Long Live Frank Fixaris!

He fits because they need a bat. Cameron ain't the solution and if they are willing to eat Lugo's money and Lowell's money then they can afford a $7.5 million fourth outfielder. . .assuming they don't move him or Ellsbury to make room for Bay or another OF bat. I am not saying that Cameron will be elsewhere or that Bay will be with Boston, but I cannot agree with the notion that he cannot fit with the roster as it stands. I could buy that Boston does not want to over extend itself for Bay only if they had a quality replacement. . .a 36 year old Mike Cameron who hit .250 or worse the last three years or who has had a sub .800 OPS two of the last three years, again, ain't the solution.

And "cost-effective replacements" are for teams like the Royals, A's and the like. They just dropped 17 mill a year on Lackey who is 31 and been held to under 180 innings the last two years, I don't see how paying a guy at the same age who has not shown the recent durability issues the past two years commensurate money and years as being over paying.

Cost effective is absolutely for teams like the Red Sox too. Just that cost effective for them is still a higher rate than it would be for KC or Pittsburgh. Mike Cameron is not cost-effective if you put him on the Royals, is he? I am talking in relative terms, here. Just because the Red Sox have a higher budget doesn't mean they should overpay for something they can get at a lower price.

I've said on this thread repeatedly that I don't think the glaring need on this team is a "bat", so I don't really see the value in overpaying for Jason Bay because he's a "bat" when Mike Cameron figures to net the Red Sox roughly the same value that Bay would, for half the price (if 4/60 is Bay's price).

There was an article on Fangraphs a couple months back (forgive me if I've linked this already): http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bay-vs-cameron

Basically, the conclusion was that according to some of Fangraphs metrics, Cameron is actually the more valuable player overall. While offensively he is not Bay's equal, defensively he is so far superior that he closes the gap. So they suggest that rather than pay for a guy who provides more runs offensively but gives a bunch of them back defensively, the "smart" team should pay the guy that gives them the same net total (offense + defense) for half the price.

As for the comparison of Cameron to Lowell or Lugo, I don't think they're the same situation. With Lugo and Lowell, they're willing to eat a cost to upgrade over a player that had proven he couldn't provide adequate return. With Cameron, they just signed the guy a week ago. If this story is to be believed and Bay was going to remain an option for them, at the exact same price they'd been sitting on for a couple months, why the rush to sign Cameron when they did? Surely he'd have still been there for them in January if they got tired of waiting for Bay (and if not him, someone else...Byrd, Nady, etc). I think they made their decision on Bay the moment the ink was dry on Cameron's deal.

Unless they're thinking Bay can come in and be a first baseman, I just can't see them pursuing him anymore. And there's no way in hell they're going to sign Bay to play first with the defensive-minded approach they've taken so far this winter. The guy hasn't played an inning at first base in his professional career. There are plenty of experienced first basemen available if that's a need for them.

Rather than argue baseball with you I should light my hair on fire and try to put it out with a hammer. I am pretty sure I would be in a better position to win that battle than battle you.

first, jason bay was vigorously defended as an adequate replacement for manny, then last year all season all i kept hearing from everyone was "they better re-sign jason bay" but now that it appears he is gone apparently he was so bad in left field that that he was pissing away enough runs to make the 12 home runs and 49 rbi he hit more than cameron negligible in value (or the .126 in ops for the ops obsessed amongst us). i guess if mike cameron is 90% of jason bay then he's 80% of manny ramirez? either way it is one thing: a significant downgrade.

I think the argument Bay vs Manny was mainly in the offensive department, and I think it's safe to say he was more than adequate in replacing Manny's bat in his time. My argument then was that Bay's offensive numbers 2004-2007 were not all that far off Manny's, and his age indicated he wasn't going entering a decline like Manny appeared to be doing (his two month binge in LA after the trade notwithstanding). But even using the same method in which I (and fangraphs) was comparing Bay and Cameron, Bay and Manny were almost in a dead heat 2004-2007 (Bay = 143.8 Runs Above Replacement, Manny = 145.3 RAR), further strengthening the argument that Bay was not a step down. All that for half the price and half the headaches.

So when I say 90% of the production, I'm not talking about Cameron's bat. I'm talking about the whole package that RAR represents. Cameron in 2009 had an RAR of 43.0 compared to Bay's 34.9. In 2008, Cameron = 41.2, Bay = 29.0. Even if you don't buy into the stat as an end-all or anything (and I don't), it certainly is indicative that the perception that Bay is far and away the better player is questionable and the two are a lot closer than we think.

Defense is severely undervalued, especially when it comes to free agent contracts. The flashy offensive stats still drive the market. The Red Sox (along with the Mariners before them) seem to be attempting to seize on that inefficiency in the market to improve their team. Like Billy Beane utilized the undervaluing of OBP in the early part of the decade, the new "Moneyball" approach is apparently defense and saving runs.

i just really can't see how having cameron or ellsbury in left as opposed to bay is going to even come close to "saving" even 15% of the runs that jason bay contributes to producing vs. cameron. i think what large farva is driving at with his dismissal of the need for "cost effectiveness" is that in a no-salary cap league, with the resources that the sox have, what is the need to nickel and dime it when championships are on the line? who cares? what pride is there in saving money if it lessons your chance to beat the yankees? this isn't the a's we're talking about.

having said that, i don't think bay is worth the money. i just also don't think that cameron at less money even comes close to replacing what bay does on the field. i realize that some (or all) of bay's money went to signing lackey, and that upgrade somewhat makes up for the downgrade of bay vs. cameron, but with the sox resources, does there really have to be a downgrade to upgrade?

Can't see it? Fangraphs uses the RAR figures to calculate WAR (Wins above Replacement). According to WAR, Bay was worth 3.5 wins in 2009 while Cameron was worth 4.3.

If the Fangraphs data isn't enough, how about Baseball Prospectus' WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player)? Similar thought process (runs above average/replacement translated to wins), different methods to reach their conclusions...Cameron = 4.1 WARP, Bay = 4.0 WARP. And to show it's not really a fluky year:
2008 - Cameron 2.9, Bay 2.5
2007 - Cameron 2.1, Bay 0.0 (Bay was hurt)
2006 - Cameron 5.5, Bay 5.7
2005 - Cameron 2.1, Bay 6.9 (Cameron was hurt)
2004 - Cameron 3.7, Bay 3.4

These seem to imply that Cameron might actually be the better player between the two. At the very least, it says they're roughly equal. But even I'm not buying into it enough to say definitively that Cameron is better than or even equal to Bay. But he's certainly close enough that paying him less than half of what they offered Bay is better value. Just because they can "afford" to pay 4/60 or whatever to Bay (and who are we to say), that doesn't mean they can't be conscientious about getting the best bang for their buck.

And this is about championships...championships beyond 2010. Why pay $100 for something you can get for $50 (leaving you $50 more to spend on something else of use in the meantime)? Why commit to something for four years when you are confident you can get something as good or better for that spot two or three years down the line?

And if it's so so important for the Red Sox to spend more money than they should to retain Bay in order to "keep up with the Yankees", why aren't the Yankees in on this, then? They've got an opening in LF, no? This is a no-salary cap league. Why don't they throw their money at Bay to fill their opening? Forget Bay, why aren't they just committing the three year deal that Damon reportedly wants? Or the two year deal he's supposedly now willing to settle for? They've got the money, what's a couple extra million to them? (to be clear, I'm being facetious about the Yankee thing)


It goes beyond just the signing of Lackey to off-set the loss of Bay, though. It isn't about replacing guys in a one-for-one or even a two-for-one kind of thing. It's about the overall team concept. The goal is for the whole package in 2010 to be at least equal to and ideally better than the whole package was in 2009.

It's a math equation. They really don't need Cameron = Bay. What they need (assuming for a moment that all else remains equal) is

(Scutaro - Lugo/Green/Gonzalez) + (Martinez - Varitek) + (Cameron - Bay) > 0 (0 being 2009 level of production)

And if they get that equation correct, they are a better team, plain and simple. The "savings" of Cameron instead of Bay can be used to pay, at least in part, for the upgrades at C and SS as well as other areas. And overall, they're paying more for the 2010 roster than they did in 2009. So it's not even a matter of going cheap or downgrading to upgrade. It's more a re-allocation of resources.

fangraphs...shmamgraphs...you can buy into that stuff all you want but to me it is inconceivable that having cameron or ellsbury in left field versus bay even comes anywhere close to "saving" the runs that bay produces in excess of cameron. just showing me some "RAR" that someone came up with from whatever metrics they are basing their analysis on doesn't in any way convince me that jason bay's fielding cost them the "extra" runs that jason bay produced. the thing that really gets me is how when jason bay was a fan favorite sox fans loved him but now that he appears to be heading elsewhere suddenly he's this horrible fielder and the sox are better off without him. kind of like how suddenly in 2006 damon threw like a girl and needed to be replaced by the "younger cheaper" coco crisp.

as for the yankees, i still think damon is coming back, but i also think it is clear that bay (or a bat like bay) is more of a need for the sox than the yankees. the sox have martinez and youk as two sure middle of the order guys but beyond that they have ortiz and lowell who are both question marks. i am certainly not alone in thinking that "replacing" bay with cameron in the line-up leaves a pretty big whole to fill. the yankees on the other hand, have already replaced albeit somewhat transformed the missing bats of damon and matsui and the bat they need to replace now is melky cabrera's.

if you ask me rh, you've "drank the kool-aid" and will buy whatever theo and company are selling. i am not saying they should have re-signed bay. what i am saying is by not replacing his production in the line-up, even with his superior fielding and john lackey in the rotation, the loss of that big bat coupled with the uncertainty of ortiz and lowell leaves the 2010 red sox as now constituted as inferior to the 2009 one, just as the 2009 team was inferior to the 2008 team and the 2008 team was inferior to the 2007 team.

I have thought the Sox are going to resign Bay all along and I still think that as of right now. I do think the Sox and Yanks are at a place where they do not really want to go 4 and especially 5 years for any outfielder. Both I am sure do not want to be in a position where they do not have room on the roster for a guy like Carl Crawford. Next year's free agent class is much stronger than this year.

You call it drinking the kool-aid. I call it the Sox operating in a similar fashion to how I'd handle it in Theo's position. 2008 was not an inferior team to 2007, just more injured (Ortiz, Lowell, Beckett, Lugo/Lowrie, hell, throw Schilling in there too). 2009's offense was just as potent as 2007's, the pitching/defense wasn't nearly as good (to the tune of 79 runs worse). Surprise surprise, Theo's primary objective is to improve the pitching/defense for 2010. And in my opinion, he hasn't done it at great expense to what was the #3 offense in baseball. Bay is the big loss, no doubt, but as I've repeatedly said, it is mitigated not by his direct replacement, but by the collective of ALL the new additions to the lineup (Martinez, Scutaro, Cameron) PLUS the improved run prevention.

Just to be clear, through all this, I've NEVER claimed to be a huge Bay fan (all I've ever said as far as endorsements was he was a more than adequate replacement for Manny) nor have I claimed that I don't think the Sox should have tried to re-sign him at all. I would have been fine with Bay coming back...at the right price (i.e. I'd be pissed if they threw a 5/75 deal at him, now or two months ago). Just so happens I'm also fine with them letting him walk (I've said numerous times I'd prefer Holliday if their intent was a long term commitment). And clearly I'm fine with replacing him with a cheaper, shorter term alternative that leaves them the flexibility to upgrade again down the road either from the farm or through free agency (both of which look a lot stronger in 2011 and 2012 than they are now).

A "big" bat, if urgently needed, can still be acquired in-season, and usually at a cheaper price, prospect-wise, than it would cost in the winter. A perfect example is Victor Martinez...he didn't cost the team anything that wasn't easily replaceable, and considerably less than he might have cost if they'd tried to get him in January instead of July. Adrian Gonzalez will cost a ton in prospects to do the deal now considering the Pads are in no rush to shop him and to get them to move off that position, it's going to take Buchholz + Ellsbury + more if rumors are to be believed. But in June/July, when the Pads are out of contention and ready to move Kyle Blanks out of LF and in to 1B, they probably won't demand nearly as much as it would take to pry Gonzalez out now. At that point, not only will they have 3 more months of playing time to evaluate their prospects, but 3 more months a guy like Casey Kelly or Ryan Kalish or even Lars Anderson (perhaps especially Anderson since Gonzalez or Miggy Cabrera would block him anyway) to raise his value enough to be a true centerpiece of a deal, rather than needing that centerpiece to be a major league contributor like Buchholz and/or Ellsbury.

I would hope all Sox fans would be unhappy if they gave Bay 5 and 75 million that would not be smart. I do not even think 4 and 60 is all that smart but I think that will be what he ends up signing for in Boston or some where else. The reason I do not think it is smart is next year the free agent list looks much better and I believe with the pitching they have they are good enough to get into the playoffs and I will take my chances with Lester, Lackey and Beckett in any series if all are healthy. Bay would be a good addition to the Sox lineup for 2010 but IMO the easiest thing to get during the season in a trade is a big hitter, and that may be a better option. You can call it drinking the kool aid if you want but I trust that the Sox will do the right thing and will put a team that will be one of the best teams in baseball on the field just as they have since Theo and the Trio have been in Boston.

a lot of it still goes back to manny for me. i know he was a head-case, a ped user, and all that but to me the day he left the red sox they became a weaker team. even if he never makes the hall of fame because of his suspension, he clearly has hall of fame numbers and was a force in that line-up. i never bought the jason bay is just as good argument in the first place but when it gets delineated to mike cameron being anywhere close to manny's equal i just think its just being stretched to the point of absurdity. people can dislike manny all they want but he won two rings in boston and was a major contributor. while john lackey clearly improves their rotation, i see their line-up as markedly inferior to when manny, lowell, and ortiz were all anchored in the middle of that order. until they can restore some of that pop to the middle of the line-up, i expect them to be a strong team, but not a championship caliber team. maybe theo will make that move between now and the trade deadline, but unless he does i'd be shocked if this sox team wins 95 games again.

What the heck does any of this have to do with Manny? I have not read everything that has been posted but I am assuming no one compared Cameron to Manny as a ballplayer? Manny left because that is what had to be done, when players went to the front office and were saying that Manny was a distraction it is pretty telling. Bay was not close to Manny as a ballplayer but he was better for that team. I do not believe they would of even made the playoffs in 2008 if they stayed with Manny. All that is not even the point since that was 2 years ago, either way Manny would of not been on the team after 2008 so they at least had a player like Bay for the rest of 2008 and for 2009. They are going at it a different way of winning, some people look at it as they do not have the lineup so they can't win. Most likely if you looked at the 2008 Rays you would of said the same thing and as the Sox team stands right now they have just as a good lineup as the team and a better starting rotation. As I said I still believe the Sox will end up with Bay even though I am not sure that is the best thing for the Sox after 2010.

it has to do with manny because just as you guys put so much premium on having premier starting pitching premier bats in the middle of the order effect the entire order from top to bottom in the same way that top starters bolster the whole rotation. when rh compares cameron to bay favorably (which personally i think is a joke) and bay to manny then to me that means he is comparing cameron to manny which to me is beyond absurd. it has to do with manny because regardless of the reasons he left the team they are not as good without him as they were with him just as right now i believe they will not be as good without jason bay as they were with him. don't forget who the left-fielder was the last time they won a championship. if not jason bay himself, then some other strong presence needs to be added to the heart of that order to make up for what has been lost there. theo could well believe that as well and is still headed in that direction, but i just don't see the 2010 roster as currently constituted being an improvement over the 2009 roster simply because of the loss of bay. the additions of scutaro (yawn), lackey, and cameron do not make up for that loss in production. in the end, the game is won on the field, not on the profit and loss statement.

If that's the case, why would you think they want to bring Bay back at all? I agree that the hesitancy on Bay is the years above all else. So if the commitment still is four or five years for Bay, why would they change their course and bring him back after going the short-term route with Cameron?

And my last statement regarding whether the team is better off with the direction they're taking with Cameron, Lackey, etc, versus bringing back Bay will be re-emphasizing the run differential thing.

2003: 961 runs scored, 809 runs against, +152 run differential, ALCS loss
2004: 949 runs scored, 768 runs against, +181 run differential, WS win
2005: 910 runs scored, 805 runs against, +105 run differential, ALDS loss
2006: 820 runs scored, 825 runs against, -5 run differential, miss playoffs
2007: 867 runs scored, 657 runs against, +210 run differential, WS win
2008: 845 runs scored, 694 runs against, +151 run differential, ALCS loss
2009: 872 runs scored, 736 runs against, +136 run differential, ALDS loss

Coincidence that the highest run differentials resulted in World Championships?
Coincidence that the lower the run differential, the earlier their season ended?
Where has the team gotten more noticeably worse since the last championship, resulting in the poorer run differential?

Is it really any wonder they've focused their spending with an emphasis on defense and run prevention? Forget the arguments about value or bang for their buck for a moment. They are simply attempting to lower that runs against number without greatly reducing the runs scored number. And we can go back and forth about the loss of Bay and how many runs scored that might cost, but it absolutely IS tempered by the gains that a full season of Victor Martinez starting over Jason Varitek and Marco Scutaro starting instead of Lugo/Green/Gonzalez gives them.

So assuming all else in the lineup stays the same as it was in 2009 (just for simplicity), let's say Bay vs Cameron is a loss of, oh, 50 runs over the course of the season (that's exaggeratedly high, btw). Scutaro just putting up a career average season has to be worth 10-15 runs more than the slop from SS last year, no? And Martinez has to be worth another 10-15 runs compared to Varitek. So a net loss of 20-30 runs over the course of the year? So let's just hypothetically call it 840 runs scored in 2010.

On the other side of the ball, let's say Lackey and a healthy Matsuzaka are going to replace the collective 2009 starts of Penny, Smoltz, injured Matsuzaka, Byrd, Masterson, and Tazawa. Those two plus a vastly improved defense has to be worth 40-50 fewer allowed runs over the course of the season (averages a bit less than one run less per start). So let's call it 685 runs allowed because we're assuming production out of Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Wakefield will be equivalent to 2009 (again for simplicity).

840 - 685 = +155 run differential. An improvement on 2009 and in line with 2008. And frankly, I think that's a conservative (and extremely unscientific) estimation. I expect that if the team remains relatively healthy, they'll be better than that.

i can accept that argument over simply that cameron's better fielding negates bay's better run production. i also understand that over the course of a 162 game season you can simplify statistics right down to run differential. but i still believe, and i know it seems to be scoffed at as another "old school belief", that having those big boppers in the middle of your line-up gives your team a competitive edge. i simply will never look at the sox the same way as i did when you had to face manny and ortiz every 2-3 innings and the moves this off-season are a move even further away from that.

I don't because Lackey has not been healthy the last two years; such as, he has not thrown 190 innings the last two years, and Dice-K has been fairly bad in two of three years in Boston and his one "good" year was a year in which he escaped danger.

You can also do all the comparisons you want with 2009 with regards to Bay's impact. His 2009 average was 13 points below his career average and 15 points below his career low for any season in which he played in 100 plus games.

But look at Cameron's last five years; his OPS has been sub .800 level in 3 of the last 5 years, and his fielding numbers are down as far as run prevention vs. his career numbers. He is on the decline.

I love how this always seems to go back to Manny with you Jabanga. It’s been said a millions times, but you don’t seem to get it. Manny was done as a Red Sox player because he chose to be done. He quit on the team and HAD to be moved. If he were a player with the attitude of a Pedroia he would have retired in a Sox uniform. Knowing he was done Theo had to find production that was comparable while knowing you can’t completely replace a bat like Manny. Bay as a whole exceeded my expectations and was adequately comparable in his 1.5 seasons in a Sox uniform. He also knew Manny like every other player was going to age and his act wasn’t worth the $20M per season that he was making.

Look, what this league saw from 2004-2007 with Manny and Ortiz was something of historic proportions. It will be a long time before that is replicated again if ever. Players get older; they eventually move on. Even if Manny stays he is a 38 year old Manny. It’s time to for you to move on as well and realize that the makeup of teams evolve and teams can win even when players move on. I understand you have more of a bravado now that your Yankees won a title last season, but don’t dismiss the Sox just because you don’t quake in your boots anymore knowing the Manny/Ortiz reign is over (and has been for some time now). While Mike Cameron isn’t what Manny was here, the Sox aren’t asking him to be. As RH pointed out Scutaro is going to be a sizeable upgrade over the poop stew that was SS last season. I pointed out a few weeks ago that Scutaro got on base 70+ more times than the 3 headed SS flu the Sox had last season. That is substantial. A 162 game season with Victor instead of Tek is also a major upgrade. If Ortiz produces for a full season like he produced post June 1st then the Sox will be more than fine. Adding Lackey as a #3 lessens the burden on the offense as a whole as well. You don’t see how this team can win 95 games? I can’t see how they won’t. You think they are worse than 2009? I see it as a case of wishful thinking.

What middle of the order "big bopper"did the Yankees have 1996-2001? That 1998 team was a juggernaut offensively (960 runs scored) but didn't have a 30 HR hitter. What they had was a lineup 1-9 that ground out at bats and got on base a lot.

The prospective 2010 Red Sox lineup has seven hitters who placed in the top 60 in MLB in 2009 in pitches seen per plate appearance:
#54 Dustin Pedroia 3.95
#52 Mike Cameron 3.96
#32 Victor Martinez 4.05
#29 Marco Scutaro 4.06
#21 JD Drew 4.12
#14 David Ortiz 4.19
#2 Kevin Youkilis 4.41

This will be a lineup that grinds at bats as well as anyone in the league. It's far from a weak lineup due to the lack of a "big bopper" filled heart of the order. It's not murderers' row by any means, but it's not exactly less than adequate for a championship contending team either.

163 and 176 IP the last two years. So yes, he's had a couple injury issues. There's been talk that since both injuries occurred in spring training, and that once he started the season he had zero problems/recurrences (no missed starts, 6 2/3 IP per start), that it can be managed or avoided entirely with a different approach. Given the team's success and praise for their shoulder/arm programs, I think it's reasonable to expect that Lackey shouldn't start the season on the DL for a third straight year.


Two bad years? Isn't that exaggerating a bit? Yes, 2009 was a wash-out, no arguments. But 2007 was not in any way a bad year. I'm not going to argue he was great or anything, but to me, saying it was bad implies that it was at the very least below average.

He was slightly better than average...2007 MLB average per 180 IP being 10-10, 4.53 ERA, 1.42 WHIP. Doing that in the AL East especially, it isn't bad. He hit a wall in August, which shouldn't have been unexpected in any rookie, even one with his history in Japan. The struggles he had over his last 8 starts merely took a very good season (13-8, 3.59 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 158 IP in first 24 starts) and turned it into a slightly above league average season (15-12, 4.40 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 204 IP in 32 starts).

Tim Wakefield has put up similar numbers for pretty much his whole career and nobody calls him "bad". Cripes, everyone was giving him tongue baths and an All Star berth for a 4.31 ERA and a 1.38 WHIP in the first half last year. Matsuzaka has had an average year, a good year (no matter how you want to rationalize, 18-3 and a 2.90 ERA is a good year), and a [bleep] injury year so far. Healthy Matsuzaka (and that's to say, an in shape Matsuzaka) is going to be a vast improvement over some of the slop the Sox had to run out to the mound in 2009.

the '98 yankees didn't have anyone that hit 30 hr but o'neil, williliams, and tino were clearly a very substantial 3-4-5 and they also had strawberry as a part-time player who was certainly a masher. they were also stacked 1-9. you guys keep referring to scutaro as an upgrade: the only reason he is an upgrade is because the guys before him were for the most part pretty bad. actually, i thought gonzales was pretty good during his stint.

bravado? yes, i've got some bravado. tell me you guys didn't from 2004 till you went down in flames against the angels. the yankees were fantastic last year. i also think the moves cashman has made this year have been fantastic as well, and i also think he's not done. i also think either hughes, joba, or both are going to have breakthrough seasons as starters in 2010 and that even with the sox signing of lackey, the yankees rotation will give the sox a serious run for the money. as for the offenses, as constituted now, i see the yankees' offense as markedly superior. remember also, the yankees didn't even have a full season of arod.

i'll give you guys lackey as upgrade, regardless of the years and price. but scutaro and cameron when faced with the loss of bay, and significant questions regarding lowell and ortiz? the line-up needs more work. again, maybe theo is not done yet. but if he is, he shouldn't be.

Ok, if you say so. O'Neil (.882 OPS), Williams (.997), and Martinez (.860) were a "substantial" 3-4-5, but a possible 3-4-5 of, in no particular order, VMart (.861 OPS in 2009), Youk (.961), and Drew (.914) isn't comparably substantial?

I don't disagree that that Yankee lineup was stacked 1-9 with patient hitters that ground pitchers down...to the tune of the highest scoring offense in MLB that year despite not having even one of the 33 guys who hit at least 30 HR that year. That's a deep lineup, historically deep. In no way am I even going to attempt to argue that the 2010 Red Sox will have a lineup with that potency. They don't need to score 960 runs to be good enough to win a World Series. I think an offense in the range of 850-875 runs scored is the target.


Exactly the point though. The guys he is replacing were BAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDD. And despite that BAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDD, they scored 872 runs as a team in 2009. So if they replace the collective .234 BA, .297 OBP, .358 SLG, .655 OPS that they got out of shortstop with Scutaro's career average of .265 BA, .337 OBP, .384 SLG, .721 OPS, that's got to result in some modicum of improvement to the overall run total. It certainly can't result in fewer runs, right?

Add in exchanging 131 games worth of .214 BA, .306 OBP, .389 SLG, .695 OPS from Varitek/Kottaras with at least 130 games worth of VMart's career averages of .299 BA, .372 OBP, .465 SLG, .837 OPS. That has to result in more runs scored overall, no?

So now it's replacing Bay's very good year of .267 BA, .384 OBP, .537 SLG, .921 OPS with Cameron's more pedestrian career averages of .250 BA, .340 OBP, .448 SLG, .788 OPS. Yes, it's will probably yield a drop in overall team runs. But is the roughly 130 points of OPS there worth significantly more team runs than the roughly 140 points difference represented by the catching upgrade alone?

This is obviously completely unscientific, and surely there are more statistically inclined people who can and probably have done models and projections toward this end, including in the Red Sox front office. But just on the surface, I don't see how the loss of Bay can be so debilitating to the offense that it can't be at least, in part, mitigated by upgrades at other positions in the lineup. I'm not even arguing the upgrades at C/SS erase the downgrade offensively in LF...just make it smaller and certainly manageable.

i think you maybe just pointed out why ops isn't the end all be all of stats as many like to portray it as. maybe martinez, youk and drew have comparable ops to o'neill, williams and martinez. but anyone who watched what o'neill, williams and martinez did from '96 to '01 would know that as a 3-4-5 combo what those three accomplished in that role in that time span was quite substantive. martinez, youk and drew would have a long way to go before they could be considered in the same breath as those guys, regardless of their comparable ops numbers.

Edes reports Sox have made offer to Beltre

Take it with the appropriate grain of salt that generally is required for all rumors like this. The assumption at this point is that for the Red Sox to be making an offer means his asking price has significantly dropped from the rumored 5/65 requests we were hearing a month ago. And that the abortion of the Lowell trade isn't changing their intent to upgrade at one of the corner IF spots in 2010.

A part of me wouldn't be surprised if this "offer" is the exact same one that they may have put on the table a month ago when they were first reported to be talking to Beltre (pre-Lowell, pre-Lackey, pre-Cameron, etc). Edes cites Baltimore, Oakland and LAA as possible "competition" for the Sox, but the O's signed Garret Atkins a couple weeks back and Oakland is supposedly saying they're out (according to Buster Olney's Twitter). So logic would say that there aren't really enough teams with the combination of need and willingness to spend to create real competition, so Boras might be doing his usual thing and claiming an old offer as something current just to get more buzzz and activity going on a guy for whom the actual market appears to be drying up.

Unless Beltre's willing to do a two year deal or possibly just a one year prove-himself deal (which would still allow the Sox the flexibility to acquire an Adrian Gonzalez or Miguel Cabrera at the deadline if the opportunity arises), I doubt the Sox desire to sign him has been re-kindled all of a sudden. But if that's what's happening and they end up with him, kudos to Theo for waiting this thing out.

Figures, as I'm typing that post (and doing three other things at the same time), the status has changed from "made an offer to" to "agreed to a deal with" Adrian Beltre.

According to WEEI, Peter Gammons is reporting that it's a one-year deal for $9 million with a player option for 2011 worth $5 million. So 1/9 or 2/14. Sounds like a steal of a deal if this guy bounces back even a little bit of the way some expect him to moving out of Safeco (and staying healthy, of course).

Next move, IMO, is they're going to be shopping Casey Kotchman around. He's beyond redundant if Beltre's in the mix since Youkilis apparently is going to be the primary 1B and they have VMart to take starts there as well...not to mention they might have Lowell still hanging around.

Defense is the priority. If it wasn't clear before, it's crystal clear now.

i'd say its a good signing. the money is reasonable and if for any reason it doesn't work out the sox can get out after a year. in addition to the defense its quite possible he will provide quite a bit of offense in fenway. people were saying they didn't want anything to do with beltre, but i assume they were expecting a bigger boras-like deal.

In looking at their 40 man roster (1 open spot), right now their 25 man roster probably looks like this:

C Victor Martinez Jason Varitek
1B Kevin Youkilis
2B Dustin Pedroia
SS Marco Scutaro
3B Adrian Beltre
DH David Ortiz
LF Jacoby Ellsbury
CF Mike Cameron
RF JD Drew
Bench Mike Lowell, Bill Hall, Jeremy Hermida

SP Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, John Lackey, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Clay Buchholz
Bullpen Jon Papelbon, Hideki Okajima, Ramon Ramirez, Manny Delcarmen, Daniel Bard,
Tim Wakefield


That leaves one spot for either another bench player (Lowrie, Reddick, free agent) or one more reliever (Bowden, Tazawa, Richardson, Bonser, free agent). Of course I don't expect Lowell to be there but stranger things have happened.


BTW, I'll be glad when baseball returns so MIT, Roaddie, Parrot, YH and others can come out of hibernation.

Early spring observations:

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston ... rs-monday/

Most interesting of note, IMO, was the paragraph saying Buchholz has come in to camp 15 pounds heavier than last year. Hopefully that translates into added durability through the season, since the article didn't seem to imply it was fat. His face does look a little bit fuller in this picture.

I'm glad I wasn't around for most of this thread. I like how jabanga is convinced that the 2010 version of the Red Sox is going to be significantly inferior to the 2007 version. Let's look at the lineups, and compare OPS in 2007 and 2009

C: Varitek (787) Martinez (861) +74
1B: Youkilis (843) Youkilis (961) +118
2B: Pedroia (823) Pedroia (819) -4
3B: Lowell (879) Beltre (683) -196
SS: Lugo (643) Scutaro (789) +146
LF: Ramirez (881) Cameron (795) -86
CF: Crisp (712) Ellsbury (770) +58 (I know these two should be flip-flopped)
RF: Drew (796) Drew (914) +118
DH: Ortiz (1.066) Ortiz (794) -272

Sizeable dropoff at three positions based on this look, though I expect Beltre and Ortiz to be better in 2010 than they were last year. OTOH, significant improvement in five spots. Likewise, Scutaro probably won't be as good as he was last year. There's no reason to think that the other six guys won't do pretty much what they did last year. And this is just as good a team defensively.

Rotation, with ERA this time. I switched them around a bit to show comparable roles:

Beckett (3.27) Lester (3.41)
Schilling (3.87) Beckett (3.86)
Matsuzaka (4.40) Lackey (3.83)
Wakefield (4.76) Matsuzaka (5.76)
Tavarez (5.15) Buchholz (4.21)
Lester (4.57) Wakefield (4.58)

That's clearly a superior rotation, unless you think that Daisuke is really a 5.00 ERA+ guy. A developing Clay Buchholz vs. giving 23 starts to Julian Tavarez? I'll take that swap.

Bullpen

Papelbon (1.85) Papelbon (1.85)
Okajima (2.22) Bard (3.65)
Timlin (3.42) Ramirez (2.84)
Delcarmen (2.05) Delcarmen (4.53)
Lopez (3.10) Okajima (3.39)
Snyder (3.81) Bonser (5.93 in 2008)

ERA comps don't look quite as good here, but Manny D. is better than that and I suspect that a healthy Bonser is better than what he shows, too. Ramirez is better than Timlin, Bard is still learning, Okaji is better/more versitile than Lopez. The pen was really good in 2007, but I think it's close in 2010, especially with a more reliable rotation.

2007 Sox "far superior" to the 2010 version? I don't see it that way.