2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[User Name]

That's the thing.

 

Give me Jackson for 205 over Oswalt for 175. That's my reasoning.

 

Well i think effectiveness has its value. If Oswalt is going to give the team a better chance to win than Jackson every time out, then those 30 innings look less important.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Even though Jackson has thrown more IP, every other possible measure favors Oswalt, including ERA+, which controls for league. I would be content with either, but if healthy, give me Oswalt.

 

Let's not pretend like Jackson is a better "pitcher" than Oswalt.

 

But nobody is doing that.

 

 

I'm with a700. I hope we get either.

 

 

I just think from a standpoint of health and all that I'd rather have Jackson, because I think there would be a less of a chance of the crap we put up with last year, where we were trotting out any person they could find for a start.

[User Name]

But nobody is doing that.

 

 

I'm with a700. I hope we get either.

 

 

I just think from a standpoint of health and all that I'd rather have Jackson, because I think there would be a less of a chance of the crap we put up with last year, where we were trotting out any person they could find for a start.

 

That is a very fair point. That's why i put the "If healthy" condition in my post. If he isn't absolutely healthy, please stay away.

[Bellhorn04]

Even though Jackson has thrown more IP, every other possible measure favors Oswalt, including ERA+, which controls for league. I would be content with either, but if healthy, give me Oswalt.

 

Let's not pretend like Jackson is a better "pitcher" than Oswalt.

 

Oswalt is a better pitcher. Jackson looks like a better bet to be durable at this point.

 

On the ERA+ matter, I use that stat myself. But we have seen quite a few pitchers do poorly when they move from the NL to the AL.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

I missed that part of your post, my bad.

 

I agree with you

[SoxFanForsyth]

Well i think effectiveness has its value. If Oswalt is going to give the team a better chance to win than Jackson every time out' date=' then those 30 innings look less important.[/quote']

 

Those 30 innings are 30 innings that Carlos Silva or Andrew Miller aren't starting.

 

Those 30 innings are 30 innings that could have got us into the PS last year.

 

Those 30 innings are incredibly valuable.

[User Name]

Oswalt is a better pitcher. Jackson looks like a better bet to be durable at this point.

 

On the ERA+ matter, I use that stat myself. But we have seen quite a few pitchers do poorly when they move from the NL to the AL.

 

That's another fair point. But Jackson is kinda moving from the NL to the AL himself.

[redsoxfan3]

I am expecting one more update from MLBTR before the night comes to an end. It has been almost four hours since an update. Hopefully we can sign one of the two tomorrow sometime. I am hoping for the best. Let's just hope we actually offered them respectable contracts, because what I am concerned about is that we offered them below what they want.

[Palodios]

Of course I may be impatient but if memory serves me right Palodios a little over a week ago we were "in deep negotiations" with Oswalt, then there was serious talk of a trade with Chicago for Floyd, now it is Jackson. Yes, I know this could take time but I think we should have gone something done by now. Just a difference in opinion but I have always respected yours because you're a standup person and know what the hell you're talking about.

 

Now use your influence with Cherington and get him to write that damn check.:harhar::harhar::harhar::harhar:

 

Deep negotiations is one thing... but now the Red Sox officially have a deal on the table. Very big difference.

[iortiz]

By Ben Nicholson-Smith [January 25 at 8:36pm CST]

9:36pm: Some executives believe that the Rangers are the favorites to land Oswalt, writes Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports.* Other interested clubs include the Cardinals, Red Sox, Nationals, Guardians, and Brewers.

 

[iortiz]

RED SOX GM BEN CHERINGTON: ‘DON’T FEEL LIKE WE NEED’ TO MAKE A MOVE 01.25.12 at 5:40 pm ET

 

 

 

Are the Red Sox under orders to stay under the luxury tax threshold of $178 million in 2012?

 

No. We’ve been over it in the past. When there’s a compelling reason to go over it, we’ve gone over it. That could be the case this year. I don’t want to talk specifically about our payroll, but there’s no orders, necessarily, to stay under it. We’re going to look at every deal as it comes and make a decision on the merits about whether it puts us in a better position to do what we need to do for 2012.

 

Is there an advantage to staying under the threshold in 2012, the first year of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement?

That’s essentially always been the case. There’s always a benefit to staying under, because if you’re staying under, you’re not taxed.

We have been over in some previous years, not by much, but we have been over in some previous years. Again, there’s no mandate to be under this year, but we’ll continue to look at our payroll in the context of deals we may or may not make, and just do what we feel puts us in the best position to win this year and be flexible.

 

Was the trade of Marco Scutaro financially motivated?

 

To some degree, because when you have that kind of money opening up, in addition to whatever other resources you have, it allows you to do other things with the team. With that move, what we felt is we had a couple guys in [Mike] Aviles and [Nick] Punto who we thought could help us get close to giving us what Marco did. Marco was a good player here, and I expect him to be a good player in Colorado, but we felt like we had some options there and then we could reallocate that money elsewhere.

 

We did part of that with Cody Ross. As you guys know, we’ve wanted to add a right-handed bat this offseason. With [Carl Crawford's] injury [torn wrist cartilage that recently required surgery], we felt that protecting our outfield mix a little bit was important.

 

We’ll see what happens from here. If there are opportunities to make the team better before we get to spring training, then we’ll consider those if we get the right value. If not, we’ll go into spring training or even go into the season and just know we have a little bit of flexibility and be able to be nimble to make moves as we feel they’re appropriate, and the ones we feel are the best values.

 

Is prospect Jose Iglesias a consideration at shortstop?

 

We really like Iggy as a long-term option for us. He’s a really good defensive player. Right now, you never say never, but right now we feel like he may benefit from more time in Triple-A. But certainly he’s part of the long-term picture of the Red Sox.

 

Punto has been a very good utility player. He has played more than that at times in his career. Certainly, when he’s out there, whatever time he is out there, he’s done a good job.

 

Aviles has been an everyday player. He came up and was an everyday player for Kansas City and did a really good job. He got hurt. While he got hurt and was making their way back from that, they acquired a shortstop in the Greinke deal and he was sort of supplanted to some degree, and we picked him up in a trade, as you know, last summer. We need to get him into spring training and watch him, but he’s certainly capable of being an everyday player. We feel he has done that in the past, has done that at the big league level. We feel he’s an important part of the mix. We’ll keep our eyes out. If there are further ways to protect the shortstop position, we’ll consider that.

 

I understand the timing of these things. We haven’t made moves like this so much in the past, so close to spring training, where you’re moving a player, but we felt like in this case it put us in a better position to do what we needed to do both now and in spring training and perhaps during the year for 2012.

 

It is unusual that the Sox are making choices between a starting shortstop and, for instance, signing a free agent starter.

 

First of all, Marco was a good player here, a very good player. He was a great addition to the team. When we picked up his option, we felt like the number on his option, the salary on his option, was a reasonable amount, so we picked it up. We had every intention of him being on the team. We got to the point in the offseason, it happened to be after the [boston chapter of the Baseball Writers’ Associaton of America annual dinner, when Cherington said that picking up Scutaro's option represented a significant offseason move for the Sox], and we felt like there was an opportunity to reallocate that money in a more efficient way, for the team. We may not use all of it now, but over time, whether it’s now or spring training or during the season, we feel like, given the options we had at shortstop, we feel like we can use that money.

 

There’s a difference between saying we have gone over the luxury threshold and that there’s no mandate not to do that this year, there’s a difference between saying that and saying we don’t have a budget. We do have a budget. They’re two different things. They’re not unrelated to each other, but they’re not the same thing.

 

Is the Red Sox’ budget for 2012 under the luxury tax threshold?

 

I’m not going to tell you what our budget is. I just told you there is no mandate not to go over the luxury tax threshold. And we have gone over it in past years.

 

The Scutaro deal at least creates the perception of a mandate on the luxury tax.

 

You’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about the luxury tax threshold and budget. Those are two different things. I understand the timing of the Scutaro deal grabbing peoples’ attention. … The bottom line is, we have, we made a deal that we felt put us in a better position to do what we needed to do to address needs, whether it be now, during spring training, during the season, putting us in a better position to do what we need to do for 2012.

 

Winding back the clock a bit, what we have to remember is that our ownership has made incredible commitments to this team. We made two very significant commitments [the signing of Crawford and trade for Adrian Gonzalez, who signed a seven-year, $154 million extension] last offseason, and have made significant commitments in successive offseasons going back two years, that have put us in position to be very competitive, to be an incredibly talented team, to be a team that we feel is going to be very competitive in 2012, but with a substantial payroll.

 

At some point, you have to start making choices as to how you allocate the resources you have. It is not to suggest that our ownership is not willing to go over the tax threshold, because they have in the past and there’s no mandate not to do that this year. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a budget – just as every team has a budget. We’re working within that budget, and that budget is significant. It’s plenty to put a very good team on the field. We’re going to be a very good team. We’ll keep working at it. We have the means to do things, whether it’s now or in spring training or during the season. We’ve got to wait and let those things come to us and find the value that makes sense for us and for the team.

 

What is the status of compensation talks with the Cubs about Theo Epstein? Was it difficult to negotiate with Theo, thus resulting in the matter being put in the Commissioner’s hands?

 

Without commenting specifically on the issue in terms of what the status is now, I think it is more challenging to figure out and isolate what the value of an executive is, especially given these circumstances, than it would be for a player. You trade players all the time. That’s our job, to assign a value to a player. We’re constantly examining that. In this case, it’s different. It’s harder to assign a value.

 

Obviously, we feel there are certain things, and our ownership feels there are things, that indicate we should get a certain level of value for giving the Cubs the right to hire Theo. Theo and the Cubs have a different perspective. It’s not atypical for reasonable people to disagree. In this particular case, because we’re not talking about a direct trade of players, it is a little bit more challenging to narrow in on what the fair value is, so perhaps in this case we’ll get some help with it.

 

How do you make the case to the Commissioner’s Office? Do you produce a book along the lines of what one that agent Scott Boras might produce for one of his clients in praise of Epstein?

It hasn’t gotten to that point yet. If it gets to that point, I’m sure both the Cubs and Red Sox would have a chance to express their point of view and be heard. It’s not something that I’m spending a lot of time on these days.

 

Is a multi-year deal still a possibility for David Ortiz?

 

When he accepted arbitration, that sort of focuses the conversation much more on a one-year deal. That’s what we’re focused on right now. In this case, you hear the word arbitration, and sometimes that can carry an adversarial connotation to it. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. In this case, we have a guy we care about a lot, who’s a great player, has been a great player, a great hitter, who we believe in moving forward. Obviously we wanted him back. That’s why we offered him arbitration. So really it’s a matter of figuring out what’s a fair number for 2012. One way or another, he’s going to be on our team, in the middle of our lineup. We’re really glad he’s here, and hope he’s here for a while.

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2012/01/25/red-sox-gm-ben-cherington-dont-feel-like-we-need-to-make-a-move/

[SoxSport]

I believe there is a benefit for them to stay under the luxury tax this year, in terms of the tax penalty next year if they go over the luxury tax. I recall Speier of WEEI spelled this out in an article.

[SoxSport]

Well, we learned earlier that the money is not an issue or kind of

 

If true I wonder why in the hell did we give up Scu? Unless Ben didn't like him that much and He wants to land someone like Hanley and the SP.

 

Hell, if the money is not the issue... Ben, sign both damn checks! (Oswalt and Jackson) :thumbsup:

 

The weakest part of the interview. It's not consistent with what they've been doing. And they do have some incentive to avoid the luxury tax this year, in terms of future tax penalties.

[iortiz]

FORMER SOX RELIEVER SUSPENDED 50 GAMES

 

Former Red Sox reliever Dustin Richardson was suspended 50 games by Major League Baseball after testing positive for performance-enhancing substances. Richardson tested positive for an amphetamine, Letrozole and metabolite, Methandienone metabolite, Methenelone and metabolite and Trenbolone and metabolite.

 

Richardson, a fifth round pick by the Sox out of Texas Tech in 2006, appeared in 26 games for Boston in 2010, working 13 innings as left-handed reliever. He was traded to Florida after the season for Andrew Miller. He pitched for the Triple-A affiliates for Florida and Atlanta last season.*

[User Name]

Those 30 innings are 30 innings that Carlos Silva or Andrew Miller aren't starting.

 

Those 30 innings are 30 innings that could have got us into the PS last year.

 

Those 30 innings are incredibly valuable.

 

No they're not. Not only because he'd be a 4th starter, but because most of those innings would be pitched by the bullpen. If we'd gotten 175 IP out of out #3 last year, we're in the playoffs.

 

You're spinning it.

[jung]

BC really could not answer those questions about the Luxury Tax honestly anyway. The tack the interviewers took was to ask him if there was a mandate from ownership to stay under the cap. Well BC can't say that there is so he said that there isn't. What else was he going to say.

 

As for the questions about trading Scuts to free up some room under the cap, the premise for that whole line of questioning was wrong in my view.

 

The premise was that in the past if the Sox wanted somebody like Oswalt, they would just have opened up the check book and signed a check without having to do something like move a player to free up room under the cap. Nobody just opens up the checkbook in my view. If you want to say that they were less sensitive to cost fine but to imply that their whole reasoning has changed does not wash with me. You cannot expect organizations to make moves from the very same perspective year in and year out. They don't live in some bubble.

 

The Sox have spent money with what appears to be more freedom in the past. They will likely do it again when it appears to them to be the right thing to do. These are all value judgements. Right now the Sox appear to have placed a high degree of value on staying below the cap threshold. A trade or FA signing that would drive them over the threshold would have to be a really super, undeniably favorable deal for them to be willing to take the financial hit they will take.

 

In my view the interviewers kept probing for black and white answers where none exist. They and sometimes even we act like the Sox FO went to a big party one night and the next day woke up with a headache and Carl Crawford. We sort of got answers from the BC interview if we read between the lines. I would have preferred a more subtle line of questioning because I think we would have learned more.

[Elktonnick]

Sean McAams wasn't too optimistic that the Sox would sign Oswalt and down played Edwin Jackson saying no one has successfully harnessed his potential. Barring improvements and the addition of another wild care McAdams ranks the current Red Sox 5 th or 6 th in the AL at present and unlikely to make the playoffs

[Palodios]

Sean McAams wasn't too optimistic that the Sox would sign Oswalt and down played Edwin Jackson saying no one has successfully harnessed his potential. Barring improvements and the addition of another wild care McAdams ranks the current Red Sox 5 th or 6 th in the AL at present and unlikely to make the playoffs

 

Err... who is Sean McAdams, and why should we care?

[User Name]

^This.

[iortiz]

BC really could not answer those questions about the Luxury Tax honestly anyway. The tack the interviewers took was to ask him if there was a mandate from ownership to stay under the cap. Well BC can't say that there is so he said that there isn't. What else was he going to say.

 

As for the questions about trading Scuts to free up some room under the cap, the premise for that whole line of questioning was wrong in my view.

 

The premise was that in the past if the Sox wanted somebody like Oswalt, they would just have opened up the check book and signed a check without having to do something like move a player to free up room under the cap. Nobody just opens up the checkbook in my view. If you want to say that they were less sensitive to cost fine but to imply that their whole reasoning has changed does not wash with me. You cannot expect organizations to make moves from the very same perspective year in and year out. They don't live in some bubble.

 

The Sox have spent money with what appears to be more freedom in the past. They will likely do it again when it appears to them to be the right thing to do. These are all value judgements. Right now the Sox appear to have placed a high degree of value on staying below the cap threshold. A trade or FA signing that would drive them over the threshold would have to be a really super, undeniably favorable deal for them to be willing to take the financial hit they will take.

 

In my view the interviewers kept probing for black and white answers where none exist. They and sometimes even we act like the Sox FO went to a big party one night and the next day woke up with a headache and Carl Crawford. We sort of got answers from the BC interview if we read between the lines. I would have preferred a more subtle line of questioning because I think we would have learned more.

Well, If Crawford is a headache what will Lacky and Jenks be?

[Elktonnick]

Err... who is Sean McAdams' date=' and why should we care?[/quote']

 

Former Herald beat writer on the Red Sox now with CSNE covering the Red Sox beat one of Boston's top baseball writers. He is extremely well regarded.

Sean McAdam is a sports writer for FoxSports.com, CSNNE.com, and the Boston Herald and a former writer for The Providence Journal and ESPN.com. He is a beat writer for the Boston Red Sox, as well as a radio and television analyst and commentator in the Boston area. His bio is below:

 

Following his graduation from Providence College in 1981, McAdam spent four years covering sports at WEAN, a Rhode Island radio talk station[1] before joining the Journal as a reporter. After 23 years with The Journal, with most of that tenure covering the Red Sox beat, he left to take a similar position with the Herald in October 2008.[2] McAdam resigned from ESPN.com to join FoxSports.com in May 2009.[3]

 

McAdam makes regular appearances on WEEI sports talk radio in Boston. He is a co-host on the Big Show (weekdays 2–6 p.m.) and he co-hosts The Baseball Show with ex-major leaguer Lou Merloni and colleagues Steve Buckley and Rob Bradford (Sundays 9–12 p.m.).[4]

 

Since 2004, Sean has also been a guest analyst during Red Sox pregame and discussion shows on NESN, the team's satellite channel. On April 10, 2009, he filled for the ill Jerry Remy as a color commentator, working in the NESN booth alongside Don Orsillo for the first two innings of Boston's 6–3 loss to the Los Angeles Angels in Anaheim, California.[5]

 

McAdam went to Chelmsford High School in Chelmsford, Massachusetts and is a member of the Chelmsford High School Alumni Association Hall of Fame and was inducted in 2010. McAdam resides in Littleton, Massachusetts.[6]

 

[edit] Career

 

McAdam is a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America and is eligible to vote in Baseball Hall of Fame balloting.

[Palodios]

Former Herald beat writer on the Red Sox now with CSNE covering the Red Sox beat one of Boston's top baseball writers. He is extremely well regarded.

 

Who did he say was going to win the World Series last year?

[iortiz]

Former Herald beat writer on the Red Sox now with CSNE covering the Red Sox beat one of Boston's top baseball writers. He is extremely well regarded.

 

Well, his rank concords with mine and given his credentials I presume that I'm not that lost in my point of view

[Palodios]

Also, I can look at wikipedia too... but really, using a single writer's opinion as a reason why this team will fail is just silly.

[Spitball]

Oswalt certainly looks to be headed elsewhere. Maybe the market for Jackson will fall far enough to allow for a Ryan Madson type signing.

[iortiz]

Who did he say was going to win the World Series last year?

 

Being fair, I do not know what was his call, but I think this is out of topic. Predict that (Win World Series) is a loooong shot for anybody, even for experts/oddsmakers/betting firms.

[Elktonnick]

Err... who is Sean McAdams' date=' and why should we care?[/quote']

 

Don't know, Don't care. His opinion is his opinion. You can agree or disagree. His point view is interesting because he has access and sources unavailable to those who normally post on baseball fora. When he speaks I listen. I may disagre but I take note nevertheless.

[Elktonnick]

Also' date=' I can look at wikipedia too... but really, using a single writer's opinion as a reason why this team will fail is just silly.[/quote']

 

No it isn't silly it is his opinion. I am not saying the team is going to fail because Sean says so. I am saying that his point of view has merit. It is silly to diregard any highly respected sportsreporter view because one disagrees with it. You asked a question and I answered re who he was.

[Station 13]

@JoeStrauss Joe Strauss

Hearing that Cards made bid approaching $5M on Oswalt weeks ago but not likely happening. Rangers probably win, at $2-3M more w/perks.

[User Name]

Again with the oddmakers, who fail on a yearly basis.