Beckett won't restructure contract; okay with Santana signing

December 6, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Beckett won't restructure contract; okay with Santana signing

47 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

The Boston Herald interviewed the Red Sox's Josh Beckett yesterday and inquired about his feelings should the Red Sox acquire Johan Santana. Trading for Santana, of course, would require Boston to sign Santana to an extension; reportedly, Santana is looking for $20-$25 million a year.

Beckett, meanwhile, has three years left on his current contract worth $32 million, a bargain for a pitcher of his talent and post-season success. According the interview, Beckett said "it doesn't matter" how much his teammates or other pitchers in the league are making. He stated he would not ask for his contract to be restructured or extended should Santana be brought on to the team.

It showed his humility and confidence at the same time when Beckett said "I make plenty of money. I'm still starting Opening Day, though." That is what makes Josh Beckett a special pitcher; the money doesn't matter, the moment does. Starting Opening Day for the Red Sox is a gesture that he is the best pitcher on the team, a far stronger gesture in Beckett's eyes than the amount of zeros on a paycheck.

It is admirable to see that attitude in today's sports world where respect is too often demanded by bigger contracts. Remember, too, when his current deal runs out he will be only 30 years old and with a couple more years like 2007, he will have teams falling over themselves to sign him to a deal that may dwarf the extension Santana receives, whoever signs him.

Rounding out the interview, Beckett noted he could never be a GM because he would make emotional decisions, and he would hate to lose Jon Lester in the deal for Santana. He said he is not for or against the trade, he trusts the front office of the organization will make whatever moves are necessary to help the team win.

This was a great interview; if you want to read more insight to the Red Sox players during this unpredictable offseason, The Transaction Guy posted a link to an interview of Jacoby Ellsbury by the Providence Journal.

Categories: Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Josh Beckett

PREVIOUS: Yankees cursed; favorite 07 Sox moment; Fire Brand contest

NEXT: Caveat Emptor: A Friendly Reminder

Discussion

47 Comments on "Beckett won't restructure contract; okay with Santana signing"

Posted by Dave B., December 6, 2007 12:23 AM

I stand corrected. I still think it is retarded that people are dying for Santana but literally made a campaign against A-Rod.

Santana has a nice 6.89 ERA at Fenway where players are sluggin .470. And i've heard the arguement that it is b/c the Sox offense, but that is dumb. Against the Sox overall he has an ERA of 3.40. So basically, in the 4 games at Fenway he has pitched, he has be rocked and the other 8 he has killed it.

It is just frustrating how hypocritical it is. You want one player for whatever it takes, money, players, ect. But people were threaten to not be fans if the BEST HITTER IN BASEBALL came on the team for literally just money. If you didn't want them both, i can understand. Personally i didn't want either player. If you wanted to see both, i can respect that idea. How often can you get the best player at their position? But if you are all for Santana now but against A-Rod then you insane. A-Rod was something we needed, Santana is a luxtury.

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 12:41 AM

We didn't need either Rodriguez or Santana, but it would certainly be nice to have them. Rodriguez is also 3 years older and demanded a 10 year contract. Santana wants a 6 year contract, hence dramatically different.

With all else being the same, I would have preferred Slappy, especially considering that now we're stuck with Lowell for three years.But every indication is that Santana will succeed wildly here like he has everywhere else.

Boomer Wells has a career 4.48 ERA at Fenway, worse than his 4.13 career ERA. In 2005, he had a 3.07 ERA at Fenway.

Things change, and you adapt. Santana will do swimmingly, and I can only hope it's for us.

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 12:46 AM

Also, you should look more in depth at Santana's Fenway numbers:

2001: 3.38 ERA in 5.1 IP

2002: 5.40 ERA in 1.2 IP

2003: DNP

2004: DNP

2005: DNP

2006: 3.60 ERA in 5.0 IP

2007: DNP

This is what we're killing him over?

Posted by Dave B., December 6, 2007 12:49 AM

1. We could have got A-Rod for 8 years. When the Yanks dropped out we would have ahd zero competition. If the Yanks got back in, well we would have drivin the price even higher than that 10 years 30 per..

2. A 6-7 contract for a pitcher is sooooooo much more risky than a 8-10 year contract for a pitcher.

3. But see, Wells problem wasn't Fenway, it was the Sox. he has a 4.86 ERA vs. the Sox. That is the specific reason why i noted that Santanas problem isn't the Sox it is the park.

Posted by Dave B., December 6, 2007 12:54 AM

Yes, yes it is. Players hit .328/.387/.469 against him. He is lucky to have an ERA of 6.89. Also, the Jays kill Santana and the O's hit him very well.

Posted by Dave B., December 6, 2007 12:54 AM

You are missing a start FYI, he has pitched 15.2 innings in Fenway.

Posted by Evan Brunell, December 6, 2007 12:57 AM

No one's entering the contest!?

Posted by Shane, December 6, 2007 9:35 AM

I like that.

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 6, 2007 10:27 AM

Thanks, Josh.

GET THIS DONE, THEO.

#10

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 11:12 AM

From the Santana thread from yesterday -

Dave, you said Santana is notorious for slowing down towards the end of the year. Definitely not the case. This year he had a bad (4.04 ERA) 2nd half, but in 2006 his ERA Dropped by half a point after the ASB (including a 1.78 ERA in September), in 2005 it was 3.98 vs. 1.59 (!) after the ASB (1.75 in September), 2004 3.78 vs. 1.21 (no, seriously, he had a 1.21 ERA in the 2nd half), with a POINT FOUR FIVE in September. .45 ERA.

Good god.

#11

Posted by Ryne Crabb, December 6, 2007 11:29 AM

.45? wow ...

#12

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 1:01 PM

Right, which was back in 2000, when he was 21. So he barely pitched in Fenway at all during his peak years.

The O's and Jays "hit him very well" because he barely ever sees them. Combined, he's thrown 40 innings against the O's and Jays over the last 3 seasons. Meanwhile, against Detroit he has a 3.16 ERA, Cleveland 3.64 (both of whom have a better offense than the O's and Jays), he's destroyed the Rays, 3.16 against the Royals, and the AL West hasn't even shown up against him.

All of these are extreme small sample size issues.

#13

Posted by Shane, December 6, 2007 1:40 PM

I for one don't like the idea of Santana for 6 yrs 150 million. The same as A-Rod 25 mill for a player is too much. While 6 yrs is preferable to 10, I would like some thing like 5/100 at the most. I doubt Santana feels that way though.

#14

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 1:54 PM

Well, I ask again, is Santana more than $10m of value of 5 years than Torii Hunter? I'd say so by a longshot. FA contracts are getting worse and worse, even from the 2000 idiocy at the winter meetings. Who would've thought Manny would be a relative bargain now?

#15

Posted by a different Dave B., December 6, 2007 2:04 PM

What's all this talk about "we could have had A-rod"?? Let's not forget that Pay-Rod is a clubhouse cancer and a notorious post-season choker. Mikey is by all accounts a great guy, a leader, and oh yeah, the reigning World Series MVP. I am sooooo glad the Sox did not make a serious run at him, so that I don't have to try to convince myself to cheer for him. For Mike, I need no such convincing.

#16

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 2:12 PM

Luckily, Different Dave B, you'll have virtually no reason to cheer Lowell over the next 3 years. Problem solved!

#17

Posted by a different Dave B., December 6, 2007 2:28 PM

This is apparently because you think he will perform completely differently, which is total conjecture on your part, I'll stick with the stats.

#18

Posted by a different Dave B., December 6, 2007 2:30 PM

Seriously Sean O., you just told me I'll have no reason to cheer for the 2007 Red Sox RBI leader and World Series MVP. I am laughing at you for the rest of the day for that one.

#19

Posted by Evan Brunell, December 6, 2007 2:32 PM

::cough ::

http://mvn.com/mlb-redsox/2007/12/06/yankees-cursed-favorite-07-sox-moment-fire-brand-contest/

#20

Posted by Rick, December 6, 2007 2:43 PM

Evan, I'd like to see the Sox take a serious shot at Saltalamacchia with Crisp as the bait. We need a serious contender to replace Tek within the next 2 years or so, and this kid seems to have the talent on offense and defense that we need.

#21

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 6, 2007 3:10 PM

Alright, Evan, I'll take the hint. Just thinking of a fitting deal...

#22

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 6, 2007 3:12 PM

LOL, and back to the A's he goes. From RotoWorld:

Athletics claimed LHP Jay Marshall off waivers from the Red Sox.

This makes twice already this winter that we've had a player claimed off waivers and then reclaimed by his previous team. It was Cody Hearther going from the Cardinals to the Jays and back to St. Louis last month. Marshall, a Rule 5 pick a year ago, had a 6.43 ERA in 42 innings for the A's last season. The Red Sox were probably going to stash him away in Triple-A. The A's could do the same, assuming they don't lose him on waivers again this winter.

#23

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 3:15 PM

Help me out here Dave B2, you're saying that Lowell will be good because you *are* basing it on his stats? Of course it's total conjecture, but to me, his stats show a terrible collapse forthcoming. To get to a good but not great .880 OPS, he had a BABIP of .340. Not to mention his career post ASB numbers every year but '07 are wretched.

He could be good, but I don't expect him to remotely come close to the amount we're paying him.

#24

Posted by a different Dave B., December 6, 2007 3:22 PM

again, Sean O., ignoring his defense, clubhouse demeanor, and clutch hitting. So, I'm basing it on his stats AND his intangibles. A-rod's stats are great but his intangibles are horrific. And there's no way any real Sox fan could cheer for Me-Rod.

#25

Posted by a different Dave B., December 6, 2007 3:48 PM

Talk about overpaying... Andruw Jones gets $32.5 mil for two years... now THAT's ridonculous.

#26

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 3:59 PM

Andruw Jones might be one of the few bargains of this offseason, as shocking as that sounds. $16-18m is a ton of money, but only 2 years makes it a hell of a lot better than Pierre's contract. At least he's excellent defensively.

Lowell clutch? In 2007 he hit slightly better in "clutch" situations (though Close 'n Late was ugly), but in 2004, 2005, 2006 he did far worse.

#27

Posted by Dave B., December 6, 2007 4:07 PM

If i hear clubhouse cancer spoken again i might shoot myself. These guys are playing baseball not getting married. Plus, what happened that made A-Rod the Starbary of the MLB? Like honestly, what a dick. The guy was going to take a paycut to come here a couple years ago, what nerve.

#28

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 4:21 PM

Dave B wars, live at Fire Brand.

Slappy's not a cancer like Jurassic Carl or Bonds or Elijah Dukes, he just gets too much attention because he's too good and too highly paid at baseball.

He's been, at times, criticized for taking early batting practice (something like "Rodriguez's shallow attempts to curry favor by trying too much"), hitting a solo shot in the playoffs ("too little, too late") to the Yankees return (came crawling back). Hell, remember when word came out that Rodriguez saved the kid from getting run down on Newbury St? At least 90% of Boston was thinking he must've pushed the kid first.

That said, I hope he hits .100/.125/.150 for the playoffs for the rest of his career.

#29

Posted by Joe, December 6, 2007 7:34 PM

Can we trade Sean O for a Dave B to be named later?

#30

Posted by hynes, December 6, 2007 7:34 PM

In response to the whole "Lowell is clutch" argument, if a player being "clutch" is reason to sign him to a three-year contract, heck - why aren't we resigning Bobby Keilty. The guy hit a freakin pinch-hit home-run in Game 4 of the World Series that ended up being the winning run?!

Clutch is an elusive item, not easily quantifiable and based for most people largely on emotion and what they see vs. stats. Julio Lugo was actually our best hitter in terms of BA and RBI with bases loaded last year and I doubt anyone would call him "clutch."

I dont think Lowell will be as horrible as Sean, but I'll be surprised if he finishes his contract with Boston at all or as a starter. I think we're going to see him break down quicker than most people think like Billy "Ballgame" Mueller did.

#31

Posted by JaredK, December 6, 2007 8:04 PM

Not to be a dick or anything but what is the fascination with BABIP? It seems like an over-valued stat to me. If you take a guy like Crisp, he had a low BABIP in the playoffs which people would use to assume he is unlucky and that his avg could/should be higher....but he was making horrible contact and rolling weak grounders and infield pop-ups (I use Crisp because the playoffs are fresh in my head still), his approach and mechanics sucked. Isn't there something to be said about good fundamentals and a consistent mechanics when hitting being a result of a high BABIP or using the entire field, getting the good part of the bat on the ball, not being fooled by off-speed pitches, etc. It seems like there could be a number of factors with BABIP, soometimes it could certainly be an indication of luck or lack there of, but there could be many cases where a guy with a high BABIP just has a good approach, swing, etc and it results in good solid contact. Again not entirely disparaging the statistic as I think it is somewhat interesting but I just can't fathom it tells entirely too much of the story in many cases. It would be a huge pain in the ass...but if they did it like in hockey where shots are counted against quality scoring chances...if someone could track quality contact (subjective as all hell I know) on outs and work that into a formula between average and outs in play...again would be a huge pain in the ass (then again it would not be any more subjective or tedious as the fielding bible stats) and very subjective, but would make it more of viable stat in my estimation.

#32

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 8:13 PM

Jared, there's something called eBABIP which is the expected BABIP. It's roughly .120 more than the line drive rate. Flyballs and groundballs are largely a matter of luck, but for the most part, line drives are going to go for hits.

So, while the majority of BABIPs average out around .300, some people do consistently hit higher and lower. When someone is radically under or over performing the BABIP compared *to his history*, it's a good indicator of how well that person is doing.

A lot of stats thrown around by others and myself are used as a quick 'n dirty summation of how a player is doing. If someone is pressing and hacking at anything, we can look at their hit charts, pitch locations and pitches per plate appearance.

BABIP requires a pretty large sample size, so BABIP in the playoffs would by and large be a pretty bad idea unless you're talking Andruw Jones or Captain Intangibles.

#33

Posted by Dave B., December 6, 2007 8:22 PM

To use BABIP by itself is stupid like using ERA alone is. If you look at LD%, GB%, HR/air, and K% you can put BABIP into a context.

#34

Posted by TheScout, December 6, 2007 8:36 PM

I thought Daniel Rathman said the Santana deal was done? Where's our new pitcher?

#35

Posted by Dave B., December 6, 2007 8:37 PM

Just for quick reference, the general rule of thumb is 75% of line drives land for hits and 25% of groundballs get threw.

#36

Posted by Steven Roth, December 6, 2007 9:26 PM

"Get through" you mean?

How about Curtis Pride as our lefthanded outfielder coming off the bench? He was a great defender when he played for the Sox a couple years ago. I spoke to him tonight and he says he would love to come back to the Red Sox for one last year. We could sign him cheap too.

I'm not too sure how good he's been lately though, I should look into that.

#37

Posted by Evan Brunell, December 6, 2007 9:52 PM

Pride's career numbers are .250/.327/.407 and in his age 27 year when he got 267 AB, he hit .300/.372/.513. I was talking to him today and mentioned that he was a bit too late in being born... dude has a good eye, waits for his pitch. Back in the 90s, people cared about AVG. When people started caring about OBP, it was too late for him.

#38

Posted by Evan Brunell, December 6, 2007 9:55 PM

"Can we trade Sean O for a Dave B to be named later?"

Line of the year.

#39

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 6, 2007 10:02 PM

TheScout (#34):

I didn't say the deal was done. I said that the "framework" was essentially done. Apparently all KNBR meant by that was that the 5-to-1 idea was agreed upon and the players involved were close to adequate. I hate ambiguity.

Also, according to KNBR, the Red Sox have the top current offer for Erik Bedard, and might have already acquired him if they weren't in the AL East. ESPN's Jayson Stark confirms.

#40

Posted by Sean O, December 6, 2007 10:20 PM

NO BEDARD. GAH.

#41

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 6, 2007 10:26 PM

Yea, he's a horrible match for Boston. Bedard hates the media and publicity...bad, bad thing if you're going to be on the Sox.

#42

Posted by Ryne Crabb, December 6, 2007 10:51 PM

O's are looking for 3-4 top level prospects for Bedard, I would hate to speculate what Boston would be giving up to be the leader in those negotiations ...

#43

Posted by Sam, December 6, 2007 11:28 PM

wait wait ... the Red Sox have the top current offer for BEDARD? when did that happen? and more importantly ... why did that happen? makes no sense plus I haven't heard it anywhere else that I can remember ... are they saying any more Daniel?

#44

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 7, 2007 1:58 AM

The report originally came from this article by Jayson Stark:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove07/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3144749

KNBR elaborated, saying they had evidence that the Sox had the best offer. The O's though, are very unlikely to trade him within the division. That's all KNBR has said so far, and I'm guessing we won't hear too much ... unless the Sox somehow get shifted into a different division.

And I don't want Bedard anyway.

Johan, please.

#45

Posted by Dave B., December 7, 2007 2:42 AM

Alright, i will counter the offer with a Ryan B. He is alittle young but he has huge upside. He is the Ellsbury of computer nerds.

#46

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 7, 2007 2:48 AM

I think acquiring a Dave B to be named later will require a 5-to-1 package and a six-year long extension mandating 150 million comments.

Or maybe I can just solve this problem by selecting Sean O with the first pick in the Fire Brand Rule V Draft...?

Yes, I do need more sleep. No, I'm not getting it.

#47

Posted by Daniel Rathman, December 7, 2007 2:51 AM