sk7326

The Red Sox had multiple injuries to multiple position players - and their best ones. You lose two of the league's best offensive players - no team is equipped to make up for that. 2010 they were beaten up in a way that any team with that sort of problem would have been stuck with - no team can make up the quality the Sox lost. That it was one of Francona's best managing jobs to get 89 wins out of that group is clear. The depth issue is overrated (depth is important, just as a house on fire concern now). They don't even really have to solve it in the offseason. Matt Stairs, Eric Hinske, Bobby Kielty types emerge during the season and can be traded for fairly painlessly, especially for a team with a LOT of prospect inventory like Boston. Another credible CF makes some sense ... perhaps someone to help in the corners if Drew is not re-signed. Also, kicking the tires on true blue options at LF and C (neither is a need, both could be upgraded even with the moves made to date) and in the rotation is just being responsible as a GM. The Red Sox project to have 6-7 guys in most prospect top 100s (Cecchini, Owens, Webster, Barnes, Ball, Betts, Swihart) and more who are respectable (Ranaudo, Brentz, Vasquez, Merrero). Given the position of this franchise in the league - you only really expect a small number of these guys to actually be solutions for the future Boston Red Sox. This is obviously not a call to trade prospects for veterans - but the Red Sox have the wealth to be opportunistic.

Well 7/110 for a legit #2 starter is probably a fair-ish price ... not saying I'd do it, but that's possibly less than what Lester will probably command on the market with 4 years age difference. The revised posting system is good for a lot of parties, but will reduce the NPB incentive to post guys in their prime. Frankly a simple cut of contract value might have been a lot simpler.

I think they are looking at the box office ... rebuild has been spinning their wheels and they feel some external pressure. Not that this is the most prudent reaction, but it is a rational one. From a business view, obviously markets are different (duh). But not all wins are similar bang. The wins the Astros could get, the difference between 54-108 and say 70 wins, is basically zero revenue-wise. (this makes sense, either way the team sucks and is probably out of it by the ASB) No point in spending on veterans to get that improvement. But from 70 wins on up, that is different, and almost certainly non-linear. Cano is one of the top 10 players in all of baseball. He should crank out a few 6-7 win seasons and his skillset is such that he will probably persist as an overpaid but not bad player (see later years Todd Helton). But will wins 72-77 really earn them a lot? Probably very little - it doesn't affect playoff contention or such. They need their own kids to make up that gap, but their kids have shown very little evidence so far of doing that. For the Yankees, trying to improve on an 85 win team, the wins are worth a lot comparatively. It means possible additional home games, and certainly improved gate, TV ratings etc etc. This is where spending makes sense - obviously they have basic affordability concerns like anybody else. The funds are not unlimited even if each player acquisition "makes sense" in a vacuum. Losing Cano hurts the Yanks quite a bit. Really means they are kind of more or less where they were last year even with Ellsbury. The business case for another big free agent is clearly there, but the names are getting short, and I don't know what they have to trade, if anything.

Sox should look to match here. Not because he is not replaceable, but it does run into matters of roster limits. In the land of 12 man pitching staffs and with Boston already sort of committed to some sort of platoon in LF, signing Napoli could help keep the lineup puzzle a little less complicated.

But what is flaming out really? At a position where replacement level is being able to roll out of bed without turning your ankle (and Pierzynski wasn't a whole lot better than that a year ago), the threshold is very very low. And with the bleating about poor defense from last year's starter - the replacement option is more of the same with far less actual upside. As noted earlier, in the grand scheme of things it is not much. Boston's 2014 fate will be driven by injuries and how Bogaerts and Bradley are ready to deal with varsity level work - but at catcher it was a very expensive lateral-at-best move.

If they did that, they become interesting. At the same time, do they have the prospect muscle to execute that strategy? That is an interesting situation. Last year, they had - outside of Seager - ZERO position players who were even as good as Daniel Nava from an fWAR perspective. Their pitching staff of course was better, but their actual peripherals were nothing special. Iwakuma had a marvelous season bolstered by a BABIP which flies in the face of his previous career enough that the burden is on him to prove it's real. King Felix of course needs no defense. But the rest actually wasn't that good. Boston's comeback from 69-93 to world champs was laudable - but there were the pieces of a good team there already. Seattle, outside of a couple of players, offers no such optimism yet.

Not at all - this ain't the NFL ... franchises have very different revenue profiles and situations. Yankees were an 86 win team a year ago which included some horrible injury luck. The marginal wins that McCann and Ellsbury and re-signing Kuroda could add have would make a large difference to the bottom line now and in the near future. If they had the young controllable choices Boston had, they probably do something different. The Ellsbury deal would be crazier for another franchise that doesn't have the Yankees variables going for them. Of course, what they do at 2B will have a large impact here.

The Yankees local revenue function is just MUCH higher than anyone else's, combined with their own native resources. (this is one of the reasons that I hate discussing salary numbers without context) Whatever you put the luxury tax at, in general, the revenue per win that the Yankees face can close a business case for them. Now the Steinbrenner's might now WANT to put that sort of money into the payroll - like every owner, that is their prerogative. But the marginal wins that the Yankees can get by going from "mid 80-win contender" to "solid postseason contender" is well worth it to them in terms of the revenue streams and such. The Red Sox face the same sort of bonanza from adding wins, but have somewhat more limited resources. Increasing the luxury tax hurts the teams like Boston or Detroit or whomever that might be able to play in the deep end but can't. For the Tampa's and Kansas City's ... they still can't afford what the Yankees can afford - but with the new CBA a lot of the tools they had to offset it (draft pick signing bonuses, international free agents) have been taken away from them. So the revenue sharing helps them somewhat, but it doesn't help them getting quality controllable talent.

I was noting the AAV just to put the players in perspective. But yes, the plus is we are only on the hook for one year. My take is - if you are going to just have a stopgap for a year while waiting for a more permanent solution, which was a totally defensible position btw ... I think Lavarnway-Ross is much more prudent use of resources. Lavarnway is a poor defender, but so is Pierzynski. I just find this is 8M spent on the 2014 payroll for no apparent reason.

Management advances that a lot (we need to show credibility blah blah blah). And I'd believe them even - if they were like Tampa in 2007-2008, sitting on a powder keg of young stars who were ready to burst forth. But Seattle is much much further behind the curve there, and until they solve their amazing developmental issues (the sheer number of position players with very serious pedigrees who have just not developed under their watch is astounding), this is just a cynical attempt to put asses in seats, which will work for a few minutes until the 78-84 seasons start rolling in.

It sounds better than it is. Anything that becomes a hard cap can make it harder for the little guy to compete paradoxically. One of the ironies of the current CBA is how it hurt Tampa and Kansas City despite the more punitive luxury tax.

It is an interesting case ... I certainly do not shun Choo JUST because he has poor splits. It is more giving $20M a year to somebody who does not add tremendous defensive value for whole you are basically punting 100-150 of his PAs. I would not mind signing him for the right price. A contract that resembles what the Yanks gave Ellsbury is not it.

On the other hand ... THIS is a bad signing for Seattle.

Good pickup for NYY - good non-signing for us ...

Baseball is set up to help the Yankees make the playoffs - this ain't the NBA of course, winning postseason series is hard, and you gotta be lucky.

I think for the players it is easily the most personal rivalry. The fans will always have the Yankees more. Rivalries are about the games ... it's why I considered the Colts the Pats as a bigger rival than the Jets. It's about the meetings. We've met the Rays a lot with a lot on the line - and (key to rivalries), the Rays have won quite a few of them. It can't be a rivalry unless the other guy wins some.

Basically he's not really an improvement over Saltalamacchia, aside from not having to pay him for more than a year. Is that better defensively than Lavarnway - yes. Is it some reason to do cartwheels over spending MORE this year on the catcher position than last season? Not at all. In the grand scheme of things, this will not ruin our summah - maybe he is a win or two worse than Salty, maybe less than that. But it is not a very efficient use of $8M, especially when the Marlins for $1M less of AAV got a better player. The Ruiz deal looks even ghastlier for the Phillies btw.

Choo's patience is terrific, and in his career best year this was the case. Neither guy is good against lefties, but at the same time the positional value cannot be ignored. Ellsbury's bad lefty bat is a bit more playable (as a plus-plus CF) than Choo as a solid corner guy. Certainly putting a guy who struggled against lefties like that in an offensive position is a worrisome prospect, especially at the $20M sort of price point. Now Choo's WAR last year understates how good he was a little bit because he was playing out of position (and thus poor defensive numbers), but the increased offensive expectation combined with the split raises eyebrows. I certainly wouldn't call Ells for Choo a net plus.

Ells was a good signing ... FOR THE YANKEES. When you get to deals like this, it is useful to stop pretending that the purchase decision is the same for every team. Clearly the Yankees will benefit hugely from making the playoffs (in terms of the revenue streams they get to enjoy), and they just do not have a lot of impact position guys at the top of their system. While it is not reasonable to expect Ellsbury to have his 2011 power surge, it is MUCH more likely that he will be a double digit homerun sort in Yankee Stadium where his swing will allow for a number of lazy fly balls to turn into homeruns. With the free agents, the Yankees could see enough improvement to add 5-10 wins, and whatever $$/win function you want to assume - the Yankees is among the largest. It also allows the Yankees to take Gardner and possibly spin him for some farm help - it obviously is not a blue chipper, but Gardner clearly is a mid-level starting CF. The Sox letting Ells go was a prudent business decision - for the Yankees, the signing is sensible too.

Sub .300 OBP, 11 unintentional walks in 503 PAs, making Middlebrooks look like Adam Dunn. Especially when compared to the stunningly reasonable deal Salty landed with Miami, not a great use of $8M. That said, short hitch and clearly keeping the seat warm for somebody like Vasquez. But this ain't Yadier Molina back there, and it is hard to argue that he really is an improvement over Lavarnway especially for the money.

Kemp is - when healthy - one of the ten best players in baseball. That is a ... giant ... flashing ... neon ... caveat though. The Red Sox (who I am certain are 99% not doing this) should not pay full price for him. I understand the Dodgers want a good price - of the outfielders they have to trade he is the most gifted - and the Red Sox have a lot of prospect depth, but you have to play hardball here.

You can never have too many capable relief arms ... and a ground ball specialist to boot.

Adrian Gonzalez spent his entire starting career with San Diego, before the 2 trades. He played through shoulder surgery which apparently turned him from a superstar into a good not great 1B. That an article called him a mercenary does not move me at all. That he could not turn Kyle Weiland or Tim Wakefield's corpse into competent starters moves me even less. Mercenary seems like a peculiar charge - the ability to change jobs (which most of us actually have) is not really a reason to bash someone is it? After all, this is a job, like anyone else's.

Maybe, maybe not ... Bradley last year was a totally different animal - he had hardly any experience above single A. It was reacting to a spring which the coaching staff could not ignore. This year is much more in line with his development - he has conquered every level they have given him that was appropriate. His development curve is quite a percentage bet to be a contributor next year. As long as you are prepared for a 2 win sort of season next year and not a 2013 Ellsbury one, you probably won't be disappointed.

David DeJesus with a plus center field defensively = an All Star Puig is an otherworldly talent, and Trout is the game's best player ... Bradley does not have to be either of those guys to be plenty good, even in year 1. All he has to do is approximate the OBPs he has shown at every level of baseball he has had a full crack at, and that is a clear solid starter if the defense is as expected.