November 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Why Red Sox should not sign Mark Teixeira
 |
| Mark Teixeira - ccho |
There have been no indications that anyone has presented "Tex" with an offer, but before all is said and done, the Red Sox, New York Yankees, Los Angeles Angels, Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles figure to have gotten their piece in, in addition to a couple other surprise teams.
If Tony Massarotti and Randy Youngman are to be believed, it is only a matter of time before Tex is trying on a Boston Red Sox hat. In the Coco Crisp/Ramon Ramirez trade analysis, many commenters weighed in on the Teixeira issue. As has been made clear in the comments, I am not a proponent of signing Mark Teixeira, as talented as he is.
Here are my reasons why.
FIRST IS NOT THE ISSUE
The Red Sox have a few question marks heading into the 2009 season. First base is not one of them. MVP candidate Kevin Youkilis is ensconced in that position with third base belonging to Mike Lowell.
 |
| Mike Lowell - Samara Pearlstein |
While signing Teixeira and trading Mike Lowell are possibilities, it would mean investing money in a position that we do not have foreseeable issues at for the next two years and perhaps beyond, if Lars Anderson develops into the hitter we all know he can be.
In today's day and age, flexibility and a propensity for young players are valued. What better position are the Sox in, then, with Lowell and David Ortiz free agents after the 2010 season and Lars Anderson chomping at the bit to hit the majors? By then, Will Middlebrooks may even be ready to ascend.
The club also has young, cost-controllable Jed Lowrie for the next five years and Lowrie can play short, third and second. Right now, he has to be penciled in as the starting shortstop, but even if he doesn't start the season at short, he will be a valuable utility infielder who can step in at third base in two years if needed.
Why throw eight to 10 years at Tex for over $20 million a year when a competitive team can be fielded in 2009 with Youkilis, Ortiz and Lowell? Adding Tex would undoubtedly boost the offense, but would it come at a sacrifice on defense? Right now, two Gold Glovers man the corners. I'm not so sure Youk would be categorized as a Gold Glove contender at third.
With that in mind, there are better ways to upgrade the 2009 team without investing money in Teixeira.
 |
| Rafael Furcal - dizzy-eyed |
The money could be used to invest in a veteran pitcher such as Derek Lowe, who the team seems to be interested in (another move I do not advocate) or to significantly bolster the shortstop position. This could become that much more of a pressing issue should the club decide to ship out some of its better young pitchers for a catcher such as Jarrod Saltalamacchia.
Even though Rafael Furcal seems to have as his top two suitors the Oakland Athletics and San Francisco Giants, who's to say the Red Sox can't swoop in and sign Furcal? He is a far better player than the options the Sox have trotted out there these last few years.
You could even use the money supposedly burning a hole in the Sox's pocket to eat Lugo's contract -- a sizeable chunk of it -- and get a very good prospect in return.
Upgrade the team at other positions if money needs to be spent, not at positions that don't need it.
One of the goals of the Red Sox is to get younger. While signing Teixeira would technically constitute getting younger as Mike Lowell would then be moved, Youkilis is entering his age 30 season and Tex will be there after 2009. Doesn't seem like a radical move to get younger to me.
'A GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE'
People have expressed concern that David Ortiz may be finished -- much like Lowell was thought to be finished after 2005. Sorry, I'm not prepared to write off a hitter who has finished in the top five of MVP voting five straight years after one injury-marred season.
 |
| David Ortiz - Samara Pearlstein |
If the club were to sign Teixeira and have Ortiz return to form, Lars Anderson is effectively blocked at first and DH, necessitating a trade. If Ortiz returns to form, there is no way he doesn't resign with the Red Sox, so we would be losing a young slugger and... getting older.
Sure, Teixeira could be traded in the next few years should Lars press the issue and Ortiz return to form, but Scott Boras is highly likely to demand (and get) a no-trade clause. The Red Sox have shown a clear aversion to giving out no trade clauses. While they have constructed club policies in order to give Daisuke Matsuzaka and Jason Varitek that protection, they have been able to avoid writing one into a contract.
The premise for signing Teixeira, many people seem to believe, is predicated on the fact that they think David Ortiz is done and will walk as a free agent after 2010. Again, I'm not convinced, but let's cede the point just for the sake of argument. Let's say we already know definitively that Ortiz will walk after 2010. Would we still want to sign Teixeira?
Maybe. Maybe not. The Sox would temporarily get younger, but perhaps at the expense of defense and certainly at the expense of losing a starting-caliber player (Lowell) with no guarantees we get a similar caliber player back.
Wouldn't it make sense, then, to hold off on the Ortiz issue until after 2009 or 2010? If Ortiz needs to walk after 2010, why can't we sign the slugger on the market then, as opposed to now?
The best slugger on the market after 2010?
Albert Pujols.
Mark Teixeira is a great player, and should the Red Sox feel it in their best interest to sign him, I am sure I will enjoy his production over the next decade. I just don't think we should sign him.
Discussion
101 Comments on "Why Red Sox should not sign Mark Teixeira"
#2
Posted by Bookie Monster, November 24, 2008 12:06 PM
Sure, Teixeira could be traded in the next few years should Lars press the issue and Ortiz return to form, but Scott Boras is highly likely to demand (and get) a no-trade clause.
Since we are dealing with the theoretical ...
Ortiz is under contract until 2010, with a team option for '11.
It's not Teixeira that would be moved when Lars is ready, it would likely be an aging Ortiz.
#3
Posted by flapjack21, November 24, 2008 12:16 PM
Bringing in Tex has nothing to do with fortifying 1st base; it's all about the offense he'd bring to the lineup.
The Sox can sign Tex and still address other areas, although imo, there aren't many. You can say SS is a trouble spot, but Lugo/Lowrie are hardly the reason this team didn't win the division or the WS last year.
As much as I'd hope that Lars is the next Tex, or Morneau, that's a lot to put on a 21-yr. old. He has *huge* potential, but he's not a sure thing. Tex is.
#4
Posted by 080808, November 24, 2008 1:16 PM
I agree the point FLAPJACK21 made; Tex is one of the best defensive first man. He's a whole package, a safer bet in long term deal.
1B/3B/DH logjam problem is also bit contrived, I think. without Tex, there are more or less three question marks (Ortiz to his form, Lowell injury, Lars developing timely). with Tex, those are practically non-existent.
There's a good chance we can use well-developed Lars to bring in second Beckett, too.
Bringing up Pujols in this discussion sounds silly, honestly.
#5
Posted by El Guapo's Ghost, November 24, 2008 1:35 PM
I don't get the Teixeira rumors either. If they are going to make the investment, the sox should deal Youk and not Lowell - sell HIGH.
http://elguaposghost.blogspot.com/2008/11/sell-high-thebgc-whats-sox-no.html
#6
Posted by MUNGHERO, November 24, 2008 3:00 PM
I agree with Bookie Monster and Flapjack21, but if I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say the biggest reason to not sign Tex is to make room for Pedroia, Youk, Papelbon, and Lester's inevitable contracts. If you forced me to choose between getting tex and loosing one of those guys or keeping the above and taking my chances with Lars, I'd take the latter.
#7
Posted by Bob, November 24, 2008 3:14 PM
I can understand the logic behind signing Tex and I won't be too upset if it happens even though I'd like to see Lars as our 1st baseman by 2010. It's definitely a dilemma, but it's a nice one to have, and I'll be pleased no matter the outcome. Personally, I have a feeling that he'll be signing with Anaheim.
Furcal would be a nice pickup. Lowrie is a solid player, but I think Furcal is a better Shortstop in every aspect of the game. There's certainly no concern about him being an everyday SS long-term. He'd also be a good solution for the leadoff spot to take pressure off of Ellsbury/ if Ells can't handle it. Also makes Lowrie a nice trading chip in a deal for a catcher. The D'Backs need a 2nd baseman, if the Sox got Furcal they could offer Lowrie in a deal for Miguel Montero.
#8
Posted by Gerry, November 24, 2008 5:05 PM
Good points all. As we will have one of the top rated DH and infields (offense & defense) through 2010 and beyond, signing Teixeira now is a luxury, not a need.
You may argue that signing Teix allows Theo to trade Mike for the catcher we DO need, while keeping and using Buc, Masterson, Bo; and that even after eating $4M of Mike's salary in the trade, it would still knock $8.5M off Teix's salary for a couple of years. It's still a luxury.
Starting pitching is a need, though Masterson, Buchholz and Bowden could totally eliminate that need by June. Tek and his protege are needs.
SS is not a need, as there is little doubt that Lowrie, with wrist properly healed, still a rookie, will return to his expected high BA, OPS, RBI stats and continue his gold glove defense and to increase his range. Perhaps Furcal would be worth it, but he too is a luxury.
Luxuries like Teix and Furcal might improve this already powerful offense and tight defense, but they will have little impact if we don't address the needs of starting pitching and catching, both of which can be easily resolved (i.e. F.A. Penny or Kawakami plus Buchholz and Bowden) and any of a half dozen available top talents.
#10
Posted by Sam K, November 24, 2008 7:01 PM
The only good thing about us signing Teixeira is that it gives us a great trade package to go get ourselves a catcher: Lars and Lowell.
Besides that, it probably hurts our defense, it definitely eats up a lot of money, and it gives us only marginal offensive upgrades at 3B and 1B -- while leaving our real problems unsolved. Hooray for counterproductivity.
Just for the record, I think Papi hits 45 homeruns again next year. The pitchers will be pitching to him more than they did in his glory days. I say he's healthy and gives the American League a rude awakening next year. But that's just me, I guess.
God I hope that Theo's seeming interest in D-Lowe is just the FO stringing the media and public along while we concentrate our energy elsewhere. The more I think about Burnett, the more I like him.
#11
Posted by B, November 24, 2008 8:31 PM
HOW IN GOD'S NAME WOULD SIGNING A 2-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNING FIRST BASEMAN HURT OUR DEFENSE???
Youkilis was supposed to be our 3bman of the future coming up in the farm system until Lowell came in the Beckett deal. Youk won a gold glove at 1b but 3b is his natural position. Pedroia JUST WON a GG at 2b, and Lowrie made no errors at SS.
WHAT ARE YOU GUYS SMOKING??
Furthermore, I absolutely don't get how so many people on this site can be so worried about blocking "super-prospect hasn't even hit AAA yet 'decent glove at first' - per sox prospects website - Lars Anderson, and yet have no concern about picking up an overpriced FA middling 4/5 starter and blocking a Bucholtz - who's actually thrown a no-hitter at the major league level - or Masterson who's shown he has the arm and head to succeed now or, even Bowden who's 1/2 a season away.
Lars is nowhere near the fielder Tex is and probably never will be. Passing on Tex will hurt your defense in the future. Anderson would be much better replacing Papi at some point. Not saying Papi's done, but if Anderson's going to be the hitting monster you all dream of then let him concentrate on hitting.
The Sox cut about $15M last year and about $40M this year. Before signing anyone they're at about 100m for payroll. Even with a big contract for Tex and increases through arbitration and or early contract offers they will still sit easily below their payroll level of 2yrs ago. Plus most of the Fenway renovations are complete. We aren't Tampa Bay or even Milwaukee.
Ahh. Anyway. Peace to all.
#12
Posted by johnnyb, November 24, 2008 8:36 PM
Tex does make sense. What hurt Boston last year was lack of another big bat in the lineup. That, and more bullpen help is their number one need. They have started to address the bully. Now it is time to lengthen the lineup.
#13
Posted by B, November 24, 2008 8:40 PM
By the way, you could eat ALL of Lugo's contract and your still not getting a good prospect back. He has close to zero value.
And for the last time, signing Tiexeira DOES NOT BLOCK ANDERSON. Papi, with 10+5 rights can still approve a trade. Why would you give Papi a big contract in 2yrs if Anderson is good enough to fill his shoes????
#14
Posted by Joshua Hynes, November 24, 2008 8:43 PM
From everything I've read, I have not read one person speculating that signing Tex is somehow replacing Ortiz. If anything it's to help with a Manny-less lineup that features aging players (Lugo, Drew, Lowell and Ortiz) and has some good, solid offense players (Petey, Youk, Bay). Tex would add the pop that this team all last season compared to previous years.
Tex makes a lot of sense. Esp. since he's a known commodity, he doesn't cost trade prospects and he's only 28. You lock him in and he have a team core built around Tex, Beckett (assuming they resign him after '10), Lester, Dice-K, Youk, Paps, MDC, Petey and Ellsbury for the next 4-5 years at least.
That just makes sense to me.
#15
Posted by B, November 24, 2008 9:01 PM
As Evan said FIRST IS NOT THE ISSUE.
Josua Hynes hit the nail on the head.
It's about providing Papi with better protection in the line-up. As good as Youk and Bay or even Drew at times hit, Tex is the real deal. Look at the recent comments attributed to an AL club official asking if it wouldn't be crazy for Anaheim to let Tex go after at last finding a guy to protect Vlad in their line-up.
#16
Posted by SamR, November 24, 2008 9:24 PM
This whole Tex thing has become a matter of opinion now. As is the tendency when debating over whether or not to sign a big ticket free agent. Some people think Tex is the man and he will be our cleanup hitter for the next 7-8 years. Other people think Tex is good, not great, and don't think he is worth investing so much in.
One side could care less about the fact we would be seriously strapped with a massive (I mean like A-Rod-esque) contract for a position we already have filled with a decent player. The other side is not phased at all by the fact we do lack a true Manny type hitter in the middle of our lineup. But in the end, it all comes down to how you feel about Texiera. If you like him, you wanna get him right now, ragardless of the cost. If you are meh on him, then you don't believe he's worth it. I am in the latter camp. I like the team Theo is building and I don't think Tex is the right piece for this puzzle. We'll see though.
I'm just saying. Don't act like your opinion is the only one worth listening to. And definently don't ask us what we're smoking (in all caps no less). We're all Sox fans here. We're all smoking the same stuff. Pretty much.
#17
Posted by Bob, November 24, 2008 10:30 PM
Calm down B. I like Tex, got to see him up close for half of two season here in atlanta and he is no doubt an upgrade at 1st no matter how much you like Youkilis (I'm a big fan of him too). That said, Anderson is one of the top 15 if not top 10 prospects in baseball, a left handed hitter with one of the sweetest swings you will ever see, and a ton opposite field power. Basically, he's made for Fenway. And he's an above average fielder, a good athlete with smooth motions in the field. Watch some video of him swinging the bat and you'll know exactly what everyone sees in him, his swing makes Drew's look ugly. I'm 100% with Sam R, this is a great dilemma to have. We could have Tex now or we could have Lars in 2010 when he'll basically be Tex.
As for Lars vs. Buchholz, I think most would argue that Lars has more value. Last season was a HUGE step backwards for Clay and a lot of his weaknesses were exposed, the biggest being a straight fastball and poor command. Lars on the other hand took big strides in improving his power and ability to pull the ball. He'll get a full season in AAA next year at age 21 and many believe he could compete for a big league job already.
Still I'd like to know what people think about signing Furcal, another guy who I loved with the Braves although he left about a year after I first moved down here, and then offering Lowrie straight up to the D'Backs for Montero. I think it helps both teams and Arizona is a natural partner since Josh Byrnes was Theo's assistant GM with the Sox.
#18
Posted by SamR, November 24, 2008 11:08 PM
I'd hang on to Lowrie for dear life. He's a Sox farm product to the core and he fits right in with everything Theo and Tito believe in. AND he actually did okay under pressure in Boston last year. Plus, while Furcal may be an interesting player with a good set of skills and he may open up Lowrie for trading, we just don't know how he would do here. We have had a revolving door at SS. I don't care if we can improve the position at this point. If we can finally stop that door, do it. That may sound stupid but honestly I'd rather stick with a fairly known commodity than risk making yet another move in the hopes of improvement. Not a nescessary risk. IMO.
#19
Posted by Randy, November 24, 2008 11:52 PM
I am on the fence with this Tex thing.. I can see both sides. I think if I knew 100% that Tex would not go to the Yankees if we passed, then I would fall on the "keep lowell and youk at the corners" camp.
#20
Posted by Alfonzo, November 25, 2008 2:05 AM
The bottom line is that the Red Sox will be a dangerous, competitive team with or without Mark Teixeira. And while Epstein would have to trade either Lowell or Ortiz to make room for Teixeira, Theo has shown in the past his willingness to make drastic and surprising trades to get his man. And no one can doubt that Theo covets a switch-hitting, gold glove winning first baseman who has hit more than thirty home runs in every season since his rookie year and has great plate discipline.
As for Anderson, Lowell and Ortiz... does anyone really see Lowell or Ortiz as being smart candidates for new contracts in 2010 when both of theirs expire? Wouldn't Teixeira and Anderson look a hell of a lot more appealing at that point?
#21
Posted by B, November 25, 2008 4:34 AM
I hope these links work. I've never tried to make one before. I apologize in advance if this is just a mess.
Never said the Sox need him. Don't even think they should pay him A-Rod money. But for the argument that he's "not that good"
Here's an objectionable view of Lar's ability. Pay attention to the fact that he struggles against some of the top pitching and remember those are top pitchers in AA ball.
And for those who think signing him will bankrupt the team, again with the caveat that they don't need him at A-Rod $$. Also bear in mind eating some of Lugo's salary and any saving from trading Lowell would drop the $110M base. Further, that Papi's 12.5 would drop if Anderson took his spot.
#22
Posted by Craig, November 25, 2008 6:56 AM
"As for Anderson, Lowell and Ortiz... does anyone really see Lowell or Ortiz as being smart candidates for new contracts in 2010 when both of theirs expire? Wouldn't Teixeira and Anderson look a hell of a lot more appealing at that point?"
Lowell's contract in 2007 wasn't smart, never mind 2010.
As for the whole Tex debate, Lars is a PROSPECT. Sometimes they pan out and many times they don't. Never fall in love with prospects and don't hesitate to trade them if the right opportunity presents itself - see Hanley Ramirez (the bargaining chip that basically brought us a WS championship in 2007, though at significant cost too I'll grant you). If you have the opportunity to sign a switch-hitting, Gold-Glove, high OPS 1st baseman with 30+ HR power who also happens to be a good clubhouse guy - you do it.
Not to mention the fact that Tex helps us move Lowell - though unfortunately, we won't be selling him high.
#23
Posted by M.A.G, November 25, 2008 10:52 AM
Bob, totally agree with you about Lars, and that's why I don't see the logic of signing Teixeira. Has much more sense to search for a good bat in a position of weakness, and in a position in wich we don't have a such a tremendous prospect. First base is, simply put, the most secured position in all the team, and Lowell is not dead. With his health back he still is going to be a productive player.
I understand the fixation many people have for Teixeira (he is going to sell a lot of T-Shirts). He is the best hitter in the markett now, and receives a lot of publicity. But he is a bad option for the team. He is just a minor upgrade to the lineup now, will cripple our payroll, and will be couterproductive in the long run. We need those resources to adress real needs. We need to invest that money in real upgrades to the team.
#24
Posted by M.A.G, November 25, 2008 11:09 AM
And about Furcal, the fact is it depends of the lenght of the contract. He is a good player (and has more sense than the other guy), but he is to old and too injury-prone to give him a long-term contract. Lowrie will be solid, and maybe has more sense to stick with him until we find a better option.
And the better option is JJ Hardy IMHO. If we could land him, I would be a very happy fan.
#25
Posted by M.A.G, November 25, 2008 11:20 AM
But, I must admit, signing Furcal and then use Lowrie to go after Montero, or Shoppach (Cleveland needs an infielder too) has logic. Its not a bad option, and deserves to be considered.
#26
Posted by bob, November 25, 2008 11:40 AM
Furcal will be 31 next year. A 3 year contract at a resonable price would be a smart move, although I did take a look at some of his career numbers and it tempered myenthusiasm a little bit.
#27
Posted by Alex, November 25, 2008 12:34 PM
Look. Ortiz is 33 right now and signed through 2010 with a team option for '11 which will be picked up as long as Ortiz doesn't COMPLETELY tank from now 'til then. soxprospects.com says Anderson will make an appearance in the majors as a September call-up next season. If all goes according to that plan Anderson will most likely start the 2010 season at AAA Pawtucket and be called up close to mid-way through that season. He'll get experience as a left handed bat off the bench/ backup DH/ emergency 1B throughout that season and unless he shows that he can hit in the top tier throughout most of a season in 2010 and Ortiz falls off the face of the earth, he'll end up in the same role in 2011 and in 2012 he'll get a chance to start at DH with Teixeira at 1B and as long as they sign him long-term, Kevin Youkilis at 3B. If both Tex and Youk keep up their respective high levels of production into their low to mid 30's, and they should, the Red Sox will have one of the best offenses in baseball for at least a couple of years, if all goes according to plan.
#28
Posted by Alex, November 25, 2008 12:55 PM
I understand the fixation many people have for Teixeira (he is going to sell a lot of T-Shirts). He is the best hitter in the markett now, and receives a lot of publicity. But he is a bad option for the team. He is just a minor upgrade to the lineup now, will cripple our payroll, and will be couterproductive in the long run. We need those resources to adress real needs. We need to invest that money in real upgrades to the team.
Reply
I disagree.Money has never been an option for the Red Sox so another Manny Ramirez type contract isn't going to "cripple" their payroll. Remember, while Ramirez was still under contract the Red Sox signed David Ortiz, Julio Lugo, J.D. Drew and Jason Varitek to a variety of contracts on the larger side. This is an opportunity a team gets once about every ten years and signing Teixeira would improve this club for the present and for the future. Most people are thinking that Tex is only a small upgrade from youk at first and he is but,he adds other things to the lineup. He is a better hitter than anyone the Red Sox have at the present time so he would slide into the four spot providing great protection for Ortiz, making him better. This allows Youkilis to slide down to five Bay to six and Drew to seven. This improves the bottom third of the lineup with Drew. Lowerie will be a serviceable number eight if they don't get a catcher who can hit and if they do, he'll be a great number nine. If Varitek comes back, well, the number nine guy is supposed to be more defensively minded anyway. This all comes about if the Red Sox sign just one player. You gotta think these things through before you comment.
#29
Posted by Alex, November 25, 2008 12:57 PM
And projects more as a replacement for David Ortiz at DH than as a potential First baseman because his defensive skills are god-awful.
#31
Posted by Alex, November 25, 2008 1:09 PM
The best slugger on the market after 2010?
Albert Pujols.
Reply:
According to TSN.ca, Albert Pujols signed a seven year contract with the cardinals before the '04 season with a CLUB option for an 8th year in any case he'll be 32 after the 2011 season and he's been prone to injuries, so that would in all likelyhood get worse with age.
#32
Posted by Alex, November 25, 2008 1:16 PM
I don't get the Teixeira rumors either. If they are going to make the investment, the sox should deal Youk and not Lowell - sell HIGH.
Reply:
WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN' AND WHERE CAN I GET SOME?
Kevin Youkilis is the same age as Teixeira and last year he showed signs of improving power numbers. You ABSOLUTELY do NOT trade that away. You don't need to get much for Lowell. Granted I wouldn't trade him for a nobody but still, they can trade him for a little less than equal value. If I were the GM I'd trade him for a serviceable bullpen arm/ fourth outfielder and a 4th or 5th round draft pick or two, if they can dump his entire salary.
#33
Posted by JaredK, November 25, 2008 1:40 PM
Alex, where do you get that Lars is god-awful at 1b? Just curious, soxprospects lists him as being athletic for his size and playing a pretty good 1b..digs balls well. I've only seen him play in Portland twice and he looked fine when I saw him, granted I don't recall him having to make any difficult plays. The guys at soxprospects have a lot of first hand reports from scouts and also a couple people who were based out of the Lancaster area. If you have a link, please send it...I would be curious to read it.
#34
Posted by alfonzo, November 25, 2008 4:28 PM
The only thing the Sox would want if they had to move Lowell to accommodate Teixeira is someone willing to pay the man. Unfortunately, that's extremely unlikely. We might find a suitor willing to give us some mid-level prospect and take on some of his salary, but no one's going to eat his $12 million. The reality is that there's a lot of risk in dealing Lowell right now. Until he can show that he's come back healthy, few teams are going to invest heavily in him. And if he does come back healthy, there are going to be a boat-load of questions about the front office's decision to give him away for what will surely amount to little more than a hill of beans. I'm almost more comfortable moving Ortiz to an AL club for better young value and using the DH slot in a more dynamic fashion... giving Lowell, Youk and Teixeira occasional (or frequent, if needed) time off from fielding. Can anyone see the Jays picking him up if they don't win the Ramirez sweepstakes?
#35
Posted by M.A.G, November 25, 2008 4:59 PM
I was wondering the same thing. Anderson's defense is actually above average. I have never read any scout who put this in question. He is considered and all-around great first baseman.
#36
Posted by B, November 25, 2008 6:01 PM
I put a link to his player bio from the Sox Prospect website in post #21, and it actually works too.
Sounds like a decent fielder but not one likely to win a gold glove anytime soon. Check it out and come to your own conclusions on what they say. I've never actually seen him play so that's all I have to go on. I'd be glad to read anything else on him if people posted some links.
Seems to K a lot. Is he Richie Sexon the second?
#37
Posted by JaredK, November 25, 2008 6:12 PM
No. He walks a ton and as a result of his patience he takes a lot of close strikes and sometimes gets down in the count and can struggle against good off-speed stuff when this happens. He is around one every 4.3 at bats...it was a little worse in Portland but high-a to double-s is probably the biggest adjustment climbing the ladder. If he can cut down by 15 % or so he will be on par with Ortiz's and Arod's rates (about every 5th at bat).
Here is a quote from BA:
“Anderson has plus raw power and an advanced, patient approach for such a young hitter. He generally swings at strikes and isn’t afraid to go deep in counts. His defense around the bag also impressed one scout, who liked how he scooped balls in the dirt to save errors.”
#38
Posted by B, November 25, 2008 6:36 PM
Not to be the slightest bit negative about his chances to reach that ratio here's a little story;
I know a pretty humble guy who got a cup of coffee with the Pirates. To paraphrase what he once told me "You don't realize what just one extra base hit per week can mean to a player's BA over the course of a season. It can mean wearing a baseball uniform or a UPS uniform."
Sometime what seems like a small percentage can be difficult to reach.
By the way, he drives a truck for Polar and is a great guy.
#39
Posted by Sam K, November 25, 2008 6:48 PM
Yes, Tex HURTS OUR DEFENSE. Right now. He's a Gold Glover, but we already have a Gold Glover at first base. We also have a Gold Glover at third base in Mike Lowell -- who surely becomes the odd man out if we sign Teixeira. Youkilis is a good fielder, but not necessarily a Gold Glover at third base as well as first base. So right now we have two Gold Glove candidates at the corner infield spots. With Tex, we have one, first base, and a question mark at third base. That's a STEP DOWN, in my book.
And once again I have to say this, because I can't believe how many of you guys are drinking the kool-aid, but TEX IS NOT MANNY, OR ANYTHING CLOSE. LOOK AT HIS NUMBERS. HIS OFFENSE DOESN'T MATCH EITHER a) THE HYPE OR b) THE BORAS SALARY.
Pass.
It's one thing to give a Manny-type contract to a hitter of Manny's caliber. Manny is a once-in-a-generation kind of hitter, and for all his quirks, he's on the fast-track to the Hall of Fame. It's another thing altogether to give a Manny-type contract whose career OPS is about 100 points lower, and that would be Mark Teixeira.
Teixeira is good, not great. Keep perspective on this, people.
#40
Posted by B, November 25, 2008 7:04 PM
I like Kool-Aid. It's tasty and soothing. And it helps me keep my perspective. Here, try some
#41
Posted by B, November 25, 2008 7:13 PM
I officially agree to disagree with Sam K, SAMR and M.A.G on this issue. Yet I do value your opinions and those of everyone else.
#42
Posted by Joshua Hynes, November 25, 2008 9:34 PM
Here's food for thought. Let's say the Sox FO goes out and is able to sign Tex. That leaves us with a seemingly crowded infield with Youk, Tex and Lowell at the corners and Lugo, Pedroia, Lowrie and Cora (assuming they resign him) up the middle. So, on paper, it looks like someone is going to have to go.
Why is it we assume Lowell is going to be moved? Why couldn't this team keep Lowell, give him more than enough time to come fully back from his hip injury and deal someone like Lugo instead? With a manager like Tito who loves to rotate guys to keep them fresh, you could spell your corners and DH at least a day a week. Yeah Lowell would see reduced playing time, but he isn't the same fielder he was in 2005 when he last won that Gold Glove. And everyone and their mother knew that Lowell had a career year in 2007. He's on the downside of his career.
Most people thought we had to deal Crisp at the beginning of this past season because of Jacoby, and it's a good thing the FO hung onto him. In the same way, keeping Lowell despite picking up Tex isn't a bad thing. If Lowell gets healthy then either he becomes a great trading chip in June and July as other teams facing injuries need replacements or he steps in for Youk if he were to get injured. Injuries are things you never plan for but always happen.
If the only reason for not getting Texeria is because of what to do with Lowell, then honestly that's a lousy reason. And if you argue that signing Texeria would block Lars possibly from rising up in 2 or 3 seasons, honestly things have a way of working themselves out. Either he becomes another great trade chip like Hanley to reel in some great talent or someone else is moved. You never know what could happen in 2-3 years. Ortiz might not recover. Tex might get hurt. Youk may regress. You hope for none of that, but things happen. Tex is a smart move for next season and the next 4 or so.
#43
Posted by Sam K, November 25, 2008 11:48 PM
I don't drink the kool-aid, and even if I did, I wouldn't get it from Sports Illustrated. Watered-down. That kind of perspective is no better than you get from the Boston media, with all their infatuation with Teixeira.
But if you're drinking the hard stuff, and if you like it straight, you look at the numbers and reaize that Teixeira is purely a luxury item and not really any solution to our problems. Tex is the top FA, according to S.I.? Whoop-de-do, he's the top dog in an unimpressive, or injury-prone, or aging class. Hooray for him (and Scott Boras).
And I don't even care about the money involved. Strictly as a matter of finances, I believe that we COULD easily afford the guy, if we wanted him. But I don't want him. We have other needs to address.
#44
Posted by Evan, November 26, 2008 12:52 AM
Interesting discussion.
I don't think you can compare Lowell to Crisp. Crisp had the flexibility of 3 OF positions and the off-day for Papi. Lowell is limited to 3b.
No, trading him would be the route to go if we were to sign Tex.
#45
Posted by ThePrize, November 26, 2008 8:46 AM
I think the author of the article has unwittingly exposed a very favorable situation for the Red Sox: with or without Mark Teixeira, the Red Sox will be competitive. I think the world of Mark Teixeira, but I can certainly see the arguments for not signing him. Either way I think things will work out nicely.
#46
Posted by Shane, November 26, 2008 9:52 AM
It all comes down to value. Yes the Sox can afford to sign Tex. But is he worth a Manny like contract? I don't think so, and if the front office thought Manny wasn't worth a Manny like contract I don't see how they do either.
The Yankees went all out and spent tons of money on the top free agent hitters of the time, and what did that get them? Sure their payroll was never crippled, but they never focused on their weaknesses and have been hampered by it since.
You've got to remember, he turned down an 8 year $140 mil contract extension from the Rangers. That is $18 million a year. So what is it going to take to get him? Reports say that he wants a 10 year/$20 mill minimum. So is he worth an equivalent to A-Rod's Rangers contract? $252 million for 10 years? I don't see how that money can't be put to better use for the team over all. I won't be upset if the team gets Tex, but I don't think it is the best use of resources.
#47
Posted by 080808, November 26, 2008 10:44 AM
"I don't think you can compare Lowell to Crisp. Crisp had the flexibility of 3 OF positions and the off-day for Papi. Lowell is limited to 3b."
I cannot imagine Crisp play DH not to mention RF (his girly arm!).
At least Lowell can DH at decent level and can complement Papi's RH/LH split.
Papi (2008)
LHP 221/308/433
RHP 279/389/532
(2006-2008) OPS vs LHP .885: vs. RHP 1.066
Also Lowell's slight favorable Home/Away split (surpirsingly lower than my guess, I admit) can make him for better platoon player in theory, IMHO.
Considering his reputation for great clubhouse guy, I cannot find it difficult for Lowell to refuse Coco-esque role. Yes, in theory.
(2006-2008) Home/Away: .852/.818
#48
Posted by Craig, November 26, 2008 5:26 PM
"Posted by Sam K, November 25, 2008 6:48 PM
Yes, Tex HURTS OUR DEFENSE. Right now. He's a Gold Glover, but we already have a Gold Glover at first base. We also have a Gold Glover at third base in Mike Lowell -- who surely becomes the odd man out if we sign Teixeira. Youkilis is a good fielder, but not necessarily a Gold Glover at third base as well as first base. So right now we have two Gold Glove candidates at the corner infield spots. With Tex, we have one, first base, and a question mark at third base. That's a STEP DOWN, in my book.
And once again I have to say this, because I can't believe how many of you guys are drinking the kool-aid, but TEX IS NOT MANNY, OR ANYTHING CLOSE. LOOK AT HIS NUMBERS. HIS OFFENSE DOESN'T MATCH EITHER a) THE HYPE OR b) THE BORAS SALARY.
Pass.
It's one thing to give a Manny-type contract to a hitter of Manny's caliber. Manny is a once-in-a-generation kind of hitter, and for all his quirks, he's on the fast-track to the Hall of Fame. It's another thing altogether to give a Manny-type contract whose career OPS is about 100 points lower, and that would be Mark Teixeira.
Teixeira is good, not great. Keep perspective on this, people."
Except that Tex is a more complete player than Manny. If we're talking strictly offense, I'd agree, but Manny is little more than a serviceable outfielder whereas Tex is an excellent fielding 1B.
As for redundancy, give Youk some credit. He was a 3B who made himself into a Gold Glove 1B. There's little doubt in my mind that before long, he'll be talked about as a top defensive 3B and it wouldn't surprise me to see him compete for a Gold Glove there. Not to mention the fact that we're talking about getting younger here by subtracting Lowell and adding Tex.
Sorry Sam, I disagree.
#49
Posted by Sam K, November 26, 2008 7:43 PM
And if Tex gets lazy with his defense after his big payday, as Manny got lazier after his? Or as Barry Bonds did late in his career? Or as Griffey did with the Reds when he started to sprout his bubble-butt?
Of course that's pure speculation, but no more so than daydreaming that Youkilis will contend for a Gold Glove at 3B. Point is, you just don't know.
And for the part of Teixeira's value that's tied up in his bat, he's overrated.
#50
Posted by Joshua Hynes, November 26, 2008 8:42 PM
MLBTradeRumors.com is reporting that Ken Rosenthal thinks that Scott Boras' scheme is for the Mark Teixeria and Tek to end up with the Sox, CC and Manny with the Angels and for Lowe to end up with the Yankees.
So there ya go.
#51
Posted by B, November 27, 2008 7:55 AM
Ok Sam K, join me for a 'frienly' shot of the hard stuff. Let's first toast the health and success of our beloved Sox for now and years to come.
I agree Tex is not Manny. I have a problem when you say he isn't anything close. Between your challenge to look at the numbers, and JAREDK's cool post on Lars BB ratio, I was inspired to break out the calculator. I have never been a stat-geek-type, but the process led me to realize that though the formulas are simple math that give concrete black and white solutions, there are many ways to add color to the final result. I'll get into that after I post the stats. One more thing before the numbers, that link was to an SI article, but they were only reporting the Elias bureau results. The Elias bureau is an independant, non-Kool Aid geek tank. It's full of pocket-protectored types and provides the stats that we all hear announcers use during game broadcasts. I don't know what stats they use to determine who was best. Which stats they used however, did put Tex over Manny. Manny was part of that "unimpressive, injury prone, or aging class" you mentioned. And the stats were cumulative over the last 2yrs and included his rediculous numbers with the Dodgers. Now to the hard cider:
Tex vs. Manny's first six years
Player AB BB SF HBP TB AVG SLG OBP OPS
Manny 3031 455 41 21 1747 .307 .576 .397 .973
Tex 3414 442 38 53 1847 .290 .541 .378 .919
The 100 points OPS difference you talk about included Manny's prime years, the years Tex is about to enter. The first six years difference is only 56 points.
Career BB and SO ratios
BB SO
Manny 1:6.28 1:4.57
Tex 1:7.72 1:4.92
A quick analysis tells me that not only did they have "similar" stats for the first SIX years but, according to Elias, for the last 2yrs.
Since walks are figured into OPS and OBP, Manny gets a boost in both categories for his better BB ratio. The boost, though I haven't and won't crunched the numbers, makes up a good portion of the difference. While Tex strikes out less, the more balls he puts in play have a chance to be fielded for outs. My dad always used to say "A walk is as good a hit.", and he was right.
Shane, i think the Red Sox Did think Manny's BAT was worth his contract. IMHO, they didn't think his repeated requests for a trade, fake injuries and illness, and average defense made it worth keeping him at the price. He wasn't that loyal to the team. Bottom line, it was the stats that got Manny that contract, and I think Tex's stats are comparable. So would you sign Tex now for an average of $18-22M over his next 8 "prime years" of his career? I think so.
Questions to add color to the black and white stats:
1)Who hit in better line-ups
2)Who hit in a better hitters' park
3)What advantage did playing with the same team give Manny over Tex who was traded both of the last two years and had to adjust twice to new teams if any?
4)Who faced better pitching?
5)What reasons caused the difference in BB ratio? Maybe organizational philosophy. A better eye? Did Tex think he was the guy in Texas that needed to get the hit, whereas Manny in Cleveland just needed to get on base for his team mates to drive in?
If your on the other side of the Tex fence there are questions/statements about the stats you can develop for your cause.
I really can't see any reason to dislike this guy. If you just don't like him, well you just don't like him.
#52
Posted by B, November 27, 2008 8:00 AM
Sorry that post was so long and real sorry the stats didn't line up right.
#53
Posted by B, November 27, 2008 8:29 AM
What are this teams area of need if we don't sign Tex?
A stop-gap 4/5 pitcher?
Yet another SS?
Tek's replacement is one we can all agree on. That is likely to come through a trade. The Sox can't go out and buy a young talented catcher. Not much cash involved.
If Masterson went to the starting rotation the and you gave Lowrie a shot to develop, his defense is sound already, then the team really has minor issues to address.
I think this team is a perfect situation to have its cake and eat it too.
#54
Posted by B, November 27, 2008 8:48 AM
Kool Aid and local media hype:
Sean McAdam is ok and Nick Cafardo sticks mostly to facts giving his opinion only when asked. The rest of them IMO show a clear lack of baseball knowledge. EEI in particular is painful for me to listen to when they talk baseball. The local media seems more suited to reporting the game's side issues like locker room controversy and who was at what bar the night before a game. I usually just watch NESN during the season.
#55
Posted by B, November 27, 2008 9:16 AM
In re-reading the SI article on the Elias report I admit I may have made a mistake. Looks like they break down comparisons positionally. Manny and Tex probably were'nt compared head to head. I swear my calculator won't see the light of day for another 10yrs. Maybe somebody else might want to run their numbers for the last two years. Since Tex was traded twice and Manny once it's a little more tedious.
#56
Posted by flapjack21, November 27, 2008 1:24 PM
keep in mind that manny played in fenway, one of if not the most favorable hitters park. that's probably worth 50 ops points. and having the luxury of a power switch-hitter adds to tex's value.
theo and team are among the smartest in baseball, if they go all out for tex, it's b/c it makes total sense, at least on paper.
#57
Posted by B, November 27, 2008 6:52 PM
Manny vs. Tex - the past 2 years:
.........AB H BB SF HBP TB AVG SLG OBP OPS
Manny..1035 326 158 12 11 570 315 551 407 958
Tex....1068 328 169 9 14 595 307 557 406 965
.........BB RATIO SO RATIO
Manny....1:6.55 1:4.79
Tex......1:6.32 1:5.21
Looks pretty close to me. Teixeira's BB ratio has become better than Manny's and look what it's done to all his other numbers.
#58
Posted by B, November 27, 2008 6:59 PM
Damn I wish those numbers would line up right. Sorry. I tried. Now I'm serious, the calculator is history.
Happy Thanksgiving!
#59
Posted by Sam K, November 27, 2008 7:58 PM
You discount the walks Manny draws as if they were meaningless. Yes, his walks pad his OPS, but that's not empty fluff, that's a tangible benefit to his game.
Hey now, 100 points of OPS (or even 56, through the first six years of their respective careers) isn't anything to sneeze at. And yes, Manny spent the last 8 years at Fenway, but Tex spent his first 5 years in Arlington, an even better hitter's park than Fenway. Arlington saw more runs than any ballpark in baseball this year!
And let's not forget, Manny began his career with 8 years in Cleveland, a neutral park, so those 56 points of OPS through the first six years of their careers look even better.
Also, as an aside to the issue of walk rate, Tex strikes out less and puts more balls in play. Yay. So did Nomar, and it hurt HIS value too in the long run. So does Ichiro, and it hurts his value too. I never get excited about that, for some reason. And I think Adam Dunn is a heckuva ballplayer.
And see, the problem with comparing stats over the last two years is that you're comparing a player about to enter his prime with a player definitely on the decline. Don't you see the mistaken analogy there? If you want to compare Manny to Tex, you should be using Manny's last two seasons with Cleveland, before he signed his big contract with the Sox. Or you should be comparing Manny's age 27-28 seasons with Teixeira's last two seasons.
Yes, Manny is on the decline. Yes, Manny is part of an aging, injury-prone FA class. Why would you even mention that? It suggests to me that you think I'm saying we should re-sign Manny. If so, whatever gave you that idea? No, I'm saying that we DON'T need to sign Teixeira. Completely different argument.
#60
Posted by Evan in reply to comment from 080808, November 27, 2008 8:03 PM
I meant that Crisp would play the outfield when Manny, Drew DH'ed.
#61
Posted by B in reply to comment from Sam K, November 27, 2008 9:03 PM
I was in no way trying to dismiss the BB Ratio as meaningless. I thought it was clear from the stats and my comments that walks are important and valuable. The simple fact that they are included in the OPS and OBP equations show they are important. In fact, I attribute Tex being statistically BETTER than Manny to the fact he has improved his BB ratio.
The only reason I posted the stats was because you have repeatedly stated "TEX IS NOT MANNY, OR ANYTHING CLOSE. LOOK AT HIS NUMBERS. HIS OFFENSE DOESN'T MATCH EITHER a) THE HYPE"
You said look at the numbers. Now the stats are up for everyone to see. They are the bottom line on these two guys' production. You can dance around them with how they both got there and that's fine. But the stats aren't produced by Kool Aide driven media, they are produced by the players.
And I never tried to make it sound like you wanted to resign Manny. You never did. I mentioned your aging, injury-prone FA class comment because of your dismissive remarks on the Elias report rankings when you tried to paint them as Hype.
My whole point is that Tex has had comparable stats to Manny's. He's actually getting better and is entering his prime years. He's in excellent shape and could only be expected to get better playing in Fenway with the security and peace of mind of long term contract. He'd be joining an already good lineup, making it even better. He would provide the coverage for Papi in the middle of the order we lost when Manny began to quit on the team and then left for the Dodgers. It really has nothing to do with him playing 1b.
You can still say we don't need him and you're entitled to your opinion. But if the Sox get him for a reasonable, and the stats would indicate that's a Manny-like contract, not A-Rod-like, why wouldn't the Sox seriously consider it.
You said keep it in perspective. That's all I'm trying to provide.
#62
Posted by B in reply to comment from Sam K, November 27, 2008 10:35 PM
You also argue that moving Youk to 3b would hurt the defense now. Well won't it hurt even more in a year or two when you move him to 3b to accomodate Lars? At least signing Tex would leave you with a GG defenseman at 1b and according to you, Youk would be the step down. Lars may be decent at 1b but you can't seriously expect him to come in as a rookie and suddenly play D at a GG level. In that situation you would weaken defense at BOTH corners. That's two steps down.
Lowell has been a great player but he's on the downside coming off surgery. There's got to some question as to whether his mobility in game conditions will be effected. Youk has surpassed him offensively. At this junture in their careers I think Youk could handle 3b with little drop off to what Lowell can provide defensively too.
There would be no shame in Lars coming in as our DH of the future. Does he really need to play 1b?
#63
Posted by Sam K, November 27, 2008 11:51 PM
There's a big difference between moving Youk to 3B to accomodate a league-minimum farm-product slugger and moving Youk to 3B to accomodate a $20m plus Scott Boras slugger. Besides, two years is a long way away.
#64
Posted by B in reply to comment from Sam K, November 28, 2008 8:01 AM
So is it all about the money and Scott Boras for you? Not the step down in defense?
Last year a young talented Tampa beat us. They've gained confidence and experience and will probably be just as if not more competitive this year. The beat up broken Yankees only finished 4 games behind us. There going to spent Fort Knox to improve plus their injured players will be back.
You can return last years lineup if you want. They will be competive. But they'll finish third. There are questions about Papi's wrist. Plus, teams will continue to pitch around him. And he will always be battling the shift. Mike Lowell may lose mobility at third and his bat won't get BETTER at this point in career. If the Sox get a young catcher and bring back Vtek to tutor him you'll still have that hole in the lineup for 50-80 games a season.
My whole advocacy for Tex is that he answers all the negative what ifs for the next 2 years. He puts us in a more competitive position immediately. We can improve now and improve again when Lars shows up, if he is better than Papi at the time.
Signing him is win/win in my book. So what if the evil Boras cashes in? Would you really not sign a player because you don't like his agent?
#65
Posted by B, November 28, 2008 8:18 AM
This is my last post in this article. I promise. I'll keep reading but I won't respond.
If the team stays status quo and loses ground to Tampa and NY over the next couple of years, how will people view Lars Anderson? A lot of fans will see him as the guy who's going to come in an turn around the organization. They'll heap undo hope and expectations on him. That's a lot of weight to put on the shoulders of a rookie coming into Boston. There's no need to do that to him.
#66
Posted by flapjack21, November 28, 2008 9:07 AM
bringing in tex does not hurt the defense; youk is every bit as good at 3b as lowell. lowell won a gold glove with florida, not boston. youk's fp at 3b is virtually the same as lowell's the past 2 seasons.
is this really so difficult to envision:
- tex or lowell dh when papi needs day off
- youk play 3b when lowell needs day off
- youk play rf when ells struggles, drew's hurt, or any of the OF need a day off
- lugo and lowrie compete for ss all season or at least until the trade deadline (as coco and ells did last year)
and don't tell me 'youk's not an outfielder' - that kid would and could play any position but p/c, if it meant helping the team. (and btw he's played 20+ games in rf)
this front office has shown that they'd rather have too much talent than not enough, or even just enough. they know there will be injuries, cold-streaks, trade opportunities, etc.
tex is no manny, but they don't need him to be; what they do need is that impact bat in the middle of the lineup. where else can they find that, AND keep their other players?
#67
#1
Posted by M.A.G, November 24, 2008 10:33 AM
Well said, Evan.
Teixeira simply has no sense for us IMHO. I recognize he is a good player, but he is not valuable for this team. First base is a position of strenght for us right now with Youk in there, and Lars making strides in the minors.
Certainly this is not the time to worry about Ortiz yet. And when the time comes, we can just sign (or trade) the best pure hitter available at the moment. Fortunaltely for us, DH is the easiest position to replace.
Reply