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.
Dempster will not pitch in 2014
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Feb 16, 2014 20:11:41 GMT -5
Compare and contrast Ryan Dempster finale with the Red Sox with that of Curt Schilling, then get back to us on the ethics issue.
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Feb 16, 2014 20:15:44 GMT -5
Although the financial flexibility is there, I am content not signing Stephen Drew. I honestly think that Xander and Brooks will handle the left side of the infield very well. I think that Xander will be in the running for the rookie of year and Brooks will top 25 home runs. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but that would be a great scenario.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 16, 2014 20:18:08 GMT -5
It is also worth noting that there will likely be two spots open in the rotation after this year and the Red Sox are on record as saying they would like at least one of those spots filled internally. While I understand the hesitation with relying on unproven talent, I don't think the Sox are excessively "relying" on them in this situation. Rather, they are positioning them to have the opportunity to prove themselves, which is necessary if we are going to fulfill the long term goal. I'm actually not sure that it is possible to integrate young starters without relying on them to some extent. This is what I was trying to get at previously. If not now, when? When do see what they can do. These young pitchers have a lot of upside, but without finally giving them a chance, how can we incorporate one (or 2) into our rotation. You can bet your mother-in-law that these 6 to 7 young arms are pretty darn excited tonight! The competition during Spring Training and the regular season should be something to behold!
|
|
|
Post by plantiermania on Feb 16, 2014 20:22:40 GMT -5
I like Dempster and wish him and his family well. My only regret is I wish he told the Sox a lot sooner. I am excited to see what Barnes and the rest might contribute, but taking a shot at signing someone like Tim Hudson might have been interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 16, 2014 20:23:51 GMT -5
No he didn't sell his soul to the devil. But if he's "classy" for forfeiting his salary, that implies that another player who chooses to try to fight through his problems for his salary as is his right is selfish and crude. I don't agree with that. That's straw manning it my man, it wasn't a direct comparison between said contexts and you're painting a much nicer picture than a whole lot of players deserve it in the analogy. A gazillion guys start to mail it in after getting paid, I fail to see how that's novelty. Yes, there are guys that have issues and battle them and you know actually perform at respectable rates. There's also some obese toads that fall in love with the nearest McDonald's and never recover, fatsoing their way into oblivion while still getting a good percentage of the team's payroll. Situations aren't always clean. If Dempster doesn't feel he has it in him and rather not to do it than doing it half assed, and if the team is actually okay with that, which by all accounts they are, hey, more power to him. He's not a hero or a villain. He's simply a professional baseball player.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 16, 2014 20:24:20 GMT -5
Please. He didn't sell his soul to the devil. Players have the right to retire whenever they want. They do but if they also have an obligation to their fellow union members to fulfill their contract. Very very few players retire in the middle of a contract and there's a reason for that. An analogous situation would be if your coworker forfeits their vacation. Yes it's his choice to do that, but by doing so he's putting you in the position where the company can now ask you to do the same thing and pressure you to do so due to the precedent it sets. No he didn't sell his soul to the devil. But if he's "classy" for forfeiting his salary, that implies that another player who chooses to try to fight through his problems for his salary as is his right is selfish and crude. I don't agree with that. That's not what it means at all.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 16, 2014 20:27:40 GMT -5
I like Dempster and wish him and his family well. My only regret is I wish he told the Sox a lot sooner. I am excited to see what Barnes and the rest might contribute, but taking a shot at signing someone like Tim Hudson might have been interesting. The Sox werenot signing another starter regardless when they knew about this. They already have 5 and a plethora of young options. Why add another veteran like Hudson? You plan to put the young Doubront in the pen? You don't sign an expensive starter just incase there's a spring injury.
|
|
|
Post by plantiermania on Feb 16, 2014 20:37:26 GMT -5
I can't disagree with that rjp313jr. I guess my point is that I don't have faith that Buchholz & Peavy will be healthy. I think there will be at least 30 starts up for grabs this year and I'd rather a more experienced hand. I was happy to not trade Dempster for the same reason. I like Hudson, but I think the larger issue is that more time might have helped BC create maneuver.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 16, 2014 20:44:07 GMT -5
The Sox just have to live with the fact they built their rotation with two guys like Buchholz and Peavy. If CB can't put some healthy years together it's a scenario we'll live year after year. That's why they stock pile young pitching. You cannot really fill a 6th starter spot with a reliable vet. Dempster was unique, but he was also going to rot away and be mop up when the top 5 were healthy.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 16, 2014 21:25:18 GMT -5
It is also worth noting that there will likely be two spots open in the rotation after this year and the Red Sox are on record as saying they would like at least one of those spots filled internally. While I understand the hesitation with relying on unproven talent, I don't think the Sox are excessively "relying" on them in this situation. Rather, they are positioning them to have the opportunity to prove themselves, which is necessary if we are going to fulfill the long term goal. I'm actually not sure that it is possible to integrate young starters without relying on them to some extent. This is what I was trying to get at previously. If not now, when? When do see what they can do. These young pitchers have a lot of upside, but without finally giving them a chance, how can we incorporate one (or 2) into our rotation. You can bet your mother-in-law that these 6 to 7 young arms are pretty darn excited tonight! The competition during Spring Training and the regular season should be something to behold! Exactly. It's not like the next in line (hypothetically Workman) will have an opportunity to suck for whatever amount of innings Dempster would have pitched, you go to the next one. We're in a great position to have the entire group move up a rung on the ladder and for players with little experience gain valuable experience. Think about it sabermetrically, what is the WAR difference between Dempster and whoever replaces him, it's miniscule. It would be safe to raise the bet to a box of donuts.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 16, 2014 21:29:43 GMT -5
They do but if they also have an obligation to their fellow union members to fulfill their contract. Very very few players retire in the middle of a contract and there's a reason for that. An analogous situation would be if your coworker forfeits their vacation. Yes it's his choice to do that, but by doing so he's putting you in the position where the company can now ask you to do the same thing and pressure you to do so due to the precedent it sets. No he didn't sell his soul to the devil. But if he's "classy" for forfeiting his salary, that implies that another player who chooses to try to fight through his problems for his salary as is his right is selfish and crude. I don't agree with that. That's not what it means at all. Wouldn't it make sense that if we label an action as "classy" and "selfless" for an action that someone who does just the opposite would have just the opposite description? How is that a straw man? To use the Schilling example, he had every right to attempt to rehab his shoulder and collect his paycheck as opposed to retiring and forfeiting his paycheck as Dempster did. He signed a contract and lived up to his obligations under that contract. I don't think he should be criticized for doing that and expecting the Red Sox to live up to their obligations. As far as a "gazillion players mailing it in" Don, I think that's speculation on your part and it's irrelevant. Baseball players like the rest of us have the right to expect to be compensated if the obligations associated with said compensation are met. I don't think it's fair to label Ryan Dempster a hero, while implicitly labeling others who don't follow his lead selfish.
|
|
|
Post by rizdog on Feb 16, 2014 21:34:52 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of speculation regarding what the Sox could do with Dempster's 13.25 mil. Sign Drew, sign a pitcher, save it for a potential mid-season trade etc. Is there any way they could use the extra room under the tax threshold to help extend Lester ? For example, could they offer him a 6/yr 100 mil starting in 2014 ? The benefit to Lester is he could make an extra 3.5 mil (give or take) this year. The Sox benefit is only committing to an extra 5 years, as opposed to 6. I have no idea if 6/100 is the number, but could something like this work ?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 16, 2014 21:44:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 16, 2014 21:51:52 GMT -5
Please. He didn't sell his soul to the devil. Players have the right to retire whenever they want. They do but if they also have an obligation to their fellow union members to fulfill their contract. Very very few players retire in the middle of a contract and there's a reason for that. An analogous situation would be if your coworker forfeits their vacation. Yes it's his choice to do that, but by doing so he's putting you in the position where the company can now ask you to do the same thing and pressure you to do so due to the precedent it sets. No he didn't sell his soul to the devil. But if he's "classy" for forfeiting his salary, that implies that another player who chooses to try to fight through his problems for his salary as is his right is selfish and crude. I don't agree with that. Every player ever does this and guaranteed contracts aren't going anywhere. Relax.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Feb 16, 2014 22:05:24 GMT -5
moonstone2, the world isn't binary, every situation is not a case of A versus notA. What Dempster did was act with class, someone making a different decision is not automatically classless. If Schilling knew that her wasn't going to be in a position to pitch in 2008 then his signing a new contract with the Sox was classless, if he honestly believed he could come back then he can be accused of an overinflated sense of optimism but not of being "a villain". Plus what Dempster did was not heroic, selfless yes, professional even but hardly heroic.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Feb 16, 2014 22:26:47 GMT -5
Personally I think anyone willing to walk away from $13.5 mil for the reasons he cited is heroic. He could have tried to pitch and claimed an injury, and taken the $13.5 mil. I've seen a whole lot of people justify more egregious behavior and find ways to justify it. I don't know his family situation but if he felt his family needed him and he was willing to sacrifice $13.5 mil for them what does that say about him? To me it says he is a freaking hero. I have a close friend who stayed in the same terrible job for 8 years because his daughter has MS and he didn't want to risk her healthcare by changing insurance coverages. A beautiful, upbeat young woman who had lost her eyesight in one eye when she was 17 and there were no tears seen from her when we visited in the hospital. There are real men and women in this world and it doesn't take long to find them. They are all around us. He had every justification to continue the contract and take the money. The guy has had a great rep from day one on the team. Let's hope for the best for him and his family. Can't say I think we should spend the money saved at this point. It is slim pickings out there. Maybe we pick up someone's contract at mid year, in a salary dump deal like when the Yanks picked up Abreu from the Phillies years ago at the break. A quality player let go simply to dump salary. Available FA players as of now: www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/2014-mlb-free-agents.html
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 16, 2014 22:29:03 GMT -5
It is also worth noting that there will likely be two spots open in the rotation after this year and the Red Sox are on record as saying they would like at least one of those spots filled internally. While I understand the hesitation with relying on unproven talent, I don't think the Sox are excessively "relying" on them in this situation. Rather, they are positioning them to have the opportunity to prove themselves, which is necessary if we are going to fulfill the long term goal. I'm actually not sure that it is possible to integrate young starters without relying on them to some extent. This is what I was trying to get at previously. If not now, when? When do see what they can do. These young pitchers have a lot of upside, but without finally giving them a chance, how can we incorporate one (or 2) into our rotation. You can bet your mother-in-law that these 6 to 7 young arms are pretty darn excited tonight! The competition during Spring Training and the regular season should be something to behold! It's a good point, and integrating young players is certainly a worthwhile objective in and of itself. But we should be aware that doing so comes with a cost, both in terms of expected return and volatility. It may be a small cost, as LCBF alludes to above, but it's a cost nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 16, 2014 22:35:29 GMT -5
They do but if they also have an obligation to their fellow union members to fulfill their contract. Very very few players retire in the middle of a contract and there's a reason for that. An analogous situation would be if your coworker forfeits their vacation. Yes it's his choice to do that, but by doing so he's putting you in the position where the company can now ask you to do the same thing and pressure you to do so due to the precedent it sets. No he didn't sell his soul to the devil. But if he's "classy" for forfeiting his salary, that implies that another player who chooses to try to fight through his problems for his salary as is his right is selfish and crude. I don't agree with that. Every player ever does this and guaranteed contracts aren't going anywhere. Relax. Ummm not what I argued. Under the CBA a players employer cannot terminate a guaranteed contract without just cause. But a baseball team does have other tools at their disposal to unfairly cause harm to players without Look I understand that union baseball players are paid a lot of money and will never be looked at in the same light as union iron workers. Heck, some of you are probably against unions in general don't think that any worker deserves to have any rights or has any obligations towards his fellow employees. But they are still workers who deserve to be compensated for their work in the manner agreed to without any pressure from their employers to give up these rights. A player who wants to attempt to play through an injury and thus collect their paycheck should not have to hear from either their employer, the press, or fans that they should act as Ryan Dempster did. I say this from experience as someone who was once pressured to give part of his paycheck to a charity simply because his coworkers had.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 16, 2014 22:47:02 GMT -5
Every player ever does this and guaranteed contracts aren't going anywhere. Relax. Ummm not what I argued. Under the CBA a players employer cannot terminate a guaranteed contract without just cause. But a baseball team does have other tools at their disposal to unfairly cause harm to players without Look I understand that union baseball players are paid a lot of money and will never be looked at in the same light as union iron workers. Heck, some of you are probably against unions in general don't think that any worker deserves to have any rights or has any obligations towards his fellow employees. But they are still workers who deserve to be compensated for their work in the manner agreed to without any pressure from their employers to give up these rights. A player who wants to attempt to play through an injury and thus collect their paycheck should not have to hear from either their employer, the press, or fans that they should act as Ryan Dempster did. I say this from experience as someone who was once pressured to give part of his paycheck to a charity simply because his coworkers had. You shouldn't have been pressured to give part of your paycheck to charity, but that isn't a reflection on an individual who wants to do so, but rather your company. The decision of Gil Meche and Ryan Dempster to call it a career when their body is failing them doesn't mean the Yankees would have any basis to try to force Alex Rodriguez into retirement.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 16, 2014 22:47:15 GMT -5
A player who wants to attempt to play through an injury and thus collect their paycheck should not have to hear from either their employer, the press, or fans that they should act as Ryan Dempster did. As shouldn't a player who tries to play through a Big Mac. And they won't, I don't remember anyone crying for Gil Meche after what a month of his surprise retirement. You're arguing against something that doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 16, 2014 23:44:27 GMT -5
Every player ever does this and guaranteed contracts aren't going anywhere. Relax. Ummm not what I argued. Under the CBA a players employer cannot terminate a guaranteed contract without just cause. But a baseball team does have other tools at their disposal to unfairly cause harm to players without Look I understand that union baseball players are paid a lot of money and will never be looked at in the same light as union iron workers. Heck, some of you are probably against unions in general don't think that any worker deserves to have any rights or has any obligations towards his fellow employees. But they are still workers who deserve to be compensated for their work in the manner agreed to without any pressure from their employers to give up these rights. A player who wants to attempt to play through an injury and thus collect their paycheck should not have to hear from either their employer, the press, or fans that they should act as Ryan Dempster did. I say this from experience as someone who was once pressured to give part of his paycheck to a charity simply because his coworkers had. I'm vigorously pro-labor and pro-union by extension. But Dempster's decision to retire seriously doesn't effect other players at all.
|
|
|
Post by highcheeseandtaters on Feb 17, 2014 1:01:37 GMT -5
This is what I was trying to get at previously. If not now, when? When do see what they can do. These young pitchers have a lot of upside, but without finally giving them a chance, how can we incorporate one (or 2) into our rotation. You can bet your mother-in-law that these 6 to 7 young arms are pretty darn excited tonight! The competition during Spring Training and the regular season should be something to behold! It's a good point, and integrating young players is certainly a worthwhile objective in and of itself. But we should be aware that doing so comes with a cost, both in terms of expected return and volatility. It may be a small cost, as LCBF alludes to above, but it's a cost nonetheless. The other side of the coin-- Dempster was subject to volatility himself-- and we'll never know what we would've gotten out of him this season in spot/mop-up duty-- and if we can all agree that that was his most likely role, it doesn't sound to me that he was going to be used in many high leverage situations. If all that is to be believed, I don't see the downside to running the kids out there. Even if they're spot-starter and not mop-up duty situations, Dempster was hardly a sure thing either. I think the potential reward is well worth that risk.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on Feb 17, 2014 6:36:01 GMT -5
Don't be surprised if An ANONYMOUS 10M donation is made to the Dempster foundation and if we still see RD in the clubhouse playing a role in working with young pitcher helping turn them from hard throwers to pitch craftsmen, and eventually move toward a role in the staff of Nieves. Mostly I think he will be focused on the amazing work he has done in getting recognition for 22Q11.D Deletion Syndrome which hits 1 in 4,000 kids including his own. This has been his focus and where he wants to spend his time since his heart is green monster big and Boston has help raise more $ than he has anywhere else , a trade takes him out of town and nobody wanted that, A deal was cut and RD leaves like the class act ,he is ending on a game winning K in a world series game. After 2012 as the humor had been sucked out of us by Valentine, Dempster came in and brought life back to this team, kept them loose and reminded them why they were here and how much fun it was . He was the chemistry we talked so much about. I wish him all the best dempsterfamilyfoundation.org/what-22q/22q-overview
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 17, 2014 10:31:12 GMT -5
Don't be surprised if An ANONYMOUS 10M donation is made to the Dempster foundation ... Like on that TV show that I don't want to name for fear of spoiling anyone? Seems doutbful.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 17, 2014 11:00:55 GMT -5
Every player ever does this and guaranteed contracts aren't going anywhere. Relax. Ummm not what I argued. Under the CBA a players employer cannot terminate a guaranteed contract without just cause. But a baseball team does have other tools at their disposal to unfairly cause harm to players without Look I understand that union baseball players are paid a lot of money and will never be looked at in the same light as union iron workers. Heck, some of you are probably against unions in general don't think that any worker deserves to have any rights or has any obligations towards his fellow employees. But they are still workers who deserve to be compensated for their work in the manner agreed to without any pressure from their employers to give up these rights. A player who wants to attempt to play through an injury and thus collect their paycheck should not have to hear from either their employer, the press, or fans that they should act as Ryan Dempster did. I say this from experience as someone who was once pressured to give part of his paycheck to a charity simply because his coworkers had. Dempster has a family issue at home as well as an injury. His situation is unique and complex and like FTHW said, it doesn't affect any other player in any sort of meaningful way financially. You know why teams won't pressure a player to retire? Because it's terrible business for them to do so. Also, like was said previously,t his world isn't black and white. Personally, I'm not a big fan of unions in 2014, but that doesn't mean I'm against workers rights at all. Unions served a vitally important role in this country, but that doesn't mean something that was once vital still is.
|
|
|