sk7326

Jackie Bradley will be lucky to be 50% of Ellsbury ... in 2014. After all half of Ellsbury in 2013 would have gotten you something like Michael Bourn or Austin Jackson, or even Coco Crisp. But if I could get you Austin Jackson next year + 5 years or so of better than that, for about 1/3 of the price tag (if that) - that'd be pretty a pretty good deal.

Almost all free agent signings are negative return the way the system is drawn up. It's the idea of the winner's curse (in game theory) - you pay more than the asset's worth in order to win the auction. Does that mean you NEVER offer a giant contract? No - but you do have to weigh the consequences carefully. How much peak are you buying vs decline - for a big free agent you are going to buy decline, but is it enough to offset the upfront production? Ellsbury, as a 30 year old without a ton of history of corner-hitter production (in case his defense slips to corner outfielder levels), let alone a ton of history of staying healthy (regardless of reason) ... is a very risky buy. This is not Alex Rodriguez 2000, where the 25-year old best player in the AL was hitting the market ... there you were buying a lot of peak), this is a much more standard 30-ish guy. There are guys worth breaking the bank (and the Red Sox' relatively deep pockets) for - Mike Trout's UFA class (if he does not sell off his freedom to the Angels) or for that matter Xander Bogaerts if he is who we hope he is - but they are VERY rare.

One of the things that 2004 did was end the "Win it for" of people my age at least. I am not sure if the "curse" was the literary millstone the pseudo-intellectual sorts like to say it was - but I do remember (I was at a happy hour in Grad School which had bled into the night) when Aaron Boone's homerun cleared the fence ... and it was the first time I thought "they're never going to win it". So, with tonight being on the precipice of closing the greatest decade of Red Sox baseball most everybody short of our great-grandparents have seen, I'd be curious to hear some of your thoughts. In particular, starting this thread was made all the more urgent when I found out that there are posters here who barely remember 2004 (! - holy crap am I old). A few particular questions I'd love to hear answers to: 1. The year you were hooked - for me it was 1986. I was 8, young enough to love the baseball and the drama, Hendu's homerun when we were starting at elimination. I fell asleep before the Buckner play - the heartache for me was kicking away the 3-0 lead the next night (who gets a mulligan like that to atone for a disaster). Fortunately being an 8 year old, you got to disregard how odious some of the individuals were. 2. Your favorite Red Sox team (difficulty - not 2004). 2007 was a juggernaut, and the comeback against Cleveland was terrific. But I do harbor affection for the 2008 team - which by October was clearly overmatched against Tampa, but staged a really stirring comeback. Left it all out on the field, though they could not figure out Matt Garza. 2010 was also in retrospect a year that deserved respect - 89 wins with an amazing fiesta of devastating injuries, while David Ortiz was in the middle of figuring out where his swing had gone. 3. Where does 2013 rank. (and I think the answer doesn't change all that much with what happens the next 2 nights) - for me it's redemption. I guess I'm a bit older in real life now, so it cannot grab me like 2004 did, let alone Morgan Magic. I thought that last year's record and the 2011 finished had so much bad luck that it obscured how little it would take for us to be reasonably good this year. But no, I did not expect that we were fielding the best team in the league. It has been a great surprise - and to me a success on almost every level. The "almost" part? Well we have 2 nights to figure that out.

Teams without turnover are the ones you worry about. We have the best team in baseball for 2013 - almost assuredly that will not get better for 2014 without some change. There are more players leaving their peak years than entering ... and the opponents will add talent

Ross has played better than Salty the last couple of games ... we are down to a 2 game season (tops) ... this does not impact the decision to bring Salty back one way or the other (nor should it - and this applies to Middlebrooks as well). But there is a championship to win - the long term stuff we discuss ad nauseam goes out the window here.

if you take Ellsbury's 2011 out of the equation ... .355 has been on-base high water mark. Now if he keeps this up (that was good enough for 19th in the AL this year) - that is a good player. Bradley's 2013 was a rough introduction - he was promoted aggressively due to his spring ... so small sample size warnings abound. BUT, you break his batting down: 18 hits in 107 plate appearances ... 10 walks, 31 Ks, 2 HBP, 3 homeruns. So - you do the requisite BABIP calculations, and it comes out to .246.** ** Now things like BABIP are shaky statistics if the player has truly substandard ability, but from watching Bradley IMO this is a non-issue. (You or I step into the batter's box against a big leaguer - and a standard BABIP interpretation will make it look like you and I have a prayer of being major league hitters.) So what if BABIP luck improves to something closer to .300 - a fairly average result? And what if he cuts his strikeouts down from 29% to 20% - basically to the level he had in the minors. You put those together, and suddenly his slash line moves to .245/.336. This is without any prediction of improvement in Bradley - which flies in the face of what we expect from a 23 year old at the level of baseball he has been in. The 3 HRs over this small sample for what its worth translates to 15-20 HRs over a season. David Dejesus aims much too low for a comp since the glove matters - Bernie Williams might be a better one.

I think folks look at Bradley and see an advanced approach at the plate, an above average CF - 2 things Ellsbury did not have as a 23 year old ... and a 7 year age advantage. There is also the track record of consistent improvement and achievement at each level of baseball. You will lose the ability to steal 2nd with Bradley ... there is a pretty good chance you will have improved your ability to get to first base though.

A little bit of turnover is a healthy thing ... after all, not everybody who gets a lot of run is going to keep improving. Some will just age, some will plateau ... also the competition will work to close the gap. Management has to do stuff to keep "been there, done that" complacency from setting in, especially during the marathon. Injecting some youth - adding players (not just for the sake of change, there has to be a baseball reason obviously) can do that. Especially now, with baseball cracking down on amateur bonuses while the industry is simultaneously drowning in cash ... a lot of teams have money and there are few ways to spend it aside from on free agents. The market will seem inflated, but it's not - but the Red Sox (or the Yankees) will not just be able to put the winning bid on whomever they want. There is just an excess of supply.

I agree to a point - frankly splitting hairs at this point. Lester has been terrific - although his line score was not all his doing, and that also figures into things.

snark aside - yes, the managers have gotten much smarter at this stuff. It is probably a reflection at how the defensive numbers ARE starting to matter in managerial decisions and such, and the expectation that managers understand what analytics is communicating.

A bunch of men growing beards? I've seen epic - this won't top 2004 ... and that is fine, nothing should

Gold Gloves are entirely about reputation - and quite often a player won't win it until he becomes decent offensively. It's fun to see the mistakes (and there are some howlers - Adam Jones at CF????). Machado was the best defensive infielder in the league this year and Victorino was the best defensive OF in the AL - so at least the voters did not mess those ones up.

In the same breath, the Dodgers, Braves, Rays and Tigers can ponder what their dominant pitching did while sitting in front of their televisions ...

As a general thing - Ortiz has impacted more games ... and one of Lester's wins was a blowout. It's nothing against Lester's work - which has been excellent ... but that does figure into things.

by scoring 17 runs in between them ... funny thing about that series - 17 runs in the 2 games in Boston, turned around and allowed 1 run combined in the 2 Saint Louis games.

Also how World Series narrative evolves is funny ... after all that Game 6 of Texas-Saint Louis in 2011 ... known as one of the greatest baseball games played (right there with the 2004 Game 4 between us and New York, the Bobby Thomson homerun, Jack Morris 10 inning shutout - take your pick) was a SERIOUS clunker until the 7th inning or so. The Cards have made a lot of mistakes - and their field managing has been awful. Boston has made a lot of mistakes, the field managing has been less awful. The home plate umpiring has been uniformly dreadful. It has not been an artful Series, but a compelling one - complete with surprise heroes (Felix Doubront, David Ross) and a lot of moments that will be hard to forget.

Billy Hatcher, 1990 WS Jeffrey Leonard, 1987 NLCS for San Francisco were 2 WOWs Also Carlos Beltran, 2004 NLCS was pretty incredible also

Also - this is not enough to win an MVP, but a couple of staff-saving performances by Doubront cannot be ignored when the Red Sox equivalent of Tommy Points are being handed out. He might have as good a case as Uehara to date.

In a Game 7, I'd reckon Farrell would be thrilled if Peavy could get him the first 9 outs and then start matching up ...

In isolation it's a pinch hit situation - chance to blow open a close game - you basically punted a 2nd and 3rd situation ... BUT, the way this game was going it was less trivial and so I understand the decision. And Lester almost got them through the 8th. This was not the obvious mistake that the Workman at-bat was. I can see where folks might disagree with Farrell's decision here - but this was much more a 50-50 sort of call than a 100-0 one like in Game 3.

But more importantly - 2 games left ... in 2011, Mike Napoli had the MVP clinched for a long, long time ...

Koji was the easy ALCS MVP: 1 win, 3 saves ... and (the key) two extreme-leverage saves. (you don't give him as much credit for the clincher, holding a 3 run lead for 3 outs is something he can do in his sleep) Here Uehara has been less urgent - 2 run leads both times, though last night the four out save. There are better candidates. Ortiz has BEEN the Red Sox offense for long stretches this series - Lester has given 2 dominant starts, but Game 1 was also a blowout. Doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the starts, but it might be enough to inch Ortiz ahead of him. After all, a guy batting .700 in a 6-game series is pretty insane.

Drew has been so good that he can go 4 for 48 and keeping him in the lineup is a no-brainer. He has been crucial to the run prevention effort here.

Everybody but Lackey is available for a Game 7 ... and Peavy will have an extremely quick hook ...

During his May/June issues - I pegged him as still a very valuable starter to resign on the basis of durability alone. Any guy who can crank out 200+ IP at a 4-ish or less ERA is innately valuable, if nothing else to help you organize the rest of your pitching staff. That said, he has clearly found his mechanics again, and has been either excellent or resourceful (his ALCS Game 5) all postseason. I don't need the Small Sample Size warning with him - he is our rock. He is someone you never stop being proud of - just knowing everything he had to deal with to get to a "quality starter". Exercise the option and give him 5/90 without blinking - even if he does slip from this level, his ability to just stay healthy and consistent is enough to justify the investment.