2012-2013 Off-season thread part II

[bagwell368]

How do you know? I doubt he's getting 6 years, can't see it. And for the last 3 years, he's been pretty good and consistent (17m$ earned per year) and is still "only" 28 years old. To be honest, I wouldn't have a huge problem giving Sanchez 4/60

Sanchez is not a premium SP.

His ERA+ the last 4 years: 111, 117, 106, 105

that makes him a good #2 the first 2 years and a OK #3 the 2nd two - he's no ace, and has never been an ace - not by his percentages or results. He does throw innings, which is valuable, but doesn't make him an ace on its own.

He is now the "premium" SP on the market with multiple teams seeking his services.

He will get more than 4/60, 5/85 seems closer to the mark.

He'll be 29 before the season starts.

So as I said. He's cashing in because of a weak market AND he's hardly elite like his price tag. True when I wrote it, and true now.

[EEasyA]

Do you have anxiety or something? Because every name you mentioned is still available with the exception of Grienke & Shields who we have never been seriously linked too.

Take a pill

I don't have Anxiety or Whatever.Maybe you the one that needs the pill.im sorry you hurt that i don't agree with every move the red sox make or fail to make.I will keep calling them out on it. You don't like my post, don't read it.

[chomaru]

Clay will be this years Sanchez.

[EwanSellars]

plus he wouldnt cost us a draft pick while lohse would

[SirHizz]

Sanchez is not a premium SP.

That's debatable

His ERA+ the last 4 years: 111, 117, 106, 105

Not that great, right, but as you say next...

that makes him a good #2 the first 2 years and a OK #3 the 2nd two - he's no ace, and has never been an ace - not by his percentages or results. He does throw innings, which is valuable, but doesn't make him an ace on its own.

How do you know he's a "good #2 in the first 2 years" and only a "OK #3 in the 2nd two"? Does he suddenly fall off a cliff? As if pitchers close to age 31 are guaranteed to regress, some pitchers just get to free agncy in that age, we'd get 2 more "prime years" out of Anibal.
And he's been as consistent as it gets. That's why he'll never be an ace, but you're not paying him to be, not in todays market with annuals way over 20m. You could argue he's not been much worse than 24.5m Zach Greinke.

He is now the "premium" SP on the market with multiple teams seeking his services.

That's a fair point, but hey, at least the Dodgers seem to be done. Years are really questionable, it really depends on how many teams are after him. But I still don't see 6, though.

He will get more than 4/60, 5/85 seems closer to the mark.

May be, but if we have to go 5, I'm probably in (depends on the money)

So as I said. He's cashing in because of a weak market AND he's hardly elite like his price tag. True when I wrote it, and true now.

No, it's not true, not according to numbers as he's been worth 17m per year for the last 3. So if he gets something in that neighborhood (15-17), he's not "cashing in"
By your definition...every FA is "cashing in". Greinke has never been over the 24.5m he's getting from the Dodgers with the exception of 1 year. Napoli? Only over 13m ONCE (and another year pretty close to 13m).

Point is: Anibal is no exception, unless he gets way more than projected (which is not completely impossible). He's not elite, but neither is his projected price-tag. 15-17m is what you get on the market with 3 consecutive 4 WAR seasons.

[bagwell368]

How do you know he's a "good #2 in the first 2 years" and only a "OK #3 in the 2nd two"? Does he suddenly fall off a cliff?

Excuse me? Do you know the stat ERA+? If you look at the last 10 years or so in either league, you can figure out the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 tiers no problem from the rest. Aces generally have marks around 135 or above. Those marks correlate well with what I said that they are. If you want to look it up and dispute it, go ahead. However by everything I know on the topic, Sanchez isn't an ace (I.E. #1 SP), and never has been. Could he become one? Perhaps, I didn't say he couldn't be one in the future, just that he'd draw a bigger contract that what he's done to date says he should get.

As if pitchers close to age 31 are guaranteed to regress, some pitchers just get to free agncy in that age, we'd get 2 more "prime years" out of Anibal.
And he's been as consistent as it gets. That's why he'll never be an ace, but you're not paying him to be, not in todays market with annuals way over 20m. You could argue he's not been much worse than 24.5m Zach Greinke.

I didn't talk about regression in my post... this comment relates how?

Over the past 5 years, ZG's FG WAR $ per year is $25.12M. As his best days seem behind him, I believe his contract is too high. So with that as a baseline why shouldn't Sanchez get 17 per? He's average $17.2M over the past 3 years. That's more than the 4/60 you just mentioned. So regardless of this conversation, he's not going to Boston then, right? Given that he's the "king" of the market now, why should he "settle" for $15-$17M, when he can get $17-20M? That's cashing in IMO.

No, it's not true, not according to numbers as he's been worth 17m per year for the last 3. So if he gets something in that neighborhood (15-17), he's not "cashing in"

Answered above.

By your definition...every FA is "cashing in".

Ad absurdum. Where are your arguments?

Greinke has never been over the 24.5m he's getting from the Dodgers with the exception of 1 year. Napoli? Only over 13m ONCE (and another year pretty close to 13m).

The price goes up over time. BTW, Grienke's monsterous 2009 season season was valued at $42M by GD WAR $, that's quite a bit more than you just said. He also had 3 other seasons over $20M - so he's more accomplished then AS.

Point is: Anibal is no exception, unless he gets way more than projected (which is not completely impossible). He's not elite, but neither is his projected price-tag. 15-17m is what you get on the market with 3 consecutive 4 WAR seasons.

AS's last 3 rWAR seasons are: 2.9, 3.5, 2.6; fWAR: 4.4, 3.8, 3.8

BTW, I don't use fWAR for looking at prior pitching years as FIP (FG) is better used for future performance projections, not actually assigning a proper value to a given year in the past.

[SirHizz]

Perhaps, I didn't say he couldn't be one in the future, just that he'd draw a bigger contract that what he's done to date says he should get.

Let me get this straight, you say he'll draw a bigger contract than what he has accomplished so far? First of all, again, how does that formula not count for each and every (top) FA? And you DON'T KNOW how much he's getting. If it's 15m per year, he has already proven to be worth it, no matter what you think of some stats.

I agree, ZG's contract is too high, as his best days seem behind him. So with that as a baseline why shouldn't Sanchez get 17-21M per? That's more than the 4/60 you just mentioned. So regardless of this conversation, he's not going to Boston then, right?

Why he shouldn't get 21m per year? Because he's seeking 6/90, which is - if my math is correct - way less than 21m annually. So why are you even bringing it up? He'll come closer to 4/60 than 6/126.
And how would I know what Ben is offering him? I said we could try to get him for 4/60, I have seen stranger things happen before.
Tigers offered him 4/48m...so that's a loooooong way from 6/90

Most of the stat hounds I know agree that WAR $ is a bit overstated. I also think with ZG off the market that AS will get more then $17M per, which would be "cashing in".

Please tell me you are kidding me?! Because you GOTTA be kidding me. You obviously didn't think "WAR &" was overstated when you brought it up numerous times in the Ortiz thread to prove how he failed to reach this point several times.
And there is no - zero - zip - indication he gets more than 17m per. So it makes more sense to talk about reported numbers...and it was reported Sanchez aims high with his 6/90 mark.

The price goes up over time. BTW, Grienke's monsterous 2009 season season was valued at $42M by GD WAR $, that's quite a bit more than you just said. He also had 3 other seasons over $20M - so he's more accomplished then AS.

Oh, we're going the WAR $ route yet again? I would find it an overstated stat as well if it doesn't fit my argument. Greinke had one huge year? Now what? Hamilton had a monster year as well, but it strikes me more as an outlier.

AS's last 3 rWAR seasons are: 2.9, 3.5, 2.6; fWAR: 4.4, 3.8, 3.8

BTW, I don't use fWAR for looking at prior pitching years as FIP (FG) is better used for future performance projections, not actually assigning a proper value to a given year in the past.

There is nothing wrong with Sanchez' FIP numbers:
2010: 3.32
2011: 3.35
2012: 3.53

As I said, he's pretty consistent overall. BB/9 actually went down from prior seasons, everything else is right in line over that 3 year span, basically nothing to really worry about, even the transition to AL baseball went rather smoothly. Moreover he actually pitched great in the post-season.

Look, I am not trying to convince you of anything, but the statement(s) that Sanchez' is "cashing in" and his "elite price-tag" is completely wrong and unforeseeable at this point.

I want him signed if the numbers match...5/75, I am good to go, numbers seem to agree with me.

[papipapsmanny]

5 for 75 for sanchez wouldn't be terrible, but I would like it too much either. Thats like the worst case deal I would accept for Sanchez

I would prefer a 4 year deal worth 66, I could live with this. Give him 16.5 per year and have it only be a 4 year deal.

[papipapsmanny]

Im trying to figure out why we didn't offer iglesias, Mauro Gomez, and Alex Wilson for Trevor Bauer?

Honestly I think they would be a better Deal for the D-backs than what they got for him

[bagwell368]

Let me get this straight, you say he'll draw a bigger contract than what he has accomplished so far? First of all, again, how does that formula not count for each and every (top) FA? And you DON'T KNOW how much he's getting. If it's 15m per year, he has already proven to be worth it, no matter what you think of some stats.

Before I address that, I had an add on to my last post. In 2010, John Lackey (his 1st year with the Red Sox) scored a $16.5M on FG WAR $ - based almost entirely on his IP, because we all know he was just a hair under league average. So much for $17.2M being a big numbers for a SP.

Now, I don't know how much he is getting, but based on the game of musical chairs going on, and his perceived status, I believe he'll get over $17M/per. I don't think he'll get $15M per, that's your hope for the Sox number in signing him.

Why he shouldn't get 21m per year? Because he's seeking 6/90, which is - if my math is correct - way less than 21m annually. So why are you even bringing it up? He'll come closer to 4/60 than 6/126.
And how would I know what Ben is offering him? I said we could try to get him for 4/60, I have seen stranger things happen before.
Tigers offered him 4/48m...so that's a loooooong way from 6/90

a player should get what the market will bear, I just hope BC isn't an idiot and give AS $21M per.

Please tell me you are kidding me?! Because you GOTTA be kidding me. You obviously didn't think "WAR &" was overstated when you brought it up numerous times in the Ortiz thread to prove how he failed to reach this point several times.

I have brought up FG WAR $, and mentioned quite a few times I think it overstates value. I'm not sure if I did it in the Ortiz threads, go search if you care. Just because I use a stat doesn't mean I am 100% behind it under all circumstances, only a dunce accepts without thinking the tools available to him.

And there is no - zero - zip - indication he gets more than 17m per. So it makes more sense to talk about reported numbers...and it was reported Sanchez aims high with his 6/90 mark.

Sorry, why should anyone but AS's agent be leaking numbers right now? Reported numbers? What a ****ing laugh, nobody actually buys those.

Oh, we're going the WAR $ route yet again? I would find it an overstated stat as well if it doesn't fit my argument. Greinke had one huge year? Now what? Hamilton had a monster year as well, but it strikes me more as an outlier.

You said Grienke never had a year over $25M, you were WRONG, that was reason enough to bring it up. He had also years in the 21-22 range as well (3 of them) which you also did not mention. Very much worth bringing up.

There is nothing wrong with Sanchez' FIP numbers:
2010: 3.32
2011: 3.35
2012: 3.53

I didn't say there was anything wrong with AS's FIP numbers. I said I don't like FIP for every pitcher looking at them in an historical sense.

As I said, he's pretty consistent overall. BB/9 actually went down from prior seasons, everything else is right in line over that 3 year span, basically nothing to really worry about, even the transition to AL baseball went rather smoothly. Moreover he actually pitched great in the post-season.

Nice revelation! For 3 years, yes he's been consistent.

Look, I am not trying to convince you of anything, but the statement(s) that Sanchez' is "cashing in" and his "elite price-tag" is completely wrong and unforeseeable at this point.

I can argue any position/opinion I like. Next time I'll remember you don't care about ideas, just being a "cop"...

I want him signed if the numbers match...5/75, I am good to go, numbers seem to agree with me.

The current BRS FO in this off season doesn't appear to be interested in a 5 year deal for anybody. We'll see.

To me AS isn't special enough to spend this sort of money on, we could produce two similar pitchers for much less moeny from the farm over the next 4 years. I'd rather spend money on a true ace after 2014, not a "consistent #2-3". Worse we'd be tied up through the end of '17. This sort of money could be 7-9% of our yearly budget, for this? No thanks. Deal for Gavin Floyd, and see how he does, and extend him or spend money on someone else for '14 and beyond.

[SirHizz]

Before I address that, I had an add on to my last post. In 2010, John Lackey (his 1st year with the Red Sox) scored a $16.5M on FG WAR $ - based almost entirely on his IP, because we all know he was just a hair under league average. So much for $17.2M being a big numbers for a SP.

Well, that's true. But didn't we come to the conclusion that Lackey's 2010 wasn't as bad as people made it out to be and he could have reached his value if he went on having years like '10? Not great, but you definitely take it

Now, I don't know how much he is getting, but based on the game of musical chairs going on, and his perceived status, I believe he'll get over $17M/per. I don't think he'll get $15M per, that's your hope for the Sox number in signing him.

Well then, why don#t you throw out absolute statements? Sanchez will be overpaid if he gets (way) more than 17m per annually. But it's just your opinion, therefore your statement cannot be right.

a player should get what the market will bear, I just hope BC isn't an idiot and give AS $21M per.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Tigers offered him 4/48, of course he could get more than 6/90, but why are we talking then. In a speculating world, you have to settle to a certain mark. I could make arguments that Hamilton signs for 1 year 10 million. Would you even bother to argue if I did that? 21m COULD happen, but it's highly unlikely at this point.

I have brought up FG WAR $, and mentioned quite a few times I think it overstates value. I'm not sure if I did it in the Ortiz threads, go search if you care. Just because I use a stat doesn't mean I am 100% behind it under all circumstances, only a dunce accepts without thinking the tools available to him.

Which one of the dozen types do you want me to research?

Bagwell368: "Let's look at the longer view on Ortiz - since 2008

-$4.6M
-$11.8M
-$2.7M
+$6.1M
-$1.275M

See a trend? Giving him $30M for two years as some suggest with no strings because he "deserves" it is ridiculous and irresponsible."

Bagwell368: "No sir. I am right - in 4 of the last 5 years Ortiz has played below his salary per FG WAR $."

I don't go any further, but it happened more often than 2 times. Again in the discussion about Edwin Jackson.
Nice insult at the end, but I stand correct. People only you stats when it fits their argument. Why does it count in Ortiz' case and not in Sanchez'? If any, it would be right to dismiss it in Papi's case since he was injured and missed the "WAR $" last year by only a small amount while only playing half the year. But I don't wanna go there again.

Sorry, why should anyone but AS's agent be leaking numbers right now? Reported numbers? What a ****ing laugh, nobody actually buys those.

Maybe because it happens all the time? When talking about Hamilton, every expert is saying that Josh is seeking 7 years. If you offer Sanchez 5/90, he takes the deal in a heartbeat, that's why I said he aims high. We can make a bet if you like...

You said Grienke never had a year over $25M, you were WRONG, that was reason enough to bring it up. He had also years in the 21-22 range as well (3 of them) which you also did not mention. Very much worth bringing up.

When did I say that? Proof, hurry...I said he reached the 24.5m ONCE and that is his 42m year, every other year was below that mark. Common sense...

Nice revelation! For 3 years, yes he's been consistent.

I am not Anibal's agent, I just find this numbers happen to be impressive.

I can argue any position/opinion I like. Next time I'll remember you don't care about ideas, just being a "cop"...

Why so defensive all of a sudden? Doesn't suit you

The current BRS FO in this off season doesn't appear to be interested in a 5 year deal for anybody. We'll see.

Well, they were in on multiple guys with contracts 5 years or above. Joe Mauer, Jose Reyes, just to name a few. At some point they will realize that the market is too thin to play games.

To me AS isn't special enough to spend this sort of money on, we could produce two similar pitchers for much less moeny from the farm over the next 4 years. I'd rather spend money on a true ace after 2014, not a "consistent #2-3". Worse we'd be tied up through the end of '17. This sort of money could be 7-9% of our yearly budget, for this? No thanks. Deal for Gavin Floyd, and see how he does, and extend him or spend money on someone else for '14 and beyond.

I'd be more than happy if our farm produced steady 4 WAR pitchers. Not an unlikely ceiling (best case) for Webster. Barnes COULD be better, but is in A+ ball. Rubby?
Our pitching specs aren't projected to be aces...and the next plateau after "ace" is probably something in the 4-5 WAR range.

We are at that point again. I'd agree with that approach if we were a mid-market team, but as the Boston Red Sox, we shouldn't pass on opportunities just because "of the kids". I'd say Sanchez and our pitching prospects can co-exist.
When will we ever get a good/great pitcher again? As soon as someone hits the market, we'll have to pay north of 150m, that's obviously another inevitable risk. When Felix hits the FA market at 29, he'll have thrown a gazillion of Innings. Would you be ready to throw a stupid amount of cash at him? Each and every FA signing is risky, that's why I don't think Hamilton possesses more risk than i.e. Cano next year (Cano is gonna get more years than JH very easily and that alone is trouble)

Hey...if it doesn't work out with Sanchez, we could always trade him. Every contract can be traded, that's what I learned over the last 12-24 months.

[bagwell368]

Well, that's true. But didn't we come to the conclusion that Lackey's 2010 wasn't as bad as people made it out to be and he could have reached his value if he went on having years like '10? Not great, but you definitely take it

Lackey was a slightly below average pitcher quality wise, and an above average pitcher quantity wise. Most Sox fans would not agree he was worth $16.5M that year, and if Sanchez's average over the last 3 years is $17.2M, what does that say about him? He's not an ace, nor even a #2 in the AL East:

AS career slash vs his worst 4 teams:

Red Sox: .381/.458/.952 (24 PA)
Rangers: .333/.400/.533 (50 PA)
Blue Jays: .308/.377/.538 (77 PA)
Yankees: .350/.409/.475 (44 PA)

Guess he hates the American League. I hope he comes to the AL East, just not here.

Well then, why don#t you throw out absolute statements? Sanchez will be overpaid if he gets (way) more than 17m per annually. But it's just your opinion, therefore your statement cannot be right.

How can a prediction be an absolute statement? Why the upset?

Which one of the dozen types do you want me to research?

Bagwell368: "Let's look at the longer view on Ortiz - since 2008

-$4.6M
-$11.8M
-$2.7M
+$6.1M
-$1.275M

See a trend? Giving him $30M for two years as some suggest with no strings because he "deserves" it is ridiculous and irresponsible."

I've presented much more data to support the opinion that we shouldn't have extended Ortiz then just a mere list of FG WAR $ list. Again some people accept FG WAR $ at face value, why can't I use it, or argue against it as it suits my opinion? Nobody here including you just argues facts in a purely absolute fashion.

I don't go any further

Obviously - why bother since truth doesn't seem to be the main goal in this segment.

Why does it count in Ortiz' case and not in Sanchez'? If any, it would be right to dismiss it in Papi's case since he was injured and missed the "WAR $" last year by only a small amount while only playing half the year. But I don't wanna go there again.

Did I indicate I wouldn't use FG WAR $ in the case of AS? I said some people think it's overstated (like Grienke at $42.0M in 2009). I also pulled out the Lackey's 2010. That would be called undermining a stat with facts. Is that not allowed here anymore? I've beat up on batting average, FIP, Wins by a pitcher, outfield assists, importance of stolen bases - some of them long before they were popular positions in PSD.

In the case of Ortiz, why are you cutting my list to one year? Are you trying to alter the meaning of my presented logic to make a specific (and biased) point? Oh the horror! Ortiz has made a habit of not making his FG $ WAR number since the end of 2007. In some cases by a great deal. I added in arguments for the natural decline for a hitter of his type and age; Ortiz's perceived change from teammate extraordinaire to selfish player. It's a recipe for a wasted contract. As far as 2012, I'm afraid that injury is no excuse. He didn't earn the FG WAR $, the reason matters not, but being an injury that cost his team so dearly should surprise nobody.

If you offer Sanchez 5/90, he takes the deal in a heartbeat.

We will see, I doubt it.

I said he reached the 24.5m ONCE

Yes you did, mea culpa.

I am not Anibal's agent, I just find this numbers happen to be impressive.

Compared to the BRS staff last year? No doubt.

Well, they were in on multiple guys with contracts 5 years or above. Joe Mauer, Jose Reyes, just to name a few. At some point they will realize that the market is too thin to play games.

Sorry, I'm from Missouri on this stuff. Words in the press not translated into reality have no value outside of a "what if". IMO Reyes contract is awful, and would be made much worse in Boston. I'd rather have Hamilton for $23M x 6 years any day then Reyes. Ugh. Mauer... no way anybody touches him w/o the Twins eating big money. As a home town hero, I don't think they are there yet. He can't catch more than 1/2 a season at a time - if that. Where else does he play? DH/1B? Disruptive. A high OBP/low SLG hitter for stupid money? That's like Helton after his back went. Too much bread and too much risk. There was talk about Helton being dealt here. Thank god that didn't happen.

I'd be more than happy if our farm produced steady 4 WAR pitchers. Not an unlikely ceiling (best case) for Webster. Barnes COULD be better, but is in A+ ball. Rubby?
Our pitching specs aren't projected to be aces...and the next plateau after "ace" is probably something in the 4-5 WAR range.

Well.. Sanchez is a tick below a 4 WAR pitcher, and the AL doesn't seem to agree with him. Rubby? I think he'll be a killer back end bullpen guy. Barnes might top out as a #4. Webster and Owens would seem to have shots at being good #3's. This is why I thought it was so hysterical that so many here thought the Sox should deal Lester for a high ceiling shot in the dark.

We are at that point again. I'd agree with that approach if we were a mid-market team, but as the Boston Red Sox, we shouldn't pass on opportunities just because "of the kids". I'd say Sanchez and our pitching prospects can co-exist.

They can co-exist, but in years 3-5 if he starts falling off, what's the opportunity cost lost if we had just went and gotten one of the CWS SP's?

When will we ever get a good/great pitcher again? As soon as someone hits the market, we'll have to pay north of 150m, that's obviously another inevitable risk. When Felix hits the FA market at 29, he'll have thrown a gazillion of Innings. Would you be ready to throw a stupid amount of cash at him? Each and every FA signing is risky, that's why I don't think Hamilton possesses more risk than i.e. Cano next year (Cano is gonna get more years than JH very easily and that alone is trouble)

No, I wouldn't tie up massive money in Felix at 29. I'm happy to see the Yanks tie up big in Cano.

Hey...if it doesn't work out with Sanchez, we could always trade him. Every contract can be traded, that's what I learned over the last 12-24 months.

Yes, as long as he's operational that's true.

[Celtic AL]

Shane is in boston. maybe they will announce both deals today

[bagwell368]

98.5 is going over the conjecture that Napoli has physical issues and the Sox are trying to make the agent add language into the contract to protect the Sox. This is partially fueled by Heyman's last tweet (see Napoli thread for text).

[bagwell368]

The more I think about it, it looks like:

1. Ellsbury won't be dealt if at all until the deadline/waiver period. No real good fit for him.
2. Salty will be dealt later on, but before opening day
3. Hamilton isn't coming, we are in the bidding to force the price up, that's it.
4. No Napoli? Sign Swisher (4 @ $58M)
5. Marcum seems to be the best price/performance arm we can sign. He'll sign after Sanchez is all I expect.