Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article

[obnoxiousmime]

http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2014/04/red_sox_timing_on_tanaka_off_by_a_year

This article and the Sox' reasons for not being more aggressive on Tanaka within are total garbage.

First of all, this idea that they already had too many starting pitchers in 2014 and that 2015 would have been a more ideal time is inane. As if there are ace-level, 25 year-old starting pitchers available every offseason and when a roster spot opens up you just pick 'em up! Can you imagine the Sox thinking to themselves, "Golly, it's just too bad Peavy and Dempster are here. Even though the odds of us re-signing them beyond 2014 is almost nil, we can't go after Tanaka because he happens to overlap with them for one season!" This is where I also remind everyone that Tanaka would not have cost a draft pick in compensation as all quality MLB free agents do.

Then there's this hilarious statement that they couldn't give away Peavy or Dempster (let's just include Lackey in here too because he's freakin' 35 years old) for "nothing." Yes, because those two guys are so valuable! Hey, Peavy bought a duck boat! The thing is, you're NOT losing them for nothing because when you GAIN someone in free agency, that acquisition doesn't cost you anything! Adding Tanaka and losing Peavy or Dempster would have still been a net positive. The truth is they didn't want to eat the money that a salary dump would have cost them. That is, I have to believe that because the alternative - they really thought Peavy and Dempster were going to be good this year - is so much more frightening.

The other reason to be angry is everyone knew Tanaka was the Yanks' top target. He was option 1, 2 and 3 this offseason to boost their pitching staff. Sign him away and the Yanks have no real backup plan.

The article goes on to do all the typical damage control and face-saving stuff front offices always do when they miss out on a free agent. Quotes like, "we knew he was going to be good" which I guess is supposed to reinforce your faith in their scouting department. Instead, it just p---es me off even more because it does the opposite. If you really did think he was good then all of these cockamimie reasons shouldn't have been a big deal.

Finally the article gets really bizarre and hints that the Rakuten owner could have intentionally held Tanaka back because he's a Red Sox fan! As if that wouldn't p--- off Tanaka, a possible conspiracy between his owner and the Sox to improve the chances he'd go to Boston. The owner was upset MLB changed the posting system which only rewarded him a flat 20 mil instead of a more lucrative auction fee. He only considered keeping Tanaka another year because Tanaka's value to his team, while probably not worth 20 mil, was enough that keeping him on another season was worth considering.

I understand that the Sox don't want to go over the luxury tax, but to give these dumb reasons like "Peavy and Dempster couldn't be dealt for nothing" is just insulting our intelligence. Just admit you either didn't think ANY pitcher was worth that money or that Tanaka himself wasn't worth it. And don't act shocked when free agency comes again and you find out that hey, ALL good pitchers are signing for this much money now.

[gpap]

I am really happy you brought this up and as an avid baseball fan, this is why I now support the Yankees over the Red Sox.

The Yankees always spend the necessary amount of money to put a winning product on the field whereas the Red Sox pick and choose when they want to spend the money and usually, just don't spend it.

The Yanks always keep the money "on the field."

I actually enjoyed watching Tanaka shut down the Red Sox yesterday.

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

[Fafnir]

I am really happy you brought this up and as an avid baseball fan, this is why I now support the Yankees over the Red Sox.

The Yankees always spend the necessary amount of money to put a winning product on the field whereas the Red Sox pick and choose when they want to spend the money and usually, just don't spend it.

Red Sox don't spend money? They've been in the top 5 every year since 2001, and even in 2000 they were 7th. Most years they were 2nd to the Yankees.

I get that puff piece articles for why a team didn't make the move are annoying, but the statement that Red Sox don't spend is just factually wrong.

I'd also add that the idea you must spend the maximum amount of money on a given team would lead to really bad short term decision making.

Does anyone want Pujols/Hamilton deals?

[beantownboy171]

It would be nice to have added Tanaka. But our log-jam at the rotation is for real. But it has less to do with peavy and dempster and more to do with our youngsters in the minors, imo.  Rubby De La Rosa, Brandon Workman, Allen Webster, Anthony Ranaudo, Matt Barnes and Henry Owens are all waiting in the wings.

So I think management was hesitant to spend a lot of money, because our rotation is set up pretty good in the future already

[Roy H.]

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Because they've brought the city three titles in ten years?

[Donoghus]

Ummmm....what am I missing here?  So the Sox didn't shell out for Tanaka?   

Penny-pinching?  I don't know about that.  This ownership group has won 3 World Series in the past decade.  I don't think they've really done much of a disservice to the fans.   One thing I will say its that they've certainly been more cognizant & reluctant about handing out long term deals than other organizations and have been more prudent but it hasn't exactly biten this team in the butt, either.

There's a team about a mile north of where I live right now (hint: 105+ years & counting) that would scream for the type of success that the Red Sox have enjoyed since this ownership group took over.

[Donoghus]

Just realized Tomase wrote that article.   

[Fafnir]

Another issue with paying pitchers that much money, is that all pitchers get hurt. How often they get hurt goes up with age, but even young studs blow out their arms all the time.

If you've got a solid rotation (already getting paid a lot) and a farm system you believe in its completely rational to conclude that the risk of signing a 25 year old FA guy you think will be really good isn't worth it.

Now I don't follow baseball closely enough to know a lick about team's farm systems, but pitchers on long term deals blow up more often than they "work".

[beantownboy171]

I am really happy you brought this up and as an avid baseball fan, this is why I now support the Yankees over the Red Sox.

The Yankees always spend the necessary amount of money to put a winning product on the field whereas the Red Sox pick and choose when they want to spend the money and usually, just don't spend it.

The Yanks always keep the money "on the field."

I actually enjoyed watching Tanaka shut down the Red Sox yesterday.

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

The red sox keep talent in their farm system. The red sox have been ranked consistently as one of the top 5 farm systems during the offseason. The yankees are rank near dead last.

In the MLB you lose draft picks when you signs big name free-agents. This isn't true for international prospects, like Tanaka. But the yankees don't pick until #56 this year, the red sox pick twice before them.

It's a different way of building a MLB team. But names like Xander Bogaerts, Jackie Bradley Jr., Garin Cecchini, Mookie Betts, Blake Swihart, Christian Vasquez, Henry Owens and Matt Barnes are the future of Red Sox baseball.

[gpap]

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Because they've brought the city three titles in ten years?

In 2004 and 2007, the Sox had one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Both of those rosters were filled with high profile players on high profile contracts. They did business similar to the way the Yankees did business, and it worked!

As for 2013, to me, that was an anomoly. It was just the perfect storm of players staying healthy and having career years.

Every now and then, a team just gets all the right breaks. I wouldn't call it luck, but certainly luck plays a role. To think what happened in 2013 will just happen again is EXTREMELY unlikely.

To make a long story short....2 of the 3 titles were won with a combination of lucrative contracts and yes, contributions from the farm system (really no different than the Yankees.)

To me, that's how a team should be run.

This new "moneyball" or "short term contract" method (whatever you want to call it) does not usually work.

Also, to say "ownership won 3 titles in 10 years" is a bit inaccurate.

Maybe they were the partial architects of those title teams (remember alot of players from the 2004 team were players from the Duquette regime) but the players won those titles, not the owners.

I have noticed many are quick to give credit to one certain party or person as opposed to the whole team.

[JBcat]

I thought we learned our lesson with Carl Crawford in dishing out high earning long term money. Lol

[Donoghus]

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Because they've brought the city three titles in ten years?

In 2004 and 2007, the Sox had one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Both of those rosters were filled with high profile players on high profile contracts. They did business similar to the way the Yankees did business, and it worked!

As for 2013, to me, that was an anomoly. It was just the perfect storm of players staying healthy and having career years.

Every now and then, a team just gets all the right breaks. I wouldn't call it luck, but certainly luck plays a role. To think what happened in 2013 will just happen again is EXTREMELY unlikely.

To make a long story short....2 of the 3 titles were won with a combination of lucrative contracts and yes, contributions from the farm system (really no different than the Yankees.)

To me, that's how a team should be run.

This new "moneyball" or "short term contract" method (whatever you want to call it) does not usually work.

Also, to say "ownership won 3 titles in 10 years" is a bit inaccurate.

Maybe they were the partial architects of those title teams (remember alot of 2004 were players from the Duquette regime) but the players won those titles, not the owners.

I noticed may are quick to give credit to one certain party or person as opposed to the whole team.

Yankees have won one World Series since 2000.  I wouldn't exactly say their business model is succeeding in a rousing manner.  Dodgers have been spending tons of money and have nothing to show for it.

Looking at the recent string of World Series champions, I'm not sure a clear pattern can be established for what is working & not working.  I don't even know how you'd classify those St. Louis & San Francisco teams. 

The only pattern I can really establish is that spending to the max hasn't gotten the desired results.

[Roy H.]

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Because they've brought the city three titles in ten years?

In 2004 and 2007, the Sox had one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Both of those rosters were filled with high profile players on high profile contracts. They did business similar to the way the Yankees did business, and it worked!

As for 2013, to me, that was an anomoly. It was just the perfect storm of players staying healthy and having career years.

Every now and then, a team just gets all the right breaks. I wouldn't call it luck, but certainly luck plays a role. To think what happened in 2013 will just happen again is EXTREMELY unlikely.

To make a long story short....2 of the 3 titles were won with a combination of lucrative contracts and yes, contributions from the farm system (really no different than the Yankees.)

To me, that's how a team should be run.

This new "moneyball" or "short term" method (whatever you want to call it) does not usually work

Is the "Yankees' Way" working?  One title in the past 13 seasons.  The Sox have committed plenty of big money, as well, including high-profile signings of John Lackey, Carl Crawford, Dice-K, etc.  In general, they haven't received a huge return on investment.

Also, as Fafnir noted, the Sox have consistently been in the top-4 in payroll for the past decade.  Plus, I'm not sure things have changed that much since 2004:

2004 Sox payroll: $125.2 million
2004 Yankees payroll: $182.8 million
2004 payroll gap:  $57.6 million

2007 Sox payroll: $143.0 million
2007 Yankees payroll: $189.6 million
2007 payroll gap:  $46.6 million

2014 Sox payroll: $162.8 million
2014 Yankees payroll: $203.8 million
2014 payroll gap: $41 million

So, compared to our two prior championship teams, the gap between the Red Sox payroll and the Yankees payroll has actually shrunk.

Also, to say "ownership won 3 titles in 10 years" is a bit inaccurate.

Maybe they were the partial architects of those title teams (remember alot of players from the 2004 team were players from the Duquette regime) but the players won those titles, not the owners.

I have noticed many are quick to give credit to one certain party or person as opposed to the whole team.

Well, you're claiming that there's no reason to support ownership, because they haven't invested in the team sufficiently.  A solid counter-argument to that seems to be that the team has, in fact, been winning, even moreso than teams that have spent more.

This ownership group has made a strong financial commitment to the team, and has hired smart personnel for the front office.  Of course it's the players winning games on the field, but the organization top-to-bottom has put the team in a position to succeed.

[obnoxiousmime]

I am really happy you brought this up and as an avid baseball fan, this is why I now support the Yankees over the Red Sox.

The Yankees always spend the necessary amount of money to put a winning product on the field whereas the Red Sox pick and choose when they want to spend the money and usually, just don't spend it.

The Yanks always keep the money "on the field."

I actually enjoyed watching Tanaka shut down the Red Sox yesterday.

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

The point of my post wasn't really about not spending money because the Sox obviously do, although the luxury tax is clearly their limit. Rather my point was about how weak the reasoning is in the article for the Sox to have not pursued Tanaka more aggressively.

Like it or not, top of the line starters are going to go for these kinds of prices on the open market, and oftentimes they're a lot older than Tanaka. They also almost always cost a draft pick in compensation. So if you're not willing to spend that number on Tanaka, and according to the article you believe he's worthwhile, what you're really saying is you're just not willing to spend that kind of money on ANY free agent pitcher. Which I can understand because they often turn out to be bad investments in the latter years of the deal.

However, the article doesn't really want to say this and instead has a lot of meaningless excuses about how this year wasn't ideal because of all the mediocre old starters whose contracts run only one year. A notion that is, of course, ridiculous. Tomase doesn't bother to question any of the points and just regurgitates them directly from the Sox' press secretary, apparently.

If you're only going to shop in the bargain bin in free agency, your farm system has to come through. The Sox system is vaunted but we'll see if it translates to major league results.

[Donoghus]

Also, to say "ownership won 3 titles in 10 years" is a bit inaccurate.

Maybe they were the partial architects of those title teams (remember alot of players from the 2004 team were players from the Duquette regime) but the players won those titles, not the owners.

I have noticed many are quick to give credit to one certain party or person as opposed to the whole team.

Well, you're claiming that there's no reason to support ownership, because they haven't invested in the team sufficiently.  A solid counter-argument to that seems to be that the team has, in fact, been winning, even moreso than teams that have spent more.

This ownership group has made a strong financial commitment to the team, and has hired smart personnel for the front office.  Of course it's the players winning games on the field, but the organization top-to-bottom has put the team in a position to succeed.

Exactly. 

Addressing '04 too.  Sure, some of the core was already in place from the Duquette regime, but it was Theo & the new group that put the team over the top in '04. 

Schilling/Ortiz/Millar/Mueller/Foulke/Timlin..... Making the Nomar trade.  These were all moves done by the new regime and, when added to the Duquette guys, got them over the top.  They certainly played a significant role in that championship.

You can also help blame them for the disaster that was 2011 & 2012. 

This group has made playoff appearances in '03, '04, '05, '07, '08, '09, & '13.     Not bad at all.  Like I mentioned before, most fanbases would die for something like that.