sk7326

They will make a killing until his arb awards - and even then, assuming a normal performance curve (which means there is BETTER left for Trout) it is unlikely the arb awards would keep up with his value (there is flat out almost no aribtration data for cases like his). The Angels will try to buy out his arbitration years and maybe a year of free agency - and those sorts of deals have had some attraction to young players. You give a little bit of earning potential in exchange for additional job security and a little bit more money up front.

This is Ells last chance for a real big time contract - so he is not going to be stiffed. The QO was obvious there. The trickiest of the QO decisions were Drew and Salty. You could flip a coin with either of them - looks like they basically did.

With position players - the risk is pretty low. Pitchers you are going to roll the dice a bit more. That said, with the evolution of TJ surgery, elbow problems are no longer death sentences. Shoulder injuries on the other hand ...

Indeed - that is the risk with all long term deals ... but in a sense you are always playing the percentages and hoping. The risk is considerably lower with position players obviously than pitchers, and if you have a good athlete so much the better. It'd be nice to build a team and sign players a year at a time from a GMs perspective. But of course if you want to land and keep your very best players, you gotta pay to play.

The problem with citing clutch hitting is that Papi was AWFUL in the ALCS ... he hit the grand slam, but there were tons of important at-bats which he squandered. Were those other ABs not important? Did he not give full effort then? I think it is sufficient to say Ortiz had 2 amazing playoff rounds around a dud just because baseball works like that. He figured things out because he is good. The hitters who came through were all good - and you can't keep good down for too long.

The thing with long term deals is that at some point during a 10 year contract, the guy will be legitimately overpaid for his future contribution. The question is when that point shows up, and did the player deliver enough value during the early part to make it worthwhile. If you signed Mike Trout to a 10 year contract now - you absolutely are going to get value for it because the first 5 years are going to be valuable enough to hold up any dropoff in the 2nd half. You'd like to not have to pay for any non-peak years, but it is the nature of an auction that you will have to pay a premium.

There are 30 teams with #1 positions. I mean Chris Tillman was a staff ace - but nobody would confuse him with a #1 pitcher in parlance ... but when you are speaking about a "#1 pitcher" as an evaluation criteria, you are almost certainly not saying "Top 30 pitcher". When I think of a #1 in that term - I am thinking of a pitcher who has bona fide credentials to be considered alongside positional MVP candidates. That is a pretty exclusive club. I don't think it is 5 pitchers or 6, or a specific number. Indeed Liriano with the Twins (or Liriano now) has always had #1 stuff - but the durability and command has been in and out. It is hard to have the #1 credential without both the stuff e.g. strikeout or extreme ground ball stuff, and the durability.

Teams have different revenue functions and different situations - it's one of the reasons baseball's model is more sustainable than the lockout-a-decade NHL. There is a point when the $$$ is flat-out too much indeed, but the team that places the bid knows what that level is for them. The ARod deal did not work out for Texas because ARod's contributed wins were not nearly enough to get into a needle moving area. In Boston, where the franchise was in 2001, the wins added and the playoff impact and the revenue benefits that come with it, a gigantic investment makes more sense. Indeed, when Boston signed Manny to that contract, this all came into play. The business decision the Sox have to make with a large investment is separate from what the other teams do ... so it is hard to argue that a posting fee of XX is good or bad, since it depends on the team that actually is ponying up the cash.

Lester was awesome in the post-season. At the same time, I do look at the larger body of work - which is still good. I'd place him a wee bit below the Kershaw-Verlander-Hernandez-Darvish sort of level ... but that is another level of missing bats. That is what I think when I think "true #1". But Lester being an elite #2 who can do some #1 work - is not at all a dig or anything. The downturn in his #1-ness is best seen through a sharp dip in strikeout rate the last couple of years ... but the postseason he showed signs of bringing some of that back.

That is fair - but I am more interested in baseball, not budgetary limitations. Nobody argues they avoid bad moves. But at the end of the day, if the players make more money who cares? For the cost of the operation to fans, better it go where you see it. Would a large post be a stupid move. Possibly, because Tanaka does not merit the love. It is not stupid just by being a large investment.

Pretty much. The industry is doing really well and teams are flush with cash. If they are not spending on the club somewhere (and the draft bonus rules are reducing the options other than big leaguers) you are basically choosing between compensating players more, or having the Judge Smailses owners pocket more moolah. I'd prefer the former. Personally, years is a more interesting discussion than the annual salary - teams have different economic situations, and wins have different marginal revenues. Years ties up your structure and make players hard to trade. Ellsbury was the 3rd best CF in the league this year. Carlos Gomez had better numbers without the track record, and Matt Kemp was hurt. Very or good middle of the field help is the most valuable commodity in baseball this side of starting pitching. Middle of the order boppers are fun - but you can find guys playing the corners who can bop it without a ton of difficulty (the Red Sox were a prime example this season). If he did this for the next 6 years, he'd be a $20M a year player - but I would not bet anything important on that actually happening.

It is less that than the "they have their own TV network and charge the highest ticket prices in the league" gag ... consumers spend more than other fan bases do, it is not unreasonable to expect them to see it in the product - does not exempt running a smart front office. But their salary structure is essentially limited by how much money they want to take out of the business.

The age is the fascinating part of this. He is 25, that is the big plus here, and there is a decent chance he could end up a solid #2. It would be a large investment for that - but that would be a good guy to have. I agree you can't expect him to be a staff anchor. But as we saw this year, a rotation of #2/#3 starters is plenty to win the title.

You'd trade 2 of our top 3 prospects for a pitcher who is not actually better than Lester? OK. The Rays would have driven him to the airport if we had a prospect the level of Wil Myers to give up ... we do in Bogaerts but we had no intention of trading him. Tanaka is worth considering - he projects as a #2, and he is young. I'd be more comfortable with a shorter hitch - but I won't dismiss Tanaka either. I do not expect Darvish level ceiling though - there is no evidence of that. The free agent lot is good on depth, short on #1 stuff ... and if any of the top guys get QOs, it becomes a tougher decision (like with Kuroda or Ervin Santana). There are some depth guys with a modicum of ceiling like Ubaldo Jimenez or Scott Feldman who might be worth a spin. Heck, you could even bring back former Red Sox Great Bronson Arroyo for a year.

I think that you can argue Workman, no doubt. And if they dealt Dempster to give Workman a job - more power to them. That said, Dempster essentially filled a Tim Wakefield role last season - a guy who doesn't suck that badly and always takes the ball. This is not a great Hallmark card, and you don't want him near any truly nervous spots - but he is absolutely valuable for negotiating the 6-month slog. Dempster's strikeout rate did not have that crazy April level, but it stayed pretty good all season. I am not stumping for Dempster to stay - but he is a depth guy and a sunk cost ... and for a team who needs an innings eater, he can provide it at a salary which is probably inflated but not that much so.

McCann's body has a LOT more wear and tear than Saltalamacchia. There is a lot of money chasing not a lot of players. If it gets past 3 years with him, that is a problem. Among Braves fans I know (and I went to school with a lot) - there is very little chance McCann can catch in 3 years if that. He already has slipped some defensively (Salty is at least his equal at blocking the plate, really the gap is all in the throwing out runners part), and is not a DH/1B caliber bat. I can argue agaiinst Salty for 3 years ... but McCann ain't it.

Maybe - I am more comfortable with going after Kuroda if you want more depth

1. Posting system agreement needs to be reached. We are almost there, but not quite per reports. 2. Given the precedent set by Darvish and Matsuzaka, a $50M+ post is expected whether or not Tanaka is worth it. He has the superficial numbers, and there is a precedent. 3. The new posting process PROBABLY will give the player some input into where he goes - that could impact the number of bidders. 4. From scouting reports I've read, from some of the Sickels/Law sort of types - the numbers are amazing, but Tanaka is more Kuroda than anything if you want to make a Japanese comparison. BTW: the actual Kuroda would be a FA I'd take a hard look at in real life. Is that worth an investment comparable to Darvish? It seems less of an open case that Tanaka will achieve true #1 level like Darvish.

Depends on what you call mediocre and if you are considering position. Ells was excellent this season ... ultimately if he could guarantee us 6 of THESE seasons, I'd pay his asking price. The odds of that are pretty low.

You can never have enough quality starting pitching. You don't just hand the keys to guys like Ranaudo, Barnes, whomever - especially when these are not ace ceiling sorts. The fact is that quality pitching will either be pressed into duty or valuable in trade. I think there is a chance all of these guys get a cup of coffee in the show next season - and if I were GM, I would look at all of them as prime candidates for middle relief (I like Weaver's idea of middle relief as a good apprenticeship for these guys). I am not comfortable that our top 5 guys will make it through the season, but that is why you still keep looking at solid buy low guys like we did Dempster last season. (and yes, Dempster for his skill set was a very reasonable purchase)

You are not wrong - although he is young in terms of reps - when he was drafted, he was something of a project. This was well known at the time. Considering you expect a physical peak for dudes in the 27-30 sort of range, Middlebrooks still has some development you can plan on. And generally, betting on excellent athletes (who do have baseball skill) "figuring it out" is a sound wager. Jung is right that the hype on Middlebrooks preceded the performance - he came up because our 3B fell to pieces, that's it. He came up, had a good month, exhibited serious upside. The Boston hype machine anointed him and kicked Youkilis out the door. Somebody had to play 3B. I do think his injury in 2012 was a huge hit - that was another 150 PAs or so of development he missed. What I look at is that he is one of the best athletes in the system - he has serious raw power, and not just raw power, but power which has translated into games. He has the tools to be good defensively, although he is raw there. He is just relatively raw generally - and given his background, it is not a surprise. He's not as raw as Wily Mo Pena certainly, but in the same way that Wily Mo was a toolsy phenom who was not raw, raw, raw ... Middlebrooks is similar. I think Middlebrooks is a much better candidate to "get it", as he has shown steady improvement. Even after his callup in August, he was better. His mechanics were simpler, his plate discipline was better. You have to be careful with changing him too much - while yes you want to hone his approach and improve his plate discipline and whatever ... the urge to swing the bat is born, not made. The preternatural ability of the Yooks, Napolis or Adam Dunn to take and rake is not something you can teach. What Middlebrooks CAN work on is swinging at more of "his" pitches (I can't count the number of times I saw him take perfectly hittable 3rd strikes), and spoiling other ones, and laying off the outsided junk as much as possible. He is never going to be more than a .320-.330 OBP guy ... but he has a package of skills and athletic talent, where a "good enough" OBP results in a damn good baseball player.

The distance between Lester and a true ace (and there are only a handful of them) is probably a matter of talent more than anything Lester can do on his own. But that's OK - he seems a lock to be a quality #2 sort of starter for the next couple of years and his durability allows him to remain useful for 4-5 more. I don't want to give a big extension to a pitcher in his 30s, but he is one of the guys i don't worry about being able to create value over the life of the deal.

It is not likely - although you have the causation backwards. Boras works for him.

[i don't weep for the Cards - they are going to be factors for a long time - granted maybe without their current manager. Wacha, Martinez, Kelly, Rosenthal - a lot of amazing arms. I think you might have thought the Sox had the pieces of a playoff contender entering the season considering the rotten breaks of the recent past - but the best team in baseball wire to wire, that never had a losing streak of more than what 3 or 4 games? A true 3-dimensional outfit that were able to turn to their run prevention when the offense started to dry up? It is rare that the best team win the World Series - baseball is funny like that. We were, and we did.

Well historically 1967 ... at least in 2013 the players had a history of being good when they were healthy