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.
Red Sox 2012 Offseason
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2012 21:26:47 GMT -5
this is the 1,000th reply to this thread. go sox!
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 8, 2012 21:59:21 GMT -5
Dodgers look like they'll have the highest opening day payroll in MLB history with the Greinke signing, and they don't seem to be done spending
I realize that the Dodgers have boatloads of $ with their new TV deal, and for all we know, no amount of spending will cripple them long term, but with the new CBA rules about going over the luxury tax, they're going to end up spending tens of million in tax alone.
3-4 years from now, they could be anywhere from multiple WS rings to having to dump salary, or anywhere in the middle.
They now have 4 guys earning over $20M/year, and it will be 5 when they resign Kershaw
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2012 22:18:09 GMT -5
Awesome. The Dodgers are going to be fun to watch this year. 6/$147 for Greinke, he's going to be fantastic out there. Still waiting for the "big move" Ben hinted at towards the end of the meetings. Though, at this point, I'm almost tending towards a Reverse Beckett (i.e. the Myers deal), rather than pursuing mediocrity with what else is on the winter shelves.... Question: if you were the Red Sox GM, would you have signed Greinke to that deal? If so, why?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 8, 2012 22:20:20 GMT -5
Gina Miller @thatsportsgirl Highly placed MLB source tells me the Dodgers are close to an agreement w/ Zach Greinke. This could change but signs point to LA. #dfwsp Mike Petriello mike_petriello Have heard similar report to @thatsportsgirl. Dodgers working on 6/150 for Grienke and its apparently closer than ever. Awesome. The Dodgers are going to be fun to watch this year. 6/$147 for Greinke, he's going to be fantastic out there. Still waiting for the "big move" Ben hinted at towards the end of the meetings. Though, at this point, I'm almost tending towards a Reverse Beckett (i.e. the Myers deal), rather than pursuing mediocrity with what else is on the winter shelves.... he said he had a move left, which was what was announced shortly after (RP)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 8, 2012 22:40:14 GMT -5
RT @jeffpassan: Dodgers have $210,130,953 in commitments for players on their roster. The Astros have $800,000" Jeff Passan @jeffpassan For those wondering if that's real, here is Astros' current balance sheet: bit.ly/XE4gWD . Only Phil Humber, at $800K, under contract
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 8, 2012 22:56:49 GMT -5
Awesome. The Dodgers are going to be fun to watch this year. 6/$147 for Greinke, he's going to be fantastic out there. Still waiting for the "big move" Ben hinted at towards the end of the meetings. Though, at this point, I'm almost tending towards a Reverse Beckett (i.e. the Myers deal), rather than pursuing mediocrity with what else is on the winter shelves.... Question: if you were the Red Sox GM, would you have signed Greinke to that deal? If so, why? Yes. 6 years isn't a terribly long contract, the team has the resources and flexibility to absorb the hit (both currently and long term). It's also my opinion that he's a legitimate #1 starter (which others disagree with, which is fine) and he's also the best starter hitting FA over the next few years. I'm stunned that this team appears to have purged quite a bit of talent (and payroll), with no plan for a counter move to re-acquire similar talent. Unless Rubby and Webster turn into Pedro and Lowe part 2, this team has basically set itself up to turn a nice profit next year, with what looks to be currently a very, very mediocre product taking the field. And those who have been advocating the "build from within" approach seem to be setting themselves up for disappointment given the recent reviews of the farm system being more solid than anything beyond Xander. Gammons said it perfectly when he said the Dodgers seem to understand that this is (first and foremost) an entertainment product. Right now, I don't see this team being very entertaining next year. Hopefully, there's some amazingly deft maneuver that BC-LL is about to unfurl that renders this moot though. Either way, the Dodgers got themselves a hell of a player tonight.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 8, 2012 23:15:35 GMT -5
I proposed signing Greinke at 5x24 but I'm not enthused about the extra year and don't think it's wise to win a bidding war with the Dodgers this year. Sanchez?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 8, 2012 23:23:01 GMT -5
I don't think the Red Sox would retain financial flexibility if they go down the road they did the last few years. It basically cost the Red Sox a chance to have a sit at the table for Yu Darvish last year.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Dec 8, 2012 23:44:35 GMT -5
I proposed signing Greinke at 5x24 but I'm not enthused about the extra year and don't think it's wise to win a bidding war with the Dodgers this year. Sanchez? I think Sanchez becomes the next target for a now desperate Angels team. My dream scenario for this off season now is a mega deal involving Lester and possibly Ellsbury to the hopefully desperate losers of the free agent market on Greinke, Hamilton and others.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 9, 2012 0:00:52 GMT -5
Darvish is another signing that people weren't comfortable with at the time but looks great right now. Cespedes is another. If they had made better choices with players like that who would have had lesser impact on the luxury tax calculation, there's no need to chase a Hamilton or Greinke (and probably not a need to purge Gonzalez et al either).
And they definitely could have fit in the salary structure. As an example, instead of dealing for Bailey last year you simply install Bard as the closer (which appeared the obvious choice); by doing so you save $8.75M (Bailey/Sweeney + no Ross) which covers almost all of Cespedes. If you'd rather Darvish (or both), you take the short term hit on the tax (40% on 9.3M, or roughly $3.7M; or if only Darvish and not Cespedes, 40% on Ross + Darvish - Bailey/Sweeney = $1.6M). Long term you know that Matsuzaka was gone at the end of the year ($8.3M) and another $18.5M drops when losing Ortiz/Jenks contracts (Cespedes/Gonzalez becomes your 3/4, no need for Papi, but it's not out of the question if the numbers work). Just one of many ways flexibility could have been created, I'm sure.
Anyway, the numbers on the Dodgers TV contract put the Greinke contract in similar light, and they pulled the trigger on a solid acquisition. The Red Sox had the money to sit at both the Darvish/Cespedes tables last year, and the Greinke/Hamilton tables this year, and chose not to partake. Hopefully there's a better plan yet to come that justifies those choices, but the early results don't look good.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 9, 2012 0:17:52 GMT -5
If they only knew all that(Cespedes would defect, Darvish would be posted, and both would be this good.) before they signed Crawford, Lackey and Beckett(to an extension).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 9, 2012 0:24:03 GMT -5
Going forward, what matters is player evaluation. The Red Sox have cash to spend, but they need to be disciplined in spending it wisely on players who are worth the money. I don't buy this "John Henry suddenly turned cheap and will pocket the money" stuff. The most likely scenario is that after the Punto trade, the FO realized the importance of not just spending money but spending it wisely. They got together and made a list of players that they thought were good bets and a list of players that they thought weren't, and Greinke at that price was not on the list. Hamilton (or Sanchez, etc.) may or may not be; that is to be determined. Looks like Ross, Gomes, Napoli, and Victorino were.
Remember, they faltered with signing Crawford, Lackey, and Beckett (not to mention smaller busts like Bobby Jenks and Mike Cameron). They seem to have whiffed by not going after guys like Darvish and Adrian Beltre. But they also seem to have made the right move in not going after Jason Bay, Jayson Werth, and Victor Martinez. If they get their player evaluation right, the Red Sox can absorb a slight overpay. But, at least for Greinke, I have my doubts, and it looks like the front office did too.
|
|
|
Post by lasershow07 on Dec 9, 2012 1:34:18 GMT -5
Speaking of player evaluations, I'm pleased with the emphasis the front office is putting on character guys who have handled big markets/the AL East well. I really think you can't underestimate how important the psychological aspect of the game is. I know it's easy to say in retrospect, but I remember hearing whispers out of Tampa at the time Crawford signed with Boston that he wouldn't acclimate well to a big market. Suddenly the guy looks like he has absolutely no idea what he's doing at the plate. He's never seen a 58 foot breaking ball he doesn't want to swing at. Betting on a first pitch breaking ball to Crawford was like betting that Pap was going to throw a fastball. Playing with house money.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 9, 2012 9:11:50 GMT -5
Different positions. The marjet for Pitchers has always differed from the position player market Different market, but not necessarily in a way that helps your argument. It has become pretty clear that Greinke will get paid significantly more than Hamilton and that Sanchez will get paid more than Swisher. I find it surprising that the Red Sox haven't been interested in guys like Baker, McCarthy, Haren at relatively low salaries. All three combined signed at less than the commitment to Victorino. If the plan was to give Morales a shot, then I wouldn't mind. But clearly that isn't the plan when they are looking at guys like Dempster and Lohse. I would much rather they sign a low-risk, high-reward pitcher like Baker or McCarthy then pay signficant dollars for mediocrity from a pitcher like Dempster or Lohse, neither of whom could be expected to post a sub-4.00 ERA as a Red Sox. Since when is 8 million dollars for two years low risk (assuming it would take at least that to sign him)? McCarthy is pretty high risk considering the injuries. His upside is number three starter, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 9, 2012 9:16:04 GMT -5
Can we stop acting all surprised and indignant when Team A asks for Team B's top prospect(s) in exchange for Team A's non-superstar player, please. It's standard operating procedure. It's more a reflection of the pathetic state of news media than anything. Sometimes its insulting the other GMS intelligence and a stupid waste of time to start insanely high then get counter offered insanely low and let this stupid little dance go on forever. My used car is for sale I'm asking for a million dollars and then you counter with twenty five cents. Is this really how things are done in MLB? Eh, sometimes it's worth it. You think Cherington really thought he'd get De La Rosa and Webster in the Dodgers' salary dump? I can only imagine what the starting offer was...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 9, 2012 10:10:44 GMT -5
Eh, sometimes it's worth it. You think Cherington really thought he'd get De La Rosa and Webster in the Dodgers' salary dump? I can only imagine what the starting offer was... It wasn't like it was entirely a salary dump, though. Even having his worst season in seven years, Gonzalez was a huge, long-term upgrade for LA at first base. Beckett has two years, $31.5M remaining, which isn't unreasonable. Webster is a borderline top-50 prospect and de la Rosa is coming off of a significant injury - neither is at the level of Taijuan Walker. It was a smart trade for the Red Sox because it enabled them to rebuild, but it isn't like the Dodgers got hosed. Money wasn't as much of a consideration for LA, and as a straight player swap I think they came out ahead - Gonzalez/Beckett/Crawford is a good bet to outproduce de la Rosa/Webster/Sands. It's not really comparable to asking for a top 25 prospect in exchange for a bad defensive 1B/RF who is 31 and has a .313 OBP over three years.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Dec 9, 2012 10:44:44 GMT -5
From the Globe's Sunday Baseball Notes: Aceves also has volunteered to be a catcher for Mexico’s team in the World Baseball Classic. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 9, 2012 10:47:21 GMT -5
I don't care what anyone says, I like Alfredo Aceves.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 9, 2012 11:41:33 GMT -5
He's going to be furious when he finds out that means he's not allowed to pitch too, Bugs Bunny style.
|
|
|
Post by station13 on Dec 9, 2012 12:12:04 GMT -5
Have they announce any pressers for Nap or the Flying Hawaiian?
|
|
|
Post by station13 on Dec 9, 2012 12:39:34 GMT -5
Question regarding Tazawa, does he becomes a FA once he gets 3 year of service time? Uehara has become a FA when his contract was up, without 6 years of service time. Tazawa sign 3 year back in 2008, I assume it covers major league service time.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 9, 2012 13:04:16 GMT -5
Question regarding Tazawa, does he becomes a FA once he gets 3 year of service time? Uehara has become a FA when his contract was up, without 6 years of service time. Tazawa sign 3 year back in 2008, I assume it covers major league service time. Good question. He is under team control for the full six years, like any other player the Sox sign w/out MLB service time. Per Cot's, both of Uehara's contracts with Baltimore contained clauses that made him a free agent upon their completion. I believe that's a clause that many older Japanese pros get, but the Sox did not give such a clause to Tazawa of course, since he was really more of an amateur.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Dec 9, 2012 13:58:30 GMT -5
Have they announce any pressers for Nap or the Flying Hawaiian? The Red Sox FO went straight from Nashville to Fort Myers for organizational meetings / spring training planning. Both players are expected in Boston this week for physicals and press conferences.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 9, 2012 15:12:48 GMT -5
Cafardo:
Right on Dan. Talent is talent. Maybe Duquette will be interested in a reunion after this season.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 9, 2012 15:51:29 GMT -5
The revisionist history on Dan Duquette is hilarious. He had to bid on free agents because he did a dreadful job rebuilding the farm system, and traded every guy who did have value for cheap, mediocre rentals - Lew Ford for Hector Carrasco, Chris Reitsma for Dante Bichette, Matt Kinney and a couple low-level guys for Orlando Merced and Greg Swindell. He was great at putting the top of the roster together, but had no handle at all on roster completion.
Spending money on the top free agent isn't what makes a general manager smart. Duquette dragged his feet on Mike Mussina, losing him to the Yankees. He signed Jose Offerman to big money. He left a still-valuable Jeff Suppan available in the expansion draft after rushing him to the majors (for those of you upset about Josh Fields, this was about 5000 times worse).
Also, Dan Duquette is a general manager right now, and didn't spend the money on Greinke and doesn't appear to be a frontrunner for Hamilton, so I'm really not sure what on earth Cafardo is going on about.
Theo and Co understood much better how to build an entire roster, and that's why they were at a championship level so quickly after Duke got fired. Useful back end players like Millar, Walker, Bellhorn, Kapler, etc were brought in, and they struck gold with Mueller and Ortiz, who were also totally undervalued.
|
|
|