example1

Theos player development machine now extends well beyond his own franchise.

And the key players can hardly be considered "old". Salty: 27 Gonzo: 30 Pedroia: 28 Youkilis: 33 Crawford: 30 Ellsbury: 28 I don't think these guys are at such an age where we can expect their defensive performance to deteriorate. Do 28 year olds decline historically? 30 year olds? Hmm. This team is in its prime. The players who have like 80% of their value are in their prime and the other 20% are a combination of 35 and older and 26 and younger. Overall the team will probably see more time from the younger players listed in other posts above, plus guys like Lavarnway, Bailey (27) and Melancon (26) . No matter what your perspective, I don't see how age is a big concern on this team.

I agree with you. Fortunately, the best indicator will be how the 2012 season actually plays out. I'm pretty confident that this is a really good team--much closer to the team that had the best record in the bigs for most of 2011 than the collapse team of September. Of course, we will have to wait and see. Trying to convince others of this is like beating a dead horse, and it really is just a matter of opinion so I'm ready to stop trying. The team can speak for itself.

I wonder if any players had a 1.422 OPS in 2011 like Barry Bonds did in 2004. It was a different league.

There's no need to use a meaningless term like OPS+ and ERA+? Come on man. That's weak sauce. Just because you arent curious enough to learn what those numbers mean or why they were devised in the first place it doesn't mean they aren't useful. They are. They were devised for the exact type of discussion you are having here.

In the spirit of debating, I'll just say you are wrong. The worst team fielded since 2004? Ha!

I saw it called "knee to knee" or "abbreviated slide-step" on a pitching mechanics website. I would say that's what the Sox do when they want a faster delivery with guys on base. THey don't do it every time, however, which tells me they see situations where delivering more quickly is important and others where it isn't... hence there isn't an overall philsophy to never care about baserunners. Interestingly, the site recommends "never" doing a slidestep, due to loss of velocity and taxing the arm. Probably not something CC has to worry about as much as a guy like Buchholz. He's a big dude.

I just cancelled my baseball fandom for 2012. Thanks for the heads up that things are going to turn out poorly Elktonnick. On paper, on paper, on paper. That's all debatable anyway, but its also a silly way to evaluate the team.

Just because they didn't hold runners well does that mean that it wasn't a priority of Farrell or Tito? Not that I don't believe you guys, but is there documentation somewhere that says it was actually their philosophy? Please elaborate. Results don't always reveal an underlying philosophy. One could look at September and say "The 2012 Red Sox just didn't think it was important to win in September. They figured they could skate by on May, June, July and August." But we all know that wouldn't be true. Likewise, just because they got run all over doesn't mean they condoned it or approved of it or didn't think it mattered, does it? I remember Clay Buchholz being criticized for being TOO concerned about runners. I remember him throwing over when guys were a foot off the bag, or ON the bag. Why did he seem to care so much about them? I'm asking genuinely, not to disprove anything you are saying. I just don't get it. Perhaps it was actually NOT POSSIBLE for their catchers (or catcher-pitchers) to hold runners very well. :dunno: Their catchers were never known for having good arms regardless of the slide step or pitchout or anything else.

Do you think another team would have bid 2/$20 for Ortiz? I don't know how high it would go, but if it got to 2/$11 or so I think they are quickly approaching the less-return deal than a one year-14m deal. That's an extra 8m over two years. If we are lamenting the 4m this year for Ortiz, wouldn't we be lamenting the 8m next year for him? A700, I TOTALLY see your point. I don't like the contract either. I just assume there's some reason for a move like this other than incompetence.

They got WILL INMAN! YES! That's great! I'm so psyched. Will f***ing Inman.

Also, this is under the assumption that the Sox DIDN'T offer him arbitration, so it wouldn't be a lost pick at all. Just another point of clarification.

They would surrender their first pick and a supplemental round pick would go to the Sox. It isn't a pick the signing team loses. Just a point of clarification.

A better question might be who could the Sox have spent the same money on (say 14m) who would provide the same value in wins. I haven't actually searched but someone could research using WAR. There is no doubt his cost is high, but many baseball economists (and teams) agree that paying more for a player whose wins put the team into the playoffs (and the extra revenue and acclaim post-season games provide) is a reasonable strategy. If the Sox believe--as I do--that this is a playoff team, and that replacing ortizs production would cost more than 14m or decrease team flexibility moving forward, then perhaps it makes sense. Remember, the comparable signings would have been multi-year signings and would have actually cost more. The move makes no sense if you think the team as constructed in 2011 was incapable of winning a WS in 2012 with some minor tweaks. I suspect the Sox FO thinks the team they have is very good, and that losing Ortiz would have created more trouble for 2012 and beyond than it was worth. They had limited spots to fill on the team, they have a DH in waiting for 2013, and due to having limited spots open they had limited options in terms of who would replace that production. Could they have purchased Ortizs production with a combination of RF and SPs as the market has played out thus far? I don't know, perhaps. It may have been risky though to put their money on Beltrans market not becoming excessive, or Buehrle agreeing to a contract that comes close to reflecting his actual abilities, not ace status salary. Overall this is an interesting discussion. I bet with events happening just right a better combination of players could have been found, but I don't think they could have doubled their value for the same salary, and this way if they really DO think this is a club in win-now mode, they still have a beast in the middle of their lineup who is only signed for one season. Higher coat, lower risk, 2012 still a very good team.

Is 6, 10, and 12m what you mean by FMV, or is Papelbons new contract FMV? Arbitration is a fair process for players but it doesn't provide players their open market value until the final year. It seems that Bailey is assured to coat less than Papelbon as long as he's with the sox, doesn't it?

I highly doubt it. Is possible they are trying to grease the skids for a Salty trade or Lavarnway trade, with Tek as 3rd option, I just don't know how that would work. I suppose as a backup catcher after a Salty trade to give Lavarnway time to develop; however, I don't think that could end with anything other than cutting Tek midseason or Lavarnway withering at AAA. Neither option is a good one.

I think you are right on here Palodios, and that a700 was pretty much right except for criticizing the wait strategy. If there aren't many suitors for a pitcher like Oswalt then the Sox can probably wait a bit. Same with Edwin Jackson. If the Sox are the main big-money bidders here they may feel pretty confident that those agents will give the Sox a call before agreeing anywhere. Hell, they've already waited out the market this far. It would be stupid to stop being patient at this point. The main idea is to not get in over their heads on the contract for this #4 pitcher. Reasonable one or two year deals should be the goal because they can look to upgrade next year too.

This is exactly where I'm at too. I think that going to the media (or failing to defend your players to the media) is a valid tactic, but it represents pulling out the big guns. The big guns shouldn't be necessary yet. There should be lots of smaller guns first. If the truth is that Beckett was a huge douchebag to Valentine on the phone, called him names or insulted him, then valentines approach makes more sense, and could even reflect some restraint on BVs part. But if the conversation was venting by JB and then amicable agreement to move forward then it was a poor move. Only Beckett and BV know, and if it was amicable I wouldn't blame JB if he was slow to establish trust with his new manager. Of course, these guys will spend the rest of the year together so it's not like things are irreparable or anything.