Feeds:
Posts
Comments

COMPENSATION FOR DIS INSULT: Theo Epstein gets us stuff

February 22, 2012 by Hunter Golden

(CREDIT: MLB Photo) This is what a Theo Epstein will buy you.

I knew as soon as Nick Cafardo said “John Lackey” back in October that the Theo Epstein compensation “saga” was going to be an early front runner for most irritating story of the winter and of course it delivered in only the way these kinds of stories tend to do.

Now that the Boston Red Sox know they’ll be getting Chris Carpenter back from the Chicago Cubs as compensation for Theo Epstein, hopefully we can put this to rest and be done with it. Of course, the Boston sports media thinks the Red Sox brass are still incompetent boobs, but in all reality, that was going to be the narrative regardless of how the story concluded.

Had Larry Lucchino played hardball with the Cubs, it’d have just reinforced the ongoing characterization the media’s stuck to in the past. There’s no question Lucchino would have inevitably been portrayed as controlling, domineering, egotistical paranoid and selfish. For a frothing at the mouth Boston Sports Media, this one would have been a layup. I can still smell the “LARRY GETS REVENGE ON THEO~!” headlines – even now.

The other option for the Red Sox was to do what they actually did – and that was to let Theo walk and in the process lose the leverage they had in the negotiations. Of course in media land, that leads to the Red Sox front office being painted as bungling and confused and as a result, ultimately failing in their pursuit of adequate compensation.

Unfortunately, the media had decided the outcome before it had been decided, meaning that there was no conceivable way the Red Sox could have won the PR game, anyway.

Even in spite of that, I think the compensation is fair once you 1.) tune out the background shrieks and 2.) lay everything out on the table. I’m not usually one to speculate my face off, but I feel like I’ve got a pretty good sense of what the argument might have been behind the scenes and I think that understanding lends itself to making the compensation package make a lot more sense than it might have on the surface.

I think the Red Sox came at the dispute from the perspective of ‘You’re not just getting a year of Theo. You’re getting him for as long as you’d presumably want him. He’s going to create a lot of revenue for you, we should be justly compensated and that means a piece of your Major League Roster.”

Truth be told – it’s a totally viable point and needs to be heard clearly.

One of the major reasons the Cubs were so smitten with Theo from the get-go was due large in part to his stadium development background. The Cubs have a very strong brand and a loyal fan base, which in many ways is a good thing. However, it becomes problematic when you’re looking to diversify your revenue streams. Cubs revenue streams historically haven’t responded to winning (or losing for that matter) and the opportunities to create additional revenue as a result of a playoff berth are seriously compromised due to limited seating, sponsorship opportunities and other amenities currently lacking at Wrigley Field.

With Epstein expanding Wrigley and finding new ways to create and enhance the ballpark experience, he’s creating the potential for serious revenue increases in the future, all of which will likely eclipse the value of any one player on the current Cubs 25-man roster.

So the Red Sox are right in the fact that by strictly valuating Theo, they were totally within their rights to ask for a Major League talent in return.

The Cubs on the other hand, probably saw it as a simple transaction: “You’ll get what’s equal to the loss of one year of Theo Epstein, which is about $2 million dollars.”

The Cubs aren’t far off, either. The only interests on the part of the Red Sox that had been encroached upon was the single year left on Epstein’s contract. Even though – based on the win curve- most of the Cubs’ players hold little to no value in terms of revenue creation, there still is potential to acquire talent outside of the organization that are both cheap and could create significant returns both on and off the field by using said talent in a trade.

In the Cubs world – and based on where the Red Sox are on the win curve (The ultra-high value 86-91 win zone), their giving up a year of say – Randy Wells, who has gained an average of 1.5 fWAR a year – wouldn’t be fair.

Why? Because wins 86-91 are worth a ton of money. How much would Randy Well’s 1.5 wins mean to the Red Sox? Roughly – $3.4 million dollars (Using Vince Gennaro’s Dollar Value of the 91st Win chart p. 49 Figure 3.2 “Diamond Dollars”, 2007). Not only would they get that money back in production, but also if they made the playoffs, the acquisition of the seemingly mediocre Wells could yield as much as $8-10 million in residuals over the course of a few years. $2 million for $8-10 isn’t fair, either if you’re looking at the compensation as a swap.

Thus, the crux of the impasse: The Red Sox valuated Theo’s impact as a whole to the Cubs. The Cubs valuated the worth of the remainder of Theo’s contract to the Red Sox.

As a result, Selig likely moved to the middle and gave the Red Sox the opportunity to have a player who will LIKELY generate as much value as Theo’s contract over the course of his tenure in Boston AND have the potential to exceed it if he develops and becomes a contributor. For the Cubs, the money they get back or the chance to ‘win’ the deal will ultimately lie in how much revenue Epstein can scratch together in year one. It’s not ideal for either side but risk (to a degree) is shared by both with there being plenty of room for profit potential on both sides.

All things considered, it’s a pretty fair deal. It’s not ideal. It was annoying to read about and most of all – it seems like a lot of hullabaloo over a AAA relief pitcher. But these are the kinds of little decisions that can add up to big returns if played correctly. All things considered, it seems like a fair, balanced deal. Case closed.

Posted in 2012 Red Sox offseason, Ben Cherington, Theo Epstein | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Josh Beckett isn’t the one who should be apologizing

February 20, 2012 by Hunter Golden

Gerry Callahan's response on behalf of the Boston sports media with regards to their accountability.

If Josh Beckett should be apologizing to the media for not doing his job last season, then shouldn’t the media apologize for not doing theirs?

The word accountability has been bandied about pretty freely this offseason, but the people who’ve been slinging it into the fan don’t seem to understand it’s meaning or even worse – those that do don’t seem to think it applies to them. Taking that into consideration, it’s astonishing that the media is sitting back, flabbergasted by Josh Beckett’s lack of remorse for his supposed actions (or lack thereof) at the end of last season.

The best thing about the beer and chicken disintegration of the Red Sox – or at least the loveable bed time story the media has assigned to it in order to explain the completely unexplainable – is the complete and total lack of responsibility on the media’s behalf to do their job.

There are really only two ways you can look at this story, neither of which paints a very flattering picture of the Boston Sports Media establishment.

Scenario A is a ‘best case’ scenario. It assumes the media was right about the behavior of the Red Sox and Josh Beckett in particular. But still, the outcome from their end is pretty poor. Scenario-B, assumes that they’ve inflated the issue beyond reason and are deliberately ignoring history and facts for the sake of narrative – which also casts their performance in a negative light.

So let’s explore Scenario-A:

The pitching staff blew their team off with Josh Beckett leading the charge to plunder bucket after bucket of Popeye’s wings and guzzle gallons of beer in the clubhouse. He got progressively heavier and more apathetic as a result. It caused or was representative of the overall apathy of the team – in particular the pitching rotation – and such delinquency led to widespread discontent and complete disregard for the authority of then-manager Terry Francona. The team imploded and the starting rotation has since skirted their responsibility in said disaster.

But if that was the case, where was the media on this when it was actually happening? Where were the reports of animosity in the clubhouse? How could they not tell Beckett was getting fatter when they literally scale one another in front of his half-naked body every week to ask him stupid questions? How could they not tell that Francona had been marginalized, or that the pitching staff had become aloof and akin to their own, private social club?

The inescapable truth is that these reporters are around the team constantly. They’re in the locker room. They’re with them before games. They speak with them after the game. They’re with them on the road – sometimes even staying in the same hotel. Sometimes, they fly on the same flight.

You mean to tell me – that in spite of all of that interaction – that they didn’t know what was happening? They didn’t ask hard questions? They didn’t try to paint a clear picture of what this team was really like to an audience of fans who spend inordinate amounts of their hard-earned money to support this organization? And worse yet – because they were trying to ‘protect’ people on the team… or worse, themselves?

One of the most entertaining reasons given was insinuation that Larry Lucchino might shut them out in spite of never giving indication he’d ever do that in the past. They pawned their fear off on him. Talk about excuses. Talk about lacking accountability.

So by scenario-A, the media failed the fans, their readers, the team and their respective organizations. They violated the trust that the general public is supposed to have in them to report news as it happens and factually, skirting the truth because they’re afraid of losing their jobs or connections.

It’s failure mixed in with cowardice in a job that’s considerably more important than playing baseball is.

So where’s their apology? Who’s stepping up the plate to take one for the team amongst the Sox beat? Or does their behavior or inability to perform their job not count?

Sadly, scenario-B is just as bad, probably worse.

Discussing Josh Beckett’s ability to get the job done in two crucial starts down the stretch is completely reasonable. Personally attacking him and relentlessly attempting to shoehorn his performance over the course of the season into a narrative of someone who doesn’t care, is frankly – ludicrous considering the pile of evidence to the contrary.

• There’s the issue of ignoring how instrumental Beckett was to turning the team around in April and May and throwing the team on his back to get them out of the first ditch they dug for themselves. Remember this story? Or this one? Or this doozy from John Thomase. Just don’t lose games. Or you’re a dick.
• There’s been nothing written pondering the condition of Josh Beckett’s ankle upon his return and what impact that could have had on his performance.
• There’s the double standard of praising a guy like Rob Gronkowski for taping up his ankle in the Super Bowl and not being effective and Josh Beckett doing the same for his team.
• There’s not giving Beckett any credit for not using his ankle injury – or the birth of his first child – as excuses for his poor performance or distraction.
• There’s been a little buzz about Josh Beckett showing up to Spring Training early… but no mention of the fact that he does that every year.
• Wasn’t this also the same guy who spent the entire 2010 season colorfully illustrating to the press how bad he sucked night after night?
• And speaking of 2010, wasn’t his bouncing back from one of his worst seasons to put together one of his best some sort of indication that this guy gives a shit?

This is a guy who lacks accountability? A sense of obligation? A work ethic?

It’s true that Josh Beckett could be a sunnier personality. He could have and probably should have been better in the last two games he pitched in last season. He needed to be more focused than he was. But questioning the guy’s desire and blatantly omitting facts for the sake of narrative isn’t appropriate. Nor professional.

So excuse Josh Beckett if he’s not willing to commit Hari-Kari in the name of professionalism and desire in front of a Red Sox beat that is hardly a paragon of either trait. It’d be like apologizing to Bobby Brown for smoking crack. If Josh Beckett should make mea culpa then the media should make theirs, first.

Posted in 2011-2012 Offseason, 2012 Red Sox offseason, 2012 Spring Training, Josh Beckett | Tagged , , | 1 Comment »

On Tim Wakefield and his retirement

February 19, 2012 by Hunter Golden

And I believe we need heroes, I believe we need certain people who we can measure our own shortcomings by. -Richard Attenborough

Congrats to Tim Wakefield on a wonderful career. He was a special player. He had great passion, an incredible will to compete and during the course of his career, carried himself with dignity and class. But that’s not why I really like him.

Everyone knows that guys like Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams and the like – that they add to the mystique and lore of the game. They bring vibrant depth and color to the picture being painted in front of us. There’s no doubt – without players like that, baseball isn’t a special game.

But baseball isn’t just a game… it’s a pastime. Baseball is a game that’s a part of our culture. It’s rules, how it’s played, the people who play it – they reflect us as a whole. The best part about baseball is that it’s never far from our hearts and it’s always going to be a part of us and who we are. Baseball isn’t just a sport Americans like – it’s a sport that’s an extension of who we are.

Tim Wakefield was a player who never seemed like he was beyond our reach because in so many ways – he was so much like us. He wasn’t a great player, but to be a relevant one, he had to learn, re-learn, adapt, swallow hard and keep moving forward. Unlike Barry Bonds, who seemed to effortlessly swat baseballs into the night’s sky, for players like Tim Wakefield, it wasn’t as easy.

Wakefield was our guy. He runs like we do. He fails like we fail. He wasn’t ever the most skilled or most athletic, but he was determined. Above all else, when things were at their worst, he was at his most selfless.

Like Tim, we know what it’s like to fight for a job. We know what it’s like to have to reinvent ourselves. We might not be the most athletic. We might not be the most gifted. Sometimes, we even find ourselves being a burden to those around us. But still, somehow, someway, we manage to dust off our caps and move forward. That was Tim Wakefield in a nutshell. That’s what made him such a great Red Sox player to root for.

Above all, it’s what’s going to make him a better person long after the lights have faded. Thanks for the memories, Tim.

Posted in Boston Red Sox, Tim Wakefield | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

A pre-Spring Training prance through the petunias

February 16, 2012 by Hunter Golden

Some random musings on the past few weeks…

Just when you thought it was safe to order beer and chicken again…

Spring Training is right around the corner, which means we in the New England baseball community get to brace ourselves for the inevitable tidal wave of unfounded hysteria and stupidity that is about to flow from the fingertips of the Boston sports media ‘brain trust’ as anticipation builds towards the start of the 2012 season.

It’s the time of year when Dan Shaughnessy aggressively fudges facts to fit corny and clichéd narratives… When Nick Cafardo gets his Ralph Wiggam on… And one of my emerging favorites – that time of year when we wonder if Sean McAdam talks to his wife in that tone of voice that never seems to change no matter whom or where he so happens to be talking.

Of course, never to be out-boxed in the arena of selective analysis, Tony Massarotti is getting a head start on everyone this year. His first target is unsurprisingly Josh Beckett as was indicated this week in a spectacularly dishonest column that will surely qualify for my “Dumb Journalists Are the Reason No One Reads Newspapers Anymore… See? Check this shit out!” award of the year.

After saying absolutely nothing new in five paragraphs, Massarotti dropped his trousers, grabbed his ankles and unleashed this mighty fart into the air:

“In his final eight starts of 2011, Beckett posted a 5.06 ERA. In his final two outings – against the Baltimore Orioles – Beckett allowed 12 runs and four homers in 13.1 innings. Truth be told, Beckett’s performance was not much worse than most anyone else who pitched for the Red Sox down the stretch, though there is one obvious difference between Beckett and everyone else.”

Talk about cherry picking stats to shoehorn an argument into a pre-packaged story… especially when you consider:

  • If you expand Tony’s sample size to his last 9 games: 4.66 ERA, almost a full half point lower
  • If you decrease it to the last 7 games: 4.60 ERA, not good, but again – more than a half a point lower
  • Of course, the poor Seattle games has to be the starting point of the sample size, because – of course – that wouldn’t fit the story. This isn’t Choose Your Own Adventure after all.
  • His peripheral stats were pretty good – at least good enough to give his team a good chance to win in several of the games he pitched in.

It should go without saying that he’d conveniently gloss over the good stuff that Beckett was responsible for, including his increased K/9 rate, the quality of his opponents over that stretch, the ankle injury he never used as an excuse.

When you actually look at the sample, all of his numbers are inflated as a result of the last two games in Baltimore. Without those two games factored in, Beckett looks like a totally different pitcher. The numbers don’t lie:

  • From 8/18-9/16: a 3.08 ERA (7-game sample)
  • From 8/13-9/16: a 3.58 ERA (9 game sample)

And of course, we’re all still waiting to hear the story on the cumulative effects on chicken wing consumption over the course of a season that apparently didn’t affect Beckett at all in August but miraculously did in September.

Still, there’s a story waiting to be written about why Beckett sucked so hard in his last two starts just waiting to be written, but….

STICK TO THE SCRIPT~!

What’s worse – is that while his selective stat-picking was the worst part of his column, it wasn’t close to being the weirdest part. That would be his re-telling the tale of the Josh Beckett of days gone by. Massarotti recounts the days when good ole Joshy wrote a $5,000 check to a Red Sox employee who was in desperate financial straights and then directed teammates to do the same.  He goes onto cite his past leadership, work ethic and the usual litany of things that give Boston Sports Scribes that fuzzy feeling in their pants.

But of course, now that he ate chicken and had two bad games –he’s an insufferable douchebag. Just like that. It’s not just that Josh Beckett pitched two bad games. Now it’s that he’s a bad person.

Give to charity. Help people in need. Pitch well for 90% of a season. Just don’t cost Tony the opportunity to grace us with his worldly baseball knowledge in front of national television cameras in October. Do that- and you’re meat. Not just as a pitcher, but as a person. All in all – a pretty unbelievable precedent to set.

It’s made all the more ironic considering the lecture in being humble is coming from a guy who’s stylized his last name to rhyme with a certain Red Sox Hall of Famer. You really couldn’t make it up if you tried.

I keep hearing the drum-line coming out of imploding newsrooms all over the country that we should read them over blogs and other new-media sources because they adhere to ‘standards’ and ‘responsibility’.

The thing is, that’s kind of a hard sell when your journalists hen-peck stats and omit facts when it’s convenient to do so in the name of reinforcing a cooked up narrative for the sake of clicks or getting themselves in front of a TV camera. Just saying 

David Ortiz and the Red Sox agree on a deal

Well, sort of. More like ‘settled’. A lot of people were balking at the $14 million he got, but I don’t have a problem with it. It’s better than making a multi-year commitment. Ultimately, of all the pieces the Red Sox stood to lose this season, Ortiz’s bat would have likely been the most impactful. Not only are you losing his production but the opportunity cost to replace said production would have been much higher relative to other areas of the roster.

Essentially, for $1.5 million more, the Red Sox kept the most productive guy at his position in baseball. We can debate the merits of the DH in general (and truth be told, you wouldn’t get much in the way of blowback from me), but please find me another .300/.398/.554, 4-fWAR hitter who’d have run you $14 million either in money or a trade for prospects. He’s not a ‘value’, but there’s pretty clear justification for bringing him back at that price.

His 3-4 wins on what was a ‘90-win but could be more next year’ team brings increased value if you’re looking at the win-curve. Wins 88-92 are a lot more valuable than wins 93-100 and 84-88. Considering his true worth is around $10-12 million anyway, the extra $2 million doesn’t seem too bad considering that the cost of wins 88-92 is around $3 million a pop in revenue. They’ll make that money back no problem. The fact that they didn’t plop another year down on the deal makes it better.

When coupled with his revenue-generating marquee value and the low-risk nature of the deal, it’s a no brainer for the Red Sox.

Enough about Roy Oswalt.

Does anyone remember that shitty 80’s movie “The Wizard”? The one where Fred Savage, some chick who probably moonlighted on the Mickey Mouse Club and his little brother Jimmy headed west for CALIFORNIA~! and trip over pile after pile of Nintendo paraphernalia along the way? The same movie where the payoff was basically a shoehorned 2-minute preview of Super Mario 3 and a bunch of fucking around in oversized plastic dinosaurs?

Yeah, you Oswalt wanters are Little Jimmy.

Truth be told, I’m ready to go to war with what we have…

Posted in 2012 Red Sox offseason, 2012 Spring Training | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The real reason the Red Sox haven’t signed an established starter

February 8, 2012 by Hunter Golden

When your pitching rotation had the equivalent of these two in it last year, it shouldn't be that hard to upgrade.

Roy Oswalt wanted to go to Texas, but they don’t have room. He wanted to go to the Cardinals, but they can’t move a contract. The Reds kicked tires and Oswalt, himself kicked the Tigers and Blue Jays to the curb. It’s safe to say – he’s a pitcher minus a market – unless of course, you’re a Red Sox fan – which means you’re likely sitting around pulling your hair out as to why Ben Cherington and company haven’t been more enthusiastic in their pursuit of the one-time ace, especially considering the fact that they appear to be the only bidders out on the market.

I’ve heard a lot of arguments as to why the Sox haven’t appeared more motivated, ranging from Oswalt’s back to the fact that the Red Sox are the new Bear Stearns and on the cusp of fiscal implosion… Needless to say, people aren’t happy and in the process – aren’t hesitating to bring the stupid this offseason.

That’s not to say there hasn’t been some more logical reasoning out there. Some folks think Cherington is waiting him out – which, in this case– he’d be right to do. If there isn’t another bidder on the market, the Red Sox shouldn’t sign him for anything more than their initial offer. That’s just smart, disciplined business. Considering the injury risk and age, there is most definitely a chance that an unhealthy Oswalt could be a serious potential sunken cost in the short-term – especially if the Red Sox are operating in the fiscal constraints everyone says they are. Mitigating risk as much as possible should be rule #1 for any business, period – never mind a multi-million dollar entity like the Boston Red Sox. That’s a reason I can believe in.

The other argument is that the Red Sox are waiting to see what happens with David Ortiz’s arbitration case. If they win, it’s a few more million tacked onto the back end of the budget. Sweetening the pot a cool $2 million or so might be just enough to woo Roy’s contemplative soul to come to Boston.

While that makes sense on it’s face, I think there’s another more logical, straight forward reason why the Red Sox haven’t signed Oswalt – or any other bigger name starter this offseason: They don’t feel like they need one.

Yah, you read that right. I’ve heard the mainstream media prattle off endless possibilities this offseason and plenty of bloggers have weighed in with their imaginary rotations as well – but the one scenario no one really envisioned was them merely converting Bard and buying a lot or no-risk arms and hoping for the best. What might seem crazy on the surface though, is anything but when you place the decision up against the backdrop of the rest of the 40-man roster. After taking some time to contemplate this all myself, I’m OK (not great) with the decision. There’s definitely risk involved – but there’s extreme reward – a reward that could pay colossal dividends later in the season and shouldn’t just be discarded because it makes you feel a little uncomfortable.

With that, let’s consider a few things here:

Not having John Lackey in the rotation is an upgrade in and of itself.

Everyone knows how bad John Lackey was last year, but I don’t know if they’ve fully comprehended just how bad he was and how easy it will be to improve the rotation just on the basis of him not being there. Of every starting pitcher with a minimum of 150 IP, Lackey’s ERA+ of 66 gives him the 20th worst mark for a hurler since 1901. Basically, John Lackey ‘s 2011 is in the 1% of shittiest pitching seasons to have ever occurred. That, ladies and gentleman… is the bar that’s been set.

What that means is that even a nominal or poor upgrade is a big one for this rotation. In fact, former Red Sox Consultant Eric Vann put it into context better than I ever could in a post he made over at Sons of Sam Horn a few months ago:

Bard for Lackey is just a slight upgrade? Andrew Miller for John Lackey would be a 1.6 win upgrade (based on last year’s ERA). Does anyone regard Daniel Bard throwing Lackey’s 160 innings with a 4.20 ERA as overly optimistic? That’s a 4-win upgrade.

My point here isn’t that what they have is an improvement over Lackey being in the rotation. It’s that Lackey not being in the rotation, period is an upgrade due to the fact that in order for someone to be as bad as he was – they’d have to overcome nearly impossible odds to do it. As in – they’d have to actively try to suck that hard.

When you’ve got a team this good, sometimes it makes sense to gamble.

Also in his post, Vann made another important point and illustrated it well – that the Red Sox view the pitching situation as being fluid in the sense that due to the strength of the rest of their team, they’ll be able to do something many other teams don’t have the luxury of doing – and that’s gambling on upside in their rotation.

Where he more or less stopped short, and I’m hoping to expand upon – is that that the frequent mistake fans and sports writers tend to make – is that they compartmentalize teams. They look at the lineup as it’s own entity. They view the rotation and bullpen as sections of the team as opposed to viewing the 40-man roster as a collective whole. The Red Sox look at every move in the context of its contributions towards win expectancy for the entire team. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fans, on the other hand, treat it like they’re going grocery shopping.

If we step back and view the team as a whole – as it was on October 1st… most fans see a team that needs to be upgraded with the help of outside acquisitions, but smart front offices see opportunities for more wins from within. The 2011 Red Sox finished with 90 wins, but their Pythagorean record had them winning 94 games based on their true statistical performance.

That means, “as is” or even if they exactly replicate last year from a performance standpoint, they should win 94 games. That means John Lackey sucks again, Carl Crawford spends most of the season lost in LF, nothing happens in RF, we have no back end of the rotation, etc.

Truth be told, most of the ‘make up’ or gains from this team will indeed be found from within. A healthy Kevin Youkilis means a win. A well below career average Carl Crawford likely tallies two more wins. Having an average RF likely contributes another win. That’s four wins that can be found from staying healthy, or utilizing internal talent better.

Long story short – the opportunity for this team to make up the most lost ground surprisingly comes from its lineup, not the rotation. So what does that mean? It means the Red Sox can spend nominal money on pitching as a whole and gasp gamble on upside in their starting rotation in a variety of ways

We’ve covered Lackey, but what about everything else?

To answer the question of ‘everything else’, you need to take a step back and consider Daniel Bard as a starter and what kind of implications he might have in the rotation as a potential upgrade. Mind you, at the beginning of the offseason I was a pretty big skeptic of the move. Consider me converted.

Here are Bard’s projections as a starter in 2012 from not just one, but a few different places, including me:

  • ROTO: 155 IP, 3.43 ERA, 3.19 FIP, 9.35 K/9, 3.25 BB/9
  • Fangraphs: 168 IP, 3.47, 3.50 FIP, 9.00 K/9, 3.16 BB/9
  • ME~!: 142 IP, 3.81 ERA, 3.84 FIP, 8.92 K/9, 3.37 BB/9

Average: 155 IP, 3.57 ERA, 3.51 FIP, 9.09 K/9, 3.26 BB/9

That’s not an improvement – that’s a huge improvement. In fact, those are better numbers than Roy Oswalt, Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez – three guys Red Sox fans were very interested in at the beginning of the offseason. It’s not a surprise that the little thing we call ‘opportunity cost’ peaks its head up and wonders why we’re buying a number 4 starter when we already have one who might be better than that.

So the Bard conversion now becomes a no-brainer. This team – without adding any real outside help, could earn itself an additional 2 wins by placing a reliever into it’s #4 slot. Whether you take that as a good thing or bad thing is up to you, but this team – with Daniel Bard in the rotation – is ostensibly better with him in it than without.

So the only question that remains is what to do with the final spot in the rotation. Someone needs to take John Lackey’s place, which is nearly impossible not to improve upon. We could throw Aaron Crow. Maybe Vicente Padilla. Maybe you. Me. Who knows. Anything is likely an upgrade over Lackey.

That’s two wins thanks to Bard. That’s a win and a half thanks to Lackey not being a starting pitcher. That’s 3.5 wins without having to spend much of anything. Of course, that’s not considering what the plethora of out-of-option rookies could do for the Red Sox in and out of the bullpen.

Long story, short – the Red Sox haven’t been aggressive in pursuing high priced free agents because they don’t need them and the cost to significantly upgrade the rotation is incredibly low. So far, their stance with Roy Oswalt has reflected that: “We’d love to have you, but only at our price. We don’t need you.”  And guess what – they don’t.

Regardless of how you feel, without doing much of anything, the Red Sox could stand to win 6 or 7 more games by doing….not very much at all.

Red Sox fans have become used to big-name acquisitions year after year. It’s gotten to the point that if Sox fans don’t feel as if they’re procured one, that the offseason is a failure. Truth of the matter is that the Red Sox have improved this team largely from within and thanks for the plethora of internal talent it possesses, it’s had the luxury of staying out of the bidding for premium priced, high-risk free agents almost entirely.

Granted, I’d love to have Oswalt. I think it’d turn the pitching into an instant strength. But consider there’s no market for him and no real incentive for the Red Sox to acquire him now, then the Sox should only jump on him if the price is right. And that price… is their price. They already are a vastly improved team from what they were a year ago simply by identifying low-risk pieces and incorporating them into the team.

Yes, not signing more pitchers is risky, but the real crime would be passing on the opportunity to gamble here.

Also considering that Daisuke Matsuzaka could be back in June or July, it’s a real stretch to think that the Red Sox can’t get to that point really good shape. If they get there and the Red Sox need to make a trade, they can. If they’re in trouble – then chances are something else on the team will have to go very south in order for them to be that bad.

The Red Sox have the opportunity to do something a lot of other teams simply never get to do and that’s identify cost effective solutions to some of their ills and spend little money in doing so. That’s saved money that could go a long way – especially if the team feels the need to make the upgrade in July.

Regardless, get used to feeling uncomfortable. Unless Roy wants to play at our price, he won’t be here for Spring Training.

Posted in 2011-2012 Offseason, 2012 Red Sox offseason | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers