Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I
posted at 11/14/2013 2:06 PM EST
In response to southpaw777's comment:
In response to jasko2248's comment:
In response to garyhow's comment:
In response to southpaw777's comment:
In response to moonslav59's comment:
Very well said gary. Demp was exactly what I predicted he would be. Although it wasnt much of a prediction seeing hes been the same guy for years. The $$ was justified. Demp had bad run support at the start of the year, then that honor went to Lackey. Demp could have easily had 4-6 more wins if he had a little support.
He was not "the same guy". Even adjusting for the NL, no DH league, Dempster's 4.57 ERA (4.64 as a starter) was way too high for a $26.5M/2 year deal.
His previous ERA:
2012: 3.38 (NL and AL)
He turned out not to be a good fit for Fenway: 4.84 ERA.
He declined sharply as the season went on: 4.24 to 5.16 ERA 1st half/2nd half.
$13.25M is still way too high for a 6th starter... even a 5th starter.
We can do batter with the money, and Dempster's value to another team is higher than to us, so teams will pay a steep price for a quality starter, especially if we pay $3-5M of his deal.
He was the same guy I predicted. He should have won 12 games this year if he had some run support early on. Im not saying dont trade him. Of course if the deal makes sense and it makes the team better, you pull the trigger. He was also dealing with a groin issue that he didnt make a big deal about. I had no issue with his salary.
Moon the stats you seem to always skip over is the 30 starts and 170+ IP for 7 yrs in a row! That is a staff saver. While many want Morales or others to replace Dempster, remember the most starts Morales has ever made in a season is 9 and ended up on DL that season, his career W-L is 13-18 w/ a 4.38 era [mostly NL] almost identical to Dempsters career era in NL, and has pitched 281 IP in his career. The difference is Dempster will make his starts even w/ a hammy issue, which probably explains his 2nd half dip. With both Peavy and Buchholz already on the staff and neither a lock to give us a full season, Dempster is worth keeping on the team. We all most certain what he will give us 170+ 4.5 era 10-13 wins. We can not say that about alot of the so called replacements. Think the part you should take out of the equation is the salary, we're not paying it and seems to be thing most hold against him. He and Edwin Jackson alot alike they give there teams IP and make there starts, and there is great value in this, and why they earn the $ they do.
If next yr one of the young guys prove to be ready, then as I said make the move then. But remember there is no such thing as a surplus in MLB pitching staff. It was one of the reasons we won a WS Championship last yr. Remember all the starts by Morales, Wright, Webster, and Aceves last yr. Trading the guy who had the 2nd most starts behind Lester could be a big mistake.
In an interview this morning, Curt Schilling called Dempster a "sabermatrician's nightmare" because there is no way to quantify his value to the Sox this season, especially as a veteran leader on that staff. The fact that he made 29 starts in which the Sox went 17-12 is obviously valuable in itself, but the "stat guys" are going cite his "e.r.a" and call the signing "poor value," despite the fact that he gave them pretty much exactly what they hoped for.
They may move him or another starter this off season or possibly by the end of spring training, but it will be because they feel they are getting much more value in return, not because they have "too many starters."
They said the same thing about Drew's defense. When I told people that he was a much better defender than the numbers say I got blasted by most of the numbers guys on this board. They all changed their tune though, every one of them. There are just some things in baseball that you cant put a number to. Players have different values to different teams. The Sox wanted that stability at the back of the rotation and they got it. Id keep Dempster over a revolving door and constant call ups to fill that spot. Id pay for that kind of stability. Just knowing you can hand the ball to him every 5 days. Hes also a great leader in that clubhouse, which we all now realize is also an impoortant component.
Like I said though. If a deal makes sense and will improve the team overall, Im for it.
"Sabermetrician's nightmare" is becoming a popular term! I posted the same thing about Drew last spring several times, after listening to an interview with a guy who covered his entire career in Arizona. He used that exact term, as did Schilling this morning. The Arizona reporter also said he never saw Drew make a bad play in a big spot. He was "spot" on. I think it's pretty obvious that the Sox preferred substance over "flash" at a premium position & they were obviously correct, at least for 2013.