Is The Market For Relievers Crazy?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Mark Melancon got 64M over 4 years. Jansen, with a QO suppressing his value, got 80M over 5. Aroldis Chapman, coming off of being absolutely abused in October, got 5 years, 86M. The reliever market is out of control, right?

Not necessarily. Part of the issue we might be having with getting our heads around these numbers is that we don't really have any stats that do a good job of comparing relievers to other positions. You always have to make an adjustment for the fact that one of the numbers is a reliever's, whether it's ERA+, WAR or even simple strikeout or walk ratios. Relievers are just different beasts all together, so maybe we're just not good at pegging their value and the market is going to drag us along kicking and screaming until the dollar figures and years start making sense to us.

I took a look at this year's reliever market, or more specifically, the market for the big three reliever names on the dot com.

 

[AB in DC]

I'm really curious whether this means that FOs have developed new (proprietary) measures of reliever performance justifying the big jump in salaries, or whether they're just chasing the latest shiny new toy.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Could be a little of both. The problem is that exceptional relievers who are on the early end of their peak years so rarely hit the free agent market that we may not know if this winter was an anomaly or not for a few more years or more.

 

[Saints Rest]

We know that there can be relievers with gaudy stats (especially saves) on bad teams -- hell, Trevor Hoffman may end up in the HOF based on such a career.

But on the flip side, in the last 20 years or so, has there ever been a successful (and I would define that as playoff team, at the least) team without a great reliever?

In other words, despite the low innings count, is an ace reliever -- and short of Andrew Miller last year, that pretty much means a "Closer" -- a sine qua non of a successful team?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

You can argue that the Tigers have had some playoff teams without a great reliever in the pen. 2014 looks like a good candidate, with Nathan as the closer and Joba as their next most used guy.

 

[BJBossman]

I'm still really curious what Holland gets.

I wanted the Sox to do the "rehab deal" with him during last year. While he's not a guy you bring in during the middle of innings (the Royals rarely did), he's still a fairly valuable piece when healthy.

 

[Plympton91]

Looking at Zeigler getting 2X$9 and Hudson getting 2X$5.5, I'm voting yes on the question in the thread title. Zeigler has been the epitome of consistency, and isn't that old. Hudson has had 2 TJ surgeries and wasn't very good last season. I don't get it.

 

[PapaSox]

It could be baseball is in a bit of a transition. Baseball may be moving away from the more traditional starting rotation concept. Making the move to a more flexible pitching alignment. There have been teams that have used their pens to make the playoffs, even the World Series. The idea of having 2, 3 or even 4 arms that can jump in when and where they are needed is becoming a more prevalent strategy to pitching. The closer; however, remains the "key" to many 9th inning strategies. The desire for a pitcher to "stump" on any thoughts of a 9th inning rally is still the "go to" philosophy. Extending that with a couple arms that can pitch in the 6, 7 & 8th in a similar fashion can be very successful.

This does not eliminate the idea of having one or two aces in the rotation. It makes the need for having a whole rotation of top of the line pitchers unnecessary. It is simply a lower cost strategy to the idea of having $100 million tied up in your rotation. You can make the playoffs with a $100 million dollar pitching staff.

Now as to why the "huge" dollars for a Closer. One could say that their are some in baseball who are caught in the belief that without a "stud" closer you cannot win. Another thought is it is cheaper to pay $86 million/5 years for a "Stud" Closer than the money required to hire a Price, Lester, Grienke. An argument that the market has swung away from huge starter salaries for smaller more team manageable Closer and Setup options. The thinking that it is better to have many arms to address pitching situations and to advance from Starters to openers.

The Sox have a more traditional pitching staff. The Sox have a strong rotation. Ace quality pitchers in the 1 - 3 spots with two solid pitchers to round out the rotation (e.g., The Brave in the 90's). The pen is solid but not overwhelming. They have a solid Closer with two or three arms that can handle the 7 & 8th innings. The Sox look to their starters to give them 6 if not 7 strong innings. Adding Sale with a team friendly contract makes this all workout. Few teams, even the Sox, can afford $75 million tied up in 3 starters. The Sox can afford their current alignment, others not so much.

LA and SF have built themselves more along the lines of two, possible three front-line "Studs" with a "Stud" Closer. The rest of the rotation fills out the pitching possibilities. The Yankees have a weaker rotation that depends on Betances, Severino & Chapman keeping them alive after the 5th or 6th inning.

Personally, I think it is a combination of metrics, money, the ability to contend and the realities of what it takes to put a winner together that has forced teams to find ever newer ways to compete. The newest is the pen and this is driving up cost. Simple economics - supply and demand.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

Looking at Zeigler getting 2X$9 and Hudson getting 2X$5.5, I'm voting yes on the question in the thread title. Zeigler has been the epitome of consistency, and isn't that old. Hudson has had 2 TJ surgeries and wasn't very good last season. I don't get it.

Ziegler throws 84 miles per hour and is 37. The age explains the lack of a market for him on a long-term deal, the lack of velocity explains why nobody believes he can keep it up (even though he always has).

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

There have been teams that have used their pens to make the playoffs, even the World Series.

The most obvious example being the 2015 Royals, whose relievers had a SIERA a whole run lower than their starters', and rode that lopsided staff makeup to a championship. (Taking a quick look at Fangraphs numbers, it's normal in recent years for reliever SIERA to be lower than starter SIERA, but the difference is usually more in the .25-.5 run range, and often even smaller.)

It would be interesting to know if there is any correlation between having a disproportionate amount of your pitching value in your bullpen and winning--i.e., if relief WAR (or maybe RE24 would be better for this purpose) translates to actual wins better than starter WAR does. If this is true and teams are hip to it, that might explain the contract inflation. Has anybody investigated that?

 

[mauf]

It could be baseball is in a bit of a transition. Baseball may be moving away from the more traditional starting rotation concept. Making the move to a more flexible pitching alignment. There have been teams that have used their pens to make the playoffs, even the World Series. The idea of having 2, 3 or even 4 arms that can jump in when and where they are needed is becoming a more prevalent strategy to pitching. The closer; however, remains the "key" to many 9th inning strategies. The desire for a pitcher to "stump" on any thoughts of a 9th inning rally is still the "go to" philosophy. Extending that with a couple arms that can pitch in the 6, 7 & 8th in a similar fashion can be very successful.

This does not eliminate the idea of having one or two aces in the rotation. It makes the need for having a whole rotation of top of the line pitchers unnecessary. It is simply a lower cost strategy to the idea of having $100 million tied up in your rotation. You can make the playoffs with a $100 million dollar pitching staff.

Now as to why the "huge" dollars for a Closer. One could say that their are some in baseball who are caught in the belief that without a "stud" closer you cannot win. Another thought is it is cheaper to pay $86 million/5 years for a "Stud" Closer than the money required to hire a Price, Lester, Grienke. An argument that the market has swung away from huge starter salaries for smaller more team manageable Closer and Setup options. The thinking that it is better to have many arms to address pitching situations and to advance from Starters to openers.

The Sox have a more traditional pitching staff. The Sox have a strong rotation. Ace quality pitchers in the 1 - 3 spots with two solid pitchers to round out the rotation (e.g., The Brave in the 90's). The pen is solid but not overwhelming. They have a solid Closer with two or three arms that can handle the 7 & 8th innings. The Sox look to their starters to give them 6 if not 7 strong innings. Adding Sale with a team friendly contract makes this all workout. Few teams, even the Sox, can afford $75 million tied up in 3 starters. The Sox can afford their current alignment, others not so much.

LA and SF have built themselves more along the lines of two, possible three front-line "Studs" with a "Stud" Closer. The rest of the rotation fills out the pitching possibilities. The Yankees have a weaker rotation that depends on Betances, Severino & Chapman keeping them alive after the 5th or 6th inning.

Personally, I think it is a combination of metrics, money, the ability to contend and the realities of what it takes to put a winner together that has forced teams to find ever newer ways to compete. The newest is the pen and this is driving up cost. Simple economics - supply and demand.

I see no sign that the consensus roster construction of 5 SPs and 7 RPs is going to change. I do see signs that GMs are allocating money toward ace relievers who can throw 70 excellent high-leverage innings, and away from mediocre SPs -- who aren't quite fungible, but aren't worth as much as they were in the Steroid Era, when replacement-level ERA was in the stratosphere.

 

[Lowrielicious]

Not necessarily. Part of the issue we might be having with getting our heads around these numbers is that we don't really have any stats that do a good job of comparing relievers to other positions. You always have to make an adjustment for the fact that one of the numbers is a reliever's, whether it's ERA+, WAR or even simple strikeout or walk ratios. Relievers are just different beasts all together, so maybe we're just not good at pegging their value and the market is going to drag us along kicking and screaming until the dollar figures and years start making sense to us.

The other difficulty with ace reliever value calculations is the difference in value they can add in regular season compared to post season. With off days as well as the increased importance of each game an ace reliever can throw a much higher percentage of a teams innings in the post season.

Using Miller as an example (he actually threw more innings that Chapman 19.1 vs 15.2, and a much higher percentage of his teams postseason innings)

Regular season 74.1 innings which amounts to 5.14% of Clevelands 1445 total innings pitched.
Postseason 19.1 innings of 124 team total = 15.6%

(Chapman 3.97% reg season and 10% postseason).

Comparing to a heavily used starter in Lester

Reg season 202.2 innings = 13.9% of Cubs total innings.
Postseason 35.2 innings = 22.6 %

Relievers regular season stats need to be weighed against their higher usage in postseason situations to get a better perspective of their true value.

 

[keninten]

Reg season 202.2 innings = 13.9% of Cubs total innings.
Postseason 35.2 innings = 22.6 %

Nitpick but 3 of those postseason innings were in relief

 

[jon abbey]

Aa a side note here...

Aroldis Chapman, coming off of being absolutely abused in October

This really just consists of the final three games of the World Series (5/6/7), and would have still been OK if Maddon could have stayed away from him in game 6. Going into game 5 of the WS, Chapman had pitched ten times in twenty-three days in the postseason after a very stress-free September, only once more than three outs and only twice back-to-back days, maxing out at 23 pitches. With his back to the wall, though, down 3 games to 1, Maddon did push Chapman harder than he ever had been and he barely pulled it off.

But it was a four-day period, not a month, and he still threw less than a hundred pitches total in the three games, pretty sure it was a non-factor in his FA value.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=chapmar01&t=p&year=0&post=1

 

[ALiveH]

It's super hard to develop good starters internally. Good relievers, not so much. Pretty much any mid-tier prospect or better who has good stuff can become a good reliever. It seems like a lot of pitchers' development get ruined because teams try too long too hard to try to make them starters before throwing in the towel and converting them to relief. In retrospect converting Papelbon and Workman relatively early in their development ended up playing out well for the Sox.

In summary, I think the salaries being thrown around might change the calculus a bit on the way teams handle pitcher development.

In the Sox system, we're seeing guys like Nogosek, Pimentel, Bautista, Cosart, Martin are all over 20, great stuff and only 2 pitches - all being developed as relievers. At this point they should also probably throw in the towel on Tres Ball and convert him to a RP. It would be great if a few of them pan out as cost-controlled high leverage arms.

 

[Devizier]

But on the flip side, in the last 20 years or so, has there ever been a successful (and I would define that as playoff team, at the least) team without a great reliever?

I would phrase this question differently; how many teams, good or otherwise, do not have a great reliever?

The Rays, who featured (by fWAR) the second worst bullpen in the league last year, have an indisputably great closer in Alex Colome.
The Phillies (27th ranked bullpen) have Hector Neris.
The Pirates (25th) have Juan Nicasio.

And so on...

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Aa a side note here...



This really just consists of the final three games of the World Series (5/6/7), and would have still been OK if Maddon could have stayed away from him in game 6. Going into game 5 of the WS, Chapman had pitched ten times in twenty-three days in the postseason after a very stress-free September, only once more than three outs and only twice back-to-back days, maxing out at 23 pitches. With his back to the wall, though, down 3 games to 1, Maddon did push Chapman harder than he ever had been and he barely pulled it off.

But it was a four-day period, not a month, and he still threw less than a hundred pitches total in the three games, pretty sure it was a non-factor in his FA value.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=chapmar01&t=p&year=0&post=1

Chapman threw more innings between the ALCS and the WS than Foulke did in 2004 and the 2004 playoffs basically ended Foulke's career. Now, Foulke threw 83 regular season innings while Chapman didn't hit 60, but Chapman's total was down because of his suspension. It's not like he just wasn't getting used as often.

Couple that with the fact that his velocity was down so much in his final appearance, and I'd be worried about an arm injury this year or next related to the drastic difference in usage this October. It clearly didn't have a huge impact on what he got paid, just like the domestic abuse issue didn't, but to suggest the risk of an injury going forward based on his postseason IP and frequency of use wasn't a factor at all feels like whistling past the graveyard to me, at least to some extent.

 

[Rovin Romine]

It's super hard to develop good starters internally. Good relievers, not so much. Pretty much any mid-tier prospect or better who has good stuff can become a good reliever. It seems like a lot of pitchers' development get ruined because teams try too long too hard to try to make them starters before throwing in the towel and converting them to relief. In retrospect converting Papelbon and Workman relatively early in their development ended up playing out well for the Sox.

In summary, I think the salaries being thrown around might change the calculus a bit on the way teams handle pitcher development.

In the Sox system, we're seeing guys like Nogosek, Pimentel, Bautista, Cosart, Martin are all over 20, great stuff and only 2 pitches - all being developed as relievers. At this point they should also probably throw in the towel on Tres Ball and convert him to a RP. It would be great if a few of them pan out as cost-controlled high leverage arms.

I'm just not seeing this easily converted crop of relievers waiting in the wings. Who have we brought up in the past 10 years that's gone on to stick as a "good reliever" - meaning a 7th/8th/9th inning? Or a "cost-controlled high leverage arm?" Papelbon, Bard, Taz?

I don't think it's as easy as you suggest. I think it's far more common to see a convert in the "Barnes" slot - there's value there, but that type of pitcher is also somewhat fungible. And if they're fungible, you can always acquire them. (I think Barnes may take a step forward this year, but if he pitches at the same level as his past two years, he's awfully close to an average young reliever.)

 

[jon abbey]

Chapman threw more innings between the ALCS and the WS than Foulke did in 2004 and the 2004 playoffs basically ended Foulke's career. Now, Foulke threw 83 regular season innings while Chapman didn't hit 60, but Chapman's total was down because of his suspension. It's not like he just wasn't getting used as often.

Couple that with the fact that his velocity was down so much in his final appearance, and I'd be worried about an arm injury this year or next related to the drastic difference in usage this October. It clearly didn't have a huge impact on what he got paid, just like the domestic abuse issue didn't, but to suggest the risk of an injury going forward based on his postseason IP and frequency of use wasn't a factor at all feels like whistling past the graveyard to me, at least to some extent.

Like I said above, Chapman was used relatively sparingly until the final four days of the season and then he was able to rest after that, Foulke was relied on heavily for a three week period. Chapman is also regarded as maybe the single best overall athlete in baseball, Foulke not so much. Every pitcher can blow out their arm at any time, I don't think Chapman is any likelier to do so than Jansen or Melancon or Sale or whoever, but I guess time will tell.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It's super hard to develop good starters internally. Good relievers, not so much. Pretty much any mid-tier prospect or better who has good stuff can become a good reliever. It seems like a lot of pitchers' development get ruined because teams try too long too hard to try to make them starters before throwing in the towel and converting them to relief. In retrospect converting Papelbon and Workman relatively early in their development ended up playing out well for the Sox.

While I would agree that having a prospect focus on a relief role earlier in the development will help in the development of bullpen arms, I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the idea of developing good relief pitching not being so hard. Good middle relievers? Sure. But we're talking about the higher leverage inning guys here, and that's not something I think "any mid-tier prospect or better who has good stuff" can just plop in and handle.

The very best relievers are more than just good stuff with two above average pitches. They all have some kind of elite offering, whether it be an elite pitch or elite command, the guys you want to be throwing out there late in games in the playoffs are bringing a bit more to the table.

In summary, I think the salaries being thrown around might change the calculus a bit on the way teams handle pitcher development.

Sure, this seems reasonable, if not downright likely.

In the Sox system, we're seeing guys like Nogosek, Pimentel, Bautista, Cosart, Martin are all over 20, great stuff and only 2 pitches - all being developed as relievers. At this point they should also probably throw in the towel on Tres Ball and convert him to a RP. It would be great if a few of them pan out as cost-controlled high leverage arms.

What does great stuff mean here? They throw hard? Breaking pitches with lots of movement? Plenty of swing and miss? There are a lot of ways to be a great reliever, but again, you need to be exceptional at something. Koji had great deception. It was really tough to tell if you were getting the splitter or the fastball and if you guessed wrong, God help you. Papelbon had an exceptional fastball when he was in Boston. He was wild in the zone, but had good control (kept the ball in and around the plate even if he couldn't hit the mitt with a great deal of precision. Bard had an epic fastball and a great slider.

Maybe one or more of these kids will end up being a great reliever, but the idea that it's not so hard to develop them seems to fly in the face of, well, the entire population of relievers in major league baseball.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Like I said above, Chapman was used relatively sparingly until the final four days of the season and then he was able to rest after that, Foulke was relied on heavily for a three week period. Chapman is also regarded as maybe the single best overall athlete in baseball, Foulke not so much. Every pitcher can blow out their arm at any time, I don't think Chapman is any likelier to do so than Jansen or Melancon or Sale or whoever, but I guess time will tell.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Chapman has the extracurricular risk of potentially harming his pitching arm while assaulting a woman, though. You have to factor that bit in when assessing injury risks.

 

[ALiveH]

By great stuff, yes I was referring to "throw hard" plus have one other pitch that has above average potential. It seems like the vast majority of great relievers have a great fastball. Ziegler and Koji are exceptions that prove this rule. I.e., they are notable because they are rare and don't fit this mold. Those types are a lot harder to identify and develop in the minors than the "throw hard" guys.

Joe Kelly is another interesting recent case study. Guy should have been converted years ago in hindsight. He wasn't really missing bats as a starter despite his velocity. Now he is.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Joe Kelly is another interesting recent case study. Guy should have been converted years ago in hindsight. He wasn't really missing bats as a starter despite his velocity. Now he is.

His K/9 in 2016 actually went down a tick in relief. 10.7 as a reliever, 10.9 as a starter. His K% went up from 22.7 to 30.4 but it's his walks that got dramatically better. 2.55 as a reliever versus 7.66. If Joe Kelly ends up as a great reliever, it will be because of an decrease in his walks more than anything else.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

His K/9 in 2016 actually went down a tick in relief. 10.7 as a reliever, 10.9 as a starter. His K% went up from 22.7 to 30.4 but it's his walks that got dramatically better. 2.55 as a reliever versus 7.66. If Joe Kelly ends up as a great reliever, it will be because of an decrease in his walks more than anything else.

It's probably not very surprising and the norm, but Joe Kelly also drastically changed his pitch usage in the bullpen.

 

[Devizier]

His K/9 in 2016 actually went down a tick in relief. 10.7 as a reliever, 10.9 as a starter. His K% went up from 22.7 to 30.4 but it's his walks that got dramatically better. 2.55 as a reliever versus 7.66. If Joe Kelly ends up as a great reliever, it will be because of an decrease in his walks more than anything else.

Probably as good an illustration as to why K% is a better metric as any.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Holland signed with the Rockies for one year and a vesting option. I couldn't find the money but I would have liked to see him as another option in the bullpen.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Holland signed with the Rockies for one year and a vesting option. I couldn't find the money but I would have liked to see him as another option in the bullpen.

1/$7M plus the vesting option. Seems a bit rich for the Red Sox given their desire to stay under the luxury tax cap while having some room to play with for midseason acquisitions.

 

[moondog80]

Holland signed with the Rockies for one year and a vesting option. I couldn't find the money but I would have liked to see him as another option in the bullpen.

I wonder if there weren't any suitors who came close to Colorado? Gotta think that would be the last place a pitcher who wants to rebuild his value would go.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I wonder if there weren't any suitors who came close to Colorado? Gotta think that would be the last place a pitcher who wants to rebuild his value would go.

It's a great place to be traded from.

 

[Sox and Rocks]

I wonder if there weren't any suitors who came close to Colorado? Gotta think that would be the last place a pitcher who wants to rebuild his value would go.

According to reports, the final 3 teams were cincy and Milwaukee along with Colorado. If so, Colorado is a better bet to contend than the other two, and pitching well in Colorado, if he does so, will help with his next deal rather than hurt.

 

[MikeM]

1/$7M plus the vesting option. Seems a bit rich for the Red Sox given their desire to stay under the luxury tax cap while having some room to play with for midseason acquisitions.

If the contract includes closing incentives, which Yahoo is reporting it does (pushing it up to a potential $14m), he likely was never an option for us to begin with.

He wasn't getting many saves here.

 

[jon abbey]

No idea what the Nats are doing with their bullpen, they were supposedly big bidders on Melancon/Chapman/Jansen and now they're going to go with Shawn Kelley as closer?

 

[MikeM]

Could be a little of both. The problem is that exceptional relievers who are on the early end of their peak years so rarely hit the free agent market that we may not know if this winter was an anomaly or not for a few more years or more.

The fact there were 3 free agent relievers of that quality was an anomaly in itself. Looking back it's hard to find a class that makes an argument of matching this year's (going in) from an overall perspective.

 

[moondog80]

According to reports, the final 3 teams were cincy and Milwaukee along with Colorado. If so, Colorado is a better bet to contend than the other two, and pitching well in Colorado, if he does so, will help with his next deal rather than hurt.

There's the problem. Jake McGee had a career FIP of 2.58 in Tampa, and last year in Colorado it was 5.29. That's not a unique case.

Good for him if he just wants to contend (or, as I suspect, took the most money being offered). But he gave himself the worst shot at scoring with his next contract.

EDIT: Fangraphs says it better than me:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/greg-hollands-curious-choice/

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

While we can quibble about whether Colorado is the best place for a pitcher to prove himself and re-establish value, perhaps the true bottom line here is that the Rockies simply offered the most money. If the choice was $7M with a chance to earn as much as $14M in Colorado versus, say, $3-5M in Cincinnati or Milwaukee, the decision becomes far less odd.

 

[joe dokes]

The market isn't crazy enough for Abad to win his arbitration case:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/01/31/red-sox-win-arbitration-case-with-pitcher-fernando-abad/hDcyddPYbT6Gep4nSPzqEO/story.html
(Cafardo)

The Red Sox won their arbitration case against Fernando Abad when a three-man panel ruled Tuesday to award the lefthanded reliever a $2 million salary for 2017, and not the $2.7 million he had sought.
Abad, who made $1.25 million in 2016, will be eligible for free agency after the 2017 season.

 

[saintnick912]

This was apparently the Sox' first case to to before the arbitrators since 2002, and the first case to go before arbitrators this year.

 

[Rasputin]

I am utterly perplexed at how a 700k difference to Fernando Fucking Abad was enough to get management to break a decade long streak of avoiding arbitration. I mean, was Abad really adamant about not splitting the difference?

In short, what the hell?

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I am utterly perplexed at how a 700k difference to Fernando Fucking Abad was enough to get management to break a decade long streak of avoiding arbitration. I mean, was Abad really adamant about not splitting the difference?

In short, what the hell?

Difference between Theo/Ben and DD?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Difference between Theo/Ben and DD?

This was more than likely strictly Abad .. given their track record the Sox probably offered 2.35 or thereabouts and Abad refused to compromise.

Edit: I was more than surprised they didn't just release him outright. Maybe they were aware of medical or off field issues which reduced his performance with Boston. He looked to be a
Pretty good acquisition when acquired.

 

[MikeM]

Edit: I was more than surprised they didn't just release him outright. Maybe they were aware of medical or off field issues which reduced his performance with Boston. He looked to be a
Pretty good acquisition when acquired.

At the end of the day Abad is still a LHP with a decent track record, and 1/$2m is peanuts. Worst case scenario he's just depth for us now that gets picked up on waivers latter by somebody else.

 

[saintnick912]

It has been even longer since the Sox lost an arbitration case, in 1997 against Tim Wakefield.

The full list (minus Abad) can be found at this NESN link

 

[effectivelywild]

This was more than likely strictly Abad .. given their track record the Sox probably offered 2.35 or thereabouts and Abad refused to compromise.

Edit: I was more than surprised they didn't just release him outright. Maybe they were aware of medical or off field issues which reduced his performance with Boston. He looked to be a
Pretty good acquisition when acquired.

Also, I think part of the purpose of the Sox avoiding going to arbitration is that having a meeting where you essentially have to present evidence to a player that he isn't as good as he thinks he is can be detrimental to the team's relationship with the player. I have to think the Sox probably aren't as worried about that with Abad, and you certainly don't want to establish a precedent where you just give into a player's demands, especially one who is at best a back of the bullpen guy.

Essentially, I don't think there's much need to sacrifice their "streak of not going to arbitration" if it means "hey, we'll capitulate to marginal players" is the message that potentially get sent out.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Assuming Abad wouldn't compromise, I can see multiple reasons why they'd try to pinch pennies here. Preserves a little more wiggle room for mid-season dealing. Keeps his number palatably low for smaller market teams who might deal a B- prospect for a cheap LHP in spring training. Etc.

In fact, the Twins are looking for veteran relief arms. We should trade him back!

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Also, I think part of the purpose of the Sox avoiding going to arbitration is that having a meeting where you essentially have to present evidence to a player that he isn't as good as he thinks he is can be detrimental to the team's relationship with the player. I have to think the Sox probably aren't as worried about that with Abad, and you certainly don't want to establish a precedent where you just give into a player's demands, especially one who is at best a back of the bullpen guy.

Essentially, I don't think there's much need to sacrifice their "streak of not going to arbitration" if it means "hey, we'll capitulate to marginal players" is the message that potentially get sent out.

I think the Sox policy of settling (almost) all Arb. cases with a middle ground compromise is simply a very good business practice.

As mentioned, the Arb. hearings are an exercise in denigrating your own player. The very same young player who you would probably like to stick around after his arb. years are up. Not very good PR.

As well going to arb. all the time is stupid. If the FO develops a reputation for being hard asses then the player's agent will be inclined to submit reasonable offers and will win more often than not. Even if not reasonable then it's difficult to win more than half the time so any potential savings are pretty minimal.

 

[Rasputin]

Difference between Theo/Ben and DD?

I'm sure it is, but it still strikes me as a stupid thing to do.

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that it's stupid not to provide better nutrition and workout facilities for the entire minor league system and nobody does that so what the hell do I know?