Teixeira

[TheKilo]

Lucchino and co-general managers Jed Hoyer and Ben Cherington declined during a Fenway Park news conference to discuss details of their offer to Damon, but conceded that the negotiations ended abruptly with the news Damon agreed to a $52 million, four-year deal with New York.

Reading comprehension much?

[BoSox21]

They had the news conference, they just didn't comment on the reports that Boston's offer was 4-years at $40 mil

[example1]

Damon was a beloved player who chose to go to the enemy.
Lots of fans freaked out and immediately started blaming the front office for not having resigned him. Looking back those fans were wrong, Damon was worth something closer to 10m a year than what he ended up getting paid. I would say the Sox got some good years out of Damon and paid him considerably less than the Yankees did.

Gom doesn't care about the money piece, it isn't part of the negotiating deal from his point of view, as far as I can tell. If he takes that element out of the process then, yeah, the Yankees got Damon and the Sox didn't, even though they showed interest. The Yankees also beat the Sox out for Sabathia, Burnett and anyone else that the Sox have inquired about at the same time as the Yankees.

[Coco's Disciples]

Originally Posted by TheKilo

It's good that Joe Posnanski is out of the bidding, that's for sure.

He was a real threat, only improves our chances.

BTW, maybe this Damon stuff should be split off? This thread is enormous.

[Gom]

Originally Posted by TheKilo

Reading comprehension much?

Apparently, they don't teach you how to read up there. I watched the press conference on ESPN. They happen to have a press conference in December of that year...for what reason? They didn't sign a player. They didn't announce a new sponsorship deal. It was to explain how a fan favorite was stolen by the enemy.

There was the link. End of story.

Also, ORS, you and I both know that with VORP, every successive point is harder to achieve than the previous point. You can't "add" the two players and assume they are of the same value. Secondly, the Yankees moved him to LF because they had a better CF option in Melky. Heck, you had Manny DH often...you didn't have to, but Ellsbury in left with Crisp in center was a better defensive alignment.

If you guys really want to believe that you got more out of the last 3 years by letting Damon go...that's your choice, I guess.

[rician blast]

Originally Posted by Gom

You held a press conference on not getting Damon. That's common, right? That means your team REALLY REALLY didn't want him back?

Probably means the team realized that he was a popular player among the fans and felt a public mention was appropriate.

Why is it so hard to understand that the Sox had set a target for Damon and he did better, at least financially, through the market?

[example1]

Originally Posted by Gom

Also, ORS, you and I both know that with VORP, every successive point is harder to achieve than the previous point. You can't "add" the two players and assume they are of the same value.

Every point represents a run over the average provided by an hypothetical 'average replacement player' in the same position. I'm pretty sure that a VORP of 3 means 3 runs over replacement, while 5 means 5 runs over replacement. It is meant to be a simple metric that allows for simple comparisons.

If two players are replacing one another throughout an entire season, then it is legitimate to add the runs above replacement created by those two players. If we are comparing outfields, and you total up the VORP of every outfielder who played an inning for NYY, and we did the same for the Red Sox, it would be valid.

When comparing two different players it is legitimate to compare VORP the same way it would be to compare HRs. One could always argue that player A has more playing time than player B and that's why his VORP is higher. Of course, it is also dependent on being able to stay healthy. In that sense it is different from something like OPS, which is not as dependent on playing time (beyond getting a reliable sample size, of course).

I don't know what you keep referring to as 'every successive point is harder than the previous one', perhaps you can fill me in.

[BoSox21]

Originally Posted by Gom

If you guys really want to believe that you got more out of the last 3 years by letting Damon go...that's your choice, I guess.

It's not so much that we want to believe we got more, we got a WS title and an ALCS Game 7 with the players that comprised the Red Sox in the post-Damon years and it's hard to make a case that the team would've been more successful if the FO had matched or surpassed the Yankees offer way back in December 2005

You can't judge it based simply on using VORP with Damon vs. Crisp or Damon vs. Ellsbury or Damon vs. Ellsbury + Crisp. Signing Damon maybe would've put budget constraints on the team that would've prevented the team signing Drew, for example.

[CrespoBlows]

Originally Posted by diony

What about his value as a leadoff hitter?

I'll take his .375 OBP over Crisp/Ellsbury's anytime.

How do you come up with .375 OBP?

It's more likely you'll see Damon closer to his .354 career OBP, which is still pretty good, but not optimal considering the position he plays. You also have to factor in that Damon has lost a few steps, and is in the bottom half of defensive outfielders. Ellsbury and Crisp are both elite defenders in center field, and add a lot more on the bases, because they don't get caught as often, and can go 1st to 3rd with more efficiency.

[TheKilo]

Originally Posted by Gom

Apparently, they don't teach you how to read up there. I watched the press conference on ESPN. They happen to have a press conference in December of that year...for what reason? They didn't sign a player. They didn't announce a new sponsorship deal. It was to explain how a fan favorite was stolen by the enemy.

There was the link. End of story.

Wow, read the link again genius.

Lucchino and co-general managers Jed Hoyer and Ben Cherington declined during a Fenway Park news conference to discuss details of their offer to Damon

The four individuals, during a Fenway Park press conference, declined to discuss the details of their offer to Damon.

If they had a press conference devoted to talk about Damon, why did they decline to talk about Damon?

but conceded that the negotiations ended abruptly with the news Damon agreed to a $52 million, four-year deal with New York.

But they acknowledge their negotiations end when he signed with another team. Wow - that never happens.

Also, ORS, you and I both know that with VORP, every successive point is harder to achieve than the previous point. You can't "add" the two players and assume they are of the same value. Secondly, the Yankees moved him to LF because they had a better CF option in Melky. Heck, you had Manny DH often...you didn't have to, but Ellsbury in left with Crisp in center was a better defensive alignment.

If you guys really want to believe that you got more out of the last 3 years by letting Damon go...that's your choice, I guess.

Again Gom, that is not the argument - the argument is which team got more production out of the CF position during this timeframe.

The fact that Damon can't play CF regularly anymore hurts his overall value. He has to be compared to other LF, and since the Sox had Ramirez and Bay during this timeframe Damon comes up short again.

Also - if Melky was a better CF option than Damon, why was Brett Gardner getting burn last season? Are you telling me Damon is a worse CF than Gardner (here's a hint - he is). If that's the case, how can you call Damon a better CF than Ellsbury or Crisp?

[ORS]

Originally Posted by Gom

Also, ORS, you and I both know that with VORP, every successive point is harder to achieve than the previous point. You can't "add" the two players and assume they are of the same value. Secondly, the Yankees moved him to LF because they had a better CF option in Melky. Heck, you had Manny DH often...you didn't have to, but Ellsbury in left with Crisp in center was a better defensive alignment.

Do you realize what you are saying by stating that each successive point of VORP is "harder" to get than the previous? VORP is a counting stat, meaning it is playing time dependent. Suppose you have a 60 VORP player who is extremely consistent month in month out. Guess when he'll be at 10 VORP? The end of April. He'll pick up his last 10 VORP in September. For it to be "harder" then his performance in September would have to be better than his performance in April to pick up those same 10 runs. No, what I'm confident you are thinking about is "unlikely" given the normal distribution of VORP, ie improving from being an 80 VORP player to a 90 VORP player is "harder" than the jump from 70 to 80. Yes, you can add them. There are 162 games where you need a CF. If player A and player B play those games, then their collective VORP is what the team got from that position.

What you are trying to say is that player B (Ellsbury) played other positions and I need to account for that. I did, sort of. When player B wasn't in CF, he was in LF, and the normal LF was at DH when the DH was hurt. It works in this example because those are the positions where Damon played most often (all games except 1 at 1B ). It's not perfect, like I said, but I went conservative in accounting for the performance the Sox got. I threw away all contribution from Ellsbury in '07 and anyone who contributed at DH or LF other than Ortiz, Manny, Bay, and Ellsbury. The bias in the analysis was all tilted toward Damon.

[diony]

Originally Posted by TheKilo

The fact that Damon can't play CF regularly anymore hurts his overall value. He has to be compared to other LF, and since the Sox had Ramirez and Bay during this timeframe Damon comes up short again.

[B]That's BS. Damon doesn't plays CF regularly, because the Yankees don't have a LF. When they acquired Nady back in July and Damon came out of the DL, they putted Damon in CF/DH, because they got a guy that could play LF and be productive (Nady), in September when they were out of the playoff race, they used Gardner in CF just to give him a shot, not because Damon couldn't play it.

Also - if Melky was a better CF option than Damon, why was Brett Gardner getting burn last season?

Because Gardner is better than Melky?

Are you telling me Damon is a worse CF than Gardner (here's a hint - he is). If that's the case, how can you call Damon a better CF than Ellsbury or Crisp?

So Damon is not better than Ellsbury/Crisp? Wasn't Crisp an overpaid 4th OF, and Ellsbury could barely put a .330 OBP this season? Greatest replacements ever.

What's easier, to get a good elite defender CFs or get good hitters like Damon? Pshh give me a break.

Van Every is better than Damon too, he's an elite defender.

[example1]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

Do you realize what you are saying by stating that each successive point of VORP is "harder" to get than the previous? VORP is a counting stat, meaning it is playing time dependent. Suppose you have a 60 VORP player who is extremely consistent month in month out. Guess when he'll be at 10 VORP? The end of April. He'll pick up his last 10 VORP in September. For it to be "harder" then his performance in September would have to be better than his performance in April to pick up those same 10 runs. No, what I'm confident you are thinking about is "unlikely" given the normal distribution of VORP, ie improving from being an 80 VORP player to a 90 VORP player is "harder" than the jump from 70 to 80. Yes, you can add them. There are 162 games where you need a CF. If player A and player B play those games, then their collective VORP is what the team got from that position.

What you are trying to say is that player B (Ellsbury) played other positions and I need to account for that. I did, sort of. When player B wasn't in CF, he was in LF, and the normal LF was at DH when the DH was hurt. It works in this example because those are the positions where Damon played most often (all games except 1 at 1B ). It's not perfect, like I said, but I went conservative in accounting for the performance the Sox got. I threw away all contribution from Ellsbury in '07 and anyone who contributed at DH or LF other than Ortiz, Manny, Bay, and Ellsbury. The bias in the analysis was all tilted toward Damon.

You are writing somewhat apologetically, even though you have nothing to be sorry for. You understand how to use VORP, I think I understand too. Gom keeps talking as if he knows, but I'm waiting to see if he does.

You did everything you could do ORS, but it's kind of moot.

[ORS]

Damon has played CF to the tune of a -8.5 UZR/150 during his tenure in NY. That was at -27.3 last year. He's about as good in CF as Jeter is at SS.

[example1]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

Damon has played CF to the tune of a -8.5 UZR/150 during his tenure in NY. That was at -27.3 last year. He's about as good in CF as Jeter is at SS.

So that's really, really good, right?

Honestly, the Sox would have been hard pressed if they had Damon on their team. They would have felt compelled to have Damon in CF (that's what they would have paid him for, right?), and with Ellsbury in the wings they likely would have either moved Damon to LF when they dealt Manny, or dealt Ellsbury to get Santana and would now be confronted with having a useless and vastly overpaid Damon for a year, and would likely also be looking for Manny's replacement.

I'm sure they would have managed to do something, but I like them better in their current situation.