sk7326

Memories are very short ... the idea that a manager blew a title in baseball short of a World Series game is ludicrous. What is funny is that Francona is indisputably one of the two best managers of the modern era for Boston.

Such as having more of your evenings off!

It is a zero sum thing - it would be nice for players to stay longer, but that means the players do not have the freedom to switch jobs normal people have. That players move keeps interest up in lots of markets. I think the reason football lacks the parity of baseball is simply a matter of the sports themselves. If you accept that the person with the largest impact on any baseball game is the pitcher (and it is - pitching is not 90% of the game or 50% of the game, but it has more impact than any other position), then that baseball teams rotate starting pitchers means that the team fielded can vary wildly in quality. To put it another way, the 1972 Phillies went 59-97. The Phillies were 30-11 in Steve Carlton's starts that year. So for those 41 starts, the Phillies were actually pretty good relative to whom the opponent was putting out there. Because of this, even a bad team is a favorite against a good team occasionally. Football, with the dependencies on team continuity, and that the same personnel play every game (assuming health), the advantages are much more permanent. Also, physical advantages are much more profound. (size of linemen and such) A salary cap would not change this reality at all. In fact, what baseball has done with its tax system is create a system where all 30 markets are healthy and all of them can build competitive teams according to the realities of the city and fan base. Now clearly the Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers have more room for error than the Rays and Royals. But the Rays and Royals can absolutely afford to keep core guys - if they don't it is because of choice. And that is all you can ask for regarding balance. Can a well managed team succeed anywhere - and the answer in baseball is hell yes.

Health and close-game luck will influence any prognostication. The 2012 Orioles went something like 17-2 in one-run games or something. The 2013 Cardinals had a collective OPS of .820 or something with RISP. The 2012 Red Sox were decimated by injury, while the 2013 Red Sox largely weren't.

Absolutely - positively no ... the salary cap would put more money into John Henry's hands, that's it. If you want Judge Smails to be happy, fine - but it would not do bubkus for competitive balance. In fact, the changes baseball has made now (rookie bonus pool, cap on bonuses for internationals) has hurt competitive balance even though they are "caps".

The fans I get to a degree - but the loyalty comes in how hard they played. Love of the game was more or less established all that time riding buses and making below minimum wage.

Miley is an excellent bet to deliver 200 average innings which is valuable in itself.

For most of those years - they are making (if the prospect is solid) way less than what they produced. So after FA is your first chance to cash in - and at the end of the day the team is special to us, but it's a gig - one of 30 of them. It's not like the Red Sox (or anybody else) is paying farmhands to compensate them above minimum wage (look at the lawsuit filed on behalf of minor leaguers in this respect). The hometown discount is not about a sense of loyalty to me - it's simply that you like it here, and the familiarity and happiness comes is worth something. Not everybody is required to enjoy Boston's weather, or having to answer questions about what they had for breakfast. I think players DO make decisions on lifestyle all the time - the ones who go to the auction process decided the lifestyle they have is not a significant plus. I wish every guy loved playing in Boston. Loyalty to the org? Hey the org's loyalty is exactly to the extent that the player can hit, throw or field.

http://www.oddsshark.com/mlb/mlb-odds-world-series-futures Funny thing about the Vegas odds is looking at them cardinally. From what I pulled up just now. Nats at 11-2 ... Nats are clearly the league's best team on paper. But it is hard to say anybody short of the 1998 Yankees is this far in front of the field. Dodgers at 8-1 Sox, Cubs, Angels, Cardinals at 12-1 ... given the level of change in the former two relative to the latter, Sox and Cubs seem like crazy bets. Angels and Cards look much safer I'd think. Pirates at 33-1, Guardians at 28-1, Orioles at 25-1 seem like the actual smartest values (if there is such a thing)

Funny thing is - if you take the side by side fWAR of last year's opening day rotation and the Steamer projection (just picking that one since I found it) for this year's - they aren't actually that far apart. You look at the Sox choices after they let Lester go, the pattern is clear: 1. Guys with a track record of major league performance - not amazing performance, but solid 2. Guys young enough to still improve (Porcello particularly) 3. Guys who have shown a record of durability (Masterson last year aside). What they lack in sterling record they partially compensate for with being able to consistently take the ball. (basically the latter describes John Lackey to a large degree) We know that with the improved baseball economy, and with the 2nd wild card spot changing how teams perceive their short term outlook - it is going to take a month or two for the trade market to REALLY sort itself out. We know the Sox have a ton in their arsenal to trade when the time comes. The question is can this rotation hold the fort while that process takes place. I think (partially because of that 2nd wild card spot) it would be very difficult for them not to. Think about it - as bad as last year was, we couldn't TRULY jump ship until the All-Star break. That 2nd wild card position continually gave a faint glimmer of hope.

First of all - yeah Vegas lines are built for action and they know Boston fans like to gamble and will bite. Second - Red Sox glasses I think tend to deflate the value of guys knowing how Boston fans roll. Moreover - the complaints about the rotation gloss over the reality. 1. The team as constituted, does not seem poised to win three best-of series against increasingly difficult competition in October. I totally agree. The defense is not amazing and there is a lack of the anchor sorts you'd like to have in a short series. The bullpen looks solid but we all know that good bullpens are largely a matter of attrition and luck. Of course, there is so much baseball luck involved in doing this that the Sox could win these series anyway. I just would not favour it. 2. This team as constituted, should have favorable pitching matchups in most of its games, with most of those being #3 v #3, #4 v #4 and so on. The offense has the potential to be able to beat up mediocre pitching and there is enough projectable youth in the lineup that the offense could be better than even that. This team is capable of winning enough against "not prime time" caliber opposing starters to create a winning season generally. It'd be nice to have both - the title winners had them - but it's not necessary to get to the playoffs. But with a serious dearth of sellers (of good starting pitching) - leaning on #2 and figure out #1 on the fly is a defensible strategy.

that difference goes away when you remove that pesky #9 hitter

It's both pitching in big parks with superb defensive teams - the Yankees are neither. He would improve them - but by more of an "innings eater" standard than a star one.

Shortstops inevitably move somewhere else - the shortstop angle is less about that than getting great athletes and SS/CF is your first place to look there.

If the market is skeptical about his ability to pitch outside of great environments - going to the league's worst ballpark for righty flyball pitchers could be an issue.

Oh I think that the org does too - but maybe not the presences available at this second.

I wouldn't. BUT it's fairly close. You are getting 3 years of Hamels which is much different than the other guys who seem more like rentals. That said, the Phillies should (and are) driving a hard bargain because of the control that comes with landing him.

My theory - the market does not think he can pitch outside of ideal pitching environments. (yes, the AL East is a bear, but Tampa and Kansas City are two of the best run prevention outfits of recent years)

I think the "Age 33, who has spent the majority of his career in favorable run prevention environments (parks and defenses)" excuse is sufficient to not look at him. But at this second, the Sox are one of the few teams in a good position to make a move if they wanted. They have the money and it would only cost them their 3rd rounder. I'd go up to him, offer him 1/25 (maybe with an option) and point out "nobody seems to think you can pitch outside of pitcher's heavens. Show them they're wrong."

A lot of the plan is on the kids themselves - right now Rodriguez is not ready for the bigs - not if the fastball command is an issue. But he could shock them and make a leap. One place for tea leaves to be read is where the kids are starting. In most orgs these days, if the kids are starting at AAA, that means they are in the major league plan potentially in a significant way. I expect Owens to be up at some point - although clearly the workload will be managed very vigilantly.

I would at this point - considering that Shields is still out there and how little the draft compensation is for Boston - offer Shields 2/50and see what happens. Now he might very well sign soon - maybe the length of time Scherzer was out there was a factor - but worth a look.

Oh he could be the #1 on a contender - he was. Now he's not Kershaw or King Felix, but that is also all but a handful of pitchers. I blanched at giving him 6 years but a guy with a good delivery, no arm trouble and a good approach, he was a pretty good bet to hold value for the majority of the deal. The Red Sox were dogmatic about their valuation - despite it flying in the face of market realities. That's fine - but the result is what it is. His price was fair given his past, the low likeliness of being hurt, and just how everybody is swimming in money.

Oh I don't know. Porcello is a #3 sort with a #1/#2 upside (and only 26 so there is still improvement in him). Miley is a #3 sort with a #2 upside he has reached previously. Buchholz we know about. Masterson is a large risk - since unlike the other three he was genuinely irredeemably terrible. (and without the flashes Buchholz showed last season in spots) But even with Masterson, if he is healthy he is still innings filler - and if he has to be banished to the bullpen, he can be very good there. If there were franchises who had a 1998 Montreal Expos situation, I'd be more fired up about not landing a sexier pitcher in the offseason. But when you look at the Cubs and Padres - two bad teams last year - genuinely loading up to make a run this year (and the Marlins too!) and you see the effect the 2nd wild card has had. There will be ways to upgrade the rotation (like Lackey becoming suddenly available to Saint Louis) but we'll have to let the season unfold.

You are doubtlessly right in isolation - but sometimes you have to win in an auction situation. I think with the longer deals, you have to evaluate what the "low point" is. You will be overpaying for it, but if you can live with it - and get a lot of value early, it can be a fair investment. In isolation, the Angels extending Mike Trout for 10 million years seems silly - but in context they are (while risking injury clearly) actually probably underpaying if anything.

It has ...there is some luck involved. I'd expect the Sox to keep cycling through arms on that front. The only regret I had about dealing Webster and De La Rosa was the conversion possibility. That said they converted them into a durable starter, so hey.