Oscar Gamble Society

We all know about the injury in 2005, but he did rebound nicely in 2006.  The Red Sox decided they needed to see if Schilling was injured/ineffective in 2007 before deciding on 2008.  If he maintains (or improves upon) his 2006 season for 2007, it’ll cost a lot more than $13 million to get him for 2008.  To wit, look at the last three years of $11 million (per year) man Gil Meche:

Yes – Meche recently turned 28, while Schilling is now 40.  Big difference.  But would you commit $55 million to Meche over the next five years or $26 million to Schilling over the next two years?  Which is the bigger risk?

It’s very easy to pull out one pitcher, on data point to try and make a point.  Therefore, I’ll do it again.  As I thought of Schilling at age 40, I thought of David Wells.  Neither looks particularly fit, both apparent graduates of the John Kruk School of Athleticism (woman to Kruk: “Are you an athlete?”  Kruk replies, “No, ma’am.  I’m a baseball player.”)  David Wells will be 44 this May, and he’s *still* earning a major league salary… bless him.  As I looked at Wells, it’s eerie how closely his age 37-39 years compare to Schilling’s age 37-39 years (i.e. Schilling’s last three):

Look at the three-year averages for each, during the respective seasons:

If the comparison holds through the next two years, it looks like this is what we can expect from Schilling:

So… is *that* worth $13 million in 2008?  Well, he’d be a slightly above average pitcher (an ERA about 0.25 below league average ERA), who eats a lot of innings.  Yes, there is definite value in that – especially with a lineup like the Red Sox will (undoubtedly) have.  And if you want to award bonus points for his “veteran presence”, fine.

However, the Red Sox do have a fair amount of good young pitching breaking through.  They clearly envision the group of Dice-K, Beckett, and Papelbon ruling the baseball world for the next 5+ years atop the Sox rotation.  Jon Lester shows promise.  And Tim Wakefield (same age as Schilling, costs less) can eat innings and provide league-average ERA… probably longer than Schilling.  (Note Wakefield’s ERA+ the past three seasons: 100, 106, 100.)  And we haven’t even considered some of the young arms on the farm that the Sox are hopeful for.

On the other hand, Dice-K has to show he can pitch effectively in MLB.  Papelbon has to show he can start, at least somewhat as effectively as he closed.  Beckett needs to be 2003 Josh, not 2006 Josh.  Jon Lester *is* returning from cancer.  And even Charlie Hough and Phil Niekro lost the effectiveness on their knuckleballs eventually – so when will Wakefield *stop* providing league-average ERA as an innings-eater?  As we saw in 2006, there is *no* such thing as “too much pitching”.

I understand why the Sox didn’t extend Schilling.  If he shows he’s still got it, they’ll try to get him back for 2008 – and pay handsomely for the privilege.  But they can afford to pay more than the $13 million if they have to.

And that’s why I think they should’ve extended him now.  They *can* afford it.  Like it or not, admit it or not… they’re the Evil Empire, Part Deux.  Worst case scenario, he falls apart – and then he’s off the books after one more season.  Next “worst case scenario”, all goes well for *every* other starter and the Sox have an abundance of riches.  Um… I think they’d figure something out.  More likely, they’ll need at least one starter going into the 2008 season – and given what the Gil Meches of the world are getting paid (in dollars, and years), I’d prefer they have the insurance policy of a $13 million Curt Schilling locked and loaded.

It’s not my money, but that’s what I woulda done.

Okay, I’m done now.