sk7326

This.

All stuff that required reps - so it is kind of moot ... Vasquez did not show much ability to handle a staff last year - clearly that got better

Well the front 3 years are arguable here - the idea is to give big raises on arb level deals to make giving up FA attractive. And it makes sense for him - gets him into the FA derby by age 30

I think this is the right answer ... I would expect something like a 6 year/150-180M sort of deal ... and besides, guys like him you figure out and then work around the rest

I know clutch exists - it certainly does for me watching them. BUT I don't think clutch is a meaningful distinction - the list of good "clutch hitters" is basically the same as a list of good hitters. I would rather have had Ortiz up than anybody in a big spot - but I wanted him up in the little spots, and the medium spots too. And for the most part that describes Trout, Cabrera, Votto, Betts, whatever you want. For pitchers it could be slightly different - since working from the windup vs out of the stretch is a different mechanical skill.

The team has had some durability issues in the rotation ... but a remarkably good and stable bullpen, and excellent defense has ended up more than amply making up for it. Plus you have Sale and Porcello every 5th day which has made Farrell's bullpen organization a LOT easier (Sale by being awesome, Porcello by being ridiculously durable).

The players are human - that was never not in evidence. But when I look at a slash line, or whatever stat - the players tangible and intangible qualities come out in that wash.

I think it's a manager trying to keep pressure off of a kid ... and limit expectations that a 20 year old is supposed to save our season. It is important to get Holt some reps too along the way - there are going to be playoff roster decisions to have (since by and large there is probably going to be an extra roster spot)

Intangibles matter ... it's just that intangible effects CAN be measured by tangible results - and results are sort of what matters, no? I think it has been a long season - and a long season where nobody has been amazing. Betts has had a terrific season, but so much of it is with the glove it is easy to miss. So you have Sale. But otherwise, you have a bunch of "good" seasons - and the team hit a slog. Nunez and Devers have provided a spark - but then, so did a 4 game series against the worst team in the AL.

Or not faith in Farrell, despite his deployment of this ragtag, unreliable bunch of relievers who have put up the league's best ERA

Why rightly? His ability to eat? His ability to make oodles of profit? Some crackpot notion of "justness"? While the link between revenue and cost is tenuous (they are separate decisions by a firm) ... the fans who spend the most out of pocket of any fan base (at least for now - and I know the Yankees and Cubs are in the convo) should expect the team to throw its weight around, weight other teams don't have. If you are advocating that this team run like a higher payroll Twins, where we shrug and say "well, Betts graduated - time for more freshmen" (this assumes Betts continues to churn out All-Star/MVP timber seasons of course), then we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think this qualifies as ballyhoo ...

Suddenly the Sox are within 5 games of the Astros for best AL record - very tough 10 games ahead, but go figure.

That is fair ... I thought that some of the on-base drop would be offset by a bit more power (see 2014 for a profile which seemed sustainable) ... not exactly a steal at $22M a year, but not terrible either. I thought the move made sense for the Yankees though the 7 years would always be hard to stomach.

It also requires both sides to play ball - they probably benefited from Longoria's injury history here. (117 missed games the previous 2 seasons before signing the current deal)

One thing to note is that 1B is shaping up to be a MASSIVE buyer's market. There just are not a lot of job openings - and it's a very easy position to fill, either internally or just converting somebody else. And Hosmer, while having some age, intangibles and upside - will be entering a market where the contending teams (or even pseudo-contenders) are not really going to have vacancies. A really good example of this is Encarnacion not being able to get anybody to bite on a THIRD year. (yes he was an older FA, but still, the Guardians got a steal) Hosmer has had a good season - but the results have not been there that consistently. I could see someone offering 4 or 5 years due to age - but I'm not sure the money will be there. It will be an interesting choice. The Red Sox could just throw Travis there and let it ride - and it would be a perfectly reasonable idea. Or they could look into OF types and rotate them with Ramirez in the field (Curtis Granderson?) ...

I took that as a season which combined with his SB and plus CF defense was a 6-win player and downballot MVP level season. (just like Pedroia and Victorino were that season) I think letting him go was sound since the odds of that being the norm were low. I am a little surprised that his 2014 season - which all in all is fairly good but not great - has not been the norm.

Very fair point - and teams are getting smarter about that ... I should have said (generic small market team) but even then those teams will stretch itself to sign stars in their prime.

I think it is less being tired than trying to limit situations to mess with his head. Avoiding lefties is a fair example. But then, as is always the case here - the players will make these decisions ultimately. Certainly Devers helped move that ball along.

I would not get too bogged down - it's just knowing what the information is saying. After all, there IS no stat which will say everything - if there were, then being a GM would be super easy. Why vote for awards if WAR were that precise? What is true is that the great seasons of yore still are great (like Ortiz 2016) - what the new stuff has done I think is allow us to appreciate a season like Victorino's 2013 (or Ellsbury's) in a way which the old stats did not do nearly adequately enough. Anybody could see 2000 Pedro was amazing - but seeing an 11 win Felix Hernandez season as special, then it helps to have some of the new stuff. A place where the new stuff showed was Pedroia's MVP in 2008. While I am sure most voters voted for scrappy mctufferson and his leadership abilities on a terrific team, advanced numbers end up taking a season that looked good but not amazing, and revealed just how fantastic he really was that year.

I don't think so - but you need to know what the stats are measuring. The field of measuring baseball continues to evolve (and there are probably 30 different versions of these stats which the public doesn't see) - it is all just additional planks on the body of knowledge. So "contact" is one of those places where the industry is just learning more. It's just trying to get at the inputs - especially the stuff which the olden days never had the chance to measure ... exactly what is hard contact ... and exactly what is good defense. Is pitching 90% of the game, really? What correlates most with winning is scoring more runs than the other guy ... what correlates with that is generating outs on one end and preventing outs on the other. Now, I think the idea of how patience at the plate helps prevent outs has been largely covered. But what characteristics of batted balls reduce the likelihood of generating an out - and more importantly, what part of it is controllable? And then, once you figure that out - is it teachable, or is it something that has to be scouted. (patience/approach is one of those where the common knowledge shifted from "teach" to "scout" because of analytics) The new stats COULD be better - but there is still a lot of noise, and you have to know what you are looking at. For instance, wOBA (or wRC+) is probably the best one-stop stat for offense. The pitching ones are much tougher - because the amount that a pitcher can control batted balls is very much in the air ... it seems like some pitchers can, but it still is very noisy.

He caught in high school too but not full time. You had a potential Buster Posey sort of talent - it was worth looking into. Sadly, yeah the ankle can't do it ... but the bat and approach look big league ready. Maybe not 25 HR but solid on-base and possibly decent power. He is definitely worth looking at for 1B.

The idea is that nobody is going to pay him $100M. Look at what happened to Encarnacion - industry is getting smarter on that thing. But if you can get Hosmer for $12M-$15M a year, it is an interesting idea, and has more ceiling than say Moreland.

.355 OBP with a 112 RC+ ... (insert OPS flaws here) and plus defense (an area he legitimately improved). The warning sounds abounded with injury history and age ... but the 2013 version of Ellsbury was one of the best outfielders in the league.

It was his 2nd outstanding season in 3. He hit really well in 2013 - just without the homeruns. And was a plus centerfielder. I enjoy the inconsistent application of shortstop standards to center field, a premium defensive position.