Lottery or Hedge Fund?

The moves by Boston prompted a rival executive to say, “It’s like the Red Sox are collecting lottery tickets — figuring that one of them is bound to pay off.’ ” – Buster Olney

The Red Sox have to spend some money this winter … but on what, exactly? If you think Jed Lowrie is good enough to play every day, the Sox entered the offseason set at every position. Sure, they could have wedged Tex in somehow. But they didn’t need him. They just needed to spend some money. With Teixeira gone, Theo Epstein was left to spend John Henry’s money on something else the Red Sox don’t need, and a future Hall of Famer and the next Joe DiMaggio fit the bill nicely.” – Rob Neyer

I’m not quite sure I agree with either assessment. While it’s true that we had roster holes to fill and thus were inevitably going to spend money, I’m not sure that the Teixeira signing is related. Theo and the gang have done an excellent job of not trying to answer that move by spending big dollars on a player that doesn’t deserve the contract.

Instead, we’ve purchased a number complementary parts whose risk and upside both range from minimal to substantial.

Are they all “lottery tickets?” Perhaps. But I think it might be more accurate to view them as small investments that are intended to serve as a hedge against injuries and fatigue. Penny and Smoltz in particular, I believe, are intended in part to keep Lester’s innings manageable considering that he jumped from 72.1 major league innings (postseason included) in ’07 to 236.2 in ’08.

And back to the subject of the money: how small are these investments, collectively? The base contractual commitments ($15.7M) – and I’m including Bard’s value though it’s reportedly non-guaranteed – amount to less than the Yankees will pay A.J. Burnett next year ($16.5).

Which is not to argue that Burnett is not a good signing; for a club with their resources, he’s a very high upside play. But for a club with greater financial limitations, such as ours, our spending indicates a diversification of risk on multiple assets with reasonable upside.

In other words, I like what our guys are doing.

How's Our Offense?

In the wake of the Mark Teixeira signing – and as an aside, does anyone else find it remarkable that Mazz is still arguing that the outcome could have been different, in spite of evidence like this? – and, to a lesser extent, the acquisition and signing of Matt Joyce and Pat Burrell by the Rays, many seemed to conclude that the Sox’ offense would necessarily compare less than favorably to our divisional rivals. Which of course is entirely possible.

But I thought it would be interesting to look at the projected average OPS of the anticipated lineups for the three AL East clubs to see how they fared relative to one another. For the comparison, I picked the CHONE projections, not least because they’re available by team. If anyone has the James or Marcel numbers batched I’d be happy to add them.

Anyway, here’s what CHONE sees for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2009:

Not bad. Joyce and Burrell are decent additions, and the lineup as a whole should have reasonable on base skills with the exception of the bottom of the lineup (they’re not ordered here).

Now how about the big, bad Yankees?

I might quibble with a few of the projections, but basically it shows what you’d expect: substantial on base ability top to bottom, with consistent power through the first six spots.

But what of the good guys? Are we completely outclassed in this winter of media discontent?

Not exactly. What we give up in power, CHONE expects us to make up in OBP. Which is all the more interesting, as one common criticism of OPS is that it undervalues OBP.

Does this mean everything’s sunshine and lollipops for ’09? Hardly. First, it’s just a projection. Two, it doesn’t factor in benches. Three, it can’t anticipate injuries. And so on.

But it is worth remembering, I think, that the conventional wisdom that we wanted Tex while the Yankees needed him is looking pretty accurate by CHONE’s numbers.