I would argue that the Lester of 2014 was clearly on display for most of the second half and postseason of 2013. The reason you pay managers, coaches, and scouts is to help you understand whether that second half performance was real or just random variation. It was quite obviously real, and the Red Sox should have known that and factored it into their bids last offseason. If they didn't know that, then they need to question their manager, coaches, and scouts as to why they didn't.maufman said:
Lester to Cubs: Rent Garments Thread
- Thread starter ArgentinaSOXfan
- Start date
Plympton91 said:
Wait, you said you pay managers, coaches, and scouts to help you understand if it was real.
Did the Sox not do that? You're saying that because other teams had a higher valuation they are right? The Sox shouldn't trust what their guys said?
"It was quite obviously real."
Did you come to this wisdom via the MLB extra innings package or did you rely on your At Bat app?
Please let the shitty Red Sox talent evaluators know.
Did you come to this wisdom via the MLB extra innings package or did you rely on your At Bat app?
Please let the shitty Red Sox talent evaluators know.
I'm fine with all of this, and confused at why when Ellsbury took $153M 12 months ago we were all fine with it because we liked the player but hated the contract, but now so many think it was a messed up situation and a huge loss.
The difference in perception is that Boras was always going to take top dollar in free agency, and Lester wanted to come back at a discount. But I'm unclear where the missed opportunity/offer is.
I would have gone higher than 4/70 last off season, and maybe something like 5/100 would have gotten it done, but I would have hated 6/135 then. He had a whole year less of proving that his career was back on a dominant sustainable track (I'm still uncertain that 2014 isn't somewhat of an outlier on his overall trend line). So more than 4/70 is fine, but not a lot more.
Should we have signed him during the season? It was his choice not to negotiate, and going around that might not have continued the good will. But I suppose we could have said "we aren't negotiating, but wanted to throw out a 6/120 deal ready to sign if want" at the All Star break. I'm not sure he would have liked that or signed that, or if that would have been reinforcement that pitching well and waiting was increasing his value and waiting would be best.
Should we have gone 6/135 on the first day of free agency? I don't see any reason given the time they took now to think that a quick move would have gotten anything done. He was not in a rush. Maybe the Cubs wouldn't have been mentally prepared to make a blow you out of the water offer and we could have gotten him signed before the competition over bid. I still don't think so.
Should we have gone higher than 6/135? A lot of people seems to think that once you are there, what are a few more millions. But maybe that was a carefully calculated ceiling for the Red Sox in how much they thought he was worth optimistically, and rather than toy around in negotiations, they went right to their ceiling and made it clear they couldn't go up from there. If that is your ceiling, you don't go up more or you ensure you get the Winner's Curse that the Cubs have now ensured themselves.
In terms of what the Cubs actually got, maybe it nudges them onto competitiveness, and the overpay happens before the young players all reach arbitration, but it seems like a big risk. I don't buy that they are in it this year. They are a 73-win last place team who replaced Shark with Lester and will replace rookie call ups with sophomore slumps. I really like the 2016 Cubs, but I don't think they combine the run scoring and run prevention this season to do more than stay within sight of the second wild card.
So they waste the best value of Lester's contract on a potentially non-competitive 2015. I think it puts them in great shape for 2016 and 2017, but then by 2018 the contract starts to weigh just as they need the extra dollars to lock up their young hitters, and the results are that they can't improve the team elsewhere. If they go to the 2016 or 2017 World Series it likely is an overpay they can live with, and if they win it they won't have any regrets. But I still think this deal makes it tough to add more value to your ballclub then you pay for over the term.
Maybe a risk worth taking for a team that has waited 100 years, but one I'm glad the team with three shiny trophies avoided it. I wish Lester well and will miss him, but I have the same sigh of relief I did when Ellsbury left.
The difference in perception is that Boras was always going to take top dollar in free agency, and Lester wanted to come back at a discount. But I'm unclear where the missed opportunity/offer is.
I would have gone higher than 4/70 last off season, and maybe something like 5/100 would have gotten it done, but I would have hated 6/135 then. He had a whole year less of proving that his career was back on a dominant sustainable track (I'm still uncertain that 2014 isn't somewhat of an outlier on his overall trend line). So more than 4/70 is fine, but not a lot more.
Should we have signed him during the season? It was his choice not to negotiate, and going around that might not have continued the good will. But I suppose we could have said "we aren't negotiating, but wanted to throw out a 6/120 deal ready to sign if want" at the All Star break. I'm not sure he would have liked that or signed that, or if that would have been reinforcement that pitching well and waiting was increasing his value and waiting would be best.
Should we have gone 6/135 on the first day of free agency? I don't see any reason given the time they took now to think that a quick move would have gotten anything done. He was not in a rush. Maybe the Cubs wouldn't have been mentally prepared to make a blow you out of the water offer and we could have gotten him signed before the competition over bid. I still don't think so.
Should we have gone higher than 6/135? A lot of people seems to think that once you are there, what are a few more millions. But maybe that was a carefully calculated ceiling for the Red Sox in how much they thought he was worth optimistically, and rather than toy around in negotiations, they went right to their ceiling and made it clear they couldn't go up from there. If that is your ceiling, you don't go up more or you ensure you get the Winner's Curse that the Cubs have now ensured themselves.
In terms of what the Cubs actually got, maybe it nudges them onto competitiveness, and the overpay happens before the young players all reach arbitration, but it seems like a big risk. I don't buy that they are in it this year. They are a 73-win last place team who replaced Shark with Lester and will replace rookie call ups with sophomore slumps. I really like the 2016 Cubs, but I don't think they combine the run scoring and run prevention this season to do more than stay within sight of the second wild card.
So they waste the best value of Lester's contract on a potentially non-competitive 2015. I think it puts them in great shape for 2016 and 2017, but then by 2018 the contract starts to weigh just as they need the extra dollars to lock up their young hitters, and the results are that they can't improve the team elsewhere. If they go to the 2016 or 2017 World Series it likely is an overpay they can live with, and if they win it they won't have any regrets. But I still think this deal makes it tough to add more value to your ballclub then you pay for over the term.
Maybe a risk worth taking for a team that has waited 100 years, but one I'm glad the team with three shiny trophies avoided it. I wish Lester well and will miss him, but I have the same sigh of relief I did when Ellsbury left.
The Red Sox valuation of Lester was higher than at least 27 other teams. So either the 26 teams knew something or the three did.
LahoudOrBillyC said:
DrewDawg said:
I'm not claiming clairvoyance, but isn't the fact that the entirety of 2014 looked an awful lot like the second half of 2013 pretty convincing evidence that it was real, and that any opinion to the contrary that was expressed last offseason should be reexamined?
Farrell knows if he made adjustments to Lester's mechanics, pitch selection, preparation, etc that led to the second half 2013 improvement, or whether the improvement just came out of nowhere. The difference between those two scenarios is huge, and should have been incorporated in the risk calculus of signing Lester last offseason vs. letting him test the market after 2014.
I think the Cubs will be competitive in 2015, but I don't think they've got any real shot to win that division in 2015. 2016 and beyond is a whole other story (depending how these prospects work out)Rudy Pemberton said:
You tend to pick a piece of a greater whole and hold that up as the only piece of the discussion that matters.Plympton91 said:
Did they see him as a guy worth spending more than $20M per year to obtain? Yes. Did they have a cap on how much above $20M per year they would go? Yes. The Cubs exceeded the spending cap the Sox had and he took their offer. That spending cap is more significant discussion point than the talent evaluators because it is not subjective. It's also more the reason he's gone than any imagined flawed evaluation. They wanted him, but at a price that allowed them to obtain the other parts they needed to compete.
If fondness for one player causes you to not be able to obtain two or 3 others, you need to move on from the fondness of the first player.
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan now
Jon Lester's option vests with 200 IP in sixth year or 400 total in the fifth and sixth. Signing bonus $20M upfront, $10M more spread out.
Jon Lester's option vests with 200 IP in sixth year or 400 total in the fifth and sixth. Signing bonus $20M upfront, $10M more spread out.
Also Stark reports a 30 MILLION DOLLAR signing bonus?!!!! Wow I wonder if its an either/or type deal with the option or the bonus. If it's both then this has the potential to be an extremely large anchor.RedOctober3829 said:
I'm talking about last offseason in this string of posts. They quite obviously didn't value him as even a $20 million pitcher then, and on top of asking him to take a steep discount in AAV, they also offered a contract length that was 50 percent less than what they ended up offering. They blew it, totally and completely, last offseason.67WasBest said:
Taking last offseason and the trade as a sunk cost, last night's decisionmaking is perfectly reasonable.
Looks as though the $30 mil bonus is incorporated into the 6/155 number, so probably not.Ed Hillel said:
"Valuation" includes a bunch of things beyond "how well will he pitch," including, particularly in the Cubbies' case, what his signing does for the brand. It's theoretically possible that all thirty teams valued him accurately for their particular circumstances, and determined that his cost exceeded that value.LahoudOrBillyC said:
Rudy Pemberton said:
A valid point, but I think there were some different things about the situations and how they will be remedied. And more importantly, I'm not faulting Lester's decision, just questioning Theo's and the immediate and long term impact of it.
The Cubs are relying on a core of young hitters to develop, and I don't think adding Castillo/Hanley/Sandoval/Victorino is an option. They can and will add some pieces, but they are going to score more runs based on how their young hitters do. That was an issue for us this season (among many) with the expectations on JBJ/XB, and it didn't work out even if the future is bright with our young guys. I think the Cubs necessarily need to give even more at bats to their young hitters this season than we did last year or than we will do this year. If somehow it all goes right, they can score a lot more runs this season, but if it doesn't, their best course of action is living with those lumps as those hitters develop into a devastating 2016-2018 lineup. I don't think Theo will get off that long term strategy to do short term improvements, so it all depends on how the young core reacts.
I personally (despite a soft spot for the Cubs) wouldn't be too optimistic on their run scoring exploding in 2015 given their young players and the increased pressure of winning for the first time, and expect to see some 2014 Xander out of their guys this year.
As for their rotation, they need to add more just as we need to add more, but they now have the #1 opening day spot locked up which we do not, but both teams have a lot of rotation fixing to do before I buy either as contenders. But it has been clear for a while that they don't have great pitching prospects coming up, and were going to have to move to add them, while we have a bunch. So maybe Lester is really worth enough to them to potentially waste the best year of his contract while the rest of the team isn't ready, and overpay the back end when his performance is in decline, to get the middle years AND get 2015 as a launch year where expectations of winning begins for the young players.
No. I meant "in hand" to say Shill and Lester both had already won the World Series prior to the move.Al Zarilla said:
koufax37 said:
The Cubs have Lester, Arrieta and Hammel headlining their rotation. Sure, it could be improved, but they absolutely could contend with those guys right now. The Cubs and the Red Sox aren't in the same situation at all in regards to "rotation fixing", not even close.
Ed Hillel said:
No. Max is $170mm if the 7th year option vests. The $30mm bonus and $10mm buyout if the 7th year option is not exercised are included in the $155mm.
LahoudOrBillyC said:
This doesn't even pass the first smell test for good logic.
I realize you are arguing against hyperbole but responding with your own hyperbole isn't really that helpful, IMO. You can't build a team without bad contracts and/or accumulating high draft picks and hitting on enough of them. You just can't. It is the reality of the CBA. Argue all you want about how bad the CBA is, but you are tilting at imaginary windmills if you think that a team in modern MLB can be successful by becoming completely risk averse in signing FAs. I realize that you do not believe this is actually true, but it is the tenor of your posts here.
Again, I understand the desire to respond to hyperbole from one side with hyperbole from the other. But it just makes both sides wrong, which isn't that much fun to read and doesn't really teach anyone anything.
I'll put this in the simplest terms possible. Do you think the Yankees would trade the money they owe CC Sabathia in exchange for having the 2009 World Series expunged from the record and everyone's memory? I tend to doubt it. In Red Sox terms, how about 2007? Clearly Julio Lugo and JD Drew and Daisuke Matsuzaka got a lot more money from the Red Sox than they delivered value (I am a Drew fan but they got nearly nothing for the first and last years of that contract).
You can argue that other teams manage, but they usually manage by accumulating very high draft picks (Rays, Royals) and sometimes by getting huge value out of cheap veterans (A's) because the downside risk is almost zero (as opposed to the Red Sox whose financial model does not allow them to be noncompetitive for years and years while they search for these guys).
I don't think there is much use in pining for a utopian situation on either side where information is perfect and every decision comes down only to evaluating that information.
Slightly OT. I've looked for information on signing bonuses but can't find anything on what the maximum is allowable. Is it determined by something like a % of your AAV? Is there a cap like in draft slots or international free agent signings?
As for the Cubs, I still think this is a year too soon for them, but it's not my money. Given the talent available next year (much of which may be available at the deadline this year) I'm not sure I would have made that kind of commitment if I were them. I know Theo said they were going for the division this year and that may even be a realistic goal, but given the age of their talent they didn't NEED to be this year.
On the other hand, I'd be curious how much a division this year (with the promise of more to come) is worth to them. I tend to think of the Cubs as inelastic in terms of stadium demand, but if Ricketts can raise prices 10% next year or something and get some big local TV deal going or whatever, then it's possible they will break even on this deal even if Lester is only good for the next 2-3 years. It's an interesting dynamic.
On the other hand, I'd be curious how much a division this year (with the promise of more to come) is worth to them. I tend to think of the Cubs as inelastic in terms of stadium demand, but if Ricketts can raise prices 10% next year or something and get some big local TV deal going or whatever, then it's possible they will break even on this deal even if Lester is only good for the next 2-3 years. It's an interesting dynamic.
I could be wrong but I think it's 145 over the first 6 years, and either a $10 million buyout, or a $25 million vesting.mBiferi said:
Over the past 13 or so off-seasons (since new ownership arrived), the Red Sox have overvalued several players (Crawford, Lugo, etc.), and undervalued several players. But this is the way it works for everyone. No team gets it right every time. The Giants two highest paid players last year were Cain and Lincecum, who were essentially worthless. But they made enough other good moves so that it worked out for them. Branch Rickey made bad moves. Pat Gillick made bad moves. You don't fire your talent evaluators for making an error in judgment -- they make hundreds of judgments a year, and should be evaluated based on all of it -- not by us, since we have zero idea which advisors were advising which thing.
The Red Sox' recent past has seen them lose out on a lot of top end free agents, starting with Jose Contreras, and Pedro, and Teixeira, and Josh Hamilton, and God knows who else. With a lot of other big pocketed guys out there, how often should they "win" the bidding for a guy they want? 20% of the time? There are a few I looked back on with regret, certainly Clemens, Mussina. But for the most part, the Red Sox have been more likely to regret the high end guys they did sign rather than the ones they did not sign. For the most part, the teams that LOSE the high end guys are the ones that end up happy.
That all said, it is crazy to get mad at a team for (reportedly) making a low offer. Teams and agents negotiate, and they do so with a lot of ridiculous offers from both sides. Jon Lester spent the past six months publicly saying how much he loved the organization, how much respect he had for Cherington. Even on the day he was traded. His agents talked about how much respect they showed a couple of weeks ago. How many times does he have to say it? Why do we instead have to say that the Red Sox did not respect him, blew it in the spring? Why? Because some reported tweeted it? Are we this stupid?
The Red Sox' recent past has seen them lose out on a lot of top end free agents, starting with Jose Contreras, and Pedro, and Teixeira, and Josh Hamilton, and God knows who else. With a lot of other big pocketed guys out there, how often should they "win" the bidding for a guy they want? 20% of the time? There are a few I looked back on with regret, certainly Clemens, Mussina. But for the most part, the Red Sox have been more likely to regret the high end guys they did sign rather than the ones they did not sign. For the most part, the teams that LOSE the high end guys are the ones that end up happy.
That all said, it is crazy to get mad at a team for (reportedly) making a low offer. Teams and agents negotiate, and they do so with a lot of ridiculous offers from both sides. Jon Lester spent the past six months publicly saying how much he loved the organization, how much respect he had for Cherington. Even on the day he was traded. His agents talked about how much respect they showed a couple of weeks ago. How many times does he have to say it? Why do we instead have to say that the Red Sox did not respect him, blew it in the spring? Why? Because some reported tweeted it? Are we this stupid?
Plympton91 said:
Even discounting your assumption that he could have been signed for an acceptable deal last offseason when his people walked away from the negotiating table, how do you know that the "scenario" that you posit did not take place? (answer: you dont).
Plympton91 said:
The additional financial flexibility allows for a third option, which is to dump a bad contract on another team (Punto) or take on a bad contract from a team in conjunction with low-cost talent (Lowell + Beckett). Presumably the Sox have an expected value on all MLB players, and at least their own minor league prospects. It might make more sense for them financially to do Hamels plus Lee and send lower value prospects. Presumably there's some tipping point where that makes more financial sense than signing Lester, especially if they are more sanguine about Lee recovering (and/or more pessimistic about Lester's future value).
LahoudOrBillyC said:
I agree with all of this, but you are making statements also that say never sign any pitcher over 30 because they are never worth it. And these statements simply aren't true. You have a half dozen of them in the other Lester thread. But if none of this was in response to me then I will simply let it go. I agree the caterwauling here is at best willful ignorance and at worst distasteful stupidity and entitlement.
People act as if the story is that the Cubs offered more money, with the assumption that Lester would have come back to the Red Sox had they matched. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. The point is that the Red Sox were clearly willing to pay him at least $135M/6years and maybe even slightly more than that. They could have almost certainly had him for less than that one year ago but made a lowball offer, one bordering on insulting relative to his market value.
Lester and his agents did exactly what one should do in the situation: stop negotiating, as the low initial offer artificially anchors the negotiations.
And so, it's hard to argue that the Red Sox didn't screw this up massively. Even had Lester chosen to come back, their bumbling in this negotiation would have cost them $40ish million dollars on the contract (I bet Lester would have signed for $100M/5 or $120/6 a year ago). Even worse, they lost out on an ace pitcher with a proven track record in the AL East and huge intangible value to the franchise.
Lester and his agents did exactly what one should do in the situation: stop negotiating, as the low initial offer artificially anchors the negotiations.
And so, it's hard to argue that the Red Sox didn't screw this up massively. Even had Lester chosen to come back, their bumbling in this negotiation would have cost them $40ish million dollars on the contract (I bet Lester would have signed for $100M/5 or $120/6 a year ago). Even worse, they lost out on an ace pitcher with a proven track record in the AL East and huge intangible value to the franchise.
You're absolutely right. What I do know, is that taking everything into account, the plopped down an opening bid of 4/$70 for a player that went out and duplicated his second half 2013 success so that one year later they valued him at 6/$135 and at least 3 other very well-run teams with roughly equal financial resources valued him even more highly.joe dokes said:
All of the facts point to their opening offer being ridiculous. You're free to believe otherwise.
smastroyin said:
I am not saying that. I am saying you decide how much you are willing to pay, you offer that (via some complex negotiation), and you see what happens. The Red Sox have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, every year, so obviously they are willing to go out and get guys more than most other teams. A team like the Cardinals, who I think are the model -- when was the last time they "won" a high end free agent battle? Not often. When was the last time they had a contract on the team that they regretted? This is one data point, but can we agree that their model has worked?
The Red Sox sign a lot of free agents. They often lose out on the market-setting, high-end guys, because they do not just keep bidding forever. Guys like Drew (a signing I loved at the time, though it did not work out a well as I thought it would), or Lugo, or Foulke, or Victorino -- the Red Sox often get the second tier (still expensive) guys, who are much more likely to earn their contracts, and who usually do not involve a bidding war. Hanley Ramirez. The last huge free agent they signed (I am talking about the guys near the top of the market that off-season) was Crawford. Before that was probably Manny, under a different ownership.
Every year there are one or two guys who a handful of big market teams bid on, and their contracts always exceed estimates, and the Red Sox usually lose. And it is almost always good for them that this happens. The last high-end post-30-year-old free agent pitcher that the team did not later regret? Randy Johnson. This is not hyperbole.
To answer your question about Sabathia -- he is obviously a good counter example. He was also much younger than Lester and much better (at the time).
Could you explain what is hyperbolic about the argument that the Cubs, Giants, and presumably Dodgers all made offers to John Lester that were substantially higher than the Red Sox offer, and that one could reasonably conclude that there is information in that set of facts about the Red Sox management's overarching strategy when it comes to top free agent pitchers? Because, I spent a lot of time on my first post in this thread trying very hard not to be hyperbolic or emotional in my response to the events of last night.smastroyin said:
Thanks.
The opening offer was the start of a negotiation. It looks ridiculous now that 2014 played itself out, but circumstances were a lot different in February. Negotiations always involve back and forth. We have zero insight into what happened after that opening offer; we only found about the 4/70 some time after the negotiations were suspended.Plympton91 said:
If Lester's agent terminated all negotiations based on that offer, then that's on Lester and his agent, not the Sox. My guess is that negotiations continued, but neither side felt they progressed to the point of justifying a new offer. That happens. It could very well have happened if they offered 5/110 as well.
In fairness to the Sox, coming off a terrible 2012, and a half bad,half good 2013, does 4/70 look that awful as a starting point?
Were they supposed to predict his awesome 2014?
Were they supposed to predict his awesome 2014?
Wait... They started the off season by signing both Sandoval and Ramirez and there is a post suggesting the Red Sox aren't serious about using their financial might anymore because they drew the line at 6/135 for a 31 year old pitcher?
Come on. There reasons to question the front office on how the Lester sweepstakes concluded, but let's try to keep some perspective. They will be very near or maybe even past the luxury tax threshold this coming year. The Red Sox are not shying away from spending where it makes sense for them.
Edit: forgot to refresh sosh on my phone. This was in response to something the thread moved past a while ago.
Come on. There reasons to question the front office on how the Lester sweepstakes concluded, but let's try to keep some perspective. They will be very near or maybe even past the luxury tax threshold this coming year. The Red Sox are not shying away from spending where it makes sense for them.
Edit: forgot to refresh sosh on my phone. This was in response to something the thread moved past a while ago.
That was a not a big contract at all, and they had zero difficulty finding a team that agreed with them.JimBoSox9 said:
Ill assume they'd be the same complaining that the Sox paid 5/110 for a guy who had 1/2 a good season over the past 2+ seasons.sackamano said:
Plympton91 said:
I chose that post to respond to because it was his last post in the thread. He has made other statements that you never sign a FA pitcher in this thread. I find these completely hyperbolic. For the other side of the argument, the idea that the Red Sox "blew" something is hyperbolic.
All of talent accumulation comes with the fact that you will pay one way or the other for risk. Sometimes you make a bad bet and sometimes you make a good. It doesn't necessarily follow that the decision itself was bad. There are wide bands of variance within player performance and there are smaller but still quite large bands of variance within team performance even given a collection of individual players whose performance you already know. (basically just look at the range of how teams perform versus Pythag every year, or any other system (BP's 3rd order wins, for instance)).
It is hyperbolic to me to assume either side can deal in absolutes - that every missed opportunity is a mistake, that every passed opportunity is a success.
Plympton91 said:
Things change. I would like to have seen the Sox go 5/90 right off the bat and see if that gets it done in the spring. That's not insulting ($18m a year and 5 seasons), but it would represent some sort of hometown discount. It's still a lot of cash and a sizable commitment, especially considering that (1) there were no other competitors for Lester's services at the time, and (2) he hadn't put up his monster 2014 season. I think that would have been a good, solid offer that he very well may have taken.
But…..
….they went low, he had a monster season, they traded him away so he got to experience life outside Boston, and the market was flush with wealthy competitors. And so if the Sox wanted him at that point, they had no choice but to up the ante.
smastroyin said:
As far as I can tell, the Cubs still haven't found a TV broadcast outlet for 70 games next season. No doubt they will, but maybe the grass isn't as green as they had expected when they opted out of their existing deal with WGN...especially since it sounds like they are in talks to go back to WGN. The longterm goal is a regional sports network broadcasting all Cubs games, which will become possible in 2020 when their current deal with Comcast runs out.
The refurbished stadium will be used as rationale to raise ticket prices. But the bigger boost will be from in-stadium advertising - more signage, more LCD scoreboards throughout. I'm sure we'll soon hear about the number of new season ticket sales prompted by the Lester signing.
You're probably right, Jeff. The $20M and possibly $35M extra had nothing to do with it. I hate when journalists write such mind-numbing things. Just cite the vast difference in offers. Your readers can understand that decision (unless Jon specifically said that).soxhop411 said:
I may have been inclined to take the money, too, Jon. Thanks and good luck to you.
smastroyin said:
Assuming you are talking about me, I do not believe I have said that. What I have said (or meant to say, at least., sorry) is that most post-30 year old free agent pitchers disappoint, so do not blow huge money on them. Lose out on the market setting contracts, and try to find lower-risk older pitchers.
The Red Sox have a massive payroll every year -- they are not cheap. Going back to 2007, I would argue that the creating of that team was very largely predicated on LOSING Pedro, Lowe, Cabrera, and Damon. Not that those players were bad. They lost bidding wars, SoSH had a cow about cheap and stupid they were, and the team either (a) found other solutions, or (b) gave their jobs to cost-controlled home grown players that were the essential key to that team. People around here were PISSED about losing all of those guys.
The Cardinals for much of their current run had the benefit of two things. First, a truly top 2 or 3 player in the league whose mere presence forgives mistakes at 2-3 other positions on the diamond. Maybe Betts or Bogaerts or Swihart or whoever can be that guy for the Red Sox, but I hope they aren't counting on it. Second, they play in a division that has largely been full of also-rans.
Now, on top of that, they had a lot of things go right for them. Maybe they have the most awesomest scouting ever, or maybe they have just had a string of good luck. We heard for years and years that the Braves were the model...until they weren't. If Adam Wainright had busted instead of become as good as he is - where would they be? Is that all scouting? Do their scouts never miss? What the hell happened with Yadier Molina - there is no other player in the history of baseball with his development track.
Regardless, even they went ahead and signed Matt Holliday to a large FA deal that many here panned. And as well he probably did not perform to that contract until recent contract inflation. I know I know I know we are then just going to get into the difference between pitchers and hitters. I could tell you that they paid Kyle Lohse to be terrible for three years before he was good for two but you will say "they don't regret that" and fine. I could remind you that they paid $20 million to Chris Carpenter to pitch 21 innings over two years not so long ago, and $11 million for 3 starts in 2012. But it was worth it to them because the years in between he was pretty great.
My basic point is that there is not a lot of room for dogma in building a baseball team. I'm just going to leave it at that.
Now, on top of that, they had a lot of things go right for them. Maybe they have the most awesomest scouting ever, or maybe they have just had a string of good luck. We heard for years and years that the Braves were the model...until they weren't. If Adam Wainright had busted instead of become as good as he is - where would they be? Is that all scouting? Do their scouts never miss? What the hell happened with Yadier Molina - there is no other player in the history of baseball with his development track.
Regardless, even they went ahead and signed Matt Holliday to a large FA deal that many here panned. And as well he probably did not perform to that contract until recent contract inflation. I know I know I know we are then just going to get into the difference between pitchers and hitters. I could tell you that they paid Kyle Lohse to be terrible for three years before he was good for two but you will say "they don't regret that" and fine. I could remind you that they paid $20 million to Chris Carpenter to pitch 21 innings over two years not so long ago, and $11 million for 3 starts in 2012. But it was worth it to them because the years in between he was pretty great.
My basic point is that there is not a lot of room for dogma in building a baseball team. I'm just going to leave it at that.