Red Sox Agree to Terms with Justin Masterson

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Whoa big fella,  settle down.
 
I was merely suggesting the Sox could have gone from $135MM to $145MM to see if Lester would have bit.
 
Why on earth would you think I was suggesting $200MM, when he went for far less?
 
But that Lester boat has set sail so its a pointless discussion.

 
Pretty sure he interpreted your suggestion of taking Masterson's $10M and giving it to Lester as giving Lester an additional $10M per year, not in total.  A poor job of reading, clearly...who in their right mind would suggest the Sox should have offered Lester $33M per year?
 
To your actual point though...I doubt $10M sways Lester at all.  More money and the chance at history probably still trumps less money for been there, done that.

 

[Rasputin]

I think the way to look at Masterson is as insurance in case Buchholz isn't ready to go on opening day.
 
The Sox just traded the two kids most likely to be able to take that fifth spot if Buch (or anyone else, really) can't go right out of the gate.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I think the way to look at Masterson is as insurance in case Buchholz isn't ready to go on opening day.
 
The Sox just traded the two kids most likely to be able to take that fifth spot if Buch (or anyone else, really) can't go right out of the gate.

 
I think the way to look at Masterson is as a starting pitcher in our rotation, which is what he was signed for.
 
Joe Kelly, who didn't even break 100 IP last season, is far more likely to be traded, in the bullpen, or the "insurance" you mention.
 
Where does Masterson go exactly if we don't need to cash him in as insurance?

 

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

 
I think the way to look at Masterson is as a starting pitcher in our rotation, which is what he was signed for.
 
Joe Kelly, who didn't even break 100 IP last season, is far more likely to be traded, in the bullpen, or the "insurance" you mention.
 
Where does Masterson go exactly if we don't need to cash him in as insurance?

 
This really doesn't change the math at all though - the fact is the "next 2 in" are gone, so this gives another solid body in the mix. Whether you view Masterson as the 4th guy, 6th guy, or 1st guy doesn't really alter the overall point much.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
This really doesn't change the math at all though - the fact is the "next 2 in" are gone, so this gives another solid body in the mix. Whether you view Masterson as the 4th guy, 6th guy, or 1st guy doesn't really alter the overall point much.

 
Oh I'm not concerned with 4th guy/ 6th guy/ 2nd guy stuff, either--the emphasis on it in these threads is actually driving me nuts.
 
It matters if you're making a distinction between who is and isn't likely to actually be in the rotation, which is what I was responding to. Looking at Masterson as Buchholz insurance with the roster as currently constructed is probably faulty--he'll be in the rotation whether Buchholz is ready or not. If he's Buchholz insurance, and Buchholz insurance isn't needed, where does he go? The insurance part implies there's a chance he isn't needed, and he wasn't signed to go to the bullpen or fake-DL. Kelly is much more likely to be that guy, for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[Corsi]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal  20m20 minutes ago
Masterson with #RedSox: One year, $9.5M plus 500K for 185, 190, 195, 200, 205 innings; $2.5M total possible incentives.

 

[phenweigh]

The problem I have with Masterson, regardless if he's viewed as a member of the starting rotation or as innings insurance for Kelly/Buchholz, is that it seems he's very unlikely to be mediocre.  He may be good, or he may be terrible.  What the chances are of each I put at about 50-50, as that's what his good year - bad year history looks like.  I suspect the FO has a more optimistic view than I do and hopefully that's based on their superior knowledge.  I hope they're right, but I would have preferred somebody with less risk to completely suck.  I don't buy the adage of "You can't have too much pitching".  I much prefer "You can't have too much good pitching".

 

[soxhop411]

“@ScottLauber: Masterson: ”Last year was purely health“ #RedSox”

 

[soxhop411]

“@ScottLauber: According to Masterson, oblique injury in ‘13 led to mechanical issues, which led to knee injury in ’14, which led to velocity drop #RedSox”

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

Admittedly, I'm not a big Masterson fan--he seems like a dumb guy.  I don't like this contract.  We keep hearing that his velocity decline was due to knee injury and then mechanical issues with his delivery, but I'm not convinced.  The Cardinals couldn't turn him around even after his knee was fully healthy.  His velocity decline might have more to do with how he snaps his arm backwards in his delivery--not clean at all.  The Red Sox are taking a pretty big risk with 9.5 million, an average annual salary comparable to what D.Robertson and A.Miller are making, who would have been better investments in terms of helping the Red Sox win in 2015.  I would prefer L. Gregerson, who is making a lower average annual salary than Masterson and signed a pretty reasonable contract overall.  Masterson's money would have been better spent on the bullpen.

 

[syoo8]

The Red Sox are taking a pretty big risk with 9.5 million, an average annual salary comparable to Robertson and Miller, who would have been better investments in terms of helping the Red Sox win in 2015.

 
False equivalence.  Neither pitcher was available on a 1/$9.5 deal.  Masterson was worth 2 & 3 1/2 fWAR in his last two healthy seasons... give him a chance.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

...he seems like a dumb guy...

 
Please expand. 

 

[phenweigh]

From http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/12021010/justin-masterson-wade-miley-want-bounce-back-strong-boston-red-sox-rotation
 
"Masterson described it as more of an ace-by-committee scenario."
 
Translation ... no ace.  My hope ... yet.

 

[The Boomer]

Admittedly, I'm not a big Masterson fan--he seems like a dumb guy.  I don't like this contract.  We keep hearing that his velocity decline was due to knee injury and then mechanical issues with his delivery, but I'm not convinced.  The Cardinals couldn't turn him around even after his knee was fully healthy.  His velocity decline might have more to do with how he snaps his arm backwards in his delivery--not clean at all.  The Red Sox are taking a pretty big risk with 9.5 million, an average annual salary comparable to what D.Robertson and A.Miller are making, who would have been better investments in terms of helping the Red Sox win in 2015.  I would prefer L. Gregerson, who is making a lower average annual salary than Masterson and signed a pretty reasonable contract overall.  Masterson's money would have been better spent on the bullpen.

 
Masterson's stretch run SSS with the Cardinals meant about as much to his 2015 performance as Craig's equivalent SSS with the Sox.  Both might be washed up but both are still young enough to bounce back.  Before injury, both were productive and proven.  Wasted money on both?  Maybe - maybe not.  Weirdly, spending more than $130 million for 6 years on a pitcher who is 2 years older, is more risky.  Combined, Craig, Masterson and Miley will combine to make less than Lester alone this coming season.  Miley, by himself (if Craig and Masterson falter again), might provide a reasonable enough facsimile of Lester to justify spreading out there money this way for a single season even if both Masterson and Craig fail again.

 

[theapportioner]

False equivalence.  Neither pitcher was available on a 1/$9.5 deal.  Masterson was worth 2 & 3 1/2 fWAR in his last two healthy seasons... give him a chance.

 
My worry is that the Sox's recent track record with pitching reclamation projects hasn't been very good. Wade Miller, Bartolo Colon when he was here, Andrew Bailey are notable examples. It's not just the 9.5 million, but also the opportunity cost of having him potentially struggle for 1/3 to 1/2 a season while blocking someone else who might perform better. It's not just a matter of saying, "oh they are inexpensive and have a short-term contract, no big deal". As we saw with the brutal Grady Sizemore experiment, it can be a pretty big deal.
 
Edit: to link this with the other thread about market inefficiencies, I am not sure the Sox have figured out a satisfactorily efficient way to assess the value of pitching reclamation projects. On offense, they seem to do better (Bill Mueller, Adrian Beltre, Shane Victorino for one year, versus Sizemore).

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
My worry is that the Sox's recent track record with pitching reclamation projects hasn't been very good. Wade Miller, Bartolo Colon when he was here, Andrew Bailey are notable examples. It's not just the 9.5 million, but also the opportunity cost of having him potentially struggle for 1/3 to 1/2 a season while blocking someone else who might perform better. It's not just a matter of saying, "oh they are inexpensive and have a short-term contract, no big deal". As we saw with the brutal Grady Sizemore experiment, it can be a pretty big deal.
 
Edit: to link this with the other thread about market inefficiencies, I am not sure the Sox have figured out a satisfactorily efficient way to assess the value of pitching reclamation projects. On offense, they seem to do better (Bill Mueller, Adrian Beltre, Shane Victorino for one year, versus Sizemore).

Who was Sizemore blocking?  The only reason he got as much playing time as he did is because we had the market cornered on injured and/or slumping OFs.  We couldn't even call up a decent OF from Pawtucket for a stretch because they were all broken as well.
 
Hitting big on reclamation projects is a low-probability event, but it's also low risk.  If Masterson sucks, he'll have a spot in the rotation only until it looks like one of the younger guys might do a better job.  He's not going to block anybody.

 

[theapportioner]

Who was Sizemore blocking?  The only reason he got as much playing time as he did is because we had the market cornered on injured and/or slumping OFs.  We couldn't even call up a decent OF from Pawtucket for a stretch because they were all broken as well.

 
Not so much during the season, but during the free agency period when we otherwise could potentially have signed or traded for a player that was of less risk from a performance standpoint.
 
Edit: I'd think that it wouldn't be until June or July that the Red Sox decide to cut their losses if Masterson sucks. That's like half their season. I'd consider that high-risk from a cost/benefit standpoint, when you incorporate the opportunity costs of not getting a more reliable pitcher either before or during the season.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
Not so much during the season, but during the free agency period when we otherwise could potentially have signed or traded for a player that was of less risk from a performance standpoint.
 
 

I dunno.  This came up with Sizemore after he started sucking last season, and when people said "we should have gotten so-and-so instead," they invariably named someone who either got a multiyear deal and/or would't have been interested in what the Sox had to offer in any case (e.g., non-starting role). 

 

[phenweigh]

I dunno.  This came up with Sizemore after he started sucking last season, and when people said "we should have gotten so-and-so instead," they invariably named someone who either got a multiyear deal and/or would't have been interested in what the Sox had to offer in any case (e.g., non-starting role). 

Fair enough, but bringing the discussion back to Masterson I think the Sox could have done better.  Can I provide a specific alternative?  How about this ... many are speculating that they will yet get a top of the rotation pitcher and Kelly will be part of the package.  I'd rather have Kelly than Masterson.  Now it could be argued that Kelly was needed to get the hypothetical Lester replacement, but he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would be a centerpiece in a major trade.  Being a better choice than Masterson isn't a particularly high bar to clear, IMO.
 
Speaking of clear, I want to be clear that I have nothing personal against Justin Masterson.  I liked him a lot when he was on the Sox and was disappointed when he was lost in the VMart trade.  I'm just skeptical of the odds of him being past his injuries/ineffectiveness and being the good 

 

[Fishy1]

 
Edit: to link this with the other thread about market inefficiencies, I am not sure the Sox have figured out a satisfactorily efficient way to assess the value of pitching reclamation projects. On offense, they seem to do better (Bill Mueller, Adrian Beltre, Shane Victorino for one year, versus Sizemore).

 
 
How has Andrew Miller not come up as a recent, successful reclamation project? You also pointed to Bartolo Colon -- he didn't exactly shit the bed for us. A 3.92 ERA in the starts he was given. I also don't think these reclamation projects are given, necessarily, to statistical analysis so much as they are qualitative. This is one of those situations where the FO, sadly for us, is just going to have a lot more information than we do. Does John Farrell think he can fix Andrew Miller's mechanics? Is Andrew Miller the type of person who will take well to suggested adjustments in his mechanics? Does Andrew Miller have a pitch he's not throwing enough of? Or in Masterson's case, is he likely to suffer a rib/knee injury again? Were his mechanics thrown out of whack by that knee injury? The Red Sox seem to think they can fix him -- they seem to think he's already fixed, even.
 
With that in mind, this is hardly a reclamation project, a la Miller. Masterson has something that worked for him, and now that he's healthy, he'll start doing that again. I suppose your intuition on this trade will swing depending on how you feel about that.
 

Fair enough, but bringing the discussion back to Masterson I think the Sox could have done better.  Can I provide a specific alternative?  How about this ... many are speculating that they will yet get a top of the rotation pitcher and Kelly will be part of the package.  I'd rather have Kelly than Masterson.  Now it could be argued that Kelly was needed to get the hypothetical Lester replacement, but he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would be a centerpiece in a major trade.  Being a better choice than Masterson isn't a particularly high bar to clear, IMO.
 
Speaking of clear, I want to be clear that I have nothing personal against Justin Masterson.  I liked him a lot when he was on the Sox and was disappointed when he was lost in the VMart trade.  I'm just skeptical of the odds of him being past his injuries/ineffectiveness and being the good 

 
This has come up over and over again, but the nice thing about Kelly is he'd be a terrific bullpen arm. It's not an either or proposition should we sign someone else, or make further trades. We can keep Kelly and Masterson.
 
It also bears repeating that the Red Sox may not be done. 

 

[The Boomer]

 
 
How has Andrew Miller not come up as a recent, successful reclamation project? You also pointed to Bartolo Colon -- he didn't exactly shit the bed for us. A 3.92 ERA in the starts he was given. I also don't think these reclamation projects are given, necessarily, to statistical analysis so much as they are qualitative. This is one of those situations where the FO, sadly for us, is just going to have a lot more information than we do. Does John Farrell think he can fix Andrew Miller's mechanics? Is Andrew Miller the type of person who will take well to suggested adjustments in his mechanics? Does Andrew Miller have a pitch he's not throwing enough of? Or in Masterson's case, is he likely to suffer a rib/knee injury again? Were his mechanics thrown out of whack by that knee injury? The Red Sox seem to think they can fix him -- they seem to think he's already fixed, even.
 
With that in mind, this is hardly a reclamation project, a la Miller. Masterson has something that worked for him, and now that he's healthy, he'll start doing that again. I suppose your intuition on this trade will swing depending on how you feel about that.
 
 
This has come up over and over again, but the nice thing about Kelly is he'd be a terrific bullpen arm. It's not an either or proposition should we sign someone else, or make further trades. We can keep Kelly and Masterson.
 
It also bears repeating that the Red Sox may not be done. 

 
The Sox paradigm for reclamation projects, of course, was the immortal Luis Tiant.  The paradigm for trading hyped prospects for a star in the making was Pavano, Rose and Armas for soon to be HOF Pedro.  The Sox may never get so lucky in acquiring such talents again but you can't fault them for trying.  The gamble on Masterson seems reasonable because, going back to his days as their farmhand, Farrell (his former pitching coach when he arrived as a quality ML pitcher) and the Sox organization know him as well or better than anyone.  Going back to these roots is the perfect place for Masterson to restore his value in free agency during this pillow contract year.  Adrian Beltre recovering his market value during his pillow contract year in Fenway was the paradigm for that approach to team building. Whether this gamble works out or not, this short term investment is worth it just to buy time for the Sox to decide who from among Barnes, Ranaudo, Owens, Rodriguez and Johnson (their likely AAA rotation) is ready to replace and hopefully improve on him.

 

[mloyko54]

From http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/12021010/justin-masterson-wade-miley-want-bounce-back-strong-boston-red-sox-rotation
 
"Masterson described it as more of an ace-by-committee scenario."
 
Translation ... no ace.  My hope ... yet.

 
When they say things like that it does make everyone nervous that they are done. But I firmly believe they aren't. Look at their track record.. Say that Xander is the shortstop and they have no desire to resign Stephen Drew. In 2010 they said they were happy with the offense after adding Gonzalez, sign Crawford 3 days later. There are so many examples of them saying one thing publically and doing the opposite. 
 
I think saying they are happy with this rotation is just protecting themselves in case for some reason they can't get someone else. They can't come out today and guarantee they'll get someone else because they'll look awful if it doesn't happen. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

It's a negotiating ploy too. You can't appear desperate.

 

[E5 Yaz]

It's a negotiating ploy too. You can't appear desperate.

 
That crossed my mind, but then I thought that major league GMs can't be so stupid as to believe anything one of their kind says for public consumption ... or to have a public comment sway them into accepting a lesser package for their available starter. Reading all of BC's comments made it clearer that he was just saying they have confident in the rotation as constituted.
 
"We feel like the five guys that we have right now that you put in the rotation ... any of those five guys can help us win a game on any given day," Cherington said.
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/41322/pleased-with-pitching-depth-cherington-says-rotation-can-help-us-win-every-game

 

[The Boomer]

 
That crossed my mind, but then I thought that major league GMs can't be so stupid as to believe anything one of their kind says for public consumption ... or to have a public comment sway them into accepting a lesser package for their available starter. Reading all of BC's comments made it clearer that he was just saying they have confident in the rotation as constituted.
 
"We feel like the five guys that we have right now that you put in the rotation ... any of those five guys can help us win a game on any given day," Cherington said.
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/41322/pleased-with-pitching-depth-cherington-says-rotation-can-help-us-win-every-game

 
I take this at face value.
 
Kelly, Miley, Rodriguez, Owens and Johnson are all under team control into the future.  Porcello, entering his prime, younger and with Vermont/grandfather legacy ties to the team, will be worth market price to extend if he continues his progression with the Sox.  With Masterson, Napoli and Victorino coming off the books, there will be money freed for both him and, if needed, a missing ace.  The 2016 rotation could well be Zimmerman/Ace TBNL, Miley, Porcello, Buchholz (if he isn't traded) or Kelly (if he isn't traded or in the bullpen) and one or two from among Rodriguez, Owens, Johnson, Barnes and Ranaudo.  All these prospects plus Workman, Escobar and everyone else recently or soon to be graduated from the minors is a bullpen candidate.  They can wait to see if an ace is really needed later without giving up their bluechip rookies, second years and even one of their top 10 prospects (all untouched at the winter meetings) by virtually standing pat through July.  They could keep this powder dry until the trade deadline, deal one of their studs from their greatest depth to the Nationals or another team offering an Ace and, because they are in contention, rent Jordan Zimmerman or rent or buy someone in his category for the stretch run and post season.  Boras is tough to negotiate with when he has a premier free agent but Zimmerman will still be just age 29 to start next season.  He has a work ethic and history that will make a top dollar 6 years contract a relatively reasonable risk.
 
You can perform the same analysis if Cueto, Hamels or anyone else who is arguably an ace is on the market approaching the trade deadline.

 

[67WasBest]

 
I take this at face value.
 
Kelly, Miley, Rodriguez, Owens and Johnson are all under team control into the future.  Porcello, entering his prime, younger and with Vermont/grandfather legacy ties to the team, will be worth market price to extend if he continues his progression with the Sox.  With Masterson, Napoli and Victorino coming off the books, there will be money freed for both him and, if needed, a missing ace.  The 2016 rotation could well be Zimmerman/Ace TBNL, Miley, Porcello, Buchholz (if he isn't traded) or Kelly (if he isn't traded or in the bullpen) and one or two from among Rodriguez, Owens, Johnson, Barnes and Ranaudo.  All these prospects plus Workman, Escobar and everyone else recently or soon to be graduated from the minors is a bullpen candidate.  They can wait to see if an ace is really needed later without giving up their bluechip rookies, second years and even one of their top 10 prospects (all untouched at the winter meetings) by virtually standing pat through July.  They could keep this powder dry until the trade deadline, deal one of their studs from their greatest depth to the Nationals or another team offering an Ace and, because they are in contention, rent Jordan Zimmerman or rent or buy someone in his category for the stretch run and post season.  Boras is tough to negotiate with when he has a premier free agent but Zimmerman will still be just age 29 to start next season.  He has a work ethic and history that will make a top dollar 6 years contract a relatively reasonable risk.
 
You can perform the same analysis if Cueto, Hamels or anyone else who is arguably an ace is on the market approaching the trade deadline.

I posted their 2016 commitments a few posts above this in the Shields thread (thanks MM44).  They have $86.6 committed to the 2016 lineup, with no allocation for C, 1B, RF, or the bench.  They also have Koji at $9M, so that is $95.6M before 6 bullpen slots,the positions above and a rotation.  To put numbers on your suggestion, Ace (20), Miley (7 - arb>), Porcello (15), Buchholz (13) and proespect (0.5) is a total of $55.5; added to the money above, they would be at $151.5, and still need to fill in the bullpen, 1B, RF, and C.  That's not looking likely, imo, even if they put Kelly in the Buchholz slot..
 
With ace defined as having a Steamer projection above 3.0, there's one ace, (not at league minimum like Harvey or Fernandez) who fits past 2015, and that's Chris Sale, every other ace is too costly for the salary structure.  Any discussion of any other ace means the rest of the rotation will average less than $6M per position.. That statement does not mean they won't do anything on a one year thing for 2015, just as it applies to 2016 and forward.  Short of the ChiSox making him available, I see no way the Sox obtain a name ace, for extended years, before 2017.

 

[MakMan44]

You brought this over from the Shields thread and you're still incorrect about the 2016 lineup

 

[67WasBest]

You brought this over from the Shields thread and you're still incorrect about the 2016 lineup

Found the addition mistake and corrected in both places.  The point remains however, even with $10M more available.

 

[The Boomer]

I posted their 2016 commitments a few posts above this in the Shields thread (thanks MM44).  They have $86.6 committed to the 2016 lineup, with no allocation for C, 1B, RF, or the bench.  They also have Koji at $9M, so that is $95.6M before 6 bullpen slots,the positions above and a rotation.  To put numbers on your suggestion, Ace (20), Miley (7 - arb>), Porcello (15), Buchholz (13) and proespect (0.5) is a total of $55.5; added to the money above, they would be at $151.5, and still need to fill in the bullpen, 1B, RF, and C.  That's not looking likely, imo, even if they put Kelly in the Buchholz slot..
 
With ace defined as having a Steamer projection above 3.0, there's one ace, (not at league minimum like Harvey or Fernandez) who fits past 2015, and that's Chris Sale, every other ace is too costly for the salary structure.  Any discussion of any other ace means the rest of the rotation will average less than $6M per position.. That statement does not mean they won't do anything on a one year thing for 2015, just as it applies to 2016 and forward.  Short of the ChiSox making him available, I see no way the Sox obtain a name ace, for extended years, before 2017.

 
This won't disappoint me.  The best case scenario, though itself a long shot, will be for Porcello or Rodriguez or Owens or someone else already in the organization to become their young ace.  Porcello or Rodriguez, or maybe both, would be awesome.  If it happens, I will be happier than if they are forced to hustle again to trade for or sign another top of the rotation stud.  Down the road, Ball or their upcoming #7 first round amateur draft pick might be on the horizon.  Smart trades can produce such a pitcher.  The Tigers stole Scherzer from the Diamondbacks not too long ago. Somebody like Heaney, who the Angels targeted and acquired, could be that guy.  The Braves might have something going with Teheran and just acquired Shelby Miller. The Braves once before added Greg Maddux to homegrown Tom Glavine before transforming Doyle Alexander into John Smoltz on their way to the HOF.    Porcello is not yet a big name player (though better known than Scherzer when the Tigers acquired him) but he has potential.  If you can't home grow your own ace, then trading for somebody like Scherzer (or Pedro in my paradigm example) before they are clearly proven is the next best way to accomplish this goal.

 

[snowmanny]

Well Pedro was proven when they got him. Cueto might the guy who is roughly analogous to Martinez.

 

[Doctor G]

This won't disappoint me.  The best case scenario, though itself a long shot, will be for Porcello or Rodriguez or Owens or someone else already in the organization to become their young ace.  Porcello or Rodriguez, or maybe both, would be awesome.  If it happens, I will be happier than if they are forced to hustle again to trade for or sign another top of the rotation stud.  Down the road, Ball or their upcoming #7 first round amateur draft pick might be on the horizon.  Smart trades can produce such a pitcher.  The Tigers stole Scherzer from the Diamondbacks not too long ago. Somebody like Heaney, who the Angels targeted and acquired, could be that guy.  The Braves might have something going with Teheran and just acquired Shelby Miller. The Braves once before added Greg Maddux to homegrown Tom Glavine before transforming Doyle Alexander into John Smoltz on their way to the HOF.    Porcello is not yet a big name player (though better known than Scherzer when the Tigers acquired him) but he has potential.  If you can't home grow your own ace, then trading for somebody like Scherzer (or Pedro in my paradigm example) before they are clearly proven is the next best way to accomplish this goal.

Zach Wheeler or Noah Syndergaard.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2298664-introducing-noah-syndergaard-possible-centerpiece-of-game-changing-winter-trade

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Well Pedro was proven when they got him. Cueto might the guy who is roughly analogous to Martinez.

 
Yeah, I guess, depending on your definition of "roughly." In 1997, the year before the Sox acquired 25 year-old Pedro, he had an ERA+ of 219. Here's a list of qualified pitchers with a season that good since then:
 
1999: Pedro (27), 243
2000: Pedro (28), 291
2005: Clemens (42), 226
 
Cueto's four years older. 

 

[snowmanny]

 
Yeah, I guess, depending on your definition of "roughly." In 1997, the year before the Sox acquired 25 year-old Pedro, he had an ERA+ of 219. Here's a list of qualified pitchers with a season that good since then:
 
1999: Pedro (27), 243
2000: Pedro (28), 291
2005: Clemens (42), 226
 
Cueto's four years older. 

Yeah, you're right, that's a quite broad definition of roughly that I was using.  My greater point was that the Red Sox didn't get an unproven pitcher in Pedro, as you further demonstrated. Cueto will be 29 and had an ERA+ of 160, so he's the sort of player one would want to trade for and extend, but he's not Pedro.

 

[The Boomer]

Zach Wheeler or Noah Syndergaard.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2298664-introducing-noah-syndergaard-possible-centerpiece-of-game-changing-winter-trade

 
Great examples!  Syndergaard's pitching stats in the Pacific Coast bandboxes were as deceptive as Jeff Bagwell's offensive stats were in that old AA New Britain cavernous stadium.  If Cherington finds their next ace internally or by trading for him, they will be better off.  The Sox have the ammunition to do this by either means.  This is so much more satisfying than playing the free agency game.  However, the parameters for when the Sox go this route are now obvious for anyone to see:  Don't pay too much for too long for aging and declining talent.

 

[Doctor G]

If you move Bogaerts to the Mets, you can do one of two things. You can go with Marrero or you can go after Desmond and spend some of the money you would have to spend for someone in thehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2014/12/13/with-no-progress-made-on-an-extension-ian-desmond-says-hes-focused-on-2015/ Cueto class next winter to extend Desmond.

 

[67WasBest]

I'd love for them to gain either of those young Met pitchers and those are exactly the kind of guys I believe they are trying to pry from their organizations.  BenHogan mentioned Keuchel earlier, and I know the board is split on his 2014 performance and availability, but I could see them flipping Buchholz plus for him.  That would give the Stros a veteran, with championship rings, to teach a culture of winning, something sorely lacking in that organization, while delivering most of the value over 3 years.  The increase in cost for the Buchholz options is a small price to pay compared with other options they are finding.  They're also having real difficulty recruiting talent there so they may have to trade to obtain same..

 

[Plympton91]

I posted their 2016 commitments a few posts above this in the Shields thread (thanks MM44).  They have $86.6 committed to the 2016 lineup, with no allocation for C, 1B, RF, or the bench.  They also have Koji at $9M, so that is $95.6M before 6 bullpen slots,the positions above and a rotation.  To put numbers on your suggestion, Ace (20), Miley (7 - arb>), Porcello (15), Buchholz (13) and proespect (0.5) is a total of $55.5; added to the money above, they would be at $151.5, and still need to fill in the bullpen, 1B, RF, and C.  That's not looking likely, imo, even if they put Kelly in the Buchholz slot..
 

How are 1B, C and RF not already filled in 2016? C is Vazquez or Swihart and RF is Betts. In a not so perfect world, 1B is a platoon of Nava and Craig, with Shaw as an option to replace Nava if Nava's power remains substandard and a chance of Craig rebounding to be basically what Napoli has been.

The bullpen at that point would have to be this year's Pawtucket rotation.

 

[Sprowl]

I'm not so sure that Masterson is a fit as a starter for the Red Sox, but he's perfect for Fenway, fun to watch pitch and has a high, if unlikely, upside as the 2011 starter for Cleveland. At the very worst, he's a top-flight middle reliever best suited for RRLRR sequences, as he was for the 2008 playoff Red Sox. It depends on the diagnosis (oblique strain, subsequently affecting knee) and the adjustment. The telltale sign will be his arm angle. If the Masterson that shows up in Fort Myers is a pure sidearmer, he's a reliever. If he can restore the more upright delivery and 10 o'clock arm slot that he had before 2014, he'll make the starting rotation.
 
 
It's also worth noting that the AL East doesn't have that many intimidating left-handed sluggers. Ellsbury, McCann, Beltran and Teixeira aren't quite toothless dragons, but they're not exactly Murderers' Row either. The Orioles have Chris Davis, but what does he have left after his Adderall aftermath? The Blue Jays are all RHB (Bautista, Encarnacion, Donaldson), and the Rays' lefties are... Ben Zobrist.
 
 
Just don't start Masterson or Porcello in the Bidet.

 

[67WasBest]

I was simply pointing out the contracts that had significant value and where the team was locked into paying a set amount above minimum  Of course Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, can be written in pen, but to simply plan on the kids being in thise roles is te 2014 recipe and I don't think that is the plan.  To paint a clearer picture than the crap I posted earlier. 
 
2016 Projections:
 
Catcher - Vazquez and Swihart - $1M combined AAV (all values shown in AAV)
1B - for the sake of lowest cost, let's put Bogaerts here - $0.75
2B - Pedroia - $13.85
SS - Marrero - $0.5
3B - Sandoval - $19
LF - Ramirez - $22
CF - Castillo - $10.6  - 67.7
RF - Betts - $0.65
DH - Ortiz - $16
Util - Holt - $0.55
Util OF - Nava - $4.5 as 2nd year arb (possible trade piece)
Util OF - Craig - $6
 
That's $95.5M for the lineup and bench with 1 starting position set for an unproven prospect in Marrero.  It's just as likely someone else fills 1B and X stays at SS.
 
S1 - Owens = $0.5
S2 - Rodriguez $0.5
S3 - Miley - $7 as 2nd year arb
S4 - Buchholz - $13M option
S5 - Kelly - $0.65M
Closer - Koji - $9M
Tazawa - $4.5 as 2nd year arb
LH - Escobar - $0.5
LH - Layne - $0.55
RH - Barnes - $0.5
RH - Workman - $0.65
RH - Wright - $0.55
 
$38.9M for the staff.  That is a combined $134.4M, leaving $23.6M available should any of the kids not be ready.  You take out one of Owens or Rodriguez and insert a Shieds or a Hamels and you have nothing left if a kid fails.  I could see them looking seriously at this if the following happens:
 
Craig is dealt
They plan to walk from Buchholz, and f he pitches well, they exercise the option, then trade him.
 
Other possibilities to free up funds include:
 
Trade Nava
Trade Tazawa
 
So yes, there is a route to signing one of the $20 to $25M pitchers, but there's an awful lot that has to go right for them to do so comfortably.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

It's also worth noting that the AL East doesn't have that many intimidating left-handed sluggers. Ellsbury, McCann, Beltran and Teixeira aren't quite toothless dragons, but they're not exactly Murderers' Row either. The Orioles have Chris Davis, but what does he have left after his Adderall aftermath? The Blue Jays are all RHB (Bautista, Encarnacion, Donaldson), and the Rays' lefties are... Ben Zobrist.
 
 
Just don't start Masterson or Porcello in the Bidet.

 
Oddly, Porcello has done well at Yankee3, at least in terms of suppressing power (.343 career SLG). And Masterson hasn't been much worse (.380). Probably a sample size thing, or maybe they're just so aware of the dangers that they adjust their approach successfully.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

I'm not so sure that Masterson is a fit as a starter for the Red Sox, but he's perfect for Fenway, fun to watch pitch and has a high, if unlikely, upside as the 2011 starter for Cleveland. At the very worst, he's a top-flight middle reliever best suited for RRLRR sequences, as he was for the 2008 playoff Red Sox. It depends on the diagnosis (oblique strain, subsequently affecting knee) and the adjustment. The telltale sign will be his arm angle. If the Masterson that shows up in Fort Myers is a pure sidearmer, he's a reliever. If he can restore the more upright delivery and 10 o'clock arm slot that he had before 2014, he'll make the starting rotation.
 
 
It's also worth noting that the AL East doesn't have that many intimidating left-handed sluggers. Ellsbury, McCann, Beltran and Teixeira aren't quite toothless dragons, but they're not exactly Murderers' Row either. The Orioles have Chris Davis, but what does he have left after his Adderall aftermath? The Blue Jays are all RHB (Bautista, Encarnacion, Donaldson), and the Rays' lefties are... Ben Zobrist.
 
 
Just don't start Masterson or Porcello in the Bidet.

Porcello had two starts against nyy in 2014.
 
In the public toilet, he went 7 ip, gave up 9 hits and 0 walks, struck out 5 and gave up 1 run.
 
In Bankruptcyville, he went 8 ip, gave up 9 hits, and 0 walks, struck out 2 and gave up 2 runs. 
 
Why should we fear starting Porcello in the Bronx?

 

[Sprowl]

Porcello had two starts against nyy in 2014.
 
In the public toilet, he went 7 ip, gave up 9 hits and 0 walks, struck out 5 and gave up 1 run.
 
In Bankruptcyville, he went 8 ip, gave up 9 hits, and 0 walks, struck out 2 and gave up 2 runs. 
 
Why should we fear starting Porcello in the Bronx?

 
Because he and Masterson should both be vulnerable to left-handed power hitters. It's not such a problem in Fenway's big right field, where LH pull power goes to die, but RF in da Bronx is petite.

 

[benhogan]

 
Because he and Masterson should both be vulnerable to left-handed power hitters. It's not such a problem in Fenway's big right field, where LH pull power goes to die, but RF in da Bronx is petite.

But Ken Phelps left town years ago.  
 
I thought the plan was to let Pedey dive all over the place and make 'Fukn A' plays all night when those guys are on the mound?
 
Guess you didn't get the memo.
 
Exhibit A:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNZh9eTlvGY

 

[BeantownIdaho]

I was simply pointing out the contracts that had significant value and where the team was locked into paying a set amount above minimum  Of course Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, can be written in pen, but to simply plan on the kids being in thise roles is te 2014 recipe and I don't think that is the plan.  To paint a clearer picture than the crap I posted earlier. 
 
2016 Projections:
 
Catcher - Vazquez and Swihart - $1M combined AAV (all values shown in AAV)
1B - for the sake of lowest cost, let's put Bogaerts here - $0.75
2B - Pedroia - $13.85
SS - Marrero - $0.5
3B - Sandoval - $19
LF - Ramirez - $22
CF - Castillo - $10.6  - 67.7
RF - Betts - $0.65
DH - Ortiz - $16
Util - Holt - $0.55
Util OF - Nava - $4.5 as 2nd year arb (possible trade piece)
Util OF - Craig - $6
 
That's $95.5M for the lineup and bench with 1 starting position set for an unproven prospect in Marrero.  It's just as likely someone else fills 1B and X stays at SS.
 
S1 - Owens = $0.5
S2 - Rodriguez $0.5
S3 - Miley - $7 as 2nd year arb
S4 - Buchholz - $13M option
S5 - Kelly - $0.65M
Closer - Koji - $9M
Tazawa - $4.5 as 2nd year arb
LH - Escobar - $0.5
LH - Layne - $0.55
RH - Barnes - $0.5
RH - Workman - $0.65
RH - Wright - $0.55
 
$38.9M for the staff.  That is a combined $134.4M, leaving $23.6M available should any of the kids not be ready.  You take out one of Owens or Rodriguez and insert a Shieds or a Hamels and you have nothing left if a kid fails.  I could see them looking seriously at this if the following happens:
 
Craig is dealt
They plan to walk from Buchholz, and f he pitches well, they exercise the option, then trade him.
 
Other possibilities to free up funds include:
 
Trade Nava
Trade Tazawa
 
So yes, there is a route to signing one of the $20 to $25M pitchers, but there's an awful lot that has to go right for them to do so comfortably.

Maybe I missed something, which wouldn't be a first, but isn't the 2016 Luxury Tax Threshold 189 Mil, thus leaving 54.6 million? I am guessing I am missing something with the numbers you posted.

 

[67WasBest]

Maybe I missed something, which wouldn't be a first, but isn't the 2016 Luxury Tax Threshold 189 Mil, thus leaving 54.6 million? I am guessing I am missing something with the numbers you posted.

There are the cost related to the other 15 players on the payroll, the cost for benefits and retirement, and $5M held aside as kind of a slush fund.  This model, with the Boston roster allocated $158M has been that espoused by Alex Spieir each year, and the Sox have been pretty true to spending as he's prescribed.

 

[sean1562]

If you move Bogaerts to the Mets, you can do one of two things. You can go with Marrero or you can go after Desmond and spend some of the money you would have to spend for someone in thehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2014/12/13/with-no-progress-made-on-an-extension-ian-desmond-says-hes-focused-on-2015/ Cueto class next winter to extend Desmond.

Ian Desmond is not the kind of player that will age well. The guy has shitty plate discipline, I have seen him swing at some truly horrible pitches. The team that signs Ian to a large long term contract will regret it. 

 

[twibnotes]

Just listened to Farrell's EEI interview from yesterday's Xmas at Fenway event. Nothing Earth shattering but he did say the following wrt Masterson:

- they view him as a starter. Not far removed from being an all star starter and they haven't even thought about him as a reliever

- al east, especially if Joyce is moved, becoming more right handed. Obviously this helps Masterson

- asked about the groundball factor, he said that Sandoval is excellent and that X is their shortstop. Didn't even entertain the notion of moving X to another spot

There's some other good stuff in the interview if you care to ck it out:

http://media.weei.com/device/mobile/a/100065871/red-sox-manager-john-farrell-joins-mustard-and-johnson-12-13-14.htm

 

[Al Zarilla]

Just listened to Farrell's EEI interview from yesterday's Xmas at Fenway event. Nothing Earth shattering but he did say the following wrt Masterson:

- they view him as a starter. Not far removed from being an all star starter and they haven't even thought about him as a reliever

- al east, especially if Joyce is moved, becoming more right handed. Obviously this helps Masterson

- asked about the groundball factor, he said that Sandoval is excellent and that X is their shortstop. Didn't even entertain the notion of moving X to another spot

There's some other good stuff in the interview if you care to ck it out:

http://media.weei.com/device/mobile/a/100065871/red-sox-manager-john-farrell-joins-mustard-and-johnson-12-13-14.htm

Boston writers: is Ortiz a team player when he (about once a year) lobbies for an RBI that he thinks he should have had? I sometimes wonder why Farrell or anybody else being asked such a question doesn't walk away.
 
As for the Arizona infield, Giants announcers talk about it all the time being so hard and balls get through there faster than any other IF. Brandon Crawford doesn't complain much at all, but he'll talk about it too if asked. Why don't they water it more, or bring in softer dirt, I don't know.

 

[Doctor G]

Ian Desmond is not the kind of player that will age well. The guy has shitty plate discipline, I have seen him swing at some truly horrible pitches. The team that signs Ian to a large long term contract will regret it.

In my ideal scenario Marrero hits enough to stick at SS. If you don't like Desmond you could go after Andrus or Profar from Texas. They are pretty short at catcher and in the outfield after Choo and Martin.
The main focus of my hypothetical was getting Syndergaard for Bogaerts.

 

[67WasBest]

Insightful interview with Justin.  He really goes into how an injury can cause so many things to falter in a windup.  Worth listening to at least the first couple of minutes