Unofficial Adrian Gonzalez thread.

[Rdsxmbnt]

While for three years, payroll has gone down. During that time, revenue has increased.

 

As fans...I would be pissed.

 

It's good for you guys that they are finally spending...but again..ask...why not over the last few years?

 

This is what a700 has been saying for YEARS. Every Yankee fan has been saying it here for years. Now you see it..and you still debate it. You've been played for fools, spending your money going to the games, paying for NESN, buying gear and programs, etc...putting money in their pockets, while they keep it and didn't reinvest it on the product you saw on the field...while telling you they couldn't. This is all I'm saying.

 

You don't need to speak for everyone, we all know you're just saying all this to be a ****.

 

Does payroll tell the entire story? The forbes player expenses shows 146-199-165 mil expenses over that 07-09 time period. Payroll doesn't include money being paid out to other teams, international signings, dice-k's costs, etc.

 

If the Red Sox are say 30mil under their payroll 'budget' there aren't multiple all-star FAs out there who will take a one year deal to fill that payroll gap. You have to make LONG TERM investments in those players. The Red Sox have clearly shown they have a plan that they stick to. They saw Mark Teixiera as a possible solution and made a run at him. They've stated they don't get into bidding wars and refused to play that 180mil game with the Yankees. Now they have an opportunity to make investments in players they want (Lackey) and have thus used their NEW FOUND revenue increases to make those moves.

[ORS]

Finally, a decent post.

 

What I don't understand is why not, and not before? Think about who was there last year...and what they ended up this year.

 

If I was a Sox fan, I'd be happy that they closed the gap on the Yankees, but I'd wonder what took them so long.

 

The Yankees have come out and said that they are kind of treading water until next year, when a solid group of free agents are out there, including Lee, Crawford, Beckett, and Mauer. The Yankees don't have any real expiring contracts, and I expect them to resign Rivera and Jeter.

 

The Red Sox have Lowell and Ortiz and Beckett coming off the books. That's what...35 million or so? Put about 18-20 million towards Beckett, that still leaves a major player for the Sox.

 

Next year is when the real battle will be fought. Can you imagine Mauer hitting the market? What the the Yankees would throw at Lee? How a block of Lee would kill the Yankees? Crawford in pinstripes?

 

To calm things down a bit...all I'm saying, and I'll be nice, is that the Sox had this ability. The Sox revenue stream increased, but their payroll went down over the same time period. So they've been shafting their fans. This is what they should have been spending from 2006 [increases, not decreases]. Yet they sold you guys a bag of donuts and you bought it. Don't get mad at me, what you guys should be asking is...why not earlier?

To the part in bold: It's evident that what you don't understand is all encompassing. I mean, I needed to explain to you the relevance of Teixeira to your own topic of discussion. Everyone else got it without the explanation.

 

To the rest: You are still operating under the ******** assumption that the FO has somehow communicated that they can't spend money and that people are buying it. Neither has happened, so your whole argument is another one of your strawmen. Remove the assumption, and it's just another load of your babble.

[Dipre]

Finally, a decent post.

 

What I don't understand is why not, and not before? Think about who was there last year...and what they ended up this year.

 

If I was a Sox fan, I'd be happy that they closed the gap on the Yankees, but I'd wonder what took them so long.

 

The Yankees have come out and said that they are kind of treading water until next year, when a solid group of free agents are out there, including Lee, Crawford, Beckett, and Mauer. The Yankees don't have any real expiring contracts, and I expect them to resign Rivera and Jeter.

 

The Red Sox have Lowell and Ortiz and Beckett coming off the books. That's what...35 million or so? Put about 18-20 million towards Beckett, that still leaves a major player for the Sox.

 

Next year is when the real battle will be fought. Can you imagine Mauer hitting the market? What the the Yankees would throw at Lee? How a block of Lee would kill the Yankees? Crawford in pinstripes?

 

To calm things down a bit...all I'm saying, and I'll be nice, is that the Sox had this ability. The Sox revenue stream increased, but their payroll went down over the same time period. So they've been shafting their fans. This is what they should have been spending from 2006 [increases, not decreases]. Yet they sold you guys a bag of donuts and you bought it. Don't get mad at me, what you guys should be asking is...why not earlier?

Boston Red Sox:

 

2007:

 

Player expenses/Revenue: 146/234: 62.3%

 

2008:

 

Player expenses/Revenue:199/263: 75.6%

 

 

2009:

 

Player Expenses/Revenue: 165/269:61.33%

 

New York Yankees:

 

2007:

 

Player Expenses/Revenue: 219/302: 72%

 

2008:

 

Player expenses/Revenue: 77%

 

2009:

 

Player expenses/Revenue:62.93%.

 

The Red Sox spend nearly as much money as the Yankees on a percentile scale as well. It's impossible for them to go dollar to dollar with the Yankees, but unlike what you state, they try, and they try hard.

[ORS]

New York Yankees:

 

2007:

 

Player expenses/Revenue: 146/234: 62.3%

 

2008:

 

Player expenses/Revenue:199/263: 75.6%

 

 

2009:

 

Player Expenses/Revenue: 165/269:61.33%

 

New York Yankees:

 

2007:

 

Player Expenses/Revenue: 219/302: 72%

 

2008:

 

Player expenses/Revenue: 77%

 

2009:

 

Player expenses/Revenue:62.93%.

 

The Red Sox spend nearly as much money as the Yankees on a percentile scale as well. It's impossible for them to go dollar to dollar with the Yankees, but unlike what you state, they try, and they try hard.

Did you get that from Forbes? Just another example of you believing everything you read.

 

Bah-ah-ah-ah

 

You'd see that they can spend as much as the Yankees if you watched the games.

[Dipre]

You don't need to speak for everyone, we all know you're just saying all this to be a ****.

 

Does payroll tell the entire story? The forbes player expenses shows 146-199-165 mil expenses over that 07-09 time period. Payroll doesn't include money being paid out to other teams, international signings, dice-k's costs, etc.

 

If the Red Sox are say 30mil under their payroll 'budget' there aren't multiple all-star FAs out there who will take a one year deal to fill that payroll gap. You have to make LONG TERM investments in those players. The Red Sox have clearly shown they have a plan that they stick to. They saw Mark Teixiera as a possible solution and made a run at him. They've stated they don't get into bidding wars and refused to play that 180mil game with the Yankees. Now they have an opportunity to make investments in players they want (Lackey) and have thus used their NEW FOUND revenue increases to make those moves.

 

This is why i used the sentence "Player expenses" in the first place, which he conveniently chose to ignore.

[Dipre]

Did you get that from Forbes? Just another example of you believing everything you read.

 

Bah-ah-ah-ah

 

You'd see that they can spend as much as the Yankees if you watched the games.

 

I'm a "sheep" there's no denying that.

[Gom]

Whatever dude...buy what they tell you. You have proven more than anyone that you can't think for yourself, and have to be told what to believe.

 

I didn't include Tex because...he wasn't signed by you. Explain how their revenue increases, but payroll decreases over three years. I hope you enjoyed padding their profits, fool.

 

Especially next year when they claim that they can't afford to resign Beckett.

If the Red Sox are say 30mil under their payroll 'budget' there aren't multiple all-star FAs out there who will take a one year deal to fill that payroll gap. You have to make LONG TERM investments in those players. The Red Sox have clearly shown they have a plan that they stick to. They saw Mark Teixiera as a possible solution and made a run at him. They've stated they don't get into bidding wars and refused to play that 180mil game with the Yankees.

 

The only reason Tex is a Yankee is, in my mind, because Henry f***ed up. However, no one will ever prove it one way or the other. Would you rather have Tex or Lackey and Cameron? I think it's obvious. From what I read, Tex gave a proposal to every team, and if that team took the proposal, he'd sign. The Red Sox thought he was bluffing, and he ended up with the Yankees. Again, I'm not sure of this, no one can be, but it's my guess.

Now they have an opportunity to make investments in players they want (Lackey) and have thus used their NEW FOUND revenue increases to make those moves.

You call me a ****? What are these "NEW FOUND" revenue streams? Oh yeah...I know. The Red Sox just cut 50 million from last year's payroll. Plus..when you go to Fenway, it's been completely torn down, and rebuilt as an EXACT replica of the old-stadium. In fact, they've done such a great job, they even make everything look like it's 100 years old..just like old Fenway! How could we not have known? My mistake folks, I admit it! How could I not have realized?

 

Word of advice...don't trust your doctor when he tells you an eight inch long thermometer is needed to take your temperature rectally.

[a700hitter]

How can you be over-paid when you're more productive than many OF's who make more money than you do?

 

Honest question.

My point is how does an underrated player get a contract of 5years/$70 million. Someone must be noticing. We can debate whether or not he's overpaid. I lean towards that he is overpaid, but not grossly. He is certainly not a value contract. I am not looking to argua about this, because i was glad that the Sox signed him, and I am glad that he is on the team.

[Dipre]

Whatever dude...buy what they tell you. You have proven more than anyone that you can't think for yourself, and have to be told what to believe.

 

I didn't include Tex because...he wasn't signed by you. Explain how their revenue increases, but payroll decreases over three years. I hope you enjoyed padding their profits, fool.

 

Failed to address a single of his points.

 

Especially next year when they claim that they can't afford to resign Beckett.

 

And you know this how?

 

The only reason Tex is a Yankee is, in my mind, because Henry f***ed up. However, no one will ever prove it one way or the other. Would you rather have Tex or Lackey and Cameron? I think it's obvious. From what I read, Tex gave a proposal to every team, and if that team took the proposal, he'd sign. The Red Sox thought he was bluffing, and he ended up with the Yankees. Again, I'm not sure of this, no one can be, but it's my guess.

 

You admit you don't know what you're talking about in this instance, but try to use it as part of your argument. Interesting.

 

You call me a ****? What are these "NEW FOUND" revenue streams? Oh yeah...I know. The Red Sox just cut 50 million from last year's payroll. Plus..when you go to Fenway, it's been completely torn down, and rebuilt as an EXACT replica of the old-stadium. In fact, they've done such a great job, they even make everything look like it's 100 years old..just like old Fenway! How could we not have known? My mistake folks, I admit it! How could I not have realized?

 

You obviously don't know the difference between payroll and player expenses though.

 

Word of advice...don't trust your doctor when he tells you an eight inch long thermometer is needed to take your temperature rectally.

 

Pretty sure this has only happened to you.

[ORS]

Word of advice...don't trust your doctor when he tells you an eight inch long thermometer is needed to take your temperature rectally.

Speaking from experience?

[Dipre]

My point is how does an underrated player get a contract of 5years/$70 million. Someone must be noticing. We can debate whether or not he's overpaid. I lean towards that he is overpaid' date=' but not grossly. He is certainly not a value contract. I am not looking to argua about this, because i was glad that the Sox signed him, and I am glad that he is on the team.[/quote']

 

Fair enough, your argument is sensible.

[Gom]

This is why i used the sentence "Player expenses" in the first place' date=' which he conveniently chose to ignore.[/quote']

 

I don't choose to ignore it...it's just inconsequential.

 

Here...

 

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/rev330700.gif

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/exp330700.gif

 

What do you see, class?

 

Theat the Red Sox, starting in 2006, have decreased, increased, decreased, and this year will probably increase. All the while, their revenues increased.

 

The Red Sox have become more profitable, that's for sure. Has their team improved with the level of their revenue over the last three years? No. That's what you guys should ask.

 

I realize, for many of you, hating the Yankees is in your blood. Fine. However, some of this venom should be directed at your FO. They are, after all, fooling you into believing they can't compete with the Yankees. Again, I'm not saying that they can compete dollar for dollar. They sure can compete at a rate better than 60 cents on the dollar, which is what they did the last two years according to payroll.

[Dipre]

I don't choose to ignore it...it's just inconsequential.

 

Here...

 

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/rev330700.gif

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/exp330700.gif

 

What do you see, class?

 

Theat the Red Sox, starting in 2006, have decreased, increased, decreased, and this year will probably increase. All the while, their revenues increased.

 

The Red Sox have become more profitable, that's for sure. Has their team improved with the level of their revenue over the last three years? No.

 

Your point being?

 

Did you take the chance to check the other 29 teams in baseball?

 

Including the Yankees?

 

Starting at 2007, the Yankees have had increase and decrease fluctuations as well.

 

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/exp334613.gif

 

Notice something familiar?

[Rdsxmbnt]

Whatever dude...buy what they tell you. You have proven more than anyone that you can't think for yourself, and have to be told what to believe.

 

I didn't include Tex because...he wasn't signed by you. Explain how their revenue increases, but payroll decreases over three years. I hope you enjoyed padding their profits, fool.

 

Especially next year when they claim that they can't afford to resign Beckett.

 

The only reason Tex is a Yankee is, in my mind, because Henry f***ed up. However, no one will ever prove it one way or the other. Would you rather have Tex or Lackey and Cameron? I think it's obvious. From what I read, Tex gave a proposal to every team, and if that team took the proposal, he'd sign. The Red Sox thought he was bluffing, and he ended up with the Yankees. Again, I'm not sure of this, no one can be, but it's my guess.

 

You're right, no one except those in the front offices really knows what happened. But until anyone ever finds out you can't go around painting a picture that this is all on the Red Sox FO and then try to justify why we should all be upset.

 

You call me a ****? What are these "NEW FOUND" revenue streams? Oh yeah...I know. The Red Sox just cut 50 million from last year's payroll. Plus..when you go to Fenway, it's been completely torn down, and rebuilt as an EXACT replica of the old-stadium. In fact, they've done such a great job, they even make everything look like it's 100 years old..just like old Fenway! How could we not have known? My mistake folks, I admit it! How could I not have realized?

 

If you haven't noticed revenues across MLB have been increasing and the Red Sox are no exception. Again dispute the fact that a reputable source has shown a large increase in revenue across the 07-09 span.

 

Word of advice...don't trust your doctor when he tells you an eight inch long thermometer is needed to take your temperature rectally.

 

Sure thing Gom

[a700hitter]

I don't choose to ignore it...it's just inconsequential.

 

Here...

 

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/rev330700.gif

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/exp330700.gif

 

What do you see, class?

 

Theat the Red Sox, starting in 2006, have decreased, increased, decreased, and this year will probably increase. All the while, their revenues increased.

 

The Red Sox have become more profitable, that's for sure. Has their team improved with the level of their revenue over the last three years? No.

I think this is a very good point. The Red Sox while not as profitable as the Yankees, they are bringing in more revenue every year. I have always said that the Sox ownership knows how to create and maximize income streams. The increase in revenue year over year is staggeringly successful. In that time revenue has increased 77%. Payroll has increase 38% over the same period.

[Dipre]

I think this is a very good point. The Red Sox while not as profitable as the Yankees' date=' they are bringing in more revenue every year. I have always said that the Sox ownership knows how to create and maximize income streams. The increase in revenue year over year is staggeringly successful. In that time revenue has increased 77%. Payroll has increase 38% over the same period.[/quote']

 

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/exp334613.gif

 

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/rev334613.gif

 

The Yankees have extremely similar fluctuations with a steadily increasing revenue as well.

 

This point holds no water.

[a700hitter]

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/exp334613.gif

 

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/rev334613.gif

 

The Yankees have extremely similar fluctuations with a steadily increasing revenue as well.

 

nThis point holds no water.

I think the player's union looks at this type of data. If they see revenue growing without player payrolls keeping pace, that would be a major issue for negotiations.

[Dipre]

I think the player's union looks at this type of data. If they see revenue growing without player payrolls keeping pace' date=' that would be a major issue for negotiations.[/quote']

 

Payrolls do keep pace. But there are year-to-year fluctuations for every team, including the Yankees. The charts accurately express this for both teams.

[a700hitter]

Payrolls do keep pace. But there are year-to-year fluctuations for every team' date=' including the Yankees. The charts accurately express this for both teams.[/quote']I was too lazy to add the year over year fluctuations in payroll, but I think if you did there would be even a bigger disparity between revenue increases and Increases in payroll. I am not saying that the Yankees don't have a similar chart, but the point is that with our increasing revenues that are clearly outstripping the growth of payroll and expenses, the FO has the $ to make a bigger splash than the Lackey acquistion. I'm not saying that they could make three signings like the Yankees did last year, but they could get Holliday or Bay without a problem.

[Dipre]

I was too lazy to add the year over year fluctuations in payroll' date=' but I think if you did there would be even a bigger disparity between revenue increases and Increases in payroll. I am not saying that the Yankees don't have a similar chart, but the point is that with our increasing revenues that are clearly outstripping the growth of payroll and expenses, the FO has the $ to make a bigger splash than the Lackey acquistion. I'm not saying that they could make three signings like the Yankees did last year, but they could get Holliday or Bay without a problem.[/quote']

 

The problem in this case was Bay's greed.

 

They didn't want to guarantee a 5th year for Bay, they assign value to players, and stick to it. That's doing good business. They also offered Holliday a deal, but you and i both know that the Sox FO is better off not dicking around with Boras, lest they be caught with their pants down.

 

Also, the offseason is not over, all they need to do is get a 1st/3B, sort out the bench, maybe add a bullpen arm and we're done.

 

If you want more than that, then i don't know what to tell you.

[a700hitter]

The problem in this case was Bay's greed.

 

They didn't want to guarantee a 5th year for Bay, they assign value to players, and stick to it. That's doing good business. They also offered Holliday a deal, but you and i both know that the Sox FO is better off not dicking around with Boras, lest they be caught with their pants down.

 

Also, the offseason is not over, all they need to do is get a 1st/3B, sort out the bench, maybe add a bullpen arm and we're done.

 

If you want more than that, then i don't know what to tell you.

If a team gives him the 5th year, then that is the market for Bay. The Sox could afford to pay him the market rate. The increase in ticket rates would have paid for the 5th year.

[Dipre]

If a team give him the 5th year' date=' then that is the market for Bay. The Sox could afford to pay him the market rate.[/quote']

 

They're concerned about his knees and shoulder. The concerns are legit.

 

Here's the problem:

 

Suppose they secure the fifth year. Bay breaks down after the third year of the contract. Then people will be pulling their hair out going "What the f*** was the FO thinking!!!!!???" just like they're doing with Lowell right now. I don't care about the money, and probably neither does the FO, the hold up is the unlikelihood of him producing and staying healthy for the length of a 5 year contract.

 

Teams have access to a bevy of information we don't. And from the limited information i've seen, almost everyone agrees on two things:

 

1) Bay won't be able to be a regular OF for much longer.

 

2) He's an injury risk, because he has balky knees and a balky shoulder.

 

Last year's production is not the only thing the FO needs to consider before making a signing of that magnitude. In a perfect world, they'd pry Holliday away from the Cards, but there's the Boras factor.

[a700hitter]

The problem in this case was Bay's greed.

 

They didn't want to guarantee a 5th year for Bay, they assign value to players, and stick to it. That's doing good business. They also offered Holliday a deal, but you and i both know that the Sox FO is better off not dicking around with Boras, lest they be caught with their pants down.

 

Also, the offseason is not over, all they need to do is get a 1st/3B, sort out the bench, maybe add a bullpen arm and we're done.

 

If you want more than that, then i don't know what to tell you.

What I wanted the team to do was improve their pitching and batting order from last season. They have improved one and taken a step back on the other. I don't understand why they would do that. I am hoping that they are not done making moves, because these moves make no sense to me if they are done. They have improved the pitching, but they are going to support that pitching with an inconsistent offense?

[Dipre]

What I wanted the team to do was improve their pitching and batting order from last season. They have improved one and taken a step back on the other. I don't understand why they would do that. I am hoping that they are not done making moves' date=' because these moves make no sense to me if they are done. They have improved the pitching, but they are going to support that pitching with an inconsistent offense?[/quote']

 

Read above.

 

And, i'm pretty sure the offense will see improvement. If it's before or during the season is what remains to be seen.

[a700hitter]

They're concerned about his knees and shoulder. The concerns are legit.

 

Here's the problem:

 

Suppose they secure the fifth year. Bay breaks down after the third year of the contract. Then people will be pulling their hair outs going "What the f*** was the FO thinking!!!!!???" just like they're doing with Lowell right now. I don't care about the money, and probably neither does the FO, the hold up is the unlikelihood of him producing and staying healthy for the length of a 5 year contract.

 

I will not be complaining if we get 3 solid years out of him. By 2013, if he can't play the field, he can probably DH, because Ortiz will probably be sitting under a mango tree by 2013.

[Dipre]

I will not be complaining if we get 3 solid years out of him. By 2013' date=' if he can't play the field, he can probably DH, because Ortiz will probably be sitting under a mango tree by 2013.[/quote']

 

You can say that now, but if they're hooked for 15 mill for a DH with below average production and who can barely stay healthy, you'll turn on the FO so fast, we'll need a good chiropractor to treat your whiplash.

[ORS]

You can say that now' date=' but if they're hooked for 15 mill for a DH with below average production and who can barely stay healthy, you'll turn on the FO so fast, we'll need a good chiropractor to treat your whiplash.[/quote']

No only that, but he'll be calling for them to spend whatever it takes to replace him, thus repeating the cycle.

 

I have some issues with the evaluation this FO has for certain players, but I do not have issues with their aversion to the big/long stinker contract. Those things are trecherous to an organization when they blow up.

[a700hitter]

You can say that now' date=' but if they're hooked for 15 mill for a DH with below average production and who can barely stay healthy, you'll turn on the FO so fast, we'll need a good chiropractor to treat your whiplash.[/quote']Don't tell me that you are going to turn into one of those posters who is going to tell me what I will think. Say it ain't so.

 

The Dice K investment IMO is turning out to be a bust, but it was the right move at the time. I haven't crucified the FO for this move. The Lowell signing was a bad move, but i was glad when the re-signed him. I'm not crucifying the FO for it. Even if I did turn on the FO, would it matter. Do they care what we think? Anyway, I'm not a hypocrite that says sign the guy and then jump on them if it doesn't turn out. They need a hitter. I don't buy the theory that one can be picked up during the season (a la VMart). I don't think an elite hitter will be much cheaper come July than they would be now. If the FO is not certain they will need a big bopper, I'm going on record here and now that they do need one. When Tito with his Tek love and Kotchman crush sends out a lineup once or twice a week where the bottom of the order is:

 

6. Cameron

7. Kotchman

8. Scutaro

9. Varitek,

 

you are going to want to throw your TV out the window.

[Dipre]

Don't tell me that you are going to turn into one of those posters who is going to tell me what I will think. Say it ain't so.

 

The Dice K investment IMO is turning out to be a bust, but it was the right move at the time. I haven't crucified the FO for this move. The Lowell signing was a bad move, but i was glad when the re-signed him. I'm not crucifying the FO for it. Even if I did turn on the FO, would it matter. Do they care what we think? Anyway, I'm not a hypocrite that says sign the guy and then jump on them if it doesn't turn out. They need a hitter. I don't buy the theory that one can be picked up during the season (a la VMart). I don't think an elite hitter will be much cheaper come July than they would be now. If the FO is not certain they will need a big bopper, I'm going on record here and now that they do need one. When Tito with his Tek love and Kotchman crush sends out a lineup once or twice a week where the bottom of the order is:

 

6. Cameron

7. Kotchman

8. Scutaro

9. Varitek,

 

you are going to want to throw your TV out the window.

 

I'm not telling you what you think.

 

I'm stating a fact. Because it's something i've done before, and it's something we all do. I was ready to crucify the FO of they let Lowell walk and tried to pursue A-Rod or something. I wanted them to sign Lowell at all costs, and now i can't wait for them to get rid of him. Sometimes, the long-term commitment is not worth the short-term gain. We both know this very well.

[a700hitter]

I'm not telling you what you think.

 

I'm stating a fact. Because it's something i've done before, and it's something we all do. I was ready to crucify the FO of they let Lowell walk and tried to pursue A-Rod or something. I wanted them to sign Lowell at all costs, and now i can't wait for them to get rid of him. Sometimes, the long-term commitment is not worth the short-term gain. We both know this very well.

Some contracts can be real killers, like Lugo. I don't think that a 5th year of Bay would be a terrible thing, especially since they are offering 4. In 4 years, the team will have oodles more money, so it will not cripple them. They have the resources to get Holliday or Bay without crippling the team financially. They would still be extremely profitable, and neither would sacrifice the future. They convinced themselves that they may not need another hitter. It's not about that they can't afford it. It's about them thinking they don't need a big bat. You and I think otherwise. Their "we don't want to sacrifice the future" argument doesn't fly here, because these guys would only cost $. Gonzalez would put a hurt on the farm system. I think this FO is great, but like all businessmen, they spin some ********. The "not sacrificing the future" excuse is BS here, because there are FA options. I've noticed that they have actually stayed away from the "we can't afford it" excuse this winter, because they know that it has been exposed as BS. They are taking the tact that they don't need a big bat, but if they do they'll pick one up during the season. This is a typical cop-out used by Front Offices all through baseball. Minaya has been floating that line to the Met fans for 3 or 4 years already. The Met fans caught on last year. My friend calls it the Met spin cycle. The "we will fill in our team as needed during the season" will be followed by nothing major being done at the trading deadline with the cover story that other teams "wanted too much, and we don't want to sacrifice the future." This is nothing new. Fans all over baseball hear this BS. Our owners engage in the same stuff, but so do the Yankees. Because the Sox and the Yankees have a lot of revenue, they engage in it less often than most teams. We both think the Sox need a big bat, and we both know that they can afford it. Is Bay at 5 years so much more of an injury risk than Lackey at 5 years. He's been injured in each of the last 2 seasons, but we both like that deal... right?