sk7326

I think it'd be for Dempster clearly. Hudson or Haren would make sense in both cases. Anderson is intriguing to kick the tires on ... legit #1 ability, but had trouble making starts. There is a lot of upside to be had there, but clearly don't want to lay out too too much.

Overall I take a relatively indifferent view of Tanaka - would be an interesting sign, and he could fit into the Red Sox economic analysis calculations. But if they decided to address any starting pitching depth by throwing a 1-year deal at a Tim Hudson or Dan Haren ... or seeing if there is a buy low opportunity with Brett Anderson, that would work just as well.

What you tend to expect with NPB pitchers is that generally they pitch away from contact, and that they tend to use a lot of different pitches to get it done. There is a lot of deception involved, and the cat and mouse game between pitcher and hitter seems to be emphasized. Tanaka has several different pitches, as did Dice-K, as did Darvish. But you get here, you need to be successful in the strike zone, and the best way to get there is to go from throwing 6 or 7 pitches to the 3 or 4 pitches you command the best. Coming to the US, you'd expect Tanaka to be encouraged to stick with the fastball-splitter-slider combo and maybe tinker with another pitch. If his splitter is really plus-plus and his slider is solid, that is a guy with a pretty good chance for success. Dice-K never simplified his approach as is necessary here. Darvish clearly has had no such issue - although you can argue that Darvish' pure stuff is better than Matsuzaka's. At the same time, Dice-K's consistent low BABIPs suggest excellent stuff which largely was ruined by crappy approach.

He does by the reports have at least one swing and miss pitch. Pitching to contact is a good thing and will help in the big league transition (as long as the stuff carries) - we have lived life with away from contact, no thanks. I do think the wear is a legit question. But an extreme strike thrower with a swing and miss splitter is a #3 with #2 potential, especially as a 25 year old. I am not saying I am in on him, but I understand. It's such a shaky market for pitching (see Ubaldo Jimenez) that it is the plunge you take if you want a high end starter.

One thing I did try to check on Twitter was any restrictions to trading QO'd players. Apparently, as far as I can tell, there is no waiting period on flipping a QO signee (unlike say the NBA which has a 3 month waiting period for a free agent signee). So, if that is true - then I have to stand corrected on a lot of what I thought about Stephen Drew getting offered a QO. We can look at him in a lot of ways, but if he takes the QO, that suddenly could very well give the Red Sox the best available SS on the market for a VERY palatable contract ... I suspect a lot of teams would be banging down their door. Now from what I can tell, the CBA has restrictions on newly signed FAs being dealt. But do QO accepters fall in the same category of guys who take salary arbitration in the old system (like how the Rays got Rafael Soriano). The research is very hazy here. But if signing and trading QO'ers is actually possible, Drew makes a ton more sense.

Gonzalez was older. And also, and this is a risk with corner guys ... he was not an amazing athlete. Good for a 1B, but not especially athletic. The transition when he slipped was stark. Also I think scouts underestimated how much of his plate discipline in San Diego was driven by being the only good hitter in a horrid offense. Gonzalez was a higher risk to fall off a cliff - although he was also seen as a sure thing by the industry. His dropoff in 2012 and beyond caught a lot of people off guard - I think a lot of teams were ready to have that happen to them,

Scanning some other places for the Red Sox to shop ... if they are on McCann as some have reported, I am not sure another "QO" player is of great interest. OF is a place where some improvement is possible. Chris Young (OAK) is a good buy-low candidate to me for someone who could wrest a starting position and/or provide some righty platoon backup for Bradley.

It is, but additional revenue streams are going to be opened up for them - between the infusion of the money from the new national deal as well as their own revenue bump coming off of a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!!! season.

Maybe not 50% .. but $17 or so makes sense for his productivity and the value of the productivity to Boston ... of course he'd have to get there. Certainly the idea of him getting a base salary under $10M is more or less out the window after this season. (and of course the numbers assume a team with sufficient payroll and sufficient playoff aspirations) The years on the other hand will always be an issue for him.

Soccer is fast though - it actually only takes 2 hours to knock a game out. It has that thing baseball has (especially when the stakes are high) where the big play can happen at any time. The World Cup is the most obvious big stage, but on an idle Saturday put on the Premier League on NBC - it's a good show. Minimal fuss, the game moves along well. Perfect for a morning.

By the happy accident of the cohort he is in, yes ... on merit it'd be hard to get to Darvish

I doubt 3 years is in his future. But I could definitely see a 1-year + an achievable vesting option (say 500 PAs) ... with a higher base salary (maybe starting at $13M this year and incentives to get you towards another 50% or so)

I am sure Sarah MacLachlan will be writing a song for them once such outlays are made.

That is reasonable. Given the national TV money kicking in and such - it might not be a zero sum decision.

We'll see what happens - but that sort of commitment for prime NPB guys is not atypical. And you get control of peak years.

What IS interesting, and one of the deeper areas of the Top 50 is the "Dempster diving" (pun fully intended) - a good number of pitchers with some solid "depth starter" upside who should not require a giant commitment. Among them: Paul Maholm, Josh Johnson, Scott Kazmir, Dan Haren, Tim Hudson ... Phil Hughes and Jason Hammel more a prime candidate for a relief conversion Jesse Crain, Grant Balfour, Joe Nathan are interesting relief options although the price could spiral too high quickly there

25 year old with potential. Throwing a $15m/year deal at him vs Ubaldo for instance ... lot of money chasing very few players

Also considering MLB runs the WBC, that is probably not something that is bound to happen ... it's money that the teams get to keep also.

Can JBJ be a .270/.340/.400 sort of hitter next season. I don't see why not. His track record has been very consistent there. I would not guess him hitting .370 OBP in Year 1, though he certainly has that sort of approach.

Hard to tell him not to pitch in a WBC - although there pitch counts are monitored.

Oh you're putting the blame in the wrong spot here. It is the coaches who want to be known as winners. The kids, you can't count on them to say no. There is the repercussions from the coach and the fear of being called a wuss by his teammates. Coaches in those settings often have precisely the incorrect incentives.

I think you miss the Epstein quote's meaning here. Bill Parcells put it another way - that each season is its own thing, not a continuation of last year. Chemistry appears when demonstrated success appears. You bring in a bunch of high character guys who suck at baseball and then pile up a 3-17 start, chemistry ain't happening. You do want to change a team's energy each year and try to keep improving. That will rarely happen with zero turnover. What did Epstein's change mean? It meant a playoff berth in 2005, an honorable season in 2006 and then another title. In a sport as fluky as baseball, I don't see what the complaint is about the results. Can you replace Napoli? Hell yeah you can. It might take a platoon formula like they did for LF, but of course you can cobble that together. The Red Sox 4 FAs are ALL replaceable, but there is some risk and/or tradeoff surrounding each one. I think the org is happy to give young players a spin here - but there is also a lot of money flowing and they will have a chance to improve. I think they could be in on Tanaka just because outside of Ellsbury and Cano there is no All Star talent in this year's free agent crop. I am sure there is commentary about loading up for Stanton, but yes - as a corner outfielder with an injury history of sorts - that is a risky guy to throw the system at.

Drew is one of those interesting test cases for just how much money is flowing through the industry - same with Salty. Both of these guys would be 2-year + option sort of guys in a less prosperous environment. But with all of the TV money coming in, and all of the handcuffs being put on teams in terms of international signings and development - there are going to be a good number of "He signed for WHAT??!!" offers coming.

There are few amateur events with that sort of cache here. But we see coaches do this stuff all the time in the College World Series. Hell, the Chinese federation kept holding Yao to his national team commitments despite his NBA career, and you saw the impact that had. Just some cultural expectation which I get but it can have a negative impact. After all, Dice-K was 26 when the Sox won his bidding, and then a TJ candidate 4 years later. Not saying Tanaka is headed down that road obviously, but the early usage patterns of a lot of the really good NPB guys is worth noting. As I said earlier, a 25 year old free agent pitcher with some #2 ceiling (and #2 in scouting parlance still could be a staff's #1) is innately very interesting - but the risk is considerable.

I don't know if he will get 3 years, but I could see a year with a perfectly achievable vesting option (like say linked to 500 plate appearances or something)