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.
Choose Your Own Adventure: You're Dave Dombrowski!
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 29, 2015 5:52:09 GMT -5
3 things I noticed from this list 1-Walmart is crazy profitable 2- Facebook is stupid crazy profitable 3- Ted Rogers/blue jays owner is worth 3 times JH. And owns the stadium and the cable TV Chanel. What if he ever decides to just start spending?? Wrigley isn't exactly poor and not a Steinbrenner to be seen, world shipping has been down for several years now.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 30, 2015 0:55:12 GMT -5
I've posted what I would do/expect the Sox to do in other post but this is the place to do it.I expect the Sox to sign a free agent Ace/ish pitcher, big surprise here. I expected the Sox to sign 2 set-up guys with the idea that one of them was capable of stepping into the closer role should Uehara not be fully healthy or at has advanced age shows signs of time taking its toll. I expect the Sox to trade Buchholz plus during the 2016 season. I expect them to sign a fourth outfielder. I expect the Sox to sign one of Price, Cueto or Grienke with the preference being either Price the best of the lot of FA starters but who will command the most 7 yrs @ $28M/yr (all Contract #'s by fangraphs which Jmei pointed out tend to be about 10% on average) then there is plan B in Cueto for 6 yrs @ only $22M/yr while not as good as Price neither is the commitment in dollars, Grienke is my plan C because by signing him we would forfeit our 12th pick next year and while I'm not opposed to forfeiting it obviously avoiding that would be a preference enough so that multiple lesser pitcher would be plan D. The Sox have signed arguably the best closer in the game @ 16:$11M, 17:$13M, 18:$13M club option ($1M buyout). I'd still like to see them go after someone like Tony Sipp or Mark Lowe both @ 2 yrs and about $4M/yr. Finally I'd like to see them sign either C. Young or De Aza both @ 2 yrs and about $4M/yr. According to Alex Spier and the link jmei provided the Sox have up to $32 Million to spend before hitting the luxury tax wall. The proposal above would raise the 2016 payroll to approximately between $43M and $49M. The Buchholz deal I propose would likely have the team still spending above the luxury tax but only by about $6M to $12M in 2016 and with Ortiz retiring the following season and the cap expanding the Sox would go below. To many postings here on this thread have 6 trades and spending out the wazoo. I have one more trade during the next season and signing only 3 more players, 2 small deals and one large deal. Not only is my proposal possible but entirely realistic.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 2:24:53 GMT -5
I can't really imagine any good scenario in which the Sox trade Buchholz during the season. If he's producing and the team is fairly competitive, they probably wouldn't dump him, and if he's hurt, I'm not sure who gives us enough to justify trading him.
You'd have to see some insane performances from Owens/Johnson/Kelly for them to start dealing SP depth around the deadline (assuming they're in the hunt)
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 30, 2015 2:30:19 GMT -5
I can't really imagine any good scenario in which the Sox trade Buchholz during the season. If he's producing and the team is fairly competitive, they probably wouldn't dump him, and if he's hurt, I'm not sure who gives us enough to justify trading him. You'd have to see some insane performances from Owens/Johnson/Kelly for them to start dealing SP depth around the deadline (assuming they're in the hunt) Agreed. The only way I see trading a SP is if it is a corresponding move to signing David price to create some salary relief. Not sure this would be a requirement to a signing, but it may be..
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 4:15:16 GMT -5
I can't really imagine any good scenario in which the Sox trade Buchholz during the season. If he's producing and the team is fairly competitive, they probably wouldn't dump him, and if he's hurt, I'm not sure who gives us enough to justify trading him. You'd have to see some insane performances from Owens/Johnson/Kelly for them to start dealing SP depth around the deadline (assuming they're in the hunt) Agreed. The only way I see trading a SP is if it is a corresponding move to signing David price to create some salary relief. Not sure this would be a requirement to a signing, but it may be.. I don't think they care much about salary relief on what could be a 1 year deal. I think for them to trade Buchholz it'd have to be because they feel their rotation is better without him, or they're getting something of real major league value in return (i.e. an outfielder). I just don't see them weakening their major league roster when there's no long term impact (read: multiple years) of salary relief involved. He's a potential impact starter on a really team friendly deal they can walk away from at any time. We have generally soured on the guy, but he's a guy most teams would covet in the current scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Nov 30, 2015 7:05:34 GMT -5
Lot of discussion on SoSH regarding the use of opt out options in any premier FA deal. Basically load up the early years and taper off to lesser value in later years. 33, 33, 33, opt out, 30, 30, opt out, 29, 29 would be the 7 year plan. Its a 7/217 deal. Opt outs after 3, and 5 years For Greinke, it would look like: 32, 32, 31, opt out, 30, 30 for a 5/155 deal. Price could shop himself again at 33, and 35, while Greinke could do so at 35. Thoughts? I brought up the opt out issue a while back and got shot down and basically told it was a terrible, dumb idea from the team's perspective. The way I see it, if everything goes as you would hope in the early part of the deal, you have a chance at turning a 7 or 8 year commitment into 3 or 4 years, and getting out from under the back end of the contract that scares the bejeezus out of everyone. And then you can invest that $30 million a year in younger players who are more likely to be productive in those years. If offering an opt out clause could help separate us from the other Price suitors without driving the bidding up to ridiculous levels, count me in...but hey, what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 30, 2015 8:47:04 GMT -5
Lot of discussion on SoSH regarding the use of opt out options in any premier FA deal. Basically load up the early years and taper off to lesser value in later years. 33, 33, 33, opt out, 30, 30, opt out, 29, 29 would be the 7 year plan. Its a 7/217 deal. Opt outs after 3, and 5 years For Greinke, it would look like: 32, 32, 31, opt out, 30, 30 for a 5/155 deal. Price could shop himself again at 33, and 35, while Greinke could do so at 35. Thoughts? I brought up the opt out issue a while back and got shot down and basically told it was a terrible, dumb idea from the team's perspective. The way I see it, if everything goes as you would hope in the early part of the deal, you have a chance at turning a 7 or 8 year commitment into 3 or 4 years, then getting out from under the back end of the contract that scares the bejeezus out of everyone. And then you can invest that $30 million a year in younger players who are more likely to be productive in those years. If offering an opt out clause could help separate us from the other Price suitors without driving the bidding up to ridiculous levels, count me in...but hey, what do I know? I for one like the opt out situation for this reason. If a player/pitcher knows he has that in his back pocket, he will perform better during those first 4 years. If he has nothing to "strive" for & is basically being paid for 7 years while performing bad or good, he's not going to give you the same guts. I know these guys are professionals & all that, but they're also human.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,860
|
Post by mobaz on Nov 30, 2015 9:09:47 GMT -5
It's a good idea only when someone else proposes it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 30, 2015 9:17:22 GMT -5
I brought up the opt out issue a while back and got shot down and basically told it was a terrible, dumb idea from the team's perspective. The way I see it, if everything goes as you would hope in the early part of the deal, you have a chance at turning a 7 or 8 year commitment into 3 or 4 years, then getting out from under the back end of the contract that scares the bejeezus out of everyone. And then you can invest that $30 million a year in younger players who are more likely to be productive in those years. If offering an opt out clause could help separate us from the other Price suitors without driving the bidding up to ridiculous levels, count me in...but hey, what do I know? I for one like the opt out situation for this reason. If a player/pitcher knows he has that in his back pocket, he will perform better during those first 4 years. If he has nothing to "strive" for & is basically being paid for 7 years while performing bad or good, he's not going to give you the same guts. I know these guys are professionals & all that, but they're also human. Hopefully we don't sign anyone who only cares about his performance when he stands to make more money. Most of these guys have a lot of pride so that's another motivation. And on the subject of opt-outs, it would only make sense if the inclusion of an opt-out gets the player to agree to less money or less years or is the tie breaker to get him to sign over other teams. Other than that, it does no good for the team at all. I don't want them handing out opt-outs to everyone so I hope they don't just hand them out lightly. The main reason for them is that it's insurance for the player that they can get out of a contract if they outperform it. There is no insurance for the team if the player underperforms. So there are two things hugely in favor of the player and nothing in favor of the team. I don't really know why that people think the team can benefit from a player opt-out. For me, opt-outs completely change the complexion of a contract to something far more dangerous. If we're talking mutual opt-outs, I'd be far more likely to be on board, but we haven't seen any of those yet. I'm sure the players union wouldn't be too eager to make that a precedent, because they could lead to the end of guaranteed contracts. But you can't expect teams to only be on the hook for bad contracts and never let them benefit from good ones.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 30, 2015 9:37:52 GMT -5
I can't really imagine any good scenario in which the Sox trade Buchholz during the season. If he's producing and the team is fairly competitive, they probably wouldn't dump him, and if he's hurt, I'm not sure who gives us enough to justify trading him. You'd have to see some insane performances from Owens/Johnson/Kelly for them to start dealing SP depth around the deadline (assuming they're in the hunt) How would you feel relying on Buchholz if we were making a run and he's pitching well? Would you want to rely on him to stay healthy? I laid the trade out which totally mitigates your concern of pitching depth. I'm sure you did not read it thoroughly based on your response.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 30, 2015 9:42:37 GMT -5
I can't really imagine any good scenario in which the Sox trade Buchholz during the season. If he's producing and the team is fairly competitive, they probably wouldn't dump him, and if he's hurt, I'm not sure who gives us enough to justify trading him. You'd have to see some insane performances from Owens/Johnson/Kelly for them to start dealing SP depth around the deadline (assuming they're in the hunt) Agreed. The only way I see trading a SP is if it is a corresponding move to signing David price to create some salary relief. Not sure this would be a requirement to a signing, but it may be.. Arggg. I clearly depicted that it would be during next season and the assumption we sign a #1 #2 starting pitcher this offseason. We'd have #1 (FA signing) E-Rod, Porcello, Buchholz, Miley, Kelly, Owens, Johnson & Wright. So if we traded Buchholz for a more durable but slightly less effective pitcher along with one of the last 4 listed above, we'd have a total of 8 starters and we'd be about half through the season or more. Obviously if several pitchers were injured and that would change things for several reasons and should not need be explained.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 30, 2015 9:43:45 GMT -5
Agreed. The only way I see trading a SP is if it is a corresponding move to signing David price to create some salary relief. Not sure this would be a requirement to a signing, but it may be.. I don't think they care much about salary relief on what could be a 1 year deal. I think for them to trade Buchholz it'd have to be because they feel their rotation is better without him, or they're getting something of real major league value in return (i.e. an outfielder). I just don't see them weakening their major league roster when there's no long term impact (read: multiple years) of salary relief involved. He's a potential impact starter on a really team friendly deal they can walk away from at any time. We have generally soured on the guy, but he's a guy most teams would covet in the current scenario. Why not capitalize on your last sentence? Your making my point (in my best Big-O impression).
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 30, 2015 10:40:39 GMT -5
Either way, we cannot trade any SP unless we sign a FA pitcher to replace him. We have no depth behind our current 8 or 9. It will take at least this amount to get through a season & we have no depth in Paw/Port.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 30, 2015 11:03:56 GMT -5
Either way, we cannot trade any SP unless we sign a FA pitcher to replace him. We have no depth behind our current 8 or 9. It will take at least this amount to get through a season & we have no depth in Paw/Port. I'm not sure how many times or ways I can state this, I stated from the get go, it hinges on obtaining a free agent pitcher this off season and the trade would be for another starting pitcher coming back. For the love that is all good and mighty I beg the to read before writing. We'd be down 1 depth pitcher (#6 through #9) but we'd acquire a more reliable Starting Pitcher. This seeks to cure the very problem you are pointing out and that is my point too, thanks for playing.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 30, 2015 11:52:31 GMT -5
Either way, we cannot trade any SP unless we sign a FA pitcher to replace him. We have no depth behind our current 8 or 9. It will take at least this amount to get through a season & we have no depth in Paw/Port. I'm not sure how many times or ways I can state this, I stated from the get go, it hinges on obtaining a free agent pitcher this off season and the trade would be for another starting pitcher coming back. For the love that is all good and mighty I beg the to read before writing. We'd be down 1 depth pitcher (#6 through #9) but we'd acquire a more reliable Starting Pitcher. This seeks to cure the very problem you are pointing out and that is my point too, thanks for playing. So your plan is to trade a healthy and effective Clay plus another depth arm, to another contender during the year and get back a worse pitcher but one you expect to stay healthy?
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Nov 30, 2015 12:00:39 GMT -5
So your plan is to trade a temporarily healthy and effective Clay plus another depth arm, to another contender during the year and get back a worse pitcher but one you expect to stay healthy. FTFY
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 30, 2015 12:07:02 GMT -5
I don't think they care much about salary relief on what could be a 1 year deal. I think for them to trade Buchholz it'd have to be because they feel their rotation is better without him, or they're getting something of real major league value in return (i.e. an outfielder). I just don't see them weakening their major league roster when there's no long term impact (read: multiple years) of salary relief involved. He's a potential impact starter on a really team friendly deal they can walk away from at any time. We have generally soured on the guy, but he's a guy most teams would covet in the current scenario. Why not capitalize on your last sentence? Your making my point (in my best Big-O impression). Because you'd be worsening your current team.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Nov 30, 2015 12:16:34 GMT -5
Why not capitalize on your last sentence? Your making my point (in my best Big-O impression). Because you'd be worsening your current team. I think most fans grossly undervalue Clay. On this current deal with the team options, he's well worth them, even if he gives us only a half-season of production. I don't think it'd be beneficial to our immediate future if we send Buchholz packing just because he's injured often; it isn't like he's making $25 AAV. This is a cheap deal for us and we should use him while we can, then let him go at the end. If he produces, that's great for us and him - hopefully he'll get a good chunk of change after, likely (and hopefully) not from us. But Buchholz, on such a team friendly deal, is worth a lot to our present team. When he's on, he's on, and he's making basically half of what other starters of his (best) caliber are making now.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 30, 2015 13:02:49 GMT -5
I for one like the opt out situation for this reason. If a player/pitcher knows he has that in his back pocket, he will perform better during those first 4 years. If he has nothing to "strive" for & is basically being paid for 7 years while performing bad or good, he's not going to give you the same guts. I know these guys are professionals & all that, but they're also human. Hopefully we don't sign anyone who only cares about his performance when he stands to make more money. Most of these guys have a lot of pride so that's another motivation. And on the subject of opt-outs, it would only make sense if the inclusion of an opt-out gets the player to agree to less money or less years or is the tie breaker to get him to sign over other teams. Other than that, it does no good for the team at all. I don't want them handing out opt-outs to everyone so I hope they don't just hand them out lightly. The main reason for them is that it's insurance for the player that they can get out of a contract if they outperform it. There is no insurance for the team if the player underperforms. So there are two things hugely in favor of the player and nothing in favor of the team. I don't really know why that people think the team can benefit from a player opt-out. For me, opt-outs completely change the complexion of a contract to something far more dangerous. If we're talking mutual opt-outs, I'd be far more likely to be on board, but we haven't seen any of those yet. I'm sure the players union wouldn't be too eager to make that a precedent, because they could lead to the end of guaranteed contracts. But you can't expect teams to only be on the hook for bad contracts and never let them benefit from good ones. This was my point of not offering an opt out for the player. I'm sure we all assumed Pablo & Hanley would give their 100% after signing their largest & probably last contracts, but the perception was that they didn't. I'm not saying every contract should have them, just some of the longer/larger ones.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 30, 2015 13:41:33 GMT -5
I've posted what I would do/expect the Sox to do in other post but this is the place to do it.I expect the Sox to sign a free agent Ace/ish pitcher, big surprise here. I expected the Sox to sign 2 set-up guys with the idea that one of them was capable of stepping into the closer role should Uehara not be fully healthy or at has advanced age shows signs of time taking its toll. I expect the Sox to trade Buchholz plus during the 2016 season. I expect them to sign a fourth outfielder. I expect the Sox to sign one of Price, Cueto or Grienke with the preference being either Price the best of the lot of FA starters but who will command the most 7 yrs @ $28M/yr (all Contract #'s by fangraphs which Jmei pointed out tend to be about 10% on average) then there is plan B in Cueto for 6 yrs @ only $22M/yr while not as good as Price neither is the commitment in dollars, Grienke is my plan C because by signing him we would forfeit our 12th pick next year and while I'm not opposed to forfeiting it obviously avoiding that would be a preference enough so that multiple lesser pitcher would be plan D. The Sox have signed arguably the best closer in the game @ 16:$11M, 17:$13M, 18:$13M club option ($1M buyout). I'd still like to see them go after someone like Tony Sipp or Mark Lowe both @ 2 yrs and about $4M/yr. Finally I'd like to see them sign either C. Young or De Aza both @ 2 yrs and about $4M/yr. According to Alex Spier and the link jmei provided the Sox have up to $32 Million to spend before hitting the luxury tax wall. The proposal above would raise the 2016 payroll to approximately between $43M and $49M. The Buchholz deal I propose would likely have the team still spending above the luxury tax but only by about $6M to $12M in 2016 and with Ortiz retiring the following season and the cap expanding the Sox would go below. To many postings here on this thread have 6 trades and spending out the wazoo. I have one more trade during the next season and signing only 3 more players, 2 small deals and one large deal. Not only is my proposal possible but entirely realistic. I think you need to up the $ spent on your plan. If you offer Price 7 years at $28 million/year, you will probably lose out. Even at $31 million/year that might not get it done if the Dodgers get into the bidding. It might require an 8th year and the Dodgers might match. So if your fallback plan is Cueto, forget 6 years and $22 million/year doing the trick. He already turned down 6 years @ $20 million/year. Try 6 years $150 and that might get you Cueto. Also Sipp and Lowe will probably cost $5 - $6 million/year and now that the Sox took your advice and signed Young, I'm guessing (and I certainly could be wrong) that the cost was more than $4 million/year but closer to $7 million/year. And yeah, you could trade Buchholz if he's doing well, but good luck replacing that kind of quality - it would be a downgrade. And of course if he's hurt or struggling upon coming back from his injury, then his value will be really low, which really doesn't help either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 30, 2015 17:43:02 GMT -5
Nava refused a AAA assignment so he's a free agent. I would love to get him back on a minor league deal if he can't get a major league one. But I imagine that's a long shot and he might want an easier path to the majors even if he couldn't get a major league deal.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 30, 2015 19:02:09 GMT -5
To be fair, the Red Sox have a pretty clear theoretical path to the majors for Nava. If any of Ortiz, Hanley, Shaw, Betts, Bradley, Castillo, or Young hit the DL, Nava would be the guy called up, right? Maybe even add Sandoval to that list. Nava is out of options, but clearly seems like a better player than Craig or Brentz or Cecchini.
I would think there's a decent chance he gets a major league deal, but he did clear waivers, and if he has to settle for a minor league deal, his familiarity with Boston and their fringy OF depth may give them a leg up on the competition.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 30, 2015 19:05:37 GMT -5
Nava refused a AAA assignment so he's a free agent. I would love to get him back on a minor league deal if he can't get a major league one. But I imagine that's a long shot and he might want an easier path to the majors even if he couldn't get a major league deal. Nava's road to the majors might not be that bad here. He's likely the 5th OF'er. He won't start in Boston, but there would likely be opportunities at some point. And he can play 1B. There is Shaw who can play, but he's more of a 1B/3B that can play LF. He's clearly better than Brentz. EDIT: jmei beat me to it - with better detail, too.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 1, 2015 9:56:31 GMT -5
Why not capitalize on your last sentence? Your making my point (in my best Big-O impression). Because you'd be worsening your current team. Really? No you are not. At what point can we comfortably predict that Buchholz is totally unreliable? We've crossed that threshold about a half dozen times. What is the definition of insanity?, keep repeating the same behavior over and over and expecting different results.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2015 10:02:09 GMT -5
Because you'd be worsening your current team. Really? No you are not. At what point can we comfortably predict that Buchholz is totally unreliable? We've crossed that threshold about a half dozen times. What is the definition of insanity?, keep repeating the same behavior over and over and expecting different results. The definition of insanity is to trade Buchholz for a worse pitcher who doesn't get hurt as much. We already have plenty of those backing him up as depth.
|
|
|