sk7326

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.

Hosmer has always been a bit of a tease - power which could arrive but largely hasn't. But I am all for signing him - should be cheaper and with some upside. Remember the deal Encarnacion had to settle for - industry is getting smarter in a lot of ways.

If he could be healthy that would change things. He was the league's best non-pitcher in 2011, and wayyy up there in 2013. It would have been an easy call if he were 27 and had some history of being healthy.

He was their best position player in 2013 (a 6 win player) ... and a legitimate downballot MVP that year. But his age, and the infrequency of those sorts of results, plus the likelihood of Bradley being fine made it an easy call.

I don't think anybody thought we should have matched that. That signing had a lot of red flags. I am surprised Ellsbury has not taken advantage of the RF porch as much.

This is not college football - nobody has to graduate blah blah blah ... and it is fair game to question budget limits especially those times when management can whine about them (oh they would never do that) Great defense at SS is awesome - but so is terrific offense. And the Red Sox run prevention has been excellent - their defense has been excellent ... Bogaerts has not been the anchor, but clearly it has not been an issue either. We know power is the last thing to show up often, and he has shown it. It's about whether you believe it's there - given his age, the odds that it clicks is very good. And even if it doesn't - he's a quality starter at a tough position to find them.

I floated this - and the logic is simple ... it's about your feelings about Bogaerts relative to the other 29 teams. Bogaerts is a good player - and has had a couple of "very good player" seasons recently. He is still young with high likelihood of improving. He will probably never be great defensively - but he is clearly fine. I don't want to trade him. However, his FA is the soonest - and if the team's impression of him is that he might be a 2-3 win player going forward ... and never have consistent power, say ... does it make sense to turn him around for a big haul while a big haul is possible. (say with 2 years of control left) This assumes you can staff SS at an above average level while this goes on ... If you think there is more there and he will figure it out - which is completely reasonable, and I am not sure I don't believe it myself - then there might not be a good match deal-wise. Much of this logic applies to Bradley too - at a smaller scale.

I meant that in reverse - Judge is a rookie ... that he would hit a rough patch, or start to have trouble 2nd time around - his issues since the break help confirm he is very good, but human. We'll see if he can figure this out.

I think getting Betts for his prime is common sense - the numbers, who cares ultimately? If it is a priority the team can make it so.

Listen, the team has run its ship well. All I was pointing out was ... if this team is making Tampa Bay type of decisions with regards to re-signing stars in their prime, then we as fans of a high high revenue team have a right to not be on board with that. And when I see posters rack and stack future payroll and then say - well the tax limit is $X so they only have $Y to spend - that is just not true. They can spend more than $Y if the right guy came up - and as supporters of a high revenue (among the 3 highest) it's something fans can rightly demand.

Also, as it turns out - he's a rookie.

Grateful? For the prices they charge it's the least he can do ... I am eternally grateful for the 3 titles and the competent franchise management. But let's not go overboard.