User Name

Desde el punto de vista de los Medias Rojas (y lo que ellos mismos han dicho) se niegan a darle contrato a largo plazo a pitchers que estan saliendo de su "prime". Eso no se puede ni discutir, y se han mantenido fieles a esa tematica. El problema es que estas concentrado en costo anual, y ellos en tiempo. Luego de que la etapa de los esteroides "termino", los jugadores estan tomando su arco normal de declive, lo que significa que es mucho mas probable que un jugador entre en un declive de golpe y no sea productivo por el resto de un contrato a largo plazo. Otro asunto es que Shields va en contra de la nueva "politica" de los Medias Rojas de buscar pitchers que sean mayormente de rodados y que controlen la parte baja de la zona de strike. Hay un metodo que ellos estan intentando seguir claramente, y por ende esto de llover sobre mojado con el asunto de Shields no tiene sentido. Nunca lo iban a firmar. Para colmo, Shields tomo menos dinero para firmar con San Diego, otro punto en contra de la posibilidade de firma. No iba a pasar.

I like you. Please post more.

No, que lo consigan ahora (antes de la temporada) y tomen la apuesta. La idea mia es que ellos pueden conseguir un pitcher mejor que Shields en el proximo periodo de agencia libre. Por eso Lee por una o dos temporadas tiene mucho mas sentido. Si picha bien esta temporada, se pueden dar el lujo de esperar al proximo periodo de agencia libre para perseguir un pitcher, o ver que tienen en Owens.

No, porque un Lee sano es mejor pitcher que Shields, y sigues ignorando la idea de que el asunto con los Medias Rojas no es el dinero anual, sino el tiempo de contrato al que le andan huyendo.

It's 45 to 1.

It's like all of the championships and winning seasons have bought no goodwill among the faithful of what has annoyingly become the most entitled fanbase in all of sports. May God help us all.

This is debatable, at best.

No esta mal. Mejor que el Ingles de muchos Americanos aqui.

Actually, yeah. All teams do this. Even the Yankees.

Then why didn't they just pony up and offer 6/120 from the get go? That wouldn't have necessarily gotten it done IMO, but it just seems weird they offered so little and then so much.

Buena pregunta.

That's what I keep saying. They could have beat the Cubs offer had they wanted to.....they just didn't want to, it seems.

They were teammates, yes.

Okie-Dokie!

Last time they did that, you know what they got out of it? Hideki Okajima.

37.5 million dollar and a spotty recent health history say otherwise. Hamels is the surer bet, but Lee would be the cheaper play with higher upside.

They've tried, and failed, because Amaro is an idiot. Remember that at one point San Diego offered a package centered around Austin Hedges, and they didn't take it and run as they should have. "Our" ideal scenario as fans is utterly unrealistic most of the time, in this case, it's because of Amaro's stubbornness. Maybe he'll relent, but i doubt it. I'd rather gamble on Lee anyways.

Length of contract more than money IMO.

Also Pal, remember that the 7 million figure I'm using is an attempt to normalize and account for positional discrepancies. I know the article you're talking about, (on fangraphs, regarding the estimated 6.2 million value of a win for 2014) and I believe there's some mention of that in there.

If you don't like the values, I can respect that. As I pointed out above, the formula certainly has its flaws, but the main point stands: Even average production at league minimum cost is extremely valuable. And the more likely a prospect is to provide that (Swihart's D would likely be average in MLB right now), then the more likely you are to give away significant value while trading a young player for an expensive veteran. David Murphy gave the Rangers 5.5 WAR over three years of league-minimum salary, and the Red Sox got f***ing Eric Gagne out of the deal. Think about that for a second.

That's an extremely flawed argument, since the whole point of the statistic is eliminating bias. A win is a win in the context of the current baseball economy, and is adjusted on a year to year basis for fangraph's dollar value. A win costs what it costs, and you either agree with it or you don't, but you can't move the goalposts. Most of the years Punto played a win wasn't nearly as costly as it is now, and dollar values used in fangraphs reflect that. You are misinterpreting the assigned dollar value, and doing it awfully. Also, even accounting for the inflation of the win and the general overvaluing of defense by WAR (an actual flaw you could point to) he has a dollar value that's way below the 105 million you're floating around. I'm not making this up, there's an actual formula that concludes a win's dollar value. The "well he has only made X amount" argument is also very bad. Mike Trout posted MVP numbers making league minimum. Does that mean he wasn't worth the assigned dollar value because he was being paid peanuts? That's a massive leap in logic. Also, is a 1 WAR guy worth 7 million? That's an excellent question, but one that depends on context. The relative value for a win last year was 6.2 million, and I bet I can find you 20 or more guys who were paid even more than that per win because of bad contracts, injury, etc. In the end, the idea is to assign a value to what a guy making league minimum actually provides to a ballclub on the basis of his production, and, considering FO's actually use a value-per-win system when doing their FA forecasts, I don't think your criticism of the system denies the initial point, which I will simplify to avoid needless discussion: Production from a player that's making league minimum is a premium asset, specially if it's anywhere above average. Whether we can assign an actual value is up for discussion (the WAR formula and the dollar conversion do have their flaws), but can you find a better, more consistent method? Because that's the point.

They're reigning in their spending. They want to go young and are going to test the waters with what they have, unless Hal suddenly has a change of heart.

Then why didn't they just sign Lester?

Buchholz (14.8 million), WMB (6.1 million) and Bard (17.1) provided the Red Sox with 37.3 million dollars in production in their three pre-arb years, and that's not accounting for the cheaper value for a win in years prior, and made less than four million combined. You are severely undervaluing the cost/benefit reality of a prospect's pre-arb years. Even at a slightly-above replacement level, they are valuable.

Clearly he didn't know what that means, then wonders why I'm calling him out on reading comprehension. The irony is palpable.