sk7326

Well, Games 6 and 7 were on Saturday and Sunday night - I remember being at a watering hole to watch the Drew homer

Oh don't worry - everybody has their own memories. I'm 36. For me, Aaron Boone was really the first time I felt the curse as it were. In 1986, I was too young to think in those dire terms, and otherwise the losses were all very reasonable (better teams). 2003, we had that game won, and kicked it away. It was the first time I thought "never". But even for younger folks, the comeback in 2007 against Cleveland and Josh Beckett's heroics should not be discounted. That was a heck of a rally, including the JD Drew grand slam from nowhere. 2013 contained no real life and death moments (only trailed a series once and it was a 2-1 deficit), but still what a season.

Upside is spectacular. Also has a worrisome injury history where he has missed 80 games over the last two seasons. I don't doubt he would cost a lot - I am asserting my hesitation to pay it. Marlins should ask for a lot. I see a guy with 80 power who has back problems as a 24 year old and shudder a little. "Productive when he's healthy" is not something I want to describe that sized acquisition. I am more inclined to pay that price for known durability AND quality/upside. If the Mariners had been smart about their offseason and cashed in their best player for some legitimate position relief, that would be the sort of investment that would make sense. The non-Betts/Cecchini whatever level ... that is the stuff you use to plug in holes during the season possibly. Now, as a matter of ideology I am with Danny Ainge - I will talk about ANYBODY, just depends on the offer. But if I were sorting players into guys for us vs guys that will be assets for somebody's big league club ... that's how I'd do it.

I say that about Butch Hobson's run as manager - why would I want to remember. 1986? Hendu's homerun in Game 5 was one of the greatest moments of my baseball lifetime. Down 3-1, win or go home - leading to a shocking comeback. The Mets Game 6 did not even bother me - I fell asleep as an 8 year old. Blowing the Game 7 after having a 3-0 lead ... with a special night to stay up? That is when the waterworks came. I wish we had won - but I can't regret having a taste ... most teams don't even get that.

Team I fell in love with - too young to realize what a bunch of weirdos a lot of those dudes were, and what a bad manager McNamara was. For me, the Curse was a curse because the Red Sox since 1967 have largely been good! Nobody talks about the curse of the Clippers - the team has just been poorly run, and for the most part that describes the Cubbies.

Depth is invaluable, but when you are the Red Sox (as opposed to an A's or Rays), you have to honestly assess your top dozen prospects and evaluate who is really going to impact the big club, and who is thusly spinnable. Obviously each year sees development spikes or Lars Anderson like pratfalls - these are kids after all. Now that being said, I'd probably have Owens, Ball, Cecchini and Betts as my "top tier" (not counting Bogaerts and Bradley who to me are graduates). Yes they are not the top 4, but from the realities of position scarcity combined with top end potential and the Red Sox ability to source the position alternatively. Swihart and Vasquez are potentially competing for one serious big league position. The Barnes-Ranaudo tier gives some solid mid-rotation depth, but I think the Sox would be comfortable paying for that in the market if need be. Flags fly forever, and I think the remaining prospects are a fair price for the fourth title since 2004, assuming that is what it takes.

We do - although is Stanton the sort of guy you empty the farm for in our position? That is more interesting. Ball can't be traded (at least not until June although he can be a PTBNL). I'd have hard time trading Betts or Cecchini. The rest we can have conversations definitely.

It's a dropoff. And Salty's year was sort of more remarkable considering that he is basically unplayable against lefties. I just think that the loss at catcher is relatively minor and fixable. The general production level at catcher is pretty terrible, after all a 3 win player is still a below average run creator. I tend to rate the Red Sox offseason as a B- or so ... but I am not sure their position in the league has changed a whole lot. On paper, Detroit (that rotation) and Texas (who ended up suffering some unexpectedly poor offensive seasons combined with continuing to have an incompetent manager) are better - but that was the case a year ago too, so hooray.

Replacement level at catcher is so low - essentially someone who can walk without falling down - that the dropoff in WAR might actually exaggerate the actual impact to run production. I think the Red Sox looked at this move entirely from a contractual perspective. They did not want to tie up the catcher position because they have some inventory. Pierzynski is a lateral move or drop off - but it is also a bit of a bet that Vasquez can develop his hitting at AAA enough to warrant a big league look. If he could hit at all, he would have a starting gig. IF he had a huge development spike which shows in the first few months, I could see Pierzynski getting Matt Flynn'd out of there.

Bradley has been an OBP machine everywhere he has played professionally. There is no reason not to expect the same. He is a mini-three true outcomes hitter ... so you will have to live with streaks, but that is fine. There were three 7-win players in CF last season - Trout, McCutchen and Gomez. Gomez' defensive metrics were insane enough that you look at the 7 wins a bit skeptically (just from a perspective of how evolved defensive measures are relative to offensive). Trout and McCutchen were >.400 OBP and had excellent power numbers. Andre Ethier was 3 win guy with a .360 OBP. He was also a below average glove defensively. But as you noted - a good to very good defensive center fielder with good on-base skills is a fringy All-Star without considering extra base hits or baserunning. Bradley has a very high ceiling, and even a .250/.340/.400 line is very much within quality starter range if his defense grows as advertised.

28 years old, good on-base skills generally, plus defensive centerfield. Some upside left if you want to see it. Has been a disaster so far, but they have no real choice but to try to ride it out. I get the evaluation.

Ortiz' resurgent 2013 was eerily close to his 2012 before the injuries - I am not worried there. A .350+ OPB is merely what Bradley has produced in every full time minor league stop he has had. It is reasonable to expect a 24 year old to improve to the level of being able to repeat his minor league performance. Napoli's BABIP was .344 in his amazing 2011. Fact is, his BABIP fluctuations are endemic of any three true outcomes sort of hitter. His on-base manages to stay solid either way. AJ could be a clubhouse cancer - but that assumes chemistry leads performance, which it doesn't. Also, he is low enough risk that you can cut him if it's a problem. All it cost them was money.

The growth MIGHT slow - it ain't collapsing. Not one iota. What is the substitute good? Streaming media? Who owns streaming media platforms? The same media companies who run the cable companies.

Last year you could see the embers of it. The industry values innings horses - and if you are a good innings horse, you can write your own check. Lester richly qualifies in both. When making a comp, the ERA is only a modest part of it. Lester's 3.5-4 projected future ERA does not seem amazing for a large salary, but you have to factor in his track record of churning out 30 starts and 200 innings a year. Even if he is not 1997-2000 Pedro Martinez, the fact that you can plug him into your rotation and not have anything to worry about - no DL trips, no Steve Blass disease - is extremely significant.

I guess I'd make clear by what your view of #1 vs #2. I don't use the "30 teams have #1s so it must be at least that good". That is stupid. But I'd say Verlander, Darvish, Felix, Scherzer probably, David Price, with Fernandez and Strasburg right on the doorstep. It's the combination of quality and bulk. Lester's quality has been a wee bit below that super tier, although the bulk is among the league's best. By no means is it an insult - and he had a terrific postseason to add to his resume. He is a $25M pitcher in this market without regret.

It is very much a lowball offer. Tanaka got the offer he did because he was 5 years younger than Lester and the value of a (projected, at least by the team, which is all that matters here) #2 on the Yankee balance sheet is well within what they offered him. Greinke was landed for 6/147 if you want a reasonably good comp. Now what will hurt Lester slightly (MAYBE) in free agency is that the specter of the Price trade looms larger. That said, it was not an issue this year and Tampa is very very smart and probably will cut a deal if the team can contend again. But each free agency year is separate - it will be once again a serious buyer's market. Lester you are looking at a 5/125 or so as a STARTING point. Now, I have misgivings about a pitcher into his 30s blah blah blah. But if there is a pitcher that you are confident will hold his value - 200 decent innings with virtually zero injury history as your absolute floor - Lester is it.

The Yankees have had a good offseason. But their moves only REALLY made sense if they kept Cano, who is one of the league's 10 best players (and probably more like 5). Without him, the Ellsbury and McCann moves only really offset the loss a little bit. The Tanaka move is risky but a risk that makes perfect sense for them - the rotation needs CC to be excellent though. Considering the Yankees were an 86 win team with the run differential of a below .500 one, there is a lot of ground for them to make up. Assuming usual regression for Boston, they are still a solid 85-90 win outfit on the floor (assuming reasonable health). But there is little evidence that these moves got the Yankees that much closer to Baltimore (who was a better team than the 2012 Orioles without the same wild good luck) let alone Tampa or Boston. As far as the Red Sox go ... C: Mild downgrade, maybe. I think the move was more contractually motivated. I'd expect Vasquez to be up in the 2nd half if he can show some solid evidence of being able to hit 1B: Napoli is a three true outcome guy. Nothing you've written changes that. Low BA, high OBP, and a lot of moonshots. Last year was not a strange year for him. Strikeouts don't matter. 2B: Pedroia will be a year older, but his thumb will be healed. His power should make an uptick. 3B: Middlebrooks can't be as bad as he was last year, and Bogaerts will be an upgrade on what they got from the position last year (virtually nothing) SS: Drew is a good player whose absence should not be underrated. But Bogaerts ceiling is obvious, and moreover, you take the near guaranteed upgrade at 3B from last year and it offsets some of the "growing pains" you might get here. LF: It's a platoon - can they cobble a 2-3 win season from a combo of Gomes, Carp, Nava? It is unlikely they ALL stink. There is a job opening here though and I expect that the Sox will be opportunistic. CF: If Bradley can burp out a .370 OBP with elite defense, that is a fringe all-star already. It is a downgrade on Ellsbury's best, but hardly a fatal one. RF: So much of Victorino's value is in his defense that you worry as he loses steps. That said, his discovery that left handed hitting is a waste of his time could ease his regression. DH: Papi is still effective, and that's all you need. Staff: Good. Cherington did a nice job in the offseason adding some relief arms because you can't count on any bullpen repeating its performance. Actually, it's probably the best part of his offseason. The starters are what they are ... Lester as a fringy 1/elite 2, and a bunch of #2/#3 sorts who can give you good professional innings. You can win a World Series with that - we did after all.

Usually guys with a 1 in 3 shot of making the team don't get a 40-man spot. The price and commitment are nonissues, no harm either way. Just wondering, when you have a big league spot, for all the baseball players on earth - I'd be tempted to give it to a guy who has played pro baseball at least in the last 12 months. Now, considering the Red Sox were willing to make a unwarranted commitment to Sizemore, the medicals must have given some hope. There is zero chance he plays a second of CF. I think it's LF all the way here. It is also a large bet on Bradley's defensive development, and that he can provide some cover to allow them to put Sizemore/Nava in RF if necessary without reaching for the maalox.

True - although one should decouple the player salaries from the prices a team charges its public. Independent decisions, and the latter one (how much will the market pay) drives the rest of it. A lot of the hate player salaries gets (which has always been a piece of good owner PR they can and do use) is driven by a false connection between the two (Tanaka's contract and the cost to sit at the Stadium for one).

A dominant stretch in the best baseball league in the world outside of MLB, with at least 4-5 prime years ahead of him. It's a substantial gamble - but not really more than any other free agent pitcher, and with a lot more upside. I am curious how it will work out. I will note that - continuing the chitchat about the health of the industry - is that the wild prices average seeming FA classes are raking in should be the future norm. Teams are getting smarter about locking up the megastuds before free agency hits, and the industry has a ton of money. You end up with a leaner free agent crop, with a lot of money chasing it. The alternative I suppose is the money being held by Judge Smails or donated to his Barclay's Premier League operation ... having it go to the players works a little better.

Fair point - attendance has also gone up consistently ... the industry is doing great despite the economy at large. If anything it is an optimistic sign for future growth.

That would have been the line in the sand for me ... not that it's a big deal here $$-wise ... but extending a big league contract to a guy who has not played in 2 years with his medicals. Not going to lose a lot of sleep over it, but it is a curious decision on its face.

I doubt flop is a fair word for somebody with zero expectations here. We need a backup OF. Those do grow on trees though by comparison, so I'm not going to panic. The big surprise is that they burned a major league contract on Sizemore - did they actually have a competitor where they had to do that?

TV/Corporate money is holding up the store more than the gates and whatnot. Also, the local scenarios for each team vary wildly. To Bud's credit (the one good thing he did) he was able to create an economic system which allows the 30 individual companies to operate that way while managing to pay attention to league health as well. It is about as good as you will get for a system that does not have a centralized revenue structure like the NFL. The internet business will continue to grow - long run there could be a crash, but it is not necessarily that likely - the corporate money drives the train largely. The media companies who drive the cable/TV revenue will (sadly) also be driving the internet stuff too.

Figure in the next CBA it should be closer to $750K. Be glad - everybody is getting rich and everybody is sharing. Everybody has enough money in their pockets to field a competitive team relative to their market realities. Tampa and Oakland are very much proof of this. Can't ask for a lot more than that. The salaries are totally sane from a supply-demand perspective and from an affordability/ROI one.