The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    By the way , Papelbon with  five out save last night for the Phils.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Paplebon is stupid southern redneck who made sure he wasn't going to play for the proud Irish and Polish bigots of New England. Papelbon must think that eastern PA is like Alabama. I pointed out how he was despised by most Red Sox fans, but that he would have the last laugh. I was right. 

    This is post is just not factual, I mean their isn't one fact that is accurate in the post. Do you still not think French Canadians exist?

     

     

    Hi Joe, 

    It is amazing how the Great Soft One exposes his own predudice when he writes what he did above. He acuses others of being what he already is, an ignorant & bigoted shell of a human being who only posts here are full of false accusations based on little if any actual facts and his own personal hatred of certain players.

    And yes French Canadians do exist, at least in my estimation, in Quebec among other places, so I don't quite understand that statement. 

    Cheers, 

    Hetch



    Well historically those are technically different people then the American group. The American ethnic group is historical Acadian which is different than the Québécois. The Acadians were forcefully removed from their land by the British.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ADG's comment:

     

    Great analysis by Peter Abraham. Through the first two years of Papelbon's contract with the Phillies, the Red Sox have gotten nothing out of it. Papelbon has saved 43/47 chances.

    From the $$ cost aspect, the Red Sox have spent about $1 Million less than what it would have cost keeping Papelbon.


    Ouch.

     



    A million less? I don't get the math. Is softy your statistician?

     

     



    Read the article. The Sox have spent 23 on players traded for/signed over the last two years. At this point Papelbon would have been a better option.

     



    I read the article, and get his point, but the fact is, we probably did not sign Jenks and pay him $6M the last year of Pap's deal, just so we'd have him to close when Paps left. Counting that $6M towards the equation is softiesque.

    Had we kept Jenks and Paps, we'd have not been able to afford others, like maybe Cody Ross or AGon.

    His comparison is a joke. While our closers have struggled since Paps left, it does not change the fact that he was not worth that much money over that length of time. His numbers with the Phillies are also helped by the fact that he plays in a weak hitting division and in a league with no DH.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

           Papelbon is sorely missed. This forum is funny in that , no matter how obvious something may be , there is no shortage of posters ready to refute it. One time I mentioned Ted Williams statement that hitting a baseball was the toughest thing in sports. Sure enough , some guy came on asking if Williams ever played soccer , climbed Everest or cliff dived , etc. Just have to laugh. People will totally ignore reality and look for ways to support their opinions. Or just be disagreeable. Seriously , if you don't think we have missed Papelbon, you are delusional. 

     




    I was all for signing him for 4/48. He got 1M per year more with a vesting option for IP for a 5th year. If he does pitch those innings, hes obviously healthy so deal 5th year is fine. Not sure he would have signed here anyway.

     

    Remember that when we had to resign paps we had a huge amount of payroll committed already and had to retain papi and pay Ells and a few other arb cases. We also had other needs to address too. I remember a lot of talk that it had to be one or the other. Me? I would have gone over the limit or made a trade to keep him here. Its not too often you see a guy like him who has success in the ALE, thrives in the environment and stays healthy. Like I said thoiugh, who knows if he even wanted to be here. It is what it is and we probably should try and trade for another closer. I dont trust Bailey to stay healthy. Hes a top closer when he is healthy, but unfortunately he never is.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

    Hi Kimmi, 

    At this point I cannot even remember my own thought with regard to letting Paps go as it's two years ago, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time many fans assumed that Paps wanted out of town anyways, based on what I'm not sure as I never remember any quotes saying he wasn't happy here. 

    I do remember 2010 when Paps had an off season with a higher ERA and numbers of blown saves with many in Boston were ready to ride him out of town on a rail and now I just wonder how many of those same fans wish he was still here. I understand how fans can be disappointed in a players performance but many don't want to recognize that players can have off seasons expecting every season to be as great as his last. Many wanted Papi gone and now he's a fan favorite once more.  

    Hetch




    Hi Hetch,

    I remember when many people were ready to ride Paps out of town.  I would have loved to have him back, but I am not a fan of big contracts, especially for pitchers, and particularly especially for relief pitchers. 

    I admit, I was excited when the Sox signed Gonazalez, Lackey, and even Crawford, but I'm just a fan and I'm supposed to get excited when my team acquires good players.   Smile   Sometimes it's necessary to hand out a big contract to fill a need, but as we know, those types of contracts rarely work out for their duration.

    What I find interesting is that it seems like the people who complain about not handing out a big contract to someone like Papelbon are also the first people to complain when said contract handcuffs the team in future years.  You can't have it both ways.

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ADG's comment:

     

    Great analysis by Peter Abraham. Through the first two years of Papelbon's contract with the Phillies, the Red Sox have gotten nothing out of it. Papelbon has saved 43/47 chances.

    From the $$ cost aspect, the Red Sox have spent about $1 Million less than what it would have cost keeping Papelbon.


    Ouch.

     



    A million less? I don't get the math. Is softy your statistician?

     

     



    Read the article. The Sox have spent 23 on players traded for/signed over the last two years. At this point Papelbon would have been a better option.

     

     



    I read the article, and get his point, but the fact is, we probably did not sign Jenks and pay him $6M the last year of Pap's deal, just so we'd have him to close when Paps left. Counting that $6M towards the equation is softiesque.

     

    Had we kept Jenks and Paps, we'd have not been able to afford others, like maybe Cody Ross or AGon.

    His comparison is a joke. While our closers have struggled since Paps left, it does not change the fact that he was not worth that much money over that length of time. His numbers with the Phillies are also helped by the fact that he plays in a weak hitting division and in a league with no DH.



    That was almost an insane analysis on Abraham's part.  He included someone that we had signed a year before Paps left, and he included the cost of our #4 OF.  I guess PA's assumption is that we would not have had a setup guy or a #4 OF.  Almost spectacularly unfocused.

    He really should've just stuck that Paps has pitched very well for 1.2 seasons, and that our attempts to replace him have failed so far.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AL34. Show AL34's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

     

    "The rest of the "ride was going to be down hill !!!!!"

    Well his ERA has been terrific since he left and he's been far more durable than our closers. At a cheaper price (so far).

    Do you have another view on this other than your fantasy that he went downhill when he did not? 

    The Sox clearly made a mistake on Pap - the only rebuttal would be: would he have re-signed here under any circumstances? It seemed like he was out the door regardless of what the Sox were planning to offer...

     



    Who do you like better Aceves, Bailey, or Hanrahan ? Bad move in letting Papelbon get away, once again the Red Sox looking like a pauper team looking for a bargain. Hate to admit it but we signed garbage (Dempster, Gomes, Victorino) in the offseason and it shows. This team over achieved in April and is now slip slidding away. This team needs a better Front Office Undercover GM than Larry Luchinno who the game has passed by. Two weeks ago Larry was putting the whole FO in for Medals of Honor for the season. Slow down Larry the season is a lot longer than a month.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    Hate to admit it but we signed garbage (Dempster, Gomes, Victorino) in the offseason and it shows.


    I'm not sure how much attention you pay to the RS stats, but Dempster and Victorino have done very well so far.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ADG's comment:

     

    Great analysis by Peter Abraham. Through the first two years of Papelbon's contract with the Phillies, the Red Sox have gotten nothing out of it. Papelbon has saved 43/47 chances.

    From the $$ cost aspect, the Red Sox have spent about $1 Million less than what it would have cost keeping Papelbon.


    Ouch.

     



    A million less? I don't get the math. Is softy your statistician?

     

     



    Read the article. The Sox have spent 23 on players traded for/signed over the last two years. At this point Papelbon would have been a better option.

     

     



    I read the article, and get his point, but the fact is, we probably did not sign Jenks and pay him $6M the last year of Pap's deal, just so we'd have him to close when Paps left. Counting that $6M towards the equation is softiesque.

     

    Had we kept Jenks and Paps, we'd have not been able to afford others, like maybe Cody Ross or AGon.

    His comparison is a joke. While our closers have struggled since Paps left, it does not change the fact that he was not worth that much money over that length of time. His numbers with the Phillies are also helped by the fact that he plays in a weak hitting division and in a league with no DH.

     



    That was almost an insane analysis on Abraham's part.  He included someone that we had signed a year before Paps left, and he included the cost of our #4 OF.  I guess PA's assumption is that we would not have had a setup guy or a #4 OF.  Almost spectacularly unfocused.

     

    He really should've just stuck that Paps has pitched very well for 1.2 seasons, and that our attempts to replace him have failed so far.



    He also did not subtract the value of the guys we would have had instead of Sweeney, jenks, Bailey... Even if minimum values, their cost is a a cost nonetheless.

    It's all hype.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    Those that say his contract might be a problem later He is 32 has only pitched 70 innings once with most around 65 and his "WORST" save year was 31. If you actually look at his numbers you will see he has been extremly consistent in the 7 full seasons he has closed, Papelbon has racked up 200 saves in the fewest appearances in history to go with 458 Ks. His career conversion rate is amongst the best, standing at 88.1 percent. 

    Funny thing is two closers that are considered great Nathan and Valverde are both less than 40 saves in front of him and one is 35 (3 yrs more of saves) and the other 38 (5 yrs more of saves).

    The money he is getting was well worth it ====not signing him has been the main problem with RS  RP.

    Just say it most here hate Paps despite what he has accomplished they think he is a dumb redneck and a fool.

    I have always said right from when he signed with PP that not signing him would hurt this team for at least five yrs or more and so far,,,,,,,,,,,,

    He was and still is one of the top 4 closers in MLB and is also the youngest at 32.

    His 4th yr he will be 34 and that is not over the hill

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    The bottom line is this : Papelbon was , and still is , one of the best closers in recent years. We have not been able to replace him despite spending about the same amount that it would have cost to sign him. All this other gobbledygook does not change that reality. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

      Abraham should have included the salaries of Jenny Dell and John Henry's personal chef. 

    .

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    No doubt Papelbon has been a great closer over the years and has done well in Philly.

    One big concern about Paps was that he seemed to become just a power pitcher who lost his confidence in other pitches. Couple that with his loss of velocity, and not re-signing him for all thos years and dollars made a lot of sense. 

    It is still unkown if Papelbon's success in Philly wourl have translated to Boston.

    Papelbon's velocity charts:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=5975&position=P&pitch=FA

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    No doubt Papelbon has been a great closer over the years and has done well in Philly.

    One big concern about Paps was that he seemed to become just a power pitcher who lost his confidence in other pitches. Couple that with his loss of velocity, and not re-signing him for all thos years and dollars made a lot of sense. 

    It is still unkown if Papelbon's success in Philly wourl have translated to Boston.

    Papelbon's velocity charts:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=5975&position=P&pitch=FA



    Maybe maybe not But we do know he was successful in Boston even with decreasing velocity. Had one year with 7 BS all others 4 or less. It was foolish to not sign the youngest and one of the top 4 closers in MLB for the 6 years he was here. ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    No doubt Papelbon has been a great closer over the years and has done well in Philly.

    One big concern about Paps was that he seemed to become just a power pitcher who lost his confidence in other pitches. Couple that with his loss of velocity, and not re-signing him for all thos years and dollars made a lot of sense. 

    It is still unkown if Papelbon's success in Philly wourl have translated to Boston.

    Papelbon's velocity charts:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=5975&position=P&pitch=FA

     



    Maybe maybe not But we do know he was successful in Boston even with decreasing velocity. Had one year with 7 BS all others 4 or less. It was foolish to not sign the youngest and one of the top 4 closers in MLB for the 6 years he was here. ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH.

     



    Not "absolute".

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    It is still unkown if Papelbon's success in Philly wourl have translated to Boston.

    Wow, we know how good Papelbon was to Boston. Knock off the "how to lie with statistics".



    This from the clown who wanted us to sign Putz.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    the frustrating part is that bailey could easily be better than papelbon at this point and i will admit i was all for gettign bailey, the problem is that he cannot seem to stay healthy. it seems like one injury after another with him, when hes healthy he is dominant, but thats the problem, he never is.  papelbon on the other hand has been the picture of durability and continues to be. he may be making more than he should, but look at how much the sox have spent trying to replace him, and they still dont have a reliable closer.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Stooge, Putz was outstanding in 2012, and we are only weeks into 2013. This from the stooge who wanted the Red Sox to sign Wastefield.

     



    He's blown 9 out of 46 save opportunities since his signing. I guess like Bard as  a starter, you call that decent.

     

    I don't.

    He's 36 now. I guess that's young for players you like. 

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:

    the frustrating part is that bailey could easily be better than papelbon at this point and i will admit i was all for gettign bailey, the problem is that he cannot seem to stay healthy. it seems like one injury after another with him, when hes healthy he is dominant, but thats the problem, he never is.  papelbon on the other hand has been the picture of durability and continues to be. he may be making more than he should, but look at how much the sox have spent trying to replace him, and they still dont have a reliable closer.



    Would Paps have got us to the playoffs last year?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:

     

    the frustrating part is that bailey could easily be better than papelbon at this point and i will admit i was all for gettign bailey, the problem is that he cannot seem to stay healthy. it seems like one injury after another with him, when hes healthy he is dominant, but thats the problem, he never is.  papelbon on the other hand has been the picture of durability and continues to be. he may be making more than he should, but look at how much the sox have spent trying to replace him, and they still dont have a reliable closer.

     



    Would Paps have got us to the playoffs last year?

     




    Hes not here now. It was a bad move not resigning him. end of story.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share