moonslav59

Almost all huge FA signings lead to unmet expectations- often in the first year or two- the years they were supposed to do so great that they cancel out the back-end low expectation years.

Yes, 37 to 47 extra IP are very important, but if you are calling Buch a half season pitcher, then don't call Santana a full season pitcher. We're comparing the histories of a half season 91 ERA- pitcher to a 3/4 season pitcher at a 100 ERA-. The disparity is not as great as some seem to be making it out to be. Look, I'll take Santana over Buch right now for the rest of this year, or if Buch was signed for 2 more years at $26M. It's a no-brainer. Santana is better and projects to be better. I'm just saying, I'm not sure I'd sign Santana to $26M/2 (what he's due) next winter. I'd probably want to spend more to get someone better or to use towards getting Encarnacion and/or a couple RP'ers.

You're mistakenly underestimating the importance of a much lower ERA-. I said his IP outweighed Buch's better ERA- (slightly), so what's the argument? What am I misdefending? Santana is better than Buch. He has been over the years (slightly) and he's way better this year. Santana may or may not be worth $26M/2 over the next two years. Tell me how I'm way off base.

Agreed, but it's a half year of Buch vs 2 1/2 years of Santana at the same yearly cost. If you'd like to sign Santana to a $26M/2 contract this winter, then this is a no-brainer trade with no extra financial compensation required from the Twins. I don't think I'd spend that kind of money to maybe, just maybe slightly upgrade or 5th starter slot and improve SP'er depth. I realize this half season of Santana vs Buch is a big value too, but I'm not sure it outweighs the future budget restrictions.

That is a big difference, but so is a 91 to 100 ERA- differential. Again, I'm not saying Buch has been better than Santana over 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years. He's certainly way worse this year. I chose the comp, because they both are being paid $13M, and they both are slotted or would be slotted as our 5th or lower SP'er, and I see so much vitriol against Buch, that I don't see a big difference in their two histories. The IP differential is nearly cancelled out by the ERA- disparity. Yess, I think Santana is an upgrade over Buch, but Buch is our 8th or 9th SP'er right now, so Santana would have to be way better (or better than ERod and others) to be worth taking on $26M/2 after this year.

I seriously doubt anyone wanted CC without us having to pay 1/2 or 3/4 his salary. Beckett might have been easier, but he had way less years left and at a lower cost than CC.

Let's not forget that Sox management wanted Manny out of time over the years, and made it quite clear to the media. Doesn't that kind of force a player to want out as well? Look, I'm not defending Manny few despicable actions, but the Sox were actively making it impossible for Manny to stay in Boston. I recall leaks about Manny not knowing which knee it was that was injured, then implying that because nothing showed up on the MRI, it meant he wasn't really hurt, and other leaks. I'm not denying Manny didn't fake an injury, but when you are a manager of a team, and you know you have a child-like employee that is a valuable part of your company's success, you might want to handle his disposal a little smoother. I was shocked we got Bay after the whole world knew we HAD to dump Manny mid-season.

So, you'd agree to sign Santana this winter to $26M/2? I'm not saying it's a horrible signing, but it's not an easy "yes" to me. It reminds me of the Dempster signing. Some liked it and still defend it. I was against it.

Well, my 3 year sample size was not cherry-picked. It included two of Buch's worst seasons ever. It is more recent than the chosen 5 year sample, so maybe more telling. How about looking at 4 year, 6 year and 7 year sample sizes? The differences are not as great. Here's the 7 year (2010-2016): Santana 193 GS 1243 IP (27 GS/yr & 177 IP/yr) 4.05 xFIP 100 ER- 1.26 WHIP Buchholz 146 GS 909 IP (21 GS/yr & 130 IP/yr) 4.09 xFIP 91 ERA- 1.28 WHIP How about 4 years? Santana 95 ERA- 1.25 WHIP (97 GS/613 IP = 24 GS/153 IP) Buccholz 99 ERA- 1.28 WHIP (75 GS/463 IP = 19 GS/116 IP) The differences are not so stark as choosing the 5 year sample size that happens to include 3 of Buch's worst years. I wasn't cherry-picking the 3 year sample size, as that is what I normally use. I wasn't trying to claim Buch is better than Santana, but how much better does Santana have to be to be better than our #7 or #10 SP'er? Plus, the main issue to me is the $13M x 2 owed after this season.

I never said we traded for AGon knowing we'd use him to dump other salaries. Clearly that was not my point or implication. Without AGon, we don't get to dump CC and Beckett. The Dodgers wanted AGon and his bloated salary so much, they took on the massive salaries of those two clowns. I think it's a valid point regardless of the order of trades and signings. I get the fact that it is not a simple comparison when you combine future actions made... like saying we still have Carson Smith from that deal (RDLR+Webster> Miley>Smith), but there is some merit to making that point.

Santana-- 16-18:$13.5M annually. 19:$14M club option 2014-2016: WHIP 1.30 (66th out of 107 MLB startersw ith 350+ IP since 2014) ERA- 103 (70th out of 107) Santana 65 GS 402 IP 3.96 xFIP Buchholz 59 GS 355 IP 4.10 xFIP Am I missing something? Right now, I have Buch as our 7th SP'er. Santana is barely an upgrade over Buch, but he's getting $13M for 2 more years!

I don't think we get Santana or Hill. I'm doubtful we pick up any SP'er. I think we'll look at Kimbrel's health forecast and decide on trading for a RP'er near or at the deadline

No, I was referring to the Kelly/Rizzo trade for AGon that later allowed us to dump CC and Beckett. I doubt we would have been able to dump CC and Josh had we not had AGon. Remember, Rizzo was still in the minors until the summer of 2012. I doubt the Dodgers would have taken Rizzo and Kelly instead of AGon with the salary dump package. I clearly worded my post to say that the trade that brought us AGon allowed us to dump CC and Beckett, and that changes how we value the Kelly/Rizzo for AGon trade

BC was a very smart GM and he knew his baseball, but he was too wet behind the ears to get the job done here, the problem wasn't lack of knowledge it was lack of professional experience and maturity. Boston is a hell of a first posting as GM after all. He'll eventually sign on with some small market that will let him build things the way he wants to and make a great career for himself, gain the maturity he needs and who knows, maybe even be back in Boston when he's ready. I tend to cut Ben more slack than most, and here's why. I think Ben was clearly looking towards the long term- I called it a 5 year plan. He certainly made some horrible signings that were supposed to keep us somewhat competitive until the farm started driving our roster strength. That was his downfall, and I'm not going to try and sugar coat those bad signings. However, I did fully support the stinginess and reluctance to trade youth for immediate gratification. Trades like the Kimbrel deal or some of the proposed Hamels deals would help us for 3-4 years, but they not only cost top prospects but also critical budget flexibility going forward. I think Ben's plan was to wait until the 2015-2016 winter to load up on pitching as that was a saturated pitching market. That is why he chose the 2014-2015 winter to load up on offense (HanRam & Pablo). The theory doesn't look unsound, but the execution was a failure on part I. Ben never got a chance to execute part II. I tend to think he'd have gone after Price as well, but probably not Kimbrel. I also think Ben would have eventually traded some top prospects, but we'll never know for sure, and we'll never know for whom he'd have traded for. Ben never got to see his 5 year plan come to fruition. I can understand how 3 last place finishes justifies his firing. My sentiment is this: management must have been on board with Ben's 5 year plan, but they pulled the rug out before the plan was finished. I realize the plan and massive spending until the plan took effect was supposed to keep us competitive until the 5 years were up was an overall failure, despite the one ring in 2013.

Personally, I don't measure trades by just how many, if any rings it brought you. That being said, I think the trade and the following signings did lead to a ring. I was against the Drew, Vic and Dempster signings. I liked the Napoli signings and re-signing. I loved the Uehara trade and extension. I hated the Pablo and HanRam signings from day one. However, I do not view the poor signings as taking away from the greatness of the trade, just as I don't really judge the greatness of the trade by the 2013 ring. The trade gave us great financial freedom. That alone was a tremendous plus that makes it one of the top 3 Sox trades in my time as a Sox fan (1970>). How we spent that money is another issue to a great extent.

1) I thought the measurement of any trade to most, was did it lead to a ring? 2) Yes, the benefits went beyond 2013, but just because those (financial) benefits were squandered, does not mean the nothing was gained. Crawford was paid over $85M AFTER 2013. 3) AGon was also owed about $110M after 2013, so had we kept him along with CC, we'd be looking at about $200M in contractual costs with much less production than hoped for. (In hindsight, would you have signed AGon for $110M/5 back before 2014?)

...and Dan D built the farm that allowed Theo to trade for Schill and others. I just hope DD doesn't continue trading our quality prospects. I'm glad he kept Moncada and Benintendi. I am happy with our roster and projected future roster. Yes, we have some real duds dragging us down somewhat, but despite those issues, we look to have a path to continued success.

I think we will not trade HanRam, but if we do, I'd like to see Moncada at 3B and Encarnacion, Shaw, Pablo and maybe Travis at 1B & DH.

. Trading HanRam should be easier this winter than last winter. His stock was bottomed out last winter, and he'll have $22M less owed to him.

Come on, of course it makes sense. If we didn't have AGon, regardless of when we signed CC, we would not have been able to dump CC and Beckett.

The AGon trade allowed us to dump CC and Beckett, so that should be part of the final equation. Would anyone take Rizzo, if you had to take CC and Beckett with him? Maybe, but it's not a no-brainer.

I called the Dodgers trade "perhaps the greatest trade the Sox have ever made, although I won't argue with the Pedro trade supporters or the VTek/Lowe trade.' The Uehara trade was a steal as well. I'm not arguing these deals outweighed the bad ones, but along with his farm building, I'm not going to look back at Ben's total body of work in a negative light.

Some of us also thought we should have planned for an unforeseen injury or significant struggle from a pitcher we projected doing fine this year (Price, Porcello, ERod). Look how bad our rotation ended up being despite Wright having a break-out year- seemingly to some- out of nowhere! Remember, Porcello was a question mark going into 2016 as well, even to a poster like me who had been defending him and the extension more than anyone. Looking at the history of big FA SP'er signings, even Price could have been viewed as not being a slam-sunk to put up ace-like numbers in 2016, though I realize you can't get much closer to "sure bet" than Price. The fact is, and this is not hindsight for me and many many other posters, we started the season with an ace (Price), a pretty good bet on two #3's (Porcello and ERod) and then 8 "wings and a prayer" gambles: Buchholz Kelly Wright (some had him below everyone on the depth chart) Owens Johnson Elias Barnes Cuevas/O'Sullivan Look, I get the argument that 2 of these guys rated to do well enough to contribute enough wins to our 4-5 slots. Nobody forsaw a 7.00+ ERA from these guys combined (as starters), but I've always hated the quantity over quality mentality on structuring a rotation. I'm not trying to claim I knew more than Sox management, because I know I don't. I realize my position on quality over quantity seems to contradict my point about needing depth to cover something like the injury and struggles of ERod-someone we viewed as a solid #3 going into 2016, but depth of mediocrity (or worse) and high risk guys like Buch and Kelly never seem to work out. You are right, we went into 2016 with 2 question mark rotation slots and ended up with 3 due to ERod's struggles. We were somewhat lucky that Wright more than made up for ERod, and maybe one could argue we were unlucky that nobody out of Buch, Kelly, Owens, Elias, Johnson and others stepped forward to fill even the 4 slot. I saw it then as poor planning, and I see it now as costing us a great long term prospect in Espinoza to fix the mistake made last winter. I'm glad we have Pomeranz, but I'm not going to lie and say I approve of the time and way we went about getting him or someone like him. We were more than "somewhat lucky" with what Wright has provided. We basically walked into a bank, grabbed a bunch of cash, fled and the bank just shrugged their shoulders. I agree. Nobody saw this coming, but there were a few of us that have been supporting Wright's inclusion (or at least him being given an equal shot) in the rotation for several years.

Team GMs often value players and prospects differently...maybe wildly differently at times. Maybe the AZ GM liked the pair of prospects better than these so-called "experts" did.

I have mentioned trading HanRam after this season on other threads.. I even suggested last winter we trade him even if he had a .900 OPS in 2016. I doubt we trade him though.