BBS Awards: Jon Lester wins Ted Williams Award for Red Sox Player of the Year

The Boston Blood Sox Awards (or Bloodies) are awarded for great success and/or pitiful failure in the 2014-15 sports year.

The 2014 Red Sox season seems like a long long time ago. It's hard to imagine that the Sox were once a team struggling to get out of last place and were failing even at the most basic and fundamental... wait.

Jon Lester won 10 games for the Sox in 2014 before he was traded. His ERA was 2.52 and he was earning the contract that the Red Sox refused to consider giving him. And also making the Sox look stupid for not negotiating with him before the season.

Speaking of the Sox looking like idiots, Lester was traded for Yoenis Cespedes. Cespedes was then traded in the off-season for Rick Porcello. The Red Sox then extended Porcello's contract.

Great moves, Red Sox. Keep up the good work.

Rick Porcello is product of Red Sox Front Office arrogance

The Red Sox acquired Rick Porcello and then extended his contract because the 26-year old fit into the new philosophy recently developed by the Front Office. Instead of paying extra for pitchers over 30, and taking the risk of their performance falling off at the end of a contract, the Sox would target younger pitchers. These players wouldn't be as proven as the older pitchers, but that would actually make them a better investment, because that would make them less expensive. Furthermore, the potential upside for younger pitchers made them an opportunity, not a risk.

Compare this pitching philosophy with stock investments. Would you rather buy part of Facebook when it opened publicly, or when Mark Zuckerberg was still living in a Harvard dorm? Getting in early is less expensive, you get more for your money, and the sky is the limit for increased value.

John Henry and Larry Lucchino aren't "baseball people." They know their baseball intelligence isn't sufficient to beat the baseball people who run the 29 other teams. So they try to think outside of the diamond and gain an advantage using ideas like this investing strategy. Sometimes it works. These guys have built 3 World Series winners, after all. But with Rick Porcello, it hasn't worked.

Henry and Lucchino were drawn to Rick Porcello because of one number. Not his ERA or WHIP, not his WAR or K/9. It was his age. He was 26. He had 6 years of MLB experience. And he'd shown some signs that he could be a very good pitcher. So before he ever toed the rubber in a meaningful game with the Red Sox, his contract was extended for 4 years, paying him just a tick over $20M per year.

The deal would keep Porcello in Boston until he was 30. His prime years would be in a Red Sox uniform, but the Sox wouldn't have to worry about his performance falling off due to age.

The Sox dismissed doubts instead of considering them. Porcello had a career 4.30 ERA in a pitcher-friendly ballpark and in a division that didn't have many potent offenses. He only had one truly good season, and had shown inconsistency in his 6 Major League years. He had more seasons with an ERA over 4.50 (3) than with an ERA below 4.00 (2). His stuff wasn't amazing. And he pitched to contact, inducing groundballs, instead of amassing strikeouts.

These concerns probably didn't worry the Sox. If they had, they would have waited a few weeks before extending his contract. The issue of pitching to contact was likely dismissed as something that only outmoded and archaic "baseball people" would worry about, an antiquated notion of how the game should be played. And the statistical inconsistency was because Porcello was still a young man. He'd shown his potential in 2014 with 15 wins and a 3.43 ERA. The other seasons were part of his growth and development.

The Sox were so confident in Porcello's inevitable success, that they signed him as early as possible to avoid having to pay him more as his value increased. Henry and Lucchino probably imagined him having a 4-1 April, and then refusing to sign an extension. So they locked him up for 4 more years.

Unfortunately, the deal also made him untradeable. The Front Office didn't give themselves options if Porcello disappointed, or if he was good but the team disappointed, allowing him to be traded at the deadline. Investors should always give themselves options.

The assessment of Porcello wasn't the only mistake the Front Office made. The philosophy itself is flawed. Older pitchers cost more because their performance is proven. The risk with them is that their performance might fall off. You don't know how many good years you'll get. Younger pitchers also carry significant risk. There's a risk you might not get any good years at all.

The Sox paid a premium for Porcello's youth. Which is like paying someone extra for a product that hasn't been tested. They ignored obvious reasons to have second thoughts about extending his contract. They didn't try to find any reasons not to extend him. They built a philosophy based on their relative ignorance of baseball, then arrogantly assumed they were smarter than traditional baseball thinking.

It's okay to pay extra for something proven, especially something as rare and important as pitching. It's not okay to give someone who is killing your team a raise to $20M/year. But John Henry and Larry Lucchino thought they knew better than everyone else. Sometimes smart people do the dumbest things.

Jon Lester was 4-1 in May, but is too old to have helped the Red Sox

The Red Sox were 10-19 in May. Former Sox Ace Jon Lester (yes, he was an Ace) was 4-1. All 6 of his starts in May were quality starts. He had a 1.76 ERA in the month. His loss saw him strike out 10 and allow only 1 earned run in 7 innings.

Red Sox pitchers made 29 starts in May. About half (15) of them were quality starts. Sox pitchers had a 4.21 ERA in the month, 23rd in baseball. They were 24th in opposing OPS and 26th in WHIP.

You might then think that Jon Lester could have been a big help to the Sox the last few weeks. But you're wrong. You must remember that he's 31, which is old. And his being so old trumps anything he might have been able to do on the mound for the Sox.

All of the current Sox starters are 30 or under. When assembling their rotation the Red Sox very correctly preferred to focus on age instead of performance. They chose guys like 26 year old Rick Porcello over 31 year old Jon Lester. Porcello was 2-2 in May with a 5.40 ERA. And Porcello will be making $20+ million next year, because he is 26. And 26 is younger than 31. Lester is practically a senior citizen compared to him. A

So even though Jon Lester had a terrific month of May and Rick Porcello's month was poor, what matters most is that Lester is a few dozen months older than Porcello.

Photo Credit: Associated Press

Red Sox assemble a rotation of mediocrity and question marks

Thursday morning the Red Sox didn't really have a rotation. By sundown, they had one. Unfortunately it's a mix between mediocre innings eaters and unpredictable question marks who might win 17 games or fail to make 17 starts.

Wade Miley and Rick Porcello are painfully uninteresting and average. Miley is a gray Nissan Maxima and Porcello is a beige Toyota Corolla. They just blend in. There's nothing thrilling about them, but they're not bad either. You don't covet them, but you're happy to have them.

I actually like each of these acquisitions. Each of these guys is decent, or has the potential to be good. The individual moves are fine. It's the mediocrity of the rotation as a whole that enrages me. The Boston Red Sox, one of the premier teams in baseball, with tons of money to spend, don't even have a legit #2 in their rotation? Really?!?

Embarrassing.

Wade Miley is a 28-year old lefty. That means in 2 years he'll be too old for the Red Sox to consider good. He went 8-12 last year with a 4.34 ERA in the National League. The most impressive part of his resume is that he's pitched 190+ innings the past 3 seasons. To be fair, he did play in a hitter friendly ballpark in Arizona and that seems to have had an impact on his numbers. He had a 5.61 ERA at home and a 3.17 ERA on the road. Eighteen of the 23 homers he allowed were at home.

But Fenway is hardly pitcher-friendly. He's a middle of the rotation guy whose fastball peaks at 91. I'm not impressed, I'm not disappointed.

Rick Porcello was acquired by trading Yoenis Cespedes to Detroit. So he's essentially the parting gift the Sox got for losing Lester. Porcello had the best year of his career in 2014, with a 3.43 ERA and 15 wins. He has post-season experience, but it isn't good. His good 2014 numbers might be the start of a new trend in his career. If so, he could turn out to be a good #2 starter. Or his 2014 performance might be an aberration and he will revert to the 3/4 guy he has been for most of his career.

That small question mark is nothing compared to Justin Masterson, whose unpredictability rivals Clay Buchholz. Materson's career has been a roller-coaster ride. A 3.21 ERA in 2011, 4.93 in 2012, an All-Star in 2013, a 5.88 ERA in 2014. In 2015, who knows? He could be good, he could be awful, he could find his way to the bullpen.

So as of Thursday afternoon the rotation looks like this:

1. Buchholz - the definition of uncertainty
2. Porcello - could be a good #2, could be a #4 in a #2 slot
3. Miley - innings eater
4. Kelly - on the team by default
5. Masterson - might improve the bullpen

This is the Boston Red Sox. This is a big market team with money, history, prestige. And THAT'S the rotation?!?

Imagine the potential playoff rotation. Buchholz facing the other team's ace, Porcello against a legitimate #2, Joe Kelly pitching in a possible elimination game. That's if Buchholz is healthy or effective. It might be Porcello, Miley, Kelly, with Masterson starting a game 4. Yikes. At least Miley will eat up those playoff innings. That's what you want in a short series: question marks and innings eaters.

Imagine if they signed Lester back in March. This is what your rotation might look like:

1. Lester
2. Buchholz
3. Porcello
4. Miley
5. Kelly

Maybe you don't get both Porcello and Miley. Who cares. You put an ace or a semi-ace up at the top, and it looks so much better. Especially in a playoff series. You depend less on Buchholz being healthy/effective and on Porcello bringing his 2014 success to 2015.

Everyone in the rotation should be given a number with 3 in it, because that's what most of them are.

Did the Cubs overpay to get Lester, or were the Red Sox too cheap to pay a premium for good pitching?

Jon Lester has reportedly signed with the Chicago Cubs for 6 years and $155 million. The deal includes a vesting option for a 7th year at $15 million. The Red Sox' final offer to reacquire their former #1 pitcher was worth $135 million, also over 6 years.

It's important to note that in March, the Sox offered a 4 year deal to Lester worth $70 million, essentially half of what they offered him in December. Even though they very vocally believe that 30+ year old pitchers aren't worth that kind of money. Except when they are.

Are Theo and the Cubs paying too much for Lester? Toward the end of the deal he'll be north of 35 years old. By then he might be a worn down #3 or #4 starter collecting $25.8 million to make 20 starts a season and to struggle to keep his ERA below 4.50. So it's stupid for the Cubs to pay so much money for that. It's also smart for the Red Sox not to. Or is it?

Top of the line, proven starting pitching is so difficult to find and so necessary to win, that you have to pay a premium to buy it. It's like paying for parking at a Sox game. There's so little of it available, that you shell out a wad of cash to rent a few square feet of asphalt for 5 hours.

Here's another comparison. The amount of money you spend for a beer inside Fenway. You drop $8, $9, even more because a baseball game without beer is a form of torture so cruel they didn't even use it to interrogate detainees at Guantanamo.

Beer at a baseball game is necessary, so it costs more. Parking at Fenway is rare, so it costs more. Quality pitching is something both necessary and rare, so it costs a lot more.

The Red Sox were willing to pay a premium for that quality pitching, just not as much as the Cubs were willing to pay. But don't mock the Cubs for eventually paying a 36-year old pitcher $25.8 million, or praise the Red Sox for their financial prudence. Your Sox were willing to pay the same guy $22.5 million. That $3.3 million difference is probably how much panda related revenue the Sox will be hauling in per season.

Making fun of the Cubs and praising the Red Sox for this would be like going to Fenway, buying a $9 Bud Light, and making fun of the guy who spent $10 for a Sam Adams.

Just a few days ago, the Sox seemed to have a win right now approach to the off-season, spending $22M/year for Hanley Ramirez and $19M/year for Pablo Sandoval. To win right now, however, you need pitching. And the Sox have none of that. Clay Buchholz isn't just your "ace," he's the entire rotation.

Is it dumb to spend $155 million for Lester? Which is dumber, spending that much for an aging pitcher, or having Clay Buchholz be your #1 starter?

There's still pitching available out there. But at a cost of big money and/or top prospects. With Lester off the market, the supply of quality pitching has decreased, yet the demand/need remains the same. If the Sox don't want to pay the required premium for that pitching, then maybe Sox fans should learn a lesson from them and be prudent with their money, and maybe not pay the required premium for parking or beer at Fenway. Or for tickets.

Photo Credit:
Frank Gunn/AP

John Lackey wanted to leave the Red Sox

Two years ago could you have imagined that John Lackey would be the one dumping the Red Sox, and not vice versa?

Lackey made it clear that if the Red Sox tried to exercise their $500,000 option on him for 2015, there was a strong likelihood that he'd retire. But that option nevertheless increased his trade value. At the very least the option gave leverage to the Sox or any other team negotiating a contract extension. They could offer less than market value to Lackey, whose choices would be to accept a few million to pitch or retire once the $500k option was exercised.

Immediately after Lackey was traded to St. Louis, Ken Rosenthal announced that Lackey informed the Cardinals he would honor the $500,000 option, and not retire. Had Lackey told the Red Sox that he'd be willing to play for $500,000 in 2015, there's no way the Sox would have traded him. In essence, Lackey engineered this trade.

Remember when all of us wanted Lackey to be included with Beckett and Crawford in the Great Purge of 2012? Then last year we became Lackey fans as he helped the team win a World Series. And now he is the one who orchestrated his departure.

The Cards and Lackey might come to terms on a new contract extension anyway. But isn't it odd that this option was a point of contention for Lackey here in Boston, then he gets traded and it's no longer an issue? He did not want to stay here.

Lackey had enough of the Red Sox. The way the non-negotiations went between Jon Lester and the front office probably had a lot to do with that. Once the Sox started shopping Lester, Lackey wanted out. He gave the Red Sox an incentive to trade him, with the threat of future uncertainty if they didn't. He also kept his trade value up with his performance on the field, and by never threatening to retire if a team besides the Red Sox wanted to exercise his $500k option.

If the Red Sox were the Titanic, sinking slowly into the North Atlantic, John Lackey got himself a spot on a lifeboat by threatening to blow up half the ship if he wasn't allowed off.

And here's the kicker. The Sox included that $500,000 option when they signed him as a way to mitigate the risk of his elbow issues. The idea was that he might miss a long time due to injury (which he did), costing the team lots of money (which he did), but that the team would recoup the loss with a year of almost free service.

But it's the Cardinals who look to benefit from that nearly free year that the Red Sox paid for. The Sox bought the the insurance policy and made all the payments, the Cardinals are cashing it in. And that's because Lackey wanted to leave.

Photo Credit: Barry Chin/Boston Globe

If Stephen Drew is worth a utility infielder, why didn't the Red Sox just sign a utility infielder in the first place?

With Stephen Drew's departure in exchange for Kelly Johnson, it's time to look at how the Red Sox managed and mismanaged the short-stop situation in 2014.

The Sox should have anticipated defensive difficulties at short. Signing a defensive backup would have been a perfectly normal and prudent thing to do. That backup could have been used in the late innings of close games, especially games the Sox were leading.

I didn't mind when the Red Sox removed Xander Bogaerts from short-stop. He couldn't field his position, and you can't afford to have poor defense at short, especially when the offense is struggling to score runs. I don't care what the move might have done to Bogaerts' development or self-esteem. The Major League level is not the place to nurture prospects and worry about their confidence. It's the place to win games or lose them. Bogaerts' defense was not helping them win.

However, when Bogaerts' defense compelled the Sox to act, signing Drew was a completely wrong decision, utterly incorrect in every single way. Moving Bogaerts to third was also unwise. But he was hitting well when few other Sox batters were, and the Sox had no third baseman. In other words, because the rest of the team was sucking at the plate, and another young infielder (Middlebrooks) was having difficulties, Bogaerts stayed in Boston. But was moved to third. Drew was signed to play short.

If the Sox felt that Bogaerts' defensive issues were so critical that they were worth $10 million to address, they should have sent Bogaerts to Pawtucket to work on it, not sign an overpaid replacement and shift Bogaerts to an unfamiliar position he'd have to learn on the fly at the Major League level.

The Sox tried to play it both ways, removing Bogaerts' glove from short-stop, but keeping his bat in the Major League lineup. If only they could have sent his glove to Pawtucket and kept his bat in Boston.

It didn't work. Why would anyone think it would?

What the Sox truly needed at that time was flexibility in their infield. Again, a Kelly Johnson type of utility infielder could have been acquired as a defensive replacement for Bogaerts, and perhaps to play in Boston for a few weeks while Bogaerts focused on defense in Pawtucket. The solution was something cheap and flexible, like I like my women.

However, Stephen Drew did not bring flexibility, he brought abject inflexibility. Because he was going to play at short-stop. Period. And he was going to play every day because you don't spend $10 million on backups. Period. Drew even seemed to have a negotiated limit for how long he'd stay in Pawtucket getting ready to play in Boston.

And of course, Drew's bat was nonexistent, and Bogaerts' hitting went down the tubes as he shifted to third. Bogaerts' defense was still bad over there. The fiasco cost millions, defense at short improved but defense at third was degraded, and offensive production decreased.

Now Drew is gone. Again. Notice the increased flexibility in his departure. The Sox can make choices with what they want to do in the infield. Bogaerts will be back at short again. However I don't think this experience has helped his development. It certainly hasn't helped the Red Sox win games in 2014.

Stephen Drew is evidently worth a utility infielder on the trade market, who will make $3 million in 2014, instead of the prorated portion of $14 million that Drew was signed for. So why didn't the Sox sign a utility guy to begin with? Why didn't they pick up a defensive specialist at short? Why didn't they either keep Bogaerts where he was, or send him to Pawtucket to work on his problems without it hurting the team in Boston?

Stephen Drew wore a 7 on his jersey here. I think that should have been modified slightly to be a giant question mark.

Photo Credit: John Tlumacki/Boston Globe

The Red Sox didn't even try to keep Jon Lester here

I'd rather have Yoenis Cespedes now than next to nothing when Jon Lester walks as a free agent. That's not why I'm disappointed/enraged at the Red Sox today. I'm mad because I'd much much much MUCH rather have Jon Lester over Yoenis Cespedes. There's essentially nobody the Sox could have gotten in exchange for Lester that would have left me content. Unfortunately the Sox made no legitimate effort to keep Lester here. The fact that he's gone, and that we'll never know how much of a hometown discount he would have accepted to stay, leaves me shaking my head.

How could the Red Sox do this to themselves?

The Sox traded a guy who had recently become a bona fide Ace, and who had also grown into a leader, for a Homerun Derby winner. That's like trading Kevin Durant for the winner of the slam dunk contest. And this happened because the Sox hardly tried to keep their Ace. That lack of effort is the most irritating aspect of what unfolded at the trade deadline.

The $70 million offer for 4 years offer was an insult, not a starting point. You can't negotiate with insults. Watch Shark Tank and see how the potential investors react when someone makes an absurd demand. Or go to a car dealership and offer to buy a brand new Mercedes for half the sticker price. The dealer won't make a counter offer, they'll just move on, because it's clear you're not serious.

I've heard some people question Lester's camp for not making a counter-offer, but how do you counter a joke? How can you negotiate with someone who thinks that you're worth slightly more money a year than Clay Buchholz was? How can you negotiate with someone who is clearly terrified of long-term commitment, which I'm sure is something Lester wants? Lester has been underpaid by the Sox for years, this is his chance to cash in, and the Sox were too cheap.

Or were they? Were they cheap or did they want to make a token offer they knew would get rejected? They've done similar things before.

These cloak and dagger, deceptive, disingenuous tactics are what we've come to expect from the Red Sox front office. And don't exclude Ben Cherington from these mind games. He's King John's pawn, he's Lord Lucchino's foot soldier. He's happy to be their puppet, or to stay out of baseball decisions when his masters get involved.

The Red Sox have no clue what it will cost to sign Lester in the off-season. They don't even know what his hometown discount rate might have been. That's the proof that their "negotiations" with him were not negotiations. If you don't at least come away with knowing what the other party wants, then you haven't negotiated.

If Lester signs a massive deal somewhere else, let's say $200 million for 7 years, I won't praise the Red Sox for knowing the price would be too high. They don't know anything. They made a crap offer that pissed off their Ace, then failed to immediately make a legit offer, then traded their best player from the 2013 World Series run. They sent a pitcher with 110 career wins, a 3-0 record in the World Series, and 2 rings to Oakland in exchange for a guy with 66 career homeruns and 2 HR Derby trophies.

If this had been the end of a hard fought negotiation, then it would be easier to accept. It's not, though.

5 years and $100 million, perhaps with a vesting option for a 6th year. Maybe 5 years at $110 million. That might have been enough to keep Lester. We simply do not know, though. We'll never know. Which is why this whole situation pisses me off so much.

Photo Credit: Barry Chin/Boston Globe

I'm not a fan of Yoenis Cespedes

The Red Sox traded Jon Lester along with Jonny Gomes to Oakland for an outfielder with decent power who doesn't get on base as often as you'd like.

That's Yoenis Cespedes. Cespedes will also be costing the Sox $10.5 million in 2015, and is scheduled to hit free agency after that.

He's 28, but he's also Cuban, so let's call it 28ish.

He hit 26 homeruns last year and 23 the year before. He's on pace to hit a similar amount this year. He'll probably be more of a power hitter in Fenway's friendly confines. Nevertheless, his career OBP is .318, and that just sucks for someone you want to hit in the middle of the lineup. He doesn't walk much, he does strike out a lot, he doesn't see lots of pitches.

He's an improvement, don't get me wrong. He's a solid player, he's better than anything the Sox have in the outfield today. But he's what you get for your Ace? For the guy who was your playoffs MVP last year? For a guy who won games for you this year even with some of the worst run support in baseball?

The Red Sox didn't sign Lester because they were worried about the future. So the future is this 20-30 HR outfielder who strikes out a lot and struggles to get on base 30% of the time? That's the future the Sox intend to build?

Photo Credit: Getty Images/Ezra Shaw

The Oakland A's had Moneyball, the Red Sox have Cheapball

The Red Sox don't want to spend to keep Jon Lester. He's over 30, and John Henry recently read a study about teams overpaying for players over 30, and underpaying players under 30. Jon Lester is 31, so the Red Sox don't want to overpay to keep him. That's why the Sox might even ship Lester before Thursday's trade deadline.

The study John Henry is partially basing this significant baseball decision on makes sense. It makes sense that a player over 30, who has proven what they can consistently do at the Major League level, would get more money, even more money than their production merits. Such players come with guarantees, or at least the closest things to guarantees you can get. There's also a short supply of such players, and high demand, which drives the cost up.

For the Sox to keep Lester, they'd have to "overpay" for what Lester gives them. So what? When has that stopped the Sox before? They overpaid to extend David Ortiz, they overpaid to bring Stephen Drew back. So Drew is worth $10 million a year and Lester only worth $17.5 million? That's what the Sox offered Lester before the 2014 season.

The Sox have also been able to benefit from Lester while underpaying him. He makes $13M this season, and made under $12M in 2013. Before that he never got paid more than $8 million a year.

One problem facing Henry and his value study is that the high end SP market is overwhelmingly made up of pitchers 30+ years old, with a few 29 year olds mixed in. Henry's philosophy pegs him into a corner, since there are essentially no proven, high end SP free agents under 30, he'll never be able to sign one OR re-sign one. Meanwhile, the rest of baseball seems happy to sign these guys. So while Henry can pat himself on the back for saving money, other teams will win games thanks to their overpaid players.

Overpay to win, or save to lose?

John Henry's unwillingness to overpay for 30+ year old talent is like someone buying a 6-pack of beer and staying home by themselves on a Friday night because drinks at bars are more expensive. He'll keep more cash in his pocket but the people who went out will have more fun.

There's no salary cap in baseball. The Red Sox are one of the most valuable sports teams in the world. Their cash flow is one of their biggest competitive advantages. The Sox can overpay for a key player and not be crippled by it. Yet they're the ones being cheap? Because of a study?

John Henry doesn't want to exploit that edge. He's figured out that the 29 other teams are wasting money, and he won't do it. He'll get his 6-pack of beer and drink by himself while other teams are having fun at the World Series.

Had Jon Lester's contract expired after the 2012 season, John Henry might have used this study to justify not re-signing him then. Lester would have been 29, and Henry might have wanted to avoid signing a soon-to-be 30 year old to a long term deal. So if Lester had been a free agent before the 2013 season, it's possible that Henry wouldn't have wanted to sign him.

What would that have meant for the 2013 season? There wouldn't have been a parade in Boston.

Parades are expensive. John Henry and the Red Sox have become cheap.

Photo Credit: AP

Red Sox release AJ Pierzynski... And there was much rejoicing

The Red Sox have designated AJ Pierzynski for assignment. Thank God.

Let's talk about how wrong the AJ Pierzynski acquisition was and how poorly he played here. The move was initially criticized because of Pierzynski's reputation as a bad character guy. Fans worried he'd be a clubhouse disruption. The real issue, however, was how disruptive he was to the Sox lineup.

He's not a patient hitter. In the past 12 years the Red Sox have built an identity of patience at the plate. They emphasize the idea of waiting for your pitch, with the benefit of building up pitch counts. Pierzynski's approach contradicted all of that.

Pierzynski saw an average of 3.42 pitchers per plate appearance. Not only is that the lowest among Red Sox hitters, it's half a pitch lower than all other regular players (technically 0.48 lower than Jackie Bradley Jr.'s). Nobody on the Red Sox who has had a plate appearance this season, including pitchers, has seen fewer pitches per plate appearance. Jon Lester is at 3.67.

Compared to catchers around baseball, Pierzynski's production was awful. Of the 24 catchers with 200+ plate appearances, Pierzynski was 20th in OBP (.286) and 23rd in SLG (.348). His OPS (.670) was also 23rd.

Jarrod Saltalamacchia, the man Pierzynski replaced, has an OBP .038 higher than Pierzynski's and is slugging .056 higher. Salty has 31 walks, Pierzynski has 9. On average Salty sees 0.61 more pitchers per plate appearance.

Replacing Saltalamacchia with Pierzynski is one of the reasons the Red Sox offense has struggled so much this season compared to last. The Red Sox took something that worked in 2013, went in a completely opposite direction and made it worse, and now they've given up on it completely.

The Sox spent $8.25 million on this guy. And they're trying to nickel-and-dime Jon Lester.

Anyway, I'm happy about this. Goodbye, AJ.

Photo Credit: AP

BBS Awards: Red Auerbach Award for Best Coach/Executive

This award goes to the person off the field whose decisions and influence resulted in the most success on the field.

There were lots of great coaches and GMs in Boston this year. Obviously with a World Series winning team you have to consider Ben Cherington and John Farrell. With the Bruins going deep in the playoffs you must give Claude Julien and Peter Chiarelli some thought. With the Patriots doing well despite injuries, Bill Belichick deserves consideration. And Brad Stevens has gotten 110% from the Celtics.

But I think only one person had the most work to do, yet still reached the maximum level of success. He had to rebuild a broken team.

The winner of the Red Auerbach award for 2013 is Ben Cherington, GM of the Boston Red Sox.

The other guys I mentioned have all done great jobs. However none of their jobs were as difficult as Cherington's. Cherington had a blank team. There were no stud free agents available to bring in. As Cherington put together his team of decent, experienced players, I remember talking to my brother about how the Red Sox were "buying second place." I thought the Sox were trying to build an 85 win team, compete for a Wild Card spot, and keep the fans' hunger satisfied with snacks instead of a full course meal.

How wrong I was.

Ben Cherington took a last place team and gave it a chance. He added the right mix of veterans, leaders, followers, and solid ballplayers. And the team won.

Yankees Overpay for Jacoby Ellsbury, Pink Hats Devastated

It's a sad day for the Pink Hats. Well, it will be a sad day in a few months when they turn to their friends and ask "Where's J-Cobes?" Once they realize that their favorite Fenway hottie is gone, they'll cry more than they did the day Tyler Seguin was traded.

The Yankees bought Jacoby Ellsbury early in the Holiday Shopping season. Although they didn't get much of a bargain. A total of $153 million for 7 years. Ellsbury turned 30 in September.

I can't say I blame Jacoby. I think it's lame and dishonest for any of us to call him greedy. He's been paid $20.8 million in his career to date. By the end of this deal he'll have collected a career total more than 8 times that much. Would any of us refuse a raise like the one Jacoby has accepted? A 242.9% raise. He made $9 million in 2013. He'll earn that by June 11 of 2014.

I would have preferred he stay with the Sox. He's a good player. He was a key component in two World Series winning campaigns. Players like him don't grow on trees. Et cetera.

He's not worth this price, though. Not for that many years. Five years and $100 million, maybe. Maybe.

My two biggest issues with Ellsbury are that he performs much better in contract years than non-contract years. And that he lacks power. His best asset is his speed.

He's been able to utilize that speed to compensate for his lack of power. However how much speed will he have toward the end of this contract? Will he be stealing 50 bases a year in 2018? Will he steal 20?

His other production isn't enough to justify such a heavy and lengthy commitment. His OBP (.355 last year) is good, not great. He's hit 65 career homeruns, 32 of which were in that freakish Brady Anderson style contract year of 2011. He's never reached 10 HRs in any other season.

There's an old saying in baseball: "Speed never goes into a slump." That's true. At the same time, speed does disappear with age. When speed disappears for power hitters, they can still drive the ball out of the park or off the wall. When speed dependent players like Ellsbury slow down, their careers slow down.

As Ellsbury's speed deteriorates, so will his numbers. He collected 24 infield hits in 2013, boosting his OBP by .038 points and his average and SLG by .042. As he ages his infield hits will go down. He hit 8 triples in 2013. Some of those will become doubles. He hit 31 doubles. Some of those will become singles.

Ellsbury helps the Yankees. And for the next 3 or 4 years this deal might look wise. Unless Ellsbury gets hurt. Which also has a tendency to happen. I don't question his fortitude as much as others have, but he's hardly an ox. Anyway, in a few years the Yankees will have an old, slow, poor hitting, poor fielding, poor throwing outfielder collecting $21.8 million a year. The Red Sox will have $153 million to spend on a more complete player or players.

Yankees first play the Sox on April 10th in the Bronx. The first Fenway series starts on April 22nd. Tickets for these games have just skyrocketed to the top of many Christmas Wish Lists.

People to Thank for the Red Sox World Series

Time to go to Hallmark and get some thank-you cards for a lot of people who made this World Series Championship possible. Here are the people who you should send your cards to...

1. The Los Angeles Dodgers
The Dodgers took all of the Red Sox' baggage. The Sox had a bad kidney (Gonzalez), infected tonsils (Crawford), and an appendix about to burst (Beckett), and the Dodgers accepted all of them. Then the Dodgers paid for most of the surgery. The Dodgers deserve their own duckboat in Saturday's parade for taking all of this payroll and malignant personality off of the Red Sox roster.

2. The Red Sox owners
The owners did the best thing that owners can do: delegate. Bob Kraft didn't become a good owner until he eased up and delegated. The Red Sox owners were good when they let Theo Epstein do his job, then they became overbearing, they then pulled back in response to the failures of the 2012 season. The best thing the Red Sox owners did in 2013 was what they didn't do.

3. Koji Uehara
Where would this team be if Uehara didn't emerge as one of the best closers in the game? Bailey and Hanrahan got hurt. Uehara filled a role that had been vacant since Papelbon was allowed to leave. And Uehara filled that role's brains out.

4. Ben Cherington
The Red Sox GM didn't go nuts, he didn't try to sign any "wow" free agents. He acquired guys who were hungry to win. Savvy ballplayers who knew how to do the little things. He didn't care that Stephen Drew was related to J.D. Drew. He signed Mike Napoli, who was starving for a ring. He made many small moves that combined to make a big difference.

The timing was right as there really weren't many big name free agents on the market anyway.

5. John Lackey
This guy pitched his ass off. He got no run support all season long. We all hated him. Many wanted him to be traded. He's a 35-year-old recovering from surgery, he pitched 189.1 innings in the regular season then 26 more in the postseason (including 1 in relief). And he still argued with Farrell to get just one more out in Game 6. He went from slacker to gamer. Lackey's hunger in 2013 (for doing well, not for beer and chicken) was a key part to the hunger this team had.

And again, give thanks to the Dodgers for not wanting to take this guy from us.

6. John Farrell
His in-game decisions weren't always correct. But trading for John Farrell was an important part to this team's success. He didn't try to discipline the players, he tried to make them more self-disciplined. He got the pitching staff to refocus, and he brought with him an attitude geared toward winning. Most importantly, he didn't put his own ego ahead of anything. If he made a mistake, he learned from it and made different moves. Pride is not one of John Farrell's faults.

7. J.J. Hardy, Jason Kipnis, Jose Bautista
I can't say I remember the All-Star Game. But these three guys all knocked in runs for the AL team. And that's why the Sox had homefield advantage in the World Series. Thanks, guys!

8. Pedroia, Lester, Ellsbury, all the rest of the players
The players who were here in 2011 and 2012 became reinvigorated. And the guys who weren't here brought a fresh energy. All the players, from Pedroia to Lester to Victorino to Bogaerts to Workman to Tazawa. They all gave 100%. Which you sadly could not say about the 2011 or 2012 Sox.

8. The Fans
Yes you. Your outrage over this team's failure in 2012 caused so much to change. In 2011, we weren't as angry as we should have been. And the owners thought they could use Francona as a scapegoat and we'd be happy with his dismissal. We were complacent for a time, until the team failed again in 2012. And the horrible managing of Bobby Valentine became evident.

We as fans actually accepted Bobby V. That's kind of sad. He was shit. Once the fans demanded that he be banished, along with all the other cancerous players and contracts, that's when things turned around. We threatened a revolution in Red Sox Nation and the front office responded.

So pat yourself on the back for being pissed about the 2012 season, then also ask yourself why you didn't start that season with the same skepticism.

Hopefully in 2014 Ben Cherington can continue to do his job, and the front office won't inflate attendance figures. Marketing people can market the team, and baseball people can assemble it, and baseball players can play baseball.

I Don't Trust the Red Sox and Their Decision to Keep Jackie Bradley Jr. on the Major League Roster

It's Opening Day for the Red Sox. And 22 year-old outfielder Jackie Bradley Jr. is on the Major League roster. Bradley had an outstanding Spring Training. He has become the focal point of a massive grassroots/mass-media movement to have him on the 25-man roster on Opening Day. And now those who lobbied for him are satisfied.

From a strictly baseball standpoint, it makes sense to give Bradley this chance. If Bradley had been designated to the minors for 11 days, 2013 would not count as a year of Major League service for him, and his reaching free agency would be pushed back to 2019, instead of 2018.

He can still be optioned to AAA Pawtucket or AA Portland and this postponement of free agency can still be achieved. So if he doesn't excel in April, the Sox can send him down to the minors and thereby maintain their contractual control over him until 2019.

If he does excel, then that's good for the team. This is a 69 win club that could use all the help it can get. Even if it will make Bradley more expensive in 2018.

And who knows what the team's salary situation will be in 2018 or 2019? If Bradley turns into a star, isn't that a good problem to have? Does it make a significant difference if he gets his $100 million deal in 2018 (at age 28) or 2019 (at age 29)? It will be the same deal in either year.

And if he doesn't blossom into a star, and is just a serviceable Major League outfielder, then the Sox can let him go in 2018 and not lose much. Or they can sign him at a reasonable rate.

So from a baseball standpoint, this move makes sense.

However, as the lengthy title of this post stated, I do not trust the Red Sox to make decisions based solely on the desire to win games.

Had there not been such a crusade to get Bradley on the roster, would the Sox have kept him? If they didn't see an opportunity to showcase a young product of their minor league system, a symbol of future potential and success, would they have kept him?

Did they decide to put Bradley on the 25-man roster purely for baseball reasons, or were they also worried about a backlash from the fans? Were they afraid of being called cheap, and of being accused of not trying to win?

I don't know the answers to such questions. But I do know that I don't trust the Red Sox owners, their front-office, and their often forgotten puppet GM. Ben Cherington is like Kevin Pollak's character in Casino. He's the figurehead with a clean reputation that doesn't make any decisions, he's just there for appearance's sake.

And I don't trust Larry Lucchino to make a baseball decision without part of his twisted mind also considering the PR and financial impact of the decision. And John Henry probably thinks Jackie Bradley is the star of an action movie starring Samuel L. Jackson, or that he is the half-Scottish manager of Liverpool FC.

The Fenway Sports Group does not have any of my trust. And it will take a considerable amount of time to earn that trust back.

Why Were the Red Sox So Careful With Mike Napoli, Yet So Carefree With David Ortiz?

David Ortiz has been "shut down" for 5 to 7 days, due to inflammation in both heels. I don't know how you shut down a player who was barely active. Anyway, this is a significant setback for David Ortiz and his Achilles injury, and will likely push his return past Opening Day.

You probably remember that this injury started out as a minor issue. The Sox didn't even want to put him on the DL. That was about 9 months ago. It just went on and on. What was supposed to be a 500 word essay on Russian history has turned into the 1,200 pages of Tolstoy's War and Peace.

I'd peg the over/under on games Ortiz plays this season at 80.5. And I think I'm being generous.

What perturbs me is that the Red Sox were so very cautious about signing Mike Napoli due to injury concerns, eventually haggling with him for a discounted contract. With Ortiz there was no worry at all. Here was a 37 year old DH, with an injury that wasn't healing, and the Sox quickly gave him a 2 year, $26 million deal.

Would any other team have come close to paying Ortiz that much? Yet the Red Sox seemed eager to keep their sidelined star on the roster. I wonder why...

To be fair, the Sox did put a condition in Ortiz's contract. Ortiz gets $3 million more in 2014 if in 2013 he spends fewer than 20 days on the DL due to his Achilles injury. In other words, the Red Sox didn't protect themselves, but they will give a bonus to Ortiz for simply having a healthy Achilles.

I can't help but hypothesize that PR had something to do with the way the Red Sox handled Ortiz. There was little medical scrutiny, no delay, just a quick contract for the player who has become the grinning face of the franchise. The Sox signed the name, and didn't much care about the player. Wouldn't be the first time.

I have similar concerns over Jacoby Ellsbury still being on the roster. From a strictly baseball standpoint, it would make sense to shop Ellsbury around, especially if he's going to leave at the end of the season and you're not too optimistic about World Series contention in 2013. And it would make sense to let Ortiz go, or at least sign him to a deal similar to Napoli's. But then whose t-shirts would The Souvenir Store sell? Who would the pink hats ogle as he bends over in center-field? Who would the poor diehards cheer for with none on and 2 outs in the bottom of the 1st

I think the Red Sox are trying to tread water for the next 2-3 seasons. They want to field a semi-competitive team with a few marquee names. A team that will flirt with .500 and with the Wild Card spots. They might not sell Fenway out every night, but they want to avoid a young rebuilding team of no-names that will only draw 18,000 on a brisk Tuesday night in April.

Are they once again trying to be too clever in their effort to buy 3rd place? Or will it work? Will they win 85 games for a few seasons, then build a 95 win World Series winner?

Just like with Ortiz's injury, time will tell. Lots and lots of time.

Red Sox Sign Shane Victorino... Why?

The Red Sox continue to spend money, this time signing Shane Victorino to a 3 year deal worth $39 million. $13 million per season seems like a lot for a 32 year old who has never hit 20 homeruns in a season and had an OBP of .321 last year, and slugged .383.

He's a decent fielder, but who cares? He steals bases, and again, who cares? He doesn't hit for power, he doesn't get on base, and he'll be paid $13 million next year. Why? It just baffles me.

For 2013 the Sox have committed $31 million to Jonny Gomes, Mike Napoli, and Shane Victorino. That's a significant chunk of cash for a backup outfielder, a decent first-baseman, and a glorified Carl Crawford.

It seems weird to give Shane Victorino so much money yet be so stingy with Cody Ross.

Do these seem like wise spending decisions? Thankfully, all of these deals are short-term.

Here's what I think the Red Sox are trying to do: They want the 2013 and 2014 Red Sox to finish above .500, and at least seem close to contending during the summer. That will keep fans interested, keep Fenway's seats full (at least keep tickets "distributed"), and create the illusion of improvement.

To actually fix the problems with this team will take 3 or 4 years. I think the Sox know this. What they're doing is overpaying for marginal temporary improvements while the long-term solutions are being addressed. It's like overpaying for a condo while your house is being built. Because the alternative is being left out in the rain.

Once again, PR and ticket sales seem to be steering this team's decision-making.

Red Sox Sign Mediocre Jonny Gomes

When the very first thing people say about an athlete is something about their character, you know that said athlete probably isn't a particularly talented player. That's the case with Jonny Gomes. John Tomase of the Boston Herald wrote about Jonny Gomes's character giving the Red Sox a "face-lift." Boston.com's Extra Bases said Gomes "has some personality."

Meanwhile, Baseball-Reference.com says Jonny Gomes is a .244 hitter who averages 25 homeruns every 162 games he plays, but has only played more than 120 games once in his career.

The Red Sox signed Gomes to a two year deal worth $10 million. He's a platoon player and the Sox threw $5 million a season at him. Why not?

It's not a horrific move. And $10 million over 2 years hardly handcuffs this team's finances. I just enjoy certain members of the Boston Sports Media sucking up to the Red Sox and praising Jonny Gomes's character.

Character and clubhouse chemistry are products of winning on the field. And pitching determines success on the field. You could put Mother Theresa and Rudy Reuttiger in the 2011 Red Sox clubhouse and they'd still collapse.

But I'm sure signing Jonny Gomes to a $5 million salary has nothing to do with Ben Cherington's weird promise that the Sox will have a big payroll. I'm sure it was strictly a baseball move.

Red Sox Shouldn't React to Blue Jays Trade

The Toronto Blue Jays and Miami Marlins agreed to a massive trade yesterday. Toronto received Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, Mark Buehrle, John Buck, and Emilio Bonifacio. And while the deal certainly makes Toronto a better team, it should not affect what the Red Sox do in any way.

I'm worried that the Sox, in response to this move, might seek to make a splash of their own. This would be unwise. Let the fans whine and moan about the Sox being the 5th best team in the division (which they already were in 2012). The Red Sox should stick to their plan, worry about themselves, improve as much as they can this off-season without sacrificing their ability to continue to improve.

It's going to take more than one off-season, and more than one or two moves to improve the Sox. They're a 69 win team and finding 25+ additional wins will take some time. Likely more than one off-season.

So calm down, Red Sox Nation. It's your panic that can trigger Larry Lucchino to call Ben Cherington and say "we need to do something."

There really isn't much out there for the Sox to acquire. I'd like to see Zach Greinke here, but he might be too expensive. Mike Napoli doesn't impress me. I wouldn't mind Josh Hamilton, especially with Jacoby Ellsbury getting his luggage ready.

The Sox have money, but that's no excuse to spend carelessly. They need to be prudent. I'm reminded of The Simpsons episode with the monorail.

The Sox need to listen to Marge and fix Main Street's potholes before investing in a shiny mass transit system.

Although I wouldn't put it past Lucchino to build an elevated monorail line that encircled Fenway Park, with stops at the Monster, the bleachers, the Bud Deck, and Yawkey Way.

The Celtics Compared to the Red Sox

The Celtics lost the opening game of the season 120 to 107, and that stinks. There's nothing much to like about the Miami Heat. Ray Allen was shooting well, and the Heat took advantage of that. Enjoy it when he misses free throws and big three-pointers, Miami.

Anyway, I'm not the biggest NBA fan in the world, or in Massachusetts, or in Norfolk County, or in my town, or even on my street. NBA basketball is slow. There are too many timeouts. The players mill about and chat when fouls are called. Twenty second timeouts last for 40 seconds. And the players dive. And scream during layups like they've been shot.

However, the Boston Celtics are quite likable as a team and as individuals. Let's just compare them to the Red Sox, perhaps the least likable team this town has had since the Red Sox refused to have black players.

Doc Rivers vs. Bobby Valentine
Rivers is universally respected. He's confident, strong, firm but fair. Bobby Valentine was universally mocked. He has a psychological complex (at least one, maybe more), he's cocky, he's inconsistent, and entirely unfair. Rivers is ten times the coach Valentine was. Maybe fifty times.

Let's compare the two veteran leaders of the C's to the leaders of the Sox. Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett both despise losing. Not winning is a disgusting concept to them. Compare that to David Ortiz who is more concerned about his contract. Compare that to Dustin Pedroia who used the media to undermine a manager (albeit a crappy manager). Compare that to players who count their days off, use injuries as an excuse, and text owners when they want to complain about something.

Speaking of owners, isn't it nice that you barely hear anything from the Celtics ownership? They've hired their people, and they sit in their luxury box, and watch the game. Compare that to the manipulative Larry Lucchino, who attempts to orchestrate everything from the clubhouse to the media.

Then there's the troublemakers. Rajon Rondo is the controversial player on the Celtics. Because he's not a great perimeter shooter. And he gets emotional, especially when things aren't going well.

Compare Rondo as a problem child to the babies on the Red Sox. Need I say more? Rondo is very well-behaved, and his biggest problem is that he wants to win too much. There's nobody on the Sox with that issue.

So while I'm not a huge fan of NBA basketball, I'd rather watch these guys in green play their sport, then the fellas at Fenway play theirs. Because the Celtics are likable.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo