Young, bright Ben Cherington had to be excited to ascend to the Red Sox GM job. But did anyone tell him he'd have to operate like a small-market club?
Heyman didn't only write what's in that blockquote. He wrote a whole thing. It's in the link, and you should read it, if only to better understand the words that follow.
I'm not a hardcore Red Sox fan. I can tell because when I see the name 'John Wasdin', my skin doesn't sizzle. I don't know all of the itty-bitty details, and as such I can't do this proper justice. But I will make some kind of effort. If I could break down what it seems like Heyman is trying to say:
Okay. In a vacuum, maybe there's something here. We are not in a vacuum. If we were in a vacuum we would be dead! Maybe we are all dead and this is the afterlife. The afterlife sure looks a lot like life.
There's really only one point that needs to be made to counter Heyman's argument. The Red Sox exceeded the luxury tax threshold in 2011. They're going to exceed the luxury tax threshold again in 2012. They are not cutting payroll. They are absorbing significant raises to Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, and so on. That the Red Sox haven't spent a fortune on the free agent market isn't an indication that they're suddenly pinching pennies - they've spent a fortune keeping their guys around.
I don't know how we got to the point where a team with a payroll that will approach $200 million can be said to be operating like a small-market club. If the Red Sox were operating like a small-market club, they would be shedding salary. Instead they are retaining salary. A whole lot of salary. They are not adding a whole lot of salary, but their payroll was already incredibly high.
As for those roster holes, one notes that the Red Sox are still technically in the running for Roy Oswalt, who doesn't seem to have anywhere to go. Daniel Bard is supposed to take one of the rotation slots, and it's hard to see how he's a worse bet than Neftali Feliz. There's a whole host of warm and lukewarm bodies vying for the last spot, and while none of them is sexy, we're talking about fifth starters. Fifth starters aren't sexy.
And shortstop? True, the Red Sox dealt Jed Lowrie. True, the Red Sox left Marco Scutaro in a box on the sidewalk. But the Red Sox have Nick Punto and Mike Aviles. Aviles is a capable hitter. Punto is, based on our evidence, an outstanding defender. According to FanGraphs, over the last four years, Derek Jeter has averaged 4 WAR per 150 games. Punto has averaged 3 WAR per 150 games. Punto isn't a star - far from it - but there's a compelling statistical argument to be made that he's fine. A compelling statistical argument at which Heyman would shake his head, but a compelling statistical argument nonetheless.
And then the soccer stuff. Whatever to the soccer stuff.
Heyman had a thesis in mind. I think there's a good article to be written about the way the Red Sox have conducted their offseason. Heyman didn't write it.
Miguel Montero, Diamondbacks Reportedly Agree To 5-Year Extension
Rockies Place Ramon Hernandez On DL With Hand Problem
Juan Carlos Oviedo Will Arrive In USA Monday, Report To Marlins Camp
Orioles DFA Bill Hall, Make Other Roster Moves
Pirates DFA One-Season Wonder Nate McLouth
Pablo Sandoval Swinging, Fielding
Yankees Sign John Maine To Minor-League Deal
Lance Berkman Injury: Out 8-10 Weeks After Knee Surgery
Orioles, Adam Jones Reportedly Agree To Extension +1
Ryan Howard Still Taking Batting Practice
More News »
Comments
Heyman didn't write it.
Double Jeopardy, category, Sportswriters:
Answer: Heyman didn’t write it.
Question: What is, what I realize every time I read a particularly well thought out article about Baseball that contains sufficient empirical data to sway me or make me a believer.
by CLEAN88GT on Feb 9, 2012 2:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Before you pile on Heyman
It’s worth noting that the doom and gloom you casually dismiss in this article looks like a recanting of history, if only you change the perspective of sport and city.
Replace “Boston Red Sox” with “Tampa Bay Buccaneers.”
DRaysBay: Home of garbage-level analysis and circle-jerking writers.
by kericr on Feb 9, 2012 3:51 PM EST reply actions
You might have a point, but
I really can’t tell. First you’d have to lay out the history of the Buccaneers, because I for one know nothing about it (and in fact quite literally haven’t given them a moment’s thought since they played in a Superbowl a few years ago). And then you’d have to explain how that translates to a different sport with a very different labor agreement and financial structure.
by J0SER on Feb 9, 2012 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
A "whole thing," Heyman wrote, eh?
Tell me more. You sound knowledgeable and well-read.
Hi, my name is Michael Procton, and I will mindf*** you with logical yet (often) pessimistic retorts until the cows come home. Good Day.
--by Aisander D on Feb 4, 2012 7:59 PM EST
I gotta stop takin' my baths durin' Peter's shenanigans.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 9, 2012 10:35 PM EST reply actions
Good points, one qualm
Jeff, you’re 100% right regarding the Red Sox supposed cheapness. However, there was one point I disagree with: “Daniel Bard is supposed to take one of the rotation slots, and it’s hard to see how he’s a worse bet than Neftali Feliz.” Feliz is three years younger than Bard, and has been a slightly better MLB reliever (178 ERA+ as compared to 154 – both good, but Feliz is unquestionbly better). Most importantly though, Feliz was a very good starter in the minor leagues, which Bard definitely was not. We can get into whatever might have been going on with Bard’s delivery in 2007, but facts are facts – Feliz was excellent in the minors as a starter, while Bard stunk.
I don’t think this means Bard will stink in the majors as a starter, but I think it makes it not hard at all to see why Feliz is considered the better bet.
by thedunnedeal24 on Feb 10, 2012 11:30 AM EST reply actions
Hey Jeff could you PLEASE settle this argument
My friend is a 100% sure that you said “They’ve acted cheap maybe because John Henry has spent a lot on SOCCER” and not “They’ve acted cheap maybe because John Henry has spent a lot on LIVERPOOL” because you dont know what Liverpool is. Please tell him right here that you DO know so that i can shut him up and end the argument which has in the past 2 hours lasted around 30 Facebook Comments (and its a slow day).
by M.Daniyal Farrukh on Feb 10, 2012 11:47 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed