Should the Red Sox go full push for next year?

[jscola85]

Rubby was good early on, but was mediocre for the final three - four months. His peripherals were just as bad as the much maligned Workman. Rubby is probably the most promising of the guys who started the year at AAA, but I think it's premature to consider him a lock for the rotation.

(For additional context...he allowed a 293 / 349 / 465 batting line against- compared to 263 / 333 / 415 for Workman. He had a 2.51 ERA in 32 May - June innings, and a 5.32 ERA in the 69 innings after that.

He had really strong #'s with RISP, which helped his overall performance, but don't know how sustainable that kind of split is. Most guys who give up a 800+ OPS with middling peripherals won't last long as starters.)

 
Couldn't that at least be partially explained by his innings workload though?  In 2013, he only threw 91 innings total.  Last year that moved up to 161.  Looking at his Fangraphs chart, his velocity pretty clearly waned in August and September, which can't be too surprising for a guy who missed all of 2012 and then was eased back into pitching last year.
 
I agree that some of the shine for Rubby came off last year, particularly his swing-and-miss ability as a starter, but I think he's shown enough to warrant a starting spot next year.  His stuff from a scouting perspective at least looks like the stuff that can/will translate eventually, similar to Webster and Joe Kelly.  Of those three, probably only one of them totally figures it out, but at least they have stuff that can translate, vs. a guy like Workman who simply lacks a true out pitch.

 

[ALiveH]

The question of going "full push" is not really a healthy mindset.  I would hope the sox make good decisions for the short- and long-run.
 
But, this is definitely a year to be aggressive in free agency b/c of money to spend and the protected pick.
 
It's also a year to be aggressive on the trade front b/c of a lot of quality high minor prospects that could (hopefully) be packaged for proven veterans / stars.

 

[lxt]

But why would you trade prospects and then take on the contract of the guy that you're trading for when comparable options are available and only cost money? I just don't understand the logic

Wait a minute. I didn't say trade rather than buy. I was stating that two will likely not be enough and that trading for an established, known pitcher who is still young is worth the prospects. Guys like Hamels & Samardzija are still young and have solid track records and are worth trading for if buying players doesn't get the Sox all they need. I'd love to see Lester and Shields but I don't think that's enough. There are other pitchers available but the competition for arms is going to be fierce and if the Sox can get both Lester and Shields they've done well. However, it's not enough so trade excess vets, young players and prospects to add a 3rd starter.
 
Others have stated that RDLR is the answer. I for one don't. He had a couple good games, moments, where he looked like the real thing, then he crashed. The hitters figure him out and came at him. Webster looked terrible in the beginning but continual improved and saved his best game for his last. Does he deserve the spot? All the young guys had moments, even Buchholz keep showing us what he could do but they all just were not up to the task.
 
I'll give Buchholz another shot and let Kelly show me if he can make it but I need more. Buy Lester and Shields if they can but be ready to trade for quality arms if they're available.
 
I like:
Lester
Shields
Hamels
Buchholz
Kelly
 
The position players, more specifically the offense, should be about 150 runs better next year, providing players remain healthy. With a rotation like the list above that's a good way into the playoffs.
 
Adding Miller back to the pen and letting the young players fight it out for two or three spots gives the Sox a solid pen with plenty of backup for the rotation.
 
Trading some of the young players (RDLR, Workman, Webster, Wright, Escobar & Wilson) leaves guys like Owens, Johnson and Barnes around to fight for spots in 2016.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I like:
Lester
Shields
Hamels
Buchholz
Kelly

 
I like a Jaguar, a Central Park West condo, and a private Aegean island.
 
The Red Sox are not paying +/- $225M for starting pitching on the FA market and then giving up significant talent to add $90-110M on top of that. It would be absurd overkill. Not. Gonna. Happen.

 

[lxt]

 
I like a Jaguar, a Central Park West condo, and a private Aegean island.
 
The Red Sox are not paying +/- $225M for starting pitching on the FA market and then giving up significant talent to add $90-110M on top of that. It would be absurd overkill. Not. Gonna. Happen.

I simply disagree.

 

[MakMan44]

I simply disagree.

Well then, construct an argument on why you think they would. I'd be willing to bet that a good chunk of this board would side with Savin, myself included. 

 

[lxt]

Well then, construct an argument on why you think they would. I'd be willing to bet that a good chunk of this board would side with Savin, myself included. 

Above you'll see the preliminaries. Don't wish to run this discussion into the ground. But as you asked for further reiteration so I'll appease you.
 
I think I stated in response to Mr. Biggums that the Sox will need three front-line starters to jump back into the playoffs if they made minimal changes to their position players. Although, buying Lester and Shields would be great and there is no guarantee this would happen,  I did not think it was enough. Adding another front-line pitcher through trades would provide them with a solid rotation that could dominate with the current position players. I also don't feel the Sox can simply buy themselves a World Series - which would cost easily Savin's numbers if not more.
 
All things considered I think the Sox will be luck if they are able to buy one of the three to four top front-line pitchers. Other teams will not sit around and hope the Sox leave them something to buy. It will likely take trades and FA to add two and may three front-line pitchers. I don't know what the market will turn out to be this year but I imagine for guys like Lester, Shields, Maeda or Scherzer it will be expensive and they will be well sought out. That leaves guys like Hamels, Lotos, Cueto, Fister or Samardzija to trade for. And, again they'll be sought by many teams and be expensive in their own right. The only solid figure I see so far is Hamels $96million. All else is sheer hearsay, rumors and noise. What will Lester cost? How about Shields? You, Savin and I have no idea. We can throw numbers out there but none of us really know.
 
With that all said I think the Sox need 3 front-line starters to be serious if not dominant contenders and the three I'd love to see are Lester, Shields and Hamels.
 
A solid 3B would be nice also but I'd settle for the starters.

 

[MakMan44]

Right, I understand why you WANT them to spend the money and assets but I was asking you why you think they WILL do it. The current FO and owners haven't shown themselves to be the Dodgers or the Yankees, there's a limit to what they're willing to spend and acquiring all 3 pitchers is going to blow past that. 

 

[CaskNFappin]

Can we put together a team with the talent KC or Bal had this year? If the answer is no, punt on the season.

 

[alwyn96]

Can we put together a team with the talent KC or Bal had this year? If the answer is no, punt on the season.

 
Well, somehow KC made the playoffs while fielding the worst offense in the AL, and Baltimore has a rotation of seemingly all #3 starters, so I think the Red Sox should be able to compete. They just need a rotation that isn't a flaming bag of dog poo. 

 

[CaskNFappin]

 
Well, somehow KC made the playoffs while fielding the worst offense in the AL, and Baltimore has a rotation of seemingly all #3 starters, so I think the Red Sox should be able to compete. They just need a rotation that isn't a flaming bag of dog poo. 

That's my point. Parity is at an all time high. If these are the ALCS reps, it's safe to say that the sox should be shooting for the playoffs and not the WS. What I mean is that having the best team on paper means nothing. Just be good enough to win 87 games and get to the show. If I'm Ben, I only spend big if I thing the acquisitions put the Sox in that category

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
Well, somehow KC made the playoffs while fielding the worst offense in the AL, and Baltimore has a rotation of seemingly all #3 starters, so I think the Red Sox should be able to compete. They just need a rotation that isn't a flaming bag of dog poo. 

Probably had something to do with bullpens. Both teams had an insane 7-8-9 especially KC. The one no brainer, inexcusable guy you do not allow to lose is Lester. He costs no prospects or compensation and is similar to Hamels. Hamels is more of a 1 and Lester is more of a high #2 borderline #1 overall. The thing is if you only put Lester in this rotation then you're banking on Clay Buchholz to finally realize his full potential and stay healthy.

Listen I have no problem with what the Sox do if they happen to miss out on Shields and Scherzer. Then I would say, okay let's go out and get Hamels. But to go immediately to the trade market when your number 1 need is starting pitching and the top 3 free agents are all starters doesn't make much sense.

 

[snowmanny]

Probably had something to do with bullpens. Both teams had an insane 7-8-9 especially KC. The one no brainer, inexcusable guy you do not allow to lose is Lester. He costs no prospects or compensation and is similar to Hamels. Hamels is more of a 1 and Lester is more of a high #2 borderline #1 overall. The thing is if you only put Lester in this rotation then you're banking on Clay Buchholz to finally realize his full potential and stay healthy.

Listen I have no problem with what the Sox do if they happen to miss out on Shields and Scherzer. Then I would say, okay let's go out and get Hamels. But to go immediately to the trade market when your number 1 need is starting pitching and the top 3 free agents are all starters doesn't make much sense.

 
I agree.  If the prices are 5/105 for Shields, 7/170 for Lester, 8/200+ for Scherzer and 4/90/Bogaerts+ for Hamel it will not be an easy decision for the FO.  Although I suppose I would still sign Lester.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
I agree.  If the prices are 5/105 for Shields, 7/170 for Lester, 8/200+ for Scherzer and 4/90/Bogaerts+ for Hamel it will not be an easy decision for the FO.  Although I suppose I would still sign Lester.

In order for Hamels to be moved to Boston, 3 things have to occur. First they need to miss out on another pitcher after Lester. Second, the Sox will have to be willing to take money back in a deal such as Papelbon or Howard. Not desirable by any means but I would probably rather have Papelbon over Howard. Third, even after all this Boston needs to be prepared to give Amaro 3 top prospects on top of taking on a bad deal. Unless he gets fired it won't happen.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Well, somehow KC made the playoffs while fielding the worst offense in the AL, and Baltimore has a rotation of seemingly all #3 starters, so I think the Red Sox should be able to compete. They just need a rotation that isn't a flaming bag of dog poo. 

 
Kansas City was 9th in runs scored. Runs scored may not be the best predictive metric, but in measuring what a team actually accomplished offensively in comparison to other teams in the league it is the only thing that actually matters. Incidentally, both KC and STL were 9th in runs scored and 4th in runs allowed.

 

[alwyn96]

 
Kansas City was 9th in runs scored. Runs scored may not be the best predictive metric, but in measuring what a team actually accomplished offensively in comparison to other teams in the league it is the only thing that actually matters. Incidentally, both KC and STL were 9th in runs scored and 4th in runs allowed.

 
I prefer to use park adjusted measures, since park factors have a huge impact on runs scored and confound the comparison to other teams. I generally find the crude runs scored measure to be misleading. By that measure, one would probably just assume that Colorado had a perennially good offense regardless of how the players would play in a more neutral environment. Using OPS+, a park-adjusted measure of offense, KC was the worst offense in the AL, with Boston a close 2nd. 
 
I would actually plead that this board try to use park adjusted measures more often, because a line of 260/330/420 in Petco in 2014 is profoundly different than the same line in Fenway in 2004, and we just confuse each other if we throw around crude aggregate stats. Bill James talked about this like 30 years ago, and we have easy to use stats that account for these factors.  

 

[lxt]

Right, I understand why you WANT them to spend the money and assets but I was asking you why you think they WILL do it. The current FO and owners haven't shown themselves to be the Dodgers or the Yankees, there's a limit to what they're willing to spend and acquiring all 3 pitchers is going to blow past that. 

I think they'll do it because they have a chance to dominate the division for the next couple of years and to make a significant run at the Series for at least the next two years. It gives them a powerful left-right rotation that will limit runs and give them a chance to win every night without the need to score 5 or more runs.
 
I think if they can get Shields for three, likely driving the cost to about $70million, it would make it more likely the Sox will bite.
 
I think with the $50million they have (http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/10/01/ready-go-market-look-red-sox-2015-payroll-and-) and possibly the trading of a few (Mujica & Craig) the Sox could have roughly $60million. Figuring it will take $65million for all three then the Sox will bite.
 
So, yeah, I think they'll go for it.
 
You may have trouble with the Link - just look for Alex Speier's article on the Sox 2015 payroll ... It's a good read.

 

[TigerBlood]

I think they'll do it because they have a chance to dominate the division for the next couple of years and to make a significant run at the Series for at least the next two years. It gives them a powerful left-right rotation that will limit runs and give them a chance to win every night without the need to score 5 or more runs.
 
I think if they can get Shields for three, likely driving the cost to about $70million, it would make it more likely the Sox will bite.
 
I think with the $50million they have (http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/10/01/ready-go-market-look-red-sox-2015-payroll-and-) and possibly the trading of a few (Mujica & Craig) the Sox could have roughly $60million. Figuring it will take $65million for all three then the Sox will bite.
 
So, yeah, I think they'll go for it.

 
 
And in this situation where they outbid the entire rest of the league on the top 3 available starters, whom are all in an age group (30+) that they have shown aversion to signing in recent years, they will entirely ignore their needs in the bullpen, at 3B and backup C? Or all all of those solved by trade/internal options?

 

[snowmanny]

Don't forget that in 2016 they are trading them all to the Dodgers.

 

[lxt]

 
 
And in this situation where they outbid the entire rest of the league on the top 3 available starters, whom are all in an age group (30+) that they have shown aversion to signing in recent years, they will entirely ignore their needs in the bullpen, at 3B and backup C? Or all all of those solved by trade/internal options?

The pen will likely need Miller back but they can use Layne, Wright, Wilson & Workman as swingman. Tazawa and Uehara will do their roles assuming Uehara is resigned. I'll assume Breslow will be let go. If they get Miller he can possibly relieve Uehara of all the responsibility if Farrell doesn't over use him. Escobar & Barnes can also be thrown into the mix. Third can be handled by Holt and Cecchini and if Middlebrooks is still around and can remember how to hit. Catching can be handled by Vazquez & Siwhart. Not sure if Ross will be back so Butler may see a few games. 
 
Sorry forgot: In earlier post I covered that the chance are slim that they'd get everyone I would like to see ... specified a few other options ... I was answering Mak/Poutine's question about whether I thought the Sox would want to spend the money to get the 3 I'd like.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The problem I have with your concept, lxt, is not so much that you're proposing that the Sox spend a shit-ton of money this winter; there's a decent case to be made that that's a good idea. The problem I have is that you want to spend it in an unbalanced way. You want to spend $60-70M a year and give up significant prospect talent to add three SPs who are all at least borderline #1s--making Clay Buchholz your 4th starter, Joe Kelly your 5th starter, and a passel of promising young pitchers bullpen fodder or trade bait. But at the same time, you're willing to run a non-trivial risk of getting replacement level performance from 3B, a position that's arguably more important than any one SP, and certainly more important than your #3 or #4 SP.
 
Having an unbalanced team is one thing. Spending megabucks to have an unbalanced team is another. It doesn't make sense.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
I prefer to use park adjusted measures, since park factors have a huge impact on runs scored and confound the comparison to other teams. I generally find the crude runs scored measure to be misleading. By that measure, one would probably just assume that Colorado had a perennially good offense regardless of how the players would play in a more neutral environment. Using OPS+, a park-adjusted measure of offense, KC was the worst offense in the AL, with Boston a close 2nd. 
 
I would actually plead that this board try to use park adjusted measures more often, because a line of 260/330/420 in Petco in 2014 is profoundly different than the same line in Fenway in 2004, and we just confuse each other if we throw around crude aggregate stats. Bill James talked about this like 30 years ago, and we have easy to use stats that account for these factors.  

 
Again, OPS(+) might be a better predictor of offense going forward, but runs scored is the actual measure of how good the Kansas City offense was this past season compared to the rest of the league. If you want to adjust runs scored for park effect, I guess you could do that, but if you want to say "Boston can make the playoffs next year with the worst offense in the league because Kansas City made the playoffs this year with the worst offense in the league," that's not actually true. Kansas scored more runs than six other teams in the AL. If they had scored the fewest runs in the league (i.e., had the "worst offense"), they would not be in the postseason. If you want to know why OPS+ isn't actually measuring Kansas' ability to score runs this season, I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the number 153.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I guess I'm generally uncomfortable with people just assuming the Red Sox can sign whichever free agent pitcher they choose - I think it might be a crowded market this offseason. The Yankees and Dodgers are both going to be looking for pitching (both starting and relief). The Tigers, Rangers, and Orioles will probably spend. The Mariners and Indians (and maybe even the Blue Jays) were close enough this year that it might be worth it for them to add another starter. And teams like the White Sox or Astros might just decide that they're close enough to make a run, and they have the money to make it happen. And that's without even mentioning the Cubs, who, given their combination of money and a deep stock of top-flight prospects, could probably acquire any player they want short of Mike Trout.
 
I'd rather they see what they can get for Owens, but even then I think we here might be underwhelmed by the return.

 

[Lowrielicious]

I guess I'm generally uncomfortable with people just assuming the Red Sox can sign whichever free agent pitcher they choose - I think it might be a crowded market this offseason. The Yankees and Dodgers are both going to be looking for pitching (both starting and relief). The Tigers, Rangers, and Orioles will probably spend. The Mariners and Indians (and maybe even the Blue Jays) were close enough this year that it might be worth it for them to add another starter. And teams like the White Sox or Astros might just decide that they're close enough to make a run, and they have the money to make it happen. And that's without even mentioning the Cubs, who, given their combination of money and a deep stock of top-flight prospects, could probably acquire any player they want short of Mike Trout.
 
I'd rather they see what they can get for Owens, but even then I think we here might be underwhelmed by the return.

Are the dodgers really going to be in the market for starting pitching?
 
They have Kershaw locked up until 2020. Ryu and Greinke until 2018. Haren has a player option at $11 million. I don't know what they have in the upper minors but I cant see them being in on Scherzer/Lester/Shields at all. Maybe one of the lower level guys like Masterson, but even that isn't exactly needed. The back end of the rotation wasn't instrumental in getting them to the postseason and certainly wasn't the reason they didn't get further.
Bullpen needs help obviously but they are loaded with top tier starters.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Are the dodgers really going to be in the market for starting pitching?
 
They have Kershaw locked up until 2020. Ryu and Greinke until 2018. Haren has a player option at $11 million. I don't know what they have in the upper minors but I cant see them being in on Scherzer/Lester/Shields at all. Maybe one of the lower level guys like Masterson, but even that isn't exactly needed. The back end of the rotation wasn't instrumental in getting them to the postseason and certainly wasn't the reason they didn't get further.
Bullpen needs help obviously but they are loaded with top tier starters.

 
I don't see why they wouldn't be. Even with their payroll last year, they had to bring in Kevin Correia and the former Fausto Carmona to make some August and September starts. No, it didn't cost them the division, but why take the chance?
 
EDIT: This presumes Ned Colletti stays on as GM. If Friedman takes over, then cancel what I said.

 

[lxt]

The problem I have with your concept, lxt, is not so much that you're proposing that the Sox spend a shit-ton of money this winter; there's a decent case to be made that that's a good idea. The problem I have is that you want to spend it in an unbalanced way. You want to spend $60-70M a year and give up significant prospect talent to add three SPs who are all at least borderline #1s--making Clay Buchholz your 4th starter, Joe Kelly your 5th starter, and a passel of promising young pitchers bullpen fodder or trade bait. But at the same time, you're willing to run a non-trivial risk of getting replacement level performance from 3B, a position that's arguably more important than any one SP, and certainly more important than your #3 or #4 SP.
 
Having an unbalanced team is one thing. Spending megabucks to have an unbalanced team is another. It doesn't make sense.

I'm not convinced that the Sox will get a 3B who would do better than Holt/Cecchini/Middlebrooks. Headley would be my choice but the Yankees would be insane to let him go. I don't think Panda is worth the $100million he wants and I'm not sure SF will let him go. A. Ramirez is 37 and will likely take the $14million mutual option. Hanley has stated he does not want to play 3B and is too valuable to LA. What does that leave? Do you think Yuk needs work?
 
I'm not really convinced the Sox would be all that unbalanced with Lester, Shields and Hamels were the starting three. However, I must acknowledge your point. The team was most certainly unbalanced this season and we all know the results.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm not convinced that the Sox will get a 3B who would do better than Holt/Cecchini/Middlebrooks. Headley would be my choice but the Yankees would be insane to let him go. I don't think Panda is worth the $100million he wants and I'm not sure SF will let him go. A. Ramirez is 37 and will likely take the $14million mutual option. Hanley has stated he does not want to play 3B and is too valuable to LA. What does that leave? Do you think Yuk needs work?

 
You do understand the concept of free agency, right?

 

[Rasputin]

I think they'll do it because they have a chance to dominate the division for the next couple of years and to make a significant run at the Series for at least the next two years. It gives them a powerful left-right rotation that will limit runs and give them a chance to win every night without the need to score 5 or more runs.

 
You don't spend a quarter of a billion dollars to dominate a division for two years.
 
Dominating a division for two years is a stupid goal.
 
The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before you die. You do that by being a very good team for a very long time. 
 
You're not going to be very good for a very long time if you sell off your young players and sign a ton of older free agents.
 
Sign Lester. Sign Shields if he'll come cheap enough (he probably won't) and let's get at this thing.

 

[LostinNJ]

Rasputin's right. The great thing about having a ton of young talent is that you can set yourself up to be a top contender for a long stretch because the talent is young and (being young) cheap. It means they can afford to spend on free agents when necessary, and even waste some money Yankees-style.
 
It's parity time. Nobody won more than 98 games this year, and nobody lost more than 98. As the Red Sox are (painfully) proving, big swings from one year to the next can happen when it's parity time. But also, a well-run franchise can contend year after year without spending gobs of money, if the leadership keeps the long view. The Cardinals watched Albert Pujols go, they kept their young talent, they're mostly home-grown, and they keep playing late into October. That's the model these days.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm not convinced that the Sox will get a 3B who would do better than Holt/Cecchini/Middlebrooks. Headley would be my choice but the Yankees would be insane to let him go. I don't think Panda is worth the $100million he wants and I'm not sure SF will let him go. A. Ramirez is 37 and will likely take the $14million mutual option. Hanley has stated he does not want to play 3B and is too valuable to LA. What does that leave? Do you think Yuk needs work?

 
Why is there all this love for Chase Headley?  He's had one great year, a couple of pretty decent ones, and a whole lot of meh.
 
Last two full seasons:  .246/.338/.387/.725, 109 ops+, 7.3 bWAR
 
I mean, you sure could do worse, but I don't see him as being this tremendous player.  

 

[MakMan44]

 
Why is there all this love for Chase Headley?  He's had one great year, a couple of pretty decent ones, and a whole lot of meh.
 
Last two full seasons:  .246/.338/.387/.725, 109 ops+, 7.3 bWAR
 
I mean, you sure could do worse, but I don't see him as being this tremendous player.  

For comparison, Pablo was at 114 OPS+ and 6 bWAR over the same stretch.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Again, OPS(+) might be a better predictor of offense going forward, but runs scored is the actual measure of how good the Kansas City offense was this past season compared to the rest of the league. If you want to adjust runs scored for park effect, I guess you could do that, but if you want to say "Boston can make the playoffs next year with the worst offense in the league because Kansas City made the playoffs this year with the worst offense in the league," that's not actually true. Kansas scored more runs than six other teams in the AL. If they had scored the fewest runs in the league (i.e., had the "worst offense"), they would not be in the postseason. If you want to know why OPS+ isn't actually measuring Kansas' ability to score runs this season, I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the number 153.

 
I understand what you're saying but I think a key question is, how did KC score more runs than six other teams while being the "worst offense in the league"?  You're saying that stealing a ton of bases helps, and of course you're right.  But if we're talking about what happens going forward, how likely is it that the "worst offense in the league" by measures other than runs will score the ninth most runs?

 

[gammoseditor]

 
Why is there all this love for Chase Headley?  He's had one great year, a couple of pretty decent ones, and a whole lot of meh.
 
Last two full seasons:  .246/.338/.387/.725, 109 ops+, 7.3 bWAR
 
I mean, you sure could do worse, but I don't see him as being this tremendous player.  

 
He fills two of our biggest needs.  A 3B and a LH bat.  He would only cost money.  Because his OPS is less than other options he'd probably come cheaper and for less years than he should.
 
Everything depends on the price.  If the price was exactly equal I'd rather have Sandoval.  I think Sandoval is going to get more in both years and $ per year, and he's going to cost a draft pick.  The difference isn't big enough for it to be worth it.  

 

[ivanvamp]

 
He fills two of our biggest needs.  A 3B and a LH bat.  He would only cost money.  Because his OPS is less than other options he'd probably come cheaper and for less years than he should.
 
Everything depends on the price.  If the price was exactly equal I'd rather have Sandoval.  I think Sandoval is going to get more in both years and $ per year, and he's going to cost a draft pick.  The difference isn't big enough for it to be worth it.  

 
 

For comparison, Pablo was at 114 OPS+ and 6 bWAR over the same stretch.

 
Yeah, fair points.

 

[LostinNJ]

 
He fills two of our biggest needs.  A 3B and a LH bat.  He would only cost money.  Because his OPS is less than other options he'd probably come cheaper and for less years than he should.

If he'll sign a one-year deal, absolutely. I'm holding out hope the long-range answer is Cechinni, maybe in a platoon with Middlebrooks.

 

[alwyn96]

 
Again, OPS(+) might be a better predictor of offense going forward, but runs scored is the actual measure of how good the Kansas City offense was this past season compared to the rest of the league. If you want to adjust runs scored for park effect, I guess you could do that, but if you want to say "Boston can make the playoffs next year with the worst offense in the league because Kansas City made the playoffs this year with the worst offense in the league," that's not actually true. Kansas scored more runs than six other teams in the AL. If they had scored the fewest runs in the league (i.e., had the "worst offense"), they would not be in the postseason. If you want to know why OPS+ isn't actually measuring Kansas' ability to score runs this season, I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the number 153.

 
Again, I guess I still disagree. OPS+ is measuring Kansas' hitting...in a neutral context. KC happened to outscore its many of its opponents with the worst offense in the league (by OPS+ anyway, there are other measures of park-adjusted offense as well) because it had one of the best pitching staffs in the league. That's why they're in the postseason. Looking at runs scored is useful if you're comparing the 2014 KC team to the 2013 KC team, but I think the park factors just wash out a lot of information when comparing between teams. Do you think comparing runs scored between Colorado and San Diego is going to give you a meaningful account of how good each offense is? 
 
I'm not sure why you're trying to be sneaky about the stolen base issue, though. Come out and say you think it makes a big difference if that's what you think! OPS+ doesn't take SB into account as cheekily as you like to, but the fact that it doesn't doesn't mean that park factors aren't an issue, and a much bigger one. 
 
At any rate, we're just arguing about whether KC's offense was 9th or 14th. It's not really that important - the point is, KC had a lousy offense, and they lucked into the playoffs on the back of their surprisingly good pitching and insane bullpen (and probably fielding). There's a lot of ways to make the playoffs. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

If he'll sign a one-year deal, absolutely. I'm holding out hope the long-range answer is Cechinni, maybe in a platoon with Middlebrooks.

 
I agree that a pillow contract would be nice, because I hold out similar hopes for Cecchini, but I don't think there's much likelihood Headley signs one. MLBTR is projecting his deal at 4/48, which seems reasonable, and while it's theoretically possible he could have another monster year and get a better deal than that, even at 31, it seems like the risks (injury, etc.) outweigh the likely benefits there.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

The Royals didn't walk or K either. I'd guess they had a lot of "productive outs" which may or may not have more value in this run scoring enviroment. The SB and especially at a high % definitely do. Worth noting the Royals are great defensively too, to go along with the bullpen.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Again, I guess I still disagree. OPS+ is measuring Kansas' hitting...in a neutral context. KC happened to outscore its many of its opponents with the worst offense in the league (by OPS+ anyway, there are other measures of park-adjusted offense as well) because it had one of the best pitching staffs in the league. That's why they're in the postseason. Looking at runs scored is useful if you're comparing the 2014 KC team to the 2013 KC team, but I think the park factors just wash out a lot of information when comparing between teams. 
 
I'm not sure why you're trying to be sneaky about the stolen base issue, though. Come out and say you think it makes a big difference if that's what you think! OPS+ doesn't take SB into account as cheekily as you like to, but the fact that it doesn't doesn't mean that park factors aren't an issue, and a much bigger one. 
 
At any rate, we're just arguing about whether KC's offense was 9th or 14th. It's not really that important - the point is, KC had a lousy offense, and they lucked into the playoffs on the back of their surprisingly good pitching and insane bullpen (and probably fielding). There's a lot of ways to make the playoffs. 

 
You're interested in measuring Kansas' hitting, I'm interested in measuring their scoring. If they had scored the fewest runs in the league but had the same pitching, they wouldn't be in the postseason. Going into the season if you had told me the Royals would have the lowest OPS+ in the AL, I would have expected them to have the fewest runs scored. They didn't. Either that's just noise, or it's tied into the other aspects of their offense. Probably both. But it's actually an important distinction - if it was just random noise that they happened to score a bunch more runs than they should have, then there's nothing to be learned. They got lucky, but you shouldn't expect a team with the worst hitting in the league to make the playoffs consistently. If, on the other hand, they were more efficient at converting runners on base into runs (through some combination of speed and productive outs), then you try to incorporate that into your prediction of how good their offense will be next year. They happened to be above average with runners in scoring position (both measured against themselves in other situations and against the league). That is unlikely to be predictive.

 

[alwyn96]

 
You're interested in measuring Kansas' hitting, I'm interested in measuring their scoring. If they had scored the fewest runs in the league but had the same pitching, they wouldn't be in the postseason. Going into the season if you had told me the Royals would have the lowest OPS+ in the AL, I would have expected them to have the fewest runs scored. They didn't. Either that's just noise, or it's tied into the other aspects of their offense. Probably both. But it's actually an important distinction - if it was just random noise that they happened to score a bunch more runs than they should have, then there's nothing to be learned. They got lucky, but you shouldn't expect a team with the worst hitting in the league to make the playoffs consistently. If, on the other hand, they were more efficient at converting runners on base into runs (through some combination of speed and productive outs), then you try to incorporate that into your prediction of how good their offense will be next year. They happened to be above average with runners in scoring position (both measured against themselves in other situations and against the league). That is unlikely to be predictive.

 
See, if you told me that KC had the lowest OPS+ in the league, I would not have expected them to necessarily have the lowest runs scored. Depending on which park factors you use, Kaufman Stadium favors hitters by a little bit or a fair amount. If you have two identical teams with identical OPS+, the team that plays in the hitters park is going to score more runs (or do the things that are highly correlated to scoring runs) than the team that plays in a pitchers park.
 
I agree that one shouldn't expect lousy hitting teams to make the playoffs consistently - it's a crazy historical anomaly! Maybe that's where our confusion is - I didn't mean to suggest that having a lousy offense was conducive to making the playoffs - just pointing out another example of how crazy and unpredictable baseball is that a weird, lousy hitting team like the Royals that used to be a laughingstock is now advancing through the playoffs. A lot of it is a crapshoot. That's why I think the Red Sox should probably go for it - you never know what's going to happen. I"m not sure many people expected the 2013 Red Sox to be very good going into the season, either. 

 

[lxt]

 
You do understand the concept of free agency, right?

Yes.

 

[lxt]

 
You don't spend a quarter of a billion dollars to dominate a division for two years.
 
Dominating a division for two years is a stupid goal.
 
The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before you die. You do that by being a very good team for a very long time. 
 
You're not going to be very good for a very long time if you sell off your young players and sign a ton of older free agents.
 
Sign Lester. Sign Shields if he'll come cheap enough (he probably won't) and let's get at this thing.

Dah!

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Yes.

 
Then why did you write as if the Yankees and Giants have the power to decide whether or not to retain their free agents?

 

[lxt]

Okay. This all start with a discussion of adding pitching and Biggum's wondering why I'd trade excess vets, young players and prospects when I can simply spend money to buy what I needed. I said I think the Sox need 3 front-line pitchers and that they'd need to use a combination of FA & Trades. I offered the 3 I would like along with an explanation as to that not being all that possible and offering a list of about 8 - 10 I see as being positive additions.
 
Then I was asked if the Sox would go after the 3 I mentioned mainly using cost as a factor. I replied yes. Then I was informed the 3 I want were borderline top of the rotation starters ... you got to be kidding. Then I was told it was doubtful that they could get all 3 with competing offers flying about ... Dah!. Then I was told the team would be unbalanced and that would make everything go arye. I said I'd like a solid 3B (mentioned preference for Headley) and Miller in the pen. However, with and the players available (Holt/CecchiniMiddlebrooks) that would not really be necessary, The suggestion that the Sox add Headley, if a 3B was needed, got me all kinds of stuff about offensive numbers and that Panda was a better choice. I liked Headley because of his solid, near gold glove defense. I mentioned that getting Panda & Headley would not be easy because SF & the Yankees would likely not make that easy. Then I was asked if I understood FA ... Dah!.
 
We wrap up with the Sox not wanting to limited themselves to two almost sure WS if they got all 3 starters & spending 1/4 billion (assume that poster meant contract life) to do it. Well, of course. I was talking justifying the 3 starters for the immediate future and building on from there.
 
I think that kind of sums everything up. So to return to the original line of the discussion. I think the Sox need 3 front-line pitchers to make it not just to the playoffs but the WS. Of those available a combination of trades and free agents will be needed. I would love to see Lester, Shields and Hamels but that would be a wish/dream/whatever and not likely reality. I like to add Miller to the pen and if forced to go after a 3B I'd take Headley. Are they available an obtainable, maybe.
 
Summary: No matter what anyone says there will be disagreement. Discussion are fun, open and entertaining and should not mean that others need to turn on their "flaming" responses. It's suppose to be fun and not a contest to see who can beat a response to death.
 
Does that cover it all?

 

[lxt]

 
Then why did you write as if the Yankees and Giants have the power to decide whether or not to retain their free agents?

I said it would be insane for the Yankees to let Headley go and the Giants will not let Panda go without a fight. That does not at all state that I think either team has the "power to decide". Simply, if Headley and/or Panda make it to free agency then the Sox should consider them as possible additions to the 2015 team, if a 3B in their eyes is deemed necessary.

 

[Rasputin]

 
Why is there all this love for Chase Headley?  He's had one great year, a couple of pretty decent ones, and a whole lot of meh.
 
Last two full seasons:  .246/.338/.387/.725, 109 ops+, 7.3 bWAR
 
I mean, you sure could do worse, but I don't see him as being this tremendous player.  

 
Given the rest of the Red Sox roster, someone who is good but not great at third is a tremendous asset. Just thinking offensively, the Sox are liable to be good but not great at left, center, right, third, second, and first while being great at short and DH. That's if they sign Headley, X is the stud we think he can be, and Vazquez doesn't hit at all. If Vazquez does hit at all, hey look, we've got a lineup that's not bad anywhere. 
 
You know, like we had in 2013.

 

[Rasputin]

Okay. This all start with a discussion of adding pitching and Biggum's wondering why I'd trade excess vets, young players and prospects when I can simply spend money to buy what I needed. I said I think the Sox need 3 front-line pitchers and that they'd need to use a combination of FA & Trades. I offered the 3 I would like along with an explanation as to that not being all that possible and offering a list of about 8 - 10 I see as being positive additions.
 
Then I was asked if the Sox would go after the 3 I mentioned mainly using cost as a factor. I replied yes. Then I was informed the 3 I want were borderline top of the rotation starters ... you got to be kidding. Then I was told it was doubtful that they could get all 3 with competing offers flying about ... Dah!. Then I was told the team would be unbalanced and that would make everything go arye. I said I'd like a solid 3B (mentioned preference for Headley) and Miller in the pen. However, with and the players available (Holt/CecchiniMiddlebrooks) that would not really be necessary, The suggestion that the Sox add Headley, if a 3B was needed, got me all kinds of stuff about offensive numbers and that Panda was a better choice. I liked Headley because of his solid, near gold glove defense. I mentioned that getting Panda & Headley would not be easy because SF & the Yankees would likely not make that easy. Then I was asked if I understood FA ... Dah!.
 
We wrap up with the Sox not wanting to limited themselves to two almost sure WS if they got all 3 starters & spending 1/4 billion (assume that poster meant contract life) to do it. Well, of course. I was talking justifying the 3 starters for the immediate future and building on from there.
 
I think that kind of sums everything up. So to return to the original line of the discussion. I think the Sox need 3 front-line pitchers to make it not just to the playoffs but the WS. Of those available a combination of trades and free agents will be needed. I would love to see Lester, Shields and Hamels but that would be a wish/dream/whatever and not likely reality. I like to add Miller to the pen and if forced to go after a 3B I'd take Headley. Are they available an obtainable, maybe.
 
Summary: No matter what anyone says there will be disagreement. Discussion are fun, open and entertaining and should not mean that others need to turn on their "flaming" responses. It's suppose to be fun and not a contest to see who can beat a response to death.
 
Does that cover it all?

 
Except for the part where the notion that the Sox need three top of the line starters is ridiculous, and the notion that they are going to go after three is even more so.

 

[lxt]

 
Except for the part where the notion that the Sox need three top of the line starters is ridiculous, and the notion that they are going to go after three is even more so.

Acceptable. It's an opinion, to be interpreted, as one sees fit. It could've been worse and I could have spent all this time and effort defending making a trade for Stanton.

 

[Rasputin]

Acceptable. It's an opinion, to be interpreted, as one sees fit. It could've been worse and I could have spent all this time and effort defending making a trade for Stanton.

 
The notion that you need three top of the line starters is not a reasonable one.

 

[lxt]

 
The notion that you need three top of the line starters is not a reasonable one.

I guess at this pointed I'd have to ask why is the notion unreasonable?