SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2013 Offseason non-Sox MLB Discussion
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 31, 2013 12:00:52 GMT -5
It's crazy because of the Steinbrenners' history with Tampa. I guess Hal and Hank don't feel a connection to the area? That stadium is definitely big for the area though. (Clearwater is still there though, right? LOVE that stadium.) Tough to justify having a minor league team so close to a major league one though, particularly when it's for a different franchise. But I know a lot of folks in the area still felt Yankee loyalty. How I felt. George was/still is looked at as an icon in Tampa and paid for a lot of that place, but they are still moving the FSL team. Supposedly the NY Yanks will still have ST there, though one has to wonder how long that will continue. You are correct about Clearwater. Was thinking about the old, old training complex they had at clearwater many years ago. 4 fields, clubhouse in the middle that was separate from the ST facility itself. That was the one I would trek to during the 70's. Could walk each of the 4 fields behind the fence and get an eagle's eye view of HP if wanted. It's hard driving down cypress gardens Blv any more in Winter Haven any more. You make that 1st RH turn and not only is the massive orange domed, later baseball pained Citrus showcase long since torn down, but Chain O' Lakes stadium long gone as well. Baseball city (Royals) at I-4 and US27 is now a shopping Mall. It hurts even going by all these nice stadiums.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 31, 2013 13:21:45 GMT -5
Matt Williams is hired as the manager of the Nationals, I think this will turn out to be a good hire for them. Torey Lovullo is one of the finalists for the Cubs job. I personally think Torey will be a great manager in the big leagues, the guy is great at player development and can strategically manage a game. What are your thoughts? I'm always skeptical of managers who were star players. They often seem like celebrity hires. That doesn't mean they can't work (Joe Torre, Mike Hargrove), but we'll see. With Williams, I don't believe he has any experience as a minor league manager (correct me if I'm wrong), and I don't think much of Gibson, who he coached under, as a manager. I agree about Lovullo. I understand the Cubs have interviewed Wedge, who I think would be a poor fit with Theo/Jed.
|
|
|
Post by nebraska4sox on Oct 31, 2013 13:32:35 GMT -5
You are correct about Williams his only coaching experience is a base coach for the Dbacks. I also don't think wedge would be a great fit with Theo. The cubs biggest need is a players coach who can develop guys like Castro and Rizzo.
The cubs farm system is stocked with talent and a lot of it is going to play next year in Baez, Lake, Bryant, Soler, Cj Edwards, Kyle Hendricks just to name a few. They need a guy who is going to develop them and further teach them the game.
The only guys I think they could get good at that are Rick Renteria and Lovullo.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 31, 2013 13:58:19 GMT -5
I'm surprised Brian Butterfield isn't involved in managerial talks. Everybody seems to like him and he's got a lot of experience in multiple roles.
|
|
|
Post by nebraska4sox on Oct 31, 2013 14:35:52 GMT -5
Chris Perez given his release by the Indians. Can't say I didn't see that one coming
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 31, 2013 21:20:54 GMT -5
I'm surprised Brian Butterfield isn't involved in managerial talks. Everybody seems to like him and he's got a lot of experience in multiple roles. Interesting thought. Thing is, the things we know he's good at - advance prep and such - aren't necessarily things the manager is going to get into. But yeah, I could see him as the next guy on the staff getting groomed for that.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 1, 2013 12:33:28 GMT -5
I don't think it can be used as a market setting example for SS signings in any regards, but Cashman, or the Steinbrenner brothers one just gave jeter a 1/12m contract for next season.
Does it affect Drew in any way, or just allow Boras to edit in another chapter into his infamous fictitious book of tall tales regarding his FA?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 1, 2013 13:28:02 GMT -5
I don't think it can be used as a market setting example for SS signings in any regards, but Cashman, or the Steinbrenner brothers one just gave jeter a 1/12m contract for next season. Does it affect Drew in any way, or just allow Boras to edit in another chapter into his infamous fictitious book of tall tales regarding his FA? Jeter only affects Drew in that it takes them the Yankees out of the Drew running if they've guaranteed Jeter he's the SS (likely). As for contracts, I think Jeter is just in his own category with regards to the Yankees. Any contract he signs with them is irrelevant to the rest of the SS market.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 1, 2013 15:03:46 GMT -5
Detroit has Just declined it's option on Jose veras. 2 years in a row they have decided that their closer was not very reliable and also let them down in crunch time, after Valverde lost it late during the regular season in 2012.
That team really needs to find a good one this year. Could they become players for Balfour, Wilson?
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 1, 2013 15:13:48 GMT -5
Apparently Jeter's deal ends up going on the tax as an extra $2M compared to if he had just picked up his option/continued on old contract. I find it very hard to see a way that the Yanks get under the limit for 2014 without either not signing Cano. Their only real hope is that A-rods $25M doesn't count towards the tax, and even then it will be tough. Could be a hinderance to any big FA signings like Tanaka, even though a heavy portion of the $ wouldn't count towards the tax
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Nov 1, 2013 17:14:59 GMT -5
I find it very hard to see a way that the Yanks get under the limit for 2014 without either not signing Cano. Their only real hope is that A-rods $25M doesn't count towards the tax, and even then it will be tough. Could be a hinderance to any big FA signings like Tanaka, even though a heavy portion of the $ wouldn't count towards the tax The posting fee for Tanaka wouldn't count, so it is more, not less, likely the Hankees will sign him. Currently, the known obligations are as follows: 27.5 - Rodriguez (subject to reduction in the event of suspension) 24.4 - Sabathia 22.5 - Teixeira 12.8 - Jeter 6.5 - Suzuki 3.0 - Soriano (given the salary paid by CHC almost exceeds his AAV) -4.2 - Wells (given the salary paid by TOR/LAA exceeds his AAV) 17.0 - Assumed for 40-man roster/benefits/etc. 92.5 - Covers seven players and benefits They will offer Cano, Kuroda and possibly Granderson. Granderson could take the offer, but Kuroda is likely heading back to Japan. Cano is in line for 18-22 million AAV. Let's assume 20. Gardner and Robertson (both arb3) are in line for 5 and 4, respectively. Assume Granderson is not given an offer and Kuroda does not accept his (and goes back to Japan). That gives ten players and 121.5mm AAV. That leaves 67.5mm AAV to fill out the final 15 spots on the roster if the Hanks want to remain under the luxury tax threshold. Kelley and Nix are arb2 Nova and Cervelli are arb1 Nunez, Pineda, Phelps, Huff, Claiborne and Warren are pre-arb If you assume 2mm for each arb2, 1.5mm for each arb1 and 0.5mm for each pre-arb, that leaves 57.5mm AAV to fill out the final five spots on the roster if the Hanks want to remain under the luxury tax threshold. Roster: Starters - Sabathia, Nova, Pineda, Warren +1 (Tanaka, most likely) Bullpen - Robertson, Claiborne, Huff, Kelley, Phelps +2 Lineup - Gardner (CF), Jeter (DH), Cano (2B), Soriano (LF), Teixeira (1B), Rodriguez (3B), FA (C), Nunez (SS), Suzuki (RF) Bench - Cervelli (C), Nix (B/IF), Wells (B/OF), FA (13th man) It's not a pretty sight, unless you're a Red Sox fan.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 1, 2013 17:21:38 GMT -5
Detroit has Just declined it's option on Jose veras. 2 years in a row they have decided that their closer was not very reliable and also let them down in crunch time, after Valverde lost it late during the regular season in 2012. That team really needs to find a good one this year. Could they become players for Balfour, Wilson? Veras never closed for Detroit. They used him as their setup man after they traded for him. The hope would probably be for Rondon to get healthy, but who knows if that'll happen.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Nov 1, 2013 17:35:43 GMT -5
Detroit has Just declined it's option on Jose veras. 2 years in a row they have decided that their closer was not very reliable and also let them down in crunch time, after Valverde lost it late during the regular season in 2012. That team really needs to find a good one this year. Could they become players for Balfour, Wilson? I'll wager that Detroit signs him quickly (next week, even). 2/22 sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 1, 2013 17:39:33 GMT -5
amfox1 edit: deleted amfox1 text, for brevity I know the posting fee doesn't count towards the tax. When I posted that, the general consensus was that Jeter's deal added to his tax hit, an additional $2M. Since then, it's been adjusted to a $1M savings. That's what the "hinderance" was that I wrote about. They're more likely to at least attempt to contend than to basically abandon the majority of their roster just to fit in another high priced FA. I assume that they won't pretty much tank a season just to get one big guy. Even if they get Tanaka, and he's awesome, that team is still god awful. Now maybe they will go this route and I'd be wrong, but happy, because the team you outlined above looks to be very far from contending, without much $ flexibility until 2017
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Nov 1, 2013 17:45:33 GMT -5
Can't disagree. But unless Rodriguez gets suspended, they're between a rock and a hard place if they want to remain under the luxury tax threshold next year.
I note that Tanaka is 25 and will be under the signing team's control for six years.
Their biggest issue is that they have $75mm in AAV locked into five players on a steep decline.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2013 19:09:15 GMT -5
Rodriguez is 100% going to be suspended. The real question is whether it's going to be 50 games, 150 games, 162 games, or the original 212. The fact that the arbitrator's ruling won't be out until December is going to hamper Yankee planning, though, and it'll be difficult for them to commit to multiple big dollar signings unless Rodriguez is gone for 150+ games.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2013 19:42:41 GMT -5
He'll get 50 or 100. It will be tough for MLB to argue that he deserves a lifetime ban without having given him one in the first place, and I can't see an arbiter ruling that Selig and Co. can just hand out suspensions willy-nilly in length.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 1, 2013 20:24:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 2, 2013 12:46:10 GMT -5
I have fears of Justin Morneau signing a deal with the Rays after holding out for a decent deal, not finding it, then ending up on a 1y make good offer with the Rays at around 5-6m next season.
For some reason, players seem to make really good comebacks for that team. Maybe it's Maddon, the stadium, empty home seats (!) whatever. Think Loney is gone. He had his fluke year. Kotchman had is and returned to being a glove only, but Morneau actually has talent as a glove and think his concussion problems possibly could be over. He had a bat to begin with. Maybe he could put up some decent power/OBP numbers again and form a really potent LH/RH combo with Longoria that the Rays have needed for years, then team those 2 with Zobrist and Myers.
It's my fear of the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 2, 2013 19:23:06 GMT -5
He'll get 50 or 100. It will be tough for MLB to argue that he deserves a lifetime ban without having given him one in the first place, and I can't see an arbiter ruling that Selig and Co. can just hand out suspensions willy-nilly in length. Well, if that's the case, why did MLB suspend him for 211? Don't you think that it had some additional strong basis (beyond that attributable to the other suspended players) and relied heavily upon its attys to determine the factors that could be entertained in administering a suspension?? These guys aren't dummies. Do any of us know what the evidence is against A-Rod? No, we don't. So saying that 50 or 100 games is likely is pure speculation. Baseball is obviously not limited to leveling suspensions on a failed test. 13 other players bit the bullet without a failed test. If that is so, what other evidence can MLB legally utilize in its assessment/decision? Can it look at an admitted failed test in 2003 that did not then carry suspension? Can it look at evidence that A-Rod recruited other players to Biogenesis contributing to the undermining of the game? Can it look to the fact that he took PEDS (allegedly) for 3 long years in this latest episode? Can it entertain evidence that A-Rod may have attempted to "obstruct" the investigation? It seems that MLB lawyers have said "Yes" to some or all of this.....and that his cumulative actions were deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the huge suspension. In sum, I don't think that the suspension was handed out "willy-nilly". Tacopina seems to be saying (he can't believe this) that the suspension should be reduced or eliminated because MLB used, in his opinion, scurrilous methods to acquire the evidence or ignored the apparent fact that Biogenesis provided PEDS to minors...The former does not appear to apply as this is not a criminal investigation. Beyond that paying for evidence or testimony is not, by itself, illicit. The latter issue is not within MLB's purview. The overall defense argument appears to be that MLB does not have "clean hands" and should be punished for its alleged transgressions....that punishment being a reduction or elimination of the suspension. This is BS in my mind. But, as misdirected as I think it is, it is apparently ringing a bell with some people.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 2, 2013 19:26:30 GMT -5
He'll get 50 or 100. It will be tough for MLB to argue that he deserves a lifetime ban without having given him one in the first place, and I can't see an arbiter ruling that Selig and Co. can just hand out suspensions willy-nilly in length. Well, if that's the case, why did MLB suspend him for 211? Don't you think that it had some additional strong basis (beyond that attributable to the other suspended players) and relied heavily upon its attys to determine the factors that could be entertained in administering a suspension?? These guys aren't dummies. Do any of us know what the evidence is against A-Rod? No, we don't. So saying that 50 or 100 games is likely is pure speculation. Baseball is obviously not limited to leveling suspensions on a failed test. 13 other players bit the bullet without a failed test. If that is so, what other evidence can MLB legally utilize in its assessment/decision? Can it look at an admitted failed test in 2003 that did not then carry suspension? Can it look at evidence that A-Rod recruited other players to Biogenesis contributing to the undermining of the game? Can it look to the fact that he took PEDS (allegedly) for 3 long years in this latest episode? Can it entertain evidence that A-Rod may have attempted to "obstruct" the investigation? It seems that MLB lawyers have said "Yes" to some or all of this.....and that his cumulative actions were deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the huge suspension. In sum, I don't think that the suspension was handed out "willy-nilly". Tacopina seems to be saying (he can't believe this) that the suspension should be reduced or eliminated because MLB used, in his opinion, scurrilous methods to acquire the evidence or ignored the apparent fact that Biogenesis provided PEDS to minors...The former does not appear to apply as this is not a criminal investigation. Beyond that paying for evidence or testimony is not, by itself, illicit. The latter issue is not within MLB's purview. The overall defense argument appears to be that MLB does not have "clean hands" and should be punished for its alleged transgressions....that punishment being a reduction or elimination of the suspension. This is BS in my mind. But, as misdirected as I think it is, it is apparently ringing a bell with some people. See, that's your mistake right there ... assuming MLB had a solid, well-thought-out plan that would stand up. Those guys are the Houston Astros of court cases.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 2, 2013 19:56:48 GMT -5
Well, if that's the case, why did MLB suspend him for 211? Don't you think that it had some additional strong basis (beyond that attributable to the other suspended players) and relied heavily upon its attys to determine the factors that could be entertained in administering a suspension?? These guys aren't dummies. Do any of us know what the evidence is against A-Rod? No, we don't. So saying that 50 or 100 games is likely is pure speculation. Baseball is obviously not limited to leveling suspensions on a failed test. 13 other players bit the bullet without a failed test. If that is so, what other evidence can MLB legally utilize in its assessment/decision? Can it look at an admitted failed test in 2003 that did not then carry suspension? Can it look at evidence that A-Rod recruited other players to Biogenesis contributing to the undermining of the game? Can it look to the fact that he took PEDS (allegedly) for 3 long years in this latest episode? Can it entertain evidence that A-Rod may have attempted to "obstruct" the investigation? It seems that MLB lawyers have said "Yes" to some or all of this.....and that his cumulative actions were deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the huge suspension. In sum, I don't think that the suspension was handed out "willy-nilly". Tacopina seems to be saying (he can't believe this) that the suspension should be reduced or eliminated because MLB used, in his opinion, scurrilous methods to acquire the evidence or ignored the apparent fact that Biogenesis provided PEDS to minors...The former does not appear to apply as this is not a criminal investigation. Beyond that paying for evidence or testimony is not, by itself, illicit. The latter issue is not within MLB's purview. The overall defense argument appears to be that MLB does not have "clean hands" and should be punished for its alleged transgressions....that punishment being a reduction or elimination of the suspension. This is BS in my mind. But, as misdirected as I think it is, it is apparently ringing a bell with some people. See, that's your mistake right there ... assuming MLB had a solid, well-thought-out plan that would stand up. Those guys are the Houston Astros of court cases. Oh, I think MLB has a very solid case and a well thought-out plan of action. I don't buy the cool-aide either that Selig is trying suddenly to go out the hero after neglecting the PED issue for years. He has fought the Union hard in the past 10 years to get a drug policy in place and improve its effectiveness. Neither do I put credence to the implication that Selig is trying to make A-Rod the poster boy or his personal hood ornament.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 3, 2013 11:23:02 GMT -5
If I were the Yanks GM, I'd sign Kuroda, Tanaka and one or 2 other good starters ideally and do something for the OF to replace Granderson. It's not urgent this year but it will be next year. They have to do something of course at so many other positions though that it is difficult to determine what they end up with. McCann would maybe make a lot of sense with them also. If possible, we should make their problems more difficult to deal with.
The Redsox should make a huge run at Kuroda to either acquire another top starter so we can trade a secondary guy like Peavy, Dempster...etc. or make it even more difficult for the Yanks to retool. I'd offer Kuroda up to $20 mil for a single year season if necessary. The guy has proven worth his money every year for the past 5 or so. And he's done it in the AL east for several years now. Go after the guy even if we have to trade Doubront in order to create a slot for him. Doubront represents tremendous trade value right now. We could get a lot for him. The Sox have some money to spend. Why not upgrade the rotation a lot while hurting the Yanks BADLY and create a situation where we have a trade piece or 2 which can be very useful in fixing other areas of need. I love short term, high quality deals of 1-2 years. And focusing on top priorities like top starting pitching.
I know Kuroda is not considered worth $20 mil at his age but that overpay creates a lot of value for this team next year. And we should be focused primarily on winning now at this point. And the Yanks probably match it anyway so why not make a solid run at him? Look at his numbers:
2010: 196 IP, 3.39 ERA 2011: 202 IP, 3.07 ERA 2012: 201 IP, 3.32 ERA 2013: 201 IP, 3.31 ERA
The guy would have been our ace this year. Our starter in the PO. He's worth a Roger Clemens type overpay late in his career. He will be 39 next year. But he's worth it.
amfox1 edit: moved from an inapposite thread.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Nov 3, 2013 11:42:03 GMT -5
Kuroda is likely headed back to Japan FYI.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 3, 2013 11:43:41 GMT -5
If I were the Yanks GM, I'd sign Kuroda, Tanaka and one or 2 other good starters ideally and do something for the OF to replace Granderson. It's not urgent this year but it will be next year. They have to do something of course at so many other positions though that it is difficult to determine what they end up with. McCann would maybe make a lot of sense with them also. If possible, we should make their problems more difficult to deal with. The Redsox should make a huge run at Kuroda to either acquire another top starter so we can trade a secondary guy like Peavy, Dempster...etc. or make it even more difficult for the Yanks to retool. I'd offer Kuroda up to $20 mil for a single year season if necessary. The guy has proven worth his money every year for the past 5 or so. And he's done it in the AL east for several years now. Go after the guy even if we have to trade Doubront in order to create a slot for him. Doubront represents tremendous trade value right now. We could get a lot for him. The Sox have some money to spend. Why not upgrade the rotation a lot while hurting the Yanks BADLY and create a situation where we have a trade piece or 2 which can be very useful in fixing other areas of need. I love short term, high quality deals of 1-2 years. And focusing on top priorities like top starting pitching. I know Kuroda is not considered worth $20 mil at his age but that overpay creates a lot of value for this team next year. And we should be focused primarily on winning now at this point. And the Yanks probably match it anyway so why not make a solid run at him? Look at his numbers: 2010: 196 IP, 3.39 ERA 2011: 202 IP, 3.07 ERA 2012: 201 IP, 3.32 ERA 2013: 201 IP, 3.31 ERA The guy would have been our ace this year. Our starter in the PO. He's worth a Roger Clemens type overpay late in his career. He will be 39 next year. But he's worth it. amfox1 edit: moved from an inapposite thread.Ok so Tanaka, Kuroda, possibly two more good starting pitchers, probably Ellsbury, Cano and McCann huh? That's all? Only looking at $600m+ spent, not too shabby.
|
|
|