2017/18 Hot Stove Thread

[Kimmi]

I don't think anyone here has advocated for a 7 year contract, certainly not anyone who is complaining about the contracts weighing us down. So, the premise of your post is not correct.

 

Once again, that's my point. It's not about staying status quo versus not staying status quo. It's about staying status quo versus taking on a bad contract.

 

You say that staying status quo would be stupid or irrational. So, would you sign JD at any cost in order to improve the status quo, even if it means taking on a 7 year contract?

[Kimmi]

Your offense must be upgraded. Relying on “positive regression” is moronic. If you upgrade the offense and then the guys improve around him, then good for you. If you do nothing and your offense drops further then DD might be out of a job.

 

The cap hell thats coming will limit the options going forward. You have to win in 2018

 

I agree that we have a window, but you're being a little dramatic here.

[Jack Flap]

If it looks like Martinez is prepared to drag things out for a few more weeks, I think the question becomes whether you continue to wait on him or give him some sort of take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, then move on to someone like Jay Bruce (who won't give you the same elite production but could still provide an infusion of power at a fraction of the cost) and sign Alex Cobb with the difference saved.

 

Obviously JDM is the best option, but there is a limit to how long we should allow him to hold our offseason plans hostage. We still have plenty of options available, but at some point those are going to start to drop off the board.

[Hitch]

I don't think anyone here has advocated for a 7 year contract, certainly not anyone who is complaining about the contracts weighing us down. So, the premise of your post is not correct.

 

 

I see, so in fact your reply to Kimmi's post of:

 

So, you both are on board with signing JD to $210 mil/ 7 years, if that's what it takes?

 

Shouldn't have been this which pretty much indicates you would most certainly prefer it to standing still:

 

Not getting a big bat is not acceptable. Status quo in a window period is irrational.

 

And instead should have just said, "Sorry, no, on this occasion you're right Kmmy. Sometimes a bad contract is not worth it."

[moonslav59]

If I had more confidence in Price being able to stay healthy all season, then I'd be in favor of a bat over pitching.

 

Last year you thought Sale was a "luxury" and not needed.

 

Now, we have Sale, but Price is sketchy. Since Sale is better than Price, what's changed to make you think SP'ing is a high need?

 

ERod's injury?

 

Surely, Pom's rise to dependability outweighs ERod's projected missed time.

 

Plus, our pen should be stronger with full seasons from Smith, Workman, Maddox and others as well as some possible innings from Thornburg.

[moonslav59]

I agree that we have a window, but you're being a little dramatic here.

 

Yes, it's not a 1 year window, especially if HRam does NOT vest.

[moonslav59]

Once again, that's my point. It's not about staying status quo versus not staying status quo. It's about staying status quo versus taking on a bad contract.

 

You say that staying status quo would be stupid or irrational. So, would you sign JD at any cost in order to improve the status quo, even if it means taking on a 7 year contract?

 

The $210M/7 number BorA$$ threw out there is not happening. I don't think that's a fair "either or" to ask us about.

 

Something like $140M/5 or $160M/6 vs status quo might be more like it.

 

Plus, if we don't sign JD, it doesn't mean we do noting else. I hope Bruce is not plan B, but adding a solid SP'er would also not be "status quo" either.

 

I'm confident DD does something significant, so there will be no status quo. How much of an overpay will it be, because it almost surely will be, remains to be seen.

 

[a700hitter]

You didn't answer the question.

it is not an either or situation. That is why I didn’t answer it. It is a false choice. We need a bat, and DD will have to do what it takes to get one. If he doesn’t want to pay 7/$210 million, then go another route. If they think 7/$210 million is a good deal, we don’t know their finances. I trust that they will not be fools with their money.

 

But again, status quo in a window period with a cliff outside of that window is an irrational strategy.

[a700hitter]

Once again, that's my point. It's not about staying status quo versus not staying status quo. It's about staying status quo versus taking on a bad contract.

 

You say that staying status quo would be stupid or irrational. So, would you sign JD at any cost in order to improve the status quo, even if it means taking on a 7 year contract?

There are other avenues than a 7/$210 million contract.

[a700hitter]

I see, so in fact your reply to Kimmi's post of:

 

 

 

Shouldn't have been this which pretty much indicates you would most certainly prefer it to standing still:

 

 

 

And instead should have just said, "Sorry, no, on this occasion you're right Kmmy. Sometimes a bad contract is not worth it."

Never advocated for a 7/$210 million contract. Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me how you think I should have answered. It was a false binary choice presented by Kimmi that was meant to divert the discussion. That is why I answered the way I did. There are other avenues than a 7 year $210 million contract — which JD will not get.

 

Every premise in your original post calling out people for advocating for a $210 million contract while criticizing the FO for bad contracts was completely erroneous. You should just own up to that.

Edited January 7, 2018 by a700hitter

[notin]

There are other avenues than a 7/$210 million contract.

 

Maybe, but it's also possible Boras doesn't lower the price until bidders start dropping out. So the Sox might be in the unenviable position of holding the price high...

[a700hitter]

Maybe, but it's also possible Boras doesn't lower the price until bidders start dropping out. So the Sox might be in the unenviable position of holding the price high...

DD and JH are big boys. They know how to take care of their money. Smaller so-called value contracts like Pablo’s, Hanley’s, Rusney’s and Porcello’s returned very little for about $350 million which could have paid for Scherzer and Lester. Big contracts are not necessarily bad and smaller ones can be terrible.

[Hitch]

Never advocated for a 7/$210 million contract. Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me how you think I should have answered. It was a false binary choice presented by Kimmi that was meant to divert the discussion. That is why I answered the way I did. There are other avenues than a 7 year $210 million contract — which JD will not get.

 

Every premise in your original post calling out people for advocating for a $210 million contract while criticizing the FO for bad contracts was completely erroneous. You should just own up to that.

 

'premise of your post was in correct'; 'not a binary choice''.

 

Such convoluted, meaningless language to escape answering what was a straight forward question. Because giving the answer that you don't believe 7 years at $210m is acceptable flies directly in the face of your comment that preceded it - "Not getting a big bat is not acceptable. Status quo in a window period is irrational."

 

 

Binary or not is irrelevant (as you well know), you was offered an option that showed quite clearly, that in this example, getting that big bat at this cost was unacceptable and not rational. It was clearly not a either/or, which again, you of course knew.

 

Watching you tie yourself up in language to avoid having to pull back on a previous point is always fun, however.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Hitch

[notin]

DD and JH are big boys. They know how to take care of their money. Smaller so-called value contracts like Pablo’s, Hanley’s, Rusney’s and Porcello’s returned very little for about $350 million which could have paid for Scherzer and Lester. Big contracts are not necessarily bad and smaller ones can be terrible.

 

Smaller ones are easier to unload however.

 

If the Sox made every player available for trade and stated they will pay nothing, do you think they get more calls on Hanley, Porcello or Price?

[Bellhorn04]

Smaller ones are easier to unload however.

 

If the Sox made every player available for trade and stated they will pay nothing, do you think they get more calls on Hanley, Porcello or Price?

 

I don't know, they'd probably get no calls on any of those 3 right now. If they were to kick in half they'd probably get the most calls on Price.

[a700hitter]

Smaller ones are easier to unload however.

 

If the Sox made every player available for trade and stated they will pay nothing, do you think they get more calls on Hanley, Porcello or Price?

Yet, they managed to sign some smaller deals that were completely unmovable— Pablo (ate the whole thing), Rusney (eating the whole thing with no chance of unloading), Craig (ate the whole thing even though it wasn’t our signing).

 

Who would get more interest from among Hanley, Porcello and Price? That is a tough one. Porcello is coming off a horrendous season and 2 horrendous seasons sandwiching a Cy Young season. Hanley had a bad season and had surgery. Price is coming off an injury plagued season. I would say that Porcello would get more interest as of today because he is healthy, his contract is smaller than Price’s and only 3 years are left on it. I didn’t bring up Porcello’s name as an example of an immovable contract, but if you added his contract to the unmovable and other underperforming contracts and it would have paid for both Scherzer and Lester. That would have been the smarter money. Finally, is it your opinion that Price’s contract is unmovable?

[cp176]

Never advocated for a 7/$210 million contract. Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me how you think I should have answered. It was a false binary choice presented by Kimmi that was meant to divert the discussion. That is why I answered the way I did. There are other avenues than a 7 year $210 million contract — which JD will not get.

 

Every premise in your original post calling out people for advocating for a $210 million contract while criticizing the FO for bad contracts was completely erroneous. You should just own up to that.

 

I'm pretty bored up here right now so this is good entertainment for me. I follow your discussions with Kimmi quite closely because although you quite often disagree there really is no twisting and turning with respect to the way you present your arguments. I think that you both make solid defensible posts. Have to say though that Hitch's comments are like so many we see coming out in print today. Him trying to trap you of all people by wordsmithing is hilarious. Good luck to him - he stands no chance.

[a700hitter]

I'm pretty bored up here right now so this is good entertainment for me. I follow your discussions with Kimmi quite closely because although you quite often disagree there really is no twisting and turning with respect to the way you present your arguments. I think that you both make solid defensible posts. Have to say though that Hitch's comments are like so many we see coming out in print today. Him trying to trap you of all people by wordsmithing is hilarious. Good luck to him - he stands no chance.

None at all. LOL!

[Hitch]

Have to say though that Hitch's comments are like so many we see coming out in print today.

 

I'll ignore the continued passive-aggressiveness and e-fellatio you routinely perform on a700, but could you please explain this? I'd be delighted to know what you mean?

[a700hitter]

I'll ignore the continued passive-aggressiveness and e-fellatio you routinely perform on a700, but could you please explain this? I'd be delighted to know what you mean?

Defend your own completely erroneous post first. Or just own that it was wrong.

[cp176]

I'll ignore the continued passive-aggressiveness and e-fellatio you routinely perform on a700, but could you please explain this? I'd be delighted to know what you mean?

 

Wowzers - didn't expect this. Guess you didn't ignore my comments entirely. I'm pretty sure that since you are filled with brilliance that you know exactly what I mean.

[Hitch]

Defend your own completely erroneous post first. Or just own that it was wrong.

 

I've explained it on the previous page, which you ignored. Unsurprisingly.

 

Wowzers - didn't expect this. Guess you didn't ignore my comments entirely. I'm pretty sure that since you are filled with brilliance that you know exactly what I mean.

 

Nope. No idea. Pleas explain how my comments are like so much we see in the print these days. I'm genuinely fascinated to hear the explanation.

[jacksonianmarch]

I agree that we have a window, but you're being a little dramatic here.

 

I don't think I am. You lost nothing from a 93 win team for 2018 yet got wiped out by the WS champion in 4 games in the ALDS. You're not good enough as is to beat Houston or Cleveland without major luck and currently are either neck and neck or behind NYY depending on health. You start to lose big pieces after 2018. You've got room from your current salary to the biggest penalty limit, enough to add one marquee player. Your biggest weakness was a power outage and a lack of cohesion on offense. You were missing one big bat from 2016 when your offense was best in baseball. If you don't get another big bat then you are hoping for a return to prominence from your offense without an upgrade. Will it happen? Maybe, but probably not. If DD doesn't upgrade his biggest weakness, though, the offenses you'll be facing from NY, CLE, and HOU will be markedly better, putting you at a disadvantage. DD has to get JD. He just has to. The window has been open for 2 seasons. It remains open for one more. After that, pieces start to move away or get far more expensive limiting your flexibility and depth. The sox have to go for it this year and Boras knows it. Hence why he is dragging this out to get more from DD

[cp176]

I've explained it on the previous page, which you ignored. Unsurprisingly.

 

 

 

Nope. No idea. Pleas explain how my comments are like so much we see in the print these days. I'm genuinely fascinated to hear the explanation.

 

like I said - wowzers - Passive aggressive and e-fellatio really. Thought that even you might be above stuff like that. Guess not huh. I'll cop to the passive aggressive comment although I'm really not simply passive aggressive. I have lots of faults. The e-fellatio comment was offensive though. Don't think that that was called for. But anyway kind of good to see that someone who tries so hard to come off as being intellectual isn't afraid to dig right down into the mud hole now and then. Good for you.

As for you question about how your comments are so much like I see in print today. You leave no room for any middle ground and I am a compromiser.

[Bellhorn04]

E-fellatio? C'mon man, that's totally uncalled for here.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think I am. You lost nothing from a 93 win team for 2018 yet got wiped out by the WS champion in 4 games in the ALDS. You're not good enough as is to beat Houston or Cleveland without major luck and currently are either neck and neck or behind NYY depending on health. You start to lose big pieces after 2018. You've got room from your current salary to the biggest penalty limit, enough to add one marquee player. Your biggest weakness was a power outage and a lack of cohesion on offense. You were missing one big bat from 2016 when your offense was best in baseball. If you don't get another big bat then you are hoping for a return to prominence from your offense without an upgrade. Will it happen? Maybe, but probably not. If DD doesn't upgrade his biggest weakness, though, the offenses you'll be facing from NY, CLE, and HOU will be markedly better, putting you at a disadvantage. DD has to get JD. He just has to. The window has been open for 2 seasons. It remains open for one more. After that, pieces start to move away or get far more expensive limiting your flexibility and depth. The sox have to go for it this year and Boras knows it. Hence why he is dragging this out to get more from DD

 

Our window should encompass 2019. We'll probably lose Pomeranz and we'll certainly lose Kimbrel after 2018, but we'll get some payroll room to replace them.

[Hitch]

like I said - wowzers - Passive aggressive and e-fellatio really. Thought that even you might be above stuff like that. Guess not huh. I'll cop to the passive aggressive comment although I'm really not simply passive aggressive. I have lots of faults. The e-fellatio comment was offensive though. Don't think that that was called for. But anyway kind of good to see that someone who tries so hard to come off as being intellectual isn't afraid to dig right down into the mud hole now and then. Good for you.

As for you question about how your comments are so much like I see in print today. You leave no room for any middle ground and I am a compromiser.

 

I don't try to come off as anything. I read opinions, look at facts, then make my own opinion on something. And crucially, I'm happy to have my opinion changed if the facts change or i think I've called something wrong. If you think that's 'trying to be intellectual' then carry on. Well, you stroke a700's ego so often, I have sometimes wondered if you retired from teaching to take that up full time instead. You're very good at it. Maybe that will upset you, too. But you should probably know, it's not meant personally, I don't know you and so my needling of you is more for my own amusement and to reply in kind. I'd call it more immature than offensive, but we all get to choose at what level our offensive buttons are tickled.

 

As for the actual point - could you explain to me where I have shown that I leave no room for a middle ground? I don't believe I'm like that in any way. I like to think I am open to mostly anything. Calling somebody out on trying to fudge their position so not to admit they had gone to far in their view point is not offering no middle ground. It's challenging an already displayed position set by somebody else (which ironically) offered no room for middle ground.

[jacksonianmarch]

Our window should encompass 2019. We'll probably lose Pomeranz and we'll certainly lose Kimbrel after 2018, but we'll get some payroll room to replace them.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Losing Hanley, Pom and Kimbrel will grant you $44 mil to play with. You're likely losing half of that in arb raises. You're looking at the situation of either/or. You can either get a top of the line closer or a #2-3 starter on the open market, and right now there is nobody better than Kimbrel. That's why I am saying that the sox start losing pieces after this season.

[cp176]

I do not know you at all so nothing you say is particularly going to offend me. I think that we all tend to draw conclusions as to what types of people we are dealing with based upon what they write. You see me as patronizing and passive aggressive. I don't think that you are being particularly truthful when you say that you are open to changing your mind. My guess is that your mind is already made up with respect to most things thus the no middle ground comment. As for my support of a700 - not always but most of the time. I have talked to him once or twice and he strikes me as someone I might have something in common with. I'm ok with that.

[cp176]

I do not know you at all so nothing you say is particularly going to offend me. I think that we all tend to draw conclusions as to what types of people we are dealing with based upon what they write. You see me as patronizing and passive aggressive. I don't think that you are being particularly truthful when you say that you are open to changing your mind. My guess is that your mind is already made up with respect to most things thus the no middle ground comment. As for my support of a700 - not always but most of the time. I have talked to him once or twice and he strikes me as someone I might have something in common with. I'm ok with that.

 

Sorry Hitch - forgot to include the quote there but I guess you probably figured out that I was talking to you.