PDA

View Full Version : Does Jason Bay make the Red Sox a better team?



fanatical18
08-05-2008, 06:29 PM
Good write-up from THT on Jason Bay and whether he makes the Red Sox a better team than with Manny. I'm skeptical, but a good case can be made:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/why-jason-bay-makes-the-red-sox-a-better-team/

The Intimidator
08-05-2008, 06:39 PM
Baseball Prospectus said that we may have gotten the best player in the trade. I think we're a better team just because we are rid of the distraction. Manny puts up better numbers, but Bay's better for the team.

Towelie
08-05-2008, 07:00 PM
Manny barley put up better numbers

The Intimidator
08-05-2008, 07:02 PM
I know, but I had to play devil's advocate. :smoking:

TDbank24
08-05-2008, 07:32 PM
Yup, we are a better team with Bay. I don't care if he goes 0/100 for the rest of the year. We didn't need the distraction that is Manny anymore

kazzy4080
08-05-2008, 08:07 PM
this trade confuses me, im pleased with it, i like bay, im happy we did it but i think its an awful trade, we gave up one of the best right handed hitters and 4 prospects for jason bay... but im happy we did it

i think bay will help us more than manny will bevause he wont hurt us as much as manny would have

Sportfan
08-05-2008, 09:25 PM
this trade confuses me, im pleased with it, i like bay, im happy we did it but i think its an awful trade, we gave up one of the best right handed hitters and 4 prospects for jason bay... but im happy we did it

i think bay will help us more than manny will bevause he wont hurt us as much as manny would have

we only gave up 2 prospects. and they're not really not prospects since they've were on the team last year and this year

Osiagledknarf
08-05-2008, 09:32 PM
this trade confuses me, im pleased with it, i like bay, im happy we did it but i think its an awful trade, we gave up one of the best right handed hitters and 4 prospects for jason bay... but im happy we did it

i think bay will help us more than manny will bevause he wont hurt us as much as manny would have

Well, we really only gave up two prospects...Hansen and Moss, the other two came from the Dodgers. They both still had upsides, Hansen more than Moss...but look at the what futures they both could have had realistically in Boston. Hansen's been the "closer of the future" for like, 3 years...and Papelbon is ahead of him on that billing anyway, so...okay. Moss can't be the 5th oufielder...so he was pretty much stuck in the pattern of occasional call-ups whenever someone got hurt...and we can have someone else do that.

We weren't bring Manny back anyway, and we have Bay through next year...so you can look at it as a straight Bay for two prospects deal...which isn't bad. Some of the economic points are debatable...but like a bunch of people have said, it was necessary...it's nice to not have to change Manny's diapers anymore.

All that being said...defensively we're clearly better. How many runs does Bay keep off the board with his added range and glove over Manny's. That play in Anaheim a couple weeks ago was ridiculous.

Offensively...yeah, Manny is a better hitter in general. But it's tough to complain about what Bay has done since he got here...and his baserunning is obviously better. You can already see the effect Manny's absence has on the way they approach Ortiz but I think they're definitely a better fundamental team...and fundamentals are pretty important.

Ultimately I don't really think we're worse or better...I just think we're different. And that's okay, it should balance out.

kazzy4080
08-05-2008, 10:06 PM
Well, we really only gave up two prospects...Hansen and Moss, the other two came from the Dodgers. They both still had upsides, Hansen more than Moss...but look at the what futures they both could have had realistically in Boston. Hansen's been the "closer of the future" for like, 3 years...and Papelbon is ahead of him on that billing anyway, so...okay. Moss can't be the 5th oufielder...so he was pretty much stuck in the pattern of occasional call-ups whenever someone got hurt...and we can have someone else do that.

We weren't bring Manny back anyway, and we have Bay through next year...so you can look at it as a straight Bay for two prospects deal...which isn't bad. Some of the economic points are debatable...but like a bunch of people have said, it was necessary...it's nice to not have to change Manny's diapers anymore.

All that being said...defensively we're clearly better. How many runs does Bay keep off the board with his added range and glove over Manny's. That play in Anaheim a couple weeks ago was ridiculous.

Offensively...yeah, Manny is a better hitter in general. But it's tough to complain about what Bay has done since he got here...and his baserunning is obviously better. You can already see the effect Manny's absence has on the way they approach Ortiz but I think they're definitely a better fundamental team...and fundamentals are pretty important.

Ultimately I don't really think we're worse or better...I just think we're different. And that's okay, it should balance out.

the 4 prospects im referring to is hansen and moss, and then the 2 picks we get when man ram wouldve left during the offseason

RedSoxtober
08-05-2008, 10:09 PM
Well, we really only gave up two prospects...Hansen and Moss, the other two came from the Dodgers. They both still had upsides, Hansen more than Moss...but look at the what futures they both could have had realistically in Boston. Hansen's been the "closer of the future" for like, 3 years...and Papelbon is ahead of him on that billing anyway, so...okay. Moss can't be the 5th oufielder...so he was pretty much stuck in the pattern of occasional call-ups whenever someone got hurt...and we can have someone else do that.

We weren't bring Manny back anyway, and we have Bay through next year...so you can look at it as a straight Bay for two prospects deal...which isn't bad. Some of the economic points are debatable...but like a bunch of people have said, it was necessary...it's nice to not have to change Manny's diapers anymore.


You're missing a few things here. As I've said several times already, the value that Moss and Hansen had was not in their production for the Sox but in their trade value. Including them in a deal with Manny is significant in terms of the opportunity cost. So either you have to value them or you have to value the two draft picks we would have received if we'd kept Manny, passed on his options, and offered arb. The deal is simply more expensive than you're letting on.

I think the Sox are better, but I am mixed about the deal.

americaspasttim
08-05-2008, 10:12 PM
You're missing a few things here. As I've said several times already, the value that Moss and Hansen had was not in their production for the Sox but in their trade value. Including them in a deal with Manny is significant in terms of the opportunity cost. So either you have to value them or you have to value the two draft picks we would have received if we'd kept Manny, passed on his options, and offered arb. The deal is simply more expensive than you're letting on.

I think the Sox are better, but I am mixed about the deal.Couldn't have said it better...

sboyajian
08-05-2008, 10:31 PM
I think Jason Bay is proving tonight (and this past weekend) that in the long run, the deal is a benefit to us.

RedSoxtober
08-05-2008, 10:35 PM
I don't want to get carried away by a hot streak (hence my suggestion not to extend him this offseason), but there's not much he hasn't done in his first five games.

boston_fan_ct
08-05-2008, 10:36 PM
Let’s all be honest with ourselves, the Sox are not better off with Bay instead of Manny. The Sox gave up arguably the best clean up hitter in baseball, a future hall of famer, there is no way that the Sox are a better team after that trade. I see what some of you are saying, a Manny that wasn't trying and disrupting the team is worse. But with people comparing numbers and we are referring to the article I base my opinion on the players for the last 5 years. The Red Sox are a lesser team after that deal.

it will be more apparent in the big games down the stretch, and in the playoffs if they make it which i don't think they will now as a result of Manny being (**something I can not print**) It isn't the red sox fault, it is all Manny and Boras. but its over, time to move on. the best redemption is to rebuild and win world series(plural).

RedSoxtober
08-05-2008, 10:44 PM
^^^ Sorry, I am being honest with myself. We're better without Manny. It doesn't matter what HOF stats he put up over 15 yrs, only how he's playing in 2008 and when you consider both run production and run prevention the Sox are no less than even with Bay over Manny. Mix in the clubhouse effect, etc and we're simply better. My only reservation is the cost of the deal.

captaintek33
08-05-2008, 10:49 PM
Letís all be honest with ourselves, the Sox are not better off with Bay instead of Manny. The Sox gave up arguably the best clean up hitter in baseball, a future hall of famer, there is no way that the Sox are a better team after that trade. I see what some of you are saying, a Manny that wasn't trying and disrupting the team is worse. But with people comparing numbers and we are referring to the article I base my opinion on the players for the last 5 years. The Red Sox are a lesser team after that deal.

it will be more apparent in the big games down the stretch, and in the playoffs if they make it which i don't think they will now as a result of Manny being (**something I can not print**) It isn't the red sox fault, it is all Manny and Boras. but its over, time to move on. the best redemption is to rebuild and win world series(plural).

By that logic, Barry Bonds is a better player than JD Drew!

I choose to base my opinion on the players that they are now, and the players that they project to be... A 29 year old Jason Bay (in his prime) is a much better player than a 36 year old (past his prime) Manny Ramirez.

IMO, Bay will be almost as good a hitter as Manny over the next four years, but will hustle and play defense, etc. Manny is not gonna be anywhere near the hitter he was 4-5 yrs ago. He'll still be very good, but so will Bay.

The Sox gave up way too much to make this happen, but that childish, ignorant pompous *** had to go! I would have helped him pack and carried his luggage to the airport if I had to....

Good riddance, Manny! You freakin' little girl!

striker1130
08-05-2008, 11:37 PM
here is the thing in my mind. I think the Sox are worse off talent wise without manny, even though he wasn't trying and i love bay so far, but team wise i think we are better off without manny. Look at the devil rays. How many hall of fame caliber people do they have on their roster? They have never had a manny on their team and they were still ahead of the sox with manny on the team. They are still ahead of the yankees and their superstar hitters too. They aren't being driven by a hitting machine like us and the yanks. They are being driven by smaller consistent players that work well together as a team and pick each other up when one player falls. I think that Bay offers the sox a chance to become more like the rays in that sense. We wont have a manny to rely on. Our guys have to step it up. i think the sox will begin to make a push for first place now with Bay and without manny.

Crucis
08-06-2008, 12:40 AM
^^^ Sorry, I am being honest with myself. We're better without Manny. It doesn't matter what HOF stats he put up over 15 yrs, only how he's playing in 2008 and when you consider both run production and run prevention the Sox are no less than even with Bay over Manny. Mix in the clubhouse effect, etc and we're simply better. My only reservation is the cost of the deal.

Good post.

It doesn't matter what Manny did 10 years ago or 5 years ago. It matters what he can do in the here and now. And today's Manny isn't the Manny of 5 or 10 years ago.

Is today's Manny a better hitter than Jason Bay? Probably by a little. But I also contend that Bay's numbers will improve to some degree for two reasons... 1) Being in a much stronger lineup with better protection and more runners to drive in, and 2) playing his home games in righty-friendly Fenway rather than right-UNfriendly PNC Park.

It should also be factored in that Bay is a better defensive LF than Manny. He's got more speed and in time will learn to play the Monster. But where Bay will outshine Manny defensively is on the road in the larger LF's where Manny's lack of speed is a serious detriment.

Bay should also be a solid clubhouse presence. He is apparantly simply not the prima donna type who will cause distractions. And he's got to be positively thrilled to be on a serious WS contending team, after toiling away in Pittsburgh.

And if the Sox choose to try to sign Bay to a long term deal, Bay still has many more seasons in his prime, whereas Manny's on the backside of his career.



Would I take an in his prime Bay over an in his prime Manny? Of course not. But that's not the choice the Sox had to make. The real question is whether for the next year and a few months, and possibly longer, who would be better into that future... a currently 29 yo Bay or a ~35 yo Manny?

I believe that Sox made the right decision.

Osiagledknarf
08-06-2008, 04:49 AM
You're missing a few things here. As I've said several times already, the value that Moss and Hansen had was not in their production for the Sox but in their trade value. Including them in a deal with Manny is significant in terms of the opportunity cost. So either you have to value them or you have to value the two draft picks we would have received if we'd kept Manny, passed on his options, and offered arb. The deal is simply more expensive than you're letting on.

I think the Sox are better, but I am mixed about the deal.

I am fairly certain that if you decline a player's option, you simultaneously decline any right to offer arbitration, thereby also losing those compensatory draft picks. We were never bringing Manny back...so we were never going to see those picks anyway.

Osiagledknarf
08-06-2008, 05:02 AM
I am fairly certain that if you decline a player's option, you simultaneously decline any right to offer arbitration, thereby also losing those compensatory draft picks. We were never bringing Manny back...so we were never going to see those picks anyway.

That being said, I agree with your point about Hansen and Moss being valuable in terms of what we could get in return for them via trade. Right now, and probably for next year, Jason Bay should be more productive for the Red Sox than Hansen or Moss would have been. Like I said above, if you decline the option you decline arbitration, so we did not forfeit any draft picks by trading Manny.

Let me be clear, I not believe the Red Sox got fair value in return in this trade. We gave up 3 players for one, just to remain comparable as far as how good we are. But, if Moss and Hansen buy you a year and a half of Bay and drops the Manny being Manny debacle, it's justifiable.

We certainly didn't mortgage the farm system or our future. The more I think about it, and the more time that goes by, I become more and more satisfied with this deal.

BronxBomb
08-06-2008, 06:55 AM
I am fairly certain that if you decline a player's option, you simultaneously decline any right to offer arbitration, thereby also losing those compensatory draft picks. We were never bringing Manny back...so we were never going to see those picks anyway.


Not True.

lil'papi
08-06-2008, 08:14 AM
Bay saves us serious money. We simply can't determine anything till that saved money is used on a player later on. They will have 13.5 million to play with or more.....

How that money is used is a deal maker or breaker. They felt they could use it to good effect. (Theo's interview) Manny shot his way out of town if we got BOZO the clown to work the stands we got better.

BB needs chemistry. Think Celtics.....Think Patriots......chemistry.....we had lost it.

Osiagledknarf
08-06-2008, 08:25 AM
Not True.

After doing a little searching, I think I stand corrected. I'm still not sure it changes my opinion of the trade. We'd still get two high picks if we let Bay (who would also be a Type A free agent) walk, too...so we kinda just switched that up. I still think it was decent.

RedSoxtober
08-06-2008, 08:28 AM
I am fairly certain that if you decline a player's option, you simultaneously decline any right to offer arbitration, thereby also losing those compensatory draft picks. We were never bringing Manny back...so we were never going to see those picks anyway.

No. Declining the option simply puts the player in the same position as every other player whose contract has ended. In fact, it was demonstrated in the Manny deal. When the negotiations were serious with FLA the Marlins were looking for a two-way compromise with Manny: they agreed not to pick up his options if he agreed not to accept their offer for arbitration.

lil'papi
08-06-2008, 08:55 AM
After doing a little searching, I think I stand corrected. I'm still not sure it changes my opinion of the trade. We'd still get two high picks if we let Bay (who would also be a Type A free agent) walk, too...so we kinda just switched that up. I still think it was decent.


Theo said yesterday he was targeting Bay for a winter deal. So, we would be in the same boat next year. Manny gone Bay in...

But Manny pulled the trigger. (he shot himself in the foot)

Some wish he aimed higher.