Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

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

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    jrh1194: Even if we got a Crawford-like contract extension for Ells, can you imagine how favorably that extra bit of money would compare to what we're getting out of Ortiz?

    To me, paying someone in the low 20s to hit, run, field, steal, and play every game would be a much better deal than dumping a load of cash on someone to just swing a bat and not produce all the other stuff.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]Platooned?  What are you talking about?  Ortiz DH'd every day and hit lefties great last year.  At least get your facts straight if you're going to go off on the guy. 
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]You're forgetting some several other years / slumps where he's faired very poorly against left-handed pitchers:

    "In 2010, Ortiz batted .222 / .275 / .324 in 200 plate appearances against left-handed pitchers, with just 2 home runs."

    I'm happy for the improvement last year, but how long can we bank on that?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In response to "Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : Considering they didn't sign any of the free agent DH's until they freed up money by trading Burnett, I doubt they would have spent the money needed to sign Ortiz. It's strange to see the Yankees of all teams become careful about going over the luxury tax any further but they have been. I don't think Ortiz wanted to leave the Sox anymore than I think the Yankees were interested in him. He belongs here in Boston to finish his career. Posted by jrh1194[/QUOTE] I agree that he belongs in Boston and the ownership group is well aware of what he means to the organization, on and off the field, which is obviously one of the reasons they offered him arbitration. They looked at every scenario and they probably figured worst case would be 1 year at an inflated number. Had they not offered arbitration and had he felt they were lowballing him, I'm not so sure that the Yankees wouldn't have gotten involved. The luxury tax is a very real concern for both teams, but both will likely be over it this year and I can't see how the Yankees wouldn't have been interested at the right number...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In response to "Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : You're forgetting some several other years / slumps where he's faired very poorly against left-handed pitchers: "In 2010, Ortiz batted .222 / .275 / .324 in 200 plate appearances against left-handed pitchers , with just 2 home runs." I'm happy for the improvement last year, but how long can we bank on that? Posted by lasitter[/QUOTE] He's only under contract for one year and he's a perfect example of "it's not always just about the numbers." He made an adjustment against lefties last year and it worked. It wasn't a "fluke" that he hit lefties well last year....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    Garrison Lasitter

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa455519&position=3B
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    My only concern is that the Sox have finished in 3rd with Ortiz and done nothing in the playoffs when they did make it there...14 mil would have brought in a real front line pitcher and perhaps the Sox would have been better off with the pitching rather than the hitting.  Just my opinion...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : You're forgetting some several other years / slumps where he's faired very poorly against left-handed pitchers: "In 2010, Ortiz batted .222 / .275 / .324 in 200 plate appearances against left-handed pitchers , with just 2 home runs." I'm happy for the improvement last year, but how long can we bank on that?
    Posted by lasitter[/QUOTE]

    His career OPS vs. LHP is .813 over 2,124 PAs.   Speed?  You mean like the blazing speed of Williams?  Ruth?  Agon?  Bunting?  How many times/year does the average 3/4/5 hitter bunt across MLB?  2?  1?  These points are nonsense, what is your agenda?
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In response to "Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?": [QUOTE]My only concern is that the Sox have finished in 3rd with Ortiz and done nothing in the playoffs when they did make it there...14 mil would have brought in a real front line pitcher and perhaps the Sox would have been better off with the pitching rather than the hitting.  Just my opinion... Posted by traven[/QUOTE] What "real front line pitcher" was available to spend the 14 million on? They finished 3rd with 24 other guys on the roster, should we get rid of them too?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]These points are nonsense, what is your agenda?
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]
    The biggest point is that we overpaid.

    The second biggest is that the same money could have easily worked harder for us somewhere else, like in the rotation or right field.

    What about Youk for DH? He can at least score from 2nd on a single. The signing simply shows no imagination.

    Ortiz has plate discipline and draws walks, and that's fine, but SPEED could turn those walks into runs much more routinely. How often do we see Ortiz advance on a fielder's choice? Isn't he much more likely to be on the front end of a twin-kill?

    SPEED distracts a pitcher, wears him down with throws to first, and makes it easier for whoever is at the plate. SPEED means you can actually reach on a passed ball, ADVANCE on on all sorts of bad throws, SCORE from third on balls hit in the infield.

    I understand that it makes sense to focus on the bat for a designated HITTER, but why should it be to the exclusion of all else?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : The biggest point is that we overpaid. The second biggest is that the same money could have easily worked harder for us somewhere else, like in the rotation or right field. What about Youk for DH? He can at least score from 2nd on a single. The signing simply shows no imagination. Ortiz has plate discipline and draws walks, and that's fine, but SPEED could turn those walks into runs much more routinely. How often do we see Ortiz advance on a fielder's choice? Isn't he much more likely to be on the front end of a twin-kill? SPEED distracts a pitcher, wears him down with throws to first, and makes it easier for whoever is at the plate. SPEED means you can actually reach on a passed ball, ADVANCE on on all sorts of bad throws, SCORE from third on balls hit in the infield. I understand that it makes sense to focus on the bat for a designated HITTER, but why should it be to the exclusion of all else?
    Posted by lasitter[/QUOTE]

    We have Ellsbury and Crawford for speed.  We actually have a pretty balanced lineup the way it is.  Take Ortiz out and there is a big downgrade in power.

    Like Ortiz, Adrian Gonzalez is as slow as a turtle. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    It does not help having Ortiz weight down a spot in the everyday line-up.... in the end the Sox win as many games with or without him and without the inflexibility.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : The biggest point is that we overpaid. The second biggest is that the same money could have easily worked harder for us somewhere else, like in the rotation or right field. What about Youk for DH? He can at least score from 2nd on a single. The signing simply shows no imagination. Ortiz has plate discipline and draws walks, and that's fine, but SPEED could turn those walks into runs much more routinely. How often do we see Ortiz advance on a fielder's choice? Isn't he much more likely to be on the front end of a twin-kill? SPEED distracts a pitcher, wears him down with throws to first, and makes it easier for whoever is at the plate. SPEED means you can actually reach on a passed ball, ADVANCE on on all sorts of bad throws, SCORE from third on balls hit in the infield. I understand that it makes sense to focus on the bat for a designated HITTER, but why should it be to the exclusion of all else?
    Posted by lasitter[/QUOTE]

    First of all, apologies for my previous post.  It was unnecessarily rude.

    The overpay issue is simple.  As I posted earlier, we are overpaying but that's because we took a chance on getting two draft picks for him.  You can agree or disagree with that strategy, but once that was implemented his price was more-or-less decided.  That strategy also answers your second point about not having the money to spend.  Again, I agree, but I support the strategy and whether or not I, you or anyone supports or doesn't support the strategy the lack of money for players was fait accompli once the strategy was implemented.

    Finally, re his offensive skills, he's far off his prime but is still an elite - the best? - DH in baseball.  How many DHs hit like him?  None.  How many middle of the order sluggers run well?  Very few.  Speed is a nice-to-have from a slugger, no more. 

    I was very happy with Ortiz' 2011 performance - though not his too-high salary - and if performs again that's good enough for me because the salary issue is as above.


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

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]It does not help having Ortiz weight down a spot in the everyday line-up.... in the end the Sox win as many games with or without him and without the inflexibility.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Sure...and the Red Sox baseball people didn't even bother to crunch the numbers...they just handed him 15 million to be a PR spokesman.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    who cares... you would still support Tito and Tek if they were invited back... 
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingOSmakk. Show KingOSmakk's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    lasitter:  "Other than fear of seeing him in pinstripes, I still don't get this decision...."

    You can't be serious?  Why would NY spend $14M on this overweight buffoon?

    Why would ANYbody for that matter?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]Take Ortiz out and there is a big downgrade in power. Like Ortiz, Adrian Gonzalez is as slow as a turtle. 
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]
    I have no problem with having one turtle in the game tucked away at first, especially given the awesome production from Gonzalez. He can also field his position.

    I would just gladly take more doubles vs HRs in exchange for speed, a right handed or switch hitting bat, etc.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : nicely said.  It will be interesting on how the new coach respopnds, the first time ortiz trots down to first on a fly, or better yet when he does not even touch first.
    Posted by jackbu[/QUOTE]

    THE BIG PAPI FERRET SMELLS OUT ANOTHER ORTIZ THREAD

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

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : I have no problem with having one turtle in the game tucked away at first, especially given the awesome production from Gonzalez. He can also field his position. I would just gladly take more doubles vs HRs in exchange for speed, a right handed or switch hitting bat, etc.
    Posted by lasitter[/QUOTE]

    I like having two big boppers in the middle of the lineup.  It worked pretty good when we had Manny and Ortiz. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : I have no problem with having one turtle in the game tucked away at first, especially given the awesome production from Gonzalez. He can also field his position. I would just gladly take more doubles vs HRs in exchange for speed, a right handed or switch hitting bat, etc.
    Posted by lasitter[/QUOTE]

    As pitching staffs have increased over the years from 9 to 12, it's put a premium on switch hitters, multi-positional players, fielding and running.  They are ways to effectively expand your non-pitching roster i.e. get more value from fewer roster spots.  That was always part of Theo's strategy.

    It's accelerated in recent years.....or maybe just more teams have figured it out.  When Ortiz signed his 5-year contract he was an elite hitter....regular top 5 in MVP voting (FWIW, but it's an indication of his value and perceived value) and got an elite contract.  This contract was a failed gamble.  But there was a huge upside (2 picks, $14m to spend) or we overpaid for a guy - for just 1 year - with a (B-R) WAR of 3.8 last year.  That's a great gamble.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]That's a great gamble.
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]
    It would have been great if someone else had risen to the multi-year bait. Maybe they thought they had good intel on someone else picking him up.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?

    In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luxury tax REALLY a concern? Why sign Ortiz? : It would have been great if someone else had risen to the multi-year bait. Maybe they thought they had good intel on someone else picking him up.
    Posted by lasitter[/QUOTE]

    Don't conflate the two issues:

    The Gamble
    :  I think the risk they took made perfect sense...massive upside (2 picks, $14m to spend), but a reasonable downside (2011's best DH returns at too high a salary but only for one year)

    The Result: We lost the gamble...but you can't logically say "it would have been good if someone took the bait" because that's purely hindsight.

    Did you think it was a good gamble at the time?  I did, even though it was obvious a pure (no run, no field) DH is a dinosaur....and would someone give 2 draft picks and pay full value for a 36-year old for 2-3 years max.  That would be ludicrous....but stupider moves have happened in MLB and, again, the downside is keeping a still valuable guy for only 1 year albeit at $3-5m too much.

    Of course, a similar decision is looming like the Sword of Damocles....but I think the Sox will not offer arb next winter because a) the sandwich pick will no longer be on offer (I think) and Ortiz will be another year older....and his contract is probably pretty close to the avg of the top 125 players so the Sox will almost certainly wave goodbye....to a great guy and a great player for them.

     

Share