sk7326

Lot of money chasing a lot of age here ... $10M a year for 2 years of a dude who'll be 35 when the season starts coming off of a ghastly year - yes, it's one year but given the expected performance curve 2012 was the outlier (especially the power) Probably want something cheaper (and younger) or just better for a jobshare with Ross. $13M for possibly 3 years of a relief pitcher in his 30s who has pitched 15 innings since 2011. Lot of better options - and multi-year deals to relievers is one of the easiest ways to turn your good payroll bad. It is tempting to turn to "proven answers" in the bullpen, but that is largely a futile quest. Throw more Workman/De La Rosa/Ranaudos at the problem, and 1-years at Jesse Crain or Ryan Madson if you really want to spend some money on guys. The Cards, Dodgers and Tigers did not know who their guys were until the season got going - and that's ok. There is a pretty good chance Holland, who was the 2nd best reliever in the league to Uehara will turn into a pumpkin. Craig Breslow's peripherals were wildly out of line with his actual performance - he is a prime candidate for regression. It happens - that's the nature of the gig. The stuff with the lineup is basically sound, although one can quibble with the chosen guys to fill the roles.

Those factions had a nonzero impact, but a lot of that is theatre for sports radio. Among position players, 20 extra games of Pedroia, nearly 40 extra games of Ortiz (going off the top of my head here), and over 60 extra games of Jacoby Ellsbury mattered - that is 120 games or so from their best players. 144 of the 162 games were started by Lester, Doubront, Buchholz, Peavy, Dempster or Lackey. Every season is a test with adversity to battle etc. But this team had remarkable fortune on the injury front compared to 2012 and the 2nd half of 2011. It is the one thing you can't control for - and you just hope works out, and it did. The team has had contender talent even last year, but just never had the opportunity to field that lineup often enough to make a great go of it. Bobby was simultaneously dealt a crappy hand and played it poorly. It's not an either/or thing here.

Their best players stayed healthy - they let their whiskers grow, but they were able to do it on the field and not on the training table ... that was the biggest key, more than anything else that separated 2013 from 2011-12.

If Napoli leaves - the Red Sox have plenty of options as others have noted, starting with gettiing a guy to platoon with Carp. My own wish would be to sign Corey Hart for something with a lot of incentive built in. We know that at his best he is a better player than Mike Carp, but he clearly has a lot to prove to the market. And if he is not healthy you can always do something else, including just letting Lavarnway take the 1B starts against lefties. (since I doubt the Red Sox see him as a starting catcher, though I think his bat has shown the ability to play if he is focused on it)

Just looking at what he did last year relative to what that production is worth to the Sox, 3/40-50 is a fair price for him to ask. But yeah going deep into his 30s without some assurances is a bad idea.

Oh I don't know. There have not really been that many talented teams who failed - without some sort of more mundane explanation than they didn't get along. (they were old - everybody was hurt, which is our 2012 basically) I don't argue that chemistry matters, but a lot of that just comes from being successful together - and assembling a good team is your best percentage play there. I guess I lean towards, get the players, the chemistry will figure itself out. Evaluating the chemistry (especially since it changes so frequently) is a much dicier thing. Personally, I think some turnover is healthy - because you can't get back 2013's mojo. There is too much luck involved for that to happen.

With Napoli, the key will be entirely in the structure of the offer. If a team offers 3 guaranteed years at his implied value ... something like $40-50 million, that will be very hard to justify matching. Even if he did not have a hip condition, buying a guys 33-35 years (especially with a body which is not a great candidate to age well) is generally poor business. But I suspect all of the bidders for Napoli will want some sort of buyer protection. Whether or not the injury is a problem for him - it IS a thing which is part of his valuation. The question is whether the Sox and Napoli can come to some consensus on a deal which hits all the marks there sufficiently so he doesn't have to shop it around.

Jenks was throwing bodies at the bullpen on a short deal - it didn't work. That is the nature of relief pitching. The trade helped, but the farm was being replenished anyway. The Red Sox got help from the LA deal, no doubt - although the LA deal did not magically make their best players healthy. That can't be underrated. The Crawford deal was a mistake - the Gonzalez deal less so (though certainly a risk). Really in retrospect, the biggest mistakes management made in their planning for their years was severely misreading how broken down Youk was, as well as just not having enough pitching. Although, when you cycle through as much injury on the mound as the Red Sox had, few teams can absorb that.

Some deals are bad on their face - the Larry Andersen-Jeff Bagwell one is ground zero (the prime position prospect for middle reliever = yuck!). But trading your top pitching prospect for Pedro Martinez coming off of his first Cy? That works fine, thank you very much. The Iglesias for Peavy deal rides entirely on the Iglesias valuation. The Beckett deal was a long run loser for the franchise, but they don't win the 2007 title without Beckett or Lowell, so you can't get too teary eyed about it. Flags fly forever. Having a bunch of prospects and budget does not mean you do anything stupid. But if moving a few of your chips means getting an 8-figure star with some prime years left - we aren't the Rays and should not apologize for it.

The two times the Dodgers broke 90 wins in the last 6 years, they led the league in attendance. The years they have scuffled, they have scuffled at the box office. The fan base is fickle, but they'll show up to see a winner. Helps to have a great ballpark and tradition.

The Yankees had great players - they kept that. Chemistry forms as teams win - not the other way around. The 1996-2000 Yankees were largely home grown with a few key veterans, so that is a pretty poor example of mercenary. They outspent, but to keep their guys. And considering how much they charge their public, they damn well ought to have.

I think they'd like to. But it's not a bad contract ... 1 year for a durable guy who misses bats decently. He was important for them the way Tim Wakefield was in years past. If he's your worst pitcher, life is not that bad. I'd want to at least get an Engel Beltre sort of lotto ticket for him if I'm eating salary.

Pedroia IS the face of the franchise - but if he were not an elite player, the "face of the franchise" stuff would never happen. That he is more than just a great player is true - but being a great player is the entry criteria. Pedroia is the team's biggest star and resonates with the Boston fan base uniquely for reasons both baseball related and otherwise. Ortiz resonates as well, mostly because of both his current production as well as his connection to 2004 - and damn right is should be. As much as Boston fans like to talk about wanting a team of Scrappy McScrappersons and frowning at fat cat superstars - that is largely nonsense. I have a few years of Pedro Martinez starts to counter that. Winning sells, period. The 2011 team, which is always the cautionary tale told - did not win enough, and that was the crime. They went 81-42 in the middle 123 games of their season, and you heard none of the "these are bad guys" sort of hooey. They stopped winning - and that stopping winning continued in 2012. I think Boston's organizational philosophy has not really shifted - they won in 2007 with home grown folks too. That is always the goal - grow your own, and figure out the rest later. For instance, between whichever prospect guys you read, you imagine that: Bogaerts, Cecchini, Owens, Barnes, Webster, Ball, Swihart (who can't be traded yet, but no matter), Betts ... are all probably Top 100 sort of prospects. So the Red Sox have a lot of guys coming up. You add other guys like De La Rosa, Merrero, Ranaudo, Brentz, who are some version of attractive. Hoarding all of them makes no sense - for either the Red Sox or the players. We know Bogaerts is part of the immediate future. The rest of the guys are assets, just the way it is with Tampa. The difference is, due to Boston's actual big market edges, the prospects + money gives the Sox more options to do things for the major league club. I don't think Cherington is shifting the franchise 180 degrees away from the way the team has operated before (which of course he was a prominent part of) - it just happens that now the organization has more cards to play - such is the cyclical nature of prospects and whatnot.

Puig was a rookie whose prior experience was a world where players enjoy themselves. Will he slide into the "yessir, nosir" that MLB expects as the "right way to play?" It will improve - but you don't teach the pure ability to hit the baseball like he has.

Ramirez AND Greinke getting healthy (Greinke gave them the NL's best 1-2 combo) at the same time Puig came up was a perfect confluence. I think of their 4 outfielders Puig is the only one not on the block - he has by far the best contract after all.

Basically the Dodgers have Puig and 3 outfielders they are taking calls on ... it is really about which guy gets them the best deal. Crawford has rebuilt his value a little bit - not Tampa Bay level but at least a 3 win sort of guy you can play without holding your nose. Ethier needs a platoon partner but is probably the best contract. Kemp is the high wire act - could be a bonanza or a disaster.

Note the "kicking the tires". There is probably not a deal there - and given the red flags, not that I'd want one. Here is the thing about Henry's view on long term deals etc. Everything he said was blindingly obvious - stuff everybody knows. However, the key thing is the "in certain cases" qualifier he offers. Pedroia is one of the top 20 position players in the league - so THAT is one of the qualifiers. Carl Crawford was an MVP candidate when they signed him - obviously that was a mistake, but they aimed high. The Red Sox did not make some sort of fundamental paradigm shift - there was just nobody worth that sort of monster investment so they went to plan B. The Sox have money, and they have prospect depth - including a lot of prospects who are attractive and probably blocked. There is the chance to be opportunistic if the right sort of guy is available. Kemp given his hamstring problems is probably not it ... that said, he represents the sort of talent level who is worth laying out a lot for.

Kemp is very interesting though yes, his injuries probably preclude him from being a full time CF. He is worth kicking the tires on for LF.

One thing to note is that the votes are taken after the regular season ends. So the postseason has no impact - aside from narratives like the MVP not being able to come from a non playoff team or whatever.

Corey Hart who has not had a major league at bat since 2012 and a sandwich pick. Napoli at 3/40 gives me pause but I can't imagine the Red Sox won't get some sort of basic protection - whether it be a Lackey clause (the contract goes down hard if Napoli has a serious hip injury) or a simple vesting option. His strikeout rate doesn't matter a drop.

Very much so. IMO, he was excellent here generally, although he grew into the job. Solid early, very good later. 2011 was not one of his better years, but a lot of forces conspired there. But the 89 wins in 2010 showed really how good he has become. Farrell had problems in Toronto and has improved at his job. And he had a good season last year - with some things that could be improved still ever more. He could be a better manager and the team could do worse next year - it is entirely likely in fact.

Oh managers and players would do worse. That would be a lot of reputation votes (look at what the players do for all star reserves). It was hardly an injustice. Tito, Farrell and Melvin all had reasonable claims, and honestly if Joe Girardi got a couple of votes that would not be wrong either. It's not like a writer voted for Ron Washington or anything. And what does manager of the year measure - really. It measures which team outstripped expectations the most. There are good managerial performances on bad teams and vice versa - happens all the time.

The schedule imbalance was what it was ... sort of knew it was a two man race. Francona was a worthy choice - and he surely deserved to win in years past (2010 leaps to mind). The worst to first was a great achievement - although when you see who was hurt last year and healthy this year, the Red Sox were a good team on paper entering this season. Bob Melvin has been excellent recently also.

This is not that bad ... at the same time: Ruiz is 35 and can't hit righties ... that is not a player who deserves 2 years. Lavarnway/Ross make more sense than this. Corey Hart is a good idea but he does not require that sort of guarantee. If he can walk, he can be a righty partner in a platoon, and perhaps more. But the contract needs to account for that. Juan Uribe - no. Chris Young - if you can get him at this price it is a very good idea. Can play CF for real as a platoon partner and could supplant Gomes as the fourth outfielder Jesse Crain or Madson - good value plays, just need them to be values

On-Base is the very act of not producing an out - this is not new fangled anything. Stephen Drew produces fewer outs than most shortstops this side of Tulowitzki or Jose Reyes or that ilk. A lineup of players who do not produce outs will score a ton - we just saw one of those. The Yankees and Red Sox have combined for 7 titles in the last 15 years on the back of this philosophy. Maybe folks did not track it like in the old days, but unless managers had brains made of jello, not producing outs has generally been insanely valuable. (This team was not as good as the 2004 entry, and probably better than the 2007 one, though the pitching drives that ... much closer than it looks at C, worse at 1B, better at 2B, SS ... worse-ish at 3B, worse at LF, better in CF and RF. Rotation in 2013 was better, and bullpen was a tie, manager was worse but not by a margin that matters) Comparing Drew to Pedroia accomplishes very little in this argument - since Pedroia has been one of the top dozen or so position PLAYERS in the entire league the last 7 years. So Drew does not stack up next to one of the best players in baseball - wonderful. Iggy had a higher OBP than Drew - it was also an entirely outlying season based on some luck which his ability to hit line drives does not support. Drew's season had a high BABIP of course, but not really out of line with his career - and he has always been a line drive hitter.