Bellhorn04

At one time I was too. But now I think it's too radical of a change.

The one that's missing is the Mo Rivera strike zone. A little roomy on the outside.

Good post, jung. The only thing I disagree with is that I think the Tigers were pretty damn close to taking us down.

I would prefer to get Napoli back if it can be done on a reasonable deal. Frankly I'm putting my faith in Bodacious Ben.

What's missing here, though, is the remarkable improvement in the starting pitching. I think some of the credit has to go to Farrell and Nieves for this.

I think we have to be patient. There's one school of thought that the Sox are waiting for Napoli to get legit offers from other teams to see what they have to match.

It'll be a disappointment to me as well if they don't re-sign Napoli.

Chemistry is an intangible and therefore impossible to measure. Certainly hardly anyone will dispute that generally speaking players who are focused, motivated and confident will perform at their highest level. But chemistry is an abstract concept.

I couldn't resist copying this post from our friend seabeachfred that he put up on the Globe forum. The last 3 words of it will explain why. I'm getting very irritated thinking that we are not going to resign even one of our free agents and to me that spells trouble. There is no reason to low-ball Napoli and not sign him. It further irritates me that we may instead sign players to take their places who are inferior to the ones we lose. We've done this before in the past......Damon gone for Crisp, an inferior replacement; Bay for Cameron, a total inferior replacement and now this. If the front office thinks we are satisfied now they are right; we are. However, if they replace these fine ballplayers with ones that don't fit into the Red Sox mold or have trouble competing in the tension ridden Boston atmosphere there will be a lot of us who will be thoroughly pissed off. Cherington must resign Napoli and give protection to Papi in the lineup; the idea of Nava on first is ridiculous. He is part of a platoon with Gomes in LF, a solid platoon. Wake up Ben.

LOL Fred. The weather here is very similar to Boston's, except about 6-8 degrees colder, on average. If there's rain in Boston we usually get it the next day. The storm systems move right up the eastern seaboard to us.

I get every major league game except for a small number that are blacked out. The only downside on the Sox games is that you get the NESN feed sometimes and the other team's feed sometimes.

Not directly. One of the cable providers here offers the Extra Innings package for about $30 a month extra. Rogers Sportsnet carries a lot of Sox games on regular cable. I subscribe to MLB.TV.

There are tons of Sox fans here in Halifax and throughout Nova Scotia. We're much closer to Boston than we are to Toronto.

I can't see them starting Ross more than 50 or 60.

No, I've lived here since Day 1.

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Great White North.

I might take you up but it would be difficult to collect since we live like 1000 miles apart.

Again with the steak dinner?

Not giving Ellsbury 120 million or more is not what I would call being penny-wise.

We have plenty needs. Catcher, first base, bullpen...maybe an extension for Lester.

That would be great. The couple of times I watched him he looked very tough indeed.

Get 'er done, Ben! Wake up...party's over!

I e-mailed Speier about this...he replied that a lot of people were asking about it so he wrote this today. A note of clarification on John Lackey’s salary and the luxury tax threshold 11.13.13 at 12:45 pm ET By Alex Speier | 5 Comments In the aftermath of this look at the Red Sox’ current payroll commitments for 2014, there has been widespread curiosity on one front: Why is John Lackey listed as a $16.5 million salary for luxury tax purposes? The right-hander is entering the final season of his five-year, $82.5 million contract. But because he missed all of 2012 while recovering from Tommy John surgery, a vesting team option at the major league minimum ($500,000 plus a cost of living adjustment from 2014 to 2015) for 2014 was triggered. So, with that option in place, does it alter the way that Lackey’s 2014 average annual value is calculated for luxury tax purposes? Simple answer: No. Even if the Sox exercised Lackey’s 2015 option today, it wouldn’t impact how his AAV is determined in any year of the contract prior to the option. He’d still represent a $16.5 million player for the purposes of 2014 payroll, and he’d still represent approximately a $500,000 player for the purposes of 2015 payroll. The implications are twofold: First, Lackey represents, at least as of now, the most expensive player on the Sox’ roster in the coming year, and secondly, he represents a potentially game-changing member of the roster for 2015 if he remains healthy and effective while pitching at the major league minimum. If, for instance, the Sox wanted to sign Jon Lester to a long-term deal that would take effect starting in 2015 (something that the team is expected to explore this spring), the payroll flexibility afforded by Lackey could play a significant role in giving the Sox the flexibility to do so while staying well within the luxury tax threshold.

I don't know...Kemp is a big talent, but with his recent injuries he looks like he might be a bad contract too.

But he's making 21-21.5 million a year for 6 years. It would be like a big thank you to the Dodgers for The Trade.