Bellhorn04

But the 177 M isn't the figure used for luxury tax purposes. One of the posters on BDC has been tracking the luxury tax number and says that figure projects to be about 197 M. I'll put up the numbers when I get a chance.

Absolutely no way Shields comes anywhere near that cheap.

Actually Fred, from what I've read they're already over the tax threshold for 2015. The Panda/Hanley signings tacked on $41 million.

I like your posts, but I'm deeply disappointed in your change of avatar. Please bring back Kate or something nicer to look at.

Who has pitchers under 25?

You don't think he was the #1 for the AL champs? I swear, there are fans who don't consider a pitcher as a #1 or an ace unless he's a Hall of Fame candidate.

Sorry to break this to you, but Ellsbury and Gardner did not have down seasons. Both of them had a 2014 OPS+ that was higher than their career OPS+.

Bill Speros, whoever he is, has a sense of humor. But he appears to be from the school of wiseass cynicism already mastered by guys like Shaughnessy and Wilbur. So no marks for originality.

And together, these posts eloquently capture the dilemma that regularly faces major league managers. When his decision works out, nobody says a word. When it doesn't, he's a f***ing bozo LOL

There are only 2 to choose from. It has to be Shields. Scherzer's contract is guaranteed to be very stupid.

I think people are judging Webster a little too much on his facial expression. He pitched pretty well in September and that might give him more confidence going into next year. Or he might be one of those guys that does better in a low pressure environment.

One team wins and one team loses every time, just like back then. I don't see any big deal about how the use of pitchers has changed.

Aha...I misused the word fungible then. So the essence of what you said is that one GM (or executive) is exactly the same as another.

I guess my attitude now, which is unfortunate in some ways, is that with rare exceptions, the onfield talent has also become fungible. Rosters are turning over so rapidly that, as Jerry Seinfeld put it 'we're cheering for laundry.'

Would we better off signing Shields for $110 million or trading for Hamels?

Personally I like threads like this. I like controversial topics when they're well articulated.

You have an interesting take. Most people like or dislike the guys in the suits because they are responsible for who makes up the team on the field.

I still like this organization even though I'll readily admit they have f***ed up some things royally the last 5 years or so. I still like them because they're still pumping the proper amount of money into the payroll each year and they're still trying to put good teams on the field. I like that they have built up such a stockpile of prospects and managed to hang onto almost all of them in the recent flurry so we can still look forward to watching guys like Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, Owens and the rest. I will be loyal to these guys unless they really do something to screw us, but I don't think they'll do that because I think they're smart enough to realize that their fandom in general won't be screwed with. I've been a fan since 1969 so obviously the 3 titles has bought me a lot of loyalty. On the other hand I have it pretty easy because I'm kind of a remote fan now whose only financial investment in the team is the $100 I spend on MLB.TV. If the Sox are losing a game 6-0 in the 2nd inning I can just watch something else. I think people who spend their dough to go to the actual games do have a bit more of a right to complain about 69-93 and 71-91 records.

Yes, I think James Prophylactics is the call now. It would mean we've been able to hang on to all of our prospects except Rubby and Webster. That would be pretty cool.

The work is down to the #1 now.

When you're 25, they call those breakout years. He's about the same age as a lot of our starter prospects.

True that.

I saw one of those fleeting tweet/rumor things a while back that some NL teams have expressed interest in him - 'there's a belief his stuff would play well in the NL' - that type of thing.

??? Did you look at his numbers last year? They are very likable.

Stealthy Ben has learned how to lie his ass off.