He wouldn't be under the LT anymore if he signed Moustakas. And Fielder was widely reported to be a directive of Illitch. The notion of DD of 'throw care to the wind' really needs to be toned down, if not did all together.
Can we really project that with any absolute certainty atm? Even the rough and conservative math here leaves it a pretty tight fit without that signing at best. Again, you seem to be drawing a pretty firm line in the sand there in terms of what we can and can't do next season if/when a potential need to look outside the organization arises.He wouldn't be under the LT anymore if he signed Moustakas.
If we all stipulate that it is theoretically possible that the Red Sox sign Mike Moustakas this off-season, will you stop with this? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to sign an expensive free agent to play 3B when we have already have a better player at that position making the minimum, but, yes, sure, maybe it'll happen anyway, you can't rule it out!!!It's not so much infatuation as I see it being DD, the same guy who once moved Miggy back across the diamond to make room for Fielder's bat, potentially keeping his options open while seeing how the market plays out everywhere. Moustakas has age, the current power #'s, and the signing while still under LT benefit in his corner. Which you can't completely discount as a possibility there imo, at least until the actual commitment #'s on everybody start getting thrown around this winter.
I would love Bour. He was feeble against lefties until this year, and seems to have figured it out.I'd like to see them make a run at trading for Justin Bour, who's about to hit arbitration with the Marlins. Travis would, you'd think, be part of the package going back, and I can imagine it would take Chavis as well, but that's a deal I'd make to fill a major hole for 2018 and beyond with a guy who seemed to be in the midst of a real breakout this year until he got hurt.
Thanks for this - very helpful!Recognizing that the title of this thread is the 2017 Lineup, it's clear that recent posts have morphed this into a discussion of whether there is a need to add a power bat in the offseason, and a general discussion of lineup construction. A major factor in both is the implications under the new CBA for exceeding the "luxury tax."
In reviewing the new agreement, the "luxury tax" (officially, the "competitive balance tax" exists at several different levels:
First, there is a "base tax thresholds" - the point over which some tax kicks in - $195m for '17, $197m for '18, rising to $210m in 2021. You pay one level of tax (20%) if you did not exceed in the prior year, 30% if you did in prior year, and 50% if you did in two (or more consecutive prior years. There is no loss of draft picks for exceeding the base tax threshold.
Potential loss of draft picks kicks in for exceeding higher thresholds, identified as "Surcharge Thresholds." There are two levels. The first surcharge threshold is $215m this year, $217 in '18, and $230 in 2021 - basically, this means you have a $20m cushion between when the base luxury tax kicks in and when you hit the first surcharge level. You pay an additional surcharge of 12% on the amount of payroll above the first surcharge level. But there is no draft pick penalty for exceeding the first surcharge level.
The second surcharge threshold is set at $40m above the base level ($20m above the first surcharge level) - so $237 for 2018. The tax rate is 45% of the amount by which you exceed this second threshold. If you exceed this second threshold, then you are penalized by having your first or second pick moved back in the draft. This is regardless of whether you are a first-time or serial CBT offender.
I think it's true that teams will be very reluctant to take the draft pick penalty for exceeding the second surcharge level. But with the trigger for this set at $237m for 2018 I don't think the Sox are in any great danger of hitting this. And up to that point, it's only money. In that respect, I think the Sox, as with most teams, will play the game where if the exceed the base level one year, they will try to get in back under the following year - or at worst, the year after that - in order to reset the tax rate and not get hit at 50%. [I'm still a bit flabbergasted that the MLBPA agreed to this scheme, or at least to the payroll numbers that trigger the base CBT and the two surcharge levels - the CBT level wasn't much higher than the last CBA, and the numbers don't escalate far or fast enough in the ensuring years. It would seem that the system will have a dampening affect on salaries by somewhat constraining the spending of the large market/high payroll teams.]
Bottom line: having successfully kept under the base CBT level this year, I think the Sox have plenty of flexibility to add payroll for 2018 and further years without worrying about running into the draft pick penalties.
Miggy was mid career though, and moving him over to 3b increased his value. And Fielder was a legit established beastly hitter.It's not so much infatuation as I see it being DD, the same guy who once moved Miggy back across the diamond to make room for Fielder's bat, potentially keeping his options open while seeing how the market plays out everywhere. Moustakas has age, the current power #'s, and the signing while still under LT benefit in his corner. Which you can't completely discount as a possibility there imo, at least until the actual commitment #'s on everybody start getting thrown around this winter.
Outside viewing everything in a "theoretically possible" manner, which is basically what the entire foundation of the staying under the LT dynasty puzzle you are trying to piece together here is (very optimistically) built on btw, are we also stipulating the existence of a very real possibility on the table that Devers doesn't pan out to be a great player? Or that his current defense and body type leads to a shorter expected shelf life mostly revolving around his ability to hit, and by moving him to first we don't actually end up sacrificing some guaranteed 10+ year studly solution at 3B many would like to wishfully project him out to be atm?If we all stipulate that it is theoretically possible that the Red Sox sign Mike Moustakas this off-season, will you stop with this? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to sign an expensive free agent to play 3B when we have already have a better player at that position making the minimum, but, yes, sure, maybe it'll happen anyway, you can't rule it out!!!
More realistically, though, I think they could do one of two things. 1) Sign another short-term Moreland type with the hope that, by the end of 2018, Sam Travis seems like the long-term answer. 2) Decide that Travis isn't the long-term answer and find one. And assuming that they go for option 2, and assuming that they are smart enough not to give Eric Hosmer a top-of-market contract, I'd like to see them make a run at trading for Justin Bour, who's about to hit arbitration with the Marlins. Travis would, you'd think, be part of the package going back, and I can imagine it would take Chavis as well, but that's a deal I'd make to fill a major hole for 2018 and beyond with a guy who seemed to be in the midst of a real breakout this year until he got hurt.
Agreed, minus the very emphasis.I agree that DD will address the weakness. That's his MO. I just very much doubt it's Moose.
You aren't factoring in all the other surrounding penalties there. As assuming you can keep the runaway payroll concern at bay, it's still essentially the years that you either follow that up by letting $50m+ free agents walk and/or signing $50m+ free agents that really matter imo. In that respect going over this winter isn't that big a deal if it's making the team better imo.Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I am under the impression that getting under the LT is a 2017 imperative - not necessarily a 2018 one (if successful in 2017).
The logic, as I see it, is as follows. If you try to get under the cap but miss by a little you have two repercussions: you pay tax on the small amount you went over and you move the counter (which determines the tax percentage) by a year (from 0 years in a row after 2017 to one year over after 2018).
In a "normal" year the team will try to stay under the cap, but if they're skating close to the edge (as they typically will) they may go just over. Every now and then, however, they may have a season when they have to go signifiantly over (maybe because they have a legitimate shot to win but because of circumstances - i.e. a key injury - they have to pay up for a key replacement or maybe because they have an opportunity one year to bid on a phenom free agent who would put them over before cap room opens up when other expensive contracts expire a year later). When these instances occur the tax percentage becomes relevant and it makes a big difference if they're in the 20% bracket or the 50% bracket.
In other words most years it won't matter if they go over by a little (since there's not much difference between 20% of $2.3m and 50% of $2.3m, to the Red Sox that is!) but in that rare year when they have to go over by $25m they would much rather pay at the 20% rate and so therefore after they've exceeded the cap for a couple of years need to have a year below to reset it.
Here's the author on Ramirez and Betts:By wRC+ they are producing a net 23 percent fewer runs. That's massive. That's the space between dominating Murderers Row types of teams and small ball, pitching-and-defense squads.
Anyway, it's worth a read. I know the Red Sox "power outage" has been a subject off and on this year, but it seems especially relevant after that dismal Baltimore series when they only scored one friggin' run off Wade Miley.The two most glaring issues are probably Ramirez and Betts. Ramirez because at this point he only really brings a bat to the table, and Betts because a year ago he seemed to cement himself as a superstar. When your defensive wizard also flashes 30-home run power, you can be excused if you get a little excited for the future. But this year, the power has faded (his ISO has fallen 40 points, to .176) and his plate discipline numbers have taken a shift
Holter! Look at his foot from the other night!HOLT! has a sense of humor
Updating this from TodayRun scoring breakdown
26 games where the sox scored 2 or fewer runs.....
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/inning_summary.cgi?request=1&year=2017&team_id=BOS
Offensive stats based on bases occupiedLate & Close are Plate Appearances in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.
I would not be surprised to learn that Mookie has been playing with an undisclosed injury. Immediately after last season, we learned that he had been playing, essentially every day, with an injured knee in September. A couple weeks ago he was reported to be limping with a swollen knee after running into a wall, but was in the lineup the next day. His problems this season started well before then, but it is further evidence of his keeping quiet about, and playing through, injuries.Mookie's splits sure make it look like he got hurt sometime in July...
That wouldn't be all that shocking.Mookie's splits sure make it look like he got hurt sometime in July...
This has always been an issue for me in 1-run game analysis. You're starting with a pretty small sample of games anyway, and then within that, as you point out, there's the fact that not all 1-run games are the same. It may look like a good bullpen, like KC, but for other teams it may be a not-so-good rest of the bullpen turning larger leads into 1 run games for the closer, or an offense falling just short after falling far behind.Similarly, there are also end-of-game strategies in play here. I think we've all seen two-run leads in the ninth where a batter walks, advances to second on defensive indifference, moves to third on a groundout, and scores on a fly ball. Teams may handle that sort situation a bit differently, being more or less willing to trade off that one run for more outs, vs. being extra careful not to bring the tying run to the plate.
...or a team with excellent pitching and poor offense, so games tend to have low scores and thus are more likely to have a 1-run difference in the score, or a team in an extreme pitcher's park, where the scores are again low and thus close, but the home team has home field advantage, etc.This has always been an issue for me in 1-run game analysis. You're starting with a pretty small sample of games anyway, and then within that, as you point out, there's the fact that not all 1-run games are the same. It may look like a good bullpen, like KC, but for other teams it may be a not-so-good rest of the bullpen turning larger leads into 1 run games for the closer, or an offense falling just short after falling far behind.
Ever since I was a little kid - I learned the hard way that anything can happen. So I agree with the underlined above. In 1973 I was a Big Red Machine fan and a Red Sox fan. In 1973, the 82 win New York Mets beat my favorite NL Team (99 wins Reds. Pythag right now shows 73 Reds was +12 vs Mets). I saw what the Mets pitching did in a series to a far superior Cinci Reds team. Late in the season you can see the Mets had "Seaver/Koosman/Matlack" becoming a formidable pitching trio. All the wins the Reds accumulated during the Reg Season, it didn't matter. The Reds much better team got beat by an 82 win team. When those Big Red Machine teams went against these type strong pitching teams, they struggled. Yet they could pummel the teams with "pretty good ot poor pitching.) Last year's Red Sox team was so similar to those Red Teams imo. I think there has been many examples of this. Yanks vs Mariners 2001 comes to mind the most. Mariners were far, far, far superior with Pythag.First, let me introduce myself. I'm David Kaiser, an historian and author. A few of you may know me as the author of Epic Season: The 1948 American League Pennant Race, which is still in print, although it appeared 19 years ago. I have recently written a new book, entitled Baseball Greatness: The Best Players and Teams According to Wins Above Average, 1901-2017. It was supposed to have come out months ago, but something went wrong, and it isn't out yet. As a result, I'm going to add material on the current season as soon as it is over. This post is a preview that I think people on this site will be interested in.
Anything can and does happen in the playoffs. Kansas City nearly won one World Series and did win another with teams no better than the 2017 Red Sox. But at the moment, the Red Sox are about 7 games worse than they were last year, and this doesn't bode well for their chances come October.
I know the flaws with OPS, but do you know the last time a Redsox team went a full season without a player at 300 PA and an OPS .800 or over? Mookie leads the team at .797. Our worst starter is Bogaerts, at .731. Such a weird team. Nunez and Devers do have 383 PA between them and somehow Devers qualified as our starting 3rd baseman on baseball reference when he had like 180 PA.Unless Mookie gets hot over the final week, it looks like this will be only the fifth Red Sox team in the history of the franchise, and the first since 1929, not to have a single player with at least 300 PA and an OPS+ over 110.
There are a lot more of those--13 including this year--because there have been periods where you could go over a 110 OPS+ without going over an .800 OPS -- the whole dead-ball era, for instance. The last one was 1992 (Tom Brunansky had a 118 OPS+ with just a .799 OPS).I know the flaws with OPS, but do you know the last time a Redsox team went a full season without a player at 300 PA and an OPS .800 or over?
I figured there would be more but 25 years is still a very long time, even if it isn't 88 years.There are a lot more of those--13 including this year--because there have been periods where you could go over a 110 OPS+ without going over an .800 OPS -- the whole dead-ball era, for instance. The last one was 1992 (Tom Brunansky had a 118 OPS+ with just a .799 OPS).
Hanley is fading and getting older and the fact that Xander has struggled masks the other big surprise with this list. I really expected more from JBJ going into this year. Was hoping for more consistency from him.Betts up to .800 OPS after tonight's game.
.892 Nunez
.871 Devers
.800 Betts
.794 Benintendi
.766 Pedroia
.752 Moreland
.746 Vazquez
.741 Ramirez
.739 Bradley. Jr.
.732 Bogaerts
JBJ has had two stints on the DL this year (knee and thumb), so it's possible, if not likely, that injuries are at the root of his struggles as well.X has looked more like himself in September. I really think he had some crucial injuries he "gutted" through. The only killer B I am concerned about for now is JBJ, who is in a decent slump.