A Realistic View at 2016

[Nick]

I get what you are saying. Much of it makes sense. The problem as I see it is that we have no idea how much money the total franchise makes in a calendar year. I'm sure that no one wants to go over the luxury tax, but it is a decision that probably is directly related to how much money the whole package makes. I have to think that the decisions made during the off season will be ones that strengthen the team going forward. If they have a specific player in mind that they want to acquire, I really don't think that their "budget" will keep them from moving on it.

 

I read an article couple of years ago discussing financial impact on Yankees for missing out on playoffs......it was significant dollars. You spend money to make money. Yep, it's a gamble but Sox ownership group understands financial risks.

[mvp 78]

Henry is such a great business man that he bought a newspaper... in 2013. Yuck.

[sk7326]

I read an article couple of years ago discussing financial impact on Yankees for missing out on playoffs......it was significant dollars. You spend money to make money. Yep, it's a gamble but Sox ownership group understands financial risks.

 

The TV revenue for teams like the Yankees and Sawx are such that a trained seal could turn profit. Not paying luxury tax is not a matter of affordability - but desire. And I get that, tax is money that is buying nothing. But the budget is based on essentially how much toy money Henry wants to allocate to the Sox.

 

Fenway is (like Wrigley) essentially printing money.

[Spudboy]

You a teacher?

 

Kimmi is a math teacher.

[cp176]

The TV revenue for teams like the Yankees and Sawx are such that a trained seal could turn profit. Not paying luxury tax is not a matter of affordability - but desire. And I get that, tax is money that is buying nothing. But the budget is based on essentially how much toy money Henry wants to allocate to the Sox.

 

Fenway is (like Wrigley) essentially printing money.

 

I realize that they do have a budget, but for the reasons you stated I am pretty much convinced that it is nearly limitless. I think that they will try to do their due diligence when it comes to spending but my guess is that we won't hear the words - we can't afford it- spoken.

[moonslav59]

I realize that they do have a budget, but for the reasons you stated I am pretty much convinced that it is nearly limitless. I think that they will try to do their due diligence when it comes to spending but my guess is that we won't hear the words - we can't afford it- spoken.

 

If it was limitless, we'd have signed Lester or Scherzer.

[mvp 78]

If it was limitless, we'd have signed Lester or Scherzer.

 

That's not entirely true. If the roster was limitless, we'd have signed Lester or Scherzer. The concern was that having Lester on the roster in his late 30's would be a bad contract AND a waste of space on the roster.

[sk7326]

If it was limitless, we'd have signed Lester or Scherzer.

 

As MVP noted, the roster is finite.

 

As I noted - the budget is a choice. There is no salary cap, there is no someone being threatened at gunpoint. The budget is based on what ownership wants to pay. They made business decisions on Lester or Scherzer - nobody is asking them to be stupid or not make business decisions. But I am deeply cynical about claims that they "cannot afford" any given player. It is one of things that made the ARod negotiations in 2003 so icky (and obviously things worked out for us) ... the Red Sox were being cheap. (but had the public on their side because fans side with owners 99% of the time)

[mvp 78]

As MVP noted, the roster is finite.

 

As I noted - the budget is a choice. There is no salary cap, there is no someone being threatened at gunpoint. The budget is based on what ownership wants to pay. They made business decisions on Lester or Scherzer - nobody is asking them to be stupid or not make business decisions. But I am deeply cynical about claims that they "cannot afford" any given player. It is one of things that made the ARod negotiations in 2003 so icky (and obviously things worked out for us) ... the Red Sox were being cheap. (but had the public on their side because fans side with owners 99% of the time)

 

I am the 1%!!!

[cp176]

If it was limitless, we'd have signed Lester or Scherzer.

 

nearly limitless for one thing - which I will stand behind once again. And there is no middle ground with your thinking about this I guess. You are kind of trying to make it sound as though I am suggesting that the Sox can sign any free agent at any time without any regard given to the cost. Obviously you are wrong. It isn't a case of all or nothing. You paint the picture that you want to see with respect to the Red Sox moving forward and justify your thinking by saying that it is basically the only affordable way to go. I'm saying that there is a good chance that they replace Ortiz with a legitimate power bat in the dh position. I also believe that they will trade to acquire the pitcher or pitchers that they want. Whatever direction they decide to travel - maybe it will yours - they will be able to afford it regardless of where the luxury tax takes them.

[Bellhorn04]

That's not entirely true. If the roster was limitless, we'd have signed Lester or Scherzer. The concern was that having Lester on the roster in his late 30's would be a bad contract AND a waste of space on the roster.

 

If the budget is limitless, roster issues are only peripheral concerns. If a guy isn't performing, regardless of paycheque, you jettison him. See Panda, Castillo and Craig examples.

[mvp 78]

nearly limitless for one thing - which I will stand behind once again. And there is no middle ground with your thinking about this I guess. You are kind of trying to make it sound as though I am suggesting that the Sox can sign any free agent at any time without any regard given to the cost. Obviously you are wrong. It isn't a case of all or nothing. You paint the picture that you want to see with respect to the Red Sox moving forward and justify your thinking by saying that it is basically the only affordable way to go. I'm saying that there is a good chance that they replace Ortiz with a legitimate power bat in the dh position. I also believe that they will trade to acquire the pitcher or pitchers that they want. Whatever direction they decide to travel - maybe it will yours - they will be able to afford it regardless of where the luxury tax takes them.

 

How did the Tigers get to the WS? Trades and FA's. I don't think Dombrowski will hold onto all of the prospects. He will move guys to fill more important needs (i.e. starting pitching).

[cp176]

How did the Tigers get to the WS? Trades and FA's. I don't think Dombrowski will hold onto all of the prospects. He will move guys to fill more important needs (i.e. starting pitching).

 

I'm sure of it. Just mentioning the names of the prospects here might be considered heresy. The Sox have a history of stockpiling their rainy day fund with prospects for so long that they lose their value. D. Marrero for one. I think that DD will thin the core. We have too many players currently competing for too few positions. Everyone knows how important depth is, but in to get what he knows we need someone(s) will have to go. For the record, i don't consider JBJ a prospect. He is a productive major league player I hope we keep.

[cp176]

If the budget is limitless, roster issues are only peripheral concerns. If a guy isn't performing, regardless of paycheque, you jettison him. See Panda, Castillo and Craig examples.

 

 

I think that it is more like they are still playing for a check from us but they have been banished to another world. they don't hurt us by playing in Pawtucket. They aren't holding anyone back.

[sk7326]

How did the Tigers get to the WS? Trades and FA's. I don't think Dombrowski will hold onto all of the prospects. He will move guys to fill more important needs (i.e. starting pitching).

 

He has done it both ways (raising kids, doing big money things) - ultimately he will use the levers ownership gives him access to. He will trade anything he does not see as a star - which is exactly how a big market team should act.

 

Now, I have individual quibbles with his judgment calls on prospects and what they got in return, but his larger philosophy is sound. And - unlike the previous regime, we know exactly who is making the final call.

[mvp 78]

He has done it both ways (raising kids, doing big money things) - ultimately he will use the levers ownership gives him access to. He will trade anything he does not see as a star - which is exactly how a big market team should act.

 

Now, I have individual quibbles with his judgment calls on prospects and what they got in return, but his larger philosophy is sound. And - unlike the previous regime, we know exactly who is making the final call.

 

I hope that is the case. It seems that ownership always got the blame for the s***** contracts of Crawford, Panda, et al, but we never really knew for sure. If you liked the GM, you'd blame ownership for any poor move.

[sk7326]

I hope that is the case. It seems that ownership always got the blame for the s***** contracts of Crawford, Panda, et al, but we never really knew for sure. If you liked the GM, you'd blame ownership for any poor move.

 

I think Dombrowski had enough clout that he would not have arrived without some significant assurances in that direction. I suspect Cherington had far less of a mandate ... and obviously Epstein had his own turf wars

[Nick]

I'm not blaming DD but his teams sure do have trouble in the bullpen.....

[mvp 78]

I'm not blaming DD but his teams sure do have trouble in the bullpen.....

 

Every team has trouble in the pen.

[moonslav59]

That's not entirely true. If the roster was limitless, we'd have signed Lester or Scherzer. The concern was that having Lester on the roster in his late 30's would be a bad contract AND a waste of space on the roster.

 

He'd have been signed to about as long as Price was, so to me, if our budget was truly "limitless", we'd have signed both Lester and Scherzer and then Price the next year.

[moonslav59]

nearly limitless for one thing - which I will stand behind once again. And there is no middle ground with your thinking about this I guess. You are kind of trying to make it sound as though I am suggesting that the Sox can sign any free agent at any time without any regard given to the cost. Obviously you are wrong. It isn't a case of all or nothing. You paint the picture that you want to see with respect to the Red Sox moving forward and justify your thinking by saying that it is basically the only affordable way to go. I'm saying that there is a good chance that they replace Ortiz with a legitimate power bat in the dh position. I also believe that they will trade to acquire the pitcher or pitchers that they want. Whatever direction they decide to travel - maybe it will yours - they will be able to afford it regardless of where the luxury tax takes them.

 

I thought limitless meant without limits.

 

I have never claimed it is the only way. My position has been that the Sox history since Henry took over has been to stay at or just under the luxury limit. This past year was the first time we went over by a lot. The second year means the tax rate goes up to 50% (I believe). I'm not saying Henry won't okay going over, and he might even okay going over by a lot, but if he does, it will be something new.

 

You used the words not going to be "changing their stripes" to imply the Sox have always been free spenders and their strong needs outweigh any budget limit. We had serious needs in the area of pitching after trading Lester, lackey and others, but the wallet was kept closed as Scherzer and Lester signed elsewhere. To me, signing Price and going over the luxury limit by a lot was "changing the stripes".

 

Maybe it's a sign of what is to come. Lord knows Henry has enough to buy every FA he wants. I get the fact that we might be way over next year too at a 50% rate, even if we DFA Pablo and pay him "off the books" luxury tax speaking- like Castillo and Craig. I just don't see it as a never-ending stream. Our history showed we got very cautious after Crawford. The HanRam, Pablo and Castillo signings have all gone sour. I'm just not sure management will evaliuate the mistakes they made and then try to fix the mistakes by again trying to hit the lottery with EE. There's only so many times you can go wrong, before you eventually decide to change your methodology.

 

Theo spoke at length about the lessons learned in Boston with free agency. He's gone and spent big with the Cubs, but he also built up the farm and hasn't traded away too much of it.

 

DD is getting close to trading away too much, if he makes the blockbuster it will take to get a young, cheap ace like Quintana or Sale. Then, he'll box us into a corner with a massive contract for EE as he pays Pablo to eat hot dogs. I hope this isn't our new direction. We may win in 2017 with this plan, but I'm not counting on big spending days forever, and with a depleted farm (assuming we make the deal), where's our future talent coming from?

 

[southpaw777]

DD seems to like Moncada Devers Groome and Kopech...Devers may be expendable with Moncada at 3b now. With the way hes been hitting there would be a LOT of Gms looking to make a trade with Devers involved.

Not sure who may be had on the MLb roster...would Shaw be available with Hanley at 1b and Pablo/Moncada possible at 3b?

Swihart seems like a perfect trade candidate next July after hes built his value back up behind the plate a few months in AAA. Unless theres a GM that still views his value as very high. Sam Travis and Mauricio Doubon may be two more names that could go. Travis needs to prove his knee is ok first and Doubon is killing AA and continues to up his value at SS. Brian Johnson would have more value to us right now as depth with Owens looking more and more like a change of scenery candidate.

Whatever happens, there is certain to be a different look come 2017 with the top 10 prospects. Beside possibly Devers, 1-5 may not change too much IMHO.

[moonslav59]

DD seems to like Moncada Devers Groome and Kopech...Devers may be expendable with Moncada at 3b now. With the way hes been hitting there would be a LOT of Gms looking to make a trade with Devers involved.

Not sure who may be had on the MLb roster...would Shaw be available with Hanley at 1b and Pablo/Moncada possible at 3b?

Swihart seems like a perfect trade candidate next July after hes built his value back up behind the plate a few months in AAA. Unless theres a GM that still views his value as very high. Sam Travis and Mauricio Doubon may be two more names that could go. Travis needs to prove his knee is ok first and Doubon is killing AA and continues to up his value at SS. Brian Johnson would have more value to us right now as depth with Owens looking more and more like a change of scenery candidate.

Whatever happens, there is certain to be a different look come 2017 with the top 10 prospects. Beside possibly Devers, 1-5 may not change too much IMHO.

 

I've never been afraid of trading prospects, as long as the deal is for a high quality player (usually a starting pitcher) and the player is under team control for several years at a reasonable cost.

 

I did not like the Kimbrel trade due to Kimbrell's contract, his being a RP'er not a SP'er and the large bundle of prospects involved.

 

The Pomeranz deal at least got us a SP'er, at a lower cost, and who is under team control for 2.3 years. I did not like the deal, because I think Espi is going to be incredible. I know it's just speculative value, but never the less, it's value.

 

The Hill and Ziegler deals didn't cost any major prospects, but the accumulation of all that we've dealt away has gotten close to the critical mass tipping point. I do think our farm and future roster outlook could handle losing Devers (thanks to Moncada at 3B) and Swihart (with Leon's emergence and Vaz still in the fold) plus a couple fringe pieces, but we'd be right at the cusp of making a major sacrifice for the here and now. Keeping Moncada, Beni, Betts, Bogey and JBJ does not mean we'll need nothing elseg oing forward. Having low cost young players that produce well is what makes signing key FAs to fill major holes a winnable strategy.

 

To me, the Pomeranz trade makes it hard to look for an ace this winter. Think of the level of pitcher we could have gotten with Espi, Swi and Devers vs just Devers and Swi. Any team looking to rebuild is not going to want Pomeranz more than Espi. I suppose the presence of Pomernaz could make trading ERod in the above package more palatable, but that would mean we traded our two best young pitchers (Espi & ERod) instead of just one.

 

I'm still very excited about our future, but I am concerned about how far DD will go to "win now".

 

[Bellhorn04]

DD was given the mandate to win now directly from the man who hired him. Henry did not enjoy finishing last 2 years in a row and did not like the prospect of missing the playoffs for the final 3 years of David Ortiz's career.

[moonslav59]

DD was given the mandate to win now directly from the man who hired him. Henry did not enjoy finishing last 2 years in a row and did not like the prospect of missing the playoffs for the final 3 years of David Ortiz's career.

 

Pretty obvious.

 

I just hope it doesn't get out of hand, and if does, we better win!

[StephenCurry30]

the front office pressuring the GM to acquire guys to win now is idiotic, they need to be patient, or else we'll end up with more s***** deals like castillo/pablo.

[moonslav59]

the front office pressuring the GM to acquire guys to win now is idiotic, they need to be patient, or else we'll end up with more s***** deals like castillo/pablo.

 

We've come a long way from 2 straight last place finishes-- the Price signing, the Kimbrel trade and the Smith and Young acquisitions. This, a year after the two mega signings of HanRam and Pablo. We'll have some money to throw around this winter, but with the legend's shoes to fill and some serious bullpen rebuilding needed, it's going to be interesting to see how our resources are spent (or kept).

 

[oldtimer]

Another tough loss tonight. Their pitching was a little better than ours and only Hanley had his hitting shoes on tonight. Shaw and Bradley weren't able to contact the ball and the final out with Sandy Leon taking three strikes with men on first and second makes you wonder why he didn't swing. JF managed the game and made sensible moves but to no avail as the players just didn't get the job done. The various ways the team finds to lose winnable games does not bode well for making the playoffs.

[moonslav59]

If we only had a strong and deep pen that would allow us to yank starters after 5 or 6 innings...

 

8/30 6.2 IP 1 ER Lost 4-3

8/29 7.0 IP 3 ER Won 9-4

8/28 5.1 IP 2 ER Lost 10-4

8/27 8.0 IP 2 ER Won 8-3

8/26 5 ERs in the first innings against Wright (6 ER in 6-3 loss)

8/25 6.0 IP 1 ER Lost 2-1

8/24 7.1 IP 2 ER Lost 4-3 in 11 innings

8/23 9.0 IP 1 ER Won 2-1

8/22 8.1 IP 0 ER Won 6-2

8/21 10 runs let up in Owens start (lost 10-5)

8/19 6.1 IP 1 ER (9 IP 2 ER) Won 10-2

8/18 7.0 IP 1 ER Lost 4-3

8/17 6.0 IP 1 ER (shortened game)

8/16 6.1 IP 0 ER Won 8-1

8/15 7.1 IP 1 ER Won 5-3

8/14 7.2 IP 1 ER Won 3-2

8/13 9.0 IP 3 ER Won 6-3

8/12 8.2 IP 3 ER Won 9-4

8/11 7.0 IP 1 ER Lost 4-2

8/10 6.0 IP 1 ER Lost 9-4

8/09 8.2 ER 2 ER Won 5-3

 

Our rotation has looked pretty solid, at least for 5-7 IP.

[cp176]

DD was given the mandate to win now directly from the man who hired him. Henry did not enjoy finishing last 2 years in a row and did not like the prospect of missing the playoffs for the final 3 years of David Ortiz's career.

 

 

I think I missed this specific mandate being given Bell. If in fact it was given - great. I sure haven't enjoyed our last place finishes much either. The trades that have been made to date just look like pretty good moves to me. Have I missed something here?