2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[a700hitter]

I couldn't tell if my PM got through to you' date=' but thanks my friend.[/quote']I got it. You are welcome.

[Elktonnick]

True. But keep in mind that Yawkey was just another one of those conservative owners who wanted to keep the sport white. They were in the majority--including the Yankee owners.

There were very few Branch Rickeys in baseball at the time. Bill Veeck was another when he owned Cleveland, and he got Satchel Paige, Luke Easter and Larry Doby. Lou Perini, who owned the Boston Braves, had Sam Jethroe in the late 40s and Hank Aaron was brought up the year after the Braves left Boston.

 

Please don't equate conservative with racists. Liberal "Boston" has the reputation in the NBA as a racist town which is one of the problem the Celtics have in attracting top notch free agents. As a life member of the NAACP some of the most racist people I know are self identified as progressives and liberals. BTW Yawkey was the last to have a black player well over ten years after Jackie broke in in 1947. Aaron was signed in 1952 the last year the Braves were in Boston.

[a700hitter]

I "think" they should not have offered Ortiz arbitration at all so in that sense they overpaid by $14-$15M.

I don't think the FO wanted him back either, but they miscalculated.

[a700hitter]

Please don't equate conservative with racists. Liberal "Boston" has the reputation in the NBA as a racist town which is one of the problem the Celtics have in attracting top notch free agents. As a life member of the NAACP some of the most racist people I know are self identified as progressives and liberals. BTW Yawkey was the last to have a black player well over ten years after Jackie broke in in 1947. Aaron was signed in 1952 the last year the Braves were in Boston.

The Sox were only 2 years behind the Yankees.

[seabeachfred]

Fred, no one here knows the real motives behind offering arb to Ortiz, but assuming incompetence by the FO and better knowledge of these negotiations by you or your crew is awfully presumptuous. This is pure speculation. There are a number of scenarios that could have led to the arb offer, and most of them don't involve "Sacred cows" or "FO incompetence".

 

Please.

 

No, no one does, but I gave my opinion for this foolish move. Am I right? Maybe, maybe not, but as you said it was all speculation. Now you put yourself against the wall...WHY DID THEY OFFER ORTIZ ABRIBRATION WHEN THEY REALLY DIDN'T NEED HIM AND WHEN THERE WAS NO MARKET FOR HIM? Since we needed pitching very badly much more than to sign a DH who will be useless when Inter-league play where there is no DH, and if they put him at first, we have to put Gonzales in RF. Doesn't sound very appealing to me; does it to you? Again, I insist signing Ortiz was a mistake.

[a700hitter]

No' date=' no one does, but I gave my opinion for this foolish move. Am I right? Maybe, maybe not, but as you said it was all speculation. Now you put yourself against the wall...WHY DID THEY OFFER ORTIZ ABRIBRATION WHEN THEY REALLY DIDN'T NEED HIM AND WHEN THERE WAS NO MARKET FOR HIM? Since we needed pitching very badly much more than to sign a DH who will be useless when Inter-league play where there is no DH, and if they put him at first, we have to put Gonzales in RF. Doesn't sound very appealing to me; does it to you? Again, I insist signing Ortiz was a mistake.[/quote']I don't know why some people think that the Red Sox FO is immune to making a mistake. This arbitration thing was a mistake. Everyone makes them even the geniuses at Fenway. A mistake doesn't establish overall incompetence. Theo made a ton of mistakes and no one accused him of being incompetence. If this was their game plan, that's even a worse mistake than miscalculating regarding his market value.

[Elktonnick]

The Sox were only 2 years behind the Yankees.

 

Not to quibble but I believe Elston Howard came up in 1955. Pumpsie Green in 1959

[FredLynn]

There's really not much analysis to be made here: The Phils had the better ace' date=' and the better pitching. The Cards got hot at the right time, and won it all because of the randomness of the playoffs. It is what it is.[/quote']

 

The Cards lucked out. That happens sometimes, where a team just hits stride right at the correct time. If you look at past years its the teams with good pitching and defense that wins the rings, in general. Hence, the Red Sox COULD luck out like the Cards, but I sure as hell wouldn't be betting on it.

[FredLynn]

Ok my friend' date=' I can see that. What do you think of Rich Harden? He is the guy I wanted us to get last year and last time I checked he was still out there. I think this guy could be a real surprise if he stays healthy. The guy has good stuff and is very competitive. I would like to see the Red Sox go after him, and in my opinion he would be a very pleasant surprise[/quote']

 

I could live with Rich Harden. He has been injured a lot, so there is risk, but if he is healthy enough to throw maybe 120-140 innings, he is a functional #4-5 SP. His career numbers are better than Saunders-career ERA of 3.76 pitching mostly under similar conditions to Saunders. He might not work out, but he is a serviceable warm body to toss out there.

[FredLynn]

Harden might be worth a shot. But he didn't pitch well at all after we turned him down. He was 3-7 with a 5.57 ERA after July 31' date=' and 1-3 with a 6.98 ERA in September.[/quote']

 

The key with Harden is his health (as it is with a lot of players, of course-but he seems prone to injury). In the last two years he threw only 83 and 92 innings respectively. I am not sure you can judge his performance when he is not healthy. He threw 141 innings in 09 and his ERA for the Cubs was 4.09. Not great, but not bad if he is your #5 SP. I think he would be worth a shot, assuming the FO has not intention of getting the team a real quality pitcher like Garza or even Jackson to be our #4-5 SP.

[FredLynn]

No' date=' no one does, but I gave my opinion for this foolish move. Am I right? Maybe, maybe not, but as you said it was all speculation. Now you put yourself against the wall...WHY DID THEY OFFER ORTIZ ABRIBRATION WHEN THEY REALLY DIDN'T NEED HIM AND WHEN THERE WAS NO MARKET FOR HIM? Since we needed pitching very badly much more than to sign a DH who will be useless when Inter-league play where there is no DH, and if they put him at first, we have to put Gonzales in RF. Doesn't sound very appealing to me; does it to you? Again, I insist signing Ortiz was a mistake.[/quote']

 

Why? They got greedy. They felt that he would probably decline arbitration because of his huge ego. Then we would get draft picks when he signed for much less than he will be getting here with another club. In retrospect, he should have simply been let go and we should have rotated the DH among the guys who needed a day off from playing in the field this year and used Ortiz's money to sign Oswalt for one year. We would still score lots of runs-and our pitching would have been better too.

[VA Sox Fan]

I suspect that the Sox are mostly set as far as moves for pitchers are concerned unless some team (Cubs?) or free agent gets desperate or at the very least more motivated than at present to make a deal for a starter of worth. I'd love to see The Expectorator but I don't want to loose guys Kalish or Lavanway or even Guys like Dubrouant or Renoudo (SP on both' date=' sorry Va!). [/b']I really like the idea of grooming these kids and bringing them up when ready.

 

LMAO Spud! I think the Sox, far from perfect, front office could make some more pitching moves between now and the trade deadline. But which pitchers, I don't know. Folks in the press still talk about Garza being a possibility. I don't want to lose guys like Kalish and Lavarnway either. Hope Kalish heals well and quickly, it was a joy watching him last season.

 

Good to see you posting more. Nice to hear about you and your "old" lady getting hitched!

[User Name]

No' date=' no one does, but I gave my opinion for this foolish move. Am I right? Maybe, maybe not, but as you said it was all speculation. Now you put yourself against the wall...WHY DID THEY OFFER ORTIZ ABRIBRATION WHEN THEY REALLY DIDN'T NEED HIM AND WHEN THERE WAS NO MARKET FOR HIM? Since we needed pitching very badly much more than to sign a DH who will be useless when Inter-league play where there is no DH, and if they put him at first, we have to put Gonzales in RF. Doesn't sound very appealing to me; does it to you? Again, I insist signing Ortiz was a mistake.[/quote']

 

Three questions:

 

1) How do you know he absolutely didn't have a market? Talks with the O's were pretty heated, and a couple other teams were said to be in on Ortiz. Does this not represent a "market"?

 

2) What if their line of thinking was "Offer arb, if he takes it, keep him, if he doesn't, take picks, and we would have to blow the cap to replace his production and get a pitcher anyways". This may very well be the case, and if it is, it's not a problem. You're over-thinking this. Again, Lucchino has said more than once that they are willing to blow the cap for an acquisition that makes a lot of sense. If they are willing to blow the LT for a good pitcher, then what's the problem?

 

3) Who said they don't need him? He posted a slash line that would make the Giants' GM wet. It's not easy to replace that kind of production, and with the way dollars are flying around for mediocre talent, well, it's even more difficult to replace his production, unless you want to make Lavarnway a full-time DH, which doesn't make sense. That kid needs to be a catcher for the Sox.

 

 

And a P.S: Caps don't make your argument any stronger.

[Muggah]

Well said Jung. Amazing as it is to say there are posters here and elsewhere who seemed to be more cognizant of the fact that there was no real market for Ortiz' services than Cherington was. Maybe he got that old irritating feeling that if he didn't offer Papi arbitration he would' date=' oh gee, God forbid, wind up in pinstripes. Which was ridiculous because the Yankees were up to their sweatbreads in DH candidates. By using that excuse all I am doing is trying in a left handed way to give Cherries cover because if it wasn't that it was just a plain stupid move. Hopefully after this coming season he will have learned and will not offer him arbitration again. Let Ortiz go wherever he wants; he would have few takers.[/quote']

 

 

The more i think about it the more im convinced that ownership's year-long 100th anniversary celebration marketing plans figured as much into their decision to bring Big Diva back as anything else. In their sappy Mary Poppins world of pink hats and pollyannas they felt they had to have an active player with legitimate ties to the glory days when these owners really used to care about winning WSCs. Who better than Big Diva to fill that role.

 

As we've seen this season's home calendar is chock full of dedications, memorials, testimonials and the likes, and Diva's personality is tailor-made for the role of ambassador to the past.

[a700hitter]

We may have to live with Harden, because the news about Oswalt and Garza and Kuroda is not encouraging. Personally, I think Harden will hit the DL before the finish of April. Plus, I don't think he will come so cheap.

[Muggah]

I could live with Rich Harden. He has been injured a lot' date=' so there is risk, but if he is healthy enough to throw maybe 120-140 innings, he is a functional #4-5 SP. His career numbers are better than Saunders-career ERA of 3.76 pitching mostly under similar conditions to Saunders. He might not work out, but he is a serviceable warm body to toss out there.[/quote']

 

I'd take Harden too, Pumpsie---especially if him coming here would mean no Wakefield. You're right, to say he's 'injury prone' is an understatement. But he is capable of being very effective when healthy. Which is more than we can say for the Carlos Silvas of the world.

[VA Sox Fan]

Three questions:

 

1) How do you know he absolutely didn't have a market? Talks with the O's were pretty heated, and a couple other teams were said to be in on Ortiz. Does this not represent a "market"?

 

2) What if their line of thinking was "Offer arb, if he takes it, keep him, if he doesn't, take picks, and we would have to blow the cap to replace his production and get a pitcher anyways". This may very well be the case, and if it is, it's not a problem. You're over-thinking this. Again, Lucchino has said more than once that they are willing to blow the cap for an acquisition that makes a lot of sense. If they are willing to blow the LT for a good pitcher, then what's the problem?

 

3) Who said they don't need him? He posted a slash line that would make the Giants' GM wet. It's not easy to replace that kind of production, and with the way dollars are flying around for mediocre talent, well, it's even more difficult to replace his production, unless you want to make Lavarnway a full-time DH, which doesn't make sense. That kid needs to be a catcher for the Sox.

And a P.S: Caps don't make your argument any stronger.

 

I'm torn about Lavarnway. Would love him to catch but also wonder if he would make a good DH? I guess he is too young to think just DH. See how he pans out catching. Psyched to see what happens.

[Muggah]

We may have to live with Harden' date=' because the news about Oswalt and Garza and Kuroda is not encouraging. Personally, I think Harden will hit the DL before the finish of April. Plus, I don't think he will come so cheap.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not fully convinced Clay Buchholz makes it to May 1st either. People who are just assuming Clay's back is going to hold up for close to 200 IPs this year are being shortsighted if you ask me.

[a700hitter]

I'd take Harden too' date=' Pumpsie---especially if him coming here would mean no Wakefield. You're right, to say he's 'injury prone' is an understatement. But he is capable of being very effective when healthy. Which is more than we can say for the Carlos Silvas of the world.[/quote']I'd rather give Darnell McDonald the 5th rotation spot instead of Wakefield.

[User Name]

He had a stress fracture. 9 out of 10 times those heal with little to no future impact. (On Bucholz)

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Id rather take a chance on injury prone Rich Harden than Joe Saunders. Even if Harden has a few DL stints I think he'd be more valuable than Saunders. I could see Saunders coming and putting up Lackey level numbers, maybe worse.

 

 

And I don't get the thing about the owners saying multiple times they would break the luxury tax threshold. I think they are bullshitting and will continue to do so until I see otherwise. They've had multiple opportunities to acquire pitchers that are needed but they haven't done so. Believing what they say is gullible. I will not be gullible.

[a700hitter]

I'm not fully convinced Clay Buchholz makes it to May 1st either. People who are just assuming Clay's back is going to hold up for close to 200 IPs this year are being shortsighted if you ask me.

That is a legitimate fear. We still don't know what caused the stress fractures, so how can we be confident that they will not recur? I am not very confident about getting a full strong season from him.

[a700hitter]

Id rather take a chance on injury prone Rich Harden than Joe Saunders. Even if Harden has a few DL stints I think he'd be more valuable than Saunders. I could see Saunders coming and putting up Lackey level numbers, maybe worse.

 

 

And I don't get the thing about the owners saying multiple times they would break the luxury tax threshold. I think they are bullshitting and will continue to do so until I see otherwise. They've had multiple opportunities to acquire pitchers that are needed but they haven't done so. Believing what they say is gullible. I will not be gullible.

I think they are trying very hard not to bust the cap, and frankly if another pitcher or 2 come off the board, it wouldn't be worth busting the cap for the likes of Joe Saunders.

[User Name]

Id rather take a chance on injury prone Rich Harden than Joe Saunders. Even if Harden has a few DL stints I think he'd be more valuable than Saunders. I could see Saunders coming and putting up Lackey level numbers, maybe worse.

 

 

And I don't get the thing about the owners saying multiple times they would break the luxury tax threshold. I think they are bullshitting and will continue to do so until I see otherwise. They've had multiple opportunities to acquire pitchers that are needed but they haven't done so. Believing what they say is gullible. I will not be gullible.

 

They're at 176 mil (By several estimations). Pretty much anything they do from now on will put them over the cap. This was before the plethora of minor league signings.

[Muggah]

Id rather take a chance on injury prone Rich Harden than Joe Saunders. Even if Harden has a few DL stints I think he'd be more valuable than Saunders. I could see Saunders coming and putting up Lackey level numbers, maybe worse.

 

 

And I don't get the thing about the owners saying multiple times they would break the luxury tax threshold. I think they are bullshitting and will continue to do so until I see otherwise. They've had multiple opportunities to acquire pitchers that are needed but they haven't done so. Believing what they say is gullible. I will not be gullible.

 

 

That's a good approach, Papi. With the number of times this three-headed jackass that calls itself an 'ownership group' has contradicted itself and been caught lying you'd have to be a complete imbecile to believe anything they tell you.

[User Name]

I'll be sure to call you out on that when the cap is broken. (And it will be broken).

[iortiz]

I think they are trying very hard not to bust the cap' date=' and frankly if another pitcher or 2 come off the board, it wouldn't be worth busting the cap for the likes of Joe Saunders.[/quote']

 

We need at least another SP. Unless they bring him via trade, I don't see how we gonna stay under the threshold; or what? Are we going to face the season like this? I don't think so.

[a700hitter]

We need at least another SP. Unless they bring him via trade' date=' I don't see how we gonna stay under the threshold; or what? Are we going to face the season like this? I don't think so.[/quote']I agree. I can't see them being competitive without another starting pitcher and they have much too much money invested in this team not to give themselves a fighting chance. Ben may get too cute with the waiting game and find out that there is no one to take to the dance. He got too cute with the Ortiz situation and he got burned.

[Bellhorn04]

About the arbitration offer to Ortiz, is it possible the Sox think they could convince an arbitrator that he doesn't actually deserve a raise from the 12.5 million? The arbitration rules say that one of the factors to consider is the market rates for other players at the same position. Vlad Guerrero only got about $8 million last year after a 115 RBI season.

[jung]

As far as there being a market for Ortiz if there was it was the quietest market I have ever seen. There were as many reports that it was Ortiz agent that was fueling talk that there was a market for him and not teams at all. Given the dead silence since what may well have been agent ******** more than anything else i would lean toward no real market.

 

I have heard the draft picks thing several times here and my problem with that is similar to my problem with the existence of a market. The Sox did not have any reason to believe a team would give up picks for Ortiz. That is in fact exactly what blew up in their faces

 

As for his production, we will again have to wait to see how this pitching thing works out but if in fact we used money for Ortiz that should have been used for pitching then they are making the same mistake that so many Red Sox teams have made. Planning on winning a bunch of 12-8 games is a loser. Won't go anywhere planning on scoring 12 and hoping the other guys don't score 13. No matter what happens from here on out clearly pitching was their biggest need going into this offseason. To have committed more money by far to Ortiz than they have committed to any other unsigned player since the off-season started with as many holes in the pitching department as they have seems ass backwards no matter how you slice it.

 

I do agree that marketing likely had much to do with the Ortiz arb situation or at least had much to do with any interest the Sox have had in keeping him and said so as soon as arbitration for Ortiz was announced. So I agree with you Muggah. I have to believe some amount of marketing influence was a part of the decision.