Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

    There was another choice:

    "None of the above" and none or fewer of what we got.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

      I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

    Disagree, this offseason should have been devoted to a total rebuild.  Because there were no elite FA like Manny or Sabathia, this was not the year to reload in FA.   Distressed sellers, make the best trade partners (Beckett, Pedro).

    On the list of FA, I would take Youk/Berkman at 1B over Napoli, Kuroda/Pettite over Dempster, and Hunter over Shane.

     

     

     






    I'd have taken Angel Pagan over Victorino and B MCCarthy over Dempster at slightly more than what they signed for, assuming they'd take it.

    Although I do not think signing A Sanchez would have been a good idea, I'd rather have him at $82M/5 than...

    $85M for Naps or Victorino, Dempster, Gomes & Drew

    or

    $87.5M for Naps, Victorino & Drew 

    or

    $88M for Naps, Victorino & Gomes

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    My reasoning Space is backed up by the Vegas oddsmakers.  IMO a 2013 Sox WS is a pipe dream, I hope I am wrong and funny things can happen in sport.   

    The Sox should have unloaded Lester, Papi, Salty, Ellsbury, and any bullpen pitcher who will be a FA anytime soon.  The propects the Sox have look good on paper, adding 3 or 4 more would have increased the odds of developing a cost controlled core.  A rebuild would have made a WS win within the next decade a much more realistic possibility.

    Instead, LL has created a mediocre team for business reasons.  I have no concern about blocking prospects, I feel the half-hearted rebuild was the path the Mets took and they have been poor for 4 straight years. If enough of the 2012 under-performers (JL, CB, MN, SV, DP, JE, AA, DB, AB) rebound the 2013 team will be a PO contender.  Even then the pitching looks ill-suited to make a long PO run.

    Well stated UK.

    We could have had a draft pick for Papi and more cash to "play with".

    We could have probably gotten Myers for Lester.

    Something very good for Ellsbury, Salty, Breslow and maybe even Bailey and Miller (FAs after 2014).

    Then, we could have mostly signed or traded for players that will be in their primes for 2014, 2015, and hopefully beyond.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    My reasoning Space is backed up by the Vegas oddsmakers.  IMO a 2013 Sox WS is a pipe dream, I hope I am wrong and funny things can happen in sport.   

    The Sox should have unloaded Lester, Papi, Salty, Ellsbury, and any bullpen pitcher who will be a FA anytime soon.  The propects the Sox have look good on paper, adding 3 or 4 more would have increased the odds of developing a cost controlled core.  A rebuild would have made a WS win within the next decade a much more realistic possibility.

    Instead, LL has created a mediocre team for business reasons.  I have no concern about blocking prospects, I feel the half-hearted rebuild was the path the Mets took and they have been poor for 4 straight years. If enough of the 2012 under-performers (JL, CB, MN, SV, DP, JE, AA, DB, AB) rebound the 2013 team will be a PO contender.  Even then the pitching looks ill-suited to make a long PO run.

    Well stated UK.

    We could have had a draft pick for Papi and more cash to "play with".

    We could have probably gotten Myers for Lester.

    Something very good for Ellsbury, Salty, Breslow and maybe even Bailey and Miller (FAs after 2014).

    Then, we could have mostly signed or traded for players that will be in their primes for 2014, 2015, and hopefully beyond.

     




    While I agree that we could have more trades (When I started this thread it was only based on our FA signings) I think we need to realize that our trading chips are not as great as we think.  Ellsbury (Injury), Bailey (Injury) Miller (more of a complimentary player...throw in for a trade) and Salty (other than HR's a very sub par season) will NOT net us better player than what we could sign for in Free Agency.  If those players can show goos stuff in Spring Training and the beginning of the year then their value will go up.  Trading them now will net us NO MORE then .35 cents on the dollar.  As for Lester for Myers.  Shields was the mbetter pitcher and had a better season PLUS they have him for 2 years.  Lester had a sub par season and lost velocity..AND only could be had for one year.  His option is null in voind if traded.  So NO...we could not have gotten Myers for him.  The only way we are getting ANYTHING good in the trade market is by BEGINNING WITH Xander and Bradley.  Would you be willing to give up those two and then some?  For the right player I would....but who is the 'right player'?  King Felix....they're not trading him?  Upton?  maybe but the jury is still out on him. 

    I say keep our players...use the 'stop gaps that we have to field a competitive team that's fun to watch...then in a few years our young guns will be up and we will be free of a ton of money to get complimentary payers for the young guns.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

     

    Why is the next WS further away?  The FO made a strategy decision, yes.  You call it mediocrity; I call it treading water.  In that strategy, they signed platoon player veterans to 1-3 year deals.  So, when any of the kids are ready to answer the bell, no problem, move over grizzled platoon vet.  And, when the free agent market looks good again a couple years down the road, the club has some flexibility.  And, its not like they could just "play the kids" and stockpile the money saved on payroll.  To me, treading water makes a lot of sense.

    Why is the next WS further away?

    My reasoning Space is backed up by the Vegas oddsmakers.  IMO a 2013 Sox WS is a pipe dream, I hope I am wrong and funny things can happen in sport.   

    The Sox should have unloaded Lester, Papi, Salty, Ellsbury, and any bullpen pitcher who will be a FA anytime soon.  The propects the Sox have look good on paper, adding 3 or 4 more would have increased the odds of developing a cost controlled core.  A rebuild would have made a WS win within the next decade a much more realistic possibility.

    Instead, LL has created a mediocre team for business reasons.  I have no concern about blocking prospects, I feel the half-hearted rebuild was the path the Mets took and they have been poor for 4 straight years. If enough of the 2012 under-performers (JL, CB, MN, SV, DP, JE, AA, DB, AB) rebound the 2013 team will be a PO contender.  Even then the pitching looks ill-suited to make a long PO run.



    Oh, OK.  I assumed when you are talking about "next WS further away" we were talking about how the moves of this off-season hurts the club in 2014 and beyond.  I think we can all agree that it will take a great confluence of luck, health, performance rebounds, and smiles from the baseball gods for the sox to contend in 2013.  

    2013 WS would be a pipedream no matter how this off-season played out and unloading Lester et al surely would do nothing to remedy that.  Going forward, I just disagree that the current tread-water strategy hurts the club's chances to develop into a bona fide contender again.  All the signings for this year are short, moveable, flexible position-wise.  Sure, unloading Lester et al might net some draft picks.  But this organization is not the Rays.  The farm is solid.  And there is no need to rely soley on youth.  When worthy free agents come around, the club has the wherwithal to sign said worthy free agent. It will always be a mix.

    In the meantime, and i understand that there are clear camps of thought on this, I am of the camp that does not think it good strategy to rush Bogaerts, Brentz, Ranaudo, Bradley, et al into major league service just for the sake of shaking things up and having a 'youth movement'. First off, and many scoff at this, I am not into wasting control years on a guy if he is not ready.  Second, none of these guys are ready.  I mean, at least show me a year of good performance at AAA before we say Let The Kid Play!  The current signings are placeholders. I don't see how they negatively affect the long-term, or even short term, success of this ballclub.  In fact, allowing 'the kids' to develop a little more helps the long-term prognosis.  

 
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

      I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

    Disagree, this offseason should have been devoted to a total rebuild.  Because there were no elite FA like Manny or Sabathia, this was not the year to reload in FA.   Distressed sellers, make the best trade partners (Beckett, Pedro).

    On the list of FA, I would take Youk/Berkman at 1B over Napoli, Kuroda/Pettite over Dempster, and Hunter over Shane.

     

     

     






    I'd have taken Angel Pagan over Victorino




     

    Why did you want Pagan? He goes against your criteria of being in his prime in 2014-2015.  He is 4 months older then Mike Napoli. And he will be 4 months older then Victorino when their contracts end. His defense the last two years has become shakey and I will call it poor and he will eventually have to move off CF. Ellsbury's trade market seemed weak. He blocks guys more then Victorino because he signed for 4 years. He will have less value then Victorino when they become role players their last season or two. Pagan does not fit Fenway and the monster on offense. Pagan's OPS the last 2 seasons is .741 and the last 3 seasons is .749.

     

    Whats with the Paganism?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to BMav's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

      I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

    Disagree, this offseason should have been devoted to a total rebuild.  Because there were no elite FA like Manny or Sabathia, this was not the year to reload in FA.   Distressed sellers, make the best trade partners (Beckett, Pedro).

    On the list of FA, I would take Youk/Berkman at 1B over Napoli, Kuroda/Pettite over Dempster, and Hunter over Shane.

     

     

     






    I'd have taken Angel Pagan over Victorino




     

    Why did you want Pagan? He goes against your criteria of being in his prime in 2014-2015.  He is 4 months older then Mike Napoli. And he will be 4 months older then Victorino when their contracts end. His defense the last two years has become shakey and I will call it poor and he will eventually have to move off CF. Ellsbury's trade market seemed weak. He blocks guys more then Victorino because he signed for 4 years. He will have less value then Victorino when they become role players their last season or two. Pagan does not fit Fenway and the monster on offense. Pagan's OPS the last 2 seasons is .741 and the last 3 seasons is .749.

     

    Whats with the Paganism?



    Someone, I believe it was Jon Heyman, went off on the Pagan signing(as did others).  He said that if you would have asked him on July 31st what he would sign for in the offseason, he would have said something like 1 yr./7 million.  He parlayed a torrid August\September into a crazy contract, even though he disappeared in the playoffs.  When you consider that he would've cost significantly more to leave his current team, who happen to be World Champs, to change leagues, change coasts & possibly change positions, you'll realize quickly he was not an option at all for the Sox...

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    As for Lester for Myers.  Shields was the mbetter pitcher and had a better season PLUS they have him for 2 years. Lester had a sub par season and lost velocity..AND only could be had for one year.  His option is null in voind if traded.  So NO...we could not have gotten Myers for him.  

    KC gave up much more than Myers for Shields and davis, perhaps we could have traded Lester and Morales for just Myers. 

    Lester's no option if traded clause only activates if he finished 1st or 2nd in CY Young. He never did.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    I'd have taken Angel Pagan over Victorino

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Why did you want Pagan? He goes against your criteria of being in his prime in 2014-2015.  He is 4 months older then Mike Napoli. And he will be 4 months older then Victorino when their contracts end. His defense the last two years has become shakey and I will call it poor and he will eventually have to move off CF. Ellsbury's trade market seemed weak. He blocks guys more then Victorino because he signed for 4 years. He will have less value then Victorino when they become role players their last season or two. Pagan does not fit Fenway and the monster on offense. Pagan's OPS the last 2 seasons is .741 and the last 3 seasons is .749.

     

    Whats with the Paganism?

     

    1) Pagan was not in my top plan. Trading for Upton was.

    2) All I said was I'd rather have pagan than Victorino.

    3) 4 years instead of 3 at about the same money is better.

    4) Best for last: pagan is better than SV. 

     

    If he blocks, we trade him. I don't see 3 top quality sure bet OF'ers to play in MLB in the Sox system.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd have taken Angel Pagan over Victorino




     

    Why did you want Pagan? He goes against your criteria of being in his prime in 2014-2015.  He is 4 months older then Mike Napoli. And he will be 4 months older then Victorino when their contracts end. His defense the last two years has become shakey and I will call it poor and he will eventually have to move off CF. Ellsbury's trade market seemed weak. He blocks guys more then Victorino because he signed for 4 years. He will have less value then Victorino when they become role players their last season or two. Pagan does not fit Fenway and the monster on offense. Pagan's OPS the last 2 seasons is .741 and the last 3 seasons is .749.

     

    Whats with the Paganism?

     

    1) Pagan was not in my top plan. Trading for Upton was.

    2) All I said was I'd rather have pagan than Victorino.

    3) 4 years instead of 3 at about the same money is better.

    4) Best for last: pagan is better than SV. 

     

    If he blocks, we trade him. I don't see 3 top quality sure bet OF'ers to play in MLB in the Sox system.



    You don't need three "homegrown" outfielders, Moon.  They can always trade for or sign outfielders moving forward.  You say you would "trade for Upton," yet everyone says the AZ asking price is ridiculous.  Pagan would not have been "same money," and who is "better" or a better "fit" is certainly debatable between Victorino & Pagan.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    As for Lester for Myers.  Shields was the mbetter pitcher and had a better season PLUS they have him for 2 years. Lester had a sub par season and lost velocity..AND only could be had for one year.  His option is null in voind if traded.  So NO...we could not have gotten Myers for him.  

    KC gave up much more than Myers for Shields and davis, perhaps we could have traded Lester and Morales for just Myers. 

    Lester's no option if traded clause only activates if he finished 1st or 2nd in CY Young. He never did.




    I believe that option is a team control option only and is not related to ANY incentive.  If traded that 'team control option' is gone.  I may be wrong...but I saw nothing attached to Cy Young voting when searching.  At any rate...I'm pretty sure people would have exploded if the Sox gave up their number one pitcher (yes...I know he is not an Ace..but he is our #1) and a VERY GOOD long relief pitcher and former top 10 MLB prospect for Myers.  That's an awful lot to give up for a prospect.  With that said....I personally would have liked to see the Sox then turn around and trade Myers for a proven ace in a package deal....or to the Marlins in a deal for Stanton...... 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    Here's Tom Verducci's take on the Angel Pagan signing:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/tom_verducci/12/04/winter-meetings-red-sox-napoli-pagan-dickey/index.html

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd have taken Angel Pagan over Victorino




     

    Why did you want Pagan? He goes against your criteria of being in his prime in 2014-2015.  He is 4 months older then Mike Napoli. And he will be 4 months older then Victorino when their contracts end. His defense the last two years has become shakey and I will call it poor and he will eventually have to move off CF. Ellsbury's trade market seemed weak. He blocks guys more then Victorino because he signed for 4 years. He will have less value then Victorino when they become role players their last season or two. Pagan does not fit Fenway and the monster on offense. Pagan's OPS the last 2 seasons is .741 and the last 3 seasons is .749.

     

    Whats with the Paganism?

     

    1) Pagan was not in my top plan.

    2) All I said was I'd rather have pagan than Victorino.

    If he blocks, we trade him. I don't see 3 top quality sure bet OF'ers to play in MLB in the Sox system.




     

    You have mentioned Pagan a few other times as being a good plan. Maybe not your first plan, but a good plan. How is he in accordance with your 2014-2015 philosophy, which has been your MAIN point the last few months? Are you sure you didn't confuse Angel Pagan's age[31] with Melky Cabrera's[29]? Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

     

    An aging CF sure seems to block Jackie Bradley Jr., who I fully expect to be our CF in late May, 2014. What do you do with Pagan at that point for the next 2.8 years? And in 2015, I sure hope the Red Sox have somebody better then a 33-34 year old Pagan manning RF for us. Not to even mention 2016.

     

    I consider Bradley a slam dunk CF. As for the other two positions in the OF, could be Brentz. Could be Bogaerts. More importantly, Pagan blocks most other signings in the OF or trade. Yes, we can trade him. It would not be the end of the world. But it is a negative.  Four years is a long time.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    4) Best for last: pagan is better than SV. 



    That's it?  He's better, end of story?  I thought you liked to use the last 3 seasons when evaluating players.  Over the last 3 seasons Victorino's WAR is 13.0 per FanGraphs and 10.4 per B-R.  Pagan's is 11.1 per FG and 10.1 per B-R.  And yet you're going to flatly state that Pagan is better?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    4) Best for last: pagan is better than SV. 



    That's it?  He's better, end of story?  I thought you liked to use the last 3 seasons when evaluating players.  Over the last 3 seasons Victorino's WAR is 13.0 per FanGraphs and 10.4 per B-R.  Pagan's is 11.1 per FG and 10.1 per B-R.  And yet you're going to flatly state that Pagan is better?




     

    Victorino also has more WAR over 2, 4, 5, or 6 year spans aswell. The closest is actually the 3 year span.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from baddad. Show baddad's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    i would have like to have added hamilton and skipped vitorino and gomes....i think hamilton alone  would have broght us far more than the other two combined...far more....he has the pop we needed and the pop we thought agon was gonna bring

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd have taken Angel Pagan over Victorino




     

    Why did you want Pagan? He goes against your criteria of being in his prime in 2014-2015.  He is 4 months older then Mike Napoli. And he will be 4 months older then Victorino when their contracts end. His defense the last two years has become shakey and I will call it poor and he will eventually have to move off CF. Ellsbury's trade market seemed weak. He blocks guys more then Victorino because he signed for 4 years. He will have less value then Victorino when they become role players their last season or two. Pagan does not fit Fenway and the monster on offense. Pagan's OPS the last 2 seasons is .741 and the last 3 seasons is .749.

     

    Whats with the Paganism?

     

    1) Pagan was not in my top plan. Trading for Upton was.

    2) All I said was I'd rather have pagan than Victorino.

    3) 4 years instead of 3 at about the same money is better.

    4) Best for last: pagan is better than SV. 

     

    If he blocks, we trade him. I don't see 3 top quality sure bet OF'ers to play in MLB in the Sox system.



    You don't need three "homegrown" outfielders, Moon.  They can always trade for or sign outfielders moving forward.  You say you would "trade for Upton," yet everyone says the AZ asking price is ridiculous.  Pagan would not have been "same money," and who is "better" or a better "fit" is certainly debatable between Victorino & Pagan.



    Upton is ridiculously good for age 25. IMO, He's worth overpaying for.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to baddad's comment:

    i would have like to have added hamilton and skipped vitorino and gomes....i think hamilton alone  would have broght us far more than the other two combined...far more....he has the pop we needed and the pop we thought agon was gonna bring



    He was by far the most talented hitter available, no doubt about that.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    You have mentioned Pagan a few other times as being a good plan. Maybe not your first plan, but a good plan. How is he in accordance with your 2014-2015 philosophy, which has been your MAIN point the last few months? Are you sure you didn't confuse Angel Pagan's age[31] with Melky Cabrera's[29]? Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

    No, I know who Angel Pagan is. I really was never big on signing him. It is more about me being down on signing Victorino. 

     

    An aging CF sure seems to block Jackie Bradley Jr., who I fully expect to be our CF in late May, 2014. What do you do with Pagan at that point for the next 2.8 years? And in 2015, I sure hope the Red Sox have somebody better then a 33-34 year old Pagan manning RF for us. Not to even mention 2016.

    My plan had us trading Bradley in the Upton or Stanton deal, so this point is moot.

    I am not as high on Bradley as some here seem to be.

     

    I consider Bradley a slam dunk CF. As for the other two positions in the OF, could be Brentz. Could be Bogaerts. More importantly, Pagan blocks most other signings in the OF or trade. Yes, we can trade him. It would not be the end of the world. But it is a negative.  Four years is a long time.

    Pagan could be moved to Rf as he ages.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to jasko2248's comment:



    Like I said, Pagan was not really part of my plan, and yet people are acting like I love the guy.

    I just said I'd rather have him at 4 year.s over SV at 3 years at about the same cost and ages. It's very close, so I'm not going to get into a big argument over who is better: SV for 3 years vs Pagan for 4 years (1 of which is younger)

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    4) Best for last: pagan is better than SV. 



    That's it?  He's better, end of story?  I thought you liked to use the last 3 seasons when evaluating players.  Over the last 3 seasons Victorino's WAR is 13.0 per FanGraphs and 10.4 per B-R.  Pagan's is 11.1 per FG and 10.1 per B-R.  And yet you're going to flatly state that Pagan is better?



    No, That's not it. There were 4 parts to my answer.

    Yes, I do value last 3 years more than career, but I am not a big WAR fanatic. It has value, but it not my big stat (metric) of choice. 

    Pagan has speed and is pretty darn good on defense (+10.9 vs  SV's +10.8 on fangraph's defensive value the last 4 years).

    SF is a tough park to hit in and playing so many road games in SD and LAD doesn't help either, so I think his offensive numbers are deflated.

    OPS+ (adjusted OPS)

    A Pagan         Shane V

    2009: 122        110

    2010: 108       101

    2011:   94        130

    2012: 121          91

    All I said was that of all the FAs signed, I'd rather have Pagan than SV. It's pretty close.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I just said I'd rather have him at 4 year.s over SV at 3 years at about the same cost and ages. It's very close, so I'm not going to get into a big argument over who is better: SV for 3 years vs Pagan for 4 years (1 of which is younger)



    I know we're close to beating the dead horse on this, but Pagan got 4 for 45 from SF.  You have to figure the Sox would have to make it at least 4 for 50.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I just said I'd rather have him at 4 year.s over SV at 3 years at about the same cost and ages. It's very close, so I'm not going to get into a big argument over who is better: SV for 3 years vs Pagan for 4 years (1 of which is younger)



    I know we're close to beating the dead horse on this, but Pagan got 4 for 45 from SF.  You have to figure the Sox would have to make it at least 4 for 50.



    I heard he got $40/4, and I never said we could have gotten him at that rate. The thread pointed out FAs signed and asked who we'd rather have over what we ended up getting. Pagan was not on the list, but for argument's sake, I'd rather have Pagan at $40M/4 than Victorino at $39M/3. (I'd even go $42M/4 rather than SV, but I'd rather not have signed either at this cost.)

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share