"This too shall pass" ---- righting the ship for 2016

[kieckeredinthehead]

I was on board with the diversifying risk strategy the past few off seasons. But I don't think people are cherry picking individual results to criticize either the front office or the manager. This has been rehashed over and over. Individual moves are totally defensible at the time they were made; the total body of work, on the other hand, has been disastrous. When half of your acquisitions underperform, that's to be expected. When all of them flame out, there's something wrong with the model (front office) or execution (manager).

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Its not a stretch to guess that a clubhouse with Hanley in it is worse, check in on ex Marlins and Dodger teammates, they didn't seem to miss him when he walked out the door.  And Panda's big, guaranteed contract and expanding waist line with questionable work ethic isn't exactly the veteran leadership we are looking for the youngsters. His commentary towards the Giants front office and ex teammates, during spring training was less then impressive. 

Every time I hear this narrative I want to bang my head against a wall. How do we know this is true? The only person to say Panda was a crappy teammate was Aubrey Huff. I don't know anyone on record in regards to Hanley except Lester who mentioned he wouldn't get a pizza with him. Again not everyone will get along with every single person. If you want to say that Panda was overpaid then fine. If you want to say Hanley was a bad investment then that's fine too. But we know nothing about a clubhouse dynamic unless the media leaks it out like 2011 and 2012.

 

[Devizier]

Honestly, I'd like the team to take a step back and let the chips fall where they may. Take a hiatus from splashy signings or trades. They have been "loose aggressive" for too long now, and it's caught up with them this year. I'd like to see some more "tight" play, to extend that poker analogy.

 

[Rasputin]

Honestly, I'd like the team to take a step back and let the chips fall where they may. Take a hiatus from splashy signings or trades. They have been "loose aggressive" for too long now, and it's caught up with them this year. I'd like to see some more "tight" play, to extend that poker analogy.

I think there's a decent chance that happens, but it's going to take some good performing over the last couple months. We're going to have to find someone for right and first, and if Papi retires, left. Maybe Castillo and JBJ can fill the outfield, but we'd need something more than what we have.

 

[MikeM]

 
It shouldn't. Consistent playing time is the one thing JBJ needs and he's not getting that in Boston. Keeping him in Pawtucket is not necessarily an indication that they don't believe in him.

 
If it really boiled down to a simple matter of "they just needed consistent playing time" there has been plenty of opportunity for that mindset to break itself through. At least if a strong surrounding level of confidence indeed existed. It's not like you have a David Ortiz blocking that spot in RF, which has more or less been open for the taking most of this year.
 
(not like De Aza's rather fluky hot streak didn't die off a while back now either)

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

 
The revisionist history here is ridiculous.
 
Lester WAS a bad gamble. I'm not sure there is a reliever in the game that isn't a bad gamble over four years. There certainly aren't many of them, and a 30 year old who has been a good one for three years isn't it.
 
Hanley Ramirez came to the Sox and told them he would take less money to sign with them and was willing to change positions to come back. There isn't a team in the universe that has the budget and doesn't do that deal. Not the Sox. Not the Yankees. Not the Dodgers. Not the Cubs. Not anyone.
 
We knew Sandoval was overpaid when he signed, but the options were what, exactly? Chase Headley hasn't been good. Will Middlebrooks just got sent back to the minors. Hanley Ramirez would almost certainly have been a disaster defensively.
 
Cespedes and Wilson for Porcello was a good deal. This is the worst kind of hindsight. The absolute worst. To claim this was a bad deal, you have to believe that the worst half season in Porcello's career was somehow predictable. It wasn't, especially when you consider that his FIP and particularly the xFIP show that his sub par performance has been exacerbated by bad luck.
 
Meanwhile, Porcello's extension hasn't even kicked in yet. There's as good a chance that we'll look back on that as an excellent deal as a bad one, probably more so.
 
Lackey for Craig and Kelly, I dunno, could go either way. Even if Craig doesn't ever do anything but cost money, Kelly isn't a free agent until 2019. If he becomes nothing but a useful reliever in that time, it will more than make up for the third of a season of Lackey last year when Lackey was bad and the Sox weren't going anywhere, and this year where Lackey is slightly below average so far.
 
Masterson was terrible, but the team needed someone to pitch in the bigs until Rodriguez or Owens were ready. That's the result of trading RLDR and Webster for Miley which, despite my objections, has turned out pretty well. Were there better options than Masterson? Yeah, probably.
 
Castillo isn't even a year into a contract that will keep him here until at least 2019. Don't you think it's a bit early to be judging things? And you realize that you are simultaneously blaming a man for taking a risk on a Cuban player and for not taking the same risk on a different Cuban player?
 
The two year deal for Napoli was fine. We knew there was a chance his hip could blow up so we can't get too bitchy when something else makes his performance fall off the table. It was a two year deal, we got one good year and one bad one, it happens.
 
The Drew signing and moving X is the most revisionist thing going on here. Bogaerts wasn't moved to third because they signed Drew. Bogaerts was moved to third, and they signed Drew because Middlebrooks got hurt. 
 
The Breslow and Mujica deals were small deals for relievers and sometimes those go bad. That's why they get signed to small deals. 
 
Pierzynski was signed because they needed someone who was willing to take a very short deal to serve as a stopgap until Vazquez was ready. That limited the options. There were probably better options, but Pierzynski hit better before he came here, and after he left here.

 
There is no point to this type of analysis.  RESULTS matter.  We can't say that the intention of the front office was correct and thus beyond criticism if the results do not work out.  Every general manager's intention is to improve the club.  The thing that separates great GMs from not-so-great are results.  From the vantage point of results, too many of the Red Sox's moves (over the last 12 months) have not worked out, leading to another last place finish.
 
Also, you state, "this year where Lackey is slightly below average so far."  In actuality, Lackey is having an excellent year, he has an ERA+ of 130, his best mark since 2007.  A 130 ERA+ is way above average.
 
And it's completely disingenuous to suggest that the Cubs, Yankees, and Dodgers would have been dumb enough to move Hanley to LF.  There is no evidence to support that.  As such, the Red Sox own that decision, and they alone own that decision, the responsiblity can't be shuffled off to other organizations, arguing that they would have made the same dumb move.  The Yankees, who have prioritized OF defense with guys like Gardner, Ellsbury, and Young, would have made Hanley an OF?  I doubt it.  Did the Dodgers even make a major effort to keep Hanley?

 

[mauf]

If we're going to evaluate BC, let's make sure the Punto trade, the development of X and Betts, the Pedroia extension, the non-signing of Ellsbury, the signings of Koji, Vic and Napoli, and the strength of the farm system are factored in.

And you can't demand a results-based evaluation, then proceed to ignore the World Series they won on BC's watch.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
We knew Sandoval was overpaid when he signed, but the options were what, exactly? Chase Headley hasn't been good. Will Middlebrooks just got sent back to the minors. Hanley Ramirez would almost certainly have been a disaster defensively.
 
 

 
Not to pick on you because this is fairly common around here, but we don't really know what the "options" were for third base. In any offseason, there are more players available to be had than just the ones who reach free agency and the ones who actually do get traded. I agree that a lot of this griping is hindsight, but I think they could have conjured up a different third baseman if they really wanted to. 

 

[tomdeplonty]

 
There is no point to this type of analysis.  RESULTS matter.  We can't say that the intention of the front office was correct and thus beyond criticism if the results do not work out.

 
If you want to evaluate the quality of a decision, you look less at the result and more at whether the decision was based on a realistic assessment of the situation, that took the available evidence into account, and was arrived at with a rational process. The FO has much more information available to it than we do. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as luck, good and bad.

 

[BosRedSox5]

 
It shouldn't. Consistent playing time is the one thing JBJ needs and he's not getting that in Boston. Keeping him in Pawtucket is not necessarily an indication that they don't believe in him.

 
My argument is that they should have been giving him regular playing time in Boston weeks ago. If he's still not called up after the deadline, or if he's dealt before getting another chance in the majors, I'll be even more concerned about the franchise's approach. 

 

[dcmissle]

 
If you want to evaluate the quality of a decision, you look less at the result and more at whether the decision was based on a realistic assessment of the situation, that took the available evidence into account, and was arrived at with a rational process. The FO has much more information available to it than we do. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as luck, good and bad.

True, but his point about results mattering ultimately trumps everything. The RS have a lot of resources, a fine farm system and a big payroll. From this a lot is expected and reasonably so.

You can have a run of back luck that reflects more poorly on the brass than is warranted. You can also have years where everything goes right. We have had both, and the big picture evaluation should include all relevant factors.

I am not an advocate of firing Ben or anyone else right now because I don't believe these sorts of decisions are well made in the current environment and because I have no reasonable assurance that the new guys would be better than the old.

But this can't continue. Some of the moves that have worked out badly were criticized at the time. And if this transitional period is not handled successfully, the brass are going to be gone -- even if a transaction by transaction analysis demonstrates that each decision going forward was quite reasonable.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Honestly, I'd like the team to take a step back and let the chips fall where they may. Take a hiatus from splashy signings or trades. They have been "loose aggressive" for too long now, and it's caught up with them this year. I'd like to see some more "tight" play, to extend that poker analogy.

 
They tried this in 2014 remember and got killed for it when the kids didn't produce.  Funny that the Red Sox have tried a variety of ways to build players - from overpromoting their farm system to mid-tier FAs to Hanley and Pablo and for one year everything worked out but for two years nothing worked out.
 
As I said before, I don't think the problem is Ben's acquisitions because there's always going to be a substantial chance that acquisitions don't work out.  The problem is that while the Red Sox have drafted well - this 2014 article says that they lead the league in WARP by draft - those players aren't playing for the Red Sox.
 

 
My argument is that they should have been giving him regular playing time in Boston weeks ago. If he's still not called up after the deadline, or if he's dealt before getting another chance in the majors, I'll be even more concerned about the franchise's approach. 

 
My new theory is that Ben is waiting until the end of the trade deadline to keep JBJ's value up high before giving him a shot in the majors.  The next question is whether that means JBJ is going have to wait until September 1 or whether Ben will bring him up in August.

 

[AB in DC]

But this can't continue. Some of the moves that have worked out badly were criticized at the time. And if this transitional period is not handled successfully, the brass are going to be gone -- even if a transaction by transaction analysis demonstrates that each decision going forward was quite reasonable.

 
Right.  There has to be _some_ change.  Whether that's firing Cherington, Baird, and/or Farrell or some other approach, I don't think we can say from the outside.  But if no one gets canned, the FO needs to give the fanbase some reason to believe that things will be different going forward -- not just the usual "we're not satisfied and we vow to do better" pablum.

 

[Super Nomario]

Lester WAS a bad gamble. I'm not sure there is a reliever in the game that isn't a bad gamble over four years. There certainly aren't many of them, and a 30 year old who has been a good one for three years isn't it.

Strictly speaking, pretty much any free agent signing is a bad gamble. We've seen this (so far, at least) in both the players the Red Sox have allowed to walk and in the ones that they've signed.
 

We knew Sandoval was overpaid when he signed, but the options were what, exactly? Chase Headley hasn't been good. Will Middlebrooks just got sent back to the minors. Hanley Ramirez would almost certainly have been a disaster defensively.

There are always options. The Red Sox, like pretty much every team, have had a number of holes to fill over the past several offseasons, and they've rarely handed out 5-year, $95 MM deals to fill them. They had to fill 4/5ths of the starting rotation in the offseason and did it with a short term deal and three trades. Later in your post you excuse a bunch of misses on short-term deals by basically saying, "yeah, those guys sucked, but they didn't want to get tied to something long-term." They've gone to considerable lengths to avoid handing out deals like Sandoval's in many other situations, so it's curious that this is the big plunge they took, and it looks like a huge mistake so far.
 

If you've been paying attention I don't think it's actually that difficult, but it does require assuming that the FO has a bit more knowledge than those of is the peanut gallery, and that just because they do something that some percentage of the fan base doesn't agree with or doesn't work out in the short term, they're not necessarily idiots (this seems to be something SoSH has a problem with).
 
Pulling my idea out of the trade rumor thread, I think the FO is looking at the hyper-inflationary cost of an "ace" as problematic when you factor in likely production, both $/ WAR vs a comparably paid position player and also mapped vs the life of the contract with potential risk of injury. Looking at the fWAR leaderboards even the top "ace" is over a win behind the top position player, so the impact of elite SP doesn't get you  quite as much for your money as it does from someone playing 150+ games. This might be a problem with WAR's calculations, or it could just be that people are biased and want to assign extra value, necessity, "clutchiness" or whatever to factors that are outside winning baseball games during the regular 162 game season (this is the bucket I think you drop the need for a "proven ACE!"in the playoffs into). Since signing a top-tier FA SP means paying for past performance I think it's reasonable to look at what you're likely to get from a player when assessing the deal.

OK, but then you still need to find players to start for you, and the ones they've found have been terrible. It's one thing to say, "we don't want to pay big money to Lester or Scherzer," but if that then leads you to trading for Rick Porcello and then signing him to an expensive extension, I question how much you're really reducing risk or maximizing WAR/$.
 

JWH and the rest of ownership is probably going to look at roster construction the same way they do any investment portfolio: diversify risk and focus on core areas of need to attain the best performance with the resources at hand. This doesn't mean that they're clairvoiant and if things fall into the bottom percentile of outcomes it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole model is fucked, but It also doesn't mean that it's not. IMO with so much of baseball coming down to random outcomes people aren't spending enough time looking at the model and are spending way to much time just looking at short term individual results. My guess is that the reason Ben or Farrel don't look to be on the hot seat is because ownership isn't looking at things the same way as many here.

I think the bolded is significant because it seems to frame a lot of the argument here. We don't know a lot about the inner workings, so the two sides of the "is the front office competent?" question have basically drawn their battle lines around whether the FO deserves the benefit of the doubt. If you think they do deserve the benefit of the doubt, it's easy to explain away the disaster deals and contracts as bad luck or good ideas that didn't pan out; if you think they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, it's easy to point to the FO's Napoli-esque batting average and wonder if we are one of those dumb teams we laughed at for a decade.

 

[OCD SS]

 
Not to pick on you because this is fairly common around here, but we don't really know what the "options" were for third base. In any offseason, there are more players available to be had than just the ones who reach free agency and the ones who actually do get traded. I agree that a lot of this griping is hindsight, but I think they could have conjured up a different third baseman if they really wanted to. 

 
Try actually coming up with a name.
 
Who is the nebulous 3Bman who projected better than Panda who could've just been plucked from the aether?
 

My new theory is that Ben is waiting until the end of the trade deadline to keep JBJ's value up high before giving him a shot in the majors.  The next question is whether that means JBJ is going have to wait until September 1 or whether Ben will bring him up in August.

 

 I've been thinking this for the past month, but I'm assuming it's only going to last until the trade deadline; any deal to pry away a starting pitcher probably includes JBJ, so they may as well keep him on ice through July, or maybe the first part of August if they're waiting to clear Victorino. If he's not playing by then I think hiding him will defeat the purpose and actually start to hurt his trade value and/ or impede his further development.

 

[Plympton91]

 
Try actually coming up with a name.
 
Who is the nebulous 3Bman who projected better than Panda who could've just been plucked from the aether?

 
Just in terms of 2015, or in terms of risk-adjusted expected WAR/$ over the 5 years of the $100 million commitment?  The former probably didn't exist, I agree.  But, in the latter case, Brock Holt is easily the winner.  For those who say RSN wouldn't have stood for inserting Brock Holt as the starting 3Bman, then I think signing Jed Lowrie for less than a quarter of what Sandoval got, with Brock Holt and Garin Cecchini backing up the seemingly inevitable injury would have been fine. 
 
They could have ponied up trade chips.  In the minor deals category, They could have gone after Danny Valencia to platoon with Holt or Cecchini, especially once Toronto got Donaldson.  If they wanted a major middle of the order splash, they could have tried to get Troy Tulowitski who was rumored to be on the market and kept Bogaerts at 3B,  If 3B was a priority upgrade for 2015, they could have been more foresighted and targeted Matt Duffy in their trade of Peavy to SF last winter, including more value on our end if necessary.   
 
Finally, they could have punted on 2015 after they lost Lester and played some AAAA person there if Cecchini and Holt (and Marrero and Coyle) both flopped, and waited for another opportunity to fill the position through a trade or the minor leagues.   That 3 of the 4 people in that previous sentence have completely stalled at AAA is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the $100 million player development machine, either.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

But, the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk to pay him $22 million a year for 4 years; even though they knew him as well as anyone else, when there was plenty of evidence suggesting he wasn't the type of person who would take hours of extra outfield work a week until he learned how to be average or better. 
 
And then they signed another guy for $20 million a year who showed repeatedly that he either couldn't or wouldn't keep himself in shape to play baseball even when he had a massive financial incentive to do so.  But the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk that he'd do that even after they gave him $100 million guaranteed.
 
But John Lester was a bad risk.  And Andrew Miller was a bad risk. 
 
I'm sure someone understands that calculus.

 
The calculus was that unlike age, for which we have pretty good models, you can't project Ramirez's sloth, or Sandoval's gluttony. In seeking to avoid risk during the last two offseasons, the FO has ended up just taking on a different set of risks.
 

I think the issue is that the Red Sox have had to acquire too many players and have not been able to develop any.  With all of the holes they have had to fill, there are going to be hits and misses.  It just seems that almost all of the hits were in one year and almost all of the misses in the next two.

 
This post is from another thread but IMO it hits the nail on the head.
 
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Management has promised the fans a "reload" instead of a rebuild, and has stated that they are seeking young cost controlled starting pitching. Well, if they're young and good, they're not available. Trying to be in the thick of the pennant race using mostly external additions leaves you dealing in markets that are fraught with financial risk. Premier free agents, retreads, internationals, morbidly obese third basemen, etc.
 
I don't think the FO are idiots, but in trying to balance financial constraints with the constraints their roster has in the present, they've taken on a battle they can't win. And shelling out 200M for an older pitcher this offseason, or trading away young players, isn't fixing that.

 

[grimshaw]

 I've been thinking this for the past month, but I'm assuming it's only going to last until the trade deadline; any deal to pry away a starting pitcher probably includes JBJ, so they may as well keep him on ice through July, or maybe the first part of August if they're waiting to clear Victorino. If he's not playing by then I think hiding him will defeat the purpose and actually start to hurt his trade value and/ or impede his further development.

I actually think they are going to move Bradley with one of their replacement level guys to make it more palatable for a C+ prospect.
And then he'll go be "good" Lorenzo Cain elsewhere, and I'll run over a litter of puppies with my Honda lawnmower.

 

[BosRedSox5]

If the front office trades JBJ without giving him another shot on the big league roster, it will be infuriating. What the hell is the point of all this suckage if we can't be a little patient. We're losing, the fanbase is resigned to losing this season. 

Yes, like WBCD said, they got killed in 2014 for playing the kids and watching them struggle, but this is different. We're not riding high on a World Series. We're foundering, facing two straight last place finishes. The fans will be patient with the team because expectations are low. Selling JBJ without giving him another shot doesn't make sense because we can literally play him in every game from now until the end of the season with minimal risk. We're not competing this season, so the fans aren't going to be pissed if Bradley hits .150. 

To my mind, playing JBJ would do two things:

1.) It would make games fun to watch. Sure, that's as basic as it gets, but what point is there to continuing to invest in the Red Sox through tickets and TV if the games aren't fun? Bradley is fun to watch. 2014 sucked, but some of the best moments of the season were his high flying catches and the laser cannon mounted to his right shoulder.
 
2.) It would give the Red Sox a chance to see if he can be a part of the 2016 outfield. He comes with some big question marks offensively. Why not let him answer those questions? It's not like we're going to regret missing out on a C prospect because we didn't trade Bradley when his value was high because he had an .850 OPS in the minors. If he doesn't hit, he settles into a fringe major leaguer, 4th OF type. He hits lefty so that should keep him employed as a bench guy. 
 
If you look at major league playing time as a resource to be spent on players, we have 63 games left, times 8 positions. Shane Victorino is leaving next season no matter what. His growth, rehab and development are not useful to the Red Sox, so they're spending resources on him in the form of games. The only reason to do this seems to be his potential trade value. Maybe you can say the same with De Aza. Get rid of them and we have two OF positions freed up... and those games can be freely spent on players who will be around in 2016 and beyond. Bradley has already shown to be among the elite defensive CF in the game. Let's see if his bat has caught up, he's still only 25.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Finally, they could have punted on 2015 after they lost Lester and played some AAAA person there if Cecchini and Holt (and Marrero and Coyle) both flopped, and waited for another opportunity to fill the position through a trade or the minor leagues.   That 3 of the 4 people in that previous sentence have completely stalled at AAA is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the $100 million player development machine, either.

 
The $100 million player development machine has been doing just fine - see my post above - but problem is that the players are producing for other teams other than the Red Sox.
 
It's interesting you bring up that phrase again, though I'm not sure it's been restated since Theo left.  From a macro level, there is a fundamental contradiction between being a "100 million dollar development machine" and aiming for the playoffs every year.  The problem is that while you are figuring out which of the prospects can actually play, the team has to cycle through the ones that can't.  Letting WMB and JBJ get 500 ABs is pretty important to figuring out whether they can play, but it's not conducive to winning.  Particularly when the Sox aren't getting (well until recently) top of the draft talents.
 
While the last two seasons have sucked - and 2016 probably won't be a picnic either - from a long-range view, these actually could be great years for the Sox's future.  Assuming the Sox continue to draft players who become contributors to the major leagues - and manage to draft or sign a superstar or two - this prolonged period of suckiness - and a WS ring! - could set the Red Sox up for a dynasty in the making.
 
Wouldn't it be amazing if the Sox sent X, Mookie, ERod, Moancada, Devers and Trey Ball (had to throw him in) to the 2018 All-Star game, with Benintendi and Espinosa and Chavis and Kopech and others at AAA, and were on pace to win 95 games?  Think about how much fun this board will be!

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I actually think they are going to move Bradley with one of their replacement level guys to make it more palatable for a C+ prospect.
And then he'll go be "good" Lorenzo Cain elsewhere, and I'll run over a litter of puppies with my Honda lawnmower.

 
Why would they do that?  Is the few million dollars of salary relief for the rest of this year worth giving up a guy with Bradley's potential in order to get a "C+ prospect" in return?  Bradley alone is worth more than a C+ prospect.

 

[Plympton91]

 
The $100 million player development machine has been doing just fine - see my post above - but problem is that the players are producing for other teams other than the Red Sox.

 
That implies they either didn't properly value them and thus failed to get good enough return in trades (Lowrie, Reddick), or didn't develop them as well as the teams they went to (Moss, Strickland).
 
And remind me which current #1 and #2 starters were once Red Sox farmhands, since that is what this team needs more than anything else.
 
 

 
Wouldn't it be amazing if the Sox sent X, Mookie, ERod, Moancada, Devers and Trey Ball (had to throw him in) to the 2018 All-Star game, with Benintendi and Espinosa and Chavis and Kopech and others at AAA, and were on pace to win 95 games?  Think about how much fun this board will be!

 
Turn the clock back to 2012, replace the names with Webster, Workman, et al., and the same post was made.  There are only 8 positions on the diamond and 3 key slots in the starting rotation and 3 key slots in the bullpen, the object is to find the 14 best players for those slots that you can find with the assets you have.   They're not doing that.

 

[OCD SS]

 
Just in terms of 2015, or in terms of risk-adjusted expected WAR/$ over the 5 years of the $100 million commitment?  The former probably didn't exist, I agree.  But, in the latter case, Brock Holt is easily the winner.  For those who say RSN wouldn't have stood for inserting Brock Holt as the starting 3Bman, then I think signing Jed Lowrie for less than a quarter of what Sandoval got, with Brock Holt and Garin Cecchini backing up the seemingly inevitable injury would have been fine. 
 
They could have ponied up trade chips.  In the minor deals category, They could have gone after Danny Valencia to platoon with Holt or Cecchini, especially once Toronto got Donaldson.  If they wanted a major middle of the order splash, they could have tried to get Troy Tulowitski who was rumored to be on the market and kept Bogaerts at 3B,  If 3B was a priority upgrade for 2015, they could have been more foresighted and targeted Matt Duffy in their trade of Peavy to SF last winter, including more value on our end if necessary.   
 
Finally, they could have punted on 2015 after they lost Lester and played some AAAA person there if Cecchini and Holt (and Marrero and Coyle) both flopped, and waited for another opportunity to fill the position through a trade or the minor leagues.   That 3 of the 4 people in that previous sentence have completely stalled at AAA is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the $100 million player development machine, either.

 
Applying easy hindsight and assuming that Panda hitting 60 points of OPS in the first year of the deal at age 28 isn't something I think anyone really expected, but that's not the bar the Sox had to clear in the offseason. Cecchini and Marrero and hitting around what Pablo is, but in AAA. Adding Lowrie or Valencia would've had everyone screaming that they were going cheap. I have a very hard time seeing you accepting them punting last offseason; Lester certainly isn't worth the swing between first and last...
 
Who were you willing to give up for Tulo, and are you willing to eat the insane back end of his deal as well? He looks like just as good a candidate to break down. Giving up Mookie & Swihart for Donaldson seems like a better idea (although not one I would've done).

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Turn the clock back to 2012, replace the names with Webster, Workman, et al., and the same post was made.  There are only 8 positions on the diamond and 3 key slots in the starting rotation and 3 key slots in the bullpen, the object is to find the 14 best players for those slots that you can find with the assets you have.   They're not doing that.

 
I'm going to assume you're not being intentionally obtuse and take you through this one more time.
 
The point is that in 2012 we had prospects but we had no idea who could play and who could not.  And quite frankly, if the 2012 team hadn't tanked, we may not have ever known.
 
But fast forward to 2015, and we now have a pretty good idea of the true major league talent level of a good number of young players like WMB, Webster, De La Rosa, Renaudo, X, Mookie, ERod and possibly even Swihart, Wright, and Bradley.  (I'm sure I'm missing a few.)  Why?  Because they all have gotten extended chances at the major league level due to the Red Sox having sucked for three of the past four years (or four in the past five years if you count next year), something that wouldn't have happened if the Red Sox had been in contention for those years.

Say what you want about evaluating minor league talent, but outside of a few can't miss prospects, there isn't a human being alive that is going to be consistently able to tell which minor leaguer is going to become A-Gon, Rizzo, Jake Arrieta, or Chris Archer, and which is going to become WMB, Allan Webster, or Travis Snider.  The only way to be sure is to put them in the major leagues and see what happens.  But a team is going to lose a lot games figuring out who belongs to which group.

And that's why getting to the playoffs every year and developing one's own players is mostly a contradiction in terms.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
Not to pick on you because this is fairly common around here, but we don't really know what the "options" were for third base. In any offseason, there are more players available to be had than just the ones who reach free agency and the ones who actually do get traded. I agree that a lot of this griping is hindsight, but I think they could have conjured up a different third baseman if they really wanted to. 

 
The Sox could have matched, if not exceeded the package Toronto sent to Oakland for Donaldson. 
 
Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn't even hear anything about the Sox being in on Donaldson. LHH/roster balance be damned, he's really the one that got away. This is the 3rd time in 5 years that the Jays have struck gold on a power hitter.

 

[jscola85]

As a cheaper stopgap, Luis Valbuena was traded for Dexter Fowler, which is hardly an overwhelming offer.  He's been replacement-level, but at least he's barely making any money.  Yunel Escobar was traded to the Nats for Tyler Clippard and has zero long-term commitment.
 
Free agency was not the only solution for the issues at 3rd.

 

[ivanvamp]

What do you guys think of Sam Travis?  Is he a guy we may think ends up being a solid major league 1b?  

 

[ivanvamp]

 
I'm going to assume you're not being intentionally obtuse and take you through this one more time.
 
The point is that in 2012 we had prospects but we had no idea who could play and who could not.  And quite frankly, if the 2012 team hadn't tanked, we may not have ever known.
 
But fast forward to 2015, and we now have a pretty good idea of the true major league talent level of a good number of young players like WMB, Webster, De La Rosa, Renaudo, X, Mookie, ERod and possibly even Swihart, Wright, and Bradley.  (I'm sure I'm missing a few.)  Why?  Because they all have gotten extended chances at the major league level due to the Red Sox having sucked for three of the past four years (or four in the past five years if you count next year), something that wouldn't have happened if the Red Sox had been in contention for those years.
Say what you want about evaluating minor league talent, but outside of a few can't miss prospects, there isn't a human being alive that is going to be consistently able to tell which minor leaguer is going to become A-Gon, Rizzo, Jake Arrieta, or Chris Archer, and which is going to become WMB, Allan Webster, or Travis Snider.  The only way to be sure is to put them in the major leagues and see what happens.  But a team is going to lose a lot games figuring out who belongs to which group.
And that's why getting to the playoffs every year and developing one's own players is mostly a contradiction in terms.

 
 
Ideally, you follow the Braves' model in the 90s.  Every year it seemed that they added one or two quality guys from their system.  Not trying to add tons of them in any single year.  This way they could survive the growing pains of the new additions.  One of the problems, if you can call it that, of the Sox having a ton of quality guys all coming up at once, is that you've either gotta use them all, which probably is going to be a painful experience, or you've got to trade some.  

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
 
Ideally, you follow the Braves' model in the 90s.  Every year it seemed that they added one or two quality guys from their system.  Not trying to add tons of them in any single year.  This way they could survive the growing pains of the new additions.  One of the problems, if you can call it that, of the Sox having a ton of quality guys all coming up at once, is that you've either gotta use them all, which probably is going to be a painful experience, or you've got to trade some.  

 
Or more recently, the Red Sox themselves from 2005 through 2010ish...Youkilis, Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Masterson, Lowrie.  And that's just who manifested on their own roster.  Hanley and Anibal Sanchez could certainly be included on the list as well.
 
Their luck just ran out after that...Lars Anderson flopped, Ryan Westmoreland had his issues, and so on.  Which led to dipping deeper into the free agency and trade markets (Lackey, Crawford, Gonzalez, etc).  The Punto trade served as a good reset button with the crop of prospects on the horizon.  As strange as it sounds, winning the title in 2013 was the kink in the plan.  It raised expectations and perhaps sped up the clock on getting the young guys up and producing.  Maybe without the title, there isn't the pressure to repeat last year or rebound from that failure this year.  Maybe a 3rd or 4th place finish in 2013 begets a 2nd or 3rd place finish in 2014 as the team builds from within with patience (both from the front office and the fan base).  Who knows?

 

[pdub]

An interesting proposal by Bleacher Report. 
 
BOS gets Carlos Carrasco ($40M through 2020), Nick Swisher (salary absorb, $15M through 2016)
CLE gets two midlevel prospects
 
Does this pass muster? Its interesting no doubt. Swisher could theoretically slide into 1B to replace Napoli. We'd only be on the hook for one year. We get Carrasco as our young, cost-controllable ace. Curious to see if you guys think this is a fair and realistic deal. 

 

[MikeM]

 
Applying easy hindsight and assuming that Panda hitting 60 points of OPS in the first year of the deal at age 28 isn't something I think anyone really expected, but that's not the bar the Sox had to clear in the offseason. Cecchini and Marrero and hitting around what Pablo is, but in AAA. Adding Lowrie or Valencia would've had everyone screaming that they were going cheap. I have a very hard time seeing you accepting them punting last offseason; Lester certainly isn't worth the swing between first and last...
 

 
So it was acceptable to "go cheap" on both Lester and the act of replacing him, but it wouldn't have been to take the same stance on our 3rd baseman replacement to the black hole that was already there?
 
Why should the Panda signing be different from any other acquisition possibility that gets routinely dismissed here based on what's deemed a terrible contract factor? The "we knew flat out that it was a bad high cost signing, but it's cool because there were no visible alternatives" defense being applied here doesn't really seem all that consistent imo. 

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
Try actually coming up with a name.
 
Who is the nebulous 3Bman who projected better than Panda who could've just been plucked from the aether?
 

 
No, I won't come up with a name, because that is precisely my point: we have no idea who was and wasn't discussed. Therefore, I don't think we can just sit here and say "Sandoval sucks, but what was the alternative?" And I don't think we can talk about projections, because my hope is that the Red Sox' internal system is more sophisticated than any of the publicly available projections. I think they signed Sandoval because they thought he'd be a good fit for whatever reason, not because they surveyed the landscape, threw their hands up, and said "yeah, fine, this guy." 

 

[Pilgrim]

An interesting proposal by Bleacher Report. 
 
BOS gets Carlos Carrasco ($40M through 2020), Nick Swisher (salary absorb, $15M through 2016)
CLE gets two midlevel prospects
 
Does this pass muster? Its interesting no doubt. Swisher could theoretically slide into 1B to replace Napoli. We'd only be on the hook for one year. We get Carrasco as our young, cost-controllable ace. Curious to see if you guys think this is a fair and realistic deal. 

. Not really. Carrasco's surplus value is many times what's left on Swishers deal. Theyd still have to pony up one or two top prospects.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
The Sox could have matched, if not exceeded the package Toronto sent to Oakland for Donaldson. 
 
Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn't even hear anything about the Sox being in on Donaldson. LHH/roster balance be damned, he's really the one that got away. This is the 3rd time in 5 years that the Jays have struck gold on a power hitter.

 
It's been reported repeatedly since the trade that the Sox called on Donaldson and were told he wasn't available. It's also been noted by anyone paying attention that the Sox did not have a piece equal to Brett Lawrie, which was needed because Beane wasn't doing a fire sale, he was trying to retool on the fly.
 
So, no, there's actually very little reason to believe the Sox could have acquired Donaldson, but please continue promoting the narrative that the Sox were asleep at the switch on that one. 

 

[jscola85]

. Not really. Carrasco's surplus value is many times what's left on Swishers deal. Theyd still have to pony up one or two top prospects.

 
Yeah, Carrasco is making $37.5M through his two option years for 2016-2020.  He's projected to be worth ~3 WAR/yr I would suspect, which at ~$7M/WAR, means he should be paid ~$100M over those five years.  Covering the ~$15M or so of Swisher's deal only covers a small portion of his surplus value.  I'm sure it would reduce the asking price, but not by a great deal.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

Honestly, I'd like the team to take a step back and let the chips fall where they may. Take a hiatus from splashy signings or trades. They have been "loose aggressive" for too long now, and it's caught up with them this year. I'd like to see some more "tight" play, to extend that poker analogy.

 
Just to play devil's advocate, let's say that BC & Co. envision a contender in 2017 and are strategizing for that goal. What you've got is basically a rebuild in 2015 with lump-taking-or-better seasons devoted to Betts, Xander, Vazquez (Swihart) and the pitchers that would be ready at various points during the year: EdRod, Johnson, Owens, Barnes.
 
To that end, they've stayed loyal and not traded away any chips (I guess you could argue RDLR and Webster for Miley, but not really. Miley's only 28 too.)
 
So if you buy in that 2015 was a rebuilding year, I think they pulled the FA spending spree on Hanley and Panda based on two factors: Sox are a rich team and could afford to throw a few names on the field to sell tickets, considering both project to be useful when we're ready to contend. Hanley at DH (still love that idea) and Panda at 3B or 1B if he proves overweight and immobile.
 
At any rate, I'm not too hung up on the Year 1 letdown of Hanley and Panda. I took the signings in the context of 1. a rebuilding year with 2. future benefit that 3. gave them a puncher's chance to contend (a la 2013) if all went well. 

 

[Devizier]

 
They tried this in 2014 remember and got killed for it when the kids didn't produce.  Funny that the Red Sox have tried a variety of ways to build players - from overpromoting their farm system to mid-tier FAs to Hanley and Pablo and for one year everything worked out but for two years nothing worked out.

 
I didn't really hate last year. I felt that many around here were overvaluing Bradley, but that was my only real issue with the team. I also recognized that they were unlikely to contend last year. My point of opposition to their approach last offseason was not keeping Ellsbury, but I didn't feel especially strongly about it, and with the knee injury, that contract isn't looking so great this year.

 

[Plympton91]

 
Just to play devil's advocate, let's say that BC & Co. envision a contender in 2017 and are strategizing for that goal. What you've got is basically a rebuild in 2015 with lump-taking-or-better seasons devoted to Betts, Xander, Vazquez (Swihart) and the pitchers that would be ready at various points during the year: EdRod, Johnson, Owens, Barnes.
 
To that end, they've stayed loyal and not traded away any chips (I guess you could argue RDLR and Webster for Miley, but not really. Miley's only 28 too.)
 
So if you buy in that 2015 was a rebuilding year, I think they pulled the FA spending spree on Hanley and Panda based on two factors: Sox are a rich team and could afford to throw a few names on the field to sell tickets, considering both project to be useful when we're ready to contend. Hanley at DH (still love that idea) and Panda at 3B or 1B if he proves overweight and immobile.
 
At any rate, I'm not too hung up on the Year 1 letdown of Hanley and Panda. I took the signings in the context of 1. a rebuilding year with 2. future benefit that 3. gave them a puncher's chance to contend (a la 2013) if all went well. 

 
 
Where are the #1 and #2 starters coming from in this fairy tale?  The only one they've got in the entire system who fits that profile is currently a 17 year old in the GCL.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

 
 
Where are the #1 and #2 starters coming from in this fairy tale?  The only one they've got in the entire system who fits that profile is currently a 17 year old in the GCL.

 
I'd argue that EdRod has shown high ceiling. I would guess the braintrust (not that we trust their brains right about now) still envisions Porcello and Miley as No. 2-3 types. Forget Buchholz in this conversation, as it relates to 2017-. So, to your point, a No. 1 would need to come from outside the system. Fair enough. There are three possibilities: 1. Free agency splash; 2. Multi-prospect trade (Devers, Margot, Vazquez?); 3. International signing.
 
Point being, they haven't shown a willingness to throw $200 million at a free-agent pitcher lately or deal multi-prospects to Ruben Amaro for example. But my hunch is that doesn't mean they wouldn't do so in December 2016 if all the other pieces are in place.
 
Add: Here's a hypothetical, just for fun. McCutchen becomes a free agent in 2018. Cole hits arb in 2017 and is under control through 2019. If Pittsburgh is on the decline without Cutch and their contention window is clearly closing, semi-empty the farm for Cole for the 2018 season.

 

[Rasputin]

 
The Sox could have matched, if not exceeded the package Toronto sent to Oakland for Donaldson. 
 
Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn't even hear anything about the Sox being in on Donaldson. LHH/roster balance be damned, he's really the one that got away. This is the 3rd time in 5 years that the Jays have struck gold on a power hitter.

We didn't hear anything about the Sox being in on Donaldson, but we're did hear that the Sox asked, and we're told Donaldson wasn't available.

 

[jscola85]

Under no circumstances should Wade Miley be viewed as a potential #2 or probably even a #3.  It's not just his stuff, which is back of the rotation caliber.  He's never had a sustained run of even near-dominance in his career, other than a 2012 season when his HR rate was abnormally low.  Miley is what he is - a guy who will post a high 3's/low 4's ERA/FIP and give you 30-33 starts / 190-200 IP.  That's a solid #4 in today's pitcher-friendly MLB, maybe a low-end #3 in a good year.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

Under no circumstances should Wade Miley be viewed as a potential #2 or probably even a #3.  It's not just his stuff, which is back of the rotation caliber.  He's never had a sustained run of even near-dominance in his career, other than a 2012 season when his HR rate was abnormally low.  Miley is what he is - a guy who will post a high 3's/low 4's ERA/FIP and give you 30-33 starts / 190-200 IP.  That's a solid #4 in today's pitcher-friendly MLB, maybe a low-end #3 in a good year.

 
Yeah, I'd say the optimistic hope is Porcello as a 2 and Miley as a 3. But you're right. Miley as a No. 2 is utter fiction. 

 

[Rasputin]

 
Yeah, I'd say the optimistic hope is Porcello as a 2 and Miley as a 3. But you're right. Miley as a No. 2 is utter fiction. 

Miley as a 3 would probably be his career year.

If we want to build a rotation without adding pieces, Miley and Johnson are 4/5, Porcello is 2, and we have to hope that Buchholz and/or Rodriguez pitch at ace level. Or I suppose Kelly could pull it all together.

 

[8slim]

 
 As strange as it sounds, winning the title in 2013 was the kink in the plan.  It raised expectations and perhaps sped up the clock on getting the young guys up and producing.  Maybe without the title, there isn't the pressure to repeat last year or rebound from that failure this year.  Maybe a 3rd or 4th place finish in 2013 begets a 2nd or 3rd place finish in 2014 as the team builds from within with patience (both from the front office and the fan base).  Who knows?

 
Was there really "pressure to repeat" last year?  To the point that the "pressure" led to decisions that harmed the long-term trajectory of certain players?  If anything I felt like the title in '13 made people much more willing to write off last year as an injury-and-development plagued hangover.  Even this year, I think the lack of patience from the fan base has to do with flirting with having the worst record in the AL.  People would be disgruntled if we were hovering around .500 and 3 games out of the Wild Card, but it seems to me that the extreme frustration has to do with being this bad.

 

[alwyn96]

Miley as a 3 would probably be his career year.

If we want to build a rotation without adding pieces, Miley and Johnson are 4/5, Porcello is 2, and we have to hope that Buchholz and/or Rodriguez pitch at ace level. Or I suppose Kelly could pull it all together.

 
I think they probably need another good pitcher if they want to really compete, although it's not like the Yankees have a #1 (or really much of a #2 starter, the way Tanaka's pitched this year) and they're starting to run away with the division. Before Cueto came to town, I'm not sure you'd really call Volquez or the re-animated corpse of Chris Young #1 or 2 starters, and the Royals have the best record in the AL. 
 
Obviously having great pitchers is going to help win more games than ok ones, and you want to have the best possible pitchers you can, but it's not like it's impossible to compete without them. 

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
I'm going to assume you're not being intentionally obtuse and take you through this one more time.
 
The point is that in 2012 we had prospects but we had no idea who could play and who could not.  And quite frankly, if the 2012 team hadn't tanked, we may not have ever known.
 
But fast forward to 2015, and we now have a pretty good idea of the true major league talent level of a good number of young players like WMB, Webster, De La Rosa, Renaudo, X, Mookie, ERod and possibly even Swihart, Wright, and Bradley.  (I'm sure I'm missing a few.)  Why?  Because they all have gotten extended chances at the major league level due to the Red Sox having sucked for three of the past four years (or four in the past five years if you count next year), something that wouldn't have happened if the Red Sox had been in contention for those years.
Say what you want about evaluating minor league talent, but outside of a few can't miss prospects, there isn't a human being alive that is going to be consistently able to tell which minor leaguer is going to become A-Gon, Rizzo, Jake Arrieta, or Chris Archer, and which is going to become WMB, Allan Webster, or Travis Snider.  The only way to be sure is to put them in the major leagues and see what happens.  But a team is going to lose a lot games figuring out who belongs to which group.
And that's why getting to the playoffs every year and developing one's own players is mostly a contradiction in terms.

By "Jake Arrieta" surely you don't mean the same pitcher who stunk like an old shoe for the Orioles from 2010-13, until finally putting it together in his age-27 season?

Because that sounds like well beyond the "extended chance" at the major league level offered to De La Rosa, Webster, Wright, Swihart, or Bradley, and just about the same as WMB was given.

At least, that's what it sounds like to me. But then again, I still think De La Rosa and Webster could play as relievers, and that both Swihart and Bradley could play as positional regulars. The book isn't closed on any of them.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
I think they probably need another good pitcher if they want to really compete, although it's not like the Yankees have a #1 (or really much of a #2 starter, the way Tanaka's pitched this year) and they're starting to run away with the division. Before Cueto came to town, I'm not sure you'd really call Volquez or the re-animated corpse of Chris Young #1 or 2 starters, and the Royals have the best record in the AL. 
 
Obviously having great pitchers is going to help win more games than ok ones, and you want to have the best possible pitchers you can, but it's not like it's impossible to compete without them. 

The Yankees are going to get about 200 IP from three relievers combined to the tune of about 1.6 ERA. That's how you get away with not having a #2 and run away with the division.

 

[OCD SS]

 
So it was acceptable to "go cheap" on both Lester and the act of replacing him, but it wouldn't have been to take the same stance on our 3rd baseman replacement to the black hole that was already there?
 
Why should the Panda signing be different from any other acquisition possibility that gets routinely dismissed here based on what's deemed a terrible contract factor? The "we knew flat out that it was a bad high cost signing, but it's cool because there were no visible alternatives" defense being applied here doesn't really seem all that consistent imo. 

Perhaps I should reiterate that my interest is in the thinking and process of the FO: I believe that they think that it is quite a bit different to lock up $150-200M on a pitcher over 30 vs $100M on a position player for his age 28 - 32 seasons. I think that's easily defensible when you consider the overall cost to production trends of both populations; what makes it harder to defend is Pablo going out and shitting all over the hot corner (and what is nearly impossible is debating long term deals after not even a full year). The bottom line is they didn't go cheap on 3b, which was a position of weakness in the system and in baseball as a whole; but everyone has decided that that would've been a reasonable plan after seeing what Pablo has given the team this year, conveniently ignoring the howls that would've greeted this idea in the offseason and ignoring that this leaves a big hole to fill in next year's squad. Even if the pitching hasn't worked out, that's something where there's a better market this year (and maybe a chance to scoop someone up for less than premium prices); that isn't the case for 3bmen.

To put it another way, the process is like counting cards; things might not go your way on the draw, but that doesn't mean that your plan isn't sound. I'm not really worried about the FO changing tack due to fan handwringing, but I'd like to see a more nuanced discussion of the direction rather than knee-jerk reaction.

 

[In my lifetime]

The Yankees are going to get about 200 IP from three relievers combined to the tune of about 1.6 ERA. That's how you get away with not having a #2 and run away with the division.

 
 
And I think that despite all the hand wringing now about the off-season, the one thing I must regretted at the time it happened was not signing Miller.  I would have preferred 3 yrs vs. 4, but he got the same AAV as Koji.  Considering the age difference, I would have rather have Miller for 4 yrs than Koji for 2 at the same annual cost (9M).  On top of that, it is quite possible that Miller might have even taken a little less to be in the place where he was able to resurrect his career.  

 

[alwyn96]

The Yankees are going to get about 200 IP from three relievers combined to the tune of about 1.6 ERA. That's how you get away with not having a #2 and run away with the division.

 
I doubt they keep it up to that pace, but yeah, the back end of their bullpen has been pretty great. Being the best hitting team in the division helps, too.
 
It would be nice if one of those back-end starters the Red Sox have could become a totally sweet lights out reliever. <checks> Man, things are a little thin at the upper minors after Owens and Johnson. Let's hope Barnes and Aro can kind of get their act together.