rjortiz

This is what I assumed, and it still doesn't make Epstein any less responsible for making the Crawford, Gonzalez, and Beckett decisions. Did they ignore his input and make those decisions without him? I think Theo tried to follow the mandate he was given, and just colossally f***ed up the execution.

It's a different market than it was when those pitchers signed. The Tigers reportedly offered 6/144 for Scherzer, so they agree with you. Scherzer wants eight, so if he agreed on the AAV, he's looking at 8/192. I think that's where the disconnect is in this thread. We are arguing about pitchers who signed for different contract lengths, and in different years. If Scherzer signs for 6 years, he'll be around the Greinke total. BaseballReference has Greinke at 6/159. However, UN and I both think that Scherzer is getting more than six years. Because of that, and a slightly higher AAV, he's going to make more than the Grienke total. You have brought up Verlander, Kershaw, and Hernandez repeatedly in this thread. The problem with that argument is that Verlander and Hernandez were not free agents. They were both under contract when they signed their extensions. Verlander and Hernandez had signed previous extensions, which locked them up throughout 2013 and 2014. They are getting less in those two years, than they would have on the open market. They also only had one team that offered a contract. If they waited until 2014, they would have been in line for over $200 million. As for Kershaw, his 2014 is under team control. He's making $22 million in 2014, which is far less than the AAV during the rest of his contract. He also only had one bidder. If he's still pitching at this level in 2018, he's going to opt out, and he's going to make more than the $215 million provided he signs for another 7 years. As for the rest, Santana signed in 2008, Sabathia in 2009, Hamels in 2012, and Cain in 2012. Cain's 2012 season was part of a previous extension, which brought his value down. The market has obviously changed since then, which really makes these comparisons irrelevant.

I would agree going off your definition. My line of thinking is that he's been one of the top 20 pitchers in the game, so he's a quality option to have on top of your rotation.

I'd go with Nava, Pedroia, Ortiz, Napoli, ?, ?, ?, Middlebrooks, Pierzynski. Draw the 5-7 spots from a hat. I'm not sure it really matters.

I agree. The risk is pretty small that a team goes two years for a DH that old. That being said, it's not that big of a risk to sign the extension. Even if he completely flames out, they are only on the hook for one year. He's also a legend in Boston, and brings people to Fenway. I'd prefer year-to-year, but this isn't a terrible move.

I disagree. Cordero is 39, and his last appearance in MLB was a disaster. Unless he's throwing 98 mph again, I'll take the guy who was at least average last year, and knows where the strike zone is. I think Badenhop contract is also guaranteed, and would be lost if the Red Sox sent him down. Cordero can be a depth option at Pawtucket.

Brentz is going to get eaten alive at the MLB level. Too many strikeouts, not enough walks, and doesn't have the raw power that a player like Middlebrooks has to compensate. Also, according to most scouting reports, he's a below-average defender, and doesn't offer a lot of speed. If Victorino goes down, I think Sizemore goes to RF, and Bradley plays CF. At least, Bradley provides some quality defense.

I'm not expecting more than .260/.300/.450 from Middlebrooks. With average defense, that's an acceptable player to have on your team.

I haven't watched one inning this spring. After Jackie Bradley's Ted Williams impersonation last year, it is obvious how pointless those stats are. I don't remember their names, but it seemed that the Red Sox have awarded the final bullpen spot to a pitcher that had performed well in March, only to see him get destroyed once the season starts. Honestly, I wouldn't be bothered if the Red Sox lost every spring training game. Performances against AA ball scrubs, prospects getting looks, and players working on specific things to improve should always be discarded. The only thing that would alarm me is if a pitcher is throwing 82 mph late in March.

Kuroda is a definite number one, but other than that I agree. Their first four starters are very good, and Pineda has a lot of upside. Even if he fails, they could turn to David Phelps. He isn't good, but he's not a terrible fifth starter.

Are you serious?

MOY is such a pointless award. There isn't any evidence to suggest that managers make a dramatic impact on the performance of their teams. They might as well call the award, "Manager of the Team That Most Exceeded Preseason Projection." The Guardians were projected to be below .500, and made the playoffs, so I can't really argue with awarding Francona. As for the Dodgers trade, I agree that the Dodgers massively overvalued Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett. However, their contracts aren't as burdensome on the Dodgers, as they are for the 29 other teams in MLB. They were good regulars for the Dodgers last year, as both had WAR totals of near three. If they continue to provide that level of production, they aren't that overpaid. I wouldn't call it a win for the Dodgers, but it isn't as big a disaster as it appeared in 2012.

What is the evidence that Lucchino was behind the bad personnel decisions that led to 2012? I read the SI article from Francona's perspective, but it appeared to be a mandate from ownership. I assume Lucchino handles the business decisions of the Red Sox, and may have pushed Epstein to make moves that would increase ratings for the Red Sox, but ultimately wasn't Epstein the person in charge of making those acquisitions? Are some of you saying that Lucchino acted unilaterally and acquired these players over Epstein's objection? I'm not disagreeing with any of you. I really don't know the whole story. However, I am skeptical that it was entirely Lucchino's fault.

He puts up a 4.6 WAR like he did in 2012, and he's still getting a massive contract. That's three straight years of ace level pitching.

Not even that stupid. If he's signing for $28 million in 2015, he's a bit of a bargain if he's a 5 win pitcher. It seems the standard MO of baseball contracts is to get value in the first years, but pay more for the downside.

Grienke signed three years before Scherzer will. Cost per win is up from about $5 million to $7 million. Also, everyone in this thread is speculating seven or eight years. You've arbitrarily subtracted a year, and how did you come up with an annual 35% inflation?

7/180, or even 8/200 would not surprise me at all. Even with the 3.74 ERA, his 2012 was still worth 4.6 wins, which is worth more than $25 million in this market.

Not even close.

You're talking to a guy who lists the entire Yankees farm system as legitimate prospects.

Wow.

Jacko does a thrust dance, when he pumps his elbows toward his pelvis, and shifts to the left.

5/110 seems like a fair deal.

Isn't that the point of a message board?

http://nesn.com/2014/02/bruins-in-sochi-how-bs-players-fared-at-2014-winter-olympics/ Krejci.

While you struggle with logic and reasoning.