example1

For some reason I just have dreams about Holliday and Adrian Gonzalez in the same lineup. Both with many years left to play, both high OBP mashers. It just feels like the direction this team should go. Whether its fesible or not is another issue.

This is like your new phrase toward me. I don't appreciate it too much, although I realize it isn't meant as a shot. I suppose I could stop researching stuff and just posting opinion like 75% of the others on this board do. Ellsbury's great. No, Melky's great. Red Sox Rule! Yankees Rule! No, they don't, Red Sox do. No, it's the Yankees, actually. They're comparable. How can you compare them, one rules, the other doesn't... On and on it goes... DIPRE, I agree with you that Ellsbury is better. We disagree that they are not "comparable". Both of them are above replacement, both of them are regular CFs on 95+ win teams, neither would be there if they totally sucked. Both are young (Melky is younger). I think they are entirely comparable and that comparison takes looking at impact in terms of either runs above average or wins above average, not simply their counting stats or rate stats. Offensive and defensive contributions, where they hit in the lineup, age, cost, all of them are fair game. Sorry if my over analysis is tiresome for you guys. The discussion and back-and-forth gets pretty old to me, especially when I'm the only one on this board who actually goes to the advanced metrics to put some numbers to the discussion.

Do you really believe this? I guess I do too, but their seasons this year were close, and Ellsbury is a year older and seems to not have put it all together yet.* We all see that he had a better offensive season than 2008, but his defensive performance really hurt his overall value, according both to fangraph's WAR rating and BP's WARP: Ellsbury: [table] year | WAR (FG) | WARP (BP)| 2008 | 3.3 | 3.9 2009 | 2.8 | 1.8 [/table] Cabrera: [table] year | WAR (FG) | WARP (BP) | 2008 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 2009 | 1.6 | 1.9 | [/table] Ellsbury is definitely the more valuable of the two, but Melky was still a suitable OF for a team with so much firepower. He would be a likeable player if he weren't on the Yankees. *As for Ellsbury putting it together, in 2009 he had a Park Adjusted Runs Above Average of 11.8--that puts him at 5th among qualified MLB CFs: 1. Kemp: 23.2 2. Hunter: 21.4 3. Span: 18.4 4. Victorino: 12.5 5. Ellsbury: 11.8 6. McLouth: 10.9 7. Cameron: 9.8 8. Bourn: 8.6 9. Sizemore: 7.3 10. Ross: 6.8 Although in 2009 he had a poor fielding year (-16.5), in 2008 he was able to score a 16.5 in the field. If he can combine a top ten fielding year with a top five offensive year, this guy would be a truly elite weapon. Seeing that he produced offensively above McLouth and close to Victornio reminds me that he's a pretty special player. It really looked like by the end of the season Ellsbury was much more comfortable and had found his prefered approach at the plate. It works pretty well for the leadoff spot and I think he will become a better leadoff hitter over the years as he sees more pitches. This club would be foolish to not build aggressively around the core of home-grown talent in their primes and pre-primes right now.

I'm not sure that this lineup would be better than the Yankees were this year, but the pitching staff would be better (Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Dice-K, Wake/5th Starter) and they would have most of their key pieces coming back for the next few years, so there would be time for improvement/moving on after Lowell/Ortiz leave.

I would think about Victor hitting 3rd. There's a lot one could do with that group though. They are one aggressive offseason from really improving the lineup and being right there with the Yankees. No matter what happens this year, the offseason following 2010 will be a really pivotal one for this franchise. I expect that if we have this conversation in 18 months this club will look really different.

I think this team will be in great shape if they can secure Holliday for his prime years. An aggressive move on him would open a lot more options for them moving forward. Bay should be the fallback. The goal should still be to get a power hitting lefty; signing holliday at slightly over value wouldn't thrwart their ability to move pieces to get a guy like Adrian Gonzalez. I would really like the promise of that team: Ellsbury (CF) Pedroia (2B ) Gonzalez (1B ) Youkilis (3B ) Martinez © Holliday (LF) Ortiz/Lowell (DH) Drew (RF) Lowrie/Gonzalez (SS) The above lineup would be very, very good. 6 of the starting 9 would be on the team for at least another year afterward, and unless Mauer is available I really imagine them resigning Martinez too, making it 7 of 9. As for Lackey, I just think he'll be too expensive and isn't the pitcher they want to overpay considerably to get. If they went after him it would tell me they think he'll be contributing to a World Series caliber team over the next two seasons--after that his production is questionable and not worth the undoubtedly high FA price. I think they are willing to spend the money it will take to make an impact, I'm just not sure that player will be Lackey.

CC is earning his money tonight for sure. If anyone is wondering why the Red Sox would consider giving up the farm for Felix Hernandez this is it. He's younger and at least as intimidating as CC with a long career ahead of him.

Is that applicable at home plate? I've never seen it done before. Too bad he can't pitch either. oh wait, he can.

I say they add a person to the umpiring crew, a guy who rotates into the umpiring booth and who can review plays quickly and radio down to umps to tell them that the play needs to be reviewed. I'm not sure if that situation is one where you want someone to be reviewing it however. If you did it there then any bang-bang play at 1B could be challenged. Also, in this situation, the Yankees never tagged Howard but the play ended. Would Howard be out? Would it be a re-do? He was never tagged but he never touched the plate. Ball is dead. What to do now?

This has been a horrible year for umpiring.

I think the comparison bodes well for Bowden. He should not be sold low.

Blanton is approximately the upside I can see for Michael Bowden. Bowden throws harder and did better at AAA than Blanton did when he was there, so he might have a slightly higher upside--but Blanton's potential at Bowden's age was probably higher. Both are husky 6-3, and have weird deliveries. Both rely on location and secondary stuff over power, and that ultimately limits their ability to carry a staff. That said, an upside of Blanton is not insignificant. Bowden could certainly make the staffs of a number of MLB teams next year.

I don't know how else to take it when you basically say that you want to have your cake (win every year) and eat it too (get sexy FAs whenever they are available, because, you know, you spend some money on the Sox). Even complaining about the Sox not landing big FAs, or complaining about the players the Sox DO go after, to me is a condemnation of the entire approach. Do you not understand why Matsuzaka was a good move at the time? I spend money on the Sox too, but I'm happy with the results and I can already anticipate the "big move" that this FO will undoubtedly make in the next year or so that will have all of us saying "now that's what I'm talking about... now this team is primed to be really good moving forward!". At that point, you can I can clink our beer bottles together, slap each other on the back, and realize that we're actually on the same page. I assume that moment is coming but that the FO is waiting for the right move--not just buying CC because he's available. I get the perpetual feeling that you don't trust these moves are on the horizon, so the doom-and-gloom comes out.

It would make sense if you could imagine a similar scenario for other teams. The 05-08 Yankees would have shed a number of their bad contracts in favor of spending their money elsewhere if they could have. Giamboid (21m), Abreu (16m), and Pettitte (16m) are among those I'm talking about here, and it is obvious given that they let Abreu and Giambi go, and signed Pettitte for virtually nothing this year. When other teams are in that position they win 80-something games and don't make the playoffs. When the Yankees do it they ALSO have the best closer, decent other SPs, one of the games best SS's in history, and, oh yeah, A-Rod in his prime, to carry them forward in the win-column. They didn't need to rebuild, per-se, but they certainly needed to get rid of dead weight. The same will happen this year, when they either dump Damon and Matsui and Nady or get them back at some fraction of what they cost this year. The Yankees do it differently than any other club does. Fortunately for you, they stay competitive, but they are not a template that other teams can work from. I think the best comparison for the Sox is the Angels, and I think both of them have had roughly the same amount of success over the past few years and both look good moving forward.

I wasn't responding to that sentence alone. I was responding to the continued statements about your money and how you deserve to have it spent, yada yada. You know there's more to this discussion than that you like winning. We all like winning.

FAs are, virtually by definition, overpaid. Overpaying for one player or two is one thing, but overpaying for 75% of a roster is simply unsustainable. That leads to teams having huge percentages of their contracts being "bad" contracts and then the need for lengthy rebuilding processes when those guys get old or when their contracts stop being useful. See: Yankees 2005-2008. The mix the current FO has between developing and coveting cost-controlled players and getting occasional FAs seems to be the most sustainable longterm way for this team to be competitive year after year and to allow you to watch his team play in the playoffs. Imagine if the Sox had spent $23m on Sabathia. This year it probably would have been a wise decision. In 3 years if he goes down with an arm injury would you expect the team to just swallow 1/7th of its payroll moving forward and to win despite the inherent inflexibilty this situation would create? You're a smart guy. You know that the risk of such things is way, way too high. I can think of all sorts of reasons that the Sox wouldn't want to touch CCs contract, even if they could have been assured of a 2009 WS, and whether or not the Dice-K move was wise. Also, nobody was disputing the intelligence of the CC signing when it happened. The cost was way more than anyone here would have been comfortable with, but it had to happen and they overpaid a shitload to make sure it happened. The current thinking is that making the playoffs is one of the most important factors to maxamizing profit. 95 games is the number to shoot for because only a small percentage of teams who won that many games didn't make the playoffs. It keeps fans interested and creates the "buzz" to integrate every new year's generation of fans into the fanbase. It gives them added national and international exposure through the playoffs, and, very importantly, it keeps late season games relevant. As you undoubtedly know, the season is long and if a team is out of contention for the last 40 games of the season, viewership and revenue goes down considerably. Attendence goes down too when teams aren't in contention. One need only look at the TB Rays to see how much of a difference this makes. Last year in August they were selling out. This year their stadium was largely empty even against the Rangers and Sox late in the season. From an advertiser's perspective (which really matters) they don't want to spend $200,000 per-game to advertize, say, FW Webb if the last 20 games of the season are irrelevant. If they have a 20 game lead then viewership actually goes DOWN. Same with if they are eliminated from playoff contention. Think about the Rangers viewership this year. My guess is that the last 15 games or so had a sharp downturn in viewership and, thus, in potential advertising revenue. I didn't suggest you change your loyalty. I said I don't want you to, but said that if you are demanding yearly contention via continual FA acquisitions you should reconsider. I will take it a step further: not only should you not expect them to sign FAs but you shouldn't even expect them to sign the majority of their expiring contracts. 1st Round picks are simply too valuable to just give away while ALSO paying tens of millions to get an extra win or two for two seasons. Your critiques consistently come across as critiques of the overall philosophy. Saying that you don't care whether players are FAs or home grown misses the point about what they're doing. If they have the chance to save 40% on 80% of their players, they would be foolish not to do so--whether you think they have the money or not. For the most part, signing FAs (CC Sabathia included) is flushing money down the toilet. It isn't about enjoying winning. It is about creating a team that is sustainable for the longrun. Given the Sox unique payroll and income facts, I think it is reasonable to believe they are doing what makes the most sense for their situation. The Yankees are doing what makes the most sense for them too. If the situation were such that it made sense for the Sox to have 3 players on their payroll who make more than Manny did in 2004, then they would probably do it. However, it clearly doesn't, so looking at alternative strategies as "equally enjoyable" is folly, IMO. I tisn't something the Sox could do, so it isn't worth comparing them. You say you spend a lot of money and you want it to be spent, etc., well, it is being spent, and more wisely than a huge-FA strategy would have been.

Jacko, I think you're missing the point by diverting this discussion into middling middle-reliever talk. The idea that teams can home-grow their middle relievers should be STANDARD PRACTICE. It is what most clubs do, year after year. The Sox of 03 and 04 had a club that had many mercenary middle relievers, but over time they have moved away from that as one of the easiest ways of reproducing WAR without spendin gmuch money. Most middle relievers are the same: they aren't good enough to be closers or starters but they probably have some decent platoon splits. All in all, they aren't worth spending extra money on. The Yankees finally being smart enough to realize this is not some great revelation, and it has no baring on whether they are truly starting to integrate a philosophy of home grown players into their franchise plan.

I'll be impressed if you try to incorporate them, but I expect them to be traded. Incorporating them could save them tens of millions of dollars. Perhaps having A-Rod and Teixeira would be enough talent for the Yankees to finally have faith that multiple cost-controlled players can fit into their lineup without them not winning the World Series. I just doubt it. Coke, Robertson and Aceves gave the Yankees a grand total of 2 WAR: Coke: 0.1 Aceves: 1.2 Robertson: 0.7 For a point of comparison, Daniel Bard pitched many fewer innings than Aceves and had a WAR of 0.8. Justin Masterson (just during his stay with the Sox) was at 1.3.

My point was that most of NY's substantial "home grown" players are only "home grown" because they came from the Yankees system, not because they are cost controlled or cheap or any of the other benefits of being "home grown". They are home grown in name only. The Yankees get credit for Cano, Melky, Hughes and Chamberlain. Otherwise their collection is garbage.

Red Sox (09 Salaries): Papelbon: 6.25 Youkilis: 6.00 Pedroia: 1.50 Lester: 1.00 Delcarmen:0.47 Ellsbury: 0.45 Lowrie: 0.42 Buchholz: 0.41 Bard: 0.35 TOTAL: $16.85m ($1.87m/player) Yankees (09 Salaries): Jeter: 20.0 Rivera: 15.0 Posada: 13.1 Cano: 6.0 Pettitte: 5.5 Wang: 5.0 Cabrera: 1.4 Joba: 0.43 Ramirez: .42 Gardner: .41 Hughes: .41 Robertson: .41 Aceves: .41 Coke: .40 Cervelli: .40 TOTAL: $69.29m ($4.62m/player)

The Red Sox (or any team with a 'mere' $120m payroll) absolutely must have a great player development system and must be stingy. Note: 1. Even though they have been stingy and aware of the impact of contracts, going into 2010 they have more than 1/6th of their payroll going into Ortiz and Lowell who, I would argue, aren't worth much moving forward. 2. If they hadn't been cost conscious and hyperaware of player development, they could easily have more than half of their $ going to s***** contracts. 3. With this system the Red Sox have been in the playoffs six of the past seven years. Has this club ever done that during your lifetime? So you would be happier if they signed overpriced FAs and made the playoffs as often as, say, the Cubs or Mets do? Exactly which team are you jealous of, at this point? The only one I can see that is obviously worthy of jealousy is the Yankees, but they have resources that the Sox don't, so being jealous of their resources is like being jealous of people who live in mansions and have learjets: an exercise in futility. It would bother me for the same reason that it bothers me that Lowell and Ortiz's contracts suck right now. For any team (or country or family) with limited resources, losing a substantial portion of your salary to useless contracts completely limits what you can do later. Just like if I have to pay the interest on my credit card rather than paying down the principle on my house. They are both expendatures, but one is money out of my pocket, one is longterm investment. We should have a pretty good idea at this point about what the Sox feel they can reasonably spend on their team: $140m is probably the very top line in any given season. That means they can reasonably spend just a bit more than they did last year, but not 3-4 FAs more. Be happy a700. The Sox are in a position where they have a great core of a team to build around. When the time is right they will make those aggressive FA signings or resign current pieces and will be more than competitive with the Yankees. Remember, last year the Yankees were sitting home watching at this time. Same with 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004. The Yankees have been a lifelong problem for good fans like you, but if you look clearly at the past few years there's no doubt which franchise has been better. The 2009 club 'only' made it to the first round, but that isn't something to sneeze at. I agree with everything you're saying, except: 1. It is fine to blame the Yankees winning on their huge FA spending. Without Teixeira and CC they aren't here. and 2. I still sense an insecurity in your words about whether the FO is really out to win, or if they just did 2004 and 2007 for show so they could steal your money. I feel like this is the ONLY way that any non-Yankees club can manage itself and be competitive year after year. The Angels follow a similar model (letting high priced FAs go, retaining their young players and draft picks, etc.,) and they are also a great example of how to compete. I see no reason to be insecure. I think the FO wants to build a winning club again, I think they know what that means (in terms of being able to be a better team than the Yankees) and I think they are picking their spots. You can write about how the team slipped this year and last, but I never saw either team as a huge threat to win the WS... certainly not the 09 team. That doesn't mean they failed in any huge way, it merely means they were like the other 29 teams in baseball--not good enough to win the WS. They will be back. I don't understand how you can use the words "investment" and yet expect them to shoot for wins above all else. You're right that CC has helped the Yankees win, but that doesn't mean he's a great investment. The extra few wins that he may cost the Yankees will likely cost them tens of millions of dollars more than what it should cost. That's a very, very expensive championship. I feel like you see millions of dollars as just play money for these owners, but you're one of the few people who thinks they can (or should) spend millions of dollars stupidly. It is either an investment (in which case it MATTERS how much they spend) or it is a non-business-related decision, in which case it is basically play money. The reality is that the Yankees are the only team that can really warrant spending ungodly amounts of money year after year. Their media market is way, way, way bigger than the Red Sox and they get returns on those extra wins. The Sox don't make significantly more money between wins #95 and #110 so it isn't a good investment. I, for one, don't want you to become a Yankee fan. However, if you want to have a hugely imbalanced team that has a good percentage of its players become obsolete and overpaid in a few short years, you may want to reconsider. Remember, the Yankees didn't just spend lots of money on CC and Teixeira. They also spend 32 MILLION on A-Rod this year, 20m on Jeter, 17.5m on Burnett, etc., They spent a shitload ontop of a shitload, which makes comparisons to the Sox business plans like comparing apples to oranges.