Palodios

So I just took a look at Joe Nathan's stats. He's the real deal. From 2003 to 2009, he has an ERA of 2.02, WHIP of .95, ERA+ of 216. He was recovering from injury in 2011, but I say... he is our guy. Undervalued, true closer who has playoff experience. The more I look at him, the more and more convinced that he is the best option for this team.

Ben's new policy-- tracking chips in the necks of all Red Sox players.

There is a reason why the Red Sox don't sign relievers for longer than two years.

Firstly, Papelbon will be one month away from 36 when the contract ends, if the option vests. If the option doesn't vest, it already means the contract was a failure, so we have to assume it will vest. And what is wrong with Aceves in the 8th? Nowhere as good as Bard, but he's still a very good option. The problem is filling the #5 starter slot.

The guy has a 3.50 ERA over the last two years, and yet he got the largest contract for a reliever in baseball history through age 36. I just don't get why people are not weighing the pros and cons of this, and realizing it was what needed to be done. An absolutely huge loss for the Sox, but it had to be done.

Broxton, Gagne, Jenks, K-rod all had atleast two all-star selections, and were under the age of 31. Even if you want to go with K-rod as a comparison, would you really consider 6 blown saves a year worth 13 million a year? Plus, add another alcohol problem to the mix.

And what if Papelbon blows out his shoulder? You know, the one that has been nagging him since 2004, that we hear reports of issues with pretty much every year? Relievers have a lot of health issues because of the wear and tear of throwing their absolute hardest every single pitch. Paying 13 million a year to a guy that throws 3 innings a week when the entire pitching staff is a complete mess would just be irresponsible. And we don't even know if he wanted to come back.

Those are all the largest contracts given out to relievers. All of them have been bad contracts. It doesn't matter whether you would have made the deal or not, almost all of the biggest reliever contracts have been bad deals.

Can I add Gagne's name to the list? Elite elite pitcher, injured through years 29 and 30 of his life, retired at 32.

But there is no guarantee that Papelbon will win this team a world series. The last two times he pitched with the season on the line, he blew the save, and if he didn't blow 8 saves in 2010, the Red Sox could have gone to the playoffs-- with a great rotation and Youk ready to rejoin the offense. Paps is not worth 50 million. No non-Rivera reliever is.

And how did that one work out? Seriously guys, get off the bridge. Look at the list of expensive reliever contracts, and realize that this is the smart decision.

When was the last time the Red Sox signed a reliever for longer than 2 years?

I want to go through all of the biggest reliever contracts in baseball history for non-Rivera players. 2) Lidge 2009-2011, Save percentage 78%. 7.21 ERA in 2009, injured in 2011. 3)K-rod 2009-2011, Stats okay, 6 blown saves per year, but he turned into a PR/clubhouse nightmare. 4)Joe Nathan 2008-2011 Missed a season and a half with injuries. 5) Soriano 2011--2013 In the first year alone he missed a month with injuries and pitched to a 4.00+ ERA. 6) Billy Wagner 2006-2009 -- Was effective for first few years, but missed most of 2009. 7)Trevor Hoffman 2010-- 5.89 ERA. 8) Kerry Wood --2009-2010, completely ineffective the first half of 2010. 9) Broxton 2010-2011-- 4.04 ERA in 2010, 5.68 in just a few innings in 2011. 10) BJ Ryan 2006-2010-- In a five year contract, he missed two and a half FULL seasons. 11) Bobby Jenks 2010-- 4.40 ERA 12) Bobby Jenks 2011-2012 -- Enough said. Paying big money for relievers is always a bad idea. Look at the list, look at any article on relief pitchers on fangraphs, yahoo sports, baseball reference. Its a bad idea.

Maybe Papelbon didn't even want to be here. Paying a reliever for more than two years is almost always a bad idea, unless its Rivera.

Papelbon leaving was a foregone conclusion about fourteen months ago. Don't act all surprised, when we've been predicting it for as long as we have been.

Google news didn't get anything until 3 minutes ago. Now it seems to be everywhere.

I see nothing about this anywhere online. Wait until official word comes out. The Madson deal turned out to be complete bull, why trust this now?