2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[iortiz]

I wouldn't necessarily say its sugarcoating it. This team simply has so much talent on it. This team is one of the winningest teams over the last decade. 2011 sucked' date=' and we all have to accept that. But it doesn't make a guy largely responsible for two WS rings and many playoff runs a bad GM. Even if he is a B-, that's still above average. [b']And it doesn't make the Red Sox a bad team either[/b]...

 

Sure 2003-2009 you can grade them with a 9.5/10.

But, 2009-2011, Boston Red Sox Baseball should be graded with no more than a 6.0/10.

2011, 4.0/10

Overall, you can grade 'em with a 7.5-8.0/10 if you want and sure, it is above the average but still below in order to call them successful, according with our payroll vs expectations. All teams should always grade at least 8.5-9.0/10 in order to call them successful teams/season, but DO NOT FORGET, ACCORDING with their PAYROLL VS. EXPECTATIONS

 

This is what I'm talking about. .

 

they still could win another ring in the next three years, and absolutely no one would be surprised.

 

We'll see. I hope so.

[iortiz]

iortiz' date=' you said it all in much less time that I did, but like 700 and I, I'll wager that you didn't enjoy posting that any more than we did ours. The season made us all feel rotten, especially when you consider how optimistic and buoyed up we were going into Spring Training. If ever there was an under achieving team, the 2011 Red Sox were it.[/quote']

 

You waged well.

 

You probably have noticed that some of us (A700, SCM33, SoxSports, Ted101, Pumpsie, BPEF, jung, etc.) do not sugar coat this team that much, but we care about this team as well.

[seabeachfred]

The problem with the sugar coaters and the rest of us is that we have to avoid making it personal. If only all of us understand that we are Red Sox fans first and foremost, then I think mutual respect will follow. Other boards have been crushed by these kinds of arguments. Frankly, I would like to put this season behind and way back in my rear view mirror but until I see some action and have something to cheer me up this sour taste of 2011 will most likely stick with me as well as those you mentioned in your post. I happen to know Pumpsie personally and we are good friends. You can bet your last dime that he is in a lather over what happened this season. Soon as Cherington starts making moves we can see for ourselves if those are the moves that will make us all smile next season.

[User Name]

The problem with the sugar coaters and the rest of us is that we have to avoid making it personal.

 

And calling other posters "sugar coaters" is an excellent way to institute respect around here. Kudos.

 

The sense of entitlement of some posters here is incredible. (Not directed at you, although you were the one i quoted).

[User Name]

Sure 2003-2009 you can grade them with a 9.5/10.

But, 2009-2011, Boston Red Sox Baseball should be graded with no more than a 6.0/10.

2011, 4.0/10

Overall, you can grade 'em with a 7.5-8.0/10 if you want and sure, it is above the average but still below in order to call them successful, according with our payroll vs expectations. All teams should always grade at least 8.5-9.0/10 in order to call them successful teams/season, but DO NOT FORGET, ACCORDING with their PAYROLL VS. EXPECTATIONS

 

This is what I'm talking about. .

 

 

 

We'll see. I hope so.

 

I love how you use the "Payroll vs expectations" argument but forget to mention the "difficulty of league and division" to your argument.

 

Please, be objective.

[seabeachfred]

And calling other posters "sugar coaters" is an excellent way to institute respect around here. Kudos.

 

The sense of entitlement of some posters here is incredible. (Not directed at you, although you were the one i quoted).

 

User Name---No offense intended; perhaps the eternal optimists would have been name for that group. Hell, I just got back on this board a month ago and I still am feeling my way through trying to size up who is who. And who the entitlement people you're talking about I don't know either. Thanks, though, for the heads-up U.N.

[User Name]

User Name---No offense intended; perhaps the eternal optimists would have been name for that group. Hell' date=' I just got back on this board a month ago and I still am feeling my way through trying to size up who is who. And who the entitlement people you're talking about I don't know either. Thanks, though, for the heads-up U.N.[/quote']

 

No need for naming names.

 

But either way, "sugar-coaters" sounds like an insult. Optimists does sound better.

[iortiz]

I love how you use the "Payroll vs expectations" argument but forget to mention the "difficulty of league and division" to your argument.

 

Please, be objective.

 

I thought it was implicit. Yes, add that too. It doesn't change my argument. How many series have we won vs. TB the last 5 years?

[Palodios]

No need for naming names.

 

But either way, "sugar-coaters" sounds like an insult. Optimists does sound better.

 

I've been using the terms "Optimists" and "Realists". The unfortunate problem is that there are actually three groups, the optimists, realists, and pessimists, but the pessimists have decided to clump themselves in with the realists, so it can get confusing at times.

 

The optimists and pessimists generally never agree, and both sides will agree with the realists from time to time. It may sound like there are conflicts, but for the most part, it just keeps things more interesting.

[a700hitter]

I've been using the terms "Optimists" and "Realists". The unfortunate problem is that there are actually three groups, the optimists, realists, and pessimists, but the pessimists have decided to clump themselves in with the realists, so it can get confusing at times.

 

The optimists and pessimists generally never agree, and both sides will agree with the realists from time to time. It may sound like there are conflicts, but for the most part, it just keeps things more interesting.

There are two groups-- those who have accurately and correctly assessed the situation and what needs to be done and those who have incorrectly assessed the situation and what needs to be done. There are those who are right and those who are wrong. It has nothing to do with optimism, pessimism etc.

[Palodios]

There are two groups-- those who have accurately and correctly assessed the situation and what needs to be done and those who have incorrectly assessed the situation and what needs to be done. There are those who are right and those who are wrong. It has nothing to do with optimism' date=' pessimism etc.[/quote']

 

So by this logic, both the pessimists and optimists are wrong?

[Elktonnick]

I've been using the terms "Optimists" and "Realists". The unfortunate problem is that there are actually three groups, the optimists, realists, and pessimists, but the pessimists have decided to clump themselves in with the realists, so it can get confusing at times.

 

The optimists and pessimists generally never agree, and both sides will agree with the realists from time to time. It may sound like there are conflicts, but for the most part, it just keeps things more interesting.

 

Back in the day, no red sox fan was anything but a pessimist who called themselves realists. The attitude if you recall was "They killed my grandfather, my father and now they are coming for me!" 2004 changed that ...for now:D

[a700hitter]

So by this logic' date=' both the pessimists and optimists are wrong?[/quote']Well, those who are deciding who fits in which category are probably also wrong.

[jung]

I can honestly say I was not that optimistic at the start but not because I had some crystal ball vision or something like that...it was just the opposite. The Crawford deal really threw me for a loop. I just could not come to grips with how that big a deal could just fall from the sky like that and everything just went off axis for me at that point. Then the national media had jumped all over the Sox as the hands down favorites which I always view as worth at least a Sports Illustrated Cover in bad luck.

[jacksonianmarch]

The crazy thing about this offseason is that they could potentially revamp this team pretty significantly or they could keep it intact. With the FAs they have and the problems that finished the season, it would be interesting to see either extreme. It's impossible to predict until the first domino falls.

[User Name]

I thought it was implicit. Yes' date=' add that too. It doesn't change my argument. [b']How many series have we won vs. TB the last 5 years?[/b]

 

Irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

[User Name]

So by this logic' date=' both the pessimists and optimists are wrong?[/quote']

 

I like your style.

[iortiz]

Irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

 

sorry, but I don't see where I am not objective.

 

what is your point?

[a700hitter]

Back in the day' date=' no red sox fan was anything but a pessimist who called themselves realists. The attitude if you recall was "They killed my grandfather, my father and now they are coming for me!" 2004 changed that ...for now:D[/quote']:lol: This is very funny. Thanks for the laugh.

[jung]

700 and Elk,

 

I get a kick out of remembering how intense the Yankee/Sox rivalry was in the seventies. Not saying it was not a bit overboard because in truth it was but you really did have to steel yourself for some abuse going to Yankee Stadium as a Red Sox fan and I know we did not make Yankee fans feel welcome here.

 

I got to go to both places in the 60's as well but it was not anything like the 70's rivalry at least I don't remember it as such.

[iortiz]

First off gentlemen, We have to make to ourselves the next questions before go and sign/trade someone.

 

1.- Who is under our control? How long are they committed?

2.- Who do we want to keep? What are their career/last 3 year/last year numbers?

3.- What should we do with those who we do not want to keep? Trade? Eat their contracts? Mix? What?

4.- What do we need?, again, not what do we want? but What do we REALLY damn need?, in other words, what has been killing this team the last three years and we haven't fulfilled?

5.- How much is our budget? Do we want to go over the luxury tax cap? If yes? How much?

6.- What are we dispose to give up or how much do we want to invest in order to fill our real needs (you just can't win 'em all, this is business, you have to give up something in order to get what you really need (cash or players))

7.- Once answered the above, who is ready in our farm? No one? what is available in the market? What are their numbers/cost? What the player/agent/team want in order to sign/trade?

8.- What else is the nice to have? Do we still have the resources (after get what we really need)

 

I don't have the accurate data for the 1st, 5th, 7th questions, somebody?

 

Ok, here the first answer according to BBR

 

1.- Adrian Gonzalez 5 yrs/$15M (07-11),7 yrs/$154M (12-18)

2.- Carl Crawford 7 yrs/$142M (11-17)

3.- John Lackey 5 yrs/$82.5M (10-14) & 15 vesting option

4.-Josh Beckett 4 yrs/$68M (11-14)

5.- Daisuke Matsuzaka 6 yrs/$52M (07-12)

6.- Kevin Youkilis 4 yrs/$41.13M (09-12) & 13 team option

7.- Dustin Pedroia 6 yrs/$40.5M (09-14) & 15 team option

8.- Clay Buchholz 5 yrs/$30.5M (11-15) & 16-17 team option

9.- Jon Lester 5 yrs/$30M (09-13) & 14 team option

10.- Marco Scutaro 3 yrs/$17M (10-12)

11.- Jose Iglesias 4 yrs/$14.24M (10-13)

12.- Bobby Jenks 2 yrs/$12M (11-12)

13.- Jacoby Ellsbury ARB-2,3 (12,13) FA (14)

14.- Junichi Tazawa Pre AB-2 (12) ARB (13-16)

15.- Hideki Okajima ARB (12,13) FA (14)

16.- Matt Albers ARB (12,13) FA (14)

17.- Jarrod Saltalamacchia ARB (12,13) FA (14)

18.- Alfredo Aceves ARB (12-14) FA (15)

19.- Mike Aviles ARB (12-14) FA (15)

20.- Daniel Bard ARB (12-15) FA (16)

21.- Darnell McDonald PreARB (12) ARB (13-15) FA (16)

22.- Jed Lowrie ARB (12-14) FA (15)

23.- Franklin Morales ARB (12-14) FA (15)

24.- Felix Doubront PreARB (12,14) ARB (15-17) FA(18)

 

Signed Players With Guaranteed Contracts (does not include players with options) 12

Dollars Committed Value of Guaranteed Contracts (no options are exercised and includes buyouts) $126.7M

Arb Eligible Number of arbitration eligible players (1st-2nd-3rd-4th, "Arb" players = 3rds) 6-3-1-0

Arb Costs Rough estimated value of all arbitration cases (uses 3-year averages for 1st yr, 2nd,..) $31.5M

Other Players Additional Players Needed to Fill 25-man (no options exercised) 3

Other Costs Estimate of Remaining Players Costs (based on 1-year avg of all pre-arb players) $2.17M

Payroll (options) Est. Total Payroll w/ Options (Guaranteed + Options + Arb + Other) $160.4M

 

To be continued...

[example1]

The problem with the sugar coaters and the rest of us is that we have to avoid making it personal. If only all of us understand that we are Red Sox fans first and foremost' date=' then I think mutual respect will follow. Other boards have been crushed by these kinds of arguments. Frankly, I would like to put this season behind and way back in my rear view mirror but until I see some action and have something to cheer me up this sour taste of 2011 will most likely stick with me as well as those you mentioned in your post. I happen to know Pumpsie personally and we are good friends. You can bet your last dime that he is in a lather over what happened this season. Soon as Cherington starts making moves we can see for ourselves if those are the moves that will make us all smile next season.[/quote']

 

I feel like I've had to talk the "realists" off the end of the cliff for the past month, despite the many, many things this team has going for it.

 

The only thing real in your assessment is the amount of pain and suffering you have obviously been through. I'm truly sorry for you that the loss of a team with 180m payroll was such a huge loss for you. I felt the pain too, but perhaps I'm just missing how watching replays of 2004 every night puts you in some "real" camp with those of us who are able to see the forest for the trees.

 

Among the best teams in baseball. Owned the Yankees. Had underperformances and injuries but still managed to get a boatload of wins despite an epic collapse.

 

Does the collapse make me happy? No. Am I so stupid as to think that the flaws displayed during the initial 12 game shithole and the September collapse are accurate reflections of the actual talent on this club? No.

 

Call yourself 'realist' all you want. It's pessimist or catastrophizer to me. That doesn't involve any sugar coating, merely perspective.

[jung]

I am not sure the question about the Luxury Tax is the right question. It is not a question of our opinion with regard to whether we should bust it or not. The issue is whether or not the Sox will be willing to bust the luxury tax.

 

The Sox worked for four years to climb back off the 40% tax rate they had earned in the effort to win the 2007 WS. They have worked very hard at this and while they were one of only two teams that paid the tax for the 2010 year, they paid at the much lower 22.5% rate because they were below the threshold for both 2008 and 2009. Having avoided the tax for 2011 if they do have to pay the tax for 2012 it will again be at the 22.5% rate. However I do not believe that the Sox think it is fiscally responsible for them to pay that tax.

 

The Yanks have themselves in a situation now where they pay at the 40% rate and they would have to be below the threshold for two consecutive years to get back down to the 22.5% rate again in a 3rd year. However they generate far more revenue than the Sox generate, so much so that much more of it gets to their bottom line. In other words, while they are paying upwards of $18M per year in luxury tax, they are more able to afford it. While it might make sense for the Sox to break it for one year because as long as they miss a year in between as they did in 2011 having paid at the 22.5% rate in 2010, they would pay at the 22.5% rate again in 2012. However if you bust the tax two years in a row you are up to the 30% rate and that gets to be really painful. Another year on top of that and you are back to 40% again.

 

So you have two issues to deal with in this case. First, I do not believe the Sox think it is fiscally responsible for them to bust the tax in any year particularly since their revenue growth has been weak lately contributing to a very thin bottom line. That is how I read the very real efforts they have made to avoid the tax since the 2007 WS year. Second with some very serious SP hitting the FA market next year if you are going to bust the tax it would appear to make more sense to risk doing so in 2013 so that whatever monies you spend your worst case tax rate would be 22.5%. If MLB continues to operate the tax the same way the threshold should be higher in 2013 than it will be in 2012 as well.

[BSN07]

My .02 here. I was upset they fell apart in Septemeber. s*** happens and no matter how upset I get or how many heads rolled down Yawkey way, it's not going to change the fact the fell apart. So by about day 2 of the playoffs I was over it and already looking ahead to next season. I haven't been around in awhile but I consider myself one of the diehards. I just made a choice awhile ago that no matter how they finish I'm not going to let it effect me for the whole winter. Winter sucks enough as it is without being depressed about the Sox not winning the WS or making the playoffs or whatever

[iortiz]

I am not sure the question about the Luxury Tax is the right question. It is not a question of our opinion with regard to whether we should bust it or not. The issue is whether or not the Sox will be willing to bust the luxury tax.

 

The Sox worked for four years to climb back off the 40% tax rate they had earned in the effort to win the 2007 WS. They have worked very hard at this and while they were one of only two teams that paid the tax for the 2010 year, they paid at the much lower 22.5% rate because they were below the threshold for both 2008 and 2009. Having avoided the tax for 2011 if they do have to pay the tax for 2012 it will again be at the 22.5% rate. However I do not believe that the Sox think it is fiscally responsible for them to pay that tax.

 

The Yanks have themselves in a situation now where they pay at the 40% rate and they would have to be below the threshold for two consecutive years to get back down to the 22.5% rate again in a 3rd year. However they generate far more revenue than the Sox generate, so much so that much more of it gets to their bottom line. In other words, while they are paying upwards of $18M per year in luxury tax, they are more able to afford it. While it might make sense for the Sox to break it for one year because as long as they miss a year in between as they did in 2011 having paid at the 22.5% rate in 2010, they would pay at the 22.5% rate again in 2012. However if you bust the tax two years in a row you are up to the 30% rate and that gets to be really painful. Another year on top of that and you are back to 40% again.

 

So you have two issues to deal with in this case. First, I do not believe the Sox think it is fiscally responsible for them to bust the tax in any year particularly since their revenue growth has been weak lately contributing to a very thin bottom line. That is how I read the very real efforts they have made to avoid the tax since the 2007 WS year. Second with some very serious SP hitting the FA market next year if you are going to bust the tax it would appear to make more sense to risk doing so in 2013 so that whatever monies you spend your worst case tax rate would be 22.5%. If MLB continues to operate the tax the same way the threshold should be higher in 2013 than it will be in 2012 as well.

 

Well, in the end, it is just an exercise that will deliver a subjective result but I'm just trying to put some aspects in order to predict what could likely happen. I hope you can help me.

 

1. What is your call about Boston's 2012 luxury tax? Do you think that they overpass it or not?

 

2. On the other hand, if they decide to eat Jenks, D-K, and Lackey contracts (30 M/2012, yes, unlikely), this could be another via in order to have room and sign the SP and our other needs and do not go over the luxury cap, right?

 

3.- What would be the money-balance between eating Jenks and D-K contracts and paying the 2012 luxry tax if they finish with a 200 M payroll? 16 vs 22, right?

[User Name]

If they "eat" the contracts, they would still be counted against the 2012 luxury tax.

[iortiz]

If they "eat" the contracts' date=' they would still be counted against the 2012 luxury tax.[/quote']

 

Really? I didn't know that. I thought that we would get some room in our books and do not overpass the luxury tax cap If we eat their contracts, my bad.

[User Name]

Really? I didn't know that. I thought that we could get some room in our books and do not overpass the tax cap.

 

They'd have to trade them, with whatever amount the receiving team is on the hook for coming off the luxury tax.

 

One thing to note is that after Lackey had surgery, the clause on his contract immediately activated, meaning his AAV drops from 17 mil to 13.83 mill.

[iortiz]

They'd have to trade them, with whatever amount the receiving team is on the hook for coming off the luxury tax.

 

One thing to note is that after Lackey had surgery, the clause on his contract immediately activated, meaning his AAV drops from 17 mil to 13.83 mill.

 

Let me understand this, You mean that they gonna pay him in 2012 13 Million Dollars even if he doesn't play?

[User Name]

Let me understand this' date=' You mean that they gonna pay him in 2012 13 Million Dollars even if he doesn't play?[/quote']

 

The problem here is, that they (from what i have read) have insurance on his contract, meaning a significant amount of that money (or all of it) is covered by said insurance. That said, those 13.83 million still count towards the salary tax calculation.