ORS

Not only that, but despite how good Beltre was last year, Youk is a good bet to better that. So while it is true they lose two good bats and only replace it with one, the one figures to be better than Youk was at 1B (given the new park) and the 3B figures to be better (more complete hitter). Those additions plus a healthy outfield should more than make up for what is lost from Martinez to whoever catches.

I'm not saying they couldn't afford it now, but Crawford for 10 years, his likely asking duration subsequent to the Werth deal, does not interest me at all. He's like Kenny Lofton, and I have no interest in the team paying him over $20M per into his late 30's. That screams late contract albatross. I thought a reasonable contract length for Werth was about 5 years, and given relative age, 7 years for Crawford. I'd also be OK with the Hammer, but he'd cost some talent, and I don't see why the Natinals would be willing to give him up. Manny or Maggs just cost money and can be had for a short-term.

Prepare the parade route.

I think the best short-term options, and at this point I'd rather go with a short-term than half a score of Carl Crawford, are Maggs or Manny. Get either one, fix the BP, and tell Dice-K and the two Texas twats (Beckett/Lackey) to show up in shape. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Actually, he's probably got the time in. He's been banned under different screen names a dozen or so times.

No, I'm not a season ticket holder, and there's no way you can convince me you are, or even a Sox fan for that matter. A season ticket holder and Sox fan does not get happy when a deal that could help the team falls through because it confirms their opinion of the FO. No way, no how.

That's right, Joe Friday, just the facts, ma'am. No opinions in there, none of 'em.

Facts don't matter when you have an agenda.

I think it's got to be this. Waiting for salaries to clear for LT purposes makes sense, but you can't give up this much talent without some surety that you will have the player you want beyond 2011. The window allowed them to come to terms in principle with Gonzalez.

Linear weights. Think of offense as an equation. 1B + 2B + 3B + HR + BB + IBB + HBP + SB + Sac + SacFly + OUTS + CS + HIDP = Runs That's a 13 variable equation, and thirteen equations would give you enough data to solve a system of equations. There are 30 equations every year, and you can take the averages over the years, which means they've kind of got a good idea of the run value of each event. In fact, I've seen some forms where they break down the outs into K, FB, GB, etc (the number of total equations per year, 30, one for each team, allows this.....ie, they can go up to 30 variables). BBRef keeps linear weights performance under the "Advanced Batting" table, found by clicking the "Batting" tab on the player page. The number they list is called BtRuns, and it is relative to league average (for all players, not position depedent). [table]Player|2008|2009|2010 Crawford|-9.0|13.7|26.4 Werth|12.5|25.4|38.9[/table] The edge clearly goes to Werth, however, Crawford is pretty consistenly good for about a +15 in UZR, and Werth, like many average fielders, tends to go through some ups and downs. Overall, it's probably a wash. I'd give the edge to Werth on two things, handedness in his new home park, and the fact that he can play a more premium defensive position (RF vs. LF)

I generally try and refrain from responding to you because, quite frankly, it's not really worth the time. You have a clear agenda that you do not stray from, regardless of what actually happens. This agenda is why you will stick to your prediction. It's why even if you are wrong, which is to say it's a day of the week ending in "day", you will sweep it under the rug and find something else to rant about. You don't need to tell us what you think, no matter what happens, it's always the same, it's like telling us water is wet. Save the bandwidth.

It's the AAV. He's due $5.5M next year at the end of his contract. If they extend him, for say 6/$120M, his contract with the Sox becomes 7/$125.5M, and the AAV becomes ~$18M, which would be the figure used in the calculation for LT violations. It makes sense, but there's some risk giving up this many players without having the extension hammered out. Perhaps they will agree in principle and just wait however long it takes to avoid impacting this year's LT #, and if it were me, that would be the only way I'd proceed.

Pretty much everything out at Petco is out at Fenway. The doubles point is legit, but he won't lose any HR production at Fenway relative to Petco.

Depends on the posting date of the transaction. As was mentioned before, they can't PTBNL a 2010 draftee until after 12/15 (6 months from the draft - which allows for compliance with the one year rule for trading drafted players).

Yet, that I can think it is evidence enough to heed the warning, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I'm optimistic that they've learned how to not let things like this fall apart. That said, I'll lose some of my pessimism after they nail a few of these with no hiccups.