 with DeGrome???? or 2024 (what we can reasonably project with these guys) plus Ohtani?

 

not saying these are the moves, but I am saying that timing maters. This last years FA class wasn't very great. With the exception of short stops.

[Hugh2]

I'll take the 2024 on the above.

[Dipre]

I'd do Yamamoto as the pitcher, if only because the Yankees are really high on the guy, and f*** 'em.

[moonslav59]

Except they had already reset in 2020 and 2021, and 2023 would have only been the second year over the threshold.

 

It's not a new thing for the Sox to go several years without going over in a 3-5 year stretch.

 

I'm with Hugh. I'll be worried, if they stay under, next year.

 

I also think they are prepared to add salary, at the deadline, assuming we are still in the race by then.