2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[Emmz]

Then why is he getting TJ surgery?

 

TJ surgery can make your arm stronger, for what it's worth, and how is that relevant to 2010, where he was putting up career averages from what was it, June through the end of the season? He also pitched the last two years in full.

 

Weren't the problems in LAA with his shoulder?

[a700hitter]

TJ surgery can make your arm stronger, for what it's worth, and how is that relevant to 2010, where he was putting up career averages from what was it, June through the end of the season? He also pitched the last two years in full.

 

Weren't the problems in LAA with his shoulder?

I thought he had elbow problems in LA.

[Bellhorn04]

I thought the issue was always that 'Lackey was paid like an ace even though he's not one'.

 

Buehrle is being paid like an ace by those same standards, and he's not.

 

As crazy as it seems $15 million a year isn't ace money anymore. It's #2 money. Burnett, D-Lowe, Lackey, now Buehrle, all getting that much. Ace money is 22 million plus-Sabathia, Santana, Cliff Lee. That 50% more than $15 million...incredible.

[Emmz]

I think that we agreed that SPs is what usually make these days, didn't we?

 

54/4... For that guy, regardless is not prone to injuries seems fair to me Emmz.

 

are they overpaid?, IMO baseball players, all of them are overpaid, they make tons of money

 

I agree, but would you really want to pay 15M a year for what Buehrle brings? I think you have to justify the contract the same way you'd have to justify Lackey's when he was first signed.

[User Name]

You can't say, on one hand, that the Sox need to start evaluating the way they invest their money on FA's because they keep making stupid signings, then in the same breath, ask them to make a four-year, 54 million dollar commitment on Mark Buehrle. It's either one or the other. Logic please.

 

And this is from someone who highly wanted Buehrle.

[jung]

That tells me that they are, in fact, willing to go over the cap, as Lucchino has stated before.

 

That may well be. However if they go over again this year I fear that they will doom themselves to several years of frugality in an effort to get back under again. The cap itself does not increase again until 2014. Next year is the year of the SP in FA market again. I don't see them going over by much and paying $.50 on the dollar in the process especially having established a record of the effort to get back under again after years when they believe they really have a shot, like the WS year.

 

In fact they have already established a pattern that is sensible. The issue has not been spending the money or when they spent the money. It is has been an issue of the players they have gotten for the money spent. The pattern has been to spend above the cap in years when they thought they had a real shot at going all the way and then working to get back under again. Since they are not the Yanks that to me is a very sensible way to deal with the LT, even more so now that the 1st year rate is lower and the 4th year rate is higher. They have not historically played this like the Yankees, going over every year either by a little or a lot and with their revenue line, I still think going over every year will hobble the Sox where it has not been an issue for the Yankees.

 

I do think there is more than an even chance that overarching much of this is JH looking to exit. I suspect his heart now skips a beat when he thinks about the monster payoff he will enjoy when he sells this team off.

[Emmz]

As crazy as it seems $15 million a year isn't ace money anymore. It's #2 money. Burnett' date=' D-Lowe, Lackey, now Buehrle, all getting that much. Ace money is 22 million plus-Sabathia, Santana, Cliff Lee. That 50% more than $15 million...incredible.[/quote']

 

Yes, I know this, but that wasn't the point. That's just what everyone keeps saying. Practically every SP makes at least 8M now.

[iortiz]

As crazy as it seems $15 million a year isn't ace money anymore. It's #2 money. Burnett' date=' D-Lowe, Lackey, now Buehrle, all getting that much. Ace money is 22 million plus-Sabathia, Santana, Cliff Lee. That 50% more than $15 million...incredible.[/quote']

 

And still, I would look at the length and the amount of the contract in order to label it as an ace one or not. Those pitchers you named among other players usually get 80/4+ contracts. Those contracts my friends are for reliable and solid aces.

 

Lackey, as we said wasn't an ace and was paid as one, Buehrle's contract is fair if you see the whole thing.

 

CJ's maybe was overpaid, maybe no... I see risks on that contract, but IMO he will be fine in LA.

[Emmz]

You can't say, on one hand, that the Sox need to start evaluating the way they invest their money on FA's because they keep making stupid signings, then in the same breath, ask them to make a four-year, 54 million dollar commitment on Mark Buehrle. It's either one or the other. Logic please.

 

And this is from someone who highly wanted Buehrle.

 

To make things clear, I wanted Buehrle too. But that's because I'm comfortable with overpaying if you get what was expected. I fully believe that he will live up to what he's expected to do, he's done it for like 10 years now consecutively. He's very solid.

 

I just don't get how the same people who bash the FO for committing too much money to busts could be in favor of it. And when they don't go for it, there's talk about how the FO is trying to fill a roster on the cheap, and they're not committed to winning, etc.

[jung]

Yes, I know this, but that wasn't the point. That's just what everyone keeps saying. Practically every SP makes at least 8M now.

 

Practically every starting pitcher that is out from under his initial major league contract that it. Makes developing pitching and not trading away your young pitching talent to bring in glitzy bats even more important than it has been in the past. Everything in baseball is pointing to teams needing to think hard about trading off young talent against aging stars. While that has really been the case for a long time now, it is becoming more and more painful for teams to ignore that basic principle.

[iortiz]

I agree' date=' but would you really want to pay 15M a year for what Buehrle brings? I think you have to justify the contract the same way you'd have to justify Lackey's when he was first signed.[/quote']

 

Let me put it this way and maybe we could agree again.

 

If Lackey had signed, let's say, 45-50/4 (considering that it was 2 Ys ago) I would have been agree, wouldn't you? IMO everybody would be fine with that.

[User Name]

To make things clear, I wanted Buehrle too. But that's because I'm comfortable with overpaying if you get what was expected. I fully believe that he will live up to what he's expected to do, he's done it for like 10 years now consecutively. He's very solid.

 

I just don't get how the same people who bash the FO for committing too much money to busts could be in favor of it. And when they don't go for it, there's talk about how the FO is trying to fill a roster on the cheap, and they're not committed to winning, etc.

 

Well what you would have expected from Buehrle was #4 starter production, specially on the latter two years of the deal. You can overpay, but you can't let it turn into an albatross, which may happen in the last year of the Buehrle contract.

[jung]

I just don't get how the same people who bash the FO for committing too much money to busts could be in favor of it. And when they don't go for it, there's talk about how the FO is trying to fill a roster on the cheap, and they're not committed to winning, etc.

 

I can see how some folks would and maybe are bashing the team for being a bit more frugal but I actually do not think that is the perspective for most. I think the view that is hard to swallow is the expectation that there is no penalty in spending trends when the money is spent poorly.

 

Sure FO people are let go. However if the expectation is that the Sox would continue to spend at the same rate simply because we want them to or because some of the people responsible for the signings are gone is unrealistic. In my view it is far more realistic to believe that ownership will require some level of frugality in response to a FO that has run amuck regardless of the fact that some heads have already rolled. Least we forget, this team was projected to lose money in 2011. No business is going to resign itself to losing money every year. That is a line that I suspect JH is not at all comfortable with especially when historically at least under his stewardship the club has been a printing press.

[Emmz]

Let me put it this way and maybe we could agree again.

 

If Lackey had signed, let's say, 45-50/4 (considering that it was 2 Ys ago) I would have been agree, wouldn't you? IMO everybody would be fine with that.

 

Yeah, I don't really like the idea of giving years to people in their 30s unless they're like Curt Schilling or Greg Maddux or something. I'd honestly prefer not to go with a 4 year deal on someone who's 32. I told you, I thought Lackey was like 2 years younger than he is though, I still didn't like giving 5 years to him.

 

The money isn't the issue, I think the Sox sort of had to overpay because he was the top pitcher on the market, and considering how quickly the cost of pitchers is going up, they gave him a deal that they maybe shouldn't have for years and for a couple million per year too much. After year one of the deal I thought he could live up to it all things considered, but instead he started to play like he did at the beginning of 2010, and never regained control.

[jung]

45-50/4 does sound like a reasonable number for Lackey even in retrospect. The problem with that however is that they went after Lackey in a FA year where Lackey was the best pitcher available. Insisting on taking the top guy always costs a premium. I would have preferred that they go after pitching in years where there is more pitching depth or as I have stated before resist the temptation to go after the top guy at every position in every FA market. Take the 2nd guy or even the 3rd guy. You will pay much less for the guys in those spots than you will for the guy that is sitting in the 1 hole in any given FA market. However taking the guy in the 1 hole bears a certain amount of marketing cache that the Sox have not been able to resist for a long time now.

[SoxSport]

Much better to give up prospects for Gio than spend big bucks on Buerhle or Wilson. FA starters are grossly overpaid.

I would prefer Gio over Bailey, who has arm issues.

[User Name]

Gio's wildness is a cause for concern though.

[iortiz]

To make things clear' date=' I wanted Buehrle too. But that's because I'm comfortable with overpaying if you get what was expected. I fully believe that he will live up to what he's expected to do, he's done it for like 10 years now consecutively. [b']He's very solid.[/b]

 

I just don't get how the same people who bash the FO for committing too much money to busts could be in favor of it. And when they don't go for it, there's talk about how the FO is trying to fill a roster on the cheap, and they're not committed to winning, etc.

 

I agree Emmz.

 

The second paragraph is just about perspective. The problem with Lackey, is the time and the overall amount. I understand that you see it as year by year, regardless the dollars two years ago don't have the same value these days and still is not the best approach to compare those contracts.

 

Sorry if I take this form an economic engineering perspective but since this is business as well, when you make a business case in order to evaluate an investment (player's contract) or even look at it in order to consider invest, you need to take the whole thing, I mean, n (period), i ( annual interest rate), and each cash flow in order to calculate the NPV (net present value) and IRR (Internal rate of return), otherwise your judgement wouldn't be correct. Said that, It's clear that Lackey's contract is far to be the same Buehrle's contract. There are +-35 M of deference considering that it was two years.

[win red sox]

That may well be. However if they go over again this year I fear that they will doom themselves to several years of frugality in an effort to get back under again. The cap itself does not increase again until 2014. Next year is the year of the SP in FA market again. I don't see them going over by much and paying $.50 on the dollar in the process especially having established a record of the effort to get back under again after years when they believe they really have a shot, like the WS year.

 

In fact they have already established a pattern that is sensible. The issue has not been spending the money or when they spent the money. It is has been an issue of the players they have gotten for the money spent. The pattern has been to spend above the cap in years when they thought they had a real shot at going all the way and then working to get back under again. Since they are not the Yanks that to me is a very sensible way to deal with the LT, even more so now that the 1st year rate is lower and the 4th year rate is higher. They have not historically played this like the Yankees, going over every year either by a little or a lot and with their revenue line, I still think going over every year will hobble the Sox where it has not been an issue for the Yankees.

 

I do think there is more than an even chance that overarching much of this is JH looking to exit. I suspect his heart now skips a beat when he thinks about the monster payoff he will enjoy when he sells this team off.

 

2012 offseason will be very interesting for the sox, due to money coming off the books and the potential of 4-5 cost controlled players in starting positions in 2013. I'll be keeping a close eye on Iglesias, Wmb, Kalish, Lavernaway and Ranaudo in the minors this year as their devolopment will be crucial to the Red Sox future. And with Youkilis, Dice-k, Scutaro, Ortiz, and Jenks all coming off the books 2013 should be a huge offseason. Maybe in play for Cain or Hamels and still come in under the Luxury tax.

[User Name]

I agree Emmz.

 

The second paragraph is just about perspective. The problem with Lackey, is the time and the overall amount. I understand that you see it as year by year, regardless the dollars two years ago don't have the same value these days and still is not the best approach to compare those contracts.

 

Sorry if I take this form an economic engineering perspective but since this is business as well, when you make a business case in order to evaluate an investment (player's contract) or even look at it in order to consider invest, you need to take the whole thing, I mean, n (period), i ( annual interest rate), and each cash flow in order to calculate the NPV (net present value) and IRR (Internal rate of return), otherwise your judgement wouldn't be correct. Said that, It's clear that Lackey's contract is far to be the same Buehrle's contract. There are +-35 M of deference considering that it was two years.

 

 

lolwut?

 

This is baseball. In baseball, it's generally a bad business model to hand out 4-year deals to pitchers over 30. They fell into that trap with Lackey, but didn't with Buehrle, and they shouldn't have. That's the "business case" in this instance.

 

The return on investment usually lowers on a year-to-year basis with a pitcher the age of Buerhle.

[iortiz]

Yeah' date=' [b']I don't really like the idea of giving years to people in their 30s[/b] unless they're like Curt Schilling or Greg Maddux or something. I'd honestly prefer not to go with a 4 year deal on someone who's 32. I told you, I thought Lackey was like 2 years younger than he is though, I still didn't like giving 5 years to him.

 

The money isn't the issue, I think the Sox sort of had to overpay because he was the top pitcher on the market, and considering how quickly the cost of pitchers is going up, they gave him a deal that they maybe shouldn't have for years and for a couple million per year too much. After year one of the deal I thought he could live up to it all things considered, but instead he started to play like he did at the beginning of 2010, and never regained control.

 

I agree Emmz.

[a700hitter]

2012 offseason will be very interesting for the sox' date=' due to money coming off the books and the potential of 4-5 cost controlled players in starting positions in 2013. I'll be keeping a close eye on Iglesias, Wmb, Kalish, Lavernaway and Ranaudo in the minors this year as their devolopment will be crucial to the Red Sox future. And with Youkilis, Dice-k, Scutaro, Ortiz, and Jenks all coming off the books 2013 should be a huge offseason. Maybe in play for Cain or Hamels and still come in under the Luxury tax.[/quote']The Giants are trying to lock up Cain with a long term deal.

[User Name]

Scott Baker (31) - $9.25MM club option

Joe Blanton (32)

Matt Cain (28)

Fausto Carmona (29) - $9MM club option

Kevin Correia (32)

John Danks (28)

Jorge De La Rosa (32) - $11MM player option with a $1MM buyout

Ryan Dempster (36)

R.A. Dickey (38) - $5MM club option with a $300K buyout

Scott Feldman (29) - $9.25MM club option with a $600K buyout

Gavin Floyd (30) - $9.5MM club option

Freddy Garcia (37)

Zack Greinke (28)

Jeremy Guthrie (34)

Cole Hamels (29)

Dan Haren (32) - $15.5MM club option with a $3.5MM buyout

Tim Hudson (37) - $9MM club option with a $1MM buyout

Colby Lewis (33)

Francisco Liriano (29)

Kyle Lohse (34)

Derek Lowe (40)

Shaun Marcum (31)

Daisuke Matsuzaka (32)

Brandon McCarthy (29)

Brett Myers (32) - $10MM club option with a $3MM buyout

Carl Pavano (37)

Jake Peavy (31) - $22MM club option with a $4MM buyout

Anibal Sanchez (29)

Jonathan Sanchez (30)

Ervin Santana (30) - $13MM club option with a $1MM buyout

James Shields (31) - $9MM club option with a $1.5MM buyout

Chien-Ming Wang (33)

Jake Westbrook (35) - $8.5MM mutual option with a $1MM buyout if club declines

Dontrelle Willis (31)

Randy Wolf (36) - $10MM club option with a $1.5MM buyout

Carlos Zambrano (32) - $19.25MM player option depending on Zambrano's Cy Young voting placement

 

List of possible FA's after next season.

[jung]

2012 offseason will be very interesting for the sox, due to money coming off the books and the potential of 4-5 cost controlled players in starting positions in 2013. I'll be keeping a close eye on Iglesias, Wmb, Kalish, Lavernaway and Ranaudo in the minors this year as their devolopment will be crucial to the Red Sox future. And with Youkilis, Dice-k, Scutaro, Ortiz, and Jenks all coming off the books 2013 should be a huge offseason. Maybe in play for Cain or Hamels and still come in under the Luxury tax.

 

 

Agreed...2012-2013 offseason could be interesting from a number of perspectives. The Sox will I think just about be forced to resist the temptation to resign aging stars at high dollars leaving guys that have got to advance to stagnate in their roles.

 

The Ortiz deal was so disappointing in that it represented the Sox FO of recent vintage. Lets commit to a guy that has marque value in spite of the fact that it is not likely the best overall move for the team. Lets ignore that he bats from the left side, ignore his age, ignore how in one fell swoop V's hands are tied to a very inflexible lineup. V is not exactly Earl Weaver waiting for a walk an error and some guy that hits a 3 run home run. Weaver was very successful by the way but he had a starting rotation that kept his team in games waiting for that 3 run dinger to happen. We don't seem to be quite there. I don't see even one Jim Palmer here, nor do I see the pitching depth behind Palmer that Weaver could rely on. I don't see a Dave McNally for that matter.

 

2012-2013 is full of opportunities to pull another Ortiz or move in a different direction.

[seabeachfred]

People should be disagreeing with their point of view instead of objecting to the posters.

 

It's very hard to find much positive to extoll right now when the biggest positive move is Melancon. He ain't Papelbon or Bard no matter how much we would like to wish it to be, and I am really hoping that the guy will be good. Benny Boy has been honest all along which is the most positive thing that I could say about him thus far. He said that he would understand if papelbon got a deal that he couldn't turn down. He made it clear that Paps wasn't on the team's radar. He said that they wouldn't make any big moves at the Winter Meetings and they didn't. He said that they would make moves after the meetings that would be "under the radar" and that too was accurate. Other than that, he has done little positive. The Ortiz arbitration offer was a ridiculous blunder. We are waiting for the positive. He has an entire bullpen to rebuild. If he is able to build a good bullpen, they will have a very good team. He hasn't yet. When he does, he will get his props.

 

I guess you said it better than I did 700. There isn't much positive to talk about right now and that's what I was saying but there are a few people who simply don't want to hear anything negative and refuse the right of people to express a different point of view. One person says we need to wait to see what transpires. Fine!!!! We've waited for the better part of three months and we still are weaker than when the season ended. That's a fact, and yet Scarlett and some others rail and rant at anyone who brings that up. This is what the Hot Stove League season is all about and we should all be able to express outselves without being told we're negative and not real Red Sox fans. I will cheer with the best of them if and when we come up to speed and are ready to take on all comers. Right now we are not and I have the right to wonder if we are going to be when the trucks arrive in February.

[User Name]

I guess you said it better than I did 700. There isn't much positive to talk about right now and that's what I was saying but there are a few people who simply don't want to hear anything negative and refuse the right of people to express a different point of view. One person says we need to wait to see what transpires. Fine!!!! We've waited for the better part of three months and we still are weaker than when the season ended. That's a fact' date=' and yet Scarlett and some others rail and rant at anyone who brings that up. This is what the Hot Stove League season is all about and we should all be able to express outselves without being told we're negative and not real Red Sox fans. I will cheer with the best of them if and when we come up to speed and are ready to take on all comers. Right now we are not and I have the right to wonder if we are going to be when the trucks arrive in February.[/quote']

 

I have no problem with other people's opinions.

 

I just think some people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the offseason works. A 25 man roster isn't created overnight.

 

Also, the whole "other board" gag is getting old. Let's stop posting about it please.

 

Also also, not to speak for VA but I believe her problem is with the attitude not the opinion.

 

^This.

[seabeachfred]

That's good for you. I don't. I do love the game very much but don't need to get my info that way. If it works for you' date=' good. I prefer watching as many of the 162 games I can to see what actually happens. Never have been into predictions, speculations and second guessing. Let's see what happens in 2012. One season at a time.[/quote']

 

Well you have to learn to respect the right of someone to express an opinion that runs counter to yours and you are totally deficient in that area. If you watched those 162 games of yours you apparently got a different opinion on what they meant than some of the rest of us. I see a team in some deep trouble that needs to upgrade and have said so while you are angry and ranting that we shouldn't say those kinds of things. Besides, you were supposed to put me on ignore and you haven't done that. If what I say bothers you so much that would be your best choice because until the team is upgraded to the point that it has a chance for success next year I'm going to keep expressing my opinion on the matter. Get used to it.

[iortiz]

I guess you said it better than I did 700. There isn't much positive to talk about right now and that's what I was saying but there are a few people who simply don't want to hear anything negative and refuse the right of people to express a different point of view. One person says we need to wait to see what transpires. Fine!!!! We've waited for the better part of three months and we still are weaker than when the season ended. That's a fact' date=' and yet Scarlett and some others rail and rant at anyone who brings that up. This is what the Hot Stove League season is all about and we should all be able to express outselves without being told we're negative and not real Red Sox fans. I will cheer with the best of them if and when we come up to speed and are ready to take on all comers. Right now we are not and I have the right to wonder if we are going to be when the trucks arrive in February.[/quote']

 

Yes, the offseason ain't over yet, but still you can think and say whatever you want Fred, thats the point.

 

Yes, is unlikely we go next season like this with still a lot of holes to fill, but the messages from the FO have gone in all directions, hell, sometimes I tend to think that they won't go over the thresholds and sometimes I think just the opposite, Today, if you ask me, I don't see how they stay under the threshold. I got a little feeling that in the end the FO will put a great team. it's a hole mystery to me what they are planning and makes this interesting and fun to argue.

[win red sox]

Agreed...2012 could be interesting from a number of perspectives. The Sox will I think just about be forced to resist the temptation to resign aging stars at high dollars leaving guys that have got to advance to stagnate in their roles.

 

The Ortiz deal was so disappointing in that it represented the Sox FO of recent vintage. Lets commit to a guy that has marque value in spite of the fact that it is not likely the best overall move for the team. Lets ignore that he bats from the left side, ignore his age, ignore how in one fell swoop V's hands are tied to a very inflexible lineup. V is not exactly Earl Weaver waiting for a walk an error and some guy that hits a 3 run home run. Weaver was very successful by the way but he had a starting rotation that kept his team in games waiting for that 3 run dinger to happen. We don't seem to be quite there. I don't see even one Jim Palmer here, nor do I see the pitching depth behind Palmer that Weaver could rely on. I don't see a Dave McNally for that matter.

 

2012 is full of opportunities to pull another Ortiz or move in a different direction.

 

agreed, I rather actually pay a 1 year overpay for Ortiz for 15 million than 2 years at 24 million and losing the flexibility. Offering arb to Ortiz was a disaster for the Red Sox, with that 15 million you could have gotten a Madson and maybe Cody Ross to platoon in RF. Anyways, I assume that Ben has a plan and does not want to sign any Multiyear contracts or give any top prospects away. Ellsbury's contract extension is looming and wouldn't be suprised if it's the largest contract ever given out to a OF.

[seabeachfred]

And there is always Sauxheads and whatever other sites for you guys. Insufferable whining? Sounds more like some of you. Most notably Fred.

 

Insufferable whining to you Scarlett. To some of us your pollyanna attitude reeks of Alice in Wonderland unreality, but that's fine. I can read it and roll my eyes, but you have a real intolerance for anything that sounds even the least negative. Just put me on ignore as you said you would and be done with it. The 2011 season stunk. That's my opinion. The off season so far as been a disappointment. That's my opinion. We are weaker now than we were at the end of last season. That's my opinion. We haven't upgraded to the point of being a serious contender for any kind of title next season. That's also my opinion.

 

I root just as hard for the Red Sox as you do and I would bet I take losses at the very least as hard as you do, and will keep rooting for the Sox with all my emotion and energy, but I'll be damned if I will keep quiet if I feel the front office is trying to skinflint their way in trying now to win on the cheap. Because you never win on the cheap.