example1

Yeah, there's only one Santana, but what is the value of a Santana over Justin Verlander? What is the value of Santana over Brandon Webb? What is the value of Santana over Jake Peavy? What is the value of Santana over Beckett? How about Wang? I think there is a difference, but is that difference the career value of Jacoby Ellsbury, Michael Bowden, Justin Masterson (who some Red Sox officials are extremely excited about) and/or Coco Crisp? It's not a no-brainer. There is reason to think that between Lester, Masterson and Bowden there will be at least one very good major league starter, with the potential for two. Furthermore, why give up all those prospects when you could go get Santana for money alone (which you would have to pay him anyway to keep him)? If the Yankees trade Wang and Kennedy and Cabrera to get Santana then that's fine. Here are the good pitchers who are available after the 08 season for nothing but money (some have options): A.J Burnett (32) Rich Harden (27) John Lackey (30) Jake Peavy (28) Brad Penny (31) CC Sabathia (28) Ben Sheets (30) I imagine that a few of these guys will hit the market rather than resigning or signing with a trading partner. Is Johan Santana worth more than Jake Peavy + Clay Buchholz + Jon Lester + Coco Crisp? Is he worth more than Sabathia + Lester + Buchholz + whatever other minor-league player everyone on the 'this is a no-brainer' bandwagon want to throw in there? Personally, I think the team would be better off with BOTH jake Peavy and Clay Buchholz rather than just Johan Santana. So, yes, it's nice to be Johan Santana, as there is only one of him. However, sometimes NOT being Johan Santana makes you more affordable in terms of having to give up premier talent and money. I think that is a pretty good FA class when you're looking for a 2nd or 3rd starter and an 09 rotation of Beckett, Peavy, Matsuzaka, Buchholz and Lester seems pretty sick. In the past young premier starting talent has been almost unattainable on the FA market. The top line simply SPs haven't been available. After the 2008 season, there will be such talent on the market and the Sox FO is certainly aware of that. There's a tendency around here to go after the first shiny object that goes floating past, rather than waiting for the real financial and long-term gems.

You don't think this was actually just A-Rod saying "f*** you" to the Yankees and NY in general? I am assuming this guy is harboring some pretty deep resentment for being booed despite hitting 30+ HR and 120+ RBI in 2006. The Yankee "love" for A-Rod has really been bandwagonism at its best, as most Yankee fans didn't let A-Rod ride through his difficulties while they were frustrated with the overall direction of the team. He figures, if the Yankee fans aren't smart enough to know that pitching wins championships just as much as (if not more than) offense does, they don't deserve him. I'm actually wondering if he'll end up taking a deal that is less than what the Yankees offered him. The Red Sox were willing to get very creative with him a few years ago in terms of secondary benefits to his contract but the players union held it back because it reduced the value of his contract. I'm pretty sure he's free to reduce the value of his contract if he wants to. I doubt Boras will push for less than before, but I think a big part of his choice to leave was that he wanted to LEAVE and didn't have much interest in playing for the Yankees.

Given the amount of time spent on this site dissecting pitch counts and pitching plans for seasons (i.e., Buchholz cannot pitch more than 170 IP, Papelbon can't throw more than 75 ip, or whatever) I am hesitant to call pitcher's health "luck". Certainly luck has played a part of it, but the Red Sox were not banking on "luck" to keep Beckett's blisters from rearing their ugly head, and Papelbon's shoulder strengthening program wasn't "luck" either. That said, would Santana getting the ball in game 7 really scare you that much? I mean, this is a team that knocked around John Lackey, Jared Weaver, Fausto Carmona and Cy.C Sabathia on the way to the playoffs. They regularly knock around good pitchers. I think I remember the same argument being used about why we shouldn't have let Damon go to the Yankees ("we don't want to see THAT lineup in the playoffs"). I just don't think it's that big a deal, and certainly wouldn't throw away premier young pitching on an already good team simply to keep the Yankees from getting their game 7 pitcher. You will be changing your tune when you realize how good Buchholz is and how foolish it is to look for a 15% short-term improvement from Buchholz to Santana, for 70 times the salary. I wouldn't complain if the move happened, but I'm not going to be pissed if they're not willing to trade Buchholz. Would you be willing to trade Buchholz for other top-tier pitchers, or only Santana? I mean, if Jake Peavy or Brandon Webb became available would you move all of your prospects for them too? To me there comes a point where you're really just trading away "unknown" talent (unknown to those who don't pay attention) for "known" talent. I watch Peavy and Webb and don't see that their stuff is so that much better than Buchholz. I feel like the patience I preached about Pedroia and Ellsbury has been vindicated and I would be willing to bet the Sox would trade either of those guys before they move Buchholz. Buchholz will be at least as good as Dice-K was this year as a rookie, and could very well have better stuff in the future. My point isn't that they shouldn't get Santana. My point is that the difference between Santana and Buchholz isn't as big as most people think and that people always tend to think the grass is greener on the other side. There is nothing about Buchholz that turns me off. Nothing. He has gas. He has a Cole Hamels-esque curve and a Santana-esque changeup. Not only could he be a very good MLB pitcher, he could be a GREAT MLB pitcher. He's only been pitching for 6 years or something!! Amazing. If you're going to trade Buchholz, it better be for Santana, but even then I would rather have a homegrown stud as our #3 and spend our money filling out Manny's lineup spot or getting another SP in the future.

Manny is a great hitter. His comparable players through age 35 are Ken Griffey, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Frank Robinson, Barry Bonds, Jim Thome, Gary Sheffield, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Chipper Jones. Sabermatricians used statistics to figure those out and I think they back up your point. Usually, if it can be argued for logically, it can be shown statistically. If Manny really is causing pitchers to get ulcers and lose their s*** on the mound then one should be able to show that in his numbers. This year he may have scared them, but it didn't show in his numbers. Perhaps he simply didn't take advantage of pitchers having to throw their "quaking in their boots ball". Seriously though, I don't think the Sox are naive enough to plan a move forward without a serious RH power threat someplace in the order. Whether that is A-Rod or Miguel Cabrera or Manny I don't know. What I do know is that when the sox go after this person with all their money and resources, they will be sure to get someone who makes tough-outs, draws plenty of walks, and can hit mistakes over the fence. They are few and far between, but Manny is no the only player who does that.

I agree that Manny isn't a great fielder. However, having watched nearly every game the Sox played for the past 5 years or so (I need to get a life) I just can't think of that many times where Manny "just missed" a ball. Of course, "just missing" a ball would likely be a product of someone who was SLIGHTLY below in ZR, whereas Manny's numbers indicate he usually doesn't realize that the bat has collided with the ball until it has landed in the OF ( ), which would certainly decrease the number of "near misses" he had. I just proved myself wrong! I think the ZR and most defensive metrics are still missing the point. Manny makes some good plays, makes most routine ones, and apparently doesn't get to a lot of balls that even average LFs would make it to. Apparently, my baseball glasses have been tainted by watching Manny for most of this century and I can't recognize a "should be out" when I see one anymore. Oh Mike Greenwell, where have you gone?? JB and ORS (and others as well), do you guys feel like we have an adequate grasp on fielding statistics yet? As Bill James--and many others have pointed out, defense is almost impossible to measure effectively, and errors are one of the worst ways of doing it. I like the idea of Zone Ratings, but without an accurate way of measuring HOW the balls that went into a fielders zone were hit, it is hard to judge the difference between a LF making a sliding catch on a 106mph line drive vs a pop fly. I know this is adjusted for by the sheer size of the data pool, particular park adjustments, etc., but it still seems to me that batting evaluation is well ahead of fielding valuation. Overall, I love the quest for finding accurate statistical models for fielding, I just don't think it has been achieved yet. Manny is obviously well-below average in LF, but it feels like (here are those gut feelings and sentiment creeping in again) that hasn't hurt this team as much as one would think over the past few years. His bat makes up for it, but I think his reputation as a bad fielder actually cushions his REAL performance, which is somewhere in the "mediocre to lackluster" category, probably at least a full standard deviation away from the average LF fielders.

It won't happen. Not with Buchholz. Probability says to get the best single player in the deal, because a player as good as Santana isn't likely to be found from the minors. Of course, "as good as Santana" takes into account every thing he's done already, not entirely what he'll do from here on out. Personally, I think that only cynics would be willing to move Buchholz (plus other players, mind you) for another pitcher at this point. He obviously has the build and the head for the position, he's a strikeout pitcher, and he will be with the Red Sox until 2013 unless they renegotiate with him or move him. If they sign Santana to a 20m/year, for 5 years, they will have spent 100m on Santana before Buchholz is a FA. That, to me, seems absurd. I can see moving Lester here, or a less developed minor-leaguer, like Masterson or Bowden. I think people aren't realizing what a great couple of seasons Buchholz has had and just how good his stuff is at this age. He has three pitches that are EXTREMELY well developed. His changeup next year will be one of the best in all of baseball. Feel free to call me on that if I'm wrong. I won't be. The Red Sox have a recent history of doing a very nice job predicting which of their prospects will do well. I think they are most excited about Buchholz at this point. I was lambasted before the season started, talking up Buchholz and the fact that Theo said that he was the pitcher with the best stuff of anyone he's drafted (per Joe Castiglione during Buchholz's ST start against the D Rays). At the time, people tried to say that Theo and Crew weren't very good talent evaluators and, frankly, I was stupid for listening to them. Meanwhile, I was talking up Ellsbury (saying he should have been starting the 2nd half of the season), Pedroia (who I predicted would do just fine at the MLB level given his substantial track record) and Youkilis (who many here would happily have traded for a crate of oranges a few months back) in the face of those who thought Theo and Crew were idiots. So, for those of you who think your 'hunches' and 'gut feelings' were enough to justify your disdain for our club's GM, suck it. He won't trade Buchholz because he sees Buchholz as a special talent. The Sox would likely spend the money necessary to pay for Santana, but they would never, EVER give up 2 top-tier (i.e., MLB experienced, knocking on the door with invitation in hand) pitching prospects, for one slightly older but considerably more expensive SP, as well as paying him 20m a year. They would rather overpay by 4 million a year once (if) he hits Free Agency, and chalk it up to paying Buchholz or Lester or Papelbon what they're worth. When Theo talks about spending money wisely, I don't take him to mean "trade away the best pitching prospect the Sox have had in 20 years, a young lefty who throws low-to-mid 90s with good secondary stuff" for essentially a 4-years removed version of the same thing. It is more of a hassle than it is worth, frankly, and the Twins, not the Red Sox, would be getting the better end of the deal with a cheap rotation of, what?, Liriano, Buchholz, Lester, Garza and Bonser (or someone else), totaling somewhere near 2 million dollars. We all know Santana is one of the best pitchers in baseball. We all know that. That doesn't make him infinitely more valuable than other players. Furthermore, just because it isn't likely that another player could come along who has a career as good as Santana, doesn't mean it won't happen. Buchholz threw a dominant NO-HITTER in his second MLB start for crying out loud. His composure is through the roof and, frankly, I'd rather have him right now than Phil Hughes, who is one of the best pitching prospects in a long, long time (given his MiLB numbers, which mirror Buchholz's very closely). Anyone still questioning whether or not Buchholz can be an effective MLB pitcher, or whether his "ace potential" is valid, need to reevaluate your standards for a good pitcher. Simply because he hasn't had a career like Santana's (yet) does not mean it isn't possible. in fact, it is POSSIBLE that he has a BETTER career than Santana. There have been better pitchers in history than Johan Santana. I'm not saying it will happen, but it is possible and certainly with this offense behind him I see no reason that Buchholz can't match Santana in wins, world series rings and cy youngs in the next 10-15 years. Again, go ahead and hold me to it. The kid is really, really good. Absolutely untouchable. The twins should be happy with a Lester, Masterson/Bowden, Crisp deal or no deal at all from the Sox. Red Sox with Buchholz on the mound > Yankees (minus A-Rod) with Santana on the mound

Yes. Papi will do whatever it takes to win. In the past few years his status as a big-time hitter may have gone to his head a bit more (notice increase in bling and self-assured commentary), but he remains a good guy and a great team leader. His head and priorities appear to be in the right place and not too focused on individual statistics and achievements. My point above wasn't so much that Ortiz should play 1B--even if he wants to--it was the absurdities of the notion that a "DH can't win an MVP". I think the majority of that argument was that he COULDN'T POSSIBLY play 1B, which most of us who watch him in the field simply do not believe but which the mainstream media appear to see as invalid. The guy would be an average 1B defensively, and thus become MORE than eligible for an MVP award in the minds of the simple-minded "you must play the field to be more valuable, even if you are more valuable to your team studying pitchers and letting a good 1B play 1B" crowd. I think Manny will be gone because of the reasons you listed above JB. LF is a position that, at fenway, is good for someone of almost any outfield position, thus opening up the FA/trade possibilities to nearly any corner infielder or anyone who plays any of the 3 OF positions elsewhere. He's a great player who I like a lot, but he doesn't have the benefit of an open DH Position and because of David Ortiz's existence--perhaps as the best DH ever--the Sox don't have the same flexibility with their positions that other teams (even in the AL) appear to have.

My prediction: If playing at 1B Ortiz would win the MVP. It isn't worth an MVP to the Sox so they won't do it unless they absolutely have to.

This is only the beginning, folks.

The red sox will not go after Barry Bonds. Period. Barry will not play in Boston. Period. End of story.

I think the fundamental answer is that they are willing to spend up to the Luxury Tax and reluctant to go much beyond that whenever possible. All the money up to that point makes 'sense' while beyond that it is extra expensive. They also have a history of doing that, spend all of your luxury tax dollars and as little beyond that as possible.

Absolutely. 1 year, maximum. Sign him and let him help the Clay Buchholz's of the world rather than the Mike Pelfrey's or Jared Weaver's. Hopefully he'll be the 4th starter should the playoffs come about.

His size is an asset. He's bound to fill out as he ages beyond the 23 ripe years he has already. Furthermore, the player whose minor league numbers Buchholz most closely resembles is.... Josh Beckett (and Phil Hughes). We're talking about utter domination. He's not getting lucky, he's throwing sick pitches (3 different varieties). My guess is that within a year or two he will be as good as--if not better than--Matsuzaka, with room for upward growth. Kid's SICK dude. To have a changeup with that level of command at his age is almost unheard-of. Add to that a curveball that is as good as Beckett's (perhaps better) and a fastball in the low-mid 90's and you're talking about a really, really good pitcher. My guess? There isn't enough assurance that Santana will be markedly better than Buchholz for the next 6-7 years, and given that Buchholz is essentially free, I don't see how he could be the centerpiece of any Santana deal. Lester on the other hand would be a nice candidate for that.

:lol: I laughed pretty hard when I read that. They set 'em up and you knock 'em down. He'll be in good shape and the team will be contenders again. Buchholz is too much to give up there. Lester + Coco + Masterson or Bowden would be a more realistic offer from the Sox, and one which I could part with. Beckett Santana Matsuzaka Buchholz Someone/Schill/Wake

Me too... It is still an underestimate, but this is getting closer to the possible "hometown discount" range that players like Varitek and Arroyo took. That range for Lowell is likely between 11-13m, given his superior offensive numbers to 'Tek but 'Tek's important role with the pitching staff and defensively. I think that the signing of guys like Gary Matthews Jr. show that it is reasonable, insofar as we can expect that someone will offer him something close. Those numbers above work out to about 15m a season, so 3 years/45 could be reasonable but also expensive. The question is whether he will accept 3 years, and whether the Sox view his potential production in the 4th season as good enough to justify simply offering him the 4th year. He has been relatively healthy and consistent when healthy. He had one poor year but some pretty spectacular ones too. As a "clubhouse leader" and "clutch performer" he's at his peak right now, so I could certainly see a team like the Dodgers aggressively pursuing him to make him Torre's new right-hand (but left side of the infield) man. First of all, yours' is a great post. I hope you stick around with such thoughtful and well worded arguments. Secondly, I agree with your conclusion but do not know where that leaves the team. How much MORE valuable is Alex Rodriguez as a 3B? As you said, there aren't many 2nd tier options beyond Lowell and A-Rod, so would the team look at moving Youk to 3B and bringing up either Carter or moving Moss or someone (Drew?) to 1B? The move that makes the most logistical sense is to resign Mike Lowell, perhaps over-valuing him, in order to solidify a position that is otherwise difficult to fill with quality talent. This would keep a pretty solid core for the team, give them the 2nd best available player at 3B (probably the 2nd best 3B in the AL overall, actually), and allow them to do so at a reasonable-ish price--particularly compared the the 30m that the Sox may be forced to pay for the A-lternative. Something tells me that if the Sox make an aggressive but reasonable offer to Lowell for 3 years or more, he will take it. He understands how this team operates and knows that they would be making the offer based on what they can give him and remain competitive in other areas, including luxury tax and spending habits. Anyway, again, great post. My hope is that Lowell won't push it into the 15m area but that the Sox will be more accommodating to his requests than they were to Damon and Pedro. I feel there is likely some gray area in negotiation here and that is good for the Sox.

Yep. The kind of thing you couldn't run ass-backwards into in 90% of games. The kind of thing that players all over the world look and say "You should pay ME to do that Holliday!" Really, really poor baseball when it couldn't matter more.

What changed? Well, Torre was publicly called out in the midst of a great run with a disfunctional, non-pitching-laden team, by the team's owner, sparking the entire nation to discuss whether or not Torre should be canned/not-resigned based on winning a WS. In no way was he honored for his 4 championships and multiple AL Pennants. He got shafted multiple times in the last 365 days, and was raked over the coal by guys like you. Given that, I'm sure Torre was anxious to gauge exactly what the response would be of the "new" ownership/decision making group. When they offered him only 1 year and refused to negotiate he knew that the ownership had started believing the anti-Torre core and that was that. Yes, it is the short term that is on rocky ground and they would have asked Joe to a) lead the team through success in the short term and.. do so while expecting to be canned if things don't go as the Yankees wish they would next season, just like he expected to be canned for not winning the World Series... you know, with the whole "Torre won't be back if he doesn't win" comment by the team's owner. While the future of the franchise is very solid, I don't see it as being as good as the Red Sox future at this point, and that is who the Yankees will need to beat. I expect them to be aggressive and get good players, but the future--while looking good--doesn't not contain all the sick young talent the Red Sox have. So a good looking future may STILL mean not winning World Series.

This is GREAT advanced scouting and is indicative of a team that has its s*** together. They have the right pieces in place but haven't rested on their laurels. Like they always say, anything at all to get an edge can be the difference between a win and a loss. This kind of thing should be expected in the majors, but it isn't the norm. Holliday had 11 stolen bases this year, but it was an AWFUL time to be caught that far off base. Awful.

I imagine that if any of us felt that this was going to be the last time the Sox were in the playoffs of world series for, say, 30 years, we would be more high strung. I am pretty sure all of us built some callouses in 2003 and 2004. While we won in 04 we all know we were down 0-3, with "the Curse" still in full effect, and if not for a stolen base by a 3 month rental we're all nervous wrecks right now. We saw our team lose, then saw them essentially lose again before coming from the depths and winning it all. The confidence I feel this year is less about having won in 2004 and more about: a) the Yankees being at home, finally. having led and then won the American League East in 2007 c) I do not feel like this will be the last time this team will be in the playoffs and I don't feel like they have a monkey on their back anymore. d) I have a lot of confidence in the FO's overall philosophy when building an MLB offense, choosing when and where to spend LOTS of money, acquiring young pitching, and drafting. I think these factors were only important because we got the monkey off our back, but without them I would be much more of a nervous wreck. 2004 was a good team combined with a lot of luck. This team is simply a good team and they deserve to be where they are now. They have only Mirabelli, Schilling, Wakefield, Youkilis, Ortiz, Ramirez, and Varitek from that 2004 team, which means they truly have "retooled". Theo was roundly criticized by many on this board, who know who they are, for having teams that weren't perfect in 05 and 06. If you look at what Theo & Co. said from 2004 to now, they have been remarkably consistent in their values and approach and that is all coming to fruition right now. Again, how many teams would have a Clay Buchholz sitting on the bench (on the couch, actually) at a time like this? He wasn't hurt, he was tired, and when a pitcher is tired he is more likely to hurt himself. However, Colorado would certainly pitch him. As would the Yankees, Cubs, Diamondbacks and Phillies. I'm not sure about the Angels, but there are very few teams who have the quality of MLB team and quality of impactful MLB-ready talent that the Sox do in Ellsbury and Buchholz.

At no point does he say that the money was the issue. In fact, he freely acknowledges that the pay was good. You never seem to address this: Said Torre: "It was dismissed real quickly. It was either the offer or nothing. I just felt the contract offer, the terms of the contract were probably the thing I had the toughest time with. The one year, for one thing. The incentives, for another thing. The fact I've been here 12 years and I didn't think motivation was needed." Torre also felt a one-year contract would add pressure for the players, knowing their manager had his job on the line. http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-sptorre1020,0,446404.story At least admit that this is something the Yankees WANTED to do. It's not like they made the offer in good faith and were completely shocked and taken off-guard by Torre's rejection. Please explain why you keep talking about salary, when Torre complained that 1. There were incentives to do something he's done every year 2. The deal was for only 1 year If the Yankees saw Torre as the best available manager they would have aggressively and relentlessly pursued him, throwing everything at him they can. Obviously they didn't do that, which tells me that they think there are better options out there. It told Torre the same thing and he said "screw it."

What did you say about Johnny Damon leaving the Red Sox? I thought you said he was justified in doing it because they weren't offering him what he was worth and that this was a mistake by the Red Sox. That was you, right? The situations are quite similar and while it might be disappointing that Joe-Damon didn't return to NY/BOS with a paycut, it is understandable. I really don't think you need to worry about Joe Torre's career. I find it comical that you're so sure he'll be missing the money more than the game itself.

So you're guessing close games that the Sox win? Rockies put up a fight but can't quite get it done against the Sox? Colorado IS a very, very good team and they are not to be underestimated. But teams don't win 21 of 22 games for a reason, they win that many for a number of reasons. That type of streak is absurd and the type of thing begs to be slowed. It might carry on, but those types of streaks are bound to be broken by a team as good as the Sox.