Marco Scutaro has inked a two-year deal to be a Boston Red Sox, reports Ed Price of AOL Fanhouse.
The money is unknown, but I would hazard a guess at $15 million — $7.5 million per year — with a mutual option for a third year. (And I think I’m trending optimistic.)
Given Placido Polanco got three years, I am surprised Scutaro settled for two. It’s an especially nice coup on Boston’s end.
What is not to like about the deal? I was prepared to dislike the trade at three years, but now I’m neutral about it. There are pros and cons to the deal.
Scutaro is entering his age 34 year and will be the starting shortstop for Boston in 2010. Now, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. 2009 was Scutaro’s career season. A .282/.379/.409 season that comes out to a .789 OPS is not going to happen again.
That’s why I’m content with two years in this scenario*. A lot of responsibilities are shed without that extra year. Boston takes the risk that he can approximate such a line in 2010 with the implicit understanding that he probably won’t be as good. They guard against the stinker year by only having one more year being committed — which they could just outright release if they really want to. Calling the flexing of the financial muscles.
* (Pozterisk) Don’t forget there’s a mutual option attached to it. No word on the details therein, so can’t judge until then. If it’s Boston picking up at $3 million and Scutaro picking up at $2 million then rock on, baby!)
Listen to me advocating the signing of the deal, though. I’m here telling you we’ve signed someone who’s best days are past them. Let me make something clear: I am not happy with Marco Scutaro. On one level, as a fan, I’m thrilled because it means we signed someone and all the possibilities that come therein. Even as an analyst, this move could be lauded. But was this my preferred outcome? No.
I think Boston missed the boat with the Alex Gonzalez signing. I realize it sounds ludicrous, even when you weigh Scutaro’s 110 OPS+ against Gonzalez’s 64 OPS+ (which includes his injury marred first-half in Cincinnati), but one year and $3 million is hard to beat. It’s not just about what Scutaro would bring on the field, it’s how much more than Gonzalez to justify the cost-effective method of the signing. They made the best decision they could given the circumstances.
Gonzalez’s OPS this year (.635) was worse than his last go-round at Fenway (.695). And the following year, Gonzo’s OPS ranked .793. Injuries robbed him of 2008, then he came back and had an injury-marred first half (.554 OPS) before bouncing back to .769 in Boston. I think that Gonzalez is good for a minimum of a .700 OPS in 2010. Minimum. What do I think Scutaro is good for? .750, tops. So now we’re talking one year, $3 million versus two years, $15 million for a .50 difference in OPS. And then factor in defense. “Scoot” is decidedly average and Gonzalez holds the edge there. So is all that money worth the difference?
But at this point, it doesn’t matter. Gonzalez was lost. Boston had to make the best option available to them. Scutaro.
Then we get into the whole cost-effective discussion. There are those who think it’s cost-effective if it has the net total impact on the major leagues. For example, trade Jed Lowrie, Daniel Bard, Lars Anderson, Casey Kelly, Ryan Westmoreland, Josh Reddick for Hanley Ramirez.
But that’s not the true cost-effective method to pursue. And while people may cry foul given the team’s payroll, I say it’s not foul. Boston has a limit. The Yankees don’t operate in the same ballpark as the other teams. The Red Sox are like batted balls hitting the chalk. They can release large sums of sunk costs, don’t get me wrong. But they have a limit. They have a ceiling. I suppose you could say the Yankees have a ceiling too, if you call a bottomless pit a small hole.
Boston needs to maximize every dollar it can get. Not spend, get. Theo has even talked about clearing room for the luxury tax, but that’s over $60 million in a single year away. It’s hard to imagine Theo doing that in one single year, right? Not without making some dumb decisions in this free agent market. And it’s why sometimes the payroll isn’t to their means… because it wouldn’t be cost-effective. Where does it get re-invested? In the draft. International free agency. I heard something about a 19-year old defensive whiz named Iglesias, did I not?
So while Hanley Ramirez may represent immediate, net major league team improvements for that year, Theo and his troops may project that the best consistent path forward is in not making that trade. And remember, that’s all we hear about. He wants 95-win teams every year. So no trade.
The options were narrowed to Scutaro, in their mind. The trades weren’t materializing. Gonzalez signed a bit too quickly and caught everyone by surprise. They got hoodwinked on that one. No other options worked as well as Scutaro would work. He would be on a short-term deal. He wouldn’t block Lowrie or Iglesias should wonderful things happen.
The process is what I’m more pleased about. I was a bit afraid giving some rumors, reports and things of that ilk that Boston might get start spending just for the sake of spending.
Is Marco Scutaro the right person? Can he hold onto his evolving plate discipline (probably)? We going to get double-digit home runs again? (…no. We will get 30+ doubles.) Will he embarrass himself on the field? (No, but he won’t win any actual/sabermetrician gold-gloves either.)
You can see why I’m fairly neutral about it. It was the best cost-effective decision. I’m happy about that and the fan in me looks forward to watching him. But it wasn’t what would have been a preferred outcome.
(Stephen Drew for a bucket of slop and Michael Bowden!)