The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    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.

     

    I wouldn't take him right now either at that cost and age.

    Who would you get rid of? Victorino? Dempster? 

    It's never a simple yes or no problem.

    If we kept Paps and Reddick and had no Bailey and Sweeney and probably no Cody Ross either, we still miss the plaoffs by a lot last year. We still are not much better off this year either, if you subtract Shane or Dempster to have Paps on the budget.

    This hocus pocus jibber jash about equal cost is absurd.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rizzuto1965. Show Rizzuto1965's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    I posted the following in 2011, prior to Papelbon signing with the Phillies:

    "Allowing Papelbon to walk would be a Yankee fan's dream.  IMO Papelbon proved this season that he is continuing to learn how to pitch, and he appears to have matured as well.  He gets the job done year after year, and that is easy to take for granted.  Truly great closers are rare. "

    As a lifelong Yankee fan, I have been spoiled watching great closers in Pinstripes like  Sparky Lyle, Goose Gossage, Dave Righetti, and of course Mariano Rivera.  In my opinion, Papelbon is right in the conversation with the greatest closers of all time.  If one compares his save totals to age 31 (this season is not yet complete), he has more saves than Billy Wagner, John Wettland, Trevor Hoffman, and Mariano Rivera.   And, his ERA+ is also superior compared to those same closers to that point.

    Was 12.5 million dollars per season for four years - with a vesting option for a fifth dependent on durability -  too much to resign Papelbon?  Papelbon was paid 12 million his last season in Boston, so it was not exactly a stark difference annually.  Bobby Jenks, Mark Melancon, Andrew Bailey, Alfredo Aceves - all nice tries but none struck fear into opponents like Papelbon in the ninth.  Also, one wonders if Daniel Bard would have remained in his set-up role and Papelbon were still the closer...well, it is always fun to postulate baseball's "what could have been" scenarios.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    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.

     

    I wouldn't take him right now either at that cost and age.

    Who would you get rid of? Victorino? Dempster? 

    It's never a simple yes or no problem.

    If we kept Paps and Reddick and had no Bailey and Sweeney and probably no Cody Ross either, we still miss the plaoffs by a lot last year. We still are not much better off this year either, if you subtract Shane or Dempster to have Paps on the budget.

    This hocus pocus jibber jash about equal cost is absurd.

     



    jeez Moon - give it up with the "his signing wouldve meant we couldnt have this player" nonsense which you started with the Scutaro trade...Gomes & Drew, two bums whose combined average cant surpass that of Ted Willams BA in 1941, are being paid the same amount as Paplebon. We didnt need these two clowns for 15 million....you would choose to sign two utility players for even one year rather than allot that money to keep an all star closer? 

     

    why cant people just admit that it was a terrible move to let him go? Thats was the point of the article and indisputable considering the nonsense we have gone thru with Aceves, Melancon, Bailey, Hanrahan, and now Tazawa....

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    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.

     

    I wouldn't take him right now either at that cost and age.

    Who would you get rid of? Victorino? Dempster? 

    It's never a simple yes or no problem.

    If we kept Paps and Reddick and had no Bailey and Sweeney and probably no Cody Ross either, we still miss the plaoffs by a lot last year. We still are not much better off this year either, if you subtract Shane or Dempster to have Paps on the budget.

    This hocus pocus jibber jash about equal cost is absurd.

     



    jeez Moon - give it up with the "his signing wouldve meant we couldnt have this player" nonsense which you started with the Scutaro trade...Gomes & Drew, two bums whose combined average cant surpass that of Ted Willams BA in 1941, are being paid the same amount as Paplebon. We didnt need these two clowns for 15 million....you would choose to sign two utility players for even one year rather than allot that money to keep an all star closer? 

     

    why cant people just admit that it was a terrible move to let him go? Thats was the point of the article and indisputable considering the nonsense we have gone thru with Aceves, Melancon, Bailey, Hanrahan, and now Tazawa....



    I admitted Drew, Dempster, Victorino, and Papi's deals were bad. What more do you want?

    I liked the Napoli, D Ross and Gomes signings as bridge players.

    Of course I would like to have Papelbon on this team, but what you always fail to understand or accept is that the Sox are not totally free spenders with no upper limit on their budget. While it may not be set in stone, signing one guy and keeping others means not signing or keeping someone else.

    The Scutaro example is a pefect example of your narrowmindedness. The guy could not play SS anymore. What part of that don't you get? We saved $6M by trading him, gained a promising pitcher, and freed up money used to sign FAs at fill much need positions: Cody Ross, Shoppach and Padilla. I guess you wanted a $6M utility player and DMac, Weiland, and Butler filling out our roster instead.

    The cost of Aceves was not part of the Paps nonsigning, anymore than Jenks was. The Hanrahan and Bailey deals-yes, but this is really stretching things to say the cost has been about even. That's my point.

    I'm OK with those saying it was a mistake to let him go, but most of you also wanted us to keep J Bay, Pedro, Reddick and others who fizzled elsewhere.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    Even if you don't accept the fact that signing Jenks had anything to do with Papelbon's impending free agency, the fact is that for the years 2012-2013, the Red Sox have invested about $20 million in Bailey, Hanrahan and Jenks, with very little to show for it.  

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Even if you don't accept the fact that signing Jenks had anything to do with Papelbon's impending free agency, the fact is that for the years 2012-2013, the Red Sox have invested about $20 million in Bailey, Hanrahan and Jenks, with very little to show for it.  



    So, you are saying that if we kept Papelbon, we'd have filled the other 2 slots with minimum wage relief pitchers? I think not.

    I feel Jenks was acquired to be our set-up man and emergency closer. The fact that he got hurt has nothing to do with the Papelbon equation. Nothing. He's signed with or without Papelbon.

    I can see counting Bailey and Hanrahan in the equation, but that's about it. Certainly their cost has been higher than their results, and that makes the equation look better for those who wanted Papelbon, but the fact remains that Papelbon would not have led us to the playoffs this year or last, his velocity has gone down, and he is getting older. The biggest issue for those of us who did not want Papelbon were the last 1-2 years of the contract. It's hard to criticize us, before we see what goes on in those years, isn't it?

    Of course, Papelbon has looked great so far with Philly. The fact that he has done better than I expected after showing some signs of decline with Boston helps your case quite a bit. I do wish we had him on our team, but I am still worried about the last years, and I also think we should consider the fact that we'd have less FA money spent had we kept Paps... like maybe no Cody Ross and Shoppach last year, and no fill-in-the-blank this year, and no someone else next year... I don't see how it's unfair to put that piece into the equation, if the stretches being made by the article are allowed.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I feel Jenks was acquired to be our set-up man and emergency closer. The fact that he got hurt has nothing to do with the Papelbon equation. Nothing. He's signed with or without Papelbon.

    Bard was our set-up man going into 2011 though.  That's why there was speculation about Jenks being the backup plan for 2012. 

    The main issue I have with all this is that I think the risk factor with Paps's contract is overplayed.  He was coming off 5 injury-free years at the end of 2011.  He's a very motivated guy who looks after himself.

    Plus all free agent contracts to premier players carry a lot of risk.

    I respect your opinion on this, believe me.  It's all just opinions here.

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

    Re: The Cost of Not Signing Papelbon

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I feel Jenks was acquired to be our set-up man and emergency closer. The fact that he got hurt has nothing to do with the Papelbon equation. Nothing. He's signed with or without Papelbon.

    Bard was our set-up man going into 2011 though.  That's why there was speculation about Jenks being the backup plan for 2012. 

    The main issue I have with all this is that I think the risk factor with Paps's contract is overplayed.  He was coming off 5 injury-free years at the end of 2011.  He's a very motivated guy who looks after himself.

    Plus all free agent contracts to premier players carry a lot of risk.

    I respect your opinion on this, believe me.  It's all just opinions here.



    I respect your opinion as well. Signing Paps had a lot of justification.

    I get the Jenks as insurance if Paps walked, but signing him a year early makes me think he wasn't signed to be the closer the following year. They could have just signed someone else then.

    Yes, Bard was a set-up man, but these days you need 2-3 of them. 

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share